This is what happens when you have a nearly unlimited war chest of money. Great get for Apple. Definitely watching this. Very happy with Apple TV+ so far and it'll only get better.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Tom Hanks WWII Film 'Greyhound' to Premiere on Apple TV+ [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Bloomberg is reporting a rumor that Apple is starting to acquire old TV shows and movies for Apple TV+. The problem is with so many content producers getting into the streaming services business how much existing content is available for Apple to buy?
Plot twist: Wilson shows up repurposed as a floating mine.
It won't be $5 for theatrical releases. Scoob, for example, is $20 to rent and $25 to buy. This will be the new model, and it makes sense - a couple goes to a movie for $20-25, and there's less overhead to the theaters. The big problem with this, imo, is piracy. Once it's available digitally, DRM can be defeated and it's out there the same day. I would gladly pay $25 for a theatrical release in the convenience of my home.
This is an investment, though.
"Wanna watch the latest Tom Hanks blockbuster? Sign up for your free trial of Apple TV+. Available on many platforms."
Well, yeah, because Rick and Morty the actual people are real, the TV show is a fictional construct, well, you know, __here__.
Yeah, when ATV+ started, I was thinking, how are they going to get critical mass quickly without a library of existing content, because you can only develop new content so fast. It felt like they needed to have some IP from AMC, FX, etc., some back catalog, etc., something more like Netflix. Good question, what's left over you remove everything owned by HBO, Disney ...
Having not seen it since release in the mid-'90s, I recently watched Forrest Gump again. Such a sweet movie, and being a bit older, found there was much more to pull from it.
Apple TV+ is meant as an added bonus to buying Apple products and to keep Apple users within the Apple TV app and ecosystem. I think they are fine not profiting from the monthly charge.
The thing is with cable and satellite you don’t need to know who owns what content. You just know that show X is on NBC or whatever. Now you have to know who owns the rights to what to know which platform it will be on. The West Wing is leaving Netflix for HBO Max because AT&T owns Warner Brothers and Warner Brothers owns the distribution rights to the show. Same with Friends. The classic police show Hill Street Blues is on Hulu. Old Carol Burnett shows are on Peacock. I would totally pay for older classic shows but not if I have to subscribe to a half dozen different services to get them.
Does Apple make money with Apple Music? Or is it break-even or running at a loss. Tim Cook’s big thing is about growing services revenue in a big way. I wonder how much the company is willing to break even or even lose in order to achieve that. Though I assume iCloud, Apple Care and App Store IAP are all profitable services.
Wow. Was that trailer ever predictable. They all look alike (heavier on the blue grade, please). They're all scored alike (heavier on the swoosh and booms and hits, please). They're all populated with phony effects (let's green screen EVERYTHING, please) alike. Someone will need to sit through these lame cinema productions twice to make up for me refusing to sit through them once.
The initial wave of "Theater at Home" movies were $20 to rent for 48 hours, but now we are getting $20 for a rental and $25 to buy. I would see something like that being sustainable. $20 to rent for 48 hours, $30 for a 48 hour rental, but you own it on release date.
[automerge]1589919649[/automerge]
Exactly the movie I was referencing. Do you know if the $25 buy option is actually to own it today or like I described above? 48 hour rental and own it on actual release day. I ended up buying the invisible man for $15, but when it was $20 to rent, I was begging for a buy options at a higher price.
Another WWII movie? This Hollywood romance with WWII is tiring. How about pick another war?
I kinda doubt that.
Because this will also enable first-day piracy which is pretty unheard of for blockbuster movies (except horrible 'cam' quality). The studios will be super worried about that. And rightly so, I expect. Probably more so than moving away from their "theatrical" numbers standard to digital. (Edit: You yourself already made that point in a later post, sorry, I was reading from the top)
By the way $20-25 is way too steep for a single viewer. It would rule it out for a lot of people that are watching alone. I also have an issue with "buying" movies on a streaming platform. You don't really buy anything, just the right to watch it as long as the streaming service exists. 48 hour rental OK, but it would have to be a lot cheaper than $20. Though I live in a country where $20 is a lot of money, probably more so than in the US. Even Amazon prime here is only €36 (about $40) a year, not $120 like in the US. So movie prices will probably be cheaper here too.
[automerge]1589921161[/automerge]
Any recent war has been widely televised. Think movies like the Hurt Locker, 13 hours of Benghazi, etc etc. WWI as well (1917). Vietnam has been extremely well covered over the years.
Further back in history there's a bit less but it's also because these are no longer very alive in people's memories. Except maybe the American civil war which also has many about it.
[automerge]1589921324[/automerge]
Old content is often not sold exclusively so I don't think this will be a huge problem.
Last edited:
Americans are longing for decent Americans who put country before self.
1. MGM has never earned $1b from any Bond movie.
2. Box office receipts do not equal profits. A studio normally gets around 50% (approx. $400m for the last Bond movie).
3. MGM will not get anything from closed theaters, and very little even from those that are open if people avoid theaters.
4. Under the best circumstances, MGM might earn $450m, and it spent nearly $300m to make the movie.
5. One way this happens is Apple pays MGM $450m, which is far less than it would cost to buy MGM.
[automerge]1589922001[/automerge]
I must have missed when Apple gave away iPhones, iPads, and Macs for free.
Let me know next time that sale comes around again.
[automerge]1589922167[/automerge]
Last edited:
Doesn't bother me in the slightest. Psycho, Silence of the Lambs and the Texas Chainsaw Massacre are all inspired by actual events... the same single event, actually.
The event is true, Ed Gein was a sick man... the stories they came up with from it is not and are each totally different films. This, too, has a real event it sets itself in and uses for inspiration.
Tom Hanks’ best movie was Batchelor Party.
”hookers on the left, drugs on the right”
”hookers on the left, drugs on the right”
“...a WWII battleship drama...”
Hanks plays the captain of a destroyer, as a class called ‘tin cans’, Several steps down from a battleship.
Hanks plays the captain of a destroyer, as a class called ‘tin cans’, Several steps down from a battleship.