Remember when "Battleship" was turned into a movie in 2012? Later this year, mystery game Ouija is getting the same treatment. 

Universal just put out the first trailer for "Ouija," an adaptation of the Hasbro spirit talking board game that will be released in theaters this October. 

Here's the synopsis for the film:

"In Ouija, a group of friends must confront their most terrifying fears when they awaken the dark powers of an ancient spirit board."

While you may be quick to write off another board game adaptation, Andrew Form, Brad Fuller, and Jason Blum — the minds behind some of the biggest recent horror series including "The Purge," "Friday the 13th," "Paranormal Activity," and "Insidious" — are working on the film. The movie is also being produced by Michael Bay.

The film feels like a horror version of 1995's "Jumanji." 

"Ouija" is in theaters October 24. Watch the trailer below. 

SEE ALSO: How Hasbro decides what toys it will turn into movies

Join the conversation about this story »

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Rupert Murdoch’s Twenty-First Century Fox Inc made an audacious offer for Time Warner Inc that if it succeeds would transform the American media landscape and cement the 83-year-old's status as the most powerful magnate in U.S. media and entertainment.

While Time Warner, whose assets include the HBO cable channel and the Warner Bros movie studio, rejected the $80 billion bid, Murdoch is unlikely to abandon the pursuit and has the “disciplined determination” to get the deal done, people close to the situation said. Investors expect he will eventually raise the offer and increase the cash component – 40 percent - to win the prize.

Murdoch's proposal, fresh on the heels of his high-profile divorce and a damaging phone-hacking scandal that involved his British tabloids, is aggressively bold even for a media mogul whose ambitions are legendary.

A combined Fox-Time Warner would have a massive array of media and sports content and be in a very powerful negotiating position with cable and satellite distributors - some of whom have themselves announced mega-deals and newer ways of getting to consumers, such as online video distributors Netflix Inc and Amazon.com Inc.

"It's a chance to put some great programming and content assets under one umbrella," a person close to the situation said. "There are other alternatives, but none of them fit anywhere near as well as this does."

Still, Time Warner pushed back strongly against Murdoch's approach, insisting the offer undervalued the media conglomerate and raising fears about the dominating role that his family would play, another person close to the situation said on Wednesday. In particular, the board is worried about the future value of Fox's shares, which represented 60 percent of its cash-and-stock proposal. Those fears were magnified by a lack of voting rights, the source said, as that would concentrate too much power in the hands of Murdoch and his sons.

"To do a merger of this scale and size where Time Warner shareholders have no insight into the destiny of the company is very troubling," the source, who was not authorized to speak on the record, told Reuters.

Time Warner Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey Bewkes told the conglomerate's employees in a videotaped appearance that the company's standalone strategic plan would create value "superior to any proposal" that Fox could offer.

The acquisition, if ever completed, would mark the second-largest media deal ever, when debt is included, trailing only Time Warner's disastrous takeover of AOL in 2000.

In the end, a Time Warner deal is likely to hinge on price. The source pointed out that Fox's stock has traded at the highest multiple of its peer group and Time Warner - prior to its 17 percent rally on Wednesday - was trading at the lowest. Time Warner worries that the stock - the main "currency" of the deal - may be ripe for a pullback, lowering the value that is currently on the table.

According to StarMine SmartEstimates, Fox shares trade at a multiple of about 19.5 times 12-month forward earnings, above the group median of 17.8 and now in line with Time Warner's 19.5 times - a valuation substantially above where the shares closed on Tuesday.

Shares of Fox dropped 6.2 percent to $33.

The offer, first reported by The New York Times, was worth about $80 billion, or $85 a share, when it was made in June.

Fox estimates that a combined company, which would have $60 billion in annual revenue, would save $1 billion in costs and possibly more, the people familiar with the matter said. Detailed negotiations with Time Warner could reveal even more potential savings, they said, which may then justify sweetening the offer.

Fox said no talks were under way, and it has no desire to go hostile or to bid against itself with a higher offer, the people familiar with the matter said.

Either way, a takeover by Fox could win the blessing of many of Time Warner's shareholders, a majority of whom also own Fox's non-voting stock. In addition, Time Warner does not have a staggered board and its bylaws allow as few as 15 percent of shareholders to call a special meeting, factors that could help a takeover bid.

A number of Time Warner shareholders said Twenty-First Century Fox and Murdoch might have to raise the bid to as high as $95 per share from $85 when the bid was made in June to wrap up a merger. Murdoch also would do well to offer more cash upfront, investors said.

Time Warner has no controlling shareholder, meaning the company could easily go into play, said Ken Griffin, founder and chief executive of Citadel LLC, which owns shares in both companies. “It’s going to be tough to say no,” he said during a conference in New York.

Mario Gabelli, chairman and CEO of Gamco Investors, said he expects a technology company with more cash than Fox, such as Apple or Amazon, could emerge with a bid.

“It’s not a dynamic I want to dismiss out of hand. They have a currency, and they understand the value of content,” he said of the tech companies." Gamco's funds own about 3.6 million shares of Time Warner and about 10.5 million Fox shares.

SEEKING DANCE PARTNERS

Fox's overtures are likely to reverberate across the industry, accelerating a wave of consolidation that is already well underway.

Comcast Corp, the largest U.S. cable provider, offered in February to buy Time Warner Cable Inc for $45.2 billion in stock. Overseas, Fox's 39 percent-owned British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc is negotiating to buy Fox's Sky Italia and its Sky Deutschland subsidiary in a deal that could net Fox as much as $13 billion.

