Animated movies go through a lot of changes before they hit theaters, but "Zootopia" became a whole different movie.

After spending two years developing "Zootopia," director Byron Howard, Walt Disney Animation head John Lasseter, and the studio's "story trust" — creators at Disney who give candid input about projects — made a risky decision: They would completely revamp their story by changing the prominence of the two lead characters, and in turn give "Zootopia" a new message.

The movie had a hook Lasseter loved: talking animals dressed in human clothes living in a world where predators and prey interact happily with one another. But it turned out that the protagonist, a fox named Nick Wilde (voiced by Jason Bateman), was a bit too dark and snarky.

So a year and a half before the movie was to be in theaters, Wilde was demoted to sidekick and the former supporting role became the lead: a bunny cop named Judy Hopps (Ginnifer Goodwin).

The decision, dangerously late in a project's life in the animation world, turned out to be rewarding both financially and critically. "Zootopia" became a surprise hit for Disney, taking in over $1 billion worldwide in its theatrical run, and after appearing on many year-end best lists, the movie has been nominated for the best animated feature Oscar, for which it's a frontrunner, after taking home the Golden Globe.

--

But perhaps the most satisfying part of the "Zootopia" success is the power of its social commentary, especially now that Donald Trump is officially the 45th president of the United States.

Yes, "Zootopia" has all the Disney hallmarks with adorable characters and lush animation, but what's caused audiences and critics to gush is the way it addresses stereotypes and other social issues from the human world that seem more pressing in light of Trump's election win and presidency, in which he continues to be divisive.

“We examined these topics because this is real and these movies, especially for young people, they are fairy tales that have the purpose of preparing young people for the world ahead of them,” Rich Moore, a member of Disney's story trust who later came on as a director of "Zootopia," recently told Business Insider. “We’re showing them what some of the pitfalls and dangers of life are, but coming out on the other end with a feeling of hope.”

The idea to confront race and class came early on in the production, long before Trump announced his bid for president. It arrived when the department heads took a trip to Kenya to observe the wildlife they would be creating for the movie, and they witnessed a moment that would stay with them throughout the production.

"The group was observing animals around the watering hole, and it was predators and prey alike drinking water and living in harmony at that moment because there's kind of a social understanding between them that they all need water," Moore said. "And we all thought that was an interesting social handshake in the animal world that is very much like the human world. In a city there can be people who don't see eye to eye and have different points of view but we put them aside and live together. But that doesn't mean those feelings go away. So we thought what if 'Zootopia' became a story about injustice, discrimination, as well as racism? We didn't just want to tell another funny animal movie."

But making the city of Zootopia a diverse melting pot hit a snag when the movie’s main protagonist, at the time Nick Wilde, came off the wrong way.

“The tone was suffering at that time,” Moore said. “The city felt really oppressive. We wanted to have a city with a problem but at its core by the end you would feel that the city was going to be okay. But in this version of the story it felt like Zootopia was a really bad place because we were seeing Nick being oppressed and being put down.”

So when the creators would usually put the final touches on an animated movie for its release, "Zootopia" went through a major overhaul.

Making Hopps the protagonist fit perfectly into the conventions the movie was trying to break: an idealistic bunny (prey) determined to join a police force filled with large tigers, wolves, and elephants (predators). And the female character was no longer relying on her male counterpart.

But the last thing the filmmakers wanted was to feel preachy. As the other “Zootopia” director Byron Howard puts it, “We never wanted the end of the film to be like, ‘Judy Hopps solved racism.’”

But since Trump’s successful but historically contentious presidential campaign, in which he was accused of using racist rhetoric, the movie has taken on a greater importance in showing how a community of different people with different views can unify.

“Even with the Trump presidency, no matter what side of the fence you're on, we owe it to future generations to make good decisions to try to work together and understand each other and I think that's what the film is trying to say,” Howard said.

“I am really excited for the art in the years ahead,” Moore added. “Historically they always reflect and comment on the world around them. Our leader doesn't feel like a unifier right now so imagine what kinds of books and what kinds of paintings and what kinds of songs and what kinds of movies we're going to see during these next four years.”

In fact, “Zootopia” has already inspired one artist. While on tour in 2016, Cat Stevens ended his shows quoting the speech Judy gives at the end of the movie.

“This would lead into him playing ‘Peace Train,’” Moore said, referring to one of Stevens' '70s hits. “It's just another example of how far beyond what we imagined this movie would do.”

“It’s very humbling,” Howard said.

“Zootopia” is now streaming on Netflix.

SEE ALSO: The 18 most exciting movies at this year's Sundance Film Festival you need to see

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: HBO's new documentary dives deep into the daily life of billionaire Warren Buffett

Liam Neeson admits he wasn't impressed with Shūsaku Endō's novel "Silence" when Martin Scorsese offered him a role in the movie adaptation two years ago.

"It was very dull," the Oscar-nominated actor recently told Business Insider over the phone.

But after reading the movie's script, he said, "the issues in the book really came alive for me." And so Scorsese had the final piece in his latest attempt in 26 years to make the movie.

