Jump to content
D.Erasmus

Anyone else seen Solo yet? *Spoilers*

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Hobojebus said:

@redcastle you've forgotten to account for advertising which as a rule is equal to the production budget, so it's 250+150 which would be the 400 million figure, however recent reports said they spent more right before release so I gave a lower and upper estimate.

I don't want people to abandon star wars I'm not the one causing that Katherine  Kennedy is the one doing that By being more concerned with pushing a message than making a good movie.

I'm one person all alone who refused to spend £6 to waste two and a half hours, if I were a crazy  the film would of been a success, but it wasn't and you need to accept it was more than just a few disgruntled fans that stayed away, it was the general public too.

The following tweet:

"Sorry to have brought identity/gender politics into... NOPE. Not sorry AT ALL 'cause I think the GALAXY George gave birth to in '77 is big enough for EVERYONE: straight, gay, black, white, brown, Twi'lek, Sullustan, Wookiee, DROID & anything inbetween." Jon kasdan

 is proof positive of my claims.

 

 

 

There's a bunch of reasons why the movie might not be making as much money as it could be. At the very bottom of that list is "conservative fans are boycotting the movie"

Kasdan's tweet is both delightful and meaningless. The galaxy certainly IS big enough for everyone. But a tweet responding to the very vocal alt-right trolls on the internet is not proof of far left progressive values being injected into the franchise. Come on hobo, I expect a higher level of discourse than this. If you want to make the case that far left progressive values are ruining the franchise, you'll need to actually talk about the movies.

Which will be particularly interesting for SOLO given that you haven't seen it!

Edited by Chucknuckle

Share this post


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

@redcastle you've forgotten to account for advertising which as a rule is equal to the production budget, so it's 250+150 which would be the 400 million figure, however recent reports said they spent more right before release so I gave a lower and upper estimate.

I don't want people to abandon star wars I'm not the one causing that Katherine  Kennedy is the one doing that By being more concerned with pushing a message than making a good movie.

I'm one person all alone who refused to spend £6 to waste two and a half hours, if I were a crazy  the film would of been a success, but it wasn't and you need to accept it was more than just a few disgruntled fans that stayed away, it was the general public too.

The following tweet:

"Sorry to have brought identity/gender politics into... NOPE. Not sorry AT ALL 'cause I think the GALAXY George gave birth to in '77 is big enough for EVERYONE: straight, gay, black, white, brown, Twi'lek, Sullustan, Wookiee, DROID & anything inbetween." Jon kasdan

 is proof positive of my claims.

 

 

 

That tweet is right, though, Hobo. This galaxy is big enough for everybody and everything. If you don't think that, just where are you putting your head man? Like for real, with how many alien'n such there are, if you think a few characters having nonbinary tastes or identities or what-have-you is weird...

Then you have a woefully narrow scope on just what a galaxy far far away could be like, and I'm sorry for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got back from seeing it. Overall my feelings are...eh.

It was enjoyable enough, but I don't think they needed to go out of their way to tell the backstory of EVERYTHING. I mean did we REALLY need to learn why Threepio was exasperated with the Falcon's navicomputer's dialect? Or to see how Han got his DL-44?

Also, I just didn't find the NuCanon depiction of the Maw and Kessel Run anywhere near as intriguing as the Legends version. It was just another overly-CGIed BLAM of the sort that has become ALL too common in the franchise since the Prequels, that became less about Han's piloting ability and the Falcon's speed than it was the magic super fuel.

Emilia Clarke was gorgeous, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, FlyingAnchors said:

Because the co-writer has made several tweets about it.

This all goes back to my theory, "the world is a better place if you don't read twitter." :)

That said, I slogged through his twitter feed to find examples, but only found the "there's room enough for everyone in my galaxy!" thing, nothing making Lando anything but a womanizer with a woke robot. Did I miss it?

Let us not forget, of course, the we'll always have the most deviant pan-sexual in Star Wars - Jabba the Hutt. Here's a serpentine cone head with a gland disorder, dressing up bipeds in bikinis to leer at and occasionally kill. You want modern politics in Star Wars, boom, he's the Weinstein of Tattooine.

