Quantcast
Channel: Business Insider
Viewing all 103365 articles
Browse latest View live

The director of HBO's Andre the Giant documentary explains how he debunked some major myths and got Vince McMahon to cry

$
0
0

Andre The Giant WWE

Director Jason Hehir spent over a year doing the ultimate deep-dive into the life of legendary professional wrestler Andre the Giant to separate the man from the myth for his HBO documentary.

The journey took Hehir all over the globe and face-to-face with some of the biggest names in wrestling.

Business Insider talked to Hehir to break down some of the biggest revelations, talk  about his emotional encounter with Vince McMahon, and ask why the Samuel Beckett story isn’t in the movie.

SEE ALSO: The 32 movies coming out this summer you can't miss

Finding Andre's real hometown.

Up until the day “Andre the Giant” aired on HBO, the wrestler's Wikipedia page stated that he was born and raised in Grenoble, France. Like most of the world, whoever contributed that piece to his Wikipedia page thought the hometown given during his introduction to the ring was the truth. But that was just one of many inaccuracies about Andre Roussimoff.

Hehir discovered that Andre was born in Moliens, a small village of 40 people six miles outside of Paris. Andre’s wrestling backstory of him coming from Grenoble was created early in his wrestling career when he was touted by promoters as a friendly lumberjack found in the mountains. 

“The most recognizable town in the Alps to a North American audience was Grenoble because they hosted the Olympics,” Hehir said.

Once Andre's real hometown was discovered, Hehir and his crew traveled to Moliens with a few pictures of Andre with family friends. 

“We literally went door to door and just walked the streets of that village showing these photos to people via a translator, because the people there spoke zero English,” Hehir said. 


They also found Andre’s two brothers. One let Hehir and his crew into the family’s home where Andre grew up and there they found a treasure trove of old photos and wrestling memorabilia of Andre's never before seen by the public. They also filmed the giant chair for Andre in the kitchen, which is featured in the documentary. Andre’s mother had it specifically made for him.

“Andre the Giant is a mythical character, but Andre Roussimoff is a mother's son and she wanted him to be comfortable when he came home,” Hehir said. “She had that made for him. He was still her baby though he could barely fit through the door.”



Vince McMahon's emotional recollection of Andre.

One of the most shocking moments of the documentary is toward the end when during an interview with WWE owner Vince McMahon be begins to choke up and hold back tears when talking about how much Andre meant to him and his company (despite the two having a falling out at the end of Andre's career).

Hehir said that wasn’t the first time McMahon, known for his tough guy swagger, showed a softer side in front of him.


“He got emotional when no cameras were there,” Hehir said. “The first meeting I had with him I mentioned that Andre had a really close relationship with his daughter and he got pretty emotional there.” 

Hehir said that McMahon agreed to do a 45-minute interview for the movie and Hehir could come back later in production to shoot any follow-ups with him. The 45-minute shoot turned into a three-hour interview.

McMahon getting emotional on camera was hard to film, Hehir said.

“Vince seemed to be trying to keep it together and as an interviewer it's excruciating because your instinct is to turn the camera off," he said. "But you have a responsibility to the viewer to let them experience this feeling vicariously through the person who knows the subject well, so we included that in the film.”



That was really Hulk Hogan's handwritten choreographed outline of his WrestleMania III match with Andre.

For wrestling die hards the recollections by Hulk Hogan of the lead-up to his match with Andre at WrestleMania III are something special. One great detail is him explaining how he wrote out the entire match on a yellow legal pad McMahon gave him when McMahon asked the wrestler how he thought the match should go down. Hogan scripted the entire match, but left how it would end empty for Andre to decide. Andre didn’t reveal the ending until during the match, according to Hogan. 


In the movie, while Hogan is telling the story, there are shots of yellow legal pad sheets with handwriting on them. Hehir said that’s really Hogan’s handwriting of the match.


“That yellow legal pad is crucial to the telling of that story,” he said. “But that has been long crumbled and thrown into the trash. Probably the night of the event. So for months I tried to get Hogan to recreate to the best of his recollection what he wrote down.”


Hehir interviewed Hogan for the movie in April of 2017. He said he finally got the pages from Hogan in the middle of December on the final day they could possibly get it into the movie before handing a finished version over to HBO. 

“When we got it you could feel your heart beat opening the envelope,” Hehir said. “I told Hogan even if he could write a few lines we could shoot them really tight, he ended up writing all those pages you see in the shot — two single-spaced pages. And he wrote it as if he was in the moment, so if you freeze frame it you can see it says something like, ‘Don’t let Andre see this.’”


“Any of us could have written those pages and no one would know whose handwriting it was,” Hehir continued. “But I just thought it would be a cool wink to people who do know this world that they would recognize Hogan’s handwriting.”



See the rest of the story at Business Insider

Drake gave his favorite video game streamer $5,000 after another successful round of 'Fortnite'

$
0
0

drake video

  • Drake made his second appearance on video game streaming service Twitch last night, again playing "Fortnite: Battle Royale" with Tyler "Ninja" Blevins.
  • Last time Drake played with Ninja, they set records for peak viewership for the platform.
  • Drake gave Ninja $5,000 at the end of the evening, fulfilling a promise that he would if Ninja led them to victory in the final game of the night.


Drake is most well-known for his music, but the Canadian hip-hop artist is quickly becoming known for his proclivity for video games.

Specifically, Drake is big into "Fortnite" — just like tens of millions of other people— and he's taken to playing with the world's most popular "Fortnite" streamer, Tyler "Ninja" Blevins. The two teamed up for the second time on Tuesday night, playing in the Duos mode of the popular "Battle Royale" game. 

It was a particularly good night for Ninja, who got a free $5,000 from Drake for doing what he does best: Ninja led the duo to victory in their final game of the night. Drake had promised as much if Ninja could pull out a victory in the final game.

Fortnite: Battle Royale

Though $5,000 for winning a round of a video game is a pretty nice bonus, Ninja is already doing pretty well for himself. The popular streamer is pulling in six figures monthly — he's reportedly making somewhere in the range of $500,000 each month through his Twitch channel's subscriptions alone, before sponsorships, YouTube, or any other revenue streams. 

When Ninja and Drake first got together to play "Fortnite," it broke Twitch records. Over 628,000 people were watching at one point. According to The Verge, the stream on Tuesday night drew around 230,000 concurrent viewers at its peak. 

