BRAVE (Spoiler Alert)

[Walter Baker]

Went to see BRAVE today (in3D)

Had to be the best 3D animation I have ever seen,

the Hair, the Cloth, Water all mind boggling when I think of how they did it.

After working with AM these past few years it boggles my mind as to the amount of work and time it took.

Great story, great characters, and great animating.

Just sayin' !!!!

[robcat2075]

OK, you sold me! I'll go see it

[Darkwing]

I've been so excited for this one, mainly cause it's an original again and not just a sequel. Have yet to see it though but am looking forward to it

[fae_alba]

just got back from Brave...I'm a big fan of Pixar in general, but I've got to say that Brave was incredible. I had some misgivings at first, just because of the "Scottish-ness" of the theme. Being Scottish, and having published a literary magazine based on Scotland, I'm a bit sensitive to throwing stereotypes around. But the entertainment that this movie offered was in typical Pixar fashion, perfect. The animation was off the wall, and I did find myself saying to myself, yeah A:M could do that...but then trying to imagine doing that for a feature length movie is mind boggling.

 

Go see it, enjoy it...I did!

[thejobe]

i been dying to see it.... now i have to see it like right now....

[KenH]

I've heard bad reviews about it....it gets a bit too childish later on? But I may go see it now.

[Roger]

I went and saw it, I thought it was ok as far as Pixar fare goes. I didn't like it as much as Up! or Wall-E, for instance.

But still, "ok" for Pixar is someone else's blockbuster

[largento]

Just got back from it and really enjoyed it. Once again, it's astonishing to see what they can achieve. I fantasized about what it would be like to sit Walt Disney down in front of it and put a pair of 3D glasses on him. :-)

 

I thought the movie worked quite well. Beyond the astonishing craft of it, it was fast-paced and nicely constructed. I've heard there were folks who didn't find the main character sympathetic, but I had no problem there. I thought she had a ton of charm, especially in the sequences when she's a young child.

 

I watched it in 3D on a big screen (Cinemark's brand of IMAX) and thought the 3D worked very well for submerging you into the environment.

 

Wasn't expecting to see the trailer for the first Hobbit movie, so that was a neat surprise.

[Roger]

Ah crap. Hobbit Trailer? Now I gotta go see it again

[largento]

It was the same one that's been out since December. Just my first time seeing it on the big screen in 3D.

[Gerry]

Just came from the theatre and wow! totally gorgeous throughout and a good story, great character design and some crackling animation and storytelling. Nice especially that the women and their relationship, and them working it out without men, were the focus.

 

As usual with Pixar I have some quibbles, but there were fewer than usual and the story worked together as a whole beautifully.

 

I think her horse Angus is my favorite character!

[MMZ_TimeLord]

My wife and I went to see Brave yesterday. I really think this is one of the best stories that Pixar has done yet. I felt the connection and the friction between the mother and daughter was VERY well developed.

 

Yes, there was some things in there for kids, but mostly this is there most mature story so far.

 

The animation was again a step up as well.

 

Cheers!

[Gerry]

I also meant to mention the FANTASTIC short, "La Lune". Nothing short of magical! What a stunning effort.

[Gerry]

I didn't see the Hobbit trailer. Was that in the usual previews or was it tucked in after the closing credits?

[ovni1]

With an endless well of resources {animators,computers and money} They are bound to put out a decent product.

[largento]

I didn't see the Hobbit trailer. Was that in the usual previews or was it tucked in after the closing credits?

 

Just along with the normal trailers. Thinking about it, I saw it on the XD (Extreme Digital) screen, which is Cinemark's response to the baby IMAX screens, so it's possible that the trailers they showed were picked by them to show off the format.

 

[EDIT] I just googled and it seems this *is* a new trailer attached to Brave, but it's almost exactly the same as the first one.

[Darkwing]

I didn't see the Hobbit trailer. Was that in the usual previews or was it tucked in after the closing credits?

 

Just a piece of trivia regarding trailers. Not every cinema shows the same set of trailers. They're dictated by the release studios usually as to who will play what trailers. Areas of similar population/target audience will receive similar trailers, but here in Nova Scotia for instance, there will be regions that may not play the Hobbit for instance. And on the note of the Hobbit, I seriously think that might be one of my all time favourite teasers ever made. No really, there's just something about it, the tone change part way through and the fact it is exactly what it's supposed to be - a teaser.

[Roger]

Believe it or not, I haven't seen any movies since the fall. Just recently I went and saw Prometheus, Brave, and Abe Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.

I would only recommend going to see the last 2, btw

 

I guess I'll have to look for The Hobbit trailer online.

[Gerry]

I did find the Hobbit trailer online and it's just great! One key thing that was missing from the Rings trilogy, was I remembered from the books that they frequently got together and sang their ancient songs by firelight. I missed that touch in the movies. Nice to see it in the Hobbit trailer.

[robcat2075]

I saw "Brave" and "Abe Lincoln" today.

 

I enjoyed "Brave", it's visually rich, but i never lost myself in it. The Pixar magic may be gone. I loved the witch character.

 

I need to re-watch "Brother Bear" to see how much got re-used here.

 

Like many people, I will wonder what the original vision of this movie was that they had to abandon.

 

"Abe Lincoln:Vampire Hunter" I liked too. Great idea, but I was hoping for something more amusing. I like that there's absolutely no attempt to be even-handed in its characterization of The South; no attempt to toss a bone to the idea that they had some noble cause behind them.

 

"La Luna" was cute, but took a long time to get to the punch line and i had guessed already by the time I got to it. Supposedly these shorts are testing grounds for new things? I wonder what was "new" in this.

[largento]

I vaguely remember Brother Bear, but wasn't it the protagonist who gets turned into a bear in that one?

 

I saw Prometheus and thought it was pretty amazing to look at, but the story and performances didn't support it very well. It was very cool to see the "pilot" from Alien come to life and I dug that they visually resembled the Greek ideal. I've read that some felt there were giant plot holes, but I felt like the characters too often explained too much ...more than they could possibly know from the evidence available to them. There seemed to be a question if Charlize Theron's character was a synthetic and I wonder if her demise was meant to say that she was ...saying that as a robot she could only run in a straight line. I'll watch it again on home video, I'm sure.

 

Saw "The Amazing Spider-Man" yesterday and was surprised by how much I enjoyed it. I really didn't see the point of rebooting the series (except for financial reasons, of course), but it did seem fresher and there is the thrill of web-swinging in 3-D. Don't know that I agreed with rephrasing Uncle Ben's immortal line, but I was okay with them finding a more condensed way to deal with Peter's non-action leading to Uncle Ben's death. The fight between the Lizard and Spidey at the top of the tower made this comic book geek flash back to Neal Adams' cover to "Superman vs. the Amazing Spider-Man."

 

Have we really gotten so old that Sally Fields gets cast as Aunt May? :-)

[robcat2075]

The old Disney formula was to re-issue a film every 10 years or so. Now you "re-boot" it. They are remaking "total recall"? Was there demand for that?

 

I never got around to seeing the first set of Spiderman films.

 

The Hobbit trailers stirred nothing in me either. I think you got to be big fan of these things.

[Fuchur]

The old Disney formula was to re-issue a film every 10 years or so. Now you "re-boot" it. They are remaking "total recall"? Was there demand for that?

 

I never got around to seeing the first set of Spiderman films.

 

The Hobbit trailers stirred nothing in me either. I think you got to be big fan of these things.

 

The new spiderman is better than the "old" once.. (actually it is a different story-line, since this is the "Amazing Spiderman").

I liked the cast better of the first one so. Peter Parker (Tony Maquier) was better casted. He looked quite equal to the comics.

The new one however is more realistic and just looks better (of course).

 

And the good thing about it: The first movies are a little too much repeating the motivations. It is always Oncle Bens "with big powers comes big ..."

The comics tended to be like that too, but it is less annoying in a comic which comes out every week and can be read once a week than in a movie...

The new movie is better there too.

 

If you like superheroes, the new spiderman is worth watching. (I like it better than the Avengers (I just dont see why it has been hyped that much)

but it is less good than the Badman Movies or IronMan).

 

See you

*Fuchur*

[robcat2075]

Something I've noticed in these period movies like "Abraham Lincoln" and "The Assassination of Jesse James" is how they go all out for wavy antique glass in windows. I've got wavy antique glass in my house (1920) but what I'm seeing in these films is way beyond that.

 

I think I've read once that this is done in post. They have regular or no glass in the windows when they shoot and then rotoscope the distortion in later.

