• Director Lars von Trier's "The House That Jack Built," which stars Matt Dillon as a serial killer, prompted "more than 100 people" to walk out of the movie at the Cannes Film Festival on Monday.
• According to Variety, the scene that caused the initial walk-out involved Dillon's Jack shooting two small children with a hunting rifle.
• Social-media reaction was strong from those who saw the movie, with some calling it "disgusting," "torturous," and "repulsive."

Director Lars von Trier's new serial-killer movie, "The House That Jack Built," caused a stir when it premiered at the Cannes Film Festival on Monday, as more than 100 people reportedly walked out of what some called a "disgusting," "unpleasant," and "torturous" movie.

According to Variety, the scene that prompted the initial walk-outs involved Matt Dillon's serial-killer character, Jack, "shooting a hunting rifle at two small children, as he blows their heads off."

The movie, which also stars Uma Thurman, doesn't stop there. Based on social-media reaction, the movie depicts extremely graphic scenes of mutilations of women and children.

The response to the film on Twitter was strong, with some of those who saw (parts of) the movie saying it "should not have been made," was "pathetic," and was "two and a half hours of Hell."

Despite the controversy, the film still received a standing ovation from those who stayed until the end.

SEE ALSO: 6 of the weirdest superhero movies that almost got made, from James Cameron's creepy Spider-Man to Joss Whedon's sexist Wonder Woman

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Jeff Bezos on breaking up and regulating Amazon

• The first trailer for the Queen biopic "Bohemian Rhapsody," starring Rami Malek as Freddie Mercury, premiered on Tuesday. 
• The film will trace the trajectory of Mercury's career with Queen, from the 1970s to the band's seminal Live Aid performance in 1985. 
• It's set for release on November 2.

20th Century Fox on Tuesday released the first trailer for the upcoming Queen biopic, "Bohemian Rhapsody," which stars "Mr. Robot" actor Rami Malek as Queen singer Freddie Mercury.

The brief preview includes a mash-up of several hits from the rock band in a career-spanning montage. "Another One Bites the Dust" opens the trailer, and there's a scene that depicts the band's process of making the film's eponymous track, "Bohemian Rhapsody."

"Bohemian Rhapsody" will chronicle the trajectory of Mercury's life and career with Queen, from the band's early days in the 1970s to its seminal Live Aid performance in 1985.

Written by Anthony McCarten ("The Theory of Everything") and directed by Dexter Fletcher, the film has been in production since last fall. The film's first director, Bryan Singer, stepped away from the project in December, citing "a personal health matter."

The movie also stars "Game of Thrones" actor Aidan Gillen and Mike Myers. 

"Bohemian Rhapsody" is set for release on November 2. 

Watch the trailer below:

SEE ALSO: Check out this new photo of Rami Malek as Freddie Mercury in an upcoming movie about the Queen singer

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Ian Bremmer: Why the American dream doesn't exist anymore

It's rare for actors to rake in huge salaries today, at least compared to the days when audiences were drawn to a movie primarily based on its leading star.

Years ago, if a certain actor's name was attached to a movie, it was almost a guaranteed success. Stars like Will Smith, Tom Cruise, and Jim Carrey were paid big bucks in the 1990s because they attracted a crowd.

For instance, Carrey was paid $20 million— a rarity today — for "The Cable Guy" in 1996, because it was expected that he could deliver a $20 million opening weekend at least.

Now, audiences are more attracted to a franchise than a star. Whether a movie has "Avengers" or "Star Wars" in its title is more important than if it has Robert Downey Jr. or Harrison Ford in its credits.

But some big name actors have the recognition and leverage to still strike gigantic deals, such as Vin Diesel for "The Fate of the Furious" ($20 million) and Daniel Craig for the next James Bond movie ($25 million).

Below are 16 of the highest paid movie roles of all time, ranked:

SEE ALSO: 6 of the weirdest superhero movies that almost got made, from James Cameron's creepy Spider-Man to Joss Whedon's sexist Wonder Woman

16. Emma Stone as Mia in "La La Land"

$26 million

Source: Forbes

Stone topped Forbes' list of the world's highest paid actresses in 2017 with $26 million, most of that coming from her Oscar-winning role in the 2016 film "La La Land."

15. Arnold Schwarzenegger as The Terminator in "Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines"

$29 million

Source: Slate

Schwarzenegger promised that he'd be back for a third Terminator movie under some pretty specific circumstances, including a $29.25 million "pay or play" fee, which he would receive even if the movie wasn't made. 

14. Jim Carrey as Carl Allen in "Yes Man"

$30 million

Source: Forbes

Carrey reportedly exchanged his salary for "Yes Man" for an ownership stake in the movie, which paid off.

While the world of Disney films may have began with animation and princess' castles, Walt's kingdom has become much, much more.

Since its first film in 1937, the company has released some of the most iconic blockbusters ever, packing out cinemas across the globe.

At the end of 2016, Disney provided Business Insider with a complete list of every single feature film it has released throughout history, compiled by year of release.

We then researched the box office numbers for the films on the list — as well as the top-grossing film in 2017 — in order to determine which was most successful each year since 1937.

