'F1' could be the last Apple TV+ theatrical release

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited September 27
Apple TV+ is continuing to step back from high-profile theatrical releases of its movies, with the forthcoming "F1" racing drama seen as one more test after a series of flops.

Close-up of a person wearing a racing helmet, their blue eyes looking intently forward with focused expression.
Brad Pitt in "F1"

Apple was the first streaming service to earn a Best Picture Oscar, with "CODA"
in 2022, but otherwise its movies have not been hits on the big screen. Following low box office returns for films including "Killers of the Flower Moon," Apple curtailed plans for theatrical releases.

That decision began with "Wolfs," which instead got a foreshortened and limited distribution of a week in theaters, before streaming on Apple TV+ from September 27. Now according to Bloomberg, Apple plans to repeat this greatly reduced theatrical window for each of its next films -- except one.

In June 2025, Apple is releasing "F1," a racing drama starring Brad Pitt. Significantly, Apple is partnering with Warner Bros to distribute the film, whose budget is believed to have been $300 million. Unspecified sources at Apple have reportedly said that how well "F1" performs at the box office will have a significant impact on future movies.

Apple may continue to produce selected high-budget titles, but it is expected to concentrate more on films in the $100 million range. This is actually a range that been in decline in the age of Marvel-style blockbusters, so it could potentially be a welcome move for film fans.

Making films in this price bracket also means that Apple can aim for around a dozen movies a year. That would mean it spending a $1 billion annually, which is what it had reportedly originally budgeted anyway.

Beyond the immediate box office returns of a movie, though, there are other issues. There's how a theatrical release will advertise Apple TV+, for one thing, and a hit is likely to boost awareness and so also subscriber numbers.

Then "Wolfs" stars George Clooney and Brad Pitt have been vocal about their disappointment in their foreshortened theatrical release. The two stars are reported to have taken pay cuts specifically so that there would be a theatrical release, and now that isn't happening.

So Apple TV+ is presumably going to have a harder time attracting talent, both cast and crew. That's not just because a lack of a theatrical window is less attractive, but the company appears to have changed its deal during production.

If a single movie does poorly in a theatrical release and also does not fulfill whatever metric Apple TV+ uses to measure success, that's one thing. But films have a long tail, they keep on earning, and talent keeps making films.

So a decision to pull back on its theatrical releases and the promotion of its movies, is going to have a long-term effect.

Hollywood veterans are reportedly struggling to understand Apple's strategy -- or that of Amazon and Netflix. It's said that industry people suspect the streamers see theaters as just marketing -- and that if so, they are still not spending enough to promote their movies.

"Wolfs" by Jon Watts is now streaming on Apple TV+



Read on AppleInsider
chemicle
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 24
    Maybe it should be the other way round: stream movies first and if they attract a following, release them as special releases, or the Directors Cut, in select movie theatres. 
    williamlondonentropyswilliamhwatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 24
    I don't know why but movies produced by streaming companies just don’t have “it”. And that is especially visible in movies that were produced by studios after the studio became part of a streaming service. 
    williamlondonrunswithforkwatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 24
    80% of all films lose money. From the web:
    The film industry is a form of gambling, like wildcat oil-drilling. The problem is that a lot of capital is required to make enough films to obtain the rare blockbuster, and few companies have the financial stamina to make it.


    Alex_Vsflagelwatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 24
    sflagel said:
    I don't know why but movies produced by streaming companies just don’t have “it”. And that is especially visible in movies that were produced by studios after the studio became part of a streaming service. 
    I would also include television shows.  To my tastes, they are pretty much all bad.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 24
    Movie is not a product, it is an entertainment.
    “Bad Movie” may be a blockbuster, but good movie may flop, and resurrect after years..or may be never.
    Garbage smartphone won’t sell millions in a month, or it just sell millions without much profit.
    Physical, tangible, functional stuff needs a general acceptable quality to sell, it doesn’t apply to a movie. 
    Even those Hollywood giants unable to make big hits every time, big star and big budget is not a guarantee, it just a risky bet. According to the history, it seems there is no formula to make sure how to entertain people by a movie, and make them pay for it.
    If you can’t beat them, join them…or buy them.
    Apple changed music industry not by setup a record company and sign a contract with all top singers and music producers, then makes Apple song.
    I have try really hard to enjoy Apple TV service, but failed.

    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 24
    If I know it's coming to Apple TV+, why on earth would I spend the extra $$ to watch it in the theater?
    williamlondonentropysjib
  • Reply 7 of 24
    frustyak said:
    If I know it's coming to Apple TV+, why on earth would I spend the extra $$ to watch it in the theater?
    Movie theaters are a dying breed just like malls.
    edited September 27 williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 24
    frustyak said:
    If I know it's coming to Apple TV+, why on earth would I spend the extra $$ to watch it in the theater?
    For the theater experience.  I go whenever there is a good movie out...  which is rare these days with movies pushing DEI and woke-ism down the throat of the moviegoer.
    ecarlseenmobirdentropysgrandact73watto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 24
    What is the meaning of the word wolfs?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 24
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,446moderator
    sflagel said:
    I don't know why but movies produced by streaming companies just don’t have “it”. And that is especially visible in movies that were produced by studios after the studio became part of a streaming service. 
    Streaming content comes across as very formulaic, possibly a result of trying to avoid too much risk in the face of increasing budgets and competition. The end result is like a clipart version of a movie. Movies like Heart of Stone and Red Notice from Netflix are examples:


    It's like they have a list of scenes that have looked cool in old movies and they stitch them together. They have very generic titles and plotlines and are instantly forgettable.

    It's not the streaming medium to blame entirely. Game of Thrones on HBO set a high bar for streaming content. There's just too high a volume of low quality productions.

    It used to be that straight-to-DVD movies got very little marketing and now they make up the bulk of movies being promoted.

    Making good, original content is difficult and there's often a long timeline. The Game of Thrones books were started in 1991, 20 years before the TV show.

    As time goes on, new writers have an ever-growing 'Simpsons-did-it' problem, where they have to find scenarios and dialog that haven't already been done to exhaustion. Action comedy, wild west, space sci-fi, espionage, romantic comedy, war, animation, mafia/gangs, etc have all been saturated.

    There is something that has been lost in recent years, this is clear to see from movie lists:


    2010 onwards is missing iconic movies:

    Back to the Future, Terminator, Jurassic Park, Forrest Gump, Lord of the Rings, Aliens, Star Wars, James Bond, Indiana Jones are iconic franchises and this kind of content is getting rarer.

    Those old movies had very clear, unique and interesting storylines and they have impactful events throughout the movies. These days, it's long drawn-out storylines, sequels/reboots, generic themes and even the best content each year is poor quality compared to the older iconic movies.


    I hope this will correct itself but it looks like a downward trend.

    Another trend seems to be fewer consistently good directors. Where are this generation's Spielberg, Cameron, George Lucas, Scorsese, Peter Jackson, Tarantino, Abrams, Kubrick, Nolan:


    There are some lists online with suggestions but nobody in them stands out:


    Good writers, directors and actors are what make good movies, these skills need to be passed down from one generation to the next. It's been a while since there was a must-see movie, people don't share or talk about trailers for new movies like they used to.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 24
    TCM for the win. B)
    edited September 27 williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 24
    Its seems like Apple TV+ content is usually stuff you need to be in a certain mood to want to slog through. Some of it is good, some not so good, but nothing really has been amazing or universally easy to watch. 

    Heck, even Godilla was somehow turned boring and saddled with irrelevent themes in the characters' lives that made the whole thing a chore. With the IP and the cast they had, it should have been like a blockbuster movie every episode. Instead, it was light on the good stuff and felt like a job to work throuhg the boring content to get those few tidbits of good stuff. How anyone could get Godzilla to that point, I have no idea.

    Foundation was something I looked forward to with huge anticipation. By the fourth episode, I was tired. Missed about a third of the season and hadn't even watched an episode of season 2.

    The recent Matt Damon movie was... ok. But seemed difficult to really get into.

    We will see how F1 goes. But if it's another attempt at being an overly political sort of snob-fest, it's going to suck. Hopefully it avoids that. Will watch it tomorrow.

    The only way Apple TV+ is going to get universally great content is to replace their content management team. they've really done a poor job. Seems they get in the way, rather than helping. Would be a coup if Apple could get Warner Brothers exclusively on board or even buy them. Disney got Marvel and Apple can get DC and other truly massive IPs. The only fear is that they'll promply ruin it.

    The lone exception so far is Dark Matter, which was stellar. Really drew us in and made waiting for the next episode almost impossible. 


    entropyswatto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 24
    Its seems like Apple TV+ content is usually stuff you need to be in a certain mood to want to slog through. Some of it is good, some not so good, but nothing really has been amazing or universally easy to watch. 

