Age is but a number, and you don't have to be a teenager to play one on TV or film.

While some actors are closer in age to their character counterparts, others can be two or even 15 years older than the characters they portray. 

Here are 11 celebrities who are well-known for their teen roles, even though they weren't teens at the time.  

SEE ALSO: The surprising real names of A-list celebrities and the stories behind their stage names

Troian Bellisario plays Spencer Hastings on "Pretty Little Liars," an 18-year-old high school student.

In real life, Bellisario is 29. She was 24 when she was cast as the high school junior. The characters graduated in the mid-season finale, and when the series returns in January, it's jumping ahead five years.

(Als0 0f note: Sasha Pieterse, who plays Alison DiLaurentis, is 19, so when the show returns, she'll be playing an older character.)  

Minka Kelly played high school cheerleader Lyla Garrity in "Friday Night Lights."

NOW WATCH: A 14-year-old model is raising big questions about the fashion industry

Business Insider’s flagship conference, IGNITION, is in its 6th year running, bringing you conversations with the best and brightest minds in digital. This year we've lined up an amazing list of speakers that includes founders of buzzy startups like Kik, Blue Apron, DraftKings, Blendle, and Refinery29, and CEOs from major corporations like CBS, GE, The New York Times, and Sony Pictures. Plus we've got demos, unicorns, YouTube stars, and group of NYC teenagers dishing about their real-world media consumption habits -- a session you will talk about for weeks.

Interested in hearing what Jonah Peretti is planning for BuzzFeed? Want to know how Lowell McAdam thinks the Verizon-AOL merger has gone so far? Curious to learn how Smosh picked up 21 million followers on YouTube? You can hear it all straight from them if you attend IGNITION with us in December.

Check out the incredible lineup of speakers below.

• Jeff Immelt, Chairman & CEO, GE
• Brian Roberts, Chairman & CEO, Comcast
• Jeff Bewkes, Chairman & CEO, Time Warner, Inc.
• Leslie Moonves, President & CEO, CBS Corporation
• Lowell McAdam, Chairman & CEO, Verizon
• Hiroshi Mikitani, Founder & CEO, Rakuten
• Jonah Peretti, Founder & CEO, BuzzFeed
• Jim Cramer, Chairman, TheStreet.com
• Al Roker, Founder & CEO, Al Roker Entertainment
• Ian Hecox & Anthony Padilla, Co-founders, SMOSH
• Ted Livingston, Founder & CEO, Kik
• Michael Lynton, Chairman & CEO, Sony Pictures Entertainment
• Carolyn Everson, VP of Global Marketing Solutions, Facebook
• Jason Robins, CEO, DraftKings
• Jennifer Hyman, Co-Founder & CEO, Rent the Runway
• Thomas Tull, CEO, Legendary Entertainment
• Linda Boff, Executive Director of Global Brand Marketing, GE
• Philippe von Borries, Co-founder & Co-CEO, Refinery29
• Kerry Trainor, CEO, Vimeo
• Mark Thompson, President & CEO, The New York Times Company
• Ben Barokas, Founder & CEO, Sourcepoint Technologies
• Yoni Bloch, Founder & CEO, Interlude
• Barry Blumberg, Chief Content Officer, DEFY Media
• Jim Breyer, Founder & CEO, Breyer Capital
• Mike Hopkins, CEO, Hulu
• Patrick Keane, President, Sharethrough
• Jonathan Klein, Co-founder & Chairman, Getty Images
• Alexander Klöpping, Co-founder, Blendle
• Jim Lanzone, President & CEO, CBS Interactive
• Stephanie Retblatt, Chief Brainiac, Smarty Pants
• Kevin Ryan, Chairman & Founder, Gilt Groupe
• Matthew Salzberg, Co-founder & CEO, Blue Apron
• Adam Singolda, Founder & CEO, Taboola
• Anthony Wood, Founder & CEO, Roku
• Mark Mahaney, Managing Director of Internet, RBC Capital Markets
• Gene Munster, Managing Director & Senior Research Analyst, Piper Jaffray
• Ted Leonsis, Founder & Partner, Revolution Growth

Don't miss your opportunity to get insight into their many successes and experiences, and learn what's next for the changing digital landscape. 

Stay tuned for all the exciting updates we will have over the next few months leading up to the event. Until then check out our jam-packed agenda to get an idea of what you'll hear at IGNITION.

IGNITION takes place December 8-9 at the Time Warner Center in New York City -- and you should be there! 

Follow @BI_Events on Twitter or join the IGNITION group on LinkedIn to find out who will be speaking at IGNITION 2015.

