Tyrant

Nothing in their neighbor Indiana either. However, I live in the southern half of Indiana so one near St Louis isn't a very far drive for me.

Here's a site for anyone interested in being kept up to date on the sales before they are announced. There's not much there for 2009 yet, but it does list the opening times for the various stores and if you want an idea of what past sales have been the ones for 2008 at least are archived. Last year they had the adds well before Black Friday. Black Friday Ads

It's not a waste of time if you plan and show up around the time they open (which I admit is pretty early). I got the Star Destroyer with no problems (other than finding where it set out in the store because the hordes made it hard to spot) and I could have easily gotten a few of them. Others reported they could find them several hours later. You just have to decide if it is worth it and if it is, plan accordingly. For me, once I settled on Target I had to decide which Target to hit up. I live in southern Indiana so my choices were Bloomington and Evansville. Evansville is the bigger city and would have likely had the larger supply, they also have a TRU so I could have hit up the MTT deal, and there is an hour time difference in my favor. Bloomington, on the other hand, had a more desirable set up. Their Target is part of a mall, so there's an interior entrance where I can stay nice and warm while the fools gather at the front door and wait outside in the cold. The toy section is less than 20 feet from the interior entrance, and it's opened less than a minute after the front entrance. The electronics department is also right there, so if I am after DVDs that's a bonus too. On top of that, they have 2 KMarts (the buy 2 get 1 free sale) and Evansville has none. So, in the end I chose Bloomington after thnking over the situation. I was able to get the Star Destroyer with next to no effort and hit up the KMart sale to get Batman LEGO sets as well. It's not a waste if you plan. What's a waste is most of the things on the Best Buy front page. Those are gone hours before the doors even open. LEGO is fairly far down on the list of things that go fast in most places.

Last year the King's Castle Seige was $50 at Wal Mart (50% off), the Imperial Star Destroyer (minifig scale) was on sale (It was somewhere between $60 and 80, I honestly don't remember the price was) at Target. I believe, but wouldn't swear to it, that KMart had their Buy 2 Get 1 Free sale that day as well. I am not positive about it, but I believe TRU had the MTT on some kind of sale as well. The deals are out there on Black Friday. The best way is to look into the sales well in advance and plan it out. Last year the only one of those I didn't hit up was TRU. I lucked out and WM put the sets out on sale early at the sale price, so I hit them up before Black Friday. Then I decided that I wanted the Star Destroyer more than another MTT, so I made my plans to hit up Target and chose the best one to hit. After that I took my time and went to KMart (no one goes to KMart apparently) to pick up Batman sets at Buy 2 Get 1. The key is planning and preperation. And being willing to go out at 4 in the morning or earlier. As for other stores, my only advice is if you want any of the super deals in the Best Buy ad be prepared to go camp out at the store Thursday until they open on Friday.

There is something else you can add to this if you are a rewards r us member. I believe it runs through tomorrow, but there is a $5 off a purchase of $25 or more coupon available right now. As a side note for anyone who is a rewards r us member and may not know this, you only get half points for sale items. It gets kind of worse, based on what I was told on the phone. Say you buy $500 worth of stuff (various items at various prices) and use a $5 off coupon, the whole $500 will only get you half points. In a case like that, split up your purchases. Now, having said that, I got double points on the buy 2 get 1 free sets a couple weeks ago, even though I apparently shouldn't have. It was a double points promo, which after being cut in half due to a sale, should have basically equalled out to regular points but I got double points. There system has some glitches in it, obviously, so this may not apply for everything but it is what I was told when I called about it.

He's right. That was my intended meaning, to have sets that have civilians and that still satisfy the need for "action" so that everyone gets what they want. His examples are right in line with what I was thinking.

Since it seems like they want action in most sets (the MMV being the exception at the moment), I am wondering why they don't make civilian sets and include Orcs/Skeletons attacking them? That seems to cover everyone's interests. The kids get more action and AFOLs (and the kids who like them, I know I always wanted more) get civilians and buildings. I'm sure I am not the first to propose the idea, but I do wonder about it.

