The cry for gun control is loud, but little progress has been made to change current policy.

In 2016 alone, there have already been nearly 8,500 gun-related deaths.

Daniel Radcliffe's suggestion for how to change people's views on gun crimes? Call it a "form of terrorism."

The actor spoke with Business Insider in an exclusive interview before the TimesTalks event to promote his latest film "Imperium," which is based on a true story of an FBI agent's undercover mission to infiltrate a white supremacy group.

Early on, the film challenges the idea of categorizing threats and following the mainstream definition of terrorism. At first, Radcliffe's character Nate is focused on Islamic groups before he is recruited to go undercover as a white supremacist. 

Director Daniel Ragussis, who joined Radcliffe in the interview, co-wrote the film with Michael German, the former FBI agent on which it is based. After working with German, Ragussis said he has come to understand the definition of terrorism as very subjective.

"It seems to be, at least in the way that it’s applied, a very subjective definition and one that’s often unfortunately politically motivated and I say unfortunately because there probably should be a lot more consistency in terms of how we look at those things and whether we call something terrorism or not has a great impact as to the way the law enforcement community approaches it, the way that the media approaches it, public policy approaches it. So unfortunately the choice of words becomes an incredibly important thing in terms of how our society deals with and views the issue."

Radcliffe agreed and applied the significance of the label of terrorism to the much-debated topic of gun control policy:

"(Homicides are) not all politically motivated, but it instills terror and in that sense it is. Any kind of murder with any sort of political or religious ideology could be defined as terrorism but as [Ragussis said], that has so much sway over how people deal with stuff and actually it might be much more useful to just start referring to all gun crimes as a form of terrorism — because at this point it does always almost feel like a political statement of some kind."

SEE ALSO: Dear America, this is how you became obsessed with guns

DON'T MISS: Daniel Radcliffe and Paul Dano talk about being in the weirdest movie of the year

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The directors of 'Catfish' and 'Nerve' reveal how to make it in Hollywood without going to film school

It's always interesting to imagine what a famous movie role would have been like in another actor's hands.

What about Jeff Bridges playing the Tom Hanks role in the 1988 hit comedy "Big"?

It almost happened.

When director Penny Marshall was thinking about an actor who could capture the childlike innocence of a 12-year-old who, after a wish, is suddenly turned into a 30-year-old, she talked to Bridges.

"I remember going out for it," Bridges told Business Insider, while doing press for his new movie "Hell or High Water.""It was shortly after 'Starman' I think. I don't know how close I was to getting the part. I met with Penny Marshall and that's one that I knew would be a hit. It just felt hit-ish. But it's like you go to a store and you see a jacket and you go 'I love that jacket' and you try it on and it's too big or too small for you and it's the only one they have. For some reason that part just didn't fit me."

So eventually, after Bridges didn't quite fit, Hanks got the call.

Bridges can't recall if the decision was amicable between him and Marshall, but what he does know for sure is "Tom just knocked it out of the park."

At the the time "Big" was being made, Hanks was best known for starring in outlandish comedies like "Splash,""Bachelor Party," and "The Money Pit," so Marshall casting him in the "Big" role — which certainly has some dramatic moments — was a bit of a gamble.

But it's really hard to imagine anyone other than Hanks in the "Big" role.   

SEE ALSO: Jeff Bridges talks to us about his gripping new movie and why he wants to play The Dude again

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Watch Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone dance and sing in the first trailer for 'La La Land'

Much of the talk surrounding "Suicide Squad" centers on Jared Leto's Joker.

Despite his menacing laugh in the trailers and promotional presence, Leto's Joker isn't actually featued much in the final film. The actor said many of his scenes were cut and told Variety there were enough scenes to piece together a standalone Joker movie — which DC is probably eyeing anyway.

Leto's costar and the Joker's love interest Margot Robbie said she thinks the filmmakers cut the scenes because they just shot "so much."

"They probably realized that the emotional through-line of the story had to be the mission that we were on, and explaining the Enchantress’ position and all that kind of stuff. And the [Harley and Joker] backstory stuff — though it’s magic and some of the stuff we shot was insane — they are flashbacks and they're meant to be snippets," the actress who plays Harley Quinn told Tipsy Talk. "I think when we were filming, maybe we got too engrossed in the flashbacks... So there’s a lot, but it just didn’t make sense to confuse the present storyline to incorporate all that."

Watch the full interview, over mimosas, with Robbie:

SEE ALSO: 'Suicide Squad' star Margot Robbie is blowing up — here's how the Aussie took over Hollywood

DON'T MISS: Here's who Jared Leto says inspired his Joker in 'Suicide Squad'

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Disney just released 3 minutes of behind-the-scenes footage from the new 'Star Wars' movie

Immediately upon the opening of "Ghostbusters" in mid-July, top Sony executives boldly declared a sequel to Paul Feig's all-female reboot of Ivan Reitman's 1984 classic was a given. "While nothing has been officially announced yet, there's no doubt in my mind it will happen," said Rory Bruer, president of worldwide distribution at Sony.

