Spider-Man 3 (2007)

[ZapRowsdower]

From my viewing experience, I've noted that in the case of trilogies, it's always difficult to get right. Change in directors and screenwriters always seems to do some damage. And then there's the high expectations set by its immensely popular predecessor which puts loads of pressure on any director who wants to keep the momentum going.

In this case, they kept director Sam Raimi. So the change in director which harmed the Batman and X-Men franchises does not exist here. But Spider-Man 2 set some extremely high expectations as well, which would make one begin to wonder how any director, even Sam Raimi, would be able to handle that.

For this reason, I lowered my expectations for this film. I walked in with the mentality that this might be X-Men 3 all over again. I took into consideration the number of storylines used (Three villains? Yeesh) and the mixed reviews the film had received, and I thought... oh, great. All the explosions, none of the development.

Suffice to say I walked out satisfied with what I got. I wouldn't call it the best in the trilogy (I can't really decide which one I liked best, they're all about the same for me), but it definitely had some perks to it. For one, Tobey Maguire took Peter Parker to the next level. I was very impressed with his performance... In fact, I would say this is my favorite Tobey Maguire performance period. He stretched his acting abilities, and he nailed it.

As for how Sam Raimi managed to juggle the three storylines, well... he juggled them pretty well. At the beginning, it looked like he ended one way too early, which somewhat upset me at the time, as I felt he could have done more with it. But then he brought it back. The truth is, he really could have done more with it.

In fact, my only real complaint is that all three of those stories could have had single movies devoted to them. For the amount of time given to present them, I feel it was handled much better than X-Men 3, and Sam Raimi did an excellent job making way for character and story development. Even the new characters had a a moment in the sun, a reason to be there, and managed to be discernable characters as opposed to people just thrown in because they're in the comic book. And might I add, Bryce Dallas Howard was stunningly beautiful in this movie!

The three villains were great, but let's face it... Topher Grace is no Alfred Molina.

The ending got a little corny, but honestly... this is Spider-Man. It's to be expected. As I recall, Spider-Man 2 had the whole bad-guy-doing-the-noble-thing going, and if we can handle that, I'm sure we can handle this. The epilogue was fantastic though.

There are a couple of special guest appearances, which I'm not gonna spoil but should be fairly obvious to anyone familiar with the first two movies... And this was about the best usage of both of them.

One minor complaint... Kirsten Dunst shouldn't ever be allowed to sing in a motion picture again. Where's Simon Cowell when you need him?

Summer 2007 has gotten off to a good start. I'm sorry to have doubted Sam Raimi, but at the same time I wonder if I would have liked it as much if I didn't. But it's a satisfying film. Sometimes dark, sometimes funny, sometimes sad, but always engaging and very fun to watch. It may not be the best entry to the series, but it totally belongs there.

9/10

[Heineken Skywalker]

iamthesmitty said:

One minor complaint... Kirsten Dunst shouldn't ever be allowed to sing in a motion picture again. Where's Simon Cowell when you need him?

Wasn't it the point though that she's not a great singer? If she had been an amazing singer wouldn't we all be wondering, why was her character let go?
What kind of doesn't make sense though is, if she's not that great, why was she cast in a lead role in a musical in the first place? How did something so important as her weak voice get by the producers and director until it was pointed out to them by the critics? Who's producing this thing, Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane? Oh well, a minor point in a film with more serious "problems".

SPIDER-MAN 3: The Bad.....
LOTS OF SPOILERS!!!!!!





I have to disagree with your assessment that Raimi juggled the many storylines and villains well though. I thought there was entirely too much going on in this movie. Too many plotlines and too many villains. And worst of all, the whole thing is TOO DAMN LONG.

