When J.K. Rowling made a tweet comparing Trump to Lord Voldemort, some of her fans threatened to burn their Harry Potter Books. So she decided to give them a piece of her mind.

Follow BI Video:On Twitter

Join the conversation about this story »

Digital media startup Odyssey has laid off 55 people, slashing over a third of its full-time, paid staff less than a year after raising $25 million, CEO Evan Burns confirmed to Business Insider.

This is a dramatic change for a company that board member Michael Lazerow described in April as being the most exciting company to him since he invested in Buzzfeed. (Lazerow sold his startup Buddy Media to Salesforce for $800 million.)

Odyssey has raised $32 million in total, and moved into a new New York office in December.

Burns said that the cuts were across all departments and locations, but focused mostly on the editorial side. The reason he gave for the cuts was a need to completely re-make Odyssey's technology platform in a way that would allow the startup to grow. "[The tech platform] wasn't able to scale," and stalled growth, he said.

Odyssey functions a bit like a college paper on steroids.

The startup has a stable of over 15,000 mostly unpaid writers, typically in the 18-25 age bracket, who produce around one piece a week. The bulk are college students, and Odyssey began as a publication narrowly focused on Greek life. The content Odyssey writers produce spans all sorts of topics, from politics to fashion to sports.

There is no broad editorial mandate, but each Odyssey articles goes through successive layers of editing, first by a "community" editor, who is basically a power user within a geography, and then to the company's paid staff editors. Those paid editors are where many of the cuts came, Burns said, though some of the product team technical leadership was replaced as well.

The Odyssey idea is to have bright young writers swap their work for being edited and professionally branded, and leverage their networks to have the work spread on social media. This may sound familiar, as the unpaid contributor model initially made Turner-owned sports site Bleacher Report a success, and boosted pageviews for The Huffington Post. (Business Insider has some outside contributors as well.)

Odyssey has been experimenting with different forms of making money, including sponsored content, some of which Odyssey contributors can get paid to write. But right now it's certainly not a place writers can generally make a significant chunk of cash.

Burns said he is still committed to the underlying business model and structure, but that the tech reboot will take several months to get going at least. 

While some Odyssey writers and editors took to social media to vent about the lack of communication from the company about the layoffs, Burns said the issue was simply in the amount of people they had to reach.

When you have 15,000 writers, and 1,000 various community "editor-in-chiefs" it takes time, Burns said. "It was a couple of days of phone calls" to those who wanted an explanation.

SEE ALSO: Amazon listed its plan to create 100,000 US jobs as the No. 1 highlight this quarter — as it spars with President Trump

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: J.K. Rowling roasts fans threatening to burn Harry Potter books because of her anti-Trump rhetoric

It's a little hard to remember, but M. Night Shyamalan was once supposed to be the Second Coming in Hollywood.

The writer and director, who's influenced as much by Alfred Hitchcock as Steven Spielberg, broke out young with his second feature in 1999, "The Sixth Sense," a box-office hit with a genuinely shocking twist ending that had everyone talking about it — and executives more than willing to bankroll his next creative whim.

After solid reception to "Unbreakable" and "Signs," Shyamalan hit rocky points, from the head-scratching response to modern fairy tale "Lady in the Water" to flat-out disdain for the gimmicks of "The Village" and "The Happening."

But his career has rebounded with relatively low-budget returns to the thriller territory that has been so fertile for him. After "The Visit" proved a horror hit in 2015, his new thriller "Split," starring James McAvoy as a troubled man with multiple personalities who kidnaps three girls, has turned into a box-office sensation of early 2017, staying at No. 1 for two weeks.

"Split" has already outdone the domestic box-office gross for several of Shyamalan's previous features, and is on its way to hitting numbers closer to his early blockbusters.

See the chart below to see how Shyamalan's movie career took off, nosedived, and made a comeback at the box office*:

*Note: Budgets for the movies vary significantly, so box-office revenue alone does not determine success, though it's a useful indicator.

SEE ALSO: All the most shocking things about Scientology, according to Leah Remini's revealing show

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: How to use Meitu — the Chinese selfie-enhancing app that the Internet is obsessed with

"La La Land" is forgettable. Yes, it will probably win best picture when the Oscars are handed out on February 26, because it's practically designed for the Academy Awards. It's a musical, it's cute, it's technically impressive, it flatters Hollywood. But I have yet to meet a fan of the movie (they are many and vocal, as "SNL" aptly parodied) who actually listens to the soundtrack, which when you think about it, opposes the entire logic of a musical.

It's also a movie that looks backward. The classics it incessantly references ("Singin' in the Rain," "The Umbrellas of Cherbourg") defined their genres. Gene Kelly perfected the art of singing and dancing on the big screen. Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone can barely sing and soft-shoe better than you and I can, and their characters' conflicts (why aren't you pursuing your dream instead of playing in a successful pop-jazz band?) are lame if not puzzling. "La La Land" rewards viewers who recognize what's pretty and vintage, but it's skin-deep.

This wouldn't be the first time the Oscar best picture has gone to pat fluff ("Shakespeare in Love" comes to mind), but it comes at a critical time. "Moonlight," a smaller film, has a decent chance of stealing the award, and I hope it does, because it's a revolutionary movie in the middle of what might turn out to be a revolutionary moment in American history. Either way, it's the nominee that will prove to be timeless.

From the outside, it's easy to understand why "Moonlight" appeals to Oscar voters. The drama exposes the underbelly of an ignored and blighted corner of the US, and it demands that its extremely talented actors shout and cry a lot. It's also, as critics rightfully point out, in the tradition of movies about the degradations of black life, like "Precious" and "Monster's Ball." The worst parts of the movie indulge in movie-of-the-week cliches about crackheads (the addict mom seemingly transforms out of nowhere by the end to deliver a final redemptive note).

But "Moonlight" is unique and life-affirming, even soul-cleansing, in a more fundamental way. This is a movie centered on a poor black man with gay desires that is not in any central way about being black, gay, or poor. The director and the writer of the play on which "Moonlight" is based — who are from the same housing projects in Liberty City, Miami, where it's set — deeply understand how circumstances shape their main character, as we see through the gorgeous on-location shooting. (Anyone from Miami or the surrounding area, like I am, will feel the heat just watching.) But the quiet, stunning revelation of the movie is that this poor black man with gay desires can't be pinned down to any of those things. We watch him define his own identity, on his own terms.

We're in the early days of a president who recently described the conditions of largely black urban centers as "terrible." Words like those have long been used to strip away the inherent humanity of black Americans. We've made a lot of racial progress in 2017, but we're also a country, as research shows, that increasingly self-sorts into communities of people who think and act like us, and who confirm our view of the world.

"Moonlight" scrambles that problem. It's audaciously and ingeniously structured in three parts, in which we see the main character in starkly different stages of his life (he's named Little, Chiron, and Black) that are still undeniably linked. The last chapter shows Black, after a traumatic childhood and having moved away, inhabiting the image of a hard black man we've come to accept from pop culture. But then we see more — the wonder of Little, the tenderness and insecurity of Chiron. We see how this man has gradually shuffled through identities to find which one is really his.

The ending of "Moonlight" hinges on Black's romantic reunion with a childhood friend that is and isn't what you expect based on a million Hollywood romances. They make awkward small talk, there's the gesture of intimacy in a hot meal, a soul song on the jukebox.

But we've never seen two black men reuniting like this in a major American movie before. That's not just tokenism. Their interaction is palpably real, and about much more than sex. It's the recognition of two people who know each other so well that they could never forget, no matter how many years they've been apart or how much they've superficially changed. They see each other for who they really are, when hardly anyone else does. It's one of the most remarkable things I've seen portrayed on a big screen.

And that recognition of one man's individual humanity and connection in "Moonlight" can help us understand how we look at each other, too. The movie resists the idea that we're defined by our color, sexuality, community, education, income, or even politics, even while those things determine so much about our lives. Its blissful lesson is that we're all just trying to find out who we are and understand each other — and perhaps we can, if we really try.

That's something worth celebrating in 2017 or any other year.

SEE ALSO: RANKED: The 10 worst movies to win the best picture Oscar — and what should have won

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Everything you need to know about 'American Gods' — a TV show that could be bigger than 'Game of Thrones'

When Sony launched the new PlayStation 4 Pro last year for $400, it came with the promise of better-looking games.

You spend $400 — a $100 jump over the standard $300 price tag of the PS4 — and you get games that run faster, smoother, and better than ever before. That was the promise of the PS4 Pro.

Some PS4 Pro games are even playable in 4K — the next graphical step-up after HD!

And that's sort of been the case. On a game-by-game basis, there are better-looking games. 

More specifically, games only look better if the game's developer makes a point of updating the game so that it takes advantage of the PS4 Pro's increased power. Even more specifically, unless a game company spends the time and money to update an older game for the PS4 Pro, it looks/runs the same as it does on the standard PS4. 

Worst of all: It's not clear which older PS4 games have been updated and which haven't. There's no easy list, no easy way of quickly knowing whether or not a game has been updated (other than to Google around in the hopes that someone's written about it). 

Any game that launched after the PS4 Pro is all set (like "Uncharted 4" here). But there are dozens of great games that launched before September 7, 2016. And if you're shelling out $400 for a console that you could just as easily spend $300 on, don't you want all the games to look better? 

The answer is "Yes, of course yes." And Sony's finally making that happen, almost six months after the PS4 Pro launched.

In an upcoming system update for all PlayStation 4 consoles, update 4.50, Sony's adding a "Boost Mode" to the PS4 Pro. And the new mode does something really basic that the PS4 Pro should've done since launch: It "lets PS4 Pro run at a higher GPU and CPU clock speed in order to improve gameplay on some PS4 games that were released before the launch of PS4 Pro." 

In English, that means that boost mode makes games look prettier, run smoother, and launch faster. "Games that have a variable frame rate may benefit from a higher frame rate, and load times may be shorter in some games too," a Sony rep told The Verge. 

Of course, the problem remains that not all older games will run better with this feature turned on. Sony ambiguously says that "some" games released before the Pro launched will be improved by boost mode — we've asked what's excluded and have yet to hear back.

All that said, it's nice that Sony's fulfilling the promise of the Pro — to make all PS4 games look and run better — even though it's what the console should've done out of the box.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's your first look at the newest PlayStations

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

The Super Bowl is the most-watched television event in the US, which means whoever performs during the halftime show is playing the biggest stage in the country.

Which makes the stakes of that short burst of entertainment relatively colossal. 

The modern Super Bowl halftime show as we know it started in 1991 with New Kids on the Block (previous shows featured a theme with marching bands and various performance groups), and it's stayed relatively consistent since: A pop star (or stars) takes over the field with props, backup dancers, probably pyrotechnics, and possibly even a live band, and goes through a rundown of their hits in a handful of minutes.

