Jump to content
splad

Solo A Star Wars Story (Spoilers Ahead)

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Nytwyng said:

Meanwhile, the "gravity" that allows you to accept the TIE bombers over the Resistance bombers was drawing the Falcon and the characters to a "wall," but the bombs to the "floor."

Curiouser and curiouser.

Thats why i wrote "unrealistic" gravity, having difficulties to read again or was it more convenient to make a post without reading my post at all ?

The bombers didn't have any targeting systems at all, the gunner was looking down from the ramp she magically fell on and released the bombs which just fell.

A bad scene from the 80s with a "unrealistic" gravity asteroid doesnt justify that sort of crap in a 2018s movie. And leaving the "unrealistic" out in your answer also doesnt make you look smart.

If some tech book claims them to actually have a targeting system and magnetic rails why didnt they place the launch bay into the fron of the bomber, that would have saved the majority of them.

Lets talk about conservation of momentum, so it does apply to falling or launched bombs but not to accelerating ships hmmm...

 

Maybe we should look at the new shielded TIEs.

One can be seen when the plot charakter just pick the right one to escape.

Two can be seen firing torpedos and destroying a part of the rebel ships tactical room, while the ship itself barely takes any even tought its whole hanger get blown away in the prior attack. After that both TIEs get destroyed never to show up again.

Yep you're totally right new fighter all over the place ... not just for a few plot scenes.

 

The bottom line here is:

 

Episode 7 is a bad copy of episode 4 without being able to give the audience any emotional link to the plot charakters.

They are all dull with no real background explaining what they can do or who tought them and thats why noone really cares about them.

Episode 8 is an even worse copy of episode 5. Of course they changed some scenes its not a salt desert at the end and not a snow desert at the beginning uhhh.

But again every new character dull and uninteresting.

Solo is just the same, the main plot isnt bad at all but all the new characters barely have any background, nothing is know about them till they meet Solo and they die like flies without anyone dropping a tear.

The scene where Val kills herself should have been an emotional one, but no nothing few scenes later pilot dies - so what.

Just face it Ep7 and Ep8 are bad copies with just bad lets be cool tech ideas which dont make any sense since they seem to only apply at special points during the movies.

Stuff like a designated fleet killer being destroyed by a single payload of a bomber ... why didnt the use those bombs against Star Destroyers dropping them from Corvettes everyone was just shaking their head ...

 

Not one of those movies managed to get the audience any reason to feel anything for the characters and thats why people watch them once and thats it.

Meanwhile you are still claiming that everythings fine and everyone ist just ranting or doesnt have a clue.

You try so hard to prove me wrong that you falsify quotes by leaving out parts of a sentence to be able to give an answer at all, just ignore points i made, claim the old characters also didnt have a background and when proven wrong simply ignore it or try to explain a fighter a bomber do not belong to the aircraft called "a plane" . Your first answert to my post was an personal attack. Same as the last one, which just show how low your brain capacities are.

Go watch Infinity War with someone who hasnt seen it yet then go watch Solo with him and you will see the difference. And dont give me that crap about different genres - Solo just escaped a giant space octopus.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/29/2018 at 3:40 AM, 2P51 said:

I didn't  like Last Jedi. I liked this. Best of the new Star Wars movies imo. If you were upset with Last Jedi and waiting to pull the trigger on this one, go see it.

I just did, and I agree. This was entertaining. I still won't bother with E8 or E9 after the crapsack that was E7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Waxfire1 said:

 

Boeing Rockwell B-1B Lancer  and Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit  and Convair B-58 Hustler  better ? see all bombers all have "wings" just like the TIE and the X-Wing.. hmm why doesnt the A-Wing have actually have wings ? And why does the B-WIng look so different. so many questions ...

You do know all of those are made with different tech levels, right? That's why they look different, because newer tech allowed for upgrades that made it possible to fulfill their changing role better. Similar reason for why the A-wing and the B-wing look quite different from the TIE or the X-wing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Waxfire1 said:

Lets talk about conservation of momentum, so it does apply to falling or launched bombs but not to accelerating ships hmmm...

Not obeying the normal rules of physics of the real Universe is pretty much a staple of Star Wars. Ships work like planes in Atmosphere and Gravity, specifically like WWII planes. Hence why every time a ship is disabled it suddenly changes direction and heads for the nearest planet.

You can say the physics is wrong (it is), but you can't say (accurately) that puts it out of keeping with Star Wars.

Of course, the supplementary material tries to correct that, but it's all sticking sticking plasters on the issue.

Edited by Darzil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Waxfire1 said:

 

Boeing Rockwell B-1B Lancer  and Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit  and Convair B-58 Hustler  better ? see all bombers all have "wings" just like the TIE and the X-Wing.. hmm why doesnt the A-Wing have actually have wings ? And why does the B-WIng look so different. so many questions ...

Those three are not even from the same generation. 50's, 70's and 90's  ?
And they are not the same type of bombers either, because you are mixing now a  super-sonic bomber with a stealth bomber. But hey, the Convair B-58 and the Rockwell B-1 at least have a similar design. ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Waxfire1 said:

Thats why i wrote "unrealistic" gravity, having difficulties to read again or was it more convenient to make a post without reading my post at all ?

The bombers didn't have any targeting systems at all, the gunner was looking down from the ramp she magically fell on and released the bombs which just fell.

A bad scene from the 80s with a "unrealistic" gravity asteroid doesnt justify that sort of crap in a 2018s movie. And leaving the "unrealistic" out in your answer also doesnt make you look smart.

If some tech book claims them to actually have a targeting system and magnetic rails why didnt they place the launch bay into the fron of the bomber, that would have saved the majority of them.

Lets talk about conservation of momentum, so it does apply to falling or launched bombs but not to accelerating ships hmmm...


I

Get

IT

You

Don't

Like

Star Wars. 

Not the movies you are looking for, move along.


 

12 hours ago, Waxfire1 said:

The movies are being slaughtered by many reviewers, actually i havent found a really good one but we are all just ranting

TOMATOMETER  FOR "THE LAST JEDI"

91%


Still no reason to troll us that hard. 
*shakes head*
Yeah, it's hard to find good reviews for the last jedi. ?

Let me help you with my google fu.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/12/movies/star-wars-the-last-jedi-review.html
https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2397261/i-was-wrong-about-star-wars-the-last-jedi

 

 

 

 

Edited by SEApocalypse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Waxfire1, I said previously that, when I get impassioned, I too can tend towards wall 'o text. And, I'm not going to make a point-by-point reply here for a couple of reasons.

One being that others and I have already addressed most of your points.

The other being that...I don't know what you're on about with roughly half of that last post. (But, nah...you're not ranting.)

So, I'll just summarize.

  • If a movie you enjoyed handles something (characters, tech variants, etc) in a particular way, you're fine with it. If a movie you didn't enjoy handles those things in the same manner, they "did it wrong."
  • You're fine with backing up your perceptions using ancillary media (" the X-Wing having a hyperdrive just as all the Rebel ships was already explained in the first mercendise books and interviews after a New Hope launched"), but dismiss ancillary media if its information runs counter to your perception (dismissing the Visual Dictionary as "some tech book," then moving the goalpost by asking why the bombers weren't made forward-firing if that's the case).
  • You claim difficulty in finding positive reviews of the movies you don't care for, when they're readily available (and, on the flip side, the ones that you do enjoy had their share of unfavorable reviews at the time of their release...in fact, in 1980 The Empire Strikes Back was not seen as favorably as it has come to be).
  • You don't like the newer movies. A fair and reasonable reaction. You're upset that new entries in a franchise that you've enjoyed in the past aren't pushing the right buttons with you. Understandable - I'm sure it's happened to us all at one time or another (I should be right in the bullseye of the target audience for the DC movies, but they're just not doing anything that "sings" to me. At all.) . So, you're looking for "proof" to explain your reaction, and grasping at anything you can find, however inconsequential. And, it's leading you to rage, rant, and ignore when others point out answers to your concerns. (Important to note, pointing out those answers doesn't have to change your not enjoying the movies.) Your response to the movies clearly has you angry. Just remember...anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.
  • When an answer or explanation to one of your concerns is presented, using the same yardsticks that you're applying to measure how the other movies in the series did it "right," you dismiss them or move the goalposts, making it impossible to try to discuss them with you. It's disingenuous.

