Hayden Christensen Interview • January 29 2005

[Zaius]

Are there any differences between your Vader and Prowse's?

Physically, because it's a brand new Vader suit, I think it's a little more symmetrical. My Vader is also a little more rigid - obviously he's brand new to the suit, so he's still getting acclimatised. There's a sense that he's finding his new skin, and not quite as comfortable with walking. Which was very important for me because - on stilts and with a twenty pound costume - I wasn't very graceful.'



http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,14931-1460597_1,00.html

and

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,14931-1460616,00.html

[Bandersnatch]

'Are there any differences between your Vader and Prowse's?

And how would one define "Prowse's Vader?"

The interviewer might as well have asked, "Are there any differences between your Vader and James Earl Jones's?"

Or "...one of the other stunt guys who wore the suit 25 years ago?..."

[Zeal]

This leads me to believe Vader will have more screen time than we previously thought.

[Wrath Mania]

Well, did it look like he was aware he was being filmed in the ROTJ ending scene ?

[PTGrievous]

Saw this yesterday, this part stuck out the most for me...

But you've since been inserted, in place of Shaw, at the end of the Return of the Jedi DVD.

I got a real kick out of that. They told me, "By the way, you're in Return of the Jedi and sent me a copy and there I was! It was neat - there I am next to Alec Guinness and Yoda.

So they didn't film anything specific for ROTJ...
How sloppy...
No wonder it looked weird.

[foxbatkllr]

Certainly for McDiarmid, the templates are classical — “biblical, Shakespearean, Wagnerian, even”. But, while the optimistic Star Wars found success by jarring with the despondent, post-Watergate mood of the late 1970s, Episode III is, he believes, in tune with the state of Bush’s America. “George (Lucas, that is) would never push this, and he’d be mad to, but at this point in the saga, the republic becomes an empire. I don ’t need to say any more than that.”

What will these idiots say when Bush steps down peacefully in 2008?

[foxbatkllr]

I doubt McDiarmid is an idiot.
I doubt he meant it THAT literally.
And I doubt that Bush WOULD step down if he didn't have to.

Well he may be a great actor, but many people are total idiots when it comes to American politics, especially those who aren't even American. And no, Bush probably wouldn't step down if he didn't have to...but Clinton wouldn't have either...

[CoGro]

speaking of american politics...


Episode 3!

[Wrath Mania]

I think McDiarmid was referring more to Lucas's politics then he was his own.

Let's not turn this into a political debate, though, I will say before leaving: would any president give up their seat if they didn't have to? That's not the point of the analogy McDiarmid was making.

[foxbatkllr]

I agree this is not a thread for political debate.

[Wrath Mania]

I agree that wasn't the point of McDiarmid's quote, but:

would any president give up their seat if they didn't have to?

Only every president who never sought re-election

Ah, fair enough. Of course, that's a small number of presidents. And some like Roosevelt regretted it afterwards.

[Revan_DeGarmo]

After reading Labyrinth of Evil, I have really begun to see the paralells between the decline of the Republic and the current state of the US. In the book, Palpatine even talks of the Homeworld Security Act. Someone more talented than myself should make a Bush in Palpatine Robes photo, very fitting.
Revan

[kerouac777]

Not just Bush. This is how democracies become dictatorships.

edit:

Well, sans all the lightsabers and what have you.

[FightingWithClay]

Certainly for McDiarmid, the templates are classical — “biblical, Shakespearean, Wagnerian, even”. But, while the optimistic Star Wars found success by jarring with the despondent, post-Watergate mood of the late 1970s, Episode III is, he believes, in tune with the state of Bush’s America. “George (Lucas, that is) would never push this, and he’d be mad to, but at this point in the saga, the republic becomes an empire. I don ’t need to say any more than that.”

What will these idiots say when Bush steps down peacefully in 2008?

But according to Michael Moore, he didn't legitimately win in 2000.

"You see, I wasn't actually elected in 2000, so I am going to run again in 2008."

[FightingWithClay]

Well, I heard it in Stupid White Men beforehand. That was just the first person I could think of.

[foxbatkllr]

I make it a point not to listen to anyone fat enough that they could eat me.

[foxbatkllr]

But according to my delusional reality, he didn't legitimately win in 2000.

Fixed it for you.

