Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Wed Oct 01, 2014 11:59 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Star Trek into darkness (2013) 
Author Message
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:22 pm
Posts: 775
Location: Hobart Australia
Post Star Trek into darkness (2013)
My opinion ( around 1 minute) about the latest teaser trailer as well as about the conversion from film to 3D can be found in the link below:

http://youtu.be/2pJlWBjvqpc

Happy to discuss and/or read other opinions

Cheers

_________________
The pen is truly mightier than the sword
The Joker (Batman - 1989)


Fri Dec 14, 2012 6:33 pm
Profile WWW
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1743
Post Re: Star Trek into darkness (2013)
Looks pretty awful to me.


Sat Dec 15, 2012 2:27 am
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3653
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: Star Trek into darkness (2013)
Looks pretty awesome to me.


Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:38 am
Profile
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:22 pm
Posts: 775
Location: Hobart Australia
Post Re: Star Trek into darkness (2013)
I liked Star Trek (2009) which was a nice reboot showing the main characters before they became what we knew. I was looking for more in that direction from J J Abrams as I thought he could deliver original stories based on : Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilisations, to boldly go where no man has gone before. but so far in this 1 minute trailer seems a partial rip off between The Dark Knight Rises and apparently with Khan (rumoured) or alike as villain . Anyway, so far no impressed with this 1 minute trailer.

In regarding the 3D conversion. Well, J J Abrams seems to care less and leave it fully the conversion process to the studios according an interview with Collider. No long ago Guillermo del Toro was also forced by the studios to convert Pacific Rim to 3D but once he accepted then he will be using almost the same workflow that Cameron used to convert Titanic with his full involvement (The only difference is that Pacific Rim at least is already shot in digital and Titanic was not). If you ask me I would expect better results from Del Toro than J J ;-).

I am a huge Star Trek fan but so far I am not impressed at all this time with J J!

Cheers

Edited: According Cumberbatch, he will instead be playing a terrorist named John Harrison. So maybe trending more to Bane than Khan lol

_________________
The pen is truly mightier than the sword
The Joker (Batman - 1989)


Sat Dec 15, 2012 7:57 am
Profile WWW
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:17 am
Posts: 231
Post Re: Star Trek into darkness (2013)
unwindfilms wrote:
I liked Star Trek (2009) which was a nice reboot showing the main characters before they became what we knew. I was looking for more in that direction from J J Abrams as I thought he could deliver original stories based on : Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilisations, to boldly go where no man has gone before. but so far in this 1 minute trailer seems a partial rip off between The Dark Knight Rises and apparently with Khan (rumoured) or alike as villain . Anyway, so far no impressed with this 1 minute trailer.

Perhaps the next star trek, will be nothing like the previous entries or tv series. This would be a brave move and if successfully undertaken would be will be worth the risk. If JJ has to be influenced by anything why not let it be Dark Knight Rises which after all was a decent film.
unwindfilms wrote:
In regarding the 3D conversion. Well, J J Abrams seems to care less and leave it fully the conversion process to the studios according an interview with Collider. No long ago Guillermo del Toro was also forced by the studios to convert Pacific Rim to 3D but once he accepted then he will be using almost the same workflow that Cameron used to convert Titanic with his full involvement (The only difference is that Pacific Rim at least is already shot in digital and Titanic was not). If you ask me I would expect better results from Del Toro than J J ;-).

I'm in the same boat as J J Abrams. I have absolutely no interest in 3D. 3D is gimmick which should be relegated to the dustbin. It rarely does anything for a film.

unwindfilms wrote:
I am a huge Star Trek fan but so far I am not impressed at all this time with J J!

Cheers

Edited: According Cumberbatch, he will instead be playing a terrorist named John Harrison. So maybe trending more to Bane than Khan lol

Benedict Cumberbatch is going to be really fine in this. if he is as intense in this as he is in Sherlock then this is the finest villain of 2013. In terms of Khan i think that if they ever bring this character back then why not have Javier Bardem play him.
I feel that it ill be impossible to bring back Khan in just one film, after all Khan appeared in the old star trek universe twice. he would have to do so again. I speculate that khan will never appear again.

Cheers Don.


Sat Dec 15, 2012 3:34 pm
Profile
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:22 pm
Posts: 775
Location: Hobart Australia
Post Re: Star Trek into darkness (2013)
Hi Don,

Thanks for your reply and my observations based on it below

Quote:
Perhaps the next star trek, will be nothing like the previous entries or tv series. This would be a brave move and if successfully undertaken would be will be worth the risk. If JJ has to be influenced by anything why not let it be Dark Knight Rises which after all was a decent film.


Oh The Dark Knight Rises was a decent film for sure and I know quite few people who liked a lot. Not me though who just enjoyed Hathaway as Catwoman and the fact of being the closure of a trilogy. In my view, this 9/11 post era films are getting tiresome and hopefully Zero Dark Thirty will be the last great one of that era.

Quote:
I'm in the same boat as J J Abrams. I have absolutely no interest in 3D. 3D is gimmick which should be relegated to the dustbin. It rarely does anything for a film.

Then J J should have been like Nolan who was pressed by WB but stuck to his convictions and told them off. For instance, Del Toro had concerns in Pacific Rim because his robots were too big for 3D so he did not shoot the movie originally in 3D but at least in digital. Later on the studios pressed him by also showing some test (the same that they did with J J) and he accepted going in that direction with several conditions such asking for more money for the 3D CGI Special Effects as well as he was going to take the time to supervise the conversion as close as Cameron did his with Titanic

Quote:
Benedict Cumberbatch is going to be really fine in this. if he is as intense in this as he is in Sherlock then this is the finest villain of 2013. In terms of Khan i think that if they ever bring this character back then why not have Javier Bardem play him.
I feel that it ill be impossible to bring back Khan in just one film, after all Khan appeared in the old star trek universe twice. he would have to do so again. I speculate that khan will never appear again.

Oh forget about Khan and I am sure that Benedict (John Harrison) will be better than Bane, at least I will be able to fully understand what he will be saying lol. I bought The Dark Knight Rises in blu ray, no because I thought it was great film but because of having the trilogy (I already had the other two) and Catwoman. Finally , with the bonus, by using the English sub tittles understood everything that Tom Hardy (Bane) said in that movie HaHa

Cheers
Carlos

_________________
The pen is truly mightier than the sword
The Joker (Batman - 1989)


Sat Dec 15, 2012 5:23 pm
Profile WWW
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:17 am
Posts: 231
Post Re: Star Trek into darkness (2013)
Hello Carlos, cool comeback. Allow me to respond.

unwindfilms wrote:


Oh The Dark Knight Rises was a decent film for sure and I know quite few people who liked a lot. Not me though who just enjoyed Hathaway as Catwoman and the fact of being the closure of a trilogy.


I always like asking people this, how would you have made DKR better. I feel that Bain's front mask was too delicate.
[Reveal] Spoiler:
Pulling out a tube made him very vulnerable. I would have looked into that.
. I also feel that Bruce Wayne should have been a little older looking.
[Reveal] Spoiler:
The part where he gets out of the lambo in front of the photographers would have been cooler if he was a little greyer looking.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
Putting all the cops in the city underground was a little silly

But i feel that it was a really well made film and tied the series up really well.

unwindfilms wrote:
In my view, this 9/11 post era films are getting tiresome and hopefully Zero Dark Thirty will be the last great one of that era.

In what way are the films getting tiresome?
i myself feel that films have become too safe, too formulaic. I am amazed that there have not been more batman clones. i think that money rules too much now. this is perhaps why all we ever get now are remakes or sequels.


unwindfilms wrote:

Then J J should have been like Nolan who was pressed by WB but stuck to his convictions and told them off. For instance, Del Toro had concerns in Pacific Rim because his robots were too big for 3D so he did not shoot the movie originally in 3D but at least in digital. Later on the studios pressed him by also showing some test (the same that they did with J J) and he accepted going in that direction with several conditions such asking for more money for the 3D CGI Special Effects as well as he was going to take the time to supervise the conversion as close as Cameron did his with Titanic

A thought has just occurred to me. I believe that writers should decide when 3D should be used that way it can be incorporated into the story line in a better fashion.

Quote:
Oh forget about Khan and I am sure that Benedict (John Harrison) will be better than Bane, at least I will be able to fully understand what he will be saying lol. I bought The Dark Knight Rises in blu ray, no because I thought it was great film but because of having the trilogy (I already had the other two) and Catwoman. Finally , with the bonus, by using the English sub tittles understood everything that Tom Hardy (Bane) said in that movie HaHa

I am going to wait for the trilogy blue ray pack. i'm sure it will be worth the wait. The Dark Knight had some cool extra features. I really liked all the Gothom tonights specials that appeared as the special features on Disc 2
Bain was difficult to understand, but because of this you had to focus and pay attention whenever he was on the screen. The effort was worth it.

Don.
On a side note: I am looking forward to the Star Trek Movie


Sat Dec 15, 2012 9:00 pm
Profile
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:22 pm
Posts: 775
Location: Hobart Australia
Post Re: Star Trek into darkness (2013)
G'Day Don,

My reflections in regarding to some of your questions of your last note:

Quote:
I always like asking people this, how would you have made DKR better


I think that your observations in black are valid, for me I am thinking more in what I would like to see for the next Batman movie series rather than dwell on what Nolan did. I would like to see the next Batman in full swing from the beginning like Batman year 2, still without Robin, more or less what Tim Burton did with his first movie. Also I liked the design of Gothan city from Burton. From Nolan I like this idea of Lucious Fox that makes better sidekick than Robin ;-). The first villain can not be The Joker, maybe one totally unknown in the cinematic world like the Cluemaster ;-)

Quote:
In what way are the films getting tiresome?

After the 9/11 terrorist attack came many TV shows such 24 and recently Homeland and films such as Jason Bourne trilogy, The Dark Knight Trilogy, Quantum Solace which were very gritty and dark without much of the escapism fun of the films in the previous decades but I think that the fun is coming back with glossy , funky and sheer escapism films such as The Avengers. After all Bin Laden is death and we will see that cinematic speaking in Zero Dark Thirty

Quote:
A thought has just occurred to me. I believe that writers should decide when 3D should be used that way it can be incorporated into the story line in a better fashion.


Oh that can be confusing and already intended by Coppola with the film Twixt. I did not see this fim in 3d but one of the reviewers in IMDB describe it as :

"Confusion maybe the theme of the film, but should that confusion have extended to the cast and, ultimately, the audience? One of the things the audience was confused about was that it was a 3-D film. Everyone eagerly played with the glasses until an announcement was made that there were only two short sequences in 3-D, and that it would be clear when those times were. That still didn't stop people from flipping the glasses on and off in a futile attempt to add some dimension to the film.
Coppola's choice to use 3-D does say something, though. Consider his contemporary - Martin Scorsese. Scorsese embraced the technology, used it to great effect to enhance his storytelling in "Hugo," and foresees using the process for all of his future projects. (We'll see.) How does Coppola use it? As a gimmick. An effective gimmick, but a gimmick none the less. Scorsese used it to draw you into the world of "Hugo." Coppola's use actually, and purposely, takes you out of his. Interestingly, only one of the two sequences was filmed using a 3-D camera. The second was added in post-production."

I know some people have problems adapting their eyes to see the 3rd dimension in the Cinema. I even have a friend like that but for the people who can see movies in 3D without problem I do not understand why you want it to see it 2D. is like telling you if you want to see to the world in 2D then start wearing a patch in one eye as a pirate ;-). Of course, there are crappy films in 3D, most of them if not all were not shot natively in 3D but came from rubbish 3D conversion from directors who did not care or had no idea how to do it right :-)

Quote:
Bain was difficult to understand, but because of this you had to focus and pay attention whenever he was on the screen. The effort was worth it.
Oh I disagree totally here. Nolan's Bain was a pain to watch for me because his voice (originally intended to have the Darth Vader effect but turned out an electronic English accent some times hard to understand). Also a short Tom hardy for more camera effect you place on him, it could not make it up for the physical presence that Bain has in the comics. I liked Catwoman though, I think that she was fun to watch and Hathaway sold me her performance with flying colours.

Quote:
On a side note: I am looking forward to the Star Trek Movie


Me too :-). I just hope that J J takes seriously the 3D conversion and he does not treat Captain Kirk in this movie like Nolan did to Batman where no as many as before fancy to be Batman because the Dark Knight is not fun any more but a character who is tortured/tormented for most of the movie lol

Cheers
Carlos

_________________
The pen is truly mightier than the sword
The Joker (Batman - 1989)


Last edited by unwindfilms on Sun Dec 16, 2012 10:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Sun Dec 16, 2012 5:47 am
Profile WWW
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:22 pm
Posts: 775
Location: Hobart Australia
Post Re: Star Trek into darkness (2013)
For people who wonders about the J J interview with Collider here is the link:

http://collider.com/jj-abrams-star-trek-2-3d-interview/136236/

It would be appreciated if Threeperf35 could shed some light about the benefits of shooting in anamorphic film :-)

Cheers

_________________
The pen is truly mightier than the sword
The Joker (Batman - 1989)


Sun Dec 16, 2012 10:30 pm
Profile WWW
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1743
Post Re: Star Trek into darkness (2013)
Abrams seems to me the most perfunctory and un-ambitious director working in the business today. It seems amazing to me that any sane director could put Super 8 out there and find it to be sufficient. As if a generic tribute to a 30 year old movie is enough to even warrant a funded production. Has he not seen The Goonies or Small Soldiers or any number of other E.T. wannabes which, despite having mixed results, are infinitely more ballsy and creative than what he came up with?

The first Star Trek is just too easy. Too formulaic, too much what everyone wanted to see. For a movie to be good, it needs to be more adventurous and challenging than that, imo.


Mon Dec 17, 2012 4:56 am
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:17 am
Posts: 231
Post Re: Star Trek into darkness (2013)
MGamesCook wrote:
The first Star Trek is just too easy. Too formulaic, too much what everyone wanted to see. For a movie to be good, it needs to be more adventurous and challenging than that, imo.


I love your line
"too much what everyone wanted to see"
what would you prefer
A movie that nobody wanted to see.


Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:20 am
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1743
Post Re: Star Trek into darkness (2013)
A movie that challenges what you wanted to see. A director who takes a chance of being bad in order to be better. Filmmaking isn't about catering to the masses. That's never what any decent film has been about, for 100 years. That's TV.


Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:55 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:35 am
Posts: 423
Post Re: Star Trek into darkness (2013)
MGamesCook wrote:
A movie that challenges what you wanted to see. A director who takes a chance of being bad in order to be better. Filmmaking isn't about catering to the masses. That's never what any decent film has been about, for 100 years. That's TV.


I agree that good movies, especially great ones, challenge an audience's expectations and make them to think, to ponder what the film was trying to say, and hopefully leave the theatre with some greater understanding and appreciation of whatever themes the film was addressing.

A film that aims only to give the audience what they want at the most base level (mindless action, lazy nostalgia kicks, etc.) sometimes comes close to approaching self-congratulatory masturbation.

The problem with the first Star Trek was just how safe it decided to play everything, relying more on the audience's familiarity with the franchise rather than doing any heavy lifting of its own. Oh look! That's Leonard Nemoy! Oh cool! That's in in-joke to Wrath of Khan! How cute! A classic character trait's been directly inverted for faux-dramatic/comedic effect!

The whole film was basically a hand-job to anyone who was well versed in their Star Trek lore. Take the film out of its larger context, it's a rather shallow film, with a poorly motivated villain, and little emotional resonance. It was fun, sure, but Star Trek has always been about more than that.


Mon Dec 17, 2012 7:43 pm
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1743
Post Re: Star Trek into darkness (2013)
Agreed. I think some teenagers now underestimate the emotional depth of the "popcorn flicks" of past years. A lot of people think the older Bond films, for instance, are shallower than they actually are. Ditto for Wrath of Khan. Those films possess another distinct and amiable quality which has been sadly lacking from most event films of the past 5 years: modesty.


Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:52 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:35 am
Posts: 423
Post Re: Star Trek into darkness (2013)
MGamesCook wrote:
Agreed. I think some teenagers now underestimate the emotional depth of the "popcorn flicks" of past years. A lot of people think the older Bond films, for instance, are shallower than they actually are. Ditto for Wrath of Khan. Those films possess another distinct and amiable quality which has been sadly lacking from most event films of the past 5 years: modesty.


This is where I disagree. I know you like to use your argument that the inflated egos of the modern auteur is ruining films, but I don't agree. Inflated egos have always been around in cinema, and I think your idea of modesty is largely a romantic idealization of a past era. There has always been shallow "popcorn flicks" (think of the glut of shitty westerns or the disaster movies of the 70's). Thousands of movies come out every year, yet only a handful are remembered. The one's that do get remembered are either truly exceptional, or somehow capture the cultural zeitgeist in some significant way.

One thing I find fascinating is watching the old Siskel & Ebert movies from the 70's and 80's. If you think of films from the 70's, it's easy to list dozens of movies that are masterpieces and have had considerable impact on the direction of cinema. But you wouldn't pick it watching Siskel & Ebert at the time. So much of their time is spent complaining about how much crap there is, the lack of originality, and the loss of magic that came from their favorite film era. In their top 10 of the decade, Siskel actually says that it's been a rather weak decade of movies. But today you can't help but wonder what sort of crack he was smoking.


Mon Dec 17, 2012 11:10 pm
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1743
Post Re: Star Trek into darkness (2013)
Quote:
This is where I disagree. I know you like to use your argument that the inflated egos of the modern auteur is ruining films, but I don't agree. Inflated egos have always been around in cinema, and I think your idea of modesty is largely a romantic idealization of a past era. There has always been shallow "popcorn flicks" (think of the glut of shitty westerns or the disaster movies of the 70's). Thousands of movies come out every year, yet only a handful are remembered. The one's that do get remembered are either truly exceptional, or somehow capture the cultural zeitgeist in some significant way.

One thing I find fascinating is watching the old Siskel & Ebert movies from the 70's and 80's. If you think of films from the 70's, it's easy to list dozens of movies that are masterpieces and have had considerable impact on the direction of cinema. But you wouldn't pick it watching Siskel & Ebert at the time. So much of their time is spent complaining about how much crap there is, the lack of originality, and the loss of magic that came from their favorite film era. In their top 10 of the decade, Siskel actually says that it's been a rather weak decade of movies. But today you can't help but wonder what sort of crack he was smoking.


But maybe Siskel knew what he was talking about. Perhaps, despite all the great stuff in the 70s, he could see the onset of how things might go terribly wrong. I think if Kael was still alive, she wouldn't have hesitated to declare that many of these event flicks are hardly movies at all.

Anyone who's good at something is arrogant about it to some extent, but there are ways to keep yourself in check. Tarantino's arrogance in interviews is something I don't care about. He can say whatever he wants. It's when it shows up in the movie itself that I take issue. It's nothing to do with a past era. The kind of modesty I'm looking for can be found in all the good movies this year: Moonrise Kingdom, RE5, Taken 2, Skyfall, and even that bizarro French flick Holy Motors. The idea of just putting something out there and seeing what people think of it. As opposed to expecting automatic praise for your movie in exactly the way you want it. The former is for artists. The latter is for corporations aka TV.

Quote:
The one's that do get remembered are either truly exceptional, or somehow capture the cultural zeitgeist in some significant way.


This is the difference. Recently, the cultural zeitgeist has been captured by corporate fixes rather than personal visions. And I don't think that's ever been the case so consistently before. I think people just bring way too much baggage and too many expectations into the theater these days. In my mind, movies are for people who don't give a shit and who just want to go out and see something interesting. That's the kind of audience for which good material is produced.


Tue Dec 18, 2012 3:49 am
Profile
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:22 pm
Posts: 775
Location: Hobart Australia
Post Re: Star Trek into darkness (2013)
Uhmm.. Interesting the last few replies!

Let me throw some thoughts and facts of my own.

Let me start that Paramount did not finance Star Trek in 2009 or this edition to win or compete for an Oscar in the best movie category, They did it primarily because they want that a massive amount of people to see them and therefore make the biggest profit

Let's review this money category for Star Trek (2009)

Budget: $150 million
Revenue worldwide: $385

J J hit the target in 2009 because a film that double or more its budget is considered successful

Secondarily Paramount wanted to keep the Star Trek branding going high by showing the movie viewers quality Star Trek stuff which was what the majority ( as this franchise has a large fan base) paid to see it. In that regard J J scored very well as

IMDB: 8.0
Tomatometer: 95% (out of 295 reviews).

This time around J J was given $185 million to spend on it so Paramount expect at least $370 in revenue. They think that showing it in 3D could be an advantage against the previous movie but in my opinion they started with the wrong foot because not being filmed natively in 3D and only if the conversion is at least acceptable and no something like John Carter was, then this could be an asset.

They expect also that the fan base shows up in full (this is the branding part) and for that they think that they are presenting a good Star Trek story. Keep in mind that there are very bad performers in the franchise such as Star Trek (Nemesis) 2002
Budget: $60 million
Revenue worldwide: $67
IMDB: 6.3
Tomatometer: 38% (out of 157 reviews)

In brief, Paramount is financing J J to produce and direct a movie that not only please Star Trek fans but also Science Fiction in general so this film makes at least $370 in revenue or more. If J J hit that mark then no matter what I or anybody say at the end money talks.

Finally, as a huge Star Trek fan: Am I excited so far with what I have seen it? No really (refer to my previous posts in this thread) , but I will go to see the movie and talk about the final product :-)

Cheers

_________________
The pen is truly mightier than the sword
The Joker (Batman - 1989)


Tue Dec 18, 2012 4:15 am
Profile WWW
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:35 am
Posts: 423
Post Re: Star Trek into darkness (2013)
Oh there's no doubt that the first Star Trek film was very successful and achieved the one thing that it set out to do: make Star Trek relevant again. But I found it way too safe. But I suppose they didn't want to take any big risks before establishing its franchise potential. It makes perfect sense, but traditionally Star Trek has always been about big lofty ideas, and in comparison the new film just felt rather shallow.


Tue Dec 18, 2012 4:34 am
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 10:26 am
Posts: 238
Post Re: Star Trek into darkness (2013)
Awkward Beard Man wrote:
But I found it way too safe.


What do you mean "way too safe"?

-Not disagreeing, just unsure what you mean here.

_________________
______________________________
Specializing in rodent behavior modification.
-Watch me pull a habit out of rat.


Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:40 am
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 5:38 pm
Posts: 258
Post Re: Star Trek into darkness (2013)
Awf Hand wrote:
Awkward Beard Man wrote:
But I found it way too safe.


What do you mean "way too safe"?

-Not disagreeing, just unsure what you mean here.


[Reveal] Spoiler:
Because blowing up Vulcan
and establishing a completely new timeline was a totally safe move on the part of the filmmakers...?
-Jeremy

_________________
My Blog: Queering the Closet


Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:08 pm
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], Google [Bot], Jeff Wilder and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr