In a clash of superhero titans, The Fantastic Four: First Steps has stormed into theaters with an impressive $218 million global box office debut, officially outpacing Superman’s opening weekend by 11%, according to Deadline. The surprise performance is already reshaping the narrative of the 2025 summer box office and reigniting the long-standing rivalry between Marvel Studios and DC Studios.
Directed by Matt Shakman, The Fantastic Four: First Steps marks Marvel Studios’ highly anticipated introduction of the iconic superhero team into the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). Early buzz was strong, and now the numbers confirm it: Fantastic Four has delivered the biggest Marvel opening of the year so far, outperforming even internal studio projections.
James Gunn’s reboot of Superman, released just two weeks prior, was also met with enthusiasm from fans and critics alike. With a Rotten Tomatoes score of 83%, the film has earned more than $500 million globally to date — a solid post-pandemic showing for DC Studios and a much-needed win for the brand.
But Fantastic Four edged it out where it matters most: the launch. Despite Superman benefitting from early Amazon Prime-exclusive screenings that extended its earning window, Fantastic Four has managed to outgross it in pure weekend performance, with its $218 million debut happening over the standard Friday–Sunday window.
Critically, Marvel’s latest entry also has a slight edge. The Fantastic Four holds an 87% critics score on Rotten Tomatoes, topping Superman’s 83% — a sign that audiences and critics may be more aligned with the cosmic adventures of Reed Richards and his team.
It’s been nearly a decade since Marvel and DC Studios directly competed in the same box office window. In 2016, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice debuted in March, followed closely by Marvel’s Captain America: Civil War in May. While Batman v Superman posted a respectable $873.6 million worldwide, Civil War ultimately took the crown with $1.153 billion.
Now, in 2025, that rivalry is back in full force. While DC’s Superman is poised to keep building momentum through August, Fantastic Four’s red-hot start is positioning Marvel for a strong second half of the year. Industry analysts suggest that the film’s performance is not just a one-off success but a sign of renewed strength for Marvel Studios — especially following a string of lukewarm box office showings in 2023 and 2024.
More than just a standalone hit, Fantastic Four: First Steps is designed to lay critical groundwork for Marvel’s 2026 mega-event, Avengers: Doomsday. Insiders at Marvel have hinted that post-credit scenes from First Steps directly tease the cosmic-level threat to come, possibly tying in Doctor Doom and Galactus — two of Marvel’s most iconic villains.
If fan excitement continues, Fantastic Four could easily join the billion-dollar club, something only a handful of post-COVID releases have achieved. For Marvel, which has faced recent criticism and questions about superhero fatigue, this strong debut may prove the franchise still has plenty of firepower left in its storytelling arsenal.
While Superman continues to perform well globally, and Fantastic Four is just getting started, the box office showdown is far from over. With both franchises planning expansive future slates — including DC’s Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow and Marvel’s X-Men: Genesis — fans can expect more face-offs in the years to come.
But for now, the torch has been passed. The Fantastic Four isn’t just living up to expectations — it’s exceeding them.
One key actor plays notable roles in both Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning and the Lilo & Stitch live-action remake, making them an undisputed winner of what should become one of the biggest box office weekends of 2025. Tom Cruise’s Mission: Impossible franchise may be coming to an end with the eighth installment after running strong for three decades, although Cruise’s recent comments saying that he plans to be the first 100-year-old action star cast doubt that Final Reckoning will truly be the last, although Cruise insists that it will be (via The Hollywood Reporter).
Lilo & Stitch, on the other hand, looks to turn things around for Disney and fix their slump with live-action remakes of their classic animated films. Snow White’s disappointing box office performance failed to break even with its reported production budget of $240-270 million in March 2025. While The Lion King: Mufasa pulled in an impressive $722.6 million as a prequel to 2019’s The Lion King, its highest-grossing live-action remake of all time, Mufasa is both an original work and a prequel, not a remake. Lilo & Stitch has already shown box office promise with its massive $14.5 million gross in previews alone (via THR).
Hannah Waddingham Is In Both Lilo & Stitch And Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning
Waddingham Plays 2 Very Different Characters In The May 2025 Blockbusters
While she is not the star of either film, Emmy-winner Hannah Waddingham interestingly plays key supporting character roles in both Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning and the Lilo & Stitch live-action remake. Waddingham is the only actor appearing in both films, although she only lends her voice as the Grand Councilwoman character in Lilo & Stitch. The late actress Zoe Caldwell, known for films such as Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close, originally voiced the character in the 2002 animated original film. Caldwell also voiced Grand Councilwoman in 2003’s Stitch! The Movie and Lilo & Stitch: The Series.
Waddingham makes her franchise debut in Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning as Admiral Neely, the commander of an American aircraft carrier stationed off the coast of Alaska, not far from the Russian border. Waddingham is best known for her award-winning role as Rebecca Welton in Apple’s hit comedy series Ted Lasso. She has typically played more lighthearted and comedic characters in recent years, including the relentless movie producer Gail Meyer in 2024’s The Fall Guy and Jinx in The Garfield Movie. There is nothing funny, however, about the ultra-serious role of Admiral Neely in Mission: Impossible 8.
The Final Reckoning Has The Better Role For Hannah Waddingham Than Lilo & Stitch
Admiral Neely Becomes One Of The Many Crucial Players In Ethan’s Plan
Waddingham has a more prominent role in Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning than she does in the live-action Lilo & Stitch remake. Not only is her character in The Final Reckoning a bit more than Grand Councilwoman in Lilo & Stitch, but she is actually seen on screen in Mission: Impossible, whereas she only portrayed an animated character in the Disney movie. Waddingham now joins the likes of Henry Cavill, Jeremy Renner, and Rebecca Ferguson in playing a key supporting character in a Mission: Impossible movie, an opportunity that may never be available ever again.
Hannah Waddingham Is The Winner Of Lilo & Stitch vs Mission: Impossible (No Matter What Happens At The Box Office)
Waddingham Should Continue Her Box Office Success With July’s Smurfs Release
No matter who wins the box office battle between Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning and the live-action Lilo & Stitch remake, Waddingham has put herself in the rare position of being on the winning side no matter what. She’s a winner either way, as both movies are projected to be massive at the box office and should end up being two of the highest-grossing films of 2025.
Waddingham’s box office success should also continue with the upcoming release of Smurfs in July, in which she is set to appear in a currently undisclosed role.
Waddingham’s box office success should also continue with the upcoming release of Smurfs in July, in which she is set to appear in a currently undisclosed role. Waddingham will join an enormous ensemble cast in Smurfs, including Rihanna, James Corden, John Goodman, Kurt Russell, Natasha Lyonne, Dan Levy, and Nick Offerman, who was also cast as an American military figure in Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning.
Tom Cruise had a major request. He wanted IMAX to show his latest “Mission: Impossible” movie — and only his movie — on its giant screens for three weeks. It is the kind of exclusive run that few films get.
