board77

yovargas wrote:

it's not really something I'd care to come back to

Hm, that's another thing I'd like to point out about this year's nominees is that there aren't any that I'm really pissed off about, even though I didn't much care for some of them. I fully realize everyone else in the world loved The Departed and I didn't think it sucked, it just didn't do a thing for me in any respects. It is nice having one less thing to be mad about.

Might be singing a different tune once I see more of the nominated films, though. Right now, it's all good. I sorta feel bad for Brad Pitt, though. He was supposed to be excellent in Babel and maybe some of the backlash with him and Angelina Jolie was a factor in the snub. Oh well, he'll get by.




*E*

*E*V*E*N*S*T*A*R* wrote:

TWT wrote:

I didn't mean better ensemble(sp?), rather that the individual acting was better

What's the difference? I'm not sure I follow you.

There isn't a performance in LMS I wouldn't nominate myself, so I will have to disagree with you there.

What I'm saying is that though both movies had good casts I liked on an individual effort the acting in The Departed more. Leo's acting was brilliant. Same with Matt. It goes without saying for Jack. Their individual performances were brilliant. LMS was good but really what extrodinary thing did they have to do. It's like nominating Maryl Streep for The Devil Wears Prada. Sure she's a great actress but really, do we need to nominate her for that? Steve Carell sat and looked dejected the whole film. Alan Arkin said the "f" word with great frequency quite well, I suppose that was brilliant. Paul Dano didn't have a line until the film was almost over and he basically just had to look emo the whole film. Don't get me wrong, I loved LMS, brilliant film but I'm putting things into perspective, it was a great cast but no outstanding performances except for Abigail Breslin.

And what about Vera Farmiga? She got no love for a great performance as the only woman in The Departed.

*E*V*E*N*S*T*A*R* wrote:

Um, no. But see if you recognize the film that did.

Haha. Well its hard to compete against that now isn't it.

*E*V*E*N*S*T*A*R* wrote:

Are you suggesting that movies should get nominated for doing the same thing everyone else does?

In a manner of speaking yes. Some films set precedents. What I mean here though is that there is a criteria for nominating films in this category, since A Beautiful Mind fit in the category for their makeup work then I think Click should as well. And guess what? The academy agrees with me! So there!

I thought she was the worst thing in Departed. She kinda sucked.

That's because you thought she took away air time from all the hot men.

Okay, I'm here only because I was promised access to the Dark Side by TWT.

Where's my red lightsaber and lightning bolts????

I can't gripe too much about the noms this year. I would have liked a little more for Children of Men though.....

And Pan's Labyrinth is going into wide-release this week I believe... I think...don't quote me on this though. I need to see that one.

~Scroozle~

TWT wrote:

*E*V*E*N*S*T*A*R* wrote:

TWT wrote:

I didn't mean better ensemble(sp?), rather that the individual acting was better

What's the difference? I'm not sure I follow you.

What I'm saying is that though both movies had good casts I liked on an individual effort the acting in The Departed more.

I still don't get the difference, at least from your point of view. Some casts have better dynamics amongst themselves, whereas others simply have a number of great performances regardless of how well they play off each other. Is that what you're trying to say? Because it sounds like you're explaining how The Departed had better acting, which I can understand because it's your opinion. But what is the difference between better acting by all (or most) of a cast, and better acting by an ensemble? Am I complicating things or does this make no sense?

Quote:

LMS was good but really what extrodinary thing did they have to do.

Hm. So I guess what you're getting at with the TD vs. LMS debate is that you want your actors to be in more dire circumstances? Fair enough. I personally don't believe that a frown proves any better than a smile when it comes to acting, so long as it's done well. A comedic actor like Ashton Kutcher pulling off tears in THE GUARDIAN is just as great as a dramatic actor like Jeff Daniels putting me into hysterics in DUMB AND DUMBER. In real-life situations, I think someone's reaction to dramatic events are more of a testament to their character than with comedic moments, but in the movies, they're equal IMO.

It's possible that comedies, even dark ones, are harder to convey than dramas because it's so easy to screw up and underplay it to the point of inducing sleep. If a little road movie where most of the scenes take place inside of a bus can keep you interested and snickering now and then for 93 minutes, why is that less honorable than prettyboys of today and yesteryear looking intense and swearing while shooting each other?

