For All Those Who Hate Keaton As Batman.....

[DAVIDYR1]

Let me put it in plain English....I didnt like Keaton for the role. Period.
Nothing needs to sink in. I applauded his performance over and over again...I however dont like him in that role and I dont like Nicholson in his role either.

Is a different opinion allowed around here or is Castro and his regime running this place?

I never cut up his performance...I just didnt care for the directors choices in the actors used...is that not enough or do I have to explain why???

Where is the problem here??? You like Keaton in the role...great. I never thought of making that an issue....what's the issue with me not liking that choice??

Trust me...I understand why those choices were made... BUT I am disagreeing with them...and doing so without offending or telling anyone that things need to sink in....but I am beginning to think some people arn't reading my posts but just commenting on the fact that I dont agree.

David

 

[Assassin32]

Originally posted by DAVIDYR1
Let me put it in plain English....I didnt like Keaton for the role. Period.
Nothing needs to sink in. I applauded his performance over and over again...I however dont like him in that role

So, you applaude his performance over and over, but you didn't like him.....okay.

Anyway, I was going to dissect your post and show you were you were wrong, but The Guard got to it first. About the name calling, DAVIDYR1, this is what I posted: "I posted this for all the idiots who say that they didn't like Keaton and their only reason is that "he was too small for the role." If you fall under this category, then yes, I called you an idiot because you are. However, you claim to have legitamate reasons as to why you hated Keaton, so I don't see why you would find this offensive.

I'm 15, by the way, and just because I was 1 when the film came out doesn't mean ****. True, Burton's Batman has been just as much a part of the character for me as has the comics, but I know the difference between the two. Consider the Burton films as Elseworlds titles and you'll love them.

P.S. Mr Parker has absolutely no respect from any poster on these boards. **** you, Mr Parker.

 

[DAVIDYR1]

So, Mr. Castro...umm, I mean Assasin32...

Anyone who does not agree with you is an idiot..??? Why?? Why do I have to agree with you and what gives you the right to classify all of us who dont agree with that casting choice??

As for applauding his performance...man, this was pretty clear above but let me give it another whirle....

Keaton did a fantastic job...I didnt like him in that role.

Michael Jackson is a talented artist....not at all my kind of music or musician....but I am mature enough to recognize his talent...even if we can all agree it's going down hill.

Sometimes people, actors, athletes, musicians....ect do their best at whatever it is they are doing. No one will condemn their efforts but that doesnt mean that they were the right people for the job, role or the event they were in.

My point...unless it's still not clear is that I think Keaton did a great job...but IN MY OPINION he was not the right person for the role.m What that also means is that someone who would have been more suited for the role back then AGAIN IN MY OPINION may have looked better in the role but it IS POSSIBLE that they would not have done as well as Keaton did. Are you getting any of this or are you blinders still stuck on the fact that I didn't like Keaton for the choice of Batman?

I could go as far as say that anyone who doesnt agree with me is an IDIOT...but that would be immature and stupid of me....but you can go ahead and continue to insult us that disagree with you Mr. Castro.

Lastly, read my last post again and try a little harder to understand what I meant by you being 1yrs old when the Keaton film opened and stop being so defencive....this is supposed to be a fun debate on who likes or who disliked Keaton in that role.

David

 

[Assassin32]

You're so full of ****. Show me where I called you an idiot. Show me the exact post.

 

[DAVIDYR1]

"I posted this for all the idiots who say that they didn't like Keaton and their only reason is that "he was too small for the role." If you fall under this category, then yes, I called you an idiot because you are.

I posted this for all the idiots who say that they didn't like Keaton

Well Assasin32 according to your logic...I'm an idiot...and full of ****.

That is where you are calling us idiots.

Not only was Keaton in my opinion too small, but totally the wrong actor for the role. Reasons specified above repeatedly. However I still applaude his performance...and explained this with the example of Michael Jackson....hoping that was easy enough for you to understand this time 'round.

Tell you what...when you are smart enough..... ( I wanted to say old enough but that would be an insult to all the other members here who are your age or even younger) .....to understand your own words posted within this thread...I'll be happy to continue this debate with you. Problem is it'll probably take another 75 years for that to happen but..........hey, until then I'll continue to be an idiot for disagreeing with you.

David

 

[LoisLane]

Not opinion... FACT.

