This kind of things still happens: Slumdog Millionaire and to a lesser extent, Precious both have benefitted from good word-of-mouth.Mister Tee wrote:The whole premise behind slow release for smaller projects is that such non-name efforts need time to percolate through the country's consciousness...word of mouth, as it were.
Bruce Cohen and Don Mischer to produce 83rd Oscars
-
anonymous1980
- Laureate
- Posts: 6383
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19336
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8647
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Magilla, I'm not sure if you're using the phrase "lack of decent product" the same way I'm about to, but let me proceed as if you are, and proclaim it the big elephant in the room, the reason why all this does amount to Titanic deck chair setting....
The problem for the Oscars is, the studios have spent a quarter century moving away from the sort of films that appeal to adults or art/drama afficiandos in favor of pre-processed junk. They've developed an entertainment/industrial complex that exists to promote empty-calorie movies with instant appeal to the hang-out-at-the-mall crowd. They've set up a business model (release in 4000 theatres opening day) that favors the recognizable title (old TV show, sequel/threequel) or the bankable action/comedy star. They've nearly succeeded in eliminating the critic from the transaction at all (everyone laughed about the Cody Gifford story, but it's the studios who are laughing loudest, as one legitimate critic after another is pensioned off, and a page full of rave quotes from hacks has come to be accepted practice), meaning there are few trusted sources to drum up interest in something off the beaten track, the way Sarris/Kael et al. used to be able to do.
Given all that, when it comes time to give out prizes for excellence, where are these award-worthy projects supposed to come from? For a while, as in the 80s, the studios managed to get nominations for their lackluster efforts. Then the indie movement came along to challenge, and soon were dominating the nods, as well as making significant showings at the box office. This suggested for a while that exciting filmmaking was a bit of a fabulous invalid -- that innate public desire for creative work would inevitably rise up again. Perhaps we'll see this turning out to be the case again, in a few years' time. But, right now, what it looks like is that the majors coopted the movement -- buying up the executive talent, then using economic hard times to put the newly constructed divisions out of business. It's also possible the movement itself was doomed to fail, due to overreliance on Oscar promotion (the reason why the late-year release, always something of an Oscar season annoyance, became universal) and perhaps over-expectation of one man, Harvey Weinstein, who, like all conquerors, only had so many victories in him. In any event, there's alot less indie stuff getting released, and even less of it getting the public response something like Pulp Fiction or The Crying Game did.
Anyway...what I see now is a system openly hostile to creative work, and a release pattern designed to favor big dumb efforts. And that, BJ, is why I have to disagree on the "release 'em wider quicker" idea. I think that would only lead to more indie flops. The whole premise behind slow release for smaller projects is that such non-name efforts need time to percolate through the country's consciousness...word of mouth, as it were. Back in the day, nowhere near as many people would have seen MASH or Taxi Driver or The Last Pitcure Show had they been released in such instant fashion. I know people think the Internet has changed all that, that everyone knows about everything overnight now. But I think that's a misimpression gleaned by people who devote a great deal of their time to acquiring such knowledge. My favorite You'd-be-surprised-how-little-people-know anecdote comes from 1998 -- well into the Internet age -- when polling in July showed that, after half a year of non-stop Lewinsky coverage, some 45% of Americans had NEVER HEARD OF Linda Tripp. There are alot of people out there who need a longer time to absorb things. If anything, I wish more films would be given slower releases (though in spring/summer, not just frickin' December); I know from history that it gives better films their shot.
As far as being down on movie-going in general, count me in. Since the Oscars, I've only been to the movies 4 times -- Green Zone, Shutter Island, The Ghost Writer and El Secreto de Sus Ojos. Part of this is financial -- and the knowledge anything Oscar-important will be out in DVD long before next winter. But it also reflects simple lack of enthusiam...and a willingness to wait for Netflix, which a prefers-theatrical-experience guy like me never would have expected t become the norm. Also -- something else I'd never believe I'd say -- TV like Mad Men or Lost has given me more esthetic pleasure than 98% of what I've seen in movie theatres in recent years.
