Author name: BTL

”PENSKE-OWNED’ HOLLYWOOD REPORTER HEADLINE: ‘David Ellison will hold full control…’ ‘PENSKE-OWNED’ VARIETY HEADLINE: ‘David Ellison will hold full control…” David will not hold full control, but we’ll get to that. …David Ellison is the luckiest person on the planet thanks to genetics. His father Larry Ellison, one of the world’s richest men bankrolled his company, Skydance, from inception. In exchange for the investment, David’s father had final say over all important financial issues. This reminded the Hollywood community who called the shots…and it also reminded David that he who invests the gold makes the rules. Flash forward to today as David’s father has yet again stepped up to significantly bankroll David’s acquisition of Paramount. But, unlike Skydance which was just a financial vehicle where no one really cared who ran it as long as its money was real, Paramount is a heavyweight distributor that carries a lot more weight and responsibility and power in Hollywood. As such, for the son to be perceived as the boss and not just as the son of the boss, it was crucial that David be the final stop on all important financial decisions for films and television shows (and everything in between) aka the person Bryan Lourd could negotiated with exclusively to make magic happen. After the acquisition was approved and the final filing with the FCC was made public, media companies reported that while Larry Ellison was previously listed as the majority vote holder, David would now control the majority of votes and that Paramount begins and ends with him and no one else. BUT, here’s the problem and it’s a big one. The majority of the votes at Paramount are not controlled by David Ellison, but rather by Redbird and Larry Ellison combined. David is a figurehead. How do we know this? Basic boring math. NAI is the entity that owns 100% of the votes of Paramount Global. NAI is made up of several separate companies (LLCs) 77.5% of NAI (the votes) is controlled by Ellison family-owned companies (LLCs) 22.5% of NAI (the votes) are controlled by a Redbird Capital owned company (LLC) Of the 77.5% of the votes controlled by the Ellison family, David Ellison controls 64.5% of the votes and Larry Ellison controls 35.5% of the votes (via his own separate company LLC) And it’s the 64.5% that the media held onto, but,  David does not control 64.5% of 100% of the votes… He controls 64.5% of 77.5% (Ellison owned LLCs) of 100% of the votes…with Larry controlling 35.5% of 77.5% and Redbird controlling 22.5% . David only controls 49.998% of the votes out of 100% of NAI. BOTTOM LINE: LARRY ELLISON AND REDBIRD CONTROL THE COMBINED MAJORITY OF 50.01% OF THE VOTES. He who invests the gold makes the rules…and who knows this? Bryan Lourd. The Lord of Darkness has already had the bat phone installed for he and David’s father to get business done the CAA way.

Add the feature film LONE WOLF to the scrap heap of independently financed films (outside the traditional studio system) that have fallen prey to someone involved in the financing side not fulfilling their obligation. Some cast and crew haven’t been paid and might never get paid…and the hard work of a lot of people will not be streamed or released in theatres. Not the first time or last time this will happen. But what is one of only a few times is where a cast member sticks his nose into a financial fight the producers and/or financiers are having…especially when the cast member is not a producer on the project…which makes you wonder what that cast member knew. The film’s star Bryan Cranston issued a public statement addressing the troubles of the ‘Lone Wolf’ production and, in the process, unknowingly shined a light on the corrosiveness of power and influence within the Screen Actor’s Guild and the major agencies. Eyebrow Raise #1: Bryan referenced monies that were not deposited into escrow accounts timely for unpaid cast before or during production after a brief stoppage. ***Anyone who has dealt with the Screen Actors Guild knows the guild doesn’t allow its members to work, let alone board a plane bound for a location until the contractually agreed upon escrow monies are deposited into escrow. In this instance, SAG ignored the only rule that financially protects its members. Questions: who was/were the SAG employee(s) who were in on the non-enforcement? Who were the actors (aside from Cranston and Gladstone) whose monies should have been but weren’t escrowed before production? It was a huge mistep for SAG to side with producers and financiers and agencies over its members. Eyebrow Raise #2: Bryan spoke not just for himself getting fully paid but also for his co-star Lily Gladstone by referencing the two of them as standing together in solidarity. This was not Bryan Cranston’s smartest move because… ***Lily Gladstone is represented by the same agency (Independent Artist Group) that represents the financially bankrupt Lone Wolf producers, Yale Productions, who are the center of this underfinanced shitstorm of a production. It raises the Watergate question: What did Lily Gladstone know about the financial troubles and when did she know it (and could she have done anything to help anyone on the production before things went downhill)? She has been eerily quiet and it’s quite telling that Bryan Cranston speaks on her behalf (he even says as much). She will never say a word at the risk of exposing herself to hard hitting questions. By the way, were there other actors on the film that were represented by the same agencies as Lily or Bryan? Eyebrow Raise #3: In the same Deadline article that published Bryan Cranston’s statement, there a rundown of the agencies that represent actors and the screenwriter and the director and the main producers of the film. ***UTA (Bryan Cranston and the film itself (UTA Sales)), Independent Artist Group (formerly APA—Lily Gladstone, Yale Productions), WME (O’Shea Jackson), Paradigm (director Mark Pellington), Gersh (writer Tom Chilcoat). Who is the one agency of note missing from this list? CAA. If anyone can think of a project that led to the financial screwing over of a CAA lead or co-lead actor and/or an unfinished production, please let us know. CAA anticipates and resolves indie film challenges better than any agency in town by scaring financiers with banishment if they don’t finish what they started.