But the quality and tone of the shows have been all over the map, from the save-the-world vibe of early years with NKOTB and Michael Jackson, to Janet Jackson's Nipplegate and Katy Perry's campy Left Shark.

Not all of them proved to be timeless. We revisited all the halftime shows since 1991 and ranked the best: 

SEE ALSO: The best shows to binge-watch right now according to TV stars

5. Stevie Wonder, Gloria Estefan, and Big Bad Voodoo Daddy (1999)

Youtube Embed:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/LfZoeBM4hqg
Width: 800px
Height: 600px

Stevie Wonder, Gloria Estefan, and Big Bad Voodoo Daddy? Eclectic, sure, but that was the point. They’ve all had long, consistent careers because they’re consummate professionals, which is what defines this show. Wonder and Estefan give some of the best live singing the game has seen. And you could do worse for backup than Voodoo Daddy and jitterbug and salsa dancers sprinkled throughout the field. This is one joyous party.

4. Bruno Mars and Red Hot Chili Peppers (2014)

Youtube Embed:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/F2i0Bc3f7jk
Width: 800px
Height: 450px

Bruno Mars started out by impressively whaling on the drums, then broke into his hit "Locked Out of Heaven," and the rest was history. Mars threw the crowd a curveball when he rocked out with the Red Hot Chili Peppers for a collaboration featuring their song "Give It Away." Even non-fans had to love it. The combination of his Temptations-inspired attire and polarizing voice created a performance for the books.

3. Michael Jackson (1993)

Youtube Embed:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/idg8TNknvDU
Width: 800px
Height: 600px

As he did with his music videos, Michael Jackson brought cinematic showmanship to his Super Bowl halftime show, and just the right amount of corniness, including MJ decoys popping out of Jumbotrons. He also knew how to hold a pose for just long enough (which is a pretty long time, turns out). Michael Jackson was one of our greatest entertainers, and he delivered.

Now please enjoy this GIF of "Michael Jackson" "popping out" of a Jumbotron:

.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: How to use Meitu — the Chinese selfie-enhancing app that the Internet is obsessed with

Winning the best picture Oscar doesn't just signal that a movie is regarded by Hollywood as the top achievement in the medium for the year; it can help cement a movie's status, with past winners that have gone on to become classics like "The Godfather," "Lawrence of Arabia," and "On the Waterfront."

But the Academy voters don't always get it right. Tucked away in the 88 years of Oscar ceremonies are best picture winners that quickly vanished from the zeitgeist, never to be heard from again. That's often because they weren't as good as originally thought.

It's probably too early to say which of the nine best picture nominees in 2017 — including critical favorites "La La Land," "Moonlight," and "Manchester by the Sea" — will live on in our memories, but here's hoping the Academy doesn't screw this one up when the Oscars air February 26.

Here we look back on the 10 most disappointing best picture winners and choose the nominees that should have won:

SEE ALSO: RANKED: The 12 greatest movies to win the best picture Oscar

10. "Around the World in 80 Days" (1956)

Based on the Jules Verne novel, this film used all of Hollywood's resources (a $6 million budget in the 1950s was far from cheap) to create a sprawling look at the world, but the story of a super-rich English gentleman Phileas Fogg (David Niven) who attempts to win his wager to navigate the globe is silly and far from memorable. 

SHOULD HAVE WON: "The Ten Commandments"

Cecil B. DeMille's final directing effort still holds strong today. With its all-star cast, particularly the incredible performance by Charlton Heston as Moses (he didn't even get an Oscar nomination for the role), and its remarkable effects for that era, it's a movie that should have been recognized with the top prize.  

9. "Ordinary People" (1980)

The late 1970s and early 1980s were when the melodrama was at its zenith in movie theaters, and "Ordinary People" came around at the perfect time. The film didn't just win best picture — it also achieved best director for Robert Redford and best actor for Timothy Hutton. Granted, the film has explosive performances in it, but there needs to be more than great acting to win best picture.

HBO has given "Girls" a lot of freedom when it comes to scenes that push the boundaries of taste, and the network is certainly known for its bounty of sex-filled material. But there was one "Girls" scene that the network wouldn't allow to reach the small screen.

(Warning: Some of the quotes below get a little lewd.)

As "Girls" approaches its sixth and final season premiering February 12, the Hollywood Reporter interviewed the network executives, creators, and stars involved to piece together a wide-ranging oral history of the popular show. In it, they discuss the sexually explicit scene that brought HBO and the show's producers to a roadblock.

Cocreator Judd Apatow referred to it as a "conclusion shot" in a sex scene.

Cocreator and star Lena Dunham was less delicate in her description, saying it involved semen "arcing through a shot."

HBO's then-programming president, Michael Lombardo, drew a line in the sand.

Apatow recalled, "HBO said, 'If this is in the show, we could lose our license.' We were like, 'Oh my God, we've actually found the line at HBO.'"

HBO's then-entertainment president Sue Naegle defended the network's stance, referring to the climax shot as a "fire hose." In the end, the show's creators relented.

"When Mike fought us on stuff, which wasn't often, he was always right," cocreator Jenni Konner said.

But in the end, "Girls" would get its "conclusion shot" after all, and it generated plenty of conversation during its second season. Viewers and media debated if it was too graphic.

"It was conditioner and Cetaphil, by the way — it was just with Adam and Shiri Appleby instead," Dunham said.

Read THR's full oral history of "Girls."

