Quantcast
Channel: Business Insider
Viewing all 101934 articles
Browse latest View live

In 2017, video games were at their very best — and their very worst

0
0

The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild

Some of the best video games of all-time launched in 2017. But the year also featured a few real low points that should make anyone concerned for the future of the industry.

Let's dive in.

SEE ALSO: The 25 best games every PlayStation 4 owner should have in their library

DON'T MISS: This free app lets you play incredible-looking PC games on any Mac computer

First, the high points: In March, Nintendo launched its highly-anticipated game console, the Switch. It's a clever piece of hardware that works with TVs and as a portable handheld device.

The Switch is a brilliant and simple design that I fell in love with almost immediately, and would recommend to almost anyone, even if you already own a PlayStation 4 or Xbox One. In less than a year on the shelves, it already offers some of the best video game experiences that you simply can't find elsewhere.



The Switch owes much of its early success to its big launch game, "The Legend of Zelda: The Breath of the Wild," which is, simply, one of the best video games ever made.

"Breath of the Wild" defies adjectives. As I wrote in March, the game actually brought me closer to my fiancée, who, prior to playing, was not really into video games. But this game is not only transformative for the long-running Zelda series, but for video games in general. It won countless game-of-the-year awards in 2017 for good reason: It is simple and approachable like the best Nintendo games, but is deeply customizable in the sense that it's impossible for any two players to have the same experience.

"Breath of the Wild" presents a vast open world and asks you to explore it. It rewards you constantly for wandering off the beaten path, experimenting, and asking yourself, "What if I approached this problem this way?" It's got memorable characters, an easy-to-follow story, and gorgeous visuals; it's everything that is right with video games.



Nintendo's follow-up in October, "Super Mario Odyssey," is similar to "Breath of the Wild" in many respects: It's endlessly charming, beautiful to look at, and approachable for anyone to play. The game will put a smile on your face again and again, and surprise you with clever puzzles and rewarding solutions around every corner.

This was another game that I played with my fiancée, who was highly skeptical of this particular Mario game before playing it — but once she started, she couldn't stop. We spent hours handing the controller back and forth, sharing laughs and real "wow" moments. It is an unforgettable experience, and it is also everything that's right with video games. "Super Mario Odyssey" might be the best Mario game ever made (which is saying something), and easily my second-best video game experience of the year.



See the rest of the story at Business Insider

Comedian Iliza Shlesinger sued for banning men from a comedy show

0
0

iliza shlesinger

  • Comedian Iliza Shlesinger is facing a lawsuit for hosting a women-only comedy show last month.
  • The attorney who filed the suit has a history of suing companies for gender discrimination on behalf of men. 
  • According to Variety, Shlesinger's show may have violated a California law protecting "equal accommodations" in the state. 

 

Comedian Iliza Shlesinger is facing a lawsuit for hosting a women-only comedy event in California last month.

As Variety notes, the suit's plaintiff, George St. George, bought a ticket to Shlesinger's show at Largo at The Coronet on November 13, which was advertised as "Girls Night In with Iliza — No Boys Allowed."

The suit contends that St. George and a male friend were initially told they could sit in the back row of the show, and were subsequently denied entry and offered refunds.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, the attorney who filed the suit, Alfred Rava, has a history of suing companies for gender discrimination on behalf of men. In 2004, Rava orchestrated a class action lawsuit against the Oakland A's baseball organization for giving away hats to women at a Mother's Day game. 

"Simply put, it is against many California laws for a business to discriminate against patrons based on their sex or other personal characteristics, such as race or sexual orientation which should surprise no one," Rava writes in the suit.

Rava goes on to argue that the women-only show "repudiated hundreds of years of women's struggles to be viewed as being equal to men and is typical of old-fashioned sexism that might also advise a young woman that her best chance for a happy life is to ace her home economics class and learn how to make a queso dip from Velveeta to catch a good man."

According to Variety, a 1985 California Supreme Court case ruled that "ladies night" discounts violate an "equal accommodations" law in the state, and violations are punishable by a $4,000 fine, plus attorneys' fees. 

Shlesinger's representatives did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Read the suit below:

SEE ALSO: Men are freaking out at Alamo Drafthouse for hosting ladies-only 'Wonder Woman' screenings

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 10 things you missed in the 'Avengers: Infinity War' trailer

The top 10 movies people talked, argued, and obsessed about online in 2017

0
0

Baywatch Paramount Pictures final

As the year comes to a close it’s time to look through all the online noise of 2017 (and there was a whole lot) and figure out the movies that got people talking the most.

Through data collected on over 600,000 sites across mobile, video, web, and social media, marketing company Amobee has come up with these titles as the top 10.

Many were box-office hits, including a lot of superhero movies — but one was also the new "Baywatch."

These are the movies we all talked, argued, and obsessed about online:

SEE ALSO: 11 most memorable movie moments of 2017

10. “Get Out”



9. “Thor: Ragnarok”



8. “Beauty and the Beast”



See the rest of the story at Business Insider

We did the math to see if it's worth buying a Powerball or Mega Millions lottery ticket

0
0

A ticket for the U.S. lottery Powerball sits on a counter in a store on Kenmare Street in Manhattan, New York, U.S., February 22, 2017. REUTERS/Andrew Kelly

  • The jackpots for both Powerball and Mega Millions are above $300 million as of Thursday morning.
  • Even though that's a pretty big prize, working through the math of how lotteries work suggests buying a ticket is not a great investment.
  • The low probability of winning and the risk of splitting the prize in a big, highly-covered game mean you're probably going to lose money.


The Powerball jackpot for Saturday's drawing is up to $384 million as of 11:00 a.m. ET Thursday. At the same time, the Mega Millions jackpot for Friday's drawing is up to $306 million.

Those are pretty huge chunks of money. However, taking a closer look at the underlying math of the lottery shows that it's probably a bad idea to buy a ticket.

Consider the expected value

When trying to evaluate the outcome of a risky, probabilistic event like the lottery, one of the first things to look at is expected value.

The expected value of a randomly decided process is found by taking all the possible outcomes of the process, multiplying each outcome by its probability, and adding all those numbers up. This gives us a long-run average value for our random process.

Expected value is helpful for assessing gambling outcomes. If my expected value for playing the game, based on the cost of playing and the probabilities of winning different prizes, is positive, then, in the long run, the game will make me money. If the expected value is negative, then this game is a net loser for me.

Lotteries are a great example of this kind of probabilistic process. In Powerball, for each $2 ticket you buy, you choose five numbers between 1 and 69 (represented by white balls in the drawing) and one number between 1 and 26 (the red "powerball"). Prizes are based on how many of the player's chosen numbers match the numbers drawn.

Match all five of the numbers on the white balls and the one on the red powerball, and you win the jackpot. After that, smaller prizes are given out for matching some subset of the numbers.

Mega Millions is broadly similar, with five numbers chosen between 1 and 70 and a final number between 1 and 25.

The Powerball website helpfully provides a list of the odds and prizes for each of the possible outcomes, as does the Mega Millions website for that lottery. We can use those probabilities and prize sizes to evaluate the expected value of a $2 ticket.

For our example, we'll focus on Powerball. The calculations for Mega Millions are similar.

Take each prize, subtract the price of our ticket, multiply the net return by the probability of winning, and add all those values up to get our expected value:

powerball 1 annuity pre tax

We end up with a negative expected value of -$0.37. That already suggests it doesn't make sense to buy a ticket, but considering other aspects of the lottery makes things even worse.

Annuity versus lump sum

Looking at just the headline prize is a vast oversimplification.

