Page 44 of 48 FirstFirst ... 34404142434445464748 LastLast
Results 646 to 660 of 719
  1. #646
    Astonishing Member Powerboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,881

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JAK View Post
    Those actually weren't counters to what I meant, you just said that it's not exactly what happened to Jesus to suggest it doesn't count. But the imagery absolutely does count, and the allegory is clear. It's not that he has to be exactly Jesus of Nazareth, he doesn't (even though Superman died when he was 33 and BvS came out around Easter, that's kinda "on the nose" if you ask me). But it's not all or nothing. The allegory is a general idea, not a specific set of events. Being a Christian or not doesn't matter because everyone knows the gist of what that symbolism looks like.

    Much like Superman Returns: Superman falls to Earth in a position similar to what we're often shown of Jesus on the cross (and like Henry leaving Zod's ship to save Lois in MoS). Jesus didn't lift a giant island of Kryptonite, but the imagery is blatantly obvious and understood all the same. It's the same thing here. Superman = messiah/savior, and using Jesus-like imagery is the fastest way to convey that to an audience today.
    Exactly. It doesn't parallel the story of Jesus in every way or even in most ways. It just implies the similarity at some key points.

    Personally, I realized how ridiculous it was during Superman Returns. I'm not a hater of SR. I think it had some great moments and some bad ones and some of the great ones for me, someone else might dislike. But they got into all the stuff about how the world is crying out for a savior. So, you've got Superman drifting in orbit listening to all sorts of stuff happening in the world. The imagery of "God" listening to the prayers and cries of humanity is blatant. So, I assume Superman hears the cries of starving children, of people in poverty crying out for food, and on and on and he does absolutely nothing. What does he respond to? Some bank robbery that means absolutely nothing in the overall scheme of things, that isn't going to do jack s**t to change the world or alleviate any suffering.

    I suddenly realized the problem I have with that sort of imagery even when I liked it at a more subtle level with Donner. Are you really going to present this guy as a world changing messiah or as a superhero in a cape in tights? Either could be a great story but choose one. Because the message that scene delivers to me is the all too unfortunate one that, by savior, they mean "champion of the status quo, defender of bank presidents, hero of the meaningless".

    Now, I wouldn't even think such thoughts if Superman was just fighting Luthor's latest world domination scheme but these movies set him up to be far more than they are ultimately willing to let him be.

    Give me the Golden Age Superman and the scale of power he existed on any time because he actually delivered and was what he was proclaimed to be: champion of the weak, defender of the oppressed. And yes, he still found time to stop bank robberies.
    His name is CAPTAIN MARVEL.

  2. #647
    Astonishing Member manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    2,196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JAK View Post
    But you didn't give counters. You just said that it's not exactly what happened to Jesus to suggest it doesn't count. But the imagery absolutely does count, and the allegory is clear. It's not that he has to be exactly Jesus of Nazareth, he doesn't (even though Superman died when he was 33 and BvS came out around Easter, that's kinda "on the nose" if you ask me). But it's not all or nothing. The allegory is a general idea, not a specific set of events. Being a Christian or not doesn't matter because everyone knows the gist of what that symbolism looks like.

    Much like Superman Returns: Superman falls to Earth in a position similar to what we're often shown of Jesus on the cross (and like Henry leaving Zod's ship to save Lois in MoS). Jesus didn't lift a giant island of Kryptonite, but the imagery is blatantly obvious and understood all the same. It's the same thing here. Superman = messiah/savior, and using Jesus-like imagery is the fastest way to convey that to an audience today.
    Dude, i said every time imagery was used like bruce using the spear and jor el statement. It was used to subvert it. Clark couldn't save everyone. He had to kill. Bruce pretty easily proved clark was just a man that too poking fun at it being the sport that he is and his flair for dramatics. Snyder used imagery to showcase expectation. With action and dialogue he proved otherwise.

    "We have always created icons in our own image.What we've done is we project ourselves on to him. The fact is, maybe he's not some sort of Devil or Jesus character. Maybe he’s just a guy trying to do the right thing"
    honestly,i don't understand what's so hard.But, lets put that aside.

