Yeah, pretty sure. Established franchises. His Mission Impossible was the lowest box office of the series. Lost did well but he's had a lot of misses: Fringe, Alcatraz, Person of Interest. I think he's over-rated. Not worth $500 million. I'd love to see Apple entice someone like Luc Besson instead.
Okay, Batman, X-Men are established franchises. That didn’t prevent Dawn of Justice and Dark Phoenix to be “below expectations.” Surely, you’re not saying any bad script and direction will result in box office gold as long as it’s part of a big franchise? Does he get a little tiny bit of credit?
The oblique reference to "For All Mankind" reminds me just how uncomfortable the teaser trailer at WWDC made me. While yes, art in general should have an element of uncomfortableness to motivate a viewer, I found the premise completely unbelievable. I think the idea is that while the USA lost the race to the moon, it sparked a continuing competition of space exploration. I find that completely and utterly unbelievable. Apollo and the "space race" was born and depended completely on political forces, and the US, even in that point of history, is a society completely incapable of anything more. And I say this because I can watch shows with dragons and people back from the dead; and lifelike robots that act out a fantasy land for wealthy visitors. I find that all comparatively believable. The US going into space for anything other than stroking its ego, then discovering it costs money? Humpf. Skippit.
Yes, sorry for the manifesto.
What on earth....are you trying to say? You find flying undead dragons (completely impossible) more believable than the other major super power at the time having won the space race? (entirely possible) You do realize Russia was first to 1) create a space orbiter 2) put creatures into space 3) land a ship on the moon... right?
The oblique reference to "For All Mankind" reminds me just how uncomfortable the teaser trailer at WWDC made me. While yes, art in general should have an element of uncomfortableness to motivate a viewer, I found the premise completely unbelievable. I think the idea is that while the USA lost the race to the moon, it sparked a continuing competition of space exploration. I find that completely and utterly unbelievable. Apollo and the "space race" was born and depended completely on political forces, and the US, even in that point of history, is a society completely incapable of anything more. And I say this because I can watch shows with dragons and people back from the dead; and lifelike robots that act out a fantasy land for wealthy visitors. I find that all comparatively believable. The US going into space for anything other than stroking its ego, then discovering it costs money? Humpf. Skippit.
Yes, sorry for the manifesto.
What on earth....are you trying to say? You find flying undead dragons (completely impossible) more believable than the other major super power at the time having won the space race? (entirely possible) You do realize Russia was first to 1) create a space orbiter 2) put creatures into space 3) land a ship on the moon... right?
Yep. I find the flying undead dragons far more believable than the US actually having a coherent, long term space policy. Farcical.
If others wish to watch, fine. There is a lotta stuff Apple seems to be trying to make that looks interesting to me (eg Azimov Foundation.) This just looks...bad...to me. YMMV.
The oblique reference to "For All Mankind" reminds me just how uncomfortable the teaser trailer at WWDC made me. While yes, art in general should have an element of uncomfortableness to motivate a viewer, I found the premise completely unbelievable. I think the idea is that while the USA lost the race to the moon, it sparked a continuing competition of space exploration. I find that completely and utterly unbelievable. Apollo and the "space race" was born and depended completely on political forces, and the US, even in that point of history, is a society completely incapable of anything more. And I say this because I can watch shows with dragons and people back from the dead; and lifelike robots that act out a fantasy land for wealthy visitors. I find that all comparatively believable. The US going into space for anything other than stroking its ego, then discovering it costs money? Humpf. Skippit.
Yes, sorry for the manifesto.
What on earth....are you trying to say? You find flying undead dragons (completely impossible) more believable than the other major super power at the time having won the space race? (entirely possible) You do realize Russia was first to 1) create a space orbiter 2) put creatures into space 3) land a ship on the moon... right?
Yep. I find the flying undead dragons far more believable than the US actually having a coherent, long term space policy. Farcical.
If others wish to watch, fine. There is a lotta stuff Apple seems to be trying to make that looks interesting to me (eg Azimov Foundation.) This just looks...bad...to me. YMMV.
The subject matter is completely grounded in the realm of the possible (Russia landing a crewed mission first). I have no idea what you’re trying to say, other than, “It doesn’t interest me.”
Apple is a premium brand, Abrams is a middlebrow schlock merchant, albeit a successful one. Prefer Apple pursue BBC and Masterpiece Theatre talent rather than visual junk food.
BBC and Masterpiece- their audience died off 20 years ago.
Yeah, pretty sure. Established franchises. His Mission Impossible was the lowest box office of the series. Lost did well but he's had a lot of misses: Fringe, Alcatraz, Person of Interest. I think he's over-rated. Not worth $500 million. I'd love to see Apple entice someone like Luc Besson instead.
