Tim Cook being 'intrusive' to Hollywood in quest for family-friendly video fare

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 45
    What I'd like to see is a way to have a dual option, where the same story could be told and have a family option (sans bad words - think "A Christmas Story"  - "Fuuuuudge!", T&A, do another take with the clothes intact, and violence - do another take where it's left to the viewer's imagination, like the Psycho shower scene), and at viewing time, just select what is wanted.

    I'm not saying that "Mandy" could be made into a family movie, but I think it challenges the writers' and directors' ability to carry the story to wider audiences.  I think it would help the producers as well, as none of the top 50 grossing movies* has an R rating or higher.

    *I used Wikipedia to find them, and didn't go through them one by one, but I thought the 'Furious' movies were R, but they were only PG-13.  If you found one and I didn't, OK, but the point is that even if it's 45/50 are PG-13 or lower, that's a lot of money made on more family fare.
  • Reply 22 of 45
    Based strictly on this reading, perhaps someone should tell Apple that the old studio system died out decades ago. 
  • Reply 23 of 45
    FolioFolio Posts: 698member
    According to WI bio, p287, "Jobs did not insert himself much into the creative process" with Pixar Toy Story. I hope Cook and Cue restrain themselves if that is a problem. Credible story? NY Post tied with Murdoch Fox. I'll be more worried if such rumours appear in Variety or more disinterested pub (even though Fox studio changing hands)
  • Reply 24 of 45
    Based strictly on this reading, perhaps someone should tell Apple that the old studio system died out decades ago. 
    I know you're half joking but it's true -- and not just that -- there was also the 2000s revolution in television led by The Wire and HBO in general. The basic idea being you give people creative freedom and you can make lots of money.

    But meddling money people is nothing new and it has never gone away. I can see Apple wanting to avoid a "controversial" show early on -- and don't kid yourself about whether or not there are propagandists out there just waiting to latch onto any little thing and blow it up into a socio-political issue. So they are right to be wary, especially as they launch whatever it is to be.

    But are Tim Cook and all these other Apple folks in the least qualified to be guiding this particular ship? No, no, no. Dammit no. Please hire someone qualified to make these evaluations, FFS. Indeed, you probably already have. Let them do their job!
    edited March 2019 AppleExposed
  • Reply 25 of 45
    FolioFolio Posts: 698member
    Apple has a formidable rival here in Amazon. One playing three-D chess and the other still skipping along on a checkerboard. The more I view the options on and connections into Prime, the more I'm impressed. The media space is large, so I still have high hopes Apple can make it work if they recognize boundaries. But Amazon already converted slew of literary titles into excellent productions, bought rights to hit series in Russia, made Tokyo girl series to associate w worlds largest metropolis, etc. In short, gathering low hanging fruit that is easily marketed.
    tenthousandthings
  • Reply 26 of 45
    bigpicsbigpics Posts: 1,397member
    Sanitized, corporate-approved, pre-censored...."creativity"....? That last thing is not like the first three, so count me out.

    Nothing but MOR stuff you've seen a million times before. Someone else said "anodyne," and yeah, another good word for it.  

    PS: Does Apple Music censor today's music lyrics? I'm betting no. So add hypocritical to the list above. 
    edited March 2019 allmypeople
  • Reply 27 of 45
    canukstormcanukstorm Posts: 2,682member
    Man this sounds like a disaster.
    With the exception of Apple Watch, this sums up a lot of Apple under Tim Cook
    anantksundaramallmypeople
  • Reply 28 of 45
    rogifan_new said: And no one can offer a good reason why Apple should be in this space other than a) they have more money than they know what to do with and b) they need to monetize users to grow revenue because hardware sales are slowing.
    The "good reason" is fairly obvious: Apple has been directly involved in digital entertainment distribution for a long time with iTunes, the App Store, and Apple Music. Providing 1st party content in combination with that is not that unusual, and perhaps even expected these days. Nobody thinks it's strange that companies who manufacture video game hardware are also in the business of funding 1st party video games. This is just an extension of that same idea with movies and TV.  Apple sells all kinds of hardware that people use to consume movie and TV content.
    Excellent point.  Who would have guessed that the company that started out mailing DVDs to people (not that long ago) would become a behemoth in the content creation space?
  • Reply 29 of 45
    Johan42Johan42 Posts: 163member
    Apple sounds like the type of company that would halt The Big Bang Theory development because it’s not family friendly enough.
  • Reply 30 of 45
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Every business idea Apple dips their toes in that is not their primary business they dilly-dally as poorly as Google.
  • Reply 31 of 45
    First of all, this is the NY Post, a garbage tabloid gossip dump. Secondly, it’s a Murdock paper, which accounts for what I just wrote, and also means that Apple is going to be a competitor of Murdoch. Thus, probably more fake news, a well-known Murdoch stock-in-trade. So, forget about it!
    AppleExposed
  • Reply 32 of 45
    GHammerGHammer Posts: 52member
    While I think Apple should stay out of the content creation business, they decided to go down that path. When did directors/producers/etc get to call all the shots? If they haven't put up the capital, quit or do as your bank wants done. Fairly simple process.
  • Reply 33 of 45
    AppleExposedAppleExposed Posts: 1,805unconfirmed, member
    Apple should not be in the content creation space. It’s not their forte, it’s not their brand and they aren’t cut out for the loose messiness required. Micromanaging content guarantees awful, anodyne output. They should stick to licensing and curating. 
    We hear this every fucking time Apple releases a new product.

    STOP IT.

    jay3000 said:
    This is actually very discouraging, I don't want to pay for "family friendly" original content. If this is the route all the shows will take I find it really hard to believe I will subscribe to whatever service they come with. The only way would be if its bundled with other things I would use. I love apple and most things it does, but I will admit this sounds like a disaster in the making if they are trying to get in the way of the directors/producers.

