Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Wed Oct 01, 2014 2:22 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
THE HOST 
Author Message
Assistant Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 9:12 pm
Posts: 82
Post Re: THE HOST
oakenshield32 wrote:
Quote:
It looks like Andrew Niccol is having himself an M. Night Shyamalan career collapse. That's a damn shame in my opinion. Gattaca was a great film and Niccol seemed to have a promising start.


I thought Gattaca was just okay but I did give it credit for being at least real science fiction as compared to what we get a lot now is futuristic action vehicles that gets called science fiction for lack of a better word. After Earth,Oblivion and Star Trek 2 all appear to be that kind of animal. I miss movies like Quatermass and the Pit or something weird like Zardoz. I look at James Cameron who is wasting all his talents on Avatar sequels instead doing something like 2001 and sigh. It is unappreciated genre in movies that just seems to get lowballed projects like this made but nothing more ambitious unless it is some big director's pet passion. The only decent ones that I can remember is Inception,Never let Me Go,Source Code and the much maligned A.I.


What I'm saying is, his films are dropping in quality with each film. I'm fascinated by these type of filmmakers by the way. But you know, I doubt Niccol will generate as much hate as Night has gotten. But that's another story. I hope Niccol makes a comeback but then he never seemed like the most in demand directors even after Gattaca.

As for Cameron and Avatar: I liked Avatar. You need those kinds of films if you want to see serious movies like 2001. Some people think Kubrick invented all the special effects in that film but really, those special effects where perfected with popcorn films like The Thief of Baghdad or Wizard of Oz. And you know, the special effect films of Georges Melies. Avatar is good old fashioned swashbuckling film with revolutionary special effects that I hope other filmmakers use to make deeper films. That is, if these filmmakers would get their head out of their ass and stop listening to everyone moaning about CGI.


Wed Apr 10, 2013 12:34 am
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3653
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: THE HOST
JayBob wrote:
oakenshield32 wrote:
Quote:
It looks like Andrew Niccol is having himself an M. Night Shyamalan career collapse. That's a damn shame in my opinion. Gattaca was a great film and Niccol seemed to have a promising start.


I thought Gattaca was just okay but I did give it credit for being at least real science fiction as compared to what we get a lot now is futuristic action vehicles that gets called science fiction for lack of a better word. After Earth,Oblivion and Star Trek 2 all appear to be that kind of animal. I miss movies like Quatermass and the Pit or something weird like Zardoz. I look at James Cameron who is wasting all his talents on Avatar sequels instead doing something like 2001 and sigh. It is unappreciated genre in movies that just seems to get lowballed projects like this made but nothing more ambitious unless it is some big director's pet passion. The only decent ones that I can remember is Inception,Never let Me Go,Source Code and the much maligned A.I.


What I'm saying is, his films are dropping in quality with each film. I'm fascinated by these type of filmmakers by the way. But you know, I doubt Niccol will generate as much hate as Night has gotten. But that's another story. I hope Niccol makes a comeback but then he never seemed like the most in demand directors even after Gattaca.

As for Cameron and Avatar: I liked Avatar. You need those kinds of films if you want to see serious movies like 2001. Some people think Kubrick invented all the special effects in that film but really, those special effects where perfected with popcorn films like The Thief of Baghdad or Wizard of Oz. And you know, the special effect films of Georges Melies. Avatar is good old fashioned swashbuckling film with revolutionary special effects that I hope other filmmakers use to make deeper films. That is, if these filmmakers would get their head out of their ass and stop listening to everyone moaning about CGI.

I certainly hope filmmakers don't use Avatar as a temeplate, the 3-D was I believe the only reason why critics went gaga over it, if it was released in 2-D, I believe it would've been long forgotten by now, take away the 3-D and there is absolutely nothing special about the film, it's no more intelligent then Transformers or Battleship IMO, at least they didn't try and shove an incredibly annoying and pointless environmental message down my throat at every single opportunity.


Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:01 am
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:11 pm
Posts: 419
Post Re: THE HOST
Quote:
Avatar is good old fashioned swashbuckling film with revolutionary special effects that I hope other filmmakers use to make deeper films. That is, if these filmmakers would get their head out of their ass and stop listening to everyone moaning about CGI.


I was just commenting I wish there was more big ideas science fiction and not so much of things like Avatar. I find that CGI really puts me off as it too often looks like a video game animation that is phony to my eye. I think I agree with Chris Nolan who believes more in using physical models as the eye and mind can tell the difference between photography and animation. His Inception world looked seamless while Avatar looked totally fake. Maybe CGI is a crutch you use to wow the audience dispensing with storytellling which Inception and Source Code proved can be done in a thought provoking way.

Quote:
no more intelligent then Transformers or Battleship IMO, at least they didn't try and shove an incredibly annoying and pointless environmental message down my throat at every single opportunity.


I agree with that those movie all operate at the same simplistic level. I was also a little annoyed with having Cameron wedge his religiosity of neopagan animism down my throat. Not exactly "science" but more like faith based evangelism of Sunday morning television.Give me the Foundation or Martian Chronicles any day of the year over Avatar.


Wed Apr 10, 2013 6:40 am
Profile
Assistant Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 9:12 pm
Posts: 82
Post Re: THE HOST
oakenshield32 wrote:
Quote:
Avatar is good old fashioned swashbuckling film with revolutionary special effects that I hope other filmmakers use to make deeper films. That is, if these filmmakers would get their head out of their ass and stop listening to everyone moaning about CGI.


I was just commenting I wish there was more big ideas science fiction and not so much of things like Avatar. I find that CGI really puts me off as it too often looks like a video game animation that is phony to my eye. I think I agree with Chris Nolan who believes more in using physical models as the eye and mind can tell the difference between photography and animation. His Inception world looked seamless while Avatar looked totally fake. Maybe CGI is a crutch you use to wow the audience dispensing with storytellling which Inception and Source Code proved can be done in a thought provoking way.

Quote:
no more intelligent then Transformers or Battleship IMO, at least they didn't try and shove an incredibly annoying and pointless environmental message down my throat at every single opportunity.


I agree with that those movie all operate at the same simplistic level. I was also a little annoyed with having Cameron wedge his religiosity of neopagan animism down my throat. Not exactly "science" but more like faith based evangelism of Sunday morning television.Give me the Foundation or Martian Chronicles any day of the year over Avatar.



I've had my problems with CGI films in the past. My problem with CGI is that they age badly too quickly, and there's whole uncanny valley thing.

Avatar I believe is past that. To me it's real as it gets and I've studied it. The CGI look prosthetic but with none of the limitations. And I also don't care about 3D. That's not the aspect of the film that interested me.

I also never had a problem with the environmental message. Didn't seem any worse than what you see in a Hayao Miyazaki movie. And since it's a family movie really, it should be a little heavy handed.

But also like the potential of CGI. It could revolutionise filmmaking in every way. Lucas said it's basically changing a photographic artform into an painterly artform and I'm fine with that. The idea of filmmakers having the same kind of freedom as painters do excites me. I personally feel that live action has reached it's peak. Same with 2D animation. People are letting their nostalgia influence them. Anything that they didn't see as a kid is bad thing.

Even with Robert Zemeckis CGI films. I didn't like any of them, but I respected them and respected Zemeckis for trying. We need more of that.

oakenshield32 wrote:
I was just commenting I wish there was more big ideas science fiction and not so much of things like Avatar. I find that CGI really puts me off as it too often looks like a video game animation that is phony to my eye. I think I agree with Chris Nolan who believes more in using physical models as the eye and mind can tell the difference between photography and animation. His Inception world looked seamless while Avatar looked totally fake. Maybe CGI is a crutch you use to wow the audience dispensing with storytellling which Inception and Source Code proved can be done in a thought provoking way.


Personally, I didn't enjoy Inception. I don't think Nolan said or showed anything that we hadn't really seen before. Nolan needs people like Cameron though, that's the hidden secret about all this. You can't really count on the Nolan of the world to invent colour, or the moving camera, or widescreen. And they're usually the first ones to cry foul about any new invention and how it will destroy the art of cinema, which is what people assumed sound technology would do. Though it did for a few years. We need technological innovators so we can have artistic innovation. I don't blame the Lucas' and Cameron's for what people do with the tech.

That's why to me, Stanley Kubrick was the best kind of filmmaker. He was a great artist while having a deep respect for technology.


Thu Apr 11, 2013 1:05 am
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3653
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: THE HOST
JayBob wrote:
oakenshield32 wrote:
Quote:
Avatar is good old fashioned swashbuckling film with revolutionary special effects that I hope other filmmakers use to make deeper films. That is, if these filmmakers would get their head out of their ass and stop listening to everyone moaning about CGI.


I was just commenting I wish there was more big ideas science fiction and not so much of things like Avatar. I find that CGI really puts me off as it too often looks like a video game animation that is phony to my eye. I think I agree with Chris Nolan who believes more in using physical models as the eye and mind can tell the difference between photography and animation. His Inception world looked seamless while Avatar looked totally fake. Maybe CGI is a crutch you use to wow the audience dispensing with storytellling which Inception and Source Code proved can be done in a thought provoking way.

Quote:
no more intelligent then Transformers or Battleship IMO, at least they didn't try and shove an incredibly annoying and pointless environmental message down my throat at every single opportunity.


I agree with that those movie all operate at the same simplistic level. I was also a little annoyed with having Cameron wedge his religiosity of neopagan animism down my throat. Not exactly "science" but more like faith based evangelism of Sunday morning television.Give me the Foundation or Martian Chronicles any day of the year over Avatar.



I've had my problems with CGI films in the past. My problem with CGI is that they age badly too quickly, and there's whole uncanny valley thing.

Avatar I believe is past that. To me it's real as it gets and I've studied it. The CGI look prosthetic but with none of the limitations. And I also don't care about 3D. That's not the aspect of the film that interested me.

I also never had a problem with the environmental message. Didn't seem any worse than what you see in a Hayao Miyazaki movie. And since it's a family movie really, it should be a little heavy handed.

But also like the potential of CGI. It could revolutionise filmmaking in every way. Lucas said it's basically changing a photographic artform into an painterly artform and I'm fine with that. The idea of filmmakers having the same kind of freedom as painters do excites me. I personally feel that live action has reached it's peak. Same with 2D animation. People are letting their nostalgia influence them. Anything that they didn't see as a kid is bad thing.

Even with Robert Zemeckis CGI films. I didn't like any of them, but I respected them and respected Zemeckis for trying. We need more of that.

oakenshield32 wrote:
I was just commenting I wish there was more big ideas science fiction and not so much of things like Avatar. I find that CGI really puts me off as it too often looks like a video game animation that is phony to my eye. I think I agree with Chris Nolan who believes more in using physical models as the eye and mind can tell the difference between photography and animation. His Inception world looked seamless while Avatar looked totally fake. Maybe CGI is a crutch you use to wow the audience dispensing with storytellling which Inception and Source Code proved can be done in a thought provoking way.


Personally, I didn't enjoy Inception. I don't think Nolan said or showed anything that we hadn't really seen before. Nolan needs people like Cameron though, that's the hidden secret about all this. You can't really count on the Nolan of the world to invent colour, or the moving camera, or widescreen. And they're usually the first ones to cry foul about any new invention and how it will destroy the art of cinema, which is what people assumed sound technology would do. Though it did for a few years. We need technological innovators so we can have artistic innovation. I don't blame the Lucas' and Cameron's for what people do with the tech.

That's why to me, Stanley Kubrick was the best kind of filmmaker. He was a great artist while having a deep respect for technology.

I dunno if i'd call Avatar a "family" film, the message wouldn't have been so bad if Cameron was more subtle about it. The way he presented it in the film made me feel like I was watching an episode of Captain Planet.


Thu Apr 11, 2013 1:14 am
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:11 pm
Posts: 419
Post Re: THE HOST
Quote:
Avatar I believe is past that. To me it's real as it gets and I've studied it. The CGI look prosthetic but with none of the limitations. And I also don't care about 3D. That's not the aspect of the film that interested me.


Maybe you can convince your self it is real as it gets but is still feels like characters float not walk and there is no material feeling to any of the objects.The absolutely best use of CGI was not Avatar but in Master and Commander because you could not see it anywhere on screen.Peter Weir's quote "It’s just another set of wonderful tools, to be used sparingly, but they are there, and they are there to help tell a story, in this case a story that could not have been told without these particular tools." To be used sparingly is the part that I wish others such as Lucas and Cameron would heed because if they were painters their art is garish and overstuffed.

The next ballyhooed innovation was the 48 fps in the Hobbit but for some reason it kind of landed with a thud. Maybe if we are forced to watch it enough we can be indoctrinated into thinking that a movie should look like a bad tv soap opera video. All these whiz bang ideas are being overused and oversold not for artistic reasons but to give something that illegal downloads watched on the ubiquitous tablets and playing Xboxes and Playstations can't compete with to stop attendance declines.The same kind of innovation you hand to Kubrik was in direct relation to film's counterattack to television in the 50's and 60's.


Thu Apr 11, 2013 6:39 am
Profile
Assistant Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 9:12 pm
Posts: 82
Post Re: THE HOST
oakenshield32 wrote:
Quote:
Avatar I believe is past that. To me it's real as it gets and I've studied it. The CGI look prosthetic but with none of the limitations. And I also don't care about 3D. That's not the aspect of the film that interested me.


Maybe you can convince your self it is real as it gets but is still feels like characters float not walk and there is no material feeling to any of the objects.The absolutely best use of CGI was not Avatar but in Master and Commander because you could not see it anywhere on screen.Peter Weir's quote "It’s just another set of wonderful tools, to be used sparingly, but they are there, and they are there to help tell a story, in this case a story that could not have been told without these particular tools." To be used sparingly is the part that I wish others such as Lucas and Cameron would heed because if they were painters their art is garish and overstuffed.

The next ballyhooed innovation was the 48 fps in the Hobbit but for some reason it kind of landed with a thud. Maybe if we are forced to watch it enough we can be indoctrinated into thinking that a movie should look like a bad tv soap opera video. All these whiz bang ideas are being overused and oversold not for artistic reasons but to give something that illegal downloads watched on the ubiquitous tablets and playing Xboxes and Playstations can't compete with to stop attendance declines.The same kind of innovation you hand to Kubrik was in direct relation to film's counterattack to television in the 50's and 60's.


First I want say something that I didn't say in my previous post. I think it's unfair to criticise Avatar for what it's not. Cameron never claimed he was making a hard sci-fi people. In fact, he always said it was going to be and Edgar Rice Burroughs type movie. He wanted to make a sci-fi that was opposite of stuff like The Matrix. Question is, did he succeed at it? I'd say yes. Much more than Nolan succeeded in trying to make a serious sci-fi movie with Inception.

I don't need to convince myself. I know it. Or at least it's real enough to me to have high hopes for the tech. In fact I always did. Your comparison to painting is why I like CGI. It's just a photographic medium into a painterly medium. No one criticises an oil painting for being completely synthetic. And no one would suggest that photography is a superior artform simply because everything's real. And remember, CGI is getting better everyday.

And that's why CGI. CGI will revolutionise films. It will have beneficial effects for all kinds of artists. Whether they're making a big budget action film or they're doing Shakespeare. I respect Cameron because he's actually contributing to the art of cinema in a positive way. Looking forwards and not backwards. He's certainly better than the likes of Tarantino who would have make nothing but the same crap over an over again because it's what they watched as children. If you don't have technological innovation, you don't artistic innovation. The guy who invented the piano is just as much a genius as Beethoven. What's Nolan doing? Using Imax cameras. What will that do for anyone.

But all this argument doesn't matter anyway. It's going to happen and it's simple as that. And all these critics will look just as wrong as the people who argued against moving the camera or sound technology or the widescreen process. In fact, everything's a special effect when you think about it. They were raised up by how they were used. Same should be true of CGI. The thing that I hate is that the Cameron's and the Lucas' won't get any respect for it. Just like no one respect those old technicians who made the dialogue in Godfather possible.

Lastly, I've always believed that an artform at it's nascent is better than an artform that's reached it's peak. That's a dead artform. Live action has in many ways reached it's peak. Look at acting for example. You think there's going to be another Marlon Brando to come along and change acting? No. This is the best it's going to get as far as live action acting is concerned. How times are we going to see actors loose weight, gain weight or whatever other gimmicks. CGI could breathe new life to this as well.


Fri Apr 19, 2013 2:00 am
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:11 pm
Posts: 419
Post Re: THE HOST
Quote:
First I want say something that I didn't say in my previous post. I think it's unfair to criticise Avatar for what it's not. Cameron never claimed he was making a hard sci-fi people. In fact, he always said it was going to be and Edgar Rice Burroughs type movie. He wanted to make a sci-fi that was opposite of stuff like The Matrix. Question is, did he succeed at it? I'd say yes. Much more than Nolan succeeded in trying to make a serious sci-fi movie with Inception.

I don't need to convince myself. I know it. Or at least it's real enough to me to have high hopes for the tech. In fact I always did. Your comparison to painting is why I like CGI. It's just a photographic medium into a painterly medium. No one criticises an oil painting for being completely synthetic. And no one would suggest that photography is a superior artform simply because everything's real. And remember, CGI is getting better everyday.

And that's why CGI. CGI will revolutionise films. It will have beneficial effects for all kinds of artists. Whether they're making a big budget action film or they're doing Shakespeare. I respect Cameron because he's actually contributing to the art of cinema in a positive way. Looking forwards and not backwards. He's certainly better than the likes of Tarantino who would have make nothing but the same crap over an over again because it's what they watched as children. If you don't have technological innovation, you don't artistic innovation. The guy who invented the piano is just as much a genius as Beethoven. What's Nolan doing? Using Imax cameras. What will that do for anyone.

But all this argument doesn't matter anyway. It's going to happen and it's simple as that. And all these critics will look just as wrong as the people who argued against moving the camera or sound technology or the widescreen process. In fact, everything's a special effect when you think about it. They were raised up by how they were used. Same should be true of CGI. The thing that I hate is that the Cameron's and the Lucas' won't get any respect for it. Just like no one respect those old technicians who made the dialogue in Godfather possible.

Lastly, I've always believed that an artform at it's nascent is better than an artform that's reached it's peak. That's a dead artform. Live action has in many ways reached it's peak. Look at acting for example. You think there's going to be another Marlon Brando to come along and change acting? No. This is the best it's going to get as far as live action acting is concerned. How times are we going to see actors loose weight, gain weight or whatever other gimmicks. CGI could breathe new life to this as well.


The problem with your theory is that movies have not become better with this great revolutionary technology. If I go by declining movie attendance which is down 12% from this period last year it seems that even CGI,3D and other bright shiny toys that goes whoo whoo can't staunch the bleeding. CGI is just a big box of crayons nothing more or less and I will even to go as far as to say the big CGI remakes of 80's movies are in many case worse than the alleged archaic predecessor. Total Recall,Fright Night,Clash of the Titans,Tron and Conan the Barbarian all stunk compared to the earlier movies. Clash of the Titans had a great story and wonderful effects by Ray Harryhausen which were charming and beautiful. The remake in comparison was boring and one of the ugliest looking movies I have ever seen. The reason is that you have an army of computer nerds huddled over their terminals adding clouds or raindrops like near blind monks illuminating vellum in a scriptorium instead of real visual artists creating live works of art in their workshops for a movie. Without real artists that understand drama,literature,art and film directing the box of crayons is useless.

I watched Inception 3 times and I got something new each time I watched it which is a credit to the director's ability to take every facet of a visual medium and use it. Avatar's story and characters are completely forgettable aside for it's technology. Much like Al Jolson's Jazz Singer which introduced talkies. I had hopes that Cameron would be a new David Lean but he seems more happy being Hanna Barbera.

Funny you bring up Tarantino as I checked all the Oscar nominees and the majority aside from Life of Pi don't use that much CGI if at all. Tarantino though not terribly original succeeds because he understands movies and know how to write great scenes that just stick in your mind. I admire his ability to do so much with so little. CGI is no replacement for creative artists writing great characters to great stories along with an ability to use your team of visual artists and the camera to dramatize it and bring it to life.Django Unchained went over 160 million going old school which says that movies can succeed without the nerds.


Sat Apr 20, 2013 7:24 am
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3653
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: THE HOST
Personally, I think the Total Recall remake had more "imagination" then Inception did, I actually found Incpetion to be even more shallow then those remakes. But I agree that CGI is no substitute for storytelling.


Sat Apr 20, 2013 12:49 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pm
Posts: 584
Post Re: THE HOST
Vexer wrote:
Personally, I think the Total Recall remake had more "imagination" then Inception did, I actually found Incpetion to be even more shallow then those remakes. But I agree that CGI is no substitute for storytelling.

Inception is layers deeper and much more imaginative than Total Recall, which was a pathetic excuse to remake a perfectly-good movie. In terms of performances, Inception is better. In terms of direction, Inception is better. In terms of thrills, Inception is better. And in terms of film-making, Inception is much, much better.


Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:31 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3653
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: THE HOST
Sean wrote:
Vexer wrote:
Personally, I think the Total Recall remake had more "imagination" then Inception did, I actually found Incpetion to be even more shallow then those remakes. But I agree that CGI is no substitute for storytelling.

Inception is layers deeper and much more imaginative than Total Recall, which was a pathetic excuse to remake a perfectly-good movie. In terms of performances, Inception is better. In terms of direction, Inception is better. In terms of thrills, Inception is better. And in terms of film-making, Inception is much, much better.

Meh, guess we'll have to agree to disagree, to me all the dreams in Inception looked like something out of a video game, not exactly what i'd call "imaginative", I liked the snow fortress scene better when I was actually playing it in Modern Warfare 2. I found Colin Farrel's Quaid/Hauser to be much more interesting and involving then Di Caprio's Cobb, who was pretty much a blank slate for me. Biel and Beckinsale's characters were considerably better written then Ellen Page's character, whose only real purpose was to spell out the "rules" of the dreamworld to the audience, but had no actual personality to speak of. I did not find Inception very "thrilling", the snow fortress sequence is one of the most incomprehensible action scenes i've ever seen, in the TR remake, the elevator fight alone is more thrilling then anything in Inception.


Sat Apr 20, 2013 2:49 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:07 pm
Posts: 1571
Post Re: THE HOST
oakenshield32 wrote:
Quote:
It looks like Andrew Niccol is having himself an M. Night Shyamalan career collapse. That's a damn shame in my opinion. Gattaca was a great film and Niccol seemed to have a promising start.


I thought Gattaca was just okay but I did give it credit for being at least real science fiction as compared to what we get a lot now is futuristic action vehicles that gets called science fiction for lack of a better word. After Earth,Oblivion and Star Trek 2 all appear to be that kind of animal. I miss movies like Quatermass and the Pit or something weird like Zardoz. I look at James Cameron who is wasting all his talents on Avatar sequels instead doing something like 2001 and sigh. It is unappreciated genre in movies that just seems to get lowballed projects like this made but nothing more ambitious unless it is some big director's pet passion. The only decent ones that I can remember is Inception,Never let Me Go,Source Code and the much maligned A.I.


Well Niccol's last directorial effort was In Time which I still have yet to see yet most reviews weren't too happy. In some ways I suspect that this may simply be a hired gun project for him.

I liked Minority Report a great deal aside from the last three-five minutes. Dark City is probably more fantasy than sci-fi. But either way it's great. It's sort of what fantasy or sci-fi would be like if Dostoevsky got a hold of it.

_________________
This ain't a city council meeting you know-Joe Cabot

Cinema is a matter of what's in the frame and what's out-Martin Scorsese.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1347771599


Sat Apr 20, 2013 4:50 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 1 guest


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:  
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