|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Nov 20, 2018 22:53:40 GMT
How it is that we've seen the same movies and the things you're "pretty sure" about are different than reality?
"Pretty sure" it was established in MOS and BvS that the property damage resulted in only 2 known deaths (Waynes employee and the little girls mother) because the building(s) had been evacuated.
All that crap was ZOD's fault anyway. Remember the line "There is only one way this ends, Kal; either you die or I do." Superman had to fight Zod in order to stop him. Zod wasn't backing down; he had nothing left to lose and was on a rampage.
Why is it that whenever the subject of the destruction in MOS comes up no one ever mentions these extenuating circumstances? Yet there's always a defense for the collateral damage done in MCU movies? I find that curious.
A) Superman was not in Metropolis for most of the destruction. The Kryptonians and the air force did 95% of that damage while superman was on the other side of the planet (and again I repeat: Saving the world).
B) that big ass crater Superman lands in, where he kisses Lois and he faces Zod, was already there.
C) Zod wanted to kill people. Superman did what he could to stop him. In a fight between two such powerful foes, one of which doesn't give two $#!@ what he's wrecking around him, there's going to be damage.
And anyway, how boring a fight would it be if Superman took him into space where there's nothing to smash into? If you want to talk about property damage there was a crap load in Avengers. In Age of Ultron they situated the Hulk/Ironman fight in a city. The Sakovia fight in a city. The Civil War fight in an airport (none of which had been evacuated by the way). Why do you think they did that? BEcause they couldn't find a way to write the story any differently? No. Its because its more visually interesting and emotionally dramatic to see the effects of such a fight.
We've finally come to a point in movie history where the FX are good enough that we can see what a fight between super humans would really look like and you don't want to see collateral damage because its a DC movie? But Marvel movies get a pass because they're Marvel? wtf?
I hadn't realized that there were only 2 casualties in that battle. That and your further argument for Superman's actions will cause me to revisit BvS. I always thought there was much more for Supes to account for, and that is what motivated Batman to try and take him out, for the safety of the masses in a just cause, at least in his head and that he really believed it. This makes me think more that he took the loss of employee and girl personally and was on a personal vendetta with protecting the world as an excuse. To be perfectly clear, of course there were at least hundreds of deaths. In such an event there would be. The same could be said about any of the major comic book movie battles that take place in a city or crowded place that hasn't had the chance to evacuate, including any of the major Avengers battles. You don't think anyone died in that Hulk/Iron Man or Sakovia fight?
But to be perfectly technical about this particular argument, those two deaths are the only ones that we ACTUALLY know about. We don't actually see or know about any other deaths from the point of view of the movie itself.
So, again, technically speaking, we know of only two actual deaths: Wayne's employee who stays in the building after he evacuates everyone else, and the little girls mother. Then there's the guy who's legs are crushed.
If a movie wants you to understand that there were tons of deaths it will show them to you. Otherwise you can really only point the finger at these two. And those happen in BvS, not MOS.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2018 23:22:17 GMT
I hadn't realized that there were only 2 casualties in that battle. That and your further argument for Superman's actions will cause me to revisit BvS. I always thought there was much more for Supes to account for, and that is what motivated Batman to try and take him out, for the safety of the masses in a just cause, at least in his head and that he really believed it. This makes me think more that he took the loss of employee and girl personally and was on a personal vendetta with protecting the world as an excuse. To be perfectly clear, of course there were at least hundreds of deaths. In such an event there would be. The same could be said about any of the major comic book movie battles that take place in a city or crowded place that hasn't had the chance to evacuate, including any of the major Avengers battles. You don't think anyone died in that Hulk/Iron Man or Sakovia fight?
But to be perfectly technical about this particular argument, those two deaths are the only ones that we ACTUALLY know about. We don't actually see or know about any other deaths from the point of view of the movie itself.
So, again, technically speaking, we know of only two actual deaths: Wayne's employee who stays in the building after he evacuates everyone else, and the little girls mother. Then there's the guy who's legs are crushed.
If a movie wants you to understand that there were tons of deaths it will show them to you. Otherwise you can really only point the finger at these two. And those happen in BvS, not MOS.