That was the studio's last public mention of a sequel. As of Aug. 7, "Ghostbusters" had earned just under $180 million at the global box office, including $117 million domestic. The film still hasn't opened in a few markets, including France, Japan and Mexico, but box-office experts say it will have trouble getting to $225 million despite a hefty net production budget of $144 million plus a big marketing spend. The studio has said break-even would be $300 million.

Sony hardly is alone in suffering from audience rejection of sequels this summer. But film chief Tom Rothman and his team, along with partner Village Roadshow, had high hopes for launching a live-action "Ghostbusters""universe." Now they are preparing for steep losses (think $70 million-plus) and an uncertain future for the franchise.

Sony won't comment on whether it has banished a sequel to the netherworld, but perhaps tellingly, a rep says the studio actively is pursuing an animated "Ghostbusters" feature that could hit theaters in 2019 and an animated TV series, "Ghostbusters: Ecto Force," which is eyeing an early 2018 bow. Both are being guided by Reitman, who firmly is back in charge of the "Ghostbusters" empire via Ghost Corps., a subsidiary with a mandate to expand the brand across platforms. (It was former Sony film chief Amy Pascal who first embraced Feig's vision for the live-action reboot, not Reitman or Rothman.) "We're very proud of the bold movie Paul Feig made, which critics and audiences loved," a studio rep tells THR. "It has enlivened a 30-year-old brand and put it into the modern zeitgeist. As a result, we have many ideas in the works to further exploit the 'Ghostbusters' universe."

Feig hasn't said whether he'll return. Stars Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon are said to be signed for two potential sequels, and initially they said they were game. But now? "'Ghostbusters' is on ice until further notice," says box-office analyst Jeff Bock. "I just can't fathom the creative talents behind it — Feig, McCarthy, Wiig, etc. — slogging out another one when the reception to the first one was so mediocre."

Sony disputes the amount of the potential loss, insisting that revenue streams from merchandising and such attractions as a new Ghostbusters exhibit at Madame Tussauds and a theme park ride in Dubai will help defray any deficit. The studio also notes that the number of people renting the 1984 film has soared over the summer.

"This loss calculation is way off," says the Sony rep. "With multiple revenue streams, including consumer products, gaming, location-based entertainment, continued international rollout, and huge third-party promotional partnerships that mitigated costs, the bottom line, even before co-financing, is not remotely close to that number."

SEE ALSO: Ignore the haters — the new 'Ghostbusters' is a hilarious summer comedy in its own right

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: A nutrition expert reveals how often you should eat to look better

The debut of "Suicide Squad" came and went, and it wasn't only the critics who hated it.

Many are saying the highly anticipated supervillain film from DC Comics and Warner Bros. is a muddled mess, and possibly worse for those baited by the marketing, it doesn't live up to what the trailers hyped.

While we saw a lot of the Joker in those initial clips, it feels like he's hardly in the final movie at all.

Reports have confirmed that the studio ordered major tweaks after filming in response to the negative backlash to "Batman v Superman," notable for its dark tone.

And director David Ayer and the cast have said that many, many scenes didn't make the final cut of "Suicide Squad."

Now what's rumored to be a list of scenes that were cut from the film has surfaced on Reddit, and it teases a darker "Suicide Squad" that explains more of the Joker's (Jared Leto) backstory with his love interest Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie) and has a completely different beginning.

Note: Business Insider cannot confirm if these are real scenes cut from the film. Warner Bros. did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

Here's the rumored list of scenes that were cut from "Suicide Squad" (which sound a lot like what we saw in those early trailers):

SEE ALSO: Every character in 'Suicide Squad,' ranked

"In early cuts, the movie's opening detailed June Moon's posession by Enchantress in real tome. Reshoots reshuffled the scene to be later in the movie in flashback form in favour of a new opening centered on Deadshot."

"Deadshot in the prison cell, watching the rain fall and thinking about his daughter."

"El Diablo observing the flame of a lit match, before putting it out due to his vow to no longer use his powers."

The nine-year national nightmare that is the public feud between "Knocked Up" costars Katherine Heigl and Seth Rogen could be close to ending.

Rogen appeared on "The Howard Stern Show" on Monday and voiced his reaction to Heigl's last appearance on the radio show in which she voiced her regrets over comments she made about the Judd Apatow movie being "sexist."

For his part, Rogen said he was "hurt" by her comments and felt the trust between them was "betrayed."

"I thought she hated us," Rogen said.

Just to revisit, Heigl in a Vanity Fair story after "Knocked Up" came out called the movie "a little sexist."

"It paints the women as shrews, as humorless and uptight, and it paints the men as lovable, goofy, fun-loving guys. It exaggerated the characters, and I had a hard time with it, on some days," she said in 2008. "I'm playing such a b----; why is she being such a killjoy? Why is this how you're portraying women? Ninety-eight percent of the time it was an amazing experience, but it was hard for me to love the movie."

