Marvel Studios is always planning ahead, so it's no surprise that after the massive success of "Black Panther," Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige says there will "absolutely" be a sequel.

Marvel has release dates reserved for yet unannounced projects through 2022, and we can only assume that a "Black Panther" sequel will fill one of those slots.

Whenever "Black Panther 2" may come to theaters, we have plenty of questions in the meantime, and things we want addressed. "Black Panther" is only the beginning of the world of Wakanda, and we want more.

(WARNING: big spoilers for "Black Panther" lie ahead)

By the end of the film, T'Challa/Black Panther decides to bring Wakanda out of isolation and share the nation's resources with the rest of the world, including opening outreach centers in Oakland. As misguided as Killmonger's execution was, he's such a compelling villain that his ultimate goal sticks with T'Challa. This raises important questions for the sequel, as the world has its eyes on Wakanda.

Black Panther will appear next in "Avengers: Infinity War" next month and we can assume the fourth "Avengers" movie next year. But Black Panther is one of over 20 main characters in these movies, so we doubt the questions we have will be fully addressed.

Below are 7 questions we hope are answered in a "Black Panther" sequel:

SEE ALSO: The 50 best superhero movies of all time, ranked

What's up with the other Wakandan spies, known as War Dogs?

Michael B. Jordan's Erik Killmonger is one of the most compelling villains in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, or any superhero film for that matter, because of the political and cultural questions he raises. The central conflict in "Black Panther" comes down to whether the fictional African nation of Wakanda, which Black Panther a.k.a. T'Challa (played by Chadwick Boseman) is king of, should share its resources and scientific knowledge with the rest of the world. Killmonger raises the stakes even more by wanting to use the nation's resources to liberate those persecuted across the world, but with violence rather than peace. 

A central part of his plan comes down to whether Wakanda's spies, known War Dogs, which they have in countries throughout the world, are willing to cooperate. The War Dogs are responsible for spying on other nations and reporting back to Wakanda. In the film, Killmonger plans to begin his conquest in the places where War Dogs are on board with his plans. Killmonger's own father, played by Sterling K. Brown, was a War Dog and was killed by T'Challa's father (and his uncle) for betraying Wakanda.

These War Dogs seem pretty important, so where do their loyalties lie?

Some of these War Dogs were obviously all for Killmonger's plans, which raises the question of whether they could mean trouble for Wakanda in the future now that Killmonger is dead. Will that play a role in the sequel's conflict?

Wakanda is no longer in isolation. What impact will that have on it?

By the end of "Black Panther," T'Challa has changed his tune about the direction of Wakanda. Killmonger's methods may have been extreme, but his overall goal — to expand Wakanda's resources to help those in need — leaves an impression on T'Challa. Wakanda has always been isolated from the rest of the world, but he decides to expand their knowledge and share their secrets by the film's end. 

How will that impact the country and its people? We don't really have an idea of how Wakanda's people feel about T'Challa's decision. Were they fine with being isolated, and if so, will they voice their concerns in the sequel? Will it cause a bigger conflict than the one we saw in "Black Panther?" Now that the world knows about Wakanda and its wealth of technology, it could put the country in danger. 

From what we know of "Avengers: Infinity War," a portion of the film takes place in Wakanda against the villain Thanos' army. These questions may be raised then, but with the central conflict being between the Avengers and Thanos, they probably won't be fully answered.

How will vibranium change the rest of the world?

Not only are we curious about how the rest of the world will change Wakanda, but how will Wakanda change the world? Vibranium is a metal that essentially powers every aspect of Wakanda, from its transportation to its weapons — it's why Wakanda has such advanced tech.

With Wakanda out of isolation, the world will most likely know about vibranium's existence, outside of just Captain America's shield. If T'Challa wants to spread Wakanda's knowledge, that must mean that other nations will benefit from the metal. How will that impact the world?

By the end of "Black Panther," T'Challa has promised to build outreach and science centers in Oakland, but that is only the beginning. Will we see other countries use vibranium in similar ways as Wakanda, or will its power corrupt? Will Wakanda be responsible for implementing advanced travel or weaponry for other countries? We don't know the extent of T'Challa's plans, and perhaps that will cause major conflicts with other nations.

• The burning tree scene in "The Last Jedi" was a practical effect — they really lit a fake tree on fire.
• It took months to build the tree, and close to 25 separate gas lines were rigged to it to have the tree burn to director Rian Johnson's liking.
• Special effects supervisor Chris Corbould explained to Business Insider how the scene was pulled off.

In an era when you assume anything amazing that happens in a movie is courtesy of computer-generated imagery, it’s always exciting to learn when a memorable scene was pulled off by practical effects.

Since the “Star Wars” prequels, in which George Lucas was heavily criticized for using too much CGI to create the worlds and characters, many big-budget movies have tried to find that happy medium of practical and visual effects to give the action on screen a more grounded feel. And the now Disney-owned “Star Wars” saga is leading the way.

A perfect example is in “The Last Jedi” (available on digital release Tuesday, on Blu-ray/DVD March 27) when Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) attempts to burn down the giant tree that holds the sacred Jedi texts. It’s a scene that also features a Force ghost of Yoda.

When Skywalker tells the legendary Jedi master what he’s about to do, Yoda doesn't talk him out of it. But when Skywalker gets to the giant tree, with flame in hand, he can’t go through with it. This leads to Yoda summoning a giant lightening bolt that strikes the tree and engulfs it in flames. He then delivers his famous giddy laugh as Skywalker looks on in complete shock.

Almost all of that scene is done with practical effects. From the puppet of Yoda, voiced by Frank Oz, that Hamill traded lines with, to the enormous tree and giant flames shooting from it.

It was the handiwork of the movie’s special effects supervisor Chris Corbould, and one of the reasons why he recently received a visual effects Oscar nomination for “The Last Jedi.”

