The best part of Apple TV+ is the TV Shows, most of which Apple doesn't even produce.
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.
'Wolfs 2' Nixed at Apple TV+ Because Director 'No Longer Trusted' Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The movie was lackluster. They tried to have this banter between Clooney and Pitt that played off their chemistry in previous films but it fell flat on its back. The banter got so tiring. They did well on the film because of the names in it, not because of any content. I don't think they'll be able to fool the viewers twice.
Have you ever looked at a contract? Because if its not in the contract it’s not real. If Apple had ‘told’ the director one thing via the contract, then this director would not be talking… his lawyers would be. This is about the director’s ego getting hurt. Boo hoo. He made a so so movie, Apple is in the business of making money and decided to cut their losses. End of story.
There are a lot of very one-sided takes here. “This guy’s an idiot”, “It was a terrible film, Apple did the right thing”, “Apple are awful, they should have told him in advance”.
The truth is probably a lot more complex than either stance.
For what it’’s worth, I thought the film was utterly alright. Not a terrible use of my time, but certainly not something I’d recommend going to the cinema to see. Come to think of it, I can’t remember a single really good film on Apple TV+, which is in stark contrast to their TV output, which is frequently great.
The truth is probably a lot more complex than either stance.
For what it’’s worth, I thought the film was utterly alright. Not a terrible use of my time, but certainly not something I’d recommend going to the cinema to see. Come to think of it, I can’t remember a single really good film on Apple TV+, which is in stark contrast to their TV output, which is frequently great.
Have not yet seen the movie. Was planning to see it. With many films switching to direct release on streaming services, not surprised with Apple's decision to have only a limited theatrical release. Too bad the viewers are missing out due to disagreement between Apple and the director.
It has become the most watched movie in Apple TV+ history, so with that - and the names attached - it looks like it did have some potential.
Haven't seen it myself, I very rarely watch Apple TV+
Regarding
- Films that receive their first public exhibition or distribution in any manner other than as a theatrical motion picture release are not eligible for Academy Awards in any category
Last edited:
I don’t think your 4 to 7 have much impact in the UK, where I’m based.Apple TV+ 3rd or 4th? 🤣
If we're looking at video on demand streaming sevices that are available globally and looking at total worldwide subscribers, Apple TV+ comes in 7th or 8th.
1) Netflix
2) Amazon
3) Disney+
4) Max
5) Paramount+
6) Hulu
7) Peacock
8) Apple TV+ ?
You make it seem as though Apple spending $20 billion on content is supposed to be impressive... until one reads the article you linked to...
In the streaming world, Apple has a reputation for quality, thanks to its Apple TV hardware and Apple TV+ streaming service. The latter is best associated with original shows and movies surrounded by award buzz and critical acclaim. But despite that success, Apple's streaming service has hardly made a dent in the market at a time when interest in streaming services is bigger than ever.
Apple TV+ launched in 2019. Since then, the company has spent over $20 billion to build an impressive library of original content, Bloomberg reported earlier this year. Yet, despite a highly regarded library of shows and movies with big names in acting and directing, Apple TV+ only garnered 0.3 percent of US screen viewing time in June 2024, per Nielsen.
In July, Bloomberg aptly underscored how minimally competitive Apple TV+ is, writing: "Apple TV+ generates less viewing in one month than Netflix does in one day."
Apple doesn’t provide subscriber numbers for Apple TV+, but it's estimated to have 25 million subscribers. That would make it one of the smallest mainstream streaming services. For comparison, Netflix has about 283 million, and Prime Video has over 200 million. Smaller services like Peacock (about 28 million) and Paramount+ (about 72 million) best Apple TV+'s subscriber count, too.
Apple TV+ is pretty bad when it comes to churn rate. Only Discovery+ is worse. I don't know anyone who subscribes to Discovery+
Which Streamer Inspires the Most Devotion? A New Study Says It’s Not Netflix
Netflix is not the streamer with the most loyal subscribers: Amazon Prime video has a lower annual churn rate.www.indiewire.com
... Discovery+ annual churn rate is a whopping 43 percent.
