|
linoleum floors posted:I could pick on general crap instead of specific crap if you like. The movie is general crap. There you go. Except this movie is one long character building exercise wrapped around a social allegory. It's completely with the spirit of the original series. It's ironic because you seem to be missing this amidst the action you say blinds people to how crap it is.
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 01:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 10:58 |
|
|
linoleum floors posted:The difference is one deus ex machina was written after a character died in one movie so they could produce a new movie. khan's blood and kirk's "death" was a dumb gimmick that fooled nobody but the stupidest people and could have been left out of the movie entirely. Also opens the path to questions about why the gently caress isn't everyone on earth immortal now since they've found a cure for death. Are you serious? It's, at best, a cure for radiation poisoning. They made a specific issue of putting Kirk on ice to preserve his brain functions. Kirk had been dead for, at most 30 minutes before they had access to Khan's blood. We're close to being able to revive people with a minimal amount of brain damage today as long as it's within 5-10 minutes. Just because the blood revived a tribble doesn't mean it will resuscitate a complex life form. It's not "magic." If you can genetically engineer a "superman" it's almost silly not to engineer specialized cells to rapidly repair cellular damage.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 01:52
|
|
|
They recently revived a man who had been clinically dead for 45 minutes, and they had neither cryotubes nor the kind of space meds used in the gag stowaway sequence from the last film.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 01:54
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:They recently revived a man who had been clinically dead for 45 minutes, and they had neither cryotubes nor the kind of space meds used in the gag stowaway sequence from the last film. Got a link handy? That sounds fascinating.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 02:03
|
|
|
Take your pick: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtKHJefb1gc http://news.msn.com/science-technology/man-revived-after-being-clinically-dead-for-40-minutes http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/8505038.stm edit: How about 96 minutes! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2029140/Minnesota-man-Howard-Snitzer-revived-96-minutes-heartbeat.html
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 02:06
|
|
|
I really don't get why we're still spoilerizing stuff ITT. Even in the TVIV thread we stopped doing spoilers, and there's been movie discussion ITT for like 3 weeks. Is there seriously anybody coming in here and reading cryptic half sentences covered in black bars that hasn't seen the movie? What are they getting out of it?  Oh well. Phylodox posted:I'm a sucker for both film soundtracks and consistency. So while I liked Giacchino's soundtracks to the new Trek films, the consistency nut in me would love some more musical callbacks. Goldsmith's theme and Klingon motif from The Motion Picture especially. I was hoping for some thematic callbacks to Horner's TWOK theme myself. Mourning Due posted:As I didn't find Khan in WOK very compelling as above, I hated the scene with Old Spock acting like Khan had been that big a deal. Had his death been at Khan's hands I could have understood his reaction, but really what did Khan do to deserve the "greatest threat the Enterprise ever faced" moniker? -Within a day or two of being woken up he managed to take over the Enterprise -He and his fellow people from the 1990s figured out how to run a 2260s starship in a few days of reading technical manuals -When the first people beamed down to his place of exile in 20 years he immediately took over their Federation starship -He and his fellow people from the 1990s figured out how to run a 2280s starship in a couple of hours -He stole a top secret device from a secret lab that same day -He beat the Enterprise within seconds in their first encounter in an inferior ship -He severely damaged them in the next battle -He very nearly destroyed the Enterprise in a suicide bid with a ship that had no propulsion, shields, weapons, crew left alive, and massive damage Styles Bitchley posted:When Sulutook over as captain and made his announcement to Khan, did he say he would shoot the torpedos in TWO minutes? Wasn't sure if I heard that right. Couldn't be. Yeah, I caught that too on the rewatch. And in the next scene Spock says they are "three minutes" away from Harrison's position. Then they fight Klingons for like 10 min so 
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 02:53
|
|
|
Just saw the film! I enjoyed it quite a lot. On the topic of Kirk's death, I thought it was an impressive example of how the film used homage to take what would normally be cheesy scenes and make them powerful and effective. Spock shouting "Khaaaaan!", Kirk sacrificing himself in the core and then being revived later, these are obvious echos of the original films in all their cheesy glory, yet invoking the older film made them work. The film being about Kirk and Spock coming to understand each other with the whole passion/logic thing made their reversal of roles from the classic film more powerful, and I found it quite compelling. Good film! Edit: I'm sure these are all points that everyone's said and showed up in the Current Releases review, but I just wanted to say that where others might have felt the film leaned too heavily on its relation to Wrath of Khan, I thought it was a great way to let the film do scenes that otherwise wouldn't have worked in this day and age. Dolash fucked around with this message at 03:40 on May 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 03:37
|
|
|
I also just saw the film, and I must say I can think of few franchises worse for hammering in a metaphor about counter-terrorism and drone strikes, and US foreign policy than Star Trek. I don't know, I found the whole thing pretty hamfisted, in addition to being overlong in many of the actions scenes and excessively busy at times. I don't hate it, but I'm ehhhhh on the whole thing. I did like what Dolash talked about though, I though it was a clever way to do a reversal on the classic scene. Only the magic blood was really stupid, and obvious as soon as it was introduced. I see the thread debating whether or not you can revive the dead, and it's true that in certain cases you can, but not from apparently fatal radiation poisoning. I'm not asking for Star Trek to be super hard sci-fi, but making Khan's blood resurrect the dead stretched it too far for me. Plus, I don't appreciate killing off a character just to bring them back ten minutes later, feels cheap. At least wait for the next film for that  I'll say I enjoyed it way more than Prometheus, which is the last sci-fi movie I bothered to see in theaters.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 05:05
|
|
|
Cordyceps Headache posted:magic blood was really stupid, and obvious as soon as it was introduced. I see the thread debating whether or not you can revive the dead, and it's true that in certain cases you can, but not from apparently fatal radiation poisoning. I'm not asking for Star Trek to be super hard sci-fi, but making Khan's blood resurrect the dead stretched it too far for me. You're making it sound more mystical than it really is. As others have pointed out, it's debatable as to whether Kirk could actually be considered dead or not. As it is, the concept of what constitutes death is being redefined as medical science improves, and the idea of regenerating celluar tissue to repair damage of that magnitude is perhaps not that far off, and certainly a sound concept in theory. This isn't like Jesus rising from the grave through the power of God's love. At best you could say it's a bit far-fetched, but no more so than putting a beeping gizmo on somebody's head to stop internal hemorrhaging, for example. I also find the fixation on this issue odd considering all the other fanciful technology in the Star Trek universe. Somebody having genetically enhanced blood that can repair massive cell damage in somebody else who hasn't actually suffered brain death yet is apparently stretching it too far, but physics-breaking warp drives, transporters, ansible communications etc - those things aren't? I think it falls into the realm of Star Trek science quite neatly.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 06:26
|
|
|
Hot Sexy Jupiter posted:You're making it sound more mystical than it really is. As others have pointed out, it's debatable as to whether Kirk could actually be considered dead or not. As it is, the concept of what constitutes death is being redefined as medical science improves, and the idea of regenerating celluar tissue to repair damage of that magnitude is perhaps not that far off, and certainly a sound concept in theory. This isn't like Jesus rising from the grave through the power of God's love. At best you could say it's a bit far-fetched, but no more so than putting a beeping gizmo on somebody's head to stop internal hemorrhaging, for example. It has to do with the implications of the technology. Magic blood that revives otherwise dead individuals has huge world-changing implications. Presumably they'll just keep Khan an co. frozen and drain their blood periodically, and stock every ship int he fleet with it. The feasibility of the technology matters less than the effect it would have on the plot and world, which in this case is to make anything short of massive body trauma easily fixable with a small injection. And no, nothing we have right now comes even close to fixing the type of damage that would be required to die that quickly from radiation exposure. The brain doesn't survive that well, we aren't just talking about radiation poisoning. Though the worst bit of terrible pseudoscience was right at the beginning, with the cold fusion bomb that makes things cold. At least don't use words that mean something completely different if you're just going to invent poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 06:31
|
|
|
DentArthurDent posted:I understand that thematically they felt they had to end the film with "Captain" Kirk in the big chair, rather than Lieutenant Kirk or something similar, but like a lot of things in these two movies it starts to fall apart if you think about it too much. Dude, if you were a scheming admiral looking for someone brash and disposable to act as a scapegoat for your act of war without working out the consequences before diving in head first wouldn't James T. Kirk be like choice numero uno? Of course he had no issue sending Kirk back out on the Enterprise now that anyone who might call him on it was out of the way or wrapped up in revenge lust after the attacks on Star Fleet. Cordyceps Headache posted:It has to do with the implications of the technology. Magic blood that revives otherwise dead individuals has huge world-changing implications. Presumably they'll just keep Khan an co. frozen and drain their blood periodically, and stock every ship int he fleet with it. The feasibility of the technology matters less than the effect it would have on the plot and world, which in this case is to make anything short of massive body trauma easily fixable with a small injection. Maybe? New Trek has been subject to vastly faster accelerations of technology. They now have portable transwarp teleporters, FTL communicators, vastly more advanced warp drives and all sorts of other jazz. I just chalk it up to a ship with integrated borg technology floating around for 20 years before Nero busted his rear end back on board and the presence of Spock who has been pretty fast and loose with his interpretation of what kind of info this timeline gets now that it is irreparably changed. Whats one more thing? Does the presence of a miracle blood elixir really even alter things that much? By the end of the Voyager timeline they were doing all sorts of crazy poo poo with nanobots, this just happens to be an alternate method of doing similar a few hundred years earlier. Spaceman Future! fucked around with this message at 07:01 on May 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 06:52
|
|
|
e: dp
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 07:00
|
|
|
I'm not talking about setting specific developments, I'm talking about as a narrative. Voyagers had many moments of pushing beyond the bounds too, but nothing quite as egregious as negating microwavy death by radiation. Something that powerful can't be introduced without considering the consequences and the repercussion to the narrative. It weakens the story, renders sacrifice and death meaningless. This being a J.J. Abrams movie, I wasn't exactly expecting the plot to be super tight or the rules of storytelling to be followed super well, but removing the consequences of death while still trying to use it for drama like they did is a pretty big one. Kirk's whole death scene felt cheap and pointless because I knew he would be alive again by the end of the movie, otherwise why would they have bothered injecting the dead tribble? Edit: Basically, there's always some suspension of disbelief necessary to believe the heroes of a narrative are in any actual danger, particularly in cases like Star Trek were the core crew are a big reason for the draw of the franchise. This belief is totally shattered when you drop in the idea of magic regenerating blood just before the noble sacrifice of your main protagonist. It was such an obvious out from killing Kirk that it rendered the whole death meaningless VVVV This is a good idea. The cheap part is using Kirk's death to add drama and then reversing it. After all, they don't actually explore what Kirk having experienced death entails. The whole death was supposed to be a character moment for Spock, but it's sort of rendered moot when you bring him back a half-hour later. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 07:21 on May 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 07:10
|
|
|
ChronoReverse posted:I wonder why people fixate on dying as if dying in itself is something that make for good plot. On the other hand, Kirk makes a big deal at the start of the film about how he's had the fewest number of deaths on his ship compared to other vessels in Starfleet. Yeah, I get that he shows a lot of humility and learns consequences by about start of the 3rd act, but I think him having to directly face the death of a crewman under his command would have cemented some more character development. That's why I still think Chekov would have been better: Kirk forces Scotty to leave the Enterprise and forces Chekov to don the ominous red shirt to take his place. Chekov becomes the Spock/Scotty's Nephew from TWoK and we could also give it a bit of a Kurst, K-19, Chernobyl angle if we're going back as far as 9/11 for inspiration. Also, while I LIKE the guy who does Chekov in the movies, killing him could allow them to maybe later replace him in the next movie with perhaps his sister like a "Katya Chekova" or something to help add some more women to the main bridge crew and still keep A Chekov aboard.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 07:18
|
|
|
Cordyceps Headache posted:It has to do with the implications of the technology. Magic blood that revives otherwise dead individuals has huge world-changing implications. Presumably they'll just keep Khan an co. frozen and drain their blood periodically, and stock every ship int he fleet with it. The feasibility of the technology matters less than the effect it would have on the plot and world, which in this case is to make anything short of massive body trauma easily fixable with a small injection. I think that's a valid concern, but the implications you're talking about wouldn't come into play until after the story in this film. Yes, it would be a shame if we didn't hear anything about it again (which unfortunately has a precident in Trek, like the incredible 'game-changing' tech the TNG folks would sometimes stumble across that would then be completely forgotten about). Personally I hope it does factor into the next film somehow. To temper the easy-fix/magic bullet-like aspect of it, one thing they could do is make it so that the blood actually has an adverse effect in the long run, creating a dangerous warp in Kirk's personality, or some unforseen physiological problem, for example.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 07:38
|
|
|
Astroman posted:I really don't get why we're still spoilerizing stuff ITT. Even in the TVIV thread we stopped doing spoilers, and there's been movie discussion ITT for like 3 weeks. Is there seriously anybody coming in here and reading cryptic half sentences covered in black bars that hasn't seen the movie? What are they getting out of it? I suppose, but to me they faced much greater challenges on multiple occasions. I mean, he was a dick, but I would say the Klingons were a greater threat, that Charlie X and Gary Mitchell had greater power, and the Nomad space probe clearly had a much greater capacity for killing. Yes, he was deranged and single-minded, but I don't feel that he was effectively portrayed as a threat, not to the level that V'Ger or even Benedict's version were.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 08:55
|
|
|
Mourning Due posted:I suppose, but to me they faced much greater challenges on multiple occasions. I mean, he was a dick, but I would say the Klingons were a greater threat, that Charlie X and Gary Mitchell had greater power, and the Nomad space probe clearly had a much greater capacity for killing. Yes, he was deranged and single-minded, but I don't feel that he was effectively portrayed as a threat, not to the level that V'Ger or even Benedict's version were. The Klingons were a threat that would later become a friend. Khan's danger lies in his intelligence and adaptability plus evil intent. Charlie X and Gary Mitchell were gods, but with the minds of regular humans. V'Ger was vastly intelligent but had no ill intent underpinning it's agenda. Old Spock was thinking of it from the perspective of "of everything we went up against, what had the capacity for doing the most different kinds of damage in myriad ways in a timeline that has changed, and can't be one-shotted with a simple solution like flying a starship down it's throat." And yeah, he was probably letting his human side get the best of him there and taking it personal that Khan caused his death, therefore maybe giving Khan a higher threat level than was true.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 13:18
|
|
|
Hot Sexy Jupiter posted:I think that's a valid concern, but the implications you're talking about wouldn't come into play until after the story in this film. Yes, it would be a shame if we didn't hear anything about it again (which unfortunately has a precident in Trek, like the incredible 'game-changing' tech the TNG folks would sometimes stumble across that would then be completely forgotten about). Personally I hope it does factor into the next film somehow. To temper the easy-fix/magic bullet-like aspect of it, one thing they could do is make it so that the blood actually has an adverse effect in the long run, creating a dangerous warp in Kirk's personality, or some unforseen physiological problem, for example.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 13:23
|
|
|
linoleum floors posted:The difference is one deus ex machina was written after a character died in one movie so they could produce a new movie. khan's blood and kirk's "death" was a dumb gimmick that fooled nobody but the stupidest people and could have been left out of the movie entirely. Also opens the path to questions about why the gently caress isn't everyone on earth immortal now since they've found a cure for death. This is absolutely consistent with every single Trek episode where a deus ex machina solution works perfectly in the episode where it is devised, and then is literally never mentioned again. And also, it's not really that different from the fact that in Trek they can cure cancer and a whole bunch of other things that are almost always fatal now--remember the TNG S1 finale, when they find the 1980s people frozen in cryostasis because they had terminal bone-itis, which is nothing more than the 24th century equivalent of a cold? It's really not that big a game-changer, it's just one more thing that maybe won't kill you any more, but probably will because let's face it, you don't get lucky they way Kirk does, in any sense of the expression. Conversely, I felt many of the departures from established Trek tropes were hugely successful, including things like Uhura, the loving communications officer, can speak Klingon, which Nichelle Nichols specifically requested her character be able to do in Star Trek VI but got shot down-they sure fixed that 22 year old plot hole. Also, I think someone else got it exactly right saying these characters are essentially the same as they were in TOS and the TOS films--they just take different actions because the situations are different. From a fan perspective, I find this to be the most appealing feature of the new films and new continuity, that we essentially get a bunch more TOS stories without worrying about contradicting the original episodes and films, as well as being able to incorporate DS9 and TNG storylines (and Enterprise, I guess...) but with the more iconic characters of Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Uhura, Sulu, Chekov, and Lt. Kyle. Apollodorus fucked around with this message at 15:39 on May 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 15:35
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:On the other hand, Kirk makes a big deal at the start of the film about how he's had the fewest number of deaths on his ship compared to other vessels in Starfleet. Yeah, I get that he shows a lot of humility and learns consequences by about start of the 3rd act, but I think him having to directly face the death of a crewman under his command would have cemented some more character development. He does. In addition to the dozens of people we see dying when they get sucked out at warp, Kirk personally misses the grip of a falling crewman. He goes from "No deaths.  " to catastrophic disaster in the span of seconds, all because he thought he could escape without consequences. He's clearly devastated by what has happened by the time he's begging the Admiral to spare his crew's life, and while he's probably brave enough to do it anyway, it certainly informs his decision to sacrifice himself. I don't think they really needed to be more direct than this.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 16:43
|
|
|
Hot Sexy Jupiter posted:I think that's a valid concern, but the implications you're talking about wouldn't come into play until after the story in this film. Yes, it would be a shame if we didn't hear anything about it again (which unfortunately has a precident in Trek, like the incredible 'game-changing' tech the TNG folks would sometimes stumble across that would then be completely forgotten about). Personally I hope it does factor into the next film somehow. To temper the easy-fix/magic bullet-like aspect of it, one thing they could do is make it so that the blood actually has an adverse effect in the long run, creating a dangerous warp in Kirk's personality, or some unforseen physiological problem, for example. If they did this, I would like Into Darkness a lot more retroactively. I just think that you need to consider this stuff, especially if you're going have movies that explicitly create a continuity like these ones do. Also yes, the Star Trek franchise very often had bad storytelling habits in the service of the plot/story, but that doesn't excuse it in a movie.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 16:55
|
|
|
DentArthurDent posted:One thing that bothered me in the 09 film, and reared it's ugly head here again: Cadet Kirk as Captain. It seemed ridiculous that a cadet (under disciplinary investigation!) would instantly rise to the rank of Captain, even if it was all a PR stunt. Sure, he helped save the Earth, but if the JJ-verse is anything like the original Trek universe, then someone is saving the Earth every couple of weeks... Starfleet lost like 80% or more of the Starfleet Academy cadets and instructors in ST09, along with hundreds of other officers and thousands of enlisted, so no, it is perfectly sound for Kirk to have been granted the rank at the end of ST09 just on the basis of him having demonstrated aptitude for the job and a severe lack of both current officers and no fresh blood to replace the ones they just lost. Officers and enlisted men in real wars have received promotions over radio transmissions without so much as a question of whether they were even prepared for the extra responsibilities. Also, there is nothing wrong with Pike being given the Enterprise - as the flagship of Starfleet, it would make sense for a Rear Admiral to be given command over it.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 17:41
|
|
|
I think he was actually higher than that--he had four gold pips on his shoulderboards, making him an Admiral, whereas Marcus had five, suggesting he was a Fleet Admiral or Commander in Chief of Starfleet, or Commander-Starfleet, or whatever they want to call it.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 17:48
|
|
|
If Khan has magic healing blood why didn't Prime Universe Khan save his wife with it?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 18:30
|
|
|
Throb Robinson posted:If Khan has magic healing blood why didn't Prime Universe Khan save his wife with it? Probably because her brain got devoured by a space worm.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
Throb Robinson posted:If Khan has magic healing blood why didn't Prime Universe Khan save his wife with it? Plus this universe isn't the same as the original.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 18:39
|
|
|
Kull the Conqueror posted:Probably because her brain got devoured by a space worm. Brain death by space worm = non-reversible. Brian death by being cooked by radiation = surprisingly easy to spring back from
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 18:39
|
|
|
Cordyceps Headache posted:Brain death by space worm = non-reversible. Brian death by being cooked by radiation = surprisingly easy to spring back from If only she had the sheer will to resist it like Chekov did.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 18:44
|
|
|
Khan's blood cures radiation poisoning. Obviously it doesn't cure crazy.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 18:54
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:Khan's blood cures radiation poisoning. Obviously it doesn't cure crazy. If it did, we wouldn't have a Wrath of Khan movie. (because Khan is loco as gently caress)
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 18:57
|
|
|
ChronoReverse posted:Plus this universe isn't the same as the original. No, it is the same with the exception of everything that was affected by Nero and Spock going back in time. This Khan is exactly the same as the Khan awakened at the start of Space Seed, with the exception of his early re-awakening by Marcus, the separation from his crew and his replaced identity.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 20:30
|
|
|
Apollodorus posted:I think he was actually higher than that--he had four gold pips on his shoulderboards, making him an Admiral, whereas Marcus had five, suggesting he was a Fleet Admiral or Commander in Chief of Starfleet, or Commander-Starfleet, or whatever they want to call it. Kirk had 4 too. I can't figure out the ranks. Maybe they are shaped different? It made sense that Kirk was still wearing Captain's insignia in the first meeting after he'd been demoted, and he had 4. But I can't see Pike still wearing Captain's pips after being an Admiral for months. Maybe they are shaped different for different ranks too?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 20:48
|
|
|
And not being Indian. The universe isn't the same
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 20:48
|
|
|
ChronoReverse posted:And not being Indian. The universe isn't the same
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
computer parts posted:If it did, we wouldn't have a Wrath of Khan movie. "Have you ever heard the proverb verse by Cypress Hill, Kirk? Don't you know...I'm loco!" Would make sense though, since Khan left earth in '96. He probably loves 90s jams. The true reason he started a war with Starfleet was his rage that all the 90s radio stations were gone.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:You mean Latino. You can also say that they gave him plastic surgery since he was basically Hitler. He was ethnically Indian in-story but played by a Latino from what I know.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 20:54
|
|
|
ChronoReverse posted:He was ethnically Indian in-story but played by a Latino from what I know. Well he is ethnicly a genetically engineered superhuman
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
Throb Robinson posted:If Khan has magic healing blood why didn't Prime Universe Khan save his wife with it? Because having your plot tied down by a forty year old film created by an entirely different set of people is stupid.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 21:06
|
|
|
I always thought Khan was his title, anyways. Like Dr. Noonien Singh.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 21:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 10:58 |
|
|
Apollodorus posted:This is absolutely consistent with every single Trek episode where a deus ex machina solution works perfectly in the episode where it is devised, and then is literally never mentioned again. That doesn't make it a good decision for new Trek movies to make. I thought part of the point of a reboot was to set yourself apart from at least some of the bad decisions made by previous writers. Some of the comments I've seen here lead me to wonder if Nemesis would have been considered a fine movie if only the cast and crew were different.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 21:17
|
|
