• MoviePass confirmed to Business Insider that a "small percentage" of accounts were terminated due to users violating its terms of service.
• People have taken to Twitter to object in very vocal terms.

On Friday, MoviePass terminated the accounts of what it described as a "small percentage" of users who violated its terms of service, the company confirmed to Business Insider. 

This was a shock to many users, who took to social media to object to being taken off the service. Many of them said they were confused as to why their accounts were deleted. 

Business Insider obtained an email that was sent out to members who MoviePass said violated its terms of service by purchasing part of a "premium ticket" on their card. However, multiple people who received the email denied they had ever done that.

Here's the email:

"Your account has been cancelled effective immediately for violating the terms of service by using your MoviePass card to purchase part of a premium ticket. You cannot sign back up for MoviePass."

Customers who then inquired via MoviePass' customer support account on Twitter were sent this via Direct Message:

"Thank you for sharing your concerns with us. Your account was cancelled due to Terms and Conditions violation. You should have received an email notifying you on this on February 09, 2018 with a description of the action that was in violation. Please remember to check your Spam or Junk folders for this email. Some email filters may prevent it from being delivered directly to your inbox. Terms and Conditions violations cannot be disputed nor can your account be reactivated. We appreciate your understanding."

Many took to Twitter to voice their frustration and confusion as to why they lost their accounts:

A MoviePass spokesperson sent the following statement to Business Insider regarding the canceling of accounts:

"A small percentage of MoviePass users have been removed from the system, due to violating the terms of service. We diligently review card transactions to prevent fraudulent activity and take our Terms of Service agreement very seriously. If individuals abuse the service, we must take action so that our model continues to be sustainable for everyone. If customers feel there has been a mistake, they can feel free to reach out to MoviePass customer service via the phone number on the back of their card."

SEE ALSO: George Lucas directed a shot for "Solo" when he visited the set

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: JIM ROSS: Here's who will take over WWE after Vince McMahon

It's early in the year, but the list of canceled TV shows is already piling up.

Networks haven't announced many cancellations yet with the exception of ABC, which canceled freshman sitcom "The Mayor" and "Once Upon a Time" (which was once a ratings hit). 

On the streaming side, things are a bit different. Amazon kicked off 2018 with a slew of cancellations, announcing the end of three quirky comedies. It axed Golden Globe nominee "I Love Dick" and comedian Tig Notaro's semi-autobiographical show, "One Mississippi." 

There are many more cancellations to come, especially since networks haven't announced the fates of their fall shows. We'll update this list as more cancellations are announced. 

Here are all the shows that were canceled this year, including those from networks and Netflix:

SEE ALSO: The worst TV show of every year since 2000, according to critics

"The Mayor" — ABC, one season

"Chance" — Hulu, two seasons

"Lady Dynamite" — Netflix, two seasons

Microsoft’s Xbox group is in a weird place.

An estimated 30 to 50 million Xbox One consoles have been sold, putting Microsoft in a distant second place in the console race behind Sony's 70-plus million selling PlayStation 4 console. And Nintendo's Switch console? It's a runaway success.

In under a year, Nintendo sold over 14 million Switch consoles — it's the fastest-selling console in US history. Nintendo attributes this success primarily to one thing: A lot of really good games you can only play on the Switch.

"We were able to offer multiple hit titles early on for Nintendo Switch that serve as powerful drivers for hardware sales," Nintendo president Tatsumi Kimishima said in the company's latest financial presentation.

The Xbox One, by comparison, isn't doing so great. On paper, it's competitive with or outright better than the competition from Sony and Nintendo.

Starting at $200, the Xbox One is low in price, and jammed with great games, to boot. Even the lowest-end model of Xbox One supports HDR, a high-end video technology that makes games look better on TVs that support. It does everything a set-top box like the Apple TV does, like let you watch Netflix — plus it plays high-end blockbuster games. 

In reality, though, it's the console I'm least likely to suggest to any would-be buyer. 

If you don't own any consoles, the PlayStation 4 has many of the same games, like the latest "Assassin's Creed," and a bunch of great exclusive games, including the critically-acclaimed "Horizon Zero Dawn."

Though the Nintendo Switch doesn't have many third-party blockbusters like "Call of Duty," it has a big edge in terms of exclusives — there's no other way to play the latest "Super Mario" games. That's a pretty big advantage.

And if you already own a PlayStation 4 or PC? There simply aren't many major Xbox exclusive games that make the Xbox One worth owning.

So, what's Microsoft going to do? That's the big question.

Here are some ways they could go:

SEE ALSO: Xbox is in trouble — and Microsoft is considering a major acquisition to fix it

1. Microsoft could buy a game publisher or development studio, as recently suggested by rumors.

The latest rumors suggest Microsoft is considering an acquisition of some sort— a game development studio or publisher that could bolster Microsoft's stable of intellectual properties. 

The companies most recently rumored as acquisiton targets are as follows:

1. EA (makers of "Madden NFL" and "FIFA," among many others).
2. Valve (operators of Steam, makers of "DOTA 2" and "Half-Life" and much more).
3. PUBG Corp. (the South Korean subsidiary of Bluehole Studio that makes/manages the very popular "PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds"). 

But does that make any sense? "Close to zero probability of buying EA," Wedbush senior analyst Michael Pachter told Business Insider in an email exchange. 

There's a good reason for that, and it's the same reason that Microsoft's unlikely to most any of the other major game publishers (like Ubisoft, Activision, Take-Two Interactive, or Bethesda Softworks). EA, like many other major game publishers, has a business that's dependent on making games for every platform, including Sony's and Nintendo's. If Microsoft bought one of these publishers, it would be to keep that publisher's games for the Xbox platform.

That makes any such proposition a poor business choice. Not only would the publisher cost Microsoft a ton of money up front just to buy, but it would be difficult to make money back on the investment when they're suddenly limited to only developing for Xbox. 

"That would lower EA revenues — by a lot, unlikely to be made up by growth on Xbox — and would make a purchase prohibitively expensive," Pachter said. Though EA has a large library of intellectual property, losing the revenue of selling that IP on competing platforms would hurt too much. This same scenario applies directly to the other big publishers, from Activision ("Call of Duty") to Ubisoft ("Assassin's Creed").