Only films that went straight to theatre, and have publicly available box office figures, have been included in our ranking. The numbers are based on US lifetime gross figures provided by Box Office Mojo and IMDB.

Scroll down to see the highest-grossing Disney film every year since 1937, from oldest to newest.

Note: Years where there was no theatrical release, or box office figures were not available have been excluded from the list. These are: 1938, 1939, 1944, 1945, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1958, and 1972.

1937 — 'Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs': $184.9 million

Source: Box Office Mojo

1940 — 'Pinocchio': $84.2 million

Source: Box Office Mojo

1941 — 'Dumbo': $1.6 million

Source: IMDB

Continuing its record-setting run, "Avengers: Infinity War" cracked the top ten of the highest-grossing movies of all time at the worldwide box office this week. 

Just over three weeks since its release, "Infinity War" has surpassed global totals from fellow Marvel properties like "Black Panther" and the first "Avengers." 

"Infinity War" could still make a run at another Disney-owned blockbuster, "Star Wars: The Force Awakens." But it's unlikely to reach the top spot here. 

For this list, we turned to Box Office Mojo for its all-time data on worldwide box office grosses. 

Here are the 10 highest-grossing movies of all time worldwide:

SEE ALSO: The 10 highest grossing movies at the domestic box office, adjusted for inflation

10. "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part II" (2011)

Global box office: $1.341 billion

9. "Black Panther" (2018)

Global box office: $1.342 billion

8. "Avengers: Age of Ultron" (2015)

Global box office: $1.405 billion

"Fortnite" is a free game — stop wondering.

There's a paid version of it, and you can buy stuff in it, but it costs nothing to jump into the game's wildly popular "Battle Royale" mode that pits 100 players against each other in a fight to the death.

If you are going to buy something in "Fortnite" — or you want to give a "Fortnite" fanatic a great gift — there's one item that's more important than anything else: the so-called "Battle Pass," which costs roughly $10.

Here's why it's such a crucial item.

SEE ALSO: There's a simple, obvious reason 'Fortnite' is the biggest game in the world right now

DON'T MISS: 15 tips and tricks to play and win at Fortnite Battle Royale, the most popular game in the world right now

1. The Battle Pass makes "Fortnite" into a much more rewarding experience.

The draw of "Fortnite" is the game's "Battle Royale" mode, no doubt, but part of what keeps people playing is the game's progression system. The more you play the game, the more stuff you unlock for your character — outfits, dances, and a variety of other cosmetic inanity.

Crucially, none of these unlocks offer a competitive advantage.

They're intended as a fun addition — for personalizing your avatar, and showing off a bit. Maybe you've got a rare backpack, for instance! Experienced players will know it's something you could only get by playing a ton of the game, or mastering a specific challenge, or whatever else. 

By buying the Battle Pass, the game's progression system instantly becomes more complex and rewarding. You'll unlock far more stuff in a far shorter period of time, and the stuff is also much better. 

2. Better still: There are a ton of challenges to complete with the Battle Pass, which turns the game into something much more interesting.

In buying the Battle Pass, you unlock Battle Pass challenges, which are lengthy lists of objectives that turn each round of "Fortnite" into something different. 

Tired of trying (and likely failing) to reach first place? Why not tackle some challenges!

Go collect the letters that spell out "Fortnite," for instance, or loot eight different chests in Tilted Towers — whatever the objective may be, however silly.

It's a subtle layer of additional objectives, and one you could fully ignore, but why would you? It's a ton of fun, and it's a nice additional push that keeps me playing. 

Even if you're not interested in tackling specific objectives, it's entirely likely you'll accidentally complete some just by playing the game. Often, challenges are as simple as, "Kill two players using shotguns." — the kind of thing you're likely to do in the course of play.

Thus: Having the Battle Pass is a worthwhile purchase even if you're not interested in tackling side objectives.

3. The stuff you get is beyond worth the $10 asking price for the Battle Pass.

You can buy some pretty swanky stuff for your avatar in the "Fortnite" digital store. 

"Rage 2" is what happens when the open-world experience of "Grand Theft Auto" meets the sun-drenched post-apocalypse.

Just look at this madness:

The newly-unveiled "Rage 2" won't arrive for at least another year on PlayStation 4, Xbox One, and PC, but we got our first good look at it this week.

Here's what we know so far about the next big game from the folks behind "DOOM" and "Just Cause":

SEE ALSO: There's a simple, obvious reason 'Fortnite' is the biggest game in the world right now

"Rage 2" is a sequel to — you guessed it — "Rage," a 2011 game for the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, and PC.

Like the previous game, "Rage 2" is set in a post-apocalyptic wasteland — the remnants of civilization after an asteroid collided with Earth. As expected, society has devolved into violent factions.

And how do you deal with those violent factions? With giant guns, of course. And some superpowers (more on that in a moment).

• "Solo: A Star Wars Story" has some great moments, but as a whole is a flawed movie.
• The third act of the movie has major problems and feels uninspired.
• However, Alden Ehrenreich gives a worthy Solo performance, Donald Glover's Lando is fantastic, and the movie beautifully shot. 

Warning: Minor spoilers below.

The moment I realized “Solo: A Star Wars Movie” wasn’t for me was toward the two-hour mark of the movie, when I realized we were nowhere near the end. 

Granted, there was about only 15 minutes left in the movie, but it felt like an eternity. I’ve had that feeling in many movies in my life — when it just won’t end. But never for a “Star Wars” movie. 

“Solo” is not an awful movie, it just has a few awful parts that feel uninspired. This is particularly true in the third act of the movie. 

In “Solo” (opening May 25), we follow the progression of Han Solo (Alden Ehrenreich) from a small-time hood on his home planet of Corellia, with dreams of being a great pilot cruising through the galaxy, to eventually becoming a space pirate.

There are thrilling action sequences, cinematographer Bradford Young (“Arrival”) gives the movie a beautiful look, there are fantastic performances by Ehrenreich and Joonas Suotamo as Chewbacca, and Donald Glover completely knocks it out of the park as Lando Calrissian. 

But the movie crumbles following Han and the gang's thrilling completion of the legendary Kessel Run. The conclusion of the movie is stale, filled with cliches, and tries too hard to set the foundation for future “Solo” movies by featuring one of the most random cameos you’ll ever see in a movie (more on that in a sec, but don’t worry, no spoilers). 

That’s certainly not my only issue with the movie. 

It starts with some really lame opening text that sets the stage. The worst piece is the use of the words “mean streets” in describing the planet Solo grew up on. And the movie at times tries a little too hard to make Han an idealistic jokester. Personally, I think this is less the leftover effect of Chris Miller and Phil Lord’s involvement in the movie as one-time directors, and more on eventual director Ron Howard’s vanilla style.  
 
However, there are some great elements to the story, as well. 

Young’s photography goes from smoky original “Blade Runner” vibe in the beginning to wide epic shots by the end. Glover’s Calrissian sounds like the actor who originally played him, Billy Dee Williams, and has a flawless style. He’s also paired with a sassy robot co-pilot, L3-37 (Phoebe Waller-Bridge) that is a total scene stealer. And Ehrenreich actually pulls off playing Solo, not so much by doing his best Harrison Ford impression, but instead showing us a different side of the character. This is how Solo was before the galaxy chewed up all the youthful optimism he had about life and spit him back out.

And we see the Millennium Falcon at its one-time pristine condition, which is a thrill to take in.

The biggest issue the movie has is that the screenwriters Lawrence and Jonathan Kasdan try to shoe-horn a plot twist at the end that is so unnecessary. In teasing a potential villain path for Han’s love interest in the movie, Qi’ra (Emilia Clarke), they bring back a character from the “Star Wars” saga that is a fan favorite, but is a bizarre choice to be included in this story. It certainly is going to make an uproar when general audiences see the movie, primarily because it feels so blatantly force fed. 

Like all “Star Wars” movies, there will be those who will absolutely love this movie, and there are certainly things to enjoy about it. The supporting cast — filled with veterans like Woody Harrelson, Paul Bettany, Thandie Newton, and one character voiced by Jon Favreau — are all great and mesh perfectly with the leads.

But my fear is “Solo” shows signs that Disney/Lucasfilm are hitting a point where the beloved “Star Wars” universe could be headed to a watered-down moment. Is there a need to have a “Star Wars” movie released every single year, especially with multiple “Star Wars” series coming to Disney’s streaming service in the coming years?

To this point, all the movies released so far since Disney took over Lucasfilm have been enormous money makers, so obviously the studio won’t want to slow down. But “Solo” may be the first indication that it might be time to pump the brakes and take more time to focus on the stories, and make sure everything is right (especially the creatives involved) before making a movie.

SEE ALSO: "Deadpool 2" is has even more crude jokes and graphic violence than the original, and is a worthy follow-up

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: I ate nothing but 'healthy' fast food for a week — here’s what happened

While her husband has sought out a very public life, first lady Melania Trump has chosen to remain fairly private.

She spends a lot of her time caring for their 12-year-old son Barron, calling herself a "full-time mom." Since moving to the White House last June, Trump has also taken on the many duties required of first ladies, from decorating the residence to planning official events.

Deviating from her usual schedule this week, the first lady had surgery at Walter Reed Hospital on Monday to treat a benign kidney condition.

Here's what Trump's daily routine at the White House is usually like:

SEE ALSO: Incredible facts about Melania Trump that show she's completely unlike any other first lady

DON'T MISS: Report claims Melania and Trump spend 'little to no time together' as she shoots down rumors that she doesn't actually live in the White House

Trump rises not long after 5:30 a.m., when her husband wakes up. The couple sleeps in separate bedrooms.

Source: The Washington Post

Trump then gets their 12-year-old son, Barron, ready for school, which often entails ensuring he has his homework in his backpack.

Sources: Parenting, The Washington Post

Trump considers raising her son her "first job." Along with getting Barron up and ready for school every day, she has also made his breakfast and lunch.

Source: Parenting

• MoviePass's parent company, Helios and Matheson, may be in a worse financial position than realized.
• In the first quarter, it lost money at a faster rate than it had previously acknowledged.
• It's already said it needs to raise additional funds this month, potentially through a stock sale, which would be its third this year.
• But the company appears to no longer be meeting Nasdaq's listing standards, which could put future stock sales in jeopardy.