Neeson gives an incredible performance as Father Ferreira, a Jesuit priest who in attempting to spread Christianity in 17th-century Japan is captured by samurai who are keeping the religion out of the country and put Ferreira through numerous types of torture until he renounces his faith.

Neeson talked to Business Insider about the role, preparing for a grueling torture scene, how the experience was different from working with Scorsese on "Gangs of New York," that time he almost played Abraham Lincoln in Steven Spielberg's "Lincoln," and why we will probably never see his Qui-Gon Jinn in any upcoming "Star Wars" movies.

Jason Guerrasio: A major scene for Father Ferreira is the torture scene. What were the discussions you and Scorsese had about tackling it?

Liam Neeson: It was an actual torture — many martyrs lost their lives that way and were punished that way in Japan. We knew exactly what happened and what the pit was filled with, which was human excrement, and they were hung upside down. Then these boards were put around them so after some time you didn't have a sense of where you were in space or time and you were constantly suffering. You didn't die, but there was an agony, and you couldn't move your body because you're harnessed in like a straightjacket.

Guerrasio: Did you experience it yourself outside of the shots we see of your doing it?

Neeson: Beforehand, to get some type of feel for it, I hung upside down on that machine that you'll find at the gym, inversion table, and you can hang upside down. So I did that in preparation.

Guerrasio: Did you use any of your experience making "The Mission" in helping to prepare for "Silence"?

Neeson: Very much. I think we made it in 1985, I believe. Our technical adviser was Father Daniel Berrigan, who just passed away last year. I was pals with Father Dan; he was a famous Jesuit in his time. Myself, Bob De Niro, Jeremy Irons, we talked with Father Dan about the gospel and how it relates to today's world, then being the '80s. It was really, really enlightening. We did preparation in Jesuit training, which they still do to this day — namely the spiritual exercises. So my research on "The Mission" played very heavily in this film.

Guerrasio: Was it a different experience working with Scorsese this time around?

Neeson: I knew how important "Silence" was for Martin. He spent 26 years putting the film together. The sets on "Silence" were incredibly quiet. He did demand from all the crew, especially when he was talking to his actors before we do a scene, he did demand absolute silence, and he got it. He did create this space for you to do your best work, to really focus.

Guerrasio: That was different from "Gangs of New York"?

Neeson: I'm not saying on "Gangs of New York" he was walking around telling jokes — it was a different subject matter. There were always crowds of actors. It was a different energy.

Guerrasio: Did you have to wait around for a call from Scorsese that it was time to finally shoot "Silence"?

Neeson: No. I met with Martin around 2015, and this is when he was very close to shooting. It wasn't like I was waiting around for years and years.

Guerrasio: You have such an incredible filmography, but I want to bring up a project you didn't take on: Any regrets not doing "Lincoln" with Steven Spielberg?

Neeson: I have absolutely no regrets about that at all. The script I was involved with Steven on was totally different than what he shot. I thought I was past my sell-by date with this. This just isn't me anymore. And I'm glad it happened. When I saw the film and what Steven had done and certainly what Daniel [Day-Lewis as Lincoln] had done was f---ing extraordinary. I thought it was beautiful. I was so pleased I made that decision. Dan was superb.

Guerrasio: Deep down, do you want to go back and play Qui-Gon Jinn again?

Neeson: No. No. That was 20 years ago. No, and nor have I been approached. And with all these spin-offs they are doing who knows what's going to happen.

Guerrasio: That's why I bring it up — the character may have a reason to get back in the mix.

Neeson: I would certainly take their call, let's put it that way, but I think that ship has sailed.

"Silence" is currently playing in theaters.

SEE ALSO: Here are the must-see movies that are going to win Oscars in 2017

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Everything you need to know about Corinne Olympios — the newest villain of 'The Bachelor'

.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The wealth of these 8 men equals the bottom 50% of the entire world

Rooster Teeth cofounder Michael "Burnie" Burns has been making video for the internet for longer than just about anyone, and years before YouTube sprang into existence in 2005.

Burns made his name with "Red vs. Blue," a sci-fi military comedy series that started in 2003, and is now in its 15th season. "Red vs. Blue" pioneered using video game animation in narrative shows, and was one of the first series to go viral on the internet. Burns told Business Insider that while the first episode of "Red vs. Blue" got 3,000 views, the second, just one week later, got 250,000.

It was as close as you could get to an overnight success, and the internet had made it all possible.

Since then, Burns has built his company, Rooster Teeth, into a video studio that employs over 250 people in its main Austin campus, and has thrived through many shifts in the online media landscape, primarily by employing an ever-changing variety of revenue streams, including a 200,000-strong subscription business (at $5 per month).

What has allowed Rooster Teeth to continued to grow for a decade while other viral sensations have quickly flamed out?

Burns explained that while some aspiring video creators seek to anchor their following around a cult of personality, his key to building a successful online video business was in doing the opposite.

Don't wear them out

"The quickest you get tired of something is getting tired of a specific performer, of a personality," he said. The trend among many YouTube stars is to name their channel after themselves, and to try and make everything personal. Burns thinks that can be limiting. While there are people who can build businesses around their image, Burns, from the start, had a different view of how to build an enduring video brand. 

