
@RoyPricei
iAccount based inUnited States
About this account
- Account based in
- United States
- Connected via
- United States App Store
Account-level information from X, not a live location or the device used for a specific post.
Founder @number1bw. Formerly: launched Amazon Video, Amazon Studios. I am always right about show business things.
Los Angeles, CA
Joined October 2008
- Tweets12K
- Following3.5K
- Followers25K
- Likes77.7K
Microdramas are booming. Unfortunately, most of them are ridiculous soap operas about marrying your dom billionaire boss.
Let’s build a new network.
On N1BW, creators get 70% of revenue … keep movie & TV rights … no exclusivity!
Bring scripts!
n1bw.com – at Los Angeles, CA
Chainmail Bikini of the Damned 🔥 made on @runwayml for @Number1bw.
Coming next summer.
Roy Price retweeted
In this moment, I am euphoric. I'm incredibly grateful to Venice, Moonpay & the legenday judges.
My upcoming feature film, Rainbow Sun, will be made in @AskVenice 🌈☀️
xitter.cf/moonpay/status/2112939…
🤖 Made with AI
the winner of the SERENISSIMA AWARD at the LUMARA FILM FESTIVAL is...
BLACK THUNDER by RYAN LIGHTBOURN
this 12-minute sci-fi fantasy epic wins the award for best film made using @AskVenice, and comes with a $12,000 prize along with 1.2 million Venice credits!
Roy Price retweeted
With the late, great Oliver Reed currently wowing 2026 audiences all over again with his incredible performance in the restored version of Ken Russell’s ‘The Devils’, I wanted to share this amazing clip of him from 1985.
The rather low-res clip comes from ‘In at the Deep End’, a BBC series in which presenter Paul Heiney tries his hands at a profession he had zero experience in. For this episode, Heiney was preparing for an acting role opposite Michael Caine in ‘Water’ and went to Oliver Reed for some pointers on how to play a villain.
Please enjoy what happens next.
Models that optimize for going from a loose notion of a video to a finished video asap are optimizing for the less interesting part of the market.
In more interesting world, control is v important as well as developing grammar of shots (“two shot,” “coverage,” “reverse angle”).
The broad mass of undifferentiated AI video in the future will not be valuable and people won’t pay much to create it. But the good stuff will matter.
Roy Price retweeted
Swingers made it feel like anyone could make movies.
Doug Liman scraping together $200K, then delivering something this polished and getting it released, feels like a myth now. The 90s IndieWood boom made everything seem possible.
This scene is still brutal.
The point of AI video or an AI video platform is not AI, it’s to deliver all the stuff that Hollywood refuses to deliver. Stuff that’s funny. Crazy premises and aesthetics.
When costs are low you can be fun, experimental and outrageous. Which is a pretty huge market gap.
Down with committees. Down with sameness. Corporate rock sucks.
🤖 Made with AI
Roy Price retweeted
I wait weeks for feedback on scripts, and it's almost never from the general audience. Meanwhile, this guy is getting thousands of people to tell him what works, what doesn't, and why. In real time. He's building an audience, getting better at craft, and learning what connects. Hell of an advantage.
#Obsession director Curry Barker shares what he has learned from the comment section on platforms like YouTube, and how that "feedback" has shaped his approach to writing dialogue:
"The main thing I would take away is how smart the audience is."
IndieWire's Future of Filmmaking Summit, presented by @ATT Untold Stories
You sort of can “buy stock” in IPs with a memecoin. It we be better tho if it paid out if certain outcomes were achieved.
But we cant do that because it’s legal to gamble but illegal to invest in unregistered “securities”. 🤷
Roy Price retweeted
The reputational destruction of Prof. David Sabatini was one of the worst excesses of the Great Awokening / Me-Too era. @BillAckman acted bravely in offering him support when the entire academic establishment cancelled him. Without his efforts, the complete absence of due process in his treatment by @MIT might never have come to light. The question I am left with: Will those whose misconduct has finally been exposed pay anything like the price they imposed on Sabatini? Will they be fired? Will their reputations be destroyed? They deserve it. He did not.
Five years ago, an important miscarriage of justice occurred.
The story began in April 2018 when David Sabatini, an MIT, Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), and Whitehead Institute scientist and professor began a consensual intimate relationship with Dr. Kristin Knouse, a principal investigator with her own lab at the Whitehead.
