BvS Call the carnage = what level of destruction do you want to see in the SM/BM movie?

[TheFlamingCoco]

I'd love it if Luthor lied to Superman and then blamed problems with his technology on it (The radar SAID there would be a storm! It must have been a mistake, or something.). Then he went on to say on how Superman doesn't care enough to help other people to the victims and how Luthor will donate money, etc.

The sequel though should show Superman's guilt over the casualties and the killing he was forced to do. I'd love to see a scene of Superman in a grave. I'd also like it to "retcon" the earlier film to mention that he tried to save as many bystanders in the rubble as he could.

 

[Loki882]

I'd love it if Luthor lied to Superman and then blamed problems with his technology on it (The radar SAID there would be a storm! It must have been a mistake, or something.). Then he went on to say on how Superman doesn't care enough to help other people to the victims and how Luthor will donate money, etc.

The sequel though should show Superman's guilt over the casualties and the killing he was forced to do. I'd love to see a scene of Superman in a grave. I'd also like it to "retcon" the earlier film to mention that he tried to save as many bystanders in the rubble as he could.

No, that would be unnecessary. Superman did the right thing in MOS, he dealt with the threat and saved billions of lives. I still fail to see why some people argue that saving individual people trapped in their car somehow makes him more heroic than saving the ENTIRE human race from extermination, it makes no sense to me. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

 

[Batmannerism]

I don't want to see more destruction. It's not necessary, I want to see Superman given a real beatdown, even if it takes Kryptonite to do so, because the scene where Superman is given a beating in Superman Returns has more emotional resonance than the fights in Man of Steel.

Dude, this is just my opinion, if you liked that scene, that's totally your call.
But for me, that was one of the biggest reasons I hated SR. I mean, when did Superman get stupid enough to land on a Kryptonite island (this is a guy who can see through walls and across vast distances, and in various other spectra besides visible light) and he lands on an island that is made of the one substance that makes him vulnerable......at that point I thought "oh for F#$S's sake !" when did Superman become a moron, and such a *****?

Watching Luthor's goons kick the **** out of Supes, just made me mad.
And is there some emotional payoff, where Supes rounds them up and gives them a bit of a thrashing, NO ! At least in Superman The movie, where Luthor gets all kryptonite on him and chucks him in the pool, Supes drags his
mad-scientist ass to jail.

. This is a guy who's the son of the greatest scientist of a highly advanced race ? That film put me off Bryan Singer, because his treatment of the character took away the character's balls.

When Cavill gets up and tells the General that he'll never control him, in that moment Superman had more balls than in all of SR.

So yes, there was emotional resonance, ****ing anger , at seeing a beloved fictional character turned into the wimpiest version of himself imaginable.
It would be like a biographical film about Arnold Schwarzenegger, where Arnold in his prime is played by Zac Efron.

True, Nolan's Batman was stupid for going it alone against Bane, and gets his ass justifiably kicked....but he still has the balls to climb out of the pit and give Bane a sound beating, before saving the city.

So, all in all, everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but mine is that SR was
total crap, especially because of that scene.

Sorry, rant over.


Now back to the destruction. Natural disasters are a good idea, but the
manufactured natural disaster has been done to death a bit.

As I said in the original post, I can't see much more urban destruction
than occurrred in maybe Dark Knight or Dark Knight rises, BUT, if a super bad
guy appears (and yes, this is me pulling for Bizarro again), I reckon Supes could take him on in some isolated area, and still have an epic fight scene.

- Hell, that could be an important plot point, that Supes feels some responsibility for the destruction caused by his scrap with Zod (whether that guilt is justified or not is a discussion for another thread).
Anyway, as such Supes makes sure that the smackdown happens somewhere
away from an urban area , unless Supes is shown helping clean up the damage afterwards.

Anyway, loving the posts, keep 'em coming. And for Tempest, bro, you have to wait for an MOS film with Darkseid, then the whole universe is toast !

Peace.

 

[Gianakin_]

Go more personal.