The recent Nicole Clemens (to oversee international television productions) hire by Amazon represents another big step towards the firing of co-head of television-Vernon Sanders…and the ‘soon to be dumped after that’ Mike Hopkins. Head of Prime Video/Film/Television,Mike Hopkins (former head of HULU streaming and Sony Pictures Television), whom everyone in the film and television divisions at Amazon still technically reports to, has had no idea how to run anything other than himself since coming aboard in 2020 and surrounding himself with unqualified hires to run these various divisions. For starters, he left in place the sole head of television and film, Jennifer Salke (and Vernon Sanders),  even though she had zero experience in the film world and hired/promoted people who had neither the relationships nor the gravitas to transform the film and tv divisions into juggernauts, overpaid for Sundance indie films she naively thought would appeal to two hundred million prime members around the world, overpaid for and could not get under control financially spiraling event films (CITADEL), and botched the creative direction of the most important IP in television–Lord of the Rings. Add in Mike Hopkins’ penchant for a Dr. Seuss hierarchical structure where Salke made hires and Hopkins made hires. Some of the hires reported to him or to her or to both of them. It was done for ass covering purposes and not for efficiency. Enter Andy Jassey in July 2021 who replaced Jeff Bezos to clean up the mess. Smart enough to quickly recognize dysfunction, the parent in the room (Jassey) went outside the company to consult agencies like CAA on how to properly build and stock a studio with the right groceries…leaving Mike Hopkins on the sidelines with a bag of popcorn. We know this because the hires were based on merit and not self-interested ass covering. Long-time head of Warner Bros marketing, Sue Kroll, was brought onboard to oversee film marketing. High level Warner Bros executive, Courtnay Valenti, was hired to run the film division. Three experienced executives were brought in ‘to work under’ Vernon Sanders. Former head of Netflix films, Scott Stuber (CAA’s favorite son) took over United Artists…Former Sony head, Amy Pascal (CAA’s (specifically Bryan Lourd’s) favorite daughter) and A-list producer of the Harry Potter franchise, David Heyman, came in to run the Bond franchise… …and now Nicole Clemens has taken more control out of Vernon Sanders’ grip so she can make lemonade out of lemons aka Amazon’s international television programming. And finally, the recent announcement by Mike Hopkins about splitting film and tv into separate units was also not his own doing because it makes logical sense not to mix peanut butter in a jelly recipe. Thanks to Andy ‘parent in the room’ Jassey for righting this ship. Bottom line: We can expect another shakeup at Amazon this year. Do not be surprised if Vernon Sanders downshifts into a producing deal and don’t expect Mike Hopkins to survive either. Who will replace Mike Hopkins? Someone internally? Externally? Not at all? That is the $6million question. Stay tuned.

