Jump to content
Jay

An Unexpected Journey SPOILERS ALLOWED Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

The scene of how Bilbo finds it appears quite different in The Hobbit. For Bilbo to have said "What's this? A Ring" with a Orc eating monster close-by would not have worked.

The scene in FOTR never followed the book anyway.

In FotR Bilbo gropes in the dark and chances upon the Ring. In the Hobbit movie he sort of sees it rightaway and pockets it.

But it has to be said for the Hobbit movie, they managed to introduce Gollum and make him lose his Ring in the way it is described in the book. Rather tight story telling there, although it did not fall off his finger as in the novel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The scene of how Bilbo finds it appears quite different in The Hobbit. For Bilbo to have said "What's this? A Ring" with a Orc eating monster close-by would not have worked.

The scene in FOTR never followed the book anyway.

In FotR Bilbo gropes in the dark and chances upon the Ring. In the Hobbit movie he sort of sees it rightaway and pockets it.

What a thieving bastard.

He could have made some effort to check it into the local Lost and Found.

People like Bilbo are what's wrong with Middle Earth!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The scene of how Bilbo finds it appears quite different in The Hobbit. For Bilbo to have said "What's this? A Ring" with a Orc eating monster close-by would not have worked.

The scene in FOTR never followed the book anyway.

In FotR Bilbo gropes in the dark and chances upon the Ring. In the Hobbit movie he sort of sees it rightaway and pockets it.

What a thieving bastard.

Yeah. It's a Hobbit eat Hobbit world out there Frodo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More Hobbit ruminations

Those who complained that the designs for the Orcs, particularly the Goblin King were to garish were mistaken. The bright colours were of course to adjust for the reduction in colour due to the formats chosen. But we knew about this months ago.

I liked Barry Humpries as the Goblin King, a nice character. Thus far I find Azog to not be very interesting at all. Menacing but bland.

The more i think about it, the more I see no reason for Frodo to have been in the film. Not only does Wood fail to recapture the character. Frodo actually does nothing! "I'm gonna wait for Gandalf...so what?

The White Council meeting was fine, but it's laughable that they don't want the Dwarves to go to Erebor....and the Dwarves have already fucked off.

Doesn't seem very mighty, this council. (an example of PJ working something into the story that doesn't fit).

I actually like that for the Gollum scene they deviated from the book and included the Slinker/Stinker persona's. It also makes more sense now that Gollum would want to play a riddle game.

although it did not fall off his finger as in the novel.

My heart actually skipped a beat when I saw the Ring pop out.

It fits with LOTR in that the Ring wanted to escape from Gollum.

The scene of Gollum beating to death an Orc is actually pretty intense. Well done!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The scene of Gollum beating to death an Orc is actually pretty intense. Well done!

Is it really, though? The rest of the film is clearly aimed for much younger audience. It's kind inconsequential to have so much (CGI or not) violence in it. There is more of it than in the darker Ring trilogy.

Karol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually like that for the Gollum scene they deviated from the book and included the Slinker/Stinker persona's. It also makes more sense now that Gollum would want to play a riddle game.

Yes most of the dialogue was well expanded and really showed the simple Smeagol's need for companionship and a friendly game of riddles after so much darkness and solitary existence, which I guess brought about his twisted dual persona.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Hobbit does seem to have more violence the LOTR had.

But i'm not a child, nor a parent, so it's not my concern. Lee might have to decide oneday if his kids are already old enough for it.

Another rumination.

Much like in the book, Gandalf disappears for a while. And only reappears to rescue the company from the Cave Trolls. Like the book (at that point) we never learn were he goes too. But in the film is much weirder. I truly expected this part of the film to be dedicated to him checking out Dol Guldur or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much like in the book, Gandalf disappears for a while. And only reappears to rescue the company from the Cave Trolls. Like the book (at that point) we never learn were he goes too. But in the film is much weirder. I truly expected this part of the film to be dedicated to him checking out Dol Guldur or something.

