Bring Back Fin-Syn? The Forgotten Rule That Could Save Hollywood

The Town is presented by FanDuel. Have you heard the news, FanDuel is now available everywhere. And when we say everywhere, we mean everywhere. Tallahassee, Florida, El Paso, Texas, Athens, Georgia, Madison, Wisconsin, Birmingham, Alabama. All right, you get the picture. Wherever you're watching, whatever game you're fired up for, FanDuel is there to bring you closer to the action. So make your picks and play wherever the games take you. Download the FanDuel app to get started. Age and location restrictions apply. Product availability varies by market. See FanDuel.com for eligibility, gambling problem called 1-800-Gamber. It is Friday, October 16th. Lots of news this week. I broke some news yesterday and I puck newsletter on a big shakeup at Netflix, Bellabajaria, the content chief is out. Peter Rice, formerly of Disney, is in. Lots of reasons for that change. And we'll get into it on Monday with Lucas Shaw. But today we're going in a different direction. We're talking about Finson. What is Finson? We've actually talked about this briefly on the show before. It refers to the financial interest and syndication rules, which sounds pretty wonky, but it was an FCC regulation enacted in the 1970s that prevented the big three TV networks at the time from owning the prime time shows that they aired. Making was that they were an oligopoly and they should be forced to buy from outside producers. It limited their power and it created amazing opportunities for producers to actually own the content that they make. Those rules were abolished in the 90s as cable TV kind of upended that oligopoly and created hundreds of new outlets. But over the next 30 years, the TV business has basically reconstituted itself vertically integrated, meaning all those broadcasts and cable networks and now streaming platforms are owned by just a few companies that both produce the shows and air them globally. So much so that it sparked a renewed push for a return to some kind of modern Finson law. Enter something called the American Entertainment Alliance, which I know sounds like a front-fraile drug cartel or something, but it's a group of talent agencies and producers and others that have come together to push for a new law requiring the big streamers like Netflix, Prime Video, Disney Plus, and the newly consolidated HBO Max/Paramount+ owner Skydance to spend at least 50% of their budgets on independent productions. 50%, that would pretty drastically remake the Hollywood economy and in response, a coalition of these streamers called the Streaming Innovation Alliance, again, how is that not a crime syndicate, they criticize what they call a push for, quote, blunt government mandates, governing the green light process and other aspects of production. Okay, a really interesting debate. So I asked a couple of the big proponents of this new push to come on the show. Kathy Schulman is a veteran film and TV producer, everything from Crash to the idea of you. And for the legal perspective, we have Rich Shooter. He's the head of business affairs for UTA, the talent agency. Today, it's the push for a return to Finston, preserving competition or welfare for producers. From The Ring Earned Puck, I'm Matt Bellany and this is The Town. All right, we are here with Kathy Schulman, producer, extraordinaire, and Rich Shooter, the head of business affairs at UTA, welcome. Thank you so much for having us. Thank you so much Matt, we really appreciate you having us. Okay, so I want to get into this because Finston is a topic that seems to come up a lot when I talk to smart and veteran people in the industry who know the glory days and see what is happening and can see the direction that the industry is going in. And so I want to give, I want to start with two questions. How do this group come together and why are you guys doing this now? Thank you so much again, Matt. So we've been talking, listen, at UTA, we've been talking about bringing back a level of Finston for years and even like Kathy and her group came in to tell us about their issues they were having a couple of years ago and we talked to them about Finston, it was a major part of our conversation. It's something that's been going on, Matt, for a long time. We've been talking to the independent studios about it. We've been talking to the producers about it, the lawyers about it. So it's really coming about now because you're seeing what's going on in the industry. You're seeing all the offshoring, you're seeing that the impetus of the state and federal tax credits and you've seen one more massive conglomeration swallow up another one. And so we think the time is now and that's why this sort of group came together at this point. But Kathy explained to me from a producer's perspective, what the market is like and why something like this is needed. Because we can't take it anymore because the bottom line is there's no free market for enterprising creatives to do work and when you get into a situation like that where you have very limited buyers deciding what can be made and making it and distributing it within the same structure, you cut the whole nature of creative competition out and the reason why it's happening now is because it's so bad for everybody that we've all come together. Like think about it. Not like producers generally compete with each other, right? And agencies don't even talk to each other and suddenly you've got this universe where all the agencies and all the major production companies and the 300 producers that I'm representing through, you know, producers united have come together to say enough is enough. And that's why it's happening now because we need to protect our product. So think about the average person who is looking at this and is saying, wait a second, there's too much to watch on streaming. And if you look at the statement that this streaming innovation alliance put out, they said American audiences in the streaming era have more access to a wider variety of films and shows than at any time in history. So why do you guys need them to buy from outside producers? Is this just a self-interested thing that you want to have a bigger piece of that? Not at all, because the issue isn't whether consumers have unlimited access to content. It's whether or not independent producers have meaningful opportunities to compete in the marketplace. I mean, in fact, it's like the two things aren't even connected, but if you really want to look at what the audiences are getting, do they want to get what the algorithms determine that they should have? I mean, just having more, doesn't mean it's better. And they have to pay for it. This isn't like the first time around with Vincent, when it was free television, you're paying for this thing. Don't you want to know what you're going to get? And don't you want to have the opportunity to get anything that could be made? Not just what the algorithms say you want or regurgitated things from the 1970s, every five minutes. Yeah. So that's the best argument to me is the creative ecosystem argument. You want the best people to have the biggest possible upside of creating something great. And if you look at the '70s and '80s, some of these companies that were created out of the Vincent rules, like Marcy Carsey or Norman Lear or any of these big production companies, Lormar, they were incentivized to create the best shows and get them on TV and they became fabulously wealthy. And now what you see is so much power in the hands of very few global streaming platforms that they essentially decide not just what shows to make, but it gets to a question of, oh, you want to do a second season? Well, okay, we think the show did fine, but you know what? We have all the data. We'll dole out whatever we see fit to tell you about the show. And we're kind of iffy, we don't really need this show. We've got four billion hours of engagement per month. And if you want to make it season two, then just cut the fees in half. And we'll make it for half the price or we just won't make it at all. No big deal. And by the way, we own all the rights globally. So it's not like you can take it elsewhere and have a competition for the show. That's where I hear the best argument that this is just stifling for the creative community. And Matt, you're speaking our words, so we really appreciate it. But I mean, definitely if you look back to what, you know, the reason we had fints in the first place was because the FCC at the time wanted to stop the big three networks from controlling all the content and crushing independent producers. And you know, it was revoked properly because of the, you know, the advent of cable and we had the premium cable channels and the, and the basic cable channels. And you had so much more ability to sell shows to different places. Well, now it's, now it's basically here we are again, right? We're back to having, you know, it's the handful of major, incredibly powerful streamers who are, you know, buying 80% of scripted content, whether it's film or television at this point. And, you know, we need policy form at this point to ensure a flourishing marketplace. I mean, it's, it's really important. And so everything you said is true. And you know, that's why we think now is the time for this. And you don't buy the argument that there has never been a better opportunity to get something distributed than now. If you don't like what the Netflix is offering, then put it on YouTube. Get someone to pay for your show and put it on YouTube and make money that way. because you know the economics aren't you know such that you can do that. I mean, look, what we're trying to do here is, you know, cap the amount of content that the streamers can own and produce and, you know, carve out a piece for the independent producers. And what that'll do is it'll allow the independent producers to have a, you know, a shorter license. And like what you said, it just doesn't sit, you know, you can't just say to us, okay, we, you know, we like your show, we want to produce it, but we need to move you to Canada, right? We need to, you know, instead of, you know, we, we promised you 10 episodes a year, but now, you know, what? We just want five episodes or maybe even four. And, you