2. Microsoft could lean in to its PC business and walk away from consoles altogether.

There's a major initiative at Microsoft's Xbox division that's years deep at this point: It's called "Xbox Play Anywhere." 

The concept is simple: Any game published by Microsoft will come to both Xbox One and Windows 10. If you buy it once, you get it both places. If you save your game one place, you can pick up the game where you left off on the other device. It's pretty sweet!

And it may very well be the entire future of the Xbox business. "The next platform might end up being the PC," Pachter said. "The Xbox Anywhere initiative seems to acknowledge that a Windows 10 PC works fine as a game console." 

This doesn't mean saying goodbye to Xbox as a platform. It could live on in software form, as a user-friendly interface on your TV (for instance). Maybe "Xbox" as we know it becomes a component of another device — an Apple TV or a Roku, perhaps.

In the short term, Microsoft is unlikely to abandon the Xbox console altogether. But you can, perhaps, expect Microsoft to shift focus towards the PC. 

"There probably will be a next generation," Pachter said, "but it is likely to be smaller."

3. Microsoft buys Valve, thus acquiring Steam (and much more).

Valve's Steam service, a computer-based storefront and platform for gaming, is huge. Somewhere in the ballpark of 200 million people actively use it every month. 

If Microsoft's looking to the future of Xbox as a computer-based platform that works "anywhere" (instead of only on a dedicated piece of hardware created by Microsoft), buying Valve would certainly be a way to massively bolster that initiative. 

Not only does Valve have Steam — which brings a huge chunk of new users and a lucrative storefront — but Valve also owns a bunch of classic gaming IP. The "Half-Life" franchise, for instance, could finally see its long-promised third installment as a big Xbox exclusive. 

But Valve is a private company, and there's no way to know how much it's worth. Valve takes a 30% cut of Steam sales, on average, and Steam is the most widely-used game store on Earth. "I presume they do around $2 billion in Steam sales, but just a guess," Pachter said.

All of which is to say one thing: Valve could be outrageously expensive to buy, and it's entirely possible that they're not up for sale.

• Poppy is an artist who's gained over 250 million views on her YouTube channel.
• She has mesmerized and confused viewers with videos such as "I'm Poppy," a 10 minute video featuring her repeating the words "I'm Poppy," that has over 14 million views.
• She was recently compared to Andy Warhol by New York Magazine.

Poppy is a YouTube star who claims she's "from the internet." Her robot-like, soft voice and puzzling YouTube monologues — sometimes sung, sometimes recited — deliver slightly nonsensical messages to her viewers.

"Do you ever think about followers? What does it mean when you have a lot of followers? There's a number after my name. Do you have a number after your name? The number keeps climbing higher and higher," she says into the camera during one of her videos published last year.

Her YouTube channel has over 250 million views, and she and her director, Titanic Sinclear, recently debuted her new YouTube Red show "I'm Poppy" during the Sundance Film Festival. She also released an album on Diplo’s Mad Decent records called "Poppy.Computer" that features songs such as "Computer Boy" and "Interweb."

Poppy is influenced by Japanese "kawaii" culture, ASMR videos, David Lynch, and of course, the internet. In a recent profile on the artist in New York Magazine she was compared to Andy Warhol.

Because little is known about the woman who represents Poppy, conspiracy theories from Poppy Truthers have flown around both Reddit and YouTube. Some believe she's a member of a cult, or that Sinclear is keeping her hostage, or that her YouTube Channel — which has videos dating back to 2014, is actually just a marketing campaign for something.

Poppy plays with and responds to these theories within her videos such as "Tide Commercial" and "I Am Not In A Cult."

Below, a look at the artist Poppy.

SEE ALSO: These four women want to help plan your dream funeral

Poppy's first YouTube video came out in 2014. During it, she quietly eats cotton candy.

She and Sinclear have produced over 300 videos for her channel. Her monologues vary in subject, but her words often ring satirically empty. In her video "Politics" she says: "I like politics. I have an opinion. I like politics because it's fun."

The aesthetic of her videos has remained mostly consistent — pale pastel backdrops and generally light colored clothes fill the frame.

• The 2003 documentary "Born Rich" is 15 years old now.

• The film looks into the lives of incredibly wealthy young heirs and heiresses.

• Some of the film's participants regretted appearing in the controversial documentary.

Fifteen years ago, Johnson & Johnson heir Jamie Johnson came out with a documentary exploring what it's really like to inherit a fortune.

He delved into his own experience growing up wealthy, and also interviewed 10 other young, uber-rich heirs and heiresses. Some were friends, and others ran in the same social circles. 

The interviews delved into the attitudes, taboos, and culture of the 1%, and produced an endless number of memorable, outrageous, and, occasionally, tone deaf soundbites.

The resulting film, "Born Rich," took Johnson years to put together, and resulted in two Emmy nominations and a lawsuit from one of the cast members.

But that's all in the past. Here's a look at where all of the "Born Rich" stars have ended up:

SEE ALSO: A look inside the daily life of Ivanka Trump, who works from the White House, likes watching 'Real Housewives,' and doesn't use her phone on Saturdays

DON'T MISS: A look inside the incredible life of Georgina Bloomberg, the heiress to her father's $52 billion empire who once said 'having the last name Bloomberg sucks'

Georgina Bloomberg

Georgina Bloomberg, the 34-year-old second daughter of former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, is heir to one of the biggest fortunes in the world. Forbes estimates that Bloomberg is worth $49.8 billion.

That's part of the reason she made headlines when she declared at 19 that "having the last name Bloomberg sucks" in "Born Rich."

In the years since the documentary, Bloomberg has established herself as a top equestrian and philanthropist with a passion for animal rights. She's also come around to be more accepting of her family name, telling Town and Country, "It's a last name that now I'm proud of. At 19, I wasn't."

Stephanie Ercklentz

In the documentary, finance heiress Stephanie Ercklentz said she had never dated outside of her "social background," The Daily Mail reported.

She's since married powerhouse investor Chase Coleman III, tying the knot with him in Palm Beach in 2005. Coleman is worth $2.2. billion, according to Forbes.

The heiress and her husband are both private people, Town and Country reported, and have kept a low profile in the press for years.

Christina Floyd

Christina Floyd, the daughter of famous golfer Raymond Floyd, attended Wake Forest University and graduated with a degree in art history.

