194 - The Rise & Future of A24 in Data

A24's box office hit 'Civil War' marks another landmark in their shift from indie to mainstream since its founding in 2012. Its recent $225M private equity financing raises questions about maintaining its independence. Despite uncertainties, A24's commitment to quality cinema has earned it a dedicated following and plaudits. Yet, parallels to past indie studios suggest a potential fate of acquisition and the end of A24 as we know it.

Lee welcomes data journalist and pop culture lover, Daniel Parris, author of the Stat Significant newsletter, who has crunched the numbers to analyse the rise of A24 and whether it predicts trouble or further success in the future.

Read Daniel's article here > Civil War' and the Rise of A24: A Statistical Analysis 

Episode Transcript

(00:03):
Welcome to the nerd Party. Hello, and welcome to the A twenty four
project. Here in the Nerd Partynetwork, my name is Lee Hutchinson and
Dallas King and I make our waythrough the A twenty four filmography and along
the way bring you interviews with thetalent involved in front of and behind the

(00:23):
camera. This week, we're doingsomething a little bit different. A twenty
four's recent box office at Civil Warhas marked another landmark in their shift from
indy to mainstream. Since its foundingin twenty twelve, A twenty fourths commitment
to quality cinema has earned it adedicated following and plaudits. However, a
nearly quarter of a billion private equityfinancing has raised questions about maintaining that valued

(00:47):
independence, and now parallels to pastindie studios suggest a potential fate of acquisition
and the end of A twenty fouras we know it. I welcome data
journalist in pop culture lover Daniel Paris, author of the stat Significant newsletter,
who has crunched the numbers to analyzethe rise of A twenty four and whether
it predicts trouble or further success inthe future. And you can find a

(01:11):
link to that in the show notes, it was a pleasure to welcome Daniel
to dive into the data behind thesuccess of A twenty four and what tells
us about his future. Thanks somuch to Daniel for joining us, and
hope you too find this conversation interesting. So, Daniel, can you tell

(01:32):
us a little bit about yourself?My name is is Daniel Paris. I'm
a data journalist. I guess it'sthe term. It's kind of a weird
thing to call yourself, but Ihad a weird path, I guess to
the data world. I was afilm major in college and I worked in
the entertainment industry for a while.So I worked for The Conan O'Brien Show

(01:53):
and Steve Carell as an intern,and I really did not like it.
I was sort of at the bottomrine of entertainment and so after a year
or two of working in that industry, I decided I wanted to move on
to something else in my now wifesaid I'm moving to San Francisco. So
I said, cool, me too, Why not? I moved to San

(02:14):
Francisco and got a job doing techsales because I was told, you know,
everybody needs some working deck in theBay area, and so I eventually
the company I decided was bad atsales, so they started paying me to
take night courses in data and analytics, and so I started learning all these
different skills, and I eventually movedto a company called DoorDash, which is

(02:37):
a food delivery company in the US, and I worked there for about six
years. The company grew, Ithink, from like one hundred and fifty
to twelve thousand. There's something crazyduring the time that I was there,
So that was a bonker's experience.And then after I was done, I
knew I've since been doing data consulting, and then I've always had the urge

(02:57):
to kind of get back to myroots and do something related the film,
popular culture, or something related tothis love of movies I've had for a
very long time. So I starteda newsletter called stat Significant, which is
a I like to call it adata centric or a newsletter of data centric
essays about movies, TV and film. And so in a given week,

(03:20):
I'll write, you know, tento twelve minute essay at least reading time
about various pop culture topics. Sosome of them include, you know,
why do people hate Nickelback? Andtrying to find statistical grounds for why people
dislike Nickelback or quantifying Nicholas Cage's career, and just like how absurd it becomes,
especially in the two thousands. I'vewritten some stuff about about a twenty

(03:42):
four investigating when people stop finding newmusic. So each week from scratch,
I do my own analysis and ultimatelytry to, you know, figure out
some sort of ground truth about culturein the way that people interact with culture
amazing. So like, as youmentioned, you did journalize cultural over like
what type of culture? And areare you kind of drawn to yourself?

(04:04):
That is a decidedly broad question,I would say, first and foremost,
if you were to sort of talkabout medium, I've always been heavily drawn
to film. When I was akid, I watched a special on a
FI the American Film Institutes one hundredgreatest movies, and I vowed to watch

(04:24):
every single one. And so I, you know, printed a list and
put it up on my wall,and I kept going through them, and
I even got I finally got tothe end of the list and all I
had left was a clock record andShe'd been Night Cowboy, which are two
films literated act and I from myapartments. When I was thirteen, my
parents allowed me to watch those movies, so eventually I completed the lists,

(04:46):
and then from there I just kindof became obsessed with film as far as
within, as far as you know, what type of movieste. I hate
to frame it like this, butI kind of like everything about horror.
I'm willing to anything that gets youknow, decent reviews, or maybe is
put out by a company that Itrust, like A twenty four gets the
Criterion stamp. I'm willing to trythat movie. But I just horror has

(05:09):
never resonated for me. I wishit did, because horror is one of
the few genres that's really doing wellin theatrical exhibition, but it's just not
something that inherently appeals to me.Yeah, So, like obviously, the
overlap between like data and pop culture, it used to really be kind of
box office numbers and budgets, nowextends to things like rawn to mouths layer,

(05:30):
box rating, social media engagement,and so many other metrics. Do
you think that's been a positive change, because it seems to be people will
use those for their arguments in somany different ways. I mean the answer
to that question is it depends.So one thing that I personally have been
very weary of doing as I've beenquantifying different fests of culture is trying to

(05:56):
really do it through the lens ofappreciating these cultural artifacts, because there's a
very cynical interpretation where you're only lookingat box office numbers and you just look
at it for the financial implications init of themselves, and you lose sight
of the fact that even for aHollywood movie that is its seventh installation and
a franchise, this is still athing that people love. It's entertainment and

(06:18):
for some people in the world thatwill be their favorite movie. I'm not
sure if I necessarily agree with them, but like you know, these are
things that people relate to, andso oftentimes I think when I use something
like box office, it's as areflection of you know, popular taste and
trying to understand it through the lensof Okay, if a certain type of

(06:42):
movie has seen waning box office,let's say, movie musicals, what does
that say about our culture and whathow is you know? These how also
have these trends that indicated what isthen produced in the future. Right,
So looking at I guess from thatsort of bidirectional relationship rather than just throwing
out statistics of saying like this ishow much something earned or here is how

(07:05):
you could create the perfect movie forbox office appetites, which spoiler alert is
basically just a franchise movie. I'vealso really tried to avoid saying that any
one thing is good or bad alongthose lines and just trying to think of
the trade offs. So my personalbelief is, like I don't love the

(07:27):
sort of franchisation of Hollywood, butI also understand why Hollywood executives have had
to do this thing, especially intheir competition with say television, and you
know, the growth of the televisionindustry. So to me, I just
sort of see all these things asa series of trade offs, and I
like to explore that through the numbers. So what is your kind of process
for bringing these like topics to lifeand like kind of what choosing like what

(07:51):
data to analyze? So take forexample, like that one everyone kind of
says, oh, people tend tostart listening to new music, sort they
always go back to their teenage years, especially with Spotify et cetera. Like
where do you go for like yourdata and how do you make sure,
it's like valid, I guess aswell and then construct a story or do

(08:13):
you have an idea in your headwhat you want? And then it's fine
in the data, what's what's theprocess? So it's sort of it comes
from two different mental models or trainsof thought. So the first one is
I will be watching something or listeningto a podcasts or reading a book by

(08:33):
a say cultural critic, and Iwill have an idea about something that is
like an emotional truth about pop culturethat I want to explore. So as
an example, it's like, whydid this movie stand that? Why did
a certain movie stand the test oftime and an another movie didn't? Like
As an example, I think inthe two thousands, there's a movie called
Artists that one best picture, andthere's sort of been this collective amnesia that

(08:58):
that movie existed. At the sametime, we a movie like Moonlight,
which is an a twenty four moviehas stood the test of time and is
something that is continuously referenced and heldup and is a movie that I feel
very strongly will be watched ten yearsfrom now. So can you quantify that?

