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

Most annoying effects

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings >> Most annoying effects Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Most annoying effects - 31/7/2012 9:02:42 PM   
rich


Posts: 5007
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Neo Kobe
Okay I am not talking about visual effects or special effects, but what is your most annoying effect used in movies, like day for night, shaky cams, that kind of thing. The one I am thinking of I don't even have a name for but it's that thing where they slow the footage down slightly by removing the number of frames or something.... Peter Jackson uses it (see King Kong - first natives scene, a few bits in LOTR) and it's in other stuff, and it annoys me. Discuss.

_____________________________

Meanwhile...
Post #: 1
RE: Most annoying effects - 31/7/2012 10:12:25 PM   
LjStronge

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 30/7/2012
I know you said no special effects, but I have to say lens flare. Seriously, it is used so much nowadays that it might as well be an actor. JJ Abrams seriously fell in love with it In his reboot of Star Trek.

Watch the trailer and its a joke how much its used. Directors used to do anything to get away from it as it was something they didnt want.

Now they have actual people shining torches or lights into the lens of a camera to get the affect. Thats if they dont overlay it with CGI!

Go check out the trailer and look at all the constant white flashes added.

I saw it on the new Recall trailer too

(in reply to rich)
Post #: 2
RE: Most annoying effects - 31/7/2012 10:23:18 PM   
Hood_Man


Posts: 12174
Joined: 30/9/2005
Shaky cam. Sometimes it's fine, but when it's over the top I find it impossible to enjoy something because I don't know what's happening. The opening car chase in QOS is an example of this.

(in reply to LjStronge)
Post #: 3
RE: Most annoying effects - 31/7/2012 10:33:00 PM   
directorscut


Posts: 10886
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: LjStronge

I know you said no special effects, but I have to say lens flare. Seriously, it is used so much nowadays that it might as well be an actor. JJ Abrams seriously fell in love with it In his reboot of Star Trek.

Watch the trailer and its a joke how much its used. Directors used to do anything to get away from it as it was something they didnt want.

Now they have actual people shining torches or lights into the lens of a camera to get the affect. Thats if they dont overlay it with CGI!



Lens flares are not special effects, they are an inherent part of shooting anamorphic. Star Trek was shot with anamorphic lenses.

_____________________________



Member of the TMNT 1000 Club.

(in reply to LjStronge)
Post #: 4
RE: Most annoying effects - 31/7/2012 11:46:01 PM   
kumar


Posts: 5227
Joined: 2/10/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hood_Man

Shaky cam. Sometimes it's fine, but when it's over the top I find it impossible to enjoy something because I don't know what's happening. The opening car chase in QOS is an example of this.


I didnt notice it in Transformers at first watch, but I saw it again in an imax cinema, and the bit where the boy and michela are in bumblebee for the first time is beyond dreadful, my eyes were fucked. More recently in Avatar, most of it was fine, but the when that big animal is chasing jake through the forest the shaky cam is even worse!! Why they felt the need to do that is beyond me, the 3D really did not help at all- I did well just to close my eyes at that part.

I love the wilhelm scream. While I wouldnt say im a "fan" of it, I always smile and give a nod of appreciation to it. Some other stock noises piss me off though, simple ones like the opening and closing of doors, especially when they were also used in old games like Tomb Raider 2 and sound like a brick slamming against a table.

edit: and yeah, that bit in King Kong is dreadful, it looks so cheap, not even good enough for a DTV film, dont know what production was thinking there. And on that note, it reminds me of another Jackson blunder in LOTR fellowship.... Just after Frodo is stabbed by the witch king he awakes in Rivendell. That whole sequence as he wakes up next to Gandalf with the white backdrop and Elrond in the background PUUUUUUKE. It looks fucking terrible.

