Welcome back to What I’m Hearing, where we’re kicking off Oscars week with the annual Awards Season Awards, some new data on who watches these awards shows, and, as usual…

🚨🚨 The Oscars ratings contest! Win status-defining Puck merch by replying to this email by Sunday at noon with your best guess of Live+Same Day viewers. Remember, last year’s show lured 19.9 million, up about 8 percent from 2022. Following bumps for the Globes and Grammys (who knows what the SAG Awards did on Netflix?), and with big hits facing off in Oppenheimer and Barbie, will we see a 10 percent increase? More?

Programming note: This week on The Town, Lucas Shaw and I debated whether to hit the Panic button at Warner Bros. Discovery, Ben Thompson offered Disney advice on how to deal with Sora, and Michael Schulman defended Bradley Cooper’s Oscar campaign. Subscribe here and here.

Was this email forwarded to you? Click here to become a Puck member. Got a news tip or an idea for me? Just reply to this email.

Discussed in this issue: Dan Lin, David Zaslav, Bradley Cooper, Adam Driver, Charles Melton, Tim Cook, Bill Kramer, Doug Liman, Ted Sarandos, David Greenbaum, Emma Stone, Ava DuVernay, Marc Benioff, Peter Thiel, and… Brian Grazer’s Saudi schmooze-fest.

But first…

Runner-up: Raj Kapoor, the Oscars producer, for convincing Ryan Gosling to perform the nominated “I’m Just Ken” live on the telecast.

Speaking of the Oscars: NRG, the research group, is putting out a study this week on sentiment toward awards shows. I got an early peek, and there are some interesting findings:

• Gen Z cares, they just don’t watch live: Most surprising to me is that younger audiences are far more likely to say they care about the Oscars than older counterparts. That’s despite Gen Z being the least likely generation to tune in to them. Nearly the same share of Gen Z plan to watch live (42 percent) as plan to follow via social media (39 percent).

• Why they care: Researchers suggest the bonds with celebrities forged over social media lead to a greater investment in whether they win awards. So declining TV ratings doesn’t equal disinterest, it just means they’re consuming elsewhere. I know that doesn’t help Academy C.E.O. Bill Kramer, who needs people to watch on ABC to justify the huge broadcast fee. In fact, this chart should be terrifying:

• A majority (53 percent) believe that awards shows are out of touch with the tastes and preferences of the general public. Only 53 percent?

• 74 percent under 35 believe that awards shows should include at least one category that the public can vote on.

• Gen Z is far more likely than the general population to want awards shows to honor a) diverse (race and gender) nominees, b) underappreciated independent films, and c) foreign films.

• 44 percent of Gen Z wants Barbie to win best picture. One of many disappointments they have to look forward to in life…

A little more on this…

Amazon was quick to respond to the suit by saying, “the film does not use any A.I. in place of actors’ voices.” Which is true… but it also kinda obscures the backstory here. Here’s what actually happened, per multiple sources close to the situation. (Amazon, the filmmakers, and the DGA all declined to comment.)

Like most movies, the new Road House used temp A.D.R. (voice recordings) to determine which lines of dialogue should be re-recorded by the cast for the final cut. And for many years now, A.I. is often used to generate voices in that temp process. In August, shortly after SAG-AFTRA went on strike, Amazon sent filmmaker Doug Liman a postproduction schedule that would put the film on track to finish in early November and would not include any A.D.R. recording sessions—which Liman interpreted as Amazon wanting to simply use the A.I.-created temp A.D.R. in the final cut.

Liman flipped out because he considered that crossing the SAG picket line. So in September, Liman went to the Directors Guild for guidance, and on Sept. 27, the D.G.A.’s top lawyer contacted Amazon, noting that while the company had final cut and could do what it wished with the movie, the director could also choose to have his name taken off—which, given Liman’s high profile, would be disastrous for the film.

A day after that exchange, a new postproduction schedule miraculously appeared, and that one had A.D.R. sessions on it. The SAG strike ended in November, the cast recorded their dialogue, and the movie was locked shortly after that—without A.I. in the film but with a testy back-and-forth that could become public if that new lawsuit proceeds to discovery.

Now an interesting attempt to answer the question: Why does AppleTV+ exist?...

Matt Belloni: How long do you think Apple continues its Hollywood experiment? You think they’re in it for the long haul? Or do you think they’ll realize that professionally produced content is not for them and will say, “Let’s just be the pipes for everyone”?

Ben Thompson: I think Peter Thiel in his book Zero to One sort of referenced this, where it’s in the interest of the monopolists to have dumb businesses that people point to—to show that they’re not a monopoly.

It’s a smokescreen? Killers of the Flower Moon is a $250 million smokescreen to deflect from monopolistic behavior?

