The Vermont-based jam band Phish just finished an epic run of 13 consecutive concerts at New York’s Madison Square Garden (MSG).

The extravaganza, stretching from July 21 to Sunday, is the second-longest run in the history of the "World's Most Famous Arena" behind only Billy Joel's ongoing monthly residency at the Garden and marked the 52nd show for Phish at MSG.

The final night of Phish's stretch culminated with a banner commemorating the event being hoisted into the rafters of the arena.

Previous events at the Garden have included banner-raising ceremonies that were not permanent, leading to questions about whether that was the case for the Baker's Dozen.

According to a source familiar with the situation, the venue plans on keeping the banner hanging in the MSG rafters. But there is a caveat — the banner could come down if another act surpasses the record number of 13 consecutive engagements. So long as no one tops the feat performed by Phish, the banner is safe.

"The plan is to keep it up there," the source told Business Insider.

Previous events have featured seemingly permanent banners that later turned out to be gimmicks only for those events.

For instance, a banner honoring professional wrestler Hulk Hogan was raised at a WWE event at MSG, seemingly a permanent reminder of the performer’s legacy at the Garden, only to be taken down the next day. WWE told Business Insider at the time that the commemorative drapery was "just part of the show."

As long as the banner honoring Phish remains in the rafters, it will join others commemorating retired numbers and championships by sports teams who play at the Garden, including the New York Knicks, Liberty, and Rangers. Billy Joel also has a banner in honor of his aforementioned run and myriad other engagements at the venue.

Phish’s 13-show run concluded Sunday with a proclamation from New York Mayor Bill de Blasio that August 6, 2017 would hereby be known as "Phish Day" in the city.

Phish returns to the stage for its annual series of concerts over Labor Day weekend in Commerce City, Colorado.

Here’s video of the banner being raised posted by Madison Square Garden’s official Twitter account:

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Ryan Seacrest reveals the one thing you should never say to a celebrity the first time you meet them

Earlier on Tuesday, Disney announced it's breaking up with Netflix. 

The Mouse House said it plans to launch a streaming service that will be the "exclusive home" for its movies starting in 2019. Right now, Netflix has the rights to stream Disney's movies, but that deal is going away. 

Netflix investors didn't love the news. The company's stock was down as much as 3% in after-hours trading. 

Speaking as a consumer, and as one of those dastardly millennial cord-cutters, I don't love the news either. 

I mean, let's be real here. Disney owns Pixar, Star Wars, the Muppets, and Marvel. If it owned the rights to pizza, karaoke, and my beloved toy poodle, Disney would control pretty much everything I love. So, I'm one of its target customers; I'll probably be first in line to subscribe to this service. (Disney CEO Bob Iger said some Marvel and Star Wars stuff, at least, might stay on Netflix, so there's that.)

But for me that prospect bodes more irritation than joy — and likely for you too. Between me and my partner, my house is hooked up with subscriptions to Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime Video. The beauty of these services is that they act as aggregators — they collect and stream a wide range of movies and TV shows from different studios, networks and creators. I don't have to know which Hollywood studio created which show or what network airs them. I just fire up one of those apps and watch what I want.

Recently, though, there's been trouble in paradise.

For example, if I want to watch new episodes of "The Flash" or "Jane the Virgin" — two of the shows I love — I now have to use the CW network's app rather than Hulu's. The CW recently claimed exclusive rights to stream those shows, taking them off Hulu. That's frustrating, because Hulu is a great app with a slick design, while the CW app was clearly designed by committee and is no fun to use whatsoever. 

The Cartoon Network has its own app. So do FX, CBS, and plenty of other networks. All those networks limit access to at least some of their shows to their own apps. Many also require users to have a cable subscription (or at least a "borrowed" login and password).

What this means is there's an increasingly confusing galaxy of apps you have to use and navigate if you want to keep up with your favorite shows. And the Disney-Netflix break-up means we'll all have one more app we'll have to use. 

It's certainly within the rights of each studio or network to gate off their content. But the moves remind me of the thousand tiny frustrations of the cable tv service the streaming apps are supposed to be replacing. All I want to do is load up my two or three key services and watch my movies and TV shows. Now, though, I have to remember which app is for what show and remind myself to check it. Channel-surfing is out and app-surfing is in.

In the meanwhile, all of this throws some light on why Netflix would make a comic book company its first-ever acquisition. With Disney yanking the rug out — and potentially taking with its Marvel movies and shows with it — Netflix must be scrambling to find new, independent intellectual property and its own band of superheroes to bolster its own service.