So Mr. Cruise went straight to the top. He reached out to IMAX’s chief executive, Rich Gelfond, who had some requests of his own. He wanted all the “Mission: Impossible” premieres, along with press screenings and influencer screenings, to be held at an IMAX theater. And he wanted Mr. Cruise to endorse the company’s screens during his global press tour for the film, which opens this weekend.
“As a joke I said, ‘Tom, no matter what question the press asks you, you’ve got to answer IMAX.’ ‘What’s your favorite scene?’ ‘IMAX,’” Mr. Gelfond, 69, said in an interview. “He agreed to do that.”
In order to get something from IMAX these days, even Hollywood’s top power players have to give some, too.
As movie theater audiences wane and at-home streaming audiences grow, IMAX increasingly stands out as a bright spot in the theater business. The company, founded in Toronto, aims to give moviegoers a more immersive experience with larger screens, better sound and steeper seating, which brings viewers closer to the screen. It now has 416 locations in North America and 1,322 overseas. That is only 1 percent of all the screens in the world, but they often account for a larger percentage of a movie’s box office return, drawing significant crowds for a more expensive ticket than a typical theater seat.
In the past two months, IMAX screens delivered $39 million to the global box office for “Sinners” (out of $321 million total), $30.6 million for “A Minecraft Movie” ($930.1 million total) and $30.5 million for “Thunderbolts*” ($330 million total). (“Thunderbolts*” and “Minecraft” each played in IMAX theaters for two weeks. “Sinners” was brought back to nine locations for a third week.)
As a result, Hollywood studios are putting more emphasis on the IMAX brand, even making the IMAX logo in larger type than the title of the movie in some marketing materials. Disney started this last year with “Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes” and “Alien: Romulus.” For “The Amateur,” a small action movie made by 20th Century Studios this year, the tagline “Vengeance is bigger in IMAX” appeared larger than the movie title. Marvel’s “Thunderbolts*” received similar treatment.
“For some of these movies that have a franchise history — and are also available at home — the IMAX brand can help speak to the big-screen-worthiness of a film and the spectacle,” said Asad Ayaz, the president of marketing at Disney, which owns Marvel and 20th Century Studios. “It differentiates it from streaming, which is also a big business for us, so it can be helpful.”
Yet not everyone in the movie business is thrilled with IMAX’s ascension. Some worry that its limited number of screens, and higher prices for admission, could turn moviegoing from a frequent activity into a luxury experience that further reduces overall attendance.
Imax Keeps Updating Itself at Breakneck Pace. (Courtesy of Imax)
“It’s great to be able to provide premium experiences to people who want it,” said Greg Marcus, chief executive of the company that operates Marcus Theaters, the fourth-largest chain in the country, but with only three IMAX screens. “But 80 to 85 percent of our business is coming from traditional theaters. And so you have to be very careful to not put down the traditional experience in promoting the other.”
Complicating matters further, most theater chains have their own large-format screens. Regal Cinemas has RPX. Cinemark Theaters has CinemarkXD, and Marcus has both UltraScreenDLX and SuperScreenDLX. AMC, the largest theatrical exhibitor, has several: Dolby Cinema, Prime and Laser.
When a moviegoer buys a ticket to the majority of these large format screens, the exhibitor traditionally evenly splits the revenue with the studio. But when a moviegoer buys a ticket to an IMAX theater, the exhibitor and the studio must give a cut of their shares, often up to 12.5 percent, to IMAX. (Theaters also have to pay a yearly fee to IMAX for the upkeep of their projectors and screens.)
Yet IMAX is the premium large-format option the studios promote more than the others.
“Theaters are struggling, and what seems to really make a different to audiences is the premium format,” said Jeff Goldstein, the president of distribution for Warner Bros. “Each individual exhibitor doesn’t want to give up their brand, and I think their strategy is smart. Any way that brings audiences out for movie going is good, and I think IMAX leads that.”
Mr. Gelfond bought IMAX in 1994 through an investment company he co-founded. At the time, IMAX was primarily known for theaters inside museums and other cultural institutions, showing what he calls “bears, whales and seals” films. It was not until 2003 that the company ventured into partnerships with Hollywood. When “Avatar” was released in 2009, it grossed $250 million on 282 IMAX screens. Hollywood noticed.
IMAX expects to generate $1.2 billion in box office revenue this year, its most ever. But the company is still relatively small. It reported $87 million in revenue last quarter, and $8 million in profit. The majority of the company’s screens are operated by other theater owners as a joint venture, and they share revenue for ticket sales. In those cases, IMAX receives a cut of the box office only from the studios and not the exhibitors, yet it still controls the programming.
The fact that IMAX works with theater chains does not stop Mr. Gelfond from insulting them. “Their premium screens are just regular screens that are just bigger,” he said. “We are investing in a great experience. They are investing in buying a standard projector and putting it on a bigger screen.”
Imax CEO Richard Gelfond. (AP Images)
Not everyone agrees with Mr. Gelfond’s assessment about his competitors, including his competitors themselves. Yet his pugilistic style has gotten him far in Hollywood. Recently, he waded into the thorny world of Netflix and theatrical distribution. The entertainment giant has long eschewed releasing movies in theaters before its streaming service. Last month, Ted Sarandos, Netflix’s co-chief executive, called the communal experience of watching a movie in a theater “an outmoded idea.”
But IMAX reached a deal to show Greta Gerwig’s upcoming adaptation of “The Chronicles of Narnia,” a Netflix film, for two weeks in fall 2026 before it goes on the streaming service. That has left some industry insiders wondering whether theaters would be willing to play a Netflix film at all, even if they are contractually obligated to under their deal with IMAX.
“It does cause a conflict in the sense that Netflix has been quite public with negative comments,” Adam Aron, AMC’s chief executive, said in an interview. “But to support Rich we are going to play ‘Narnia.’ And we’d love to be able to convince Ted Sarandos that Netflix would be advantaged if it embraced movie theaters.”
Some say Mr. Gelfond’s direct relationships with some top Hollywood directors have often put him ahead of the studios when it comes to knowing filmmakers’ intentions. Christopher Nolan (“Oppenheimer”) and Ryan Coogler (“Sinners”), both of whom have shot with IMAX cameras, and others have become evangelists for the brand. At the Cannes Film Festival this month, Mr. Gelfond revealed that Mr. Nolan would film the entirety of his next movie, “The Odyssey,” with IMAX cameras.
His connections with some movie stars can help, too — and he’s happy to boast about them. Mr. Gelfond was quick to pull out his phone to share his text exchange with Mr. Cruise moments after the actor rappelled into the stadium at the closing ceremony of the Paris Olympics last summer.
“Beyond awesome!! You’re the best,” Mr. Gelfond messaged the actor. A minute later, Mr. Cruise responded: “Thank you, my friend. We are going to crush it next summer.”
