I wish Marvel's animated films/shows were as well-planned and high quality as <snip> DC's animated universe.
This is something I agree with, although much of the greatness of the latter is - from what I can tell - predominantly due to the foundation laid by Bruce Timm/Paul Dini (and the excellent work in laying the foundation with the team from Batman tAS, including Radomski, Kane, Finger, MacCurdy, and Ruegger*).
So basically the TAS people, to start with.
(I suppose there have been other successes, as well, but the DCAU seems to be the largest of them, from what I can tell?)
From what I can tell, Marvel's never really gotten that kind of team together: they've done some good stuff, too (at least I enjoyed it), but it's never quite developed into the DC-level stuff.
But yes: if there was an internally consistent, amazing set-up by Marvel that mimicked the DC one, I'd be over the moon.
(But mostly just because: "More awesome superhero stuff!" instead of "Down with DC/up with Marvel!" 'cause the DCAU is seriously awesome, and I am entirely uninterested in diminishing that.)
* I'm pretty sure there were different writers, but I don't recall them, at present. But add those folk, too.
The last solid animation from Marvel was Avengers:EMH.
Clean art with tight interpretations of classic and current popular comic stories.
What they replaced it with in Avengers Assemble is just a poorly written attempt to draw from the film's audience and to ill effect.
Can't ever deny DCAU its cred. Young Justice was an extraordinary followup but DC has yet to return to that level of excellence since.
DC's adaptations of classic stories to animation films often annoy me for the things that they change about the stories. Most of those changes appear driven by marketing more than any creative improvement to the stories.
Marvel's latest computer animated films are so much filler. No substance or story worth telling and just look so much like MTV Spider-man it hurts.
For those interested, Movie Bob has been doing a comprehensive series recapping all of Marvel's TV animation, breaking them down roughly by decade:
60s/70s | 80s | 90s(part I)
Part II of the 90's will come out this week.
(Regarding Ang Lee vs Ed Norton Hulk's: it's interesting to note that as critically panned as Lee's non-MCU Hulk was, Incredible only made $1.5 million more than it domestically. That's not a huge margin.)
Back to Guardians for a moment...
I was digging around previous posts and I found this in the Agents of SHIELD thread... possibly WAY OFF TOPIC for the thread and I'm not sure how it got there...
but on May 29 this happened:
references after credit scene for GotG:
SeeDarkly_X wrote:
LazarX wrote:
... I'm fairly sure the movie [GotG] is going to be a failure on the scale of the Green Lantern movie, both in terms of critical reception and at the box office...
[snip]
Yeah, it's the riskiest of Marvel Cinematic Universe films thus far, no question. But their foundation is solid and GotG would have to be Howard the Duck to do as bad as Green Lantern did...
I've never read any of the source material. I'm just judging the movie on its own.
The movie was really about Tony Stark and his struggle of relating himself to the suit, figuring out what it meant to him. Then they layered a convoluted plot of bait and switch on top of that that just felt pointless.
The problem is that they spent this time building up the Mandarin, both in marketing and then in the story line. To pull the rug out from that on the AUDIENCE gives similar feelings of betrayal and mistrust. For this kind of movie, to remove my feelings of trust is a bad thing. Now I stop being invested and care less for the characters on screen, because the director has shown me overtly that he's toying with me.
Toying with the audience works for a lot of films. Inception is a movie built on the concept of manipulating perception and concealing the truth from the viewer (both in the movie and out). There, it works and is even expected. IM3 is not that kind of movie and going into that kind of area is dangerous and can backfire. It certainly did with me.
I still liked the movie, but only a little bit. I wasn't that interested in going back to the theater and haven't really cared to pick it up since it's out on DVD.
Let's make a distinction between "marketing" and "op-ed news-pieces."
Because for all the advertising and official statements Marvel made... I know I saw nothing that built up or guaranteed anything other than a "mystery" or "mystique" of the Mandarin. They never showed him in an action scene. Never showed or discussed the use of rings. Always left his presence vague.
I'll give you an example... in one interview Feige said of the Mandarin, "Assuming that he’s the one responsible for what happens to Tony’s house, no other villain has been able to strike that fast and that hard at one of our heroes." Note that he didn't say "When he attacks Tony's house." He says "assuming" which leaves possibilities wide open because all we'd seen in ads was the house being blown up. Not WHO did it.