By January 2020, David sought to end the relationship, but Knouse apparently did not want it to end. When David thereafter started a new relationship and Knouse learned about it, she began a secretive campaign to destroy him by attempting to end his career as a scientist. She did so by damaging his name, reputation, and that of his family with false sexual harassment and other claims, thereby making him unemployable.
Knouse conspired with Dr. Ruth Lehmann, the then- and still current Director (i.e., President) of the Whitehead Institute, in her efforts to destroy Sabatini.
The record presented in court demonstrated that Dr. Lehmann committed to Knouse in October of 2020 that she would fire David. Dr. Lehmann made this commitment to Knouse before any investigation of the facts had taken place.
Seven months after committing to fire him, in March of 2021, Dr. Lehmann, on behalf of the Whitehead, hired the law firm of Hinckley, Allen, Snyder (HAS) to undergo an investigation of David. By July 2021, HAS shared a draft of its conclusions with MIT, HHMI, and the Whitehead, but not with David or his lawyers.
On the morning of August 19, 2021, David for the first time received the more than 200-page investigative report and a calendar invite for a meeting the following day with Dr. Lehmann, the president of HHMI, and the HR directors of both institutions. The report was riddled with errors and unsupported claims about David and his relationship with Knouse.
When David's lawyer immediately thereafter reached out to Whitehead counsel to ask whether David was about to be fired, they confirmed that he would be terminated at the meeting.
On the advice of his lawyer, David immediately resigned from HHMI and the Whitehead rather than attend the meeting. HHMI did not accept his resignation, choosing instead to fire him. MIT put David on leave and ultimately revoked his tenure. David thereafter resigned from MIT.
On August 20, 2021, one day after sending David the HAS report and before David had the opportunity to dispute the facts and the conclusions of the investigation, Dr. Lehmann emailed all employees at the Whitehead informing them that David had violated a number of Whitehead policies "including policies concerning sexual harassment."
The Lehmann public email, David's resignation and firing, and Dr. Lehmann's claims about David's sexual harassment exploded into a major global scandal covered in mainstream, social, and scientific media around the world as it had all of the requisite ingredients:
An attractive target with David, one of the most important scientists of his generation in line for the Nobel Prize, a purported inappropriate sexual relationship with a younger female colleague, and a political and institutional environment where punishing a man for sexual harassment advanced the career and reputation of the person and/or institution that destroyed the career and reputation of the accused, regardless of the validity of the allegations.
As a result of Knouse's claims, Lehmann's sham investigation, and the media onslaught that followed, David lost all sources of income and his reputation was destroyed. All prizes he had been previously been awarded were withdrawn. He was removed from all scientific advisory and other honorary roles other than as a member of our family foundation's (the Pershing Square Foundation's) scientific advisory board.
When I initially learned of the news about David in the summer of 2021, I hired him as a consultant to the Pershing Square Foundation as I believed our small foundation team would benefit greatly by his insights (and he now had the time to help us), and he needed the money to support his family.
At my request and under a confidentiality agreement, David provided us with many hundreds of pages of documents including texts and other communications with Knouse, the investigative report, and David's responses to the allegations so that we could do our own evaluation of Knouse's claims.
I and a member of our family office's legal team carefully reviewed the documents. After a careful review of the empirical documents -- in particular the texts between Knouse and David -- it became abundantly clear that Knouse's actions were that of an angry and jilted lover, not those of a sexually harassed junior colleague. And the investigative report appeared designed to deliver a pre-ordained conclusion rather than a dispassionate fact-based analysis.
The impact of the firings and the destruction of his career and reputation on David and his family was extraordinarily devastating, so much so that we became increasingly concerned that he might commit suicide.
[In order to make sure that David's important scientific research would continue, in February 2023, in partnership with an anonymous donor, we funded $25 million to support David launching a new lab. As you might expect, I was reviled in the press, in scientific journals, and on social media for doing so and for supporting a so-called sex offender.]
On October 20, 2021, David filed suit against Knouse alleging defamation and tortious interference in his career and his contractual arrangements. Thereafter, Knouse brought counterclaims against David.
Today, nearly five years to the date of the filing of the suit, he has finally received justice.
Today, a 13-person jury (seven men and six women) of David Sabatini's peers (12 jurors plus an alternate) unanimously determined that David proved that Kristin Knouse defamed him, tortiously interfered with his contractual relationships (his entire career as a scientist), and tortiously interfered with his prospective advantageous relationships (his future employment). The jury awarded him nearly $10 million in damages including interest.
The jury rejected all of Knouse's claims including her claims that David engaged in quid pro quo sexual harassment and created a sexually hostile work environment.
While five years is a very long time to live under a reputational cloud, justice was finally served today for David, but not completely in my view.
To this day, Dr. Ruth Lehmann remains Director of the Whitehead Institute. Dr. Lehmann worked alongside Dr. Knouse to destroy David Sabatini, an acclaimed scientist and professor. She did not follow due process before she intentionally destroyed David's career and reputation.
Dr. Lehmann nearly killed David with her actions, as had we not rescued David by finding him employment, supporting him publicly to buffer the reputational damage, and supporting his recovery, he could have ended his life and left his son without a father before the world understood what had transpired here.
And the reputational damage was not just to David.
David's brother, Bernardo Sabatini, is one of the most important neuroscientists in the world. To this day, he has had to deal with a large cloud over his family name and reputation. Recently, when the new CEO of our brain institute mentioned that Bernardo Sabatini was on our board, he was asked: "Wasn't he involved in some kind of sex scandal?"
For obvious reasons, the character of the person who runs a scientific institute is of utmost importance. Among other failures here, Dr. Ruth Lehmann committed to Knouse that she would fire David many months before an investigation was even launched and without consideration of the empirical facts.
How can one trust research produced by a scientific institute if its leader is not committed to observing the empirical facts before reaching conclusions that have life-threatening import? We have unfortunately seen massive amounts of scientific fraud which has harmed innumerable human lives and wasted billions of dollars of research funding and time.
For her ethical breaches here, Dr. Lehmann should be fired from the Whitehead. Based on her actions in this case, she is in no position to serve as the leader of an important scientific institute.
I speak with some perspective on how scientific and other institutions should be led. Including the recent launch of the Ackman Oxman Institute, we have funded approximately $1 billion of scientific research and institutions over the last decade or so, and this experience has given us the opportunity to meet the leadership of many of the most important scientific institutions in the world.
To put it plainly, we would not give a dollar to a scientific institute whose leader compromised basic moral principles as has happened here.
At an absolute minimum, the board of the Whitehead should immediately launch a detailed and independent investigation of Dr. Lehmann's actions in the Sabatini case. I would encourage the investigation, among other considerations, to carefully exam all of the correspondence between Lehmann and Knouse, as well their correspondence with the HAS law firm on among other areas, the various drafts of the Sabatini investigative report.
Alternatively, Dr. Lehmann could resign, minimize further distraction for the Whitehead, and save institutional time and resources that would be better spent on research that benefits humanity.
Why is intentional defamation only a crime in 14 states? It should be a federal felony. In my opinion false accusers (like Kristen Knouse, Ashley Morgan Smithline, Julie Swetnick, and Isa Dick Hackett) and their co-conspirators, should get the electric chair, but 100X the financial costs imposed could be a fallback. $10MM is far too small in exchange for six years of his life. But at least he was completely vindicated in court.
In the future — now that this tactic is known — victims of defamation must get into court asap and start rigorous discovery and cross-examination.
Five years ago, an important miscarriage of justice occurred.
The story began in April 2018 when David Sabatini, an MIT, Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), and Whitehead Institute scientist and professor began a consensual intimate relationship with Dr. Kristin Knouse, a principal investigator with her own lab at the Whitehead.
By January 2020, David sought to end the relationship, but Knouse apparently did not want it to end. When David thereafter started a new relationship and Knouse learned about it, she began a secretive campaign to destroy him by attempting to end his career as a scientist. She did so by damaging his name, reputation, and that of his family with false sexual harassment and other claims, thereby making him unemployable.
Knouse conspired with Dr. Ruth Lehmann, the then- and still current Director (i.e., President) of the Whitehead Institute, in her efforts to destroy Sabatini.
The record presented in court demonstrated that Dr. Lehmann committed to Knouse in October of 2020 that she would fire David. Dr. Lehmann made this commitment to Knouse before any investigation of the facts had taken place.
Seven months after committing to fire him, in March of 2021, Dr. Lehmann, on behalf of the Whitehead, hired the law firm of Hinckley, Allen, Snyder (HAS) to undergo an investigation of David. By July 2021, HAS shared a draft of its conclusions with MIT, HHMI, and the Whitehead, but not with David or his lawyers.
On the morning of August 19, 2021, David for the first time received the more than 200-page investigative report and a calendar invite for a meeting the following day with Dr. Lehmann, the president of HHMI, and the HR directors of both institutions. The report was riddled with errors and unsupported claims about David and his relationship with Knouse.
When David's lawyer immediately thereafter reached out to Whitehead counsel to ask whether David was about to be fired, they confirmed that he would be terminated at the meeting.
On the advice of his lawyer, David immediately resigned from HHMI and the Whitehead rather than attend the meeting. HHMI did not accept his resignation, choosing instead to fire him. MIT put David on leave and ultimately revoked his tenure. David thereafter resigned from MIT.
On August 20, 2021, one day after sending David the HAS report and before David had the opportunity to dispute the facts and the conclusions of the investigation, Dr. Lehmann emailed all employees at the Whitehead informing them that David had violated a number of Whitehead policies "including policies concerning sexual harassment."
The Lehmann public email, David's resignation and firing, and Dr. Lehmann's claims about David's sexual harassment exploded into a major global scandal covered in mainstream, social, and scientific media around the world as it had all of the requisite ingredients:
An attractive target with David, one of the most important scientists of his generation in line for the Nobel Prize, a purported inappropriate sexual relationship with a younger female colleague, and a political and institutional environment where punishing a man for sexual harassment advanced the career and reputation of the person and/or institution that destroyed the career and reputation of the accused, regardless of the validity of the allegations.
As a result of Knouse's claims, Lehmann's sham investigation, and the media onslaught that followed, David lost all sources of income and his reputation was destroyed. All prizes he had been previously been awarded were withdrawn. He was removed from all scientific advisory and other honorary roles other than as a member of our family foundation's (the Pershing Square Foundation's) scientific advisory board.
When I initially learned of the news about David in the summer of 2021, I hired him as a consultant to the Pershing Square Foundation as I believed our small foundation team would benefit greatly by his insights (and he now had the time to help us), and he needed the money to support his family.
At my request and under a confidentiality agreement, David provided us with many hundreds of pages of documents including texts and other communications with Knouse, the investigative report, and David's responses to the allegations so that we could do our own evaluation of Knouse's claims.
I and a member of our family office's legal team carefully reviewed the documents. After a careful review of the empirical documents -- in particular the texts between Knouse and David -- it became abundantly clear that Knouse's actions were that of an angry and jilted lover, not those of a sexually harassed junior colleague. And the investigative report appeared designed to deliver a pre-ordained conclusion rather than a dispassionate fact-based analysis.
The impact of the firings and the destruction of his career and reputation on David and his family was extraordinarily devastating, so much so that we became increasingly concerned that he might commit suicide.
[In order to make sure that David's important scientific research would continue, in February 2023, in partnership with an anonymous donor, we funded $25 million to support David launching a new lab. As you might expect, I was reviled in the press, in scientific journals, and on social media for doing so and for supporting a so-called sex offender.]
On October 20, 2021, David filed suit against Knouse alleging defamation and tortious interference in his career and his contractual arrangements. Thereafter, Knouse brought counterclaims against David.
Today, nearly five years to the date of the filing of the suit, he has finally received justice.
Today, a 13-person jury (seven men and six women) of David Sabatini's peers (12 jurors plus an alternate) unanimously determined that David proved that Kristin Knouse defamed him, tortiously interfered with his contractual relationships (his entire career as a scientist), and tortiously interfered with his prospective advantageous relationships (his future employment). The jury awarded him nearly $10 million in damages including interest.
The jury rejected all of Knouse's claims including her claims that David engaged in quid pro quo sexual harassment and created a sexually hostile work environment.
While five years is a very long time to live under a reputational cloud, justice was finally served today for David, but not completely in my view.
To this day, Dr. Ruth Lehmann remains Director of the Whitehead Institute. Dr. Lehmann worked alongside Dr. Knouse to destroy David Sabatini, an acclaimed scientist and professor. She did not follow due process before she intentionally destroyed David's career and reputation.
Dr. Lehmann nearly killed David with her actions, as had we not rescued David by finding him employment, supporting him publicly to buffer the reputational damage, and supporting his recovery, he could have ended his life and left his son without a father before the world understood what had transpired here.
And the reputational damage was not just to David.
David's brother, Bernardo Sabatini, is one of the most important neuroscientists in the world. To this day, he has had to deal with a large cloud over his family name and reputation. Recently, when the new CEO of our brain institute mentioned that Bernardo Sabatini was on our board, he was asked: "Wasn't he involved in some kind of sex scandal?"
For obvious reasons, the character of the person who runs a scientific institute is of utmost importance. Among other failures here, Dr. Ruth Lehmann committed to Knouse that she would fire David many months before an investigation was even launched and without consideration of the empirical facts.
How can one trust research produced by a scientific institute if its leader is not committed to observing the empirical facts before reaching conclusions that have life-threatening import? We have unfortunately seen massive amounts of scientific fraud which has harmed innumerable human lives and wasted billions of dollars of research funding and time.
For her ethical breaches here, Dr. Lehmann should be fired from the Whitehead. Based on her actions in this case, she is in no position to serve as the leader of an important scientific institute.
I speak with some perspective on how scientific and other institutions should be led. Including the recent launch of the Ackman Oxman Institute, we have funded approximately $1 billion of scientific research and institutions over the last decade or so, and this experience has given us the opportunity to meet the leadership of many of the most important scientific institutions in the world.
To put it plainly, we would not give a dollar to a scientific institute whose leader compromised basic moral principles as has happened here.
At an absolute minimum, the board of the Whitehead should immediately launch a detailed and independent investigation of Dr. Lehmann's actions in the Sabatini case. I would encourage the investigation, among other considerations, to carefully exam all of the correspondence between Lehmann and Knouse, as well their correspondence with the HAS law firm on among other areas, the various drafts of the Sabatini investigative report.
Alternatively, Dr. Lehmann could resign, minimize further distraction for the Whitehead, and save institutional time and resources that would be better spent on research that benefits humanity.
After the lamest, slop-filled, blandwagon, groupthink decade in Hollywood history, it is time to turn the cultural ship around.
The cutting edge will be found in less expensive art forms that have less gatekeeping — painting, music, standup, and online video shorts.
Initial reactions will range from “that’s bad” to “you can’t say that!”
The weekly newsletter Grok sends me —
This Week in AI Video (Oct 10–16)
Full list + sources + “why it matters” here:
docs.google.com/document/d/1…
Thread below (top stories only):
1/ @higgsfield_ai says GPT-6 Astra now generates videos over 10 minutes (previously ~1 min ceiling).
Why it matters: length and consistency have been the hard limits on AI filmmaking. This is the first public claim of real long-form capability from a major video player.
2/ @Gossip_Goblin dropped the trailer for Gods Don’t Give Gifts — an ~104-min AI feature with limited theatrical release Dec 4, an MPA R rating, and an awards campaign push.
Why it matters: first real test of whether audiences will buy tickets for AI-native narrative film.
3/ @amazon is in talks to acquire @DecartAI (real-time video / world models) in the $5.5–7B range.
Why it matters: big-tech consolidation around interactive and real-time video is accelerating. Deal still unconfirmed.
4/ @runwayml is bringing Gen-4.5 and Aleph 2.0 into private single-tenant enterprise deployments via @baseten.
Why it matters: studios and brands can now run Runway models in isolated environments with fine-tuning and control.
5/ @bfl_ai cut FLUX 3 Video 2K/4K pricing roughly in half and claims doubled speed.
Why it matters: high-res video with audio just got meaningfully cheaper, intensifying the price/quality race.
6/ @pika_labs put its full creative studio (image, video, sound, timeline) inside ChatGPT.
Why it matters: generative video workflows are moving into the interfaces most people already use.
7/ @OpenAI is reportedly in talks to give deep Sora access to a new startup from @jeffreykWNDR, @billpeeb, and @SujayJaswa for pro filmmaking tools.
Why it matters: possible path for a Hollywood-oriented Sora revival after the consumer product was wound down.
Best public example this week: the @Gossip_Goblin Gods Don’t Give Gifts trailer.
Emerging trend: agentic + chat-native video pipelines (longer clips, reference-driven editing, world-model interactivity) are arriving faster than most people expected.
Full notes + sources in the Doc above.




