First, the $384 million jackpot is paid out as an annuity, meaning that rather than getting the whole amount all at once, it's spread out in smaller — but still multimillion-dollar — annual payments over 30 years. If you choose instead to take the entire cash prize at one time, you get much less money up front: The cash payout value at the time of writing is $239.7 million.

If we take the lump sum, then, we end up seeing that the expected value of a ticket drops further below zero, to -$0.86, suggesting that a ticket for the lump sum is also a bad deal:

powerball 2 lump sum pre tax

The question of whether to take the annuity or the cash is somewhat nuanced. The Powerball website says the annuity option's payments increase by 5% each year, presumably keeping up with and somewhat exceeding inflation.

On the other hand, the state is investing the cash somewhat conservatively, in a mix of US government and agency securities. It's quite possible, although risky, to get a larger return on the cash sum if it's invested wisely.

Further, having more money today is frequently better than taking in money over a long period, since a larger investment today will accumulate compound interest more quickly than smaller investments made over time. This is referred to as the time value of money.

Taxes make things much worse

In addition to comparing the annuity with the lump sum, there's also the big caveat of taxes. While state income taxes vary, it's possible that combined state, federal, and, in some jurisdictions, local taxes could take as much as half of the money.

Factoring this in, if we're taking home only half of our potential prizes, our expected-value calculations move deeper into negative territory, making our Powerball investment an increasingly bad idea.

Here's what we get from taking the annuity, after factoring in our estimated 50% in taxes. The expected value drops to -$1.02:

powerball 3 annuity after tax

The tax hit to the lump-sum prize is just as damaging:

powerball 4 lump sum after tax

Even if you win, you might split the prize

Another potential problem is the possibility of multiple jackpot winners. Bigger pots, especially those that draw significant media coverage, tend to bring in more customers for lottery tickets. And more people buying tickets means a greater chance that two or more will choose the magic numbers, leading to the prize being split equally among all winners.

It should be clear that this would be devastating to the expected value of a ticket. Calculating expected values factoring in the possibility of multiple winners is tricky, since this depends on the number of tickets sold, which we won't know until after the drawing. However, we saw the effect of cutting the jackpot in half when considering the effect of taxes. Considering the possibility of needing to cut the jackpot in half again, buying a ticket is almost certainly a losing proposition if there's a good chance we'd need to split the pot.

One thing we can calculate fairly easily is the probability of multiple winners based on the number of tickets sold. The number of jackpot winners in a lottery is a textbook example of a binomial distribution, a formula from basic probability theory. If we repeat some probabilistic process some number of times, and each repetition has some fixed probability of "success" as opposed to "failure," the binomial distribution tells us how likely we are to have a particular number of successes.

In our case, the process is filling out a lottery ticket, the number of repetitions is the number of tickets sold, and the probability of success is the 1-in-292,201,338 chance of getting a jackpot-winning ticket. Using the binomial distribution, we can find the probability of splitting the jackpot based on the number of tickets sold:

multiple powerball winners probabilities

It's worth noting that the binomial model for the number of winners has an extra assumption: That lottery players are choosing their numbers at random. Of course, not every player will do this, and it's possible that some numbers are more frequently chosen than others. That would make the odds of splitting the jackpot slightly higher if a more popular number is drawn Saturday night. Still, the above graph gives us at least a good idea of the chances of a split jackpot.

Most Powerball drawings don't have too much of a risk of multiple winners — the average in 2017 so far has sold about 22 million tickets, according to our analysis of records from LottoReport.com, leaving only about a 0.3% chance of a split pot.

The risk of splitting prizes leads to a conundrum: Ever huger jackpots, which should lead to a better expected value of a ticket, could have the unintended consequence of bringing in too many new players, increasing the odds of a split jackpot and damaging the value of a ticket.

To anyone still playing the lottery despite all this, good luck!

SEE ALSO: 21 lottery winners who blew it all

SEE ALSO: If you can solve one of these 6 major math problems, you'll win a $1 million prize

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: We tested an economic theory by trying to buy people's Powerball tickets for much more than they paid

The 2 top-grossing actors of 2017 were costars whose feud dominated the headlines

0
0

vin diesel dwayne johnson feud

  • Vin Diesel and Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson were the two top-grossing actors of 2017, according to Forbes.
  • Diesel and Johnson claimed the first and second spots, respectively, largely off the global box office success of their film "The Fate of the Furious."
  • The two costars had a noteworthy feud while making the eighth installment of the "Fast and the Furious" franchise. 

 

The two top-grossing actors of 2017 were "The Fate of the Furious" costars Vin Diesel and Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, according to Forbes.

Diesel and Johnson, who were reportedly embroiled in a feud during the making of the eighth installment of the "Fast and the Furious" franchise, also turned out to be the first and second highest-grossing actors of the year, respectively. 

As "The Fate of the Furious" wrapped in 2016, Johnson wrote a Facebook post calling his male costars "candy a--es" who don't "conduct themselves as stand up men and true professionals." 

Many speculated that Johnson was referring to Diesel, and in an interview with Business Insider in July, the film's director F. Gary Gray said he was "happy we made it to the other side" of the on-set beef. 

"The Fate of the Furious" would go on to earn a whopping $1.2 billion at the global box office in 2017, and the two costars' massively successful years were largely due to that one film.

Diesel claimed the top spot this year with $1.6 billion in global ticketing receipts. He also starred in the action film "xXx: The Return of Xander Cage," which earned over $346 million at the global box office.

Johnson came in a close second with $1.5 billion, as his other main project, "Baywatch," earned a comparatively low total of $177 million globally.

Actress Gal Gadot came in at number three on the year-end list, with $1.4 billion earned from the global box office success of her films "Wonder Woman" and "Justice League."

SEE ALSO: 'Fate of the Furious' director on the feud between Vin Diesel and The Rock: 'I'm happy we made it to the other side'

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 10 things you missed in the 'Avengers: Infinity War' trailer

10 cringe-worthy awkward moments from Trump's first year in office

0
0

Trump modi handshake

President Donald Trump's first year in office has included many awkward moments.

Whether implying a 19 th century abolitionist was alive or ignoring a handshake from the German Chancellor, Trump provided plenty of fodder for ridicule from his online critics and amusement from his supporters.

Here are 10 most cringe-worthy awkward moments from Trump's first 11 months in office:

SEE ALSO: The 22 women who have accused Trump of sexual misconduct

DON'T MISS: Trump's most outlandish, bombastic, and eye-popping tweets of 2017

Trump implies Frederick Douglass is alive

During a Black History Month event, Trump implied that Frederick Douglass, the revered 19th century black abolitionist, was alive. Speaking about Douglass in the present tense, Trump praised his accomplishments and claimed that the former slave and celebrated writer was becoming more well-known.

"Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who's done an amazing job and is getting recognized more and more, I notice," Trump said.

Critics ridiculed Trump for his comment. Comedian Seth Meyers joked,"Keep your eye on that Fred Douglass kid, he's going places. Fred Douglass is an up-and-comer."



Trump appears to reject a handshake with German Chancellor Angela Merkel

Trump appeared to reject an offered handshake from German Chancellor Angela Merkel during her visit to the White House in March.

When photographers asked for a handshake, Merkel leaned over to Trump and seemed to ask him to shake hands.

Trump didn't appear to respond to the question, and he didn't look over at Merkel as she spoke to him. It's unclear if it was a deliberate snub or unintentional. They have shaken hands at other meetings since.

Youtube Embed:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/-xeCg0hCFiA
Width: 560px
Height: 315px


Melania Trump swats her husband's hand away

First Lady Melania Trump made waves when she appeared to swat her husband's hand away while walking down a tarmac in Tel Aviv with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his wife, Sara, in May.