SEE ALSO: Disney will dump its exclusive Netflix deal in 2019, and launch its own streaming service

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Mark Cuban: Here's Why Netflix Won't Kill TV

Alfred Hitchcock is more than just the master of suspense.

Throughout his career, the legendary director transformed cinema as we know it today through his unique visual eye, masterful storytelling, and incredible showmanship.

In celebration of his birthday on Sunday, we look back on his most memorable works — ranging from the crowd-pleasing "Psycho" to a movie regarded as one of the best ever made, "Vertigo."

Here are the 13 Alfred Hitchcock movies you need to watch in your lifetime:

SEE ALSO: How a guy who injected PEDs to see the effects scored a Netflix deal and uncovered the biggest doping scandal in Olympics history

1. "The Birds" (1963)

Hitchcock uses the attack of birds on a small Northern California town to highlight the madness that overcomes people when thrust into extraordinary situations. Made three years after the hit "Psycho," and in the midst of the TV show "Alfred Hitchcock Presents," this is the high watermark of Hitchcock's prominence in popular culture in his lifetime.

2. "Dial M for Murder" (1954)

Perhaps the most famous "Hitchcock blonde," Grace Kelly stars in this crime thriller about a man who attempts to kill his wife after learning she's had an affair. And things get very complex from there.

3. "North by Northwest" (1959)

Another favorite of Hitchcock's, Cary Grant plays a New York advertising executive who is mistaken for a government agent and finds himself on a cross-country chase from police, and bad guys, to clear his name. The movie features the iconic plane-chasing-Grant shot, and the thrilling conclusion on Mt. Rushmore.

Warning: Spoilers for "Game of Thrones" season seven, episode four, "The Spoils of War." If you aren't caught up on the series, read at your own risk. 

As Daenerys' dragons get bigger and bigger, she interacts with them more often. She rides them, climbs them, and yells "Dracarys!" at them.

And in last Sunday's episode, we saw Drogon, her biggest and most beloved dragon, in action more than ever before. In the episode, Daenerys rides him over a field of battle as he roasts Lannisters left and right.

But what kind of work went into that scene? How do you make Daenerys' dragon riding look real?

Business Insider recently talked to the "Father of Dragons," Sven Martin. Martin is the VFX supervisor from Pixomondo Studios, and has been working on the dragons at Pixomondo Studios since season two of “Game of Thrones.”

Here's what Martin had to say about the complications of animating a dragon when there's a person (Daenerys) interacting with it. 

SEE ALSO: Sunday's epic battle on 'Game of Thrones' is similar to one of the most important battles in the history of Westeros

“This is always the most difficult and trickiest part, when you are dealing with featured characters. There is always so much going on."

"In season two, for example, [Daenerys] was wearing this little puppet on her shoulder and rehearsing the whole take," Martin said. "And then the puppet was taken off, and she had to play against nothing, which is very difficult for actors. Because while you're concentrated on the text and the lines, you have to imagine where the dragon is.”

"If it's just a dialogue scene or Dany talking to her dragons, it's important that she [actress Emilia Clarke] knows where to look at . . . where the eyes of the dragons would be."

If Clarke doesn't know where to look at, then the scene won't look good once the dragons are put in on Pixomondo's end. Thankfully, Martin makes it clear that Clarke is a total pro when it comes to pretending that she's interacting with a dragon. 

“It's important that you have a representation of the dragon's body on set, and that the actor has a hand contact. So the actor touches it, and the hand is moving how and where it should move."

Martin told Business Insider that while he's been invited to the set, he's actually never had the opportunity to go. That's because while the film crew is hard at work shooting the show, his team at Pixomondo is already hard at work getting the dragons ready so the show will be ready on time. 

For most of his career, Steven Soderbergh has tried desperately to stay out of the movie studio machine.

Though his biggest financial successes have come from Hollywood — like the “Ocean’s Eleven” franchise or “Erin Brockovich,” for which he was also nominated for a best director Oscar — he’s been most comfortable being an independent.

He won his best director Oscar for "Traffic," through the now-defunct USA Films, after the big studios declined to make a movie about the drug war. IFC Films allowed him to make two separate movies for his Che Guevara biopic, “Che.” And then there’s his classics like “sex, lies and videotape” through Miramax, “The Limey” by Artisan, and “The Girlfriend Experience" with Magnolia.

But Soderbergh craved more control as the years went on, and frustrated he couldn’t get it, he retired in 2013.

Four years later he has returned with a movie and has full control over it.

“Logan Lucky” masterfully shows off Soderbergh’s talents. The story of two brothers trying to pull a heist at a NASCAR race has the mainstream appeal of an “Ocean’s” movie with a hint of the eclectic style found in his indie work.