As a consequence of the Murdoch bid, "the urgency to find a dance partner will increase across the sector," said Bernstein Research analyst Todd Juenger.

U.S. media shares closed higher on the deal, with top gainers including Discovery Communications Inc, up 6.3 percent; Viacom Inc, which rose 3.3 percent; and AMC Networks Inc, ending 4.5 percent higher.

Murdoch started thinking about a potential merger with Time Warner as he was separating Twenty-First Century Fox, which mostly consists of media properties, from News Corp, focused on the Wall Street Journal and other publishing assets, people familiar with the company said.

The separation, triggered by the British phone-hacking scandal which dragged Murdoch before the British parliament, has in the end positioned Fox to become a powerful consolidator of media properties, people familiar with the matter said.

Fox has indicated it would sell Time Warner's CNN cable channel, a direct competitor of Fox News, to clear any regulatory hurdles, according to the people.

At least one antitrust expert, who was not authorized to speak publicly, said it was unlikely that any issues that arise would kill a Fox deal for Time Warner. The source pointed out that there were five major content companies in the United States, plus numerous smaller ones.

News of the Time Warner bid comes as Fox is reorganizing its television business, aiming to lift its network out of last place among the big U.S. broadcasters.

Fox is being advised by Goldman Sachs and Centerview Partners, while Time Warner is working with Citigroup, people familiar with the matter said. JPMorgan Chase & Co and Goldman Sachs would lead any financing required for the bid.

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom is providing legal advice to Fox, while Cravath, Swaine & Moore is legal adviser toTime Warner.

(Additional reporting by Soham Chatterjee in Bangalore, Ross Kerber in Boston Luciana Lopez in New York and Diane Bartz in Washington; Writing by Frank McGurty; Editing by Saumyadeb Chakrabarty , Lisa Von Ahn and Bernard Orr)

Join the conversation about this story »

We've now spoken with sources on many sides of the Fox-Time Warner deal.

Here's the thinking on where we are and what will happen next:

* Yesterday's news blitz was likely a deliberate (and effective) tactical move by the Murdoch camp. Having made a significant offer to Time Warner's board, and been rebuffed, Fox went over the Board's heads to Time Warner shareholders. The Time Warner shareholders, who are the key constituency that both sides will now be trying to win over, reacted positively to this overture. Mr. Murdoch now has their attention, and they are eager to hear what he will say next.

* Time Warner anticipated this move and did a good job parrying it. Time Warner's response—a cool, calm, confident, polite demurral—conveyed an effective message: We appreciate your offer. We considered it carefully. It's not enough to get us to the negotiating table. But we're not crazy, and a bigger number might be.

*  The $85-a-share offer did its job—got everyone's attention—but is viewed on all sides as an opening bid. Although there is precedent for Murdoch's opening offer to be his best-and-final offer—he shrewdly and patiently persuaded the shareholders of Dow Jones to accept his opening number, for example—this situation is different. First, Time Warner's shareholders are professional shareholders, not private family members with competing interests. Second, Time Warner's board is not alone in not viewing $85 as a compelling takeout price—Time Warner's shareholders agree with the board. The number seemed especially low considering that the bulk of payment would be delivered in Fox stock (which already has dropped in price). A source familiar with Fox's thinking suggests Fox is open to raising its bid, but will need cooperation from Time Warner to do it (i.e., let's sit down and talk).

* $100 a share does seem to be a reasonable "clearing price." Sources familiar with both sides of the deal say they would be unhappy with this number, which suggests that it's in the ballpark. A major Time Warner shareholder also seemed ambivalent about this price, suggesting he wouldn't be thrilled with it but would probably take it. He also offered reasonable logic to back this number up:

1) Analysts think Time Warner will earn almost $6 a share in 2016, Time Warner will likely accelerate earnings growth thanks to affiliate-fee renewal deals, and this acceleration will likely drive a modest increase in Time Warner's stock multiple. Put all that together, and it's reasonable to think that Time Warner's stock will naturally trade at about $100 in 12-18 months.

2) Time Warner actually does have a compelling growth plan, and it will not be that hard to deliver on it. The shareholder expects that Time Warner will be able to negotiate significant long-term fee increases from its distribution partners and that these will accelerate earnings growth.

* A source familiar with Time Warner's thinking argues that Fox would be unable to pay the price it would take to get to a deal, but a major media investor says this is nonsense. Fox is radically "underlevered," this investor says. Fox could borrow billions of dollars to raise cash to sweeten the bid, and it could also issue new equity. These fund-raising tools could also allow Fox to shift the purchase consideration to more cash and less stock, which would make the deal more attractive.

* Fox stock dropped on the news not because Fox shareholders hate the deal but because Fox shareholders are concerned that Mr. Murdoch will overpay.  The shareholders have this view in part because Mr. Murdoch is perceived to have overpaid for Dow Jones. The Fox camp is naturally working hard to persuade everyone that Mr. Murdoch will not overpay this time. A source familiar with Mr. Murdoch's view argues that this deal is a "nice-to-have," not a "must-have," and that if Time Warner has delusions of grandeur, Mr. Murdoch will walk away.

* The summer timing of Fox's overture gives Time Warner a tactical advantage, because Fox can't immediately force Time Warner shareholders to vote on the deal. Time Warner's annual shareholder meeting, at which a "hostile" move like this could take place, isn't until next spring, 9 months from now. This removes a near-term threat and gives Time Warner breathing room. It also suggests that Fox's overtures are likely to remain "friendly," at least for the time being, and that we could be in for a long siege.