Youtube Embed:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/0XGBFQyEsNc
Width: 560px
Height: 315px


See the rest of the story at Business Insider

The dinosaurs of rock had an amazing year in 2017 — here are the best albums

0
0

rolling stones

  • The dinosaurs of rock had a very big 2017.
  • The Rolling Stones, Robert Plant, and Jeff Beck all rolled out new releases.
  • Old school rock isn't for everybody, but if it's your thing, these albums are worth a listen.


If rock-n-roll or old-school blues rock and its derivatives are your thing, the pickings these days are slim.

Washy synthesizers and ornately produced rap dominate, which is fine. I'm still trying to figure out how I feel about St. Vincent's "Masseduction," and one of my kids is bringing a lot of contemporary hip-hop into the house, which has actually given me an excuse to revisit the Public Enemy catalog.

But of course I was raised on rock on the 1970s, and at the moment, the authors of that art form are aging toward their final rewards. Presumably. Keith Richards might live forever.

The year 2017 was actually a great one for the dinosaurs. Numerous classic rock Rexes released new albums, and they were all quite good.

Here's a rundown of my favorites:

The Rolling Stones, "Blue & Lonesome"

This might be my favorite Rolling Stones album ever, and I'm a student of their vaunted run of records from the late 1960s through the mid-1970s that featured "Sticky Fingers," "Exile on Main Street," and "It's Only Rock 'n Roll."

"Blue & Lonesome" consists entirely of blues covers, so in a sense it's a true back-to-the-beginning effort from Mick, Keith, Ronnie, and Charlie. The Stones started out as a cover band, determined to preach the gospel of American blues, as Keith once put it. 

The Stones' core garage-band vibe matches up perfectly with heavy, rollicking blues numbers originally composed by Howlin' Wolf, Little Walter, and Willie Dixon. Imagine the young, raw Stones of the early 1960s combined with decades of experience and modern production. The result is just great, but the revelation is Mick Jagger's skill as a harmonica player.

You don't really get a lot of high-profile harmonica albums these days, but the instrument is crucial to the authentic Chicago blues sound, and Mick is a master. As Richards said when recounting how the album — recorded in just a few days and released in December of 2016 (I've grandfathered it into my 2017 list) — came about, he and Ronnie Wood were working up a few blues cover to get the band back into a groove, and Mick's "harp" playing inspired them to keep going.

The goal was basically to get Mick playing more harp, Richards said. Was it ever worth it! (And for good measure, Eric Clapton joins in for a few tracks.)



Jeff Beck, "Loud Hailer"

Beck was one of the three former Yardbirds guitarists — the other two were Eric Clapton and Jimmy Page — to invent the British blues-rock sound of the 196os. But Beck didn't stick with vibe, while Clapton refined the form and Page went on to start Led Zeppelin.

Beck moved in a progressive direction and has been relentlessly and restlessly reinventing himself ever since. It's kept him young, and because he doesn't sing, he's open to new vocal talent. Which he found and then some on "Loud Hailer" in Rosie Bones of the eponymous UK group Bones.

Beck's tone is rich, gruff, scratchy, supple, energized, and virtuosic, usually all at the same time. He has power to burn, and combined with Bones' fierce, confrontational vocals, he unleashes the incandescence on proggy, punky gut-checks such as "Live in the Dark." 

This is a dark, futuristic album that sounds like the soundtrack to something bad. Beck is trying to get our attention. And at 73, he proves he can do it again and again.

This is the most in-your-face record I've listened to from anybody in years. When Beck isn't blowing your mind with the effects he can extract from a Stratocaster, he's captivating your imagination with beautiful phrasing and huge, chunky riffs.

"Scared for the Children" is the ballad, if you could call it that. More like a warning. Heed it.

 



Robert Plant, "Carry Fire"

In his late sixties, Plant — with his group the Sensational Shape Shifters — has been exploring a kind of world-music-meets-The-Band semi-solo career.

Zep is ain't, but the yowling, yelping, shrieky vocals that made Plant such an icon in the 1970s aren't really suited to a musician of his stature, as he himself has said many times when asked about a Zep reunion.

Instead, on "Carry Fire," we get a rumbling, meditative Plant, backed by a versatile, crackerjack lineup. Almost all the songs feature rolling, drone-like structures, evocative of Middle-Eastern music and folk. It's hypnotic, and for fans of Plant's post-Zep records with Jimmy Page, an extension of a slightly bluesy take on those traditions, heavy and serious.

What it is, in the end, is classic rock for the thinking person. Standouts are the title track and "Bluebirds Over the Mountain," a simultaneously menacing and uplifting exercise in thrum and feedback that features a guest appearance by Chrissie Hynde.

You can put this one on an endless loop.



See the rest of the story at Business Insider

Netflix's Will Smith movie 'Bright' drew 11 million streaming viewers in the US during its first 3 days

0
0

bright

  • Netflix's original movie "Bright" landed 11 million U.S. viewers in its first three days, according to Nielsen estimates.
  • Nielsen's measurements track only streaming viewers on TV sets, and Netflix has disputed the accuracy of the firm's measurements in the past.
  • "Bright" has been critically panned since its release on December 22, though it has an 88% audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

 

Netflix's Will Smith-led original movie "Bright" drew 11 million U.S. television viewers in its first three days, according to Nielsen estimates

Nielsen announced its plans to measure a part of Netflix's audience in October. For context, the first episodes of the latest seasons of "Stranger Things" and "The Crown" averaged 15.8 million and nearly 3 million viewers in the first three days, respectively, according to Nielsen.

Netflix, which does not release its own audience metrics, has disputed the accuracy Nielsen's figures in the past. As Deadline notes, Nielsen's measurements track only streaming video on-demand (SVOD) viewership on select TV households, excluding viewers on other devices. 

"Bright," a buddy-cop, fantasy thriller, was directed by David Ayer ("Suicide Squad") and produced on a reported $1oo million budget

The film has been critically panned since its release on December 22. It sits at a 29% "Rotten" rating on the reviews aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, though it also has an 88% audience score on the site.

SEE ALSO: Netflix ordered a sequel to its Will Smith fantasy film 'Bright' — making it the first movie franchise in streaming-only history

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: It's been 25 years since the band Hanson was formed — here's what they're up to now


I tried Gwyneth Paltrow's diet and workout routine for a week — here's what happened

0
0

I tried Gwyneth Paltrow’s personal diet and exercise routine. Here’s how it went.

I decided to embark on this project because I wanted to see if I could handle two hours of exercise a day.

THE EXERCISE ROUTINE:

Gwyneth exercises for two hours a day: one hour of cardio and one hour of weights.

Before this experiment, I was pretty sedentary. I didn't do much exercise. When I’m feeling super lazy, I'll go on occasional runs.

So for the week, I started on Monday, I skipped Friday because Gwyneth only does six out of seven days, and then I carried through on Saturday and Sunday as well.

I would exercise after getting home from work. I got a medicine ball and a big pile of handheld weights and I would go to town on those every night. A lot of it was lunges, some Russian twists, things that I kind of remembered from my varsity swimming days.

I'm a decent runner — that wasn't too hard for me. I would hop on the treadmill, sometimes I'd go outside.

I was pretty much at a loss on how exactly to fill up an hour with weight exercises. So I was pretty much doing random stuff for at least 30 minutes of the time. I think that probably contributed to me getting hurt as well. Part of it was me just lying on the floor trying to recover, so I was definitely not working out the entire hour. There were breaks. And, running to get water, petting my dogs who were very confused about what was happening.

