Latest news with #FeigFinkel
Business Insider
14-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Business Insider
Ryan Coogler's deal to own 'Sinners' is a gamble that could still pay off big time
After years of making films based on existing IP like Marvel comics and Apollo Creed, Ryan Coogler finally made an original movie. It could pay dividends for the rest of his life. The unique terms of Coogler's deal with Warner Bros. for his genre-bending vampire movie "Sinners" give the 38-year-old filmmaker ownership of the movie in 25 years, putting him in rare company with the likes of auteurs like Jim Jarmusch and Quentin Tarantino, both of whom have landed similar deals. And with "Sinners" becoming a box office sensation — it's brought in over $200 million domestically, making it the second-highest grossing North American release in 2025 — Coogler could have his hands under a moneymaking faucet. "He's making a lot of money off it now and has the potential to make money 25 years from now through ownership," Jonathan Handel, a veteran entertainment and technology attorney with the law firm Feig Finkel, told Business Insider. "But he's rolling the dice." Will that gamble pay off, and how, exactly, could Coogler make or lose money on the deal? Though Handel hasn't seen the contract between Coogler and Warner Bros., he used his decades of experience writing contracts for directors and stars to walk us through some scenarios to explain what could happen when Coogler regains the rights to "Sinners." Deals like Coogler's come with creative control — but they're not a blank check There are various ways a filmmaker can come to own their own work. Some use a tactic known as a "negative pickup," in which the filmmaker finds the financing and makes the movie on their own, then sells the finished project to a studio, which distributes it and does the marketing. M. Night Shyamalan did this with Universal for the 2019 thriller "Glass," and most recently, Francis Ford Coppola did it with Lionsgate for "Megalopolis." Others self-distribute, side-stepping a studio or distributor and footing the bill for the entire release. For instance, Steven Soderbergh launched Fingerprint Releasing for the run of his 2017 heist movie "Logan Lucky," while Taylor Swift made deals directly with theater chains for the release of her Eras Tour concert movie in 2023. But it's exceedingly rare to get a studio to agree to give the rights of one of its movies back to the filmmaker after some period of time. Many of the auteurs who enjoy this perk got their start on the independent film scene, where the practice was more common. Jim Jarmusch has pushed to own most of his films, while Quentin Tarantino owns "Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood" because he made a deal with Sony that grandfathered him into the rights deal he'd had since the "Pulp Fiction" days with Harvey Weinstein at Miramax Films. Creatively, the deal was something Coogler said he needed. He previously told Business Insider that his only motivation for the deal was to emphasize the film's themes of Black ownership, as the two main characters, both played by Michael B. Jordan, set out to own a juke joint in the Jim Crow South before things take a bloody turn. Handel noted that by pushing for ownership in 2050, Coogler is literally and symbolically betting on himself, and the prospect that "Sinners" will still be in the public consciousness two-plus decades from now. "Coogler would have gotten more money up front if he hadn't pushed for ownership," he said. "You have to give something to get something in negotiation. So he's definitely betting that it will have value in 25 years." Coogler could score a major licensing deal if new technology changes how we consume movies after 2050 According to Handel, Coogler could really cash in if there's a major shift in the way we watch movies after he regains the rights to "Sinners." For example, if we're suddenly watching movies on an immersive 3D platform and "Sinners" is under the ownership of Coogler, he could take in millions landing licensing agreements to view the film in that format. However, if that technology becomes the streaming of tomorrow before the rights to "Sinners" revert to Coogler in 25 years, the director could miss out, either because Warner Bros. could choose not to convert the title to that platform, or because of something called a "holdback," in which the copyright cannot revert to Coogler until certain conditions are met. "In this instance, WB might do a holdback where there can be no new version created within five years of the rights reverting," Handel said. Though this is only a hypothetical, Handel said it's an example of the level of complexity that could be in the contract Warner Bros. and Coogler signed. Even if Coogler doesn't have the rights to 'Sinners' sequels, he could still cash in The ending of "Sinners" hints at a potential franchise, and 25 years from now, Coogler would be in control to do whatever he wants in building that out. But chances are, Warner Bros. would want a sequel — maybe even more than one — a lot sooner than 2050. When that moment comes, a lot of questions about payout will depend on who has the sequel rights. Reps for Coogler and Warner Bros. did not respond to a request for comment about who holds those rights. Even if Coogler doesn't have the rights to the sequels, Handel said he would still benefit. Coogler still presumably would have profit participation on any sequels, as he does on the first movie, and if Warner Bros. wanted to do any kind of box set 25 years from now, they would have to make a deal with Coogler to have the first movie involved. "He's got the upper hand, because if I'm Warners and I own the other pictures, I have to go to Ryan and do a deal with him," Handel said. So how much money could Coogler make once the "Sinners" rights revert to him? Reports from Matthew Belloni at Puck put that figure at about $1 million a year, based on the predictions of Hollywood insiders who focus on movie libraries and licensing deals. But Handel isn't confident that any figure can be put on the deal as of now. "To contend that you can make a prediction like that is fantasy land," he told BI, noting that there are too many unknown variables to predict what Coogler could earn from "Sinners" 25 years in the future. What he is sure of is that Coogler's deal has left the rest of Hollywood interested and intrigued: "The high-level directors are having conversations with their representatives about this."
eNCA
14-05-2025
- Entertainment
- eNCA
'Kramer vs Kramer' director Robert Benton dies: representative
LOS ANGELES - Robert Benton, the Oscar-winning writer and director of "Kramer vs Kramer," has died in his US home, his representative said. He was 92. Benton was also known for the 1984 film "Places in the Heart" and had extensive writing and directing credits for influential movies throughout the 1960s and 1970s. The New York Times reported that Benton died on Sunday. Hillary Bibicoff from the law firm Feig Finkel, which represented him, confirmed his death to AFP. Benton co-wrote Arthur Penn's groundbreaking crime thriller "Bonnie and Clyde" (1967) -- starring Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty -- with David Newman. But he is probably best known for his script and direction on "Kramer vs Kramer," the 1979 film that offered an unflinching look at divorce and became one of the most awarded films of its time. It picked up nine Oscar nominations, and brought home five -- Benton's Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay, as well as Best Actor for Dustin Hoffman, Best Supporting Actress for Meryl Streep and the year's grand prize of Best Picture. He and Newman co-wrote Peter Bogdanovich's "What's Up, Doc?," which was released in 1972, the same year that Benton made his directorial debut with "Bad Company." In 1978, Benton teamed up again with Newman and Newman's wife Leslie to write the screenplay for "Superman" (1978) starring Christopher Reeve, Marlon Brando and Margot Kidder. Despite coaxing Oscar-winning performances out of a host of 20th-century legends of the silver screen, Benton was known in Hollywood as a self-effacing director. "There are directors who can get great performances out of actors. I am not one of them," the filmmaker once said. Appearing at a fan event in Hollywood in 2018, he remained modest about his stellar career. "I have found actors -- through luck, through the judgment of casting directors or through my own instinct -- that are extraordinarily good," he told the crowd. "There's a thing you've just got to gamble with, and when you see it and it works, it's brilliant." Asked how he got some of Tinseltown's biggest stars to perform for him, he deadpanned: "I tried not to get in their way... that's not so easy."
Mint
14-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Mint
Robert Benton, Oscar winning filmmaker and director of 'Kramer vs Kramer', dies at 92
Robert Benton, the Oscar-winning writer and director of "Kramer vs Kramer," has died in his US home, his representative said Tuesday. He was 92. Benton was also known for the 1984 film "Places in the Heart" and had extensive writing and directing credits for influential movies throughout the 1960s and 1970s. The New York Times reported Benton died on Sunday. Hillary Bibicoff from the law firm Feig Finkel, which represented him, confirmed his death to AFP. Benton co-wrote Arthur Penn's groundbreaking crime thriller "Bonnie and Clyde" (1967) -- starring Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty -- with David Newman. But he is probably best known for his script and direction on "Kramer vs Kramer," the 1979 film that offered an unflinching look at divorce and became one of the most awarded films of its time. It picked up nine Oscar nominations, and brought home five -- Benton's Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay, as well as Best Actor for Dustin Hoffman, Best Supporting Actress for Meryl Streep and the year's grand prize of Best Picture. He and Newman co-wrote Peter Bogdanovich's "What's Up, Doc?," which was released in 1972, the same year that Benton made his directorial debut with "Bad Company." In 1978, Benton teamed up again with Newman and Newman's wife Leslie to write the screenplay for "Superman" (1978) starring Christopher Reeve, Marlon Brando and Margot Kidder. Despite coaxing Oscar-winning performances out of a host of 20th century legends of the silver screen, Benton was known in Hollywood as a self-effacing director. "There are directors who can get great performances out of actors. I am not one of them," the filmmaker once said. Appearing at a fan event in Hollywood in 2018, he remained modest about his stellar career. "I have found actors -- through luck, through the judgment of casting directors or through my own instinct -- that are extraordinarily good," he told the crowd. "There's a thing you've just got to gamble with, and when you see it and it works, it's brilliant." Asked how he got some of Tinseltown's biggest stars to perform for him, he deadpanned: "I tried not to get in their way... that's not so easy." The Times reported Benton is survived by his son, John. His wife of six decades, Sallie, died in 2023.
RTHK
14-05-2025
- Entertainment
- RTHK
'Kramer vs Kramer' director Robert Benton dies aged 92
'Kramer vs Kramer' director Robert Benton dies aged 92 Benton was also known for the 1984 film "Places in the Heart". File photo: AFP Robert Benton, the Oscar-winning writer and director of "Kramer vs Kramer," has died in his US home, his representative said on Tuesday. He was 92. Benton was also known for the 1984 film "Places in the Heart" and had extensive writing and directing credits for influential movies throughout the 1960s and 1970s. The New York Times reported Benton died on Sunday. Hillary Bibicoff from the law firm Feig Finkel, which represented him, confirmed his death to AFP. Benton co-wrote Arthur Penn's groundbreaking crime thriller "Bonnie and Clyde" (1967) -- starring Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty -- with David Newman. But he is probably best known for his script and direction on "Kramer vs Kramer," the 1979 film that offered an unflinching look at divorce and became one of the most awarded films of its time. It picked up nine Oscar nominations, and brought home five -- Benton's Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay, as well as Best Actor for Dustin Hoffman, Best Supporting Actress for Meryl Streep and the year's grand prize of Best Picture. He and Newman co-wrote Peter Bogdanovich's "What's Up, Doc?," which was released in 1972, the same year that Benton made his directorial debut with "Bad Company." In 1978, Benton teamed up again with Newman and Newman's wife Leslie to write the screenplay for "Superman" (1978) starring Christopher Reeve, Marlon Brando and Margot Kidder. Despite coaxing Oscar-winning performances out of a host of 20th century legends of the silver screen, Benton was known in Hollywood as a self-effacing director. "There are directors who can get great performances out of actors. I am not one of them," the filmmaker once said. Appearing at a fan event in Hollywood in 2018, he remained modest about his stellar career. "I have found actors -- through luck, through the judgment of casting directors or through my own instinct -- that are extraordinarily good," he told the crowd. "There's a thing you've just got to gamble with, and when you see it and it works, it's brilliant." Asked how he got some of Tinseltown's biggest stars to perform for him, he deadpanned: "I tried not to get in their way... that's not so easy." The Times reported Benton is survived by his son, John. His wife of six decades, Sallie, died in 2023. (AFP)
Yahoo
06-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
A Confused and Frustrated Hollywood Ponders if Trump's Movie Tariffs Are Even Real
President Donald Trump's bombshell announcement that he would implement 100% tariffs on films shot outside the U.S. was met with 'pure confusion' and deep skepticism, industry insiders told TheWrap after 24 hours of frantic questioning behind the scenes and total silence from major studios in public. 'The entire entertainment industry spent the whole day trying to figure out how their business could be dramatically changed by a Sunday night social media post,' said Jonathan Handel, entertainment attorney at Feig Finkel LLP. 'This is the last thing anyone needs right now.' A labor insider said it was 'pure confusion' among Hollywood's guilds on Monday. But while there's doubt over whether a tariff on films is feasible – or even legal – some lawmakers and unions have used the wider attention on declining American production to stump for what has long been considered a moonshot for Hollywood: a federal tax incentive for productions in the U.S. on top of the competing state and local incentives being offered in more than 30 states including California, which is currently in the midst of greatly expanding its own incentives. Such an incentive is one that is being championed by actor Jon Voight who Trump appointed 'special ambassador to Hollywood' in January and who got the ball rolling on the president's interest in production flight during a visit to Mar-a-Lago this past weekend. Voight reportedly delivered a full proposal he prepared with his producing partner Steven Paul. On Monday, Voight provided more details on the proposal, which include a federal tax incentive for production and post-production work, unspecified co-production treaties, with foreign countries and subsidies for movie theaters. The plan also calls for the use of tariffs in 'certain limited circumstances.' It's a course of action that stakeholders would much prefer to adding movies to the tariffs chaos that has upended the global economy. 'The United States needs a balanced federal response to return film and television jobs,' IATSE International President Matthew D. Loeb said in a statement, noting that the union recommended a federal film production tax incentive to level the playing field for American workers. He added: 'We await further information on the administration's proposed tariff plan, but we continue to stand firm in our conviction that any eventual trade policy must do no harm to our Canadian members — nor the industry overall. We seek reciprocal trade practices that ensure fair competition for all IATSE members.' Is this even legal? Trump's lament over the decline in American film production in a lengthy Truth Social post announcing the tariffs is based on fact, a subject TheWrap has written about extensively. While the U.S. remains the top country in terms of production spending with $14.5 billion in 2024, according to analytics firm ProdPro, that figure is down 28% from 2022. 'The Movie Industry in America is DYING a very fast death,' Trump wrote. 'This is a concerted effort by other Nations and, therefore, a National Security threat. It is, in addition to everything else, messaging and propaganda!' By Monday morning, a White House spokesperson backpedaled Trump's declaration, saying plans were still being formulated. '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 statement read. Despite the statement, entertainment stocks took a hit when markets opened on Monday and spent much of the trading day trying to recoup losses. Netflix and Warner Bros. closed 2% down, while Disney closed down 0.4% and Paramount Global closed 1.5% down. Industry insiders and media analysts told TheWrap they were extremely skeptical that a film tariff is even practical. 'If Trump is serious about tariffs on movies, it's a very dangerous escalation,' wrote University of Michigan economics professor Justin Wolfers on X. 'Tariffs have not traditionally been applied to services, and the United States is a massive net exporter of services. We would be extremely vulnerable to any service-based retaliation.' Handel said that a big reason why films and TV shows haven't been directly implicated in Trump's tariffs blitz up to this point is because they are not physical goods. 'The consumer is not buying a copy of a movie across transnational borders when they buy a movie ticket,' he said. 'Trump's talking about the production process. So what do you tariff? Do you charge productions a percentage of the overseas spending on shoots?' If such a thing were to happen, it would be a massive jolt to the production pipeline Hollywood has built over the past decade, with many major studios setting up long-term occupancy deals with soundstage facilities in the U.K., Canada and Australia, among other countries, taking advantage of massive tax incentives in those countries. But even when films are shot on those foreign soundstages, some of those productions have post-production work done in the U.S., further creating confusion over what the Trump Administration would define as a foreign-made production. According to data from Luminate Film & TV, only 34% of films released from 2022-24 were shot solely in the United States. 'Would the overwhelming amount of Warner Bros.' film slate actually qualify as a 'foreign film' because they almost all shoot in the U.K., with sufficient cast and crew to qualify as a British film for the overwhelmingly beneficial U.K. Tax Credit?' one talent agent told TheWrap. 'Most people would call 'The Batman' an American film. Until we get a precise definition of a 'foreign film,' no one knows anything.' There's also the question of whether a film tariff would even be legal. The Trump Administration is using an extremely broad interpretation of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA) as the legal basis for his global tariff campaign. IEEPA, which was passed in 1977, gives the president power to regulate international commerce 'to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States,' if the President declares a national emergency related to that threat. But a pair of amendments to IEEPA authored by Los Angeles-based Rep. Howard Berman and approved by Congress in 1988 and 1994 explicitly exclude forms of media, including films and TV shows, from being subject to the president's IEEPA powers. That exception became the basis of a federal judge's ruling during Trump's first term in 2020 that blocked his administration from banning TikTok via IEEPA. The ban was later approved by Congress in 2024 before that ban was temporarily paused by Trump earlier this year during his first week back in office. L.A. production company Supper Club shooting a FEMA commercial, directed by Josh Forbes, at Quixote Studios (Supper Club) A carrot, not a stick While it's unclear at this point whether the Trump Administration would try to move forward with a film tariff but some lawmakers and industry stakeholders are trying to steer the conversation away from punitive measures and towards the federal tax incentive. Among them is freshman Congresswoman Laura Friedman (D-Ca), a former producer who was a voice for the entertainment industry in the California State Assembly before being elected to the House last year. In a statement to TheWrap on Monday, she argued in favor of carrots rather than sticks to reverse the declines in American film production, and called for bipartisan support for a federal tax credit. 'If President Trump is serious about maintaining a dominant U.S. film industry and keeping production jobs in the United States, I invite him to join me in fighting for a national film tax credit that levels the playing field with overseas incentives,' she said. 'I've been meeting with lawmakers, labor unions and industry leaders to make this a reality — because we know this approach works, as we've seen in states like California and New York. Let's bring American film and television production back — and let's do it the right way.' Friedman's remarks were echoed by California Sen. Adam Schiff, who warned in a statement on Monday that film tariffs 'would have unintended and potentially damaging impacts,' but called on Congress to pass a federal tax incentive. Currently, U.S. productions can take advantage of a network of state and local tax incentives available in 31 U.S. states. But other countries have added an additional layer of federal tax credits to entice productions. In the U.K., for example, up to 80% of a film's total budget can count towards the program, which offers a net credit after tax of 25.5% that can be raised to 29.25% if additional post-production work is done in Britain. Most importantly, above-the-line spending on actor and director pay counts towards the credit, which is a major reason why Hollywood blockbusters like the upcoming 'Jurassic World Rebirth' and 'Avengers: Doomsday' have been shot there. A similar incentive in the U.S. would face many of the hurdles that state tax incentives have faced among legislators, including skepticism over the economic benefits of giving tax breaks to productions when such public funds could be used elsewhere. In addition, while several Republican-led states like Georgia, Texas and Louisiana have supported film tax credit programs, Congressional GOP members may not warm up to the idea of supporting a federal program that would primarily support blue states like California, New York and Illinois, as well as an industry that has been a conservative target in America's culture war. Jon Voight and Donald Trump in 2019 (Getty) But Trump's tariffs proposal has pushed such an incentive to a public platform that it's never really had before. While Voight and Paul say that Trump is reviewing their proposals, the president has yet to publicly comment on anything beyond the tariffs. That's likely why Hollywood's studios, along with their top lobbying representative, the Motion Picture Association, all declined to comment on Monday. 'I think the whole industry is expecting that this tariff proposal is going to die under its own weight, and then they'll try to morph it into a tax incentive program in a way that doesn't bruise Trump's ego,' Handel said. Umberto Gonzalez contributed to this report. The post A Confused and Frustrated Hollywood Ponders if Trump's Movie Tariffs Are Even Real | Analysis appeared first on TheWrap.