And that's why I'm going to to revisit Batman's motivations in BvS. If I'm supposed to look at what was presented as two deaths, I need to judge his actions as such. I could have looked at it wrong. I thought it presented Wayne seeing great loss of life, including some personal to him, because of these inhuman aliens and the battle they thrust on our world, and he was going to take care of that alien threat disguised in a man's body to protect the world. That he only relented when he realized that the alien wasn't exactly inhuman at all. I may very well have misread that motivation. It could be that he took the deaths of those he knew more personally that he felt helpless to protect, even though he was a "superhero", and he was justifying his vendetta as "saving the world" , but he really wanted Supes gone because that made him feel inferior, as the only or close to the only losses in that whole thing were right there where he was, and he couldn't stop it. Then when he realized Supes had a mother too, he realized the inferiority was an illusion, and he relented. Many deaths, I see Batman having a "cause". 2 deaths, especially personal to him, I see him seeking a "reason". Both work, it just changes the character for me. Like I said, I'll rewatch. I could have missed it.
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Nov 21, 2018 1:10:37 GMT
To be perfectly clear, of course there were at least hundreds of deaths. In such an event there would be. The same could be said about any of the major comic book movie battles that take place in a city or crowded place that hasn't had the chance to evacuate, including any of the major Avengers battles. You don't think anyone died in that Hulk/Iron Man or Sakovia fight?
But to be perfectly technical about this particular argument, those two deaths are the only ones that we ACTUALLY know about. We don't actually see or know about any other deaths from the point of view of the movie itself.
So, again, technically speaking, we know of only two actual deaths: Wayne's employee who stays in the building after he evacuates everyone else, and the little girls mother. Then there's the guy who's legs are crushed.
If a movie wants you to understand that there were tons of deaths it will show them to you. Otherwise you can really only point the finger at these two. And those happen in BvS, not MOS.
And that's why I'm going to to revisit Batman's motivations in BvS. If I'm supposed to look at what was presented as two deaths, I need to judge his actions as such. I could have looked at it wrong. I thought it presented Wayne seeing great loss of life, including some personal to him, because of these inhuman aliens and the battle they thrust on our world, and he was going to take care of that alien threat disguised in a man's body to protect the world. That he only relented when he realized that the alien wasn't exactly inhuman at all. I may very well have misread that motivation. It could be that he took the deaths of those he knew more personally that he felt helpless to protect, even though he was a "superhero", and he was justifying his vendetta as "saving the world" , but he really wanted Supes gone because that made him feel inferior, as the only or close to the only losses in that whole thing were right there where he was, and he couldn't stop it. Then when he realized Supes had a mother too, he realized the inferiority was an illusion, and he relented. Many deaths, I see Batman having a "cause". 2 deaths, especially personal to him, I see him seeking a "reason". Both work, it just changes the character for me. Like I said, I'll rewatch. I could have missed it. As for Batman's reasoning: I'm going to say its a little of both of those, and then further stoked by Luthor. Not to mention his own disillusionment with the results of his 20 year war on crime. It's multi-faceted.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Nov 21, 2018 1:35:24 GMT
I hadn't realized that there were only 2 casualties in that battle. That and your further argument for Superman's actions will cause me to revisit BvS. I always thought there was much more for Supes to account for, and that is what motivated Batman to try and take him out, for the safety of the masses in a just cause, at least in his head and that he really believed it. This makes me think more that he took the loss of employee and girl personally and was on a personal vendetta with protecting the world as an excuse. To be perfectly clear, of course there were at least hundreds of deaths. In such an event there would be. The same could be said about any of the major comic book movie battles that take place in a city or crowded place that hasn't had the chance to evacuate, including any of the major Avengers battles. You don't think anyone died in that Hulk/Iron Man or Sakovia fight?
But to be perfectly technical about this particular argument, those two deaths are the only ones that we ACTUALLY know about. We don't actually see or know about any other deaths from the point of view of the movie itself.
So, again, technically speaking, we know of only two actual deaths: Wayne's employee who stays in the building after he evacuates everyone else, and the little girls mother. Then there's the guy who's legs are crushed.
If a movie wants you to understand that there were tons of deaths it will show them to you. Otherwise you can really only point the finger at these two. And those happen in BvS, not MOS.
