Hollywood's Economics, AI, and the Future of Film: Jonathan Eirich on What's Really Happening in Hollywood
Listen to This Episode On
Hollywood is facing one of its most turbulent periods in decades. Warner Brothers is in a bidding war. Disney's stock has been flat for ten years. Studios are consolidating, and everyone seems convinced that streaming killed the golden age of cinema.
But is the reality more nuanced than the headlines suggest?
Jonathan Eirich, co-CEO of Rideback and co-founder of AI animation company Spurry, has an insider's perspective few can match. His production company has delivered billion-dollar hits like Disney's live-action Aladdin and the Lego franchise, along with Netflix's Avatar: The Last Airbender series.
In our conversation, he cuts through the doom and gloom to explain what's actually happening in Hollywood's business model, why risk-averse executives keep greenlighting sequels, and whether AI will genuinely transform filmmaking or just become another tool in the arsenal.
This conversation is about the economics of producing a blockbuster, the mathematical reality of why certain movies get made while others don't, and what happens when an entire industry's business model shifts overnight.
Key Ideas from This Episode
Host Snapshot
Guest Name: Jonathan Eirich
Titles: Co-CEO, Rideback; Co-founder, Spurry
Credentials: Harvard College (AB '03); Former Senior Vice President at DreamWorks; Producer of films that have grossed over $2 billion globally
Current focus: Leading Rideback's film and television slate, including upcoming projects at Netflix; developing AI-powered animation technology at Spurry
Additional areas of expertise: Live-action adaptations of beloved IP, alternative content financing structures, global film production, streaming economics
The Warner Brothers Bidding War: What It Really Means
When Netflix and Comcast entered a bidding war for Warner Brothers Discovery, the media framed it as another death knell for traditional Hollywood. Eirich sees it differently.
"I'm not sure I see all the downsides that everyone else is seeing," he explains. The consolidation wasn't unexpected. When David Zasloff purchased Warner Brothers in 2022, people close to the situation knew the intention was to streamline operations, reduce debt, and eventually sell.
The real story isn't about decline—it's about who wants to own movie studios anymore. In the 1970s, Bell Western owned Paramount. In the 1990s, Seagram's bought Universal. These were companies from adjacent industries looking for content. That model is over.
Today's reality:
The only buyers for movie studios are other movie studios
The play is about IP consolidation and streaming platform control
Warner Brothers' position as Hollywood's "Yankees" has eroded, but the business isn't dead
"When I was coming up, Warner Brothers was the biggest studio in town. They made the most movies. They had Chris Nolan, Clint Eastwood. All these people were on the lot," Eirich recalls. That era has passed, but he's not convinced streaming killed it. The shift started years earlier.
Why Studios Stopped Taking Creative Risks
The question that frustrates movie fans most: why does Hollywood keep making sequels, reboots, and superhero films instead of taking chances on original stories?
Eirich's answer cuts to the heart of corporate incentive structures. It's not that executives lack creativity or passion. It's that their jobs depend on not making career-ending mistakes.
"Green lighting a sequel to a successful movie, you're probably not gonna get fired for. Green lighting a movie from Chris Nolan or Ryan Coogler or Denis Villeneuve, you're not gonna get fired for," he explains. "Everything in between that could have Monday morning quarterbacking, why'd you do that? Why'd you bet on that guy?"
The math is brutal:
A studio executive's job security depends on avoiding obvious mistakes
Sequels and established IP feel safer, even when they underperform
Original films from unproven filmmakers carry career risk regardless of budget
"The town" decides which failures get a pass and which become cautionary tales
This risk aversion isn't new, but it has intensified. Part of the issue is cost. The other part is that a handful of elite filmmakers have become brands themselves. Green lighting a Chris Nolan original film isn't actually that different from green lighting another Avengers movie. Both feel like safe bets.
The Economics of Billion-Dollar Movies
How does a film like Aladdin or Lilo & Stitch go from concept to more than a billion dollars at the global box office? Eirich walks through the business model that most people never see.
First, understand the players. A studio like Disney doesn't just write a check and hope for the best. There's a complex ecosystem of production companies, distributors, and financiers, each taking their cut and managing specific risks.
The production structure typically includes:
Studios provide distribution and marketing muscle
Production companies like Rideback develop projects and manage production
Financiers often come in to share risk on big-budget films
Creative talent (directors, writers, actors) negotiate for both upfront and backend deals
The budget for a major tentpole film can easily hit $200-300 million when you include marketing. That means the film needs to generate $500-600 million globally just to break even. This is why studios lean so heavily on IP that travels internationally.
"International audiences are now such a large part of the equation," Eirich notes. A film that resonates globally can succeed even with lukewarm domestic reception. The flip side: movies that depend on cultural specificity or complex dialogue face steeper odds.
Streaming Changed Everything (But Not How You Think)
The conventional wisdom says streaming killed the movie business. Eirich lived through the transition at DreamWorks before joining Rideback, and he sees a more complex picture.
Streaming didn't kill movies. It fundamentally changed the incentive structure for what gets made and how it gets financed.
What changed:
The "second window" revenue (DVD sales, TV licensing) largely disappeared
Studios now prioritize films that drive streaming subscriptions
Theatrical releases serve as expensive marketing for streaming content
The middle tier of movies ($50-100M budget) largely vanished
But here's what people miss: Netflix, Amazon, and Apple aren't operating under the same financial constraints as traditional studios. They're platform companies for whom content is just one part of a larger business model. Netflix needs a steady stream of content to justify subscriptions. Apple makes its real money on hardware and services.