[Gerry]

They are remaking "total recall"? Was there demand for that?

That's an excellent question!

[Roger]

I do not see any point to a Total Recall remake, to be honest. Although I did like the look of the city that I saw in the trailer, I thought it had a very noir look as compared to the original.

 

Prometheus had so much promise but I thought they made the characters a bit idiotic. "Durh, I think I'm gonna touch this face-raping eel here, durh!"

 

I guess what bothered me most about Brave was it just didn't seem like a Pixar caliber film. It wasn't bad, just not what I'm used to seeing from them. They can't all be Wall-E, I guess.

 

I don't know that I want to go see Spiderman, I can't see anyone else in that role but Toby McGuire. Did he tick someone off, or was he getting too old to play the character?

 

Interesting bit of trivia about glass: it is actually still in a fluid state even when cool, so over time it flows very slowly (which is why in really old houses you get that wavy glass effect).

Don't know what would account for this in new construction in the late 1800s, unless glass manufacturing just wasn't very refined back then?

[robcat2075]

I guess what bothered me most about Brave was it just didn't seem like a Pixar caliber film. It wasn't bad, just not what I'm used to seeing from them. They can't all be Wall-E, I guess.

 

It seems like the Disney films we were getting tired of in the late 90's, but without the songs.

 

 

 

Interesting bit of trivia about glass: it is actually still in a fluid state even when cool, so over time it flows very slowly (which is why in really old houses you get that wavy glass effect).

Don't know what would account for this in new construction in the late 1800s, unless glass manufacturing just wasn't very refined back then?

 

The theory of flowing glass is often presented but in reality glass is a solid and doesn't flow. A proof of that is the many old telescopes from the 19th century that have their original lenses and mirrors which are much larger and heavier than a pane of window glass and still retain the accurate shapes they were ground to.

 

Antique glass is wavy because that was the best they could do in a mass manufacturing situation. Flattening molten glass between rollers was typical in "Abe Lincoln" times. Sometime around 1950 they came up with floating a layer of molten glass on molten tin which gives a nearly perfectly flat surface.

[Roger]

I guess what bothered me most about Brave was it just didn't seem like a Pixar caliber film. It wasn't bad, just not what I'm used to seeing from them. They can't all be Wall-E, I guess.

 

It seems like the Disney films we were getting tired of in the late 90's, but without the songs.

 

 

 

Interesting bit of trivia about glass: it is actually still in a fluid state even when cool, so over time it flows very slowly (which is why in really old houses you get that wavy glass effect).

Don't know what would account for this in new construction in the late 1800s, unless glass manufacturing just wasn't very refined back then?

 

The theory of flowing glass is often presented but in reality glass is a solid and doesn't flow. A proof of that is the many old telescopes from the 19th century that have their original lenses and mirrors which are much larger and heavier than a pane of window glass and still retain the accurate shapes they were ground to.

 

Antique glass is wavy because that was the best they could do in a mass manufacturing situation. Flattening molten glass between rollers was typical in "Abe Lincoln" times. Sometime around 1950 they came up with floating a layer of molten glass on molten tin which gives a nearly perfectly flat surface.

 

Yep, you are right. Wikipedia pretty much confirms what you said verbatim, although in a more verbose fashion:

 

Glass is an amorphous solid. It exhibits an atomic structure close to that observed in the supercooled liquid phase but displays all the mechanical properties of a solid.[35][39] The notion that glass flows to an appreciable extent over extended periods of time is not supported by empirical research or theoretical analysis (see viscosity of amorphous materials).

 

Although the atomic structure of glass shares characteristics of the structure in a supercooled liquid, glass tends to behave as a solid below its glass transition temperature.[40] A supercooled liquid behaves as a liquid, but it is below the freezing point of the material, and in some cases will crystallize almost instantly if a crystal is added as a core. The change in heat capacity at a glass transition and a melting transition of comparable materials are typically of the same order of magnitude, indicating that the change in active degrees of freedom is comparable as well. Both in a glass and in a crystal it is mostly only the vibrational degrees of freedom that remain active, whereas rotational and translational motion is arrested. This helps to explain why both crystalline and non-crystalline solids exhibit rigidity on most experimental time scales.

