Is Hollywood Broken? A Savvy Investor’s View of 2026.

It is Friday, January 9th, but most accounts, this is going to be a pretty big year for big money deals in Hollywood. It's not just the ongoing saga surrounding Warner Brothers Discovery and who will end up owning Batman and HBO Max, although that's still a pretty important and open question, and we'll have an update there today now that Warner's has rejected Paramount's hostile offer again and is sticking with its Netflix deal, despite the fact that the value of the Netflix transaction is dependent in part on the leftover networks like CNN and TNT and what's going on with Versaunt, the spin-off of Comcast's cable networks that is down about 25% since it launched publicly this past week, not great, but bigger picture, I'm talking about the shifting landscape within the entertainment business, where the smart investors are putting their money these days. Trends like the rise of the creator economy, vertical video and free services like YouTube and Toobie as Netflix and the other subscription streamers become more like the old cable TV model. To preview the year and what the investor community is thinking, I invited Jeff Zaganski to come on the show. He's a longtime investor and producer and the former president of CBS and Sony Pictures and Paxton Communications. He's always smart and where the money is really being made in Hollywood, and you can often see where the business is going. He predicted a few years ago that the power of these streaming services would grow to consume the entirety of Hollywood, and that the creative talent would suffer as a result. He said we're in the golden age of content production and the dark age of creative profit sharing. That was during peak TV, now three years later that content recession is here and Jeff has some new thoughts on where everything is going next. So today it's the year ahead in Hollywood deal making, the big trends and where the money will be made and invested with Jeff Zaganski. And the ringer and puck, I'm Matt Bellany and this is the town. Okay we are here with Jeff Zaganski who's media investor, producer, former top executive at several studios, currently the founder and proprietor with Harry Sloan of Eagle equity partners. Am I getting everything right there? Pretty good. Okay. There we go. I wanted to have you on for a while now because you're very smart about this stuff and you have a great sense of what's really going on in the business of Hollywood and you weren't afraid to speak your mind, which I enjoy. So we're going to get into a bunch of topics here and I, but I got at first asked you about the state of play in the Warner's Netflix Paramount, Free Some Auction situation. What are you seeing? Where do you think this is going next? You know, the best way to think about this is sort of reflecting back to the Disney acquisition of Fox in the spring of 2019, because as you remember, it faced relatively muted opposition. It was concerned about Disney using their combined cloud to get the best play dates. The intermission. Now wish that was the case and there was some concern about the cutback and volume of movies, which of course was 100% correct. And in retrospect, I think of that as an absolute disaster for both the business and Los Angeles. And you know, the only people that really made out were the investors in Fox and I'm not sure even Disney benefited from it. Right. Still unclear. Yeah. Well, the Disney stock is where it was six years ago, but there was a loss of an estimated 7,000 jobs. And you know, you never really hear from these people who lost their livelihood, some people lost their homes during the process. You know, they work for the company that's getting acquired in their job is just to shut up and hope that they're not one of the redundant employees. Yeah. And there was virtually no protest at all, just like, you know, what's happened in the local and state government failed the people of Altadena and the palisades. I think the Justice Department failed both the consumers and the entertainment industry with allowing the deal to be consummated. Well, I don't think the Trump people were going to go against what Rupert wanted, given they care about his news network very much. And also, I feel like the people in Hollywood were sort of like either bamboozled or just didn't understand. There was a sense that Fox was not big enough or strong enough to survive on its own and kind of needed this. And it wasn't making the size of movies that it wanted to. And I don't know. I think there's a lot of people that are remorseful now that they didn't go after that. And I think we're going to see that manifested even more in what's going on with Warner Brothers. So yeah, so here we are six years later and we're starting with a streaming business that has really consolidated into a very strong oligopoly. And it has all the characteristics of one one. You have four players, big pricing power, prices, consumers have far outstripped inflation too, led by Netflix, you know, the terms of doing business with the create talent that makes the show dictates that there's no back end for anybody. You want to be invited to the oligopolys ball for producers in top talent. You have to give up your back end. Mm-hmm. We'll get to that part. But so do you believe Netflix when they say that their true competitor here is YouTube and not the other subscription streamers that they are going to own more than 40% of the market of? I think it's coming, but no, I think, you know, I think for this, for Netflix right now, you see they've got 29% margins. Those margins are approaching, the margins of the, you know, legacy cable business. They're in, you know, the cat bird