SEE ALSO: Lena Dunham reveals Amy Schumer auditioned for a role on 'Girls' and why she didn't get it

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

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: HBO's 'The Young Pope' is inspiring lots of hilarious memes — here are the best ones

Tastemade opened its third global studio in London this week, and this year the five-year-old food video startup has ambitions not only to grow geographically, but expand into new verticals too.

The Los Angeles-based startup has carved itself a niche in online food videos. Alongside the classic recipe videos, Tastemade creates documentary style shows like "SOURCED," where viewers discover the origins of famous foods. Another breakout hit is the comedic show "Tiny Kitchen," in which Tastemade staff cook dishes in doll-sized proportions. The startup's revenue comes largely from sponsorships, ranging from one-off videos it will create for a brand, to entire shows it hosts on its own channels, such as the three seasons of the "Local Flight" series it produced with Grey Goose, visiting cocktail bars around the world.

The company raised $40 million at the end of 2015 from Goldman Sachs as well as media companies Comcast, Liberty Media, and Scripps Network.

The opening in London is the first European studio for Tastemade, after Los Angeles and Sao Paulo.  The new studio houses four different sets, each modeled after the typical British kitchen to capture the local flair.

Moving beyond food

But although it's where Tastemade made its name, the brand isn't just about food. Its first shift away from foodie videos was when it expanded into the travel vertical, in 2014.

Tastemade's head of programming, Oren Katzleff, told Business Insider: "Food and travel are very entwined so it made sense for us to make that leap. You'll see in 2017 we'll start to expand the genres in which we create content with the angle that we're more of a lifestyle brand."

CEO Steven Kydd added: "We chose our name really purposefully because we didn't think there were an awful lot of people creating really high quality video."

The startup, ranked seventh on Tubular Labs' most viewed media and entertainment companies list, said more brands want to venture into online video.

Kydd said: "If you're one of the distributors right now, these lifestyle categories that we're in are very monetizable," hinting that there were social media companies asking Tastemade for even more content. Meanwhile, brands in categories outside of travel and food are also looking to Tastemade to create videos for them.

"There are massive categories with potential, specifically for high quality video," Kydd said. He pointed at home and design, style and beauty and DIY as potential categories where Tastemade could apply its unique aesthetic and formats.

"We've done quite well in food and travel and now we feel like we've earned our right to go to the next logical lifestyle category," Kydd said but no official decision had been made.

Tastemade says it differentiates itself from brands like BuzzFeed thanks to the premium quality of its videos

Tastemade isn't the only video brand that has "done quite well" in this space. BuzzFeed launched its own food video property Tasty in 2016, and recently doubled the size of its branded content studio in London.

Tastemade cofounder Steven Kydd said his network differentiates itself from BuzzFeed because the production of high-quality visuals and the talent it teams up with make it a more premium brand.

Tastemade startup shoots seven different videos a day, each of which gets up to six specific edits to give it a more natural feel for each distribution point. For videos that go on Snapchat, Tastemade even created a vertical-specific set, where the decor is narrower and higher so more of it can fit into a single vertical video shot.

Why it has taken Tastemade so long to expand internationally

The startup's attention to detail and goal to maintain a high level of quality is why it has been comparatively slow, since it was founded in 2012, to open more offices around the world. Before opening any office, Tastemade starts with a small team of talent scouts in a country. It has a network of scouts, in countries like France, Japan, and Germany who are looking at platforms like Pinterest and Instagram to find the screen talent they call "tastemakers."

Kydd said: "We don't call them talent or stars because their job isn't to jump up and down in front of the camera and be loud. Their job is to have taste and find something and curate the best and then deliver that to the audience."

Identifying the right talent is critical to Tastemade's strategy to break into new markets around the world. There are some ground rules: Tastemakers should already have a local following, which can be driven to the Tastemade network, and have an understanding of local style.

Katzleff, said: "Since day one of launching in the UK, we've looked very closely at the data. Specifically what UK talent performs well in the US."

Tastemade has seen two-thirds of its British talent roster perform well in the US. That content is translated for other countries like Brazil or Japan. Sometimes a recipe from one country is adapted with the ingredients from another country, but not every dish translates around the world. What often drives even very local dishes are strong personalities who connect with viewers Katzleff explained.

One of those UK personalities whose content has performed well in the US is the "Topless Baker" Matt Adlard, who has amassed a following of over 63,000 followers on Instagram. He's among the first UK talents Tastemade added to its UK roster.

"When you look at how we've picked the different places that we've launched studios, it's been massive audience opportunity and then we've got to monetize the content. The opportunity is also there from a brand standpoint," Katzleff said.

London, despite not being known as a culinary capital, ticked all of those boxes. The company is in currently discussion with 15 brands to create UK-specific content as well as expanding on partnerships with global brands, like Unilever.

The company is not currently looking to raise funding and nor does it want to veer away from video

Kydd declined disclose revenues but said that there had been very strong growth and that the company is not looking to raise more funding for the time being.

Kydd said: "But you never say never. The media landscape is totally up for grabs right now. There are massive transformative things happening in media right now."

Tastemade made the bet to focus on digital-only videos about one specific vertical of food when it was founded in 2012. The three Tastemade founders previously founded Demand Media, which went public in 2010 and today owns the publishing brands eHow and Livestrong. Kydd explained that when Tastemade launched, advisors to the founding team often told them to look at doing other formats such as articles or photos but the company maintained its focus on video.

Today that focus has paid off. Katzleff said: "I hold data in my hands that only maybe three other people in the world have and I can tell how to create the best content in the world across all those platforms. Tastemade does all that and on top we create the content for you."

