Taylor Swift just might be a genius.

In addition to being a 25-year-old multiplatinum millionaire singer with numerous awards to her name, the pop star also has a unique way of avoiding the paparazzi: She walks backwards.

Earlier in May, a photo began to circulate on Tumblr that showed Taylor Swift on an LA hiking trail walking awkwardly while a man pointed at her.

Fans were confused, comparing the photo to someone trying to pass a roadside sobriety test.

But then Swift, who is an avid Tumblr user herself, responded and said she walked the entire nature trail backwards to avoid her picture being taken by the paparazzi, reports celebrity blog Just Jared. 

Her security team — the man in the photo — was directing her where to go.

The singer wrote on her Tumblr:

I saw the guy with the camera and wasn’t in the mood so I hiked the whole trail backwards and my security told me when to make turns.

Ah, the tranquility of the great outdoo-TAYLORCANYOULOOKOVERHEREGIVEUSASMILEAREYOUDATINGJYCGUCKVHKCTAYLORHEYTAYLOR

This is not the first time Swift has walked backwards to keep the paparazzi from getting pictures of her face. Back in March, video surfaced of the pop star walking backwards out of a garage in West Hollywood with her bodyguard guiding her the whole way.

The idea behind her method was that no one could make money off the images if they didn’t see her face. But the only problem is that the end result was so weird looking that it ended up backfiring and going viral.

But that won’t stop Swift from taking great lengths to thwart the photographers. Earlier this year in February, Swift posted a picture of her with the sisters of the band Haim that showed her belly button. 

Greetings from Maui! @haimtheband

A photo posted by Taylor Swift (@taylorswift) on Jan 23, 2015 at 5:20pm PST

Fans were stunned since previously the singer had said she would refuse to show her belly button, but Swift explained to BBC1 Radio’s “Breakfast Show with Nick Grimshaw” that she didn’t want the paparazzi to make money off the shots, so she beat them to it:

Basically, on the last day [of vacation] we see a fishing boat a half a mile away. We were like, 'That's a little weird. We're in the middle of the ocean scuba diving.' My security gets out binoculars and sees that they have a huge long-lens camera. At which point, we go back to the beach and we realize, 'Okay, so they got pictures of us in our bikinis, like, I don't want them to make like $100,000 for stalking us.' So we're like, 'Get up on the bow of the boat. We're taking better bikini shots, so they don't make as much money on theirs.'

Swift also isn’t alone when it comes to celebrities using out-there methods to avoid paparazzi shots. Kim Kardashian famously used a body double on her honeymoon with Kanye West to try to trick the paparazzi, and Daniel Radcliffe wore the same outfit after leaving a West End theater in London for six months during "Equus" so that the pictures always looked like they were from the same night.

SEE ALSO: Taylor Swift's new music video stars all of her supermodel friends — and it's amazing

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's what 'Game of Thrones' stars look like in real life

In a live interview with Vulture on Saturday for the upcoming season of his internet talk show, “Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee,” Jerry Seinfeld explained how his show emerged to fill a void that exists in today's landscape of late-night talk shows.

“I kind of missed from talk shows the funny talking of casually hanging out,” Seinfeld said. “There’s no casual hanging out anymore on talk shows. The real estate is too valuable, and people want to push their product."

He elaborated on his distaste for the late-night format:

“Doing talk shows is frankly kind of a pain in the ass. I mean, it’s your whole day. And you’ve got to talk to the producer, [who says], ‘Oh, do you have any stories for [David Letterman]? What’s happened to you lately?’ And you think, Can’t we just talk? Aren’t we supposed to be entertaining people? But they don’t do it like that.”

For Seinfeld’s guests, who are often either his friends or fellow actors and comedians, the production of an episode of “Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee” is much more fluid and painless.

“It is literally just a cup of coffee for two hours. And that’s no big deal. You don’t have to wear anything — no makeup, no fruit basket — you don’t have to sign anything or sit anywhere. You know, I come right to your house.”

The sixth season of “Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee” premiered Wednesday on Crackle at 11:30 p.m. with guest Julia Louis-Dreyfus.

Guests for the rest of the season will include Jim Carrey, Steve Harvey, Stephen Colbert, Bill Maher, and future "Daily Show" host Trevor Noah.

SEE ALSO: Here's the advice Louis C.K. and Mark Zuckerberg's top digital guy gave Seinfeld when developing 'Comedians in Cars'

MORE: Jerry Seinfeld reveals his greatest 'regret' about his hit sitcom

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's What The 'Seinfeld' Diner Is Like In Real Life

Yes, this is for real.

No, there isn't dinosaur DNA trapped in amber, waiting to be replicated and cloned.

But that's not the only way to make a dino, said Jack Horner, the paleontologist who worked on "Jurassic World" (and the rest of the "Jurassic Park" films), and he wants to make it happen.

How did we get to this point, where Horner — one of the main inspirations for Michael Crichton's "Jurassic Park" character Alan Grant— thinks we can make a live dinosaur within five to 10 years?

"It all started with 'Jurassic Park,'" Horner told Business Insider in an interview.

In 1993, the same year the first movie came out, he and then-graduate student Mary Schweitzer, who has continued to make some amazing discoveries in the field of paleontology, tried to extract DNA from dinosaur bones.

They failed. DNA basically starts coming apart as soon as a cell dies, says Horner, and no one has ever found intact dinosaur DNA — he doesn't think it's possible. "If you did the thing they did in 'Jurassic Park,'" says Horner (referring to the story's solution of filling in dino DNA gaps with frog DNA), "you'd basically have a frog."

About 20 years of genetics research later, however, Horner has another plan — and it relies on the fact that we have a more effective way to get "dinosaur" DNA.

Going back in time

We have creatures on the planet that are the direct descendants of dinosaurs: birds. And if you ask a paleontologist, birds are dinosaurs, specifically avian dinosaurs.

They might not look like dinosaurs, but birds have feathers, just like dinosaurs, including the ferocious velociraptor. Over time, their descendants' snouts turned into beaks, they stopped growing tails, and wings further evolved into modern bird wings.

But birds didn't necessarily lose the genes that code for tails or arms or snouts — instead, those same traits most likely exist in their genetic code, inactive, while the newer genes for wings, tail feathers, and beaks are expressed.

Horner thinks that we can suppress these new genes and express the atavistic, throwback dinosaurian genes instead. And his plan is to do this first with a well-researched bird that we're all familiar with, a chicken, giving us... a "chickenosaurus," as he described in a TED talk, or a "dino-chicken."

Picture it: a small, feathered creature, with a tail that helps it balance, small arms with claws, and a toothy snout, instead of a beak.

Remember, real velociraptors were just the size of a large turkey.

Horner has talked about pet dinosaurs for a while. Publishers of his book, "How to Build a Dinosaur: Extinction Doesn't Have to Be Forever" came out in 2009, originally planned to release it around the same time as "Jurassic Park 4."