Floyd remained close friends with fellow "Born Rich" star Ivanka Trump over the years, Town and Country reported. Putting her art history degree to good use, she worked at Sotheby's, where she met art dealer Emmanuel Di Donna, before leaving to run her own firm, Floyd Contemporary.

According to 27east.com, she married Di Donna in 2010, in a beachside ceremony in Mexico.

• Uma Thurman told The New York Times she was injured on the set of "Kill Bill" after director Quentin Tarantino allegedly made her do a car stunt.
• The actress provided video to the Times of her crashing into a tree, which led to her injuring her knees and suffering a concussion, she said.
• Producer Rebecca Green told Business Insider the accident would never have happened if the movie's producer had stepped up and stopped Thurman from driving the car.

On Saturday, The New York Times published a piece in which Uma Thurman alleged that Harvey Weinstein sexually assaulted her, adding her voice to the #MeToo movement.

But Thurman didn't just call out Weinstein. In a shocking twist, she also spoke out against the director she'll be forever linked to: Quentin Tarantino.

Halfway through the Times story, the narrative shifts from Weinstein to Tarantino, and how the director — who made Thurman a star in his movie, "Pulp Fiction" — allegedly forced her, on the set of "Kill Bill," to do a scene she wanted a stunt driver to do instead. It led to the actress being injured.

Business Insider spoke to producers in the industry who said what Thurman suffered could (and should) have been stopped.

Thurman thought Tarantino 'tried to kill me'

In a shot that appears towards the end of "Kill Bill," The Bride (Thurman) speeds down a dirt road on her way to kill Bill (David Carradine). The shot is taken from the back of the car, so you see the back of The Bride's head driving the convertible.

According to the Times story, Thurman insisted that a stunt driver do the shot, as she didn't feel comfortable driving.

“Quentin came in my trailer and didn’t like to hear 'no,' like any director,” Thurman said in the story. “He was furious because I’d cost them a lot of time. But I was scared. He said: ‘I promise you the car is fine. It’s a straight piece of road ... Hit 40 miles per hour or your hair won’t blow the right way and I’ll make you do it again.’ But that was a deathbox that I was in. The seat wasn’t screwed down properly. It was a sand road and it was not a straight road.” 

Thurman provided the Times with video from the set of her driving the car. It shows her losing control of the car at one point and crashing into a tree. Her body is thrown violently and she sits there in a daze until the crew, including Tarantino, show up moments later. After getting out of the car and standing on her own, she is carried by a man off camera as she holds her head.

“The steering wheel was at my belly and my legs were jammed under me,” Thurman told the Times. “I felt this searing pain and thought, ‘Oh my God, I’m never going to walk again,’” she said. “When I came back from the hospital in a neck brace with my knees damaged and a large massive egg on my head and a concussion, I wanted to see the car and I was very upset. Quentin and I had an enormous fight, and I accused him of trying to kill me. And he was very angry at that, I guess understandably, because he didn’t feel he had tried to kill me.” 

The accident could have been avoided if the producer stepped up

According to numerous producers Business Insider spoke to after the Times ran the Thurman story, this incident could have been avoided, and directors often have to be convinced to rethink their vision for the sake of the health and wellbeing of the cast and crew.

When a director is blinded by his or her vision, it's the responsibility of the producer, in this case Lawrence Bender (who has produced all of Tarantino's films), the first assistant director (on this movie it was William Paul Clark), or the stunt coordinator (Keith Adams), to make sure what goes forward is done in a safe manner.  

“At some point it became acceptable for directors to push the safety boundaries on set in order to achieve their vision and I believe it's the producer’s responsibility to intervene when this happens to ensure the safety of all involved,” producer Rebecca Green ("It Follows," "I'll See You in My Dreams") told Business Insider.

“Of course telling your director they can’t have what they want often results in he or she being pissed off at you, but if you can’t tolerate an angry director for the sake of your crew’s safety, then you shouldn’t be producing. What’s more frustrating is that unlike most of us, Tarantino had a budget that afforded him stunt doubles, so there was no reason to pressure Uma into driving the car herself. And what’s even more ridiculous is that the shot was of the back of her head so did she really need to drive the car herself?”

According to entertainment lawyer Domenic Romano, founder and managing attorney of Romano Law, the statute of limitations has likely expired on Thurman taking any action against Tarantino, Bender, or Miramax for the injuries she sustained on set. However, this shocking revelation may hurt Tarantino's reputation in Hollywood.

"This might make people think twice about working with him," Romano told Business Insider.

Though directors have always been seen as the dictators on set, whose word is law, Thurman's revelation has shown that sometimes someone has to step in to be the voice of reason, and not be afraid of upsetting the almighty director.

"The question to ask is, where was Lawrence Bender?" Green said. "On my sets, the assistant director knows that the camera can’t roll on a stunt unless a producer is on set, and had I known Uma was not comfortable doing the stunt herself, I would have stepped in and said 'no means no,' and the stunt double would have been used. Either Lawrence Bender wasn’t there, he didn't care how Uma felt, or he was too worried about pissing off Tarantino.”

On Monday, Thurman posted a portion of the footage she gave the Times on Instagram and included in the caption that "Quentin Tarantino was deeply regretful and remains remorseful about this sorry event, and gave me the footage years later so I could expose it and let it see the light of day."

However, she did blame some, including Bender. 

"The cover up after the fact is unforgivable," Thurman wrote in her post. "For this I hold Lawrence Bender, ["Kill Bill" executive producer] E. Bennett Walsh, and the notorious Harvey Weinstein solely responsible."

Business Insider contacted Tarantino, Bender, Clark, Adams, and Walsh for comment but did not receive a response.

See a portion of the footage Thurman posted on Instagram on Monday:

SEE ALSO: Danny McBride told us how he got involved in that fake "Crocodile Dundee" movie, which was actually a $27 million ad campaign for Australian tourism

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why most scientists don't care about these incredible UFO videos

In today's crowded TV landscape, there are more outlets for great shows than ever before.

TV networks and streaming services are always on the hunt for the next great series, and the competition among them has enhanced not only the breadth, but also the quality of their offerings.

To figure out which current shows are worth watching across all outlets, we turned to the reviews aggregator Rotten Tomatoes to select the most critically acclaimed scripted show that each network and service is currently producing.

We excluded children's shows, talk shows, and docuseries, and we only selected from networks with scripted shows that had enough reviews to receive a "Fresh" designation. We also used audience scores to break any ties within networks.