Since, I think, 2016 or so, Apple started the “services narrative,” which is, “We’re not just a hardware company, we have this ongoing revenue stream.” Once everyone has an iPhone, your only sales are people buying new iPhones. As technology gets better and better, that gets elongated. But if you have a services business, even if people are buying a new iPhone less frequently, they’re spending on services on an ongoing basis, which means you have a business that is still growing.

Recurring revenue, yes.

The problem with that “services narrative” is, number one, [it’s getting artificially supplemented] by Google to be the default search [on iPhones], which is the subject of an antitrust suit from the D.O.J. against Google right now. And number two, the App Store, where Apple takes 30 percent of everyone’s revenue for work [Apple] didn’t do, just because everyone needs to be on the iPhone, right? That’s not a very appealing story. So now, when you say Apple “services revenue,” it’s, “Oh yeah, Apple TV+, they made that great movie.” It’s a smokescreen. It’s a distraction from the reality of their services business, which is—if it’s not monopolistic, it’s monopolistic-adjacent.

Plus, who doesn’t love Ted Lasso? And Tim Cook gets to tweet about it.

That’s right. That said, a reason why I think I underestimated Apple TV+ comes to the Vision Pro. There is a services component to all Apple devices. The Mac is about third-party developers, right? The iPod was about music. The iPhone, another developer story. The Watch is just about health and fitness. You get to the iPad, and now the Vision Pro, which is in many respects an iPad for your face. And what do people use iPads for? To watch TV shows and movies, entertainment. You can do that on a Vision Pro and it’s great, particularly on an airplane. … Suddenly, you have a really compelling reason to have Apple TV+. I think the real focus for Apple TV+ is as a way to sell Vision Pros.

Lucas Shaw lays out the stark choices facing Warner Bros. Discovery C.E.O. David Zaslav, who has failed to articulate a growth strategy. [Bloomberg]

How much do Brian Grazer and Gwyneth Paltrow love money? Enough to skeeze their way to the Saudis’ latest whitewashing event, the “Future Investment Initiative” in Miami. [Dealbook]

Billionaire Time owner Marc Benioff got Streisand-ed when he went after a female reporter looking into his odd land purchases in Hawaii. [NPR]

Universal Music is now scraping its publishing artists like Adele and Harry Styles off TikTok. I don’t see either side blinking anytime soon. [Bloomberg]

Ronan Farrow profiled RuPaul. [New Yorker]

Did the It guru Jay Shetty really go from penniless monk to officiating Ben and Jen’s wedding and having his own Erewhon smoothie? [Guardian]

Now for box office guru Scott Mendelson’s take on the Dune: Part Two numbers and the outsize power of the P.L.F. screens…

But the most compelling data point is the stunning 48 percent domestic share represented by premium large format (P.L.F.) auditoriums—including 23 percent from Imax alone. Theatergoers shelled out for an upscale experience to watch the Warners/Legendary release. These numbers track with a post-Covid-era trend—manifested in Godzilla vs. Kong, Spider-Man: No Way Home, Top Gun: Maverick, Oppenheimer, etcetera—in which fans have prioritized films that seemed to benefit from the P.L.F. experience. And perhaps this offers a clue about how theatrical businesses can thrive in the new world.

Continue reading online...

“I thought it was worth noting that regardless of the pros and cons of Dan Lin and David Greenbaum’s appointments [at Netflix and Disney, respectively], their hires suggest that finally a new generation is getting their shot, as opposed to one of the old standbys, who have traditionally moved from one top studio job to the next. Of course, those old standbys would probably not be a good fit with the current heads of both companies. But the hiring of Lin and Greenbaum is a very positive sign and hopefully is a real breakthrough for the next generation of Hollywood leaders.” —A professor

“You forgot to mention Dan is actually a nice guy! That matters.” —A producer

“In my mind, the deliberate film strategy shift is also tied to the password-sharing crackdown. Obviously, the latter reignited subscription growth in a big way last year. But despite what [Netflix co-C.E.O.s] Ted Sarandos/Greg Peters say about the move’s long runway, a lot of smart folks expect the crackdown to hit a saturation point sooner rather than later. Unsurprisingly, Netflix has artfully dodged any and all questions about its plans after that happens. Reorienting the film business to majorly cut down costs and generate more bang for their buck gives them a sound financial narrative to spin to Wall Street and beyond if/when the newly found flood of sub growth dries up. This stands especially true as its push into gaming is still immaterial.” —An analyst

“Re: David Greenbaum. The question, Does this movie need to exist? is Gen X internet forum nonsense. It’s not a helpful question at all because the answer is either always no or always yes. ‘No’ if you are asking for some sort of cultural, creative reason (because corporations do not experience creative or intellectual passion), or ‘yes’ because movie studios always need to make a product and sell it. If the answer varies based on the ultimate success of the movie, then the question isn’t helpful and is the perfect picture of the 30 Rock joke, ‘From now on, we are only going to make shows that work!’” —A filmmaker

