Jump to content

Potterdom Film/Score Series Thread


JoeinAR

Recommended Posts

LOTR this generation's Star Wars? Those movies didn't connect with kids at all. I'm not talking about your kids or the kids you know, I'm talking about REALITY. LOTR was mainly successful with older crowds. Teens and adults. No kids are into LOTR nowadays. I can't draw a parallel there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 7.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

While the SW new media is a shadow of its former self, it is still powerfull and popular enough. (after 30 years)

Harry potter Books are over, and soon the movies will be. The kids will pass to the next popular hit, and so on...

That's it. Unless Rowling writes more books about that franchise.

The difference here is that on The Hobbit, PJ is still in possession of his full talent, whereas Lucas made the prequels after 20 years in which he had all the time in the world to suck in the praise and actually believe he was a great director.

I'm sure many people would disagree after King Kong and The Lovely Bones. I wouldn't (well, haven't seen the latter), but there is a sense of him maybe going back because his non-elf projects have floundered. Or he wants a new floor on his mansion.

The hobbit is going to be made by the least 10 years after the trilogy...

Getting close to the 20 year mark :mrgreen:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOTR this generation's Star Wars? Those movies didn't connect with kids at all. I'm not talking about your kids or the kids you know, I'm talking about REALITY. LOTR was mainly successful with older crowds. Teens and adults. No kids are into LOTR nowadays. I can't draw a parallel there.

I don't really see it either. LotR always had a fan base with the books. The movie phenomenon is an event encapsulated in time between 2000 and 2004 . I figure there's still a few surviving internet fansites but that's it.

LotR is similar to Tintin, some pre-existing books with a huge fan base, but it's not something like SW or Harry Potter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really see it either. LotR always had a fan base with the books. The movie phenomenon is an event encapsulated in time between 2000 and 2004 . I figure there's still a few surviving internet fansites but that's it.

I don't know about the general public, but LotR was at or near the top of every "best films of the decade" list that I saw. And deservedly so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really see it either. LotR always had a fan base with the books. The movie phenomenon is an event encapsulated in time between 2000 and 2004 . I figure there's still a few surviving internet fansites but that's it.

I don't know about the general public, but LotR was at or near the top of every "best films of the decade" list that I saw. And deservedly so.

Yeah but nowadays hits are very ephimerous. People jump onto the next big thing once it is announced and forget the previous one.

Things like Star wars and Star trek (to some extent) still keep arround 'forever' even if they are not the main source of attention.

The LOTR novels are a different matter, they are similar phenomenons as SW, though they do not reach so many people since most people do not read books regularly and much less fantasy novels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really see it either. LotR always had a fan base with the books. The movie phenomenon is an event encapsulated in time between 2000 and 2004 . I figure there's still a few surviving internet fansites but that's it.

I don't know about the general public, but LotR was at or near the top of every "best films of the decade" list that I saw. And deservedly so.

Yeah but nowadays hits are very ephimerous. People jump onto the next big thing once it is announced and forget the previous one.

That's very true, and a major reason why you'll never really see a phenomenon like Star Wars was in '77 again. Don't see how that refutes my point, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, if I wanted irrefutable proof of which pop phenomenon would be most remembered fifty years from now, it would apparently enough to say "Well, my neighbors' kids seem to like Star Wars," or "I don't like Lord of the Rings." Great arguments, guys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recognize that LotR has a major fanbase. But it did not seem to impact the culture like Harry Potter has. I was there. I guess it won more Academy Awards, but I don't recall the Star Wars trilogy winning too many of those, so what the hell does that even mean? Star Wars never won Best Picture, but history will probably always regard it as one of the all-time greats. Harry Potter has sold positively epic amounts of books, the movie series is clearly hugely successful and, Jesus, there are almost 8 of them. Now, a theme park attraction that's had people lined up for probably miles just to get in and hour waits for a drink. I just don't see another franchise this big nowadays. And I'm by no means Harry Potter's #1 fan or a LotR hater. This generation did have Star Wars, but the Harry Potter series seems a lot closer to the impact that Star Wars had in the 70s and 80s than the impact of Star Wars itself in the 2000s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the problems with this discussion as that everyone seems to forget that Star Wars was dead in 1985. There was no franchise and the kids who grew up with Star Wars moved on to other things. I WAS THERE.