SEE ALSO: Last year's insanely popular 'teen panel' is returning to IGNITION 2015

Join the conversation about this story »

During the five years that billionaire Mark Cuban has appeared on the hit investment show "Shark Tank," he's made more than 70 investments, in companies like fancy sock makers or a pretzel business. 

Overall, a solid chunk of those businesses have returned his investment. 

"Of the 71 startups that I've invested in through Shark Tank, two have gone out of business, three are so stupid they don't know they're out of business, and then probably 50, give or take, are in growth," he said on stage at The Wall Street Journal's WSJD Live conference.

Cuban admits that some of the early deals on the show were "kinda silly," but that overall he's pleased with his portfolio.

"Out of the 71, I would say ten or 11 are netting a minimum of half-a-million dollars a year, doing $8 million to $15 or in some cases, $20+ million revenue," he said. "I would say about 30% of my companies have returned all of my investment and then some. To me, the more important thing is the '80/20 Rule.' So if I have the 20% that I think can really take off, that's what I really care about."

Cuban also promised that he'll continue to appear on the show for the foreseeable future:

"I'll stay on as long as they'll keep me on, as long as I think the show impacts people and they enjoy watching it." 

SEE ALSO: Mark Cuban says his basketball team is a 'technology product'

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 'Shark Tank' star Daymond John on the advantages of being broke

Baron Zemo will be the latest villain to enter the lucrative Marvel films when he makes his debut in next summer's "Captain America: Civil War."

And though there aren't many specifics out there of how the former top scientist of the Nazi party will be used against Steve Rogers and other members of the Avengers, we did get a little piece of news from the actor playing him, Daniel Brühl ("Inglorious Bastards").

While promoting his next movie, "Burnt," starring opposite Bradley Cooper (in theaters October 30), Brühl told Business Insider that Zemo will be without one of his trademark looks.

"He does not wear the mask," he said, referring to the purple cloak the character is famous for wearing after a vat of powerful adhesive, known as Adhesive X, spilled all over him during a fight with Captain America, preventing Zemo from ever removing it.

"You would be surprised, it's different than what you'd think," said Brühl, talking about the Zemo character we see in "Civil War." "It's loosely connected to this character. But that's what I like about the Marvel guys, some of the characters and things they're dealing with always reference to current events so my character is from a different area than you would think."

So don't expect Zemo to be a carbon-copy of what's in the comics.

"Civil War" will focus on the aftermath of the events that occurred in the last Avengers movie, "Age of Ultron," which has caused politicians to form a governing body to determine when an incident warrants the Avengers to be called upon. This leads to friction within the team, coming at an inopportune time as another new enemy, likely Zemo, makes his presence known.

Brühl said it's not out of the question that Zemo could return for future movies. 

"There's a possibility," said the actor. "That's the way it's written."

"Captain America: Civil War" opens in theaters May 6, 2016.   

SEE ALSO: Why you won't see the Hulk in next year's "Captain America" sequel

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Actor Mark Hamill debunked a long-standing 'Star Wars' myth

Some movies are just plain bad. 

But there are others that cross so far into the realm of horribleness, that they become enjoyable in a completely different way. These are the "so bad they're good" movies. Take "The Room" for instance, which is sometimes referred to as the worst movie ever made, yet has been screened at theaters all over the country. 

Sometimes you are in the mood for some horrendous filmmaking, and luckily, there is an entire section of Reddit devoted to picking out the best ones (the subreddit is called "theworstofnetflix").

In this wonderful internet side street you can find self-aware car tires, an FDR who loves to freestyle rap, and dogs with superpowers. You can even catch Nicole Kidman in her debut film, in which she plays a "plucky teen" who helps some BMX-riding kids take on bank robbers.

We looked through Reddit and found the 19 best (worst) examples. Find them below, along with their Netflix description and a bit of commentary from Reddit. And in case you were worried, they are all still streaming on Netflix right now.

SEE ALSO: Spotify told us the top 20 songs people listen to in the shower — here they are

"Rubber"

A car tire named Robert rolls through the desert Southwest using its strange psychic powers to blow up birds, bunnies, human beings and more.

From Reddit:

It did seem eerily aware of itself as it was happening.

Watch it on Netflix.

"Iron Sky"

The Nazis retreated to the Moon in 1945, but after they're discovered by an American shuttle in 2018, they relaunch their plans to invade Earth.

From Reddit:

Reptilian Sarah Palin, hollow earth, dinosaur riding Hitler?

Watch it on Netflix.

"FDR: American Badass"

After contracting polio from a werewolf bite, FDR and a team of historic figures seek victory in World War II by defeating an army of Nazi werewolves.

