As far as fighting tools are concerned, it is difficult to integrate cars and swords.
|
I dont have a problem with the plot or with few lines from Max. I think Miller kept it simple so a complex plot wasnt necessary. In cases like Fury Road keeping it simple really works. Not saying action flicks require simple plots but once in awhile it works. Also, MM;FR gets the benefit of three previous movies to fill in the blanks where needed.
If people were fighting over bullets, would they use swords?Depends on the number and caliber of the bullets, and whether or not people had the ability to create more of them.
Odds are, they'd use both, since you generally should use your most effective weapon to win a fight, as the opponent is likely to do the same. And it never hurts to have a backup weapon that doesn't run out of ammo.
So if we accept the basic conceit that cars are seen as crucial weapons in this world (which does have some sense behind it) it actually makes a decent amount of sense.
And dude I've seen some of these cars. It's legit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As far as fighting tools are concerned, it is difficult to integrate cars and swords.
But if anybody can figure it out the people in Mad Max's universe can.
Swords are actually surprisingly difficult to craft in a way that doesn't render them very prone to breakage. I'm not surprised that they aren't very prevalent in the film.
The dominant melee weapon in the movie was the spear, which makes perfect sense to me (though most of them exploded, so maybe less sense making there than I give it credit for).
In an actual post-apocalypse situation spears and hatchets would be the go-to, followed by machete-type blades made out of sharpened chunks of scrap metal.
I have a friend who makes apocalypse weaponry as a hobby. My favorite thing I've ever seen him make was a 90 pound crossbow made out of the leaf spring of a small truck that shot sharpened chunks of rebar. It is surprisingly accurate. I'm surprised something like that hasn't made its way into an apocalypse movie yet.
So if we accept the basic conceit that cars are seen as crucial weapons in this world (which does have some sense behind it) it actually makes a decent amount of sense.
And dude I've seen some of these cars. It's legit.
Absolutely. And yes, they are awesome, especially since they made them all. I'm rather fond of the Treadcar myself.
---
Doomed Hero, I take it you're not a fan of Warhammer40K? Cannons, tanks, and swords all sort of mesh there, to a hilarious level of silliness.
The dominant melee weapon in the movie was the spear, which makes perfect sense to me (though most of them exploded, so maybe less sense making there than I give it credit for).
The dominant anti-vehicle melee weapon employed by personnel was a form of Spear-Grenade, yes. They seemed quite improvised but rather effective. They clearly weren't 'normal', pre-apocalypse grenades, which explains the lack of launchers. But they WERE developed rather specifically for their job... close range attacks on vehicles, from vehicles. The spear was long enough to throw and have stability, it had a point for sticking into the target or at least triggering the explosive, and the 'trigger' was such that just smacking the thing around or dropping it wouldn't have it go off. Rather one of my favorite 'new' post-apocalyptic weapons.
In an actual post-apocalypse situation spears and hatchets would be the go-to, followed by machete-type blades made out of sharpened chunks of scrap metal.
Swords and spears, then. I don't see hatchets being much used in that setting... those are more for survival where you have lots of trees and plants and whatnot where it could be used as a tool for cutting wood and such. In the desert wasteland, they wouldn't do much. Knives would, of course, be quiet common as they are fairly small and easy to make.
I have a friend who makes apocalypse weaponry as a hobby. My favorite thing I've ever seen him make was a 90 pound crossbow made out of the leaf spring of a small truck that shot sharpened chunks of rebar. It is surprisingly accurate. I'm surprised something like that hasn't made its way into an apocalypse movie yet.
I have a friend who does something similar, but... far less complicated. Mostly kunai and trench knives made from bits of rebar and old lawnmower blades. They're wickedly sharp and I can't see any way the foe wouldn't catch tetanus. What you describe sounds MUCH like something that would be improvised in such a setting, and I'd love to see one. Does s/he have any pics posted online somewhere?
---
One random thing that made me happy early in the movie was the lead car in Furiosa's original convoy. It was equipped with a M2--a .50 cal machinegun--and it would have EASILY been able to trash every single vehicle in the movie (including the Doof Wagon and War Rig) with such a weapon. Fortunately, they blew it up with a land mine fairly early before it had a chance to dominate the screen. Don't know if they did that on purpose or if it was a happy accident from the writers, but I sure appreciated that attention to detail.
|
VALHALLA!
