Mark Ruffalo is facing backlash after endorsing the “Tax the Rich” campaign.
On Feb. 24, the 58-year-old actor shared a video on social media in which he called upon New York Gov. Kathy Hochul to impose higher taxes on billionaires and corporations with the aim of improving affordability across the state.
In the clip, Ruffalo also promoted the upcoming Tax the Rich & Demand an Affordable NY: Albany Takeover, a march and rally being held in the state capital on Feb. 25.
“In New York, rent is crushing people,” he said. “Childcare now costs over $20,000 a year on average. Trump’s policies keep making billionaires richer, while working families endure cuts to essential services.”
“So last year, over a million New Yorkers came together to vote for Mayor Mamdani’s affordability agenda,” he said, referring to democratic socialist New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who was elected last November.
“So who’s getting in the way?” Ruffalo continued. “Gov. Kathy Hochul has a choice to make. You protect working families, and tax the rich, or make Trump’s cuts worse by forcing everyday people to pay more. Sixty percent of New Yorkers, like me, agree that we should tax billionaires and corporations to fund childcare, housing and transit. Working people shouldn’t be the ones always stuck with the bill.”
“This Wednesday, Feb. 25, thousands of folks are going to Albany to send Kathy Hochul one clear message: Tax the Rich for New York that we can all afford. They can handle it. Trust me,” he concluded.
📊 More Economic Policy
An X user later shared Ruffalo’s video, writing, “Mark Ruffalo: ‘Tax the rich… They can handle it, trust me,’” in a post that received over 5 million views.
The post was quickly flooded with comments as some critics slammed Ruffalo for alleged “hypocrisy,” arguing that the Marvel star, who has an estimated net worth in the tens of millions, should be offering to pay more in taxes himself.
“Waiting for him to step up,” one X user wrote.
“So he can handle it right?” another added.
“There is nothing stopping Mark Ruffalo from checking that box on his tax returns, that he would like to pay more than the required amount,” another detractor commented. “He could easily give away every dime he owns except for a middle class income level.”
“Him first,” another agreed.
Some X users argued that while Ruffalo was pressing Hochul to pursue tax reforms targeting billionaires and large corporations, he was not advocating that those in the millionaire class should be made to pay more.
“I love how he says ‘we should tax billionaires’ This exposes the sickening hypocrisy of these leftie celebrities,” one critic wrote. “He’s a millionaire – so, don’t tax him more – he’s not ‘wealthy’. No, no… it’s those nasty billionaires – who already pay tax and create wealth in the economy.”
“If we just took every penny from all the millionaires – Childcare would be free! – And housing! And food! But you would be broke, Mark,” another chimed in. “Should we vote on it? It would pass. Why is it always other people’s stuff socialists want to take??”
“Notice how it’s always a wealthy person telling others to pay more taxes, but they never pay themselves,” one person commented.
Though replies on the X post featuring Ruffalo’s message were overwhelmingly negative, the actor was widely praised in the comments section of his original post on Instagram.
Ruffalo’s fans heaped praise on the actor.
“Thank you for your compassion and leadership, Mark,” one fan wrote.
“Mark Ruffalo I am so proud of you all the time thank you,” another agreed.
“Thank you Mark Ruffalo for using your voice and influence for the right things,” one Instagram user commented.
“Hulk will forever be the strongest avenger, onset and off,” a fan chimed in as another added, “Mark we love you.”
Some Instagram users took to the comments to explain why they agreed with Ruffalo’s stance.
“We started taxing the rich in MA and it’s been amazing,” one commenter wrote. “We have school meals for all kids, continuing education for those that want it, great healthcare, among other things. And instead of losing millionaires, we have more that moved here. It works!”
“The wealthy didn’t get rich in isolation,” another argued. “Infrastructure, labor, and public systems built that wealth. Fair taxation is not punishment. It’s accountability.”
Last month, Ruffalo joined nearly 400 millionaires and billionaires, including Disney heir Abigail Disney and British musician Brian Eno, in signing an open letter urging world leaders at the World Economic Forum in Davos to raise taxes on the ultra-rich, arguing extreme wealth concentration harms democracy and deepens inequality.
In a blow to the entertainment industry that underscores the fragility of Hollywood’s golden era, Robert Redford, the charismatic actor, director, and entrepreneurial force behind the Sundance Film Festival, passed away on September 16, 2025, at his cherished home in the Utah mountains. He was 89.
