The Sincerest Form of Imitation (not a story)

[DukeNukem 2417]

....so. One of my earliest works to be posted here was dug up, put through a parser and done as motion video.

Haven't seen the video yet. Can't exactly say I'm enthused about it.

I'm not bothered by the lack of a PM asking if I was okay with this. What bothers me is that the scene chosen was meant to convey a sense of dread, a feeling that the main character was in danger, and was instead recreated for what I can only assume was a feeling of titillation. Never mind that the villain of the piece shows up again in later works, explicitly stated to be a spree murderer. That one bit was "adapted" to motion video with zero context behind it.

David Lynch never liked explaining the meaning of anything he made. Apparently, I don't get that luxury.

The damage to the scrapped 'bot in that bit was set dressing. Meant to show off that the gynoid was, in fact, a gynoid and that she'd been dispatched by the aforementioned villain of the piece. The wider truth of the matter was that said villain was targeting the main character, had done this to multiple 'bots before and was planning on adding the protagonist of the piece to his body count. I've never pitched myself as a strictly ASFR writer...or more to the point, the "SF" in my work tends to be less "sex fetish" and more "science fiction". If people find some of what I write titillating, that's fine by me. But taking one scene out of context and adapting it alongside pieces from other, explicitly ASFR work...it just rubs me the wrong way.

To make a long story short: I have no idea why that scene from that story was picked, I'm not particularly thrilled about it, and no, I don't want a PM apology or anything. What I DO want, or at least what I'd greatly appreciate, is the removal of the video versions of it from the FTP server. I'm also using this post to issue a blanket ban on AI motion video "adaptations" of ANY of my work.

If anyone does want to collaborate, via writing or music or anything of the sort, drop me a line via the usual method. As long as it's not about turning my writing into yet more A.I.-generated slop.

[ProchazkaJBG]

How is this kind of thing any different from manips? I never hear a peep about "asking the original creator permission to use their work", and that involves REAL PEOPLE

How is that OK but the AI stuff isn't? (not talking about FBC rules, asking a general question)

[Chevy Monza]

[quote="DukeNukem 2417" post_id=108601 time=1750105713 user_id=3413]
....so. One of my earliest works to be posted here was dug up, put through a parser and done as motion video.

Haven't seen the video yet. Can't exactly say I'm enthused about it.

I'm not bothered by the lack of a PM asking if I was okay with this. What bothers me is that the scene chosen was meant to convey a sense of dread, a feeling that the main character was in danger, and was instead recreated for what I can only assume was a feeling of titillation. Never mind that the villain of the piece shows up again in later works, explicitly stated to be a spree murderer. That one bit was "adapted" to motion video with zero context behind it.

David Lynch never liked explaining the meaning of anything he made. Apparently, I don't get that luxury.

The damage to the scrapped 'bot in that bit was set dressing. Meant to show off that the gynoid was, in fact, a gynoid and that she'd been dispatched by the aforementioned villain of the piece. The wider truth of the matter was that said villain was targeting the main character, had done this to multiple 'bots before and was planning on adding the protagonist of the piece to his body count. I've never pitched myself as a strictly ASFR writer...or more to the point, the "SF" in my work tends to be less "sex fetish" and more "science fiction". If people find some of what I write titillating, that's fine by me. But taking one scene out of context and adapting it alongside pieces from other, explicitly ASFR work...it just rubs me the wrong way.

To make a long story short: I have no idea why that scene from that story was picked, I'm not particularly thrilled about it, and no, I don't want a PM apology or anything. What I DO want, or at least what I'd greatly appreciate, is the removal of the video versions of it from the FTP server. I'm also using this post to issue a blanket ban on AI motion video "adaptations" of ANY of my work.

If anyone does want to collaborate, via writing or music or anything of the sort, drop me a line via the usual method. As long as it's not about turning my writing into yet more A.I.-generated slop.
[/quote]

Being that pedantic assholeness is all the rage here, shouldn't this have been posted somewhere else, other then stories?

/\/\()|\|z@

[The Liar]

How is this kind of thing any different from manips? I never hear a peep about "asking the original creator permission to use their work", and that involves REAL PEOPLE

How is that OK but the AI stuff isn't? (not talking about FBC rules, asking a general question)

In truth, that should also not be okay; but that's been prevalent since the 90's, so it got normalized.