seat and they've got an unbelievably strong business. And that business is dictating the terms for everybody in the business. And you know, you've got a decrease in production in the last three years because this is another thing that the oligopoly can do. They can, as long as everybody cuts, cuts back together, then no one's heard. The churn is the same. And that's what you're seeing. So, you know, you've got a really toxic sort of start, I think, for this looking at it from the next Netflix point of view. And, you know, I don't think that Netflix is going to prevail because I think that, you know, for Netflix, this is a both an offensive and defensive acquisition offensive because it gives Netflix the ability to have a lot more subs and revenue growth and the ability most importantly, to take those HBO subs and monetize them more effectively. HBO's got one of the highest churns in the business, seven or eight percent. Netflix has, you know, two percent for now, five years running. And if they can go and bundle these things, they can make this a very, very powerful, you know, package. So, why don't you think it will happen? Because, well, let me give you the defensive part of this. If all of the studios, Paramount, Universal, and Disney, which are the big parts of this 44 percent of viewing the Netflix has from licensed content, if they were to pull back their licensed content from Netflix, it would be a huge and very expensive hold to fill with original programming. Sure. But I think that, given the combined streaming share of over 30 percent, the Justice Department is going to block this. You think so? I'm pretty confident, but you think if they will ultimately block it. Trump's already making noises about concentration. We know that he favors the elephants. And I think the both the Democrats and Republicans on the hill, you can see them now coming together. And most of the town, as well, will coalesce around blocking this. So I don't think if Netflix is winning, I think they're going to end up, you know, losing this and paying the $5.8 billion breakup fee. And so what about the Paramount side? Do you think they can get this through? Or do you think they're going to raise their bid? So Paramount, if they're chosen, you don't have the concentration risk, you know, together they may be represent only three and a half percent of TV viewing. But what's interesting here is not what the Justice Department will do, but rather what the states will do. You know, the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 together with the Clayton Act 25 years later, to this day, they're the key pieces of legislation that prohibit restrained the trade. What I don't think people really focus on is before the Sherman Act, there were 12 states that had already passed their own antitrust legislation. States have always been active and effective in their attempts to enforce any trust. We've had Elizabeth Warren on the show, and she basically said as much that they're going to go after this, but not because of necessarily the, you know, the big bad Paramount swallowing another studio, they just don't want the proprietors of CBS News now to have CNN. Well, I think though, when you look at California, which is going to be most effective, you know, they have, you know, it's probably 125 year old Cartwright Act. And that antitrust legislation can be applied to mergers that affects jobs and worker competition within the state. So the governor and the attorney general have a lot of power here to enforce a law, despite what the federal government wants. And they have David Ellison's own words to throw back at him. He's talking about $6 billion in cost savings. There have to be, if you're paying that kind of money. And the question is whether the guilds, unions, the talent agencies, the legal community can coalesce to lobby the state in Congress to block this merger. You know, when I started in the business 50 years ago, there were industry leaders who really cared about the welfare of the L.A. entertainment community. You know, when I first, when I got my first big job at TriStar Picture, Sid Scheinberg, who I didn't know from Adam called me up to say, congratulations, you're now going to be sitting on the NC. Ran Universal and one of the most powerful people in the history of the business. Yeah. I didn't know them at all, but I think he could hear my bewilderment from the other side of the phone. And he said, you know, we have a responsibility of the community to make sure it thrives. Yeah. David Zazlov has a responsibility to the $600 million that he thinks he's going to get out of this deal. Yes. And when I moved from Sony to CBS, you know, he called me again, Sid. He said, okay, here are the new boards you're going to be sitting on. And by the way, Sid sat on every board. He really, those guys in that generation, they felt a responsibility to the business and to to Los Angeles. And you know, my gut, my hope is, I don't know if there, if that selflessness, and maybe you do, Matt exists anymore, but my gut, my hope is that those leaders are going to step forward and neither Netflix nor Paramount will give, will be given permission to buy Warner's. No, the modern leadership cares about themselves and their shareholders and keeping their jobs and it's not about that. But, but I want to get to this question of what happens if neither Netflix nor Paramount gets Warner's because the Warner's board is not going to go away. They are just going to restart the process and try to find another buyer and potentially someone who's even worse, potentially some private equity vampire that's going to just break it up and, you know, suck all the juice out of it. Yeah, you know what, look, Warner's