• Long before throwing verbal jabs at one another this past year, MoviePass and AMC Theatres worked together — for a brief moment. 
• In 2015, AMC allowed MoviePass to be used at select theaters in Boston and Denver.
• However, things didn't end well due to underwhelming subscription numbers and accusations of MoviePass tampering with the analytics it sent AMC, sources tell Business Insider.
• It's just one example of why MoviePass has never had the best relationship with AMC, as well as many others in the movie-theater space.

In June 2011, MoviePass had one of the briefest startup launches in history. 


At a time when Netflix was beginning to show glimpses of the Goliath it would become, entrepreneurs Stacy Spikes and Hamet Watt decided to take that all-you-can-eat subscription formula and create a similar service for the movie-theater experience. 

The initial plan they came up with for MoviePass cost $50 a month, and with it you could see an unlimited amount of movies by selecting tickets on your phone and using an HTML5 application to present it at the theater. A press release sent the Monday before the Fourth of July weekend said a beta version of MoviePass would start over the weekend in 21 theaters in the San Francisco Bay Area. 

"MoviePass makes spur-of-the-moment movie-going as simple as choosing a film on the phone and checking in at the theater," Spikes said in a press release. "No more waiting in line.”  

But three days later, MoviePass was dead.

It turns out no one at MoviePass bothered to inform the 21 theaters that it was going to use them as ground zero for the launch. By Wednesday, all the theaters had announced they would not participate in MoviePass’ beta test. AMC (six of its theaters were mentioned as participating in the launch) even sent out a press release stating it had no involvement with MoviePass.

“Plans for this program were developed without AMC’s knowledge or input,” said Stephen Colanero, then chief marketing officer at AMC, in the release. “As MoviePass is currently designed, it does not integrate well into our programs and could create significant guest experience issues.”

In a business where first impressions are everything, MoviePass got off on the wrong foot with the one group it needed: theater owners. It especially needed AMC, which at the time was the second-largest movie theater chain in the country, and would become the biggest in the world after acquiring a series of movie chains in 2016. 

But surprisingly, a few years later, MoviePass and AMC would partner and spark a bizarre chapter in this love/hate relationship.

The game-change move that saved MoviePass

After the beta launch debacle, MoviePass went back to the drawing board. Having burned bridges on the exhibition side, it struck a deal with ticketing company Hollywood Movie Money in August 2011. Now instead of showing the ticket on your phone to the ticket-taker, subscribers would print out a voucher for the movie they wanted to see and show up to the theater with it. With Hollywood Movie Money’s relationship with most of the major theater chains (at the time its vouchers were accepted at over 36,000 theaters), MoviePass no longer had to worry about having any relationships in the exhibition world. 

Or so it thought. 

Once again, the dream quickly ended. With pressure from movie theaters, Hollywood Movie Money broke off its partnership with MoviePass and the company was once again dead in the water. 

But then MoviePass found a way to get into the business without theater support, and it has been the single biggest moment of the company so far. 

With the help of new investor money from AOL and talent agency William Morris Endeavor — one source told Business Insider that even WME co-CEO Ari Emanuel sat down with Spikes and Watt to talk about building a relationship with movie theaters — MoviePass struck a deal with Discover Card in 2012.

Now subscribers would select a movie and the price of the ticket would automatically be put on a MoviePass debit card that would then be used to pay for the ticket at the box office. That's essentially the same mechanism MoviePass uses today.

According to sources close to MoviePass, at the time it was a complete game changer as it forced all movie theaters in the country to accept MoviePass — if they accepted Discover.

Sources told Business Insider that one of the constant complaints MoviePass' customer service team would get during that time was that subscribers could not use the card at their local theaters because that movie house didn't accept Discover. (The MoviePass debit card is now the widely accepted Mastercard.)

The debit card move, along with the backing from Hollywood players at WME, AOL, and other seed investors with movie connections, forced MoviePass through the exhibition door. MoviePass now had to be respected.

Even AMC had to take notice.

MoviePass and AMC team up

According to sources close to MoviePass, the startup began efforts to play nice with the movie theater chains around 2014. Spikes was even invited to network and speak on panels at events held by the National Association of Theatre Owners, the largest organization of movie theater owners in the country, which includes the US' biggest chains as its members.

At the end of 2014, AMC announced that beginning January 2015, the chain would launch a pilot program with MoviePass in which the service would be accepted at select theaters in Boston and Denver for a subscription price of $45 (to see films in any format) and $35 (for standard 2D).

“It frankly wouldn’t be smart to ignore the success of subscription in other areas of media,” said Christina Sternberg, then senior vice president for corporate strategy at AMC, referring to membership companies like Spotify and Rhapsody when talking about the deal with MoviePass to The New York Times in December of 2014.

At that time, MoviePass had around 30,000 subscribers, according to a source close to the company, and was priced at $30 to $35, depending on where you lived in the country.

Behind the scenes, AMC had been trying to launch its own movie-ticket subscription plan for years. But without the support of the movie studios, AMC could never get it off the ground. MoviePass' pitch to AMC, and other theaters, was pretty much what it's doing today. For a fee, MoviePass would provide data on the habits of its users in the theaters, and in return MoviePass would pay the theaters full price on the tickets its subscribers ordered through the app. The hope for MoviePass was eventually that it could get a discount on tickets because theaters would recognize how much business the company was bringing in.

As the pilot program with AMC continued in 2015, MoviePass created an exhibition relations team and slowly began building goodwill with theater owners. One source close to MoviePass said in numerous instances theater owners were more fascinated by the MoviePass tech than the business model, which led to Spikes informing them it was proprietary.

But then things turned south when MoviePass presented AMC with its data.

After the one-year pilot program, MoviePass and AMC co-sponsored a research white paper in March of 2016. Both companies submitted data for the report. In its findings, the white paper showed that before MoviePass, AMC moviegoers went to the theaters taking part in the program in Boston and Denver an average of one and a half times per month. After MoviePass, it increased in both locations to just over three times per month.

"The first month shows a spike in visits as expected for early utilization of a subscription," according to the report, a copy of which was reviewed by Business Insider. "With later months regressing to average usage above pre-MoviePass activity."

According to one source close to AMC, based on the findings AMC felt it could create a better subscription service on its own and didn't need to work with MoviePass any further.

Another source familiar with the deal from the MoviePass side told Business Insider that AMC felt the data MoviePass presented was not accurate and made the subscription service look like it had more influence on the attendance at the select theaters during the pilot program than it actually did.

Ever since, MoviePass and AMC have been at odds. Though MoviePass was hardly a blip on the movie industry radar following 2015, it once again made itself known last summer when Helios and Matheson Analytics took ownership and launched a "$9.95 per month for one movie per day" plan.

After that drastic change, the rivalry with AMC was reignited, with barbs traded on both sides. AMC announced that it was going to look into if it could shut out MoviePass from its theaters, and MoviePass took 10 AMC theaters off its app at the beginning of this year.

Currently, MoviePass and AMC couldn't be further from one another in the movie-ticket subscription war. With financial trouble and its stock trading at below four cents, MoviePass is trying to stay afloat by becoming the home for the "occasional moviegoer," as MoviePass' current CEO Mitch Lowe put it. On the other side, AMC's seven-week-old subscription plan, Stubs A-List, has over 260,000 members and regularly accounts for more than 4% of the chain's US attendance.

But if it weren't for the mistakes by MoviePass in the early days of the company, it's possible its relationship with AMC and the entire theater industry could be very different.

"In the movie business the whole thing about trust and cooperation is huge," one industry source told Business Insider. "It's one of the things that really will set off an exhibitor faster than anything is if you try to impose something on them. It doesn't work. And that's their biggest problem."

MoviePass CEO Mitch Lowe issued the following statement to Business Insider regarding its relationship with AMC: “The recent launch of AMC’s subscription service underscores the fact that MoviePass disrupted the movie theater industry and succeeded in creating a model that consumers want. In the last year, MoviePass has amassed millions of subscribers and we believe that number speaks for itself.” 

AMC declined to comment for this story. Stacy Spikes and Hamet Watt did not respond to Business Insider's request for comment.

SEE ALSO: We made a timeline showing the entire history of the Marvel Cinematic Universe

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: How a black cop infiltrated the KKK — the true story behind Spike Lee's 'BlacKkKlansman'

Amazon wants to catapult the next generation of internet stars, and it's positioning its video-game streamer Twitch to do just that.

According to Bloomberg, Amazon is going after exclusive livestreaming deals with media companies, YouTube stars, and Hollywood talent like Will Smith in an effort to expand Twitch beyond its niche of video games.

As Bloomberg pointed out, Twitch has a long road ahead if it wants to go toe-to-toe with YouTube — the largest ad-supported video site in the world with 1.9 billion monthly viewers — but even YouTube has caught on to Twitch's appeal (it introduced paid subscriptions after Twitch did).

Twitch is largely a platform for people to play video games and stream them live for others to watch. Many have found success on the site similar to famous YouTube personalities.

But that's not the site's only use, and CEO Emmett Shear is looking to the future. Bloomberg reported, based on anonymous sources who were at a recent meeting, that Shear set a target of $1 billion in ad sales for Twitch, which would double its current ad sales. 

