32 minutes ago, Alpha17 said:

The Vong and Luuke would be a massive upgrade from Disney's work. I'll never understand why the Vong, let alone a clone of Luke, gets this level of scorn. The EU had its faults, as did the Prequel era (looking at you, Dark Nest trilogy and Yoda: Dark Rendevous), but other than Rogue One, Disney's era has been "meh" to terrible.

I stopped respecting EU/canon beyond "because the gamemaster says so" when there was a whole planet full of witches on rancors.

5 hours ago, Alpha17 said:

The Vong and Luuke would be a massive upgrade from Disney's work. I'll never understand why the Vong, let alone a clone of Luke, gets this level of scorn. The EU had its faults, as did the Prequel era (looking at you, Dark Nest trilogy and Yoda: Dark Rendevous), but other than Rogue One, Disney's era has been "meh" to terrible.

Let the past die, kill it if you have to

7 hours ago, Alpha17 said:

The Vong and Luuke would be a massive upgrade from Disney's work. I'll never understand why the Vong, let alone a clone of Luke, gets this level of scorn. The EU had its faults, as did the Prequel era (looking at you, Dark Nest trilogy and Yoda: Dark Rendevous), but other than Rogue One, Disney's era has been "meh" to terrible.

+1. Rogue one was great and Solo has its moments but the sequels are frakking horrible. Force awakens is just plagiarism. And a bad one for that. And The Last Jedi is not great either. EU and Prequels at least have good and bad things.

10 hours ago, Alpha17 said:

The Vong and Luuke would be a massive upgrade from Disney's work. I'll never understand why the Vong, let alone a clone of Luke, gets this level of scorn. The EU had its faults, as did the Prequel era (looking at you, Dark Nest trilogy and Yoda: Dark Rendevous), but other than Rogue One, Disney's era has been "meh" to terrible.

Here’s why the vong get my scorn; first they were symptomatic of the utter corner the EU fiction had written itself into. Jedi characters, and almost EVERYONE became a Jedi, we so over-the-top in terms of power, that the only way to challenge them was make an enemy that was immune to everything they could do.

Second, they were too many ‘things’ mashed together. Organic tech, outside the galaxy, pain worshipping. Immune to the force as well. Now the first two I can get behind, to a certain point - the crab armour with allergies I liked. The lightsaber immune snakes... not so much. (By the way, Serpentor called, he wants his schtick back)

The pain worshipping fanatacism that ran rampant through every aspect of vong civilization was, I read somewhere, only supposed to be contained to one domain of the vong - essentially a different culture, but there was a miscommunication and that aspect got applied to all vong.

There was also the implication that palpatine knew the vong were inbound, so he really wasn't a bad guy

In short, the vong had their hands in TOO MANY villain pots. Honestly the vong concept has merit, the execution was flawed.

Now as to Luuke.. the clone part was fine I guess, but the cloning process makes you add extra vowels to your name? What the f—?

7 hours ago, KommanderKeldoth said:

Let the past die, kill it if you have to

The absolute worst line in a terrible movie full of terrible lines, especially since the entire SW franchise is built on understanding the past, and building on the legacy of what has come before.

2 hours ago, That Blasted Samophlange said:

Here’s why the vong get my scorn; first they were symptomatic of the utter corner the EU fiction had written itself into. Jedi characters, and almost EVERYONE became a Jedi, we so over-the-top in terms of power, that the only way to challenge them was make an enemy that was immune to everything they could do.

Second, they were too many ‘things’ mashed together. Organic tech, outside the galaxy, pain worshipping. Immune to the force as well. Now the first two I can get behind, to a certain point - the crab armour with allergies I liked. The lightsaber immune snakes... not so much. (By the way, Serpentor called, he wants his schtick back)

The pain worshipping fanatacism that ran rampant through every aspect of vong civilization was, I read somewhere, only supposed to be contained to one domain of the vong - essentially a different culture, but there was a miscommunication and that aspect got applied to all vong.

There was also the implication that palpatine knew the vong were inbound, so he really wasn't a bad guy

In short, the vong had their hands in TOO MANY villain pots. Honestly the vong concept has merit, the execution was flawed.

Now as to Luuke.. the clone part was fine I guess, but the cloning process makes you add extra vowels to your name? What the f—?

Well, some of that seems to be a matter of personal preference, so I can't really complain too much. I would argue a few points.

1. There were relatively few Jedi characters at the start of the NJO, with the total number of Jedi given in one of the early books. (I believe less than 300, but I'd have to check, with the vast majority of these not being named or established characters) I've seen this complaint come up before, and don't really get it. Other than Kyle and Corran becoming Jedi, we don't really have many characters "becoming" Jedi, except those introduced as Jedi.

2. The pain worshipping part wasn't limited, but the level of fanaticism about it definitely varied from domain to domain. Some seemed to embrace it, others were just Christmas-and-Easter pain worshippers. I thought that helped add an interesting mix to the Vong, while still showing their unified culture.

3. Palpatine knowing about the Vong, and was really getting ready for them really isn't part of the NJO; it was a fan theory initially that was later given some credence in an in-universe history text written by an Imperial Remnant historian. It's literally propaganda and is a way of excusing Palpatine's actions by those that have every reason to rewrite history. Several authors hinted at the idea, but that's about it, and even the characters that were aware of the idea call BS on it.

4. The extra vowel seemed to be something that C'Baoth had an issue with, and since Luuke was his minion, it kinda makes sense.

12 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

I stopped respecting EU/canon beyond "because the gamemaster says so" when there was a whole planet full of witches on rancors.

Instead, Disney's universe includes a planet full of witches that raise zombies, and shoehorns tentacle monsters into every movie even when they only serve to derail the plot. The Courtship of Princess Leia is tame by comparison.

And now, of course, after all of this, I do feel obligated to say that my original intention was to make a joke, not start a debate about Disney vs the EU. Sorry about the mess.

To be halfways fair to both Disney and Lucas, most films are bad. Therefore on the sheer face of it, is statistically unlikely that in a franchise with 10+ films, all or most of them will be good movies. I do think the sequels and Solo, for all their vices and few virtues are orders of magnitude better than the prequels though.

The novels and stuff are just... I don't know what was going on with all that. Too much bizarre leeway was given to way too many authors.

5 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

To be halfways fair to both Disney and Lucas, most films are bad. Therefore on the sheer face of it, is statistically unlikely that in a franchise with 10+ films, all or most of them will be good movies. I do think the sequels and Solo, for all their vices and few virtues are orders of magnitude better than the prequels though.

The novels and stuff are just... I don't know what was going on with all that. Too much bizarre leeway was given to way too many authors.

At least the prequels provide a setting for RPGs/videogames. We learnt about the Republic, the Jedi Council, the origin of the Empire, the Clone Wars... The films may be bad but the Star Wars Universe as we know it is conformed the way it is because of the prequels.

Rogue One does not provide anything to the setting BUT it is a great war movie with great characters.

What is the frakking excuse for the sequels? Force awakening is just plagiarism with a mary sue flyboy and even less interesting protagonists. The bad guys are an adolescent general (nepotism in the first order for sure), a ragequit crybaby and guy capable of inducing terror in Luke´ s heart but incapable of seeing and obvious betrayal incoming. They do not contribute with anything to the star wars universe.

36 minutes ago, Senjius said:

At least the prequels provide a setting for RPGs/videogames. We learnt about the Republic, the Jedi Council, the origin of the Empire, the Clone Wars... The films may be bad but the Star Wars Universe as we know it is conformed the way it is because of the prequels.

Rogue One does not provide anything to the setting BUT it is a great war movie with great characters.

What is the frakking excuse for the sequels? Force awakening is just plagiarism with a mary sue flyboy and even less interesting protagonists. The bad guys are an adolescent general (nepotism in the first order for sure), a ragequit crybaby and guy capable of inducing terror in Luke´ s heart but incapable of seeing and obvious betrayal incoming. They do not contribute with anything to the star wars universe.

Everybody's got their opinions. I actually think Kylo Ren is the most compelling villain that Star Wars has had on film yet. Every other dark side user has been pretty one dimensional and the 'power of the dark side' that everyone talks about so far has just been shooting lightning and choking people. Kylor Ren actually has some pathos to him and Adam Driver is a better actor than Hayden Christiansen so he can sell the tortured youth character better

I also happen to think that Rogue One is kind of over rated and that Solo is a stronger film from beginning to end. Don't get me wrong, The Battle of Scarif was probably the best battle scene the franchise has had, but the beginning third of the movie was kind of a mess and you can tell that it was heavily re-edited by the studio. Solo has a tight, forward moving narrative with adequate character development and a more likable lead.

