Official RAZZIE® Forum Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > General MOVIE & DVD Discussions > Disagree w/Any Past RAZZIES®??
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: SOME BAD CHOICES
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login

SOME BAD CHOICES

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
Message
BurnHollywoodBurn View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 03 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3557
Post Options Post Options   Quote BurnHollywoodBurn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: SOME BAD CHOICES
    Posted: August 10 2010 at 6:54pm
No, audiences just came into Indy #4 with high expectations ... and they are shot down ... hard.  

Originally posted by ramonesun

I think people came in weary simply cause indy was old, which is dumb, because the film was clearly a labor of love from speilberg and lucas
 

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Actually, many people found INDY #4 to be a labor...for bux (as well as a bore to sit through). And given the fairly consistent tone of the previous 3 films, the overall "flatness" and lack of fun in this most recent one was a major source of disappointment to millions of fans of the series...  

The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
Back to Top
ramonesun View Drop Down
Berry Important Member
Berry Important Member


Joined: August 10 2010
Location: PA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 70
Post Options Post Options   Quote ramonesun Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 10 2010 at 7:05pm
HAH! Shatner wasnt typecast! He has been in so many different genres: Sci Fi, Comedy, Drama, Cop Thrillers, Sitcoms, muscials, even in Shakespeare plays on Broadway! The type casting thing was also a poor excuse because great actors like Al Pacino and Robert De Niro are often typpecast. Second, It doesn't matter what people believe, it's all a matter of what science can prove so far. 

In Blair Witch, they didn't go into the woods to find a witch, they went in too shoot a documentary on an urban legend that they failed to believe in. There were no special effects, and even the ending leaves one doubting if there was truly a supernatural entity in the woods. Fear of violence caused by ghosts isnt as big as the Blair Witch's fear because most people dont belive in ghosts, whereas everyone knows that really bad stuff can go down when you're in the woods alone. 

Lastly, Darth Vader wasn't born evil, so of course there has to a transformation somewere. The acting was bad on Hayden's part, but u r missing the greater point. He wanted power over death, and fame as well, which led to his downfall and the blackening of his heart. Something everyone wishes they had (power), and a formula that Shakespeare used often (in Macbeth for instance). And don't tell me people came into Indy 4 with high expectations, people were making old people jokes as soon as the trailers started popping up all over the globe.
FILM CRITIC AT LARGE
Back to Top
ramonesun View Drop Down
Berry Important Member
Berry Important Member


Joined: August 10 2010
Location: PA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 70
Post Options Post Options   Quote ramonesun Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 10 2010 at 7:07pm
Also, Shatner played over the top because he thought it would fit the source material best. Star Trek never got the special effects budget that Star Wars had, so he had to add campiness to the role in order for people to come in light-hearted to the show. But if you see the movies and the shows, you realize that you grow to love his character, with all his faults and goals, no matter how bad the movies may get plot-wise. And that is greatness. 

He didn't deserve to be a nominee for Worst Actor of the Decade, or even Worst Actor of the year for Star Trek 5... 
FILM CRITIC AT LARGE
Back to Top
saturnwatcher View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: July 14 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2577
Post Options Post Options   Quote saturnwatcher Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 10 2010 at 7:37pm
A few simple facts:
 
1. Shatner has, indeed, appeared in films and TV shows covering a wide variety of genres. But he has yet to demonstrate that he is particularly good at any of them.  
 
2. Yes, we all caught on to the fact that Darth Vader wasn't born evil. The larger point that you are evidently missing is that Episodes 1-3 sucked!  
 
3. People weren't laughing at the most recent Indiana Jones because Harrison Ford is aging. That may be an uncomfortable realization that those of us in his approximate age group have to deal with, but people laughed at the movie because it was bad. 
 
4. Star Trek 5 was 3 too many.  
 
5. This one is for you, Burn...I wish that those pseudoscience shows like Ghosthunters would include 2 more cast members: 1. a qualifed, degreed scientist, preferably someone with an advanced degree in physics and 2. a professional magician. But people would stop watching them in a big hurry if they actually had people who could not only explain away oddities, but also expose some of the nonsense being fobbed off by the show's principals.  

Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken
Back to Top
BurnHollywoodBurn View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 03 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3557
Post Options Post Options   Quote BurnHollywoodBurn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 10 2010 at 7:52pm
I'll just stick mostly to "Blair Witch", since saturnwatcher answered the other questions for me. But I'll just add that 1. In Razzie voters' eyes, it doesn't matter if you were a great actor in the past (Shatner not being one of those), if you do a bad acting job in an equally bad movie, you're ripe for a razzing. 2. Yes, Darth Vader had to become evil, but he didn't have to be a whiny crybaby on his way to becoming so. Not too mention with all the mistakes in the storylines from the prequels to the original movies, you can clearly tell Lucas was making stuff up as he went along. 3. "Indiana Jones 4" was a campy, overly light-hearted, almost always winking at the camera mess, "Raiders of the Lost Ark" was more serious with a few light-hearted moments. THAT is why people hated the fourth movie.
 
Sure, I'll admit "Paranormal Activity" has its share of flaws. It's "they go to sleep, something happens, they talk about it in the morning, repeat" cycle does get annoying and repeative. However, the pay off in the in end was worth it, as the inhuman screaming and loud footsteps from off-screen were enough to harken anyone back to their childhood, when they were afraid of the dark and the unknown. "BW", on the other hand, you couldn't get scared of the unknown because you were too busy wondering what the hell was going on with all the camera shaking and the screaming and the running around, plus the let-down ending. Even today, over ten years later, people are wondering what the big deal was with that movie! I'm not saying "PA" will last the time of time any better, but "BW" is already considered a joke. Oh, and not that it matters to the quality of the movie, but most studies show that 65% of Americans (or 1 in every 3 people) believe in ghosts.
 
As for saturnwatcher and pseudoscience shows, well, some of those shows, like "Most Haunted", do have such members like a scientist who at the end of the how explains how what happened could be scientifically explained. Not all, but some.
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
Back to Top
ramonesun View Drop Down
Berry Important Member
Berry Important Member


Joined: August 10 2010
Location: PA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 70
Post Options Post Options   Quote ramonesun Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 10 2010 at 9:57pm
Wrong on the first one, good sir: Shatner has recieved critical acclaim for his performances in each of the genres he dipped his feet in, even TJ Hooker. 

Secondly, saying a movie sucked is not a valid argument, state why. 

Third, really? No age jokes? Get real. Don't tell me nobody went around saying Harrison Ford was too old. If people said it for Rocky, Rambo, and Terminator 3, they definatley said it for this film. 

Fourth, Star Trek 5 was clearly not enough,since the film after it, The Undiscovered Country, received much critical acclaim, as did two of the Next Generation films -- and the much-loved recent remake.
FILM CRITIC AT LARGE
Back to Top
BurnHollywoodBurn View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 03 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3557
Post Options Post Options   Quote BurnHollywoodBurn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 10 2010 at 10:12pm
Let's just get this one little thing straight about the Razzies. We don't care what citicial acclaim an actor gets in the past, if you give a bad performance, you're worthy of a razzing. Halle Berry, former Oscar winner ... razzed. Al Pacino, former Oscar winner ... nods for several Razzies. Shatner ... let me put it this way, when Paul Newman died, he was remembered for being a great actor with a list of diverse roles. When Shatner dies, he will be remembered as the guy who had to pause for some failed attempt at melodrama between each...spoken...word. That is why he is typecast, and he only has himself to blame for it.  
 
As for Harrison Ford being too old, yes, that was a factor, but not THE factor. THE factor was that the movie just plain SUCKED. It was a shell of what the Indiana Jones movies had once been. Like I said, the entire movie was too campy and light-hearted. It was as if Ford was going to turn to the camera and wink at us "Hey, it's your buddy, Indiana Jones, in another movie. Isn't this fun!?". Indiana Jones was never about that. 
 
And as for "Star Trek 5," it just plain sucked.  Critics and most Trek fans agreed on that, so deal with it.  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: In support of the point made above, here is an R.T. LINK to see reviews on STAR TREK 5 (78% Negative reviews)...and here is another RT LINK, supporting the previously made point about the 2009 STAR TREK remake (with 94% positive reviews) being a superior film...  