Share this post


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

Just got back from seeing it. Overall my feelings are...eh.

It was enjoyable enough, but I don't think they needed to go out of their way to tell the backstory of EVERYTHING. I mean did we REALLY need to learn why Threepio was exasperated with the Falcon's navicomputer's dialect? Or to see how Han got his DL-44?

Your opinion pretty much sums up my own. Really, I don't think the film is all that worth arguing over, it doesn't really harm anything even if I'm a fan more of some of the original EU stuff like how Han choose to save Chewie from slavery as opposed to being in a bad position that required him to work with Chewie to get out of it. But, to be fair I'd be more down for a Solo sequel or a Lando led film since we'd hopefully get something new as opposed to showing how character gets 'x'. But I'd ideally rather just get new characters and stories all together that aren't tied to the Skywalker saga. 

1 hour ago, jharrington said:

This all goes back to my theory, "the world is a better place if you don't read twitter." :)

That said, I slogged through his twitter feed to find examples, but only found the "there's room enough for everyone in my galaxy!" thing, nothing making Lando anything but a womanizer with a woke robot. Did I miss it?

Let us not forget, of course, the we'll always have the most deviant pan-sexual in Star Wars - Jabba the Hutt. Here's a serpentine cone head with a gland disorder, dressing up bipeds in bikinis to leer at and occasionally kill. You want modern politics in Star Wars, boom, he's the Weinstein of Tattooine.

Kasdan said Lando was pansexual in one of the interviews, I think he was asked if there was something up with Lando and Han since there is the trailer where L# tells Lando to stop flirting. Just like CapXBucky some people really want to push for relationships even if they aren't there.

If you think Jabba is odd/weird in the EU, before Clone Wars, Hutts were asexual so they just sort of had a part break off of themselves to reproduce and Jabba was seen as VERY WEIRD by the other hutts for sort of having an attraction to humanoid females. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Animewarsdude said:

Your opinion pretty much sums up my own. Really, I don't think the film is all that worth arguing over, it doesn't really harm anything even if I'm a fan more of some of the original EU stuff like how Han choose to save Chewie from slavery as opposed to being in a bad position that required him to work with Chewie to get out of it. But, to be fair I'd be more down for a Solo sequel or a Lando led film since we'd hopefully get something new as opposed to showing how character gets 'x'. But I'd ideally rather just get new characters and stories all together that aren't tied to the Skywalker saga. 

Kasdan said Lando was pansexual in one of the interviews, I think he was asked if there was something up with Lando and Han since there is the trailer where L# tells Lando to stop flirting. Just like CapXBucky some people really want to push for relationships even if they aren't there.

If you think Jabba is odd/weird in the EU, before Clone Wars, Hutts were asexual so they just sort of had a part break off of themselves to reproduce and Jabba was seen as VERY WEIRD by the other hutts for sort of having an attraction to humanoid females. 

I think they technically are still hermaphroditic, but they just kinda' pick a gender to ascribe themselves to, if they so desire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:

I think they technically are still hermaphroditic, but they just kinda' pick a gender to ascribe themselves to, if they so desire.

I sort of wish they were, just since it would make them more unique and likely think differently than other races to an extent based off their biology but according to Pablo Hidalgo it is canon now that they have male and female sexes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:

I think they technically are still hermaphroditic, but they just kinda' pick a gender to ascribe themselves to, if they so desire.

(I can't believe of all things i'm discussing Hutt reproduction... HUTT REPRODUCTION... on the forums.)

I think that would make them both, would it not? Maybe the more correct term is asexual hermaphrodites?

3 hours ago, jharrington said:

This all goes back to my theory, "the world is a better place if you don't read twitter." :)

That said, I slogged through his twitter feed to find examples, but only found the "there's room enough for everyone in my galaxy!" thing, nothing making Lando anything but a womanizer with a woke robot. Did I miss it?

