Tom Hanks now says 'Greyhound' film was 'rescued at sea' by Apple TV+

Posted:
in General Discussion edited July 2020
Following an interview critical of the service on Monday, Tom Hanks has clarified some of his feelings about the release of "Greyhound" on Apple TV+.

Credit: Apple TV+
Credit: Apple TV+


Hanks previously told The Guardian that the "Greyhound" release on Apple TV instead of in cinemas was an "absolute heartbreak," largely due to the differences in picture and sound quality.

In a televised interview on NBC's "Today" show on Tuesday morning, Hanks has added some additional clarifications about "Greyhound" on Apple TV. He said that he's "actually thrilled that Apple TV+ is making it possible for everyone to see it."

Hanks went on to call theater closures due to the coronavirus health crisis "heartbreaking," and added that Apple "saved the day for us" by allowing anyone with an Apple TV+ subscription to watch the film.

"Barring that, Apple has saved the day for us," Hanks added. "We had a magnificent movie that was not going to be seen. Apple is a benevolent streaming service in every way."

The actor and filmmaker went on to call the partnership with Apple TV+ a "magnificent deal."

"We are going to be able to fill up the screens in the living rooms and the bean-bag chairs of the world all in one fall shot, so we feel as though we were rescued at sea by a convoy with a big Apple logo with a bite taken out of it," Hanks said.

A full transcript of Hanks' comments on The Today Show can be seen below.
I'm actually thrilled that Apple TV+ is making it possible for everybody to see it This is a magnificent gift that's come to us because of Apple because COVID-19 did something heartbreaking to us all: it closed down the theaters. We don't have the cinema. There isn't anybody that doesn't like going to see a good movie with 800 people and coming out with something in common. Barring that, Apple has saved the day for us. We had a magnificent movie that was not going to be seen. Apple is a benevolent streaming service in every way. It's going to look fantastic but it's going to be available. It is going to be viewable, and otherwise we would've languished in a vault for a movie that is 88 minutes of a thematic story that does speak to what we're all going through right now. We didn't know that at the time we made the film, we were just trying to make a lean, new spare version about procedures and behaviors about how difficult it was to stay alive in the North Atlantic in 1942. It's a magnificent deal and we are going to be able to fill up the screens in the living rooms and the bean-bag chairs of the world all in one fall shot, so we feel as though we were rescued at sea by a convoy with a big Apple logo with a bite taken out of it.
Apple acquired "Greyhound," a WWII film focused on allied naval forces during the Battle of the Atlantic, to the tune of $70 million in May.

The film will make its debut exclusively on Apple TV+ on Friday, July 10.
MacQc
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 29
    BeatsBeats Posts: 2,899member
    Typical Apple media frenzy BS.

    About the white wall behind him. Does he not know how nutty the media is about Apple? Just a shadow of controversy/racism/homophobia/anything in his home would send the media into an anti-Apple blitz and stocks plunging.
    lkruppMacProwatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 29
    williamhwilliamh Posts: 829member
    I’m really looking forward to seeing this.  That said, $70m seems like a huge amount for Apple to pay for 1 movie. 
    pbruttowatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 29
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 9,987member
    Sounds like Tom may have gotten a personal call from Tim Apple to clarify the situation.
    ibilltokyojimuSpamSandwichMacPropulseimagespbruttoJanNLwatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 29
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 9,987member
    Beats said:
    Typical Apple media frenzy BS.

    About the white wall behind him. Does he not know how nutty the media is about Apple? Just a shadow of controversy/racism/homophobia/anything in his home would send the media into an anti-Apple blitz and stocks plunging.
    Brother, you are so correct in your assessment of the media. 
    Beatswatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 29
    coolfactorcoolfactor Posts: 1,868member
    The original comments were open for interpretation. Being heartbroken that the movie wasn't being seen on the big screen is not equal to being heartbroken that Apple bought the movie rights. Yet AppleInsider's original headline portrayed it that Hanks was upset with Apple. That was a disservice to all readers. Shameful.
    flydogmknelsonlkruppStrangeDaysOferronnRayz2016BeatspulseimagesMacQc
  • Reply 6 of 29
    flydogflydog Posts: 1,090member
    williamh said:
    I’m really looking forward to seeing this.  That said, $70m seems like a huge amount for Apple to pay for 1 movie. 
    Apple’s paperclip budget is likely more than $70 million. 
    pbruttoMacQcwatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 29
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 1,367member
    I'm sure Mr. Hanks was surprised that what he said was spun into a slam on Apple. Of course he's heartbroken that his film isn't going to be shown in theaters. Up until a few months ago, he was always (at least since Bosom Buddies wrapped...) in the business of making movies to play on the big screen. Film studios are struggling to sort out what films to hold onto until theaters can reopen, what to send straight into the home market, and how to pace all that out, given that most film production has been at a standstill for months. 