From Reddit:

You haven't lived until you've heard FDR talk about his mad freestyling skills.

Watch it on Netflix.

NOW WATCH: The most expensive and extravagant vacations in the world

Ten-time Grammy winner Adele released her first single in over three years on Friday, titled "Hello."

The British singer, best known for smash hits like "Rolling in The Deep" and "Set Fire to The Rain," had previously been out of the music scene because, as she detailed on Twitter, "life happened."

Her short professional career, which started in 2008, has earned her 86 awards, including 10 Grammys and one Oscar. Still, she's considered by many to be one of the best singers in the world.

Now she wants to get back on track and make up for lost time. Adele will release her next album, titled "25," on November 20. 

Keep scrolling to see how a girl from Tottenham, England, with a powerful voice has been able to have such a massive presence on the world stage.

Adele Laurie Blue Adkins was born May 5, 1988. She was originally raised by her Welsh father and English mother, but when she was young her father left.

Source

Adele has always loved music. Growing up, she had a knack for listening to key artists in pop culture, such as Destiny's Child and Mary J. Blige, but naturally gravitated to jazzy music like that of Ella Fitzgerald.

Source

Instead of public schooling, when she was old enough, her mother enrolled her in the BRIT School for Performing Arts & Technology — a key building block that helped shape her career. Amy Winehouse also attended the school for a period of time.

Source

NOW WATCH: The CEO who raised the price of a life-saving pill 5,000% is doubling down

Neil deGrasse Tyson returns this week with the second season of National Geographic Channel's "StarTalk" featuring former president Bill Clinton.

"You want to come out of the gate strong," Tyson quipped when Business Insider interviewed the astrophysicist from his office at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City.

In a very frank conversation on the Nat Geo show based on the podcast of the same name, Clinton spoke of his early understanding of the ways in which science will shape the future. Tyson also took him through his record on science during his administrations.

"I wanted that interview to bring out his science record, whatever that was, and there's things about his record that he's proud of," Tyson explained.

During Clinton's campaign, science organizations had banner funding, Americans started using the internet, and the Human Genome Project was funded, and well on its way to completion.

There was one huge project that Clinton was forced to abandon: the Superconducting Super Collider. Intended to be built in Texas, it was funded under President Ronald Reagan and then defunded under Clinton.

"We lost the leadership in particle physics the moment that happened," said Tyson.

Clinton explained that the canceled project was the result of a political compromise. There was a bill that had to be passed that had bipartisan support if he zeroed out the particle accelerator. So, Clinton killed the project.

"I regret not exploring the politics of that more, because, for me, that's interesting," Tyson admitted. "How do you weigh what you really love, as a leader, versus what you really have to get done politically? How much political capital will you invest in something that you want to have happen, because you love it? Meanwhile, you won't have the capital to spend for some later negotiation that has to unfold in the halls of congress."

“StarTalk: Bill Clinton” airs Sunday, October 25 at 11 p.m. on National Geographic. It will pre-premiere online Oct. 19.

SEE ALSO: Neil deGrasse Tyson says fate of 'Cosmos' to be determined 'within a month'

MORE: Neil deGrasse Tyson thinks 'Star Trek' is better than 'Star Wars' — but he prefers this show over them both

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Neil deGrasse Tyson explains why he's so excited for 'The Martian'

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) busted out his own impersonation of Larry David on Wednesday night.

In a widely heralded "Saturday Night Live" skit last weekend, David played the role of Sanders during the first Democratic presidential debate.

Sanders was asked about that skit on "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" and used one of David's most famous catchphrases from his show, "Curb Your Enthusiasm."

"Well," Sanders began, pausing for effect. "I thought it was preeetty, preeetty, preeetty good."

Watch below:

SEE ALSO: Larry David hilariously parodied Bernie Sanders for 'Saturday Night Live'

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Tony Robbins told us how to beat Donald Trump

Every one of us is made up of atoms that were once part of an exploding star, including atomic carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen — some of the fundamental ingredients for life.

Over billions of years, these ingredients condense to form gas clouds, new stars, and planets, which means that the ingredients, and therefore the potential, for life beyond Earth are scattered across the universe.

What's more, a number of recent discoveries also strongly suggest that alien life exists, either in our own solar system or beyond.

The ultimate question is no longer "Is there life beyond Earth?" but rather "Will we ever find it?"

Here's what we know:

DON'T MISS: There's a rare supermoon total lunar eclipse happening this weekend, and it won't come again until 2033

UP NEXT: 9 tripped-out sci-fi technologies in 'The Martian' that NASA really uses

Earlier this year, a team of scientists estimated that about 4.5 billion years ago at least one-fifth of Mars was covered in an ocean more than 450 feet deep. Any signs of life that swam in these waters could therefore be hidden in the Martian soil.

