Brian Niccol’s plan to get Starbucks back on track is coming into view. He’s wisely leaning on strategies he used to turn around Chipotle.

Prescription drug costs. Abortion rights. The future of Obamacare. 

The fast-approaching presidential election between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump could lead to a huge range of outcomes for patients on those issues and others in the sprawling U.S. health system.

Both candidates are pledging to make care more affordable in the U.S., an outlier in the developed world due to its higher health-care spending, worse patient outcomes and barriers to access. But the candidates appear to have different approaches to doing so if elected. 

The candidates have not yet released detailed proposals on health policy, which ranks slightly lower than other issues at the top of voters’ minds, such as the economy. But each candidate’s track record provides a glimpse of what drug costs, health care and reproductive rights could look like over the next several years. 

“A Trump administration will try to slash federal health spending to pay for tax cuts and reduce the role of the federal government in health,” Drew Altman, CEO and president of health policy research organization KFF, told CNBC. He said a Harris administration “will build on existing programs, increasing federal spending to make health care more affordable for people.”

It wouldn’t be easy for either administration to make sweeping changes: The U.S. has a complicated and entrenched health-care system of doctors, insurers, drug manufacturers and other middlemen, which costs the nation more than $4 trillion a year. Any overhaul of the U.S. health-care system would also depend on which party controls Congress, and on the policies state lawmakers pass.

Despite spending more on health care than any other high-income country, the U.S. has the lowest life expectancy at birth, the highest rate of people with multiple chronic diseases and the highest maternal and infant death rate among those nations, according to a 2023 report published by The Commonwealth Fund, an independent research group.

Around half of American adults say it is difficult to afford health care, which can drive some patients into debt or lead them to put off necessary care, according to a May poll conducted by KFF. 

Here’s how Harris and Trump differ in their approaches to key health-care issues. 

Both candidates have pledged to lower prescription drug costs in the U.S. as many Americans struggle to afford treatments. The nation’s medication costs are nearly three times higher than those in other countries, according to the nonprofit research firm RAND. 

About 1 in 5 adults say they have not filled a prescription in the last year because of the cost, while roughly 1 in 10 say they have cut pills in half or skipped doses, according to the March KFF survey.

Many of Trump’s efforts to rein in drug prices have either been temporary or not immediately effective, according to some health policy experts. On the campaign trail, the former president has also provided few specifics about his plans for lowering those costs. 

Some of Harris’ proposals are not fully fleshed out, but if elected she can build on the Biden administration’s efforts to save patients more money, experts said. 

Harris plans to expand certain provisions of President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, part of which aims to lower health-care costs for seniors enrolled in Medicare. In 2022, she cast the tie-breaking Senate vote to pass the legislation. 

Harris’ campaign says she intends to extend two provisions to all Americans, not just older adults in Medicare: a $35 limit on monthly insulin costs and a $2,000 annual cap on out-of-pocket drug spending. 

She also plans to expand and speed up the pace of Medicare drug price negotiations with manufacturers to cover more expensive drugs. The landmark policy, passed as part of the IRA, has faced fierce opposition from the pharmaceutical industry, as some companies have challenged its constitutionality in court. 

Trump has not indicated what he intends to do about IRA provisions.

Many Republicans have been vocal critics of the drug pricing negotiations, claiming they harm innovation and will lead to fewer cures, according to Dr. Mariana Socal, a health policy professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Trump made a similar argument in 2020 when he opposed a separate Democratic bill that would allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices. 

Still, Socal said a Trump administration wouldn’t have much flexibility to dismantle or scale back the law without change from Congress.

Some of Trump’s efforts to lower drug prices during his presidency “didn’t really come into fruition,” Socal added. 

In 2020, he signed an executive order to ensure Medicare didn’t pay more than the lowest price that select other developed countries pay for drugs. But the Biden administration ultimately rescinded that policy following a court order that blocked it. 

The Trump campaign this month said the former president would not try to renew the plan if reelected.

Also in 2020, Trump issued a rule setting up a path to import prescription drugs from Canada, where medication prices are 44% of those in the U.S. But it took years for the measure to gain momentum. The Biden administration only in January approved Florida’s plan to import some prescription treatments from Canada. 

Trump also set a $35-per-month cap on some insulin products for seniors through a temporary program that Medicare prescription drug plans, also known as Part D plans, could choose to join. The program was in effect from 2021 to 2023, and less than half of all Part D plans opted to participate each year, according to KFF. 

But that measure was much more limited than the Biden administration’s insulin price cap, which requires all Part D plans to charge no more than $35 per month for all covered insulin products. It also limits cost-sharing for insulin covered by Medicare Part B plans. 

Both administrations would likely continue to scrutinize pharmacy benefit managers, the drug supply chain middlemen who negotiate rebates with manufacturers on behalf of insurance plans, according to Dr. Stephen Patrick, chair of the health policy and management department at Emory University.

Lawmakers and the Biden administration have recently ramped up pressure on PBMs, accusing them of raking in profits while inflating prescription medication prices and harming U.S. patients and pharmacies. 

Health-care coverage is a critical and, in some cases, life-or-death issue for many Americans. Harris and Trump would take different approaches to it.

Harris in her 2020 presidential primary run supported a version of a “Medicare for All” bill, which would put all Americans in Medicare and effectively eliminate private insurance. Her campaign has since indicated she would not back the program as president.

But Harris has supported the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, since she was a senator, consistently voting against bills to repeal the plan and reasserting her commitment to strengthen it during the presidential debate on Sept. 10.

The ACA was designed to extend health coverage to millions of uninsured Americans and implement reforms to the insurance market. The law expanded Medicaid eligibility, mandated that Americans purchase or otherwise obtain health insurance, and prohibited insurance companies from denying coverage due to preexisting conditions, among other provisions.

The IRA extended enhanced subsidies that made ACA health plans more affordable for millions of households through 2025 — a provision Harris plans to make permanent if elected, her campaign said. 

Harris may also work with Congress to try to extend Medicaid coverage in the 10 states that haven’t expanded it under the ACA, some experts said. Medicaid provides coverage for 81 million people, or more than 1 in 5 Americans, according to KFF.

The program is the largest source of federal funding to states. It covers low-income patients and families, as well as those with complex and costly needs, such as people with disabilities and individuals experiencing homelessness.

But if Republicans control even one branch of Congress, boosting Medicaid coverage will “be much tougher, if not impossible to do,” KFF’s Altman said.

Democrats face a difficult path to retaining their slim Senate majority, while Republicans are trying to cling to narrow control of the House.

Meanwhile, Trump led multiple failed crusades to repeal the ACA during his first term. In a campaign video in April, Trump said he was not running on terminating the law and would rather make it “much, much better and far less money,” though he has provided no specific plans. Many Republicans have abandoned their promises to repeal the law after it grew more popular in recent years.

