The Flash situation

With Seth Grahame-Smith initially lined up to direct The Flash, but now leaving the project who do you think should step in?

Here are my Top 5 Replacement Directors.

5) Luc Besson: Besson has delivered entertaining fair for many, many years and he's been skirting around superhero movies for ages. Lucy, The Fifth Element, even Leon for an extended example. I would love to see him play in the true superhero genre.

4) Peter Jackson: He has done some truly phenomenal films and I relish the idea of him creating a full movie based on The Flash. Imagine the fluidity of movement he delivered for Legolas, plus the speed of Flash and the action it would result in?! Cinematic bliss! 

3) Jean-Pierre Jeunet: With his wonderful visual style, creativity and off-beat sense of humour, Jean-Pierre Jennet would be a fascinating director for The Flash.

2) The Wachowski Siblings: These directors are in desperate need of a win at the box office. They have an amazing flare for the awe-inspiring and (way back in the day) they actually attempted to bring Plastic Man to the big screen. The script is available online and (thankfully) it never make to pass - it was awful. But get the right writer in and this sibling team directing, it could be a huge win for everyone.

1) Darren Aronofski: Another director with a need for a win. Noah was not well received and The Fountain was divisive. But the Man who almost directed Batman: Year One could deliver something truly inspired. I'm talking Nolan's Batman trilogy-good. Aronofski is a brilliant talent (just like everyone on this list).

Well there's my list. What do you think? Do you agree? Who would you like to see take up the reigns?

Leave your answers in the comments below.
Follow us on twitter @thefriedbrain
Join us at www.facebook.com/groups/friedbrainproductions
#friedbrainproductions

Captain America: Civil War - The Edge of Required Viewing

So I've just come out of Captain America: Civil War. 

I'm gonna say up front that none of the trailers for this movie sold me on the concept. Or rather, the trailers never made me feel that this movie was necessary.
Yes it's an introduction for Black Panther and Spider-Man 3.0, but did we need such a convoluted story? Especially now in the wake of Age of Ultron and leading into Infinity Gauntlet.

Reviews have been super positive for this movie so far. What seems to be the general consensus is that the parts are better than the whole for Civil War. What do I mean by CA:CW being convoluted? Its a Marvel movie. They aren't difficult to understand! Right? 
That's true, but I mean it is convoluted when remembering that this is not a stand-alone movie at all.

It is the third Captain America movie and it is the 13th movie in the MCU.

That's a long of viewing.

So this movie literally only makes sense if you've (at least) watched the first two Cap movies. But then to grasp the notions of the Sokovia Accord and the reasons why it (apparently) is needed, you need to watch Age of Ultron.
What I'm trying to say is that taking this movie out of context and attempting to appreciate it for its own merits is very tough. 

This movie is completely enjoyable and well created. The action is admirable (if only really the next step from what was on display in The Bourne movies with superheroes). Each character gets at least one good moment to show off their abilities and personality. Standout performances go to the scene-stealing Paul Rudd as Ant Man and Tom Holland as Spiderman. Paul was fantastic and Tom has certainly made a quality impression as Spider-Man.
But the bromance between Cap, Falcon and Bucky is probably the best part of the whole movie.

The story is kinda crappy. Fun, but crappy.
The cause of the rift between Cap and Tony is loose and undefined. It only got better right at the end. I'm not gonna spoil why here, but sufficed to say, The best emotional "war" between Cap and Tony is right at the end, when they could have (and probably should have) played that card much, much sooner.

I guess the biggest issue I have with Civil War is that it pulls so many punches - largely by design. These guys are friends and therefore they aren't going to go all-out in the fights. They are literally gonna pull their punches. Even when Rhodes is injured, it's doesn't feel like that big of a deal because he's friends with Tony fuckin' Stark. He's gonna get himself a shiny new  pair of legs before you know it.
Then it all ends so perfectly with a wonderful... letter... We don't see the awesome breakout, we don't see anything about the fallout from the break up of The Avengers or the Sokovia Accord. Nothing. Nothing really feels like there is much on the line. So Civil War is another stop-gap movie. 

We're starting to see something very familiar in the storytelling. Something that is common in TV seasons. Filler episodes. This felt like a well-produced, well-acted filler episode.

What else to say? 

Black Panther was good and could be the next great movie - if handled as an isolated, standalone movie. Spider-Man was good. I shall reserve justice for now but he was fun during the fight scene and  interesting when he was Peter Parker.

But it now feels like you're not going to be able to watch and completely enjoy any more MCU movies without watching at least one or two additional films. Spider-Man has already confirmed that Tony Stark is gonna be in the film. Winter Soldier is likely to appear in the Black Panther feature. Whose going to be the cameo in Dr Strange, I wonder.

I wonder now how Spider-Man: Homecoming is going to play out. Spider-Man was introduced through Iron Man and Tony Stark has already been confirmed to appear. So will Spider-Man: Homecoming be an origin story? Will it continue on from Civil War?

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed this movie a lot. But it makes me worried about how successful the following movies are going to be at telling isolated stories. Or if Marvel/Disney are even going to bother trying any more. They have invested so much time and money into creating the MCU that stand-alone movies could very well be a thing of the past.

That's the exact reason why I think that the DCCU could be much better. Yes, they are heading as fast as they can into the Justice League, but I am far more interested in the individual movies. The next Batman movies is gonna be awesome given the people involved; Wonder Woman is looking excellent and I can't wait for a trailer to drop; I'm a big fan of The Flash; Aquaman could be exciting.

Marvel are churning out very good movies at a very fast pace, but there don't seem to be too many coming out with their own "flavour". I fear that it is a potential issue of breeding out impurities and resulting in   

Episode 51: Wanderings and Thoughts

Due to recording issues we have a very poor audio quality version of the show for this week.

Fingers crossed and we should have better quality for the next show!

Why I am against remakes.

I’ve be against the remake of Ghostbusters since it was announced – listeners to the podcast will be familiar with my rants. To echo George, the largely female cast has nothing to do with my cynicism. I think most remakes, especially those largely absent their original creators, are awful.

To recap a few recent notable examples…

Robocop – imdb score 6.2 (generous!) metacritic 52 – Rotten Tomatoes 49%.

Total Recall – imdb score 6.3(ultra generous) metacritic 43 – Rotten Tomatoes 30%.

Point Break – imdb score 5.3 metacritic 34- Rotten Tomatoes 9%

It’s also notable, that each of these films cost over $100million to make, and none recouped anywhere near that much on their initial run in the US (all relying on the overseas grosses to make back their budget).  

What is consistent about these three remakes – they are all remakes of films from the 80’s and early 90’s – films that while they may be considered cult, were in their day highly memorable, extremely popular and one may argue, iconic. Three descriptors that I think one could easily apply to Ghostbusters.  

Outside of comic book properties (and even then there were the Garfield Spiderman films? Ugh!) I’m struggling really hard to think of a widely successful and popular film/franchise that has been remade with success and acclaim.  The really successful remakes are …

1. Based on films made quite some time ago ie. King Kong, Planet of the Apes.
2. Based on films that while they were well loved, did not have widespread success ie. Dawn of the Dead
3. Based on TV shows/cartoons ie. Transformers/Man from UNCLE
4. Based on a foreign film ie. The Departed

Making a successful film, is not an easy task. Truly great filmmakers and actors make awful films on a regular basis. I think studios are pushing uphill to try and remake a well-loved and brilliantly executed film that still exists in our collective consciousness. I would argue films made in the more distant past, or films that were bungled first time round (World War Z) would make far better remake targets – sure they lack the brand recognition of more recent and popular films but stand the chance of being a much better product.  

Example – The Most Dangerous Game – based on an acclaimed short story, the film was made in 1932 – it has a 7.3 rating on imdb and is now in the public domain – among critics it is very fondly remembered. Read up a little on the story and it’s prime material for a remake – no one remembers the original, it’s a fantastically gripping story and frankly, it wouldn’t require John Carter’s giant budget to bring it to life. It came to my attention after being mentioned in the excellent David Fincher film Zodiac.  

I don’t know about you, but I like going into the film not knowing what’s going to happen – I think we all have a pretty fair idea of what’s going to happen when they remake a beloved classic. That awesome moment in the original Total Recall when you realised that everything that happened to Quaid was what he requested at Rekall. Verhoeven leaves us with a brilliantly ambiguous ending that leaves us questioning, was that real? You only get that experience once – that moment half way through the Matrix when you suddenly found yourself asking – WTF is going on?

