I couldn’t really think of a fun parody image to reward you with for voting for Theater Hopper at buzzComix, so here’s a doodle of Tom spinning a plate! Why not, right?
A quick order of business to start the week: If you’re looking for affordable, reliable hosting for your web site, please visit our newest sponsor Revolution Hosting. These guys do a great job, provide several hosting options and won’t charge you an arm and a leg for their services! Tell ’em Tommy sentcha!
Cami and I had a very productive movie-watching weekend. I took Friday off and we spent the late morning at the zoo and then swung over to the theater for a matinee of The Terminal.
Maybe there is something wrong with the two of us, but we HATED this movie!
If you’re not familiar with the concept of the film, Tom Hanks plays an immigrant coming to the United States. But while he is in the air, a military coup occurs in his country and the government is overthrown. With the new government in place, Hank’s old country does not exist and the United States does not recognize the new one. This renders his passport invalid. He can’t return to his homeland and he can’t step onto American soil. He ends up in limbo, living inside the airport’s terminal waiting for the black tape to be cleared up.
The first 45 minutes of the movie are interesting as Hanks character attempts to overcome the situation. There is the inevitable language barrier, and some clever situation involving the food vouchers he loses and how he generates money so that he can eat.
But the film quickly loses steam once Hanks is given Catherine Zeta-Jones’ character to pine after. Zeta-Jones is TOTALLY miscast as a flight attendant who is woefully dependent on her relationships with men – ANY man. Think about every Catherine Zeta-Jones character ever put to screen. Bossy, confident, pushy. She doesn’t do “conflicted” very convincingly.
There are several points in the movie that ring emotionally false. For example, the scene detailed in today’s comic. In an attempt to win her over, Hanks takes Zeta-Jones’ character “out” for a romantic dinner. But since he can’t leave the terminal, they dine out on the terrace overlooking the tarmac. Various terminal employees lend a hand by posing as waiters. Suddenly, Kumar Pallana’s character – Gupta the janitor – steps in and starts spinning plates and juggling hoops… FOR NO REASON!
Another subplot involves one of the said terminal worker’s longing to gain the attention of an INS agent that Hank’s character sees on a daily basis. In exchange for food, he recruits Hanks to learn more information about her until he can build up the nerve to talk to her. The end of the subplot comes about when Hanks delivers an engagement ring on behalf of the airport employee and tells the INS agent he waits for him in the food court. She arrives, ring on finger and they get married! Neither of these characters have exchanged ONE LINE of dialogue in the entire movie!
This movie was setting off my B.S. detector more than I care to recall. Hanks – although portraying an lovable, almost infallible character, loses points for his Eastern Bloc “accent” which sounds more like guttural mumblings the more he learns English than anything authentic.
Cinematography Janusz Kaminski also drops the ball by creating a very murky color palette in some scenes while totally bleaching out others.
Ultimately, Hanks’ reasons for coming to the United States don’t seem to warrant the amount of patience he displays as he whittles away his time in the terminal. And there are several other scenes that felt lifted straight out of a sitcom. For example, the solemn line of police officers preventing Hanks from leaving, but then – AT THE LAST MINUTE – having a change of heart!
Have you ever watched some softball romantic comedy where all the misunderstanding that erupt during the course of the film could be cleared away if only one character would come forward with ONE PIECE of information? That’s what The Terminal feels like. We’re never given any reason why Stanley Tucci’s bureaucratic Frank Dixon just doesn’t push Hanks out the door when he becomes infuriated by his constant presence beyond some rigid obligation to “The Rules”. There is no genuine conflict here. Just a highly improbable situation that failed to connect with me despite several tries.
Hmm… I’m noticing that this little bloggy-blog is getting a little long in the tooth and I still haven’t gotten to the other two movies I saw this weekend – Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story and Saved!
Tell you what. I’ll come back to this space later and give you my thoughts on these films then. Sound good? Come back here for more overblown insights!
Wouldn’t you know it? Just as soon as I sit down and invest a bunch of time into drawing a strip about Steven Spielberg directing a remake of Mary Poppins, a spokesperson for the director has to come forward and squash the rumor.