know, you're basically have the ability to say, we'll do that or we're going to lose our show. And so, you're really giving all the power because you can't take the project anywhere else. And so, we need this for that. And we also need to, you know, basically reestablish the ability for our clients and for folks like Kathy and her entire group, you know, to own and share in the long-term value of the content that they create. You know, what you said about incentivization, I think, is key. And I just wanted to like, accentuate that because creative entrepreneurs, right, independent producers need a business model that allows them, you know, to operate because a good model, right, allows you to create, to hire people, to train people. That's the incentivization pipeline. There will be nobody left if you can't operate because there's no, there's no path for workers, for the middle class. Like, this is, you can't have a business that's made up of four or five decision makers that are, you know, billionaire tech people. That's not what America looks like. That's not representative of our stories. That's not incentivizing for artists. We need to open those pathways. It's interesting that you talk about jobs in America because I saw on your website, you are hitting that pretty hard. You say, as film and television increasingly consolidate, we need a regulatory framework that puts creators first, protects industry workers and preserves competition. And it seems to me that you guys are jumping on, I don't want to call it a bandwagon, but you see what's going on with the federal tax credit movement, where for reasons that are still beyond me, the president seems to be listening to John Voight. And they got ahead. And this looks like it could actually have a chance of passing because of this bipartisan effort. Is that the reason you're doing this now? Because you see a window where perhaps there could be some bipartisan interest in doing this now? I mean, I think we're doing this now. Very complimentary of that. It has, you know, it's really side by side with that. We're, the federal tax credit is incredibly important. And you know, there's so much offshoring. I mean, as you, as you know, amount in the 70s, 80s, 90s, I mean, the entertainment industry was a 95% export business. And now it's a 50% export, 50% import business. And I think the federal tax credit is the first step of that. But the second step of that is really to have, you know, a new fencing for the modern era where we can, you know, grow the independent producer business and really let the market place flourish. And so that's why we're doing it. Now we think it's great that the federal tax credit is getting great traction. And we would love to have this thing, you know, move forward side by side with that. It's like a one, two punch, you know, in a lot of ways. And remember, like the money from the federal incentive will, in fact, flow back to the streamers, right? Oh, yeah. They get to save money on these incentives. They need to save money. But the good benefit is that if it brings, if it brings work home, then our community has a place to work. But we can't work if we, if the entrepreneurs, the producers and the production companies, if we can't put the projects together, right? And we have nowhere to sell them. And if they're not part of the pipeline. So we need to have both things happen together. It's like looking at the problem like from both ends. You know, and Hollywood, you know, we made it. Like we shouldn't lose it to another, to other countries. I mean, we created this thing here. You know, this is our American culture. This is our industry. And like the idea that it would go other places either because our own, our own companies cut us off and or because we have to move offshore, like both things have to be solved together. So notably not included in that New York Times piece, where you guys announced this initiative, were any representatives, any government officials. Have you discussed this with the people that are pushing for the federal tax credit? Are they aware of this push? Are they likely to get on board and make this serious? Yeah. I mean, absolutely. I mean, we, you know, listen, as we form this 501 C6 trade association, you know, we've hired Akin Gump as our lobbyist. We have four global as our public affairs consultants. And we are really pressing forward on the Hill. This was our launch. And we're just going to basically, you know, advocate for this on the Hill as a trade association, Matt. And who's paying for this? Like, it's one thing for Brian Lord to get himself into a New York Times piece. It's another for CAA and the other agencies to actually put up money to support this. Are they doing that? Yes. The, you know, every member in the group is, is, you know, supporting this financial lead to get this going. Yeah. And, you know, the legal justification for Fence and Rass on Congress's authority to address structural conflicts, ventures, and barriers to competition. And that's why we have to, you know, this is a government route. We have to go that way. Yeah. Explain rich a little bit. I want to do on, in