    He doesn't have to be exactly like jesus. Like you said he is the allegory used to parallel clark.parallel works in both ways. That's what i am saying. Does Clark's life parallel jesus in reverse? The answer is no. Cause guess what? Jesus never had to kill to save. Jesus did actually save everyone he set out to save. Jesus never had to resort utilitarian view point because he doesn't need to. So on so forth.

    I can use an ankh or an ohm or krishna playing a flute or whatever in my Superman story. Does that mean i want everyone to think my superman is krishna? Is that the only way for using it?no it isn't. I can easily use those imageries to make whole lot of different points. I can even use it prove a negation. Would me sitting under tree with eyes closed equal me being the buddha? It could. It could also mean i am just a tree hugger or a nut. If my actions are like that of a nut. Then i am a nut,not the buddha.

    Honestly, the only real similarity these two have is that. it took their deaths for them to be accepted and embarrassed unanimously by the society. That tells you something about human nature.not superman = jesus. Besides, snyder also put in references and imageries of 'Robert, Martin and John' . Anyways, i am going to interpret it as subversion. There hasn't been anything for me to believe otherwise. Even the "if you seek his monument look around you" moment had a counter where clark was being buried like every man in his home town, unlike mythic/religious figures ever are.
    Last edited by manwhohaseverything; 11-15-2019 at 04:41 PM.

  3. #648
    Astonishing Member Vordan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    3,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stargazer01 View Post
    Jor-El sent his only son to Earth.. God gave his only son to save us sinners..

    I don't see what's so bad about it, it elevates Superman as a bigger myth. The problem is how he acts and behaves. He was pretty much a very distant Jesus figure in BvS and moping around the whole time. That was the problem, Superman wasn't friendly and approachable, he was too concerned with his own problems.
    Because it’s wrong? Superman was not sent to Earth to found a religion to worship him as God. He was sent solely to survive Krypton’s destruction. That’s it, that is all Jor-El intended for him. It’s the exact OPPOSITE of Jesus who was sent solely to die for our sins. Furthermore what does it add, really? To make him a Jesus expy would mean cutting away a lot of his other characterizations. Superman lies. Superman screws up. Superman has a day job as a reporter. Superman is not perfect unlike Jesus. If you want Jesus, go read the Bible, but keep that stuff away from Superman. Piling on the Jesus analogies instead of giving us stuff like Superman building robots in his Fortress of Solitude and feeding suns to his pet Sun-Eater are why people think he’s boring.

    If you want to make Biblical analogies, Moses and Samson are two much better comparisons. Particularly Samson.

  4. #649
    Astonishing Member manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    2,196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vordan View Post
    Because it’s wrong? Superman was not sent to Earth to found a religion to worship him as God. He was sent solely to survive Krypton’s destruction. That’s it, that is all Jor-El intended for him. It’s the exact OPPOSITE of Jesus who was sent solely to die for our sins. Furthermore what does it add, really? To make him a Jesus expy would mean cutting away a lot of his other characterizations. Superman lies. Superman screws up. Superman has a day job as a reporter. Superman is not perfect unlike Jesus. If you want Jesus, go read the Bible, but keep that stuff away from Superman. Piling on the Jesus analogies instead of giving us stuff like Superman building robots in his Fortress of Solitude and feeding suns to his pet Sun-Eater are why people think he’s boring.

    If you want to make Biblical analogies, Moses and Samson are two much better comparisons. Particularly Samson.
    How is making superman an analogy for moses any less bad? i think it's as cheap as using jesus. Samson is, i guess different.

  5. #650
    Astonishing Member phantom1592's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,982

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    How is making superman an analogy for moses any less bad? i think it's as cheap as using jesus. Samson is, i guess different.
    Because Moses and Sampson were deeply and drastically flawed and human people... That's the obvious way it would be better. They did great things... and they screwed up big time.