Here’s how it all went down according to the Internet Movie Database’s Movie News page:
Spielberg Quashes ‘Mary Poppins’ Rumors
Steven Spielberg has played down rumours he is planning to remake Mary Poppins. The Saving Private Ryan director was linked to the project by Sir Richard Eyre, the director of the London stage show of Mary Poppins. He said, "Spielberg wants to make a new film of Mary Poppins and we’ve talked about it a lot. "It will be hard to outdo the original but kids love the story and I’m sure that the remake will be a real success." But Spielberg’s representative Marvin Levy counters, "I never heard of this and couldn’t imagine Steven ever doing a remake of a classic – and a (Walt Disney) classic at that. "There’s a Broadway show from Disney but nothing involving us in any way."
This always happens. Go to the trouble of spoofing a Wizard of Oz sequel starring Drew Barrymore? Talks fizzle out. Quentin Tarantino might direct the next installment in the Friday the 13th franchise? Nope. He says that was never going to happen.
So, are there any projects in the pipeline that you guys want me to put a stop to? Because I’ll do a comic about it and that’ll be all she wrote!
Related Posts ¬
Feb 9, 2011 | SUPER 8 SUPER BOWL TRAILER |
Why the thought of Mary Poppins being bitten in half by a ferocious Tyrannasourous Rex would bring a smile to a sleeping Tom’s face, we may never know. Maybe he dreams of dinosaurs?
For what it’s worth, I think today’s incentive sketch turned out really sharp. Almost like a textbook reference, isn’t it? I’m also really pleased with how the Tyrannasourous Rex turned out in the third panel. I was a little scared to attempt a rendering that was an action shot. It’s been a while since I’ve try to draw something like that.
Honestly, though… what up and coming artist didn’t cut their teeth drawing a million dinosaurs growing up? I don’t know you about you, but I was facinated by the beasties. I used to love the Stegosaurous. And when Transformers came out with the Dinobots, I wasn’t in love with Grimlock like everyone else. Snarl was my man! Stego-Powah!
So is Steven Spielberg really chomping at the bit to do a remake of Mary Poppins? Would I lie to you? Apparently there has been a West End revival of the original musical in London and it’s been selling out since it opened in December of 2004. Spielberg wants to remake THIS version. Not the Disney version with Julie Andrews, Dick Van Dyke and the dancing animated penguins.
Having not seen the London revival, I can’t judge whether this is a good idea or not. The plan is to bring the stage show to Broadway sometime this year. But I think it’s become newsworthy because Spielberg appears to be an unlikely fit. Especially when he dipped into similar territory with Hook and the Peter Pan mythos and came up empty handed.
Some people are impressed by Spielberg’s ability to alternate popcorn blockbusters with personal and poignant films. For every Jurassic Park, there is a Schindler’s List. For every War of the Worlds, there is a Munich.
I suppose it’s a smart strategy, but I count myself in the vocal minority that wishes sometimes that Spielberg would hang up the childish trappings and deliver more art. He obviously has the chops for it. Maybe he finds it displeasing. Maybe a film like Saving Priviate Ryan is made for guilty reasons. Or perhaps he makes films like Minority Report to retain clout in Hollywood. The further he goes, the more I wonder "Which filmmaker is the REAL Steven Spielberg?"
Or maybe at this stage of the game, keeping us guessing is his next deft move.
DVD REVIEW – INDIANA JONES: THE ADVENTURE COLLECTION
May 13th, 2008 | by Tom(2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 10)
At this point, reviewing the films in the Indiana Jones trilogy is a pointless exercise. For many of us, these films are woven into the tapestry of our lives – watched countless times on video and television. Enjoyed again and again with family and friends. They are omnipresent peaks in between the hills and valleys of the pop culture landscape. George Lucas and Steven Spielberg have created a series of timeless films whose legacy expands in one week with the release of Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull – nearly 19 years since the intrepid archeologist’s last adventure, Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade.
So, to that end, what is the reason behind re-releasing the first three films on DVD? Especially when they were first released (to much fanfare in 2003)? Clearly it’s a money grab on the part of Paramount, but a welcome one because included are several new bonus features that might be worth your while. Since the Indiana Jones trilogy set such a high water mark in the pop culture consciousness, we’ll be highlighting the DVD extras in this review rather than the films themselves to help you determine if this box set is something you want to add to your DVD collection. The re-released films can be found in stores today, Tuesday, May 13.