part, for the legal aspect here and explain what the framework would be and particularly what some other countries have done to enforce these kinds of quotas. Because that's essentially what it is. It's, it's a quota on how you finance free speech, how you finance content. So how would that legally work in this country vis-a-vis, well, how they do it elsewhere? Yeah. So it would be similar to what they do in the other, in the other countries. I mean, practically every country in the world, Matt, has some local content quotas for their broadcasters and video and demand services, right? So in Europe, the EU has a rule that has 50 percent of the broadcasters have to transmit 50 percent of their content. It has to be local content and a portion of that has to be content shot within the last five years. So just can't be old content licensed on that, right? I mean, I'll give you some, some more specific examples of local and then some of the European countries have local content rules, right? So France has a rule that has 20 percent, this applies to the streamers. 20 percent of what the streamers air has to be local French language content produced and owned by the French language producers, right? Germany just recently, it is Germany, okay? Just recently passed a law that 8 percent of their, of the streamers revenue that they get from the local subscriptions has to be re-invested in local content. So 8 percent of what they transmit is local German content. You see this all over the world. It's Australia and South America, like everyone has this. And so we're, again, if you look back at Finnsin, it was a, it was a dividing line. Like, oh, you know, the networks could not own the content and they couldn't distribute the content, right? And so what we're saying is, we don't need to go back to that, but we want to at least do whatever the other country in the world is doing, where you have some level of quota where, you know, there's a cap on what the broadcast or streamer can own. It's also how you protect the indigenous art culture of the country. That's why it's done. It's, yeah, it's protectionist. These countries see these big American streaming companies conquering the world and they're trying to protect their own creative community. And what you guys are saying essentially is that these American streaming companies have essentially done the same thing to America. That's exactly what we're saying. That's kind of the whole core issue. And it is an American issue. Like, when we look back at what we love, like, the sort of the creative economy of the 70s and, you know, through the 90s, like, it was because, like, that was our American cultural content. And like, we can bring that back, you know, with some support and isn't an ironic that the one country in the world that isn't doing this is right here where this whole thing emerged in the first place. I can't tell you how many clients have reached out to us before this and after this, you know, because we're really here to, you know, support our clients at UTAs, you know, and they have come to us and said, you know, this has been needed. And, you know, once we made this announcement, you know, we could hear the applause across the building. Oh, sure. I mean, last thing creatives want is for Netflix to have all the control over what happens to their shows. And some of these big production companies now, we just saw it with Hello Sunshine. You know, you guys represent Point Gray, Seth Rogan and Evan Goldberg's company. Like, these are the kinds of companies that if this were the 70s and 80s, they would be able to own their shows. And in the modern environment, they are not. They're very well paid. And they have a lot of leverage going into negotiations. But they are not controlling their destinies like these other companies did back when. Yeah. And by the way, one of the reasons why we're asking for transparency as it regards the algorithms is like, we can't even monitor or understand why the decisions are being made or they're sort of self-dealing in any of that. Yeah. What do you mean by that? Explain that aspect of what you're asking for. Transparency in the algorithms. Well, we find, and when we, especially when we're getting a second or a third season, which we just talked about, Matt, is they all talk about this return on investment, right? Where they have their own internal, you know, systems in place, you know, whether it's, you know, total views, you know, completion, completion rates, what they call like, you know, first views, meaning in someone's signs on the subscription service and this is the first thing they want. So all these sort of things. things. And it's there's no transparency at us. I mean, some of these places, as you know, will put out there, now they put out their top 10 lists. It's funny. They all follow what the other person does, right? So someone puts out a top 10 list, the next person does. But like the other than that, they sort of keep so much of this information internally. Well, Netflix does a biannual ratings report, although they say that they are going to more limit that and there's nobody to tell them not