I guess we simply differ here. I believe if you're going to adapt something, you should make it like the source material (obviously concessions have to be made due to differences in media). Otherwise, what's the point? If you want to make a story "like" the source, then do that and call it something else (because it will be something else). Would Watchmen have been better had it been longer (or miltiple parts), yes it would have been. I agree with that. However, I think we were lucky to get what we got. I would rather have slavish devotion to the material than crud like Superman Returns that gutted the heart of an iconic character and saddled him with a ridiculous plot. I don't feel removing things like the vendor greatly impact the movie. I felt his character (and most of the other "background" characters for that matter) was to put a face on the finale so you felt connected to the people directly affected by it. We had the shrink, at least. To add the others (which may happen on the ultimate DVD since it includes Tales of the Black Freighter spliced in apparently) would be nice, but it doesn't gut the story if they aren't there. I agree it had flaws. It isn't perfect. I do think it's aout 90-95% there though. And for the record, I would have also loved to have seen the squid.

I believe it happened that way because I am sure that theory isn't foolproof. As for the last movie I saw, it was Zombieland. I saw it over the weekend. I thought it was a good movie. Fair warning, it's more of a road movie than a zombie movie. If you plan on watching it, don't read the reviews or talk to people about it because there are one or two suprises that work better as suprises. There is gore (duh) and (undead)nudity, for those who care.

I didn't list that possibility because this is honestly the only project I have ever heard that complaint and I simply do not understand it. It makes no sense. With virtually any other adaptation, the number one complaint is always "They changed X, Y, Z". So, here we have something was pretty close and people make the opposite complaint. You can't please some people, apparently. It's nothing personal, but I think the complaint of it being too close comes off as someone trying to find fault with an adaptation and they don't have their trusty "it wasn't close to the source material" so they grasp at the opposite. If it had been different, the fury over the changes would have been pretty noticeable. Just look at how you wish the squid was in there, while saying it was too close to the source. The squid wasn't there because it would make an already long movie that much longer. You're looking at at least 30 minutes more to the movie, given the attention they paid to detail, to include the squid subplot. It wasn't to make it uber serious, which the original is for the record, it was because they were adapting to a different medium. Again, you say it was too close and one of your complaints is about something that was changed. Baffling. The only review I read was in USAToday and they said it was pretty good. I haven't watched it myself, but it looks funny. Have you ever seen the original? The Death Race 2000? The plot is a little different (cross country race where you score points for running people over) and it had David Carradine as Frankenstein along with Stallone as one of the other drivers (Machine Gun Joe, I believe). Carradine did the voice of Frankenstein in the opening part of the new Death Race as a shout out to the original.

There is a new claim on FBTB that this is the case, though it may involve some hassle. It sounds in line with what I found out with a phone call. The registers show the advertised sale price (just the 30%), the handheld scanners come up with the non sale price (which is what I was told when I called my second nearest TRU), and the wall mounted scanners have the price that you would get if both discounts were applied.

If you have a rewards card with TRU, it is also double points this week.

I was kind of wondering about that myself. The critics seemed to like it. Fan appeal was mixed though. Judging by what I have come across online (which is in no way all inclusive, so don't take my comments as lumping everyone together) most people who disliked seem to fall into two groups. The first group feel that even with the slavish devotion to the source, it wasn't close enough. I have no idea what they were expecting, but I thought it was well within "close enough" range. The other group are people who either don't get it, or just don't like that type of movie (and a smaller group within this group think all comic book movies should be silly like the old Batman TV show). Like I said, not everyone who disliked it had those reasons, but a lot of the arguments I come across online (and I should emphasize the online part, no one I know IRL disliked the movie and that includes non comic book fans) boil down to one of those.

