· 44 comments · Save ·
For Sale Apr 21, 2026 at 4:31 PM

The Hollywood blacklist is back, baby: Paramount's retributions against "The Ankler" should worry the industry

Posted by Morgan-Moonscar

The blacklist is back, baby: Paramount's retributions should worry the industry
AV Club
The blacklist is back, baby: Paramount's retributions should worry the industry
Paramount retaliated with the blacklist after a columnist at The Ankler stood against its acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery.
🚩 Report this post

44 Comments

Sign in to comment — or just click the box below.
🔒 Your email is never shown publicly.
ZaireekaFuzz 4 days ago +340
The Ellisons and other film execs are trying their best to go back to the times of Louis B. Mayer and the Warner Bros, where studios owned actors and treated them like expendable cattle with barely any rights.
340
DoublePepper1976 4 days ago +57
After the studio system finally totally collapsed in the early 1960s because of big budget historic biopic flops and the 1948 anti-trust ruling the studios went hard into nostalgia, as shown by the epics and Elvis era before New Hollywood became an era. "An Elvis Presley picture is the only sure thing in Hollywood." Producer Hal Wallis.
57
Objective_Water_1583 3 days ago +17
Does this mean we will get a new Hollywood revival?
17
DoublePepper1976 3 days ago +9
He's hoping, though in really wanting to see modern Elvis. I suppose superhero movies are westerns, if you wanted the comparison.
9
Objective_Water_1583 3 days ago +9
We already had a modern Elvis movie😭😭😭
9
hondo9999 3 days ago +7
AI Chuck Norris is will be the only bankable actor in their eyes. Likely have an all Lee Greenwood soundtrack too.
7
Darkdragoon324 3 days ago +6
Guess I’ll be catching up on my long reading backlog instead of watching movies and shows.
6
MinivanPops 4 days ago +27
Yet the means of production have almost entirely moved out of the studios.  The studios are dependent on big money. For a hundred years their distribution chains were movie theaters. Now anybody can make a movie on an iPhone, and bank money with a YouTube following.  Theaters are an afterthought.   Streaming services have their own studios.    Consolidation is a temporary measure, intended to hold together the last vestiges of the Hollywood system before it splinters apart once and for all. 
27
Special-Garlic1203 3 days ago +9
It's not really being talked about much but that one YouTuber just self distributed his movie and got it within the range to be considered a wide release. That's not something many people could replicate but it's still a really big deal because distribution has long been the bottleneck of the industry.  A lot of the other stuff amounts to the illusion of independence in a lot of ways because they still had such a stranglehold over the actual release. Streaming has existed in a weird zone where they were f****** over a lot of actors but everyone seemed to recognize that releasing on a streamer didn't have the baggage of straight to VHS and so was giving them some room to breathe. . When the supreme court ruled studios actually can buy theaters, I remember questioning if they'd even want them at this point. I suspect that's part of why its talked about so much. Is it even worth it or is it going all in on Blockbuster in 2008. I think a fully independent movie showing a wide release is possible without the industry gatekeepers permission is gonna go be quite a few points in the "we should start to buy theaters" column. 
9
satanssweatycheeks 4 days ago +33
They still do this just nowadays it’s not as in your face for the acting. I have a friend who has been in hit TV shows as main characters. Currently is a main character in a show on TV right now as well as a cult classic one. She has done movies and even done less popular work like hallmark channel. They all basically own you. You are allowed to go work for other studios but since they have you on retainer basically since you work on their studio lots they use you for more stuff. Like my friend was on hit shows with peacock. She has worked with other studios but peacock is who basically owns her. When they call she answers because they are who got her the hit shows and pay her. It’s basically nowadays they aren’t “owned” by the studio but they are keen to bend over backwards for the studio as they want to keep getting roles. This is why you see lots of actors stick with a studio. You noticed they are always in their films or shows. Even hallmark does this and why you see the same actors in everything. Hallmark though doesn’t pay residuals. Just a flat rate. So hallmark might give you 80k to star in a straight to TV movie. But that’s all you get. So for many getting 1 hallmark movie isn’t enough to survive for the year. So those actors will do 3-4 hallmark movies a year.
33
herbuck 4 days ago +4
\>So hallmark might give you 80k to star in a straight to TV movie. This is still well over the median income for an American. [Personal income in the United States - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States) I'm not saying Hollywood treats its stars well, but "they make more in several months than most people do in a year" isn't really a good example.
4
TheBirdBytheWindow 4 days ago +33
Its a perfect example, because over 60% of their pay goes to other people before they ever see their cut. And that's after taxes. So they do a job, then pay taxes, then pay dues, then an agent, then a PR firm, a stylist, a manager, and then whomever else....then you get paid. Some of your top actors on movies and television borrow money for rides and rooms just to film. $48k for a movie a year if you're lucky in LA is rough. Most actors relate to your money woes more than you think. It's just the elite few that get paid and can then afford to hire people to keep them paid so they can breathe.
33
herbuck 3 days ago -6
Everyone has taxes and expenses. I'm not saying they're out of touch; I'm suggesting that you might be if this example seems like a good example of Hollywood taking advantage of them (which again, I am not denying/ am totally willing to believe).
-6
TheBirdBytheWindow 3 days ago +7
...How out of touch am I if a working actor only gets a few spots on tv episodes or does a bit part in a non 80k movie....which again, happens most often than not? I was being generous with the 60% and an actor getting one 80k movie. That's probably a lead role or similar. Let's be more realistic as I've heard a lot of actors: average less than $37,500 a year. So 18 plus hour days and then some for $37,500/year. That's more on par and even worse. "Everyone has expenses!" For real? Show me how your work expenses eat up over 60% of your income non tax deductible. You're not being genuine at all in your response.
7
AVGuy42 3 days ago +1
Okay I’m interested. Are you personally a working actor? I’d love some details about how this works for you.
1
satanssweatycheeks 3 days ago +6
80k was a average. And she was the star of these movies. Most of the actors are not paying that. And keep in mind they film in places like Canada. So if you are an actor based out of Hollywood. At the end of the year that 80k is still good money but sometimes it might only be 40k and you have expensive on top of that and you might only get 1 movie with them. Whereas her other work from decades ago still has money coming in because of syndication
6
jmarquiso 3 days ago -2
It isn't a lot to live in LA, though.
-2
AccomplishedBother12 3 days ago +3
Excellent, let’s never watch one of their f****** movies ever again! Let’s collectively make Paramount’s brand so repulsively toxic that they still do case studies 100 years from now.
3
engineeringstoned 3 days ago +1
With ai actors, they will literally own them and make them do whatever they want.
1
Global_Chair9652 2 days ago +1
Welcome to reality tv and the way the crews are treated
1
Hmmmm-curious 4 days ago +45
People could just “sacrifice” and stop giving money to any of the services that fall inside this umbrella. Just saying.
45
Poku115 3 days ago +15
Yup, personally i can live without wb and paramount catalogue (i dont even remember last time i watched a paramount movie), theres tons of stuff to watch, read, experience out there instead of things that give the ellisons money
15
Hmmmm-curious 3 days ago +7
Agreed. It’s irritating that everyone is so angry and terrified, but we keep feeding the monsters that will devour us one day because we feel like we don’t have options. Keeping our money is an option. I’m aware that can only go so far, but cutting off the worst of them is at least a start. We can go from there.
7
dondeestasbueno 3 days ago +6
Cancelled P+ several months ago, my only streaming service.
6
Quaterni0 4 days ago +67
This isn't the big studio era anymore from teh 1930s, this kind of power play can disenfranchise a lot of talent.
67
bnyc 4 days ago +36
We are back to the big studio era, where everything is controlled by a couple companies and you best not piss them off.
36
Mist_Rising 3 days ago +4
Yes and no. The current phase has a lot of competition at the bottom (distribution) level because everyone is willing to lose money for market share. Paramount's especially vulnerable because Paramount+ is not consistent at all, and currently is trending down in terms of viability. If they get the merger, it'll be worse because they'll be acquiring a bigger mess (that's what caused the problem to begin with). They may end up doing more harm then good if they try a 1930s blacklist without the other companies in agreement.
4
Morgan-Moonscar 4 days ago +36
It's just one of many things the Ellisons want to be like the 1930s again.
36
Morgan-Moonscar 4 days ago +82
>columnist Richard Rushfield was handing out free swag (at Cinema Con). It was nothing fancy, just a pin that read “Block The Merger” And in response Paramount not only pulled all its advertising... they told all its talent that they were forbidden to speak to any of its reporters.
82
ReputationFederal444 3 days ago +13
Meh I already blacklisted Paramount and CBS. won't watch anything from them.
13
Small_Ad1890 3 days ago +8
Billionaires with thin skin who trying to control the Media through power and money. Tale as old as time.
8
rodot2005 3 days ago +7
I hope that at least Nolan and Cameron are satisfied and happy about this
7
Poku115 3 days ago +7
You know they "got their piece" and dont care about what happens to anyone around em, specially cameron
7
othersbeforeus 3 days ago +6
It’s been back for some time. The industry’s been blacklisting Pro-Palestine actors and filmmakers for years now.
6
TonyTheSwisher 3 days ago +5
I’ve stopped watching this warslop a while ago. Stop supporting people who are trying to divide us.
5
ConkerPrime 3 days ago +4
Ellison was there, probably saw the pin and made the call. That level of petty is going to be in charge. Explains why he adores Trump so much. Two birds of a feather.
4
Intelligent-Alps2373 3 days ago +3
I don’t think the Ellisons realize how much they’re hated right now. Even people who LIKED Dave hate him now. Anyways. I wouldn’t worry about Paramount retributions
3
Ithaqua-Yigg 3 days ago +1
Saw this coming, they prob have the lists made up already.
1
AmbitiousButRubbishh 4 days ago -22
Of the 2000 actors who signed the petition to stop this merger, I won’t believe that many of them wouldn’t have eventually, quietly heel-turned within 2 to 3 years Frankly, I’m glad the blacklist is back. If you were never gonna work for those studios again, then you don’t care about them blacklisting you anyway. The fact that these celebrities might be forced by the studios to stand behind their supposed convictions is good.
-22
Ok_Pizza_4769 3 days ago -5
During the 2023 strikes I wondered how many of those picketing actors would go crawling back to any studio that would cast them... after claiming the studios were horrible places to work run by evil men.
-5
AmbitiousButRubbishh 3 days ago -1
idk I only remember the headlines of Drew Barrymore crossing the picket line for the sake of her little touchy handsy daytime TV show The funny part was that IIRC she only needed to wait out a few more days, or week— I remember the strike was over very shortly after she betrayed the union. Tons of bad PR for nothing But that doesn’t stop any SAG actor from going on her TV show today just like this petition wouldn’t have stopped any of these actors from taking a gig at WB Paramount I know some celebrities try their hardest to walk the walk, but, ….. 2000 celebrities? You can’t tell me there isn’t a large chunk of performative outrage there, riding social trends for good PR.
-1
Specialist-Hold-653 3 days ago
Im sure this won’t be popular here, but this is an overreaction. I like the Ankler and have paid for it in the past. But if the owner of the Ankler is working against the interest of Paramount, it’s not a ‘blacklist’ for Paramount to thereafter avoid Ankler reporters.
0
Firesky54 3 days ago -5
Let Hollywood kill itself. I highly doubt many people will shed a tear since all Hollywood makes today are garbage. Edit:  u/haynesholiday Hahaha got blocked by another insecure left winger. Hilarious 
-5
haynesholiday 3 days ago +2
Is this your first time typing a sentence?
2
← Back to Board