Apple gains first-look deal with Idris Elba's Green Door Pictures

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited September 2020
Apple has added another celebrity-fronted production company to its roster of content producers for Apple TV , with Idris Elba's Green Door Pictures signing a first-look deal with the streaming service.

Idris Elba's Green Door Pictures
Idris Elba's Green Door Pictures


Under the terms of the deal, Elba's Green Door Pictures will develop and produce new TV shows and film projects that could be added to the Apple TV+ streaming service. As a first-look deal, this gives Apple the first choice of accepting a production or allowing Green Door to offer it to other companies, including its competitors.

It is unclear how much the deal, as reported by The Hollywood Reporter, will cost Apple, but it does secure the services of a growing production company, and of its star. Elba has credits on many major films and TV shows, including "Luther," "The Wire," and "Hobbs & Shaw," and has won SAG awards and a Golden Globe for his work.

As Elba has starred in many of Green Door's projects, including "Turn Up Charlie" for Netflix and "In the Long Run" for Sky One and Starz, it is most probable that the actor will also be heavily involved in its Apple TV+ productions.

The acquisition of Elba's Green Door follows the securing of deals with a number of other production companies created or led by major names in Hollywood. Some of the major deals it has picked up includes Ridley Scott's Scott Free Productions, comedy star Sharon Horgan, Oscar-winning filmmaker Alfonso Cuaron, and major media star and mogul Oprah Winfrey.
ronn

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 14
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,408member
    Support up and coming people, Apple. They’re cheaper and will work their tails off to earn their reputation.
    razorpit
  • Reply 2 of 14
    Support up and coming people, Apple. They’re cheaper and will work their tails off to earn their reputation.
    Cheaper talent isn't necessarily going to make that subscription count go up.  Up and comers don't draw the kind of attention Apple is trying to generate to garner more subscriptions.  Pretty much everyone works their tail off so that's a wash.  The attention span of the general populous is about as short as a goldfish's.  Apple, like all streaming service owners, needs to grab the attention quickly with the hopes that some of the views stick and stay.  Chances are greater that the public will give a nod to a known entity rather than an up and comer.  
    ronn
  • Reply 3 of 14
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,408member
    Support up and coming people, Apple. They’re cheaper and will work their tails off to earn their reputation.
    Cheaper talent isn't necessarily going to make that subscription count go up.  Up and comers don't draw the kind of attention Apple is trying to generate to garner more subscriptions.  Pretty much everyone works their tail off so that's a wash.  The attention span of the general populous is about as short as a goldfish's.  Apple, like all streaming service owners, needs to grab the attention quickly with the hopes that some of the views stick and stay.  Chances are greater that the public will give a nod to a known entity rather than an up and comer.  
    Seinfeld was a niche comedian until his TV show. Who else might be out there with potential who could cost 1/100th of the known quantity talent?
    razorpit
  • Reply 4 of 14
    neoncatneoncat Posts: 44member
    Support up and coming people, Apple. They’re cheaper and will work their tails off to earn their reputation.
    Cheaper talent isn't necessarily going to make that subscription count go up.  Up and comers don't draw the kind of attention Apple is trying to generate to garner more subscriptions.  Pretty much everyone works their tail off so that's a wash.  The attention span of the general populous is about as short as a goldfish's.  Apple, like all streaming service owners, needs to grab the attention quickly with the hopes that some of the views stick and stay.  Chances are greater that the public will give a nod to a known entity rather than an up and comer.  
    Seinfeld was a niche comedian until his TV show. Who else might be out there with potential who could cost 1/100th of the known quantity talent?
    lol. Seinfeld's deal to create his show was one of the richest ever for a sitcom at the time. By the end of the show's run, he alone was earning over $2M per episode. To this day, he (again, just him) earns over $100M per year in residuals from the show's reruns, DVD/digital sales, etc.