Twitch has a loyal user base, and there are already plenty of Twitch stars with huge followings. Popular internet personality and streamer, Ninja, for example, makes at least $560,000 a month, Forbes estimated — and that was in March. Amazon Prime subscribers are allowed to donate to his Twitch stream, plus he has a popular YouTube channel. And Twitch star Summit1g revealed his donation total in a stream last year to be over $208,000 at the time.

Below are the nine biggest Twitch stars, some of whom are making millions:

SEE ALSO: Meet Jessica Blevins, the 26-year-old wife and manager of the most popular video-game player in the world right now

9. ESL_CSGO

Twitch stream: twitch.tv/esl_csgo

Followers: 2.46 million

The ESL Gaming Network hosts numerous competitive-gaming events and its "Counter Strike: Global Offensive"-focused Twitch stream is a massive hit.

8. TimTheTatman

Twitch stream: twitch.tv/timthetatman

Followers: 2.52 million

Tim says on his YouTube channel bio that if he could, he would make streaming his full-time job. "The real reason that I love streaming is that I get to meet and talk to some many unique and different people," he says. He primarily plays Fortnite.

7. Syndicate

Twitch stream: twitch.tv/syndicate

Followers: 2.59 million

Syndicate's real name is Tom Cassell. He started his video career in 2010 on YouTube where he became prominent for "Halo" and "Call of Duty." On Twitch, he primarily plays "Fortnite," "Minecraft," and "Call of Duty."

• The stock of MoviePass' owner, Helios & Matheson Analytics, has declined by 99.99% since it acquired the movie-theater subscription service last year.
• As the stock was falling, investors on the Robinhood app were snapping up shares.
• The stock is now worth $0.03, and Robinhood has barred users from buying more shares.
• Follow HMNY's stock price in real-time here.

As shares of Helios and Matheson Analytics— the parent company of MoviePass — plunged toward zero this summer, investors on the free trading app Robinhood kept piling in to the stock.

Facing a crunch for cash in July, with its share price already below $1 and at risk of being delisted from the Nasdaq stock exchange, Helios, which trades with the ticker HMNY, pulled a Hail Mary. With approval from shareholders at a specially called meeting, management executed a reverse stock split, condensing every 250 shares owned by investors into one.

At the time of the reverse split, about 23,000 investors held the stock on Robinhood, weekly data compiled by Business Insider shows. But shares started crashing before markets could even open on the day of the split.

That didn't faze investors on Robinhood. Throughout the decline, they were still piling into the stock, according to weekly data compiled by Business Insider. By the time the stock's value was back down to pennies in August, more than 73,000 investors owned the stock on the app.

Robinhood put an end to the madness on Monday, when it stopped allowing new purchases of HMNY. Holders could still sell their shares, but no new investments could be made into the stock there. It's unclear when exactly those tens of thousands of investors bought the stock, but without any significant upticks in its price throughout the decline, there's a slim chance for them to have made a profit.

Robinhood isn't the only place where investors lost money. Business Insider's Nathan McAlone spoke with a retiree who described losing more than $100,000 betting on Helios when analysts on E-Trade rated the stock a buy. E-Trade has not discontinued the stock.

Asked for comment, Robinhood pointed Business Insider to an email it sent to customers about its ending of new purchases.

"In order to protect our customers from the risks associated with some low-priced stocks, we remove the buy option for stocks like HMNY that consistently trade under $0.10," the email said.

Shares of Helios are now down almost 100% from their all-time high in October, shortly after the firm acquired MoviePass. Adjusted for the reverse split, shares were worth $8,225 at the peak. The stock is now worth $0.03.

SEE ALSO: Bitter enemies MoviePass and AMC once worked together — here's a look inside the relationship's epic collapse

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Cigna's CEO says that the problem with healthcare in America has nothing to do with employers

If you're looking for something entertaining and beautiful that'll also inform you, there's an incredible variety of science- and nature-focused documentaries and TV shows on Netflix right now.

These films and series showcase the beauty of the planet, delve into the details of how food arrives on your plate, and explore the mysterious and alien underwater world in oceans around the globe.

The downside to having all of those options is that there's a lot to choose from. To make it easier, Business Insider reporters and editors have picked some of our favorites from Netflix' selection.

Films come and go from the platform every month, but as of the date of publication, everything on our list should be available. We'll update the recommendations periodically to reflect currently stream-able documentaries.

Here are our favorites, in no particular order:

SEE ALSO: 24 health 'facts' that are actually wrong

"Icarus" (2017)

What it's about: In 2014, filmmaker and amateur cyclist Bryan Fogel contacted Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov, the director of the Moscow anti-doping center, for advice about how to get away with using performance-enhancing drugs. In 2015, Rodchenkov was implicated in state-sponsored doping efforts by the World Anti-Doping Agency. So he decided to flee Russia, travel to the US, and to reveal everything he knew about the widespread Russian doping program. 

Why you should see it:  The film mixes crime, sport, international intrigue, and the science of manipulating human performance. It's both thrilling and disturbing — and is especially relevant given the recent ban on Russian athletes competing for their country in the 2018 Winter Olympics. Because of Rodchenkov's revelations, the world will never look at sports — the Olympics especially — the same way again. [Click to watch]

"Cooked" (2016)

What it's about: In this four-part docu-series, journalist and food expert Michael Pollan explores the evolutionary history of food and its preparation through the lens of the four essential elements: fire, water, air, and earth. 

Why you should see it: Americans as a whole are cooking less and relying more on unhealthy, processed, and prepared foods. Pollan aims to bring viewers back to the kitchen by forging a meaningful connection to food and the joys of cooking. [Click to watch]

"Blackfish" (2013)

What it's about: This film highlights abuses in the sea park industry through the tale of Tilikum, an orca in captivity at SeaWorld in Orlando, Florida. Tilikum has killed or been involved in the deaths of three people while living in the park. 

Why you should see it: This documentary opens your eyes to the troubles of keeping wild animals in captivity through shocking footage and emotional interviews. It highlights the potential issues of animal cruelty and abuse involved with using highly intelligent animals as entertainment. Sea parks have historically made billions of dollars by keeping animals captive, often at the expense of the health and well-being of animals. This documentary played a huge role in convincing SeaWorld to stop their theatrical "Shamu" killer whale shows. [Click to watch]

• Amazon is reportedly in the running to purchase Landmark Theatres, a small chain of movie theaters that primarily show independent and foreign films, Bloomberg reported Thursday.
• Owning Landmark would give Amazon another physical space to connect with customers, according to GBH Insights' Daniel Ives.
• A purchase could be another sign that Amazon is looking outside its traditional growth area — customers' homes — to grow sales and Prime memberships.

Amazon might be looking to make a mark at the movies.

The retailer, known for its vast product selection and fast, free shipping, is reportedly looking to purchase Landmark Theatres, according to a Bloomberg report from Thursday.

Landmark is a small chain as far as movie theaters go, with 56 locations around the country. It focuses on niche interests, like independent and foreign films. It does have a good reputation among moviegoers, and it describes itself as "upscale."

Sound like another brick-and-mortar retailer Amazon recently purchased? The Washington Post called Landmark the "Whole Foods of movie chains."

An Amazon spokesperson declined to comment on the report. Landmark did not respond to Business Insider's request for comment. 

At first blush, Amazon buying a chain of movie theaters might not make a whole lot of sense. Isn't Amazon mostly focused on the home, with its myriad delivery options and home-automation-enabling Alexa devices?

Sure, but Amazon isn't a company that shies away from growth. As far as the acquisitions Amazon has made in recent years, some are obvious — like Ring, the smart-doorbell maker— and some are more focused on the "longer term," according to Daniel Ives, chief strategy officer and head of technology research at GBH Insights.

With a movie theater, Amazon would move one step further into physical retail, creating "valuable touch points" in the real world for customers to interact with. Think: screenings for Amazon Studios movies and films or events for Prime members. 

It's just another way for Amazon to "entrench in [customers'] daily lives," Ives said to Business Insider.

Much like Amazon is giving Prime members perks at Whole Foods, the same thing could be done for a movie theater, perhaps via perks like free or discounted movies and concessions.

"Brick and mortar gives another opportunity to expand Prime membership," Ives said.

Owning a chain of theaters also makes sense as content becomes a larger focus for Amazon in its competition with Netflix and HBO. Prime Video content is already a major driver of Prime subscriptions, though it obviously lags behind the shipping perks. Having a dedicated place to distribute content in the real world, and making it eligible for prestigious awards like Oscars, could become more important.

SEE ALSO: Amazon is hinting it has a new plan to make boatloads of money from Alexa

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: How Columbia House sold 12 CDS for $1

• HBO has ordered superhero show "Watchmen" to series.
• The network revealed in a video teaser on Twitter that it will premiere in 2019. 
• The show is based on the acclaimed graphic novel of the same name.
• The series is being developed by "Lost" and "The Leftovers" co-creator Damon Lindelof.

HBO has officially given a series order to its first superhero show, "Watchmen," based on the acclaimed graphic novel of the same name by writer Alan Moore and artist Dave Gibbons. 

The show was in the pilot stage until now, but HBO released a short teaser video on the network's Twitter on Friday to celebrate the series order. The video shows the text "Nothing ever ends" and the bloody smiley face that is the novel's signature image, before revealing that the show will premiere in 2019. 

"Nothing ever ends" is a reference to a quote from the graphic novel, in which the "smartest man" on Earth Ozymandias asks the omnipotent Dr. Manhattan if, in the end, he was right to sacrifice so many lives for what he believes is the greater good. Manhattan responds, "In the end? Nothing ever ends."