Responsible for some of the greatest visual effects pulled off on screen in the last 40 years, he’s done everything from James Bond movies like “Moonraker” and “GoldenEye,” to Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy and “Inception” (which he won an Oscar for). He’s now hit the effects industry mountain top with getting the “Star Wars” gig (he was also the effects supervisor on “The Force Awakens”) and the Yoda/Skywalker scene for him is one of his favorites.

There’s the nostalgia of seeing Luke and Yoda on screen again, but also the pride of pulling off a practical effect of this size.

“It was a tricky one,” Corbould admitted to Business Insider.

First, there was building the tree and rigging it to burn. Corbould said it took a couple of months for the construction crew on the movie to build the fireproof tree that was almost 60 feet high and close to 50 feet wide. It was so big that the tree could not be built on the set.

“They had to assemble it in various parts,” Corbould said.

So the tree was basically a very large Lego set. A piece of a trunk would be built on set, then another piece of the trunk would be brought in and attached to that. Then the multiple branches were attached one at a time.

After all that, close to 25 separate gas lines were put into the tree, each one with its own valve so Corbould and his team could adjust the flame to his and director Rian Johnson’s liking.

“It’s very easy to have it just burst into flames,” Corbould said. “Rian really wanted it to catch the light a little bit slower. So we had to spent quite a lot of testing time to bring the gas lines to a point where it looked like the flames were slowly creeping up and then totally enveloping the whole tree.”

The tree burning scene was shot over two nights with a crew of 20 people just responsible for the tree catching on fire. Most of the shots pre-fire were completed on the first night. The second night was for the shots after the tree was on fire, which included Hamill, the Yoda puppet, and Oz voicing the character in front of the giant burning tree. And it got hot — to the joy of everyone on set.

“When we shot the scene the nights were incredibly cold,” Corbould said. “I think the whole crew was happy when we lit that up.”

The tree was lit on fire close to 30 times by the time they wrapped on the scene, according to Corbould.

The special effects veteran laughed when he was told that many people probably think the tree fire scene is just another dazzling VFX feat by the wizards at Industrial Light and Magic.

“I think when you do something for real you get a much more convincing performance from the actors,” he said. “I think that’s why a lot of the directors — Chris [Nolan], Rian [Johnson], J.J. [Abrams] — they value those moments where you’ve got a real look of terror, anxiety, excitement on the faces of the actors.”

Corbould added that some of the excitement for him is seeing if a practical effect could even be pulled off.

He said he wasn’t completely confident he could pull off the 18-wheeler truck flip he did in “The Dark Knight.”

“There was a bit of banter between me and Chris Nolan,” he said. “Eventually we pulled it off.”

But in today’s moviemaking landscape, it’s what’s done on the VFX side that has really upped everyone’s game in the special effects profession.

“When CGI was first invented we all thought we're not going to have a job in five years,” Corbould said. “But what it actually did is it allowed films to do even bigger visual effects and we had to enhance what they did — whether it's an asteroid hitting the ground or blowing 10 cars up in the air. It's a great marriage these days. It's a combination of practical and visual effects to make that great film — that's what we're striving to do.”

Corbould's next task: Making our hearts melt for Winnie the Pooh in the upcoming Disney release, "Christopher Robin."

SEE ALSO: The amount of money The Rock gets paid for a single movie is unheard of in Today's movie business

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: You can connect all 9 Best Picture Oscar nominees with actors they have in common — here's how

• The Powerball jackpot is above $400 million and Mega Millions' jackpot is above $300 million as of Tuesday morning.
• Though those are pretty big prizes, working through the math of how lotteries work suggests that 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'd probably lose money.

The Powerball jackpot for Wednesday's drawing is up to $420 million as of 10:30 a.m. ET Tuesday. Meanwhile, the Mega Millions jackpot for Tuesday's drawing is up to $318 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. 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 from 1 to 69 (represented by white balls in the drawing) and one from 1 to 26 (the red "powerball"). Prizes are based on how many of the player's chosen numbers match those drawn.

Match all five 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 — you choose five numbers from 1 to 70 and a final number from 1 to 25.

The Powerball and Mega Millions website helpfully provides a list of the odds and prizes for those games' possible outcomes. 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 to get our expected value.

We end up with a negative expected value of -$0.24. 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 $420 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 $248.7 million.

If we take the lump sum, then, we end up seeing that the expected value of a ticket drops further below zero, to -$0.83, suggesting that a ticket for the lump sum is also a bad deal.

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 or 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, though 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 back-of-the-envelope estimated 50% in taxes. The expected value drops to -$0.96.

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

Even if you win, you might split the prize

Another problem is the possibility of multiple jackpot winners.

Bigger pots, especially those that draw significant media coverage, tend to bring in more lottery-ticket customers. 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 do that 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.

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 some numbers are chosen more frequently than others. If one of these more popular numbers is drawn on Saturday night, the odds of splitting the jackpot will be slightly higher. 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 drawing in 2018 so far sold about 26 million tickets, according to our analysis of records from LottoReport.com, leaving only about a 0.4% chance of a split pot.

The risk of splitting prizes leads to a conundrum: Ever bigger 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

DON'T MISS: If you can solve one of these 6 major math problems, you could 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

• HBO's experiential recreation of the sci-fi town of "Sweetwater" in Westworld and Warner Bros.' rendition of the world from Ready Player One have more in common than just sci-fi.
• Both experiences were created by ad agency Giant Spoon, which spent months conceptualizing, building and orchestrating them.
• The five year-old agency started off on the media side, but has become well-known for its live events and experiences. 

What do HBO's 'Westworld' and Steven Spielberg's 'Ready Player One' have in common? More than just their sci-fi themes.

HBO's reality-meets-fantasy physical recreation of the sci-fi town of "Sweetwater" in Westworld and Warner Bros.' two-story rendition of the virtual world of "Oasis" from "Ready Player One" are not only the biggest breakout hits at the South by Southwest Interactive conference this year, but they were both created by the same company. 

