DVDizzy Forum

Pepé Le Pew to stink up big screen
http://animatedviews.com/2010/pepe-le-p ... ig-screen/

Rocky and Bullwinkle, Garfield, Yogi Bear, The Chipmunks, Speedy Gonzales...and now Pepe Le Pew. Call me when they make one on Petunia Pig. She's underrated.

I guess these films make money, but are they necessary?

It's funny you mention Rocky and Bullwinkle, considering it was a massive bomb. Garfield 2 also did poor business. But, the massively confusing success of Alvin and the Chipmunks (I'm still perplexed people went to see the Squakquel when The Princess and the Frog was playing right next door).

The other funny thing is that Speed Racer was actually a great adaptation of the animated series and not a lot of people saw it. I still think, that with the right script, The Jetsons could work. Also, Animaniacs if they bring in Steven Spielberg to produce, get the original writers to work on the script and make it like Roger Rabbit.

Pepe Le Pew, on the other hand? I don't know how they can stretch a skunk chasing a painted cat to ninety minutes. And if Warner Brothers feels that today's youth aren't familiar enough with the Looney Tunes, why don't you try giving the classic shorts some play-time on Cartoon Network? The little ones won't be bored as brain-rotted as today's Chipmunks-loving, Hannah Montana youth is. If my generation could appreciate them, even after watching annoying crap like Pokemon, sure the eight-year-olds of today can.

You'd think Mike Myers would've learned his lesson after the catastrophe of The Cat in the Hat.

Seriously, why are they trying to turn every classic cartoon character into a feature film?

Rocky and Bullwinkle, Garfield, Yogi Bear, The Chipmunks, Speedy Gonzales...and now Pepe Le Pew

Don't forget Bugs Bunny.

...and Marvin The Martian. This is like the 4th Live-Action/CGI Looney Tunes film I've heard this year! While I do like Mike Myers, why does WB find it necessary to make these kind of films?

blackcauldron85 wrote:I guess these films make money, but are they necessary?

Not really.

Looney Tunes: Back in Action (from 2004) made $68,514,844 worldwide on a reported $80,000,000 budget (without marketing). The best PR person in the world could not make this seem positive.

Warner Bros. messed up the Looney Tunes franchise big time. I find it humorous that they have so much faith in these projects, when it's obvious that the Looney Tunes are hugely underexposed ever since Space Jam left theatres, and a few semi-CGI movies with obnoxious celebrity voices is not going to change that. Then again, they have produced some new Roadrunner shorts to accompany other WB family films in theatres, and then there's that new show for Cartoon Network, which seems fun. I'm not too sure though.

Thanks Warner Bros., you've ruined my childhood yet again!

I usually tend to defend films like this, because too often it seems people hate and prejudge them simply because they are live-action/cgi films about cartoons they grew up with, and I don't see how that automatically is a problem. I also hate the old "Is this film necessary" question, since few films, if any, could be called "necessary". It's entertainment. Can films be more than that? Yes. Do they need to be in order to be extremely enjoyable? No.

However, I can't say much to defend the concept of Looney Tunes in live-action/CGI, because it just doesn't work with their style/concept/world... whatever. No, it's not the same as Yogi or the Chipmunks. Yogi frequently interacted with humans, as did the Chipmunks. The Looney Tunes frequently interacted with each other and toon humans who were too toony to be portrayed well by humans. Yeah, you could do live-action CGI Pepe, or Michigan J. Frog (that actually would make an interesting short), but to do a full-length film in live-action/CGI when the people are mostly just background, like with Pepe, it's just pointless. It's like doing a live-action Road Runner short. CGI Road Runner and Coyote on real backgrounds... Why bother doing it that way? Yet, I'm not saying they couldn't write a story to make it work, but it would have to be a pretty drastic change from what Pepe's shorts usually are about. Then again, if they did a full-length feature Pepe film in 2D animation, most of us would be thrilled, yet it would still require a story departure from the usual Pepe fair. But it wouldn't require the adding of a lot of human interaction and likely a couple of unnecessary human characters that fall in love by the end...

