Years ago, eSports was a community of video gamers who would gather at conventions to play Counter Strike, Call of Duty, or League of Legends.

These multiplayer video game competitions would determine League of Legends champions, the greatest shooters in Call of Duty, the cream of the crop of Street Fighter players, the elite Dota 2 competitors, and more.

But today, media giants such as ESPN and Turner are broadcasting eSports tournaments and competitions. And in 2014, Amazon acquired Twitch, the live streaming video platform that has been and continues to be the leader in online gaming broadcasts.

To put in perspective how big eSports is becoming, a Google search for "lol" does not produce "laughing out loud" as the top result. Instead, it points to League of Legends, one of the most popular competitive games in existence. The game has spawned a worldwide community called the League of Legends Championship Series, more commonly known as LCS or LOL eSports.

Websites even exist for eSports live scores to let people track the competitions in real time if they are unable to watch. There are even fantasy eSports leagues similar to fantasy football.

So it's understandable why traditional media companies would want to capitalize on this growing trend just before it floods into the mainstream. Approximately 300 million people worldwide tune in to eSports today, and that number is growing rapidly. By 2020, that number will be closer to 500 million.

And financial institutions are starting to take notice. Goldman Sachs valued eSports at $500 million in 2016 and expects the market will grow at 22% annually compounded over the next three years into a more than $1 billion opportunity.

Of course, as with any growing phenomenon, the question becomes: How do advertisers capitalize? This is especially tricky for eSports because of its audience, which is young, passionate, male-dominated, and digital-first. They live online and on social media, are avid ad-blockers, and don't watch traditional TV or respond to conventional advertising.

So what will the future of eSports look like? How high can it climb? Could it reach the mainstream popularity of baseball or football? How will advertisers be able to reach an audience that does its best to shield itself from advertising?

Robert Elder, research associate for BI Intelligence, Business Insider's premium research service, has compiled an unparalleled report on the eSports ecosystem that dissects the growing market for competitive gaming. This comprehensive, industry-defining report contains more than 30 charts and figures that forecast audience growth, average revenue per user, and revenue growth.

Companies and organizations mentioned in the report include: NFL, NBA, English Premier League, La Liga, Bundesliga, NHL, Paris Saint-Germain, Ligue 1, Ligue de Football, Twitch, Amazon, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, ESPN, Electronic Arts, EA Sports, Valve, Riot Games, Activision Blizzard, ESL, Turtle Entertainment, Dreamhack, Modern Times Group, Turner Broadcasting, TBS Network, Vivendi, Canal Plus, Dailymotion, Disney, BAMTech, Intel, Coca Cola, Red Bull, HTC, Mikonet

Here are some key takeaways from the report:

• eSports is a still nascent industry filled with commercial opportunity.
• There are a variety of revenue streams that companies can tap into.
• The market is presently undervalued and has significant room to grow.
• The dynamism of this market distinguishes it from traditional sports.
• The audience is high-value and global, and its numbers are rising.
• Brands can prosper in eSports by following the appropriate game plan.
• Game publishers approach their Esport ecosystems in different ways.  
• Successful esport games are comprised of the same basic ingredients.
• Digital streaming platforms are spearheading the popularity of eSports.
• Legacy media are investing into eSports, and seeing encouraging results.
• Traditional sports franchises have a clear opportunity to seize in eSports.
• Virtual and augmented reality firms also stand to benefit from eSports.  

In full, the report illuminates the business of eSports from four angles:

• The gaming nucleus of eSports, including an overview of popular esport genres and games; the influence of game publishers, and the spectrum of strategies they adopt toward their respective esport scenes; the role of eSports event producers and the tournaments they operate.
• The eSports audience profile, its size, global reach, and demographic, psychographic, and behavioral attributes; the underlying factors driving its growth; why they are an attractive target for brands and broadcasters; and the significant audience and commercial crossover with traditional sports.
• eSports media broadcasters, including digital avant-garde like Twitch and YouTube, newer digital entrants like Facebook and traditional media outlets like Turner’s TBS Network, ESPN, and Canal Plus; their strategies and successes in this space; and the virtual reality opportunity.
• eSports market economics, with a market sizing, growth forecasts, and regional analyses; an evaluation of the eSports spectacle and its revenue generators, some of which are idiosyncratic to this industry; strategic planning for brand marketers, with case studies; and an exploration of the infinite dynamism and immense potential of the eSports economy.

Interested in getting the full report? Here are two ways to access it:

1. Subscribe to an All-Access pass to BI Intelligence and gain immediate access to this report and over 100 other expertly researched reports. As an added bonus, you'll also gain access to all future reports and daily newsletters to ensure you stay ahead of the curve and benefit personally and professionally. >> Learn More Now
2. Purchase & download the full report from our research store. >> Purchase & Download Now

Join the conversation about this story »

People of all ages have been waiting years to see Disney's live-action remake of its beloved 1991 animated film "Beauty and the Beast," and they can finally witness the magic this weekend. 

Along with astounding design and nostalgic (and catchy) songs, the film also has a star-studded cast including Emma Watson, Ewan McGregor, Ian McKellen, Josh Gad, Emma Thompson, Stanley Tucci, and Kevin Kline.

With mixed reviews, the film is certified fresh on Rotten Tomatoes at 67%. Although the cast is spot-on and there's some impressive attention to detail in the costumes and set design, most critics agree that it's not much compared to the original, which is the first animated film to ever get nominated for a best picture Oscar — and that was back in the day when only five films got nominated in that category. 

Here's what critics are saying about the live-action "Beauty and the Beast":

SEE ALSO: 'Westworld' star's reaction to the show's full-frontal nudity: 'Wow, you can see it all'

The cast is amazing.