Wall Street analysts are sounding alarms that escalating tariffs—particularly on goods imported from China and other key trading partners—could deal a further blow to Hollywood, an industry already destabilized by the dual disruption of streaming economics and social media fragmentation.
In a series of investor notes and earnings calls over the past two weeks, analysts from Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase, and Bank of America warned that tariffs on audiovisual equipment, post-production software, and even branded merchandise could raise costs and compress margins for major studios and streaming platforms. This comes as the entertainment industry grapples with a structural reset following the end of the streaming boom and the dominance of TikTok-style user-generated content.
“Tariffs could be the straw that breaks the back of an industry already under financial duress,” said Jessica Reilly, senior media analyst at JPMorgan. “Hollywood is in the middle of an identity crisis—tariffs only exacerbate its existential threats.”
Tariffs Hit Production Costs and Global Strategy
The Biden administration’s May 2024 trade package included sweeping tariffs on over $380 billion in Chinese imports, including a 25% levy on audiovisual equipment, cameras, and lighting rigs—gear used widely in Hollywood productions and increasingly sourced from Chinese and South Korean manufacturers. Editing software packages and animation tools that rely on offshore support are also affected, with a 15% duty slapped on cloud-based services provided by firms with overseas infrastructure.
Studios, already slimming down production budgets in response to streaming losses, now face higher input costs at a time when the return on content investment is under intense scrutiny.
“When you’re cutting back on original programming and trying to squeeze value from IP libraries, the last thing you need is a 25% jump in equipment and software expenses,” said David Knox, managing partner at media consultancy Horizon Works.
Netflix and Warner Bros. Discovery have both signaled cost pressures in their Q1 2025 earnings calls. Warner Bros. cited “increased friction from global sourcing and regulatory complexity,” while Netflix executives mentioned “material cost inflation tied to international production logistics.”
Streaming Disruption and Social Media Fragmentation
The tariff wave lands as Hollywood’s traditional power centers are being hollowed out. Legacy studios, once flush with cable bundle revenues and global theatrical runs, are now adapting to an environment where streaming returns are slowing and subscriber growth is plateauing.
Meanwhile, platforms like TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram have diverted both audiences and advertisers. Short-form content is rapidly becoming the dominant global viewing format, especially among the under-30 demographic. According to a March 2025 Nielsen report, viewers aged 18–34 now spend 62% of their video time on social or user-generated platforms—up from just 37% in 2020.
“Hollywood used to compete with other studios. Now it’s competing with teenagers with ring lights,” quipped Goldman Sachs entertainment analyst Ray Wu. “And that competition is real—and brutal.”
The rise of AI-generated content, often built on low-cost foreign cloud infrastructure, further complicates Hollywood’s cost model. Tariffs on AI compute and licensing services—many of which are hosted abroad—could raise barriers for studios attempting to modernize workflows or outsource post-production.
Licensing and Merchandise in the Crosshairs
Studios also face headwinds in the lucrative merchandising and licensing sector. The new tariffs include 20% duties on imported toys, apparel, and collectibles—products that make up a key portion of franchise monetization. Disney, Universal, and Paramount rely heavily on Chinese and Southeast Asian manufacturers to produce branded merchandise tied to film and TV franchises.
“If you can’t move product profitably, you’re not just losing margin—you’re undermining the long-tail value of your IP,” noted Stephanie Chan, senior entertainment strategist at BofA Securities.
Retailers are already warning of delayed shipments and price hikes on character merchandise. According to internal Walmart sourcing data leaked last week, tariffs on children’s toys and branded apparel could increase average consumer prices by 12–18% this holiday season.
Wall Street is increasingly skeptical that major studios can absorb these shocks without further restructuring. Disney recently cut 7,000 jobs and announced a $5 billion cost-saving plan. Paramount Global has been exploring asset sales, and Warner Bros. Discovery is reportedly considering a partial spin-off of its streaming unit to shore up its balance sheet.
“Studios once thought they could outspend disruption. But that era is over,” said Ken Rooke, head of media equity research at Wells Fargo. “They’re now being asked to do more with less—and tariffs add another layer of less.”
Some see opportunity in adversity. A few independent producers are pivoting to domestic suppliers or doubling down on animation, which can be done entirely in-house. Others are lobbying for carve-outs or production credits to offset new tariff costs.
Yet the broader message is clear: the industry’s margin for error is shrinking fast. Tariffs—once viewed as marginal trade policy—are now a major financial variable in a global entertainment business struggling to redefine itself.
Hollywood is no stranger to reinvention. But this time, it must reinvent amid a trifecta of threats: a broken streaming model, an algorithm-driven attention economy, and now, rising trade barriers. For Wall Street, the question isn’t whether Hollywood can adapt—it’s whether it can do so fast enough, and profitably.
President Trump’s trade war had, until Sunday night, centered on goods — cars, toys, food, clothes, the tangible stuff we put in and out of virtual and physical shopping carts.
But those goods make up less than a quarter of the American economy. The bigger chunk of our economic pie is known as services — think Google, Netflix, Facebook, the plumbing of the internet, banking, insurance. And, yes, Hollywood films, the industry Trump now thinks needs saving with — you guessed it — tariffs!
Of course, Hollywood studios (and anyone thinking about it for more than a few seconds) were left scratching their heads over how such a tax would work.
As we’ve come to expect with Trump 2.0, it’s not clear whether the president is serious. Jon Voight, who serves as one of Trump’s Hollywood Ambassadors, said Monday that he met with Trump recently to discuss “certain tax provisions that can help the industry – some provisions that can be extended and others than could be revived or instituted.” But that sounds like mostly incentives, not tariffs. In other words, Voight recommended a carrot and Trump announced a stick.
California Governor Gavin Newsom on Monday appeared to prefer a gentler approach, calling on Trump to work with California to create a $7.5 billion federal tax credit for the movie and television industry. Currently, tax incentives are exclusively the realm of states and municipalities.
“We’ve proven what strong state incentives can do. Now it’s time for a real federal partnership to Make America Film Again,” Newsom said in a post on X “@POTUS, let’s get it done.”
The White House said hours after he posted published that “no final decisions” had been made, and Trump later told reporters he wanted to run the idea by folks in the movie industry.
If he is serious about foreign movie tariffs, though, Trump would be opening a new front in a war he has no real plan to win. And he’d be admitting to the world that his love of tariffs is not, as he’s long claimed, tied to some deep concern about trade imbalances but rather a desire to wield an economic cudgel.
The Goods Place
Perhaps because Trump’s intellectual allegiance to opinions he formed 40-plus years ago is so strong, he may be imagining container ships full of VHS tapes and spools of Kodachrome crossing the oceans when he thinks of the global film industry.