KEATON: A balding, short, scrawny, goofing looking comedic actor...

BRUCE WAYNE/BATMAN:
A tall, muscular, square jawed, good looking, debonair aristocrat and intimidating creature of the night.

What's wrong with this picture?

Lois

 

[DAVIDYR1]

Well said.

David

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Originally posted by LoisLane
Not opinion... FACT.

KEATON: A balding, short, scrawny, goofing looking comedic actor...

BRUCE WAYNE/BATMAN:
A tall, muscular, square jawed, good looking, debonair aristocrat and intimidating creature of the night.

What's wrong with this picture?

Lois

F**kin eh Thankyou very much! you are right, IT's not opinion It's a fact, he was is not will not ever be right for batman end of story.

 

[Goongala]

Mike Keaton was and always will be the best...Keaton Would rock all of you punks, Like Prince and the blouses rocked charley murphey in basketball.....

 

[The Guard]

No, Michael Keaton would not make a good comic book Batman. But then, he wasn't supposed to be, now, was he? Why do I even bother pointing out that Keaton was NEVER SUPPOSED TO BE THE COMIC BOOK VERSION OF BATMAN? It just keeps going right over peoples' heads.

 

[Jackasscoley15]

Very good point, Gaurd.

 

[LoisLane]

I'm curious...
What other Batman is there other than the comic book version? Batman was birthed in the pages of comic books, that's where he came from, if you're going to make a movie, or anything else for that matter that's NOT like that "version"? Why do batman at all... make something else.

Keaton Sucked. Period.
Comic book version or not.

Chicks rule, Keaton doesn't...

LL

 

[The Batman]

I'm surprised by how many idiots are posting in this thread...

 

[LoisLane]

Does that include you?

LL

 

[Assassin32]

Originally posted by DAVIDYR1
Well Assasin32 according to your logic...I'm an idiot...and full of ****.

That is where you are calling us idiots.

Not only was Keaton in my opinion too small, but totally the wrong actor for the role. Reasons specified above repeatedly. However I still applaude his performance...and explained this with the example of Michael Jackson....hoping that was easy enough for you to understand this time 'round.

Tell you what...when you are smart enough..... ( I wanted to say old enough but that would be an insult to all the other members here who are your age or even younger) .....to understand your own words posted within this thread...I'll be happy to continue this debate with you. Problem is it'll probably take another 75 years for that to happen but..........hey, until then I'll continue to be an idiot for disagreeing with you.

David

Never is your name mentioned in that post, therefore I was not calling YOU an idiot. You've said before that you have legitamate reasons as why you hated Keaton in the role, but instead you keep repeating yourself: "He was too small." That is not a legitamate reason at all. So, yeah, you know what? You ARE an idiot. Now, pretty please, with sugar on top, get the **** out of my thread.

 

[Assassin32]

Originally posted by Goongala
Mike Keaton was and always will be the best...Keaton Would rock all of you punks, Like Prince and the blouses rocked charley murphey in basketball.....

 

[DavidTyler]

Originally posted by LoisLane
I'm curious...
What other Batman is there other than the comic book version? Batman was birthed in the pages of comic books, that's where he came from, if you're going to make a movie, or anything else for that matter that's NOT like that "version"? Why do batman at all... make something else.

Keaton Sucked. Period.
Comic book version or not.

Chicks rule, Keaton doesn't...

LL

LL,

While I agree with everyone here that Keaton was not the best choice for the role, he did do a credible job of portraying a man with issues. However, he wasn't playing anything other that Burton & Keaton's interpretation of the character.

This wasn't Batman - this was a movie about somebody called Batman. There is a difference.

As you say, and I totally agree, Batman was born in the comics and that is the only true Batman. Nothing becomes Batman canon until it becomes part of Batman comics continuity. The comics sustained the character when no other media would have him. Then comes Burton who turns him into another of his warped characters in an unreal landscape and suddenly people think they know the character.

The Guard has the ability to accept and even relish what the films have done to the character. I, however, do not. The rubber costume, the psychadelic Burtonesque Theater style sets, the characters based more on the actor who would play him than choosing someone closer to source - but then, that's so typically Hollywood. Halfway through the film, my attention starts to wander. After we meet all the key players, there just isn't much interesting happening. We have basic supervillain plot and that's about it.

