Cool News
Nordling kicks back on the porch of Carl Fredrickson's floating house and also takes a look at new Pixar short PARTLY CLOUDY!
You can't trust me on a Pixar movie. You just can't. I'm saying that right out because at this point, I hold that studio in such high esteem that it's difficult for me to imagine a better run of films by any single creative force. Miyazaki, maybe. Spielberg from 1975-1987. But even those two have some clunkers in there. Pixar has none, not even CARS, which instead of adoring I merely like a lot. And now we come to their 10th film, UP, directed by MONSTERS INC.'s Pete Docter, and their new short, PARTLY CLOUDY, directed by animator Peter Sohn.
I actually have no business writing this at this time. I should be holding it back, taking stock in the film more, and writing a more reasoned review later. And I'm trying to pull it back some, and I refuse to play the "Where does it rank" game with Pixar's other films. I think they've made enough films now that to rank them at this point seems a little bit unfair and even a little insulting. But since I've seen the first 40 or so minutes at BNAT 10 this year, I've had some time to think about how this film was going to work when it was released, and even thought about how it could seriously fall on its face. I wasn't worried, because I freely admit to a Pixar bias. But it was still something to think about.
The opening cartoon that plays before UP, PARTLY CLOUDY, perfectly fits into the themes of the larger work. It's a short about beginnings, while UP is about the autumn years, and they both feature clouds pretty prominently, but that's about all I should say about PARTLY CLOUDY at this point. Think old Merrie Melodies and you might get the idea. It's not very long. It's not very complicated. And it works.
After the Pixar logo, we go right into an old newsreel, featuring great adventurer Charles Muntz (Christopher Plummer). Muntz explores the world on his blimp, Spirit of Adventure, searching for strange creatures far and wide. When he discovers an unusual bird skeleton in South America, the scientific world considers him a fraud. Muntz vows to go to Paradise Falls to bring the creature back and clear his name. Watching this newsreel is little Carl Fredrickson, and he excitedly runs home, playing his exploring adventures in his head. As he walks past an abandoned house, he hears the voice of someone inside playing the same adventures he is. Inside is Ellie and she yearns for adventure just like Carl does. They hit it off instantly, and through a montage, they fall in love and get married, always vowing someday to go to Paradise Falls. But life seems to get in the way, and they settle down quietly into the rhythm of their lives. Then Ellie passes on, and Carl (Ed Asner, who's wonderful), alone, begins to take assessment of his life.
Stumbling into this story is Russell, a Wilderness Explorer who needs that final badge - Assisting The Elderly - before moving up the the upper levels. All Carl wants is to be left alone, but Russell insists, so Carl sends him on a hunt for the mythical snipe. Outside, a construction crew knocks over Carl and Ellie's mailbox, and Carl overreacts, hitting one of the crew with his cane and hurting the crewman's head. Forced by court order to go to a nursing home, Carl has one last adventure up his sleeve. He will honor Ellie's wish, and go to Paradise Falls, and nothing's going to stand in his way, even with Russell tagging along.
By now you've all seen the trailers, the balloon house, the birds, the dogs... and you might have some idea where this movie's going. What Pete Docter does so well, as he did in MONSTERS INC., is make you relate to the characters and understand their situations. UP has a wonderful economy with the story it has to tell. It wastes little time getting to Paradise Falls and the story propels at a surprisingly fast pace, and yet the filmmakers know when to stop and take a moment for the characters. Carl's story is especially emotional, and anyone with a grandparent will probably get their tear ducts put through a ringer a couple of times. Russell also has a nice story arc, and I appreciated that he's not just a token kid in the film but a character that helps Carl discover aspects about himself and the relationships in his life. When it's revealed that Muntz is still alive in Paradise Falls and still in pursuit of his bird - affectionately named Kevin by Russell - Carl becomes the most unlikely hero and he knows what he must do. Muntz reminded me very much of Charles Foster Kane crossed with Howard Hughes. There's a lot of film references in UP - from WIZARD OF OZ to KING KONG to CITIZEN KANE to even a tiny bit of STAR WARS.
But don't worry if you think the film might be too sappy or dramatic. UP may be one of the funniest Pixar films yet. The dogs are simply comic genius. Their dialogue is very stream of consciousness and spur of the moment, and I imagine some of their lines are going to be repeated all summer. I'm not going to spoil any of them for you here - the laughter in the theater at each line of dog dialogue is such a ringing endorsement to the script (by Bob Peterson) that I'd be a real jerk if I repeated any of them. Dug the Dog is one of the most endearing characters in the Pixar lexicon, and Alpha, the head of Muntz's dog army, once he speaks... well, it's somewhat like Vader on helium, and the way all the dogs are used in UP blows away anything you've seen in CATS AND DOGS or other talking animal films. Not to ruin anything by talking shop, but the Paradise Falls dogs are practically begging to be marketed.
What didn't I like? Not to spoil too much, but I was unpleasantly surprised by the resolution of one character - it didn't seem to fit the whimsical nature of the film. But even then, it's left up to the audience to interpret what happened, and I may be looking too much into it. I love the balloon house, but after a point it literally becomes a drag on the film and the characters. Even so, there's a thematic point to it so it's not any kind of deal breaker.
Pixar doesn't make drop-the-kid-off films. They make films that are meant to be shared by the whole family, and I'm not just talking about parents and kids, but grandparents, grandchildren, the whole brood. There's a bunch of films coming this summer, and I intend to see most if not all of them. But I'm going to return to UP. For one thing, I didn't see it in glorious 3-D, and you can bet that's going to be remedied. And I'm going to bring my mom along, and my daughter... and everyone else in the family if I can. Pixar films have a way of plugging right into my heart, and UP is certainly no exception. I can't wait to see it again.
Nordling
-
+ Expand All
-
Thank God for Pixar...my investment in Disney is secure.Lasseter and Co. have revived not just the Mouse House...but animation. Can't wait to see it.
-
They also have an annoying habit of getting saccharine. I know plenty of people don't agree with me, but I ended up not liking Nemo because of how cutesy it all got. Same deal with Wall-E.
-
There be Slavers there.
-
But, I was the same about half of Pixar's catalog.
-
... to get too excited when it is 4 freaking months away...
-
I understand and carry the same bias regarding pixar. I believe Up will not dampen my enthusiasm..
I can't wait! -
I can't find it in my heart to adore Shrek, or a Will Smith fish, or a Missing Link... I just can't!
-
As Pixar has released movie after movie, the grosses have been in decline of late. Imagine: the studio had to truck out facts and figures to try to explain why RATATOUILLE was a hit when the media was playing up strongly how much it WASN'T a hit given the cost versus the box-office. It did mediocre business (relative to other Pixar movies) and featured an annoying human character and unknown stars - and, as a result, vanished never to be spoken of again once it was out of the spotlight for a bit - forgotten. UP looks to be a disaster. From talk of an unpleasant resolution (gee, I wonder if Carl floats the house up into the stars and vanishes in a metaphor for death. I didn't see that coming from the MOVIE POSTER OR ANYTHING) to the fact that the main characters are a kid (which modern American audiences despise as protagonist of a movie - witness the disman failure of SPIDERWICK et al and the upcoming failure of ASTRO BOY as examples) and an elderly man (which audiences equally despise in America - American audiences only want "hot talent" which, to paraphrase FAMILY GUY, revolves around "hot white jailbait AYUZZ!") American audiences have no tolerance for anything that falls outside the margin of "20somethings playing teens" and a bunch of fart jokes (Some audiences were confused at the trailer for THE FATTIES before TROPIC THUNDER and thought it was a real trailer - I kid you not - simply STUNNING that anyone could think that was a real trailer), some bloodless gore a la PG-13 (let's not forget PROM NIGHT was a hit given its budget and sold-out opening weekend) and some talk of environmentalism and mutual understanding and POOF. Anyway, the point - UP looks to crash and burn.
-
Nothing...
-
Tell that to FAST AND FURIOUS.
-
If Incredibles was successful worldwide for getting 624M, then is it utter failure for Ratatouille to get 616M?
-
FAST AND FURIOUS represents the absolute pinnacle of what American film audiences want. I do think that Hollywood hasn't QUITE realized yet how much LESS of a plot it could get away with in making a movie like that. I've often wondered if a completely disengaged movie - IE, intentionally devoid of character, story, plot, continuity, etc. - that featured cars driving around into eachother, people making out without even naming them, explosions, etc. would make money. I bet it would. I -really- bet a plotless action movie made by design would be a MONSTER hit. You'd have to have nonsensical dialogue thrown in on purpose. "Where is the disc?" would have to be mentioned. "You killed my partner." "She was my friend.' "Time to die!" etc. Stuff like that, but you'd make it in such a way that it would make NO sense. HUGE box-office.
-
It, too, was considered a bit of a failure in comparison to FINDING NEMO adjusted et al. The Pixar illusion machine has been working hard to try to convince us otherwise, but the company is pretty much over in terms of being relevant. UP will seal the deal.
-
Perhaps their grosses haven't reached the peak of Finding Nemo ever since, but making over 200 million EVERY FILM, and with each film being something NEW (especially with a movie that has forty minutes without talking) is still a big fucking deal in the movie industry.
-
DreamWorks is all ears...
-
Box-office returns isn't at Pixar's top of the list...
-
http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/archive/2007/01/02/toon-tuesday-how-will-ratatouille-fare-in-hollywood-s-summer-2007-rat-race.aspx
-
But what bothers me isn't the question of quality. It might be quite the fun little movie (I doubt it, seriously, but- ...). However, what chafes me is the constant need by Pixar apologists to try to repaint history to suggest Pixar is still doing what it did with TOY STORY or FINDING NEMO. They're not. And I want to spit blood when I hear people say "Wow, UP's so awesome! Pixar's still got it! They know how to make a movie to appeal to everyone!" No, they don't. They know how to make a movie that might appeal to quality, intelligent filmgoers - in other words, none of the people who go to the movies in America. NONE. American kids don't have the discrimination not to eat plastic any more. They are hngry for it. They crave it. Garbage and plastic. And they'll eat it, with no question. They'll eat everything. Anything. And the thing is, so will the adults. And people trying to play this movie out as a hit are fools. It'll have a mediocre opening relative to other Pixar flicks and then collapse faster than CARS. Cry about it if you want to, Emo Kids, but it's true.
-
Ratatouille was up against Transformers and Die Hard... and then Harry Potter... With summer movies stacking up behind it, what kind of box-office return would you expect? That is would stay on top for 33 months?
-
... then I pity you... But I highly doubt it is what you say it is... So, instead of ranting against Pixar, who in it's name itself can choose to boast of their achievements, but still keeps a level head on things, and pushes their creativity in such that they ALWAYS outdo themselves, and is already testamented (if there's such a word) by millions of people, and instead of bringing out the worst in America through what YOU do... just rethink your life... You may be right about some, but not all...
-
FUCK THE PESSIMISTS! FUCK THEM!
-
Apr 19, 2009 2:13:34 PM CDT
Gee, ONLY 200+ million for every movie? Time to sell my Pixar st
by nasty in the pasty
Fucking idiot.
-
Time to recognize the truth. There's a world of difference between saying "This movie will be artistically interesting but I recognize it as a commercial failure" and saying "IT'S GONNA REVOLUTIONIZE CINEMA! KIDS WILL FINALLY WAKE UP AND RECOGNIZE QUALITY IN THE US! THE DEPRESSING ENDING WILL BE OK WITH AMERICAN AUDIENCES WHO DEMAND THAT EVERY ENDING BE CHANGED TO MAKE IT HAPPY AND TO INCLUDE WILL SMITH!"
-
unhappy bastard talking shit out of his ass?
My God, man, it's a Pixar movie, don't get so worked up about it. You will enjoy the movie, or you will not, it will affect you deeply or it will not. Just have fun and move on. There's no need for such a huge analysis of what Pixar was, is or will be. Why can't we just be thankful that we get to see a great movie?
What a bitter SOB -
The only other animated film about a rat was called Flushed Away, and it made less than $70 million. What's the difference? I'd say the Pixar brand.
-
how much did it cost to make Ratatouille? $150 Millions. How much did it gross worldwide? Over $600 Millions. What am I missing? How is that a failure?
-
not a success?
Wow... just wow.. -
seem to be of the mindset that it's only money if it comes from Domestic Box Office numbers. Brass tacks: Pixar makes more than enough between worldwide B.O. and other revenue even when they're not making Nemo type numbers to continue making movies into the foreseeable future. That's all they care about, making enough to cover their next film. It's refreshing
-
Anyone who quotes Jim Hill as a source of reference loses all credibility. Go and read the archives on Jim Hill stories about Pixar, Cars, and John Lasseter as examples. He has a personal stake against Pixar, does not think Disney should have spent the money it did for Pixar and resents John Lasseter for some reason. His "articles" because laughable when he railed against Cars, how much a failure it was at the box office, etc. It was a joke. And of course we now have the hundreds of millions of dollars in Cars merchandise sales...yup, a total failure... Pixar at this point is as bankable a movie house there is. Up will do well, and if the word of mouth is as good as the early reviews indicate it will be, I imagine that the box office will only grow. The other thing to look at is competition from other family films, and after Up releases on 5/29, until Transformers comes out a month later, it doesn't have a whole lot of competition...maybe Land of the Lost, not sure on how that will fare yet.
-
End of story.
-
Gee, Spymunk, you got that completely and utterly wrong. I'm not going to spoil it here, and no matter how much you beg I won't tell you who it is and what happens, so don't bother. My complaint about it is that tonally it took me out of the movie, and even then, there's still some room for interpretation of what happened. But you didn't read what I wrote.
-
Apr 19, 2009 4:43:41 PM CDT
Right, we can't trust you. Spielberg's on his best run yet
by proman1984
This run never ended. Also, he never had "clunkers". It's just that his range is bigger than that of his "core" viewers. And Shindler's List, Amistad, Ryan, A.I., Minority Report and Munich as as strong as anything done not only by him but any other director. Fuck you all.
And also Cars was simply decent. I don't hate it. -
I'm just wondering if you get to wear a diaper in your cage? It must be sad and lonely sitting in therr with nothing to do except pound on a typewriter and eat your own FECES!!!!!
Oh, and ASTRO BOY is going to tank too!! NICE!!!
Why don't you just stare at your sphincter in anticipation of your next meal, and let PIXAR keep on doing what it does best?
-
Given the Pixar/Disney connection and all. Anyway, I kid Harry about his affection for "Up", but he gave a damn good review and so did you, Nordling. Now I'm psyched about a film that previously I was all "WTF??" about. Cheers!
-
Ever see The Secret Of NIMH?!
-
And let's not forget NIMH tanked as well.
-
Ever watched the special features on FINAL DESTINATION? They give you a taste of this stuff.
"The hanging monkeys was weird."
"Best part: porno scene" (there is no porno scene in the movie)
"So much Tit tit sex death!"
Welcome to the general public.
-
What so many of you mistake is that you think I'm speaking of the quality of UP. I've not once said I think it's going to be a BAD MOVIE. However, I get positively enraged when I hear people act as though human beings in the USA have woken up to quality, taste and art. I can't stand the way animation geeks think that the average moviegoer likes animation. I can't stand the way genre sci-fi/fantasy fans act as though they think everyone likes sci-fi or fantasy. They don't. Most people in the US hate animation. Most of them hate sci-fi and fantasy. I don't believe in even TRYING to get the "general public" into seeing these movies because I think it hurts the product - you end up pleasing the general population and trying to win them over to the point where every superhero is watered down to a "realsitic" version ("No FLIGHTS! NO TIGHTS!" - creators of SMALLVILLE). I personally wish the executives who are in charge of this stuff would come into MORE power. Why? Because I'd love to see a world where there were no animated movies, no sci-fi, no fantasy, no horror, no genre pictures of any kind - nothing but nameless characters wandering dimly through fart-joke-infested romcoms and ... nonromcoms. Where action movies with no-name actors and no-name characters simply view events exploding over and over - where art, creativity and cinema all vanish beneath a wave of pablum, because that's what the People want, and it's nothing LESS than what they deserve, and giving it to them means that the real art will be hidden from sight, and only enjoyed by people willing to appreciate it, who take the time and intellectual effort to find it, which is how it ought to be. I WANT Hollywood to be nothing but endless faceless 20somethings from the CW in plotless drivel because it's what the audiences demand. I simply advocate giving them nothing more than what they deserve and letting them experience the joyless world they create for themselves with their hatred of anything that's even remotely creative or unique.
-
The majority of Hollywood is still that in spite of Pixar. You've got nothing to worry about, if you're concerned that Pixar's devotion to artistic quality will infect the rest of the medium.
Can't understand your misanthropy, however. We're not talking about animating Bergman films here. Good films are good for basic reasons that appeal to our humanity. Films like Ratatouille didn't fail to reach Nemo numbers because American audiences didn't appreciate it, it was that it was released only one week in advance of a mega-hyped blockbuster known as Transformers. It was poor timing, nothing else.Yeah, the audience gets what they ask for (in general) but at the same time, Hollywood is notoriously bad at knowing what people actually want. They're just as likely to miss the underlying desires of audiences as you are in assuming they want the absolute bottom of the barrel scum. Personally I don't believe you have the direct line info on what "the audience wants" anymore than dumb Hollywood execs do. Therefore, the best and only way to operate is to let the artists do what they do once a project is greenlit, and let the producers do what they do in keeping the budget in line. Trying to predict the zeitgeist of film audiences by executives is as pointless as trying to predict the weather a year from today.Let's say for the sake of argument that the audience really does want crap. Why wish for such an entertainment environment if you yourself wouldn't want to watch it? Self defeating, much? It's not just giving them what they want, it's giving you as a supposedly more discerning audience member that much less to choose from. Way to go. As I said though, I'm not as much of a pessimist as you are, and actually think there is room enough in people's desires for the mindless and the mindful. -
I used to think like that, and it made me hopeful. Then, I started reading comments about people asking if polar bears could be inserted into SUPERMAN RETURNS. "Does it have to be ...?" became the rallying cry to describe all interfering producers. I read that the name of the Bond movie LICENSE TO KILL had to be changed from LICENSE REVOKED because most American audiences didn't know what REVOKED meant. And intelligent people just smile and nod and let it go at that. I can't. I don't want to see people rewarded for their stupidity. I think that stupidity is its own punishment, but at the same time I think our culture is wired to allow for it and forgive it. As a result, stupidity isn't just tolerated but catered toward in the construction of art. It is for this reason that endings that are "confusing" get chnged to happy mindless conclusions. It's this reason that every racial minority sidekick gets a stereotypical line along the lines of "Oh, no, she didn't!" or "Dayyyummmm!" This bothers me. It's repulsive, but forgiven. I think this is wrong. I think that low intellect should be punished with an artless/joyless existence. In other words, you're too dumb to figure out art - so you don't GET to enjoy it. If you'd like to enjoy it, you'd better smarten up a little bit - or a lot. In other words, if you're too dumb to "get" a comic book character (!) and his backstory, you don't get a changed version that simplifies it. No, what you get is leaving the theater in confusion because you were too dim to realize that Wolverine and Sabertooth might be related. You're really that stupid? No - you don't get to enjoy that movie - sorry.
-
Who fucking pissed in your Cheerios? Seriously. Shut the fuck up, you're giving me a headache. And stop blaming the "American public", you piece of shit. Want to raise the cumulative I.Q. of the nation? Insert suicidal insult here.
-
...and yet if an American insults another country, everyone jumps allllll over him.
You don't get a free pass, buddy. Nobody does. Sit down and shut up. -
You have to be aware of the punishment in order to experience it. To someone who enjoys artless/tasteless junk, is giving them more of it going to "teach 'em" that lesson you so hope to vindictively impose on them (and the rest of us by extension)? If you hated McDonald's burgers, is it a punishment to feed it to someone who thinks it's filet mignon?You're using your own perspective to gage how punishing the experience of watching "joyless/artless" films would be, but what you fail to understand is that it's only punishment to you and me. But "you and I" aren't your intended target. Ironically, the people you want to punish with artless junk are the people who appear to eat it up anyway. So thanks for supporting the lack of good options most every time I glance at the local movie listing. You might want to re-think that strategy again.
-
Shut the fuck up. Complain somewhere else.
American audiences *are* fucking retarded. Deal with it. I've accepted it. I've accepted that people flock to shit like FAST AND FURIOUS and all of the shitty SPIDERMAN movies.
But thankfully, good movies like THE DARK KNIGHT, and even the Pixar stuff which is freakishly fucking good, especially when you consider that Pixar is batting a thousand in terms of quality, it gives you hope.
UP is going to be fucking great. This isn't Dreamworks shit. Pixar knows what they're doing and I'm sure UP will make bank. -
search your feelings, you know it to be true
-
That's right. I drew a blank when I was writing. That's more what I meant.
-
...you're just blatantly refusing to acknowledge that all of us have made very, very valid points that completely shut down your stupid fucking argument.
-
I'm saying "make good movies that are genre, or don't make them at all." Don't cater to the whim of the guy who refers to CHRONICLES OF NARNIA as 'a cartoon' whe his girlfriend asks him if he'd like to go and a woman walks out of the theater in front of them recommending it (true story). Don't cater to the elderly duo who looked at Harry's quote on the NGIHTWATCH poster and said "What movie is this? 'Cool as Hell?' Well, with a name like that, who's going to see it?" Don't cater to people who thought the creatures at the end of A.I. were aliens. Don't cater to them. Don't make movies at all if you're going to make them. That way, intelligent people get either good movies or no movies, and the stupid ignorant jerks get no movies at all - since art is required to make good quality. Simple.
-
Are you done yet? At least clean up after yourself, dispose of the tissues and wash your hands!
Oh yeah, and RUCK OFF AND DIE !!! -
I know lots of fellow movie fans who appreciate a good "bad" movie, or a brainless fun movie while still appreciating the high art end of the spectrum as well. Enjoying the brainless and the thoughtful in film is not a mutually exclusive game. It all depends on what one is in the mood to watch at any given moment. This is ultimately why your argument fails, because people are not so easily dissected into two groups. As the saying goes, there are two kinds of people, those who herd people into two groups and those who do not.
-
Shouldn't you want Pixar to succeed both artistically and financially? the former so you can enjoy it, the second so they can continue to make more? Mind actually waiting to see how the film does before preaching the End of Days for the studio (which if you actually factored in all the revenue, aren't suffering nearly as much as you make it sound).
-
The problem is that I honestly don't think these people I've mentioned above DESERVE to enjoy good movies. I'd rather see them not have them. Pixar movies like FINDING NEMO are too good to be shown to FAST AND FURIOUS viewers.
-
to decide who's deserving to see it or not. Oh and thanks for pushing for the theft of a good experience for the rest of us. Your willingness to sacrifice your own personal experience so that others deemed less worthy don't get to see it, is your sacrifice alone. Don't think for a moment that we should expect it apply to the rest of us who do enjoy good films.What makes you think people who enjoy the cheap thrills of the Fast and the Furious and people who enjoy the subtleties of a Pixar film? Massawyrm, I think alone proves there is evidence of such an overlap. You're entirely within your rights to view the movie going public as excessively negative as you do, but it's also without much justification, and shows a lack of subtlety in understanding the varied ways and combination of ways in which people are entertained.
-
"and people who" with "can't". This site needs an edit feature.
-
... is why you seem to be so personally invested in your particular image of the American consumer as a ignorant no-nothing. Won't deny that there's a certain amount of truth in that, but still, I think Pixar has proven that it's possible to make something artistically decent yet still commercially successful... I wonder, are you speaking from experience here? Did you try to make something meaningful and have it fail to gain traction, or something similar? In that case - maybe it really all comes down to luck. The right factors in the right time, I suppose...
-
Купить Дирижабль
-
http://o4em.com
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 209 total posts 207 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 160 total posts 97 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 144 total posts 77 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 68 total posts 68 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 67 total posts 67 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 64 total posts 60 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 480 total posts 55 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 53 total posts 50 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 118 total posts 32 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 182 total posts 27 posts