People have warmed up to the Prequels partly due to the fact that the children who were raised on them are young adults now and also there has been the decade plus of TV shows, comics, games and other media to fill in the setting and characters. Far from adding anything to the setting many people actively thought that they harmed the setting when they came out.

I think Disney has done a pretty good job considering that no matter what they made, a certain faction of the fandom would pounce on them and hate it because it isn't the original trilogy

I would argue that the Clone Wars Cartoon did a much better job fleshing out the intentions of the prequel trilogy. I absolutely hated the Prequel trilogy until I watched all of The Clone Wars. It added so more depth to the characters.

1 hour ago, Senjius said:

At least the prequels provide a setting for RPGs/videogames. We learnt about the Republic, the Jedi Council, the origin of the Empire, the Clone Wars... The films may be bad but the Star Wars Universe as we know it is conformed the way it is because of the prequels.

Rogue One does not provide anything to the setting BUT it is a great war movie with great characters.

What is the frakking excuse for the sequels? Force awakening is just plagiarism with a mary sue flyboy and even less interesting protagonists. The bad guys are an adolescent general (nepotism in the first order for sure), a ragequit crybaby and guy capable of inducing terror in Luke´ s heart but incapable of seeing and obvious betrayal incoming. They do not contribute with anything to the star wars universe.

The same can be said about Luke...

TFA is basically A New Hope for a new generation audience, just like the sequel trilogy is the Star Wars forthe new generation. We/our parents grew up with the OT, the generation born around 1990 was introduced to Stsr Wars with the prequel trilogy and their kids are introduced to the universe with the sequels. That's way it's mostly a retelling of the OT. We're not really the target audience of the movie, but JJ Abrams did a very good job of drawing in the "old" Star Wars crowd and providing various nods and Easter eggs for the old fans.

13 minutes ago, costi said:

The same can be said about Luke...

TFA is basically A New Hope for a new generation audience, just like the sequel trilogy is the Star Wars forthe new generation. We/our parents grew up with the OT, the generation born around 1990 was introduced to Stsr Wars with the prequel trilogy and their kids are introduced to the universe with the sequels. That's way it's mostly a retelling of the OT. We're not really the target audience of the movie, but JJ Abrams did a very good job of drawing in the "old" Star Wars crowd and providing various nods and Easter eggs for the old fans.

Each Star Wars trilogy is also a political allegory for its time. The OT is explicitly about Vietnam and American adventurism during the cold war (with the Ewoks representing the ultimate defeat of an expansionist empire by less technologically advanced guerrillas). The prequels are explicitly about the Bush era (though Lucas first came up with the theme during the Nixon era) and America's dangerous slide towards autocracy by way of a false war narrative. The sequels are (so far implicitly, but come on) about the resurrection of hateful ideologies that we thought we had defeated for good.

2 hours ago, Senjius said:

At least the prequels provide a setting for RPGs/videogames.

Provided for some people maybe. I had those things before 1999.

Quote

What is the frakking excuse for the sequels? Force awakening is just plagiarism with a mary sue flyboy and even less interesting protagonists.

If it was called "Space Adventures" and wasn't related to the Star Wars IP holder it would be blatant plagiarism. But as it is, it's not plagiarism, just unoriginal. When I watched TFA, at the end I said to my friend in the lobby, "It is not magnificent, but it is Star Wars". I believe in addition to the previously mentioned Star Tours comparisons, I believe I later described it as being "like watching a movie based on the sticker from the front a Star Wars lunchbox".

In the context of TFA, the term "Mary Sue" has accrued some very ugly connotations: she's not any more or less inexplicably successful than Luke or Anakin. All of which had at least some of their latent ability explained or illustrated in various scenes. But I always said that the heroes in TFA all lack any believable, established, motivation. Rey's motivation boils down to a scavenger inexplicably trying to save a droid from being scavenged, which sets a bunch of dominoes falling in her life. Finn's motivation is that despite lots of brainwashing, he alone among the other troops just can't stand the sight of blood. Poe is already part of "The Resistance" when we meet him but the very terms "First Order" and "Resistance" are muddy. Whereas with ANH, in our guts we all understood an empire and a rebellion, Luke's motivation was established beyond doubt by seeing his family turned into charred skeletons, Leia saw her whole planet blown up, and so on. Now, TFA could have been better if we'd gotten to see something horrible happen to a "re-educated" trooper. Finn's decision to run away would make a lot more sense. As it was, he's a sociopath who turned those TIE fighter blasters on the only family he's ever known, without a scrap of hesitation. But if he'd had a better established motivation to escape, then Poe could have actually died in the TIE fighter crash and really given Finn (and by extension the audience) some much needed skin in the game. Luke at least desperately wanted to leave Tatooine: Rey didn't even want to leave Jakku, her motivations are inextricably tied to Finn and an irrational fondness for a new pet droid. Since Finn lacked solid motivation too, it doesn't work.

Quote

The bad guys are an adolescent general (nepotism in the first order for sure), a ragequit crybaby and guy capable of inducing terror in Luke´ s heart but incapable of seeing and obvious betrayal incoming. They do not contribute with anything to the star wars universe.

The villains ARE the worst thing about the sequels, especially everything to do with the Death-Starkiller Base... Don't even get me started on Snoke.

But still, me not liking them is different from them not contributing anything. I could just as easily point out why I dislike this prequel character or that and declare that thusly, the prequels contributed nothing. Although that's just me being a devil's advocate, I don't think any of these 5 films (or Solo) have contributed anything noteworthy to cinema or anything helpful to the SW fictional setting that wasn't already there. To keep it apples to apples, within the genre of action movies targeted at kids/teens (with an honest eye towards merchandising) I'd put Jurrassic Park and Willow as being better films.

The cinematography and acting of the sequels is way ahead of the prequel trilogy, at least so far. Those two things alone will carry a movie pretty far when it comes to re-play value. It's true, the sequels have no tangible purpose or identity. People have waited 30 years for a new movie about Luke & Leia. It's naked ageism to say that the actors were too old to take the lead in TFA and TLJ. Maybe Harrison Ford wouldn't sign on unless he knew TFA was his last Han Solo movie, and Carrie Fisher has left this poor, troubled world. But they'd have taken us through most of a new trilogy, and we'd still have Luke, Lando, Chewie and the droids paling around. Besides, we can't "pass the torch" for 2/3 of the trilogy and still tie up the numerous loose ends that have been created along the way. With the prequels, Lucas was apparently only really interested in executing convoluted theories of mythology, which while academically sound, don't end up giving the work much resonance. Sadly he also intentionally used a lot of the wrong tools for the job, just because he likes new technology. Despite my disliking the prequels I think people are too hard on George Lucas. The OT was a real tough act to follow.The sequels by comparison are a huge mess but they at least look nice and sound good.

At the end of the day, the problems of all these movies come down to lack of the courage that it takes to really make art. Success takes guts and these are kid's movies. House fires, and the death of parents, are about the scariest things a child can imagine. As an audience, we inhabit the protagonist. And no one has the guts to show us our own house burning down and the charred skeletons of our surrogate parents in these post-1999 movies. That's a really important scene for making the OT stick in everyone's subconscious the way that it has.

11 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

Provided for some people maybe. I had those things before 1999.

If it was called "Space Adventures" and wasn't related to the Star Wars IP holder it would be blatant plagiarism. But as it is, it's not plagiarism, just unoriginal. When I watched TFA, at the end I said to my friend in the lobby, "It is not magnificent, but it is Star Wars". I believe in addition to the previously mentioned Star Tours comparisons, I believe I later described it as being "like watching a movie based on the sticker from the front a Star Wars lunchbox".