SEE ALSO: A record-breaking number of people watched Drake play a video game in the middle of the night — and it was an incredible cultural moment

DON'T MISS: This 26-year-old makes $500,000 every month playing 'Fortnite' in his bedroom — here's how he does it

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: How to stop your Facebook friends from giving away your data

The most popular movie rental for Netflix subscribers from every year since 1998

$
0
0

Inception wb

Netflix has increasingly focused itself on streaming and original content, but it used to be known for DVD rentals — and users can still rent physical movies from the service if they prefer.

But which movies do Netflix users love the most?

Netflix revealed its most popular movies among DVD subscribers that were released in each of the last 20 years. They range from cult classics to Oscar winners to blockbusters, with some unexpected movies in between.

The list is sorted by the film's release date rather than the number of rentals in a year. The winner for a particular year is the most-rented title (of all time) among movies came out in that year.

For instance, "The Hurt Locker" is listed as the most popular movie from 2008, even though it wasn't available on DVD until 2009. But because it premiered in 2008 at the Venice Film Festival, it is the most popular movie among Netflix DVD subscribers for titles marked as released in 2008."

Four Oscar best-picture winners topped their respective years, including "The Hurt Locker," with other Oscar darlings making it on the list, as well.

Movies with big box office showings like "Wonder Woman" and "The Hunger Games" were also popular among DVD renters, as were cult classics like "The Big Lebowski" and Christopher Nolan's "Memento."

With that in mind, movies like "The Bucket List" and "The Lincoln Lawyer" are surprise entries, but audiences must have been interested in a change of pace.

Below are the DVDs most rented from Netflix in the last 20 years:

SEE ALSO: Fans are rallying to save Netflix's 'Everything Sucks' after it was canceled

1998: "The Big Lebowski"



1999: "Office Space"



2000: "Gladiator"



See the rest of the story at Business Insider

You can now get Hulu and Spotify Premium combined for $12.99 per month

$
0
0

june and luke handmaid's tale hulu

  • Hulu and Spotify are offering a bundle for $12.99 a month. 
  • The plan will put your Spotify Premium and Hulu accounts on one bill. 
  • For the first three months, Hulu will also only charge existing Spotify Premium users $0.99 a month for the addition.
  • The package follows the success of a Spotify and Hulu bundle that became available to students in fall 2017.  

Hulu and Spotify are now offering their services as a bundle, which combines Spotify Premium and Hulu's with-ads version for $12.99 per month.

The new plan saves subscribers $4.99 a month: Hulu's "Limited Commercials" plan is $7.99 per month, and Spotify Premium is $9.99 per month. So instead of paying $17.98, you pay $12.99. This new subscription also puts both on the same bill.

How can you get this deal?

Existing Spotify Premium subscribers can upgrade their plan to an option named "Spotify Premium, now with Hulu." The offer gives users an initial three-month Hulu subscription for $0.99 cents, and then begins charging the monthly combined price of $12.99. If you don't already have a Spotify account, you can sign up through Spotify and select the "Spotify Premium, now with Hulu" option.

If you are a Hulu subscriber already (but don't have Spotify), you can are "eligible if billing is switched to Spotify." But the plan will not work with Hulu's "ad-free" version, or if you have premium add-ons (for instance, Showtime.)

This bundle is a deepening of a partnership between the two companies that began in September 2017, when Spotify and Hulu introduced a bundle that allowed college students to use both of their services for $4.99 per month.

“Based on the outstanding performance of the Spotify and Hulu student package, it’s clear that consumers love to combine their music and television experiences together,” Tim Connolly, Head of Distribution and Partnerships at Hulu, said in a statement.

The bundle is available now. 

SEE ALSO: The director of HBO's Andre the Giant documentary explains how he debunked some major myths and got Vince McMahon to cry

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: This transgender activist and former Obama White House intern isn't backing down against Trump

Shari Redstone is reportedly 'likely' to fire Les Moonves as CEO of CBS if the Viacom merger falls through

$
0
0

redstone moonves

  • Shari Redstone is likely to fire Leslie Moonves as the head of CBS if a merger between CBS and Viacom falls through, CNBC reports.
  • CBS is expected to make a new offer for the purchase of Viacom, but the bid is expected to be an insufficient price for Viacom, sources told CNBC. 
  • The Hollywood Reporter reported Wednesday that CBS' potential merger with Viacom's struggling assets is "repellent to Moonves."
  • "The industry and the marketplace know Leslie Moonves’ record and we think it speaks for itself," a CBS representative said in a statement to Business Insider. 

Shari Redstone, whose company National Amusements controls CBS and Viacom, is likely to fire Leslie Moonves as the head of CBS if a merger between CBS and Viacom falls through, CNBC reported on Wednesday, citing sources familiar with the situation.

CBS is soon expected to make a new offer for the purchase of Viacom, but the network's bid is expected to be an insufficient price on Viacom's side of the deal, sources told CNBC.

CBS originally made a "lowball offer" of about $11.9 billion for Viacom (below market value), which was countered by Viacom with an offer of about $14.7 billion, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

In a profile of the embattled potential merger on Wednesday, THR reported that Viacom's struggling assets like MTV and Nickelodeon have made a merger plan "repellent to Moonves." CBS and Viacom were previously part of the same company from 2000 to 2006, under the ownership of National Amusements, before Viacom spun-off as a separate company in 2006.

Shari Redstone has reportedly been pushing for the merger and is "widely seen as intent on taking a hand in the running of the combined companies," according to THR. She is in the driver's seat at National Amusements because of the declining health of her 94-year-old father, mogul Sumner Redstone. The elder Redstone's health, The Wall Street Journal reported last week, had "declined so significantly that he cannot speak much beyond grunts."

CNBC reported that one roadblock to the CBS-Viacom merger deal has been a disagreement over the potential management team of the combined company. Moonves reportedly favors Joe Ianniello, COO of CBS, as his potential key lieutenant in the new company, while Redstone wants Bob Bakish, the current CEO of Viacom, as the company's second-in-command.

Moonves was believed to have previously agreed with Redstone to run the combined company for at least two years, according to CNBC.

Sources told CNBC that Redstone is also expected to replace the CBS board if a merger isn't reached between the two companies. 

