Well, if you read Jamie's blog, you're going to know we watched the Olympic opening ceremonies, as well as an hour of Animal Planet's Puppy Games.
So we're in neck deep now. Woke up this morning to Dressage (or horsey dancing, as we call it). Then watched the Americans slightly beat Japan in 3 of four sets in Women's Volleyball. Japan was really good, and I don't understand how the US managed to pull it out in the three sets. Plus, seeing really tall Japanese women is sort of interesting.
The American women swept Sabre. Which is awesome (yes, I got a little misty when they showed the three medal winners together). We also watched a Chinese girl (I'd say woman, but she was really young) lift 250+ pounds clean over her head for a world record. That was... insane. Kudos to her.
Anyway, we're now onto Canada v. China in women's soccer. Not sure when the US women play, so I need to look that up.
The only men's sport I've seen has been badminton, which a Polish gentleman was winning.
Walsh & May-Treanor play this afternoon, so I need to stick by the TV. Keep your eyes peeled for volleyball.
Anyhow, the games are on multiple networks, so I'm considering trying using the Picture-in-Picture feature on my cable.
One of the funny things about watching sports is how you automatically, randomly pick a side. Well, probably not randomly. But when you don't have a dog in the fight, and you're watching, say, Poland play Uganda in Tiddlywinks, I'll still decide to cheer someone on. Usually whomever is losing on the off chance that if they come back from behind, I'll feel like I knew how to pick a winner.
Also, I frequently cheer for someone based on the cut of their jib.
I did wonder exactly what the conversation was with Putin and W sitting a few seats apart at the opening ceremonies. "So, Vlad. Couldn't wait to stir up some military action until the end of the Olympics, huh?" "Da."
By and large, I thought the opening ceremonies were some of the best ceremonies/ least embarrassing/ keeping the cheese to a minimum in a few years. And I'm including Atlanta in that, although we had Ali at Atlanta. But, yeah, it was all very well done and imaginative.
So, viva los Olympicos.
Saturday, August 09, 2008
Thursday, August 07, 2008
The Day the Earth Stood Still has been re-made
So a while back I heard a rumor that they'd cast Keanu Reeves as Klaatu in "The Day the Earth Stood Still", a remake of the 1951 classic of the same name.
It's the sort of casting rumors you hear, like "Mariah Carey wants to play Wonder Woman!" that really make you shudder. Michael Rennie's portrayal of Klaatu is memorable partly for its matter-of-factness about the whole business. I don't know if Reeves is the right man for the job. In fact, I'm positive he isn't, if "Constantine" is any indication.
From the trailer, I'm guessing they've changed a lot, including the landing spot of Klaatu's ship, sort of defanging what it means to land a spaceship in the middle of the seat of power for the free world.
And, no doubt, the message of the movie will be muddled with somewhat as today's reading of the 1951 movie would be met with cries of "Why do you hate freedom?" and "Why do you want to appease the terrorists?" We're still living in a world where we're constantly on the brink of nuclear armageddon, but we're not... at least nobody has really brought that up in a while. (Curious what things we just sort of forget about.) But that was certainly the world in which the original appeared.
I dunno... the hard truth is that I will probably see this. But I would be far more excited about this movie if they'd cast someone with a bit more... gravitas... in the role.
The remake
The original:
Keep in mind, the original was made by director Robert Wise. The new one is being made by... some guy.
It's the sort of casting rumors you hear, like "Mariah Carey wants to play Wonder Woman!" that really make you shudder. Michael Rennie's portrayal of Klaatu is memorable partly for its matter-of-factness about the whole business. I don't know if Reeves is the right man for the job. In fact, I'm positive he isn't, if "Constantine" is any indication.
From the trailer, I'm guessing they've changed a lot, including the landing spot of Klaatu's ship, sort of defanging what it means to land a spaceship in the middle of the seat of power for the free world.
And, no doubt, the message of the movie will be muddled with somewhat as today's reading of the 1951 movie would be met with cries of "Why do you hate freedom?" and "Why do you want to appease the terrorists?" We're still living in a world where we're constantly on the brink of nuclear armageddon, but we're not... at least nobody has really brought that up in a while. (Curious what things we just sort of forget about.) But that was certainly the world in which the original appeared.