"We didn't name [the company] 'Red vs. Blue.' We named it Rooster Teeth." Even in 2003, Burns envisioned "Red vs. Blue" as the first step in a long process, in a catalog of shows that wasn't tied completely to any one individual. Now Rooster Teeth produces 1,000 hours of original content a year (25 hours weekly), ranging from animated to live action, comedy to drama, and even talk shows, podcasts, and reality shows.

"We took things that worked from the old media world," Burns continued. "NBC is called NBC, not The Seinfeld Channel ... When I first got started, at 29, [on a] gaming-based show 'Red vs. Blue,' I already feel like an old man. No one will want to watch a 35 year old play video games."

The question of how to evolve beyond being a one-hit online show is particularly relevant at this moment, when many personality-based YouTube stars are trying to expand their reach beyond the platform, into services Netflix or HBO, or to books and movies.

Can these stars continue to find and cultivate new streams of revenue and expand their audience?

Choice is key

One thing Burns stressed is to never throw away potential sources of revenue. In 2003, the medium of online video might have been new, but Rooster Teeth didn't jettison the old ways of making money. It sold merchandise and DVDs, even "years after people told [us DVDs] were dead," Burns said. At the time time, it experimented with subscription and pre-roll ads.

This all comes down to a central thesis of building a video business in the current landscape: You have to give people as many options as possible.

"You can’t tell people how to [financially] support you," Burns said. "You make as many opportunities to support as possible." Give them tiers, give them the option to watch ads, give them the ability to buy a tee-shirt. If you are loyal to your audience, and give them ways to support you, they'll be loyal to you, Burns said.

The catch?

You still have to be constantly engaging, at the fast pace of the web, and unfortunately that is easier said than done.

SEE ALSO: A YouTube star with 7.5 million subscribers explains how she makes money — and how the industry is changing

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's the gorgeous trailer for 'Super Mario Odyssey' — the first Mario game for Nintendo Switch

The hype for Natalie Portman's Oscar-nominated performance in "Jackie" came early.

Her stirring performance as First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy during the aftermath of the assassination of her husband JFK was the talk of the Toronto International Film Festival all the way back in September 2016, when many believe she would clinch the Oscar nod, which of course she did. She's now a frontrunner in the category.

Portman, who previously won an Oscar for her starring role in 2010's "Black Swan," has the look and unique voice of Kennedy down perfectly, which took a lot of preparation leading up to filming.

"I read every biography I could get my hands on," she told Business Insider. "And we recreated a lot of the White House tour for the film, so that was helpful to see how she walks and how she moves and her facial expressions."

The movie follows Kennedy as she recounts to a reporter the assassination and planning of her husband's funeral. But the movie also shows the different personas Kennedy had in front of different people — a debutante in public but feisty and no-nonsense behind closed doors.

Portman picked up on that in her research, which included listening to recorded interviews Kennedy did with biographer Arthur Schlesinger.

"When she was doing interviews, [her voice] was a lot more girly and soft, and then when you hear her talking to Schlesinger at home, you hear the ice in the glass clinking and the voice is a little deeper and her wit comes out more," Portman said. "So you get this real sense of the two sides."

SEE ALSO: Natalie Portman talks directing her first movie and why you'll never see her on social media

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Everything you need to know about Corinne Olympios — the newest villain of 'The Bachelor'

Netflix has said repeatedly that investing in new original shows and movies spurs subscriber growth, which is the main reason the company has swung increasingly in that direction over the past few years.

But the exact relationship between the release of a new show, and signing up a new subscriber, hasn't always been clear.

On Netflix's last quarterly earnings call, UBS analyst Doug Mitchelson asked Netflix's top executives to lay that relationship out in a bit more detail. 

"Is it tangible title by title?" Mitchelson asked. "Are you making just an overall estimate based on spending or number [of shows] released?"

Here's how Netflix CEO Reed Hastings responded:

"Think of it as, it is a cumulative effect. Very few people will join Netflix just because of a single title, but there is a tipping point. You have one more title that has great excitement, that you are hearing a lot about, and that triggers you to finally sign up for Netflix. So it is a cumulative effect of all of these ... the basic demand creation is increasing as people get more comfortable and more aware of the idea of internet television. Where you do not get the commercial interruptions, where you just get to watch when and where you want. So those are the big drivers. And then the things that capture the demand are really these big launches that we are doing of particular title franchises."

So Netflix gets subscribers a bit like one of Ernest Hemingway's characters famously goes bankrupt: "Two ways ... Gradually and then suddenly."

Netflix CFO David Wells added that the company has found returning shows do a better job of boosting subscriber growth than brand-new ones.

"If they are brand new shows ... if they are having to punch into the consciousness of the consumer, they do not tend to draw new subscribers in as great of numbers as some of our existing shows," Wells said.

Netflix had a huge beat on its Q4 subscriber growth numbers, both in the US and internationally, trouncing both Wall Street expectations and its own guidance.

SEE ALSO: Melania Trump is eating jewels on Vanity Fair Mexico's cover, and people are furious

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: A British reporter called Trump a 'brash TV extrovert' while asking if he'd get along with UK's prime minister

It's safe to say that M. Night Shyamalan is officially back as one of the top genre filmmakers working today.