I woke up very sore on Tuesday. So, I was worried about how the rest of the week was going to be. Thursday morning, I woke up, my shoulder was killing me, and I decided to skip the weights that day. Friday was my free day. Over the weekend, it was much easier to squeeze in two hours of exercise because you're off work.

THE DIET:

Her diet consists of skipping breakfast, a low carb lunch, and a decadent dinner. So I usually start the day with a bagel, then have either another bagel or slice of pizza, and then have whatever for dinner.  All of this is punctuated with a lot of soda.

I decided to start skipping breakfast, made myself a giant salad that I ate for lunch throughout the week, and did whatever for dinner. She didn't get too into what she typically has for dinner, but she did mention occasionally having homemade french fries or a baguette drizzled with cheese.

Figured out I could melt Gouda cheese in a frying pan with some olive oil and it didn't explode my kitchen. So I would have that. The nice thing about this was that it was kind of decadent, especially after a day of just salad. It was kind of like a treat at the end of the day.

We had our holiday office party on Thursday and I freaked out, ate a lot of chocolate, drank a lot of wine, so, that's my bad.

THE CONCLUSION:

So Gwyneth Paltrow's not exactly telling people to dedicate two hours to exercise a day. This isn't something that's part of her goop line. She's just a pretty intense lady and this is how she exercises.

One of the advantages that Gwyneth Paltrow has over me is that she has a personal trainer. I don't have a personal trainer and I believe I ended up pulling my shoulder.

This whole experiment has made me realize that I probably should fit more time for jogging and cardio exercise into my life. I think it's kind of kicked me of a bit of a junk food habit for now, which is great. I did it, but I'm really glad it's over.

Join the conversation about this story »

The new 'Star Wars' movies have already made more than the $4 billion Disney paid for the franchise in 2012 (DIS)

0
0

Last Jedi 2 Disney

  • With "The Last Jedi" making over $900 million worldwide at the box office, Disney-owned "Star Wars" movies have combined to earn over $4.06 billion.
  • That's how much Disney paid for Lucasfilm, the company that makes the "Star Wars" movies, in 2012.


In 2012, Disney bought Lucasfilm for $4.06 billion and took full control of the "Star Wars" empire. 

Five years later, the studio has made that amount back from just the ticket sales from the new "Star Wars" films.

With the saga's lastest movie, "The Last Jedi," passing $900 million worldwide at the box office on Thursday, the Disney-owned releases of "Star Wars" ("The Force Awakens," "Rouge One," "The Last Jedi") have combined to surpass the $4.06 billion pricetag Disney spent on San Francisco-based company, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

Though this doesn't count the millions spent to make and market the movies, this figure also doesn't count the money Disney has already made from "Star Wars" merchandising and attractions at its theme parks (both of which are more lucrative than what the studio gets from ticket sales). 

indiana jonesAny way you cut it, there can be no argument about the amount Disney paid for Lucasfilm (which means it now owns the "Indiana Jones" franchise; a new movie with Harrison Ford once again in the title role is in development). And you can only imagine what can be accomplished with the company's recent acquisition of the movie studio and TV properties of 21st Century Fox for $52.4 billion.

The news comes as "The Last Jedi" performs strong in theaters, but not to the level of 2015's "The Force Awakens," which broke numerous box office records.

The mixed reaction by fans, its two-and-a-half hour running time, and the fact that Christmas Eve landed on a Sunday this year are all factors for the historic $151 million drop at the domestic box office for "The Last Jedi" in its second weekend in theaters. But some things are too big to fail, and a "Star Wars" movie is one of them.

"The Last Jedi" is currently the second-highest domestic grossing movie of 2017 with over $445 million (it's only been in theaters for two weeks!) and has its sights on being the top-grossing domestic movie of the year by December 31.

SEE ALSO: All 36 characters in "Star Wars: The Last Jedi," ranked from worst to best

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's how Jay-Z and Beyoncé spend their $1.16 billion

The 50 best video games of all time, according to critics

0
0

There are dozens of ways you could put together a list of the best video games ever made. You could look to classics, like "Super Mario Bros." here.

You could look at impact on the medium, or highest sales. You could write down your personal favorites on pieces of paper, then throw them into the air. Where the pieces land? That's your list.

But what we've got here is something slightly more scientific. Reviews aggregation site Metacritic compiles all reviews of games, then it averages those scores into an overall average. What you'll find below is the top 50 highest-rated games of all time, based on the averages obtained by Metacritic. We made one small change: Since there are a handful of duplicates on the list (multiple versions of the same game, released on multiple platforms), we've just taken the highest-ranked version of the game to make room for a handful of games that wouldn't have otherwise made the list.

Without further ado, these are the 50 best video games of all time:

SEE ALSO: The 50 best movies of all time, according to critics on Metacritic

50. "Devil May Cry"

Critic score: 94/100

User score: 8.6/10

Plot summary (from Metacritic): "In a large American metropolis, a man named Dante, a private investigator of the supernatural, is seeking revenge for the death of his mother and brother. The world is waiting, for Dante is no ordinary man, and with his father's sword in hand, he must enter the demon realm and avenge mankind."

Platforms: PC, iOS, PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3, PlayStation 4, Xbox 360, Xbox One



49. "Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 4"

Critic score: 94/100

User score: 8.4/10

Plot summary (from Metacritic): "Build your skills, earn respect, and show that you've got what it takes to Go Pro. 190 progressively harder goals. No time clock, no constraints. Pro-specific challenges. Evolving levels. Interact with other skaters. Multi-player modes. Customize your game...Your career is what you make of it."

Platforms: GameCube, Xbox, PlayStation, PlayStation 2, Game Boy Advance, Tapwave Zodiac, OS X, PC



48. "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2"

Critic score: 94/100

User score: 6.4/10

Plot summary (from Metacritic): "'Modern Warfare 2' continues the gripping and heart-racing action as players face off against a new threat dedicated to bringing the world to the brink of collapse. An entirely new gameplay mode which supports 2-player co-operative play online that is unique from the single player story campaign. Special Ops pits players into a gauntlet of time-trial and objective-based missions. Rank-up as players unlock new Special Ops missions, each more difficult. Missions include highlights from the single player campaign, fan favorites from 'Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare' and all new, exclusive missions. Setting a new bar for online multiplayer, 'Modern Warfare 2' multiplayer delivers new capabilities, customization, game states and modes, including: Create-a-Class Evolved. Secondary Weapons - Machine Pistols, Shotguns, Handguns, Launchers. Riot Shields. Equipment - Throwing Knives, Blast Shield, Tactical Insertion. Perk Upgrades. Bling (Dual Attachments). Customizable Killstreaks - AC130, Sentry Gun, Predator Missile, Counter-UAV, Care Package. Accolades (Post match reports)."

Platforms: Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, PC, OS X



See the rest of the story at Business Insider

No 'Star Wars' game has ever looked this real

0
0

In the last two Star Wars games, "Battlefront" and "Battlefront II," you're given a sandbox of Star Wars characters and worlds to play in.

These games are very pretty — some of the best-looking games on any system — but they don't hold a candle to what one intrepid gamer turned the original "Battlefront" into. 

Behold:

Star Wars Battlefront mod

No, that isn't a still from "Star Wars: The Last Jedi" — that's what happens when you apply a "mod" (modification) to "Star Wars Battlefront" on PC. And no, you can't do this to the Xbox One or PlayStation 4 versions, sadly; modding games requires a level of access to the guts of a game that you simply can't access on consoles.

All that aside: Whoa, right?

SEE ALSO: A brand new 'Star Wars' game was just announced — here's everything we know

All of these images was captured by the mod's creator, Martin Bergman.



Bergman says that running the mod can be pretty intensive on your computer's processor.



It apparently drops the framerate pretty dramatically (in the 30-40 frames per second range).