The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
Back to Top
ramonesun View Drop Down
Berry Important Member
Berry Important Member


Joined: August 10 2010
Location: PA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 70
Post Options Post Options   Quote ramonesun Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 10 2010 at 10:15pm
I find it strange how you call the Indiana Jones films campy and lighthearted... which is preceisley their point. The one that got really dark, the temple of doom, recived bad reviews, and recieved criticism for not having enough campiness or light hearted moments.... so that can't be the problem  either. Secondly, Paranormal activiy did not have a good ending. Nothing was explained and little was seen (what was seen were terrible special effects), and it in fact, borried it's ending from the blair witch project (the offscreen screams, the loud footsteps, the nervous breakdown of a male and female duo, etc). The reason the blair witch project received such acclaim was because it was all so vivid and real. The fantastic merchandizing campaign made every step possible to make veiwers belive what they were watching was an actual documentary feature, and if you pretend it is, than that makes it really scary (you could say the same thing for PA, but the special effects ruin the realism that would allow us to make belive). Plus, the reason people were screaming in the BWP is because in real life, in those situations, you do freak out. You don't sit around and have a dialouge with the camera panning back and forth from face to face. You freaking run. Especially when its late at night, your alone in the woods with no direction to go, and your not sure if you hear the distant laugh of  children echoing through the trees, etc. The actors in the film were given no script except an outline and were handed cameras and told to film stuff. Their fright was genuine, as they were often alone by themselves and crew members were told to try and scare the actors. Lastly, i fear shows such as ones you mentioned are immoral as many of the people clearly dont contact ghosts and are just in it for a quick buck. that would be fine, accept for the fact that many ghosts are based on actual dead people, so in a way they mock the deceased, which is disgustingly innapropriate.
FILM CRITIC AT LARGE
Back to Top
ramonesun View Drop Down
Berry Important Member
Berry Important Member


Joined: August 10 2010
Location: PA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 70
Post Options Post Options   Quote ramonesun Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 10 2010 at 10:24pm

...and the Shatner insults keep on coming. Listen, I'm not saying the fith film wasn't bad, just not bad enough to get a nomination, especially by today's standards. Second, even though the film was bad, Shatner wasn't bad in it. He just did what he did in all the other Trek films, which was fine by fans and most critics. Secondly, he won't be remembered as that breathing guy upon his death, but for much, much more. He is an icon of "nerd culture," a vastly growing one, and showed the world that science fiction can be taken  seriously and given serious critical attention, including the actors of science fiction films and television. He is well liked by the media, and pretty much well liked by tv and film critics as well. No sir, you're wrong. 

You see, when Paul Newman died, teenagers and those under 30 the world over (or most of them), said "Aww man, that guy made good salad dressing." Wereas when  Shatner (who is loved by both the very young and the very old) dies, most kids and adults will be quite upset, not just the old and "cinematic elite," as was true in Paul Newman's case.

FILM CRITIC AT LARGE
Back to Top
BurnHollywoodBurn View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 03 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3557
Post Options Post Options   Quote BurnHollywoodBurn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 10 2010 at 10:32pm
Okay, #1. Just accept the fact that for whatever reason, people thought "Indiana Jones 4" sucked. You may not agree with them, but for most people who saw it, they thought it sucked. Just comes to grips with that. I (or saturnwatcher, or whomever) can make as many excuses as we want, but you're not going to agree with any of them. Point is "Indiana Jones 4" was in the minds of many, a let down and not the movie that wanted from their beloved movie series.
 
2. I don't care about your opinions of ghosts. I understand just because people believe in something that hasn't been proven by science, that doesn't mean it's real. But "PA" as a whole is a better movie in quality filmmaking. It tells a story about a woman and her past with an unknown force and the bad outcome as a result of her boyfriend playing games with that force. The camera is kept straight and you can tell what's happening. This takes talent. Not to mention, think about, you're peacfully sleeping in bed, when all of a sudden, you are ripped from your bed and dragged by an unseen force. And as one of your loved ones tries to save you, a door is slammed in his or her face and he/she is unable to open it. Okay, the unseen force thing may not be real, but being taken against your will and no one being able to save you is scary! 
 
"BW" tells next to no story, it's a bunch of people running around like headless chickens, and you have no clue what is happening, and there's a lack luster ending. This is not talent. Any person can do this. You, me, saturnwatcher, even MWG. This is why ten years later (and even back then) "BW" is considered a joke. The one and only reason why it was so popular is because of it's Internet marketing and everyone thought it was real footage. Once they found out it wasn't they realized what a joke the movie was.
 
Again, like with "Indiana 4", you just need to come to grips with the fact that people think "BW" was a talentless movie and deserved the Razzie nods/wins it got.
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
Back to Top
BurnHollywoodBurn View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 03 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3557
Post Options Post Options   Quote BurnHollywoodBurn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 10 2010 at 10:39pm
Um, you do realize the 5th Star Trek movie was made some time like over 15 years ago, so Razzie voters were comparing to the standards of 15 years ago! Comparing it to today's standards is a moot point because the past can not be undone. What, are we suppose to give Razzie nods/wins to today's movies based on what we think the standards of moviemaking of 15 years from will be? No, we live in the now, and 15 years ago, by the standards of thT day, "Star Trek 5" sucked and not much has changed the opinions of that.
 
As for your Paul Newman comment, these little things you might heard of called Turner Classic Movies or DVDs in which movies from the past can be viewed by younger generations. So I doubt not all people under 30 were like "The salad dressing guy died". In fact, I find that FAR more insulting than anything we have said about Shatner.
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
Back to Top
ramonesun View Drop Down
Berry Important Member
Berry Important Member


Joined: August 10 2010
Location: PA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 70
Post Options Post Options   Quote ramonesun Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 10 2010 at 10:41pm
But the thing is i wouldnt complain if you werent wrong. You see, Indy Four has a 76%  fresh rating on rotten tomatoes, and  BWP has an 85% (three percent more than PA). This includes user ratings, which mean even a few years after both films releases, most people dont think they suck. Your signature notes that what you write above is your opinion, but what you left out was the word "informed" next to it. The razzies were dumb to vote against films that have generally recieved critcial acclaim. Whats next? They're going to nominate Inception for worst mind trip?
FILM CRITIC AT LARGE
Back to Top
ramonesun View Drop Down
Berry Important Member
Berry Important Member


Joined: August 10 2010
Location: PA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 70
Post Options Post Options   Quote ramonesun Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 10 2010 at 10:46pm
The Newman statment is sad, if its true. I find him a good actor, a very good one, but still today's generation hasn't heard of him nor will they make the effort to, unlike with Shatner. And as for my Trek 5 comment, that is valid. Citizen Kane received negative reviews on release, as did 2001 a Space Odyssey, though they are now regarded as great films. So I can definitley say the Razzies were wrong to nominate a film such as that, for having little hindsigh and ignoring way worse crap that came out that same year. It was nominated for Worst Film of the Decade for Gawdz sake! I really doubt it is even close to that! 
FILM CRITIC AT LARGE
Back to Top
BurnHollywoodBurn View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 03 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3557
Post Options Post Options   Quote BurnHollywoodBurn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 10 2010 at 10:50pm
Hey, like I said, for whatever reason, Razzie voters felt that "Indiana Jones 4" sucked and was an unworthy sequel to the series. Just deal with it. You might think a man being able to live through a nuke test by hiding inside a lead lined fridge is perfectly acceptable, but to Razzies voters, it was just as retarded as Fronzie and the shark jumping.  
 
And I find it laugh out loud funny that you mentioned being "informed". You claim Shatner helpped made sci-fi be taken seriously? Well, if you were "informed", you would know that a decade before Star Trek, there was "The Day The Earth Stood Still". And, all the way back in the 1920s, there was "Metropolis". These were the movies that helpped make sci-fi be taken seriously LONG before Star Trek showed up. So if you fancy yourself a film critic, try getting your film history right first.  

Are there young people who don't know who Paul Newman was? Sure. But Newman and Shatner are in totally different leagues. Newman is a legend of FILM. Years from now, he will be seen as a role model to all actors. Shatner is a legend of POP CULTURE. Years from now, he will be a foot note in the entertainment business, not an acting legend. See, you have the same problem with people here who defend Stallone as a great actor. You confuse what is popular and entertaining with what is good and enduring filmmaking. Newman's work will be remembered as an art form. Shatner and Stallone's work will be remembered as entertainment. Don't mistake them as the same thing.
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
Back to Top
ramonesun View Drop Down
Berry Important Member
Berry Important Member


Joined: August 10 2010
Location: PA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 70
Post Options Post Options   Quote ramonesun Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 10 2010 at 11:11pm

Dont call me uninformed. Im well aware of Fritz Lang's silent works and who can forget klateau or however u spell it. Good as these films were, they were largely ignored by all but cinematic scholars/critics and film buffs (and it took a while for the original Day the Earth Stood Still to get the reputation it has today). Star Trek opened up the artistic potential of science fiction to the world at large, for EVERYONE(!) giving the genre the critical and universal attention it truly deserved, but was granted by only a few. 

Secondly, the whole point of this post was to argue against what Razzie voters (who don't really represent most of the movie-going public) said... I'm well aware that they already made up their minds long ago and like the forum says, even they make mistakes on their decisions. You're missing the point of this post entirely! 

Lastly, Shatner will be remembered as an artist because the show he was in was artistic (and I'm sure way more people agree with me than would ever dare to disagree with me on this one), morality plays in a science fiction universe, and he certainly helped make the show artistic, hence his "artist" and not just "pop culture" status. 

Also, Stallone isn't just an entertainer. The first Rocky film itself is testament to that. 

You're also forgetting many of Newman's films were made as pure entertainment and not art (such as Cool Hand Luke).  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Actually, COOL HAND LUKE was both mass entertainment and a work of art -- Here's an IMDb LINK showing that LUKE was nominated for FOUR Academy Awards (including Best Screenplay) and actually won Best Supporting Actor for George Kennedy...  

Also, the idea that anyone would attempt to equate William Shatner (a mediocre TV star who happened to hit it big by appearing in one iconic series, and who has made as many horribly bad movies as anyone, including INCUBUS, WHITE COMANCHE, IMPULSE, THE DEVIL'S RAIN, etc) with legendary screen icon Paul Newman (IMDb LINK) is on the face of it ludicrous. Newman would deserve "legend" status for any ONE of the TEN films for which he was an Oscar nominee.  Shatner has basically built a career on ONE character, and self-aware parodies and variations of that character. 

Also, beyond the two men's "merits" as actors, Newman's much maligned line of food products have raised hundreds of millions of dollars for various humanitarian charities and causes -- What exactly has Shatner done to enrich anyone but himself??

In the real world, there is simply NO comparison between the two.


Oh, and STAR TREK V did suck badly enough to deserve the multiple RAZZIES it "won" -- Has anyone else out there even tried to sit through it lately?? It's a lumbering, overlong, pretentious mess, representing one more attempt to milk box office bucks from a concept that should've been abandoned after the far superior STAR TREK IV, which most movie-goers (LINK) and critics (LINK) agree set the bar for STAR TREK movies featuring the aging original TV series' cast...  


FILM CRITIC AT LARGE
Back to Top
BurnHollywoodBurn View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 03 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3557
Post Options Post Options   Quote BurnHollywoodBurn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 11 2010 at 9:14am
Here's the problem though, you're not looking at the choices the Razzies made in the past as a critic, you are looking at them as a FAN. To you, Shatner is an artist, however, many people will only remember him as Captain Kirk or the guy who paused between every other spoken word. You may not like this, but it is true, same as some people may only remember Newman for salad dressing. Both are sad facts, but NO ONE seriously looks at Shatner as some artist. They see him as an ENTERTAINER, but not an artist, and as I said, there is a huge difference between the two.
 
And as I said, the Razzies are blind to whatever critical success an actor has had in the past. If they have a bad performance, they are instantly a Razzie contender. It doesn't matter if it's Halle Berry, Al Pacino, Stallone, or Shatner. We don't care if "Rocky" is an endearing movie that people loved or if Shatner helped make sci-fi mainstream (although many would debate that "Star Wars" did even MORE so), if you do a bad acting job, you will be razzed. You just have to accept that fact that there are people who don't look up at Shatner the way you do.
 
Lastly, complaining about past Razzie winners is a moot point. As I said before "it's not that bad by today's standards" is a weak arguement. No one votes for anything based on the question "He/she/it is right for NOW, but is he/she/it right for 15+ YEARS FROM NOW?" No, it doesn't work that way; we live in the NOW. Razzie voters thought Shatner and "ST 5" were the among the worst at the time, and they voting according to that. It might be as simple as they thought the "ST" series was getting stale and Shatner's acting was at its worse (it happens to all actors), and so they voted on that. You may not like this mocking of Shatner's acting, but it is a reality you have to deal with and accept, just as we have to accept that there are some people who may not know who Paul Newman is.
 
So, in conclusion, while you maybe a fan of the movies and actors that you listed, you have to realize that not everyone agrees with you, and that to other people, these movies were talentless, hack jobs and thus they voted according by that opinion. It's just that simple. 
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down