All the TV shows Apple has in the works for Apple TV+

123578

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 144
    nhtnht Posts: 4,496member
    Soli said:
    nht said:
    People whine about G-rated and how it's not going to be viable but the Hallmark channel brings in $431M.  Lifetime is $875M.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/hallmark-channel-christmas-movies-with-lacy-chabert-candace-cameron-bure-2017-10

    Not my cup of tea but there's money there and there is plenty of G-rated content I would watch like Foundation.

    Since Apple isn't taking away access to Netflix or HBO the assertion that "freedom" is somehow at stake is simply dumb.
    Are Hallmark and Lifetime really G-rated? I have the impression that Lifetime has a lot of stuff about cheating, abusive, and murderous husbands and boyfriends.
    Yeah, I don't watch Lifetime so maybe.  I'm pretty sure Hallmark is pretty benign.  And nearly half a billion isn't terrible given the rather inexpensive programming they create.
  • Reply 82 of 144
    SoliSoli Posts: 9,276member
    nht said:
    Soli said:
    nht said:
    People whine about G-rated and how it's not going to be viable but the Hallmark channel brings in $431M.  Lifetime is $875M.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/hallmark-channel-christmas-movies-with-lacy-chabert-candace-cameron-bure-2017-10

    Not my cup of tea but there's money there and there is plenty of G-rated content I would watch like Foundation.

    Since Apple isn't taking away access to Netflix or HBO the assertion that "freedom" is somehow at stake is simply dumb.
    Are Hallmark and Lifetime really G-rated? I have the impression that Lifetime has a lot of stuff about cheating, abusive, and murderous husbands and boyfriends.
    Yeah, I don't watch Lifetime so maybe.  I'm pretty sure Hallmark is pretty benign.  And nearly half a billion isn't terrible given the rather inexpensive programming they create.
    I definitely agree that there’s plenty of money to be made. Disney comes to mind and family entertainment, which I think is G and PG for most of their existence.
  • Reply 83 of 144
    davgreg said:
    Lots of people and companies have come into Hollywood (the industry- not the place) thinking they were going to upend the place and left with their tails (and tales) between their legs. Ask Coca-Cola about owning Columbia, Joe Kennedy & Howard Hughes once owned studios- not anymore. Larry Tisch took a turn with CBS as did Westinghouse. Even Rupert Murdoch is walking away from Fox Studios to concentrate on sports and disinformation masquerading as news. After a lifetime of struggle, his empire is too small to stand alone in the new paradigm.

    For all the bluster, Netflix has yet to make one thin dime of profit. Think about that and let it sink in. In 2018 Netflix has budgeted almost $8 Billion for content and is not going to turn a profit. Amazon is reported to have budgeted about $5 Billion and Prime Video is a loss leader. HBO just got significantly deeper pockets with the AT&T purchase of Time-Warner. Disney just went long buy purchasing most of the entertainment assets of Rupert Murdoch's Fox studios.

    What it looks like from the cheap seats is a bunch of players willing to spend a lot of money and not expecting profit anytime soon. That means a newbie like Apple stands little chance to profitably make content and will be in direct competition with many of the studios they will be relying upon to produce Apple branded content. I am not seeing a way where Apple will be making any money on this and could waste a whole lot chasing a business they have no experience in. As a shareholder and long time customer, I think they could be doing better things with the money and resources.
    Wow. Thanks for the memories of failed Hollywood excursions. Don’t forget the foray by usually overwhelmingly successful Cox Enterprises ownership of Bing Crosby Productions/Rysher Entertainment. Sold off to Viacom after only a few years.
    bigpics
  • Reply 84 of 144
    bigpicsbigpics Posts: 1,379member
    Notsofast said:
    He sanitized product lineup kills it for me.  I wish Apple the best nevertheless.  
    "Sanitized."  LOL.  First, you haven't seen a single show yet, but beyond that the thought that several people have posted that they are worried that Apple wont' have sufficient quantity of graphic violence and hardcore sex to make their shows watchable is an amazing comment on where we are in society.

     Apple's team is going after top talent in writers, producers, directors and actors, and, like their approach to technology, they don't appear to be interested in or worried about competing in the "low end" of the video industry.
    It's not all (or at all for me) about graphic violence and "hardcore" sex (though I'm not opposed to some in context nudity), it's about scripts written in all G and PG language.  That is not how people in America talk in dramatic situations and under duress, and so dialog is bound to sound stilted and yeah, "sanitised" under this puritan-lite regime.

