It may be blustery outside What I’m Hearing HQ today in L.A., but it’s spring-cleaning time for my inbox (and tweet replies, and Signal messages…). So let’s answer some reader questions (I’ve edited them for clarity), starting with one of the eternal topics of conversation in the movie business… You often knock Netflix for making “bad” movies like The Electric State. They may not be for you, but are they actually worse than any other studio or streamer? Without devolving into a freshman year analysis of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, determining “quality” is obviously a tough task. Even Rotten Tomatoes, which has become the industry barometer for good and bad, is vague and game-able. Still, as an experiment, I asked Puck’s new research producer, Maya Tribbitt, to create a spreadsheet with every new English-language narrative feature released in the U.S. in 2024 by Netflix… and by the other major streamers and studios. Then we averaged the RT scores (and I checked the results with each studio’s P.R. person). Here’s the “quality” ranking:

So I stand corrected! Amazon, not Netflix, released the “worst” movies last year. Barely. Sony, one of the original Hollywood studios and a big proponent of the theatrical experience, was no better than Netflix. And Disney, the I.P. factory, actually released the second “best” slate of movies after Universal, at least according to critics. A key caveat: Netflix and Prime Video released a combined 16 small movies that were not widely reviewed and did not generate an RT score. Plus, my ranking includes the studio specialty divisions Searchlight, Focus Features, and Sony Pictures Classics, which generally make better-reviewed movies, and we omitted documentaries and titles where the studio only handled international. For Apple movies first released in theaters by a studio, we counted them for Apple, not the rent-a-studio. So Universal was off the hook for Argylle. What’s your biggest takeaway? Honestly, the scores aren’t that different among the studios and streamers. Maybe we all believe Netflix has the worst movies because there are just so many more of them. Or the traditional studios just do a better job marketing, so we think their movies are better than they actually are.

A MESSAGE FROM OUR SPONSOR

PERFORMANCE UNLEASHED With a distinct sporting personality, the Range Rover Sport is a peerless performer. EXPLORE

