Hacker News Reader

Comment by flanking_pajama | Hacker News Reader

Kind of creeps me out that Apple gets to just slide in and immediately become oscar winning film/tv production company darling, as well.

I'm sure someone at Netflix is cheesed with how quickly and easily Apple can just start drinking their milkshake, though. I remember there being a lot of pushing of ROMA and felt like it was a major nail biter for Netflix to get that to take home anything. But if we're being honest...Netflix doesn't actually try to make a lot of very good things to begin with. Though The Power of the Dog was quite notable, still a bit...sterile.

All that being said, at least HBO has another "quality, not quantity" competitor in the ring, at long last.

View on HN

> Kind of creeps me out that Apple gets to just slide in and immediately become oscar winning film/tv production company darling, as well.

If you get some magical “street cred” in the industry for simply being the party to win the bidding war over a film after it was already produced, shown at a film festivals, and critically acclaimed, then yeah, that seems at least silly if not creepy. Surely there’s a big different between a company funding the creation of a film, and a company just buying the rights to stream a completed film.

Which poses another question I was wondering, if netflix had acquired this, would it have still won? They've been famously treated as a bit less "prestigious" than legacy competitors.

Or does Apple get extra goodwill from the logo almost assuredly in many of the pockets and homes of people in the industry?

Netflix has more direct money going into the wallets of the people in the industry though.

Also when voting, the distributor is not highlighted. So I doubt the brand had any effect on voting itself.

Eh, no one is giving Apple credit for this win other than Apple themselves. They bought distribution rights to the film well after production was finished and it was already making waves in the festival circuit. Apple's own studio had zero creative input.

This is very important to note. Apple Studios didn't develop the movie. Apple was just good at selecting a potentially well-performing candidate for their streaming service and for winning awards at different competitions. They did heavily promote the movie though. Who knows, without Apple's support and promotion, CODA may not have gotten to this point

Who knows, without Apple's support and promotion, CODA may not have gotten to this point

Having worked on a movie that had a (short, failed) Oscar push, you cannot underestimate who important (and expensive) promotion is to even just getting a nomination. Had CODA remained an indie darling on the festival circuit it almost certainly would not have won.

Interesting, I assumed it'd be the case, but I didn't know that for sure

> Apple was just good at selecting a potentially well-performing candidate for their streaming service and for winning awards at different competitions.

I mean, there was reportedly a fierce bidding war to acquire the film, between (at least) Amazon and Apple. I don’t even think you can credit Apple for some unique insight into the potential of the film.

Amazon and Apple were the final bidders. Either they were willing to outspend the traditional studios or both somehow determined the movie would have success and help produce profits down the line more so than the traditional studios thought it could

Still, if Apple had a unique insight, it wasn’t “this movie is a strong contender for a best picture Oscar.” It was more like “it’s worth $25m to us to buy this movie,” which from my perspective remains to be shown.

Yeah, it remains to be shown. They definitely had some criteria to believe it'd be successful though. The criteria they were aiming for could have been any or all of the following: getting more Apple TV+ subscribers, sustaining existing subscribers, having that specific movie get more views, and/or building up a good library of content

I get the feeling people here think that the Apple Film/TV crew is somehow related to the actual Cupertino company we know as "Apple". Not really. Not to pretend I'm in the know, but it's clear from every press release that Apple (and Netflix) hire creatives and production executives in LA. Apple provides the budget and some direction (like, put a sexy iphone into every episode of Ted Lasso), and then the Hollywood pros make the creative decisions that actually result in an awesome or mediocre production.

So maybe Apple is spending more money on better talent. Or maybe they're just funneling it better (big productions like Foundations instead of a bunch of cooking shows).

Or maybe they're just funneling it better (big productions like Foundations instead of a bunch of cooking shows)

Is that really funnelling it 'better' though. I bet a lot more people watched that "bunch of cooking shows" that watched Foundation. Squid Games was one of the most talked about shows on TV since Game of Thrones when it came out and had a total budget that was probably less than the catering budget for 1 season of GoT.

Netflix seems to be betting big on the fact that that 50 weird quirky 1 million dollar shows of varying quality will bring in more total viewers than a single 50 million dollar prestige show.

