The 3 directions of DC?

[I Am The Knight]

STM was mostly grounded. A grounded tone is perfectly fine for Superman, but you also have to deliver a good movie.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Is anyone here familiar with the film, GREYSTOKE: THE LEGEND OF TARZAN? If not take a look:[YT]yAv0qgcP2UM[/YT]

Released in 1984 it is most definitely a "gritty" and "grounded" take on the story of Tarzan which mostly up until then had been done in a, shall we say, less than realistic manner? It took this high fantasy idea (one that even Burroughs in the original stories had made pretty rough and tumble, not "dark" but certainly "pulpy") and presented it in a very, warts and all manner. It took the idea seriously and committed to some real questions about it's character (or AS real as you can get when it comes to something like Tarzan). What would that life be like? What's the psyche and outlook of such a character? How does such a person interact with the wider world? How do people would people react to such a character themselves? If presenting it as a real life event, how does that choice influence production design, casting, cinematography, ect.? That to me is part of "gritty" and "grounded", even for something that is about the fantastical. Now for some reasons, many of which are understandable, the "gritty" approach has become synonymous with "dark", with cynicism, with the the antithesis of anything positive or whimsical, or idealistic. But that isn't necessarily the case. It just means strong verisimilitude. It means not hand waving away realistic questions simply because they are uncomfortable to think about, especially for fans. Or at least that's my view when it comes to thinking about such an approach for genre material. None of that means doing away completely with idealism ect. Take MOS, as an example. The presentation of Lois Lane is one of a real person in her occupation. Never before has Lois actually come across on any screen as a living, breathing, real life modern day reporter and not just some sort of HIS GIRL FRIDAY kinda cliche. Yet... Lois was still the type of idealized person we all want her to be. She learns of Clark's secret and decides to keep it and not reveal it to the world, even under threat of arrest. Perry White is also shown to support this idealistic stance of Lois', until of course he's presented with an honest to God alien invasion and all that goes along with it, so it's understandable that he would have second thoughts, but the point is, despite the "gritty" texture of the film, both characters acted in very idealistic ways. Not "perfectly", but in a manner that still showed that they were very good people caught up in epic, world changing events.

Gritty doesn't have to mean dark, and telling a story with a gritty texture, and making the tone one where the ideas in the fantasy are taken somewhat seriously, isn't a bad approach to me. It heightens the drama, and gives me the "fun" of taking the material which is totally irrational serious enough to enjoy the characterizations and action as an adult, but frankly, also as a child, I think, since the truth is, as a kid we all took the events in most genre work, very seriously,whether the approach the films and TV shows we watched or comics we read, actually warranted such a response or not.

In regards to todays CBMs, I am happy to have the variety of film tones and find great satisfaction in taking the story of say, Superman or the Fantastic Four, very serious on film, especially since we've have different styles done for both already. Having MOS doesn't somehow invalidate S:TM to my eyes or vice versa.

 

[Arach Knight]

I think lots of people want DC stuff to stay as non engaging as it's always been. From superman staying as unappealing as he used to be in that he has all the answers, to these people that actually think the campy corny aquaman that everyone and their mother made fun of to no end is actually what DC should have put forward...

Now that is an interesting supposition. There are posters on the Aquaman forum that have decried the DCCU look as not "looking like Aquaman" even though it is clearly based on Peter David's run with the character. These same individuals have said they wish to see the orange scalemail. I fathom that such fans posses a profound nostalgia for the campy era of DC (Batman '66, Superfriends).

Lastly, when it comes to the difference in 'tone' I look to something like The Two Towers. A serious epic with a various moments of levity. Where marvel has Legolas and Gimli killing and maming the enemy, making good sport of it and keeping head count, DC plays this same scenario very straight, no counting or quipping.... In doing so the later is then hailed as failing in light hearted fun when the sad reality is that they are committing to their drama in a very traditional manner. The levity has it's time and place but never undermines the drama, whereas the marvel approach has almost perfected the art of sprinkling it at just about any odd place. From the subway ride in Thor 2 to the dance off. Two different approaches both have their value to be sure. The difference between True Lies and Speed if you will. Unfortunately the fans and pundits won't let things be and have to campaign for their preference to be the one to rule them all.
Shame really.

