'Little Voice' is first Apple TV+ series to see cancellation

AppleInsiderAppleInsider
Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited August 2021
"Little Voice," the songwriting drama produced by J.J. Abrams and Sara Bareilles, has not been renewed for a second season, making it the first Apple TV+ series to see cancellation.

Little Voice


Citing sources familiar with the matter, The Hollywood Reporter on Wednesday reports Apple decided to cancel the show after one season.

Created by Bareilles and fellow writer, director and producer Jessie Nelson, "Little Voice" tells the story of Bess King as she navigates the New York City music scene while coping with life issues like love and family. The show stars Brittany O'Grady and features original songs written by Bareilles, some of which were released as an official soundtrack.

Sean Teale, Colton Ryan, Shalini Bathina, Kevin Valdez, Phillip Johnson Richardson and Chuck Cooper also starred.

The series marked a reunion for Bareilles and Nelson, who previously partnered on the breakout Broadway musical "Waitress."

Picked up for a 10-episode run, "Little Voice" received generally positive reviews and was nominated for an NAACP Image Award in the Outstanding Writing in a Drama Series category. The series debuted in July of 2020.

Along with Abrams, Bareilles and Nelson, Ben Stephenson ("Westworld") is listed as an executive producer. Apple is also working with Abrams' Bad Robot production company on Stephen King adaptation "Lisey's Story."

AppleInsider found "Little Voice" quaint, but the show's plot and execution were unable to make good use of its strong cast.

Read on AppleInsider

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 16
    neverindoubtneverindoubt Posts: 120member
    Apparently, there is a limit as to how much cash Apple will incinerate on AppleTV+.
    elijahglkruppmobirdbaconstangbyronlwilliamlondon
  • Reply 2 of 16
    genovellegenovelle Posts: 1,480member
    I forgot it even existed
    Japheylkruppbaconstangbyronl
  • Reply 3 of 16
    pairof9pairof9 Posts: 74member

    It just felt like a show/movie you've seen a dozen times, nice but not original...antithesis of what Apple seems to be pushing for Apple TV +

    byronlwatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 16
    XedXed Posts: 2,543member
    genovelle said:
    I forgot it even existed
    As far as I know I hadn't even heard of it.
    darkvader
  • Reply 5 of 16
    JapheyJaphey Posts: 1,767member
    genovelle said:
    I forgot it even existed
    Lol. 
    I remember they talked about it at the launch event and never heard another peep about it until this article. 
    baconstangbyronl
  • Reply 6 of 16
    ArchStantonArchStanton Posts: 200member
    neverindoubt said:
    Apparently, there is a limit as to how much cash Apple will incinerate on AppleTV+.
    Too bad Apple doesn't parse the services revenue line item. It would be interesting to see how much cash they're burning to produce content on AppleTV+. 
    The Hanks/Spielberg WW2 series now is reportedly running up towards 250 million to produce.  They're definitely burning cash on AppleTV+. But they must see this as an eventual solid money maker. Apple doesn't have a habit of funding money losers for extended period of time.

    5$ a month, I figure Apple needs around 30 million paying subscribers to hit break even (somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 billion per year gross revenue). I have my doubts Apple is at 20 million paying subscribers much less 30 (with the exception of AppleOne -- don't know what a bundle may bring in). Apple claimed they have 700 million paying subscriptions across all their services. I'm guessing Apple Music and iCloud and AppleOne make up the very big majority of this. 
    elijahgmultimediabyronlwatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 16
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,759member
    ArchStanton said:
    neverindoubt said:
    Apparently, there is a limit as to how much cash Apple will incinerate on AppleTV+.
    Too bad Apple doesn't parse the services revenue line item. It would be interesting to see how much cash they're burning to produce content on AppleTV+. 
    The Hanks/Spielberg WW2 series now is reportedly running up towards 250 million to produce.  They're definitely burning cash on AppleTV+. But they must see this as an eventual solid money maker. Apple doesn't have a habit of funding money losers for extended period of time.

