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.
Live Nation reported $3.3 billion in revenue for the first financial quarter of 2025, an 11 percent drop from the particularly strong first quarter the live music giant had posted a year ago.
Adjusted operating income fell 6 percent to $341 million from 362.5 million year over year. In the concerts division, revenue fell 14 percent to $2.84 billion, and ticketing revenue fell 4 percent to $694.7 million. Sponsorship and advertising, however, grew slightly, up 2 percent to $216.1 million.
While the year has started out slower, in its report, Live Nation points to $5.4 billion in deferred revenue for concerts and another $270 million in deferred revenue on tickets — a 24 percent and 13 percent bump for each category — which the company said suggests stronger figures in the months ahead as the concert season gets more into full swing.
Live Nation’s earnings report comes as there’s been significant discourse over the past year regarding the demand for arena and stadium level artists given increasingly expensive concert tickets and a murky economic outlook in the months ahead. Beyoncé, for example, has garnered headlines as there are still tickets available for dates on her just-started Cowboy Carter Tour, leading to the question on if sales are weakening as consumers tighten their belts. (Live Nation itself has disputed the notion of a surplus of tickets and said in March that she’d sold 94 percent of her tickets, according to Billboard.)
In a statement, Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino maintained that the company’s seen no indication to expect lower demand from fans ahead despite a less-than-rosy broader economic picture. He said Live Nation is “on track to deliver double-digit growth in operating income and AOI this year.”
“As more artists tour the world, fan demand is reaching new heights across ticket sales, show attendance, and on-site spending,” Rapino said. “Ticket sales are pacing well ahead of last year, with deferred revenue for both concerts and ticketing at record levels. To support even more fans seeing their favorite artists, we’re continuing to expand our global venue network, adding 20 major venues through 2026. As the global experience economy grows, the live music industry is leading the way, and we’re positioned to compound growth by double-digits over many years.”
During the company’s earnings call Thursday afternoon, Rapino pointed toward on-sales from April 1st to April 21st, calling it the “most relevant on-sale” period and specifically mentioning strong on-sales for Chris Brown and Lady Gaga tours.
“We haven’t seen a consumer pullback in any genre, club, theater, stadium, amphitheater, we haven’t seen that happen yet,” Rapino said.
Outside of its quarterly earnings, Live Nation of course still faces a DOJ antitrust lawsuit over monopoly allegations as the Justice department called for a breakup of the eponymous concert promoter and ticketing giant Ticketmaster last year. Live Nation has consistently denied the allegations, and CFO Joe Berchtold said at a conference last year that “I expect we’re going to prevail.” Still, both advocates and lawmakers have been vocal in recent months calling for the DOJ to continue to pursue the lawsuit and break up the company.
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.
Spotify informed The Budgets that they have paid podcast publishers and creators over $100 million since the start of January.
The payout is the result of a program introduced in 2025 that opened up new revenue streams to eligible hosts. But it is also an attempt to draw more creators (and their audiences) to Spotify, as the rise of video podcasting has driven many of them to YouTube.
Video has come to dominate podcasting. More than half of Americans over the age of 12 have watched a video podcast — but primarily on YouTube, according to an Edison Research report from January. The service claims to reach 1 billion podcast consumers every month, making it the dominant platform for podcasts — a media king and kingmaker — and leaving onetime audio-only platforms like Spotify and Apple Podcasts in the dust. (Spotify introduced video podcasts in 2019.)
Compared with YouTube, Spotify has become a podcast underdog, with about 170 million monthly podcast listeners among its total audience of 675 million. One indication of how far Spotify has to go to catch up to the top player: YouTube paid out more than $70 billion to creators and media companies from 2021 to 2024.
The company reports earnings on Tuesday and is expected to make about 540 million euros in pretax income on 4.2 billion euros in sales, according to S&P Capital IQ.
But Spotify, which is listed on the New York Stock Exchange but is based in Stockholm, remains a major player in the industry thanks in part to its talent roster — it distributes and sells advertising for the biggest podcast in the world, “The Joe Rogan Experience.” And it achieved its first full year of profitability in 2024. (Mr. Rogan’s podcasts are also available on YouTube.)
The new partner program aims to chip away at YouTube’s dominance. Spotify previously paid creators only by sharing advertising revenue with them, much like YouTube. Now it also gives them incentives to upload videos, with eligible creators earning additional money based on how much premium subscribers engage with their videos.
