America has been captivated by the new podcast "Serial"— a week-by-week breakdown of a murder case that was supposedly solved more than a decade ago.

"Serial" is a spinoff of "This American Life." Instead of talking about several stories in one episode, each season will follow only one story.

For the first season, journalist Sarah Koenig is diving into the murder of Baltimore high school student Hae Min Lee. She was murdered in January 1999, and her body was found in a shallow grave in a park about a month later.

Her ex-boyfriend and classmate, Adnan Syed, was eventually convicted of her murder. He has always proclaimed his innocence, and Koenig is exploring whether he's telling the truth.

Police charged Adnan with Hae's murder after his friend Jay, a former classmate of Hae's and Adnan's, told police that Adnan told him about the murder and enlisted his help in burying Hae's body.

"Serial" has a big audience on Reddit, and Redditors have created an entire subreddit dedicated to discussing their theories and trying to determine who killed Hae.

We've complied some of the best theories surrounding the case.

Warning: Spoilers below. 

Theory #1: Adnan hired Jay to kill Hae, and Jay turned on him.

Many "Serial" fans believe Jay is more involved in Hae's death than he let on.

Jay knew details about Hae's manner of death and burial that suggested he was involved in some way. He claims he just got dragged into the aftermath of the murder by Adnan, but some think he was also involved in her murder — not just burying her body.

Redditor zmachine52 explains:

Adnan had/hired/convinced/coerced/ etc. Jay to kill Hae.

Does this solve all of the issues?

They are both guilty. Therefore neither can implicate one another. Jay cuts a plea deal to get himself off the hook, meanwhile Adnan is able to (somewhat) plausibly deny much of [the] issues at hand, yet would still be guilty of murder 1, if discovered.

This could help explain the the timeline issues, the character issues, the "alibi", Jay's inconsistent stories (as he had to work Adnan into the story to cut his plea), the burial, the shovels, the car, cleaning the items, etc.

Basically a good dude somehow convinced a shady friend to commit murder for him. They are essentially both guilty, but one was able to plea out. The other is caught in a catch 22 but with lots of plausible deniability.

This is an interesting theory, but it doesn't quite explain why Adnan wouldn't turn on Jay once he figured out that Jay sold him out to the police. 

Theory #2: Jay and his friend Jenn did it.

Redditor justforserial argues that Jay and Jenn, a friend of his and Adnan's, might have committed the murder.

Justforserial theorizes that Jay and Jenn might have been carrying on an affair behind Jay's girlfriend Stephanie's back and Hae knew about it. Therefore, the pair killed Hae to shut her up.

Here's the theory:

Hae knows that Jenn and Jay are together behind Stephanie’s back and they are both worried she will expose them. At some point during this time Jenn pages Hae. Hae calls her back from a phone at the school. Jenn asks her to meet her at the Best Buy parking lot so that they can talk. Jay agrees to the plan because he doesn’t want Hae to expose their secret. Jenn and Jay drive together to best buy.

At 2:36 Adnan uses the phone in the library or a pay phone near the library and tries his own phone again to reach Jay and Jay answers but immediately hangs up the call. Right after this time Asia sees Adnan in the library and they start talking.

Hae meets Jenn and Jay in the parking lot, she’s surprised to see Jay because she expected it just to be Jenn. Jenn and Jay get into Hae’s car. Hae is sitting in the driver’s seat, Jenn in the front seat and Jay in the back. The interaction starts as a conversation but escalates quickly. Jay and Jenn hadn’t intended to kill Hae, but they had had a conversation that if she wouldn’t agree to keep quiet they would kill her. They had intended at first just to scare her and intimidate her into keeping their secret. However, Hae is strong willed and she argues back about how Stephanie is one of her best friends and she is going to tell her no matter what they say. Jay sees red, because Hae is threatening his relationship, and he reaches around her neck and strangles her in the car. Jenn holds down Hae’s arms while she is being strangled, and this is when she kicks the blinker off.

Justforserial also has explanations for the various other cellphone calls from Adnan's phone that occur before and after the murder, but this theory as a whole seems farfetched.

Theory #3: Adnan is a psychopath.

While listening to "Serial," it's important to keep in mind that we don't know everything. We've been given a lot of information about the case, but there are also many people we haven't heard from, including some of Adnan's friends.

Someone who claims to have known Adnan growing up writes on Reddit that several of Adnan's former friends saw psychopathic tendencies in him. Because the Muslim community Adnan grew up in is so tight-knit, according to this person, those who were close to Adnan might have been afraid to speak out over fear of retribution from their community.

So, although Adnan seems charming and smart when he talks to Koenig, and she has admitted that she thinks he's a good guy and likes talking to him, some still think he's guilty and has managed to manipulate those around him. Friends of his might have been reluctant to come forward with their true feelings about Adnan over fear of being ostracized from their community for implicating Adnan in Hae's murder, the theory goes. 

Redditor swframe666 explains why Adnan had to be the killer:

The one fact that is not in dispute is that Jay knows too much about the crime and has communicated his knowledge about it in a way that strongly supports that he knows the killer. The killer isn't an unknown person.

I think there is only one source of information that we need to review. It is the statements that Adnan makes about what he and Jay did together. Adnan statements indicates that he was with Jay that day and Adnan is the only person with Jay that doesn't have a strong alibi. And Jay's information very strongly indicates that he was with the killer that day.

The logistics of the cars, shovels and cell phone strongly indicates there was another person involved and the only other person that could have been involved is Adnan. To happen in a short time frame, the murder had to have been premeditated. The car and cellphone exchange means that it couldn't have been spontaneous. Another person couldn't have gotten to Hae so quickly given they would not have known that the car and cellphone was going to be exchanged that day. In addition, no other person Jay is in contact with that day is known to be involved with Hae.

Hae had to have been killed just after school and had to have been killed by someone she knew and trusted. Given the short time frame, Adnan is the only one who could have gotten that close to Hae that quickly. There is no evidence that Jay could have killed Hae so quickly and easily given that they are not known to be close friends.

