The Right and Wrong Lessons From ‘Backrooms’ and ‘Obsession’

Summary of The Right and Wrong Lessons From ‘Backrooms’ and ‘Obsession’

by The Ringer

33m•June 2, 2026
Listen to Episode

Overview of The Right and Wrong Lessons From ‘Backrooms’ and ‘Obsession’

This Town episode with Matt Belloni and Lucas Shaw breaks down the surprising box-office success of two low-budget, YouTube-born movies — Backrooms and Obsession — and what Hollywood should, and should not, learn from them. The conversation argues that the weekend is a meaningful cultural signal, but not proof that legacy IP is dead or that every YouTube creator is the next blockbuster director. Instead, the real lesson is that studios need to rethink what counts as valuable IP, pay closer attention to youth culture, and find better ways to partner with emerging creators without forcing them into a rigid Hollywood mold.

What Happened at the Box Office

  • Backrooms:

    • A suspense thriller made for about $10 million.
    • Based on a 4chan meme and YouTube world-building by 20-year-old Kane Parsons.
    • Opened to roughly $81 million domestic for A24, the studio’s biggest debut ever by a wide margin.

  • Obsession:

    • A microbudget movie made for under $1 million by YouTuber Curry Barker.
    • Crossed $100 million domestic and even grew in its third weekend, which is highly unusual.

  • The weekend’s results fueled a lot of industry chatter because:

    • They came alongside the earlier success of Iron Lung, another YouTube-originated project.
    • A Star Wars release had a steep second-weekend drop, adding to the sense that traditional franchise appeal is wobbling.

The “Right” Lessons Hollywood Should Take

1. IP is changing

The hosts argue that these movies are not “original” in the old sense. Backrooms is effectively new-age IP: a pre-existing online property with built-in awareness and fandom.

Key idea:

  • Hollywood should broaden its definition of IP.
  • Online worlds, memes, and creator brands can be just as marketable as traditional books, comics, or legacy franchises.

2. Youth culture still matters

The discussion emphasizes that Hollywood has historically thrived when it appeals to young audiences.

Examples they cite:

  • 1960s/70s gritty filmmaking
  • 1980s/90s teen comedies
  • The Apatow era

Their point:

  • Gen Z wants things that feel authentic and “for us.”
  • Studios should lean into young voices, younger executives, and creators who actually understand emerging culture.

3. The best model is collaboration, not assimilation

Rather than forcing creators into the traditional studio machine, Hollywood should:

  • Empower the creator’s voice
  • Add studio resources like marketing, distribution, and production expertise
  • Preserve what made the original online work appealing

The “Wrong” Lessons Hollywood Might Take

1. “IP is dead” is the wrong conclusion

The hosts push back on the idea that this weekend proves audiences only want original films.

Why not:

  • Big legacy franchises are still likely to dominate the overall box office.
  • Movies like Toy Story 5, Spider-Man, and Minions are still expected to perform strongly.
  • The success of creator-led projects does not mean sequel/reboot-driven IP is over.

2. Not every YouTube creator is a movie star

They caution against a simplistic “YouTube to Hollywood” pipeline.

The real pattern:

  • Success comes from creators with a strong point of view and filmmaking instincts.
  • It’s less about on-camera fame and more about directors/producers who can build a compelling visual world.

3. Hollywood may overreact with copycat projects

A likely bad reaction:

  • Studios will chase trending Reddit threads, creepypasta, or viral horror concepts without understanding why the originals worked.
  • They may greenlight a lot of cheap imitations that miss the actual lesson: creator identity matters as much as concept.

Industry Implications

What studios may do next

  • More aggressive talent scouting on YouTube and across online communities
  • More bidding wars for creators with breakout potential
  • More mid-budget risk-taking, especially from companies like A24 and other specialty outfits
  • More genre-focused development around horror and youth-skewing properties

Why smaller studios may have an edge

Belloni and Shaw suggest that companies like A24 are better positioned to capitalize because they:

  • Operate closer to creative communities
  • Take more calculated risks at lower budgets
  • Can move faster than legacy studios with more bureaucracy

Notable Takeaways

  • The real breakout asset is not just the concept — it’s the creator behind it.
  • YouTube is increasingly functioning as both a scouting ground and a branding platform.
  • Horror remains the easiest lane for this kind of crossover, but the hosts wonder whether the pipeline can expand into other genres.
  • Kane Parsons, in particular, is positioned as the kind of creator Hollywood will try hard to keep — though he may still prefer staying close to YouTube.

Brief Side Conversation: NBA Finals Ratings

At the end of the episode, the hosts briefly pivot to sports and discuss the potential TV ratings for a hypothetical Knicks vs. Spurs NBA Finals.

Main point:

  • A Knicks Finals appearance would likely boost ratings substantially.
  • Victor Wembanyama is framed as a major draw.
  • They predict the series could outperform recent Finals and potentially exceed 12 million average viewers if it goes six or seven games.

Bottom Line

The episode’s central argument is that Hollywood should see these YouTube-born hits as evidence that:

  • audience tastes are shifting,
  • creator-led IP can be powerful,
  • and youth culture is still the most reliable growth engine.

But the wrong takeaway would be to assume that every viral idea or online creator is automatically theatrical gold. The smarter path is selective: identify authentic creators, respect their voice, and build studio support around them instead of trying to turn them into something they’re not.