to. There's no rule on what they do and don't release. They just decided not to release ratings on the video podcast and people were like, okay, I guess they're not doing that. So the power is still on the platform side on what they release. Absolutely. And it's also, if you look at those things, you know, what we're saying is, you know, let us let the independent producers and the independent studios own that content and have it back because if you look at those lists, you know, a show that might have lasted three or four years or a movie that they shot and, you know, aired four years ago, no one's watching it now, right? And so it's not like, you know, we actually think this will benefit the industry as a whole because if we shorten the license term, they're obviously going to pay less if we shorten the license term. You're going to have the independent studios and independent producers take risks again. And, you know, in success, not in failure, like everyone understands, you know, yes, you make a little bit of money now, even if your show or your movie fails. But in in success, you can make a lot more money. You can look at the long term tale and the value of all those shows we talked about in the 70s and 80s, you know, from, you know, cheers, you know, even the 90s, right? Like, you know, big bank theory and, you know, and the office. There's so many of these shows that just have a long tale for the studios and for the creators, which is what we're really trying to bring back. At the root of all this is the need to articulate this to regular people. And there is still this stigma that the, you know, white wine, Hollywood people toasting their martinis in Beverly Hills, just want the government to help them out. And there's no tangible benefit to anyone in the real world. How practically speaking do you guys overcome that? Is it really just a path through John Voight? Or is there some other plan to articulate this? How do you do that? Well, first of all, I mean, the word Hollywood is confusing right now itself. Like, what is Hollywood? Hollywood is the streamers, right? So Hollywood is now the streamers, right? And the producers are the other people, right? The ones who don't have the opportunity. And I think it's very much about sort of retraining people to understand that, that we can't be in a situation where the streamers are the only ones who can afford to produce and distribute and own their own films and shows. We have to move that out, you know, to the creative entrepreneurs. And also, I can say this, that of the 300 producers that producers United, you know, represents, and those are the 300 top producers in Hollywood, what you were not seeing that white wine fat cat thing anymore. Now, I know that. Yeah, you know that. Yeah, yeah, yeah. The industry is struggling. And more importantly, this is why I was annoyed with that New York Times piece because the only people quoted in it were producers over 60 years old. It's like, no one should cry for Brian Grazer, right? No one should cry for Chris Silverman. These guys have made tons of money off of this system. I'm crying for the 20-something person who wants a show and may have been able to hit the lottery in a prior generation. And now they can hit singles, maybe a double, they are not going to hit the lottery. And it really, the blast point is taking out the next generation of creators. You know, I just know you're right because I felt the same thing happen, you know, in that piece and not for lack of having that journalist interview people who did talk about that part, but the system continues to regurgitate, as you said, Matt, this like certain version of what Hollywood looks like. It doesn't even know how to differentiate the difference between producers and filmmakers and directors and there's all this stuff. So there's a retraining. There's no question there's a retraining that needs to happen in order to get this message across. And we have the burden of having to do that on the hill. And so what we're trying to do is to invite them. So what producers United is doing is we're inviting them to our sets. We're having to meet our people. We're explaining them. We're inviting these congressmen and congress women to come see what it is we do to come onto a set where a thousand people holding hammers are there. And there's only one movie star, right? Like to understand what this community is that we're trying to protect and to understand how this thing is done because there's such a lack of understanding. And by the way, the press is guilty in that too, if I may say, because the constant, constant focus on celebrity as if celebrity is what drives it. Celebrity is, this is not a business that's made up of a few people who run the streamers and a bunch of celebrities. It's everyone else that we're trying to protect. And the best way is to start to introduce everybody else and the press could help us like start to tell stories about the people who are actually doing it. Don't, you know, every headline shouldn't be about a celebrity getting a movie made when they were just hired five days ago to act in it. Like there's a different