For a second consecutive weekend his latest thriller, "Split," starring James McAvoy as a man with multiple personalities who has kidnapped three girls, tops the weekend box office.

Taking in an estimated $26.3 million, according to Variety, that puts the movie's domestic total at around $78 million (the film was only made for $9 million).

This follows Shyamalan's successful 2015 faux documentary horror "The Visit," which took in $98.4 million worldwide (on a $5 million budget). 

Both "Split" and "The Visit" were produced by horror titan Jason Blum (the "Paranormal Activity" and "Insidious" franchises) and it seems Shyamalan (who was also a producer on both films) has found the perfect collaborator following a string of bigger budget flops ending with 2013's "After Earth."

New release "A Dog's Purpose" came in second place this weekend, taking in $18.4 million. The movie has been dealing with weeks of bad press after video surfaced of dogs in the movie allegedly being abused on set.

It's debatable if the movie would have had a better opening weekend if it wasn't for this controversy. A better indication will be in the coming weeks, as past canine movies like "Eight Below" and "Hotel for Dogs" have turned out to be strong performers through its time in theaters (both earning over $100 million worldwide).

SEE ALSO: Ben Affleck's new gangster movie is a mega-flop that's set to lose $75 million for Warner Bros.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Shia LaBeouf got into a shouting match with a white nationalist on his anti-Trump live stream

Hollywood's golden era is generally considered to have started in the 1920s and stretched until the 1960s. The latter half was the time of some of the industry's most legendary stars: Marilyn Monroe, Elizabeth Taylor, and Marlon Brando, to name a few. 

A child star during the time, Angela Cartwright still remembers the excitement she felt whenever the word "action" was announced on set.

She also remembers the photographers who would be snapping away to help filmmakers keep record of all of the costume, hair, and makeup choices made on set. 

In the book she wrote with Tom McLaren, called "Styling the Stars: Lost Treasures from the Twentieth Century Fox Archives," Cartwright curated the best photos from 6,500 boxes of studio archives. These were negatives that had been kept away and mostly untouched until the late 1990s.  

"Each photograph reveals the raw essence of Hollywood movie-making, a glimpse into the process never intended for the public eye," she wrote in the introduction. 

Ahead, see behind-the-scenes photos of some of Hollywood's biggest stars from that era. 

SEE ALSO: New York City's most iconic hotel is closing indefinitely — take a look back at its star-studded past

These on-set photos were taken to maintain continuity between days of shooting. Directors, makeup artists, and costume designers would reference images to make sure everything was exactly the same day to day.

"The stills would largely consist of an actor standing next to a placard. Upon the placard, the movie title, actor name, character name, and scene number were hastily scribbled down," Cartwright wrote.

"More images would have been snapped on the set between takes as quick references for the wardrobe and hair departments," she wrote.

The Oscar nominations were announced on Tuesday morning, and there were some surprise nominations and snubs that quickly got movie fans heated.

While we all expected "La La Land" to sweep the nods, which tied for the most ever at 14 (alongside "Titanic" and "All About Eve"), some others snuck into the top of the race, including Mel Gibson, years after his personal troubles that almost sunk his career. And just about anyone who saw Amy Adams in "Arrival" was stunned she didn't get a nomination for her work.

Here are the biggest surprises and snubs of the 2017 Oscar nominees:

SEE ALSO: Why the worst movies of the year always come out in January

While perhaps not a complete surprise, it was comforting to see the Academy, given past protests of its lack of diversity, recognize actors and films that reflect a multicultural US, from "Hidden Figures" and "Moonlight" (both with best picture and acting nods) to documentaries "OJ: Made in America" and "13th," which grapple with the country's deep history of racial division.

Michael Shannon getting a best supporting actor nomination for "Nocturnal Animals" is a shock for many. The movie basically lost steam during award season, but Shannon is one of the movie's brightest spots.

"Arrival" cinematographer Bradford Young's nomination is less of a surprise and more of a historic moment, as he's the first African-American to ever receive a nomination in the cinematography category. And he's very deserving. He's responsible for the lush look of the film that has captivated audiences to the tune of over $160 million worldwide. Hopefully he's celebrating on the set of the young Han Solo movie, which he's currently shooting.

The original "Super Mario Bros." is more than just the 32 or so levels you've played. The original "Super Mario Bros." actually has hundreds more levels. Hundreds!

Those levels, however, are messed up.

They're broken, contain enemies that have no place within them (a Goomba underwater?!), and look completely bananas. They're the forgotten children of Nintendo's most revered game, hidden away in the annals of each cartridge's aging chips. These are levels Nintendo never intended anyone to see, and the company's never really spoken about them as a result.

But guess what? Intrepid Nintendo enthusiasts have cracked a crazy secret process for unlocking these hidden levels.

Here's how to do it.

SEE ALSO: Nintendo just revealed the real reason to buy its new game console

DON'T MISS: This is why Nintendo believes its next console won't fail like its last one did

There's one well-known secret world in the original 'Super Mario Bros.' — it's called the 'Negative World.'