 Here is the best current TV show on each network, according to critics:

SEE ALSO: The worst TV show of every year since 2000, according to critics

ABC: "Speechless"

Critic score: 98%

Audience score: 75%

Summary: "The family of a special-needs teen is good at dealing with the challenges he faces - and excellent at creating new ones."

Adult Swim: "Rick and Morty"

Critic score:97%

Audience score: 96%

Summary: "An animated series that follows the exploits of a super scientist and his not-so-bright grandson."

Amazon: "Catastrophe"

Critic score: 100%

Audience score: 92%

Summary: "American boy Rob gets Irish girl Sharon pregnant while they hook up for a week while on a business trip to London."

• "Fifty Shades Freed" is the last movie in the trilogy adapting the popular E.L. James books.
• It won the weekend box office with an estimated $38.8 million.
• The franchise has already taken in $1 billion at the global box office for Universal.

With the release of "Fifty Shades Freed," the third movie in Universal's "Fifty Shades" trilogy, based on the popular erotic E.L. James books, we have now hit the end of the franchise. Despite not being a favorite of critics, it gave a boost for the February box office the last few years, which often has few moneymakers.

"Fifty Shades Freed," which continues the relationship evolution of Anastasia Steele (Dakota Johnson) and Christian Grey (Jamie Dornan), took in an estimated $38.8 million over the weekend, according to Variety.

Though that's the lowest opening of the three movies — for a trilogy that was slaughtered by the critics ("Freed" got an 11% rating, "Darker" got 10%, and "Grey" got 25%) and was mostly attended by the books' loyal fans — Universal can't be too disappointed overall.

The three movies have a worldwide total of $1 billion, and if "Freed" is like the other two releases, it will easily gross over $100 million domestically by the end of its theatrical run.

Now, that's not "Fast & Furious" franchise money for Universal, but for a franchise that was a staple in the studios' February release plans for the last few years with very little critical (or word-of-mouth) support and constant complaints that the leads had zero chemistry, it's impressive what the franchise pulled off financially.

Coming in second place was Sony's "Peter Rabbit," with James Corden voicing the iconic character, earning $25 million.

In third was Clint Eastwood's look at the three Americans who prevented a terrorist act on a train traveling through France (and using the actual heroes in the roles), "The 15:17 to Paris" from Warner Bros., which took in $12.6 million.

SEE ALSO: MoviePass terminated a 'small percentage' of its users for violating its terms of service — and people are freaking out

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 5 common 'facts' about Earth that everyone gets wrong

• On A&E's documentary series "Undercover High," seven adults posed as students for a semester in a Kansas high school.
• Some had only graduated five years ago, and they still saw many differences in what daily life is like for high-schoolers today.
• Cell phone use is rampant — and dangerous. Teachers have less control than ever. But kids still just want someone to talk to.

High school is nothing like it used to be.

That's the message of "Undercover High," a documentary series on A&E that follows seven adults who pose as students for a whole semester at Highland Park High School in Topeka, Kansas.

The undercover students, aged 21 to 26 when the show was filmed last year, took classes, joined clubs, and saw firsthand the struggles teenagers go through in their everyday lives. Even for the participants who graduated as little as five years ago, their return to high school was completely different than their first time around.

Here are a few seven things the undercover students learned about high-schoolers that most adults don't realize:

SEE ALSO: 7 adults went undercover as high-school students and found cell phones pose a much bigger problem than adults can imagine

DON'T MISS: Teenagers are more depressed than ever — and 7 adults who went undercover as high-school students almost immediately realized why

Social media has completely changed the game

Social media has had a profound impact on the daily lives of teenagers. Students are always plugged in, introducing unrelenting pressure to maintain their social-media presences around the clock.

"The kinds of challenges that I experienced in high school along with my peers are now 24/7 issues because of technology, computers, cell phones, and social media," Shane Feldman, an undercover student who graduated from high school in 2012, told Business Insider. "There's no real escape."

Teachers have less control than ever

Social media isn't just an after-school phenomenon. The undercover students were shocked to observe that in many Highland Park classrooms, the majority of students were on their phones for most of the time.

"You're not supposed to have your phone out, but honestly, we don't care," one student said.

Beryl New, the principal of Highland Park when the show was filmed, said although social media sites are blocked on the school's network, they are helpless to stop students from accessing them on their own devices. And teachers said it was a daily struggle to get students to focus on classwork.

Bullying doesn't stop when the final bell rings

Another downside to technological advances is that bullying has turned into a 24/7 activity.

Worse yet, it's almost impossible for teachers and school staff to police cyberbullying, as incidents that start in the classroom can reverberate around the school within moments and continue snowballing at home.

"Back in the day, if a child was going to be bullied, it might be one person, one incident that happens on the playground or while you're waiting on the bus. It can be resolved and it's pretty much the end of it," New, the Highland Park principal, told Business Insider.

"Now it can be one person has an issue with one person and everybody else chimes in, and by the time it gets to the next day someone wants to fight, someone's not going to school, someone is threatening suicide. It took something singular, granular even, and it's just ballooned over night until it becomes a major issue."

• Walt Disney World and Disneyland raised ticket prices on Sunday.
• A one-day ticket to Disney World during the busiest time of year now costs $129, a $5 price increase.
• Some Disney fans say that it is becoming too expensive to visit the parks.

Walt Disney World and Disneyland just quietly increased how much it costs to visit the parks.

A regular, one-day ticket to Disney World's Magic Kingdom now costs $119, a $4 increase, the Associated Press reported Sunday.

The cost of "value" tickets, sold during less crowded times of year, increased by $2 to $109 for adults. Peak ticket prices, for the busiest times of year, now cost $129 for adults, a $5 increase.

Disney also significantly increased how much Florida residents pay for annual passes. The premium Platinum pass now costs Floridians $729, up from $679.

Many Disney fans had already braced themselves for the price hike. Disney World and Disneyland have announced ticket price every February over the last several years.

But some people say that the latest price hike has contributed to making it too expensive for the average family to visit Disney's theme parks.

"People will need to start selling their kidneys on the black market to be able to afford a day at Disney," one person wrote on Twitter. "Pathetic."

The price changes seem to be part of Disney's plan to get people to visit the parks for as many days as possible. Tickets are cheaper if customers buy multi-day passes, dropping to $44.50 per day for adults getting a 10-day pass.

