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

The best TV show of 2018 on each network so far — from FX to Netflix to HBO

0
0

atlanta

The first half of 2018 has already seen a number of innovative new shows and stellar follow-up seasons to established critical favorites. 

From AMC's freshman series "The Terror," to solid sophomore outings from Hulu's "The Handmaid's Tale" and FX's "Atlanta," this year in TV has gotten off to an impressive start.  

To figure out which shows that have aired this year are worth watching across all outlets, we turned to the reviews aggregator Rotten Tomatoes to select the most critically acclaimed scripted show that each network and service has aired episodes of in 2018.

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

 Here is the best TV show of 2018 on each network so far, according to critics:

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

ABC: "How to Get Away With Murder" (Season 4)

Critic score: 100%

Audience score: 75%

Summary: "Murder, deception, fear and guilt are the ties that bind Middleton University Professor Annalise Keating (Viola Davis) to her long-time associates Frank Delfino, Bonnie Winterbottom and her students. But as the group struggles to move on with their lives and focus on their clients, their past continues to haunt them, as Annalise and her inner circle struggle to keep their secrets from getting exposed."



Amazon: "Bosch" (Season 4)

Critic score: 100%

Audience score: 100%

Summary: "When an attorney is murdered on the eve of his civil rights trial against the LAPD, homicide Det. Harry Bosch is assigned to lead a Task Force to solve the crime before the city erupts in a riot."



AMC: "The Terror" (Season 1)

Critic score: 92%

Audience score: 89%

Summary: "Inspired by a true story, 'The Terror' centers on the British Royal Navy’s perilous voyage into unchartered territory as the crew attempts to discover the Northwest Passage. Faced with treacherous conditions, limited resources, dwindling hope and fear of the unknown, the crew is pushed to the brink of extinction."



See the rest of the story at Business Insider

The movies you shouldn't miss this summer — from 'Deadpool 2' to the new 'Mission: Impossible'

0
0

incredibles 2

We have hit the time of year when multiplexes are filled with Hollywood's big blockbusters. 

The summer movie season kicked off early this year with the record-breaking opening of "Avengers: Infinity War" in late April. And going forward it will be a constant barrage of hit movies.

From "Deadpool 2" to "Solo: A Star Wars Story" to "Incredibles 2" to "Mission: Impossible - Fallout," there's going to be a lot to take in.

With so much coming at you, we've come up with a list of 32 movies we think you should go out and see this summer:

SEE ALSO: 12 of the worst TV reboots of all time, ranked from bad to unbearable

IN THEATERS - “Avengers: Infinity War”

You might have heard about this little movie. It has a few superheroes in it and they finally battle a big purple guy. Yes, it’s going to make a couple of dollars at the movie theaters. Get ready for the most ambitious crossover event in history.



IN THEATERS - “Overboard”

The classic Goldie Hawn/Kurt Russell 1987 romantic comedy gets a gender swap for its reboot, as Anna Faris plays the overworked employee of a spoiled Mexican playboy (Eugenio Derbez) who gets some payback when he gets amnesia after falling off his yacht.



IN THEATERS - “Tully”

Jason Reitman reteams with "Young Adult" screenwriter Diablo Cody (“Juno”) and star Charlize Theron for his latest movie about a mother (Theron) who forms a unique bond with her nanny (played by Mackenzie Davis).



See the rest of the story at Business Insider

The Nintendo Switch online service costs $20/year, granting access to classic games and long-awaited new features (NTDOY)

0
0

Nintendo Switch (online)

  • The Nintendo Switch Online service will launch in September and cost $20/year. You'll need it to play certain games online. 
  • But you'll also get some great benefits: At launch, Nintendo Switch Online will give access to a library of 20 classic NES games, upgraded with online play. 
  • You'll also get cloud saves, so you can backup and restore your saved games. 
  • It's an important step towards bolstering the Nintendo Switch's online features, which lag the Xbox One and PlayStation 4.

For years, Nintendo fans have fantasized about a paid online service that would grant access to Nintendo's rich, decades-long library of classic games. For years, Nintendo has demurred. 

In 2018, that fantasy is finally becoming a reality, through the Nintendo Switch Online service.

Nintendo's new service costs $20 per year ($4/month, $8/three months), and is expected to launch this September. With that subscription price, you'll get access to a library of classic games, the ability to play various Nintendo Switch games online, cloud saves for some games, and voice chat through the Nintendo Switch online smartphone app.

When the service arrives later this year, it'll only be available on the Nintendo Switch — Nintendo's newest game console, which operates as a portable handheld and a home console.

Nintendo Switch

So, what's in the classic game library? "20 games, with more added on a regular basis," Nintendo said in a press release on Tuesday morning. 

Nintendo also announced the first 10: "Super Mario Bros. 3," "Dr. Mario," "Balloon Fight," "Donkey Kong," "Ice Climber," "The Legend of Zelda," "Mario Bros.," "Soccer," "Super Mario Bros." and "Tennis." 

Even better: Every classic NES game on the Switch will have new online functionality. In some games, you can play co-op online with friends or go head to head, and in all games you can watch a friend play remotely. Friends can even "share" the controller online by handing off control of a game over the internet.the legend of zelda

The classic games library only includes Nintendo Entertainment System games, at least for now — it's specifically referred to as a collection. Nintendo even gave the classic game library its own name: "NES – Nintendo Switch Online, a compilation of classic NES games."

Perhaps a "SNES — Nintendo Switch Online" library will be added later? Or something similar for Nintendo 64, GameCube, or other Nintendo console games? Perhaps — Nintendo isn't saying. The Japanese game company told Kotaku last year, "Super NES games continue to be under consideration, but we have nothing further to announce at this time."

But the classic game library isn't Nintendo Switch Online's primary component — the service is intended as a paid subscription for access to online gameplay. 

Games like "Mario Kart 8 Deluxe" and "Splatoon 2" rely on an online infrastructure for multiplayer, which Nintendo has yet to provide for its Switch console. Both games can be played online, but the Switch console itself lacks system-wide functionality for online interaction — stuff like joining an online party, and voice chat, barely exist on the Switch. 

Online services are the crucial flaw of the Nintendo Switch.

Nintendo Switch

It lacks basic functionality that Microsoft and Sony had in their respective consoles over a decade ago. Beyond missing stuff like voice chat and parties, the Switch also doesn't have access to services like Netflix, YouTube, and Amazon. The Nintendo Switch app for iPhone and Android enables voice chat for select games, like "Splatoon 2," but it's not a feature that's built into the system. 