* Time Warner does not want to sell itself now: The ideal timing, from Time Warner's perspective, would be 2-3 years from now. There are three reasons for this.

• First, Time Warner, under CEO Jeff Bewkes, has just spent five years divesting itself of all the assets it didn't want: AOL, Time Warner Cable, and Time, Inc. The company is pleased with the assets it now has and has a plan to accelerate their growth over the next several years. Selling now would mean selling halfway through the long-term Bewkes plan.
• Second, most of the players that Time Warner considers other likely buyers are tied up with other deals or not ready to play ball. These potential acquirers include Comcast (trying to buy Time Warner Cable), AT&T (trying to buy DirectTV), Verizon, Google, and Apple (not yet convinced they need to buy a company like Time Warner). In 2-3 years, Time Warner feels, some of these players will be ready to come to the dance floor. At that point, the company suggests, it might formally put itself on the block and get a bidding war going.
• Third, Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes is only 62 and likes his job and his plan. He does not want to retire yet. Mr. Bewkes is way too shrewd to invoke his personal situation as a reason to rebuff the deal, but Bewkes has a lot of sway. And his lack of enthusiasm for pursuing a deal right now, sources believe, is genuine.

* Everyone agrees that the next move is Mr. Murdoch's. He will listen carefully to Time Warner shareholders, and if he feels they would be supportive of the deal at a higher price, he will likely raise his offer in an attempt to bring Time Warner to the negotiating table.

Stay tuned!

Email: hblodget@businessinsider.com

Join the conversation about this story »

Entertainment Weekly's latest issue has a huge 11-page spread on the "Avengers" sequel revealing what to expect from possibly the biggest movie of 2015.

We find out a bit about how the Avengers team reassembles after the last film, what's going on with the additions of Elizabeth Olsen and Aaron Taylor-Johnson as new characters Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, and how villain Ultron comes into play. 

It's safe to say we can expect to learn much more about "Age of Ultron" during San Diego Comic Con next week, but until then, here's what we learned about the film. 

The new issue of Entertainment Weekly will be on stands Friday.

Mini-spoilers will follow.

What "Avengers: Age of Ultron" will be about: 

After "Thor 2," "Iron Man 3," and "Captain America: The Winter Soldier," our superheroes are pretty much in retirement mode. 

Thor has given up his right as the leader of Asgard, Captain America has gone off in a search of his friend Bucky, and Tony Stark rid of all his Iron Man suits. 

According to EW, the Avengers team now wants someone — or something — else to take the lead when it comes to fighting off villains. 

Enter Ultron, a drone that was originally built by Hank Pym (the original Ant-Man) in the comics back in 1968. This time; however, he'll be built by Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) as a means of protection gone awry.

From EW:

"The 'Avengers' sequel begins with Stark's latest plan to fix the world: Ultron will be an all-seeing, all-knowing captain of the Iron Legion, a planetary force of robotic beat cops that resemble blue-and-white versions of the Iron Man suit but have no human core ... If it all works out, the superheroes can just sit back. It does not work out.

"In a bid to give his creation a dose of humanity, Stark programs Ultron (James Spader) with elements of his own personality—which proves to be Mistake No. 1 ... It seems our new robot overlord is an absolutist with all of Stark's cynicism but none of his kindness."

As you could imagine, eventually, Ultron will go rogue and announce a plan to "bring peace" to Earth by ridding of the entire human race.

Where the Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver come into play:

Comic fans are excited to see the twin duo — played by Elizabeth Olsen and Aaron Taylor Johnson ("Godzilla") — make their entrance onto the big screen. 

Director Joss Whedon tells EW they'll be working with the rogue robot.

"They're on Team Ultron, which makes things really hard for the Avengers because all of a sudden they're dealing with powers that they're not used to," says Whedon.

Quicksilver has the ability to move at lightning speed. Whedon describes him as "quick-tempered," and "impatient," but "super protective."

Every fan has been wanting to know what sort of powers the Scarlet Witch will have since the comic character has an array of powers. We first saw her in the mid-credits sequences for "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" playing with cube-like objects.

Whedon says the Scarlet Witch will be able to "harness magic and telekinesis." She'll be able to get "inside your head and move objects." From the article, it also sounds like she's not completely in control of her psychic abilities. 

Of course, this will be the second time we'll see Quicksilver on screen after the scene-stealing, goofy character was in "X-Men: Days of Future Past." 

This is due to a tricky rights negotiation between both Fox and Disney. Disney's $4 billion purchase of Marvel in 2009 allows them to use Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch in the Avengers property. However, since both characters are X-Men mutants (they're the children of Magneto played by Ian McKellen and Michael Fassbender on screen), they're also allowed to be in the 20th Century Fox films.

How J.A.R.V.I.S., who has been voiced by Paul Bettany up until this point, will come into play:

Bettany, who has been voicing Stark's A.I. system J.A.R.V.I.S. up until this point on screen, will finally appear in human form in the "Avengers" sequel.

However, Bettany was cast as The Vision, described by EW as a "synthetic, superpowered human designed by Ultron."

What does this mean for Jarvis? Fans can probably put two and two together and imagine that J.A.R.V.I.S. will be transformed into The Vision.