The time between his disappearance and the timely rescue of the Dwarves and Bilbo from the Trolls would not be nearly enough for him to go all the way to Mirkwood, which the film makers sagely acknowledged by not having him go too far geographically.

As I said earlier having Radagast to come to him was a wiser choice and a nice nod to the character's role as a messenger in LotR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was actually surprised they cast James Nesbitt in this, because its a very minor role in a very long shoot. And Nesbitt, while not known in the US actually is a fairly well-known actor in the UK and Ireland. His brief scene with Bilbo is well done though, and starts to give the film a moral centre. (it needed more of that)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The time between his disappearance and the timely rescue of the Dwarves and Bilbo from the Trolls would not be nearly enough for him to go all the way to Mirkwood, which the film makers sagely acknowledged by not having him go too far geographically.

True, but it's weird seeing Gandalf just fuck off like that and then returning as if nothing happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The time between his disappearance and the timely rescue of the Dwarves and Bilbo from the Trolls would not be nearly enough for him to go all the way to Mirkwood, which the film makers sagely acknowledged by not having him go too far geographically.

True, but it's weird seeing Gandalf just fuck off like that and then returning as if nothing happened.

Maybe this is Expanded Edition material, the untold collected wanderings of the Grey Pilgrim. :)

But he does tell the Dwarves as he does in the book that he went to look ahead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe he did just get tired of those confounded Dwarrow, pissed off and had some...."pipeweed" to calm himself right down.

Btw, i really did love the Cave troll scene, funny, more then a bit "icky" (Bilbo covered in slime). Some great laughs from the audience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The audience of the showing I attended was composed of teenagers and young adults and they reacted quite well to the film and its humor. There were certainly laughs at the Cave Troll scene's humor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the book, the company suddenly realizes Gandalf is gone shortly after they leave the Shire - he didn't announce he was leaving or anything, he was just suddenly gone. Gandalf returns in time to save them from the trolls by throwing his voice and making the trolls continually discuss different ways to cook the dwarves and hobbit they've captured for hours and hours until daybreak comes and they are turned to stone. Then after they find the troll-hoard, Thorin asks Gandalf where he went and he says "to look ahead", then Thorin asks why he came back and he said "because I looked behind". Then Thorin asks him to explain further and Gandalf explains he went to look ahead and ran into some of Elrond's elves, who told him that a pack of trolls had been spotted nearby, so Gandalf runs back to make sure the company is OK. He also has the elves tell Elrond to prepare for their arrival at RIvendell, which they all willingly go to.

In the film, Gandalf announces his departure shortly after they leave The Shire because he is sick of Thorin talking smack about elves. He then comes back in time to break a rock which causes daylight to hit the trolls directly after Bilbo spent maybe 5 minutes getting the trolls to delay cooking them. Then before they enter the troll-hoard Thorin asks Gandalf where he went and he says "to look ahead", then Thorin asks why he came back and he said "because I looked behind". No further explanation is given at all, and we remain clueless as to where Gandalf went or what he did. Seems he basically just went off to have a personal private pity party in the woods in the film. Anyway, then after Gandalf tries to convince Thorin they should go to Rivendell and the invented scene of them being chased by Azog's wargs, Gandalf against Thorin's wishes leads them through a secret passage to Rivendell, who were not expecting their arrival.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And indeed it all is rooted in Thorin's great emnity of Elves, which somehow amplified because of Thranduil's decision to not help the Dwarves of Erebor. This makes the arrival to Rivendell an obstacle for them, which goes against the novel and I think causes the rather senseless running about Warg chase. On the other hand they needed to set up Azog's return and his grudge against Thorin so the Wargs had to be there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah I think his departure had something to do with Elves anyway, because he leaves right after Thorin refuses to accept help from Rivendell. And when they get there Dward remarks "it's was your plan/idea (whatever)".

Karol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the novel you can understand Gandalf's departure as a plot device, which urges the Dwarves and Bilbo to action and also manages his triumphant return. Wizards are odd folk and can and tend to disappear on their own errands is the philosophy there.