It looks like Nintendo intends to remedy that situation with Nintendo Switch Online. More than just offering multiplayer and a classic game library, Nintendo Switch Online promises cloud saves — the ability to upload your save data to Nintendo's servers, then easily re-download it. As Nintendo puts it, "This is great for people who want to retrieve their data if they lose, break or purchase an additional Nintendo Switch system."

One thing Nintendo didn't mention is the much requested Virtual Console service, which was a digital storefront for classic games on previous Nintendo consoles. 

Super Mario 64 box cover

Though the Nintendo Switch launched with a digital storefront (the "eShop"), there's no way to buy classic games through Nintendo's long-running Virtual Console service. That's an especially big shame on the Switch — a console more-than-capable of running classic games, and one you can bring with you anywhere.

Nintendo hasn't offered details on the whereabouts of the Virtual Console service, but told Kotaku on Tuesday morning, "There are currently no plans to bring classic games together under the Virtual Console banner as has been done on other Nintendo systems." That doesn't mean it's never going to happen, but you probably shouldn't hold your breath in anticipation either.

SEE ALSO: The Nintendo Switch is the hottest game system right now — here are its 18 best games

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Jeff Bezos on breaking up and regulating Amazon

'Killing Eve' is a smart and seductive spy thriller that has a 100% score on Rotten Tomatoes

0
0

killing eve

  • BBC America's "Killing Eve" is one of the best new shows of 2018.
  • It's a spy thriller with two female leads, and it does even more to make a truly new take on the overdone genre. 
  • The show's star, Sandra Oh from "Grey's Anatomy," has praised the show for giving her a leading role after decades of playing minor roles on shows where white women are the leads. 

BBC America's female-driven spy thriller "Killing Eve" is one of the best new shows of 2018.

Starring Sandra Oh from ABC's "Grey's Anatomy" (she left the show in 2014), and English actress Jodie Comer, the series follows two women who should be enemies, but instead are fascinated with each other. Oh plays Eve, a MI5 office employee who dreams of being a spy. Eve is investigating Villanelle (Comer), a sociopathic assassin. The show, which premiered in early April, was created by Phoebe Waller-Bridge of Amazon's critically acclaimed series "Fleabag." The series is adapted from the "Villanelle" novels by Luke Jennings. 

Critics love the show for its unique take on a spy thriller, which has been done time and time again without adding anything new. It's surprising, fun, seductive, and is even more thrilling because of the intoxicating performances from its female leads. 

"'Killing Eve' is a helluva good time," wrote Ben Travers for IndieWire. "It's already more interesting than many of its genre peers, and the first season illustrates a self-awareness essential for its survival. The show may follow a formula, but there's nothing routine about it."

Oh herself has praised the show for giving her the role of a lifetime. In an interview with Vulture, Oh said that when she was reading the script for "Killing Eve," she didn't realize she was being offered the leading role, after decades of being cast as the best friend to lead characters, usually played by white women. 

"In that moment, " Oh told Vulture, "I did not assume the offer was for Eve. I think about that moment a lot. Of just going, how deep have I internalized this? [So] many years of being seen [a certain way], it deeply, deeply, deeply affects us. It’s like, how does racism define your work? Oh my goodness, I didn’t even assume when being offered something that I would be one of the central storytellers. Why? And this is me talking, right? After being told to see things a certain way for decades, you realize, 'Oh my god! They brainwashed me!' I was brainwashed! So that was a revelation to me."

Before season one premiered, "Killing Eve" was renewed for a second season.

It airs Sunday nights on BBC America.

SEE ALSO: The 16 best TV shows of 2018 so far

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: What will happen when Earth's north and south poles flip

In a final duel, Thanos killed me in Fortnite's new game mode inspired by 'Avengers: Infinity War' — and I loved it

0
0

fortnite avengers infinity war infinity gauntlet

There I was, watching from my hiding place in a massive crater, staring at my destiny.

It was just me, a casual Fortnite player, and him, the mad titan Thanos.

You may have heard of Thanos — he's the big bad in Marvel Studios' new film "Avengers Infinity War," which just broke a whole mess of box office records. Starting Tuesday, though, he's also a playable character in a new limited-time game mode for Fortnite Battle Royale, the hottest game in the world right now.

You can play as Thanos in the special new game mode called "Infinity Gauntlet Limited Time Mashup," which is the traditional Battle Royale mode in Fortnite, but with a twist: The Infinity Gauntlet will drop onto the island once everyone has landed, and if you find it, you'll turn into Thanos himself, and wield all his powers.

Here's what it's like to play the limited-time "Infinity Gauntlet" mode in Fortnite:

Thanos has three main powers:

- You can punch, which does major damage to players and buildings alike.

- You can shoot a purple power beam from your glove that incinerates foes.

- You can leap high into the air and slam your first into the ground, which destroys anything in its (relatively small) blast radius.

You'll also have way more health and shields than a normal player. Your shields recover when you kill an enemy player; there's no way for Thanos to restore his health.



I played a couple of quick games on Tuesday morning. Thanos made an appearance in both of them.

I died to the storm in the first game, not realizing how quickly it moves in this new mode, and how much faster it'll kill you than in the regular game.

Before I got to the safe zone, though, I saw someone had activated the Infinity Gauntlet and started wiping out other players (as seen above).

In my second game, I knocked off a couple of opponents early in the match, stayed out of the storm, and stayed safe as Thanos ripped my opponents to shreds from a distance. There's one bit of good news: Once the Gauntlet is claimed, Thanos will always appear on your map, so you'll know where you can (or can't) hide. 



I didn't actually see Thanos with my own eyes until the very end of my second match, when he jumped into the massive crater where I was hiding — the area known as Dusty Divot — and pulverized the third-place player nearby.

As Thanos recovered his health, I took my shot: I threw a Port-A-Fort grenade at him, which created a fort around him. He burst out of it, looking for me.



See the rest of the story at Business Insider

Daniel Craig is getting paid $25 million for his next 'Bond' movie, after once saying he'd rather slit his wrists than return

0
0

daniel-craig

  • Daniel Craig is expected to make $25 million for his return to the role of James Bond in the upcoming "Bond 25" film, Variety reports.
  • Craig confirmed in August last year that he had signed on for his fifth Bond film, after saying in a 2015 interview, prior to the release of "Spectre," that he would rather "slit my wrists" than return to the series.
  • "Bond 25" is set for release on November 8, 2019.

Daniel Craig will receive a huge payday for his fifth film appearance as James Bond, according to Variety.