I agree about Streep, though. She was good, and I'm being biased because it's such a snore to see her nominated every single effing year, but as soon as I saw three seconds of the trailer I knew the Academy would wet themselves over it. To see the nomination through to fruition is sort of a letdown that they'd take the bait yet again.

Steve Carrell looked dejected because his life was at a low-point, but in realizing his suffering has made him stronger, and he has a crazy family that cares about him (that he cares for himself), he'll get back on the road and keep going. Cookie-cutter wrap-up perhaps, but that's how life can be. With Arkin, I have to admit that I'm not really getting the praise. He was funny, and I loved his scenes with Breslin, but he's more of a caricature than anyone else in the film and didn't really have to do all that much. Crazy grandpa - not too original! Fun, but nothing special. I prefer Paul Dano. He communicated a lot for someone who's mute through most of the film. Performances aren't always about dialogue, you know.

Quote:

And what about Vera Farmiga?

I'm not a fan. And in TD, she seemed awkward, but it could just be her character.

Quote:

*E*V*E*N*S*T*A*R* wrote:

Are you suggesting that movies should get nominated for doing the same thing everyone else does?

In a manner of speaking yes.

But shouldn't films that try something new and different get nominated instead? Everything else could just be interpreted as a rip-off. Like if a designer wanted to win for Best Costumes, they could just nick the entire wardrobe from Moulin Rouge or Chicago or The Aviator and be like, "weeeee! I'm a shoe-in now!11"

Quote:

there is a criteria for nominating films in this category

That used to be my understanding of Visual Effects until Gladitor was nominated. It was specifically stated that new and amazing techniques were supposed to be employed, but I've seen better graphics on a screensaver. Anyway, I'm sure there is criteria, but don't think you're right about movies getting nominated just because something remotely similar was nominated in a previous year. They don't have to set precedents, but they should be a little more, uh, special. It's the flippin' Oscars, you know?

Quote:

And guess what? The academy agrees with me! So there!

You mean the same academy you just criticised for ignoring so many actors in The Departed?

TWT wrote:

That's because you thought she took away air time from all the hot men.

No, that's Eowyn. (I tease.)

Scroozle wrote:

Where's my red lightsaber and lightning bolts????

You get free rides on the Vadercoaster.

Quote:

I can't gripe too much about the noms this year. I would have liked a little more for Children of Men though.....

Same. But it's not making a lot of money and hasn't been nominated at any major awards ceremonies. That is why I will start up a thread where we can pick our own nominees, and yes, you will be hauled over to it as well.

EDITED for some very poor grammar.




*E*

*E* wrote:

You get free rides on the Vadercoaster.

Can I throw my hands up in the air, like I just don't care?

Quote:

That is why I will start up a thread where we can pick our own nominees, and yes, you will be hauled over to it as well.

Well for that to be a worthwhile venture I will have to see a whole lotta films. I'm kinda waiting for my student loan to come in...so some cinema cash would be greatly appreciated...just throwin' that out there.

I plan on seeing the Last King of Scotland on Friday. Looks like a solid choice!

Scroozle wrote:

Can I throw my hands up in the air, like I just don't care?

If the roof is on fire, I suspect so.

Quote:

I plan on seeing the Last King of Scotland on Friday.

Jeles!

I'm going to sneak around Fredericton for as long as possible, so hopefully they're getting s'more Oscar flicks that I can see on the weekend. I'm guaranteed for at least BLOOD DIAMOND and DREAMGIRLS, though.

On that note, I'm gonna add up my numbers just for funsies.

• Seen: 17 of 58 films.
  
  Those being: THE BLACK DAHLIA, BORAT, CARS, CHILDREN OF MEN, CLICK, THE DEPARTED, THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA, HAPPY FEET, THE ILLUSIONIST, LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE, MONSTER HOUSE, PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN'S CHEST, POSEIDON, THE PURSUIT OF HAPPYNESS, THE QUEEN, SUPERMAN RETURNS, and UNITED 93
  
  Number of them viewed at my local theatre: 7. :roll::neutral::roll::roll:
  
  Those being: BORAT, CLICK, THE DEPARTED, HAPPY FEET, PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN'S CHEST, POSEIDON, and THE QUEEN.

