Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
Star Wars
Byrne Robotics > Star Wars << Prev Page of 73 Next >>
Topic: Star Wars - The Force Awakens - SPOILERS begin pg 38 (Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
James Woodcock
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 21 September 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4204
Posted: 07 November 2014 at 2:41am | IP Logged | 1  

I actually quite like this one. Sits better with me than 'The Phantom Menace'.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Petter Myhr Ness
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2009
Location: Norway
Posts: 2665
Posted: 07 November 2014 at 5:13am | IP Logged | 2  

And the long tradition of bad Star Wars titles continues...
Back to Top profile | search
 
Patrick Mallon
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 05 August 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 489
Posted: 07 November 2014 at 8:43am | IP Logged | 3  

Apparently, the film's title is NOT Star Wars Episode VII The Force Awakens; Episode VII will just be used in the opening crawl. That being the case, a stronger title is warranted…
Back to Top profile | search
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 14356
Posted: 07 November 2014 at 10:17am | IP Logged | 4  

Something occurs to me--this sounds like the sort of title you'd see
attached to a fanfilm.

It could very well be that this movie might turn out to be Abrams' very
expensive version of a fanfilm!
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Peter Martin
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 17 March 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 10115
Posted: 07 November 2014 at 10:24am | IP Logged | 5  

Preferable to The Phantom Menace and Attack of the the Clones. To be honest, The Empire Strikes Back is a pretty lame title.

Revenge of the Sith is probably the best title of any Star Wars film and I rate it the worst of the lot, so I'm not going to make any quality judgements based on just the title.
Back to Top profile | search
 
James Woodcock
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 21 September 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4204
Posted: 07 November 2014 at 6:06pm | IP Logged | 6  

Episode V was only used in the opening trawl. The film was referred to as The Empire Strikes Back.

The BBFC will call the film Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens if that is what is in the crawl because they call a film what is on the title card.

On this one I'm seeing a lot of mountains out of mole hills.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Shaun Barry
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 08 December 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 5392
Posted: 07 November 2014 at 10:09pm | IP Logged | 7  


Title doesn't bother me... I just have that sinking feeling that when I see the film, I won't see Luke, Han & Leia... I'll see Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher PRETENDING to be Luke, Han & Leia. You know?

Back to Top profile | search
 
Sam Karns
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 26 December 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 7551
Posted: 12 November 2014 at 11:52am | IP Logged | 8  

Having Fisher's daughter play a younger Leia before STAR WARS means Abrams is going to implant characters and subplots retroactively. 

The Force Awakens title is another terrible title like Attack of the Clones.   

Back to Top profile | search
 
Cory Vandernet
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar
Henchman

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 740
Posted: 12 November 2014 at 2:42pm | IP Logged | 9  

Wouldn't THE FORCE REBORN be a better title?
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Brian Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 July 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 24823
Posted: 12 November 2014 at 3:16pm | IP Logged | 10  

The Force Strikes Back
Back to Top profile | search
 
Shaun Barry
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 08 December 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 5392
Posted: 12 November 2014 at 9:28pm | IP Logged | 11  


There was a rumor going around for a few months that the title was supposed to be THE ANCIENT FEAR.

Have to admit, I kinda liked that one, and was warming to it!

Back to Top profile | search
 
Sam Karns
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 26 December 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 7551
Posted: 19 November 2014 at 4:26pm | IP Logged | 12  

I didn't like that title either but the title THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK gives the impression after the events of Star Wars the Vader and the Empire would be slowly trying to pick up the pieces and make suprising sneak attacks to the rebel planets to regain ground in the Galaxy. 
Back to Top profile | search
 
Brian Rhodes
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2728
Posted: 20 November 2014 at 4:15pm | IP Logged | 13  

It could very well be that this movie might turn out to be Abrams' very
expensive version of a fanfilm!

I think you just described the last several years of his work...
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Stephen Churay
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 March 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 8010
Posted: 22 November 2014 at 6:20pm | IP Logged | 14  

Nobody has ever really liked the titles when they've been announced.
Even the ESB took some grief when it was announced.

While not confirmed, rumor has it that the first teaser trailer will be in
front of THE HOBBIT: BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Koroush Ghazi
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 October 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1064
Posted: 24 November 2014 at 5:01pm | IP Logged | 15  

A more honest title would be The Force Rebooted.

