WatchmenComicMovie.com Forum


Talk about the Watchmen comic book mini-series and film
It is currently Tue Nov 20, 2018 7:32 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 205 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 11  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 9:43 pm 
Offline
Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 7:29 am
Posts: 4978
If you count ifanboy, cbr and comicgeekspeak as mainstream media outlets, then yes.

_________________
Say, Doc, did I ever tell you I'm the only metal that's liquid at room temperature?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 10:18 pm 
Offline
...you're locked in here with me!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 9:19 pm
Posts: 10658
Location: Arkham, Mass.
Smutty wrote:
If you count ifanboy, cbr and comicgeekspeak as mainstream media outlets, then yes.


I totally do

_________________
@RealSlimCAvery
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:35 am 
Offline
Government-Sponsored Weirdo
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:39 am
Posts: 7191
Location: Everywhere, Everywhen, UK.
Godziller66 wrote:
Dr. Brooklyn wrote:
Writer Of Wrongs wrote:
mainstream media


you think the mainstream media is going to cover this?

More like LAMEstream media. OHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHO. I crack myself up.

Also, no.


dude, we have the exact same sense of humour, who knew!?

_________________
We're all actors, Laurie. I'm just an actor who read the script. :?
ImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 6:57 am 
Offline
The Watcher
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2007 8:58 am
Posts: 3650
Location: New York
Smutty wrote:
If you count ifanboy, cbr and comicgeekspeak as mainstream media outlets, then yes.

Right. Very reliable, but not the New York Times. Neither am I, however, I thought you all would like to see if I had a take or not. Now, with a new email I just received, I am more than 100% positive new Watchmen material is on the way.

Now, what I'm curious about is if DC struck a deal with Moore for the rights, or if they're just steamrolling over him?

_________________
Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 9:56 am 
Offline
...you're locked in here with me!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 9:19 pm
Posts: 10658
Location: Arkham, Mass.
DoomsdayClock wrote:
if they're just steamrolling over him?


I'd bet dollar's to doughnuts it's this one, I think DC realizes they don't need his blessing, and the new people that were brought in with just the movie or say the new 52 wouldn't know who Moore is and probably don't care if his rights were violated

_________________
@RealSlimCAvery
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 10:45 am 
Offline
New Frontiersman
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 12:26 pm
Posts: 317
Alan Moore has variously said:
Quote:
They offered me the rights to Watchmen back, if I would agree to some dopey prequels and sequels.

I had grown so sick of WATCHMEN over these last 18 months that I didn’t want the rights back anymore. If they had offered them back to me back when I wanted them, ten, twenty years ago, then maybe this could have all been resolved in a friendly fashion. But no, I wasn’t going to take the rights back at this stage after they had pretty much, in my opinion, raped what I had thought to be a pretty decent work of art. I didn’t want them throwing me back the spent and exhausted carcass of my work and certainly not under terms that would apparently allow them to go on producing witless sequels and prequels ad infinitum.

So this would seem to explain their apparent desperate need to get me to put my signature upon something, which I’m not inclined to do. This is because I actually felt that the work we did on WATCHMEN was somehow special. I have got a great deal of respect for that work. I do not want to see it prostituted. This has always been my position. I don’t want to see it prostituted and made into a run of cheap books that are nothing like the original WATCHMEN which, anyway, wouldn’t work if it was dismantled. Those characters only work as an ensemble. A comic book about Doctor Manhattan would be really obtuse and boring. A comic book about Rorscharch would be really miserable. They only work together in WATCHMEN...

I certainly am not going to meekly fall into line and sign away the rights of my property because that would be as good as saying “Yes, well, the business about you threatening Steve Moore and his dying brother, at least in my opinion, that’s all okay, let’s forgive and forget. The fact that you’re going to turn over these characters and this work that I was so proud of to a bunch of people that I consider to be hacks to simply dilute it and degrade it for your commercial profit, that’s all okay by me.” No, that isn’t going to happen. That is a thing that I will go quite a considerable way to stop happening.

So I said to Dave Gibbons, “For the sake of our friendship, Dave, I think it would be better if you and I did not discuss WATCHMEN ever again.”

I got the sense that they were talking, what, a couple of million, something like that, to sign over all of my rights to WATCHMEN. Which I again rejected for much the same reasons. This all took about two or three minutes and that concluded the conversation. I imagine that this will probably be the last one I will be having with Dave, which is very regrettable. I do tend to get the feeling that everything that I say is being ignored. All the things that I ask to have done are just completely ignored.

I don’t even have a copy of Watchmen in the house anymore. The comics world has lots of unpleasant connections, when I think back over it, many of them to do with Watchmen.


(Alan Moore + Integrity) x Class = Image

If anything, I personally think that all of this is likely to make Alan even more determined to insist via legal channels that his name be removed from the creator credits of all future printings of the original graphic novel.
Rather this than suffer the ignominy of being spoken of amongst any potential new audience thus: "You should read WATCHMEN... just make sure you get the one written by Alan Moore, not the ones by [INSERT NAME HERE]."

Do we really want to be in the position of having the original work hereafter referred to by the term "The Alan Moore run on WATCHMEN"?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 12:38 pm 
Offline
Thermodynamic Miracle
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:48 pm
Posts: 245
Location: Portugal
Quote:
A comic book about Rorscharch would be really miserable.


Let's find out. 8-)

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:23 pm 
Offline
...you're locked in here with me!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 9:19 pm
Posts: 10658
Location: Arkham, Mass.
Writer Of Wrongs wrote:
Do we really want to be in the position of having the original work hereafter referred to by the term "The Alan Moore run on WATCHMEN"?


This question would start more discussion if it wasn't posed to a group of rabid fanboys who would chose to save their copy of watchmen in a fire over their families. Of course none of us want that, but we have no power over this

_________________
@RealSlimCAvery
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:26 pm 
Offline
Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 7:29 am
Posts: 4978
Nobody refers to Top Ten as "Alan Moore's run on Top Ten".
If anything it will be more like telling people to read DKR but stay away from DKSA.

_________________
Say, Doc, did I ever tell you I'm the only metal that's liquid at room temperature?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:42 pm 
Offline
New Frontiersman
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 12:26 pm
Posts: 317
But in the case of DK2, Miller has only himself to blame. He was the one who happily went and created his own significantly lesser follow-up and probably now wonders - like most fans - why he bothered in the first place.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:46 pm 
Offline
The Watcher
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2007 8:58 am
Posts: 3650
Location: New York
Writer Of Wrongs wrote:
If anything, I personally think that all of this is likely to make Alan even more determined to insist via legal channels that his name be removed from the creator credits of all future printings of the original graphic novel.
Rather this than suffer the ignominy of being spoken of amongst any potential new audience thus: "You should read WATCHMEN... just make sure you get the one written by Alan Moore, not the ones by [INSERT NAME HERE]."

Do we really want to be in the position of having the original work hereafter referred to by the term "The Alan Moore run on WATCHMEN"?

Writer, I'd like to get your take on a few things.

What is the difference between Moore taking classic literary characters that some other writers created and inserting them into his own comic book series' and other writers taking the Watchmen characters and inserting them into their own comics. What gives Moore the right and not anyone else?

Is it simply because Moore has been outspoken about his anger toward DC? The writers Moore borrowed from are all dead, but how do we know that Jules Verne or H. Rider Haggard were alive they wouldn't be vexed at Moore for what he did to their creations?

And what about Dave Gibbons's rights? He was co-creator - not just the guy who happened to draw it - so if he's agreeable to see these new incarnations, why doesn't he have the right to green-light such projects?

Everyone seems to put Moore on this intellectual and moral high horse, but he took DC's money to create Watchmen. He willingly signed the contract; they let Moore pick Gibbons as his partner; and moreover, DC took a huge risk on a far-out concept and let Moore and Gibbons make the series they wanted to make. What did DC do that was so "evil?" What did they do that they haven't done to every comics writer and artist in the history of comics. What have they done that Marvel hasn't done - or any corporation.

If you think about it, Stan Lee has been "treated worse" than Alan Moore, but Lee's relationship with Marvel is solid. The comics industry is a business, period. Moore wants it to be about "art," but it's not. It took Moore a while to figure this out and now he lives on the fringe of comics and is happy to be there doing his art. I'm happy for him, but I think he needs to get over himself. He's not the martyr he would like us all to think he is.

Sure. DC's move to make Watchmen prequels may be motivated by greed, but I really doubt that. If what they make turns out to be a big pile of shit, so be it. It doesn't sully or stain Moore's work. Did Star Trek V make all the trekkie's forget about Star Trek II? Did it make the fans say, "fuck this, Star Trek sucks now, it's all over." No.

The truth is, what will overshadow the original Watchmen more isn't a shitty prequel or spinoff, but a really good one. In fact, if they crank a few shitty one's out it will help put a huge nail in the coffin of a Watchmen franchise. A good one however, would likely create an opening for more and more comic byproducts.

I love Moore's early work. He was a genius. But he needs to relax and see what other talents can do with Watchmen - just like he re-invented Verne and Haggard. Not because these new artist can do better, but because they should just have the freedom to try.

_________________
Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:52 pm 
Offline
Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 7:29 am
Posts: 4978
Writer Of Wrongs wrote:
But in the case of DK2, Miller has only himself to blame. He was the one who happily went and created his own significantly lesser follow-up and probably now wonders - like most fans - why he bothered in the first place.


While quaint, irrelevant. The DKR comparison was used in order to shoot down the ludicrousness of the idea of "Alan Moore's Run On Watchmen", and had nothing to do with quality at all, only titles and semantics.
It's almost like you aren't even going to give these prequels a chance and you're just writing them off as bad news before they've even been written.

_________________
Say, Doc, did I ever tell you I'm the only metal that's liquid at room temperature?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 3:24 pm 
Offline
Thermodynamic Miracle
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:48 pm
Posts: 245
Location: Portugal
DoomsdayClock wrote:
Writer Of Wrongs wrote:
If anything, I personally think that all of this is likely to make Alan even more determined to insist via legal channels that his name be removed from the creator credits of all future printings of the original graphic novel.
Rather this than suffer the ignominy of being spoken of amongst any potential new audience thus: "You should read WATCHMEN... just make sure you get the one written by Alan Moore, not the ones by [INSERT NAME HERE]."

Do we really want to be in the position of having the original work hereafter referred to by the term "The Alan Moore run on WATCHMEN"?

Writer, I'd like to get your take on a few things.

What is the difference between Moore taking classic literary characters that some other writers created and inserting them into his own comic book series' and other writers taking the Watchmen characters and inserting them into their own comics. What gives Moore the right and not anyone else?

Is it simply because Moore has been outspoken about his anger toward DC? The writers Moore borrowed from are all dead, but how do we know that Jules Verne or H. Rider Haggard were alive they wouldn't be vexed at Moore for what he did to their creations?

And what about Dave Gibbons's rights? He was co-creator - not just the guy who happened to draw it - so if he's agreeable to see these new incarnations, why doesn't he have the right to green-light such projects?

Everyone seems to put Moore on this intellectual and moral high horse, but he took DC's money to create Watchmen. He willingly signed the contract; they let Moore pick Gibbons as his partner; and moreover, DC took a huge risk on a far-out concept and let Moore and Gibbons make the series they wanted to make. What did DC do that was so "evil?" What did they do that they haven't done to every comics writer and artist in the history of comics. What have they done that Marvel hasn't done - or any corporation.

If you think about it, Stan Lee has been "treated worse" than Alan Moore, but Lee's relationship with Marvel is solid. The comics industry is a business, period. Moore wants it to be about "art," but it's not. It took Moore a while to figure this out and now he lives on the fringe of comics and is happy to be there doing his art. I'm happy for him, but I think he needs to get over himself. He's not the martyr he would like us all to think he is.

Sure. DC's move to make Watchmen prequels may be motivated by greed, but I really doubt that. If what they make turns out to be a big pile of shit, so be it. It doesn't sully or stain Moore's work. Did Star Trek V make all the trekkie's forget about Star Trek II? Did it make the fans say, "fuck this, Star Trek sucks now, it's all over." No.

The truth is, what will overshadow the original Watchmen more isn't a shitty prequel or spinoff, but a really good one. In fact, if they crank a few shitty one's out it will help put a huge nail in the coffin of a Watchmen franchise. A good one however, would likely create an opening for more and more comic byproducts.

I love Moore's early work. He was a genius. But he needs to relax and see what other talents can do with Watchmen - just like he re-invented Verne and Haggard. Not because these new artist can do better, but because they should just have the freedom to try.


Image

QFT.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 3:28 pm 
Offline
…a puppet who can see the strings.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:42 pm
Posts: 8542
Location: A stronger world
DoomsdayClock wrote:
What is the difference between Moore taking classic literary characters that some other writers created and inserting them into his own comic book series' and other writers taking the Watchmen characters and inserting them into their own comics. What gives Moore the right and not anyone else?

Context is all-important. No-one picks up a comic featuring century-old characters and expects it to be canon, especially when said characters are embedded in popular culture to the extent that playing with them is not only acceptable, but important.
Any follow-up/follow-behind Watchmen comics would be published by DC Comics. This isn't The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. This is Jaws 2.

_________________
Dr. Brooklyn wrote:
it was tying it into the rape-revenge stories and making light of a verys erious sub-genre that kind of offended me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 3:59 pm 
Offline
Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 7:29 am
Posts: 4978
AYBGerrardo wrote:
DoomsdayClock wrote:
What is the difference between Moore taking classic literary characters that some other writers created and inserting them into his own comic book series' and other writers taking the Watchmen characters and inserting them into their own comics. What gives Moore the right and not anyone else?

Context is all-important. No-one picks up a comic featuring century-old characters and expects it to be canon, especially when said characters are embedded in popular culture to the extent that playing with them is not only acceptable, but important.
Any follow-up/follow-behind Watchmen comics would be published by DC Comics. This isn't The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. This is Jaws 2.


OR it's the very under the radar sequel to Top Ten, which I mentioned earlier, and even though it wasn't by Moore and wasn't as deep as Moore's original series, it was still enjoyable.
And guess what? It was made less than thirty years after the original.

_________________
Say, Doc, did I ever tell you I'm the only metal that's liquid at room temperature?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 4:15 pm 
Offline
Tired of Earth.
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 3:19 pm
Posts: 8132
Location: 1060 W. Addison St.
But the purpose of Watchmen was so that any spin-off/sequel/prequel stuff wouldn't be as good as the original, was it not? Again, with the exception of that Minutemen prequel Moore & Gibbons were going to do, but then the DKSA thing would come up again.


I'm done with this thread.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 4:27 pm 
Offline
The Watcher
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2007 8:58 am
Posts: 3650
Location: New York
WJK wrote:
But the purpose of Watchmen was so that any spin-off/sequel/prequel stuff wouldn't be as good as the original, was it not? Again, with the exception of that Minutemen prequel Moore & Gibbons were going to do, but then the DKSA thing would come up again.


I'm done with this thread.

The purpose of Watchmen was to create Watchmen. Prequel/sequel/spinoffs are irrelevant. Yes, a sequel in my opinion would suck and be pointless, but it can be done.

In my opinion the original Planet of the Apes did not need a sequel. In a sense, it didn't need one, nor did it call for one. However, they made a shit-ton of those and they made money. None were as good as the original, but they were made.

There are no sacred cows in the media word - just ask George Lucas.

_________________
Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 5:51 pm 
Offline
I don't think there is a god. And if there is I'm nothing like him.
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:26 pm
Posts: 5400
Location: Knee Deep in the Dead
DoomsdayClock wrote:
Writer Of Wrongs wrote:
If anything, I personally think that all of this is likely to make Alan even more determined to insist via legal channels that his name be removed from the creator credits of all future printings of the original graphic novel.
Rather this than suffer the ignominy of being spoken of amongst any potential new audience thus: "You should read WATCHMEN... just make sure you get the one written by Alan Moore, not the ones by [INSERT NAME HERE]."

Do we really want to be in the position of having the original work hereafter referred to by the term "The Alan Moore run on WATCHMEN"?

Writer, I'd like to get your take on a few things.

What is the difference between Moore taking classic literary characters that some other writers created and inserting them into his own comic book series' and other writers taking the Watchmen characters and inserting them into their own comics. What gives Moore the right and not anyone else?

Is it simply because Moore has been outspoken about his anger toward DC? The writers Moore borrowed from are all dead, but how do we know that Jules Verne or H. Rider Haggard were alive they wouldn't be vexed at Moore for what he did to their creations?

And what about Dave Gibbons's rights? He was co-creator - not just the guy who happened to draw it - so if he's agreeable to see these new incarnations, why doesn't he have the right to green-light such projects?

Everyone seems to put Moore on this intellectual and moral high horse, but he took DC's money to create Watchmen. He willingly signed the contract; they let Moore pick Gibbons as his partner; and moreover, DC took a huge risk on a far-out concept and let Moore and Gibbons make the series they wanted to make. What did DC do that was so "evil?" What did they do that they haven't done to every comics writer and artist in the history of comics. What have they done that Marvel hasn't done - or any corporation.

If you think about it, Stan Lee has been "treated worse" than Alan Moore, but Lee's relationship with Marvel is solid. The comics industry is a business, period. Moore wants it to be about "art," but it's not. It took Moore a while to figure this out and now he lives on the fringe of comics and is happy to be there doing his art. I'm happy for him, but I think he needs to get over himself. He's not the martyr he would like us all to think he is.

Sure. DC's move to make Watchmen prequels may be motivated by greed, but I really doubt that. If what they make turns out to be a big pile of shit, so be it. It doesn't sully or stain Moore's work. Did Star Trek V make all the trekkie's forget about Star Trek II? Did it make the fans say, "fuck this, Star Trek sucks now, it's all over." No.

The truth is, what will overshadow the original Watchmen more isn't a shitty prequel or spinoff, but a really good one. In fact, if they crank a few shitty one's out it will help put a huge nail in the coffin of a Watchmen franchise. A good one however, would likely create an opening for more and more comic byproducts.

I love Moore's early work. He was a genius. But he needs to relax and see what other talents can do with Watchmen - just like he re-invented Verne and Haggard. Not because these new artist can do better, but because they should just have the freedom to try.

Ditto. 8-)

_________________
My letterboxd

I'll be right back. I gotta go see a man about a mule.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 8:06 pm 
Offline
Tired of Earth.
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 11:01 am
Posts: 8041
Location: Clackamas, OR
For my part, I'm done philosophizing on the subject until I have some better idea of where DC is going with this. Thankful as I am for all the work that Doomsday and his fellow journalists have done, it's hard for me to get too riled up over rumors and hearsay. I need a more concrete idea of exactly what DC is doing and why (you know, besides the obvious).

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence. It biases the judgment." --Sherlock Holmes

_________________
This is truly a madhouse. And I'm the lunatic running it. I've spent three years wondering if I should be proud or ashamed.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 12:17 am 
Offline
...you're locked in here with me!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 9:19 pm
Posts: 10658
Location: Arkham, Mass.
DoomsdayClock wrote:
Writer Of Wrongs wrote:
If anything, I personally think that all of this is likely to make Alan even more determined to insist via legal channels that his name be removed from the creator credits of all future printings of the original graphic novel.
Rather this than suffer the ignominy of being spoken of amongst any potential new audience thus: "You should read WATCHMEN... just make sure you get the one written by Alan Moore, not the ones by [INSERT NAME HERE]."

Do we really want to be in the position of having the original work hereafter referred to by the term "The Alan Moore run on WATCHMEN"?

Writer, I'd like to get your take on a few things.

What is the difference between Moore taking classic literary characters that some other writers created and inserting them into his own comic book series' and other writers taking the Watchmen characters and inserting them into their own comics. What gives Moore the right and not anyone else?

Is it simply because Moore has been outspoken about his anger toward DC? The writers Moore borrowed from are all dead, but how do we know that Jules Verne or H. Rider Haggard were alive they wouldn't be vexed at Moore for what he did to their creations?

And what about Dave Gibbons's rights? He was co-creator - not just the guy who happened to draw it - so if he's agreeable to see these new incarnations, why doesn't he have the right to green-light such projects?

Everyone seems to put Moore on this intellectual and moral high horse, but he took DC's money to create Watchmen. He willingly signed the contract; they let Moore pick Gibbons as his partner; and moreover, DC took a huge risk on a far-out concept and let Moore and Gibbons make the series they wanted to make. What did DC do that was so "evil?" What did they do that they haven't done to every comics writer and artist in the history of comics. What have they done that Marvel hasn't done - or any corporation.

If you think about it, Stan Lee has been "treated worse" than Alan Moore, but Lee's relationship with Marvel is solid. The comics industry is a business, period. Moore wants it to be about "art," but it's not. It took Moore a while to figure this out and now he lives on the fringe of comics and is happy to be there doing his art. I'm happy for him, but I think he needs to get over himself. He's not the martyr he would like us all to think he is.

Sure. DC's move to make Watchmen prequels may be motivated by greed, but I really doubt that. If what they make turns out to be a big pile of shit, so be it. It doesn't sully or stain Moore's work. Did Star Trek V make all the trekkie's forget about Star Trek II? Did it make the fans say, "fuck this, Star Trek sucks now, it's all over." No.

The truth is, what will overshadow the original Watchmen more isn't a shitty prequel or spinoff, but a really good one. In fact, if they crank a few shitty one's out it will help put a huge nail in the coffin of a Watchmen franchise. A good one however, would likely create an opening for more and more comic byproducts.

I love Moore's early work. He was a genius. But he needs to relax and see what other talents can do with Watchmen - just like he re-invented Verne and Haggard. Not because these new artist can do better, but because they should just have the freedom to try.


DDC, You nailed it exactly. I agree with like 99.9% of this post

_________________
@RealSlimCAvery
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 205 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 11  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.130s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]