Don't mess with Madeleine Albright unless you can take the heat right back. 

Conan O'Brien made a joke at the former U.S. Secretary of State this afternoon, and Albright had the perfect biting response.

.@ConanOBrien I'm considering going as hunky Conan O'Brien - but that might be too far fetched.

— Madeleine Albright (@madeleine) October 23, 2014

Business Insider reached out to a rep for O'Brien who said he wasn't immediately available to respond to request for comment. 

"He is in rehearsals for tonight's show, won't get to him for a few hours," the spokesperson said. 

Update (6:51 p.m.):O'Brien made another joke about his "twitter war" with Albright.

.@Madeleine YES - My first twitter war with a former Secretary of State! You're next, George P. Shultz!

— Conan O'Brien (@ConanOBrien) October 23, 2014

Join the conversation about this story »

Halloween is right around the corner, which means that you're probably desperately searching for last-minute costume ideas.

But that's no excuse for being unoriginal.

Every year, there are those costumes that you can't seem to escape. How many twerking Mileys and Macklemores did you see last year?

Exactly.

Here are this year's pop culture costumes you'll want to avoid. 

Pharrell's hat was everywhere this year — it even has a Twitter account. We've all had enough of Pharrell's hat.

The Ice Bucket Challenge went super viral this year. Perhaps it's time to give it a rest.

Another Hunger Games movie year, another Hunger Games Halloween.

Chrissy Teigen is taking a break from Twitter for awhile after receiving terrifying death threats against her following a tweet she sent regarding the shooting in Canada earlier this week.

I feel sick. Bye Twitter. Taking my talents to instagram.

— christine teigen (@chrissyteigen) October 23, 2014

On Wednesday, the supermodel tweeted the following, which was met by tons of criticism from some of her followers:

active shooting in Canada, or as we call it in america, wednesday

— christine teigen (@chrissyteigen) October 22, 2014

She meant it, as she tweeted, as a "knock against America and our issues with gun control."

Yahoo Celebrity reports,

The tweet, however, didn't sit well with some followers, who attacked Teigen with threats like: "Rot in hell bitch" and "Sorry Canada, our Hollywood elits and its dumb models are idiots. Wish ISIS would give Chrissy a permanent haircut."

Join the conversation about this story »

NEW YORK (AP) — AMC Networks Inc. said Thursday it will pay $200 million to acquire a stake in BBC America.

The entertainment company known for shows such as "The Walking Dead" and "Mad Men" will have a 49.9 percent equity stake in the cable channel that is home of shows such as "Doctor Who" and "Orphan Black."

BBC Worldwide, the commercial arm of the British Broadcasting Corp., will retain 50.1 percent ownership. The BBC said in a statement the partnership will help it reach new audiences in the U.S., strengthen BBC America, while creating opportunities for the U.K.'s "creative community."

New York-based AMC will have operational control of BBC America and manage it as a stand-alone channel, adding to its portfolio that also includes AMC, IFC and SundanceTV.

It is not the first agreement between the BBC and AMC, which already worked together on series such as "Top of the Lake" and "Honourable Woman."

Shares of AMC fell 29 cents to close at $58.44 before the announcement. They were unchanged in extended trading.

Join the conversation about this story »

On Thursday's earnings call, Comcast executives were asked for their reactions to HBO' and CBS' offering direct-to-consumer subscription services. 

The answer from executive vice president Stephen Burke was interesting. Via Seeking Alpha, here's what he said:

Regarding HBO and CBS selling directly I was surprised, I was surprised by both of them for different reasons. CBS I was surprised because they have been such a defender of retransmission consent in the traditional ecosystem and been so successful in the broadcast business and HBO because I think its going to be such a challenge for them to not cannibalize what is already a really really good business. That having been said, we are still early on in the transition to more internet television that I think you are going to see a lot of surprising things. And you know what’s surprising to me is that we are making hundreds of millions of dollars from Hulu and Netflix and Amazon, businesses that we didn’t even think about five years ago. [Note: Comcast owns NBC, so it's getting money from Netflix and Amazon for NBC shows.]

So I think we all ought to be prepared to be surprised every once in a while but also put everything in perspective and really look at what people’s real motivations are and the challenges. I don’t think distributing directly to consumers be the internet is an easy thing to do and I think it’s a voyage that if you are successful like Netflix can be a way to create a lot of value but it’s not an easy thing to do.

It's a pretty good response. He throws shade at CBS because CBS has been a staunch supporter of the cable business model, in which CBS gets paid by Comcast a certain amount per Comcast subscriber. He's basically saying that the only reason CBS is doing this is for leverage later on in negotiations. In other words, if Comcast pulls CBS programming in a pricing dispute, CBS is protected because it can sell directly to consumers through the web. (It could even offer a discount to customers while it's in a dispute with Comcast, thus making it look like the good guy and Comcast the bad guy.)

As for HBO, he's got a point. People tend to underestimate the success of Netflix. Pundits think HBO can simply flick a switch and it will be as successful as Netflix. Maybe that's true, but we somehow doubt it. Netflix has worked hard to get where it is. We expect HBO will have some growing pains as it tries to scale. 

Burke had more to say on the HBO product, and it's worth reading (although Seeking Alpha's transcript is a bit rough in spots, you get the overall idea):

So Ben, in beginning of your question you mentioned that the HBO product was then over the top product, I actually don’t think it is, and I don’t think the CBS product is over the top either. If you define over the top sort of coming over the top the existing distributors and going direct and bypassing existing distributors, I think both HBO and CBS are trying to add to their existing ecosystem.

And if you think about it HBO probably has the most elegant, economically attractive sort of business model, anybody who is ever been in the television business as be interesting and I think challenging for them to go and try to attract new customers into that ecosystem without cannibalizing the existing customers.

The existing customers that are sold through cable and satellite are extremely high margin. So even if they sell at $15 sub, they got to be very — when they go directly to a consumers view the internet, they got to be very careful at cannibalization.

It will be interesting to see how that works, but I don’t think they are saying we're going over the top of the existing ecosystem, I mean, Time Warner was company that really created TV everywhere. I think CBS is the same thing. CBS is not, I don’t think trying to get their existing ecosystem to move over to a new model, they are trying to Mellanious or new customers and I think that’s we're all trying to do.

And that leads into the second part of your question about time-shifting and leakage. I think the fact of the matter is people have more options to watch quality, professionally produce video then ever before and they are using those options. Whether its DVR, Netflix, Hulu or a variety of other ways to consume this content. A lot of those options are not properly measure; some of those options are not measure at all. And so what you're seeing I think is a pressure on traditional ratings in both broadcast is been going on for a while.

But now cable, I think some of that is going to get better, I think there will business models that evolve, some of that we've addressed by selling to Hulu and Netflix and Amazon and we make hundreds and millions of dollars doing that. But I think its going to be more, more and challenging. There was a great article a few months ago where they said that were 88 new television shows launched during the summer and this is in a business that 20 years ago nobody launched a new television show during the summer. So that competition combined with new technology is making it harder and harder to deliver the kind of ratings that we've all been used to.

 NOW WATCH: We Finally Figured Out How To Pay Less For Cable

Join the conversation about this story »

TLC has canceled the popular television show "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo" after learning mother June is reportedly dating a convicted child molester, TMZ reports.

TMZ broke the story of the couple earlier this week, reporting "June has been secretly dating Mark McDaniel, who got out of prison in March after serving 10 years for forcing oral sex on an 8-year-old."

A future season of the show has already been shot but will not air.

Join the conversation about this story »

Billionaire investor Peter Thiel recently said progressive technologies like artificial intelligence tend to get vilified in Hollywood.

"You know, our society, the dominant culture doesn’t like science. It doesn’t like technology. You just look at the science-fiction movies that come out of Hollywood — 'Terminator,' 'Matrix,' 'Avatar,' 'Elysium.' I watched the 'Gravity' movie the other day. It’s like you would never want to go into outer space. You would just want to be back on some muddy island."

In that case, Thiel probably won’t be thrilled with the next “Avengers” movie.

For years, there have been dozens of movies warning about an apocalypse brought on by evil robots. But this movie might have a bit more resonance since we’re actually approaching the point where we’ll have AI in our smartphones, and in our homes.

Earlier this year, Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk — two of the greatest minds in science and technology, respectively — warned about what might happen if artificial intelligence systems were somehow programmed to be malicious.

Musk described a "Terminator" scenario that would be "more dangerous than nukes," while Hawking offered a more nuanced understanding of the impact:

One can imagine such technology outsmarting financial markets, out-inventing human researchers, out-manipulating human leaders, and developing weapons we cannot even understand. Whereas the short-term impact of AI depends on who controls it, the long-term impact depends on whether it can be controlled at all.

So basically, unless we're careful about how we program AI, we could have killer robots on our hands. This also happens to be the plot for "Avengers: Age Of Ultron." The trailer for the film was released Wednesday.