As for the movie itself, I have faith that Abrams will deliver exactly what you'd expect Abrams to deliver: a heavily CGI-ed fan fiction semi-parody of the original Star Wars movies.
Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
Conrad Teves
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 January 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 1404
Posted: 24 November 2014 at 5:52pm | IP Logged | 16  

I wouldn't worry too much about CG glut.  They've been going on and on for some time about the amount of practical effects they are using on VII.  Even Rian Johnson had some glowing comments about VII on that point:   http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/08/18/star-wars-episode-vii -to-use-more-practical-effects.

Very often today, they are so good at both, it's hard to tell which is which.  People often just assume they use CG for everything, even when it isn't.  I recall a critic complaining about them "showing off" in Ep 1 during the famed Theed City flyover shot, when the only thing in that shot that's CG are the spaceships and the people walking on the ground.  The buildings and waterfalls?  All miniature effects:   http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120927141009/starwars/i mages/5/57/TheedAttack.png
Here's a shot of the crew standing amongst the models buildings:   http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/magazines/cinefex/theedset4 .jpg

Likewise, I've seen complaints about the lava in Ep3 being bad CG (an actual liquid substance lit from beneath called methocel).  If anyone thought it looked bad, maybe they should have used CG!


My own take on CG or practical effects use is this:  If it looks perfect, why care how it was done?

As for JJ's take on Star Wars, he is at least a Star Wars fan, whereas going into Trek, he was not!  I complained that his last two Trek films were not bad Star Wars movies (they sure didn't feel like Trek), so I'm happy to see him take on SW rather than Trek.  
Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
Koroush Ghazi
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 October 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1064
Posted: 24 November 2014 at 6:50pm | IP Logged | 17  

 Conrad Teeves wrote:
My own take on CG or practical effects use is this: If it looks perfect, why care how it was done?


My concern about CGI has never really been about the way it looks, it's more about the fact that it allows directors to create scenes which are either ridiculously over the top, or which should best be unseen and left to the imagination.

For example, if the original Star Wars was being made today using the exact same screenplay, I guarantee that virtually every director would show the destruction of Alderaan as a CGI spectacle at the micro level.

So practical or virtual effects, the problem is the overuse of, and thus steering an entire movie with, special effects. I don't see JJ showing tasteful restraint.

 Conrad Teeves wrote:
As for JJ's take on Star Wars, he is at least a Star Wars fan...


Sorry Conrad, but I actually take this as a bad thing rather than a good one. Fans are much more likely to miss the wood for the trees so to speak, focusing on niggling little fanboy details rather than on telling a compelling, cohesive story that captures the true spirit of Star Wars.

Plus I don't think the reason that Star Trek was a failure (at least in my eyes) was because JJ wasn't a fan of ST; rather, I believe it's because Abrams has a particular style and sensibility that overwhelmed ST and robbed it of its core values, the same way he will impose his vision on Star Wars.

As JB so often points out, there are few creators that truly respect the heritage of an existing character when it comes their turn to use that property.

P.S - we'll have to agree to disagree about the Star Trek movie being a "not bad Star Wars movie". I only saw the first one, but to me it was such a cliched, angsty, formulaic affair, it was just a bad movie all around, quite aside from the mangling it gave to the Star Trek universe.
Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
Conrad Teves
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 January 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 1404
Posted: 24 November 2014 at 7:57pm | IP Logged | 18  

Koroush>>I don't see JJ showing tasteful restraint.<<

Can you give an example where he went over the top?  I realize that's subjective, but I'm curious what that would be.  Ignoring the (wrong) aesthetics in either of his Trek movies, I can't see where he did anything that involved an excessive CG display.  There was the space sky-diving scene, which had a "speed" thing going, but it's not like it dragged on and on without moving the story like some of the (crappy) CG chase sequences in (say) Ultraviolet.

If you had to construct a sliding scale between My Dinner With Andre (no action at all) and whatever you consider too over the top, I'd personally draw the line at when your action/fx sequence stops telling the story. Like in Ultraviolet or  the irritatingly stunt-driven The Legend of Zorro.  

JJ is the guy who did FelicityAlias, and Lost.  All shows I liked, by the way.  Perhaps I'm biased then, but  I think he has demonstrated he is perfectly capable of both telling a story and exercising some restraint.  Unfortunately, the above also demonstrated his writing style and penchant for plot twists lets him paint himself into corners, which is why after his stint on Mission: Impossible III (the first good one, for my money) I felt he may have found his medium.  I.e., it's harder to paint yourself into a corner if all you have is two hours to tell a story.

My complaint with his Star Trek is, as a non-fan trying to "get"  Star Trek, he failed to really grasp the core idea.  As you said:  "angsty."  That's exactly it.   It didn't look out and contrast ourselves against what they discover, it was introspective after things that happened.  The mindset was inside-out.  That mindset actually works with Star Wars.  Star Wars has internal doubt and anger and characters who have to find their way despite it.  

Full disclosure here:  I'm a Star Wars fan.  I thought the most "broken"  (hell, deeply broken) episode was Return of the Jedi, but it has enough moments that I still enjoy it, and I'm happy to watch it now and again.  I'm not one of those "George Lucas raped my childhood" guys.  It doesn't bother me that a whole generation of kids grew up thinking that the adventures of Anakin and Asokah are what Star Wars is all about, because it looked to me like they got it right.   

I think (I hope) JJ will be fine doing this.  I think he's a less risky choice than Rian Johnson, and I'm excited that Johnson is doing VIII.  I think it's an inspired choice.

[edited to remove redundant sentence]


Edited by Conrad Teves on 24 November 2014 at 10:42pm
Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
Peter Martin
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 17 March 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 10115
Posted: 24 November 2014 at 8:49pm | IP Logged | 19  

I think JJ's main problem with not being a fan of Star Trek was that he therefore saw it as something that needed fixing. Thus the more cerebral core of Star Trek was jostled to one side by his need to make everything TO THE MAX!

Star Wars does seem like a more natural fit for him.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 14356
Posted: 24 November 2014 at 10:45pm | IP Logged | 20  

Sorry Conrad, but I actually take this as a bad thing rather than a good
one. Fans are much more likely to miss the wood for the trees so to
speak, focusing on niggling little fanboy details rather than on telling a
compelling, cohesive story that captures the true spirit of Star Wars.

Plus I don't think the reason that Star Trek was a failure (at least in my
eyes) was because JJ wasn't a fan of ST; rather, I believe it's because
Abrams has a particular style and sensibility that overwhelmed ST and
robbed it of its core values, the same way he will impose his vision on
Star Wars.
++++++++

I agree.

While it's not outside the realm of possibility that this will be a good
STAR WARS movie, I get the feeling that Abrams being a fan may work
against him.

Just look at all of the damage that fans-turned-pro have done to
comics!


As I've noted, previously, I'm sure that Abrams can lovingly ape the
style of the earlier films. But, can he capture the spirit? Well, since this
whole thing seems like a rather blatant cash-grab, I'd say not.

I'll say it again--there's no real story reason for more films (specifically,
"EPISODE" films featuring the Empire, Luke Skywalker, etc.) to exist.
I've made my piece with STAR WARS. I'd rather not see it milked totally
to death.

Can't the happy ending of JEDI just be left alone? There's really no
more of the main story to tell, aside from offshoots that play around in
the SW universe. Whether you like how it was finally executed or not,
the rise and fall of the Empire, the story of Darth Vader, and the destiny
of Luke Skywalker has been told.

More is just more. That doesn't mean it's necessary!
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Conrad Teves
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 January 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 1404
Posted: 25 November 2014 at 12:23am | IP Logged | 21  

Greg>>Just look at all of the damage that fans-turned-pro have done to 
comics!<<

I think it's a little unfair to compare fans-turned-pro in comics who are aiming for the tiny audience that still buys comics in the US, with a successful veteran director (who happened to be a fan) working on a popular world-wide franchise that Disney payed $4 billion dollars for.  Disney obviously wants broad audience appeal, and it would be inaccurate to say Abrams movies haven't had that whether you like his films or not. 

Lucas based the format of SW off of the serials he grew up watching.  I can't think of a current property that's structurally better suited for "more" stories than Star Wars.  As a fan I certainly want more.  Heck, I still want them to make Knights of the Old Republic 3.  Irks me that I never got to play that story out.

Greg>>As I've noted, previously, I'm sure that Abrams can lovingly ape the  style of the earlier films. But, can he capture the spirit? <<

If you mean capture the lightning in the bottle from the original, probably no.  That might be impossible.  The novelty was gone after the first one.  However, if they can make the animated series "feel" like Star Wars, it should be possible to do so in the films.

This isn't an adaptation, or a reboot or remake.  It's a continuation.  This places a lot of limitations on them, which is no doubt why they felt they had to jettison the Expanded Universe to gain some freedom to tell a new story.  I would say I'm way more interested in a new Star Wars story than I am in them re-booting Spider-Man again and telling a variation of AF15 again. 
Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 14356
Posted: 25 November 2014 at 1:08am | IP Logged | 22  

Lucas based the format of SW off of the serials he grew up watching. I
can't think of a current property that's structurally better suited for
"more" stories than Star Wars. As a fan I certainly want more. Heck, I
still want them to make Knights of the Old Republic 3. Irks me that I
never got to play that story out.
++++++++++

There almost seem to be two distinct schools of STAR WARS fan--
those who are more invested in the specific characters and story, and
those who just love the universe.

Me, I think STAR WARS only really works with the familiar characters.
Offshoots and such can be fun, but, for me, personally, it's the story of
Luke Skywalker and company.

While the SW universe is a really fun place, I sorta-kinda think that the
story itself is over and done. There may be a good chance that we're
gonna see either a retread, or something so new that it doesn't feel like
STAR WARS anymore.

Just seeing photos of redesigned Stormtrooper helmets makes me
think, "Why? Why is this being dredged up? Are we just going to see
a bunch of familiar elements cut 'n pasted together and stuck onto a
story that says, 'You thought it was over? Well, HERE's what happened
next!'".


In today's era of blatant nostalgia-milking, reboots, factory-farm sequels
and cash-grabs, I find myself worried what a STAR WARS film
produced in that climate will be.

For all the knocks he takes, Lucas did have a story to tell. And,
although it went through a lot of permutations, and the execution was
flawed, he did tell it. The End. What justifies a need for more STAR
WARS, except to keep it a viable and profitable moneymaking property
which will allow Disney to make the most of its investment?

As for the Abrams factor, my point was that he may very well be too
close to the material, as fans-turned-pro often are. When trying to
relaunch a franchise, what do you start with? Lots of winks and nods to
the stuff that you loved about the series as a kid? Something entirely
new and different? Being tapped to relaunch STAR WARS might not
quite the enviable position that it would seem, at first glance.

From a business POV, bringing in more Stormtroopers, Jedi, Sith,
droids, etc. is a great idea. From an artistic POV, I fear possibilities like
new films bringing Vader back to life (since he is is, of course, the icon
of the series, and it would be strange to do new films without the series'
most marketable character in them).

I just have all sorts of weird, mixed feelings about this. I never, ever
expected to feel this way about the prospect of new STAR WARS films.
Perhaps it's time to put childish things away, eh? I have the movies and
the memories.

On the one hand, there's the thrill--and fear--of seeing the old gang in
action, one more time. On the other hand, I loathe what Abrams did to
STAR TREK, and don't think he deserves the keys to STAR WARS as a
reward. I'd also rather not see my beloved memories of STAR WARS
become tainted by whatever comes our way. While I can pick apart the
prequels, I don't hate them, and they didn't ruin SW for me. Now,
there's a legitimate chance that something like that could really happen!

Sorry for rambling, but it's hard for me to step back and try not to be
biased and emotional, here. I have no answers!
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Peter Martin
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 17 March 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 10115
Posted: 25 November 2014 at 10:50am | IP Logged | 23  

If your standpoint is that the real Star Wars only works with the familiar characters, then the JJ sequel would appear to have more going for it, with Luke, Han and Leia, than the prequels, with Qui-Gonn, Padme and Jar-Jar.

From a story-telling point of view, the prequels look like a massive cash grab. The prequels were either backstory we already knew, re-writing backstory we already knew or banal guff. There was no need to tell that backstory in such detail, when the essential parts had already been sketched for us in the narrative of the original films.

Rather than Vader's story being complete, I think the original trilogy completed Han's arc, and he might be the character I worry about the most (he didn't have much to do in the second half of Jedi)...But he has a colourful history, I suppose -- perhaps something else can come back from his past of interest. We also have a Galactic Empire that has broken up with the old senate dissolved and no real power in place. Will Luke teach new Jedi and risk the return of the Sith? Will the Sith return anyway? I think there are many, many stories to be told there.


Edited by Peter Martin on 25 November 2014 at 10:53am
Back to Top profile | search
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 14356
Posted: 25 November 2014 at 11:41am | IP Logged | 24  

If your standpoint is that the real Star Wars only works with the
familiar characters, then the JJ sequel would appear to have more
going for it, with Luke, Han and Leia, than the prequels, with Qui-Gonn,
Padme and Jar-Jar.

+++++++++++

Of course, that's the big draw for a lot of people. I'll wager that, if it were
just a whole new cast of characters, people wouldn't be nearly as
excited. But, as CRYSTAL SKULL and other sequels-made-decades-
later have proved, actually seeing older versions of favorite characters
might not be a good thing.

And, of course, there's the distinct possibility that we might see
something horrible done with them, like Luke or Han turning out to
secretly be the new main villain, killing one or all of them off, etc. maybe
Harrison Ford will finally get his wish, and Han Solo will be killed off. Do
we really want to see that, especially if it's done poorly?

And, having Abrams at the helm makes me quite nervous. After all, this
is the guy who actively LIED about Khan being in STAR TREK INTO
DARKNESS. Playing up his beloved "mystery box" angle and
employing misdirection is one thing, but to blatantly lie to your audience
is another.

I'm really wondering how he's gonna approach this. Will it be like STAR
TREK, where he came in, threw out everything he didn't like or
understand, and tried to build his own multimedia empire based solely
on NuTREK? Or, does STAR WARS somehow deserve more
"respect"?

While the move was probably more of a Disney thing than an Abrams
thing, tossing out the Expanded Universe sorta-kinda feels like a step in
the direction of the former. I can't help but wonder if Abrams was
involved in that--insisting that he wanted to play with STAR WARS
his way, and not wanting to work around the material that was
already there.



Personally, I'm satisfied with the ending we got. I just don't see a story
need to drag the characters out again and possibly take away their
happy ending from JEDI. The Expanded Universe already did this a
long time ago, of course, but that's a different matter.

++++++++++


From a story-telling point of view, the prequels look like a massive
cash grab. The prequels were either backstory we already knew, re-
writing backstory we already knew or banal guff. There was no need to
tell that backstory in such detail, when the essential parts had already
been sketched for us in the narrative of the original films.

+++++++

The essential difference between then and now is that Lucas had been
promising to tell that backstory (or variations thereof) since 1977. There
were indeed questions, ambiguities, and loose ends raised by the
original movies. The execution may have been flawed and/or partially
merchandise-driven, but some sort of exploration of the backstory had
been in the cards nearly from the start.

However, since the nine-film plan was abandoned when Lucas decided
to cram the ending of the story--after only making three films--into JEDI,
the Sequel Trilogy has no real story reason to exist. It's truly just more
for the sake of more. No one's really been clamoring for more TSAR
WARS films since 2005, aside from the oft-mentioned novelty of getting
the gang back together for adventures in their golden years. We were
told that EPISODE III was The End. I came to terms with that. No more
STAR WARS. Now, less than a decade later, that has proven untrue.


I'm not trying to bash the new movie prematurely, or anything. I just
have major reservations and concerns about the whole thing. It's a
weird mixture of fear, ambivalence, and, yes, even excitement. Talking
it out like this is good therapy!
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Koroush Ghazi
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 October 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1064
Posted: 25 November 2014 at 4:55pm | IP Logged | 25  

 Conrad Teves wrote:
This isn't an adaptation, or a reboot or remake. It's a continuation.

I respectfully disagree. It is technically a continuation, but it's also a stealth reboot as much as anything else. New director, new rights owner, the previous lead characters/actors being brought back to pass the baton onto young new characters... what's the bet that soon we'll have spinoffs galore to add to the new sequels.

 Greg Kirkman wrote:
I'll say it again--there's no real story reason for more films (specifically, "EPISODE" films featuring the Empire, Luke Skywalker, etc.) to exist. I've made my piece with STAR WARS. I'd rather not see it milked totally to death.

I think this hits the nail right on the head. The main reason I object to any more Star Wars sequels/prequels is because what's already there is enough. There is much greater potential for harm than good by adding to the edifice. The existing prequels have already harmed the original trilogy in my opinion - I find it hard to look at Vader in the OT now without thinking about his backstory from the PT; he's been demystified, no longer the enigmatic bad guy, now just a maladjusted, angry, lovelorn teenager gone wrong.

In a way, I quite liked the Expanded Universe concept, and enjoyed some of the comics under that banner, because to me they were like "What Ifs" for the Star Wars universe. I knew none of it was canon, just (mostly) interesting possibilities in the same universe as the original films. Harmless fun.

Now along comes Abrams and Disney, adding to the official canon with who knows what. I don't like any other work Abrams has done (Lost, Alias, Felicity etc.). None of the work he's done tells me he would be good at continuing on the Star Wars series sensibly and tastefully. In fact it tells me that he's likely to try to stamp his name on the property.So it's not really about bashing a movie I haven't seen yet so much as firstly wondering why, as Greg has said, a sequel to the Star Wars saga is even needed given the closure at the end of ROTJ, and secondly, whether a "hip" young director and the combination of digging up the previous elderly cast and lumping them together with new blood to give a "soft reboot" is going to do more harm than good.


Edited by Koroush Ghazi on 25 November 2014 at 4:56pm
Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 

<< Prev Page of 73 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login