[VT-16]

But according to reality, his eight year-long buttfuckery of America began with him winning in 2000.

[foxbatkllr]

But according to reality, his eight year-long revival of America began with him winning in 2000.

[Insert Username]

Ian McDiarmid certainly saw a parallel there and he plays the fucking Emperor, I know it must sting a little but there it is in print.

I love how the best defence is a good offence to Bush supporters. Mike Moore says Bush didn't win the 2000 election but fuck him, he's fat. And Ian McDiarmid see's a parallel between Bush's America and Palpatine's Empire but fuck him, he's not even an American.

It's tragic.

[Ziggy]

Just like with Clinton, I'll be glad when Bush is out of office so these inane diatribes can stop.

Hopefully, the next american president will ellicit less whining from the losing party.

[Sketch]

Actors should stick to acting because nobody gives a shit about their political views.

A-Fucking-Men to that!

I don't care if they are spouting my exact views, some monkey that gets paid millions for reading some lines aloud is NOT an authority on EVERYTHING like most of them seem to think...

I can't wait for digital actors to replace the whiney clusterfucks we have to put up with for film today...

[foxbatkllr]

Ian McDiarmid certainly saw a parallel there and he plays the fucking Emperor, I know it must sting a little but there it is in print.

I love how the best defence is a good offence to Bush supporters. Mike Moore says Bush didn't win the 2000 election but fuck him, he's fat. And Ian McDiarmid see's a parallel between Bush's America and Palpatine's Empire but fuck him, he's not even an American.

It's tragic.

You know what? I have a BA in Political Science. Do you know what it's worth in these arguments? JACK SHIT. That's because no matter how intelligent and logical of an argument I make, it still won't change anyone's mind. I just plain gave up trying, because it takes too much time and its not worth it.

Bush won the 2000 election, fair and square. Al Gore took it to court and lost, then conceded. It's over, it was 5 years ago now get over it. Democrats like to scream "fraud" frequently, but they never seem to acknowledge the fraud that happens in their own party. The tire slashing, the registering of fraudulent voters, and paying people to vote are all common offenses committed by Democrats. You know what? Both sides are guilty of fraud, but the Democrats are the only ones being hypocritical about it. It's just like their claims to free speech, where their motto seems to be "Free speech for us, censor the opponents!" It was very funny seeing Kerry get smashed by Bush in 2004. No amount of claims of fraud can make up for that bitch slapping.

Obviously I'll get some responses like "I'm not a democrat, I'm an indepedent so don't lump me in with them, etc..." Well how's it feel to be irrelevant? And if you're a foreigner you are no more qualified to talk about American politics than I am to talk about politics in Finland.

I tried to stop...I said this was the wrong thread for this kind of discussion...but noooooo people couldn't let it die. Well this is what you get.

[MKUltra]

Actually, actors and politicians have a lot in common. Both professions center around convincing your audience that you are someone else.

[Obi]

I wonder if that bit in LOE about the Homeworld Security Act /Patriot Act Garbage came from Lucas or Luceno. But you know what, Star Wars has nothing to do with Politics. No, Darth Vader is not Karl Rove, Mon Mothma not Hilllary etc et. al. Democrats are still sulking over the election, yeah I am a republican so what. But who the fuck cares! Anybody who tries to politicize SW is an idiot. George is not Michael Moore. Its just a movie. Its not real life. Cuz if it was I would definetly beat the crap out of Jar Jar.

[Obi]

SW > Earth

[nomad]

And if you're a foreigner you are no more qualified to talk about American politics than I am to talk about politics in Finland.

im not sure how someones demographic has anything to do with their qualifications... ie an australian that studies americas politics will be a great deal more qualified than an american who thinks he knows everything and gets his political know how from the fox news network.

[nomad]

rofl - john howard is more like r2d2 and besides.. george w bush seems more like a puppet than a puppet master.

[Ethril]

I don't wanna derail the conversation anymore.. but, totally within the context of a Star Wars conversation I would say that if you don't see the parallels between what Palpatine does with his fake wars and rise to power in AotC and what Bush did with his fake wars and rise to power, then you haven't been paying much attention to American politics OR to Star Wars. Yeah, it does have broader applications to what happens to all democracies, but stabs like the Nemoidians names are just pretty flippin' obvious, and whether you personally agree that that's what is happening in America right now or not, it's pretty obvious what Lucas' opinion on the subject is. So, to call Ian an idiot for stating the OBVIOUS about Lucas' personal politics is just.. well.. pretty idiotic.