During the Sept. 10 debate, Trump reiterated his belief that the ACA was “lousy health care.” But he did not offer a replacement for the law when asked, saying only that he has “concepts of a plan.” 

KFF noted that Trump’s previous replacement proposals would have made the ACA less expensive for the federal government but raise out-of-pocket premiums for patients, lead to more uninsured Americans and increase risks for states. 

A Trump administration would likely have major implications for Medicaid, Altman said.

Notably, Trump has said he would not cut spending for Medicare and Social Security. But that makes Medicaid, which costs the federal government more than $600 billion a year, a target for severe cuts, Altman noted.

He said Trump could make fundamental changes to the program to curtail enrollment, such as lifetime limits on how many years people can get Medicaid coverage. 

Trump could also revisit some of his earlier attempts to reduce spending on Medicaid. As president, he approved eligibility restrictions such as work requirements, and proposed changing the way the federal government gives money to states for Medicaid into a “block grant” program. 

That refers to the government providing states with a fixed amount of money to administer and provide Medicaid services in exchange for more flexibility and less oversight.

The Biden administration withdrew some of those restrictions and encouraged waivers that would expand Medicaid coverage and reduce health disparities, which Harris would likely pursue if elected, experts said.

A Democratic House or Senate would likely block any of Trump’s sweeping changes to Medicaid, according to Altman. 

“My theory is that if the Democrats hold even one house in Congress, all of that will fail,” he said. “There’ll be a big debate, but it will fail. Medicaid is too big.”

Abortion is a pivotal issue that could drive many voters’ decisions in this election. The number of voters in swing states who name abortion as their top election issue has grown since the spring, according to a late August poll by The New York Times and Siena College. 

This is the first presidential election held since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that established the constitutional right to abortion in the U.S. in 1973.

Abortion access in the U.S. has been in a state of flux in the roughly two years since the court’s decision, which has given conservative governors and legislatures the power to limit the procedure in their states. As of last year, more than 25 million women ages 15 to 44 lived in states where there are more restrictions on abortion than before the court’s ruling in 2022, PBS reported.

The future of abortion rights could look starkly different depending on which candidate holds office, according to Stacey Lee, professor of health law and ethics at the Johns Hopkins Carey Business School. That leaves the reproductive well-being of many women, especially lower-income people and people of color, hanging in the balance.

Harris has long been a staunch advocate of abortion access and has seized the opportunity to highlight what some health policy experts and voters consider the extreme and often inconsistent views of Trump and the broader Republican Party. 

She has blamed Trump, who appointed three members of the Supreme Court’s conservative majority, for the reversal of Roe v. Wade, and urged Congress to pass a national law codifying abortion rights. Democrats have not had enough votes in Congress to pass such protections under Biden.

Last month, Harris also said she supports eliminating the filibuster in the U.S. Senate to restore federal abortion protections as they existed under Roe v. Wade. The filibuster rule requires a 60-vote threshold for most legislation to pass, which makes it difficult for lawmakers to approve bills in a closely divided Senate.

Harris has also “been a firm proponent” of defending the availability of the abortion pill mifepristone, Lee said. Anti-abortion physicians squared off with the Food and Drug Administration in 2023 in an unprecedented legal battle over the agency’s more than two-decade-old approval of the medication. 

In June, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the challenge to mifepristone and sided with the Biden administration, meaning the commonly used medication could remain widely available. The administration’s FDA also revised restrictions on medication abortion, allowing certain certified retail pharmacies to dispense the pills. 

Meanwhile, Trump vaguely suggested in August that he would not rule out directing the FDA to revoke access to mifepristone. Just days later, his running mate, Sen. JD Vance, of Ohio, attempted to walk back those remarks. 

Trump’s comments appear to be a shift from his stance in June, when the former president said during a CNN debate that he “will not block” access to mifepristone.

During his time in office, Trump introduced several anti-abortion measures. That includes a “gag rule” that would have made clinics, such as Planned Parenthood, ineligible for federal health funds if they provided abortions or referrals for them. 

Vance this month also said a future Trump administration would defund Planned Parenthood.

But Trump has also waffled over the last few years on abortion policy, appearing to soften his stance on the issue to appeal to more moderate and independent voters.

He takes credit for Roe v. Wade’s demise since he reshaped the court, and his latest stance is that abortion policy should be set by the states. Earlier this year, however, Trump lamented that certain state laws go “too far.”

During a radio interview in March, Trump said he would consider a national ban on abortions around 15 weeks of pregnancy. 

But earlier this month, he said he would not support a federal abortion ban, writing in a post on X he would veto one. He added that he supports exceptions in cases of rape and incest and to save the life of a pregnant woman.

“It is difficult to find consistency within his policies, but that lack of consistency should amplify that perhaps anything is possible in terms of a more restrictive stance to abortion and reproductive rights,” Lee said. 

Meanwhile, both Harris and Trump have recently expressed their support for in vitro fertilization, a type of fertility treatment performed outside of the body in a lab. It accounts for roughly 2% of births in the U.S. but is extremely costly for many low- and middle-income people who need the technology to start families. 

It became a campaign issue after the Alabama Supreme Court ruled in February that frozen embryos created during the IVF process could be considered children, which threatened the availability of those services in the state. 

Trump has called for the government or private insurers to pay for IVF treatment. Harris has said she would defend the right to both IVF and contraception, but has not specified how she would do so.

With ransomware attacks surging and 2024 on track to be one of the worst years on record, U.S. officials are seeking ways to counter the threat, in some cases, urging a new approach to ransom payments.

Ann Neuberger, U.S. deputy national security adviser for cyber and emerging technologies, wrote in a recent Financial Times opinion piece, that insurance policies — especially those covering ransomware payment reimbursements — are fueling the very same criminal ecosystems they seek to mitigate. “This is a troubling practice that must end,” she wrote, advocating for stricter cybersecurity requirements as a condition for coverage to discourage ransom payments.

Zeroing in on cyber insurance as a key area for reform comes as the U.S. government scrambles to find ways to disrupt ransomware networks. According to the latest report by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, by mid-2024 more than 2,300 incidents already had been recorded — nearly half targeting U.S. organizations — suggesting that 2024 could exceed the 4,506 attacks recorded globally in 2023.

Yet even as policymakers scrutinize insurance practices and explore broader measures to disrupt ransomware operations, businesses are still left to grapple with the immediate question when they are under attack: Pay the ransom and potentially incentivize future attacks or refuse and risk further damage.