I think Jay's testimony is inconsistent because he is an accomplice and he is trying to frame the events in a way that doesn't implicate himself. I think Adnan didn't turn on Jay because Adnan didn't think he would lose the case.

I don't know Adnan's motives. I don't know why Adnan would pick someone who he was not close to help cover up a murder. Jay turned on Adnan very quickly. I don't think any other facts matter because Jay must know the killer, must have been involved in the murder and the only other person with Jay is Adnan.

This is certainly possible, since psychopathy generally makes people more predisposed to committing violent crimes. But psychopaths are also very rare. One expert has estimated they account for only 1% of the US population.

Theory #4: Adnan was trying to frame Jay for the murder.

Many have speculated Adnan and Jay were in it together. Jay knew a lot of intimate details about the murder and admitted to police that he helped Adnan bury Hae in Leakin Park.

Redditor miketetzu's goes a step further and reasons that Adnan was trying to frame Jay and Jay figured it out, which is why he sold Adnan out to the police: 

Adnan murdered Hae, and Adnan's plan was to set Jay up for the murder. However, something happened: perhaps Jay got nervous, perhaps Adnan let something slip, or they had a falling out of sorts. Jay decided to sell Adnan out before Adnan sold him out, hence Adnan's "you're pathetic" aside at trial.

There are a lot of things that led me here, such as:

i. People say Jay and Adnan weren't good friends, and Adnan states this, too. So why does Jay have Adnan's cell phone, and why are they hanging out so often around the time of the murder? (Answer: Adnan planned to set Jay up for the crime, and so had to get close to Jay in order to get him involved.)

ii. Why doesn't Jay come forward right away, a question asked by the cops as well? (Answer: Jay initially doesn't come forward because he thinks he and Adnan are in it together, but subsequently gets nervous.)

iii. Why doesn't Adnan call Hae after her death? (Answer: Because he knows she's dead, obviously. This is just common sense, has nothing to do with my theory.)

iv. How does The Nisha Call fit into the theory? (Answer: I don't think this is something we can completely know, but I have two guesses: one is that the call was an accident by Adnan around the time of the murder. He realizes this is a potential problem for him, and so weeks later has Jay talk to Nisha from his cell phone to corroborate that Jay and Nisha once spoke from Adnan's cell phone. I don't think he thought this through all the way, but the reality is that it DOES muddle things; it doesn't have to exonerate him in order to help him. The second guess: Jay makes the call intentionally on the day of the murder, since the other six calls are to people he knows, so Adnan can't say he wasn't with them. Perhaps Jay makes the call and hands the phone to Adnan, who is not at practice, or maybe Jay makes the call and pretends to be someone else. Maybe Jay pretends to be the pizza man to Nisha’s mom. Adnan realizes the problem with this later after reviewing his call log, and see above for how he deals with it.)

v. As a statement: I also feel like this theory explains Jay's constantly changing stories. Jay realizes, either via conversations with the police that we're not aware of yet, or just as a sense, that he might be able to get off completely free and clear. He understands that he can pin the whole thing on Adnan, and slowly works his way to THAT story through the reactions of the detectives.

This theory seems a little wild, but it's not implausible that Jay was involved in Hae's death since he knew so much about her murder.

Theory #5: Jay killed Hae on his own.

This is another popular theory — that Jay acted alone and killed Hae, and that Adnan wasn't involved at all. Adnan has claimed innocence all along.

Reddit drae27 lays out this scenario:

Jay is the local pot dealer. Adnan gives Hae is new cell number the 12th. Adnan sees Hae in school the next day and she hears that Jay has Adnan's car/cell because he is going to buy Stephanie a present. Hae contacts Jay and arranges to meet after school to buy pot. They could have met anywhere. It doesn't have to be Best Buy, but maybe it is. Something bad goes down between Hae and Jay. She confronts him about Stephanie or he comes on to her and in the struggle of fighting him off it gets violent and he strangles her. The Nisha call happens as a "butt" dial in the struggle. Or Jay is trying to call Jen and makes a mistake. (Is there anyway of knowing the speed dial number for Nisha? Does Jen or anyone else's number start with the same number?) Jay leaves the car wherever the incident happened (maybe puts Hae in trunk). Jay goes to pick up Adnan, they get high, go see Kathy, get Adnan to the Mosque, drop Jay off at Jenn's. Jay tells Jenn what happened and asks for help. Either they bury Hae later that night or move the car and do it at another time, possibly with help from a third person.

I don't see this scenario contradicting the call logs. Some will say, why would Jay try to pin it on Adnan when he gets called in since Adnan might have an alibi? My impression of Jay is that he is desperate, a bullshit artist, not too smart and a burn out. It wouldn't surprise me if he just took a stab at it and got lucky.

The motive for Jay is thin, but he is the person most connected to Hae's death other than Adnan.

Join the conversation about this story »

LOS ANGELES (AP) — The actress best known for voicing the unseen Mrs. Wolowitz on "The Big Bang Theory" has died.

Carol Ann Susi's agent, Pam Ellis-Evenas, says the actress died Tuesday in Los Angeles after a brief battle with cancer. She was 62.

The veteran character actress has made numerous guest appearances on TV shows since the 1970s.

On the "The Big Bang Theory," she wasn't seen on camera as the mother of Simon Helberg's character, Howard, but her character's loud voice with a Brooklyn accent was instantly recognizable.

The executive producers of the CBS sitcom say Susi was a beloved member of the "Big Bang Theory" family, and they praised her "immense talent and comedic timing."

Susi is survived by her brother, Michael Susi, and his wife, Connie.

Warner Bros. television, CBS and "The Big Bang Theory" executive producers released the following statement:

The Big Bang Theory family has lost a beloved member today with the passing of Carol Ann Susi, who hilariously and memorably voiced the role of Mrs. Wolowitz. Unseen by viewers, the Mrs. Wolowitz character became a bit of a mystery throughout the show’s eight seasons. What was not a mystery, however, was Carol Ann’s immense talent and comedic timing, which were on display during each unforgettable appearance. In addition to her talent, Carol Ann was a constant source of joy and kindness to all. Our thoughts and deepest condolences are with her family during this time, and we will miss her greatly.

