https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/la-county-leaders-propose-reopening-economy-as-early-as-july-4-1295237

MBAR said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

You think The Morning Show audience is the same as the audience for a WWII film? Either way, I didn't say it was going to equal massive new subscriptions. But most people who have Apple TV+ are still getting it for free for this first year, and I think a huge chunk of them will tune in. That said, an Apple TV+ subscription is only $4.99/month. The Morning Show was released weekly over three months, so it cost nearly $15 to watch and required a ten-week commitment. This, on the other hand, is basically a $4.99 movie you can knock out in one sitting and then cancel the subscription. That's a steal compared to the $20+ most of these direct-to-streaming movies have been charging. That, and all the dads and the olds are going to be on cloud nine getting to watch a Tom Hanks WWII movie from the comfort of their own recliners, especially if it drops while the theater experience is still either nonexistent or limited. Release this, say, over the July 4th holiday and I guarantee you people will watch the hell out of it.

---

I just think you're overestimating how many people are going to watch it. These direct to streaming movies don't become huge moments. Is Apple going to advertise this heavily? Otherwise I don't think many people will even know its coming. Movies in theaters have months of trailers and advertising. Apple isn't going to do that for this, I don't think.

Nah, I don't think the audiences for those two things are the same, but my point was more that it doesn't really seem like either moved the needle much for the service. But thats based more on my perception than any information.

---

Apple paid $70M to acquire Greyhound. So you can bet they're going to market it like crazy. They're also currently buying up a ton of "legacy" films and TV shows as a big strategic shift to stock their library and compete with Netflix. They're going all in and revamping the service, and Greyhound looks to be a big part of that play.

Also, I'm curious what you're basing your "these direct to streaming movies don't become huge moments" argument on when we're in the absolutely infancy stages of this experiment. We're literally only a couple months in and not a single title released straight to streaming so far has boasted a star of Hanks' caliber. I would also point you to official thread here for the movie to see just how many people can't wait for this thing. If anything, a Tom Hanks WWII battle-at-sea movie is tailor made for this board, same as it is for a big chunk of the country.

I'm not saying it's going to break records or anything, and I can't believe I'm even defending it, because I think it looks pretty run-of-the-mill with a lot of bad CGI. But this is a BIG move for Apple, in the midst of an Apple TV+ overhaul, and the biggest set-for-theatrical-but-now-steaming title we've seen so far. I just think it's the perfect movie for the stuck-at-home masses, and will do better on the service than some think.

Until today I wasn't even aware my favorite actor was doing a World War II Navy movie, so sign me up for $4.99. I might even check out For All Mankind at the time too

Quad Dog said:

---

Quote:

---

That, and all the dads and the olds are going to be on cloud nine getting to watch a Tom Hanks WWII movie from the comfort of their own recliners, especially if it drops while the theater experience is still either nonexistent or limited.

---

This audience has no idea how to get Apple TV or that it even exists.

---

But with enough marketing they're going to call their kid and say "hey, how do I watch that new Tom Hanks movie?"

I get both sides of it, but so far there hasn't been anything actually culturally relevant on AppleTV+ like we've seen with things like Stranger Things, Handmaid's Tale, GoT, etc. If they were to get a few things people REALLY want to see it could definitely have an impact.

That being said, I got a new iPad a few weeks ago and don't think I've watched anything on AppleTV+ yet I do need to watch the Beastie Boys doc, however, which I've heard is fantastic.

Quad Dog said:

---

Quote:

---

That, and all the dads and the olds are going to be on cloud nine getting to watch a Tom Hanks WWII movie from the comfort of their own recliners, especially if it drops while the theater experience is still either nonexistent or limited.

---

This audience has no idea how to get Apple TV or that it even exists.

---

Hey hey now, I'll Google box that and figure it out.

Greyhound steaming at home? Sign me up, although this might be one that is better in a theater.

This link describes how to set up Apple TV.

This link will show us olds devices on which the Apple TV app is available.

https://deadline.com/2020/05/coronavirus-hollywood-reopening-production-confusion-gavin-newsom-plan-1202940054/

This isn't intended to be a f16 post but this is where the monolithic political culture of Hollywood is going to hurt. Unions and protections and emotions and so much more are not going to help Hollywood roll their sleeves up to dog themselves out.

A lot of those quotes read like people who don't want to do the hard work to get back going, or that they don't feel safe enough to want to. If my industry was completely turned off and and the person who controls the light switch is saying he's willing to flip it I'd be working around the clock as a leader of said industry with others to do whatever I could to get going again.

I agree with you to an extent. But their cries aren't because they don't want to do the hard work necessary. It's because they already have been busting their asses around the clock to make sure the proper protocols are in place, and they know it's going to be another month or so before they can have all of those protocols and guidelines ready. Trust me, the guilds/unions are doing all that they can to ensure maximum safety, they all have to be on the same page, and *have* been working/communicating 24/7. This isn't at all a matter of being lazy/not prepared. The problem is that they're likely overdoing it in terms of preparedness, and yeah, the ungrateful reaction to this news isn't a good look either.

Fair point. I guess I mean the amount of bureaucratic layers of tape surrounding every entity in Hollywood combined with that political culture is not a great combination for a situation like this. I hope like hell they get going asap.

In agreement in that regard for sure.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/universal-orlando-targets-june-5-theme-park-reopening-1295507

Yeah, all things considered, that makes sense. Great to hear.

That's actually pleasantly surprising. And best of luck on your project.

https://variety.com/2020/film/news/avatar-2-sequels-james-cameron-production-shutdown-new-zealand-1234614092/

Has that movie been filming for 4 years or what?

They're shooting two movies simultaneously, but yeah, all the motion capture stuff was shot a while back, and now they're doing the live-action stuff.

Avatar 2 is going to be another $2B behemoth.

Book it.

Yea I seem to remember the filming 2 films at once. Gonna be interesting to see how the 2nd and 3rd are received, it's been such a long time since the 1st.

And to BES, that isn't a bold take. A bold take would be it's going to make less than a billion or more than 3 billion.

I find it interesting that the time between Star Wars Episode III and The Force Awakens (10 years) is shorter than the time between Avatar and it's first sequel (12 years).

And I will be bold and say that it won't make as much as the first.

I honestly don't know anything about the new Avatars. Is Cameron bringing some new amazing technical aspects to these? I would think he has something amazing planned, otherwise, why has this continued to be such a pet project?

Short answer - yes.

Cameron is going back to his Abyss roots and has apparently revolutionized underwater filming/motion capture, as the oceans on Pandora play a big role this go-around.

Well that makes me a lot more excited than thinking, hmm, who was asking for sequels?

I do trust in Cameron, although it's really strange that he's been so absent for the past decade. If anyone would make a splash on their return, it's definitely him.

I just hope he avoids what Star Wars and many other Hollywood movies are doing these days and leave the liberal ideology out of the movie

He had plenty of it in the first movie (anti-American soldiers and super environmental activist) so I'm not holding my breath..

Just entertain us bro!

Apparently it is a bold take since I've seen so many "Nobody cares about Avatar" and "Avatar had no cultural impact" posts over the last 10 years.

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

Apparently it is a bold take since I've seen so many "Nobody cares about Avatar" and "Avatar had no cultural impact" posts over the last 10 years.

---

The demographic that first of all gets on TexAgs, and 2nd of all gets on the Entertainment board, =/= the general population.

Chipotlemonger said:

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

Apparently it is a bold take since I've seen so many "Nobody cares about Avatar" and "Avatar had no cultural impact" posts over the last 10 years.

---

The demographic that first of all gets on TexAgs, and 2nd of all gets on the Entertainment board, =/= the general population.

---

agree - same is true with Twitter

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

Apparently it is a bold take since I've seen so many "Nobody cares about Avatar" and "Avatar had no cultural impact" posts over the last 10 years.

---

There's a pretty good argument that it didn't, or at least certainly not relative to its box office success.

Forbes (2014): Five Years Ago, 'Avatar' Grossed $2.7 Billion But Left No Pop Culture Footprint