    Heck, even Godilla was somehow turned boring and saddled with irrelevent themes in the characters' lives that made the whole thing a chore. With the IP and the cast they had, it should have been like a blockbuster movie every episode. Instead, it was light on the good stuff and felt like a job to work throuhg the boring content to get those few tidbits of good stuff. How anyone could get Godzilla to that point, I have no idea.

    Foundation was something I looked forward to with huge anticipation. By the fourth episode, I was tired. Missed about a third of the season and hadn't even watched an episode of season 2.

    The recent Matt Damon movie was... ok. But seemed difficult to really get into.

    We will see how F1 goes. But if it's another attempt at being an overly political sort of snob-fest, it's going to suck. Hopefully it avoids that. Will watch it tomorrow.

    The only way Apple TV+ is going to get universally great content is to replace their content management team. they've really done a poor job. Seems they get in the way, rather than helping. Would be a coup if Apple could get Warner Brothers exclusively on board or even buy them. Disney got Marvel and Apple can get DC and other truly massive IPs. The only fear is that they'll promply ruin it.

    The lone exception so far is Dark Matter, which was stellar. Really drew us in and made waiting for the next episode almost impossible. 


    You were very kind in describing Wolf’s as being OK. Not surprised that it was pulled from the theaters earlier than it was scheduled to be.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 24
    frustyak said:
    If I know it's coming to Apple TV+, why on earth would I spend the extra $$ to watch it in the theater?
    Huge screen,  huge sound system.  Getting out of the house…. 
    nubusgrandact73watto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 24
    M68000 said:
    frustyak said:
    If I know it's coming to Apple TV+, why on earth would I spend the extra $$ to watch it in the theater?
    Huge screen,  huge sound system.  Getting out of the house…. 
    Ridiculously expensive tickets and food, sticky floors under your feet, fellow movie watchers whispering and talking through the movie as well as constantly checking their phones which illuminate the area around them.

    To be fair and not a totally negative nelly, if you're out with a group of friends looking for something to do, heading into the cinema to see what's on and enjoying one of the films you wanted to see and hadn't yet got a chance to see is a great treat.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 24
    I do love what Apple is trying to do with their very high-end production offerings. Some are brilliant and the movies are pretty hit/miss.   CODA was fantastic, but they keep missing the mark with their productions and budgets attached. (so it seems).  I hate to be "that guy", but I can't see how any movie centred around F1 - will return them the 300 million they put aside for it's production?   And this is another reason that so few movies are being made anymore.  How does a movie cost 300 million to make?  
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 24
    entropysentropys Posts: 4,267member
    CODA was an attempt to copy la Famille Belier. Fishing instead of a dairy, and losing a lot of the warmth on the way. And that’s about it.  It is a rolled gold example of risk averse Hollywood pretending it’s brave and slapping itself on the back despite its unoriginality.

    watch la Famille Belier and you will see exactly what I mean.
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 24
    chemicle said:
    How does a movie cost 300 million to make?  
    A $300 million movie (in today's dollars) actually $71 million (in 1977 dollars, when Star Wars was made for $13 million) due to an inflation rate of 420% over 47 years.

    Today's $300 million, converted to 1977 dollars, could have funded 5.4 Star Wars movies back in 1977.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 24
    entropysentropys Posts: 4,267member
    The reason F1 will get a bigger theatrical release is that Apple has sold distribution rights to Warner for big bucks. It is Warner deciding how it is released, including streaming timing, although Apple has retained the SVOD rights.
    muthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 20 of 24

    Marvin said: Good writers, directors and actors are what make good movies, these skills need to be passed down from one generation to the next. It's been a while since there was a must-see movie, people don't share or talk about trailers for new movies like they used to.
    It's not just writers, director and actors. Just as often you can tell if a movie is going to be a dud by seeing if the producers include some of the actors, or if the Director and Writer are the same person (especially if they are also one of the producers.) In both of the movies you linked to, some of the actors were also the producers. Actors become producers so that they can guarantee they have roles made for themselves. (Pretty much any star that gets paid 8 figures starts their own production company for this reason.) But that's egocentric and nepotistic. The only person I can think of that was capable of being a producer, director, writer and actor, and still make great movies, was Orson Welles. Today everyone thinks that they can be another Orson Welles.

    James Cameron was a successful combination of producer, writer, and director, but thankfully he didn't take advantage of that to become an actor.
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.