Our take:We're thinking Ultron will manipulate the A.I. system into working against the Avengers team by offering him the gift of life — something Stark didn't do for his beloved J.A.R.V.I.S. (Vision is used in a similar way in the comics.)

The rest of the EW article reveals one big scene between the Avengers facing off with Ultron that we won't spoil. It's a great read worth checking out ahead of Comic Con.

Head over to EW to check out exclusive images from the film >

SEE ALSO: Director Joss Whedon says "Avengers 2" villain is "genuinely disturbed"

Join the conversation about this story »

While plenty of celebrities, actors, and athletes already use Facebook, there's now an app to help them post.

'Mentions' is basically the traditional Facebook app, but it's tailored to help important people "discover and join conversations" happening on Facebook.

In order to be able to use Mentions, Re/code reports that you'll have to be a verified Facebook user with a public page. If you have an iPhone, you can download Mentions here, but unless you have one of those blue check marks next to your name, you'll be out of luck.

The focus of Mentions is to encourage celebrities and other public figures to engage more on the social network, and there's even an option to host a live Q&A session with fans.

Facebook claims that it's already seen celebrities posting twice as often when testing the app.

The most notable user of Mentions so far was seen by millions.

The video of actor Tyrese Gibson and Dr. Dre celebrating Apple's acquisition of Beats was posted using Mentions. And while it was taken down amidst rumors of the deal falling through, it's the first feather in Facebook's cap, and it goes to show that people enjoy watching celebrities at their most natural and carefree.

Facebook wants to encourage this type of natural interaction between celebrities and fans, and Mentions features a specific Mentions tab that's basically Facebook's attempt to clone Twitter's "@" tab.

The Mentions tab will act as an alternate News Feed of sorts, allowing the famous to keep track of people, well, mentioning them.

It's yet another feature Facebook has graciously borrowed from Twitter, and it goes to show that Facebook is interested in better connecting the world of celebrity with those interested in keeping up.

You can learn more about Mentions over at Facebook's official Mentions page.

SEE ALSO: I'm 22 Years Old, And I Grew Up Without The Internet

Join the conversation about this story »

"Hannibal" is probably one of the best shows on television right now. 

The NBC drama starring Mads Mikkelsen as a twistedly delightful serial killer makes AMC's "The Walking Dead" look like a jovial zombie sitcom. (Spoiler: A man was shown feeding parts of his face to dogs this season.) 

Critics have praised it as a smart, beautifully haunting adaptation of Thomas Harris' series with some going as far to call it the best horror show on TV. It has a huge cult following online that refers to themselves as Fannibals and probably one of the most self-aware Tumblr accounts of any TV series.

There's just one problem. No one is watching it — at least when it airs — and the network heads don't seem to understand why.

"Hannibal" ratings are pretty abysmal. The show pulled in its highest viewership during its 2013 season premiere with about 4.3 million viewers. About 2.4 million tuned in for the recent season two finale.

This is in complete opposition with viewer response to the episodes. Fans have increasingly rated the episodes better and better on IMDB.

Via Graph TV:During the TCAs (Television Critics’ Association) press tour NBC Entertainment Chairman Robert Greenblatt said he doesn't understand why the show isn't pulling in better numbers suggesting it would probably fare better on cable or a paid network.

Via IGN:

"It's one of the best reviewed shows that this network has had since I've been here. And we still struggle to find an audience for it. It's great, we're keeping it going, we keep trying to build an audience for it. But, if this were on a cable network the small audience would not matter. It would be deemed more successful than it is on our network. I don't know why five million people or eight million people won't watch Hannibal on a broadcast network. Three million might watch it on Showtime or another cable network and that's okay. The minute you try and do something that is dark, and subversive, and frightening, and gets into that territory, you start to peel away the mass audience. It's just the way it is. Because the quality of that show is undeniable."

There's a simple reason the series isn't bringing in 5 to 8 million people: NBC gave it the death time slot for season two. This isn’t a secret. Basically everyone has said this.

When Hannibal premiered on NBC, it aired on Thursday nights at 10 with a lead-in from now-cancelled Matthew Perry show "Go On." The dark thriller was an outlier in NBC's Thursday evening comedy block. When it returned the following year as a midseason show its ratings continued to stumble after it was placed after the network's fantasy crime drama "Grimm."

Here's an example of TV ratings on a typical Friday night now:

Now, here are ratings for the rest of a sample week to compare from Nielsen via TVbythenumbers. I've highlighted the 10 p.m. slots for comparison. (Zoom in and out below. If you're on mobile, head here.)

The last time I can ever think of something extremely successful airing on Friday nights was when ABC had its excellent TGIF (Thank God Its Friday) run in the '90s with shows like "Family Matters," "Dinosaurs," and "Boy Meets World."

Perhaps the most successful shows to have ever aired on Friday evenings in the 10 o'clock slot were soap operas "Dallas" and then "Falcon's Crest" in the '80s on CBS. Since then, the majority of networks have pulled away from airing serious network contenders on Friday evenings since its thought most people aren't home to watch TV. 

Below is an extensive list of shows that aired on Friday nights at 10 o'clock from 1990 to 2013.

CBS has probably been the most successful since 1990 with a string of hits including "Nash Bridges," Numb3rs," and, now, "Blue Bloods." ABC has defaulted to mostly running "20/20" while Fox always runs local programming. NBC was the most inconsistent network over the past two decades when it came to late Friday-night programming. Of the shows above, nine of them were cancelled after appearing in the 10 p.m. time slot.