I dunno... the hard truth is that I will probably see this. But I would be far more excited about this movie if they'd cast someone with a bit more... gravitas... in the role.
The remake
The original:
Keep in mind, the original was made by director Robert Wise. The new one is being made by... some guy.
Dodging a bullet (unless you're Ted Kord)
WHat the @#$% is wrong with Hollywood?
As you may recall me mentioning here, before the writer's strike last year Warner Bros. was working on a Justice League movie.
The plot was going to roughly follow, for reasons I cann't even begin to fathom, Rucka's "OMAC Project" mini-series, part of the Countdown to Infinite Crisis event from a few years back.
If I have to take a guess as to how this happened?
The screenwriters assigned weren't really familiar with DC Comics, but were savvy enough to know that they didn't know much about modern DC Comics. And so they poured over recent releases, finding the OMAC wing of the Infinite Crisis plotline kind of fascinating (it is), and went from there.
Who knows? Maybe it was a good script, but the best script in the hands of a director without a feel for the material is never a good thing.
I do know they were going to cast this guy (Maxwell Lord: 40ish billionaire sociopath)
With this guy (20ish Apatow nerdy utility player, Jay Baruchel):
No, seriously.
Keep in mind, director Miller's vision of the JLA was also 20ish, telegenic folk fresh from OC casting calls. My guess is he decided the ultimate foe for the JLA had to be a hacker of some stripe, and this guy looked like a hacker to Miller.
Anyway, the movie isn't anywhere close to actually being made, and is, in fact, moving the opposite direction. Which is a good thing. So very, very much of what they mentioned wanting to do sounded like the same awful JLA TV Pilot-style adaptations that turned people off from super hero movies until Spider-Man. Greater FX do not a greater movie make.
Hopefully the success of The Dark Knight is giving DC/ WB a serious rethink on how these properties can be handled.
As you may recall me mentioning here, before the writer's strike last year Warner Bros. was working on a Justice League movie.
The plot was going to roughly follow, for reasons I cann't even begin to fathom, Rucka's "OMAC Project" mini-series, part of the Countdown to Infinite Crisis event from a few years back.
If I have to take a guess as to how this happened?
The screenwriters assigned weren't really familiar with DC Comics, but were savvy enough to know that they didn't know much about modern DC Comics. And so they poured over recent releases, finding the OMAC wing of the Infinite Crisis plotline kind of fascinating (it is), and went from there.
Who knows? Maybe it was a good script, but the best script in the hands of a director without a feel for the material is never a good thing.
I do know they were going to cast this guy (Maxwell Lord: 40ish billionaire sociopath)
With this guy (20ish Apatow nerdy utility player, Jay Baruchel):
No, seriously.
Keep in mind, director Miller's vision of the JLA was also 20ish, telegenic folk fresh from OC casting calls. My guess is he decided the ultimate foe for the JLA had to be a hacker of some stripe, and this guy looked like a hacker to Miller.
Anyway, the movie isn't anywhere close to actually being made, and is, in fact, moving the opposite direction. Which is a good thing. So very, very much of what they mentioned wanting to do sounded like the same awful JLA TV Pilot-style adaptations that turned people off from super hero movies until Spider-Man. Greater FX do not a greater movie make.
Hopefully the success of The Dark Knight is giving DC/ WB a serious rethink on how these properties can be handled.
Comic Fodder
I've got a post up at Comic Fodder.
This week I decide to go the opposite of comics criticism.
Luckily, as is becoming the new norm, Travis responds with his own post, creating a bit of a conversation.
And, we're off to the races.
This week I decide to go the opposite of comics criticism.
Luckily, as is becoming the new norm, Travis responds with his own post, creating a bit of a conversation.
And, we're off to the races.
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Wanted: Originally a Comic, not a Movie
Some spoilers ahead. Read at your own risk.
So I kind of thought the movie "Wanted" that came out this summer wasn't very good. It seemed like there was a movie in there somewhere, but it was neither funny enough, nor did I feel like I was seeing anything worth my 2 hours and $6.00 to make me think this was something to tell others to see.