 

[edit] Behavior of antique glass

 

The observation that old windows are sometimes found to be thicker at the bottom than at the top is often offered as supporting evidence for the view that glass flows over a timescale of centuries. The assumption being that the glass was once uniform, but has flowed to its new shape, which is a property of liquid.[41] However, this assumption is incorrect; once solidified, glass does not flow anymore. The reason for the observation is that in the past, when panes of glass were commonly made by glassblowers, the technique used was to spin molten glass so as to create a round, mostly flat and even plate (the crown glass process, described above). This plate was then cut to fit a window. The pieces were not, however, absolutely flat; the edges of the disk became a different thickness as the glass spun. When installed in a window frame, the glass would be placed with the thicker side down both for the sake of stability and to prevent water accumulating in the lead cames at the bottom of the window.[42] Occasionally such glass has been found thinner side down or thicker on either side of the window's edge, the result of carelessness during installation.[43]

 

Mass production of glass window panes in the early twentieth century caused a similar effect. In glass factories, molten glass was poured onto a large cooling table and allowed to spread. The resulting glass is thicker at the location of the pour, located at the center of the large sheet. These sheets were cut into smaller window panes with nonuniform thickness, typically with the location of the pour centred in one of the panes (known as "bull's-eyes") for decorative effect. Modern glass intended for windows is produced as float glass and is very uniform in thickness.

 

Not sure where I heard the "flows over time" theory, if it was an old science teacher or maybe a "science" type show on cable. Guess it pays to check these things

[MikeV]

I haven't seen it yet, but am going to. Definitely. Probably on DVD. I hate movie theaters.

 

I came to the conclusion a long time ago that the folks at Pixar are alien geniuses from another dimension. I think "Alien Song" was Victor Navone trying to get the message to Pixar, "I'm an alien, and I can animate. Hire me".

 

And they did.

 

So, yeah, my theory stands up -nodnod-.

[Rodney]

(Warning: Possible spoilers)

 

I finally got a chance to see 'Brave' a few days ago.

 

Of course I was impressed. Who wouldn't be?

Everything looked beautiful.

 

There is one aspect of the movie that seemed a bit awkward and I'm not sure exactly how to pin it down. This is somewhat represented in the form of the witch who granted the wish to Merida. She is introduced, does her required stuff to move the plot along in the required direction and then disappears from the show. Because her limited time on screen was so eclectic and interesting that left a desire to see more of her.

 

This then represents what I consider a recurring theme throughout the film, that many of the characters were there for us to see but not fully formed. This even extends to the main characters who have in a way only one purpose for being there... to support the story.

 

Now, this might not be a complete negative if one considers fragmentary works; books, sequels, comics and other things that return to or continue the story. In this sense the weakness of the film could become an asset later on. The underlying premise is simple: While we enjoy meeting new characters we tend to enjoy revisiting the characters we already know even more.

 

What the audience is really interested in (although they may not know it) is the relationships between the characters. Story may be king but the characters always drive that story. Weak characters equate to a weak story. The characters in Brave were fascinating but I'm not convinced we really get to know them. This even extends to the villain of the piece who should represent something of a sympathetic character. Perhaps I'll get the chance to get to know them better in subsequent viewings of the movie.

 

As a test of this I'm trying to think back on the relationship between any/all of the characters.

For me those relationships are mostly superficial and therefore hard to pinpoint.

 

'Brave' might be the perfect movie if it were the second movie in a trilogy.

Perhaps the first could be "Just Curious" and to heighten the tension, "Really Afraid!" could be the third.

At least then we'd get to meet the witch again.

 

PIXAR is making it hard for themselves when they focus too much on the framework of a story. How to structure a story is pretty well known.

The focus should be closer to: 'We find our characters first, then we help them tell their stories.'

 

Okay, having said all of that what else can I say. It was a great movie. I enjoyed it tremendously.

"Go See Brave!"

 

Added: One simple addition would have made a major difference in my view on this film's characterizations; if they would have had the witch show up at the very end. It could have been something as simple as her returning to her cabin with a smirk or a smile saying, "What the heck happened in here?" or better yet something that would engage the imagination and make you curious about what might draw these characters together again.

[Kamikaze]

Saw it, impressive animation but did NOT like the story ...... very boring to me after 30 minutes in.