I love a lot of Burton's other work, I just feel that his interpretation of Batman was a little dissapointing. There was quite a bit of silliness that runs through the film. Fortunately, Keaton was the least of that.

Don't really have any issues with Keaton as an actor, I just felt that his interpretation was a far cry from source.

I've waited long enough for a faithful interpretation of the character. As to which period of Batman I refer to ... because I know that someone will raise an issue over this ... I do not mean the 60's or the 50's. I refer to the current continuity and how he's handled in the books. We can trace this back to O'Neal and Adams and bring it all the way forward to the current teams.

I guess my biggest problem with accepting this film as anything other than a Burton film is the fact that I was a Batman fan long before it came out and I had more mature taste. I give Burton and Keaton their props for starting to remove the Adam West/ Bill Dozier 'Batman' from the public consciousness but it still wasn't where it needed to be.

Again, Keaton did a fine job of acting but he wasn't playing Bruce Wayne/Batman. He was playing Burton as Batman. There is a difference.

 

[Clerk]

Originally posted by DavidTyler
LL,

While I agree with everyone here that Keaton was not the best choice for the role, he did do a credible job of portraying a man with issues. However, he wasn't playing anything other that Burton & Keaton's interpretation of the character.

This wasn't Batman - this was a movie about somebody called Batman. There is a difference.

As you say, and I totally agree, Batman was born in the comics and that is the only true Batman. Nothing becomes Batman canon until it becomes part of Batman comics continuity. The comics sustained the character when no other media would have him. Then comes Burton who turns him into another of his warped characters in an unreal landscape and suddenly people think they know the character.

The Guard has the ability to accept and even relish what the films have done to the character. I, however, do not. The rubber costume, the psychadelic Burtonesque Theater style sets, the characters based more on the actor who would play him than choosing someone closer to source - but then, that's so typically Hollywood. Halfway through the film, my attention starts to wander. After we meet all the key players, there just isn't much interesting happening. We have basic supervillain plot and that's about it.

I love a lot of Burton's other work, I just feel that his interpretation of Batman was a little dissapointing. There was quite a bit of silliness that runs through the film. Fortunately, Keaton was the least of that.

Don't really have any issues with Keaton as an actor, I just felt that his interpretation was a far cry from source.

I've waited long enough for a faithful interpretation of the character. As to which period of Batman I refer to ... because I know that someone will raise an issue over this ... I do not mean the 60's or the 50's. I refer to the current continuity and how he's handled in the books. We can trace this back to O'Neal and Adams and bring it all the way forward to the current teams.

I guess my biggest problem with accepting this film as anything other than a Burton film is the fact that I was a Batman fan long before it came out and I had more mature taste. I give Burton and Keaton their props for starting to remove the Adam West/ Bill Dozier 'Batman' from the public consciousness but it still wasn't where it needed to be.

Again, Keaton did a fine job of acting but he wasn't playing Bruce Wayne/Batman. He was playing Burton as Batman. There is a difference.

I love you, lets go have babies together.

 

[Mr Parker]

Originally posted by LoisLane
I'm curious...
What other Batman is there other than the comic book version? Batman was birthed in the pages of comic books, that's where he came from, if you're going to make a movie, or anything else for that matter that's NOT like that "version"? Why do batman at all... make something else.

Keaton Sucked. Period.
Comic book version or not.

Chicks rule, Keaton doesn't...

LL

Well said Lois. Keaton sucked for the role of Batman plain and simple. Chicks like YOU rule I agree. That hot looking chick Kim Basinger is the only thing that makes me able to sit through that movie. Keaton definetely does not rule.

 

[Mr Parker]

Originally posted by DavidTyler
LL,

While I agree with everyone here that Keaton was not the best choice for the role, he did do a credible job of portraying a man with issues. However, he wasn't playing anything other that Burton & Keaton's interpretation of the character.

This wasn't Batman - this was a movie about somebody called Batman. There is a difference.

As you say, and I totally agree, Batman was born in the comics and that is the only true Batman. Nothing becomes Batman canon until it becomes part of Batman comics continuity. The comics sustained the character when no other media would have him. Then comes Burton who turns him into another of his warped characters in an unreal landscape and suddenly people think they know the character.