Join the conversation about this story »

With the Sundance Film Festival just finished, filmmakers whose films didn't get sold during the festival are now trying to come up with a strategy to stay relevant in the eyes of buyers.

In the hopes of attracting some of the movies that aren't having distributors knocking down their doors, Amazon announced before the festival began that any feature film that played at this year's Sundance can join its Amazon Video Direct platform, a service that Amazon touts as being a “self-service publishing interface, without the need for complex negotiations or contracts.”

But numerous filmmakers and producers at Sundance who talked to Business Insider expressed uncertainty about how beneficial the service would be not just to titles at the fest, but for independent films that are desperately looking for some kind of release.

Amazon launched the self-distribution platform Amazon Video Direct (AVD) last May with the intention, as AVD head Eric Orme told Business Insider, to give filmmakers “another avenue if they don’t feel they will secure distribution.”

It's free of charge to upload any film to the platform. The only requirement is that it must meet the Amazon Video guidelines and contain captions or subtitles. You then select the options on how the movie will be viewed — rent, buy, available for free on the site with ads, or available on Amazon Prime. Then the movie is on the service for potentially millions to see.

A filmmaker can track how it’s performing by using their AVD dashboard to see how many people are viewing the content and where in the world it’s being viewed.

But because of the prestige that comes with being selected to show at Sundance, Amazon is dishing out upfront cash to entice filmmakers there.

In a program touted as “Film Festival Stars,” AVD (not to be mistaken with Amazon Studios, which acquires films for theatrical/streaming and produces projects in house) will provide Sundance 2017 titles that join by February 28 a publishing bonus as well as enhanced royalty rates.

The non-recoupable, onetime bonus is $100,000 for titles that were in this year’s US dramatic or premieres categories at the fest. It's $75,000 for US documentaries and documentary premieres. And $25,000 for titles that were in the world dramatic, world documentaries, NEXT, Spotlight, Kids, Midnight, or New Frontier sections.

Only Film Festival Stars receive upfront money for uploading to AVD.

This year’s Sundance titles that join AVD also will get enhanced royalties — 30 cents per hour of views in the US, 12 cents per hour for international views.

The standard AVD royalties are 15 cents per hour in the US and 6 cents per hour internationally. Across the board, the cap for royalties in a month is $75,000. Filmmakers also receive 50% of all purchase/rental fees for their movie (this will also be the split Sundance films receive when going on AVD).

The Sundance titles that join AVD give up their streaming rights as they are required to be on Amazon Prime for 24 months, and the first 12 months will be exclusive to Prime.

“We have structured this in such a way that really helps support them if they don't get the options they are hoping for,” Orme said of the Sundance filmmakers, adding that they consulted with filmmakers and distributors to come up with the Film Festival Stars initiative.

But filmmakers at Sundance Business Insider spoke to, along with established directors and producers who didn’t have titles at this year’s fest, voiced concerns about the offer.

Some felt $100,000 comes nowhere near a figure that will recoup the investors of their movies, while others feel the late February deadline is unfair since (outside of the headline-grabbing monster deals during the fest) Sundance titles typically don’t find distribution for six months to a year after the festival.

On the latter point, Orme said he understands what AVD is offering isn’t for every Sundance film and points out that this is only for streaming rights, and that the publishing bonus money can be used to promote a filmmaker’s title while looking for theatrical distribution.

The problem with that, however, is that most distributors who would entertain a theatrical deal also want the streaming rights to the film.

“I would just want filmmakers to really exhaust all of those other distribution possibilities before giving up streaming, because once you give up streaming, that’s it,” producer Mynette Louie (“The Invitation”) told IndieWire before Sundance began. 

Another issue filmmakers have pointed out is that because of the secretive nature of how many people actually watch content on streaming services like Amazon and Netflix, it’s impossible to know if the figures AVD is offering are fair.

“Distributors withhold digital numbers from filmmakers, so there are no digital revenue comps available to run estimates to determine if this is a good deal for my film,” producer Rebecca Green (“It Follows”) told Business Insider. “For example, the deal stipulates that a film makes money per hour viewed, but what is the average length of time a film is watched on Amazon and how does that differ per genre? What statistics do I have about past films released on Amazon Direct, in the same way I can look up box-office numbers for every film released in theaters, in order for me to determine if 30 cents per hour is a good deal for my film? I can tell you that I do not have this information for even my own two films currently in the digital stage of their release. Maybe it is a good deal, but without the numbers to back it up, I really have no idea and neither does any other filmmaker selling their film.”

AVD states it will not announce the Sundance titles that have taken the Film Festival Stars deal until after the February 28 deadline (the titles will then be available on AVD this September), but two filmmakers who have found success already on the platform were at Sundance singing its praises.

Justin Doescher’s “The Break-In” and Danishka Esterhazy’s “Black Field” have been two of the standout titles since the start of AVD, as both have received the platform’s “AVD Stars” recognition — a cash bonus to filmmakers who are top performers on Prime.

Doescher joined AVD right when the service began in May as he had recently finished his movie and was figuring out where to show it other than film festivals.

Not receiving any acceptance letters to attend film festivals and not getting anyone to pay to watch his ultra-low-budget horror movie on Vimeo Pro, Doescher said he instantly found success when “The Break-In” showed up on Amazon Prime through AVD.

“For people who have Prime already it wasn’t a big deal to check out my movie as opposed to Vimeo Pro where they didn’t want to pay for something they didn’t know about,” Doescher told Business Insider.