"The industry and the marketplace know Leslie Moonves’ record and we think it speaks for itself," a CBS representative said in a statement to Business Insider.

Moonves, well-regarded by shareholders and the industry, was also elevated to chairman of CBS in 2016. He earned praise in February for having delivered over 5 million subscribers to the company's streaming services, CBS All Access and Showtime OTT, well ahead of expectations. 

Viacom and National Amusements were not immediately available for comment to Business Insider.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: How all-you-can-eat restaurants don't go bankrupt

Netflix is surging as Wall Street anticipates another earnings beat (NFLX)

$
0
0

netflix ceo


Shares of Netflix were up more than 4.5% — the most of any Nasdaq equity — at $310.65 Wednesday morning as Wall Street analysts gear up for the streaming company's earnings next week.

"We continue to believe that Netflix is likely to report 1Q results above consensus expectations on the back of a strong content slate, newer distribution partnerships, and the initial impact of marketing investments," Goldman Sachs analyst Heath Terry said in a note to clients Wednesday.

The bank expects the company to report 1.7 million new domestic subscribers and 5.6 million abroad — that's above the company's guidance of 1.45 million and 4.9 million respectively, and in line with the company's continuing trend of faster growth abroad than at home.

"We remain significantly above subscriber net add consensus expectations on international and domestic for 2018 driven primarily by the growth in content spend, expected marketing deleverage, and expansion of the distribution ecosystem," Goldman Sachs said.

Netflix CFO David Wells said earlier this year that the company expects to spend a staggering $8 billion on about 700 new original shows in 2018. 

Goldman remains more bullish on the stock than many others on the Street, with a price target of $360, a full 20% above where Netflix was trading Wednesday and well above analysts' average target of $290, according to Bloomberg.

Netflix will report earnings on Monday, April 16. Analysts polled by Bloomberg expect the company to report adjusted earnings of $0.638 per share on revenue of $3.61 billion.

Shares of Netflix have gained 54% since the beginning of 2018 — well outpacing its FAANG peers, of which the second-largest gainer is Amazon, up just 23%.

Netflix stock price

SEE ALSO: Here's why you can't really compare Spotify and Netflix

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Wall Street's biggest bull explains why trade war fears are way overblown

'Avengers: Infinity War' has already doubled 'Black Panther' in pre-sale tickets — and is outpacing the last 7 Marvel movies combined

$
0
0

avengers infinity war

  • Online movie ticket service Fandango announced that audiences have already bought twice as many pre-sale tickets for Marvel's "Avengers: Infinity War" as they did for "Black Panther."
  • "Infinity War" is also outpacing the last seven Marvel movies combined in pre-sale tickets.
  • Box office tracking for "Infinity War" estimates it could open to over $200 million, which isn't a stretch if pre-sale tickets are an indication.

 

We already knew the box office for "Avengers: Infinity War" was going to be huge, but if advance ticket sales are any indication, the movie will blow many people's expectations away.

The online movie ticketing service Fandango announced on Wednesday that, with over two weeks to go before it comes to theaters, "Infinity War" has already doubled the amount of pre-sale tickets of "Black Panther" on the service.

According to Fandango, the service sold more than 30% of the opening weekend tickets for "Black Panther," which means it's likely a reliable indicator of good things to come for "Infinity War."

Deadline recently reported that "Infinity War" could open to over $200 million and break April box-office records. For comparison, "Black Panther" opened to $242 million for the four-day Presidents' Day weekend in February.

"Infinity War" beat the record for fastest-selling advance tickets for a superhero movie in the first 24 hours (in just six hours). That record was previously held by "Black Panther."

Fandango also said "Infinity War" is outpacing the last seven Marvel movies combined in pre-sale tickets. Those movies include "Black Panther," "Thor: Ragnarok," "Spider-Man: Homecoming," "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2," "Doctor Strange," "Captain America: Civil War," and "Ant-Man."

More on Marvel:

SEE ALSO: The most popular movie rental for Netflix subscribers from every year since 1998

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: A neuroscientist explains why reality may just be a hallucination

Every movie The Rock has starred in, ranked by how much money they made at the US box office

$
0
0

Dwayne Johnson

Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson is one of the highest-paid (and busiest) actors working today.

In 2017, he starred in three blockbusters: "Baywatch," "The Fate of the Furious," and "Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle." And he raked in $65 million, second only to actor Mark Wahlberg.

Johnson has starred in at least one movie every year since his feature debut in 2001 in "The Mummy Returns" — an impressive accomplishment for the wrestler turned actor.

But how much have his movies made?

With "Rampage" coming to theaters this weekend, Business Insider ranked every movie Johnson has starred in by domestic box-office performance, adjusted for inflation. We also included the original domestic gross and the original worldwide gross for comparison.

We excluded movies Johnson didn't have a significant role in — for instance, he has an uncredited role in "Reno 911!: Miami" according to IMDB, and he only had a cameo in the 2002 film, "Longshot" (it was also never released in American theaters). He also had a starring role in "Empire State," but it was a straight-to-DVD release.

Johnson has starred in box-office disappointments, but he's also been the face of blockbusters such as the "Fast and Furious" franchise and last year's "Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle," which blew away expectations and has reached almost $1 billion worldwide.

Below is every movie Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson has starred in, ranked by domestic box-office performance:

SEE ALSO: The Rock calls out his 'Fast and Furious' co-stars who complained about his spin-off movie

29. "Southland Tales" (2007)

Adjusted domestic gross: $367,400

Original domestic gross: $275,380

Original worldwide gross: $374,743



28. "Faster" (2010)

Adjusted domestic gross: $26,644,500

Original domestic gross: $23,240,020

Original worldwide gross: $35,626,958



27. "Doom" (2005)

Adjusted domestic gross: $40,403,900

Original domestic gross: $28,212,337

Original worldwide gross: $55,987,321



See the rest of the story at Business Insider

How you can get HBO for $5 per month

$
0
0

Game of thrones

  • Since it launched in 2016, AT&T's DirecTV Now streaming service has offered HBO as an add-on for $5 per month. 
  • This is still a great deal for cord-cutters, as the service's total base package includes 60-plus channels. 
  • Buying HBO a la carte — through HBO Now or as an add-on to Amazon Prime — will cost you $14.99 per month.