The outlet reports that Craig is set to rake in $25 million for the untitled "Bond 25" feature, which is slated for release on November 8, 2019.

Craig confirmed in an August 2017 interview with Stephen Colbert's "Late Show" that he would return to the franchise for a fifth film. 

The announcement took some fans by surprise, as Craig voiced his displeasure with the series prior to the release of his fourth Bond movie, "Spectre," in 2015. At the time, Craig told Britain's "Time Out" in an interview that he would "rather break this glass and slit my wrists" than return to the franchise. 

But a $25 million payday for one film was apparently enough to lure the actor back into the fold. 

Radar Online reported in August that Sony offered Craig $150 million to star in two more Bond films, but outlets like Vanity Fair quickly threw cold water on that figure. Craig has not confirmed that he'll return for a sixth film.

SEE ALSO: The 14 movies that made $1 billion at the box office the fastest

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: What will probably happen with the North and South Korean peace treaty

All your favorite Netflix original shows that have been renewed for another season

0
0

black mirror

Netflix has begun to cancel shows, but that doesn't mean it's getting rid of your favorites.

40 Netflix original series will be returning with new seasons in the near future.

Only a handful of the series have official release dates, including the upcoming premieres of "Arrested Development" and "GLOW."

This week, the streaming service announced the renewal of the horror-comedy "Santa Clarita Diet," starring Drew Barrymore.

Other hit Netflix shows that have been renewed by the streaming service, like "Stranger Things" and "Black Mirror," are either in production or awaiting release.

For this list, we have included only renewed Netflix series that are yet to air, and we've included official release dates if applicable. We've excluded children's shows and reality series.

Here are the 40 Netflix original series that are coming back for another season:

SEE ALSO: All 65 of Netflix's notable original shows, ranked from worst to best

"Arrested Development" (Season 5) — Premieres May 29

Date renewed: May 17, 2017



"Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt" (Season 4) — Premieres May 30



"Marvel's Luke Cage" (Season 2) — Premieres June 22



See the rest of the story at Business Insider

MoviePass owner says it's figured out how to cut losses by more than 35% (HMNY)

0
0

moviepass business insider

  • On Tuesday, MoviePass parent company Helios and Matheson Analytics filed an 8-K to the SEC stating it had approximately $43.4 million in the bank.
  • It also reported that after a few tweaks to MoviePass, it reduced its cash deficit during the first week of May by more than 35%.


You might not like that MoviePass will no longer let you use its service to watch the same movie multiple times, but the measure might help the company stay in business.

On Tuesday, MoviePass' parent company, Helios and Matheson Analytics (HMNY), filed a 8-K to the SEC about its current financial situation.

The company said that, as of April 30, it had approximately $43.4 million in the bank and that its average cash deficit (the amount of money it had been losing) was approximately $21.7 million per month since September 2017.

However, the company also noted that a few changes to MoviePass’ tech and terms of service could help reduce its “monthly cash deficit significantly.”

Helios and Matheson wrote that, in late April, MoviePass enhanced its technology to prevent subscribers from sharing accounts with non-subscribers, and stopped allowing subscribers to see a movie title more than once while using the service. The company said it believed these actions led to a reduction in its cash deficit during the first week of May by "more than 35%."

This is incrementally positive news for investors, many of whom had been wary of the company after, in April, its independent auditor raised “substantial doubt” about its ability to stay in business, and the company sold more shares to help offset its losses.

"MoviePass currently spends more to retain a subscriber than the revenue derived from that subscriber," Helios and Matheson wrote in its annual report in April. Controlling costs should help that, but will it be enough to sustain the business in the long run?

The update on its cash and deposits, and losses, seems to have scared investors, and the stock plunged over 30% during trading Tuesday.

Have a tip about MoviePass or anything else? Email jguerrasio@businessinsider.com.

SEE ALSO: The best TV shows of 2018 on each network so far — from FX to Netflix to HBO

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why you should never release your pet goldfish into the wild


Meet Grimes, the Canadian pop star who streams video games and is dating Elon Musk (TSLA)

0
0

elon musk grimes met gala 2018

At Monday's Met Gala, several freshly minted celebrity couples made their debut. But perhaps the most surprising new pairing of the evening: the billionaire tech exec Elon Musk and the Canadian musician and producer Grimes.

While Musk has been known to date successful and high-profile women, the two made a seemingly unlikely pairing. Shortly before they walked the red carpet together, Page Six announced their relationship and explained how they met — over Twitter, thanks to a shared sense of humor and a fascination with artificial intelligence.

For those who may be wondering who Grimes is, here's what you need to know about the Canadian pop star.

SEE ALSO: How to dress like a tech billionaire for $200 or less

Grimes, whose real name is Claire Boucher, grew up in Vancouver, British Columbia. She attended a school that specialized in creative arts, but didn't focus on music until she started attending McGill University in Montreal.

Source: The Guardian, The Fader



A friend coerced Boucher into singing backing vocals for his band, and she found it incredibly easy to hit all the right notes. She had a friend show her how to use Garageband and started recording music herself.

Source: The Guardian



In 2010, Boucher released her debut, a cassette-only album called "Geidi Primes." She released her second album, "Halfaxa," later that year and subsequently went on tour with Swedish singer Lykke Li. Eventually, she dropped out of McGill to focus on music.

Source: The Guardian, The Fader



See the rest of the story at Business Insider

Vin Diesel made $20 million for 'The Fate of the Furious'

0
0

vin diesel fast and furious

  • "Fast and Furious" franchise star Vin Diesel made $20 million for last year's eighth installment, "The Fate of the Furious," Variety reports.
  • Diesel had a producer credit on the movie and raked in a performance bonus for the movie's box-office success.

 

The "Fast and Furious" franchise has come a long way since the street-racing premise of its first film in 2001, and star Vin Diesel's salary reflects that.

Variety reported the salaries for some of Hollywood's biggest stars Tuesday, including Diesel, who made $20 million for his role in last year's eighth "Fast and Furious" movie, "The Fate of the Furious."

As one of its original and biggest stars, Diesel's pay has increased along with the growing success of the franchise, which has made over $5 billion across its eight movies worldwide.

He also served as a producer on "The Fate of the Furious" (along with every movie since 2009's fourth installment, "Fast and Furious"). He received a performance bonus, too (the movie made $1.2 billion worldwide).

Diesel's efforts haven't been drama-free, though. In 2016, franchise co-star Dwayne Johnson posted a message to Facebook on the last week of filming "The Fate of the Furious" calling out his male co-stars for being unprofessional. It was later revealed that Johnson was referring to Diesel, and the two haven't exactly gotten over their beef — Johnson recently implied that he still has ill-will toward Diesel.