But movies are not goods that travel in and out of ports — they are intellectual property that fall under the “services” economy. To tax a movie like a good, the administration would have to clearly define what a movie’s value is, and determine how much overseas production would classify a project as an “import.” (Plus, some poor writer’s room will have to start working on the next season of Emily in Paris under the new title Emily in Albuquerque.)
The goods/services distinction matters a great deal. Because for all of Trump’s outrage over the fact that America buys more goods from overseas than it sells, the US exports far more services than it imports. (It’s a “services surplus” — the “rural juror” of econ jargon.)
In fact, the US is the biggest exporter of services in the world. That gives our trade partners leverage they could use against us.
“If Trump is serious about tariffs on movies, it’s a very dangerous escalation,” economist Justin Wolfers noted on Bluesky. “We would be extremely vulnerable to any service-based retaliation.”
The good news is, the president may not be serious. In keeping with Trumpian tariff tradition, he announced the import tax with few details in a late-night social media post with the kind of dramatic capitalizations you might associate with a teen group chat (“The Movie Industry in America is DYING a very fast death,” it begins.)
Asked about the tariffs in a press briefing Monday afternoon, Trump was less definitive than he’d been Sunday night, saying: “We’re going to meet with the industry; I want to make sure they’re happy about it.”
Spoiler alert, Mr. President: They’re not happy. Several movie studio and streaming industry executives who spoke with CNN are downright apoplectic, my colleagues Brian Stelter and Jamie Gangel write.
Shares of Netflix, Disney and CNN parent company Warner Bros. Discovery fell on Monday.
To be fair, Trump has hit on a real issue dogging Hollywood known as “runaway production.” For years, foreign cities like Toronto and Dublin have offered large tax breaks to film and television studios. In response, California Governor Gavin Newsom has proposed a massive tax credit to bring back production to Hollywood.
But industry sources told Brian and Jamie the idea of using tariffs “would represent a virtually complete halt of production … But in reality, he has no jurisdiction to do this, and it’s too complex to enforce.”
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) is offering to partner with the Trump administration to create a federal film tax credit program worth at least $7.5 billion to boost domestic film production, his office said late Monday. The proposal came after President Donald Trump set Hollywood on edge by calling for massive tariffs on foreign-made films to address what he described as the “DYING” American film industry.
If the proposal comes together, it would be the largest government tax initiative for the film industry in U.S. history and the first such program at the federal level, a spokesperson for Newsom’s office said.
“America continues to be a film powerhouse, and California is all in to bring more production here,” Newsom said in a statement.
He added that California is “eager to partner with the Trump administration to further strengthen domestic production and Make America Film Again.”
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Newsom, a fierce Trump opponent, is making the request at a time when tariffs have upended the global economy and sowed uncertainty across many industries. Newsom sued the Trump administration last month to block the president’s sweeping tariffs, arguing they are causing irreparable harm to California’s economy.
Trump’s call Sunday night for 100 percent tariffs on films produced overseas, in which he described foreign films as a national security threat, puzzled insiders in the highly globalized industry as to its implications. It was not clear how such tariffs would be applied or how they might affect U.S. films shot overseas or involving production abroad, The Post reported.
Andrew deWaard, an assistant professor at the University of California at San Diego who studies the relationship between culture and commerce in the film industry, said the program proposed by Newsom on Monday is “highly unlikely” to go into effect.
“I can’t imagine in such a partisan atmosphere that Trump would want to be seen subsidizing California entertainment workers just as the tariffs are starting to negatively affect U.S. factory workers, farmers, truckers, etc.,” he said in an email.
“I think Newsom is calling Trump’s bluff,” he added. “… If Trump balks, which is likely, then Newsom can say he tried to be bipartisan.”
Newsom’s office described the proposed federal tax credit as a way to bolster American stories, create U.S. jobs and benefit the industry’s behind-the-scenes workers such as set builders and electricians.
The proposal would be modeled after California’s Film and Television Tax Credit Program that Newsom’s office said has generated more than $26 billion in economic activity and supported thousands of jobs across the state since its inception in 2009.
But there is debate over the effectiveness of such film tax credits. In testimony to the state’s Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee this year, Michael Thom, a professor at the University of Southern California who has researched tax incentives for film and television production, said such initiatives “fail to stimulate enough economic activity to justify their substantial cost.”
President Donald Trump called for a 100 percent tariff on movies produced overseas in a Truth Social post Sunday night, confounding studio executives and critics about what this could mean for the heavily globalized film industry.
“The Movie Industry in America is DYING a very fast death,” the president wrote Sunday night. “This is a concerted effort by other Nations and, therefore, a National Security threat. It is, in addition to everything else, messaging and propaganda!” he wrote. “Therefore, I am authorizing the Department of Commerce, and the United States Trade Representative, to immediately begin the process of instituting a 100% Tariff on any and all Movies coming into our Country that are produced in Foreign Lands. WE WANT MOVIES MADE IN AMERICA, AGAIN!”
“We’re on it,” U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick wrote in an X post Sunday night.
On Monday, White House spokesman Kush Desai said via email: “Although no final decisions on foreign film tariffs have been made, the Administration is exploring all options to deliver on President Trump’s directive to safeguard our country’s national and economic security while Making Hollywood Great Again.”
The president’s claim that foreign movies represent a national security threat suggests that he may rely on a provision of a 1962 trade law that he has used in the past to impose tariffs on goods such as steel and aluminum. Under Section 232 of that law, the Commerce Department would have up to 270 days to complete an investigation of the alleged danger to national security caused by importing foreign films. At the conclusion of that probe, the president could impose tariffs.
Trump expanded his comments while speaking to reporters on Sunday. “Other nations have been stealing the movies — the moviemaking capabilities from the United States,” he said, according to video footage from C-SPAN.
“I’ve done some very strong research over the last week, and we’re making very few movies now,” the president said.
“Hollywood is being destroyed,” he added. “Other nations have stolen our movie industry. If they’re not willing to make a movie inside the United States, we should have a tariff on movies that come in.”
Trump cited governments that are “giving big money” to fund foreign-made films as a “sort of a threat to our country in a sense.”
Trump did not offer any specifics about which type of films this would impact. It remains unclear if these tariffs would apply to just foreign films, American-made films shot on location abroad, blockbusters involving postproduction overseas or other examples of cross-border production. It’s also unclear if any tariff would apply to television shows.
American-made films are often shot overseas in places like Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia, which offer incentives for productions to film there. Recent and upcoming tentpole movies, such as “A Minecraft Movie,” “Mission Impossible — The Final Reckoning” and “Jurassic World Rebirth,” were mostly or entirely filmed overseas. London has become a central locale for American-made films. Marvel’s next “Avengers” sequels are in production there.
It’s unclear how the Trump administration would apply a tariff on foreign-produced films, since movies can be considered a service, not physical goods. It’s also unclear what the value of movies are and what the criteria would be to identify films as an import.
The 2025 superhero film “Thunderbolts*,” for example, “was mostly shot in Georgia, Utah, and New York, but also had a scene shot in Malaysia,” raising questions about how big a tariff would be in such a case, according to an analyst report from Roth Capital Partners.
The uncertainty over how one would apply tariffs to the contemporary film industry is further complicated by the rise of streaming and global distribution in media, said Jennifer Porst, a professor of film and media at Emory University who studies the industry. A platform like Netflix “is not like a theatrical model where you could tax the box office,” she said. “You have subscriptions and advertising revenue … how does that directly correlate to any one movie or TV show?”
Expanding Trump’s second-term trade war to include services opens the United States to potentially punishing foreign retaliation. While the U.S. has long run a deficit in merchandise trade with the rest of the world, Americans routinely sell foreign customers more services than they buy.
Last year, the U.S. enjoyed a nearly $300 billion surplus in services trade. If the president persists with his plans to tax foreign-produced services such as films, U.S. trading partners could retaliate by erecting new barriers to U.S. films or other services related to travel, finance or insurance.
The American movie industry had $22.6 billion in exports and a $15.3 billion trade surplus in 2023 — including positive surpluses in every major foreign market — according to the Motion Picture Association’s latest economic impact report. The MPA declined to comment.
Shares in major media and entertainment companies fell shortly after markets opened Monday but recovered. Paramount, Netflix and Warner Bros. Discovery were down less than 2 percent by early afternoon, and Comcast and Disney wereup slightly.
Leaders from hubs of film production — both domestically and abroad — reacted strongly to Trump’s announcement.
“We believe he has no authority to impose tariffs under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, since tariffs are not listed as a remedy under that law,” Bob Salladay, senior adviser for communications to California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), told Deadline on Sunday night.
“Nobody should be under any doubt that we will be standing up unequivocally for the rights of the Australian screen industry,” Australia’s home affairs minister, Tony Burke, said, according to Reuters.
“We’ll have to see the detail of what actually ultimately emerges. But we’ll be obviously a great advocate, great champion of that sector and that industry,” New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon told reporters.
Studio executives were left confused Sunday night by Trump’s announcement, according to the Wall Street Journal. Producers and industry veterans sounded off with fiery reactions, while critics suggested Trump doesn’t have the authority to impose tariffs on informational material related to films and artwork.
“A big part of this is what constitutes U.S. film. Is it where the money comes from, the script, the director, the talent, where it was shot?” Tim Richards, CEO and founder of the U.K.-based movie theater chain Vue Entertainment, told BBC Radio 4’s “Today” program on Monday.
Producer Randy Greenberg wrote in a LinkedIn post Sunday that tariffs would hurt Hollywood. “Putting a tariff on Movies shot outside the US will increase the cost of shooting and the studios will lobby the Exhibitors to raise ticket prices and then the audience will skip the theatre and then … well you see where this is going,” he wrote.
Actor Jon Voight speaks during a rally on Jan. 19. He is one of President Donald Trump’s “ambassadors” to Hollywood. (Evelyn Hockstein/Reuters)
Some analysts said tariffs could damage Hollywood at a time when it’s only beginning to collectively bounce back after covid-19 and 2023 labor strikes led to work stoppages.
Annual television production shot in Los Angeles declined 58.4 percent between 2021 and 2024, according to FilmLA, a not-for-profit that promotes on-location filmmaking in the region. Feature film production was up about 20 percent in 2024 but still down 27.6 percent from its five-year average, FilmLA found. While spending on U.S. film production has declined since 2022, it has increased in Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, according to ProdPro, a research firm that tracks production data.
Tariffs would make many blockbuster movies shot abroad “financially unfeasible,” the Roth Capital Partners’ note said.
Large studios and distributors currently carry significant risk, according to a Wedbush analyst note. About 75 percent of Netflix’s content is produced internationally, the note estimated.
Trump has tapped several well-known film industry conservatives since taking back the White House, naming Jon Voight, Mel Gibson and Sylvester Stallone his “special ambassadors” to Hollywood. (Voight and Stallone did not respond to requests for comment.)
According to Deadline, Voight has been spending time with unions and moviemakers to see what problems they face in domestic production. Voight has reportedly been pushing a plan to revive Hollywood that included a foreign tax incentive, per Deadline.
Trump’s ambassadors might face a film production tariff themselves — Gibson’s upcoming “Passion of the Christ” sequel is expected to start shooting in Italy this summer. Gibson’s team declined to comment.
Filming abroad is not new but has increased in recent years, due in part to labor strikes in the U.S. that led to work stoppages in 2023, and the increasingly global nature of production companies like Netflix, Porst said. There are also contract provisions in the U.S. that can make production more expensive than filming abroad, she said.
In 2009, Disney bet heavily on comic-book movie magic. The media giant agreed to acquire Marvel Entertainment for $4 billion, gaining a treasure trove of characters and intellectual property. What followed was a decade-long boom: under Disney’s wing, Marvel Studios turned out a succession of blockbuster films and TV series that transformed the entertainment landscape. The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) became a global phenomenon – 33 feature films and numerous streaming shows that together have now grossed over $30 billion worldwide. Iconic heroes like Iron Man and Captain America helped Spider-Man swing to unprecedented heights, culminating in Avengers: Endgame, which remains the highest-grossing film ever with $2.799 billion at the box office. At its peak, Marvel was generating roughly a third of Disney’s film revenue, proving to be an extraordinarily lucrative franchise for the studio.
Marvel Cinematic Universe logo. Under Disney, Marvel Studios became the world’s top film franchise, eventually exceeding $30 billion in global box-office receipts.
With success like this, Disney’s appetite for Marvel was ravenous – it planned three or more MCU movies per year to feed both theaters and the then-new Disney+ streaming service. Between 2010 and 2019, Marvel Studios released hits like The Avengers ($1.5B), Captain America: Civil War ($1.1B), Black Panther ($1.3B) and Captain Marvel ($1.1B). Each of the 33 films opened at #1 domestically, 10 crossed the billion-dollar mark, and two crossed $2 billion. Marvel held four of the top 10 all-time global box-office spots. Disney’s gamble was paying off in spades – the studio’s coffers were overflowing with box-office gold.
A Golden Age: Avengers and the MCU Monopoly
By the late 2010s, Marvel wasn’t just a single success story – it was the success story. Avengers: Endgame (2019) alone earned $2.799 billion, wiping out longstanding records. Its predecessor Avengers: Infinity War grossed roughly $2.048 billion, and Black Panther raked in $1.347 billion worldwide. Across its 22-film Phase III (2015–2019), Marvel’s complex interconnected saga drove Disney’s film studios segment to historic profits. Indeed, Marvel Studios’ power was such that at one point Marvel releases accounted for almost a third of the Disney studio’s revenue.
Disney often touted these achievements. A 2024 Disney press release rejoiced that the MCU had crossed the $30 billionmark at the global box office. Marvel was by far the highest-earning franchise of all time, and the company’s investment seemed vindicated. One Disney executive noted that Marvel’s creations had generated “blockbusters such as Avengers: Endgame, Black Panther, and Iron Man” on a scale unmatched by any rival. The Marvel formula – high production values, family-friendly tone, and a carefully plotted multiverse of characters – looked unstoppable.
By the Numbers – Marvel in the Disney Era:
Acquisition (2009): Disney paid $4.0 billion for Marvel Entertainment.
MCU Films (2008–2024): 33 movies (plus Deadpool 3*), all #1 openings.
Total Box Office: >$30 billion globally.
Top Grosser:Avengers: Endgame – $2.799 billion.
Other $1B+ Hits:Infinity War (~$2.05B), Black Panther ($1.35B), Captain Marvel($1.13B).
Number of $1B+ Films: 10 MCU movies; $2B films: 2 (Endgame, Infinity War).
The Bubble Bursts: Post-Pandemic Wakeup Call
The COVID-19 pandemic briefly paused the Marvel juggernaut, but then 2021–2023 saw a glut of releases. Disney loaded up on sequels and spin-offs: Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, Eternals, Spider-Man: No Way Home(in partnership with Sony), and the first Disney+ series (WandaVision, Loki, Falcon & Winter Soldier). Initially this strategy kept subscriber numbers climbing, but by 2022 cracks were showing. Critics and audiences grew weary of the oversupply. Not every release was a hit: Eternals underwhelmed, and Spider-Man: No Way Home (while huge) came at the cost of complex Sony rights deals.
After Disney closed its theme parks and reopened in mid-2020s, the Marvel pendulum swung from boom to bust. The first true signs of trouble came with Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania (Feb 2023) and Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 (May 2023). Quantumania’s already high costs ballooned — Bloomberg reported an eye-watering $327 million production budget — but it only grossed about $476.1 million worldwide. In other words, Disney was spending ever more on effects and A-list actors (Michael Douglas, Michelle Pfeiffer, Kurt Russell) without corresponding box-office returns. Insider analysts estimate Quantumania required roughly $439 million to break even, meaning its $476M haul likely left little profit after marketing and distributor cuts.
Meanwhile, lighter hits like Guardians 3 (budget ~$250M) made a respectable $845M, but Disney’s confidence was shaken. The most dramatic evidence came in late 2023, when The Marvels (Nov 2023) cratered. It took in just $206.1 million worldwide — the lowest total of any MCU film by far — on a rumored $130–270 million budget. In fact, Vanity Fair and other outlets noted it was “one of Marvel Studios’ lowest-budget movies of all time” at about $130 million. That conservative budget proved wise, as The Marvels still flopped, largely due to lukewarm reviews and franchise fatigue. Disney quietly cut its reported losses on the title in half by selling the Chinese distribution rights for a flat fee and accounting it as a TV production, a telling sign that the studio was pinching pennies.
Disney’s own executives could not ignore the pattern. By mid-2023, CEO Bob Iger acknowledged “we diluted” Marvel’s overall quality by flooding the market. He noted that some recent misfires were a “vestige of…a desire in the past to increase volume”. Put simply, quantity had outrun quality. As Marvel’s blockbuster output slowed to a trickle in 2024 (with Deadpool & Wolverine the only MCU film released that year), both fans and Wall Street began to wonder: had Marvel lost its mojo?
Iger’s Bold Pivot: Fewer Films, Tighter Budgets
Late in the fiscal year 2024, Disney signaled a decisive shift. In the Q2 2024 earnings call (May 2024), Iger announced a sharp reduction in Marvel’s workload. Instead of four MCU films a year, the plan would be “two to the maximum three” annually. Disney+ series would also be halved: roughly two series per year instead of four. Iger framed the change as a return to core strengths: “I’ve been working hard with the studio to reduce output and focus more on quality,” he said. The implication was clear – Disney was ready to spend more time on each project, not rush a dozen titles out the door. The Marvel slate, he noted, would soon be front-loaded with tentpoles (the report cited “more ‘Avengers’” movies ahead) and a fuller creative reset under Kevin Feige’s direct oversight.
Disney CEO Bob Iger at the 2019 D23 Expo. After inheriting Marvel in 2022, Iger has cut the MCU’s release pace and imposed tighter cost controls to stave off franchise fatigue.
Under this new regime, Marvel’s strategy is to concentrate on only its biggest franchises – for example, sequels featuring the Avengers, Spider-Man, or the newly acquired X-Men characters. Low- and mid-tier entries or smaller heroes may have to earn their keep first (the Armor Wars project was quietly shelved). Sources say Iger has instructed studio chiefs to bring budgets down toward the $200 million range per film. Indeed, after Quantumania’s massive budget, Disney is reportedly capping Marvel features at roughly $200 million (plus big promotional spends). For context, Guardians 3 was roughly $250M and Quantumania$327M. Keep-‘em-cheap economics like The Marvels ($130M) or the upcoming Brave New World (rumored ~ $180M) might become the norm, reserving the really huge budgets for truly global events (as Endgame and No Way Home once were).
The immediate pipeline reflects the reset: after Deadpool & Wolverine (July 2024, $941M–$1.3B gross), 2025’s slate will include “Captain America: Brave New World” (Feb 2025, starring Anthony Mackie) and “Thunderbolts” (May 2025, a team-up of antiheroes). Later in 2025 come “Fantastic Four” (July) and “Blade” (Nov). Notably, Marvel is set to re-introduce the Fantastic Four with a new cast: Pedro Pascal as Reed Richards, Vanessa Kirby as Sue Storm, Joseph Quinn as Johnny Storm and Ebon Moss-Bachrach as Ben Grimm. These tentpoles will be tightly curated – no more two-Bucky-Captains or gadget-laden sideplots. Each project faces the dual pressure of fan scrutiny and the studio’s profitability targets.
Market Response: Earnings, Stock, and Analyst Caution
Disney investors have generally cheered Iger’s plans. After the 2024 Q2 earnings announcement, the stock rose (reportedly up a few percentage points, and eventually spiking 10% after blowout Q4 results). Analysts noted the company’s improved outlook – one Reuters report said Disney offered a “robust multi-year forecast” that helped send shares to a six-month high. The consensus is that cutting back on middling Marvel content could benefit Disney’s D+ profitability and restore blockbuster tailwinds. Indeed, a Morningstar analysis praised Disney’s “turning the corner” on streaming profitability while noting strong growth drivers.
That said, Wall Street also voiced caution. Some analysts pointed out that scaling back Marvel might damp longer-term growth. Morgan Stanley, RBC, and others have flagged that a leaner MCU could make it harder to acquire and retain Disney+ subscribers in a crowded market. Bank of America analyst Jessica Reif Ehrlich (BofA Securities) reiterated a buy rating but lowered her price target, citing concerns about Disney’s pacing of new content. Barclays cut its price target and Macquarie kept a “Neutral” call, arguing that Disney’s turnaround still hinges on delivering hits from fewer tentpoles. In short, the market reaction was mixed: investors approved the promise of higher-quality output, but know that Marvel’s franchise machine used to be a key subscriber magnet and revenue engine.
Indeed, the shift had implications for Disney’s financials. Previously, Marvel films helped offset other weakness; now, the studio segment must lean more on non-Marvel hits (like Pixar’s Inside Out 2, which did very well in 2024). Marvel’s own operating margin has reportedly eroded—from roughly 35% a few years ago to around 15% as costs soared and box-office growth slowed. While the raw box-office totals still dwarf those of any competitor, profits are tighter. Iger himself noted that Marvel is “a core and very important” part of Disney, but cautioned that it can’t be the company’s only tentpole franchise moving forward.
Streaming Struggles vs Theatrical Woes
The Marvel pullback coincides with broader corporate challenges. Disney’s Direct-to-Consumer unit (Disney+, Hulu, ESPN+) remains the largest source of losses for the company. In FY2023, the DTC group lost about $2.6 billion (the high spending on content was a factor). Fortunately, by late 2024 streaming turned profitable – the combined DTC segment earned $134 million in FY2024. But hitting that inflection required aggressive cost cuts, price hikes, and (crucially) boosting content profitability. Marvel’s high-frequency strategy had helped sign up millions of streamers during the height of the pandemic, but with subscriber growth plateauing, Disney decided to curb costs. Iger’s promise to rein in production budgets and slash output is partly a reaction to this: every extra Marvel movie or series had a hefty price tag, and the CEO is determined to squeeze more profit out of each dollar spent.
Meanwhile, the theatrical business has not fully recovered from the pandemic either. In 2023 the U.S. domestic box office was still about 20% below 2019 levels, even though it was roughly 20% above 2022. Disney’s own films have not been enough to close that gap. For example, The Marvels was Disney’s first major box-office disappointment in years, and even Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (2023) underperformed expectations. Parks and resorts revenue has picked up, but the studios, especially the Marvel pipeline, must also bear their weight. With moviegoing habits still in flux, Disney cannot count on Hollywood releases alone to restore past margins. In this context, Marvel’s pivot is not just a content decision – it is a bid to shore up the company’s bottom line amid challenging market conditions.
The Road Ahead: Deadpool, Cap, Fantastic Four—and Rivals
Disney’s near-term goal is clear: deliver a few big hits, then build momentum. In late 2024 Deadpool & Wolverine (the officially titled “Deadpool 3”) proved a validation of Iger’s approach. The film smashed expectations, with global ticket sales already reported around $941 million by early October 2024 (and it will likely break the $1 billion mark). Fans responded strongly to this creative blend of Marvel irreverence and nostalgia (Wolverine’s return). It showed that a marquee Marvel title can still be a cash cow even as the output slows.
Looking ahead, Disney has positioned “Captain America: Brave New World” as the next test. Starring Anthony Mackie (the new Captain America), it’s due February 2025. Budget reports vary – some claim as low as $180M, others insist on a true $380M production spend – but either way it will be far less than the sums spent on multi-hero epics a few years ago. After that, the MCU will introduce a politically-charged team-up in “Thunderbolts” (the evil-turned-hero film), then roll out the rebooted Fantastic Four in July 2025. Marvel Studios has at last confirmed its casting for FF: Pedro Pascal as Reed Richards, Vanessa Kirby as Sue Storm, Joseph Quinn as Johnny Storm and Ebon Moss-Bachrach as Ben Grimm. A new Blade (with Mahershala Ali) is also slated for November 2025. Each of these projects carries high expectations: Four is Marvel’s first team origin film, and Blade the first major R-rated MCU movie after Deadpool; strong box-office results will be crucial.
For perspective, consider Disney’s competitors. Universal’s Fast & Furious franchise is in its tenth chapter (Fast X, 2023) and still pulling huge crowds: Fast X grossed $714 million worldwide on an estimated $340 million budget. In that case, even a 20%-15% profit margin translates to huge dollars. Warner Bros’ DC division, by contrast, is undergoing its own reset. Under new co-CEOs James Gunn and Peter Safran, DC is putting out far fewer films and focusing on them. Their announced plan is two big films and two TV shows per year, akin to Disney’s new Marvel cadence. The failure of last year’s Joker: Folie à Deux (panned by critics and losing “hundreds of millions”) underscores the risk of getting tentpole films wrong. In DC’s case, a much-anticipated Superman: Legacy is set for 2025, and Gunn is shepherding a gritty Aquaman sequel, but the idea is to rebuild slowly. Marvel’s pivot puts it in similar company: the era of shooting arrows everywhere has passed, and now it’s a sniper’s focus on the big prizes.
Expert Perspectives: Quality Over Quantity
Industry observers emphasize that Marvel’s strategic shift is both necessary and perilous. Disney veteran Bob Iger has long warned that “quantity can be the enemy of quality,” and now he’s backing those words with action. Media analysts note that while Disney’s earlier binge of Marvel content helped quickly grow Disney+ subscriptions, it also fatigued fans. As Bank of America’s Jessica Reif Ehrlich notes, Disney’s first step has been “reducing volume,” but the next step must be to ensure that the remaining films and series are compelling enough to justify the trimmed schedule. In short, the new focus must be on making the hits bigger.
For Marvel, that means two things: doubling down on brand names and balancing budgets. Sequels featuring core Avengers, beloved characters, or major new characters (think the rumored X-Men or Mutants projects) will get priority. Lower-tier characters (like Blade or Thunderbolts) will be test cases: if they succeed, they can join the marquee. Creatively, Kevin Feige’s elevation to head all of studios is meant to centralize vision and avoid past misfires. Marvel’s ambition is to replenish its trophy shelf with a few $1B films and explosive Disney+ blockbusters that leave audiences craving more, rather than suffer stealth bombs.
Financially, analysts will be watching studio margins closely. Marvel used to be a high-margin engine for Disney; now, its profitability is under strain from scaled-up costs. If the new regime can bring a Marvel Studios operating margin back toward 20–25% (from the low-teens it’s fallen to), it could significantly lift Disney’s entertainment segment profits. For example, Fast X’s performance suggests that big franchises still pay off – a rough 20% profit on a $340M budget is nearly $70M. Marvel will be judged by similar metrics.
Investor sentiment reflects this precarious balance. Some Wall Street analysts, impressed by Deadpool & Wolverine and bolstered by Iger’s turnaround efforts, have issued cautious buy recommendations, arguing Disney is “well-positioned” for growth. Others point out that any slip-ups on the next few Marvel films could spook the market. Indeed, after the Q4 2024 earnings, Disney shares surged to their highest in six months – but that bounce was driven as much by record theme park revenues and guidance as by Marvel. The consensus is that Marvel’s fortunes are crucial, but no longer unassailable.