SEE ALSO: 5 things you didn't know about "The Big Bang Theory"

Join the conversation about this story »

Nicki Minaj was blasted this week for her new "Only" lyric music video, which resembled cartoonish Nazi propaganda. 

On Tuesday, Minaj finally tweeted an apology of sorts after both her fans and the Anti-Defamation League noted the video's insensitive similarities to Nazi imagery, including red swastika-like flags and armbands on soldiers.

While Minaj tried to defend herself by saying "I didn't come up w/the concept, but I'm very sorry & take full responsibility if it has offended anyone," the music video's director, Jeff Osborne, refuses to apologize.

"I’m not apologizing for my work, nor will I dodge the immediate question," he wrote in a MySpace post late Tuesday. "The flags, armbands, and gas mask (and perhaps my use of symmetry?) are all representative of Nazism."

Osborne, who also worked with Minaj on her “Anaconda” lyric video, added, "If my work is misinterpreted because it’s not a sappy tearjerker, sorry I’m not sorry."

Read the director's full, controversial statement below:

“Before I start, be clear that these are my personal views and not the views of Nicki Minaj, Drake, Lil Wayne, Chris Brown, or Young Money.

First, I’m not apologizing for my work, nor will I dodge the immediate question. The flags, armbands, and gas mask (and perhaps my use of symmetry?) are all representative of Nazism.

But a majority of the recognizable models/symbols are American: MQ9 Reaper Drone, F22 Raptor, Sidewinder missile, security cameras, M60, SWAT uniform, General’s uniform, the Supreme court, and the Lincoln Memorial. What’s also American is the 1st Amendment, which I’ve unexpectedly succeeded in showing how we willfully squeeze ourselves out of that right every day.

Despite the fact heavy religious and economic themes were glossed over, there’s also Russian T-90 tanks, Belgian FN FAL, German mp5 (not manufactured until 1966), an Italian Ferrari, and a Vatican Pope.

As far as an explanation, I think its actually important to remind younger generations of atrocities that occurred in the past as a way to prevent them from happening in the future.  And the most effective way of connecting with people today is through social media and pop culture. So if my work is misinterpreted because it’s not a sappy tearjerker, sorry I’m not sorry. What else is trending?”

The explanation doesn't exactly align with Minaj's Twitter "apology":

Many are taking issue with Minaj's defensive apology.

Marjorie Ingall, the co-creator and co-editor of SorryWatch, a site that analyzes mea culpas, told Refinery29:

"A good apology has to 1. take responsibility for one's sin, 2. acknowledge the impact of one's actions, 3. explain how and why the offense won't be repeated, and 4. offer reparations," Ingall explains. "Minaj does none of those things — with bonus points for, essentially, 'Some of my best friends are Jewish.'"

Ingall also notes that Minaj does the dreaded "Sorry if." "A good apology says, 'Sorry that.' The word 'if' is apology poison. It's not a question of 'if' the video offended anyone. It did."

SEE ALSO: Nicki Minaj Breaks Her Silence On Nazi-Themed Music Video

MORE: People Are Outraged Over Nicki Minaj's New Nazi-Themed Music Video

Join the conversation about this story »

Michael Douglas finished filming Marvel's upcoming superhero movie "Ant-Man" over the weekend. 

To celebrate, the actor shared a few photos of himself with his long-time stunt double, Mike Runyard, from throughout their career together. According to Douglas, Runyard has been his stuntman for 26 years. 

In that time, the two have become close friends and even golfing partners.

Take a look at their similar side-by-side photos from throughout the years.

Here are Douglas and Runyard on the set of next summer's "Ant-Man."

Runyard and Douglas are face-to-face on set of Ridley Scott's 1989 movie, "Black Rain."

Finally, here are the two in 1997's "The Game."

SEE ALSO: Marvel showed footage for "Ant-Man" and "The Avengers" sequel at New York Comic Con and fans loved it

AND: The most sought-after stunt doubles in Hollywood

Join the conversation about this story »

Jerry Seinfeld's sitcom is a mainstay at the top of critics' lists for the best television shows of all time, and since it ended in 1998, it has brought in over $3 billion in revenue from syndication deals.

But instead of becoming a relic of the past, 60-year-old Seinfeld has remained eminently relevant. He was the top-paid comedian last year, bringing in $27 million from his comedy tours. His web show "Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee" has had tens of millions of viewers on streaming service Crackle, and the first episode of the new season has been the series' most popular episode yet.

In a recent interview for NBC Nightly News, Brian Williams says that it's surprising to see that Seinfeld has stuck to his roots and continues to test out material at midnight shows in small clubs. Seinfeld tells Williams it taps into the way he sees success.

"If you're more interested in what you have achieved or what your financial position enables you to do, then that thing that got you those things — you're screwed. In my opinion, you're screwed," he says.

The reason he's remained so consistent for so long, he explains, is that he's kept himself humble and looking forward.

His focus on keeping himself motivated is apparent even in his morning routine. In an interview with Alec Baldwin for Baldwin's podcast earlier this year, Seinfeld explains that he's not one to keep hitting the snooze button. When it's time to get up, he draws up the shades, turns on sports radio, and splashes his face with cold water.

And though he now loves getting coffee with friends, he tells Williams, he's been a late convert to caffeine. He spent the majority of his career functioning without it.

The key? "Time! You eventually wake up!" Seinfeld says, laughing. If he got tired, he just powered through it, and he doesn't know why others can't do the same. "People say 'If I don't have my coffee I can't get up. I feel groggy.' Well, you just got up!" he says.

You can watch the full interview with Williams at NBC.

SEE ALSO: Jerry Seinfeld Gives 2 Smart Pieces Of Career Advice

Join the conversation about this story »

Russell Brand is famous for his comedic roles in movies like "Get Him To The Greek" and "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," but behind the funny facade is an often lonely man with a tendency to do things in excess.

In the "CBS This Morning" ongoing segment "Note to Self," Brand addresses his wilder younger years and gives himself advice on surviving drug addiction and the pitfalls of fame.

Read his full letter below:

Hello young man.