does, you know, what, what Bax Warner's got $5 billion a year of library revenue. But you know, David Zaslav has done a great job of reducing the net debt by $20 billion. When these two companies are spun off separately, the studio and HBO Max, it's going to have less than three times leverage on it. It's going to have lots of liquidity to go into other businesses if it wants and it will, it can thrive on its own. It doesn't have to be bought. So you think they could buy Lionsgate, they could buy other stuff to bulk up and they could survive? Yes. I think they could survive. And by the way, I mean, this past year, we've seen what a standalone studio is capable of. They've done an incredible job. They've had an incredible year. They have and it didn't move the stock at all until a shooter came along and that's the whole problem here. Okay. But Matt, that stock is tethered to a bunch of cable assets, which we know trade for less than four times. We've sought, we've, we, we sought this week, you know, versus got spun off. It's trading for less than four times even though. No, the Ellison say the value of the cable networks is zero dollars. Yeah. And by the way, when it's got 15 billion dollars of debt on it, it might be very true. Yeah. Maybe. I know. I looked at that. I was like, oh, maybe I should buy CNN. You and me will go in. We can get it. I think you've got a better gig, by the way. Maybe so. Maybe so. Yeah. Certainly in prime time. All right. Three years ago, you said that it was a rotten time to be a producer in terms of being paid fairly for the work you are doing. And that was at the kind of height or just the kind of very end of big TV. What about today? I mean, what is going on? Do you think that there is any chance of a reversal in what's going on in the business right now? Well, look, I, I think given what we're seeing in terms of the cut back production, you know, even if you look at the residuals, which, you know, was a way for people to have some back end, you know, when you look at the individual residuals of talent, they have gone down. Everybody is suffering. And it's because somehow Netflix, and then it was quickly adopted. Who wouldn't adopt it? You don't have to pay anybody after they create something. Imagine if we said to all the authors in this country and all the, the, the singers in this country and the, the composers, hey, you are no longer going to get any back end from your creation. I mean, what kind of shit storm would that start? But that's exactly what's happened in our business, 75 years. That's how long this profit sharing has been part of our business, 75 years and overnight. It's eliminated. Yeah. Well, not if you're Ben Affleck and Matt Damon. They just did a big splashy New York Times piece about their deal for the rip. This Netflix movie where they're getting everybody on their cast and crew paid, just like some of the other movies they've made for Art of Security, and they say they have broken the Netflix model. Netflix is very cheerily saying we have not changed our model. We just agreed to do it for them. Is that the model for others to go for? Well, the model for others to go for is basically what John Boyd, I think, is talking a little bit about. And that is re-instituting the Vincent model. And that is you can license the product. You can pay for it, but it reverts back to the creators and the creative participants as well as the financiers after four or five or six years. That sounds great, but I just don't see that happening. Is there any path to that happening? Yes. You there is. Do you know something I don't? Do you know of a movement? Do you know something that's going to be public soon? I think there's a lot of people talking about this. I know there are very important people talking about it. And I think that it could happen because of the way that these streamers basically have changed the business overnight. And I think it would be this single best thing for our business. You know, when it happened the first time in 1971, no one thought it could happen then either. By the way, there were three networks. They owned 95% of all the ancillary rights of anything they put on the air. Now, that 95% has become 100%. No one is able to benefit after the run. So how did they get it passed? They got it passed. Interesting enough, it was a political process. And what happened was Nixon who was right at, was going after the media in 1971. He felt like that he wasn't getting a fair shake on the Vietnam War. He basically did it to punish CBS in the other networks in the way that they were coming. Oh man, sounds familiar. Certainly does sound familiar. Oh, wow. So Hollywood has to engineer some controversy that would allow Trump to screw someone over by reinstating Finson. Well, is it screwing somebody over or is he basically helping to rectify all the people that have been already screwed over? Right. Right. I know. We got to get like kid rock and Scott Fahoe and those guys to talk about all the residuals that they have lost. All right, so let's move on to the M&A landscape for the gear. You keep hearing about how deals are back. Money's out there. People are looking to buy stuff. What are you seeing on the media landscape and media entertainment? So it's going to be a very active year in the M&A markets for basically both media and non-media assets and for two reasons. One, you know, debt is becoming cheaper as the Fed lowers rates and this is going to accelerate as soon as Trump appoints his new Fed share. And then equity is plentiful from both traditional private equity shops and also from the sovereign wealth funds. In the Middle East, we saw that this year, you know, electronic arts, one of the biggest deals