It's just one of many of the hidden levels contained in "Super Mario Bros.," and it's perhaps the most widely known. You can reach it by performing an awkward backwards jump in the game's second level, 1-2, like so:

It's so-named because of the '-1' seen in the 'World' area of the screen:

The level itself is just a standard underwater level, though it's impossible to progress beyond it. Exiting the level results in a loop.

RAW Embed

Budweiser's Super Bowl ad will retell the story of the brand's cofounder Adolphus Busch's 1857 journey from Germany to St. Louis in the United States, Adweek reports.

The "Born the Hard Way" 60-second spot is described by Adweek as a "gritty, compelling" period film about Busch's early steps toward creating the world's largest brewer.

Set on the Mississippi River, the ad sees a battered Busch — played by Sam Schweikert — jump off a burning steamboat on to the muddy St Louis shore. The famous Budweiser Clydesdale horses will also make a cameo. It ends with Busch having a beer with the company's cofounder Eberhard Anheuser.

Laura Rowan, group strategy director, read some of the script to Adweek: "This is the story of the original self-made man, one of the founders of the American Dream, making it the hard way, and his path that all came after him followed ... We then see the words appear: 'When nothing will stop your dream, this is the beer you'll drink.' We end with the Budweiser logo and [tagline], 'This Bud's for you."

Budweiser's vice president of marketing Ricardo Marques noted that the ad is relevant in today's political climate, but said the brand did not intend for the ad to make a political statement.

He said: "There's really no correlation with anything else that's happening in the country. We believe this is a universal story that is very relevant today because probably more than any other period in history today the world pulls you in different directions, and it's never been harder to stick to your guns."

The company released a 15-second teaser of the ad on January 27. The full ad will be released on YouTube at some point during the week before the game.

Budweiser declined to reveal how much it paid for the ad, but Adweek estimated the production would cost in the range of $2 million to $3 million. Super Bowl broadcaster Fox is charging more than $5 million for a 30-second ad slot this year. Plus, Budweiser owner AB InBev has secured exclusive rights for advertising during the big game, where it will also promote its Bud Light, Busch, and Michelob Ultra brands.

Budweiser has created some of the most memorable Super Bowl ads, with its 2014 "Puppy Love" spot still holding the title of the most-watched Super Bowl ad of all time, according to YouTube.

This year's ad carries particular significant as the brand looks to arrest its declining US sales, which were down by "single mid digits" in AB InBev's third quarter. Estimated total market share for the brand was down approximately
20 basis points in the period, AB InBev said.

Last summer, the brand renamed itself "America," swapping out the name Budweiser for "America" on all its packaging in the US. But the campaign was largely seen as a flop, causing a lot of its perception ratings to actually go into decline, according to YouGov BrandIndex data.

Earlier this month, Budweiser decided to end its sponsorship of the US Olympics team, ending a 32 year partnership.

SEE ALSO: Here's everything we know about the Super Bowl ads so far

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The story of Lisa Brennan-Jobs, the daughter Steve Jobs claimed wasn't his

Netflix has no shortage of content. Going through its growing original material along with other shows and movies, you could binge endlessly and never crack the surface.

It's become harder on the movie front, as Netflix boosts its TV side, but you can put a good dent in some classic films if you have the right guide.

That's why we're here.

We have searched through all of the latest titles on the streaming giant so you don’t have to, and we've put together the 100 movies streaming on Netflix right now that you have to watch in your lifetime.

Note: Numerous Netflix titles drop off the streaming service monthly so the availability of titles below may change.

SEE ALSO: 20 modern classic TV shows everyone needs to watch in their lifetime

1. "10 Things I Hate About You" (1999)

Heath Ledger and Julia Styles have an incredible love/hate vibe that fuels the movie. And a baby-faced Joseph Gordon-Levitt looking for love is great, too.

2. "13th" (2016)

This Netflix original documentary from director Ava DuVernay ("Selma") explores the history of racial inequality in the US, particularly the key moments that have led to a disproportionate prison population in the country (one out of four people in prison around the world, and many of them African-American).

3. "Adventureland" (2009)

Director Greg Mottola takes us back to that feeling of our first summer job. Where the experience prepares you for the real world. But really all that happens is hitting on your coworkers.  

While protests broke out at many of the busiest airports in the country over the weekend following President Donald Trump’s executive order barring refugees from seven Muslim-majority countries, Sunday night’s Screen Actors Guild Awards were filled with acceptance speeches that addressed the tumultuous time we're in.

But the evening ended on an uplifting note when “Hidden Figures” won the best cast in a motion picture award. The film’s star, Taraji P. Henson, spoke on behalf of the cast and didn’t just address the importance of the true story the movie is based on, but what we as a nation can learn from it.

"This film is about unity," Henson said, praising the movie’s real-life heroes: Katherine Johnson, Dorothy Vaughn, and Mary Jackson, three African-American women who played a major part in getting the first man in space, as they calculated the mathematical data needed to get John Glenn in orbit.