All of that has led to one of the most anticipated movies to end the summer, and it wasn’t done with the help of a studio's test groups and millions of advertising dollars. Instead, Soderbergh launched his own company, Fingerprint Releasing, where he oversees the entire marketing and release of “Logan Lucky.” If the movie performs well when it opens on August 18, it could be a model other auteurs like Soderbergh could follow from now on, and never have to deal with a studio again.

If Soderbergh went with a studio to release “Logan Lucky,” like he did with 2012’s “Magic Mike” through Warner Bros., the director would have been looking at a $40 million marketing campaign for the $29 million-budgeted “Lucky,” in which the studio would collect around 15% of total ticket sales. Any remaining profits would go to the owners of the movie.

“You’re way too far away from your money,” Soderbergh told The New York Times about going the studio route.

So, Soderbergh teamed with former Warner Bros. executive Dan Fellman and sold portions of the movie’s non-theatrical rights (Amazon took the streaming rights) to raise a $20 million marketing budget. Then Soderbergh hired on indie distributor Bleecker Street to market and release the movie theatrically in the US for a $1 million fee.

Soderbergh now has full control over the release strategy and marketing campaign of the movie, the first time he’s ever had that. Bleecker will receive a cut of the ticket sales and other revenue streams, according to the New York Times story.

“Logan Lucky” will be released wide, but Soderbergh has stated that because of how the movie is being marketed (ignoring the expensive New York and LA markets and focused on the south and midwest), even a modest opening like $15 million is a success.

But is this a model that can be replicated by other directors who have the notoriety of Soderbergh (and the relationship with big name movie stars)?

Business Insider spoke to numerous sources within the independent film space and though they commend Soderbergh’s hustle, they don't believe he’s reinventing the wheel.

For some, the model sounds like a form of a “service deal,” where a producer hires a distributor on a flat fee to market and release a movie, and the distributor takes a cut of the box office. This method has become more popular since the emergence of streaming giants Netflix and Amazon, which make service deals when doing theatrical releases of their titles. But the practice itself has been going on for decades. George Lucas didn't want to relinquish the rights to "Star Wars" back in 1977, so he just licensed it and the two sequels that followed to 20th Century Fox.

And Kevin Smith has gone down the service deal route for recent films “Red State,” “Tusk,” and “Yoga Hosers,” through his company SModcast Pictures.

Then there are others who believe this auteur DIY model won't be that popular, because most filmmakers aren’t up for “getting their hands dirty” in the distribution phase of a movie’s life like Soderbergh is.

There’s also the question of the kind of movie you’re making. A $29 million heist movie where movie stars don't take their usual asking fee is one thing. It becomes more of a challenge if a director wants to make a big-budget epic, and can’t find the financing through independent sources. That’s when the studio becomes you’re only hope.

But one aspect that seems to be universally agreed upon is that Soderbergh is smart to keep his marketing budget low (he told the New York Times he’s only spent 15% of it three weeks out from the movie opening).

Hollywood studios have budgets that match or sometimes double a production budget because having big marketing dollars leads to more box office, and more money in studio executives’ pockets.

“Studios will spend $1,000 to make an extra $25,” said one source.

But when you are doing it all under one roof, like Soderbergh is doing, the low marketing costs means he will be seeing more money come back to him at the end of the day.

Soderbergh’s model may not lead to a revolt of studio moviemaking, but it's becoming clear he's found a way to no longer need its services.

"Logan Lucky" opens in theaters August 18.

SEE ALSO: How a guy who injected PEDs to see the effects scored a Netflix deal and uncovered the biggest doping scandal in Olympics history

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's everyone left on Arya Stark's kill list on 'Game of Thrones'

Netflix is falling after it was announced that it would be losing a big source of popular content.

In its earnings call after the bell Tuesday, Disney announced it would be pulling its movie content from Netflix's platform in order to begin its own direct-to-consumer service.

Netflix fell after the news and is down 2.96% in early trading on Tuesday.

Netflix has said that desirable content is a big driver to growing its user base, so losing popular Disney content is a blow to the streaming giant. Disney's popular Marvel content is not expected to be part of the new Disney service and is expected to remain on Netflix even after the movies are pulled.

Disney said in its earnings release that the new service should be expected in late-2019.

John Janedis, an analyst at Jefferies, said the move simply reinforces how important Netflix's original content strategy is. Wall Street has assumed Netflix wouldn't be able to renew all of its content deals perpetually so making its own content will continue to be important for the company, Janedis said.

To bolster its original content offerings, Netflix recently made its first ever acquisition in Millarworld. The cult comic book company is known for the storylines behind movies like "Kickass" and "Kingsman."