In the film, billionaire playboy genius futurist Tony Stark, a.k.a Iron Man — whose movie character is actually inspired by Musk— "tries to jumpstart a dormant peacekeeping program" and inadvertently creates a maniacal AI named "Ultron." In the trailer, you can see what looks to be the first carnation of Ultron, which looks like one of those dilapidated peacekeeping robots (notice the Avengers logo on the chest).

The rest of the trailer includes lots of explosions and lots of shots of a sad and beaten Bruce Banner. And if the Incredible Hulk is overwhelmed by evil AI, maybe we should be a little skittish, too.

The potential for AI to be "evil" isn't a new concept — and it's not a crazy prospect, either— but Disney and Marvel are influential enough to bring this topic back into the mainstream, now that AI is finally here.

Since IBM's Watson supercomputer beat a bunch of Jeopardy! winners at their own game in 2011, big tech companies have begun to bet big on AI: Google purchased DeepMind for hundreds of millions of dollars earlier this year, social networks are using AI for facial recognition, AI is used to regulate traffic and train schedules, and several car companies, including Musk's Tesla Motors, are working on autonomous vehicles. 

Artificial intelligence is all about creating machines that can make decisions by themselves based on logical objectives. There are good intentions, obviously, since smart robots can help us get work done more efficiently. The problem is what happens if we program robots to choose their own objectives, and what happens if humans simply become an "obstacle" between the robot and its objective.

Hopefully, this movie will inspire companies and governments to be more careful about how we develop artificial intelligence, since so many believe the propensity for AI to go horribly, horribly wrong, is "inevitable." On the bright side, at least there's one scientist who knows how to stop the robot uprising.

SEE ALSO: Elon Musk: I'm Worried About A 'Terminator'-Like Scenario Erupting From Artificial Intelligence

SEE ALSO: Elon Musk: Artificial Intelligence Is 'Potentially More Dangerous Than Nukes'

SEE ALSO: There Are Only 3 Ways To Stop The Inevitable Robot Uprising

Join the conversation about this story »

"John Wick" is everything you hope an R-rated action flick will be. It's stylish, violent and has a great sense of humor when Wick isn't too busy shooting people in the head. The movie is a breath of fresh air that skips the long form set-up and gets right down to the nitty-gritty violence that the audience wants and expects. 

The plot is simple — John Wick is a retired hitman. When his wife becomes ill, he gets out of the business to take care of her, but she eventually dies. Before she does, she buys John a dog to remember her by. When some clueless thugs decide to steal John's car and kill his precious dog, it's time for him to come out of retirement and avenge his loved ones.

The opening scenes in "John Wick" are reminiscent of the opening montage in Disney Pixar's "Up" where you watch a couple's relationship from start to finish. Both sequences get the audience emotionally invested in the characters and their story in mere minutes. While "John Wick" may not leave anybody in tears like the Pixar flick, the scenes with Wick and his adorable beagle pup at the beginning of the film are hilarious and do a great job of setting up the mayhem that is to follow. When the baddies show up and wreak havoc, we root for Wick to take them down because we loved that damn dog as much as he did. 

Wick has quite the reputation. Anytime his name is mentioned, there's a palpable fear associated with it, and for good reason. The audience gets to know Wick mostly through word-of-mouth; we hear other characters mention his name and see the look of terror in their eyes. Some of the biggest laughs in the film (and there are many) come simply from the way people regard Wick in conversation — he is a force to be reckoned with, and everybody knows it. The world-building here is outstanding and by the end, we realize why everyone knows his name. 

Keanu has never been known for his versatility, and his performance is about as 'Keanu' as one would hope. He gets some quality silly one-liners to spout in between bullets, but what's most impressive about the role is his physicality. The film was directed by two veteran stuntmen who have worked with Reeves in the past and who clearly know their way around shooting impressive action. Reeves reportedly spent months training and learning various fighting styles for the role, and his efforts totally paid off — he's an action hero again. 

The fight scenes are insanely well-choreographed and impeccably shot; there are no confusing quick-cuts to be found here. It borrows from martial-arts style films like "The Raid" in that the ultraviolence is methodically constructed and exciting. Rather than jump from one jarring angle to the next, longer takes are utilized as the camera pans from one kill to another seamlessly as Wick takes out a staggering number of baddies. There are plenty of  "oohs" and "ahhs" that stem from the inventive ways in which he takes them all out. 

