'Wolfs 2' Nixed at Apple TV+ Because Director 'No Longer Trusted' Apple

[Realityck]

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.

From HD report -
We’re only looking at video bitrates here which play in megabytes per second. Audio, at its best with 4k content, averages in the 700 kilobytes per second range.

Apple TV+ has the highest averages for streaming shows among all the platforms. Series such as Bad Sisters, Foundation (Season 2 premieres July 14), Prehistoric Planet, and Silo (just renewed for a second season) all stream on average around 24 Mbps – 25 Mbps.

On Max (formerly HBO Max), House of the Dragon, The Idol, and The Last of Us are among the highest bitrates averaging between 17 Mbps and 22 Mbps. On Netflix, Fubar, Our Planet II, and The Witcher stream in the teens and often just under 20 Mbps.

Amazon Prime Video has several shows that stream at comparable bitrates including The Wheel of Time (average of 20.06 Mbps) and The Terminal List (averaging 18.45 Mbps). Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power skirted just below 20 Mbps although it’s touted as one of the best-looking streaming shows. (We might have to revisit the series to check the bitrates since it’s been a while.)

There is also an “indicated peak video” bitrate which is a static number that doesn’t change throughout the stream. The peak may never be reached, but nevertheless serves as a number to compare the highest bitrate possible in a piece of streaming content.

Shows that have an indicated peak video rate of at least 30Mbps include Bad Sisters (Apple TV+), Big Beasts (Apple TV+), Foundation (Apple TV+), House of the Dragon (Max), Prehistoric Planet (Apple TV+), Silo (Apple TV+), & The Last of Us (Max), although the average playback is typically somewhere between 18-24Mbps.

Who gets the lowest bitrate scores?

Disney+ has some very high-quality shows that just don’t stream in bitrates as high as Apple TV+ and Max. Andor, Star Wars: The Mandalorian, Tales of the Jedi, and Werewolf By Night stream in the mid-teens (around 14 Mbps – 16 Mbps). On Paramount+, Star Trek: Strange New Worlds probably streams at the highest bitrates averaging between 15.82 Mbps – 20.14 Mbps .On Showtime, Yellowjackets and Your Honor stream around 14 Mbps – 15 Mbps.
=======
Rather then list various titles with a Apple TV enabled via Xcode to display developer menu for seeing detailed streaming statistics, I thought this article was close enough to show that the various streaming VoD services are far from all the same with the amount of compression they use to send digital content to consumers.

The point of this is to show what the best streaming 4K HDR digital content bitrate is. For me it was with owned iTunes Movies and Movies Anywhere services in the USA runs about 32 Mbps (combined video/audio). This is considerably less that what a digital cinema uses aka Digital Cinema Package (DCP) with digital projectors. You can see information about that here in the bottom table. Not even discussing specs with 4K Blu-ray or Blu-Ray media in this comparison.

 

[wanha]

Hollywood is cutthroat with no love for rogue creatives.

No one is going to give this guy money if he’s going to turn around and publicly badmouth a studio.

This is his one way ticket to never make a movie again. He should have kept quiet.

Yes, what a fool to put principles ahead of money.

Your way of thinking is exactly how all these corporations sacrifice anything and everything for the sake of money, including siding with authoritarian governments.

I realize your stance is to keep quiet as long as you're paid, but I personally applaud him for taking a stance for his principles even though it will come at a cost to him.

 

[TechWhisperer]

Apple is desperate because their overall cinema adventure didn’t pan out as much as they hoped it would. In the end it’s all about the money. Making movies is a form of art. The movie was weak, not engaging at all. It was never released in theaters because Apple feared “public disappointment”. And no wonder.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

I don’t think your 4 to 7 have much impact in the UK, where I’m based.

And then 2 of the others you get with sky packages, just like the first you get with many an internet or mobile phone contract, and the second you get when you have prime anyway. It is all just so fake.

 

[jlc1978]

I wonder:

1. Who owns the rights to film? I it is Apple, they can get a different director to make a sequel, if they want.
2. If the director wanted a theatrical release to be eligible for an Oscar, since streaming doesn't qualify.

 

[scorpio vega]

I wouldn’t call Apple TV+ a major streaming service.

Let’s be real plz.

It’s not Netflix popular but it is a major streaming service.

 

[dantay]

Watchable but definitely not sequel worthy.

 

[scorpio vega]

I wonder:

1. Who owns the rights to film? I it is Apple, they can get a different director to make a sequel, if they want.
2. If the director wanted a theatrical release to be eligible for an Oscar, since streaming doesn't qualify.

They can only get noms if it is a theatrical release?

 

[jlc1978]

They can only get noms if it is a theatrical release?

Yes, with only one exception:

Films that, in any version, receive their first public exhibition or distribution in any manner other than
as a theatrical motion picture release will not be eligible for Academy Awards in any category.
Nontheatrical public exhibition or distribution includes but is not limited to:

• Broadcast and cable television
• PPV/VOD
• DVD distribution
• Inflight airline distribution
• Internet transmission

Motion pictures released in such nontheatrical media on or after the first day of their theatrical
qualifying run remain eligible. Also, up to fifteen percent of the running time of a film may be
shown in a nontheatrical medium prior to the film’s qualifying run. (See also Paragraph 10 below.)
Film festivals may provide films online through either a transactional pay wall or password-protected
entry, which will not affect the films’ eligibility for future Academy qualification. The Academy will
allow an exemption for those films that are released online through a festival’s online platform,
provided the filmmaker(s) submit proof of inclusion in the festival.

That's one reason why a film may get a one day special or festival showing before streaming to preserve eligibility while keeping the film streaming exclusive.