The show's source material is widely regarded as the best graphic novel of all time. It takes place in an alternate reality 1980s where the world is on the brink of war. A group of masked vigilantes find themselves involved in a grand conspiracy after one of their own is murdered.

After a long history of failed attempts, it was finally adapted into a film by director Zack Snyder in 2009 to mixed critical reception. "Lost" and "The Leftovers" co-creator Damon Lindelof is developing the HBO series.

Lindelof revealed plot details about the series in a letter on Instagram in May. The show will be an original story with new characters, but take place in the universe of the graphic novel. He implied it would be set in a post-Trump world. 

Regina King, Jeremy Irons, Don Johnson, Tim Blake Nelson, Louis Gossett Jr., Yahya Abdul-Mateen II, Adelaide Clemens, Andrew Howard, Tom Mison, Frances Fisher, Jacob Ming-Trent, Sara Vickers, Dylan Schombing, Lily Rose Smith, and Adelynn Spoonmake up the all-star cast.

SEE ALSO: We looked back at the long history of failed 'Watchmen' adaptations, as HBO tries to break the cycle with a new TV show

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: How a black cop infiltrated the KKK — the true story behind Spike Lee's 'BlacKkKlansman'

• Phil Libin, the founder of Evernote, thinks Silicon Valley could learn a lot from Hollywood when it comes to fostering innovation.
• He thinks Netflix in particular offers an ideal model.
• His new company, All Turtles, is intentionally trying to follow the blueprint Netflix uses for making shows and movies and bring it to the tech industry.
• Libin thinks the model will help encourage the development of products and ideas that don't have the potential to be billion dollar companies and allow tech to better tap the talents of people around the world.

Silicon Valley has a reputation for being the most innovative place in the country, if not the world.

But if you ask Phil Libin, ground zero for innovation these days is located several hundred miles to the south — in Hollywood.

Libin is the founder of several successful startups, including Evernote, and a former venture capitalist. So he's well acquainted with the way the tech industry funds and fosters innovation.

He think the system's broken, and that the tech industry could learn a lot from show business, particularly Netflix. In fact, Libin's got a new startup incubator called All Turtles that he's intentionally modeled after the streaming video giant.

"We don't make TV shows, we make tech products," he said in a recent interview with Business Insider. "But in most other ways — make and distribute — we're trying to be Netflix."

Libin thinks tech has a 'startup fetish'

As Libin sees it, innovation in the tech industry is thwarted by the industry's "startup fetish" — its fixation on relying on new companies to promote new ideas and technological developments.

That fixation has gotten worse because of all the money flowing into the tech industry. The investors who have poured in massive amounts of money into startups are looking for big returns; increasingly, the industry is only interested in startups that have the potential to be billion-dollar companies.

The problem with that focus is that it stymies the development of worthwhile ideas and innovations that don't have that potential, Libin said.

What's more, the fixation with turning ideas into companies at an early stage of their development means that people who have few management skills are often forced to become executives. Conversely, it also means that the companies that end up succeeding are the ones with good managers, marketers, and fundraisers — not necessarily the ones that are developing interesting and innovative technologies.

And the startup model is difficult to replicate in other areas of the country, much less the world, where the ecosystem for nurturing and funding startups just hasn't been developed, he said.

Libin thinks there's a better way, and that Hollywood can serve as a guide.

Hollywood offers a better way, he argues

Hollywood used to be a lot like Silicon Valley, he said. There were basically two models for making films and TV shows.

You had the big studios, which tended to make films designed to be blockbusters or shows intended for mass audiences. Thanks to the money the studios could invest in them, they tended to have great production values and widespread distribution.

We're trying to be Netflix.

But the shows and movies generally took few risks and were largely predictable and boring. And the distribution and production system meant that the big studios offered the same homogenized product around the world.

And then, on the other end of the spectrum, you had amateur video productions that didn't look great and were seen by few people.

Then, HBO, AMC, Netflix, and others started developing a whole new model. Like the traditional studios, they made shows and films with high production values and were able to distribute them so they could reach sizeable audiences. By not focusing on costly blockbusters, they were able to take more risks and be more innovative.

For Libin, Netflix is the exemplar of this model. Reed Hastings' company brings together talented people to create filmed entertainment. It helps to shape their ideas, funds the development of those ideas, and then distributes the finished products once it's done. The filmmakers don't have to worry about setting up their own studios or establishing a business to make a film or show. Instead, Netflix handles those kinds of business matters, allowing filmmakers to just focus on developing their show or movie.

Because Netflix has streamlined the idea development and removed some of the risk, the filmmakers don't have to worry about swinging for the fences.

"They have relatively very few gigantic hits," Libin said. "It's just a lot of inherently profitable, well-made shows."

Netflix has figured out how to tap global talent and audiences

One area where the streaming media giant has had particular success is in figuring out how to make films and shows in lots of different countries around the world that are targeted at their specific audiences, Libin said. On a recent trip, he said he was struck by seeing big billboards for Netflix shows that were made in particular countries with local actors for local audiences. That's a big change from not so long ago, he said.

"When I would travel internationally before, and I would see giant billboards for Hollywood things, it would be hilarious, because it would all be like some dumb Bruce Willis movie," he said. "They were all local translations of American movies."

Libin thinks a model similar to Netflix's can work to spur innovation in the tech industry outside of streaming media. In fact, he built All Turtles with that model in mind. 

Like Netflix, All Turtles works with creators — in its case, with technologists who specialize in artificial intelligence — to develop ideas. Like Netflix, All Turtles handles the business side of things, providing the corporate support structure so that the product developers can focus on turning their ideas into products. And, like Netflix, Libin hopes that by taking some of the risk out by providing that corporate structure, All Turtles will be able to spur the development of ideas and products that won't ever be blockbuster hits.

"The whole point is that we're not trying to work on things that must be huge. We're not asking for this be a $10 billion outcome," he said. "We're just saying is it worthwhile, and can it be inherently self-sustaining."

Much like Netflix, All Turtles hopes to take its model worldwide, tapping into the technology talent from areas far outside of Silicon Valley and giving them a way to develop their ideas. It's already opened offices in Paris and Tokyo and plans to open one in Mexico City next year.

"We're basically just trying to follow in Reed's footsteps and make this for tech," he said.

But All Turtles lacks two of Netflix's key advantages

Not everyone is convinced the model will translate as well as Libin expects.

Netflix has been able limit its risks in creating new shows in large part by being able to tap into the copious amounts of data it has on its customers' viewing habits, said Abhishek Nagaraj, an assistant professor at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley, who focuses on entrepreneurship and innovation. When it considers new show ideas, it can predict fairly accurately whether its customers will tune in. It also has a lot of sway over its audience and can promote its new shows directly to them.

All Turtles would seem to have neither of those advantages, Nagaraj said. It doesn't have the kind of audience data that Netflix has that will help ensure the products it develops will be hits. And it doesn't have the ability to market its products in the same way, because unlike Netflix, it doesn't have a captive audience or a similarly widely adopted service for distributing its products.

"I expect those two [factors] to be roadblocks," he said.

SEE ALSO: The founder of a beloved productivity app thinks the startup model is broken — here's how he's trying to keep the tech industry from 'making the same 10,000 mistakes over and over again'

SEE ALSO: The CEO of 500 Startups says all successful founders have these 2 traits in common

SEE ALSO: Netflix's 1 million subscriber miss is exactly why it’s time for the company to stop hiding a critical part of its business

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: What's going on with Elon Musk

With nearly 200 million monthly users — of which a staggering 83 million are paid subscribers — Spotify is one of the most popular music services in the world. 

It's easy to understand why Spotify is so big. As a longtime paid subscriber, I have universally positive things to say about the streaming service. It has a huge music library, it's easy to use, and it works with every device I operate daily — a Pixel 2 smartphone, a MacBook Air, and Sonos speakers. It even integrates into my PlayStation 4 and Xbox One.

But there's one function of Spotify that truly sold me on the service: The ability to upload music into my library on one device, and for that music to become available on most devices I own.

It's a little known convenience of Spotify that made the service far more useful to me — here's how it works:

SEE ALSO: We compared Spotify and Apple Music subscriptions — and the winner is clear

1. Uploading music to Spotify.

The process of uploading music to Spotify is super simple. First, click on this little drop-down menu, right next to your username (seen above).

Then select Settings, and scroll down to the area that says "Local Files":

From here, you can select "Add a Source," which allows you to select whichever folders on your computer contain audio files. I've selected iTunes, Downloads, Music, and Local Music, which can then be toggled on and off depending on what I want to show up in my Spotify library.

2. Add local music to playlists, like you would any other music.

Once you've added various directories to Spotify on the desktop, it's simply a measure of creating playlists so that you're able to save those playlists for offline listening.

Highlight whatever tracks you want, right-click while hovering over those tracks, and select the "Add to Playlist" option — like so:

You can add them to an existing playlist, or you can create a new one.

Either way, get whatever tracks you want into a playlist (or several separate ones — you do you), and grab your phone/tablet/whatever device you want to save those tracks on.

3. Navigate to your playlists section, find and select the playlist you just made, and click the "Downloaded Songs" toggle.

At this point, all you've got left to do is grab your favorite mobile device and download the playlist for offline listening. 

As you can see above, I've jumped to a smartphone where I'm logged in to the same paid Spotify account that I use on my computer. I'm connected to the same WiFi network as that computer, and ... well, that's pretty much it. 

I toggled the "Downloaded Songs" option, and that's that — the playlist is now on my Pixel 2, ready whenever I want to hear it.

Over the past decade, the Marvel Cinematic Universe has built an expansive set of films while raising the critical and commercial expectations for ongoing movie series.

But extensive film franchises have been around for awhile, and several older series, like the film adaptations from J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle-earth books, have received more positive critical acclaim on average than Marvel's. And some are only getting better as time goes on, like "Mission: Impossible," which reached its critical zenith with "Fallout."

Stretching from the first James Bond film, 1962's "Dr. No;" to the latest MCU and "Star Wars" entries; this list we compiled from Metacritic data ranks prominent film franchises by their average critical reception (derived from the critical scores for each movie in a franchise).

Note: Metacritic only included franchises that had more than four films with scores on its site, and it excluded horror films and animated series.

Here are the 27 greatest movie franchises of all time, according to critics:

SEE ALSO: The 100 best science fiction movies of all time, according to critics

27. "Die Hard" — 58.4%

"Die Hard" (1988) — 70%
"Die Hard 2: Die Harder" (1990) — 67%
"Die Hard: With a Vengeance" (1995) — 58%
"Live Free or Die Hard" (2007)  — 69%
"A Good Day to Die Hard" (2013) — 28%

26. "Alien" — 59.5%

"Alien" (1979) — 83%
"Aliens" (1986) — 84%
"Alien 3" (1992) — 59%
"Alien Resurrection" (1997) — 63%
"Alien vs. Predator" (2004) — 29%
"Aliens vs. Predator - Requiem" (2007) — 29%
"Prometheus" (2012) — 64%
"Alien: Covenant" (2017) — 65%

25. "Jack Ryan" — 59.6%

"The Hunt for Red October" (1990) — 58%
"Patriot Games" (1992) — 64%
"Clear and Present Danger" (1994) — 74%
"The Sum of All Fears" (2002) — 45%
"Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit" (2014) — 57%

• Summer blockbuster "Crazy Rich Asians" is set in Singapore, which is known worldwide for its extravagance and wealth.
• The Gardens By The Bay, featured in "Crazy Rich Asians," is a major landmark in Singapore, featuring more than a million plants, the world's largest glass greenhouse, and a grove of 160-foot tall 'supertrees.'
• I recently visited the Gardens By The Bay to see what it was like and found myself marveling at the beautiful park.

Singapore is known worldwide for its extravagance and wealth, and it's the setting of "Crazy Rich Asians," the summer blockbuster everyone's talking about based on the bestselling novel by Kevin Kwan.

The wedding at the heart of "Crazy Rich Asians" takes place at one of Singapore's most iconic sites: the $700 million futuristic botanic garden known as The Gardens By The Bay.

Built in 2012 on 250 acres of reclaimed land, Gardens By The Bay is a nature park built as part of the government's initiative to turn Singapore, long known as “the garden city,” into a “city in a garden.”

But to call Gardens By The Bay simply a park or a garden is a massive understatement. The site is an architectural, technological, and natural marvel, consisting of 1.5 million plants of over 5,000 species, the world's largest glass greenhouse, and a grove of 160-foot tall 'supertrees' that look like they popped out of a science-fiction movie.

I got a chance to visit the Gardens By The Bay this spring. Here's what it was like:

SEE ALSO: I stayed in the $6.6 billion mega-hotel in the heart of Singapore, and it wasn't anything like 'Crazy Rich Asians'

The idea for the Gardens By The Bay was conceived by Dr. Kiat W. Tan, a botanist and now CEO of the park. He wanted to turn reclaimed land on Singapore's Marina Bay into one of the world's best gardens. You can get a good view of the Gardens' two seashell-shaped biodomes from the Marina Bay Sands, the landmark hotel that overlooks the park.

Source: BBC

I also visited the Marina Bay Sands »

But most people know about the Gardens By The Bay because of the Supertree Grove, 12 tree-like structures that act as vertical gardens and range from 82 feet tall to 160 feet tall.

When you enter the Gardens By The Bay, you can see some of the smaller Supertrees at the entrance, as well as the biodomes. There are six scattered outside of the main grove.

Omarosa Manigault-Newman, the firebrand communications director of the White House Office of Public Liaison who was abruptly fired in December, has released her tell-all book, "Unhinged: An Insider's Account of the White House."

In the book, she recounts her alleged experiences inside the Trump administration and campaign, making startling claims that include an accusation she heard a recording of Trump saying a racial slur.

But the Trump administration is fighting back, with the president leading the charge by downplaying her credibility and calling her names on Twitter.

The relationship between the two former reality TV stars — Trump was the host of NBC's "The Apprentice" while Omarosa was a contestant — was not always strained. Even in a phone call between Trump and Omarosa shortly after her ouster from the White House, the two appeared to share a compassionate moment with Trump offering his condolences.

"Damn it, I don't love you leaving at all," Trump appeared to say on a secretly recorded phone call from Omarosa.

Here's a timeline of Omarosa's journey from a star on "The Apprentice," to her eviction from the White House:

Omarosa Manigault-Newman was involved in politics long before Donald Trump's presidency.

Omarosa held various roles in government during the Clinton administration. She answered invitations for Vice President Al Gore and eventually landed a job with the Department of Commerce.

Her former colleagues described her tenure as rocky, including Cheryl Shavers, the former Under Secretary for Technology at the Commerce Department, who said that "she was asked to leave as quickly as possible, she was so disruptive," according to People.

"One woman wanted to slug her," Shavers said.

Omarosa made her primetime debut on NBC's "The Apprentice" in 2004.

She was eliminated from the show by Trump in Week 9 of the first season. 

Source: Bustle

Omarosa continued to make appearances in various "Apprentice" spinoffs. She also starred in her own show "The Ultimate Merger," in which 12 men, selected by Donald Trump, competed against each other for her favor.

• Disney California Adventure Park West general manager Gary Maggetti has worked at the Disneyland Resort full-time for 23 years.
• Before he landed a full-time role, he did a stint as a Jungle Cruise skipper in college.
• Maggetti shared his typical daily routine — which features a morning pick-me-up of green tea and lots of walking — with Business Insider.

Gary Maggetti's Disneyland journey began long before he landed his first full-time role there in 1995.

Before the iconic resort became his workplace, he was just another kid at the park, swinging by all the best attractions with his twin brother Chris. Their family visited Disneyland every two years, starting when they were four.

Then, Maggetti was a Northern Arizona University hotel and restaurant administration major applying for the Disney College Program. He landed a summer gig as a skipper on the Jungle Cruise, one of his favorite rides.

Finally, in 1995, he landed his first full-time role at the park. By that point, Maggetti knew that Disneyland was where he wanted to stay.

In the 23 years since, Maggetti has held 13 different roles at the Walt Disney Company, including one that took him all the way to Japan. Today, he's a general manager representing the western part of Disney California Adventure Park. Disney California Adventure and Disneyland Park are the two theme parks that make up the Disneyland Resort in Anaheim, California.

Maggetti said his story isn't "unique" at Disneyland.

"You go to a meeting and you look around the room and it's like: 'Oh my goodness, you were in my management training class in 1996,'" he told Business Insider. "This is not an unusual story because there are so many opportunities with Disney to have different experiences."

Maggetti recently shared his daily schedule with Business Insider. His routine sheds light on both the culture at Disneyland, and the behind-the-scenes inner-workings of the park.

Here's what a typical day at Disneyland looks like for Maggetti:

SEE ALSO: Many Disney employees say they bring their own lunch to work — but there are 7 park treats they just can't resist

DON'T MISS: Disney cast members share their 11 favorite things to do in the park

SEE ALSO: Disneyland is home to a squad of feral cats who have free rein in the park — and you can adopt one if you work there

Maggetti wakes up early and typically passes on coffee

Maggetti kicks off his day at 6 a.m. He's not big on breakfast, but he said that he'll sometimes eat a morning meal with his two teenage sons.

According to Maggetti, the boys take after his twin brother Chris — an executive chef at Disneyland.

"They're actually pretty good cooks, so sometimes they'll make me breakfast in the morning," he told Business Insider.

But two figures are typically absent from the breakfast table: Maggetti said he has a "long distance marriage" with his wife, who lives and works in Northern California with his stepson. The family reunites on the weekends, though.

After breakfast, Maggetti drives his sons to school and then embarks on the 35-minute commute to Disneyland. He usually arrives at work around 8 a.m.

To prepare for the workday, Maggetti skips coffee and instead opts for decaf green tea. He said he prefers the "calming effect" of the beverage.

He meets up with his team mates and enjoys watching the park open

First up, Maggetti heads to his team's morning huddle. Patrick Finnegan, the vice president of Disney California Adventure Park and the Downtown Disney District, leads the daily meeting. Everyone discusses the previous day and establishes a "game plan" for the coming day.

Maggetti said the team often makes a point of huddling out in the park, where they can watch early-bird guests trickle in around 9 a.m.

"It's incredibly enjoyable to be there when the first guests go through the turnstiles," Maggetti said. "There's this sense of adventure and hope and excitement. You can kind of see the guests making decisions early in the day. Like, 'Am I going to the new Incredicoaster?' or 'Am I going to head over to Radiator Springs Racer?' It's great to be a part of that."

Up next, Maggetti learns about any cool opportunities for his cast members

Once the park is opened, all of the general managers will connect with one of the resort's duty managers for a daily "roll call."

Maggetti said this is his chance to learn about cool opportunities for Disney California Adventure Park cast members, such as trying out new attractions before they open to guests.

"They'll let the leaders know, 'Hey make sure your cast members know we have this great experience before the guests arrive,'" Maggetti said. 

• Apple's App Store may be the world's largest software distribution platform.
• But there are concerns that the competitiveness of the marketplace may make it difficult to maintain high-quality utility apps.
• Apple is strongly encouraging developers to transition to a subscription, software-as-a-service model, and held an invitation-only meeting in the spring of 2017 to convince developers to lean in to the new business model.

In April 2017, a group of over 30 software developers gathered at a luxury loft in New York City's trendy Tribeca neighborhood after receiving an invitation from Apple. They didn’t know exactly why they had been summoned, but all of them had one thing in common: they developed apps for Apple's devices, according to people who attended the event. 

The developers at Apple’s loft soon realized the hardware giant needed something from them: Apple was a few months into a major shift in the App Store’s core business model, and it needed buy-in from developers.

Developers, Apple said, needed to realize the business model of apps was changing. Successful apps tended to focus on long-term engagement instead of upfront cost. Indie developers who wanted to capitalize on this needed to move to a subscription model, as Apple had made possible in the past year in a splashy announcement. 

Why Apple, one the strongest forces in the world of technology, held an invite-only meeting for smaller, often one-or-two person indie developers is a story that goes back to the beginning of the App Store in 2008. Shortly after the App Store was turned on for iPhones, people realized that the market for apps had a tendency to drive prices for software down. 

Eventually, iPhone owners got used to apps costing only $1 or $2.

Months after the App Store launched, former Apple CEO Steve Jobs referenced the shifting market for apps in a 2008 interview that was recently unearthed.

"I think some of the folks have come down from $10 to $5, and see their sales go up more than 2X. I think these guys are trying to maximize revenue and they’re experimenting," Jobs said at the time. "They could ask us, 'What should we do?' and we’re going to say, 'We don’t know.' Our opinions are no better than yours because this is so new."

10 years later, the App Store isn't new anymore, and Apple continues to tweak its rules so that developers can create sustainable business models, instead of selling high-quality software for a few dollars or monetizing through advertising. If Apple can't make it worthwhile for developers to make high-quality utilities for the iPhone, then the vibrant software ecosystem that made it so valuable could decay.

Apple's main tool to fight the downward pricing pressure on iPhone apps is subscriptions.

Some apps are 'hammers'

Some software is like a network, and other software is like a hammer.

For example, an app for connecting you to friends and family, like Facebook or Snapchat, is a network. On the other hand, an app that allows you to, say, crop or alter a photo is more of a tool, like a hammer.

The advent of the App Store in 2008 made most software for iPhone and iPads ever-cheaper as Apple's userbase was exploding, which was great for network-style apps: they got access to a huge userbase, and since they make money through advertising or other methods, the race to the bottom in terms of pricing didn't hurt them.

But the App Store put a lot of stress on hammer makers, people and small businesses who developed tools for people to draw, or write, or program — basically, apps called "utilities" in the App Store. These developers would sell an app for a few dollars in a one-time transaction, and then they were stuck paying server costs and upkeep indefinitely with free updates.

"Once the customer is acquired and they pay the money, they don't get charged again. So what keeps the app up?" Ish Shabazz, an indie iOS developer, said. 

In response, in 2016 Apple introduced what was reportedly internally called "Subscriptions 2.0," a way for developers that made utilities and other kinds of apps to bill their customers on a regular, recurring basis, creating the cashflow necessary to keep a hammer-style app up-to-date and effective. 

It also, according to developers that Business Insider spoke to, made it possible to create a large and sustainable software business based on App Store sales. 

This September, "Subscriptions 2.0" turns two year old. Subscription-based apps remain a very small fraction of the 2 million apps available from the App Store, but Apple is pleased with the uptake. 

"Paid subscriptions from Apple and third parties have now surpassed $300 million, an increase of more than 60% in the past year alone," Apple CEO Tim Cook said during a conference call last month. 

"What's more, the number of apps offering subscriptions also continue to grow. There are almost 30,000 available in the App Store today," he continued.

A secret developers conference

The emphasis Apple is putting on subscription business models for app makers is clear from the invite-only meeting that the iPhone giant held in New York in 2017.

Apple holds an annual developers conference in San Jose, but it held a separate session that year for smaller developers encouraging them to adopt subscription business models.

But if the transition didn’t go well, and developers stopped making hammer-style apps, Apple could lose some of the vibrant software that made its iPhone and iPad so valuable.

Up until 2016, when a developer sold an app to a customer, 30% of the transaction went to Apple, and the other 70% arrived in the form of a check to the app's creator.

The new way Apple wanted to promote: Instead of users paying for apps once, they’d pay on a regular basis, putting money into developer coffers on a regular schedule. Apple would still get a 30% cut of the subscription's cost, but if a customer continued to subscribe after a year, Apple's cut would go down to 15%.

At the meeting, Apple underscored that the app model was changing. The meeting touched on topics including launching, customer acquisition, testing and marketing, engagement, retention, monetization, and paid search ads. 

An Apple representative said at the meeting that paid apps represent 15% of total app sales and is on the decline, according to a person who was there who did not want to be identified to maintain their relationship with Apple. 

This meant that developers needed to spend time turning free customers into high-value customers, and also worry about churn — the percent of customers that used to subscribe but canceled. Apple suggested several tactics, like offering 2-4 options to improve conversion rate, segmenting users by price. Apple also suggested that after a month, it was seeing 41% retention on apps that increased their prices, only slightly lower than the 61% retention that it was seeing when subscription prices were kept the same. 

The message was clear: successful apps now focus on getting regular engagement from their users, not one-time sales. For developers, that meant embracing the subscription model.

If you focus on paid apps, instead of subscriptions, Apple warned, your business will eventually hit a cap.

An elite developer finds prices can go even higher

One of the biggest winners from the changes to the App Store is Lightricks, an Israel-based developer which makes several serious photo editing apps for iPhones and iPads under the Enlight brand.

It makes FaceTune, a fun app that improves selfies — smoothing out imperfections, fixing the lighting, and generally making you look your best.

FaceTune was the No. 1 most downloaded paid app on the United States App Store on Friday. It's a paid app that costs $3.99. But although most developers would love to have those kind of numbers, Lightricks cofounder Itai Tsiddion is more excited about FaceTune 2, which uses the subscription app model. 

FaceTune 2 has over 500,000 active subscribers, Tsiddion said, and through research he's been able to figure out that the people who are engaged and using the app value it highly enough to pay much higher prices than what a paid app could command. 

If you want to sign up on a monthly basis, FaceTune2 costs $5.99 to unlock. Annually, it costs $32. And if you just want to buy it outright forever, it's a whopping $69.99. 

"Those are the prices we can command with subscriptions," Tsiddion said. "We were pitching, 'we'll get to $20.' We're at $36 now!" 

Lightricks achieved a $40 million run rate this year and is profitable, Tsiddion said, but in the early days, there were questions from Silicon Valley investors about whether it's possible to build a real business making mobile apps on the Apple App Store. 

"Even on Sand Hill Road, nobody believed it was a sustainable ecosystem," before the subscription changes, Tsiddion said, speaking of Lightricks' early days. 

With paid apps, he found they were "hitting a ceiling around $10 million per year in revenue, which is not very much when you have serious R&D."

But now, the recurring revenue from the company's App Store subscriptions have transformed a company whose primary product is iPhone and iPad apps into a "real business" with 140 employees.

Dominated by big players

Still, even with some hammer-makers finding huge success, the majority of Apple's subscription revenue doesn't appear to come from apps that are specific tools — instead, it's coming from big content businesses like Pandora, HBO, and Netflix. 

“My suspicion is that a good portion of those subscriptions are content subscriptions,” independent Apple analyst Neil Cybart wrote in May.

"Really, the growth of those applications has been cemented by the subscription applications,"Alex Malafeev, co-founder of Sensor Tower, an app analytics firm, told Business Insider. "It's definitely a top-heavy market right now in terms of the revenue." 

"If you look at maybe the top 20 or 30 apps and companies, these are going to be the names you hear in the media all the time, they're generating a lot of that revenue. Netflix. Spotify. Tinder. YouTube," he continued. "Part of this is driven by these companies introducing new media subscription monetization and doing really well."

One of the apps that is the best example of content subscriptions is Tinder, Malafeev said — a network-style app, and as a part of giant IAC, certainly not an indie developer. 

"Tinder probably being the best example where the majority of their monetization is from "Gold" premium subscriptions, but they also have considerable purchases that you can buy as well to boost your profile or something like that," he said.

Apple likes to tout its payouts to developers. In June, it said that it had paid out $100 billion to App Store developers, of which there are 20 million. But some smaller developers worry that figure is misleading, with the majority of that going to the big players.

"They say they paid developers $100 billion dollars, which I think is hilarious. Who are they paying $100 billion dollars? HBO and Netflix are two of the top-grossing apps on the App Store. It seems disingenuous to take credit for 'Game of Thrones,'" Shabazz said. 