The biggest surprise of the movie is how funny it is; Michael Nyqvist steals every scene as the crime-boss father of the poor sap who wronged Wick. The ominousness surrounding Wick is consistently played for laughs, and Nyqvist gets the biggest one of the movie with a simple reaction shot and a two-letter word — you'll know it when you see it. The son is played by Alfie Allen, better known as Theon Greyjoy from HBO's "Game of Thrones," and while he isn't given much to do here besides be a jerk, he's perfectly capable in the role. 

"John Wick" isn't perfect. There are some pacing issues towards the end — a big moment happens about 10 minutes too early, and after that it kind of just limps to the finish. There's another satisfying, hyper-violent gunfight to be had, but after such a climatic (and seemingly mission ending) scene, it feels tacked on and unnecessary.

Besides that minor hiccup, "John Wick" is otherwise very efficient and will restore your faith in both Keanu Reeves and the genre.

Check out a trailer below.

SEE ALSO: Keanu Reeves Wanted To Play Batman And Wolverine In Movies

Join the conversation about this story »

More than 30 video games have been made based on the world from the "Alien" film franchise. 

Earlier this month, Sega released the latest installment to the growing franchise with "Alien: Isolation."

Unlike most of its predecessors, there is no alien-killing in this game. Rather than a typical first-person shooter, "Isolation" is a survival story in which you try to outwit an alien aboard a ship in space.

The game is set 15 years after the events of the original 1979 Ridley Scott film “Alien,” from which "Isolation" draws most of its inspiration. But instead of following around Ellen Ripley, who was played by Sigourney Weaver in the movie, you play as Ripley's daughter Amanda as she tries to discover what happened to her mother.

We've been playing it for about a week, and it's pretty terrifying. You never know when and where an alien is going to pop out and in what way your character will suddenly be killed.

You can just be walking around minding your own business and then something like this will happen. 

However, one of the most impressive feats of the game doesn’t even occur in regular game play.

Sega and the developer Creative Assembly were able to work with 20th Century Fox to get the cast of "Alien" to reprise their characters 35 years later in additional bonus content.

Weaver, Tom Skerritt, Veronica Cartwright, Harry Dean Stanton, and Yaphet Kotto return as Ripley, Dallas, Lambert, Brett, and Parker in an extra mission aboard the Nostromo ship featured in "Alien."

Never before has the cast lent their voices together in a video game.

We recently spoke with the game's creative lead, Alistair Hope, who told Business Insider about how his team was able to reunite the actors. Hope says what he believes really persuaded the cast to sign on was the game's commitment to honoring the original film. 

"When we were in a position to present the game to the original cast I think they could immediately see the care and attention we put into recreating the world that they had established 35 years ago and the fact that this game was about survival," Hope says. "It wasn’t about killing. You know, we were taking a new approach within video games with the franchise. That was really important, and, yeah, they were really excited to be on board." 

In an interview with Time, Weaver explained why this was the first "Alien" game she signed on for, echoing much of Hope's sentiment.

"I had been approached to participate in a couple of different Alien games but I felt that this one was very different," Weaver said. "First of all, there was a desire to put the player into the world that [director] Ridley Scott created, which is quite a terrifying one, and to let you loose in this situation that was so powerful in the first movie."

"This was a very passionate homage to Ridley’s work that I think is quite unique, and to recognize that people would love to be in that world, navigating this empty, not really empty, ship, with a flamethrower," she added. "I thought it’s pretty juicy."

"To work with Sigourney and be on the recording session when she’s delivering her lines, everyone was kind of transported back to the Nostromo," Hope tells Business Insider. "It was really quite some spine-tingling stuff."

The mission lets you play as Ripley, Parker, or Dallas as you try to get rid of an alien by luring it into the ship's airlock, as in the original film. It's a pretty short mission. Reviews say it takes about 15 minutes to complete, but that's probably if you're running through it.

"If you’re a fan, I think you’re going to get an enormous amount out of it," Hope says.

"Alien: Isolation" is available on Xbox 360, Xbox One, PS3, PS4, and PC.

You can check out the cast speak in a featurette for the game below:

SEE ALSO: These Video Game Images Of Paris Look So Vivid, We Mistook Them For The Real Thing

AND: 23 Actors Who Turned Down Huge Movie Roles

Join the conversation about this story »

"Destiny" has been revered as one of the best video games of the year. 

It made $325 million in its first five days. The game was an instant hit, even before it was officially released. 

Now that it's been out for awhile, people are finding some pretty cool hidden things in the game, called Easter eggs. 

In fact, Bungie is no stranger to hiding Easter eggs in its games. In its contract with Activision, there's even a stipulation that it must provide Activision with a list of all the Easter eggs. 

Bungie pays homage to its roots with a little nod to the man who started it all, Master Chief.

Go to Mars and do the Garden's Spire mission. When you're done with the mission and get to the Iron Line door, clear all the bad guys, but don't go through the red door. Instead, go to the left and go through a big glowing blue door. Walk down the hall until you reach another door, called Trenchworks. Kill more bad guys and then walk outside. You'll see a command tower. If you walk around to the other side of it and look up, the tower looks like Master Chief's helmet.

(Via IGN and Redditor SmokingGhost)

You can play soccer!

When you're not busy saving the world, go to the Tower hub. On the left side of the map, under some stairs, you'll find a soccer ball that you can kick around. 

But a soccer ball isn't the only ball in the game.

There's also a large purple ball in the Tower hub. This time it's on some crates to the right of Bounty tracker. When you interact with it, it flies up in the air like a balloon.  

This isn't the first time a ball has been spotted in a Bungie game. A soccer ball was an Easter egg in "Halo 2," and was later seen in other "Halo" titles.

High school never ends.

On Friday, Reuters reported that relations between ECB president Mario Draghi and German leaders, most notably Bundesbank head Jens Weidmann "is totally rotten, it's beyond repair."  The feud over how to steer the European economy has become personal, according to the wire service. 

This story led to a flurry of jokes about central bankers behaving like mean girls. Thanks to Nick Bunker, we were left thinking: what if central bankers were set to quotes from "Mean Girls"?

And thus a brief slideshow was born.

“I hear her hair’s insured for $10,000.”

"On Wednesdays we wear pink."

“I’m sorry that people are so jealous of me, but I can’t help it that I’m popular.”

Now that the "Avengers: Age of Ultron" trailer has been unveiled after making an appearance at San Diego Comic-Con this summer, fans are wondering when they'll be able to see the first trailer for "Batman V Superman," which also debuted footage at the event.

Well, it doesn't sound like we'll have to wait much longer.

The rumor going around is that we'll see a trailer by December.

Batman site Batman-on-film reports a teaser will be released online and attached to a November or December movie release.

Since "Batman V Superman" is a Warner Bros. film, the most likely contender for the trailer would be holiday film "The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies" which hits theaters December 17, 2014.

According to the site, the teaser trailer will be "Batman heavy," so expect to see more of Ben Affleck as the Caped Crusader.

We'll still have a while to wait for the film. "Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice" is set for a March 25, 2016 release.

UNTIL THEN: Check out "The Avengers" sequel trailer

Join the conversation about this story »

"The Walking Dead" creator Robert Kirkman has finally put one of the biggest fan theories on the show to rest.

At the start of the series, viewers are introduced to Rick Grimes (Andrew Lincoln) as he wakes up from a coma to discover the world he once knew ravaged by the undead. The entire show follows survivors as they try and outwit the dead to stay alive.

Now in its fifth season, many eager fans have speculated how the eventual comic series and AMC show will come to a close. The most popular theory is that the zombie apocalypse never happened and that Grimes is just in a coma.

Well, fans can put that theory to rest. 

Kirkman took to Twitter Friday to deny the coma theory.

Going on record to answer this: http://t.co/3lhUI6A3bW Rick is NOT still in a coma. The events of TWD are definitely happening.

— Robert Kirkman (@RobertKirkman) October 24, 2014

Kirkman was prompted to come clean after an article ran on Uproxx demanding the series creator "go on the record" promising "The Walking Dead" won't end up as a coma dream.

Earlier this year, Kirkman told Entertainment Weekly he knows exactly how the series will end.

“I do know what I’m building toward, yes,” said Kirkman. "I do have a lot of road laid out before that that is going to take a long time, but I certainly know exactly what I’m building to."

Season 5 has kicked off to the show's highest ratings ever. Over 17 million tuned in for the season premiere. Last week's second episode had over 15 million viewers.

NOW WATCH: There's A Good Reason 'The Walking Dead' Creator Doesn't Use The Word Zombie

SEE ALSO: Why "The Walking Dead" changed an iconic line from the season 4 finale

AND: Why "The Walking Dead" casts so many actors from "The Wire"

Join the conversation about this story »

One of the most popular television shows in America this autumn is called “How to Get Away with Murder”, about a law professor and her students, who become involved in a mysterious killing. Most cable subscribers will find the title an appropriate description of their viewing experience.

Couch potatoes are forced to spend around $90 a month for their subscription. They receive over 160 channels, most of which they skip straight past. By one estimate the cost of a cable subscription has more than doubled since 2000. All that for the privilege of doing business with companies that consistently rank in the lower regions of customer-satisfaction surveys.