The ninth "Fast and Furious" movie will be released in April 2020, after being pushed back a year from its original release date in 2019. (It's unknown whether Johnson will be involved in the movie.)

The next film in the franchise will be a spin-off starring Johnson and Jason Statham called "Hobbs and Shaw" in 2019.

More on "Fast and Furious":

SEE ALSO: The movies you shouldn't miss this summer — from 'Deadpool 2' to the new 'Mission: Impossible'

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: What will happen when Earth's north and south poles flip

From Rihanna's diamond dress to Blake Lively's $2 million jewelry, the Met Gala is one of the most expensive displays of fashion year after year

0
0

rihanna metgala2018

  • The Met Gala 2018 theme was "Heavenly Bodies: Fashion and the Catholic Imagination."
  • It reportedly costs $30,000 for a ticket to attend the Met Gala.
  • However, that's just the beginning of all the costs associated with the $3.5 million event.

The first Monday in May hosts the party of the year in the fashion world.

Dubbed the Oscars of the East, the annual Met Gala was held on May 7, themed "Heavenly Bodies: Fashion and the Catholic Imagination" to celebrate the Metropolitan Museum of Art's newest exhibition at the Costume Institute.

With 180 pieces on display, featuring high-end, expensive designers from Versace and Valentino to Dolce & Gabbana and Chanel, the exhibition focuses on the "dialogue between fashion and the masterworks of religious art."

Helmed by Vogue's Anna Wintour (and co-chaired this year by Rihanna, Donatella Versace, and Amal Clooney), the Met Gala is known for its best-dressed and worst-dressed celebrities, socialites, and businesspeople who walk the red carpet in their interpretation of the theme.

Anyone who is anyone is there, at least according to Wintour's handpicked and closely scrutinized guest list

And this year's guests didn't disappoint, from Rihanna's pope-inspired ensemble dripping in diamonds to Blake Lively walking the red carpet in $2 million worth of jewelry.

The cost to make an appearance during fashion's biggest night out is a steep one, and the cost to make the event happen is even bigger. For $30,000 a ticket, those who passed Wintour's approval can attend the $3.5 million event.

And that's just the beginning of all the money that goes into — and comes out of — what André Leon Talley refers to as "the Super Bowl of fashion."

Take an inside look at the money behind the Met Gala.

SEE ALSO: Here's what all the celebrities wore to the 2018 Met Gala

SEE ALSO: Meghan Markle could wear a custom-designed tiara worth nearly $700,000 on her wedding day — here's how much the tiaras of other British royal brides are worth

It reportedly costs $3.5 million to produce the Met Gala.

Source: The Wall Street Journal



Tickets for the Met Gala reportedly cost $30,000 — that's enough to put a family of four over the poverty line. Some sources say tickets can even cost up to $50,000.

Source: Fortune, Page Six



Tables go for $275,000, but can go for up to $500,000. They cost even more if they're paid for by sponsors. Yahoo sponsored the Met Gala 2015 and reportedly paid $3 million for two tables.

Source: Fortune, Page Six



See the rest of the story at Business Insider

The owner of MoviePass is crashing after saying it burns $21.7 million per month — but only has $15.5 million in cash

0
0

HMNY stock movie pass

  • Helios & Matheson, which owns MoviePass, crashed more than 30% Tuesday following a dire financial filing. 
  • The company said it had $15.5 million of available cash and another $27.9 million on deposit.
  • It also admitted its cash burn was more than $20 million each month. 
  • Follow HMNY stock price in real-time here. 

Shares of MoviePass' parent company, Helios & Matheson Analytics (HMNY), crashed more than 30% Tuesday after it released updated financials that paint a dire picture for the subscription cinema service.

The company said in an 8-K filing Tuesday that it had "approximately $15.5 million in available cash and approximately $27.9 million on deposit with our merchant processors for a total of approximately $43.4 million."

Additionally, it estimates that its seen an average cash deficit of $21.7 million per month from September to April. 

The new filing comes just as MoviePass recently implemented measures in April to help it reduce the rate at which its hemorrhaging cash. In late April, the company enhanced its technology to prevent subscribers from sharing accounts with non-subscribers, and stopped allowing subscribers to see a movie title more than once while using the service.

HMNY said these actions helped it reduce its cash deficit during the first week of May by "more than 35%." That much, at least, is good news for investors, many of whom had been wary of the company after, in April, its independent auditor raised "substantial doubt" about its ability to stay in business, and the company sold more shares to help offset its losses.

But it gets worse.

"Because the length of time and costs associated with the development of the MoviePass and MoviePass Ventures business model is highly uncertain we are unable to estimate the actual funds we will require," the company said.

"If we are unable to obtain sufficient amounts of additional capital, whether through our Equity Distribution Agreement or otherwise, we may be required to reduce the scope of our planned growth or otherwise alter our business model, objectives and operations, which could harm our business, financial condition and operating results."

Tuesday's filing and subsequent losses only add to the stock's troubles. It opened down nearly 10% Tuesday after the chief executive of AMC Theatres slammed the MoviePass' business model on a call with analysts Monday evening. 

HMNY shares are now 95% below their October all-time high of $32.90, hit shortly after the company acquired MoviePass.

SEE ALSO: MoviePass owner says it's figured out how to cut losses by more than 35%

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: What will probably happen with the North and South Korean peace treaty

Lena Waithe's rainbow outfit at the Catholic Church-themed Met Gala sent a powerful message

0
0

lena waithe

  • Lena Waithe — an actor, producer, and the first black woman to win an Emmy for writing in a comedy series — wore a rainbow cape to the 2018 Met Gala.
  • Along with Rihanna's papal ensemble, Waithe's outfit arguably created the most buzz at the event. 
  • Waithe — the only celebrity to wear an outfit with a political statement — broke tradition at the religious-themed event.
  • According to Waithe, she wanted to show support for the LGBT community and highlight the Catholic church's fraught relationship with it. 

 On Monday, the Metropolitan Museum's Costume Institute hosted its annual gala, where hundreds of celebrities, designers, and tech moguls showed up to see the museum's new exhibition. 

This year's exhibition is "Heavenly Bodies: Fashion and the Catholic Imagination," which includes more than 40 religious items that explore Catholicism's influence on fashion.

The famous attendees had different interpretations of the theme, but one stood out among the rest. While most women came in diamond-adorned gowns, producer and actor Lena Waithe draped a rainbow cape over her black suit.