“Bill Condon's take on 'Beauty and the Beast' is almost overwhelmingly lavish, beautifully staged, and performed with exquisite timing and grace by the outstanding cast.” —Chicago Sun-Times

"If you're looking for any great departure from or updating of the animated version, don't bother. This 'Beauty and the Beast' doesn't have that. But it does have Emma Watson, and that's enough." —San Jose Mercury News

It's a pretty direct adaptation of the 1991 animated film, but with a modern twist.

“Three cheers for director Bill Condon and star Emma Watson for having the courage to make a live-action adaptation with 2017 gender politics.” —Time Out

“What they've created is a loving homage to a classic, but also a new chapter that really embodies the spirit of the story's heroine and what we love so much about that story.” —Vox

There’s meticulous attention to detail in effects and design.

 “The attention to detail in this film is exquisite, from the gold flakes on Belle's ballroom gown to the 'Fantasia'-like theatrics of the 'Be Our Guest' feast. All of the acting heavy hitters truly bring those inanimate objects to life.” —Fort Worth Star-Telegram 

“'Beauty and the Beast's' highlight is its stunning special effects and set pieces, especially that of the anthropomorphic household objects, which glimmer with realistic glee — but this isn't enough to warrant a remake.” —Daily Express UK

Emma Watson is pursuing legal action after dozens of her private photos were reportedly stolen and leaked online.

The “Beauty and the Beast” actress’ spokesman said the images aren’t nude photographs, but instead show the star trying on clothes.

“Photos from a clothes fitting Emma had with a stylist a couple of years ago have been stolen,” her spokesperson said in a statement obtained by Variety, and original reported by BBC News. “They are not nude photographs. Lawyers have been instructed and we are not commenting further.”

Watson, a UN Women goodwill ambassador, was also threatened in 2014 with a leak of nude images after delivering a speech on gender equality.

Two men — one from Pennsylvania and the other from Chicago— were recently sentenced in connection with the 2014 celebrity nude photo hack. Jennifer Lawrence, Ariana Grande, and Kate Upton were among the actresses who fell victim to the iCloud hack.

SEE ALSO: Mischa Barton is the reported victim of revenge porn and she's fighting back

DON'T MISS: 'Silicon Valley' star T.J. Miller says the driver he allegedly assaulted is trying to extort him

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Watch the first trailer for Disney's live-action 'Beauty and the Beast' starring Emma Watson

President Donald Trump's recently released 2005 tax form may not be the smoking gun of financial insight some had expected, but it does give us a look at just how important NBC's "The Apprentice" was for him.

"The Apprentice," Trump's reality competition television show with the premise of filling a coveted job at one of his companies, premiered in 2004 on NBC. It was the result of a nearly 16-year relationship between NBC and Trump, and it premiered a year after then-NBC president Jeff Zucker and "Survivor" producer Mark Burnett began discussing TV show ideas with Trump.

But what does this have to do with Trump's return?

CBS News asked accountants to look over the released form. They found that it appears to reveal that Trump paid significantly less money in taxes in 2004 than he did in 2005. That suggests that he made siginificantly less money in 2004: an estimated $60 million in the year before versus the $152.7 million in 2005. That represents a 154.5% increase in income for Trump in one year.

It's also worth noting that in the same year "The Apprentice" premiered, Trump's infamously ailing casino empire filed for bankruptcy protection as a result of billions of dollars in debt.

Reports about Trump's hosting salary in the earliest days of show range from $50,000 to $1 million per episode. Either way, his 50% ownership of "The Apprentice" would have brought him in a sizable pile of cash over the years, and some of that would be reflected in the tax return, since the show debuted in 2004 to a hit-making average viewership of 21 million people, and the show's second season aired in late 2005 with an average 16 million viewers.

At the time, Fox News also credited the show with providing Trump additional income from merchandise sales and promotion of Trump properties, as well as helping his book, "How to Get Rich," become a bestseller.

One CBS accountant made clear that there's really no way to identify the exact sources of Trump's huge financial windfall in 2005 from the two-page Form 1040, because it doesn't reveal a breakdown of his income, just the total.

But it's certain that a significant portion of the incredible increase in income comes from earnings off of the NBC reality show and Trump's heigtened earning power as a result of it, which helped him in years to follow.

Trump famously stepped down from his "Apprentice" hosting gig as he started running for president in 2015 (NBC claimed it fired him). But he still serves as an executive producer — and presumably still gets a share of profits on the show, which recently finished a season hosted by Arnold Schwarzenegger. Though he still has a role on the show, that didn't stop Trump from lampooningSchwarzenegger for his lower ratings.

SEE ALSO: Arnold Schwarzenegger's 'Celebrity Apprentice' finale ratings are nowhere near Trump's numbers

DON'T MISS: The history of Donald Trump and NBC's love-hate relationship that made him a star

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The tax Trump paid in 2005 is the tax he wants to abolish

Zynga's latest filing with the SEC reveals that it paid $42.5 million for four popular Solitaire smartphone games made by Harpan LLC.

A perfectly normal acquisition, if a little steep. The real twist is that Harpan LLC is owned, operated, and staffed by a pair of brothers — Austin-based Tim Oswald and his Chicago-area brother William.

With one deal, they're both millionaires. 

This detail in Zynga's filing was first noted by Seeking Alpha.

Analyst firm App Annie shows that Solitaire, Harpan's flagship app, is currently the number-one card game on the Apple iOS App Store, and bounces in and out of the top 10 games overall. It's an advertising-supported free game that's described in its App Store listing as having "crisp, clear graphics, and a straight forward [sic] layout." 

Harpan also makes three additional card games, including Pyramid Solitaire, FreeCell, and Spider Solitaire, all offering a similar aesthetic. All of his games are available for iOS and Android.

Notably, Harpan isn't the Oswalds' only venture — Tim's LinkedIn profile connects him to "Tim O's Studios," a separately-listed developer on the Apple App Store that makes simple apps and games like "Calculator%" and "Guitar Tuner."

In a recent on-stage appearance at a Morgan Stanley event, Zynga CEO Frank Gibeau mentioned Harpan and how it fits in with the company's recent strategy of pursuing social card games supported by advertising. 