Enjoy your MoviePass subscriptions while you've got one. They may not work for much longer.

It's no secret that Helios and Matheson Analytics, MoviePass' corporate parent, is in financial peril. The company is losing more than $20 million a month and its cash stockpile is dwindling.

But recently filed regulatory documents — as well as the company's recent stock performance — indicate it may be in deeper trouble than is widely appreciated.

In the first quarter, it burned through cash at a faster rate than it previously reported. It's so low on cash that it says it's going to need to sell more equity in the company to the public this month to raise funds, which would mark the third time this year it's tapped the public markets. But because of its recent stock slump, that tap may run dry before the year is out.

"Without additional funding, the company will not have sufficient funds to meet its obligations within one year," Helios and Matheson said in its quarterly report, filed on Tuesday.

It continued: "Without raising additional capital, there is substantial doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern through May 15, 2019."

MoviePass is burning through cash at a faster-than-reported rate

Helios and Matheson's troubles stem from MoviePass, which has become the core of its business. As its fans know well, MoviePass offers a $10-a-month service that allows subscribers to see a movie-a-day in the theaters.

When subscribers go see a movie, the company generally pays the theater the retail price of the tickets on behalf of those subscribers. Because ticket prices in many places are more than $10 and because many subscribers see more than one movie a month, many customers are getting a great deal — and MoviePass is losing money hand over fist.

In the first quarter, for example, Helios and Matheson posted $49.4 million in sales — $47.2 million of which came from MoviePass subscriptions. But the company's direct costs associated with those sales were $136 million in the period, almost all of which was likely due to buying movie tickets for its customers. In other words, on average, MoviePass customers are getting about $28 in tickets each month for their $10 subscription.

That's translated into a massive outflow of cash. In the first quarter, the company's operations burned through $68.4 million. That's nearly $23 million a month — or about $1 million more every month than what the company had previously said it has averaged during the seven-month period since September.

Helios and Matheson have been using the stock market like an ATM

To fund these ongoing and mushrooming losses, Helios and Matheson has started to use the stock market as a kind of ATM. The company sold $105 million worth of stock in February and another $30 million worth last month.

Despite the repeated fund raising, the company said in a regulatory filing last week that it had just $15.5 million in cash on hand at the end of last month, a perilously low figure, given its cash burn rate. While the company assured investors that it had cut down its losses significantly at the beginning of this month, it warned investors that it didn't think it has sufficient funds to last it even for the rest of the month.

"We will need proceeds from sales of our common stock ... or other sources of capital, starting in May 2018," the company said. 

The company has already filed the paperwork to sell another $265 million worth of stock, so the next round of sales could happen at any time.

But Helios and Matheson's stock has now fallen below Nasdaq's listing standards

Selling stock to raise money is a good game, but it can't go on forever, particularly if the cash raised is immediately burned. All else being equal, floating more shares on the market will make each share worth less. And if the company has nothing to show for the money invested except a larger and larger accumulated deficit, investors are likely to sour on putting more money in.

But there's another practical problem with Helios and Matheson's fund-raising strategy: Its stock is now at risk of being delisted by mid-December.

The Nasdaq — the market on which the company's shares trade — requires listed companies to have a stock price of at least $1 a share and a market capitalization of at least $50 million. Helios and Matheson fell below both standards last week. At the close of trading Tuesday, its stock was priced at 65.21 cents a share, and its market capitalization stood at $41.4 million.

Should the company stay below Nasdaq's price or market value standards for 30 days, it will officially be noncompliant with Nasdaq's standards and will almost certainly get a warning letter from the exchange. If it can't meet those standards for the next six months, Nasdaq will delist Helios and Matheson's shares. At that point, its game of selling stock to pay for subscribers' tickets will almost certainly be up.

That's, of course, not the picture CEO Ted Farnsworth has been painting publicly about the company lately. He's said he's "not worried at all" about the MoviePass's cash burn rate he told Variety on Monday, saying the company has "17 months worth of cash" thanks to a $300 million line of credit.

But Helios and Matheson didn't mention that line of credit in its regulatory filings, an odd omission given its apparent financial straits. 

So, have your fun on MoviePass. Just don't be shocked when it all comes to an end.

SEE ALSO: MoviePass is losing $20 million a month — and starting to look a lot like a famous dot-com bust

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Google's new AI can impersonate a human to schedule appointments and make reservations

• Kensington Palace announced Prince Harry and Meghan Markle will have six bridesmaids and four page boys, including George and Charlotte.
• The children of the Mulroneys, a prominent Canadian couple who are friends with Markle, also made the cut.

Kensington Palace announced on Wednesday that Princess Charlotte and Prince George will be bridesmaid and page boy in Saturday's royal wedding— and they're not alone.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle chose six bridesmaids and four page boys, and all of them are under 10 years old.

Here's the full of bridesmaids:

• Princess Charlotte, who is three.
• Florence van Cutsem, Prince Harry's goddaughter, who's also three.
• Zalie Warren, another of Harry's godddaughters, who is two.
• Remi Litt, Markle's goddaughter, who is six.
• Rylan Litt, another of Markle's goddaughters, who is seven.
• Ivy Mulroney, whose parents are friends with Markle. She is four.