Like you pretty much said, any one of those villains could have been the main villain in their own film. Except, I think, for Harry/Goblin simply because that would've been too much like the first Spidey movie and I just don't find him that interesting. I would've maybe gone for two of them, tops. Either Sandman and the New Goblin or Venom and the New Goblin.
Both Venom and Sandman are really important characters in the annals of Spidey comics and here they were fairly shortchanged, especially Venom, who came off as almost a glorified cameo. I was never a huge Venom fan for the sole reason that he basically became a major character in the comics pretty much after I'd stopped reading them anymore. But even peripherally, I was still well aware of the character. That's how huge/popular he'd become with collectors/fans. I'm sure there's more than one fanboy pissed, after all the anticipation of seeing him in live-action, at how little screen time he ends up getting here.
I thought the whole Flint Marko/Sandman actually shot Uncle Ben plotpoint was unnecessary, except to try to wring a bit more sympathy for the character. It's not bad enough that he has to steal money for his sick daughter, but he also didn't actually mean to shoot Ben. Why does a pretty badass villain like Sandman have to be a sympathetic character who has his moment of redemption? Why can't he be a villain who just likes to steal money and enjoys beating the crap out of Spidey with his giant sandhammers from time to time, for no good reason other than he can? Every villain doesn't have to be a misunderstood Darth Vader.

Another character that gets a raw deal in this movie is Gwen Stacey. In the comics, she was Parker's first true love. Long before Mary Jane, Peter dated her and she died tragically because of a mistake made by Spider-Man in the midst of a battle with the Green Goblin. Here she's just a girl in one of Peter's classes that he uses to make MJ jealous and then she disappears. WTF?? Why name her Gwen Stacey then? She never dated Eddie in the comics so it's not important that she be called that in this movie. Why not just create an original character and save Gwen for the next movie, if there is one?

This is also a movie with a whole lot of coincidences for us, the audience, to buy:

1. The symbiote just happens to crash right by Peter Parker. Of all the places on earth it could've hit, it lands near a superhero it can attach itself to. (Not the way it happened in the comics, but the comic's version would be a trilogy of it's own. Still, this is the best they could come up with? I remember when this plot was called THE BLOB. Lame.)
2. Flint Marko just happens to easily sneak into the worst guarded forbiden testing zone where he accidentally meets his fate as the Sandman. I'd like to hop a fence and get superpowers too.
3. Eddie Brock just happens to be in the same church that Spidey and his black suit end up at, just so Eddie can end up with the symbiote attached to him and start his short-lived wave of terror.
4. New characters, Gwen Stacey and Eddie Brock are dating. She ends up going out on a date with Peter and Brock ends up as Venom trying to kill Spider-Man. Another coincidence that they both know Peter as well as each other. Why was it important to the story that they were already dating?
5. And what about Harry's butler? You know, the one we've never seen before this movie, but who suddenly pops up like he's been there all along, just to explain things to Harry and set him on the right path? And why did he wait 3 movies to react? Because they just made him up.

Any one or two of those coincidences/contrivances would be an acceptable level of suspension of disbelief for this type of movie, but jeez, Raimi seems to be trying to see just how much he can get away with before we go, "Come on, man! Enough already!".

The symbiote releases Parker's inhibitions and makes him kind of a jerk. And how does this play out on screen? He buys some stylish black clothes, struts down the street like an idiot, literally lets his hair down into his eyes and becomes The Amazing Emo-Man?? He later takes over a jazz club in a musical dance number that's more like something from THE MASK starring Jim Carrey. All of this stuff is cringe-inducing. After the club scene, I turned to my wife, "What the hell is this?".

REM once sang, "Everybody Hurts". In this movie, everybody cries. Damn, for a comic book/superhero movie there's a lot of weeping going on. For a minute there, I almost expected Frodo and Sam to appear on screen for a group hug with Spider-Man, Sandman, Harry and Mary Jane. Tom Hanks once said, "There's no crying in baseball!". Hey Raimi, "There's no crying in comic book movies!". What used to be a fun adventure series has become a soap opera. It's not even the good crying like, Uncle Ben has been shot!
It's the, "Oh god, MJ! You can't break up with me, I love you!" kind of crying. Just embarassing.

THE GOOD to come...

[Phoenix]

THE GOOD to come...

Yikes! Guess you wore yourself out writing about all the stuff that bothered you...lol.

For my superhero movies, I don't really look too deep...EVER. I want good special effects, emotion, and fun characters. I thought Spider-Man 3 satisfied all of that for me. For the ever-increasing admission price there better be a lot going on! I'm paying top dollar to see the latest and greatest in special effects and action. That sounds shallow but that is really the only thing keeping me going to the theater instead of watching it on my computer or TV/DVD. The CGI people looked better than I've seen in any previous superhero movie...the last time I really saw it done kinda well was in Superman Returns. That was still very much flawed and too smooth - it is done very fast here in Spider-Man 3 but they pulled it off pretty well. You can tell they're improving stuff, which made me happy.

As for the story, I have loved and read Spider-Man stuff since I was little. It's tough to condense 20 years of that black costume/venom storylines into one movie. I thought they did it well for the mass audience. Coincidences don't bother me.

I have to say though I thought there was a bit too much singing and dancing...edit out about 10 minutes of that (very easy to do I think) and it would have made it a bit of a tighter film. I do NOT like singing and dancing in my Spider-Man movies. Tears, no biggie. Peter Parker is an emotional guy. *shrug*

For all the people I've talked to about the movie, it has generally been "it was okay," - I think the biggest gripe is the singing and dancing.

For me, it was fun. Great special effects, good villains, Spider-Man swinging around. And most importantly, they stuck to the heart of the character itself. I'm easy to please.

8/10 for me.

[ZapRowsdower]

SPOILERS BELOW.

It would also be a good time to mention, I lowered my expectations for the film, and they were exceeded. I'll actually bring the score down to 8/10 for that reason. But I still thought the movie was awesome.

And there are always coincidences, in just about every comic book movie there is. The only one in this one that bothered me was the butler. I mean, what, you wait 'till NOW to tell Harry? After you let him obsess over finding Spider-Man for years, you wait until NOW to tell him about his father? But that was it.

Film geek before comic book geek. And I thought this succeeded as a film.

[Heineken Skywalker]

phoenix said:

THE GOOD to come...

Yikes! Guess you wore yourself out writing about all the stuff that bothered you...lol.

Heh. I actually had to leave to go to work so I figured I'd better stop there and continue later.
I know what you mean about what you expect from a comic book movie, remember, you and I were two of the few around here defending X-MEN 3, for those exact reasons, and everybody else wanting more emotion or depth or whatever.
And believe me, I did have a lot of fun with this film too. But there was just a lot of crap in there that to me, just felt really out of place or made me wonder, "Why?".

Some more "bad" I didn't even mention before (MORE SPOILERS!):



Harry & MJ dancing The Twist (badly) and making an omelete. Seriously. Just more goofy, embarassing crap that didn't need to be in there. A lot of this movie felt like a dress rehearsal for the upcoming Spider-Man musical. You guys do know there's a Spidey musical in the works, right?

And look, conicidences in movies, especially sci-fi/fantasy ones where we're suspending loads of disbelief anyway, don't usually bother me either, but when you just pile them on, one on top of the other, even I have to say, "Whoah, Nellie!!". For instance, if they had explained in the film, that somehow that meteor had specifically homed in on Peter Parker and deliberately crashed near him for some reason, than I could go, "Okay. Bullshit, but okay, I'll bite.". But it appears to have been totally random.
Add to that, all the other coincidences, on top of the various musical numbers, and overall goofiness of other scenes and some of this film just left me bewildered.

Something else that bugs me. How the hell is Spider-Man supposed to keep a secret identity if he's forever removing, destroying or simply, not wearing his mask in public? Judging by how often he shows up not wearing it (He's standing atop a building or something about to receive the key to the city and look, there he is without his mask.) and later, he ends up with a ripped up half-mask in the end battle. Tobey Maguire's a big star so they want to make sure we get to see his real face as often as possible, even though he spends more than half the movie as Peter Parker anyway. It reminds of how up-in-arms fans of Judge Dredd comics were when it was announced that Stallone would sometimes show his real face sans mask, in the movie version. In the comics, Judge Dredd never shows his face, but Stallone's a big star so we have to see his mug sometimes. For the record, I also didn't care for all those people seeing his real face on the train scene in SPIDER-MAN 2. Luckily for Peter, they all actually kept their promise not to tell.

I appreciate "more bang for my buck" too, but if a movie is going to be two hours and twenty minutes long it has to justify that time and never, never, be boring. If it's almost 2 1/2 hours long and parts of it are boring me, it's time to cut the fat. A lot of the crap I didn't like is just useless filler. This film could've easily told the same story in under two hours. MJ on Broadway (shorter), Flint Marko visiting his family (cut), Harry & MJ do The Twist (cut), Peter strutting down the street (cut), Peter playing the piano and dancing his ass off in the club (cut), Peter crying when MJ breaks up with him (cut), Harry brooding over his dead dad again (cut), Gwen Stacey and her dad (cut), Marko kills Uncle Ben (cut), the black suit & Venom (cut and saved for the next film when they can do it a little more justice), etc., etc.