[Gerry]

You make some good points, Rodney. I really did enjoy it, but there's something about it that feels "unfinished" that I couldn't put my finger on, even enough to complain about it. Too many characters that seemed to be incomplete somehow, and something about the whole thing feeling "rushed", maybe too overstuffed with characters?

Maybe it SHOULD have been a trilogy!

 

The old witch did come off as a plot device more than anything, and I really enjoyed her character; as fully developed as she was, she really deserved an arc of her own. And as much as I sort-of enjoyed the triplets and their shenanigans, I found it off-putting that they were completely mute.

 

But having said all that, I would recommend it to anyone without hesitation.

[Rodney]

Saw it, impressive animation but did NOT like the story ...... very boring to me after 30 minutes in.

 

I must assume that one reason you didn't stay interested in the story (assuming there was something to interest you in the first place) is that you could not identify with the characters.

 

Trying to dissect the film tends to take the fun out of it but given that we are all interested in storytelling here it can be of benefit to conduct post mortems on stories to determine what worked for us and what did not.

 

Brave was an interesting film on many levels. My mind started wandering at several points. It was almost as if falling asleep for a moment and then suddenly waking up and hoping you hadn't missed something important. That's why I'm analyzing it a little here. I want to know why I didn't like it more.

 

Because I am exploring my own thoughts on the film I'm not entirely sure if those thoughts will stick with me in the long term. Not unlike watching Disney's 'Princess and the Frog' I didn't like the story much the first viewing but enjoyed it a lot more and more with each successive viewing.

 

My thinking is that I didn't fully connect with the characters actions, thoughts, feelings and motivations. As I said above, it was as if they were just there because someone had to relate the story.

 

Now don't get me wrong.. there were some golden character driven moments in the movie. I just find myself wondering why there seemed to be so little follow up or follow through.

 

The list of shortfalls in that follow through appears to especially effect each supporting character:

 

- The Triplets (on the surface they were almost indistinguishable from each other)

- The Horse (A best friend but easily forgotten in the grander scheme of the story)

- The Will-o-the-Wisp (Cool 'characters' that we never get to know)

- The Witch (ditto)

- Villain (we get only a few very brief glimpses)

- Mom and Dad (fun at times but mostly cookie-cut cardboard)

- Merida's Suitors (interesting but almost impossible to root for)

(I'll stop there but we could continue)

 

I have a golden rule I suggest all storytellers apply to their stories and it is this: For each character that is introduced the filmmaker must say, "This story is about this character" and then play that story all the way through. Of course eventually the film will be primary about one character but this will ensure that all the supporting roles will also ring true. And moreover the audience will connect with them too. This should be the case even when a character is seen only once, however briefly, in the movie.

 

Theme? I'm not sure what that was in the film.

Perhaps it was, "Be happy with where you are or you will hurt the ones you love. You don't really want to do that... to change your fate... do you?"

Personally I think it might have been, "If you poison your Mom with sweet cakes you'll regret it."

[robcat2075]

I also felt the witch was the best part. I'm surprised i haven't seen more buzz about her. Maybe she'll show up in some DVD extras.

 

Brave is another one of those movies that got a major rewrite halfway through and they even fired a director. I guess their luck with that workflow has run out.

 

I'm wondering if we'll look back and see Toy Story 3 as the end of the Pixar golden age? Since then, Cars 2 and Brave have been OK movies but not the thought-provoking works that just about everything before them was.

[Rodney]

Maybe she'll show up in some DVD extras.

 

There is no doubt but that she will.

I'm willing to bet she had more of a role in earlier story tests. But then again, due to the preproduction nature of story development all the characters tend to get delved into with a great deal of details that never get into the final movie.

 

Her performance is a fairly close echo back to Disney's "Sword in the Stone" with Madame Medusa but without the conflict that made the that movie's sequence so memorable. She was such an interesting character they could have made the movie about her! The real echo however is that both characters were barely seen in the movie.

 

I'm wondering if we'll look back and see Toy Story 3 as the end of the Pixar golden age? Since then, Cars 2 and Brave have been OK movies but not the thought-provoking works that just about everything before them was.

 

I think we are cursed to do that primarily because pre-Toy Story 3 represents simpler times and because of the constraints of the times simpler characters and stories. The importance of resistance cannot be overstated. The constraints of a system require us to innovative as we move forward.

