Joined: 01/28/2011
Posts: 2

I had pre-ordered mine back in March and it is on its way right now. I agree about the lenticular issue 100% and there was nowhere near this kind of heat on the MATTY boards when I bought and discussed the GHOSTBUSTERS prop replicas which were damn near perfect imo. Negative press has a way of catching on the way all of those end of year TOP 10 movie lists always look the same. It is definitely an iconic reflective and necessary piece that they chose not to add and Gale consulted on it as far as I know as did the (I forget his name, the stunt person, etc). In a real kick to the groin for the serious collector, the ToyGuru from MATTEL actually changed the description of the item from "prop replica" to "toy" b/c of the outrage at the final product.

Personally I was up close and personal 2 months ago at NYCC taking snaps of it and I liked what I saw and I a far from a corporate shill. But yes, I definitely would have liked to have seen the reflective lentincular material. I think that it is still one of the most reconizable props in the world and is a conversation starter wherever you bring it. As for the ones on eBay, as nice as they are they get quite expensive exceeding the $120 mark and as much as I admire the attention to detail and amazing craftsmanship, I wanted something from MATTEL that made the sounds, etc. Its only for display or if I ever do some Cosplay so I am not all that worried. I get what you mean though but I have to think that a toy giant like MATTEL is more concerned w/ the mainstream market and upcoming sale events than us die-hards when they can unload all of them for maybe only $100 and make a killing. ..

--JTrotter89

PS--A BIG BTTF THANK YOU TO STEPHEN CLARK FOR LENDING HIS KNOWLEDGE TO MY DENOFGEEK.US REVIEW OF THE NEW BTTF LEXICON "A MATTER OF TIME." THANKS STEPHEN, YOU ARE A CLASS ACT...

http://www.denofgeek.us/movies/a-matter-of-time-the-unathorized-back-to-the-future-lexicon-review/31143/a-matter-of-time-the-unauthorized-back-to-the-future-lexicon-review

Joined: 10/09/2012
Posts: 17

I'm well aware that Mattel never made claim that they would do so, but I think for the exorbitant amount of dough that the boards should come with the (removable) handlebars as well...

Who the hell knows, maybe we can hope for the real McCoy come 2015?!

Whohohoho, the future is looking a whoooole lot better. Now that Martin Hopkins S. Mcfly has changed the PAST on 2012-12-08T06:19:43-05:00

 There are 4 things in particular of the inacuracies that stand out the most to me. 1. The Foot strap, which isn't furry. 2. The pink handlebar hole, which is sypposed to be black, although it's a more polished look the way it is. Not that much of a problem for me. 3. No lenticular. A major issue. 4. The oversized magnetic dics. They stand out WAY too much.

 Thiis is what is confusing me. I have seen quite a few ebay sales for the prop/toy going for $200-$300 online which is rediculous but makes me glad in a way that I got mine from the pre-order.

 What is really confusing is how this particular seller is advertizing the Mattel sold prop which includes the mini board but it looks more like the real thing.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/OFFICIAL-Mattel-BTTF-2-Back-Future-Hoverboard-plus-mini-Replica-PRE-NEW-/400357138304?pt=US_Action_Figures&hash=item5d37251f80

Does anyone understand how this could be?

 Guys, here's my take... I've heard these complaints in a number of places, and I can't help but respond.

1. The props in the movie, ITSELF, are not accurate to one other.  There were over 30 boards, and by Bob Gales's own admission, each was unique.  My God, look at the color variations alone from board to board.  A typical moviegoer, though, wasn't going to notice amongst fast action scenes and the like.  But the fact remains, there was no consistency in the movie props, and Mattel had to choose qualities from each board to bring together into a SINGLE product.

2. The darn lenticular surface!  I'm a bit disappointed at Bob Gale's reaction to this... considering HIS two boards don't have the famed lenticular surface on them!  Really??  There was an auction recently where one of the real board props was sold - and it, too, had NO lenticular surface.  If the auctioneer's description is correct, they noted that only a few early boards had this type of surface.  All of the later boards produced for the movie were done with a single plastic sticker image and no lenticular surface (exactly like the Mattel board).  The auctioneer also noted that this was the more popular (abundant) variant of the prop.  If you'd like to watch for yourself, go to YouTube and search for "screenused hoverboard."