We've not spoken for a while because I've necessarily buried you beneath fathomless strata of bravado and glamour.

It will be good to have a chat though, because I know, of course I know, that you're lonely, sad and that you think too much.

In fact, you do lot of things too much. For you, Sonny Jim, too much is going to become a bit of a theme. At the moment it's too much chocolate and a bit too much TV but this helter skelter of excess will be steadily gaining momentum and pulling in new obsessions as it goes.

Drugs, porn, booze, sex, fame, money, other people's approval are all going to be prized and pursued over the coming years.

The problem is, and I know you don't know this, you're good at getting stuff you want, so everything on that list -- each word for you an exciting pang and a thrilling goal -- will come into your little life and it falls to me to tell you that none of that stuff is going to help with the loneliness, thinking or sadness.

You know that you want to show off for a living and that you never want to be poor again. And you know you can make people laugh.

Now I'm not going to tell you to not take drugs or drink or go crazy chasing girls and fame -- you hate being told what to do.

No, take all the drugs you want. Drink yourself into police cells and hospitals. Talk yourself into fights that are going to be hard to talk your way out of as you plunge into the powders and the rocks and bottles looking for something that's not there.

It's going to take you to some dark places and you're going to meet some desperate people, in crack houses and whore houses, in parties so glamorous that they're lit by flash bulbs and other people's envious attention.

In all those places you're gonna see the same sadness and feel the same loneliness.

Do it all. Go nuts. You're gonna do it anyway. Just know that it can't make you happy.

In fact, no externally acquired thing can help you.

Just to take some of the pressure off, let me tell you, you are going to do some amazing things that are going to blow your mind.

You are going to get rich and famous and travel the world, meet loads, seriously kiddo, loads of unbelievable girls and there will be moments when you enjoy it.

But I know for a fact what you already suspect. None of this stuff is the answer.

There's a thing that you're good at; making people laugh and connecting with them. That's cool. It's really cool. Look after that, it's going to look after you.

But know too that not everyone's going to like you. That doesn't matter. The important thing is that you like you.

I want to tell you you're alright. You have everything you need already. Try to listen to that quiet voice because that's the thing you're looking for. Some people call it love, others call it connectivity and others call it God. It's there, it's always been there, and it will always been there. And if you look after it, it will look after you.

P.S. Remember to pray, do yoga, eat well and wear condoms. Only during sex though, people already think you're weird.

Brand tweeted about his "note to self" on Wednesday:

Watch him read the letter on "CBS This Morning" below:

SEE ALSO: Russell Brand's Beautifully-Written Blog Post About What It's Like To Do Heroin

Join the conversation about this story »

A sequel to the Farrelly Bros.'s 1994 hit "Dumb and Dumber" hits theaters this weekend. 

Jeff Daniels and Jim Carrey will reprise their roles as Harry and Lloyd 20 years later in "Dumb and Dumber To." While both are expected to be receiving hefty paychecks for the followup, the original movie was a different story.

For the first "Dumb" film, Daniels was only paid around $50,000 — far less than his co-star Carrey, who received a $7 million payday.

In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter, writer-directors Bobby and Peter Farrelly revealed how the studio, New Line, initially didn't even want Daniels in the role.

"Jeff Daniels was not the obvious choice because he hadn’t done any, you know, out and out comedies before that," Bobby Farrelly told THR. "He was always comedic in his roles." 

The comedy duo loved him in 1986's action comedy "Something Wild," and they fought for him after seeing his chemistry during script readings with Carrey.

"The studio didn’t want him," Bobby added. "They said, 'Please, anyone but him. Get a comedic actor.'  So they offered him, if I recall, 50 grand, which was, you know, Jim’s getting seven mil, they offered him 50 figuring he’ll say, 'No, I’m not taking that,' but he took it."

Today, Daniels receives $150,000 per episode for HBO’s “The Newsroom,” now in its final season, according to TV Guide.

THR reports Carrey was originally offered $350,000 for the role, but after "Ace Ventura: Pet Detective" took off at the box office, that figure eventually snowballed into a $7 million payday. 

"Ace Ventura," released in Feb. 1994 made $12.1 million opening weekend and $107 million worldwide by the end of its theatrical run. 

"As I recall it went something like this, they offered him $350,000 to do the movie and he [Carrey] passed," Peter Farrelly told THR. "He [Carrey] wanted like 400,000. And they held off. And then Ace Ventura came out, which was his first movie and it was number one. ... So then, you know, they said, 'Okay, we’ll give you the 400.' He said, 'No, I want 500.' And then they said, 'No, you’re not getting 500.'"

"Another week passed, Ace was number one again," he added. "And they said, 'We’ll give you five.' 'No, I want 750.' Long story short, it got up to seven million and that’s what he got paid. The whole budget was 16 million and Jim got seven, which was the most ever for any comedic actor."

It paid off as "Dumb and Dumber," released Dec. 1994 opened bigger than "Ace Ventura," scoring $16 million upon debut.

The movie held the number one spot at the box office for four weeks and went on to make over $257 million worldwide on an estimated $17 million budget.

"Dumb and Dumber To," out Friday, cost a reported $35 million to make according to Deadline. Early estimates from Boxoffice.com project the film to break even opening weekend.

The number may be a bit high considering Carrey's attempt big push to return to theaters in the past year didn't go over so well. Warner Bros.'s magician film, "The Incredible Burt Wonderstone," also starring Steve Carell bombed making $27.4 million.

The actor hasn't commanded a film with a $30 million opening since 2009 "A Christmas Carol." Carrey's recent hosting gig on "Saturday Night Live" boosted ratings for the comedy variety recently, but he came on a week after the show had its worst ratings ever.

A 2003 prequel to the series, "Dumb and Dumberer," which didn't involve the Farrelly brothers or Carrey and Daniels, made $39.3 million worldwide.

You can read the full Hollywood Reporter interview with the Farrelly brothers here.

SEE ALSO: 11 movie sequels that came out more than 10 years after the original

Join the conversation about this story »

The 16-year-old kid from Texas who became internet-famous overnight as "Alex from Target" is now fearful of leaving his house, the New York Times reports. 