Each of the three films contain an “introduction” featuring Lucas and Spielberg speaking about their respective films, but it’s really more of a 20 minute retrospective than an introduction. These are the most revealing and insightful of the collections many extras specifically because they highlight something I’ve assumed for a long time.
George Lucas is an idiot.
Don’t get me wrong. I owe George Lucas a lot. He’s an amazing conceptualist who was able to envision whole galaxies and he has provided me a great deal of entertainment of the years. So I thank him for that.
But as an Executive Producer, he fails – and these featurettes prove it.
Talking about the casting decision to put Harrison Ford under Indy’s famous fedora, Lucas wasn’t for it. Savvy film fans know that the role was originally given to Tom Selleck who was unable to commit to the role due to his involvement with Magnum, P.I. For was Spielberg’s first choice, but Lucas objected siting the success of Star Wars and his concerns that audiences would only be familiar with Ford has Han Solo.
Similarly, for The Last Crusade, Lucas did not want Sean Connery for the role of Indy’s father – concerned that audiences would not accept him in the subordinate sidekick role. Additionally, he was concerned that audiences would only see Connery as 007 – despite the fact that he hadn’t made a James Bond movie (not counting Never Say Never Again) since 1965. Speilberg actually had to convince Lucas that James Bond was the prototype for Indiana Jones in several ways and therefore having Connery play Indiana Jones’s father made sense in a cinematic way.
Most damning, however, is the featurette on The Temple of Doom. Spielberg pretty much comes right out of the gate saying that the movie wasn’t profitable, it wasn’t well-liked by critics, is the most downbeat and least enjoyable of the original three films. Watching again for the first time in a few years, I myself had not noticed how bleak it actually is. Very violent and almost gory. Specifically, the scenes of child abuse in the temple strike a nerve in a way they haven’t before. I guess being a parent now, a switch must have flipped.
But what gets revealed here is Lucas’s insistence that The Temple of Doom go down a dark path. He insisted on it, in fact – siting the success of The Empire Strikes Back. In Lucas’s mind, the second act of a trilogy needs to be downbeat so the hero can rally and come back stronger in the third installment. He actually says this in the featurette.
But there’s a problem with this logic. The Indiana Jones trilogy was not written as one film like Star Wars was. They are episodic like the old Republic adventure serials. The second issue is that – chronologically – The Temple of Doom actually takes place one year before Raiders of The Lost Ark. So shouldn’t the first movie be the downtrodden one.
Most outrageously of all, after Spielberg talks about his distaste for the film, Lucas admits that it is also his least favorite of the three because of it’s dark tone. “I’m more of a humor guy,” he says.
WHAT?! I actually had to pause the DVD and rewind it to make sure I heard him right.
It just goes to show that Lucas doesn’t trust his actors or even his audience to interpret his films correctly. Points for professionalism go to Spielberg, however, who expresses that he was a director hired to execute Lucas’s vision and performed the role he was hired to do.
For those of you hoping for an audio commentary on these movies, you’re out of luck. The “introduction” featurettes are as close as you’re going to get to listening to Spielberg and Lucas wax philosophical on their films.
Other featurettes on Raiders of The Lost Ark include “Indiana Jones: An Appreciation” where cast members from Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of The Crystal Skull talk about the first three movies and their memories of each. It’s a fluff piece that will probably have greater context after The Kingdom of The Crystal Skull comes out on DVD, but, for now, feels highly promotional.
More interesting in the featurette “The Melting Face” where we go behind-the-scenes and talk to the effects supervisor who created the most nightmare-inducing effect of the early 80’s with Toht’s melting face after the Ark of the Covenant is opened. They show you how it’s done from start to finish, providing side-by-side comparisons to the original effect with a recreation developed specifically for release.
The featurettes on The Temple of Doom include “Creepy Crawlies” where critter wranglers on all three films discuss how they corralled all of the various snakes, bugs and rats to hit their marks and terrify the actors. They also hint at the tradition continuing in the fourth film, but don’t give away specifics as to what.
“Locations” highlight all of the remote areas around the globe that Indiana Jones shot to give the series it’s globetrotting vibe. Everywhere from Sri Lanka to Jordan, Vencie and Utah. Even the same canyon in Tunisia where R2-D2 was captured by Jawas in the first Star Wars!
