Entertainment
Kailyn Lowry Predicts Where She’ll Be in 15 Years
Reading Time: 3 minutes
It’s stunning, but it’s true:
Kailyn Lowry made her debut on MTV 15 years ago this month.
In honor of this milestone, the long-time Teen Mom 2 cast member sat down with People Magazine and looked back at a decade-and-a-half in the spotlight.
“I went on MTV.com and it said, ‘Now Casting.’ So I just quickly sent in a little synopsis of my story and then the rest was history,” Lowry tells this publication, explaining the simple process it took to change her life forever.
Since viewers first met Kailyn, who was pregnant at the time with her first child, Lowry has gone on to give birth seven times overall.
She left Teen Mom 2 in 2022, at least in part because she learned at the time that she was pregnant by her then-fiance Elijah Scott… who may have recently been caught cheating on Kailyn.
Lowry also claims to People that she felt “pigeonholed” by how she was depicted on the program, explaining that she grew selective of what she shared in response to how she was edited and then, in turn, how fans would react to her choices.
“I had just built this house and we were on to different things that we would not be able to tell the full story the way that we wanted to and the way that it really happened. You’re edited down to four minutes a cast member, and I didn’t want certain things to not be shown. I wanted more of a full picture,’” she says now.
Fast forward a couple years and Lowry has a new career.
She kicked off the podcast Coffee Convos with Lindsie Chrisley in 2017 … and then she added Baby Mamas, No Drama and Barely Famous to her slate.
At this point, the KILLR podcast network consists of Coffee Convos, Vibin’ and Kinda Thrivin’, Barely Famous, Karma & Chaos, For the Hayters and Cate and Ty: Break It Down.
“It was sort of like rolling the dice and seeing what happens,” Lowry says of that initial podcast.
“And then it really took off. And I think to my surprise as well as Lindsie’s, I think we did not know what we had. We were pleasantly surprised with it.”
One can make A LOT of money through advertising on a podcast.
We can’t say for certain what Kailyn takes home, of course, but she at least afford some solid plastic surgery.
As for where she may go from here?
“I understand that podcasting might not be a forever thing, so I’m always thinking about the next project that I can work on that will propel me to the next thing,” Kailyn says.
“I feel like I can’t stay put too long. Nobody knows what’s going to happen. And so it has sort of created this business brain for me where I know that I have to already work on the next thing while I’m in my current project.”
The former reality star is thinking far down the line, too.
“I hope to potentially keep building the brands to the point where people don’t necessarily remember me as someone on Teen Mom,” Lowry concludes.
“It’s building something to a place where I can take a step back and not be the face of everything. I think that would be the goal for the next 15 years.”
Bono knows who he’s backing in the battle between Bruce Springsteen and President Donald Trump.
Asked if he was rooting for the rock star or the U.S. president during a Tuesday night appearance on “Jimmy Kimmel Live!,” the U2 frontman had the crowd roaring as he smiled and said, “I think there’s only one ‘Boss’ in America.”
Kimmel also got Bono to address one of Trump’s recent Truth Social rants, in which he accused the Irishman of being paid to endorse Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris… despite the fact Bono never weighed in on the 2024 election.
Before setting the record straight, the “Sweetest Thing” singer winked at Kimmel’s continuous clash with Trump, as he told the late-night host, “I don’t want to cut in on your action, because I know the president at 1 a.m., or 1:30, or whatever that was, is usually thinking about you.”
Randy Holmes via Getty Images
But the president seemed to have Bono and not Kimmel on the brain earlier this month, when he baselessly claimed the human rights activist and singer, along with Springsteen, Oprah Winfrey and Beyoncé, had accepted money in exchange for publicly supporting the former vice president.
Though Bono said he was flattered to be named alongside such talented people, he reminded Kimmel and the audience that neither he nor U2 have ever been “paid or played a show to support any candidate from any party.”
“It has never happened,” he said, also noting how things on Truth Social seemed to be “pretty antisocial” and “not very true a lot of the time.”
The “With Or Without You” singer did have one “clue” as to how Trump may have mistakenly come to think he backed Harris. He suspected the president could have confused his nonpartisan human rights charity, the One Campaign, with a political project.
Though the One Campaign has no ideological allegiance, Bono revealed how even conservatives in its ranks aren’t pleased with how the Trump administration gutted agencies providing key humanitarian aid to people across the globe.
Shirlaine Forrest via Getty Images
“We’ve got a lot of very religious Catholics, Evangelicals, conservatives who are very, very, very angry with the person that they voted into office” after he destroyed “instruments of mercy and compassion” like USAID, Bono said.
Talking about the time before the U.S. canceled 80% of the critical agency’s contracts, Bono said, “That’s the America that we love. That’s the America that we all want to be part of.”
“They are not happy,” he said of his fellow advocates. “And there will be trouble.”
While Trump’s reason for beefing with Bono seems to be fairly frivolous, the president and Springsteen have been locked in a war of words since the start of this month.
After the “Born in the U.S.A.” artist called Trump and his administration “corrupt, incompetent and treasonous” during the opening night of his Land of Hope and Dreams Tour, the president shot back by calling Springsteen a “dried-out ‘prune’ of a rocker” and adding that he “never liked him, never liked his music, or his Radical Left Politics.”
Watch Bono’s full interview on Kimmel below:
Earlier in the year, I was nervous. I was nervous about the continued state of the theatrical experience. The first chunk of 2024 got off to an exceptionally rough start at the box office, and I was sounding some alarms. I wanted nothing more than to be made to look like a fool as the year rolled on, like an alarmist with nothing to truly be worried about. Fortunately, that has largely come to pass, as movies like “A Minecraft Movie,” “Sinners,” and even the re-release of “Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith” have given the industry reason to be optimistic.
More than anything though, recent weeks have offered up a couple of bigger-than-expected debuts from the likes of Warner Bros.’ “Final Destination Bloodlines” and Disney’s live-action “Lilo & Stitch” remake. Both movies from beloved franchises, both of which blew past pre-release estimates. “Bloodlines” opened to $51 million, becoming the biggest horror release of the year. It’s also already the biggest “Final Destination” movie ever with $190 million and counting to its name.
Meanwhile, “Lilo & Stitch” opened to a staggering $182.6 million across the four-day Memorial Day weekend domestically. The movie will likely touch $400 million by the start of its second weekend, en route to a possible $1 billion global finish. This, despite the fact that it opened alongside “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning,” which also had a big box office debut, with the pair helping to set a new record for the Memorial Day weekend.
So, what do these movies have in common? They were both originally destined for a direct-to-streaming release. Much like Disney’s “Moana 2,” a movie that made more than $1 billion at the box office in 2024, these movies went from a streaming release to gigantic theatrical hits. Needless to say, there is a major lesson for the industry at large to take note of in light of these recent success stories.
Direct-to-streaming movies rarely make sense anymore
Let’s rewind the clock just a bit. In 2019, Netflix was the unquestioned king of the streaming space (they still are), and everyone else in Hollywood was playing catch-up, with Disney+ launching late that year. Then, in early 2020, the pandemic shut down theaters all over the world, leaving the future of the box office on uncertain ground. The one certainty? Streaming was the future.
Understandably, studios went all-in on streaming, but perhaps too much so. Warner Bros. sent its entire 2022 slate to HBO Max the same day those movies hit theaters. That worked for “Godzilla vs. Kong,” but that was more of an exception. WB angered lots of talent around Hollywood. Meanwhile, Disney sent several Pixar originals to Disney+, including “Soul” and “Turning Red,” which hurt the brand in a big way. Fortunately, “Inside Out 2” proved Pixar still had a lot of power, but there is now a question about originals like “Elio” and whether or not people will turn up.
We could go on examining examples of this thinking at play, but what’s clear over the past couple of years is that studios like Disney and Warner Bros. are realizing that sending pricey franchise films directly to streaming services doesn’t come with much of an upside. That’s why I argued after its release that “Moana 2” should essentially serve as the death of the big direct-to-streaming movie. Amazingly, that was supposed to be a Disney+ series before the studios reversed course.
“Final Destination Bloodlines” and “Lilo & Stitch” have only further fueled this fire. These movies are going to perform better for their respective studios in the long run. It’s not just box office dollars that can help theaters keep the lights on. As we’ve seen time and time again, movies that are hits in theaters are bigger hits on streaming.
Even a theatrical flop can have more value than a streaming release
“The Batman” did gangbusters numbers on HBO Max after it became a theatrical smash. “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” was a mainstay in Netflix’s top 10 for months after its record-shattering box office run. There are near-countless examples of this one can cite, but the point remains.
Even if a movie doesn’t perform as well as a studio might have hoped in theaters, it will still perform better in the long run as a theatrical release than a direct-to-streaming release. “Encanto” only did so-so business at the box office before becoming a blockbuster hit on streaming. That probably wouldn’t have happened if it were just dumped on Disney+. It’s also probably why we got “A Haunting in Venice” even after “Death on the Nile” disappointed in theaters.
A theatrical release brings far more attention to a movie and helps add value down the line on VOD, streaming, etc. That’s almost certainly why “Predator: Badlands” is going to theaters this year after “Prey” went directly to Hulu in 2022. It’s also why “Alien: Romulus” went to theaters (where it became a big hit) instead of going to Hulu as originally imagined.
Even when it doesn’t work perfectly, there’s more logic in a theatrical release in most cases. When it does work, though? “Lilo & Stitch” opening to more than $300 million globally against a $100 million budget is the sort of returns any studio would beg for. What good would that $100 million have done had this movie gone directly to Disney+? Is there any chance this movie would have brought nearly as much value to Disney in such a scenario? I kindly doubt it.
I’m certainly not saying no movies should be made for streaming, but those movies should be carefully considered and budgeted accordingly. There’s no sense in studios leaving money on the table, particularly when theaters need a steady stream of product. This recent string of would-be streaming releases turned box office smash hits should, ideally, help reshape the immediate future of the industry for the better.
“Lilo & Stitch” and “Final Destination Bloodlines” are in theaters now.
By Drew Dietsch
| Published
The Iron Giant is considered by many critics and audiences to be one of the greatest animated films of the ’90s. The sci-fi story has become recognized as an incredible achievement in both narrative and animation. But, when the movie hit theaters in 1999, it tanked at the box office and became a financial failure for Warner Bros.
Let’s examine just how The Iron Giant managed to be a huge flop and how it rose from the ashes to a become a beloved classic.
How The Iron Giant Failed
The Iron Giant was positioned to be a big hit for Warner Bros. in the summer of 1999. The studio had spent $50 million to produce the directorial debut of Brad Bird, who would go on to direct The Incredibles, Ratatouille, and Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol. This was meant to be a prestige production that would rival the animated feature film king, Walt Disney Studios.
However, things fell apart when it came time to market the movie. Warner Bros. was coming off an animated flop with Quest for Camelot and wasn’t prepared to sink a huge amount of advertising money into another animated endeavor. They held off on giving the production team a release date until April, giving The Iron Giant less than four months to mount a marketing campaign.
Because of this, The Iron Giant only had a single teaser poster made and certain tie-ins like a Burger King toy deal and breakfast cereal never materialized. The movie had such a limited marketing presence that audiences simply weren’t aware that it was a movie that was coming out. This looked doubly embarrassing for Warner Bros. after test screenings came back with incredibly high marks.
The failure of The Iron Giant at the box office is solely due to the mismanagement of its marketing. It’s considered one of the worst marketing snafus in mainstream movie history. Because they skimped and stalled on the marketing, the film opened at #9 in the box office. It didn’t even recoup half of its budget at the domestic box office, and international markets brought its final total to just under $32 million.
But, Warner Bros. learned their lesson and wasn’t going to make the same mistake twice.
Why the Sci-Fi Adventure Became a Classic
When The Iron Giant was headed for home video, Warner Bros. decided to pull out all the stops and do everything they should’ve done with the theatrical marketing campaign. This helped raise awareness of the film in all markets, but it isn’t what cemented the film as a classic.
Even upon its release, critics overwhelmingly praised The Iron Giant. Roger Ebert likened it to the works of Japanese master Hayao Miyazaki and he’s not exaggerating. The story takes a familiar “boy and his dog” structure and turns it into a science fiction tale about choice, societal paranoia, death, and war. It deals with deep and difficult subject material, but it never tamps these themes down to a level where its intended audience (children) is being patronized.
Even with these adult themes, The Iron Giant also relishes in being fun, goofy, and heartfelt. The lead performances by Eli Marienthal and Vin Diesel as Hogarth Hughes and the Giant are instantly endearing. In fact, the whole cast manages to find a perfect balance between cartoonish and sincere.
And as a pure piece of animation, The Iron Giant is a jaw-dropping experience. Bird understands the impact proper scale and scope can have with the animated image, and he never misses a chance to reassert just how massive the Giant is. Maybe the animation element that doesn’t get enough love in the movie is the background work. There is a scene in the forest where a deer is killed and the warm autumn colors underscore the heartbreak of the scene.
But, the element that made The Iron Giant a classic is its heart. The story about how a robot designed to be a weapon chooses to be a deterrent to death is extremely powerful. The Giant doesn’t want to be, as he says, a gun. And his final sacrifice is one of the most tear-jerking moments in any film, animated or otherwise.
If The Iron Giant had managed to have a conventional marketing campaign, it’s likely it would have been a legitimate hit at the box office. Instead, it had to wait until its time on home video to find an audience. And as the years have gone on, more and more viewers have come to recognize it as a phenomenal film. Even Warner Bros. committed to a brand new cut of the film in 2016 on a special edition Blu-ray.
The Iron Giant made a profound impression on the young viewers that got to see it over twenty years ago. Thanks to that impression, it became championed as a mishandled masterpiece. Thankfully, Warner Bros. saw the error of their ways and have supported the film over the years. It’s this support from the studio and from fans that helped keep the movie in the pop culture conversation. If not for that, it would have fallen by the wayside. And now, it’s looked upon as one of the essential pieces of American animation.
-
Gym & Fitness4 weeks ago9 Exercises To Grow Arms at Home | Increase Arm Strength Without Equipment
-
Gym & Fitness4 weeks ago
The Worst Mistake for a Flat Stomach
-
Gym & Fitness6 days ago
Good Morning America Full Broadcast — Monday, May 19, 2025
-
Gym & Fitness4 weeks ago
How to Increase Hip Mobility (Fix The Root Cause)
-
Entertainment1 month ago
Kim Zolciak & Kroy Biermann, Timeline of Their Relationship Drama
-
Gym & Fitness2 weeks ago
OUTRAGEOUS DEADLIFT PR! 930 LBS x 3 AT 275 LBS BODY WEIGHT!
-
Gym & Fitness2 weeks ago
15-minute arm workout with dumbbells for biceps and triceps
-
Gym & Fitness2 weeks ago
BECOME TALLER & GET SLIMMER /11 MIN FULL BODY EXERCISES ROUTINES TO GROW TALLER AT HOME_ Shrilyn
