Old Nightmares

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

the antithesis:

snowman6251:

Hannibal942:

snowman6251:
Horror movies should not have sequels, period. I can't think of a single one that worked, ever.

28 Days Later, awesome. 28 Weeks Later, decidedly average.

The Grudge, I liked the Japanese one. The Grudge 2, lol.

The Exorcist, awesome. The Exorcist 2, rofl.

The Omen, awesome. The Omen 2, lmao.

Its a pretty consistent pattern.

Evil Dead 2 was pretty freakin' awesome. Other than that....yeah. Case in point.

As always there must be one exception to prove the rule.

Well, sequels in general tend to suck as each installment in the franchise tends to give you more of the same, treading the same ground as the first one and bringing little if anything new to the table so that you might as well go watch the original instead.

While that's true sequels aren't always bad. Godfather II, The Dark Knight, Spiderman 2, Star Wars 5 and 6, and so on.

Horror movie sequels though are pretty much always bad. I couldn't think of one and had to be reminded of Evil Dead II which was just awesome because it was so crazy and bizarre.

I have to go with EmperorZoltan and say that Michael Bay gets more hate than he really deserves here. Yes, the guy makes big, dumb action movies. That's what he does. There's a niche and he fills it nicely. Personally, I never had a problem with him directing Transformers. What's Transformers about, really? (And you seem to attach deeper meaning to this franchise more than it warrants, Bob. Civil war? Yeah, that aspect is there. But it's something that was never addressed all that much in the old show. Maybe the comics, or in subsequent shows like Beast Wars, but I argue that the Transformers movies were marketed to a mass audience who would at best have only seen the G1 animated series and wouldn't have known or cared about the other stuff.) What's Transformers about, really? Giant robots who transform into cars, truck and planes blowing shit up. What was in the movies? Giant robots blowing shit up. That does it for me. In that respect, Bay was the perfect choice to direct this movie. Like Spock said in Star Trek VI, "Only Nixon could go to China." ;)

And I agree with Preston_r on the need to have human characters to relate to in this movie. Sure, we longtime fans are used to having the focus be on the Transformers, but most people may have difficulty in accepting a bunch of giant robots who Transform into cars and trucks as the main characters. Also, the studio needs stars to attach a certain level of prestige to a film and attract more people to it. If all Transformers had was the robots, I don't think it would have attracted as much of an audience beyond its geek cachet.

It may be okay to treat the human characters as sidekicks in the animated series; all the voice actors get paid the same. But when you've got big-name stars in a multimillion dollar live-action production, it changes things up. Of course, the doubled-edged sword with that is that unlike Optimus Prime, Megatron, Starscream et al., Shia LeBeouf and Megan Fox are real people who need to be paid a lot of money for their time and participation (the merits of their acting abilities aside). So of course, to justify that, the filmmakers are kind of obligated to focus on them a bit more and get their money's worth. Let's face it, no actor wants to be upstaged by special effects.

As far as Revenge of the Fallen goes, I'm also with EmperorZoltan on this; it was frantic, the pacing was off, there were some technical goofs. But on the whole not as bad as was made out to be. That having been said, I won't be adding it to my Blu-Ray library. And while Bay does share some of the blame I think, I also blame the writers' strike, which was a factor in the making of that movie that often gets overlooked. Alex Kurtzman and Bob Orci were not as heavily involved in the making of ROTF as they were the first one due to the strike. Plus they were also working on the screenplay to JJ Abrams' Star Trek at the same time. So when it came to priorities, they chose to work more on Star Trek which, despite your feelings on it, was the more well-received film from a critical standpoint. Consequently, Bay had to take up the slack, which he did by inserting cheap jokes and the twins, unfortunately.

Unfortunately, it looks like Kurtzman and Orci won't be involved in the making of the third movie, so I'm sharing the dread of other fans about how bad this may be.

I think though that if there's one good thing that came out of ROTF, it's this fan-made music video that was done for the song "Love-Hate Heartbreak" by the band Halestorm. Regardless of how anyone feels about the movie, I think we can agree that the video kicks ass!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZydBUgYTt8

Ian S:
but most people may have difficulty in accepting a bunch of giant robots who Transform into cars and trucks as the main characters. Also, the studio needs stars to attach a certain level of prestige to a film and attract more people to it. If all Transformers had was the robots, I don't think it would have attracted as much of an audience beyond its geek cachet.