See the rest of the story at Business Insider

Beatles drummer Ringo Starr just received one of the Queen's highest honours

0
0

Ringo Starr

  • Ringo Starr has been knighted by the Queen.
  • Others recognised include Britain's former Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg.


Beatles drummer Ringo Starr is to become Sir Ringo after being knighted by the Queen.

The 77-year-old musician receives the honour, one of the highest Her Majesty can bestow on an individual, 20 years after Sir Paul McCartney received the same award.

Starr is being recognised in the New Year Honours List for his services to music following a stratospheric career with the Beatles. He was the British band's drummer, replacing Pete Best in 1962.

Starr released his 19th solo album, "Give More Love," in July this year and said he supported Britain's decision to leave the European Union while promoting the album.

"I would have voted for Brexit, I would have voted to get out," he told BBC show "Newsnight." He added: "I think it’s a great move. I think, you know, to be in control of your own country is a good move."

Britain's Deputy Prime Minister and Liberal Democrat Party leader Nick Clegg poses for a portrait at the ages Bowl in Southampton, Britain April 27, 2015.  REUTERS/Suzanne Plunkett

Also recognised in the New Year Honours List is Nick Clegg, the former Liberal Democrat leader and deputy prime minister. Clegg has been knighted for his political and public service.

Pollster John Curtice, the man behind the exit poll that predicted a hung parliament in this year's general election, has also been knighted.

Elsewhere, "Strictly Come Dancing" judge and ballet star Darcey Bussell is to be made a Dame.

There was also an MBE for Richard Cowie Jnr, AKA grime artist Wiley, and a CBE for former British Vogue editor Alexandra Shulman.

The full list of honours is below:

SEE ALSO: These 18 photos taken by Ringo Starr show how The Beatles liked to chill and cut up behind the scenes

DON'T MISS: 10 things you never knew about the Beatles from a new documentary

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Behind the scenes with Shepard Smith — the Fox News star who's not afraid to take on Trump

The legendary creator of 'Super Mario' explains why he tries not to hire gamers to work at Nintendo

0
0

Shigeru Miyamoto

  • Nintendo legend Shigeru Miyamoto, best known as the creator of "Super Mario," "The Legend of Zelda," and other hit franchises, is trying to make room for the next generation of leaders at the company.
  • Miyamoto actually prefers not to hire gamers; instead, he looks for candidates with other skills and interests. 
  • Gamers want to perfect what already exists, while Nintendo is about experimentation and finding new ways to have fun, Miyamoto says.


You might think that being a gamer would give you a leg up for a job at Nintendo, one of the world's leading video game companies.

But it actually could hurt your chances.

As part of his plan to take a step back from the company, Shigeru Miyamoto, Nintendo's legendary game designer, is trying to encourage the next wave of talent to take his place, he told The New York Times in a new interview. But Miyamoto is looking for candidates who come in with no preconceived notions about the industry. That means being a gamer is actually a minus. 

"I always look for designers who aren't super-passionate game fans," Miyamoto told the Times.

The reason, he said, is people who play a lot of video games are less willing to try new ideas. 

"I make it a point to ensure they're not a gamer, but that they have a lot of different interests and skill sets," he said.

Miyamoto, best known as the creator of hit Nintendo franchises including "Super Mario," "Donkey Kong," and "The Legend of Zelda," himself didn't initially have plans to make video games. Instead, he wanted to be an artist. He landed his first gig at Nintendo after showing then-CEO Hiroshi Yamauchi some of his homemade toys. 

Relatedly, some of Miyamoto's greatest video game successes have famously been inspired by aspects of his real life. In many interviews, Miyamoto has noted that 1986's "The Legend of Zelda" was inspired by his memories of exploring the Kyoto countryside as a kid. And 2001's strategy game "Pikmin" stemmed from him spending time in his garden.

Super Mario Odyssey

The Times profile makes clear Miyamoto and Nintendo see this non-traditional approach as a key element in the company's success, and experimentation as an important part of what's kept Nintendo relevant for 30-plus years. Even recent Nintendo bestsellers such as "Super Mario Odyssey" and "The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild" have been lauded for being examples of the company's willingness to take risks with even its most important franchises. 

It's hard to argue with success. A decade ago, Nintendo took a big risk with its Wii game console, which emphasized easy-to-play, fun games rather than fancy graphics, and it paid off. Nintendo sold 101 million Wiis.

While the Wii's follow-up, the Wii U, was a notorious flop, Nintendo's new Switch console, which also offers a different take on a game machine, has been a hot item. Nintendo sold 10 million Switches in the device's first nine months on the market, and the company recently raised its forecast of first-year sales of the gadget from 10 million to 16 million, according to The Times.

Read the full New York Times report here.

SEE ALSO: There might not be as many great-looking Nintendo Switch games next year

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Nintendo’s ‘The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild’ is amazing — here’s what it’s like

'Phantom Thread' star Vicky Krieps opens up about the movie's grueling shoot and working with Daniel Day-Lewis

0
0

phantom thread focus

  • Vicky Krieps plays Alma in "Phantom Thread," the muse of Daniel Day-Lewis' character, Reynolds Woodcock.
  • Krieps didn't meet Day-Lewis until their first day of shooting and said he was in character as Woodcock every day of production.
  • Being in the movie was grueling for Krieps, not because of working across from the demanding Day-Lewis, she said, but because her schedule was six days of shooting a week and her off day consisted of constant dress fittings.


Luxembourg actress Vicky Krieps is a veteran of over 30 movies, but many will see her for the first time as the star of Paul Thomas Anderson's "Phantom Thread" (currently playing in theaters).

Krieps plays Alma, the muse of renowned 1950s dressmaker Reynolds Woodcock (Daniel Day-Lewis) who figures out an unconventional way to get him away from his work. Exploring obsessions and unconditional love, Anderson cast an incredible actress in Krieps to take on these themes opposite the all-consuming Method acting style of Day-Lewis.

Business Insider talked to Krieps about the experience of working with Day-Lewis and finding the strength to get through one of the most grueling shoots she's ever been a part of.

Jason Guerrasio: So when you got an email about auditioning for this movie you didn't realize it was a Paul Thomas Anderson movie, right? You've said at first you thought you were going out for a student film.

Vicky Krieps: That's right. It was more of me making things up out of not knowing anything. I basically got this email from an American casting agent, who I didn't know, and I certainly wasn't expecting someone from America to write to me. But I'm always interested in projects. Whatever I do, I'm interested in the color of the material, I'm not interested in who's making it. I'm more concentrated on the work. So I opened the email and scrolled to find not a script but just some text, really a monologue. So I did the lines on tape and sent it in. 

Why I thought it might have been a student film was because I didn't get a script, I thought maybe it wasn't finished yet or this is for a short movie. I never thought I wasn't getting it because of secrecy of the project and that it was in fact for a movie by a famous American director. [Laughs.]

Vicky Krieps APGuerrasio: Looking back, are you happy you didn't know who you were auditioning for? Perhaps you would have been more nervous?

Krieps: Perhaps. I think I always try to prepare the same. I don't think I would have been different. But I think what was good was I was only relating and concentrating on the work, and that turned out to work well for me. 

Guerrasio: When you realized what the movie was about and who you would be playing, did you do a lot of research on the era?

Krieps: I prepared mostly on London around World War II and after the war. My character had lost her mother. This isn't in the movie, but Alma's mother is dead. So that was my backstory. And I learned as much as I could about models in the 1950s. I found on YouTube how they walked back then in fashion shows. It's very different in how models walk now. It's more human. I also learned hand sewing. But everything else I couldn't really prepare before shooting because I knew I wouldn't meet Daniel until the first day of shooting.