There’s a pretty big gap between the churn rates of league-leaders Prime Video and Netflix and the other major streaming platforms. From April 1, 2023 to March 31, 2024, Hulu’s churn rate was 15 percent, Max’s (fka HBO Max) was 17 percent, as was Peacock’s; the Disney+ churn rate was 21 percent and Paramount+ was 24 percent.
Apple TV+ barely beat out Discovery+ with a churn rate of 40 percent.
To be fair Disney and Warner Bros. both did the same thing during the pandemic (blindsiding creators).
This is the kind of movie where it's just watching superstars act for 90 minutes. Which is fine, we like seeing these particular actors play different roles. I bet if Apple gave him more money and guaranteed a wider cinema release, that trust can be regained. Returning the money for starting a sequel is a power move, and a smart one because after how successful Wolfs turned out to be he could get a better deal for any other streamer. Though can't Apple just commission someone else to make the sequel, who actually owns these characters and the name "Wolfs"?
I’ve enjoyed watching several TV series from Apple TV+ over the past few years including Silo which I’m watching right now (season two). While I’m grateful Apple brought those series to us, at the same time I do have this feeling that Apple may eventually be better off from a financial perspective to shut it down.
A digital release has high bit rate and digital audio. Personal viewing depends on your connection. A view in most cinemas is for your info not HDR for example. How is this different? With the dying trend of the local cinema I would stipulate that it is just a manner of time that this rule will fall.
Last edited:
Yeah, it’s not just happening at Apple TV+. Media companies used the pandemic and aftermath of it as a sort of reset sometimes to the detriment of creators as they pivoted toward a more financially sustainable path.
Credit to the guy, he has enough '****-you' money to freely express himself and not compromise his creative integrity. Many do not have such power or bravery.
I’d be very curious to hear Apple’s side of this, but I suspect they were merely avoiding an unpleasant conversation. I give them the benefit of the doubt that the lack of communication wasn’t done out of disrespect, although it’s possible.
Also I hope full theatrical releases make a comeback. Bringing new movies almost immediately to streaming is great for those who have the means to have nice home entertainment systems and only want to stay home alone or with their kin, but the social theater experience is special. It’s a human experience being part of a wider audience. It used to be a common reason for friends to gather. And for those who don’t have nice home systems it’s their only way to experience movies the way they were intended by their creators.
Also I hope full theatrical releases make a comeback. Bringing new movies almost immediately to streaming is great for those who have the means to have nice home entertainment systems and only want to stay home alone or with their kin, but the social theater experience is special. It’s a human experience being part of a wider audience. It used to be a common reason for friends to gather. And for those who don’t have nice home systems it’s their only way to experience movies the way they were intended by their creators.
In general, the "made for Apple" content on Apple + is too adapted to "can`t do this, can`t say that", more Disney than Disney. Most is created to be smooth and digestive without any resistance whatsoever.
For a WW II bombing/grenade scene, I bet they would have replaced the bombs with pink balloons and grenades with popsicles if they could get away with it.
There are 2-3 series I like to watch, but a month a year got me covered. With days to spare.
For a WW II bombing/grenade scene, I bet they would have replaced the bombs with pink balloons and grenades with popsicles if they could get away with it.
There are 2-3 series I like to watch, but a month a year got me covered. With days to spare.
Apple is practically insignificant with its TV+. The company only makes the headlines because it throws money around.
Apple is the supplicant here.
And for someone who is somehow trying to become big, ignoring agreements and abusing trust doesn't go down well.
You probably know this from your own company. You can do without some money, but it's all over if the other party isn't an honest businessman.
The other actors and directors on the market will not forget Apple's behavior and will soon prefer to demand written agreements.
‘Major’? 😅. Apple is a small fish, I am sure he’ll find other more successful services interested in his work.
It was actually a decent movie, reminded me too much of the beloved Oceans 11, 12 and 13 films but not nearly as good yet miles better than spinoff Oceans 8.
How many times have theatres been doomed? When TV became ubiquitous, the advent of home video, the internet era, piracy… And yet, cinema has survived, it always does.
On the other hand, apple tv + is not a major streaming service, not by a long shot.
The movie would have flopped in the theatres, it is bad. No chemistry between the two leads, terrible story, I'm surprised it made it to streaming release at all.