Esterhazy is a Canadian filmmaker who had a successful festival run in her home country and a TV release, but she found no avenue to get her Gothic drama to an American audience until Amazon came along.

“I was thinking of trying to put it on iTunes or Netflix,” she said. “But my filmmaker friends who had tried that told me they spent a lot of money to get it on there and nobody watched their movies.”

Uploading “Black Field” for free to AVD was enticing and it has led to Esterhazy’s movie having hundreds of thousands of views on the platform since, according to her.

Both filmmakers were coy about how much they are making from AVD, though they said when they were named AVD Stars they made around $100,000, counting the bonus, in that particular month.

Orme says that like all Amazon initiatives, AVD will be tweaked as it evolves, but from the outside, at least at the moment, filmmakers are still skating carefully around this latest self-distribution option.

"I'm still trying to figure out what the immediate advantages are, unless you made your movie for less than the amount being offered,” said filmmaker Zach Clark, whose movies like “Little Sister” and “White Reindeer” have premiered at the South by Southwest Film Festival, followed by distribution. “I just saw that they paid $2 million for a movie that premiered in competition at Sundance, so why offer only $100,000 to everyone else? Streaming rights are increasingly the only rights that matter for independent films, so I would be extremely cautious and skeptical about taking this offer, unless I had a $75,000 movie in competition. And honestly, how many $75,000 movies are in competition at Sundance this year?”

Note: Business Insider is a partner in Amazon Video Direct.

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

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Everything you need to know about 'American Gods' — a TV show that could be bigger than 'Game of Thrones'

Taylor Hackford is a veteran director who, over his 45-plus-year career, has created some of Hollywood's most memorable works.

Finding notice in the late 1970s by winning an Oscar for his short film “Teenage Father,” he’s gone on to direct notable titles including “An Officer and a Gentleman” and “Ray.” But he’s also been able to work with two of the best living actors of all time.

His latest movie, “The Comedian” (in theaters nationwide on Friday), stars Robert De Niro as an aging insult comic trying to stay relevant. This comes 19 years after he worked with Al Pacino in the steamy thriller “The Devil’s Advocate,” in which Pacino plays the devil.

Not many directors have had the distinction of working with both De Niro and Pacino in their careers.

Hackford talked to Business Insider about working with the two legends.

SEE ALSO: The best movies and TV shows coming to iTunes, Amazon, and HBO Go in February

Taking charge of a De Niro passion project.

Robert De Niro had been trying to make “The Comedian” for years. Martin Scorsese was even going to direct it at one time. But last year, after another project fell through for Hackford, he got the call to come on and shoot “The Comedian.”

He admits he wasn’t instantly sold since he knew it was a De Niro passion project, but he accepted and found out working with the actor was “a dream.”

“De Niro really respects directors,” Hackford said. “He encouraged me every step of the way to take charge. That’s a gift. He wants direction.”

Pacino gave him the greatest improv performance he’s ever seen.

Hackford notes that both De Niro and Pacino are very dedicated in their preparation before filming begins. But there’s also room for spontaneity.

Before shooting the end of "The Devil's Advocate," in which Pacino’s character reveals he’s the devil, Hackford asked Pacino and his costar Keanu Reeves to improv the scene.

“I told them to forget the text, just feel the room, and I saw Pacino walk in and do the most incredible improv I’ve ever seen in my life,” Hackford said. “Out of the middle of nowhere he stars to sing, ‘I met her in Monterey, in old Mexico,’ and that’s from an old Frank Sinatra song I hadn’t heard in 30 years. I said, ‘Where the hell did that come from?’ and he said, ‘I don’t know, I just felt like singing it.’”

Hackford put that moment in the final version of the scene, but instead of Pacino singing, he dubbed it with Sinatra singing.

“I thought, the devil could sound like Sinatra if he wants to,” he said.

De Niro is no slouch at improv, either.

In “The Comedian,” Hackford points out that De Niro had to be quick on the draw, as he was placed in situations with major comedians who never stayed on script.

“We made the film in 27 days and I didn’t do a lot of takes. I wanted spontaneity,” Hackford said. “Bob had to respond, and there’s some real moments I’m so proud of. The Friars Club scene with Cloris Leachman, she was throwing zingers that De Niro wasn’t ready for, but he responded right on the spot. Then the scene with comic Jessica Krison, the general framework was that De Niro and Leslie Mann were going to walk through the shot, but what Jessica and Bob did was all riffing, that scene is all improv.”

"The Oracle of Omaha" is regarded as one of the most generous philanthropists in the world, with lifetime giving topping $25 billion.

But it took billionaire Warren Buffett several decades to start donating his massive fortune — a decision his late first wife Susan grappled with, according to the new HBO documentary "Becoming Warren Buffett."

"The biggest thing about making money is time," Buffett, now worth more than $73 billion, says in the documentary about his decision to save his earnings.

"You don't have to be particularly smart, you just have to be patient. Susie didn't want to wait as much as I did — she never quite appreciated compounding like I did."

In 1977, when their three children were grown, Susan left the family's home in Omaha to focus on her charitable work.

"My mom moved to San Francisco and I think one of the reasons it was so important for her to leave Omaha was because she just left like she was kinda trapped in this environment, that everybody knew who she was, and she couldn't have her own identity," said the couple's younger son, Peter.

"[My dad] knew that there was something [my mom] needed to do, and that she really recognized that the money gave us all, and her, a choice in a lot of ways that a lot of people didn't have," their older son, Howard, said.