The Guard has the ability to accept and even relish what the films have done to the character. I, however, do not. The rubber costume, the psychadelic Burtonesque Theater style sets, the characters based more on the actor who would play him than choosing someone closer to source - but then, that's so typically Hollywood. Halfway through the film, my attention starts to wander. After we meet all the key players, there just isn't much interesting happening. We have basic supervillain plot and that's about it.

I love a lot of Burton's other work, I just feel that his interpretation of Batman was a little dissapointing. There was quite a bit of silliness that runs through the film. Fortunately, Keaton was the least of that.

Don't really have any issues with Keaton as an actor, I just felt that his interpretation was a far cry from source.

I've waited long enough for a faithful interpretation of the character. As to which period of Batman I refer to ... because I know that someone will raise an issue over this ... I do not mean the 60's or the 50's. I refer to the current continuity and how he's handled in the books. We can trace this back to O'Neal and Adams and bring it all the way forward to the current teams.

I guess my biggest problem with accepting this film as anything other than a Burton film is the fact that I was a Batman fan long before it came out and I had more mature taste. I give Burton and Keaton their props for starting to remove the Adam West/ Bill Dozier 'Batman' from the public consciousness but it still wasn't where it needed to be.

Again, Keaton did a fine job of acting but he wasn't playing Bruce Wayne/Batman. He was playing Burton as Batman. There is a difference.

Well said again David.Thats all this movie was,a movie about a guy named Batman.The title of the movie as I have said so many times before in the past should have been called THE JOKER since Nicholson had the majority of the screen time and it was mainly about him with Batman just being a supporting character. speaking of The Joker,you also made a great point about Nicholson as The Joker another reason I was dissapointed in this film.I give my props to Nicholson in his portrayle as The Joker.He did an awesome job.But he like Keaton was just so physically wrong for the role. The Joker is suppose to be a tall lanky guy with LOTS of hair.Nicholson was practically bald a lot more even so than Keaton was back then and is on the chuncky side.Ceasar Romero still rules as the true Joker brought to life from the comicbooks since he more so looked the part than Nicholson did.

Yeah thats exactly what Burton did,he turned Bruce Wayne into another of his warped characters.He clearly only cares about his vision and did not care about accurately bringing the batman from the comics to life on the screen.He only cast Keaton because he felt comfortable working with him,he did not care that Keaton was so totally wrong for the role or getting the best choice possible which is why Burton should NEVER have been allowed near a Batman franchise.Burton HAS made some good films before such as Edward Scissorhands and The Nightmare before Christmas but Batman is not one of them.As I said before Keaton acted too goofy as Bruce Wayne and was way too silly in his portrayel of him. The movie was clearly a Tim Burton film and not a Batman film and actually more like a James Bond flick than a Batman film as well which is another problem I had with the film.

I think you meant to say at the end though that Keaton was Playing Keaton as Batman not Burton as Batman though right? In that case you are so right,Keaton was playing Keaton as Batman and not as Bruce Wayne/Batman which like you said,there IS a difference.

 

[Assassin32]

Originally posted by DavidTyler
LL,

While I agree with everyone here that Keaton was not the best choice for the role, he did do a credible job of portraying a man with issues. However, he wasn't playing anything other that Burton & Keaton's interpretation of the character.

This wasn't Batman - this was a movie about somebody called Batman. There is a difference.

As you say, and I totally agree, Batman was born in the comics and that is the only true Batman. Nothing becomes Batman canon until it becomes part of Batman comics continuity. The comics sustained the character when no other media would have him. Then comes Burton who turns him into another of his warped characters in an unreal landscape and suddenly people think they know the character.

The Guard has the ability to accept and even relish what the films have done to the character. I, however, do not. The rubber costume, the psychadelic Burtonesque Theater style sets, the characters based more on the actor who would play him than choosing someone closer to source - but then, that's so typically Hollywood. Halfway through the film, my attention starts to wander. After we meet all the key players, there just isn't much interesting happening. We have basic supervillain plot and that's about it.

I love a lot of Burton's other work, I just feel that his interpretation of Batman was a little dissapointing. There was quite a bit of silliness that runs through the film. Fortunately, Keaton was the least of that.

Don't really have any issues with Keaton as an actor, I just felt that his interpretation was a far cry from source.

I've waited long enough for a faithful interpretation of the character. As to which period of Batman I refer to ... because I know that someone will raise an issue over this ... I do not mean the 60's or the 50's. I refer to the current continuity and how he's handled in the books. We can trace this back to O'Neal and Adams and bring it all the way forward to the current teams.

I guess my biggest problem with accepting this film as anything other than a Burton film is the fact that I was a Batman fan long before it came out and I had more mature taste. I give Burton and Keaton their props for starting to remove the Adam West/ Bill Dozier 'Batman' from the public consciousness but it still wasn't where it needed to be.

Again, Keaton did a fine job of acting but he wasn't playing Bruce Wayne/Batman. He was playing Burton as Batman. There is a difference.

You see, this guy has legitamate reasons. Burton's vision just wasn't his cup of tea, and that's fine.

 

[The Guard]

Sigh...

What I keep trying to point out, and I want some of you to pay close attention here, is there have been MANY versions of Batman throughout the years. Different generations are familar with different ones. For instance, some fans of the 70's version can't seem to stand this uber-brooding, superBatman we have in the current comics. I don't see how one version is any more valid than the other. Bob Kane's Batman had it's strengths and its weaknessess. So did the later versions. So did the 60's version. So did the Neal Adams, Dennis O'Neil version. So did the late 80's Batman, the movie version, the mid 90's, and the current Batman. There are hundreds of versions of Batman, including Elseworlds. Yes, Batman was born in the comics. He has transcended them as a medium. This may surprise some of you, but the Batman as he exists today in the comics wasn't around back in the late 70's, or even the mid-eighties when Sam Hamm and Burton and WB were working on Batman. Rather than choose one direction for their film (camp or dark), or try to somehow satisfy fans who all wanted THEIR Batman, they did the smart thing. They did what Richard Donner did, in a way. They took elements from MANY versions and REINVENTED the character in an interesting, realistic manner that would appeal to general audiences. I do not understand this bias against the Batman movies, in other words, calling them crap simply because they weren't what YOU wanted to see. Quite honestly, I grew up with the Adam West Batman, and graduated to the late 70's version. So to me, Batman wore blue and gray and made jokes. The Tim Burton movies wowed me. They were cool, dark, and showed me a side of Batman I'd never seen before. This led to me checking out Year One and The Dark Knight Returns, and basically getting into comics. I've said it before. Burton's Batman, for all his faults, also had his good elements. Elements which, like it or not, HAVE influenced the animated series and the comic books almost immediately.

Michael Keaton WAS the best choice for the role, because Tim Burton wanted a man who wasn't a musclebound He-Man. He wanted an "everyman" who could play some tough emotions. He got him.

This wasn't Batman - this was a movie about somebody called Batman. There is a difference.

I see. Was the 1966 BATMAN film not Batman? It certainly wasn't the current Batman, does that somehow make it less valid an interpretation or "not Batman"?

As you say, and I totally agree, Batman was born in the comics and that is the only true Batman.

Which one? Seriously. Which one is the "true Batman", and why aren't the others?

The comics sustained the character when no other media would have him.

I'm not sure what you mean. Batman has been in several mediums almost since his beginning in 1939, including film, TV, radio, toys, comics, playing cards, etc. Seems to me that the only time Batman was in danger of dying out was when superhero comics went out of style and sci fi become the "in thing". And the only reason Batman even survived when other characters didn't is all the weird stuff he was forced to go through. The alien invasions, the shrinking, the alternate dimensions, etc, etc, etc. It's the same reason Superman comics survived.

Then comes Burton who turns him into another of his warped characters in an unreal landscape and suddenly people think they know the character.

I see. How is Batman warped in the movie anymore so than what we've seen of him elsewhere in the comics? And how is the landscape "unreal"? And frankly, we do know the character. And I can point out where he IS Batman, where things are pulled directly from the comics and dropped into BATMAN, and have before.

I've waited long enough for a faithful interpretation of the character.

Again, Keaton did a fine job of acting but he wasn't playing Bruce Wayne/Batman. He was playing Burton as Batman. There is a difference.

Huh?

 

[Assassin32]

They're never going to listen to you.

 

[The Guard]

Nah, but it's fun trying.

 

[DavidTyler]

To clear up a point that seems to have a couple of people puzzled:
Yes, I intended to say that Keaton was playing 'Burton as Batman'.

His direction was that of Burton and how Burton sees the character. If you've never acted or been directed I can see how this statement would confuse you. The director is not a passive participant, sitting back and yelling action. He/she is involved in every element of what you see on the screen. Every character on the screen is, in part, the director. Every character in a theater production, for that matter. It applies to both.

So, when you see Michelle Pfieffer as Catwoman, there is a little bit of Tim Burton behind that mask as well.

Having said that, there is a massive amount of Tim Burton in Michael Keaton's 'Batman'.

As to which interpretation ... I already answered that question. I'm speaking of the current incarnation. the Guard keeps referencing the 70's as a joking period for Batman but my memories are the Neal Adams/Denny O'Neal confrontations with characters like Ra's Al Ghul (which is actually pronounced Ross Al Ghoul and properly translated means 'Head of the Ghoul' - Sorry Denny - Ghul means ghoul not demon), Two Face, and the revival of the Joker in 'The Joker's 5-way Revenge'. I also include in that, the Marshal Rogers stuff of the early 80's. I also can't forget writers and artists like Frank Robbins and Irv Novick who followed that same path. Batman was dark and moody. I'm at a loss to understand why The Guard keeps refering to Batman as a jokester during this period. Carmine Infantino ushered in the age of intentional camp during his run of the late 60's as a direct result of the tv show. It ended when Neal and Denny came aboard with the intent of totally doing away with the camp and to restore Batman to his rightful place as the shadowy creature that he is. We saw a great decline in the Bat gadgets and more reliance on his wits and fists. Denny's Batman WOULD pick up a peice of pipe and use it as a weapon if he were in a pinch. Neal's Batman would sweat and dodge bullets, often using his cape as a distraction.

Because the general public had only the image of Batman as this Adam West silly costumed clown that lost it's luster along with camp itself, it was 20 years before Batman would be allowed to grace a screen again. Saturday morning lousy cartoons aside. God, I can't believe that I suffered through that awful Superfriends just to get my fix of superhero stuff. Even at that, Burton's film, as dark as it was, was still not that far removed from the camp. By blending some straight character into the silliness, he made a pitch to both the nostolgiac's who had a secret soft spot for the humor, and a tip of the hat to those who were hoping for something more serious. It wasn't completely satisfying but at least it wasn't an out and out joke.

And, if you're asking my opinion, NO - the Bill Dozier/Adam West 'Batman' wasn't any more Batman than the Burton. The 60's Batman was a clown.

I believe that Burton picked Keaton because he had worked with him before and that he would be Burton's idealized version of himself on screen. As I say, most directors inject quite a bit of themselves into the characters.

As to things pulled right from the comics - of course there are: The shot of young Bruce in the midst of his dead parents was lifted right from Mazzuchelli who got it from someone elses earlier interpretation. The flowers being left in Crime Alley? Thank Sam Hamm for that. Alfred being the Wayne's butler - of course - but a surragate grandfather? He wasn't that in the comics and isn't now. What elements Burton may have dropped into B89 were by Sam Hamm and were elements that were necessary to the film. There were other elements that only made the film less... The Joker being the murderer of the Waynes? By that thinking, Batman should have hung up his cape after the Joker's death.

About Keaton being an everyman ... what everyman could do what Batman does? Could you? I know I couldn't and I'm not in bad shape. It takes a lifetime of training - both physical and mental - to do what Bruce did. He would have a well chiseled physique from a lifetime on the parallel bars and lifting weights. Why would he need to be that strong and agile? C'mon. I don't need to answer that and I'm not going to. Suffice to say, Keaton had to have the sculpted rubber suit because, without it, he might just as well been Bill Murray. Someone a little more in shape would have been a wonderful thing. Chris Reeve made it a point to get into shape for Superman.

Fortunately, we are so far removed from camp that I'm betting that Nolan will play it fairly straight. Alfred will make us laugh a bit but will have some pretty insightful observations hidden in those jibes. Bruce will jibe back. That will be the humour.

It may come as a suprise to some of you but Batman has evolved. He isn't and shouldn't be that silly character from the 40's through the 60's. No more so than you should be forced to continue to wear diapers. comics are source. That's the end all statement. Comics are where Batman was born and where his evolution takes place. No changes become canon until they are made part of the regular comics continuity. As I've said on many occassions, Batman lives in the comics, movies just borrow him for a few hours ever couple of years.