Redford’s death marks the end of an era for a man whose on-screen magnetism and off-screen business savvy transformed the film landscape, generating billions in box office revenue and fostering an indie film economy that challenged the liberal-dominated studio system.
Cindi Berger, CEO of the publicity firm Rogers & Cowan PMK, confirmed the news in a statement: “Robert Redford passed away on September 16, 2025, at his home at Sundance in the mountains of Utah — the place he loved, surrounded by those he loved. He will be missed greatly.
The family requests privacy.” The announcement comes at a time when Hollywood is grappling with declining ticket sales and cultural shifts, reminding us of Redford’s role as a rare conservative-leaning outlier in an industry often criticized for its left-wing echo chamber.
Born Charles Robert Redford on August 18, 1936, in Santa Monica, California, Redford’s journey from a rebellious youth to a Hollywood powerhouse exemplifies the American Dream of self-made success. After being expelled from the University of Colorado for poor grades and a penchant for mischief, he honed his craft at the American Academy of Dramatic Arts in New York.
His early career blended television appearances on shows like “Perry Mason” and “The Twilight Zone” with Broadway triumphs, including the 1963 hit “Barefoot in the Park” by Neil Simon, which he later adapted to film opposite Jane Fonda.
Redford’s breakthrough came in 1969 with “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid,” co-starring Paul Newman. The Western, which grossed over $100 million (equivalent to nearly $800 million today), became the highest-earning film of the year and was preserved in the National Film Registry in 2003. It launched a string of blockbusters that solidified Redford as a box office juggernaut: “The Sting” (1973), which earned him his only Best Actor Oscar nomination and won seven Academy Awards including Best Picture; “The Way We Were” (1973) with Barbra Streisand, a romantic drama that raked in $50 million despite mixed reviews; and “All the President’s Men” (1976), where he portrayed Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward alongside Dustin Hoffman, exposing the Watergate scandal in a film that garnered eight Oscar nominations.
These hits weren’t just artistic triumphs; they were economic engines. During the 1970s, Redford was Hollywood’s top draw, contributing to films that collectively grossed hundreds of millions and boosted studio profits at a time when the industry was recovering from the decline of the studio system. His collaborations with director Sydney Pollack, spanning seven films including “Three Days of the Condor” (1975) and “Out of Africa” (1985), exemplified efficient, high-return filmmaking. “Out of Africa” alone won seven Oscars and grossed over $227 million worldwide.
Yet Redford’s legacy extends beyond acting into savvy entrepreneurship. In 1969, he founded Wildwood Enterprises, producing films like “Downhill Racer” and “The Candidate” (1972), a satirical take on political ambition that presciently critiqued the Faustian bargains of Washington insiders—resonating today amid ongoing debates about political integrity. His directorial debut, “Ordinary People” (1980), won four Oscars, including Best Director and Best Picture, proving that thoughtful, family-centered dramas could compete commercially against flashier fare.
Perhaps Redford’s most enduring business innovation was the Sundance Institute and Film Festival, established in 1981 in Park City, Utah. What began as a modest filmmakers’ lab evolved into a powerhouse that ignited the independent film boom, launching careers like those of Quentin Tarantino (“Reservoir Dogs”), Steven Soderbergh, and Ryan Coogler (“Fruitvale Station”). Sundance has generated an estimated $100 million annually for Utah’s economy through tourism and production, creating jobs and attracting investment in a red-state haven far from Hollywood’s coastal elite. Critics from the right have praised it as a merit-based platform that democratized filmmaking, countering the big-studio monopolies often accused of pushing progressive agendas.
However, Redford’s outspoken liberalism sometimes clashed with his business acumen. A vocal environmental activist and trustee of the Natural Resources Defense Council, he opposed projects like the Keystone XL pipeline and advocated for Arctic Wildlife Refuge protections—stances that conservatives argue stifled energy independence and economic growth.
His films, such as “Lions for Lambs” (2007) critiquing U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, were seen by some as preachy civics lessons that underperformed at the box office. Still, Redford’s ability to leverage celebrity for causes while maintaining commercial viability highlights a pragmatic streak rare in Tinseltown.
In later years, Redford scaled back acting, with notable roles in “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” (2014) and “Avengers: Endgame” (2019) as the villainous Alexander Pierce—ironic given his anti-establishment roots. His final film, “The Old Man & the Gun” (2018), capped a career that spanned over 50 years. He received honorary Oscars in 2002, the Presidential Medal of Freedom from Barack Obama in 2016, and international accolades like the Légion d’Honneur.