I was recently recommended the comic, assured that it was different. Being the polite sort of League that I am, I did not inform the folks who recommended the book that I have a love/hate relationship with Mark Millar, the guy who wrote the original comic of "Wanted". He's sort of an over-caffeinated little troll in his interviews, and he has no problem hyping himself and completely making up whatever facts he feels will help his image, projects, etc... Example: artist of the comic of "Wanted" JG Jones, drew the original Wesley Gibson character to look a bit like Eminem. Millar later claimed Eminem's people wanted to cast the rapper in the part in the movie. This was never true, and Millar now plays it off as if it was the press which misunderstood, and not some posting he made online. Apparently Eminem's people asked Millar to quit saying Eminem was interested.
Whatever.
If I didn't care for the movie "Wanted", I found myself disliking the comic slightly less. At least it wasn't boring. It's just derivative and vulgar and was the sort of high-octane, high calorie, low-nutrition comics that tend to wear me out.
Most importantly for League readers: THE COMIC OF "WANTED" HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MOVIE "WANTED". AND THE TITLE MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN THE CONTEXT OF EITHER WORK.
In fact, they make a point in both works that Gibson isn't going to be "wanted" by the law in either work, because they have such a super-awesome secret society of assassins and bad-guys, that the cops can't do anything about them.
Millar uses "Wanted" to tell a DC Elseworld's tale in which the super-villains have taken over Earth. As those of you who've seen the movie will attest: Que? How can Millar not just be embarrassed that the producers so soundly gutted his work? I've literally never seen such a departure from a comic's source material to the big screen. If Producers truly understood what happened there with "Wanted" I wonder if it wouldn't do more harm to Millar's Hollywood career than good...
The movie of Wanted roughly follows the first issue of the comic, and then wildly diverges from the source material to such a degree that I can't really figure out why the producers bothered to cite the comic as even an inspiration for the movie.
Millar's tin-ear for American, non-white bread dialog shines through, and he drops the f-bomb at least twice in every word balloon, robbing profanity of any potency or punctuation, and making his characters sound like mildly idiotic 8th graders trying to sound tough. Lifting from the Wildstorm/ Rick Veitch method of thinly disguising known characters, Millar sets up a somewhat intriguing scenario of a post-Crisis world reformed in which the villains have won the day, and are living in the shadows as the super-wealthy (which Millar seems to think $10 million means super-wealthy, which... come on. Maybe in 1955). Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to know what to do with the scenario once its in place, except tear it apart.
You can sort of begin to see some of the differences between movie and comic here...
The comic winds up having the same problem as the movie, in that it seems to be challenging the reader to embrace... something. Chaos? Anarchy? Ignoring the fact that we generally aren't waking up one morning to find out we have super powers and millions in the bank. There's a last page with Gibson directly addressing the reader, and I felt the way he was describing, but not in the manner in which Millar intended. More in the "you've got to be @#$%ing kidding me" manner. Your plot was useless, your characters shallow stereotypes and interesting only in playing the "who is the analog for who?" game that he and others had already done for Wildstorm. And that ending made sense only in that it was on the page and we sort of had to go along with it, because that's what we had to do to finish the comic.
And it's sort of tough to differentiate between the casual racism/ homophobia of the book's narrator and the voice of Millar himself. One has hopes that Millar just really understood the mechanics of the soon-to-be villain, but given the evidence we get regarding Gibson's childhood and how he was raised, it doesn't seem in synch. Which is either Millar waffling, or Millar having a very weird idea about race relations/ LGBT issues in the US. There's just a lot of language that, maybe is intended to make things "gritty", but it doesn't seem to actually come from anywhere, other than a sense of bigotry ingrained prior to Gibson's transformation.
I just got really tired of it. Just as dealing with it in real life really wears me out.
I am aware that there's a class of comic reader out there who gets a small thrill from gratuitous violence, and I am occasionally part of that crowd. Especially when I'm reading anything by Garth Ennis (that dude knows how to push my "sweet lord, they did not just do that" button better than anyone). Millar's handling of the ultra-violence is so unsubtle and steady that at some point, its just a torrent of blood and death you can hop over to jump to the next plot point.
That said, JG Jones' art work is really, really nice throughout. His character designs interesting and familiar, while avoiding any copyright problems. I can see why Morrison had pegged him for "Final Crisis".
My difficulty comes in that: It may sound as if I'm picking on "Wanted" for spoofing DC material, but that isn't really the case. I wouldn't mind at all, if I felt there were a story here rather than just a bunch of things happening in some sort of sequence.