This month the plot took a twist. HBO, a premium cable channel, announced that, starting next year, it would offer its programming, previously only available through pay-television distributors, as a stand-alone product delivered to anyone with an internet connection. CBS, a broadcast network, recently launched a similar service. There are other signs that a “lighter” bundle may be available soon. Earlier this year DISH, a satellite provider, won the rights to sell Disney’s content, including ESPN, a sports channel, as part of an internet-delivered television service, and Sony may launch something like it by the end of the year. 

Consumers who want to cobble together different subscriptions from HBO, Netflix and others may find it is not that much cheaper after paying for broadband.

Viewers have long wanted to pay only for the channels they watch, not the bundle that cable companies foist upon them. Television executives have resisted, rightly fearing that doing away with the bundle could tear apart a business with annual revenues of around $150 billion. Unlike newspapers and the music industry, which saw their businesses sink with the rise of the internet, change has come gradually. So far the TV industry has been a story of powerful and rich characters intent on keeping things just as they are.

Television networks make money from advertisements and the fees paid by television operators to carry them. Up to now, they have mostly refused to make their current shows available on the internet to anyone but their subscribers. Like prisoners in a jail cell, network-owners and pay-television distributors made a pact not to sell each other out, and worked to preserve a business that has been extremely lucrative for all of them. They have turned Netflix and Amazon into some of their biggest “customers”, selling old shows that would scarcely make them another penny and keeping back their newest content and sports. This has ensured that no online firm could become a perfect replacement.

Meanwhile, pay-television operators, which charge viewers monthly subscription fees, have tried to keep customers by giving them new services, including the ability to watch current television shows online wherever they are as long as they subscribe and to watch videos “on demand”, just as they can on services such as Netflix. In other words, television companies have become more like their disrupters. Those who want to watch up-to-date programmes, including live sports, without hassle have had to cough up.

The announcements by HBO and CBS have prompted dramatic predictions about the end of the television business in its current form. Television executives already share horror stories about how their children have asked them what a “channel” is. One has begun saying that he considers “streaming” the same as “television”, no matter on what sort of screen it takes place. Advertisers and analysts have started to use the word “video” instead of “television”, because they consider online video an increasingly important part of their ad spending.

The doomsaying may be premature. Viewing habits have changed, especially among the young, who watch more online video and time-shifted television, and often prefer to stare at a tablet than at a TV. But Americans continue to watch a remarkable amount of TV the old-fashioned way: around four-and-a-half hours a day, on average.

The new stand-alone online offerings will appeal to some consumers, but are unlikely to cause the television business to crack quickly. Consumers who want to cobble together different subscriptions from HBO, Netflix and others may find it is not that much cheaper after paying for broadband.

Only around 7m homes in America forgo pay-television in favour of an internet-delivered option, compared to 100m that subscribe to it, according to SNL Kagan, a research firm. Many younger people will never shell out for traditional pay-television but advertisers have few alternatives to reach big audiences besides television, so for now have stuck with the medium in spite of flagging ratings. That should give TV bosses a bit of comfort for the upcoming season but they would do well not to lose sight of the wider narrative arc.

Join the conversation about this story »

One of the most popular television shows in America this autumn is called “How to Get Away with Murder”, about a law professor and her students, who become involved in a mysterious killing. Most cable subscribers will find the title an appropriate description of their viewing experience.

Couch potatoes are forced to spend around $90 a month for their subscription. They receive over 160 channels, most of which they skip straight past. By one estimate the cost of a cable subscription has more than doubled since 2000. All that for the privilege of doing business with companies that consistently rank in the lower regions of customer-satisfaction surveys.

This month the plot took a twist. HBO, a premium cable channel, announced that, starting next year, it would offer its programming, previously only available through pay-television distributors, as a stand-alone product delivered to anyone with an internet connection. CBS, a broadcast network, recently launched a similar service. There are other signs that a “lighter” bundle may be available soon. Earlier this year DISH, a satellite provider, won the rights to sell Disney’s content, including ESPN, a sports channel, as part of an internet-delivered television service, and Sony may launch something like it by the end of the year. 

Consumers who want to cobble together different subscriptions from HBO, Netflix and others may find it is not that much cheaper after paying for broadband.

Viewers have long wanted to pay only for the channels they watch, not the bundle that cable companies foist upon them. Television executives have resisted, rightly fearing that doing away with the bundle could tear apart a business with annual revenues of around $150 billion. Unlike newspapers and the music industry, which saw their businesses sink with the rise of the internet, change has come gradually. So far the TV industry has been a story of powerful and rich characters intent on keeping things just as they are.