Business Insider has reached out to the Oswalds for comment. 

SEE ALSO: A video game that has turned players into $50,000-a-month entrepreneurs just raised $92 million to turn them into media moguls

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: This guy makes giant, elaborate towers out of playing cards — and then he destroys them

CBS is doubling down on its bet that "The Good Fight," its "The Good Wife" spinoff, can convince people to pay a monthly fee for CBS shows.

The network has renewed "The Good Fight" for a second season, which will come in early 2018.

"The Good Fight" is a huge show for CBS because it lives exclusively on its Netflix-like streaming service, CBS All Access, which was nearing 1.5 million subscribers last month, according to CEO Les Moonves. Like the first season, the second season of "The Good Fight" will remain an exclusive to CBS All Access.

Subscribers to the streaming service pay $5.99 a month, or $9.99 for the ad-free version, to be able to watch all CBS content on whatever device they want, on-demand. But how are you going to get people to pay for shows they can watch free on their TV? The CBS thesis is that making exclusive shows for All Access, using beloved brands, will do the trick.

Its first two big exclusive shows are "The Good Fight" and a new "Star Trek" series, which CBS is co-producing with Netflix. (Netflix will have the streaming rights outside the US.)

"The Good Fight" was the first test for All Access' exclusive shows and it seems to being going well so far, though CBS has not released viewership data.

“We’re only a few episodes into the first season and the reaction from CBS All Access subscribers and critics alike has been phenomenal,” Marc DeBevoise, CEO of CBS Interactive, said in a statement. It currently has an 80% rating on reviews-aggregator Metacritic.

CBS isn't the only network that seems to be gaining its foothold in the streaming world. HBO Now has over two million subscribers, and CBS-owned Showtime's streaming service has 1.5 million.

SEE ALSO: One of Snapchat's biggest creators is actually growing faster on Snapchat's rival, Instagram

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Robert Shiller on what a rate hike will do to asset prices and who Trump shouldn't put in charge of the fed

Kim Kardashian has a theory about how robbers managed to steal about $10 million worth of jewelry from her last October in Paris.

In a new preview from E!'s "Keeping Up with the Kardashians" airing Sunday at  9 p.m., Kim tells her sisters, Kourtney Kardashian and Khloe Kardashian, how the robbers may have known when she went upstairs to bed by watching the lights in her rental property.

"What I think happened now, after thinking about it so much, probably a group of guys were following us the entire trip," Kim says in an on-camera interview for the show.

The robbers, who were dressed as policemen, broke into Kim's Paris rental, and tied her up. At least one of them had a gun, according to Kim. They made off with Kim's engagement ring from her current husband, rapper Kanye West, and other jewels worth $9.5 million.

Kim said that her social-media use could've contributed to the planning of the crime.

"I was Snapchatting that I was home and that everyone was going out," the reality star said. "So I think they knew that [bodyguard] Pascal was out with Kourtney and I was by myself... They had this window of opportunity and just went for it."

In January, Paris police said they were investigating at least three suspects in the crime.

In the wake of the incident, gossip site MediaTakeout.com claimed that Kim had faked the robbery and filed a fraudulent insurance claim for millions of dollars. She then sued the site for libel.

Watch the video from "Keeping Up with the Kardashians" below: 

SEE ALSO: Kim Kardashian finally opens up about her Paris robbery: 'I saw the gun'

DON'T MISS: 'Silicon Valley' star T.J. Miller says the driver he allegedly assaulted is trying to extort him

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Lochte has been suspended from swimming and forfeits $25,000 for fabricating his robbery story

Terry Crews, actor, former NFL player, and host of Netflix's "Ultimate Beastmaster," discusses why he decided to build his own PC and how he used Facebook to help. Following is a transcript of the video.

I didn’t know what I was doing at all. I just went and got a list and all the video tutorials I could find.

Me and the whole relationship with the PC world is kind of wonderful because I remember coming in and watching my son and I thought he was playing video games. And he wasn’t. He was actually watching someone else play video games on the computer. I was like,”Wait, wait, you’re not playing? You’re not — what is this?” He was like, “Oh no, this is so and so, he’s the hit guy. He’s playing ...” I said, I don’t understand this. And I realized I was losing my son. I was losing him. And I said, I need to be a part of his world. I need to find out what he’s about. Because you know, so many times parents are like, “Okay, come on, you’re gonna come to work with dad. Come and do what dad wants you to do.” And I realized I didn’t want to be that guy. So, I asked him what he liked and what he was about. And he was like, “I love games. I love video games. I love this whole thing.” So I said, listen, not only are we going to get into the games, we are gonna build our own computer.

I didn’t know what I was doing at all. I just went and got a list and all the video tutorials I could find. And bought all the stuff. And then I got Facebook to help to me. I literally was holding up my Facebook like, “Where does this cord go? Does this go in here?” And they were like, “Yeah!” And then I would do the other things and they’d go “No!” It was really hilarious. Because to watch me fumble around and I — let me tell you, once you start, it’s like — it’s the most advanced Lego set ever. You can’t stop.

It was a bonding experience between me and my son.

Once that power button — you press the power button and it all worked. The thing lit up. And we were playing games. We, we play games and see what’s happening. And I just said, this is the most satisfying thing ever. It’s like the new HAM radio.

The PC thing is something that a father can do with his family. And it’s funny, cause my daughters like it too. So, it’s really great. But I knew he would — that’s one thing he was in. And I said, I’m gonna be a part of your world. And now I’m in.

Join the conversation about this story »

As part of a marketing stunt for the newly-released movie "Kong: Skull Island," people can now find the fictional land on Google Maps.

The island located in the South Pacific, but it's impossible to come across randomly. People have to search "skull island" for it to appear.

The location, labeled as an archaeological site, has more 200 photos and nearly 8,000 reviews.