This creates opportunities. "We have a first look deal at Netflix," Eirich explains. "We're still very close and working in a different capacity." The relationship shifted when Dan Lin, Rideback's founder, moved to run Netflix's film division. But the underlying economics opened new possibilities for production companies that can navigate between traditional studios and streaming platforms.
Will AI Actually Change Filmmaking?
Every conversation about Hollywood's future eventually lands on artificial intelligence. Eirich's perspective is informed by actually building an AI animation company, not just theorizing about it.
Spurry, his AI-powered animation venture, exists because Eirich saw a specific opportunity: traditional animation is prohibitively expensive for most projects. AI can potentially democratize access to animation tools and reduce production costs.
But he's clear-eyed about the limitations.
"I think the reality is AI is probably more of a tool than it is a replacement for real ingenuity and creativity," he says. "I still think that when you walk into a movie theater today, what ends up being good is good writing and a strong, clear creative voice."
The practical reality of AI in film:
It can reduce costs for certain technical processes (VFX, animation)
It won't replace the need for strong storytelling and creative vision
Studios will use it to make $50M movies for $10M, not to take bigger creative risks
The filmmaker's unique voice remains the differentiator
The question isn't whether AI will change the industry. It will. The question is whether that change enables more original voices or just makes it easier to produce formulaic content at lower cost. Eirich leans toward the latter, at least in the near term.
"Sean Baker can make Anora because it doesn't cost that much, and he doesn't need Disney or Netflix or Paramount to greenlight it," he points out. If AI tools can give more Sean Bakers the ability to make their vision without studio backing, that would be transformative. But getting from here to there requires technology that doesn't yet exist.
The Path into Hollywood
For aspiring producers and filmmakers, Eirich's career path provides both inspiration and caution. He came to Hollywood from Harvard wanting to be a screenwriter, took a job at CAA to learn the business, and ended up working for Stacey Snyder when she ran Universal Studios.
That traditional ladder—internships, assistant roles, creative executive positions, gradually moving up—largely still exists for getting into the industry. But what comes next has changed.
"I think the same path to get into the industry exists. Interning, working at agencies where you see the nexus of information for Hollywood, getting a job as an assistant working for somebody smart," he advises. "But then I think you've got to be more entrepreneurial in the way you forge your own path."
His advice for breaking in today:
Put in your 10,000 hours at an agency or as an assistant
Learn the fundamentals of how the business actually works
Then look for ownership opportunities, not just the next promotion
Pay attention to where the next Netflix-like disruptor is emerging
Understand YouTube, creator economy, and alternative platforms
"If you just start to think, I'll just do my time, I'll get promoted, eventually I'll run the company—that path feels harder now than ever before," he explains.
The opportunity exists for people who can identify emerging platforms and business models. The risk is investing years in a traditional studio trajectory only to find the top of the ladder has disappeared.
Key Takeaways
Cutting through the noise of Hollywood's turbulent moment, a few themes emerge from Eirich's perspective:
The business is consolidating, but that doesn't mean it's dying. Fewer studios making fewer movies might actually be healthy for the industry long-term if it forces better creative decisions.
Risk aversion is rational given current incentive structures. Studios won't suddenly start taking creative chances until the math changes. Either budgets need to drop significantly, or the potential upside needs to increase.
Streaming platforms operate under different economics than traditional studios. This creates arbitrage opportunities for production companies that can navigate both worlds.
AI will be a tool, not a revolution. It might lower costs for certain production elements, but it won't replace the need for strong creative vision and storytelling.
The traditional career path into Hollywood still works for entry-level positions, but the path to the top is now undefined. Entrepreneurship matters more than tenure.
Looking Forward
Eirich remains optimistic about the industry despite all the turbulence. When asked if he'd recommend the career path to someone starting today, he doesn't hesitate.
"I love it. I think it's the most fun business to work in. I love my job, I love our company, I love what we do," he says. "It is hard, it is harder in certain ways. And again, you hear about what it was like in the 90s and there's part of you that's like, yeah, that'd be fun if it was like that again. It's not. And even as is today, it's still a pretty great job."
The key is understanding what you're signing up for. This isn't the Hollywood of the 1990s, when studios made 30 movies a year and executives had real autonomy to greenlight original stories. It's a more consolidated, risk-averse, data-driven industry where the paths to success are less clearly defined.
But for people who can navigate ambiguity, who understand both the creative and business sides, and who can identify where the next opportunities are emerging, it remains one of the most fascinating industries in the world.
Memorable Quotes
"I'm not sure I see all the downsides that everyone else is seeing. I think the larger downside that I do think everyone is generally just disappointed about is consolidation, but it sort of feels like that's happening across the board in every industry."
"Green lighting a sequel to a successful movie, you're probably not gonna get fired for. Green lighting a movie from Chris Nolan or Ryan Coogler or Denis Villeneuve, you're not gonna get fired for. Everything in between that could have Monday morning quarterbacking—why'd you do that? Why'd you bet on that guy?"
"The filmmaker sometimes is almost the equivalent of the brand. So it's like green lighting an Avengers movie or green lighting a Chris Nolan movie isn't that different, even if it's an original Chris Nolan movie, like it is branded in its own way."
"I think the reality is AI is probably more of a tool than it is a replacement for real ingenuity and creativity. I still think that when you walk into a movie theater today, what ends up being good is good writing and a strong, clear creative voice."
"I love it. I think it's the most fun business to work in. I love my job, I love our company, I love what we do. It is hard, it is harder in certain ways... but even as is today, it's still a pretty great job."
Links You Might Find Valuable
Rideback - Jonathan's production company