“Hidden Figures” is the first movie to recognize the service these women did for their country. Henson plays Johnson, Janelle Monae plays Jackson, and Octavia Spencer plays Vaughan. Spencer has received a best supporting actress Oscar nomination for her work.

"Without them we would not know how to reach the stars,” Henson said about the three real-life women. "These women did not complain about the problems, their circumstances, the issues, we know what was going on in that era, they didn't complain. They focused on solutions. Therefore, these brave women helped put men into space."

But Henson then related the movie to the current social unrest in the country.

"This story is what happens when we put our differences aside and we come together as a human race,” she said. “We win. Love wins. Every time."

Watch the entire speech below:

SEE ALSO: 100 movies on Netflix that everyone needs to watch in their lifetime

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Mark Hamill is reading Trump’s tweets in his iconic Joker voice — and it’s hilarious

Very few people know the richest man on earth, billionaire Warren Buffett, more than his daughter, Susan Buffett.

She takes part in a portrait of the financial genius, HBO's "Becoming Warren Buffett," which premieres Monday at 10 p.m.

In the documentary, Susan, who was named after her mother and goes by Susie, provides a lot of intimate details about her parents, growing up in the family's Omaha home, and what drove her father to give away a large chunk of his fortune to charitable causes, including her children's charity, the Sherwood Foundation.

But despite Warren's reputation for being frugal and highly opinionated about how one invests money, Susie said finances were rarely spoken about in the Buffett home. In fact, she had no idea how rich her father was until her late-teen years.

"My parents never talked about money. They didn’t fight about it at all, either," Susie recently told Business Insider. "It was nonexistent, really, except that my brothers and I got a weekly allowance. We never got the lessons I think some kids get — you know, you can spend this much and you should save the nickel or whatever. None of that went on."

In fact, Susie said that there are a lot of unique aspects of her father that people often get wrong.

Here are five misconceptions about Warren Buffett, according to his daughter:

SEE ALSO: The 'Going Clear' director is making a documentary about ousted Fox News boss Roger Ailes

DON'T MISS: The 6 biggest things that are shaking up the TV industry right now

Warren Buffett wasn't as stingy about donating to charity in the early years as his critics said.

Prior to his large gift to several foundations and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation earlier this year, Warren was ridiculed by critics for not giving money to charity. Susie believes this is a side effect of her father's belief in investing for the long haul.

"His theory, of course, was that he was good at making money and there would be a lot more to give away if he could keep making it," she said.

But she said that her parents were giving back to the community for decades. They just weren't tooting their own horn.

"My mother was quietly giving a lot away," she said. "She started a scholarship program, actually, when I was in high school. It was only a couple kids a year, but she started as soon as there was some money there to give away. Neither of them have ever been the type to look for any recognition when they were doing philanthropic things. And it was certainly my mother doing it more than my dad at that point. And so I think there was a little more happening than people realize."

Warren Buffett is more generous with his children than people give him credit for.

"I actually agree with his philosophy of not dumping a bunch of money on your kids. And, by the way, my dad gets a bad rap for that," Susie told us. "He has been much more generous than people are aware. I feel extremely grateful to have the parents I had and for what they’ve given us. But certainly, he’s not going to leave us $50 billion and shouldn’t. It would be crazy to do anything like that."

Warren's decision in 2016 to give much of his fortune away to charity partly benefits foundations created by his children.

While Susan Buffett is credited with influencing her husband's departure from the Republican Party, she grew up Republican, as well.

"My mother, by the way, grew up Republican, too. And nobody knows that. That’s a funny thing," Susie told us.

At one point, Susie recalled, her maternal grandfather ran her paternal grandfather Howard Buffet's election campaign.

"The only time my grandpa Buffett lost, actually," she said. In all, Howard served four terms in the US Congress. 

A talking raccoon, a nearly-unkillable tree, and a devilishly handsome '80s kid are unwitting heroes in the "Guardians of the Galaxy," a killer Marvel movie from 2014.

If you haven't seen it: go see it. It's funny and stylish and doesn't take itself too seriously and it's got a killer soundtrack. Did I mention the talking raccoon? He's actually a mess-talking raccoon. 

If that framing sounds more like the cast of a video game than a blockbuster movie, you're not far off — apparently a major "Guardians of the Galaxy" game is on the way.

Better yet, the game is reportedly in the works from the team that created the last two (excellent) games in the "Deus Ex" series: "Deus Ex: Human Revolution" and "Deus Ex: Mankind Divided." Not ringing a bell? They're complex and delightful and very, very pretty first-person action games. You sneak around — or dash in, guns blazing — while continuing the story of cyborg-human Adam Jensen.

Check it out:

As Eurogamer's Tom Philips reports, the team at Eidos Montreal that was previously responsible for the "Deus Ex" franchise is being put to work on a new "Guardians of the Galaxy" game. It sounds like the game is still far from complete — Eidos Montreal is reportedly helping out on a new game based on "The Avengers" before getting to work on the "Guardians" game. 

Few details are known about either game at this point, but Square Enix — the Japanese publisher that owns Eidos Montreal, and also announced a collaboration with Marvel last week — says more details are coming in 2018. And that makes sense given that a new "Avengers" film is expect to launch in 2018. 