(09:18):
And then also can you get tosome greater truth why these movies don't
stand the test of time. SoI'll have an idea that's that's sort of
abstract, and I'll start from aplace like that, and typically I will
run it through this filter of thereneeds to be some sort of Again,
I keep going back to this ideaor this phrase of some greater truth,

(09:39):
Like it can't just be a findingwhere someone looks at the day and says
okay, Like it needs to tellus something about the way pop culture works,
in the way that people interact withpop culture, and then the forces
that drive its production or its consumption, and then the other way. And
this is a lot less exciting isI will find a cool data set and
I will say, what can Ido with this data set? So,
as an exis sample, I oncefound a data set that I'm blinking on

(10:03):
the name, but somebody had curatedof the age gaps between care between actors
and movies for romances. So asan example would be like, you know
this Roger Moore James Bond. RogerMoore was like twenty five years older than
all this co stars, and soit's quantifying this age gap across a certain
period of time. And the datawas just so undeniable and it was so

(10:26):
fascinating that I had to do somethingwith it right, And then I think
the difficulty though, with when you'recoming up with those abstract ideas is you
could come up with the greatest ideaat a very high level, and then
I go to look for the dataand it doesn't exist, and so that's
the bummer. At the same time, I find those ideas to be I

(10:46):
think they resonate a little bit morebecause usually again is connected to like,
it's easier for me to write becauseI have the point that i've I'm trying
to make, and hopefully I canfind the data to then support that point.
We have been kind of some ofyour favorite topics to cover, and
has there ever been one where You'vehad a brilliant article but just the data
has just not been there You've hadto basically put that one to one side

(11:09):
as well. Yeah. I thinkactually some of my favorites have been when
I'm able to maybe look at moviesor TV and actually find a data source
or some data point that isn't youknow, just purely box office. So
as an example, one article thatI really like is looking at which movies

(11:30):
popularize certain baby names and The findingthere, which was really fascinating, was
so very when a movie that makesprominent reference of a given name comes out,
oftentimes that will cause a psich inbaby names. And the data set
that I used there that was reallyfascinating was social Security cards in the US,
so they actually release a data setof all of the names in a
given year that have been registered withSocial Security. And the crazy finding though,

(11:56):
was when you look at fictional villainsthat have prominent featuring of their names,
or maybe not even villains like taboocharacters, you also see a spike
in babies being named so as anexample, the Exorcist the name Reagan,
you see a huge spike in inbabies being named Reagan after the Exorcist,
even though I assume those parents maybedidn't want to bestow any thematic symbolism from

(12:22):
the Exorcist onto their children. Oranother one is that you actually see a
very sizeable spike in children being namedLolita after Stanley Kubrick's Lolita movie comes out,
which I don't even need to reallygo into the significance there, but
that's also I found out to befascinating, and I think the takeaway ultimately

(12:43):
was just just the sort of phoneticsof being exposed to this name and the
osmosis of this name being said makesit stick in a parent's brain and ultimately
leads to more people being named thatthing and other thing is I really actually
enjoyed. Netflix released some data atthe end of last year about like what

(13:05):
people watch on Netflix, and thatwas just a look into this ecosystem that's
off in a black box, andit was just getting an understanding of like
how much Netflix is trying to buildcontent for other countries and the extent to
which they're doing that, and thenhow much Netflix will rely on a show
like I don't know Suits, Soit's a show that's seemingly not super significant

(13:26):
from like the twenty or twenty tensthat just goes bonkers on Netflix and it's
inexplicable. But getting access to somethinglike that that was previously a black box
was really fascinating. It's amazing.And talking of your blog, like my
first introduction to it was like youdid this article on like a twenty four
Civil War and the rise of atwenty four a statistical analysis, and it

(13:48):
was about how like A twenty fourhas gone from this indie distributor to kind
of a mainstream entertainment brand. Soit's been a topic when as soon as
I saw I was like, thisguy has done why I've always wanted to
cover as a topic. But whatinspired you to cover this topic? Yeah?
I mean over the last decade,I keep seeing these movies that I

(14:11):
really like and I just overtime andI'm not sort of similar from other people.
I start seeing the same title cardcome up before each one of them,
and it's starting to hit this criticalmass where you're having all the oscars
the last couple of years be dominatedby eight twenty four films. You're starting
to see them expand into television anddo so successfully. It's like euphoria and

(14:31):
a curse. And so they're reallyreaching this point where they're being recognized as
this brand in and of themselves,and they're no longer a culturality, like
they're sort of a force to bereckoned with in the entertainment industry, and
they're very much idiosyncratic relative to alot of other production companies and entertainment.
So there was that realization, butthen I think it was also the idea

(14:52):
that they're at this inflection point asa business, which is one they've they've
recently taken funding I believe, Iactually don't believe it's private equity firms.
I'm not one hundred percent sure,but they they gave away I think ten
percent of the company for twenty twohundred and twenty five million dollars investment in
something like that, which means thatthey are now need to be on a

(15:16):
certain trajectory that might not be supportednecessarily by their previous strategy circa five to
ten years ago. And then youalso see a movie like Civil War,
which is a significant up leveling forthem as far as scope is concerned.
And so the idea I think withthe article was look at, you know,
how they got to where they are, which has been this remarkable strategy

(15:37):
at least in today's present filmscape filmlandscape, but not actually something that's like
so novel by Hollywood standards, atleast historically, and then looking at maybe
where they're going and where they couldbe going given previous history, and just
trying to sort of gauge, okay, like what what does it mean for

(15:58):
them to make a film like CivilWar and what does that mean for the
future. Yeah, kind of youmentioned like fundamentally, at the end of
the day, like ten years ago, they were just kind of film distributors.
Like it's not overly the most uniquebusiness model in the world. Maybe
how they approach certain things perhaps abit more so and kind of always giving
that kind of freedom to filmmakers andso on. How has that approach kind

(16:22):
of contributed to their their growth.Has it been very much that kind of
simple invest low reap the rewards kindof thing. Yeah, I mean,
I think it's a few different things. One as far as investing in filmmakers
that allows them a few different things. Like oftentimes, especially when you're when

(16:42):
you're talking about smaller scale films forfranchise, like a franchise or intellectual property
isn't involved. You're relying upon thevision of a sort of an out or
filmmaker and so being able to youknow, collect or build relationships with these
filmmakers who have these brains in andof themselves, you know, whether it's
the ari Astors, Alex Garlands,Greta Gerwig and being able to sort of