 

It'd be interesting to see what is going on behind locked doors at PIXAR as they try to reinvent themselves. Of course to see it would likely be to ruin it. We do get to see into the future a little through the products of the smaller teams PIXAR assigns to their short films such as 'Luna'.

 

Added: I hope no one sees my post mortem outlined here as a negative because they'd be getting a very wrong impression about what I thought about the film. Think Ed Catmull here... who is adamant about conducting post mortems on every film they produce so that they can learn as much as they can and use that to improve the next movie. This is one of the major reasons why they are so successful. I'll note for the record that I'm not pessimistic at all about PIXAR and I see Brave as yet another great movie for them. They have every right to be proud of it.

[Gerry]

I think Pixar still has a lot of steam left and we'll continue to be amazed by them. However, they seem to start piling too much into their stories because they *can*, and then a lot of details sort of get away from them because of that.

 

The comments about the witch sort of remind me of the wacky costume-maker in "The Incredibles" (name escapes me). She didn't have an enormous amount of screen time but she was fully developed and did have an arc, but only because she had two major scenes, and ultimately she "wanted" something, which sort of helps define the character arc. The witch had just the one scene if I recall, so there was no room for development of an arc for her.

 

Probably, as Rodney said, there was more to her role in earlier versions.

[Shelton]

Gerry, Edna Mode. Loved her

[zandoriastudios]

It would have been a better story, in my opinion, if Merida's mom was killed in the castle, while in bear form! (maybe by her own father) The Clans go to war, Merida runs away in disgrace and horror at what she's done....Now long redemption arc, where essentially a changed Merida has to find a way to end the war, unite the clans, and assume a role (her mother's) that she hated at the beginning of the story.

[robcat2075]

It would have been a better story, in my opinion, if Merida's mom was killed in the castle, while in bear form! (maybe by her own father) The Clans go to war, Merida runs away in disgrace and horror at what she's done....Now long redemption arc, where essentially a changed Merida has to find a way to end the war, unite the clans, and assume a role (her mother's) that she hated at the beginning of the story.

 

That sounds good.

 

 

I wonder what the original story was.

[Gerry]

I love that storyline William!

[Rodney]

I wonder what the original story was.

 

Folks have started to talk about Brenda's departure (She now has a job working for George Lucas).

 

There have been two articles posted recently that mention Brenda's take on Brave (one at Cartoon Brew and one at the TAG blog). Both are short but seem to imply that much of the story stayed the same. One major change from Brenda's take was that hers took place in the winter and there was tons of snow. Interestingly there's not a hint of snow in the final version. I'm not sure how much weight all these reports can be given but one of the articles suggests that Scotland lobbied PIXAR to make the environment green and beautiful and more inviting. A co-worker who worked on both suggested that one reason Brenda was let go is that she refused to budge/compromise on some aspects of the film that were deemed very difficult to produce. With all of the hair and water and such I'm finding it hard to figure out what they were. I can't imagine it was ice and snow.

 

Apparently Brenda has an article published in the New York Times that talks about her departure.

 

Added: The fact that Brenda based the story on her relationship with her daughter pretty much explains why the queen couldn't have been killed as Will outlines. That'd surely break that mother-daughter bond.

 

REF:

http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/2012/08/brenda.html

http://www.cartoonbrew.com/animators/brend...e-in-op-ed.html

 

Here's the New York Times article about standing up for yourself and mentoring others:

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/...d-mentor-others

[Rodney]

General conjecture follows...

 

It seems to me that one of the changes to the earlier version of 'Brave', namely that of removing all of the ice and snow, was to better separate and emphasize the too similar environment in Disney's upcoming movie (currently titled) 'Frozen'. This would also at least partially explain why for a time 'Frozen' was placed on hold (Disney and PIXAR had two movies in the pipeline that were too similar*). With 'Brave' no longer being set in that cold winter climate this allowed Disney to not only retool from handdrawn to CG but to leverage what they had already learned about that environment, incorporate it into the next movie and even extend the timeframe they until the theatrical release for 'Frozen'. Brenda no doubt would resist this move as politically/economically motivated and because it worked against the artistic vision of 'her' movie.

 

End conjecture.

 

 

*The primary reason Frozen was placed on hold being that it was hand drawn and that wasn't the way they wanted it to go.