Original ideas are hard to come by after over 100 years of film making, so re-using stories is almost inevitable to some extent. Try telling us one we haven’t heard before.

Fried Brain Productions are on Patreon

Hey there ladies and gentlemen, 

So we have some big news! We are now on Patreon!
But what's Patreon, I hear you ask. For your answer, I direct you to the video attached...

That's right, Patreon is an opportunity for you, the fans, to help support us for as little as $1 a month.
We're going to keep creating the show you know and love, but running a Podcast and (especially) improving the quality and consistency of that show, is expensive.

Any money you wish to donate to the show will go towards the maintenance (and improvement) of friedbrainproductions.com as well as go towards improved audio and video equipment.

At this stage we are simply running the Patreon as a way for you guys to support us however you like, but as we improve and develop, we will begin offering different tiers for higher pledges.

HOUSE OF CARDS – spoilers ho!

Recently on the podcast we’ve been watching films that revolve around our leaders and how they get to be our leaders – namely elections. 

Yesterday being a public holiday in Melbourne Australia, I spent several hours smashing through the latest season of House of Cards – the excellent Netflix produced political drama now in its fourth season. Season four focuses on Kevin Spacey’s brilliantly nefarious Francis Underwood’s efforts to be re-elected as president – and its compelling viewing.

I was also fortunate on the weekend to catch a few episodes of The West Wing on cable.  The Aaron Sorkin penned political masterpiece ended its 7 season run ten years ago now (that makes me feel old!). In a nice piece of synergy the season I happened upon was focused on Martin Sheen’s inspirational Josiah Bartlett running for re-election.

It made me think about the interesting contrast between these two critically acclaimed and iconic portrayals of American political life. Certainly there are differences between the two shows – The West Wing is far more of an ensemble effort, the show spending a great deal of time on the people populating the West Wing, whereas House of Cards is at its core about Francis Underwood and his Wife Clare. But at their core they deal with the nature of power and how it is affects the people wielding it.  

Francis (Frank) Underwood is amoral, sleazy, corrupt and borderline evil. There is no depth that Underwood will not stoop to, to get and keep what he seeks.  Indeed, in the current season Clare observes to Frank that they will prevail in the current election because they are willing to go further than anyone else to ensure they do win. Despite all this, the show has us pulling for him – we are on a knifes edge when his murky dealings are about to be uncovered, we cringe at his opponent’s success and we feel a type of elation to see Frank escape yet again relatively unscathed.  This is a man who literally pushed his ex-lover in front of a train to avoid being exposed – he’s a loathsome offensive brute! Yet I cannot look away.

We compare this to President Bartlett, a man of unquestionable integrity, a model of morality and yet pragmatic – a man able to get things done without compromising what he stands for. Quite simply Bartlett is the leader we all wish we had. Of course Bartlett is a much loved character as a result of this. I think this type of character is consistent with Sorkin’s other creations – the Newsroom (another outstanding show) portrays the media outlet we all wish could exist today. 

So here we have two fictional presidents, at essentially opposite ends of the moral spectrum – and yet we find both of them utterly compelling – why? 

I think it’s the juxtaposition of what we know is real and what we wish could be. Look at the current US election, people in that country are completely disillusioned with their leaders and are now looking outside the usual channels for alternatives. It doesn’t take a great leap in imagination to believe people like Frank Underwood exist and populate the political class. We enjoy watching Frank’s behind the scenes machinations the way we enjoy gawking at a car crash or screaming on a rollercoaster – we can tease our greatest fears from a safe distance. Somewhat like watching the downward spiral of Walter White on Breaking Bad, we know it’s almost certainly going to end badly for Frank, we want to be there when it happens.  

Josiah Bartlett however is pure wish fulfilment – an honest, moral and decent man occupying the White House making sensible and considered decisions is something we all long for (even those of us not American).  It’s a fantasy set in the real world – it’s Frodo defeating Sauron, Luke and the Rebels defeating the Empire – anyone but Trump defeating Trump. We feel warm and fuzzy inside when President Bartlett and his charismatic team record a win – but I think we all know what we are seeing is a very long way from reality. What I wouldn’t give to see Bartlett and Underwood go head to head in a debate!  

What does this say about us that love both these shows? Well, yes we love well-written, well-acted and well-made drama. But I think it also says while we wish things were different, we’re smart enough to understand the status quo is very different – and frankly, if the Underwoods were running things, they could be significantly worse.

What do you think? Are you a fan of both shows?

 If you prefer one over the other why? 

Would you vote for Frank Underwood? Hey, he’d get the trains running on time!

Episode 48: Superman vs Superman

No proper writ-up this week as I was really lazy and forgot to time-code everything and make notes while we recorded.

We went through the usual topics of What We've Been Watching and Terrible Movie Challenge (Disaster Movie is F*@king awful and the worst movie I've ever seen) .

Then Travis and I set Superman Returns against Man of Steel. We argue our cases as to which is the better movie. We also have some thought about what DC/Warner should do if BvS: DoJ fails.

Episode 47: The Colors that never run.

What We've Been Watching (00:00:00 - 00:44:03) 

• Lucifer TV series: Based on the masterpiece comic series by Mike Carrey, it was spawned after Neil Gaiman's Sandman run where Lucifer Morningstar quits being the King of Hell.

The comic series was a fantastic look at Lucifer away from Hell and what his true intentions were, are and will be. It is also littered with wonderful and wonderfully complex characters such as Mazikeen. Herein lies he first truly grotesque alteration to the show... They cast a beautiful woman in the role of Mazikeen and the first time you meet her, she's apparently receiving oral sex. This is totally at odds to her character in the comics where she is literally facially deformed (she wears a half-mask) but she is confident and powerful. She is then "fixed" and given a beautiful face which she completely hates, considers herself ugly from then on and it's a huge personal issue for her to understand and overcome. So casting a beautiful woman without the mask is rubbish!

I only got to watch the first episode, but this show has a serious up-hill struggle to win me over. I'll give it two more episodes and see how it progresses.

• X Files Season 10: What is going on with this new season?! The pilot worked generally rather well at re-introducting X Files and updating the concept for a more cynical era. Then episode 2 went into a more Fringe-esque area with genetic manipulation. Ok but lacking the joy of Fringe or the engagement of the characters. Then came episode 3 (as it so often does) and with it an entirely comical episode featuring Rhys Darby from Flight of the Conchords. Milder has a crisis of "faith" and Scully seemingly steals a dog. Weirdness. Sticking with the 3-episode rule... I don't know if I will go back to finish the season.

• Damien TV series: a continuation story from The Omen movies. So far there's only the pilot episode and it's not great. But at the same time, I am still curious about how it will progress. Bradley James is a charming and likeable actor, so it's going to be interesting to see him either embrace The Beast or fight against it as Damien. One of the biggest challenges I had with the first episode was that it was very heavy handed in its approach to atmosphere-building and any sense of dread. Loud, deep moaning Latin "song" being used to build fear, dread and suspense may have worked for the original movies, but it seems old and cheap now. Likewise, there was a little CGI usage, but they were clearly working on a budget and it looks rather tacky and student-project. Basically I feel that the first episode was poorly handled and executed but the pure concept of the show has me intrigued.

A sequel series to a dated gothic shocker franchise.

• The Division - Xbox One: Ubisoft have released a MMORPG-like game in The Division that seems to be in a similar vein to Destiny and WoW, but with some (not all) of the pitfalls that plagued those games early on, overcome. Set in New York after a deadly new form of the Small Pox virus has ravaged the land. You are a Division agent activated to assist in reclaiming NY from looters, gangs and general no-gooders. But with a heavy emphasis on online play. I'm not an online multi-player gamer by any stretch of the imagination. But Ubisoft continually promoting that The Division could be played solo, I jumped in straight away. I'm surprised by how intensely I want to sample the PvP Dark Zone of this game. But I have decided to run through as much of the solo game as possible before going into the Dark Zone.

•  Suits: It's gets worse. People comparing it to Mad Men are totally wrong. The characters are kind of interesting but they're not really doing anything exciting or original moving onwards. A bit paint by numbers.

• 11:22:63: completely lost control of the story arc in the book. James Franco is hugely entertaining and the time travel is interesting. It's only ok.

• 10 Cloverfield Lane: anthology of sorts to Cloverfield. Mary Elizabeth Winstead and John Goodman star in a very psychological thriller. Mary is a fantastic performance but Goodman is the show-stealer. A chilling and compelling story. The end is perhaps the weakest part but it is totally worth your money.