What makes less sense is the timing of this new "Guardians of the Galaxy" game — the second film in that franchise is planned for a May 5, 2017 launch (as in, a few months from now). Perhaps the game is timed for launch alongside a third film in the series? We'll have to wait and see; this remains a report, and hasn't been confirmed by Square Enix or Marvel/Disney.

SEE ALSO: Marvel is making a new 'Avengers' game — and it's getting help from one of the most popular game companies in the world

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Marvel just dropped the first full trailer for 'Guardians of the Galaxy 2' — and it looks amazing

Super Bowl 51 is set to air on Fox on February 5 and, as usual, the big game's broadcast will be stuffed to the brim with big-money ads, reportedly costing $5 million for a 30-second slot.

Brands are now starting to share their ads and teasers as the Super Bowl draws closer.

We'll be keeping you up to date with all the latest commercials, teasers, and other Super Bowl ads news.

Scroll down to see what we know so far about the Super Bowl ads (we've organized all the news in alphabetical order, by brand.)

84 Lumber

Construction-supply company 84 Lumber has splashed out an estimated $15 million on a 90-second ad — its debut Super Bowl spot, AdAge reported. The ad, created by Brunner, will air in the second quarter, before half-time and aims to recruit new employees. 

However, the first cut of the ad has had to be scrapped after Fox rejected it for being "too political," Campaign first reported. The creative had featured a wall blocking people looking for work in the US.

Here's a recent 84 Lumber ad, celebrating its 60th year:

Audi

The automaker is returning to the Super Bowl for the ninth time, with an ad created by agency Venables Bell & Partners, according to Adweek.

Last year's spot featured David Bowie's "Starman":

Avocados from Mexico

Avocados from Mexico told Business Insider in December it was coming back to the Super Bowl in 2017. It's the third year in a row the brand has advertised in the big game.

This year's ad will be focused on promoting the fact that avocados are healthy, something the company was not explicitly permitted to do so in the past due to old FDA rules.

The brand released a teaser spot on January 23:

Hollywood's stars joined tens of thousands of protestors over the weekend in speaking out about President Donald Trump's immigration ban.

As protests were held at airports and major US landmarks all over the country, Hollywood was throwing two of its biggest awards events of the year: the Sundance Film Festival awards and the Screen Actors Guild Awards. Many celebrities used those platforms and the protests to voice their opposition to Trump's ban.

The immigration ban — which is being challenged as unconstitutional and called racist and a "Muslim ban" by critics – temporarily blocks travelers from entering the US from seven predominately Muslim countries and bans all refugees from entering for the next 120 days.

The impact on Hollywood was immediately felt when Iranian director Asghar Farhadi, whose film "The Salesman" is nominated for a best foreign film Oscar, said the ban would stop him from being able to attend the awards ceremony on February 26. 

While some entertainment stars certainly support Trump and his executive order, the vocal majority has made its objections to his presidency clear.

Over the weekend, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Seth Rogen, Taraji P. Henson, Ashton Kutcher, and Sarah Paulson, among many other stars, expressed their disapproval of the immigration ban.

Here's what they had to say:

SEE ALSO: Trump calls Madonna 'disgusting' for her profane comments at the Women's March

DON'T MISS: Samantha Bee gave Trump supporters a chance to gloat

Seth Rogen

Seth Rogen used his powerful presence on social media to spread the word of a protest in Los Angeles on Sunday and spoke about his own immigrant roots.

Simon Helberg

CBS's "The Big Bang Theory" star Simon Helberg and his wife, Jocelyn Towne, didn't have to speak any words. On the SAG Awards red carpet, he held a sign reading, "Refugees welcome," while she had "Let them in" written on her chest.

Taraji P. Henson

“This story is about what happens when we put our differences aside, and we come together as a human race,” Henson said while accepting the cast award for "Hidden Figures" at Sunday's SAG Awards. “We win. Love wins every time ... They are hidden figures no more!”

On Saturday, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings wrote on Facebook that President Trump's actions were "hurting Netflix employees around the world, and are so un-American it pains us all."

It was a strong statement, especially compared to many other tech CEOs who came out against Trump's immigration ban, but were more measured in the wording of their criticisms.

Here's the rest of Hastings' statement:

"Worse, these actions will make America less safe (through hatred and loss of allies) rather than more safe. A very sad week, and more to come with the lives of over 600,000 Dreamers here in a America under imminent threat. It is time to link arms together to protect American values of freedom and opportunity."

This isn't the first time Hastings has lambasted Trump.

In June, during the campaign, Hastings said that "Trump would destroy much of what is great about America," if he were elected president.

Again, strong words, strong enough to potentially provoke Trump's wrath.

For the CEO of a public company, it can sometimes be hard to reconcile a moral position with a duty to shareholders, but one reason Hastings likely feels free to speak his mind about Trump is that Netflix, as a company, thinks it's immune to the Trump administration on one very important issue: net neutrality.

Too big to matter

Net neutrality is the idea of having a free and open internet, in which no website's data is favored over another's. Practically, this means that internet service providers (ISPs) can't charge a site like Netflix a fee to make sure its data runs at a speed that makes streaming video possible.