Since it launched in 2016, AT&T's DirecTV Now streaming service has offered HBO as an add-on for $5 per month. 

This $5 add-on remains a great deal for prospective cord-cutters since buying HBO a la carte, through HBO Now, would cost you $14.99. Buying an HBO add-on to Amazon Prime would also cost you $14.99 per month.

To get the offer, however, you have to subscribe to the base DirecTV Now package, which costs $35 dollars per month for 60-plus channels. But if you are looking to ditch your big cable package while retaining some live TV, this could be a good option.

DirecTV Now streams live television from networks you typically find on cable and satellite over the internet to your smartphone, tablet, computer, or set-top box like an Apple TV. The service has a bunch of competitors, but none of them have this sort of deal for HBO.

directv now

The package currently has a number of limitations, including its lack of 4k streaming and Cloud DVR (with the ability to pause live TV), but these features are expected to be added in DirecTV Now's next-generation model dropping this spring.

But if you are an HBO fan, and want to trim your cable bill, it's probably worth at least checking out DirecTV Now's 7-day free trial.

If you hunting for cheap (or free) HBO in other places, since last year, AT&T has also featured a free HBO subscription for all of its wireless customers on "unlimited" plans.

SEE ALSO: AT&T's new $35 streaming TV package is the key to ditching your $100-plus cable bill and still watching whatever you want

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Wisconsin has started recounting over 2 million votes from the presidential election

Jim Carrey continues to attack Mark Zuckerberg with a drawing of him as an alien who's come to destroy Earth

$
0
0

jim carrey

  • Jim Carrey tweeted another drawing critical of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg on Wednesday as Zuckerberg testified in front of lawmakers for the second day.
  • Carrey depicted Zuckerberg as an alien who has come to destroy Earth to "prevent any further election meddling."
  • Carrey has been critical of Zuckerberg and Facebook in the past, even deleting Facebook account and dumping his stock earlier this year.

 

Jim Carrey is once again targeting Mark Zuckerberg in his latest political drawing, this time portraying the Facebook founder as an alien who's come to destroy Earth to "prevent any further election meddling."

Carrey tweeted the drawing on Wednesday as Zuckerberg testified in front of lawmakers for the second day on Facebook's handling of personal information and its role in Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

The drawing portrays Zuckerberg as a Marvin the Martian-like alien with the caption: "Congress gets a visit from planet Zuckerberg. 'I shall prevent any further election meddling by destroying the Earth with my Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator App! The sudden drop in Facebook’s stock has made me angry! VERY ANGRY INDEED!!!'"

This isn't the first time Carrey has criticized Facebook or Zuckerberg.

In February, Carrey announced he would be deleting his Facebook account and dumping his stock in the company because he said Facebook "profited" from Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Last month, after it was reported that data-firm Cambridge Analytica harvested personal information from millions of Facebook users, Carrey tweeted a drawing of Zuckerberg with the thumbs-down sign and the caption, "Who are you sharing your life with? #regulatefacebook."

Carrey has become very active on Twitter posting political artwork, and shows no signs of slowing down, as this is the eighth drawing he's tweeted this month.

More on Jim Carrey:

SEE ALSO: Mark Zuckerberg is being grilled by Congress in his second day of testimony

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: How all-you-can-eat restaurants don't go bankrupt

IPO bankers aren't worried that Spotify's unusual public listing succeeded — but there's a 'much bigger threat' facing their industry (SPOT)

$
0
0

Spotify stock exchange

  • Spotify went public last week using an unorthodox method that attracted a lot of interest for bypassing typical initial-public-offering procedures.
  • Business Insider spoke with three Wall Street executives who oversee equity capital markets operations for major banks about the lasting effects of the so-called direct listing.
  • Their opinions varied, but one takeaway was unanimous: Spotify's novel move doesn't change anything for most companies or the IPO industry at large.

Spotify took its shares public last week using an unorthodox method that garnered a lot of attention.

Spotify's so-called direct listing, which valued the company at $30 billion at the opening trade, attracted so much interest because it bucked the traditional initial-public-offering process in several key ways.

The process ditched traditional IPO features like underwriters, an opening price range, a set supply of shares sold to specific investors, and a lock-up on existing investors.

"They had more column inches written about this IPO than most IPOs," one Wall Street equity capital markets executive told Business Insider. "If that was one of their goals, they achieved that."

But since Spotify took the plunge April 3 on the New York Stock Exchange, the hype and hoopla have faded considerably. The company has traded around $154 a share, down from its opening price of $165.90. And several questions remain unanswered:

  • What did the music-streaming giant's peculiar public debut mean for the companies that would follow?
  • Would startups emulate Spotify's unconventional route?
  • Did the company upend the IPO industry and create an existential crisis for a corner of Wall Street?

We spoke with three senior Wall Street executives who oversee equity capital markets operations for major banks about Spotify's direct listing. Though their opinions varied, one general takeaway was unanimous: While Spotify's move was novel and successful at generating intrigue, it doesn't change anything for most companies or the IPO industry at large.

"My basic view of Spotify's direct listing is that it doesn't tell us much," the head of global capital markets at a top-tier bank told Business Insider.

Why wasn't this a game changer?

The direct listing didn't change the game in part because Spotify is a unique company whose attributes don't translate to many other firms approaching the public markets.

One bank exec who oversees US IPOs said this was "not a replacement for an IPO" since Spotify wasn't raising any money, one of the traditional purposes of an offering — to sell a portion of the company to the public to finance more growth.

"There's a handful of companies that could go this route," this person said. "You have to be huge. You have to have a ubiquitous brand — people who bought were mostly retail investors. Then you have to not want to raise capital."

Another ECM exec echoed that sentiment, saying there was so much going for Spotify "that allowed it to go down this path."

A company whose product is consumed more inconspicuously — a developer of security software, perhaps — "can't do what Spotify has done, because that company has to build up a fan base," the exec added.

And that's part of what IPO bankers do. They take the company on a road show to build up enthusiasm and generate interest among institutional investors.

That didn't happen with Spotify. The company instead held an "investor day" streamed online to anyone who wanted to watch. That's a far more effective route for winning over retail investors than institutional investors — the hedge funds, long-only asset managers, and sovereign wealth funds accustomed to the personal touch and assurances of investment bankers.

It's no surprise then that institutional investors have sat it out with Spotify, according to each of the three ECM heads, opting to let the dust settle and let retail investors wade into the unknown territory before buying shares.