    Perhaps once a vaccine emerges to set us on a path to recovery, this will create an opportunity for lower-budget and independent films to fill an early gap, by virtue of being able to get from take one, scene one to general theatrical release much more quickly. 
    SpamSandwichOferMacQc
  • Reply 8 of 29
    williamh said:
    I’m really looking forward to seeing this.  That said, $70m seems like a huge amount for Apple to pay for 1 movie. 
    True. But note that Disney paid $75m for Hamilton. So, this seems to be the going rate!
    StrangeDaysronnpulseimagespscooter63
  • Reply 9 of 29
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    AppleZulu said:
    I'm sure Mr. Hanks was surprised that what he said was spun into a slam on Apple. Of course he's heartbroken that his film isn't going to be shown in theaters. Up until a few months ago, he was always (at least since Bosom Buddies wrapped...) in the business of making movies to play on the big screen. Film studios are struggling to sort out what films to hold onto until theaters can reopen, what to send straight into the home market, and how to pace all that out, given that most film production has been at a standstill for months. 

    Perhaps once a vaccine emerges to set us on a path to recovery, this will create an opportunity for lower-budget and independent films to fill an early gap, by virtue of being able to get from take one, scene one to general theatrical release much more quickly. 
    Incidentally, a vaccine may never be developed according to Fauci and others. Better to just do your best to minimize spread and get on with your life.
    pulseimages
  • Reply 10 of 29
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member

    williamh said:
    I’m really looking forward to seeing this.  That said, $70m seems like a huge amount for Apple to pay for 1 movie. 
    True. But note that Disney paid $75m for Hamilton. So, this seems to be the going rate!
    They overpaid probably due to a bidding war. A movie that has no theatrical distribution should never be in that price range.
  • Reply 11 of 29
    mac_dogmac_dog Posts: 962member

    williamh said:
    I’m really looking forward to seeing this.  That said, $70m seems like a huge amount for Apple to pay for 1 movie. 
    True. But note that Disney paid $75m for Hamilton. So, this seems to be the going rate!
    They overpaid probably due to a bidding war. A movie that has no theatrical distribution should never be in that price range.
    What was the budget to make the film? What did the $70 mil cover? Was it an outright purchase including all costs? We don’t really know the breakdown. So everything is connect at this point. 
    StrangeDaysBeats
  • Reply 12 of 29
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 11,996member
    AppleZulu said:
    I'm sure Mr. Hanks was surprised that what he said was spun into a slam on Apple. Of course he's heartbroken that his film isn't going to be shown in theaters. Up until a few months ago, he was always (at least since Bosom Buddies wrapped...) in the business of making movies to play on the big screen. Film studios are struggling to sort out what films to hold onto until theaters can reopen, what to send straight into the home market, and how to pace all that out, given that most film production has been at a standstill for months. 

    Perhaps once a vaccine emerges to set us on a path to recovery, this will create an opportunity for lower-budget and independent films to fill an early gap, by virtue of being able to get from take one, scene one to general theatrical release much more quickly. 
    Incidentally, a vaccine may never be developed according to Fauci and others. Better to just do your best to minimize spread and get on with your life.
    No, that isn't what Fauci said. He said he believes one of the vaccines will work, but that if it's only 70-75% effective, and the anti-science, anti-government, and anti-vaxxer nuts don't vaccinate, the numbers won't be high enough for the needed herd immunity. And that we don't know how long it will be effective, that annual COVID19 shots may be a thing. At no point did he said to ignore the global pandemic or go back to living as normal. He has detailed the importance of masks and social distancing protocols until we have treatments and vaccines in place. 

    Read all the details yourself:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/29/fauci-us-unlikely-achieve-herd-immunity-coronavirus-even-with-vaccine

    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/06/dr-fauci-says-coronavirus-immunity-may-be-finite-duration-remains-uncertain.html
    edited July 2020 ronnfastasleepMacPropulseimagesspliff monkeyseanjspice-boypscooter63bbhurahara
  • Reply 13 of 29
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 11,996member