Breaking Met tradition, Waithe was one of the only celebrities with an outfit that made a political statement. In an interview with Vogue, Waithe explained that she wanted to show support for the LGBT community as the Catholic church continues to have a fraught relationship with homosexuality.

In Waithe's Emmy speech, she talked about putting on imaginary capes, but at the gala, she wore a literal one.

"Tonight, this cape is not imaginary, it's rainbow-colored," she told Vogue. "And we got the black and brown [stripes], you know. I’m reppin' my community, and I want everybody to know that you can be whoever you are and be completely proud, so . . . Wear the damn cape."

Waithe's cape — symbolizing intersectional LGBT pride — is a big deal. In the past four months, the Trump administration has, in the name of religious freedom, made moves to dismantle several LGBT-friendly policies.

In January, the White House created a religious liberty division, which aims to defend health workers who have religious objections to treating LGBT patients. A month later, the nation's health department halted and rolled back regulations intended to protect LGBT patients and workers, removed LGBT language from documents, and reassigned the senior adviser dedicated to LGBT health.

On May 3, Trump signed an executive order backing "faith initiatives" that will work on religious liberty issues across every federal agency. LGBT advocates see the move as another federal action that could encourage discrimination against LGBT people — from the workplace to the doctor's office — in the name of religion.

Waithe's rainbow cape was a bold choice for the Met Gala, an event known for its avant garde (and rarely political) fashion. But then again, Waithe — the only black woman to win an Emmy for writing in a comedy series — is used to being a trailblazer.

"This is like my skin, I’m proud to be in it," she told The New York Times. "I’ve got the community on my back to make sure they know I’ve got them all the time ... The theme to me is like be yourself. You were made in God's image, right?"

SEE ALSO: Rihanna is the queen of Met Gala fashion

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump tried to cut a secret deal with Planned Parenthood — here's what happened

Elon Musk's new girlfriend, Grimes, wore a 'Tesla choker' to the Met Gala, and people are freaking out

0
0

elon musk grimes dating 2x1 3

  • The musical artist Grimes is dating Tesla CEO Elon Musk, Page Six reported.
  • The couple made their debut at the Met Gala on Monday night.
  • Grimes and Musk designed her outfit together, according to Us Weekly — and people think her choker necklace looks like the Tesla logo. 

Tesla CEO Elon Musk and the musical artist Grimes made their rumored relationship at least red-carpet official on Monday night when they stepped out at the Met Gala together.

Grimes appeared to be wearing a choker inspired by the Tesla logo.

elon musk grimes dating met gala

Here's the Tesla logo, for comparison:

tesla motors real logo

Us Weekly reports that the couple designed Grimes' dress together over a dinner date and commissioned a team to create the futuristic ensemble. Musk wore a white tuxedo jacket and a collarless shirt.

Earlier Monday, Page Six described an unnamed source as saying Musk and Grimes have been "quietly dating." The gossip site said the pair met online about a month ago, after Musk saw on a joke about artificial intelligence that Grimes had made on Twitter and reached out.

The two have not publicly confirmed their relationship.

People on Twitter saw the "Tesla choker" and expressed their shock:

SEE ALSO: Meet Grimes, the Canadian pop star who streams video games and is dating Elon Musk

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The best and worst things about the Tesla Model 3

How one trilogy ruined action movies forever

0
0

Action films have a long tradition of its own. The genre often feels as though it was made for cinema, a medium designed to capture movement and momentum. And for some time, nothing really changed with how action movies were shot, until recently. Using director Doug Liman and Paul Greengrass' Bourne Trilogy, we look at how action films have changed significantly over the years, for the worse. Following is a transcript of the video.

You've probably seen this countless times. The shaky camera, fast cuts and just plain overall mayhem. It's sometimes so bad that you may ask yourself, "What am I watching?" So how did we exactly get to this? Let’s rewind a bit.

The one common denominator among older action films is clarity. And it makes sense, earlier action films, especially martial art pictures, focused on showing the physical feats of its stars. To achieve this, scenes were often shot in a wide angle, with most of the body visible in the frame. The camera also rarely moves and when it does, it follows the actions of its characters, accentuating speed and power.

But modern action movies aren’t shot this way. They lack that fundamental clarity that we’ve become so used to. They are choppy, chaotic and a lot of times just confusing. When you compare these movies side by side, the difference is unmistakable. But perhaps the real shock comes when you realize this is all intentional.

So how did we get to this point? It’s impossible to pinpoint a specific source, but one of the biggest influences was the original Bourne trilogy. These films were revolutionary in the action genre, not to mention both a commercial and critical success. And from jittery handheld cameras to rapidly firing cuts, you can trace all the problems in modern action films to this series.

An easy way to see how the Bourne trilogy changed action films forever is by looking at the average shot length, or ASL for short. It’s a cinematic statistic that measures the average length of a scene before a cut. In the first film, Bourne Identity, the ASL was at around 4 seconds which then became 2.4 seconds in its sequel, Bourne Supremacy. And in the final film, Bourne ultimatum, a total of about 3200 shots were squashed into a 105 minute running time, making the average shot about 2 seconds. That’s a cut happening almost every 2 seconds of the film.

Another change you can notice is in the camera work. Doug Liman, in Bourne Identity, shot his sequence more like the classic action cinema we’re used to. Wider angles and fewer cuts to capture the action as clearly as possible. But under Paul Greengrass’ direction, the camera shots are shakier and closer to the action. He prefers his audience to experience the film rather than to simply observe it. And that’s what Bourne really is, it's an experience, and a successful one at that. The series is actually edited in a similar way our consciousness and sensory perception works. How we gather bits of information to create a larger whole.It’s especially evident in chase scenes like this, where we see everything from Bourne’s perspective and are given the chance to interpret different clues to track down a target.

There is an intensity to these films that we can’t quite place. And the secret lies in how Greengrass chooses to shoot an action sequence. Although every cut and angle seems choppy, chaotic and mostly random, once you take a closer look at it, you realize everything serves a purpose.

But not everyone dedicates the same amount of thought like Greengrass. And, sadly, it’s made for some pretty terrible action films in recent years. There’s a reason Hollywood was so quick to adopt Greengrass’s style: because fast-paced editing makes it easy to use visual trickery to turn anyone into an action star. All it requires is to put three different shots together: action, impact and reaction. This is why we often see a cut, right before the impact then cut to the moment after the impact takes place. They cut to hide the action, especially when the stars don’t possess the skills to pull off a difficult choreography. This not only makes the action look fake but kills the overall momentum of the scene as well.