It was during the early 90's (the release of Heir To The Empire for example) that a returned interest in Star Wars by a larger fanbase was noted. Since then, the Star Wars franchise was reborn and never faded again.

So if The Lord Of The Rings films are now only supported by a few insignificant fan websites, then this doesn't mean that The Lord Of The Rings is not 'the Star Wars for a new generation'. The LOTR franchise could be in a similar period as Star Wars was from 1985-1992, and who knows: perhaps The Hobbit will resurrect the franchise.

But in all honesty: Star Wars was a one of a kind event which will never be equalled. The times have changed and it's a different world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really see it either. LotR always had a fan base with the books. The movie phenomenon is an event encapsulated in time between 2000 and 2004 . I figure there's still a few surviving internet fansites but that's it.

I don't know about the general public, but LotR was at or near the top of every "best films of the decade" list that I saw. And deservedly so.

It was on very few of the lists I saw. But I'm not sure that's because of lack of admiration- I think a lot of it is a combination of age, over-exposure, whether to include one film or all three...although, a lot of people out there do admire the films without loving them.

Re: Potter. The 1-sheet is ridiculously good.

hp7.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have they actually filmed this one in 3D or is it going to be another conversion?

And I hope Steve Kloves continues along his HBP style of writing (I seem to be among a rare breed who absolutely loves HBP the movie). I hated the first two screenplays, but then I also thought Columbus' direction was sleep inducing, so maybe he had an effect on the writing.

Regarding LotR, say what you want about the movies, but the scores are definitely 'this generation's SW' - Fellowship was the first score I really noticed in the cinema, and I credit it as one of three that got me into music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a conversion RichinUK. However its done on the expensive side instead of the cheap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ewwww. There's a chance I'll see it in 3D just to see if it withstands close scrutiny, but I doubt I'll do that. The only way 3D can really work perfectly is if the film is shot in 3D - and if it's shot in a way that's appropriate to 3D (e.g. not too many fast and weird camera moves, no shallow depth of field, etc.). If James Cameron didn't do it with Avatar, I doubt the Potter crew will do it with a film that wasn't even shot in 3D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the problems with this discussion as that everyone seems to forget that Star Wars was dead in 1985. There was no franchise and the kids who grew up with Star Wars moved on to other things. I WAS THERE.

I disagree there. During the mid 80s you still had the Droid and Ewoks cartoons, the Ewok Adventure movies, and you couldn't walk into a toy store without seeing the section in the action figure aisle devoted to Star Wars. Not to mention Spaceballs and more and more people joining the VHS/home entertainment club which meant buying the Star Wars movies. Plus Star Wars was hitting it big in the Arcade/video game department. In fact Star Wars was more alive than any franchise in history had managed to accomplish years after being released.

Saying it was dead is a bit much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And then Star Tours hit the Disney parks at the end of the 80s. Disneyland remained open for several days straight to accommodate the insanely long line, IIRC. What else do you do when you're the only theater in the world playing a new Star Wars movie?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it safe to say that Harry Potter has surpassed Star Wars these days?

Probably not. Star Wars (and, for that matter Star Trek, which has lasted even longer, with Doctor Who lasting even longer than that-stick that, Paramount!!!!) has lasted for well over 30 years. Harry Potter got catapulted into the big-time less than a decade ago, and has yet to "prove" itself in terms of popularity/longevity. It has not yet transformed from "popular", to "phenomenon". There are a few reasons for this (see my post immediately below this one, f.f.i.), but the long and the short of it is: will Harry Potter still be remembered in 10, 20, 30, 40 years' time? My guess is "no". The world will have moved on to other things. In a world which is preocupied with ephemera, only a priveleged few "things" get to be remembered. I am afraid to say that Harry Potter will not be one of those things.