One review from "Amos Vivancos Leon" – whose previous reviews were all in the Vancouver, Canada area – gave the island one star and said: "With the excitement, Kong killed a few of our group, but he also protected the rest of us from the monsters under one condition, that we leave a young female behind with him. Some people had an issue with that and stayed behind to rescue her. I on the other hand took the earliest plane out of there. I have kids at home, I hope you understand. It was traumatizing and I feel for the people left behind. Good luck."

Another one-star review complained of a lost child at the end of the trip: "Update: been 2 months. Resort staff still hasn't responded to our inquiries about our missing child. Guess we will chalk it up as a "lost baggage" kind of thing."

Higher rated reviews also made a joke out of the location: "Lovely holiday. Would have been 5 stars had the helicopter tour gone smoother. Wife swallowed whole by an oversized ape; wouldn't have been a problem but she had the passports. Would go again."

But some users decided to take advantage of the Google search result to complain about the stunt and the movie.

One user, Johnny Greenman, took the opportunity to review the film: "Kong looks like he grew another 200 feet. Bad story line and as always the crazy dumb ass general (Samuel Jackson) wants to go retrieve a soldier even though they know its a suicide mission. Very predictable story line. Thank god I only paid matinee price."

Another user, Shapla Choudhury, used the space to voice her frustration about the stunt: "Google Maps corporate group, I do not want to receive advertising in my email about mass market films in the guise of map information. Google maps is a useful resource and I am happy to serve as a local guide, but please stop the ads. Thanks."

This isn't the first promotional stunt launched as part of the movie's release. In early March giant footprints of Kong appeared on a Los Angeles beach.

SEE ALSO: Apple's new ad for iPhone stickers is filled with pop-culture references

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: This animation shows how terrifyingly powerful nuclear weapons have become

It all started on Tuesday evening when MSNBC host Rachel Maddow tweeted that on her show that night she would be revealing President Donald Trump's tax returns.

But before unveiling that she had two pages of Trump's 2005 federal tax return, she opened her show with a lengthy tease that went on for over 10 minutes. Leading to people on Twitter losing their minds during the dragged-out setup.

On Wednesday's "Late Show," host Stephen Colbert pounced on the moment by spoofing Maddow's opening with his own two-and-a-half-minute tease for a joke he claimed Trump had heard: "Why did the chicken cross the road?"

"I hold in my hand something very significant," Colbert said, dressed in Maddow's signature blazer with a backdrop that looked similar to the one her show uses. "It is a joke, a joke that we have confirmed has been heard by Donald Trump. We believe this is the first time any joke dealing with Donald Trump has been released."

Colbert then went into long tangents about chickens and roads and if either relates to Russia.

"But whether or not you're a Trump supporter, whether or not you've heard this joke before, it should give you pause that after all of this buildup I still haven't gotten to the punchline," Colbert said before seemingly getting to the punchline only to go to a commercial break.

Since her Tuesday show, Maddow has had to defend her reveal of the tax form, which showed that Trump earned $150 million in 2005 and paid $38 million in income taxes that year. Many have felt the whole thing was a disappointment.

"My priority is to get the story right and put it into proper context, and explain the weight of it and why it is important," Maddow told the Associated Press. "This is a super interesting first window into his finances, and the question of his finances is a legitimate scandal."

Watch Colbert's Maddow bit below:

SEE ALSO: Who's winning and losing late-night TV under Trump

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Terry Crews explains how intermittent fasting keeps him in shape

Netflix wants to recut some of its original shows and movies so that they'll be better to watch on your smartphone, the company's head of product, Neil Hunt, said in a press briefing.

“It’s not inconceivable that you could take a master [copy] and make a different cut for mobile,” Hunt said, according to The Verge. “It’s something we will explore over the next few years.”

This idea was something brought up by writer-director Hannah Macpherson in a recent interview with Business Insider. Macpherson created the murder-mystery series "t@gged," which has been one of the few hits on Verizon's mobile-focused go90 video streaming service. 

Macpherson said that a common misconception, especially of teens, is that the videos they are watching on their phones are all viral clips on YouTube, or similar short-form offerings. In fact, she said, they are binge-watching entire Netflix shows. Length isn't as much of an issue for smartphones as you might think, but the problem is that certain shots won't translate well because details can be hard to see.

“You cannot have that massive wide [shot],” Macpherson said.

From Hunt's comments, Netflix seems to recognize this. Hunt also mentioned that this was especially important for some Asian countries, including India, where "mobile screens are the majority consumption device."

The idea of shooting once and then recutting for multiple formats is becoming important in the entertainment industry, especially for companies focused heavily on social-media distribution on platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat.

"In TV, you shoot once and give everyone the same" video, Steven Kydd, cofounder of Tastemade, a Snapchat and Instagram heavyweight that focuses on food and travel, told Business Insider in a recent interview. "We shoot once" in 4K, he continued, "and edit into multiple formats, then take all the data back" from the platform after it's published.

Now it seems Netflix might employ a similar system for pushing video onto various devices: from your TV, to your phone, to your laptop.

SEE ALSO: One of Snapchat's biggest creators is actually growing faster on Snapchat's rival, Instagram

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: This animation shows how terrifyingly powerful nuclear weapons have become

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting urged Congress and President Trump on Thursday to reconsider the proposal to eliminate all federal funding to the CPB, which supports NPR and PBS.

CPB president Patricia Harrison said in a statement that there was "no viable substitute for federal funding" that could help the CPB provide free public media programming, which was slashed from the budget that Trump released Thursday.

"The elimination of federal funding to CPB would initially devastate and ultimately destroy public media’s role in early childhood education, public safety, connecting citizens to our history, and promoting civil discussions – all for Americans in both rural and urban communities," Harrison wrote.

She added: "We will work with the new Administration and Congress in raising awareness that elimination of federal funding to CPB begins the collapse of the public media system itself and the end of this essential national service."