How much do you think Dana Walden’s friendship with Kamala Harris hurts or helps her chances of becoming the next C.E.O. of Disney? Well, it certainly doesn’t help! The Disney TV chief’s 30-year personal relationship with the former presidential candidate is now a liability—the question is how much. After all, Disney has been running like a scared mouse from any possible confrontation with Donald Trump or his state-sponsored retribution apparatus. In less than two months of Trump 2.0, the company has paid a $15 million presidential bribe—sorry, legal settlement—to make Trump’s ABC News suit go away; de-transed a transgender character in a Disney+ show; revised corporate D.E.I. commitments; and it just scaled back Snow White premieres to avoid media questions about the stars’ culture war stuff—which, of course, is generating more headlines about the culture war stuff. (I’m just gonna guess that between dropping verbal bombs on her own movie and whining publicly about not being invited to the 2022 Oscars, Rachel Zegler is probably not high on Disney casting wishlists.) Anyway, if Kamala had won the election, I think we’d be looking at Dana (and her connection to power) a lot differently. Then again, few would have thought such a crucial business decision as choosing the next leader of a $175 billion American company would be at risk of becoming so politicized. Given how the Walden-Harris friendship became an issue during the campaign, and given how freely Trump seems to be punishing his perceived enemies, Disney’s board is right to worry about potential retribution and brand damage if Walden is indeed chosen. Of course, the political and economic climate could all change in the nine months before early 2026, when Disney has said it will name Bob Iger’s successor. If the current financial trends continue and the country enters a Trump-cession, maybe being on the president’s enemies list will be seen as an asset. Ultimately, I think board chair James Gorman and his succession committee will go with the candidate they believe will best steer the company well beyond the Trump years. If that is ultimately Walden—a big if for many reasons more legitimate than a friendship with a politician—I think she gets the nod on the merits, regardless of the short-term political problems. Still, Trump is clearly a major concern, and Walden takes a hit because of that. What’s going on with Jon Hamm on Landman? No spoilers, but now that the show was renewed, is he staying or leaving? Hamm only signed a one-season deal for Landman, and creator Taylor Sheridan’s plan was always for Demi Moore, who plays Hamm’s wife and was barely in season one of the Paramount+ hit, to become a main character in season two. Sheridan definitely lucked out when Moore became a hot commodity thanks to her awards season run for The Substance, just as Sheridan’s Lioness should get a bump from Zoe Saldaña winning the Oscar for Emilia Pérez. But I’m told Landman is also adding Sam Elliott as a main character for season two. His scenes with Billy Bob Thornton should be fun. And Hamm, among the hardest-working men in showbiz for a few years now, has his own show, Your Friends and Neighbors, debuting April 11 on Apple TV+. As for the rest of the Sheridan-verse, he’s planning to shoot the Yellowstone spinoff with Cole Hauser and Kelly Reilly this summer (they’re currently looking to cast a Kevin Costner type that is definitely not Costner to join them). Plus, another spinoff is coming together. Plus, new seasons of the existing shows, and Sheridan is writing yet more original stuff. I’ve said this many times, but the Sheridan TV factory is pretty incredible. Now that a Chinese film has made $2 billion, do you think there’s any chance we’ll soon see global blockbusters not made by Hollywood? It seems inevitable at some point, given how accessible the tools of production and distribution have become. China spent a decade learning from Hollywood how to make their own blockbuster films, and now they don’t really need us. But… while Ne Zha 2 has grossed an amazing $2 billion, only about $30 million of that came from outside China (and $20 million of that was from the U.S.). We’ve still never seen a Chinese film (or a film from anywhere except America) gross $1 billion outside its home country, not adjusting for inflation. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is still the only Chinese movie to gross more than $100 million in the U.S., and that was 25 years ago (and Ang Lee, the director, is from Taiwan). The big Chinese movies tend to be nationalistic or rooted in local folklore. So no, I don’t think it’s happening anytime soon. Paramount-Skydance: Give us your updated odds on the merger actually happening. I’d still say 80 percent to 90 percent. The Trump nonsense, especially from F.C.C. chair Brendan Carr over the 60 Minutes lawsuit and “bias” issues, has been loud, and it could drag on and on until either the Ellisons or Shari Redstone gives up. But ultimately, I still think that’s all just noise. The eleventh-hour bidder, Project Rise, is kind of a joke. The China issue, via investor Tencent, seems pretty minor. And just today, the New York City pension funds that had argued the deal improperly favored Redstone agreed to drop their effort to enjoin the merger from closing. Larry Ellison wants this deal, and Ellison carries a lot of influence with Trump. I think it’s as simple as that.

A MESSAGE FROM OUR SPONSOR

PERFORMANCE UNLEASHED With a distinct sporting personality, the Range Rover Sport is a peerless performer. EXPLORE