The problem for the Oscars is, the studios have spent a quarter century moving away from the sort of films that appeal to adults or art/drama afficiandos in favor of pre-processed junk. They've developed an entertainment/industrial complex that exists to promote empty-calorie movies with instant appeal to the hang-out-at-the-mall crowd. They've set up a business model (release in 4000 theatres opening day) that favors the recognizable title (old TV show, sequel/threequel) or the bankable action/comedy star. They've nearly succeeded in eliminating the critic from the transaction at all (everyone laughed about the Cody Gifford story, but it's the studios who are laughing loudest, as one legitimate critic after another is pensioned off, and a page full of rave quotes from hacks has come to be accepted practice), meaning there are few trusted sources to drum up interest in something off the beaten track, the way Sarris/Kael et al. used to be able to do.
Given all that, when it comes time to give out prizes for excellence, where are these award-worthy projects supposed to come from? For a while, as in the 80s, the studios managed to get nominations for their lackluster efforts. Then the indie movement came along to challenge, and soon were dominating the nods, as well as making significant showings at the box office. This suggested for a while that exciting filmmaking was a bit of a fabulous invalid -- that innate public desire for creative work would inevitably rise up again. Perhaps we'll see this turning out to be the case again, in a few years' time. But, right now, what it looks like is that the majors coopted the movement -- buying up the executive talent, then using economic hard times to put the newly constructed divisions out of business. It's also possible the movement itself was doomed to fail, due to overreliance on Oscar promotion (the reason why the late-year release, always something of an Oscar season annoyance, became universal) and perhaps over-expectation of one man, Harvey Weinstein, who, like all conquerors, only had so many victories in him. In any event, there's alot less indie stuff getting released, and even less of it getting the public response something like Pulp Fiction or The Crying Game did.
Anyway...what I see now is a system openly hostile to creative work, and a release pattern designed to favor big dumb efforts. And that, BJ, is why I have to disagree on the "release 'em wider quicker" idea. I think that would only lead to more indie flops. The whole premise behind slow release for smaller projects is that such non-name efforts need time to percolate through the country's consciousness...word of mouth, as it were. Back in the day, nowhere near as many people would have seen MASH or Taxi Driver or The Last Pitcure Show had they been released in such instant fashion. I know people think the Internet has changed all that, that everyone knows about everything overnight now. But I think that's a misimpression gleaned by people who devote a great deal of their time to acquiring such knowledge. My favorite You'd-be-surprised-how-little-people-know anecdote comes from 1998 -- well into the Internet age -- when polling in July showed that, after half a year of non-stop Lewinsky coverage, some 45% of Americans had NEVER HEARD OF Linda Tripp. There are alot of people out there who need a longer time to absorb things. If anything, I wish more films would be given slower releases (though in spring/summer, not just frickin' December); I know from history that it gives better films their shot.
As far as being down on movie-going in general, count me in. Since the Oscars, I've only been to the movies 4 times -- Green Zone, Shutter Island, The Ghost Writer and El Secreto de Sus Ojos. Part of this is financial -- and the knowledge anything Oscar-important will be out in DVD long before next winter. But it also reflects simple lack of enthusiam...and a willingness to wait for Netflix, which a prefers-theatrical-experience guy like me never would have expected t become the norm. Also -- something else I'd never believe I'd say -- TV like Mad Men or Lost has given me more esthetic pleasure than 98% of what I've seen in movie theatres in recent years.
The Original BJ wrote:Plenty of this year's lower-grossing Oscar nominees didn't even get the financial bump that typically follows Academy recognition. The general feeling seems to be: why give viewers the time to catch up on movies many of them aren't interested in ANYWAY? Awards season is costly enough for the studios -- if the financial rewards aren't going to be coming in, there's certainly impetus to get the whole thing done with a lot quicker.
I think we're rapidly moving to where the only films theatrically released are 3D extravaganzas and films like The Hurt Locker immediately go to pay per view on the Internet upon their completion.
Edited By Greg on 1277404089
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
And what's worse, BJ, studios that knew they had a stinker coming, might postpone its eligible release until the end of December after nominations are announced so that they could build off buzz, not screen for critics, and BAM Oscar nomination sight unseen. This would definitely be the Edward Zwick rule.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19336
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Someone referred to the Academy's proposed changes as rearranging the chairs on the Titanic. They're not far off.
It's lack of decent product which is killing interest, though I still maintain that having Misher direct is a good move. If he can find as interesting a mix of presenters/performers as he has with the Kennedy Center Honors over the years, the show itself will have potential interest even if the nominees don't.
It's lack of decent product which is killing interest, though I still maintain that having Misher direct is a good move. If he can find as interesting a mix of presenters/performers as he has with the Kennedy Center Honors over the years, the show itself will have potential interest even if the nominees don't.
-
The Original BJ
- Emeritus
- Posts: 4312
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm
God, are we ALL losing our interest in the Oscars these days? I find I'm even less and less interested in going to the movies this year -- if I don't think I'm going to really love it, it's pretty hard to get me in the theater. (This is a far cry from past years, when even movies I had only a passing interest would get my time and money, just because I enjoyed going out to the movies more.)
On this possible change, well, I think it's mostly a bad idea. I don't think the winners would necessarily be worse, though there's definitely a chance they could be different. Hysteria over Avatar might have propelled it to a win at a January Oscars...but then again, it seems far likelier that Brokeback would have hung on for a win in January too.
I do agree, though, with OscarGuy that this would increase the number of nominations for failed Oscar bait. For a film that was widely ridiculed, and that supposedly everyone hated, Nine scored an awful lot of significant precursor mentions before it actually opened. I assume that a January Oscars would push nominations to December, which means members might have to vote before all the films are even open...a scenario that would severely benefit those films that looked like prime Oscar real estate on paper, but revealed themselves to be quite otherwise upon release. Sometimes it can be hard enough to dislodge those films from awards contention as it is!
And for all the talk about how the Academy is attempting to court a broader audience, this would seem to contradict that aim decisively. Nathaniel Rogers at The Film Experience made a proposition that actually makes some sense -- in order to be Oscar-eligible, films would have to open in a certain number of markets, not JUST LA, before the end of the year, eliminating super-slow roll-outs AND those obnoxious one-week qualifiers. Sure, The Last Station isn't going to be any kind of blockbuster regardless, but at least it would be possible for SOME people to see the damn thing before the Oscars. Mister Tee is absolutely right -- the less viewers have the ability to play along as they follow the race, the less interesting the whole thing becomes.
But, of course, there is a much bigger issue here, and that's that the Oscars are becoming less and less about the actual films, because the films themselves are making less and less of a cultural impact compared to previous years. Plenty of this year's lower-grossing Oscar nominees didn't even get the financial bump that typically follows Academy recognition. The general feeling seems to be: why give viewers the time to catch up on movies many of them aren't interested in ANYWAY? Awards season is costly enough for the studios -- if the financial rewards aren't going to be coming in, there's certainly impetus to get the whole thing done with a lot quicker.
One can only wonder what other bizarre changes will be coming down the pike from this organization.
On this possible change, well, I think it's mostly a bad idea. I don't think the winners would necessarily be worse, though there's definitely a chance they could be different. Hysteria over Avatar might have propelled it to a win at a January Oscars...but then again, it seems far likelier that Brokeback would have hung on for a win in January too.
I do agree, though, with OscarGuy that this would increase the number of nominations for failed Oscar bait. For a film that was widely ridiculed, and that supposedly everyone hated, Nine scored an awful lot of significant precursor mentions before it actually opened. I assume that a January Oscars would push nominations to December, which means members might have to vote before all the films are even open...a scenario that would severely benefit those films that looked like prime Oscar real estate on paper, but revealed themselves to be quite otherwise upon release. Sometimes it can be hard enough to dislodge those films from awards contention as it is!