Data Appendices
Selected Financial Metrics (Fiscal Year 2023):
Disney Direct-to-Consumer (Streaming) operating loss: –$2.6 billion (FY2023).
DC Comics Reboot – New plan: 2 films and 2 series per year. Joker: Folie à Deux (2024) – budget ~$150M, gross ~$152M (critical flop).
In sum, Disney’s relationship with Marvel has come full circle. A decade ago, Disney wanted more – more Marvel films, more content, more growth – and was rewarded handsomely. Today, with competition fierce and budgets stretched, Disney wants less: fewer Marvel outings, each honed for quality and cost-efficiency. It’s a bold course correction aimed at preserving the MCU’s luster for the long haul. As Bob Iger put it, this is “a long-term endeavor” to make every Marvel release count. The next few years will test whether trimming the fat can restore Marvel’s creative spark – and its ability to keep Disney on top of the box-office heap.
Patrick Schwarzenegger is hoping to take a stab at a choice role that happens to bear his first name.
Schwarzenegger, who has made no secret over the years of his affinity for American Psycho, is continuing to publicly voice his interest in lead character Patrick Bateman in director Luca Guadagnino‘s planned feature adaptation of author Bret Easton Ellis’ 1991 best-selling novel. Christian Bale played the investment banker harboring murderous fantasies in director Mary Harron’s cult-favorite film version that hit theaters in 2000 from Lionsgate.
In response to an X (formerly Twitter) user posting Wednesday that playing Bateman could be Schwarzenegger’s “breakout role,” the actor replied, “I’d love nothing more,” adding a winking emoticon.
This is not the first time that Schwarzenegger, who earned acclaim for his work on the recently concluded third season of HBO’s The White Lotus, has made it known that he has his heart set on donning Bateman’s designer suits. When development on Guadagnino’s project was first reported last fall, Schwarzenegger responded to a post about the news with, “My dream.”
In 2021, Schwarzenegger dressed as Patrick Bateman for a Vanity Fair photo shoot celebrating notable films from the early 2000s.
Christian Bale in American Psycho. (COURTESY EVERETT COLLECTION)
Guadagnino appeared in a video segment during Lionsgate’s presentation at CinemaCon last month to tease his new American Psycho. The Challengers filmmaker praised Ellis’ book — which satirizes the 1980s yuppie culture — as influential to him and noted that the script from Scott Z. Burns “is coming out very handsomely.”
At the time, Guadagnino said he was in “conversation with very exciting performers to play the leads” but did not name anyone specifically. Rumors circulated late last year about Austin Butler being eyed to play Patrick Bateman.
During a recent conversation with The Hollywood Reporter to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the release of Harron’s American Psycho, that film’s casting director Kerry Barden offered his thoughts on whether Butler might be a good fit for the part.
“I would cast Austin in Jared [Leto’s] role because he’s that beautiful, and that’s why we cast Jared, is because he’s that beautiful,” Barden said of the banker character named Paul Allen that Leto portrayed in the first movie. “Jared is certainly a great actor as well, and obviously, Austin has a lot of depth as an actor, too. But not every person has that kind of beauty.”
When speaking with The Hollywood Reporterfor a story published last month for the White Lotus finale, Schwarzenegger said he planned to be patient before deciding on his next projects amid the career heat from the buzzy show. The actor’s previous credits include American Sports Story, Gen V and Midnight Sun.
“I really want to find something that’s right,” Schwarzenegger explained. “You know, there is one thing that I’m working on with this amazing director, a director that I’ve looked up to for my whole career. I’ve loved his projects, and we’re making something, and I hope it happens later this year. That would be extremely difficult and would put me through the most challenging, probably, life experience and acting experience.”
I’d love nothing more 😉
— Patrick Schwarzenegger (@PSchwarzenegger) April 30, 2025
MoviePass, the startup that made its mark with its movie theater subscription service, has always been known for shaking things up, and its latest venture is no exception.
The company announced on Thursday the beta launch of Mogul, a new daily fantasy entertainment platform designed specifically for the Hollywood industry.
To understand what Mogul is, it’s important to first grasp the concept of daily fantasy sports. This subcategory of fantasy sports allows players to compete over short-term periods, rather than an entire season. Players assume the role of team managers, creating their own dream teams made up of real-world athletes and earning points based on how those athletes perform in actual games.
Mogul takes this idea by allowing users, who are likely passionate movie enthusiasts interested in this sort of thing, to act as studio heads in the film industry. Players are provided with a budget and “studio credits” (in-game currency) to spend on selecting actors for their leagues.
Users can update their lineup of movie actors each day. They then participate in fantasy-style tournaments that last about a week, plus one-on-one competitions and solo challenges. Participants make calls on the results of various things, such as box office results, audience turnout, critic ratings, and potential award winners.
As users level up, they earn digital collectibles — think signed posters and memorabilia — that help them climb the leaderboard.
Mogul is built on Sui, a layer 1 blockchain and smart contract platform developed by Mysten Labs. Beta testers will receive a digital wallet to securely store their in-game virtual currency, rewards, and collectibles.
MoviePass is taking a bold leap with the introduction of Mogul, as it has never really been done before. But CEO Stacy Spikes believes it’s a huge market waiting to be tapped. He said, “People can name more actors than they can probably name sports athletes. So I think there’s a really big market opportunity there.”
Initially, when we first learned about Mogul, we didn’t anticipate that it would take off, at least not in the early stages. We wondered if there are many movie fans willing to compete with others about box office revenue or ratings.
However, we may have underestimated its appeal. The company claims that more than 400,000 people have already signed up for the early-access waitlist. It remains to be seen whether it can maintain this level of interest leading up to the official launch, but it could become popular among niche film industry followers.
During our initial conversation with Spikes, he positioned Mogul as a predictive market platform. Later on, we were told that a more fitting description would be to classify Mogul as a daily fantasy sports platform, but it may evolve to include this functionality in the future. For now, though, Mogul operates exclusively with virtual currency.
This distinction is important, especially considering the regulated nature of daily fantasy sports, as opposed to prediction market platforms, which currently exist in a legal gray area. Kalshi, for instance, has been in ongoing legal battles with state gambling regulators.
“It’s murky what needs to be approved. There are different types of clearances, depending on the markets you want in the U.S. You have to go state by state. It literally is like a Chinese puzzle with stuff all over the place,” Spikes said.
Mogul represents the initial phase of MoviePass’s long-term web3 strategy. The company has previously revealed its intention to provide on-chain rewards for attending movies. It’s also backed by Animoca Brands, a venture capital firm specializing in blockchain technology.
Last year, MoviePass partnered with Sui to allow subscribers to make payments using USD coin.