[Ethril]

Then I guess Lucas isn't too bright according to you.. all I was saying was that his opinion on it is pretty clear.. I didn't state my own.

[CoGro]

Lucas refers to the Empire as 'the nazis'

TPM was written and released before George W. Bush contended in the primaries. AOTC was being written and produced before Bush was elected and far before the war in Iraq or any accusations on Bush's government came to being. The story arc that the Republic would die in the wake of Palpatine who would create an Empire existed when Clinton was re-elected.

To think that the prequels more closely resemble the Bush government than Hitler's Germany is idiocy. You have no facts to argue your case (like most liberals) sans an interview with Ian McDiarmid who simply pointed out similarities that could be applied to a number of governments in our world's history.

Moreover, his stab at Ronald Reagan was for personal reasons moreso than political, for using the name 'Star Wars' for his satelite missle defense system. Lucas tried to sue him for copywright infringement and lost.
smarten up.

[Jackie Estacado]

Nicely put CoGro.

[Obi]

Yeah. That's it. Most liberals are completely uneducated and move completely off hearsay.

Oh..wait..we're currently in the middle of a war fueled COMPLETELY BY HEARSAY.

The same intelligence that Bush used was the same intelligence that Clinton used to make statements about Iraq(wmd, hussein) that are eerily alike. Don't forget even John "JFK II" Kerry said the very same fucking thing in 1998. Heresay works both ways.

Cogro's right, all the MAJOR PLOT ELEMENTS were predetermined before 2000. Republic Corrupting, abuse of power, etc. The only "Tangy Garnish" that you can say was added after 2000 would be any mention of the Homeworld security act or whatever the fuck its called, and we don't even know thats in the movie. So far the only place I've seen it in is LOE. I havent read the comics so I don't know if thats in there. But right now I don't think thats enuf evidence for you to say that Lucas is commentating on Bush.

BTW this political stuff/topic reeks of the old Lucas is racist against African Americans garbage.

[Obi]

The statements about Iraq were in response to several violations of the Nofly zones, and fire directed at US warplanes while in flight. And Clinton did order missile strikes and such. ANd don't forget the gassing and mass executions of SHiites and Kurds. Thats probably why there so pissed at us, cuz we didn't help them earlier.

We didnt' cut short any attack on Afghanistan, we continued it. We are still there, conducting ops and peacekeeping. Now, as to the whole 9/11 thing I have to agree with you on one point. Iraq was not the source. However, I believe we were correct in going after Hussein because IMO he would have used the example of 9/11 to do something worse. I don't have any proof of course, but thats my opinion. Hussein needed to be removed, but I fault Bush in giving other BS reasons why. Oh and btw there were WMD's. There in Syria now. :wink

WHat Tasty Garnishes are you talking about newayz? Lets have some examples please, post 2000.

Actually the racist stuff I was referring to was in the Original Trilogy, not Jar Jar.

Clinton was too busy banging Monica to do anything else btw.
And if the Democrats hadn't stopped Bush Sr in 1990 we wouldn't be having this discussion. I would have to say somebody learned from someone elses mistakes.

Again i have to reiterate this is SW, just a movie!

[Palpy]

After reading Labyrinth of Evil, I have really begun to see the paralells between the decline of the Republic and the current state of the US.

Yeah but that was more to do with Luceno's political agenda that he wanted to get across more than a George thing.

[BearaceDougie]

M. Perror Palpy your avatar is from an advert right? linkage?

also ive yet to read LoE, lack of release in WA

[capnkoons]

And if the Democrats hadn't stopped Bush Sr in 1990 we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Come again? I have to say something, because that is pure fiction. The publicly-stated rationale behind not toppling Baghdad in 1991 was that the purpose of the war had been strictly to expel the invaders from Kuwait, and that mission had been accomplished. The real reasons, as numerous members of that administration have attested, were that (1) taking out Hussein and his machine would have created a power vacuum and an impossibly dangerous situation for the U.S. to manage (sounds familiar...), and that (2) whatever political stability that might have eventually emerged in a Saddam-less Iraq would inevitably be Shi'a-dominated, and, thus (the fear was) essentially a satellite of Tehran.

This latter point is better understood in light of the fact that the previous decade of American policy in the region had been more or less singularly focused on containing Iran and the threat of a pan-Islamic fundamentalist movement. So singularly focused, in fact, that the Reagan administration was more than willing to:

forget the gassing and mass executions of SHiites and Kurds

and continue supporting Hussein as a counterweight to Tehran, to the point where he presumed he could throw his weight around the region any way he wanted without American interference, since they "needed" him (he miscalculated, obviously).

Again i have to reiterate this is SW, just a movie!

Just to bring this post somewhat back on topic, Lucas has often spoken of how in SW he uses the genre of science fiction/fantasy as an allegorical tool--to express his thoughts about the real world in a manner that isn't as controversial or inflammatory as bluntly stating his opinions on social or political issues (and he generally does a good job of keeping his concrete opinions on most such things to himself). But just because they're couched in the trappings of laser guns and lightsabres does not mean that the political ideas aren't there. The Nazi thing is obvious, and the Vietnam allegory has been talked about at length, and I'd hazard to guess that--even if he didn't have it specifically in mind as he was writing these episodes--Lucas would probably see at least some parallels between the story of Palpatine's rise and the current American poltical climate--where crises occur, and politicians use them to play on and stoke people's resulting fears, in order to gain support for the expansion of military and executive power (at the expense of individual liberty).

Whether we (or Lucas himself) agree on that point or not, I still think it's a legitimate topic of discussion (though perhaps not in an Ep. III spoiler forum).

[Fields]

I am astounded by how many people still fail to grasp Iraq in the greater context of the War on Terror. Here's how fits.

After 9/11, American foreign policy adopted the Bush Doctrine. It says that not only must America use its political, economic, and military power to disrupt and destroy terrorist networks, but also state sponsors of terrorism. State sponsors of terrorism are just as dangerous as the networks themselves. They can provide land for training grounds (Afghanistan), economic support (Sadaam Hussein paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers), and possibly even WMDs. It is important to make the world understand that America and the West will not tolerate such behavior from any nation. Unfortunately, it is practically impossible to completely annihilate an underground terrorist network like Al Qaeda. It's just the nature of the beast. But if we can discourage other nations from supporting them, we can greatly reduce their ability to carry out their attacks.

Afghanistan's role as a state sponsor of terrorism was clear. The Taliban government was providing safe haven for Al Qaeda.

Iraq was not so clear. First, I readily admit that Sadaam Hussein was not directly involved with 9/11. Al Qaeda envoys were sent to meet with his government, but there is no proof that he had any advance knowledge or contributed to Al Qaeda in anyway. With that said, the War on Terror is more than just Al Qaeda, but state sponsors of terror as well. We must deal with potential threats before they materialize.

Sadaam Hussein has been an open enemy of the United States since the Gulf War. He shot at our planes in the no-fly zones. He tried to assassinate former President Bush in Kuwait. He refused to fully comply with UN Weapon Inspectors and disclose his WMD programs. During the 1990s, this was clear to everyone. Republicans and Democrats both said that Sadaam was a threat. Clinton bombed Iraq multiple times throughout his presidency. His foreign policy in respect to Iraq was regime change. The United Nations viewed him the same way and passed numerous resolutions demanding him to change his ways and follow the will of the world.

Consider President Bush's position after 9/11 and the Afganistan military campaign. The Taliban had been disbanded and many Al Qaeda leaders had been eliminated. However, Al Qaeda was still a threat. It would only take one terrorist cell to acquire a WMD and they could hit us again even harder then they did on 9/11. Bush looked at who the possible threats were and described them as the "Axis of Evil" in the 2002 State of the Union - Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.

Sadaam Hussein, a declared enemy of the US, had used WMD in the past on his own people. He paid tens of thousands of dollars to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. He refused to disclose the nature of his WMD programs. He was clearly a threat. All he needed to do was put one WMD in the hands of an Al Qaeda and you know what could have happened.

What should Bush have done? Should he have sat back and waited for the military to track down and capture Osama bin Laden, as if that would suddenly end the terrorist threat? Should he have hoped that Sadaam Hussein would not have acted in accordance with his past behavior? Of course not. Imagine what you Bush haters would be saying now if Bush did nothing and Sadaam did slip Al Qaeda a WMD which they used to carry out a second 9/11. You would hate him even more than you do now. It doesn't matter that we now know Sadaam did not have WMDs (although that's also debatable). After 9/11, the entire world believed he did and that risk was not one Bush was willing to take.

Bush saw a threat in Sadaam Hussein and decide to act proactively, rather than reactively, as Clinton did. But he didn't rush to war. He first went to the United Nations, and the Security Council passed 1441, its 19th resolution calling on Sadaam Hussein to disarm his WMDs or face serious consequences. However, like always, Sadaam was defiant. He refused to comply with the will of the world. Its important to note that if he didn't have WMDs, why didn't he let the inspectors in and prove it?

So Bush was faced with another choice - should he continue the process in the UN and pass more resolutions which would ultimately accomplish nothing (and we know that they would have done nothing given that key members of the Security Council were being bribed by Sadaam in the Oil-for-Food scandal to bog down the process) or should he finally make Sadaam face serious consequences, as was warned in 1441? If the world is going to effectively fight terrorism and its state sponsors, our word must be credible. Otherwise, people like Sadaam Hussein will continue to defy us.

Bush made the choice to use military force to unseat Sadaam Hussein and disarm him of any WMDs. Did the war go exactly as planned? Absolutely not. Many mistakes were made, but that does not mean that the war was not worth it. Sadaam and his sons are out of power, and the Iraqi people are on their way to self-government, which leads to the second piece of the Bush Doctrine.

In order to ultimately solve the terrorist problem, we have to look at why there are people in the Middle East who are willing to resort to terrorism. Poverty, inequality, and oppressive governments are all serious problems in that region. Has past American foreign policy helped contribute to this? Absolutely, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to now be part of the solution. President Bush believes that if we can bring democracy to the Middle East and give control back to people, they will be less likely to resort to suicide attacks to kill innocent civilians. Peaceful democracies do not resort to terrorism. People with something to live for don't give up their lives for hatred. And as the elections in Afghanistan and Iraq have shown us, the people there want to be free and have control over their lives. The Iraqi insurgency is still a security problem, but over time the Iraqis will have the training necessary to fight their own battles. If the terrorists truly had mass appeal to the Iraqis, they would have run in the election. They are fringe radicals and they cannot defeat the Iraqi people's yearning to be free.

As idealistic as it might sound, democracy in the Middle East could ultimately lead to victory in the War on Terror. It will take decades to accomplish, but if you remember, America didn't become what it is today overnight. After WWII, many of the same publications that bitch and moan about Iraq today were saying the same things about newborn democracies in Europe and Japan. But those democracies ultimately prevailed and played a major role in ending the Cold War. There will ups and downs in the process. Iran and North Korea are still problems. Africa is a mess, as are other parts of the world. But if we stay on the track that Bush has set, the world will ultimately become a better place.

[Fields]

Peaceful democracies do not resort to terrorism.

Yeah, right. Pick up a history book.

Really? And which terrorist organizations acting today come from peaceful democracies?

Can individual terrorists come from free countries like America? Sure, Oklahoma City is a clear example of that. But major terrorist organizations similar to Al Qaeda or PLO? Give me a break.

[nomad]

and all this went on during hayden christensen interview ?!?!?!?!.

[Fields]

Oh sure, bush targeted in on Iraq in 2002. Not beforehand, when he was coming into office. Or didn't you hear about how he had plans for Iraq from the start - before 9/11? As for Iran, well, that remains to be seen. North Korea waved their nuclear program like a flag for the world to see, but we did nothing. Hm.

Clinton's policy towards Iraq during his administration was regime change. That policy continued over into the Bush administration.

...To his own people and to Israelis. I'm not saying violent behavior can't transcend, but the precedents here are all very local for Saddam. The 'threat to the US' thing is a bit of a leap.

He shot down our planes in the no-fly zones. He tried to assassinate former President Bush. We took military action against him numerous times throughout the 1990s. He was a declared enemy of the United States. All it takes is one WMD slipping into the hands of the terrorists. Is that a risk you would like Bush to take?

It DOES matter. bush rushed in. I think 'the entire world' is an exaggeration, but yes, many did believe it. Did they verify it? Did they prove it? No. The US rushed in and made a huge mess. And for what? "Spreading Democracy?" Excuses, excuses. It's a nice outcome, if it works, but that was not the original intent.

Bullshit. Bush did not rush in. How many resolutions does it take before the world decides to open their eyes and realize that Sadaam knew that these resolutions were nothing but empty threats? That he could continue to defy the world and face no consequences?

It was clear in the Security Council at the time that 1441 was the last step before direct action. And if you think that the United Nations is the forum for solving problems in the world, you have got to be kidding. Sadaam was bribing member nations of the Security Council in the amount of $22 billion during the Oil-for-Food scandal to bog down the inspection process. The problem was not going to be solved diplomatically. If Sadaam didn't have WMDs, why didn't he comply with the inspectors? Let them in, search the country, and leave? Our intelligence, as well as Britain's and Russia's, at that time indicated that he did indeed have WMDs. His behavior was consistent with someone who was trying to hide something. As of right now, that intelligence appears to be incorrect. Sadaam could have destroyed them before the invasion or hidden them in other countries like Syria. But that's a topic for another discussion. When it comes down to it, WMD was the primary selling point to the rest of the world. It's unfortunate that it has turned out the way it did. But the Iraq War was ultimately about dismantling a state sponsor of terrorism and launching a democracy in the heart of the Middle East.

I'd call going to war without all the facts and without an effective post-victory plan rushing. But maybe that's just me. Language can be so subjective sometimes.

Sorry I forgot. In every previous American military campaign, we had all the facts and a perfect plan which never needed to be deviated from. Our military planners knew exactly what was going to happen and they made no mistakes. But if they would have made a few mistakes, the entire military action wouldn't have been worth it.

[stan Marsh]

bro he did let inspectors in, they found nothing and Bush still said he was hiding WMD's. If your gonna put this bullshit in this forum and least don't re write history

[Fields]

Did you honestly believe at that time that he had nothing?

BTW - this discussion is extremely off topic. Can a mod move this over to General Discussion?

[Faid]

I make it a point not to listen to anyone fat enough that they could eat me.

Michael Moore is fat? BWAHAHAHA that's hilarious! Keep em coming "foxbatkllr"!

[Ethril]

Then I guess Lucas isn't too bright according to you.. all I was saying was that his opinion on it is pretty clear.. I didn't state my own.

If Lucas said it...it's got to be true.

Um.. yep.. that's exactly what I said...

Lucas refers to the Empire as 'the nazis'

To think that the prequels more closely resemble the Bush government than Hitler's Germany is idiocy. You have no facts to argue your case (like most liberals) sans an interview with Ian McDiarmid who simply pointed out similarities that could be applied to a number of governments in our world's history.

Moreover, his stab at Ronald Reagan was for personal reasons moreso than political, for using the name 'Star Wars' for his satelite missle defense system. Lucas tried to sue him for copywright infringement and lost.
smarten up.

You read real careful-like too. I didn't say it resembles Bush MORE.. I said it could resemble both... Also, Lott, Dodd, and Newt were all involved in the Star Wars thing, huh?

[VT-16]

*Shakes hand in a masturbation manner*

Think i'm actually reading all that crap?

Nice to see someone´s filling the "Dumb American"-quota on this board.

[BobTheGoon]

Peaceful democracies do not resort to terrorism.

Yeah, right. Pick up a history book.

Really? And which terrorist organizations acting today come from peaceful democracies?

Can individual terrorists come from free countries like America? Sure, Oklahoma City is a clear example of that. But major terrorist organizations similar to Al Qaeda or PLO? Give me a break.

Better ask Iran that. Their current fucked up situation is the direct result of what could easily be considered the actions of an organized American terrorist group.

[nomad]

michael moore fan-atic-s are as blind and one sided as any other group basing there entire point of view on one individuals extremist perception of world events... sadam got what he deserved regardless of who delt out the justice or how justified the initial entry into iraq was... spend some time and investigate sadams past actions and you will understand.

i like star wars too jimdangle.

[Faid]

this thread is approaching JC stupidity

[Jason@Star-Wars.net]

"Flowers for Algernon." It's a good thing I wasn't drinking milk! Fucking Charlie...