And the page boys:

• Prince George, who is four.
• Jasper Dyer, Prince Harry's godson, who is six.
• Brian Mulroney, Ivy's brother, who's seven.
• John Mulroney, Brian and Ivy's brother, who's also seven.

The Mulroneys, a fashion stylist and TV host, are a prominent Canadian couple, and close friends of Markle.

Details about what the bridesmaids and page boys will wear will be revealed on Saturday. The ceremony starts at midday (UK time) at St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle.

The news comes as reports suggest Meghan's dad is no longer attending the wedding, the third reversal in just over 24 hours on a question that has thrown the wedding plans into chaos.

Here's everything you need to know about the wedding, including what time it starts where you live and how you can watch it live.

SEE ALSO: Here's what time Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's royal wedding will start where you live — and how to watch it

SEE ALSO: Meghan Markle's dad is now reportedly not coming to the wedding because of heart surgery — the 3rd twist in just one day

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: How a tiny camera startup is taking on Amazon and Google

• "Deadpool 2" director David Leitch gives an update on the status of "Hobbs and Shaw," the first spin-off movie from the "Fast and the Furious" franchise.
• Leitch also explains why working with Ryan Reynolds has prepared him to work with the social-media savvy Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson.

David Leitch may only have two feature films under his belt, but he's quickly becoming one of the most sought-after directors of action movies working today.

With the release of the highly anticipated "Deadpool 2," coming Friday, Leitch has proven with movie number three that he's not scared of the big stage — as it's destined to dethrone box-office champ "Avengers: Infinity War" and score a huge box-office opening weekend.

But he's not ready to sit back and take in his good fortune. He's gearing up for his next movie.

Leitch has signed on to direct the first spin-off of Universal's popular "Fast and the Furious" franchise, "Hobbs and Shaw," which will put the spotlight on Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson's Luke Hobbs and Jason Statham's Deckard Shaw.

Both have been in multiple movies in the "Fast" franchise, but the two characters shined as an unlikely tandem in "The Fate of the Furious," and now they are getting their own movie.

"Dwayne and Jason's chemistry in that movie were some of my favorite stuff out of it," Leitch told Business Insider while doing press for "Deadpool 2" on Tuesday. "So to be able to spin something off and make it my own imprint in that universe, that's exciting."

Cameras don't begin running until September, but Leitch said there's a working draft of the script and is excited about the process right now of crafting the story — especially with the screenwriter the movie brought on.

"Chris Morgan is the writer and one of the producers. He's written a majority of the ['Fast and Furious'] movies," Letich said. "So we're having fun with that process right now."

Recently Johnson posted a picture on Instagram of him with Leitch and Statham, and wrote in the caption: "Been wanting to work with David for years now. Very talented and knows how to create and shoot bad ass, cool and FUN characters."

When asked if working with someone as social-media savvy as Johnson would take some getting used to, Leitch said the experience of working with Ryan Reynolds on "Deadpool 2" was a good primer.

"I think when you look at how Ryan and Dwayne handle social media and use it as a promotion of their art, they're both really great at it," Leitch said, who admitted that Reynolds' intimate involvement in the marketing strategy of "Deadpool 2" was something he'd never experienced on a movie before. "So there are a lot of lessons learned from Ryan in this experience that hopefully I can take that on to the experience I'm going to have with Dwayne and Jason."

"Hobbs and Shaw" is slated for release in July 2019.

SEE ALSO: "Solo" has exciting thrills and lush photography, but it's the first Star Wars movie to make me worried about franchise fatigue

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Jeff Bezos reveals what it's like to build an empire and become the richest man in the world — and why he's willing to spend $1 billion a year to fund the most important mission of his life

The biggest shows on networks are increasingly drawing in older viewers, which is a challenge for brands that want to reach out to young people.

The New York Times published a report Monday called "Why Traditional TV is in Trouble."

The article describes how networks are in trouble due to the decline in ratings, especially among young people, many of whom don't even own TVs or watch anything live.

The article includes data from Nielsen showing the median age of viewers of the 10 most popular shows on TV in the 2017-2018 season. They range from late 50s to late 40s. 

"This season’s top-rated show, the revival of 'Roseanne,' has a median viewer age of 52.9 years," the Times wrote. "The network show with the lowest median age is 'Riverdale' on the CW, at 37.2."

With young people using devices other than a TV to watch TV— often going straight to streaming services like Netflix and Hulu for content— the networks have a limited live audience which hampers the reach for potential advertisers.

Here, we listed the top ten shows of the 2017-2018 season along with their median age and Rotten Tomatoes score:

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

"The Good Doctor" — ABC, median age 58.6

Description: "A talented young surgeon with savant syndrome ruffles feathers while saving lives at a prestigious hospital's pediatric surgical unit."

Seasons: One. It premiered Fall 2017.

Critic Score: 58%

Audience Score: 87%

"Young Sheldon" — CBS, median age 57.4

Description: "Season 1 of the spin-off of 'The Big Bang Theory' follows 9-year-old Sheldon Cooper as he grows up in East Texas and attends high school."