For as much as people around here bitched about the changes to the X-Men franchise when Brett Rattner took over, you know who you are, they should be even more upset in the developments in this latest Spider-Man adventure, seeing as how it's the exact same director and cast as the first two movies. They may have made some mistakes in X-MEN 3, but Storm never sang and Wolverine never, ever danced. Raimi has somehow lost his way this time around. Not completely, but this is definitely the first Spidey movie that, even though they threw everything in there, but the kitchen sink, has left me a bit underwhelmed.

THE GOOD to come... for real.

[ZapRowsdower]

Would I have liked it better had it been two movies? Sure. I, too was disappointed by how little time Venom got in there. But you know, how this is different from X-Men 3 would be that more time is spent on the characters and how they're dealing with the situations presented. Peter's metamorphosis comes to mind. Harry, angry by the death of his father and belief that his best friend caused it. Mary Jane, feeling ignored and unloved in a time where she needs her man to support her.

X-Men 3 just threw in every mutant they could without spending any real time on them. Sure, it was non-stop action, but it lacked substance.

What makes Spider-Man 3 different is that, yeah, while certain comic book elements are changed or shortened, it maintains substance and heart - something I was very afraid it would lose.

Looking forward to hearing what you LIKED about it, Heineken.

[Bartwald]

Ha, ha, I'm waiting to read Heineken's GOOD, too!

In my opinion the film is 6/10 - generally a pleasure to watch but with no surprises and some super-cringy moments in it (what Heineken mentioned). Plus I was never a hardcore fan of the franchise. For me it's saved by Raimi's ability to inject lots of energy in the picture and by some good acting (but NOT from Maguire!).

Liked it more than X-Men 3 because the characters were truly alive here, while in the latter they were just computer game characters. Except for Wolverine, perhaps.

[Heineken Skywalker]

SPIDER-MAN 3: THE GOOD...

Now, despite all my complaints about the film, believe it or not, there was a lot of stuff that I liked about it. ;D

The main cast are all back and everyone's very comfortable in their roles. It's like visiting with old friends you haven't seen in a couple of years. Surprisingly, I especially liked the interaction between Peter and his Aunt May (Rosemary Harris). This was always an important part of the comic series and it's nice to see that 3 movies later, a guy who has superpowers and can do all the amazing things that Parker can, still goes to his Aunt May for advice and reassurance. I thought there was a little too much of it in the last movie, but here I thought they had just the right amount of it. And it never got as sappy as some of the stuff between the other characters.

And back in the role that he was born to play is Tobey... Naaaahh!!!! It's J.K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson, Editor of the Daily Bugle, hater of Spider-Man and stealer of scenes! The character as played by Simmons is spot-on to how he looks and acts in the comics. His scenes always bring great comic relief to the films and this time was no exception.
Speaking of comic relief, this was Bruce Campbell's best cameo in a Spidey movie yet.
Both his And Simmon's brief appearances brought a lot of much-needed laughter to a movie that has too much forced sentimentality and moments of awkwardness.

Maguire is still great in the lead role, but Dunst and Franco kinda acted like they were ready to move on. But as Dunst herself has said, "How could the Spider-Man franchise possibly go on without her??". I'm pretty sure that the boatloads of money Spidey 3 made this past weekend was mostly Kirsten Dunst fans.
The best new addition to the cast was Thomas Haden Church as Flint Marko/Sandman. He spent a lot of time in the gym in order to more resemble the comic book character and it shows, as he fills out the Sandman's trademark black & green striped shirt. Unfortunately, he gets significantly less screentime than previous villains Green Goblin and Doc Ock. The Sandman effects are really fantastic though, and his "birth" scene, where he first learns how to control the sand to reshape his own body, was actually kind of touching and poignant. Well done to all concerned for that.
Topher Grace (Eddie Brock) and Bryce Dallas Howard (Gwen Stacey) however don't fare as well in roles that seem barely sketched in. She's introduced and then disappears quickly and he's kind of a two-dimensional jerk. And that's before he becomes Venom. Like the Sandman effects, the live-action Venom is pretty fantastic. If only either of these guys could have been featured as the main villain instead of having to share the screen, but alas.
As for effects and action scenes, the symbiote crawling around on it's own was pretty cool. And of course, the fight scenes and overall Spidey webslinging are good, but honestly, I didn't think anything stood out as much as Spidey's fights with Doctor Octopus in the last film.
Even though I thought the stuff that went wrong in this film was really jarring, I still, overall, enjoyed quite a bit of it. The movie is by no means a failure, just a bit disjointed and confused in parts, too slow some of the time, and too melodramatic in others. It was good, it just didn't leave me as satisfied as the first two. Next time I hope there's a lot less of the goofy comedy and chick flick moments, tighten up that running time and get back to basics.

7/10

Which bring us to the future of the Spider-Man franchise.
The word is that there will definitely be at least three more Spidey movies, whether Sam Raimi, Tobey Maguire and company will be involved remains to be seen. In these past three movies they've laid the groundwork for at least three possible villains. In the comics, Dr. Connors, Peter's one-armed teacher, eventually transforms into The Lizard. And J. Jonah Jameson's astronaut son, introduced in part 2, becomes the Man-Wolf. I could see the two of them wreaking havok in one film as neither might be a strong enough villain, personality-wise, to carry a whole film. And there's always the possibility of Carnage, a character who was also transformed by the same symbiote that created Venom. But no more than two villains in one film, please! Besides those three possibilities, future Spidey movies have an entire rogues gallery of villains to choose from. Mysterio, Electro, Morbius the Living Vampire, Kraven the Hunter, The Vulture and many others. Let's hope whoever the villain is in Part 4, they don't have to do battle with the Amazing Dancin' Spider-Man.

[ZapRowsdower]

Don't forget the Punisher. Punisher vs. Spidey... THAT would be awesome (wasn't Punisher introduced in a Spidey comic?)

[Quorthon]

Saw it today at a great place that combined a restaurant with a theater. Sweet shit.

I loved Spidey 3 and have no real complaints about it. Raimi did a good job juggling all the stuff going on in it. The characters were more personal and real than pretty much any other "superhero" film. And if you want to complain about "too much going on," you might as well shut up--no offense. This is a long-running comic series, with endless facets and stories and characters. There's no way they'll be able to keep up a franchise with the right combination of director-actors-etc that they've got here. It was damn near a miracle to keep the combination through three whole films. Picking out which stories and characters to use must be agonizing for the filmmakers.

I liked Topher Grace as Venom--amazingly!

The only things I maybe would've changed:
1. Less time with Peter Parker walking around as a hip new swinger during his time with the Venom alien.
2. More time getting to know Venom.

That's it. Aside from that, it was a great movie. Compare it to most other superhero film franchises third movies, and it was a brilliant marvel (no pun intended) of cinema. Even my wife liked it, and she doesn't like this kind of stuff. AWESOME!

[Heineken Skywalker]

iamthesmitty said:

Don't forget the Punisher. Punisher vs. Spidey... THAT would be awesome (wasn't Punisher introduced in a Spidey comic?)

It's true that Punisher was first introduced in the pages of Amazing Spider-Man, but seeing as how they've already got their own horrible series of movies going with Thomas Jane, PUNISHER 2 is in the works, I don't realistically see that happening. There are other villains who are known for being the foes of other superheroes, who have frequently appeared in Spidey comics too, like Kingpin and The Rhino, so you never know.

quorthon said:

And if you want to complain about "too much going on," you might as well shut up--no offense. This is a long-running comic series, with endless facets and stories and characters. Even my wife liked it, and she doesn't like this kind of stuff. AWESOME!

Well, no offense, but I won't shut up if you don't mind. You didn't really think I was going to let that just slide by, did you?
I clearly said that I liked it. A 7/10 is well above average. I just thought that the first two were more in the 8/10 or 8.5/10 range. And when it comes out on DVD I'll even buy it. I might just fast forward here and there. I liked it even more than SUPERMAN RETURNS, and I even bought that one on DVD.
I'm well aware how long Spidey's been around, seeing as how I have a collection of almost 300 issues of Amazing Spider-Man, going as far back as issue #7. Growing up, he was always my favorite comic book superhero. But Raimi and the gang have to pick and choose what stories to tell and not try to cram everything into one movie. That's one of the things that killed the 90's Batman movies. I think one of the problems is that Raimi wasn't sure if he'd be returning to direct another one so this might have been his last chance to put everything into a Spider-Man film that he wanted to see. Plus the studio pretty much demanded that Venom needed to be in this one, so that's what happens when you have too many spoons stirring the pot. You would think the studio would just sit back and say, "Well Raimi's made a shitload of money for us with the first two, let's just sit back and let him do whatever he wants.". Instead of demanding that certain characters be shoehorned into an already loaded story.
My wife does like this kind of stuff, hell, it was her suggestion to go see it at a midnight show, and she had pretty much all the same issues with it that I did. And however you guys feel about movie critics, they've almost all unanimously agreed on the too long running time, the shmaltzy soap opera stuff, the singing and dancing sequences, the overabundance of villains, and just the general silliness of how Dark Peter Parker is portrayed, so I'm not just pulling complaints out of my ass here.
It was reviewed on this weekend's EBERT & ROEPER, (Roeper and a guest critic) and they gave it two thumbs down. They had all the same issues with it that I did, but even I sat there and thought, "I agree with all their complaints, but even I wouldn't give it a thumbs down.". I thought that was a bit harsh.
Hell, I rated it higher than Bart and he seemed to like it even more than me.
You guys thought it was great. I thought it was pretty good. That's pretty much it.

[Phoenix]

Heineken, you did give a lot of criticism for a 7/10 rating. Kind of funny actually.

I liked this film way better than Superman Returns - glad you did too. It remained consistent with the characters (unlike Superman). I like how you said in your positive notes it was like revisiting old friends. That is very much how it felt for me at the theater.

And, I probably would FF through some of those slow parts too. It is one of the reasons I won't be seeing it in the theater for a second time. I'm not quite sure I want to sit through some of those scenes.

As for the future...I'd love to see Rhino. They also have The Lizard all set up with Dr.Conners there. I think the franchise can very much stay alive.

[Heineken Skywalker]

phoenix said:

Heineken, you did give a lot of criticism for a 7/10 rating. Kind of funny actually.

Yeah, I criticize because I love.
It probably just looked worse than it was because I started with the bad points and then didn't get to the good stuff until 3 days later.
Most franchises or series go through their rough patches or movies that some fans don't feel are up to par with the rest of the series. ALIEN 3, TERMINATOR 3, X-MEN 3, STAR WARS: EPISODE I, INDIANA JONES & THE TEMPLE OF DOOM, BATMAN & ROBIN, SUPERMAN 3, and the list goes on and on. The nice thing about the Spider-Man series is that it will go on and I'll just look at Part 3 as a bump in the road in what'll hopefully be a series that gets better and better, or at least what I consider, as good as the first two.

[Bartwald]

heinekenskywalker said:

Hell, I rated it higher than Bart and he seemed to like it even more than me.

Well, let's put it like that: I liked it but I'm not going to buy a DVD... unless I suddenly have too much money and turn into a Sam Raimi completist.

Two thumbs down is a surprise, though. I don't think Ebert himself would thumb it down if he were there.

[Quorthon]

phoenix said:

Heineken, you did give a lot of criticism for a 7/10 rating. Kind of funny actually.

I liked this film way better than Superman Returns - glad you did too. It remained consistent with the characters (unlike Superman). I like how you said in your positive notes it was like revisiting old friends. That is very much how it felt for me at the theater.

And, I probably would FF through some of those slow parts too. It is one of the reasons I won't be seeing it in the theater for a second time. I'm not quite sure I want to sit through some of those scenes.

As for the future...I'd love to see Rhino. They also have The Lizard all set up with Dr.Conners there. I think the franchise can very much stay alive.

My wife found out from the site she frequents that the next movie is slated to have Lizard and Carnage in it. This information supposedly came from the same source where I first heard that Topher Grace would be Venom--and that was over a year ago as I recall. The rumor (from the site my wife uses) is that this guy works for one of the companies making the Spidey movies, Sony I think. With as much money as Spidey3 is racking up, I don't see why the actors wouldn't want to do another.

The story, told to me by my wife, who heard through the internet, from a source who was previously reliable, is: The actor who plays Dr. Connors has agreed to doing a fourth movie, and to play the Lizard. Apparently, Carnage was also referenced in this rumormill generation. I guess we'll see. Hopefully, if anything, it will only have those two. If any of this is true.