Talk:Airplane!/Archive 1

Gag-based movie
I think the part about this genre(gag-based movie) should be created as a single article, along with a list of movies of this genre. (like Hotshots, Kung Pow)
 * I think it's entirely opinion-based and should be excised. -Branddobbe 06:57, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * This is a wonderful article. If there are NPOV problems, fix the problems, but please don't delete the article! -Palmpilot900


 * Branddobbe, there's nothing wrong with the way the information is presented here. It really isn't PoV to claim that Airplane! is funny or was breakthrough; many authoratative sources agree with those opinions.


 * By the way, Palmpilot, you can "sign" your Wiki talk posts very easily by simply putting four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of your posting. When you press (Save page), these will be replaced by your username in a handy Wikilinked form. It will also contain the timestamp for your posting.


 * Atlant 17:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

List of gags
Why do we have a "list of gags" in this article? It seems like they're just some funny ones that people can remember. (Surely you can't be serious?!) At a rough guess I'd say a full list would contain about 500 jokes! (And then you run into problems of defining a joke/gag/parody etc.) It's like a list from a blog. Can we change it to just an example list or delete it altogether? You don't see that on The Simpsons pages. Tilgrieog 13:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. Please, stop adding gags. These need to be culled down to just the ones that people who haven't seen the movie are likely to encounter in conversation and wonder about. --Tysto 21:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you ever heard the Johnny Cash novelty song, "One Piece at a Time"? This is the same thing. They are building the entire movie script, a line at a time, hoping no one will notice. Too late! Wahkeenah 00:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's too late. As we all know, nothing in Wikipedia can be undone.Wavy G 23:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not too late to undo it. It's just too late for them to build it unnoticed, thanks to the wiki-lantes. Wahkeenah 00:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, get to undoing then. Sheesh, it's like a nightmare.  I've got the vapours.  I must go lie down.66.161.184.138 21:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I like it fine the way it is. :) Wahkeenah 00:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * A specific "running gag" section might help, as I don't know where to include the running gag - the fact that whenever the 'plane is seen, the soundtrack carries the drone of a 4-engined piston WW2 bomber, not the drone of jet engines. It might be handy to seperate the running and the one-off gags NeilUK 08:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Gag Problems
Am I the only person to notice anything?

Some of the information especially the 'jive' talking stuff is repeated nearly three times. I don't know about you, but I'd suggest somebody clean it out -- N omader Talk to me 00:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the so-called "memorable gags" list looks terrible. People are just adding their "favorite moments" without paying attention to the article.  The whole thing's a mess, especially with list entries that start off "Also, in the afformentioned scene..." and some of the crap like "Any scene with Johnny in it."Wavy G 20:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, classics such as, "Don't call me Shirley" or "Beware the Vacuum" should be added. You get my drift. But not every tiny gag, as that would be unencyclopedic. -- M   o    P   E!  22:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it was already brought up before, but when suggesting that it be cleaned up, I was told it was fine the way it is. Clearly, it's a mess.  If nobody objects, I'm going to trim some of the garbarge, (It IS supposed to be "notable" gags, people), and remove a lot of the POV crap (like "in one especially funny moment...") and the poorly written stuff (most likely by people who just popped in to add their favourite moment and left).Wavy G 13:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up the "Notable gags" list. Several non-notable gags listed.  One entry was just an entire scene of dialogue transcribed from the movie.  This movie is a fan favourite and a cult-classic, so it's going to get a lot of input, but it was just way to big.  Sure they are funny moments, but the movie is full of funny moments, and we can't very well list all of them.  Also, people seem to be confusing "gags" with trivia, so I moved some entries to the appropriate section. Wavy G 05:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Not really related, but it is an apparent problem with a gag. Are we sure about the sentence "A man dressed like a service station attendant (Jimmie Walker) lifts the plane's hood to check the dipstick, but falls off the ladder while trying to leap onto the hood to get it shut. Another attendant continues the service station gag by handing a credit card slip to Oveur to sign."? It's been there since last October so there have been a lot of edits which haven't done anything about it. But I find it very unlikely that it should actually be "dipstick". I'm not sure what it should be though as the engine of the plane is not at the front. Raoul 16:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you are familiar with the particulars of this scene, please edit it. I don't even remember this scene in the movie at all, but that's just me.  Of course, it could be that it is just not memorable gag and the whole thing should be removed from the list (which is what I would do). Wavy G 17:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I do remember the joke, but the problem is that I'm not sure how it should be explained (and if I edit large sections of text my browser cuts off the bottom, I'm not sure if the gags section is long enough for that to happen or not, but I'd prefer to avoid the risk as the problem also makes it difficult to revert). It was quite funny, but remove it if you want because that section is way too long. Raoul 08:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