Heigl on Stern also recalled seeing Rogen at a restaurant after the comments went public and said he gave her a pretty icy reception.

Rogen said he doesn't remember the interaction that way, but admitted he was "confused" by her "acting as if everything was fine," and that may have showed through.

Ultimately, though, Rogen feels badly that the comments she made affected her career.

"The only people in this situation who should in any way take anything from it is me and Judd," Rogen said, "because we're the ones she's talking about. And for other people to not work with her because she didn't like her experience with us I think is crazy."

But Rogen did leave room for one criticism of Heigl's way of showing her remose. It sounds like he still wants a personal apology.

"When I apologize to people, generally I don't take a public forum to do it," Rogen said after saying that he had yet to receive a call from Heigl about the matter.

Listen to the interview below:

SEE ALSO: Why big-name actors love doing animated movies, according to Oscar winner J.K. Simmons

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Seth Rogen explains why Marvel is great at making sequels

Everybody loves Matt Damon, but Saint Ann’s isn't giving him a break.

Damon and his wife tried to get their three kids enrolled into the exclusive Brooklyn Heights school for next year, but they were turned down, according to the New York Post.

Saint Ann's is one of the most exclusive schools in New York City. It has countless famous alumni, including Lena Dunham, artist Jean-Michel Basquiat, and fashion designer Zac Posen. They offer classes from pre-K through high school, and are known for their personal, creative touch with students, eschewing "grades, rankings, and prizes in favor of ongoing dialogue and teacher reports," according to their website.

It's also not cheap — tuition ranges from a startling $36,000 to over $42,000 per year, according to the school's website.

The Damons can afford it, of course, but the school is completely booked.

"A lot of schools will bend the rules very happily; they’ll bring celebrities’ kids in midway through the year or do whatever they want,"a mysterious-sounding "insider" told the Post. "St. Ann’s just isn’t doing it."

We're sure Matt Damon's children will be just fine.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Scientists just collected a mysterious 'purple orb' at the bottom of the ocean, but no one could anticipate what happened next

The events of the upcoming "Star Wars" standalone film take place just before "A New Hope," and because it's not focusing on the Skywalker family, "Rogue One" can turn its focus to another "Star Wars" staple: the Force.

(Warning: Mild spoilers for "Rogue One" below.)

In "Revenge of the Sith," Anakin Skywalker left the Force in disarray. He killed almost every Jedi and destroyed any hope left that the light and dark sides would become balanced.

"Rogue One" director Gareth Edwards likened the consequences to the Force as a period of members losing their religion.

"The Force is basically in 'Star Wars' like a religion, and they’re losing their faith in the period that we start the movie," Edwards told Entertainment Weekly. "We were trying to find a physical location we could go to that would speak to the themes of losing your faith and the choice between letting the Empire win, or evil win, and good prevailing. It got embodied in this place we called Jedha."

Jedha, which is seemingly revealed in the behind-the-scenes video of "Rogue One," has a Middle Eastern look and is comparable to real-life religious city centers Jerusalem and Mecca.

"It’s a place where people who believe in the Force would go on a pilgrimage," Edwards told EW. "It was essentially taken over by the Empire. It’s an occupied territory... for reasons we probably can’t reveal."

Edwards went on to say that Jedha has a resource desired by both the dark and light sides of the Force. Based on Donnie Yen's interview with ExtraTV, it's probably the material that powers lightsabers. Yen revealed that his character, Chirrut Imwe, a blind warrior devoted to the ways of the Jedi, is from Jedha.

Use of the Force is not limited to Jedi. In "A New Hope,"Obi-Wan Kenobi described the Force as an "energy field created by all living things... It binds the galaxy together." In "The Phantom Menace," Qui-Gon Jinn controversially introduced the concept of midi-chlorians, "microscopic lifeforms inside all living cells" that make a person aware of the Force. The idea of midi-chlorians adds a genetic and physical connection to the Force, which was previously seen as solely spiritual. It also contradicts Lucas' comparison of the Force to yoga described in "The Making of 'Star Wars: Return of the Jedi.'" 

Dave Filoni, the director of the animated "Star Wars: The Clone Wars" projects, helped to create a more succint idea of training in and having a natural ability to use the Force in an interview with ComicBook.com.

"For a long time I’ve used someone like Bruce Lee as an example," Filoni said. "He has, if you like, a lot of talent for martial arts — or a very high midi-chlorian count. If I train in martial arts, can I learn martial arts? Yes, I can improve my midi-chlorian count in that discipline."

So basically, natural talent plus training and discipline make for the best Force user.

It will be interesting to see how non-Skywalkers — aka the ones who require more training and discipline — interact with the Force.

SEE ALSO: Everything you need to know about the next 'Star Wars' movie, 'Rogue One'

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: We took a ride around NYC in the new ‘Ghostbusters’ car which is actually a 1984 Cadillac hearse

It's possible that "Game of Thrones" alum Jason Momoa is going to be busy for the next few years. 

The actor is in serious talks to be the star of "The Crow" reboot, according to Mashable. 

