Serving animals in HOBBIT film

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

This claim is obviously untrue on its face because we have definitive proof. You see, we did actually lose Bombadil. He was completely omitted from the films. There was no sign of him at all either on the screen or in reference. And did this cardinal sin against JRRT and his work destroy the films? Apparently not since hundreds of millions of people lined up again and again to shove their hard earned money to the filmmakers. Both TTT and ROTK - the films with Treebeard in them - both cracked the All Time Top Five in earnings. Professional film critics around the world had high praise for the films and I cannot remember one bringing up that point. And groups which award things like the BATFA's and the Academy Awards had little trouble swallowing Treebeard without Bombadil in the mix either.

You make a claim that is defied by the historical record.

No. I actually stated that 'you make it more difficult to accept Treebeard'. If you can point out where I stated that removing Bombadil 'destroyed' the films I'll happily go back & edit my post....

[Sauron the White]

Okay..... and just how do you even attempt to prove that statement? If they had done it your way ROTK would have taken in an extra $100 million? If they had done it your way than the film would have won extra Best Film of the Year awards in addition to the one for ROTK? If they had done it your way then critical acclaim would have been 100% instead of merely among the best reviewed films for those three consecutive years?

Just how do you intend to back up your statement with evidence?

This is just another in an endless series of examples of hyperbole employed as weapons against the films. And for what point?

[Folwren]

Well, maybe, if they had done it davem's way, the movie would have been more popular. If you say that he saying this is pointless and unable to be backed by proof, you implying that his ideas or doing the movie 'his way', as you put it, would not have made the movies better is likewise lacking in proof.

Whatever happened, the movie could not have been WORSE if it had followed the books a little more closely, could it?

-- Folwren

[Sir Kohran]

Originally Posted by Folwren

Well, maybe, if they had done it davem's way, the movie would have been more popular. If you say that he saying this is pointless and unable to be backed by proof, you implying that his ideas or doing the movie 'his way', as you put it, would not have made the movies better is likewise lacking in proof.

Whatever happened, the movie could not have been WORSE if it had followed the books a little more closely, could it?

-- Folwren

It certainly could. We could have ended up with a grinning hippy in yellow boots or a half an hour Council of non-stop talking. These things may work in text but on film they would not.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

and just how do you even attempt to prove that statement? If they had done it your way ROTK would have taken in an extra $100 million? If they had done it your way than the film would have won extra Best Film of the Year awards in addition to the one for ROTK? If they had done it your way then critical acclaim would have been 100% instead of merely among the best reviewed films for those three consecutive years?

Just how do you intend to back up your statement with evidence?

Just another iteration of the stale McDonald's argument. It would have been better because it would have improved things about the films that are bad. Full stop.

The ninnies who vote for Oscars, and still less the unwashed hordes of mouthbreathing troglodytes who pack multiplexes, are utterly, completely irrelevant as evidence or ratification of artistic success.

[Folwren]

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

It certainly could. We could have ended up with a grinning hippy in yellow boots or a half an hour Council of non-stop talking. These things may work in text but on film they would not.

Did I say follow the books exactly? Word for word? Or remotely word for word? No! I believe what I said was:

the movie could not have been WORSE if it had followed the books a little more closely

Emphasis added.

Of course, my opinion would lead the movies to follow the books a bit more than a 'little', but I wouldn't say that the movies should follow the books exactly, and I am convinced that davem would not say so, either.

[Sir Kohran]

Originally Posted by Folwren

Did I say follow the books exactly? Word for word? Or remotely word for word? No! I believe what I said was:



Emphasis added.

Of course, my opinion would lead the movies to follow the books a bit more than a 'little', but I wouldn't say that the movies should follow the books exactly, and I am convinced that davem would not say so, either.

Well I see no point in asking for a 'little' more closeness. It simply becomes petty. There are all sorts of things from the books that could be added in as being a 'little' closer, and all sorts of things from the books that could be taken out and it would be a 'little' further away. I believe what we're debating is the big issues -the Council, Tom, etc.

[Sauron the White]

Fowlren ... sorry if you felt I mischaracterized your remarks. Yes, I do understand that you wanted to follow the books a lot closer. However, your idea of closer would not be close enough for some others. Then again, it may be too close for others. There is no happy medium or perfect compromise that will please everyone. We still end up with unhappy and the opinion struggle of books vs. films would still be going onward.

[Sauron the White]

from WCH

The ninnies who vote for Oscars, and still less the unwashed hordes of mouthbreathing troglodytes who pack multiplexes, are utterly, completely irrelevant as evidence or ratification of artistic success.

William, do you think your comments have just the slightest tinge of superiority about them? They certainly strike me that way.

I believe that the "ninnies who vote for Oscars" are professionals who have devoted their careers and lives to the business and art of film.

The common folk that you so harshly describe are the same people who keep society functioning by going to work each day, paying their taxes, raising their families and providing goods for our pantries. Without them, there would be no movies.... or books for that matter other than the occassional manuscript that is seen by very few. Sounds like the good old days of the Dark Ages.

What is interesting about the LOTR films is that they were a rousing success from all three segments of the way we normally measure a films success: Professional critics generally gave them glowing reviews, the public responded with $4 billion dollars US, and thier peers in the business showered them with awards of excellence. Normally at least one of those categories precludes or negates the other one or two.

I am in my late 50's and have been following film closely for some 45 years now and have never seen anything like that before. I wonder if you appreciate the rarity of that convergence?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

The common folk that you so harshly describe are the same people who keep society functioning by going to work each day, paying their taxes, raising their families and providing goods for our pantries.

And Michelangelo's work at St Peter's and the Sistine Chapel was made possible, ultimately, by the tithes of millions of illiterate peasants. Does that mean he was working to please them? Of course not.

I am in my late 50's and have been following film closely for some 45 years now and have never seen anything like that before. I wonder if you appreciate the rarity of that convergence?

Perhaps you've forgotten Lawrence of Arabia? Ben-Hur? The Sound of Music? Dr Zhivago? All much better films- and all of them, incidentally, very heavily altered from their sources. Again, I don't argue with the need for adaptation- but adaptation must be sensitive to the spirit of the original. Reading Lawrence's Seven Pillars of Wisdom, it's clear that Lean, while altering or fabricating virtually every incident, "got" Lawrence and understood what he was all about. Not so PJ.

Anyway, you're trying to argue a point by claiming that 1 + 0 + 0 is three. It's just one. The opinions of film critics are worth paying attention to, even as a basis for disagreement; but box-office figures as a measure of quality are worthless. Meaningless. Zero. The same, I'm afraid, goes for the Oscars. Do you have any idea how Oscar voting works? How most voters have never seen the films they're voting on? How often ballots are delegated to personal assistants or other lackeys? How so many members of the Academy are not "professionals" in any sense beyond the obvious one that they get paid to work on movies; which does not in itself qualify them as experts in cinematic art (or, in many cases, to tie their own shoes). This is an election in which Anna Nicole Smith was qualified to vote.

As evidence in support of which I offer Exhibit A, just another such convergence within the last decade: Titanic. An eleven-Oscar, boffo box-office turd.

[Sauron the White]

I beg to differ. There are three ways that the film industry looks to see if their films were a success. None of them include the adulation of the book community to see if they kept close enough to the source material.

The three areas the film community respects are
1- box office receipts above and beyond anything else
2- the acclaim of professional critics partly because it can impact #1 and partly because it can and does add to the prestige of a film or even a studio
3- industry and professional awards like the BAFTA's or Academy Awards, again same reason as #1 and 2.

In all three cases, the LOTR films were a rousing success by all three measurements.

Yes, there have been films that hit all three -- and you did mention some. But again, compare that to the number of films issued each year and multiply that by year after year. BEN HUR, LAWRENCE, LOTR - these are rare films and to have such success on all three levels is rare.

your point

And Michelangelo's work at St Peter's and the Sistine Chapel was made possible, ultimately, by the tithes of millions of illiterate peasants. Does that mean he was working to please them? Of course not.

isthe exact opposite of the situation that any filmmaker and any studio finds themselves in. Michaelangelo did NOT need to have the actual love and adulation of those masses of people or even their approval. He needed the approval of a single autocrat - the Pope. He was working for an audience of one. A filmmaker and film studio does not have that luxury.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

The three areas the film community respects are

Why is that relevant to anyone but shareholders? An industry is interested in profit: duh. So is the oil industry, although at least Halliburton isn't disposed to pretend to be making art.