 

[Batmannerism]

No, that would be unnecessary. Superman did the right thing in MOS, he dealt with the threat and saved billions of lives. I still fail to see why some people argue that saving individual people trapped in their car somehow makes him more heroic than saving the ENTIRE human race from extermination, it makes no sense to me. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

Dude. Totally with you on the "needs of the many" angle, Supes was totally justified in what he did, (and I agree, that no retcon is necessary at all),

BUT despite that, I think the guilt angle has some potential. It's possible to do the right thing and afterwards regret it. I think that Superman's regret and yes, a little guilt, over the destruction of Metropolis would add another layer to his character - or at least a little more to his motivations.

Just another part of the immense burden of being Superman. You know, all that being a hero means making the hard choices and accepting the consequences stuff. Doing the right thing is hard, especially for Supes, because nobody can make him do the right thing, he does it because of
his heroic character.

Anyway, how much destruction do you want to see ?

In terms of everyone saying, cut deeper and get personal (so more low key, but more personal destruction, like a weakened Supes getting smacked up by Bats, or Luthor) I'm not so sure. Okay, that could be a part of the action, but really when you have a character with Supes' abilities, don't you feel a wee bit cheated if he isn't tested to his limits (which is best achieved by facing threats of a similar level of power) ?

Yeah, yeah, taking on Batman or Luthor while vulnerable due to kryptonite or whatever is a test, but isn't it a waste having a character who can fly and lift mountains in your movie if he doesn't use those powers ?

That's why I'm backing a high level of carnage, but I'm hoping Snyder will change it up from an urban to maybe forest or mountain environment, or something else. There's going to have to be some urban destruction, hell Batman himself did ****loads of property damage in the Dark Knight (hope all those cars he blew up had insurance !), but it shouldn't involve Gotham taking the same kind of beating Metropolis took.

Anyway, great post, looking forward to more thoughts on the disaster scale of
the upcoming film (okay, apart from Affleck as Batman....just kidding !)

peace.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

I prefer a small scale this time around. Like maybe 5 people die at most?

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

I prefer a small scale this time around. Like maybe 5 people die at most?

5 people and a dog.

 

[Loki882]

Dude. Totally with you on the "needs of the many" angle, Supes was totally justified in what he did, (and I agree, that no retcon is necessary at all),

BUT despite that, I think the guilt angle has some potential. It's possible to do the right thing and afterwards regret it. I think that Superman's regret and yes, a little guilt, over the destruction of Metropolis would add another layer to his character - or at least a little more to his motivations.

Just another part of the immense burden of being Superman. You know, all that being a hero means making the hard choices and accepting the consequences stuff. Doing the right thing is hard, especially for Supes, because nobody can make him do the right thing, he does it because of
his heroic character.

Anyway, how much destruction do you want to see ?

In terms of everyone saying, cut deeper and get personal (so more low key, but more personal destruction, like a weakened Supes getting smacked up by Bats, or Luthor) I'm not so sure. Okay, that could be a part of the action, but really when you have a character with Supes' abilities, don't you feel a wee bit cheated if he isn't tested to his limits (which is best achieved by facing threats of a similar level of power) ?

Yeah, yeah, taking on Batman or Luthor while vulnerable due to kryptonite or whatever is a test, but isn't it a waste having a character who can fly and lift mountains in your movie if he doesn't use those powers ?

That's why I'm backing a high level of carnage, but I'm hoping Snyder will change it up from an urban to maybe forest or mountain environment, or something else. There's going to have to be some urban destruction, hell Batman himself did ****loads of property damage in the Dark Knight (hope all those cars he blew up had insurance !), but it shouldn't involve Gotham taking the same kind of beating Metropolis took.

Anyway, great post, looking forward to more thoughts on the disaster scale of
the upcoming film (okay, apart from Affleck as Batman....just kidding !)

peace.

Oh, ok, I see what you mean. Yeah, I can see him being regretful that a lot of people died, and wondering if he could have done things better. However, I don't want him to spend the entire film moping and second guessing himself. There needs to come a moment where he realized that he did the right thing and the best that he could under the circumstances, but also vow to do better in the future.

 

[Gold Samurai]

The whole universe should explode.

You just spoiled Michael Bay's TF 4 ending.


I don't think we'll see destruction on the level of "Man of Steel". Batman would be dead if thrown through 10 skyscrapers.

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

You just spoiled Michael Bay's TF 4 ending.