That company is the ad agency Giant Spoon. The full-service shop has been around for nearly five years and counts clients like HP & GE in its roster, but it didn't particularly stand out from the crowd — until its splashy "Blade Runner" live experience at Comic-Con last year. And then, everybody came knocking.

"It changed the way that brands showed up at these festivals," Marc Simons, one of the agency's three cofounders told Business Insider. "From day one we’ve been fortunate to work with creative, accessible brands that really understand what makes people stop and pay attention."

Conceptualizing, building and orchestrating the live experiences was no easy feat, taking months to plan and execute. Both setups are visibly massive undertakings, replete with dozens of highly detailed set pieces designed to make you feel like you are in a different world, VR experiences as well as actors that bring the respective time periods alive. 

The work on Westworld, for instance, began all the way back in August 2017, when Giant Spoon sent drones to scout the location — a 2-acre piece of land in the outskirts of Austin, Texas. Production started in November 2017, taking a 40-person crew five weeks to build the park.

That was not all. 58 different vendors came together in the production process. And Giant Spoon, HBO's in-house marketing team and "Westworld" co-creators Jonathan Nolan and Lisa Joy enlisted a cast of 60 actors, six stunt people, five bands and six horses to bring the dystopian world to life, with the final script adding up to a whopping 444 pages.

Similarly, Oasis was painstakingly constructed across an Austin city block, replete with trailers to mimic "Stacks,"or vertical trailer parks where people live in the book and movie's fictional 2045. The space also had arcade games, VR experiences and tons of '80s memorabilia, and took a 90-person crew to build over the span of a week. 

The efforts have clearly paid off. The Westworld recreation was not only the talk at South by Southwest, but was also trending on social media.

The hashtag #westworld was trending and the experience-specific #sxswestworld was used nearly 6,000 times on the three days that it was on for, according to data crunched by the analytic firm Crimson Hexagon. 

The Ready Player One exhibit too attracted considerable buzz, buoyed by the fact that the book's author Ernest Cline and the movie's actor Bryan Greenberg were in attendance at SXSW.

Moreover, the sentiment in the conversations around both exhibits was overwhelmingly positive. According to Brandwatch, Westworld's mentions were 91.8% positive and Ready Player One's were 90.3% positive. 

While Giant Spoon has more recently been thrust into the limelight due to its executions in the experiential realm, it initially started with a focus on media and strategy. Trevor Guthrie, another one of the agency's cofounders, also credits its rise to this background.

"Our media background has made a unique difference, because knowing who watches CNN, which segments of podcasts are growing fastest, or what hasn’t been seen at SXSW — and contrasting those with a brand’s needs sets the stage for effective work." said Guthrie. "Creative ideas come pouring out like a firehose."

As it has attracted bigger clients and bigger budgets, it is no surprise that Giant Spoon itself has grown. At the end of 2017, for instance, the agency had increased its revenue by nearly a 100% and expanded its headcount from 34 to nearly 100, said Simons.

And now that it's on a roll, it has no plans of stopping.

"We truly believe we can be a different solution for clients," said Simons. "We can be a different kind of agency that doesn't just build ads, but creates experiences for consumers that allow brands to naturally interact with them."

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why North Korea sent hundreds of cheerleaders to the Olympics

• Microsoft is blaming Sony for not allowing Xbox One and PlayStation 4 owners to play games together.
• "We’ve worked closely with Nintendo to allow cross-network play between Xbox One and Switch, and our offer to do the same with PlayStation players still holds," a Microsoft representative told Kotaku.
• While it's true that Microsoft has been pursuing cross-network play between the Xbox One and competing platforms, Sony has a few good reasons for not going through with it on the PlayStation 4.

The biggest game in the world right now, "Fortnite," is available on pretty much any device you can find.

You can play it on PC or on a Mac, on Xbox One or PlayStation 4 — it's even coming to iPhone and Android in the near future. Better yet, you can play the online-only, multiplayer game across platforms. If I'm playing it on PC, and you're on PlayStation 4, or your phone, we can play together. 

There's just one exception: PlayStation 4 and Xbox One players can't play together.

Sony and Microsoft are direct competitors in the game console business, and that means they operate entirely independent online ecosystems; Microsoft's is called Xbox Live, Sony's is called PlayStation Network. They're very similar services with very similar functionalities, but they're entirely siloed off from each other. 

Simply put: There's no way to play games across these two platforms.

Even though some of the most popular games in the world are identical across the Xbox One and PlayStation 4, players on each console aren't able to play together. Games like "Call of Duty," "Overwatch," "Destiny 2" and "Fortnite" operate in parallel across platforms.

You bought "Destiny 2" on Xbox and Aunt Rose bought it on PS4? Sorry, friend! You're both playing alone.

Even "Minecraft," which Microsoft owns and publishes on every platform — from the Xbox One to the iPhone to Sony's PlayStation 4 and Nintendo's Switch — cannot be played across the Xbox One and PlayStation 4.

Like "Fortnite," "Minecraft" can be played between players on PC and Mac, and PC and Xbox. "Minecraft" can even be played cross-network between Xbox One and Nintendo Switch in an upcoming update. But the PlayStation 4 stands alone — Sony refuses to allow the game to speak to other platforms.

As you might expect, Microsoft blames Sony for the ongoing lack of cross-network play between PlayStation 4 and Xbox One games. The company provided the following statement to Kotaku this week:

"Microsoft has long been a leading voice in encouraging the adoption of cross-platform play and the potential of connecting players across PC, mobile and all consoles. We’ve worked closely with Nintendo to allow cross-network play between Xbox One and Switch and our offer to do the same with PlayStation players still holds."

That was just the latest volley from Microsoft in its ongoing push toward cross-network play. 

The reality, of course, is more complicated: The way Microsoft accomplishes cross-network play is by putting a form of Xbox Live into other platforms. And Sony, logically, doesn't want that — it operates PlayStation Network, and doesn't want to cede control of its players to the competition. 