(17:07):
build upon those relationships and then youknow something that somebody like ari Astor who
now has a fan base who's devotedto him, like they now have built
in marketing for an ari Astor filmor Sofia Coppola film, Like people want
to go see those things, andit assures that there's at least like a
baseline of quality because those are filmmakerswho have a track record, have proven
success. It's always interesting thing aboutthe ari ast one, for example,

(17:30):
because like everyone made this huge pointlike bo is Afraid, huge flowed relatively
speaking, but then it's like Eddingtoncomes along and it carries on like they've
not even like kind of flinched withtheir support for the guy. Yeah,
I've yeah, we could probably talka lot about those Afraid, but I
a it's a bit of an anomaly, is I think, at least how

(17:52):
it's currently being read. I meanthat film was like a blank check film
that yeah, I'm not sure itwas an even it was. It was
I think designed in such a waywhere the audiences weren't necessarily like meant to
love it, which is perplexing.But as far as I guess, other

(18:14):
facets of their strategies. So anotherone is, you know, smaller budgets.
So it's not rocket scientists the rocketscience, but if you you know,
if you invest five million dollars inthe film, it makes twenty million
dollars. Like that's great. It'sa pretty significant margin. And so you
also then get the ability to diversifyacross different films. So if you actually

(18:36):
look at the grosses of eight twentyfour films, there are a lot of
movies that have not made a lotthat have not made very much money,
which is is actually surprising because whatsticks out in my mind is, you
know, everything Everywhere, all atonce, and Moonlight and Lady Bird,
these movies that crossed over into themainstream and were films that were taken seriously
by both moviegoers and the academy.But that means though that you know,

(19:00):
for every five flops, they haveone crossover, and that crossover, given
you know that the film market isstill relatively big, is enough to be
you know, greatly outdo the amountof money they've lost on those flops.
And then I guess also because theyhave this growing brand equity, people are

(19:21):
willing to then go back on streamingor on rental and investigate these A twenty
four movies. So it's a virtuouscycle. You're so spot on, and
it's something we spoke about a lot, because like the Joy of Us,
we've gone on that kind of journeyfrom the beginning films to kind of present
day, and there's so many filmsyou look at, going, I have
never heard of this film in mylife, and it's just one random film

(19:41):
they picked up at some festival,dumped on a streaming platform somewhere. Like
you look at the budget, going, how did that make any money back?
You think, well, they justpaid for the distribution, but you're
like still had to make some kindof money somewhere or something. Very It's
quite bizarre some of these choices,but it feels like they may they've gone
from putting out like ten fifteen ayear to being a bit more curate with

(20:04):
the releases and investments as the yearshave gone on. Yeah, and I
think they've also moved from distributing toproducing, and over time they also build
up their brand as it relates totheir relationship with filmmakers. You know,
if they had approached Sofio Coppola nineyears ago, they might not have had
the same cachet that they have today, right, And then you know there's

(20:26):
also a vision that they can pitchthese filmmakers, Hey, we're going to
give you ten million dollars and thenyou do whatever you want. And then
actors are also aware that this isa sort of brand to be trusted that
can give them the ability to showcaseeccentric performances. And so again it's it's
not just their brand as it relatesto consumers, but it's brand their brand

(20:48):
as it relates to filmmakers and covetingthose filmmakers and making an attractive home for
these filmmakers. It's interesting the wayyou speak there of like that kind of
thing of like, you know,here's money, often do whatever you want.
Like there was almost interesting at thatbeginning point. Yet like A twenty
four and then like they're rarely spokenabout now, like Anna Perno, where

(21:08):
they had the same thing of likehey Paul Thomas Anderson, go do this.
You know, they would give moneyto these filmmakers. It was high
numbers, but it was never makingthe money back. And obviously it was
only a few years ago. Theyseemed to kind of expectedly go go bust.
Yeah. I actually the other I'vebeen thinking a lot about Anna Perna
because I do you remember they wenton a run where they were similar to

(21:30):
the A twenty four effect where Ikept seeing the same title card in front
of movie. So I liked itseem to be the case with Ana Purna
for a run in the twenty tens. They they are a bit of a
different beast, where so A twentyfour is funding even from the beginning came
from investors. There's no way tolaunch a film production company without a lot
of money, so it was alwaysthey're always gonna be driven by investors.

(21:53):
That said, the scale of thereturns that they needed to provide has changed.
An A Purna, I believe,is different where it's being funded by
one person who has like a prettysignificant base of capital. And so my
understanding is they had a few likelosses and then some other stuff happened and
that's what led to their their fall, or at least their their sort of

(22:17):
a session. They're a fascinating family, aren't they, And like it's one
I wanted to almost like there mustthere'd be something interesting exploring, like the
Allison family, I think, whereyou have like Megan Ellison on one side,
launches on a partner, gets allthe you know, praise for like
supporting indie cinema, and then youhave was like David Allison on one side
with Skydance who lick. I thinkas of today look like they're on the

(22:40):
cusp of like buying out Paramount.And there's such an interesting pair of journeys
for a pair of siblings. Ifind them so fascinating. Yeah, they
effectively had two different theses and executedand ultimately, you know, maybe the
thesis of support Tom Cruise and hisdeatifying stunts was that a hYP hop system.

(23:00):
Absolutely, and like you know,there's the hypothesis of and you've seen
we speak about like investment, Likeyou know, there was the whole discussion
about like every kind of studio seemsinvested in sort of streaming or streaming the
future, and you kind of haveto just look at your Peacocks, your
Paramount plus is even your Disneys andNetflix, Like it's a total kind of

(23:23):
loss market, but it's doing betterthan in some ways than the box office.
Like how do you feel like Atwenty four has kind of navigated the
kind of this evolving landscape and kindof held their nerve I guess with distribution
because it feels like they've taken theapproach to that I would you know,

(23:44):
you would have maybe hoped a Paramountor someone would have done of gone like,
we're going to make the content,we're going to sell it to HBO
Max, We're going to sell itto Netflix, et cetera. That's where
the money is as opposed to buildingthis infrastructure. Yeah, I think it's
ultimately what happened was a lot ofthe major Hollywood studios and these media conglomerates
is that they just chase Netflix becauseNetflix has captured so much of i'll just

(24:11):
call it the media industry, whetherit's it's film and television, where people
want entertainment, it's more affordable andit's more convenient for them to just watch
Netflix, and that has deflated theoverall value for television, for linear television
it used to be. So that'syou know, traditional television as well as
movies, because people were less likelyto go to movies if they could just

(24:33):
stay at home and watch something greatand only pay I don't know, twelve
dollars a month or five dollars withhats. So the idea was that there
was this expanding streaming market and thatin order for these companies, these legacy
media conglomerates like Paramount to stay alive, they had no choice but to launch

(24:53):
streaming, Like even though in hindsightsomething like Peacock or Paramount Plus seems like
a mistake, there really was nochoice, especially because these are public companies
with investors, and because if youthink about the counterfactual, right, Paramount
never launches Paramount Plus, they're stuckin the movie business. And then they're
also stuck with say CBS, whichis their linear television station. They're losing