    I live (sometimes) in Utah, the state that ended up in a major court case for bowdlerizing the dialog tracks of VHS movies and re-releasing them in "family friendly" form.  Naturally the directing and acting communities went justifiably bonkers, Hollywood sued, and the tape censors had to cease operation. 

    And knowing that there's this constant ceiling would be on my mind, so definitely not worth a sub to a service in my mind.  A shame though (or "dang it" as we say in homestate), 'cos I'd love to see a good job done on Foundation (which is in limited language, or at least I remember Asimov always hewing to no profanity or sex). 

    No one posted, btw, that what they wanted WAS "graphic violence and hardcore sex." So just you putting words in people's mouths, dadgummit.


  • Reply 85 of 144
    The problem with Apple's strategy of only offering G-rated content is that they are forcing people to watch only that content.  Netflix, Hulu, Cable, Broadcast TV, Premium Cable Channels, and Satellite providers all offer a range from G-rated content to R-rated (or TV-MA) content.  We have the freedom of choice to watch what we want to watch. If there is something you do not like, don't watch it.  It is that simple.  Apple's approach of G-rated content only takes away that right of freedom.  Hey Apple, can you offer this show on your service?  No...we will not allow you to watch that show because we think that show involves some amount of sex, violence, or a profane word, so we are not going to allow you to watch it because we will not offer it.  Remember the uproar when the re-release of E.T. the Extra Terrestrial removed all the guns and replaced them with walkie-talkies?  Thankfully the fully restored Blu-Ray edition restored the original film.  People have become too butt-hurt and politically correct in this world.  Don't show that, you might hurt someone's feelings.  All those shows look totally boring and dull.  Take Star Trek for example.  Apple would not allow that show because it involves people being murdered and vaporized.  So enjoy the Apple-sanitized programming.
    Oh, FFS!  Nobody is going to force anyone to watch what Apple produces, and it doesn't take away anyone's freedom.  You are still free to watch whatever you want.  Apple's refusal to produce what you want isn't an abridgment of your freedom, it's an exercise of theirs.
    entropys
  • Reply 86 of 144
    When? Ive been reading about this for a long time and must have missed a timeline... When will they be going live with these shows?

    On another note...

    SJ once said something like - If you want to watch porn, buy an Android - ... So if you want to watch someones brains getting splattered or someone giving head... Buy an Android! Personally I like Apples take. You don't need gratuitous sex or violence to sell good TV. (And this is infringing on your rights? what an upside-down BS line that is)
  • Reply 87 of 144
    I'm sure every episode will be innovative and nearly perfect.

    It's just the two-year wait between each episode that will make it hard.
    bigpics
  • Reply 88 of 144
    irelandireland Posts: 17,671member
    13485 said:
    I'm sure every episode will be innovative and nearly perfect.

    It's just the two-year wait between each episode that will make it hard.
    Each subsequent episode will be thinner and cost 20% more.
    elijahgbigpicsfreethinking
  • Reply 89 of 144
    irelandireland Posts: 17,671member

    krreagan2 said:
    When? Ive been reading about this for a long time and must have missed a timeline... When will they be going live with these shows?

    On another note...

    SJ once said something like - If you want to watch porn, buy an Android - ... So if you want to watch someones brains getting splattered or someone giving head... Buy an Android! Personally I like Apples take. You don't need gratuitous sex or violence to sell good TV. (And this is infringing on your rights? what an upside-down BS line that is)
    2019, October would be my guess.
  • Reply 90 of 144
    Seeing this lineup reminds me of something I heard a great filmmaker once say: "The secret to success is that there is no secret, the secret to failure is easy - try to please everyone"
  • Reply 91 of 144
    I wonder if apple will try to make the plot in these shows as thin as theire once great computing devices. As a bonus they could start removing actors every season like they do features until all you need to watch is the ultimate show..... a plain white screen with half an apple.
    elijahg
  • Reply 92 of 144
    The intro paragraph says the article is "updated with details on Star Trek Beyond," but I didn't find any mention of it. Did I miss something?
  • Reply 93 of 144
    "Here are the programs we know about so far, updated with details on "Star Trek Beyond,.."

    And yet, nothing about "Star Trek Beyond."  You tease me, AppleInsider, then don't provide any details?!
  • Reply 94 of 144
    Soli said:

    2) Yeah. They've updated it with new info instead of creating a brand new article and forum thread.
    Ah, I see. Well, I guess that kinda makes sense. Thanks. Also for the link.
  • Reply 95 of 144
    lmaclmac Posts: 195member
    This stuff looks terrible. It would be like Eddy Cue doing original misic for the iPod. Stick to what you know, Apple, and stop throwing away billions.
  • Reply 96 of 144
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,324member
    The problem with Apple's strategy of only offering G-rated content is that they are forcing people to watch only that content.  Netflix, Hulu, Cable, Broadcast TV, Premium Cable Channels, and Satellite providers all offer a range from G-rated content to R-rated (or TV-MA) content.  We have the freedom of choice to watch what we want to watch. If there is something you do not like, don't watch it.  It is that simple.  Apple's approach of G-rated content only takes away that right of freedom.  Hey Apple, can you offer this show on your service?  No...we will not allow you to watch that show because we think that show involves some amount of sex, violence, or a profane word, so we are not going to allow you to watch it because we will not offer it.  Remember the uproar when the re-release of E.T. the Extra Terrestrial removed all the guns and replaced them with walkie-talkies?  Thankfully the fully restored Blu-Ray edition restored the original film.  People have become too butt-hurt and politically correct in this world.  Don't show that, you might hurt someone's feelings.  All those shows look totally boring and dull.  Take Star Trek for example.  Apple would not allow that show because it involves people being murdered and vaporized.  So enjoy the Apple-sanitized programming.
    Oh, FFS!  Nobody is going to force anyone to watch what Apple produces, and it doesn't take away anyone's freedom.  You are still free to watch whatever you want.  Apple's refusal to produce what you want isn't an abridgment of your freedom, it's an exercise of theirs.
    I don't think he is claiming that it is, but that he thinks its a bad idea in general. If enough people think that then the service will make less money than it would otherwise have made.
  • Reply 97 of 144
    jcs2305jcs2305 Posts: 829member

    I think with "Split", Night Shyamalan showed that you could do a great horror/ thriller without resorting to graphic violence. The reveal at the end of the movie was probably one of the most exciting things I had seen. The soundtrack first gives a clue and then builds up to a very familiar tune as the reveal completes itself.

    I am really interested so see what he produces for Apple.


    Overall, I think the content is building up nicely. I personally watch only comedies so I won't be watching most of these. But then again, I hardly watch more than 5-10% of the content from any of the other service anyway.

    "Split" was one of the best films I've seen in a long time, played expertly by McAvoy. I was shocked to read so much negative comments about it on social media; I can only assume it was the lack of brazen graphic violence that turned off and bored the simpler folks. However, not much on this list interest me personally, Shyamalan is hit or miss in my books (too sci-fi sometimes). I'd definitely watch the Homes thing but as others said, how many hundreds of shows are there like that already?
    Actually no.... it was because people didn't like how dissociative identity disorder was portrayed incorrectly in yet another movie,  and also how M Knight sexualizes the torture of a couple of the girls. At least from what I have read..




    I don't agree and actually enjoyed the movie very much....

    Point being that EVERY time people don't like a horror movie or ANY movie it's not because of the lack of over the top violence and sex. As well as when folks ask for adult themed programming they aren't looking for over the top unnecessary nudity or soft core porn, which seems to be the sentiment time and time again in this thread.

    It's ridiculous at this point. Can parents enjoy a romantic movie with a tastefully done love scene that isn't the equivalent of soft core porn? or maybe an edgy crime drama that shows some real world violence above the PG 13 level so that it actually seems real, without the person being a sicko that needs graphic violence and senseless gore to enjoy a movie?

    People's defense of Apple in this case and acting like those asking for a bit more than constant "for the kids" programming are some kind of deviants is completely absurd.






  • Reply 98 of 144
    Weird. I see a lot of pictures of interesting movies followed by Apple not producing anything in line with said movie. Just something else that doesn’t seem interesting with an actor or writer from that movie that is actually interesting. 

    Imthe scI-FI stuff is unknown so here’s to hoping on that front. 

    Woukd be amaxing to see apple get out agead of Amazon and Netflix with exclusive originals - but ones that have I could actually watch in good conscience with my family. Some of the Amazon and Netflix stuff has interested me but I can’t watch it without compromising values in the home. It’s sad. Would be great to see Apple take on the project of compelling content without selling out to trashy stuff that some seem to think they need in order for their wares to sell. 
  • Reply 99 of 144
    trashman69trashman69 Posts: 100member
    Brie Larson?  

    As an Apple investor - I am honestly losing faith in Tim Cook.

    apple is just sinking lower and lower into a leftist political agenda I refuse to support.

    Apple needs to stay neutral on this.  Concentrating on quality content and mind blowing hardware.

    I never thought I would say this - but I think its time Tim Cook departs - And Jeff Williams take over.


    elijahg
  • Reply 100 of 144
    entropysentropys Posts: 1,850member
    You know, Apple should make an 8-10 part series of the Legacy of Herot.
Sign In or Register to comment.