So, yeah, I'll keep defending these films when I think they are decent ideas. Whether they will be well executed or not is another matter. The issues should not be confused. It's like arguing that sequels or remakes should not be made because you haven't liked the recent batch or you are annoyed with too many of them being released lately. There are plenty of other films out there, you just have to look beyond the Yahoo trailers. But, with these live-action/CGI toons, I'll agree with something mentioned before, that Speed Racer was awesome. I'll also say that, while it may not be popular here, I thought the first Chipmunks film was great (and I am a longtime Chipmunks fan). I also thought the Flintstones films were mostly awesome except each had some very annoying casting flaws that should NOT have happened. And, yeah, a Jetsons film would be awesome! I have long wanted them to make one starring Tim Allen and Danny Devito. The Scooby Doo films were fun and had some moments of brilliance, but they disappointed in not being a straightforward enough interpretation of the old show (the first direct to video prequel did a better job in that regard, though it was flawed as well). And, frankly, so far, I think Yogi looks like it's going to be great. But, the Looney Tunes I still do not agree with. Imagine them redesigning Bug Bunny to look like a real rabbit? Even Pepe to look like a real skunk? How this is going to look I can't even imagine. The Looney Tunes are just TOO Tooney. They're like as Toony as you can get. It would be like making Mickey, Donald, and Goofy look like real animals. I've experimented with this. It can't be done. Simply the best way to do live-action films with such extremely toon characters is in the style of Roger Rabbit, with traditional animation, as was done in Space Jam and Back in Action. Personally, I only liked two things about Space Jam, the vast showcase of Looney Tunes characters and the gorgeous and still tragically underused Lola Bunny. The plot and all, it was just stupid. On the other hand, I really enjoy Back in Action (though it needed Lola). It starts out clunky, but it gets very enjoyable and very funny. Steve Martin is outstanding in that flick, and I'm saddened that it didn't do well, but I never expected it to. In my opinion, the Looney Tunes have rarely been funny since they were on the big screen. All their work since then has lacked talented comedy writing, in my opinion, and a lot of times I don't like the voices. Even their big screen stuff when they've tried to bring them back has been lame, in my opinion, except one Road Runner short I saw some time ago (I forget with what film; Back in Action?). And, one of their biggest problems, in my opinion, is that Bugs is completely unlikeable. He is no longer confident and kinda cocky. Now he is just plain insufferably cocky. Purely an arrogant jerk. I was watching some 40's/50's Bugs the other day, and it is amazing how different he is portrayed.

But, back to the subject of bringing the Looney Tunes back, and doing them in CGI/live-action. While I still say they don't make enough use of humans to make a CGI/live action film very worthwhile, and they would look ludicrous as real animals, there's always the chance these will be done in a different sort of CGI. As in, the style we sometimes see Mickey and the gang in, still with the same cartoony designs, but just not created traditionally. That would be a more logical way to go, though really, more logical would be to do them in traditional form. But, really, in my opinion, if Waner wants to make the Looney Tunes popular again, of course the best thing would be to make new shorts (and good ones), but my suggestion would be to do some well-made, bigscreen, traditionally animated features. Why not a full length Looney Tunes adventures starring Bugs and Daffy in the style of an old Hope/Crosby Road picture, all traditionally animated and full of Looney Tunes cameos? That would be the right way to bring them back, in my opinion. AND with Lola Bunny, of course. And, besides that, for goodness sake, make the Six Flags parks something decent/worth visiting. They are, at least the ones I've been to, just awful! Go to the Disney parks and take notes! These parks DO have a reflection on your characters' reputations too. But, CGI Pepe LePew... I'll reserve judgement, because that's the right way to do it, but it does not sound like a smart idea.

slave2moonlight wrote:I usually tend to defend films like this, because too often it seems people hate and prejudge them simply because they are live-action/cgi films about cartoons they grew up with, and I don't see how that automatically is a problem. I also hate the old "Is this film necessary" question, since few films, if any, could be called "necessary". It's entertainment. Can films be more than that? Yes. Do they need to be in order to be extremely enjoyable? No.

Film is necessary. Let's say it's necessary if people genuinely want to make a film, they have a vision, they want to make art, they want to make entertainment, etc. Not just to make some cash or franchise awareness.

You do know entertainment is necessary, don't you? Without it we'd kill ourselves.

Disney Duster wrote: Film is necessary. Let's say it's necessary if people genuinely want to make a film, they have a vision, they want to make art, they want to make entertainment, etc. Not just to make some cash or franchise awareness.