Under the new Trump administration, the FCC is widely expected to roll back net neutrality laws. At one time, this would have been seen a huge blow for Netflix, since it could open the company up to paying big fees.

That's still possible, but in Netflix's last quarterly earnings letter, it told shareholders not to worry. 

“Weakening of US net neutrality laws, should that occur, is unlikely to materially affect our domestic margins or service quality because we are now popular enough with consumers to keep our relationships with ISPs stable,” Netflix wrote.

Netflix's position is that it is simply too popular, and too large, to be hurt by a weakening of net neutrality rules. That type of change could actually favor the established players in the market, and Netflix now considers itself one of them. It would make it harder for upstart streaming services, which compete with Netflix, to get off the ground.

Still, Netflix is against such a policy change, precisely because the company thinks it is anti-competitive. (It could also hurt Netflix's margins).

“On a public policy basis, however, strong net neutrality is important to support innovation and smaller firms,” Netflix wrote. “No one wants ISPs to decide what new and potentially disruptive services can operate over their networks, or to favor one service over another. We hope the new US administration and Congress will recognize that keeping the network neutral drives job growth and innovation.”

If Netflix felt more vulnerable to a change in FCC policy regarding net neutrality, Hastings' strong opposition to Trump might be a trickier business proposition. But since Netflix's public position is that such a change won't affect its business, Hastings likely feels that staying cordial to Trump isn't vital for Netflix's future.

The FCC once could have been used as a big stick against Netflix, but it's too late now, and Netflix is too dominant.

Additional reporting by Jeff Dunn. 

SEE ALSO: How to turn a viral video hit into 250-person business, from someone who did it

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here’s how the top Silicon Valley companies are responding to Trump’s immigration ban

ESPN has been having a tough time of it. 

Disney has been struggling of late due to falling ESPN advertising revenue and 2% annual subscriber erosion at ESPN for the last three years.

Programming costs were also higher toward the end of last year, escalated by the costs of Olympics programming, rights to air the World Cup of Hockey, and higher rates for college sports.

And like other networks, ESPN is struggling with a consumer shift towards cheaper streaming services like Amazon and Netflix and away from cable and satellite bundles. The number of households with the sports network has declined since 2013.

All of this could be about to change however, according to a note published by Morgan Stanley on Monday.

Morgan Stanley equity analysts, led by Benjamin Swinburne, upgraded Disney from an equal-weight to an overweight rating. The team cited a reset of estimates and potential for ESPN to accelerate revenue growth against a more aggressively managed cost base. The team also believe that distribution renewals for ESPN, new streaming bundles, and a strong film slate will accelerate Disney's EPS growth in 2017. 

"It remains a time of transition at Disney, as it evolves its ESPN/ABC distribution model to attempt to reach consumers that have been opting out of the pay-TV bundle," according to the team. They expect ESPN to launch an à la carte service, like CBS and HBO have. "We expect the à la carte and bundled offerings will co-exist for a long time, creating more earnings stability than the market presumes."

It's also likely that Disney will bring on a new CEO after June 2018, succeeding Bob Iger. 

Disney is ticking up 0.47% to $109.81 per share on Monday afternoon. Morgan Stanley increased their price target for the company from $101 to $124 on Monday.

Disney reports Q1 F17 earnings results on February 7th. 

SEE ALSO: ESPN is crushing Disney

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's how to use one of the many apps to buy and trade bitcoin

ESPN has been having a tough time of it. 

Disney has been struggling of late due to falling ESPN advertising revenue and 2% annual subscriber erosion at ESPN for the last three years.

Programming costs were also higher toward the end of last year, escalated by the costs of Olympics programming, rights to air the World Cup of Hockey, and higher rates for college sports.

And like other networks, ESPN is struggling with a consumer shift towards cheaper streaming services like Amazon and Netflix and away from cable and satellite bundles. The number of households with the sports network has declined since 2013.

All of this could be about to change however, according to a note published by Morgan Stanley on Monday.

Morgan Stanley equity analysts, led by Benjamin Swinburne, upgraded Disney from an equal-weight to an overweight rating. The team cited a reset of estimates and potential for ESPN to accelerate revenue growth against a more aggressively managed cost base. The team also believe that distribution renewals for ESPN, new streaming bundles, and a strong film slate will accelerate Disney's EPS growth in 2017. 

"It remains a time of transition at Disney, as it evolves its ESPN/ABC distribution model to attempt to reach consumers that have been opting out of the pay-TV bundle," according to the team. They expect ESPN to launch an à la carte service, like CBS and HBO have. "We expect the à la carte and bundled offerings will co-exist for a long time, creating more earnings stability than the market presumes."

It's also likely that Disney will bring on a new CEO after June 2018, succeeding Bob Iger. 

Disney is ticking up 0.47% to $109.81 per share on Monday afternoon. Morgan Stanley increased their price target for the company from $101 to $124 on Monday.

Disney reports Q1 F17 earnings results on February 7th. 

SEE ALSO: ESPN is crushing Disney

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's how to use one of the many apps to buy and trade bitcoin