I knew my ranting wasn't for nothing. It's still sort of a bummer to find out that if I didn't ask my mom to drive up to Bathurst, spend several weeks in Fredericton, or make a sudden detour in San Franfrickin'cisco, I'd only have seen 12% of the films? Hell with that!




*E*

Well your 17 beats my 5.

And 5 films is a record for me I think .

Besides CoM, Borat and SR made it onto the noms list. 3 outta 5 ain't bad I guess.

I'll see the Queen if I can. You should come down here *E*, we got all the movies playing .

~Scroozle~

I sort of hope this is a record for me just because I saw four times as many movies this year as in others, but it's still not a great record haha.

The Queen was excellent. Much better than I expected. I don't think it should have gotten the costume nomination, but everything else is fair enough.

I know! I will get to Fallyhax again some day, if only to carry out my attempt on Theodore's life. But probably to take in some movies.



I just added in a list of films by who got the most nominations. Nothing big, but seems like a necessary point. Now I'm working on DVD release dates so that y'all can rent ones if interested.




*E*

That's a good point about LMS's grampa. I loved his performance but it was to me probably the least remarkable performance of the film.

E wrote:

I personally don't believe that a frown proves any better than a smile when it comes to acting, so long as it's done well.

That said, I think I'm repeating myself, but I'm amazed Leo didn't get the nom for Departed. That was IMO the best performacnce I've seen this year.

I did this for last year's thread and think it's a good resource, so again, here is the rental status of nominated films for those of us who are interested. If it's not listed, I either couldn't find a release date, or they're currently in theatres.

• BABEL - February 20
  
  THE BLACK DAHLIA - out now
  
  BORAT CULTURAL LEARNINGS OF AMERICA FOR MAKE BENEFIT GLORIOUS NATION OF KAZAKHSTAN - March 6
  
  CARS - out now
  
  CLICK - out now
  
  THE DANISH POET - out now
  
  THE DEPARTED - February 13
  
  THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA - out now
  
  FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS - February 6
  
  HALF NELSON - February 13
  
  HAPPY FEET - March 27
  
  AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH - out now
  
  JESUS CAMP - January 30
  
  LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE - out now
  
  MARIE ANTOINETTE - February 13
  
  MONSTER HOUSE - out now
  
  MY COUNTRY, MY COUNTRY - March 20
  
  PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN'S CHEST - out now
  
  POSEIDON - out now
  
  THE PRESTIGE - February 20
  
  SUPERMAN RETURNS - out now
  
  UNITED 93 - out now
  
  WATER - March 7

*E*

Quote:

I personally don't believe that a frown proves any better than a smile when it comes to acting, so long as it's done well.

See I disagree with that in principle. It's harder to be dramatic and thus requires more acting. Ace Venture puts a smile on my face more than pretty much any other movie and Jim Carrey sells his character perfectly but that doesn't mean he should get an Oscar for that performance. His work in Eternal Sunshine however was much more dramatic and was acknowleged as such. I think that LMS is the exception of your run-of-the-mill comedy for sure, in fact it felt more like a drama to me (I think I only laughed twice) but it's an exceptionally brilliant film. Yet when I think back to it none of the performances were worthy of an award in my mind like I remember the performances from TD being. You don't need to be brilliant in a comedy, usually, you do in a high profile drama like TD. It's sort of like the present day Godfather. The situations in which characters are placed in in a drama/action film like TD are much more diverse than what characters are placed in in a comedy, such as LMS. You can smile on command, you can't cry on command, if you take my meaning...

What I was trying to say is that IMHO, I found there to be more brilliant performances in TD than in LMS yet LMS got twice as many acting nods.

I guess the only way you can relate is remmber how many great performances there were in ROTK and how the fans were not pleased when there was not a single acting nod, including Sean Astin as sam. IMHO the Globes did it better this year, at least they nominated Leo and Matt both for TD.

The acting, though brilliant in LMS I found to be very one-dimensional. The characters were the same throughout the film and without much flare. In TD the characters were in all sorts of situations where they had to react differently, anger, fear, anguish, shock, that's what makes a brilliant performance worthy of an award, not Alan Arkin! I know they say that the only way to accurately measure acting ability is to have two people play the same role and then decide between them, but I think that even without that sort of test some performances are just way better than others and I think that pretty much all the performances in TD were better than any of the performances in LMS. They were great as unremarkable characters.

Every time I write "TD" all I can think of is Canada Trust...

So, I just saw Pan's Labyrinth. Superb movie. Simply superb.

Its not for the faint of heart though, there's violence, brutality and some genuinely nightmare inducing scenes. Just don't show it to your kids, ok?

*E* - I wasn't a huge fan of The Departed as well. It was perfectly filmed in every way, and yet it was very empty and cold.

I've said this before, but it's like looking at two pictures of a person smiling. One is a real smile, and one is fake. You can tell which one is real and which one is fake, but you don't know why. There's something in the fake one that is missing. The eyes don't have that extra glint, or something.

The Departed was the same for me. It looked perfect on the surface, the acting was very very good... yet, there was something missing. It didn't touch me. I knew it was supposed to. I knew it should've been amazing and I should've walked away from it the way I walked away from movies like "American Beauty", but I didn't.

Something was simply missing.

I just saw Babel....


talk about a Crash wannabe that totally failed. It had potential to be a great movie, but fell flat on its face. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.

Really? I thought it was along the same concept line as Crash only much better with superior acting and more points than just "racism hurts"... Not to mention better overall storyline and cast. There were suspensefull moments in this, with Crash it was like, Ok I get the point, he's discriminating against you now can we move on?

The acting was excellent.

An Oscar nomination for editing? A joke, surely.

Scroozle wrote:

And 5 films is a record for me I think .

*E*V*E*N*S*T*A*R* wrote:

I sort of hope this is a record for me just because I saw four times as many movies this year as in others, but it's still not a great record haha.

I had to check up on this to see if it really was a record for me. Yep, it was. I have so many new threads to make in this forum heh, so without ruining things I meant to do for those, I'll just say that I've seen 20 films (so far). Before now, the most I'd ever gotten was 12 Oscar-nominated films, which I did twice. Cool!

TWT wrote:

It's harder to be dramatic and thus requires more acting.

More acting? It's all acting up there, man. And good is good, regardless of the genre. I think it's really unfair to say that the best dramatic actor is better than the best comedic one, as that is the sort of attitude that eventually awards dramatic performances that are much poorer than a really fantastic comedic turn. Bullshit, in my opinion.

I talk about comedy and drama because they are at opposite ends of the spectrum, but that is not to exclude genres like horror, fantasy, musicals, etc. With that in mind, how would you categorize some of them? A lot of horror films are rather serious dramas, but they get absolutely no respect from awards ceremonies, while musicals are often grouped in with comedies because I guess they're lighter fair.

Quote:

Ace Venture puts a smile on my face more than pretty much any other movie and Jim Carrey sells his character perfectly but that doesn't mean he should get an Oscar for that performance.

Why not? That's very elitist if you refuse to acknowlege what you yourself consider to be a brilliant performance just because it's in a comedy. Dramas were not created to win awards, same as comedies were not created to make money at the box office. They are all meant to be good and entertain, or at least make audience's think. If they accomplish just that, why ignore them?

Quote:

You don't need to be brilliant in a comedy, usually, you do in a high profile drama like TD.

Am I on the right track when I suggest you think that comedies by their very nature are slackers of the movie world? As in, they don't matter, while heavy-duty dramas are the only ones worth mentioning? Because I would argue that you do need to be brilliant in your film, no matter what it is or how many people will see it. Otherwise, why bother? So few actors and movies end up getting recognition anywhere, but it's no excuse to refrain from trying. I mean, Johnny Depp is a big deal now, but he's given dozens of great performances over the years and boy was it worth it. If it's worth doing at all, it's worth doing right.

Quote:

The situations in which characters are placed in in a drama/action film like TD are much more diverse than what characters are placed in in a comedy, such as LMS. You can smile on command, you can't cry on command, if you take my meaning...

