Welcome back to What I’m Hearing, joining you in pessimistic wait-and-see mode regarding Wednesday’s possible actors strike. I’m hitting send tonight from the premiere of the highly-anticipated Barbie movie, a sentence I definitely never thought I’d write.

Programming note: I’ll be on CNBC tomorrow morning at 6:50 eastern talking box office and “Barbenheimer.” This week on The Town, Lucas Shaw and I parsed the David Zaslav pile-on, and I answered mailbag questions with Producer Craig while proposing a studio luxury tax for movies over 2.5 hours. Subscribe here.

And if you’re still not a Puck member (seriously, WTF?), click here.

Discussed in this issue: Howard Weitzman, Andy Jassy, David Nevins, Donna Langley, Adam Aron, Tyler Perry, Kelly Bush, Shawn Holley, Phoebe Waller-Bridge, Bob Iger, Bob Bakish, Ron DeSantis, David Zaslav, and the “daring” Barney the Dinosaur movie…

But first…

Quiz: $300 million tentpole or low-budget faith-based… which movie business would you rather be in these days??

It’s definitely amusing to envision Jassy, a career Seattle guy who has been eliminating tens of thousands of jobs and scrapping dozens of initiatives, asking Salke to explain curious line items in the $7 billion in annual programming costs:

“So… you made two competing versions of the same show, this Citadel thing… and then you threw one in the garbage? And that added $80 million to the overall budget?”

“So… we paid this person [checks notes], Phoebe Waller-Bridge, $60 million for her to make shows? And then she didn’t make any shows? And then you renewed the deal with her?”

“So… this Air movie… nice little film… love Matt Damon. You paid… oh…you paid $130 million for it?”

And so on. It’s become easy to crap on Amazon Studios—and, when the historical record of Peak TV is eventually written, Amazon may well secure the Toilet Flush title as having wasted more of its megabucks than rivals. But the problem is that, as much as we all know Amazon is a massive global retail business with the goal of becoming the everything store to everyone, we still tend to look at Prime Video through the same lens as other content companies.

So as much as we ridicule the Russo brothers for dropping $50 million an episode on Citadel (it’s still hard to type that without laughing), we actually have no idea how Jassy will respond when he sees those numbers. What is the value to Amazon if Citadel does help the company become the everything store to everyone in India? To use less extreme examples, what are The Terminal List, Jack Ryan, and Wheel of Time actually doing for Amazon’s actual business?

Lots of data tracking companies purport to know the answer to that question, but Amazon certainly isn’t telling us. Given the level of investment in entertainment and now sports, the still-sky high market cap, the new focus on advertising, and the long game that Amazon tends to play, I’d be surprised if Jassy reversed course entirely on Amazon Studios. But the unit is already trimming costs and spending. It’s now officially Under the Microscope, and I’m betting the message Hopkins and Salke get from this new scrutiny in Seattle is that, sadly for Hollywood, the party days are over.

More: I talked with Kim Masters about Amazon spending on The Business.

Runner up: “I feel like my name is not replacing Howard’s; rather, he is passing me the baton.” —Shawn Holley, the former O.J. attorney and newly second-billed partner at the Kinsella Holley Iser Kump Steinsapir firm, doing her best to lawyer the boot she’s giving to a mentor, the late Howard Weitzman, whose name is being removed from the masthead of the firm he co-founded.

A little more on this…

A lot of head-shaking in the Hollywood legal community over this one—especially since many entertainment firms (Gang Tyre, Mitchell Silberberg, etc.) keep their founder names long after retirement, and since co-founder Dale Kinsella, who is basically retired and doesn’t even live in California, does remain on the masthead. Weitzman’s son and widow put out blistering statements, but potentially the most impactful came to me on Friday from John Branca, the deal lawyer and executor of the Michael Jackson estate, one of the Kinsella firm’s big clients: “What a bad decision to remove Howard’s name,” Branca says. “Not only was he a legendary attorney, but he was beloved, a rare feat for a lawyer these days. We miss him more than I can say… his counsel and judgment were invaluable.”