Friday nights became known as a place where shows went to die. A few series that were moved to Friday nights (no specific time) and later received the ax during their last seasons include "Boston Public," "Prison Break," "Raising Hope," and "Las Vegas."

When "Hannibal" was brought back for season two, it looked as if NBC was ready to give a quiet goodbye to its killer thriller, but it appears an overwhelming amount of positive criticism helped keep it on the air.

If NBC says they're serious about finding an audience for the Bryan Fuller series then it needs to be given a better time slot. It won't get 5 to 8 million viewers overnight, and it may not get there overall, but airing it any day but Friday may be a start.

SEE ALSO: Why you should be watching "Hannibal"

Join the conversation about this story »

Weird Al Yankovic is back, releasing eight new parody music videos in eight days to promote his new album "Mandatory Fun."

The 54-year-old singer is everywhere this week getting the word out about his 14th album, including Fox Business Network’s "Varney & Company."

Yankovic had an enlightening interview with host Stuart Varney as to what this whole internet thing is all about, and how the parody singer makes money from releasing his videos online.

Yankovic: "MTV is not really music television anymore, the internet is essentially MTV. The internet consumes things very quickly, things go viral for a day — you can be famous for 24 hours. So I figured the best way to advertise my new album is every single day of release week, put out a new video people get excited about."

Varney: "How do you make money putting things on the internet? Who pays you for this?"

Yankovic: "Well, they don't pay me for it, but I get the video for free because I'm partnered up with Funny or Die, College Humor, Yahoo, and Nerdist. They're all looking for content and I'm looking for a video so we partner and it's a win-win situation."

Varney: "How do you get the money?"

Yankovic: "The partners do. They don't pay me, they pay for the production of the video and hopefully, that will make people want to buy the album because the videos are essentially commercials for the album."

Perhaps most interesting, however, is that Yankovic revealed his new album is the last of a 32-year record deal.

"This is the end of my album deal. I've been under contract since 1982," he explained. "So this is album number 14, it's the end of a 32-year album deal."

And now that the deal is over, the singer plans to change his business model.

"After this I think I'm just going to be releasing singles," Yankovic explained. "Because the stuff I do is topical and timely and if I wait until I have 12 songs and put out an album, chances are a lot of those songs aren't going to be topical and timely."

As Varney then pointed out, "What you're doing is putting content on the internet and that's why Time Warner is so valuable — $80 billion not enough to buy them, it's going to take a whole lot more."

Watch the full interview below:

Watch Yankovic's videos he's released so far this week.

"Tacky" parody of Pharrell's "Happy":

"Word Crimes" grammar lesson parody of Robin Thicke's "Blurred Lines":

"Foil" aluminum foil parody of Lorde's "Royals":

"Handy" parody of Iggy Azalea's "Fancy":

SEE ALSO: Here's The Insanely Long List Of Things Rupert Murdoch Would Own If He Bought Time Warner

Join the conversation about this story »

Playing off the success of its two previous videos on the same theme, College Humor is once again taking a look at what it would be like if we had to pose our Google queries to a flesh-and-blood human.

In short: we'd be driving the poor guy crazy all the time. Inane searches for silly things, thinly veiled searches for porn. When was the last time you took a moment to appreciate all the work Google does for you, you sick puppy?

Watch the video above and be grateful!

Join the conversation about this story »

Actress Elaine Stritch died Thursday in her home in Birmingham, Mich., at the age of 89.

The Broadway icon, who was most recently known for playing Alec Baldwin's outspoken mother on "30 Rock," was a five-time Tony Award nominee and three-time Emmy Award winner.

Stritch starred in Broadway hits such as “Elaine Stritch at Liberty” and “Show Boat,” and was known for her association with Stephen Sondheim.

Her silver screen credits include the 1957 film adaptation of Ernest Hemingway’s “A Farewell to Arms” and Woody Allen’s “September,” “Small Time Crooks,” and “Autumn in New York.”

The actress was profiled in the 2013 feature documentary “Elaine Stritch: Shoot Me.”

SEE ALSO: The Incredible Story Of How A Bankrupt And Unemployed Brian Williams Got His Big TV Break

Join the conversation about this story »

A new report from Ad Age's Jeanine Poggi contains some good news and some bad news for Twitter.

On the one hand, Poggi reports that Twitter's Amplify program, which allows brands to run a promoted tweet containing a short video of an ongoing television event, has been a big success when used during live events like sports and awards shows.

On the other, brands and networks tell Poggi that Amplify has not caught on as much with viewers when used during scripted television.

While Heineken added 2,300 followers from a campaign centered one the U.S. Open tennis tournament, A&E has run just one Amplify campaign since signing up to try the product when it launched in May 2013.

If nothing else, the news highlights the friction that exists between Twitter and its TV partners as they fight to make money off of a fragmented television audience that does not come together around one program in the numbers they once did.  

In a sense, the struggles the Amplify product have faced mirror what is happening in television as a whole: live events like sports are drawing huge numbers while scripted programs are increasingly being watched via time-shifting methods like DVR and Hulu.

As a result, Ad Age reports, some brands are thinking about scaling back on TV advertising to spend money on Amplify tweets, rather than making an additional outlay for Amplify on top of their current levels of TV spending.

Here's how a TV executive phrased it to Ad Age: 

"Initially we were excited about Amplify as a way to get incremental revenue. We bought into the premise," the first TV executive said. "But when we went into the marketplace we were surprised sponsors didn't find value in it and they didn't want to spend extra. Some suggested reducing their buy with the network to give portion to Twitter, which of course didn't sit well for us."

