Reintroducing Superman: An Open Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
What many of you talking about with your ideas is not a reboot... those ideas are more like a continuation of the franchise. Starting with Superman from the beginning isn't any different than what we got with Superman Returns... minus Pa Kent.

A reboot has to include the Origin from Krypton. None of this TIH stuff. If they are going to re-start this franchise, they have to start from the beginning and do it right; otherwise, the franchise will suffer the same fate that it is suffering from today. Many of you appear to want to sacrifice the story for the action; whelther you know it or not.

The franchise already lacks depth and direction, and many of you seems to desire more of that just to see the MOS throw a punch. If done correctly, it will happen. There is no need to rush the action, over the story. A proper re-telling and setup is a must this time around.
 
I'd like to reintroduce this article:

DC Comics storms the film world

'Flash,' 'Green Lantern' among adaptations in works

By Borys Kit
July 19, 2009, 08:30 PM ET

In the comics universe, where characters are endlessly reborn and reoutfitted, a motto from the 1980s -- "DC Comics is on the move" -- could just as well apply to the current, hyperactive state of the publisher as it relates to Hollywood.

A year after "The Dark Knight" became a worldwide phenomenon, there are more DC Comics adaptations in the works than at any other point since the company was acquired by Warner Bros. in 1969.

Among the projects on front burners:

-- "The Losers," an action-adventure drama starring Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Zoe Saldana and Chris Evans, begins principal photography this week in Puerto Rico.

-- "Jonah Hex," a supernatural Western starring Josh Brolin, Megan Fox and John Malkovich, recently wrapped production in Louisiana.

-- "The Green Lantern," Warners' next big superhero tentpole, is set to star Ryan Reynolds after a long search.

-- Fox has picked up the TV series "Human Target," starring Mark Valley, for the fall.

-- And, in a rare example of a film project that has ventured off the Warners reservation, DC has set up "Red," a spy thriller to star Bruce Willis, at Summit.

"One of the things that has differentiated us for most of the last 20 years is the depth of our library and the depth of the creative material that we've put out and the opportunities that creates for other media," DC Comics president Paul Levitz said.

Still, when "Dark Knight" invaded theaters last summer, critics of DC and Warners complained there didn't appear to be a grand strategy in place to exploit DC properties.

In contrast, DC arch-rival Marvel moved quickly in the wake of its successful "Iron Man" to stake out a series of release dates for a slew of movies, branding them as part of one big Marvel universe leading to "The Avengers," which arrives in 2012.

But DC and Warners have taken a different approach, arguing that DC has a wider breadth of books than other comics companies. They insist their situation isn't comparable to Marvel, which already has licensed out to other studios a number of its biggest titles: Spider-Man is housed at Sony, and X-Men and Fantastic Four are at Fox.

With fewer marquee superheroes, Marvel works like an animation studio: It only develops select projects and makes most of what it develops, while DC is managing a much larger portfolio.

Still, in the wake of "Dark Knight," DC and Warners have made strategic moves in the superhero realm, including centralizing the way DC's titles and characters are developed. In the past, Warners optioned a property, paying DC a fee comparable to what a property could command on the open market. But while the projects ostensibly were being developed under one roof, many were spread out over a host of producers, each with different visions for how to approach each adaptation.

To bring competing approaches into sync, Levitz and DC's Los Angeles-based film exec Gregory Noveck have overseen a reorganization of the development slate. While Warners execs still drive the creative side, DC now has more input, making it an actual participant in the shaping of material.

"The creative process is by and large a true partnership," Noveck said. "They'll ask us a ton of questions, and we'll give a ton of answers. We will talk back and forth. We'll discuss writers and talent, but ultimately it's their decision."

This past fall, Warners quietly hired three of DC's biggest writers -- Geoff Johns, Grant Morrison and Marv Wolfman -- to act as consultants and writers for its superhero line of movies. The move involved taking back the reins on projects being handled by such producers as Charles Roven ("The Flash") and Akiva Goldsman ("Teen Titans").

Some agents and scribes grumbled about being forced to work with the consultants, never mind that Johns started his career as a assistant to "Superman" director Richard Donner or that Wolfman has worked in animation since the 1980s.