I do take your meaning, but what I'm talking about is quality period, not quality dramas as opposed to quality comedies. Anyone can smile, but are they doing it with feeling? Likewise, there are lots of crying scenes, but are they over-doing it or am I crying along with them? I don't see how the situations are more diverse in dramas over comedies, sorry. That is entirely up to the individual films, there is no general answer for this.

You still haven't answered my question about the difference between ensembles and cast acting. I could be wrong, but it's like a lot of your arguments are why The Departed is better than Little Miss Sunshine, which I'm not trying to contest as it has long since been established how you feel about the two of them. Telling people why they should think this or that about certain movies is not my game, so don't assume that's what I'm doing here.

Quote:

I found there to be more brilliant performances in TD than in LMS yet LMS got twice as many acting nods.

You have to look at it case by case. Was TD going to get a Supporting Actress nomination? No. LMS? Had a good chance which we now know worked out. Was TD going to get any Supporting Actor nominations? Hopefully, but as there were so many to choose from, votes could be split. This happens a lot. For example, with THE GODFATHER, it had three nominations in that category and still didn't win. The people who might've voted for the film more than the individual actor split the votes amongst the three of them and in doing so, another actor was able to sneak in for the win. I bet there were tons of nomination ballots for TD but they were all split between Matt Damon, Nicholson, DiCaprio, and obviously Mark Wahlberg. It probably didn't help that people didn't know whether to put Leo in for lead or supporting. LMS had fewer performances to get mixed up with. It's pretty obvious who's lead and who's supporting. No lost votes amonst that cast.

If I wanted to get pissed off, I could remind myself that MEN IN BLACK won more Oscars than THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION (which still bothers me sometimes), but the fact is that Shawshank had major competition in it's year of released and wasn't the cult classic that it is now, while I guess MiB didn't have as much competition in the makeup category which is why it managed to win. Doesn't mean the Academy is stupid for giving it more awards than Shawshank, it's just how things happened. If you think the acting is better in TD than in LMS, there you go.

Quote:

I guess the only way you can relate is remmber how many great performances there were in ROTK and how the fans were not pleased when there was not a single acting nod, including Sean Astin as sam.

It's a damn shame, that is for sure, but with so many actors, I realize that they would've split the vote. Instead of LOTR-supporters uniting under a single flag, they would've been voting for McKellen, Mortensen, Astin, maybe Elijah Wood, or Karl Urban or David Wenham. Hard to say.

Quote:

IMHO the Globes did it better this year, at least they nominated Leo and Matt both for TD.

They didn't nominate Matt Damon. In fact, no one has, unless it's been part of an ensemble or team.

Quote:

In TD the characters were in all sorts of situations where they had to react differently, anger, fear, anguish, shock, that's what makes a brilliant performance worthy of an award

Anger, fear, anguish, and shock - yeah, those are so different from one another. Is it variety you're looking for? Because technically, all films about characters with personality disorders should then win awards because they're hitting so many different reactions on the emotional scale, yes? One thing I've always had a problem with when it comes to the American/Canadian/World Idol shows is that if someone bombs on one of the theme nights, they get kicked out. They could be awesome rock or country singers, but they stink at showtunes, so let's stomp on their dreams. That doesn't make sense. While it's impressive that some performers are that multi-talented, what's wrong with buying a pop album from someone who kicks ass at pop songs? Likewise, it's great when an actor can convincingly play different emotions, especially in the same film, but as long as it's good, I don't care how many tricks they pull out of their hat or if it's in a certain genre. I don't.

Quote:

I know they say that the only way to accurately measure acting ability is to have two people play the same role and then decide between them

There's no such thing as accuracy when it comes to movie opinions. Bias runs rampant, and whether the same role comes out weeks or decades afterwards, people are always going to cheer on the first one simply because it doesn't have the stigma of being "not first". I mean, did anyone care about INFAMOUS? No. Because they saw it last year when it was called CAPOTE. If they remade GONE WITH THE WIND or LAWRENCE OF ARABIA or something, do you think the new Scarlett O'Hara or T.E. Lawrence would get a fair shake? Lmao, not a chance. So no, I don't think you'd be able to measure acting ability in that way.