Alex Lee was unwittingly thrust into the limelight two weeks ago when a photo of him bagging groceries at Target went viral online.

Within a matter of hours, he became America's newest teenage heartthrob and the subject of thousands of memes.

His Twitter account went from 144 followers to half a million in 24 hours. Media outlets and talk shows around the country began contacting him for interviews.

He gave his first and only television interview to Ellen Degeneres last week and told her he didn't know what to do with his newfound fame.

He said he feels "so pressured" to send more tweets to his fans, adding, "they're waiting."

Now wherever he goes, he's met by squealing fans. And at school, kids have been stopping him in the hallways to take selfies with him and post them online, writes the Times' Nick Bilton.

The attention is frightening at times, Alex told the Times.

"I’ve been in the house the entire time," he said. "I’m kind of scared to go in public."

Only a couple weeks ago, Alex was just excited to be going on his first date with his now girlfriend. 

"I really wanted some Chicken Express, and she was like, ‘Hey, we should get some Chicken Express tomorrow.’ And we actually ended up getting Chicken Express the next day," he told Bilton.

Now he and his family are receiving death threats and their personal information, including Social Security numbers, bank accounts and phone records, have been leaked online.

"The biggest concern for myself and my wife is some of the negativity we’re seeing online," Alex's father told the Times. "Our concern is making sure he’s safe."

Alex's quick rise to fame remains a bit of a mystery.

A social media company called Breakr Nation tried to take credit for the image spreading so fast, but Alex and his family deny knowing anything about the firm. Target has also denied involvement.

For more on Alex's struggle with fame, go to the New York Times.

SEE ALSO: 'Alex From Target' Might Not Be A Marketing Stunt After All

Follow us: On Facebook

Join the conversation about this story »

Matthew McConaughey is engaged in his media blitz to promote "Interstellar," which opening last week.

He's on the cover of People magazine and offered a series of life lessons to the publication. 

One of them involved a car. And a truck. And McConaughey's imitable way of talking about cars and trucks and, heck, pretty much everything. 

Here's People:

In another life-changing moment, which he titled "The Curse of the Red Sports Car," the star recalls his misguided decision to trade in his four-cylinder truck for a fancy cherry-red sports car in high school. 

"My truck was informal, rugged, social, like me," he says. "But this 300ZX [sports car] was my dream car, or so I thought. And as soon as I got it, something changed. I started acting like my car. I became really concerned with my appearance, meticulous, self-conscious." 

Needless to say, the star sold the car two months later and got his truck – not to mention his down-to-earth swagger – back. 

Informal. Rugged. Okay, that we can see.

But social? Does that mean McConaughey couldn't fit enough friends and family members in the back seat of his 300ZX (an understandable problem)? Or that it was no good for tailgating?

Then of course there the whole question of why a sports car would make a man more meticulous and self-conscious.

But let's give McConaughey the benefit of the doubt. Trucks will tend to give one license to, for example, avoid getting them washed for months on end.

Of course, McConaughey is now rolling around in a Lincoln MKC SUV — if you believe the widely parodied ads for Ford's luxury brand, in which the Oscar-winning actor meanders through various stream-of-consciousness musings, encounters a large bull, talks about the past and the future and...

Yeah. Trippy.

Evidently, he's OK with the Lincoln. It hasn't — clearly hasn't — made him self-conscious at all.

SEE ALSO: Early 'Interstellar' Reactions Are Hailing It As The Must-See Event Of The Fall

SEE ALSO: You Have To Watch This Trippy Video Matthew McConaughey Made For Lincoln

Join the conversation about this story »

Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson saw 'Interstellar' and then came by Business Insider to explain what the ending means – and if it's scientifically sound.

Produced by Will Wei. Additional camera by Devan Joseph.

StarTalk Radio is a podcast and radio program hosted by astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, where comic co-hosts, guest celebrities, and scientists discuss astronomy, physics, and everything else about life in the universe. Follow StarTalk Radio on Twitter, and watch StarTalk Radio "Behind the Scenes" on YouTube.

Follow BI Video:On Facebook

Join the conversation about this story »

Taylor Swift's Spotify payout turns out to be much less than the streaming service led people to believe earlier this week.

Time Magazine reports that Swift's label earned $2 million from streaming her songs over the past year.

That's the global figure Spotify gave Time — but Swift's record label said the domestic streaming payout from the past year was much lower at $500,000.

In comparison, Swift's new album "1989" is expected to net about $12 million in gross sales in its first week.

The $2 million figure is also significantly less than the $6 million Spotify CEO Daniel Ek said top artists would pull in over the next year.

Spotify factored its growth projections into that number, but it still seems a bit far-fetched considering that Swift's label earned only $2 million in the past year from streaming.

And that figure doesn't appear to be the amount Swift personally earned for the streaming rights — it's just the amount that Spotify paid to the label that owns the rights to Swift's music.

Swift has become the center of a discussion over whether Spotify pays artists enough for the rights to stream their music.

This issue of artist pay resurfaced last week when Taylor Swift pulled her entire catalogue of music from Spotify after refusing to put her new hit album "1989" on the service. Swift has said that artists need to protect their work and value it appropriately.

Part of the problem artists face is that the amount of money Spotify pays labels is greater than what the artists see from allowing their music to be streamed.

Last month, Jimmy Buffett complained that artists who streamed their music on Spotify are "at the end of the pipeline" when it comes to the money Spotify pays labels for permission to stream albums. And the money Spotify pays labels, while totaling a reported 70% of the company's revenue, averages less than a penny per play.

Jonathan Price, Spotify’s global head of communications and public policy, defended the $2 million figure to Time: "Our users, both free and paid, have grown by more than 50 percent in the last year, which means that the run rate for artists of every level of popularity keeps climbing. And Taylor just put out a great record, so her popularity has grown too. We paid Taylor’s label and publisher roughly half a million dollars in the month before she took her catalog down — without even having '1989' on our service — and that was only going to go up."

Borchetta doesn't believe that Spotify is a boon to the industry.

