Justice League: self contained continuity, or epic crossover?

[TheVileOne]

I think the Guard was just really invested in finally seeing a Justice League movie and he's upset that it didn't happen.

Sort of like what's her name, Emmay(?) and Baghdad Uncle Bingo Bob.

 

[Webhead2006]

sure i think we all as comics fans would love to see our fav heroes teaming up. Sure if jlm happened who knows how things would have turned out for wb. I am still curious to see what it would have turned out as. Even though there was many things i didnt like about the production.

 

[The Guard]

Yeah "stupid people." Because a non-comic fan (99% of a blockbuster movie's audience) is "stupid" for thinking what the hell is going on when the movies use completely different people as Green Lantern.

You just like to call people stupid to dismiss criticism of the WB's flawed approach, which even the WB itself stepped away from.

Uh...no.

I'm iffy if you understanding the context of my calling people "stupid".

There's a difference between not immediately understanding, and flat out not GETTING a concept over the course of an entire film's preproduction, release, and run in theaters. I feel legitmate in stating that people who have the idea of the Green Lantern Corps presented to them and still get "confused" over Hal Jordan being GL and not John Stewart are probably pretty stupid. People who are not stupid have the capacity to figure these simple concepts out, right?

Does this need to be explained? I said it right there in my PREVIOUS post. If you're invested in John Stewart (who will be YOUR Green Lantern if you see him first in a movie), then a movie about some other guy won't appeal as much to you.

"Your Green Lantern". I like that.

Maybe they could market the new movie like that. Take a hint from STAR TREK. "It's not your 13 year old self's GREEN LANTERN". And then in small text on the bottom of the poster "This one's white".

For fans, I can almost understand this mindset, when you grow up with a particular character, though I find it closeminded when you just doggedly stick to that mindset and don't honor the larger mythology.

But I'm iffy on why the general public couldn't enjoy both John Stewart and Hal Jordan, and why we have to be "attached" to one over the other, if characters and the concept of the Corps are presented properly.

Realistically, John Stewart in JUSTICE LEAGUE was probably just going to be power and muscle, with a few elements of Stewart's character tossed in for Common to work with.

I refuse to believe that the general public would be so attached to that that a similar concept wouldn't also be enjoyable to them.

Now you're just making crap up. PLENTY of fans complained about John Stewart being used on the cartoon instead of the more iconic Hal Jordan. People even complained about the lack of freaking Aquaman, who was ditched in favor of Hawkgirl who was never as important a character in the comics. Lots of people said it was the show being "politically correct."

Of course it wasn't EVERYBODY, and the show kept fanboy viewers by just being damn good. However the complaints were there.

I never said people didn't complain about Stewart, I said they weren't "turned off". They didn't abandon JLanimated, stop watching it, etc. At least most of them didn't. I'm sure there were a few racists or people who were just so devoted to the idea of G'nort as the major GL that they couldn't bring themselves to continue watching. Sure, many fans wanted someone other than Stewart. And what happened then? Most of them quickly shut up, because it worked fairly well, if imperfectly. And these are people who, unlike the average moviegoer, aren't CASUAL fans with CASUAL relationships with characters, but DIE HARD FANS who REALLY were invested in Hal, after reading about him, and even Kyle and Guy, for years, over John Stewart in most cases. Did some still want Hal, Kyle, or Guy? Sure.

But again, for a big budget movie, you're actually suggesting that people would be confused and angry about switching Green Lanterns to the point where they would abandon or turn away from a cool concept simply because the film featured a Green Lantern they aren't already, as casual fans, used to? I very much doubt that. There are always going to be complaints in some fashion, but that's just absurd.

Stop asking questions you should know the answers to already. A better question is "who cares about the fanboys?" Because these movies are made for the average person, with the intention of making profits, not for fanboys.

Yeah, I wasn't being literal. I was saying "Who gives a damn about their petty, ignorance based issues"?

But you're implying that studios care more about people who are simply ignorant of why things are done and want to resist change than people who can get on board with simple concept changes?

I suspect studios care more about people who are willing to play ball and go to the movies.

And it's odd...because why then would WB be putting Hal Jordan in its upcoming movie when most casual fans are likely familiar with John Stewart from the years of JL animated?