“OMG—thank you for your analysis/questioning/thoughts on Zaz and WBD. It’s exactly what we are all thinking and talking about. This company is being run into the ground and we are watching it happen in real time. Let’s just say last week’s all-time stock low (7 days after options vested and 3 weeks before the next batch vest) really destroyed morale. Everyone is just stuck right now.” —A Warner Bros. Discovery executive

“‘Di-Zaz-trous earnings’ was right there…” —An executive

Best Producer Whose Name Nobody Can Remember
Winner: Scott Rudin, who set up the best picture nominee Past Lives at A24 and played a major role in getting it made, yet has been scrubbed from the credits and never mentioned publicly after being ostracized over his bullying.

Clearest Call for Help in the Form of a Media Appearance
Winner: Bradley Cooper, posing for the cover of The New York Times Magazine floating in a freezing river in his underwear.
Runner-up: Bradley Cooper, telling Dax Shepard about his preference for at-home nudity and showers with his father.

Worst Effort to Win Votes at a Screening Q&A
Winner: Adam Driver, who responded to a Camerimage Film Festival audience member’s comment that the Ferrari crash scenes looked “cheesy” with: “Fuck you, I don’t know. Next question.”

Most Shameless Leveraging of a Family Member
Winner: Charles Melton, the May/December star, who sent his mother’s kimchi (and a handwritten thank-you note) to several people in the awards media.

The Get a Room Award
Winner: Charles Melton and The New York Times: “I can talk to you for hours,” he said as we took a break from grating radishes to nibble on apple slices and Korean pears in his living room. “I’m looking into your eyes and I’m like, ‘Oh my God.’”
Runner-up: Any interview with Deadline’s Pete Hammond.

Purest Vanity Campaign
Winner: Michael B. Jordan, whose FYC billboards for directing Creed III stayed up around L.A. throughout an awards season in which he received zero major award nominations.

The What Were We Thinking? Award
Winner: France, for submitting Juliette Binoche’s The Taste of Things for best international feature when Anatomy of a Fall, which would go on to score five other nominations, including best picture, was just sitting there.

Least Subtle Campaign Appearance During the SAG-AFTRA Strike
Winner (it’s a tie!): Emma Stone, who attended the Telluride Film Festival “as a fan” while Poor Things premiered; Bradley Cooper, who sat in the audience for Maestro at the New York Film Festival.

The Diane Warren You’re Nominated for What Movie? Award
Winner: Diane Warren, who scored her astounding 15th nomination (she’s never won) for “The Fire Inside,” from the Flamin’ Hot Cheetos movie that went direct to Hulu.

Best Campaign by an Actor Who Clearly Hates Campaigning
Winner: Cillian Murphy, who invoked Joanne Woodward to explain his aversion to press: “‘Acting is like sex—do it, don’t talk about it.’”

Most Controversial Campaign Prop
Winner: Messi, the border collie from Anatomy of a Fall, whose scene-stealing appearance at the Nominees Lunch caused campaign strategists for the other movies to go absolutely insane.

The Who’s Looking Out for No. 1? Award
Leonardo DiCaprio, who expended so much effort campaigning for his Killers of the Flower Moon co-star Lily Gladstone (seriously, show me an event photo of Leo solo this season; they don’t exist) that he neglected to do enough to get himself nominated.

Least Effective Effort to Replicate the Andrea Riseborough Grassroots Campaign
Winner: Origin, the Ava DuVernay drama, which picked up public “endorsements” from such past Oscar winners as Angelina Jolie, Ben Affleck, and Regina King, and nine posts from the all-important Academy influencer Frances Fisher. Yet zero nominations.

Best Feud
Winner: Chris Nolan vs. Jenn Sherman, the Peloton instructor whose public distaste for Tenet made it into Nolan’s New York Film Critics Circle speech and led to the dumbest weeklong media cycle of the season.
Runner-up: Ava DuVernay vs. her film’s distributor, Neon.

Lowest Ratio of Oscar “Conversation” to Actual Oscars
Winner: Saltburn. One zillion memes, zero nominations.

Most Off-Limits Subject While Interviewing a Contender
Winner: The personal politics of Gigi Hadid, Bradley Cooper’s girlfriend.

Congrats to everyone! Did I miss something? Email your own Awards Season Awards and I’ll include a few good ones next Sunday.

Got a question, comment, complaint, or a non-P.R. suggestion for who’d you like to hear interviewed on The Town? Email me at Matt@puck.news or call/text me at 310-804-3198.