(25:19):
a ton of money on that legacytelevision operation. Like even though NCIS is
a gigantic show, and Star Trekis always an example as well, like
Paramount Plus, it's the home ofStar Trek. And then Netflix, like
you mentioned Netflix, Staypoints is oneof the most popular shows around the world,
is Star Trek, And they couldprobably just coasted around on maybe some

(25:41):
of their earnings from that, Iguess, yeah, but just not enough
people were watching what I guess isoften referred to as linear TV. And
then you also have their movie operation, and just fewer people are going to
movie theaters. So there's basically thisgigantic growing market that is effectively, you
know, just pulling share from theseother revenue streams, these other media revenue

(26:04):
streams, so they had no choicebut to launch these these streamers. At
the same time, it seems likeNetflix, being the first mover and having
built out a considerable library, isreally the only streamer maybe with the exception
of HBO Max and maybe Disney thatcan stand on its own. And so

(26:26):
you just have these companies that hadno choice but to launch streaming. They
fueled a lot of their spending withdebt, and now they're stuck at this
this this very weird inflection point wherethey probably can't spend any more money that
they've borrowed because rates have gone up. But they also just have this thing

(26:48):
that exists that they need to keepgrowing because they're public companies. So it's
in a really difficult They're in areally difficult situation. And I think it's
ultimately this Netflix effect of chasing thisthis new streaming, you know, Golden
Goose. As far as how AHtwenty four fits into all of this,
I do think this again, thisis just my best guess what that A
twenty four will probably end up doingmore work in television if they're really expected

(27:14):
to grow into this. I believetwo point five billion dollar valuation that they've
been given they need to be ableto consistently produce revenue at a at a
much more significant scale, and they'reprobably going to do that, is my
best guess, through television shows likeAnother Euphoria or another The Curse, So
being able to package these shows fora showtime or an HBO and sell those

(27:38):
and that way, you know,a lot of the money or the revenue
is upfront and is sort of broughttogether in that like bargaining phase as opposed
to having to produce you know,a bunch of Civil Wars fifty one hundred
million dollar films that could flop.So I do think A twenty four again,
this is my best guess, willprobably do more television, especially because

(28:00):
some of their initial forays have beenquite successful. And then yeah, I
guess the other thing is what's difficultfor them is, Okay, is it
worth it for them to start producinga bunch of fifty or one hundred million
dollar films. That's really risky forthem because those are just like not regularly

(28:21):
doing well. It's not attached tosome sort of intellectual property. I've read
some stuff that there is the possibilitythat they could get into intellectual property.
I don't know what that would be. Like. The hope is maybe they'd
do something that is not just ayou know, a run of the mill
comic book character. Maybe they findsomething that's a little bit more konoclastic,
a little bit more chemicultural, andthey do something unique with this with this

(28:44):
idea of intellectual property. So it'shard to say, but they they're bumping
up, especially with their film model. They're bumping up against the limits of
their own formula, which is thatthere's just it's hard for them to justify
that two point five billion dollar valuationif they're relying upon past lives and the
zone of interests. They crossover hitsand both those movies I think around like

(29:07):
forty million dollars, which is greatfor a twenty four. If they put
in five million dollars, it isnot great for the investors who are expecting
more significant returns. You talk aboutthings even like kind of Euphoria sets this
up almost where you know, theymake Euphoria and then you get the Euphoria
makeup set, the Euphoria fashion line, et cetera. Like these they've really

(29:29):
expanded out to sometimes a bit ofkind of eye rolling, the kind of
the merchandise. They've got like asubscription service kind of that gets your fanzine
and a few discounts, et cetera, Like how much do those like expensive
candles and the services like that thattriple A twenty four like go towards the

(29:51):
kind of company profits and stuff likewhat's their thinking behind fifty dollars candles?
Maybe? Yeah, I guess I'veread a few profiles where they've touched on
this. My understanding is that they'retrying to monetize the brand in a few
different ways. So, you know, I'd like a twenty four. My
sister bought me an a twenty forshirt for Christmas, So I appreciate the

(30:17):
brand for what it does. Theyunderstand that there are a considerable number of
people like me who enjoy what they'redoing, and so the fact that they're
I guess there it's just another revenuestream for them to monetize. That is
something before they get into maybe likefranchise filmmaking. Though, whether it's the

(30:41):
merchandise or the subscription service, whichto be honest, I don't see a
ton of value in but if youdo like it, it's good for you.
It's ways for people to engage withthe brand and ways for them to
make money off of something that's effectivelyfree to them, righty, Like they
have cultivated this brand through a lotof really incredible so it's not like one
percent free if you think about itthat way. But people really like A

(31:04):
twenty four and what it symbolizes andat least today what it says like where
they fit into the entertainment landscape.So A twenty four is able to capitalize
on that in a few different ways. And then you know, I don't
know if it's exploitative necessarily, butthey're able to really capitalize on facets of
these movies that people like, likeselling the hot dog fingers from everything everywhere

(31:27):
all at once. You know,I guess they're making money off that,
and that's great, And in onerespect, I would love for them to
make money in any way possible.That isn't them just engaging in a race
to the bottom with the rest ofHollywood. And so in one sense,
I like that, and in theother sense, I you know, I

(31:48):
watched the movie, I enjoyed it. I prefer not to like necessarily give
all, like any more of mymoney into everything everywhere, all at once.
After seeing it in theaters. Hebrought like in the article the comparison
between like A twenty four and companieslike kind of mirror Maax and sort of
the long term sustainability of it all. So like, how does a twenty
four planned guests maintain that independence thatpeople are really attracted to and appeal to,

(32:14):
Like people are wearing an a twentyfour T shirt? Woe they wear
an A twenty four T shirt ifit was bought over by you know,
some big company for example, Likehow do they kind of keep that independence
and maybe avoid being absorbed by maybea larger kind of company, because there's
been talk of them and maybe Applefor example, over the years. So

(32:36):
maybe I'll start with the historical examplesthat at least give some insight into what
could happen to them. So theyare effectively these two film movements that largely
are within the American film industry thatkind of lay a film template I think
for a twenty four. So thefirst is the nineteen seventies and New Hollywood.

(33:00):
You see a bunch of smaller productioncompanies emerge and they're supporting films like
Easy Rider or The French Connection orThe Conversation or American Raffibi, and so
they are more artistically minded filmed smallerbudgets. But ultimately what ended up happening
is that these these companies either wentbust or they eventually just got absorbed by

(33:22):
much larger studios. And then theother cannon of the smaller production companies comes
in the nineteen nineties with the sortof like indie Hollywood Revolution. The most
prominent of these is Mirromax. Butwhat happened to these companies is that they
also got absorbed by larger basically thebig five Hollywood conglomerates. And so what

(33:47):
happens is that then these companies becomekind of like the indie arm of a
much larger company. So Miramax becomesthe indie arm of Disney, Focus Features
becomes a leave the indie arm ofUniversal, and like Touchstone I think might
be another one. But ultimately yousee that these companies get to the point

(34:08):
where they either can't they start tofail and they're bought at a discount,
or they you know, catch outbecause it's hard work to build a film
product film production company from scratch.These companies have investors, and ultimately these
investors need to see liquidity, andthe only way they can see liquidity is
by these companies being purchased, asfar as A twenty four is concerned,