The franchise, which is based on the popular graphic novel about a man who is resurrected by a crow and seeks revenge on the men who killed his girlfriend, has been on the ropes since its original star Brandon Lee's accidental death after being shot on the set of the movie in 1994.

Momoa, who is already playing Aquaman for the upcoming DC Comics movie "Justice League," posted this picture of himself with "Crow" reboot director Corin Hardy on Instagram with the hashtag #sealthedeal.  

According to Mashable, multiple sources confirm that Momoa is in talks and trying to fit the movie into his Aquaman commitments for DC, which will also include a standalone Aquaman movie slated for 2018.

"The Crow" franchise has continued since the death of Lee, but none of the films has received the same top talent as Momoa.

SEE ALSO: 10 celebrities who are totally obsessed with the Rio Olympics

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Watch Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone dance and sing in the first trailer for 'La La Land'

There's been a lot of complaining this summer about Hollywood releasing sequel after sequel from big movie franchises.

And yes, there have been a lot of big-budget movies that underperformed: "Independence Day: Resurgence,""Alice Through the Looking Glass,""Zoolander 2," and "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows" are just a few. 

But if you hate franchises, sorry: The movie sequels and adaptations will keep coming.

To see why Hollywood loves franchises, all you have to do is look at the top 10 highest-grossing movies of the summer so far, below. 

Note: All figures below are domestic gross totals via BoxOfficeMojo.com.

SEE ALSO: Why Hollywood hasn't learned anything from a miserable summer of box-office bombs

10. "The Angry Birds Movie" - $107.2 million

Based on the popular app.

9. "Ghostbusters" - $116.5 million

A female-led reboot of the franchise that began in 1984.

8. "The Legend of Tarzan" - $124 million

The latest movie based on the stories created by Edgar Rice Burroughs.

The internet instantly went crazy when a man started climbing Trump Tower in Manhattan (the one in which Donald Trump himself lives and works) using suction cups on Wednesday.

Yes, suction cups just like the ones Tom Cruise has used throughout the entire "Mission: Impossible" film series. It's one of the most popular tropes of the movies.

Cruise and Jon Voight both made use of them when they were scaling a train and stealing a file in "Mission: Impossible" (1996).

But the suction cups were most memorably used in "Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol" (2011) when Cruise (aka Ethan Hunt) scaled the tallest building in the world, the Burj Khalifa in Dubai.

It gave everyone in the world vertigo.

By the time "Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation" came around in 2015, apparently Crusie no longer needed the cups, so he just held onto dear life on this plane. Still, the effect was cool.

Of course, this didn't stop people on Twitter from making other pop-culture comparisons for "suction cup guy."

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Disney just released 3 minutes of behind-the-scenes footage from the new 'Star Wars' movie

One of the great things about Netflix is that it has brought thoughtful, compelling documentaries to a much wider audience that filmmakers could only dream of a decade ago.

And with binge-worthy titles like “Making a Murderer” and the vast ESPN “30 for 30” library being just a click away, you can get a lot of great nonfiction viewing any night of the week. You'll learn a lot more about the world, but don't worry — you'll also be entertained.

Here are 15 documentaries we think you should stream right away on Netflix.

SEE ALSO: All the "Avengers" and Marvel fans who nailed their cosplay at Comic-Con

1. “30 for 30” ESPN movies

Pretty much any “30 for 30” title is worth your time. The documentaries that highlight moments in sports that you may or may not be aware of are both entertaining and filled with emotion. A few we highly recommend: “No Crossover: The Tale of Allen Iverson”; “June 17th, 1994,” which looks at everything that happened in the world of sports at the time of O.J. Simpson's Bronco chase; “I Hate Christian Laettner”; and likely available in 2017 will be ESPN’s new masterwork, “O.J.: Made in America." 

2. “The Act of Killing”

Joshua Oppenheimer’s Oscar-nominated doc looks at the Indonesian genocide by having death-squad leaders reenact their mass killings. The results are both comical and heart-wrenching. 

3. “Blackfish”

Why is Sea World going to end killer-whale shows? It’s because of this incredible movie that looks at the abuse these magnificent creatures have endured for decades.

The Rock is finally trying to put an end to one of the most mysterious public feuds in recent memory.

Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson got uncharacteristically honest on his Facebook recently when he called out certain "unprofessional" male costars on the set of "Fast 8," currently in production, and called the men "candy asses."

The internet spent the next 24 hours speculating about which costar or costars he was talking about.

Now Johnson has posted a message on his Instagram trying to heal those wounds.

"You guys reading this know how much I believe in the idea of TEAM EFFORT. That means respecting every person, their time and their value when they step on to my set or partner with our production company. And like with any team - that's a family - there's gonna be conflict," he wrote Wednesday night.

Johnson added that, despite differences, he and his costars "all agree on the most important thing: Delivering an incredible movie to the world."

Whether this was all a promotional stunt or not, you can see for yourself how incredible the next "Fast & Furious" sequel is when it comes out April 14, 2017.