Luv has some interesting things to his credit, Multipass anyone? However he is no different than others when it comes to less successful projects.
Honestly id rather see Apple spend a good portion of its budget on new talent. All of these writers, directors and so forth could certainly produce more in the same vane but if you want something totally different (which Apple should want) you need to give opportunity to fresh faces.
Sure this means lots of failures but it also means discovering fresh talent. If you want to overcome the coming content overload you will need fresh material.
The oblique reference to "For All Mankind" reminds me just how uncomfortable the teaser trailer at WWDC made me. While yes, art in general should have an element of uncomfortableness to motivate a viewer, I found the premise completely unbelievable. I think the idea is that while the USA lost the race to the moon, it sparked a continuing competition of space exploration. I find that completely and utterly unbelievable. Apollo and the "space race" was born and depended completely on political forces, and the US, even in that point of history, is a society completely incapable of anything more. And I say this because I can watch shows with dragons and people back from the dead; and lifelike robots that act out a fantasy land for wealthy visitors. I find that all comparatively believable. The US going into space for anything other than stroking its ego, then discovering it costs money? Humpf. Skippit.
Yes, sorry for the manifesto.
It is a good manifesto though. Especially the part about something costing money even though trillions are wasted on welfare everyday. The end of Apollo and the unwillingness to keep the shuttle operational was and is a huge set back for lovers of science and exploration. In it’s place we all suffer from the questionable science of global warming. It is a sad time for humanity when we give up on exploration.
The oblique reference to "For All Mankind" reminds me just how uncomfortable the teaser trailer at WWDC made me. While yes, art in general should have an element of uncomfortableness to motivate a viewer, I found the premise completely unbelievable. I think the idea is that while the USA lost the race to the moon, it sparked a continuing competition of space exploration. I find that completely and utterly unbelievable. Apollo and the "space race" was born and depended completely on political forces, and the US, even in that point of history, is a society completely incapable of anything more. And I say this because I can watch shows with dragons and people back from the dead; and lifelike robots that act out a fantasy land for wealthy visitors. I find that all comparatively believable. The US going into space for anything other than stroking its ego, then discovering it costs money? Humpf. Skippit.
Yes, sorry for the manifesto.
What on earth....are you trying to say? You find flying undead dragons (completely impossible) more believable than the other major super power at the time having won the space race? (entirely possible) You do realize Russia was first to 1) create a space orbiter 2) put creatures into space 3) land a ship on the moon... right?
Yep. I find the flying undead dragons far more believable than the US actually having a coherent, long term space policy. Farcical.
If others wish to watch, fine. There is a lotta stuff Apple seems to be trying to make that looks interesting to me (eg Azimov Foundation.) This just looks...bad...to me. YMMV.
The subject matter is completely grounded in the realm of the possible (Russia landing a crewed mission first). I have no idea what you’re trying to say, other than, “It doesn’t interest me.”
It is common knowledge that the only reason the Soviets WEREN’T first to land a man on the moon was that their rocket system exploded on the launch pad during testing. Presuming that everything else had gone as planned, they would have been first.
The point I think he’s making is that the US only has a stringent space program when it is politically opportune to have one, so the chances of them keeping it up over a prolonged time — the premise of the show — are pretty unrealistic.
Not it sure if I entirely agree, but it’s certainly not a bad point to make.
Yeah, pretty sure. Established franchises. His Mission Impossible was the lowest box office of the series. Lost did well but he's had a lot of misses: Fringe, Alcatraz, Person of Interest. I think he's over-rated. Not worth $500 million. I'd love to see Apple entice someone like Luc Besson instead.
The oblique reference to "For All Mankind" reminds me just how uncomfortable the teaser trailer at WWDC made me. While yes, art in general should have an element of uncomfortableness to motivate a viewer, I found the premise completely unbelievable. I think the idea is that while the USA lost the race to the moon, it sparked a continuing competition of space exploration. I find that completely and utterly unbelievable. Apollo and the "space race" was born and depended completely on political forces, and the US, even in that point of history, is a society completely incapable of anything more. And I say this because I can watch shows with dragons and people back from the dead; and lifelike robots that act out a fantasy land for wealthy visitors. I find that all comparatively believable. The US going into space for anything other than stroking its ego, then discovering it costs money? Humpf. Skippit.
Yes, sorry for the manifesto.
What on earth....are you trying to say? You find flying undead dragons (completely impossible) more believable than the other major super power at the time having won the space race? (entirely possible) You do realize Russia was first to 1) create a space orbiter 2) put creatures into space 3) land a ship on the moon... right?
Yep. I find the flying undead dragons far more believable than the US actually having a coherent, long term space policy. Farcical.
