Thursday, 31 March 2016

Batman v. Superman: Doing them Justice? SPOILER DISCUSSION

Welcome back, all. I know it's been a while, and that's my fault. And I am sure you are wondering, where is Part 2 of the Ghostbusters discussion? All in good time, friends. I have a plan regarding that particular topic but it requires that I ruminate on that subject further. So instead, let us discuss the newest offering of the superhero genre, Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice. This post will potentially contain massive spoilers. If you have not seen the movie yet and do not want to know the finer details, please skip to the bottom, past the Grumpy Cat picture. That will take you to the conclusion and my final thoughts, and will prevent an unnecessary spoiling. So, let's dive in and take a look at the the film that is the set up to the DC Cinematic Universe.

I hope that is sufficient warning. I am trying my best not to give away plot details to those who don't want them, but I feel as though I need to discuss this film in detail in order to really articulate my thoughts on it. For those of you still with me, I thank you and let's unpack this one, shall we?

Now, I was of two minds going into the theater to see this one. First, as fan going to see a live-action superhero film that not so long ago would have seemed impossible; not only Superman, but Batman and Wonder Woman, all in the same movie! The other part of me was the skeptical part, the part that had seen the trailers, had followed the creation of this movie and feared that were elements that would be questionable, if not downright bad. So, it was this combination of optimism and trepidation that I watched Batman vs. Superman.

The Good 
 I am going to make this review as fair as possible, and look at both the good and the bad before giving my final verdict. And there was good in this movie, this wasn't a case of grasping at straws to balance this review. There were elements I legitimately enjoyed. First and foremost, our three heroes. Full disclosure, I have seen approximately ten to fifteen minutes of Man of Steel, which happened to be just ending when I came home from work one day. So for all intents and purposes, this was my first outing with Henry Cavill's Superman. And to be honest, he is perfectly serviceable and does well as the character. Watching him saving people in his heroic montage, I bought it. It worked. Even small things like the way he flew in and then walked into the Capitol Building, ready to talk. Not only does that really showcase what Superman is and his values, but having the inquiry at all, and showing the human impact of this superbeing really grounds the movie in reality. He does well with the character. The problem comes in that he is overshadowed by others, but that is not necessarily the actor's fault. I though he looked the part, and did well with what he had, but more on that later. Most of this overshadowing came from Ben Affleck's Batman, who came into this universe as a force to be reckoned with. He is the older, jaded counterpoint to Superman's younger, wanting-to-do-good-by-others heroics, and I liked that dynamic and wanted to see more of it.

So let's really talk Batman. If there's one character (and seemingly one character only) that live-action DC movies know how to do, it's Batman. And this Batman is the best in a very long time. Not only that, but Ben Affleck can play both Batman and Bruce Wayne, which is a rarity. This Batman also utilizes his intelligence, his detective skills and his gadgets far more than Christopher Nolan's Batman ever did. I will go so far as to say (and perhaps this is a heresy) that I prefer this older, yet more dynamic and more true to form version of the character than the thuggish brute of Nolan's trilogy. Not that there aren't nods to that version. The Batmobile is very much a fusion of the Tumbler and the old, impractical, long car. And yet, the Batplane is a modern take on the sleek, bat-shaped one most of us remember and the modulated voice that Batman uses is almost a reaction against Bale's infamous in-costume voice. And the gadgets, they abound. I appreciated the love for the grappling hook this film seemed to have. I don't know that Batman has ever used his grapple gun so much in a live action movie. The Batcave was also very well done, and the water entrance with the long road in was just perfect. And to see in use, fixing the car, the computer, Alfred randomly tinkering with Bruce's armor, it felt like a space that was used. Alfred himself was good, although Jeremy Irons almost didn't seem old enough to be Alfred to an older Batman. Regardless, it grew on me, and it's really more of a nitpick.

That brings us to the third member of the DC Trinity, and the one I was looking most forward to: Wonder Woman. And... well anyone who was worried about Gal Gadot can put their minds at ease. She did not have as much time as the other two, but I enjoyed every scene she was in. And when it got down to the big fight and she came out in costume, then it got good. Her track on the score 'Is She With You', which played during that scene, is my favorite piece of music in the film. So I was disappointed when they cut away from the fight for 'Lois and Clark romance stuff', because I wanted to watch Wonder Woman hacking away at Doomsday. Even when he threw her across the screen and her sword skids away she just smiles, gets up, and goes back at it. She was badass and my concerns about her were alleviated one hundred percent. While some will continue to argue she is too thin, etc., she stood side by side with Batman and Superman (both actors being in ridiculously amazing shape), and held her own. Bring on more.

