[TXSTYLE]

Because ANDROID > Apple!

But seriously though... He took half less money because he knew Apple is too uptight about "exclusivity". Among other things: http://collider.com/why-jj-abrams-tu...VEhWWYKEo0duos

Filmmaker J.J. Abrams and his Bad Robot production company officially closed a deal to set up shop at WarnerMedia yesterday, but they didn’t simply go with the highest bidder when finding a new home. For years, Abrams and Bad Robot were housed at Paramount Pictures, but with that deal up for renegotiation this year, Abrams took his show on the road to visit other suitors. All the major players lined up, including Netflix and Sony Pictures, but it was Apple who made a very big play for Abrams in the range of $500 million.

Ultimately, Abrams and Bad Robot’s deal to produce movies, TV, games, and other content for WarnerMedia is worth a reported $250 million—about half of what Apple offered. So why did Abrams turn down the bigger offer? WarnerMedia offered something Apple couldn’t: flexibility.
star-wars-the-force-awakens-john-boyega-harrison-ford-jj-abrams

When filmmakers and producers make overall deals with studios, they’re rarely exclusive contracts. Steven Spielberg created DreamWorks Pictures, but then subsequently made movies for Warner Bros. and 20th Century Fox. Likewise Abrams made Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness for Paramount, but his biggest film yet—Star Wars: The Force Awakens—is a Disney movie. His deal with Paramount didn’t prevent him from signing onto Star Wars when Lucasfilm came calling, and in setting up this new deal, Abrams likewise didn’t want to be tied down should a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity arise.

But as Apple enters the realm of original content, the company sought to sign Abrams to an exclusive contract. Per THR, they offered $500 million to house Bad Robot, but wanted the company only making Apple content. That meant that not only could Abrams only direct Apple movies, but his TV shows couldn’t be sold to other networks. An added concern was the fact that Apple doesn’t have a theatrical distribution model, so if Abrams did sign with them, his movies would only go directly to streaming.

Abrams and Bad Robot seriously entertained Apple’s offer, and even met with executives about Apple taking a large financial stake in their company. But ultimately the exclusivity proved to be too much, so Abrams passed on the $500 million and took the $250 million deal at WarnerMedia, where he will surely make new film and TV projects for Warner Bros., but is also free to entertain offers from other studios.

So we can probably look forward to Abrams being involved in a DC movie in some capacity in the near future, but if another studio is willing to make a film that WarnerMedia won’t or can’t, Abrams is free to take his project there. It’s the way things are done, and Apple is learning the hard way that they can’t exactly apply their model for making phones and tech over to the realm of original content without changing their tactics.

[henrylee]

Very nice

[Banana Hammock]

Platform exclusivity is the bane of digital entertainment. From video games to TV and movies. It's always a bitch.

Really glad to hear that Mr. Abrams decided to take the high road with this one. Fuck Apple for trying to buy exclusivity. This is happening within the PC gaming scene with the Epic Game Store.

[Maestro]

Originally Posted by Banana Hammock

Platform exclusivity is the bane of digital entertainment. From video games to TV and movies. It's always a bitch.

Really glad to hear that Mr. Abrams decided to take the high road with this one. Fuck Apple for trying to buy exclusivity. This is happening within the PC gaming scene with the Epic Game Store.

Face it, the landscape is changing. Netflix started this whole original content battle.

If you want lots of content from lots of source paid in part by advertising then you have to go to the major cable/satellite provided and pay them for content you never watch. You other option is going to streaming providers which will offer you limited propriety content without ads and you pay less because you are only paying for what you want.

Your issue is with content owner, they created this entire mess we are dealing with today. Content owners today would like you to pay each and every time you consume their content. They do not like the all you can eat model, nor do they like the old style you own the DVD and can watch as many times as you like. Because content owners made complicated deals with all the various distribution models it is hard for anyone to license content and stream it everywhere. If you heard the Apple content announcement they said their content will be available in 100 countries on day one, no other provider is offering this since they are all limited by the complex licensing deals they can not distribute content world wide.

Prior to this, Apple was working a deal with Time Warner Cable to allow them to stream their cable content directly to any Apple TV box anywhere in the US. This way if you like Time Warner Content which is mostly the same as every cable company in the US and they had HBO, you could turn off your local Cable TV and stream Time Warner content to any play in the US which Broadband Cable. Comcast got wind of this deal they may play to buy Time Warner only to have the regulators put a stop to it. Comcast knew the FTC would not allow #1 and #2 merge, but it did put a stop to Apple streaming Time Warner all over the country.

If J.J. Abrams is worry about the big screen, he is behind the times, Yes some movies really need the big screen to impress people, but going to monies continues to decline, most people want to watch in their own homes. Millennial are the worse 40%+ claim to not have close friend to enjoy doing things with do you think these people are heading to movies by themselves.

[TXSTYLE]

Sorry Maestro, but your example/argument does not stand up or is flawed at best...

If J.J. Abrams is worry about the big screen, he is behind the times, Yes some movies really need the big screen to impress people, but going to monies continues to decline, most people want to watch in their own homes. Millennial are the worse 40%+ claim to not have close friend to enjoy doing things with do you think these people are heading to movies by themselves.

Endgame was released in April 2019 and went on to break numerous box office records in various markets. Worldwide, it set the record for highest-grossing film of all time, the highest opening weekend gross, and the fastest cumulative grosses through $2.5 billion!

It achieved that ginormous profit in less than 6 months time! There are VERY few things/services/products in this world that generate that kind of profit that quickly. So to say that JJ made his decision to remain on the big screen to "impress people" is false. It just so happens that he in particular is known for making "Blockbuster Type" films that people actually will/want to go see. Including myself. Which is rare considering my Home Theater. There are very few films that I have or will bother to go see at the Theater. Movies from this guy, I will.

[Banana Hammock]

Originally Posted by Maestro

Face it, the landscape is changing. Netflix started this whole original content battle.

If you want lots of content from lots of source paid in part by advertising then you have to go to the major cable/satellite provided and pay them for content you never watch. You other option is going to streaming providers which will offer you limited propriety content without ads and you pay less because you are only paying for what you want.

Your issue is with content owner, they created this entire mess we are dealing with today. Content owners today would like you to pay each and every time you consume their content. They do not like the all you can eat model, nor do they like the old style you own the DVD and can watch as many times as you like. Because content owners made complicated deals with all the various distribution models it is hard for anyone to license content and stream it everywhere. If you heard the Apple content announcement they said their content will be available in 100 countries on day one, no other provider is offering this since they are all limited by the complex licensing deals they can not distribute content world wide.

Prior to this, Apple was working a deal with Time Warner Cable to allow them to stream their cable content directly to any Apple TV box anywhere in the US. This way if you like Time Warner Content which is mostly the same as every cable company in the US and they had HBO, you could turn off your local Cable TV and stream Time Warner content to any play in the US which Broadband Cable. Comcast got wind of this deal they may play to buy Time Warner only to have the regulators put a stop to it. Comcast knew the FTC would not allow #1 and #2 merge, but it did put a stop to Apple streaming Time Warner all over the country.

If J.J. Abrams is worry about the big screen, he is behind the times, Yes some movies really need the big screen to impress people, but going to monies continues to decline, most people want to watch in their own homes. Millennial are the worse 40%+ claim to not have close friend to enjoy doing things with do you think these people are heading to movies by themselves.

I agree with you that content creators are breaking off and starting their own platform and I've accepted the fact. What irks me about what's going on here is that Apple is not a content creator. They're just throwing money at talent to buy exclusivity. It's one thing for a company like HBO to keepp their content exclusive but Apple has no right trying to lock content away in their ecosystem. The strategy is to force non-Apple users to buy into the ecosystem just so that they can enjoy the content that Apple has scooped up just by buying off creators much like what Epic Games is doing.

Whatever reason Mr. Abrams has for rejecting the offer doesn't matter to me as long as it's one less creator under the Apple umbrella.

[Maestro]

Originally Posted by TXSTYLE

Sorry Maestro, but your example/argument does not stand up or is flawed at best...



Endgame was released in April 2019 and went on to break numerous box office records in various markets. Worldwide, it set the record for highest-grossing film of all time, the highest opening weekend gross, and the fastest cumulative grosses through $2.5 billion!

It achieved that ginormous profit in less than 6 months time! There are VERY few things/services/products in this world that generate that kind of profit that quickly. So to say that JJ made his decision to remain on the big screen to "impress people" is false. It just so happens that he in particular is known for making "Blockbuster Type" films that people actually will/want to go see. Including myself. Which is rare considering my Home Theater. There are very few films that I have or will bother to go see at the Theater. Movies from this guy, I will.

That is mostly because they charge more for a movie, like $18 at some theater, yes you break records if all you measure is $ verse number of butts in the seats, movies use to be $5 or $6 now $12 to $18, so it take 1/2 to 1/3 of the people to hit a $1B box office. Besides that I was not talking about your typical block buster but the every day movie. There is a group of loyal viewers who go to movies at a theater all the time, but the over group size has been in decline for the last 10 yrs.

[Maestro]

Originally Posted by Banana Hammock

I agree with you that content creators are breaking off and starting their own platform and I've accepted the fact. What irks me about what's going on here is that Apple is not a content creator. They're just throwing money at talent to buy exclusivity. It's one thing for a company like HBO to keepp their content exclusive but Apple has no right trying to lock content away in their ecosystem. The strategy is to force non-Apple users to buy into the ecosystem just so that they can enjoy the content that Apple has scooped up just by buying off creators much like what Epic Games is doing.

Whatever reason Mr. Abrams has for rejecting the offer doesn't matter to me as long as it's one less creator under the Apple umbrella.

To your point, I think Apple made a shoot at lockup one or two content creators to have them solely focused on Apple and Apple was willing to through lots of money at the deal. This is not an unusual deal, Steve jobs did the same deal with Pixar and Disney, Pixar had a 5 movie deal with Disney and could not make movies for anyone but Disney. Can not blame Apple for getting it a they have Billion sitting in the bank collecting dust,

[jesm]

I dont think hes that great of a director...

[TheWatchGuy]

Originally Posted by Maestro

That is mostly because they charge more for a movie, like $18 at some theater, yes you break records if all you measure is $ verse number of butts in the seats, movies use to be $5 or $6 now $12 to $18, so it take 1/2 to 1/3 of the people to hit a $1B box office. Besides that I was not talking about your typical block buster but the every day movie. There is a group of loyal viewers who go to movies at a theater all the time, but the over group size has been in decline for the last 10 yrs.

but how much are those Prime or Netflix original movies making?

The big money is in the box office, whether you choose to believe it or not, and its not going to change anytime soon.

Yes its $18/ticket to go see a movie, but its $18/ticket every time you want to see that movie until it makes it to dvd/on demand, and then its several $ a time to watch. Its not till it hits the streaming services that it is pennies to watch everytime. The #50 highest domestic grossing movie this year was at $30mill (Longshot, never heard of it). Top 20 all grossed over 100mill.

Compare that to a Netflix or Prime original movie. Its ~$10/month for Netflix and Prime. So when you release a movie exclusive to one of those, more people may see the movie, but you are making pennies per view.

Unless the streaming services start making you pay per movie, its not going to be a big money maker for any movie.

The reason Apple is willing to throw $500 million at abrams isnt because they are going to make a killing off his movies. It is because they are trying to do what no other streaming service has been able to do; get a big name director to exclusively make movies that people will want to watch. They are trying to get into the streaming services market, and have to differentiate themselves from Netflix, Hulu, Prime, Disney, etc.