You do know entertainment is necessary, don't you? Without it we'd kill ourselves.

Ha, sorry, as much as I love entertainment personally, I don't buy that. But I wasn't talking about "film", but rather, individual films, in which case the best argument for them being necessary is usually based on opinion.

How on earth did people survive before we had film then, right?

enigmawing wrote:How on earth did people survive before we had film then, right?

Hey, don't knock cave wall paintings. I saw some of them and the drama of it all was more Oscar caliber than anything made today. Seriously, I cried buckets watching them...

enigmawing wrote:How on earth did people survive before we had film then, right?

Truly.

And, in regards to films just being made to cash in or milk/revive a franchise, a lot of great films came out of such greedy inspirations, including a lot of the better superhero films, to cite some examples. Yes, that results in a lot of bad ones being made too, but we shouldn't let those blind us to the good ones or create a rule of no more attempts allowed.

slave2moonlight wrote:

enigmawing wrote:How on earth did people survive before we had film then, right?

Truly.

And, in regards to films just being made to cash in or milk/revive a franchise, a lot of great films came out of such greedy inspirations, including a lot of the better superhero films, to cite some examples. Yes, that results in a lot of bad ones being made too, but we shouldn't let those blind us to the good ones or create a rule of no more attempts allowed.

And, this is my opinion (which is always the case when talking about Entertainment) but I think outside of the first "Flintstones" movie and maybe "Pop Eye," these live action versions of classic animated films need to stop. It is not just about the CGIing of these classic characters (although that issue alone is reason enough to cry foul over them) but also simply the fact that they just don't work. Each has been a cheep imitation of the original source material and in the long run damage the over all appeal of the character.

I guess you could say, if ever the phrase "If it's not broken, don't fix it" applied, it would be with these films and character. I want THE REAL Scooby Doo, or Rocky and Bullwinkle, or Yogi Bear. These films are so clearly made just to cash in on old properties, it is not even funny. How anyone can't see that, I'll never understand, and maybe is the reason Hollywood feels they can get away with keep giving this crap to us.

If they can't do a character right, please don't do it at all. I'm off my soap box now, carry on...

milojthatch wrote: And, this is my opinion (which is always the case when talking about Entertainment) but I think outside of the first "Flintstones" movie and maybe "Pop Eye," these live action versions of classic animated films need to stop.

milojthatch wrote: It is not just about the CGIing of these classic characters (although that issue alone is reason enough to cry foul over them)

Why? Again, this is a big part of the problem I have with these sorts of blanket campaigns. Yes, I can understand this on a case by case basis. SOMETIMES it can apply, like with Looney Tunes, IF they try to make them look realistic, but as a general practice it is not a reason to cry foul. Cartoon characters have always changed their looks with the times. And if you want to argue media, it was rather weird at first when Muppet Babies was 2D instead of using actual Muppets, but it was still a good show.

milojthatch wrote: but also simply the fact that they just don't work. Each has been a cheep imitation of the original source material and in the long run damage the over all appeal of the character.

Okay, I know you mentioned that this was your opinion (but now you're stating it's simple fact? *sigh*), but that's not a good reason to demand a type of film be stopped. Let me cite an example. I met a guy once on a webboard (disturbingly, a Disney consumer relations forum) who felt that all films made by Disney, ALL of them except Snow White and Pinocchio, were utter garbage because they were, according to him, purely formulaic products of a Disney machine. He truly believed the only films Walt Disney or the Company ever made with any merit were those two. And while we don't hear of people saying that very much, I am sure there are others who feel the same. It's one thing to feel they are garbage and even to have a group backing you up in agreement, but to demand that a certain kind of film doesn't get made anymore because a group of people think it is garbage, well, that's just ridiculous.

And, as far as things being cheap imitations of the original source material. A. That is more opinion, just to remind you, and B. There is always someone saying that about any film based on another source. Most films are based on books, and don't the book people nearly always complain about how much better the book is? And maybe it's true, but in many of those very cases, the movie is still pretty awesome. Plus, words like "better" often are not being used correctly. More often, the film is just different from the source material, usually to make it work for the screen or a new or different audience, but to the loyal fan of the original source material, that translates to being inferior.