Colonel Nathan Hardy, Dr. Emil Hamilton and Jack O'Dwyer (mentioned in your text) are known casualties of the Battle of Metropolis. Several unamed F-35 pilots and military soldiers are also K.I.A. onscreen.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Nov 21, 2018 1:47:04 GMT
I hadn't realized that there were only 2 casualties in that battle. That and your further argument for Superman's actions will cause me to revisit BvS. I always thought there was much more for Supes to account for, and that is what motivated Batman to try and take him out, for the safety of the masses in a just cause, at least in his head and that he really believed it. This makes me think more that he took the loss of employee and girl personally and was on a personal vendetta with protecting the world as an excuse. To be perfectly clear, of course there were at least hundreds of deaths. In such an event there would be. The same could be said about any of the major comic book movie battles that take place in a city or crowded place that hasn't had the chance to evacuate, including any of the major Avengers battles. You don't think anyone died in that Hulk/Iron Man or Sakovia fight?
But to be perfectly technical about this particular argument, those two deaths are the only ones that we ACTUALLY know about. We don't actually see or know about any other deaths from the point of view of the movie itself.
So, again, technically speaking, we know of only two actual deaths: Wayne's employee who stays in the building after he evacuates everyone else, and the little girls mother. Then there's the guy who's legs are crushed.
If a movie wants you to understand that there were tons of deaths it will show them to you. Otherwise you can really only point the finger at these two. And those happen in BvS, not MOS.
I always assumed the wall at the Superman monument had the names of those who died due to the Kryptonian attack as a remembrance, which would mean it would have to be several hundred probably thousands of people dead.
I don't get blaming Superman for it though, only time I do is in jest to when people blame the Avengers for damage caused when they only get involved to stop the bad guys from killing ore people, as usually such attempts are so far fetched and one sided reasoning I go tit for tat and say Superman is directly responsible for bringing Zod to earth and therefor all blame falls on him regardless, it's ludicrous but then so are those who make the equally silly assertions towards the other films.
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Nov 21, 2018 1:50:58 GMT
To be perfectly clear, of course there were at least hundreds of deaths. In such an event there would be. The same could be said about any of the major comic book movie battles that take place in a city or crowded place that hasn't had the chance to evacuate, including any of the major Avengers battles. You don't think anyone died in that Hulk/Iron Man or Sakovia fight?
But to be perfectly technical about this particular argument, those two deaths are the only ones that we ACTUALLY know about. We don't actually see or know about any other deaths from the point of view of the movie itself.
So, again, technically speaking, we know of only two actual deaths: Wayne's employee who stays in the building after he evacuates everyone else, and the little girls mother. Then there's the guy who's legs are crushed.
If a movie wants you to understand that there were tons of deaths it will show them to you. Otherwise you can really only point the finger at these two. And those happen in BvS, not MOS.
Colonel Nathan Hardy, Dr. Emil Hamilton and Jack O'Dwyer (mentioned in your text) are known casualties of the Battle of Metropolis. Several unamed F-35 pilots and military soldiers are also K.I.A. onscreen. Not due to any actions of Superman himself. Other side of the planet, remember?
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Nov 21, 2018 1:58:00 GMT
Colonel Nathan Hardy, Dr. Emil Hamilton and Jack O'Dwyer (mentioned in your text) are known casualties of the Battle of Metropolis. Several unamed F-35 pilots and military soldiers are also K.I.A. onscreen. Not due to any actions of Superman himself. Other side of the planet, remember? No single Kryptonian is solely responsible for the massive property damage and loss of life caused in the Battle of Metropolis. They all are; however, Zod and The Sword of Rao are far more culpable than Kal-El. I was just pointing out that there are more known casualties than you cited in your post. I wouldn't blame Kal-El for the death of that child's mother or Jack O'Dwyer. I blame Man of Steel as a film for its cavalier attitude towards the destruction of Metropolis. That responsibility falls to Zack Snyder who hastily tried to rectify his error with Batman vs. Superman.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Nov 21, 2018 2:04:09 GMT
To be perfectly clear, of course there were at least hundreds of deaths. In such an event there would be. The same could be said about any of the major comic book movie battles that take place in a city or crowded place that hasn't had the chance to evacuate, including any of the major Avengers battles. You don't think anyone died in that Hulk/Iron Man or Sakovia fight?