One way that "hammer" developers are adapting to the new subscription focus is to bundle content into their tool apps. 

Shabazz is working on a daily planner and notebook app called Capsicum, which will be monetized through subscriptions. He's shooting for $19.99 per year. 

"The way that works is we're going to be adding content constantly over time," Shabazz said, citing additions like weather, backup features, and daily graphics inside the journal.

It also costs money and time to retool a popular app for subscriptions. Popular iOS app Ulysses changed from a $25 app to a $5 per month app last year, for example. "Adding subscription to Ulysses took us 7 months, with 1 man-year engineering, 1.5 man-years total effort. It’s 22k lines of production code," Ulysses cofounder Max Seelemann tweeted. 

There's also a danger that consumers may not want to pay on a monthly basis for a utility. "You’ve seen many apps changing their business models, and the consumer reactions are mixed," Denys Zhadanov, a VP at Readdle, which makes Spark, a mail client, as well as other utilities, told Business Insider in an email.

The trick is to "provide recurring value, so that you can ask for a recurring fee. If the app/service is a more of a tool (hammer) that is used once a month — charging for that every month doesn’t make much sense," he continued. "Yet there are exceptions on the App Store who trick users into free trials and charge them $3.99 a month, making $1M revenue per month."

How many subscriptions?

Apple hasn’t said how many in-app subscriptions are currently being paid for and didn't respond to a request for comment for this story.

Apple has 300 million people paying it for subscriptions, according to its most recent earnings call. Some are subscriptions to Apple's own services, like Apple Music, but the majority are subscriptions to third-party apps. 

The number certainly stacks up well to other content subscription services: Netflix has 125 million subscribers and HBO Now only has 5 million. Spotify has 83 million paid subscribers.

Apple is quietly building one of the biggest subscription businesses in the world — something that’s core to the company as iPhone sales growth slows. Apple wants its services, supported by the App Store, to be a Fortune 50 business by 2020, or about $55 billion per year in revenue. 

While a lot of that lifting can be done by content, to build a business that big, Apple is going to need a lot of hammers too.

Are you an app developer with a story to share? Contact the reporter of this story at kleswing@businessinsider.com.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Everything wrong with the iPhone

At the Met Gala in early May, a surprising new couple showed up on the red carpet: billionaire tech CEO Elon Musk and Canadian musician and producer Grimes.

While Musk has long 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.

Since they made their relationship public in May, the couple has continued to make headlines: Grimes for publicly defending Musk and speaking out about Tesla, and Musk most recently for tweeting that he wants to take Tesla private.

The couple was in the news again on Monday for a new reason: the rapper Azealia Banks chronicled on Instagram what she claims was a strange weekend staying with Grimes and Elon Musk in Los Angeles. 

But for those who may still be wondering who Grimes is and how she and Musk ended up together, 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, Fader

A friend persuaded Grimes to sing backing vocals for his band, and she found it incredibly easy to hit all the right notes. She had another friend show her how to use GarageBand and started recording music.

Source: The Guardian

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

Source: The Guardian, Fader

• Helios and Matheson, the parent company of MoviePass, has already massively diluted shareholders by issuing hundreds of millions of shares.
• But investors could see a lot more dilution to come.
• The company has the authority to issue billions of additional shares and has shown that it will sell stock to fund MoviePass' ongoing losses.
• The tactic could come to an end if the company's stock gets delisted or if it hits a cap on the number of shares it can issue.

Be warned, MoviePass investors: your shares may soon be worth even less than they are now — at least in terms of the portion of the company they represent.

Even after increasing its share count recently by more than 9,400% in the space of just two weeks, MoviePass' parent company could still issue and sell hundreds of millions — even billions — of additional shares under authorizations it already has on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, according to experts in securities laws and regulations. And investors may not know just how many more shares it's dumped on the market until weeks after the fact.

"As long as you disclose it, you can do it," said Seth Taube, the head of the securities practice at law firm Baker Botts. "They've told the world that they've authorized all these shares. That's all that's required."

In January, Helios and Matheson, MoviePass' parents company, filed what's known as an S-3 document with the Securities and Exchange Commission, advising shareholders it planned to issue shares collectively worth as much as $400 million. It followed that up with a related filing in April, informing shareholders that, under that previous authorization, it planned to sell as much as $150 million worth of shares "at the market," meaning it would sell them over time on the open market to everyday investors.

Then in July, the company filed another S-3, which gave it authorization to issue shares totaling as much as $1.2 billion — in addition to the ones it already had authorization to issue. Later that month, Helios and Matheson's shareholders gave their stamp of approval for the company to increase its share count to as many as 5 billion shares.

Investors gave Helios and Matheson approval to issue 5 billion shares

At the same time that they approved that increase, investors also approved a plan for the company to reverse-split its stock and dramatically decrease the number of shares it had outstanding. The company immediately took advantage of that authorization and gave investors one new share of its stock for every 250 shares they held previously.

But that reverse split didn't affect the number of shares Helios and Matheson could issue under the plan approved by shareholders. Even though the reverse split decreased the number of shares the company had outstanding from several hundred million to just 1.7 million, it could still issue up to 5 billion shares total. Indeed, the effect of the two measures approved by shareholders allowed Helios and Matheson to issue hundreds of millions more shares than it could have issued otherwise.

It certainly pushes the edge of the envelope.

Through August 9, Helios and Matheson had made at-the-market sales under its April filing totaling an estimated $107 million worth of stock, based on figures the company released in its quarterly report last week. That means that just under that authorization alone, it could raise up to about $43 million more by selling additional shares. To raise that much money at its current share price — 3 cents a share — Helios and Matheson would have to sell 1.4 billion shares of stock.

If it did that, it would more than triple its current share count of 637 million shares.

But that understates just how many shares the company is already authorized to sell. The April filing only covered a portion of the $400 million worth of shares that were authorized to be issued under the February S-3. Although the company has already issued other shares under that document, it still appears to have room to sell as much as $115 million worth of stock within the S-3's authority, above and beyond what it can sell under the April filing.

At current stock prices, that would imply the issuance of some 3.8 billion more shares.

In other words, just under the authority of the S-3 it issued back in January, Helios and Matheson could max out the 5 billion total shares investors permitted it to issue just last month, assuming its stock price remains around the same or falls even farther. That's not a bad bet if the company does indeed flood the market with new shares.

The company could also sell the shares in relatively short order — and without giving investors any additional warning. That's what happened earlier this month, when Helios and Matheson increased its share count by some 630 million shares in less than two weeks. The company didn't disclose that its share count had increased that much until after it had issued all those new shares.

As long as the company has already disclosed that it might issue and sell new shares, it doesn't have any duty to alert investors in real time that it is in fact issuing and selling those shares, said Robert Bartlett, a professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley's School of Law who focuses on corporate finance and securities regulation.

"There's no duty to inform [investors] just because the [share] numbers are ticking up," Bartlett said. "There's no duty to update" investors.

The company has already massively diluted shareholders

The company has given every indication that that's indeed its plan. It's repeatedly issued new shares to raise cash to fund the ongoing losses at MoviePass. The 9,400% increase in share count from the end of July to last week came on top of previous massive dilution. Between August last year and this July, Helios and Matheson had increased its share count by 3,400%. Then, just days after its reverse split, the company issued enough shares to nearly quadruple its now-reduced share count, apparently to pay off an emergency loan.

Thanks to that dilution, and the company's ongoing losses, some shareholders have seen the value of their Helios and Matheson shares fall by more than 99%.

That dilution was "amazing," but perfectly legal under securities law, because it had given investors a heads-up through its disclosures that it might do it, Taube said.

"It certainly pushes the edge of the envelope, but is not beyond the pale," he said.

Company representatives did not respond to repeated emails seeking comment about the dilution and whether the company plans to continue issuing more stock.

Helios and Matheson burned through about $50 million a month in cash in the second quarter, leaving it with just $51 million in cash and accounts payable as of August 9. Ted Farnsworth, Helios and Matheson's CEO, told Fox Business on Wednesday that the company has cut its burn rate to $12 million a month, but that would still leave it with less than five months worth of cash, making it likely it will need to raise new funds.

Helios and Matheson's ability to sell shares may be ending

However, its traditional tactic of issuing new shares to raise money may soon come to an end.

The company got a delisting warning in June from the Nasdaq national market after its stock fell below $1 a share. Were it to be removed from the Nasdaq, which could happen as soon as December, the company would likely have problems selling new shares.

At some point, people will stop buying.

Meanwhile, the 5 billion share limit that shareholders just put in place could put a check on MoviePass's stock sales sooner than that. Thanks to that cap — and Helios and Matheson's current share price — it doesn't really have the ability to tap into the authority it got under the S-3 it filed last month. To raise the $1.2 billion allowed under that filing, it would have to sell some 40 billion shares at its current stock price. That's far beyond what it's now authorized to issue.

But there is an even bigger potential roadblock for Helios — investor demand.

"At some point, people will stop buying," Bartlett said. "That's probably the biggest limit right now."

SEE ALSO: MoviePass' parent company increased its share count by an incredible 9,000% in less than two weeks — and just after reverse splitting its stock to combat dilution

SEE ALSO: MoviePass has less than 3 months left before it runs out of cash — and its latest changes won't save it

SEE ALSO: The owner of MoviePass keeps repeating the same move to raise the cash it needs to stay alive — and it’s getting absurd

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: How to hack an election, according to a former NSA hacker

• Tyler "Ninja" Blevins, a pro streamer on Twitch and the most popular "Fortnite" player in the world, says he doesn't play with female gamers.
• Blevins' decision has sparked a larger discussion within the gaming community.