I'm a fan of Pierce Brosnan as James Bond. You know what happened when Daniel Craig became James Bond and the entire concept of Bond films was effectively altered? I said "Hey, cool, I'll go see how he does". Not different characters, but they darn near might well have been. Similar situation, I think. Different storyline, different actor, even different character, but it can still work.

It's proven every time someone says they're a fan of a specific character or actor and will watch whatever they're in. This goes back to the original point. Maybe they should have just recasted Batman in TDK, since banking on a popular actor/interpretation is such an "unproven" strategy. If you're making JLM as a lead-in for the solo movies, then why the hell are you not making solo movies with the same characters?

So it is your logical assessment that people would not see a GREEN LANTERN movie featuring the most popular and arguably well known Green Lantern of all, simply because there was a different Green Lantern used in JLA: MORTAL, after concept JLA: MORTAL and GREEN LANTERN both introduced in the idea of the Corps, which consists of different GLs?

"Pretty darn popular." Define that please, if you can.

Are you serious?

You're asking me to define "Pretty darn popular"?

"Pretty": To a fair degree; moderately

"Darn": In this context, the darn is silent. It's cancelled out by pretty. Because it's slang, standing in for "damn" because this is a family board.

"Popular": regarded with great favor, approval, or affection, especially by the general public.

It means that the show was fairly or moderately popular with the general public. It means that a decent amount of people liked it. The show lasted what, six, seven seasons and garnered quite a few awards and nominations. The creative team behind it has been asked to do DTV after DTV because people enjoy their work.

I'm not interested in whether enough people liked JLanimated on its own to justify WB making a movie of the concept. And I'm really not interested in quantifying it compared to network TV, movies, etc, as that was never my statement. And you won't convince me of much by attempting to quantify its popularity, because I never based my argument on numbers. It was a superhero cartoon. Never said it was the most popular show on television, or even the most popular cartoon. But JLanimated was a popular show.

I'm not interested what the comics sales have proved people will buy. I'm interested in what they have proved works as a concept. Creatively speaking.

Again...what, do you think fanboys are just so "special" that they get far out concepts like "The
Green Lantern Corps", but no one else possibly could?

It's not about understanding the GL Corps so much as "this isn't the guy I watched in the movie, what the hell." Is it REALLY hard for you to understand that popular actors are brought back for sequels/spinoffs specifically to cash in?

I see. Except that my statements about stupid people was specifically aimed at people who are confused by just such a situation.

Have you really been proceeding under the assumption that I was calling people who want John Stewart and are disappointed for reasons other than stupidiy-induced-confusion when Hal is GL in a solo film "stupid"? Despite the context of my original statement?

I've said it before, I'll say it again. It might confuse stupid people. And who cares? Damn near everything confuses stupid people.

 

[ClarkLuther55]

There's a difference between not immediately understanding, and flat out not GETTING a concept over the course of an entire film's preproduction, release, and run in theaters. I feel legitmate in stating that people who have the idea of the Green Lantern Corps presented to them and still get "confused" over Hal Jordan being GL and not John Stewart are probably pretty stupid. People who are not stupid have the capacity to figure these simple concepts out, right?

People can understand that there is a Corps; they also get that a certain hero stands out as the MAIN GL. Use John Stewart in JLM and someone will think Hal is some second stringer being brought out for no reason. They'll want to see "the real" GL.

That's of course if JLM even succeeded in our hypothetical scenario; most people thought the idea was beyond moronic and no way to set up solo franchises at all.

I never said people didn't complain about Stewart, I said they weren't "turned off". They didn't abandon JLanimated, stop watching it, etc.

The cartoon was a continuing series providing new, potentially satisfying content with each new episode, targeted toward a small niche fanboy audience who would be compelled to watch anyway. It's a lot harder to outright abandon a series than it is to choose not to watch a single movie.

If a Common fangirl, or a black person who thought it was really awesome to see a black superhero for once, or just somebody who doesn't care much for superheroes but thought the JLM GL was pretty cool doesn't feel compelled to go to the theater and see the GL solo feature, then that's it. They've lost profits.

But you're implying that studios care more about people who are simply ignorant of why things are done and want to resist change than people who can get on board with simple concept changes?

That presumes that those changes are worthy in the first place. I still haven't seen good reason why John Stewart should be used in the team movie and Hal Jordan in the solo. That violates the basic motive behind using JLM as a launching pad for solo movies.

And it's odd...because why then would WB be putting Hal Jordan in its upcoming movie when most casual fans are likely familiar with John Stewart from the years of JL animated?

"Most casual fans." Again you make crap up. The Justice League cartoon was not widely watched, I already went over this with you. I wouldn't be surprised if it had less than 1 million viewers.

I'm a fan of Pierce Brosnan as James Bond. You know what happened when Daniel Craig became James Bond and the entire concept of Bond films was effectively altered? I said "Hey, cool, I'll go see how he does". Not different characters, but they darn near might well have been. Similar situation, I think. Different storyline, different actor, even different character, but it can still work.

Another crap example from you. Mainstream audiences already know that James Bond has been played by a number of actors over the decades. The series has just gone on too long for a single actor to keep going at it; Pierce Brosnan was 51 in his last movie.

Are you serious?

You're asking me to define "Pretty darn popular"?

"Pretty": To a fair degree; moderately

"Darn": In this context, the darn is silent. It's cancelled out by pretty. Because it's slang, standing in for "damn" because this is a family board.

"Popular": regarded with great favor, approval, or affection, especially by the general public.

It means that the show was fairly or moderately popular with the general public. It means that a decent amount of people liked it. The show lasted what, six, seven seasons and garnered quite a few awards and nominations.

Please, stop being stupid. I provided statistics showing how piddly cable ratings really are, and which suggest that JL's audience was tiny. You being a smartass and going over freaking "pretty darn popular" doesn't change that.

The creative team behind it has been asked to do DTV after DTV because people enjoy their work.

And you know what? Those DTVs are also sold to tiny audiences. I believe Superman: Doomsday was the best seller so far with about 600,000 DVDs sold. The others have only sold a couple hundred thousand copies each.

You just don't seem to get it. There is a WORLD of difference between selling a different version of a superhero to a tiny fanboy audience that ALREADY knows all the continuity, and trying to sell different versions of an unproven character to mainstream audiences whose only investment will be in the first version they see.

And you won't convince me of much by attempting to quantify its popularity, because I never based my argument on numbers.

Oh thank you, now I totally understand. You don't give a crap about actual supporting evidence. You just want to carry on with your silly OPINIONS as if I have a reason to care. You think JL was popular? Irrelevant, because despite my love of the show I know it wasn't widely watched.

Isn't this the way our last debate ended up? And the one before that?

I'm freaking done talking to you about this.

 

[Webhead2006]

this is something i think is a problem for doing a film, on a character who there has been multiple guys/girls to hold the mantle of said character. Its much easier for guys like spider-man/superman/batman who are more known for just one guy as said character.

 

[Thundercrack85]

A crossover would take too long, and never get done, so I don't even see that as a plausible option. While I can certainly see the appeal of a shared movie universe, it seems logistically impossible, especially given who is at the helm right now.

Separate continuity has its share of advantages anyway. Most obviously, they can do their own thing. Also, they can have the characters much more closely connected. And if it's a series, the movies would come out much faster.

It's not easy anyway you look at it though, having individuals as different in nature as Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman existing in the same movie.

 

[The Guard]

People can understand that there is a Corps; they also get that a certain hero stands out as the MAIN GL. Use John Stewart in JLM and someone will think Hal is some second stringer being brought out for no reason. They'll want to see "the real" GL.

As you know, there IS no "real GL" in the context of the Corps. If the concept of the Corps is portrayed effectively, then people should be able to understand this rather simple idea.

I'm unsure why you would think people would think Hal is some second stringer if he's not portrayed as such in his own movie.

The cartoon was a continuing series providing new, potentially satisfying content with each new episode, targeted toward a small niche fanboy audience who would be compelled to watch anyway. It's a lot harder to outright abandon a series than it is to choose not to watch a single movie.

Ok...valid point, but whether it's "harder to abandon a series" is sort of irrelevant to my statement. The point is that people didn't, even though they weren't thrilled about John Stewart because they were attached to Hal, Kyle and Guy. Create all the random arguments about how hard it is to abandon that you want, but it doesn't change that your implicaton that people who have attachments to characters will get so attached they'll not be able to stomach a new version doesn't hold water. Again. Even die-hards mostly came around

If a Common fangirl, or a black person who thought it was really awesome to see a black superhero for once, or just somebody who doesn't care much for superheroes but thought the JLM GL was pretty cool doesn't feel compelled to go to the theater and see the GL solo feature, then that's it. They've lost profits.

Oh no. Two people don't go to see GREEN LANTERN. What will WB ever do?

In all seriousness, though, I just don't buy this would happen on a wide scale. I feel the concept of Green Lantern is far more compelling than any particular Green Lantern, and that even if people were somewhat miffed that a different GL was featured in a solo film, that they would have enjoyed the basic concept enough to follow it to a solo GL movie with a new GL.

"Most casual fans." Again you make crap up. The Justice League cartoon was not widely watched, I already went over this with you. I wouldn't be surprised if it had less than 1 million viewers.

"Casual fan" means someone who happens upon the material, but is not a die hard. I would say that my statement about how most casual fans of Justice League and Green Lantern, are probably more familiar with the John Stewart version of Green Lantern is correct. Is there a reason you feel this wouldn't be the case?

You realize that "most casual fans" doesn't mean "The entire public", right? It means people who are, by definition, "casual fans" because they've seen and enjoy the material a few times, or every so often.

Another crap example from you. Mainstream audiences already know that James Bond has been played by a number of actors over the decades. The series has just gone on too long for a single actor to keep going at it; Pierce Brosnan was 51 in his last movie.

Seems to me that attachment to an idea, actor, or character are all pretty similar. You like something, you're comfortable with it, want to see more of it, etc.

The public knows that Bond has been played by different actors, yes. How did they figure that out? They became aware of movies with two different James Bonds at some point. I found out more than one actor played Bond in one day, during one of those holiday marathons, and was fine with it within a few hours.

Now, why couldn't the public also know via JLA: MORTAL that there have been multiple Green Lanterns, and that John Stewart is just one of them, and be okay with a different one, since they've already been introduced to the concept of varying GL's and the GL Corps?

So, once again, just to clarify, it is your logical assessment that people would not see a GREEN LANTERN movie featuring the most popular and arguably well known Green Lantern of all, simply because there was a different Green Lantern used in JLA: MORTAL, after JLA: MORTAL and GREEN LANTERN both introduced in the idea of the Corps, which consists of different GLs?

Please, stop being stupid. I provided statistics showing how piddly cable ratings really are, and which suggest that JL's audience was tiny. You being a smartass and going over freaking "pretty darn popular" doesn't change that.

Please stop being rude. Seriously. You make yourself look like a twelve year old with PMS when you get just rude enough not to use adult insults.

Here's the thing.

You still seem to think I made some sort of statement quantifying JLanimated's success. I didn't. I used a word that means "fairly" or "moderately".

I never quantified "pretty darn popular". And I wasn't actually being that much of a smartass. You yourself asked me to define "pretty darn popular", which is basic English slang. You didn't ask me to put it in perspective or why I had used the term, you flat out asked me to define it, because you were going off on one of your tangents and trying to disprove something I'd never said. The text you wrote about how small a success it was in comparison to other projects, etc, indicated that you either disagreed with my assessment (which doesn't make a whole lot of sense, because JLanimated was moderately popular), or apparently don't speak basic English well enough to understand what I meant in context.

Oh...wait. You were trying to move beyond the argument again. Do you have ADHD or something? I don't want to attack you for not being able to stay on topic if this is the case. I know ADHD can be difficult.

But again, all your ranting about how "small" a success JLanimated was is sort of irrelevant to me, and I've clearly told you so. I'm not denying JLanimated wasn't a HUGE success amongst the general public. I never put a value on its popularity, and don't care to. Not because I'm afraid I'll lose an argument about "how" popular it is (Again, I've already admitted it wasn't a massive success with the general public), but because I just don't care.

Didn't say "wildly" popular, or "massively popular", or "popular among all age ranges". I said "pretty popular".

I don't really care about its level of popularity beyond that. You don't seem to understand that I never made any statement about how big a success it was to the general public. You realize that you're essentially ranting about and trying to disprove something I never said at this point, don't you?

See that? I've explained to you what I meant, and what I don't care about and why two or three times in one post. If you continue ranting about it, I will ignore your statements about it.

So, once again, just to clarify, it is your logical assessment that most people would not see an exciting, action-packed, GREEN LANTERN film featuring the most popular and arguably well known Green Lantern of all, simply because there was a different Green Lantern used in JLA: MORTAL? After JLA: MORTAL and GREEN LANTERN both introduced in the idea of the Corps, which consists of different GLs?

 

[Webhead2006]

sure the whole concept of a shared universe is hard to see them ie wb doing and all that. I personally think it could happen if they have a set group of writers all work out together and and script out things.

 

[FaT_tONle]

I like WB's approach of one movie at a time. Unfortunately, that means a cross over movie consisting of a conglomeration of 5 or 6 movies/franchises in the same continuity probably goes out the window. But I'd rather have that then have that gigantic piece of turd JL:M was shaping out to be. It gives WB more flexibility to make the movies on their own leisure without rushing anything. Allow each character to build a reputation with the GA with solo films or big budget animated movies, and then do JLA. Replace the actors if you have to. That's the right way to do it, but we are probably 8-10 years away.

 

[Webhead2006]

totally with the way things take for ever with wb the whole putting everything from one film series and other does seem like it will never happen or never work out great. Compared to the marvel studios plan from the start they wanted to do a shared universe and each writer had to include things from another film to carry over that crossover feel of the film. So if when wb was starting things up with batman and superman for example they could have easily with all writers invovled had a session to hammer out little details and get everything to mesh better and all that. But at this rate we have no clue what is going to happen with wb dc films.

 

[FaT_tONle]

See I don't think you can move on JLA until a definitive Superman series is established...meaning at least two if not a trilogy of movies. GL needs a couple of movies as well, be it Hal, John, or any other GL in the reign. WW obviously. Flash probably needs one major motion picture minimum, but I'd lead towards animated there. So that's about 5-6 movies that have to happen for JLA to be any kind of success in the same way we expect Avengers to be a success.

 

[Webhead2006]

yea totally

 

[MadVillainy]

If I had my way...

2011: GL (Ryan Reynolds)
2012: Batman III (Christian Bale), The Flash Wally West (Scott Porter)
2013: Superman (Armie Hammer), Wonder Woman (Taylor Cole)
2014: Aquaman (Phillip Winchester), Green Arrow (Ryan Gosling), GL II (Ryan Reynolds)
2015: Batman IV (Bale or Henry Cavill if Bale doesnt do it), Justice League

2016: The Flash Wally West II (Scott Porter), Wonder Woman II (Taylor Cole)
2017: Superman II (Armie Hammer), Aquaman II (Phillip Winchester)
2018: Green Lantern III (Ryan Reynolds), Batman V(Bale or Henry Cavill if Bale doesnt do it)
2019: Justice League II


2020:GL III(Ryan Reynolds), The Flash Wally West (Scott Porter)
2021: Batman VI (Bale or Henry Cavill if Bale doesnt do it), Wonder Woman III (Taylor Cole)
2022: Aquaman III (Phillip Winchester), Green Arrow III (Ryan Gosling)
2023: Superman III(Armie Hammer)
2024: Justice League III

And at different times in the year they could have other movies like Green Arrow, Zatanna, Booster Gold/Blue Beetle, Lobo, Captain Marvel, and a Martian Manhunter prequel

^^lol thats a ridiculous 10+ year plan. That wont even happen in my dreams

but to use some of the words of the man Ryan Reynolds: I will husk-f*** a herd of cattle to bring [that schedule and casting] to life"

 

[Webhead2006]

to bad that wont likely happen, we will be lucky if we get one tentpole dc guy a year, and maybe 1 or 2 minor/vertigo/graphic novel type of character in the year.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Yes, by the time a new Superman franchise begins, Nolan's Batman series will be done. And I have serious doubts some characters will ever get a movie.

 

[FaT_tONle]

I think if everything falls into place, I'd go:

2011: GL
2012: BB3
2013: Superman
2014: GL sequel
2015: Flash, WW
2016: Superman sequel or World's Finest
2017: JLA
2018: JLA spinoff
2019: Death of Superman (Doomsday)
2020: JLA spinoff
2021-2022: JLA 2-3 (back to back)

With maybe some C-listers sandwiched in between.

 

[E-Man]

Yes, by the time a new Superman franchise begins, Nolan's Batman series will be done. And I have serious doubts some characters will ever get a movie.

That's why I voted for it's own separate continuity. It's pretty much a given that all of the JLAers won't get their own movie, and it's no guarantee that the big name ones will get a movie around the same time as the JLA movie to make the crossover work well.

 

[jmc]

I think if everything falls into place, I'd go:

2011: GL
2012: BB3
2013: Superman
2014: GL sequel
2015: Flash, WW
2016: Superman sequel or World's Finest
2017: JLA
2018: JLA spinoff
2019: Death of Superman (Doomsday)
2020: JLA spinoff
2021-2022: JLA 2-3 (back to back)

With maybe some C-listers sandwiched in between.

That would be an absolute logistical nightmare to set up.

 

[Evil Twin]

I think if everything falls into place, I'd go:

2011: GL
2012: BB3
2013: Superman
2014: GL sequel
2015: Flash, WW
2016: Superman sequel or World's Finest
2017: JLA
2018: JLA spinoff
2019: Death of Superman (Doomsday)
2020: JLA spinoff
2021-2022: JLA 2-3 (back to back)

With maybe some C-listers sandwiched in between.

Which makes the case that the easiest way to do a JLA movie is just to do one.

I think Marvel is overestimating the demand for The Avengers. The public wants more Iron Man. They may or may not want more Hulk, Captain America, or Thor. Anyone think that people are dying to see a Hulk & Iron Man teamup after the box office of the former? Comic book fans may be excited, but that's not the same as the general public.

 

[FaT_tONle]

Trust me... there will be interest seeing Hulk mixed in with other Superheroes. Same with Batman/Superman and if hits, WW and GL as well. Marvel's problem has been getting too cartoony and not taking the Hulk more seriously, the "Hulk Smash" is iconic but it really gives off a cartoon vibe. Don't make him as much of a dumb brute anymore, and even if he doesn't talk much, give him enough intelligence to where he can actually think in battle. Then his interaction with the other heroes can work. But back your point, I seriously doubt Thor/Cap is going to hold back Avengers. The only thing that concerns me is that they will probably cast an unknown for Cap, but as long as they bring back Norton paired with the characters from Iron Man there will be enough interest there. Worst comes to worse, Iron Man will carry the movie. But the same can be said for Superman/Batman in JLA.

That would be an absolute logistical nightmare to set up.

Maybe doing two JLA films back to back is unrealistic. I just threw that in to get the "trilogy" in there. Other than that it is one movie a year most years. Less ambitious than Marvel's plan for sure. Besides it's not as bad as Blackman's Aquaman Trilogy.

 

[Webhead2006]

yea some of your list could be a nightmare fat tonle but for the 2011-2015 parts i think could be reasonable way.

 

[jmc]

Which makes the case that the easiest way to do a JLA movie is just to do one.

I think Marvel is overestimating the demand for The Avengers. The public wants more Iron Man. They may or may not want more Hulk, Captain America, or Thor. Anyone think that people are dying to see a Hulk & Iron Man teamup after the box office of the former? Comic book fans may be excited, but that's not the same as the general public.

I tend to agree, I don't think demand is as high for team up films as some people think, nor do I think Avengers is going to do the astronomical box office numbers I've heard some predict.

 

[FaT_tONle]

See I think what will happen with Avengers, I think it will make enough money to be at least a three picture franchise, but they will rotate the characters in the sequels. So if they do decide to make the solo films leading into JLA, you can rotate the heroes should they not want to re-use the heavy hitters like Batman/Superman for future JLA sequels. Hence those guys can move back to their solo franchises. Might look like an Avengers ripoff at that point but it makes the most sense. Otherwise it may as well be a self contained franchise, but I don't like that when the solo franchises are still running concurrently.

 

[The Guard]

I don't think THE AVENGERS is about "demand". They're just doing it, and they're going to market the HELL out of it.

 

[Timstuff]

My cast for Justice League:

Batman: Christian Bale
Superman: Henry Cavill
Green Lantern: Ryan Reynolds
Wonder Woman: Bridget Regan
The Flash: Scott Porter

In any potential JLA sequels I suppose they could bring in new characters like Aquaman, Black Lightning, Martian Manhunter, Green Arrow, etc. or rotate them with other characters to keep the cast from getting too big, but in the first movie I think it's fundamental that the get the big five in (and possibly introduce one or two of the less mainstream characters who might not get a movie otherwise).