Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: Excellence in Practical Effects

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings >> RE: Excellence in Practical Effects Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 13/4/2012 12:14:34 AM   
Spaldron


Posts: 10485
Joined: 6/10/2006
From: Chair
quote:

ORIGINAL: superdan


quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nexus Wookie

Also, out of the two SFX powerhouses, ILM and WETA, i'd have to say that ILM are just a step ahead of the chasing pack. Some of there CGI work over the years has been excellent.


I'd have to disagree with this point, pretty much all the best and most groundbreaking CGI in the last decade have come from WETA bar a few exceptions.


They're also guilty of some pretty shoddy work too though.


Absolutely, one that comes to mind is the Dino stampede in King Kong, rubbish. But most of their output has been superb imo.

_____________________________

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts
And I looked and behold, a pale horse
And his name that sat on him was Death
And Hell followed with him.

(in reply to superdan)
Post #: 91
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 13/4/2012 6:10:43 AM   
Gimli The Dwarf


Posts: 78118
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Central Park Zoo

quote:

ORIGINAL: great_badir

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron
Pretty much anything Andy Serkis has done, from Gollum to Caesar has been the best examples of living and breathing CGI creatures or persons.


I will agree that this has given the CGI character. But it still looks like CGI. The only difference is it's CGI with a heart. But it still doesn't look anywhere near as real as good pratical effects from 30-odd years ago. Because they are real (in that they are there and in that space and time with the actors, or whatever) and made with tangible things. CGI isn't.


Any specifically? Only because I often have the same problem with models etc as you do with CGI in as much as they look like practical effects, and am having trouble thinking of practical effects that obviously don't seem to be.

_____________________________

So, sir, we let him have it right up! And I have to report, sir, he did not like it, sir.

Fellow scientists, poindexters, geeks.

Yeah, Mr. White! Yeah, science!

Much more better!

(in reply to great_badir)
Post #: 92
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 13/4/2012 12:41:25 PM   
great_badir


Posts: 4662
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: A breaking rope bridge in the middle of the jungle
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gimli The Dwarf
Any specifically?


The Thing and Jaws have already been mentioned a few times. Aliens and Alien 3 (purposely leaving out Alien [a masterpiece though it is, it's obviously a man in a suit and, once you get over the initial shock of "that scene", the baby alien, I think, is actually quite comical], and Alien 3 does suffer from the odd matte lines nightmare). I'm also thinking good model, miniature and super-imposing work in the likes of Temple of Doom, Close Encounters and Blade Runner. I have to say pretty much all the effects in 2001 still stand up to scrutiny now, in my opinion - even the monkey suits, thanks to the "Andy Serkis but for real" attention paid to the physical performances. Speaking of monkeys, absolutely appalling though the film is, Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes has some sterling practical work in it, compared with the awful CGI in the same film and the "good, but still obviously CGI" CGI in (the otherwise billion times better) Rise of...

Hell, matte lines be damned, I think Ray Harryhausen's stop motion work from 60 years ago looks better and more realistic than 99% of CGI being used now.

And, yes, before anyone points out, for every one of the examples I've listed above, I acknowledge that there is at least one Jaws 3. My point is that, in comparison, for my money there are a lot fewer examples of good CGI. Or perhaps I should say CGI which looks real.


_____________________________

FAVE FILMS
BO BOMBS

(in reply to Gimli The Dwarf)
Post #: 93
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 13/4/2012 1:25:28 PM   
DONOVAN KURTWOOD


Posts: 9314
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: PLANET G
I dont think one is better than the other. I agree with DPP in that if done well, both can be amazing. I'm a big fan of CG and a big fan of practical. I even really like The Scorpion King from The Mummy Returns, the 'worst CGI ever' as most would say, although its more of a design preference, but i can tolerate it. Van Helsing is one of my favourite guilty pleasures, and most, if not all people seem to loathe the CG in that. I recognise CG as the natural progression from Harryhausen's old techniques (which i have always loved). Basically i'm more interested in seeing cool/ amazing things realised on screen, and less bothered with how they do it.

I do think in this day and age though there is little excuse for poor CG in a new film, unless of course its a budget/ time issue, which it usually is.

A recent example i'd like to cite is The Thing remake. It's not that i minded the CG, it's just that i really disliked the fact that they'd covered over the amazing practical work that had been done on set (visible in behind the scenes footage). Those creations looked amazing, and to my eyes, the CG was not nearly as effective. Sure it allowed more freedom of movement, but it looked worse than the practical FX. We;d been promised a combination of both techniques, but what we got was a Director who didn't/ was too afraid to stand up to the Studio and a movie that looks worse off for it.

Peter Jacksons King Kong has some of my alltime favourite FX, all of the FX in that movie (bar a few compositing issues of live actors into CG/ model environments) look amazing to me. Despite it having some of the most suspect compositing in the whole movie, the dino stampede sequence is actually one of my alltime favourite action scenes.

I'd like to add that the CG in Prometheus looks jaw dropping. Particularly the thing in that guys eye.

_____________________________

Pack your bags, we're going on a guilt trip!

(in reply to great_badir)
Post #: 94
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 13/4/2012 1:32:59 PM   
DancingClown


Posts: 4310
Joined: 8/1/2006
From: The Lot
Here are a few of my favourite 'old-school' practical effects:

The twister from Wizard of Oz - simple yet brilliant and still convincing seventy-odd years later.




The 'nightmare hallway' sequence in one of my favourite movies, Poltergeist - again, a simple technique but used brilliantly.




The 'breathing door' from The Haunting (1963) - CLICKY


And say what you will about the film I just love the giant space-scorpion - aka The Dark Overlord - from Howard The Duck.



_____________________________

Astronomic Tune Boy

'The town knew darkness, and darkness was enough.'

"Storm just bleeewwww me away..."

(in reply to great_badir)
Post #: 95
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 13/4/2012 2:15:10 PM   
matty_b


Posts: 14582
Joined: 19/10/2005
From: Outpost 31 calling McMurtle.
Yeah, that tornado in Wizard of Oz still freaks me out today.

One shot that still really impresses me is in the original King Kong, and it's that long shot of Kong climbing up the Empire State Building - amazing stuff, really.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze
Mattyb is a shining example of what the perfect Empire Forum member is.


(in reply to DancingClown)
Post #: 96
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 13/4/2012 3:00:37 PM   
directorscut


Posts: 10891
Joined: 30/9/2005
The flooding scene in The Rains Came is still breathtaking:





_____________________________



Member of the TMNT 1000 Club.

(in reply to matty_b)
Post #: 97
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 13/4/2012 9:33:06 PM   
timmytwotimes

 

Posts: 2
Joined: 1/5/2008
Always loved the grotesque practical effects in From Beyond (1986) and seeing it again recently reaffirmed it... I would post a screen shot but I'm seemingly incapable, grrr

(in reply to directorscut)
Post #: 98
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 14/4/2012 5:48:31 AM   
Gimli The Dwarf


Posts: 78118
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Central Park Zoo

quote:

ORIGINAL: great_badir

The Thing and Jaws have already been mentioned a few times. Aliens and Alien 3 (purposely leaving out Alien [a masterpiece though it is, it's obviously a man in a suit and, once you get over the initial shock of "that scene", the baby alien, I think, is actually quite comical], and Alien 3 does suffer from the odd matte lines nightmare). I'm also thinking good model, miniature and super-imposing work in the likes of Temple of Doom, Close Encounters and Blade Runner. I have to say pretty much all the effects in 2001 still stand up to scrutiny now, in my opinion - even the monkey suits, thanks to the "Andy Serkis but for real" attention paid to the physical performances. Speaking of monkeys, absolutely appalling though the film is, Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes has some sterling practical work in it, compared with the awful CGI in the same film and the "good, but still obviously CGI" CGI in (the otherwise billion times better) Rise of...

Hell, matte lines be damned, I think Ray Harryhausen's stop motion work from 60 years ago looks better and more realistic than 99% of CGI being used now.

And, yes, before anyone points out, for every one of the examples I've listed above, I acknowledge that there is at least one Jaws 3. My point is that, in comparison, for my money there are a lot fewer examples of good CGI. Or perhaps I should say CGI which looks real.



I agree about the model work in Close Encounters etc. That stuff's frequently amazing but creature-wise, I just find it very hit and miss. To me, The Thing looks no less like a model than The Scorpion King looks like CGI. Of a better quality by far, very much real in their construction but still obviously not reality. Same goes for Jaws and the brilliant Harryhausen creations. Only rarely, the Rex in Jurassic Park and Alien 3 (I had forgotten that one) do I find creatures look so good I can forget they are practical effects. And the same happens with CGI too, but when they work out well they just tend to look just as good as the best practical stuff and a whole lot better than most of the rest. Again the T-Rex or Davy Jones, Serkis' Kong and the Balrog,. Interaction with real actors might look squiffy at times, but in making the impossible look like it might actually exist, I just find them hard to beat.

_____________________________

So, sir, we let him have it right up! And I have to report, sir, he did not like it, sir.

Fellow scientists, poindexters, geeks.

Yeah, Mr. White! Yeah, science!

Much more better!

(in reply to great_badir)
Post #: 99
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 15/4/2012 3:41:23 PM   
Dpp1978


Posts: 1168
Joined: 2/4/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: great_badir

The Thing and Jaws have already been mentioned a few times. Aliens and Alien 3 (purposely leaving out Alien [a masterpiece though it is, it's obviously a man in a suit and, once you get over the initial shock of "that scene", the baby alien, I think, is actually quite comical], and Alien 3 does suffer from the odd matte lines nightmare). I'm also thinking good model, miniature and super-imposing work in the likes of Temple of Doom, Close Encounters and Blade Runner. I have to say pretty much all the effects in 2001 still stand up to scrutiny now, in my opinion - even the monkey suits, thanks to the "Andy Serkis but for real" attention paid to the physical performances. Speaking of monkeys, absolutely appalling though the film is, Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes has some sterling practical work in it, compared with the awful CGI in the same film and the "good, but still obviously CGI" CGI in (the otherwise billion times better) Rise of...


You use some of the very cream of old school effects to make your point. 2001, Close Encounters and Blade Runner were all supervised by Doug Trumbull, who is one of the great visionaries in visual effects. His website has some really good stuff about the history of effects and his vision for it in the future.

Some of the miniature shots in Temple of Doom were quite poor: I'm thinking in particular some of the mine cart chase.

quote:

Hell, matte lines be damned, I think Ray Harryhausen's stop motion work from 60 years ago looks better and more realistic than 99% of CGI being used now.


Really?

I love Harryhausen's stuff as much as anyone but it isn't remotely realistic. It is really not much more advanced as far as technique goes than King Kong. By the time he made Clash of the Titans it was very outdated. The matte lines are the least of the issues as far as realism goes.

1933 Kong is an awesome film, far better than the remakes, but anyone who says the ape in the original is more realistic than the ape in the 2005 Peter Jackson film is looking through very thick nostalgia glasses. The ape was the best thing about the Peter Jackson film; one of the best creature effects ever made. I wonder if they spent so much time and effort getting him right they let much of the rest of the film slide.

quote:

And, yes, before anyone points out, for every one of the examples I've listed above, I acknowledge that there is at least one Jaws 3. My point is that, in comparison, for my money there are a lot fewer examples of good CGI. Or perhaps I should say CGI which looks real.



if I put my critical head on I can pick holes in the examples you've given for good practical effects as to why they don't look entirely "real". In 2001 the shots of Earth are obviously paintings. The lens flares in Blade Runner are spherical when the rest of the shoot was anamorphic. I've already mentioned the Temple of Doom shots.

You praise the Aliens in Aliens: have you seen how crappy the costumes look in real life? they are basically unitards with a few bits of foam latex stuck on, and a fibreglass headpiece. But properly lit and seen through the lens of a camera they are entirely convincing. My brother's friend worked on Prometheus and she said the spacesuits looked cartoony. From the footage I've seen they look anything but. Was she wrong or is something else going on?

If you are looking for "real" the cinema, or perhaps photography in general, is one of the worst places to look. Black and white films don't look real, nor do those who undergo any sort of colour grading. Camera lenses often magnify, skew and distort the image in a way our eyes never could. Film and/or digital sensors react to light differently to our eyes so "see" in a different way to how we see. None of this matters unless our suspension of disbelief is broken.

A bad effect can do that. A bad model shot or an unconvincing man in a suit looks just as bad as a bad CG element. I believe good CG matches or exceeds what can be done with a purely practical effect. The best uses of CG have something real as a reference point.

To paraphrase Mr Kurtwood, I don't care how it is done as long as it looks good. Looking good is not necessarily the same as looking real.

(in reply to great_badir)
Post #: 100
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 16/4/2012 1:29:22 PM   
great_badir


Posts: 4662
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: A breaking rope bridge in the middle of the jungle
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
A bad model shot or an unconvincing man in a suit looks just as bad as a bad CG element.


But that's my point - to me and my eyes (as I said all along, this is just my opinion) an unconvincing man in a suit looks a million times better than some of the best CGI because the man in the suit is, at least, there.

Oh, and when I mentioned Aliens, I was actually referring more to the queen and the facehuggers, and the miniature work.

So yeah - practical MUCH better than computer...

...cough1978 King Kongcough

< Message edited by great_badir -- 16/4/2012 1:48:03 PM >


_____________________________

FAVE FILMS
BO BOMBS

(in reply to Dpp1978)
Post #: 101
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 19/4/2012 10:45:27 PM   
DazDaMan


Posts: 10109
Joined: 8/9/2006
From: Penicuik - a right shithole
The 1976 Kong? Really?

_____________________________

You fucking fuckers are gonna do what I say or I'm going to stick my foot so far up your assholes you'll rue the day you crawled out of your mother's twat!

(in reply to great_badir)
Post #: 102
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 20/4/2012 10:09:26 AM   
NCC1701A


Posts: 4488
Joined: 12/3/2011
From: Space Dock
Star Trek II: The wrath of khan
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
Poltergeist

_____________________________

Trench: I'll be back.

Church: You've been back enough. I'll be back.

[leaves]

Trench: Yippee-ki-yay.


The Expendables 2 (2012)

(in reply to DazDaMan)
Post #: 103
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 20/4/2012 10:38:20 AM   
williamsmith518

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 20/4/2012
There's that shot where Grant & Malcolm are looking up at at the T-Rex from their car and the head is practical, and then the camera pans down to windcsreen level and the shot of the Rex moving towards the other car is CGI. The transition is flawless and for me it's one of the best special effects shots ever. So while I understand the compulsion to deify practical effects (and as a movie-child of the 80s I adore practical effects) I think it's a little unfair to dismiss the CGI in this case. It was groundbreaking. But as is almost the case with pioneering others ran with it and overused it and fucked it up.

-------------------------------------
[URL=http://www.travestibestmodel.net/]Travesti[/URL]

(in reply to OPEN YOUR EYES)
Post #: 104
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 20/4/2012 10:54:00 AM   
DancingClown


Posts: 4310
Joined: 8/1/2006
From: The Lot

quote:

ORIGINAL: williamsmith518

There's that shot where Grant & Malcolm are looking up at at the T-Rex from their car and the head is practical, and then the camera pans down to windcsreen level and the shot of the Rex moving towards the other car is CGI. The transition is flawless and for me it's one of the best special effects shots ever. So while I understand the compulsion to deify practical effects (and as a movie-child of the 80s I adore practical effects) I think it's a little unfair to dismiss the CGI in this case. It was groundbreaking. But as is almost the case with pioneering others ran with it and overused it and fucked it up.

-------------------------------------
[URL=http://www.travestibestmodel.net/]Travesti[/URL]



Imitation is the sincerest form of plagiarism, thank you.

THIEF!!!!!!!!!

Urgh....I feel violated....

_____________________________

Astronomic Tune Boy

'The town knew darkness, and darkness was enough.'

"Storm just bleeewwww me away..."

(in reply to williamsmith518)
Post #: 105
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 20/4/2012 12:10:13 PM   
great_badir


Posts: 4662
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: A breaking rope bridge in the middle of the jungle
quote:

ORIGINAL: DazDaMan
The 1976 Kong? Really?


I actually meant that as a sarcastic hijacking response to my own "practical better than CGI" argument. Cos, clearly, half decent miniature work aside, the '76 Kong isn't.

_____________________________

FAVE FILMS
BO BOMBS

(in reply to DazDaMan)
Post #: 106
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 20/4/2012 12:15:43 PM   
DazDaMan


Posts: 10109
Joined: 8/9/2006
From: Penicuik - a right shithole
That's OK then...

_____________________________

You fucking fuckers are gonna do what I say or I'm going to stick my foot so far up your assholes you'll rue the day you crawled out of your mother's twat!

(in reply to great_badir)
Post #: 107
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 20/4/2012 1:09:03 PM   
Spaldron


Posts: 10485
Joined: 6/10/2006
From: Chair

quote:

ORIGINAL: NCC1701A

Star Trek II: The wrath of khan



Tbh the effects in Star Trek: The Motion Picture are much better than the ones in this. In fact many of the effects in Khan were just recycled shots from TPM.

_____________________________

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts
And I looked and behold, a pale horse
And his name that sat on him was Death
And Hell followed with him.

(in reply to NCC1701A)
Post #: 108
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 20/4/2012 7:38:14 PM   
BoDixen


Posts: 201
Joined: 3/10/2005
From: Copenhagen, Denmark

quote:

ORIGINAL: directorscut

The flooding scene in The Rains Came is still breathtaking:






Really?

Miniature water ALWAYS ALWAYS looks incredibly fake because it doesn't compress so it scales VERY badly.

Even when they use bigatures and extreme high pressure it looks bad.

And super detailed water simulation and rendering is also complex on the computer so water effects is really quite irritating and they are also a comp nightmare for either plates be they practical or computer simulated.

_____________________________

Wil Wheaton: Goonies never say die.
Audience: You just did.

(in reply to directorscut)
Post #: 109
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 20/4/2012 7:55:38 PM   
OPEN YOUR EYES

 

Posts: 4409
Joined: 5/2/2012

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron


quote:

ORIGINAL: NCC1701A

Star Trek II: The wrath of khan



Tbh the effects in Star Trek: The Motion Picture are much better than the ones in this. In fact many of the effects in Khan were just recycled shots from TPM.


Yep.
Star Trek :The wrath of khan was working on a very small budget due to the fact Star Trek:the motion picture didn't make much at the box office.

The effects in Star Trek:The motion picture were very,very good and its still one of my most enjoyable star trek films.

(in reply to Spaldron)
Post #: 110
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 20/4/2012 8:49:51 PM   
Hood_Man


Posts: 12192
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron


quote:

ORIGINAL: NCC1701A

Star Trek II: The wrath of khan



Tbh the effects in Star Trek: The Motion Picture are much better than the ones in this. In fact many of the effects in Khan were just recycled shots from TPM.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron
Tbh the effects in Star Trek: The Motion Picture are much better than the ones in this. In fact many of the effects in Khan were just recycled shots from TPM.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron
Many of the effects in Khan were just recycled shots from TPM.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron
Recycled shots from TPM.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron
TPM.






(in reply to Spaldron)
Post #: 111
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 20/4/2012 9:07:45 PM   
Shifty Bench

 

Posts: 15400
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Land of the Scots


Sorry, but that was funny

_____________________________

Extended Edition Podcast- Episode 46:Threads Of Destiny (Star Wars Fan Film)

(in reply to Hood_Man)
Post #: 112
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 20/4/2012 9:19:16 PM   
Hood_Man


Posts: 12192
Joined: 30/9/2005
Spalds, I'm just saving you from yourself, I promise!!

(in reply to Shifty Bench)
Post #: 113
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 20/4/2012 11:28:56 PM   
Spaldron


Posts: 10485
Joined: 6/10/2006
From: Chair

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hood_Man

Spalds, I'm just saving you from yourself, I promise!!




Ah fuck, I meant TMP.




_____________________________

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts
And I looked and behold, a pale horse
And his name that sat on him was Death
And Hell followed with him.

(in reply to Hood_Man)
Post #: 114
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 21/4/2012 9:06:58 AM   
jonson


Posts: 9150
Joined: 30/9/2005
haha, brilliant!

_____________________________

I've got all the Barbie ones!!!

Yeah but you're old. Really old. Old. Old. Old. Old.

(in reply to Spaldron)
Post #: 115
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 21/4/2012 11:43:20 AM   
DONOVAN KURTWOOD


Posts: 9314
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: PLANET G


_____________________________

Pack your bags, we're going on a guilt trip!

(in reply to jonson)
Post #: 116
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 21/4/2012 12:30:06 PM   
superdan


Posts: 8326
Joined: 31/7/2008
You can just imagine it can't you?

Spock: "It's life, Captain, but not life as we know it."
JarJar: "I spake!"
Kirk: "Evaluation, Mr Spock?
S: "Fascinating"
JJ: "How wude!"

(in reply to DONOVAN KURTWOOD)
Post #: 117
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 21/4/2012 12:44:33 PM   
DONOVAN KURTWOOD


Posts: 9314
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: PLANET G
Brilliant!

_____________________________

Pack your bags, we're going on a guilt trip!

(in reply to superdan)
Post #: 118
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 23/4/2012 10:11:36 AM   
st3veebee


Posts: 2353
Joined: 3/9/2006
From: 9303 Lyon Drive
 Most amusing thing I have read on these forums in ages. Good on ya

_____________________________

Latest Films:

Two days in New York: 4/5

Prometheus: 3.5/5

Abe Lincoln: VH 3/5

Twin Peaks: FWWM 3.5/5

(in reply to DONOVAN KURTWOOD)
Post #: 119
RE: Excellence in Practical Effects - 23/4/2012 10:15:54 AM   
spark1

 

Posts: 7138
Joined: 18/11/2006
'wrath of khan' only used footage from the drydock scene in TMP.
the rest was original footage from ILM using the TMP enterprise model.

(in reply to st3veebee)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings >> RE: Excellence in Practical Effects Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.160