Harrison argued that the CPB was cheap, saying that it costs taxpayers just $1.35 per person a year, and "especially critical for those living in small towns and in rural and underserved areas" who rely on its networks for news and education programming, as well as emergency alerts it releases.

The CPB accounts for far less than 1% of the federal government's annual budget (it was allocated $445 million in 2016). The organization divvies up the money among hundreds of local public television and radio stations across the US, which license national programs such as NPR's "All Things Considered."

For its part, PBS implied that it had a universal appeal to many Americans that can be rare in the age of media bifurcation.

"PBS and our nearly 350 member stations, along with our viewers, continue to remind Congress of our strong support among Republican and Democratic voters, in rural and urban areas across every region of the country," the network said in a statement on Thursday. "We have always had support from both parties in Congress, and will again make clear what the public receives in return for federal funding for public broadcasting."

Trump's proposed elimination of funds for the CPB, as well as other groups like the National Endowment for the Arts, represents one of the biggest drawdowns of federal government spending in several decades.

While the budget proposes large spending cuts to many government agencies — the Environmental Protection Agency and State Department budgets would be cut 31% and 28%, respectively — defense and military spending would increase substantially.

The president proposed a $54 billion increase to the Department of Defense's 2018 budget — a 9% bump — as well as similar increases to the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Homeland Security.

In an interview on MSNBC on Thursday, Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney defended the cuts, denying that they would "hurt Americans lives" and saying that Trump was honoring the promises he made during the 2016 campaign to reform the federal government.

"We went back and pulled lines out of speeches, out of interviews, talked to the president. And we turned his words, his policies, into numbers," Mulvaney said. "So folks who voted for the president are getting exactly what they voted for. Those are the numbers he campaigned on."

He added: "One of the questions we asked was 'Can we really continue to ask a coal miner in West Virginia or a single mom in Detroit to pay for these programs?' The answer was no. We can ask them to pay for defense, which we will. But we can't ask them to continue to pay for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting."

The cuts have been expected for some time. Already this year, some local NPR affiliates went as far as to advertise the potential federal funding cuts in their annual pledge drives.

Though the funding would not likely eliminate PBS and NPR, which get only a small percentage of their funds from the federal government, it would almost certainly affect local public radio and TV stations.

As The Washington Post reported in 2012, many public stations in rural areas rely on federal government allocations for up to 50% of their budgets.

Perry Metz, who oversees WFIU and WTIU in Indiana, told Business Insider that he was concerned by the proposed budget and argued that the percent of the federal government's budget that is spent on public media is "tiny."

"As a joint licensee, we broadcast to both blue and red counties and have long enjoyed bipartisan support. Eliminating this funding would remove the crucial seed money we leverage to raise additional funds from individuals and corporations," Metz said in an email.

He added: "We are hopeful that Congress will continue the support it has shown public broadcasting for the last 60 years, through all kinds of administrations."

Trump is not the first Republican to propose cuts to the CPB.

During a presidential debate in 2012, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney said he would eliminate PBS' funding if he was elected president.

"I’m sorry, Jim. I’m going to the stop the subsidy to PBS," Romney told the moderator, PBS' Jim Lehrer. "I like PBS. I love Big Bird. I actually like you, too. But I’m not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for it."

SEE ALSO: 'It transformed me': Donna Brazile reflects on 'constant harassment,' bomb threats that came after DNC hacks

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The Trump family's lavish lifestyle is costing taxpayers a fortune

The "Deep State" is a popular conspiracy theory among supporters of President Donald Trump, and even within the White House itself.

Fox News has been talking about it a lot lately, and Samantha Bee has a problem with it. The belief holds that there's a network of powerful government agencies and the military secretly manipulating the government. The idea of a shadowy Deep State has taken hold in the highest levels of Trump's administration, as the Associated Press reports.

On Wednesday night, “Full Frontal” showed a series of clips of people on Fox News talking about the Deep State that ended with Sean Hannity saying, "The Deep State that we talk about, they’re out for blood."

“The Deep State is so deeply buried in its deepy deepness, Sean Hannity had to pull it from the depths of his a--,” Bee said. 

Then the show played a clip from Alex Jones’ show "Infowars," with caller Paul Sperry claiming that Obama is commanding an army of activists at his home two miles away from the White House, and that he could "spark something" like a civil war. 

“God, you guys get so upset every time a black guy moves into the wrong neighborhood,” Bee said, as the poster for the new racially charged horror movie “Get Out” came on the screen behind her.

“The Deep State is like polio,” she said. “It exists, just not in America right now.”

Watch Samantha Bee's segment on the "Deep State" below:

SEE ALSO: Who's winning and losing late-night TV under Trump

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 'Raindrops, drop tops': Alex Trebek raps the No. 1 hit 'Bad and Boujee'

Seth Meyers mocked the hype and subsequent disappointment some people felt around President Donald Trump's recently released 2005 tax return.

"Rachel Maddow aired an exclusive report on how to stretch out an hour," Meyers joked on Wednesday's episode of NBC's "Late Night." "Who produced that segment? Ryan Seacrest?"

Maddow spent Tuesday afternoon gleefully promoting that she had Trump's "tax returns" and teased that she would share their contents that evening on her MSNBC show.

In an effort to curb the story, the White House released details from the 2005 form ahead of Maddow's broadcast, which showed that he had paid $38 million in taxes on $150 million in income. That was hardly the smoking gun of financial insight some had expected or hoped for and Maddow didn't have much else to report from the forms.

Meyers joked about what the forms told us about how Trump felt about his kids: "Specifically the part where he claimed Ivanka and Donald Jr. as dependents and tried to write off Eric as a loss." 

That wasn't actually part of the form, but the late-night host did find Trump's actual reporting of more than $100 million in business losses for the year perplexing.

"How do you lose $100 million in 2005?" Meyers said. "Did you buy stock in Heidi Montag?"

