Hello and welcome to What I'm Hearing...

For those new here, I’m Matt Belloni, a former entertainment lawyer and editor of The Hollywood Reporter. 

Reminder: My emails are for members of Puck, the new media community for insiders in Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Washington, and Wall Street. If you haven’t yet, you’ll need to sign up for a membership to continue receiving emails from me. Until then, here’s a preview of tonight’s column, available in full to paying subscribers. 

But first, before we begin...

Five Quick Thoughts on Bond Box Office

After all the hopes and dreams, No Time to Die opened to just $56 million in the U.S., a solid pandemic showing but nowhere near last weekend’s Venom: Let There Be Carnage ($90 million) or even 2015’s Spectre ($70.4 million), let alone the hyperbolic $100 million floated by some.  

• Don’t blame the old folks. They showed up, or at least they did in far greater numbers than for other pandemic pics. It’s the youngsters, the ones who powered Venom 2 (two thirds of theatergoers were under age 34 on opening weekend) who stayed home, registering just 39 percent of the weekend crowd for Bond. Venom also did $30 million in weekend 2, likely siphoning off young Bond business. 
  
  
• Global is still pretty strong, with $145 million for the weekend and $313 million total. Given the costs, there’s almost no path to profitability now (Forbes is predicting about $700 million all-in), but it won’t be a colossal disaster.  
  
  
• About 35 percent of the gross in some territories came from IMAX or large-format screens. Yes, the future of theaters is a premium experience at a higher price point.
  
  
• Paramount is feeling pretty good about delaying Top Gun: Maverick to Memorial Day.
  
• Next: Watch whether No Time to Die shows up early on VOD in the U.S.

Sponsored by Amazon Prime Video

Want an Oscar? Fill Out This Diversity Form

The initiative rankles some members, who see it as an intrusion into the artistic process. But after undertaking a years-long effort to diversify its membership, it’s clear the Academy wants to do more to bring about change.

Here it is, the document that members of the Motion Picture Academy have been waiting to see, the long-in-development, highly debated, bound-to-be-controversial “Academy Inclusion Standards” form. It hasn’t been disseminated to the membership yet, but someone slipped it to me, and I know a lot of Academy members read What I’m Hearing…, so I’m passing along a couple screenshots.

For those not up to speed, the Academy decreed last year that to be eligible for the best picture Oscar, films must soon meet two of four “inclusion standards” aimed at increasing depictions and employment of women, racial and ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ people, and those with disabilities. Films that don’t meet the threshold will be disqualified starting with the 2024 Oscars, but producers must begin submitting the confidential form this year to be considered for the top prize. It quietly went live on the Academy member portal about two weeks ago.  

I know this initiative rankles some members, who see it as an intrusion into the artistic process by an organization whose sole function should be to honor and advocate for that art, not police how it’s made or by whom. And I’ll admit, it’s jarring to see a checklist asking a studio to determine whether a supporting actor is “gay” or “queer” (or both?). Some of the questions and drop-down menus also seem susceptible to a legal challenge, though Crash producer Bob Yari sued more than 15 years ago over the criteria for winning best picture, and a court basically ruled that the Academy can set its own rules. Still, the whole process is pretty onerous, with productions asked to “create a unique entry for each individual being submitted for this standard.” You know how many people work on movies?  

ADVERTISEMENT

FOUR STORIES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT