except the movie is the most succesful apple tv release. so your assessment that it would have bombed is not based on anything but delusion.
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
From the article that quotes the director:
"the truth is that Apple didn’t cancel the Wolfs sequel, I did, because I no longer trusted them as a creative partner."
What more do you need to know that it was principles based?
If someone asks a person to do a job for them then they should have the common decency to tell the person their complete plans for the job which allows the person to make an informed decision whether they want to take the job or not. Apple should have been absolutely clear with the director what their plans was for the movie (theater release or just streaming release) and for a sequel. They did not do this with the director so the director spoke out about it.
What Apple did to the director is something that has gone on with the film industry for decades. A persons word/promise means nothing. One of the worlds best known instances of this is the famous cross legged scene in Basic Instinct starring Sharon Stone. I wont go into details here only to the point where Ms Stone was told by the director that the scene would not appear in the movie (sections of movies' are always cut which is why we see them on DVD as 'deleted scenes'). When the movie was finished and produced there was as screening of the movie for the cast and crew (standard practice in the industry), Ms Stone saw that the director had left the scene in, slapped the director across the face and walked out of the screening.
Stuff like this happens in the industry which is why everyone in the film industry will have clauses in their contracts saying what they will and will not do and what the studios can and cannot do with regards to images, voices, promotional material and sequels because they know that people cannot be trusted.
Has the director burned himself with Apple for speaking out? most probably but in doing so it will allow other directors to question if they want to work with Apple.
What Apple did to the director is something that has gone on with the film industry for decades. A persons word/promise means nothing. One of the worlds best known instances of this is the famous cross legged scene in Basic Instinct starring Sharon Stone. I wont go into details here only to the point where Ms Stone was told by the director that the scene would not appear in the movie (sections of movies' are always cut which is why we see them on DVD as 'deleted scenes'). When the movie was finished and produced there was as screening of the movie for the cast and crew (standard practice in the industry), Ms Stone saw that the director had left the scene in, slapped the director across the face and walked out of the screening.
Stuff like this happens in the industry which is why everyone in the film industry will have clauses in their contracts saying what they will and will not do and what the studios can and cannot do with regards to images, voices, promotional material and sequels because they know that people cannot be trusted.
Has the director burned himself with Apple for speaking out? most probably but in doing so it will allow other directors to question if they want to work with Apple.
Also not my native language but my interpretation is one or more of the following:
- The reference is Wolf, not wolf. As such it is a name, a defined term, and there are multiple by the same name opposed to a pack of animals.
- Then there is literary licence
- It is not about a pack, it is about two individuals.
Perhaps the director knows...
This movie was such a waste. Clooney and Pitt mugged their way through it, not really acting, just being themselves. The script was probably created by AI on a drunken night.
Being disappointed from lack of communication is arrogance now?
Taking your director along in the decision making process around its release and marketing is considered “old Hollywood” now?
The characters work alone, like a "lone wolf." They end up being forced to work together, but they don't work well as a team, so they are two lone wolfs. The title of the film is referencing the (initial) lack of teamwork.
The director is a hired gun. Some may have more clout; but it is the studio’s money. Unless the contract required something, there is no assurance it will happen.
Given the moviegoing trends, it’s not usually worth the risk for a wide release and the necessary marketing. Even a movie like Borderlands had pretty light marketing and advertising still caused an excess loss of almost $150M.
This is a very good point, this director should ****ing thankful that Apple didn't decide to make this a vision pro exclusive.. How would that be for a big **** you with the four people with vision pros only ever seeing your film dude.
As long as people like Spielberg and Nolan (and Scoresese (to a lesser extent)) are prominent players in the academy, it will never happen. The requirement for a theatrical release allows the established players to gatekeep the industry (or at least the accolades of the industry). It allows them to vet content and works (and more importantly, creators) through the "Hollywood" distribution system, which is by most accounts, still very corrupt (not like pre-1960s, but still no where near a meritocracy).
This is not to suggest that I'm not a big fan of Scoresese's, Spielberg's, Nolan's, or many of the "old guard" directors' and producers' work, because I've loved many of there contributions to history and to my library. It's just, that in my opinion they no longer warrant the creative and cultural consideration they once did based on there current work. They know there are many creative and relevant artists who don't have the influence to compete at the studio level, so it is in the interest of the "old guard" to concentrate as much power as possible in the studio system. Streaming is a threat to that influence, so anything they can do to diminish the perception that quality films don't need a theatrical release is what they will do.
Maybe I'm wrong and they think the films must be viewed in a theater to really experience them. But that makes you wonder why they've allowed the academy to send DVDs to voting members instead of vouchers to see the films in a theater.
It's interesting that he said "... But the truth is that Apple didn’t cancel the Wolfs sequel, I did, because I no longer trusted them as a creative partner."