the gags
Obviously this has been discussed before, but the gags section is WAY too long. It's at least twice as long as the synopsis! I'm making cuts. If I accidently cut out anything super notable, please put it back in. Natalie 02:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm also going to make some cuts to the Trivia section, and put Cultural References in their own section. Natalie 02:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There is actually a lot this article needs, upon closer inspection. I've deleted the entire "notable characters" section - almost none of this section was actually about the movie, but rather about the actor's careers. The few relevant items I moved to different sections. I'm also going to rearrange the sections a bit.Natalie 02:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Gags section
The "Notable gags" section is blatantly unencyclopedic, and it has no place in this article. This movie is based entirely on gags. Should they all be there? Wouldn't that be putting the script there? If not, how do we choose which ones are notable and which ones aren't?

Wikipedia is not a directory. That's what we have Wikiquote for.

The section should be removed entirely. Cleaning it up would only be choosing which gags are notable and which ones aren't, and I'd argue that that's impossible to do. The way it's set up now is just begging for people to add any and every gag they see in the movie, as long as they think it's funny. Jesuschex 04:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree, except for two specific things: "Don't call me Shirley", and Otto, the inflatable pilot. But those could easily be moved to some other section. The only other thing I'd worry about is that it would lead to fans putting gags into the paragraph section of the article, instead of a list (where they are easily deleted), but that potential problem can be solved if enough people keep an eye on it. Natalie 05:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest a third - "drinking problem", since it is used several times (and again in the sequel). I'd actually rank it above Otto in the importance scale, but that's just MHO. Lambertman 16:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess what I'm talking about is notability, as opposed to importance. Importance would be hard to assess, but "don't call me Shirley" at least has the 100 Movies, 100 Quotes citation, and Otto has an IMDb page. I know IMDb is basically a fan site, but having a page as an inflatable doll that hasn't been in any other movies is relatively notable. If there's some similar citation for drinking problem, than by all means it should stay. But if not, I think its inclusion will be another invitation for fans to add anything and everything. Natalie 17:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's definitely a good point. The gags that are verifiably notable should be put in the article, while if there's nothing but a Wikipedian to say it's notable, it shouldn't be listed as such. Is that what you're saying? Jesuschex 00:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, pretty much. As far as I know, there are only 2 things in the gags sections that meet verifiability, and that's "don't call me Shirley" and Otto. Other than that, it seems to just be things people think are funny. A while back I pruned it down significantly (the previous version essentially recapped the entire film), but - having nothing to go on - I left in the recurring gags. That was really a stop-gag solution, though. So, IMO, the best choice is to take the gags section out entirely, and add "don't call me Shirley" and Otto into some other section, like response. Natalie 04:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

So are there noNatalie 23:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC) objections to completely removing gags and putting Shirley and Otto somewhere else in the article?


 * I'm all for it. Jesuschex 05:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Since there's been a more than suitable period of time for objections, and none have come forward, I'm going to go ahead and make the changes. Natalie 16:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

