'F1' could be the last Apple TV+ theatrical release
Apple TV+ is continuing to step back from high-profile theatrical releases of its movies, with the forthcoming "F1" racing drama seen as one more test after a series of flops.
Brad Pitt in "F1"
Apple was the first streaming service to earn a Best Picture Oscar, with "CODA" in 2022, but otherwise its movies have not been hits on the big screen. Following low box office returns for films including "Killers of the Flower Moon," Apple curtailed plans for theatrical releases.
That decision began with "Wolfs," which instead got a foreshortened and limited distribution of a week in theaters, before streaming on Apple TV+ from September 27. Now according to Bloomberg, Apple plans to repeat this greatly reduced theatrical window for each of its next films -- except one.
In June 2025, Apple is releasing "F1," a racing drama starring Brad Pitt. Significantly, Apple is partnering with Warner Bros to distribute the film, whose budget is believed to have been $300 million. Unspecified sources at Apple have reportedly said that how well "F1" performs at the box office will have a significant impact on future movies.
Apple may continue to produce selected high-budget titles, but it is expected to concentrate more on films in the $100 million range. This is actually a range that been in decline in the age of Marvel-style blockbusters, so it could potentially be a welcome move for film fans.
Making films in this price bracket also means that Apple can aim for around a dozen movies a year. That would mean it spending a $1 billion annually, which is what it had reportedly originally budgeted anyway.
Beyond the immediate box office returns of a movie, though, there are other issues. There's how a theatrical release will advertise Apple TV+, for one thing, and a hit is likely to boost awareness and so also subscriber numbers.
Then "Wolfs" stars George Clooney and Brad Pitt have been vocal about their disappointment in their foreshortened theatrical release. The two stars are reported to have taken pay cuts specifically so that there would be a theatrical release, and now that isn't happening.
So Apple TV+ is presumably going to have a harder time attracting talent, both cast and crew. That's not just because a lack of a theatrical window is less attractive, but the company appears to have changed its deal during production.
If a single movie does poorly in a theatrical release and also does not fulfill whatever metric Apple TV+ uses to measure success, that's one thing. But films have a long tail, they keep on earning, and talent keeps making films.
So a decision to pull back on its theatrical releases and the promotion of its movies, is going to have a long-term effect.
Hollywood veterans are reportedly struggling to understand Apple's strategy -- or that of Amazon and Netflix. It's said that industry people suspect the streamers see theaters as just marketing -- and that if so, they are still not spending enough to promote their movies.
"Wolfs" by Jon Watts is now streaming on Apple TV+
Read on AppleInsider
Brad Pitt in "F1"
Apple was the first streaming service to earn a Best Picture Oscar, with "CODA" in 2022, but otherwise its movies have not been hits on the big screen. Following low box office returns for films including "Killers of the Flower Moon," Apple curtailed plans for theatrical releases.
That decision began with "Wolfs," which instead got a foreshortened and limited distribution of a week in theaters, before streaming on Apple TV+ from September 27. Now according to Bloomberg, Apple plans to repeat this greatly reduced theatrical window for each of its next films -- except one.
In June 2025, Apple is releasing "F1," a racing drama starring Brad Pitt. Significantly, Apple is partnering with Warner Bros to distribute the film, whose budget is believed to have been $300 million. Unspecified sources at Apple have reportedly said that how well "F1" performs at the box office will have a significant impact on future movies.
Apple may continue to produce selected high-budget titles, but it is expected to concentrate more on films in the $100 million range. This is actually a range that been in decline in the age of Marvel-style blockbusters, so it could potentially be a welcome move for film fans.
Making films in this price bracket also means that Apple can aim for around a dozen movies a year. That would mean it spending a $1 billion annually, which is what it had reportedly originally budgeted anyway.
Beyond the immediate box office returns of a movie, though, there are other issues. There's how a theatrical release will advertise Apple TV+, for one thing, and a hit is likely to boost awareness and so also subscriber numbers.
Then "Wolfs" stars George Clooney and Brad Pitt have been vocal about their disappointment in their foreshortened theatrical release. The two stars are reported to have taken pay cuts specifically so that there would be a theatrical release, and now that isn't happening.
So Apple TV+ is presumably going to have a harder time attracting talent, both cast and crew. That's not just because a lack of a theatrical window is less attractive, but the company appears to have changed its deal during production.
If a single movie does poorly in a theatrical release and also does not fulfill whatever metric Apple TV+ uses to measure success, that's one thing. But films have a long tail, they keep on earning, and talent keeps making films.
So a decision to pull back on its theatrical releases and the promotion of its movies, is going to have a long-term effect.
Hollywood veterans are reportedly struggling to understand Apple's strategy -- or that of Amazon and Netflix. It's said that industry people suspect the streamers see theaters as just marketing -- and that if so, they are still not spending enough to promote their movies.
"Wolfs" by Jon Watts is now streaming on Apple TV+
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
“Bad Movie” may be a blockbuster, but good movie may flop, and resurrect after years..or may be never.
Garbage smartphone won’t sell millions in a month, or it just sell millions without much profit.
Physical, tangible, functional stuff needs a general acceptable quality to sell, it doesn’t apply to a movie.
Even those Hollywood giants unable to make big hits every time, big star and big budget is not a guarantee, it just a risky bet. According to the history, it seems there is no formula to make sure how to entertain people by a movie, and make them pay for it.
If you can’t beat them, join them…or buy them.
Apple changed music industry not by setup a record company and sign a contract with all top singers and music producers, then makes Apple song.
I have try really hard to enjoy Apple TV service, but failed.
Heck, even Godilla was somehow turned boring and saddled with irrelevent themes in the characters' lives that made the whole thing a chore. With the IP and the cast they had, it should have been like a blockbuster movie every episode. Instead, it was light on the good stuff and felt like a job to work throuhg the boring content to get those few tidbits of good stuff. How anyone could get Godzilla to that point, I have no idea.
Foundation was something I looked forward to with huge anticipation. By the fourth episode, I was tired. Missed about a third of the season and hadn't even watched an episode of season 2.
The recent Matt Damon movie was... ok. But seemed difficult to really get into.
We will see how F1 goes. But if it's another attempt at being an overly political sort of snob-fest, it's going to suck. Hopefully it avoids that. Will watch it tomorrow.
The only way Apple TV+ is going to get universally great content is to replace their content management team. they've really done a poor job. Seems they get in the way, rather than helping. Would be a coup if Apple could get Warner Brothers exclusively on board or even buy them. Disney got Marvel and Apple can get DC and other truly massive IPs. The only fear is that they'll promply ruin it.
The lone exception so far is Dark Matter, which was stellar. Really drew us in and made waiting for the next episode almost impossible.
To be fair and not a totally negative nelly, if you're out with a group of friends looking for something to do, heading into the cinema to see what's on and enjoying one of the films you wanted to see and hadn't yet got a chance to see is a great treat.
Today's $300 million, converted to 1977 dollars, could have funded 5.4 Star Wars movies back in 1977.
It's not just writers, director and actors. Just as often you can tell if a movie is going to be a dud by seeing if the producers include some of the actors, or if the Director and Writer are the same person (especially if they are also one of the producers.) In both of the movies you linked to, some of the actors were also the producers. Actors become producers so that they can guarantee they have roles made for themselves. (Pretty much any star that gets paid 8 figures starts their own production company for this reason.) But that's egocentric and nepotistic. The only person I can think of that was capable of being a producer, director, writer and actor, and still make great movies, was Orson Welles. Today everyone thinks that they can be another Orson Welles.
James Cameron was a successful combination of producer, writer, and director, but thankfully he didn't take advantage of that to become an actor.