[ProchazkaJBG]

How is this kind of thing any different from manips? I never hear a peep about "asking the original creator permission to use their work", and that involves REAL PEOPLE

How is that OK but the AI stuff isn't? (not talking about FBC rules, asking a general question)

In truth, that should also not be okay; but that's been prevalent since the 90's, so it got normalized.

I just think the hypocrisy from some people on this site is hilarious

[DukeNukem 2417]

Photo manipulations were made using pre-existing photos and adding bits from other pre-existing photos. Thing is, PEOPLE were and are the ones who do the manipulating. And the photos were OF ACTUAL PEOPLE, and the bits added were ACTUAL BITS OF ACTUAL ELECTRONICS. There was no regurgitation from LLMs or whatever. PEOPLE contributed to all of the facets of photo manipulations. It's like when two artists collaborate to work on a song; David Bowie and the Pet Shop Boys actually interacted and worked together on the "Hallo Spaceboy" remix, they didn't just throw their vocals into an A.I. blender and have it excrete the desired end result. They worked together. PEOPLE worked together.

Also, I think a lot of people missed the point of my screed. The scene "borrowed" was meant to be played for horror, it was "adapted" for an entirely different purpose. I was thinking we should focus on THAT, instead of throwing out terms like "pedantic assholeishness" and the like.

[dubhdanaidh]

With regard to manips it never really occurred to me that it could be problematic until OnlyFans et al. in theory allowed you to easily chat with content creators. I've had a few really ask about the community, but when manips come up it can be interesting. Some have been less than pleased that manips of them exist. Others don't care.

[TheShoveller]

How is this kind of thing any different from manips? I never hear a peep about "asking the original creator permission to use their work", and that involves REAL PEOPLE

How is that OK but the AI stuff isn't? (not talking about FBC rules, asking a general question)

While there are some exceptions to photomanips, the main difference between a manip done by a person and a video created by an AI is that the snippet of story you feed to the AI is stored indefinitely in its database and used to create whatever else is asked of that AI - that person's writing style, vocabulary usage, etc. is stored and reused without the original author's permission or credit, which is exactly what one of the big legal issues the guys who run the AI stuff are facing right now.

[Anderson88]

How is this kind of thing any different from manips? I never hear a peep about "asking the original creator permission to use their work", and that involves REAL PEOPLE

How is that OK but the AI stuff isn't? (not talking about FBC rules, asking a general question)

While there are some exceptions to photomanips, the main difference between a manip done by a person and a video created by an AI is that the snippet of story you feed to the AI is stored indefinitely in its database and used to create whatever else is asked of that AI - that person's writing style, vocabulary usage, etc. is stored and reused without the original author's permission or credit, which is exactly what one of the big legal issues the guys who run the AI stuff are facing right now.

I do want to clarify that in terms of what I did in particular, I didn't feed any content from the stories into Google Gemini, that's not the workflow. You can only write hard actions and details into the prompts; you can't include nuances like performances, mood, etc. because Gemini doesn't understand that.

For example, one prompt for Claire33 was:
A busty female android nurse with long red hair wearing a tattered nurse uniform. the inside of her stomach is visible with wires. she’s sitting on a chair in a repair room. on a small electronic panel embedded in the skin of her arm, it says “low power” in red text. sad, she says “sophie i need to recharge. i… malfunction… malfunction.” then dies, looking blankly forward. close up view.

---

I know the issue of AI-work is contentious for artists of all sorts. I'm well aware, being a member of the TV industry in LA and being affected by the strikes that lead to nascent AI regulation in our industry. I hate the reality of AI replacing real people and workflow pipelines. So if the enforcement of rules here help support artists, then I'm all for that.

---

DukeNukem 2417, I know you said otherwise, but I do apologize for adapting your work without permission. I'm sure if Hitchcock lived long enough to see Gus Van Sant's shot-for-shot remake of Psycho, he'd have a similar reaction. Those clips are off the FTP.

[Anderson88]

I do hope at some point in the future, if ever the issues of copyright and stolen artwork are settled, AI will be another tool used without guilt. It'll be used just like mods for video games, remixes for old songs, or our manips - helping entirely separate assets come together to create a new work. Only with AI, the databases won't be filled with copies of Shrek (like that Midjourney lawsuit alleges), but populated with royalty free or copyright-approved images, so that AI simply becomes an easier way to throw together assets to build something new. And ultimately we can get our hard sci-fi environments and performances that are difficult to replicate without a budget.

[ProchazkaJBG]

How is this kind of thing any different from manips? I never hear a peep about "asking the original creator permission to use their work", and that involves REAL PEOPLE

How is that OK but the AI stuff isn't? (not talking about FBC rules, asking a general question)

While there are some exceptions to photomanips, the main difference between a manip done by a person and a video created by an AI is that the snippet of story you feed to the AI is stored indefinitely in its database and used to create whatever else is asked of that AI - that person's writing style, vocabulary usage, etc. is stored and reused without the original author's permission or credit, which is exactly what one of the big legal issues the guys who run the AI stuff are facing right now.

But the images are someone else's work you (the shooper) are 'stealing' to make edits to, then putting out their as your own, with zero credit (or compensation, or permission) to anyone who actually 'owns' the picture besides (sometimes) the model's name... not to mention these are actual real people and not drawings or CGI

It's incredibly hypocritical... let's be real the #1 reason it's not allowed here is because some think FBL should be some bastion of art morality, NOT a place that should be a hub for sharing everything fembot


I would love to see a poll on this

[DukeNukem 2417]

Mister Anderson....(sorry, couldn't resist): Thanks for removing the clips from the FTP. I appreciate your respect for my desire to not have my content be regurgitated by LLMs or whatever else passes for A.I. these days.

To everyone who keeps going on about "so hypocritical" and bringing up photo manipulations: YOU. ARE. MISSING. THE. POINT. But I'm not going to keep arguing, because otherwise I'm going to be labeled a pedantic asshole hypocrite (again). Our administrative team can point out the differences between photo manipulations and feeding prompts into an LLM and having it crap out what you want. As for me, I'm going to continue on what I've been working on, and I mean actually sitting down and typing, MYSELF, instead of feeding lines into a mess of algorithms that pukes out some hideous approximation of what it "thinks" (and I use the term VERY loosely) my style is supposed to be.

In closing, I'll say this: I will never use A.I. to create anything. Ever. Whoever else wants to use it, go right ahead and do so. Just know that just because you told a teeming hive of code what you want and had it "create" by way of puking out a story, or picture, or whatever, you're contributing to the problem, not the solution.

[ProchazkaJBG]

In closing, I'll say this: I will never use A.I. to create anything. Ever. Whoever else wants to use it, go right ahead and do so. Just know that just because you told a teeming hive of code what you want and had it "create" by way of puking out a story, or picture, or whatever, you're contributing to the problem, not the solution.

Case in point, and you quite obviously DO care since you argue so vigorously and emotionally against any form of it



BTW I don't use AI to generate images or video or anything, I just feel that we as members of FBC are being denied and outright shamed for wanting to generate content for the rest of the community. Simple as that.

[DukeNukem 2417]

In closing, I'll say this: I will never use A.I. to create anything. Ever. Whoever else wants to use it, go right ahead and do so. Just know that just because you told a teeming hive of code what you want and had it "create" by way of puking out a story, or picture, or whatever, you're contributing to the problem, not the solution.

Case in point, and you quite obviously DO care since you argue so vigorously against any form of it



BTW I don't use AI to generate images or video or anything, I just feel that we as a community are being denied and outright shamed for wanting to generate content for the rest of the community. Simple as that.

If you want to generate the content, CREATE CONTENT BY WAY OF YOUR OWN MERIT.

Don't just lean into the LLMs or whatever the techbros are pushing. WRITE. DRAW. COMPOSE. However you want to create, CREATE - but DO IT WITH YOUR OWN GOD-GIVEN TALENT. Quit leaning so heavily on A.I. like a damn crutch! You have a functioning brain, an imagination, two hands and access to a plethora of tools with which you can create something on your own - USE THEM!

[ProchazkaJBG]

In closing, I'll say this: I will never use A.I. to create anything. Ever. Whoever else wants to use it, go right ahead and do so. Just know that just because you told a teeming hive of code what you want and had it "create" by way of puking out a story, or picture, or whatever, you're contributing to the problem, not the solution.

Case in point, and you quite obviously DO care since you argue so vigorously against any form of it



BTW I don't use AI to generate images or video or anything, I just feel that we as a community are being denied and outright shamed for wanting to generate content for the rest of the community. Simple as that.

If you want to generate the content, CREATE CONTENT BY WAY OF YOUR OWN MERIT.

Don't just lean into the LLMs or whatever the techbros are pushing. WRITE. DRAW. COMPOSE. However you want to create, CREATE - but DO IT WITH YOUR OWN GOD-GIVEN TALENT. Quit leaning so heavily on A.I. like a damn crutch! You have a functioning brain, an imagination, two hands and access to a plethora of tools with which you can create something on your own - USE THEM!

Damn why are you so emotional about this lmao

You're basically saying if we don't have the skill to create we don't deserve anything. Cool

[DukeNukem 2417]

That...that wasn't what I was....

You know what, screw it. I'm sick of this.

The point I was trying to make is that people who want to create should nurture their own talents in writing, video-making and what-not, instead of just feeding a prompt into a thing and having the thing shit out whatever they want. But apparently, because I'm a firm believer in the boundless creativity inherent in the human spirit, I'm a pedantic hypocrite asshole. Wonderful. Brilliant.

David Lynch never would've used LLMs, is all I'm saying.

[body]

How is this kind of thing any different from manips? I never hear a peep about "asking the original creator permission to use their work", and that involves REAL PEOPLE

How is that OK but the AI stuff isn't? (not talking about FBC rules, asking a general question)

This is not an FC rule, but it applies to all works.
A person's individuality is a choice.
Works and expressions are the result of choices made by the creators.

When creating works with AI,
I think it's not good to create something that isn't a finish work.

There is a difference between prolific creation and indiscriminate creation.

I believe that it is the responsibility of the creator to decide when a work is complete.
I don't think it's right to show the creator several similar ideas and ask, “Which one do you think is my finished work?” without the creator making a decision.

I think that generated works by AI are not necessarily bad.
But if you don't make your own choices, it's not a work.
It's just a rough idea.

Thanks.

[The Liar]

Case in point, and you quite obviously DO care since you argue so vigorously against any form of it



BTW I don't use AI to generate images or video or anything, I just feel that we as a community are being denied and outright shamed for wanting to generate content for the rest of the community. Simple as that.

If you want to generate the content, CREATE CONTENT BY WAY OF YOUR OWN MERIT.

Don't just lean into the LLMs or whatever the techbros are pushing. WRITE. DRAW. COMPOSE. However you want to create, CREATE - but DO IT WITH YOUR OWN GOD-GIVEN TALENT. Quit leaning so heavily on A.I. like a damn crutch! You have a functioning brain, an imagination, two hands and access to a plethora of tools with which you can create something on your own - USE THEM!

Damn why are you so emotional about this lmao

You're basically saying if we don't have the skill to create we don't deserve anything. Cool

No, he's saying if you don't have the talent and are to fucking lazy to put in the effort to gain the skills; then you aren't a creator, you don't deserve to present yourself as a creator.

The world is already full of content, you can find something you like, no one is stopping you, A.I. need not apply.

And seriously, you made a valid point about Manips; but clearly, very clearly, only as lame effort to conflate the two, and go "Look samesies! A.I. must be alright then!", yet you have the audacity to call other people hypocrites?!

[ProchazkaJBG]

If you want to generate the content, CREATE CONTENT BY WAY OF YOUR OWN MERIT.

Don't just lean into the LLMs or whatever the techbros are pushing. WRITE. DRAW. COMPOSE. However you want to create, CREATE - but DO IT WITH YOUR OWN GOD-GIVEN TALENT. Quit leaning so heavily on A.I. like a damn crutch! You have a functioning brain, an imagination, two hands and access to a plethora of tools with which you can create something on your own - USE THEM!

Damn why are you so emotional about this lmao

You're basically saying if we don't have the skill to create we don't deserve anything. Cool

No, he's saying if you don't have the talent and are to fucking lazy to put in the effort to gain the skills; then you aren't a creator, you don't deserve to present yourself as a creator.

The world is already full of content, you can find something you like, no one is stopping you, A.I. need not apply.

And seriously, you made a valid point about Manips; but clearly, very clearly, only as lame effort to conflate the two, and go "Look samesies! A.I. must be alright then!", yet you have the audacity to call other people hypocrites?!

Uhhh that's exactly what both of you are saying "If you cannot make it yourself, then too bad". You literally just said it lmao. "if you don't have the talent and are to fucking lazy to put in the effort to gain the skills; then you aren't a creator, you don't deserve to present yourself as a creator."


Did you SERIOUSLY just say there is enough (for everyone to find whatever they want) fembot content out there?


Soooo did I or didn't I make a valid point, without your stupid patronizing psycho-analysis?

[33cl33]

[The Liar]

Uhhh that's exactly what both of you are saying "If you cannot make it yourself, then too bad". You literally just said it lmao. "if you don't have the talent and are to fucking lazy to put in the effort to gain the skills; then you aren't a creator, you don't deserve to present yourself as a creator."

You said "if we don't have the skill to create, we don't deserve anything."; no, you are free to consume whatever you want, but consumption and creation are not the same thing.

Typing a few prompts into a mindless algorithm that identifies an replicates patterns, is not an act of creativity; the program is doing all the work.
You are next to unnecessary, a your average TV executive has more creative input then you, and nobody (correctly) gives them any creative recognition.

If you can't be bothered to put in the effort, then yes, you aren't a creator, you don't deserve to be considered one; in the same way you can't be considered an athlete, if you don't exercise.

Did you SERIOUSLY just say there is enough (for everyone to find whatever they want) fembot content out there?

Not even going to try to be comprehensive here, but here:
https://www.pixiv.net/en/tags/%E3%82%A2 ... 4%E3%83%89
More added, every day, the majority not A.I., and it's far easier to getting something functional out of a search engine then an A.I. prompt.

And are you suggesting that generative A.I. can, create something meaningfully bespoke?
No. It just identifies and replicates patterns. It doesn't understand, it doesn't have ideas, it doesn't have a world view or life experience to inform it's work. It can not meaningfully create something new, it can only copy what exists. There will never be a generative A.I. H.R.Giger, it could only ever just rip off his work.
At it's theoretical apotheosis, generative A.I. is a Hack (as in the writer kind); creating something functional, but derivative, rote, and cliche.

I have seen the fruits of this folly, and it is nothing but piles of near identical, bland trash; you can go to deviant art if you want to drown in that.

Soooo did I or didn't I make a valid point, without your stupid patronizing psycho-analysis?

You did make a vaild point, but one that on no level supports the position you are taking, and could easily be incorporated into an argument against it, though a legal/moral one, rather then one of creative merits, since a transformative work is still a creative work.

[ProchazkaJBG]

[ProchazkaJBG]

Uhhh that's exactly what both of you are saying "If you cannot make it yourself, then too bad". You literally just said it lmao. "if you don't have the talent and are to fucking lazy to put in the effort to gain the skills; then you aren't a creator, you don't deserve to present yourself as a creator."

You said "if we don't have the skill to create, we don't deserve anything."; no, you are free to consume whatever you want, but consumption and creation are not the same thing.

[FBC user: "I want to use AI tools to create a scene I have in my head to share with the rest of the community". You: "Nope, sorry, you didn't create this a legitimate way, you can't share it with everyone else here"]

Typing a few prompts into a mindless algorithm that identifies an replicates patterns, is not an act of creativity; the program is doing all the work.
You are next to unnecessary, a your average TV executive has more creative input then you, and nobody (correctly) gives them any creative recognition.

If you can't be bothered to put in the effort, then yes, you aren't a creator, you don't deserve to be considered one; in the same way you can't be considered an athlete, if you don't exercise.

[This is just such a bizarre response I don't know what to say. Who are you to be the gatekeeper of what is considered a 'true creation'? You don't even seem to know WTF goes into creating a 'quality' AI video. Here, tell this guy his channel isn't a legitimate creation because he used AI tools to make something literally nothing else could... https://youtu.be/GPn0oD7brWU?si=xsrK1y0Awn8cQAzL Yup all that just from entering a prompt can you beleeb it?!?!? No extra work whatsoever nope nadda (that's sarcasm btw)]

Did you SERIOUSLY just say there is enough (for everyone to find whatever they want) fembot content out there?

Not even going to try to be comprehensive here, but here:
https://www.pixiv.net/en/tags/%E3%82%A2 ... 4%E3%83%89
More added, every day, the majority not A.I., and it's far easier to getting something functional out of a search engine then an A.I. prompt.

[Bro are you f-ing kidding? That's your response? A fucking cartoon porn site link? ]

And are you suggesting that generative A.I. can, create something meaningfully bespoke?
No. It just identifies and replicates patterns. It doesn't understand, it doesn't have ideas, it doesn't have a world view or life experience to inform it's work. It can not meaningfully create something new, it can only copy what exists. There will never be a generative A.I. H.R.Giger, it could only ever just rip off his work.
At it's theoretical apotheosis, generative A.I. is a Hack (as in the writer kind); creating something functional, but derivative, rote, and cliche.

[Some of you guys are acting like any mention of AI is a kick to the balls of real art. Point to a single time I have ever said AI could create actual art or anything close lmaooooo you're literally making up arguments]

I have seen the fruits of this folly, and it is nothing but piles of near identical, bland trash; you can go to deviant art if you want to drown in that.

Soooo did I or didn't I make a valid point, without your stupid patronizing psycho-analysis?

You did make a vaild point, but one that on no level supports the position you are taking, and could easily be incorporated into an argument against it, though a legal/moral one, rather then one of creative merits, since a transformative work is still a creative work.

[What was the point I was making? After reading your replies I have some doubts you got what I was saying lol]

replies are bolded

[Anderson88]

No. It just identifies and replicates patterns. It doesn't understand, it doesn't have ideas, it doesn't have a world view or life experience to inform it's work. It can not meaningfully create something new, it can only copy what exists. There will never be a generative A.I. H.R.Giger, it could only ever just rip off his work.
At it's theoretical apotheosis, generative A.I. is a Hack (as in the writer kind); creating something functional, but derivative, rote, and cliche.

You're right in this sense, generative AI is "dumb" and doesn't rely on intuition, but only the patterns and assets we feed it. However, to assume the use of generative AI here means we're trying to take shortcuts to become the next H.R. Giger or David Lynch is a stretch. At least to my knowledge, none of us in this forum are using these tools to amass critical acclaim or make the next big blockbuster, because none of us want to be revealed in real life as liking this form of content (I don't speak for everyone obviously). We're making content that appeals to us, and that we'll probably move on and forget in 5 minutes. This stuff will never see the light of day beyond the folks that lurk on this site.

Generative AI is already in the tools we use to make digital art, like Photoshop for example. Let's take two Photoshop artists who are trying to make a lady with a robot neck. One artist takes the time to matte and apply a photo of pipes onto the lady, taking roughly 10 minutes. The other artist uses the generative AI tool within Photoshop to click on the neck and add a pipe to her neck, and after a few iterations, comes up with the image that looks exactly the same as the first artist in two minutes. Same result, different workflow. Is the second artist less of an artist because they used a "hack" to get to the same outcome? I wouldn't be surprised if the art that is presented as original in the Pixiv link you shared has elements of AI within them as a result of this workflow approach.

I'm sure painters thought photographers were hacks when they're capturing the same landscape. Film lovers thought those shooting in digital were hacks for forgoing film development (especially when it comes to editing film reels on a Moviola versus editing through NLEs like Premiere). We choose cars over walking, typing over handwriting, etc etc. The point is, we're reaching desired outcomes faster as a result of new technologies. But the older tech didn't suddenly disappear - we're still shooting on film (at least Nolan is), we still paint, life goes on. It's a new tool and can be *incredibly* lazy for the average person to use, but the tool is there nevertheless, and I'm going to use it much like I choose to use bumpers in the bowling alley - I don't bowl often, I certainly don't have ability to bowl well, and I just don't want to score a 0 from my time bowling.

I will add that as I see it, when used at a heavy rate, generative AI for moving image generation is basically an expensive slot machine. I put in a prompt and $1 (at least for Veo3), and I hope the slot machine gives me a win. And then I play and play until I'm done and I move on with my life. I now have something like $75 worth of content (75 videos), and maybe 20 of those are good in my book (the rest are glitchy trash). And I've shared perhaps the best 8 on this site. It's better slop compared to the slop from years ago, and it obviously doesn't appeal to everyone, but eh, I love my slop and I'm not gonna serve it to anyone else anyway. And when the time comes to commission a $100-300 custom from a C4S model, I'll do that, too.

Anyway, I don't want us bickering over the artistic merit of how exactly we got white goo to come out of a robot lady. I'm waiting for Predator: Badlands to come out for that reason, but in the meantime, I'll settle for my quick (and very lazy) fixes. And I'll enjoy the hard work that comes out of the artists here whenever that time arrives.