Last week, Disney reported that its parks and resorts generated $5.2 billion in the most recent quarter, an increase of 13%. Attendance grew 6% in the same period.

SEE ALSO: Buffalo Wild Wings was sucked into a downward spiral as millennials ditched the chain — but the new CEO has a plan for a comeback

DON'T MISS: Disappointing photos show what Disney parks look like in real life

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Disney revealed what Star Wars Land will look like

• A $500 million deal to buy Harvey Weinstein's company has reportedly collapsed following an explosive new lawsuit. 
• New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman filed a civil rights lawsuit earlier on Sunday against Weinstein and The Weinstein Company.
• It provides details of Weinstein's alleged aggressive behaviour and says board members facilitated it.
• The Attorney General's office said the timing of the suit was due to "the possible imminent sale" of the company.

A deal in the works to buy disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein's company has reportedly collapsed after the New York Attorney General filed a lawsuit against the company and its founders.

A group led by businesswoman Maria Contreras-Sweet was reportedly set to close a deal to buy the troubled Weinstein Company for about $500 million, including any assumption of debt, the The Wall Street Journal reported, citing a source with knowledge of the transaction. 

However, news of the decision by Eric Schneiderman, the attorney general, to file a lawsuit against Weinstein and his company reportedly left too much uncertainty for the deal's success. 

Schneiderman's office said the timing of the suit was due to "the possible imminent sale" of The Weinstein Company.

It said the sale could “could leave survivors of Respondents' (Weinstein's) unlawful conduct without adequate redress [and] enable perpetrators or enablers of misconduct to obtain unwarranted financial benefits.”

So far, Schneiderman has not sought a restraining order which would halt the completion of the sale, but the suit ramps up the pressure on any potential buyers.

The Weinstein Company's board of directors released a statement on Sunday which said the lawsuit makes untrue claims.

It said: “We are disappointed that the New York Attorney General felt it necessary to file today’s complaint.

"Many of the allegations relating to the Board are inaccurate and the Board looks forward to bringing the facts to light as part of its ongoing commitment to resolve this difficult situation in the most appropriate way."

The statement also addressed the Weinstein Company's pending plans to sell the company, which the company said it did in order to "preserve jobs and create a victim fund." 

"Any suggestion that the Company or its Board somehow impeded or discouraged the buyer’s access to the New York Attorney General is simply untrue.

"Indeed, the Company and its Board actively encouraged the buyer to communicate with the Attorney General. The Company looks forward to continuing our discussions with the Attorney General in order to reach our common goal of bringing this situation to an appropriate resolution.”

The suit targets Weinstein's sexual misconduct and the board members who enabled him

Business Insider has reviewed details of the civil rights suit against Weinstein, which attacks what it calls the company's "gender-based hostile work environment."

It targets Harvey Weinstein for allegations of sexual misconduct, as well as the executives and board of The Weinstein Company for failing to protect employees from Weinstein.

The suit comes after a four-month investigation by the attorney general's office into mounting allegations against Weinstein and his business.

According to the lawsuit, Weinstein told several employees "I will kill you" or "I will kill your family." He also told employees "you don't know what I can do" and often touted his connection to powerful political figures and reported contacts within the Secret Service that could "take care of problems." 

The suit also describes how Weinstein manipulated and intimidated groups of female employees.

The Weinstein Company allegedly employed a group of female employees whose primary job was to accompany Weinstein to major Hollywood events and facilitate his sexual "conquests." 

The lawsuit also alleges that Harvey's brother Robert Weinstein and other high-ranking board members at The Weinstein Company knew about the sexual misconduct actively disregarded claims, or attempted to pay off his victims.

According to the suit, The Weinstein Company took no action to investigate claims of sexual misconduct or prevent the behavior from continuing.

The New York Times first reported on the claims against Weinstein in October, and The New Yorker followed up with several new detailed allegations shortly after. In all, more than 60 women have accused Weinstein of varying degrees of sexual misconduct. 

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 5 common 'facts' about Earth that everyone gets wrong

• Kensington Palace has revealed new details of the order of events for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's upcoming wedding day.
• The service at St George's Chapel will begin at midday on Saturday, May 19.
• The Dean of Windsor will conduct the service and the Archbishop of Canterbury will officiate as the couple make their vows.
• At 1 p.m. the newly married couple will embark on a carriage procession through Windsor Town.
• A reception at St George's Hall will follow for the couple and guests from the congregation, while Prince Charles will host a private evening reception for the couple and their close family and friends in the evening.
• Scroll down to see what time the celebrations will start where you live.

Kensington Palace has revealed details of the schedule for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's wedding day, which will take place at St George's Chapel on Saturday, May 19.

The palace said in a tweet: "Prince Harry and Ms. Meghan Markle are hugely grateful for the many good wishes they have received since announcing their engagement.

"They are looking forward to the day and to being able to share their celebrations with the public and wanted to share the following details about their wedding on May 19th with you."

The wedding service will begin at midday, meaning it's unlikely to clash with the 2018 FA Cup Final that falls on the same date, but that usually kicks off later in the day, according to The Guardian.

Kensington Palace also offered a glimpse inside the chapel in the tweet:

It added that the Dean of Windsor will conduct the service and the Archbishop of Canterbury will officiate as the couple make their vows.

At 1 p.m. Harry and Meghan will embark on a carriage procession from St George's Chapel through Windsor Town returning to Windsor Castle along the Long Walk, which will offer some members of the public a glimpse of the newly married couple.

"They hope this short journey will provide an opportunity for more people to come together around Windsor and to enjoy the atmosphere of this special day," the Palace said.

There will be a reception for the couple and their guests from the congregation at St George's Hall following the service.

Here's a photo inside St George's Hall:

Kensington Palace also revealed that Prince Charles will host a private evening reception for the couple and their close friends and family later that evening.

If you want to mark it in your diary, here's what time the royal wedding will start in major cities across different time zones on Saturday, May 19:

• London (GMT) 12 p.m.
• Paris (CEST): 1 p.m.
• Moscow (MSK): 2 p.m.
• Tokyo (JST): 8 p.m.
• Sydney (AET): 9 p.m.
• Honolulu (HAST): 1 a.m.
• Los Angeles (PT): 4 a.m.
• Las Vegas (PT):4 a.m.
• Denver (MT): 5 a.m.
• Chicago (CT): 6 a.m.
• New York (ET): 7 a.m.
• Seoul (KST): 8 p.m.