If both the lenticular surface AND non-lenticular surface was used on the props, I'm at a loss why people would be so up-in-arms over it.  Both are accurate.  For whatever reason, Mattel wasn't able to recreate the effect with enough confidence in the final product - they chose to scrap it and go for the non-lenticular variant.  So what?  I could see if they changed the color from pink to yellow or something, but the fact remains that not only was the non-lenticular surface screen accurate, but it was actually the more prominant amongst the props... less Bob Gale's own boards would be of the lenticular type!

3. I've heard some people complaining about build quality - largely nit-picks like, "why is there a seam in the sticker around the edge."  To this I can only say - people, get real.  There are plenty of manufacturing techniques that could have made this a FLAWLESS product, but if you know anything about manufacturing, you know that precision comes with cost.  For a low-volume product in the $120 price range, this wasn't going to be a masterpiece in precision.  And for those who, again, saw the original props... MAN, this is a major improvement in build quality.  The original props had plenty of imperfections, sloppy material cuts, ragged edges, quick paint jobs, etc.  Would fans rather have had a prop that resembled THOSE imperfections?  I think not.

Look - bottom line is I think Mattel did a stand-up job.  If this was a mass-produced (hundreds of thousands or millions of units) product, I would have expected the price range to be $50 - $60, and I would have also expected small improvements in some areas of the build.  But it wasn't - and if I recall correctly, these things are still assembled by hand.

Because the original prop was not a well-polished product, itself, I think Mattel had to go after a concept of - what would a real toy look like IF we produced one?  They couldn't replicate every aspect of 30 boards and their variants.  They couldn't replicate the imperfections of the props.  There was certainly room and necessity for interpretation on Mattel's part, and they delivered that vision decently.  At the end of the day they produced what the hypothetical TOY would have looked like if it really existed... a toy.

So, amongst this defense for Mattel, do I have gripes?  Yes, I do.  For instance, the fuzzy foot strap should have been more fuzzy... and definitely not as big, as it was intended for a child's foot.  But I definitely see a lot more CORRECT than I see wrong with the board... and given the studio's own major variations and inconsistencies within their props, I think this is a huge success.

Last but not least, we should also acknowledge that this is THE only authentic, Mattel-produced product... and given it's the first, and maybe last, to be produced since the movie, it'll probably end up being worth quite a bit one day when they're in very short supply.  Love it or hate it, I expect these will be selling on eBay for a pretty penny not far down the road.  So Bob Gale won't be too unhappy with his $1,000 investment... regardless of the lenticular surface!

Joined: 10/09/2012
Posts: 17

Originally Posted by:eric2015

 Guys, here's my take... I've heard these complaints in a number of places, and I can't help but respond.

1. The props in the movie, ITSELF, are not accurate to one other.  There were over 30 boards, and by Bob Gales's own admission, each was unique.  My God, look at the color variations alone from board to board.  A typical moviegoer, though, wasn't going to notice amongst fast action scenes and the like.  But the fact remains, there was no consistency in the movie props, and Mattel had to choose qualities from each board to bring together into a SINGLE product.

2. The darn lenticular surface!  I'm a bit disappointed at Bob Gale's reaction to this... considering HIS two boards don't have the famed lenticular surface on them!  Really??  There was an auction recently where one of the real board props was sold - and it, too, had NO lenticular surface.  If the auctioneer's description is correct, they noted that only a few early boards had this type of surface.  All of the later boards produced for the movie were done with a single plastic sticker image and no lenticular surface (exactly like the Mattel board).  The auctioneer also noted that this was the more popular (abundant) variant of the prop.  If you'd like to watch for yourself, go to YouTube and search for "screenused hoverboard."

If both the lenticular surface AND non-lenticular surface was used on the props, I'm at a loss why people would be so up-in-arms over it.  Both are accurate.  For whatever reason, Mattel wasn't able to recreate the effect with enough confidence in the final product - they chose to scrap it and go for the non-lenticular variant.  So what?  I could see if they changed the color from pink to yellow or something, but the fact remains that not only was the non-lenticular surface screen accurate, but it was actually the more prominant amongst the props... less Bob Gale's own boards would be of the lenticular type!

3. I've heard some people complaining about build quality - largely nit-picks like, "why is there a seam in the sticker around the edge."  To this I can only say - people, get real.  There are plenty of manufacturing techniques that could have made this a FLAWLESS product, but if you know anything about manufacturing, you know that precision comes with cost.  For a low-volume product in the $120 price range, this wasn't going to be a masterpiece in precision.  And for those who, again, saw the original props... MAN, this is a major improvement in build quality.  The original props had plenty of imperfections, sloppy material cuts, ragged edges, quick paint jobs, etc.  Would fans rather have had a prop that resembled THOSE imperfections?  I think not.

Look - bottom line is I think Mattel did a stand-up job.  If this was a mass-produced (hundreds of thousands or millions of units) product, I would have expected the price range to be $50 - $60, and I would have also expected small improvements in some areas of the build.  But it wasn't - and if I recall correctly, these things are still assembled by hand.

Because the original prop was not a well-polished product, itself, I think Mattel had to go after a concept of - what would a real toy look like IF we produced one?  They couldn't replicate every aspect of 30 boards and their variants.  They couldn't replicate the imperfections of the props.  There was certainly room and necessity for interpretation on Mattel's part, and they delivered that vision decently.  At the end of the day they produced what the hypothetical TOY would have looked like if it really existed... a toy.

So, amongst this defense for Mattel, do I have gripes?  Yes, I do.  For instance, the fuzzy foot strap should have been more fuzzy... and definitely not as big, as it was intended for a child's foot.  But I definitely see a lot more CORRECT than I see wrong with the board... and given the studio's own major variations and inconsistencies within their props, I think this is a huge success.

Last but not least, we should also acknowledge that this is THE only authentic, Mattel-produced product... and given it's the first, and maybe last, to be produced since the movie, it'll probably end up being worth quite a bit one day when they're in very short supply.  Love it or hate it, I expect these will be selling on eBay for a pretty penny not far down the road.  So Bob Gale won't be too unhappy with his $1,000 investment... regardless of the lenticular surface!

Joined: 08/19/2011
Posts: 4

Originally Posted by:eric2015

 Guys, here's my take... I've heard these complaints in a number of places, and I can't help but respond.

1. The props in the movie, ITSELF, are not accurate to one other.  There were over 30 boards, and by Bob Gales's own admission, each was unique.  My God, look at the color variations alone from board to board.  A typical moviegoer, though, wasn't going to notice amongst fast action scenes and the like.  But the fact remains, there was no consistency in the movie props, and Mattel had to choose qualities from each board to bring together into a SINGLE product.

2. The darn lenticular surface!  I'm a bit disappointed at Bob Gale's reaction to this... considering HIS two boards don't have the famed lenticular surface on them!  Really??  There was an auction recently where one of the real board props was sold - and it, too, had NO lenticular surface.  If the auctioneer's description is correct, they noted that only a few early boards had this type of surface.  All of the later boards produced for the movie were done with a single plastic sticker image and no lenticular surface (exactly like the Mattel board).  The auctioneer also noted that this was the more popular (abundant) variant of the prop.  If you'd like to watch for yourself, go to YouTube and search for "screenused hoverboard."

If both the lenticular surface AND non-lenticular surface was used on the props, I'm at a loss why people would be so up-in-arms over it.  Both are accurate.  For whatever reason, Mattel wasn't able to recreate the effect with enough confidence in the final product - they chose to scrap it and go for the non-lenticular variant.  So what?  I could see if they changed the color from pink to yellow or something, but the fact remains that not only was the non-lenticular surface screen accurate, but it was actually the more prominant amongst the props... less Bob Gale's own boards would be of the lenticular type!

3. I've heard some people complaining about build quality - largely nit-picks like, "why is there a seam in the sticker around the edge."  To this I can only say - people, get real.  There are plenty of manufacturing techniques that could have made this a FLAWLESS product, but if you know anything about manufacturing, you know that precision comes with cost.  For a low-volume product in the $120 price range, this wasn't going to be a masterpiece in precision.  And for those who, again, saw the original props... MAN, this is a major improvement in build quality.  The original props had plenty of imperfections, sloppy material cuts, ragged edges, quick paint jobs, etc.  Would fans rather have had a prop that resembled THOSE imperfections?  I think not.

Look - bottom line is I think Mattel did a stand-up job.  If this was a mass-produced (hundreds of thousands or millions of units) product, I would have expected the price range to be $50 - $60, and I would have also expected small improvements in some areas of the build.  But it wasn't - and if I recall correctly, these things are still assembled by hand.