I primarily read scifi and fantasy books. Mainly books that are in a series. As an example, I have read 30 or so Star Wars books and 20 some odd Forgotten Realms books. I have read some of the Dragonlance books as well. Mainly the ones written by the series original 2 creators. For the most part, these books are okay. I wouldn't call them fantastic (a few stand out though) but I enjoy reading them as I enjoy the settings and the writing isn't painful to read. I've also branched out into other more well known books on occasion. A few of those stand out. Dune-Easily the best scifi book I have ever read. It's movie incarnations do not do it justice. I have not read past the third book yet (a lot of people seem to think Herbert's writing goes downhill after the third book and I became interested in other books) but I do plan on trying to Frank Herbert's books. After that, maybe I will consider his son's follow ups. Maybe. American Gods-Neil Gaiman wrote this book. It is about belief, gods, and America. It features gods of several ancient pantheons as characters with one man caught up in their affairs. Overall I thought it was a good book. Definately a few "odd" parts that are not kid friendly. If you like mythology and ever wondered what the ancient gods would do if they lived as people in America, this is your book. The Vampire Lestat/The Queen of the Damned-I read all but the end of The Queen of the Damned before watching the movie of the same name (didn't want the end ruined, in hind sight I had nothing to worry about). The movie isn't even close on these. It's first mistake was trying to condense 2 books into 1 movie. The characters and backstory in these books is considerable. I even somewhat pitied Akasha by the end. Also, mostly not for kids. H.P. Lovecraft, assorted-His stories aren't the greatest and have numerous recurring themes (and they are definately a product of their times) but they do illustrate where certain ideas used by later horror writers likely originated. His stories primarily focus on abstract alien horrors that can crush people's fragile minds by their mere presence. The Illithids (Mind Flayers) of Dungeons and Dragons origins are very likely rooted in Lovecraft's ideas. The movie Alien vs Predator borrows a lot of it's theme and setting from At the Mountains of Madness which is one of his longer stories. On the non fictional front I honestly don't read many books because most of them do not keep my interest. The one's I have read seem to repeat themselves, a lot. However, I have found a few I thought were interesting. Wired for War-This book is all about the technology the US military currently employs and is actively developing. Robotic technology that is. It's an interesting look at where things stand and where they may be heading as well as the potential implications to warfare and society as a whole. Uranium-This is all about the material that makes nuclear weapons possible. It covers it's discovery and origins as well as applications. It focuses mainly on the weapons aspect and the lengths the US and Soviets went to to aquire the metal to build their nuclear aresenals.

Batbrick I apologise if I came off as attacking you or anything of the sort. I have engaged in debates on imdb.com of a similar nature and they all started out about the same way. Your mentioning of Citizen Cane in the manner you did sent up warning flags in my mind that this was going to go the same way so I sought to head off all the usual arguments I encounter before they could even get started (which is why I brought up critics and spoke of them as I did). So, it's nothing personal and upon reflection you weren't coming across that way. I can see what you are saying about subjectivity only going so far. To an extent I can almost agree but I believe it is still up to the individual to decide such things. I am willing to agree to disagree. You're probably right. Back on topic, I will watch about any zombie movie that comes out. If anyone else here follows horror movies, they have a pretty good idea how many terrible movies I have probably watched as a result. The standouts that I ended up buying are Return of the Living Dead and Zombie 2. I will watch about any 80s horror movie at least once. Unfortunately the local video store sold off all their VHS tapes about 4 years ago and they haven't updated the older movies to DVD so I usually buy them off Amazon (one of these days I will seriously look into netflix). I've come across some real gems like Suspiria and Lifeforce thanks to Amazon.

I saw the movie last night. I thought it was good. I wouldn't go as far as others do into absolutely amazing territory (and I honestly don't know what I didn't like about it) but it was well worth seeing and I will likely get the DVD. I did think there were several new ideas (well, as new as any idea really can be as far as movies/storytelling) floating around in the movie and that gets the movie points in my book. The comments on what humanity is capable of were fairly accurate. It's comments on how much society is willing to either ignore or be completely apathetic about are pretty spot on as well. As for a sequel, I just don't know. There are things I want to know and things I would want to see, but I could also see it all going horribly wrong if they go wth the wrong angle. Overall, my belief is that you don't know those things until you try them so I hope there is a sequel. I just hope they don't screw it up and admit that is a very real possibility.

I agree on the basis that it is understood that you are saying "some movies are good and bad to me". There are movies I think are bad, in case I didn't make that clear. I just don't assume my opinion is any more valid than anyone else's and I accept that my criteria are only valid to me. If someone else "wants" to listen, that's fine. The idea that others "should" listen, however, isn't fine with me. It reeks of elitist mentality and I can't stand that, especially when we are talking about movies which are by and large meant to entertain not change your life or the world. It just seems petty to me to try to appear better than others in a field that ultimately doesn't matter.

What I am saying is that art is subjective. Movies are art. Your assertions lead to there having to be a system to measure these things. Otherwise, you can't say one is better than the other. "You" can say that, but it doesn't it make it any more true than me saying it (or saying you're wrong for that matter). For you to be able to say what you are trying to say, there has to be a means to measure. If this were the case, every critic would use such a system and come up with the same answer. I'll go ahead and assume you know that isn't the case. In fact, even if there weren't a system, your comments lead to having to believe critics will come up with the same general ratings and they don't. This is before we take personal goals, studio bribery, psychology, and whatever else motivates critics to write particularly glowing or scathing reviews. In short, they are people who have an opinion that others feel some need to listen to when they could quite easily just be making it up for a variety of reasons. This isn't like measuring the distance between two objcects where there is one and only one answer. This is subjective. I'm not using it to justify terrible movies. I do think some movies are worse than others and I think some are down right awful. The difference is I know my opinion is just that, an opinion. For some reason, this rule doesn't apply to critics and people who try to sound like them. In the grand scheme of things, there is no such thing as a good or bad movie in any measurable way. As for flaws, plot holes, etc which you seem to think are a matter of fact, I am fairly certain they too are subjective. Just because the reviewer, or viewer, doesn't understand something doesn't make it a hole. On the flip side, there are movies where plot holes are par for the course and in some cases are intentional. The same goes for symbolism. The fact you think that isn't subjective is rather odd because all you have to do is look into literature or listen to certain directors to know that symbolism can be subjective. The Coens, for instance, have stated that any hidden meaning in their movies is entirely accidental and up to the audience to make up/decipher at their will. The Matrix movies are another prime example. How much is symbolism with substance and how much is simply flash in the pan that ultimately means nothing. It's like naming a character Loki and then giving him no attributes of the trickster god. There will be some people that will yell and scream that you intended symbolism of some sort no matter how many times you say you just thought the name was cool. Comparing movies (which you have to do to say one is good and one is bad) is like comparing food or music. Someone can give you their opinion of which is better all you want (both of these have critics too, imagine that) but until you try it you won't know which is better. In the case of food, one may be better for you, but that won't make you like it more (unless that's what you're looking for, obviously). 5150Lego is right. These movies wouldn't make tons of money if there wasn't something good about them. What critics and wannabe critics don't get is that there are opinions other than theirs and that theirs rarely (if ever) matter. Quite honestly I get the superiority vibe from most critics (and I get it big time from the wanna be's) and I personally can't stand people like that. Especially in the case of critics when more than a few are nothing but failed writers and filmmakers. tl:dr critics' opinions are worth no more to me (and apparently most of the movie going public, which says something) than a random person I ask on the street.

The problem with your stance, and why the "lots of profit=good" argument has some merit, is that "good" in this case is purely subjective. There is no objective means to measure a film. Some people will argue otherwise (they typically have a livelyhood that depends on people having the belief that you can objectively measure such things in my experience) but art is subjective. Some aspects can be ojectively measured such as lighting and other technical details, but plot can't be objectively measured. So, from that, there is no way to factually state one movie is better than another. One may appeal more to critics (who, again, simply judge based on their criteria which may or may not have any meaning at all in the grand scheme of things) or to the audience (who judges based simply on what they like in most cases) but neither can be declared factually better. The only objective means to measure the success of a movie is it's box office. Beyond that, any measurement is based on arbitrary criteria that have no means to be measured in the first place. It is truly up to whoever is watching it to decide if it is good or bad. What a critic thinks is good, what you think is good, or what I think is good for that matter, isn't what constitutes what is universaly good (or bad as the case may be) and is basically just an opinion. For instance, do I think Fight Club is better than both Transformers put together, yes. Do I believe that statement should carry any weight as to what someone else cosiders the better movie, no. As for "bad" movies that I like, most of my DVD collection is 70s/80s horror movies and scifi movies from the same era so there are lots. The top of the list is probably Big Trouble in Little China. It was panned when it came out but it was saved by cable and has since become a cult classic. Some others worth mentioning would be: The Death Race 2000, Doomsday, The Evil Dead Trilogy, Flash Gordon, Ghosts of Mars (actually, about any John Carpenter movie should be on here), Mean Guns, Repo Man. I could probably list several others.

For whatever it is worth, as far as I know a lot of the other characters were unchanged from one source to the other. Just ignore everything in the original movie with Cobra La and most are identical. The difference was the cartoon didn't go into many of their backstories like the comic book did. The comic book was written by Larry Hama and he also wrote all but one of the filecards on the figures so he made those two sources match up. Well, I don't know a lot about the Transformers and their various incarnations but I do know it seems like some things are nearly universal (Megatron and Prime are mortal enemies, Unicron eats planets) and other things aren't quite that fixed. GIJoe has a few incarnations. The cartoon, the Marvel/DD comic book run, the Resolute cartoon (which may or may not be considered a continuation of the old cartoon), Sigma 6 (this one is mostly not cared about by anyone), and then the GIJoe/Transformers crossover universe DD made. There may be a few one offs in there as well. Between these, most of them have the same basic premise and personalities. Over time they have differences (Cobra Commander being a snake man is a good example). The cartoon and cmic books have a different tone. The Cartoon is a saturday morning cartoon while the comic book uses bullets, has deaths, and occasionally deals with politics. That's just to clear up where the various incarnations of GIJoe stand in relation to one another. To answer your question, I can see the films as being like a new comic line. I think the problem is that most fans don't want to think about them like that. They like to think of them as an adaptation, like a book. So, like a book to movie project, when things get changed fans get angry. I learned that it comes with the territory a while ago which is why I am not angry with the changes. I don't like them and view most of them as unnecessary but I try not to let it ruin the movie for me. It might not be the best adaptation, but I feel it captured the feel of the 80's cartoon with a touch of the violence from the comics. So I guess my answer is I can look at it that way but I don't like when I have to look at it that way. I feel if they are making a movie based on something, it should actually be based on that something. If they didn't think the concept or characters could work for a bigger audience, why are they making a movie about it in the first place. This wasn't even close to the worst butchering of the source I have seen (to date, I believe that to be Queen of the Damned as far as movies I have seen that I have also read the source) and it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. If they get the characters actions, styles, etc right I can give them some slack in changing their back stories. For me in this case it isn't about how it impacts the character (though Wayans did have some "urban" dialogue as I recall which I am assuming Ripcord never did) but the fact I think it was just lazy. If they needed another black guy there are readily available options. I judge this kind of thing movie by movie. In Daredevil I was fine with making the Kingpin black because I can't think of a white actor to fit the role and MKD did fit it physically (and the fact he can act didn't hurt). Though in that case I do wonder what kind of signal it sends making the bad guy black when he used to be white. With GIJoe, or other series with character's that already have racial diversity, I think it's just lazy and unnecessary. It doesn't make me upset, but if I were a Ripcord fan it might. I know that all too often these things (cartoons, comics, fantasy/scifi books and movies) are seemngly targeted towards a white audience (no, that's not racist, it's a fact) so adding diversity can be a good thing. However, when a property already has it in spades, changing characters is just lazy and stupid. And to be clear in case anyone is wondering, I would be just as upset if a black character were played by a white guy. I had read that he very happy to land the part. He apparently was a big fan back in the day and was fairly knowledgeable about the mythos. I was skeptical because I thought he was added as a comic factor. I was quite suprised to see that his humor was kept to a minimum.

I have to echo the questions about Mortal Kombat and the first 2 Resident Evil movies. Mortal Kombat is still one of the most faithful video game adaptations out there. Now, obviously, it shouldn't have been hard with that game but given how many others have screwed it up apparently somethng about that is hard. The only thing that could have been changed to make it more accurate would have been amping up the violence. Given the nature of the games I think that is a valid desire, to be clear. Resident Evil 1 and 2 may not be accurate to the games, but they aren't terrible movies. If anyone wants really bad video game movies they need look no further than the "works" of Uwe Boll.

I haven't kept up with Iron Man in current Marvel continuity but I thought Or are you referring to something else?

