Television show review: Demons

What happens when you need a new idea for a television show but you have no idea or clue. Let's say that you have a deadline and need to make sure you have some new program that can compliment a top show that just underwent a massive revamp. What is the result?

Well if you are the BBC, you go to a tried and true theme. You copy something successful from the U.S. and put a British spin on it. Thus was born Demons. A television program that can be summed up as a combination of Twilight and Buffy the Vampire Killer. Sadly, the premiere seems to lack the spark either had.

The pacing is slow, I mean dead slow. It plods along at a pace that even the most dim can out-think. If a tribble could write, this might be the program it would make.

The characters are wooden, as are the lines they speak. We jump from scene to scene without much thought or logic. Viewers couldn't care about whether anyone lives of dies in the show.

From the top, the show is a male based version of Buffy. The last of the Van Helsing family has suddenly been found by inhuman creatures that would love to see him dead. The boy has incredible reflexes, but no training as a fighter. He is living a regular life like any other teen, with a friend that is secretly in love with him - of course he has no idea of this. Enter a mysterious man that turns out to be his godfather (and soon to be mentor in the art of killing the undead et al). Of course his mom has no clue about any of this.

Does this sound EXACTLY like the start of Buffy? Minus anything interesting? Well maybe the young actor playing the lead will be something the tween girls out there will enjoy.

The dialog is filled with "I'll smite you" and "Beware my wrath". That's as good as it gets in this. The visuals are dark tones and shaded, supposedly adding to the allure of the current trend in goth culture and vampire lore. Both are just boring.

I was hoping this might be a new idea in the trend on vampires. That it might be a unique mix of European lore and modern day. That it could be more than just a retread of old ideas, poorly done. But that's asking for entertainment, and quality. Something that costs far too much for most networks and studios.

Could Demons turn into something far more than this first episode? Could it build into more than a sophmoric caricature of concepts that are so overused today that evaluating it elevates the program beyond it's merit?

It is possible. Just as it is possible that Dr. Who could be enriching for viewers under the 12th Doctor. Then again it is possible, in fact mathematically probable, that pigs will fly. But I wouldn't make a bet anytime soon.

If you are 12 - 16 I recommend Demons (and Dr. Who under the new Doctor) as something to watch if your Xbox, Playstation, and cell phone are all broken while your television is stuck on the channel. For everyone else, avoid this unless the choice is watchinng American Idol (then just turn the television off). At least BBC America has this scheduled on Saturday nights and there are always better options.

Television show: Demons

There is just something about vampires and other such creatures of the night that everyone wants to see. Dracula, the Werewolf, Frankenstein, and on and on for over a century now. It's a theme we all seem to never tire of.

The BBC recognizes this of course. They constantly have television shows that either focus on this theme or include it. And in 2010 they will be debuting yet another show firmly ensconced in the otherworldly.



Demons will preimere right after Dr. Who finishes The End of Time pt 2 and introduces the new, geeky kid as the Doctor. I'm sure more than a few fans will want a distraction from the end of David Tennant's tenure as the Doctor. This new show seems to fit the bill.

Now I always tend to enjoy European depictions of vampires, lycanthropes and such. There is just a flair that seems to be added that probably comes from the centuries of rumor and mystery on the subject. Whatever the reason, I just enjoy Eurpoean, and especially British versions more.

The storyline is pretty basic though. The last of the Van Helsin's is needed (likely because some aspect of a secret base or weapon requires the bloodline) by a modern day secret society of vampire hunters. The stories we have grown up with are all true and more. Thrust suddenly into this other world within our own is a young man that has to learn quickly what is going on.

Obviously there will be the battle-hard veteran that will watch his back. There will be no end of baddies that will be seeking him out to kill him so they will be safe to graze upon humanity forever without fear. There will be a love interest that is questionable in loyalties (a young looking vampiress) and unattainable of course. And the young man will grow into his role of the hero that never knew he could be.

Still as rote as some of the background seems to be, and as oriented in the youth culture as it is, the show seems to have potential. The CGI effects and make-up look good. The styling of the show mixes modern and old goth well. There is a dark feel while obviously employing some action too. In a way it reminds me of the style of Torchwood in it's early episodes.

This will not be a Buffy the Vampire or Angel type show. At least not at it's beginning. Which bodes well for the program. And I hope it does not fall into the trap of Twillight. If it can avoid these pop fads there amy be a show that will really take off.

The question I am left with is how long will it be before some American television (probably cable if we are lucky) network takes the idea and copies it? With shows like Santuary, Supernatural, and so on all the craze these days and with copies of Brit shows (Leverage, The Office, Life on Mars, ect.) the new in thing on American television you just have to imagine that this too will be copied. One can only hope that the American version is closer to the Office copy than say the failed near-verbatim yet highly flawed Coupling version.

Ultimately only time will tell how well this develops. And until then American television fans will try to enjoy David Tennant in his new show about a lawyer that doesn't do trials. It's a comedy, and honestly sounds to bland for American tastes. American shows about lawyers are so focused on trials and law these days I'm not sure if this show will work. Maybe if it's more akin to Night Court or Ally McBeal than say The Practice or Law & Order (given they are dramas).

But back to the point at hand. Do you think the supernatural shows are overdone? Have you seen your fill of vampires and goblins? Do you want the ghosts and inhuman creatures to be banished to television void or are you looking forward to another try at it? What do you think and will you check this show out?

The Doctor...I mean lawyer is in

What if The Doctor was American? I know, many of my readers don't get the reference. I'm talking about Doctor Who. Specifically, the man who was the latest Doctor and one of the most popular in the 46 year history of the television program. David Tennant.

Tenant is not a big name in the U.S., outside of sci-fi geeks and those that watch BBC America. But in Britain he is huge. Because playing the Doctor isn't something just anyone can do (normally). In fact, it's kind of like being picked as the next James Bond.

David Tennant did a wonderful job as The Doctor (no the character doesn't have a name that is known). he was spunky, fun, intelligent in an absent-minded manner, and had a very strong dark vicious streak in him. The kind of character you can enjoy and find incredible depth in.

After playing Dr. Who, the sky was pretty much the limit to what Tennant could have done next. Anything being done in England would have been extremely happy to even have him as a cameo just because he is that popular. But Tenant is a stage and television actor, so he seems to have stuck to his roots. he found a television show to star in.

That may be the end of the good news.

The television show that Tennant has picked is Rex Is Not Your Lawyer. Right off the bat a problem exists. The name is far too long. Never a good sign for 99% of television shows in America.

Add to that the fact that this television show idea is a brainchild of NBC (they haven't been doing so well since Seinfeld and Fraiser went off the air). Plus the news that this idea has been sitting on a shelf for 2 years waiting to get somebody who is capable and willing to take on the project. Not exactly inspirational news.

The concept is basically that a high-end lawyer has a breakdown. So he decides to coach witnesses instead of defending them. I'm laughing already. Yes, that core idea is the key to this comedy show. Since this is not a rip-off of an British comedy, I'm even less enthused.

Overall I am excited to see how David Tennant will do in America. I have no doubt that he is getting paid extremely well for this first shot. I'm equally sure that some Hollywood exec is dreaming of selling rights to the show back to England for a nice profit. And that's all the good news I can get from this concept.

There is no way of figuring out if this idea will work, or if it was put on a shelf for good reason. Tennant may be able to float the show alone, he might get a capable cast that can make it work with him. It might turn out to be an Ally McBeal. Or it could be the American version of Coupling.

At least if it doesn't work, Tennant can still jump in the TARDIS and go back across the pond. I'm sure the Brits will not hold his attempt to raise the standards of American entertainment, and getting paid handsomely well, against him.

**Don't forget to support this blog by checking out Alchemy at World of Vass, and the t-shirts at World of Vass. Your support helps keep this all going. Thank you, and do tell a friend.**

Captain Jack Harkness of Torchwood

So I was watching the BBC America program Torchwood and the current 5 night event, Children of Earth. After the 3rd episode on Wednesday, I got into a bit of an argument with a friend of mine. It gets a bit geeky.

Background first. If you are a fan of Dr. Who, you probably are familiar with the character Captain Jack Harkness (played by John Barrowman). Fans of Torchwood obviously know him. For those that are not, he is a human being from the 51st century that was able to time travel to the past (1939 roughly). He met up with The Doctor, and was brought to the future – around 100,000 or 1 million years in the future, I forget which.

It was at this time, called the Bad Wolf episodes, that Capt Jack is killed. But via forces to long to explain, he is brought back to life. Brought back "wrong" as we later find out.

Jack is virtually immortal. By that I mean that if you shoot him in the head he will die and then get back up. Ditto if you stab, burn, nuke or otherwise blow him up. He has been electrocuted, drowned, buried in cement, shot by lasers, had creatures attempt to drain his lifeforce (killing them via overfeeding) and way more – but he always gets back up. The Doctor describes him as a

“…a fixed point in space and time. You are a fact.”

Now this is critical to my argument. We also find out via Dr. Who that some 10 million (or billion, I again forget) years from nowish, Capt Jack transforms into a being called the Face of Boh, and dies.

If you are not a fan of sci-fi, Dr. Who, or Torchwood I thank you for having read this far. If you are also not a bit of a science geek you really may get lost or hate the rest of this post.

So here is my argument. Does it make sense that Jack dies? Is this a contradiction in the 2 shows?

I think not. Because if you view time and space in terms of the Doctor’s universe, then they are not linear. They are like an enormously big, yet absolutely small ball of string. All points of the sting touch every other point. Thus time is simultaneous and instantaneous. We just see it as linear from our point of view.

That as a given, since Jack Harkness becomes a point AFTER the creation of the universe (and thus the start of time and space) he must not be eternal. Which means the Doctor is correct and the shows are right.

I view it like this:

If we view time as a ball, say that Jack is a point that starts maybe 2/3 into the ball. That is when he became a fact and fixed point. He continues to the end of the ball. But since he is not connected to 1/3 of the ball, he cannot be eternal. Because there is some point that is the beginning and end of time that he does not exist as a fact in. Which is one reason why the Doctor initially finds him repugnant after being brought back to life the wrong way.

My friend disagrees as being a fact implies being eternal in their view. That he must be forever, and since he is not The Doctor is wrong.

I told you this was geeky. But to me it’s on the same level as people arguing who deserves to win American Idol. Only better.

So, I leave it to the fans, and any quantum physicists out there. Am I right or is my friend?

When you are The Doctor no more.. what is next?

Let’s say that you are an actor. Your last job was portraying a character who is loved by fans in over 100 countries, from the ages of 15 to 85. What could you possibly do next? (And no, I am not speaking about anyone connected to the latest Star Trek revisioning.)

Well if the character was Dr. Who, and you happen to be David Tennant, you go on to host Masterpiece Contemporary. No doubt there are thousands of American Dr. Who fans that are trying to figure this out. Tennant left Dr. Who (the next few new episodes we see will be his last), to be replaced by a skinny, geeky (in a bad way), barely adolescent, basically unknown actor. And this seems to be what he wanted to do next.

Masterpiece Contemporary might be best recalled by its old name Masterpiece Theater. It’s been running, on PBS in the U.S., since about 1971. Former hosts include some of the more loved Brits – like the former Alistair Cooke, and Russell Baker

Could Tennant have done better? I would imagine that there would be a hoard of films and television shows that would have loved to have his star power, and international fanbase as one of the better received Doctor’s. I mean Masterpiece Contemporary? Isn’t that where the formerly famous end their careers, with dignity?

Maybe I’m still bitter and twisted that Tennant left Dr. Who. Maybe I’m really not looking forward to the nebbish replacement. Perhaps I hoped for Tennant to take on a role of some importance and recurring nature that I could watch repeatedly. Like a BBC mini-series or something sci-fi.

Overall, it just ends up with a simple thought. The new Dr. Who will take more than a few episodes to overcome my apprehension, and the old Dr. Who will likely be unseen by most Americans for some time to come. Neither is a positive.

BBC makes questionable choice for Doctor Who

Matt Smith is the new Doctor. Who is he? Good question. He was nowhere on my radar screens, nor those of any Brit I have read about.

For those not familiar I'm talking about the 11th actor to play the titular role of Dr. Who. The show has been on the BBC for 45 years, and has been on American television (and BBC America) for decades. It is probably as popular and well-followed as Star Trek and/or Star Wars. It is definitely one of the top programs in the world, and likely the longest running non-news program (not including soap operas) ever.

Currently David Tennant is the Doctor. His appearance was debated long and hard, but he quickly won over fans with his quirky, witty, fast-paced portrayal of the Doctor. His version is brash, playful, and perhaps one of the most violent of all the Doctors. When he stated he was leaving the program after 3 years - which is a shame really - there was no end to guesses of who might replace him.

I too joined in on that game with a list of possibles, plus the insane postulation of a couple of Americans. And since that post I have had several friends debate the likelyhood of the first female Doctor (never going to happen), the first Black Doctor, and my insanity about an American Doctor. Suffice to say the debate over this role has been vigorous, especially in England.

But now the answer is before us. I present to you the new Doctor as of 2010



They have seriously lost their minds at the BBC.

Yes the Doctor is a geek. He is the ultimate nerd, given. But he is also cool and powerful and a hundred other quirks. He has been relatively plain (or ugly depending on your preferences), tall, short, old, young, and now he seems prepubescent.

Honestly, with no insult intended, Matt Smith looks ugly, way too young, and completely immature. I cannot for the life of me envision what makes him seem like the Doctor to anyone at the BBC. And I must admit that I say this without ever having heard his voice, nor seen his acting. Such is the difficulty of being in America.

Still I am a fan. And I am sure I will still watch the program. But with a great big cringe. Hopefully they will at least give the Doctor a companion of ample assets and beauty suffice to distract viewers from his visage. But that is more an American trick than British. [Seriously, like Baywatch had any substance beyond the cloth for the swimsuits]

From what I gathered there are a few things we can hope to expect from a Matt Smith Doctor. An new hairstyle - bald is preferred to what he has in the photo. Far less wit, delivered at far slower speeds.

Matt Smith is no Tom Baker, and decisively no David Tennant. He is young and these days on either side of the pond that is worth a lot to television and movie executives. Sadly that does not often equate to zealous or even moderate approval of the viewing audience.

But I am a fan of the Doctor. I have been for decades. I will watch and cringe, and hope to be amazed - or just not overly disappointed. I will hope for a buxom, brilliant, assistant. I will read the tea leaves for clues to the major villian. I will be a fan. Just that much more reluctantly, and far more willing to see the re-run than the first run.

[Patterson Joseph would still have been the best choice I think.]

Leverage on BBC, I mean TNT network

Another new program on TNT tonight was the new series Leverage. The show is a drama action mix. And it is essentially a copy of a British program that covers exactly the same ground.

Yes, Hollywood writers have proven themselves to be consistent and clueless yet again. The concept of originality has gone out the window. Because the name of the program this American version copies is called Hustle.

Yes it is almost exactly the same. Conmen (and women) with various specialities work together to take on bad people with lots of money and minor morality. Take out the accents, change the locations, replace a man with a woman, and make the leader an ex-lawman with a heart of gold and a need for a rush and you have Leverage.

That all said about the lack of originality, the question is if this copy is like Life On Mars and The Office, or like Coupling. And in each of these I mean the American remake of the BBC hit television series. Well from the first episode we get the answer of The Office.

Timothy Hutton is interesting as the cop gone bad for a good reason. Revenge for his son that died because of insurance company greed. This character is pivotal in not making this a 'crime is good' show. And he is believable as the guy in charge and trying to manage the greatest good.

And a tip of the hat to 2 key members of the cast.

Gina Bellman plays Sophie. Bellman is know best to most US and UK viewers for her work in the hit series Coupling (British version). Her work in Leverage is not too far from her role as Jane. She is a grifter that uses her sex appeal to make the con work. Obviously producers realized they should give some kind of attention to the fact they were ripping of BBC yet again, and she adds a nice flair to the program.

Christian Kane is back on American series work. Fans of the show Angel will remember him as the ambitious evil lawyer (is there another kind) Lindsey McDonald. Since the end of Angel he hasn't been seen much, but he fills in the morally ambigous nature that Leverage needs. And he does tend to fit the muscle man role well too.

Beyond that the cast is mostly unnotable. In fact It is highly likely that this series will fail after a season or 2. The problem I see is 3-fold, and not the fault of the actors.

The first problem will be the writers. Hollywood these days is uninspired and lazy. As such it is highly likely that scripts from Hustle will be reworked for American audiences. And as consistent with such copies, the translation rarely works.

The second issue is that since there are 2 women and 3 men there must be a love interest in the show. Already we have seen in the premiere that Timothy Hutton and Gina Bellman have a dubious past. That will likely need to be expanded on, and old-flames will rekindle. To the detriment of the show. Any other pairing will also likely detract from the ongoing theme of the series (expect that other paring to be the other female and Kane).

The last problem will very likely be cost of locations. Since this is an American show that targets rich and greedy Americans they will have to travel to spots known for the rich and greedy. That means shooting in L.A., New York, Miami, Las Vegas and a few other mmajor cities (D.C. is sure to be on the list). That means big money. And unless the show is a blowout hit, which I think unlikely, they can't afford that.

So many of the locations will be highly generalized. And that will detract from the appeal of the show. Not that the cast, and in this case the writers, can do anything about that. You just can't write away glitz that is expected to be seen.

I hope the series does develop into something good. I like most of the cast, and the original show was quite good. I just fear the ability of Hollywood writers today. We shall see if Tuesdays regular timeslot episode will match up to the high bar that Sunday's premiere created.

David Tennant, Who, no more

In over 45 years there has been one thing that is more consistent than Democrats raising taxes, Americans and Brits wondering why the other has such a funny accent, and William Shatner starring in something. The Doctor.

Now I know sci-fi fans (not the channel – ick) are right on point. The mere mention of The Doctor and they are thinking of a TARDIS and Daleks galore. But for those of you unfamiliar with Gallifrey, The Master, and Time Lords I’ll recap a bit.

The Doctor refers to Doctor Who. The show was started back in 1963 on the BBC. It has been on and off television there ever since. The show is now watched by millions across the globe in its current format, on the cable network channel BBC America, and occasionally rerun on the SciFi channel (amazing that they actually show a sci-fi show between the search for ghosts, and wrestling I know).

Doctor Who has a huge lore behind it, like the abovementioned Daleks (alien bad guys in metal shells that kill anything non-Dalek with particular glee/efficiency), The Master (mortal enemy of The Doctor), TARDIS (an acronym but basically the name of an old british phone booth that can travel time, and is enormously larger inside than out). But the show is viewer friendly and has added millions of fans over the years.

So far 10 people have played The Doctor (he has no known first or last name). This is not because it’s like a soap opera and different people just step in and shocking you one day. The Doctor can and does regenerate if he is killed, and thus becomes a new person with new personality and quirks. Thus there have been several beloved Doctors, and 1 or 2 that didn’t last so long. David Tennant has been the Doctor for 3 years and counting now. Sadly that countdown will be ending soon.

It has now been reported that Tennant will be leaving Dr. Who at the end of the 2009 series. This of course means that the Doctor will be regenerating into a new persona, but I must admit that I will miss his characterization. He’s done a great job bringing a wit and devil may care attitude to the Doctor that was firm and refreshing.

I don’t know how they will kill the Doctor this time, but I have to say that the end of the most recent season was a huge close to a story arc that was years, literally, in the making. The implications were devastating and impacting 3 separate television series – each a spinoff of Dr. Who. Plus it gives an insight to the mind and emotions of one of the most persistent scifi characters ever created.

The series won’t ever be the same. But then again, it rarely ever was. And that just one reason we love the Doctor.

(Does anyone think that Obama could be under the influence of The Master? Ok, low blow I know.)

Copies and cop-outs on terlevision

I was speaking with a couple of friends today and I noticed 2 television commercials. The commercials were very different, dealing with separate networks and programs, but they had one thing in common. They both exemplified the fact that Hollywood is completely and utterly devoid of any ideas. It reminds me that the fact that there was a strike by screenwriters was utterly pointless, as they don’t deserve to be paid to rewrite ideas already created by someone else (and done better).

The first commercial is for the show Life on Mars. Now this is a good show. It’s unique and catches your attention. A cop may or may not be transported back to 1973 for a purpose that he is not sure of, but someone or something does. He has to learn the purpose in order to make it back to our time. The catch is the fact that the cop is in a coma in our time. So is it real or not?

Sound interesting? It should be. The show was a hit on the BBC a couple of years ago. If you want to know what will happen in the series just check here. The show is only 2 season long, but since broadcast television is enslaved by reality TV anything that has any intelligence is a welcome change. If you don’t get the BBC, I can tell you that the show is very good.

The American version will likely change the slang, and some of the situations. Expect a different take on racism, sexism, and the drug culture from England. But other than that, much like the Office and Coupling, this will likely be a virtual word for word copy. Invariably the British version is better.

The other commercial is for the new show on the Sci-Fi channel. Actually 2 as I have just seen. Chase and Estate of Panic. Both of these reality network rejects have nothing to do with science, though it’s full of fiction.

Since the Sci-fi channel was bought there has yet to be any original thoughts beyond Eureka! The channel is a waste of brain cells. They remake the oldest and worst science fiction movies and call them original. They thrive on the concept of the giant animal movie, ala 1950’s b-movies. They have covered every angle of nature gone mad films from the 1970’s, twice. It the execs on this channel had any original thoughts they would be dangerous.

Chase is just what it sounds like. A bunch of people run around a set while a bunch of people dress as Agents from the Matrix movies tries to catch them. The last one gets money. Even people who drive only with left turns, and those that watch them, will be bored to tears in the middle of the first episode. I hate to say it but American Idol (also a British transplant) is filled with more entertainment.

Estate of Panic is basically a remake of Fear Factor in a house. You go through rooms with challenges set to freak out the player and those watching. Hidden in the rooms is money. The more you collect the more you keep. If you freak out too much you can get out, but you lose the cash.

Now does any of this sound remotely like science fiction? The channel would be better off showing reruns of the Buster Keaton Flash Gordon series. The only real question I have is when will this channel completely fail so someone else can buy the name and get something even moderately bad, but in the genre, on the air.

And the real joy is that in January there will be 500 channels because of the forced move to HD television. That means even more opportunities to see this swill that is supposed to be entertainment. If these are the best that television can come up with I suggest reading a dictionary.

Mind of Mencia season 2, The Riches - 4.1.2007.1

Well if you missed it, tonight was the return of the Mind of Mencia. Mr. Carlos Mencia didn’t miss a beat in jumping back where he left off. Right at the start he ran through the major celebrity meltdowns that happened while he was away. And did them well. Then he really took on a few things.

There aren’t many shows that can jump from jokes about the death of Mr. Steve Irwin, to a white guy getting eaten by a cheetah in Africa, to expressing admiration for MILF’s in song and make it all funny. Along the way there was a bit on how the “DEE DEE DEE’s” understand news broadcasts, which was right on the mark, and a great take on sports movies starring dwarfs, or little people I’m not sure which is appropriate.

The fact is that if this is how his season will go he is going to be on fire. He holds back nothing, and it’s a great thing. I’m sure his fame will grow. Expect to hear a lot about this guy soon. And hopefully the execs at Comedy Central have learned a thing or 2 from their experience pushing Mr. Dave Chappelle. Given they have then Mr. Mencia will grow exponentially.

In other cable network television shows, I finally got to see The Riches. It’s a very well done program. The story is involving and has a lot of potential. Like many of the cable shows these days it’s head and shoulders above broadcast network programs. I suppose if you like ‘reality’ programs or stuff like American Idol [I personally find that to be mindless drivel] you may not enjoy it, but if you like shows like Rescue Me, The Shield, Thief, Dexter and their ilk then you will love this.

I find Mr. Eddie Izzard to be a strong presence as the father of this uniquely unconventional family. Most probably are unaware of the comedy routine of Mr. Izzard. If you watch BBC America you may have seen it. Yes he is a Briton. And a funny one at that. He is also a very well dressed transvestite. Surprise, he wears women’s clothing. It has nothing to do with his ability as an actor, or a comedian. Watching him portray the con-man pretending to be a lawyer, and a frisky loving father, you believe him. His charisma is immediate.

No less believable and just as enjoyable is the performance of Ms. Minnie Driver. The mother and strong believer in her clan, she hits the right note between loving devious and determined. She is definitely not the woman to cross. She also has fantastic chemistry with Mr. Izzard. Of course her personal demons (the character) are no minor problem, though so far they have not really cropped up yet. But the potential for confusion and drama is clear.

The fact that the entire family is adept at long and short cons, pick pocketing, picking locks, stealing cars, and an assortment of other criminal activities makes them all formidable and interesting. An interesting twist, which existed before the hiring of Mr. Izzard, is the fact that one of the children is a cross dresser. The youngest son in fact, which is a unique thing for any program.

I keep mentioning that this is a unique program, and it is. Groundbreaking in a few of the issues that it addresses. And there is quality in every aspect of it. If you haven’t seen it, you really should.

This is what I think, what do you think?