(34:31):
if you're just talking purely in monetaryterms, and I apologize if this gets
a little cynical their companies are theyA twenty four has just taken two hundred
and twenty five million dollars in funding, and those people expect they're two hundred
and twenty five million dollars will growinto a billion dollars and for it to
do that, they again, thatcan only happen I guess through really two

(34:54):
different avenues. One is a publicoffering. So A twenty four would need
to be so successful point where itbecomes a public company, and it would
probably be one of the few standaloneand media public companies that isn't absorbed by
this larger apparatus of media conglomerates,or A twenty four ultimately exits by being
acquired. So I would like tobelieve that there's a world where they can

(35:16):
maintain their independence and be a privatecompany that isn't catering to the whims of
the market. But given how muchmoney they've raised, there's there's really no
other option, but for them toeventually be acquired. And I don't say
that as someone who doesn't want tobelieve that they can maintain their independence.
I just think financially speaking, ithas to go that direction. Yeah,

(35:39):
so you can see a vision ofa day similar to say like kind of
focus where you see that A twentyfour a little at the beginning that we
all associate and then at the balland there's like a Viacom company or something
like that, or comcasts or Yeah. I know that given that this is
the A twenty four podcast, that'sit's kind of like the apocalyptic dystopian invasion

(36:00):
that this audience doesn't want to hearabout. You know, I could see
a best case scenario where they getacquired by Apple and Apples like let's go
do whatever you want. Like Appleseems pretty hands off with their content strategy
and the sense that they let thecreators do their thing. But yes,
I think ultimately I imagine that ifsomeone's buying A twenty four, a huge

(36:23):
component of this purchase is the brand, and they might not sell it with
the subtitle that says an Apple companyor a paramount company. Right, They're
going to let people or lead peopleto believe that it's its own standalone thing,
and they'll use the brand value forwhat it's worth. And there is
a strong chance that if A twentyfour gets acquired, they continue on as

(36:45):
is. It obviously very heavily dependson who the acquirer is. But if
someone is acquiring A twenty four,especially given the brand, phallic equity,
and cachet that they've developed, someoneis going to hoefully let them continue to
do their thing. And because youknow, what's the point of buying an

(37:05):
A twenty four and paying an extrayou know, fifty one hundred million dollars
because the brand's super cool if you'renot going to let the brand continue to
be super cool. So, like, why would someone invest two hundred and
fifty million in something like a twentyfour? Like, surely there's lots of
betarre things out there. There arebeare chances of getting your money back or
better smarter investments. You know,why would you invest in A twenty four

(37:29):
if you're this company? Perhaps?I mean why, I don't why does
people invest in anything? I Imean, the only real answer there is
that I think A twenty four isvalued at two point five billion dollars,
and the people who invested think thateight twenty four is going to be valued
at twenty million dollars, which meansthat they're two hundred and twenty five million

(37:51):
becomes you know, two point fivebillion, And those people make a lot
of money and they believe, I'msure eight twenty four has pitched them a
vision of how they're going to expandupon their current foundation, and those investors
thought it was a good plan,and they believe that ten years from now,
a twenty four will return the moneyin some fashion, whether it's a
twenty four being a public company ora twenty four getting acquired. Yeah,

(38:15):
So, like we spoke about likethe Academy Awards, and like they've been
really consistent you know over the pastfew years of nominations and awards, which
kind of they've shifted from from thosekind of humble beginnings. But like it's
been argued over the years that theyjust don't have the budget to play the
game, you know, to getsome of these nominations over the line,

(38:35):
despite they get just bite you getthe odd success. Like I'd read and
I kind of can't remember where itwas. Maybe it was like Variety that
was like talking about like this yearthey spent next to nothing on say Past
Lives, or even really next tonothing on Zone of Interest once they got
nominated, Like, yeah, youcould argue data wise, maybe well,

(38:58):
hey, the statistical odds Areenheimer isgoing to steamroll them. Why spend money
and actually the real success is aZone of Interest gets nominated. Hey,
we've been slowly dropping into the boxoffice. Now you can go see this
nominated film, Past Lives. It'snot going to win, but you know
what, we've made our money offkind of been able to put the oscars

(39:19):
on it. Like, is thatkind of the mindset that they've maybe kind
of got. Yeah, it's hardto say. I do think maybe,
if you're just talking strictly about twentytwenty three, some of the calculus there
was probably that it was that Oppenheimerwas anointed well in advance and that this
was going to be the Oppenheimer year. There was also the fact, I

(39:40):
think that Past Lives was released inMay of last year, and therefore they
didn't have the staying power to youknow, there's an Oscar strategy where something
gets released in November of that year, starts to pick up steam, gets
nominations and then they pour guests onthe fire as a form of marketing the
thing that is currently in theaters.They didn't have that luxury with past lives.

(40:02):
As far as zone of interest forthat one, the best case scenario
is probably winning Best Foreign Language Film, and it seemed like that was pretty
well decided far in advance. SoI don't know a ton about what their
campaign strategy was, but I maybethey just didn't see the point of spending,
you know, wasting any more moneyon something that they are already had

(40:24):
locked up. But yeah, asfar as the Oscars, it's kind of
weird because then that gets into anargument of like what is the economic value
of the oscars. There used tobe a bump, There is a bump
phenomenees, and there used to bea bump for Best Picture winners. And
it's a little unknown whether that stillexists today in a post pandemic film industry

(40:46):
or whether people care about the Oscarsin the post pandemic film industry. So
the oscars definitely are worth something.Even also if you just talk about the
fact of like, hey, comework at a twenty four, We'll let
you do what you want. You'llget on it for an Oscar, right,
there's value in that as well,but it's hard to say, you

(41:06):
know, what it means for somethingto win Best Picture and whether it's worth
it, you know, to payhowever much money it takes to run an
Oscar campaign. I believe it's sometimeslike five ten million dollars something crazy like
that. And is it worth itto take five to ten million dollars to
get ten million dollars back? Youkind of mentioned like in the article,

(41:27):
and we've spoken about a little bitlike Civil War like that you could argue
this is the first of sort ofthis maybe a new wave of bigger investment,
Like it was top of the boxoffice for two weeks, and you
know, they were bringing in peoplethat maybe wouldn't have gone to your traditional
sort of a twenty four kind offair. Do you think they can continue
that run or is there a riskof these bigger budget investments Because Civil War

(41:53):
was interesting when we reviewed it,I was like it felt like that was
annointed too, that oh, itwas definitely going to number one of the
box office, like weeks in advance, like it seemed to be really trending
in the right direction for an alexGarland film, which is a bit surprising
as well. Yeah, it's reallyhard to say, because Civil War had

(42:14):
this exceptional buzz around it, andwell in advance was this film that was
provoking a lot of media interest andthe interest from the general population. Whether
they're going to have more of thoseand whether they can create the buzz that's
necessary to get people into theaters hardto say. There's also, you know,
a thing that's often been lamented bypeople who look at the film industry

(42:37):
as sort of the death of themid budget movie. Right. You see
this polarity where you get on oneended spectrum, the classic a twenty four
film, it's like a five milliondollar film with like one or two big
name actors that qualifies for Oscars oris made for Oscars. There's a horror
film. And then on the otherend of the spectrum you get like a
three hundred million dollar movie that's likethe Kingdom of the Planet of the Kingdom

(42:58):
of the Planet of the Apes,and it's just never ending, like fifteen
more title, and so it's justgoing to be like it seems if A
twenty fours is gradually making its wayto larger budgets, they do run the
risk of getting trapped within this zonethat just has very limited or is very
precarious as far as its economic potentialis concerned. And again, these are

(43:22):
the movies that I love, likethey really make me feel great. Like
Challengers is a good example of amovie that just came out that it's like
a mid budget movie, but there'seven though they've recently done quite well,
there's potential that Challengers might not makea profit while it's in theaters and that
a lot of the value will beon streaming. I saw an article today

(43:44):
that was like, oh, itwas like so much buzz about Challengers number
one. It's like it made fifteenmillion, and that's that risk when you
think civil War, okay, it'shis budget, et cetera, where you
were like fifty million. It givesyou that pause of like, oh,
I thought that had done really welland it's a bit of splash cold water.
Yeah. And I think that there'slike some rule of thumb that a

(44:05):
movie needs to make like one pointfive or two exits budget. So it's
not just for civil War. Thetarget isn't fifty million dollars, it's seventy
five million dollars, one hundred milliondollars and that to get. And this
is also it's an interesting story becauseit has a lot of appeal in America.
To be honest, it's kind ofcrazy that it does, because this

(44:25):
is a very anxious country right now, but I imagine it doesn't have a
ton of appeal to people overseas.It's always been my thought maybe it was
really weird, Like I had ana twenty four billboard just down the road
from my flat for Civil War forweeks and it's still on the side of
buses and everything here in the UKadvertising Civil War, and I remember telling

(44:49):
my meal, it's like, I'venever seen an a twenty four billboard in
my street in my life, andthat's been replaced by you know, it's
usually like June or there's the Kingdomof the Planet is And it was just
a bizar are one of like there'sthe eight twenty four logo, just splait
it up. It felt like itwas a really weird crossover hit here in
the UK as well. But Ithink you knailed the point earlier, like

(45:12):
that mid budget film, Like therewas a period of time where a civil
war would be the kind of normand then a few weeks later you've got
something else, or maybe you've gottwo films of a similar budget at the
same time, and it makes youkind of sad that it's still an exception
to extent. Yeah, and alot of box office success nowadays relies upon

(45:34):
attracting non American viewers what I guessis often referred to as as international markets.
And so the reason why franchise filmmakinghas done so well, especially like
Action Heavy, is one, peopleworldwideer familiar with the intellectual property that's being
used. And then two, amovie like Fast and Furious doesn't need to
be understood, you know, intellectually, right, so anybody across the world

(46:00):
and watch cars go fast. Whereasif you're talking about a nuanced movie about
American dysfunction and what it means tobe a war journalist and the animosity and
discord that can break out in acountry when the civil war and the atrocities
that can be committed and everything thatall the commentary that that's trying to be

(46:22):
embedded with in that, that's notnecessarily something that's going to crush it in
China. Whereas, like you know, the fifth Transformers movie is always going
to do well overseas, and sothat's a really difficult proposition for A twenty
four as well, and like calendarsto get to your point, actually ended
up making I think nine million dollarsinternationally. And so they're banking on the
fact that it's a tennis movie andtennis is a is a you know,

(46:45):
globally like appreciated sport, as wellas the fact that Zenda is a worldwide
movie star. But A twenty fouris going to have to figure out,
you know, if they're going afterif they're up leveling their budgets and they're
going for higher grosses for the theatricalreleases, what does that market market position
look like? Can you rely uponenough people to come out in the US?

(47:07):
How do you do that if you'rerelying upon the global film like box
office? How are you drawing inthese these these global audiences. I saw
it like a thing where it wasthere was talk of civil war of like,
oh, it's appealing to red statedads, like a red state dad,
for example, is not going topass lives for example, or under
the skin or something like that,and that there was branching into that kind

(47:30):
of some target advertisement there. AndI do want I want I wonder about
that, and maybe it's something thatyou might know or have a theory on.
But like, you know, Atwenty four talks about these like kind
of champion diverse voices and perspectives.But is it always fundamentally you know,
whether it's a kind of you know, whoever's behind the camera is always still

(47:54):
people like me and you that's goingalong to see these films, or are
they actually bringing in of ours audiencesalong to these kind of screenings as well.
It's really hard to say, becausethey have such a mixed bag of
movies. There's really no In manyways, there is an A twenty four
movie because it's such an exception toeverything else that's being made. But in

(48:16):
another sense, there's there's really noone a twenty four movie. Civil Wars
is very much an exception. OrAlex Garland wrote a script about something that
I think anybody in America would beextremely freaked out to write a script about,
and then executed on it to thebest of their ability, like it
was the best case scenario for amovie called Civil War. But then like

(48:37):
when you compare that to say theZone of Interest, which is a movie
about the Holocaust, as like entirelydevoid of entertainment value that is shot in
a verite style. And then youcompare that to Past Lives, which is
like a romantic drama that is aboutfate and destiny. And then you compare

(48:58):
that to Everything Everywhere, All atLunch, which is sany comedy about the
metaverse. Like they're so different,and so I really think it they obviously
do have an eye towards diversity,and I think that really just is like
they trust, at least today theirstrategies. They trust certain filmmakers, and
you know, those filmmakers may beacross a diverse set of backgrounds, but

(49:22):
I think it ultimately for them reallyjust comes down to we invest in this
person in their vision. And sothat's also why so many of their films
and their bigger films have been repeatcollaborations, right, like another collaboration with
our astor another collaboration with Alex Garland, another collaboration with Mike Mills, I
think his Name is, another collaborationwith the Daniels, right, I mean,

(49:44):
it's wild that they doubled down onthe Daniels, or well one the
movie Swiss Army Man is just bonkers. And then they doubled down on their
partnership with the Daniels, which isgreat, and it gave us everything everywhere,
all at once, and they wereable to bring in a different perspective
and you're to see like a differentdemographic that is often portrayed in films.

(50:05):
I've talked about it once before,like in between, like everything everywhere,
all once, and Swiss Army Manwas like, I don't know if you've
seen this film like they did withA twenty four The Death of Dick Long
like no one has, like itcame and gone, and it's a bizarre
little film that they did where Ithink it's just one of the Daniels was

(50:25):
involved in it, and it's afilm about like a couple of guys and
one of them dies and what happenedis that like a horse fucked him and
it's one of those things you kindof go, oh okay, Like this
film never really had much of anaudience. But see when we look at
like our download numbers, like that'sone of the highest ever. Is like
our interviews with people that starred init, some people that kind of like

(50:49):
our review of it, and it'slike this weird film has an audience in
there and I'm seeing in the data, but I don't know how they found
this film or why that's more popularthen Ladybird, for for example, or
maybe somewhere downloads. It's so fascinatingdata. Sometimes you can really get your
head into it. Yeah, wellyou might also be one of the few
people covering it that might see thething that gives you the high numbers.