"The facts show that the music industry was much better off before Spotify hit these shores," Borchetta said. "Don’t forget this is for the most successful artist in music today. What about the rest of the artists out there struggling to make a career? Over the last year, what Spotify has paid is the equivalent of less than 50,000 albums sold."

About 25% of Spotify's 50 million active users pay for the service. Spotify premium subscribers pay about $120 per year for the service.

SEE ALSO: Spotify's CEO Defends The Streaming Service's Payout To Artists

Join the conversation about this story »

At an event in San Francisco on Wednesday, Comcast showed off a bunch of upcoming features that show it's serious about dominating your living room. And perhaps even your life.

Among the new features for its Xfinity X1 operating system is what the company calls a "talking guide," which reads aloud menu and navigation information.

"Something that I'm really proud of, and that I think is a first for any company in the US and maybe in the world," Comcast CEO Brian Roberts said at the event. "It's taking all that rich guide [information], and making it more accessible." 

The voice guide was demoed by Tom Wlodkowski, Comcast's VP of audience, who is visually impaired. Not only does it read aloud menu items, network names, TV shows, and even Rotten Tomatoes ratings, but it also guides the user through how to use the controls, like the shape of the button that needs to be pressed.

The feature will roll out to customers in the coming weeks on equipment they already have.

Another new feature is a voice-activated remote control, which gives the user a more intricate way to navigate through dozens of settings, menus, and TV shows. For example, you could ask it to "show me kids movies on HBO," and a list of movies for children will pop up. You could also ask it to search for specific movies or shows, or even ask it "what should I watch?" and it will give you a list of what's trending or suggestions based on stuff you've watched in the past.

Comcast also gave a peek at its integration with IFTTT, which allows people to create simple "recipes" that string together certain actions. Comcast Chief Business Development Officer Sam Schwartz demoed the feature, showing off possible use cases, such as integrating your cable box with your Jawbone wearable to notify you if you haven't reached a fitness goal. 

As for Comcast's future outside the living room, the company stayed unsurprisingly mum. Comcast opposes the president's plan on how to implement net neutrality, which is to put internet service into the same category as phone calls, essentially turning the internet into a utility. 

Roberts did express his happiness over the company's possible merger with Time-Warner, saying it's progressing "full steam ahead."

"I think we're taking it one day at a time, but I'm excited about Time-Warner Cable," he said. 

He also didn't count out a possible future partnership with Google Fiber. "We have a relationship with Google, but I think [Google Fiber] demonstrates to me how vibrant the broadband and video marketplace is, and how fast it's changing," Roberts said.

Regarding unbundling cable packages, Roberts said that the company is limited by its rights agreements with content providers. But he did give hope to Roku users, who currently cannot watch HBO Go via Comcast on their set-top boxes.

"Stay tuned," he said.

SEE ALSO: The Weird Reason Why Video Games Are Released On Tuesdays

Join the conversation about this story »

Since Microsoft announced new bundles and a new $349 price for Xbox One, gamers are eating it up.

It is finally selling better than Sony's PlayStation 4, Microsoft says.

The company says the first week after the price cuts took effect, US sales more than tripled, and that it's been beating Sony for the past two weeks.

Retail orders for the Xbox One will soon hit 10 million units, according to a blog post by Yusuf Mehdi, corporate vice president of Devices and Studios. He writes:

The response to this wave of blockbuster game releases and new bundles has been amazing, and sales have skyrocketed since the new price took effect on Nov. 2. Compared to the previous week, Xbox One sales in the US have more than tripled, which is exciting as more and more friends will be playing together this holiday. As we head into the busy holiday season Xbox One led generation 8 console sales in the US for the past two weeks. Shortly, we will have sold in to retailers more than 10 million Xbox One consoles.

We can't say we're surprised. Our own Karyne Levy predicted that the Xbox One would outsell the PS4 after Black Friday, thanks to the price cuts and bundles.

Sales are also helped by this week's arrival of the newest Xbox One exclusive game, "Halo: The Master Chief Collection."

But it's the new Xbox One bundles that are really winning fans. These pair the console with some of the most popular games. For instance, for $349 you can get the "Assassin’s Creed" bundle, which includes a couple of uber popular versions of the game, including "Assassin's Creed Black Flag." And you can add Kinect to the bundle for another $100 ($449). With that, Microsoft will toss in "Dance Central Spotlight" (because everyone knows that pirates love to dance).

But, as Levy points out, Sony has a few bundles of its own, like one for "Grand Theft Auto 5." Choices, choices.

SEE ALSO: Black Friday Could Be The Day The Xbox One Finally Towers Over The Competition

Join the conversation about this story »

Nintendo isn't going to change its tune on mobile games anytime soon. And that might be a huge mistake. 

In a Q&A with investors, Nintendo CEO Satoru Iwata reaffirmed the company's longstanding stance on mobile games, saying, "Basically, Nintendo’s utilization of smart devices means to 'make a stronger bond with our consumers through the use of smart devices,' instead of to 'do business directly on smart devices.'"

That doesn't mean the company is ignoring mobile entirely. Iwata stressed the importance optimizing its websites for mobile phones, as well as building out a mobile site for the company's Mii characters, which is Nintendo's version of avatars, and are used in various games, including "Tomadachi Life." 

"If we were able to expand the Mii population and Mii were usable on consumers’ smart devices, for example, if consumers were able to create their profile icons on social media using Mii, we believe consumers would be happy, and we are developing something like it now," he said to investors.

In a Q&A with Re/code's Eric Johnson, Nintendo of America's President and COO Reggie Fils-Aime reiterated the sentiment, saying, "It hasn’t changed our philosophy, which continues to be that we believe that it’s best for the gamer and the consumer to have gaming experiences that are unique and differentiated, and part of the way we deliver that is with our unique and differentiated hardware."

Not releasing mobile versions of its games is missed opportunity for Nintendo, not least of which because the market for mobile games is huge. According to a recent report by App Annie (via Business Insider Intelligence), games represent 75% of mobile spending on iOS, and 80% on Android. Casual games, such as "Kim Kardashian Hollywood," brought in $43 million in the third quarter alone. And King, the maker of the game "Candy Crush," is still killing it: The company reported adjusted profit of $177.4 million, or $0.56 per share, which beat expectations for earnings of $0.47.

