-
Posts
812 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Everything posted by bedelia1984
-
Considering how late in the game the changes were, I wonder if the changes were his choice or forced on him? I doubt you’d ever get a straight answer on that, but yes if they were his choice, he gets some credit. I’m skeptical that it was his choice. Given his quotes in interviews, something like this makes me think a producer, actor, etc. was able to force the changes and he was procrastinating or resisting the changes until forced to do so. Otherwise why wait until the last minute? Honestly, my overall impression of TFP was that it was put together in a rush- as if the script wasn't quite there yet but most of the people were available- minus Rupert Graves, possibly, and so they tweaked and chopped and changed on the fly, which is why Lestrade's story goes nowhere, Molly's is unresolved, and the overall feel of the episode is too heavily weighted in one set-piece (the prison). That’s an interesting theory but then how do you account for the fact that T6T and TLD seemed pretty organized relative to TFP? Wouldn’t TFP been filmed at the same time as T6T/TLD? I actually disliked T6T more than TFP, and personally thought it had major issues with how it dealt with Mary's death, with pacing, and with a lot of fairly meaningless action sequences- for me, it also seemed rushed- and as is mentioned above, the style of it just felt wrong. TLD was almost overworked in comparison to the other two- but it was a good kind of overworked- to me. But... I'm guessing there was a way to stretch some of the good they had in TLD over the whole of the season, if there has been a bit more attention? Or was it there intention to have such differing tone and pace in their episodes? TLD had breakneck speed, and humour, whereas TFP was ominous and forboding, and then T6T had this odd, sometimes slow-paced, sometimes action-movie feel to it. But even the fact the episodes were that uneven, to me says something went awry in terms of production, they didn't have the time to give each one individual attention, to look at how the season was coming out as a whole and see that parts of T6T and TFP were coming out a little flat, etc... I don't know the order the episodes were shot in, and it seems like conflicting direction styles must have played a part too, but overall, I thought the whole season seemed rushed. They might have gotten away with it in TLD because it was so tightly written and plotted, but the overall quality of the season was so up and down to me.
-
For me TLD is the direction I wanted the show to go in- like itself, but even more so, funnier, smarter, more twists, more surprises, beautiful John/Sherlock moments, it had almost everything. It is sort of disconcerting to have it sandwiched between such differing episodes, almost like an old car struggling to start, jerking forwards and then backwards.
-
The budget might be at least part of it, I couldn't help but feel the set of the prison was quite workmanlike and it was used so often. I suppose in my head I was picturing they had limited time, built this one set and then tried to make as much of the episode from it as they possibly could. They certainly did mention an abandoned outline for another season- to me, again, this is about time too- the writers didn't have the time, the actors were becoming so successful and their availability so elusive... I can't imagine when they envisioned filming a fifth season, and to examine the up and down quality of the fourth, it makes me wonder whether they had time to properly finish it before filming, let alone make any real inroads in a further three scripts. I imagine them beginning to see Sherlock as something so hard to put together the players for, that it wasn't going to happen, and perhaps not prioritising the final scripts, and then all of a suddenly the stars have a few months availability and they take the bones of two season outlines and have just enough material to put together three episodes. In an ideal world, they would have had a season around Mary's death, and a season around Eurus, and room for quieter more traditional episodes in between. Pollock's paintings aren't my favourites- but I agree it is a very apt analogy, and I like the freedom of the paintings and their sense of balance- who knows, if I had a wall big enough, maybe I would hang one :P I think what is great about his stuff is the way he can relax control- and I admire that- sometimes in my own painting, I am too controlled, and it takes away from the vitality of the piece. It's something I've been trying to balance recently, to have some areas where I can be more loose and free, and let that contrast with the areas of control, the way you can use that to shift focus and create atmosphere. But in terms of Pollock knowing when and where he can let the drips fall- that whole physicality, the almost choreographed nature of how he physically painted, the rhythm- to me that's like in Sherlock- they get all these incredible actors together, they have writing talent, and then, they finally have the time, and there is some push and pull and the thing happens- in neither case really by accident, but because good instincts are allowed to prevail, and they let the different strengths in the ensemble have their moments. So often on TV you see things where you cringe and think 'who let this happen?' in a bad way, whereas some of the best things about Sherlock were allowed to happen in a good way, instead.