If you’ve watched anything on Netflix and Apple Tv recently I’m sure you’ve noticed the insane quality difference. 90% of what Netflix is producing feels like “film for tv” in the 90s at best.

Roma? The Irishman? The Two Popes? Marriage Story? Mank? Beasts of No Nation? Power of the Dog? Tick Tick Boom?

Can't really take a comment seriously that puts Apple's film output over this. Besides Coda has Apple produced or even just distributed anything of comparable quality?

Netflix had The Ballad of Buster Scruggs, a freaking Coen Brothers movie! Also a Spike Lee film with Da 5 Bloods.

Totally forgot about those two. And yes, both fantastic.

Apple does have a film with a single Coen directing fwiw. It was even up for some awards last night.

Netflix's biggest problem is their extremely poor AI. They might have some excellent shows and series but if its hard to find no one ever sees it.

Instead they end up getting rated on drivel like "The Woman in the House Across the Street from the Girl in the Window" because that's what ends up getting pushed to subscribers to see.

That's the 10%

This. I just said 90 PERCENT. The Netflix output is gigantic, so all that AMAZING 10% drowns into a 90% that shapes the platform with cheap flix with very low production value.

I watched The Foundation series from Apple and it was lame. Ultimately disappointing.

It's more reflective of HN I think, it isn't a worthy HN submission - even by the loathsome fanboyism that's rampant here - and this particular post is pretty low quality.

Why?

A24/Searchlight do the same thing.

Acquiring rights and succeeding in distribution is an art and unfortunately $$ doesn’t = success.

> I'm sure someone at Netflix is cheesed with how quickly and easily Apple can just start drinking their milkshake, though.

This is expected. Netflix were the trailblazers. Of course everyone who comes after them will have an easier job doing it.

This is exactly the Apple model. "Quality not quantity".

ATV+ doesn't have the glut of content that Netflix has, but pretty much all of their stuff is 8/10 or over on most rating sites. They might not be to your exact tastes, but they're still damn good.

Oh yeah, like the Foundation series. Not a letdown at all, pure Apple quality there.

Imo, Foundation has so far been well done and produced and I enjoyed it. Their version of the books just isn't that representative of the source material it was based of off

When the first trailers for Foundation came out I decided to re-read the books, I liked them as a kid. So I did. I re-read all of Foundation and Robots of the Dawn.

AppleTV+'s take on Foundation is the best thing that could possibly happen to the books.

Asimov was a bad writer, and the product of his era. His ideas about Seldon crises were rather good, but everything around was just bad. People don't have dialogs, they proselytise and have monologues at each other. Women are non-existent, or serve as furniture (except maybe two characters in both series combined). There's a huge disconnect between what technology is imagined to do (FTL, detailed holographic maps of the Galaxy) and how it's used (calculations done with pen-and-paper, newspapers and communications printed out even on FTL ships). And so on.

Foundation series took the premise and ran away with it. And good for them.

The Foundation books are just people with zero personality talking about their plans in an office or a starship bridge. Usually congratulating themselves on how well their plans went.

Then we jump in time, the previous people are mostly dead and a new group of people talk in a room.

It's not exactly riveting stuff for TV.

This is nonsense. ATV is struggling to build a library worthy of a subscription.

Over the last 2-3 years, I sign up when a season of a show I hear good things about is completely out (Ted Lasso, Severance, etc) and then watch another show or movie or two for the month it takes me to finish that season.

I have never bumped into another show that made it worth renewing for a consecutive month, despite the show that I came for being totally worth the one month, and there being other shows that are strongly "related".

I will admit the production quality of the shows is very high on average, but that's not the same thing as the shows being very good.

The shows are objectively good, they are just made for very specific niches.

Take Schmigadoon! for example. It's specifically aimed at people who love musicals and can spot all of the homages in it. Without that knowledge it's just a slightly above average comedy with singing bits.

The Morning Show is about women struggling in a workplace, not exactly something that would hook a random midwest dudebro, but still a damn good show for those who it's directed towards.

What HBO film is that?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com