in all of the capital markets this year, $45 billion and funded by TIFF, the Saudi Arabian private wealth fund and the PE fund silver like which also wants to be with me. So looking to 20, 26 here, you have a number of legacy media companies in play, obviously versant, which, you know, the spin off that just happened this week, which has a lot of cash, but had a very, very rough outing and but you've got a number of these, you know, I think Warner's will spin out in April, at least to separate the two companies and you've got, you've got stars, also already spun out of Alliance Gate. We helped make that happen, but they're also looking to do deals and we've already seen that A&E, the fourth big cable network player has already in play. They announced that they're looking for, you know, a sort of strategic help there. Don't forget only fans, they're for sale. Okay, and only fans, by the way, he would love to be public, I'm sure, but who's going to do that? So, you know, look for a continued consolidation of cable assets, but, you know, as well as the actual cable themselves, you know, chartering cocks announced their merger, it's going to create the largest cable company ahead of Comcast. And you think this will happen despite the uncertainty with the Trump administration and the kind of haphazard way in which antitrust and emergent laws are being enforced right now. I do. I do, you know, I think if you look at from 22 to 24, there was virtually no IPO market. They were the lowest new issuance in, you know, in decades. But then last year it started to pick up. There was $44 billion raised last year, 202 IPOs, and that recovery is going to continue this year and it's going to be led, by the way, by some huge names, open AI, SpaceX and the tropics, they're all going to excite the market. But in the entertainment media business, you're mostly looking at private transactions, short form video, generative AI tools, live events, social media, we're going to see a lot of deals announced. And by the way, wouldn't surprise me if one of the agencies, big agencies, changes hands, you know, two of them are still owned by private equity. Yeah. Well, CAA just got put into a family office, so I don't think anything's happening there. But UTA, UTA might. Yeah. You know, we're in a period when private equity has been sitting on assets for far too long. And you know, they need a monetization event, either an IPO or a sale, and when you look at the assets that are in private equity, everything from candle media, the content partners, the boardwalk pictures, direct TV, Yahoo, sound stages, legendary media, one that huge, you know, big European production company, casting crew, you know, these are all in private funds that need to be monetized. You think that there will be consolidation in the management world, the talent management? I know that TPG is trying and Blackstone has made some noise and carliles in management 360 and or entertainment 360. Yes. It's going to happen because they work in the agency side. I know. It's just funny because managers are not agents. It's very different, but maybe they don't know that. Or they don't care. Yeah. I mean, look, they basically got clients that stay for a long time. True. And they can produce. Yeah. And they're, you know, and these things are selling at 15 times, you know, so those are big multiples. What would you do with candle media? Blackstone went into this, bought Moonbug with Coco Mellon, bought Reese Witherspoon, overpaid for her. They got an amalgam of assets. They've tried to sell off some. Kevin Mayer is like, depending on what you read, either involved that, not that much or a lot. Like, what would you do with them? You know, I don't know because I haven't seen how productive those assets are. But look, Moonbug I think is everybody's acknowledged was a pretty good purchase. I'm not sure about the rest of it, but I just hope Reese finally gets paid. I'm kidding. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. Well, we don't have to throw any benefits for her. Right. Let's talk about some other trends that you are watching this year. What's the big one? It's got to be the rise of the free services, right? Total. Absolutely. It's on the table in media. You're going to bet on free right now. You have to because 18% of total TV viewing is just free service. You got YouTube, Broco, FreeV, all these things. No, no more freeV. FreeV is gone. FreeV is gone. You're right. You're right. Yes, it was sucked into Amazon Prime Video, which most people believe is free anyways. But there's to be. There's Pluto TV, you know, there's, there's a lot of them and they are growing. And people, like, it's been true since the very beginning of media, people don't like to pay for shit. They just don't. Well, but they also don't like to pay, I mean, because of the prices, the incredible acceleration of pricing increases of streaming, people want to, you know, people want some free content. You know, by the way, you know, I wonder all the time whether the business practices of the streamers is the root of this free trend. Oh, explain. Well, we saw this in cable, you know, cable 13 years ago, it was a jug or not, 88% of all American homes were subscribing to pay cable. And yet every year that they did these marketing, marketing studies, they have, they had a negative net promoter score or NPS, meaning more consumers dislike them than had a positive feeling about them. It was obviously because of that cable, the cable guy. Yeah, and the box and you can't cancel and they screw you and yeah, there's a lot of ways that they can. But more importantly, they were getting ripped off, they were being charged a hundred bucks a month for 300 channels, they