With over 70 million PlayStation 4 consoles in the wild, and Microsoft's Xbox One in a distant second place (estimates put the console at anywhere from 30 to 60 million sold), Sony is actually in a position to say no.

Though PlayStation 4 owners would certainly benefit from being able to play with friends on the Xbox One, Microsoft would clearly benefit the most from the arrangement: Anyone on PlayStation 4 (or Switch, or wherever else) who wants to play games with friends on Xbox One has to sign up for an Xbox Live login. 

Xbox chief Phil Spencer explained this in an interview with Giant Bomb last summer:

"We use Xbox Live as the way to make sure we know who our players are, controls around parental controls and other things that we put into our platform are there. And as you're buying things in 'Minecraft,' you want to make sure you have them available on other platforms, so we have to know who you are. If you have a realm that you've created on the PC and you want to get to it on the Switch, we have to have an identity system and we just use Xbox Live." 

It's a smart solution. Xbox Live is widely regarded as the gold standard in online gaming networks. It set the original standard for what a game console's online service could be, and it continues to be a powerhouse. 

But if you're Sony, which operates the also excellent PlayStation Network, it makes a lot of sense why you wouldn't want Xbox Live on PlayStation 4: It's a threat.

Long-term, having PlayStation 4 owners sign up for Xbox Live might sway them to Microsoft's platform — and that's a real problem. Microsoft is making an ecosystem play, betting that you'll use its ecosystem (Xbox Live) in perpetuity if you're locked in now. It's where your game library is, and your friends are! It works across platforms, even! Why bother getting anything else?

Of course, if you're a normal person who wants to play games with your friends on whatever game console they own, all of this is not your problem. It's perfectly reasonable to wonder, "Why can't I play games with my friends, on whatever console they own, period?"

In this way, Microsoft comes out looking like the "good guy" because it's pushing for cross-network play. "Me 2," Microsoft's Phil Spencer said on Twitter in response the statement, "We really want cross-play system between XB1 and PS4."

That Microsoft would accomplish this goal by layering Xbox Live on top of the competition's online services is smart, but it makes sense why Sony wouldn't want to let that happen. Unfortunately, as the two companies sort it out, you still can't play "Fortnite" with friends on Xbox One if you're playing on the PlayStation 4.

That's bad for players and it's bad for business.

As "Overwatch" director Jeff Kaplan told Business Insider last year, "We're very respectful, and we understand our partners and why they're not allowing [cross-network play] at this time. We'll use whatever influence we have to keep reminding them: 'Hey, this would be cool. It's something our players really want. It's something your players really want."

SEE ALSO: The biggest game in the world can't allow Xbox and PlayStation players to play together — and it highlights a critical problem with gaming

DON'T MISS: Sony and Microsoft are getting in the way of an amazing service that would benefit gamers on all platforms

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: How Silicon Valley's sexist 'bro culture' affects everyone — and how to fix it

It's still winter in most of the United States, but spring television shows are quickly coming our way, which means that no matter how much better the weather gets, you still have plenty of valid reasons to stay inside. 

We put together a list of all the notable new and returning shows coming in the next couple months, and let you know whether or not you should watch them.

The lineup for spring 2018 is pretty promising, but thankfully isn't overwhelming with shows you must watch. Some of the best dramas are starting new seasons including HBO's "Westworld," Hulu's "The Handmaid's Tale," and the final season of FX's "The Americans."

Spring 2018 isn't bringing us that many new shows to be excited about, besides  FX's drama "Trust" starring Donald Sutherland, Brendan Fraser, and Hillary Swank. It's a show about the kidnapping of John Paul Getty III, but unlike "All the Money in the World," Christopher Plummer will not be replacing anyone in it at the last minute. 

Here are all of the notable shows premiering in Spring 2018, and whether or not you should watch them:

SEE ALSO: 'The Last Jedi' crew set fire to a nearly 60-foot high model tree for that Yoda-Skywalker scene — 30 times

March

"Rise" — NBC

March 13

Should you watch it: If you like musicals and shows that toy with your emotions like "This Is Us," yes. 

"For the People" — ABC

March 13

Should you watch it: Skip it. There's a lot of legal dramas, and this one doesn't stand out. 

• Dave Franco lost 20 pounds for his upcoming Netflix movie, "6 Balloons."
• In it, he plays a heroin addict.
• He ran so much to lose the weight, he injured his knee and had to spend a couple of months in physical therapy after production wrapped.
• Netflix released a trailer of the movie on Tuesday and Franco looks to deliver one of the most dramatic performances of his career.

Dave Franco might be giving his brother James a run for his money as the one in the family who gets deep into character.

In the upcoming Netflix movie "6 Balloons," Franco plays a heroin addict who over the course of one night is helped by his sister (Abbi Jacobson) to find a detox center while taking care of his 2-year-old daughter.

Netflix release the movie's trailer on Tuesday (the movie will be available on April 6), and it gives a glimpse of Franco's most dramatic work yet. And, according to the actor, the role wasn't easy to pull off.

Franco revealed to Business Insider in November while doing press for his previous movie, "The Disaster Artist," that he lost 20 pounds for the “6 Balloons” role.  The dedication led to some major ramifications both physically and emotionally.

“I was full-on depressed,” he said. “I remember at one point my wife [actress Alison Brie] saying, ‘You’re not yourself, you’re not fun to be around.’ And I was like, ‘I’m f---ing starving! What do you want from me?’ But on set I also wasn’t fun to be around. I wasn’t really interacting with anyone. I was in the corner by myself, miserable.”

Franco said this role is the first time in his career he’s ever gone deep into a character. Looking back, he’s glad he did it, but he also said it “scared the hell out of me.”

“I almost really f---ed up my heath,” he went on to say. “I was running all day every day to lose weight and I ended up messing up my knee to the point that when we finished production I had to go to physical therapy for a couple of months.”

Franco said he got so obsessed with the transformation, he would look at pictures of how Christian Bale has changed his body for roles over the years as motivation.

“If he can do this 15 times I can do it once,” Franco said he would remind himself.

Though it was rewarding to do a role that got Franco out of his comfort zone, when the actor was asked if he would ever do a dramatic transformation like this again for a part he quickly responded: “Not for a long time!”

Watch the trailer for "6 Balloons."

SEE ALSO: "The Last Jedi" crew set fire to a nearly 60-foot hight model tree for that Yoda-Skywalker scene — 30 times

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why 555 is always used for phone numbers on TV and in movies

• Vice confirmed Tuesday that Shane Smith was stepping down as CEO of the storied hipster media company he cofounded.
• Smith is being replaced Nancy Dubuc, the former CEO of the cable company A+E Networks.
• Dubuc joins on the heels of a rough financial year at Vice, which missed its revenue goals thanks to struggles with its TV channel Viceland.
• Dubuc also gets to deal with multiple executive sexual-harassment scandals.

Shane Smith is officially out as CEO of Vice Media, as the company confirmed earlier reports that the former A+E Networks CEO Nancy Dubuc would be replacing the media mogul.

Smith, who cofounded the $5.7 billion media company in 1994, will move to the role of executive chairman to focus on strategic deals and content development, the company said.

"Why Nancy Dubuc? Simply put, because rarely in business do you get to work in a perfect partnership," Smith wrote in a press release announcing the change. "First off, she is better than me at everything. Second, it allows me to move to Executive Chairman, where I can concentrate on the only things that I am good at — content and deals."

"Thirdly, as we go forward VICE needs a best-in-class management team to harness all of this growth and control our own destiny, whether it be staying independent, strategically partnering with someone or going public," Smith added. "Lastly, I get to work with one of my best friends and media heroes. We are a modern day Bonnie and Clyde and we are going to take all your money."

Dubuc announced her departure from A+E on Monday, but she didn't initially confirm her move to Vice.

"In her roughly 20 years at A+E Networks, Nancy played a major role in building the success of A&E, History, and Lifetime, and we thank her for her leadership," Disney-ABC Television Group's chief, Ben Sherwood, and Hearst's CEO, Steven Swartz, who run A+E's parent companies, said in a statement.

Dubuc's challenge: fixing Vice's culture and financials

Dubuc joins Vice at a time of transition and turmoil as the hipster news outlet looks to address concerns of a sexist corporate culture while proving it has the chops to meet financial targets.

Vice fired its chief digital officer Mike Germano in January over sexual-harassment allegations, and its president, Andrew Creighton, is on leave and under investigation over similar allegations.

In December, an investigation by The New York Times found four settlements related to sexual harassment and defamation at the company, including allegations against Creighton.

The Times also interviewed dozens of women who described a culture of sexual harassment and unwanted advances at the company, which positions itself as a progressive and antiestablishment media brand.

But company culture isn't Vice's only concern.

The company has also struggled financially since raising $450 million at a whopping $5.7 billion valuation in June.

Vice, which is private and does not share its financials publicly, last year missed its $805 million revenue goal by more than $100 million, according to The Wall Street Journal.

That miss was largely due to difficulties at Vice's cable TV channel, Viceland, according to The Journal.

Here is Dubuc's full statement on her new role:

"Shane and the team at VICE have done what all of us aspire to do — build a brand and make content that people really care about. VICE speaks to a generation that defines today’s cultural conversation, and the opportunity to partner with all of the incredibly creative people across the entire company was one of those rare moments in a career.

"As the next chapter of media is written by founders such as Shane and Suroosh, it’s an honor to join a brand with such tremendous opportunity and I look forward to growing the platform for decades to come."

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: What it's actually like to hear voices in your head

Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio are teaming up with Quentin Tarantino for the director's upcoming ninth film, "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood," Tarantino announced last month.

Pitt and DiCaprio were in talks to star in the film for weeks, but the contract negotiations for it were reportedly so "strenuous" that DiCaprio was ready to walk away from the project in January, sources told The Hollywood Reporter. 

Margot Robbie is currently in negotiations to play the role of actress Sharon Tate in the film, Deadline reported Tuesday.

Pitt previously worked with Tarantino on 2009's "Inglorious Basterds," and DiCaprio appeared in 2013's "Django Unchained."

"Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" is set for release on August 9, 2019.

Here's everything we know about Tarantino's upcoming ninth film:

SEE ALSO: Quentin Tarantino's next film will be released by Sony following the Harvey Weinstein scandal

The film takes place in "Los Angeles in 1969, at the height of hippy Hollywood."

Tarantino described "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" in a statement on Wednesday, calling it, "a story that takes place in Los Angeles in 1969, at the height of hippy Hollywood. The two lead characters are Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio), former star of a Western TV series, and his longtime stunt double Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt). Both are struggling to make it in a Hollywood they don't recognize anymore. But Rick has a very famous next-door neighbor ... Sharon Tate."

In July 2017, early reports of the film described its script as focused on the murder of actress Sharon Tate by Charles Manson's followers. 

While Tarantino's most recent statement mentions Sharon Tate as a player in the movie, Tarantino previously said that the film would not center on Charles Manson, but on the year 1969.

It has been five years in the making.

Tarantino said on Wednesday that he had been working on the script for the film for half a decade.

"I’ve been working on this script for five years, as well as living in Los Angeles County most of my life, including in 1969, when I was seven years old," he said. "I’m very excited to tell this story of an L.A. and a Hollywood that don't exist anymore. And I couldn't be happier about the dynamic teaming of DiCaprio & Pitt as Rick & Cliff.”

It's a "Pulp Fiction-esque" movie

Deadline reported in January that the Leonardo DiCaprio would play an "aging actor" in a "'Pulp Fiction'-esque movie."

"Pulp Fiction," Tarantino's 1994 classic, told a collection of interconnected stories.