SEE ALSO: 10 celebrities who are totally obsessed with the Rio Olympics

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: We dare you to oversleep with Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson’s new motivational alarm clock app

According to TMZ, Vin Diesel and Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson hate each other.

This was devastating news to fans of the two muscular, bald, and badass costars who have been integral to "The Fast and the Furious" franchise.

But if you were worried that America's favorite action heroes were no longer friends, never fear: This is probably a hoax masterminded by Universal Studios, the studio producing "Fast 8," to drum up excitement for the movie.

It all started when Johnson published a post on Instagram on Monday night divulging that he had conflict with some of his unnamed co-stars.

"Some conduct themselves as stand-up men and true professionals, while others don't," he wrote. "The ones that don't are too chicken sh-- to do anything about it anyway. Candy asses."

He later posted another Instagram post on Wednesday to celebrate the end of filming "Fast 8" and added that conflict is necessary for any "family"— a nice tie-in with the franchise— and insinuating that there had been some sort of resolution: "To me, conflict can be a good thing, when it's followed by [a] great resolution. I was raised on healthy conflict and welcome it. And like any family, we get better from it."

According to the anonymous "production sources" that TMZ talked to, but didn't quote, Johnson was talking about Vin Diesel. Diesel made Johnson mad because he "made decisions that didn't sit well with the former wrestling champ."

The two also allegedly had a secret meeting where they failed to make up. TMZ also reported that Johnson is mad at Diesel because he takes too long to get out of his trailer each day, making everyone wait and ruining the movie's production schedule.

These are the facts on the ground, and so far they are thin. Other publications are spinning a narrative that Diesel and Johnson are in some titanic battle — two very muscular men are mad at each other, and have different visions for who should be on top at the end of the day.

In other words, they might as well be talking about the plot of a "Fast and Furious" movie, because this beef seems equally fictional. Johnson is universally considered one of the nicest people in Hollywood, and sincerely posting a mad message on Instagram is totally out of character for him.

Come on: In real life, in all likelihood, these guys are still friends. That's why they've done three "Fast and Furious" movies together. When Johnson joked about Diesel on "Ballers," it was a friendly jab, not a poisonous stab.

It's also absurd to think that Diesel would show up an hour late to the "Fast 8" set every day and ruin the movie. I tried to find reports of him showing up late on set to any movie for his prior roles, and came up with nothing. Vin Diesel, as far as INSIDER can tell, is the consummate professional. He shows up to set on time, puts work into his acting, and promotes the movies once they're released.

The "Fast and Furious" franchise in particular is his baby. He produces them, and they're his primary cinematic output for the past decade and a half. He wants them to be great. Why would he mess them up by being late on-set every day and ruining the production schedule?

If Diesel did indeed provoke Johnson, I'd guess it could just be a form of method acting. Their two characters are rivals in the franchise, and he may have purposefully made Johnson mad so he'd act mad — get it? As Johnson wrote in his initial post, "When you watch this movie next April and it seems like I'm not acting in some of these scenes and my blood is legit boiling — you're right."

Anyway, Scott Eastwood is the likelier candidate to be the "candy ass" Johnson was referring to. A few days earlier, Esquire published an interview where Eastwood appeared to deride liberals with that phrase, and Johnson is known to be politically progressive.

That said, if you personally know of any beef between Diesel, Johnson, or anyone else on the "Fast 8" set for that matter, email me.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Watch the Air Force drop 8 armored Humvees out of a plane from 5,000 feet

"Harry Potter and the Cursed Child," — the new play that takes place 19 years after the end of "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows"— doesn't use the same cast as the movies.

Harry, Ron, and Hermione are no longer played by Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint. Instead, they're portrayed by Jamie Parker, Noma Dumezweni, and Paul Thornley.

But, much to every Harry Potter fan's delight, Grint finally watched the play (well, just two weeks after it's official premiere), and even hung out with Thornley, the actor who plays a 19-years-older Ron Weasley. 

Thankfully, the official "Cursed Child" Twitter account shared pictures of the two meeting after the show in London.

Grint also took a photo with the whole cast backstage.

Similarly, Emma Watson met Noma Dumezweni, the actress who plays Hermione in the play, about a month ago, when the play was still in previews. The actress wrote about the experience of meeting another person who plays such a complicated character in a moving Facebook post.

Daniel Radcliffe, on the other hand, has his doubts about going to London to watch the show. "I want to see the show — I genuinely am intrigued and I've heard it's fantastic — but I just feel sitting in an audience of what will for the most of the near future be very enthusiastic Harry Potter fans might be like not a relaxing way to see a show,"he told Stephen Colbert.

Right now Radcliffe is pretty busy, anyway. He's in a play himself, called "Privacy," in New York. He also just finished doing publicity for his movie "Swiss Army Man," and is doing interviews for his next movie, "Imperium."

Hopefully, like his other former castmates, Radcliffe will watch "Harry Potter and the Cursed Child" soon and we'll get to see epic pictures of him chatting with Parker, the actor playing Harry, about the role.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Watch the Air Force drop 8 armored Humvees out of a plane from 5,000 feet

Katherine Heigl responded graciously to Seth Rogen's recent comments about their long-running feud over "Knocked Up."

Earlier this week, Rogen appeared on "The Howard Stern Show" and expressed regret that Heigl's career had been adversely affected after comments she made about the Judd Apatow film she starred in being "sexist."

"I think that he’s handled that so beautifully and I just feel nothing but love and respect,” Heigl told reporters at the Television Critics Association press tour on Wednesday, according to "Entertainment Tonight."

"It’s so long ago at this point," said Heigl, who stars on the new CBS legal drama "Doubt.""I just wish him so much goodness and I felt that from him too."

The controversy over Heigl's comments has followed her since her 2008 interview with Vanity Fair after "Knocked Up" came out. In the story, she disapraged the movie and her own performance in it.

"It paints the women as shrews, as humorless and uptight, and it paints the men as lovable, goofy, fun-loving guys. It exaggerated the characters, and I had a hard time with it, on some days," she said in 2008. "I'm playing such a b----; why is she being such a killjoy? Why is this how you're portraying women? Ninety-eight percent of the time it was an amazing experience, but it was hard for me to love the movie."

There was one thing that Rogen felt his former costar owed him: a phone call.

"When I apologize to people, generally I don't take a public forum to do it," he said after saying that he had yet to receive a call from Heigl about the matter.

No word on whether Heigl is picking up the phone soon.

SEE ALSO: Seth Rogen revisits his 'Knocked Up' feud with Katherine Heigl: I felt 'betrayed'

DON'T MISS: Seth Rogen accuses media of exploiting the Sony hack leaks: 'That drives me crazy'

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Seth Rogen explains why Marvel is great at making sequels

The Joker made his official debut in the DC Extended Universe over the weekend with Suicide Squad and while the role has divided fans, we can likely expect to be seeing him again. As it turns out, Jared Leto already has an idea what he'd like to do. While we would expect to see Joker battling Batman, as the two are classic foes, Leto says there's another hero he'd like to go up against as well, Superman.

Suicide Squad gave us the slightest taste of a battle between Batman and the Joker but we never really got a good hero vs. villain face off. While such a thing is certainly likely down the line, IGN recently asked Jared Leto what the Joker would make of the other major hero with DC's universe. It sounds like the actor would love to see Joker face off with the big blue boy scout because the two characters are so different.

While Superman is no stranger to the Joker within the pages of comic books, since we've never had the opportunity to see that crossover translate to the screen, seeing villains associated with one hero fighting another has been off the table. At first glance, we'd have to agree with Jared Leto. The characters of Joker and Superman are such opposites, that watching them go up against each other would be something special to see. We can imagine Superman not knowing what to make of the insane Joker. Just the shift in mentality could potentially put Superman at a disadvantage.

On the other hand, doing something like this would have to be handled carefully. There's a reason the majority of Superman's antagonists are super-powered alien beings or people who sling magic around: it's difficult to make a normal vanilla mortal appear to be a challenge to the Kryptonian. That's not to say it can't be done. If Superman can go up against a guy who builds evil toys, he can certainly fight the Joker, however, such a thing would need a very strong script in order to not make the entire thing seem outmatched.

With the recent announcement that Man of Steel 2 is now in active, if early, development, we can assume that they're looking at all possibilities for the story. Maybe a fight with the Joker is one of the options on the table. What do you think, should the Joker and Superman cross paths on screen?

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Couples improved their sex lives in a week with this one simple tip

Around the time when Daniel Radcliffe first read the script for his new movie, "Imperium," Dylann Roof had just shot and killed nine Charleston, South Carolina, churchgoers in the hopes of starting a race war.

Radcliffe's character in the film, Nate Foster, is an FBI agent who goes undercover in a white-supremacy group and finds himself talking with fellow extremists about starting a race war of their own.

"My dad's from Northern Ireland — he grew up during the Troubles. I grew up with an awareness that terrorists come from everywhere and have all sorts of motivations, and so it seemed like that was a very relevant thing," Radcliffe recently told Business Insider before a TimesTalks event to promote "Imperium," which is out on August 19. "But I don't think either of us envisaged that white supremacy might take this sort of bizarre jag toward the mainstream or rather that the mainstream might jag toward that by the time it came out."

The idea of white supremacy in the mainstream also came up at the TimesTalks event, and New York Times culture reporter Melena Ryzik said that either Radcliffe or "Imperium" director Daniel Ragussis was prime for making a joke about Donald Trump. But both refrained from overtly commenting on the Republican presidential nominee.

Instead, Ragussis said that a feeling of victimization and oppression is "the seed" of totalitarian movements that is "far more prerequisite of it than a figure like Mussolini or Hitler."