Television networks make money from advertisements and the fees paid by television operators to carry them. Up to now, they have mostly refused to make their current shows available on the internet to anyone but their subscribers. Like prisoners in a jail cell, network-owners and pay-television distributors made a pact not to sell each other out, and worked to preserve a business that has been extremely lucrative for all of them. They have turned Netflix and Amazon into some of their biggest “customers”, selling old shows that would scarcely make them another penny and keeping back their newest content and sports. This has ensured that no online firm could become a perfect replacement.

Meanwhile, pay-television operators, which charge viewers monthly subscription fees, have tried to keep customers by giving them new services, including the ability to watch current television shows online wherever they are as long as they subscribe and to watch videos “on demand”, just as they can on services such as Netflix. In other words, television companies have become more like their disrupters. Those who want to watch up-to-date programmes, including live sports, without hassle have had to cough up.

The announcements by HBO and CBS have prompted dramatic predictions about the end of the television business in its current form. Television executives already share horror stories about how their children have asked them what a “channel” is. One has begun saying that he considers “streaming” the same as “television”, no matter on what sort of screen it takes place. Advertisers and analysts have started to use the word “video” instead of “television”, because they consider online video an increasingly important part of their ad spending.

The doomsaying may be premature. Viewing habits have changed, especially among the young, who watch more online video and time-shifted television, and often prefer to stare at a tablet than at a TV. But Americans continue to watch a remarkable amount of TV the old-fashioned way: around four-and-a-half hours a day, on average.

The new stand-alone online offerings will appeal to some consumers, but are unlikely to cause the television business to crack quickly. Consumers who want to cobble together different subscriptions from HBO, Netflix and others may find it is not that much cheaper after paying for broadband.

Only around 7m homes in America forgo pay-television in favour of an internet-delivered option, compared to 100m that subscribe to it, according to SNL Kagan, a research firm. Many younger people will never shell out for traditional pay-television but advertisers have few alternatives to reach big audiences besides television, so for now have stuck with the medium in spite of flagging ratings. That should give TV bosses a bit of comfort for the upcoming season but they would do well not to lose sight of the wider narrative arc.

Join the conversation about this story »

"Between Two Ferns" is Zach Galifianakis' offbeat interview show that regularly gets the internet's attention. The latest installment is with Brad Pitt and features a special appearance by Louis C.K.

Produced by Matt Johnston. Video courtesy of Associated Press and Funny Or Die.

Follow BI Video:On Facebook

Join the conversation about this story »

We have our first canceled TV series of the fall season, and it's ABC's "Manhattan Love Story."

The rom-com followed two individuals (Jake McDorman and Analeigh Tipton) set up on a blind date. The twist? You could also hear everything going on in both individual's heads.

It was one of two dozen new shows to premiere on network TV this fall.

We're not surprised, but we had our money on NBC's "Bad Judge" going first since it was plagued with behind-the-scenes issues.

"Manhattan Love Story" premiered to 4.7 million viewers. The latest episode had 2.6 million tune in to watch. The show went from having a 1.5 rating to a dismal .7 in the key 18-49 demo.

The show was becoming a rough lead-in for Marvel's "Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D." which have slowly been decreasing since the season's start.

The series has accrued a majority of poor reviews that suggested the two lead actors had little to no chemistry. The Hollywood Reporter's Tim Goodman called it "sexist and stupid." Most were annoyed with hearing the main character's every thought.

Despite the cancellation, ABC has one of the strongest lineups right now with the fall's No. 1 new drama series, "How to Get Away With Murder," from Shonda Rhimes ("Scandal," "Grey's Anatomy") and the No. 1 new comedy, "Black-Ish."

It's pretty late in the year for the first TV show to get the axe. 

Entertainment Weekly reports that's because TV execs have wanted to give more time to allow for DVR data to come in. EW also says the networks aren't as confident in their midseason replacement series which isn't a good sign.

SEE ALSO: The 17 best TV shows that were canceled

AND: The only fall TV shows to watch

Join the conversation about this story »

How the rich and famous start their day.

Produced by Sam Rega.

Follow BI Video: On Facebook

NOW WATCH:  BI Original Video The Truth About 'The Most Interesting Man In The World'

Join the conversation about this story »

There’s no better game to play with friends than “Super Smash Bros.” And it’s about to get even better.

Nintendo on Thursday announced the newest iteration in the franchise, “Super Smash Bros. for Wii U,” coming Nov. 21, will support up to eight players simultaneously. Not just four. Eight.

This is an insane development for one of the most chaotic multiplayer games ever created.

Playing with four characters in past games was crazy enough. Players are punching, kicking, jumping, and throwing fireballs at each other, beating the stuffing out of Nintendo's classic mascots as items drop onto the stage.

Items-wise, you can toss bombs and banana peels at each other, hurl your friends off the stage, freeze them in place while you clobber them, or hit them with a fan or a baseball bat. Your friend can open a Pokeball and the entire stage will get filled with creatures trying to attack you. Stages occasionally change and even fight back. It’s a crazy experience that needs to be seen — and preferably played — to be believed.

Check out this video for a taste of what you might experience with just four players: 

Now, imagine that, but with two times the number of players.

Nintendo says eight-player “Smash Bros.” will be limited to a handful of stages and game modes, but this can be a game-changer, particularly for big living room parties where previously only a small number of people could play at once.

However, there are also some limitations as far as how you can play an eight-person game of “Smash Bros.”

• You can only use one Wii U gamepad controller, no matter how many players
• You can use up to eight Gamecube controllers, even though you’ll need two separate adapters
• You can use eight Nintendo 3DS handhelds as game controllers, but each portable must also have a copy of “Super Smash Bros. for 3DS”
• You can use up to seven Nintendo Wiimotes
• You can use up to seven Wii U Pro controllers

So get some controllers, round up your friends, and maybe buy another couch. “Smash Bros.” is going to be bigger and more inclusive than ever before, and that’s a good thing.

SEE ALSO: 10 Reasons To Buy A Wii U Right Now

SEE ALSO: 7 Of The Coolest Secrets In The Game 'Destiny' And How To Find Them

Join the conversation about this story »

Benedict Cumberbatch seriously got into his role in “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug.” 

In the “Hobbit” sequel, Cumberbatch plays the role of the perilous dragon, Smaug. However, the “Sherlock” actor didn’t simply voice the dragon. He also acted out the role in a motion-capture suit. 

Ahead of the release of “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug” on Blu-Ray and DVD Nov. 4, Warner Bros. has released video showing the 38-year-old actor immersing himself into the role. 

The best footage comes from the L.A. Times which has an exclusive video showing Cumberbatch act out the dragon in the motion capture suit.

It's amazing to see how much Cumberbatch really gets into it.

To get into the role, little motion capture tracking dots were placed onto Cumberbatch's face.

He was fitted with a helmet that has a little camera attached to capture his every facial movement.

To prepare for the role, Cumberbatch told Los Angeles Times last year he went to the London Zoo to study animals including lizards.

"They really like doing very little," added Cumberbatch. "Then, when they act, it can suddenly be very violent or very slow and they really take their time. I tied all that in to the playing I did rolling around on that carpet."

Motion capture king Andy Serkis, who has played Gollum in both “The Lord of the Rings” and “The Hobbit” films, gave Cumberbatch advice on playing Smaug. 

“I said, ‘Treat it like you’re playing the role. Don’t think you’re just providing the voice. Go in there physically. Get what you can out of it,” said Serkis in a Warner Bros. featurette. “There will be head turns. There will be moments from that performance that you give that can be pulled out and extrapolated and will become part of Smaug’s being.”

A quarter of the shots in the film were CG, according to the special effects crew at WETA. Cumberbatch says about 80% of the dragon was created by them.

Here's how it looks side by side.

The actor didn't just roll around on the carpet. He also acted out the character from his own platform.

They built a wooden platform on stilts and they had this hard board that they’d padded with some foam and mats and stuff and on top of that they put this sheepskin," Cumberbatch told the LA Times. "It was literally like 'Baum chicka baum baum,' me up on my Smaug-y platform. I was like, 'This is cool, I can slink around like a porn star dragon.'”

Cumberbatch said he can see pieces of his motion capture performance in the final rendering of the dragon in his eyebrow movements and with the mouth during closeups with Bilbo (Martin Freeman) and Thorin (Richard Armitage).

"I absolutely loved it after a minute of stepping on and feeling completely like a nob," said Cumberbatch. "Once you get over that bit of self-consciousness, it’s so freeing. I just played like a kid in a bedroom, just imagining this thing, which is great."

Here's the finished product on screen.

You can watch a portion of Cumberbatch’s motion capture performance below.

SEE ALSO: Early "Interstellar" reactions are hailing it as the must-see event of the fall

Join the conversation about this story »