    I totally get and respect the point you're making, but the reality of content acquisition is the deals where someone unknown gets paid peanuts and creates the next "Seinfeld" are incredibly rare. If a person's star has risen to the point that they're able to catch the attention of  Apple (or Netflix, or CBS, or HBO, or whatever company), they're already smart enough to demand a fat payday. There's so much competition for fresh content right now it's a seller's market like no other time in history.
    edited July 2020 ronn
  • Reply 5 of 14
    ronnronn Posts: 455member
    Smart move. Idris is a good fit with Apple's previous collabs (A24, Bleecker Entertainment, etc) I'm sure they're recruiting and watching up and coming talent for the next few years to come for Apple TV. Deals like this secures a good foundation for the future.
    Oferwatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 14
    davgregdavgreg Posts: 903member
    Have a free year of Apple’s TV service via multiple devices and have yet to use it a single time because I see nothing of interest. This adds nothing to the likelihood I will be using it in the future.
    Apple is still sucking hind tit on streaming TV and content. They sure have wasted a lot of time and money with little to show for it and at a time of a ready made audience.
  • Reply 7 of 14
    BeatsBeats Posts: 2,569member
    Support up and coming people, Apple. They’re cheaper and will work their tails off to earn their reputation.
    Cheaper talent isn't necessarily going to make that subscription count go up.  Up and comers don't draw the kind of attention Apple is trying to generate to garner more subscriptions.  Pretty much everyone works their tail off so that's a wash.  The attention span of the general populous is about as short as a goldfish's.  Apple, like all streaming service owners, needs to grab the attention quickly with the hopes that some of the views stick and stay.  Chances are greater that the public will give a nod to a known entity rather than an up and comer.  
    Seinfeld was a niche comedian until his TV show. Who else might be out there with potential who could cost 1/100th of the known quantity talent?

    And there's a 1/100th chance that a small guy will be successful. I don't know why people glamorize small time actors. Is it because of Netflix? Because Netflix has a lot of garbage too.
  • Reply 8 of 14
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,408member
    neoncat said:
    Support up and coming people, Apple. They’re cheaper and will work their tails off to earn their reputation.
    Cheaper talent isn't necessarily going to make that subscription count go up.  Up and comers don't draw the kind of attention Apple is trying to generate to garner more subscriptions.  Pretty much everyone works their tail off so that's a wash.  The attention span of the general populous is about as short as a goldfish's.  Apple, like all streaming service owners, needs to grab the attention quickly with the hopes that some of the views stick and stay.  Chances are greater that the public will give a nod to a known entity rather than an up and comer.  
    Seinfeld was a niche comedian until his TV show. Who else might be out there with potential who could cost 1/100th of the known quantity talent?
    lol. Seinfeld's deal to create his show was one of the richest ever for a sitcom at the time. By the end of the show's run, he alone was earning over $2M per episode. To this day, he (again, just him) earns over $100M per year in residuals from the show's reruns, DVD/digital sales, etc.

    I totally get and respect the point you're making, but the reality of content acquisition is the deals where someone unknown gets paid peanuts and creates the next "Seinfeld" are incredibly rare. If a person's star has risen to the point that they're able to catch the attention of  Apple (or Netflix, or CBS, or HBO, or whatever company), they're already smart enough to demand a fat payday. There's so much competition for fresh content right now it's a seller's market like no other time in history.
    Wrong. Remember, we’re talking about first run shows and in my case I’m arguing in favor of less “proven” talent.

    When it comes to salary from Seinfeld, Jerry earned $20,000 per episode during the show's 5-episode first season, for a total of $100,000.”