“I don’t play with female gamers.” 

That's what "Fortnite: Battle Royale" streamer and ex-professional e-sports player Tyler "Ninja" Blevins told Polygon last week.

"If I have one conversation with one female streamer where we’re playing with one another, and even if there’s a hint of flirting, that is going to be taken and going to be put on every single video and be clickbait forever."

Ninja owes much of his mega-fame to the Amazon-owned livestreaming website Twitch — where, as he rightfully points out, rumors spread quickly. In the same way that many YouTube stars have risen to fame by chronicling their personal lives for strangers to watch, it's not uncommon for Twitch stars to over-share with their audiences, and fans are often more than eager to know the intimate details.

However, while Twitch may be a well-known breeding ground for gossip, it is much better known for the widespread and nearly unavoidable harassment and belittlement of female streamers.

After Blevins' comments went viral, Ninja's no-girls-allowed policy inspired a wave of backlash on social media that lasted through the weekend. 

On Monday, Blevins clarified his stance with a statement posted to Twitter:

When the dust had settled, it was clear that Ninja's comments raise tough questions about the importance of inclusion in gaming culture, and the cost of internet fame in the modern social media-centered world.

So far, reactions to Blevins' comments have varied widely

"As the largest streamer on Twitch, he had the opportunity to make a difference when it came to gender equality in gaming," said Riley J. Dennis, a YouTube creator, live-streamer and podcast host. "And instead he prioritized his comfort over the right of women to be treated as equals."

Dennis continued, in an email sent to Business Insider: "If he had taken a stand and told his audience that they need to respect women and that he's going to be streaming with platonic female friends, they would listen to him."

This point was echoed on Twitter all week:

Meanwhile, some of the most prominent women streamers have come out on social media in support of Ninja's decision. 

"I've been a fan of Ninja for a long time. He's always been respectful to everyone in this space, myself included," said Renee Reynosa, a livestreamer and YouTuber. "I was unaware that him playing with a woman was an ongoing discussion. I just figured he played with people he liked and worked well with, just like the rest of us. I never assumed otherwise."

Fortnite streamer Rachell "Valkyrae" Hofstetter tweeted her support of Blevins on Monday: "It has NOTHING to do about being sexist. And it is not teaching kids to not play with women. It should only show others the importance of putting the health of your relationships first, over work."

Many Twitter users have also noted that Ninja's support doesn't directly undermine or prevent the success of women streamers:

It feels relevant to note that of the female streamers and content creators I reached out to while writing this story, several declined to comment because they hoped to avoid "targeted" online attacks from Ninja's supporters on social media.

At the very least, Ninja's comments raise some serious questions 

Besides being a reflection of the casual sexism that exists on Twitch, Ninja's comments have also inspired some troubling questions: For example, what's more important? Ninja's desire for privacy, or improving the platform that he is now synonymous with?

"The thing to remember about creators is that their authenticity — their willingness to be open, share personal stories, offer their opinions, communicate with fans directly, that kind of thing — is their biggest strength," said Megan Farokhmanesh, an internet culture writer for The Verge, told Business Insider in an email.

"The relationship with creators is a para-social one, where audience members develop a strong attachment to someone they've never met — and will likely never even know they exist," she said. "The loss of privacy and the ensuing harassment Ninja seems to be referencing is currently part of the cost of internet fame, but it shouldn't be a required price."

YouTube creator Riley J. Dennis offered a different perspective.

"I do that think Ninja and other Twitch partners should want to improve the platform by promoting and supporting women gamers," said Dennis. "It's just the right thing to do. I don't know how to make the argument that compassion for people who are different from you is important — you should just want to extend your compassion towards those people."

Clearly, there are no easy answers.

What we know is that social media, including platforms like Twitch and YouTube, has redefined the modern understanding of fame and celebrity. And while the pressure to be open with strangers obviously doesn't excuse the writing off of an entire gender, it is certainly enough to spark an understandable amount of fear and, in turn, result in some ugly — however unintentional — divisiveness.

"Taking on the issue of sexism in gaming isn't a burden I would ever place on a single individual.  It has to be a group effort," said Youtuber Renee Reynosa. "So, while I'm not a fan of how everything unraveled, I'm glad that the end result was a discussion on how we can be more inclusive and supportive of one another."

SEE ALSO: This 26-year-old Fortnite streamer says she paid off her mom's debt with her Twitch earnings

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: NYU professor says Facebook should pay taxes for making us less productive

• HBO ordered to series its "Watchmen" TV show from "Lost" and "The Leftovers" co-creator Damon Lindelof, and announced that it will premiere in 2019.
• A film adaptation directed by Zack Snyder was released in 2009 to mixed results, and only after Warner Bros. and Fox settled a dispute over the novel's film rights.
• Prior to that, several attempts were made to adapt "Watchmen." Directors such as Darren Aronofsky, Terry Gilliam, and Paul Greengrass were all attached at one point.
• Moore himself has always been against adaptations of his work.
• Lindelof  has said the HBO version will be an original, contemporary story with new characters, but the events of the novel will be canon.

HBO gave a series order to Damon Lindelof's "Watchmen" TV show last week. The co-creator of "Lost" and "The Leftovers" is taking a chance on adapting the most acclaimed graphic novel of all time, and he'll have his work cut out for him.

The 1986, 12-issue comic book limited series (turned graphic novel) from writer Alan Moore and artist Dave Gibbons is considered by many fans — and Moore himself — to be unfilmable.

Moore has always considered comic books to be the appropriate (and only) medium for his ambitious story, and there are plenty of people who agree.

That hasn't stopped Hollywood from trying its hand at bringing "Watchmen" to the big screen on several occasions.

Directors such as Terry Gilliam ("The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus"), Darren Aronofsky ("mother!"), and Paul Greengrass ("Jason Bourne") were once associated with film adaptations. Zack Snyder ("Justice League") finally got the job done in 2009 to mixed results.

If a revealing letter to fans on his Instagram in May is any indication, Lindelof knows what lies ahead.

"I am compelled despite the inevitable pushback and hatred I will understandably receive for taking on this particular project," he said. "This ire will be maximally painful because of its source. That source being you. The true fans."

But he went on to say: "I'm a true fan, too. And I'm not the only one. What I love about television is that the finished product is not the result of a singular vision, but the collective experience of many brilliant minds."

Lindelof said he turned down offers to adapt "Watchmen" for TV on two separate occasions before finally accepting when asked a third time. Now, he's well into developing the show for HBO, which showed great confidence in the series when it revealed that it will premiere in 2019.

What makes it so difficult to adapt

On the surface, to someone totally unfamiliar with the material, "Watchmen" may sound like the average superhero story: a group of masked antiheroes are caught in an elaborate conspiracy after one of their own is murdered.

But what has elevated "Watchmen" in the decades since its debut is that it is much bigger than that.

It's a conspiracy with consequences that shape the world. The characters' presence affects the course of history: the US won the Vietnam War, Watergate never happened, and humanity is on the brink of World War III in 1985.

It raises complex questions about morality, such as how many lives are worth the price of war — and peace. It acts as a harsh commentary of the time it was released, and of the superhero genre in general, which can often lead to misinterpretations.

While it's feasible to replicate this story for the screen, as Snyder did, many would argue that the distinct look and mood of the novel is only something that comic books can capture, so it shouldn't be attempted.

There are certain creative choices made that are specifically designed for comic books. For instance, chapter five, called "Fearful Symmetry," is symmetrical: the first page of the chapter is identifiable with the last, and so on.

Each chapter tells its own story, and since Snyder's film was so reliant on the source material, jumping from one storyline to another created a pacing problem — especially when the story jumped throughout history.

Lindelof's vision, according to his letter, will dodge these obstacles by telling an original, contemporary story with new characters set in the same universe as the novel, where its events are canon.

It doesn't help that Moore has never appreciated, or intended, any of his works to be adapted. The writer is infamous for having a lukewarm opinion of film. In a 2008 interview with The Los Angeles Times, Moore said that he finds "film in its modern form to be quite bullying."

"It spoon-feeds us, which has the effect of watering down our collective cultural imagination," he said.

A history of failure

The "Watchmen" rights have bounced from studio to studio, director to director, for over two decades.

In the 1990s, Terry Gilliam was attached to direct a "Watchmen" adaptation from a script by Sam Hamm, who wrote Tim Burton's 1989 "Batman" film. That project was dropped, but Gilliam and Hamm had ... ambitious ideas for their adaptation.

In the novel, a character named Dr. Manhattan has God-like powers and his existence has a direct impact on historical events. In Hamm's script, according to producer Joe Silver, the character Ozymandias (the "smartest man in the world") convinced Dr. Manhattan to go back in time and stop himself from ever existing. He does so, which prevents the other characters from becoming vigilantes and their costumed alter-egos only become comic book characters.

"So the three characters, I think it was Rorschach and Nite Owl and Silk Spectre, they're all of the sudden in Times Square and there's a kid reading a comic book," Silver said in 2014. "They become like the people in Times Square dressing up like characters as opposed to really being those characters. There's a kid reading the comic book and he's like, 'Hey, you're just like in my comic book.' It was very smart, it was very articulate, and it really gave a very satisfying resolution to the story, but it just didn't happen. Lost to time."