 We also have a discussion about the Civil War trailer that dropped this week.

Terrible Movie Challenge Review: (00:44:04 - 01:09:18)

"You mean I'm never gonna live this movie down?!" 

Travis watched one of the very worst Superhero movies to even be created... Shaquille O'Neil in Steel. For the uninitiated, Steel is a DC comics superhero who was so inspired by Superman that he strove to be the very best Man he could.

Meanwhile, the next Terrible movie to watch is Disaster Movie (2008) And thanks to Portland losing, Georgehas to watch it for next week.

We are also changing how we do the Terrible Movie Challenge. We're gonna reveal the Terrible Movie and then play to see who will have to watch it. The first Terrible Movie in the new set up will be playing for Dragonball Evolution.

Topic of Discussion: (01:09:19 - 01:41:15) 

Hollywood Superstars. Do we still need them? That's the question. The answer is, as is normal with the G&T Podcast, meandering and not easily explained. 

Who ya gonna call: My issues with the (New) Ghostbusters.

I'm gonna get this first part done and dusted, so it's well and truly out of the way. 

I really don't need, or want, a new Ghostbusters movie in any way, shape or form. It has nothing to do with an all-female cast (full gender-swap would be a more accurate phrasing). In fact, the idea of gender reversal is quite an interesting gimmick and could spawn something unique.

So...

The original Ghoatbusters was, and remains a classic supernatural comedy, lead by a great ensemble cast. Then the second movie came out and was focused on being a more family-friendly fare; and it suffered for it critically and commercially. By no means a failure, but another piece of evidence for the "sequels are never as good" argument. 

Then in comes a new Ghostbusters movie. We learn that it's gonna be an all-female cast and that its gonna be in a completely different universe to the original movies.

Aside from not needing or wanting a new Ghostbusters movie, the early information sounded intriguing and a potentially exciting idea.

Then we learned things that quickly turned me off the project more; chief among them was that Melissa McCartney was one of the roles. I'm sorry but I don't find her funny in the slightest. I know I'm in the minority but that's personal taste for ya.

(Incidentally, as this is a Ghostbusters opinion piece, I'm gonna use "gonna" and "ya" because it's funny and kinda fitting, so there). 

We then learned that many of the original Ghostbusters would be making cameos. More warning signs.

Finally they released their first trailer. Major issues erupt. 

What is this movie? We've been hearing from the beginning of film production that they are not making it as a sequel and it's a fresh start. But the very first thing they show us in a poorly produced trailer with sub-par CGI effects is a huge nostalgia bomb. "30 Years Ago...". What? That's directly against what the production has been spouting from the start. They have set it in the original universe apparently.

Then we get the firehouse and shots of the Ghostbusters logo graffitied in a subway. 

Plus a jazzed up version of the original theme. 

This leads to many questions which will hopefully be suitably answered in the movie.

1) Why are they leaning so heavily into nostalgia?

2) Why get so many of the original cast back, and not have them reprise their roles? 

3) Who is this movie targeted at? 

4) What is the reason for the gender-swap casting? 

So what should this movie be or how should it tell its story to satisfy the audience, or more accurately satisfy me?

Sinply put, this movie should be about the "changing of the guard". 

Why haven't they positioned this movie in a similar way to Star Wars: The Force Awakens? 

The Force Awakens needed to be a hit to bring the Star Wars brand back into the good books of the audience after a trilogy of disappointment.

Well Ghostbusters hasn't exactly been a "thing" for a long time. Certainly in the live-action environment and even then, it's last outing was a disappointment.

So, how to make Ghostbusters a thing again and for a new audience?

A soft relaunch of the brand where the focus is on the new crew, but you have the old guard there to effectively do the heavy-lifting when it comes to world-building. There's a certain amount of grace given in these instances. For example, Han Solo simply saying, "The Force, the Jedi, it's true. All of it" is enough and you accept what comes.

There doesn't seem to be that in Ghostbusters. Granted this is their first trailer and I'm certain now that this movie is not tailored for me as a target consumer. But it's disappointing so many people that there is now an even bigger mountain of negativity for this movie to climb.