Netflix is up 35.19% this year and is currently trading at $172.49.

Watch Netflix's stock price in real time here...

SEE ALSO: Disney is falling after delivering mixed quarterly results and saying it'll ditch Netflix

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Wells Fargo Funds equity chief: Tech stocks are 'overvalued,' but you should still buy them

Netflix is falling after it was announced that it would be losing a big source of popular content.

In its earnings call after the bell Tuesday, Disney announced it would be pulling its movie content from Netflix's platform in order to begin its own direct-to-consumer service.

Netflix fell after the news and is down 2.96% in early trading on Tuesday.

Netflix has said that desirable content is a big driver to growing its user base, so losing popular Disney content is a blow to the streaming giant. Disney's popular Marvel content is not expected to be part of the new Disney service and is expected to remain on Netflix even after the movies are pulled.

Disney said in its earnings release that the new service should be expected in late-2019.

John Janedis, an analyst at Jefferies, said the move simply reinforces how important Netflix's original content strategy is. Wall Street has assumed Netflix wouldn't be able to renew all of its content deals perpetually so making its own content will continue to be important for the company, Janedis said.

To bolster its original content offerings, Netflix recently made its first ever acquisition in Millarworld. The cult comic book company is known for the storylines behind movies like "Kickass" and "Kingsman."

Netflix is up 35.19% this year and is currently trading at $172.49.

Watch Netflix's stock price in real time here...

SEE ALSO: Disney is falling after delivering mixed quarterly results and saying it'll ditch Netflix

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Stocks have shrugged off Trump headlines to hit new highs this week

Kendrick Lamar's acclaimed album "DAMN." (released in April) addressed the shock and fallout of Donald Trump's election win.

But in a new interview with Rolling Stone, the 30-year-old rapper said he now thinks that writing protest music against Trump is futile.

"I mean, it's like beating a dead horse. We already know what it is," Lamar told the outlet of speaking on Trump. "You just get to a point where you're tired of talking about it. It weighs you down and it drains your energy when you're speaking about something or someone that's completely ridiculous."

Previously, on his "DAMN." track, "XXX.," Lamar spoke out against Trump in a meditation on the intersection of violence and capitalism in America. On "LUST.," he recounted how he and his community reacted in disbelief to Trump's victory:

"We all woke up, tryna tune to the daily news
Looking for confirmation, hoping election wasn't true
All of us worried, all of us buried, and the feeling's deep
None of us married to his proposal, make us feel cheap."

Now, Lamar said he's focusing his energy less on combating Trump's policies, and more on continuing to promote self-reflection and self-worth in his music as a means to spark change.

"On and off the album, I took it upon myself to take action in my own community," Lamar said. "On the record, I made an action to not speak about what's going on in the world or the places they put us in. Speak on self; reflection of self first. That's where the initial change will start from."

Listen to Lamar's song "XXX," featuring U2, below:

SEE ALSO: The 25 best songs of 2017 so far, ranked

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Ryan Seacrest reveals the one thing you should never say to a celebrity the first time you meet them

When video games are revealed at live events, people usually cheer. In the case of a new game named "Artifact," fans had a hilarious, on-the-fly reaction that was... less than flattering.

You may not know the name Valve, but you assuredly know its products.

Steam, for instance, is the largest video game platform in the world — somewhere in the vicinity of 200 million people use it every month. 

Or maybe you've heard of "DOTA 2," one of Valve's outrageously popular games? How about "Half-Life" or "Portal"? Yep, those are also Valve.

All of that is crucial context for the video above — Valve fans tend to be pretty hardcore fans, and Valve fans who attend the company's annual game tournament ("The International") are the most hardcore of those hardcore fans. It was at this year's "The International" tournament that "Artifact" was unveiled. 

Before the teaser trailer was debuted, the project was announced as, "Valve's next game." That preface alone surely stoked tremendous hype from the crowd. But after the trailer rolls, it's revealed that the game is actually, "The DOTA Card Game." For some sense of what "Artifact" will be, think of games like "Hearthstone" from Blizzard Entertainment.

While digital card games have plenty of fans, Valve's fans were likely looking for something more akin to Valve's past game work. "Half-Life 3," perhaps? Instead, they got a spinoff of "DOTA 2." And it's in that moment that fans go from excited to tremendously disappointed, in real time.

Check out the teaser here for "Artifact" right here — the game is expected to launch in 2018:

SEE ALSO: The biggest video game of 2017 just passed another major milestone

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 8 details you might have missed on season 7 episode 4 of 'Game of Thrones'

Billionaire businessmen Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch seem to be the last people to have any interest in what goes on in Hollywood, but the heads of Koch Industries and prominent backers of right-wing politicians have secretly been funding some of the biggest movies out this summer. 