And for all the talk about how the Academy is attempting to court a broader audience, this would seem to contradict that aim decisively. Nathaniel Rogers at The Film Experience made a proposition that actually makes some sense -- in order to be Oscar-eligible, films would have to open in a certain number of markets, not JUST LA, before the end of the year, eliminating super-slow roll-outs AND those obnoxious one-week qualifiers. Sure, The Last Station isn't going to be any kind of blockbuster regardless, but at least it would be possible for SOME people to see the damn thing before the Oscars. Mister Tee is absolutely right -- the less viewers have the ability to play along as they follow the race, the less interesting the whole thing becomes.
But, of course, there is a much bigger issue here, and that's that the Oscars are becoming less and less about the actual films, because the films themselves are making less and less of a cultural impact compared to previous years. Plenty of this year's lower-grossing Oscar nominees didn't even get the financial bump that typically follows Academy recognition. The general feeling seems to be: why give viewers the time to catch up on movies many of them aren't interested in ANYWAY? Awards season is costly enough for the studios -- if the financial rewards aren't going to be coming in, there's certainly impetus to get the whole thing done with a lot quicker.
One can only wonder what other bizarre changes will be coming down the pike from this organization.
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19336
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
I don't know if presenters/performers have to sign anything but it has always been the practice of the Academy not to utilize anyone who has appeared at other recently televised shows. Exceptions are made for honorees and the prior year's honorees who are returning to present an award in the current year. They can't control who sits in the audience and with the same people nominated for everything under the sun the stars in attendance are going to be the same.OscarGuy wrote:The best thing to take from the Grammys is perhaps an exclusivity agreement. Actors who want to appear on the Oscars must sign a statement that they will not perform/appear at any other end-of-year celebration ahead of the Oscars. And perhaps have a clause against using the same speech as at previous engagements. That's a little less enforceable, but the performance/appearance thing isn't...and it could even be a moratorium on red carpet appearances (would piss press agents off, but who cares)? Can you imagine how audiences would react if they had to wait to the Oscars to see Miley Cyrus on the red carpet? Or had to wait until Oscar night to see Bruce Springsteen perform?
Making rules about speeches are always difficult.
It wasn't televised nationally, but when Marian Seldes won a career achievement Tony in the locally televised Tony pre-show this year she reacted to the "keep it short" admonition by deciding not to speak at all. How refreshing it would be if more winners would do that.
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
Changing the elgibility period will cause more confusion among moviegoers than anything and the Grammy eligibility period is not only confusing, it puts those holiday releases that are really quite good and mostly gets them forgotten by the time the Grammys roll around.
And I think if they move it to January, we'll see exactly what happened with the BFCA and Satellite awards...the voters, not having time to see all the films (You really think that getting screeners is letting the voters see all the movies in time, you're kidding yourselves), will go for the established Name films, the Oscar-bait films that most of the voters haven't seen and thus put on their ballots because they think they'll be good. I guarantee a move like this is going to put films like The Lovely Bones and Nine in play.
As for the screener issue I alluded to earlier, these are professionals at work. The ones who are on movie shoots don't have a lot of time to devote to going to the movies or watching them on DVD. They take what time they can (like I do) and watch what they want to watch first and leave the rest for the end. Push up the voting period and they'll get through fewer and fewer films and those that open at theaters late in the game aren't going to get screeners out much sooner (think Children of Men), which could doom some of the great films with year-end releases. Sure, studios could wise up and change when they do everything, but that does not mean voters will have more time to watch what they've gotten.
The best thing to take from the Grammys is perhaps an exclusivity agreement. Actors who want to appear on the Oscars must sign a statement that they will not perform/appear at any other end-of-year celebration ahead of the Oscars. And perhaps have a clause against using the same speech as at previous engagements. That's a little less enforceable, but the performance/appearance thing isn't...and it could even be a moratorium on red carpet appearances (would piss press agents off, but who cares)? Can you imagine how audiences would react if they had to wait to the Oscars to see Miley Cyrus on the red carpet? Or had to wait until Oscar night to see Bruce Springsteen perform?