Seasons: One. It premiered Fall 2017.

Critic Score: 76%

Audience Score: 68%

"The Voice" — NBC, median age 57.3

Description: "Singers square off for a coveted recording contract in this reality talent contest from the producers of 'Big Brother' and 'Survivor.' Four vocal coaches mentor the contestants in three distinct competition phases: the blind auditions (during which the coaches can't see a contestant and thereby judge them solely on their vocal talent); the battle phase (in which the contestants are advised and developed); and, lastly, the live-performance phase."

Seasons: 14. It premiered Spring 2011.

Critic Score: N/A

Audience Score: N/A

"Solo: A Star Wars Story" doesn't come to theaters until May 25, but the reviews are already in — and the Force doesn't seem to be as strong with this "Star Wars" movie.

As of Wednesday morning, "Solo" had a 72% critic score on the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, based on over 80 reviews.

That's bad for a "Star Wars" movie. While it's not as bad of a score as the worst-reviewed movie in the saga — "The Phantom Menace" — it's still the lowest since "Attack of the Clones" in 2002.

Business Insider's Jason Guerrasio said that "Solo's" third act lags and that it's the first "Star Wars" movie to make him worried about franchise fatigue.

"The conclusion of the movie is stale, filled with clichés, and tries too hard to set the foundation for future 'Solo' movies by featuring one of the most random cameos you'll ever see in a movie," Guerrasio said in his review.

He's not the only one underwhelmed with "Solo." Rolling Stone's Peter Travers said the movie was "dull" and plays it too safe.

"Somehow Han Solo — the roguish 'Star Wars' hellion famous for breaking all the rules — finds himself in a feel-good movie that doesn't break any," Travers wrote.

Slate's Sam Adams said "Solo" wasn't the worst "Star Wars" movie, "just the one with the least compelling reason to exist."

So how does "Solo" stack up against other "Star Wars" movies? We ranked all of them based on Rotten Tomatoes critic scores. (Ties were broken with audience scores.)

Here's every "Star Wars" movie ranked according to critics.

SEE ALSO: 'Solo' has exciting thrills and lush photography, but it's the first Star Wars movie to make me worried about franchise fatigue

10. "The Phantom Menace" (1999)

Rotten Tomatoes score: 55%

9. "Attack of the Clones" (2002)

Rotten Tomatoes score: 66%

8. "Solo" (2018)

Rotten Tomatoes score: 72%

• Meghan Markle has apparently said she will make a speech after her wedding to Price Harry.
• The couple's royal wedding will happen on this weekend on May 19.

Meghan Markle is no stranger to breaking Royal wedding traditions. According to a Times story from January, she's going to defy another one, and will make a speech at her wedding reception this weekend.

In Britain, traditionally the groom, father of the bride, and the best man make speeches after the wedding. It is not common for the bride to say anything, but it does happen sometimes.

The Times reported that Markle will deliver a speech after the ceremony on May 19 this year. It will be an affectionate tribute to her new husband, Harry, and will include thanks to the Queen and her family.

"She wants to have the chance to thank her husband and everyone who has supported them," a source told the Times. "Harry thinks it's a great idea."

Markle's father, Thomas Markle, was not expected to make a speech. And this week, after ups and downs with his health and a paparazzi scandal, it looks like he will not be attending at all.

Markle's mother, Doria Ragland, is now the most popular choice for giving Markle away. Other bets are on Price William, Prince Charles, or Markle walking herself down the aisle. 

Making a speech simply looks like another way Markle is defying British royal tradition, being a divorcée, American, and brought up Protestant. 

SEE ALSO: These are all of the ways Meghan Markle smashes traditional royal stereotypes

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Ian Bremmer: Why the American dream doesn't exist anymore

• The wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle will begin at midday (UK time) at St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle on Saturday May 19.
• At 1 p.m. the newly married couple will embark on a carriage procession through Windsor Town.
• An early afternoon reception hosted by Her Majesty the Queen will follow at St George's Hall for the couple and guests from the congregation.
• Around 200 guests have also been invited to an evening reception at Frogmore House in the evening, hosted by Prince Charles.
• Kensington Palace has confirmed that Markle's father will walk her down the aisle.
• Scroll down to see what time the celebrations will start where you live and how you can watch it both in the UK and from abroad.

The highly anticipated royal wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle is just days away.

The wedding will be held at St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle on Saturday, May 19.

The day will begin at midday (UK time) with a service conducted by the Dean of Windsor, and the Archbishop of Canterbury will officiate as the couple make their vows.

Here's an outside look at the Chapel...

...and here's a glimpse inside.

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

They've invited over 2,000 members of the public into the grounds of Windsor Castle to watch the couple and their guests arrive, and to watch the carriage procession as it departs from the castle.

The Queen will host an early afternoon reception at St George's Hall for the couple and guests from the congregation, of which there are expected to be around 600 guests.

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

Around 200 guests have also been invited to an evening reception at Frogmore House in the evening, hosted by Prince Charles.

What time does it start where I am?

Here's what time the royal wedding will start in major cities across different time zones on Saturday, May 19:

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

How can I watch it?