Finally, The Last Crusade has a featurette called “Friends and Enemies” that provides an overview of the supporting characters in the Indiana Jones films and an exerpt from a sit down discussion with Karen Allen, Kate Capshaw and Alison Doody called “The Women: The American Fim Institute Tribute” which was originally recorded in conjunction with the film’s release on DVD five years ago.
The discussion starts out slow with each of the actresses talking more about how great Indiana Jones is as a character and less about their own contributions to the films.
Eventually, as things pick up, interesting tidbits about the actresses themselves are revealed. Alison Doody admit to being intimidated on set due to it being an early acting job and the most high profile one of her career. She talks about how Sean Connery “stole” her role as the sidekick of the picture and how she was offered several films featuring characters with Austrian accents after the film was released – even though she is Irish and had great trouble performing the accent in the film. She doesn’t come off as bitter, exactly. But more overwhelmed and maybe even slightly disinterested in the fame the film brought her.
Kate Capshaw spends a great deal of time talking about how critics ravaged the character of Willie Scott as annoying and grating and had very few kind things to say about her as well. In the way that she talks, you get the sense that she’s disassociated her performance and blames the critical response to how the character was written. “I told Stephen during filming,” Capshaw says, “that there was too much screaming!” Turns out she was right.
Interestingly enough, Spielberg goes on endlessly about Capshaw in the “introduction” featurette for The Temple of Doom. Despite the difficulties he had with the film, he says he can’t be too disappointed with the experience because it introduced him to Capshaw (they married in 1991). Spielberg talks at length about how enthralled he was with Capshaw’s performance, praising her comedic timing and gift for physical comedy. Nepotism runs pretty deep here.
It turns out that Karen Allen emerges as the most well-adjusted of Indy’s former flames. Still as effervescent as she was in the first film, it’s no doubt that same spunk brought her back to the role she left behind nearly 30 years in The Kingdom of The Crystal Skull.
Beyond that, each of the three films contain a storyboard sequence that compares drawings to the completed footage as well as multiple photo galleries featuring photos and props, production photography and portraits, effects and marketing materials. Some of the galleries are more interesting than others, specifically the effects and marketing sets. It’s kind of interested to see how Indiana Jones is repackaged for Japanese audiences.
Overall I don’t know if there is enough material here to warrant a repurchase of the DVDs if you already own the 2003 release. But if you don’t already own them and are looking for an excuse to get even MORE excited about The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, you can’t go wrong here. The films continue to entertain and they are simply a must for any serious DVD collection.
MOVIE REVIEW – INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL
May 26th, 2008 | by Tom(2 votes, average: 7.00 out of 10)
Typically, when a franchise fill series takes the better part of a generation to introduce another sequel into the pop culture landscape, the entry could be misconstrued as a money grab.
But, for whatever reason, the latest installment of the Indiana Jones is a film that fans have been chomping at the bit to see. Chalk it up to excellent marketing, and indelible heroic lead or perhaps the sands of time fogging the lens of nostalgia.
After all these years, does Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of The Crystal Skull hold up? Infuriatingly, yes and no. While not a dour or violent as the exhausting Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom, Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of The Crystal Skull suffers from one too many head scratching, credibility straining moments that pull the view right out of the movie and suck the life from it.
However, the movie starts with a bang – literally. We catch up with our hero in 1957. Indy has been kidnapped and taken to a mysterious government warehouse in the middle of the Nevada dessert. His captor is KGB agent Irina Spalko, played with a hint of dominatrix glee by Cate Blanchet. She wants Indy to find an artifact that will give the Soviet army the upper hand in the escalating Cold War.
Indy’s romp and eventual escape from his Russian captors are the most exhilirating moments of the movie. And, although the sequence ends with one of those head-scratching moments I was referring to, you let it slide. Because it’s exactly the kind of "by the skin of your teeth" escape you wan to see Indiana Jones make.
Later on, when a switchblade-wielding greaser named Mutt Williams comes looking for Jones to help him track down his mother, also kidnapped by the Russians, it isn’t long before Indy is drawn back into the conflict.
What follows is a slow unraveling of the film’s initial bounce and swagger. The film begins to feel less like a treasure hunt and more like a series of unending action sequences.
Part of Indiana Jones’s appeal is that he is an everyman hero who can be hurt and complains about the obstacles being thrown in his path. While there is a certain amount of that bruiser charm on display here (largely at the expense of star Harrison Ford’s advancing age), eventually you feel like there simply isn’t enough time between harrowing escapes and near-misses for Indy to reflect on his mortality in a humorous way. The pacing of the film gives neither the audience or our hero time to rest.
By the time the film reaches it’s ultimate conclusion, it all kind of feels like a blur. Less of a “whodunnit” and more of a “whatwuzthat?”
The performances in the film are all well done – especially Harrison Ford who inhabits Indiana Jones so thoroughly, it’s the most fun I’ve had watching him on screen in years. Shia LaBeouf comes off less annoying than I expected, toning down his more frantic actorly tics and zeroing in on the "not quite a nerd, not quite a hunk" niche he occupies so well.
But some of the characters feel perfunctory. Ray Winstone as a duplicitous adventurer adds nothing but dead-weight and false conflict to the proceedings. Karen Allen returns as Marion Ravenwood – Indiana Jones’s one, true love. But her contribution feels less like a contextual advancement of the plot but more of a "fill in the blank" role required to explain relationships between characters.
With these check marks in the minus column, the movie doesn’t fail completely. Even though I recognize some of the more awful, groan-inducing moments (Shia LaBeouf – Kind of the Monkeys, anyone?) the movie delivered the kind of entertainment I was looking for. In some ways, it ignites the imagination in unexpected ways.
For example, it was alluded that Jones spent his time between adventures operating behind enemy lines in World War II and was designated the Army rank of Colonel. Both my wife and I turned to each other at the same time and said”I want to see THAT movie!”
But, for what is is, Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of The Crystal Skull does not disappoint.
I think fanboys who are looking to pick apart every last detail of the movie won’t have a problem finding weaknesses in it’s armor. But, within it’s given context, how disappointed can you be? The sci-fi elements of the film fit within the 1950’s time period the movie takes place. The fantastic escapes and cartoonish villains really aren’t any worse than what Indy has faced in the past.
This is the double-edged sword of nostalgia. Some people will remember the original movies for being better than they were. Or, at least assume that Kingdom of Skull will always be the runt of the litter.
My biggest complaints have to do less with content and more with execution. Director Steven Spielberg swore up and down that the film would rely on practical effects and there is a little too much CGI for my taste in this picture. Some of the more knowing nods to past adventures could have been eliminated and the movie probably could have benefited from a little bit of a trim on its running time.
But overall? Fun is fun and Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of The Crystal Skull is an adventure I would line up for again in a heartbeat.
I can tell you how long I’ve wanted to do this comic. And that’s a really weird thing to admit.
I don’t know where it came from. But one day I was just sitting around and, for some reason was thinking about the actor that played Rufio from Steven Spielberg’s Hook. I wasn’t even watching Hook at the time. Hell, I haven’t seen that movie in 15 years!
But there it was. Just kind of sitting on my frontal lobe. “Whatever happened to that guy?”
I looked him up on IMDB. His name is Dante Basco, if you’re curious. He’s still out there working – earning a paycheck. He’s done some cartoon voiceover work. Done some stuff for Disney. Good for him! I’m happy he’s still out there earnin’.
But, yeah, man… Rufio…
Rufio! Rufio! RU-FI-OOOOOOOOOOO!!!
So, anyway… There’s your completely random reference of the day.
Switching gears….
I didn’t mention it Monday because I don’t want to beat you guys over the head with it (and, truthfully, I’m still responding to e-mails from last week) but I wanted to point your attention again to the donation drive. There have been a couple of e-mails asking for specifics about what donators can expect to receive for their contributions, so I included a few more details on the donation page. Suffice to say, the more you donate, the more you get. From a sketch card, to a drawing, to an appearance in the comic to a full blown custom comic meant for your-eyes-only!
The latter two are extra special because I’ll also send you the original artwork plus a fully-colored 11 x 17″ poster signed by yours truly! It’s going to be great!
Also, don’t forget that EVERYONE who donates regardless of the amount is in the running to win a fully-colored 11 x 17″ poster of the art on the right along with the original drawing. All if it signed by me, of course.
