My new macbook air is an amazing piece of kit. Sleek, powerful, smooth. But Apple on the whole is a stuffy company, and while I can't seem to pull the link, I know their brand people asked for...
My new macbook air is an amazing piece of kit. Sleek, powerful, smooth. But Apple on the whole is a stuffy company, and while I can't seem to pull the link, I know their brand people asked for smoothing and punch-pulling on a lot of their properties. Foundation was a severe disappointment. Their only really sharp hit in my view is Severence, although I know a lot folks really liked Ted Lasso and For all Mankind. But almost everything they do strikes me as Disney for middle aged people. Napoleon was boring as heck.
Mild spoilers for Foundation. Maybe they only watched season 1? I found that one lacking as well - the Empire storyline was the only good part of it as well as only a few other things. But season...
Mild spoilers for Foundation.
Maybe they only watched season 1? I found that one lacking as well - the Empire storyline was the only good part of it as well as only a few other things. But season 2 really picked up and turned out truly good.
Loved both Ted Lasso and Severance. Tried watching Foundation but after two episodes I just don't care about any of the characters and don't think I care to continue. I really prefer "show don't...
Loved both Ted Lasso and Severance. Tried watching Foundation but after two episodes I just don't care about any of the characters and don't think I care to continue. I really prefer "show don't tell" type of shows but it really felt like they were beating me over the head with "this character bad. This character shady", and the plot points felt very scattered and not very cohesive. It's possible it gets better in the future episodes, but I just couldn't get into it.
To be honest, Foundation just got worse at it progressed. Personally I bowed out after season two. I’m not the one to expect, or even want, literal adaptations of source material, different media...
To be honest, Foundation just got worse at it progressed. Personally I bowed out after season two. I’m not the one to expect, or even want, literal adaptations of source material, different media require different narrative techniques, but when a TV-adaptation all but slaughters the main motifs of the source, then I guess it’s not for me.
I also have my qualms with it, but I've still enjoyed it immensely. I think it is absolutely fantastically written and acted. They've made some narrative choices that maybe I wouldn't have made...
I also have my qualms with it, but I've still enjoyed it immensely. I think it is absolutely fantastically written and acted. They've made some narrative choices that maybe I wouldn't have made when adapting it, but then again I'm not a writer.
The political intrigue of the Empire clones could 100% be it's own stand-alone show. Every second of that narrative has had me riveted.
I think the show's gorgeous and the Empire storyline was great, Lee Pace is absolutely fantastic and the other two also do a great job. I think it would've made a great standalone / season on it's...
I think the show's gorgeous and the Empire storyline was great, Lee Pace is absolutely fantastic and the other two also do a great job. I think it would've made a great standalone / season on it's own.
The actual Foundation storyline is just completely antithetical to the point of the books, and then they add in literal magic and clairvoyance. I get the temptation to expand characters, it's what every other 10 episode prestige television show is doing, but the characters in the Foundation books are cardboard cutouts for a reason. It's not their story, it's the story of The Foundation. I think they're stretching it out so much it's see through. That they seem to want an entire season in each era seems really overblown for what are basically vignettes of "important moments" over the course of the 1000 years.
The clairvoyance bit is the part I take the most issue with. I think the choices made to focus on characters, and altering events so that the audience has them around long term are overall good...
The clairvoyance bit is the part I take the most issue with. I think the choices made to focus on characters, and altering events so that the audience has them around long term are overall good choices. The clairvoyance and future sight I do think detracts from what made Foundation so interesting to me when I read it.
The idea that this scifi 'verse doesn't have time travel or telepathy so the future of humanity is entirely balanced on one person's ability to do really complicated math. Did he do it right? Who knows, we're going to find out. And then the appearance of the Mule throws an absolute monkey wrench into the entire thing because it was a thing that Seldon didn't anticipate (how could he? 30,000 years of human history and it had never happened!). I think they've dulled the impact of that story by both introducing actual telepaths and teasing the Mule's appearance well in advance.
I agree, the Empire clone storyline was definitely the most enjoyable part of the whole show, even though that storyline had nothing to do with the source material.
I agree, the Empire clone storyline was definitely the most enjoyable part of the whole show, even though that storyline had nothing to do with the source material.
Shrinking is extremely good, it’s one of my favourite comedy series to date, I’d strongly recommend it. Another series that I really like is Trying, it is also a show tackling a serious subject,...
Shrinking is extremely good, it’s one of my favourite comedy series to date, I’d strongly recommend it. Another series that I really like is Trying, it is also a show tackling a serious subject, but with a lot of heart.
But this month, just six weeks before the film was set to show up in thousands of theaters around the United States, Apple announced a significant change in plans. “Wolfs” will now be shown on a limited number of movie screens for one week before becoming available on the company’s streaming service on Sept. 27.
It joined forces with Paramount Pictures to release Martin Scorsese’s “Killers of the Flower Moon,” which cost $200 million to make and grossed $157 million worldwide. Ridley Scott’s “Napoleon” (Sony) cost $200 million and grossed $221 million worldwide. The $200 million spy thriller “Argylle” (Universal) grossed $96 million. And most recently, Apple teamed up with Sony again to release “Fly Me to the Moon,” which cost $100 million but grossed just $40 million worldwide despite the star power of Scarlett Johansson and Channing Tatum.
“None of Apple’s films have done well,” Stephen Galloway, the dean of Dodge College of Film and Media Arts, said in an interview. “Financially, you might think it doesn’t matter. This is a company worth $3.3 trillion. But psychologically, it does.
“Apple’s brand is quality, cutting-edge, sleek, refined, forward-looking, and so now you’re tarnishing that brand with what seems like an old-fashioned, not-relevant, not-part-of-the-zeitgeist slate.”
Apple executives in Cupertino were already questioning the entertainment units over the amount of money being spent on movies, and the people said there was a thought within the company to not risk a public disappointment should the movie not succeed at the box office.
This spring, top executives held a meeting at company headquarters. The result was a new edict, according to two people familiar with the details, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an internal gathering. Apple’s studio would make one or two event-size films a year, with big budgets and expansive theatrical releases. The rest of its films would have budgets of $80 million or less, the people said.
Well, no shit, lol. I have no idea why Killers of the Flower Moon, a Western that mostly consists of people sitting around in houses and frowning at each other has 60% the budget of Avatar 2....
Apple executives in Cupertino were already questioning the entertainment units over the amount of money being spent on movies
Well, no shit, lol. I have no idea why Killers of the Flower Moon, a Western that mostly consists of people sitting around in houses and frowning at each other has 60% the budget of Avatar 2. Maybe the problem is paying DiCaprio $40-fucking-million to make this face for 3 hours.
It looks like I'm venting about one severely overhyped movie (it made $150 million, it's not like this is some obscure indie shit) but all of these budgets are, frankly, insane. I can't help but wonder what would happen if you divided those budgets by 10 and gave 10 promising younger talents a chance to make a surprise hit that feels genuinely fresh. And, wait, I don't have to wonder because A24 exists, here to save us all from a Hollywood so boring I almost stopped caring.
That movie also turned away a lot of people who'd otherwise be all over seeing it in theaters because sitting in a theater for that long with no intermission just ain't it. Some theaters added...
That movie also turned away a lot of people who'd otherwise be all over seeing it in theaters because sitting in a theater for that long with no intermission just ain't it. Some theaters added their own intermissions, and then Paramount made them stop. The movie's runtime without an intermission was the punching bag of several of my friend groups when it came out.
Scorsese insisted that there was no point in the story that lent itself to an intermission. While watching it in the theater I noticed a natural break in the story that would have been ideal....
Scorsese insisted that there was no point in the story that lent itself to an intermission. While watching it in the theater I noticed a natural break in the story that would have been ideal. Scorsese just didn’t want to do it.
I personally laughed out loud when I saw it got an Oscar nomination for editing. I guess you could reward the endurance but it’s clearly a movie that could have been cut to literally half its...
I personally laughed out loud when I saw it got an Oscar nomination for editing. I guess you could reward the endurance but it’s clearly a movie that could have been cut to literally half its runtime without losing any major story beats.
I'm here for a Killers rant. That was an amazing cast with two of my favourite actors of all time and one of my favourite directors of all time and god damn was I bored. I don't know if Scorsese...
I'm here for a Killers rant. That was an amazing cast with two of my favourite actors of all time and one of my favourite directors of all time and god damn was I bored. I don't know if Scorsese is washed, but I know I will never watch that movie again.
I did enjoy the movie overall, but goddamn it dragged on. I definitely felt like you could cut a bunch of time in the first half to let the second half breathe some more and still reduce the...
I did enjoy the movie overall, but goddamn it dragged on. I definitely felt like you could cut a bunch of time in the first half to let the second half breathe some more and still reduce the overall movie time.
It's important to note that evaluations of the net worth of companies (and individuals, too) is at least somewhat theoretical. It's "merely" the cost of one share multiplied by the current share...
It's important to note that evaluations of the net worth of companies (and individuals, too) is at least somewhat theoretical. It's "merely" the cost of one share multiplied by the current share price.
Contrast Apples net worth with its total asset worth, which is around $330 billion, one tenth of its net worth.
It's not that net worth is a lie, it's just a market construct build on a snapshot of how much people currently value one share of a company.
It's a very useful tool to compare companies both with one another and with themselves over time. But it shouldn't be treated as a "true value" unless it has actually been realised.
The main problem for me is that why would I go see a movie in the theatre when I know it’ll be available for streaming later on anyway? Especially one shot movies where there is nothing to spoil.
The main problem for me is that why would I go see a movie in the theatre when I know it’ll be available for streaming later on anyway?
Especially one shot movies where there is nothing to spoil.
It does make me wonder why Apple keeps trying to expand into publishing media. They've been in the game long enough to know that the profit margins here are razor thin, if not often huge losses....
It does make me wonder why Apple keeps trying to expand into publishing media. They've been in the game long enough to know that the profit margins here are razor thin, if not often huge losses. At least games make sense for use as a showcase of their hardware's power (even if they long lost the audience who'd use that power uniquely for Apple).
Investing into movies in the worst time to invest in movies just seems like throwing money away. Which I don't mind as someone who appreciates the arts, but clearly Apple does want to turn a profit, given this article.
Apple is desperate to find more successful more subscription services they can offer consumers. They're high margin and serve as another way to keep users sticky with the iPhone/iPad/macOS...
Apple is desperate to find more successful more subscription services they can offer consumers. They're high margin and serve as another way to keep users sticky with the iPhone/iPad/macOS ecosystem. So far, they've only hit on two reasonably successful ones (iCloud+, Apple Music). The others have very few individual subscribers and Apple relies on packaging them into Apple One where, if you already use iCloud+ and Apple Music, it's a good value.
It also seems relevant to note that their two most successful subscription services - if iCloud+ and Apple Music are indeed them, which I am inclined to believe - require Apple to produce nothing...
It also seems relevant to note that their two most successful subscription services - if iCloud+ and Apple Music are indeed them, which I am inclined to believe - require Apple to produce nothing beyond infrastructure. I agree with you that they are trying to find another successful subscription but man, a streaming service with self-produced content is very far outside of their wheelhouse and much different from their core businesses.
But also not completely unrealistic. To an extent, Amazon have decent success with its Prime streaming service with plenty of original content produced. And a few Oscar nominations and wins as well.
But also not completely unrealistic. To an extent, Amazon have decent success with its Prime streaming service with plenty of original content produced. And a few Oscar nominations and wins as well.
My new macbook air is an amazing piece of kit. Sleek, powerful, smooth. But Apple on the whole is a stuffy company, and while I can't seem to pull the link, I know their brand people asked for smoothing and punch-pulling on a lot of their properties. Foundation was a severe disappointment. Their only really sharp hit in my view is Severence, although I know a lot folks really liked Ted Lasso and For all Mankind. But almost everything they do strikes me as Disney for middle aged people. Napoleon was boring as heck.
For what it’s worth, I thought Foundation was absolutely fantastic. Honestly I look more towards apple TV series and movies than any other publisher.
Mild spoilers for Foundation.
Maybe they only watched season 1? I found that one lacking as well - the Empire storyline was the only good part of it as well as only a few other things. But season 2 really picked up and turned out truly good.
Personally I really like season 1 but hate season 2. I think I like the first episode of S2 but it just gets more and more ridiculous.
Loved both Ted Lasso and Severance. Tried watching Foundation but after two episodes I just don't care about any of the characters and don't think I care to continue. I really prefer "show don't tell" type of shows but it really felt like they were beating me over the head with "this character bad. This character shady", and the plot points felt very scattered and not very cohesive. It's possible it gets better in the future episodes, but I just couldn't get into it.
To be honest, Foundation just got worse at it progressed. Personally I bowed out after season two. I’m not the one to expect, or even want, literal adaptations of source material, different media require different narrative techniques, but when a TV-adaptation all but slaughters the main motifs of the source, then I guess it’s not for me.
I also have my qualms with it, but I've still enjoyed it immensely. I think it is absolutely fantastically written and acted. They've made some narrative choices that maybe I wouldn't have made when adapting it, but then again I'm not a writer.
The political intrigue of the Empire clones could 100% be it's own stand-alone show. Every second of that narrative has had me riveted.
I think the show's gorgeous and the Empire storyline was great, Lee Pace is absolutely fantastic and the other two also do a great job. I think it would've made a great standalone / season on it's own.
The actual Foundation storyline is just completely antithetical to the point of the books, and then they add in literal magic and clairvoyance. I get the temptation to expand characters, it's what every other 10 episode prestige television show is doing, but the characters in the Foundation books are cardboard cutouts for a reason. It's not their story, it's the story of The Foundation. I think they're stretching it out so much it's see through. That they seem to want an entire season in each era seems really overblown for what are basically vignettes of "important moments" over the course of the 1000 years.
The clairvoyance bit is the part I take the most issue with. I think the choices made to focus on characters, and altering events so that the audience has them around long term are overall good choices. The clairvoyance and future sight I do think detracts from what made Foundation so interesting to me when I read it.
The idea that this scifi 'verse doesn't have time travel or telepathy so the future of humanity is entirely balanced on one person's ability to do really complicated math. Did he do it right? Who knows, we're going to find out. And then the appearance of the Mule throws an absolute monkey wrench into the entire thing because it was a thing that Seldon didn't anticipate (how could he? 30,000 years of human history and it had never happened!). I think they've dulled the impact of that story by both introducing actual telepaths and teasing the Mule's appearance well in advance.
I agree, the Empire clone storyline was definitely the most enjoyable part of the whole show, even though that storyline had nothing to do with the source material.
TBH the book isn’t exactly a shining example of character building either 😀
Shrinking is also fantastic, FYI.
Shrinking, aka Scrubs with psychologists.
Silo is solid as well.
Shrinking is extremely good, it’s one of my favourite comedy series to date, I’d strongly recommend it. Another series that I really like is Trying, it is also a show tackling a serious subject, but with a lot of heart.
I loved Bad Sisters and After Party. I'm not sure if those are actually Apple properties or if that's just the platform I happened to see them on.
Well, no shit, lol. I have no idea why Killers of the Flower Moon, a Western that mostly consists of people sitting around in houses and frowning at each other has 60% the budget of Avatar 2. Maybe the problem is paying DiCaprio $40-fucking-million to make this face for 3 hours.
It looks like I'm venting about one severely overhyped movie (it made $150 million, it's not like this is some obscure indie shit) but all of these budgets are, frankly, insane. I can't help but wonder what would happen if you divided those budgets by 10 and gave 10 promising younger talents a chance to make a surprise hit that feels genuinely fresh. And, wait, I don't have to wonder because A24 exists, here to save us all from a Hollywood so boring I almost stopped caring.
That movie also turned away a lot of people who'd otherwise be all over seeing it in theaters because sitting in a theater for that long with no intermission just ain't it. Some theaters added their own intermissions, and then Paramount made them stop. The movie's runtime without an intermission was the punching bag of several of my friend groups when it came out.
Scorsese insisted that there was no point in the story that lent itself to an intermission. While watching it in the theater I noticed a natural break in the story that would have been ideal. Scorsese just didn’t want to do it.
I personally laughed out loud when I saw it got an Oscar nomination for editing. I guess you could reward the endurance but it’s clearly a movie that could have been cut to literally half its runtime without losing any major story beats.
I'm here for a Killers rant. That was an amazing cast with two of my favourite actors of all time and one of my favourite directors of all time and god damn was I bored. I don't know if Scorsese is washed, but I know I will never watch that movie again.
I did enjoy the movie overall, but goddamn it dragged on. I definitely felt like you could cut a bunch of time in the first half to let the second half breathe some more and still reduce the overall movie time.
Also, not many people want to go to the theatre to watch a movie about heavy topics
Forgive the tangent but is this true? I know Apple is outrageously valuable but holy shit. That’s more than the entire GDP of France.
It's important to note that evaluations of the net worth of companies (and individuals, too) is at least somewhat theoretical. It's "merely" the cost of one share multiplied by the current share price.
Contrast Apples net worth with its total asset worth, which is around $330 billion, one tenth of its net worth.
It's not that net worth is a lie, it's just a market construct build on a snapshot of how much people currently value one share of a company.
It's a very useful tool to compare companies both with one another and with themselves over time. But it shouldn't be treated as a "true value" unless it has actually been realised.
It's currently $3.45 trillion according to Google.
The main problem for me is that why would I go see a movie in the theatre when I know it’ll be available for streaming later on anyway?
Especially one shot movies where there is nothing to spoil.
It does make me wonder why Apple keeps trying to expand into publishing media. They've been in the game long enough to know that the profit margins here are razor thin, if not often huge losses. At least games make sense for use as a showcase of their hardware's power (even if they long lost the audience who'd use that power uniquely for Apple).
Investing into movies in the worst time to invest in movies just seems like throwing money away. Which I don't mind as someone who appreciates the arts, but clearly Apple does want to turn a profit, given this article.
Apple is desperate to find more successful more subscription services they can offer consumers. They're high margin and serve as another way to keep users sticky with the iPhone/iPad/macOS ecosystem. So far, they've only hit on two reasonably successful ones (iCloud+, Apple Music). The others have very few individual subscribers and Apple relies on packaging them into Apple One where, if you already use iCloud+ and Apple Music, it's a good value.
It also seems relevant to note that their two most successful subscription services - if iCloud+ and Apple Music are indeed them, which I am inclined to believe - require Apple to produce nothing beyond infrastructure. I agree with you that they are trying to find another successful subscription but man, a streaming service with self-produced content is very far outside of their wheelhouse and much different from their core businesses.
But also not completely unrealistic. To an extent, Amazon have decent success with its Prime streaming service with plenty of original content produced. And a few Oscar nominations and wins as well.
Mirror: https://archive.is/zHKjy