And let's take notice that you mentioned liking two live-action animated films. Here's the big problem. You can get a group of people who hate all the live-action animated films except two together, and they often will have a different two that they like. So, again, that's the problem with saying, "Don't make any more of this crap!" It's like if you say, "Don't make anymore vampire movies! I only ever saw two good ones! The rest are cheap imitations of Dracula!" So, maybe the world is saved from Twilight, but we also don't get to see "Let the Right One In". And, of course, many people would rather see Twilight than Let the Right One In. And, arrogantly, many think those people lack taste and refinement just because they are entertained by something the first party views as garbage.

And, before I forget, about these films damaging the overall appeal of the character, that just doesn't make sense. Most of these characters are just in limbo right now. Younger generations don't know them, and the older generations, the people who are fans, they might not warm up to the new incarnations, but why should new stuff hurt their view of the old stuff. That is another statement you read a lot on these forums that strike up against certain types of films, like sequels, remakes, and live-action cartoons. It's just not true. All these films can do is flop, and some of them do just the opposite. They definitely don't hurt the dead appeal of these characters as current, relevant entities, but rather give them new life. The Chipmunks was a great example of this.

milojthatch wrote: I guess you could say, if ever the phrase "If it's not broken, don't fix it" applied, it would be with these films and character. I want THE REAL Scooby Doo, or Rocky and Bullwinkle, or Yogi Bear. These films are so clearly made just to cash in on old properties, it is not even funny. How anyone can't see that, I'll never understand, and maybe is the reason Hollywood feels they can get away with keep giving this crap to us.

I don't think it's an issue of people not being able to see that. I think what many folks are in denial about here is that MOST movies are made with turning a profit as being the main purpose. Certainly most franchises fall into this category. Yet, many franchises and their made for profit products still turn out some great stuff. The Planet of the Apes saga is an excellent example. All those sequels were just made to tap into a cash cow, but they were all excellent.

As for the "If it's not broken, don't fix it" thing, well, as franchises, a lot of these subjects ARE broken. Certainly, Looney Tunes is in need of fixing. Many of us feel this is not the way to do it, but for some characters it may well be. Like I said, whether you like the films or not, it did wonders for bringing back the Chipmunks. And reboots which take a majorly different route have repeatedly worked for Batman, the most recent film being immensely well loved and respected. Of course, folks who feel nostalgic about these characters, many at least, often come out saying they only want the originals. Well, just don't go to the movies. The new generation has a right to its own versions of these characters too, tailor made for them but keeping the essence of the originals. The Mickey Mouse I grew up with was not the original, animal abusing, pie-eyed Mickey, and I'm glad the nostalgic didn't prevent my version of Mickey from coming around.

milojthatch wrote: If they can't do a character right, please don't do it at all. I'm off my soap box now, carry on...

But, everyone has a different opinion on if a character has been done right, don't they? The creator of Mary Poppins did not feel Walt Disney had done her right.

I realize that all I did was make a joke post in here, so here are my real thoughts on the movie and what Slavetomoonlight said:

While I am kind of like slave in that I am not that quick to dismiss a live action movie, I believe that the whole thing is getting out of control. I understand that movies are made for profit and entertainment, but the WB has greenlighted many, MANY movies based on the success of a couple of them. Am I the only one seeing an issue with this? No, I am not talking in terms of quality but in terms of economics.

The only live action movie that has seen great success was Alvin and the Chipmunks. Stuff like Marmaduke and Garfield have done middling to very poor at the box office, and specially in Marmaduke's case they were created to follow a trend. There is no guarantee that Yogi Bear will be successful, so why is the WB accepting these movies before the waters are tested. It will get to a point where people will get tired of these movies and it will affect them dearly, meaning that a good movie with a GREAT concept and inspired execution will be ignored because the other poor movies annoyed the audience and thus "people don't care anymore".

If the WB really wants to put these characters out there, why not employ different methods of film? Rather than doing a live action movie, do something fully animated, re-invent some characters while keeping some of them intact but relevant to today's pop culture. VARIETY, that's what I am talking about it.

As for the concept of movies being solely entertainment, it's true... But who says entertainment can't educate, enlighten, touch people and even explore some subtle aspects of life? That's why we have so many different genres of movies: they are all entertainment, but handle it differently.

Take for example... Up versus Despicable Me. Both are very entertaining movies, but are very different in that regard. Up talks about death, loneliness, sadness, broken dreams and other subjects uncommon in the animated world. Now, take Despicable Me. It is a full blown comedy featuring lots of gags, explosions, silliness and surreal characters. It does deal with some ideas, but the purpose is to have fun.