Now a superhero needs action, right? So, how was the action? Well, when it was there, it was good. Really good. The best fight was the one seen in the trailer, with Batman taking out a warehouse full of bad guys. And it was beautiful, it looked like it was pulled straight from one of the Arkham games. The titular fight, while all too short, also showcases the Dark Knight's ingenuity, showing off the preparation that has become a staple of the character. The suit he wears, in direct homage to The Dark Knight Returns comic, is both great looking and practical in action. As I said above, the fight with Doomsday is good for the most part, but that one gets very.... explosion-happy and becomes messy looking in parts. Although, in another homage, Superman becoming all withered and gnarly, and then healed by exposure to the sun, was a nice add.

Other things I enjoyed: Batman's parents, although given that they were played by Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Lauren Cohan, it was more for meta reasons. I liked the look of Aquaman, the brief look at him that you get. The TV hosts playing themselves was a nice extra to add realism as well, when showing the news coverage of Superman's exploits. And of course, my favorite cameo in the film, none other than Neil deGrasse Tyson, as himself. The Cynic and I had a fan moment at that part, I must admit.


The Bad
 Well, now that the niceties are out of the way, we now turn to the more frustrating elements of Batman vs. Superman. And unfortunately, they were numerous. I wish I could say otherwise, but unfortunately, that's where we are.

First and foremost, I want to talk about my biggest problem with this movie. Looking through my notes, this is the one aspect that absolutely dominates the 'con' side. Lex Luthor, as portrayed by Jesse Eisenberg. I have nothing against the man personally, and in fact it is a unanimous opinion in our house that had he introduced himself as Edward Nygma instead of Lex Luthor, then it would have been a vast improvement. In that case, I would most likely be extolling his performance, instead of excoriating it. But the plain fact remains, of all the routes to take the character of Lex Luthor, this was the strangest and most painful. I realize that they have a throwaway line insinuating that this Lex is the son of the character we all know, but given that this version is called Lex throughout the film, and never with a 'junior' to amend it, that the line is question was just an attempt at appeasement. This character has none of the manner or personality of Lex Luthor. Not. One. Single. Thing. Where as Lex Luthor is a genius businessman, who absolutely believes in his own superiority and carries himself as such, there is none of that here. This Lex is jittery and twitchy, he stutters and talks too fast. He is intelligent but we never really see that, we never really see the resentment he has for Superman; the fact that there is someone who is better than him and he cannot overcome that. There was one moment in this movie that ruined this character for me, one small scene that pushed me past the point at which this Lex could be redeemed in any way. It was easy to miss, Lex walking down a hall and away from the camera as he begins to enact his plan and recover General Zod's body. He walked hunched over, slouched and shuffling his feet. It was a tiny thing, and it seems a strange point to fixate on, but that was the straw the broke the camel's back, as it were. A man convinced of his own superiority, a man that holds himself above the rest of humanity, a god in his own eyes, would never slouch along like a regular schlub before his first coffee of the morning. If he was truly not supposed to be the Luthor we know, then he should have been 'Alexander', or 'Lex Jr.'. End of story.  The saddest part is, I saw a clip from The Social Network, and in that short video, Jesse Eisenberg was a better Lex Luthor than he was through the entirety of Batman vs. Superman. It boggles the mind.  There was only one instance where he actually did something in the spirit of Lex Luthor. The 'Granny's Peach Tea' thing. He wanted that senator to know he was responsible, even if only for that split second before the explosion. That was the Lex Luthor ego and the one in-character moment in the movie.


Well, now that I've got that particular rant off my chest, let's look at some of the other negatives. The second largest problem was the pacing and editing of the film. Bluntly put, this movie was horribly disjointed, especially for the first half. It isn't until almost the titular fight that the movie gains any semblance of coherency. It was a scene, then a scene, then a scene, etc., but with no flow and jumping all over. Added to this are dream sequences that appear out of left field, only to jump up, tweak your nose and shout 'gotcha!' when the character in question wakes up. This can work for a movie, but it is obvious that this one was probably mangled in editing to achieve this particular result. In fact, this is likely the case, as the original cut was apparently 3 hours or better, and a deleted scene was already been released on YouTube. This scene actually answered one of my questions/issues, in that 'How does Lex know about Darkseid/Apokolips?'. I wonder how many other of the many questions this film raised actually has answers that we didn't see, and how many were sequel or prequel bait?

My question above leads into my next point. This movie had way too much that it was trying to do and too many things that it was trying to be. It was trying to be an introduction for two of DC's most important heroes, plus a sequel film for a third, in addition a set up for Justice League, all while tackling not one, but two well-known stories of the comic world as well as a commentary on the impact of heroes in the real world. That is a lot for one movie to accomplish, even if that movie clocks in at two and a half hours in length. All these plots should have been split into their own movies, and given proper attention. Batman and Wonder Woman should have had their solo movies first to introduce the characters and give the stories of how they have gotten to the points in their lives/careers they are at in Batman vs. Superman. Why is Wonder Woman out of the business at this point, what happened to bring this about? Why does Batman have no compunctions about killing? Does it have anything to do with the defaced Robin costume in the Batcave? Why is Wayne Manor destroyed/abandoned? Bring us these stories first, before shoehorning the characters into another film. Although, Batman's origin again? We all know why he becomes Batman, honestly. Theater, mugging, gun, pearls, bang, orphan. We got it. But that's a nitpick. Do the solo movies, give Superman a proper Man of Steel 2, discussing the ideas from the beginning of Batman vs. Superman. Look at the impact of heroes on the world and how the world would react to something like that. That's a really interesting idea, and one that doesn't go deep enough here. Then if you want to do The Dark Knight Returns and the Death of Superman, go ahead. I'm not sure they need to be combined, though. It was an interesting choice, to have Death of Superman be the catalyst for creation of the Justice League, but again, it was all too rushed. And at this point in the cinematic universe, we haven't spent enough time with the character to give it the emotional impact that the comic series did. And as for setting up the Justice League, that scene with the computer files would have been better as a mid-credits one, with Batman opening the folder, but the audience only seeing the logos, or just the names, and no footage. That would build excitement better than a lazy shoehorn into the middle of the film.

Speaking of losing impact, that brings me to the things that bugged me, but weren't outright dealbreakers like above. That second trailer. Damn. That first shot of the trinity together ready to go up against Doomsday really lost a lot of the 'wow' factor and impact having already been seen in that trailer.

Cool, but not as cool as it should have been.
Also low on wow-factor: the titular fight. It was surprisingly short, and the motivations changed from what the movie had built up until that point. Not on the level of the T-Rex/Spinosaurus fight from Jurassic Park III, but certainly not nearly on the level that it should have been. Although, on the other side of that, I really thought that Superman would try to reason with Batman more, as he didn't really at all. I had hopes that the fight against Abomination-Blaze-Doomsday would be better. And in fact, watching Batman kite around on the grappling hook, and Wonder Woman charging in, sword raised, was a great start. Unfortunately (as I mentioned earlier), we had to cut away from that for 'Lois and Clark' romance stuff on the side, completely derailing what should have been an epic climatic fight and seeing the trinity really coming together. Also in that fight, and a few other places, the CG looked... oddly terrible. Upon further reflection, I wonder if those were 3D shots (we saw it in 2D) and they don't translate as well in 2D. I have noticed that in other 3D movies that I watched in 2D, so I'm almost willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.

It behooves me to point out that this film has one whole joke. Well, one funny one, at least. That comes courtesy of Martha Kent, after Batman saves her. While I didn't need the movie filled with laughs, it was worth noting that it was funny once. Also funny was that, while others hear notes of the Nolan film score in the music centered around Batman, I heard notes that almost made me think it would burst into Danny Elfman's Batman theme. Perhaps I was the only one, but odd notes pricked at my brain and made me think of it. It could have also been wishful thinking, I guess. But here I end the spoilers and we go to the conclusion and my final thoughts.

/end spoilers 

Well, that was quite the essay, and if you're still with me, I thank you. We've talked a lot here, and now time for my final verdict. And, my opinion of this movie is: I'm indifferent to it. There were some really good things, but there were also some really bad things. Even my notes came up quite even between pros and cons. Nothing I saw on the screen was a surprise. In that I mean, everything I thought would be good was, and everything I thought would fall flat did. I wanted this film to surprise me. I wanted to come out of it blown away. This was a huge deal; the DC Trinity, on screen, together, in live action. And yet, I find myself more excited for the fact that The Killing Joke is getting an animated movie, with Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill reprising their roles as Batman and Joker, respectively. Because in the end, that's the problem. DC does fantastic animated work, and there are countless examples to back that up, from the seminal Batman: The Animated Series, to Justice League Unlimited, to film-length features such as Batman: Under the Red Hood, Wonder Woman (2009), and Superman/Batman: Public Enemies. This is just a tiny sample of their incredible animated offerings. And yet in live action, if it's not Batman, they seem lost (with the exception being at least the first two Superman movies with Christopher Reeve). Until that problem can be resolved, and I truly hope it is, I can only anticipate the future with apprehension. I am still hopeful for Wonder Woman's solo film, and that is my most anticipated of the known upcoming DC lineup. If I end up wrong, and DC live action going forth is everything that we want and hope it to be, then wrong I will be, and gladly. So here's to the future, and to live action DC that can stand shoulder-to-shoulder with it's animated counterparts.

Again, I want to thank you all if you've made it here to the end, and I hope to see you next time. We had a lot to talk about here, so maybe we'll try something lighter next time. 

Respectfully yours,

The Scholar


Thursday, 10 March 2016

A Reflection on Ghostbusters 2016 and the Greater Insanity Therein Part 1: The Trailer

Hello again, Dear Audience. In lieu of focusing on a softer, safer topic, today we are going to dive into the minefield that is the upcoming Ghostbusters film. I hear you say it now: 'Why now, Scholar? The trailer was released a week ago, surely the time for discussion on this has come and gone and we can resume normal operations until the next time something comes up for this film?'. And you would be well within your rights to believe that, and I did intend for this go up sooner than today. However, it is not so much the trailer itself, but the swirling miasma of absolute shit surrounding it that has prevented me from finishing this post. The more it went on, the more research I wanted to do and the more time I needed just to see some of these outcomes before I thought I could legitimately make a post concerning this topic without adding an addendum every few hours as something new came up. I wanted to make the most comprehensive post I could regarding my thoughts not only on the trailer itself, but on the reaction around it in one fell swoop, rather than in increments (as it is, this will be in two parts). But it has been a week. And the post needs to go up. So whatever I have is whatever I will use. I warn you all now, you might want to settle in, because this might be a long one.

To begin, let's talk about the actual trailer in question. Upon seeing this trailer, and repeated viewings since, what I want to discuss breaks down into three catagories: Things I Liked, Things I Didn't Like, and Things I Noticed. Let us start with the things I noticed, but that did not affect my views on the film either positively or negatively.

Perhaps it seems disingenuous, but the trailer itself was neutral. While it had elements that I liked and disliked, overall it did not change my opinion of the film. After seeing it I was neither more or less excited for its existence and was not swayed into seeing/boycotting it.

The second Thing I Noticed, and as many others have already pointed out ahead of me, is all the callbacks to the original materials. This is surprisingly evident in the film's cast, despite the 'gender swap' that has occurred and the fact that this film has been touted as 'it's own thing' and apart from the original Ghostbusters universe.

The top image above is one of the first released of the new film's cast. As any Ghostbuster fan has likely already done, one can easily distinguish which of the new cast corresponds to each member of the original. The trailer further cements these ideas thusly:

Patty Tolan (Leslie Jones) is Winston Zeddmore- Other than being a POC, Patty represents the 'everyman' in the same way Winston did. This character is the non-scientist of the group (more on that later), and comes from a 'regular' or blue collar background. They are the stand-in for the audience and the one that translates the 'science stuff' into layman's terms.

Abby Yates (Melissa McCarthy) is Ray Stantz- There were three instances in the trailer that cemented this theory for me. First, the ghostly technobabble right at the beginning. Not quite a 'four-fold cross-rip' or a 'Tunguska blast of 1908', but it's headed in the right direction. Second, it is her character that is the go-getter, that says 'we can help', etc. about the problem, reminiscent in a way of 'we can really bust some heads. In a spiritual sense, of course'. Third, we see her become possessed in the trailer, which Ray has become at least twice (in both Ghostbusters 2, and the Ghostbusters 2009 video game).

Erin Gilbert (Kristen Wiig) is Peter Venkman- This one is a little more difficult, as you don't get as much from the character in the trailer. She definitely seems to be more of a serious scientist than Peter, but perhaps shares some of his skepticism of the whole idea. The biggest indicator with her is in the beginning of the trailer, when she is the one who tries to speak with the (new) library ghost, and is the one who gets slimed. The 'it was in every crack' fits with Peter's complaints about being slimed.

Jillian Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon) is Egon Spengler- This one was obvious from the first released image and only reinforced in the trailer. Though her personality seems much less 'hardcore nerd' than Egon, she is the one who appears to build the Ghosbuster's equipment (or at least a majority of it). And on the first point about being 'the nerd', in the part where she's goofing off with the hat and wig, her delivery is that similar deadpan that one would expect from Egon. This character is still a bit of a wildcard, but one I am interested to see, as Egon is my personal favorite Ghostbuster.

There is also this
  Kevin (surname TBA) (Chris Hemsworth) is Janine Melnitz- Considering this character has no lines in this trailer, there's not much to be said at this time. So I will leave you with another photo comparison and move on.

 Other references which appeared but require more context: Slimer, the logo, Ecto-1, a librarian ghost, the firehouse, and the Giant Twinkie billboard (at 1:37, left hand side).

Things I Liked: While this may be controversial, there were things I legitimately enjoyed about the trailer. And overall, it did not paint as dismal of a picture of this reboot as I feared. So in a way, I was relieved for no other reason than that it wasn't as bad as it could have been. That is at least according to this trailer.

The first thing I liked that was, despite how close the characters are to the originals, they aren't complete carbon copies. These women come from different scientific backgrounds from their male counterparts, and I am interested to see how that affects how they approach the task of ghost busting. I'm very open to see new equipment and techniques tailored from their respective strengths that still pays respect to the old.

In the same vein, I am glad to see that these women are scientists without being 'Women Scientists'. Now, let me clarify what I mean by that. One fear I had was that because the new team was all women that it  was going to be utilized as a gimmick, and that the humor and the basis of their personalities would be based on that fact. So far, it seems as though they are actual characters and their characters traits are not solely based on their sex.

My next point deals with the humor. While I only had one real laugh in the whole thing (more on that below), I was relieved by what I saw. I will admit, I am not terribly familiar with Paul Feig's work, and perhaps that was part of the issue. Another problem was that I dislike the direction of many modern comedies and the type of humor that is used therein. So I was glad to see, that while I didn't laugh necessarily, that it was not filled with gross-out or shocking humor that is there merely to shock or gross-out. It was also not filled with 'female' humor, which would encompass both of these ideas but with a 'feminine twist' as it were. To put it bluntly women 'jokes' (menstrual, blonde, kitchen-based, etc.) wear thin very quickly and to make it a theme would be fatal to my opinion of the film. So to not see it made me very happy.    

In keeping with my above point, another positive from this trailer was the look of the cast. There is no over-sexualization of anyone in what we have seen. The uniforms are regular, functional coveralls, only differentiated by a slight color variation and the addition of some striping. There seems to be no room for the 'sexy Ghostbuster' here, and I applaud that. In fact, the franchise has done an excellent job so far of that (see Janine, Kylie, Bridget, and Melanie) and I am glad that that has not changed.

Costume manufacturers seem to have missed the memo on that fact.

  There is another side to that coin, as well. That is of course Kevin, the secretary played by Chris Hemsworth. The trailer gave no indication of his character being treated or regarded as a sex object either, and I think that is also important. It would be understandable to make a singular joke or gag regarding his looks upon his introduction (let's not kid ourselves, the man is almost unfathomably attractive), provided it isn't gross or crude. Then leave it, let him be a character in his own right. I for one think it would be fun to see him as just a little Janine-like in attitude, that little bit of snark on the edge of his words. We of course don't know if that's the direction they're going, as he had no lines in the trailer, so we shall have to see.

One other really positive thing to mention here, is the effects in regards to the ghosts. I watched a video (here) where it was mentioned that the human ghosts are not merely CGI, and talk about the library ghost specifically. She was portrayed by an actual actress, actually there with the other actors, and was wearing LEDs and later enhanced and made to look more ghost-like. I thought it was worth noting; I love practical effects and so that was a definite point in the film's favor. 

And finally, we have to talk about The Things I Didn't Like. Given the overall attitude towards this trailer, this is the part we were all waiting for, wasn't it? And I will admit, I had my issues as well, there's no denying it. They are as follows:

As I stated earlier, I only got one genuine laugh. For a comedy, that doesn't bode well. However, I can only hope that this simply indicates that we won't already have heard all the good jokes before we have even seen the movie. That tends to lead to disappointment (as I frown in the direction of Zombieland) when watching the full film. I knew the comedy would be different than the original movies, but I hope Feig and co. have keep at least a hint of it. Ghostbusters (at least the movies) have such a dorky sense of humor that hinges greatly on the interactions of the main characters. There is not way to replicate that, but to at least have the spirit of that? That would be wonderful.

You may wonder, so what was that one laugh that I got? Well, it was actually at the very end, where Patty actually slaps the possession out of Abby. To be honest, I felt bad for laughing at a clearly stereotypical Angry/Sassy Black Woman. Perhaps you think I exaggerate on that definition? The article on TV Tropes for that particular character type mentions this trailer explicitly. I want to talk more about this particular issue in Part 2 of this post, so I will leave it at that for now.

What else can we discuss here? Again, a point I brought up earlier, the references and nods to the original material. This trailer starts by telling us that 30 years ago, four scientists did this exact same thing and now there's a new team. But if this film is in a different universe/is it's own thing/has nothing to do with the originals, why even mention that? Why bait us with the idea, if even briefly, that is tied in anyway to those films in anything but name and premise?  Why make it sound suspiciously sequel-like if that isn't the intention? To jump off from that, the rest of the trailer tries exhaustively to show how much this film pays homage to the source material. It is pandering hard to those of us that grew up on Ghostbusters, and it hits every nostalgia button it can. From the opening piano version of the theme, then the firehouse and logo in quick succession? And then after that to go straight to confronting a library ghost and slime? If this were anymore wink-wink-nudge-nudge, 'remember how good those originals were?', even Jurassic World would be telling this movie to tone it down.  

And to be perfectly honest, that covers all my points. I stated at the beginning of this post that this trailer did not either fully sell me or fully turn me off from this film. It was in what could be classified as 'meh'. The positives and the negatives seemed to balance each other and I remain in a state of apprehensive optimism. Will I go see this movie? Yes, I will. Truth be told, I hope this movie is good. I want this movie to be good. I don't wish a bad movie upon anyone or any franchise, and certainly not one that has been a part of my life for as long as I can remember. It is entirely possible this will be bad, it's also entirely possible it will be good. As such, I can only reserve judgement until we have seen more, perhaps until July when we can see the film in it's entirety. As much as there are worrying signs, I see potential here, and I hope they capitalize on that and make it work. This Ghostbusters fan would welcome it.

Now, before I go, there's been a lot of controversy and other, less savory things happening in relation to this trailer. I have been watching it for the last week and in Part 2, I want to address them. Though it seems akin to playing hot potato with a hand grenade, I hope you'll join me here again within the next couple of days as I try to bring a voice of reason to this shitstorm and look at some of these issues. As always, I thank you for your support (especially if you have slogged through to the end of this post) and I will see you again.

Respectfully yours,

The Scholar 

Saturday, 5 March 2016

Welcome, Welcome!

Greetings Internet!

I will admit up front, this is hardly my first foray into the world of the Web. This is, however, a rebirth of sorts, and with it, a new blog and new name. For those few of you who know, my former handle was the Picky Mama Scholar (PMScholar on Twitter) and at one point several years ago I threw up a few thoughts here:

But that time has come and gone and so we start afresh. So welcome to the new home of the Late Nite Scholar (Twitter here), named so because that is when I get most of my work done. I am going to speak mostly of geek culture, that which is close to many of our hearts. So prepare for discussions on gaming, movies, music, and general nerddom. Many of these conversations stem from actual discussions I have in real life, often with my counterpart The Cynic, of Coffee With the Cynic fame.

So make yourselves comfortable and I hope you enjoy your stay.

Respectfully yours,

Late Nite Scholar