• Producers on Netflix's "The Crown" said during a recent panel interview that Matt Smith, who played Prince Philip, made more money than Claire Foy, who played Queen Elizabeth II.
• One producer said that from now on, no actor on the show would make more than the person who plays the queen.
• But it's a little too late for Foy — older actors will replace the cast for the third and fourth seasons.
• This demonstrates the problematic wage gap in the industry.

The actor who played Prince Philip on "The Crown" made more money than the actress who played the show's main character, Queen Elizabeth II — and it's not a good look for Netflix.

The discrepancy in the actors' pay came up during a Tuesday panel discussion about the Netflix drama at the INTV conference in Jerusalem. "The Crown" producers said Matt Smith was paid more than Claire Foy because he had become famous as the doctor on "Doctor Who."

According to Variety, the producers, Suzanne Mackie and Andy Harries, said they wished to rectify that pay gap in the future.

"Going forward, no one gets paid more than the queen," Mackie said.

But it's too late for Foy, who portrayed Queen Elizabeth for only two seasons of "The Crown" — for the next two seasons, older actors will play the characters. Olivia Coleman ("Broadchurch") will replace Foy, while a replacement for Smith has not been announced.

Foy's critically acclaimed performance has won her prestigious awards, including best lead actress in a drama at last year's Golden Globes, an honor she was nominated for again this year. She was also nominated for an Emmy for her role last year, and she won best actress in a drama at the Screen Actors Guild Awards last year and this year.

Smith was among the nominees for outstanding performance by an ensemble in a drama series at the SAG Awards last year for "The Crown," and he has previously been nominated for a BAFTA for his role in "Doctor Who."

In January, Forbes reported that the 10 highest-paid actors in Hollywood brought in a total of $488.5 million, while the 10 highest-paid actresses earned less than half of that, with $172.5 million.

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

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: You can connect all 9 Best Picture Oscar nominees with actors they have in common — here's how

• Esports represents a massive growth opportunity for companies, a Bernstein analyst said.
• The sports category has a large fan base, which can number half a billion in a few years.
• Companies stand to make lots of money for appealing to this large and growing market.

There is a massive growth opportunity in the realm of competitive video gaming, known as esports, and it could make some well-heeled tech companies even richer.

Esports has a large and engaged following that is under-monetized, Todd Juenger, a Bernstein analyst, said. He believes this could present an attractive revenue opportunity for companies and investors alike.

In the US alone, esports viewership already outnumbers NHL viewers, and its projected to surpass the number of MLB viewers by 2020, Juenger says. Globally, esports draws an active viewership of 143 million, and that number shoots up to 307 million if you count occasional viewers. Juenger expects that number to explode to 250 million active viewers and over half a billion occasional viewers by 2021.

SEE ALSO: EA gets a boost from FIFA and Madden players crowding into a new way to play games

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: What would happen if humans tried to land on Jupiter

• "Star Wars: The Last Jedi" had a steamy moment between Rey and Kylo Ren.
• The pair hold hands using the Force, though they never physically touch.
• Speaking at SXSW, director Rian Johnson said the scene is probably "the closest thing we'll get to a sex scene in a 'Star Wars' movie."

"Star Wars" fans have been shipping Rey and Kylo Ren as a couple since the Force-wielding youngsters laid eyes on each other — telepathically, that is — in "Star Wars: The Last Jedi."

In one of the movie's most memorable scenes, Rey and Kylo Ren are able to communicate with one another from across the galaxy through the Force. They're able to see each other and their surroundings.

Rey then reaches out to hold Kylo Ren's hand. He removes his glove and feels her touch through the Force.

"Star Wars: The Last Jedi" director Rian Johnson told fans that this moment between the movie's heroine and rebellious rogue is probably the steamiest the franchise will get.

During his talk at the SXSW film festival on Monday, Johnson responded to a fan's question about why there are so many close-up shots of hands in "The Last Jedi." The director said it's always "tempting" to make a simple scene over-the-top, especially when the budget permits, but it's more rewarding "if you can get a satisfying beat out of the intimate."

"The ultimate expression of that is focusing [the shot] even tighter when there's contact. To me, one of my favorite shots of the movie is those two fingers touching," Johnson said.

He added, "It's the closest thing we'll get to a sex scene in a 'Star Wars' movie."

The crowd erupted in laughter.

Mark Hamill, who plays Luke Skywalker, made a special appearance during Johnson's talk at SXSW. He lamented that even Luke didn't get to hold hands with a romantic partner.

"There's one really attractive woman in the galaxy. Bad news is she's your sister," Hamill said.

SEE ALSO: Mark Hamill says one of his best 'Star Wars: The Last Jedi' moments was inspired by Barack Obama

Join the conversation about this story »

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

• In the documentary "The Director and the Jedi," which premiered at South by Southwest on Monday, "Star Wars: The Last Jedi" director Rian Johnson says Russian bots launched an online campaign in an effort to save General Hux in the film.
• Johnson says Russian accounts tried to influence the film's storyline to ensure Hux survives by using the hashtag #HuxLive targeted at Johnson's social media.
• The documentary is now available with the digital release of "Star Wars: The Last Jedi."

It's often hard to survive in the "Star Wars" universe, but a certain character had the full support of Russian bots to make it through "Star Wars: The Last Jedi."

Film School Rejects reports that, in the documentary "The Director and the Jedi" that premiered at SXSW on Monday, director Rian Johnson addresses a highly coordinated effort from Russian bots online to sway the storyline of the film in order to protect General Hux.

Hux is played by actor Domhnall Gleeson and is a military leader for the evil First Order. He's also a bit of a comedic punching bag in the movies. According to Film School Rejects, Johnson says that Russian accounts targeted Johnson's social media with the hashtag #HuxLive in an attempt to ensure that Hux survived "The Last Jedi" (spoiler: he did).

“It’s amazing,” Johnson says. “There’s a coordinated effort by these Russian accounts. Hundreds of them.”

We're unsure why Russian bots were so invested in General Hux. Maybe Gleeson is their favorite Weasley brother from the "Harry Potter" films.