Redford was married twice: first to Lola Van Wagenen (1958-1985), with whom he had four children (two of whom predeceased him), and then to artist Sibylle Szaggars in 2009. He is survived by Szaggars, two children, and grandchildren.
As Hollywood faces streaming disruptions and cultural reckonings, Redford’s death prompts reflection on a time when stars like him drove genuine box office success through talent and innovation, not just ideology. His Sundance legacy endures as a beacon for free-market creativity in film.
Tristan Rogers, who played legacy character Robert Scorpio on ABC’s “General Hospital,” died Friday, less than one month after he made a special appearance on the soap opera. He was 79.
“The entire ‘General Hospital’ family is heartbroken to hear of Tristan Rogers’ passing,” said Frank Valentini, the show’s executive producer, in a statement. “Tristan has captivated our fans for 45 years and Port Charles will not be the same without him (or Robert Scorpio).”
Born in Melbourne, Australia, Rogers’ first foray into performing was in his early twenties and playing drums in a rock band with a group of friends. They weren’t successful so Rogers turned to commercial work and modeling to earn some money. When the band dissolved, Rogers decided to give acting a try. After various roles in Australia, he also worked as a DJ and eventually moved to Los Angeles to try to break into Hollywood. He said casting directors were initially turned off by his accent but he eventually landed a two-day role on “General Hospital” in 1980.
“I had no idea at the point how big the show was,” Rogers told fellow “General Hospital” actor Maurice Benard on the YouTube show, “State of Mind with Maurice Benard” in 2022.
“I had no name. I was brought in expressly to beat up the hero, Luke, (played by Anthony Geary), and then disappear,” Rogers said. His first day was half-over when then-executive producer Gloria Monty asked if he would like to stay on. They had no character written for him so for three weeks Monty asked him to just appear in scenes “looking furtive, looking suspicious” until they came up with a storyline. It was decided he would play a spy known as “CK8” and eventually he was given the name Robert Scorpio. The character would remain a fixture in Port Charles for the rest of Rogers’ life, even when he wasn’t a current cast member.
Scorpio’s on again/off again romance with Emma Samms’ character, Holly Sutton, remained a favorite among fans. Scorpio also had a romance, and many storylines with another spy, Anna Devane, played by Finola Hughes. Scorpio and Devane shared a daughter, Robin, played by Kimberly McCullough. Samms returned to the show for a stint last fall where it was revealed that Scorpio was the father of her adult daughter, Sasha Gilmore (played by Sofia Mattson.)
Rogers and Samms left the show together in November 2024 in scenes taped with a nod to “Casablanca.” He returned to the show in July for one episode when Sasha arrived to his home in France with her new baby. It was then revealed that Rogers had lung cancer
Rogers’ other acting credits include “The Bold and the Beautiful,” “The Young & the Restless” and “Studio City,” which won him outstanding supporting actor in a digital drama series at the Daytime Emmy Awards. He is survived by his wife, Teresa Parkerson, and a daughter and a son.
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.
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
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.
Cookie Consent
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By using our site, you consent to cookies.
Contains information related to marketing campaigns of the user. These are shared with Google AdWords / Google Ads when the Google Ads and Google Analytics accounts are linked together.
90 days
__utma
ID used to identify users and sessions
2 years after last activity
__utmt
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests
10 minutes
__utmb
Used to distinguish new sessions and visits. This cookie is set when the GA.js javascript library is loaded and there is no existing __utmb cookie. The cookie is updated every time data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
30 minutes after last activity
__utmc
Used only with old Urchin versions of Google Analytics and not with GA.js. Was used to distinguish between new sessions and visits at the end of a session.
End of session (browser)
__utmz
Contains information about the traffic source or campaign that directed user to the website. The cookie is set when the GA.js javascript is loaded and updated when data is sent to the Google Anaytics server
6 months after last activity
__utmv
Contains custom information set by the web developer via the _setCustomVar method in Google Analytics. This cookie is updated every time new data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
2 years after last activity
__utmx
Used to determine whether a user is included in an A / B or Multivariate test.
18 months
_ga
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gali
Used by Google Analytics to determine which links on a page are being clicked
30 seconds
_ga_
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gid
ID used to identify users for 24 hours after last activity
24 hours
_gat
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests when using Google Tag Manager
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/GENERAL-HOSPITAL-Tristan-Rogers-081525-3-554e1db6d04644acbd91b9c352f45927.jpg "Tristan Rogers, Iconic 'General Hospital' Super Spy Robert Scorpio, Dies at 79 15")