For many organizations, deciding whether to pay a ransom is a difficult and urgent decision. “In 2024, I attended a briefing by the FBI where they continued to advise against paying a ransom,” said Paul Underwood, vice president of security at IT services company Neovera. “However, after making that statement, they said that they understand that it’s a business decision and that when companies make that decision, it is taking into account many more factors than just ethics and good business practices. Even the FBI understood that businesses need to do whatever it takes to get back to operations,” Underwood said.

The FBI declined to comment.

“There’s no black or white here,” said cybersecurity expert Bryan Hornung, CEO of Xact IT Solutions. “There’s so many things that go into play when it comes to making the decision on whether you’re even going to entertain paying the ransom,” he said.

The urgency to restore operations can push businesses into making decisions they may not be prepared for, as does the fear of increasing damage. “The longer something goes on, the bigger the blast radius,” Hornung said. “I’ve been in rooms with CEOs who swore they’d never pay, only to reverse course when faced with prolonged downtime.”  

In addition to operational downtime, the potential exposure of sensitive data — especially if it involves customers, employees, or partners — creates heightened fear and urgency. Organizations not only face the possibility of immediate reputational damage but also class-action lawsuits from affected individuals, with the cost of litigation and settlements in some cases far outweighing the ransom demand, and driving companies to pay just to contain the fallout.

“There are lawyers out there who know how to put together class-action lawsuits based on what’s on the dark web,” Hornung said. “They have teams that find information that’s been leaked — driver’s licenses, Social Security numbers, health information — and they contact these people and tell them it’s out there. Next thing you know, you’re defending a multimillion-dollar class-action lawsuit.”  

Ransom demands, data leaks, and legal settlements

A notable example is Lehigh Valley Health Network. In 2023, the Pennsylvania-based hospital refused to pay the $5 million ransom to the ALPHV/BlackCat gang, leading to a data leak affecting 134,000 patients on the dark web, including nude photos of about 600 breast cancer patients. The fallout was severe, resulting in a class-action lawsuit, which claimed that “while LVHN is publicly patting itself on the back for standing up to these hackers and refusing to meet their ransom demands, they are consciously and internationally ignoring the real victims.”

LVHN agreed to settle the case for $65 million.

Similarly, background-check giant National Public Data is facing multiple class-action lawsuits, along with more than 20 states levying civil rights violations and possible fines by the Federal Trade Commission, after a hacker posted NPD’s database of 2.7 billion records on the dark web in April. The data included 272 million Social Security numbers, as well as full names, addresses, phone numbers and other personal data of both living and deceased individuals. The hacker group allegedly demanded a ransom to return the stolen data, though it remains unclear whether NPD paid it.

What is clear, though, is that the NPD did not immediately report the incident. Consequently, its slow and incomplete response — especially its failure to provide identity theft protection to victims — resulted in a number of legal issues, leading its parent company, Jerico Pictures, to file for Chapter 11 on Oct. 2.

NPD did not to respond to requests for comment.

Darren Williams, founder of BlackFog, a cybersecurity firm that specializes in ransomware prevention and cyber warfare, is firmly against paying ransoms. In his view, paying encourages more attacks, and once sensitive data has been exfiltrated, “it is gone forever,” he said.

Even when companies choose to pay, there’s no certainty the data will remain secure. UnitedHealth Group experienced this firsthand after its subsidiary, Change Healthcare, was hit by the ALPHV/BlackCat ransom group in April 2023. Despite paying the $22 million ransom to prevent a data leak and quickly restore operations, a second hacker group, RansomHub, angry that ALPHV/BlackCat failed to distribute the ransom to its affiliates, accessed the stolen data and demanded an additional ransom payment from Change Healthcare. While Change Healthcare hasn’t reported if it paid, the fact that the stolen data was eventually leaked on the dark web indicates their demands most likely were not met.

The fear that a ransom payment may fund hostile organizations or even violate sanctions, given the links between many cybercriminals and geopolitical enemies of the U.S., makes the decision even more precarious. For example, according to a Comparitech Ransomware Roundup, when LoanDepot was attacked by the ALPHV/BlackCat group in January, the company refused to pay the $6 million ransom demand, opting instead to pay the projected $12 million to $17 million in recovery costs. The choice was primarily motivated by concerns about funding criminal groups with potential geopolitical ties. The attack affected around 17 million customers, leaving them unable to access their accounts or make payments, and in the end, customers still filed class-action lawsuits against LoanDepot, alleging negligence and breach of contract.

Regulatory scrutiny adds another layer of complexity to the decision-making process, according to Richard Caralli, a cybersecurity expert at Axio.

On the one hand, recently implemented SEC reporting requirements, which mandate disclosures about cyber incidents of material importance, as well as ransom payments and recovery efforts, may make companies less likely to pay because they fear legal action, reputational damage, or shareholder backlash. On the other hand, some companies may still opt to pay to prioritize a quick recovery, even if it means facing those consequences later.

“The SEC reporting requirements have certainly had an effect on the way in which organizations address ransomware,” Caralli said. “Being subjected to the consequences of ransomware alone is tricky to navigate with customers, business partners, and other stakeholders, as organizations must expose their weaknesses and lack of preparedness.” 

With the passage of the Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act, set to go into effect around October 2025, many non-SEC regulated organizations will soon face similar pressures. Under this ruling, companies in critical infrastructure sectors — which are often small and mid-sized entities — will be obligated to disclose any ransomware payments, further intensifying the challenges of handling these attacks.

Cybercriminals changing nature of data attack

As fast as cyber defenses improve, cybercriminals are even quicker to adapt.

“Training, awareness, defensive techniques, and not paying all contribute to the reduction of attacks. However, it is very likely that more sophisticated hackers will find other ways to disrupt businesses,” Underwood said.

A recent report from cyber extortion specialist Coveware highlights a significant shift in ransomware patterns.

While not an entirely new tactic, hackers are increasingly relying on data exfiltration-only attacks. That means sensitive information is stolen but not encrypted, meaning victims can still access their systems. It’s a response to the fact that companies have improved their backup capabilities and become better prepared to recover from encryption-based ransomware. The ransom is demanded not for recovering encrypted files but to prevent the stolen data from being released publicly or sold on the dark web.

New attacks by lone wolf actors and nascent criminal groups have emerged following the collapse of ALPHV/BlackCat and Lockbit, according to Coveware. These two ransomware gangs were among the most prolific, with LockBit believed to have been responsible for nearly 2,300 attacks and ALPHV/BlackCat over 1,000, 75% of which were in the U.S.

BlackCat executed a planned exit after pilfering the ransom owed to its affiliates in the Change Healthcare attack. Lockbit was taken down after an international law-enforcement operation seized its platforms, hacking tools, cryptocurrency accounts, and source codes. However, even though these operations have been disrupted, ransomware infrastructures are quickly rebuilt and rebranded under new names.