< Message edited by kumar -- 31/7/2012 11:48:36 PM >


_____________________________

"Darth Silas - I love Craig as Bond too. Genius. "- Jackmansgirl 15/7/2008

Last films watched:

The Road - 4/5
Chronicle - 4/5
Twilight Breaking Dawn p1 - 1/5
Warrior - 5/5
Super 8 - 5/5
Paranormal Activity 3 - 3/5
MI 4 - 2/5

(in reply to Hood_Man)
Post #: 5
RE: Most annoying effects - 1/8/2012 3:29:20 AM   
Whistler


Posts: 3117
Joined: 22/11/2006
Shaky cam annoys me most. The odd film gets away with it (like Bourne), but most of the time it's just a pain in the ass. The worst example I've seen is the fist-fight in The Hunger Games. That was horrific; I literally couldn't tell what was going on. And it gave me a headache.

(in reply to rich)
Post #: 6
RE: Most annoying effects - 1/8/2012 8:41:10 AM   
LjStronge

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 30/7/2012
quote:

ORIGINAL: directorscut


quote:

ORIGINAL: LjStronge

I know you said no special effects, but I have to say lens flare. Seriously, it is used so much nowadays that it might as well be an actor. JJ Abrams seriously fell in love with it In his reboot of Star Trek.

Watch the trailer and its a joke how much its used. Directors used to do anything to get away from it as it was something they didnt want.

Now they have actual people shining torches or lights into the lens of a camera to get the affect. Thats if they dont overlay it with CGI!



Lens flares are not special effects, they are an inherent part of shooting anamorphic. Star Trek was shot with anamorphic lenses.



I'm sorry, but your wrong. There is a whole interview about it - http://io9.com/5230278/jj-abrams-admits-star-trek-lens-flares-are-ridiculous

Here is a DIRECT quote from JJ Abrams

quote:

JJ Abrams, the director of the 2009 version of Star Trek, used this technique. "I wanted a visual system that felt unique. I know there are certain shots where even I watch and think, "Oh that's ridiculous, that was too many." But I love the idea that the future was so bright it couldn't be contained in the frame." Many complained of the frequent use, Abrams admitted it was "overdone, in some places."

Our DP would be off camera with this incredibly powerful flashlight aiming it at the lens. It became an art because different lenses required angles, and different proximity to the lens. Sometimes, when we were outside we'd use mirrors. Certain sizes were too big... literally, it was ridiculous. It was like another actor in the scene....

We had two cameras, so sometimes we had two different spotlight operators. When there was atmosphere in the room, you had to be really careful because you could see the beams. So it was this ridiculous, added level of pain in the ass, but I love... [looking at] the final cut, [the flares] to me, were a fun additional touch that I think, while overdone, in some places, it feels like the future is that bright.







< Message edited by LjStronge -- 1/8/2012 9:04:04 AM >

(in reply to directorscut)
Post #: 7
RE: Most annoying effects - 1/8/2012 10:14:44 AM   
st3veebee


Posts: 2353
Joined: 3/9/2006
From: 9303 Lyon Drive
quote:

ORIGINAL: Whistler

Shaky cam annoys me most. The odd film gets away with it (like Bourne), but most of the time it's just a pain in the ass. The worst example I've seen is the fist-fight in The Hunger Games. That was horrific; I literally couldn't tell what was going on. And it gave me a headache.


Shaky cam does my head in for the most part: and you are spot on, the worst in recent times was the awful usage in The Hunger Games. It just detracts from the scene itself.

_____________________________

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 Whistler)
Post #: 8
RE: Most annoying effects - 1/8/2012 12:20:24 PM   
MB2


Posts: 325
Joined: 16/6/2009
Blood/mud/water splashing on the camera.

Breaks the fourth wall, which normally I like if used well, but just looks messy.

_____________________________

Roxy: That's who we should kill next.
Frank: A fictitious character?
Roxy: No. Diablo Cody. Fuck her for writing that movie, she's the only stripper who suffers from too much self esteem.