One word counter-argument: WALL*E

Slightly more words counter-argument: Nobody in the Transformers movies is a movie star. Jon Voigt WAS a movie star 40 years ago, that's as close as any of them get. That's not to say they're bad actors, but no one in the human cast of these movies is someone who's presence alone sells tickets. LaBeouf has never had a major hit that wasn't part of a pre-sold franchise. The ONE movie Megan Fox did that was sold on her name was a costly bomb. The single biggest "movie star" the series has had was the late Bernie Mac, and he was in it for about five minutes.

Ian S:
I have to go with EmperorZoltan and say that Michael Bay gets more hate than he really deserves here. Yes, the guy makes big, dumb action movies. That's what he does. There's a niche and he fills it nicely.

No, Roland Emerick makes big dumb action movies. Michael Bay makes purile shit.

Personally, I never had a problem with him directing Transformers. What's Transformers about, really? (And you seem to attach deeper meaning to this franchise more than it warrants, Bob. Civil war? Yeah, that aspect is there. But it's something that was never addressed all that much in the old show. Maybe the comics, or in subsequent shows like Beast Wars, but I argue that the Transformers movies were marketed to a mass audience who would at best have only seen the G1 animated series and wouldn't have known or cared about the other stuff.) What's Transformers about, really? Giant robots who transform into cars, truck and planes blowing shit up.

Don't care. To quote moviebob, you can make a good movie out of anything. Being simplistic does not excuse it from being shit.

What was in the movies? Giant robots blowing shit up.

No, it would have been nice if the movie had "Giant robots blowing shit up". The movie instead decided to be about Shia LaBitch's collage days and dogs humping to a woman doing a reenactment of "Reefer Madness".

That does it for me. In that respect, Bay was the perfect choice to direct this movie. Like Spock said in Star Trek VI, "Only Nixon could go to China." ;)

What the fuck does post-Soviet communist-American relationships have to do with a shitty director making an equally shitty movie?

And I agree with Preston_r on the need to have human characters to relate to in this movie. Sure, we longtime fans are used to having the focus be on the Transformers, but most people may have difficulty in accepting a bunch of giant robots who Transform into cars and trucks as the main characters. Also, the studio needs stars to attach a certain level of prestige to a film and attract more people to it. If all Transformers had was the robots, I don't think it would have attracted as much of an audience beyond its geek cachet.

It may be okay to treat the human characters as sidekicks in the animated series; all the voice actors get paid the same. But when you've got big-name stars in a multimillion dollar live-action production, it changes things up. Of course, the doubled-edged sword with that is that unlike Optimus Prime, Megatron, Starscream et al., Shia LeBeouf and Megan Fox are real people who need to be paid a lot of money for their time and participation (the merits of their acting abilities aside). So of course, to justify that, the filmmakers are kind of obligated to focus on them a bit more and get their money's worth. Let's face it, no actor wants to be upstaged by special effects.

Wall-E, your point is now meaningless. However just to really drive the point home of how stupid this point is, THESE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE SHIA LEBOUF'S AND MEGAN FOX'S BREAKOUT ROLES! BEFORE TRANSFORMERS, THEY WERE JUST AS, IF NOT MORE, OBSCURE THAN THE TRANSFORMERS THEMSELVES! THEY! WERE! NOT! STARS! YET! YOU! DUMBASS!

EDIT: GODDAMN NINJAS!

As far as Revenge of the Fallen goes, I'm also with EmperorZoltan on this; it was frantic, the pacing was off, there were some technical goofs. But on the whole not as bad as was made out to be. That having been said, I won't be adding it to my Blu-Ray library. And while Bay does share some of the blame I think, I also blame the writers' strike, which was a factor in the making of that movie that often gets overlooked. Alex Kurtzman and Bob Orci were not as heavily involved in the making of ROTF as they were the first one due to the strike. Plus they were also working on the screenplay to JJ Abrams' Star Trek at the same time. So when it came to priorities, they chose to work more on Star Trek which, despite your feelings on it, was the more well-received film from a critical standpoint. Consequently, Bay had to take up the slack, which he did by inserting cheap jokes and the twins, unfortunately.

So, with this paragraph, you practically admit, for whatever reason or another, that the movie is shit and are trying to make production excuses for it. Sorry, but the only thing that excuses a movie is it's own merits. Telling you that Joel Schumacher's studio went bankrupt during filming and a freak accident killed all the writers does not make Batman & Robin a better movie.

Unfortunately, it looks like Kurtzman and Orci won't be involved in the making of the third movie, so I'm sharing the dread of other fans about how bad this may be.

I think though that if there's one good thing that came out of ROTF, it's this fan-made music video that was done for the song "Love-Hate Heartbreak" by the band Halestorm. Regardless of how anyone feels about the movie, I think we can agree that the video kicks ass!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZydBUgYTt8

Ladies and gentlemen, this is Halestorm. Halestorm is a rockband that made a popular Youtube music video. What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Halestorm makes a youtube video, you must acquit! The defense rests...

Ian S:

And I agree with Preston_r on the need to have human characters to relate to in this movie. Sure, we longtime fans are used to having the focus be on the Transformers, but most people may have difficulty in accepting a bunch of giant robots who Transform into cars and trucks as the main characters. Also, the studio needs stars to attach a certain level of prestige to a film and attract more people to it. If all Transformers had was the robots, I don't think it would have attracted as much of an audience beyond its geek cachet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZydBUgYTt8

I said the humans were necessary in the first movie to help introduce the characters. The robots in transformers though, are not like the robots in Terminator. The robots in TF *are* people. Once you've introduced them, allowed the exposition to take place, established their personalities on both the hero's side and the villains side you NO LONGER need the humans there. The Autobots become human, because they are people. WALL-E (as others have said) is a good example. He has personality. The humans are set pieces for the most part. Scenery.

In both movies Sam Whitwicky & his love interest were both just bearers of the McGuffin. In the first movie it was the glasses with the hidden map. In the second movie he had repressed programmed memories. He was not a character. He was a thing. A plot device. His "character" could have been replaced with a featureless black box (or a weighted companion cube!) and the movie, both of them for the most part, could have continued w/o any real harm to the plot.

I'm not asking for a deep, meaningful plot. Giant robots fighting each other with lasers. That what I want out of a movie about Giant Robots at war. I don't want a tacked on teen love story. I don't want family drama. I don't want slap stick idiot humor.

I want the good guy robots to be noble, honorable, and have personality so that if one of them gets blown up with a giant robo-missle I may have a twinge of "baww". I want the badguys to be bad, horrible, and when one of them gets cut in half with an energy sword I can feel a twinge of triumph.

And when that moment happens I want to be able to tell the 2 characters apart. The good guys should be identifiable. Blue and red, white, bright colors. The bad guys should also be recognizable - dark purples, blood reds, black, bruise colors. Icky green.

Simple. Cliche? Sure, perhaps. But this is a movie based on 1980's cartoons meant to sell colorful chunks of plastic to kids. :P

Hannibal942:
Weren't they planning on making a movie to go along with that? I hope to God they don't, because if Raimi isn't in on it its going to suck.

The movie deal fell apart so they did the comic instead. I have it and wasn't half bad.

MovieBob:

Ian S:
but most people may have difficulty in accepting a bunch of giant robots who Transform into cars and trucks as the main characters. Also, the studio needs stars to attach a certain level of prestige to a film and attract more people to it. If all Transformers had was the robots, I don't think it would have attracted as much of an audience beyond its geek cachet.

[quote]One word counter-argument: WALL*E

Yeah, I knew you were going to say that. I'm sorry, but that argument doesn't hold water for me. To me, Wall-E and Transformers are two different types of movies made with two separate intentions. One is a wholesome family movie made by Pixar, who excels in character development and story. The other is a PG-13 sci-fi action movie - based on a toyline and a mediocre 80's cartoon - (and yes, I know you hate it when that argument is brought up, but it's a fact). As a moviegoer, I would have different sets of expectations for each film knowing who made them and why.

Also I have a counter-argument for you: 9. A movie you also reviewed. There were no human characters in that film that the audience could relate to either, and it failed at the box office...partly I think for that reason.

As for LeBeouf not being a movie star, okay he wasn't really considered a bona-fide one until this, but his performances in Suburbia and Alpha Dog got him some critical acclaim. Are you saying then those didn't count?

No, Roland Emerick makes big dumb action movies. Michael Bay makes purile shit.

That's a matter of opinion. You have yours, I have mine. A lot of people consider Emmerich just as much of a hack as Bay. So they cancel each other out in terms of public opinion.

Don't care. To quote moviebob, you can make a good movie out of anything. Being simplistic does not excuse it from being shit.

Fine. Personally I can't really see how you can make something deep and meaningful out of something like Transformers and expect a mass audience to buy into it. Trying and make it deep and pretentious to me would be disingenuous and the audience would feel cheated. "Hey! Why are all these robots talking about the horrors of war and their political ideologies?" they'd say, "I came to see them blow stuff up!" Why do you think the two Matrix sequels failed? People came to see more kick-ass martial arts sequences and bullet-time. Instead they got Philosophy 101.

What the fuck does post-Soviet communist-American relationships have to do with a shitty director making an equally shitty movie?

Which goes to show you completely missed the point entirely of what I was saying. So I'll spell it out for you so your nerdrage-addled brain can process it. The meaning of the quote refers to the fact that just like someone like Richard M. Nixon possessed the connections and political acumen which made him uniquely qualified to broker a deal with China, so does Michael Bay, who possesses the knack for making big huge action movies where lots of shit blows up, make a movie like Transformers; a franchise which - let's face it - is remembered by most as being about giant robots who blow shit up and not much else.

Wall-E, your point is now meaningless. However just to really drive the point home of how stupid this point is, THESE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE SHIA LEBOUF'S AND MEGAN FOX'S BREAKOUT ROLES! BEFORE TRANSFORMERS, THEY WERE JUST AS, IF NOT MORE, OBSCURE THAN THE TRANSFORMERS THEMSELVES! THEY! WERE! NOT! STARS! YET! YOU! DUMBASS!

9, and your point is now rendered equally invalid. And resorting to ad-hominem attacks does not make your argument any more convincing.

So, with this paragraph, you practically admit, for whatever reason or another, that the movie is shit and are trying to make production excuses for it. Sorry, but the only thing that excuses a movie is it's own merits. Telling you that Joel Schumacher's studio went bankrupt during filming and a freak accident killed all the writers does not make Batman & Robin a better movie.

I never said ROTF was a GOOD movie, but it's nowhere near as bad as say, Plan 9 or Manos. As much as you may not want to believe it, sometimes things DO happen in movies that are beyond anyone's control. Had the strike not happened and Kurtzman and Orci were able to be more involved, it might not have turned out as bad.

And if you want to make comparisons to Batman & Robin, Akiva Goldsman deserves just as much blame for that debacle (as well as Batman Forever) as Schumacher does. I don't care if he won and Oscar. Between the Batman movies, Lost in Space and Deep Blue Sea, the man should be slapped with a restraining order prohibiting him from going within 100 yards of another genre project. (Though he's working on Fringe right now w/ Abrams, Kurtzman and Orci. So maybe he's been rehabilitated.)

Ladies and gentlemen, this is Halestorm. Halestorm is a rockband that made a popular Youtube music video. What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Halestorm makes a youtube video, you must acquit! The defense rests...

And you sir or ma'am are an asshole, your insane rantings that are a lame attempt at humor falls flat, and again you miss my point. I was just saying that you can make a purse out of a sow's ear and make a kickass video from a movie that was considered by its fanbase to suck. And read more carefully next time: I didn't say Halestorm themselves made the video. A fan with time on their hands did, idiot.

Ian S:
As a moviegoer, I would have different sets of expectations for each film knowing who made them and why.

So... "Transformers" would've been better if someone else had made it? We agree ;)

Also I have a counter-argument for you: 9. A movie you also reviewed. There were no human characters in that film that the audience could relate to either, and it failed at the box office...partly I think for that reason.

I'm aware that this will sound like splitting hairs, but the things in 9 are "human" in the sense that they are essentially cartoon-caricatures of humans, and also I imagine that people didn't relate to them more because the movie wasn't good. I'm loathe to bring up animation, because the "rules" ARE different, but since you brought it up Cars, Bugs Life, Monsters Inc, Antz, Lion King, I could keep going. Heck, movies primarily starring cats and dogs have been huge hits. Babe, anyone? Happy Feet out-earned Casino Royale and all it had were mostly-expressionless penguins.

As for LeBeouf not being a movie star, okay he wasn't really considered a bona-fide one until this, but his performances in Suburbia and Alpha Dog got him some critical acclaim. Are you saying then those didn't count?

Correct, those do not count towards him being a movie star. They count towards him being a good actor, which he is, but hardly anyone cares. A movie star is, by definition, someone who can sell tickets to a movie just by being in it. NOBODY - at least, nobody enough to make a difference, says "let's go see the new Shia LaBeouf movie."

It's not a problem with him so much as the changing business: There really AREN'T a lot of movie star actors right now, only movie star characters: Tobey Maguire and Christian Bale both headlined two of the five top-grossing movies of all time - and neither of them has ever "opened" a big movie outside of those franchises. Because they aren't movie stars: Spider-Man and Batman are. I'd be hard-pressed to name ANYONE who counts as a classical movie star working today outside of Will Smith.

The meaning of the quote refers to the fact that just like someone like Richard M. Nixon possessed the connections and political acumen which made him uniquely qualified to broker a deal with China, so does Michael Bay, who possesses the knack for making big huge action movies where lots of shit blows up, make a movie like Transformers; a franchise which - let's face it - is remembered by most as being about giant robots who blow shit up and not much else.

He doesn't do it WELL, though. That's the problem. Aside from the god-awful script, almost everything else wrong with the Transformers movies could be forgiven if they at least worked as action films - Even the badly-designed robots... I mean, Dark Knight works just fine despite Batman's costume (and voice) being junk - but they DON'T. The man simply cannot direct coherent action, and the rapid-cutting camera moves he uses to cover that fact are tiresome after about twenty minutes.

MovieBob:
So... "Transformers" would've been better if someone else had made it? We agree ;)

Well...heh...not exactly what I was going for, but yes since you put it that way. What I was trying to say, and you elaborated on this further, was that one was animated and the other was live action, so comparing the two to me would have been like comparing apples to oranges. But you do have a valid point there.

I'm not trying to be a Bay apologist, really, but there were a lot worse choices for director that they could have gotten. If I were producing a Transformers movie, Bay would not have been my first choice. More like second or third. Personally the only guy who I think could have done a superior job would have been James Cameron, but since he was busy getting the ball rolling on Avatar at the time, he probably would have declined the offer. I don't know of many other directors out there who would really understand Transformers that would also be capable of delivering the flash and spectacle that audiences would be expecting. I'm just saying I was pretty satisfied with who we ended up with considering Spielberg could have done worse when hiring a director.

Just curious...whom do you think would have been a better choice for directing a Transformers movie? Because other than Cameron, I can't think of a one.

Correct, those do not count towards him being a movie star. They count towards him being a good actor, which he is, but hardly anyone cares. A movie star is, by definition, someone who can sell tickets to a movie just by being in it. NOBODY - at least, nobody enough to make a difference, says "let's go see the new Shia LaBeouf movie."

It's not a problem with him so much as the changing business: There really AREN'T a lot of movie star actors right now, only movie star characters: Tobey Maguire and Christian Bale both headlined two of the five top-grossing movies of all time - and neither of them has ever "opened" a big movie outside of those franchises. Because they aren't movie stars: Spider-Man and Batman are. I'd be hard-pressed to name ANYONE who counts as a classical movie star working today outside of Will Smith.

Yes, you're right. Unfortunately there don't seem to be any more "stars" in the classic sense anymore. All we have really now are big names that the studios attach to projects it seems just to add some recognition to it. I don't know if Transformers would have had as big of a draw had there not been any names we recognized, though. I'm guessing Shia was cast as the lead because 1) The producers didn't feel confident enough that the audience would be able to relate to the Transformers as characters, 2) Having come off Suburbia, they considered him an actor with the potential to carry an effects-laden multimillion dollar event movie and 3) Attract the teen girl demographic, who normally probably wouldn't have had any interest in a movie like Transformers.

He doesn't do it WELL, though. That's the problem. Aside from the god-awful script, almost everything else wrong with the Transformers movies could be forgiven if they at least worked as action films - Even the badly-designed robots... I mean, Dark Knight works just fine despite Batman's costume (and voice) being junk - but they DON'T. The man simply cannot direct coherent action, and the rapid-cutting camera moves he uses to cover that fact are tiresome after about twenty minutes.

True. I think you put it perfectly in your 2012 review when you compared Roland Emmerich's skill at shot composition to Bay's lack thereof. I admit that even the action scenes at the climax of ROTF were hard to follow what with the overuse of the shakycam. It's a technique that always annoyed me and I think it's used as a crutch by directors who don't know how to film an action or fight scene. Still, Bay has done some good money shots. Ironhide's dodging the missiles in slow-mo in the first movie and then somersaulting over the chick later was cool, I thought. Too bad he doesn't do more of that and give us time to appreciate the action shots.

Ian S:
Just curious...whom do you think would have been a better choice for directing a Transformers movie? Because other than Cameron, I can't think of a one.

Anyone. I know that sounds like me being a smartass, but I'm serious. Anyone would have made a better movie, up to and including Joel Schumacher (who can at least direct action) and Paul W.S. Anderson (who would have at least probably cast his unspeakably-hot wife in it.) What they OUGHT to have done is give it to some 20-something up-and-comer who knows how to squeez three dimes out of a nickel. There's a LOT of guys fresh out of film school plugging away on car commercials who probably could've hit Transformers out of the park, and probably for LESS than the 150 mil Bay blew. Peter Jackson was going to turn Halo over to Neil Blomkamp, a kid from South Africa who'd made some commercials and a short film in his hometown. Look what HE turned out to be capable of.

I'm guessing Shia was cast as the lead because 1) The producers didn't feel confident enough that the audience would be able to relate to the Transformers as characters, 2) Having come off Suburbia, they considered him an actor with the potential to carry an effects-laden multimillion dollar event movie and 3) Attract the teen girl demographic, who normally probably wouldn't have had any interest in a movie like Transformers.

Here's another of those "things no one can prove but everyone in the biz pretty much knows" tidbits: Shia was cast because Steven Spielberg thinks he's awesome and wants to cast him in big movies. He's the "new" Richard Dreyfuss, basically.

MovieBob:

Anyone. I know that sounds like me being a smartass, but I'm serious. Anyone would have made a better movie, up to and including Joel Schumacher (who can at least direct action) and Paul W.S. Anderson (who would have at least probably cast his unspeakably-hot wife in it.) What they OUGHT to have done is give it to some 20-something up-and-comer who knows how to squeez three dimes out of a nickel. There's a LOT of guys fresh out of film school plugging away on car commercials who probably could've hit Transformers out of the park, and probably for LESS than the 150 mil Bay blew. Peter Jackson was going to turn Halo over to Neil Blomkamp, a kid from South Africa who'd made some commercials and a short film in his hometown. Look what HE turned out to be capable of.

True. Jackson though is, I think, still considered an independent filmmaker and thanks to the LOTR films, has enough clout that he can call his own shots. Unfortunately in Hollywood, big studios like Paramount and SKG Dreamworks aren't going to trust their big event movie to a fresh-out-of-film school student unless they've proven themselves. You're probably right and anyone could have made a better Transformers movie than Bay, but until that someone better comes along, for better or worse Bay is who we're stuck with at least until the third movie (he's under contract I think for one more movie and he's done). Hopefully after that Paramount/Dreamworks will boot him and they'll do what other studios have been doing and reboot the movie franchise in a few more years, and by that time we'll hopefully have someone who can do a better job. Maybe even Blomkamp, who by that time will have had a few more hits under his belt.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here