The Federal Trade Commission on Wednesday sent Media Matters for America a letter demanding communications between the progressive media watchdog and advertising entities as the commission probes whether the watchdog colluded with advertisers to pull funding from Elon Musk’s X.
Media Matters was notified in a letter dated May 20 from the FTC that it is being investigated, a source familiar with the letter told. The letter, which The NY Budgets has viewed, directs Media Matters to turn over all documents, materials and communications with a range of ad entities and related organizations — including the World Federation of Advertisers and the Global Alliance for Responsible Media — regarding brand safety and disinformation, the source said.
Media Matters is a media watchdog whose reporting tracks conservative and far-right news publications and personalities. The organization was sued by Musk in 2023 after it published a report detailing antisemitic and pro-Nazi content on the social media platform he owns, X. That lawsuit accuses the media watchdog of hatching a “media strategy to drive advertisers from the platform and destroy X Corp.”
In keeping its request for assorted materials vague, the FTC is effectively throwing the kitchen sink at the wall to see what sticks, the source told.
“We must prosecute any unlawful collusion between online platforms, and confront advertiser boycotts which threaten competition among those platforms,” then-Commissioner Ferguson said about a different case.
That’s exactly what Musk, who has spearheaded the president’s Department of Government Efficiency, has spent years accusing the progressive watchdog of doing, claiming Media Matters caused a coordinated mass exodus of advertisers by publishing the report.
In a Thursday statement, Angelo Carusone, the Media Matters president, said that the Trump administration has been “defined by naming right-wing media figures to key posts and abusing the power of the federal government to bully political opponents and silence critics.”
“It’s clear that’s exactly what’s happening here, given Media Matters’ history of holding those same figures to account,” Carusone said. “These threats won’t work; we remain steadfast to our mission.”
In 2024, a record number of advertisers were looking to cut their ad spending on X, as the platform is now known, citing concerns that the extreme content that has proliferated there since Musk’s takeover could damage their brands. Musk himself has buoyed conspiracy theories and hate speech with his own account. He also told advertisers that left the platform to “go f**k yourself.”
But advertisers began fleeing the social media platform nearly a year after Musk acquired Twitter in 2022, expressing concerns about the billionaire’s gutting of the platform’s content moderation team, mass layoffs, and uncertainty over the platform’s future. In July 2023, months before Musk sued Media Matters, the billionaire reported a 50% decline in Twitter’sad revenue.
Since the exodus, Musk has sought to mend fences, looking to woo back advertisers via a charm offensive.
But that same year, Musk sued the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, a voluntary ad-industry initiative run by the World Federation of Advertisers, claiming that the group illegally coordinated an ad boycott against X. In February, Musk broadened that lawsuit to include Lego, Nestlé, Shell and several others.
Advertisers named in the lawsuit filed a motion last week to dismiss his suit, claiming that Musk was using it “to win back the business X lost in the free market when it disrupted its own business and alienated many of its customers.”
Additionally, in March, Media Matters sued Musk, claiming that he lodged several expensive lawsuits against the watchdog “for having dared to publish an article Musk did not like.”
Media Matters has seen similar probes before. In 2023, the progressive watchdog sued Ken Paxton, accusing the Texas attorney general of violating the First Amendment by investigating Media Matters’ reporting on Musk’s app, similarly arguing that it was being penalized for its reporting. The progressive watchdog won an injunction against the Texas attorney general in 2024.
The FTC declined to comment for this story. WFA did not respond to a request for comment on the probe.
The cable giants Charter Communications and Cox Communications said on Friday that they had agreed to merge, a colossal deal that would create one of the biggest TV and internet providers in the United States.
The deal, which values Cox at roughly $34.5 billion, presents a test for President Trump’s antitrust enforcers. While many deal makers had expected the Trump administration to be more permissive than the Biden administration, many on Wall Street have been surprised by early signs that a tough-on-deals stance may persist.
Charter and Cox argued that the deal would help them compete against big rivals, including “larger, national broadband companies” — read: Comcast, Verizon and others — as well as satellite service providers. They are also likely to argue that their cable networks don’t significantly overlap geographically.