"From the institutional side, they're going to wait and see," one of the ECM execs said.

Those with holdings before the public listing — Tencent, Sony, Tiger Global, and Spotify's founders, Daniel Ek and Martin Lorentzon — remain the largest shareholders, according to regulatory filings. No large institutional investor reported buying a stake after Spotify's debut on the NYSE.

This didn't appear to hurt Spotify much, given its brand cachet among a wide swath of US households, as average Joe retail investors were willing to gobble up enough shares to get the company's liquidity event rolling.

But it traded less intensely than it might have with institutional backing.

Spotify, which has a free float of 104.9 million shares, saw 5.6 million shares trade at the opening price of $165.90, according to Bloomberg data, with 30.5 million shares traded in total on its opening day.

On average, 5.7 million shares have traded each day since then.

By comparison, Dropbox, a company less than half the size of Spotify that has a float of 35.5 million shares, saw its stock trade 56.1 million times during its IPO on March 23, and an average of 10.1 million daily in the ensuing five days.

"It is big enough for liquidity to enter," the head of global capital markets said. "Smaller or less-well-known companies could find this a struggle due to market indifference."

What did Spotify get out of this then?

Spotify CEO Daniel EkIts utility may not transfer to other companies, but the direct listing accomplished plenty for Spotify.

On one hand, it gave employees and early investors a chance to cash out, and it avoided the customary lock-up restrictions that prevent them from selling for several months after the listing.

The company also wound up with a torrent of free press. That prospect may prove tempting to some companies, but news outlets may not approach future direct listings with the same vigor — especially for startups smaller than and not as well-known as Spotify.

It also saved millions in bank fees ... didn't it? That element is not as clear. The global capital markets exec said that "the direct listing didn't save fees."

Spotify still paid its three banks — Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Allen & Company — roughly $35 million in fees.

IPO fees are typically paid out as a percentage of the amount of money raised. Snap paid the 26 banks that worked on its listing $85 million — 2.5% of the $3.4 billion it raised— while Twitter paid 3.25%, just under $60 million, to its seven banks. (Individual shareholders and investors who sell in the IPO bear some of the fees too.)

It's not an apples-to-apples comparison, but it's unclear whether Spotify saved much money for what it got.

The direct listing did solve a thorny capital-structure issue for the firm, the global capital markets exec said. Recode has reported that Spotify issued convertible notes to the investment firms TPG and Dragoneer that entitled the noteholders to more shares of the company the longer it remained private.

Spotify didn't need to raise money, but it did need to go public to satisfy its stakeholders and avoid paying out chunks of equity that diluted its shares.

It's a very specific scenario that's not applicable to every private startup, but the direct listing solved it.

'Spotify is not really relevant'

Yes, Wall Street ECM execs have an interest in Spotify not upending their business and insisting that nothing has changed.

And yes, several giant private companies could feasibly pull off what Spotify did, including the likes of Uber and Airbnb. These are the marquee mega IPOs that bankers typically care about most, though no major bank's IPO business hinges on the fees either could produce.

And the executives who spoke with Business Insider acknowledged that their business faced risks — Spotify just doesn't rank very high in comparison.

The number of companies going public has been steadily declining over the years, and many startups are opting to stay private longer, in part because private capital has become abundant.

Private money going to startups more than four years past their first funding round "has grown by a factor of 20 since 1992," according to an academic paper published last year by the California Institute of Technology and Cornerstone Research. The IPO business, in contrast, hit a 20-year lower in 2016.

Global ECM deal volume totaled $196.2 billion in the first quarter of this year, down 11% from $220.4 billion in the first quarter of last year, according to Dealogic.

In light of these broader trends, Spotify is a fleeting curiosity with little long-term consequence.

"The much bigger threat to equity capital markets revenues is the enormous private pools of capital and lower value attached to market liquidity — fewer companies want to go public; fewer IPOs every year even in good markets," the head of global capital markets said. "Spotify is not really relevant."

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: A Wall Street chief economist explains what could be the saving grace for mega-cap tech companies

Netflix hits back at Cannes by saying it won't screen any movies at the festival (NFLX)

$
0
0

okja

  • Ted Sarandos said in an interview with Variety that no Netflix titles would be screened at this year's Cannes Film Festival.
  • This follows the fest's rule change last year that no movies would be allowed to screen in competition going forward if they were not released theatrically in France.
  • Netflix had two films in competition last year.


Netflix head of content Ted Sarandos is pulling Netflix completely out of the Cannes Film Festival after a long fight with movie traditionalists.

After the streaming giant caused controversy last year, when it had two films in competition at the festival, the most powerful film fest in the world made a rule change that movies without theatrical distribution in France were no longer eligible to play in competition.

Sarandos said on Wednesday, to Variety, that because of the rule change he would not be bringing any titles to Cannes, even to play out of competition.

Emma Thompson Dustin Hoffman Ben Stiller Noah Baumbach Adam Sandler The Meyerowitz Stories Getty"We want our films to be on fair ground with every other filmmaker,” Sarandos told the trade. “There’s a risk in us going in this way and having our films and filmmakers treated disrespectfully at the festival. They’ve set the tone. I don’t think it would be good for us to be there.”

At Cannes last year, Netflix had two titles playing in competition: Bong Joon-ho’s “Okja” and Noah Baumbach’s “The Meyerowitz Stories.” But because of Netflix's model of showing its movies day-and-date (meaning its titles show on its streaming service at the same time they are in theaters — if the titles get a theatrical release at all), theater owners in France were outraged over the prime position the titles received. Like US theaters, movie houses in France are against Netflix's model and want titles to play exclusively in theaters for a certain amount of time before being available to stream. This led to the rule change by Cannes.

However, Sarandos said he's not against Netflix buying one of the films in competition at Cannes this year that is seeking distribution.

Netflix has found success on the festival circuit over the years, specifically at the Sundance Film Festival, where it's premiered movies that are soon available on the site in the weeks after the festival, like "I Don't Feel at Home In This World Anymore" and "A Futile and Stupid Gesture." It's also made big acquisitions at Sundance, like "Mudbound" in 2017 for $12.5 million.

But Netflix, as well as its rival Amazon Studios, scaled back big time at Sundance this year on acquisitions. And this latest move by Sarandos may be a hint that Netflix isn't that interested in what's going on in the South of France either. 