Radcliffe told Business Insider that, in the process of making the film, he decided that talking to people on the fringes of politics is the most important way to move forward:

"Somebody's life who prior to that had no meaning suddenly feels like they are engaged in something meaningful, and I think my biggest takeaway from this film is that, as much as we want to demonize these people and in a way demonize their views, we should try and find a way of getting them into this conversation, unfortunately as awful as that sounds, because the more you ostracize them and aggressively dismiss them, the more it just plays into their worldview that everything is a conspiracy against them."

Ragussis, who joined Radcliffe in an interview with Business Insider, agreed, saying that catchall terms like "monster" aren't helpful.

"They don't give you any access as to the mechanism that's going on there and why the people are behaving the way they are," Ragussis said. "I think if you're going to try to dismantle that or change it, you have to understand what's going on and what's happening."

The actor's and director's thoughts back the idea that living in constant fear that others are out to get you will cause a person to act out violently, which a former FBI criminal profiler told Business Insider in 2015.

Watch the full TimesTalks interview with Daniel Radcliffe and "Imperium" director Daniel Ragussis below:

SEE ALSO: Daniel Radcliffe thinks we should consider calling all gun crimes 'a form of terrorism'

Join the conversation about this story »

On the surface, David Lowery seems like the latest independent film wunderkind to be plucked by a major studio and thrust into the blockbuster machine.

But the journey Lowery, 35, made to directing "Pete's Dragon"— Disney's reimagining of the 1977 live-action/animated musical about a boy and his best friend, who happens to be a flying dragon named Elliot, premiering this weekend — is a little different from filmmakers like Colin Trevorrow ("Jurassic World") and Gareth Edwards ("Rogue One: A Star Wars Story").

Those directors made low-budget calling-card movies to prove their competence, but Lowery's indie roots are deep. He's made movies ranging in budget from $12,000 ("St. Nick") to a few million ("Ain't Them Bodies Saints") and has over 30 editor credits.

"I felt I had found my niche," Lowery recently told Business Insider. "If I had spent the rest of my career making movies like 'St. Nick,' I was OK with that."

But sometimes opportunities arrive and seem more like fate than good circumstance. For Lowery, that happened when he got an agent off of "Ain't Them Bodies Saints," a Sundance Film Festival award winner.

Lowery rejected a lot of writing and directing jobs (mostly remakes), but in December 2012, the agent finally struck gold with an idea Disney had for one of its older titles.

"I wasn't interested in the remake game, but I remember while editing 'Ain't Them Bodies Saints' my agent emailed me that Disney was interested in remaking 'Pete's Dragon' using only the title," Lowery said. "Outside of that title, they didn't want to have anything to do with the original, and they definitely didn't want it to be a musical. If Disney truly wanted to use the title of the original as a means to get an original movie made, that appealed to me."

While at Sundance in January 2013, Lowery and his producing partner, Toby Halbrooks, got on Skype at their condo with "Pete's Dragon" producers James Whitaker and Adam Borba about the potential of being screenwriters on the project.

"We found Jim and Adam were far more interested in hearing about the tonal aspects of it than plot or story," Lowery said. "But I remember a big idea from that call was that Pete would spend a lot of time with the dragon in the woods."

Disney was impressed and hired the two to write the script. After Sundance, Lowery and Halbrooks began making trips to Los Angeles to start an outline. Lowery wanted the movie to have a mythical quality that he successfully pulled off in "Saints." (Lowery admits that no one at Disney had ever seen "Saints" until months into he and Halbrooks writing the script.)

They placed the movie in the Pacific Northwest and, in one early draft, during the Great Depression. They later changed that to a more 1970s feel. (It's not specified when exactly the movie takes place.)

But one thing Lowery drove home in the early drafts is that Elliot the dragon would be furry.

"I drew pictures of a furry dragon and brought them in and said, 'This is what he's going to look like,'" Lowery said.

He felt the only way a kid would gravitate to a large dragon and create a bond is if the dragon looked like something they'd want to cuddle up to, grabbing inspiration from the luck dragon Falkor in "The NeverEnding Story."

By Christmas 2013, Lowery and Halbrooks handed in the script, and Disney couldn't have been happier.

The new "Pete's Dragon," with a reported budget of $65 million, is a tearjerker family movie that doesn't try to be anything more or less than that. Pete survives a car crash that kills his parents deep in the woods of the Pacific Northwest.

The dragon, also displaced from his family, comes across Pete, and the two live in the woods for years. (Are you crying yet?) Then, one day, a park ranger discovers Pete in the woods while, at the same time, workers at the local mill discover Elliot the dragon, leading to a journey to find who Pete really is and a race to help save Elliot.

The cast includes Bryce Dallas Howard as the park ranger; Robert Redford as her father, who has a past experience with the dragon; and Oakes Fegley as Pete.

Disney was so impressed by Lowery's script that the studio asked him to come on and direct the movie.

Lowery immediately turned down the offer.

"I thought it wasn't the right idea," Lowery said. "I didn't think it was going to be a movie that I could excel at, and I didn't want to wind up being one of those indie directors who makes a big studio movie and find it's compromised."

But after some talks, Lowery realized he had put too much into the project to hand it off to another director.