Countless studies, articles and opinions have emerged recently to explain why film and television productions (especially independent productions not financed by studios) have fled California. Lack of competitive tax credits? Lack of streamlined processing for permits for locations? Increased cost of locations? Financial strain left over from the 2023 strikes? Stagnant streaming growth? Loss of prior revenue? Yes. To some extent, all of these issues contribute to the problem…but, there is a more significant cause that no one is thinking about and, with a little creativity, the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) can propose something to the unions that will solve the problem. ISSUE NUMBER ONE: minimum hourly rates in California for below-the-line union members are amongst the highest in the country which is compounded by the fact that the highest percentage of unemployed (and employed) union members live in California. If the AMPTP was smart, it would propose hourly union rates for Los Angeles (California) that are lower than rates in other production cities. How much lower? Low enough to mean something for budgets up to a reasonably high range. Knock at least 25-30% off all hourly rates in all crew categories for any production that shoots in California (which will also reduce pension and health payments, but reduced payments are better than no payments at all). Call it an enticement. Call it smart business. Call it supply and demand for labor in California falling in love. Call it an experiment until the next negotiating cycle… …not to mention, how would below-the-line unions look if they reject the concept? “Yeah. We know the vast majority of our members live in Los Angeles (California) and yeah, we know that lower hourly rates will attract productions and jobs like moths to a flame…but, it’s more important that we maintain higher hourly rates even if that means significantly higher unemployment for the majority of our members.. and even if this means they have to move to another state to find work.” Can you imagine how union members living in California would feel about that? They’d show up at the union offices with torches and pitchforks. ISSUE NUMBER TWO (which ties into Issue Number One): union members are being allowed by their union to work on non union productions (which are infinitely more prevalent), which wrecks havoc on non union shoots which don’t shoot union because the minimum hourly rates are too high. This is a clever maneuver that below-the-line unions employ time and time again to inflict the most damage on film and television productions…particularly in California. They permit their members to work on non union productions while, at the same time, encouraging the members to update the union on any non union productions they are working on. In a vacuum, this ‘non union’ option for union members is progressive and productive and commendable. HOWEVER, the below the line unions have learned over time to weaponize this goodwill by using union members as trojan horses to flip non union workers during a non union production, which punishes and severely cripples that production’s financial structure. And where do the highest percentage of productions get ‘trojan horsed’? That’s right….where the production heart beats. California. Significantly lower hourly rates in California will strongly discourage non union productions from existing or staying away from California because the new rates will be a lot more competitive with non union wages and might encourage productions to choose union over non-union. Of course, below-the-line unions will cry ‘bloody murder’ and kick and scream and go on strike….but, if the AMPTP truly makes productions in California a top priority above everything else, they can dig in their heels as well because he who has the gold makes the rules.

There’s been a lot of discussion about ‘indie’ film directors and whether they get paid enough to live on given the 1-3 years they might spend on the film. One person putting forth their opinion is indie producer Alex Saks, who suggests it’s less than or upwards of 75k per film for a director or perhaps a few hundred thousand dollars if the director is well established, and that it’s not enough. Well, Alex is entitled to her opinion, but it’s not fact, and it’s not true. Indie director salaries come down to five things: the production budget of the film, the percentage of the budget that the director has negotiated as a salary, the percentage of the salary they give up for creative reasons, the different skills they possess in addition to directing, and the percentage of monies they pay to their representatives. Any indie director represented by a lawyer who has any clue what they’re doing should expect an upfront salary of at least 3-4% of the production budget. If the budget exceeds $5million, something between 4-5% is not unreasonable. And if the budget is in the tens of millions of dollars, there will likely be a dollar amount cap on the amount the director can make. Example: if the budget is $1,000,000 for something like RED ROCKET, Sean Baker should get paid $33,000-$40,000 to direct. It’s enough because they chose to make something this cheap and they chose to take on a 1-3 year project at the low salary because that is what the budget could allow. Example: if the budget for ANORA was $6 million as reported, director Sean Baker should have been paid $300,000.00 pre-tax and pre-commissions. If you divide that total by the 3 years spent working on the film, 100k pre-tax per year (and even if you throw in a 10% commission that reduces it to $90k per year.) is more than a lot of people make as an average annual salary. Is this amount ‘not enough’. How much is ‘enough’? 