Rapid Response: Who really won The Oscars, w/The Black List's Franklin Leonard

Episode Summary

Executive Summary: Bob Safian and Franklin Leonard use the Oscars as a lens on Hollywood’s health: despite strikes, risk aversion, and AI anxiety, the industry still produced major films, rewards increasingly favor global/non-English storytelling, and commercial success can coexist with artistry. Leonard argues Hollywood underinvests in diverse talent and overlooked scripts, costing money and limiting meritocracy.

Main Topics: Oscars as a barometer of Hollywood and culture (Priority: 5/5): The conversation frames the Academy Awards as both a celebration of art and an economic signal about what the industry values, with awards creating visibility that can affect future deals and careers. Commercial success and creative excellence can align (Priority: 5/5): Oppenheimer’s dominant night is used to argue that ambitious, exceptional filmmaking can also produce massive box-office returns, challenging the old creative-versus-commercial split. Barbie’s cultural victory beyond awards (Priority: 4/5): Even without many wins, Barbie is portrayed as a major cultural and commercial success, with its performance and relevance demonstrating that a film can 'win the night' without winning Best Picture. Risk aversion and the need for smaller bets (Priority: 5/5): Leonard says major studios and streamers are especially risk-averse, while independent financiers and international films are more willing to back talented storytellers and lower-cost projects. Strikes, streaming, and AI are reshaping the business (Priority: 4/5): The strikes highlighted labor tensions and the centrality of writers; streaming is now normalized for awards viewing; AI is seen as both a threat and a tool, but not a replacement for human storytelling. Internationalization and non-English language films (Priority: 4/5): A record number of non-English language winners signals a more global Hollywood and growing U.S. audience openness to international stories. Identity, meritocracy, and underinvestment in diverse talent (Priority: 5/5): Leonard argues that movies are always about identity, but the industry only labels them that way when they are not about white men. He also stresses that bias-driven underinvestment in Black and Latino talent costs the industry billions.

Key Arguments: Oscar nominations and wins have economic value because they generate earned media, raise visibility, and improve bargaining power for future projects. The Academy Awards are a small-voter ecosystem, so results reflect the preferences of a limited group rather than an absolute judgment on artistic quality. Oppenheimer shows that a commercially successful film can also be artistically exceptional; the creative/commercial divide is overstated. Barbie had a huge cultural impact and essentially 'won the night' even without winning the top prizes. Hollywood, especially major studios and streamers, is currently unusually risk-averse, making it harder for lower-budget but high-upside projects to get made. The industry should make more and better $4 million-type bets, because successful smaller films can launch the next generation of major filmmakers and stars. Strikes demonstrated that writers are central to the business, and better compensation should improve long-term outcomes for everyone. AI may be useful, but it does not eliminate the need for emotionally compelling human storytelling; it intensifies the need for great writers. The rise of non-English language winners suggests the U.S. market is becoming more international in taste and distribution. The industry’s underinvestment in Black and Latino creators is not only inequitable but financially costly, leaving billions in value unrealized.

Data Points: Oscars voting body size: hundreds to under 10,000 voters - Leonard notes the Academy’s nominating and voting groups are very small, shaping outcomes through a narrow set of preferences. Oppenheimer box office rank among Best Picture winners: highest grossing in two decades; third highest grossing ever among Best Picture winners - Used to show that prestige and commercial success can align. Films mentioned as standout releases: Oppenheimer, Barbie, Zone of Interest, Killers of the Flower Moon, The Holdovers - Examples cited as proof that strong movies still emerged despite a difficult year and strikes. Strike duration: six months - Referenced as a major disruption that Hollywood still overcame creatively. Non-English language Oscar-winning films: 5 - Zone of Interest, Anatomy of a Fall, The Boy and the Heron, 20 Days of Mariupol, Godzilla Minus One were cited as a record signal of internationalization. Black bias cost estimate: $10 billion per year - Leonard cites a McKinsey study discussed around the 2021 Oscars about industry losses from anti-Black bias. Latino underinvestment cost estimate: $12 billion to $18 billion - A recent study was cited to quantify the industry’s financial losses from underinvesting in the Latino community. Dealership/PEO sponsor offer: up to three months free - Ad read for Deel mentioned in the episode intro/outro, not part of the interview content. Affinity customers: over 3,000 firms - Sponsor mention in the intro, unrelated to the interview’s analysis.

Pivotal Quotes: "I think all movies are on some level about identity." — Franklin Leonard: Leonard explains the thematic core of films like Barbie, American Fiction, and Killers of the Flower Moon. "When you make something exceptional, there is an opportunity for a massive commercial bounty as well." — Franklin Leonard: He argues that artistic excellence and strong box office are not mutually exclusive, using Oppenheimer and Barbie as examples. "The industry is losing between $12 and $18 billion because of underinvestment in the Latino community." — Franklin Leonard: Leonard cites a study to argue that bias and poor investment choices are economically damaging, not just morally wrong.

Implications: Hollywood is becoming more global, more streaming-native, and still highly dependent on human writers. The biggest opportunity lies in funding overlooked talent and cheaper, high-upside films that can create both cultural impact and long-term returns.