According to The Hollywood Reporter, the Koch brothers have been silent investors in RatPac-Dune Entertainment for the last four years. The trade reports they have staked tens of millions of dollars into the company. RatPac-Dune is responsible for recent huge Hollywood blockbusters like "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice," and two of this summer's hit movies: "Wonder Woman" and "Dunkirk." All these titles were released by Warner Bros.

The brothers were brought into the company in 2013 by current treasury secretary Steven Mnuchin, who founded RatPac-Dune with producer Brett Ratner. It was part of a $450 million investment deal the company did, according to THR. Because RatPac-Dune is a private company, this was never disclosed publicly.

Mnuchin is no longer involved in the company since joining the Trump administration, however the Koch brothers still are, as they are stakeholders in "Wonder Woman," "Dunkirk," and the upcoming Steven Spielberg movie, "Ready Player One."

The Koch brothers aren't favorites in the mostly liberal and environmentally-conscious circles of Hollywood. The brothers own 84 percent of Koch Industries, which has been criticized as a major contributor to polluting the environment. The brothers have also bankrolled years of lobbying campaigns to weaken environmental regulations. 

So don't plan to see the Kochs' names in movie credits. "They're in it to make money. They're not in it for the recognition," a source told THR.

A spokesperson for Koch Industries told THR, "Charles Koch, David Koch and Koch Industries do not have any involvement with this investment."

Business Insider contacted RatPac-Dune Entertainment and Koch Industries for comment but did not receive an immediate response.

SEE ALSO: The 13 Alfred Hitchcock movies you need to watch in your lifetime

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 8 details you might have missed on the season 7 premiere of 'Game of Thrones'

Donald Glover is the latest star from the untitled "Star Wars" Han Solo movie to speak out about the sudden firing of its directors Phil Lord and Chris Miller, just weeks before production wrapped. 

In a profile on the actor in The Hollywood Reporter, Glover — who plays a young Lando Calrissian in the Han Solo movie, and is making the press rounds following his best lead actor in a comedy series Emmy nomination for "Atlanta" — opened up a little about the "Star Wars" drama, and working with the new director, Ron Howard.

"Ron is such a legend, and he knows exactly what the vision for what he is doing is … [but Phil and Chris] hired us, so you sort of feel like, 'I know I'm not your first choice …' And you worry about that," Glover said. "To be honest, I don't know exactly what happened. I feel like I was the baby in the divorce, or the youngest child. The oldest child is like, 'We know what's happening, but we are keeping you out of it.' And I'm just like, [Glover's voice rises several octaves] 'Was that scene good? How did you feel?'"

Glover's Han Solo castmate Woody Harrelson looked at the director change this way when talking about it in July: “Oh, you can relax, man – because obviously the Force is with us,” he said with a laugh. 

Leave it to Woody to put things in perspective. 

Lord and Miller were reportedly fired due to "creative differences." Howard came on the movie in July. It will be released in May 2018.

SEE ALSO: The 50 best-selling albums of all time

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 7 details you might have missed on season 7 episode 2 of 'Game of Thrones'

People's perception of Jim Carrey is quickly changing thanks to the new short documentary, "Jim Carrey: I Needed Color."

Carrey has largely been out of the public eye over the past couple of years, despite continuing to work as an actor. In "I Needed Color" the audience has the opportunity to see where Carrey has cloistered himself: his art studio.

"I Needed Color" provides viewers with a brief look (the documentary is only six minutes long) into what Carrey's life is like, and the monumental amount of time and energy that he spends honing his craft, and his drive to do so.

Carrey shows off his various methods of creating artwork: heavy and measured brushstrokes, modeling clay, squeegeeing paint off of canvases, and then pouring paint directly on them.

Carrey's artistic pursuits, like many of his artistic celebrity peers (e.g., James Franco, Miley Cyrus, Adrien Brody, Rosie O'Donnell), has been given little attention in the past. But "I Needed Color" is starting to change that. 

Since "I Needed Color" was released on Vimeo three weeks ago, it has already been viewed 2.4 million times, and has become one of Vimeo's "Staff Picks." Carrey's new role as an artist has quickly become something to talk about. 

But Carrey's presence in the art world is not new.

Carrey first unveiled his artwork in 2011, in the self-titled painting gallery "Jim Carrey: Nothing to See Here," in Palm Springs. The show was well received, and featured electric colored paintings with a pop art tinge, with themes of overexposure, celebrity, and emotional vulnerability. John Mayer even composed a song to play alongside one of his pieces, as a kind of a soundtrack (they're good friends).