500k? 600k? How about a million? Another thing Alex touched on was the financial sacrifices that indie directors make to be able to afford things that were not otherwise affordable in the production budget. Well, if the director sacrifices money for creative purposes, that is on the director and he or she can’t claim that the sacrifice wasn’t their fault and that they didn’t make enough. Example: Sean Baker insisted on shooting ANORA on expensive 35mm film and not on less expensive video(which always fascinated us. It’s this strange thing where directors are beguiled by film and yet unless they are shooting epic/sprawling films LAWRENCE OF ARABIA or BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI, using film is pointless). In doing so, Sean sucked up a lot of money out of the budget for the larger camera crew required, for the film camera equipment, for extra shoot days b/c prepping shots for film versus video takes a lot longer (you can shoot for so much longer with video. With film, the time length allowed of each shot is limited) , and for purchasing the film itself. What Alex Saks and others conveniently leave out of the earnings of a director is that the vast majority of indie directors don’t just direct their films. They write or co-write them as well and that means more money in the form of another 2.5%-3% of the budget. For ANORA, since Sean Baker wrote the script, that would be another $180,000 pre-tax pre-commission to Sean. Between writing and directing, Sean’s pre-tax pre-commission money would total $480,000.00. Is that not enough to live on? FIFTH: when it comes to backend participation, In some cases (like Sean Baker), the director does more than just write and direct. He produces. He casts. He edits. He designs the sound. Accordingly, the more a director does on his/her film, the bigger piece of the upfront pie and backend participation they should have. Directors get 5% of the net. Writers should get 5% of the net. If a writer/director wears more hats, their net profit percentage should go way up. Example: Alex Saks says there was $300,000 in net profits for ANORA to divide up and that 150k went to the investors while the other 150k went to producers/writers/directors/actors. Sean Baker should have received the lion’s share of that money for his contributions. At least $50k. Anything less suggests Sean had weak representation and should replace his representatives. And when it comes to commissions, directors get to choose what kind of representation they want, and depending on those choices, the commission percentages will dictate how much money they give up. An agent charges 10%. A manager charges 10%. A lawyer charges 5%. For Sean Baker, he has a management company that supplied no services for 10% and he had a lawyer who took 5%. We say the management company (Fusion Entertainment) didn’t contribute anything because Sean did all the heavy lifting, the money was raised by others, and so on. Sean Baker should have gotten rid of his management team to save the 10% commission and perhaps paid his lawyer on an hourly rate to keep down expenses. So, there you have it. If Sean Baker ever happens to stumble upon this article, we hope he realizes that with negotiating team around him for less of a commission, his career moving forward will provide beyond enough to live on.

Even a broken clock is right twice (er, once so far) a day. The history of studio slates is littered with one hit wonders who were rightfully displaced in the name of restoring consistency. The former film chief of Paramount, Adam Goodman, comes to mind. He lasted 6 years under Brad Grey and could only claim box office hit WORLD WAR Z as the one feather in his cap. Other franchises like MISSION IMPOSSIBLE and STAR TREK existed before his tenure. Another example: lightning did not strike twice for former Fox studio success, Jim Gianopulos. He is credited for launching the A QUIET PLACE franchise, but the rest of the franchises were already existing and his other selections did not land. They crashed. Once De Luca and Abdy are relieved of their duties, where does Zlaslav turn next? It has to be someone who is agency-friendly, talent friendly, filmmaker friendly, and strategically three steps ahead of everyone else (including Zlaslav). It also needs to be someone with a sense of the bigger picture and strategy of more than just films. We want to go so far outside the box that the readers will pelt us with vegetables. Wait for it…Bryan Lourd of CAA. Yes, that Bryan Lourd. Why? The better question is: Why not? He’s done everything an agent and founder of an agency can do. He’s built a billion dollar company from the ground up. He’s put any artist who is worth a shit in a position to succeed (and every client has). He knows a lot of things about a lot of things. He has cashed in several times and made hundreds of millions of dollars on the sale and re-sale of the agency (not to mention he’s making a small fortune with stock and stock options from Barry Diller’s company IAC. He stands at the top of the mountain in search of the next mountain to climb. Toss in the fact that, in spite of his ability to deceptively steal people’s lunch money, he has the begrudging respect of his peers. And before you poo poo the idea. Just remember there is precedent for a CAA agent at the top of his game going the studio route. Ron Meyer became the President and COO of Universal Studios. He left after fulfilling his dreams at CAA for an incredibly successful and long lasting run at Universal for 18 years until his personal life got in the way. There was also Michael Ovitz to Disney, but that it was his personality that got in the way. Zlaslav should make Bryan Lourd an offer he cannot refuse and pray that Bryan takes the bait. A ton of cash. Sole greenlight power. Sole power over a budget and various divisions. It’s exactly what Zlaslav needs…even at the risk of getting his lunch money stolen.

Crew members (ex. camera dept, makeup, hair, lighting, transportation, sound, etc) know EXACTLY what the score is when they sign up for a non-union shoot. They’ve read the script. They know what the budget is. They know the hours will be long. They know the food will suck. They know in the deep recesses of their mind that financing can disappear before the film is completed. They know a paycheck or two might never come. And they definitely know they have been hired because the production cannot afford to go union. It’s about the experience, it’s about getting paid long enough to quit if the paychecks stop, it’s about the credit and hopefully the film’s acclaim that will move them up the professional ladder to bigger budget studio films that are only union productions. The departments most vulnerable to and the most eager to ‘flip’ a non union crew to union with an assist from the self-destructive IATSE unions are the transportation department and the camera department because they have the most leverage. Transportation knows the show can’t move to the next location without them. The camera crew knows that, without them, the director cannot direct (unless the director is Steven Soderbergh). So, what happens when the turncoats unionize? The production budget immediately balloons. Shooting days are cut, the director rightfully worries that the finished product will either not finish or finish poorly, and the rightfully nervous financiers get on the phone with the producers and their lawyers to figure out what the bottom line damage will be because they have to throw in more money to keep the money they’ve already committed from being lost. And where does this leave the selfish ‘once non-union’ crew who caused the whole thing? They become proud card carrying members of a union that gaslit them into believing that being known as a film production killer was worth some extra minimum pay and the promise of health insurance only if they work a lot more hours. Well played! But, there is a solution for producers and financiers of these indie films. Always have a Plan B and a Plan C. This means having backup camera crew and transportation crew on standby. Pay them a very small holding fee on a weekly basis. Call it ‘flip’ insurance that pays dividends when the unionizing crew members find themselves out of a job. Second, always have another state in mind to finish shooting in case the crew in the current state tries to screw you. Third, have backup locations in those other states mind if indeed you have to flee quickly. Fourth, have an abbreviated version of the script written in case certain scenes can no longer be shot or if the coverage the director desires will not be financially possible. On a separate but sort of related note, it is not just replacing ‘flipping’ crew members who refuse to continue working as non-union members that a producer has at his/her disposal. If a non-union jerk is going to ‘flip’ your show, it is within your legal right to tell this fool that anyone who reaches out to the producer for a reference will be told in full transparency that you partook as a ‘flipper’ and the person who reached out can decide for themselves whether or not a ‘flipper’ can be trusted. We certainly wouldn’t hire someone who tries to bring down a production. Bottom line: Indie film financiers and producers do not have to be held hostage by these below-the-line ‘flippers’. They have a variety of cards they can play.

Harvey Weinstein is not a sympathetic figure to say the least. Yes, he founded Miramax with his brother Bob and, together, they forever changed the world of independent film. But, otherwise, the rest of Harvey’s personal and professional behavior was demonstratively and ‘jury-found-him-guilty’ heinous. But, Harvey is/was not the only soulless Weinstein. Bob too is/was a soulless sloth in his own way because we think he conspired with David Glasser (who is even slimier as the man who blazed a trail of lawsuits and accusations of financial impropriety at almost every career stop along the way) and possibly Len Blavatnik to strongarm Harvey into personally guaranteeing a loan for tens of millions of dollars (to allegedly keep the Weinstein Co. afloat) so they could leave him holding the bag for more than just money (in a vacuum). How did they pull it off? Why did they do it? Let’s start with the ‘how’. Harvey’s lawsuit against his brother and others in February 2025 spelled it out pretty well. In 2016 (September 29th to be exact), the Weinstein Co. was not in good financial shape. Part of it had to do with the expensive settlements Harvey agreed to to address sexual assault and rape claims. To the rescue came the well-known billionaire/alleged Harvey Weinstein and Putin-friend–Len Blavatnik. He threw a lifeline worth $45million in the form of a loan. And for reasons only known by Harvey (we are guessing it was a non-negotiable term), Harvey agreed to personally guarantee the loan. Not long after, in 2017, Harvey was forced to step down from the Weinstein Co and the Devil aka Blavatnik came to take Harvey’s soul. Bob and David supposedly settled out with Blavatnik for $15million of the $45million that ‘now came due b/c Harvey had stepped down’ loan and Harvey was stuck with the rest. Which leads us to the possible ‘why’ of it all? It was about two things (and not just the money). THING ONE: REVENGE. Len Blavatnik and Harvey Weinstein knew each other well on a personal and professional level. As a matter of fact, in 2010, Blavatnik entered into a new three-year film fund with the Weinstein Co. for a slate of movies with budgets betweeen $5 million to $20 million. Initially, Blavatnik put up $25 million into a revolving facility that might lead to putting up as much as $100 million (quoting the LA Times article). Some films did come out of the deal, but because Harvey loved to play fast and loose with accounting, one can only imagine how much money Len Blavatnik lost over the course of the deal. We’d be pissed off, also. Flash forward to 2016 when the Weinstein Co. needed cash to stay afloat (and eventually put itself on the sales block). Blavatnik had given them the money thinking it would be the first in a series of steps towards acquiring the Weinstein Co …but, Harvey told the Board in 2017 that Blavatnik was not the answer. As one can imagine, you don’t fuck with a billionaire British/American citizen with strong ties to Putin who owns just about everything in the world. That person will squish you like the cockroach you are (to quote ‘Mr. Wonderful’ from the popular reality show Shark Tank)…and that’s what Blavatnik did. He eagerly gutted Harvey ‘the loan guarantor’ Weinstein like a shark’s belly to the tune of $30million, which ties into… THING TWO: YELLOWSTONE (TV SHOW). On February 21st 2017 when Harvey pitched the Taylor Sheridan show to the new Paramount+ head Keith Cox, Keith flipped for it and ordered the show straight to series. The Weinstein Co. (Harvey, Bob and David Glasser) would finance a large chunk of the first season and get EP credit for the show. And then magically, not long after Harvey was incarcerated, on Friday November 10th 2017, Len Blavatnik sued the Weinstein Co. for immediate repayment. This should have been the end of Harvey, Bob, and David’s involvement with Yellowstone. Right? Wrong! Instead, silent Bob (not listed as an EP on the show) and loud David (listed as EP on the show) quietly settled out with Blavatnik for $15million(did they? are we sure?) and used the remaining monies (did Lavatnik know this would happen before the loan was made? He hated Harvey that much) to stay involved as creative and financial partners on the show. AND THEN, lo and behold, in an announcement on January 22nd 2019, David Glasser proudly touted a new company named Studio 101 that had raised $300million for film and television production…and guess what was specifically mentioned in the announcement? $28.5million was already earmarked for the first season (and second) of Yellowstone which had started production in 2017. We bet a large chunk of that Yellowstone seed money came from Blavatnik’s $45million loan. What other information backs up this theory? First, even after Harvey Weinstein was removed as a producer on Yellowstone, Paramount did not deny a financial relationship with the Weinstein Co. Keith Cox said as much in 2018 when Yellowstone was in production–“As many of you know our production partner on Yellowstone and Waco is the Weinstein Co. I want to say definitively that Harvey Weinstein has never been part of the creative process. Until a new name of the company is announced, Weinstein Co. will not be listed in the credits for either show.” That new company was Glasser’s company- Studio 101. Tis true the only two people who can confirm this narrative are Bob and David…but, they would never confess to anything so diabolical unless they wanted to get squashed like the little cockroaches they are (by Blavatnik).

David Simon is a prolific television content creator. What launched his career was a seminal show considered one of the greatest of all time–THE WIRE. It lasted for 7 seasons and was followed by TREME as a series and the THE DEUCE which ended in 2019. Since then, he’s got a miniseries THE PLOT AGAINST AMERICA and the 2022 miniseries WE OWN THIS CITY as notches on the creative belt. He also happens to be a self-rightous know-it-all who lacks the self-awareness to realize his misguided rants and nonsensical legal stances may have permanently damaged his career. Exhibit A of the legal nonsense? Suing CAA at the WGA’s behest over a packaging fee controversy he’d already settled with CAA nearly two decades prior. He bit the hand that fed him once in the past, and then he bit the hand a second time for no reason other than hubris. And then in another act of what will end up being career suicide, he left CAA and went agent-less just like all the others blind faith saps who followed orders from the WGA. Side question: how many writers without agents are regretting the decision to fire their agents? To the public and non-agents working in the film/tv industry, they do not understand how hard it is to get a large agency to agree to assign several agents to a writer/director and to spend a lot of time making little to no money until the client lands a successful tv series or big studio film. All these years later, David has now signed with an agency. It’s not the big three because none of them would touch him with a thirty yard pole. No, it’s a leap into a middle tier family run agency that put familial control over business. Good for the family. Not good for the business. To its credit, the Gersh Agency negotiated for David a two year first look deal with HBO and a premium script deal with Sony TV as well. Good on him for these deals, but let’s face it—any agent or manager could secure these non-committal commitments to commit to maybe airing one of David’s ideas. Below The Lines predicts a regular series will not get greenlit because networks and streamers are in bed with big agencies and these seemingly unconnected entities have a habit of scratching each other’s backs. The big agencies hate David and that will be taken into consideration by those who greenlight projects. Just watch.

Everyone has a different opinion about the lopsided deal that Warner Bros. made with the filmmaker Ryan Coogler. A $90-100million budget. A first dollar gross backend profit definition, ‘final cut’ on the film, and reversion of the original concept and IP (Intellectual Property) rights to him after 20 or 25 years. SOME SAY it’s racist to even question the terms of the deal because Quentin Tarantino got a similar deal years prior and no one raised much of a stink (Side question: if people think it’s racism, can one argue it is reverse racism when trade papers tout a current $161million BOX OFFICE total ($236.7million as of 5.4.25) on a $160+million production/marketing spend as the biggest financial triumph since the new Star Wars trilogy? And might it be double racism (to make up a phrase) when Sinners’ net profit is dwarfed compared to another African American centric project-Jordan Peele’s US which was a much bigger success. Made for only $20million and marketed for $20-30million–it’s worldwide BO was $256million. Why doesn’t this get highlighted?) SOME SAY the deal sets a dangerous precedent that leaves studios financially vulnerable to the demands of filmmakers. SOME SAY good on Ryan Coogler (David) slaying Warner Bros. (Goliath). It takes two to tango–and Warner Bros was willing to dance. These SOME SAY opinions can be defended in one way or another…and we will grant them that. HOWEVER, WE SAY this controversy is not about what some say. It’s about basic math and hubris. It’s about Warner Bros. making the wrong deal for the wrong material for the wrong reasons (aka an employee putting self interest above an employer’s interest)…and here’s what we mean: It’s important to know right out of the gate that the subject matter (and sometimes cast) of a feature film informs studios when they do their financial projections on how the film might do in the United States (Box Office/Streaming/Etc..) (domestic) and how it might do in the rest of the world (foreign). And based on the projection model, (akin to Jordan Peeler’s NOPE with African American cast and genre mashups), all studios knew that SINNERS would not do well ‘foreign’ as compared to ‘domestic’. And given the general rule that foreign revenue must contribute at least 40% to the worldwide revenue for a film’s box office to reach the mid to high hundreds of millions of dollars (foreign for Sinners will be lucky to account for 25%. (as of 5.11.25, it stands at 24%)), because of a runaway $100+million production and a $50-60million marketing spend, the film’s net profits will not translate to nearly as much for the studio as people think. All the studios knew this. Why did Warner Bros. still ignore the red light? Answer towards the end of the article. Next up, it’s important to know that the value of an original concept/IP (Intellectual Property) is as valuable as the amount of revenue it originally generates in any and all ancillaries/outlets. This is where more success equates to more failure for Warner Bros. Let’s say Sinners worldwide Box Office exceeds $500million (which it won’t come anywhere near, but hypothetically speaking) at the BO and kills it on the streaming/rental/purchase platforms. This would be great for the studio. Right? Short term-maybe. Long term-not so fast. The net profits on the film would be overshadowed by the value of the IP (Intellectual Property) rights that will return to Ryan Coogler 20-25 years from now. How much more? We don’t know, but rest assured the IP, even at its current BO pace, will be worth tens of millions of dollars in pure profit for Coogler and perhaps a lot more. And when you throw in tv series and spinoffs and any other alternative creative choices that Coogler does not exploit while at Warner Bros.( or even if he does)-Ryan Coogler will reap a huge windfall down the road thanks to a deal that left a ton of money on the table for Warner Bros. Which brings us to the deal-making masterminds–Mike De Luca and Pam Abdy–the co-heads of the Warner Bros. film division , who pushed the Sinners deal terms past their boss David Zlaslav. This is one of many suspect deals the pair have made during their tenure. It reeks of the sort of thing that independent producers (of which De Luca and Abdy were for many many years) in desperate search of financing for a high budget ‘high risk’ film would do when they find $90million in an unclaimed black bag dropped in the middle of NYC, figure out whose bag it belongs to, and spend every penny before conning the bag owner into believing they will treat his money as if it were their own. Whether it’s Ryan Coogler ($100+million production budget) or filmmaker Paul Thomas Anderson ( upcoming $130million production budget) or director Maggie Gyllenhaal (upcoming $100million production budget) or Wuthering Heights ($80+million for unproven director and ‘Barbi’ playing the lead)…make no mistake. Mike De Luca is all in for Mike De Luca and Warner Bros will be left holding an empty bag once De Luca is long gone.

November 12th 2021 was a very important day in the life of Britney Spears. It was on this day that a judge formally terminated the conservatorship that had been in place since Britney’s father, Jamie Spears, petitioned the court and was named co-conservator on February 8th 2008. The end of the conservatorship meant that Britney was free to do whatever she wanted whenever she wanted with whomever she wanted in her personal and professional life. No longer was she beholden to her father or anyone else. This had to be a great thing. Yes? Not exactly. In short order, she posted strange Instagram videos of herself wearing skimpy outfits and doing weird dances. She got pregnant by longtime boyfriend Sam Asghari whom she had dated since 2016. She suffered a miscarriage. She tied the knot with Sam. She assaulted Sam (which was reported in TMZ by ‘sources’ as an ongoing problem). She got divorced from Sam fourteen months after getting married to him. She played with what looked like real knives in a video. Her ex-husband got 100% custody of their two sons and fled to Hawaii to get as far away as financially, affordably possible. She cut off all communications with her immediate family. She wrote a book detailing the dark side of her life, which brought on a whole new set of problems for her and everyone that she torched in the book. A video surfaced of what appeared to be Britney in a restaurant talking to herself. The post-conservatorship era sounds pretty bad. It must have been a lot worse when the Conservatorship was still active. Yes? Not exactly. Britney still had at least ‘30% of the time’ custody of her kids. She had a relationship, albeit strained, with her family. She had Sam as her boyfriend. She didn’t (wasn’t allowed to??) get pregnant. She released some albums. She appeared as a guest judge on X factor. She did a successful residency in Vegas. She was slated to do more shows in Vegas but canceled because of mental issues brought on her father’s seriously illness. She challenged the conservatorship in 2019 and Jamie temporarily stepped down, but it was not terminated by the judge out of valid mental health concerns as related to Britney. …which begs the question: Who thought it was a good idea, given Britney’s publicly and privately known mental health struggles, to put her in a position to fail? IN OUR OPINION, IT WAS BRITNEY’S LAWYER–MATTHEW ROSENGART Rosengart is a very successful (former) federal prosecutor and trial attorney. He has represented a lot of high-profile clients who felt they were screwed out of money or defamed (Sean Penn). He has a perfect record when it comes to trials/settlements because he has a ‘burn down the house’ mentality and weaponizes the media to fire bombastic claims at whoever his client is suing. Britney met Rosengart in 2020/early 2021.  She had expressed a desire to terminate the conservatorship because it was oppressive, illegal, it violated her personal rights, it reduced her to something that wasn’t human. She wasn’t allowed to get married. She wasn’t allowed to get pregnant.  There was also a documentary in the works about this very topic…and someone at some point pushed the two of these people together. Some backstory on conservatorships in general is important before we circle back to Rosengart. 99% of the time, conservatorships are about family. A family member (usually on the older/elderly side) is incapable of handling his/her own affairs (some or all) and another family member or close friend/business associate is approved by the court to make those decisions. Courts do not approve or terminate these legal relationships without a thorough vetting of every possible fact and medical evaluation because there is so much sensitivity and history between those who are affected. Invariably, over the course of time, if there is money involved (or sometimes, visitation rights (or both)), the non-conservators want access. The playbook that every litigator follows is to throw the kitchen sink at the conservator in an effort to get him/her replaced and/or the conservatorship terminated regardless of what is true and what is fiction. Words like fraud/negligence/self-dealing/battery/overstepping authority/terrible treatment/dictator/bullying/oppressive/unconstitutional. Do these fighting words sound familiar? Rosengart loved the playbook because it played to his strengths. Blow up the other side because it’s a white hat fighting a black hat…except that he failed to recognize there were shades of gray all over the place. There was an existing (albeit dysfunctional) family unit still intact. There was an ex-husband/father and children involved. It wasn’t a kid overseeing a parent. It was the reverse. It wasn’t a kid trying to get a piece of the parent’s financial action. It was a kid having the money and the older person managing and paying himself (paying too much? To whom? Worthy of arguments in front of a judge. Agreed). It wasn’t a kid claiming that the parent was being abused. It was the kid claiming to be abused by the parent. It wasn’t a kid being kept at arm’s length from the parent. It was a kid with a dependent need for help from the trusted parent (before the kid suddenly didn’t trust the parent for reasons that only Britney and her inner circle know). Which brings us to what Below The Lines considers the primary trait of a Hall of Fame litigator. Like a Triple Crown winning jockey, the H.O.F. litigator has several gears at their disposal to not just win the race, but to the keep horse healthily intact. They know when it’s time to sprint, when to run, when to trot, when to walk, and when to not race at all. Rosengart believed it was always time to sprint and that cost his client (and immediate family and her friends and others) dearly. He maneuvered to block requisite psychological evaluations. He maneuvered to block anyone in Jamie Spears’ camp from asking Britney questions in a formal setting. He maneuvered to stoke the public’s outrage