Anyway, this isn't rumor, it's what's being discussed by the board of governors. They won't be able to discuss much more until the new leadership is in place later this Summer, but if they are talking about it now, that means it's in consideration.
And I think if they move it to January, we'll see exactly what happened with the BFCA and Satellite awards...the voters, not having time to see all the films (You really think that getting screeners is letting the voters see all the movies in time, you're kidding yourselves), will go for the established Name films, the Oscar-bait films that most of the voters haven't seen and thus put on their ballots because they think they'll be good. I guarantee a move like this is going to put films like The Lovely Bones and Nine in play.
As for the screener issue I alluded to earlier, these are professionals at work. The ones who are on movie shoots don't have a lot of time to devote to going to the movies or watching them on DVD. They take what time they can (like I do) and watch what they want to watch first and leave the rest for the end. Push up the voting period and they'll get through fewer and fewer films and those that open at theaters late in the game aren't going to get screeners out much sooner (think Children of Men), which could doom some of the great films with year-end releases. Sure, studios could wise up and change when they do everything, but that does not mean voters will have more time to watch what they've gotten.
The best thing to take from the Grammys is perhaps an exclusivity agreement. Actors who want to appear on the Oscars must sign a statement that they will not perform/appear at any other end-of-year celebration ahead of the Oscars. And perhaps have a clause against using the same speech as at previous engagements. That's a little less enforceable, but the performance/appearance thing isn't...and it could even be a moratorium on red carpet appearances (would piss press agents off, but who cares)? Can you imagine how audiences would react if they had to wait to the Oscars to see Miley Cyrus on the red carpet? Or had to wait until Oscar night to see Bruce Springsteen perform?
Anyway, this isn't rumor, it's what's being discussed by the board of governors. They won't be able to discuss much more until the new leadership is in place later this Summer, but if they are talking about it now, that means it's in consideration.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19336
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
The move to January is only speculation at this point, but clearly the way things are done now is not good.
Most of the critics awards, the Globe nominations and so on are announced before anyone in the public has had a chance to see many of the contenders. Ideally there would be a two-month wait between the release of the last eligible film and any major awards, giving film fans the chance to have seen as many of the contenders as practicable so that the nominations actually mean something as they did when nominations were announced in mid to late February.
A simple solution might be to make the eligibility period November-October as the Grammys do.
If the eligibility period continues to be strict calendar year and the awards are moved up to late January with nominations announced just after the first of the year it could still work but if the Globes and the SAGs and everybody else wants to put on a show before Oscar it seems to me they would have to do so at the pace of one per week which would be way too much and certainly squeeze one or more of them out. Of course they could move to December but producers might be reluctant to screen films or send DVDs of their major contenders that early, putting them at a distinct disadvantage.
Most of the critics awards, the Globe nominations and so on are announced before anyone in the public has had a chance to see many of the contenders. Ideally there would be a two-month wait between the release of the last eligible film and any major awards, giving film fans the chance to have seen as many of the contenders as practicable so that the nominations actually mean something as they did when nominations were announced in mid to late February.
A simple solution might be to make the eligibility period November-October as the Grammys do.
If the eligibility period continues to be strict calendar year and the awards are moved up to late January with nominations announced just after the first of the year it could still work but if the Globes and the SAGs and everybody else wants to put on a show before Oscar it seems to me they would have to do so at the pace of one per week which would be way too much and certainly squeeze one or more of them out. Of course they could move to December but producers might be reluctant to screen films or send DVDs of their major contenders that early, putting them at a distinct disadvantage.
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8647
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
I violently disagree, Sabin, for largely the reason FilmFan offers. I'm always scrambling to catch nominees right up to show-week as it is. You lop a month off that, and I'll have no chance -- and if you take away my ability to see the films involved, you slowly kill my interest in the Oscars (something, I'm sad to say, that's been happening to even me of late). I note the people most enthusiastic about this idea either have ready access to screeners/screenings, or are young and unattached, thus more likely to effortlessly do 2-3 movies a week in December/January (as I did when I was in that time of life, but could never match now).