Mostly, knowing when this comic was originally released, it just seems like its about seven years behind the trend. Millar favors co-opted style over substance. The names of characters ("$#!T-head", etc...), all seem to have come from the Garth Ennis school of inappropriate hilarity, founded in the mid-90's. Pair that with the Warren Ellis school of bad-asses routinely declaring how bad-ass they are (founded, also, mid-90's) , an opening which, really, seems to have been taken from an early draft of "Fight Club", and you're left with the actual plot. Which is sort of nonsensical, and whose "twist" ending doesn't work. Even for a comic where the arch-villains are the protagonists.
I'm a little baffled by the huge audience for Wanted as a comic. I'm even more baffled how the movie and comic relate to one another.
I've had it mentioned to me that "Wanted" was optioned after the first issue, and a script cranked out before the comic series was done. And the producers must have liked their script much more than the comic itself (which, really, would make no sense to anyone but comic nerds, anyway). So they stripped the characters of their comic-book styled outfits, and nicknames. And put in some other plot about monks/ weavers (which, really...? how was nobody suspicious?). At any rate, its an interesting case study.
So I kind of thought the movie "Wanted" that came out this summer wasn't very good. It seemed like there was a movie in there somewhere, but it was neither funny enough, nor did I feel like I was seeing anything worth my 2 hours and $6.00 to make me think this was something to tell others to see.
I was recently recommended the comic, assured that it was different. Being the polite sort of League that I am, I did not inform the folks who recommended the book that I have a love/hate relationship with Mark Millar, the guy who wrote the original comic of "Wanted". He's sort of an over-caffeinated little troll in his interviews, and he has no problem hyping himself and completely making up whatever facts he feels will help his image, projects, etc... Example: artist of the comic of "Wanted" JG Jones, drew the original Wesley Gibson character to look a bit like Eminem. Millar later claimed Eminem's people wanted to cast the rapper in the part in the movie. This was never true, and Millar now plays it off as if it was the press which misunderstood, and not some posting he made online. Apparently Eminem's people asked Millar to quit saying Eminem was interested.
Whatever.
If I didn't care for the movie "Wanted", I found myself disliking the comic slightly less. At least it wasn't boring. It's just derivative and vulgar and was the sort of high-octane, high calorie, low-nutrition comics that tend to wear me out.
Most importantly for League readers: THE COMIC OF "WANTED" HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MOVIE "WANTED". AND THE TITLE MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN THE CONTEXT OF EITHER WORK.
In fact, they make a point in both works that Gibson isn't going to be "wanted" by the law in either work, because they have such a super-awesome secret society of assassins and bad-guys, that the cops can't do anything about them.
Millar uses "Wanted" to tell a DC Elseworld's tale in which the super-villains have taken over Earth. As those of you who've seen the movie will attest: Que? How can Millar not just be embarrassed that the producers so soundly gutted his work? I've literally never seen such a departure from a comic's source material to the big screen. If Producers truly understood what happened there with "Wanted" I wonder if it wouldn't do more harm to Millar's Hollywood career than good...
The movie of Wanted roughly follows the first issue of the comic, and then wildly diverges from the source material to such a degree that I can't really figure out why the producers bothered to cite the comic as even an inspiration for the movie.
Millar's tin-ear for American, non-white bread dialog shines through, and he drops the f-bomb at least twice in every word balloon, robbing profanity of any potency or punctuation, and making his characters sound like mildly idiotic 8th graders trying to sound tough. Lifting from the Wildstorm/ Rick Veitch method of thinly disguising known characters, Millar sets up a somewhat intriguing scenario of a post-Crisis world reformed in which the villains have won the day, and are living in the shadows as the super-wealthy (which Millar seems to think $10 million means super-wealthy, which... come on. Maybe in 1955). Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to know what to do with the scenario once its in place, except tear it apart.
You can sort of begin to see some of the differences between movie and comic here...
The comic winds up having the same problem as the movie, in that it seems to be challenging the reader to embrace... something. Chaos? Anarchy? Ignoring the fact that we generally aren't waking up one morning to find out we have super powers and millions in the bank. There's a last page with Gibson directly addressing the reader, and I felt the way he was describing, but not in the manner in which Millar intended. More in the "you've got to be @#$%ing kidding me" manner. Your plot was useless, your characters shallow stereotypes and interesting only in playing the "who is the analog for who?" game that he and others had already done for Wildstorm. And that ending made sense only in that it was on the page and we sort of had to go along with it, because that's what we had to do to finish the comic.
And it's sort of tough to differentiate between the casual racism/ homophobia of the book's narrator and the voice of Millar himself. One has hopes that Millar just really understood the mechanics of the soon-to-be villain, but given the evidence we get regarding Gibson's childhood and how he was raised, it doesn't seem in synch. Which is either Millar waffling, or Millar having a very weird idea about race relations/ LGBT issues in the US. There's just a lot of language that, maybe is intended to make things "gritty", but it doesn't seem to actually come from anywhere, other than a sense of bigotry ingrained prior to Gibson's transformation.
I just got really tired of it. Just as dealing with it in real life really wears me out.
I am aware that there's a class of comic reader out there who gets a small thrill from gratuitous violence, and I am occasionally part of that crowd. Especially when I'm reading anything by Garth Ennis (that dude knows how to push my "sweet lord, they did not just do that" button better than anyone). Millar's handling of the ultra-violence is so unsubtle and steady that at some point, its just a torrent of blood and death you can hop over to jump to the next plot point.
That said, JG Jones' art work is really, really nice throughout. His character designs interesting and familiar, while avoiding any copyright problems. I can see why Morrison had pegged him for "Final Crisis".
My difficulty comes in that: It may sound as if I'm picking on "Wanted" for spoofing DC material, but that isn't really the case. I wouldn't mind at all, if I felt there were a story here rather than just a bunch of things happening in some sort of sequence.
Mostly, knowing when this comic was originally released, it just seems like its about seven years behind the trend. Millar favors co-opted style over substance. The names of characters ("$#!T-head", etc...), all seem to have come from the Garth Ennis school of inappropriate hilarity, founded in the mid-90's. Pair that with the Warren Ellis school of bad-asses routinely declaring how bad-ass they are (founded, also, mid-90's) , an opening which, really, seems to have been taken from an early draft of "Fight Club", and you're left with the actual plot. Which is sort of nonsensical, and whose "twist" ending doesn't work. Even for a comic where the arch-villains are the protagonists.
I'm a little baffled by the huge audience for Wanted as a comic. I'm even more baffled how the movie and comic relate to one another.
I've had it mentioned to me that "Wanted" was optioned after the first issue, and a script cranked out before the comic series was done. And the producers must have liked their script much more than the comic itself (which, really, would make no sense to anyone but comic nerds, anyway). So they stripped the characters of their comic-book styled outfits, and nicknames. And put in some other plot about monks/ weavers (which, really...? how was nobody suspicious?). At any rate, its an interesting case study.
Title IX
Lauren, over at Carte Blanche, has posted a column on the perception of female athletes. Apparently market research is demonstrating that female athletes are mostly measured on their athletic prowess, versus a sexualized appeal. To sum up the sentiment, I'm pulling a quote from Lauren's quote:
It is a shame that so few women's sports seem to make a go of entering into a televised professional capacity at the same level as the trinity of football, baseball and basketball. Scratch that: It's a shame that the televised events don't get the same media push that, say, the NFL enjoys. Now, I love the NFL and NCAA football, and I'm not sure if there's a chicken and egg effect... I'm just saying: The WNBA isn't on in prime time.
But... with things kicking off this weekend in Beijing for the 2008 Summer Olympics, it's a firm reminder to us folks in the general public that sport is captivating, not necessarily just the sport of one gender or another. And I think that's something young female AND male athletes need to see. When you get past the marketing and hoopla of pro sports, its about who plays the game well.
If the market researchers are looking for a particular reason why female athletes are being seen as athletes first, I would point to Title IX. We're now 36 years after the institution of Title IX, and into a generation of adults who never knew life without female athletes. And a generation of children who, thankfully, take it for granted that either gender can participate.*
Add in role-model athletes like the US Women's Soccer Team, May-Treanor and Walsh of the beach volleyball circuit, Diana Taurasi or Cheryl Miller of the WNBA, softball players like Cat Osterman... and while the athletes may not be as high profile as Terrell Owens or Shaq, they somehow manage to be just as stunning as athletes as the guys with all the advertising deals.
When the Brandy Chastain's of the world score a World Cup winning goal, it was only the pundits with need of something for the news cycle who missed the celebratory moment for what it was. The rest of us were jumping up and down in our living rooms and screaming at the TV (and, yes, maybe tearing up a little). It was a moment of sport at its finest.
Geez, that team was amazing.
Anyway, it was a moment when those who understood the implications of Title IX seemed at odds with those who sort of think a girl looks like a tramp unless she's got her ankles and wrists covered. And, honestly, there's no damn room for that in sport.
So, yeah. I might make cracks that I'm going to watch Walsh and Treanor-May in the beach Volleyball competition, but that's for teasing Jamie. Have you ever seen those two play? They're inhuman. And that's what I'm looking for in my sports, Olympics or otherwise. I'm looking for my few weeks every four years in which I get to see the most amazing athletes on the planet compete.
Man, now I'm kind of excited about the Olympics.
I just hope I don't spend my time following another doping athlete the way I did the summer Marion Jones was breaking records.
Whoo-hoo!
*It's worth noting that the actual Educational Amendment, Title IX, while routinely applied to athletics, was not specifically written about athletics. In fact, the wording is about academic access and discrimination based on gender. This happened to expand out to athletics where the differences in available activities were greatly unequal.
Though there are a few notable exceptions — Anna Pornikova, Playboy covergirl/ tennis star Ashley Harkleroad among them — most Olympic caliber women are delightfully unsexualized. Which is not to say that they're not sexy, but that the press about them is about their athletic achievements as opposed to their finely toned backsides.
It is a shame that so few women's sports seem to make a go of entering into a televised professional capacity at the same level as the trinity of football, baseball and basketball. Scratch that: It's a shame that the televised events don't get the same media push that, say, the NFL enjoys. Now, I love the NFL and NCAA football, and I'm not sure if there's a chicken and egg effect... I'm just saying: The WNBA isn't on in prime time.
But... with things kicking off this weekend in Beijing for the 2008 Summer Olympics, it's a firm reminder to us folks in the general public that sport is captivating, not necessarily just the sport of one gender or another. And I think that's something young female AND male athletes need to see. When you get past the marketing and hoopla of pro sports, its about who plays the game well.
If the market researchers are looking for a particular reason why female athletes are being seen as athletes first, I would point to Title IX. We're now 36 years after the institution of Title IX, and into a generation of adults who never knew life without female athletes. And a generation of children who, thankfully, take it for granted that either gender can participate.*
Add in role-model athletes like the US Women's Soccer Team, May-Treanor and Walsh of the beach volleyball circuit, Diana Taurasi or Cheryl Miller of the WNBA, softball players like Cat Osterman... and while the athletes may not be as high profile as Terrell Owens or Shaq, they somehow manage to be just as stunning as athletes as the guys with all the advertising deals.
When the Brandy Chastain's of the world score a World Cup winning goal, it was only the pundits with need of something for the news cycle who missed the celebratory moment for what it was. The rest of us were jumping up and down in our living rooms and screaming at the TV (and, yes, maybe tearing up a little). It was a moment of sport at its finest.
Geez, that team was amazing.
Anyway, it was a moment when those who understood the implications of Title IX seemed at odds with those who sort of think a girl looks like a tramp unless she's got her ankles and wrists covered. And, honestly, there's no damn room for that in sport.
So, yeah. I might make cracks that I'm going to watch Walsh and Treanor-May in the beach Volleyball competition, but that's for teasing Jamie. Have you ever seen those two play? They're inhuman. And that's what I'm looking for in my sports, Olympics or otherwise. I'm looking for my few weeks every four years in which I get to see the most amazing athletes on the planet compete.
Man, now I'm kind of excited about the Olympics.
I just hope I don't spend my time following another doping athlete the way I did the summer Marion Jones was breaking records.
Whoo-hoo!
*It's worth noting that the actual Educational Amendment, Title IX, while routinely applied to athletics, was not specifically written about athletics. In fact, the wording is about academic access and discrimination based on gender. This happened to expand out to athletics where the differences in available activities were greatly unequal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)