The moves have begun to pay off. Johns worked up a new treatment for a "Flash" script, being written by Dan Mazeau; Johns will act in a producer capacity on the project, which has not attached a director.

The projects Morrison and Wolfman are working on are in the early stages at Warners, whose execs declined to comment.

The process involves one writer taking point, though the trio do collaborate on projects, reading one another's materials while hashing out a story that will be at once accessible to nonfans yet still adhere to each character's long history. The writers also work in tandem with producers, writers and the Warners execs overseeing the projects, showing them treatments and providing notes on scripts.

Meanwhile, other superhero projects are moving forward at Warners.

The studio is taking pitches on sci-fi hero Adam Strange and the underwater-breathing hero "Aquaman," to be produced by Leonardo DiCaprio and his Appian Way shingle.

Also in the pipeline: "Bizarro Superman" being written by "Galaxy Quest" scribes David Howard and Robert Gordon; a sequel to "Constantine," with Goldsman and Erwin Stoff producing; two concurrent Green Arrow projects, an origin story and a prison-set one titled "Super Max"; and "Shazam," which was set up at New Line but has moved to Warners, with Pete Segal attached to direct.

Unsung in the lineup is Warners' line of straight-to-DVD animated movies released via Warner Premiere. "Green Lantern: First Flight," the latest entry, will premiere at this week's Comic-Con and has a July 28 street date.

These movies, produced on budgets in the $3.5 million range, apparently overperformed their targets. "First Flight" is the fifth straight-to-DVD title, with "Superman/Batman: Public Enemies" in production for a Sept. 29 release.

In the home entertainmentarena, DC has overshadowed Marvel, with 2007's "Superman-Doomsday" generating $9.4 million in revenue and last year's "Batman: Gotham Knight," taking advantage of the tidal wave of support for the Christopher Nolan movie, generating $8 million, according to tracking site The-Numbers.com. "Wonder Woman," released in March, already has chalked up $4.4 million. Marvel's top seller, "Ultimate Avengers 2," has pulled in $7.7 million.

Not that all the stars in the DC firmament are aligned yet.

Warners and DC still haven't figured out how to translate "Wonder Woman" to the big screen. In part, that failure reflects the difficulties DC has had turning out a popular Wonder Women comic. Morrison, during a recent Q&A with Clive Barker at Los Angeles' Meltdown Comics, admitted he didn't have a complete handle on the character when he was writing the comic "Final Crisis."

Also, ever since Bryan Singer's 2006's "Superman Returns," a new Superman has been in limbo.

"Our hope is to develop a Superman property and to try again," Warner Bros. Entertainment president Alan Horn said in April. "What hurt us is that the reviews and so on for the Superman movie did not get the kind of critical acclaim that Batman got, and we have other issues with Superman that concern us."


On the Batman front, a sequel to "Dark Knight" also is quite a way off. Nolan is open to doing a third installment, but his next movie is "Inception," an original script he penned and is shooting for Warners.

All that has put a damper on any movie about the Justice League, whose roster includes the above-mentioned heroes as well as myriad others including Aquaman and the Martian Manhunter. DC would like to present some of the main heroes in their own movies before they are brought together for one big outing, so "League" currently is inactive.

On top of that, there could be another change in how Warners approaches the DC characters, with studio chiefs debating whether to put the operation under one super-exec.

To bring the next generation of superheroes to the screen, DC and Warners might yet have to unleash their own super powers.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i7c23ccda60974aa212e4b64a53d2e876



As you can see, we had the Shazam news announced yesterday, that writers are indeed attached. So this article is definitely a solid indicator of what is going on at WB. And going by this article, it just does not sound good for Superman, as in a movie happening seems to be happening later than sooner. Plus, now factor in the legal issues that I'm sure WB would like to straighten out completely before moving forward, and Superman really looks like it's on the backburner. Not saying that WB is not listening to ideas but I don't see them acting on them that soon. Hopefully I'm wrong.
 
If you want a reboot to contain the origin, but still have action right from the first scene, then just have a "wrap around" ending, like the Abrams script has. Start with Superman fighting the/a villain and have something come up that leads us back to the beginning (Krytpon, Smallville, etc) and then run the story linearly back to the final battle.
I think I'd prefer a non-liner origin, ala Batman Begins better though.
 
If they skip the Fortress of Solitude for the first movie, that would cut out like 15 minutes of the origin. I'd skip out on most of the Krypton stuff for the first movie, and have Clark learning out about it in the second film when he finds the FOS. I'm not advocating that they do it TIH-style-- I'm syaing start with Krypton exploding, the ship going to Earth, and then Ma and Pa Kent finding him. Then, forward to Clark's graduation at Metropolis University. Shortly after that, Clark's first appearance as Superman. Throughout the rest of the movie we could have flashbacks showing Clark's parents getting used to his powers, showing him the space ship, and eventually Clark shows his mother a sketch of the Superman suit asking if she can help him make it. It's possible they could have a wrap-around ending like the Abrams script too, as Kal-El Fan suggested.
 
I'd like to reintroduce this article:



http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i7c23ccda60974aa212e4b64a53d2e876



As you can see, we had the Shazam news announced yesterday, that writers are indeed attached. So this article is definitely a solid indicator of what is going on at WB. And going by this article, it just does not sound good for Superman, as in a movie happening seems to be happening later than sooner. Plus, now factor in the legal issues that I'm sure WB would like to straighten out completely before moving forward, and Superman really looks like it's on the backburner. Not saying that WB is not listening to ideas but I don't see them acting on them that soon. Hopefully I'm wrong.
Maybe its just the fanboy in me but I think WB brings alot of the complaints on themselves. Really, how hard would it be for them to say that ''so and so'' is working on a script for Superman. Or, ''we plan to bring Superman back, but it might be 3 or 4 more years''.
The WB is not a very good studio as for as the fans go. At least marvel lets you know whats up.
 
Obviously, but really, if you wanted to ideally make Superman movies from here on out....would you not want to be able to start from scratch, though? Look at it as if both approaches could be done as well as possible, which is what you hope for. Creatively speaking, I see a lot more benefits from not being bound to prior versions and continuities, and I think it's safe to say that audiences are at least just as receptive to restarting, as evidenced by other franchises that recently have.

If you were throwing out a hypothetical about a hypothetical movie then of course the answer would be yes. Problem is Superman carries a lot of baggage even without Superman Returns. WB/DC has the lawsuit to deal with as well and it is more of a reality then it ever was.

WB is looking at this from all angles and one of them is that the character might not be as relevant as it once was due to Spider Man and Batman on the big screen. Some, not all execs, are afraid that they could make another one and it makes around the same amount of money as Returns, ie Hulk Syndrome.

There is more to worry about for these guys. They don't have the mentality, "If we build it, they will come." That was the thought process the last time around and look how that turned out.

Not to mention the very real possibility of the changing of the guard in the next couple of years. These are just some of the worries this group has.
 
Maybe its just the fanboy in me but I think WB brings alot of the complaints on themselves. Really, how hard would it be for them to say that ''so and so'' is working on a script for Superman. Or, ''we plan to bring Superman back, but it might be 3 or 4 more years''.
The WB is not a very good studio as for as the fans go. At least marvel lets you know whats up.

Yup, it's extremely frustrating with WB and their comic book properties. Even with Batman, it's the same thing. Is Nolan coming back? Will it be in 2 years, 3 years, more? And this is coming off one of the biggest movies of all time. It's insane. This studio just likes to see the fans suffer. :csad:

I'm not asking for a Superman movie right now, just news right now, that's all. Just be straight up with the fans. Is Superman projected for 1 to 2 years down the road, 5 to 6, or more? That's all I want to know. I guess they want to know exactly what they are doing before they make any kind of announcements. I guess all we can take for now is that the information from the HR article that states Superman is in limbo. That's the most solid "official" update we are unfortunately going to get.
 
yeah well, I dont have my hopes up. If it happens, great tho.
 
i disagree. after 3 years i never on the internet ,on the street or from someone here read that someone was confused with the story. that he didnt know the beginning.
even people who dont like SR never said that their friends didnt know what was going on.


i think more people who watched harry potter (and not the first 4 movies) were more confused then people with superman.

sorry but just everyone knows superman origins.

Your examples for why "everyone knows Superman's origins" is purely anecdotal, and that doesn't fly. And even so, it's foolhardy to make a movie under the assumption that everyone knows who the character is. An 8 year old who's never read a Superman comic wouldn't know the origin, and also there's the possibility that someone might know the origin but hasn't seen it on film. My point in all this is that the ideal start of a Superman series should be the origin, because the first chapter needs to work as an entry point for the franchise. If Superman's movies don't need an origin, then you might as well skip over the origins for all superheroes and expect the audience to accept that all the superheroes are "just there."
 
I agree flawless. If theres one thing you gotta hand to marvel its that they are up front about there properties. But you also have to realise that marvel has to since they are dependent solely on them whereas WB are not.

Are they working on superman? The fanboy in all of us wants them to be. You look at the hired writers of Johns, Wolfman and Morrison and you see that they've only announced John's projects so far leaving another 2 writers left that could be tackling superman.

Unfortunately, these rulings and frankly a lack of leaks also leads me to believe that nothing much is really going on. I mean, the IESB article says a film is being fast tracked and thats really all we know.
 
There is more to worry about for these guys. They don't have the mentality, "If we build it, they will come." That was the thought process the last time around and look how that turned out.

The problem was that BS made a movie that most did not feel like sitting through a second time. The movie clocks in at 154 minutes, which would have been fine had it not been so tediously paced. It had only one good action scene (the plane catch), which honestly felt like it should have been the first act action scene in a much better movie. The action never escalated from there, so the movie went out with a whimper instead of a bang. It was a dull, gray, and depressing movie that was 2.5 hours long. Just sitting through it once was an endurance test, so it's no surprise that the movie did not have any repeat customers.

Part of the problem is undoubtedly that Warner Bros. let Bryan Singer have total creative control on good faith alone. He actually talked Warner Bros. out of test screening the movie (link), and so Warner Bros. was pretty much going entirely on his judgment as to whether the movie was enjoyable. If it had been screened for test reactions, I'm 90% sure that most people would say "it was too long, needed more action scenes." I think Bryan Singer knew this, and rather than allow his "masterpiece" to be gutted and reworked, he said "Hey, I made friggin' X-MEN, and you're second guessing me? I know what I'm doing!"

Essentially, Bryan Singer sold his credibility as a director to make Superman Returns. The X-Men mvoies were good enough that he earned the right to make a movie without studio interference, but unfortunately he abused the power given to him, and now he's fallen out of favor with the studio. They needed a Superman fan to make a good movie that audiences would love, but instead they got a Superman: The Movie fanboy to make a movie for himself.
 
I hate this idea that we have seen Superman's origin SO MANY times so they should not do it again. Really? Superman on film has done the origin ONCE! Over 30 years ago! And the idea of Donner's origin being done so perfectly doesn't cut it with me. A bunch of old white guys walking around on an ice planet with Jor-El saying "KrypTIN". No thanks, I think it can be done much better and be made more exciting. Just look at how it was done in S:TAS, a definite improvement over how it was done in the Donner movie.
 
If you were throwing out a hypothetical about a hypothetical movie then of course the answer would be yes. Problem is Superman carries a lot of baggage even without Superman Returns. WB/DC has the lawsuit to deal with as well and it is more of a reality then it ever was.

WB is looking at this from all angles and one of them is that the character might not be as relevant as it once was due to Spider Man and Batman on the big screen. Some, not all execs, are afraid that they could make another one and it makes around the same amount of money as Returns, ie Hulk Syndrome.

There is more to worry about for these guys. They don't have the mentality, "If we build it, they will come." That was the thought process the last time around and look how that turned out.

Not to mention the very real possibility of the changing of the guard in the next couple of years. These are just some of the worries this group has.


Even if a new movie comes out, I honestly can't see it making more than SR and even if it does I don't think it will beat it by much. To make it a success for themselves they'd have to keep the budget down and hope it pulls in over 200 million which is not an easy task. They're really in a tight spot because if they screw up again its over, not to mention this court case is obviously a very big problem.
 
The problem was that BS made a movie that most did not feel like sitting through a second time. The movie clocks in at 154 minutes, which would have been fine had it not been so tediously paced. It had only one good action scene (the plane catch), which honestly felt like it should have been the first act action scene in a much better movie. The action never escalated from there, so the movie went out with a whimper instead of a bang. It was a dull, gray, and depressing movie that was 2.5 hours long. Just sitting through it once was an endurance test, so it's no surprise that the movie did not have any repeat customers.

...and it still made 200 Million domestic and 391 World Wide. Some executives think this means if they make another one that is tighter and amp up the action, it will score big. Others think that the character doesn't have enough life left in him.

Part of the problem is undoubtedly that Warner Bros. let Bryan Singer have total creative control on good faith alone. He actually talked Warner Bros. out of test screening the movie (link), and so Warner Bros. was pretty much going entirely on his judgment as to whether the movie was enjoyable. If it had been screened for test reactions, I'm 90% sure that most people would say "it was too long, needed more action scenes." I think Bryan Singer knew this, and rather than allow his "masterpiece" to be gutted and reworked, he said "Hey, I made friggin' X-MEN, and you're second guessing me? I know what I'm doing!"

Warner Bros is at fault, Singer is at fault. They greenlit a story for a character they own the rights to, where their character didn't fight a supervillian and he had a kid. Singer pitched said story. This is part of the reason we're sitting here talking about this. There are more pieces to the pie.

Essentially, Bryan Singer sold his credibility as a director to make Superman Returns. The X-Men mvoies were good enough that he earned the right to make a movie without studio interference, but unfortunately he abused the power given to him, and now he's fallen out of favor with the studio. They needed a Superman fan to make a good movie that audiences would love, but instead they got a Superman: The Movie fanboy to make a movie for himself.

Which is why WB won't make the mistake again. They won't hire this big time director to come in and take the lead on another Superman movie. Another reason this is going to be a long journey.
 
Even if a new movie comes out, I honestly can't see it making more than SR and even if it does I don't think it will beat it by much. To make it a success for themselves they'd have to keep the budget down and hope it pulls in over 200 million which is not an easy task. They're really in a tight spot because if they screw up again its over, not to mention this court case is obviously a very big problem.

A decent director ought to be able to make a great Superman flick for 170 million. Bryan Singer had a much bigger budget than he needed, and spent a bunch on stupid stuff like Superman getting shot in the eye and the Return to Krypton scene which no-one even got to see. They need a director who actually has a grasp for how to use CGI effectively, and actually has ideas for action scenes other than catching planes and tossing planets.
 
I'm not asking for a Superman movie right now, just news right now, that's all. Just be straight up with the fans. Is Superman projected for 1 to 2 years down the road, 5 to 6, or more? That's all I want to know.

Flaw, if they were to announce the film is 5-6 years away from seeing production, all buzz & hype about Superman would disappear until we approach the date of production. They are not going to do that, nor are these sites that make money off drawing people to their sites for erroneous info on Superman. WB want to keep the buzz & publicity going for this franchise, all the while keeping & gaging public interest. They are not ready to risk money on investing into another film yet; but certainly wants to keep reminding us that Superman is there. That's all it is.
 
and this is just being mean, but WB isn't obligated to tell you **** until they are good and ready
 
^Never said they were obligated to but it's frustrating as hell. Especially when you compare the situation to Marvel. And yes, I realize it's a different animal. It would just be nice to know or get a better idea. Like I said, it's not just Superman, just look at Batman. We have no idea when the next one will come out and who will direct. And this is coming off one of the biggest movies of all time.
 
If you were throwing out a hypothetical about a hypothetical movie then of course the answer would be yes. Problem is Superman carries a lot of baggage even without Superman Returns. WB/DC has the lawsuit to deal with as well and it is more of a reality then it ever was.

WB is looking at this from all angles and one of them is that the character might not be as relevant as it once was due to Spider Man and Batman on the big screen. Some, not all execs, are afraid that they could make another one and it makes around the same amount of money as Returns, ie Hulk Syndrome.

There is more to worry about for these guys. They don't have the mentality, "If we build it, they will come." That was the thought process the last time around and look how that turned out.
Yes, WB and Singer erroneously overestimated the inherent appeal of the brand name of Superman and his prior cinematic relevance. Almost as if they were playing with house money, when in reality, they had to earn it all over again.

Not to mention the very real possibility of the changing of the guard in the next couple of years. These are just some of the worries this group has.
At the same time, if something like Batman or Star Trek were going through similar internal trials and tribulations, but movies like BB/TDK or ST'09 came out, you get the feeling that the level of acceptance and reaction over those movies would've helped alleviate more of it. the point is that despite the internal drama that the Supes franchise had endured before and after, they still had the means and the resources to put out a more contemporary and exciting film, rather than a morose and inappropriately nostalgic one which ultimately made even its solid gross a dubious achievement. Singer proposed his approach, and WB took the bait.

That's why I base my hypothesis the way I do, and why I say that ultimately...IF things get going again, this ought to be a great and humbling lesson for them. Which is kinda' funny because they had another guy right down the hall doing it right with Batman....but again, maybe someone was convinced that for whatever reasons, Batman needed to be reinvented/updated, and Superman didn't.

Watch....come 2012, when all this course stuff etc blows over, we'll actually end up getting a sequel to Superman Returns. Why break the pattern, right? :O
 
Even if a new movie comes out, I honestly can't see it making more than SR and even if it does I don't think it will beat it by much. To make it a success for themselves they'd have to keep the budget down and hope it pulls in over 200 million which is not an easy task. They're really in a tight spot because if they screw up again its over, not to mention this court case is obviously a very big problem.

It's a problem if the next movie is somehow tasked with 'making up' for SR, or salvaging the franchise....instead of just starting fresh and depending solely on itself from here on out. I doubt that the majority of moviegoers will care or even know about any past 'baggage' if they really enjoy what they see...especially if it's a brand new start. If it were an SR sequel...thne it might suffer from some guilt by association on both ends. WB probably needs to find a way of getting past SR...either by starting over and just looking onward and upward, or just stopping with Superman altogether which a lot of people wouldn't want.
 
I get a little tired of people talking about not being "involved and engrossed" in this stuff. If you're not, I guess you're not, but then, if you're not onboard with Richard and Lois and Jason and rooting for them before Superman saves them, there probably aren't many action/rescue sequences that would wow you, methinks.

And action doesn't inherently have to be "Has everyone in the world on the edge of their seat". Personally, I like to sit back and enjoy action myself, not hop up and down on my chair. I spend my time appreciating the action beats, the effects and visuals, the tension, music, acting, meanings of things, etc.

And I'm sorry, Superdaniel, but: "Pretentious action scenes"?

What does that mean? Which ones were pretentious?

As a rule, I find that people generally get out of a film, especially an action film, what they invest of themselves into it. Some movies make it easier, and some make it harder, but regardless...this is a Superman film, people, and to talk about how the execution in the plane sequence, or the ship sequence, was somehow poor or lacking in any real sense? Can't see that. Bryan Singer may not have made the overall film you wanted, but he's certainly not as wildly inept as some of you make him out to be.

Anyway, in terms of scale, I'm not even discussing the execution of the events, though I think a lot of them/most were executed pretty well, at least compared to other comic book and action films.

Many of the events in the film were huge. I don't really see how you can logically argue that.

TRANSFORMERS and TF2 are considered average films, but the huge moments feel huge nontheless. Now, because action in TRANSFORMERS was huge, SUPERMAN RETURNS cannot also be huge?

I didn't say it was the biggest movie ever.

I just said it was huge.

What does that even mean?

Which action scenes were pretentious?

A decent director ought to be able to make a great Superman flick for 170 million.

That's somewhat debatable. I'd like to see it happen, but even after the Transformers films, I find it very, very unlikely. I suppose anything is possible.
 
Last edited:
WB themselves probably doesn't know exactly. There may just not be anything real concrete going on with Batman or Superman right now. I figure that's the case because whenever anything IS going on, we either hear about it officially, or the rumor sites start popping.
 
Last edited:
I said pretentious because they spent a lot of money to do it, to amp it up, but the action sequence in itself was tedius as hell. It was obvious, at least to me, that Superman was going to save them so all i was thinking was "Can they get going with this already?" And then they showed Superman saving them in the most ridiculous way, with Brandon standing on the boat, looking up. LOL How stupid is that? Sorry but that didn't was a GOOD action sequence no matter what you say. They were huge action sequences. They just weren't FUN and EXCITING at all to me. That's what i meant by pretentious. BS tried hard to make them fun but he eventually failed.

Like i said, the only Superman worthy action sequence was the plane sequence and it was obvious that they couldn't **** that up too.


PS: I really doubt we're going to see a Superman movie until this court thing is settled and done.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"