Visually definitely the greatest movie I have seen in years. The plot is nothing to talk about, but it was solid enough to provide the framework for all the very impressive action.
The ideal of self-determination was well-served by this movie. Furiosa, played very well by Charlize Theron, pretty much was the star of the movie, not Max.
THAT'S THE NATURE OF THE COMPLAINT OF THE "MEN'S RIGHTS" GROUPS. FURIOSA IS THE ACTION STAR RATHER THAN MAX.
THEY MISS THE POINT ENTIRELY. AS BADASS AS THERON IS AS FURIOSA, THE REAL STAR OF THIS MOVIE IS THE PRODUCER. I DON'T WANT TO LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE THIS MOVIE DOESN'T GET AN OSCAR.
I really enjoyed this movie. The producer / director / actors all came together to make one awesome film. I also really liked how Nux, Furiosa, and Max all found different forms of redemption.
I'm all for strong female leads, but last time I saw Charlize Theron try to play a strong female role, her "acting" was so awful that I almost had to leave the theatre.
A completely different performance. None of her roles have matched her performance from Monster, not even with the aid of a 100x telescope.
@8th - Ehrmagherd, those shirts are hilarious. And spot on. Eshay-lads indeed.
Other random thoughts:
* I'm with Scythia, I watched Mad Max a few years back and almost couldn't make it through to the end. Looks like a student film. I appreciate where it was headed, but some of the sets were...laughable. And the social commentary incredibly hamfisted.
It doesn't exist. ;)
Mad Max starts with Mad Max 2.
Thunderdome was a logical progression (for the "movie starz" approach of the eighties) that was...unfortunate in many ways, but at least we got the costumes.
I never did understand why the gyrocaptain in Thunderdome is "not-the-same-character-or-is-he?"
* I am intrigued that there will be a sequel to Fury Road.
* That you never get to see the faces/culture of the dirt biker/pass gang, or the foreign-tongued bristlemarauders is, to my mind more annoying than intriguing. And the dirt bikers costumes seemed uninspired.
Add me as another who thinks the Mad Max Universe really starts with Road Warrior. I don't think the first movie is bad, actually it's pretty good and Mel actually makes it shine.
However, there's this disconnect between the first and the second. You go from a relatively civilized area with some savage characters and actions, to this complete wasteland of a place where everything and everyone is completely bonkers.
It's like two completely different worlds...a complete disconnect.
Road Warrior and Thunder Dome at least seem to be in the same world. The first one and the other two seem completely different worlds to me and hence two completely different settings and themes.
Even the character of Max is different between the first one and the second two.
I am wondering if this new movie somehow branches that disconnect and is something that connects the first with the latter two (something that really does need to be done). Going from civilization exists but with pockets of savagery to it's entirely gone, the entire world is destroyed except for a few pockets of civilization was always sort of jarring in me.
As far as fighting tools are concerned, it is difficult to integrate cars and swords.
ORK:YA SILLY GIT! MAKEN A CAR OUT OF A CHOPPA IS WHAT EVERY SQUIG LEARNZ OUTTA DA POD!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@8th - Ehrmagherd, those shirts are hilarious. And spot on. Eshay-lads indeed.
Other random thoughts:
* I'm with Scythia, I watched Mad Max a few years back and almost couldn't make it through to the end. Looks like a student film. I appreciate where it was headed, but some of the sets were...laughable. And the social commentary incredibly hamfisted.
It doesn't exist. ;)
Mad Max starts with Mad Max 2.
Thunderdome was a logical progression (for the "movie starz" approach of the eighties) that was...unfortunate in many ways, but at least we got the costumes.
I never did understand why the gyrocaptain in Thunderdome is "not-the-same-character-or-is-he?"
* I am intrigued that there will be a sequel to Fury Road.
* That you never get to see the faces/culture of the dirt biker/pass gang, or the foreign-tongued bristlemarauders is, to my mind more annoying than intriguing. And the dirt bikers costumes seemed uninspired.
Add me as another who thinks the Mad Max Universe really starts with Road Warrior. I don't think the first movie is bad, actually it's pretty good and Mel actually makes it shine.
