Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Tue Jul 29, 2014 4:59 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 141 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Confirmed: Zack Snyder is directing Superman. 
Author Message
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1600
Post Re: Confirmed: Zack Snyder is directing Superman.
Quote:
It seems fairly prejudiced to dismiss all CGI-heavy films as lazy. What if Man of Steel succeeds in terms of direction, acting, editing, cinematography, score, costume design, production design, choreography, sound design, and makeup, but just happens to make use of extensive CGI? Would you still hate it?


Seems reasonably logical to me. After all, most of us agree that film is the director's form. On set, he collaborates with a small group of primary technicians, and a larger group of assistant technicians. With a CGI-heavy film, he's collaborating with perhaps hundreds of employees from Wedu or ILM or whereever. At times, in such conditions, it seems like the movie is barely his anymore. This sort of opinion isn't uncommon these days. For instance, a lot of working cinematographers were pissed off by the Oscar for Life of Pi, since much of that photography was clearly done in the computer.

As for Man of Steel, I don't know. Maybe I'll enjoy it, but it doesn't look like it has potential to be truly great. I don't see why it needs to be. This concept of a summer blockbuster being a truly great piece of cinema is extremely recent and very illogical. Summer is supposed to be about having fun. Oscar season comes later.


Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:13 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 12:07 pm
Posts: 377
Post Re: Confirmed: Zack Snyder is directing Superman.
Pacific Rim looks like it is going to use more CGI than Transformers and The Avengers combined, but weren't you one of the ones extremely excited for that one?

Man of Steel and Pacific Rim are my two most hyped movies of this summer. I think it is pretty cool to view a "summer spectacle" and quite possibly come out of the theater giddy with a gigantic smile on one's face.


Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:39 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3371
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: Confirmed: Zack Snyder is directing Superman.
I don't mind films having a lot of CGI as long as the film itself is entertaining.


Tue Jun 11, 2013 8:15 pm
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1600
Post Re: Confirmed: Zack Snyder is directing Superman.
Quote:
I think it is pretty cool to view a "summer spectacle" and quite possibly come out of the theater giddy with a gigantic smile on one's face.


Yeah, that's what happened to me with Fast 6. But that was because of the tone as much as the spectacle. Fast 6 has the perfect tone for a summer blockbuster. In other words, I'll come out of the film giddy if the tone is giddy. Is it possible to make a giddy CGI movie? Yes, I suppose, but it's usually not as fun for me. Did I say I was excited for Pacific Rim? I think I said it looks like some crazy shit, which it does. Crazy, but looks like it may be heavy and exhausting more than fun. We shall see. It'll also be interesting to see if it actually appeals to anyone at the box office.

I must say, I'm on the edge of my seat in terms of this weekend's box office. It's been a really fascinating year for box office, with everything gravitating toward huge extremes. There's a pretty decent chance Steel is gonna fall below This is the End.


Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:46 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:07 pm
Posts: 1526
Post Re: Confirmed: Zack Snyder is directing Superman.
MGamesCook wrote:
It is rich in irony, no matter which side you're on or what angle you look at it. I pointed out how some people are prejudiced against low budget B movies, and someone else pointed out how I'm equally prejudiced in the opposite direction. But consider this: the early action directors, Raoul Walsh, Anthony Mann, Howard Hawks, Robert Siodmak worked with the kind of budgets that would make Taken look like Avatar.

Films like White Heat and Winchester '73 made with what in today's dollars would be something around 15 million on average. But they were action movies! Extremely high octane and forceful for their time, and they still come across just as much so today (for me at least). They new how to make spectacle out of very limited means. And I do believe Winchester is a greater spectacle, specifically, than Inception, any of the Bourne films, etc. To see that final shootout on a big screen is extraordinary. Then later, more money started being spent, but even Ben Hur, adjusted for inflation, is absolutely nothing next to these superhero movies. And the simple truth I'm seeing here is this: those people were auteurs. They were intimate auteurs, and you can feel them speaking to you in every frame while simultaneously managing to translate their voices into grand presentations.