According to Juniper Research, mobile gaming's footprint will continue to grow. Juniper predicts that gaming on tablets will reach $13.3 billion by 2019; in 2014, that number was $3.6 billion. 

Other game companies are finding success in the mobile game market, as well. EA posted a Q2 revenue of $1.22 billion, thanks in large part to growth in the mobile gaming sector. The company has 155 million active monthly mobile game users. 

But there's hope yet for Nintendo. And it might start with its Amiibos, Nintendo's version of Disney's "Infinity" series of games and Activision's "Skylanders," where physical game pieces are used in the games.

According to IGN, Nintendo will not region-lock Amiibos. That means the pieces will just work on any Nintendo device, no matter which region it's in.

Activision offers its "Skylanders" toys for mobile devices, and has found great success there, according to Kotaku. The tablet version comes with a special controller that pairs with your tablet, making it easy to play. The logical next step for Nintendo could be to make its Amiibos available on tablets, as well.

Nintendo is also partnering with a company called Loot Crate to offer Amiibo subscriptions, according to GameSpot.

By making the Amiibos work on any device, regardless of region, as well as partnering with third parties to offer the figurines, Nintendo is putting all of the pieces in place to make a huge impact in the mobile space. 

And people are clamoring for Nintendo to do so, including its investors and even internal employees. According to the Motley Fool, it's even creating something of an "internal revolt" between high-level execs and Iwata. 

The undeniable potential of mobile gaming, as well as the increasing calls for Nintendo to push into the mobile space, should make it clear to the company and Iwata that the future can be bright when it comes to mobile gaming. It just needs to be open to trying new things. And let's face it: Nintendo can use all the help it can get right now. It recently announced that it's on track to reporting an annual profit for the first time in four years. 

SEE ALSO: Black Friday Could Be The Day The Xbox One Finally Towers Over The Competition

Join the conversation about this story »

Hasbro is in talks to acquire DreamWorks Animation, according to a report from Deadline.com.

Deadline reports that DreamWorks and Hasbro are in talks to create a combined family entertainment company that would be called DreamWorks-Hasbro, and says the deal is at least 60 days away from being finalized.

DreamWorks currently has a market cap of about $1.9 billion and is the studio responsible for producing animated films including, "Shrek", "Madagascar", and "How to Train Your Dragon."

Deadline's report said DreamWorks CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg is looking for Hasbro to pay $35 a share for the company, which would be more than a 50% from the $22.37 that DreamWorks shares closed at on Wednesday.

The New York Times, citing a person briefed on the matter, is also reporting that Hasbro and DreamWorks are in talks regarding a deal. That report said only that Katzenberg is seeking a deal worth more than $30 a share. 

These reports come about six weeks after The Wall Street Journal reported that Japanese conglomerate SoftBank was in talks to acquire DreamWorks, though the Journal later reported that these talks cooled for reasons that weren't known at the time. 

The Times' report on Wednesday also said it isn't clear why those talks broke down.

Deadline also reported that in a separate deal, DreamWorks is looking to form a joint venture with The Hearst Corporation involving its AwesomenessTV arm. 

DreamWorks acquired AwesomenessTV for more than $100 million in May 2013. AwesomenessTV operates a network of YouTube channels. 

Deadline broke the news after 8:00 pm ET, which is when stocks no longer trade in the after hours, but shares of DreamWorks are likely to rise sharply on Thursday following the news. 

You can read Deadline's report here, and The New York Times report here. 

Join the conversation about this story »

Daniel Tosh is the famous host of his own show on Comedy Central called "Tosh.0," and he's incredibly ticked off at ESPN and their flasghip show "Sportscenter," for its new segment called "The Awesome Video Segment," according to The Sporting News.

Tosh himself has a segment on his show called "Web Redemption" that he says is extremely close to what "Sportscenter" aired. And the kicker was when an ESPN reporter used the same catchphrase in the video that Tosh uses: "ready to give it another shot?"

Tosh then decides to get his revenge by doing a spot-on parody of Sportscenter's "Sports Science," which breaks down all the things he thinks ESPN does incredibly wrong.

Watch the whole thing, you won't regret it:

Join the conversation about this story »

Although you've probably never heard the name, Paul Marcarelli is one of the most recognizable commercial actors of our time. Often referred to as "The Verizon Guy" or "Test Man," Marcarelli has appeared in hundreds of ads and promotions for Verizon, and he is best known for his "Can you hear me now?" catchphrase.

The actor, who's been under contract with Verizon since 2001, still works with the telecom giant from time to time. He tells us about his time as "The Verizon Guy," how he got the job, and what he's up to now. 

Produced by Will Wei. Additional camera by Devan Joseph.

Follow BI Video: On Facebook

Join the conversation about this story »

It seems like everyone in America has been talking about Taylor Swift since her new album "1989" dropped two weeks ago, and now she's landed on two prominent covers.

Time has published a Q&A with Swift on its site that non-subscribers have access to, and Businessweek has put its full cover story online.

In the TIME interview, Swift says that being a role model to young girls excites her rather than stresses her out. Swift declined to comment for the Businessweek cover story, but there she is anyway.

Here are the covers:

As you can see, the covers are pretty similar:

ahahahaha whoops pic.twitter.com/a8M9cAZaK4

— LW (@lindseyweber) November 13, 2014

These covers, coupled with all the news coverage Swift saw when she pulled her entire catalogue of music from Spotify, are more evidence of her immense power in the music industry. She's trying to change the game and go against the grain when it comes to streaming, something that many other artists haven't been willing to do.

Artists don't make nearly as much money putting their music on Spotify as they do selling digital albums and songs on services like iTunes.

Spotify says it pays 70% of its revenue to labels — which will amount to about $1 billion this year — but some artists feel they don't get a big enough cut. The streaming service revealed last year that it paid record labels an average of less than a penny per play.