Watch the video below:

SEE ALSO: Trump's leaked tax return reveals how 'The Apprentice' helped make him a lot richer

DON'T MISS: Stephen Colbert ruthlessly mocks Paul Ryan: He folded 'like a Trump casino'

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The tax Trump paid in 2005 is the tax he wants to abolish

Streaming services from Hulu to Amazon Prime Video to CBS All Access are now making original shows — but Netflix is still the undisputed king.

In 2016, out of the top 12 streaming shows that got the most buzz, every single one was Netflix except for Amazon's "The Man in The High Castle" (at No. 7), according to a new report by research firm Parrot Analytics.

Parrot measures the "demand" for a show by tracking different factors, from social-media chatter to file-sharing data, to get a sense of which shows have captured the public imagination. Netflix famously doesn't release data on how many people are watching its shows.

But Parrot says that in 2016, Netflix scored big with fan-favorite reboots, like "Gilmore Girls" and "Fuller House," and Marvel shows. So expect more of those in the future. It also had a pair of mystery sci-fi hits with "Stranger Things" and the more recent "The OA." The only documentary series to crack the top list was "Making a Murderer" at No. 8, whose expansive global conversation actually had a real-world effect the case.

Here are the top streaming shows in 2016, according to Parrot: 

SEE ALSO: Netflix has a new movie boss, and will pump out 30 original films this year

No. 12 — 'The Crown' (Netflix)

No. 11 — 'The Get Down' (Netflix)

No. 10 — 'Narcos' (Netflix)

The Guardians of the Galaxy are back with some fresh faces and a cute little Baby Groot. While the film doesn't hit theaters in the US until May, we know a few details about the plot and characters that you can expect to see in the highly anticipated sequel.

Follow Tech Insider:On Facebook

Join the conversation about this story »

CNN political commentator Van Jones believes Oprah Winfrey would be a shoo-in to beat President Donald Trump in 2020.

Jones appeared on Wednesday's episode of Bravo late-night show "Watch What Happens Live" and was asked by a caller who he'd like to see challenge Trump in the next presidential election.

"Oprah Winfrey," Jones answered without skipping a beat.

He went on to name several other potential candidates who he thinks could be contenders, including the US senator from California Kamala Harris; former Newark mayor and current senator from New Jersey Corey Booker; and the young Democratic congressman from Massachusetts Joe Kennedy III. But Jones believes Winfrey has the biggest chance of unseating Trump.

"It takes a superstar to to beat a superstar," Jones said. "And I think if Oprah Winfrey ran, she'd win all 50 states and it would be a wrap."

In December, Winfrey admitted that Trump's win was a revelation for her in terms of the possibility of being able to serve as US president without having previously worked in public service. That led to a lot of speculation that the media maven was thinking about a run.

A new Public Policy Polling survey released this week supports Jones' statements. It reports that if Winfrey ran against Trump in 2020, she'd lead him by 7%.

Watch Jones on "Watch What Happens Live" below:

SEE ALSO: Seth Meyers: The real revelation of Trump's leaked tax return

DON'T MISS: Trump's leaked tax return reveals how 'The Apprentice' helped make him a lot richer

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: How Oprah Winfrey earns and spends her billions

It’s been 21 years since Ewan McGregor became an overnight star after his standout performance as a heroin addict in Danny Boyle’s “Trainspotting.” Now, after two decades in which both became big players in Hollywood (McGregor taking on “Moulin Rouge!” and young Obi-Wan Kenobi; Boyle directing “28 Days Later” and winning an Oscar for “Slumdog Millionaire”), they have reunited to make a sequel to their cult classic, “T2 Trainspotting.”

The movie, out on Friday, catches up with Renton (McGregor) as he returns to Edinburgh 20 years after walking out on his friends — Spud (Ewen Bremner), Sick Boy (Jonny Lee Miller), and Begbie (Robert Carlyle) — with the bag of cash the guys got after making a drug deal. Needless to say his mates are not happy at first to see him. But being middle-aged and in different phases in their lives, Renton also gives them a welcome glimpse at their past. Using snippets of footage from the original movie, Boyle gives “T2” a nostalgic feel that fans of the original will love while still delivering an original story about guys who can’t get on the straight and narrow, however hard they try.

McGregor and Boyle talked to Business Insider about the challenges of making a sequel to a classic, the movie Boyle really wanted McGregor to star in if it weren’t for their decade-long feud, and if McGregor wants to play Obi-Wan Kenobi again.

Jason Guerrasio: Danny, what's the biggest thing you have to stay away from when not just making a sequel, but for a movie that's a beloved classic?

Danny Boyle: You have to work at the relationship with the original film. And the initial premise is very complex because there's a lot of expectation and you don't want to let people down, but you are determined to return to it because you have a good reason. And we had a good reason because this story is more personal and confessional I think than we all thought it might be. So me and the screenwriter, John Hodge, worked on it and then we passed it onto the actors and it becomes theirs as well. They delve into it for you. And in order to process that you need to have a clear relationship with the first film, and our relationship is we wanted to be able to work it out as we went along rather than it be prescribed beforehand. So in the script there was very little of the original film in it. There was one scene I think, which was Spud coming out of the boxing gym and literally bumps into that now famous scene of he and Renton running down the street. He bumps right into his past. That was the only one in the script, other than that we worked it out as we went along. And you also get muscle memories from the actors that remind you of the other film. Like Ewan coming out of the rafters being chased by Bagbie in "T2," he said to me "This feels like coming out of the toilet in the first one. Should I make it look like that?"

[Ewan McGregor laughs.]

Boyle: And I said, "If you can." And he did and people mention it. So that's the biggest thing, I think. You have that positive relationship with the original film which may exclude it. We wanted to use it when we could and we decided organically when to use it and when not to.

Guerrasio: The glimpses of the original movie are really cleverly done. Were any of those outtakes from the first movie?