The company is trying to attract more viewers. At the same time that Spotify announced the partnership program in November, it announced that paid subscribers in certain markets wouldn’t have to watch dynamic ads in video podcasts. Video consumption has already increased by more than 40 percent since January, according to Spotify.
The question now is whether Spotify can persuade creators to shift priorities.
David Coles, host of the horror fiction podcast “Just Creepy: Scary Stories,” said he is re-evaluating his “home platform” after his Spotify revenue recently surpassed his YouTube revenue. Last quarter, Mr. Coles said he received about $45,500 from Spotify. After joining the company’s new partner program, his quarterly Spotify income rose to about $81,600.
This increase can be even more dramatic for larger shows and podcast companies, like YMH Studios, a comedy network with 2.1 million YouTube subscribers that produces popular podcasts including “2 Bears, 1 Cave.” While declining to share exact figures, YMH Studios said its quarterly Spotify revenue more than tripled after joining the partner program.
Although creators emphasized that these are still early days, Alan Abdine, the head of advertising revenue at YMH Studios, called the new payment program “a game-changer” and “a very happy surprise.”
SAG-AFTRA and advertisers have reached a tentative agreement for successor commercial contracts.
“SAG-AFTRA and The Joint Policy Committee, LLC (JPC) have reached a tentative agreement on terms for successor Commercials and Audio Commercials Contracts, subject to approval by the SAG-AFTRA National Board, which will meet on April 26, and ratification by the membership. The specific details will not be released in advance of the board’s review,” the performers’ union wrote in a statement.
The tentative agreement — which covers actors’ and other performers’ work on ads — came after the two parties extended the expiration date on their previous contracts multiple times as they continued negotiations, allowing union performers to continue working.
SAG-AFTRA and the Joint Policy Committee, which bargains on behalf of advertisers and advertising agencies, had been in negotiations since Feb. 20. They initially extended the conclusion of their previous three-year contracts at the end of March but later pushed it through April 11.
Details of the tentative agreement have yet to be released publicly. The contract also still needs to be approved by the SAG-AFTRA National Board, which is set to meet on April 26, as well as a ratification vote by union members.
In recent years, the production of commercials in Los Angeles has been lagging, making it difficult for industry workers, as commercials have long been a significant source of employment for them. According to a recent report from FilmLA, on-location commercials work rose slightly in the final quarter of 2024 but was down about 33 percent compared with its five-year average.
Even with the 2023 strikes in Hollywood’s rearview mirror, writers are still feeling the pinch.
On Friday, the Writers Guild of America released new job statistics highlighting recent declines in television-writing jobs across various levels of the hierarchy. Post-Peak TV, those at the peak of profession were the largest casualties (in numbers).
Of the 1,319 fewer TV writer jobs for the 2023-24 season (vs. 2022-23; pre-strikes), 642 jobs were lost — a decline of 40 percent — at the co-executive producer or higher (up to showrunner) level. Lower-level writers (staff writer, story editor, executive story editor) were the next most affected with 378 fewer jobs versus the prior season, down 46 percent. Mid-level positions (co-producer through consulting/supervising producer) declined by 299 (-42 percent).
All told, there were 1,819 television writing jobs last season, a 42 percent decline from the 2022-23 season. Last season’s numbers are far fewer than even the COVID season of 2019-20, which employed 2,722 writers.
Cord-cutters and corporate greed are to blame, the WGA says.
“With an industry in transition — cable TV subscriptions and cable programming declining, a massive run-up and then pullback in streaming series as Wall Street demands quicker streaming platform profits — the number of TV jobs has declined,” the WGA’s latest jobs report reads.
The report said the “studios’ prolonged unwillingness to negotiate a fair deal in 2023” was also to blame as it shortened the 2023-24 TV season.
The WGA writers strike ran from May to September 2023. The Directors Guild of America reached a deal with media companies, but actors also took to picket lines as the SAG-AFTRA strike ran from July to November. Seasons of scripted shows were trimmed and some pickups were canceled. Approximately 37 percent fewer WGA-covered episodic series aired in 2023-24, per the report.
The report was sent to WGA members Friday morning by the WGA West board of directors and WGA East council; The Hollywood Reporter obtained the email.