SEE ALSO: 'Knocked Up' and 'Grey's Anatomy' star Katherine Heigl has confirmed she's joining the cast of 'Suits' as Meghan Markle departs

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: What happens to your body when you start exercising regularly

• Bill Hader helped bring to life the voice of "Star Wars" favorite BB-8.
• "The Force Awakens" director J.J. Abrams had Hader speak in a talk box while he used an effects app to come up with the voice BB-8 uses. 
• Hader did not do any BB-8 voice work on "The Last Jedi," and he doesn't know if he's getting residuals for the work he did on "The Force Awakens."

Bill Hader is known for his characters while doing eight seasons of "Saturday Night Live," playing the lovable leading man in "Trainwreck," and his voice work on everything from "South Park" to "Inside Out." 

But he also helped bring to life one of the most memorable characters of the current "Star Wars" trilogy: BB-8. 

It's a highlight in his filmography Hader is shy to discuss because, he said, "Anybody could do what I did."

While making "The Force Awakens," director J.J. Abrams called on Hader to voice the droid (previously, Abrams had actor Ben Schwartz come in to do an English-language dub of the droid).

"That is J.J. Abrams being a really nice guy," Hader told Business Insider while promoting his upcoming series on HBO, "Barry" (airing March 25). "That's him saying, 'I know you like "Star Wars," do you want to come and do this?'"

Hader said he tried to come up with a voice for BB-8, but it wasn't working. He left and felt he blew his chance at being a part of the saga. Then the actor said Abrams called him back again, "I mean, there were billboards already out for the movie," said Hader in describing how close it was to the movie opening when he got the second call.

This time, Hader spoke into a talk box while Abrams messed with an effects app on his iPhone and out of that came the basis for the BB-8 voice and it put Hader into "Star Wars" lore.

"I mean, I'm signing BB-8 pictures now," Hader said.

But is he getting residual checks from it? 

Hader said that he did not take part in any of the work that went into BB-8 for "The Last Jedi," but he does have a credit on "The Force Awakens." Actors receive yearly payments when movies begin getting sold on Blu-ray, DVD, streaming, or begin to air on TV (actors in television series get residuals when the shows are sold to syndication).

Will Hader get that sweet Disney money for years to come?

"That's a good question, I should ask my business manager," Hader said with a laugh. "You're finding out how bad I am at this. If my dad reads this he would lose his sh--. 'You gotta know how much f---ing money you have, you moron!'"

Processing it all for a moment, all Hader could answer was, "I mean, I would hope so." 

SEE ALSO: The 100 best movies on Amazon Prime right now

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: What happens to your body when you start exercising regularly

• Movie theater subscription service MoviePass terminated a "small percentage" of its customers, claiming violations of its terms of service.
• Numerous users were told by customer service representatives that they did not violate the MoviePass terms and conditions, and are now going through an agonizing process to get their cards reactivated.

 
On Friday, the movie theater subscription service MoviePass shocked many of its customers when it sent out an email to a "small percentage" of them stating they had violated the company's terms of service and their accounts had been terminated.

This led to a wave of frustration and confusion, with users taking to social media to ask what they had done wrong. Though the MoviePass email said they purchased part of a premium ticket with the app, many felt they did not do so — or did it unwittingly — and didn't deserve to be taken off the service. 

Numerous customers who received the email and contacted customer service to plead their case have since contacted Business Insider about their ordeal.

One customer, who asked not to be named in this story, learned that the ticket flagged by MoviePass was incorrectly processed by the app. MoviePass' records showed the ticket was more expensive than what the MoviePass app allows at that theater, but the customer had a picture of the ticket stub and sent it to the customer service rep, proving the person did not violate the app's terms of service. 

After spending the weekend speaking to numerous customers service agents, this person is still nowhere closer to getting their card reactivated. All they were told is that their case has been expedited to the proper team that reviews account reactivation.

Another customer told Business Insider their account was deactivated because the person did the dreaded split transaction (such as, ordering two tickets and paying one with the app and the other without).

The person said the MoviePass customer service rep even admitted to the person it was an honest mistake, but because it was done multiple times on the account the rep said they could not do anything and their account would stay deactivated.

The kicker here: It does not state in the MoviePass terms of service that split transactions are a violation.

In a statement on Friday, MoviePass stated: "A small percentage of MoviePass users have been removed from the system, due to violating the terms of service. We diligently review card transactions to prevent fraudulent activity and take our Terms of Service agreement very seriously. If individuals abuse the service, we must take action so that our model continues to be sustainable for everyone. If customers feel there has been a mistake, they can feel free to reach out to MoviePass customer service via the phone number on the back of their card." 

However, customers believe MoviePass should have been more specific about the violations. Though the original email said their accounts were being terminated because they purchased a premium ticket, in many cases the reason for the deactivation was due to another reason, leading to the confusion and frustration.

MoviePass sent the following statement to Business Insider on Monday:

"When MoviePass members call into customer service, we review their account on a case-by-case basis and if a mistake has been made, it is rectified. Our number one priority remains preventing fraudulent activity so that our model continues to be sustainable for the overall MoviePass community."

SEE ALSO: Bill Hader had no clue if he's getting residuals for voicing BB-8 in "The Force Awakens"

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: JIM ROSS: Here's who will take over WWE after Vince McMahon

• The budget for Martin Scorsese's upcoming Netflix mob film "The Irishman" is reportedly in the range of $140 million and growing, according to Deadline.
• The production costs have reportedly ballooned over the film's use of special effects to de-age Robert De Niro in the titular role of mob hitman Frank "The Irishman" Sheeran.
• If its budget continues to grow, "The Irishman" could surpass 2011's "Hugo" as the most expensive film Scorsese has made. 

Martin Scorsese appears to be taking full advantage of Netflix's resources for his upcoming mob film, "The Irishman."

Sources told Deadline the film's production budget is in the range of $140 million and growing, as the movie wraps principal photography and moves on to post-production.

As IndieWire notes, part of the reason the film's budget has ballooned past its original $100 million target is that Scorsese is utilizing special effects to de-age Robert De Niro in his decades-spanning role as the mob hitman Frank "The Irishman" Sheeran.  