SEE ALSO: The 32 movies coming out this summer you can't miss

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Facebook can still track you even if you delete your account — here's how to stop it

Mark Zuckerberg referenced 'The Social Network' during his testimony — but quickly added that the movie was of 'unclear truth'

$
0
0

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg hearing Congress Senate

  • Mark Zuckerberg mentioned the movie about him, "The Social Network," during his second day of testifying in front of lawmakers on Wednesday.
  • Zuckerberg mentioned the film when asked about "FaceMash" — the prank website he created in college before Facebook.
  • Zuckerberg has criticized the film in the past, so the fact he would mention it at all was unusual. 

 

During Mark Zuckerberg's second day of testifying in front of lawmakers on Wednesday, he referenced the movie based on the founding of Facebook, "The Social Network" — an unexpected move considering Zuckerberg has slammed the movie in the past for alleged inaccuracies.

Zuckerberg, who is testifying on Facebook's handling of personal information and Russian meddling in the 2016 election, didn't mention the 2010 David Fincher-directed film by name.

But when Congressman Billy Long asked Zuckerberg about "FaceMash," the Facebook founder seemed to imply that Long should just watch the movie to answer his own question.

"What was FaceMash and is it still up and running?" Long asked Zuckerberg.

"No, Congressman, FaceMash was a prank website that I launched in college in my dorm room before I started Facebook," Zuckerberg responded.

He went on to mention the film: "There was a movie about this, or it said it was about this."

But then he paused, as if his first instinct was to mention "The Social Network," but then he realized he wasn't a fan.

"It was of unclear truth," he said of the movie.

Zuckerberg and Long then got into a back-and-forth about whether FaceMash at all led to the development of Facebook.

The entire back-and-forth is odd, but even stranger is that Zuckerberg even acknowledged the film. He rarely speaks of it, and has been known to be critical of how it portrays him and the creation of Facebook.

In a 2014 public Q&A session, Zuckerberg said, "I think the reality is that writing code and then building a product and building a company is not a glamorous enough thing to make a movie about, so you can imagine that a lot of this stuff they had to embellish or make up."

He also said that the movie, "Just kind of made up a bunch of stuff that I found kind of hurtful."

SEE ALSO: Jim Carrey continues to attack Mark Zuckerberg with a drawing of him as an alien who's come to destroy Earth

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: How all-you-can-eat restaurants don't go bankrupt

'Rampage' shows why The Rock is a global action star, but it's a dumb movie full of cliches

$
0
0

Rampage 3 Warner Bros

  • "Rampage" is not good, but it shows why Dwayne Johnson is a global action star.
  • Outside of some amazing CGI, he's the only reason to go and see this movie.


In many ways the adaptation of the video game “Rampage” is the perfect example of a Hollywood studio trying too hard to make a tentpole movie.

Here's the playbook: Use a game that’s literally just about giant radioactive monsters destroying high-rise buildings and beef it up with CGI, sprinkle in a bare-bones plot to break up the action, and get a movie star who can get audiences worldwide to the theaters.

It’s worked before, and with Dwayne Johnson on the poster, Warner Bros. hopes it can work again. But I think it’s my duty to tell you that The Rock’s latest movie is really, really dumb.

Rampage Warner BrosJohnson plays Davis Okoye, a former anti-poacher who is now the primatologist at the San Diego Wildlife Sanctuary. He loves working with apes — in fact, he prefers spending time with them to most humans — but there’s one in particular he has the closest bond with. "George" is a rare albino Silverback gorilla that Okoye rescued as a baby when poachers killed his family. Okoye and George communicate through sign language, and have a good time busting each other’s chops. Okoye has even taught George how to give the finger.

But their wonderful bond is tested when George is infected by a mysterious chemical that mutates him into a raging beast and makes him grow to an enormous size. And George isn’t the only one. The same thing happened to a wolf in Wyoming and a crocodile in Florida. Turns out, they were all infected with a genetic editing substance created by the company CRISPR that crash landed on Earth (the chemicals were being tested in a space station … it’s a long story).

Okoye teams with Dr. Kate Caldwell (Naomie Harris) to try to figure out what has happened to George and prevent him (as well as the wolf and croc) from causing damage throughout the country.

Brad Peyton, known best for directing Johnson’s previous box office hit disaster movie (“San Andreas”), is at the helm and that should tell you what you’re getting yourself into. Like that movie, “Rampage” is a CGI wonder with little plot and a whole lot of awful cliches and bad dialogue.

Rampage 2 Warner BrosUnfortunately, it’s the great Jeffrey Dean Morgan who is responsible for a majority of the latter. Playing Agent Russell (from the OGA or “Other Government Agency”), he can’t stop reminding us that he’s just a good ol’ cowboy — and just in case you forget that little fact, he’s sporting a silver belt buckle and a gun with a pearl handle. And we have to suffer through this talented actor having to say lines like, “Us ass----s have to stick together” and, “Whelp, you saved the world!”

But what sticks out for me as the worst part of the movie is a dramatic moment that becomes a total dud. It's nothing major to the story, but just shows how lazy it is. Okoye is shot by the evil CRISPR owner (played by Malin Akerman), leaving Dr. Caldwell all alone trying to stop the onslaught of monsters. But suddenly Okoye reappears, and when asked how he’s still alive he literally says, “I guess it didn’t hit any major arteries.” And that's it! It's never addressed again, he goes on like he’s never been shot in the gut.

All that said, Dwayne Johnson proves why he’s making millions of dollars a movie.

Around all this awfulness — Oh, and Joe Manganiello is only in the movie for about five minutes — Johnson can still make you enjoy what you’re experiencing. He’s charismatic, funny, and gives a heartfelt performance across a CGI gorilla. Seriously, the best parts of this movie are when Okoye and George are on screen together. That’s a testament to the CGI, which is really top notch.

So, the movie may be mindless, but if you’re a fan of The Rock, “Rampage” is tolerable.

SEE ALSO: The director of HBO's Andre the Giant documentary explains how he debunked some major myths and got Vince McMahon to cry

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why Russia is so involved in the Syrian Civil War

The eSports competitive video gaming market continues to grow revenues & attract investors

$
0
0

eSports Advertising and Sponsorships

This is a preview of a research report from BI Intelligence, Business Insider's premium research service. To learn more about BI Intelligence, click here.