But to be perfectly technical about this particular argument, those two deaths are the only ones that we ACTUALLY know about. We don't actually see or know about any other deaths from the point of view of the movie itself.
So, again, technically speaking, we know of only two actual deaths: Wayne's employee who stays in the building after he evacuates everyone else, and the little girls mother. Then there's the guy who's legs are crushed.
If a movie wants you to understand that there were tons of deaths it will show them to you. Otherwise you can really only point the finger at these two. And those happen in BvS, not MOS.
And that's why I'm going to to revisit Batman's motivations in BvS. If I'm supposed to look at what was presented as two deaths, I need to judge his actions as such. I could have looked at it wrong. I thought it presented Wayne seeing great loss of life, including some personal to him, because of these inhuman aliens and the battle they thrust on our world, and he was going to take care of that alien threat disguised in a man's body to protect the world. That he only relented when he realized that the alien wasn't exactly inhuman at all. I may very well have misread that motivation. It could be that he took the deaths of those he knew more personally that he felt helpless to protect, even though he was a "superhero", and he was justifying his vendetta as "saving the world" , but he really wanted Supes gone because that made him feel inferior, as the only or close to the only losses in that whole thing were right there where he was, and he couldn't stop it. Then when he realized Supes had a mother too, he realized the inferiority was an illusion, and he relented. Many deaths, I see Batman having a "cause". 2 deaths, especially personal to him, I see him seeking a "reason". Both work, it just changes the character for me. Like I said, I'll rewatch. I could have missed it. Well he does specifically tell Alfred to count the dead and says they are in the thousands, but yet he is kind of unhinged, Batman is to a degree anyway but they went too far in the film Batman doesn't take a Superman going bad as a risk you cant wait on, the whole looking for the kryptonite thing and everything prior to this exchange,,,
Alfred: You're gonna go to war?
Bruce Wayne: That son of a bitch brought the war to us two years ago. Jesus, Alfred, count the dead... thousands of people. What's next? Millions? He has the power to wipe out the entire human race, and if we believe there's even a one percent chance that he is our enemy we have to take it as an absolute certainty... and we have to destroy him.
Alfred: But he is not our enemy!
Bruce Wayne: Not today. Twenty years in Gotham, Alfred; we've seen what promises are worth. How many good guys are left? How many stayed that way?
That is where things go wrong imo, specifically the bold part, up till then it makes sense and is Batman, Superman IS too big a risk to leave unchecked which is why Batman does keep a stash of kryptonite on hand just incase, but Batman doesn't act on the chance Superman can go bad he doesn't even act on the fact Superman has gone bad if there is a chance of turning him back to good, I mean if they literally replace the bold part of that exchange with Bruce saying "and let's pray it never comes to that." keeps Bruce as he normally is, he seems unhinged but he at his core is still who he always is, he's simply planning for the worst, Alfred meanwhile is merely afraid that Bruce's preparations for war may in fact be the cause of one.
It also plays into the film a little more with Bruce becoming increasingly more aggressive towards Superman, as the film goes on the shred of restraint he has is stressed & stretched until Luthor bombs the place I forgot where it was, and Superman alone survives and then the taunting letters finally make him snap along with his nightmare, but it kind of works less imo if Bruce is already planning to murder Superman from the offset of the film.
But yeah in BVS it is stated clearly thousands did in fact die during MOS and Bruce knows it and takes it to heart.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2018 2:12:16 GMT
And that's why I'm going to to revisit Batman's motivations in BvS. If I'm supposed to look at what was presented as two deaths, I need to judge his actions as such. I could have looked at it wrong. I thought it presented Wayne seeing great loss of life, including some personal to him, because of these inhuman aliens and the battle they thrust on our world, and he was going to take care of that alien threat disguised in a man's body to protect the world. That he only relented when he realized that the alien wasn't exactly inhuman at all. I may very well have misread that motivation. It could be that he took the deaths of those he knew more personally that he felt helpless to protect, even though he was a "superhero", and he was justifying his vendetta as "saving the world" , but he really wanted Supes gone because that made him feel inferior, as the only or close to the only losses in that whole thing were right there where he was, and he couldn't stop it. Then when he realized Supes had a mother too, he realized the inferiority was an illusion, and he relented. Many deaths, I see Batman having a "cause". 2 deaths, especially personal to him, I see him seeking a "reason". Both work, it just changes the character for me. Like I said, I'll rewatch. I could have missed it. Well he does specifically tell Alfred to count the dead and says they are in the thousands, but yet he is kind of unhinged, Batman is to a degree anyway but they went too far in the film Batman doesn't take a Superman going bad as a risk you cant wait on, the whole looking for the kryptonite thing and everything prior to this exchange,,,
Alfred: You're gonna go to war?