    williamh said:
    I’m really looking forward to seeing this.  That said, $70m seems like a huge amount for Apple to pay for 1 movie. 
    True. But note that Disney paid $75m for Hamilton. So, this seems to be the going rate!
    They overpaid probably due to a bidding war. A movie that has no theatrical distribution should never be in that price range.
    What industry experience or revenue data are you basing that claim on? Oh yeah, none. Any other declarations about industries you don't work in you'd like to share with us, just because?
    ronnCloudTalkinspliff monkey
  • Reply 14 of 29
    ronnronn Posts: 504member
    williamh said:
    I’m really looking forward to seeing this.  That said, $70m seems like a huge amount for Apple to pay for 1 movie. 
    They're paying Will Smith $120M for EMANCIPATION and ~$200M for Scorsese's "Killers of the Flower Moon." GREYHOUND was a steal  ;)
    Beats
  • Reply 15 of 29
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    ronn said:
    williamh said:
    I’m really looking forward to seeing this.  That said, $70m seems like a huge amount for Apple to pay for 1 movie. 
    They're paying Will Smith $120M for EMANCIPATION and ~$200M for Scorsese's "Killers of the Flower Moon." GREYHOUND was a steal  ;)
    All absurd wastes of money, IMO. Imagine how many smaller and more focused projects could be carried out. Hire some younger and more hungry moviemakers, Apple!
  • Reply 16 of 29
    BeatsBeats Posts: 2,899member
    lkrupp said:
    Sounds like Tom may have gotten a personal call from Tim Apple to clarify the situation.

    It's something Hanky-Panky learned the hard way after his comments were portrayed as a full anti-Apple assault. I bet his white wall gripe seems absurd now.

    The original comments were open for interpretation. Being heartbroken that the movie wasn't being seen on the big screen is not equal to being heartbroken that Apple bought the movie rights. Yet AppleInsider's original headline portrayed it that Hanks was upset with Apple. That was a disservice to all readers. Shameful.

    Hanky-panky.
  • Reply 17 of 29
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,726moderator
    The original comments were open for interpretation. Being heartbroken that the movie wasn't being seen on the big screen is not equal to being heartbroken that Apple bought the movie rights. Yet AppleInsider's original headline portrayed it that Hanks was upset with Apple. That was a disservice to all readers. Shameful.
    The NBC interview is here, 7:50 for the Greyhound movie:
     
    https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/celebrity/tom-hanks-first-live-interview-coronavirus-recovery-says-doing-one-n1233050

    The original interview didn't come across to me as having a go at Apple but more that his passion project was sold off to the highest bidder by Sony and Apple just happened to be that bidder. He would have said the same if it was Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc.

    The same Guardian reporter for the previous interview also took a jab at Apple about the "stupid keyboard" that gave her back pain:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/22/didnt-love-taika-waititi-movie-feel-his-pain

    'Journalists' like her are the kind that are always trying to stir the pot. They don't just want to report things, they want to make drama because the news business is all about attention-seeking. Usually they ask leading questions to get the responses they want. If they don't get eyes on the reports, there's little point in having them. It's like movie and TV ratings. If no one is watching, they don't make money from advertisers so they get canned.

    Tom Hanks is also part of the generation of old cinema where streaming is a relatively new method of distribution and is like Neil Young with his Pono player for audio. They have their preferred ways of presenting their work but new generations are growing up enjoying movies the new way and have access to more movies than ever at the touch of a button. That ease of distribution has made film-making and distribution much more accessible but with that comes a larger amount of low quality productions so these kind of movies will stand out and people will appreciate that.
    ronnMacQcGG1watto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 29
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 1,367member
    AppleZulu said:
    I'm sure Mr. Hanks was surprised that what he said was spun into a slam on Apple. Of course he's heartbroken that his film isn't going to be shown in theaters. Up until a few months ago, he was always (at least since Bosom Buddies wrapped...) in the business of making movies to play on the big screen. Film studios are struggling to sort out what films to hold onto until theaters can reopen, what to send straight into the home market, and how to pace all that out, given that most film production has been at a standstill for months. 

    Perhaps once a vaccine emerges to set us on a path to recovery, this will create an opportunity for lower-budget and independent films to fill an early gap, by virtue of being able to get from take one, scene one to general theatrical release much more quickly. 
    Incidentally, a vaccine may never be developed according to Fauci and others. Better to just do your best to minimize spread and get on with your life.
    That is not correct. Fauci says that a vaccine may not give lifetime immunity. That’s a very different thing from “may never be developed.” There are actually quite a few vaccines going into second and third trial phases already. 
    spliff monkeyronnbbh
  • Reply 19 of 29
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 9,987member

    williamh said:
    I’m really looking forward to seeing this.  That said, $70m seems like a huge amount for Apple to pay for 1 movie. 
    True. But note that Disney paid $75m for Hamilton. So, this seems to be the going rate!
    They overpaid probably due to a bidding war. A movie that has no theatrical distribution should never be in that price range.
    Says who?
    Beatsspliff monkeyronnurahara
  • Reply 20 of 29
    pulseimagespulseimages Posts: 446member
    88 minutes isn’t long for a movie these days. At that length I’m actually glad it’s coming out on Apple TV+ instead of the overpriced theaters. 
    spliff monkeyMacQcurahara
Sign In or Register to comment.