“Ransomware has one of the lowest barriers to entry for any type of crime,” said BlackFog’s Williams. “Other forms of crime carry significant risks, such as jail time and death. Now, with the ability to shop on the dark web and leverage the tools of some of the most successful gangs for a small fee, the risk-to-reward ratio is quite high.”

Making ransom a last resort

One point on which cybersecurity experts universally agree is that prevention is the ultimate solution.

As a benchmark, Hornung recommends businesses allocate between one percent and three percent of their top-line revenue toward cybersecurity, with sectors like health care and financial services, which handle highly sensitive data, at the higher end of this range. “If not, you’re going to be in trouble,” he said. “Until we can get businesses to do the right things to protect, detect, and respond to these events, companies are going to get hacked and we’re going to have to deal with this challenge.”

Additionally, proactive measures such as endpoint detection — a type of “security guard” on your computer that constantly looks for signs of unusual or suspicious activity and alerts you — or response and ransomware rollback, a backup feature that kicks in and will undo damage and get you your files back if a hacker locks you out of your system, can minimize damage when an attack occurs, Underwood said.

A well-developed plan can help ensure that paying the ransom is a last resort, not the first option.

“Organizations tend to panic and have knee-jerk reactions to ransomware intrusions,” Caralli said. To avoid this, he stresses the importance of developing an incident response plan that outlines specific actions to take during a ransomware attack, including countermeasures such as reliable data backups and regular drills to ensure that recovery processes work in real-world scenarios.

Hornung says ransomware attacks — and the pressure to pay — will remain high. “Prevention is always cheaper than the cure,” he said, “but businesses are asleep at the wheel.”

The risk is not limited to large enterprises. “We work with a lot of small- and medium-sized businesses, and I say to them, ‘You’re not too small to be hacked. You’re just too small to be in the news.'”

If no organization paid the ransom, the financial benefit of ransomware attacks would be diminished, Underwood said. But he added that it wouldn’t stop hackers.

“It is probably safe to say that more organizations that do not pay would also cause attackers to stop trying or perhaps try other methods, such as stealing the data, searching for valuable assets, and selling it to interested parties,” he said. “A frustrated hacker may give up, or they will try alternative methods. They are, for the most part, on the offensive.”

Warner Bros. took a big swing with “Joker: Folie a Deux.” It’s turned into a big whiff.

After the billion-dollar success of “Joker” in 2019 on a shoestring budget of just $55 million, the studio greenlit a sequel, offering director Todd Phillips a substantially larger budget of $200 million. As of Wednesday, the film has garnered just $53.8 million domestically, according to Comscore. It’s global haul stands at $166 million as of Sunday with updates expected over the weekend.

Panned by critics and audiences, “Joker: Folie a Deux” is not expected to recoup much of its lofty production budget or the additional $100 million in estimated marketing and distribution costs by the end of its theatrical run.

And it’s not the only blockbuster-budgeted film to disappoint at the box office this year.

Other studios, including Warner Bros., Universal, Lionsgate and even Sony, have dropped hundreds of millions of dollars on franchise features and star-studded ensembles — only to see ticket sales sputter. Of course, it’s not an unusual occurrence in the theatrical industry.

“A combination of hits and flops are a hallmark of every box office year,” said Paul Dergarabedian, senior media analyst at Comscore. “But, 2024, being subject to a variety of unique challenges to both film production and the release calendar, created an imperfect storm that led to a series of creative misfires and financial failures.”

Additionally, as Hollywood contends with a growing streaming market and a more fickle moviegoing public, these misfires could worry investors.

“Before the rise of streaming, assessing a film’s financial performance was seemingly clearer cut than it has become in recent years,” said Shawn Robbins, director of analytics for Fandango’s movie division.

Because of streaming, Hollywood has shortened the theatrical window, bringing movies to the home market much faster than before. This means that potential moviegoers, who might be on the fence about seeing a movie or seeing it quickly, have a shorter time to wait before they can view it from their couch on a streaming service to which they already subscribe. And if that movie has poor reviews, audiences have even less incentive to go out to cinemas.

“In turn, this shift in dynamics and business models might call into question what kind of box office-to-budget ratio constitutes a loss and what doesn’t,” Robbins noted. “Some numbers are easier to eyeball and identify as a financial misfire without much argument, to be sure. Others may be less obvious to discern in a constantly evolving global marketplace.”

For example, a straight-to-streaming movie with a budget of $200 million could be deemed a success for a studio, if it drums up enough views. Meanwhile, a $200 million film that goes to theaters and underperforms is often considered a failure. That’s especially true when considering studios are also spending on marketing and promotion costs, usually equal to half of the production budget, and sharing ticket proceeds with cinemas.

For companies like Netflix, Apple or Amazon that have bigger cushions and stakeholders who are traditionally more comfortable with risk, big-budget films going straight to streaming may not faze investors. But for more traditional media companies, that have long traded off their successes at the box office, shareholders still want to see a big theatrical return on investment.

Here’s a look at some of the biggest box office disappointments so far in 2024, based on production budgets estimated by IMDb and box office tallies to date from Comscore:

• Estimated production budget: $200 million
• Global box office: $166 million
• Release date: Oct. 4, 2024

Warner Bros.’ “Joker: Folie a Deux” fell short of opening weekend expectations earlier this month, securing just $37.6 million domestically after initial box office forecasts called for close to $70 million in its first few days in theaters.

The film picks up after Arthur Fleck’s arrest in “Joker” as he awaits trial at Arkham State Hospital. Audiences failed to connect with the sequel, which utilized Lady Gaga, who played a version of Harley Quinn, and her musical talents in a number of scenes.

“Joker: Folie a Deux” suffered the biggest second week drop of any DC studios film, a whopping 81% fall.

For comparison, its predecessor snapped up $96.2 million during its opening weekend and $248.4 million globally in its first three days.

“Joker: Folie a Deux” failed to lure back its most ardent fans or inspire new moviegoers to flock to cinemas. Critics widely panned the flick, as it currently holds a 33% rating on review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes and a rare “D” on CinemaScore.

• Estimated production budget: $115 million
• Global box office: $32.9 million
• Release date: Aug. 9, 2024

Trying to capitalize on the popularity of video game-based movies, Lionsgate shelled out $115 million for director Eli Roth’s adaptation of “Borderlands.”

The film touted an all-star cast of Cate Blanchett, Kevin Hart, Jack Black, Jamie Lee Curtis and up-and-comer Ariana Greenblatt, but fell flat with audiences. Blanchett portrayed an infamous bounty hunter who forms an unlikely alliance with a ragtag team of misfits while on a quest to to find the missing daughter of the most powerful man in the universe.

“Borderlands” generated a 10% rating on Rotten Tomatoes from 161 reviews and stalled out with just $32.9 million in global ticket sales.