Again: if this tripartite convergence was knockdown, irrefutable evidence of Great Film....explain Titanic.

[Sauron the White]

Why is that important? Because we are talking about film and the making of films is a business more than anything else. That is a simple fact of the real world we all live in. To pretend anything else is folly. Yes, some of it is art. There is a combination of the two. That is why things like critical praise becomes important as well as industry awards for artistic excellence.

Again, you can make fun of the voters or the awards or mock the critics or ridicule the common man but those are the things the industry feels are important. Nobody in the film industry with any power or influence gives a tinkers damn about how faithful source material is to the final product. Nobody.

You can resent that fact. You can rail against it. But you will be akin to the man who stands upon the shore and tries to stop the tide by planting his feet firly into the soggy sand and raising his arms against the powers of the incoming waters.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

And, in addition, I can declare the movies to be commercial pap, bad adaptations, and unworthy of the original.

It doesn't bother me in the least that "nobody in the film industry with any power or influence" cares about making art. It does bother me that in their tinsel hypocrisy they pretend to; and that bounders like Peter Jackson feel compelled to spin a line of BS about how 'faithful' they are being yadda yadda yadda. A little honesty would be appreciated here: they did it to make a fast buck.

[Sauron the White]

from WCH

It doesn't bother me in the least that "nobody in the film industry with any power or influence" cares about making art.

Where did you get that from? I hope you are not going to say it came from me. I said its a business first and art second. To say that nobody in the film industry with any power or influence does not care abotu making art is NOT what I said.
I notice that you use quotes around parts of the phrase and then make the rest up to suit your purposes. Is that fair?

It does bother me that in their tinsel hypocrisy they pretend to; and that bounders like Peter Jackson feel compelled to spin a line of BS about how 'faithful' they are being yadda yadda yadda. A little honesty would be appreciated here: they did it to make a fast buck.

If they made it to make a fast buck they certainly took quite a convoluted, complex and highly risky road to get there. And with a film property that up until that time was box office poison and thought my many to be unfilmable by its own author. Fast buck indeed!!!!

And besides..... making a buck ... is that not the decision JRRT himself made when he sold the film rights?

[radagastly]

Originally Posted by WCH:

The ninnies who vote for Oscars, and still less the unwashed hordes of mouthbreathing troglodytes who pack multiplexes, are utterly, completely irrelevant as evidence or ratification of artistic success.

I was casually watching this thread with some amusement, as it's an argument that has railed since the movies were first released, but I couldn't pass this up without saying something. I believe art (any art) without an audience is no longer art. It is at best, therapy and more often, self-gratification. No one person, whether he is a member of the literati or a mouth-breathing troglodyte or an Oxford professor of philology is more qualified than any other one person to determine what is "good" art or not, except on their own behalf. A work of art with an audience of one person may well be a great work of art for that person, but he can hardly discuss it with himself. Someone else must be familiar with it, even if they don't like it for some reason, in order to begin a discussion. Else it would be a monologue. Almost inevitably, such discussions lead to comparisons of said work of art with other works of art, at which point some kind of objective standard must be applied to keep the discussion from spiraling downward. Box-office (for lack of a better word) is a legitimate objective measure of quality. Shakespeare is still played in theatres, hundreds of years after his death, at least partly because his name sells tickets. While that may or may not make him a "better" playwrite than, say, Aristophanes, it does make him more effective. More people have had access to his work, therefore his work has more potential influence on peoples thinking and feeling.

If the earliest movie discussions are still available (I believe much of that was lost in the transition to V-Bulletin), you will see that I have a relatively low opinion of these movies. Many of PJ's decisions seem to fall in direct opposition to Tolkien's themes and sensibilities. There were some things that he got right, like the overall look of Middle-Earth, and some of the casting, especially Bilbo, Gandalf, Theoden and Denethor. There was much that he got wrong, but I've detailed my opinions of that elsewhere. At any rate, enough ranting. I'm afraid that literati conceits are a hot-button for me.

As for the animal servants in the "Queer Lodgings" chapter of The Hobbit, I would certainly hope that they would be included in the film, especially if Beorn is going to change to a bear. Shapeshifters have so often been portrayed as evil, or having ulterior motives or untrustworthy that the loyalty of nature and of these animals, depending on how it is handled, would enhance the strangeness of the scene as well as landing Beorn on the side of good without having to change his gruff personality. Keeping the audience guessing as to his relative goodness or evil would enhance the eucatastrophic triumph of his arrival at the Battle of Five Armies.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

And besides..... making a buck ... is that not the decision JRRT himself made when he sold the film rights?

Perforce. Tolkien found himself in a potentially catastrophic situation in 1968-9: nominally wealthy enough to fall into the top tax bracket (96%), he didn't actually have the cash to pay his monstrous bill from the Inland Revenue. He had to raise some dosh immediately, and UA was interested in providing it.

Having sold out, however, Tolkien was entirely satisfied that (at least during his lifetime) the movies would never be made, which was thoroughly to his liking.

Please don't make the error of confusing Tolkien's "cash or kudos" attitude during the negotiations with Ackerman in the Fifties with what transpired with UA a decade later (an episode on which the published Letters are entirely silent). While in 1958 he was certainly not averse to income, having a meagre retirement looming, he was nonetheless able to walk away when neither Art nor Cash were on offer. In 1968, although indubitably richer, he was also desperate, and in no position to hold out.

[Sauron the White]

Outside of the independent rich the vast vast majority of us needs cash for all kinds of various purposes. Tolkien was no better or no worse in that regard. We all have to pay our taxes and our bills. I still wonder about the ethics of selling somebody something which you feel is actually worthless and which cannot be actualized or realized.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

However, whether Tolkien sold the film rights eagerly, or only when forced by circumstances, is entirely relevant to the question as to whether, given his druthers, he wanted to see film adaptations made.

[Morwen]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Outside of the independent rich the vast vast majority of us needs cash for all kinds of various purposes. Tolkien was no better or no worse in that regard. We all have to pay our taxes and our bills. I still wonder about the ethics of selling somebody something which you feel is actually worthless and which cannot be actualized or realized.

As long as you're not misrepresenting the nature of what you're selling, what does it matter if you personally regard it is worthless?

[Sauron the White]

However, whether Tolkien sold the film rights eagerly, or only when forced by circumstances, is entirely relevant to the question as to whether, given his druthers, he wanted to see film adaptations made.

He eagerly cashed the check and spent the money knowing full well what he was doing of his own free will and with a sound mind. He said he would go for art or cash and he selected cash. He knew that the deal he entered into gave away the film rights to both THE HOBBIT and LOTR in perpetuity and allowing him no involvement or say of any kind. His sale of the film rights, under the terms he entered into freely, gave the holders, and in turn Peter Jackson, the right to make any changes he saw fit with the full authorization and approval of JRRT.

Given the tremendous increase in the sales of LOTR over the past six years, I am reasonably confident that - had the Professor been alive now - he would have a very broad smile upon his face every time he cashed a royalty check for book sales that were many times what he had been used to. The movies would have put a smile on his face, a skip in his step and a song in his heart. The movies would have given him millions of reasons to celebrate their success.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

He said he would go for art or cash and he selected cash.

Please reread my post above- don't confuse the "Art or Cash" era with the situation ten years later.

When the Earl of Fluteney is forced by confiscatory taxation to make over his ancestral home to the National Trust, does that mean he wanted to do it? Of course not. If it were up to him he'd continue living there, and pass it in turn to his son. Don't claim that a decision taked under duress is voluntary, any more than signing that contract with Luca Brazzi's gun to your temple.

[Sauron the White]

With all due respect sir, that is a huge line of malarkey. JRRT darn well knew the laws of paying taxes since he had been doing it for some time. Nobody .... nobody .... nobody forced him to sell his film rights.

Please tell me why his LETTERS do not apply? He clearly said art or cash? If anything, what had changed is that he became even more concerned about cash in his waning years and cared less about the art side of the issue.

Quite frankly I do not give a hoot about some Earl or Baron or upper crust landed piece of royalty and their tax problems. Must be tough to sell off a few thousand acres of something you inherited and never worked for a day in your life to purchase. I could not care less about that.

JRRT was a college professor who had the advice of his publisher and access to legal advice and assistance. His LETTERS clearly and without any doubt state what his choices were and he acted of his own free will like any citizen.

Lets face it, we all know that the power of the government could come down upon us if we do not obey the laws be it taxation or anything else. Why is JRRT any different than the common person? Answer: he is not.

Perhaps you believe that the upper classes or the better people have more rights and should get more benefits than us uncouth mouth breathers? If so, I have no sympathy with that elitist attitude.

JRRT was of sound mind and body when he signed that films rights contract. He needed money. Big deal. We all do. And we all do what we have to do to meet our legal obligations. That is not duress or force. Its called real life and being a man without whining about it.

[Aiwendil]

Sauron the White: I think you may have missed the point.

The argument was this: The fact that JRRT needed the money and thus sold the film rights doesn't mean that he gave up the right to have an opinion on future adaptations. As indeed his reaction to the Zimmerman script shows.

[Sauron the White]

Aiwendil said

The fact that JRRT needed the money and thus sold the film rights doesn't mean that he gave up the right to have an opinion on future adaptations.

Of course one always has the right to their opinion. Unless one signs a contract with a clause that demands their silence, an opinion is free and interfers with nobody else or their rights or property. I imagine one could argue that one sells total rights to someone else and cashes the check and spends the money, decency and propriety may demand that you take a low profile regarding the other persons exercising of their rights. After all, you did sign the deal and give them complete control in perpetuity. But that is a matter of individual decision.

I think Hemingway had it right. He said that the best way to sell a book to a film studio was on an otherwise deserted beach at midnight. The author tosses the book towards the producer while he in turn tosses a briefcase filled with cash to the author. Then the two never bother each other again.

[Meriadoc1961]

TheGreatElvenWarrior wrote:

"Hmmm... that is a good point, but I didn't think of Tom as a reincarnation of Iluvatar, he gives hope to the Hobbits though. Especially when they got trapped by the Barrow-wight, and he also saved them... now I wouldn't want to be trapped in a plane for a flight that has some long hours with Frodo, but not with Bombadil."

The reason I wrote that Tom was an incarnation of Iluvatar (Eru) is because of the exchange Frodo has with Tom:

"Who are you, Master?" he asked

"Eh, what?" said Tom sitting up, and his eyes glinting in the gloom. "Don't you know my name yet? That's the only answer. Tell me, who are you, alone, yourself and nameless? But you are young and I am old. Eldest, that's what I am. mark my words, my friends: Tom was here before the river and the trees; Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn. He made paths before the Big People, and saw the little People arriving. He was here before the Kings and the graves and the Barrow-wights. When the Elves passed westward, Tom was here already. He knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless -- before the Dark Lord came from Outside."

Additionally, this exchange took place between Frodo and Goldberry which also influenced my opinion that Tom was an incarnation of Iluvatar:

"Fair lady!" said Frodo again after a while. "Tell me, if my asking does not seem foolish, who is Tom Bombadil??

"He is," said Goldberry. staying her swift movements and smiling.

Later on she continues by saying, "Tom Bombadil is the Master."

"He has no fear. Tom Bombadil is master."

Now compare this to a conversation that Moses had with God in Exodus 3:13-15. Tolkien was heavily influenced by the Bible as he was a Catholic:

And Moses said unto God, "Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me unto you'; and they shall say to me, 'What is His name? What shall I say unto them?'

And God said unto Moses, "I AM THAT I AM": and He said, "Thus shall you say unto the children of Israel, 'I AM has sent me unto you.'"

And God said moreover unto Moses, "Thus shall you say unto the children of Israel, 'Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me unto you': this is My name forever, and this is My memorial unto all generations."

So we have God telling Moses, "I AM THAT I AM." Goldberry says in reference to Tom, "He is."


Merry

[Sauron the White]

Tolkien was heavily influenced by the Bible as he was a Catholic:

As someone born and raised Catholic complete with 12 years in a Catholic school, I can tell you that of all the Christian faiths the Catholic Church depends less on the Bible than most other faiths. It means far more to various Protestant sects.

Of course, Tokien could have been very heavy on the Bible. Perhaps someone does know this and can set it straight. I just wanted to correct the impression that because he was a Catholic it would make sense that he was then heavilly influenced by the Bible. The two do not necessarily go together.

[Meriadoc1961]

Sauron the White,

That was a very honest admission. I thank you for your forthrightness.

Tolkien was very much responsible for converting his good friend, C. S. Lewis, out of atheism, as they met weekly with other men at a local pub. This is part of my reasoning that Tom was an incarnation of Iluvatar, just as I see Gandalf, Aragorn and Frodo all as messiah figures, but that should probably be discussed in another thread.

Merry

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Perhaps someone does know this and can set it straight. I just wanted to correct the impression that because he was a Catholic it would make sense that he was then heavilly influenced by the Bible. The two do not necessarily go together.

If you're looking for literary influences I'd say the Bible is a long way down the list.

Beowulf, The Eddas, The Kalevala, The Mabinogion, the Icelandic Sagas, the works of William Morris & fairy stories generally were all far greater influences.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Perhaps you believe that the upper classes or the better people have more rights and should get more benefits than us uncouth mouth breathers? If so, I have no sympathy with that elitist attitude.

Then let's use another example: if an impoverished HIV-positive mother in Africa finds she cannot possibly care for another baby, and then a wealthy Hollywood celebrity offers to buy -er - "pay an adoption fee for" her child, and in her desperation she accepts: is that really voluntary?

You can pick any analogy or hypothetical you like: people in financial distress find themselves forced -yes, forced- to hock or sell prized possessions thay would not willingly part with.

Some indication of Tolkien's desperation can be seen from the terms, or rather the absent terms- he retained no creative control, or assurances of "art;" nor was he able to include the permanent ban on sale to Disney he wanted; nor really was there much Cash: although UA paid $250,000, Tolkien only received 10 grand, the rest (96%) being taxed away: and of course the 10k he realized went to pay the original taxes.

Moreover, his recorded statement at the time reinforces the essential point- Tolkien didn't *want* movies made of his books.

[Sauron the White]

WCH - I do not want to get nailed again for being off topic. But it seems like many internet discussions, this would come down to a definition of things like "Coercion... voluntary .... force" and those other things key to the discussion.

I simply see Tolkien as absolutely no different than any other person in the world who has wants and needs and has a reason to obtain cash to satisfy them. I see ones tax obligation as no different than ones food bill, utilities, or clothing bills. Its all on the side of the accounting ledger labeled as EXPENSES.

We could argue all day as to if JRRT wanted movies made of his books. There is one simple fact here which stands above the others in this discussion. JRRT did indeed sell the film rights under very broad conditions which turned out not to be very favorable to him. He did what he did and nobody held Lucca Brazi's gun to his head.

What I do find interesting is that you quote a figure of $250,000.00 paid to JRRT. That is the highest estimate I have seen. I find it quite interesting that Saul Zaentz was able to purchase these rights for $10,000.00 (I think that is the right figure - anyone have a different one?) a relatively short time later. Maybe the idea took hold that the movies were unfilmable and Zaeltz got himself one of the best deals since the purchase of Manhattan island.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Zaentz has indeed boasted that his purchase of the Tolkien rights was a bargain which has profited him greatly. Shortly after the projected John Boorman version fizzled out, UA was bought out by TransAmerica, which promptly fired most of its executives, including those behind the Tolkien deal. New management regarded the LR and Hobbit rights as wasted money, and were happy to unload them for whatever they could get.

The traditional figure for Tolkien's sale for years has been $10,000. However, about the time FR came out, the Times of London reported that the true contract price was $250,000 (actually they reported 103,000 pounds.)

Both 'traditions' are correct. A quarter-million is what UA paid, and 10 grand is what Tolkien got- the difference going to HM Government.


*******

Tolkien's attitude can be illustrated as well by an account of his seeing a school stage production of The Hobbit in Oxford which he had given permission for (without seeing the script). He apparently enjoyed himself greatly and smiled broadly when his own dialogue and incidents were enacted; but scowled and muttered under his breath at deviation and 'invention.'

[Lord Halsar]

By God! This thread has certainly gotten off topic in more places than I can list!