But in Bourne, cut is a deliberate act to quicken the pace of the film, it’s never used to hide anything. Every hit, every impact is fully delivered in front of the camera. The camera doesn’t cut until the blow has been fully registered making the fight more authentic and engaging. The combination of ‘action’, ‘impact’ and ‘reaction’ still exists in this method of editing, it’s just not as obvious when replicated incorrectly.

And although Greengrass does sacrifice some level of clarity for the sake of adding intensity, it doesn’t mean he’s abandoned it completely. In fact, when you watch any of the action sequences from the Bourne series, you’d be surprised to notice that it isn’t as confusing as it first appears There are clever tricks at play here if you know where to look.

First, check out the frequent use of wide angle shot like these. They let the audience understand the space and the placement of each character. Sometimes in an obvious angle as this, from above as the fight moves on to a new location. Or how most of the blows, the impact and brief inserts whenever a new weapon is acquired, are all centered right on the frame, guiding our focus, gathering these hints of information more quickly.

Now, let’s look at a bad example. The biggest problem in films that try to imitate the Bourne style is that they take it too far — exaggerating everything. For instance, in this scene, you can see the fast cuts — ala Bourne style — but it’s paired with the same shot, repeated numerous times in rapid succession. We’ve seen repetitions in past action films hundreds of times, but not quite to this extreme. Let’s admit it: There’s no reason to watch Liam Neeson jumping over the same fence ten times. Bourne, on the other hand, has none of that. Even in car chase sequences where repetitions are bound to happen, one impact is enough if shot correctly. 

Or even in music. Most recent films have a track that plays throughout entire action sequences, setting the pace and sometimes fading it out to accentuate key moments like this. But it’s the entirely opposite in Bourne. There is no music. What builds momentum and tension is the actual sound of the action itself. Every sound from the brutal impact to the various tools of combat, creates a rhythm, a beat without a single note. Turn down this sound, add a generic music behind it and you instantly see how ordinary the scene turns out.

All these small details and tricks make the action of Bourne more coherent and more intense than anything we’ve seen before, or since. It’s a beautiful combination of what was successful in traditional action films with a new innovative technique. Bourne can’t be blamed for how bad action films are these days, but the blame is on filmmakers who are trying to replicate its techniques and failing miserably. Audiences are smarter than what some directors believe. We can easily notice when we are being manipulated to see and feel in a way that’s not natural. And perhaps that’s what differentiates Bourne from so many of its predecessors. It knows that editing can be used to make anyone an action star but not necessarily a good action movie. And it’s aware what this genre of cinema is really about in the end: Action.

Join the conversation about this story »


A guide to the confusing world of sponsored Facebook posts, which make it hard to distinguish between ads and journalism

0
0

Mark Zuckerberg question mark

  • Since Facebook made it harder for publishers to spread their articles organically, various types of sponsored posts have begun to show up with more prominence.
  • This has gotten a bit confusing for users, as it's hard to tell which underlying articles are pieces of journalism and which are advertisements.
  • We break down how to tell the difference between various types of "sponsored" posts on Facebook.


It used to be pretty easy to tell the difference between advertising and editorial content on Facebook.

If a post had a little "sponsored" label on it, that was a red flag telling you, "Hey, a brand paid for this, you should treat it as an advertisement." But that line has gotten blurrier for Facebook users, especially over the last few months as Facebook has limited how far posts from media companies can spread on their own (so-called "organic reach").

In January, Facebook announced that it would de-emphasize publisher content in favor of "friends and family" posts. One of the main complaints I heard from folks on the publisher side was that Mark Zuckerberg didn't actually want less publisher content on Facebook: He wanted publishers to pay him to help their articles spread. "Facebook is now pay to play," was a lament I heard many times.

And that is what many publishers — from The New Yorker, to The Wall Street Journal, to Marie Claire (and Business Insider) — have been doing for certain articles, with more frequency since the algorithm change. They have paid Facebook to help their editorial, journalistic articles spread. The Facebook posts that link to these articles are labeled "sponsored," because they are technically ads, but they link to normal news articles. When you follow the link to the publisher's website, the article isn't a piece of "sponsored content," even though the Facebook post is labeled "sponsored."

Confusing, right?

But that's only the start of the rabbit hole when it comes to the blurring of the lines between advertising and editorial content on Facebook. Traditionally, media companies have worked to separate advertisements from journalistic writing (and to properly label "advertorial" content). But in the world of Facebook, these outlets don't always even have control over how posts appear to readers.

Positive articles about companies like Uber (for instance) are being turned into promotional ads, sometimes without the media organizations being made aware.

It can be hard for readers to wade through, so we decided to break it down for you in a way that is easy to digest. We'll walk you through the various types of "sponsored" posts on Facebook and what they mean.

When the outlet pays to spread it

Let's start with the one I just mentioned: Purely editorial articles that are being promoted with "sponsored" posts on Facebook. This basically happens when a publisher wants to boost an article it thinks has viral potential, and can bring the publisher in much more advertising (or subscriber) revenue than it is paying Facebook to push it into your feed, or get new readers.

Here is what that looks like from The New Yorker on an editorial article titled "The Great Sadness of Ben Affleck":

newyorker

And here's one from The Wall Street Journal on an editorial article titled "Silicon Valley to Washington: Why Don't You Get Us": 

wsj fbook 

Just scrolling through my Facebook feed casually, I noticed many such articles from outlets ranging from those above to Marie Claire (as mentioned), Ranker, Screen Rant, Elite Daily, U.S. News and World Report, and so on. They really run the gamut editorially.

Okay, so this type of post is easy enough to understand.

When the subject pays to spread it

Here is where it starts to get more confusing. Sometimes, the subject of an article pays Facebook to promote an editorial article written about them — presumably one that paints them in a positive light. These are also technically "ads" on Facebook, but the journalism they are promoting was not paid for by the subject. The article itself is not "sponsored content," even though the Facebook post is "sponsored."

Here's an example with Uber and CNET:

uber2

CNET wrote this article about Uber's new CEO, titled "Uber's U-turn: How the new CEO is cleaning house after scandals and lawsuits." To be clear, this was written by a reporter at CNET and was not paid for by Uber. It's just a regular news article. But Uber clearly liked the piece and is now paying Facebook to spread it far and wide.

Here is an example from the video world. This editorial video (not an ad) by NowThis Money is being promoted by the subject of the video, Adam Khafif.

nowthis

Adam Khafif's Facebook page is sharing a NowThis Money post from its Facebook page, and that share is being "sponsored" (i.e. boosted by paying money to Facebook). See, it gets very convoluted. But the main point is that the underlying video, and in this case even the underlying original Facebook post, isn't an ad — but the subject of the video is paying for a "sponsored" Facebook post to promote it.