(in reply to st3veebee)
Post #: 9
RE: Most annoying effects - 1/8/2012 7:17:16 PM   
mclane1


Posts: 369
Joined: 7/2/2009

quote:

ORIGINAL: rich

Okay I am not talking about visual effects or special effects, but what is your most annoying effect used in movies, like day for night, shaky cams, that kind of thing. The one I am thinking of I don't even have a name for but it's that thing where they slow the footage down slightly by removing the number of frames or something.... Peter Jackson uses it (see King Kong - first natives scene, a few bits in LOTR) and it's in other stuff, and it annoys me. Discuss.


completely agree its a shit effect, used alot in resident evil 2 with the zombies walking. I also hate speeded up fighting and car chases (transporter 3 et al) which ive ranted about on a previous thread.

OOOoooooh and also!!, watched Texas Rangers on netflix the other day (had literally seen everything else on there) and there was a well dodgy bit where hes riding the horse, its meant to be dark but its clearly daylight with just a crap shading vignette at the top. poooooop!

_____________________________

If the cash is there, we do not care.

(in reply to rich)
Post #: 10
RE: Most annoying effects - 2/8/2012 4:32:00 PM   
bobanders

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 2/8/2012
Agree with the shaky cams... There are exceptions though, I think it was the new spiderman movie where they gave a first person perspective of Peter Parker running and launching his web, thought that was ok.

Also, stuff like the Cloverfield where they "give" the camera to the actors. I just feel that the whole film could have been shot so much better if they didn't limit themselves to that perspective.

(in reply to mclane1)
Post #: 11
RE: Most annoying effects - 3/8/2012 11:10:53 AM   
Dpp1978


Posts: 1159
Joined: 2/4/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: directorscut


quote:

ORIGINAL: LjStronge

I know you said no special effects, but I have to say lens flare. Seriously, it is used so much nowadays that it might as well be an actor. JJ Abrams seriously fell in love with it In his reboot of Star Trek.

Watch the trailer and its a joke how much its used. Directors used to do anything to get away from it as it was something they didnt want.

Now they have actual people shining torches or lights into the lens of a camera to get the affect. Thats if they dont overlay it with CGI!



Lens flares are not special effects, they are an inherent part of shooting anamorphic. Star Trek was shot with anamorphic lenses.


Lens flares are an inherent part of photography as a whole: errant light enters the lens and bounces around causing artefacts on the recording medium.

Anamorphic flares are distinctive and can be readily distinguished from spherical flares: in fact they are one of the tells that something was shot true anamorphic rather than one of the spherical "scope" formats (although this can easily be cheated in post production), but are far from unique to that lens type.

Any cinematographer worth his salt can avoid or at the very least minimise their appearance. Once upon a time they were strictly taboo and a sign of poor craftsmanship, but since the '60s have become an accepted, even welcomed part of the film-maker's art: whether they be accidental or otherwise. Where they appear as often as they did on Star Trek one can only assume that either the cameraman wasn't up to scratch or they were a matter of artistic intent. LjStronge has demonstrated which of these was the case here.

It is interesting to speculate (if you are of a certain mindset at least) whether the IMAX sections of the Star Trek sequel will have spherical or anamorphic flares, assuming the visual style is to carry over.

As to shaky-cam, I only find it a problem if it makes it hard to understand what is going on. It is especially problematic when coupled with the rapid staccato editing, which is often used alongside it, and all too often results in a jumbled, incoherent mess.

That is the effect I find most annoying: the hyper kinetic editing style which seems to be becoming more and more common, if not quite ubiquitous: especially in action films.

(in reply to directorscut)
Post #: 12
RE: Most annoying effects - 3/8/2012 11:32:28 AM   
NCC1701A


Posts: 4421
Joined: 12/3/2011
From: Space Dock
Shaky cams does my head in when it gets to bad I end up looking away from the screen.

_____________________________

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 Dpp1978)
Post #: 13
RE: Most annoying effects - 3/8/2012 12:14:59 PM   
jcthefirst


Posts: 4425
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: Bangor
quote:

ORIGINAL: MB2

Blood/mud/water splashing on the camera.

Breaks the fourth wall, which normally I like if used well, but just looks messy.


Yeah, with you here. But in the right type of film it's great. Planet Terror for example.

_____________________________

@Jonny_C85

My Movie Blog | My Other Various Rantings Blog

(in reply to MB2)
Post #: 14
RE: Most annoying effects - 3/8/2012 5:36:22 PM   
vad3r


Posts: 4403
Joined: 3/9/2010
From: Close to Mod HQ


_____________________________

Single Virgin Mod Candidate 2013


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives
To paraphrase the great man himself:

Vad3r won't go anywhere near this.

(in reply to jcthefirst)
Post #: 15
RE: Most annoying effects - 5/8/2012 10:40:20 AM   
Super Hans


Posts: 2394
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Watford
Not sure if I'm thinking along the right lines here, but overly-CGI'd horror can be a bit jarring - I'm thinking of the increasingly animated looking deaths in the Final Destination series.

For a while a few years ago, I think there was an effect which did the rounds where someone would get sliced in half (or part of their head perhaps), then the sliced part gloopily slid off. That ended up a little annoying/predictable for me - I think I saw it used in Ghost Ship, one of the Final Destinations, Equilibrium (I think) to name just a few.

_____________________________

"Its staring at you in the face Mark, there's only one more sex to try..."

(in reply to rich)
Post #: 16
RE: Most annoying effects - 5/8/2012 7:13:55 PM   
rich


Posts: 5007
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Neo Kobe
Yeah those would be actual visual effects

_____________________________

Meanwhile...

(in reply to Super Hans)
Post #: 17
RE: Most annoying effects - 5/8/2012 7:35:34 PM   
Shifty Bench

 

Posts: 15398
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Land of the Scots

quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r




Hey, don't you be dissing the Gorn! And, that is a costume rather than an effect......


_____________________________

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

(in reply to vad3r)
Post #: 18
RE: Most annoying effects - 5/8/2012 7:47:13 PM   
DancingClown


Posts: 4205
Joined: 8/1/2006
From: The Lot
Can't think of any visual effects that annoy me but I fucking hate the Willhelm scream.

_____________________________

Astronomic Tune Boy

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

"Storm just bleeewwww me away..."

(in reply to Shifty Bench)
Post #: 19
RE: Most annoying effects - 5/8/2012 7:47:26 PM   
Hood_Man


Posts: 12174
Joined: 30/9/2005
Maybe we can say it was the Illusion of Danger that was rubbish?

(in reply to Shifty Bench)
Post #: 20
RE: Most annoying effects - 5/8/2012 7:51:56 PM   
Shifty Bench

 

Posts: 15398
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Land of the Scots

quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown

Can't think of any visual effects that annoy me but I fucking hate the Willhelm scream.


Yeah, it takes me out of the film a bit, it is used far too much these days.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to DancingClown)
Post #: 21
RE: Most annoying effects - 6/8/2012 8:23:46 PM   
MuckyMuckMan

 

Posts: 2368
Joined: 1/10/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978


quote:

ORIGINAL: directorscut


quote:

ORIGINAL: LjStronge

I know you said no special effects, but I have to say lens flare. Seriously, it is used so much nowadays that it might as well be an actor. JJ Abrams seriously fell in love with it In his reboot of Star Trek.

Watch the trailer and its a joke how much its used. Directors used to do anything to get away from it as it was something they didnt want.

Now they have actual people shining torches or lights into the lens of a camera to get the affect. Thats if they dont overlay it with CGI!



Lens flares are not special effects, they are an inherent part of shooting anamorphic. Star Trek was shot with anamorphic lenses.