Susan chose to dedicate her time and money to charity, while Buffett continued working and growing his fortune (the two remained close friends, and legally married, until her death in 2004).

"It was a time where Warren was criticized. There was this very, very rich man who was getting richer every year, and really wasn't giving any money away and there was terrific criticism by some people, which Warren never said anything about," said Sandy Gottesman, a friend of Buffett's, as well as an investor and early backer of Berkshire Hathaway.

"That is a disagreement we have," Susan said in an interview recorded before her death, which is included in the documentary. "I run a foundation now. I think we should be giving more money away. But I understand why we don't — because it's business."

She continued: "To me, the crux of it is: It wasn't the money itself. You can see that in the way he lives. He doesn't buy huge paintings or build big houses or anything like that. It's all mental with him, and the money is his scorecard. He used to say to me, 'Everybody can read what I read. It's a level playing field.' And he loves that because he's competitive. So he's sitting there all by himself in his office reading these things that everybody else can read. But, he loves the idea that he's going to win."

In 2006, two years after Susan's death, Buffett ramped up his giving, promising to gradually donate all of his Berkshire Hathaway stock to philanthropy.

In 2010, he teamed up with fellow billionaires and close friends Bill and Melinda Gates to start the Giving Pledge, vowing to donate 99% of his fortune to charitable causes in his lifetime.

He said in his 2010 Giving Pledge letter: "To date, 20% of my shares have been distributed (including shares given by my late wife, Susan Buffett). I will continue to annually distribute about 4% of the shares I retain ... this pledge will leave my lifestyle untouched and that of my children as well. ... And I will continue to live in a manner that gives me everything that I could possibly want in life."

SEE ALSO: 5 things you didn't realize about Warren Buffett, according to his daughter

DON'T MISS: 24 mind-blowing facts about Warren Buffett and his $70 billion fortune

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's why there are more payday lending stores than there are Starbucks

The first season of "Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath" has wrapped, but its revelations about the notorious church will be hard to forget.

After splitting from the church in 2013, "King of Queens" star Leah Remini gave other former Scientologists a platform with the A&E series to discuss their experiences.

She was joined by former high-ranking people in the organization, who each have stories about secretive teachings, alleged shady business dealings, and purported abuses of its followers, former members, and their families.

The church declined to take part in the series. It says that the statements Remini and the other contributors to the show have made about Scientology are false and driven by a desire to profit or gain publicity from their time in the religion.

Here are all the most shocking revelations about Scientology, according to the show:

SEE ALSO: Conan O'Brien says Scientology is 'not happy' about his revealing Leah Remini interview

DON'T MISS: Scientology created a website to bash Leah Remini and her new TV show of 'liars'

Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard was under investigation in multiple countries and lived on a ship supposedly to evade any one country's jurisdiction.

Scientology's former international spokesman Mike Rinder explained that in the early years of Scientology, the church was under investigation for being a cult. In fact, Australia banned the church in 1965 after an investigation.

L. Ron Hubbard lived on a ship called the Apollo. Rinder described it as the "floating headquarters for Scientology." Since he was being investigated by the UK and other countries, Hubbard found that he could sail away into international waters when necessary and away from the jurisdiction of any one country.

Hubbard based Scientology on his claim that he healed himself from war injuries — a claim that "Going Clear" author Lawrence Wright says is fabricated.

Lawrence Wright, the author of the best-selling book on Scientology, "Going Clear," says his research found that Scientology's documentation of Hubbard's injuries and military service was faked.

Wright said his research into Navy documents found that Hubbard had no serious injuries, which Wright sees as a major fault in the church's foundation.

Additionally, Wright said he found that Scientology's claims that Hubbard received many military service awards and records were false. In response, Wright said, the church told him that the records were "sheep-dipped" — that the military created a whole set of fake documents to cover up Hubbard's covert military duties.

"That's the person that the church has to protect," Wright said. "With encasing [Hubbard] in this myth, they try to cover the efforts of people like me and others to uncover the truth."

David Miscavige rose to lead Scientology by capitalizing on Hubbard's death.

After steadily rising through the ranks and becoming Hubbard's adviser, David Miscavige announced the founder's death in 1986. Hubbard's passing was framed as an intentional decision by him to leave his body to go onto even higher levels of spiritual being.

"The core belief of Scientology is that you are a spiritual being," Remini said. "L. Ron Hubbard had reached, obviously, the highest level of Scientology there was to reach, promoting this idea that there's an afterlife, and he found the answer to it by deciding to discard this body to go explore new OT levels. All of this is bulls---. L. Ron Hubbard died of a stroke."

As Hubbard's closest adviser, Miscavige assumed the leadership of Scientology. His official title is chairman of the board of the Religious Technology Center. But according to Rinder, Miscavige likes to refer to himself as "the pope of Scientology."

Susan Buffett didn't find out her father, billionaire Warren Buffett, was rich until her early 20s, and she definitely didn't hear it from her parents.

"I didn’t really have any idea about any money until I was long out of high school and out of Omaha," Susan recently told Business Insider.

"There was an article in the Wall Street Journal at one point when I was probably about 22 or 23, I'd say. That was the first time I was like, 'Oh, there's more going on than I knew about!'"

The founder of the Sherwood Foundation, a children's charity, Susan takes part in a portrait of her father, HBO's "Becoming Warren Buffett," which premiered Monday.

In the documentary, Susan provides intimate details about her parents, growing up in the family's home in Omaha, Nebraska, and what drove her father to give away a large chunk of his fortune to charitable causes.