Basically, Horner says, he's trying to discover the genetic pathways that turned birds into the modern creatures we know, so we can turn back the clock on a chicken's evolutionary history.

And as wild as this may sound, Horner's not the only one doing this type of work. A pair of Harvard and Yale scientists recently announced they'd found a way to turn chicken beaks back into dinosaur snouts. Skeptics think building a dino snout won't be so easy, and will involve as-yet undiscovered genetics. But the researchers counter that their work shows just how fast the science in this field is developing.

Horner says we can look at the beak study as a "proof of concept" that this reverse engineering process is feasible.

That Harvard-Yale team is working on the beak. In 2014, another group reported in PLOS Biology they'd figured out how dinosaur arms fused into wings. Horner is working on the tail. And he thinks that with the right funding, we can reverse-engineer and grow a dinosaur in five to ten years.

Creating something new

If researchers reverse-engineer a bird, they'd have some sort of dinosaur, though it would still be a new species — the process by which modern birds evolved happened over tens of millions of years, and the few changes we're talking about here probably wouldn't represent an exact creature that existed 65 million years ago.

And dinosaurs that weren't of the avian variety still wouldn't be represented. We have no modern descendant of a stegosaurus or a brontosaurus (newly restored to real dino status).

But the rapidly changing world of genetics could open up the possibility for creating animals just like, say, a triceratops.

Horner says that if we were interested, we could genetically engineer creatures like these, or like anything else we can figure out a genetic code for, even if it never existed in nature. Once we figure out the genes that create a trait, those genes could potentially be incorporated into an animal. We've already done this. Researchers used the genes from jellyfish to make rabbits that glow in the dark, and other researchers made mice with transparent skin. Once we know the code for a trait, we could use that to make a creature.

Horner uses a unicorn as an example — we'd just need to add genes for a horn. "We could probably get to a unicorn before we get to a dino-chicken," he says.

So why do it?

Though some of this might sound like it's totally out there, there are practical applications. If Horner's team figures out how to make a tail grow, that might unlock the ability to better understand the growth of vertebrae and neural tissue, with fascinating medical implications.

He also thinks "if we can make a dino-chicken, it's pretty cool." It might help get kids interested in genetics at a young age — what kid doesn't love dinosaurs?

Plus, Horner points out that we've been genetically modifying the genes of animals for thousands of years. We've just called it "breeding."

"People made chihuahuas out of wolves, for God's sake," he says.

SEE ALSO: 10 super-genes that scientists could someday program into your body

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The new 'Jurassic World' trailer shows why it took $190 million to make this summer blockbuster

Two months after the BBC unceremoniously ended its hit car show "Top Gear," the network has scrambled to find replacements for the show's three departed hosts.

Now it looks like network executives are heading in a different direction.

According to the Daily Mail's Jennifer Newton, the BBC has reportedly offered former "Top Gear" hosts Richard Hammond and James May a $7.1 million deal to return to the show.

Sources said the BBC's offer could pay the duo each as much $1.2 million to $1.8 million a year to host the show for another two or three series.

According to the Daily Mail, the reported offer would make Hammond and May two of the BBC's highest-paid personalities and would put their compensation on par with that of Jeremy Clarkson's last contract.

The proposed new incarnation of "Top Gear" would likely feature Hammond and May along with a rotating lineup of guest hosts. 

This latest report runs counter to recent rumors that Top Gear's star trio of Hammond, May, and Clarkson would reunite for a new show on a rival network or internet-streaming service.  

The Telegraph's James Rothwell reported last month that BBC executives offered the "Top Gear" hosting job to the trio of model Jodie Kidd, actor Philip Glenister, and TV personality Guy Martin. There's been no follow-up reporting on whether that's the actual direction in which the BBC will take the show.

Top Gear's 22nd season ended abruptly in March after only seven of the nine planned episodes had aired, due to the suspension and subsequent dismissal of Clarkson. 

Hammond and May followed Clarkson out the door by voluntarily declining to renew their respective BBC contracts, which expired in April. Longtime executive producer and close friend of Jeremy Clarkson also left the BBC in the wake of the hosts' dismissal. 

The network's decision to part ways with the polarizing TV personality came after an internal BBC inquiry found Clarkson had punched a "Top Gear" producer when he failed to obtain a hot steak dinner after a long day of filming.

In addition, the fracas with the producer came on the heels of a controversy-filled 2014 for Clarkson — which saw the TV host mired in scandal stemming from accusations of racist, sexist, and culturally insensitive comments. 

Prior to his dismissal, Clarkson had spent nearly three decades with the BBC as a host on "Top Gear" and is credited with being the driving force behind the show's explosive international success.

With more than 350 million weekly viewers, "Top Gear" set the Guinness World record as the most watched factual TV program in the world. In addition to the UK show, the Top Gear brand includes numerous international spinoffs, a live stadium tour, merchandising, a successful magazine, and a website. 

Although their involvement with the "Top Gear" television program may be over, the show's trio of former hosts will continue with its live stadium appearances. However, the tour will no longer be able carry the "Top Gear" name. Instead, it will be named after the show's three hosts — "Clarkson, Hammond, and May Live"

According to the Guardian's John Plunkett, the reported offer could also pave the way for Jeremy Clarkson to return as a host on a future series of the show. 

But it should be noted that Clarkson was never actually fired from the BBC. Rather, the network simply declined to renew the veteran journalist's expiring contract. 

In addition, BBC executives have stressed that Clarkson is still very much welcome to return to the network, the Guardian reported. 

SEE ALSO: Jeremy Clarkson: Getting fired from 'Top Gear' was my 'own silly fault'

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Jeremy Renner and Tom Cruise team up in a new trailer for the next 'Mission: Impossible'

Advertising to millennials is a difficult gig. They skip, block, or outright ignore ads on TV, the web, and YouTube.

It’s an especially difficult job for a YouTube network like Machinima, whose revenue depends on developing and planning effective ad campaigns for the platform.

“Brands desperately want to talk to these kids that can smell bull**** a mile away,” Jamie Weissenborn, Machinima’s Chief Revenue Officer, told Business Insider. “Brands know disruptive advertising isn’t the way to do it any more.”

To create “meaningful and engaging” advertising, Weissenborn says Machinima has been developing new strategies, chief of which is partnering YouTube stars with particular brands and allowing the stars to develop a video around the brand independently.

"We work with brands to find a way to use our network and our creative capabilities to deliver something that is right for their audience," Weissenborn said. "If you put something out to this audience that isn’t authentic, they can sniff it. They won’t watch."

These videos tend to incorporate brands and their messaging without sacrificing a YouTuber’s creative control or voice. It could mean a parody video that makes fun of the brand or even a music video that incorporates it. The videos are transparent about their purpose, while also entertaining viewers. The authenticity and the quality of the video keep advertising-averse millennials watching.