Charter and Cox signaled in their news release they were eager to secure the Trump administration’s approval of the deal. The announcement said the merger “puts America first” by returning customer-service jobs from overseas, echoing the president’s campaign language. It also underscored the value of bringing “hyperlocal, unbiased news” produced by Charter’s Spectrum News stations to Cox customers, an apparent gesture toward mollifying the White House, which has been critical of the press.
Unmentioned in the news release was Axios, a scoopy Washington-based media organization owned by Cox Enterprises, the privately held parent of the cable business as well as firms in other industries, like agriculture and cars. The newly formed cable group would not own any national programming, the release said.
Under the terms of the merger, Charter will pay cash and stock, with the combined company set to take on the Cox name and sell consumer services under the Spectrum brand within a year of closing. Cox Enterprises would become the new company’s largest shareholder, with a 23 percent stake. The group expects to cut $500 million in annual costs within a few years of closing the deal, from “typical procurement and overhead savings.”
Charter’s stock rose more than 2 percent in early trading on Friday.
It isn’t the first time the two have discussed a merger: They held talks 12 years ago, and John Malone, a telecom billionaire and major Charter shareholder, had named Cox last fall as one of the company’s potential transaction partners.
Mr. Malone, an influential media mogul, has lately made several moves to reorganize his media holdings. Last year, Charter acquired Liberty Broadband, a telecommunications company partly owned by Mr. Malone. This year, he relinquished his seat on the board of Warner Bros. Discovery, which owns CNN and the Warner Bros. movie studio.
The Cox-Charter deal is one of the biggest takeovers announced this year, along with Google’s planned acquisition of the cybersecurity provider Wiz for $32 billion. And it may show that, at least for some corporate leaders, uncertainty over the economy, driven in part by Mr. Trump’s trade policies, isn’t enough to deter them from major investments and acquisitions.
“I don’t have an ideological predisposition against M.&A.,” Andrew Ferguson, the chair of the Federal Trade Commission, said last month. “It doesn’t follow, however, that I think it should just be open season” for deal-making, he added.
Cable executives have tested regulators’ appetite for consolidation before. In 2015, Comcast walked away from an attempt to buy Time Warner Cable amid regulatory pressure from the Obama administration. The next year, the Obama administration approved Charter’s $65.5 billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks, but imposed restrictions in the process.
One of Charter’s biggest rivals, Comcast, is pursuing a deal of its own. The cable and broadband giant announced late last year that it was spinning off its cable networks, including MSNBC, into a separate company. That firm, which was named Versant this month, is expected to make its debut this year.
Today, I’m talking with Paul Bascobert, who is the president of Reuters, the news and information service you have undoubtedly heard of. This is part of a special Thursday series we’re running this month to explore how leaders at some of the world’s biggest companies make decisions in such a rapidly changing environment. You know, Decoder stuff.
Reuters is a great company for us to kick off with, because it’s been around basically forever. The company was founded in 1851, when the hot technology enabling new kinds of media was the telegraph, and the entire concept of a “wire service” was a wild new idea.
Here, today in 2025, the tech driving media has clearly changed more than just a little bit. Distribution in a world full of iPhones and generative AI is a really different proposition than distributing media 50 years before the invention of the radio. It’s even a pretty different proposition now than it was just 20 or 30 years ago, in the web 1.0 era.
There’s a lot there, and you’ll hear us get deep into basically every Decoder theme there is. For example, Paul and I spent a lot of time talking about how an organization with a legacy as old as Reuters’ can keep finding an audience and being successful in the current age of digital media, which is dominated by social platforms. The audience isn’t reading newspapers anymore, and I’m not even sure the next generation of news consumers will even be visiting websites. So Reuters is doing a lot of work to make sure its work can find and reach new audiences.
Decoder listeners who are familiar with our other episodes with media leaders know I’m very curious how generative AI is going to change the very business of news. And how big media companies are thinking about licensing their content to AI companies, being in litigation with those same companies, or even working with them to build new kinds of products.
Paul had a lot of really interesting thoughts here, because Reuters fundamentally has always had licensed content arrangements, because really, that’s just what a wire service is. To Paul, that dovetails neatly into a way to think about AI and AI training data. I pushed really hard to get some hard numbers out of him, so I think you’ll really enjoy the back-and-forth.
The non-profit Wikimedia Foundation is challenging the United Kingdom’s online safety rules in court over concerns they may enable “vandalism, disinformation, or abuse” to go unchecked on its Wikipedia platform.
Wikimedia announced on Thursday that its legal challenge specifically targets the Online Safety Act’s (OSA) categorization regulations, which the foundation says are written broadly enough to hold Wikipedia to the strictest duties that websites can be subject to. OSA is a set of safety regulations passed in 2023 that aim to protect both children and adults from harmful online content. While it was largely created to hold social media platforms, video sharing platforms, and online communications platforms accountable for user safety, the bill is so broad that services like Wikipedia can also fall under its requirements.
Platforms designated as a “category 1 service” — which the OSA defines as a platform that attracts over seven million monthly UK users, uses content recommendation algorithms, and allows users to share user-generated content with other users on the service — are required to provide tools that allow users to verify their identity and block other users. Some obvious examples of a category 1 service would be platforms like Facebook, TikTok, and Discord.
“As a Category 1 service, Wikipedia could face the most burdensome compliance obligations, which were designed to tackle some of the UK’s riskiest websites,” said Wikimedia senior advocacy manager Franziska Putz. “Someone reading an online encyclopaedia article about a historical figure or cultural landmark is not exposed to the same level of risk as someone scrolling on social media.”
Wikimedia says that even content forwarding Wikipedia features, like allowing users to choose the daily “Picture of the day,” places it at risk of being designated as a category 1 service. While not every Wikipedia user would be required to verify their identity under these rules, Wikimedia says the regulations could enable malicious users to prevent unverified volunteers from fixing or removing any harmful content or disinformation they publish.
In a larger post on Medium, the Wikimedia Foundation’s lead counsel, Phil Bradley-Schmieg, said enforcing category 1 duties would undermine the privacy and safety of Wikipedia volunteers, and could “expose users to data breaches, stalking, vexatious lawsuits or even imprisonment by authoritarian regimes.”
Companies can be fined up to £18 million (around $24 million) or ten percent of their global turnover for breaching OSA rules, and risk their services being blocked in the UK in extreme cases. OSA regulations for categorized services are expected to be in effect by 2026. Wikimedia says it has requested to expedite its legal challenge, and that UK communications regulator Ofcom is already demanding the information required to make a preliminary category 1 assessment for Wikipedia.
“We regret that circumstances have forced us to seek judicial review of the OSA’s Categorisation Regulations,” said Bradley-Schmieg. “Given that the OSA intends to make the UK a safer place to be online, it is particularly unfortunate that we must now defend the privacy and safety of Wikipedia’s volunteer editors from flawed legislation.”
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.
The daughter of Stan Lee, J.C., has settled a lawsuit against Max Anderson, the comic book legend’s former longtime road manager accused of elder abuse and pilfering tens of millions of dollars in memorabilia, autograph revenue and appearance fees.
Ahead of a trial slated to start next week, both sides on Thursday informed the court of a deal to resolve the case. The agreement is conditioned on the completion of certain undisclosed terms. Further details weren’t revealed.
At the heart of the lawsuit: Allegations that Anderson leveraged his control over Lee’s life to steal over $21 million — as well as hundreds of pieces of collectibles and memorabilia, including Batman creator Bob Kane’s original drawing of the “Joker” and movie props featured across Marvel movies — toward the end of his former boss’ life.
Shortly after meeting Lee around 2007, Anderson assumed exclusive control of his operations for comic book conventions and public appearances until he was pushed out of Lee’s circle by J.C in 2017. He also acted as a caretaker for the aging comic book writer, who was in his 80s and 90s at the time and was essentially blind, coordinating health care services while serving as a business fiduciary in some dealings.
Over the course of almost a decade, Anderson, who said he didn’t receive monetary compensation for his work and was paid in the form of autographs on collectibles, accompanied Lee to 111 comic book conventions around the world. At these conventions, Anderson and a business partner operated a booth where fans could purchase a signatures on collectibles for up to $120 a piece. The origins of the business, “Stan Lee Collectibles,” was a subject of the lawsuit, which alleged that Lee didn’t see any profits from the venture. Before Lee died, he signed an agreement granting Anderson a worldwide license for use of his name and likeness in perpetuity for a dollar, the lawsuit alleged.
J.C. claimed that Anderson pushed her father to work tireless hours until months before his death. She accused him of stealing at least $11.1 million in autograph revenue and $10.2 million in appearance fees. Anderson has denied ever handling money at events, which saw Lee earn roughly $35,000 in a single day signing autographs and taking pictures.
At trial, witnesses, including Anderson’s twin brother who worked security at some events, were set to testify that they saw Anderson handling “duffle bags” of cash, which was allegedly used to buy art and other luxury items, according to court filings. Anderson’s ex-wife was also set to tell the court that she saw Anderson handle significant amounts of cash after returning home from events with Lee and that he kept “stacks of cash” in a large bedroom safe. Lawyers for J.C. claimed that Anderson’s personal wealth and assets ballooned in the years he worked for Lee.
A contentious part of the litigation was a museum intended to house Lee’s memorabilia, collectibles and personal items to be featured at various comic book conventions. Anderson, through his license for use of Lee’s name and likeness, arranged for Lee to gift him personal items that were to be placed in the museum but were allegedly rerouted to Anderson’s businesses. For the last decade, the pieces have been in Anderson’s possession at his comic book store and home while the museum has only been featured at a handful of conventions, the lawsuit alleged.
Anderson has said that he can’t identify which items belong to the museum and that much of it was stolen, damaged or thrown out since they weren’t valuable. J.C.’s lawyers have pushed back on that assertion, pointing to a lawsuit he filed over collectibles stolen from his home, including original movie props like Iron Man’s mask, the arm of Nebula from Guardians of the Galaxy and a set of X-23 claws from Logan.
Roku is making a significant acquisition that will propel it further in the content space.
The streaming platform says that it is acquiring the subscription streaming service Frndly TV in a deal valued at $185 million. The deal, which should be completed in Q2, will give Roku a foothold in the subscription streaming market and vMVPD sector, complementing its free Roku Channel.
Frndly blends aspects of virtual multichannel video providers like YouTube TV with on-demand entertainment programming, with a focus on family-friendly fare. It streams channels that include Hallmark, History, Lifetime and A&E. Its plans start at $6.99 per month.
“Frndly TV’s impressive growth and expertise in direct-to-consumer subscription services make it a compelling addition to Roku,” said Anthony Wood, Roku’s Founder and CEO. “This acquisition supports our focus on growing platform revenue and Roku-billed subscriptions, with a live content offering our users love at an industry-leading price point.”
“We’re incredibly excited to join Roku and continue our mission to provide customers feel-good, quality entertainment as the most affordable live TV subscription streaming service in America,” adds Andy Karofsky, Frndly TV CEO and co-founder. “Roku’s pioneering role in streaming and its longstanding commitment to customers aligns perfectly with our strategic vision. We believe this combination will help us accelerate subscription growth, given the alignment in core customer demographics and Roku’s leadership position in the connected TV ecosystem.”
The $185 million deal includes $75 million which is being held back for an earn-out over the next two years.
The deal was connected to Roku’s Q1 earnings report, which saw revenue rise by 16 percent to $1.02 billion, and a net loss of $27.4 million.
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.
Exhibition giant Cinemark reported revenue of $541 million, down 7 percent year-over-year from $579 million, for the first quarter of 2025 and swung to a quarterly loss of $39 million, compared to a year-earlier profit of $25 million.
But the company touted: “North American industry box office momentum accelerated in April, nearly doubling year-over-year, leading into a blockbuster summer film slate.”
Quarterly admissions revenue decreased 8.9 percent to $264.1 million, while concession revenue dropped 6.2 percent to $210.4 million, as Cinemark posted a 7.8 percent decrease in attendance to 36.6 million patrons. Worldwide average ticket price came in at $7.22, and concession revenue per patron amounted to $5.75.
The company also posted quarterly adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA), another profitability metric, of $36.4 million, down from $70.7 million in the year-ago period.