He went on ahead to scout the road and did meet the Elves and turned back to check on the Dwarves, who were accident prone and got into trouble with the trolls. Simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah I think his departure had something to do with Elves anyway, because he leaves right after Thorin refuses to accept help from Rivendell. And when they get there Dward remarks "it's was your plan/idea (whatever)".

Karol

Thorin was wrong, though. It was obviously not Gandalf's plan to have Azog chase them with wargs, they almost all died! Gandalf did want to go to Rivendell, yes, but he never would have put the company in danger. Maybe there will be a scene in the extended edition which explains what Gandalf saw when he looked at that rock he lead the company under.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where exactly did Gandalf go anyway? I've forgotten already. In the movie, I mean.

Also, remember the part where Gandalf appeared in the nick of time to rescue the dwarves from the goblins? It was a brilliant moment; unfortunately rather poorly spotted by Jackson and Shore. There's the great flash of blinding light and then the awesome sight of the wizard's silhouette is revealed to be the cause (of the magic). He slowly steps forward and the music swells triumphantly as the dwarves behold him with relieved eyes. Well it was poorly spotted because the music kicked in immediately, as his figure is shown - where a moment of SILENCE would have not only added real power to the moment, but it would have made Gandalf the ultimate cool badass. If they'd just delayed the rousing music a little longer (till the dwarves are shown reacting) it would have been sublime. A real missed opportunity, I thought.

Next time you watch the movie, look out for it to see what I mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah I think his departure had something to do with Elves anyway, because he leaves right after Thorin refuses to accept help from Rivendell. And when they get there Dward remarks "it's was your plan/idea (whatever)".

Karol

Thorin was wrong, though. It was obviously not Gandalf's plan to have Azog chase them with wargs, they almost all died! Gandalf did want to go to Rivendell, yes, but he never would have put the company in danger. Maybe there will be a scene in the extended edition which explains what Gandalf saw when he looked at that rock he lead the company under.

But luckily Gandalf knew of the secret passage to Rivendell, which Elrond mentions in the film when he returns from the hunt with his men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where exactly did Gandalf go anyway? I've forgotten already. In the movie, I mean.

I just got finished saying a minute ago that the movie does not show where he goes at all, no explanation is given whatsoever! In the book, he goes ahead, meets up with Rivendell elves, then comes back. The film does not explain where he goes or what he does at all, at least not in the theatrical cut.

Also, remember the part where Gandalf appeared in the nick of time to rescue the dwarves from the goblins? It was a brilliant moment; unfortunately rather poorly spotted by Jackson and Shore. There's the great flash of blinding light and then the awesome sight of the wizard's silhouette is revealed to be the cause (of the magic). He slowly steps forward and the music swells triumphantly as the dwarves behold him with relieved eyes. Well it was poorly spotted because the music kicked in immediately, as his figure is shown - where a moment of SILENCE would have not only added real power to the moment, but it would have made Gandalf the ultimate cool badass. If they'd just delayed the rousing music a little longer (till the dwarves are shown reacting) it would have been sublime. A real missed opportunity, I thought.

Next time you watch the movie, look out for it to see what I mean.

Shore likely scored the scene they way you described, but it was altered in the final cut like most of his other cues

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He probably (and probably correctly) felt that Smaug would kill them all if they tried to fight him

You don't muster an army and then turn back? The moment was to literal. (and stolen from Braveheart)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It did strike me as odd that Tranduil would appear with an army of Elves near the gates of Erebor, then turn back....

Yeah that was a bit too literal moment to have him and his army stand there and turn away as if they had come to help but suddenly thought "Oh sh** the going's getting tough. No way I am going to lead my men against a dragon. Goodbye sir Dwarf! We are going home!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some of my thoughts on the film I just typed up for some friends of mine

So The Hobbit was a very enjoyable movie! It was very much in line with the existing 3 movies, though much less epic in scale. Which makes sense, as the fate of the world is not at stake and no one dies.

They basically adapted everything in the first 6 chapters of the book, making some small and not-so-small changes along the way, and added in some interesting new scenes that are for the most part straight out of the the LOTR appendixes. Though in the film they are being pursued by a band of orcs led by Azog the entire time which is just completely made up out of the blue (in the books Azog dies at Moria battle flashed back to in the film).

The cast was incredible, especially Martin Freeman as BIlbo and Andy Serkis as Gollum. Gandalf and all the other returning characters from FOTR (Galadriel, Elrond, and Saruman) were all great as well in their brief scenes, and the Goblin King and Radagast were great additions too. The main cast of dwarves was fairly interchangable, in fact I'm pretty sure some had no lines at all. I guess only really Balin and of course Thorin stood out.

Seriously though, a fun time, maybe a LITTLE too long, but that's not due to the specific length of the film but rather the fact that all the action scenes are similar to each other or to the ones in FOTR (the collapsing stairs bit from FOTR is reprised TWICE!)

Definitely worth seeing on the big screen, not waiting for home video, that's for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's done so the viewer is absolutely sure why Thorin hates the Elves.

Which he actually doesn't do with such burning hatred in the novel but this way they set up some obstacles to arriving at Rivendell and for the future adventures in Mirkwood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To expand on what I mean about all the action scenes being similar....

In FOTR, we had the hobbits running away from some Nazgul, then Aragorn and the hobbits fighting Nazgul on weathertop, then the Fellowship fighting the squid thing outside moria, then the fellowship fighting orcs and cave trolls, then the fellowship fleeing from the Balrog, then the broken fellowship fighting orcs in the woods. All were different scenes with different scenery, different emotions, different motivations for both sides, different editing, different music.

In AUJ, we have the company being chased by Azog and his wargs TWICE (or was it three times?) and they were similarly scored and edited and staged both times. In Goblintown it was essentially a long chase sequence as well.... there was not a lot of fighting in AUJ, it was mostly running. All of this makes sense of course, as there are no warriors like Legolas and Gimli in this party.... but it did make the movie feel like it was repeating itself at times which Fellowship never felt like.

Anybody know what I mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To expand on what I mean about all the action scenes being similar....

In FOTR, we had the hobbits running away from some Nazgul, then Aragorn and the hobbits fighting Nazgul on weathertop, then the Fellowship fighting the squid thing outside moria, then the fellowship fighting orcs and cave trolls, then the fellowship fleeing from the Balrog, then the broken fellowship fighting orcs in the woods. All were different scenes with different scenery, different emotions, different motivations for both sides, different editing, different music.

In AUJ, we have the company being chased by Azog and his wargs TWICE (or was it three times?) and they were similarly scored and edited and staged both times. In Goblintown it was essentially a long chase sequence as well.... there was not a lot of fighting in AUJ, it was mostly running. All of this makes sense of course, as there are no warriors like Legolas and Gimli in this party.... but it did make the movie feel like it was repeating itself at times which Fellowship never felt like.

Anybody know what I mean?

Is that not just a template for journey movies?

As I watched I assumed Jackson intended proceedings too loosely mirror events from LotR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KK's Random Thoughts and Ramblings on the Hobbit

Alright, here goes my attempt at re-writing my lost "review"!

Well, it breaks my heart to say it, it really does, but I think I ultimately came out of the film rather underwhelmed. There’s stuff I really liked, stuff I hated and stuff that I wish was handled better.

I’ll start with 48fps. I walked in expecting to love it, but from the opening shots, it hit me hard, and not in a good way. There was no motion sickness, no sensory overload, no real complaint about fakeness…but all that screamed in my head was “TV DRAMA!!!!!”. It was so obvious that I already had moping thoughts in my head about how I had to deal with this for 3 hours! Luckily, as Jackson has often claimed, it greatly improved by the final act to the point it really blew me away. Especially during the stunning shots with the eagles. It probably has to do with the fact that the film spends a half hour in the Bag Ends set, and the second half of the film was all mighty vistas and CG work. The CG certainly used 48fps to its advantage. But the Shire scenes was a bit unsettling.

And now that 48fps captures real motion, it was strange seeing Ian Holms skittering around with his hands. It looks like it was sped up. I guess that’s what you get without motion blur…but its jarring. I also want to see if the visuals will be less impressive (because they really were impressive!) in 24fps. I’ll be watching that tonight with another group of friends, so I’ll get the chance to compare while everything’s still fresh.

Now, the content. Again, as I said before, stuff I loved and stuff I didn’t. My big problem is the storytelling. The LotR films were largely well cut in terms of storytelling, despite the excess. But here, there really is a lot of moments where the plot felt stretched. The whole Azog storyline bothers me because it totally took me out of the LotR universe. The way we are first introduced to Azog in flashback form was very forced in terms of pacing. It was like Jackson was screaming “Alright folks, its TOLKIEN TRIVIA TIME!!”. It seemed so useless to me, until I figured out that he would be the key antagonist…but more on that problem later. Another instance of cheap storytelling is the first Warg attack, which was a dull affair to watch to be honest, simply because it was so obvious that it was just a plot device to get them to Rivendell. And the film could have trimmed out the more pointless scenes like the Stone Giants sequence (despite the great visuals). It’s like this was poorly planned. I have nothing against all this appendix material, heck I welcome it, but it was all handled poorly. This film doesn’t feel tightly wrapped, it really feels like there wasn’t enough for this film at times. And it makes stuff like the whole Azog storyline seem like a sad attempt to fill time and give us a predominant villain for this trilogy.

Which brings me to my next point. It’s remarkable how many parts I found myself thinking how unlike Middle-Earth the movie can be. And its not because I’m a Tolkien nerd or anything, but it just seems to conflict Peter Jackson’s vision of Middle-Earth. Unlike others, the prologue did not welcome me back to the Middle-Earth I grew familiar with and loved (aside from the great Bilbo intro). Dale was great, but the kingdom under the Mountain seemed more like Peter Jackson was directing another fantasy, one that was more video-game-ish. And then comes the Azog flashback. The whole battle threw me off. It’s nothing like the riveting battle sequences of LotR. Everything was in slow motion with overuse of CGI and flashing gold colours, I just didn’t enjoy it. It was so unlike Middle-Earth. Maybe it has more to do with how I dislike Azog’s CG appearance. In fact, this whole Azog revenge plot feels like it belongs in another fantasy universe…its just alienating in this setting.

To go on, one particular moment I absolutely hated was when Radagast went into Dol Goldur. Suddenly some Ghostbusters/Casper version of the Witch-King appears out of nowhere, attacks Radagast and turns into a Morgul Blade. I was like wtf?! It was a horrid scene. And this whole fan-fiction concept of Nazgul tombs is both confusing and frustrating. I can understand why more mainstream fans might have a hard time following it too.

And some parts just didn’t make sense. Like Thorin just attacking Azog out of the blue. It seemed like a desparate attempt to create a climax, and while it suffices, it’s just not good enough.

Having said that, there was still a lot to like. Martin Freeman is brilliant as Bilbo, as is McKellen and even Richard Armitage. Also, even though I felt the film felt a bit stretched, the great dosage of spectacle and awe in the sequences was highly entertaining. So it was an enjoyable indeed. Goblintown was surprisingly entertaining and I found the Goblin King amusing (even though Gandalf tipping his head was a bit much)! What I really loved though was the Riddles in the Dark scene. Both comical and suspenseful (despite the annoying tracking), it was bloody fun!

I was also surprised by the many references to Fellowship. Stuff like the “No admittance” sign and the Weathertop locale were all nice nostalgic bits. But there was a point where these references became a bit excessive and started to intrude in the film. For instance, when the whole scene in Bilbo’s home where he raises his voice and the house darkens; a reference to his chiding of Bilbo in the beginning of FotR, but it totally seemed unnecessary. I’m glad we didn’t get to see some party re-enactment though.

Oh and the score!! Holy crap…they butchered it! Despite what people’s theories about the Nazgul theme’s appearance was, it was tracked. And it was horribly distracting. Other than that, the numerous tracked-like music generaly worked. But it doesn’t sadden me any less. Look at LotR and how meticulously its thematic integrity was handled, even in context. It’s a shame to see that level of dedication get thrown at the window here. But there were some great new bits of music that I really want to hear, like the grand statement of the Nature theme and the choral bit with the eagles in the end.

Anyways, I’ll be seeing it again tonight in 24fps. My hope is that I'll enjoy it more. The film has its entertaining moments, but it takes too long before it starts cooking the epic adventure what I wanted. And it doesn't provide the emotional sustenance of FotR. My hope is that its only because there isn’t much to work with here, and I hope it improves the subsequent films. Maybe a 2nd viewing will leave me with a better impression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was fine with the non-Tolkien changes in LotR, I always have been for the most part. But The Hobbit Part 1 veers too much towards fan-fiction to make up for its lack of major content. It came to the point I had to ask myself if I was still in Middle-Earth...

What made LotR so special and great seems to be missing here. I fear the Hobbit runs the risk of not being able to set itself apart from the usual generic fantasy stuff that comes out anyways.

Again, I probably need this second viewing to taper my cynicism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KK's Thoughts and Ramblings on the Hobbit

Look at LotR and how meticulously its thematic integrity was handled, even in context. It’s a shame to see that level of dedication get thrown at the window here. But there were some great new bits of music that I really want to hear, like the grand statement of the Nature theme and the choral bit with the eagles in the end.

LOTR really shouldn't and can't be help up as this thing that treated Shore's amazing score with absolute respect.

Lets pretend that before the release of The Two Towers we had a 2 disc release of the soundtrack with liner notes. We'd go in to the cinema expecting everything to be in place including the new thematic material for Treebeard and Gandalf the White along with the rest of the amazing score we'd become familiar with. There's some tracking over the Two Towers title card but it's nothing major. We're watching the film and we've come to the moment where Treebeard wakes up. We know what should go there but we're suddenly taken back to Weathertop. Treebeard's first musical signature has been tracked with Nazgul music! Then when his main theme does appear it's a stripped down version of what we've heard on the disc. That amazing music for Gandalf's return? Not even in the film at all! Then, when the Nazgul appears we're again presented with a mess of editing and tracking from FOTR. Finally, when Aragorn remembers Gandalf's words his theme is replaced by Natures Reclamation. Speaking of which they seemed to decide that Natures Reclamation for another theme for Rohan by ROTK.

Plenty of it happens in ROTK too.

My point is that the way the music is used in The Hobbit is nothing new with these films. We're just more familiar with the music than we were in 2001-2003.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys need to understand that expected conventions of this genre are thought to require insertion when none are readily available in the original fiction. Just as Lurtz was created to be a central antagonist for Aragorn and Co., Azog was conjured up as a physical bane for Thorin. These movies are not only journey movies; they are also chase movies. For purposes of momentum, there needs to be a constant regular threat just beyond the rear horizon, always closing in on our heroes. It's no different to a group of screaming teenagers fleeing from a faceless assailant in slasher flick as it is Dennis Weaver hopelessly trying to outrun a terrible menace in the form of a big rusty wagon. A dragon which lays in wait two movies away does not provide the necessary filmic tension mechanism and so in answer to that Azog was drafted in.

The Hobbit is an adaption for film, for mainstream audiences. Try to bear that in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that Quint. Its what frustrates me all the more, because when dividing this thing into a trilogy, the first film is left with no major antagonist. But whereas I liked the employment of Lurtz in FotR, Azog sometimes becomes a chore to watch. Its not executed as well as it was in Fellowship. Fellowship had Lurtz while presenting the greater antagonistic forces at work, giving us a real sense of the scope of this story.

Unfortunately for the Hobbit, once the company leaves Rivendell, heck even before that, this film becomes little more than a chase. It's just the dwarves running away from Azog, and then out of the blue Thorin decides to have his slow motion rage attack.

I wanted that epic adventure I've been drooling at in the trailers. Not a giant pale orc chase people have his size for 3 hours.

And in the midst of it, poor Bilbo and his quest sort of loses the limelight. It's muddled storytelling...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...