Though Pivotal Research Group analyst Brian Wieser told Ad Age that Amplify represents only a small sliver of Twitter's revenues, the report serves as an interesting example of a story we've been talking about here for a while.

Twitter has worked hard to forge a complementary relationship with television, both by offering networks access to its social analytics and by allowing advertisers to boost their TV buys by simultaneously running promoted tweets. But the social media company's end-game remains as it has always been: to grow its own $1 billion-a-year ad business by stealing the ad money that has traditionally gone to TV.

Read Poggi's full story at Ad Age >> 

SEE ALSO: Facebook Wants To Kill TV; Twitter Merely Wants To Steal From It

Join the conversation about this story »

*This post discusses a popular "Game of Thrones" fan theory that may or may not be true, so be aware that this post is dark and full of spoilers.*

There are many "Game of Thrones" fan theories out there, but arguably the most popular is the one behind the true parents of Jon Snow. 

In "Game of Thrones," Jon Snow (who is played by Kit Harington on the HBO series) is known as the bastard child of the Lord of Winterfell, Ned Stark.

However, since the story constantly points out Jon's conflict with his illegitimacy and Ned's strict code of honor, many fans have come up with a theory that actually explains who they think Jon's parents really are.

Fans know the theory as "R+L=J." "R+L=J" would refer to Jon Snow ("J") being the child of Rhaegar Targaryen ("R") and Ned Stark's sister, Lyanna Stark ("L") rather than Jon being the illegitimate child of Ned.

Considering this is one of the best kept secrets in the entire series (so much so that the creators of the HBO show were quizzed on it by author George R.R. Martin himself), YouTube user "Alt Shift X" put together a video explaining the theory and pulling out facts that help prove it.

The theory explains that Ned's sister Lyanna was set to marry Robert Baratheon when she "stolen" by Rhaegar Targaryen who brought her to the Tower of Joy in Dorne. This act begins the war that later sets "Game of Thrones" into action.

However, the theory makes the argument Lyanna was actually in love with Rhaegar and ran away with him.

After Robert kills Rhaegar thus ending the war, Ned Stark heads to the tower and finds his sister in a "bed of blood."

With her dying breath, Lyanna forces Ned to make her a promise.

No one knows what this promise was, but many theorize that Lyanna died during child birth (hence the "bed of blood") and asked Ned to pretend her child Jon was his.

This was done in order to protect Jon from Robert and the Lannisters, who were killing all of the Targaryen children via Ser Gregor "The Mountain" Clegane.

Now, there's plenty of evidence hidden throughout the story that shows that Jon isn't Ned's son out of wedlock.

For example, a quote in the first book shows how Ned is an incredibly honorable man who keeps his vows including those to his wife, Catelyn.

Another piece of evidence is that when Daenerys (who would be Jon's aunt in this theory) was in the House of the Undying she saw a blue flower growing out of a wall of ice.

Blue flowers are used throughout the series to represent Lyanna while Jon is a member of the Night's Watch stationed on the giant ice block that is The Wall.

Now, no one really knows if the theory is true or not, but if it is then this would possibly mean that Jon has a better claim to the Iron Throne that anyone else in the story, including Daenerys.

It would also mean that Jon Snow would represent both ice (Stark) and fire (Targaryen) which the entire book series was named after ("The Song of Ice and Fire").

To get the entire break down of the theory, check out the full video below: 

SEE ALSO: These Beautiful Illustrations Show Every Major Death On 'Game Of Thrones'

Join the conversation about this story »

Microsoft announced on Thursday that it will be laying off 18,000 employees, which is the most in the company's history. Included in the cuts, Microsoft is closing the two-year-old Xbox Entertainment Studios in the coming months. 

Xbox Entertainment Studios is responsible for bringing original programming to the platform, such as a show based on the Xbox-exclusive "Halo" games, as well as a reality TV series called "Every Street United," which launched early last month. 

In a statement to Business Insider, Phil Spencer, head of the 200-person Xbox Entertainment Studios, said that programs that are already in production will continue as planned. This includes the "Halo" series, as well as a documentary called "Signal to Noise," with the first installment being about the "E.T." Atari games that were dug up from landfill in April:  

Xbox will continue to support and deliver interactive sports content like 'NFL on Xbox,' and we will continue to enhance our entertainment offering on console by innovating the TV experience through the monthly console updates. Additionally, our app partnerships with world-class content providers bringing entertainment, sports and TV content to Xbox customers around the world are not impacted by this organizational change.

The move to cut this arm of Xbox's business and to focus on gaming might not come as much of a surprise. Microsoft made no mention of its original programming plans at its E3 press conference. It's also trying to play catchup with the PlayStation 4 in terms of sales, although after dropping the price of the Xbox One last month seems to be helping.

On Wednesday, Microsoft reported it sold more than twice as many Xbox Ones in June as it did in May. 

SEE ALSO: The most expensive video games ever made

Join the conversation about this story »

Since its release on June 25, "Kim Kardashian: Hollywood," the famous-for-being-famous Hollywood starlet's video game, has already blown up in the App Store.

"Kim Kardashian: Hollywood" is the No. 5 top-grossing app after just three weeks. It's the only title in the App Store's Top 10 with a five-star rating. And if the game remains popular, Kardashian could make as much as $85 million from it this year.

That said, I've been playing "Kim Kardashian: Hollywood" in small increments several times over the past couple of weeks, and I can't seem to stop.