    5$ a month, I figure Apple needs around 30 million paying subscribers to hit break even (somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 billion per year gross revenue). I have my doubts Apple is at 20 million paying subscribers much less 30 (with the exception of AppleOne -- don't know what a bundle may bring in). Apple claimed they have 700 million paying subscriptions across all their services. I'm guessing Apple Music and iCloud and AppleOne make up the very big majority of this. 
    I don't doubt that's why AppleTV+ is in every bundle of AppleOne, they can claim people with AppleOne are subbing AppleTV+ too. I cancelled AppleOne because it didn't suit me - I don't think it's good value with the current selection of services. Mainly because I'd much rather swap AppleTV+ for any other service: more storage, Arcade, or Fitness+ would be preferable. Apparently others would do the same considering the low AppleTV+ uptake. But they're pushing it likely in the hope that people actually watch AppleTV+, or at least they can claim people who sub AppleOne are also subbing AppleTV+.
    byronl
  • Reply 8 of 16
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 3,570member
    A cancelled show is still owned by someone else (usually not the broadcaster) and can be re-sold to another network or distributor.
    byronlwatto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 16
    ArchStantonArchStanton Posts: 200member
    elijahg said:
    ArchStanton said:
    neverindoubt said:
    Apparently, there is a limit as to how much cash Apple will incinerate on AppleTV+.
    Too bad Apple doesn't parse the services revenue line item. It would be interesting to see how much cash they're burning to produce content on AppleTV+. 
    The Hanks/Spielberg WW2 series now is reportedly running up towards 250 million to produce.  They're definitely burning cash on AppleTV+. But they must see this as an eventual solid money maker. Apple doesn't have a habit of funding money losers for extended period of time.

    5$ a month, I figure Apple needs around 30 million paying subscribers to hit break even (somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 billion per year gross revenue). I have my doubts Apple is at 20 million paying subscribers much less 30 (with the exception of AppleOne -- don't know what a bundle may bring in). Apple claimed they have 700 million paying subscriptions across all their services. I'm guessing Apple Music and iCloud and AppleOne make up the very big majority of this. 
    I don't doubt that's why AppleTV+ is in every bundle of AppleOne, they can claim people with AppleOne are subbing AppleTV+ too. I cancelled AppleOne because it didn't suit me - I don't think it's good value with the current selection of services. Mainly because I'd much rather swap AppleTV+ for any other service: more storage, Arcade, or Fitness+ would be preferable. Apparently others would do the same considering the low AppleTV+ uptake. But they're pushing it likely in the hope that people actually watch AppleTV+, or at least they can claim people who sub AppleOne are also subbing AppleTV+.
    I don't subscribe to AppleOne either for similar reasons. AppleTV+ isn't something I currently would use (that could change in January). I do pay for things I do use, iCloud and Music, but even 4 dollars more for AppleOne just isn't a good use of funds (I won't use Arcade and AppleTV+). 

    I'm hoping more service options come along too. A better mix would be a better use case for me to pay more.  
    elijahgbyronl
  • Reply 10 of 16
    baconstangbaconstang Posts: 1,105member
    "Songwriting drama"?
    byronl
  • Reply 11 of 16
    harry wildharry wild Posts: 809member
    Apple TV+ has yet to have anything appealing to me!  I do not get the audience they are targeting other then the awards and media critics crowd which are a very niche segment and not represent the general streaming service viewership.  
    williamlondonravnorodom
  • Reply 12 of 16
    byronlbyronl Posts: 362member
    harry wild said:
    Apple TV+ has yet to have anything appealing to me!  I do not get the audience they are targeting other then the awards and media critics crowd which are a very niche segment and not represent the general streaming service viewership.  
    Check out Ted Lasso, for all mankind, defending Jacob
    mariowinco
  • Reply 13 of 16
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 2,783member
    ArchStanton said:
    neverindoubt said:
    Apparently, there is a limit as to how much cash Apple will incinerate on AppleTV+.
    Apple doesn't have a habit of funding money losers for extended period of time.
    (Cough)AppleCar(cough)
    elijahgwilliamlondonbaconstangravnorodom
  • Reply 14 of 16
    scampercomscampercom Posts: 89member
    Little Voice (1998) was already a great film with Brenda Blethyn, Jane Horrocks (who is _amazing_), and Ewan McGregor. You can rent it on any platform, and you should. Forget the series.
    baconstang
  • Reply 15 of 16
    dcgoodcgoo Posts: 280member
    22july2013 said:
    A cancelled show is still owned by someone else (usually not the broadcaster) and can be re-sold to another network or distributor.
    Maybe Netflix. I really enjoyed Little
    Voice
  • Reply 16 of 16
    randominternetpersonrandominternetperson Posts: 3,089member
    I enjoyed the show, as did my wife.  Having said that it probably isn't in my top 10 Apple TV+ favorites.  Most of Apple's shows are "must see TV" in my household.  If Apple keeps investing in quality shows, I expect ATV+ to be an easy "must have" for at least tens of millions of people. I just hope that people try it out for Ted Lasso and stick around to try For All Mankind, Trying, Mythic Quest, Mosquito Coast, The Morning Show, Dickinson, Defending Jacob, and the Billie Eilish bio-pic.  I hope Foundation is a mega hit.
    Xedwatto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.