A prime example is a partnership that Machinima engineered between General Mills’ Lucky Charms and YouTube musician and remix artist MelodySheep. For the video, Lucky Charms gave MelodySheep access to all of its old commercial archives, which he then remixed into a fantastic music video that got more than 1.6 million views.

“It’s become one of the five or six case studies we show brands what can come from partnering with us,” Weissenborn said. “We tell them, ‘Come to us and we’ll build something and it won’t be what you expect.’ Advertisers respond to that.”

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 5 subliminal sex messages hidden in ads for wholesome brands

Marvel's "Star Wars" comic book series by Jason Aaron, John Cassaday, and Laura Martin was one of the biggest comics of the year when it launched at the beginning of 2015. Set between the first two films in the original trilogy, "Star Wars" follows the main cast of Luke, Han, and Leia as they continue to bring the fight to the Empire after the destruction of the Empire. 

And it just dropped a huge bombshell about Han Solo's past. 

Huge, huge spoilers for this week's "Star Wars" #6 below. 

Han has a wife, and her name is Sana Solo. 

Here's why this is such a big deal: When Disney took the reins of the "Star Wars" franchise, they wiped the slate clean—the only "official" story was the one that took place over six films and the "Clone Wars" animated series.

It was a drastic move shifting decades of beloved novels, video games, and comics from the realm of "could conceivably be an extension of the movies" to "definitely not an extension of the movies." While most of those stories aren't going away, it was upsetting to some fans to see a ton of great, ongoing Expanded Universe stories summarily swept away. 

What they did next was even more drastic: As of April 24, 2014, every new "Star Wars" story was an official part of the canon — that includes the "Rebels" animated series, the Marvel "Star Wars" comics that launched in 2015, and several novels — a contribution to the wider tapestry of the "Star Wars" universe. Everything counted. 

So yes, as far as Lucasfilm, Disney, and Marvel are all concerned, this is Han Solo's official backstory now. He has a wife named Sana Solo, following the events of Episode IV, and she is very, very mad at him. 

There is one caveat to this, though—since comic books are probably the most serial narratives in popular fiction, they thrive off misdirection and cliffhangers. It's possible that there is some explanation to this that'll downplay the legitimacy of this marriage, in order to keep the romance between Han and Leia intact. For now though, Leia is also mad at Han Solo, but she more or less can't stand him until the end of Episode V anyway. 

But maybe the people in charge really are serious about this new change, and want to put Han through the wringer a bit before sending him off to Hoth and all that "The Empire Strikes Back" entails. Whatever happens next, it'll be interesting.  

SEE ALSO: Why Mark Hamil felt forced to return for 'The Force Awakens'

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Disney just released a new 'Star Wars: Episode VII' trailer and it's incredible

Although Caitlyn Jenner wasn't paid for doing the explosive Vanity Fair cover story, she still stands to make a lot of money for telling her story.

EW rounded up publishing experts who gave their educated opinion on how big Jenner's advance could be for writing her memoir.

The estimates ranged from $10 to $15 million.

Authors are paid advances with the expectation that the book sales will make that advance up and then some.

Why would Jenner's memoir be worth so much?

“The book is going to be a mega-bestseller,” said Regan Arts’ director of marketing and publicity, Emi Battaglia. “It has the ability to remain on the list for a significant period of time.”

That kind of advance doesn't go to every celebrity looking to detail their life in prose. That amount of money places Jenner in the realm of Bill Clinton, who made an estimated $10 million on his 2001 deal. His wife and current presidential candidate Hillary Clinton got an $8 million advance for her 2000 deal.

Here's a sample of other celebrities' book deals for comparison:

Demi Moore$2 million (Yet to be released)

Lena Dunham$3.7 million ("Not That Kind of Girl")

Tina Fey$5 million ("Bossypants")

Mindy Kaling and B.J. Novak $7.5 million (Yet to be released)

Before transitioning into a woman, Bruce Jenner wrote several books, including "Finding the Champion Within" and "Decathlon Challenge: Bruce Jenner's story."

SEE ALSO: E! just released the first promo for Caitlyn Jenner's new reality show

MORE: Here's why Caitlyn Jenner's first 4 children refuse to appear on her new E! reality show

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: How a legendary rock band ended up influencing the 'Game of Thrones' books

The hilarious YouTube channel Sausage Party recently released a new "Jurassic World" trailer remake using hot dogs. 

Video courtesy of Abbey Luck and Annie Lederman

Follow BI Video: On Facebook

Join the conversation about this story »

In a Q&A with The Daily Beast to promote his new movie “Love & Mercy,” in which he plays Beach Boy cofounder Brian Wilson, John Cusack gave his opinion on the job performance of President Barack Obama.

When told that a recent CNN poll revealed that former president George W. Bush currently has a higher approval rating than President Obama, the actor replied:

“Well, Obama has certainly extended and hardened the cement on a lot of Bush’s post-9/11 Terror, Inc. policies, so he’s very similar to Bush in every way that way. His domestic policy is a bit different, but when you talk about drones, the American Empire, the NSA, civil liberties, attacks on journalism and whistleblowers, he’s as bad or worse than Bush. He hasn’t started as many wars, but he’s extended the ones we had, and I don’t even think Dick Cheney or Richard Nixon would say the president has the right to unilaterally decide whom he can kill around the world. On Tuesdays, the president can just decide whom he wants to kill, and you know, since 9/11 there are magic words like ‘terror,’ and if you use magic words, you can justify any power grab you want.”

This isn't the first time Cusack has been vocal about the Obama Administration. In 2012 he wrote a piece that criticized Obama for “shredding civil liberties and due process.” He also took part in an anti-NSA ad on 2013.

In The Daily Beast interview Cusack also responded to Vince Vaughn’s opinion that guns should be allowed in schools. 

“The thing is, you’d say ‘what schools’ and ‘what version of America are we talking about?’ If you look at the site called HeyJackass.com it’ll tell you about how many murders have happened in Chicago, giving you weekly and monthly updates, and you can probably find out how many murders have happened in Baltimore and all over the country. That’s not the kind of debate where you want to do a tit-for-tat with what two celebrities think about it, and in order to talk about it you have to do it in an in-depth way—you need to follow the money and see what the politics are. But no, I think that’s a bad idea.”

However, when Cusack saw the Beast's headline for the interview "John Cusack Talks ‘Love & Mercy,’ Drug Trips, and the Ways Obama Is ‘Worse Than Bush’" he took to Twitter:

“Love & Mercy” opens in theaters on Friday.

SEE ALSO: Liberal John Cusack is starring in a Rush Limbaugh biopic

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 'The Little Prince' trailer looks better than anything Pixar has made in years

In the lead up to the release of “Jurassic World” on June 12, Mondo, the Austin-based collectible art boutique, is doing a gallery exhibit that will showcase dozens of original works of art and screen prints inspired by Steven Spielberg’s 1993 hit that started it all, “Jurassic Park.”

Titled “When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth,” 31 artists curated by Mondo will reveal works based on the movie at the Mondo Gallery in Austin from June 12-27.