It's no doubt true that precursor shows like BFCA, SAG and BAFTA have taken much of the suspense out of recent races (I exempt the Globes because they've been around forever without being a problem on their own, and also because, as sjimen pointed out a while back, some of their choices lately have been more off the beam than these other groups'). The thinking, at Tapley's and Poland's sites, seems to be that this move would cause those groups to lose their influencing power. But, as far as I can see, all it'll accomplish is to force them to advance their dates -- EXACTLY THE WAY THEY DID WHEN WE MOVED FROM MARCH TO FEBRUARY. Serioulsy -- does no one even remember we just did this a few years ago, and it only made things worse?
If you can find a way to get BFCA and SAG, in particular, to just go out of the awards-giving business, great -- that's the way you're going to restore surprise and suspense to the race. This proposal is a cloddish move that will do nothing to alleviate the problem but cause further diminution of the Academy brand. Well done.
It's no doubt true that precursor shows like BFCA, SAG and BAFTA have taken much of the suspense out of recent races (I exempt the Globes because they've been around forever without being a problem on their own, and also because, as sjimen pointed out a while back, some of their choices lately have been more off the beam than these other groups'). The thinking, at Tapley's and Poland's sites, seems to be that this move would cause those groups to lose their influencing power. But, as far as I can see, all it'll accomplish is to force them to advance their dates -- EXACTLY THE WAY THEY DID WHEN WE MOVED FROM MARCH TO FEBRUARY. Serioulsy -- does no one even remember we just did this a few years ago, and it only made things worse?
If you can find a way to get BFCA and SAG, in particular, to just go out of the awards-giving business, great -- that's the way you're going to restore surprise and suspense to the race. This proposal is a cloddish move that will do nothing to alleviate the problem but cause further diminution of the Academy brand. Well done.
-
FilmFan720
- Emeritus
- Posts: 3650
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
- Location: Illinois
At the same time though, Sabin, it could really hurt a lot of films. I wonder how much less interest many people will hold without having seen so many films. So many people play catch up before the ceremony to see nominated films, and the less time they have to do that, the less interest there may be.
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
- Minor Myers, Jr.
The 2009 show was very much a mixed bag, but one ripe with innovations. It ultimately felt like a bore because there were maybe one or two categories that weren't entirely locked up. The Oscar pool largely went to who picked what for Sound Mixing and Foreign-Language Film.
I forgot until now that people on this board had a problem with the 2010 show. Although it was intermittently stale, I think it's the best Oscarcast since Steve Martin first hosted. Aside from a meaningless John Hughes retrospective and some flaccid banter, it was a score.
I'm not going to think the worst right off the bat because there are new producers. Hopefully they'll continue to iron out the kinks in this relatively new format we've been seeing emerge in the past couple of years.
Quite often by Oscar night, a kind of fatigue has set in. The show broadcasting in January is going to create a sense of sweep that will carry along moviegoers and Oscar fanatics. To be honest, we all should be done with this shit earlier than we are! We need to be done with our year and get on with our lives! Will this negatively affect the outcome? Maybe.
I forgot until now that people on this board had a problem with the 2010 show. Although it was intermittently stale, I think it's the best Oscarcast since Steve Martin first hosted. Aside from a meaningless John Hughes retrospective and some flaccid banter, it was a score.
I'm not going to think the worst right off the bat because there are new producers. Hopefully they'll continue to iron out the kinks in this relatively new format we've been seeing emerge in the past couple of years.
Quite often by Oscar night, a kind of fatigue has set in. The show broadcasting in January is going to create a sense of sweep that will carry along moviegoers and Oscar fanatics. To be honest, we all should be done with this shit earlier than we are! We need to be done with our year and get on with our lives! Will this negatively affect the outcome? Maybe.
"How's the despair?"