Boyle: No. We tried to find the outtakes but they were really sh---y. They were in terrible condition. No one could find the original negatives.

Ewan McGregor: Did you use a profile shot of Bobby for the train-station scene?

Boyle: Yeah, that's from the first film. That's a good point. When young Renton and Begbie come to that train station in a flashback, the two silhouette profiles are taken from the cigarette-smoking scene in the original movie, where he says, "Hey, Renton, bring me a cigarette." And he blows smoke in your face —

McGregor: Oh, yeah.

Boyle: That's where we took the silhouettes of your faces and put that in the train-station scene.

McGregor: Wow, I didn't know that.

Guerrasio: Ewan, when did you see the movie for the first time?

McGregor: I saw it at the British premiere in Scotland, in Edinburgh, but Danny did show me a very early cut in London and I watched it entirely alone. [Laughs] I was there all by myself. I was so excited to see it because, what, it's been 20 years in the waiting, I suppose. So it was a thrill to see it. But it was so different than the cut I saw in Edinburgh. I was blown away by it in Edinburgh, I was moved by it. I was weeping by the end of it. I think it all hit me quite heavily what the film evokes in you, looking back on your life and then trying to look forward to what's next. It hit me like a ton of bricks. For me, maybe it's obviously so because it's literally my face going from my 23-year-old self to my 45-year-old self in the blink of an eye, which is quite shocking.

Guerrasio: Was watching the movie a different feeling than making it?

McGregor: No, because the feeling is the same. I don't ever worry about what it looks like. I don't like to look at the monitor when I'm working, so I have a vague idea of what the shots are. And with Anthony Dod Mantle, who shot our film, he often employs several cameras at once and you don't necessarily know what will be used. So I didn't know visually how it would feel but the feeling of the scene is the same.

Guerrasio: So, Danny, you and John Hodge tried to write a sequel in 2002 but it didn't get off the ground.

Boyle: Right.

Guerrasio: Hypothetically, if that went forward, did you think at all about how you would get Ewan in the film because at that time you two weren't talking?

[McGregor laughs.]

Boyle: I don't remember thinking, "Oh my God, how am I going to send this to Ewan?" But memory is such a strange thing, isn't it?

McGregor: We have this mismemory of when I go down the toilet in the first movie and my feet turn around as if I'm going around the U bend —

Boyle: Oh, that's right —

McGregor: I totally remember that being my idea. [Laughs] Danny remembers it being [cinematographer] Brian Tufano's idea.

Boyle: Anyway, we did try to write a sequel back then and it wasn't any good. So I do remember back then thinking, "They will all say f--- off." And when we did the script for what eventually became "T2," John wasn't finished with it yet, but soon as I read it I said we should send it to the guys straight away. I knew they would do it. It's just an instinct just knowing them as actors and seeing the quality of the script. It would intrigue them and they would "Matrix" in their own experiences. I just felt we need to include them in this because we're going to make this and I know they will do it.

Guerrasio: So Ewan, was the script all you needed to say yes or did you need some selling?

McGregor: No, not at all. I had bumped into Danny here and there and we discussed it. The possibility of it became more of a reality before the script arrived. He knew I was up to do it as an idea. And then I phoned into something, I think it was the BFI, you were onstage with Bobby and Ewen —

Boyle: Oh, yes!

McGregor: I was at my kid's school on the playground on my phone and I couldn't quite hear what was being said. But they were in front of an audience who had just watched "Trainspotting," the original, and I was asked at that, really for the first time ever, in front of Danny, if I would ever do a sequel and I said, "Yeah." But when the script arrived there was no doubt. The writing was so beautiful and moving. It was everything I experienced reading the novel the first time around in the '90s, in fact.

Guerrasio: Ewan, I've heard you say in interviews that it was easy to get back into Renton's skin. Why was that?

McGregor: [Pause] I've always thought what it would be like to go back and play some of the other characters I've played and I don't know if there's any character I've played that people feel they know him. That the characters in this movie are people that they know. Danny has said, how many character names do you remember from movies? It's really rare. But people not only know their names but they know them. So I feel being Renton again, he was just waiting inside me to come out. I worried about if I couldn't find him and worried about having not lived in Scotland since I was 17 years old and Renton is such a Scottish character, but then Renton hasn't been in Scotland either. For 20 years. And it all has to do with John Hodge's writing and Danny's direction, and suddenly you're there. It all felt right.

Guerrasio: You two have done a lot of traveling together doing press for this film. In that time have you two talked about working again? Bringing up a project, Danny, that you would have loved to have done with Ewan in that time you two weren't talking?

Boyle: We joke, but I would love to do a play with Ewan because he does them now and again. So put in a good word for me. But I did work on a script that we could never crack. A wonderful thing that you would have loved, Ewan. It's called "Ingenious Pain," an amazing novel and it's about a doctor in the early days of surgery.

Guerrasio: Like Steven Soderbergh's "The Knick"?

Boyle: Earlier than "The Knick." A century earlier, actually. And this guy doesn't feel pain, that's the conceit of it. And it makes him the most extraordinary surgeon because he doesn't have any empathy. It was written by a guy named Andrew Miller, a fantastic novelist, and I tried to adapt it and I was thinking of Ewan for it but I could never get it — the third act was always terrible.

McGregor: And I would have said it was terrible.

Boyle: [Laughs] Yeah, he would have said, "It's interesting, but that third act."

McGregor: How many books can you say that about? [Laughs]

Guerrasio: Ewan, you recently made your feature directing debut with "American Pastoral." Did you have Danny look at it while you were making it?

McGregor: Yeah, Danny came to the edit room and watched it. I was very lucky to have that input, and it's funny he gave me good advice about the third act. [Laughs] No, seriously. I was told early on by Ben Affleck, in fact, I went to talk to him because he's directed himself and his advice was to be careful you don't undercover yourself. The temptation is not to get enough shots of yourself because you'll be embarrassed in front of the other actors and, you know, "One more for me," and that. So I heeded that advice on set and I didn't find myself in the edit room without shots of me but what I didn't do was sort of use enough of them in the last reel of the movie. It was kind of that same embarrassment, "another close-up of me." So my character wasn't present enough at the end and that was Danny's note and we found some more shots and we pulled my character in a little more at the end.