    But I do agree that it's cheap to make Superman an analogy for any of them. Make him his own thing without riding on the coattails of others.

  6. #651
    Astonishing Member stargazer01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vordan View Post
    Because itís wrong? Superman was not sent to Earth to found a religion to worship him as God. He was sent solely to survive Kryptonís destruction. Thatís it, that is all Jor-El intended for him. Itís the exact OPPOSITE of Jesus who was sent solely to die for our sins. Furthermore what does it add, really? To make him a Jesus expy would mean cutting away a lot of his other characterizations. Superman lies. Superman screws up. Superman has a day job as a reporter. Superman is not perfect unlike Jesus. If you want Jesus, go read the Bible, but keep that stuff away from Superman. Piling on the Jesus analogies instead of giving us stuff like Superman building robots in his Fortress of Solitude and feeding suns to his pet Sun-Eater are why people think heís boring.

    If you want to make Biblical analogies, Moses and Samson are two much better comparisons. Particularly Samson.
    but I never said to make Superman like Jesus.. Of course he is not Jesus. But if some filmmakers have found a few similarities, I can see why and it's their way to express their art through a character like Superman. I don't remember people forming a religion to worship Superman in any of the movies, but I have found in the comics people who see Superman like a god. Even Batman has mentioned that I think.

    If you don't like it that's fine. You rather use Moses and Samson.. Some see it with Hercules or other Greek Gods. It's something personal.

  7. #652
    Ultimate Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    12,964

    Default

    The religion parallels are impossible to avoid; they're baked into the character from the ground up. His origin is just a cosmic version of Moses; his mission is just a cosmic version of jesus' and his powers are (well, were, originally) Hercules (or Samson or whatever strong hero archetype you like; religions have plenty to pick from) and you're not going to get away from those similarities unless you completely change the fundamentals of who Superman is, how he came to be, and what he does now.

    That doesn't mean you have to hit your audience over the head with it though. Superman is space god. We get it. We don't need crucifixion imagery to understand that.
    Higher, Faster, Further....More.

    Truth, Justice, and a Better Tomorrow!

    Bridge Four!

  8. #653
    Astonishing Member Vordan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    3,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    The religion parallels are impossible to avoid; they're baked into the character from the ground up. His origin is just a cosmic version of Moses; his mission is just a cosmic version of jesus' and his powers are (well, were, originally) Hercules (or Samson or whatever strong hero archetype you like; religions have plenty to pick from) and you're not going to get away from those similarities unless you completely change the fundamentals of who Superman is, how he came to be, and what he does now.

    That doesn't mean you have to hit your audience over the head with it though. Superman is space god. We get it. We don't need crucifixion imagery to understand that.
    John Carter feels more baked into the character than any Biblical figure imo. And you could easily do a movie without any religious trapping. Directors just do it because they want their movie to look “deep”.

  9. #654
    Astonishing Member manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    2,196

    Default

    But, using Religious imagery is different from making the dubbing the character as a parallel for religious figures like moses, jesus..etc.for instance, things like fullmetal alchemist, neon genesis evangelion, naruto, one piece , heck! Even the immortal hulk has it. It can be used to enrich a story as well. So i not going to say its outright bad.

  10. #655
    (formerly "Superman") JAK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    iowa
    Posts
    1,799

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Powerboy View Post
    Exactly. It doesn't parallel the story of Jesus in every way or even in most ways. It just implies the similarity at some key points.

    Personally, I realized how ridiculous it was during Superman Returns. I'm not a hater of SR. I think it had some great moments and some bad ones and some of the great ones for me, someone else might dislike. But they got into all the stuff about how the world is crying out for a savior. So, you've got Superman drifting in orbit listening to all sorts of stuff happening in the world. The imagery of "God" listening to the prayers and cries of humanity is blatant. So, I assume Superman hears the cries of starving children, of people in poverty crying out for food, and on and on and he does absolutely nothing. What does he respond to? Some bank robbery that means absolutely nothing in the overall scheme of things, that isn't going to do jack s**t to change the world or alleviate any suffering.

    I suddenly realized the problem I have with that sort of imagery even when I liked it at a more subtle level with Donner. Are you really going to present this guy as a world changing messiah or as a superhero in a cape in tights? Either could be a great story but choose one. Because the message that scene delivers to me is the all too unfortunate one that, by savior, they mean "champion of the status quo, defender of bank presidents, hero of the meaningless".

    Now, I wouldn't even think such thoughts if Superman was just fighting Luthor's latest world domination scheme but these movies set him up to be far more than they are ultimately willing to let him be.

    Give me the Golden Age Superman and the scale of power he existed on any time because he actually delivered and was what he was proclaimed to be: champion of the weak, defender of the oppressed. And yes, he still found time to stop bank robberies.
    Oh, Superman Returns was when it hit me, too. That's one thing that got me excited about MoS, WB talking about Superman being "relatable" and that this was a goal.. I thought "well, maybe this will be pushed back in favor of a more active character." Nope.

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    Dude, i said every time imagery was used like bruce using the spear and jor el statement. It was used to subvert it. Clark couldn't save everyone. He had to kill. Bruce pretty easily proved clark was just a man that too poking fun at it being the sport that he is and his flair for dramatics. Snyder used imagery to showcase expectation. With action and dialogue he proved otherwise.
    He didn't prove otherwise. He fed into it and played into it. How is that subversion? Snyder also borrows from greek myth and the like, saying that comic book characters are the western version of myth (which also explains the heavier tone and dramatics - and, ironically, putting a finer point on the aforementioned Jesus imagery). So he's feeing into all of it at once. If the intention is to show that's wrong, he's not doing enough to play against it.

    "We have always created icons in our own image.What we've done is we project ourselves on to him. The fact is, maybe he's not some sort of Devil or Jesus character. Maybe heís just a guy trying to do the right thing"
    honestly,i don't understand what's so hard.But, lets put that aside.

    He doesn't have to be exactly like jesus. Like you said he is the allegory used to parallel clark.parallel works in both ways. That's what i am saying. Does Clark's life parallel jesus in reverse? The answer is no. Cause guess what? Jesus never had to kill to save. Jesus did actually save everyone he set out to save. Jesus never had to resort utilitarian view point because he doesn't need to. So on so forth.
    None of that disproves that he was feeding into the Jesus/messiah imagery or shows that he was playing against it. This is irrelevant. The closest would be "Maybe heís just a guy trying to do the right thing" which I could get behind if we were shown him taking steps more directly and shot in a way that is totally the opposite of Jesus imagery or grand epics - especially if it's when we have the voiceover of people talking about him like a god. That would, in fact, be a very good way to show what you're talking about. But other than a few bits of dialogue, we don't really get that in the way we should in those key moments. More things like the shots of him saving people at the Capitol Building would really have done this well (not that, specifically, but things like it - show him less as an omnipotent being, and more like a firefighter with powers, that kinda thing).

    I can use an ankh or an ohm or krishna playing a flute or whatever in my Superman story. Does that mean i want everyone to think my superman is krishna? Is that the only way for using it?no it isn't. I can easily use those imageries to make whole lot of different points. I can even use it prove a negation. Would me sitting under tree with eyes closed equal me being the buddha? It could. It could also mean i am just a tree hugger or a nut. If my actions are like that of a nut. Then i am a nut,not the buddha.
    Sure. One doesn't have to mean the other... but it depends on how you use it cinematically. Does Superman glow blue and borrow from various known Krishna staples (and not just a flute/etc)? Then maybe. It's all in how you use it in the film. And if you use it one way, even if you intend the other/opposite, the audience will see the one and not the other. That's also filmmaking 101. Now, some of that is a bit better in the extended cut - particularly since we see more of Clark. But at vital points of the discussion, especially early on when it's the best time to showcase character before the plot starts really moving, we don't get that. It's fed into at that point, which is exactly when you need to contrast it. Now, he's probably just intending to show the weight of the discussion with weighty images/visuals.. which is fine. But that means he inadvertently feeds into the messiah imagery, even if that's not his intention. There are various ways to do both, actually, but they weren't utilized. So it doesn't work, imo.