However, there's this disconnect between the first and the second. You go from a relatively civilized area with some savage characters and actions, to this complete wasteland of a place where everything and everyone is completely bonkers.
It's like two completely different worlds...a complete disconnect.
Road Warrior and Thunder Dome at least seem to be in the same world. The first one and the other two seem completely different worlds to me and hence two completely different settings and themes.
Even the character of Max is different between the first one and the second two.
I am wondering if this new movie somehow branches that disconnect and is something that connects the first with the latter two (something that really does need to be done). Going from civilization exists but with pockets of savagery to it's entirely gone, the...
Mad Max is the very beginning of societal breakdown - the TV in the background is showing lots fuel riots and foreign wars. In Australia the cities are verge of collapse it's only the police holding things together and they have a high attrition rate. Also Australia is as big as continental USA the majority of the population lives on the east coast the further west you go the less people & infrastructure you get except for the big mining towns.
So the cops are holding the bike gangs out of the big cities and the gangs are preying on the small towns.
In between 1 & 2 there is a world war society collapses industry and infrastructure is all gone the majority of people die. Australia may be as big as the U.S. But we have less people than New York.
So going tribal is the best bet for survival, raiding takes precedence over trading if your tribe has nothing of value. Savagery becomes the norm. Just like the collapse of Roman Authority in Britain.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Had so much fun watching it the first time I've already watched it twice. The Boom Truck with the flaming guitar guy really stole the movie.
As for the controversy: I didn't feel the movie was a feminist manifesto. It was just a tough one-armed woman saving female slaves from a mutant warlord who's desperate to get a healthy heir.
Not every female character (deuteragonist in this case, I think) or plot involving women has to be a political construct.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, whether it was intentionally feminist or not is not really important. It's feminist (or at least allied with feminism) because it bucks a lot of prevalent, problematic tropes concerning women. Like, a war rig full of tropes. That's really important.
Not every female character (deuteragonist in this case, I think) or plot involving women has to be a political construct.
can't favorite this enough.
Okay, whether it was intentionally feminist or not is not really important. It's feminist (or at least allied with feminism) because it bucks a lot of prevalent, problematic tropes concerning women. Like, a war rig full of tropes. That's really important.
I don't know. To me, the plot was about the depravity of barbarism vs the humanity of civilization, and all of that serving as the setup for some pretty metal action scenes and those bizarre characters we've come to love about this type of movies (those two things being, I believe, the raison d'être for a new Mad Max. Form by itself can also be a goal for art); a key character and central object just happened to be female. If anything, that fits more in line with the previous movies: Civilization collapses, people forget their humanity, and everyone's now worth as much as they can be used.
Reading too deep into the story can lead us to a pretty wild set of conclusions. What is someone saw the collapse of the Vuvalini society while those of the warlords remained as, I don't know, an implied message that "Women can't lead societies", or that Max ultimately saving the group means "Even strong women need a man"?
I don't think either of those were the intention, just as I don't think the movie was intending to make a statement regarding gender roles, reproductive rights, or all the other ideas that have been appended to the movie.
The only one who knows are the writer and director, of course, so I might be completely wrong in my interpretation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Had so much fun watching it the first time I've already watched it twice. The Boom Truck with the flaming guitar guy really stole the movie.
The mighty Doof Wagon that is ;)
A nice article with stills of some of the choicer cars in the movie - my favorite is the Buzzard Excavator.
For some reason, I think they should have either played up Immortan Joe as pure evil or cut it back a bit as a guy who is evil but is a force that holds things together. For example, he yelled 'That is my child, my property!' Cutting out 'my property' or leaving just that part in would change his character.
All right I liked the movie a lot...but something really confused me...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All right I liked the movie a lot...but something really confused me...
** spoiler omitted **
Or they are just wanderers who hide in the swamps and use stilts to remain dry. The way the walked on four stilts did seem rather bestial, though, as if they were hunting. Cannibals, perhaps?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know. To me, the plot was about the depravity of barbarism vs the humanity of civilization, and all of that serving as the setup for some pretty metal action scenes and those bizarre characters we've come to love about this type of movies (those two things being, I believe, the raison d'être for a new Mad Max. Form by itself can also be a goal for art); a key character and central object just happened to be female. If anything, that fits more in line with the previous movies: Civilization collapses, people forget their humanity, and everyone's now worth as much as they can be used.