What is eSports? History & Rise of Video Game Tournaments

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

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

But today, as the history of eSports continue to unfold, media giants such as ESPN and Turner are broadcasting eSports tournaments and competitions. And in 2014, Amazon acquired Twitch, the live streaming video platform that has been and continues to be the leader in online gaming broadcasts. And YouTube also wanted to jump on the live streaming gaming community with the creation of YouTube Gaming.

eSports Market Growth Booming

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

What started as friends gathering in each other's homes to host LAN parties and play into the night has become an official network of pro gaming tournaments and leagues with legitimate teams, some of which are even sponsored and have international reach. Organizations such as Denial, AHQ, and MLG have multiple eSports leagues.

And to really understand the scope of all this, consider that the prize pool for the latest Dota 2 tournament was more than $20 million.

Websites even exist for eSports live scores to let people track the competitions in real time if they are unable to watch. There are even fantasy eSports leagues similar to fantasy football, along with the large and growing scene of eSports betting and gambling.

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

eSports Industry Analysis - The Future of the Competitive Gaming Market

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

And industry statistics are already backing this valuation and demonstrating the potential for massive earnings. To illustrate the market value, market growth, and potential earnings for eSports, consider Swedish media company Modern Times Group's $87 million acquisition of Turtle Entertainment, the holding company for ESL. YouTube has made its biggest eSports investment to date by signing a multiyear broadcasting deal with Faceit to stream the latter's Esports Championship Series. And the NBA will launch its own eSports league in 2018.

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

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

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

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

Here are some eSports industry facts and statistics from the report:

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

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

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

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

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

Join the conversation about this story »


The new 'God of War' on PS4 is the first must-play game of 2018

$
0
0

In 2017, the game to play was "The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild" — a sweeping epic that set a standard for the entire year.

In 2018, that game is the new "God of War" — an incredible, similarly epic journey that I just spent two weeks playing more or less non-stop. 

God of War (2018)

It's hard to overstate how impressive "God of War" is. It is the high water mark of 2018 thus far — the game by which all others will be measured. Whether you've played games in the series before or not is unimportant. Even if you've outright disliked previous "God of War" games, there's something here for you. 

Simply put: If you own a PlayStation 4 (and over 70 million of you do!), "God of War" is a must-own, must-play game. 

A quick briefer on the "God of War" series:

The "God of War" series goes way back to the PlayStation 2.

Players controlled Kratos, the God of War himself, as he struggled with the Greek pantheon. His struggle was often told through fighting off hordes of monsters (based in Greek mythology), often in small arenas — you enter an area, the exits are sealed, and you must fight your way through groups of enemies until they're all dead and you can progress.

The games focused on stylish, third-person, action-adventure gameplay. There was some light puzzle solving, and the occasional cutscene involving Kratos getting super mad at how the Gods had played him once again, and some pretty massive boss fights where you literally climbed up giants (and sometimes became giant yourself). It was fun, if a bit overdramatic and silly at times.

The last game in the previous series was "God of War: Ascension" back in 2013 on the PlayStation 3. 



The new game — simply named "God of War," like the original — is a reboot.

On paper, the "God of War" reboot is very similar to the original series: It's a third-person, action-adventure game that's focused on stylish combat. 

But in reality, there are some huge changes right off the bat. For one, Kratos now has a son that he's taking care of (seen above). His name is Atreus (uh-tray-us), and he's with you for the entire journey. 

And the journey, rather than a tale of revenge, is one of grief: Kratos' wife / Atreus' mother has died, and her last request was to have her ashes released at the tallest peak in the land. It's a subtle re-focus that, unbelievably, turns Kratos into a complex, interesting character for the first time ever.

How he handles grieving while teaching his son valuable lessons — all while dealing with the tremendous psychological baggage from his previous life as a Greek god — is what elevates "God of War" from an impressive, gorgeous action game to a memorable, meaningful game. All other games could take a page (or fifty) from the subtlety of dialog and voice acting and storytelling in the new "God of War."

Kratos conveys more emotion with the occasional gruff affirmation than most game characters do with hours of exposition.



The first thing I was struck by is how incredibly gorgeous it is. Outside of racing games, "God of War" is likely the best looking game on the PlayStation 4.

Every image in this review was captured on my personal PlayStation 4 Pro from a retail version of "God of War."

It really looks this good:

God of War (2018)

Between the level of detail in everything, the incredibly impressive shadow work, and the fact that the game runs smoothly 99% of the time, "God of War" is a technical triumph. 

Games rarely look this good, and they rarely run as smoothly as "God of War" does when they are this attractive. It's clear that Sony is pushing the PlayStation 4 to its limits with "God of War" — my PlayStation 4 Pro's fans were screaming the entire time I played the game. 

Good news: It was worth it, as there are countless moments while playing "God of War" where I stopped to take in the incredible world that Sony's Santa Monica Studio built. 



See the rest of the story at Business Insider

10 of the best podcasts that will make you smarter about politics

$
0
0

Mike Flynn Jared Kushner Ivanka Trump Steve Bannon Reince Priebus

With the simplicity and convenience of keeping up to date on the biggest stories in the world through two earbuds, podcasts are becoming an increasingly popular medium for people to get their news.

Given the high interest level of the public into knowing everything that is going on with President Donald Trump's administration, news organizations that cover politics have plunged head-first into the audio space.

Here are 10 must-listen political podcasts to add to your list:

SEE ALSO: 13 documentaries on Netflix that will make you smarter about politics

DON'T MISS: 4 movies on Netflix that will help you understand American politics

"The Daily"

The political podcast setting the pace these days is "The Daily" from The New York Times.

After hosting its campaign podcast "The Run-Up" before the 2016 presidential election, political reporter-turned-audio man Michael Barbaro is the voice and managing editor behind the premier podcast.

For about 20 minutes every weekday, Barbaro dives deep into one or two stories and interviews Times reporters about the news stories making headlines around the world. This is the podcast to subscribe to if you're looking for a deep-dive on the biggest story of the day.



"Up First"

"The Daily" is not the only early morning podcast making waves; NPR's "Up First" has claimed its place in the ears of morning commuters and others going about their day.