To go even further... Michael Moore's movies are entertaining. Yes, he makes them in order to drive a point home and maybe even inspire people to change and enrage them towards a better life, but he makes it ENTERTAINING. We have these silly comedic scenes, outrageous moments where he tries to infiltrate a company and many other things. It's entertainment with a purpose.

I think I am rambling now, but I hope you see my point. All film is entertaining to an extend, regardless of genre and purpose.

These guys watch the money matters more closely than anything. If they're not doing well in theaters, they must be making it back on home video or something. Not all, of course, but ones like Garfield, which must have done well enough financially for them to make a sequel. I wouldn't worry about the money matters, because they wouldn't greenlight more and more of these if they weren't paying off more often than not, or at least hugely when they do pay off.

Something else to be considered is that Marmaduke is not as well-known from the get go as Garfield, or especially as Yogi. Plus, Marmaduke's trailers were not impressive at all, while the Yogi trailers are. Looks like they worked harder on making it a good movie. I know other folks here will nod their heads in disagreement, but at this point they have only convinced me that they would nod their heads negatively towards anything that is a live-action/CGI version of a classic cartoon simple on principle. Incidentally though, Alvin and the Chipmunks is not the only live-action movie based on a cartoon that has had great success. I'm pretty sure I've read that the Flintstones movie did quite well. And though it wasn't one of these CGI things, Addams Family was also based on a comic strip. And, I don't recall, but didn't Casper do quite well? People only seem to have Garfield and Chipmunks on the brain anymore. Anyway, while there's no guarantee that Yogi will be successful, there is a good chance, since he is probably at least as famous as the Chipmunks. Marmaduke did not have that advantage, and I'm not sure Garfield is as famous as Yogi either, but I could be wrong about that. WB's risks with the Looney Tunes though, I can't back that up. You'd think they'd try one out before greenlighting any more, especially since Back in Action flopped. Though, I still say it was much better than Space Jam and a lot of fun.

pap64 wrote: It will get to a point where people will get tired of these movies and it will affect them dearly, meaning that a good movie with a GREAT concept and inspired execution will be ignored because the other poor movies annoyed the audience and thus "people don't care anymore".

I always thought that would happen with CGI animated features in general, but it hasn't really happened yet. It almost seems this IS happening with these CGI/live-action toon flicks already though, but really I think it's just complaints from those who have hated the genre to begin with that make it look that way. Keep in mind that a lot of people love these flicks, even if they aren't always hits. THat's why they keep making them. What that means is, while a lot of people here like to type on and on about how crappy they are, not everyone agrees with them. Most people here seem to hate the Chipmunks movie, and yet a lot of that seems to be just because they are hung up on the '80's incarnations, as if that was even the original versions. The live-action films have more in common with the original concepts of the Chipmunks than the '80's show did. Granted, the things that were wrong with the first Chipmunk live-action movie seemed to be too big a part of the squeakquel, but the first one itself was really a very good little movie. Of course, that's my opinion, but that's probably part of why it did very well. It obviously wasn't just because it was a live-action cartoon, or anything else like that. Garfield might have done better too, if they hadn't altered the supporting characters so much. The plot itself, and Garfield himself, were pretty true to past Garfield works.

pap64 wrote: If the WB really wants to put these characters out there, why not employ different methods of film? Rather than doing a live action movie, do something fully animated, re-invent some characters while keeping some of them intact but relevant to today's pop culture. VARIETY, that's what I am talking about it.