    Works for Disney. I just think Apple should at least set the threshold to PG-13?

    techno said:
    I have a family friend that is a producer and funny enough, I asked him the other day about Apple's new content soon to be revealed. He said almost exactly the same thing. Apple is too involved in the creative process and forcing everything family friendly. 

    I would say this is the problem Apple is having in general post Steve Jobs - playing it safe - afraid to take chances. Instead of being innovators, they are not reacting to things.
    For me the problem isn’t family friendly content. Good TV doesn’t have to be all about sex, violence and crude language. The problem is neither Tim Cook nor Eddy Cue know anything about creating original TV content. And it sounds like the company wasn’t clear up front about the direction they wanted this stuff to go. Now If they get backlash and people not wanting to work with them it’s possible they’ll panic and go overboard the other way and at the end of the day they’ll still not have compelling TV shows that people want to pay for,

    The service will have 3rd party contracts correct? Then that's reason enough to subscirbe. You get the usual content plus bonus Apple produced stuff.

    Do you complain that Disneys content is too family-friendly when subscribing to Hulu or Netflix?
  • Reply 34 of 45
    FolioFolio Posts: 698member
    Apple generates enough free cash to "roll the dice" in more than one studio venture. Let bankable names and fading stars/ directors work under existing Apple media. Set up a new media division-- young unknowns, edgier content, latest tech, yet sumptuous settings/shoots-- that isnt burdened by Expectations of Apple brand. Kinda like parallel Beats in music.
  • Reply 35 of 45
    The film business worked great when it was decided early on that the production, distribution and exhibition of entertainment could not be held by the same company. It was legally broken up early on in the business.  Unfortunately today we are back to how it started as Netflix produces, distributes, exhibits their product. Amazon, Apple, ATT are all trying to follow Nextflix's lead, but it will be tough.  ATT fired the creative head of HBO and that will diminish the creative output there - creators and exhibitors need to be separate companies. Apple should re-brand their creative studio with a new name and allow it to operate autonomously if they want to have any chance turning out great shows. Otherwise it will be be a disaster - they'll play it safe and create lousy milk toast entertainment. As the old saying goes, "The secret to success is that there is no 'secret', the secret to failure is easy - 'try to please everyone".
  • Reply 36 of 45
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,401member
    Not liking this direction.
    I am getting increasingly pessimistic about Apple's Services strategy. 
    SpamSandwichallmypeople
  • Reply 37 of 45
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Not liking this direction.
    I am getting increasingly pessimistic about Apple's Services strategy. 
    Who replaces Cook? Discuss...
    allmypeople
  • Reply 38 of 45
    So they actually are just like a big motion picture studio!
  • Reply 39 of 45
    AppleExposedAppleExposed Posts: 1,805unconfirmed, member
    What I'd like to see is a way to have a dual option, where the same story could be told and have a family option (sans bad words - think "A Christmas Story"  - "Fuuuuudge!", T&A, do another take with the clothes intact, and violence - do another take where it's left to the viewer's imagination, like the Psycho shower scene), and at viewing time, just select what is wanted.

    I'm not saying that "Mandy" could be made into a family movie, but I think it challenges the writers' and directors' ability to carry the story to wider audiences.  I think it would help the producers as well, as none of the top 50 grossing movies* has an R rating or higher.

    *I used Wikipedia to find them, and didn't go through them one by one, but I thought the 'Furious' movies were R, but they were only PG-13.  If you found one and I didn't, OK, but the point is that even if it's 45/50 are PG-13 or lower, that's a lot of money made on more family fare.

    Terribly complicates the work and options on the average consumer BUT it could work.

    I hate watching comedies with kids where they throw in unnecessary sexualized scenes.
  • Reply 40 of 45
    robbyxrobbyx Posts: 479member
    Not liking this direction.
    I am getting increasingly pessimistic about Apple's Services strategy. 
    Who replaces Cook? Discuss...
    No one, until he decides to resign.  There's a vocal group of people online who hate Cook.  Despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, they claim Apple has lost it's way under Cook, that it's no longer innovative, that he's just coasting on Jobs' legacy, all of which is utter nonsense.  In reality these people don't like Cook because he's openly gay and not afraid to stand up for what he believes.  They try to slap some SJW badge of shame on him, again and again, claiming that he's ruining Apple when, in fact, the opposite is true.  Apple, under Cook, has performed the best it has ever performed (financially and technologically) in its history.  And Apple has always been a SJW company.  This didn't just happen under Cook.  It's in their DNA.  They gave gay couples partner benefits back in 90s.

    The reality is, the Cook hate is pretty much just homophobia and everyone sees it.  Look at that ridiculous "ideological diversity" shareholder measure that was pummeled into the ground.  Apple's board of directors, shareholders, and customers overwhelmingly support Cook and don't care that he's gay or that Apple has a clear left-leaning agenda.

    So, who replaces him?  No one.  There's absolutely no incentive for the board to replace him.  If things take a drastic turn for the worse, financially, if new products and services flop, Cook will get replaced.  So far that hasn't happened.  Although plenty doubted it, Beats was a good buy.  Apple Music has been a success.  During Cook's tenure, Apple's custom silicon has and continues to outperform everyone else's offerings.  The Watch has been a success.  I personally believe that Apple's push into the medical arena will, in the long term, be Cook's most successful move.  Apple has never been more profitable than it has been under Cook.  Business is business and the board of directors would be derelict in their duties if they tried to replace him at this point.

    It's too early to tell who might replace him when the day comes.  I don't think he's going anywhere for at least another decade.
    edited March 2019 fastasleep
Sign In or Register to comment.