• Estimated production budget: $200 million
• Global box office: $96.2 million
• Release date: Feb. 2, 2024

Universal’s “Argylle” similarly had a stacked cast — Bryce Dallas Howard, Sam Rockwell, Henry Cavill, John Cena, Dua Lipa and Samuel L. Jackson, among them — but failed to drum-up box office interest.

The film centers on Howard as the reclusive author Elly Conway, whose best-selling espionage novels start to mirror the covert actions of a real-life spy organization.

After spending around $200 million on production and an estimated $100 million on marketing efforts, the film generated just $96.2 million worldwide.

Much of the film’s issues stemmed from poor reviews, having garnered a 33% rating on Rotten Tomatoes for what some called a convoluted, yet predictable plot.

• Estimated production budget: $125 million
• Global box office: $180.9 million
• Release date: May 3, 2024

Universal’s “The Fall Guy” was actually very well-received by critics, earning an 81% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. However, even the dynamic duo of Ryan Gosling, fresh off “Barbie,” and Emily Blunt, one of the stars of “Oppenheimer,” wasn’t enough to draw audiences out to cinemas.

The film, a love letter to stunt performers based on a television show from the ’80s with the same name, centers on Gosling’s Colt Seavers, a battle-scarred stuntman who is drawn back into the movie industry after the star of former love interest Jody Moreno’s (Blunt) directorial debut goes missing.

“The Fall Guy” tallied just $180.9 million globally. It’s production budget was $125 million, not including marketing and distribution costs. The lack of major franchise attachment and niche storyline appears to have narrowed the audience.

• Estimated production budget: $80 million
• Global box office: $100 million
• Release date: Feb. 14, 2024

Sony’s Spider-Man universe films have been hit-or-miss at the box office for years. For every Venom or Spider-Verse success there’s a “Morbius” or a “Madame Web.”

With an 11% score on Rotten Tomatoes, “Madame Web” sparked the wrong kind of viral attention after its release. Memes flooded social media sites poking fun at the cast’s wooden performances, gaping plot holes and poorly redubbed dialogue.

“Madame Web” is part of Sony’s Spider-Man universe and follows Cassandra Webb, a New York City paramedic with clairvoyance. Webb’s visions warn her about a threat to three young women, who each will gain spider powers in the future.

The film, which cost around $80 million to produce, managed to scoop up around $100 million in ticket sales globally. However, after marketing costs and splitting receipts with cinemas, the film did not make back its budget.

• Estimated production budget: $168 million
• Global box office: $172.4 million
• Release date: May 24, 2024

Warner Bros.’ “Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga” was a long-awaited prequel from the mind of George Miller. However, despite solid reviews — a 90% “Fresh” rating on Rotten Tomatoes — the film failed to explode at the box office.

A prequel to 2015’s “Mad Max: Fury Road,” the film explores Furiosa’s early life after she is kidnapped by a tyrannical warlord and attempts over several years to get back home.

The film’s production did benefit from extensive government subsidies for filming in Australia, which lessened the financial blow, but “Furiosa” only generated $172.4 million during its global run. Its production budget was estimated at around $168 million without marketing expenses.

For comparison, “Mad Max: Fury Road” snared $368 million during its global run in 2015.

• Estimated production budget: $120 million
• Global box office: $9.2 million
• Release date: Sept. 27, 2024

“Megalopolis” was a passion project for writer-director Francis Ford Coppola, who had been stewing over the film’s concept since the late ’70s. He self-financed the film, shelling out $120 million on production.

The film is set in an alternate version of 21st-century New York City called New Rome. It follows an architect named Cesar Catilina (Adam Driver) as he attempts to revitalize the city by building the futuristic utopia called Megalopolis all while facing corrupt leadership bent on shutting down his plans.

The “overstuffed opus,” as Rotten Tomatoes critics called the piece, had a sizeable cast of heavyweights — Adam Driver, Dustin Hoffman, Giancarlo Esposito, Laurence Fishburne and Jon Voight among them — but seemed to only drawn in Coppola’s biggest fans. “Megalopolis” tallied just $9.2 million globally.

The film was distributed by Lionsgate. It is unclear if the marketing and distribution costs were split between Coppola and Lionsgate or if the studio took on the financial burden.

• Estimated production budget: $100 million
• Global box office: $38.2 million
• Release date: June 28, 2024

Another passion project, “Horizon: An American Saga — Chapter 1” from Kevin Costner has faced difficulties at the box office. The feature only collected $38.2 million at the global box office during its run in theaters. Its poor performance led Costner and Warner Bros. to postpone the release of a planned sequel, “Chapter 2,” which had been set for about six weeks after the first hit theaters.

“Chapter 1” follows several different narratives of people exploring the American West and pioneering new territory, including a gruff cowboy played by Costner, who finds himself on the run with a prostitute and a young boy after killing a fellow gunman.

Costner produced, wrote, directed and starred in both films, spending an estimated $100 million on the two projects. Two more chapters in the saga are still in development with an undisclosed budget.

Western films are a tough sell at modern box offices. The classic genre is beloved by film buffs, but isn’t a huge draw for moviegoers. Currently, the highest-grossing western film at the box office is Quentin Tarantino’s “Django Unchained” from 2012, which generated about $450 million globally, according to Comscore. Costner’s “Dances with Wolves” from 1990 is the second-highest with $424.2 million in global ticket sales, not adjusted for inflation.

While 2013’s “The Lone Ranger” tallied $260 million worldwide, no other western film has garnered more than $250 million at the global box office.

Disclosure: Comcast is the parent company of NBCUniversal and CNBC. NBCUniversal owns Fandango and Rotten Tomatoes.

Two young men accused of committing one of the largest person-to-person crypto thefts in U.S. history went on a brazen spending spree that included buying exotic cars and a $2 million wristwatch, renting mansions and running up nightclub tabs of hundreds of thousands of dollars apiece, new court records reveal.

The Aug. 18 cyber heist swindled a Washington, D.C., resident out of $230 million in cryptocurrency. To date, at least $100 million in bitcoin stolen from the victim remains unaccounted for, prosecutors said in a recent court filing in District of Columbia federal court.

Police now say that another crime, the mysterious Aug. 25 kidnapping of a Connecticut couple in broad daylight while they were house hunting, may be connected to the Washington crypto theft.

The couple was driving a Lamborghini they said was rented by their son at the time they were carjacked and abducted.

The accused kidnappers “targeted” the couple “because the co-conspirators believed the victims’ son had access to significant amounts of digital currency,” an indictment against the six defendants in that case says.

Those men, all from Florida, “planned to kidnap the victims … and hold the victims against their will at a house rented” by one of the men “and then demand payment in the form of digital currency from the son of [the couple] in return for the safety,” the indictment in Connecticut federal court says.

In addition to federal conspiracy and carjacking charges, the six men also face state criminal charges related to the kidnapping, which occurred a week after the heist of 4,100 bitcoins from the victim in Washington, D.C.

“I’ve never seen anything like this in 20 years,” Detective Sgt. Steven Castrovinci of the Danbury Police Department in Connecticut told CNBC.

The six Florida men charged in the kidnapping have not been charged in connection with the cryptocurrency theft. Nor has the unidentified son of the couple who was abducted.

“It’s amazing to see how this thing has grown legs,” Castrovinci said.

On Sept. 19, just a month after the crypto heist, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia announced that the FBI had arrested two men — Malone Lam, 20, and Jeandiel Serrano, 21 — on conspiracy charges related to the alleged theft and subsequent laundering of the stolen bitcoin.

Serrano, who uses the online monikers “VersaceGod” and “@SkidStar,” was wearing a $500,000 watch at the time of his arrest in Los Angeles, where he lives, according to prosecutors.

Both men, who are being held without bail, admitted their role in the heist, prosecutors have said in court filings.

Serrano’s lawyer, Paulette Pagan, had no immediate comment on his case. CNBC has requested comment from a lawyer for Lam, a Singapore resident who had been living in L.A. and Miami after overstaying by months a visa waiver that allowed him to visit the U.S. as a tourist for just 90 days.

The scheme at the center of the bizarre case is “one of the largest cryptocurrency thefts from a private individual … in the history of the United States,” according to a federal court filing.

A month before they were arrested, Serrano, Lam and other, unnamed, co-conspirators targeted a man in Washington “because they believed he held a considerable amount of virtual currency” after they “identified him as a high net-worth investor from the early days of cryptocurrency,” court filings say.

In early August, one co-conspirator caused an “unauthorized Google account access” notification to be sent to the victim, making it appear that the purported access attempts had occurred overseas, a court filing said.

“In reality, this was just the conspirators laying the groundwork for their imminent theft through sophisticated social engineering,” prosecutors wrote in a filing.

On Aug. 18, members of the conspiracy called the man, claiming they were from Google’s security team, and asking him about the recent unauthorized access attempts.

“Through a series of prompts and misrepresentations,” the co-conspirators managed to manipulate the man into giving them enough information to access his Google drive, “where they quickly located personal financial information, including the location of his virtual currency holdings with Gemini,” a crypto exchange, a filing said.

Serrano and other scheme participants then called the man back and Serrano posed as a member of Gemini’s support team, prosecutors said.

While he talked to the victim, Serrano and his co-conspirators were communicating with each other on the Discord and Telegram messaging apps, strategizing on ways to “manipulate the victim into providing private keys to his virtual currency holdings and enough computer access for the conspirators to steal his entire savings,” the filing said.

The schemers then duped the man into downloading a program onto his computer to protect his Gemini holdings.

But the program actually gave the co-conspirators real-time access to the victim’s desktop, according to prosecutors.

“Serrano was eventually able to manipulate the victim into opening files with private keys
to over 4,100 Bitcoin,” the court filing said.

“While Serrano continued to manipulate the victim, his co-conspirator used this access to quickly steal the entirety of the victim’s virtual currency holdings.”

Prosecutors said the co-conspirators split the theft’s proceeds five ways.

The schemers then used “sophisticated money laundering techniques to hide the proceeds and mask their identities,” a court filing alleges.

Serrano created an account on TradeOgre.com and deposited $29 million worth of cryptocurrency, “believing it to be clean and successfully laundered,” the filing said.

While he used a virtual private network, or VPN, to mask his location when he accessed his account, Serrano had failed to use a VPN when he created the account.

“Records from TradeOgre show that the account was created from an IP address registered to Serrano’s $47,500 per month rental home in Encino, California,” the filing said.

By the time Serrano was identified by federal authorities, “he was already out of the country, vacationing in the Maldives,” the filing said.

“Meanwhile, his co-conspirator Malone Lam was spending hundreds of thousands of dollars per night at Los Angeles night clubs and amassing an impressive collection of custom Lamborghinis, Ferraris, and Porsches,” prosecutors wrote.

Lam, a Singapore native who was arrested in Miami after traveling there from Los Angeles on a private jet, was renting multiple homes in Miami, according to the filing.

One mansion he rented there cost $68,000 per month, the filing said.

Lam, who used the online handles “Anne Hathaway” and “$$$,” had also purchased a watch for $2 million, and a Lamborghini Revuelto for more than $1 million, prosecutors said.

But “many of Lam’s vehicles have not been located as of yet, such as his Pagani Huayra that he purchased for $3,800,000,” prosecutors wrote.

In all, Lam “admitted to purchasing 31 luxury automobiles, 22 of which have yet to be recovered by law enforcement,” prosecutors wrote.

Lam “also admitted to doing additional hacks and making millions from those separate cryptocurrency fraud schemes, which he states have supported his entire lifestyle since arriving in the United States in October 2023,” prosecutors wrote.

“The three vehicles Serrano admitted to purchasing have also not yet been located.”

Federal government surveillance captured Lam on “a spending spree of the victim’s assets,” which included sightings of him “at Los Angeles nightclubs … and gifting handbags valued at tens of thousands of dollars,” a court filing says.

Management at L.A. nightclubs told investigators that Lam tried to pay his tabs in cryptocurrency “and was spending approximately $400,000-$500,000 per night,” the filing said. One receipt from an L.A. club showed Lam spent “$569,528.39 in one night,” the filing said.

After Serrano was arrested at Los Angeles International Airport on Sept. 18, when he returned from the Maldives with his girlfriend, an FBI agent interviewed that woman, who denied knowledge of Serrano’s involvement in crimes, according to a court filing.

“The interviewing FBI Agent told her that the only way to make the situation worse would be for her to call Serrano’s associates and tip them off to the arrest,” the filing noted.

“Immediately after leaving the interview, Serrano’s girlfriend promptly called his criminal associates, tipped them off to his arrest, and these associated in turn deleted their Telegram accounts and all incriminating evidence included in saved chats,” the filing said.

“To date, approximately $70,000,000 has been recovered or frozen on various exchanges,” prosecutors wrote in a court filing.

“Even considering the millions of dollars that Serrano and his co-conspirators spent on automobiles and jewelry, well over $100,000,000 remains unaccounted for.”

Serrano had about $20 million of the victim’s stolen bitcoin on his phone, and agreed to transfer those funds back to the FBI, according to a court filing.

On Aug. 25, three weeks before Serrano and Lam were arrested, police in Danbury received multiple 911 calls reporting the abduction of a couple.

Court records and Castrovinci said the victims were driving a 2024 Lamborghini Urus, which they said had been rented by their son, when they were rear-ended by a white Honda Civic.

A work van then cut in front of the Lamborghini, and a half-dozen or so men wearing black masks surrounded the car.

The perpetrators pulled the two victims out of the car. The husband resisted, and the kidnappers punched him in the face and hit him with a baseball bat, authorities said.

“The suspects repeatedly told [the couple] that they would ‘kill them,'” FBI Agent Matthew Loucks wrote in an affidavit supporting a criminal complaint against the alleged kidnappers filed in U.S. District Court in Connecticut.

“The victims were pushed into the back of the work van and held down. The suspects then bound both victims’ arms and feet with silver duct tape, which they also used to cover [the husband’s] face. The suspects forced [his wife] to lie face down and ordered her not to look at them,” according to Loucks’ affidavit.

“The couple heard police sirens shortly after the van began moving, and heard one of the suspects yell, ‘Call Rick … we are in deep s—,'” according to the FBI agent. Shortly afterward, the van crashed and the suspects fled on foot, leaving the victims behind.

Police arrested four suspects later that day, and two more the following day. All six suspects are from the Miami area.

The couple, who were briefly hospitalized after the incident, had no idea why they had been targeted in the kidnapping, Castrovinci told CNBC.

“They kept asking us, ‘Why?'” Castrovinci said.

Danbury police were already familiar with the couple who were abducted, Castrovinci said, because their home had been targeted by “swatting” calls.

Swatting is the practice of calling police and falsely reporting that a crime is occurring at someone else’s residence or business, often causing police to descend upon that location.

Castrovinci said they had suspected the swatting calls were being made by people who knew the couple’s son from his online gaming.

The Danbury News-Times first reported Oct. 11 that Danbury police had planned to interview the couple’s son but held off at the request of the FBI.

“We were contacted by the FBI and told there’s an ongoing investigation into the son in regards to a cryptocurrency theft that occurred,” Castrovinci told the newspaper.

“That’s how we knew — and even at that time, we didn’t really know to what extent he was involved in it. We just knew that there was an investigation into him regarding a crypto heist,” he said.

“I don’t know how (the six Florida men) knew this kid had that type of money, but everything leads to them going after the parents because of what this kid was involved in,” he told the newspaper.

A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Connecticut declined to comment when asked about the possible connection between the carjacking and kidnapping of the couple, and their son’s potential role in the August crypto heist.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in the District of Columbia did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Less than two years after NBCUniversal fired Jeff Shell for alleged sexual harassment, the former CEO is close to finding himself back in the saddle leading a storied media company.

The longtime media executive is primed to help run the day-to-day media operations of Paramount Global as president of the company when its merger with Skydance Media closes in the first half of 2025, assuming regulatory approval. He’ll report to current Skydance CEO David Ellison, who will take the top job as the combined company’s CEO.

While neither Shell nor Ellison has publicly declared specific intentions for Paramount Global due to regulations banning “gun-jumping” in pending mergers, Shell’s recent tenure as the CEO of Comcast’s NBCUniversal, the parent company of CNBC, offers clues to what may be in store for Paramount.

CNBC spoke with a dozen people who worked closely with Shell during his tenure as CEO from 2019 to 2023. They described Shell as a person with big ideas and a willingness to make bold moves but with a style that depends on those around him to talk him out of decisions that may not make sense. Some of Shell’s boldest ideas — such as giving NBC’s 10 p.m. hour over to affiliates, merging with a rival, and turning CNBC prime time into a business-focused Fox News facsimile — never played out.

Comcast CEO Brian Roberts chose Shell to replace Steve Burke as NBCUniversal CEO in 2019. Shell had consistent success running a variety of different divisions within Comcast and NBCUniversal, including NBCU International and Universal Filmed Entertainment Group.

Colleagues told CNBC they found Shell to be a good listener and a collaborative decision-maker with a predilection for sometimes saying too much. His departure from NBCUniversal was sudden. In April 2023, a Comcast investigation corroborated allegations from a former CNBC reporter of sexual harassment. Shell joined private equity firm RedBird Capital Partners in February. RedBird backed the Skydance-Paramount merger and will assume a minority equity stake.

Soon, Shell, 59, will be at the helm of Paramount and paired with Ellison, who has already expressed his desire to transition Paramount into a more modern media company. That may set up a dynamic where Paramount’s CEO and president both want bold change.

RedBird executives praised Shell during a conference call in July announcing the merger, with RedBird Partner Andrew Brandon-Gordon saying Shell’s “long-term, results-oriented, proven track record at NBCUniversal” coupled with Ellison’s creativity and tech savvy make for the perfect leadership dynamic for the future of Paramount.

Still, it’s possible the pairing could lead to rash decision-making, warned one executive who worked closely with Shell at NBCUniversal. Even the consideration of dramatic ideas can destabilize an organization if discussed openly without follow through, and Shell developed a reputation at NBCUniversal for what one former coworker described as a “shoot first and aim later” mentality — a sentiment shared by at least six others who spoke with CNBC.

“What Paramount needs is blocking and tackling — mature leadership,” said the executive who worked closely with Shell. “Ellison is a blow-everything-up guy, and Shell needs someone who can minimize his mistakes.”

Shell and Ellison both declined to comment for this story.

At Paramount, Shell will be given an asset mix similar to what he oversaw at NBCUniversal — save the theme parks. He’ll have a major broadcast network with NFL rights (CBS), a movie studio (Paramount Pictures), a streaming service with tens of millions of subscribers (Paramount+), a large library of TV shows and films, and a slew of cable networks with dwindling audiences.

It will be Shell’s mission to cut costs — Skydance has already identified $2 billion in cost efficiencies and synergies, the company said during a July conference call with investors about the merger — and transform Paramount Global into a modern media company. That likely means making bold changes to declining businesses while investing in technology.

Shell may try to resurrect the idea of giving up the 10 p.m. hour — as he contemplated at NBC — for CBS, Paramount Global’s national broadcast network, people who spoke to CNBC suggested. Bailing on the hour would save CBS millions on content costs. Local affiliates would welcome gaining the hour as a way to boost advertising revenue.

During a 2022 CNBC interview, Shell confirmed a Wall Street Journal report that he was considering ceding the hour to local affiliates to shift resources from linear broadcast TV toward streaming.

“If we’re being prudent operators, which we try to be, if you’re allocating a bunch of resources to one side of the business, you have to look at the allocation of resources to another,” Shell told CNBC’s David Faber at the time. “We make a lot of money at 10 o’clock. We still have a lot of viewers at 10 o’clock. There’s no question throughout the day as linear declines, you’re going to have to make some tradeoffs, and we’ll be looking at that as our investors would want us to look at.”

The 10 p.m. hour on broadcast networks still serves as a time slot for scripted dramas — a genre that’s largely gone to streaming and, in turn, has seen ratings struggle on traditional TV. CBS’ 10 p.m. programming includes “NCIS: Origins,” “FBI: Most Wanted,” “Elsbeth,” and “Blue Bloods,” which is in its 14th season.

Paramount Global co-CEO George Cheeks, who runs CBS, told Deadline in late 2022 that he was “committed to 10 p.m. and continuing our ratings success in that time period.”

Shell ultimately backed off giving up 10 p.m. for NBC after weighing the potential fallout with Hollywood creatives and agents, according to people familiar with the matter. Such a move at NBCUniversal would risk ruining relationships with TV titans such as “Law & Order” creator Dick Wolf, whose shows have occupied the 10 p.m. hour on NBC for years and have created a deep library for NBCUniversal’s flagship streaming service, Peacock. Irritating Hollywood would have run counter to Shell’s strategy to increase Peacock’s content catalog, as NBCUniversal needed strong relationships to fuel the service with new programming.

Wolf’s shows were also significant moneymakers for NBCUniversal, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Ceding the 10 p.m. hour would also have negatively affected the ratings of NBC’s storied late night show, “The Tonight Show.” CBS’ late night show, “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert,” is consistently the top-rated late night show, which could naturally give Shell pause on moving away from 10 p.m. once he’s overseeing Paramount assets.

Still, all of the late night shows are losing audience, and a downsizing has already begun across the genre. Shell may feel it’s finally time to pull the rip cord.

He is clearly aware that the status quo of linear TV needs to change.

“Obviously a big chunk of the company is in the linear world, and we know that linear is challenged and declining,” Shell said during the July conference call. “I think a lot of us in the business know, we have got to run these businesses in a different way as they decline. And so, we’ve spent a lot of the last few months really building a bottom-up plan, and our goal is to manage the businesses, particularly the linear businesses, for cash flow generation.”

Shell is also likely to examine the content windowing strategy at Paramount, he said in July. That could mean Shell has a desire to tier Paramount+ differently, with some popular content available on more expensive tiers, perhaps ad-free, that shift to less expensive tiers, including free ad-supported Pluto, over time.

“I’m a big believer in windowing strategy, and I think there’s maybe a more efficient way to maximize the value of our content, and we’ll continue to be in the DTC [direct-to-consumer] business,” Shell said during the July conference call.

Some media analysts, such as LightShed Partners’ Rich Greenfield, have argued Paramount Global should shut down Paramount+ and instead license Paramount content to other streamers with more scale. Paramount+ has consistently lost money since its inception and won’t be profitable until 2025, the company has previously said.

That doesn’t appear to be in Ellison and Shell’s playbook for Paramount. The two have expressed their desire to partner Paramount+ with another streamer to add scale and content to the service, either through a merger or a bundle. Paramount Global has already held talks with a number of media companies about partnering on streaming, including NBCUniversal and Warner Bros. Discovery.

“To be a winner in [streaming] really means being in the ultimate bundle that’s coming,” Shell said during the July conference call. “We’ve had a bunch of inbound calls from a number of people about partnerships that could involve a partnership with another player or players.”

At NBCUniversal, according to people familiar with his thinking, Shell privately pushed the benefits of merging with another content company — again, something that never happened.

He spoke up in meetings about the benefits of merging with Viacom, WarnerMedia and even Netflix to ensure Peacock would have staying power against larger streaming services, according to people who heard him speak.

Ultimately, Comcast CEO Brian Roberts decided the moves weren’t in the best interest of shareholders or that it was too difficult to gain regulatory approval for them, though Roberts nearly approved a deal in 2022 for NBCUniversal to merge with video game developer Electronic Arts — a deal that, according to people familiar with the matter, would have seen Shell lose his job as NBCUniversal CEO. That role would have gone to EA CEO Andrew Wilson, the people said.

Without a big merger, Shell pushed for NBCUniversal to flood Peacock with content, especially during the height of pandemic lockdowns, when Wall Street appeared to be heavily valuing media companies on their streaming subscriber numbers. He argued NBCUniversal should put most of its cable programming on Peacock, including regional sports networks, or RSNs, according to people familiar with the matter.

Again, other executives talked him out of being too aggressive, arguing the company’s existing pay TV distribution relationships would be harmed if NBCUniversal made that content available outside the cable bundle, according to the people. Geolocation technology issues around regional sports also would have made the inclusion of RSNs difficult, the people said.

While NBCUniversal has moved toward including more cable programming on Peacock, including hit Bravo franchises such as “The Real Housewives” and “Below Deck,” it has kept RSNs and news networks MSNBC and CNBC separate.

One of Shell’s big decisions at Paramount will be what to do with a handful of cable channels that have effectively turned into zombie networks, largely airing reruns of the same shows to avoid spending on new content. This includes MTV, VH1 and Comedy Central.

Shell wanted to combine some NBCUniversal cable networks to cut costs and push back on dwindling revenue, people familiar with the matter said, but ultimately decided not to.

Shell also had ideas that didn’t come to fruition about changing programming on some of NBC’s cable networks. He initially wanted CNBC to adopt what he described to others as a center-right prime-time lineup, according to people familiar with the discussions at the time. Shell felt that Fox News had largely abandoned talking about business issues, giving CNBC a path to reach an audience no longer being served, said the people.

Then-CNBC chief Mark Hoffman argued the idea didn’t make sense for the network’s brand and likely wouldn’t have much of an audience, and Shell backed down, the people said. CNBC did hire former Fox News anchor Shepard Smith in 2020 to anchor a prime-time show that was canceled in 2022 just months after Hoffman retired. Hoffman declined to comment for this story.

One of Shell’s first accomplishments upon taking the NBCUniversal job was to renew the network’s “Sunday Night Football” deal with the NFL, and one of the last things he did was support NBC Sports moving forward with a bid for NBA rights if it got an opportunity, according to people familiar with the matter. NBC did get the chance to bid, and it’s bringing back NBA games beginning in 2025 after agreeing to pay about $2.45 billion per season to the league.

Both Shell and Ellison touted the importance of CBS Sports during their July conference call. When Paramount laid off hundreds of employees in September, none of them were part of CBS Sports, according to a person familiar with the matter.

CBS owns a Sunday afternoon package of NFL games, part of NCAA March Madness, Big Ten football, UEFA Champions League, and The Masters, among other sports. It wouldn’t be surprising if Shell migrates away from CBS entertainment programming toward sports, even in prime time, if those opportunities present themselves.

Disclosure: Comcast’s NBCUniversal is the parent company of CNBC.

WATCH: Skydance has to prove over time it can change the future trajectory of Paramount