While Hux does survive, his authority is challenged by Kylo Ren. It remains to be seen what the Russian bots think of this, and whether they will launch another online campaign when "Star Wars: "Episode IX" is released next year.

In the meantime, "The Director and the Jedi" is now available with the digital release of "Star Wars: The Last Jedi."

SEE ALSO: 'The Last Jedi' crew burned a 60-foot model tree almost 30 times to get the memorable Yoda-Skywalker scene right

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: You can connect all 9 Best Picture Oscar nominees with actors they have in common — here's how

• March Madness kicks off on March 13. For college-basketball fans without cable, Sling TV is the most affordable place to watch March Madness.
• For $25 a month, Sling TV subscribers could access TNT, TBS, and TruTV — all of which will broadcast March Madness games.
• But to gain access to more games, it's also worth looking into CBS and CBS All Access.

March Madness kicks off on March 13. For college-basketball fans without cable, figuring out how to watch the games can be a headache.

To save you the hassle, we did the research.

The winner? Internet TV service Sling TV, which offers a deal starting at $20 a month for over 25 channels.

March Madness will be broadcast on TNT, TBS, TruTV, and CBS. Sling Orange, as it's called, gets you TNT and TBS, plus 20 other channels, for $20. The "Comedy" add-on will get you TruTV for an extra $5.

Sling Blue gets you TNT, TBS, and TruTV, and 40 other channels, for $25.

Sling TV customers with an Over-the-Air antenna can access CBS free. But CBS All Access is $5.99 a month if you choose the limited-commercials option.

Even if you were to pay for a month of Sling and CBS All Access, it would still be the cheapest option compared to other live-TV services. Hulu TV and PlayStation Vue both start at $39.99, and YouTube TV and DirecTV are both $35.

SEE ALSO: The 13 original shows Apple is producing in its massive push into TV

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why 555 is always used for phone numbers on TV and in movies

• Elon Musk is hiring forrmer staff writers from The Onion for a secret comedy project, according to The Daily Beast.
• The Tesla founder issued a cryptic statement to The Daily Beast describing "comedy as the next frontier."
• An anonymous source told The Daily Beast that Musk had considered buying The Onion in 2014. 

Elon Musk is reportedly working on an ultra-secretive project of esoteric origins. According to The Daily Beast's Max Tani, the Tesla co-founder has hired former writers from satirical news website The Onion to embark on a newfound venture, which has been cryptically identified only as "a brand-new comedy project."

Disappointingly, an unnamed source told The Daily Beast that Musk will not oversee the editorial undertakings of the foray. Instead, Musk's involvement will more likely be relegated to fiduciary interests. 

In a statement issued to The Daily Beast, Musk said, “It’s pretty obvious that comedy is the next frontier after electric vehicles, space exploration, and brain-computer interface. Don’t know how anyone’s not seeing this.”

The report of the comedy project marks the second curious, seemingly bizarre undertaking associated with Musk. In January, Musk tweeted that he would begin selling $500 flamethrowers to consumers to raise money for his tunneling company. Musk has said he has sold out of the 20,000 flamethrowers that were available, though the products are not shipping until the spring and it's still not entirely clear what consumers will be receiving.

This might not be the first time Musk has considered The Onion and its staff as an asset. The Daily Beast reports that Musk considered buying the site in 2014, but potentially lost interest early on before a deal materialized.

Read the full story over at The Daily Beast. 

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why does Bluetooth still suck?

• YouTube is teaming up with Wikipedia to combat conspiracy theories by linking Wikipedia pages to videos that contain conspiracy-related materials.
• Youtube CEO Susan Wojcicki spoke on a South by Southwest (SXSW) panel detailing how the "information cues" would operate. 
• The information cues would appear right below the video with a separate link to the full Wikipedia page.

YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki  announced a partnership with online encyclopedia Wikipedia on Tuesday, a step that the Google-owned video website hopes will help combat the flood of videos promoting false conspiracy theories that have plagued its service.

The partnership will add background information provided by Wikipedia to certain videos on YouTube, Wojcicki said during a panel at the South by Southwest tech and music festival in Austin. 

Wojcicki did not disclose the number or type of conspiracy theories that will be focused upon, though the 1969 Apollo moon landing, a popular subject of baseless conspiracy theories, is referenced in the presentation.

The effort will involve text boxes, dubbed "information cues,"accompanying YouTube videos taken from the Wikipedia pages of well-known conspiracy theories. A separate link to the full page will also be included. 

The move comes shortly after YouTube was criticized for promoting videos in the "trending" section of its site that claimed one of the survivors of the school shooting in Parkland, Texas was a paid actor. 

The plan is expected to be rolled out within a couple of weeks. 

SEE ALSO: Viacom is cozying up to YouTube as the TV giant plays catchup in digital

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: How Silicon Valley's sexist 'bro culture' affects everyone — and how to fix it

• Eddie Redmayne has paid tribute to Stephen Hawking, who died at the age of 76 on Wednesday.
• Redmayne won an Oscar for his portrayal of Hawking in the 2014 film "The Theory of Everything."
• He called him an "astonishing scientist" and "the funniest man" he ever met.

Hollywood star Eddie Redmayne, who received an Oscar for his portrayal of scientist Stephen Hawking in the 2014 film "The Theory of Everything," has paid tribute to "the funniest man" he ever met.

Hawking, known for explaining the Big Bang and black holes in his book "A Brief History of Time," died at the age of 76 on Wednesday morning. 

Despite having amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), a neurodegenerative disease that impaired his motor functions, confined him to a wheelchair, and made him dependent on a computerised voice system in order to communicate, he went on to become a mathematics professor, and eventually the director of research at the University of Cambridge's Center for Theoretical Cosmology.

According to The Telegraph, Redmayne, who met Hawking while preparing for his Oscar-winning role, said: "We have lost a truly beautiful mind, an astonishing scientist and the funniest man I have ever had the pleasure to meet.

"My love and thoughts are with his extraordinary family."

Redmayne had previously said that meeting Hawking was "one of the great moments of [his] life."

"When Stephen saw the film, I was rehearsing so I couldn't see him beforehand but I saw him just after he went in and I said 'hey Stephen I'm very nervous, but please do let me know what you think,'" he said.

"He took a while to respond and said in his iconic voice: 'I will let you know what I think, good or otherwise.'"

Luckily, he said Hawking was "so nice" after viewing the film.

In a post on his Facebook page, the scientist even commended the actor.

"I thought Eddie Redmayne portrayed me very well in The Theory of Everything Movie," he wrote. "He spent time with ALS sufferers so he could be authentic. At times, I thought he was me.

"Seeing the film has given me the opportunity to reflect on my life. Although I’m severely disabled, I have been successful in my scientific work. I travel widely and have been to Antarctica and Easter Island, down in a submarine and up on a zero gravity flight. One day I hope to go into space.

He concluded: "I’ve been privileged to gain some understanding of the way the universe operates through my work. But it would be an empty universe indeed without the people that I love."

SEE ALSO: 15 Stephen Hawking quotes that reveal how a genius thinks

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why 555 is always used for phone numbers on TV and in movies

This week, "Black Panther" became one of the 33 movies in history that have made $1 billion at the global box office.

It also accomplished this feat in under a month, which only 12 other films have ever done. 

"Black Panther" joins several other Marvel films on this list, which we have ranked by the days it took each film to gross $1 billion worldwide.

We used each film's gross on the day it passed $1 billion to break any ties. 

Here are the 13 movies that made $1 billion at the global box office in less than a month:

SEE ALSO: Only 33 movies have ever hit $1 billion at the box office — here they are

13. "Beauty and the Beast" — 29 days

Release date: March 17, 2017

Date it crossed $1 billion:April 12, 2017

Box office total: $1,263,521,126

12. "Captain America: Civil War" — 24 days

Release date: April 27, 2016

Date it crossed $1 billion: May 20, 2016

Box office total: $1,153,304,495
 

11. "Black Panther" — 24 days

Release date: February 16, 2018

Date it crossed $1 billion:March 11, 2018

Box office total (so far): $1,079,891,584
 

• Jake Kasdan is the director of box-office sensation, "Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle."
• His father is famed screenwriter Lawrence Kasdan, who is know best for writing "Empire Strikes Back," Return of the Jedi," "The Force Awakens," and the upcoming "Solo: A Star Wars Story."
• Because of that, Jake admits he's not too tempted to make a "Star Wars" project and is happy being a fan.

For fans of the “Star Wars” franchise, the surname Kasdan has a lot of meaning. Lawrence Kasdan is the screenwriter behind “The Empire Strikes Back,” “Return of the Jedi,” “The Force Awakens,” and the upcoming “Solo: A Star Wars Story” — which he shares credit with his son, Joe.

But there is also another Kasdan in the movie business: Jake. He recently directed one of the surprise box office hits in recent memory, “Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle,” which along with topping the domestic box office for three straight weekends in January (and reclaiming the top spot the first weekend in February), is also the second-highest domestic grossing movie for Sony of all time.

Anyone who helms a movie that has that kind of performance will have people wondering if a “Star Wars” project is in their future. But posing the question to a Kasdan adds a level of intrigue.

Did Jake — known best previously for directing studio comedies like “Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story” and “Bad Teacher” — want to go and make an action/comedy with Dwayne Johnson to prove that he is worthy of working within the massive “Star Wars” saga?

Actually, no. It seems he’s fine keeping an arm’s distance from the franchise that his family has been engrained in as far back as he can remember.

“It’s not something I’m super focused on,” Jake said about directing a "Star Wars" project to Business Insider while promoting the home video release of “Jumanji” (currently available to stream and on Blu-ray/DVD March 20).

“I’m just a huge fan,” he went on to say. “There’s a part of me that feels like you relinquish that when you step behind the curtain. I love the rooting position I’ve been in with the ones that my dad and now my brother have worked on. It’s a really exciting thing to be near, without the pressure and anxiety of carrying it.”

However, Jake has some pressure of his own to deal with — he’s signed on to direct another “Jumanji” movie.

SEE ALSO: "The Last Jedi" crew set fire to a nearly 60-foot hight model tree for that Yoda-Skywalker scene — 30 times

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why 555 is always used for phone numbers on TV and in movies

The Marvel Cinematic Universe has shied away from killing off major characters.

Even in "Captain America: Civil War," when James Rhodes/War Machine is shot down, he is paralyzed rather than killed.

But that doesn't mean there haven't been notable deaths. Business Insider looked back at the MCU and found 30 major deaths, which we then ranked from least sad to most. It should come as no surprise that most of the villain deaths are ranked toward the bottom.

We excluded characters that died, but were eventually resurrected — Agent Phil Coulson died in "The Avengers," but came back in Marvel's "Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D." television show on ABC, and Bucky Barnes died in "Captain America: The First Avenger," but has since returned as the Winter Soldier.

We'll see if any of our favorite characters meet an end when "Avengers: Infinity War" comes to theaters next month.

SEE ALSO: The 7 biggest questions we had after watching Marvel's 'Black Panther,' and hope are answered in the sequel

30. Malekith ("Iron Man 2")

Cause of death: Crushed by his own ship. 

In a recent interview with The Guardian, actor Christopher Eccleston opened up about filming "Thor: The Dark World," and said it was like a "gun in your mouth." Perhaps it's a good thing his character dies.

29. Ultron ("Avengers: Age of Ultron")

Cause of death: Vision destroys his last remaining body after a fight with the Avengers.

Hard to feel anything for a genocidal robot.

28. The Red Skull ("Captain America: The First Avenger")

Cause of death: Incinerated by the Tesseract.

Sorry, Red Skull, but we're not going to feel sorry for a Nazi. The Skull is incinerated when he handles the Tesseract, one of the Infinity Stones that Thanos is after in the upcoming "Avengers: Infinity War."