Well it's not like Star Wars. In 1977 EVERYTHING was about Star Wars .It was bigger than just a movie

Yes, Star Wars was bigger than just a movie, but the question is "why"? In 1977, "event" movies, like Star Wars were a rare thing. To my knowledge,in the years leading up to Star Wars, only a handful of films had become "mega-successful" (The Godfather, The Exorcist, Love Story, The Sting, The Towering Inferno, and Jaws, to name but...well, all, actually! That changed on 25th. May, 1977. Star Wars opened the floodgates to "wide" openings, merchandise bonanzas, and the possibility of something almost unthinkable - the movie franchise.

Coupled with this, a big factor in Star Wars becoming the phenomenon that it did was the simple fact that it had no competitor (I do not hold with all this post-Watergate/post Vietnam crap). The fact is, it was a well made film, that connected with a large audience, and it had no box-office rival. Nowadays, it seems that every other week, inflicted on us poor sods is: "THE MOVIE EVENT OF THE YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!". Yeah, right! I've heard that probably 15 times this year alone, the last to do with something called "Eclipse". Honestly, can you really belive that, anymore?

Ahem. Back to Star Wars.

This trend continued for a good few years more, with distributors clearing their schedules, if they knew that there was a "big" movie in the pipeline, because they did not want their own movie to be ignored at the expense of another film. Rarely did "big" films collide (one of the first "collisions" being Raiders..., and ...Eyes Only, in the Summer of 1981). As I've said, now, "big" films bitch and fight over every last dollar, pound, yen, paseo, whatever, to the point where movie-going becomes an over-hyped chore. Perhaps it is time to stop with the hype, stop releasing $300 million-dollar c.g. fests, every fortnight, and begin again to treat audiences with the intelligence, and respect that they deserve. "Art as expression, not as market campaigns"? F**k, yeah!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Star Wars was made in the wrong place at the wrong time. Naturally it became a phenomenon"

;)

What-I said what-in the name of Sam Hill are you talking about, boy?! Come to think of it, there's a kind of pretzel logic in there, somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the problems with this discussion as that everyone seems to forget that Star Wars was dead in 1985. There was no franchise and the kids who grew up with Star Wars moved on to other things. I WAS THERE.

I disagree there. During the mid 80s you still had the Droid and Ewoks cartoons, the Ewok Adventure movies, and you couldn't walk into a toy store without seeing the section in the action figure aisle devoted to Star Wars. Not to mention Spaceballs and more and more people joining the VHS/home entertainment club which meant buying the Star Wars movies. Plus Star Wars was hitting it big in the Arcade/video game department. In fact Star Wars was more alive than any franchise in history had managed to accomplish years after being released.

Saying it was dead is a bit much.

Wrong man. The Droids cartoon series and anything related to Ewoks were merely attempts to revive the franchise which was ENOURMOUS between 1977 and 1984. By 1985 that interest was significantly reduced. You write: "and you couldn't walk into a toy store without seeing the section in the action figure aisle devoted to Star Wars." This is just plain wrong as well. By 1985, the last ROTJ figures were selling like shit and just vanished from the shelves a year later. Just because they were still in stores in 1985 didn't mean the franchise was thriving or anything. It took Kenner more than 10 years to continue the toyline, which contributes to my claim that Star Wars "was dead" by the mid-eighties until the early nineties. I agree that during those "dark years" there was Star Tours yes, and videogames, and models and such. There was something out there for the die-hard Star Wars fans. It was during those years that being a Star Wars was just plain awkward and geeky, and for some reason I enjoyed being a Star Wars fan during those years the most... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Star Wars was made in the wrong place at the wrong time. Naturally it became a phenomenon"

;)

Hee hee! Good one!

(Richard, check your ANH novelisation...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd question that the Lord of the Rings films are only supported by a few remaining fan sites. Would such lavish productions as the hardcover book and archival CD, or, oh right, The Hobbit be possible without a large fan base and critical acclaim? While Star Wars left theaters with a whimper (Return of the Jedi), Lord of the Rings left with an Oscar sweep. Maybe I just have a lot of friends that are Lord of the Rings nerds. Watching the extended editions back to back is going to be a big event with my new apartment mates this fall.

