I don’t understand this editorial whatsoever. It basically makes zero sense and makes assumptions with no basis on reality.
If Apple ends up with shows that rival Star Trek, Friends, the Office, etc in popularity, they are going to be laughing all the way to the bank. The TV-MA rating is immaterial to how good a show is. As long as the shows are good, they will be perfectly fine.
Why Apple Music has songs which are marked as Explicit? Why not introduce also the shows which could be marked as Explicit? And then you can filter Explicit shows and movies out as you can already do with Explicit Music.
We don't live real life in a G or PG world. Why as a Adult would I want to pay to watch that? If that is the world Apple Wants to work in, fine by me, but I won't be paying to watch that. I can get my fill of that on Broadcast TV.
So far it seems Apple is not just family friendly, but always with a message. While it’s beautiful and noble, I think it’s doomed to fail badly. Paying to be entertained is common, however when it’s educational we expect the origin of the message to pay for it. Church, State or a animal rights group. I love Apple for what they are trying to do, but as an investor I am worried about this expensive failure.
I concur, Apple should take the high road, whether they ultimately make any content that I may or may not prefer, is not the issue. I want to see shows that occasionally have a plot, that doesn't use excessive violence or sexuality to do it. I am seeing more and more ads for Netflix shows that I have zero interest in.. They all appear to be highly adult oriented, or horror, which is a genre perhaps many like, but I have never cared for..
I just want Apple to invest in good content. Unfortunately some have decided that good is only synonymous with sex, violence and language. Now I’m not arguing that programming Apple invests in should only be PG Disney type stuff but I don’t think a show is less worthy of being good because it’s not rated TV-MA. Sometimes I’ll be watching a show on HBO and think they’re throwing around the f-word like crazy just because they can not because it makes the show better. Just invest in good programming Apple.
It could also be because that is just how some people talk and that is who the writers are trying to portray. The issue is people only notice when people use what they personally consider “excessive” language, not when people don’t use “excessive” language. No one thinks to themselves “they used exactly the right amount of ‘fucks’ when writing that dialog.”
That might be the case with some shows. The one I was watching was clearly a case of doing it because they can. It certainly didn’t bring anything to the show.
You nailed it, AI! One of the biggest YouTube hits last year was "This Is America" by Childish Gambino. It was difficult to watch. It was shocking. It was great. It would never appear on AppleTV+.
Since Game of Thrones was used as an example of Apple TV+ being too clean to succeed, i’m going to focus on the sex and nudity shown in Season 8 Episodes 1, 2, 3.
Can anyone deny how badly portrayed the sex and nudity scenes were in Episodes 1, 2? Is that really what Roger Fingas is suggesting Apple TV+ present to viewers?
One scene had three naked prostitutes all interested in other men. Yay for showing women in degrading manner and showing the lack of manliness for the man of the moment, Roger. And, we even learned one of the prostitutes would have the palsy within a year. Yay, Roger!
Another scene in the same episode had a pregnant woman with a man who isn’t her unborn baby’s daddy due the fact the baby’s daddy is the woman’s brother. Yay for incest, Roger.
Another scene focused on a female character wanting to have sex for the first time. The scene was... awkward to say the least. But, yay to Roger, the scene was shown.
The episode that everybody is still talking about as one of the greatest televised had no sex, no nudity scenes. Episode 3 did have a touch of poetic romance between two fully clothed people though. This scene is more memorable than the previously mentioned sex, nudity scenes. Roger most likely thinks the people should have gotten naked and had sex because the poetic romance cheapened the episode.
So, yes, Apple TV+ needs to have bad sex, nudity scenes so Roger can write about how grateful he is Apple TV+ isn’t squeaky clean. Guess what? That won’t be the end of Roger’s editorials. Why? Roger will then write about Amazon, HBO, Netflix, others having better sex, nudity scenes than Apple TV+.
Sorry to say that this article is a mashup of speculation and baseless rumor written by someone who displays little understanding of the traditional TV business and the emerging streaming alternatives. For starters, to borrow William Goldman's famous axom for the movie business, "nobody knows anything" about which business models will survive and thrive. Netflix and Amazon can boast about data but they have yet to prove that their algorithms are any more reliable than traditional audience research. So far, "cord cutting" only saves consumers money if they're willing to sacrifice the choice and convenience offered by most cable systems. Does Apple+ see itself as a full-service content business? If so it will be paying pretty much the same rates for popular network content as their many streaming competitors. Or is Apple+ original content just a loss leader to attract subscribers.
As to "family friendly" content, Apple has announced no such policy but in this crowded and uncertain new video market, that could prove to be a very smart choice. First, partnering with the Oprahs and Ron Howards of the world offers Apple some protection from the sheer craziness of the entertainment business.How much patience do you imagine Tim Cook has for a "#metoo" scandal or similar bad behavior? Plus.,it's simply foolish to suggest this would repel Hollywood's top creative talent. Producers and directors are highly skilled at pitching specific projects to funders most likely to support them. Finally, a reality check re. popularity: Game of Thrones may be a big hit by HBO standards, for whom the merchandising was a surprise benefit. But GoT doesn't come anywhere near the worldwide profitability of NCIS for CBS or Law & Order for NBC/Universal.
Might as well subscribe to a Disney sponsored “Christian” family programming channel...
I want movies to be realistic, and as long as we have war, murder, deceit, corruption, and “deviant” sex in this world, I want no limits depicting these realities in movies.
The trouble is, some of us (I’d say most, but let’s keep it balanced) identify as liberal. But we are a bunch o prudes. I’m Brazilian, land of Carnival, but in reality, an exposed nipple is sure to make news here.
As far as I can tell, the issue is more dramatic in the US. Your late shows on open television bleeps just about anything!
Compare that to Europe, where all beaches are topless beaches, because there isn’t much difference, really.
Apple is a global, but US based company, its leadership are personally bound to US values of modesty. And that makes for plain television.
Compare that to Europe, where all beaches are topless beaches, because there isn’t much difference, really.
Apple is a global, but US based company, its leadership are personally bound to US values of modesty. And that makes for plain television.
Certainly it seems to be a very US centric view that “R” (or its equivalent) rating is the death knell for a film.
I’ve just been awaiting the announcement of Claris (or Beats?) TV, for Apple to do what Disney did with Buena Vista...
The reason I'm uninterested in Apple's TV programming is that Disney-like stuff is boring, and it has nothing to do with the lack of breasts or beheadings. It's design by commitee carefully done so it does not offend anyone.
Incidentally, the more worrying part is that with this service coming, I bet the likes of Netflix and HBO Go will experience... difficulties... getting on the Apple TV and maybe even on the app store...
Comments
It's a publicly traded company, but I s'pose it can still reject content.
If Apple ends up with shows that rival Star Trek, Friends, the Office, etc in popularity, they are going to be laughing all the way to the bank. The TV-MA rating is immaterial to how good a show is. As long as the shows are good, they will be perfectly fine.
Disney already has the “Disney” market for extremely PC, ‘family friendly” content.
Why not introduce also the shows which could be marked as Explicit?
And then you can filter Explicit shows and movies out as you can already do with Explicit Music.
I love Apple for what they are trying to do, but as an investor I am worried about this expensive failure.
I want movies to be realistic, and as long as we have war, murder, deceit, corruption, and “deviant” sex in this world, I want no limits depicting these realities in movies.
As far as I can tell, the issue is more dramatic in the US. Your late shows on open television bleeps just about anything!
Compare that to Europe, where all beaches are topless beaches, because there isn’t much difference, really.
Apple is a global, but US based company, its leadership are personally bound to US values of modesty. And that makes for plain television.
Certainly it seems to be a very US centric view that “R” (or its equivalent) rating is the death knell for a film. I’ve just been awaiting the announcement of Claris (or Beats?) TV, for Apple to do what Disney did with Buena Vista...
The reason I'm uninterested in Apple's TV programming is that Disney-like stuff is boring, and it has nothing to do with the lack of breasts or beheadings. It's design by commitee carefully done so it does not offend anyone.
Incidentally, the more worrying part is that with this service coming, I bet the likes of Netflix and HBO Go will experience... difficulties... getting on the Apple TV and maybe even on the app store...