History of plotline
Since Arthur Hailey & John Castle's novel was not published until 1958, it isn't possible for the 1955 and 1956 movies to be remakes of this novel. There also is no evidence cited to suggest that these mid-1950 stories are the first for this particular story line. More research would be needed to claim this. Thus I've just done a revision clarifying the relationships between the movies and novels that came before Airplane! Also, there is no evidence that Zucker, et al. were familiar with the 1955 movie or with Hailey & Castle's novel. They include gags related to his novel "Airport," but that doesn't necessarily mean they had known of Runway Zero-Eight. More research would be needed here to. Cyg-nifier 00:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Otto's IMDb credit
I vaguely remember from my days hanging out on the IMDb's Contributors Help board that anyone or anything with a cast credit in a film is eligible for inclusion; hence the entries for Toto and Robby the Robot. (Though Wilson the Volleyball also has one, despite being uncredited.) Anyway, I'm fairly sure this is why Otto has an IMDb page, though I can't prove it just yet. :) &mdash;tregoweth (talk) 03:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Date of release
According to the commentary on the DVD of Airplane! by the writers and directors and according to the Internet Media Data Base (IMDB), the official release of the film was 2 July rather than in June. Is there a citation that can be used to support this earlier date as the official release date? If not, I'll make the change to the 2 July date. Cyg-nifier 00:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is June 27th, see Variety's database. Emerald Mask 05:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Cameos
I added a paragraph explaining Howard Jarvis' role as the taxi cab rider. His face was well-known nationally at the time, but no one remembers Prop 13 any more, let alone poor Howard. The meter running up and his "I'll wait 20 more minutes" is in clashing contrast to his oft-repeated use of the quote "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take any more!" political impatience. He even has a page at IMDb for this. If nothing else, this is history! SkoreKeep 06:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The extremely patient cab rider
The article incorrectly stated that the taxi cab and its passenger were not seen again between Striker turning on the meter and the plane finally landing. There is actually a brief scene taking place shortly after take-off with him sitting there wondering. I have made the necessary changes. 71.71.192.231 01:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Speculation on title change
FROM ARTICLE: "In some foreign releases (including Australia), Airplane! was entitled Flying High. The reason most often quoted for this is that in those countries the name 'airplane' is not used to refer to a powered flying machine, however this is somewhat unlikely. The vast majority of English-language films are made in the USA, and so the term "airplane" would be perfectly familiar to their English-speaking audiences. In any event, the pronunciation of British English variant "aeroplane" is very similar to the way many Americans say "airplane"."

Now, should this sort of speculation really appear in the article? If people know why it was changed, then say why. If no one knows why, then say nothing. It is true that outside the US the word "Aeroplane" is used in place of "Airplane" ("plane" is more common though) and yes the pronunciations are very close and, to us Australians, it is really not that apparent when someone says "airplane" in a US movie as it sounds really close to "aeroplane". However, the title of a film is frequently seen in print and read, often before the potential filmgoer hears the title spoken, it is read in reviews, on movie posters, newspaper adverts, etc. In all those contexts, seeing unfamiliar word "airplane" would look very jarring and confusing: NOT something studios want people to feel when contemplating which film to see. So it seems feasile that the reason refuted really was the reason. Asa01 08:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If this is the story, why wasn't it simply called Aeroplane! then? Lambertman 16:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In my experience, in Australia the term aeroplane is mainly used for small propellor planes - like a little Cessna - not for big passenger jets. Passenger jets are usually called planes, passenger jets, jets, jet aircraft, Jumbos, or by their model name (747, 737, Airbus, etc.) So by renaming the film aeroplane would suggest a small four-seater, single propellor job (to me, anyway.) Asa01 05:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * An argument for a change of title based on usage within the British Commonwealth would make sense if the title were changed in all of the Commonwealth countries. However, as it seems that the title was only changed to Flying High in Australia, New Zealand, and the Phillipines, the argument doesn't seem to hold. Perhaps another film had been released regionally with a similar name? Cyg-nifier 23:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Each country could do what they please. As pointed out, in Oz, aeroplane (and obviously airplane) wouldn't generally be used to describe a jet --Angry mob mulls options (talk) 05:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"religious zealots"?
This article refers to "religious zealots" in the airport. Aren't the religious people supposed to be Hare Krishnas? It was a standard joke at the time that Hare Krishnas hung out in airports and harassed people getting on or off of their planes. CSWarren (talk) 22:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In the later scene, where Captain Kramer was plowing through them, they are from several groups, including the Jews for Jesus. Some of them were Hare Krishnas, though.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Filming dates
The article claims the film was shot in 34 days. I've asked for a citation. Is this even possible?--Shantavira|feed me 09:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It was stated in the DVD commentary ("Don't call me Shirley" edition). 147.70.242.40 (talk) 02:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Parodys
The last parody it lists, is the horse scene, where Mrs.Oveur was sleeping with a horse. It is obviously not a parody of the godfather scene as the joke was that she was actually "sleeping" with the horse. So does anyone mind if I get rid of the last parody. Bigbobo1 (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Moral Majority
Why was that censored in some versions? EdX20 (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Wrong movie, you see. In Airplane!, the woman with the big breasts moving because of the turbulence wears an unmarked light blue white sweater. Video:. It's in Airplane II: The Sequel that the woman with the big breasts wears a "Moral Majority" T-shirt which, by the way, was not white as the previous editor claimed, but dark blue. Video: and IMDb entry for "Woman in 'moral majority' t-shirt": . I removed most of the section about the network TV version for that reason. Perhaps they belong in the entry for Airplane II: The Sequel? AirOdyssey (Talk) 20:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Early history of this page
The early history of this page can be found in the two earliest surviving edits at aircraft. These edits can't be history merged because the article was mostly about aircraft, not this movie. Many edits from before 2002 are lost; see Usemod article histories for more information about that. Graham 87 15:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

This was PG?!
There was one very quick shot during the panicking scene where...there was complete nudity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xparasite9 (talk • contribs).


 * No, just bouncing boobies. No sex, just tittilation.


 * Atlant 17:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. How the hell was this PG?--DethFromAbove 20:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In 1980, the choice was either PG or R, and they did not show enough to earn an R rating. The film only showed a pair of breasts flashing for a few seconds. Jaws (film) and 1941 (film) showed partial nudity and they both were rated PG. What else could have gotten "Airplane!" an R rating?204.80.61.110 15:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Bennett Turk

at the time there was no PG-13 like the poster above said there was only PG and R no "in-between" rating. I believe there was not enough material(nudity, language, violence, etc) to constitute an R rating. Andy5421 (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Saw this on Australian TV last night. There is a shaking jet-jelly mould shot that pans across to bouncing breasts, true. Then, in a later scene with passengers panicking and running aross the cabin, there is a fully nude woman shown frontally from waist up, in mid shot, who steps in front of the camera. In another scene a prim matron indignantly refuses an offer of a swig of scotch... then does a line of cocaine. Born in 1968, I remember lots of kids at school recounting lines and scenes from this film: they clearly saw it in cinemas at the time. Censorship was much looser then. Format (talk) 01:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Strikers incident
Where did the incident happen? What did they call it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.45.165.26 (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't name the country but the incident is called "Macho Grande" Perhaps Mexico or Columbia(speculation Andy5421 (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That fact wasn't revealed in this movie. The sequel did name it that, though. --Bark (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

World War II
My previous edit was reverted here, stating that my edit of the movie implying the war they kept flashing back to was World War II was speculation. With all due respect to the editor that reverted me, it's not speculation, it's a fact. The movie was a direct parody of Zero Hour!, a well-documented fact (already on the page) with the filmmakers on the DVD commentary track explicitly stating so. ***In Zero Hour!, the character was "Ted Styker" and he definitely was a veteran of WWII. In Airplane!, the character is "Ted Striker" and he is a veteran of a war, never directly specified. However, every flashback Striker has of the aerial combat he took part in, with the audio "Stay in formation. Target just ahead.  Target should be clear if you go in low enough.  You'll have to decide . . .," (before the comedic site gags of failed aviation experiments throughout history) depicts single engine propeller aircraft, with one level of wings, engaged in combat. They weren't biplanes, so the war wasn't World War I. They also weren't jets, so the war wasn't the Korean War. WWII was the only conflict the United States was involved in using propeller aircraft with one level of wings. Those points are just historical fact,*** and everything between "***" is just me geeking out. In any event, the fact is documented in the DVD commentary, so I'm going to restore my edit and cite my source. My apologies for not properly citing the addition in the first place. --Bark (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No, that's not appropriate. It is appropriate to use the DVD commentary to say that the Ted Striker character is a "war" vet inspired by the Ted Styker WWII vet from the ZH script, but it is not true that we can assume that Striker's "war" is WWII.  We can't make the leaps in logic about what historically happened with air combat between WWI, WWII, and the Korean War to support that as well.  --M ASEM  (t) 19:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Is it a "leap of logic" when there are many sources available, including the DVD commentary, that the filmmakers bought the rights to Zero Hour! and lifted lines from it verbatim to Airplane!, to say they were implying it was WWII? By the way, also stating on the DVD commentary that they WERE implying WWII with an anachronistic joke on purpose?  I think not, so I would like you to stop reverting my edit, which is in good faith, and allow a discussion from other users to begin if you genuinely disagree with it, instead of burying my addition with reverts.  Seeing as how I have now cited my source, reverting my addition is coming across badly to me.  If you don't have the patience to wait for a consensus to build, one way or the other, perhaps we should just begin the dispute resolution now?  Also, if it's the fact that you are against "implying" anything in the plot section, then please explain why the "implying alcoholism" point is fine by you, because they NEVER SPECIFY alcoholism, and to assume that would be a "leap of logic" of the same kind.  --Bark (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Because as your edit is adding, you note it is an anachronism by working that he is a WWII vet. This type of analysis is original research when it was left very vague in the movie itself. I've no problem with talking about how Styker is a WWII vet from ZH in the production section (as I've edited), but we can't make the leap in the plot summary.  And now that I see that line about alcoholism, that needs to go too.  --M ASEM  (t) 20:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you leaving my addition, but I still contend that it's not OR because the filmmakers stated their intention in the commentary, and as such I have cited that as a source. Your argument seems to be that only the primary source of the movie itself can be used.  I don't agree.  If the filmmakers talk about the film on a commentary track released with the movie's DVD, I would contend that it too is a primary source worthy of consideration.  We seem to have a fundamental disconnect on this point, and I don't foresee either of us changing our minds.  Since this disagreement is just between us, I would like to expedite a third opinion on this matter just to settle things.  I would hope that we both think this is a great movie, and as such, our efforts are just to improve the article.  Hopefully, a third person's perspective can aid in doing that.  Unfortunately, I fear we may have to wait a while for a third opinion to naturally come around, so I'll post this over there to hasten the process.  --Bark (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The case is here is that we have the fact that the filmmakers have stated that Striker is inspired by the ZH character Styker who was a WWII vet. As such, they made Striker a vet of some unspecified war. Unless they explicitly state that Striker was meant to have the exact same background, we cannot infer that the WWII vet aspect carries from the ZH to the A! character without introducing OR.  Also, for purposes of understanding the plot, it's not necessary to assert what war it was - we only need to know Striker is a vet pilot scarred by the war experience. --M ASEM  (t) 20:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You neglect to include that they stated on the DVD commentary that using WWII footage (whether actual or dramatized) for Striker's flashbacks was a conscious decision by the flimmakers used for humorous effect. The use of a propeller-powered aircraft sound effect for exterior shots of the TA jet was also a conscious decision by the filmmakers used for humorous effect.  The commentary clearly states this was more than just being inspired by Zero Hour!.  This was a deliberate, and clearly explained in the commentary, effort by the filmmakers to introduce ridiculous incongruities for humorous effect.  The former was an anachronistic incongruity, as the movie is clearly set in 1980 (with depictions of disco and an Atari video game), and yet, Striker was flying around in a single-level-winged propeller plane during the "war" even though he (and Elaine, who was also in some of the war flashbacks) was clearly no older than his 30s.  The latter example I brought up was a logical incongruity, in as much as a jet aircraft does not sound like that.  In the DVD commentary, they explain that these jokes are more than just being inspired by a previous work.  They, in essence, went out of their way to use them, in their original form without alteration, to make the viewer react in a humorous, "What the ...?" kind of way, because it doesn't make sense in the original form without alteration.  In the commentary, they explicitly state this.  In any event, even though I could hope that this would sway your opinion, this particular post is more for the solicited third opinion, in the case that they never saw the film or heard the DVD commentary track.  It's always possible they didn't see it for themselves.  --Bark (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh well. I still think I'm right, but I'll concede the point.  I will admit, Masem taking out the other "implication" is appreciated, as the double-standard was starting to get to me.  Just let me be a man and "put the dog down" myself.  LOL.  --Bark (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * :) Happy editing...! Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  23:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: My comments
I was reprimanded for my comments on the guitar-playing stewardess in the movie. The comments, of course, were deleted; I had not been able to grasp what there was about the scene that was humorous (or was supposed to be). Dougie monty 09:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Airport 1975 had Helen Reddy as a guitar-playing, singing nun. Airplane! was spoofing the 'Airport' series of films that were in serious need of parody by 1980 after the release of one bad film after another--Airport 1975, Airport '77, and The Concorde: Airport '79.204.80.61.110 15:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Bennett Turk
 * Ironically, the producers of Airplane! hired Maureen McGovern to play the part of a nun who was supposed to sing the Peter Yarrow song to the child, but her role was reduced to supplying the guitar to the stewardess Randy (played by Lorna Patterson). 147.70.242.40 (talk) 02:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Maureen McGovern plays a nun passenger with a guitar and appears in several scenes throughout Airplane! and does sing in the film. She doesn't sing to the plucky sick girl as Helen Reddy's Airport 75 nun had done. Format (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Reference from Call of Duty 4
Should it be mentioned that a line from this movie is said in an epilogue mission in Call of Duty 4? You are about to storm a plane and someone says "surely you can't be serious" which is then followed by: "I am serious...and don't call me Shirley," http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZIssS7l9Ao&feature=related --76.64.165.33 (talk) 06:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Put it in the right Talk page, OK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.11.71.124 (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)