“Writing careers have always been difficult to access and sustain, but the contraction has made it especially challenging,” the email to members reads. “We are all subject to the decisions of the companies that control this industry, who have pulled back spending on content based on the demands of Wall Street. Compounding that, the current administration seems intent on causing economic chaos and undermining our democracy.”
Solid WGA data for the still-ongoing 2024-25 television season is still months away, the guild said. The WGA’s new contract with the studios should help employment bounce back — to some degree.
It’s not just about needing more jobs, though that’s certainly a part of the WGA’s current mission. The 2023 negotiations were an attempt to thwart downsizing, yes, but also about “ensuring that however many projects the companies make, the jobs are good ones,” a WGA spokesperson told THR for this story.
Television Writing Jobs Chart
Television Writing Jobs, by Level
Job Level
2018-2019
2019-2020
2022-2023
2023-2024
Lower Level Jobs (Staff Writer, Story Editor, Exec. Story Editor)
795
741
824
446
Mid-Level Jobs (Co-Producer through Consulting/Supervising Producer)
708
649
720
421
Upper Level Jobs (Co-EP through Showrunner)
1,508
1,332
1,594
952
SOURCE: WRITERS GUILD OF AMERICA
Lest writers think movies are a safe haven in this post-Peak TV period, they are not. Though the number of WGA-covered films has been pretty stable over the past few years, the number of screenwriters working is down 15 percent. Screenwriter earnings are down 6 percent.
AReal Pain, Jesse Eisenberg’s film about two cousins on a heritage tour of Holocaust-related sites in Poland, has been largely embraced by Polish audiences, who appreciated its understated humour and conspicuous good intentions. Within a month of its release, the film had grossed more than $1m at the Polish box office – no small feat for an indie production in Poland. “There was a collective sigh of relief,” says Vogue Poland film critic Anna Tatarska, “that here was a Hollywood Holocaust narrative that didn’t cast Poles as historical villains.”
Poland’s fraught relationship with Holocaust narratives has made films touching on it into political battlegrounds for at least a decade. Since the nationalist backlash against films such as Aftermath (Pokłosie) in 2012, and Ida a year later – each of which confronted Polish complicity in wartime Jewish persecution – cinema has become a flashpoint in Poland’s ongoing struggle with historical memory. Against this backdrop, A Real Pain occupies an unusually diplomatic position, and this political neutrality helped Eisenberg’s film achieve what others couldn’t: acceptance not only from Polish audiences but also officialdom.
It’s a joy that people keep on coming here – to restore memory, to catch these threads from before the Holocaust
Witold Wrzosiński
President Andrzej Duda went so far as granting Eisenberg Polish citizenship during a ceremony in New York in March. Eisenberg, who had been interested in becoming a Pole for nearly two decades, called it an honour of a lifetime. “Poland as an idea gave me a certain meaning that I was missing,” he told the New Yorker in November. “Having a connection to something bigger, something historic, something traumatic, made me feel like I was a real person and not just floating through a lucky life of shallow emptiness.”
But while A Real Pain was promoted as Eisenberg’s love letter to Poland, many Poles still feel it failed to represent them adequately. Perhaps most tellingly, the film’s only significant interaction with the locals occurs in a single scene near the end, when the Kaplan cousins arrive at the house where their grandmother used to live and briefly talk with two neighbours. Poles are otherwise background characters – a mostly voiceless crowd of receptionists, waiters and taxi drivers. “Poland is only a backdrop here, a beautiful and wealthy decoration that is essentially empty, because no real people inhabit it,” historian and writer Irena Grudzińska-Gross said.
Witold Wrzosiński, the director of the Jewish Cemetery in Warsaw, noted that Polish Jews, a community that today numbers some 30,000, are completely absent from the film. (Before the Holocaust, Jews made up 10% of Poland’s population; of the 3.5 million living there in 1939, only about 300,000 survived.) “It felt as if Eisenberg sent his love letter without an addressee,” he said. “And we watched it as outside spectators.”
Eisenberg and Jennifer Grey in the film. Photograph: Everett Collection Inc/Alamy
Wrzosiński recalled that after a special screening for representatives of the Jewish community in Warsaw, there was a sense that the film missed some opportunities, mostly because of its choice not to develop local characters. “The most unexpected, cinematic situations during heritage tours happen at the crossroads between the visitors and Poles,” said Wrzosiński, who spent years leading such tours. The Kaplan cousins arrive and leave Poland more or less unchanged – a narrative choice that is intentional and self-aware. But perhaps by focusing primarily on their relationship and their pain, the film is doing precisely what it claims to be against – it fails to engage with Poland and the Holocaust in a meaningful way.
Poland is only a backdrop here, because no real people inhabit it
Irena Grudzińska-Gross
“I think that people on these trips put a lot of pressure on themselves to feel something. We’re very good at manufacturing the kind of experiences that we expect to have,” said Adam Schorin, a writer from New York who has worked as a heritage tour guide in Poland. “But what I found more interesting when visiting Holocaust-related sites are questions about the nature of remembrance, such as what are we actually seeing and how can we engage with a place that has been photographed a million times and perhaps recently renovated?”
The most biting critique, perhaps, lies in the film’s selective amnesia, sidestepping uncomfortable conversations about wider antisemitism in Poland. “We don’t get to find out what happened to the cousins’ family during the war, and why their grandmother emigrated soon after. She must have had a good reason to leave, right? Otherwise she would have stayed,” says Grudzińska-Gross, who was forced to flee Poland in 1968 amid an antisemitic campaign.
“I think many people fell into the trap of expecting too much from this film, and assuming that since it’s connected to the Holocaust, it must be epic, it must be another Son of Saul,” says Tatarska. “You can interpret these [artistic] decisions negatively, and there were people in Poland who did, but I would expect them to be mostly financially driven. I think this is a genuine love letter, but written by someone who has less lived experience and more ideas about what Poland could be.”
But despite its shortcomings, Wrzosiński sees the film as a heartfelt attempt at overcoming disconnections. “There’s a sense of joy that people keep on coming here – and we see more of them each year – to restore memory, to catch these threads from before the Holocaust and to talk not only about how their ancestors died, but also about how they lived here for 20 generations. And if this film encourages anyone to do this, that’s great.”
Bella Thorne has accused fellow US actor Mickey Rourke of bruising her genitals with a metal grinder on the set of a movie that they filmed together during what she described as “one of the all time worst experiences” of her career.
In a story on her Instagram account on Friday, Thorne alleged that the episode was part of a broader campaign to humiliate her while they collaborated on the 2020 thriller Girl. She wrote: “This fucking dude. GROSS” and relayed the account in writing over a copy of a BBC article reporting that Celebrity Big Brother’s producers had reprimanded him for aiming homophobic comments at the singer JoJo Siwa while they competed on the reality show.
A representative of Rourke did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thorne’s allegations.
Thorne’s post recounted how she and the Oscar nominee were sharing a scene in which she was kneeling with her hands zip-tied around her back. “He’s supposed to take a metal grinder to my knee cap and instead he used it on my genitals [through] my jeans,” Thorne wrote. “Hitting them over and over again. I had bruises on my pelvic bone – Working with Mickey was one of the all time worst experiences of my life working as an actress.”
She also shared a screenshot of a post on X in which she alleged that Rourke separately revved an engine and covered her “completely in dirt” for another scene.
“I guess he thought it was funny to humiliate me in front of the entire crew,” Thorne – the 27-year-old former Disney star whose credits also include The Duff and Amityville: The Awakening – said of Rourke, 72.
Thorne then asserted that she had to take it upon herself to “go in his trailer absolutely alone” and talk him into finishing up the movie “as he shouted crazy demands that he wanted” from those helming the project written and directed by Chad Faust.
“He refused to speak to the director or producers – so I had to convince him to show up and complete his job,” Thorne continued. “In fact I had to beg.”
She said it was “uncomfortable”. But she said she endured it because “the movie could not be finished without him [and] everyone’s work would’ve just been lost and completely for nothing”.
Thorne’s comments about her on-set experience with Rourke on Girl capped off a week of unflattering headlines for the actor whose work on 2008’s The Wrestler once won him Golden Globe and Bafta awards.
He earned a formal warning from Celebrity Big Brother UK’s producers after going on the show and boasting to Siwa, who is gay, that he would “make her straight”.
Rourke also invoked a British slang word for cigarette that is also a homophobic slur in the US before directing himself at Siwa and saying: “I’m not talking to you.”
Celebrity Big Brother UK’s producers indicated to Rourke that they would remove him from the show if he kept up with the homophobic language.