You should also keep in mind that the person who donates THE MOST will receive a special canvas painting of a Theater Hopper cast member created by me and this will TRULY be a one-of-a-kind creation. I haven’t painted it yet, but I want to do it soon so you can see what you’re in the running for!
Things are going along splendidly. I haven’t updated the progress bar, but we are in fact at the half way point! That’s completely amazing to me and I want to thank all of you who have donated so far.
I’m working on some of the sketches for those of you who have donated $25 or more and I hope to have a couple of them posted to the blog on Friday so you can see the level I’m producing at. I want this custom art to be really good for you guys. It might take me a little longer to get it to you, but you’ll get the best possible drawing I can hope to give you. I owe you nothing less than one hundred and ten percent for your help.
That’s all for me today. Thanks again for everyone’s support and kind e-mails. Two weeks ago I was about as low as one could be. I’m happy to say that things are looking up!
Have a Rufio-riffic day!
Last year’s teaser trailer for J.J. Abrams’s Super 8 was as vague as it was violent. Which made me think it was some kind of indirect sequel to Cloverfield. Which, in turn, made me apprehensive about seeing it.
But the Super Bowl trailer released on Sunday puts Steven Spielberg’s name as producer up front and the tone of the piece deftly blends hazy mid-70’s nostalgia with a hint of the unknown through the eyes of a child – a Spielberg specialty. I walked away from this trailer with a sense more akin to E.T. – The Extra Terrestrial or Close Encounters of the Third Kind than I did before.
What was your reaction to Super 8? Leave your comments below!
Related Posts ¬
Dec 22, 2011 | TRAILER – PROMETHEUS |
Dec 20, 2011 | TRAILER – THE DARK KNIGHT RISES |
Feb 10, 2012 | TRAILER – GOON |
Jan 13, 2012 | TRAILER – FRIENDS WITH KIDS |
My apologies for the lateness of this week’s comic. I struggled with this one. I think I probably bit off more than I could chew. I guess 8-panel comics do that to me.
But I really wanted to include that line about walkie-talkies and shotguns. As you may or may not remember, Spielberg digitally removed the shotguns federal agents were carrying and replaced them with walkie-talkies for the film’s 20th anniversary re-release in 2002. It caused a bit of an uproar.
I’m sure I wasn’t the only person to have looked at the trailers for Super 8 and thought to themselves “It looks like E.T. with lens flares.” It’s kind of hard not to when you know that Spielberg was an executive producer and they slapped that old Amblin Entertainment title card in front of the previews.
Additionally, harping on Abrams for utilizing his favorite visual device may even be a little cheap. But at least there was SOME context for the lens flares in Abrams’ reboot of the Star Trek franchise. He said he wanted the film to look like the future.” What’s the deal with adding lens flares to a movie that’s supposed to take place in 1979?
I didn’t get a chance to see Super 8 this weekend and was left kicking myself because I’ve done a really good job of keeping myself spoiler-free. If Abrams is known for his love of lens flares, he’s equally well known for creating an air of mystery around his films. Although, once the mystery is revealed, there is rarely a reason to stick around or care about that movie ever again (Cloverfield, I’m looking at you.)
I do kind of wonder if this retro-vibe Abrams is exploring with Super 8 isn’t a bit of a wank, though. This is not just a period piece we’re talking about. He’s purposefully aping a specific style. Is Abrams trying to push the nostalgia button to earn points with audiences? Is Super 8 an original composition or is it a remix? The way Hollywood looks these days, it’s hard to know what’s authentic anymore. Every movie is either a remake, a sequel or a reference to something else.
But I still want to entertain the mystery. I’m kind of enjoying the chase. That’s why I’m not exactly enthusiastic to ask you guys to submit your thoughts about Super 8 if you happened to see it this weekend. I want to go in “pure.”
After all, if Super 8 is an 80’s throwback, it seems appropriate to be caught off-sides by it like audiences back then did. Back before there was the internet or a 1,000 spoilers creeping around every corner.
Am I alone in this? Did anyone else experience the same sense of anticipation with Super 8? Is it justified or am I being manipulated? And if I’m being manipulated, isn’t that kind of the point?
I guess I’m feeling kind of philosophical today. If you’d like to add your thoughts in the comments section, jump in.