Because the original prop was not a well-polished product, itself, I think Mattel had to go after a concept of - what would a real toy look like IF we produced one?  They couldn't replicate every aspect of 30 boards and their variants.  They couldn't replicate the imperfections of the props.  There was certainly room and necessity for interpretation on Mattel's part, and they delivered that vision decently.  At the end of the day they produced what the hypothetical TOY would have looked like if it really existed... a toy.

So, amongst this defense for Mattel, do I have gripes?  Yes, I do.  For instance, the fuzzy foot strap should have been more fuzzy... and definitely not as big, as it was intended for a child's foot.  But I definitely see a lot more CORRECT than I see wrong with the board... and given the studio's own major variations and inconsistencies within their props, I think this is a huge success.

Last but not least, we should also acknowledge that this is THE only authentic, Mattel-produced product... and given it's the first, and maybe last, to be produced since the movie, it'll probably end up being worth quite a bit one day when they're in very short supply.  Love it or hate it, I expect these will be selling on eBay for a pretty penny not far down the road.  So Bob Gale won't be too unhappy with his $1,000 investment... regardless of the lenticular surface!

Ok Eric, now I can't help but to respond to your lengthy take on things.  To start, let me say that you make some great points, and I agree with you on most of them, but one.  #2, about the lenticular surface...I think you are dead wrong on this.

People are "up-in-arms" as you put it because its not about coming up with the best replica of all the different variations of the board...obviously for different shots and stunt-use, there were ton of different boards that needed to be used.  Some of the "screen-used" boards for flying stunts dont even have the magnets at the bottom, so would you also argue that it would have been acceptable for Mattel to leave these off? No, I'm sure you wouldnt.  

The idea of this replica, and what everyone was expecting, was to replicate the Hero board.  Yes, they might not be able to get the measurements down to the milimeter or get the seams perfect due to production limitations, but Mattel SHOULD have covered all of the main characteristics of the Hero board.  Its not about the 30 different variations, but what that board is PERCIEVED to look like if it were actually one board.  Fans were expecting, and deserve, an on-screen movie accurate prop replica.  In my view, that means the replica should look like what the hoverboard is portrayed to look like on screen.  Forget all of the variations used for different shots/stunts.  The board in the movie has certain famous and very distinguishable characteristics,  and the lenticular surface is one of the top 3, if not the TOP characteristic of the Hoverboard...and Mattel really dropped the ball on this.  I would have been happy to pay a little more (even though the price is already high) for them to get this right, and I'm sure most other fans would agree, including Bob Gale.

 Ok so sticker graphics aside the thing that has me really worried is the actual quality of the build I am seeing in some online reviews.  My board is still in the mail hopfully it will come sometime this week but at the latest it should be here next monday (as per the tracking system).  I have seen horrible bubbling and creases in the stickers, even worse I have seen post about stickers falling off.  That is completly unacceptable.  Am I disapointed about the "holograpic" surface yes of course I am.  But I am willing to look past that.  But what I can not look past is a crappy product that was thrown together.  Bottom line is everything about this board looks cheap.  There is massive problems with the speaker.  I belive the sounds are fine its the speaker was placed attached in a cheap non smart way.  Speakers work through vibration if you do not allow it to properly vibrate the sound is muffled and drownout.    I really hope I am wrong, maybe those who have gotten theres have just been a few bad seeds in the bunch.   

I know a bunch of people have posted stuff about how this is what a "toy" hoverboard would look like if released.  but i think that is just people trying to talk themselves out of hating it because they despratly want to love it. 

Honestly after seeing the PKE meter and the ghostrap I am shocked at the quality of this board.  Hell look at the footpad, your telling me that was there honest 100% effort.  They could have gotten the furry pink strap for crazy cheap im sure. 

Anyways hope mine is decent. 

Joined: 12/12/2012
Posts: 1

I think it's odd that after so long they'd give us a lackluster product with cheap parts, but in my opinion that's what's happened.  I do enjoy the box design and the overall look of the board on display.  Unfortunately due to the following issues I have to recommend to wait until 2015 to purchase the actual device.

-Foot strap isn't adjustable or usable.

-Decals have begun to peel up as well as air bubbles forming.  It seems as if cheap stickers were used with not enough adhesive.  

-Extremely loud sound effects that sound more like a light saber than a Hoverboard.  All it needed is the hover sound when it is idle, no motion sensor.

-Cheap sound effects logic programming, sound clips interrupt each other.

I'm debating returning mine.  No use keeping it to display or costume prop, if decals won't stay on.



Whohohoho, the future is looking a whoooole lot better. Now that cloudstrife7 has changed the PAST on 2012-12-12T13:26:27-05:00

 wow that last picture is BAD. would some gurilla glue fix that properly or is there a better fix.   At this point im keeping mine, just got to try and find fixes for all the flaws. 

Originally Posted by:biellimo83

[quote=eric2015]

 Guys, here's my take... I've heard these complaints in a number of places, and I can't help but respond.

1. The props in the movie, ITSELF, are not accurate to one other.  There were over 30 boards, and by Bob Gales's own admission, each was unique.  My God, look at the color variations alone from board to board.  A typical moviegoer, though, wasn't going to notice amongst fast action scenes and the like.  But the fact remains, there was no consistency in the movie props, and Mattel had to choose qualities from each board to bring together into a SINGLE product.

2. The darn lenticular surface!  I'm a bit disappointed at Bob Gale's reaction to this... considering HIS two boards don't have the famed lenticular surface on them!  Really??  There was an auction recently where one of the real board props was sold - and it, too, had NO lenticular surface.  If the auctioneer's description is correct, they noted that only a few early boards had this type of surface.  All of the later boards produced for the movie were done with a single plastic sticker image and no lenticular surface (exactly like the Mattel board).  The auctioneer also noted that this was the more popular (abundant) variant of the prop.  If you'd like to watch for yourself, go to YouTube and search for "screenused hoverboard."

If both the lenticular surface AND non-lenticular surface was used on the props, I'm at a loss why people would be so up-in-arms over it.  Both are accurate.  For whatever reason, Mattel wasn't able to recreate the effect with enough confidence in the final product - they chose to scrap it and go for the non-lenticular variant.  So what?  I could see if they changed the color from pink to yellow or something, but the fact remains that not only was the non-lenticular surface screen accurate, but it was actually the more prominant amongst the props... less Bob Gale's own boards would be of the lenticular type!

3. I've heard some people complaining about build quality - largely nit-picks like, "why is there a seam in the sticker around the edge."  To this I can only say - people, get real.  There are plenty of manufacturing techniques that could have made this a FLAWLESS product, but if you know anything about manufacturing, you know that precision comes with cost.  For a low-volume product in the $120 price range, this wasn't going to be a masterpiece in precision.  And for those who, again, saw the original props... MAN, this is a major improvement in build quality.  The original props had plenty of imperfections, sloppy material cuts, ragged edges, quick paint jobs, etc.  Would fans rather have had a prop that resembled THOSE imperfections?  I think not.

Look - bottom line is I think Mattel did a stand-up job.  If this was a mass-produced (hundreds of thousands or millions of units) product, I would have expected the price range to be $50 - $60, and I would have also expected small improvements in some areas of the build.  But it wasn't - and if I recall correctly, these things are still assembled by hand.

Because the original prop was not a well-polished product, itself, I think Mattel had to go after a concept of - what would a real toy look like IF we produced one?  They couldn't replicate every aspect of 30 boards and their variants.  They couldn't replicate the imperfections of the props.  There was certainly room and necessity for interpretation on Mattel's part, and they delivered that vision decently.  At the end of the day they produced what the hypothetical TOY would have looked like if it really existed... a toy.

So, amongst this defense for Mattel, do I have gripes?  Yes, I do.  For instance, the fuzzy foot strap should have been more fuzzy... and definitely not as big, as it was intended for a child's foot.  But I definitely see a lot more CORRECT than I see wrong with the board... and given the studio's own major variations and inconsistencies within their props, I think this is a huge success.

Last but not least, we should also acknowledge that this is THE only authentic, Mattel-produced product... and given it's the first, and maybe last, to be produced since the movie, it'll probably end up being worth quite a bit one day when they're in very short supply.  Love it or hate it, I expect these will be selling on eBay for a pretty penny not far down the road.  So Bob Gale won't be too unhappy with his $1,000 investment... regardless of the lenticular surface!