The irony is that if WB/DC were to make action-comedies the way that Marvel does, there would be acerbic accusations of imitation. DC is damned if they do something different and damned if the follow their competition. As it were, DC films are not devoid of humor, and I am always bothered by the fact that opponents of DC's films see fit to level the charge that DC is always "dark and gritty." It seems that people conflate genre and narrative elements as beinf synonymous. Marvel makes action-comedies where as DC creates dramas. Because humor is not the focus of drama, people erroneously dismiss DC's superhero dramas as not being funny. It is all quite curious

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

The irony is that if WB/DC were to make action-comedies the way that Marvel does, there would be acerbic accusations of imitation. DC is damned if they do something different and damned if the follow their competition. As it were, DC films are not devoid of humor, and I am always bothered by the fact that opponents of DC's films see fit to level the charge that DC is always "dark and gritty." It seems that people conflate genre and narrative elements as beinf synonymous. Marvel makes action-comedies where as DC creates dramas. Because humor is not the focus of drama, people erroneously dismiss DC's superhero dramas as not being funny. It is all quite curious

I don't think WB being accused of imitation* by fanboys is going to dictate what direction they take.

The average person doesn't need there to be a difference between a MS movie or a WB movie the same way people generally don't care for there to be a distinct difference between Pixar, Disney, and Dreamworks. Same thing with...I don't know, cop movies, from diffferent studios. Since when does a studio claim a tone? (especially when that tone was around well before they were (Superman The Movie) and is still used by other studios (Fox/Sony)).

However, if WB does veer slightly darker on average, my guess it'd merely be to combat potential superhero fatigue as they feel audiences would be more excited by something they don't see over and over again (whereas with my Pixar/Dreamworks example, the movies don't go over the same subject material, so there's not as much need to keep things fresh via varied tones)

 

[Arach Knight]

I don't think WB being accused of imitation* by fanboys is going to dictate what direction they take.

The average person doesn't need there to be a difference between a MS movie or a WB movie the same way people generally don't care for there to be a distinct difference between Pixar, Disney, and Dreamworks. Same thing with...I don't know, cop movies, from diffferent studios. Since when does a studio claim a tone?

I never said accusations of imitation qould ibfluence WB's choices. I implied that from the perspective of the audience, WB can do no right. As soon as WB announced a slate of films for a shared universe, the accusations already went flying from blogs, forums and mainstream outlets. We are you only one film deep, and already there are vocal opponents that have declared that Man of Steel is too grim and that DC's cinematic universe is not as "fun" as Marvels. So the expectation is already there that DC should be putting out action-comedies, yet there are already people complaining about DC putting out a shared universe (even though DC was working toward it first ever since the late 90s).

As for studios "owning" a tone: they don't. However, one should not be deliberately obtuse about the matter. Clearly, Marvel is pursuing the action-comedt route. RDJ's take on Tony Stark is as inaccurate (though far more enjoyable) as it comes. The Avengers was rife with puns and one-liners, as was Thor (fish out of water humor). Marvel has cultivated a very specific style and tone for their brand of superhero movies.

Ever since Tim Burton's Batman, and especially after the failures of Jonah Hex and Green Lantern, Warner Bros. has opted for serious dramas; Man of Steel, The Dark Knight, Watchmen, CConstantine. Warner Bros. even put out an internal memo with an edict about banning overly comedic superhero films. So there is indeed a tonal difference in the films being made by each studio.

 

[Boy Scout]

The only approach I don't care for is the one DC has taken with the animated films. They're entertaining, I guess, but very forgettable as of late.

MOS is just an example of the grounded approach done wrong, and The Flash can be great when it really tries (though it often doesn't).

Variety is the spice of life, and I'm happy that DC seems to realize that.

 

[The Batman]

The flash isn't for everyone, just it's fans really. I enjoy it but in the same vain as Lois and Clark. I also can't imagine anyone defending how they handle the teen romance on that show yikes.
I enjoy it but me pal feel off with the Gorilla stuff. Not for everyone and hardly worth mandating across the board.

You're acting like Flash is some niche show when its been getting some good ratings recently, sometimes doing better than Arrow.

Also, who said that every show should be like The Flash?

I think lots of people want DC stuff to stay as non engaging as it's always been.