And I've never touched a copy of OK! or seen a full episode of "Keeping Up With The Kardashians."

The free-to-play game is full of opportunities for in-game purchases, which buy you more playing time and virtual items like clothes and jewelry. As a cash-strapped, recent college grad, I don't exactly have the funds to enable my newfound hobby, which is certainly a limiting factor for playing the game.

It's probably for the best.

First, you get to make your avatar. You can put on any variety of crop tops and skinny jeans, and you can even change the way your face looks — just like a real celebrity.

After a quick wardrobe change, I was ready to begin my journey into Hollywood.

Never forget your roots, the game prompts. Sounds kind of ominous! Soon I would find out why ...

Bill Maher, the host of HBO's political talk show "Real Time With Bill Maher," sent a tweet Thursday about the Palestinian militant group Hamas that compared them to a "crazy woman" that "you have to slap."

"Dealing w/ Hamas is like dealing w/ a crazy woman who's trying to kill u - u can only hold her wrists so long before you have to slap her," Maher wrote.

Maher's tweet seemed to be a defense of an Israeli military operation launched Thursday in response to repeated Hamas rocket attacks. The tweet immediatelyprovokeda backlash online, but as of this writing, Maher has not posted any clarification.

Business Insider reached out to HBO asking if Maher had any statement responding to critics and whether the network believed his comment was appropriate. HBO referred us to Maher's personal representatives, who did not immediately respond.

View Maher's tweet below. 

Join the conversation about this story »

SEE ALSO: The Avengers exhibit in New York City looks very expensive [PHOTOS]

Join the conversation about this story »

Conan O'Brien just wants to be tech-savvy, so he decided to venture into the world of Tinder, the location-based dating app that lets you swipe right if you think a prospective match is cute.

Accompanied by Dave Franco, O'Brien decides he wants to make a profile for himself. He knows he can't use his real name, so he goes by "Chip Whitley." Franco decides to go by "Jangus Roundstone."

"I'm going to lie a little bit about my age," O'Brien says. "You realize what we're doing is something that's never been done before. We're lying on the internet."

Then they take good profile photos of one another. Franco goes for "laughing and having a great time."

O'Brien goes for "very busy" because "women love that."

As for hobbies. O'Brien says he likes chai lattes and showering. Franco says he looks like "a poor man's Dave Franco." Then they get to swiping. 

O'Brien is picky at first, but swipes right for Liza, because that's his wife's name. 

"I think it's very sweet that I would say yes on Tinder to a woman who has the same name as the mother of my children."

Then the two men discuss what they're looking for, which they both decide is someone to change their lives for a period of 20 minutes or so.

Then Franco takes O'Brien's phone.

And finds O'Brien a match with 74-year-old Gloria. 

Gloria isn't into it.

O'Brien eventually finds a Tinder match and even goes on a date — you can watch the entire clip below or click here.

Join the conversation about this story »

Wednesday, Universal released the first trailer for horror movie "Ouija" based on the board game of the same name.

It's the most recent game-to-movie adaptation for Hasbro after 2012's "Battleship" bombed at theaters and it won't be the only one coming to theaters. Sony is also planning on bringing Candy Land to life with Adam Sandler. 

From an outsider's point of view, it may sound like a misstep by the company. It didn't work the first time so what will make it work this time around? Why risk bringing more board games to screen?

First, there's the simple answer.

Hasbro's "Transformers" — a more than $3 billion franchise— has been a huge success at the box office so it only makes sense that more brands (G.I. Joe, Jem, Stretch Armstrong) will receive the film treatment. 

But while something like "Transformers" has been around for years and has a set storyline, you can't say the same for something like "Battleship." While the game was originally released in 1967, the adaptation forced Hasbro and Hollywood to take some huge liberties bringing it to screen. An alien invasion definitely wasn't responsible for sinking anyone's Battleship during gameplay.

So, again, why are we getting more board game movies? 

Recently, we spoke with Hasbro Chief Marketing Officer John Frascotti about how the company decides which brands it decides to translate to film. 

We also asked specifically why Ouija and Candy Land were getting turned into films and how a company pitches a board game to Hollywood versus an action figure.

Here's the answer he gave us: 

“In the case of some of our board game titles like Ouija and Candy Land these are brands that have a lot of cross-generational relevance and cross-generational emotional appeal because parents and children have grown up playing these games and associate them with really enjoyable parts of their lives. A brand like Candy Land has such emotional resonance with moms and their daughters because it's been played for years and it's been a shared experience. A brand like Ouija has a certain amount of mystery and intrigue behind the brand.

What we find is that these brands are great platforms for storytelling. So even though they may not have quite the same lore and character beneath them that Transformers and G.I. Joe do, they certainly have a high degree of emotional resonance, cross-generational resonance, and they serve as a great platform for storytelling because they involve, in the case of Candy Land, great characters in the board game, and in the case of Ouija, there's that intrigue and mystery behind the brand that has existed for many years. "

SEE ALSO: How Hasbro decides what toys it will turn into movies

Join the conversation about this story »

British novelist David Mitchell is an expert when it comes to characters, but not writing 140 characters at a time. Nevertheless, he's written his latest work for Twitter, publishing the short story in 140-character tweets because that's how he wants you to read it.