Bruce Wayne: That son of a bitch brought the war to us two years ago. Jesus, Alfred, count the dead... thousands of people. What's next? Millions? He has the power to wipe out the entire human race, and if we believe there's even a one percent chance that he is our enemy we have to take it as an absolute certainty... and we have to destroy him.
Alfred: But he is not our enemy!
Bruce Wayne: Not today. Twenty years in Gotham, Alfred; we've seen what promises are worth. How many good guys are left? How many stayed that way?
That is where things go wrong imo, specifically the bold part, up till then it makes sense and is Batman, Superman IS too big a risk to leave unchecked which is why Batman does keep a stash of kryptonite on hand just incase, but Batman doesn't act on the chance Superman can go bad he doesn't even act on the fact Superman has gone bad if there is a chance of turning him back to good, I mean if they literally replace the bold part of that exchange with Bruce saying "and let's pray it never comes to that." keeps Bruce as he normally is, he seems unhinged but he at his core is still who he always is, he's simply planning for the worst, Alfred meanwhile is merely afraid that Bruce's preparations for war may in fact be the cause of one.
It also plays into the film a little more with Bruce becoming increasingly more aggressive towards Superman, as the film goes on the shred of restraint he has is stressed & stretched until Luthor bombs the place I forgot where it was, and Superman alone survives and then the taunting letters finally make him snap along with his nightmare, but it kind of works less imo if Bruce is already planning to murder Superman from the offset of the film.
But yeah in BVS it is stated clearly thousands did in fact die during MOS and Bruce knows it and takes it to heart.
Ok cool, thanks! It has been a while, glad to know I don't need to rethink things, lol.
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Nov 21, 2018 15:21:23 GMT
Not due to any actions of Superman himself. Other side of the planet, remember? No single Kryptonian is solely responsible for the massive property damage and loss of life caused in the Battle of Metropolis. They all are; however, Zod and The Sword of Rao are far more culpable than Kal-El. I was just pointing out that there are more known casualties than you cited in your post. I wouldn't blame Kal-El for the death of that child's mother or Jack O'Dwyer. I blame Man of Steel as a film for its cavalier attitude towards the destruction of Metropolis. That responsibility falls to Zack Snyder who hastily tried to rectify his error with Batman vs. Superman. Before moving on to the 2nd more interesting topic, my point is that Superman HIMSELF can only be blamed for those two deaths, if you blame him at all for any of the deaths, because his actions (and Zod's) are directly tied to that building falling down.
"I blame Man of Steel as a film for its cavalier attitude towards the destruction of Metropolis." Well that's another argument. And in that regard I agree AND disagree. Was the destruction probably more than was necessary to make the dramatic and visual point? Perhaps. I remember when I first saw the movie my first reaction was "this puts Avengers to shame!" Up until that point the NYC Avengers fight was the most destruction I'd ever seen.
But I'm not so sure that Snyder was doing destruction porn. I think he honestly wanted to do a Superman (and Zod) that was fully unleashed. A truly muscular version of the character. And the only way to show just how super powerful these characters are is to show their effect on their surroundings. A truly unleashed fight between two such beings would cause quite a lot of damage. Remember, even though there have been Superman movies before, MOS is the first truly modern version with the level of FX available to show Superman doing everything Superman can do. How could he not take the opportunity? (I know Bryan Singer did Superman Returns, but lets be honest, Superman didn't do anything in that movie but fly and cry).