In the context of TFA, the term "Mary Sue" has accrued some very ugly connotations: she's not any more or less inexplicably successful than Luke or Anakin. All of which had at least some of their latent ability explained or illustrated in various scenes. But I always said that the heroes in TFA all lack any believable, established, motivation. Rey's motivation boils down to a scavenger inexplicably trying to save a droid from being scavenged, which sets a bunch of dominoes falling in her life. Finn's motivation is that despite lots of brainwashing, he alone among the other troops just can't sight of blood. Poe is already part of "The Resistance" when we meet him but the very terms "First Order" and "Resistance" are muddy. Whereas with ANH, in our guts we all understood an empire and a rebellion, Luke's motivation was established beyond doubt by seeing his family turned into charred skeletons, and so on. Now, TFA could have been better if we'd gotten to see something horrible happen to a "re-educated" trooper. Finn's decision to run away would make a lot more sense. As it was, he's a sociopath who turned those TIE fighter blasters on the only family he's ever known, without a scrap of hesitation. But if he'd had a better established motivation to escape, then Poe could have actually died in the TIE fighter crash and really given Finn (and by extension the audience) some much needed skin in the game. Luke at least desperately wanted to leave Tatooine: Rey didn't even want to leave Jakku, her motivations are inextricably tied to Finn and an irrational fondness for a new pet droid. Since Finn lacked solid motivation too, it doesn't work.

The villains ARE the worst thing about the sequels, especially everything to do with the Death-Starkiller Base... Don't even get me started on Snoke.

But still, me not liking them is different from them not contributing anything. I could just as easily point out why I dislike this prequel character or that and declare that thusly, the prequels contributed nothing. Although that's just me being a devil's advocate, I don't think any of these 5 films (or Solo) have contributed anything noteworthy to cinema or anything helpful to the SW fictional setting that wasn't already there. To keep it apples to apples, within the genre of action movies targeted at kids/teens (with an honest eye towards merchandising) I'd put Jurrassic Park and Willow as being better films.

The cinematography and acting of the sequels is way ahead of the prequel trilogy, at least so far. Those two things alone will carry a movie pretty far when it comes to re-play value. But the sequels have no purpose or identity. People have waited 30 years for a new movie about Luke & Leia. It's naked ageism to say that the actors are too old to make a good SW movie now. Besides, we can't "pass the torch" for 2/3 of the trilogy and still tie up the numerous loose ends that have been created along the way. With the prequels, Lucas was apparently only really interested in executing convoluted theories of mythology. Sadly he also intentionally used a lot of the wrong tools for the job, just because he likes new technology. The sequels are a huge mess but they at least look nice and sound good.

At the end of the day, the problems of all these movies come down to lack of the courage that it takes to really make art. Success takes guts and these are kid's movies. House fires, and the death of parents, are about the scariest things a child can imagine. As an audience, we inhabit the protagonist. And no one has the guts to show us our own house burning down and the charred skeletons of our surrogate parents in these post-1999 movies. That's a really important scene for making the OT stick in everyone's subconscious the way that it has.

These are all pretty salient points

I'm wondering what is going to come next after Episode IX. There has been talk of a 'brand new' non-skywalker related trilogy in the works (possibly old republic) and the stand alone movie slate was wiped clean after Solo disappointed at the box office. So it's anyone's guess. In a way, it will be a good thing to have the franchise 'free' of the OT characters so that they can actually start exploring some new ground.

One thing that Rogue One did really well was explore a whole new cast of unknown characters and I think people will be interested in more of that in the future

8 minutes ago, KommanderKeldoth said:

I'm wondering what is going to come next after Episode IX. There has been talk of a 'brand new' non-skywalker related trilogy in the works (possibly old republic) and the stand alone movie slate was wiped clean after Solo disappointed at the box office. So it's anyone's guess. In a way, it will be a good thing to have the franchise 'free' of the OT characters so that they can actually start exploring some new ground.

I'm hoping that the end of IX leaves the first order around as a threat. Not being defeated fully, but around. But the embers of it and the resistance being in a state of cold war. I want the galaxy to be plunged into fuedalism setting wise. The galaxy governments destroyed, and planets being independant. It would make for a better setting for upcoming stories.

13 minutes ago, KommanderKeldoth said:

One thing that Rogue One did really well was explore a whole new cast of unknown characters and I think people will be interested in more of that in the future

Rogue One almost did what I want most, a story set in the star wars setting without the force. It wasn't direct, but give me something like the Early Rogue Squad novels, or the first Dark Forces. Muggles in space as it were.

37 minutes ago, costi said:

We're not really the target audience of the movie,

That's why they gave us Rogue One. Nowadays we (the original audience of kids) can identify with a movie where "everyone you know is dead".

37 minutes ago, costi said:

but JJ Abrams did a very good job of drawing in the "old" Star Wars crowd

Not me he didn't. He just didn't actively alienate me like the prequels did. Except with the scene where everyone looks up in the sky and sees all the exploding planets. Whaaaaaa........? Forget about light traveling through hyperspace, if you have to explain it to the audience afterwards, then it didn't work.

9 minutes ago, KommanderKeldoth said:

I'm wondering what is going to come next after Episode IX.

Don't care! I got my toy tauntauns!

The sequel trilogy not really being a sequel at all, is just the latest (and hardly the biggest) breaking of yet one more implicit promise made to our generation. We've been bombed worse by better b******s than this. I can go on and on at length about all this but that's just my clinical interest, as someone who picked up a spare major in theater. I don't actually feel much of anything when it comes to the idea of someone "ruining" or "saving" Star Wars.

7 minutes ago, That Blasted Samophlange said:

Rogue One almost did what I want most, a story set in the star wars setting without the force. It wasn't direct, but give me something like the Early Rogue Squad novels, or the first Dark Forces. Muggles in space as it were.

It was EXACTLY like the West End game setting. EXACTLY. Right down to the character template for a "Quixotic Jedi" who has 1D in the force power "Sense" and a friggin' medieval weapon.

.... so anyways.... back to the OP

57 minutes ago, Kardek said:

.... so anyways.... back to the OP

This would be a good alt art for Coordinated Fire

Color me 'inspired'.

11 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

Color me 'inspired'.

Actual picture of Tauntaunscout

2 hours ago, KommanderKeldoth said:

Actual picture of Tauntaunscout

It's true! Someone had that tauntaun prop at a con and I got to sit on it for that photo.

Needless to say, I disagree with everything positive about the sequel trilogy and Solo [besides the Mimban scenes, which were awesome (besides Solo speaking Wookiee; that was dumb)]

But, more importantly, cool Star Wars pictures:

10 hours ago, KommanderKeldoth said:

This would be a good alt art for Coordinated Fire

Or "Pinned Down" for that matter

17 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

In the context of TFA, the term "Mary Sue" has accrued some very ugly connotations: she's not any more or less inexplicably successful than Luke or Anakin. All of which had at least some of their latent ability explained or illustrated in various scenes. But I always said that the heroes in TFA all lack any believable, established, motivation. Rey's motivation boils down to a scavenger inexplicably trying to save a droid from being scavenged, which sets a bunch of dominoes falling in her life.

Read me again. I wrote Mary Sue flyBOY. I was talking about Poe Dameron, not about Rey. I do not specially hate Rey. She is just a bit good at things, call it the force or whatever.

Poe Dameron just pisses me off. Shame that Leia did not execute him for treason. Who are you to question your orders? Why do you think you deserve to be informed about the strategy the Admiral has decided? You are just a flyboy without even a hint for tactics!

How much I hate that guy...

PS: How stupid is to have a map involving a big chunk of the galaxy and don´t know "where" that chunk is to find Luke. The complete film is just ridiculous.

Now, back to star wars images...

What about a heavy weapon strike team?

4 hours ago, Senjius said:

I was talking about Poe Dameron,

Can't agree more. There's more than one reason I wish he'd died in that TIE fighter crash... If the villains are the worst thing about the sequels, then Poe is the worst thing about the heroes. We don't exactly need to know how he learned to fly or why he joined the resistance to believe in him. But with the resistance itself fundamentally flawed, none of that matters. He'd have been a fine character either 1) dying early to serve the story or 2) relegated to a side role like admiral Ackbar or someone in ROTJ, just part of the military machine of the resistance.

Rose is the best new hero for me, because her motivation is tied to Paige, who's death was one of the best sequences in the sequels. This despite misplaced fan rage over the bombs "falling" onto the target. That scene tapped into the things that made the OT great. Ie, good cinematography and very oblique references to the great films that preceded it. I pretty much see it as a simultaneous reference to the wampa cave scene in ESB, the end of Dr. Strangelove, and the bomb controller is a dead ringer for Hal from 2001: A Space Odyssey. Simultaneously the visuals conjure up the biomechanics of Alien and the WWII movies that always helped make up the bedrock of the SW universe. Paige dies The Death of the Ball Turret Gunner, indeed. Rose isn't exactly great screenwriting but the way I see it, Paige's death makes Rose hands down the best of what's around, so I'll take what I can get.