Even the action movies today that I like, Bullet to the Head, Transporter, Resident Evil, Good Day to Die Hard, Skyfall, Fast 6, I can't honestly say affect me as much as those old ones. The intimacy, sharpness, and pacing of the oldies are simply incomparable. Maybe the characters in Avengers are pretty cool. Maybe The Dark Knight Rises does have powerful themes. Maybe Gatsby was a good adaptation. But it's hard for me to see those things with the big pile of money blocking the screen.


Part of your point seems to support a view I've developed over the past decade: the contemporary action film has basically become a superhero movie. And that doesn't mean only Marvel/DC branded ones. Bullet To The Head, the Transporter movies, the Expendables series, even the legitimately fun Crank. All of those could fall in that category. So does Good Day To Die Hard (as well as 95% of the Die Hard sequels) without question.

Bullet To The Head I previously identified as:

Quote:
A pro job. But come on Walter. You can do better than this.


To me it was an okay movie that had a good to great movie in it struggling to get out. There were signs of it and signs of Hill's approach (IE: his using Western tropes in contemporary set movies). But on the whole it just didn't work that well. Entertained while on yet evaporated the minute it was over. I've managed to erase most of it from my mind now, 4 months later. Whereas I could probably recite most of 48 Hrs at the drop of a hat. Even the somewhat forgotten The Last Boy Scout from 1991 holds up well. It has characters that are recognizably human. In fact, its two heroes are not the nicest guys you could hope to meet. Yet you want em to win.

The side effect is thatmany of these movies entertain while on, yet offer no real incentive to go back. I always had a guilty pleasure affection for the aforementoned Last Boy Scout and own 48 Hrs and teh original Die Hard on DVD.

It's too soon to tell whether The Avengers Or The Dark Knight will hold up in another decade or two. It might make sense to wait and pass that judgment when the time arrives.

_________________
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


Wed Jun 12, 2013 1:14 am
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1600
Post Re: Confirmed: Zack Snyder is directing Superman.
Quote:
A pro job. But come on Walter. You can do better than this.


Disagree. It's far better than 48 Hrs. Every scene works. The Eddie Murphy is the redneck bar scene of 48 Hrs is godawful. Much phonier than anything he does in A Thousand Words. 48 Hrs has some good action but in terms of characters it hasn't aged that well. The pacing is static, whereas Head literally moves like a bullet. I'd also say Bullet is superior to The Driver by far. Got nothing on Southern Comfort though.

What you're asserting about action movies being all about the idea of the superhero has been true for many many decades now. Reading texts as far back as the 50s you find westerns being labeled as comic book films or comic strip films. Ditto to detective yarns. That's fine. I have no problem with a movie having that vibe. What I have a problem with is over-reliance on CGI and budgets of over 200 million. You could make a very strong Batman movie for 50 mil. Easily. And I have no problem admitting that, though I like Skyfall, the same story could have been told just as effectively with half the budget.


Wed Jun 12, 2013 4:27 am
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:04 am
Posts: 2386
Location: Lancashire, England.
Post Re: Confirmed: Zack Snyder is directing Superman.
It may seem stupidly obvious to say this - but the trailers for Man of Steel really do look like a 50/50 cocktail of Nolan's washed out look, which seeks to balances real life grimness with extra-real life events; and Snyder's mammoth scale. I'm not sure what this suggests really.

Obviously they are confident that their vision of the genre is the best, but it lends credence to the theory that blockbusters are completely devoid of imagination.

_________________
... because I'm a wild animal


Wed Jun 12, 2013 5:32 am
Profile
Producer

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:04 am
Posts: 2108
Post Re: Confirmed: Zack Snyder is directing Superman.
Based on James' tweet it looks like a solid 3 star review. It sounds like he liked it more than Iron Man 3, but not by much.

His tweet, and I'm paraphrasing here, goes something like this: "This year, steel is stronger than Iron though not by much."

Darn. There goes me doing really badly in this week's contest thread. I was hoping for something truly epic and that he would give it 3.5 stars. But it sounds like it's just 3 stars. Oh, well.


Wed Jun 12, 2013 9:36 am
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pm
Posts: 584
Post Re: Confirmed: Zack Snyder is directing Superman.
Other than Star Trek and Furious 6, this has been a dismal year for summer blockbusters.

MGamesCook wrote:
Quote:
It seems fairly prejudiced to dismiss all CGI-heavy films as lazy. What if Man of Steel succeeds in terms of direction, acting, editing, cinematography, score, costume design, production design, choreography, sound design, and makeup, but just happens to make use of extensive CGI? Would you still hate it?


Seems reasonably logical to me. After all, most of us agree that film is the director's form. On set, he collaborates with a small group of primary technicians, and a larger group of assistant technicians. With a CGI-heavy film, he's collaborating with perhaps hundreds of employees from Wedu or ILM or whereever. At times, in such conditions, it seems like the movie is barely his anymore. This sort of opinion isn't uncommon these days. For instance, a lot of working cinematographers were pissed off by the Oscar for Life of Pi, since much of that photography was clearly done in the computer.

As for Man of Steel, I don't know. Maybe I'll enjoy it, but it doesn't look like it has potential to be truly great. I don't see why it needs to be. This concept of a summer blockbuster being a truly great piece of cinema is extremely recent and very illogical. Summer is supposed to be about having fun. Oscar season comes later.

You're not answering my question. What if, say, Pacific Rim ends up being both intelligent and CGI-heavy? Del Toro has described it the film as follows: "What we went for is a very, very romantic look. I wanted to have a lot of crazy rain, wind, all the drama of an Emily Bronte movie in a high-tech movie."

What if this holds true? What if the movie succeeds both in terms of storytelling and visually? Would you still pan it based on the fact that it uses a lot of CGI?

Much of what you say could be directed against any new "trend" in film-making, be it sound, color, or widescreen. Granted, none of these things makes a movie great. The Artist exemplifies this, although I know that you hated it.

Here is the root of my question: what if a director comes along one day and concocts a brilliant film which makes extensive use of CGI? Would you still dismiss it?


Wed Jun 12, 2013 11:47 am
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1600
Post Re: Confirmed: Zack Snyder is directing Superman.
Part of my point is, you can't compare CGI to color and sound. Color and sound are both production components, while CGI is a post-production component. My view of CGI is that it's a useful tool in adapting stories in the fantasy and science fiction genres. But my honest opinion is that it will never be the most exciting element of an action sequence. In the climax of Ghost Rider 2, CGI is a useful tool for making the SUV appear to be on fire. But that's not what's fun for me. What's fun for me is the speed of the cars during the chase, which is captured through live stunt work. CGI is also useful in creating the monster in Resident Evil 5. A necessary element of the story, but that's not what's exciting for me. What's cool for me in that movie is the physical sets, and the fight sequences choreographed with the help of wires attached to the actors. Wires are also the key method being used for many of the most exciting moments in Fast 6 and Skyfall.

I think CGI is one of many tools that can be used in telling a story. I also think stories can be told entirely inside a computer.

Quote:
what if a director comes along one day and concocts a brilliant film which makes extensive use of CGI?


It's already been done. The Adventures of Tintin, in my opinion, is a terrific animated action film. But that's the thing. What you're talking about, in my view, is animation. There will always be a market for that. But reality, or the appearance of reality, is the key to live action filmmaking. And honestly, it doesn't matter how good the effects are. The impression of reality has more to do with what's actually supposed to be happening rather than how detailed the textures are or whatever. Whether the technology is from 1937 or 2037, the basic premise of Avatar is psychologically hard to believe.

I get some of these ideas from what the French critic Andre Bazin wrote in the 50s:

Quote:
The fantastic in the cinema is possible only because of the irresistible realism of the photographic image. It is the image that can bring us face to face with the unreal, that can introduce the unreal into the world of the visible. It is easy enough to give counter-proof of this proposition. To imagine, for example, The Invisible Man as an animated film is to understand immediately that it would lose all interest. What in fact appeals to the audience about the fantastic in the cinema is its realism; I mean, the contradiction between the irrefutable objectivity of the photographic image and the unbelievable nature of the events that it depicts. It is not by chance that the first to comprehend the artistic potential of film was Georges Melies, a magician.


Wed Jun 12, 2013 8:30 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pm
Posts: 584
Post Re: Confirmed: Zack Snyder is directing Superman.
MGamesCook wrote:
Part of my point is, you can't compare CGI to color and sound. Color and sound are both production components, while CGI is a post-production component. My view of CGI is that it's a useful tool in adapting stories in the fantasy and science fiction genres. But my honest opinion is that it will never be the most exciting element of an action sequence. In the climax of Ghost Rider 2, CGI is a useful tool for making the SUV appear to be on fire. But that's not what's fun for me. What's fun for me is the speed of the cars during the chase, which is captured through live stunt work. CGI is also useful in creating the monster in Resident Evil 5. A necessary element of the story, but that's not what's exciting for me. What's cool for me in that movie is the physical sets, and the fight sequences choreographed with the help of wires attached to the actors. Wires are also the key method being used for many of the most exciting moments in Fast 6 and Skyfall.

I think CGI is one of many tools that can be used in telling a story. I also think stories can be told entirely inside a computer.

Quote:
what if a director comes along one day and concocts a brilliant film which makes extensive use of CGI?


It's already been done. The Adventures of Tintin, in my opinion, is a terrific animated action film. But that's the thing. What you're talking about, in my view, is animation. There will always be a market for that. But reality, or the appearance of reality, is the key to live action filmmaking. And honestly, it doesn't matter how good the effects are. The impression of reality has more to do with what's actually supposed to be happening rather than how detailed the textures are or whatever. Whether the technology is from 1937 or 2037, the basic premise of Avatar is psychologically hard to believe.

I get some of these ideas from what the French critic Andre Bazin wrote in the 50s:

Quote:
The fantastic in the cinema is possible only because of the irresistible realism of the photographic image. It is the image that can bring us face to face with the unreal, that can introduce the unreal into the world of the visible. It is easy enough to give counter-proof of this proposition. To imagine, for example, The Invisible Man as an animated film is to understand immediately that it would lose all interest. What in fact appeals to the audience about the fantastic in the cinema is its realism; I mean, the contradiction between the irrefutable objectivity of the photographic image and the unbelievable nature of the events that it depicts. It is not by chance that the first to comprehend the artistic potential of film was Georges Melies, a magician.

I understand where you're coming from, but I fail to see how Resident Evil or Ghost Rider qualify as solid films.

Let's say that you like a particular movie, but it is largely driven by CGI. Would you look up how much CGI was used in the movie, and if it looked like too much, decide that you didn't like? If a movie is driven just a tiny bit more by CGI than practical effects, would you give it a thumbs-down?

That's all I want to know.

I will give you credit on one point, though: I am honestly getting tired of the "fanboys". I was recently watching a YouTube review of Man of Steel, where one critic gave the film a recommendation and the other was a bit more lukewarm. Countless people who hadn't even seen the movie felt the need to poke holes in his arguments. One person even asked why character development is necessary in a movie when we're already familiar with the characters. :x

Now, I like comic-book movies. I love The Dark Knight. I love The Avengers. But I am getting tired of "fanboys" expecting every highly-anticipated summer release to match their expectations, especially when the level of hype interferes with their ability to provide an objective rating. Classic confirmation bias.


Last edited by Sean on Thu Jun 13, 2013 2:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Wed Jun 12, 2013 8:59 pm
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1600
Post Re: Confirmed: Zack Snyder is directing Superman.
Quote:
Let's say that you like a particular movie, but it is largely driven by CGI. Would you look up how much CGI was used in the movie, and if it looked like too much, decide that you didn't like? If a movie is driven just a tiny bit more by CGI than practical effects, would you give it a thumbs-down?


No, I would go with my initial reaction. And I'm always interested to see new things being done, so who knows.

Quote:
I will give you credit on one point, though


Thanks :D

Hyping almost always leads to disappointment. The imdb board is ripe with panic attacks right now. People need to calm down. Myself included maybe but one thing I've learned is that it can be a lot more relaxing to see a movie you don't want to see and be pleasantly (even mildly) surprised by it than to see a movie you really want to see and be disappointed. Extreme hype wasn't this constant before 06 or 07, as I remember. For instance, no one was really worrying whether The Two Towers or Chamber of Secrets were gonna live up to expectations. They were what they were. Spider-Man 3 was probably my first experience of extreme disappointment. I thought at the time my expectations were just too high. But later I found out I wasn't the only one.

Quote:
I understand where you're coming from, but I fail to see how Resident Evil or Ghost Rider qualify as solid films.


One way to think about it is that they don't try to be good, they just try to be interesting. They use extreme styles to be provocative, even if that means provoking many people into not liking it. At least that's my interpretation.

Quote:
Based on James' tweet it looks like a solid 3 star review. It sounds like he liked it more than Iron Man 3, but not by much.


Don't forget, JB loved Superman Returns. Even speculated as to whether it was the best Superman movie.


Thu Jun 13, 2013 1:52 am
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:42 pm
Posts: 1343
Location: Bangkok
Post Re: Confirmed: Zack Snyder is directing Superman.
I really need to watch Superman Returns again to maybe understand the flaws people have with it (the reactions at it around the internet almost approach that of the Star Wars prequels sometimes), although it might be that my viewing experience is unique. It was my first exposure to a Superman story, whichever medium, and I remembered I was quite frustrated when I sat down to watch it in theater because I've heard it's a continuation of the first two Superman movies, but my dad didn't want to wait for me to catch up first and I was there despite myself. Needless to say, about 5 or 10 minutes into the film I forgot my anger. Even back then I felt it was a different breed of blockbuster movie: unhurried, soothing and kind of majestic. I watched it two times, once at theater and another at home next year, and my feeling didn't change much. Only a few years later when I began reading movie forums that I discovered how many people really didn't like, even hated, it.


Thu Jun 13, 2013 12:26 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pm
Posts: 584
Post Re: Confirmed: Zack Snyder is directing Superman.
peng wrote:
I really need to watch Superman Returns again to maybe understand the flaws people have with it (the reactions at it around the internet almost approach that of the Star Wars prequels sometimes), although it might be that my viewing experience is unique. It was my first exposure to a Superman story, whichever medium, and I remembered I was quite frustrated when I sat down to watch it in theater because I've heard it's a continuation of the first two Superman movies, but my dad didn't want to wait for me to catch up first and I was there despite myself. Needless to say, about 5 or 10 minutes into the film I forgot my anger. Even back then I felt it was a different breed of blockbuster movie: unhurried, soothing and kind of majestic. I watched it two times, once at theater and another at home next year, and my feeling didn't change much. Only a few years later when I began reading movie forums that I discovered how many people really didn't like, even hated, it.

I kind of feel bad for James. He was one of the few people who loved Superman Returns, and he would have probably rather seen a sequel instead of a reboot.

Is it really necessary to reboot Superman, though? Weren't the first two Reeve films good enough?


Thu Jun 13, 2013 2:15 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 4:33 pm
Posts: 584
Post Re: Confirmed: Zack Snyder is directing Superman.
And now Man of Steel is at a 59% on the Tomatometer, making it "Rotten".

"Fanboy"-led Spanish Inquisition to commence in three, two, one...


Thu Jun 13, 2013 3:11 pm
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1600
Post Re: Confirmed: Zack Snyder is directing Superman.
Quote:
I kind of feel bad for James. He was one of the few people who loved Superman Returns, and he would have probably rather seen a sequel instead of a reboot.

Is it really necessary to reboot Superman, though? Weren't the first two Reeve films good enough?


Quote:
unhurried, soothing and kind of majestic.


I had an initial reaction to Returns similar to Peng's, those are good words to describe it. And I enjoyed X-Men 3 very much so was happy with Singer's decision to change sides. Bosworth was admittedly a weak Lois Lane, but I thought Spacey nailed it and that Routh was O.K.


Thu Jun 13, 2013 5:13 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3371
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: Confirmed: Zack Snyder is directing Superman.
MGamesCook wrote:
Quote:
I kind of feel bad for James. He was one of the few people who loved Superman Returns, and he would have probably rather seen a sequel instead of a reboot.

Is it really necessary to reboot Superman, though? Weren't the first two Reeve films good enough?


Quote:
unhurried, soothing and kind of majestic.


I had an initial reaction to Returns similar to Peng's, those are good words to describe it. And I enjoyed X-Men 3 very much so was happy with Singer's decision to change sides. Bosworth was admittedly a weak Lois Lane, but I thought Spacey nailed it and that Routh was O.K.

For me it's the other way around, I liked Bosworth but I thought Spacey's performance was pretty weak overall.


Thu Jun 13, 2013 5:39 pm
Profile
Producer

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:04 am
Posts: 2108
Post Re: Confirmed: Zack Snyder is directing Superman.
I thought that Bosworth, while no Margot Kidder, was nonetheless perfectly fine as Lois Lane. I'm looking forward to Amy Adams' interpretation of the character. Despite what James said about her in his review, I thought she was an inspired choice to play Lois Lane.

And I thought Spacey was AWESOME as Lex Luthor. In fact, this might be blasphemous for some, but I thought he was better than Hackman. I mean, I love Hackman but Spacey was not only funny, but he was something that Hackman's Luthor wasn't. A believable threat to Supes.


Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:54 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: Confirmed: Zack Snyder is directing Superman.
John Simon, Gene Siskel, and Roger Ebert debate Star Wars back in the early '80s. Some of the points being made sound oddly familiar.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Fri Jun 14, 2013 9:27 pm
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1600
Post Re: Confirmed: Zack Snyder is directing Superman.


On many days, I'd prefer to side with Siskel and Ebert, but unfortunately they were arguing about Return of the Jedi :?

And regarding that specific entry in the Star Wars series, Simon is about 110% right. But he doesn't seem to have the proper frame of reference to defend himself. Everything is relative. Jedi is bad because Empire is good, it wouldn't be as easy to diss Jedi if that wasn't the case. Also noteworthy is Simon's reference to Tender Mercies, one of Ebert's "great movies."

Basically, what Simon's describing is the uncanny valley: the place where nothing is quite what it is. It's what happens when live actors/objects mix with animation too vaguely, not sharply enough, and everything melds together into a mass which, if allowed to go on for too long, becomes an uncanny valley. It also reduces the movie's effect to something like pure sensory ecstasy for some, sensory overload for others. I wouldn't even liken it to a theme park ride, since that's an insult to some pretty good theme park rides I've been on. In its last 40 minutes, Jedi deadens the senses instead of stimulating them. Part of the reason the actors seem so disinterested in that movie is because the pacing and rhythm are entirely disconnected from anything they're doing; or anything that the script is doing, for that matter. That's what creates the uncanny valley effect for me.


Sat Jun 15, 2013 5:34 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 141 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], Google [Bot], KWRoss and 3 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:  
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