# Is Film Getting Worse or Are Fans Getting More Vocal?



## mystictrunks (Dec 27, 2009)

In 2009, like nearly every other year in the past few decades, the highest grossing films were summer blockbusters of questionable quality and a late fall adaptation of a popular franchise. 

Now everyone is used to this by now, but the amount of complaining seems to be out of control as time has gone on. Many fans of film seem to think certain movies are ruining film in some way, and I was wondering  if peopel agree with this point of view. That is to say; do you think the success of bad movies can cause studios to pump out more bad films in hopes of cashing in on the success of the highest grossing films of the year?

Personally I think the majority movies have always been total shit and that people forget about them as time goes on.


----------



## Banhammer (Dec 27, 2009)

There has been an obscene amount of money dumped in stuff like Transformers and whatnot, but then again we get Avatar. (who has also been dumped obscene budgets but came out with something worthy)

Films seem to be getting worse for me, but then again I'm not an easly pleasable ten year old anymore.


----------



## Taleran (Dec 27, 2009)

Neither

TV dramas have just been steadily improving since TV companies realized there is money outside of sitcoms



> When history looks back on the history of film in the 2000s, the defining narrative is going to be the ascension of TV as the primary visual artistic medium, and mainstream film’s increasing polarization between micro-budget indies and creative dead end rehashed blockbusters. But, even as TV has become a better medium for conveying narrative, cinema maintains its unparalleled ability to create singular moments and cast a spell on the viewer that lasts as long as the movie rolls.


----------



## Kuromaku (Dec 27, 2009)

While fans now have it easier in getting their opinions across, Taleran's quote also raises a good point.  In regards to quality, while one could argue that creativity in film making is like a drying oil well, one should also take into account the fact that even during the classic days of Hollywood, most films weren't all that great, or were throwaway, as suggested by Sturgeon's law.


----------



## excellence153 (Dec 27, 2009)

There are so many more factors that you have to keep in mind with film nowadays.  For example, CGI.  If a movie has questionable CGI, people won't like it as much.  That was the case with Drag Me To Hell and The Incredible Hulk.

Here's the thing though, the CGI kind of blinds you from what the movie is really about.  Drag Me To Hell is actually pretty decent if you forget about the CGI.  But The Incredible Hulk was still meh.

For the most part, I think fans are becoming more vocal.  If Star Wars Episode IV were to come out in this day and age, people would rage.


----------



## Rukia (Dec 27, 2009)

I think film is getting worse.  But 2009 was probably better than 2008.

Fans are able to be more vocal now. Everyone has a twitter page.  Everyone has a blog.  So it has become increasingly easy to throw our negative opinions out there.


----------



## Prowler (Dec 27, 2009)

We didn't have Twilight shit that's for shore.


----------



## Ennoea (Dec 27, 2009)

I feel Blockbusters have been getting worse, but maybe thats just me growing up. Theres just no originality anymore, and the producers are taking less and less risk while budgets just keep getting out of control. 

I think TV has overtaken movies in recent years, they're just a better medium to tell a story, characters can be fleshed out, stories can be told in a complete form. 



> We didn't have Twilight shit that's for shore.



There have been worse movies than Twilight, the problem is we've been bombarded with that shit too much.


----------



## MartialHorror (Dec 27, 2009)

Both.

Spending lots of money on "Transformers" isn't the problem though. In the past, lots of money was spent on bad epics. Most people know what to expect from them though.

I'm more concerned about the over-the-top lauding of films like "Avatar" and especially "District 9". That alone will lower standards for filmmakers.


----------



## Ennoea (Dec 27, 2009)

> That alone will lower standards for filmmakers.



That makes no sense. Avatar is lauded for its effects and there was nothing wrong with D9.


----------



## EvanNJames (Dec 27, 2009)

With all the new media for the masses to spew their opinions into, it's becoming more and more difficult for the entertainment business to get away with spewing bullshit.


----------



## Stalin (Dec 27, 2009)

I really doubt it, its just the increasing hype over blockbuster films. The majority of films has always been forgettable. For example, has anyone actually even heard of the majority of movies on TCM?


----------



## Platinum (Dec 27, 2009)

Probably a little bit of both.


----------



## Mαri (Dec 27, 2009)

^ Most likely.


----------



## Stalin (Dec 27, 2009)

A christmans carol was least very good.


----------



## MartialHorror (Dec 27, 2009)

Ennoea said:


> That makes no sense. Avatar is lauded for its effects and there was nothing wrong with D9.



oh ho ho ho ho.......I didn't think anyone would be brave enough.

Avatar, lauded for its effects? So was Transformers 2? Special effects are easy to pull off if you have money. 

Nothing wrong with D9? LOL, for one, it's unoriginal. Two, it's unbelievable(and contrived). Three, it's hypocritical. Four, the main character was inconsistent. Five, alternating between hand-held camera to normal 3rd person cam was distracting and made aware of the fact that it was previously hand-held cam. Six, it's pretentious with its commentary. Seven, did I mention that it's unbelievable. (if you wish to see me go deeper, my review is: Gamer

District 9 is a decent movie.....But only because I'm easily entertained. As Adonis put perfectly: It's "GI Joe" dressed as "Hotel Rwanda"


----------



## Ennoea (Dec 27, 2009)

> Avatar, lauded for its effects? So was Transformers 2? Special effects are easy to pull off if you have money.



Did we watch the same movie? Transformers used Cgi absolutely horribly, Cameron used it masterfully. No comparsion. 


> Nothing wrong with D9? LOL, for one, it's unoriginal.



It never claimed to be original.



> Two, it's unbelievable(and contrived).



Its a movie.



> Three, it's hypocritical.



Humans are hypocritical.


> Four, the main character was inconsistent.



Humans are inconsistent.



> Five, alternating between hand-held camera to normal 3rd person cam was distracting and made aware of the fact that it was previously hand-held cam.



That was pretty stupid.



> Six, it's pretentious with its commentary.



Most blockbusters that try to incorporate social commentary come off as pretentious. Atleast its trying, I won't hate on a movie because of that.



> As Adonis put perfectly: It's "GI Joe" dressed as "Hotel Rwanda"



That sounds like a kickass movie right there

My only gripe is that you think these films will have a negative effect on film makers. Films like Spiderman 3, Saw, Twilight and Transformers are the stuff that create negative trends.


----------



## Gabe (Dec 27, 2009)

a little bit of both. they try to add cgi to every movie now and more people have internet now a days and like to give their opinion. on everything


----------



## Tekkenman11 (Dec 28, 2009)

MartialHorror said:


> As Adonis put perfectly: It's "GI Joe" dressed as "Hotel Rwanda"



Do you worship Adonis? He's a moron, stop flapping over him please it's pathetic. This is the second time you mentioned how is opinion is so perfect, the previous one was in the Avatar thread.

District 9 is _suppose_ to make obvious parallels to modern day/past racial segregation. It has a message it wants to get across, it's not trying to hide it. If you couldn't figure that out then please refrain from watching anymore more movies that heavily delve into real world events and problems, or go and watch crap ass movies like The Abyss.

As for Avatar, I've already read your generic hater review, something that looks like you just copied and pasted from some randy reviewing website. Just like District 9 James Cameron is trying to convey a message across to the viewer in a visually spectacular way, with a new spin. 

It's like The Matrix, that philosophical and theological story has been told hundreds of times, it's just that the brothers were able to portray it in a more modern and intriguing way. 

If you need help with what parallels Avatar was making then I'll help you out. 
Native Americans/Indigenous peoples vs. Colonization.

District 9 B+
Avatar A-; B for story and A+ for visual effects.


----------



## Blackfish (Dec 28, 2009)

> Is Film Getting Worse or Are Fans Getting More Vocal?


I think it's the latter, combined with the fact that people tend to be more forgiving of films they see in their formative years. For example, I'm willing to excuse plenty of faults in, say, _Troy_ or _V For Vendetta_ because I was blown away when I first saw them.

Also, of course there were crap movies in past decades. It's just that crap movies tend to be forgotten over time, lending to the illusion that movies are getting worse and worse. When people thirty or forty years later remember the movies from the 2000s, they will remember _Memento_, _Saving Private Ryan_, _Lord of the Rings_ etc... but probably not, say, _Halloween II_ or _She's the Man_.


----------



## Gooba (Dec 28, 2009)

> Also, of course there were crap movies in past decades. It's just that crap movies tend to be forgotten over time, lending to the illusion that movies are getting worse and worse. When people thirty or forty years later remember the movies from the 2000s, they will remember Memento, Saving Private Ryan, Lord of the Rings etc... but probably not, say, Halloween II or She's the Man.


This is pretty much it.  There has been a lot of greatness this decade, and a lot of crap.  When people think of the 80s they think of the Terminator and Aliens, then forget about Piranha 2.  If you look back at the really crappy movies like MST3K would run they are much worse than even Transformers 2, Twilight, and G. I. Joe.  Then you have high points like Memento, Eternal Sunshine, and Kill Bill which I think are better than a lot of the old classics.


----------



## Stalin (Dec 28, 2009)

Tekkenman11 said:


> Do you worship Adonis? He's a moron, stop flapping over him please it's pathetic. This is the second time you mentioned how is opinion is so perfect, the previous one was in the Avatar thread.
> 
> District 9 is _suppose_ to make obvious parallels to modern day/past racial segregation. It has a message it wants to get across, it's not trying to hide it. If you couldn't figure that out then please refrain from watching anymore more movies that heavily delve into real world events and problems, or go and watch crap ass movies like The Abyss.
> 
> ...



Adonis at least backs his opinions. Avatar was good but ts story was unoriginal and I fucking hate aesops that potray humans as bastards.   Stop insulting martial horror just because he doesn't get all hyped about every since critically acclaimed blockbuster movie.

You want a movie with good social commentary about the human condition? Go watch a john cassavettes movie. Just because a movie parallels real world evens does not mean its deep.


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Dec 28, 2009)

I think it's a little of both, but moreso with the accessibility to people's opinions via the Internet. There were a lot of shitty movies in the 80s, it's just that we didn't have millions of people complaining about it so openly.


----------



## MartialHorror (Dec 28, 2009)

Ennoea said:


> Did we watch the same movie? Transformers used Cgi absolutely horribly, Cameron used it masterfully. No comparsion.
> 
> 
> It never claimed to be original.
> ...



1) For one, this is subjective. Two, if you dont think Transformers had good CGI.....well, 99.5% of everyone disagrees with you. In fact, thats usually the one thing people like. I agree that Cameron used them to better effect though.

2) Actually, a lot of fans did claim it was original.

3) Do you know how many bad movies we'd have to forgive if we used the "It's only a movie" argument? Well, I guess Uwe Boll is now a good director.

4 and 5) Yes, but this is just bad writing. Once again, your argument can be flipped on any bad movie out there. 

6) I agree that District 9 tried. At the absolute least, it was ambitious. But do you know what other movie had social commentary? "Hell of the Living Dead". Why dont you watch this movie and see how futile arguing for D9 in this regard is. (For the record, I liked Hell of the Living Dead about as much as I did District 9. The difference is, Hell is a bad movie.....It's just fun). 

7) "Films like Spiderman 3, Saw, Twilight and Transformers are the stuff that create negative trends."

-Er, so does every successful movie. First off, be careful what 'bad' movies you reference. "Saw" actually does have a strong fanbase(which includes me), and the only reason that created a trend was that it was good(and financially successful). Transformers could be a trend maker, but its too expensive. Notice that Asylum films aside, the only major rip-off of it was D-Wars, which has nothing to do with giant robots? Spiderman 3 is generally considered to be the weakest of the trilogy. If any trends started there, it would be with the first one. As for Twilight, you'd think that you'd have a trend starter here.....Yet the closest knock-off I've seen was "Cirque du Freak", which flopped. 

In other words, of all the films you've listed, the only trend maker was "Saw", and "Saw" is generally considered to be great for its type. 

With "District 9" being lauded as brilliant, even though its not, that will encourage filmmakers to think they can get away with less.



Tekkenman11 said:


> Do you worship Adonis? He's a moron, stop flapping over him please it's pathetic. This is the second time you mentioned how is opinion is so perfect, the previous one was in the Avatar thread.
> 
> District 9 is _suppose_ to make obvious parallels to modern day/past racial segregation. It has a message it wants to get across, it's not trying to hide it. If you couldn't figure that out then please refrain from watching anymore more movies that heavily delve into real world events and problems, or go and watch crap ass movies like The Abyss.
> 
> ...



1) HAHAHAHAHAHA! Seriously dude, it wasn't too long ago that Adonis and I HATED eachother. Seriously, with the mentality of 16 year olds, 90% of of our arguments was us just trying to offend eachother. So dont even try to use that bullshit argument on me. I only quote that often because it's a good line, and it's more-or-less true.

2) I know what "District 9" is trying to say, but I dont think its a valid comparison. I doubt humanity would be stupid enough to throw aliens in the ghetto, especially as the aliens have better technology, unless there is proof that they are the only ones of their kind. See? Social commentary is stupid if its in an unbelievable story, which District 9 has.

3) Er, hater review? I dont expect everyone to like my reviews, but when you say "hater review", I wonder if you read it at all. Last I checked, a 3/4 star rating isn't a hater review.....Once again, messages, blah, blah, blah dont work in an unbelievable context.

4) (On your Matrix issue), you'd be right, but my issue isn't that the theological/philisophical issues aren't original.....It's that the story rips off Ferngully!

5) Once again, I get the parallels, it's just not in a believable context.....I dont like repeating myself this much......


----------



## Chee (Dec 28, 2009)

Jeezus, you _had_ to get Martial going again.


----------



## MartialHorror (Dec 28, 2009)

Rawr! You're making MartialHorror angry. You won't like MartialHorror when he's angry.....


----------



## Stalin (Dec 28, 2009)

One thing I don't get about allegories is why would you try to put social commentary in a nonrealistic fiction story in this age? Why not deliver social commentary in a realistic movie where it would make more sense in context?


----------



## Chee (Dec 28, 2009)

The Cheat said:


> One thing I don't get about allegories is why would you try to put social commentary in a nonrealistic fiction story in this age? Why not deliver social commentary in a realistic movie where it would make more sense in context?



They are trying to add a brain to their non-realistic fictional stories. Making it relevant, instead of just another action movie with explosives and dull characters.

Did they succeed? Each to their own opinion. But I like it.


----------



## Stalin (Dec 28, 2009)

Chee said:


> They are trying to add a brain to their non-realistic fictional stories. Making it relevant, instead of just another action movie with explosives and dull characters.
> 
> Did they succeed? Each to their own opinion. But I like it.



I mean any ffilms like that in general. It makes no sense in context.


----------



## mystictrunks (Dec 28, 2009)

The Cheat said:


> One thing I don't get about allegories is why would you try to put social commentary in a nonrealistic fiction story in this age? Why not deliver social commentary in a realistic movie where it would make more sense in context?



it makes fantastic things seem more human. Find an alien planet rich with resources but filled with hostiles? Kill the aliens. Find a planet filled with resources and "noble" savages? Protect them.

It pops up in realistic films, to a lesser extent of course, and it's usually just as bad.


----------



## Stalin (Dec 28, 2009)

mystictrunks said:


> it makes fantastic things seem more human. Find an alien planet rich with resources but filled with hostiles? Kill the aliens. Find a planet filled with resources and "noble" savages? Protect them.
> 
> It pops up in realistic films, to a lesser extent of course, and it's usually just as bad.



All I have to say them is just tell a motherfucking original story without cramming social commentary and find some other way to make your film deep.


----------



## Chee (Dec 28, 2009)

The Cheat said:


> I mean any ffilms like that in general. It makes no sense in context.



Any type of film that is fictional that points fingers to real events in our lives? Well then, get rid of X-Men or Fight Club or Blade Runner and many other films.



> All I have to say them is just *tell a motherfucking original story* without cramming social commentary and find some other way to make your film deep.



Too bad that's impossible.


----------



## Gooba (Dec 28, 2009)

Fight Club and Memento were pretty original, so was Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.


----------



## Ennoea (Dec 28, 2009)

> 1) For one, this is subjective. Two, if you dont think Transformers had good CGI.....well, 99.5% of everyone disagrees with you. In fact, thats usually the one thing people like. I agree that Cameron used them to better effect though.



I criticised its use rather than what the actual cgi looked like. I couldn't make head or tails of the action scenes in that movie. 



> 2) Actually, a lot of fans did claim it was original.



Fans are crazy. Twilight fans think Twilight vampires could kill Blade. 



> 3) Do you know how many bad movies we'd have to forgive if we used the "It's only a movie" argument? Well, I guess Uwe Boll is now a good director.



D9 deals with one scenario thats possible, its never claims thats what humans would actually do in that situation. Its called fiction.

Im only patronising you since you threw UWe Boll in my face



> 6) I agree that District 9 tried. At the absolute least, it was ambitious. But do you know what other movie had social commentary? "Hell of the Living Dead".



Except D9 was a better made film, and didn't rely solely on its shallow Social commentary. So invalid argument. 


> In other words, of all the films you've listed, the only trend maker was "Saw", and "Saw" is generally considered to be great for its type.



Saw popularised the low budget schlock and we all know the result wasn't good. Spiderman created the large blackhole of mediocre super hero movies, and Twilight will swamp us in crappy shoujo films with supernatural beings soon.



> With "District 9" being lauded as brilliant, even though its not, that will encourage filmmakers to think they can get away with less.



Your talking about mediocre filmmakers, they'll need more than social commentary to make their films good. They'll have to make a good movie first.


----------



## Rukia (Dec 28, 2009)

Once again Adonis arrives and straightens you guys out.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Dec 28, 2009)

Bollocks to that. District 9 and Avatar will not be responsible for lowering the standards for filmmakers in the future. 

Unfortunately no-one's managed to get off this obvious and idiotic point for the last 20 posts.. the thread is actually asking a good topical question. I wouldn't have thought either were true.. fans are obviously able to use the Internet more, and because more movies are being made around the world we might be getting more rubbish but I don't think the number of top movies is decreasing.


----------



## SPN (Dec 28, 2009)

I only have 2 real "beefs" with the film industry lately.
1) Too many movies now are relying on special effects rather than actual story.
2) Lack of originality. Too many movies are being based on old tv shows and games I used to love growing up (TMNT, Transformers, Doom, the list goes on) and all it really shows is how out of ideas writers are. Personally this is what's lowering the standards for me, it's now "ok" to do a half-assed job of someone else's idea.

But I'm sure this isn't news to anyone

Personally I spend most of my time watching Japanese movies, where they stay not only original, but totally fucked up.


----------



## MartialHorror (Dec 28, 2009)

Ennoea said:


> I criticised its use rather than what the actual cgi looked like. I couldn't make head or tails of the action scenes in that movie.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1) Ah, roger. In that case, I agree with you. As I've stated, Cameron exploits  imagery while Bay blows it up. But still, I can argue that "The Lost World" can be looked upon the same way. Now it should be noted that I love the Lost World, even more than Avatar, but I'm only using this because not many people do.

2) Fans are crazy, but I agree that a Twilight vampire could kill Blade. I mean, Twilight sucks, and the worst of the Blade movies> best of Twilight mvies(so far), but being that the Twilight vampires move at super fast speed, have some unique special skill, and have skin hard as diamonds.....Blade doesnt have anything that can beat that.

3) Except the whole social commentary is lost if its in an unbelievable context. Now, I understand what you're saying. So I'm going to use an anology that screenwirter books often make a point of(I'm using different examples). You can ask us to believe that the world is overtaken by zombies, but dont ask us to believe that soldiers would dress in tutu's and dance around the zombies. In essence, you can ask us to believe fantasy, but not stupidity.

4) Are you telling me that you saw "Hell of the Living Dead"? I know its a better made film, but what deserves to be admired? A z-grade movie that actually manages to be fairly good? Or an A-list movie that is mediocre. I mean, Dragonball Evolution is technically superior to a lot of those films, but has little affect other than annoyance otherwise.

5)  Actually, the Saw rip-offs have so far been pretty good. You should have saw the crap that "Halloween" and "Friday the 13th" spawned. With that said, the Saw legacy has become tired....but so does every genre trend. Plus, these are low budget films. If someone spent Avatar money, or even District 9 money on that concept, then I'd be concerned. But most are lucky to get a 10,000,000 budget. 

You act like you HAVE to see them. For low budget genre efforts, those films are only supposed to be for the fans. So fans of those films are happy. Non-fans wont bother. 

I've yet to see any Twilight rip-off.

6)  Er, dont see the point of your last point as I consider District 9 to be slightly above average at best.


----------



## Blackfish (Dec 28, 2009)

The Cheat said:


> One thing I don't get about allegories is why would you try to put social commentary in a nonrealistic fiction story in this age? Why not deliver social commentary in a realistic movie where it would make more sense in context?


Putting it in a sci-fi/fantastical setting may make the message more palatable-- for example I doubt the whole mutants-as-gay allegory they had going in the _X-Men_ trilogy would have reached as many people if it was an obvious "message movie" like _North Country_ or _Invictus_.


----------



## MartialHorror (Dec 28, 2009)

X-Men though did it believably. After all, the whole problem with the mutants being able to abuse their powers would make them feared. Even though it was a bit heavy handed, it still worked well. 

District 9 failed at it. Avatar was a bit better in that regard, but still had its issues.


----------



## Taleran (Dec 29, 2009)

You know I get that there isn't a single original idea in Avatar(except from a Technical standpoint), but does it really matter when it is executed so well? And why when people compare the similiar plot points do they always fall the lowest denominator, even worse to movies *that executed the concept worse*, I don't give a darn if Avatar was Dances With Wolves / Fern Gully in space, it was better than both, and that should be the important part. Its like someone complaining after LoTR comes out WELL SOMEONE ALREADY MADE THAT.

Oh and part of the reason people are more and more using Sci-fi movies as shots against governments is because they are safe and won't take the heat if you just straight out and said it


And finally to end this off do you really thing Cameron would have gotten the funding he got to create this brand new tech that will be used in future films(which Avatar did do a great job of showcasing), if the story wasn't something that 1) people can identify with, 2) due to popularity for use will go see


----------



## Roy (Dec 29, 2009)

Fans are getting stupider. I blame the school system.


----------



## Adonis (Dec 29, 2009)

Taleran said:


> You know I get that there isn't a single original idea in Avatar(except from a Technical standpoint), but does it really matter when it is executed so well? And why when people compare the similiar plot points do they always fall the lowest denominator, even worse to movies *that executed the concept worse*, *I don't give a darn if Avatar was Dances With Wolves / Fern Gully in space, it was better than both, and that should be the important part.* Its like someone complaining after LoTR comes out WELL SOMEONE ALREADY MADE THAT.



Um, no? 



> Oh and part of the reason people are more and more using Sci-fi movies as shots against governments is because they are safe and won't take the heat if you just straight out and said it



Yes, because governments are incapable of identifying and reacting against thinly-veiled, haphazard allegory. 




> And finally to end this off do you really thing Cameron would have gotten the funding he got to create this brand new tech that will be used in future films(which Avatar did do a great job of showcasing), if the story wasn't something that 1) people can identify with, 2) due to popularity for use will go see



The characters were boring and the story was hackneyed; Cameron got the funding, anyway, because he's fucking James Cameron. Do you really think there'd be as much hype if this wasn't Cameron's latest movie in 10 years but rather some other director than 'The Titanic Guy?' As I said, it takes more than pretty graphics to make a movie worth seeing.

I'll be more frank and see we no longer live in an era where Avatar's the game changer of SFX it was set to be. It's about a year or two too late for that.

All that said, it's not "OMG, the worst movie evah!" It's just very-polished MEH.


----------



## Taleran (Dec 29, 2009)

Adonis said:


> Um, no?



Whatever I'll keep being entertained by movies on their merits and if that means not nitpick them until they are horrible fine


----------



## Stalin (Dec 29, 2009)

> Oh and part of the reason people are more and more using Sci-fi movies as shots against governments is because they are safe and won't take the heat if you just straight out and said it


This isn't the goddamnn 50's, if they're going to make a movie criticizing atrocitites of men or something like that, then make an actual movie about it instead of makin an allegory of it.


----------



## Narcissus (Dec 30, 2009)

Fans are becoming more vocal. There have always been bad movies, people just seem to be stating their views now. The problem is that some people seem to do it just fit in instead of stating their real opinion.


----------



## blacklusterseph004 (Dec 30, 2009)

The number of crappy movies is probably still quite constant. As others have mentioned, the ability to share one's opinion is more powerful these days, so word of bad movies spreads quite quickly.

I feel that personally I have become more critical of movies I watch, especially where I'm able to see more and more media and compare writing. I think my biggest gripe in movies at the moment are the game to movie adaptations. These films are based off fiction that is very well thought and and written, as well as intense and immersive gameplay. That's why I can't understand how the film makers continually dish up crap. The adaptation genre has yet to see an upward trend.


----------