(51:15):
Yeah. I mean recently, Iwas watching Under the Silver Lake, which
is just as so far a greatmovie. I actually you haven't finished it,
but it's so it's such a weirdmovie, and of course it didn't
do super well in theaters. Thisis a crazy movie. Yeah, they
torpedoed it like they showed it canand they were like, oh, we
can't release this, like and itwas weird of like, what is this

(51:37):
film like that's so bad that Atwenty four feel like they can't release it?
And then it kind of got likesome little screenings. I was lucky
enough to see it in a cinemain the UK, and you were like,
and it feels like that's another onethere. They've they've had very few
miss hits when it comes to likebeing on the pulse of things. But
I think they really dropped the ballin that one because like people seem to

(52:00):
find it and love it and talkabout it. Yeah, I mean that's
also an interesting one is like howdo you create a business model if a
lot of your movies are cult movies? Right, and it gets into it
used to be As an example,fight Club is a really great example where
Fight Club actually did terribly in movietheaters but was profitable like a week or
a month into its DVD release,right, they were able to gain so

(52:24):
they were able to make so muchmoney in the secondary market secondary marketing DVD's
the blue rays that you you hadtwo opportunities to sell a film to people,
and sometimes you actually made more moneyselling the DVD than you did selling
selling the theater ticket. But atthe same time, so under the overlake,
I think, to my understanding,it's like a cult hit. Right,

(52:45):
people just keep finding it on letterbox, it's now on HBO Max and
they're like, what is this weirdmovie? And it's a movie that makes
it a lot more sense to watchat home, you know, late at
night, when you're like, thisis a weird world that we live in,
and this movie is a reflection ofthat verts is going to a theater
and spending twenty two dollars to seejust a really bizarre movie that you know,

(53:08):
is extremely difficult to market. It'sthe other thing because it's, you
know, it's kind of this wideranging, discursed movie that has a bunch
of different tangents. It's like,how do you how do you sell that
in a two minute trailer? It'sextremely difficult. And there's another era where
A twenty four is more popular forlike its DVDs than it is like its

(53:28):
film releases, Like A twenty fourexists fifteen years earlier, like DVDs of
Under the Skin or Under the SilverLake, et cetera, are going to
be on shelves and then picked upin discount bins, et cetera. Like
I think it was Matt Damon orsomething. I remembered him a few years
ago someone asked him what was thedeath of these mid budget films? And
he's like the DVD market being blownaway and all that sort of stuff,

(53:52):
because that's where people would find it, trade it. And now you kind
of have to rely on something beingon a streaming service for a while or
oh, go right on iTunes.Who rents on iTunes half the time.
Yeah, and that's a huge thing. I mean, even if you talk
about this older class of independent companieslike MIRR Max and Harvey Winston, a
huge focus of their operation was whatmovies are going to do well in the

(54:15):
secondary market. And the unfortunate strategythat Harvey Weinstein took because he was a
bad person, is that he Ithink wanted to insert a lot of like
stex and violence into the movie sothat people would want to find it after
the fact when it once to exitedtheaters. But I do think there's a
sort of buzz when you talk aboutthe fact that A twenty four is also

(54:35):
you know, I imagine that there'sa heavy intersection in the then diagram between
letterbox users and people who really likeA twenty four, And so you have
the fact they're like, yeah,it's really easy to discover these movies once
they've come out. And I guessa huge part of their strategy moving forward
too, is how do they monetizethese streaming rights. I know they recently
cut a deal with HBO Max.I know that HBO Max is prominently featuring

(55:00):
their branding, and I have toimagine that I guess HBO Max doesn't exist
in Max, but I imagine Maxwhich is the streaming arm of Time Warner
Discovery. I don't know anymore,it's just a gammediate conglomerate. Either way,
they probably paid a decent amount ofmoney for those A twenty four for
A twenty four exclusivity, and sothat's you know, if A twenty four

(55:23):
can monetize those those licensing rights,that's huge, and then they can actually
like make money off of a movielike Under the Silver Lake that is getting
a ton of viewership at home,but really just like wasn't super well suited
for theaters. Like it's crazy whenyou think back, like there was so
many of the early twenty twenty fourfilms were like I've never heard of this

(55:43):
film. I can't remember the nameof the streaming service. But it was
like some really backwater, probably oldermale friendly like streaming service that they would
just go, we're going to distributea film. It goes there, and
they've had that over the years,even like the one with Apple, like
it was much kind of triumphant thatoh, there's going to be some films
that will go straight to Apple.There are going to be joint productions like

(56:05):
a Macbeth or like Boys State,which was this the most money ever spent
on a documentary in Sun Dance,And it goes to kind of Apple and
it's like, no one really kindof knows what that deal is. And
then there was stuff with Showtime andHBO Max and you kind of lose track
of like we're all these deals,how long do they kind of work?
And they're almost the opposite of someof these kind of paramounts again for example

(56:30):
of like when do the rights endon Star Trek so we can pull them
all into our own kind of services. They seem to be really going,
you know, selling to to theseplaces. Yeah. So I mean there's
this huge dance between exclusivity for thestreamers and then monetizing their content. So
one big thing that happened at thebeginning of the so called streaming wars is

(56:51):
that Disney and Boblager I think bookall the Disney properties off of other streaming
services, and so that led itsripple effect where all the other companies took
their money off of streaming services.But to the point of the Matt deal
or not mattdal and Matt tam Enquote and the collapse of the DVD market,
like that's the secondary market. Andso for Disney maybe it works for

(57:14):
them for a time because they werelaunching Disney Plus to not have snow White
be on Netflix. But for acompany like Paramount or company like Peacock,
which is universal, you make alot of money by licensing your content to
Netflix, and you've since seen contentstarting to return and that actually is a
huge amount of money that is likethat floats around the entertainment industry as things

(57:37):
being licensed. And so hopefully Atwenty four can can capitalize because they do
have this exceptional brand and I dobelieve that they have a lot of word
amount of value even for some ofthe things that don't do well in theaters,
and this willingness to as people becomeincreasingly affiliated with the brand, to
explore different different releases. And ifyou're also talking about this Oscar, the

(58:00):
reason why it's really hard to quantifynowadays is that you don't you used to
be able to easily quantify the Oscarbump as it related to box office.
You used to say, oh,the hurt Locker came out into you know,
two thousand and eight, and whenit got nominated for Best Picture you
saw that the box office bumped upa bunch, but now you just don't

(58:20):
know, but there probably is astreaming bump, and that is worth it
for someone like Max right because thereare people who say, oh, this
is a good movie, got nommainde for an Oscar won the Oscar.
I want to watch it, andthat's valuable to streaming customers and maybe justifies
them paying you know, twelve ninetynine for another month. Talking to capitalizing
like a bunch of those studios thatwe named earlier, Touchstone, like Fox

(58:45):
Search, like just to name buta few I don't really remember half the
time. Guys. You see FoxSearch like every winter season when we're getting
ready for the Oscars, it feelslike it's gone. And you know,
RA twenty four a neon kind oflike you know, capitalizing on a gap
of people like again maybe similar tome and you that want these original films,

(59:07):
and we're like an audience that's likecraving this sort of stuff, and
they're more than happy to kind ofsatisfy those needs because no one else is
competing with them for perhaps the samesame kind of interested kind of film fan
and so like me and you,like we'll see that, but we'll probably
go see the other the new Marvelfilms as well, but we really want

(59:29):
to be satisfied in multiple ways.Yeah, I mean it comes down to
two things. One, they're obviouslyfinding a niche within the within the film
market, which is certain filmmakers aren'tbeing supported and certain audience members that aren't
being catered to, and they've they'vedone a really good job of working within
that that niche, at least todate. Right, That's that's one.

