Escape to the Movies: The Lone Ranger

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5
 

Just saw it... I liked it and had fun.
There was a fight scene choreographed to the William tell overture!
And a derpy horse.

Huh. I actually liked this movie quite a bit. Yeah it wasn't great, but solid. Got confusing a few times, but I was almost cheering by the end of it.

Helmholtz Watson:

Pyrian:

Helmholtz Watson:
Tell me again on how being a Norse God wouldn't make you look like the Norse people(see:Scandinavia)?

There are an enormous number of Gods of various cultures that do not look anything like the people of that culture.

First off, I didn't ask about other cultures, I asked specifically about Northern Europe. Second, your comment about other cultures is a red herring.

If you're not making a claim that cultures invent beings which look like themselves, then you haven't actually made an argument to respond to in the first place. Why wouldn't Norse Gods look unlike Norse people? You never gave a reason. And I don't have to reach outside of the Norse culture to find counter examples. Dwarves. Giants. You've challenged people to counter an non-argument with no weight and no meaning in-context, as noted below.

Helmholtz Watson:

Pyrian:
Also, keep in mind that in the fiction under discussion, the "Gods" are not a result of Norse culture, but rather an alien predecessor. If all they knew of Heimdall was what they'd been told of his duties, their depictions of him would not necessarily carry any real meaning.

If your going to base your story/character off of a real religion/culture...

Which they didn't, as I just explained. They merely took inspiration.

Helmholtz Watson:
Case in point, despite never claiming to be 100% realistic, people(Bob included) had no problem pointing out the inaccuracies in the movie 300.

There's a big difference between claims of historical inaccuracies and claims of blatant racism in overt action.

Helmholtz Watson:
While granted, the video is on the subject of laws banning unpopular opinions, its still relevant to the subject of political correctness.

No, you cannot compare opinions being unpopular with opinions being illegal.

wolf thing:
There have been other groups who don't like it, and I felt I should state so...

You should've stopped there.

wolf thing:

Pyrian:
I don't think the Comanche take on Johnny Depp playing a Comanche qualifies as cherry-picking.

Cherry picking refers to picking results or reactions and ignoring others to get across a point which is what Seldon2639 was doing, it might a bit of a hash use of the term as the largest groups are cool with depp as tonto but it is an example of it.

He didn't pick some random group just to make a point. Depp played a Comanche. Therefore, the Comanche get the first say. Arguably, they should also get the last say. Else I might argue that my own opinion is just as relevant, on account of being an Earthling, which Depp is clearly merely play-acting like, and poorly at that. ;)

mecegirl:
.....

So as to not take up the entire page, I edited my response by putting it into a spoiler. Please click on the box below to see my response.

[1] Yes I realize that Mr. Idris isn't from America, but I think he can pull off a decent American accent.
[2] No offense to the guy, I appreciate Mr. White for trying his best.

I'm getting the distinct impression that Bob didn't like this movie.

Just a hunch.

Anyway, I'll save my money on this one.

Pyrian:
If you're not making a claim that cultures invent beings which look like themselves, then you haven't actually made an argument to respond to in the first place.

No, what I had said was that you have some inaccurate idea of what middle Eastern people look like, and that being an ethnic Jew doesn't mean that you have to look like this, hence I disagreed with your comment about Jesus Christ.

Pyrian:
Why wouldn't Norse Gods look unlike Norse people? You never gave a reason. And I don't have to reach outside of the Norse culture to find counter examples. Dwarves. Giants.

Dwarves and Gaints were not always portrayed in the same (I use this term loosely) positive way that Gods were shown. Notice how, unlike Dwarfs and Giants, another group that was depicted in a positive light were Elves(Ljˇsßlfar), and notice how similar they looked to Norse people. As for why would the Norse gods look like Norse people, historic artwork depicts them as looking like Scandinavian people.

Pyrian:

Helmholtz Watson:
If your going to base your story/character off of a real religion/culture...

Which they didn't, as I just explained. They merely took inspiration.

You're arguing semantics now.

Pyrian:
There's a big difference between claims of historical inaccuracies and claims of blatant racism in overt action.

Not when those claims of racism stem from perceived historical inaccuracies.

Pyrian:
No, you cannot compare opinions being unpopular with opinions being illegal.

Yes you certainly can, provided you clarify that the limitations of the comparison is that one is made illegal and one is made unpopular-which I had done.

Helmholtz Watson:

My post that you are replying to isn't about the movie but about the actual religion and the culture of Northern Europe at the time, hence the reason why BabySinclair typed the following:

Cultures will often change the depiction of cultural figures to better match their ideals. Jesus became European because Europeans thought themselves superior to those of different skin tones. There are historical records in which historically significant people suddenly become whiter if they were a positive influence. Why wouldn't the Scandinavians have done the same with their gods?

So you see, while some people may be "speculating based on the movie's events", I had moved past simply discussing the comics and was then discussing the religion of the Norse people and their depiction of their Ăsir.

I know that you want to ignore the movie but that is is impossible within the context of this discussion. What is the point of arguing that Heimdall can not be Black in the movie because he is not within the myths, when the movie does not reference the actual myths? I still think that everything that BabySinclair mentioned can still be related to the movie. Not necessarily that real that Scandinavians would have whitened up their gods, but the Scandinavians in the movie universe would have done such things.

I clicked on the link and it doesn't provide the entire pdf, just some exert. How do I access the entire pdf?

On the right side there is an orange box with a pull down menu. It has several options of how to download the book, a pdf file is one of them. It will take you to a new page were you have to click a link, from there the pdf will pop up so that you can download it.

I never said that "all it took" for a Ăsir was for them to have white skin, what I was saying was that it seems that Heimdall was described as physically being the brightest and that part of description would elude to bright skin(see:white skin). As your own source points out, another part of how he was bright was that he had golden teeth.

My source says nothing about his skin. That is something that you believe to be a factor, but I do not even see a mention of his skin, whatever the color, glowing or anything of that nature. Just that he has "resplendent white armor" and golden teeth. Those were his most distinguishing features. So why argue over his skin tone when it isn't what earned him the title of being the brightest god?

So going by your own source, does it say anywhere that Heimdall had skin much darker than the other Ăsir or does it describe him physically looking much dark at all in comparison to his fellow Ăsir? Explain to me the logic of why a a god that was heavily associated with light, brightness, white, and gold would for some unknown reason have noticeably darker skin than the other gods? Why would the Ăsir associated with "light, innocen[ce], and grace" have skin darker than someone like...oh I don't know...perhaps Loki, the father of Hel,J÷rmungandr, Fenrir and grandfather of Sk÷ll and Hati Hrˇ­vitnisson?

It does not mention his skin at all. It does however say "Heimdall was always depicted in resplendent white armor, and he was therefor called the bright god". If his skin were part of the reason why he is called the bright god then why is his skin not described as glowing? Or even as being paler than the other gods? It does not matter what his skin color is because is was his armor that earned him the name of the brightest god. As to the innocence and grace part, I know that you are not trying to be offensive but lighter skin does not automatically equal innocence and grace while darker skin suggests the opposite.

So while the movie is NOT a true reflection of the Norse myths, because it was never meant to be such a thing, it actually did one better than the comics. The movie's Heimdall's armor, while not white, actually glowed (for me the glow counts because according to Websters resplendent means -shining brilliantly : characterized by a glowing splendor)

I actually would have no problem with that, escpecially the part where you would see lighting coming out of Thor's beard. Heck I wish they would have found a way to include the children of Loki in the movie, because they seem like they would make great antagonist for the Avengers to fight. I mean just think of it, instead of a flying robot snake/worm/dragon thing flying around NYC, they would be fighting a gargantuan sized wolf, a half dead women and a sea serpent that would give the leviathan a run for its title as the biggest sea monster! (Though I must admit that I am curious as to how they will go about having Thanos being the next big baddy).

But that's just it. None of that was ever a part of Thor's iconography in the comics. Sure it would have been cool to see in the movie but it wasn't in the movie, nor was it in the comics. For that matter, Sif, if portrayed accurately, would not be a warrior woman and would be wearing a long blonde wig (because Loki shaved her head as a prank and Thor made him go on a quest to get her hair back) Also the Warriors three (One of which is Asian.) don't even exist within Norse myth but in the comics and later the movie.

As I said above, I had moved on in my debate to the discussion of the actual religion. I also already that I see no reason why I can't criticize marvel for their depiction of the Norse gods, all the while people like MovieBob feel free to criticize Frank Miller for his depiction of the Spartans in the movie 300.

It is because of your focus. Out off all the characters why Heimdall? He doesn't have a large role in the film. If anything your ire should be directed at Thor's character. Or at the very least it should be evenly distributed around the entire Thor movie canon because its just all wrong. You mentioned Hel earlier. I don't think she even would exist within the movie universe. Loki and Thor are depicted as very young, I doubt Loki has had children yet.

Funny, because I just went on the Marvel website, and the image they provide is this....
image

So it seems that they have drawn him as having White Skin. You can even take a look for yourself if you don't believe me.

I have no clue what you are trying to prove. Were you under the impression that the picture that I posted was of a black Heimdall? I never claimed that he was not white in the comics and he was white in the picture that I posted. That was just a more recent picture of the character. Since the comic depiction of Heimdall doesn't match up with the depiction of Heimdall from myth, why should the movie version be expected too match up? The comics version wears armor looks drab and dark. I see nothing close to the bright armor that Heimdall of myth was known for. At least the movie Heimdall wore shiny armor.

Your missing the point, which was that MovieBob(and others who have taken the same stance as him) said that it was wrong for people to be opposed to Elba for playing a role of a white character, yet when the table was turned, he voiced very similar complaints about Johnny Depp playing the role of a Native American character that fans had voiced about the role of Heimdall. The whole point of tdylan's comment was to point out how hypocritical it was for MovieBob(and others who took the same stance) to react in such a way towards towards the choice of actors decided to play Tonto and Heimdall.

No, I have the point just fine. You see, if this were an actual movie about the Norse Gods, a Clash of the Titans if you will but with Norse mythology , then I would be missing the point. In that situation the characters ethnicity would be an intrinsic part of their character. So if I were okay with say a movie about Sigurd, who was a great hero of Norse myth, having a Black Sigurd but not with Tonto being depicted by a White actor then I would be hypocritical. Tonto is in part defined by his race just like the character Sigurd is defined by his race.

But the Thor film is not that kind of movie. There is nothing I can do about the fact that Marvel's Asguardians are not the "actual" Norse gods but super powered space aliens who visited earth a while back inspiring the Norsemen of the Marvel universe to write stories about their greatness. The character's apparent ethnicity does not matter because they are space aliens. They could be blue and it would not matter. The Marvel universe has talking trees and raccoons from space....Why not a black guy in really bright armor who can see great distances and guards a interdimentional passageway from space?

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Elba personally. I liked the guy in RocknRolla and as a person who was a fan of Spawn as a kid, I would like nothing more than for Al Simmons to be played by Elba. I mean, until I say RocknRolla, I was worried that the only guy that would be talented enough to be Al Simmons/Spawn would be Don Cheadle because while the guy is the most talents Black American actor I can think of, he doesn't physically fit the part. Now Elba Idris on the other hand? That guy is Black[1](like the character Al Simmons), he seems like he is a respectable actor, and unlike Cheadle, Idris would have no problem physically pulling off the part. Idris could do for Spawn what Michael White struggled to do[2] [/Spawn fan wishes].[/spoiler]

He is a great actor. He had the aura of the character that he portrayed. What makes you think that he was casted for any other reason? The Thor universe already has an Asian character, one that no one bothered to question, so why not a Black one?

[1] Yes I realize that Mr. Idris isn't from America, but I think he can pull off a decent American accent.
[2] No offense to the guy, I appreciate Mr. White for trying his best.

The Lone Ranger

The printer drivers on my laptop had become corrupted or something so I spent the day arguing with it trying to uninstall the old one so I could reinstall it. Last time I installed it, the driver from their website didn't work at all, but the boot disk that originally came with the printer did. But I forgot where I put it and tore apart my room trying to find it and eventually found it and it didn't work but I tried really, really uninstalling the old one and then the uninstall froze, so I rebooted the computer. I got it uninstalled and tried the download and the install froze. Hours of this shit. I finally got it to work, so I decided to take my aggression out on a bad movie. I knew Lone Ranger was still playing, so I went and well, where to begin?

Let me ask you a question: is Mask of Zorro still considered a good movie? Because that's the movie I'm reminded most of at this point. The more I think of it, the more I'm reminded. Both are modern versions of old characters that really haven't been very popular in decades. Both have an old west setting. Both take gross liberties with the original character. Both have cast a sidekick who is the completely wrong ethnicity to play the role. Both have a complicated plot that involve the bad guy doing some mining on the sly for personal gain, a personal vendetta with the #2 villain due to the main character's brother's murder. Both #2 villains have taken to cannibalism based on some ancient superstition about consuming the flesh of another means you gain their power. Both have a morally compromised US Cavalryman as if Dances With Wolves lost his moral compass and joined the bad guy. Both have spectacular set piece action scenes that involve cart rails and the main bad guy falling to his death or something similar, either falling with his ill-gotten ore of having it land on top of him, preferably both to be all ironic and shit. I'm actually kind of surprised how many similarities there are between these two movies. I suspect the writing team sat down with a bunch of DVDs and Mask of Zorro was the one during which they took the most notes.

That said, it doesn't feel like a complete rip-off of Mask of Zorro. It's not a note-for-note retread and there's enough different that it really didn't hit me how similar they were until I was driving home. There are a lot of problems with Lone Ranger, but I think it's unfair is Zorro gets a pass on the same fucking shit. Has that much changed in fifteen years? Maybe. Eddie Murphy got a lot of shit for his Asian character in Norbit, but twenty years earlier, that shit was hilarious in his stand up. How times change.

One difference I can think of is Mask of Zorro wasn't named "The Lone Ranger." Not because they had different character. What I mean is it wasn't called "Zorro." The words "Mask of" says this is a Zorro story, not the Zorro story. The title "Lone Ranger" indicates this is a definitive version of the character. I wonder if Lone Ranger would be getting as much heat if it was called Mask of the Lone Ranger.

I said there were problems with Lone Ranger and the big one is the framing device they used, set in 1932 San Francisco where a little kid dressed as the Lone Ranger circa 1950 (because the Lone Ranger looked like this in 1932) goes into a wild west exhibit and in a diorama next to a stuffed buffalo is an elderly Tonto who is supposedly telling the kid this story. This framing device is bad. Bad, bad, bad. The movie would lose nothing but it's padded running time if it were cut. Well, it would lose one thing: Tonto begins his tale when he and the Ranger rob a bank. This is set up that pays off later when it's revealed why they are robbing a bank and what they actually take from the bank and why. This set up and pay off is pretty good, but it should have been achieved without this framing device because it still doesn't justify the annoying kid and the even more annoying elderly Tonto.

Despite what you may have heard that Armie Hammer's John Reid/Lone Ranger takes a back seat to Tonto, I think they're on fairly equal footing. Or maybe, the backstory is mostly Tonto while the current story is all about Reid. Hammer does a decent enough job as a guy who is in no way cut out for this kind of thing. I don't know if I'd call him a great talent or even memorable. He's a generic Hollywood handsome guy who's competent but nothing special.

But that could be because the script doesn't give him a lot to work with. He plays the bookish DA and brother to a Texas Ranger whose wife he still has a thing for and the feeling is mutual, and the brother knows it, so the dying wish "take care of her for me" is a shock to no one. More shocking is his death and resurrection with Tonto filling his head with mumbo jumbo about it not being possible for him to be killed and a white "spirit horse" that has a mind of its own, like Gus the wonder mule. All of this gets thrust upon him while he tries to get revenge for his brother by bringing the murder to justice like a good little DA until he learns how deep this corruption goes and why.

The elephant in the room is, naturally, Johnny Depp as Tonto. When I had first heard he was cast in the role, I rolled my eyes at how bad this was going to be. Then I saw the pictures of him in his make-up and I was dumbstruck because it looked even worse than I imagined. Finding out that this look is based on a painting really doesn't help how silly it looks. I don't care if Depp's claims to a Native American heritage are true or not. He's an American. Of course he has a little in him. Fuck, I'm part Seneca. A very small piece and I wouldn't even bother trying to pretend I could pass myself off as one in a fucking movie. Especially since there are no doubt tons, TONS of actors who are more than 1/32 Native American who could do the part.

The other problem with Depp is during the pre-release hype he said some stupid shit about redressing the injustices visited upon Native Americans by Jay Silverheels's portrayal of the character on TV.

Johnny Depp:
I started thinking about Tonto and what could be done in my own small way to...
"Eliminate" isn't possible - but reinvent the relationship, to attempt to take some of the ugliness thrown on the Native Americans, not only in The Lone Ranger, but the way Indians were treated throughout history of cinema, and turn it on its head.

Frankly, I found his portrayal to be just as racist as any. He spoke a kind of broken English that reminded me of the SNL skit As World Turn. I really didn't find it a very progressive portrayal.

That said, the quote above refers to the relationship between the Ranger and Tonto. I really don't know what their relationship used to be. I don't think I ever watched any reruns of the show. Maybe once when I was like five years old. Most I know about it comes from Bill Cosby. The gist, as I gather, is that Tonto acted like a manservant or employee. This works in Green Hornet, where Kato is literally his chauffeur. But how much does the Ranger pay Tonto? None of that is here. The Ranger and Tonto are largely equal who often work to cross purposes with one another. Twice the Ranger keeps him from killing a bad guy, only to regret it later. Most of Tonto's story takes place in flashback where he made a deal with the bad guys and they wiped out his village as a result. He's taken it into his head that the bad guys were mystical creatures and that a spirit walker, someone who comes back from the dead, will help him. So naturally when the Ranger comes back from the dead with the help of a mystical white horse-- long story-- , he assumes this is the guy, but is disappointed since he'd seen that guy in action during the opening action set piece and would have rather had the brother.

So, we got a lot of stuff working here is a plot of conspiracy and stuff, that really isn't hard to figure out how the big bad is when he first shows up on screen, but it's a decent enough plot that tied the origins of the Ranger and Tonto together, even though both stories are decades apart. Tonto's story had been going on for a long time and his sanity is questionable and he's just ready to finish it while the Ranger's story had just begun and he's not ready to do what needs to be done just yet and these two guys alternatively help each other and get in each others' way while learning just how deep this rabbit hole goes.

So, uh, yeah. As much as I wanted to hate this movie, I really couldn't find it in me to hate it. It's not a great movie, but I enjoyed it more than that fucking Superman movie. I guess it depends on whether you still think Mask of Zorro was any good, or if you think it would have been just as good without Antonio Banderas and Catherine Zeta Jones.

Geez, I must have bad taste in movies, because I actually liked this movie.

Funny thing, my dad was a fan of the original Lone Ranger, and he actually laughed at that bit in the end.

You do make some good points though, the whole cannibalism thing did seem somewhat pointless looking back, and I do wish the movie was a bit more consistent with it's mythical theme. Plus at that point, I guess Johhny Depp being the weird cooky guy was getting a little bit old.

I didn't think it was a bad movie though. I can't really see where most of the massive hate is coming from.

Pyrian:

wolf thing:
There have been other groups who don't like it, and I felt I should state so...

You should've stopped there.

wolf thing:

Pyrian:
I don't think the Comanche take on Johnny Depp playing a Comanche qualifies as cherry-picking.

Cherry picking refers to picking results or reactions and ignoring others to get across a point which is what Seldon2639 was doing, it might a bit of a hash use of the term as the largest groups are cool with depp as tonto but it is an example of it.

He didn't pick some random group just to make a point. Depp played a Comanche. Therefore, the Comanche get the first say. Arguably, they should also get the last say. Else I might argue that my own opinion is just as relevant, on account of being an Earthling, which Depp is clearly merely play-acting like, and poorly at that. ;)

I get that, it is their tribe and if they want someone to join they can, its good and im fine with that but i dont think that should stop other Native Americans from disagree, their point may matter less but we should still listen to them. I also cant help but think the Camanche being happy with Depp is because they have too and by exspting him will help their image in hollywood, not to mention a big name actor in there group would boost there image over all.

Still some people dont like depp, some do and many of them are more relevant to the discussion, but this all goes for little seeing as the film is apparently shite.

Disagree with Bob on only one point: if Hollywood only learned to stop casting white people as racial caricatures of non-white people, I would consider the most important lesson to have been successfully learned. There will always be bad movies, but there's nothing inevitable about that BS, and it's positively shameful that a TV show in 1950 could cast an actual native actor in the roll, but in 2013 we get a white dude in face paint, trying to justify it with the most cliche and insulting yuppie 'I think I might maybe be 1/16th native american' bologna, a line right up there with 'but some of my best friends are black' in terms of white liberal excuses & self justifications for pulling racist **** like this.

The Green Hornet being related to the Lone Ranger seems to make sense to me lol the similar costumes perhaps lol

Damn. I was hoping for a new movie like Pirates of the Carribean to be good :/

Aiddon:

RJ Dalton:
Other than being a spectacularly stupid name, does Eric Sachs mean anything in particular?

It's just a shitty attempt to Anglicize Shredder's REAL name which is Oroku Saki. Ugh, Michael Bay might be the most racially insensitive filmmaker in the world.

"real" remember creation by two kids going off movies and Daredevil comics. If it avoids issues of the yellow peril villain to make him white as you don't have to be asian to be a martial artist with evil minions FINE. good do that. I mean Ninjas in New York is *silly*

Its like hearing the turtles are aliens. Eh, whatever they aren't human so whatevs. Do they live in the sewers, taught ninjitsu (a mostly commercial and fictionalized idea) by dude cool fine we're there.

I even like the basic outline of this Lone Ranger Movie. Liminal weird west. Tonto acts like Tonto because he's Tonto not because he's Native American. The trailers emphasized this with him adopting death symbols to himself in his quest against a monsterman who slaughtered his people. And with all the race mixing and not ever Native american looking dark skinned and dark haired as a result I shrug at depp. The main issue is his OUTFIT (Okay its texas so barechest and the breastplate is like bones, cool, but no pants... uhm no .. NO)

I think The Lone Ranger opens new possibilities. Imagine Johny Depp playing Django in black mask in a future adaptation of the character. It would be so wacky.

I rather enjoyed this movie. Fun, silly, and entertaining. Oh well.

Makabriel:
And the throw a wrench in the racism in movies complaints: Will Smith's daughter is going to be little orphan Annie.
Chew on that.

...Wait what? Did After Earth teach us nothing?

Heh, next you want actor of Jack Bauer to be real life counter terrorist operative for him to be believable. I think it's dumb to complain about something actor is not in real life. That's why it's called acting.

You know what's funny? Johnny Depp got the native american's blessings on him playing the character, and better yet, they okayed the giant crow on his head because they actually do wear crow feathers on their heads, so they figured the whole thing would be okay since it's a flipping movie and not a damned documentary.

The only people calling it super racist and calling for a native american actor are fat white guys for some reason.

Google it. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/why-lone-rangers-johnny-depp-435652

Looks like the Depp-as-quirky-sidekick-who-steals-the-movie train is finally plunging off the exploding tracks into the deep gorge of I just ran out of ways to make that money shot from the trailer more analogous.

Anyway, you want to take an old property and revive it with a fun summer-blockbuster feel, you do it the way Martin Campbell did it with The Mask of Zorro. Despite having a serious plot about Mexican slave miners and revenge against a murderous military type, the movie was smart enough not to take itself or (most of) its main characters too seriously. And who doesn't love Anthony Hopkins dispensing wisdom to the bumbling rookie with potential?

An interesting side note about that 15-year-old gem: apparently several of the characters in the film, including Captain Love, Three-Fingered Jack and Zorro Jr's brother Joaquin Murrieta, were all modeled on real-life persons from the era of the California Gold Rush, right down to the dude keeping the head and the hand in jars.

Abomination:
Yeah but it's only okay if you're not white, apparently.

It's still "not cool" for white people to play characters who aren't white because not very long ago in film history, that exact same thing was done for the express purposes of keeping non-white people out of film. Sort of like the reason "nigger" is such a bad word yet "cracker" isn't is because "nigger" has a history of actually being used in the suppression of people. Cracker has no such historical baggage. So now, when society is okay with seeing black and asian and indian people on screen, it seems like a really crummy thing to do. It's the historical baggage of the idea of "whitewashing." Hollywood is still known for avoiding casting people who aren't white in major roles in which the race of the person doesn't matter, so to go ahead and give a role to a white person is just really insulting to all of the non-white actors out there.

And as a white person I also find it a bit insulting. Like really, Hollywood? You think I can't handle a few brown people on screen? Seriously?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5

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