"The script had become incredibly personal and something that I felt was mine and something I should make," he said.

By the middle of 2014, Lowery and the cast and crew of "Pete's Dragon" were off to New Zealand to shoot the movie.

Indie filmmakers who make the jump to studio movies might assume that all the hardship and struggle of making a movie suddenly disappears thanks to the embarrassment of riches that comes with being backed by a Hollywood heavyweight. Lowery certainly thought that would be the case.

"I expected there to be a moment where the magic of the studio process revealed itself and the largeness of the entire machine kicked into gear," he said.

But that turned out not to be the case. Though Lowery had crane shots and could helicopter at any moment to get the right shot at a far-off location, the process was generally no different than on his earlier low-budget movies.

The biggest difference, and what took the biggest toll on him, was the length of production.

"'St. Nick' was 14 days. 'Ain't Them Bodies Saints' was 28 days. This turned out to be 89 shooting days," said Lowery, who compared the experience to a sprinter transitioning to a marathon runner.

"You just have to physically and mentally prepare for the endurance test that making a movie on this scale will be," he said.

For every good day, Lowery was hit with a slew of challenges the next.

But that hasn't turned him off the studio system.

"It was grueling. It was really, really tough," Lowery said. "But the second the movie wrapped, all that pain and early mornings and cold nights all fell by the wayside, and I felt a great sense of peace. If they had asked me to shoot another 10 days, I would have said yes."

Now he's ready to do it again.

Lowery has signed on to direct Disney's latest live-action version of "Peter Pan." Like "Pete's Dragon," he and Halbrooks are taking their time writing the script with no plans of making the movie anytime soon. (Lowery will likely make two independently financed movies before "Pan.")

But Lowery insists he's going to deliver a "classic Walt Disney Pictures version" of "Peter Pan."

A filmmaker who was content with an audience much smaller than the one that will see "Pete's Dragon" this weekend, Lowery has taken time in the past few years to reflect on his career — and he's confident that he's right where he should be.

"The reason I got into making movies was I fell in love with 'Star Wars' and wanted to know how lightsabers worked," Lowery said. "Then my interests expanded, and I saw myself as an independent filmmaker, but I still carried that flame of wanting to do something big that would set imaginations the same way mine had been watching 'Star Wars.' So there is part of me that always wanted to do this."

SEE ALSO: Why Hollywood hasn't learned anything from a miserable summer of box-office bombs

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Disney just released 3 minutes of behind-the-scenes footage from the new 'Star Wars' movie

The vulgarity of “Sausage Party” does not end with the title, but what do you expect from the minds of Seth Rogen and his producing partner Evan Goldberg, who gave us “Superbad,” “This Is the End,” and the “Neighbors” movies?

The two have a talent for offering more than laughs, however. Would you believe it if I told you religion, including the issues between Israel and Palestine, is a major theme in “Sausage Party?”

Ten years in the making, this animated comedy is filled with incredible talent and an enormous amounts of laughs, but the cleverness of the story stands out most.

We are in a world where food products are living things and inside a grocery story, the stock wakes every day hoping to be plucked by the “Gods” (humans) and taken outside to the great beyond where everything is magical. Or so they think.

Rogen voices Frank, a sausage whose only goal in life, outside of leaving the grocery store, is to get inside Brenda (Kristen Wiig), a bun. But life gets interesting when Frank, and his other sausage friends Barry (Michael Cera) and Carl (Jonah Hill), start to question their beliefs when a honey mustard jar (Danny McBride) miraculously returns from the great beyond and reports the horrific truth: the Gods eat them.

This begins a journey through the aisles by Frank, Brenda, Lavash (David Krumholtz), and Sammy Bagel Jr. (Edward Norton) to find some answers.

The laughs keep up with absurd moments, including a sequence in which food being dropped from a shopping cart is made to look almost shot-for-shot like a scene from “Saving Private Ryan.” Or the clever feud between Lavash flatbread and Sammy Bagel because the Middle Eastern food aisle is next to the kosher section.

Then there’s the villain of the movie (Nick Kroll in his best Jersey Shore accent) who wants to pummel Frank for ruining his dream of getting outside.

Meanwhile, Barry makes it outside, where he sees firsthand his friends getting slaughtered when a woman cooks a stew.

But nothing will prepare you for the ending of this movie. Don’t worry, I won’t spoil it, but what I will say is if you are a Rogen/Goldberg fan, you’re going to love it. (And figuring out which stars are voicing which characters is also part of the fun.)

“Sausage Party” will lure people in with the raunchy humor of the Judd Apatow clan, but they'll discover a respectful commentary on theology. And by that I mean directors Greg Tiernan and Conrad Vernon make sure to pick on almost every religion and ethnicity known to mankind.

And that’s a good thing.

“Sausage Party” opens in theaters on Friday.

SEE ALSO: Why Hollywood hasn't learned anything from a miserable summer of box-office bombs

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Watch Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone dance and sing in the first trailer for 'La La Land'