I hope that your weekend's been going well. I'm up earlier than normal for a Sunday because the dogs decided they needed breakfast early. But, it's giving me time to finish prep for an SWRPG session I'll be playing in later. I hope you find a way to have some fun later today, too.

Edited by Nytwyng

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, would having extremely dangerous, volatile and easy to trigger explosive in a front bay not be rather dangerous when flying into an enemy fleet? 
Not that I am a fan of the bottom bomb bay, it's still dangerous af, but putting it into the front or back both are even more exposed areas of the ship when compared to the belly bay. ?

Edited by SEApocalypse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

BTW, would having extremely dangerous, volatile and easy to trigger explosive in a front bay not be rather dangerous when flying into an enemy fleet? 
Not that I am a fan of the bottom bomb bay, it's still dangerous af, but putting it into the front or back both are even more exposed areas of the ship when compared to the belly bay. ?

Would a bomber still be a bomber if it propelled its payload forward? ;)

At any rate, I'm pretty sure we all know the real reason the bombers were designed that way: continuing the tradition of going for the World War II feel to Star Wars space combat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting side note. As I'm getting ready to head out to that game session, there's a documentary about Steven Spielberg on one of the HBO channels. He just told a story about Lucas showing Spielberg, Francis Ford Coppola, and Brian dePalma a rough cut of the original Star Wars. Per Spielberg, de Palma started shouting about the lack of backstory and context for the characters and world.

Just sayin'. ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone i am kinda new to the forum but here are my toughts:

Solo: I liked the movie - rogue one and Solo are the ones i like most of the newer ones. (I didnt like that close up scene when Enfys Nest took off her helmet, the camera angle was kinda strange as if she took a bad selfie)

EP 7 and 8: Both crap story wise (they had great optics and nice pew pew which i enjoyed to watch and i dont hate them )- poorly written charakter clones of the oridinal ones, technologie that only applies in certain circumstances (Hyperspace tracking working on the fleet not on the Millenium Falcon) TIEs firing torpedos at the Raddus but not at the bombers at the beginning or the beginning scene in which the First Order forgetts to deploy their fighters.

It all looked nice and i liked the space battles but it all didnt makes sense even from a Star Wars standard (its not like everything in the old movies made sense but they were old movies). The main problem here is simply its a copy in EP8 they even went so far to copy the scene at the end of EP5 where Vader and his Snow Troopers search the rebel outpost they just replaced Vader with Kylo Ren and Snow Troopers with "Salt Troopers".

 

About that Waxfire guy:

He didnt say he hates Star Wars he didnt even mention epidose 1-6 or Rogue One. Its is just you 3 or 4 who trie to invalidate his arguements by trying to turn him into a hater or someone without a clue.
Most of his arguements are simply true and i agree with him that the bombers, the new TIEs even the Hyperspace tracking or the Hyperspace ramming dont make any sense.
They were implemented for cool optics and it worked for that, but please stop argueing about different technology lvls - you are simply wrong.
In WW2 the germans were already working the so called  H.IX V1 fighters and they didnt look anything like anyone else was using. Not to mention that Star Wars has a whole galaxy for design ideas...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229


The whole time from the first "your honor post" to the end you guys talk down on him and missuse your better knowledge of the english language to outmaneuver him.

Why dont you guys use google translator and switch to german lets see how smart you sound talking in his main language.

TOMATOMETER  FOR "THE LAST JEDI"

This one is just as useless as any viewer review statistic showing numbers without collecting any neutral data.
It does not take into account which other movies were running at the same time and how successful the the whole movie year was or in what country the movi was shown.


