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
Apple owns the rights and hired all the talent, including the director. They can do what they wish and when they wish to do it. The director can bitch and moan about not having full control, but now he just put himself on a shortlist of people Apple won’t work with. They can simply hire someone else to do the sequel. So, no. The director can’t “cancel the sequel”.
Saw the movie: eh. Probably right to pull it from theaters, which studios have been doing for decades, and more so in the streaming age.
You can't have it both ways as to whether there was a contract or not. You can be sure for a $200 million expenditure there was a detailed contract.
Apple is only throwing money around this "hobby" because eddy cue loves rubbing elbows with Hollywood people.
but you have to hire the right talent.
Because sometimes a studio is thinking big stars, "hey! Indiana Jones, Oceans 11 type thing" in initial discussions. Doesn't mean it's going to happen or was an ironclad promise written into the contract. The fact is, we'll never know.
presumably watts had enough juice to negotiate no sequels without his blessing. and even if not, pitt and clooney are just as pissed about the theatrical stuff, because that was really important to them. they took paycuts, effectively paying out of their own pockets to release it in theaters. instead, i think this is the first direct-to-streaming film in pitt‘s career. they‘re not coming back without watts involved.
dude, it‘s not like he cancelled a week before shooting. the „crew“ literally has years to find other work.
no, not fair enough. the previous commenter has no idea what they‘re talking about. being corporations routinely break contracts and most likely have here, too. but getting the lawyers involved would not be worth it - it hurts the director much more than the public call out. neither hollywood nor silicon valley likes to work with litigous talent. that path is reserved for those who tried to get an severance package on their way out, not continue to work for decades more. m
Also, the sole reason why they buy these movies is for sign ups.
The reality is apple couldn't care less about the film beyond the fact that Clooney and Pitt make people sign up for the service. Thats why they talked about the sequel. To encourage sign ups. Because, it is a business after all.
I think that trillion dollar businesses often change their direction. They dont consider it to be lies, they just think about what's best for the business. The corporation has no soul, it just has contracts. So the answer is if you dont want that vibe dont get in bed with them. He's now learnt that he is dealing with a corporation not some art house.
The reality is apple couldn't care less about the film beyond the fact that Clooney and Pitt make people sign up for the service. Thats why they talked about the sequel. To encourage sign ups. Because, it is a business after all.
doesn’t matter. It’s an another big project that no one will work on that was guaranteed. It takes ages to get scripts turned into movies. You just removed a certainty for your crew to get paid from. Not cool.
it doesn‘t in the age of streaming, apple will divert the budget to something else and probably get at least two projects if not more out of the same money, not having the to pay pitt, clooney and watts their usual fees (with raises, since it‘s a follow up to a success). therefore, there‘s a stronger argument to be made that this cancellation will lead to more employment for crews, not less.
Internaut
macrumors 65816
Wolfs is good. It's straight to VHS stream good (like the remake of Road House), not really worthy of a cinematic release.
Apple’s movie theater beef with Hollywood is getting worse
Jon Watts “no longer trusted” Apple, so he canned Wolfs 2.
www.theverge.com
Perhaps Apple can't afford doing this as much as before based on their service's financial goals?
Last edited:
If Apple owns the film, as is probable, they have the right to distribute it how they see fit. First release in theatres fulfilled perhaps a SAG AFTRA/oscar quailfying show. Yet crikey, it had great audience streaming. This snit about theatrical release ignores that the creativity is in making the movie. I think there’s more to this story, eg contract/fee etc for sequel. As a producer this director seems a disappointment.
You don't know Hollywood. Also totally wrong. A theatrical release would have made Apple a nice chunk of money - while they don't need it overall, their streaming service is totally unprofitable by all predictions, likely hemorrhaging money. Apple rolled the dice on a big budget film to attract subsrcribers... which is hilarious.
WBD has seen a few dozen directors and screen writers take their projects to other studios after how they treated creators with Max. We're talking billions of dollars in revenue.
Amazon is working overtime to attract creators after some similar behavior with Road House and few other films.
Everyone makes the bulk of their money from a theatrical release (producers, writers, directors, actors) now that the days of home video sales/rentals are gone. Directors often get a percentage of box office receipts that they don't get from streaming. A-List actors like Clooeny and Pitt almost always have that worked into their contracts. Not only do you scare off directors and writers but also actors.
I think that is overly generous of you
Most of ATV+ subscriptions are because they came with one of their services bundles. I would bet my pension 60% or more subs are from bundles (my gut says 80% though) and of those people that have it in a bundle, few are watching anything on it.
You know what I've never heard anyone say or share on social? "Whose watching the ATV+ show?" Ted Lasso is about the only property ever getting mentioned and usually by media sites.
Certainly if you get a percentage of the gross; as that goes away you will want to get more upfront.
Streaming may mean more up and coming (read cheaper) talent combined with a few A listers here and there.
Of course they owned the film, they financed it and can do what they want with it, which they did. But there's no reason to blindside the director and/or cast. It's just a matter of respect. That kind of behaviour just burns bridges and that stuff catches up. Word travels very fast in Hollywood.
A once a century pandemic being the exception. Everyone did what they had to do at the last minute, disrupting all plans, to make the best out of a bad situation.
Studios are never obligated to release your film widely in the USA if it turns out badly. Many a film went straight to video in the USA and was sold to foreign markets based on star power to support the sale of the rights.
Reality. Theatrical releases are EXPENSIVE. If the movie is going to bomb, it’s best to release it in a limited way and then send it to PPV and streaming.
Slow Horses!! I know people who signed up just for that and then discovered the other great content.I think that is overly generous of you
Most of ATV+ subscriptions are because they came with one of their services bundles. I would bet my pension 60% or more subs are from bundles (my gut says 80% though) and of those people that have it in a bundle, few are watching anything on it.
You know what I've never heard anyone say or share on social? "Whose watching the ATV+ show?" Ted Lasso is about the only property ever getting mentioned and usually by media sites.
Netflix you get “free” when getting a mobile phone with data plan or home internet. Amazon you get “free” with prime. Discovery with cable or satellite TV, as does Disney and Paramount. So the argument can be made for all of them.