Read more about the study here.

But water isn't enough. You also need time. As it happens, a study last August discovered that water had existed on Mars for 200 million years longer than previously thought. What's more, there was life on Earth the same time as some of the last lakes on Mars.

Read more about the study here.

And just last September, NASA made the groundbreaking announcement that liquid water still exists on Mars today, albeit in much smaller amounts than 4.5 billion years ago. This unique find suggests that fossilized ancient life on Mars could be secondary to living organisms on the red planet's surface.

Learn more about how NASA discovered water on Mars here.

NOW WATCH: Footage shows tourists captured by gunmen at a Philippine resort

Halloween is near, so there's no better time to search though Netflix for some scary movies.

But there are a lot of choices. So to make the rest of your October movie-watching easier, here are the 25 best horror movies you can stream on Netflix right now.

Grab a friend and come on in.

SEE ALSO: The best cosplay from New York Comic Con 2015

25. "Proxy"

This disturbing look at three families who have lost a child is not for the faint of heart.

WATCH NOW

24. "The Taking of Deborah Logan"

An impressive "found footage" horror that looks at a documentary crew filming a woman suffering from Alzheimer's disease, and finding a lot more.

WATCH NOW

23. "Honeymoon"

Newly married and spending their honeymoon in a rustic cabin, Bea and Paul don't have a care in the world. Until they go mad.

WATCH NOW

NOW WATCH: An Army veteran was shot multiple times protecting others students from the Oregon gunman

Each of us is programmed to obey authority, even if that authority commands us to do evil.

That was the controversial finding of a series of psychological experiments done in the 1960s, now known collectively as the Milgram Experiment. While Milgram watched from afar, one of his assistants, dressed up in a light grey lab coat, asked people who'd volunteered for the experiment to quiz a complete stranger. Each time the stranger got a wrong answer, the quizzer was told to shock them with an increasing amount of electricity.

A new film called "Experimenter," which premieres Friday, explores Milgram's now-famous work. But it also sheds light on some crucial parts of the experiment that Milgram ignored.

And those missing parts tell another story about human nature that's more complex than the one Milgram chose to tell.

The experiment

As the film shows, even when the person getting shocked shouted out in pain, the people giving the shocks continued to deliver them — just as they were told to do.

But some people didn't go through with it. They refused and left.

And many others paused, hesitated, or protested before they carried out their orders. That's a crucial part of the experiment that Milgram left out, according to dozens of psychologists who've since critiqued Milgram's work.

Because while many people did simply follow orders — even when what they were doing appeared to be causing direct harm to an innocent stranger — many people did not. Across the studies as a whole, in fact, a majority of participants chose not to see the experiment through to the end. They objected and flat-out refused, contrary to their orders.

Psychologists are by no means unified on what the actions of those objectors mean for the experiment as a whole. But they have some ideas.

For one thing, it’s possible that what ultimately drove people to either go through with the experiment or not wasn't whether they felt the experiment was right or wrong, per se, but which side of it they identified with more strongly. Did they identify with the person giving them the orders, the “cause” of the experiment itself, or did they identify with the person getting shocked, the random sufferer?

"The Milgram studies seem to be less about people blindly conforming to orders than about getting people to believe in the importance of what they are doing," writes Alex Haslam, a psychology professor at the University of Queensland in Australia and co-editor of a special issue of the Journal of Social Issues which focuses on Milgram's legacy.

"Considerable anguish"

For another, the decision is by no means an easy one for any of the participants.

"They are torn between two voices confronting them with irreconcilable moral imperatives, and the fact that they have to choose between them is a source of considerable anguish," Haslam writes.

Before they decide to either continue with the shocks or refuse, the participants get incredibly tense, as the film captures well:

But even though most of them resist at first, especially when the lab assistant says, "The experiment requires that you continue," many stop altogether, in particular when he says, "You have no other choice, you must go on."

Here's Haslam describing the situation the participants went through in detail in his paper:

"They sweat, they laugh, they try to talk and argue their way out of the situation. But the experimental set-up does not allow them to do so. Ultimately, they tend to go along with the Experimenter if he justifies their actions in terms of the scientific benefits of the study (as he does with the prod "The experiment requires that you continue"). But if he gives them a direct order ("You have no other choice, you must go on") participants typically refuse."

During his first sets of experiments, carried out in a tiny room at Yale, almost all of the subjects carried out the shocks from start to finish — despite the sounds of pain from the person they were shocking (which they later found out were prerecorded and played as part of the experimental hoax.)