Let us not forget, of course, the we'll always have the most deviant pan-sexual in Star Wars - Jabba the Hutt. Here's a serpentine cone head with a gland disorder, dressing up bipeds in bikinis to leer at and occasionally kill. You want modern politics in Star Wars, boom, he's the Weinstein of Tattooine.

Yeah, the whole twitter thing was a response to some fan. Because you know, what better way to bash your fan base when you royally screw up characters than social media! /s

Also, I believe it's more of a status symbol than anything else for Jabba. Also there's this whole subtle plot arc of humiliating Leia by forcing her to wear that outfit while he has her on the end of a chain, but then she just bides her time to strike back at him and overpowers him (thank the maker this is something the movie doesn't tell you verbally, but it's certainly there if you want to think about it and appreciate it as such). 

And no, quite frankly I do not want and am sick of modern politics in these recent Star Wars movies. I want the George Lucas style, where everything could be related back to real world stuff if you wanted to, but you don't have to. I know a lot of people draw correlation between the Bush Admin and the PT, and while you could interpret it that way, You can also just as easily apply it to the Nixon Admin, which is what George was symbolically undertoned talking about in the OT, Or Hitler, or Julius Ceaser. I'm sure in some ways (depending on your political stance) you could relate it to either Obama or Trump as well. I guess what I really want is a science fiction space opera with general political undertones that I can ignore or pick apart at my choosing, but not catered specifically to my personal political stances, because Star Wars is supposed to be enjoyable for everyone.

Of course feel free to agree or disagree with part or all of this. Part of what I find fun is discussing these what ifs and how people take different things from watching the same movie. That's why I am very upset about this one interview/tweet because that magic is lost. As well as the fact that Lando's sexuality doesn't serve to add to the story at all(not in the OT, not in Rebels, Certainly not in Solo), and it's thrown in backhandedly in part (theory) from Deadpool 2 doing well and the other is because there's this notion that if a character is X, he will only be relatable to group X, and can never possibly be relatable to group Y, group Z, group S, etc. and making a character anything with the primary goal of making a character relatable based on a certain demographic:

giphy.gif

(As opposed to making them relatable because of how they feel, or react, or their set of convictions, morals, mannerisms, etc.)

(Or, tinfoil hat time, there actually going to redo the OT and this will actually be a plot point... I mean they have Lando, Han, Tarkin (Cgi Tarkin has about as much screen time as real tarkin did in a new hope, and the model is already created so...), a new actor to fit the Chewbacca suit. Pretty sure Anthony Daniels is near about immortal at this point, so he can reprise 3P0 and R2 will just be a robot now. They can have Carrie's daughter sign on as Leia, Ewan as Obi-wan, they just need someone to replace Luke, and someone to do the Vader voice (should James earl jones have an untimely demise during filming). All the minor characters can be recast with Celebrities like they do in the marvel movies... but they would never dare to do that... right?)

 

Edited by FlyingAnchors
It's late, I can't type. Also clarification, because, well, it's late.

Share this post


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

I sort of wish they were, just since it would make them more unique and likely think differently than other races to an extent based off their biology but according to Pablo Hidalgo it is canon now that they have male and female sexes. 

:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/27/2018 at 2:08 AM, Hobojebus said:

Nothing stops you enjoying it, but if your allowed to champion something others are allowed to oppose it that's how open forums work other wise it would be a sterile boring echo chamber.

People ney saying the defender never stopped me flying it or winning games after all, why should people not liking the movie affect how you feel? 

All I'm doing is informing people of the box office numbers and the rating of people on different sites, and facts are good it's how we get an informed picture of the world around us.

I think you missed his point.
I am all for people being allowed to kill themselves as well. Doesn't mean it's not sad when they do or a tragedy when they do based on treatable mental illness. 

And your box office numbers had been numerous times wrong, and it seems like you are not aiming for the informed picture, but rather try manipulate the view of things. Either based on your filter bubble or vicious intent. I don't really care enough to find out. I enjoyed the movie and that's basically it, anything else is secondary anyway. Disney has this way a decent enough track record for me as well, 2 out 4 did get a thumbs up from me. ? 
 