LOL, the funny thing is, if I called something like MOS non engaging without putting some kind of "IMO" in there and saying it in the same way you did here, I'm sure some moron would accuse me of trolling or acting like my opinion is fact. But since you're bashing the past to prop up the current era of "Teh serious", I guess no one will say anything.

Now that is an interesting supposition. There are posters on the Aquaman forum that have decried the DCCU look as not "looking like Aquaman" even though it is clearly based on Peter David's run with the character. These same individuals have said they wish to see the orange scalemail. I fathom that such fans posses a profound nostalgia for the campy era of DC (Batman '66, Superfriends).

Associating Aquaman's classic look with only the Superfriends is just as close minded as associating Batman's yellow oval with just the 60's TV show. They want the orange scalemail because its been the characters iconic look since the beginning, a look he had not just in camp era's, but in serious ones too.

 

[Boy Scout]

Now that is an interesting supposition. There are posters on the Aquaman forum that have decried the DCCU look as not "looking like Aquaman"...

Which I think is a fair comment. Snyder's Aquaman looks like a version of the character (and, I think, a valid one to take inspiration from), but not at all like the character that most people are familiar with.

In a lot of ways, I think the Peter David Aquaman is analogous to the Electric Superman.

JMO. YMMV.

The irony is that if WB/DC were to make action-comedies the way that Marvel does, there would be acerbic accusations of imitation. DC is damned if they do something different and damned if the follow their competition. As it were, DC films are not devoid of humor, and I am always bothered by the fact that opponents of DC's films see fit to level the charge that DC is always "dark and gritty." It seems that people conflate genre and narrative elements as beinf synonymous. Marvel makes action-comedies where as DC creates dramas. Because humor is not the focus of drama, people erroneously dismiss DC's superhero dramas as not being funny. It is all quite curious

 

[hafizbat]

I personally think all this talk of "tone" is way overrated. No one cares about the tone of a movie; they care about the overall quality. DC needs to focus on making the best possible movies, not choose a certain tone and force it on their movies.

X-Men 2. Spider-Man 2. The Dark Knight. The Avengers. Days of Future Past. Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Guardians of the freakin Galaxy.

Look at the cream of the superhero crop and tell me there's a certain tone that works while others don't. Looking at the best, you'll see they focus on the character and let the themes develop organically, while forcing a style leads to mediocre movies like MoS and The Dark World.

 

[The Batman]

^ Yeah, I don't know why studios and fans insist that each company should only stick to one kind of tone. Both the grimdark snobs and the "Why dont DC do their movies like Marvel" fanboys are annoying.

 

[Marvin]

I personally think all this talk of "tone" is way overrated. No one cares about the tone of a movie; they care about the overall quality. DC needs to focus on making the best possible movies, not choose a certain tone and force it on their movies.

X-Men 2. Spider-Man 2. The Dark Knight. The Avengers. Days of Future Past. Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Guardians of the freakin Galaxy.

Look at the cream of the superhero crop and tell me there's a certain tone that works while others don't. Looking at the best, you'll see they focus on the character and let the themes develop organically, while forcing a style leads to mediocre movies like MoS and The Dark World.

No one is actually concerned with what 'works', if they were they would probably look at box office numbers. Instead they mostly care about what they 'think' works or rather works for them and theirs if you will. A successful movie may or may not work depending on what fan boy a deems 'works'. That's what I see anyways.

As for who cares about the tone discussion. The people that never shut about about it seem to. Starting with mr. Oswalt apparently.

 

[Marvin]

You're acting like Flash is some niche show when its been getting some good ratings recently, sometimes doing better than Arrow.

Also, who said that every show should be like The Flash?

I'm acting like the flash is a what now? I pointed out what I see a flaws, never said two words about how it's been doing. When I hear things like it's the best super hero show on TV right now, I feel the need to mention it's not for everyone, like most things. As for how good it's actually doing, not every show can get a co sign from another hit show, I mean I know that's kinda how marvel does most things but it's still worth pointing out when it happens. I wouldn't be surprised if it's running in stride with Arrow ratings. Especially when one considers the Network it's on and which show seems like the more natural fit(in own opinions of course).

As for who said that every show should follow in flash' example. I don't know lot's of people on the internet. However I never said anyone said that, I simply pointed out the obvious, that it's not worth doing that.

