TheRaider.net
 

Go Back   The Raven > The Films > Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-27-2010, 05:13 PM   #51
TennesseBuck
IndyFan
 
TennesseBuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Maryland
Posts: 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayne
KOTCS may be lagging in excitment during the last half, but compared to some of LC's borderline painful-to-watch scenes, it ultimately doesn't stray very far from the "OT". Apart from the brilliant performances from Connery and Ford and the awesome tank fight sequence (and who could forget the amazing fedora cut in the beginning ), LC feels like a bit of a mess by the time the credits roll. It is MHO that Last Crusade doesn't surpass Skull in overall quality (such as plot, characters and direction) but it does have more old school Indy charm to it, making neither better than the other. To me, this basically divides the entire series into two parts. If I was hosting such an event, it would be ALL or RAIDERS (which is flawless).

When considering those god-awful attempts for a working Indy 4 script, I'm really quite grateful for what we got as the end product. Can you possibly imagine Darabont's draft on screen, let alone Jeb Stuart's!?!? My god, if those became reality, then I'd be right along side all you fanatical Kingdom of the Crystal Skull haters!...


I truly disliked Darabont's script - it was too much of an homage to the Indy series rather than an homage to the adventure movies of the past. The whole re-enactment of the "grabbing the Idol" bit was too silly.

As for Last Crusade, it is a bit watered down in terms of intensity but it does have Connery and he played off very well with Ford. I like the Grail and the finale but in the end, it just whets your appetite for Indy 4 which is precisely what I think they wanted it to do. I love Crystal Skull because it was fresher with new characters, excepting the lovely return of Marion, it enhanced and developed the Indy character and I love the 50's period so it worked better than I expected. But the best Indy flick will always be Raiders.
TennesseBuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2010, 06:40 PM   #52
FILMKRUSC
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Major West

"To celebrate the flawlessness of ALL THREE of the INDIANA JONES movies"


You can tell they are deluded fanboys as they think all three films are flawless. Raiders is the only (almost) flawless film. None of the sequels really live up to it.

Compared to Crystal Skull they seem like flawless Indy Adventures.
FILMKRUSC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2010, 07:24 PM   #53
arkfinder
IndyFan
 
arkfinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: In the spirit of God
Posts: 409
All 4 dvd's laid out infront of me & I reach for "Raiders" first every time. Skull was ok. But, nothing beats the first 3.
arkfinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2010, 08:06 PM   #54
FedoraHead
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by seasider
AICN today posted a promotion for some Indiana Jones event where participants can eat food Temple of Doom style and other stuff. Sounds like fun but then comes the annoying bit where they emphasize that they're showing the first 3 movies and try to pretend that Crystal Skull does not exist. I understand that a lot of fans didn't like the last one but there were a lot that did and accepted it as a part of the Indiana Jones canon. It just annoys me when people do stuff like this. I mean what's wrong with just showing all 4 movies and letting the fans decide?

http://www.originalalamo.com/show.aspx?id=7162

I know what how you feel. I am a BIG Star Wars fans and the prequel hates have almost killed Star Wars for me, not Lucas. Lucas made the movies he wanted, you can't fault him for that. Sure they are not as good as the first 3 but you know, they are just movies. I don't get how a guy can bash Phantom Menace over and over and then he will tell you "I saw it about 7 times". What? You hated it but you saw it and you even own the dvd? Also they bash on Lucas so much. I just feel no matter what he did, they would not be happy. Just get over it and watch the movie for what it is, a movie. I am 100% with it? No but you know what, it's his right to make what he felt was the story HE wanted to tell. They just get a little carried away with the "Lucas raped my childhood" talk. Come on people! I am a HUGE fan but come on!
FedoraHead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2010, 08:10 PM   #55
FedoraHead
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by arkfinder
All 4 dvd's laid out infront of me & I reach for "Raiders" first every time. Skull was ok. But, nothing beats the first 3.

It seems to go in order, Raiders best. I know most people like LC more than TOD and I can see the point. I guess it was more of the "Raiders" style but Doom was just 100% pure fun. It's ten times better than any action movie today. Also I hear people that didn't like KOTCS cause no Nazi, no Henry, no this and that that the other movies had. I bet if it had Nazi, or other stuff the same people would say "They just copied the older movies, nothing new".
FedoraHead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2010, 10:18 PM   #56
sandiegojones
IndyFan
 
sandiegojones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,251
Wow, doesn't all this get old? Who cares about AICN. They don't have a real opinion on anything. I remember Harry drooling over the awesomeness of Episode I and then back tracking after fanboys complained about Jar Jar. Harry is a giant ginger douche!

People are entitled to their opinions about everything and I do not need anyone to agree with me to validate my own opinion. Prior to KOTCS all I heard was how awful TOD was. Years an years of *****ing about everything from the humor to the "racist depictions of Indians" (but all Germans are Nazi's, right?). TOD was always my favorite because of the humor and slightly more silly action (i.e. raft slalom, mine cart, bugs, heart ripping, etc). Also in my opinion TOD had the best soundtrack.

It's a movie made for entertainment. Same with Star Wars. They are not made to be the greatest films ever, just to entertain. Peoples personal desires have created insurmountable expectations for all these films even if they do have glaring flaws.

Is KOTCS as good a Raiders? No, not as a whole, but there certainly are unique moments that are equal to any of the other films in the series. I'm sure had it been made 15 or more years ago most people would have been more accepting of it (Again, same with SW). I didn't think HF seemed as old as some make him out to be. He's in better shape than me and I'm 30!.

I find it funny that people complain about the alien theme too because I see Ancient Aliens on History and similar shows on NatGeo about alien beings and the Mayans or Egyptians. They wouldn't keep making those shows if there wasn't a very large percentage of the population who watch and believe this stuff. The plot isn't any more far fetched than any of the other films whether you are believer or not.

I love 50's music and Americana and I find Mayans, Aztecs and Incas to be fascinating. There's a lot of historical facts in KOTCS (although exaggerated), just the skulls origins and UFO finale are totally fanciful (yet it' fits the 50's theme). The skull myth itself, the Nazca lines, Inca cemetery, deformed skulls, lost cities and ancient gold (there are still hundreds of cities to be found in Central American jungles) and even the giant ants are all based in some fact and represented about as accurately as any artifact in the prior films (which is to say only as accurate as necessary to move the plot).

I like the film. Will it be on the AFI greatest list? No but neither are about 50,000 other films made since the early 20th century. Raiders was a great film and fun. The others are just fun, but what's so bad about that?

Last edited by sandiegojones : 05-02-2010 at 10:28 PM.
sandiegojones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2010, 10:25 AM   #57
Darth Vile
IndyFan
 
Darth Vile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by FedoraHead
I know what how you feel. I am a BIG Star Wars fans and the prequel hates have almost killed Star Wars for me, not Lucas. Lucas made the movies he wanted, you can't fault him for that. Sure they are not as good as the first 3 but you know, they are just movies. I don't get how a guy can bash Phantom Menace over and over and then he will tell you "I saw it about 7 times". What? You hated it but you saw it and you even own the dvd? Also they bash on Lucas so much. I just feel no matter what he did, they would not be happy. Just get over it and watch the movie for what it is, a movie. I am 100% with it? No but you know what, it's his right to make what he felt was the story HE wanted to tell. They just get a little carried away with the "Lucas raped my childhood" talk. Come on people! I am a HUGE fan but come on!

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandiegojones
Wow, doesn't all this get old? Who cares about AICN. They don't have a real opinion on anything. I remember Harry drooling over the awesomeness of Episode I and then back tracking after fanboys complained about Jar Jar. Harry is a giant ginger douche!

People are entitled to their opinions about everything and I do not need anyone to agree with me to validate my own opinion. Prior to KOTCS all I heard was how awful TOD was. Years an years of *****ing about everything from the humor to the "racist depictions of Indians" (but all Germans are Nazi's, right?). TOD was always my favorite because of the humor and slightly more silly action (i.e. raft slalom, mine cart, bugs, heart ripping, etc). Also in my opinion TOD had the best soundtrack.

It's a movie made for entertainment. Same with Star Wars. They are not made to be the greatest films ever, just to entertain. Peoples personal desires have created insurmountable expectations for all these films even if they do have glaring flaws.

Is KOTCS as good a Raiders? No, not as a whole, but there certainly are unique moments that are equal to any of the other films in the series. I'm sure had it been made 15 or more years ago most people would have been more accepting of it (Again, same with SW). I didn't think HF seemed as old as some make him out to be. He's in better shape than me and I'm 30!.

I find it funny that people complain about the alien theme too because I see Ancient Aliens on History and similar shows on NatGeo about alien beings and the Mayans or Egyptians. They wouldn't keep making those shows if there wasn't a very large percentage of the population who watch and believe this stuff. The plot isn't any more far fetched than any of the other films whether you are believer or not.

I love 50's music and Americana and I find Mayans, Aztecs and Incas to be fascinating. There's a lot of historical facts in KOTCS (although exaggerated), just the skulls origins and UFO finale are totally fanciful (yet it' fits the 50's theme). The skull myth itself, the Nazca lines, Inca cemetery, deformed skulls, lost cities and ancient gold (there are still hundreds of cities to be found in Central American jungles) and even the giant ants are all based in some fact and represented about as accurately as any artifact in the prior films (which is to say only as accurate as necessary to move the plot).

I like the film. Will it be on the AFI greatest list? No but neither are about 50,000 other films made since the early 20th century. Raiders was a great film and fun. The others are just fun, but what's so bad about that?

Great posts... Totally agree.

I went to see Iron Man 2 last night, which in my opinion is a completely average (if likeable) action movie. If you were to believe the reviews of those who are also quick to denounce anything George Lucas (or contemporary Spielberg), you'd think Iron Man 2 was a piece of classic cinema. Those fellas at AICN etc. are so predictable in their fashionable opinions.

Last edited by Darth Vile : 05-03-2010 at 10:32 AM.
Darth Vile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2010, 05:02 PM   #58
FedoraHead
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 141
I don't think anyone really goes to AICN for reviews. If you want reviews, go to Rotten T. (All the Star Wars Prequel are even fresh on it!) I think Harry and AICN was a great site for leaked rumors, pictures, and things. It was like TMZ for movies but it's kind gotten away form that also. Seem all his news is mostly "press release" like any other site.
FedoraHead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2010, 09:35 AM   #59
Lego Indy
IndyFan
 
Lego Indy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 162
With CGI there is no need to develop storylines. Movies like Crystal Skull, Star Wars 1-3, Avatar, Transformers, Iron Man, etc are all flash with no substance.
Lego Indy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2010, 11:29 AM   #60
Forrestal3657
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 8
I blame no one for Indy IV. I think it was an all right addition to the series, not fantastic, but not horrible. All of the sequels were like that. They weren't Raiders, but they were still entertaining. And Shia saying he dropped the ball on the series is bs because they are simply films, and as we all know, there are good and bad sequels. All of the Indy films have an overall better track record than most film franchises and I think that Indy IV did not suffer from anything, it just wasn't as interesting and was a too family friendly perhaps. It was still an Indy film, and for that I am grateful. It wasn't what I wanted but I'm not gonna destroy it, you know.
Forrestal3657 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2010, 01:19 PM   #61
avidfilmbuff
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lego Indy
With CGI there is no need to develop storylines. Movies like Crystal Skull, Star Wars 1-3, Avatar, Transformers, Iron Man, etc are all flash with no substance.

Besides the Jungle Chase, some of the animals, and the climax of the film, could you tell me where else you saw cgi.
avidfilmbuff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2010, 01:29 PM   #62
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by avidfilmbuff
Besides the Jungle Chase, some of the animals, and the climax of the film, could you tell me where else you saw cgi.

There's the little matter of that cool flying fridge, and the mushroom cloud...
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2010, 01:44 PM   #63
ResidentAlien
Guest
 
ResidentAlien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
There's the little matter of that cool flying fridge, and the mushroom cloud...


And the graveyard was one big, ugly CG composite shot.
ResidentAlien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2010, 04:40 PM   #64
avidfilmbuff
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
There's the little matter of that cool flying fridge, and the mushroom cloud...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ResidentAlien
And the graveyard was one big, ugly CG composite shot.

Hmmh, I forgot about those. But still, in terms of the amount of special effects, it's pretty much the same as Temple of Doom. The only thing that's changed is the method. I really feel that people have been exaggerating the amount of cgi in the film.
avidfilmbuff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2010, 05:33 PM   #65
Mickiana
IndyFan
 
Mickiana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,187
The desert truck chase in Raiders looked so darn good and was so darn exciting. Seeing Mutt standing on what was obviously not moving vehicles getting whacked in the nuts while boring us to death with his sword skills just didn't cut the mustard. The vine swing thing didn't help either. But that's not Shia's fault, although I hope to whatever god may be that we never see Mutt again.

Some parts of CS I like, some parts I hate and some parts I wonder what the hell were they thinking. The whole movie just lacked its own original impetus. I think that was the major problem and the details we pick apart here just flow from that.
Mickiana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2010, 06:33 PM   #66
Darth Vile
IndyFan
 
Darth Vile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickiana
The desert truck chase in Raiders looked so darn good and was so darn exciting. Seeing Mutt standing on what was obviously not moving vehicles getting whacked in the nuts while boring us to death with his sword skills just didn't cut the mustard. The vine swing thing didn't help either. But that's not Shia's fault, although I hope to whatever god may be that we never see Mutt again.

Some parts of CS I like, some parts I hate and some parts I wonder what the hell were they thinking. The whole movie just lacked its own original impetus. I think that was the major problem and the details we pick apart here just flow from that.

KOTCS, if anything, is 20 years too late. It demonstrates rather well how action movies have moved on. And whilst, IMHO, it is a rather worthy addition to the original 3, KOTCS represents the past and not the future of action adventure movies. And that's the real problem I think...
Darth Vile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2010, 10:47 PM   #67
Rocket Surgeon
Guest
 
Rocket Surgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 8,872
Give us an analog Indy movie with some STUNTS.
Rocket Surgeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2010, 01:05 AM   #68
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocket Surgeon
Give us an analog Indy movie with some STUNTS.

I agree that you can't beat reality. Stunts done for real can have that true "wow" factor. Whereas, stunts done by CGI can have that "whatever" factor. CGI has made everything possible for film makers, so there's little 'real' work involved in creating a given spectacle. It takes a strong director or producer to insist on keeping it real.

After watching the making of The Dark Knight, I'll always think of the truck flip that was done for real on a real street, or the blowing up of the hospital with Ledger walking away without looking back. (Okay, so they had to CGI the windows back into the building as they'd been removed in between locating the building and setting it up for filming - but Heath Ledger, the explosion, and everything else was real).

Just because something's possible doesn't mean a director has to do it - but then it's the marketplace that drives movies. If the majority of movie goers get a kick out of CGI magic then the dedicated Indy fan doesn't stand a chance of going back to the good ol' days...
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2010, 03:21 AM   #69
Darth Vile
IndyFan
 
Darth Vile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocket Surgeon
Give us an analog Indy movie with some STUNTS.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
I agree that you can't beat reality. Stunts done for real can have that true "wow" factor. Whereas, stunts done by CGI can have that "whatever" factor. CGI has made everything possible for film makers, so there's little 'real' work involved in creating a given spectacle. It takes a strong director or producer to insist on keeping it real.

After watching the making of The Dark Knight, I'll always think of the truck flip that was done for real on a real street, or the blowing up of the hospital with Ledger walking away without looking back. (Okay, so they had to CGI the windows back into the building as they'd been removed in between locating the building and setting it up for filming - but Heath Ledger, the explosion, and everything else was real).

Just because something's possible doesn't mean a director has to do it - but then it's the marketplace that drives movies. If the majority of movie goers get a kick out of CGI magic then the dedicated Indy fan doesn't stand a chance of going back to the good ol' days...

Whilst I agree that action movies are better for having 'real' stunt work, and should look to incorporate as much as possible, I'm hard pushed to think of many a modern action flick that has substantially more "analog" or "real" stunts than KOTCS did. For me, the only part of The Dark Knight that impressed, stunt wise, was the opening swing between buildings... the other action scenes were relatively run of the mill (although I still liked it). In truth, I'd be struggling to think of action in movies such as the Iron Man, Star Trek, Harry Potter (trying to think of contemporary comparisons) where they were not significantly underpinned/realised by CGI.

Again, if one finds fault with the action scenes/stunt work of KOTCS, then I think that has more to do with the direction/editing than it does with the amount of actual real/live stunts involved... and for me, I've always believed that Spielberg directed KOTCS very much like an 80's movie than a 00's movie, and that's why much of the action isn't as fast and as furious as the action in something like the JJ Abrams Star Trek movie.
Darth Vile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2010, 05:25 AM   #70
Mickiana
IndyFan
 
Mickiana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,187
You can't beat stunt work. There might be less explosions and acrobatics, but it's far more satisfying. It lends credibility. CG detracts from credibility. I know I'm sounding like Sankara here, but I think this is one of the problems of CS following up on the first three, where inventiveness and physical display were brought to bear.
Mickiana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2010, 12:35 PM   #71
avidfilmbuff
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 306
There were stunts in Crystal Skull, if you don't believe me then watch the special features. The only cgi in the film was used for backgrounds, like a matte painting. There was no cgi Harrison Ford, nor a cgi replica of any of the other actors.
avidfilmbuff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2010, 01:05 PM   #72
Darth Vile
IndyFan
 
Darth Vile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by avidfilmbuff
There were stunts in Crystal Skull, if you don't believe me then watch the special features. The only cgi in the film was used for backgrounds, like a matte painting. There was no cgi Harrison Ford, nor a cgi replica of any of the other actors.

I think it would also be true to say that with the advent of CGI, to remove wires etc., Harrison Ford was able to do a lot more stunt work himself (more so than the other movies I'm led to believe). So it's all about perception i.e. does Harrison Ford being able to do more stunts make the movie more realistic than having to use a double for every shot?

Unfortunately, as others have mentioned before, some of the gratuitous CGI moments in the jungle chase, for example, take away from the fact that it's a really imaginative, well choreographed sequence (with lots of good stunt work).
Darth Vile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2010, 01:18 PM   #73
avidfilmbuff
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
I think it would also be true to say that with the advent of CGI, to remove wires etc., Harrison Ford was able to do a lot more stunt work himself (more so than the other movies I'm led to believe). So it's all about perception i.e. does Harrison Ford being able to do more stunts make the movie more realistic than having to use a double for every shot?

Unfortunately, as others have mentioned before, some of the gratuitous CGI moments in the jungle chase, for example, take away from the fact that it's a really imaginative, well choreographed sequence (with lots of good stunt work).

The only two scenes that you can really accuse of using too much cgi, are the jungle chase and the finale. With the finale, it's understandable, and in my opinion, well done. However, I must admit, with the jungle chase, the cgi is way overdone. I don't think adding all those extra plants were necessary.

I do think, however, that the reason they used cgi for that particular scene, was because it's hard to shoot a chase in an actual jungle; while shooting a chase in a desert or a street is less hazardous. This also explains why Temple of Doom used so many matte paintings for the raft and the mine car scene.

I only have one more complaint for Crystal Skull; they really should have shot the film in another country, that really benefitted the first three films. But besides the jungle chase and the country issue, Crystal Skull is just as great as the other three films.
avidfilmbuff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2010, 03:17 PM   #74
kongisking
IndyFan
 
kongisking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Skull Island
Posts: 3,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by avidfilmbuff
The only two scenes that you can really accuse of using too much cgi, are the jungle chase and the finale. With the finale, it's understandable, and in my opinion, well done. However, I must admit, with the jungle chase, the cgi is way overdone. I don't think adding all those extra plants were necessary.

I do think, however, that the reason they used cgi for that particular scene, was because it's hard to shoot a chase in an actual jungle; while shooting a chase in a desert or a street is less hazardous. This also explains why Temple of Doom used so many matte paintings for the raft and the mine car scene.

I only have one more complaint for Crystal Skull; they really should have shot the film in another country, that really benefitted the first three films. But besides the jungle chase and the country issue, Crystal Skull is just as great as the other three films.

You're absolutely right on everything here.
kongisking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2010, 03:22 PM   #75
Stoo
IndyFan
 
Stoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Neuchâtel, Switzerland (Canadian from Montreal)
Posts: 8,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by avidfilmbuff
There were stunts in Crystal Skull, if you don't believe me then watch the special features. The only cgi in the film was used for backgrounds, like a matte painting. There was no cgi Harrison Ford, nor a cgi replica of any of the other actors.
Sorry, avidfilmbuff, but this is incorrect. There are at least 5 shots which use CG replicas of actors.

-the Russians in the CG car when it becomes consumed by the shock wave.
-the long shot of the Russians on the cliffside.
-Indy & Co. falling out of CG the amphib when it goes over the falls (not sure on this one but would seem likely).
-the Russians getting pulled into the portal.
-Flying Mac when he gets sucked away back into the throne room.

As you said, "if you don't believe me then watch the special features". Other uses of CG elements are the jets flying overhead, the bending tree, Indy's ant-ridin' fedora and digital face replacement during the motorbike chase.

It's exactly 2 years after the release date and people are still b*tching & moaning over "Skull"! You guys make me laugh. While I'm in this thread, let me say that the worst scene in Indy 4 is the sandpit/snake gag. A cringe-worthy moment for me but 2 years ago today, the audience was laughing (where I was, anyway).
Stoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:07 AM.