In truth I always thought that they would reserve that kind of mass destruction and collateral damage to the Hulk. He's the one that has massive amounts of strength and rage. I always thought we'd see him do that, but that AOU fight is the closest we've come. Its still my hope to see a movie where the Hulk completely cuts loose.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Nov 21, 2018 15:33:05 GMT
No single Kryptonian is solely responsible for the massive property damage and loss of life caused in the Battle of Metropolis. They all are; however, Zod and The Sword of Rao are far more culpable than Kal-El. I was just pointing out that there are more known casualties than you cited in your post. I wouldn't blame Kal-El for the death of that child's mother or Jack O'Dwyer. I blame Man of Steel as a film for its cavalier attitude towards the destruction of Metropolis. That responsibility falls to Zack Snyder who hastily tried to rectify his error with Batman vs. Superman. Before moving on to the 2nd more interesting topic, my point is that Superman HIMSELF can only be blamed for those two deaths, if you blame him at all for any of the deaths, because his actions (and Zod's) are directly tied to that building falling down.
"I blame Man of Steel as a film for its cavalier attitude towards the destruction of Metropolis." Well that's another argument. And in that regard I agree AND disagree. Was the destruction probably more than was necessary to make the dramatic and visual point? Perhaps. I remember when I first saw the movie my first reaction was "this puts Avengers to shame!" Up until that point the NYC Avengers fight was the most destruction I'd ever seen.
But I'm not so sure that Snyder was doing destruction porn. I think he honestly wanted to do a Superman (and Zod) that was fully unleashed. A truly muscular version of the character. And the only way to show just how super powerful these characters are is to show their effect on their surroundings. A truly unleashed fight between two such beings would cause quite a lot of damage. Remember, even though there have been Superman movies before, MOS is the first truly modern version with the level of FX available to show Superman doing everything Superman can do. How could he not take the opportunity? (I know Bryan Singer did Superman Returns, but lets be honest, Superman didn't do anything in that movie but fly and cry).
In truth I always thought that they would reserve that kind of mass destruction and collateral damage to the Hulk. He's the one that has massive amounts of strength and rage. I always thought we'd see him do that, but that AOU fight is the closest we've come. Its still my hope to see a movie where the Hulk completely cuts loose.
That all makes sense for the most part. IMO, Zack’s fault is in his myopic focus on the violence and destruction and, paying no attention to Superman’s equally important role as a protector. In the aftermath, he goes on to restore the city completely almost as if nothing had happened. MOS may have had stakes but, it was short on consequences.
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Nov 21, 2018 15:35:57 GMT
Before moving on to the 2nd more interesting topic, my point is that Superman HIMSELF can only be blamed for those two deaths, if you blame him at all for any of the deaths, because his actions (and Zod's) are directly tied to that building falling down.
"I blame Man of Steel as a film for its cavalier attitude towards the destruction of Metropolis." Well that's another argument. And in that regard I agree AND disagree. Was the destruction probably more than was necessary to make the dramatic and visual point? Perhaps. I remember when I first saw the movie my first reaction was "this puts Avengers to shame!" Up until that point the NYC Avengers fight was the most destruction I'd ever seen.
But I'm not so sure that Snyder was doing destruction porn. I think he honestly wanted to do a Superman (and Zod) that was fully unleashed. A truly muscular version of the character. And the only way to show just how super powerful these characters are is to show their effect on their surroundings. A truly unleashed fight between two such beings would cause quite a lot of damage. Remember, even though there have been Superman movies before, MOS is the first truly modern version with the level of FX available to show Superman doing everything Superman can do. How could he not take the opportunity? (I know Bryan Singer did Superman Returns, but lets be honest, Superman didn't do anything in that movie but fly and cry).
In truth I always thought that they would reserve that kind of mass destruction and collateral damage to the Hulk. He's the one that has massive amounts of strength and rage. I always thought we'd see him do that, but that AOU fight is the closest we've come. Its still my hope to see a movie where the Hulk completely cuts loose.
That all makes sense for the most part. IMO, Zack’s fault is in his myopic focus on the violence and destruction and, paying no attention to Superman’s equally important role as a protector. In the aftermath, he goes on to restore the city completely almost as if nothing had happened. MOS may have had stakes but, it was short on consequences. Now that I'll agree with.
|
|