From what I've read, he is not bothered by them as "creative partners", which would lead one to believe they were too controlling of the creative process, the final cut, casting, editing, location, and/or any of the thousands of creative choices that are so often forced on directors. He seems to be unsatisfied with a business decision. So he should have said that he doesn't trust them as "business partners". Of course, if he said that he'd look like a greedy businessman and not a principled artist fighting for the soul and the integrity of his art.
Disclaimer, I quite enjoyed the movie and I've enjoyed quite a bit of his other work. I just don't think this is a conflict of creative positions. As with so many things Apple, this is a contractual (legal) dispute.
From what I've read, he is not bothered by them as "creative partners", which would lead one to believe they were too controlling of the creative process, the final cut, casting, editing, location, and/or any of the thousands of creative choices that are so often forced on directors. He seems to be unsatisfied with a business decision. So he should have said that he doesn't trust them as "business partners". Of course, if he said that he'd look like a greedy businessman and not a principled artist fighting for the soul and the integrity of his art.
Disclaimer, I quite enjoyed the movie and I've enjoyed quite a bit of his other work. I just don't think this is a conflict of creative positions. As with so many things Apple, this is a contractual (legal) dispute.
That says nothing about it being principles based. It may be that the Director wants you to think it was principles, but simply saying he doesn't trust Apple isn't enough to conclude this was a principle-based decision.
Maybe Apple looked at the box office results of the first movie and decided it wasn't worth the expense for the sequel? Yes, it's ****** that they came to that decision after getting the director to start work on the other movie, but people also complain about them blowing money on content. Maybe they'll work things out and come to an arrangement that's satisfactory to all parties.
I guess I'm an odd duck. I have been watching Apple TV more than the other services.
Not DVD or BD media for members
1. What is the Academy Screening Room and when do I have to use it?
The Academy Screening Room (ASR) is a members-only streaming platform, accessible on our submission site on the Upload Materials page. For General Entry films that had a qualifying theatrical release, use of ASR is strictly optional. Films that did not release theatrically in one of the six qualifying U.S. metro area, however, are required to stream on ASR. (For a list of the six qualifying U.S. metro areas, please see Rule 2 in Rules &Eligibility at oscars.org/rules.)
2. Is there a fee to submit a film for consideration?
There is no entry fee for submission in the General Entry category. However, if you are submitting a film not released theatrically in a qualifying U.S. metro area, you will be required to stream the film on our Academy Screening Room (ASR), at a non-negotiable cost of $12,500. Streaming on ASR allows Academy members around the world to access and view your film prior to voting.
3. Is theatrical distribution outside the qualifying U.S. metro areas permissible? What about screenings at schools or film festivals?
Features under consideration for General Entry may be released in commercial theaters outside of Los Angeles County and other qualifying metro areas and may play in schools and at film festivals without affecting their eligibility.
4. Can I run a trailer on the Internet?
Trailers are fine as long as the footage totals no more than ten minutes or ten percent of the film's running time, whichever is less.
5. My film was broadcast on television outside the U.S. before its qualifying release in the U.S. Is it still eligible?
If the film had a qualifying release outside the U.S. before it was broadcast on television, and if the broadcast was only outside the U.S., the film could still be eligible. Please contact Credits Submissions
with details.
6. Does an HD-Cam or Blu-Ray meet the digital screening requirements?
No. Only a Digital Cinema Package (DCP) meets our digital requirements. See above for more information on what constitutes a Digital Cinema Package.
Last edited:
You are correct, I don't think they generally send physical media anymore (although I think members can still request it). However, I think that has more to do with piracy than quality control.
The Academy Screening Room will run on any iOS 12 or later/Android 8 or later device, Roku, AppleTV, FireTV or any computer with more than 4GB of ram. So members can access the films on one of the crappiest devices made in many years and the academy doesn't seem concerned.
If they care so much about the "Theatrical Experience", as they claim they do. Why is it acceptable for a voting member to watch the film on a 6" screen with one ear bud in?
They require submissions to be in the form of a DCP. This is not about quality, it is about formatting. A DCP can contain 4K video, but only requires 1080. So the "Does an HD-Cam or Blu-Ray meet..." is not a condition of quality, but of convenience. Again, since the voting member doesn't have to consume it as a DCP, it doesn't really impact the presentation requirements, which are almost non-existent.
It seems to me, the requirements are about protecting the established studio system and the money/power that comes with it. It is not about artistic nuance or production quality.
So you are saying you think Nolan is past his prime? You seem pretty hard to impress!!
Personally only loved Interstellar from Nolan, and Dunkirk was fine from what I remember.So you are saying you think Nolan is past his prime? You seem pretty hard to impress!!
Well, it may not be Barbie, but Oppenheimer was pretty good and even seemed to be fairly well received, and it doesn't even seem that long ago.
I thought it was boring as hell, except the ending.Well, it may not be Barbie, but Oppenheimer was pretty good and even seemed to be fairly well received, and it doesn't even seem that long ago.
Also what Nolan did with the soundtrack was super amateurish, there is constantly epic music building tension for 3 hours, but the tension isn't there in the image.