"The Irishman" is based on the 2003 true-crime book "I Heard You Paint Houses" by Charles Brandt, in which Sheeran allegedly confessed to being involved in more than 25 hits for the mob, and to allegedly being involved in the death of mob boss Jimmy Hoffa.

Netflix stepped in to finance the film in February 2017 after Paramount Pictures reportedly withdrew from producing the movie over its anticipated special effects costs, according to Variety.

Deadline's sources said Netflix has paid Scorsese "around $10M and up to $15M+" for his work on the film, which could also become the most expensive movie of the director's career if its budget continues to grow.

Scorsese's most expensive film thus far has been 2011's "Hugo," which had an estimated budget of over $150 million and also heavily utilized special effects.

Netflix declined to comment to Deadline over the reported budget.

"The Irishman" is expected to premiere on Netflix in 2019.

SEE ALSO: All 49 of Netflix's notable original movies, ranked from worst to best

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 5 common 'facts' about Earth that everyone gets wrong

• In 2018, most of the best picture nominees have been relatively successful at the box office.
• We compared every 2018 best picture nominee's budget to its domestic box-office gross, based on numbers from Box Office Mojo.
• Domestically, "Dunkirk" is the highest earner at $188 million.
• "Get Out," which only cost $4.5 million to make, is in second at $176 million. 

2017 was a great year for critically lauded movies hitting it big at the box office.

We took a look at every 2018 best picture nominee's budget and compared it to its domestic box-office gross, based on numbers from Box Office Mojo.

Usually, the box office doesn't have an effect on a film's chances of getting nominated for Oscars. But it's interesting to see the nominees in 2018 performing well compared to the 2017 nominees. The highest-earning best picture nominee in 2017 was "Hidden Figures," which earned about $169 million domestically.

This year's second-highest earner, "Get Out," is over that at $176 million now — and that number is going up after its recent theatrical re-release. Christopher Nolan's "Dunkirk," the top earner in this year's group of nominees, made $188 million domestically. 

Indie films with smaller budgets like "Call Me by Your Name," "Lady Bird," and "Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri" performed well compared to their tiny budgets. These films, including "The Shape of Water," which has 13 nominations and won the Golden Globe for best drama and best director, saw spikes at the box office after Oscar nominations were announced in late January.  

The numbers show that people are interested in Oscar nominees, but also in a variety of storytelling perspectives — from "Call Me by Your Name," a story about men falling in love, to the female-driven "Lady Bird" and the biting social and political commentary in films like Jordan Peele's horror satire "Get Out," and Steven Spielberg's "The Post."

See below how all the 2018 Oscar best picture nominees did at the box office compared to their budgets:

SEE ALSO: Here are the 17 biggest Oscar snubs of 2018

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: No one wants to host the Olympics anymore — will they go away?

• Horror films have often been overlooked by the Oscars throughout its 90-year history.
• Only one has won best picture, and only a handful have been nominated.
• This year's race sees two nominated — "Get Out" and "The Shape of Water."

"The Silence of the Lambs" is a notable Oscar best-picture winner for many reasons.

It's one of only three films in the Oscar's 90-year history to win the "big five" awards of picture, actor, actress, director, and screenplay. And it's also the only horror film to win best picture.

IMDB lists the film's genres as "crime," "drama," and "thriller," and it is certainly all of those things. But in the nearly three decades since "Silence of the Lambs" swept the 64th Academy Awards, it's been regarded as one of the best horror films of all time: It's number 33 on this Rotten Tomatoes list of the best-reviewed horror movies, and has made countless other lists, including these from Collider and Esquire.

Only a few other horror films have managed to even be nominated, including "Jaws," and this year's "Get Out" and "The Shape of Water." 

What do all of these films have in common?

They can all easily be categorized by different genres: "Lambs" as a crime drama, "Jaws" as a thriller, "Shape" as a fantasy romance, and "Get Out" as a dark comedy (if you ask the Golden Globes). 

That distinction helped propel "Lambs" to the top and it has allowed "Get Out" and "Shape" to break through a crowded field of best-picture contenders this year. In fact, there is still debate about whether they are even horror films at all, a telling sign of the Academy's reluctance to recognize the genre.

"Get Out's" social commentary might discourage some from classifying it as horror, but the best horror films are twisted representations of our fears and the evil pieces of our own world. Is that not "Get Out?" And "Shape" is quite obviously inspired by "The Creature From the Black Lagoon."

Perhaps the fear is that embracing these films as horror movies risks their chances of actually winning on Oscar night. The Academy has a dismal record of awarding the genre. In this Business Insider list of the best-reviewed films to never be nominated for best picture, "Rosemary's Baby" and "Psycho" are notable standouts, as well as other Hitchcock thrillers. In fact, Hitchcock never even won best director.

But beyond being horror films, what other factors might help or hinder "Get Out" and "The Shape of Water" on Oscar night?

"Moonlight," about a black man struggling with his sexuality, won best picture last year, signaling for many that the Oscars had moved in a positive direction in recognizing the work of people of color. And now this year, "Get Out" has nabbed picture, director, actor, and screenplay nominations, and won best original screenplay at Sunday's Writers Guild Awards, positioning it as a contender for Oscar gold.

But still, there is the Academy's legacy that sparked #OscarsSoWhite — a social media hashtag that trended after all 20 acting nominees were white two years in a row in 2016 and 2015. That has not completely changed, though the Academy did induct nearly 700 new members to try and diversify its membership in 2016. 

"Get Out" also failed to pick up any craft nominations, and it's rare for a film to win best picture without a single one. ("Moonlight," meanwhile, was nominated for cinematography, film editing, and musical score.) 

Positive word-of-mouth and an energetic campaign can help its chances, but the other horror film in contention this year will be hard to beat.

"The Shape of Water" has suddenly become a frontrunner in the Oscar race after winning best picture at the Producers Guild Awards, and picking up the most nominations at this year's Oscars with 13.

Not bad for a horror movie.

But "The Shape of Water" could be hindered by the fact that it has plenty of competition in the original screenplay race — "Get Out," Lady Bird," "Three Billboards," and "The Big Sick." If it can't win a screenplay award, its chances of winning best picture are slim by if we look at history as our guide. The last film to do so was "The Artist" six years ago.