But in later iterations of those experiments, where Milgram and his team played with the setting of the lab by making it seem less official (i.e. changing the setting of the office from a neat office at Yale to a room in a decrepit building on the periphery of the city), the results were much more varied. Rather than 100% of the participants completing the experiment from start to finish, close to no one did. Everyone who had been asked to administer the shocks protested, gave up, or simply refused to continue.

So no, not everyone Milgram subjected to his experiment simply give into following directions, even when those directions were clearly causing an innocent person harm.

Instead, most of them put up a fight, and many deserted.

SEE ALSO: A Stanford professor asked 24 volunteers to spend 2 weeks in prison and the results were catastrophic

DON'T MISS: A single gene has been linked with being a psychopath — and it’s very controversial

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The simplest way to get — and stay — happy, according to psychologists

It should be comforting that no matter how much you hate your boss, they can't possibly be as bad as the Pointy-Haired Boss.

The idiot middle-manager is central to the popular "Dilbert" comic series, which was the first syndicated comic that focused primarily on the workplace when it launched in 1989. The character embodies the time-wasting, circular-reasoning, and ignorant mentality of bad bosses that many workers are too familiar with.

"If you've ever had a boss, this probably hits home for you," Dilbert creator Scott Adams tells Business Insider.

To celebrate National Boss Day — October 16 — Adams shared his 10 favorite Pointy-Haired Boss strips from the archives of Dilbert.com.

SEE ALSO: 'Dilbert' creator Scott Adams shares his all-time favorite comic strips

DON'T MISS: 'Dilbert' creator Scott Adams illustrates why 'goals are for losers and passion is overrated'

August 2001

July 2009

August 2009

The business partners behind the xCraft drone company out of Idaho have the ideal "Shark Tank" appearance in episode 5 of season 7.

Founder, president, and CEO JD Claridge and board member Charles Manning step into the Tank seeking $500,000 for 20% equity and walk out with $1.5 million for 25% and Mark Cuban, Daymond John, Kevin O'Leary, Lori Greiner, and Robert Herjavec as investors.

Claridge, an aerospace engineer, founded xCraft in 2014 and recruited Manning, CEO of mobile analytics firm Kochava, to help him build the business-end of the company, VentureBeat reports.

Claridge and Manning impressed the Sharks with a video demonstration of the X PlusOne drone, which can be programmed to follow a flight plan, takes off and lands vertically, can climb to 10,000 feet, and can shift into "airplane mode," where it can fly at 60 mph.

Each X PlusOne costs $400 to make and retails for $1,800.

They launched a Kickstarter crowdfunding campaign for it last December and raised $143,000, locking down an additional $30,000 in sales on their website.

The guys also showed the Sharks a product still in development, the Phone Drone, a device that turns a smartphone into a drone. As Claridge explains, the expensive components of a drone — sensors, GPS, a camera — are already in the phone, and so they can keep production costs below $100 and retail it for around $300.

Because of its high price point and the legal restriction of being unable to recreationally fly a drone above 400 feet, the X Plus One is more suited to either enthusiasts or consumers using it for a professional purpose, such as landscaping. The Phone Drone can be a product for a more casual drone fan, who may want to use it on runs or climbs.

Herjavec asks Claridge and Manning to explain what their "secret sauce" is that makes them worthy of an investment over any other drone company.

Manning says that it's the intellectual property of the designs, and that the patent pending on the Phone Drone will make it a completely unique product.

John then asks the business partners why they went on the show. In an interview with local Idaho station KXLY that took place several months after their pitch, Claridge and Manning explain that a "Shark Tank" producer had sought them out, and they were excited to audition for a chance in the Tank. Back in the Tank itself, Claridge tells the investors that they would use $250,000 for inventory and $250,000 to finish the Phone Drone, under the guidance of a Shark.

"I think you need more money," O'Leary says, and then offers $750,000 for 25%, an uncharacteristically straightforward and generous deal for "Mr. Wonderful."

"You know what I smell?" John asks. "I smell a nasty, nasty Shark fight that's about to happen."

Here's how the bidding war goes down:

• Daymond John: $1 million for 25%.
• Kevin O'Leary: $1 million for 25%, with the benefit of someone who's been deeply researching the drone industry lately.
• Lori Greiner: $1 million for 20%.
• O'Leary: $1 million for 20%.
• Robert Herjavec: Also interested. Maybe we can work out a group deal.
• John: Let's do it among the four of us. A "big moneybag vulture" — Cuban — is waiting for us to offer a deal before he bests it and seals a deal.
• Manning: We thought about a situation like this and decided we'd love to have all five of you invest as a syndicate.
• John, O'Leary, Herjavec, Greiner: We're in. What's your offer?
• Claridge: Invest at a valuation of $10 million.
• John: Up from a valuation of $2 million? "I smell greedy people now." I'm setting a ceiling at a $6 million valuation.
• O'Leary: I'm setting a ceiling at 5% equity per investor.
• Mark Cuban: I might be interested, but won't confirm until I hear their final offer.