Sometimes these "sponsored" posts are even geo-targeted, like the one on this article from The New Yoker titled "Divinity on the Dance Floor," which is being "promoted" not even by its subject (DJ Robert Hood), but by the nightclub where he performs regularly (Schimanski):

newyorker4

When the outlet pays an influencer to spread it

Now let's get to influencers and celebrities. Sometimes publishers pay influencers (people with big Facebook followings) to promote their articles. This used to be done a lot through organic Facebook reach (here's an article on this about George Takei.) But now I've only seen it recently in the form of "sponsored" posts.

Here's an example from Snoop Dogg and FashionBeans:

fashionbeans

Snoop Dogg in this instance is technically paying Facebook to promote an article from FashionBeans, titled "Here Are The Most Obnoxiously Rich Suburbs Of America's Biggest Cities," that really has nothing to do with him. But most likely what is happening is that FashionBeans is paying him to promote it, then he is paying Facebook. So the idea is that while FashionBeans could directly pay Facebook to promote the post, the promotion is more effective (dollar for dollar) if Snoop Dogg's name is attached.

When an advertiser pays for the actual article

Now we get to the last category: actual "sponsored content" from a media company. This is an instance of "advertorial," where the advertiser is directly paying the media company to sponsor the actual article itself.

Here's an example from BuzzFeed and NBC Sports:

buzzf

In these cases, the word "with" is usually employed in the Facebook post to denote which company is paying for the underlying content. It's marked again if you follow the link to BuzzFeed's site:

buzzfeed sponcon

Notice that the "Brand Publisher" is NBC Sports. So this is actually an ad — not only on Facebook but on BuzzFeed's site as well.

And there you have it, we've come to the end of our guide to understanding who is paying to get journalism or advertising in front of you on Facebook.

One last thing to remember is that no matter who is paying for a "sponsored" Facebook post — outlet, subject, or influencer — if you check the actual article after following the link, it should clearly mark whether the article is an advertisement or a journalistic piece.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: What will probably happen with the North and South Korean peace treaty

How Donald Glover went from unknown comedy writer to a triple-threat Hollywood star playing Lando in the new 'Star Wars'

0
0

Donald Glover lando star wars

If anyone in entertainment today fits the title of "Renaissance man," it's Donald Glover.

From his Grammy-winning music act, Childish Gambino, to an impressive array of acting roles and an Emmy-winning TV series, Glover has defied expectations at every turn.

Currently wrapping up the second season to his FX show, "Atlanta," Glover also has a viral hit single with his latest Childish Gambino release, "This Is America." And he's starring in one of the most lucrative film franchises in history, with his upcoming role as Lando Calrissian in "Solo: A Star Wars Story."

Since securing a job as a writer for "30 Rock" in 2006, Glover has used his various talents and signature humor to find high-profile success in a number of industries, including television, stand-up comedy, music, and film. 

Altogether, the former "Community" star's career trajectory is unlike any other.

Check out Donald Glover's unique road to becoming an A-list star in the entertainment industry:

SEE ALSO: Donald Glover explains his Donald Trump comment: 'Thank God one day Trump is going to die'

Donald Glover grew up in a strict Jehovah's Witness household in Stone Mountain, Georgia, a suburb of Atlanta. In high school, he was voted "Most Likely to Write for 'The Simpsons'" — a show that his mother wouldn't allow him to watch.

Source: Rolling Stone



Glover attended New York University and graduated in 2006 with a degree in dramatic writing. During his time at NYU, he joined several sketch-comedy groups, including Derrick Comedy, which produced a number of viral YouTube hits.

Source: Vulture



In his senior year of college, Glover caught his big break when his viral videos and performances in New York attracted the attention of the producers from NBC's "30 Rock." He was hired as a writer for the new sitcom in 2006 and would go on to make several cameos on the show.

Source: NYU



See the rest of the story at Business Insider

Disney beats — but ESPN continues to struggle (DIS)

0
0

Disney stock price earnings revenue profit 2q


Shares of Disney are climbing, up more than 2% in after-hours-trading Tuesday, following the entertainment giant's second-quarter earnings release that topped Wall Street expectations.

Here are the key figures:

  • Earnings per share: $1.84 versus $1.70 expected
  • Revenue: $14.15 billion versus $14.13 billion expected

"Driven by strong results in our parks and resorts and studio businesses, our Q2 performance reflects our continued ability to drive significant shareholder value," CEO Bob Iger said in a press release. "Our ability to create extraordinary content like Black Panther and Avengers: Infinity War and leverage it across all business units, the unique value proposition we’re creating for consumers with our DTC platforms, and our recent reorganization strengthen our confidence that we are very well positioned for future growth."

ESPN revenue fell for yet another quarter as the cable sports network struggles to find its footing in the digital world. Disney's acquisition of BAMTech from Major League Baseball's advanced media division added to the losses for the company's cable networks.

"The decrease at ESPN was driven by higher programming costs, partially offset by affiliate revenue growth and higher advertising revenue," Disney said. "The programming cost increase was due to a shift in timing of College Football Playoff (CFP) bowl games and contractual rate increases for college sports and NBA programming."  

Studio revenue, on the other hand, was up 21% thanks to the success of "Black Panther." Home entertainment also grew thanks to sales of sales of "Star Wars: The Last Jedi," "Moana," and "Thor: Ragnarok," the company said. 

Freeform, formerly known as ABC Family, saw decreased revenue due to a decline in viewership. 

Shares of Disney have declined 9% this year.

SEE ALSO: Disney falls ahead of earnings report as Comcast threatens pending Fox deal (DIS)

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: What Trump University was really like — according to a former professor

Why Disney rarely pays movie stars huge salaries

0
0

Tony Stark Robert Downey Jr Jericho Missile Iron Man 1

  • Disney has been the most profitable movie studio in Hollywood for several years — and remarkably, it hasn't had to pay hefty sums to its actors.
  • The studio has proved that today's moviegoer is more interested in the characters in the movies than the actors playing them.
  • But Ben Fritz, the author of "The Big Picture: The Fight for the Future of Movies," explains that actors in a successful Disney movie can still make serious bank — they just might have to wait a few movies. 

On Tuesday, Variety listed the salaries of the biggest movie stars working today.

Daniel Craig led the pack with a $25 million payday for the next "James Bond" movie, followed by Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson's $22 million for the upcoming "Red Notice," and then Vin Diesel's $20 million for last year's "The Fate of the Furious."