But everywhere some unofficial source from people generating click-bait would aggregate the news, theorize the meaning, expand on the comic character's history, etc...
that exposure is not the fault of the movie makers.
So if something you saw along those lines carried with you and ruined what you expected of the film, I think it's worth it to be more critical of the "news-pieces" read online.
Because if Marvel says "We've cast Ben Kingsley as the Mandarin" and every Joe who knows how to use WordPress & thinks they are a journalist needs to fill their crappy 3000 word column of the day just so they can generate traffic enough to justify advertisers paying them for the chance of someone seeing their ad... you can bet most of what they write to fill that column with has little to do with anything official.
And many times it's poorly researched as well.
So in case of Feige's quote above, such a writer tends to turn that into something like, "So it looks like we'll see the Mandarin blow up the Stark mansion" and then the telephone game strips even more context after it's been aggregated and reaggregated.
A responsible journalist would take that quote and analyze it... probe into what is meant by "assuming" and not actually "assume" something that wasn't stated.
This is pretty well true of ALL news at this point. You really do have to examine the sources carefully. And if anyone takes Joe Wordpress at face value, that just isn't the fault or failing of the film maker.
Personally, as an audience member, I didn't feel betrayed at all. And the story also left the Mandarin so vague as to leave me questioning "why isn't he taking a more active role?"
So in that sense, what you feel was a backfire, thoroughly satisfied me.
Yeah, I get that it was well done. It was even an interesting twist. That's not the point. Nor was the point that you needed to know about the Mandarin.
The point was that the movie would have worked just as well with someone else in place of the Mandarin. Same plot, but with a new character or lower profile villain instead of the Mandarin. The only people that cared that it was the Mandarin were the comic geeks, who were the most likely to be upset by the reveal. If you don't know or care about the Mandarin except for some vague knowledge that he's an Iron Man villain, the twist is cool. If you go into the movie thinking "Awesome, I can't wait to see the Mandarin on the big screen", if that's part of what you're excited about for the movie, then you're going to be disappointed.
Mandarin is a classic Marvel villain. People like him. I like him. I wanted to see him versus Tony. Finding out it wasn't the Mandarin at all, but the lame extremis villain was a let down.
And now they're kind of screwed if they wanted to use him in another Iron Man movie. So, iconic Iron Man villain down the tubes.
But that is precisely why it DID work so well. Expectation.
And I get being disappointed because of an expectation based on unstated assumptions of what the character's inclusion might mean (ask me about Deathstroke on the cover New 52's Teen Titans some time) but this is a case where not only did they surprise us, they did so with the existing context and merits of the universe they created.
If what you wanted was a whole new villain? You ALSO got that!
Me? I went into the theater wondering: what are they going to do with the character & if they don't use the rings (always doubted they would) how can they make him interesting?
And making him a terrorist head of "The Ten Rings" gave you every indication that would be kind of all there was to it... until Trevor!
Even without the Blu-ray reveal, the story was solid and the way they did it entertained. If the Mandarin walked in and started ring-slinging, that might have been appealing for fan service, but also might not have made for the best story on film at this stage of the franchises development. Who can say? Doesn't hurt to give themselves somewhere else to go in a sequel.
And personally I love that they've built up the mythos of the character. They have absolutely left it open to bring him back in another film and even flush out the "True" Mandarin. To say they're screwed and can't do so now is just a limitation of imagination. It can be done.
I love Farscape. But I disagree that there is any intended inherent or formulaic parallel to it in Guardians.
Even if you can find defined archetypes in it, the characters and story are original and quite different from Farscape.
Sure, the "DNA" is present because nothing that exists now in the genre can say it wasn't influenced in some way by anything previous in the same genre.
But I would be careful about assigning too much similarity here when there isn't all that much.
Let it be itself more than an homage to something else and I think it satisfying in its own right.
Thor from the Earth X storyline was female. As I recall, Thor was made female in that continuity as a punishment from Odin, who was somehow still foolish enough to believe anything Loki said.
THANK YOU! Everywhere I see this discussion, no one seems to remember this!
For those needing a visual reference on the point... click here.
Scythia wrote:
This isn't even new, they just did the same thing recently by promoting Ms. Marvel to Captain Marvel. Which I might add wasn't just a title, the alien being who was originally Captain Marvel was so named because his name was Mar-vell. Meanwhile, the name Ms. Marvel was then handed off to a new character.
On the other hand, I don't mind either one bit.
Again illustrating how this is entirely not a wholly original idea. And I don't think it makes it bad... it's just not worthy of mass hysteria given we've already seen the actual Odinson and Loki both portrayed as a women in the past.
I brought this thought up elsewhere as well... on the point some have made about "why not just elevate an existing female character to her own title without making her "Thor."
Female counterparts to male heroes have been around a long time. (Though oddly not so much male counterparts to female heroines.)
But the truth is most female heroines who are NOT named after or similarly to a previously or currently known male hero, do not do entirely well as ongoing titles except in rare cases. If the current title Ms. Marvel were called anything else, I honestly don't think it would get the attention it has, despite its diversity and story. Likewise, I feel pretty confident that if the upcoming Thor title were to be called "Angela" or "Frigg" instead of "Thor" it would gain little traction or attention. (Which is kind of interesting when you consider Thor's first appearance in Marvel Comics was in a female-led title called Venus in the late 40's. But that also only lasted about a year and a half.)
So in that, yes, it seems obvious that as a ongoing exercise of marketing product it could be that it serves Marvel better to do it this way.
But they want to tell the story and have it read. And I can see the argument some have about it being a stunt. To some degree everything done to sell a book is such. That is any comic company's overall objective of course, but Marvel has traditionally done so from a stand of writing the story first and letting the PR work it self out after that, not so much the other way around (unlike DC,) so I lean toward giving them the benefit of the doubt here.
After all, even as a female, the old joke is just as funny:
The thunder god went for a ride
Upon her favorite filly.
"I'm Thor!" she cried,
And her horse replied,
"You forgot your thaddle, thilly."
You don't keep a continuous comic run since the 60s by not being a popular hero.
The X-Men got their comic cancelled in that period. No kidding. Complete with Cyclops. Who never carried a solo title for any length of time, so is a pretty silly comparison with Iron Man.
There's no magic board at Marvel that says "We can't cancel Iron Man! It's tradition!". Like any other old property, he's got more room than less successful characters, but money is money.
You won't get much argument that Iron Man's a weaker brand than the Fantastic Four (though a more interesting one), the X-Men, and Spider-Man. He's a stronger brand than Doctor Strange (TV movie because of his counter-culture appeal), Daredevil, the Punisher, and Nick Fury, all of who got movies first, just not Marvel Cinematic Universe ones and not all of them theatrical. A weaker but more comparable brand to Captain America (couple of movies first) and the Incredible Hulk (long TV presence). Stronger than Thor, who was IMO the real gamble of the movies.
Don't buy into the narrative :) Papers love underdog and everybody got it wrong stories, even when it's not that true. I've seen more than one story claiming Star Wars bombed with the critics.
Wellllll.... X-men were never truly "cancelled." There was brief period where they stopped printing but resumed the run 5-6 months later, continuing the numeration but using the book to publish reprints up until they introduced the All-New All-Different cast. That was in the early 70's. However, looking into this carefully I learned that the X-men DID start as an every other month publication.
As far as how weak or strong a brand Iron Man is versus Fantastic Four?
Fantastic Four's 616 appearance count comes in at 1,623 to IM's 2,892... and to be honest, I could not tell you if any alteration of the core team is included in that count.
Both had awful movie versions made in the 60's or 70's.
Both have had various cartoons made over many years and of various quality.
In recent years, the 2 FF films are regarded in hindsight as generally as lacking in one way or another but were top of mind before the Iron Man films, which are the foundation of the entire MCU and made more with its first movie than both the FF films combined. And the upcoming FF film is already under a bit of scrutiny.
I think there IS some argument to be made about Iron Man being the stronger "brand."
But in the end again the strength of the "brand" isn't really what they seem concerned with.
For Marvel Studios, it seems to be more about the telling of a creative story with fascinating characters. Yes, "brand recognition" is important to them, but only to a point. It's certainly not the overriding principle guiding them and they don't allow their PR department to dictate what the creative people are doing in any significant way that effects the story.
Agents of SHIELD and GotG... heck even Ant Man... as "underdogs" they're great examples of how much trust Marvel has in the creative teams involved.
Simply no metric of "popularity" really measures the kind of successes they've had or will have.
Good work begets good results.
I am inclined to believe that the blue guy was a Kree, if only because it makes a good GoTG tie in.
That's not a good thing, especially since I'm fairly sure the movie is going to be a failure on the scale of the Green Lantern movie, both in terms of critical reception and at the box office.
I really question what was on Marvel's minds when they chose to green light this project. Captain America and the Avengers are characters with broad appeal. The Guardians of the Galaxy in it's recent incarnations, are a group that only comic nerds can love. The only thing that might save it is that they might be hoping that Karen Gillan's casting may bring the Dr. Who crowd in.
I wholeheartedly disagree with you on that assessment. Despite the fact Green Lantern was utterly unmatchable in its failure, GotG has gotten mostly positive reaction thus far, greater than any GL had in advance.
Karen Gillan, while I'm a fan of her generally, is a footnote compared to the overall appeal of the film. James Gunn is an inspired choice to direct and perfect for it given his past superhero films and the fact he was already knowledgeable about the characters involved.
People unfamiliar with the GotG comics are anticipating it as a new standard of space-fi that could meet the standards of the original Star Wars films.
Yeah, it's the riskiest of Marvel Cinematic Universe films thus far, no question. But their foundation is solid and GotG would have to be Howard the Duck to do as bad as Green Lantern did.
In re: Skye and her "monstrous" parents, and her connection with Raina's mysterious employer.
There has been a lot of speculation in the past that she may be Jessica Drew (aka, Spider-Woman). In the comics, Jessica was raised by her father on Wundagore Mountain. Her father was the partner of a brilliant geneticist, Herbert Edgar Wyndham- aka, the High Evolutionary.
The High Evolutionary, as one might naturally assume, was obsessed with evolution of species (Raina seems to be enthralled by this concept), and his servitors were evolved animals known as the New-Men; and bipedal animals would naturally appear monstrous to normal people.
So, this might all be further support of the Jessica Drew theory.
Eh... I really don't think they'll do that. For one thing what they've provided doesn't track for it if her "parents" were "monsters."
For another, Johnathan Drew was just human and working to save his daughter's life from radiation poisoning. It's not unusual for canon to be dramatically re-written to fit what ever goal they have in mind, (Jessica Drew in the Ultimate universe is a clone, for example) but I think Skye as Jessica Drew doesn't really work.
Wundagore Mountain certainly offers other credible possibilities, but from what the story has laid out so far alone it also is not a solid match. Raina (who has no other "mysterious employer" other than Garret) has insinuated that Skye's origins could put her in China with the "monsters" as a child. Wundagore is in eastern Europe.
Still, not entirely impossible, just not likely.
And I think, if they are trying to build her into an Avengers character, I may be disappointed anyway. I don't really want to see Skye become any character we know a lot about. I'd prefer she be her own thing that they wrote specific for her, with a foundation in existing canon.
Don't get me wrong; Spider-Woman, Ms. Marvel, Wasp, etc... I want to see them done in the MCU.
I just don't want to see Skye made to "fit in" to any of them.
I believe the story will be more satisfying if they don't attempt to force fan-service and just give us something we can be a fan of instead.
Oh, go on then. Have you seen the video where it shows the voice actors doing the work for The LEGO Movie? Chris Pratt looks a lot different there than he does in this film. Granted he's not all dressed up coz it's just his voice, but still - that beard!
It's funny because when casting the film, James Gunn originally didn't even want to see Pratt audition for Star-Lord. "That fat kid from Parks & Recreation?" he asked. But his casting assistant (or whatever her title is) pushed Pratt in near the end of the call. Gunn says Pratt nailed it and he was completely surprised.
Exactly what Black Characters have been critical to what storylines in recent comic history? Where? Has this happened in the new 52?
Here's a couple just top of mind...
Luke Cage played a significant role in the Age of Ultron event.
Black Panther, in the ongoing story in New Avengers.
That's recent. But no, their RACE isn't relevant to those stories... but why should it be?
I also recall off the top of my head an early Avengers tale from the 70's where Black Panther saved them all as well, but suffice to say, I have neither the time nor willingness to scour the whole of Marvel history for additional examples. You want to know, dig it up yourself. They are there.
As I said, all those examples I gave were just a few...
some recent, some not. But there are many.
I also noted that the list I linked you to was incomplete and yes, it has errors. But what ISN'T "suspect" is that it is indicative of how far back black writers and artists have been a part of comic book creation generally, not just for Marvel or DC. You'll have to click each face and research them individually if you want... or you can stand on the ground that they've had no influence. Which dismisses their relevance, contribution, and importance. (I agree though that Dumas has no place there... but I suspect it is because there are comic adaptations of the 3 Musketeers which makes him relevant as the author of the core material, not directly in the influence of comic creation.)
I could post dozens of other links disputing the claim of your title.
But if you're going to rest on your claim without reviewing a singular link I've provided more than superficially, why would I spend the time doing so?
I'll accept Avengers #199-200 Vol. 1 was a bizarre and unsavory story for the time... 34 years ago. It was a failed experiment in trying more adult-themed storylines (a whole 5-6 years before TDKR even) and might have been impetus for the creation of Epic Comics a couple years after. Later, similar stories worked brilliantly; Alias is an excellent example. So that may be more a measure of the manner of presentation than the choice to do the story itself.
To address another point: As a specific example, with 8,789 female characters in their roster, if the disparity of race equality exists in that number, it's largely due to the historical fact, not the overall or current standard.
You're not going to have the past stories erased... but there are times, like ret-con style stories that add to previous canon of the by-gone eras, where racial and gender representations are better balanced.
In addition, other than Fantastic Four (which in fairness even had Storm & Black Panther replace the Richards for a period,) I can not think of any major team book they have done in the past 3 decades that was NOT racially diverse in its cast. And where females are concerned, I can look at three books in the past 5 years that were exclusively cast with females of various races and think of none that were or are exclusively male. (X-men? Never a "boys-only" club. The 80's New Mutants title actually started off and remained predominantly female from issue 1, with only ONE white American character on the team at that time.) And other female-centric team ups have been around throughout to one extent or another for many years.
The article would seem to indicate that Cloak is somehow revolutionary as an inclusion... but Marvel had the original non-ultimate Cloak & Dagger, an interracial couple, appear in over 200 books since the 80's, 30 of which were their own title! That started long before Cage/Jones were ever a thing.
You want more. You are getting more. They have made huge strides and have made significant contributions to this issue for a long time. Hardly a "drop in a bucket."
But you also can't expect they'll drop existing titles in favor of replacing them with a racial or gender quota. They can only produce so much and (unlike DC) they aren't willing to reboot their entire continuity in order "even the odds" or whatever. But the other side of that is a matter of consumer demand and support. If books like the female Black Panther don't sell, they get cancelled. That's on readers, not the creators. The success Marvel comics has had is in team-integration and I think that's significant and commendable and more than adequately refutes the accuracy and validity of the title you used here and the article used there.
And what would the New 52 have to do with a conversation about Marvel?
But since you bring it up, DC's prominent black character now is Cyborg, only appearing in Justice League. They have a black Batman on a title that is one of their worst selling, cancelled Static Shock, did a brief run of Black Lightning stories, and... John Stewart as one Green Lantern among thousands in space... that's it. I think... Oh and "Amanda Waller" though you couldn't tell her race anymore the way she's colored thanks to the reboot.
By measure other than Justice League, while their current roster of team books IS occasionally racially diverse, that diversity doesn't actually include "black" in most cases on their more popular titles. Titans, JLA, JLD, JLC, Birds of Prey, etc...
Seems to me your argument (and theirs) applies far more credibly and fairly to DC's current line than Marvel.
Marvel is realizing straight white guys arent the only ones who can save the world...
That's the actual name of the actual article. If you have problem with it contact the person who posted and wrote THAT instead of passive aggressively coming after me.
This title for this thread is senseless and kind of offensive in its utter inaccuracy and implied accusation. You choose to use it here, so it's natural for people to think it's your point of view, regardless of the fact you quoted it from another source.
There's nothing passive/aggressive in telling you so.
As for the claim itself, here are just a few examples of how it's not so:
*Bendis's Avengers title brought Luke Cage into heavy usage several years ago...
*Few teams in Marvel's history have ever been exclusively male.
*Various black characters have been critical to several storylines going decades back (Black Panther, Falcon, Storm et.al. )
*Marvel has had several characters come out long before any at DC ever did and one of them just married. (Northstar, Wiccan/Hulkling, Beast[apparently he was faking it though?] et.al.)
* There is an X-men title cast EXCLUSIVELY with female team members.
*Oh and the latest iteration of Mighty Avengers, cast almost entirely with black, Hispanic, or female characters, launched 9 months ago before the New Ultimates. New Ultimates, incidentally, set in a universe in which Nick Fury was re-imagined as a black man from day one of the Ultimates long before Jackson was ever cast for the movie.
Yeah... Marvel is clearly just getting around to something they've been active role models in doing for ages. It's a wonder we've put up with their backward thinking for so long.
(That? Also not passive aggression, but sarcasm and snark.)
I'm about to start Wild Cards book three of, what, fifteen? Twenty? I'm looking forward to the ride!
21 out. 2 more definitely coming.
Although I should note that book XVII was done solely by John J. Miller. And while it's a great story that acts as a "where are they now" for a lot of the early characters... it REALLY could use Martin's direct hand in editing for typos and grammar.
It's also one of the rarest to find because the original publisher shut down after only a short run.
Good luck finding it... I'm not selling mine. :P
Are you sure you didn't just misspell "sexy?"
:P
Not my type necessarily, but seriously... this just looked fun and silly, if low-budget and simple in concept.
Creative and oh look... we're talking about their con... so it was also effective!
Anyone know what song that is? I want it! It's sexy too!
Joss Whedon's script was rumored to be yet another 'teenage hero coming of age' thing that was very much like Buffy. Honestly, as much as I love SOME of Whedons stuff... I think he was a VERY bad fit for Wonder Woman. He is FANTASTIC for intergroup witty dialogue... but his 'Female butt-kickers' are pretty much the same everytime...
Rumors are little more than that. During delays Whedon stated, "With Wonder Woman, you're writing from whole cloth, but trying to make it feel like you didn't. To make it feel like it's existed for 60 years, even though you're making it up as you go along. But who she, and what the movie, is about, thematically, has never been a problem for me. But the steps along the way, it could be so easy for them to feel wrong. I won't settle."
Given what we saw him do with Buffy and Avengers, I think it's a safer bet to say he'd have done it more justice than the TV show that failed to launch. And had he been given the time to get it right and if WB/DC had not mucked about the writing process... maybe we would have seen Justice League before Avengers. (I'm fine with the way it worked out though, even if disappointed that DC can't get anything but Arrow right these days.)
phantom1592 wrote:
PRETTY much the same issue that they had with Green Lantern. They already DID First Flight, Telling how he got the ring and sinestro's origin... making a weaker live action one was just lame.
You'll get no argument from me on that point.
phantom1592 wrote:
To be fair.... it's LOBO?!?! SHOULD it be 'quality'? He was hired by the easter bunny to kill santa and left the north pole covered in guts and explosions....
Lobo seems to work best as a cross between Slapstick parody.... and SAW.
Honestly, I wouldn't want to watch a Lobo movie regardless... but a 'quality' one is just missing the point.
I think you mistake "quality" to mean something else. In the case of Lobo, "quality" wouldn't equal "cerebral Oscar-worthy achievement." But it would require a creative adaptation that's faithful to the core material and a story that entertains, even if it's "slapstick gore."
In other words... it would have to be great!
Otherwise it'd be just another b-list action hero film, or worse, worthy of a slot on MST3K. Sad to say, I have come to expect "worse" from DC more often than not lately. (Again, Arrow is the singular exception, which I can't applaud enough.)
Velcro Zipper wrote:
The line in the trailer about Drax's wife and daughter being killed could be part of the reason a certain member of the team isn't in this movie. Bautista has said Drax's story might surprise a lot of people. If he still has something close to his original comics origin, it could make excellent fodder for a sequel and a great way to introduce... ** spoiler omitted **
I just wish the character would go back to dressing in his Purple cape and tights! heh heh
But who knows... if they pull this off, and even get a sequel out of it.. maybe. Or maybe it will be something that gets explored in Agents of SHIEL....OH MY GOD! SKYE IS...
I will be SHOCKED if this is true:
Heather Douglas! (Probably not, but it would be great for her to shave her head! :P )
Yeah, but Slither is a whole other genre... and that developed more out of Gunn's work and background with Troma.
The Specials really illustrates something more about his understanding of comics. I can't recommend it enough as a primer. :D