If others wish to watch, fine. There is a lotta stuff Apple seems to be trying to make that looks interesting to me (eg Azimov Foundation.) This just looks...bad...to me. YMMV.
The subject matter is completely grounded in the realm of the possible (Russia landing a crewed mission first). I have no idea what you’re trying to say, other than, “It doesn’t interest me.”
It is common knowledge that the only reason the Soviets WEREN’T first to land a man on the moon was that their rocket system exploded on the launch pad during testing. Presuming that everything else had gone as planned, they would have been first.
The point I think he’s making is that the US only has a stringent space program when it is politically opportune to have one, so the chances of them keeping it up over a prolonged time — the premise of the show — are pretty unrealistic.
Not it sure if I entirely agree, but it’s certainly not a bad point to make.
So if the Soviets hadn't failed they wouldn't have failed? The only reason the Warriors didn't repeat as NBA champs is because they failed to outscore the Raptors in game 6 (and then game 7).
The oblique reference to "For All Mankind" reminds me just how uncomfortable the teaser trailer at WWDC made me. While yes, art in general should have an element of uncomfortableness to motivate a viewer, I found the premise completely unbelievable. I think the idea is that while the USA lost the race to the moon, it sparked a continuing competition of space exploration. I find that completely and utterly unbelievable. Apollo and the "space race" was born and depended completely on political forces, and the US, even in that point of history, is a society completely incapable of anything more. And I say this because I can watch shows with dragons and people back from the dead; and lifelike robots that act out a fantasy land for wealthy visitors. I find that all comparatively believable. The US going into space for anything other than stroking its ego, then discovering it costs money? Humpf. Skippit.
Yes, sorry for the manifesto.
What on earth....are you trying to say? You find flying undead dragons (completely impossible) more believable than the other major super power at the time having won the space race? (entirely possible) You do realize Russia was first to 1) create a space orbiter 2) put creatures into space 3) land a ship on the moon... right?
Yep. I find the flying undead dragons far more believable than the US actually having a coherent, long term space policy. Farcical.
If others wish to watch, fine. There is a lotta stuff Apple seems to be trying to make that looks interesting to me (eg Azimov Foundation.) This just looks...bad...to me. YMMV.
The subject matter is completely grounded in the realm of the possible (Russia landing a crewed mission first). I have no idea what you’re trying to say, other than, “It doesn’t interest me.”
It is common knowledge that the only reason the Soviets WEREN’T first to land a man on the moon was that their rocket system exploded on the launch pad during testing. Presuming that everything else had gone as planned, they would have been first.
The point I think he’s making is that the US only has a stringent space program when it is politically opportune to have one, so the chances of them keeping it up over a prolonged time — the premise of the show — are pretty unrealistic.
Not it sure if I entirely agree, but it’s certainly not a bad point to make.
So if the Soviets hadn't failed they wouldn't have failed? The only reason the Warriors didn't repeat as NBA champs is because they failed to outscore the Raptors in game 6 (and then game 7).
I only see a single indie loser in here, and not even sure how much of a role they had in that one. Doesn't take a mathematician to see that one could recoup $500 million from this investment:
Plus: Alias, Lost, Person of Interest, Fringe, Westworld, 11.22.63, Castle Rock... not exactly lightweights here. Give me a break.
Comments
One that was responsible for Westworld and Lost.
Overrated, I guess. Whatever.
What on earth....are you trying to say? You find flying undead dragons (completely impossible) more believable than the other major super power at the time having won the space race? (entirely possible) You do realize Russia was first to 1) create a space orbiter 2) put creatures into space 3) land a ship on the moon... right?
If others wish to watch, fine. There is a lotta stuff Apple seems to be trying to make that looks interesting to me (eg Azimov Foundation.) This just looks...bad...to me. YMMV.
Honestly id rather see Apple spend a good portion of its budget on new talent. All of these writers, directors and so forth could certainly produce more in the same vane but if you want something totally different (which Apple should want) you need to give opportunity to fresh faces.
Sure this means lots of failures but it also means discovering fresh talent. If you want to overcome the coming content overload you will need fresh material.
The point I think he’s making is that the US only has a stringent space program when it is politically opportune to have one, so the chances of them keeping it up over a prolonged time — the premise of the show — are pretty unrealistic.
Not it sure if I entirely agree, but it’s certainly not a bad point to make.
Apple Saves $500 Million Dollars
I only see a single indie loser in here, and not even sure how much of a role they had in that one. Doesn't take a mathematician to see that one could recoup $500 million from this investment:
Plus: Alias, Lost, Person of Interest, Fringe, Westworld, 11.22.63, Castle Rock... not exactly lightweights here. Give me a break.