16 hours ago, Hobojebus said:

I don't want people to abandon star wars I'm not the one causing that Katherine  Kennedy is the one doing that By being more concerned with pushing a message than making a good movie. 

Unicode_WTF_Smiley.svg

 

16 hours ago, Animewarsdude said:

 

80s --> 2010s

The creator's idea of a worthy successor/better new theme for the show.

 

 

Actually 2011 > 1985, but you just used the wrong intro, here is the 2011 Intro from Thundercats.  ?
 


 

Edited by SEApocalypse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Chucknuckle said:

I really don't see where this complaint stems from though? Where are the modern politics?

Well biggest example is taking an established character and warping it to suit their political leanings.

It's not limited to star wars they did this with marvel comics to when they made captain America into a nazi, when they made Thor a woman, made captain marvel into an asexual hatemonger and so on.

Had they added a new character with those traits no one would of cared but they want to take a symbol of masculinity from the fans.

Same thing happened with Ghostbusters 2016, it'll happen this year with oceans eight, if it were about equality you'd have a 50/50 split, it's not it's about female supremacy.

Then you have the slavery issue which makes no sense because droids are not sentient by design and were during the clone wars responsible for considerable death and destruction, but it's a bit button issue on campus so it's shoehorned in.

Then there's the nonsense of having a 16 year old leading pirates/rebels.

Fundamentally I think it's an age issue younger people have been raised under a far left leaning educational system while watching programming made by progressive Hollywood, for them it's the norm they were raised in But for older people it's very obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hobojebus said:

Well biggest example is taking an established character and warping it to suit their political leanings.

*snip*

Then you have the slavery issue which makes no sense because droids are not sentient by design and were during the clone wars responsible for considerable death and destruction, but it's a bit button issue on campus so it's shoehorned in.

Then there's the nonsense of having a 16 year old leading pirates/rebels.

Which character? How was he warped? Are you talking about Lando? Which scenes in the movie do you take issue with? Oh, wait, that's right. You haven't seen it. You literally don't know what you're talking about. Go watch the movie, Hobo, then we can talk about it.

Droids in Star Wars are quite clearly sentient. They display emotion, fear, a sense of their own mortality, loyalty, bravery, cowardice, compassion, they feel pain... the list goes on. Why is there a need for restraining bolts if the droids are not sentient? It makes perfect sense for there to be a #droidlivesmatter movement in the Star Wars galaxy, and naturally some members of the movement would be droids themselves. Since they're sentient. If anything it's surprising that it hasn't really been touched on since ANH when the bartended loudly announced "we don't serve their kind here"

And the 16 year old leading pirates? Again, we're talking about Solo, a movie you haven't seen. If you want to critique the movie, at least go and watch it so you know what you're talking about. But let's just say that Leia was only 18-19 in ANH (which puts a slightly creepy spin on her's and Han's relationship, didn't realise his character was ten years older than hers...) and I don't see what's so particularly 'far left' about having a young person leading a band of outlaws. That seems a pretty apolitical script choice.

Share this post


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

Yes, it was odd when Leia Organa was doing that. 

S'funny could of sworn rogue one showed us she wasn't the sole one in command, certainly I always got the impression her father was the big player along with mon mothma and general dodonna.

While she was certainly important in hope and empire I always understood when she gained real control was with the restoration of the republic, but that's the EU I don't know if that happened in the Disney verse.

Also never got the impression the empire thought she was the leader:

Princess Leia Organa: Darth Vader. Only you could be so bold. The Imperial Senate will not sit still for this. When they hear you've attacked a--

Darth Vader (voice): Don't act so surprised, Your Highness. You weren't on any mercy mission after all. Several transmissions were beamed up to this ship by Rebel spies. I want to know what happened to the plans they sent you.

Princess Leia Organa: I don't know what you're talking about. I'm a member of the Imperial Senate on a diplomatic mission to Alderaan!

Darth Vader (voice): You are part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor! Taker her away!

Part of the alliance, not it's leader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Hobojebus said:

S'funny could of sworn rogue one showed us she wasn't the sole one in command, …

Part of the alliance, not it's leader.