    Honestly, the only real similarity these two have is that. it took their deaths for them to be accepted and embarrassed unanimously by the society. That tells you something about human nature.not superman = jesus. Besides, snyder also put in references and imageries of 'Robert, Martin and John' . Anyways, i am going to interpret it as subversion. There hasn't been anything for me to believe otherwise. Even the "if you seek his monument look around you" moment had a counter where clark was being buried like every man in his home town, unlike mythic/religious figures ever are.
    The monument/grave one I'll definitely give you. I did like that, even if I had been long passed pulled out of the movie by that point, so it didn't resonate as it could have (probably didn't help that the one thought in my head was "wow, they just killed Superman and I don't even care at this point"). Part of it may be that Snyder's imagery is fairly powerful-looking, and he plays it straighter than he perhaps intends to. When the action looks that dynamic, it may draw the eye too much and obscures what he things is the point of a scene because grand/epic is his thing. One consequence, whatever the problem, was that many audiences didn't properly connect with Superman even in moments when they could have if things had been different.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    The religion parallels are impossible to avoid; they're baked into the character from the ground up. His origin is just a cosmic version of Moses; his mission is just a cosmic version of jesus' and his powers are (well, were, originally) Hercules (or Samson or whatever strong hero archetype you like; religions have plenty to pick from) and you're not going to get away from those similarities unless you completely change the fundamentals of who Superman is, how he came to be, and what he does now.

    That doesn't mean you have to hit your audience over the head with it though. Superman is space god. We get it. We don't need crucifixion imagery to understand that.
    That's my point, actually. The parallels are there enough naturally that they don't need to be fed into - in fact, they're such a staple that someone wanting to be "different" could play against them and have more traction with an audience, imo. For instance, few would accuse the Fleischer Superman of being heavy on "Space Jesus"-ness - it's much more kinetic.

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    But, using Religious imagery is different from making the dubbing the character as a parallel for religious figures like moses, jesus..etc.for instance, things like fullmetal alchemist, neon genesis evangelion, naruto, one piece , heck! Even the immortal hulk has it. It can be used to enrich a story as well. So i not going to say its outright bad.
    It's certainly not bad in general, but it's bad when it's overdone. Which, imo, was the case for both SR and the DCEU. Hopefully, as I often say, the next iteration will be less "Zeus" and more "Paul Bunyan" - because if comic book heroes are modern western myth, then folklore is the modern western style for it, and in Superman's case I think that works best.
    Last edited by JAK; 11-16-2019 at 04:19 AM.
    Hear my new CD "Love The World Away", available on iTunes, Google Music, Spotify, Shazam, and Amazon: https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B01N5XYV..._waESybX1C0RXK via @amazon
    www.jamiekelleymusic.com
    TV interview here: https://snjtoday.com/snj-today-hotline-jamie-kelley/

  11. #656
    Ultimate Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    12,964

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vordan View Post
    John Carter feels more baked into the character than any Biblical figure imo. And you could easily do a movie without any religious trapping. Directors just do it because they want their movie to look “deep”.
    True, but the religious elements are still there. But like me and JAK said, just because they're there doesn't mean you have to feed them.
    Higher, Faster, Further....More.

    Truth, Justice, and a Better Tomorrow!

    Bridge Four!

  12. #657
    Extraordinary Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    8,444

    Default

    Writers like Morrison tend to write superhero comics in general as being modern mythology and he incorporates a lot of imagery and themes into his superhero work. The difference is, he's much more competent at his chosen medium than Snyder is in his. I agree that its hard to avoid, but it can still be used well as long as it's not hitting us over the head. And there is other stuff to fall back on.