Ok Eric, now I can't help but to respond to your lengthy take on things.  To start, let me say that you make some great points, and I agree with you on most of them, but one.  #2, about the lenticular surface...I think you are dead wrong on this.

People are "up-in-arms" as you put it because its not about coming up with the best replica of all the different variations of the board...obviously for different shots and stunt-use, there were ton of different boards that needed to be used.  Some of the "screen-used" boards for flying stunts dont even have the magnets at the bottom, so would you also argue that it would have been acceptable for Mattel to leave these off? No, I'm sure you wouldnt.  

The idea of this replica, and what everyone was expecting, was to replicate the Hero board.  Yes, they might not be able to get the measurements down to the milimeter or get the seams perfect due to production limitations, but Mattel SHOULD have covered all of the main characteristics of the Hero board.  Its not about the 30 different variations, but what that board is PERCIEVED to look like if it were actually one board.  Fans were expecting, and deserve, an on-screen movie accurate prop replica.  In my view, that means the replica should look like what the hoverboard is portrayed to look like on screen.  Forget all of the variations used for different shots/stunts.  The board in the movie has certain famous and very distinguishable characteristics,  and the lenticular surface is one of the top 3, if not the TOP characteristic of the Hoverboard...and Mattel really dropped the ball on this.  I would have been happy to pay a little more (even though the price is already high) for them to get this right, and I'm sure most other fans would agree, including Bob Gale.

[/quote]

That's fair - I know the lenticular surface is a hot-spot for people.  I personally don't have an issue with it.  I understand, from what was posted by Mattel on their forum, that the lenticular (done correctly) would have made the board very cost prohibitive.  Now, in "corporate speak" that means that Mattel calculated how many of these they needed to sell to make it worth it along with the price point necessary to sell that number of units.  Would some die-hard fans have paid $250 or $300 if it meant getting the lenticular surface?  Maybe - I don't know.  I'm just giving them the benefit of the doubt that they did some kind of market analysis and determined it wouldn't work... heck, enough people already believe $120 was "expensive."

Issues regarding build quality, in my opinion, are more of a concern.  My biggest issue is actually the foot strap - but again, it is what it is... and it cost me around $100.  Oh well.

Originally Posted by:eric2015

At the end of the day they produced what the hypothetical TOY would have looked like if it really existed... a toy.

I just got mine today and I feel that is an excellent take. I really enjoyed opening up the Hoverboard's white outer box to find the "toy" packaing inside. (Though I feel not having a fake "doesn't work on water" warning on the box was a missed opportunity).

I could take or leave the actual lenticular stuff, it would have been great if it was included but I don't have any major gripe against it. I do feel a proper prop replica would have included it.

I had to carefully go over air bubbles in the stickers to get rid of them/not crease the stickers, which i was able to do successfully but shoudln't have had to do at all.

What I do have gripes against:

• The sounds it makes are pretty terrible.
• The stand it comes with just doesn't work at all.  
• I'm a bit surprised the strap for your foot is not adjustable somehow. ("One leg up on the hovering board" photos are going to be a lot trickier now.)
• It sounds like something is loose inside when you tilt it around, though I am sure this is the "motion sensor" I don't think i've ever encountered another device that had this issue.
• my 1:6 board has flecks of paint falling off the strap already.

I have all of the Matty Collector Ghostbusters props so far, and they have all been pretty tight, so this was a bit disappointing.

Did Christmas come 3 years early or 23 years late?

Whohohoho, the future is looking a whoooole lot better. Now that eightcell has changed the PAST on 2012-12-12T22:03:39-05:00

 First off how did you make it look like its hovering? photoshop? did you drop in and take a pic in mid air?

Wow I just read a post over on theRPF.com that said his board is missing screws on the bottom hoverpads and they do not stay on properly.  Are you Fing kidding me. 

I know a lot of people are making BB complaints, I suggest you all do the same.  This is classic bait and switch. 

Originally Posted by:kyle0914

 First off how did you make it look like its hovering? photoshop? did you drop in and take a pic in mid air?

Yeah just a quick Photoshop. Took a pic of the board on the floor next to the box, removed the board and took the same pic. (This way the board would match the lighting in the area.) Cut the board out of the first pic and dropped it in the second.  The first photo also gave me an idea of the shadows it would cast, so I tried to emulate that.