Cartoon Cobra Commander had little backstory. It is all in the movie (the one with Cobra La where it is revealed he is a mutated snake man). However, the comic book Cobra Commander has considerable backstory. He was a used car salesman who's business was failing. His brother was in the service (in Vietnam). CC's blamed his business failings on the government and believed that the government and big business were out to crush the little guy. His brother volunteered for repeated tours in Vietnam so that his brother (the man who became Cobra Commander) wouldn't be forced to go. This eventually turned his brother into an alcoholic shell of a man. One night he hit another car and everyone in both vehicles was killed. The other vehicle was the family of Snake Eyes coming to pick him up at the airport. This caused Cobra Commander to snap, mentally. He forever blamed Snake Eyes for the death of his brother via psycho logic: If Snake Eyes hadn't been coming home, his family wouldn't have been coming to get him, so Cobra Commander's brother wouldn't have hit them and would still be alive. He went home, possibly killed his wife (never see her ever again), and took his son Billy with him to start his mission to change the world. He recruited numerous other people to his cause and started concealing his identity behind a hood (the blue hood). Together with these people they started assorted pyramid schemes to build large amounts of cash. This money went towards buying arms (guess who they turned to for that). They took over the town of Springfield and built arms plants underground. Before this, Cobra Commander had sought someone to pursue Snake Eyes. That's when he hired Firefly. Firefly believed he couldn't do what had to be done to get to Snake Eyes so he hired Zartan. Zartan found Snake Eyes with Storm Shadow at the Arishakage (sp?) clan training with Storm Shadow (who was in the same unit in Vietnam). Zartan mistakenly killed the Hard Master instead of Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow was blamed for it. He joined Cobra to discover who really sent Zartan. So, in short, a major part of the motivation for Cobra and the war involves Snake Eyes and Cobra Commander has a considerable backstory. The movie did get it right that several of the characters have an interweaving backstory. Cobra Commander and Snake Eyes have a considerable past. Their past association draws in Storm Shadow, Zartan, Firefly, Stalker, and Wade Collins (another member of Snake Eyes' unit who ended up becoming a Crimson Guard and his son became an apprentice to Snake Eyes later). The Baroness and Destro have past involvements. The Baroness blames Snake Eyes for her brother's death in Vietnam. What the movie also did is get most of their past invovements completely wrong. The Baroness still "lost" a brother and blames a member of the team for it though that team member is now Duke. Cobra Commander still feels betrayed by his country (I guess, it's either that or he realised how fun it is to be evil using science) but not in the same way. The Baroness is with Destro, but under different circumstances. Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow have a past, but it is considerably different in it's implications in their relationship. This is all avoiding the changes in race in some characters that were mostly pointless. To be clear on that, what I mean is that if they wanted ethnic diversity in the cast there are members of just about every race already on the team so there is no need to change a characters race (like Ripcord) or his nationality (like Breaker or Heavy Duty) when they can just use another character. Need an English guy for some reason, use Big Ben. Need a few more African Americans aside from Heavy Duty, there's Roadblock, Deejay, and Doc among others. If for some reason you need a guy in a hawaiian shirt, use Chuckles. There's deversity to spare in the line up already, no need to make unnecessary changes. I had problems with the movie, mainly dealing with aforementioned character changes. However, I found the movie entertaining and more or less in line with the tone of the 80s cartoon. It at least resembled some aspects of a previous incarnation of the series which was more than I had hoped for. I just hope that in teh sequel, should one happen, Cobra Commander get the crome face plated helmet and we get to see Cobra in action and not stupid Neo Vipers. If Cobra uses anything "super human' it should be B.A.T.s (Battle Android Troopers for those who don't know).

It played fast and loose with several elements of the backstory (yet with things like Destro's ancestor it was spot on which just leaves me shaking my head) so in some ways this was GIJoe like the gadgets, the action (though now with actual deaths and not lots of missing), self destructing base (not a spoiler at all to anyone who saw the cartoon or read the comic book), quasi-sci-fi elements to the plot, etc. However in terms of back story lots of things with the Baroness, Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow, and "Rex" were off to put it mildly. Having said all that, I thought the movie was entertaining. It devaited from the source right and left, but it did retain elements of the overall feel of the cartoon so I think enough of it worked. I would consider seeing it again and I do hope they use their set up for a follow on so that Cobra Commander (and Cobra in general) can be done some justice as the primary villains.

Is there any reason to think that is even a remote possibility? I would think the setting (assuming they are going to try to be at all true to the book) kind of negates any possibility of product placement (Ford doesn't magically morph into the spacers guild over the several thousand years between now and the time the book takes place and no modern companies sell the spice melange). Americanized is a possibility, I suppose, but I don't see it happening. Then again they managed to Americanize 300 and they managed to un-Americanize (is that even a word?) G.I.Joe so I guess anything is possible. It just seems like a pretty random complaint about a movie that we really know nothing about yet.