“Cinemark once again delivered outsized box office results in the first quarter, surpassing industry benchmarks both domestically and internationally, despite a suppressed box office environment that was impacted by lingering effects of the 2023 Hollywood strikes,” CEO Sean Gamble said in the press release. “We continue to expect a favorable rebound in our industry’s recovery trajectory this year, and the second quarter is already pacing well ahead of 2024’s box office results, showcasing the strong, sustained enthusiasm consumers have for experiencing a diverse range of compelling, well-marketed films in theaters.”
He added: “As we look ahead, we remain highly encouraged about the future direction of our industry and company based on resilient consumer trends, a continued resurgence of wide release volume, Cinemark’s advantaged financial and competitive positions, and meaningful opportunities we have to generate incremental value creation through our ongoing strategic initiatives.”
On the earnings call, Gamble said momentum starting picking up with A Minecraft Movie, which deliveredCinemark’s highest three-day opening of all time for a family film, and continued with the faith-based film King of Kings, Sinners and The Accountant 2.
Moving forward, Gamble said that he also expects Cinemark and the film industry would be able to continue on an upswing during “an uncertain and evolving macroeconomic landscape,” due to the fact that in six of the past eight recesssions, North American box office has grown. “Based on our observations during strained economic periods, people continue to pursue out of experiences, and they tend to prioritize value and affordability,” he said.
Concluded Gamble: “Considering the health of our company and our positive outlook, we paid our first dividend since the pandemic during the quarter and executed $200 million of share repurchases. This marks our first-ever stock buyback program and has put us out in front of managing potential dilution related to our upcoming convertible notes settlement.”
The sports streaming platform FuboTV reported it ended the first quarter with 1.47 million paid subscribers in North America, down from 1.67 million at the end of the fourth quarter of 2024 and 1.61 million at the end of the third quarter that year.
Fubo had 1.51 million North American subscribers in the year-ago period. The streamer in the first quarter had overall revenue at $416.3 million, up from year-earlier $402.3 million. That beat an analyst projection of revenues at $415.45 million, according to TipRanks Analyst Forecasts.
Fubo saw subscription revenue rise to $391.4 million, against $373.7 million in the same period of 2024. The company reiterated it looked to get to profitability for its sports-centric streamer in 2025.
Advertising revenue dropped to $22.8 million, compared to a year earlier $27.4 million. The streamer swung to a net income from continuing operations at $188.4 million, compared to a year-earlier net loss of $56.3 million.
The latest quarter included a $220 million gain on the settlement of antitrust litigation. In January 2024, Venu, the sports-focused streaming service proposed by The Walt Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery and Fox Corp. was abandoned in the face of opposition from Fubo.
Fubo execs unveiled a separate deal that will see Disney merge its Hulu + Live TV service with Fubo. “We also remain excited about our agreement with The Walt Disney Company to combine Fubo with Hulu + Live TV, and its potential to increase competition in the Pay TV space. We continue to work through the regulatory process, and look forward to sharing more information when we are able,” David Gandler, co-founder and CEO of Fubo, said in prepared remarks during a pre-market analyst call on Friday.
Gandler discussed an ongoing dispute after TelevisaUnivision pulled its networks from Fubo in Dec. 2024, with the prospect of talks between the parties getting started to resolve their content pricing differences. “We’re certainly open to those discussions on acceptable terms,” the Fubo CEO told analysts.
Skipper co-founded Meadowlark in 2021 alongside radio host Dan Le Batard with a goal of bringing his show to digital platforms. Skipper, the former president of ESPN, subsequently pushed Meadowlark to develop documentary and unscripted fare, inking a first-look deal with Apple TV+, and developed a franchise called SportsExplains the World that would encompass both anthology series and podcasts.
In a statement posted to his social media accounts, Le Batard indicated that the company will continue to produce documentary fare, and that Skipper would remain involved providing “leadership and guidance” to the company.
“Thankful to John Skipper for his friendship and look forward to his continued leadership and guidance on and off air,” Le Batard wrote. “I asked him to build a successful, fiercely independent media company within four years, and he has. Meadowlark will continue to produce films and documentaries. Our audio/video network is thriving, and we look forward to sharing good news shortly in that regard. I’m so grateful that our Skipper has navigated today’s turbulent media seas to get us into much safer waters.”
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