Alatar wrote:

So, I just saw Pan's Labyrinth. Superb movie. Simply superb.

Its not for the faint of heart though, there's violence, brutality and some genuinely nightmare inducing scenes. Just don't show it to your kids, ok?

I saw it Friday night and mostly agree with you. Was let down, especially by the ending, and it paled in comparison to Del Toro's THE DEVIL'S BACKBONE (a similar spooky tale about children and the terrifying adults who surround them), but it looked great and the lead actress was wonderful. I won't be having any nightmares, though - you're a wuss. No, I tease, but without the stepfather character there would be almost no violence.

Estel wrote:

*E* - I wasn't a huge fan of The Departed as well. It was perfectly filmed in every way, and yet it was very empty and cold.

I'll have to see it again, but yes, I just didn't care one way or another. Major props for the last ten or so minutes, of course. That was the one thing I have to hand to them.

Quote:

I've said this before, but it's like looking at two pictures of a person smiling. One is a real smile, and one is fake. You can tell which one is real and which one is fake, but you don't know why. There's something in the fake one that is missing. The eyes don't have that extra glint, or something.

That's the thing. Some feelings I can explain and analyze, but most of the time I just know it to be true. It's really hard to discuss most films because I hate so few of them, and not many really blow me away. Everything else in between, I'm sort of blank on! If it didn't affect me, what is there to say about it, you know? No wonder I rarely write reviews.

Estel wrote:

I just saw Babel....


talk about a Crash wannabe that totally failed. It had potential to be a great movie, but fell flat on its face. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.

As many people are putting it on their overrated list as their best of the year list. I still want to see it as soon as possible, but with trepidation. Could you tell me something? Spoiler mark it if you must, though I would prefer not to read any myself. One journalist was saying that the -I think- Rinko Kikuchi (she played Chieko) storyline was the only one that really dealt with language barriers while the others could've just been handled by someone with a translater. The Japanese sections of the film aren't made clear in the trailer, so I never knew what they were about. Could you elaborate on them? Thanks.

Lidless wrote:

An Oscar nomination for editing? A joke, surely.

I never really get the editing category. I know what it is, and I know some phenomenal examples, but the Oscars always seem to nominate 3 - 5 of it's Best Picture hopefuls, which makes me wonder what the heck they think editing is. It's a non-entity, in my opinion, because of this.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sorry for disappearing this week, but the internet connection at my dad's apartment was really horrible and I didn't want to lose posts over it. I was able to see BLOOD DIAMOND, DREAMGIRLS, and PAN'S LABYRINTH, in that order, and each was better than the last. Slowly but surely putting together my list of the best films from 2006.

In recent news, the SAG Awards were tonight. Here are the film-related winners:

• OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE - Eddie Murphy
  
  OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE - Jennifer Hudson
  
  OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE - Forest Whitaker
  
  OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE - Helen Mirren
  
  Best Acting Ensemble - LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE

I don't get the utter adoration that the DREAMGIRLS cast is receiving. Hudson's acting was amateur at best while I guess people are happy Eddie Murphy isn't doing more sequels to Doctor Dolittle or The Nutty Professor. He was okay, but nothing special at all.

None of the other Lead Actress nominees showed up. Mirren is such a shoe-in, I guess pyjamas and board games sounded better.

Next up is the Directors Guild awards on February 3rd, and the Writers Guild on the 11th.




*E*

Updated first post. Digital Bits is reporting the video releases for s'more Oscar flickies. These are just according to sources, but hey, it's something to work with.

• The Last King of Scotland (4/3)
  Volver (4/24)
  The Pursuit of Happyness (3/27)
  Children of Men (4/3)
  Pan's Labyrinth on 5/15

Currently waiting around for the Directors Guild Awards announcements. Scorsese is a lock, but it may as well be confirmed.

EDIT: yep, he won. link

So are we interested in doing Oscar picks like how vynaca used to organize on TORC? I've already started a lot of threads in this forum, so we can just do it here. Use the thread for discussions and your predictions. Game? I might start one on TORC if it hasn't been done already, so you can go there or here, it doesn't matter.




*E*