Apple loses $500 million bidding war for J.J. Abrams' Bad Robot

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 66
    djames4242djames4242 Posts: 659member
    gutengel said:
    Good that Apple didn't waste money on this overrated guy. He just good at making good looking movies, storytelling skills not so much.
    Kinda makes me think of this gem... 
    lostkiwiblurpbleepbloop
     2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 22 of 66
    the monkthe monk Posts: 93member
    doctwelve said:
    the monk said:
    doctwelve said:
    ...... JJ is hardly box office gold. 
    Star Trek. Star Wars. Are you sure?
    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?
    fastasleep
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 23 of 66
    sphericspheric Posts: 2,803member
    gutengel said:
    Good that Apple didn't waste money on this overrated guy. He just good at making good looking movies, storytelling skills not so much.
    This isn't "this overrated guy", but a production company. 

    One that was responsible for Westworld and Lost. 

    Overrated, I guess. Whatever.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 24 of 66
    StrangeDaysstrangedays Posts: 13,220member
    aknabi said:
    the monk said:
    doctwelve said:
    ...... JJ is hardly box office gold. 
    Star Trek. Star Wars. Are you sure?
    If he had signed with Apple he would have been the king of cinema... since he didn't he's not that hot...

    Logic for fanboys 101
    Oh, look, we have a new one. 
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 25 of 66
    StrangeDaysstrangedays Posts: 13,220member

    eightzero said:
    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?
    fastasleep
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 26 of 66
    StrangeDaysstrangedays Posts: 13,220member
    Hopefully Jar Jar Abrams won’t be ruining any more Star Trek franchises.
    lostkiwirandominternetperson
     2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 27 of 66
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 3,208member

    eightzero said:
    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.


     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 28 of 66
    StrangeDaysstrangedays Posts: 13,220member
    eightzero said:

    eightzero said:
    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.”
    fastasleep
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 29 of 66
    k2kwk2kw Posts: 2,084member
    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.
    fastasleep
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 30 of 66
    lostkiwilostkiwi Posts: 640member
    gutengel said:
    Good that Apple didn't waste money on this overrated guy. He just good at making good looking movies, storytelling skills not so much.
    Kinda makes me think of this gem... 
    Oh man, that video was hilarious 😂. Thanks for sharing. 

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 31 of 66
    SpamSandwichspamsandwich Posts: 33,407member
    lostkiwi said:
    gutengel said:
    Good that Apple didn't waste money on this overrated guy. He just good at making good looking movies, storytelling skills not so much.
    Kinda makes me think of this gem... 
    Oh man, that video was hilarious 😂. Thanks for sharing. 

    Kentucky Fried Movie may have done it before, but it was funny anyway. Ha!
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 32 of 66
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    doctwelve said:
    the monk said:
    doctwelve said:
    ...... JJ is hardly box office gold. 
    Star Trek. Star Wars. Are you sure?
    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.  
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 33 of 66
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    eightzero said:
    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.  
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 34 of 66
    sphericspheric Posts: 2,803member
    eightzero said:

    eightzero said:
    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. 
    FileMakerFellerSanctum1972
     2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 35 of 66
    gutengel said:
    Good that Apple didn't waste money on this overrated guy. He just good at making good looking movies, storytelling skills not so much.
    Kinda makes me think of this gem... 
    Release the Kraken
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 36 of 66
    bluefire1bluefire1 Posts: 1,318member
    doctwelve said:
    the monk said:
    doctwelve said:
    ...... JJ is hardly box office gold. 
    Star Trek. Star Wars. Are you sure?
    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. 
    Person of Interest was a miss? Hardly. 
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 37 of 66
    SpamSandwichspamsandwich Posts: 33,407member
    This headline is wrong. It should read:
    Apple Saves $500 Million Dollars
    hmurchisonspheric
     2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 38 of 66
    spheric said:
    eightzero said:

    eightzero said:
    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).
    SpamSandwichfastasleep
     2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 39 of 66
    SpamSandwichspamsandwich Posts: 33,407member
    spheric said:
    eightzero said:

    eightzero said:
    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).
    Flawless logic. ;)
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 40 of 66
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,487member
    Some real armchair Eddy Cues in this thread.

    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.
    Soligatorguy
     1Like 0Dislikes 1Informative
Sign In or Register to comment.