Guerrasio: So Ewan, like the Renton character waiting dormant inside you until it could come out in "T2," do you feel that way at all about Obi-Wan Kenobi?

McGregor: I could see that question coming before you even opened your mouth. Listen, I have been asked about it a lot to the point where it looks a bit like I'm sort of touting for work —

[Boyle laughs.]

McGregor: I've been very open to say I'd be happy to do it if they want to do it. I think they are set going into the 2030s with their movies, but it would be fun to do, of course I'd be happy to do it.

Guerrasio: By the time they get to a standalone Obi-Wan movie you'll be aged perfectly to play him.

McGregor: I'd be older than Alec Guinness was. [Laughs]  

SEE ALSO: The 18 worst new TV shows of the year so far, according to critics

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Watch Harrison Ford narrowly avoid crashing into a passenger plane

I've owned the Nintendo Switch for only two weeks, but I'm already smitten. This is easily my favorite piece of new tech in 2017 and my favorite Nintendo console ever.

It's not perfect by any means, but this unusual piece of hardware has already changed the way I live, and it has brought me closer to my fiancée, who before the Switch's arrival was never into modern video-game consoles. What's more, this little system has tremendous potential to do even more in the future.

Here's what I mean:

SEE ALSO: The 5 best reasons you should buy a Nintendo Switch

DON'T MISS: The 50 hottest video games you shouldn't miss in 2017

On Friday, March 3, I picked up my Nintendo Switch from Best Buy — with a copy of "Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild," of course — before heading home from work.

I preordered the Switch the night it was announced — I'm a longtime Nintendo fan, and having followed rumors for years about Nintendo's mysterious "NX" console, I believed Nintendo would correct many of the mistakes it made with the underwhelming Wii U, a game console I bought and, sadly, returned a year later.

When I got home with the Switch on that first night, I couldn't wait to set up the console. My fiancée was less excited at first — she doesn’t play video games nearly as much as I do, and she hadn’t heard much about the Switch — but that changed as soon as we turned on the console.

The ability to create a customizable avatar changed my fiancée's mind on the Switch almost immediately.

Everything about the Switch experience is user-friendly. My fiancée loved being able to create two separate accounts — she customized hers to her liking, with an avatar and background color — so we could each play certain games at our own pace.

In all honesty, she wanted the two of us to create a single profile on the Switch, but since I wanted to have my own "Zelda" adventure, she was nice enough to accommodate my selfish desires.

Maybe you've heard: There's a big new "Mass Effect" game launching next week.

"Mass Effect," if you're unfamiliar, is one of the most popular game trilogies of all-time — the first game launched in 2007, while the trilogy concluded in 2012. In the original trilogy, you play as Commander Shepard, a man or woman (depending on your choice) charged with saving the galaxy from powerful aliens and sentient machines bent on destroying it.

This new game, "Mass Effect: Andromeda," features a completely new cast of characters, and takes place hundreds of years in the future. Many of the alien races remain the same, but this time, you've left Earth and are leading a team looking for a new home for humanity.

I've only played a few hours of "Mass Effect: Andromeda," so I can't judge the entire game based off my experiences thus far — but while I sometimes like what the game is offering, there are too many occasions that make me frustrated for one reason or another. And as I play, I've been taking notes on what issues have been bugging me since I first booted up the game earlier this week. Take a look:

SEE ALSO: The $300 Nintendo Switch has been great for my relationship

1. Facial animations are abysmal.

Now, the original "Mass Effect" games weren't exactly known for their stellar character models and facial animations, but despite "Andromeda" being released roughly a decade after the original trilogy, conversations and dialogue feel more rigid and plasticky than they've ever felt.

Mind you, I didn't go replay all three "Mass Effect" games before jumping into "Andromeda," but having played "Horizon Zero Dawn" and "The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild" recently, the facial animations in this game feel woefully behind the competition.

Mind you, most of the game is beautiful. Settings and aliens are done exceedingly well.

But human facial animations aren't a big deal for most video games — this is a "Mass Effect" game, where the real star of the show is the dialogue. Conversations — informative, dramatic, or humorous — have been the staple of the series, and unfortunately, the robotic-looking facial animations too often take me out of the experience.

2. Movement in the game is also frustrating.

Walking around in "Mass Effect: Andromeda" takes some getting used to. You can walk slowly or run in a full sprint, but this game also introduces the feeling of inertia, where you'll continue moving forward even if you stop moving the joystick on your controller. Maybe it's more realistic-looking, but in gameplay terms, it leads to imprecise actions and unwanted movements — you'll get dangerously close to cliffs, for instance, or too close to other characters you just want to talk to. Again, it takes me out of the game.

3. I just don't care about the characters.

Without spoiling anything, you play as a new character (man or woman) named Ryder, the son/daughter of your military's Pathfinder (sort of a "Chosen One" type). After a few events unfold early on in the game, you quickly gain the mantle of Pathfinder, which means you're in charge of finding a new home for humanity.

The downside: I just don't care.

Being the potential savior of human civilization sounds really exciting! But it just doesn't come through in "Andromeda." A ton of characters are introduced up front, but there's such little time to develop who they are that — when the pivotal moment comes, and the Pathfinder title is yours — I couldn't care less. It feels like a rushed action, when it should have felt much more momentous.

But that's just one example. The other characters I've met in my "Andromeda" journey also don't fascinate me in the same way as they did in past "Mass Effect" games, so I care less about the side missions as well. Perhaps I'll like these characters after more time spent with them. But, so far, it's really tough to care when the dialogue is flat and the plot is nakedly prosaic.