I get that the firm wanted to promote Holley and make room for a new name partner (and to prevent people from leaving). But money—and a major client—talks. Let’s see if the firm backtracks.

Now for a potential bright spot in the dark chaos of Hollywood…

I like the Chernin thesis. With more pressure on streaming, these companies should be reducing costs, and, for the most part, they should abandon the content-hoarding model of overpaying for platform exclusivity, which would give independent studios more rights and allow the traditional studios to move older shows around. What was HBO’s Six Feet Under doing on Max, anyway? Not much. Now it’ll find a new audience on Netflix, and send some cash back to Warner Discovery.

Nevins is always smart on industry trends, and he recently tried to buy Showtime from Paramount for $3 billion, so I figured he had worthwhile thoughts on this subject. I got him on the phone on Friday, and this interview was edited for length and clarity.

David Nevins: Probably more the latter. We’ll have the ability to deficit finance. But I’m not going to suddenly greenlight a 10 episode, $100 million show without a distributor. We’re not a platform. Could we greenlight a movie? Yes. Could we do slate deals? Yes. The fact that we have access to capital and creative talent will make us a great partner to distributors of the world.

Matt: Why do you think the next four or five years are going to be better for independents? A lot of people think the opposite—that companies like yours will be squeezed as the content ecosystem contracts and streamers hone in on profitability.

David: It’s the kind of deals I believe you’re going to be able to do over the next several years. Streamers are honing in on what they actually need. Having been inside one of these companies, I think I understand pretty much how they think. I don't think they really need to own all rights everywhere in the world, in perpetuity. There's an argument to be made that it’s better for content to travel, and over time, that's how you create Friends or The Office.

Matt: Explain why the streamers will want less ownership? Won’t they just want to pay less for the same rights?

David: There’s two things. The debt that weighs on all these companies—even the richest ones are looking at how much they’re spending. So they’re going to say, Maybe we do a little less upfront, own a little less, share our risk—and therefore we’ll end up having to pay up a little more in success. It’s a trade I think they will all make, and these questions are getting asked inside all of them—from the most successful to the richest.

Matt: So back to the old TV model. You were inside Paramount. Is it still accurate that 95 percent of the value of these shows comes in the first couple months or years?

David: In the current system: yes. I believe a lot of the equilibriums in the system are going to get figured out over the next few years. Whether it’s Friends or The Office or Pretty Woman or The Godfather, the way things have life for years and years is by distributing it in different places over time.

Matt: When will Netflix start to license? After a bad earnings quarter or two?

David: I know that all these questions are being asked inside. It’s not just the license revenue they could be getting. Maybe they only need [a show] for a couple years? The last four or five years were early days, it was just: Lock it down; We have this new system, we'll pay upfront. Honestly, it’s a little bit of what the actors and writers are fighting about. Let’s get back to a place where success gets rewarded. The very well-funded and experienced producers will be valuable to the platforms. You know, the other disequilibrium in the system is efficiency. There’s no reward for efficiency anymore.

Matt: Totally. I’ve been saying this for years.

David: The more you can spend, the better you are. Even if I can make it for $10 million, I’m better off making it for $14 million, because I’m getting a percentage of the budget. That's a crazy disequilibrium. If I can make it for $10 million when you can only make it for $12 million, I’m better than you. I deserve a little higher profit.

Matt: Yeah, better aligning the incentives would be better for everybody long term. The consolidation issue is a big one, though. Don’t you fear that your company is going to lose buyers over the next five years?

David: Yeah. But I believe both consolidation and deconsolidation are going to happen at the same time.

Matt: How so on deconsolidation?

David: Sometimes assets are going to be more valuable outside that system than inside the system.

Matt: And sometimes there’s a disagreement. We’re seeing it now with Paramount in a standoff over the price of BET. They believe it’s a little more valuable than the potential buyer, Tyler Perry, believes. And he has a lot of leverage.

David: Anyway, I do think this company is well positioned to take advantage. Some things are going to be better managed, better monetized, in private hands than in public hands.

Matt: What kind of companies are you looking to buy?