How are people like Kevin Feige at Marvel and James Gunn at DC paid by their employers Disney and Warner Bros.? They’re executives but also producers/filmmakers. There are two basic models for executive compensation at movie studios. In the first, you get a straight salary and a discretionary bonus, maybe some equity in the company that vests over time. In the second, which is more common at smaller studios or independents, you get a salary, plus the discretionary bonus (usually if you hit a “target” for your division or the company as a whole), plus maybe equity, plus a pre-negotiated fee or participation in the shows or films that you personally oversee. Sometimes you might get a higher fee on projects you actually initiate. These are called “show fees,” and they serve as a bonus for productivity. Then there are hybrid people, like Feige and Gunn, who make movies while also overseeing them as executives. These types will have specific talent fees built into their deals. Gunn, for instance, will earn directing fees, producing fees, and writing fees for his services on this summer’s Superman—and, presumably, all the follow-up films he will work on, while also serving in his capacity as co-C.E.O. of DC. Even if he didn’t want to be paid, the various labor guilds would require at least minimum fees. (I’m betting that Peter Safran, Gunn’s partner, probably makes a higher salary since he handles the bulk of the day-to-day management while Gunn is off making movies—and earning his individual fees.) Feige, the veteran Marvel mastermind, is a wild card. It’s long been discussed in dealmaking circles that he earns a first-dollar gross profit participation on every Marvel movie, which would make Feige very rich. Good for him, if that’s true (it’s possible that the backend has been reduced or converted to a less lucrative cash-breakeven participation). But any piece of profits would be a bit ironic because Marvel does not offer its talent the same backend—only bonuses based on box office milestones. (Disney and WB declined to comment on any of this.) You always talk about YouTube as if it’s dominating Hollywood. Isn’t user-generated content just a fundamentally different business than professionally produced film and television shows? Yes and no. Hollywood people like to think YouTube is another world, but that hasn’t been true for years. YouTube hit $50 billion in revenue in 2024, mostly via advertising (the YouTube Premium subscription services and YouTube TV digital cable provider also contribute). That makes it the largest platform in the world for video advertising, and a rising power in video subscriptions, the two primary businesses of traditional television companies. In fact, YouTube just launched a new, cheaper subscription tier in an aggressive effort to attract more subscribers. In January, YouTube accounted for 10.8 percent of all streaming on internet-enabled televisions, far more than the 8.6 percent for Netflix, per Nielsen, and that’s not even including mobile viewing. YouTube also spends more than $20 billion a year in revenue-sharing with its content providers—more than Netflix, but as Netflix likes to point out, YouTube doesn’t take any risk in hosting video from anyone and everyone. Film and television companies shoulder almost all the risk in producing their content—hence why MrBeast, the biggest draw on YouTube, went to Prime Video when he wanted to make a really expensive game show. The YouTube march over the rest of Hollywood will only continue. Thanks to a recent app redesign, YouTube is coming for the “gatekeeper” role in subscription streaming that Amazon has tried to stake out. Users can now stream third-party services like Max and Paramount+ directly from the YouTube homepage, which makes it a more effective competitor to the Prime Video Channels. That’s without leaving the YouTube app, which gets a cut of the subscription money and all the data generated by the user. If YouTube vanquishes Amazon and eventually becomes the interface through which we watch all our streaming shows, in addition to the old-school linear channels, NFL Sunday Ticket, our favorite murder podcasts, and the usual skateboarding and shaved cat videos, it won’t just be a dominant player in Hollywood, it will basically eat Hollywood alive. On The Town, you were talking about the kinds of shows and movies Netflix should be making more and less of, but doesn’t it just come down to the cost of that content? If we’re being cynical—and I assume the tech lords at Netflix are cynical about how to grab and keep our attention—they should only care about how much cash translates into how many viewing hours, minutes, or seconds, and each decision should be governed only by that question of “efficiency,” right? Sure. The North Star at Netflix is efficiency, and that’s basically the flip side of the question of whether to make more Mark Wahlberg action-comedies or Meghan Markle fake homemaking shows. Hernan Lopez, the veteran executive turned analyst, was on The Town last week talking about cost efficiency in streaming, and he has a “Cost Per Thousand Viewing Hours” metric that is instructive. Using Netflix’s own data as revealed by the company, he divided the $15.3 billion in amortized content spend in 2024 by the 188 billion viewing hours and got to an average of $81 per thousand viewing hours (CPMVH) for all Netflix content. What’s more interesting is how that breaks down. Lopez modeled the average for all Netflix-produced originals at $105 per thousand viewing hours, and licensed content at $66 (obviously the licensed stuff is cheaper because it comes to Netflix already made). So then you can take any show or movie for which you know the budget, whether it’s licensed or produced in-house, and compare it to the average to determine whether it’s relatively efficient or inefficient. See here:

Example: Using the reported $70 million budget for season two of Squid Game, it’s a relative bargain at just $28 per thousand hours of viewing. Extraction 2, which Lopez estimated at an $80 million budget (I think it’s higher), was another good investment at double the average for all content, even the stuff nobody watched. As for the Christmas Day NFL experiment, for which Netflix reportedly paid $150 million (and Lopez assumes another $50 million in production and Beyoncé costs), the cost per eyeball is a lot higher. No wonder Netflix says it doesn’t want a full season of NFL games. At this point, such a big investment would likely cause its slate-wide efficiency to drop precipitously, and nobody wants that. See you Monday, Matt Got a question, comment, complaint, or some kind of gold medal to award this guy? Email me at Matt@puck.news or call/text me at 310-804-3198.

Need help? Review our FAQ page or contact us for assistance. For brand partnerships, email ads@puck.news. You received this email because you signed up to receive emails from Puck, or as part of your Puck account associated with . To stop receiving this newsletter and/or manage all your email preferences, click here.

Puck is published by Heat Media LLC. 107 Greenwich St, New York, NY 10006