One, they never intended to work here but didn't want to waste an excuse to fire up the virtue signal.
Two, they're a grumpy Californian who's been looking for an excuse to say we're not a worthy state to practice the hallowed art of filmmaking since 2008 or so.
I still hold by that.
But I ran into a blog post that points out an interesting idea. Namely, that boycotts are effective locally, but rarely nationally and never internationally.
Which makes sense. I've seen a couple of eateries go down for good because enough people got cranky with them. But the only national boycott I can think of that was effective in the long term was Dick's after they destroyed their stock of AR's because reasons. Haven't looked at them lately but that move hurt them for at least a few quarters.
Internationally, on the other hand, the US may no longer a market that can do significant damage by its removal.
There are more moviegoers in China than there are people in America. India's not too far behind.
There are more NBA fans in China than there are Americans total. MLB is chasing that market segment too. NFL lags behind because American Football is culturally niche.
Cola drinkers, same deal.
And if any of these international companies annoy a segment of Americans, who cares?
Well, as Stacey pointed out, the people working for the internationals you're trying to boycott. A lot of whom probably agree with you, but don't have the luxury of dropping their meal ticket at the moment.