Of course, this is merely anecdotal evidence. Now I'm fighting fire with fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Star Wars was made in the wrong place at the wrong time. Naturally it became a phenomenon"

:)

Hee hee! Good one!

(Richard, check your ANH novelisation...)

Yes, nicely played. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I just have a lot of friends that are Lord of the Rings nerds. Watching the extended editions back to back is going to be a big event with my new apartment mates this fall

Maybe you are because its the opposite with me...most of my friends (and myself included to be honest) can't stand the uber boring Extended Editions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still remember a gigantic line at Babbage's or EB or whatever the hell it was called when Super Empire Strikes Back was released for SNES. Something like 70 bucks? I disagree with the postulation that Star Wars was dead from 85 to the 90s. I grew up in the late 80s and 90s heavily influenced by the culture of the preceding decades. Everyone in my age group knew Star Wars. Just because the movies ended and the action figures weren't selling as well after they'd release 100 or so of them and started scraping the bottom of the barrel with choices like The Rancor Keeper or 2 inch teddy bears with sticks...come on, it was bound to slow. Just between you and me, the current toyline has been slowing for years. Rumor has it the new collection they're issuing now on vintage cardbacks is a sort of last-ditch effort to keep the SW toys relevant.

Time is the only true judge of anything. We'll see in 50 years or so if history looks back favorably on Potter. I believe it will. I believe it will live on beyond the life expectancy of the movie franchise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the problems with this discussion as that everyone seems to forget that Star Wars was dead in 1985. There was no franchise and the kids who grew up with Star Wars moved on to other things. I WAS THERE.

I disagree there. During the mid 80s you still had the Droid and Ewoks cartoons, the Ewok Adventure movies, and you couldn't walk into a toy store without seeing the section in the action figure aisle devoted to Star Wars. Not to mention Spaceballs and more and more people joining the VHS/home entertainment club which meant buying the Star Wars movies. Plus Star Wars was hitting it big in the Arcade/video game department. In fact Star Wars was more alive than any franchise in history had managed to accomplish years after being released.

Saying it was dead is a bit much.

Wrong man. The Droids cartoon series and anything related to Ewoks were merely attempts to revive the franchise which was ENOURMOUS between 1977 and 1984. By 1985 that interest was significantly reduced. You write: "and you couldn't walk into a toy store without seeing the section in the action figure aisle devoted to Star Wars." This is just plain wrong as well. By 1985, the last ROTJ figures were selling like shit and just vanished from the shelves a year later. Just because they were still in stores in 1985 didn't mean the franchise was thriving or anything. It took Kenner more than 10 years to continue the toyline, which contributes to my claim that Star Wars "was dead" by the mid-eighties until the early nineties. I agree that during those "dark years" there was Star Tours yes, and videogames, and models and such. There was something out there for the die-hard Star Wars fans. It was during those years that being a Star Wars was just plain awkward and geeky, and for some reason I enjoyed being a Star Wars fan during those years the most... ;)

It wasn't dead, you're exaggurating too much. I'm not saying during the period of the movies being released (OT and PT) it wasn't soaring to the heavens, but it certainly wasn't lifeless during the period in which you speak. Toys R Us, Kaybee Toy Store, FAO Schwarz and the other main toy stores still carried star wars products throughout their chains in the mid 80s. Not saying sales weren't down considerably and interest hadn't faded, but Star Wars was still present and not dead. The cartoons and Ewok movies might have been an attempt to capitalize on money, but it kept Star Wars relevant. Same with the successful parody of Spaceballs. The VHS release of Star Wars wasn't just something that interested the die-hards. And the arcade/video game kept in on the minds of the teenagers.

It wasn't ENORMOUS, but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on what we consider a dead franchise. Can you settle on the idea that it was "getting by?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think SW became alive again in 1994, when the Box Set was released. Hasbro started making new action figures in 1995 and we were waiting for the Special Editions .I was even buying the Star Wars Insider

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how bout that new Potter film eh? I'm looking forward to it, even if it's just because after the films finish I won't have much reason to be involved in Potterdom much anymore, outside of book re-reads and listening to some of the scores.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the problems with this discussion as that everyone seems to forget that Star Wars was dead in 1985. There was no franchise and the kids who grew up with Star Wars moved on to other things. I WAS THERE.

I disagree there. During the mid 80s you still had the Droid and Ewoks cartoons, the Ewok Adventure movies, and you couldn't walk into a toy store without seeing the section in the action figure aisle devoted to Star Wars. Not to mention Spaceballs and more and more people joining the VHS/home entertainment club which meant buying the Star Wars movies. Plus Star Wars was hitting it big in the Arcade/video game department. In fact Star Wars was more alive than any franchise in history had managed to accomplish years after being released.

Saying it was dead is a bit much.

Wrong man. The Droids cartoon series and anything related to Ewoks were merely attempts to revive the franchise which was ENOURMOUS between 1977 and 1984. By 1985 that interest was significantly reduced. You write: "and you couldn't walk into a toy store without seeing the section in the action figure aisle devoted to Star Wars." This is just plain wrong as well. By 1985, the last ROTJ figures were selling like shit and just vanished from the shelves a year later. Just because they were still in stores in 1985 didn't mean the franchise was thriving or anything. It took Kenner more than 10 years to continue the toyline, which contributes to my claim that Star Wars "was dead" by the mid-eighties until the early nineties. I agree that during those "dark years" there was Star Tours yes, and videogames, and models and such. There was something out there for the die-hard Star Wars fans. It was during those years that being a Star Wars was just plain awkward and geeky, and for some reason I enjoyed being a Star Wars fan during those years the most... ;)

It wasn't dead, you're exaggurating too much. I'm not saying during the period of the movies being released (OT and PT) it wasn't soaring to the heavens, but it certainly wasn't lifeless during the period in which you speak. Toys R Us, Kaybee Toy Store, FAO Schwarz and the other main toy stores still carried star wars products throughout their chains in the mid 80s. Not saying sales weren't down considerably and interest hadn't faded, but Star Wars was still present and not dead. The cartoons and Ewok movies might have been an attempt to capitalize on money, but it kept Star Wars relevant. Same with the successful parody of Spaceballs. The VHS release of Star Wars wasn't just something that interested the die-hards. And the arcade/video game kept in on the minds of the teenagers.

It wasn't ENORMOUS, but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on what we consider a dead franchise. Can you settle on the idea that it was "getting by?"

Ok, I can live with "getting by". ;)

I just don't agree that "the cartoons and the Ewok movies kept it relevant". Star Wars became relevant again during the early 90's with the release of Zahn's trilogy, new merchandising deals, etc.

I think even George Lucas stated that - like Mickey Mouse - the popularity of Star Wars went through cycles. During the 1985 to 1993 period Star Wars was not the "behemoth" is was before those years or afterwards, and people didn't take 'collectors and die hard fans' very serious. Star Wars was simply a thing of the past, despite the interest in video games, Star Tours, the VHS release, etc. Stuff like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Home Alone were - financially speaking - a lot more "relevant" than Star Wars during those years.

I still remember a gigantic line at Babbage's or EB or whatever the hell it was called when Super Empire Strikes Back was released for SNES. Something like 70 bucks? I disagree with the postulation that Star Wars was dead from 85 to the 90s. I grew up in the late 80s and 90s heavily influenced by the culture of the preceding decades. Everyone in my age group knew Star Wars. Just because the movies ended and the action figures weren't selling as well after they'd release 100 or so of them and started scraping the bottom of the barrel with choices like The Rancor Keeper or 2 inch teddy bears with sticks...come on, it was bound to slow. Just between you and me, the current toyline has been slowing for years. Rumor has it the new collection they're issuing now on vintage cardbacks is a sort of last-ditch effort to keep the SW toys relevant.

Time is the only true judge of anything. We'll see in 50 years or so if history looks back favorably on Potter. I believe it will. I believe it will live on beyond the life expectancy of the movie franchise.

I'm sure Potter will be around for another 50 years, but it's endurance will be attributed to the books I think. Not the movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Potter will still be relevant in 50 years. People like me will introduce it to their children when they reach the right age, and it will stay alive like the old Disney movies. The books, hopefully, will be the base of that relevance, but I don't think the movies will disappear. Our grandchildren will grow up on Potter like I did on Bambi and Pinnochio. Those of you who are not Potter fans may not have been at the midnight book releases or the midnight showings of the films - if you had, you would have seen absolute fanaticism that rivals or perhaps surpasses LOTR, certainly, and maybe even some of the Star Wars films.

I'm sure there were more than a few Gandalfs on the streets on opening night of ROTK, but there were dozens of Hermiones, Snapes, and Dumbledores at the small suburban book store where I purchased Deathly Hallows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Park News - (7/7/10) In an attempt to deal with the still huge crowd levels at IOA trying to see the Wizarding World of Harry Potter the park has begun testing a procedure to hand out small return time tickets for entry into the Wizarding World. They will give you a window of time, like between 10:30am and 11:30am to return to the land, where you present your ticket much like a FastPass, and are let right in. Please note, these passes are only good for entry into the Wizarding World itself and not for any of the attractions within.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOTR will endure forever because its themes of human nature and society are eternal. Not sure that holds true for Potter.

Harry Potter absolutely deals with themes of human nature and society. LOTR may endure because its form is closer to true "literature" or art. Harry Potter is very accessible and lighthearted which causes many to mistake it for pure entertainment. That doesn't mean it has no lasting value as a means of enlightenment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep. Rowling doesn't hesitate to include more serious, philosophical themes and morals, especially in the later books. It comes into play most clearly when you look at the conflict between Dumbledore's way of approaching the crisis and the Ministry of Magic's way. This is hardly heavy reading or deep "literature", but it's not as fluffy as you suggest, gkgyver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Star Wars was made in the wrong place at the wrong time. Naturally it became a phenomenon"

:)

Hee hee! Good one!

(Richard, check your ANH novelisation...)

Yes, nicely played. :unsure:

Great someone noticed ;)

LOTR will endure forever because its themes of human nature and society are eternal. Not sure that holds true for Potter.

LOTR may endure because its form is closer to true "literature" or art.

Yep, it is a great literature work. It will be there forever.

I'd question that the Lord of the Rings films are only supported by a few remaining fan sites. Would such lavish productions as the hardcover book and archival CD, or, oh right, The Hobbit be possible without a large fan base and critical acclaim? While Star Wars left theaters with a whimper (Return of the Jedi), Lord of the Rings left with an Oscar sweep. Maybe I just have a lot of friends that are Lord of the Rings nerds. Watching the extended editions back to back is going to be a big event with my new apartment mates this fall.

Of course, this is merely anecdotal evidence. Now I'm fighting fire with fire.

More fire...

As oposed to the impact of old and new blockbusters, the academy awards seem to be more lax, or awarding the more popular and profitable movie (that has decent quality of course). SW made in 2003 would have won 13 oscars too (if made by the same george lucas as in 1977 ;) ), but then it would have been just another succesfull blockbuster amongst others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The loss of Star Wars and Raiders was what made the Academy want to award Return of the King. The "Star Wars done today" scenario is far too hypothetical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No ,it means that films that are most remembered from the 70's and early 80's never had a chance at winning Best Picture. The Exorcist,Jaws,Star Wars,CE3K,Alien,Raiders,E.T...

The Woody Allen type films were winning everything

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only times I don't copy my long posts are the times the post doesn't go through...

Basically, Annie Hall is just as well-remembered as those films, has a better reputation than Star Wars, blockbusters have always been beaten out by prestige fads, and quite understandably so. People are going to be shocked that that Indian movie won the year The Dark Knight wasn't even nominated. This late 70's/early 80's romanticism is mind-boggingly off-base, in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.