were watching 12 of them. And they couldn't buy on an allocarte basis those 12. So streaming comes along from Netflix 2007 and then Amazon 2009 with just a lot of library product and you looked at those first NPS scores and by the way, it had three great things going for it. No ads. You could low price and you can watch whenever you want. So Netflix launches just with library product, it's got an NPS score of like 68, which is unbelievable unheard of. These are the highest in American industry. Now because the pricing increases, now because most users and Netflix and all the services are being driven to ad supported tiers, you're seeing NPS scores. They're still good, but have come down considerably. Yeah, it's becoming just like regular old cable, regular old media. Right. One thing that I see and notice is, you know, Netflix became Netflix because it's vast reach being a internet enabled television network enabled it to basically become the first global TV network. And it produced economics of scale that could fund this constant fire hose of high level a list actor shows and movies that rival the movies you see in theaters and essentially outdo what has traditionally been possible on the television networks. Now it seems like the economics of free are threatening to do the same thing to Netflix that Netflix did to movie theaters and cable systems. Am I am I right there? I think you're absolutely right. The canary and the coal mine is, and when you look at the TV usage of, you know, the sort of the Gen Z younger millennials, they are doing everything but watching TV. They're betting, they're on social media, they're playing games, they're doing all these other businesses by the way that are growing much faster than streaming. And that is for me, the sort of the canary and the coal mine, you know, what happens? Because these, you know, people go along here and get older, are they going to be subscribing to four plus services, what the average American consumer is, you know, buying now on streaming or are they going to be doing two or three? And if that happens, you're going to see the valuations of streaming really start to come down. And I think that's why Netflix wants to buy Warner Brothers because they realize that if YouTube wants to, they can become Netflix. They can just spend some of the $50 billion a year that YouTube brings in and start buying content. They've already started. And yet they can't replicate 100-year-old franchises and DC Comics and Harry Potter. So Netflix is going to get those. It also explains why Netflix is so eager to get into video gaming and short-of-form programming. You know, I remember, and I don't think it was 2012, Ted Miranda says, "Oh, you know, what's going to be faster in Netflix becoming HBO or HBO becoming Netflix?" And now, you know, Netflix, by the way, became much greater than HBO because they successfully created a much broader offering. But I am certainly not betting that Netflix can become TikTok or YouTube, which have a much better business model. YouTube and TikTok, you know, they revenue share. They don't pay for content. It doesn't work. Yeah. But they're going to try to become more like it. We've talked about this. I mean, the ringer where we do the show for the ringer, they have a deal and it's going to, you know, the podcast will work or not work, but it's their swing to try to make more YouTube like content. And we're going to see that throughout the year, I think. You think they'll succeed? I think there is an audience for the podcasts on Netflix. It's not going to be as big as YouTube because it's not as easy. There's still that barrier to entry. But I think that Netflix is enough of a utility for most people that they may just throw it on and keep it on in the afternoon. I mean, they're really going after daytime viewing here because YouTube dominates and daytime viewing and try to increase that share of viewing to get them closer to YouTube. And I do think podcasts eat up time. They're like the middle relievers, you know, they eat up innings. Yeah. I also think though that, you know, I think the whole content mode that has served streaming's rise and as well as cable and broadcast before that, I think it's really diminishing. You know, I mean, this is what Hollywood was built on. No one can make the quality shows that Hollywood can make. But now you've got all these short form micro drama series services like real short drama box. They're serving a minute, two minute episodes. They garnered big audiences. They cost only $1,500 in episode. You know, and this is going to, I don't know if it's going to be as big a business as they say it's going to be, but they're, you know, they're saying it's going to be $10 billion in 2027. It's bigger than the theatrical movie business. Yeah. And it takes out the bottom quadrant of professionally produced content. You know, there was always Hollywood was yes, that place where only they could do it. But you know, there's a spectrum of quality from the Hollywood content. And now if it's below, you know, the bottom half of what Hollywood does, you'd rather just watch Instagram. And those are all going to be on your TV. So why would you watch crappy, you know, stuff to pass the time? You could just watch what everyone else is putting out into the world and it's more entertaining anyways. You know, I'm actually fascinated with the success of this truncated short form program because I think the whole other use for these massive film libraries, you know, and that is taking AI, taking the movies, the TV shows, condensing them to much shorter experiences. You know, imagine watching True Detective or Stranger Things in one hour rather than six. Now, it may not be some