Guerrasio: Oh, wow. 

Krieps: He requested that we don't rehearse and that we meet for the first time on the first day of shooting. So my big thing was to find a way not to be nervous. Really, for a lot of this I did the opposite of preparing.
 
Guerrasio: So the first scene of Alma in the movie when you meet Reynolds in the restaurant, is that the first time you met Daniel Day-Lewis?

Krieps: Yes. [Laughs.]

Phantom_Thread_241017Guerrasio: It's funny because Alma stumbles coming from out of the kitchen and she has this embarrassed look, it's really art imitating life.

Krieps: Exactly. I really blushed because I really tripped. 

Guerrasio: Really?

Krieps: Yeah. 

Guerrasio: Was it tough to act across from someone you barely knew?

Krieps: That's the thing, of course I was scared, but there was nothing I could do. I knew we would be working together and I just stayed calm as much as I could. I was really in a meditative state of emptiness and forget everything I was researching for the character and just reacted to him. Working with him was rather wonderful. Because of how he works, I could really fall into this world of Reynolds Woodcock. I just concentrated on the moment. Each scene in the movie I was just in the moment. Just reacting to the person across from me. 

Guerrasio: Can you say you even met Daniel while shooting this movie?

Krieps: No. 

Guerrasio: So you were with Reynolds Woodcock.

Krieps: Exactly. I never met Daniel on set until we finished. 

Guerrasio: So, as you said, you don't overthink how he wants to work. This is the job. You just react. 

Krieps: You go with it. I could only go with it.

phantom thread 2 focus featuresGuerrasio: The way he worked, did that bring you deeper into the Alma character than you would have if you worked across a different actor?

Krieps: I think the way I work is similar to how Daniel works, I just don't call it Method acting. I don't have the time and money to prepare the way he does. I have more projects to work on in a year, so it's impossible for me to do it that way. But I definitely have the same dedication and I'm crazy enough to invent worlds around me. It becomes a reality and you are involved in what you invented. 

Guerrasio: American audiences don't know you as well as other parts of the world, but you've worked a lot in your career. Compare this job to what you've done in the past. Is this the most unusual production you've ever been on because of the way Daniel works?

Krieps: It definitely has been the most intense work I've ever done. It was also the only one where I was really struggling with my strength. In the middle of making this I said to myself, "Oh my god, I can't see the end." I felt that I would never get to it. "How can I find more strength in me to continue?" Because it was 16-hour days sometimes. We worked every day, except for Sundays. But on Sundays I had fittings of all the dresses that were made for me. It was endless fittings. So strength was the biggest challenge for me on this. 

Guerrasio: With all that said, if Paul called tomorrow and said "I just wrote a part for you in my next movie," do you say yes?

Krieps: Yes. [Laughs.]

Guerrasio: It's worth the pain, so to speak.

Krieps: Absolutely. In a second I would do it again.

Guerrasio: A lot of the talk around this movie is that Daniel says it's his final movie. What are your thoughts? Do you think he's really quitting acting?

Krieps: I respect him enough to believe that if he says so then he will. But I also respect him enough to leave the door open if he wants to change his mind. If he's determined to stop I understand. But if this is an emotional reaction and he changes his mind I would love that. I would be happy if he continued to be an actor. I just want him to get what he wants. 

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The bizarre history of the Yule Log Christmas special


PREDICTIONS: The most important things that will happen in tech in 2018 (AAPL, MSFT, GOOGL, FB, TWTR, DIS)

0
0

new year's eve 2018

  • The tech industry will get bigger and more powerful in 2018.
  • But the backlash against tech that came to the fore in 2017 isn't going away.
  • Predictions: The industry will face growing calls for regulation, Netflix is in big trouble, and the augmented reality bubble will burst.


It was a rough year for Big Tech, at least aside from members' financial results.

After years of unencumbered growth and fawning coverage in the press, the tech giants got hit with a huge backlash in 2017, largely concerning their role in society. After that public relations disaster, no one is probably more glad to see the year come to a close than the members of Big Tech. Unfortunately for those companies, there are few signs the backlash will abate in 2018.

But a continuation of the giants' image troubles isn't the only thing we can expect in the coming year. Instead, the tech industry and its biggest members are likely to see a mix of good and bad in 2018.

As we say goodbye to 2017, here are some of the most important things I think will happen in tech next year.

There will be a bigger push for regulation in the US

The big tech companies grew into behemoths without having to worry much about the US government stepping in to curb their power or dictate how they did things. In fact no one in the halls of power really talked seriously about regulating Big Tech.

mark warnerBut that's changing. The populist backlash against the tech giants this year bled into the halls of the Senate, culminating in one of the first significant efforts to regulate some of those companies — the introduction of the Honest Ads Act. That proposed law would have required people placing political ads on internet sites such as Facebook and Google to follow the same transparency rules that apply to television, radio, and print.

While that bill stalled, the push for regulation is only going to continue. And the proposed rules could cover a lot more than just political ads. 

For example, Democratic Sen. Mark Warner has held meetings with experts looking into whether or not tech companies intentionally make products addictive, according to Axios. The meetings come as a growing number of such experts are warning that the dopamine hit you get whenever your Instagram post gets 100+ likes may not be incidental, but an intended result of the design of such features.

Expect to see additional inquiries along the lines of Warner's. And don't be surprised if you see more bills proposed that might target not only political ads and addiction, but privacy and the industry's arguably anticompetitive practices.

Of course, the chances of any new regulations being put in place by an antiregulatory Trump administration or any new legislation being passed by a Republican-controlled Congress — even in this political climate — is next to zero. But it is significant that more policymakers are keeping a closer eye on the tech industry.

Disney will become Netflix's biggest rival, and a war will begin

Netflix has room to worry in the coming year, because Disney is clearly gunning for it.

The Mouse House's bid to purchase much of 21st Century Fox is clearly aimed at Netflix. But even if the government blocks that deal, Disney is poised to become Netflix's biggest rival.

bob igerNext year, the Hollywood giant will launch its first standalone streaming service. That service will be packed full of the conglomerate's impressive collection of movies and television shows, which includes everything from Mickey Mouse to Luke Skywalker. Additionally, Disney-owned ESPN will finally launch its own streaming video service, which should be enticing to those cord cutters who are tired of missing their favorite sports.

But Disney could be in an even better position to challenge Netflix if the Fox deal does go through. In addition to gaining a majority stake in Netflix-rival Hulu, the Mouse House would get access to more live sports, an even broader assortment of valuable intellectual property, including the movie rights to Marvel's X-Men, and a great collection of television series from the FX network.

All of this comes in the wake of Disney announcing that it plans to pull its library from Netflix. That move alone is going to force Netflix to spend billions of dollars to develop new TV shows and movies to replace what it's losing from Disney. Those efforts could succeed — or they could be flops.

Disney, for its part, doesn't have to worry as much about flops. It already has every weapon it needs in its budding war against Netflix.

Tech companies will pour more money into Hollywood — but get little in return

Apple, Amazon, Google, and Facebook are all investing heavily in developing original movies, television shows, and other video content. Each is slated to pour in billions of dollars in the endeavor.

Their ambitions are understandable. For Apple, being able to offer some great TV series in Apple Music would help set the service apart from rivals such as Spotify and Pandora. It would also give Apple a way to squeeze more money out of customers after they buy one of its gadgets.

Meanwhile, Google and Facebook hope to grow their ad businesses by getting a piece of the lucrative television ad market. And Amazon hopes to drive subscriptions to its Prime service, because Prime customers tend to buy more things from it than other consumers.

But motivations and money aside, the tech giants' efforts aren't likely to produce many hits, if this past year is any indication.

Planet of the AppsApple's first original shows, "Carpool Karaoke" and "Planet of the Apps," were not only critical duds, there's little evidence they found a significant audience. Google produced shows for YouTube featuring stars including Ellen DeGeneres and Kevin Hart, but viewership has been mediocre. And Facebook's new Watch video service has performed poorly.

While Amazon's had more success both critically and commercially, that success could be undermined by the recent sexual misconduct allegations against its former studio head and against Jeffrey Tambor, the star of one of its most high-profile shows.

Apple appears to have learned from some of its mistakes, hiring a pair of A-list producers to head up its video effort. But it's hard to see how Apple Music in particular can set itself apart from all the other video services with just a handful of shows. It's going to need to build up a much deeper library and is going to need to develop a blockbuster, must-watch show. Good luck.

For its part, Hollywood seems glad to take all the "dumb money" flowing in from the tech companies, as a connected source told New York Times tech columnist Farhad Manjoo earlier this year. To date, the tech giants, aside from Netflix and Amazon, haven't shown that they know much about how to produce great content besides writing a fat check.

But the truth is that the tech companies' seemingly bottomless pits of money can't buy hits. You can hire the best talent in the world, but you also have to know how to get people to watch what they produce. And that's something the tech companies don't seem to have figured out yet. So, get ready for another year of flops funded by dumb tech money.

China's consumer brands will bomb in the US

huawei honor smartphone 3

Apple and Samsung have the US smartphone market locked up. According to comScore's latest numbers, iPhone owners account for 45% of all US wireless subscribers with a smartphone. Samsung phone owners comprise another 29%. Owners of devices from all other manufacturers barely register.

Huawei and Xiaomi, China's two smartphone giants whose devices are popular in emerging market countries, aren't daunted by Apple and Samsung's US dominance. Huawei plans to start selling a new smartphone through AT&T in early 2018, according to The Information. Meanwhile, Xiaomi is in talks with AT&T and Verizon, Bloomberg reported.

However, if history is any indication, the Chinese companies' US push is doomed. The smartphone market is littered with companies that tried to take on Apple and Samsung here and failed — HTC, Motorola, Essential, ZTE, Google, and so many more.

The lesson? If you can't offer something unique and offer it through all the major carriers and retailers, you might as well not even try. It's simply too late in the game for another player to come in and give the US more of the same.

We'll all start worrying about Amazon's power

Jeff BezosNext year will see the Amazonification of even more aspects of our lives beyond just standard online shopping.

Amazon has plans to expand into pharmaceuticals, digital advertising, and shipping, while increasing its presence in physical stores. The company is rapidly transforming itself from a simple digital department store into a commerce colossus that could soon add a Prime layer to practically everything we consume.

When Amazon has entered new areas in the past, its expansion has often come at the expense of the former leaders of those areas. Grocery chains, for example, saw their stocks collapse when Amazon announced it planned to buy Whole Foods. Imagine what's going to happen to drug store chain CVS when Amazon starts selling prescriptions or to Macys if Amazon buys a brick-and-mortar department store like Nordstrom.

With nearly unlimited cash and no viable competitors, Amazon will have unchecked power to topple nearly any consumer industry it wants. By the end of 2018, we'll have to start asking ourselves if it's a good thing that Amazon has its claws in so many aspects of commerce and our lives. I'm going to predict the answer will be "no."

The augmented reality bubble will burst

Augmented reality (AR), the technology that layers virtual images on top of real ones, has replaced its cousin, virtual reality, as the most overhyped new tech.

Apple, Google, Facebook, Snapchat, and just about every other major consumer company in the industry have started laying the groundwork for turning AR devices and experiences into the next big thing after smartphones and smartphone apps. But despite all the buzz, we haven't yet seen anything that really demonstrates AR's alleged potential — unless you want to count Snapchat's dancing hot dog.

Smartphones, which are the early showcase for AR experiences, turn out to be a terrible medium for the technology. And we've seen little evidence to date that developers can use AR to create anything truly innovative or useful.

AR technology likely won't catch up to the hype surrounding it until someone invents computerized smart glasses that people will actually want to wear. If the AR headset Magic Leap recently unveiled is any indication, that's a long way off. Really, who would want to strap on a monstrosity like this?

Magic Leap One (Lightwear headset)

Because compelling, consumer-ready AR devices are still years away, the AR hype fueled by Apple, Google, and others will collapse next year. Venture capital investments in AR will dry up, and the bubble will burst. See you again in the 2020s.

The artificial intelligence bubble will balloon

Artificial intelligence has become the catch-all term for computers using what they know about the world to make decisions about new data. Self-driving cars use AI to navigate. Amazon's Alexa virtual assistant uses it to figure out which brand to get when you tell it to buy you some dish soap. Google uses it to automatically organize your photos into albums based on location and facial recognition.

AI is the most promising and useful concept in technology we have, even if you don't necessarily see it every day. It's powering the most promising companies and initiatives across all industries, and its importance is only going to grow. Any company that's not thinking about how AI can make their products better will be doomed to fail.

SEE ALSO: Apple apologizes for slowing down iPhones with older batteries

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The best phones of 2017 that you can buy right now

The $2,500 answer to Amazon's Echo could make Japan's sex crisis even worse

0
0

Japan has a sex problem. The country's birthrate is shrinking year after year, to the point where deaths are outpacing births.

Simply put, Japan's population is decreasing.

Japanese birthrate

But let's be clear: Population change is a complicated subject affected by many factors.

Western media often correlates the decline in Japan's population size with recent studies of Japanese sexual habits and marriage. A 2016 study by the National Institute of Population and Social Security Research in Japan, for instance, found that "almost 70 percent of unmarried men and 60 percent of unmarried women are not in a relationship."

But just because people aren't in relationships doesn't mean they don't want companionship, of course. And that's where something like Gatebox comes in.

Gatebox AI

Yes, that is an artificially intelligent character who lives in a glass tube in your home. Her name is Azuma Hikari, and she's the star of Gatebox — a $2,500 Amazon Echo-esque device that acts as a home assistant and companion.

Here's what we know:

SEE ALSO: Japan's sex problem is so bad that people are quitting dating and marrying their friends

DON'T MISS: Japan's huge sex problem is setting up a 'demographic time bomb' for the country

A Japanese company named Vinclu created the Gatebox.

It's about the size of an 8-inch by 11-inch piece of paper, according to Vinclu. And there's a good reason for that: The device is intended to be "big enough for you to be able to put right beside you." You'll understand why you'd want a Gatebox so close soon enough.



The Gatebox is similar to Amazon's Echo — it's a voice-powered home assistant.

The Gatebox has a microphone and a camera because you operate it using your voice.

For now, it will respond only to Japanese; the company making Gatebox says it's exploring other language options. Considering that preorder units are available for both Japan and the US, we'd guess that an English-language option is in the works.



Gatebox does a lot of the same stuff that Echo does — it can automate your home in various ways, including turning on lights and waking you up in the morning.



See the rest of the story at Business Insider

This 'Game of Thrones' episode was the best TV episode of 2017, because it relied on its complex characters more than spectacle

0
0

jaime lannister game thrones spoils war

  • Season 7 of "Game of Thrones" was kind of a mess.
  • But it wasn't all bad: "The Spoils of War" was one of the best television episodes of the year.
  • The episode starts with some emotionally-packed character moments, including the reunion of the surviving Stark children.
  • A lot of work went into making the battle at the end of the episode one of the best sequences in the show's history. Here, we take a look back at what made this episode so great.

 

There is no doubt that season seven of "Game of Thrones" was a messy season. The story accelerated at a confusing pace, Jon Snow traveled more than any full-time travel blogger would in their lifetime, and some of the major decisions characters made weren't believable. 

But the fourth episode of season seven, "The Spoils of War," is one the best episode of the season, one of the best of the series, and one of our favorite television episodes of 2017. It stuck with us, even months after it aired.

The episode kept things simple, relying on the complex relationships between characters more than the game of thrones that most of them have been playing (or avoiding) for so long. 

"The Spoils of War" begins with the reunion of the Stark sisters and ends with one of the most devastating battles in the show's history. It looks beautiful, but depicts hundreds of brutal deaths at the hands of one of its main characters, who is supposed to be one of the good guys.

The complicated way the battle was shot, with multiple perspectives from different characters on multiple sides of the battle, shows how devastating war is in real life and in the fictional world of Westeros. The excellent episode will make you laugh, cry, and pull your hair out.

So when reflecting on the best TV episodes of the year, we took a look back at "The Spoils of War" and the work that went into making it this good. Here's how they pulled it off.

SEE ALSO: All the TV shows coming in early 2018 — and whether you should watch them

It's the shortest episode in "Game of Thrones" history.

"Game of Thrones" usually expands the episodes that include battles. 

Season two's "Blackwater" is a self-contained episode, with Stannis' attack taking place throughout the episode, never leaving King's Landing. Like "Blackwater," season four's "The Watchers on the Wall" depicted one battle the entire episode, this time the Wildling at Castle Black. 

In season six, the "Battle of the Bastards" actually had two battles: the first was a short one showing Daenerys, Tyrion, Grey Worm, and dragons reclaiming Meereen from the Sons of the Harpy. The rest of the episode showed the iconic battle at Winterfell between Jon Snow and Ramsay Bolton. 

Although "The Spoils of War" depicts one of the shortest battles shown on the show, this one has the most impact. 



The reunion of Sansa and Arya could have been cheesy fan service, but instead it was jam-packed with tension.

Sansa and Arya's reunion could have been awful, filled with a lot of hugging and crying. 

But Sansa and Arya's relationship is complicated. Growing up with completely different personalities, they kind of resented each other, even though deep down they always loved each other. But it's been so long since they've seen each other that they don't know if they can trust each other anymore.

From Arya's perspective, Sansa let their father get executed by King Joffrey, because Sansa always wanted to be a princess. And now, with Jon Snow gone, she is the Lady of Winterfell.

From Sansa's perspective, Arya arrived in Winterfell unexpectedly and didn't hesitate to announce that she kills people now. Who's side is she on? Sansa has no idea, and neither does Arya. Their enemies are common, but they don't trust each other enough to reveal them.

The reunion in the crypts of Winterfell packs all this built-up resentment in, and adds a little joy. Despite all their differences, experiences, and loved ones lost since they parted, they're still excited to see each other alive in their home of Winterfell. 

 



Jon Snow and Theon Greyjoy unite, too. And it's even more intense.

Theon Greyjoy has come a long way and been through a lot (years of captivity and psychological torture at the hands of Ramsay Bolton) since he took Winterfell and pretended to kill Bran and Rickon back in season two. 

But Jon Snow doesn't know this. All he knows is that he saved Sansa, which Jon says is the only reason why he doesn't kill Theon when he and the surviving Greyjoys come to Dragonstone. 

There's also a lot Theon doesn't know about Jon, like that he literally died. 



See the rest of the story at Business Insider

Mark Wahlberg raked in $68 million in 2017 — but he's the most overpaid actor in Hollywood

0
0

Mark Wahlberg

  • Mark Wahlberg is the highest-paid actor in Hollywood, according to Forbes.
  • But three of his recent movies made just $4.40 at the box office for every $1 he earned, making him the most overpaid actor of the last year.
  • Christian Bale and Channing Tatum round out the top three on Forbes list of most overpaid actors.

 

Mark Wahlberg earned $68 million last year, making him the highest-paid actor in Hollywood.

But he may not be worth his salt, according to a new analysis from Forbes.

Together, Wahlberg's three most recent wide release films that debuted prior to June 1, 2017 — "Deepwater Horizon," "Patriots Day," and "Daddy's Home" — brought in $4.40 at the box office for every $1 he earned making them.

Forbes calculated actors' box office earnings to paycheck ratio for its 2017 list of the most overpaid actors. The list, which was all men this year, ranks actors from Forbes' highest-paid celebrity list by how much money their movies earn for every $1 they are paid to star in them.

Wahlberg also starred in "Transformers: The Last Knight," which was released in mid-June, and executive produced his latest film, "Daddy's Home 2," neither of which were included in Forbes' calculation.

British actor Christian Bale came in at No. 2 on the list, largely thanks to his 2016 flop "The Promise." The big-budget film about the Armenian genocide earned back an estimated 11% of its $90 million production costs, according to Forbes. Together, Bale's three most recent movies brought in $6.70 at the box office for every $1 he earned.

And though his paychecks are modest compared to Walhberg and Bale, Channing Tatum earned the No. 3 spot on Forbes' list. His three most recent movies, including 2017's "Logan Lucky," returned $7.60 for every $1 he earned making them.

Channing Tatum

To determine the ranking, Forbes deducted the estimated production budget from the global box office earnings for an actor's three most recent, non-animated, starring-role movies released before June 1, 2017. Forbes then divided that by the actor's estimated pay for those movies to determine a return on investment figure.

"While these returns sound exceptional to stock or bond investors, Hollywood accounting means they are far worse than they seem," wrote Forbes staffer Natalie Robehmed. "Studios and exhibitors must split global box office totals; add in multi-million dollar publicity and release costs not included in production budgets and films quickly become more expensive."

Rounding out the top five in the ranking are Academy-Award winners Denzel Washington and Brad Pitt, whose latest three movies brought in $10.50 and $11.50 at the box office, respectively, for every $1 they earned.

SEE ALSO: Meet the 20 celebrities who made the most money last year — a combined total of $1.7 billion

DON'T MISS: The best purchase I've made all year costs $10 a month

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: I'm a 34-year-old who has never had a credit card — and it's the worst financial decision I've made in my life

All 36 notable characters in 'Star Wars: The Last Jedi,' ranked from worst to best

0
0

thelastjedilucasfilm

"The Last Jedi" has dazzled audiences around the world and introduced us to more characters and creatures in a single movie than ever before in the "Star Wars" saga.

The director Rian Johnson doesn't just push the storyline of Rey, Finn, Poe, and Kylo Ren forward in unique ways — with help from legends from the original trilogy like Luke Skywalker and General Leia — but also gives us a bunch of newbies to love (or hate).

Here we look back on 36 characters from "The Last Jedi" and rank them from worst to best:

Warning: Spoilers below if you haven't seen "The Last Jedi."

SEE ALSO: RANKED: The 11 best movies of 2017

36. BB-9E

The First Order's new droid had a lot of hype when it was first revealed before the movie opened, but it didn't get a lot of screen time. Maybe we'll see more of it in action in deleted scenes, but for now it's one of those cool-looking new things that feels as if it got thrown into the movie for merchandising reasons.



35. Maz Kanata (Lupita Nyong'o)

Maz's appearance in "The Last Jedi" is another thing that feels horseshoed in. She's off fighting someone, somewhere, but has time to take a call? She drops some knowledge on our friends in the Resistance, but it's a random appearance.



34. Bargwill Tomder

This Cloddogran is the mean master of the stable kids who look over the Fathiers (space horses) on Canto Bight at the end of "The Last Jedi." From his looks, I think grown-ups are frightened of him, too.



See the rest of the story at Business Insider
Viewing all 101934 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images