Of the projects listed for the 20 actors on the Variety list, not one was made by the most profitable movie studio in Hollywood: Disney.

And there's a reason for that.

In the past decade, as Disney has led the charge in superhero franchises — like the Marvel Cinematic Universe from its Marvel Studios arm — and given the "Star Wars" saga a rebirth after buying Lucasfilm, it has shown that its intellectual property is king, not the actors. And because of that, the studio realizes the actors don't have to be paid a huge amount of money.

It's a big shift in how Hollywood has worked for decades.

The 1990s were the high-water mark for the movie star. The biggest actors on the planet — Will Smith, Julia Roberts, Jim Carrey, Tom Hanks, and Tom Cruise — were earning $20 million just to show up on set, then getting hefty back-end deals that would give them a taste of the box office earned by their projects, sometimes even before the studio.

But for the most part, in today's industry, it's more about Batman being on the screen and less about who's behind the mask.

Disney has used that for years to rake in billions while not giving a major slice to the stars on the movie posters. That's not to say Disney doesn't open the vault for some actors — they just have to work a little harder now.

The $2.5 million man

Take, for example, the actor responsible for launching the MCU: Robert Downey Jr., who was cast as Iron Man.

When Marvel Studios was getting into the movie business, it was a company known more for being bankrupt than for making hits. "Iron Man" was made for $140 million, and Marvel was not going to let any star walk away rich if it was a hit.

According to the book "The Big Picture: The Fight for the Future of Movies," by the Wall Street Journal reporter Ben Fritz, Downey agreed to a $2.5 million salary, an incredibly small figure for an Oscar-nominated actor cast as the lead of a studio movie. (Paramount released "Iron Man" and "Iron Man 2.") In fact, the biggest paycheck went to Terrence Howard as Rhodey, aka War Machine, who made $3.5 million thanks to his recent Oscar nomination for "Hustle & Flow" — though all the actors received bonuses when "Iron Man" hit box-office milestones.

But once "Iron Man" became a hit and the MCU gained traction, Downey got a bigger cut. From 2013 to 2015, Downey topped Forbes' list of the highest-paid actors of the year. By 2015, he earned $80 million thanks in part to his starring role in "Avengers: Age of Ultron." (Sony paid him $10 million for being in a handful of scenes in "Spider-Man: Homecoming" last year, according to Variety.)

thorBut Downey is the exception.

From Emma Watson being paid $3 million up front for the live-action version of "Beauty and the Beast" — though she had a clause that she would earn $15 million if it was successful at the box office — to Chris Evans getting $1 million for "Captain America: The First Avenger" and Chris Hemsworth earning just $150,000 for 2011's "Thor" (the latter two reported in Fritz's book), Disney has made clear that its characters are the stars.

"I think many stars and their agents are realistic and know that the days of getting paid $10 million or $20 million for whatever movie they want to do are largely gone," Fritz told Business Insider. "If they want to remain relevant for global audiences, it's very helpful to be attached to these franchises. Plus, it raises their profile and helps them to get paid more for other movies, including possible sequels and spin-offs to that franchise down the road."

Getting involved in a Disney project can catapult an actor to bigger paydays elsewhere — look at Johnson after starring in Disney's "Moana," or Chris Pratt, who was in "Guardians of the Galaxy" and is now earning $10 million for "Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom," according to Variety.

Along with being the box-office champ, Disney is the envy of Hollywood for another reason: Its intellectual property is so bulletproof that once stars find success starring in its films, if they can't get more out of the house Mickey Mouse built, they'll find a big check somewhere else.

SEE ALSO: Daniel Craig is getting paid $25 million for his next "Bond"movie, after once saying he's rather slit his writst than return

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: What will probably happen with the North and South Korean peace treaty

13 superheroes or villains who should be introduced in the Marvel Cinematic Universe after 'Avengers 4'

0
0

spider-man

"Avengers: Infinity War" ended with a shock to the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

If its sequel next year continues to shift the franchise in a new direction, and if veteran actors start to distance themselves, then new characters are inevitable to sustain the MCU going forward.

Fortunately, Marvel's comic books provide decades of content and hundreds of potential characters to play with: classic Avengers like She-Hulk and Wonder Man; New Avengers like Spider-Woman and The Sentry; powerful supporting players like Na mor and Silver Surfer; and villains who could cause problems for the entire MCU after Thanos is dealt with, like Doctor Doom.

Maybe we'll never see any of these characters in the MCU, but we also never thought we'd see Doctor Strange banter with Spider-Man on the big screen.

So, Business Insider has thought about what Marvel comics characters haven't been introduced yet into the MCU, but should be in the future.

A new report that Comcast is looking to upend the Disney-Fox deal could cause problems for any plans to introduce the Fox-owned X-Men or Fantastic Four characters into the Disney-owned MCU. But this list was made with the Disney-Fox deal in mind, and the possibility that those characters could be acquired by Disney and Marvel Studios.

Below are 13 characters that should be introduced in the Marvel Cinematic Universe after the "Avengers: Infinity War" sequel:

SEE ALSO: The movies you shouldn't miss this summer — from 'Deadpool 2' to the new 'Mission: Impossible'

Captain Britain (Brian Braddock)

If Chris Evan retires from the MCU after the fourth "Avengers" movie next year, the franchise will be down one blond-haired, blue-eyed, country-devoted superhero. Luckily, the British have their own who also has a history as an Avenger. Braddock isn't a "super-soldier" like Steve Rogers, but he can fly and his introduction into the MCU would give a look at how other countries might perceive all of these superheroes running around destroying New York City.



Doctor Doom (Victor Von Doom)

If Disney and Marvel Studios gain the rights to the Fantastic Four but decide they don't want to take a chance on rebooting the characters, their next best option would be to introduce the team's greatest enemy. Doom isn't only the arch-nemesis of the Fantastic Four — he's played a pivotal role throughout the entire Marvel universe in the comics, as well. If Marvel wants to give the MCU its next big villain, Doom is a logical choice ("Legion" and "Fargo" creator Noah Hawley is developing a solo Doctor Doom movie, but the Disney/Fox deal throws that project up in the air).



Fantastic Four

Speaking of the Fantastic Four, I still believe that they could be a worthy addition to the franchise despite past big screen failures. A Fantastic Four movie would fit nicely into the MCU as a fun, sci-fi action movie and would explore the otherworldly, scientific possibilities of the MCU in ways that "Doctor Strange" explored magic.



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




Latest Images