According to Mondo CEO Justin Ishmael, Universal, which is releasing “Jurassic World,” brought up the idea of a gallery show late last year and Mondo quickly agreed to do it.

“We’ve always wanted to do a show like this around this movie,” Ishmael tells Business Insider. “It just was a question of when, and with the release of ‘Jurassic World’ this turned out to be the perfect time.”

Mondo is known best by memorabilia connoisseurs as the premiere destination for unique works based off of popular movies and TV shows, both new and old. This can range from galleries, to doing toys and apparel, all created by well-known artists (the artist behind the "Ex Machina" concept art will be part of the “Jurassic Park” gallery).

Ishmael said Spielberg has seen works they’ve commissioned in the past based on his films, such as for "Jaws" and "E.T." and hopes he’ll see the works from this one.

“I hope he’s into what we’ve done,” he said.

Below are some of the posters that will be shown at the gallery, including a few given exclusively to BI.

And if you’re not in Austin, go to MondoTees.com during the gallery run to see remaining works available for online purchase.

This poster art highlights the star of the film, the Tyrannosaurus Rex. As you can see, it looks back on one of the most famous moments in the film. 

In this poster the insect that caused all the trouble is brought front and center. "Life finds a way."

And who can forget when Muldoon gets his from the "clever girl."

Here's an original work of art once more highlighting the mosquito.

This poster takes a bite out of the island.

This next one brings out the kid element of the film.

And finally, a cute look at the dinosaur who was responsible for letting that important shaving cream can go free. 

SEE ALSO: The first poster for the final "Hunger Games" movie is pretty ominous

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The new 'Jurassic World' trailer shows why it took $190 million to make this summer blockbuster

"Minecraft" is this generation's Super Mario. It's an international phenomenon. Unless you've been living on the Moon, you probably already know these things.

It's on computers, phones, tablets and game consoles. It's at your local mall, occupying kiosks with plushies and t-shirts. There's a semi-annual convention ("MineCon") and an education initiative that's got it in schools (MinecraftEDU).

But why is it so popular? We're talking about a game that looks like this:

Keep in mind that there are games coming out on modern video game consoles that look like this:

And what do you actually do in "Minecraft?" Build stuff? Perhaps you've seen some of the incredible worlds people have created from within "Minecraft," like this one of King's Landing from "Game of Thrones":

Not bad! So how does a world go from a flat, grassy meadow to a pixelated re-creation of Westeros' capital city? The answer to that question is half of the reason people love "Minecraft": creation. The castles above were built block-by-block.

Think of "Minecraft" as virtual LEGO. LEGO does.

It's a system for fitting pieces together to create something – sometimes amazing somethings – from nothing. "Minecraft" provides endless building blocks and a blank canvas. It's up to you to create something incredible, or silly, or referential, or whatever, using the tools it provides. The tools are blessedly user-friendly, as are the systems for employing those tools.

The most basic unit of measurement is a single block. This is a dirt block:

This is the literal and figurative building block of the game. You start with nothing but fists and a massive, unexplored world, ripe for creation. You walk forward; you punch the ground below you and it begins to crack. Why is it cracking? And suddenly, POP! Where the ground once was is now an empty square space. It looks like this:

The word "minecraft" is a portmanteau of two verbs: to mine, to craft. Punching a dirt block and retrieving a dirt block to build with is the first verb – the mining. When you start "Minecraft," it's the first thing you should do.

Once you've retrieved enough blocks, the second thing you'll need to do is craft: combining the resources you've mined to create more complex tools. "Mining" for wood (punching a tree) enables you to create basic tools. Those basic tools enable you to mine more complex resources, which enable you to create more complex items and tools.

It's this highly satisfying cycle of mining resources, and creating from those resources, that draws in millions of players around the world. And that's the basest level of "Minecraft."

The other side of "Minecraft," sadly not encompassed in the game's title, is exploration. Every time you start a new world in "Minecraft," it's unique. Rather, levels are randomly generated based on a set of parameters. There are some constants:

• The levels always contain the same materials (dirt, trees, water, etc.)
• There is a day/night cycle
• At night, enemies appear and will attack you
• You can only dig so deep below the world's surface before hitting bedrock

• The world that spawns always has stuff to discover, whether it's crazy jungles or mountains or underground caves or whatever.

Yes, there are enemies. You've almost certainly seen the iconic "Creeper" at your local Hot Topic. This guy (or lady?):

These green, exploding monsters are exclusive to the "Survival" mode of "Minecraft" – if you just want to create ad infinitum, there's a "Creation" mode that enables exactly that. No day/night cycle. No enemies. No mining, even, if you don't want to mine. Just endless creation. 

But be warned: if you don't choose "Survival" mode, you'll never experience the joy of discovering a labyrinthine cave network by accident, full of rare resources (diamonds!) and life-threatening lava. You'll never know the thrill of narrowly escaping a mob of spiders, zombies and Creepers into the ramshackle hut you've composed just in time to hide for the night. You'll never know the heartbreak of a Creeper sneaking up and exploding the side of your carefully constructed homage to John Travolta's face. Up your nose with a rubber hose, Creeper.

So forget all the hype. Forget the billions Microsoft spent buying "Minecraft" from its creator, Markus "Notch" Persson and his team at Mojang.

"Minecraft" is so incredibly successful and popular because it's delightful. It's relaxing. It's joyful. It's goofy. It's an amazing interactive canvas to build anything you want.

Yeah, you're "just punching blocks and placing them in different combinations." And here's a re-creation of Frank Lloyd Wright's famous "Fallingwater" home:

You can play "Minecraft" online with friends, with strangers, or all by your lonesome. Some of the more complex worlds were created by whole teams of people working for months. Westeros wasn't built in a day, you know!

Personally, I prefer the relaxing experience of playing it alone while listening to podcasts. The game's music is a mix of soft, atmospheric melodies that can be easily kept at low volume, leaving me to concentrate on the project at hand. 

Unlike so many other games, "Minecraft" enables an outlet for artistic expression – however shallow – that makes time spent in its worlds feel meaningful.

SEE ALSO: Microsoft is buying the company behind "Minecraft" for $2.5 billion

AND: LEGO created its own 'Minecraft' and you can play it right now

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's Video Of That Bonkers $70 Million Mansion That The Minecraft Creator Bought, Outbidding Jay Z And Beyoncé

Lifetime has just released the first photos of its cast for its upcoming original movie, "The Unauthorized Full House Story."

Here's who's playing who, according to Thursday's announcement:

DANNY TANNER: Garrett Brawith (Rolling) as Bob Saget 

JOEY GLADSTONE: Justin Mader (Death Race) as Dave Coulier

JESSE KATSOPOLIS: Justin Gaston (Days of Our Lives) as John Stamos

REBECCA DONALDSON: Stephanie Bennett (Big Eyes) as Lori Loughlin

D.J. TANNER: Shelby Armstrong and Brittney Wilson (Rogue) as the younger and older versions of Candace Cameron

STEPHANIE TANNER: Dakota Guppy (The Returned) and Jordyn Olson (The Unauthorized Saved by the Bell Story) as the younger and older versions of Jodie Sweetin

MICHELLE TANNER: Blaise and Kinslea Todd as the toddler versions of twins Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen; Calla and Tyla Jones playing them at age six and Kylie and Jordan Armstrong as the twins at nine years of age.

KIMMY GIBBLER: Aislyn Watson (Finding Mrs. Claus) and Jaime Schneider (Twisted Tales of My 9 to 5) as the younger and older versions of Andrea Barber.

The movie covers the family comedy's 1987 launch as it became one of TV's most-watched comedies of its 192-episode run. It will portray the pressures the actors faced in balancing their television personas with their real lives.

Lifetime isn't the only TV company to look to "Full House" for new programming. Netflix is currently producing a "Full House" spinoff titled "Fuller House." It centers on D.J. Tanner (Cameron) who finds herself widowed with two young boys and a third child on the way. She will co-star with TV sister Jodie Sweetin and onscreen bestie Andrea Barber.

Of the original cast members, only Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen are the only ones who won't be returning.

The last time Lifetime went behind the scenes of a TV show was last year's "Unauthorized Saved by the Bell Story," which premiered to a low 1.6 million viewers.

"The Unauthorized Full House Story" premiers Saturday, August 22 at 8 p.m. on Lifetime.

SEE ALSO: Dave Coulier will be back for Netflix's 'Full House' spinoff

MORE: Watch a 'Full House of Cards' parody

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 70 people were injured while filming this movie with 100 untamed lions

Producer/director Bill Pohlad admits he was not a big Beach Boys fan growing up in Minnesota. The legendary “California sound” of the band didn’t have the same pull for him as the Beatles.

But then ten years ago he got hooked on the Boys’ seminal album, “Pet Sounds.”

“It was very spontaneous,” he tells Business Insider. “There was no reason for it that I understood at the time. It just happened. I really fully appreciated that album and everything Brian was doing with it.”

The Brian he’s referring to is Brian Wilson, co-founder of the Beach Boys, along with his brothers Dennis and Carl, their cousin Mike Love, and their friend Al Jardine. Brian wrote most of their songs and thanks to his innovative production of "Pet Sounds," which included songs “Wouldn’t It Be Nice” and “God Only Knows,” the album is now regarded by many as being one of the greatest of all time.

Pohlad, an independent film producer whose titles include “Into the Wild,” “12 Years a Slave,” and “Wild,” says he’s a big believer in “things happening the way they are supposed to happen.” So when a script on Wilson’s life titled “Heroes and Villains” (the title of a Beach Boys song) was sent to him to produce a few years ago, he couldn’t help but see the signs of being handed the life story of an artist he had recently grew very fascinated by.

According to Pohlad, “Heroes and Villains,” which would later be changed to its current title, “Love & Mercy” (the title of a Wilson solo song), was a very basic, by the book biopic of Wilson’s life. But Pohlad felt to best tell the story that the script had to be more intimate. It had to escape from the grasp most stories on famous people are under of feeling required to highlight the person’s major life moments to appease the super fans.

To tell the story of Brian Wilson it would have to be done with multiple actors.

“Love & Mercy” looks at two key moments in Brian Wilson’s life. One, the musician at age 22 (played by Paul Dano) in the mid 1960s when he stopped performing live with the Beach Boys and went into the studio to begin recording “Pet Sounds.” And second as Wilson at middle age (John Cusack) in the 1980s suffering from mental illness and isolated from his family and friends while under the care of Dr. Eugene Landy (Paul Giamatti).

Enlisting the help of screenwriter Oren Moverman— who knows something about making unconventional biopics as he also wrote the screenplay for Todd Haynes’ “I’m Not There,” in which six actors play Bob Dylan personas — he and Pohlad created a story that gives us both the genius and madness of Brian Wilson.

“It was really clear that we had to separate those two times,” said Moverman. “It was really Bill driving the conversation in talking about the differences of Brian in the ’60s, ’70s, and ’80s.”

In fact, Pohlad got so engrossed in the story, including spending time with Wilson (who would come on the film as a consultant), that following some convincing by Moverman Pohlad agreed to direct “Love & Mercy.” His first directing effort in over 20 years.

“It just felt natural,” said Pohlad matter-of-factly about getting back in the director’s chair. “In the process of working with Oren, at some point I just start running with it.”

And what he delivers is an intimate portrait of Wilson that brings out the nostalgia for Beach Boys fans but mainly delivers the private terror Wilson endured for decades.

In the young Wilson years, which Pohlad referred to as “Brian Past,” we see his creative mind at its zenith as he painstakingly creates the lyrics and sounds for the “Pet Sounds” album (as well as the stand-alone single “Good Vibrations”). This included creating arrangements that puzzled the session musicians that included at times bicycle bells, Coke cans, and even barking dogs. But all the while Wilson was beginning to mentally break down.

“As I got to know Brian a little I got to understand more about how his mind works,” Pohlad told BI. “He has hallucinations but they are not visual hallucinations, they are auditory. That really intrigued me. That he hears really complex arrangements and harmonies and melodies that nobody understands and don’t think would work until he executes them and they are amazing. That’s part of his genius, but he can’t turn it off.”

To express this in the film Pohlad didn’t want to do the typical camera tricks to visually express hallucinations, instead he used the film’s sound mix to explain Wilson’s pain.

In one scene, Wilson is at the dinner table with friends. Everything seems fine until we hear the clanging of the silverware build louder and louder. The audience (and Dano playing Wilson) are the only ones who hear the sounds as they get to the point where it drowns out the dinner conversation.

“I thought immediately of The Beatles’ ‘Revolution 9,’” said Pohlad referring to the sound collage track from “The White Album.” “It kind of inspired me.”

When we move to Wilson in the ’80s (“Brian Future”), we find him at the lowest point in his life. Over medicated and his mental problems diagnosed incorrectly, he had just come off a few years staying in bed following the death of his father. Dr. Landy, handlers, and security guards are the only people in his life until he meets car salesman Melinda Ledbetter (Elizabeth Banks), and the two begin a relationship.

Looking back on the research for the film, Pohlad believes meeting Ledbetter (who is now married to Wilson), was what sealed the structure of the movie.

“Having her tell how she and Brian first met, for me that really sparked it,” he said. “I knew the ‘Pet Sounds’ era I wanted to address, but how they met was a great way to get into that part of his life. To see that part of Brian’s life through Melinda’s point of view versus Brian’s point of view in Brian Past.”

Pohlad said that Cusack spent a lot of time with Wilson but that Dano didn’t. Instead, the actor retaught himself how to play the piano and listened to a lot of the “Pet Sounds” session outtakes to hear how Wilson worked in the studio.

Cusack and Dano also didn’t talk about the character they both were playing.

“I didn’t want to say, ‘Here’s the plan and we’re going to do it like this,’” said Pohlad about working with his leads. “They both found their own way. I didn’t encourage them to meet. I felt it would be more authentic for them as actors and more exciting creatively that they didn’t.”

Wilson has seen “Love & Mercy” multiple times, and according to Pohlad, he loves it. Audiences have too. It received positive reviews following its premiere at last year’s Toronto International Film Festival. There was even talk of possible award consideration for Dano and Cusack. But it was decided to not go into last year’s award season race and instead give the film a summer release this year as counter-programming to the major studio blockbusters.

It’s a gamble when it comes to award consideration, but as Pohlad sees it, things happened the way they are supposed to happen.

 “Love & Mercy” opens in theaters Friday.

SEE ALSO: This movie starring Jackie Chan, Adrien Brody, and John Cusack is huge in China right now

Join the conversation about this story »

There's no Indiana Jones in the world of video games, but there is Nathan Drake: an archaeologically-minded explorer who doesn't mind throwing a punch (or twenty). His adventures first came to life on the last era of Sony video game consoles, but the "Uncharted" series is heading to the PlayStation 4 on October 9th. That's three games in one box, and they're some of the best games from the PlayStation 3. 

Follow BI Video: On Facebook

Join the conversation about this story »

Katherine Chappell, a video editor who had worked on HBO's "Game of Thrones" and popular films such as "Captian America: Winter Soldier," and "Divergent," was mauled to death by a lion last weekend while on safari in South Africa.

Metro.co.uk reports Chappell was volunteering in Africa to protect wildlife from poachers when the tragic incident occured. 

From NBC News:

She was killed on Monday when a "lioness approached from the passenger side and bit the lady through the window," according to Scott Simpson, the assistant operations manager at Lion Park, open-air facility north of Johannesburg.

Witnesses told park officials that the windows were down, Simpson added. He said there are numerous signs warning visitors to keep them up. [NBC News]

Chappell leaves behind her parents and three siblings. 

SEE ALSO: This is the best time to quit paying for TV, and it’s only going to get better

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: George R.R. Martin reveals which inconsistencies in 'Game of Thrones' are actually deliberate

Let’s take a minute to reflect on the miracle that is NBC’s “Hannibal.”

The series is an adaptation of events and characters originally depicted in Thomas Harris' novels about famed serial killer and cannibal Dr. Hannibal Lecter prior to his eventual capture and imprisonment. It stars Mads Mikkelsen as the famed villain alongside Hugh Dancy as Will Graham, the troubled-yet-gifted forensic profiler dedicated to bringing him down.

Before "Hannibal" aired, no one would have believed it would end up being one of the best shows on broadcast television. Harris' novels, and the character of Hannibal Lecter, were well-trod territory in cinema, with adaptations running from excellent ("The Silence of the Lambs") to abysmal ("Hannibal Rising"). What's more, Anthony Hopkins' performance as Dr. Lecter was widely considered the last word on the subject, the impossibly high standard that would never be beat.

There was hope, though. "Hannibal" was created and run by Bryan Fuller—the beloved writer/producer behind idiosyncratic, critically acclaimed shows like "Pusing Daisies" and "Wonderfalls." Fuller's presence was an early signal—possibly the only signal—that we'd get something different with "Hannibal." Then it premiered.

Its quality was apparent from the very start, arresting viewers with its stunning aesthetic fully formed—gorgeous visuals, unsettling music, magnetic performances all present from episode one. 

It was terribly beautiful, terribly unsettling, and terribly great. Its ratings were poor, and it seemed destined to follow a path well-trod by other excellent, under-watched shows—a phenomenal first season preceding a swift but remorseful cancellation. 

It didn’t though, and television is all the richer for it. 

For those who would like to know this and nothing more: The third season of “Hannibal,” which premieres on Thursday, June 4, is every bit as good as viewers have come to expect. It is a beautiful, unsettling start to a season that sees its characters rawer and more vulnerable than ever, and makes bold, uncomfortable decisions in its exploration of them. It is worth returning to, and worth catching up with if you’ve never started. 

Spoilers for seasons one and two follow—as do very mild spoilers for season three.  

In some ways, the first season of “Hannibal” was a commentary on violence and television. It criticized the police procedural by examining the effects violence have on those who live a life pursuing (or consuming media full of) it. It was a daring move for a show that had no right being as good as it is, but it succeeded, and what’s more, pulled off a finale that completely inverted the status quo it established at the start—with hero Will Graham taking the fall and being imprisoned for Hannibal's crimes. 

Its second season attempted something even more daring, a subversive love story between its hero and villain — Hannibal Lecter (Mads Mikkelsen) and Will Graham (Hugh Dancy).

While plenty of the show’s fans (who identify as Fannibals) love the implied sexual tension between the show’s male leads, what the second season explored was far more complex than simple physical affection (which only actually exists in fervent fan fiction websites; not on the show—yet).

Instead, it was concerned with a more complex, deeper kind of love: What it means to truly see someone else, and how achieving that can irrevocably change a person. 

That is how season three begins—with everyone coming to grips with the changes they’ve endured. Season two’s shocking, beautiful, finale left the entire cast bleeding out on Hannibal’s floor. Meanwhile, the killer walked free into the rain, washing away the false identity of Hannibal Lecter, respected psychiatrist, and boarding a plane accompanied by Gillian Anderson’s Dr. Bedelia Du Maurier as Hannibal Lecter, the monster who thought he could be loved. 

It is—like every season before it—a near-complete reboot of its premise.

"Hannibal" is a show that puts all of its chips on the table, blows up that table, and then builds something even more fascinating from what remains.

In the first three episodes NBC has made available in advance to press, Hannibal is now in Florence with Bedelia masquerading as his wife. But the bloody fallout between he and Will Graham weighs on him, and leaves him contemplating notions of forgiveness. Of course, when Hannibal contemplates something, a body is sure to follow.

What’s fascinating about “Hannibal” season 3 so far is its structure. Initially, “Hannibal” was a procedural that only really stuck to procedural convention for as long as it had to before it could sink its teeth into the long game—which creator Bryan Fuller likes to call a "romantic horror story."

In its return, the show keeps the fallout from last season on a drip feed, instead focusing squarely on Hannibal and Bedelia in Italy as he slowly draws whatever survivors remain into his orbit in episodes that feel like standalone character studies. 

According to Fuller, we won’t find out the full story behind who survived and how until the fourth episode, but what unfolds in the meantime is just as stunning.

The show takes full advantage of its new setting, becoming lavish and operatic in its staging and music, examining its characters in the shadow of art and architecture created by people contemplating heaven and hell, and how closely we all teeter between the two. 

In this, “Hannibal” remains beautifully consistent as one of the most poetic shows on television.

Much has been made of the show’s visual poetry—the way it finds a beauty both macabre and sincere in its violence and contemplation of mortality, forcing viewers to consider their relationship with said violence in the media they consume. But it also puts great effort into poetry of the more traditional kind— the dialogue is beautiful and far more artful than normal speech.

"We share the gift of imagination," one character tells another early on in the new season. "That moment, when the connection is made—that is my keenest pleasure. Knowing."

Ironically, knowing is the one pleasure "Hannibal" season 3 denies its viewers. As good as the first three episodes are, it’s hard to infer from them where the season might be going. We know some things from interviews with Fuller: The first half will continue to follow Hannibal in Italy, and the last six episodes will be the show’s version of the events that unfold in Thomas Harris’ “Red Dragon.”  But really, that isn’t much.  

But even as "Hannibal" keeps its cards close to its chest, what it does show us is magnetic. In these first three episodes, we get one of the series' most unsettling images yet, and rich, deep performances from Mads Mikkelsen and Gillian Anderson that bring out how layered and complicated their troubled, disturbing relationship is.

Mikkelsen, in particular, gets to show new shades of Hannibal we've not yet seen before—the doctor hasn't taken his violent breakup with Will Graham very well, turning him into a whole new kind of scary.

What makes “Hannibal” special is the way that it has pulled off a trick many adaptations aspire to but few accomplish: To create a universe that is true to its source but so uniquely its own that—even if you are familiar with the canon—it remains impossible to guess where it’s headed next. It’s exciting, unsettling, and thoughtful television at its very best. 

Bon appétit. 

"Hannibal" returns to NBC Thursday night at 10 p.m.

Watch the season 3 trailer below: 

SEE ALSO: Why you should drop everything and watch 'Hannibal'

Join the conversation about this story »

One of the most interesting aspects of NBC's "Hannibal" is the incredible amount of attention paid to the meals prepared by the show's titular character. We all know Dr. Hannibal Lecter is a cannibal, but the series presents his obsession in a new light by presenting the man as a master of the culinary arts as opposed to a human-eating savage.

While the show gets gory, the scenes showcasing food are so well shot and mouthwatering that they resemble culinary masterpieces prepared on the Food Network.

"Hannibal" returned to NBC this week. Business Insider previously spoke with the show's food stylist, Janice Poon, to get some insight on how the show decides which food will double for specific body parts in Hannibal's unconventional cuisine.

"I can either rely on my feeble understanding of anatomy or I can ask Dr. Google what the dimensions are, what the skeletal structure is ... just the general appearance, and then I think, 'OK, what in the grocery store looks like what I'm looking for?'" Poon tells us. "It doesn't always have to be meat ... sometimes an eggplant will look like what you're looking for, like a wrist or something. Then you have to know the bone structure. It's got a tibia, but I need a fibula, or maybe it's the other way around."

Poon says preparing for an episode usually involves getting a simple rundown from series showrunner Bryan Fuller and receiving input from celebrity chef José Andres.

"A lot of times, I'll get a late-night email from Bryan saying, 'We need a recipe for a leg; what can we do with this leg?'" Poon tells Business Insider. "I don't think this is a spoiler of any type: In an upcoming episode Hannibal will be eating somebody, and it will be a leg. They had this idea going around in the writer's room that they wanted to do a kind of a hallucinogenic evil witch thing, so they wanted to do some sort of candied meat. I don't know if they just put words in a hat and pull them out and say, 'OK, candy, OK, meat,' and then email me, but it sure seems like it."

Poon says it's not always easy to convince the showrunners that her ideas will work. She once had to send a photo to Fuller to get the go-ahead.

"I remember there was some doubt as to whether this shank that I was preparing would actually look like a cow's leg, so I put a sock on it and a shoe, put it up against my leg and took a picture and emailed Bryan, and they bought it," Poon said.

Poon says it helps to have a "very, very cooperative butcher or a guy at the abattoir is key, too." She prefers shopping at ethnic markets, where she gets "different cuts that you wouldn't get at your local grocer."

Because of the volume of food used to shoot only one scene, Poon says, she tries to get food that is easily available.

"Something that I can get from a butcher," she says, "where they're not going to say, 'Well what are you going to use that for; that's not how you cut it!'"

Below is one of Poon's sketches from the first episode of "Hannibal," when she needed to prepare a meal that featured a human lung. She added tomato toast, onions, mushrooms, and grilled baby tomatoes with herbs to balance it out.

Poon recalled that pig organs were "almost exactly the same size and shape as humans'" and used this knowledge to prepare the meal. "There's a loveliness" to the lungs, she says, "but of course there's a grisliness too."

She successfully turned this:

... into this:

By the second episode, Poon had to figure out how to turn a pork loin into a delectable dish consisting of a woman's thigh meat.

Here's Poon's sketch for episode two, which consists of the "thigh" slices, caramel shards, a glazed apple wedge, mushrooms, and gorgonzola.

According to one of Poon's many blog posts, she consulted her niece, a physiotherapist, to get the proper dimensions of a thigh bone, which she then cross-referenced with "Dr. Google" as seen below.

On the show, Hannibal served up the finished meal to FBI special agent Jack Crawford (Laurence Fishburne).

Bon appétit!

Poon says the show's creators like to aim for a balance between appetizing and nauseating when creating dishes.

"I want to maintain that underlying threat," she says. "I think that's the key goal, to make it right on that knife edge of really appetizing and really scary. It's like that excitement of, 'I'd love to eat it, but will it kill me?' While shooting my favorite thing to hear from the crew is, 'Oh, that looks disgusting; can I try it?' That's the reaction I'm going for — something that is so alluring, just like Hannibal himself. We know he's a monster, we know that he's just the worst imaginable person, but we love him and it's inexplicable, so that's what I'm going for, too."

Hannibal airs Thursdays at 10/9c on NBC.

SEE ALSO: 'Hannibal' is the best TV show that no one is watching

SEE ALSO: AND: Why no one is watching NBC's excellent "Hannibal"

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Watch this guy attempt to eat 9,000 calories in one sitting for this over-the-top British food challenge

"We Are Still Here" is a legitimately scary, occasionally funny, and always smart homage to '70s/'80s horror. The dialogue and performances may feel a bit ham-fisted at times, but when things kick into high gear, the wonky exposition takes a backseat to some truly memorable and terrifying stuff.

After the tragic and untimely death of their son, a married couple move far away to a small New England town in an attempt to leave their melancholy behind. Anne (Barbara Crampton, '80s horror staple) immediately feels her son Bobby's presence in the new house, and while her husband, Paul, doesn't buy in to it at first, as evidence of the supernatural piles up, it's not long before he's a believer.

To help free her mind, Anne invites over their New Age, pot-smoking hippie friends Jacob and May (the parents of their late son's roommate) to reminisce and maybe even perform a séance. When May taps into the spirits of the house, it becomes clear that the forces at work here are more sinister than a friendly visit from Bobby.

The melodrama of the opening sequence may be a bit off-putting at first, but once all the wheels are set in motion, the film picks up the pace and dives right into the insanity. Genre legend Larry Fessenden turns in the film's best performance as Jacob, balancing big laughs with genuine terror, and Crampton also shines in a more muted, understated role.

The film succeeds by touting a seemingly predictable story and using it to subvert the audience's expectations. The characters think they know what's happening, but the reality of the situation goes far deeper than that, and first-time director Ted Geoghegan isn't afraid to sprinkle in his own mythology to spice things up.

Rather than follow the boring traditional route, the film veers left when you expect it to go right, constantly keeping you engaged and wondering what new danger will be revealed next. By the third act, things get bloody. Like, really bloody.

There are a few sequences so effective and scary that they remain firmly implanted in my mind even several days later. The CGI baddies are honestly never that intimidating, and the scares all come from well-paced, well-shot, and well-edited moments in which their reveal is scarier than the beings themselves. When one of the spirits gets loose and possesses the body of one of the characters, it's genuinely terrifying. There are a number of other unlikely surprises that I will not spoil here, and the paranormal stuff is only the tip of the dread iceberg.

"We Are Still Here" is one of those modern horror works that simply would not exist without the laundry list of genre films that inspired it. Instead of feeling reductive as a result, it brilliantly mashes up these retro conventions and sensibilities with more modern horror aesthetics to create something wholly satisfying. Horror fans will definitely want to cut out 80 minutes for this one.

"We Are Still Here" debuts in limited theatrical release this weekend (Cinema Village in NYC) and can be purchased/rented via Amazon, Vudu, Google Play, iTunes  and cable VOD services.

Watch the trailer below.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: You'll never visit your grandparents again after watching the creepy trailer for 'The Visit'

Steven Spielberg has a habit of building up a lot of suspense to his monsters and creatures before actually showing them.

In "Jaws," the shark doesn't pop his head out of the water until the film's third act. The aliens of "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" don't appear until the film's final moments. 

Spielberg used the same trick for the T. rex in "Jurassic Park," to terrifying effect. Before making its first appearance, the giant dinosaur is heard through roars and grunts and, most memorably, a plastic cup of water, which vibrates as the predator stomps along and draws near:

The ingenious shot came to Spielberg while listening to an Earth, Wind, and Fire song with the bass "turned up full volume" in his car. The identity of the song remains unknown.

A behind-the-scenes featurette from Universal, which can be found on the "Jurassic Park" Blu-ray, shows some of the original storyboards for the iconic shot:

"I was at work and Steven calls into the office and he goes, 'I'm in the car. Earth, Wind, and Fire is playing, and my mirror is shaking! That's what we need to do!'" Dinosaur effects supervisor Michael Lantieri said in a making-of featurette on the "Jurassic Park" Blu-ray. "He goes, 'We need to shake the mirror, and then I wanna do something with the water.'"

It took a lot of work to make Spielberg's vision come to life. 

"The mirror shaking was easy ... put a little vibrating motor in and shook it." Lantieri said. "But the water was another story. It was a very difficult thing to do. You couldn't do it. " 

So Lantieri gathered everybody he could find to try to figure out how to make that water shake. 

Interestingly enough, it was music that first inspired this shot and music that eventually brought it to life. Lantieri decided to experiment with his guitar.

"I set a glass and started playing notes on a guitar and got to a right frequency ... a right note ... and it did exactly what I wanted it to do." Lantieri said.

To replicate that for the shot, they "fed a guitar string through the car, down to the ground, and then I had a guy lay under the car and pluck the guitar string," Lantieri said in an interview from an early "Jurassic Park" DVD.

"One of the things that Steven is so good at is finding images that represent the story, the emotion, that the audience is supposed to be experiencing," cinematographer Dean Cundey said in the same behind-the-scenes video.

But to find that right image, you might need to hear a good tune first.

Watch the behind-the-scenes clip below via Universal:

SEE ALSO: The velociraptors in the 'Jurassic Park' movies are nothing like their real-life counterparts

AND: THEN & NOW: The cast of 'Jurassic Park' 22 years later

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The new 'Jurassic World' trailer shows why it took $190 million to make this summer blockbuster

In Matthew Vaughn’s "Kingsman: The Secret Service," a movie filled with thrilling moments, the craziest one of all could have possibly been even more intense.

The surprise hit for 20th Century Fox with a worldwide gross of over $400 million stars Colin Firth as suave secret agent Harry Hart who recruits a kid from the streets named Eggsy (Taron Egerton) to be part of the Kingsman. But Eggsy is quickly thrown into the fire when evil tech-whiz Richmond Valentine (Samuel L. Jackson) creates a technology that can cause mass terror across the globe, and only the Kingsman can stop him.

On the hunt for Valentine, Hart ends up at a hate church group in Kentucky. And this is where the movie hits its peak. While Hart is in the church, Valentine tests his technology, which causes the SIM cards in everyone's phones in the church to make them become homicidal maniacs.

What unfolds is a three-and-a-half minute sequence in which we watch Hart shoot, stab, slam, and break everyone in his path as the guitar solo from Lynyrd Skynyrd's "Free Bird" plays in the background. 

In a talk with Mark Millar, author of comic book "The Secret Service," on which the movie is based, he revealed to Business Insider the bloody church scene was intended to be longer.

“What’s funny is there was a seven-minute version of it that Matthew originally had in one of the early cuts,” Millar told BI.

The scene in the final version contains a few cutaways to Valentine, Eggsy, and a fellow Kingsman, Merlin (Mark Strong), all looking on at different locations.

Millar says the first time he saw the scene what grabbed him most, outside of its length, was that it had no cutaways.

“It’s amazing what the cutaways do [for the scene],” he said. “Those three or four seconds give you a moment to take a breath. Seeing it relentlessly for seven minutes you’re like holy s---, I can’t believe what I’m looking at. It’s obscene! Matthew asked me if I thought it was too much and I was like, ‘I’m feeling it’s too much, and I’m the guy whose been playing video games since 11, and I can’t handle this.’”

But Millar admits the church scene is one of his favorites from the movie. It’s one of the few scenes in the film, he says, which was changed completely from his comic.

Instead of Harry Hart taking out most of a church congregation, in "Secret Service #2" the evil signal is unleashed at a beautiful beach where a group of brides and grooms are getting married. When the signal is turned on they pummel each other to death.

“I wish I had thought of that,” Millar said of the church scene. 

Millar also loves how Hart, a buttoned-down James Bond-like secret agent, completely loses it.

"Guys like James Bond are so highly trained you never really get them to cut loose in movies and show what they can really do,” he said. “Maybe all they do is fire a couple of shots off or jump across a building, but to actually see them go nuts and not hold back was just fascinating. It was like James Bond trying to survive in 'The Walking Dead.'"

Currently there are no plans to release the seven-minute scene.

Check out the final version of the scene below.

 “Kingsman: The Secret Service” is available on Blu-ray and DVD starting June 9. 

SEE ALSO: British spy thriller "Kingsman" has become a cultural phenomenon in South Korea

Join the conversation about this story »