As an example the Star Wars Frenchise was never very successful in china, but most chinese wouldnt write a bad review about it. Same goes for other countries. If i didnt like EP 7 i wont watch Ep 8 and wont write a bad review about it becouse i dont care.
If i watch EP 8 after EP 7 i most likely like it and write a good one. We dont have the number for how many people didnt like the new movies but would have watched another Star Wars movie.
As such the reviews are a wothless statistic since mostly pleople interested in the franchise will write a review. If EP 9 would only be watched by 10 poeple worldwide and each of them would write a good review the score would be at 100%.

Lets take the DC movies as another example , many went into those and expected a marvel movie, they didnt get one so they wrote bad reviews. I promise you the more dc movies will be released, the better the score will be, not becouse more people like them, but people know what to expect by then and as such wont watch them and write bad reviews.

As such any good or bad scoring showing numbers not including the opinion of everyone who was watched the movie is worthless.


The Last Jedi came out in 2017 a very bad year for the movie industrie.

http://www.insidekino.de/DJahr/D2017.htm

One of you posted that, Star Wars - The last Jedi got beaten by "Fack you Göhte3" thats a movie about a teacher trying to get a school class of idiots past the finals but they are just doing **** all the time. The movie is playing with stereotypes of idiotic kids. It had a tiny budged compared to star wars.

I could just post as many Youtube Videas about people giving bad reviews as you just did. (not including that anto feminist or racist crap of course)

Dont forget we are playing Star Wars: Age of Rebellion, Star Wars: Edge of the Empire, Star Wars: Force and Destiny and not the Force Awakens.

[Edit]

Sorry for the wall of text but i didnt want to make 5 different topics.

 

Edited by Hercer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nytwyng said:

Interesting side note. As I'm getting ready to head out to that game session, there's a documentary about Steven Spielberg on one of the HBO channels. He just told a story about Lucas showing Spielberg, Francis Ford Coppola, and Brian dePalma a rough cut of the original Star Wars. Per Spielberg, de Palma started shouting about the lack of backstory and context for the characters and world.

Just sayin'. ?

Its a good thing Brian dePalma didn't make his money off negative click-bate youtube videos then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This should not have been titled Solo: A .Star Wars Story. It should have been titled Solo: An Edge of the Empire Story. I had very mixed feelings walking out of the theater. Don't get me wrong. The casting and performances were solid, the cinemetography and editing were good, it had a fun story and was well paced. It also had some great set-piece scenes that are fodder for both rewatching and inspiring scenes in game.. It also made excellent use of the Star Wars universe and had a good sense of making all the right nods without being too heavy handed about them. Now, I've always been a Luke Skywalker fan as opposed to a Han Solo fan, but I like the character and I think canonizing his backstory was handled well. But, there is a but: there is more to Star Wars than its setting. Star Wars has always been strongly rooted in the themes of the Jedi, the Force, and the Rebellion. Without those elements it didn't feel like a Star Wars Movie (TM) to me. Aside from Maul's gratuitious and fan-****-wonderful lightsaber ignition this was, for the most part, a neo-noir science fiction film that happened to occur in the Star Wars universe. And, in that vein, it was more "Han and friends" than Solo. You always have a plucky, colorful team for a heist. But, out of necessity, that meant it was less focused on the title character than one might expect. Now, that said, this was a solid backstory, a great heist movie, and was a joy to watch. I really enjoyed it and it would be great if it were setting up a sequel focused on more scum and villiany (even though we know they aren't). Also, I love the clothes, especially the preponderance of capes. Its just, for me, it felt like "stuff happening around Star Wars" rather than properly Star Wars.

Edited by Vondy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Vondy said:

But, there is a but: there is more to Star Wars than its setting. Star Wars has always been strongly rooted in the themes of the Jedi, the Force, and the Rebellion. Without those elements it didn't feel like a Star Wars Movie (TM) to me

Umm.  Wasn't that the point?  Jedi would have NO place in a Solo movie?  Otherwise his quote to Luke would have made no point:

Kid, I've flown from one side of this galaxy to the other. I've seen a lot of strange stuff, but I've never seen anything to make me believe there's one all-powerful force controlling everything. There's no mystical energy field that controls my destiny.

So the force CAN'T feature in a Solo story.  I love that they did this as it shows that a majority of the population of the Galaxy had no interaction with the Jedi, so the Jedi are kind of an enigma to them.   I say keep the Solo movies EoTE! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Andreievitch said:

Umm.  Wasn't that the point?  Jedi would have NO place in a Solo movie?  Otherwise his quote to Luke would have made no point:

Kid, I've flown from one side of this galaxy to the other. I've seen a lot of strange stuff, but I've never seen anything to make me believe there's one all-powerful force controlling everything. There's no mystical energy field that controls my destiny.

So the force CAN'T feature in a Solo story.  I love that they did this as it shows that a majority of the population of the Galaxy had no interaction with the Jedi, so the Jedi are kind of an enigma to them.   I say keep the Solo movies EoTE! 

Nowhere did I say those themes should have been in this movie.

Rather, I was largely reacting to and critiquing the title.

"Solo: A Star Wars Story."

I walked out thinking "Not a Star Wars story." This was a story that happened to go down the same universe.

That's fine. I liked the movie. I like EoTE, too. 

I just would have called it something elese. Scratch that. Anything else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/29/2018 at 3:14 PM, Andreievitch said:

I just had flick through the Art of Solo book: https://www.starwars.com/news/art-of-solo-author-phil-szostak-interview

These books always have great ideas for characters, NPCs, locations, ships etc. 

The concept drawings of the DL-44 Carbine are mouthwatering cool.   I need stats! 

I see this thread has descended into the tedious "I don't like the new movies" bullshot.  Sigh.

I will just post this here because I like it.

 

DL44.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My major gripe with this movie is the origin of Han Solo's surname. It was unnecessary and took away from the otherworldliness of the Star Wars Universe by being so literal. "You're really greedy, Rodian, so I'm gonna call you Greedo!"

My minor gripe with this movie is the inclusion of Darth Maul/the Shadow Collective in the finale. I don't want my Star Wars movies to go the way of Marvel Cinematic Universe movies with each installment doubling as an advertisement for an upcoming film. And nobody who isn't familiar with other Star Wars media is going to understand why he's back from the dead.

Overall, and like Rogue One, Solo was an unnecessary but solid Star Wars prequel. Han Solo at Stars' End came out in 1979 and was a major influence on the Expanded Universe. It's ridiculous that it took 40 years for movie producers to realize that there's a place in this setting for stories of the seedy underbelly, considering that Western movies were a major influence on Lucas. After eight - soon to be nine - movies and two TV shows focusing on Jedi, I am bored to tears with space fantasy Kurosawa riffs focusing on Those Who Wield the Lightsaber. The Last Jedi only brought my attention back by making Luke Skywalker a burned-out post-hero, a la Unforgiven or, much more recently, Logan.

Donald Glover was a great Lando, I have conflicting feelings about Social Justice Droid, I like that it embraced Western tropes including a train robbery and more arid settings, and it was nice to finally see Corellia. I appreciated that Qi'ra wasn't killed in the final showdown and seemed morally conflicted about her choices rather than simply being a femme fatale. 

Star Wars as a franchise isn't designed to give us anything new or to have its audience struggle with moral puzzles, like Star Trek. It's about remixing movie tropes in a visually interesting way. By that criteria, Solo works. If you want more than that, you will be disappointed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Concise Locket said:

My major gripe with this movie is the origin of Han Solo's surname. It was unnecessary and took away from the otherworldliness of the Star Wars Universe by being so literal. "You're really greedy, Rodian, so I'm gonna call you Greedo!"

My minor gripe with this movie is the inclusion of Darth Maul/the Shadow Collective in the finale. I don't want my Star Wars movies to go the way of Marvel Cinematic Universe movies with each installment doubling as an advertisement for an upcoming film. And nobody who isn't familiar with other Star Wars media is going to understand why he's back from the dead.

Overall, and like Rogue One, Solo was an unnecessary but solid Star Wars prequel. Han Solo at Stars' End came out in 1979 and was a major influence on the Expanded Universe. It's ridiculous that it took 40 years for movie producers to realize that there's a place in this setting for stories of the seedy underbelly, considering that Western movies were a major influence on Lucas. After eight - soon to be nine - movies and two TV shows focusing on Jedi, I am bored to tears with space fantasy Kurosawa riffs focusing on Those Who Wield the Lightsaber. The Last Jedi only brought my attention back by making Luke Skywalker a burned-out post-hero, a la Unforgiven or, much more recently, Logan.

Donald Glover was a great Lando, I have conflicting feelings about Social Justice Droid, I like that it embraced Western tropes including a train robbery and more arid settings, and it was nice to finally see Corellia. I appreciated that Qi'ra wasn't killed in the final showdown and seemed morally conflicted about her choices rather than simply being a femme fatale. 

Star Wars as a franchise isn't designed to give us anything new or to have its audience struggle with moral puzzles, like Star Trek. It's about remixing movie tropes in a visually interesting way. By that criteria, Solo works. If you want more than that, you will be disappointed.

I agree with this & to be honest I wasn’t at all bothered by his name or the inclusion of Darth Maul!

In my opinion the “Story” films are far stronger than either TFA or TLJ. For me Star Wars doesn’t have to revolve around the Skywalkers or the Jedi.... it’s a big universe, there’s lots of stories to tell! After all we should all know this... seeing as we all role play in the place!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The movie was fine.

So, a little anecdote. After seeing it, the next day I spoke with a buddy who I went to see it with. He said he liked Solo less the more he thought of it. It actually dawned on me that I don't think I had a conscious thought about the movie after getting home until he brought it up.

So the movie exists, and is fine, but that's about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Swordbreaker said:

The movie was fine.

So, a little anecdote. After seeing it, the next day I spoke with a buddy who I went to see it with. He said he liked Solo less the more he thought of it. It actually dawned on me that I don't think I had a conscious thought about the movie after getting home until he brought it up.

So the movie exists, and is fine, but that's about it.

I feel about the same.  I came out of it feeling happy.  I had a fun time.  I don't really care if I ever see it again.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Swordbreaker said:

So, a little anecdote. After seeing it, the next day I spoke with a buddy who I went to see it with. He said he liked Solo less the more he thought of it. It actually dawned on me that I don't think I had a conscious thought about the movie after getting home until he brought it up.

Interestingly enough, I just listened to the latest Order 66 podcast where they discuss their various thoughts on the film, and GM Chris had much the same stance, in that as he saw the film additional times (three in total), the less he liked it and the more he found problems with the story.  Granted, a few of those problems were cut down by their guest host who posited some very good points that Chris hadn't really taken into consideration.

Myself, being a child of the 80's, I'm no stranger to films where the plot has about as much depth as a sheet of paper and the resilience to scrutiny as a wet sheet of paper, so that didn't bother me all that much with regards to Solo.

But then, Solo was never a movie that set out to revolutionize either the franchise or shake up cinema as we know it or light the world on fire.  It's simply a fun popcorn flick, and is just asking to be treated as nothing more than a couple hours' worth of escapism.

My own view, some of the MCU's offerings (Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man) are much the same in terms of what they set out to be.  GotG just happened to be lightning in a bottle and struck box-office gold (if any of the MCU's films should have bombed, GotG was it).  And I doubt Ant-Man and Wasp is going to see nearly the success that Avengers: Infinity War is enjoying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drama and emotion aside I'm curious what changes get made if any.  I find it hard to believe the Mouse High Command will just shrug off a $200 billion +ish hit and not do something.  I don't know about any of the 'strom the Bastille' calls for KKs head, but I bet something gets done.

I'm thinking 9 gets pushed back from Dec 2019 to May 2020, and I bet the whole franchise takes a 6 month push as well.  

A little extra time to polish scripts and storyboards, program in some breathing room for reshoots, a couple few extra secret focus groups, maybe a background check/mental health eval for directors being considered, would all be good things for the franchise I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...