(59:52):
The other and this is again likethe unfortunate cynical interpretation. I want to
be clear that I do like lovemovies and I love a for one of
the benefits that they have is thatthey're there earlier in their lifespan. Right,
like a thought experiment was you knowParamount or Warner Brothers is almost a

(01:00:13):
one hundred year old company. Ithink Warner Brothers is one hundred years old,
and so people were pretty psyched whenthe Jazz Singer came out and there
were sound and Warner Brothers was anupstart and they actually took a risk by
making the first sound movie and sothat's that at the time was novel and
they were they were breaking ground onan entirely new classic movie, and they

(01:00:34):
were seen as renegades, right andnow if you look at Warner Brothers one
hundred years later, they are runby David Zaslov, and they're part of
this giant conglomerate. And it justso happens that the way you know,
capitalism works is that it has ledto this agglomeration of all of these media
companies. And so A twenty fouris ten years old, and they've done
a really good job of operating withinthis niche. But it's just really hard

(01:01:00):
to see them being at least intheir current iteration twenty thirty years from now,
especially given the long history of filmsthat have tried this model before have
succeeded for some amount of time andultimately exited with a glorious pay day,
which is great for investors, orhave have sort of fizzled out. You

(01:01:21):
talked about it in your article kindof finally like A twenty four is doing
God's work by kind of some ofthe enthusiasts like how does A twenty four
view itself? And so on,Like we kind of get like hints in
like their social media, et cetera. But how do you think they kind
of view themselves. So again theGod's work thing, I was quoting somebody

(01:01:43):
else that I actually just overheard ata food hall. This is just a
person who was on the phone andshe was saying a bunch of really loud
and obnoxious things. And you candefinitely tell you live in Los Angeles if
you're like overhearing people in food talkingabout A twenty four. It was actually
in London that I heard it,so yeah, and it was an American
too, which made it all theworse that it was a very loud American

(01:02:06):
in a foreign country who was likea reflection of both my culture while also
like you know, I tried,you know, I left the country to
escape loud Americans and there I wasjust just you know, listening to this
other person. But yeah, thisperson said A twenty four is doing God's
work. And my wife and Iwere writing down all things that this person
said because they were pretty obnoxious,and that was one that stuck. And

(01:02:30):
you found that note and I thoughtit was, you know, especially as
I was writing the articles, likeI have to include the say anecdotic.
It's the only thing I agreed withthat this person said. But yeah,
I mean it's hard for me toput myself in their mindset. From a
brand perspective, I think the ideathough, is, you know, in
many ways A twenty four operates andruns itself like a fashion brand, which

(01:02:52):
is understanding the value of you know, this intangible value of brand and the
way that people interact with brands andtrust brands and how that works in the
digital age. This is the sortof stuff that isn't in my wheelhouse to
talk about, but I can seethe way that they've done it. And
but you know, there is valueto people really just liking the thing that

(01:03:16):
you produce, and obviously that goesacross a lot of different industries, and
there isn't a ton of trust orthat direct relationship within the media industry.
I do think, you know,it's hard, like people don't get amped.
They're not like, ah, likePeacock, Yeah, you know,
Peacock is a taste maker, andI love everything they do. There are

(01:03:37):
very few things that I can thinkof and like off the cuff that readily
entice any sort of media consumer,especially because a lot of things are a
lot of content is refracted through aplatform, right like a lot of content
is consumed via a TikTok or aYouTube, and people might like certain people
brands with it within the TikTok ecosystemof the YouTube ecosystem, but there are

(01:04:00):
very few private companies in and overthemselves that people have a strong relationship with.
And I think actually one, ifyou're just purely talking in terms of
cinema, A twenty four I thinkis the most prominent example of a handful
of companies that are operating on asmaller scale and that are producing an artistically
minded product that people enjoy. Butthey're doing and like the benefit or what's

(01:04:24):
sort of sort of unique and exceptionalis that they are not actually trying to
make two hundred million dollars every timethey produce something. And so it's it's
and this goes across as in justpeople producing movies, and so it's you
know, a twenty four neon letterboxedthe Criterion collection Ero Video. You know,
these are people who are serving decidedlysmaller markets. But for people,

(01:04:45):
you know, for somebody who grewup with movies in the nineties and two
thousands, you know, a verydiverse array of films that you could watch,
whether it was an indie or whetherit's a mid budget or it is
a jud Appatow movie. It feelslike my needs are really my you know,
being served by the small contingent ofcompanies, and it really just seems
like the reason why the Criterion Collectionappeals to me is because it honestly just

(01:05:09):
seems like their mission is noble.I'm sure the Criterion Collection has been approached
by you know, Max to getacquired, you know, for two hundred
million dollars, and I hope thatthey turn them down. And a lot
of what I read about them isthat they value doing things at a smaller
scale, and so it's it's verymuch a testament to the fact that this

(01:05:29):
sort of purpose made smaller ambition butis still catering to this maybe not gigantic
population of cinephiles who are just youknow, thirsting for this type of content
and this type of interaction and toengage with media and cinema in a certain
way. What are some of yourfavorite twenty four films. Lady Bird is

(01:05:51):
an all time favorite that's actually kindof a bizarre A twenty four film in
the sense that doesn't have like theclassic A twenty four It was a one
time collaboration with Greta Gerwig, whothen sort of graduated to bigger and better
budgets. But I just I reallyloved that movie. I really liked Past

(01:06:11):
Lives this past year. That thathit pretty hard, That was pretty that
that was an awesome experience. Ireally like Ex Machina a lot of the
Alex Carlan films, even though sometimesat the end of the movie I'm flumm
exit and frustrated, but overall,I still really like his filmmaking and zone
of interest. I thought as agiven. You know, there is a

(01:06:33):
long and unfortunate subgenre of holocaust films, right it's been it's a it's a
horrific historic event that's been depicted infilm quite often. I had never seen
anything like that, you know,a movie that was so like devoid of
producing entertainment value, that was justso effective in what it did and was

(01:06:57):
such like a felt like a realisticdepiction of how that life was. So
that really really blew me away.So what's kind of coming next for you?
What kind of trends are you kindof interested in exploring at the moment
that's maybe catching your eye. It'shard to say. I mean, I
very much operate for the newsletter.I operate on a week to week basis,

(01:07:20):
and for better or for worse,I largely write about what I'm interested
in that week. Better for mebecause then I write about what I'm interested
in that week. And then worseif you're a reader and I'm doing a
great job of selling the newsletter,but worse if you're a reader, because
you know I one week I couldbe writing about like which songs stand the
test of time? In the nextweek, I could be writing about how

(01:07:42):
our attention spans have fallen over time. It's all obviously within this this this
general domain of culture, and soit's typically about media and popular culture,
and so you know there is atleast some like there is some field to
focus. At the same time,I don't have anyone like fixed thing that
I'm focusing on. And where canpeople find your blog? And so on?

(01:08:06):
As I say, my first instructionwas a few weeks ago, but
I really enjoy diving into it since. But where can people check out or
subscribe? Yeah? So the nameis stat Significant. Honestly, the best
advice I can game is if youjust google stat Significant Newsletter or you go
to Statsignificant dot com. You shouldn'tbe able to find it perfect well,

(01:08:28):
thank you so much for joining us, Daniel, it's been a real pleasure
to dive into this this topic withyou. Awesome. Thank you.