They should have gone balls to the walls, brazen statement trailer of, "This is us!  We're doing something new and awesome! Deal with it!". Then when it got people talking and positively questioning what the movie is about rather than who the movie is for, that's when you drop a nostalgia trailer. "We showed you why this movie needed to be made. Now we're showing you that we haven't forgotten the roots of this franchise.".

This movie is not for original Ghostbusters fans. 100% guaranteed at this point. So why not own that and carve a new audience?

I never want to see movies fail because I love great entertainment and success breeds success. But this movie is being butchered by poor production marketing management and it's only making the sell that much harder. 

Similar things happened to John Carter. The trailers for that movie were not great (and I admit that even though I loved everything I saw and am a huge fan of the source material - it's a hugely underrated movie too). The. A fan-made trailer came out and it pointed out why the movie was relevant and it helped slowly change audience perception.

A fan-cut version of Ghostbusters released quickly after and it was a much better "first trailer" for the movie.

You only get one first impression and they bumbled this one. 

UPDATE: The international trailer dropped today and there is a heavier focus on Chris Hemsworth and I will honestly say that there were two moments in the new trailer that made me laugh. But I'm still not sold on the movie.

Episode 44: "Who's that guy?"

* What we've been watching.

- The Ninth Gate; Archer; Extant: The Leftovers

- Better Call Saul; The Walking Dead; 11:22:63

(00:00:00-00:30:00) 

* Terrible Movie Challenge continues with Travis watching Pluto Nash. The bet this week is from the world of MMA: Royce Gracie vs Ken Shamrock. George chose Ken (former WWE wrestler) Shamrock. Because of a low blow, George has to watch Invasion USA with Chuck Norris

(00:30:01-00:48:33)

* The Guttenberg Season concludes with Diner (1982). A tour de force of (then) upcoming actors. The new season will be a People of Politics/Elections. Our first movie is the wonderful, Wag the Dog.y

(00:48:44-01:16:59)

* This week's Topic of Discussion is on the subject of Piracy. 

(01:17:00-00:00:00)restaurants 

A missed great.

Hey guys, 

I just wanted to share with you a fantastic 'missed great' movie. Byzantium is a 2012 vampire movie from Neil Jordan. It's filled with a great cast, including Gemma Arterton,  Saoirse Ronan and Tom Hollander.

Its a wonderful, original take on Vampirology and the romance element (which is nicely underplayed) was sweet, heartfelt and far more realistic than most. Twilight wished it had even half the guts and glory of this movie.

If you like quality, thoughtful vampire movies, this is a must. 

Advanced planning!

Hey guys,

We are fast approaching the end of our Steve Guttenberg Season. What we want to know is...​

"What shall our next season be?"​

The problem is choice. 

We have a few options Travis and I have been throwing around, but we want to get your thoughts. 

Our next season could be David Lynch, Tom Hanks comedies, best actor/actress winner roles, movies with 'age' in the title. If it's inspiring/interesting then let us know!

Tweet: @Thefriedbrain or leave comments here on on www.facebook.com/groups/friedbrainproductions

Episode 43: Topic of Discussion

@TheFriedBrain
www.facebook.com/groups/friedbrainproductions

Episode 43: It smells like Old People in here

Welcome to the notes for G&T Podcast Episode 43.

What we've been watching:
George: Archer; Leap Year; Penny Dreadful; Just Cause 3 (still)
Travis: Trumbo; Our Man In Tehran; Billions (TV show)
Both: Deadpool - our (controversial) thoughts.
Brief mentions of Argo; Haywire; Antman; Bob's Burger's; The X-Men franchise

(00:00:00 - 00:52:29)

Terrible Movie Challenge: Travis' review of Hannah Montana. 
We also introduce our new Success equaliser: Paulie Shore! Connect Shore! Travis must now watch Pluto Nash!
(00:52:30 - 01:05:45)

Guttenberb Season: Cocoon
We are going to watch Diner by Barry Levinson earning a rating of 7.2 on IMDb.
(01:05:46 - 01:26:08)

Topic of Discussion: Reboots; Sequels; Spins-offs etc...
(01:26:09 - 02:07:59)

Slight delay on Episode 43.

Hey guys, 

Because Travis and I want to be some of the coolest kids this side of the Yarra (it's a river in Australia for those of you not down with river systems of the world), there is gonna be a slight delay on the newest episode of G&T Podcast.

we are making sure to watch Deadpool. The Merc With The Mouth demands our attention.