Mitchell, whose novels "number9dream" and "Cloud Atlas" were shortlisted for The Man Booker Prize, admitted he's not a huge fan of Twitter. "I'm not really a social media animal," he told the BBC World Service radio station. "I like my privacy. Post Snowden we know that there's enough people to want to take our privacy away without voluntarily helping them. I don't want to add to this ocean of trivia and irrelevance."

Mitchell only created a Twitter account in the first place after his publicist convinced him that it would help promote his upcoming novel "The Bone Clocks." But he wanted to offer his Twitter followers something more. "It still kind of bothered me a little bit that I was using this Arab Spring-sized technology just to basically say, 'Hi, I'm going off on the road, come and see me, buy my book.' It just seemed a bit cheesy, really, so I thought, 'How can I find a use for it?'" 

The story, "The Right Sort," is narrated by a teen tripping on his mother's Valium pills for the first time. The boy's experience of the world on Valium is "a sequence of nice little throbs and pulses," which he likes because it's more orderly, Mitchell said. "Those are the tweets. He's basically thinking in tweets because of the Valium."

He admits publishing his short story on Twitter is a clever marketing tool for his unrelated upcoming novel. But Mitchell also hopes his short bursts of tweets will provide a stronger reading experience than the traditional method. 

"With Twitter it's less like a balloon flight where you look down and see the text and more like sort of a train ride with a very narrow window through rapidly changing landscapes and tunnels," he said. "You can't see it all at once."

"The Right Sort" will be comprised of 280 tweets over the course of a week, The Guardian reports. Mitchell has been tweeting since early this week and will continue posting bursts of 20 tweets each day through the weekend.

Here's one of his recent tweets.

I wait. Silence. Just my breaths, the empty passage, running down the side. The brambles move like hungry underwater things.

— David Mitchell (@david_mitchell) July 18, 2014

Mitchell admitted writing his short story for a Twitter audience was challenging. He compared the narrow confines of a 140-character tweet to a straight jacket, but acknowledged that it helped him write a story that was new for him.

SEE ALSO: 100 Mystery Novels Everyone Should Read In Their Lifetime

Join the conversation about this story »

Oracle CEO and billionaire Larry Ellison is following in the footsteps of his children. He's getting involved in the film business.

In this case, he's launching a new politically minded film festival hosted on his Hawaiian Island, Lanai.

But he's not just going to host a festival. He's hoping to change the festival industry altogether.

The inaugural Lanai Documentary Film Festival will take place February, 2016, on the subject of "Governance for Africa." It will showcase films on things like women’s rights, education, animal welfare, sustainable living and technology.

Unlike other festivals that screen films in the hopes of getting a bigger distribution deal, Ellison's crew plans to use social media and other tech to turn these films into year round events, it says.

The crew will pick films far in advance and select filmmakers for fellowships. It will then follow the filmmakers all year and show the film in 2016 like a grande finale.

The idea is that these films become agents for real change, not just an interesting evening of entertainment, according to the website announcing the film festival.

It's an idea that melds a couple of Ellison's interests. He bought Lanai to turn it into a model of sustainable resort living and agriculture, he has often said. He's invested in two airlines, updated the resorts, deployed a solar-and-wind power grid and invested in schools and community resources for the residents.

Meanwhile his two kids have become high-powered Hollywood producers. Megan Ellison is the first woman producer ever to have two films nominated in the same year for a Best Picture Oscar, for "Her” and “American Hustle".

Son David Ellison is responsible for blockbusters like "Star Trek Into Darkness," "Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol," and "Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit."

This film festival won't be run by Ellison's kids though. It's being organized by marketing pro Audrey Cavenecia, hired by Ellison to help Lanai become known as a world-class resort.

Join the conversation about this story »

Scarlett Johansson's breakout adult role was 2003's "Lost In Translation," which opens with a long shot of the then-18-year-old actress's butt in pink panties as she lies on her side.

The image is more than just sexy. As analyzed by Dave Ehrlich at Reverse Shot:

Filmmakers have used them to a wide variety of ends, most often to tease, tempt, or titillate, but [director] Sofia Coppola uses Scarlett Johansson’s as a cry for help. ...

We meet her ass before we know her name (it’s Charlotte) or even the film’s title; before we learn that she’s a 22-year-old Yale grad (philosophy major) who’s traveled as far away from her Los Angeles home as this planet will let her, accompanying her photographer husband on his latest assignment because she doesn’t know what else to do; before we know that she’ll soon be changed by a deep but sexless romance with fading film star Bob Harris (Bill Murray). The pale pink of her underwear isn’t random, but rather the last vestige of a world she understood, a girlhood where things made sense and dreams didn’t necessarily have to come true in order to invigorate. 

After the film establishes she is at a hotel in Tokyo, there is a shot of her sitting pants-less looking over the city.

Given the iconic status of this opening, it must be more than coincidence that the trailer for Johansson's science fiction action flick, "Lucy," opens with a shot of the actress lying in lingerie on a hotel bed in Taipei, Taiwan. But director Luc Besson's version is much darker.

Johansson, 28 in this film, is dressed in a sexy black bra and whatever is under the sheet at her waist. She also has a bandage wrapped around her stomach and appears in a terrified daze. "What did you do to my stomach," she asks in voiceover. And then she is dragged by Asian men in suits into an elevator, and there is a shot of her asking, "What's going on?"

Beyond this clever reference, the rest of the film, which comes out August 8, looks exciting and shows potential to be a sleeper hit in the face of established action franchises. Here's the full trailer:

SEE ALSO: 15 movies you should see this summer

Join the conversation about this story »