Scott Borchetta, the CEO of Swift's record label Big Machine, told Time on Wednesday that the label earned only $500,000 from domestic streaming on Spotify in the past year. Spotify told Time that the amount the service paid for streams of Swift's music in the past year was actually $2 million if you account for global streams as well as domestic.

But it's unclear how much of that money Swift saw herself — Spotify paid the $2 million to Universal, which holds the rights to Swift's music, and then her label Big Machine got a cut.

In any case, Swift might not need Spotify — her new album is expected to net about $12 million in gross sales in its first week. It's the biggest album of 2014 with 1.287 million copies in its first week. June 2002 was the last time a record (Eminem's "The Eminem Show") sold as many copies in one week.

Read the TIME interview here >

Read the Businessweek cover story here >

SEE ALSO: Here's How Much Taylor Swift Made In One Year From Streaming On Spotify

Join the conversation about this story »

One strategy that makes Taylor Swift such a successful artist is her determination to listen to her instincts.

When she was first starting out as a teenager in Nashville, she signed a development deal with RCA Records, but later left for new, independent label Big Machine because she was worried she wouldn't be able to write her own songs.

She still has that independent attitude to this day — Swift told TIME that a lot of people around her doubted her switch from country to pop, and that she had to fight for her vision for her album "1989," which turned out to be a huge hit.

Swift said that "every single element of this album has been called into question" and that she had to tell her team, "No, this is how we’re doing it."

Here's what she told TIME in an interview for their cover story on her:

"With '1989,' I was really putting my neck on the line, because I was the one saying I need to change directions musically. And my label and management were the ones saying 'Are you sure, are you positive? This is risky.' And I was the one who had to come back every time and say, 'No, this is what we’re doing.' When I put forth an album cover that didn’t have half my face on it, and tried to convince my label that this was the best way to sell an album, you know, I got some kind of interesting side-glance looks. But I knew that this was the best cover to represent this record, because I wanted there to be an air of mystery. I didn’t want people to know the emotional DNA of this album. I didn’t want them to see a smiling picture on the cover and think this was a happy album, or see a sad-looking facial expression and think, oh, this is another breakup record. When I wanted to call the album '1989,' people on the team questioned that."

Throughout the process of making the album, Swift insisted on sticking to her vision, and it paid off big time.

"1989" is expected to net about $12 million in gross sales in its first week. It's the biggest album of 2014 with 1.287 million copies in its first week. June 2002 was the last time a record (Eminem's "The Eminem Show") sold as many copies in one week.

Swift is also fighting the industry trend of moving toward streaming rather than focusing on album sales. Many in the music industry insist that streaming is the future, but Swift argues that it hurts sales and doesn't appropriately value artists' music. She pulled her entire catalogue of music from Spotify earlier this month.

SEE ALSO: Taylor Swift Is Taking Over

Join the conversation about this story »

"Foxcatcher" is only the third feature from director Bennett Miller, but considering his previous two films ("Capote" and "Moneyball") both garnered Oscar nominations, anticipation for his latest take on a true story has been sky high. Fans of the director can rest assured: "Foxcatcher" is a fascinating film made all the more absorbing through its rich, vivid characters and efficient storytelling. 

We are introduced to wrestler Mark Schultz (Channing Tatum) a few years after his glory days winning Olympic gold along with his brother Dave (Mark Ruffalo). Dave is now happily married with children, but Mark mopes through life in the shadow of his more successful brother, giving half-hearted motivational speeches to rooms full of bored children. When eccentric millionaire John du Pont (Steve Carell) calls Mark out of the blue and offers to help train him for the 1988 Seoul Olympic games at his lavish estate, there's no reason for him not to accept.

"Foxcatcher" portrays the man in a way that sheds light on the factors that lead to the big, newsworthy event. By the time we meet Du Pont's disapproving mother (Vanessa Redgrave), we start to see the anguish that lead to Du Pont's mental state. His insistence on being referred to as the "golden eagle" and his absurd patriotic rants start to make sense after we learn of his sad upbringing. As his interactions with Mark grow increasingly troublesome, he becomes more and more sinister and threatening. 

Less is more in the world of "Foxcatcher," and silence pervades. The film opens with what feels like fifteen minutes of virtually no words, and the score is used so sparingly that afterwards I questioned whether or it even had one.

This isn't a bad thing, and an early training scene featuring Mark and David wrestling one another encapsulates all we need to know about their relationship without any words in a matter of minutes. This is courtesy of the fantastically rich screenplay, Bennett Miller's impeccable direction, and the exceptional work from the cast.

Steve Carell is almost unrecognizable as Du Pont; a giant prosthetic nose, false teeth and pale skin give him an unsettling and imposing air. The film truly belongs to him and is essentially a detailed character study of an individual that is certainly ripe for analysis. Du Pont speaks in a dry, stilted bursts and while his looniness is often played for laughs, there's an inherent fear established due to the fact that the film presents a ripped-from-the-headlines story that audiences are likely familiar with.

"Foxcatcher" is billed as a true-crime drama, and although I personally wasn't aware of the events depicted, it's easy to see that Du Pont is unstable and something horrific is to come. 

Channing Tatum is great as Mark, the oblivious lunk caught in Du Pont's depraved world, and as the situation gets more complicated, his performance becomes more layered and meaningful. His relationship with Du Pont gets weirder as the film progresses but the audience is left in the dark to a certain extent; we only know what's essential, and nothing more. It's a quiet, nuanced performance and is easily the best of his career.

Ruffalo is equally good as his brother Dave, and they both really thrive when they're on screen together; the tension between them is palpable. Carell's performance is a game-changer for the comic actor and he proves that he can more than pull his weight when it comes to drama. While there are certainly comedic elements to the role, he somehow manages to make Du Pont equally terrifying as he is pathetically funny. 

These three lead performances help make "Foxcatcher" incredibly compelling. The film examines very basic questions of human psychology in a way that very few artists have pulled off. What we're left with is a gripping and thought-provoking work that is sure to stick with you. 

"Foxcatcher" opens nationwide on November 14th. 

SEE ALSO: "Birdman" is the best movie of the year

Join the conversation about this story »