way that, you know, your listeners or you or I want to watch, but, you know, all these viewers being trained on real shorts and drama box, they won't have any issue with it. No, I just saw the hour and 10 minute version of the Wizard of Oz at the sphere. And most people who watch it, we're not missing the clips that they cut out for this. And Amazon Fire now, if you go, if you go on Amazon, you can ask it to go to the scenes you want in a movie, you know, play the part of the hangover where the tiger comes out. And that's where we're going, where the clipification of everything is going to revert back into the actual content and people are going to be able to enjoy stuff, however they want it. By the way, big, big guild issue, I think, because there's probably a lot of directors and writers who don't want to see their work in this form, but, you know, there may be others who welcome the additional revenue. I don't know. We're talking about this in which directors would want their movies at the sphere. And you know, it was like, oh, Jim Cameron, he would thought, I'm like, I don't think Jim Cameron is going to want to watch an hour and 10 minute version of Titanic. He's just not going to want to do that, because you would have to just cut out everything except the ship sinking. And that's not the essence of what he thinks Titanic is. So I know it's a whole bunch of things, but all right, I appreciate you coming on the show. It's going to be a fascinating year ahead. Thanks so much. All right. Today's call sheet is brought to you by Searchlight Pictures, presenting is this thing on. This intimate and hopeful new film from director Bradley Cooper stars Will Arnett and Laura Dern as a couple on the precipice of divorce as they navigate reinvention, reconnection, and whether love can take a new form. All right, Craig, we've got two classic January movies opening this weekend. I mean, it's amazing, how familiar are you with the IMDB page of one Gerard Butler? Look, he's been a couple, he's been in a couple of rewatchables movies, so, you know, movies like Den of Thieves. Den of Thieves 300, Olympus has fallen. Quality. Yeah, Den of Thieves is a big rewatchables movie. Bill Simmons is a fan of Gerard Butler. My mother, a big fan of the movie Greenland. Jerry Butler at 56 still got it, still doing the action movies. I remember playing from a couple years ago, the movie so great, they kept the working title. Yeah, that was the title again, emails as they were figuring out if they wanted to make this movie. Plane movie, Jerry Butler. It would have been better if they just called it Plane movie rather than Plane. Plane is like the artistic version of Plane movie. Plane made 75 million bucks. Amazing. I love Jerry Butler. He's one of those guys. It's been around forever. He has this manager, Alan Siegel, who is one of the classic Hollywood characters. I once saw him like dancing solo at a premiere party, like by himself on the dance floor for like 20 minutes solo, as everyone's like mingling and talking. He was just like grooving to his own beat, classic guy. I respect that when the song is good enough. When the music moves you, man, when give me give me give me comes on, you have to dance. Exactly. So if it's January, there's got to be some Jason Statham or Gerard Butler movie and this time we've got Gerard Butler, Greenland 2 migration was not familiar with the original Greenland, which came out in 2020, did not get a US theatrical release because of COVID, but somehow still made $50 million overseas. So at Lionsgate, $50 million means sequel and now we have Greenland 2. The tracking is $10 million over under. Over. Oh, you're taking the over on this. Yeah. Okay. I have seen some indications that it is going to get to over, but I am still going to take the under on this. I just, that seems like a lot to me for a movie that did not get a US theatrical release. A sequel is going to like gross more than $10 million. I don't, I don't think so. I bet this movie did really well on HBO Max and the Amazon Prime when it came out on the VOD in the pandemic and the fact that it made $50 internationally and is Gerard Butler who is always, who's in the state them camp. I don't know. These are, these are like earth disaster movies. I believe the first one is about a comet coming to earth and they have to try to survive the comet. Yeah. There's an earth message about these things. Yes. Yes. All right. Is it going to beat the killer chimp movie primate from Paramount? That one is also tracking to about $10 million. That I know less about and I've seen less about it. It's another classic January. It's a slasher movie. Although the reviews have been pretty good for this one. People seem to like it in that world. I am still taking the under on it because I just think they're both going to get bold over by Avatar and the Christmas movies. I don't think it's going to resonate but the reviews are okay. See you taking the under on both. Under on both. Got to. I don't know. It's January. These movies are not being dumped. They are classic January movies but they just feel like out of another era. So I think they're biting their time on screens for their eventual pivot and streaming consumption. All right. Today's call she was brought to you by searchlight pictures presenting is this thing on starring Will Arnett or Dern and Dredet and Bradley Cooper. Deadline hails the film as a quote brilliant and profound exploration of marriage. Now playing in theaters everywhere for your consideration in all categories. All right. Thanks for the show for today. I want to thank my guest Jeff Suganski, producer Craig Horobak or to their Jesse Lopez. I don't want to thank you. We will see you next week.