way this has been done, you know, and we have to work together. And Matt, and Matt, I would say to that, you know, that basically when you think about it, what our generation did when they got graduate school and wanted to get into business or whatever, you can, you know, you can go to, you know, basically San Francisco and get in the tech business. You come to LA or New York and get in the entertainment business, you go to DC and get in the politics, you go to Chicago, you know, get in the mess now. I'm very worried that the next generation of, of, you know, graduates aren't going to look to the entertainment industry or something they want to get into. Oh, it's already happening. It's already happening. I've talked about this with, you know, people like Katzenberg, who's like, all he wanted to do was make a name for himself in the 60s and 70s. And he knew that to do that, you could go to Hollywood and you could be successful and make a name for yourself. And now you go to tech. Absolutely. And we really want, I mean, look, again, we talked about this earlier, like the United States used to be the epicenter art and culture for the world through filmed entertainment. And we need to bring, we need to maintain that. It's a, it's a, it's a hugely, you know, massive opportunity that we're going to be losing. If we don't figure out a way to bring, you know, the best and smartest people back into the entertainment industry. And that's also, and that's also the way to get investors. I mean, what investor wants to invest in this? There's still a lot. There's still still a lot of dumb money. You know, the red carpets are still pretty alluring. Celebrity does matter. It's smart investment money, institutional investment, the kind of investment that an entrepreneurial business needs. You know, investors like to invest in people. Well, look, which has happened with Blackstone, the big private equity firm. They invested in a bunch of creator driven production companies through candle media, hello sunshine, the powder guys, ATTN, a bunch of these, you know, will Smith's coming. And those are the kinds of companies that in the previous generation would have been the value creators. And Blackstone just lost their shirt in Hollywood because the production boom ended. The fee for service business is not a great business if you're not producing at volume. And they retreated from Hollywood, having lost billions of dollars. And you just made the argument. That's the exact point. Like, we need to bring that back. And you can't bring it back if there's nowhere to invest, right? And then it's too unsafe. I mean, that's the thing. And so it's like linking the creative entrepreneurs back to the financial sources. And that's what this is all about. Like in the end of the day, this isn't about distribution. It's about who controls the ability to choose what is financed. That's really what this is about because it's about like what is getting made? Distributions another whole issue, right? But like we have to focus on the finance. And Matt, getting back to your question, I would say, we also, you know, walking in the federal government, I mean, this is Hollywood's Detroit moment as we said, right? And it's that's very easy for people to understand. We're going to, you know, you look at the stats, Ayachi put out a stat that, you know, they've lost 45 million man hours of jobs between 2004 and 2024 and 2025, excuse me. And so this is, you know, matches both labor and matches the creative community. And it really brings us all together. And we're trying to put something together that just, you know, enhances competition and allows, you know, the entertainment industry to flourish again. All right. Well, I thank you guys for coming on. I really hope this is more than just a press release and that you guys get some traction here. You need, you need like a statesman or woman. You need like someone that everybody knows and likes and can be influential and preferably is not John void. Thank you for saying that. But, you know, collectivity does breed action. And there are a lot of really smart people involved in this effort and holding hands to get this done. And we're really committed because we don't see another road. Like it, it's time, right? It's time. And I think like you said, some of us have been around long enough to know what are the glory days were. It's not just bringing the glory days back. It's, it's, it's forging up half for the future. And Matt, we really, we really thank you in your platform for focusing on this with us. Oh, no problem. No, this is what we do. All right. Thank you guys for coming on. Appreciate it. Bye. We're back with the call sheet Greg lots of movies this weekend. Another great fall weekend for movies, but we're going to go through the first two pretty quickly because I think the third one is the most interesting street fighter. We did not go to the premiere. I didn't even forward to you the invite. I figured it was a pass, I knew, I figured I didn't, I was more questioning whether you would want to see Whalefall. But we did not go to that one either. Street Fighter is interesting. It's the first in the new partnership between legendary and paramount, legendary finance this film with the game owner Capcom and Paramount's distributing. The tracking on it, like energy was high on this one. They had it at 43 for the weekend. Paramount is sort of lowballing in the mid-30s. I put the line at 40 million, this movie stars Noah Centineo and Jason Momoa is in it, no John Clevver and damn, unfortunately. Yeah, like Eric Andre is in it, Andrew Schultz, 50 Cent. Yeah. Great. Review's not great. What do you say? I'm going to take the line at 40. It is. I would take the under on 40. I feel like the video game movie's always like open big because of the diehard fans show up early and then it kind of dies off. And the reviews aren't great. I don't know why they have it so high, but it just feels like midling, midling game adaptation. I agree. And there's competition. There's a lot of opening this weekend. I mean, this feels like Mortal Kombat II, which I think opened, and the second Mortal Kombat this year opened to 38. Yeah. Maybe it'll get there, but I agree. I'm going to take the under on 40. Whale falls more interesting because it's between 10 and 12. Let's set the line at 11 on this one. I don't know. It feels like they didn't quite get there in selling this. The trailer is good. It looks like a cool like man gets eaten by a whale movie. I agree with you. I feel like the marketing could have been better. I think they should have been more blatant and it should have just, there should have been giant posters that said guy gets eaten by a whale movie. I know. Starting the guy from Resident Evil. Yeah. I think people are going to like it. I've heard it's very intense. But I agree the marketing was slightly off. But why did you make a scores at 70? So it's not like the critics are loving it, but it's fine. That's why I think it's just not special enough. I'm going to take the under on 11. On 11? Yeah. I will, I will take the over and say that it'll play like like a kind of a horror thriller that catches some bus. Okay. Most importantly, the Nathan Fielder movie with Lance Oppenheim. You can see everything. Elizabeth Holmes documentary. You and I saw this movie the other night. Multiple times during the three hour runtime, we looked at each other like what the hell are we watching? This is insane. I can't remember a time when I have like audibly genuinely gasped in a movie as much as I did watching. I know. And we bumped into Sean Fennesy and the lobby and he was seeing it for the second time. Yeah, because he saw it until you're right. Yeah. Yeah. So the question on this one is this is this just a bicostle phenomenon. It's opening this weekend 800 screens, limited release. The tracking is at about seven eight million, seven million would beat Melania, which is very important as a milestone for documentaries. I think this movie could get to 10 this weekend. I'm going to take the over on seven million. Oh, I would take the over on seven as well, even though it's one. Yeah. I mean, the three hour documentary. This is a risk. Yeah. I just wonder is not real life, the Nathan Fielder fans are not real life. This movie to get there, it has to kind of play in Midwestern cities like, is it going to play there? I like that you're trying to talk me out of taking the over, even though you just took the over. I know. I'm just playing devil's advocate here. For sure. I think this is going to play less like a documentary and more like an A24 film that all of A24 art house people are going to go see because it is a documentary, but there are some other elements to it that are a little bit different. The three hour thing is the biggest draw is that people might just bail when they see it's two hours and 55 minutes. I know. It doesn't feel it. It goes by fast, but it is long. And you know, plenty of A20 movies don't perform. We give them a lot of credit, but they got flops too. So I don't know. This movie that was at 199% on Rotten Tomatoes, like it's getting pretty universal acclaim and it feels like they've done the right amount of marketing to make you feel like there's a little FOMO if you don't see it to be part of the conversation. You should see this movie. There's lots of secrets in it that we won't discuss, but yeah, I think the over on that one feels right. By the way, I'm coming off at Double W weekend last weekend. That's right. You took the over on other mommy, which hit despite the reviews being horrific and the social reckoning under a million also hit. Yeah. That was social reckoning. That was obvious to me. It's like, who is that movie for? But you know what? It was for me. Unfortunately, I don't buy more than $20 worth of tickets and I saw that one for free. All right. So we're taking the under on Street Fighter at 40. We're taking, I'm taking the under on Whalefall at 11 and you're taking the over and we are both taking the over on, you can see everything at seven. Yep. Okay. That's the show for today. I want to thank my guest, Rich Shooter and Kathy Schoeman, producer Craig Horoback, our editor, Stefano Sanchez and Steve Alman. And I want to thank you. We will see you next week.