David: There’s a lot of talent and a lot of smaller producers who want to stay independent but they want a little more heft. We’re going to be valuable to talent that is looking for a little more independence and a little more ownership. And distributors are paying more attention to their up front cash commitments. The HBO about-face on licensing is a bellwether.

Matt: I’ll let you go, but in five years, does Paramount Global exist?

David: Sorry, you’re not getting me to talk about Paramount.

Some great charts here that illustrate the extent of the content pull-back in the wake of the Great Netflix Correction. [WSJ]

This week in David Zaslav mini-scandals (GQ edition). [WaPo] And here’s the original hot take piece that was pulled down after Zaz’s P..R.. guy complained. [Archive]

Related: This angry Drew Magary column isn’t really fair (or particularly informed), but the headline, David Zaslav Kills Everything He Touches, Including GQ, earned a chuckle and a click. [SF Gate]

Bob Lefsetz is talking about the music business, but… “to triumph in today’s world you have to employ some of the tricks of the pre-internet era. You have to be less available, reveal less, be less connected to your audience, so you can be believed in.” [Lefsetz Letter]

Dylan Byers on the ESPN talent layoffs: Nothing matters now if it’s not live sports rights. [Puck]

And now, Eriq Gardner’s guide to the most brutal and consequential lawsuits of the first half of 2023...

1. Walt Disney Parks v. Ron DeSantis: The bitter conflict between Bob Iger and Florida’s governor—currently playing out before Trump judicial appointee Allen Winsor—won’t just determine who oversees Disney World swampland; it may shape the future of corporations expressing their views on contentious social matters.

2. Federal Trade Commission v. Microsoft and Activision Blizzard: The fate of the $69 billion merger is now in the hands of federal judge Jacqueline Corley, following testimony last month at a mini-trial regarding the competitive impact of this tie-up. Blocking the deal would dissuade future entertainment M&A (cough Warner Discovery/NBC Universal cough), and if the judge allows it, expect a fiery appellate battle led by Biden’s anti-merger FTC chief Lina Khan.

3. WarnerMedia v. Paramount Global: This clash between C.E.O.s David Zaslav and Bob Bakish includes allegations that Paramount+ employed “grammatical sleight-of-hand” to circumvent Max’s $500 million deal for exclusive rights to South Park. Expect a meticulous—and, hopefully, public—examination of dealmaking in the streaming era.

4. AMC Entertainment Stockholders Litigation: One of the biggest settlements in Delaware Court of Chancery history has sparked an unprecedented amount of objections. Vice chancellor Morgan Zurn will soon decide the power of a board to supersede shareholder wishes and issue new stock, with the outcome potentially pushing the world’s largest movie theater chain toward bankruptcy.

5. A.I. copyright cases: Companies like Stability A.I. and OpenAI face artists and authors who claim their copyrighted works were misappropriated to train artificial intelligence systems. These cases reflect the groundbreaking potential of the technology as well as the legal ambiguities. A hearing next week in San Francisco before federal judge William Orrick will help decide whether the first big class action from artists moves forward.

Just missed the list: Marvel Characters v. Patrick Ditko (a substantial copyright termination case impacting future ownership of Spider-Man and Doctor Strange); NFL Sunday Ticket antitrust litigation (bars, hotels, and others say the NFL restricts out-of-market Sunday games, artificially driving up the cost of Sunday Ticket); Rasmussen v. Disney (a momentous class action addressing pay equity for female professionals); and TikTok’s First Amendment cases (suits in Montana, Indiana and Arkansas challenging government bans). —Eriq Gardner

“If this goes well for Langley and/or Lazarus, I’d be curious if there’s a world where either get poached to replace Iger.”

“Access to a concert is fixed, in town only once. That movie will be on streaming in 5 weeks.”

“Kelly Bush sighting! I snubbed her on your behalf. (Mine too. A small victory for truth and honesty.)”

“Hear me out. It’s The Bear meets Stranger Things meets Asteroid City. On a cruise ship.”

Got a question, comment, complaint, or anti-Ryan Murphy WGA screed? Email me at Matt@puck.news or call/text me at 310-804-3198.