Well, the film initially - we had decided to pair joy with fear because I don't know about you - for me fear was a major motivator in junior high. So we thought there's probably some good stuff there. . . As the film went on, we had developed all these great scenes that were really funny, but in the third act, it wasn't adding up to anything.
I think initially, our audiences were filled with young men. You know, our initial audience was a lot of young guys who I think were trying to - who you played a bit of a big brother role for and were trying to sort out a lot of the same things right - soon as "Born To Run" hit, you know? So it was something that I worked pretty hard on.
Since time itself is not movement, it must somehow have to do with movement. Time is initially encountered in those entities which are changeable, change is in time. How is time exhibited in this way of encountering it, namely, as that within which things change? Does it here give itself as itself in what it is? Can an axplacation of time starts here guarantee that time will thereby provide as it were the fundamental phenomena that determine it in its own being?
Today, I wanted to spend some time reading and responding to comments of fans on my Facebook page. Yes, there are great comments, but there are also a lot of people who are very opinionated and judgmental. So, initially, when I read these judgmental comments, I don't feel vulnerable, but rather I get defensive. But once I get past that anger, it sort of becomes hurt. It becomes pain.