Dubbed as "the news you need to start your day", "Up First" covers the biggest stories in politics and news for about 10 minutes every morning.

Hosted by NPR's "Morning Edition" team of Rachel Martin, David Greene, and Steve Inskeep, "Up First" brings on NPR reporters to discuss three or four of the biggest stories of the day.

While "The Daily" looks to do a deep-dive on one or two stories in longer segments, "Up First" is perfect for the individual looking to know several of the biggest news stories of the day in a shorter time frame.



"Political Gabfest"

Arguably the most popular political podcast is the most informal one: Slate's "Political Gabfest."

Hosted by Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz, iTunes listeners once voted it "Favorite Political Podcast". The trio, which has been together on the podcast since 2005, discusses the biggest political stories and news on a weekly basis for about an hour in a way that other podcasts do not.

Much of the conversation is reportedly off the cuff and unscripted, thus showing the chemistry that the three have with each other. This is the podcast for people looking for good political discussions in a light-hearted, free-flowing manner.



See the rest of the story at Business Insider

45 of the worst movie sequels of all time, ranked by how awful they were

$
0
0

Evan almighty

Hollywood has long been in the business of pursuing sequels to successful movies, and the results have often been disastrous in the eyes of film critics. 

From bad sequels to classic movies like "Jaws" and "Caddyshack," to some even more terrible follow-ups to films that were already panned, the sequels on this list are all historically awful.

We compiled this list by referencing an extensive, crowd-sourced Ranker community list of the all-time "worst sequels." We then chose the worst films and ranked them by their critical scores on the reviews aggregator Rotten Tomatoes (we used audience scores to break any ties).

Here are the 45 worst movie sequels of all time, ranked from bad to worst, according to critics:

SEE ALSO: The 44 worst movies made by iconic directors — from Spielberg to Scorsese

45. "Home Alone 3" (1997)

Critic score: 30%

Audience score: 27%

Sequel to: "Home Alone" (1990)

What critics said: "Twice the bad guys, half the laughs." — USA Today



44. "Dumb and Dumber To" (2014)

Critic score: 29%

Audience score: 35%

Sequel to: "Dumb and Dumber" (1994)

What critics said: "I wish I could put as little thought into writing about 'Dumb and Dumber To' as the Farrelly brothers did in making it." — Time



43. "The Final Destination" (2009)

Critic score: 28%

Audience score: 35%

Sequel to: "Final Destination" (2000)

What critics said: "Since not even 3-D can put your eyes out, our only hope is that this time, the title is a promise and not a tease." — The New York Times



See the rest of the story at Business Insider

What's included in ESPN's new streaming service ESPN+, which is out now

$
0
0

Justin verlander

ESPN released its first direct-to-consumer subscription streaming service, ESPN+, on Thursday.

The service is now available for $4.99 per month or an annual fee of $49.99.

ESPN+ has been conceived as an add-on to ESPN's current cable coverage, so its service lacks access to any of the content on ESPN's core channels, including ESPN, ESPN 2, and ESPN Classic.

ESPN said in a release that ESPN+ includes "thousands" of live games from a wide variety of sports, as well as a library of original shows, films, and other on-demand content. The service also features limited ads on its app, with the exception of traditional ad breaks on live sports broadcasts. 

ESPN+ is available now through an update to the ESPN app, which the company's president James Pitaro has described as "completely re-imagined" and "increasingly personalized."

As part of Pitaro's emphasis on original content, the service also launched with a new "30 for 30" documentary, "The Last Days of Knight," about the career of the controversial Indiana men's college basketball coach Bob Knight.

Here's a rundown of all the live sporting events that ESPN+ includes: 

SEE ALSO: ESPN is making more money than ever off of subscribers despite its dwindling subscriber base

MLB — "More than 180 games"

ESPN said the service will feature an MLB game "each day, seven days per week" throughout the season, including every MLB team. 



NHL — "More than 180 games"

ESPN said the service will include "a daily NHL game" starting with the 2018-2019 NHL season.

 



Boxing — "Year-round schedule"

ESPN+ will feature "exclusive main event fights," including the match between Amir Khan vs. Phil Lo Greco on April 21, as well as "an unmatched library of legendary fights." 



See the rest of the story at Business Insider

'The Expanse' is a hit sci-fi TV show that critics say is the best since 'Battlestar Galactica'

$
0
0

The Expanse

  • SyFy's "The Expanse" is one of the best sci-fi shows on TV.
  • It just premiered its third season and critics love it.
  • The show is set 200 years in the future, when the entire Solar System has been colonized, and it's on the brink of war. 

Three seasons in, SyFy's "The Expanse" is finally getting the recognition it deserves as one of the best sci-fi shows on TV. And thankfully, you can catch up with the first two seasons on Amazon Prime. 

The show, based on the series of novels by Daniel Abraham and Ty Franck (pen name James S. A. Corey), is set 200 years in the future when humanity has colonized the Solar System. But the Solar System is divided and on the brink of war.  It deals with the rocky relationship between Earth, Mars, and the Outer Planets Alliance (OPA). The OPA fights for the interests of inhabitants of the Asteroid Belt between Mars and Jupiter. The series stars Thomas Jane, Steven Strait and Shohreh Aghdashloo.

The show was created by Mark Fergus and Hawk Ostby, whose writing credits include Alfonso Cuarón's "Children of Men" (2006) and "Iron Man" (2006). 

Sounds cool, right? But the show has mostly lived under the radar until now. It premiered on demand in November 2015, and made its live debut in December 2015 on SyFy. The first season received mostly good reviews from critics with a 76% Rotten Tomatoes score, but it didn't generate much buzz. However, the second season has a 95% critic rating on Rotten Tomatoes and was when the show started to pick up steam. The third season premiered on Wednesday night to glowing reviews from critics. 

During season two, The Stranger called "The Expanse" the best sci-fi show since "Battlestar Galactica," and put the show in its top 20 best TV of 2017. Ahead of the season three premiere, Miles Surrey of The Ringer wrote, "The show has quickly become one of the most compelling small-screen sci-fi shows in the past decade." 

Watch the trailer for season three of "The Expanse" below:

SEE ALSO: If you miss 'Game of Thrones,' you should watch AMC's 'The Terror' — a historical horror series critics are calling a '10-episode nightmare'

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: What living on Earth would be like without the moon

Viewing all 103365 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images