LOL, the funny thing is, if I called something like MOS non engaging without putting some kind of "IMO" in there and saying it in the same way you did here, I'm sure some moron would accuse me of trolling or acting like my opinion is fact. But since you're bashing the past to prop up the current era of "Teh serious", I guess no one will say anything.

Give it a shot and see how that goes...Or just do that assuming commentary you are known for doing(by me, and no thanks to your sig). I try to give your commentary the benefit of the doubt usually, but every now and then we find our self in this territory. Presumptuous waters if you will.

On the actual point. I've noticed that Aquaman more than alot of other current heroes comes with giant bag of mockery, whether it be Entourage or commentary in his own current book, however self aware. Now in alluding to the presence of that fact and also that of book sales is hardly bashing to prop up 'teh' anything. It's pointing out that there is an unappealing history that comes with the property when taken a certain way. Never said that thing didn't have it's fans. I'm sure corny dub jackie chan actioners have a plethora of die hard fans a well, doesn't mean he should pursue what he does now in the name of appeal vs Rumble in the Bronx. I just hope these fans would prove to DC how much they love this stuff they keep championing, sadly, many are self admitted marvel zombies(see Jeff Canata) so it's kinda moot.

 

[The Batman]

I'm acting like the flash is a what now? I pointed out what I see a flaws, never said two words about how it's been doing. When I hear things like it's the best super hero show on TV right now, I feel the need to mention it's not for everyone, like most things.

Oh, Ok. When you say "The Flash isn't for everyone, just its fans", it can come off a certain way.

Give it a shot and see how that goes...Or just do that assuming commentary you are known for doing(by me, and no thanks to your sig). I try to give your commentary the benefit of the doubt usually, but every now and then we find our self in this territory. Presumptuous waters if you will.

No offense, but as a poster, clarity is not your strongest suit. To be fair, I and a lot of posters don't always get our point across clearly, but with you, lack of clarity seems to be a recurring theme, at least from my perspective. So, if I'm wading through "presumptuous waters", there's a pretty good reason why as far as I'm concerned.

As for my sig, I find it a pretty accurate view of how the B V S forum can be. If the sig doesn't actually apply to you, there's no reason to worry about it.

On the actual point. I've noticed that Aquaman more than alot of other current heroes comes with giant bag of mockery, whether it be Entourage or commentary in his own current book, however self aware. Now in alluding to the presence of that fact and also that of book sales is hardly bashing to prop up 'teh' anything. It's pointing out that there is an unappealing history that comes with the property when taken a certain way. Never said that thing didn't have it's fans.

Saying something like "Fans want DC to be unengaging like it has been in the past", then listing classic versions of characters as examples can, to use the phrase again, come off a certain way. Also, I don't see anyone who wants a corny version of Aquaman, just for AQ to wear his more iconic outfit.

 

[Arach Knight]

1) Aquaman's look is a source of derision and mockery. Even in his own current solo book, his look, power set and origin are a constant source of "humor", which suggests that even DC's writers are aware of the association if Aquaman's look with campy imagery. Just because I am unafraid of pointing out that fact doesn't mean that I am being close minded. Why do you think Peter David abandoned the classic costume? PAD has gone on record on his own site, stating thay he set out to prove that Aquaman was a hero that deserved the same kind of esteem given to Superman and Batman. Notice that I never gave my opinion on the suit, but rather addressed a well established association.

2) I never made an argument about any tone being better, my personal preference or even insinuate that audiences are seeking to critically analyze tone. However, a common complaint about the Man of Steel was with the dark/serious tone, and this includes professional critics. However, I pointedly remark that people conflate film style with other elements (particularly the approach to humor). In other words, I recognize that DC movies can be epic and mythic and still have humor.

 

[The Batman]

1) Aquaman's look is a source of derision and mockery. Even in his own current solo book, his look, power set and origin are a constant source of "humor", which suggests that even DC's writers are aware of the association if Aquaman's look with campy imagery. Just because I am unafraid of pointing out that fact doesn't mean that I am being close minded. Why do you think Peter David abandoned the classic costume? PAD has gone on record on his own site, stating thay he set out to prove that Aquaman was a hero that deserved the same kind of esteem given to Superman and Batman. Notice that I never gave my opinion on the suit, but rather addressed a well established association.

People did a lot of drastic things in the 90's to make certain superhero's look "kewl", and there's a reason why, comic book wise, that 90s Aquaman look will stay in the 90's/Early 00's. IMO, the only reason they're using that look for Momoa is because it fits him better than the classic look. Notice that, even with DC using AQ's rep as a source of humor in his books, they're still generally using the classic look.

 

[Arach Knight]

People did a lot of drastic things in the 90's to make certain superhero's look "kewl", and there's a reason why, comic book wise, that 90s Aquaman look will stay in the 90's/Early 00's. IMO, the only reason they're using that look for Momoa is because it fits him better than the classic look. Notice that, even with DC using AQ's rep as a source of humor in his books, they're still generally using the classic look.

That is not entirely true. During the Throne of Atlantis lead-up, there was an Aquaman and the Others backstory which featured a shirtless Arthur that very much recalls the PAD era, just sans-beard.

Geoff Johns Aquaman [Others Costume]

Peter David Aquaman [Armor Costume]

So that look isn't necessarily going to "stay" in the 90s. It is one of Aquaman's looks, just like Spider-Man and web-wings, or Wonder Woman and swimsuits. Anyway, I don't have any personal grievance with the orange scalemail. But from a marketing standpoint, objectively speaking, we know that the public at large still associates Aquaman with the Superfriends, the general audience considers the orange and green look to be ridiculous, and the fact that even modern comics give acknowledgement to how little approval people have for the orange and green look, there is no point in becoming defensive over one's nostalgia when that has no bearing on actual public perception.

Doesn't mean we can't see some toned down version of the orange scalemail. Doesn't mean someone shouldn't be brave in the future and given Aquaman that look in some later adaptation of the character. But for now, we have the PAD look, the PAD look still pops up in the comics, and it is just as representative of Aquaman.

Honestly, the PAD look will give the character more give with audiences that would otherwise dismiss Aquaman as that "useless" guy who can "talk to fish." And that is what I believe Marvin was attempting to commnicate. Some fans would rather Aquaman retain an unpopular look for the sake of their nostalgia than see Warner Bros. make a change that could widen the character's appeal.

 

[The Batman]

That is not entirely true. During the Throne of Atlantis lead-up, there was an Aquaman and the Others backstory which featured a shirtless Arthur that very much recalls the PAD era, just sans-beard.

Funny, cause to me his "Others" out looks more like a shirtless version of the modernized classic look than it does a non bearded version of the PAD era.

So that look isn't necessarily going to "stay" in the 90s.

And I disagree, as its not in the comics now. At best, his "Others" look its own thing, not somethng that harkens back to PAD.

Doesn't mean we can't see some toned down version of the orange scalemail. Doesn't mean someone shouldn't be brave in the future and given Aquaman that look in some later adaptation of the character.

Of course, we could've gotten these things now and been all right. Any costume designer worth his/her salt could find a way to make the classic AM outfit look credible on film.

Honestly, the PAD look will give the character more give with audiences that would otherwise dismiss Aquaman as that "useless" guy who can "talk to fish." And that is what I believe Marvin was attempting to commnicate. Some fans would rather Aquaman retain an unpopular look for the sake of their nostalgia than see Warner Bros. make a change that could widen the character's appeal.

By your definition, its not a change. They just decided to base his look off the 90's than off the look he's had for most of his existence.

 

[Arach Knight]

Funny, cause to me his "Others" out looks more like a shirtless version of the modernized classic look than it does a non bearded version of the PAD era. And I disagree, as its not in the comics now. At best, his "Others" look its own thing, not somethng that harkens back to PAD.


Of course, we could've gotten these things now and been all right. Any costume designer worth his/her salt could find a way to make the classic AM outfit look credible on film.


By your definition, its not a change. They just decided to base his look off the 90's than off the look he's had for most of his existence.

1) I could grant you the concession of your own opinion, but you seem to be purposefully acting in an obtuse manner. The PAD look featured the "two-tone" pant look, and we see that replicated in the "Others" costume. Aquaman's traditional pants are all green, not two-tone. So at best, the look is inbetween, but it certainly isn't his traditional look, sans-pants. As it were, The "Others" costume appeared in the first 12 issues of Aquaman's current run. That isn't all that long ago, and would honestly count as "current." I don't know if the look has appeared in later issues, because I only read the first 20 or so issues of New 52 Aquaman.

2) I have no disagreement with this notion. Someone could have made a toned down version of the suit, similar to how the Robin suit was toned down in Batman Forever. So we are in agreement on that note. Then again, I am a comic book geek/nerd, so that I agree with you is not a sound reflection of how the general audience would perceive the look.

3) It is still a change, because they are going with a different look. Change has many definitions, including "to take and use another" in place of something. So, I am not sure what you hoped to gain out of that statement about semantics.

 

[The Batman]

1) I could grant you the concession of your own opinion, but you seem to be purposefully acting in an obtuse manner.

Not really, its just that the Others outfit isn't as PAD inspired as you initially claimed

It is still a change, because they are going with a different look. Change has many definitions, including "to take and use another" in place of something. So, I am not sure what you hoped to gain out of that statement about semantics.

An actual change would be an outfit we've never seen in Aquaman mythology. This movie outfit is essentially the PAD outfit without the hook.

 

[Arach Knight]

Not really, its just that the Others outfit isn't as PAD inspired as you initially claimed



An actual change would be an outfit we've never seen in Aquaman mythology. This movie outfit is essentially the PAD outfit without the hook.

1) The pants don't match the original outfit. The two-tone style is a PAD hallmark for the character, as is the lack of a shirt.

2) There is no such thing as "actual change." Something is either a change or it is not a change. The only degree of difference is how much of a change, but not the idea that something is not "actual" change. On that note, I do agree that it would have been a more dynamic change to go with an all-new look, but that would not be necessary. Aquaman needs to be recognizable. Thanks to PAD and to Justice League Unlimited, the shirtless look is recognizable.

 

[The Batman]

1) The pants don't match the original outfit. The two-tone style is a PAD hallmark for the character, as is the lack of a shirt.

As you can see, the pants, apart from the gold on the sides, very much resemble the green pants on his clasic outfit. No to mention the clean shaven look associated with the classic design, as well as the necklace he wore with the orange chainmail in Geoff's first JL arc. Also, PAD didn't go completely topless like the Others outfit does. But if you wanna believe that outfit is more PAD inspired than anything, go ahead.

2) There is no such thing as "actual change." Something is either a change or it is not a change.

And you say I'm the one arguing semantics.

 

[Arach Knight]

As you can see, the pants, apart from the gold on the sides, very much resemble the green pants on his clasic outfit. No to mention the clean shaven look associated with the classic design, as well as the necklace he wore with the orange chainmail in Geoff's first JL arc. Also, PAD didn't go completely topless like the Others outfit does. But if you wanna believe that outfit is more PAD inspired than anything, go ahead.

I already said earlier that at best, the "Others" looks is somewhere between classic and PAD. That was literally an hour ago. So I don't deny the influence of the classic look, but I would not dismiss the PAD influence.

I am not arguing semantics or being a pedant. Either something has changed, has not changed or is in the process of changing. But the idea of "actual change" supposes that there must be some other state of change that is still change yet somehow not change. That is in itself an oxymoron, inherently making the logic fallacious. I don't mean to make a huge fuss about it, but the statement is simply silly. But I do not mean that to be a commentary on you or to even make it a staple of my argument.

I am honestly more concerned with communicating the fact that the PAD look is a valid look, its influence remains (as evinced by the current era of Aquaman and the Other's costume, as well as the Justice League Unlimited appearance of the PAD look) and that there are those whom are slavishly devoted to "accuracy" even if accuracy would hurt the long term benefit of a character's appearance in film, or ironically denounce interpretations that are inspired by the source material, as being invalid, simply because it is not a part of the source material that they enjoy.

 

[The Batman]

I am not arguing semantics or being a pedant

Yeah, you pretty much are, actually. You obviously disagree with that however.

 

[Arach Knight]

Yeah, you pretty much are, actually. You obviously disagree with that however.

When your argument amounts to "change isn't a change, even when it is a change," then pointing out the weakness of such an argument is not being a pedant: I was offering a rebuttal and explaining the problem. As I said before, I don't disagree with you in so far as noting that the change is minor, but to say that a change isn't "actual change" (whatever such a nebulous statement would mean), then yeah, I'm going to call that argument out.

 

[The Batman]

then yeah, I'm going to call that argument out.

And be pedantic whilst doing so. *shrugs*