I can get behind that. In fact, I've said before that with the Looney Tunes they should stick with 2D and do a new animated feature. I'm not really keen on reinventing such established characters. In that case, why use established characters? But adding in some new characters, good ones, like when they created Lola Bunny (though they ceased to use her enough since then), would be a great idea. Before going ahead with a live-action take on a cartoon, I do feel they should look at the characters and see if they do really offer themselves up to such a concept. I don't see the problem with there being a lot of live-action cartoon films out there. It's just another kind of film. Complaining about that is like saying there are too many comedies, don't make anymore. There are too many horror films in existence today. Stop making them. Or, remember our big scare on 2D animated films ending, and that may still be a problem... Still not seeing many of those... But, yeah, each project should be looked at first as whether or not it is a good idea, and in characters like this, if they work in a live-action translation. Of course, it isn't helpful to be a person who just says, "If it's a live-action cartoon, it's not a good idea." That's just b.s. prejudice. It doesn't add up with some of the profits some of these films get, either. Anyway, I've gone through this before. Some characters do lend themselves well to live-action. And, sometimes you just have to see some tests or something first. I think Yogi lends himself quite well so far. I thought the Chipmunks and Casper looked excellent. It doesn't guarantee good writing or anything like that, but that is a possible problem with any kind of movie, and it also is something that can be solved with any kind of movie. It depends on the writer. Somewhere out there is a writer who could get Yogi Bear an Oscar nomination. I doubt he'll ever write a Yogi Bear movie, but he, or she, is out there.

pap64 wrote: As for the concept of movies being solely entertainment, it's true... But who says entertainment can't educate, enlighten, touch people and even explore some subtle aspects of life? That's why we have so many different genres of movies: they are all entertainment, but handle it differently.

I don't disagree with this at all, but some people demand it from every movie, as if a movie can't be enjoyed purely for the fun of it. Which, I think we could find pretty hypocritical by viewing any of these people's unadjusted favorite movie list. Of course, in truth, you can find a life lesson in pretty much any narrative, but, of course, when this is brought up, you get the complaints of the lesson being cliche, etc... In other words, there is always something for the complainers to complain about. There are folks out there who hate the Wizard of Oz. What can you do...

pap64 wrote: Take for example... Up versus Despicable Me. Both are very entertaining movies, but are very different in that regard. Up talks about death, loneliness, sadness, broken dreams and other subjects uncommon in the animated world. Now, take Despicable Me. It is a full blown comedy featuring lots of gags, explosions, silliness and surreal characters. It does deal with some ideas, but the purpose is to have fun.

Exactly.

One thing I forgot to mention earlier about the WB and the Looney Tunes is that they are trying to bring back the franchise through gimmicks rather than doing it in the way we all know them: through hilarious short cartoons.

Space Jam was live action/animation featuring Michael Jordan playing basketball with the Looney Tunes. Looney Tunes Back in Action fared a little better, but was still similar to Space Jam in that its the Looney Tunes interacting with us through wacky adventures. Then you had Baby Looney Tunes for the pre-schoolers, followed by the dark Loonatics for the older kids. Now you have the CG shorts, the new sitcom show on Cartoon Network and now all of these live action/CG movies.

I understand how it can be hard to make a classic character relevant in a pop culture that demands its entertainment to be exactly according to their tastes (in other words, have Lola Bunny sing Kesha's Tik Tok). But I think the Looney Tunes CAN be relevant today without resorting to these gimmicks.

I really like some of the shorts they did during the 90s, like Carrotblanca, the movie theater one with Bugs and Elmer, Invasion of the Space Bunnies and a couple of others. If you do the shorts this way I think people might enjoy it and the Looney Tunes would be relevant without changing radically.

I, personally, felt there was something missing with those '90's shorts like Carrotblanca. Frankly, I just didn't think they were funny. I watch the old shorts, and they are still hilarious, but the more recent attempts, they just don't have good writers, frankly. But I agree with what you're saying. I wanna say they haven't even TRIED to test audiences with doing things the old way, but then there were those shorts you cited. But, there's not much of a market for shorts these days, and the other problem is what I was saying before, they need funnier writers. I agree they should go back to their roots. Traditional animation. However, I don't think there'd be anything wrong with them being in something full-length. If it seems absolutely necessary, it could be an anthology, like past Looney Tunes movies, but this time with entirely new material. That'd be about like doing shorts. They do need better writers though. But, my point is, I bed if you showed an old Looney Tunes cartoon in theaters today, it would get plenty of laughs. So, really, they should try doing things like that, but do them well, before going to the gimmicks and before trying to redesign everybody.

However, that's just because I don't feel these characters will likely work in live-action, outside of the Roger Rabbit style. In the case of other characters, I think going live-action is fine and creates very interesting/amusing results when well done.

pap64 wrote:the movie theater one with Bugs and Elmer, Invasion of the Space Bunnies

The movie theater one is Box Office Bunny, and the "Space Bunnies" one is Invasion of the Bunny Snatchers. Not to be mean, just correcting.