Reading too deep into the story can lead us to a pretty wild set of conclusions. What is someone saw the collapse of the Vuvalini society while those of the warlords remained as, I don't know, an implied message that "Women can't lead societies", or that Max ultimately saving the group means "Even strong women need a man"?
I don't think either of those were the intention, just as I don't think the movie was intending to make a statement regarding gender roles, reproductive rights, or all the other ideas that have been appended to the movie.
The only one who knows are the writer and director, of course, so I might be completely wrong in my interpretation.
You misunderstand my point. This is not about politics or reasoning. There have been a thousand action movies with these same pervasive tropes that really have problematic ideas about women. How any tough woman had a lot of brothers or learned from there dad. Or how the male protagonist will struggle with a mook and the damsel will hit them over the head with a vase. Or so on. There is a whole list of these tropes that could've applied to Fury Road, but they didn't.
It's not about intent or politics or whatever. It's the fact that these women are written well. Really well. In spite of a long, long history of action movies where women merely existed as a love interest or a macguffin to be saved. Feminism isn't about an in your face, girl power message. It's about treating women like everyone else. Which Fury Road did.
Oh, I see. That I can understand and agree with.
I just tend to be wary of what is labelled feminist and what isn't these days; too many different groups adding descriptors to it, not all of which I'm comfortable with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **All right I liked the movie a lot...but something really confused me...
** spoiler omitted **
Reminds me of Dark Crystal
Reminds me of Dark Crystal** spoiler omitted **All right I liked the movie a lot...but something really confused me...
** spoiler omitted **
For me that seemed rather deliberate on the part of the filmmakers. ;)
Yep, as soon as I saw the four-limbed stilt walkers I thought of the Striders from Dark Crystal.
Oh, I see. That I can understand and agree with.
I just tend to be wary of what is labelled feminist and what isn't these days; too many different groups adding descriptors to it, not all of which I'm comfortable with.
Charlize Theron, who played Furiosa, has described it as "an incredible feminist movie."
|
Yep, as soon as I saw the four-limbed stilt walkers I thought of the Striders from Dark Crystal.
Some non-feminist symbolism here... When they said the land went sour and the crows came, I think they were both talking about the birds and the stilt walkers (maybe a faction known as the crows). The could be trash trawlers, harbingers of disease or just another menace from the wasteland.
In Mad Max they were often used as both a symbol of death and insanity - thinking back to the cawing in the background at a few points in the movie, imagery of them flying between scenes and finally after when Bubba Zanetti is killed a crow descends upon his body. So I always attributed them with both madness and death - at least in the context of MM.
Also, this may or may not have been intentional with the first movie - but Max's decent into madness/desire for revenge coincides with a reduction or absence of civilization for the rest of the movie. The TV in his house is running static, there are no other cops seen for the rest of the movie - in fact you just see two trucks in the movie - the one Max gets blocked by, and the one that kills the Toecutter.
I always felt that by the time Mad Max took place, the world had already started tearing itself apart and was on the verge of limited nuclear exchange. Max just falls right along with it and drifts to the forbidden zone (basically unpoliced) right before this happens. After of course, wasting Johnny the Boy.
As far as the rest of Fury Road - I still need time to process it all (saw it on Saturday).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I've heard a lot of people and articles claiming that "MRAs" are complaining about the movie, but has anyone actually seen these complaints? I remember a similar press barrage when the Star Wars VII trailer had a black stormtrooper. Everyone was talking about how upset racists were at the black stormtrooper, but someone went to look for these upset people and found only a single messageboard thread on the IMDB page.
Was there really any meaningful pushback, or is this just a new form of viral marketing? "We made our movie progressive with this one weird trick! Bigots hate us!"
Well, I have a link here to those very MRAs, but be warned, it's all sorts of stupid (and factually wrong).
We hunted the mammoth had that plus further comments on how women need to be chained at home.
I've never seen anything linked except that one site.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That "one article" that keeps being quoted is written by Aaron Clarey. His youtube channel has more than 16,000 subscribers. His Return of Kings column gets a surprising amount of hits. He's become something of a prophet among the angry man-child community.
The whole Mad Max thing isn't even the tip of the iceberg of crazy b@@@+@@! that Clarey spouts. For example-
Hurricane Katrina victims deserve what happened to them.
The bottom 60% of american workers are leeches
Feminism causes rape (among other things).
Single mothers are damaged goods and best avoided.
Normally I could write this kind of b!~!&#~% off as the ravings of a lunatic with a computer, but somehow he's managed to accumulate a sizable following, and now because of all the recent media attention, he's going to have an even larger one.
It would be hilarious if it weren't so disturbing.
The sad thing is that I don't totally disagree with everything he says -- but that said, the 50% I agree with gets quickly swamped by the 50% spoiled teenager crap he spews.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stopped clock.
It's not about intent or politics or whatever. It's the fact that these women are written well. Really well. In spite of a long, long history of action movies where women merely existed as a love interest or a macguffin to be saved. Feminism isn't about an in your face, girl power message. It's about treating women like everyone else. Which Fury Road did.
Did... we see the same movie? The 'brides' were, in fact, the definition of a MacGuffin. If they didn't exist, neither Furiosa nor Immortan Joe would have any reason to do anything, and Max simply would have been a permanent fixture in the blood farm. There would have been no movie. And make no mistake, they were being saved. Only at the end when Max pointed out that they shouldn't be fighting for 5 people but ALL the people did this change. So, maybe the last 20 minutes or so took a pseudo-Feminist turn?
I guess.Well, I have a link here to those very MRAs, but be warned, it's all sorts of stupid (and factually wrong).
There's always some group of extreme types who rail against a movie without ever having seen it. Looks like these guys are the ones. While some people (Feminists and Anti-Feminists) have hailed this as 'Feminist Propaganda', I still don't see it, as each and every supposed 'symbol' can be easily read the other way.
---
MannyGoblin, thank you. I knew those stilt things looked familiar. The landstriders of Dark Crystal are what I was thinking of without being able to remember it. And it makes sense that they want to stay out of the toxic sludge--or simply that there is a 'bottom' to the mud and it's a way to walk across it without getting sucked down.
---
Charlize Theron, who played Furiosa, has described it as "an incredible feminist movie."
Well, an actor says it, so we know it must be true? Yeaaaaa-no.
---
but Max's decent into madness/desire for revenge coincides with a reduction or absence of civilization for the rest of the movie. The TV in his house is running static, there are no other cops seen for the rest of the movie - in fact you just see two trucks in the movie - the one Max gets blocked by, and the one that kills the Toecutter.
I never really paid attention to that, but now that you mention it, it makes a LOT of sense... and calls into question how sane he was in the beginning. I think you're right and that the 'fall' occurred during this time, we just didn't see it as the main character was in the wasteland.
It's not about intent or politics or whatever. It's the fact that these women are written well. Really well. In spite of a long, long history of action movies where women merely existed as a love interest or a macguffin to be saved. Feminism isn't about an in your face, girl power message. It's about treating women like everyone else. Which Fury Road did.Did... we see the same movie? The 'brides' were, in fact, the definition of a MacGuffin. If they didn't exist, neither Furiosa nor Immortan Joe would have any reason to do anything, and Max simply would have been a permanent fixture in the blood farm. There would have been no movie. And make no mistake, they were being saved. Only at the end when Max pointed out that they shouldn't be fighting for 5 people but ALL the people did this change. So, maybe the last 20 minutes or so took a pseudo-Feminist turn?
I guess.Well, I have a link here to those very MRAs, but be warned, it's all sorts of stupid (and factually wrong).There's always some group of extreme types who rail against a movie without ever having seen it. Looks like these guys are the ones. While some people (Feminists and Anti-Feminists) have hailed this as 'Feminist Propaganda', I still don't see it, as each and every supposed 'symbol' can be easily read the other way.
Okay, that's a fair point. I may have misspoken on my point. What I was getting at is that they were actual characters that did things. When I referred to macguffin women before, I should have specified "kidnapped ladies for the male hero to go and rescue". Try to count all the movies that do this and you'll get bored and quit long before you ever finish. The brides are all characters.