Carrey has continued to cultivate his artwork and style for over six years now, and if the reception to this documentary is an indication of anything, it's that people are finally ready to recognize that.

You can watch "Jim Carrey: I Needed Color" here:

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 7 details you might have missed on season 7 episode 3 of 'Game of Thrones'

Last year, Leah Remini's A&E docuseries "Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath" shed light on the troubling plight of ex-Scientologists like herself.

The show's first season has since earned an Emmy nomination.

For the series' upcoming second season, Remini told The Hollywood Reporter that she plans to take a more "activist" role in a fight to expose what she calls the "abusive practices of Scientology," including "sexual abuse and physical abuse."

In doing so, she hopes to provide enough evidence of wrongdoing to prompt a federal investigation into the religion.

"I'm talking about the FBI, the police, the Department of Justice, the IRS," Remini said. "If the FBI ever wanted to get anywhere, all they would need to do is do a raid. Everybody who's ever gone to Scientology has folders, and anything you've ever said is contained in those folders."

Remini went on to explain to the outlet how various forms of alleged abuse are "foundational" to "Dianetics," the 1950 book by L. Ron Hubbard that established the religion's core principles.

She says the religion believes that "a 7-year-old girl should not shudder at being passionately kissed," and that the parents of a molested child are not allowed to go to the police. According to Remini, the victims of molestation are punished and forced to "do some kind of amends" for abuse perpetrated on them. 

The second season of "Scientology and the Aftermath" — which Remini stars in and executive produces — begins August 15 at 9 p.m. ET on A&E.

Read the full profile over at The Hollywood Reporter.

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

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 7 details you might have missed on season 7 episode 3 of 'Game of Thrones'

Short sellers know you stayed home watching Netflix instead of going to the movies last night. And they're making wagers to profit from that very fact.

They've boosted short interest — a measure of bets that share prices will drop — in the four largest North American movie theater chains to the highest in years, according to data compiled by IHS Markit. That group includes Regal Entertainment Group, AMC Entertainment Holdings, Cinemark Holdings and Cineplex.

At the core of their bearish wagers is a declining movie-going audience — one that's shifting towards digital streaming and shunning the blockbuster fare that had been such a reliable driver of box office returns for so long.

In 2016, US moviegoers bought about 38 million fewer tickets than the previous year, causing total box office receipts to decline by $36 million, despite the average ticket price increasing by 2.6%.

The slowdown is even more pronounced amongst millennials. The audience of 18-to-39-year-olds declined for five straight years through 2015 before ticking slightly upward in 2016, according to the Motion Picture Association of America.

At the root of the slowdown is how the general population — particularly millennials — now consume their entertainment. With cord-cutting on the rise, they've already shown a willingness to eschew traditional cable in favor of streaming services like Netflix and Amazon. Now they're hurting your local cineplex too, and traders have noticed.

"Movie theater stocks are some of the least rewarding assets to own right now," said Simon Colvin, an equity and credit markets analyst at data provider IHS Markit. "The industry’s ability to keep drawing audiences — and its wider relevance in a highly competitive landscape — is now under question. An increasing number of short sellers are vying to enter this horror show."

For an indication of just how seriously film studios are taking the shifting dynamics of the movie industry, look no further than Disney's recently-announced standalone streaming service. The entertainment juggernaut is removing its films from Netflix to build its own platform.

It's a classic case of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em," and it's just the beginning of the war for your eyeballs.

Here's a more detailed look at the big bets being made by short sellers against Regal and AMC, the two biggest movie theater chains in the US:

Regal Entertainment Group

While Regal has outperformed its peers in recent months, that relative strength has made it the most popular target in the movie theater industry for short sellers. It currently has more than 15% of its shares on loan, while the demand to borrow Regal's shares has surged by more than 50% in the last three months, according to IHS Markit.

AMC Entertainment Holdings

While AMC has 5.6% of its shares on loan, the highest in at least three years, the demand to short the company is actually even higher, says IHS Markit. Since the majority of the company's shares are held by shareholder Dalian Wanda Group, the portion of the AMC's free float being short is higher than it appears.

SEE ALSO: Companies are crushing earnings — but traders have nothing to show for it

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Stocks have shrugged off Trump headlines to hit new highs this week

On Tuesday, Disney announced that it would break its exclusive movie streaming deal with Netflix in 2019, and launch its own streaming service.

On Disney's earnings call, CEO Bob Iger clarified that exactly howmuch Disney content will go on the new service is still being discussed — Disney and Pixar branded movies, definitely; Star Wars and Marvel movies, maybe.