UK

BBC, ITV, and Sky News, will all be covering the big day.

US

Live coverage will be available on CBS, streamed on CBSN, The Today Show (NBC), PBS, and BBC America, according to Harper's Bazaar. FOX News Channel (FNC) also just announced it will be presenting live coverage of the event. 

Australia

Channel Nine will air the wedding, Marie Claire reports.

South Africa

ITV Choice (DStv 123), according to Times Live.

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

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: A Nobel Prize-winning economist explains what Milton Friedman got wrong

• The canceling by Fox of "Brooklyn Nine-Nine" put the internet into meltdown mode.
• The show was eventually picked up by NBC for its sixth season.
• Series regular Terry Crews recalls the shock of getting the news that the show was canceled and how he learned NBC picked it up.

It's been quite a ride the last week for Terry Crews.

While gearing up to promote his role in the highly anticipated "Deadpool 2," Crews got the shocking news that the popular TV show he'd been a regular on for five seasons, "Brooklyn Nine-Nine," had been canceled by Fox.

The internet went into a complete meltdown over the news. From the super fans to celebrities like Mark Hamill, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Seth Meyers, and Oscar-winning director Guillermo del Toro, it seemed everyone was appalled that Fox would put the brakes on the show. 

And Crews admitted everyone involved in the show was shocked as well.

"We had no clue we were going to be canceled," Crews told Business Insider on Wednesday. "All expectations were that we were coming back for a sixth season just because we were doing so well. It was the shock of the century."

Crews said he got the news last Thursday, moments before he was about to go on stage to shoot an episode of the Michael Strahan-hosted "The 100,000 Pyramid" game show.

"Five minutes before I'm about to go on, I get an email from ['Brooklyn Nine-Nine' creator Dan Goor]," Crews said. "And I'm like, 'We're canceled?' It was surreal. I was like in a Spike Lee floating in the air shot. The world was over. But I did my job, I went and did the show. But it was like hearing that your favorite uncle is dead. There were tears, I'm not going to lie to you."  

The outrage on social media led to reports of streaming services like Hulu perhaps taking the show over. But Crews went to bed Thursday having to come to terms with the fact that the show was really done.

But then his phone started blowing up at 3 a.m. News had hit that NBC picked up the show for its sixth season.

"It was the middle of the night, I woke up to my phone glowing and I'm wondering what is going on," Crews said. "I got all these texts with everyone saying, 'We're picked up!' I jumped out of bed. I felt like I was one of Madonna's kids. 'I get to live in the mansion now, she picked me!'"

"Brooklyn Nine-Nine" will be a part of NBC's mid-season lineup, according to NBC Entertainment chairman Bob Greenblatt.

SEE ALSO: "Deadpool 2" director gives an update on the "Fast and Furious" spin-off movie he's making with The Rock and Jason Statham

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: NBA ref explains why the James Harden step-back jumper isn't traveling

• Donald Glover's Lando Calrissian could get a "Star Wars" spin-off film in the future, Lucasfilm studio chief Kathleen Kennedy said on Wednesday. 
• Kennedy told the French publication Premiere that she would "love" to have a Lando-focused movie.

Ahead of the premiere of "Solo: A Star Wars Story," many critics have praised Donald Glover's portrayal of Lando Calrissian in the film, despite the film's lukewarm overall reception. But more importantly, Glover's role seems to have won over the people behind the movie.

On Wednesday, Lucasfilm studio chief Kathleen Kennedy told the French publication Premiere that she would "love" to give Lando Calrissian his own spin-off movie.

With over a week until the release of "Solo," the film is projecting to be the worst-reviewed "Star Wars" film since "Attack of the Clones."

"Solo" currently has a 72% critic rating on the reviews aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, but many reviewers, including Business Insider's Jason Guerrasio, have heaped praise on Glover's performance. 

Guerrasio wrote in his review that Glover "completely knocks it out of the park as Lando Calrissian."

In a review for The Atlantic, Christopher Orr wrote, "If you are not already a fan of Glover (and, let’s be clear, you should be), this ought to make you one."

Critical praise for Glover's role, along with Glover's star rising from his Emmy-winning FX show, "Atlanta," and his recent viral hit single as Childish Gambino, all rightfully have Lucasfilm encouraged to pursue a film with Glover in what would be his first blockbuster lead role.

UPDATE: After the publication of the original article by Premiere, Lucasfilm clarified to the publication that while the company would "love" to devote a spin-off film to Lando in the future, such a film had not been confirmed yet and would not be "next" (as implied by the original Premiere article).

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

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Ian Bremmer: Why the American dream doesn't exist anymore

• "Fortnite" is the most popular game in the world right now, yet it's not available on Nintendo's wildly popular Switch console.
• Fans have been clamoring for the game on Switch for months.
• A job listing seemingly outed a Switch version of "Fortnite," but the studio is denying it.

No, "Fortnite" still isn't on the Nintendo Switch.

The outrageously popular game and the outrageously popular game console are a match made in heaven — a near-perfect marriage of two pillars of video-game zeitgeist. 

And yet, "Fortnite" isn't on the Switch.

The news this week that the game may arrive on the Nintendo Switch in the imminent future, according to a since altered job listing from Chicago game studio Iron Galaxy, was already shot down by the company on social media. The job description pointed to Iron Galaxy's previous works as such (emphasis ours): "…the critically acclaimed Killer Instinct, and Divekick; which are complimented by our technically superb Fortnite and Skyrim Switch ports."

The listing has since been altered to remove the mention of "Fortnite," but otherwise remains the same. 

A "port" is a new version of an already existing game, but for a different platform. For example: A game developer creates and launches a game on the PlayStation 4, then another studio "ports" that game to the Xbox One. 

Iron Galaxy is a studio known for its port work — it would make a lot of sense if it were the studio behind "Fortnite" finally coming to Switch. And the job listing makes a strong argument.

As the job listing points out, Iron Galaxy worked on a major Nintendo Switch port before: 2017's "Skyrim." Additionally, it notes Iron Galaxy's experience working with major publishers (Microsoft, Capcom, Nintendo) on large, online games like "Killer Instinct." The studio even produced its own online fighting game in "Divekick."

"Fortnite" developer Epic Games isn't saying, nor is Iron Galaxy (we asked).

But Iron Galaxy's Twitter account did respond to one inquiry, calling the listing, "poorly worded" and pointing out the company's work on the iOS version of "Fortnite." 

But this is far from the first time that the concept of "Fortnite" on Switch has come up.

Way back in February, Chance the Rapper was openly petitioning Nintendo for "Fortnite" on Switch:

Even the star power of Chance couldn't push Epic into revealing its hand.

We were given the following statement at the time by an Epic Games representative: "We've seen Chance getting wins on his Instagram stories, and we're excited he likes the game. We don't have anything to announce regarding platforms other than PlayStation 4, Xbox One, PC, and Mac, but we'll make sure Chance is one of the first to know if we do."

Months later, and there's still no official announcement of "Fortnite" coming to Switch. So what gives?

That's not entirely clear, but there's at least one good reason why the world's most popular game hasn't shown up yet on the world's most popular new game console: The Switch simply isn't that big yet.

At just shy of 20 million units sold, Nintendo's Switch is quickly gaining on Microsoft's Xbox One and Sony's PlayStation 4 — but it's still far from caught up.

Estimates put the Xbox One lifetime sales somewhere in the realm of 30 to 50 million units, and Sony has officially sold over 70 million PlayStation 4 consoles. The other platforms where "Fortnite" is available — PC, Mac, and iOS — have far larger audiences than any video game console. And the next platform that it's coming to, Android, may be the largest yet. And keep in mind: Epic Games has limited resources, and must prioritize future ports based on reaching as many people as possible.

It's no surprise that Epic would want to focus on those platforms over the Nintendo Switch, even with Switch's meteoric rise. Still, with somewhere in the ballpark of a quarter billion dollars coming in monthly from "Fortnite" according to Superdata, it makes sense to put the game as many places as possible — to make it as accessible as possible to as wide an audience as possible.

Thus, the Iron Galaxy job listing seemed credible. It may turn out to be nothing more than a poorly-worded sentence, as the company said, but it wouldn't be surprising at all if it were a slip-up. 

With E3 2018 just a few weeks away, the annual video game trade show in Los Angeles, the time is right for just such an announcement. 

SEE ALSO: A game developer may have just leaked huge news for Nintendo fans — Fortnite on Switch

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Jeff Bezos: Blue Origin is 'the most important work that I'm doing'

In the past week, networks canceled dozens of TV shows.

And some cancellations were quite shocking, like Fox's decision to cut "Brooklyn Nine-Nine," a comedy that has such a devoted cult following that NBC saved it 31 hours later. 

But not all canceled shows have been so lucky — so far.

But there's still hope. Netflix has saved shows in the past, like AMC's "The Killing" and "Longmire." And Hulu is also no stranger to saving a Fox comedy: It brought "The Mindy Project" back for three additional seasons. 

Here, we selected a few shows that were just canceled by networks that Netflix could — or more accurately, should — bring back, and why.

SEE ALSO: The median audience age of the 10 biggest TV shows signals how few young people are tuning in

"Designated Survivor" — canceled by ABC

"Designated Survivor" is much messier than you'd expect a straight-forward and short-lived political thriller to be. In its two-season run, the show had four different showrunners, and lost its female lead when Natascha McElhone left for a Hulu show. But it is kind of a good time, which might be why Netflix is reportedly looking at saving it with a third season (and a fifth showrunner). 

"The Mick" — canceled by Fox

"The Mick" is wild. Every episode takes things further than you can imagine for network TV, and it had the best physical comedy on TV, and one of the best child actors. If Netflix can't save "The Mick," it should at least give Jack Stanton, who played the youngest Pemberton, his own show. 

"The Expanse" — canceled by SyFy

Netflix has shown interest in sci-fi this with shows including "Altered Carbon" and "Lost in Space," and with movies like "Mute." "The Expanse" is one of the best sci-fi shows since "Battlestar Galactica," and it, at the very least, deserves to wrap things up with a short fourth and final season (or a movie). People are already campaigning for a streaming service like Netflix to save the show, and we hope they're listening.