-
Considering how late in the game the changes were, I wonder if the changes were his choice or forced on him? I doubt you’d ever get a straight answer on that, but yes if they were his choice, he gets some credit. I’m skeptical that it was his choice. Given his quotes in interviews, something like this makes me think a producer, actor, etc. was able to force the changes and he was procrastinating or resisting the changes until forced to do so. Otherwise why wait until the last minute? Honestly, my overall impression of TFP was that it was put together in a rush- as if the script wasn't quite there yet but most of the people were available- minus Rupert Graves, possibly, and so they tweaked and chopped and changed on the fly, which is why Lestrade's story goes nowhere, Molly's is unresolved, and the overall feel of the episode is too heavily weighted in one set-piece (the prison). So I think it's more likely that the coffin angle was a first-draft-ish idea that they never had time to develop into something better, and were going to shoot anyway, for lack of time to do better. I actually get that feel from a few things- that they didn't have enough time to let the ideas breathe, to sit with what they were doing and make sure it felt right for the show. I know that sounds a bit airy fairy, but it's just how I perceive the episode. It's not as well considered as other ones, to me- though I concede some aspects, such as Sherlock's relationship with Mycroft, were considered very deeply. About artists behaving like grown-ups- I do think there is a part of any good artist that never does fully grow up- and that's often part of what makes them good- how else can anyone make believe for a living?
-
I wasn’t talking about fans. Look at how Moffat describes feedback from Sherlock people about that coffin scene. Moftiss didn’t initially listen to them and defended the scene but it wasn’t until “everyone” insisted that the scene sucked that they rewrote the scene, last minute. The way he reacted to the EW interviewer also struck me as someone not willing to critically assess his work. Maybe it is based on a buildup of negative feedback from all fronts but the way LB referenced him not liking the question like she could just picture the circumstances and how quickly he got annoyed makes me wonder if that is just how SM has always been. Like how LB described how she had to really lobby to get the Xmas scene changed so that Molly had some sort of reaction. He doesn’t strike me as self aware or really all that accepting of feedback regardless of where it comes from. I think there are two sides here: he obviously gets into a real snit when he's questioned, but I would give a lot of credit to him for listening to Louise and changing the dialogue to compensate, in Scandal, and for getting rid of that awful coffin bit. In my opinion, a real sexist wouldn't even listen to the criticism, let alone alter what we see onscreen accordingly. It takes a bit of vision and flexibility to say, okay Louise is right, Molly needs to say something here. He also was able to listen to people about the coffin scene. So, I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think Moffat is actually a real, dyed in the wool sexist, he's just a bit misguided. I've worked with real sexists, and they 100% do not listen to or care about a female point of view, no matter how well qualified that view is. It is like talking to a brick wall. What he says in the media makes him seem like a bit of a git sometimes, but what he lets make it to the screen probably says more about who he is as an artist, in my view.
-
If anyone else was acting this part I don't know if I'd watch the show, but I will have to give it a look.
-
It might go back to what Arcadia was saying above, about a general feeling of 'too much' negative or overly-pushy feedback from fans on the series in general. The Jonh-lock thing seemed to have got a bit out of control, and it seemed like the writers and possibly performers too had just had enough of the fans saying how they wanted the series to be. I do think there is a big difference between saying a storyline, within the context of an episode wasn't properly resolved, and people writing complaint letters to the BBC about a favourite pairing not getting together- but I can kind of see how all that feedback clumped together in Moffat's view- and it all became a bit tiresome. And I also agree that constructive criticism should be taken on- but then Moffat has had so much about women characters, and he still seems to struggle- maybe the guy is genuinely doing his best? Don't watch Dr. Who myself, but Molly has probably gotten off better than most, at least she's still alive. I genuinely think Moffat is baffled that people weren't spending all the time after TFP talking about how cool it was that Sherlock had to choose between killing his brother and his best friend etc- like all those high-pressure antics were what people were interested in. It puzzles me so much that he could make a series that was overall such high quality and so loved, and in the end have so little idea what fans had really loved about it. I like the idea of SM enraged so I enjoy this theory! Not sure how likely it is though. Oh well, I enjoy it anyway! It seems like the kind of thing MG would enjoy too- I can imagine him in the editing suite working on the final montage- telling Steven he should really just pop to the pub and enjoy a pint while he finishes up, he's been working too hard- and possibly cutting out that last few seconds where Irene Adler was going to appear at Baker Street...
-
:D Haha, I might as well have come clean and said when I make a mistake in creative work and someone points it out, it really annoys me, so alas, Steven, I understand all too well how you feel! Gerry- I think Mark has just enough finesse to have made their last minute efforts sound a bit more deliberate than they were. Of course, Mark also IMO has a greater appreciation for ambiguity and sees both sides of that relationship of Molly and Sherlock, whereas Steven has a head full of Irene Adler. Then again, I also like the idea that Mark somehow tricked Steven into leaving Molly/Sherlock as a possibility, and Steven is now enraged by the fact. Maybe I'll just believe that from now on. :huh:
-
For the record, I agree it doesn't reflect well, what he said really annoyed me. I felt like Louise was short-changed on screen time, and she did that scene so beautifully but they gave her no real resolution for it, and what Steven said robbed her of the credit due for how well she acted it. Even the fact that he gave her a heads up rather than just admitting he's misspoken publicly annoys me, it has tones of, 'oh this woman might be a bit silly and get upset about what I've said even though I've actually been very sensible', about it. And I don't think it's true that it wasn't important to Sherlock's own character how that ILY scene was resolved- however he felt afterwards it would have been relevant for the audience to know too. Seemed like a cop out to me. It's not the TFP thread so I won't get into the irritations of so much time of the finale devoted to non recurring characters, so little resolution for regulars, etc. Of course it probably doesn't help that he already gets a lot of flack for treating female characters poorly, I'm sure that must stick in his craw a bit (though strangely not enough to put a bit more thought into how he writes for, or at least speaks about his female characters publicly). So, when questioned about leaving Molly's story unresolved (and keeping in mind he's already killed off Mary in the same season) I can imagine it really got to him to be questioned about it. In my head, Louise was being classy but was actually very irritated at the way SM spoke about her character. What he said was nonsense, and it didn't do justice to her work either, but unfortunately you might not work much in television by calling out successful show creators on their BS at every given opportunity. Also, it seems like his and Mark's original (terrible) idea of putting Molly actually in a coffin had been poorly received too. He must have been pretty much ready to tell everyone who had an opinion on Molly to get stuffed at that point.
-
Lovely interview, thanks Gerry. I think she's totally right- he's just one of those creative types that gets really prickly when questioned about decisions he made in his work- especially so when he knows people have a point.
-
Although, J.P., friendship helps you live longer whereas cigarettes have the opposite effect!
-
It's really interesting reading the discussion of friendship and loneliness and friendship as it relates to Mycroft, and modern life too. If Mycroft's more 'unique' qualities make it more difficult for him to make friends, that probably says something universal about how as we age and become, through individuation more definitely 'ourselves' it becomes increasingly difficult to find other people with whom we have a lot in common, or with whom we have an ease of connection- or at least to find such people conveniently located and available to us. Then again, Sherlock and John are a good example of friends who don't have much in common, but their friendship is perhaps a bit idealised? To me they have a level of warmth and unquestioning loyalty, and sheer free time to spend together normally reserved for childhood friendships? (Of course, that wasn't so much the case in season 4) I think it becomes increasingly difficult to make friends as you get older and more set in your ways, though I was delighted to make a friend at a class a couple of years back, and it has been a very rewarding friendship as it turns out. It's nice to think it is still possible to meet people you have things in common with. Sometimes it seems as if after the age of thirty or so, so many people have settled into a life of a definite sort or another, and lost all interest in meeting new people. A lot of the friends I have seem content with the social set they are in, and with increasing demands of marriage, kids etc, they aren't bothered meeting new friends, in fact they struggle to see their old ones.
-
I've been thinking of re-watching the version of Jane Eyre from your link Artemis, this could be a sign! I don't see Sherlock as a Rochester type, but I do think BC would make a great Rochester, and LB would be fantastic as Jane. I first read Jane Eyre as a teenager and didn't find it that romantic- because it seemed like Rochester loved Jane's ordinariness- or 'sane-ness'- more than he loved her- that he opted for her as the opposite of his insane wife, rather than for herself. I might rethink it if I read the book again now. I think as you age you realise how rare and wonderful a truly sane and calm disposition can be, in a way that is hard to appreciate in your school days. Molly and Jane are quite similar characters in a lot of ways, and perhaps their ordinariness is something which is made a feature of in both the stories they inhabit, so it is a natural comparison. Jane is something of a refuge for Rochester from the rest of his life. I know Molly isn't portrayed as that in Sherlock, but I could see a version of their relationship happening (maybe offscreen) where that is the case. It seemed like in season 4 they hinted that there was more to the friendship than we were seeing, and that something like that could be the case for them- like maybe a little bit in the idea that for his birthday he goes for cake with Molly and John, that sort of thing. I really missed the show this Christmas! I must choose an episode for a re-watch. Maybe Scandal or The Abominable Bride.
-
I'm not a Holmes purist, in fact I prefer the series to the ACD books (sorry!), but this is exactly why I dislike Irene's character- because I think Sherlock showing admiration for her actually cheapens him. The whole saucy dominatrix bit seems so bog-standard men's magazine material, that it makes me think a bit less of Sherlock to see him fall for it- and especially to fall for her blatant manipulation of him too. And, most of all, the fact that she doesn't have a strong moral character. Maybe our Sherlock isn't made of the same stuff of the original morally, but we do see glimpses of goodness and a belief in what is right in other episodes, so it's disappointing to see him so taken by somebody more on Moriarty's side of the game. Maybe one aspect of all this that bothers me is the implication, by the series putting this new spin on Irene, is that in 'modern times' morals have become sort of outdated- which I don't believe is true, and I don't think is an aspect of Sherlock as a characterthat needed change or updating. I completely agree, it is one of the scenes that made me fall in love with the show. I think it is because of how much we learn about the characters through their interactions- it is uncomfortable to watch and yet almost perfectly constructed, so well written and acted- how often does television actually make you squirm when you watch it?
-
The part that made me wonder, was that it seemed to me that there was some half-abandoned plot-line about Lestrade asking out a woman at work- I think we got one throwaway line where Sherlock might have told him that we was planning on asking out a female officer but that she wasn't really the one? Whatever way it was put, it made me think they originally planned to give Lestrade some sort of more happy ending romantically (than the wife who was cheating on him) but either ran out of time or the availability of RG wasn't there. And the only character I could think of that we had seen, who could possibly be 'the one' for him- would possibly be Molly? Little things like that make me feel a bit regretful, just hints of the episode having been a bit rushed and pieced together, which as it was such a big finale, I wish they would have found a bit more time or resources for things like giving Lestrade a proper ending. I thought the same thing -- about Molly possibly being "the one," I mean. (And I'd love to see that!) I also agree about Series 4 seeming sort of rushed and patched together (quite possibly because they also incorporated as much as they could of what they'd planned for Series 5). But I'm not mourning the end of the show just yet, and have hopes that Greg and Molly will still get together! Funny, I never thought of Molly ... I thought it was going to be DI Hopkins that Sherlock hooked Lestrade up with! I did wonder why they included that scene, though, since nothing ever came of it. In fact, I wondered why they included Hopkins, for the same reason. I like your idea better, personally. With the risk of beating a dead horse, it once again shows the hap-hazard nature of TFP plot. It might be as simple as, whilst they couldn't for whatever reason complete this storyline, they knew fans would want to see Lestrade, and therefore inserted what they had of him, despite it not fully making sense. Of course they could always redeem themselves by completing his story in season 5. Ahem.
-
I like that. I can relate to that line, I should save it. Which film version is that from? I only watch the 1994 one, and I'm pretty sure it's not in there. Well, I had thought it was from that version, and now, upon checking I have made a grievous error, and it wasn't from Little Women at all, but from The Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants, an entirely different movie! Sorry for the confusion, for some reason I always associated that line with the character of Jo (I do think it fits her). I wouldn't have expected such a nice line to be from The Sisterhood... (though it's been so long I might be underestimating it), but here it is in full, about Alexis Bledel's character, Lena: "Some people show their beauty because that’s what they want the world to see, others hide their beauty because they want the world to see something else."
-
Well if you've read much of our poetry and literature, you'll already know that of course we're all lovesick masochists! I think there is something about the Irish sensibility where if a story doesn't have at least a hint of tragedy/ the potential for disaster, we can't quite believe it to be true. In art, at least, we probably want a love story to be a bit like Yeats describes it: "I would spread the cloths under your feet: But I, being poor, have only my dreams; I have spread my dreams under your feet; Tread softly because you tread on my dreams." And yes to a Molly spin off, bring it on! (but should Moffat be allowed to write it?) The part that made me wonder, was that it seemed to me that there was some half-abandoned plot-line about Lestrade asking out a woman at work- I think we got one throwaway line where Sherlock might have told him that we was planning on asking out a female officer but that she wasn't really the one? Whatever way it was put, it made me think they originally planned to give Lestrade some sort of more happy ending romantically (than the wife who was cheating on him) but either ran out of time or the availability of RG wasn't there. And the only character I could think of that we had seen, who could possibly be 'the one' for him- would possibly be Molly? Little things like that make me feel a bit regretful, just hints of the episode having been a bit rushed and pieced together, which as it was such a big finale, I wish they would have found a bit more time or resources for things like giving Lestrade a proper ending. I really like that Molly isn't a fashion plate. I actually think it is for a similar reason to if you look at how Lena Dunham dresses her character in Girls (now, to my mind, worse than Molly- stuff that doesn't fit and is also in poor taste)- just seeing a woman on TV who hasn't been made into a perfect object, something from a magazine, but rather seems more like a real person. I don't hate all her clothes at all. It's more the stuff she puts on her head when she dresses up, that I question- like the easter bow at John's wedding, the christmas bow, and the headscarf at the Christening. I do think they do it to distract from the fact that LB has a pretty face, and as you say, they want her to be the type that hides that. I think there is a line from Little Women, where the professor speaks to Jo, and tells her that some women make the most of themselves because they want the world to focus on their beauty, and then that she (Jo) hides her beauty so the world will see something else- and to me, that is Molly, too (Though forgive me, if I'm only thinking of the film as I can't recall that line being in the book, I've got the two muddled in my memory). Not that a woman should have to choose which aspect of them is more important- but I just get the impression that she wants people to focus more on her intellectual side, and that she focus more on that herself.
-
It may be just because I'm from Ireland, but the more pathetic a character's devotion is, the more real I find them to be, sometimes. It just seems like a very real part of human nature, to hope against hope, etc. I also don't see Molly as a caricature, but I agree, there are problems with the way women are written- not always, but sometimes- on the show. So much so that there was a point in TFP when I suspected that Molly and Lestrade might end up together with Sherlock as the matchmaker... and then I realised that actually the emotional sides of characters like Molly and Lestrade were collateral damage to the broad strokes of the convaluted plot of TFP, and expecting any kind of resolution/ coherence for either of them was unwise. I do think it is primarily the actress that gives Molly layers, but then they did cast her, and I do think that her portrayal is the only reason they ran with the character, so at least they are capable of recognising talent and potential, and running with it. I find Nicholas Cage to be a terrible actor and the worst kind of ham, with apologies to those who are fans of his work.
-
Why is that hard to believe? :/ Funny, I did expect it. I got that impression in the ASiB morgue scene especially, when she said, "Everyone else was busy with Christmas." I think Sherlock noticed it too, if you look at the way he looks at her after she says it. There are signs of her being alone all over the place, really. I find it hard to believe because Molly as a character seems so likeable- and as another poster mentioned vulnerable, to me. I suppose I don't understand why there aren't any people who want to have a strong friendship or family relationship with her? It actually made me wonder what sort of people her family could have been for her to have become so detached from them, when she has always been so loyal not only to Sherlock but also to John too, after Mary died. And you're right about ASiB, I'd forgotten about that, but again to me, that doesn't seem right- I know she does an odd job, but wouldn't she make friends easily enough in work, with people she has things in common with? She seems to get on well with Lestrade, for example, but he's an awkward example because if he does have a crush on her he's not going to be one to give her romantic/ fashion advice. I would have liked for Molly and Mary to be friends. I wonder if they ever considered giving them scenes together. It's slightly implied by her presence at the christening, but really she could just be seen as John's friend. Maybe she has more male than female friends, I suppose that's possible?
-
Yes, I thought she was trying the more accepted route to happiness, and it was telling that her favourite aspect seemed to be the dog! I would so like to know Molly's backstory, I think one of the hardest things for me about her character is believing she hadn't a single friend or family member to advise her on things- like dating Tom not being the best idea, some of her outfit choices (though I don't hate all her clothes)... there is something a bit uncared for about Molly, which comes to a head with the coffin deduction, and then we never get any resolution on that. Yeah, in the coffin deduction, I didn't expect that ... that she would be identified as the classic little orphan type, alone and uncared for. Now that was sad. I prefer to think Molly has a real life outside of Sherlock that she is quite content with, thank you. I did like that Sherlock identified her as practical and informed. I like to imagine that as his way of saying he respects her. I find some parallels in the way Sherlock speaks about Lady Carmichael in TAB, with Watson and his description of Molly there. Though that's probably an incurably romantic interpretation!
-
I don't really see her looking for the white picket fence either, I suspect that's just a projection of her "type". She's a "typical" girl, ergo she must want a "typical" life. A significant moment for me was when she said "maybe it's just my type," after Sherlock congratulated her for not dating a psychopath. That line makes me think she really does see Sherlock pretty clearly, and wants him anyway. Or thinks she does, at least. I agree with your take on what Molly is looking for, and it sort of fits with that crush/ more grown up affection progression that I saw in the later portrayal of their relationship. When Molly was describing her relationship with Tom to Sherlock, I felt like she was more of a tourist describing her time away from normalcy- like she found her relationship with Tom perhaps about one eighth as odd as Sherlock would find a relationship like that. She's also the girl who was first taken with a guy she saw beating a corpse, so to me her romantic tastes aren't exactly pedestrian. I also thought that whole conversation was odd because of how much like exes Molly and Sherlock behaved- I can understand her acting as if they had a past, but from him it was pretty bizarre. :o Yikes!! Yet the fics surely exist to back that up. Yes, I thought she was trying the more accepted route to happiness, and it was telling that her favourite aspect seemed to be the dog! I would so like to know Molly's backstory, I think one of the hardest things for me about her character is believing she hadn't a single friend or family member to advise her on things- like dating Tom not being the best idea, some of her outfit choices (though I don't hate all her clothes)... there is something a bit uncared for about Molly, which comes to a head with the coffin deduction, and then we never get any resolution on that.
-
I think a part of the appeal of Molly/ Sherlock for me is that Molly is outwardly such a nerd and yet she has a hidden streak of being quite morbid and hyper-competent- whereas Sherlock is like the reverse, outwardly cool and competent, but underneath that a bit of a nerd who sometimes wants to fit in a lot more than he'd like to let on. The way they are presented on the how it does seem like an ordinary girl/ extraordinary guy deal, but part of what makes each of them likeable for me is that other side they have- so in a way I don't perceive them as that different to each other.
-
I'm not 100% sold on Lestrade/Molly, but I definitely see the basis for that relationship- Lestrade seems like he has been unlucky in his choice of longterm love- the wife who cheats frequently, and then with Molly, depending on your point of view, Sherlock seems to have not been the most kind choice as the object of her affections- to an extent, you might view both Molly and Lestrade as 'gluttons for punishment' in the area of love- so there is that appeal that instead of continue to be heartbroken, they could make each other happy instead. They both deserve it so much, and seem like such decent people with the potential to be good partners. I have read a very convincing fic on the pairing, called, 'An Avalanche of Detour Signs". I say all this, but I still like Molly and Sherlock the best- I know we've spoken about it before Gerry, for me it's more my reading of the performances of BC and LB- I'm not sure the relationship can be read on the page, but for me it is there in the way the actors perform their roles together, in the chemistry. But then, I also think LB and Rupert Graves have a lovely chemistry- like when they are chatting in TSOT, or sitting near each other at the wedding- for me there is a convincing life to their friendship way beyond the snippets we see onscreen, and a genuine warmth there between Molly and Lestrade, maybe hints of romance too.
-
SHERLOCKED: Official "Sherlock" Convention
bedelia1984 replied to Carol the Dabbler's topic in The News Stand
Thank you for that report, J.P., it sounds really fun- especially that you got to chat to Steven and Sue! -
Episode 4.2 "The Lying Detective"
bedelia1984 replied to Undead Medic's topic in Special and Series 4
Tricky, because I have this feeling they'd be into costumes and role play, and I'm not sure I'd want to see/ be able to look away. :P- 793 replies
-
- 3