Mikey Campbell
Details of Apple's upcoming for-pay streaming service, Apple TV+, are beginning to emerge ahead of an expected launch this fall, with a report on Thursday claiming the tech giant doled out almost $15 million per episode to produce Jason Momoa vehicle "See."
A small tidbit in a larger Wall Street Journal exposé on the large sums streaming industry newcomers are willing to spend to break into the market, Apple's big budget for "See" tops project outlays from market incumbents like Netflix.
Officially announced by Momoa and Alfre Woodard at Apple's special event in March, "See" is a dystopian fantasy that takes place hundreds of years after a virus nearly obliterated humanity and left all survivors blind.
Citing a source familiar with the matter, the WSJ reports costs for "See" have topped out at nearly $15 million per episode, with each episode running about 60 minutes long. Tallied up, and considering an average 10-episode season, the show's final cost might amount to as much as $150 million, the equivalent of a big-budget Hollywood movie.
Indeed, Hollywood spectaculars are part of the reason why Apple and other companies need to write such large checks, the report said. According to executives, the nature of streaming services pits original shows against theatrical releases, meaning first-party content must be on a par with movies in terms of production value.
Disney, which is also launching a new streaming service called Disney+ in November, is also betting big on its first slate of original shows. Thanks to lavish set design, special effects and other expenditures, each episode of "The Mandalorian," a prequel to "Star Wars: Rogue One," cost the company around $15 million, the report said.
Amazon, too, is spending exorbitant amounts to secure new properties for Amazon Prime, and most recently broached a $250 million deal for rights to make a "Lord of the Rings" series.
The seemingly open-wallet policies of companies new to the industry contrast a rumored tightening of pursestrings at Netflix. With a multi-year head start, mature serial properties and experience in original content production, Netflix can afford to titrate spending. New arrivals like Apple, however, need to make a splash when their respective services launch later this year.
AppleInsider Staff
Malcolm Owen
Oliver Haslam
Andrew O'Hara
Wesley Hilliard
William Gallagher
Christine McKee
23 Comments
There are so many problems with the plot of See, I don’t know where to start. Maybe a star cast will save it...
Most of Netflix’s original shows are terrible. And their impulse to stretch documentaries into way-too-many-episodes docu-series is a terrible trend.
Several of them are clearly taking three episodes worth of content and editing it out to six—lazy stuff. Combine that with original fictional shows with generic I-used-to-make-car-commercials cinematography and sloppy dialog and sub-par directing and I’m left wondering “what they hell are they up to?” And we fit the bill for this shite? Worse and worse Netflix becomes. Shuffling My List every time you click into something? WTF is up with that shite? Assholes at this point.
At least so far Apple are showing some restraint and seem to be paying the money to get some of the better producers and directors. Budgets will particularly matter for Sci-fi shows, so it makes sense to shore up there. Top-notch effects are a real story telling tool in that genre particularly, along with practical effects. And all that costs money.
Either way, I’ll be ditching Netflix later this year and giving ATV+ a go.
Is it me, or is that a lot of money? Are the people behind these productions unreasonably demanding a lot because Apple has the cash?
Like sports, players (or actors, in this case) get paid a lot for doing the same work that many of us do every day. In sports, it's because ticket prices are so insanely high, so there's a lot of profit, and therefore it gets divided among the players. I think that's a slap in the face for consumers. I think the price should be lower if there's a lot of profit, but only if that money won't be invested back into the industry. Apple gets a free pass from me because they invest heavily into technology and protecting the environment. But that's just me.
The seemingly open-wallet policies of companies new to the industry contrast a rumored tightening of pursestrings at Netflix. With a multi-year head start, mature serial properties and experience in original content production, Netflix can afford to titrate spending. New arrivals like Apple, however, need to make a splash when their respective services launch later this year.
Earlier this year AppleInsider and others couldn’t print enough about how little Apple was spending compared to Netflix. Now that Netflix is cutting back on spending large sums of money, AppleInsider prints the above.
There was a time when Netflix was a rental DVD service, so I don't underestimate the ability for new comers in this territory to make a big impact. Similarly heavyweights such as Disney are likely to have a natural niche due to their utterly massive license portfolio.
I am really curious to see how it all goes, because the monthly service fees of each aren't sustainable for many buyers. Apple are well positioned since they can sweeten their bundle with Arcade, News+ and Music, which could help address an audience wider than their typical market of people with high disposable income.
On the flipside, this does not look good for Spotify.