Without giving anything away, this is completely different from the novel, and might not have sat well with purists.

In 2004, Darren Aronofsky was announced to be the director of a "Watchmen" film. This came three years after 9/11, when the project was scrapped (again) by Universal because the novel involves a disastrous event in Manhattan. In those three years, the rights landed at Paramount, but Aronofsky eventually ditched the movie.

Before Snyder, Paul Greengrass came the closest to getting his vision of "Watchmen" off the ground. His version would have been a modern take on the story. In a 2010 interview with Comic Book Resources, Dominic Watkins — who was a production designer on Greengrass' "Bourne" movies and would have been on his "Watchmen" adaptation — said the post-9/11 Bush-era resembled the rising tension of the Cold War in the 1980s that the novel captured.

"I thought that the political climate from Bush was escalated to a similar point, with us on the brink of something quite catastrophic, so I thought making a version of 'Watchmen' that was more contemporary and applying it to the decade of the ’00s was a good idea and was a lot more relevant than it turned out to be," Watkins said.

He continued: "I think the difference between Zack Snyder’s 'Watchmen' and ours would’ve been night and day. He pretty much made the movie page-to-page from the graphic novel. Ours was definitely going to be based on the graphic novel and all the characters would’ve been drawn on that, but we’d have updated it somewhat."

Watkins even had a production book of concept art ready, but the rest is history.

What we know about HBO's adaptation

Lindelof is currently developing the series for HBO to premiere in 2019, and it sounds similar to what Greengrass' version would have been, in that it will be a modern take on the story.

But it won't be the same story. In his letter, Lindelof said he has no intention of adapting the source material, but "remixing" it.

It will be an original, contemporary story with new, "unknown" characters, but the events of the novel will be a part of the pilot's history.

"Some of the characters will be unknown," he said. "New faces. New masks to cover them."

HBO revealed the full all-star cast for the show last week, which includes Jeremy Irons, Regina King, Don Johnson, and Tim Blake Nelson.

Not much is known beyond that, but Lindelof's letter is promising. He showed an understanding and deep appreciation for the source material — the letter was even written in the same time-jumping style of the Dr. Manhattan-focused chapter of the novel, "Watchmaker" (a page from it is above).

Lindelof often pokes fun at himself for his handling of endings: the "Lost" series finale left fans divided, and he made it a goal to not make the same mistake with "The Leftovers." I hope this latest foray into the world of "Watchmen" has a happy ending for all.

SEE ALSO: HBO gave an official series order to its first superhero TV show, 'Watchmen,' which has an all-star cast

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: How a black cop infiltrated the KKK — the true story behind Spike Lee's 'BlacKkKlansman'

Superhero movies are known for their blockbuster, money-making appeal, but they can also produce some stellar performances.

Acting goes overlooked for most moviegoers when watching a superhero movie. And you generally don't see actors in superhero movies nominated for big awards like the Oscars (except for that one time). 

But there are plenty of performances that are not only great on their own terms, but capture what makes their respective characters so great. The best superhero movie performances take what's on the comic book page and add another layer to it on the screen.

We looked at the best performances in superhero movies to determine the top 20. The only rule was that we picked a specific movie — for instance, Robert Downey Jr. has played Iron Man in multiple movies throughout the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but which one is he the best in?

Some movies will repeat because they have more than one memorable performance that warranted a spot on this list. Characters could repeat, as well. We all know how susceptible to reboots these movies are.

From villains to heroes and supporting characters, these are the 20 best superhero movie performances:

SEE ALSO: We made a timeline showing the entire history of the Marvel Cinematic Universe

20. Letitia Wright as Shuri in "Black Panther"

Letitia Wright stole every scene in "Black Panther" as the title character's genius sister, and became a fan favorite in the process.

19. Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent/Two-Face in "The Dark Knight" (2008)

Eckhart's performance as Gotham City District Attorney Harvey Dent, who is tragically disfigured and driven mad, is overshadowed by Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker in "The Dark Knight." But we believe Dent's sudden transformation because of Eckhart's acting.

18. Danny DeVito as Oswald Cobblepot/The Penguin in "Batman Returns" (1992)

Danny DeVito's portrayal of The Penguin is over-the-top and disgusting, but he does it as only he can. The character hasn't been seen on screen since, and it would be hard for anyone else to top.

• "Crazy Rich Asians" won the weekend box office with an estimated $25.2 million, and has taken in $34 million since it opened on Wednesday.
• It's the latest movie this year to prove that if Hollywood offers movies with authentically diverse voices, audiences will come.

For the second-straight weekend, a Warner Bros. movie is atop the domestic box office mountain.

"Crazy Rich Asians" won the weekend box office with an estimated $25.2 million, and has earned $34 million since it opened on Wednesday.

The studio can point to two very different titles for its late summer surge. This weekend, "Rich Asians" proved there's a market for a movie with an all-Asian cast (and a romantic comedy), while last weekend's "The Meg" showed audiences will go see a giant shark chase Jason Statham.

Though the performance by "The Meg" was a surprise by most in the industry, that's not the case with "Crazy Rich Asians."

Based on the popular book series by author Kevin Kwan and starring some of the most popular Asians actors working today (Constance Wu, Awkwafina, Ken Jeong, Michelle Yeoh), along with an unknown on his way to stardom (Henry Golding), the movie was headed for some major coin.

And the movie earning a 92% Rotten Tomatoes score (a career best for its director Jon M. Chu) leading up to its opening all but confirmed it.

Like "Black Panther" earlier this year — which proved the hunger to see a superhero movie that showcased an authentic diverse voice was overwhelming (even though Disney opened the movie in the traditionally dead movie season of February) as it went on to break box office records and earn over $1.3 billion worldwide — "Crazy Rich Asians" continued that trend.

Marking the first time a major studio has released a movie with an all-Asian cast in 25 years, Chu's movie was the perfect release in a time when inclusion in Hollywood is a cry that's never been louder. And the fact that it was in the structure of a romantic comedy, a genre that studios have ran from for a decade, makes it even sweeter.

With the summer movie season wrapping up, "Crazy Rich Asians" is a strong end note. And with the season box office up over 11% from last year's historically awful summer offering, this year proves that the summer movie season is still a cash cow — if the movies are worth seeing for all audiences.

SEE ALSO: Bitter enemies MoviePass and AMC once worked together — here's a look inside their relationship's epic collapse

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: How a black cop infiltrated the KKK — the true story behind Spike Lee's 'BlacKkKlansman'

• Actor Jim Carrey has become a political artist and activist on Twitter, amassing over 18 million followers.
• He regularly tweets politically charged and timely artwork — and has sparked backlash in some cases.
• A clear style emerged in the art back in November.
• As Carrey steps back in front of the camera for an upcoming Showtime series, "Kidding," we revisited his Twitter art catalog.

Actor Jim Carrey has gained a reputation this year for being an outspoken political artist and activist on Twitter.

He's stepping back in front of the camera later this month with a new Showtime series, "Kidding," and was recently profiled for the first time in years in The Hollywood Reporter, but he hasn't slowed down in his art.

Carrey regularly takes aim at President Donald Trump and his administration, the Republican party, Fox News hosts like Sean Hannity, the National Rifle Association, and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg with his drawings.

And it hasn't been without its controversies, such as the conservative backlash he faced earlier this year for posting an unflattering image of White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, in which he called her "monstrous."

But when did this new style of art from Carrey begin?

The first public instance appears to be in November. A drawing of former Trump strategist Steve Bannon that Carrey tweeted on November 10, 2017, seems to have set a precedent for the art that would come after it. The art features Bannon's face with the word "fool" drawn over it.

That same day, Carrey tweeted a drawing of former Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore. Similar to the Bannon piece, Moore's face had the word "danger" drawn over it.

Carrey has regularly posted drawings since then, almost always inspired by current political events. His Twitter has attracted nearly 18 million followers.

We don't know what Carrey will say next, or what art he'll post, but until then, we've rounded up a selection of his politically artistic tweets since he debuted the distinct style in November.

Below is a timeline of Carrey's politically charged artwork:

SEE ALSO: Jim Carrey really wants to play Paul Manafort and compared him to an 'alien in a skin suit'

DON'T MISS: Jim Carrey was blasted by Fox News and Twitter users after posting an unflattering portrait that seems to criticize 'monstrous' Sarah Huckabee Sanders

November 10, 2017

Tweet Embed:
https://twitter.com/mims/statuses/928860839309819904?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
I’m Steve Bannon and I endorse Roy Moore for US Senate.He stands accused of molesting a 14yr old girl,but at least he’s not a Democrat! ?8^¥ pic.twitter.com/p2ojKqVS47

November 10, 2017

Tweet Embed:
https://twitter.com/mims/statuses/929063564970622976?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Alabama GOP, if u can’t vote 4 Doug Jones at least don’t vote for an alleged pedophile. Do the decent thing and just stay home. ;^| pic.twitter.com/KPzIZKLj6X

November 29, 2017

Tweet Embed:
https://twitter.com/mims/statuses/935914112994832389?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
The GOP and WH have become sinister conclaves of souless traitors, liars and thieves - a gangrene we must remove so democracy can live. #killthebillpic.twitter.com/DzXdh68qVB