    Like Neon Genesis Evangelion has a ton of Judeo-Christian imagery thrown into it, which the creator has straight up said was mainly there for the coolness factor and to add an exotic flavor for the audiences in Japan. The difference is, Hideaki Anno still seems to have done a great deal of research on what he was drawing from, to the point that where and when he applies the Biblical stuff works. For something that is there for mainly shallow coolness, its application (like the codenames for the various Angels in relation to their designs and the scenarios surrounding their encounters) still shows some effort. And more importantly, the characters and themes of the story are consistently at the forefront, all the cool Biblical stuff and world building is there to embellish them. Snyder meanwhile seems to have started at the idea of Superman being Jesus and Batman attempting to kill him with a Spear of Longinus, and build a plot around that, characterization be damned.

  13. #658
    Astonishing Member manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    2,196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JAK View Post
    Sure. One doesn't have to mean the other... but it depends on how you use it cinematically. Does Superman glow blue and borrow from various known Krishna staples (and not just a flute/etc)?
    I just wanted to say. Krishna doesn't glow blue. That's just something done for aesthetic purposes. Krishna in sanskrit means black or dark . Krishna was said to be 'shyama varnan' which can either mean blue or black coloured one.he is depicted as both. I know off topic
    As for comparison, Krishna is basically has the same archetype. You know two sets of parents,Sent here for reason..etc.but, krishna would be more like the goldenage guy. He doesn't think much of laws that oppress .infact,he is called a theif in an endearing way. Another similarity is that krishna and clark both like to use their fists in battle not weapons. Both are generally wrestlers or strong guys.(contrary to popular belief, krishna never did use a weapon. Except, for a wheel he tore off when he was really pissed at someone. And for some reason krishna is never depicted as strong guy. But, the books say otherwise). Also, he is very much a warrior unlike clark that's a difference. But, ultimately today's superman is more like rama avatar and no he doesn't glow blue either.So, clark can be paralleled krishna or rama if we really push it.He will just have to be turned black. Lol
    Last edited by manwhohaseverything; 11-16-2019 at 09:36 AM.

  14. #659
    (formerly "Superman") JAK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    iowa
    Posts
    1,799

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    I just wanted to say. Krishna doesn't glow blue. That's just something done for aesthetic purposes. Krishna in sanskrit means black or dark . Krishna was said to be 'shyama varnan' which can either mean blue or black coloured one.he is depicted as both. I know off topic
    As for comparison, Krishna is basically has the same archetype. You know two sets of parents,Sent here for reason..etc.but, krishna would be more like the goldenage guy. He doesn't think much of laws that oppress .infact,he is called a theif in an endearing way. Another similarity is that krishna and clark both like to use their fists in battle not weapons. Both are generally wrestlers or strong guys.(contrary to popular belief, krishna never did use a weapon. Except, for a wheel he tore off when he was really pissed at someone. And for some reason krishna is never depicted as strong guy. But, the books say otherwise). Also, he is very much a warrior unlike clark that's a difference. But, ultimately today's superman is more like rama avatar and no he doesn't glow blue either.So, clark can be paralleled krishna or rama if we really push it.He will just have to be turned black. Lol
    That's cool - I appreciate the info, it's fun hearing about it.

    You've mentioned the Golden Age Superman often, and (a few small things aside) I really think that general aesthetic is the way to go. It's dynamic but in a much more active/kinetic way (think of the difference between Fleischer and Snyder, for instance, I think Fleischer for the modern age would hit people perfectly). I've loved the idea for years now. And if they wanted to bill it as "the tale of the first Superman" they could even call it "Action Comics" or something like that and I think people would get it (if they can "get" that the latest Joker movie isn't Bat-connected, this should be fine).

    If I had the time and budget, I'd make an indie version of it, myself. lol
    Hear my new CD "Love The World Away", available on iTunes, Google Music, Spotify, Shazam, and Amazon: https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B01N5XYV..._waESybX1C0RXK via @amazon
    www.jamiekelleymusic.com
    TV interview here: https://snjtoday.com/snj-today-hotline-jamie-kelley/

  15. #660
    Astonishing Member stargazer01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,150

    Default

    A reminder of Henry Cavill thoughts on the Snyder DC movies and his cut of Justice League..






Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •