Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The Hunger Games: Your imagination is racist and you should feel bad

adytumadytum Registered User regular
edited March 2012 in Debate and/or Discourse
:bz TehSpectre's Amazing OP Because TumTum is a Negative Nelly :bz

dws74y.jpg





tomatoa.jpg



katnissc.jpg peeta.jpg galez.jpg haymitch.jpg

hungergamesmovieeffietr.png cinnar.jpg snowkq.jpg senecaz.jpg ceasarr.jpg claudius.jpg

marvels.jpg glimmer2.jpg catoz.jpg clove.jpg thresh.jpg rueek.jpg



Synopsis

In Suzanne Collins’ riveting tale of life in North America after its destruction, a powerful Capitol emerges as residents of its twelve outlying Districts individually struggle to survive under its bleak rule. Living under the constant reminder that the Capitol obliterated District 13 when the people incited a rebellion decades before, 16-year old Katniss Everdeen quietly carves out a path of meager survival for herself, her younger sister, Prim, and their widowed mother under the Capitol’s strict regime.

Each year, the Capitol assembles its Gamemakers to create an elaborate arena filled with deadly trigger points and calls upon one girl and one boy from each of the twelve Districts to play in its nationally televised Hunger Games. On the Day of Reaping when 24 children are selected to fight to the death, Katniss is whisked away from her daily quest for survival alongside her friend Gale, and thrust into the elaborate Capital as she is prepared for the Hunger Games.


USA TODAY wrote:
'Hunger Games' devours the competition at box office
By Scott Bowles, USA TODAY


The Hunger Games thundered to the third best debut in history this weekend, with $155 million, charging the box office and launching a franchise that could challenge the Twilight series.

Hunger's haul exceeded most analysts' highest expectations and marked a huge opening for a first-time film. Of the two films with bigger debuts, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2 ($169.1 million) and The Dark Knight ($158 million), both are sequels.

The film, based on Suzanne Collins' popular trilogy and starring Jennifer Lawrence, broke from the gate at midnight Friday, earning $19.7 million and seventh place in the all-time midnight screening record books. Hallows remains the runaway champ, collecting $43.5 million in its midnight shows last year.

Still, Hunger mustered plenty to score the highest debut on record for March, besting Alice in Wonderland's $116.1 million.

Gitesh Pandya of Boxofficeguru says that teen fans of the 2008 novel propelled the hit. "A massive built-in audience has been hungry for this movie," he says.

In the long run, Pandya says, the Hunger trilogy could challenge the Twilight series by appealing to both genders.

"One major difference is that (Hunger) has more male appeal," he says, adding that distributor Lionsgate "has been emphasizing the action in its male-skewing TV spots, and the romance is a minor part of the story, anyway."

Males and females responded strongly to the film, promising a healthy run through March and much of April. A whopping 95% of moviegoers recommended the movie, according to survey site Rottentomatoes.com. Critics weren't far behind; 86% of reviewers gave it a thumbs-up, the site says.

The studio plans to release part two, Catching Fire, on Nov. 22, 2013. While details haven't been finalized on future installments, analysts say at least a three-part series is inevitable.

Hunger "is the first true event film of 2012," says Tim Briody of Boxofficeprophets.com. "This is largely unprecedented for any franchise, much less a new one. It's the sort of behavior you'd expect from a sequel, not the first entry in an unproven series."Hunger's numbers came despite the Sweet 16 tournament games of the NCAA basketball championship.

No studio challenged Hunger this weekend, leaving the top of the box office to holdovers.

The remake comedy 21 Jump Street took second with $21.3 million, followed by The Lorax with $13.1 million.

John Carter, the $250 million sci-fi flop, was fourth with $5 million. The fantasy film has done $62.3 million in three weeks.

The action film Act of Valor rounded out the top five with $2.1 million.

Hunger helped propel movie attendance to 22% over the same period last year.

Final figures are due Monday.




Here are my thoughts, from the film thread:
I disagree completely with a previous forumer's assessment of The Hunger Games. It was, in just about every way, superior to the book. Granted, that's not a very high hurdle to clear.

Many of the terrible parts of the film were where they tried to adapt important scenes from the book, or used exposition to detail irrelevant background information. Some of the references to the book were out-of-the-blue; for instance, they start referring to a character (Foxface) with her nickname from the book with no discussion or explanation; they should have just referred to her as "the redhead".

They managed to rewrite the two worst parts of the book into something decent, but inexplicably mangled the direction of the final, climactic battle. They nailed the emotion of most of the scenes with Katniss, but because they didn't introduce or give background information on any of the non-main characters, some of their scenes fell completely flat. In particular, Foxface and Thresh. Why would anyone care about a character that's had less than 30 seconds of screen time and no spoken lines?

The camerawork, lighting, and scene design were all well done, and the direction was above-average for most of the film, with a few minor quibbles. The acting was outstanding. I wish they would have used less CGI (do you really need to use CGI for smoke coming out of a chimney? C'mon!), but such is the state of the industry.

Overall a decent effort. I award it a resounding three and a half meh's out of five.


And some other lolpinions from fellow PAers:

The Good
Spoiler:

The Bad
Spoiler:

What are your thoughts?

16o461.jpg

adytum on
etxvv5.jpg
«13456721

Posts

  • TehSpectreTehSpectre Ragamuffin Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    There are some spoilers in there, Tum.

    Specifically Bagginses' comment about
    Spoiler:

    TehSpectre on
    efsx.jpg
  • RT800RT800 Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    Haven't seen the movie. Waiting for the crowds to die down.

    Read the books though. They were alright I guess.
    Spoiler:

    That's some hype machine they got goin' there though.

    RT800 on
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    Don't want to see the movie. Can't get over mental hurdle of kids killing kids with knives and arrows.

    Angryspider2_zps663851d1.jpg
  • Casually HardcoreCasually Hardcore Registered User regular
    Whoever thought shaky cam was a good idea needs to fucking die.

    4 inches away from a face, shaking like a crazy bear! YOU CAN'T SEE A THING!

    steam_sig.png
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Don't want to see the movie. Can't get over mental hurdle of kids killing kids with knives and arrows.
    Spoiler:

    For some reason it sort of felt like the movie had less hopelessness to it
    Spoiler:
    but I'm not sure if that was in the book or filled out by my imagination. Getting around that by showing kids killing each other worked I guess.

    I thought that subversive actions against the Central district would get a little play.
    Spoiler:

    But I guess all those things wouldn't translate easily to a two hour movie, so I'm more than willing to forgive it. It was definitely worth my ticket price thought, and I'm very interested to see how they handle the rest of the series.

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    A movie about teens having sex with each other - banned in almost all theaters, NC-17 rating.
    A movie about teens stabbing each other until only one remains - playing in all theaters, PG-13 rating.

    AMERICA!

    Angryspider2_zps663851d1.jpg
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    Those are some massive, unmarked spoilers in the OP.

    Also, I think the book is slightly better than the film, but the film did an excellent job of conveying the important aspects of the story.

    steam_sig.png
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    emnmnme wrote: »
    A movie about teens having sex with each other - banned in almost all theaters, NC-17 rating.

    I think the idea is that only people old enough to go "wtf is this drivel" see it.

    Cantido on
    steam_sig.png
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    A movie about teens having sex with each other - banned in almost all theaters, NC-17 rating.
    A movie about teens stabbing each other until only one remains - playing in all theaters, PG-13 rating.

    AMERICA!

    I saw a ton of what looked to be elementary and middle-school kids in the audience, and at least one younger child. It was weird.

    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Dudes you realize the Hunger Games are youth novels and thus the films will be aimed at a youth audience? It's not that weird to see kids in the audience I should think. Not like when I saw AVP Requiem and the theatre was filled with children at 11pm.

    We're more sqwicked out by sex than violence in the US, this shouldn't be new or shocking information.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    Dudes you realize the Hunger Games are youth novels and thus the films will be aimed at a youth audience?

    That is exactly why we need The Hobbit to come out yesterday.

    Cantido on
    steam_sig.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Cantido wrote: »
    Dudes you realize the Hunger Games are youth novels and thus the films will be aimed at a youth audience?

    That is exactly why we need The Hobbit to come out yesterday.

    :^:

    Lh96QHG.png
  • ueanuean Registered User regular
    Whoever thought shaky cam was a good idea needs to fucking die.

    4 inches away from a face, shaking like a crazy bear! YOU CAN'T SEE A THING!

    I saw this opening night. Guess which seat I got.

    <front row> BARFS ALL OVER FLOOR </front row>

    Guys? Hay guys?
    steam_sig.png
  • ueanuean Registered User regular
    Also, there were a couple kids in the audience who looked to be about 8 years old, dressed up as characters from the books. One kid runs in, cape on, with a bow and draws an arrow threateningly at the audience. Next kid comes running in, wearing coveralls, heaving a loaf of french bread over his head and starts fighting the arrow kid.

    Many LOLs were had.

    Guys? Hay guys?
    steam_sig.png
  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    uean wrote: »
    Whoever thought shaky cam was a good idea needs to fucking die.

    4 inches away from a face, shaking like a crazy bear! YOU CAN'T SEE A THING!

    I saw this opening night. Guess which seat I got.

    <front row> BARFS ALL OVER FLOOR </front row>

    Haha, slightly off topic but it made me think of #30 on this 'if movie posters were accurate' thing.

    http://www.listal.com/list/more-truth

    Erik
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    Ego wrote: »
    uean wrote: »
    Whoever thought shaky cam was a good idea needs to fucking die.

    4 inches away from a face, shaking like a crazy bear! YOU CAN'T SEE A THING!

    I saw this opening night. Guess which seat I got.

    <front row> BARFS ALL OVER FLOOR </front row>

    Haha, slightly off topic but it made me think of #30 on this 'if movie posters were accurate' thing.

    http://www.listal.com/list/more-truth

    Oh my god.

    steam_sig.png
  • TehSpectreTehSpectre Ragamuffin Registered User regular
    New OP for Adytum? <3
    Spoiler:

    efsx.jpg
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    Ego wrote: »
    uean wrote: »
    Whoever thought shaky cam was a good idea needs to fucking die.

    4 inches away from a face, shaking like a crazy bear! YOU CAN'T SEE A THING!

    I saw this opening night. Guess which seat I got.

    <front row> BARFS ALL OVER FLOOR </front row>

    Haha, slightly off topic but it made me think of #30 on this 'if movie posters were accurate' thing.

    http://www.listal.com/list/more-truth

    I...can't look away D:

    steam_sig.png
  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    Drez wrote: »
    Ego wrote: »
    uean wrote: »
    Whoever thought shaky cam was a good idea needs to fucking die.

    4 inches away from a face, shaking like a crazy bear! YOU CAN'T SEE A THING!

    I saw this opening night. Guess which seat I got.

    <front row> BARFS ALL OVER FLOOR </front row>

    Haha, slightly off topic but it made me think of #30 on this 'if movie posters were accurate' thing.

    http://www.listal.com/list/more-truth

    Oh my god.

    It REALLY captures the shaky-cam, doesn't it? Maybe there's an actual shaky-cam filter people are just slapping on clips during the editing process.

    Erik
  • adytumadytum Registered User regular
    There were really no spoilers up there unless you hadn't like.. seen the trailer.. but whatevs. Fixed.

    etxvv5.jpg
  • UnbreakableVowUnbreakableVow YRP...in position It's showtime, girls.Registered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    A movie about teens having sex with each other - banned in almost all theaters, NC-17 rating.
    A movie about teens stabbing each other until only one remains - playing in all theaters, PG-13 rating.

    AMERICA!

    Kids are more likely to emulate sexual acts than they would barbaric killings, especially with the killings conveyed in a negative light as they are in the film.

    So yes, AMERICA! But in a good way.

    kTNzrVi.png?2
    Disasterrific! | Sometimes I stream PS4 games here | PSN: UnbreakableVow
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    A movie about teens having sex with each other - banned in almost all theaters, NC-17 rating.
    A movie about teens stabbing each other until only one remains - playing in all theaters, PG-13 rating.

    AMERICA!

    Kids are more likely to emulate sexual acts than they would barbaric killings, especially with the killings conveyed in a negative light as they are in the film.

    So yes, AMERICA! But in a good way.

    Her is a total non-spoilery hint for you: Teenagers want and have sex. Even in AMERICA.

    Pretending that if you stop them from watching a movie about it will somehow make the above spoiler not come true is stupid. It won't even make it more likely, because 99% of teenagers fit the above description.

    In other news: Saw the movie last night, going in blind without having read the books. I thought it was good. I get the Battle Royale comparisons, but how people missed the Theseus and the Crete Labyrinth and Reality show influences where beyond me. I have Battle Royale on DVD and it would not have been my first go to for cries of "copycat". The Running Man maybe.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    I was invited to the premier. Me & the gf walked out about 1.40h in....it wasn't entirely related to the quality to the movie, but I didn't feel like we missed anything. It's really not very good. Not well shot, not well acted, not well accented as far as I was concerned.

  • TehSpectreTehSpectre Ragamuffin Registered User regular
    zeeny wrote: »
    I was invited to the premier. Me & the gf walked out about 1.40h in....it wasn't entirely related to the quality to the movie, but I didn't feel like we missed anything. It's really not very good. Not well shot, not well acted, not well accented as far as I was concerned.
    These opinions go against everything everyone ever is saying.

    i dont even


    Explain how the acting or the cinematography was bad.

    efsx.jpg
  • flamebroiledchickenflamebroiledchicken Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    I feel like the movie didn't have a lot of emotional resonance for a story about children ritualistically slaughtering one another for sport. I realize that this is aimed at teens, is PG-13, is not Battle Royale, but it should have been somewhat unsettling. It all felt too polished, safe, lazy. I don't think there was enough context or background given to establish just how poor and miserable life in the outlying Districts is, which dulls the theme of class struggle which is so central to the series. The Capitol comes off as cartoonish and comical instead of tyrannical. I dunno, this is a story which could have been a great movie, but this was a merely adequate take on it.

    Edit: I thought the acting was mostly good, but the cinematography was definitely terrible. It was all either shaky-cam or completely unimaginative.

    flamebroiledchicken on
  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    TehSpectre wrote: »
    zeeny wrote: »
    I was invited to the premier. Me & the gf walked out about 1.40h in....it wasn't entirely related to the quality to the movie, but I didn't feel like we missed anything. It's really not very good. Not well shot, not well acted, not well accented as far as I was concerned.
    These opinions go against everything everyone ever is saying.

    i dont even


    Explain how the acting or the cinematography was bad.

    I didn't like the close ups, I didn't like the shaky cam, but more than both, I didn't like the near constant angle change.
    I found almost any action scene very, very hard to take seriously. Every time the characters were forced to make a combat move or to pick up something supposed to be a weapon, I was annoyed with the exaggerated movements.
    Fuck, I didn't find their running convincing.
    The male lead had a very nice almost constant "I'm serious because I got my wrinkled face on", no matter what he was saying. I want to say that the actors seem disinterested in their own roles and deliveries...but maybe it was just the dialogue?
    Good for all those people that like it! Maybe the film simply doesn't work for me!(I'm not a fan of the books either, so I didn't enter the theater with high hopes...entirely possible I had negative preconceptions before even walking in)

    Edit: Post above said "lazy". Oh, I'm so down with that word to describe it. It's the word I'd use for that film from now on.

    zeeny on
  • HeisenbergHeisenberg Registered User regular
    TehSpectre wrote: »
    zeeny wrote: »
    I was invited to the premier. Me & the gf walked out about 1.40h in....it wasn't entirely related to the quality to the movie, but I didn't feel like we missed anything. It's really not very good. Not well shot, not well acted, not well accented as far as I was concerned.
    These opinions go against everything everyone ever is saying.

    i dont even


    Explain how the acting or the cinematography was bad.

    The cinematography was awful. Everything was zoomed in way too much all the time and the shakycam was shakier than Bourne or Cloverfield. I was nauseous and had eye strain leaving the theater. The acting was fine aside from the kids in the games that weren't Katniss, peeta, or rue.

    I would have walked out if someone told me before going in that the super zoom cinematography lasts through the whole movie.

  • MalReynoldsMalReynolds The Hunter S Thompson of incredibly mild medicines Registered User regular
    I feel like the movie didn't have a lot of emotional resonance for a story about children ritualistically slaughtering one another for sport. I realize that this is aimed at teens, is PG-13, is not Battle Royale, but it should have been somewhat unsettling. It all felt too polished, safe, lazy. I don't think there was enough context or background given to establish just how poor and miserable life in the outlying Districts is, which dulls the theme of class struggle which is so central to the series. The Capitol comes off as cartoonish and comical instead of tyrannical. I dunno, this is a story which could have been a great movie, but this was a merely adequate take on it.

    Edit: I thought the acting was mostly good, but the cinematography was definitely terrible. It was all either shaky-cam or completely unimaginative.

    My theater seemed genuinely upset during the bloodbath at the beginning of the Game. There were several audible gasps and 'Oh my Gods,' and it was the one time I found the shaky cam to be genuinely effective. It let the audience see the horrific shit that was happening without showing 12 year olds getting run through with swords. Except when it did show that.

    I also liked
    Spoiler:

    "A new take on the epic fantasy genre... Darkly comic, relatable characters... twisted storyline."
    "Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor
    My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    Also I spent the entire movie and most of the morning going, "Is that Lenny Kravitz?"

    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    That is what you get when you try to portray R-rated bloodbath in PG-13. 15 years ago, it would have been R and kids would have gone to see it anyway. These days its PG-13 all the way and we get shaky cam deaths.

    Thank you Steven Spielberg and Joseph Lieberman.

    (Spielberg for suggesting a PG-13 rating and Lieberman for making it illegal to market R rated movies to teens).

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • TehSpectreTehSpectre Ragamuffin Registered User regular
    Malkor wrote: »
    Also I spent the entire movie and most of the morning going, "Is that Lenny Kravitz?"
    He's certainly a batter actor than singer.

    Who knew?

    efsx.jpg
  • Mojo_JojoMojo_Jojo Crushing pussy; Marry a man Registered User regular
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    That is what you get when you try to portray R-rated bloodbath in PG-13. 15 years ago, it would have been R and kids would have gone to see it anyway. These days its PG-13 all the way and we get shaky cam deaths.

    Thank you Steven Spielberg and Joseph Lieberman.

    (Spielberg for suggesting a PG-13 rating and Lieberman for making it illegal to market R rated movies to teens).

    Err, no? It's based on a book aimed at the young teen market.

    Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
  • Alucard6986Alucard6986 Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    Demographically speaking, yes, it should be pg13.

    But as per the actual content of the movie and being able to portray it in a more cohesive and clean manner, R would be better.

    It's not that it "wasn't gory enough," more that it was just really hard to tell what was going on whenever things got too shaky.

    Alucard6986 on
    Xbl/psn: Ubeltanzer 3ds fc: 3110-4333-1117 max pokemon: marceline
  • flamebroiledchickenflamebroiledchicken Registered User regular
    I feel like the movie didn't have a lot of emotional resonance for a story about children ritualistically slaughtering one another for sport. I realize that this is aimed at teens, is PG-13, is not Battle Royale, but it should have been somewhat unsettling. It all felt too polished, safe, lazy. I don't think there was enough context or background given to establish just how poor and miserable life in the outlying Districts is, which dulls the theme of class struggle which is so central to the series. The Capitol comes off as cartoonish and comical instead of tyrannical. I dunno, this is a story which could have been a great movie, but this was a merely adequate take on it.

    Edit: I thought the acting was mostly good, but the cinematography was definitely terrible. It was all either shaky-cam or completely unimaginative.

    My theater seemed genuinely upset during the bloodbath at the beginning of the Game. There were several audible gasps and 'Oh my Gods,' and it was the one time I found the shaky cam to be genuinely effective. It let the audience see the horrific shit that was happening without showing 12 year olds getting run through with swords. Except when it did show that.

    I also liked
    Spoiler:

    That's funny, people in my theater actually CHEERED after one of the deaths.
    Spoiler:

    which disturbed me far more than anything in the actual movie.

  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    Mojo_Jojo wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    That is what you get when you try to portray R-rated bloodbath in PG-13. 15 years ago, it would have been R and kids would have gone to see it anyway. These days its PG-13 all the way and we get shaky cam deaths.

    Thank you Steven Spielberg and Joseph Lieberman.

    (Spielberg for suggesting a PG-13 rating and Lieberman for making it illegal to market R rated movies to teens).

    Err, no? It's based on a book aimed at the young teen market.

    I am aware that its based on a book. THE MOVIE on the other hand has to show the violence and what would be youth oriented fiction on the page is R-rated violence on screen.

    The movie chooses to show it with shaky cam in order to get a pg-13 rating. Which in years passed would have shot as a R-rated movie and shown to teens anyways. Halloween, Nightmare on Elm street, Scream where all R rated movies marketed to teen audiences.

    With the PG-13 rating movies get water down in order to be released to a teen audience. This was not the case in times passed.

    The movie art form has suffered as a result, we get gobs of movies with water down violence getting pg-13 and hysterical R is a kid says fuck more then once.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • TheBlackWindTheBlackWind Registered User regular
    The book is from a first-person perspective, and I felt like shaky cam emulated that well. I didnt mind it at all, and it's not like I'm a fan of the technique.

    Steady cams would have put this straight in R territory. As it was, there was a lot of "oh my god" in my theater.

    The change of perspective gives me hope that the movies could actually improve on the sequels. Would be awesome.

    Pokemon Black FC: 0518-7386-3511
    Pokemon Black 2: 0519-5108-3139
  • TehSpectreTehSpectre Ragamuffin Registered User regular
    To be fair, if you are going to cheer, that would be the best time.

    efsx.jpg
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    They did that in my theater for
    Spoiler:

    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • TehSpectreTehSpectre Ragamuffin Registered User regular
    Malkor wrote: »
    They did that in my theater for
    Spoiler:

    That's a little more fucked up.

    efsx.jpg
  • Alucard6986Alucard6986 Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    also I'd definitely fall into the camp of saying it was too similar to the books, if anything. It just felt like they were trying to speed through all the major scenes/plot points and keep it at a reasonable (though still long) run time, robbing a lot of moments of their significance in the process
    Spoiler:
    .

    It's not as bad as say, watchmen, but similarly it's just too straight of an adaptation to be an enjoyable movie in its own right.

    Alucard6986 on
    Xbl/psn: Ubeltanzer 3ds fc: 3110-4333-1117 max pokemon: marceline
«13456721
Sign In or Register to comment.