Lens flares are an inherent part of photography as a whole: errant light enters the lens and bounces around causing artefacts on the recording medium.

Anamorphic flares are distinctive and can be readily distinguished from spherical flares: in fact they are one of the tells that something was shot true anamorphic rather than one of the spherical "scope" formats (although this can easily be cheated in post production), but are far from unique to that lens type.

Any cinematographer worth his salt can avoid or at the very least minimise their appearance. Once upon a time they were strictly taboo and a sign of poor craftsmanship, but since the '60s have become an accepted, even welcomed part of the film-maker's art: whether they be accidental or otherwise. Where they appear as often as they did on Star Trek one can only assume that either the cameraman wasn't up to scratch or they were a matter of artistic intent. LjStronge has demonstrated which of these was the case here.

It is interesting to speculate (if you are of a certain mindset at least) whether the IMAX sections of the Star Trek sequel will have spherical or anamorphic flares, assuming the visual style is to carry over.




I seriously can't believe no one has mentioned Super 8 for the increased appearance of flares. Its terrible and the worst I've ever seen. If its correct that this is due to filming in anamorphic then the cinematographer needs shooting. Star Trek was nowhere near as bad as Super 8.


Quite like this though:
http://youtu.be/bHqjmlM3kxs


< Message edited by MuckyMuckMan -- 6/8/2012 8:31:05 PM >


_____________________________

My Film Collection:
http://www.invelos.com/dvdcollection.aspx/MuckyMuckMan
Last 5 films seen
The Impossible 3.5/5
Stoker 4/5
Thor: Dark World 3.5/5
The Wolfman (1941) 4/5
All is Lost 5/5

(in reply to Dpp1978)
Post #: 22
RE: Most annoying effects - 6/8/2012 8:57:25 PM   
Shifty Bench

 

Posts: 15398
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Land of the Scots
It doesn't help that Abrams is contantly flashing a torch to get the flare effect. At least he did on Star Trek.

Oh, and dude, that picture is huge!

_____________________________

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

(in reply to MuckyMuckMan)
Post #: 23
RE: Most annoying effects - 7/8/2012 12:44:37 PM   
Dpp1978


Posts: 1159
Joined: 2/4/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: MuckyMuckMan

I seriously can't believe no one has mentioned Super 8 for the increased appearance of flares. Its terrible and the worst I've ever seen. If its correct that this is due to filming in anamorphic then the cinematographer needs shooting. Star Trek was nowhere near as bad as Super 8.


The way the flares look is because of the anamorphic lens (the horizontal bands are a characteristic of scope lenses), but all lenses will flare. Some more than others.

If it was shot using the same lighting style only using spherical lenses rather than scope, there would still be flares but they would look different.

I quite like lens flares, but I agree it is possible to take things to ridiculous extremes.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shifty Bench

It doesn't help that Abrams is contantly flashing a torch to get the flare effect. At least he did on Star Trek.



At least he is using real lens flares rather than just adding them in post.

Fake lens flares and other forms of over processing are my two pet peeves with photography in general. Just because you have the tools at your disposal; and technology has made them so simple a 6 year old can use them (which is a good thing, don't get me wrong), doesn't mean you need to use them on every image.

Too often someone shows me a picture and says, "Isn't this great?" To which I all too often want to answer, "It probably was before someone started messing around with it."

But I am an old fart when it comes to such things. Luckily I have learned that just because you can say something, it doesn't mean you need to say something every time you form an opinion, or disagree with someone. Life got so much simpler when I realised that. Far fewer pointless debates about things I really didn't care that much about to begin with.

(in reply to MuckyMuckMan)
Post #: 24
RE: Most annoying effects - 7/8/2012 12:49:15 PM   
NCC1701A


Posts: 4421
Joined: 12/3/2011
From: Space Dock
Strobe lighting can't stand it.