But the general strategic shift for Disney is clear. Disney thinks the future of entertainment will be defined by "direct relationships between content creators and consumers," it said in the release.

Disney owns the most compelling intellectual property franchises in Hollywood, from Marvel to Star Wars to Disney’s animated masterpieces. Now, as the internet remakes video distribution, it wants to feed those directly to customers.

In the short term, this sounds bad for Netflix. In fact, the news pushed Netflix stock down about 3%. Netflix is one of the middle men that Iger wants to cut out of the equation. And Disney was a special piece of Netflix’s movie strategy that really performed well. But if you look at the long game, this news really should have no effect on Netflix's prospects.

The movie problem

In December, Netflix content chief Ted Sarandos explained that the company was still trying to figure out the best way to differentiate itself in movies.

Here’s the main issue: If you’re passionate about a movie, you’ve probably already seen it in theaters, or on DVD, and by the time it gets to Netflix, you’re apathetic. People browse Netflix’s movie back catalog to find something to watch, sure, but Netflix has found that its selection doesn’t matter as much as you might think. (Netflix has been able to test this by looking at the differences in viewing patterns between countries, like the US and Canada, that have vastly different movie catalogs.)

In short: Paying a lot of money for amazing major studio movies doesn’t really move the needle for Netflix, as it stands currently. Those rights used to be cheap, but everyone has wised up, and they are no longer an incredible value proposition.

“The rare exception to that is Disney,” Sarandos said in December. Disney movies are the ones “people like to watch over and over again.” There’s something special about them, according to Sarandos. Hence the big flashy deal.

So losing them will hurt. And it will mean Netflix will lose perhaps the most compelling pieces of its movie selection.

New models

But Netflix’s Disney deal — or any big studio output deal — was never going to stay in place as the center of Netflix’s movie strategy.

You can tell from Sarandos' comments that he doesn't love that kind of arrangement. He feels the value being destroyed as movies make their way from theaters to DVD to Netflix. 

Netflix can’t sit at the end of a pipeline waiting for the next Disney film to drop if it wants to shake up the movie business in the way it has shaken up TV. It needs a new model. And that’s partly why the company is thumbing its nose at the old guard by releasing its own "original" movies online the same day they are in theaters. Netflix doesn't want to try and conform to the old way things are done.

So while the loss of Disney might sting Netflix temporarily, in the long run Sarandos and company were always going to have to figure out a way for Netflix to stand out as a movie distributor. It hasn't happened yet (except for in documentaries).

Perhaps one way will be through owning powerhouse intellectual property, like Disney. On Monday, Netflix announced its first-ever acquisition, Mark Millar’s comic-book publisher, which has been responsible for Kick-Ass, Kingsman, and Old Man Logan.

The timing doesn’t feel like coincidence.

SEE ALSO: Disney will dump its exclusive Netflix deal in 2019, and launch its own streaming service

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: A podiatrist explains heel spurs — the medical condition Trump said earned him a medical deferment from Vietnam

The home where President Donald Trump spent the first years of his life is still standing in New York — and now, anyone can stay there starting at $816 a night.

The five-bedroom house in Queens is listed on Airbnb.

While new owners have long since taken over, the bungalow embraces Trump-centric decor to attract visitors who want to spend a night in the same space the president once did.

Here's what the house looks like now:

SEE ALSO: Trump's childhood home in New York City sold for $2.1 million — take a look inside

DON'T MISS: 13,000 people booked Airbnbs in Washington D.C. for Trump's inauguration

Located in New York's Jamaica Estates, the house was built by Fred Trump for his wife Mary and his young family.

The house has been Airbnb 'verified' as an authentic one-time residence of the Trump family. It was where Donald J. Trump was brought home after his birth in 1946.

The current owner says that little has changed since the days when Trump lived there.

This week, Taylor Swift is in Denver, CO, in court against a DJ who allegedly grabbed her behind.

In 2015, DJ David Mueller sued Swift because he claimed that she made false groping accusations against him. Mueller claimed that the accusation that he groped her butt during a meet-and-greet in 2013 caused him to lose his job. Swift then countersued Mueller (for one dollar).

(Here's a rundown of the whole legal situation if you want to dive deeper.)

Since there isn't any photography in the courtroom, there are sketches. The Denver Post posted a sketch featuring Swift, and it's a little different from her actual face.

Needless to say, Twitter is having a field day with it. 

Here is the sketch in question:

 And here is what people are saying about it:

SEE ALSO: Taylor Swift is going to court against a DJ she says groped her — here's what you need to know

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's the first trailer for the second season of 'Westworld'

The eSports world has grown dramatically over the past few years. Players gather for intense high stakes tournaments and brands spend millions to sponsor and advertise. A BI Intelligence report estimated that brands will spend $440 million on eSports in 2017. 

The gaming world's premier tournament, 'The International,' got underway in Seattle this week and competitors from around the world met to battle it out on Dota 2 for a chance to win a part of the $24 million prize pool.  As we can see in this chart from Statista, the most elite of them all is Saahil Arora, aka UNiVeRsE. He is the highest paid eSports player in the world, and has won 67 tournaments over the course of his life raking in an average of $42 thousand at each one. 

SEE ALSO: Here's how badly US broadband speeds lag the rest of the world

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: New film takes you inside the cut-throat world of professional eSports

Fox News host Eric Bolling filed a $50 million defamation lawsuit against a HuffPost writer after revelations he was accused of sending lewd text messages to colleagues were published last week. 

Court filings from the New York State Supreme Court reveal that Yashar Ali, a HuffPost contributing writer, was issued a summons notice to appear in court. Bolling is seeking $50 million in damages.

"The nature of this action is for damages and injunctive relief based on defamation arising from the defendant's efforts to injure the plaintiff's reputation through the intentional and/or highly reckless publication of actionable false and misleading statements about the plaintiff's conduct and character," read the court notice.

Bolling was suspended from Fox News after being accused of sending unsolicited photos of male genitalia to several colleagues at various departments over a span of several years. The allegations, first brought to light by Ali's report, cited a dozen sources.

"Eric Bolling has been suspended pending the results of an investigation, which is currently underway," Fox News said in a statement emailed to Business Insider on Saturday.

Ali appeared to be undeterred by the notice or the veracity of his report, tweeting that he would "stand by my reporting" and "protect my sources."

"Not going to stop reporting on Eric Bolling or anyone else," Ali tweeted. "I've had family members killed/jailed in Iran, a lawsuit isn't going to scare me."

Ali also noted that the summons notice did not include HuffPost as a defendant: "It's important to note that Bolling's summons does not include HuffPost - he is coming after me personally," Ali tweeted.

HuffPost also appeared to defend Ali, describing him as a "careful and meticulous reporter."

"We stand by his reporting," HuffPost said in a statement.

Following the initial report, Caroline Heldman, a former Fox News contributor, explained in a Facebook post that Bolling's conduct was "wildly inappropriate for years."

"Once, he took me up to his office in New York, showed me his baseball jerseys, and in the brief time I was there, let me know that his office was his favorite place to have sex," Heldman recounted.

After being suspended, Bolling said that he was "overwhelmed by all the support."

"I look forward to clearing my name asap," he tweeted Monday.

As Ali's court notice began circulating on Wednesday, Bolling also tweeted: "I will continue to fight against these false smear attacks! THANK YOU FOR CONTINUED SUPPORT."

Neither HuffPost, nor its parent company, Oath were immediately available for comment.

SEE ALSO: Eric Bolling responds to sexual harassment allegations and Fox News suspension

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Marvel dropped another trailer for 'Thor: Ragnarok' — and it looks incredible

Facebook's push into becoming a destination for original TV shows begins on Thursday with the launch of its redesigned video tab, Business Insider has learned.

The new tab will be called "Watch" and showcase a slew of shows slated to debut on August 28, people familiar with the matter said. Roughly 40 shows from a range of publishing partners and content studios will be included in the first slate of programming.

A Facebook representative wasn't immediately available to comment.

The social network initially hoped to debut its redesigned video tab and show effort earlier this year, but the date has been moved back several times as more show partners have been brought on board. The August 28 debut could be pushed back as well, but content partners have been told their shows will debut on that date.

In typical Facebook fashion, only a small percentage of users will see the new Watch tab in the Facebook app immediately after it's officially unveiled on Thursday. But Facebook plans to slowly make it available to everyone in the coming weeks.

Facebook has been willing to pay millions of dollars for exclusive rights to more premium, longer shows, while less expensive and shorter shows reportedly cost between $5,000 and $20,000. The cheaper shows are permitted to be shown outside of Facebook after they exclusively debut in the Watch tab.

Facebook sees high-quality, scripted video as an important feature to retain users, particularly a younger demographic that is increasingly flocking to rival Snapchat, as well as a means to rake in brand advertising dollars traditionally reserved for traditional TV.

SEE ALSO: Losing Disney might sting Netflix in the short term, but it shouldn't change things for investors

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: RICH GREENFIELD: There is just one way for Snapchat to survive Facebook