So she wasn't the solo on in command, but someone in a commanding position. What does this make her if not a leader of rebels? Or for a matter, being a senator. certainly not a leader of her people. planet and sector. Senators for sure are not leaders. 
Look, I have no idea what is wrong with you, but I am certain that I am wasting my time when I need to start the difference between a leader and the leader. Or the difference between small and big for that matter. Goodbye. 

Edited by SEApocalypse

Share this post


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

It's not limited to star wars they did this with marvel comics to when they made captain America into a nazi, when they made Thor a woman

...

There was reality-warping shenanigans with a Cosmic Cube involved with the first. And you've got the second backwards; they made a woman Thor (just like how a woman became Wolverine). That's not just semantics. Fem-Thor was a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CHARACTER (Jane Foster). Did you actually READ those books, or are you just parroting the angry rants you saw on Twitter?

Edited by Ambaryerno

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Hobojebus said:

S'funny could of sworn rogue one showed us she wasn't the sole one in command, certainly I always got the impression her father was the big player along with mon mothma and general dodonna.

While she was certainly important in hope and empire I always understood when she gained real control was with the restoration of the republic, but that's the EU I don't know if that happened in the Disney verse.

Also never got the impression the empire thought she was the leader:

Princess Leia Organa: Darth Vader. Only you could be so bold. The Imperial Senate will not sit still for this. When they hear you've attacked a--

Darth Vader (voice): Don't act so surprised, Your Highness. You weren't on any mercy mission after all. Several transmissions were beamed up to this ship by Rebel spies. I want to know what happened to the plans they sent you.

Princess Leia Organa: I don't know what you're talking about. I'm a member of the Imperial Senate on a diplomatic mission to Alderaan!

Darth Vader (voice): You are part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor! Taker her away!

Part of the alliance, not it's leader.

Mate, she was in charge of the ship, in charge of the crew... Enfys Nest just has a dozen goons working for her. But Leia is ok and Enfys is not?

And regardless, how is Enfys being a young rebel/pirate leader an example of far left politics being injected into the franchise?

And you know, there is information you're missing about the Enfys Nest situation. And I could probably share it with you, but I won't, because it highlights the stupidity of arguing about something when you literally don't know what you're talking about. You're complaining about a movie you haven't seen, about a character you've never witnessed, about scenes you've never watched...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Chucknuckle, sometimes it’s best to put people on your ignore list. HJ at this point is simply being a troll. 

But otherwise, you’re entirely on point. 

Solo was good. 

What I'm interested to know is if all these dumb haters went back and watched Star Wars (ANH( with their SW hating eyes, what about that movie would they actually like?

 

Share this post


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

So she wasn't the solo on in command, but someone in a commanding position. What does this make her if not a leader of rebels? Or for a matter, being a senator. certainly not a leader of her people. planet and sector. Senators for sure are not leaders. 
Look, I have no idea what is wrong with you, but I am certain that I am wasting my time when I need to start the difference between a leader and the leader. Or the difference between small and big for that matter. Goodbye. 

It's actually a pretty big distinction.

 

1 hour ago, Ambaryerno said:

...

There was reality-warping shenanigans with a Cosmic Cube involved with the first. And you've got the second backwards; they made a woman Thor (just like how a woman became Wolverine). That's not just semantics. Fem-Thor was a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CHARACTER (Jane Foster). Did you actually READ those books, or are you just parroting the angry rants you saw on Twitter?

there was a clear political reason for it they just didn'e expect the backlash from doing it and scrambled to make an explanation fans would accept, it was so bad marvel were begging fans to read it.

No i didn't read female thor nor did many other people because again it was changed first and they came up with the jane foster after the fans voiced their displeasure,i think it was a year before they revealed who it was.

wolverine did not become a woman he died and x-23 took over, different thing and she was his clone and a well established and liked charecter who existed for years, and there was also old man logan and son of logan around at the same time.

1 hour ago, Chucknuckle said:

Mate, she was in charge of the ship, in charge of the crew... Enfys Nest just has a dozen goons working for her. But Leia is ok and Enfys is not?

And regardless, how is Enfys being a young rebel/pirate leader an example of far left politics being injected into the franchise?

And you know, there is information you're missing about the Enfys Nest situation. And I could probably share it with you, but I won't, because it highlights the stupidity of arguing about something when you literally don't know what you're talking about. You're complaining about a movie you haven't seen, about a character you've never witnessed, about scenes you've never watched...

No captain antilies was in charge of the ship, the captain is always the ruling authority on any ship, if an admiral takes command he becomes the captain, if the senior officer dies the next in line becomes the defacto captain.

And enfy is representive of the narrative that women are better than men and should always be in charge, same thing as holdo in tlj.

And yes i have not seen the film, thats why i'm going at this from a dispasionate place.

Disagree all you like guys thats your right but there's no reason to keep being so antagonistic, constantly trying to cast me as angry guy is not constructive as should of become obvious by now, it's gotten boring to read the same false accusation over and over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hobojebus said:

No i didn't read female thor

It shows.

2 minutes ago, Hobojebus said:

And enfy is representative of the narrative that women are better than men and should always be in charge, same thing as holdo in tlj.

Please explain how.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Chucknuckle said:

I really don't see where this complaint stems from though? Where are the modern politics?

Canto Bight arc. That and commie bot in solo. (If they add that abomination to X-wing I’m going to print some alt arts that would make Stalin crack a smile).

Share this post


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

No captain antilies was in charge of the ship, the captain is always the ruling authority on any ship, if an admiral takes command he becomes the captain, if the senior officer dies the next in line becomes the defacto captain.

That isn't always the case. An Admiral would have command of his own ship but being aboard a post captain's ship that captain would retain command of the ship. The Admiral would command the mission or the overall task force/fleet but does not necessarily assume command of the vessel he's using as a flagship. The captain would defer to the admiral but would still bear the responsibility for operation of the ship. One of the Hornblower novels is very interesting in that respect. Commodore Hornblower I think? The one where he goes to Russia. 

What I would point out is that as a princess Leia would command some level of authority simply from the nature of monarchy. She's going to begin any group endeavor in which she engages enjoying a level of deference. 

I personally have trouble with most fictional females in charge of late. The best one I can think of is Hera. Holdo couldn't carry Hera's girdle. 

I also skipped Solo because of the awfulness of TLJ and TFA and the mediocrity of Rogue One and the change in directors. The previews also suggest a shaky-cam headache. The comments about Lando from the co-writer just felt like they wanted to call me names for not wanting to see it. 

Share this post


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

Actually 2011 > 1985, but you just used the wrong intro, here is the 2011 Intro from Thundercats.  ?


 

Thundercats Roar comes out in 2019 so still part of the 2010s. As for the 2011 version, that is a fanmade intro, the show if I remember correctly didn't really have an intro just sort of flashed the Thundercats logo and went straight into the show. But as for the show it actually was pretty good, when I could catch it on TV, it always seemed to be moved around in the time slots. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Hobojebus said:

 

there was a clear political reason for it they just didn'e expect the backlash from doing it and scrambled to make an explanation fans would accept, it was so bad marvel were begging fans to read it.

No i didn't read female thor nor did many other people because again it was changed first and they came up with the jane foster after the fans voiced their displeasure,i think it was a year before they revealed who it was.

wolverine did not become a woman he died and x-23 took over, different thing and she was his clone and a well established and liked charecter who existed for years, and there was also old man logan and son of logan around at the same time.

Considering how everything I've seen of Jason Aaron's Thor run, no, it wasn't just made up on the fly. Frankly, you don't just come up with the Jane/Thor story on the fly. About the only criticism of it is that they chickened out of giving her the conclusion they were running up for. And frankly, what better way to contrast Thor without the power of Thor than with the power of Thor by giving it to someone clearly distinguishable. Frankly, people would've been confused if you had Thor running around looking the same and then you had Odinson. 

In the end, it is all about execution. There is a reason why Robbie Reyes worked, but Alejandra didn't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...