February 03, 2003
THOUGHTS ABOUT SUPERMAN I & IV
March 8, 1991
Continuing from last week, more thoughts on genre films that are showing up with amazing regularity--and for no apparent reason--on cable.
Specifically, the first and last entries in a series of films that went downhill with amazing velocity. And the seeds for that spiral were sown in the very first one.
Before superheroes hit the big screen, television had determined how the public perceived our comic book adventurers. Superman, because of George Reeves, was the straight guy. And Batman, because of Adam West, was the goofy guy.
So what happens over the course of a decade or so when they hit the big screen? Superman the Movie is wildly silly while Batman is deadly straight. Go figure.
Superman is a crazily schizoid flick, a clear meshing of several creative minds pulling in several directions at once, giving audiences the filmic equivalent of oil and water.
For the first 45 minutes or so, we're treated to the most reverent handling of a comic book hero that we can ask for. Here is a Krypton which, if not what we're accustomed to, is eerily alien.
I must admit that, to me, the portrayal of Krypton as a sterile, unemotional environment vitiated a great deal of the pure human drama that made Superman's origin what it was. In the original depiction, we had a thriving civilization cut down in its prime. There was tragedy in that. I don't think anyone would particularly miss the stiffs that populated the movie Krypton.
Furthermore, the saving of baby Kal-el was a last, desperate act of love and sacrifice on the part of his parents. Not only that, but his mother deliberately chose to stay behind, rather than save her own life, because she could not face life without her husband. That was one hell of a choice. It might not even be one that the modern woman would go with. But it was a powerful and moving image.
In the movie, there is remarkable dispassion in what should be a passionate moment. Jor-el doesn't seem to be considering his baby's survival so much as wanting to perpetuate, in some manner, the Kryptonian race. No one seems too choked up about what's happening, nor can they, since they're cold and emotionless.
So I missed that essential element of loss that was part and parcel of Superman for so long. Still, as is so often important with movies, it looked real pretty.
The rest of Superman's young days are depicted in loving, sweeping detail. Fields of wheat (but no ghostly ballplayers) and a melodic Jonathan Williams score combined to give a feeling that there was an epic in the making here. A stirring saga drawn from what had become a part of the American consciousness.
And then, as if suddenly losing confidence in their source material, the filmmakers went scurrying back to the campiness of the "Batman" TV show and brought in a comic opera Lex Luthor. It is a remarkably jarring moment in the film and the viewer never quite recovers. (Although Hackman, through sheer talent, manages to rise above the material to some degree. When Superman asks, "Is this how a demented mind like yours gets its kicks? By plotting the deaths of millions of innocent people?", Hackman's reply of, "No-- by causing the deaths of millions of innocent people." [...])
Why would the "greatest criminal mind of our age" choose, for assistants, nothing but boobs (in all senses of the word)? With the introduction of Luthor, the filmmakers essentially turn to the audience, wink, and say, "Hey, you didn't think we were going to play this that seriously, did you? C'mon! It's funny books!"
By going this route, they are then able to toss aside any considerations of the plot making sense because, after all, it's a comic book and so doesn't have to, right? Nothing is thought out. Superman is supposed to stop a missile that's going to strike New Jersey. It's heading there from the midwest. Superman is already on the East Coast. So what's he doing behind the thing, chasing it over desert?
Even if you ignore this and other absurdities, the film checks out completely when Superman turns back time. If you believe what you're seeing, then he's actually, physically turning the world backwards. Yeah, right. If you choose to interpret what you're seeing in the sense that he's creating some sort of time warp, it still comes across as a major cop-out on the part of the screenwriters, who had boxed themselves in plot-wise and couldn't come up with anything better.
When you see a film that's just flat out lousy, it's much easier to take than a film which has a lot of good things in it but has major problems due to structural difficulties or just plain carelessness. And there's a lot of good stuff in Superman.
Three favorite aspects of the film. First, the sequence that has come to be known as "Superman's First Night," in which Superman first makes himself known to the Metropolis populace, has got to be a masterpiece of timing. Think about it: What a night for news that would have been. The President is killed in a plane crash. A Daily Planet reporter, not to mention a whole bunch of rubbernecking bystanders, are killed in a freak helicopter accident. A daring jewelry heist from forty floors up. Thieves escape police via a high-speed boat. That would have been one packed front page. Instead, all these items get traded for one story--although it is, of course, the story of the century.
(Somehow I doubt that the cat getting stuck in the tree would have made the newspapers. Call it a hunch. Although I find it ironic that the little girl got slapped around for telling the truth. She probably grew up scarred for life.)
The second thing is that wonderful scene when Superman and Lois have a candelight supper on Lois' balcony. Of course, how Lois afforded that place on a reporter's salary is beyond me, but hey, maybe she got the goods on the landlord and they worked something out. Who knows?
The third thing is that, for the first time, a major aspect of the Superman legend finally worked for me. I may not have come out of the film believing a man can fly, but I now believe that a man can fool friends about his identity by using a pair of glasses. Clark Kent and Superman bore no resemblance to each other at first, second or even third glance.
One of the best moments was, in Lois' apartment, when Clark contemplates revealing his identity. He removes the glasses. His shoulders straighten. His eyes become focussed and hardened. His jaw resets itself and his voice changes timbre, all in a matter of seconds. And then he chickens out and snaps right back into Clark. None of this, of course, can come across in a comic book. But thanks to Christopher Reeve's marvelous portrayal, the concept of the disguise Clark Kent fooling anybody now works for me. I certainly would have been fooled.
So thanks, Chris. Now if only I didn't have to hate you for giving us...
Whereas a film can be annoying when it's good with frustrating lapses along the way, there is nothing more aggravating than a movie that has the germ of a wonderful idea that goes completely wrong.
Chris Reeve is credited with developing the basic story--that being that Superman decides to rid the world of nuclear weapons. In doing so, he tapped into precisely what makes Superman so great, the core of Superman's appeal: Wish Fulfillment.
Don't we all wish that we could fly? Or be invulnerable? Or be superstrong? Or see through clothes? (Oh, be honest, now. Who among you would have had x-ray vision and never used it for tawdry purposes. Yeah, sure.)
And how many of us have thought that, if we had the power of Superman, we would do something heavy duty about the state that the world is in? Well, that's exactly what Reeve came up with when Superman decided to rid the world of nuclear weapons in Superman IV.
Of course, when we dream up our fantasies of what we would do, we rarely consider the ramifications and real-world aspects of our actions (unless, of course, we're part of the New Universe). But that's okay. They're just daydreams.
When you take a daydream, however, make a script of it and put it up on a movie screen, you don't have that option, however. And when Chris Reeve decided to ignore the real-world in his script, not only did he create a film that didn't ring true, but he blew bigtime a fantastic story idea.
When Superman stepped up in front of the United Nations in IV to lecture them, and he announced, "I have decided to rid the world of all nuclear weapons," there was an instant there where I thought with excitement, "This is going to be fantastic!" Because I immediately developed an entire scenario of what would happen next.
There would be dead silence in the security council. Then confused babbling as delegates started murmuring, "What did he say? Is he serious? What is he talking about?" And then the United States or the U.S.S.R. would have said, "Excuse me. Who the hell do you think you are?"
And Superman would have blinked in surprise and said, "Well...I'm Superman. I know what's best. I'm going to make your world a better place."
"That's what Hitler was going to do!" shouts someone else, and then there was going to be this whole uproar and ruckus. And the countries would have said, "And today he rids us of nuclear weapons, and what if tomorrow he decides he doesn't like fighter jets anymore? Or M-16s? Who is he to set himself up as arbiter of what we do and don't do? He's not even from this world, for crying out loud!"
And Superman would have been genuinely puzzled and confused and angry, and said, "I know what's right. I can't stand around and let the threat of nuclear war hang over you when I can stop that threat with these two hands!"
And the nations of the world would have said, "You keep those hands to yourself! Touch our armaments and we'll declare you a world-wide terrorist!"
"Do what you have to!" Superman would have declared, "And I'll do what I have to!"
And you've got Superman vs. the World. What a film. What a drama.
All of this, as I said, flashed through my mind in an instant.
And the next moment, on the screen, all the nations members stood up and applauded and cheered and said, "Great! Great idea! Hurrah for Superman!"
The film went kinda down the chute from there, to the degree where even Lex Luthor couldn't hurt it anymore.
Posted by Glenn Hauman at February 3, 2003 10:35 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingI liked "Superman I." Yeah it was corny, but at least the people looked like they had fun making it. As opposed to the people involved with "Batman." The Batman in that movie definitely didn't seem like the comic book Batman to me. At least "Superman the Movie" Supes was more true to the character.
Ironically enough, I'd just finished downloading the "Superman" main theme before reading PAD's blog.
I bet Lex Luthor was behind this.
I always loved the funeral scene in S:TM. The pullback to the horizon, the majestic Williams' soundtrack - classic.
Then put that up against S4: Bad guy sees pretty girl picture. Bad guy flies to DP. Superman stands there (how did he know the bad guy was coming I ask myself) to proclaim "She's safe!" (No - a He-Man rip-off!!!!!)
Superman almost wrote the book on how to destroy a comic-movie series - at least until Batman Returns came along.
Latest Superman movie rumor?
That the guy from the "Joe Millionaire" show is being considered as a possible for the role of Clark/Superman..
I find it amusing that John Williams is referred to as "Jonathan Williams." And I agree about comic book movies. "X-Men" seems to have done relatively well, though I'm wary of the sequel, "X-2." Hopefully it doesn't follow the trend and crash and burn.
Chris
You hit the nail on the head in your analysis of Reeves' portrayal of Clark and Superman. No actor before or since has handled the Clark to Superman transition so well.
Kirk Alyn? Heh.
George Reeves? I love George Reeves' Superman. But his Clark was Superman in glasses and a suit.
Dean Cain? Oy.
Seems to me that Marvel has, overall, made a successful transition to the big screen. DC should just stick with its animated efforts, which have been FAR superior to any of its live action titles in every case.
There should also be a federal law against Tim Burton taking and "re-imagining" other people's stories.
Superman will always be in one of my Top Ten all-time favorite film, but i agree with Peter in this old piece that it was far from perfect because of the second more goofier part. Lex Luthor was of course a big factor in that-like Peter said- they inspired themselves a lot of the Batman tv series with the humour and the hidden underground lair.
I heard someplace that they almost hired Telly Savalas a.k.a Kojack to play Luthor. The man was very hot back then...he was a tough cookie...and he was bald! Can you believe that they almost got it right!? Seeing him on the big screen, it would have been credible right away that this man could take a super-strong Uberman, no question about it. Make him a blue-collar criminal and alter part of the plot to destroy some piece of land and it would already been a lot better right there.
Then there`s the "making the Earth turn backwards" non-sens. Solution: in a fit of rage after Lois`"death", instead of changing the course of the Earth`s rotation, Superman just fly like mad, without stopping like a comet in the sky and keep going and going until he hit a meteorite in space and fell uncounscious. All his black. He awakes in open space disturbed by an emergency signal coming from his Forteress. Superman returns to Earth and goes there to learn that it was in a way a signal to preserve his life. Then he learns that forbidden devices from Krypton`s past exist in that place that can restores life. So the holograms of the memories of Krypton`s ancestors mention that he shouldn`t do this and that this can only work to Kryptonians. But Clark bring Lois` body and he saves her by using his own Kryptonian features wich creats some sort of link between them that will be there forever.
Of course that would be more low-key than turning the Earth backward, but we could still see Superman creating an avalanche of rocks to block a river, fusing the cracks in the Earth`s core, etc... wich would still be amazing.
I'm pretty sure that the Telly Savalas thing stems from an early script containing a scene where Superman is flying around Metropolis, looking for Luthor and sees a bald man. Superman grabs the bald man, turns him around and it was to be Telly saying something to the effect of, "Who loves ya, baby?"
The original Puzo script further doctored by David Newman, Leslie Newman and Robert Benton was a pretty campy piece from all accounts. When Donner came into the picture he brought Tom Mankiewicz they got rid of much of the camp, but some of the bumbling was left in. "Superman: The Movie" has a very fascinating history to it and the fact that it turned out as well as it did was something very special.
Having said that I have to agree that as soon as Clark and Lois go on their date after Superman and Lois take their flight I really start staring at the clock wondering if there isn't some dusting I could do. The Helicopter sequence was fantastic and was really, for lack of a better term, the money shot of the film. Not only does Clark change to Superman in a very comic book way and not only does he save Lois Lane but he catches the helicopter as well. Now that's Superman.
As for Superman IV, well I would like to see the missing 30 minutes of footage they cut out, including the fight with the first Nuclear Man. The film may still blow, but at least I would have a better was to judge the piece, though Peter's idea of Superman vs. the World is a vastly better idea.
Well, that's enough of me geeking out about Superman.
...But if they had gone with a Superman vs. the World scenario, we never would have gotten a movie with an evil radioactive Shadoe Stephens. :P
I remember Superman IV being the first movie that I walked out of saying, "I want my two hours back" and then proceeding to tell everyone in line for the following showing to go home and not waste time with this dreck.
Actually, I too share the wish that the production team stuck more to the original script of Superman IV. The comic book adaptation, which was created before the movie was "edited", was much more entertaining than the movie it was based on.
If there was ever a movie for Mystery Science Theater 3000, it's Superman IV.
I mean, when the Nuclear guy kicks Superman across the city can you NOT just stand up and scream "GOOOOOAAAAAAAALL!"
:)
"Lois... there's something I have to tell you." Goodness me, what a piece of acting THAT was! I mean, any bozo in a blue suit can pull it off with a Superman costume underneath it. Mr. Reeve changed from Clark to Superman by the expedient of taking off his GLASSES. As Elliott S! Maggin once wrote, if someone had come in at that moment, the suit would be no disguise at all. He went from Clark Kent to Superman wearing Clark Kent clothes. Beautiful. Genius.
As for who is the best Superman actor - beats me. Some have turned in some darned fine jobs - but I DO want to cast a vote for one of my personal favorites, Clayton "Bud" Collyer, who was the first to do Superman (on the radio) and also did him on the Filmation Superman cartoon - which I grew up with. Yay! "This looks like a job... ...for Superman!"
Ah! The simple joys of childhood!
Eric L. Sofer
The Silver Age Fogey
x<]:-)(
One the things that I always loved about the first Superman was Lex Luthor's speech about real estate. I loved it when they used it in the comic a few months ago in an issue where President Luthor had been driven crazy.
I forget the exact speech but it's something to the effect of "My father once told me, 'Lex, the stock market will go up and down. People are no damn good so invest in real estate.'"
Does anyone remember or have this exact quote?
1. Warts and all, I still ove the first Superman film, and place it ahead of all the other film adaptations I've seen (although a bit behind the Flash TV show, and leagues behind the Paul Dini Batman and Superman).
2. Reeve remains the best of the myriad Supermen in my eyes. Alyn, I've never seen. George Reeves did a good job but wasn't really given much to do with his role. Dean Cain was a very good Clark and an OK Superman, good enough for the role, but nothing special. The two Superboy actors I can barely remember. And Tom Welling is getting there, but he's not playing Supes yet, is he? Special honorable mention to Tim Daly's voice work on S:TAS.
3. The story that PAD suggested for Supes vs. The World was done, after a fashion, but not with Supes. We saw Firestorm, newly naded over to John Ostrander, try to force the US and the USSR to disarm, followed by declarations of "rogue hero," battles against the JLI and Suicide Squad, and (ironically enough) a nuke being dropped on him and a Russian hero set to stop him. He physically took it all, and only stopped his crusade because his mental status was altered in the big boom. Yet he did win, as the US agreed, quietly, to work harder to disarm. A great story, but one that Ostrander couldn't really foolw too well, and one that should haunt Firestorm's career but doesn't
Re: Superman the Movie...
I've always hated the notion that Lara would *choose* to remain on Krypton and die with her husband and thus abandon her only child to the mercies of the universe.
No, I prefer that the ship is only big enough for one. If it were big enough for two, there is only *one* possible scenario. Jor-El makes the supreme sacrifice for his family, and Lara goes into the unknown with her only son to ensure that he's safe.
I can't believe in those films specifically because of the Clark portrayal. If Superman really wanted a secret identity, why would he cause himself such a headache as to spend almost all of his waking hours as this nerdish, squeamish, stuttering idiot who has no friends and nobody in the office likes. There's a bit where some other Planet employees close the elevator because they don't want to share it with an idiot like Clark. If the identity is a false one, why pick one which is guaranteed to send you home every day sad, depressed and miserable because nobody can stand you?
Re: The Clark Kent identity.
It serves many purposes. One, it's "hiding in plain sight." No one would suspect that the nebbish Clark is Superman. Also, it's yet another example of Superman not using his powers for personal gain. His secret identity, after all, could be a movie star or an athlete or just the local swinger (he's certainly attractive enough). But, no, he's an average guy, the guy no one notices, the one everyone ignores. It shows his humility and perhaps he enjoys truly living as a human being, experiencing humanity as it is, rather than being fawned over, as he is as Superman.
Keep in mind, no matter how people treat Clark, Superman doesn't go home frustrated and sad. That would be beneath him.
I liked the first Superman movie and have it on DVD. Of course, Peter's right about Luthor. Unfortunately, hiring Hackman to do the part was part of what got it green-lit.
I don't know about the Clark Kent identity. It was an impressive piece of acting and really helps the suspension of disbelief. However, it often seemed like two different characters rather than the same guy. I think I'm a little bit too used to the modern portrayal of Superman that has Clark and Superman being very similar in character yet no one notices.
Oh well, it's still pretty entertaining.
Probably one of the greatest comic book geek moments of all time for me was in the first Superman. His very first appearance in costume, as Lois is falling from the helicopter, he flies up to catch her and says..."Don't worry miss, I've got you." Then she replies...(c'mon, you all know it)
"You've got me?!? Who's got you?!?"
Love that moment.
Despite it's flaws, this movie is awesome. Any time I'm channel surfing and I see it on TBS or USA or something, bam! I know what I'm watching for the next two hours.
Other thoughts:
Who knew Lois was a fan of Supertramp?
Does anyone know why Lex and Otis have the number 200 in common?
Also, I want to move to Otisburg. It's just an itty bitty place. I mean, heck, Miss Tessmacher has her own place. (All this according to Ned Beatty.)
Incidentally, anybody want to see Miss Tessmacher naked can watch the movie Lenny, with Dustin Hoffman. I think this was pre-Supes.
I have other favorite moments from the other 3 movies...wait make that the 2nd and 3rd, but since those aren't part of the topic, I'll keep quiet.
Well, to begin with, if you are the Stephen Robinson who used to write for the Red & Black, I do hope you've been doing well professionally and personally.
But I wouldn't agree that the Clark identity that the movies gave us was at all average. The portrayal of someone so extremely uptight, tense, awkward and hesitant isn't average. I haven't seen anyone so socially inept in years and years. If the idea is to practice humility by living among humans, what is the point of creating a persona that humans will want to avoid? Nobody in the first movie has any time for Clark, or desire to spend theirs with him. He's shunned by his peers.
The movie Kent actually reminds of the character "Waldo" in an early 80s Van Halen video, or the one in the Beastie Boys' "Fight for Your Right to Party." I can more easily believe that a man can fly than I can believe someone willingly choosing to live a life on the receiving end of (at worst) taunts and bullying from people like the truckers in Superman II or Brad in Superman III or (at best) utter indifference from the people he works with every day. Reeve certainly played the part very well, it was just a part written very poorly.
Lois & Clark demonstrated that a screen Clark can be an average, likeable guy with an interest in sports, with friends and a social life. I know plenty of folks like that around my office, and yet if there was a Superman flying around in our real world, I would not start suspecting my co-workers and friends of being him.
Although there's probably a good story in that... Superman saves the life of some girl who works at the Metropolis branch of Prudential Life Insurance, convincing the entire staff that Superman must be secretly be disguised as one of them.
You haven't really left anything for me to say, except perhaps this: I've long wondered how Jor-El's plan to perpetuate the Kryptonian race was supposed to work with just one boy. Wouldn't for instance one girl and a good supply of sperm samples have made more sense if you could only send one person into space?
Superman almost wrote the book on how to destroy a comic-movie series - at least until Batman Returns came along.
Anyone here ever read the original
Sam Hamm script for it? That's back
when it was called "Batman 2", it was easily the best superhero script I've ever read, it's on the web here and there, search for "Batman 2" and Sam Hamm... The really lousy thing about it is that it can never be
made now. I liked Hamm's Penguin
much better (not sure about his
Catwoman) and the ties to the original movie were nothing short of
wonderful.
I got the DVD of the first film for Christmas, and I've been watching bits of it over and over again...mostly Superman's first night. One of the most surprising things about it is how subtle the whole sequence is. The helicopter rescue is spectacular without being over-the-top. Makes me wonder how it'll be handled in the new version...lots of explosions, lots of shaky Steadicam and super-fast cuts...
(Of course, it's got its goofy points too. Like Superman and the pimp.
"Say, Jim! WHOO!"
"...Excuse me. *WHOOSH*"
"That's a bad...out...FIT! WHOO!")
To be fair, in Superman I:
- A scene was cut in which Superman first confronts the Hackensack missile by standing in front of it. It zig-zags around him using the "avoidance" technology mentioned by Cliff from Cheers. Thus, Superman is forced to pursue it from behind.
- The reverse-time-deus-ex-machina was intended to be the ending of movie #2, after the Krypto-villains kill Lois and generally take over everything. That would have been a better place to put it.
After all the troubles the first film went through, the filmmakers decided to move the time-reversal ending to the first film in case they didn't get a chance to make part II.
I have to agree with Grant. While Chris Reeves is a very good actor, his Clark Kent was far to nebish-y.
The fact of the matter is, Clark is the 'real' person and Superman the persona. The best way to play that is Clark is the Kansas kid in the big city (back when Metropolis was Baltimore instead of Witchita). He's a bit hickish, but mostly naive, with a bit of difficulty relating with quick-paced Metropolitans. Superman doesn't have to deal with people on the closer level that Clark does. Superman only deals with big situations, and he's the master of settling things the right way, but he really shouldn't have to interact with people on an intimate level (let's face it, if you're going to sit on the couch and watch football with the fella's you're not going to wear your underwear on the outside and dress in a cape).
Superman should be friendly but a bit aloof. He exihibits Kal-El's security and strength.
Clark should be eager and easily excited. He exhibit's Kal-El's awe and insecurity (being alone on a strange world, never really fitting in). That can make him winning in his own way, by personality rather than image.
Two different aspects of the same person reacting from different perspectives.
I really liked the first Superman movie. It holds up very well even by today's film standards. It also caught the humanity of the character, which is something neither the sequals, Lois and Clarke, or Smallville have done. It gave us a Superman that we like and root for to win. I think Peter does not give the movie it's real credit. It was done right and I don't think any future Superman movie will ever get it quite as right. It could also be the only really good live action movie DC ever does. They sure never did the Batman movies right, Marvel is the leader of good comics to film projects now.
A lot of people here are forgetting that prior to 'the Man of Steel' a lot things about Superman were different. At the time the movie was made, Luthor was a mad scientist who was angry at the world because his hair fell out and Clark was the big wuss that Reeve portrayed so well. In the case of Luthor, I think the movie improved him from the pre-reboot version.
And Jfurdell is right about superman spinning the world backwards. They didn't have superman turn back time because they had killed lois and didn't know what else to do-they killed Lois so that Superman would have an excuse to turn back time. Go figure.
One thing to remember is that at the time, the trend in writing Superman was still to think of him as Kal-El first and Clark as just an act, a sham. Now things are reversed: he's a Kansas boy at heart, not a Strange Visitor from Another Planet, and those who know him best call him by Clark now, not Kal.
(Besides, it makes better duality this way with the other half of World's Finest - Batman is the truest self, and Bruce Wayne is the mask the Bat puts on for the day.)
One of the things I really like about how Clark was written in the animated series is that you can usually "get" him once or twice before he figures out how to deal with you. But he's not dumb, just a little naive; once he DOES have your number, watch out.
Aside from that, all I have to add is - Peter is absolutely right about Reeves pulling off Clark > Kal > Clark in the apartment, and I would have liked to have seen the cut scene where Supes DOES meet the missile head-on at first.
I agree, "Superman" is a classic, while "Superman IV" could have been a lot better had they been given the extra money to complete the film. Turning a 135-minute film with lots of potential into a 90-minute mess (or 93 minutes if you either lived overseas or saw the slightly extended TV version) didn't help it at all. It gave the film a "TV movie of the week" kind of feel.
But Christopher Reeve gave us this generation's definitive Man of Steel, although everyone else that's come down the pike (John Haymes Newton, Gerard Christopher, Dean Cain, and Tom Welling) have had some pretty big boots to fill.
I found it interesting while
Christopher Reeve was Superman pretending to be Clark Kent, Dean Cain was Clark Kent. Uncomfortable in the cape and spandex.
Goggle Gropups might be usefull for it.
http://groups.google.com/
....
Chadwick Hinkle
(nofisest)