As for finding out that her father was rich from a news article, she attributes it to her modest upbringing.

"When we were growing up he didn’t have a lot of money and he wasn’t famous," she said. "So we didn’t see anything but a regular, normal situation in our house. He went to the office every day, he came home, he was at the dinner table. He did go upstairs and read the rest of the evening, but he was home. And we lived pretty much like everybody else. Nothing was too different. Really, we lived in what I guess I would describe as an upper-middle-class neighborhood. He still lives in the same house today."

There were certainly signs that her father was doing well, such as when her mother started a scholarship program when Susan 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," she said.

After thinking on it more, Susan said there was one visit that gave her an early clue that her father was doing pretty well. Adam Smith, who wrote "Supermoney," a pivotal book about the financial industry, came knocking.

"I may have been a senior in high school then," Susan said. "And I remember Adam Smith came to visit our house in Omaha. And I remember when I heard the name of the book was 'Supermoney,' I was like, 'OK, that’s something.' [Laughs] But I still don’t really think we talked about it."

SEE ALSO: 5 things you didn't realize about Warren Buffett, according to his daughter

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

Join the conversation about this story »

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

Another unimpressive crop of new releases showed up at the multiplex this weekend, so it's no surprise to folks in the industry to see that M. Night Shyamalan's latest low budget box office hit, "Split," is atop the box office once again. 

Marking the third consecutive weekend the James McAvoy split personality thriller sitting at number one, the movie took in an estimated $14.6 million this weekend, according to Deadline. That gives"Split" a domestic total of $98.7 million.

Not since Shyamalan's breakout hit "The Sixth Sense" has one of his movies topped the box office for three straight weeks.

On only a $9 million budget, the performance of "Split" is a true redemption story for Shyamalan, who reverted back to lower budget movies (his previous movie "The Visit" also found success) after the disastrous performance of 2013's big budget Will Smith movie, "After Earth."

Helping the performance of "Split" is the perfect release date Universal gave it. Opening in the end of January, where many of the studios are focused more on the campaigns for their Oscar-worthy movies, the movie has capitalized as being the best option in a crop of uninspiring titles for audiences.

This weekend was no different, as "Rings" didn't bring the scares like previous releases in "The Ring" franchise (it took in $13 million this weekend), "The Space Between Us" didn't excite the Millennials ($3.8 million), and Robert De Niro as an insult comic in "The Comedian" was not entertaining ($1.1 million).

SEE ALSO: The raise and fall (and raise) of M. Night Shyamalan's career in one chart

Join the conversation about this story »

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

James Cameron has been mulling the "Mythbusters" experiment that proved a popular theory held by many fans of his blockbuster movie, "Titanic": that, yes, there was room for two on that piece of wood.

In the 1997 movie, Jack (Leonardo DiCaprio) sacrifices his position on a floating piece of debris so that Rose (Kate Winslet) could survive the historic ship's sinking. But many viewers have suggested that both could've stayed on the makeshift raft and survived.

That was the question "Mythbusters" set out to answer in a 2013 episode. At first, it seemed as if the movie's deaths made sense when a comparable piece of wood debris seemed too wobbly to hold hosts Jamie Hyneman and Adam Savage in open water for any length of time. They then had the idea of using a life vest, which Rose was wearing, wedged under the piece of wood, and that made all the difference. They determined that "Jack's death was needless."

Cameron even made an appearance on the episode and accepted that he "screwed up," but he had a movie script to follow and Jack's death had to happen. But after nearly four years, Cameron has decided that the "Mythbusters" duo got one thing wrong.

In an interview with The Daily Beast, Cameron argued that Jack would've died of hypothermia in the freezing 28-degree water before he had time to repurpose Rose's life vest and secure it to the wooden board.

"[Jack's] best choice was to keep his upper body out of the water and hope to get pulled out by a boat or something before he died," Cameron said. "They’re fun guys and I loved doing that show with them, but they’re full of s---."

Watch the "Titanic" experiment from "Mythbusters" below to see if you agree with Cameron's new assessment:

SEE ALSO: Kate Winslet clears up one confusing question about what happened at the end of 'Titanic'

DON'T MISS: Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet had a 'Titanic' reunion at the Golden Globes, and fans went nuts

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: These are the most expensive movies ever made

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 upwards of $5 million for a 30-second slot.

Most of the brands appearing in the Super Bowl this year released their ads ahead of game day — so there will be few surprises on Sunday in the commercial breaks.

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.

The final version seems, if anything, even more controversial. The ad appears to show a Mexican woman and her daughter on an arduous journey to find work. 

A website for the ad also asks viewers to "complete the journey during halftime," suggesting that the end of the duo's journey is "too controversial for TV."

Audi

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

The ad is all about gender pay equality — but it has come under criticism from some viewers who allege Audi doesn't practice what is being advocated in the ad.

Take a look:

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.

Here's the ad itself:

Luke Bryan kept things low-key for his performance of the National Anthem at the kickoff of the 2017 Super Bowl.

The country star showed up on the field in a jacket and t-shirt and delivered a respectful version of the National Anthem before the New England Patriots and the Atlanta Falcons, the team of Bryan's home state, got into it.

And based on the reaction on social media, Bryan's fans were loving it.

Lady Gaga will be performing the halftime show at the game, and there has been a lot of speculation about whether she will get political.

Watch the video of Luke Bryan below:

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's what Steve from 'Blue's Clues' is up to today