Since this film apparently had a limited release it would qualify for consideration.

 

[threesixty360]

These are multi million dollar projects. You cant do the "I dont trust someone" thing here.. Too much money on the table. Thats a whole lot of crew staff that aren't going to get paid on a sequel because someone's feelings got hurt. Obviously the writer is rich enough to let his emotion be his priority. His staff, probably dont have that luxury.

Should have just said it privately and dealt with it outside of the press.

 

[GuilleA]

The only thing you can call Apple TV+ a "major" is a major flop. It stands out as the least interesting of the streaming services on the market. They are all struggling to turn a profit, they are all grasping at anything, but Apple TV+ is perhaps the worst right now.

Yeah. There are probably 4 shows I really enjoyed, the rest were completely forgettable for me. The movies are absolutely mediocre.

 

[Hopefully Smarter]

Going forward there will be fewer theatrical deals everywhere as the giant sinkhole expands.

He can go try to find a deal somewhere else.

He can also go look for some unobtanium

 

[Graphate]

[…] people who DON'T have an expensive very high quality setup at home go to a theatre and watch a good movie in good conditions for a few bucks.

I agree in part with you, in a general sense. But this particular movie doesn’t require any theatrical equivalent home theatre to have a near maximum experience watching it. This movie is not ground breaking, not special, not unique… but I liked it for what it is, a lot.

How I view movies like this: you can experience 90%+ of this movie on a small screen, because the visual and audio experience is such a minor part of the story. Contrasted with movies like Dune or Avatar (like them or not) there’s so much to gain from the visual experience. Again, this movie… no one is marveling at the world building.

 

[Biro]

This was a very bad movie. Apple knew. Shifting the guilt.

Then why did they ask for a sequel? And, frankly, whether you liked it or not misses the point. Apple repeatedly lied to the director. I wouldn’t trust them either.

 

[jlc1978]

Then why did they ask for a sequel? And, frankly, whether you liked it or not misses the point. Apple repeatedly lied to the director. I wouldn’t trust them either.

It sounds like it may have been part of the original deal. Of course, this is Hollywood and "never" is never final if enough money is involved.

 

[jlc1978]

Often directors AND big actors negotiate a lower fee in exchange for a percentage of whatever the movie makes at the theater.

I can only assume they are pissed because Apple cancelled the theatrical window and thus, making them loose money or they would have negotiated other terms to star to begin with

Hollywood makes a fortune screwing people over via percentage.

 

[Biro]

Apple is desperate because their overall cinema adventure didn’t pan out as much as they hoped it would. In the end it’s all about the money. Making movies is a form of art. The movie was weak, not engaging at all. It was never released in theaters because Apple feared “public disappointment”. And no wonder.

And yet… they asked a sequel.

 

[God of Biscuits]

Alienating a major streaming service while Hollywood collapses is a career plan, I guess.

You really need to get out of your bubble.

 

[God of Biscuits]

Too bad that it didn't work out but I'm sure that Apple isn't too concerned in the end (i.e. it's bigger loss for the director than Apple).

It's not, really. It's Apple choosing to alienate any writers and directors who are prestige enough and/or powerful/rich enough to avoid Apple's duplicitous, disrespectful track record.

 

[God of Biscuits]

This movie wasn't that good, I understand why apple brought it to streaming and didn't give it a wide release

Not the point of the article.

 

[God of Biscuits]

And yet… they asked a sequel.

And lied about a sequel.

 

[tenthousandthings]

Maybe Apple didn't want to spend $75 million or more on marketing for the movie's theatrical release. Studios typically spend 50% of whatever a movie's production budget is. Wolf's budget is said to be between $150 million and $200 million.

There were three main production companies involved. Apple, Plan B (Pitt), and Smokehouse (Clooney). A fourth, Freshman Year (Watts) was hired to write and direct, and his wife (Diane McGunigle) is also listed as a producer. All of the other five producers are Plan B and Smokehouse.

The decision to pull the plug on a wide theatrical release would have involved those with skin in the game: Apple, Plan B, and Smokehouse, but not necessarily Freshman Year, the hired help, as it were. They had already been paid.

Here’s what Clooney said at the time: “We’re happy it’s getting released at all. Obviously we wish it was having a wider release and we’re trying to figure these things out as we go. This is a revolutionary time in our industry so it’s taken a moment to get through it, but we’ll get through it.”

I get why Watts had to say something, people were asking him about a sequel because Apple announced it (by his own admission, they didn’t lie, he took their money and didn’t return it until after they didn’t do what he wanted them to do). Obviously Plan B and Smokehouse were on board, so it’s up to Watts to clarify that he’s not doing it. That’s his prerogative, but it doesn’t sound like he owns the concept. Apple and its partners can hire someone else to write and direct if they so choose.

The main point is the fact that everyone, including Freshman Year (Watts), was on board for a sequel when the first film was released. The sequel was a critical component of the marketing, especially from the steaming service’s perspective.

 

[victor_f]

TV+ is only worth keeping to add value to the Apple One bundle.

Funny enough, Apple is shy about advertising this fact; very few people that I talk to are aware of the existence of the bundle.

 

[theluggage]

And yet… they asked a sequel.

And lied about a sequel.

There's no indication that Apple would not have made the sequel if the director hadn't pulled out. Read the fine article:

Here is the full quote from Watts explaining why the sequel is off the table:
<snip>
"But the truth is that Apple didn’t cancel the Wolfs sequel, I did, because I no longer trusted them as a creative partner."

 

[maxoakland]

I don’t blame the director for his response at all. Apple didn’t follow through with TWO commitments. How can you trust a person or company that does that?