The Dark Knight Rises Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle/Catwoman

[TheBatman072]

It accomplishes nothing, as someone is still in the position to get their face cut up.

Or did you miss the part where he puts the knife to her face and starts telling the story (or one like it) he told before he carved the other guy's face?

She put herself in danger to keep others out of danger.

The character is selfless like that I guess.

Not to mention the fact that she obviously knew Batman was coming.

 

[RustyCage]

She put herself in danger to keep others out of danger.

The character is selfless like that I guess.

And reckless. In fact, since she's Harvey's 'squeeze', that makes her choice even more stupid because it has potentially far worse consequences than just a guy getting his face cut. (As we see later with Two-Face, for example.)

Not to mention the fact that she obviously knew Batman was coming.

Batman is also capable of saving the elderly.

 

[TheBatman072]

And reckless. In fact, since she's Harvey's 'squeeze', that makes her choice even more stupid because it has potentially far worse consequences than just a guy getting his face cut. (As we see later with Two-Face, for example.)



Batman is also capable of saving the elderly.

Okay.

 

[Nave 'Torment']

Rusty, I think you're blaming Maggie Gyllenhaal for the actions of her character. Especially since it's the same character played by Katie Holmes! If you have a problem with Rachel's characterization in TDK that's another thing, but blaming MG for that seems a little pushy don't you think? Besides, she... didn't freak out as much as she did in Begins. And I for one was glad to have a non-masked female lead in a Bat-movie who didn't do damage to her lungs screaming for the holy hell of it. I'm looking at you Kim Basinger, and still trying to wash the blood from my ears.

 

[RustyCage]

Rusty, I think you're blaming Maggie Gyllenhaal for the actions of her character.

Not entirely, only when it revolves specifically around her acting. I've expressed before that the writing itself distinguishes the characters (or, versions of the one character) from each other. This is about both the writing and the characters.

I'll often use the phrase 'TDK Rachel' instead of 'Maggie's Rachel' when I feel it's important to specify that I'm referring to writing rather than acting.

Especially since it's the same character played by Katie Holmes!

I disagree, mostly. That's what a big part of my complaint is, they don't seem like the same character - and they wouldn't even if Katie played her.

And I for one was glad to have a non-masked female lead in a Bat-movie who didn't do damage to her lungs screaming for the holy hell of it. I'm looking at you Kim Basinger, and still trying to wash the blood from my ears.

Maggie did have a pretty nasty scream when Joker threw her out the window, but I agree with you about Kim Basinger.

 

[The Joker]

They go about it differently, again.

How so? How is Gordon's gloating and making sarcastic comments any different?

Also, this isn't the only time she acts that way - I brought the way she talks to Harvey in general into view. It's very playful and cocky. She has that kind of smile on her face very often in the film, not just with Lau.

Harvey is her boyfriend. She should be smiling and playful around him.

Am I being pedantic or are you over-generalizing?

Definitely the former

Why not? I see you bashing her a lot for this, but I don't recall your reasoning.

Everything about her. From her wooden acting, where she seemed like a high school girl trying to be a grown up, to her awful delivery of her dialogue. To throw out an example, "What chance does Gotham have when the good people do nothing". She said it with all the conviction of Ralph Wiggum in The Simpsons.

If you strip it of her voice and her facial expression, the simple sentence sounds like it's not an overreaction, sure.

Because it isn't.

But when you view the full context of the situation...

The way she says it isn't as plain as "What are you doing?", either. It's more like "What are you DOING?!".

LOL, and what kind of facial expression should she have when her boyfriend has just been choked unconscious by her best friend?

Jesus Christ, man, I hope you show more of a reaction if someone you care about gets assaulted in front of you out of the blue lol.

Being concerned for Harvey is one thing. Not even beginning to consider the extremely common sense notion that maybe there's something tactical going on here and she should just ask them what that is, and further taking the liberty to assume that someone you've thoroughly learned you can trust to the ends of the Earth above any other human being is suddenly a conscienceless bastard and then subsequently walking out of his life is something else entirely.

And where on EARTH did she call Bruce a conscienceless bastard? Are you actually criticizing that she questioned why Bruce is letting Harvey do this? That it's not heroic to let someone else take the fall for you. Especially in light of the fact that Bruce told her he was going to quit?

My god almighty, it sounds like you wanted Rachel to be a saint, who never questions erratic surprising behavior lol.

Should we criticize Gordon for not having blind faith in batman's assertion that Joker would not succeed in blowing up the ferries, and even pointing a gun at him when Batman was about to storm in there anyway?

No. There is nothing wrong with questioning Batman's choices, especially when he keeps you in the dark about them with no explanation.

What affect does her knowing Batman's identity have on my point?

Everything. Batman was a faceless person to her prior to this. And never once does she say she trusts him unequivocally in Begins. In fact, the only people you hear champing for Batman in Gotham are the lady at Bruce's dinner table, and Jim Gordon defending Batman against Loeb.

Rachel is appreciative of the evidence Batman gave them. "This bat character gave us everything". But not once does she say she has total faith in him.

She also was ignorant of the truth behind intense things happening to her in both cases.

No, she definitely wasn't. She knew exactly what the situation was in TDK. She even went hiding in Bruce's penthouse after she learned she was the Joker's next target.

In Begins, she was oblivious to every threat around her. From Crane, to Ra's.

In Begins, she handled those things maturely.

What things? She had no things to deal with because she never saw any of them coming. Or are you trying to say she deliberately went down to the Arkham basement with Crane knowing what was down there?

She had no idea of the threats surrounding her.

In TDK, she handled them like an irrational brat and betrayed what was previously established as the character's logic (trust, faith, in Batman).

I'm still waiting to see some valid examples of this.

Your summary is far more out of context than mine, I'd say. As explained above.

Your explanation makes no sense. You are actually trying to sell that notion that she was totally unjustified to act surprised in a WTF kind of way when Bruce just walked up and knocked Harvey out.

I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous!

And sheignoresthe logic of his answer in favor of her own warped and mistaken logic, borne of irrationality. Why bother asking?

Because she doesn't agree with the answer she gets, that means she shouldn't have bothered asking?

Brilliant logic there Maybe we should never ask questions for the chance we might not agree with the answer we're given lol.

Maybe 'ignores' is the wrong word for it. She seems to simply be too stupid/stubborn to understand what Alfred tells her. She's too busy being pissed and freaking out about Bruce (someone she learned to trust completely in dangerous matters beforehand) being a big dummy to think reasonably or actually try to comprehend to the answer to the question she asked.

Instead she just retorts, 'you're right he's not heroic bluh bluh this is dumb I don't get it'.

It's not that she doesn't get it, it's that she doesn't AGREE with it. Like she tells Harvey when she meets him in the jail cell, she thinks it's too dangerous, that Batman might not even be able to get the Joker because he's failed so far.

These are valid points and are reasonable concerns, and there's nothing selfish or stupid or wrong with any of them.

Hell, before she even asked Alfred, she went and wrote a whole 'goodbye, I don't wanna be with you' letter to Bruce over it. Then she said bye to Alfred and promptly split. Clearly she had already made up her mind about the situation. How is any of her behavior here rational?

Hang on a second, what on earth has her letter got to do with it? Her letter was about the possibility of a romantic relationship with Bruce.

The letter was about her recognizing that Bruce will never stop being Batman, and that her heart lies with Harvey.

Where is the irrationality there? What would be irrational is waiting around for years for a man who's never going to stop being Batman.

To hammer the nail in further, she explains to Harvey that she somehow magically 'knows' what Bruce is thinking, when she clearly doesn't, and is instead making a hot-headed assumption based on thin air.

That's not a hot-headed assumption. That is the truth. Bruce didn't "know" he could get the Joker. They were taking a chance and trying. There was no guarantee they would succeed. They very nearly didn't, as Joker managed to trash the Tumbler, and knock a chopper out of the sky in the process. It was very, very close.

If she were just concerned that the Joker was too much for Bruce, that would be an understandable thing to panic over. But this is way more than that, she's calling Bruce's integrity into question, and quite harshly!

Baloney mate.

She was absolutely right when she said Batman failed to get the Joker so far, wasn't she? Why should she suddenly feel this time will be any different?

Hardly fair for Begins Rachel, I would say. It was a fear toxin. We were talking about how they handle situations that warrant panic.

What on earth are you trying to say? All she did was lie there zapped out of her brain. What was so courageous and brilliant about that? What is there to admire here? She got a concentrated dose. It put her into oblivion.

Well done, Rachel. You lay there like a mute vegetable.

It's not that she asked him, it's how she asked him. How things are said changes the context of them completely. This is a huge part of acting, or even just basic human communication.

There was nothing wrong with the way she asked him. She asked him in a WTF are you doing kind of way. A perfectly normal reaction to such a sudden and surprising attack on her boyfriend.

My best friend isn't Batman, and I don't trust him with my life. I wouldn't be able to assume he had an important, logical reason.

Sorry man, I'm calling BS on you there. I trust my friends and my family with my life. They'd never let anything happen to me.

But if one of them walked up and put someone I cared about in a choke hold and knocked them out right in front of me for no apparent reason, my first reaction would be what the hell are you doing?

So would any normal person.

If my best friend happened to be Batman and did that, I would be like, 'Oh, it's just you Bruce. What's going down, should I hide too?'. Quite calmly.

LOL, sure you would

This is true, but bravery isn't always reflective of maturity - or even intelligence. Rachel was trying to get away, wisely, in Begins, and she was armed, but got cornered and had to retaliate. In TDK, she willingly throws herself to the wolf, unarmed, for little reason. She endangered herself deliberately, and that's stupid.

Horse radish. She intervened to save the old man Joker was threatening with a knife. That was the first guest that was directly threatened, and she courageously stepped in to save him. After that, Joker's attention was entirely on her.

 

[regwec]

Maggie did have a pretty nasty scream when Joker threw her out the window

Under similar circumstances, I doubt I would keep my composure.

 

[Kelly]

Aha. Once again, someone rails against the mythical misogynistic plot against Anne Hathaway, and once again, they make the stunningly stupid connection between indifference to her and personal physical beauty.

You are implying that, because I am not attracted to Anne Hathaway, I am ugly. Just spend a few moments thinking about how childish, inane and creepy that perspective is.

Yes there is a conscious effort to stop the misogynistic comments on this site and as a woman on this site, I am very thankful....and whether you think it is a mythical plot against this actor or not....I don't really care, because I don't really give a crap who they gave the part to. But the reality here is this, you keep going on and on about the mods decisions on this thread, you will be heading to subordination infractions....which will end up leading to a probationary ban that very well might be until AFTER this movie hits theaters (if you have SUCH A BIG PROBLEM with it, contact the site owner at CRAVE and let them know)....so my suggestion to you is to chill out with the griping, it will not lead to ANY kind of changes, it will only lead you to a probationary ban. That is not mythical thinking, that is reality....

So keep going this direction, and you might need to enjoy the opening of this movie on another movie site....I would hope that doesn't happen, you are more than welcome to enjoy it here.....without the constant griping about mod decisions. So lets please just enjoy the excitement of the unknown....which also includes how Selena will be portrayed in this movie...Miss Hathaway has been cast, there is no amount of crying that is going to change that....so how about we discuss how we would like for her to portray this character....because whether ya like it or not, she is.

 

[itsthebatman]

I don't agree with regwec at all about Hathaway, but I also see where he's coming from. These comments were made nearly a month ago keep getting brought up as if they were made yesterday, and as if they were made by a legion of "haters" as opposed to just a few people. It's almost like there's a need to create an attitude that will preemptively hush any future criticism of her, whether it be her looks, acting, etc.

It is important to keep things in perspective, especially when people make comments about her being "overweight", because she's quite thin, and reading a comment like that about her could be very psychologically harmful to young women reading these boards. It doesn't mean that anyone who has doubts about her should be made to feel fearful of expressing their opinion or automatically being lumped in with those who said those things, though.

Hear, hear.

Golly gosh, what a shockingly reasonable and astute pair of paragraphs. I think that sums it up.

Now, who wants Catwoman in a purple leotard?

Yeah. I'll have some of that.

 

[Bat-Mite]

But I have to disagree with you about the psychological ramifications of calling Hathaway obese. The gals who do venture here deserve more credit than that. Though I do agree that remarks like that are uncalled for.

The women who post here do deserve every ounce of credit they get and then some, yes. However, they aren't made of stone. I remember Anita18 being particularly upset about the weight comments, and she had every right to be. And that's someone who posts here letting us know how she felt on the matter, it's not going into all of the many, many lurkers/passersby who may have seen and been hurt by that comment that day. I can only speak from my perspective as an American, but here, we have major problems with girls and young women having bulimia, anorexia, depression, and suicidal tendencies, among other things, because of the insanely high standards that our media projects upon them.

 

[ALP]

Women have it harder than men when it comes down to fandom. People who deny this is in serious denial.

Meh, I think you guys are overestimating things....

Yeah women have it harsher in the fanboy circles but it's not like it's a full ten fold or they are only that way about females.

If a skinny short guy was cast as Superman...say someone like Michael keaton, I imagine he would be getting just as much if not more rabid hate as any of the female castings.

 

[itsthebatman]

Meh, I think you guys are overestimating things....

Yeah women have it harsher in the fanboy circles but it's not like it's a full ten fold or they are only that way about females.

If a skinny short guy was cast as Superman...say someone like Michael keaton, I imagine he would be getting just as much if not more rabid hate as any of the female castings.

I dunno. The abuse directed at Gyllenhaal from some posters was pretty ugly, more so than anything else I've seen.
Speaking of Keaton, his casting for B89 created a s***storm. WB executives got loads of hate-mail, IIRC.

 

[Kelly]

It is not the "dislike" of a choice for an actor....it is the comments made about said choice that is the problem.

If you don't like the choice of Miss Hathaway for the part, there is nothing wrong with that....that is your opinion. But, some of the comments made, are very questionable, and that is the problem...

 

[Bat-Mite]

I dunno. The abuse directed at Gyllenhaal from some posters was pretty ugly, more so than anything else I've seen.

Same here. And I don't think she deserved it at all. She looked prettier in some scenes than others, but people who think she should have been a supermodel are missing the point. Bruce could have any supermodel he wanted. He was obviously interested in Rachel for different reasons.

 

[C. Lee]

Same here. And I don't think she deserved it at all. She looked prettier in some scenes than others, but people who think she should have been a supermodel are missing the point. Bruce could have any supermodel he wanted. He was obviously interested in Rachel for different reasons.

I agree. The shame of the matter is that so many posters (notice I didn't say all) reply almost soley to visual stimuli...when there are many more things that can make one person interested in another. They are so immersed into it that they seem to actually find it hard to consider much less do.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Spoiler

They go about it differently, again. Also, this isn't the only time she acts that way - I brought the way she talks to Harvey in general into view. It's very playful and cocky. She has that kind of smile on her face very often in the film, not just with Lau.



Am I being pedantic or are you over-generalizing?



That's something that we can't settle with facts.



Why not? I see you bashing her a lot for this, but I don't recall your reasoning.



If you strip it of her voice and her facial expression, the simple sentence sounds like it's not an overreaction, sure.

But when you view the full context of the situation...

The way she says it isn't as plain as "What are you doing?", either. It's more like "What are you DOING?!".



Being concerned for Harvey is one thing. Not even beginning to consider the extremely common sense notion that maybe there's something tactical going on here and she should just ask them what that is, and further taking the liberty to assume that someone you've thoroughly learned you can trust to the ends of the Earth above any other human being is suddenly a conscienceless bastard and then subsequently walking out of his life is something else entirely.

That sentence was disgustingly long.



What affect does her knowing Batman's identity have on my point? She learned she can trust him, period. Very early on.

She also was ignorant of the truth behind intense things happening to her in both cases. In Begins, she handled those things maturely. In TDK, she handled them like an irrational brat and betrayed what was previously established as the character's logic (trust, faith, in Batman).



Your summary is far more out of context than mine, I'd say. As explained above.



And sheignoresthe logic of his answer in favor of her own warped and mistaken logic, borne of irrationality. Why bother asking?

Maybe 'ignores' is the wrong word for it. She seems to simply be too stupid/stubborn to understand what Alfred tells her. She's too busy being pissed and freaking out about Bruce (someone she learned to trust completely in dangerous matters beforehand) being a big dummy to think reasonably or actually try to comprehend to the answer to the question she asked.

Instead she just retorts, 'you're right he's not heroic bluh bluh this is dumb I don't get it'.

Hell, before she even asked Alfred, she went and wrote a whole 'goodbye, I don't wanna be with you' letter to Bruce over it. Then she said bye to Alfred and promptly split. Clearly she had already made up her mind about the situation. How is any of her behavior here rational?

To hammer the nail in further, she explains to Harvey that she somehow magically 'knows' what Bruce is thinking, when she clearly doesn't, and is instead making a hot-headed assumption based on thin air.

If she were just concerned that the Joker was too much for Bruce, that would be an understandable thing to panic over. But this is way more than that, she's calling Bruce's integrity into question, and quite harshly!



Hardly fair for Begins Rachel, I would say. It was a fear toxin. We were talking about how they handle situations that warrant panic.



It's not that she asked him, it's how she asked him. How things are said changes the context of them completely. This is a huge part of acting, or even just basic human communication.



My best friend isn't Batman, and I don't trust him with my life. I wouldn't be able to assume he had an important, logical reason.

If my best friend happened to be Batman and did that, I would be like, 'Oh, it's just you Bruce. What's going down, should I hide too?'. Quite calmly. I mean duh, he knows what he's doing, he's the goddamn Batman and if I were Rachel that would be incredibly obvious to me by that point.



This is true, but bravery isn't always reflective of maturity - or even intelligence. Rachel was trying to get away, wisely, in Begins, and she was armed, but got cornered and had to retaliate. In TDK, she willingly throws herself to the wolf, unarmed, for little reason. She endangered herself deliberately, and that's stupid.



This was the one time where I felt she was behaving maturely, like the original Rachel would have. So I agree with you here, it was a saving grace that at least kept her loosely attached to the original character.

If only her voice wasn't so high and scratchy in that scene. Y'agh.

I think Rachel was pissed at Bruce for letting Harvey take the fall. Perhaps later she would have understood. Dont be so harsh on her.

Rusty, I think you're blaming Maggie Gyllenhaal for the actions of her character. Especially since it's the same character played by Katie Holmes! If you have a problem with Rachel's characterization in TDK that's another thing, but blaming MG for that seems a little pushy don't you think? Besides, she... didn't freak out as much as she did in Begins. And I for one was glad to have a non-masked female lead in a Bat-movie who didn't do damage to her lungs screaming for the holy hell of it. I'm looking at you Kim Basinger, and still trying to wash the blood from my ears.

 

[ALP]

I dunno. The abuse directed at Gyllenhaal from some posters was pretty ugly, more so than anything else I've seen.
Speaking of Keaton, his casting for B89 created a s***storm. WB executives got loads of hate-mail, IIRC.

Oh wow. Well you know in real life they'd be on Maggie like gorillas in the mist or tigers in heat

 

[Miranda Fox]

I promised I'd stay away from this thread because I've been here five years now and this behaviour isn't going away despite what myself and the other women who post here say, but let me just use an example I gave to Hunter Rider about this:

I have never, in my life, felt the need to say the following about an actor: he's a fugly ass butterface obese **** that not even a blind woman would ever touch, therefore he cannot possibly be right for the role.

Never. Not once. If I don't like a casting decision, the basis for that dislike is entirely on what I've seen of their previous work. Period, The end. So why do some of you feel the need to judge actresses entirely on their looks? And I'm amazed and saddened normally intelligent posters can't see any problem here.

 

[itsthebatman]

Oh wow. Well you know in real life they'd be on Maggie like gorillas in the mist or tigers in heat

That's a new one on me. I like it!

 

[Mr. Earle]

Yes there is a conscious effort to stop the misogynistic comments on this site and as a woman on this site, I am very thankful....and whether you think it is a mythical plot against this actor or not....I don't really care, because I don't really give a crap who they gave the part to. But the reality here is this, you keep going on and on about the mods decisions on this thread, you will be heading to subordination infractions....which will end up leading to a probationary ban that very well might be until AFTER this movie hits theaters (if you have SUCH A BIG PROBLEM with it, contact the site owner at CRAVE and let them know)....so my suggestion to you is to chill out with the griping, it will not lead to ANY kind of changes, it will only lead you to a probationary ban. That is not mythical thinking, that is reality....

So keep going this direction, and you might need to enjoy the opening of this movie on another movie site....I would hope that doesn't happen, you are more than welcome to enjoy it here.....without the constant griping about mod decisions. So lets please just enjoy the excitement of the unknown....which also includes how Selena will be portrayed in this movie...Miss Hathaway has been cast, there is no amount of crying that is going to change that....so how about we discuss how we would like for her to portray this character....because whether ya like it or not, she is.

Wait, you re gonna ban someone because he said Anne Hathaway is ugly?

Why you so mad?

 

[Mr. Earle]

The women who post here do deserve every ounce of credit they get and then some, yes. However, they aren't made of stone. I remember Anita18 being particularly upset about the weight comments, and she had every right to be. And that's someone who posts here letting us know how she felt on the matter, it's not going into all of the many, many lurkers/passersby who may have seen and been hurt by that comment that day. I can only speak from my perspective as an American, but here, we have major problems with girls and young women having bulimia, anorexia, depression, and suicidal tendencies, among other things, because of the insanely high standards that our media projects upon them.

But we re only commenting on an actress because we want the perfect casting for the role. I agree that those dudes saying she's fat are stupid, because 1) she wasnt and 2) she could lose weight just like Bale gained after the Machinist and the Fighter.

So just because there are some idiots around, people shouldnt get offended about their own looks. Its very likely that most people here havent had sex in months and would have sex with anything that moves given the chance. So ignore them.

I dunno. The abuse directed at Gyllenhaal from some posters was pretty ugly, more so than anything else I've seen.
Speaking of Keaton, his casting for B89 created a s***storm. WB executives got loads of hate-mail, IIRC.

Maggie was distractingly ugly though.

 

[C. Lee]

Wait, you re gonna ban someone because he said Anne Hathaway is ugly?

Why you so mad?

Why not re-read her post a few times and see what you come up with.

Maggie was distractingly ugly though.

Not funny.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Well i just came from a Spiderman thread where i said that i find the SM guy kinda ugly. I dont want Brad Pitt, but come on... I'm better looking than that guy and yet Hollywood isnt promoting me to become a superstar actor in a superhero movie that ends up getting paid millions.

 

[Nave 'Torment']

Not entirely, only when it revolves specifically around her acting. I've expressed before that the writing itself distinguishes the characters (or, versions of the one character) from each other. This is about both the writing and the characters.

...

I disagree, mostly. That's what a big part of my complaint is, they don't seem like the same character - and they wouldn't even if Katie played her.

Well that's alright then, but I meant to say that despite the apparent 'differences' between TDK Rachel and Begins Rachel, I think it's still the same character, written by the same people, only evolved in her ways. Similary, Begins Bruce and TDK Bruce were a lot 'different' but they were, at the same time 'matured' and really still the same character. But I agree that in general most of TDK can feel like its own film, it's one of the beauty of it maintaining originality even in the face of being a sequel.

Maggie did have a pretty nasty scream when Joker threw her out the window, but I agree with you about Kim Basinger.

Heh, hey come on it wasn't as bad as Basinger's was it? Besides, if I were thrown out the window by a mass-murdering clown like that I'd probably be screaming like Basinger anyway.

 

[Infinity9999x]

In terms of all the flak Hathaway is getting thrown at her in terms of physical appearance, I pretty much feel like this:

The people who were calling her fat and ugly (and I'm not directing this comment at anyone, I haven't spent enough time in this thread to know who those people would be) I think were very misguided, because she's obviously neither.

However, I do think it's fine if people simply feel she doesn't have the kind of look they'd like for Catwoman. I don't think that's insulting at all. This is a visual medium, so the physical appearance is part of your performance. Often times actors rise above the physical aspect and their performances make us look past this. Keaton is a prime example. The man simply did not look like Bruce Wayne. At all. But his performance was good enough that we were willing to look past it.

In my opinion Hathaway really doesn't have a "great" Catwoman look. However, I don't by any means think she's as miscast (physically) as Keaton was for Batman. I'm waiting to see how she looks in the suit, and even then, I may not like how she looks, but if her performance is good I won't mind too much.

And really, while evaluating people purely on a physical level may seem somewhat harsh, it's part of the business. I"m a studying actor myself, and I've come to terms with that fact. I didn't get cast in a production of Permanent Collection last year at my University because I was too short. The director told me I gave a good audition, but the actor he cast in the role opposite me was 6'4 and I was 5'8.

And to clairify, I'm not defending the people who were just bashing her looks for the apparent sake of being petty (those calling her fat and ugly etc.), but I'm referring to the people who have expressed the opinion that they don't think she has the right look.