And no, feminists aren't calling it "propaganda". It is being called feminist because it's not reinforcing crappy tropes concerning women. It's not a piece to convert people to feminism. It doesn't have to be.
Charlize Theron, who played Furiosa, has described it as "an incredible feminist movie."Well, an actor says it, so we know it must be true? Yeaaaaa-no.
Also, the director. ;)
Initially, there wasn't a feminist agenda...I needed a warrior. But it couldn't be a man taking five wives from another man. That's an entirely different story. So everything grew out of that.
As far as a narrative is concerned, when you give a MacGuffin agency they stop being a MacGuffin and become a character.
In action movies, having the "people who need protected" be actual characters is pretty rare, *especially* when they are women.
That simple notion makes the movie itself extremely progressive. (which is why so many people are surprised and talking about it)
The whole Mad Max thing isn't even the tip of the iceberg of crazy b*+*%#%~ that Clarey spouts. For example-
Oh, this should be fun, let's look at these 'crazy examples'...
Hurricane Katrina victims deserve what happened to them.
Reading it, the part that stands out: "majority of them decided to live in a city that was below sea level...near the sea...and did not heed warnings or orders to leave the city."
Never does he say "they deserve what happened to them", so good call there. He does say that he doesn't care about idiots who purposefully let themselves get screwed over and expect his money to bail them out.Seems fairly straightforward. Next!
What you claim he says:
The bottom 60% of american workers are leeches
What he really says:
"tired of your greedy scum bucket parasites known as "the poor" who think you have it so rough when in reality, you don't pay a freaking dime for any government service if you're in the bottom 60% of income earners."He said the poor who think they have it so rough are parasites. You know, the ones claiming that the rich need to pay more when the chart shows them paying about 2%. (Assuming, of course, the chart is right.)
Reading the article would make that apparent.
Feminism causes rape (among other things).
Try as I might, I can't find the word 'rape' on that page. Also, 'other things' apparently amounts to 'not being nice'. Seems like that's rather accurate, too.
Maybe you wanted to link a different article, one that supports your point?Single mothers are damaged goods and best avoided.
That's a paraphrasing, but is a fairly accurate summary of what he says--but, of course, it's worded such that it's pushing your point and not his. Yours seems to imply he's a terrible person for saying it. His point is simply explaining why men are less attracted to women with kids, and how he's frustrated that other people expect him to just ignore it.
---
Now, when it comes to this awesome movie, he's 100% terribly, totally wrong. This movie is insanely good, and it seems you have to squint really hard to see any sort of 'agenda' being pushed. Furthermore, in regards to that 'agenda' (should it even exist), it's still represented in a realistic way and not some idolized impossible Mary Sue one. Which I, personally, think is pretty great.
---
What I was getting at is that they were actual characters that did things.
And that's fine. They are still a MacGuffin until the very end, though. And we've had MacGuffins that are characters. Where they excelled here is having them transcend that status in the movie itself.
And no, feminists aren't calling it "propaganda".
Beings as 'propaganda' no longer has a positive tone like it did over half a century ago, no, generally people who aren't feminists use that term.
It is being called feminist because it's not reinforcing crappy tropes concerning women. It's not a piece to convert people to feminism. It doesn't have to be.
Sure, I suppose. But if it's not reinforcing tropes but not breaking them down, it is, by definition, not feminist either.
It simply breaks some troops, avoids others, and still uses rare ones we don't often get to see. I mean, you want to call it feminist for positive reasons. MRA guy wants to call it feminist for negative reasons. I don't see it as being either, for various reasons, so I guess this is just a thing that is interpreted differently by different people.
Found the MRA.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dude, you were missing my point. All feminism wants is for women to be treated on equal levels as men. When a movie does that, we consider it feminist. THAT'S ALL.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's one big shining and flashing reason to ignore the so called 'Captain Capitalism'... which is thus:
Hopefully, (unless the movie proves otherwise) we can save a lot of people a lot of money and a lot of time, and again, I am more than happy to watch the movie if it proves NOT to have a lecture on feminism or SJWing, etc. in it.
Otherwise known as the 'I'm so damn outraged by this thing that I've not even bothered to watch myself before getting outraged about.'