After having a private discussion in the hallway leading into the Tank, Claridge and Manning return to ask for $1.5 million for 25% equity, in which the five investors each invest $300,000 for 5% equity. The deal takes into account both John's and O'Leary's ceilings, giving the company a valuation of $6 million.

Cuban, who has been quiet during the entire deal-making process, has said in many interviews and past "Shark Tank" episodes that he is always skeptical of entrepreneurs' true intentions for appearing on the show. That they're pushing to invest with all five Sharks shows they're willing to make a deal rather than just seek publicity, but Cuban still wants to know if they're legitimate before he joins the group excitement of the other four Sharks.

"You guys are smart," he says. "Did anyone else offer you money before this?"

Manning explains that yes, they have, but a traditional venture capital seed round doesn't really interest them. They're excited by the opportunity to have the unique operational expertise of the Sharks.

"I deal with a lot of VCs, like we all do," Herjavec says. "They're super smart. But they don't get their hands dirty like we do." He believes Claridge and Manning, and O'Leary does, too. They communicate to Cuban that he shouldn't worry.

"That works," Cuban says, smiling. The five Sharks get up to seal the deal with a handshake and hug.

While the Sharks were certainly impressed by the xCraft products, they were most impressed by Claridge and Manning's confidence, knowledge of the subject and industry, lack of hesitation when answering, and ability to negotiate hard while knowing when to back off.

It worked perfectly.

"We have not only gotten a valuation that's greater than what we asked, we got more money than what we asked for (three times as much), and we got all five Sharks on board," Claridge says outside of the Tank.

SEE ALSO: 'Shark Tank' investor Daymond John explains how he reinvented himself in his 40s

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 'Shark Tank' star Daymond John on the advantages of being broke

It's about a month into the new fall season and many of you might be finding it hard to take in all your favorite shows along with giving the new ones a chance.

What if there were a way to know which shows you should stick with and which ones to give up on?

Business Insider teamed up with Amobee Brand Intelligence to give you some help.

We found out which shows critics were most talking about between July 19 to October 19, 2015 and what they're saying about those shows.

Here are the top 10 shows critics are talking about and why:

SEE ALSO: 10 TV shows you used to be obsessed with that are being resurrected

MORE: The surprising real names of A-list celebrities and the stories behind their stage names

"The Muppets" (ABC) isn't a strong show, but you might want to watch it once in a while.

51% Positive, 24% Neutral, and 24% Negative

ABC reframed "The Muppets" as a comedy shot similarly to the documentary style of "Modern Family" and "The Office." It was seeing double-digit ratings losses in its first couple weeks, but that has seemed to have stabilized as it settles into the season's third-highest rated new show.

"Supergirl" (CBS) is a must-see for now.

45% Positive, 55% Neutral

It's pretty interesting to see how much the critics are talking about a show that hasn't premiered yet. CBS and DC Comics' "Supergirl" remake has a romantic comedy-kind of feel to it and a girl power message to its marketing. Critics have seen the pilot already and found it light and fun.

"Scream Queens" is for the young at heart. Non-millennials, vacate the living room.

21% Positive, 36% Neutral, and 43% Negative

The critics are mixed on "Scream Queens," leaning toward thumbs down. It's clearly a very stylized show that appeals to a Millennial audience. Fox has seen dramatic increases in the delayed viewership numbers for the show.

NOW WATCH: Hugh Hefner's son has a plan to redefine the Playmate

Daisy Ridley, 23, went from being relatively unknown to the name everybody was talking about when casting for "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" was announced in 2014.

Though much is still unknown about her character Rey, according to Ridley, she'll play "a scavenger in a ship graveyard” who is “completely self-sufficient." There's also been speculation that she's Han Solo and Princess Leia's daughter.

Prior to joining the film's cast, Ridley's credits consisted of a couple guest appearances on television shows and shorts. 

With "The Force Awakens" set for two more sequels, Ridley won't be leaving the "Star Wars" world anytime soon and her list of projects is sure to grow.

Here's your introduction to this future franchise star. 

SEE ALSO: Watch stars from "The Force Awakens" react to the newest trailer

Born and raised in Westminster, London, Daisy Ridley is the youngest of five sisters. Her father is a photographer and her mother works in internal communications at a bank.

(SOURCE)

She's not the only one in her family with performing in her blood. Her great-uncle is Arnold Riley, an actor well-known for his role in "Dad's Army," a popular British sitcom that ran from 1968-1977.

(SOURCE)

Daisy went to school at Tring Park School for the Performing Arts, where she specialized in musical theater, and graduated in 2010 when she was 18.

(SOURCE)

NOW WATCH: How 'Back to the Future Part II' accurately predicted the world on October 21, 2015

Scott Kelly recently broke the record for most time spent in space by a US astronaut, logging his 383rd day aboard the International Space Station. He’s also on pace to break another record on October 29th, when he spends his 216th consecutive day orbiting the earth — the most in a row.

For many people, this seems like a dream. The idea of floating up in space, where so few people in the history of the world have ever been, is intoxicating. But it can, of course, get intensely lonely, Kelly says.

“A year really is a long time…a long time to never be able to go outside, or feel the sun on your face, or to see your family through anything besides a computer screen,” he muses.

And one of the ways he stays connected to the world below is through music.

“When living in a place isolated from the rest of the world like here aboard the International Space Station, [music] becomes more significant,” he tells Spotify.

Kelly has created a playlist that reflects his space journey so far. It spans many genres, but there is a contemplative wistfulness that runs through it. It’s not hard to imagine listening to these songs as you stare across the void back at your home planet.

And to be honest, it’s a bit dorky — the kind of earnest emotion unconcerned with looking cool.

Here are the tracks, which Kelly suggests you listen to in order:

1. Stay — Jasmine Thompson
2. Lose Yourself — Eminem
3. Feel This Moment — Pitbull and Christina Aguilera
4. Speed of Sound — Coldplay
5. These Are Days — 10,000 Maniacs
6. Hazy Shade of Winter — The Bangles
7. Chasing Cars — Snow Patrol
8. Fire And Rain — James Taylor
9. Imagine — John Lennon
10. Lights — Ellie Goulding
11. Black — Pearl Jam
12. Dark Horse — Katy Perry and Juicy J
13. In Your Eyes — Peter Gabriel
14. Just Like Heaven — The Cure
15. Wish You Were Here — Pink Floyd
16. Leader of The Band — Dan Fogelberg
17. Babylon — David Gray
18. Hotel California — Eagles
19. Adagio for Strings — Samuel Barber, Leonard Bernstein, and the New York Philharmonic
20. The Promise — Michael Nyman
21. Sunrise — Norah Jones
22. A Thousand Years — Christina Perri
23. Landslide — Fleetwood Mac
24. Wide Open Spaces — Dixie Chicks
25. Time To Say Goodbye (Con Te Partiro) — Sarah Brightman and Andrea Bocelli
26. Brand New Day — Sting
27. Kryptonite — 3 Doors Down
28. Thunder Road — Bruce Springsteen

SEE ALSO: Spotify told us the top 20 songs people listen to in the shower — here they are

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: How to make sure Apple Music doesn't charge your credit card after your free trial is over

Sequels are taking over Hollywood. However, this isn't a new thing.

If a movie does well, or if it is based off an existing property, the likelihood that it will get a sequel is very high. Some sequels are simply pale imitations of their predecessors. 

Then, there are some sequels that take their source material and bring it to another level entirely. They expand the universes they are a part of, and make us all glad we got to spend more time with the characters.

With a new James Bond, "Hunger Games," and "Star Wars" on the way, here are some sequels that outdid their predecessors:

"22 Jump Street" (2014)

Predecessor: "21 Jump Street" (2012)

A sequel to "21 Jump Street" was a bad idea, given that "21 Jump Street" itself was a bad idea to begin with. But like the original, "22 Jump Street" shatters all expectations, creating a meta sequel that is somehow funnier and more self-aware than the original. That is all thanks to Phil Lord and Chris Miller, the creative duo that turned a lot of "bad" ideas (like "The Lego Movie") into something great.

"Army of Darkness" (1992)

Predecessor: "Evil Dead II" (1987)

The "Evil Dead" series is so consistently good that even the remake,"Evil Dead," is solid. It is hard to pick a favorite, but "Army of Darkness" might be the most wildly imaginative and funny.  The stop motion skeleton army has only become more endearing with time. 

Soon, we will be getting a TV spinoff called "Ash vs. Evil Dead." As Ash (Bruce Campbell) would say, "groovy."

"The Bride of Frankenstein" (1931)

Predecessor: "Frankenstein" (1931)

The original "Frankenstein" is filled with iconic images, but it strips out a lot of the brilliance of Mary Shelley's novel. A sequel was certainly not necessary, but "The Bride of Frankenstein" justifies its existence. 

"The Bride of Frankenstein" is a horror movie that won't necessarily scare you, and that is fine. Stick around instead for a hilarious and moving scene where the Monster becomes friends with a blind hermit who teaches him how to smoke and drink.

Nearly 75 years later, and there still hasn't been a monster movie quite like "The Bride of Frankenstein."

NOW WATCH: A 44-year-old Swedish guy is quietly behind a bunch of pop songs people love

It has been 12 years since "Legally Blonde 2" and Reese Witherspoon is ready to brush off her "bend and snap."

The Oscar-winner addressed the idea of a new installment of the movie franchise on Thursday's episode of Lifetime's "Fashionably Late With Rachel Zoe."

"A lot of writers over the years have come up with good ideas for it," Witherspoon, 39, said. "I actually think it's kind of great right now, because we're talking about women in politics and how important that is to get more women. And I think it would be kind of a cool thing to have her be a Supreme Court justice, president, I mean…"

Both "Legally Blonde" and its sequel – which followed sorority girl Elle Woods (Witherspoon) as she proved she could be trendy and serious at the same time – were box office hits. They were followed by a successful musical and a third movie, "Legally Blondes," which Witherspoon didn't star in.

"I think we're ready to see Elle and she what she's up to lately," Witherspoon said. "That said, I don't know. Call [the movie studio] MGM."

Pick up the phone, MGM!

SEE ALSO: A 'Cruel Intentions' TV series is in the works at NBC

MORE: Disney announced all its movies coming in the next 4 years — here's what you have to look forward to

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: We got our hands on a limited-edition bottle of Pepsi Perfect from "Back to the Future Part II"

Democratic presidential candidate Martin O'Malley broke out into song during his Tuesday interview on "The View."

The former Maryland governor brought out his guitar and sang some verses from Taylor Swift's hit single "Bad Blood" with a Celtic twist.

"Because baby now we got bad blooood. You know it used to be mad loooove. So take a look at what you've done," O'Malley crowed.

"Now we got proooblems."

O'Malley is the lead vocalist and guitar player for the Celtic rock band O'Malley's March, and he sometimes plays songs for his supporters on the campaign trail.

He suggested he chose Swift's song because her rival Katy Perry was doing a benefit concert for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner. "Bad Blood" is rumored to be about Perry.

Watch below:

SEE ALSO: Watch presidential contender Martin O'Malley sing his heart out

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's how many people die from terrorism compared to gun violence

Dilbert, the well-known comic strip by cartoonist Scott Adams about the office everyman and his crew of incompetent colleagues, was the first syndicated comic that focused primarily on the workplace when it launched in 1989. Five years later, it had become so successful that Adams quit his corporate career to work on it full-time.  

It wasn't a straight line to success. Early versions of the comic were rejected by several publications, including The New Yorker and Playboy. It wasn't until an editor at United Media saw it and recognized her own husband in the character that it finally got its start, says Adams in his book, "How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big." 

Ever since, the comic has explored topics like the inefficiency of meetings, the uselessness of management, and the absurdity of office politics. 

Exclusively for Business Insider, Adams looked through the archives of Dilbert.com and shared his 10 favorite comics. Below, he explains why he chose each and counts them down to his absolute favorite of all-time.

SEE ALSO: The 10 funniest Dilbert comic strips about idiot bosses

DON'T MISS: ‘Passion is BS’ and other life advice from Dilbert creator Scott Adams

10. October 10, 2009: "Dream job"

"This comic causes the reader to imagine a funny future in which Wally will only pretend to do the assignment. Humor sometimes works best when one suggests what is coming without showing it. People laugh harder when they need to use their imaginations to complete the joke. 

"I also like comics in which characters are unusually happy about something trivial, evil, or selfish. That juxtaposition is always funny to me.

"Another technique I often use involves characters saying things that should only be thought. That creates the inappropriateness that gives it an edge."

9. September 24, 2009: "Opportunities"

"Management-by-slogan usually comes across to employees as ridiculous and condescending. That, in part, is what makes the staff in this comic so uncaring about the boss's house burning down. The ordinary evil of regular people is always funny to me. It's easy to relate to it."

8. November 12, 2009: "Roll a donut in front of the cave"

"A common humor technique involves juxtaposing something of immense importance with something trivial. The pairing of things that don't belong together makes your brain 'sneeze' in the form of a laugh. In this comic, Wally is comparing his digestive system to Jesus rising from the dead. A dash of spiritual inappropriateness gives it some seasoning."