_____________________________

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 Dpp1978)
Post #: 25
RE: Most annoying effects - 7/8/2012 3:25:27 PM   
MB2


Posts: 325
Joined: 16/6/2009

quote:

ORIGINAL: jcthefirst

quote:

ORIGINAL: MB2

Blood/mud/water splashing on the camera.

Breaks the fourth wall, which normally I like if used well, but just looks messy.


Yeah, with you here. But in the right type of film it's great. Planet Terror for example.


Yeah I agree, it tied in well with the parody vibe there.

Got a feeling Matrix Reloaded did it when a very forgettable character died, might be wrong, just remember thinking how ridiculous it looked.

_____________________________

Roxy: That's who we should kill next.
Frank: A fictitious character?
Roxy: No. Diablo Cody. Fuck her for writing that movie, she's the only stripper who suffers from too much self esteem.

(in reply to jcthefirst)
Post #: 26
RE: Most annoying effects - 8/8/2012 12:54:51 PM   
great_badir


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

ORIGINAL: NCC1701A
Shaky cams does my head in when it gets to bad I end up looking away from the screen.


Whilst I hate CGI in general, shaky cam is the only thing that actually makes me angry, especially when it's used in small-scale dramas (which is lots). I know when it comes to certain genres like action and tense thriller it, respectively, helps increase the realism and add to the confusion, but in slow dramas it's completely distracting. Michael Haneke should be given an award just for keeping the camera still. I first noticed it purposely used as the main filming technique way back in Murder in the First, which actually made me shout "KEEP THE CAMERA STILL" at the screen when I first saw it. Very uncharacteristic for me. Since then it's become a disease.

_____________________________

FAVE FILMS
BO BOMBS

(in reply to NCC1701A)
Post #: 27
RE: Most annoying effects - 10/8/2012 3:00:25 AM   
djdarrenjames


Posts: 626
Joined: 29/10/2008
From: There and back again

quote:

ORIGINAL: mclane1


quote:

ORIGINAL: rich
The one I am thinking of I don't even have a name for but it's that thing where they slow the footage down slightly by removing the number of frames or something.... Peter Jackson uses it (see King Kong - first natives scene, a few bits in LOTR) and it's in other stuff, and it annoys me. Discuss.


completely agree its a shit effect, used alot in resident evil 2 with the zombies walking. I also hate speeded up fighting and car chases (transporter 3 et al) which ive ranted about on a previous thread.



Agreed, the jerky/staggered 12fps slow mo gets my vote - I don't mind regular slomo when used sparingly for dramatic effect but Anderson uses 12fps all the fucking time! when Alice does ANYTHING, he's obviously aware that his scripts are so weak and his characters so shallow he has to do something to introduce something dramatic!
If he took it out of his films it would cut about 30 minutes from the run time!
It's the one thing that spoils the LOTRT for me.

_____________________________

This is the captain. We have a little problem with our entry sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and then - explode.

(in reply to mclane1)
Post #: 28
RE: Most annoying effects - 4/10/2012 6:37:29 AM   
Whistler


Posts: 3117
Joined: 22/11/2006
Was anyone else pissed off with the use of lens flare in the Total Recall remake? So many shots had some stupid light shining across it, even when there wasn't a light present to create it. (I couldn't find an example during a quick search, but I assure you it's there). It doesn't increase production values or make it look slicker, it's just distracting and annoying. I don't mind the odd lens flare when the camera looks at the sun or something, but Wiseman went way overboard here.

These aren't the best examples but they were all I could find.





< Message edited by Whistler -- 4/10/2012 6:38:36 AM >

(in reply to rich)
Post #: 29
RE: Most annoying effects - 4/10/2012 12:08:01 PM   
jcthefirst


Posts: 4425
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: Bangor
In both those pictures, my focus was not on the lens flare.



_____________________________

@Jonny_C85

My Movie Blog | My Other Various Rantings Blog

(in reply to Whistler)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings >> Most annoying effects Page: [1] 2   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

0.172