    https://www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/entertainment-articles/how-much-money-did-jerry-seinfeld-make-off-of-seinfeld-from-salary-and-royalties/
    razorpit
  • Reply 9 of 14
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 5,827member
    Support up and coming people, Apple. They’re cheaper and will work their tails off to earn their reputation.
    They are also doing that. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 14
    Support up and coming people, Apple. They’re cheaper and will work their tails off to earn their reputation.
    Cheaper talent isn't necessarily going to make that subscription count go up.  Up and comers don't draw the kind of attention Apple is trying to generate to garner more subscriptions.  Pretty much everyone works their tail off so that's a wash.  The attention span of the general populous is about as short as a goldfish's.  Apple, like all streaming service owners, needs to grab the attention quickly with the hopes that some of the views stick and stay.  Chances are greater that the public will give a nod to a known entity rather than an up and comer.  
    Seinfeld was a niche comedian until his TV show. Who else might be out there with potential who could cost 1/100th of the known quantity talent?
    Who says they aren't doing that already?  You seem to be assuming because they headlines are about A-List talent, Apple is putting all their eggs in that basket.  As with most things in life, their decisions aren't binary.  They don't have to do one or the other.  It should be obvious they are doing both.  But headlines about unknown talent don't move the subscription needle.  That's common sense.   Not advertising they're cultivating up and coming talent does not mean they aren't cultivating up and coming talent.  Also, common sense.  A subscription service needs subs.  Advertising their A-List connections increases the chances of getting subs.
    fastasleep
  • Reply 11 of 14
    crowleycrowley Posts: 8,908member
    Beats said:
    Support up and coming people, Apple. They’re cheaper and will work their tails off to earn their reputation.
    Cheaper talent isn't necessarily going to make that subscription count go up.  Up and comers don't draw the kind of attention Apple is trying to generate to garner more subscriptions.  Pretty much everyone works their tail off so that's a wash.  The attention span of the general populous is about as short as a goldfish's.  Apple, like all streaming service owners, needs to grab the attention quickly with the hopes that some of the views stick and stay.  Chances are greater that the public will give a nod to a known entity rather than an up and comer.  
    Seinfeld was a niche comedian until his TV show. Who else might be out there with potential who could cost 1/100th of the known quantity talent?

    And there's a 1/100th chance that a small guy will be successful. I don't know why people glamorize small time actors. Is it because of Netflix? Because Netflix has a lot of garbage too.
    Exactly.  Seinfeld is neither the first or last comedian to have their own sitcom, and I'd wager that far, far more of them fall flat on their faces and the show gets consigned to the trash heap.  Apple should definitely also be looking to invest in up and coming talent, but established names are probably more reliable at both delivery and audience draw.  Even if you have to pay more for it.
    edited July 2020 fastasleep
  • Reply 12 of 14
    Anyone else get a brief, weird vibe from "Green Door"?  No?  Ah well, I knew there was something wrong with me...
    razorpit
  • Reply 13 of 14
    razorpitrazorpit Posts: 1,796member
    davgreg said:
    Have a free year of Apple’s TV service via multiple devices and have yet to use it a single time because I see nothing of interest. This adds nothing to the likelihood I will be using it in the future.
    Apple is still sucking hind tit on streaming TV and content. They sure have wasted a lot of time and money with little to show for it and at a time of a ready made audience.
    I watched the first episode of See or whatever its called a few times. Just couldn't stay awake through the damn thing.

    My son and I watched Amazing Woke Stories; it wasn't until the final episode where they sort of got the feel of the original. If it comes back I'll give it another shot. If it doesn't I can't say that I would miss it.

    I do want to watch that new Tom Hanks movie. Looks like something our family would enjoy. My son and I just watched Saving Private Ryan so this might be a bit of a letdown. Right now I have no intentions renewing once it starts costing extra money.

  • Reply 14 of 14
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,408member
    razorpit said:
    davgreg said:
    Have a free year of Apple’s TV service via multiple devices and have yet to use it a single time because I see nothing of interest. This adds nothing to the likelihood I will be using it in the future.
    Apple is still sucking hind tit on streaming TV and content. They sure have wasted a lot of time and money with little to show for it and at a time of a ready made audience.
    I watched the first episode of See or whatever its called a few times. Just couldn't stay awake through the damn thing.

    My son and I watched Amazing Woke Stories; it wasn't until the final episode where they sort of got the feel of the original. If it comes back I'll give it another shot. If it doesn't I can't say that I would miss it.

    I do want to watch that new Tom Hanks movie. Looks like something our family would enjoy. My son and I just watched Saving Private Ryan so this might be a bit of a letdown. Right now I have no intentions renewing once it starts costing extra money.

    The main problem with See became evident after the first several episodes. The conceit of making an entire cast blind has had the effect of painting themselves into a corner with no way forward. One season was more than enough, despite some incredible fight choreography with Jason Momoa.
    edited July 2020 razorpit
Sign In or Register to comment.