Over at awards prediction website GoldDerby.com, "Shape's" odds of winning screenplay aren't good: 22/1. It comes in fourth behind "Lady Bird" (8/5), "Three Billboards" (9/4), and "Get Out" (3/1). "The Big Sick" is in last at 80/1. And at the Writers Guild Awards, "Get Out" and "Call Me by Your Name" won the screenplay honors.

But even so, "Shape" is still the frontrunner on GoldDerby, with the best odds of winning best picture (10/11).

SEE ALSO: The 17 best movies of all time that weren't nominated for a best-picture Oscar, according to critics

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Take a look inside Amazon's grocery store of the future — there are no cashiers, registers or lines

• Instagram is testing sending users a notification when someone has screens hotted their story.
• This is only a test. The company did not say if or when it will be implemented for all users.
• Users are not happy, with some tweeting that people now have to "creep wisely."

The days of quietly lurking on someone's Instagram may be numbered, as the app begins testing a feature that would let you know if somebody has screenshotted your story.

According to screenshots shared on Twitter from users who are in the testing group, a camera shutter icon will appear next to the name of someone screenshotted that story. Users will not get a push notification when someone has screenshotted their story, TechCrunch reported on Monday— so at least it could be sort of subtle. 

Instagram confirmed with Business Insider that it's only testing the feature with a small number of users. “We are always testing ways to improve the experience on Instagram and make it easier to share any moment with the people who matter to you," says an Instagram spokesperson. 

Users aren't welcoming the potential change, judging from their reaction on Twitter. The message is clear: users want to Insta-stalk their friends, family, and followers in peace.

Normally, Instagram only alerts users when someone screenshots a private direct message. With the ability to see if somebody screenshotted a public story, well, in the words of one Twitter user: "Creep wisely."

And, hey, if Instagram did implement screenshot notifications for Stories, it would be yet another feature the company has borrowed from Snapchat. 

SEE ALSO: The key to disrupting a billion-dollar industry is 'ignorance,' says the founder of SoftBank's latest multi-million dollar investment darling

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: I quit social media for a month — and it was the best choice I've ever made

• At a Q&A on Monday, comedian John Oliver addressed his December interview with actor Dustin Hoffman.

• In the interview, Oliver asked Hoffman about the allegations of sexual misconduct that had surfaced against him, and the conversation got heated.  

• Oliver said Monday, "I just felt it would be really weird not to bring it up," and said he wanted to get Hoffman to a point of self reflection in their conversation.

In discussing his viral Q&A with Dustin Hoffman, comedian John Oliver said it would have been "very, very weird" if he'd interviewed Hoffman without addressing the allegations of sexual misconduct against him.

Oliver also said he wanted Hoffman to get to a point of "self reflection" in their conversation, but that didn't happen. 

In December, the "Last Week Tonight" host confronted Hoffman over allegations of sexual misconduct during a heated exchange at a film screening, which The Washington Post captured on video.

Hoffman's responses were glib, and at one point he asked Oliver, "Do you believe this stuff that you're reading?"

"I believe what she wrote, yes," Oliver replied. "Because there's no point in her lying."

In this back-and-forth, the pair was discussing a November column in The Hollywood Reporter, in which Anna Graham Hunter accused Hoffman of groping and sexually harassing her when she was a 17-year-old intern on the set of the 1985 movie, "Death of a Salesman." After Hunter came foward with her accusation, multiple women shared other stories about Hoffman's alleged misconduct.

During a Q&A at the HBO offices in New York on Monday, Oliver spoke about the interview, saying, "I just felt it would be really weird not to bring it up." 

Oliver added that he was "surprised" Hoffman even showed up to the interview.

"It felt like he should've been aware that he was going to have to answer this the next time he answered to anything," Oliver said. "I'm staggered if he honestly thought I wasn't going to bring it up. I don't know how little he would have to think of me in order to think I wouldn't bring that up. That's pretty insulting."

Oliver said that as the first person to interview Hoffman after the allegations came out, he felt a responsibility to bring them up in their conversation. 

"I think it's just the first person who's going to have to talk to [Hoffman] was going to have to ask him the first questions about it," Oliver said. "So unfortunately that was me ... I have to believe that most people would've asked him about it. And then the only reason the conversation kept going was that his responses were pretty bad. I wanted to try to get him to a point of self reflection, to try and get something out of the conversation at all, but that didn't happen. I don't think there was anything particularly remarkable about what I was asking him."

When asked about Hoffman's reaction to the interview, Oliver replied: "He said, 'It was a really fun evening.' Of course he didn't. No. He didn't say that."

"Last Week Tonight" returns for season 5 Sunday, February 18 on HBO.

SEE ALSO: How successful the 2018 Oscar best picture nominees really were at the box office

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Take a look inside Amazon's grocery store of the future — there are no cashiers, registers or lines

For artist Kehinde Wiley, being commissioned to paint former President Barack Obama's official portrait was an opportunity to make a lasting impact on people around the world.

"The reality of Barack Obama being the president of the United States — quite possibly the most powerful nation in the world — means that the image of power is completely new for an entire generation of not only black American kids, but every population group in this nation," Wiley told BBC in 2008.

His incredible portrait of the former president, unveiled in Washington, DC on Monday, will hang alongside other presidential paintings in the National Portrait Gallery. He and Amy Sherald, who painted a portrait of former first lady Michelle Obama, are the first African-Americans in history to be commissioned to paint a presidential couple.

But well before he was selected to paint Obama, Wiley was recognized as a master of his craft worldwide, and his works have fetched as much as $143,000 at auctions. His art has also been featured in the Fox TV show, "Empire."

Here's a look at his eye-catching and original body of work:

SEE ALSO: These portraits show how the British royal family has changed through the years

DON'T MISS: Here are Barack and Michelle Obama's official portraits

Wiley's dramatic portrait of Obama sitting in a colorful green garden is in keeping with the artist's long tradition of presenting everyday black figures in elevated, empowering positions.

A common theme throughout Wiley's work, which he started to pursue as a boy in his native Los Angeles, has been portraying young African and African-American men in poses traditionally reserved for European nobility.

Instagram Embed:
http://instagram.com/p/BBkr_gLDg3f/embed/
Width: 658px

Source: Wall Street Journal

Many of his paintings draw on French Rococo, Baroque, and other royal portraiture styles.