Sorry here's more Transformers 4 spoilers:

Spoiler

1. Bumblebee, aaaaaaah, aaaaaaaaaah! Bumblebeeeeeeeee!
2. It will feature a *********ion joke.
3. Boobs.
4. Asian robots. With buck teeth and glasses.
5. You won't be able to tell what's going on when the robots fight.
6. Optimus Prime is the only good thing about it.
7. Gay sex joke

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

Oh, ok, I see what you mean. Yeah, I can see him being regretful that a lot of people died, and wondering if he could have done things better. However, I don't want him to spend the entire film moping and second guessing himself. There needs to come a moment where he realized that he did the right thing and the best that he could under the circumstances, but also vow to do better in the future.

I think it should be near the end of the middle of this sequel (and I'm still holding out hope that it IS one.) I think he should have a nice talk with Lois, who tells him that he tried his best at the time. Then she should realize that she shouldn't back down, and decide to aid Clark on his investigation of LexCorp.

It'd be a nice double-resolution thing. But if this is a Bruce/Clark movie, I don't think there will be enough time for that to happen.

Also saving Lex Luthor should be the act that absolves him from the guilt of killing Zod. He sees Lex in danger, knowing the world would be better with him dead, and saves him anyway.

 

[Enriquespy]

All of it, all of the destruction.

 

[batfreakforever]

The complaints about the destruction in MOS are again a classic example of fans looking the other way when the very same thing happens all the time in the comic books but just because it's not presented on the printed page but on film fans have a problem with it. This goes to show how ungratful, picky and childish most comic book fans are.
Film-makers give them what they have always read about then like an ungrateful child, the fans turn their back on it when it's finally presented to them and want something else.

 

[batfreakforever]

This goes the same for Man of Steel 2 when fans have dreamed about Batman and Superman on screen together and now it will finally happen fans will.....the cycle of fandom continues.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

I don't really have a problem with the destruction in MOS.

At the end, Zod said he would kill everyone. If Superman left, there's a chance that Zod would start doing exactly that...starting with Lois, Perry, etc. Superman needed to incapacitate Zod as quickly as possible (which he later realizes means having to kill him, as there is no prison for a kryptonian). Plus, at the end, Zod was the only one throwing people through buildings.

However, I don't think the movie does the best job of showing that Superman is thinking about this. Someone else could watch the scene and be under the impression that Superman never thought about leading Zod out of Metropolis.

If I were the filmmaker, I would have put a short line/shot after the 7-11 blew up with Superman realizing what a danger he is; understanding why humans would be afraid. Then show him learning from this and showing a level of care at the end fight, even if he's not able to exercise it, asking Zod to take this outside. However, have Zod simply charge at Lois/Perry, communicating to the audience that Zod means to kill the people first and foremost, not engage in a fight with Superman, who's the obstacle in the way, and thus Superman has no choice but to charge at Zod whenever he gets the chance.

---

regarding the next film, I say that a change of pace would be nice.

 

[Boy Scout]

I don't think we'll see nearly as much destruction this time around.

The complaints about the destruction in MOS are again a classic example of fans looking the other way when the very same thing happens all the time in the comic books but just because it's not presented on the printed page but on film fans have a problem with it.

Maybe it's because they recognize that film and comics are two different mediums and that what might read fine in a comic book doesn't necessarily work when presented on screen.

Film-makers give them what they have always read about then like an ungrateful child, the fans turn their back on it when it's finally presented to them and want something else.

Wow. You're taking all of this a little too seriously, don't you think?

 

[Batmannerism]

Oh, ok, I see what you mean. Yeah, I can see him being regretful that a lot of people died, and wondering if he could have done things better. However, I don't want him to spend the entire film moping and second guessing himself. There needs to come a moment where he realized that he did the right thing and the best that he could under the circumstances, but also vow to do better in the future.

Too right ! Nobody wants to see him moping around (because that would just be another "Superman returns" ugh !). I reckon the guilt (about killing Zod) would certainly come up if he's in a situation where he might have to kill again, or is sorely tempted to (particularly if Bats has been giving him **** about killing ) and maybe he decides not to - maybe that'll lead to the vow you've mentioned.

Anyway, how much destruction do you want to see ?

 

[Batmannerism]

I don't really have a problem with the destruction in MOS.

At the end, Zod said he would kill everyone. If Superman left, there's a chance that Zod would start doing exactly that...starting with Lois, Perry, etc. Superman needed to incapacitate Zod as quickly as possible (which he later realizes means having to kill him, as there is no prison for a kryptonian). Plus, at the end, Zod was the only one throwing people through buildings.

However, I don't think the movie does the best job of showing that Superman is thinking about this. Someone else could watch the scene and be under the impression that Superman never thought about leading Zod out of Metropolis.

If I were the filmmaker, I would have put a short line/shot after the 7-11 blew up with Superman realizing what a danger he is; understanding why humans would be afraid. Then show him learning from this and showing a level of care at the end fight, even if he's not able to exercise it, asking Zod to take this outside. However, have Zod simply charge at Lois/Perry, communicating to the audience that Zod means to kill the people first and foremost, not engage in a fight with Superman, who's the obstacle in the way, and thus Superman has no choice but to charge at Zod whenever he gets the chance.

---

regarding the next film, I say that a change of pace would be nice.

Fair call ! Although remember during the battle of Smallville, and Faora and the kryptonian hulk are kicking Clark's ass (at first), yet he stops to save the pilot who's fallen out of the damaged helicopter. I reckon you don't have to look to hard to see examples of Clark trying to save people.

Also, if you put Faora's statement, you know, if you save 1 we'll kill a million more, put that in context and all of a sudden Clark knows that he has to take them down or the whole human race, and earth as we know it is history.
Other people have said it other ways, but I say that Clark didn't kill Zod to save the family in the train station, he killed Zod to save humanity.
The fact that Faora actually comes out and says it, and still people ***** about killing Zod, maybe they need to read the novelization or something, I don't know.

Anyway, I predict this film will move away from genocide, and have a much lower property damage level, but what do you think ?

 

[Loki882]

Fair call ! Although remember during the battle of Smallville, and Faora and the kryptonian hulk are kicking Clark's ass (at first), yet he stops to save the pilot who's fallen out of the damaged helicopter. I reckon you don't have to look to hard to see examples of Clark trying to save people.

Also, if you put Faora's statement, you know, if you save 1 we'll kill a million more, put that in context and all of a sudden Clark knows that he has to take them down or the whole human race, and earth as we know it is history.
Other people have said it other ways, but I say that Clark didn't kill Zod to save the family in the train station, he killed Zod to save humanity.
The fact that Faora actually comes out and says it, and still people ***** about killing Zod, maybe they need to read the novelization or something, I don't know.

Anyway, I predict this film will move away from genocide, and have a much lower property damage level, but what do you think ?

Except he didn't have time to think about that. He had to destroy the WE, then immediately go fight Zod. Literally, he went from destroying a terraforming device to getting into a fight with a super powered madman, there was time to stop and consider the implications. Also, I love how some people complain about the destruction by saying that "comics and film are different," but the same people constantly complain when filmmakers change things from the comics, double standard, I think so. Also, large scale destruction DOES work in film, that has been proved time and time again.

 

[Mysteryman]

Who needs carnage?
Skillfully executed action scenes are all that I want .

 

[Batmannerism]

Except he didn't have time to think about that. He had to destroy the WE, then immediately go fight Zod. Literally, he went from destroying a terraforming device to getting into a fight with a super powered madman, there was time to stop and consider the implications. Also, I love how some people complain about the destruction by saying that "comics and film are different," but the same people constantly complain when filmmakers change things from the comics, double standard, I think so. Also, large scale destruction DOES work in film, that has been proved time and time again.

True, there was no time at all between destroying the WE and taking on Zod, but if anything Clark's choice was made when Zod did the weird-dream-mind-meld thing, because he knew then that Zod and co were going to wipe out humanity. Now I think of it, I reckon that Clark made his choice when Zod threatens Martha. Especially after the battle when he comes home to see if he's okay. Right then I reckon he's decided that if its between the Kryptonians and humanity, that Krypton's had its chance.

Also true about carnage working on screen, otherwise Armageddon (and every other disaster film) would have been a flop. I do like carnage with a purpose though, not Michael Bay style carnage where you're watching and just going WTF ?

However, carnage has to fit within the story continuity. If you're watching
Pride and Prejudice, and Mr Darcy's mansion explodes after a giant robot blasts it.....well then something's gone wrong (although that might make it worth watching a Jane Austen movie).

that's why I'm calling for a bit less property damage/urban destruction (maybe on the same scale as Dark Knight or Dark Knight rises) but possibly some calamitous fights that knock down a forest or level a mountain (would be boring watching Supes fight in the Desert, because afterwards, it would look the same).
However, I still believe there will be at least 1 super-powered bad-guy (I'm picking Bizarro, as a Luthor created clone, who causes Havoc for supes, which would also work well if Luthor creates Kryptonite).

Hmmmm maybe Supes could fight in outer space, near an asteroid field or some exciting stellar phenomena which could provide an exciting backdrop as it gets destroyed.....although that might not fit in with a Batman film.
It's tricky.

Anyway, call your carnage level !

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

Fair call ! Although remember during the battle of Smallville, and Faora and the kryptonian hulk are kicking Clark's ass (at first), yet he stops to save the pilot who's fallen out of the damaged helicopter. I reckon you don't have to look to hard to see examples of Clark trying to save people.

Right. I guess some people were hoping for more of that during the end instead of monotonous action. You can say that's what the situation called for; but maybe viewers were just hoping for a different situation then.

Although you can rationalize why he isn't rescuing people at the end, perhaps the movie should have showed him trying to rescue people, his natural instinct, and Superman experiences why he can't necessarily do that, seeing Zod massacre even more during that time.

Thus Superman realizes that 'there's more at stake here than the lives of individual people'; he has to fight his natural instinct to save individuals and go take care of the more important matter, Zod. The same lesson applies to Zod, his natural instinct is to let Zod live, but he realizes there's more at stake than Zod's life. You could argue that he did learn this lesson, which is why he goes after Zod instead of rescuing people, but they don't build any tension around it.

On a side note

Spoiler

, regarding that the theme of "there's more at stake here", I would have liked to see the world reacting to Zod's/Kal-El's existence in a more extreme manner. Pa Kent and Perry White talk about it, but we don't get to see it; should we believe that it would happen? Not just about Zod's threatening message, but merely their existence (to show what would have happened if Clark 'unnecessarily' revealed himself earlier). I would have liked a Christian perspective as well; What did that priest think about the revelation of alien life?

Ultimately show it that the world would be worse off. In the scene where the blogger talks about Lois Lane on the news, I also think we could have got a news report before that about gov'ts or Lexcorp stock increasing after announcing a new type of weapon technology that they're building as deterrent, etc; arms race heats up once more ala Watchmen with Dr.Manhattan's existence; flipping through the channels seeing reports in Afghanistan or whatever about this American propoganda; that there're no aliens, etc, religions tensions heating up, etc. All of this which can be 'redeemed' when Superman saves the Earth from Zod, a necessary action, ultimately becoming the symbol of hope, only because he waited to the right time to reveal himself, giving the people somebody new to believe in when Zod's existence shook their world. Only now is it worth it for him to be Superman.

Also, if you put Faora's statement, you know, if you save 1 we'll kill a million more, put that in context and all of a sudden Clark knows that he has to take them down or the whole human race, and earth as we know it is history.
Other people have said it other ways, but I say that Clark didn't kill Zod to save the family in the train station, he killed Zod to save humanity.
The fact that Faora actually comes out and says it, and still people ***** about killing Zod, maybe they need to read the novelization or something, I don't know.

Anyway, I predict this wfilm will move away from genocide, and have a much lower property damage level, but what do you think ?

I think when he had Zod around the neck it was a moment of realization that Zod would have to die, not because it was necessarily the only way to save that family, but rather that it was the only way to save everyone; it was the inevitable action he would have to take. And here he was actually in a position to do so.

Zod said he would not stop, that he wanted to kill everyone, and that there's only one way this ends. there's no suitable prison for him. What he has to do is kill him. I also thought it was pretty clear.

 

[Steamteck]

I don't want to see more destruction. It's not necessary, I want to see Superman given a real beatdown, even if it takes Kryptonite to do so, because the scene where Superman is given a beating in Superman Returns has more emotional resonance than the fights in Man of Steel.

Well I see out perceptions of almost anything Superman related are 100%. No, MOs was once of my favorite Superhero movies ever but if they do something like that it will be the second movie ever I walk out of in the theater ( Wild Wild West was the other)

I don't need massive destruction but I really don't need a crippled Superman being beaten on ( especially by a lame ass version of a potentially great villain).

 

[Batmannerism]

Right. I guess some people were hoping for more of that during the end instead of monotonous action. You can say that's what the situation called for; but maybe viewers were just hoping for a different situation then.

Although you can rationalize why he isn't rescuing people at the end, perhaps the movie should have showed him trying to rescue people, his natural instinct, and Superman experiences why he can't necessarily do that, seeing Zod massacre even more during that time.

Thus Superman realizes that 'there's more at stake here than the lives of individual people'; he has to fight his natural instinct to save individuals and go take care of the more important matter, Zod. The same lesson applies to Zod, his natural instinct is to let Zod live, but he realizes there's more at stake than Zod's life. You could argue that he did learn this lesson, which is why he goes after Zod instead of rescuing people, but they don't build any tension around it.

On a side note

Spoiler

, regarding that the theme of "there's more at stake here", I would have liked to see the world reacting to Zod's/Kal-El's existence in a more extreme manner. Pa Kent and Perry White talk about it, but we don't get to see it; should we believe that it would happen? Not just about Zod's threatening message, but merely their existence (to show what would have happened if Clark 'unnecessarily' revealed himself earlier). I would have liked a Christian perspective as well; What did that priest think about the revelation of alien life?

Ultimately show it that the world would be worse off. In the scene where the blogger talks about Lois Lane on the news, I also think we could have got a news report before that about gov'ts or Lexcorp stock increasing after announcing a new type of weapon technology that they're building as deterrent, etc; arms race heats up once more ala Watchmen with Dr.Manhattan's existence; flipping through the channels seeing reports in Afghanistan or whatever about this American propoganda; that there're no aliens, etc, religions tensions heating up, etc. All of this which can be 'redeemed' when Superman saves the Earth from Zod, a necessary action, ultimately becoming the symbol of hope, only because he waited to the right time to reveal himself, giving the people somebody new to believe in when Zod's existence shook their world. Only now is it worth it for him to be Superman.

I think when he had Zod around the neck it was a moment of realization that Zod would have to die, not because it was necessarily the only way to save that family, but rather that it was the only way to save everyone; it was the inevitable action he would have to take. And here he was actually in a position to do so.

Zod said he would not stop, that he wanted to kill everyone, and that there's only one way this ends. there's no suitable prison for him. What he has to do is kill him. I also thought it was pretty clear.

Great post !

That is a fair call about seeing the world react to the existance of Superman, but all that stuff (Kryptonians showing up and 'outing' him and then trying to terraform Earth) happens pretty quickly. I suppose a minute or two segment on reactions from around the world would be a bit reminiscent of the Avengers' ending -without that ridiculous shwarma thing, although I've had shwarma, real shwarma in Egypt, and it's delicious.

Anyway, I also firmly believe that Zod had a death wish. If you watch Nolan's other movies, he is not light on the foreshadowing ( you know "Either you die a hero or.....") so his characters often say precisely what's going to happen.

(...then I will break you." ten seconds later, Snap !) so the whole "Either you die, or I do." was a classic Nolan move (he did help write the story, after all) .

Interestingly, there were a few bits in the final Supes vs Zod smackdown that reminded me of the infamous Miracleman issue #15, which is Alan Moore and David Totleben's take on what would happen if 2 god-like Superbeings went toe-to-toe in downtown London (well actually, it would be like what happened if Zod had spent half a day slaughtering the citizens of Metropolis before Supes showed up). Check it out, disturbing stuff, but it gives a bit of context
to MOS, strangely.

Hopefully, the world's reaction will appear in subsequent films (remember Nolan ended BB with "escalation" which was the theme for the next two films).

Now back to the thread at hand, Carnage ! What about fighting in exotic locations, at the bottom of the ocean, in an active volcano, in the grand canyon, atop the pyramids - Supes and as-yet-un-named-bad-guy could wipe out some natural and classic monuments instead.

Maybe Supes will go global, and he and Bizarro (come on Goyer , are you listening here) will reduce Ayers Rock to rubble . Crikey !
Or smash bits off the great wall of China, or make some more craters in the moon.

just as long as no dogs are harmed, that's where I draw the line.

Peace !

 

[Kane52630]

Something like this...