Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 97
  1. #61
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    34,005

    Default

    I think a Kingpin or Superior Foes movie could have worked for Marvel. Thunderbolts is also a good choice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Master Planner View Post
    Depends.

    If you want a movie about a villain, but not caring about the tone of the film, any villain can be used for that.

    If you want something to emulate Joker, it's far more difficult.Joker is a unique character, easy to mold and easy to adapt his lore or change it without a big uproar. Plus,it's easy to create a gritty, street level drama and use a character of big recongision as the main attraction. Marvel doesn't have a street character that big to create something similar and i can't see Disney doing something outside of MCU formula.
    The discourse around the movie says otherwise.

  2. #62
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    I think a Kingpin or Superior Foes movie could have worked for Marvel.
    Superior Foes can work wonderfully as a short miniseries. Kingpin...nah I don't think he'd work.

    Thunderbolts is also a good choice.
    Depends on which story and approach they take.

    The discourse around the movie says otherwise.
    The movie's profits > Discourse.

    Joker's success makes it more viable than before for a solo villain movie from Marvel. Unlike Venom who becomes an anti-hero in that movie...Joker is a villain in that movie.

  3. #63
    Latverian ambassador Iron Maiden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Latverian Embassy
    Posts
    20,624

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    The real trick to me is in casting. Who you cast communicates a lot to audiences about the character. The thing about Joker is that he's usually been played by actors who are A-list names, guys like Jack Nicholson, Heath Ledger, Phoenix. (Leto who never really played a leading man was a poor choice for that reason). All three of them carried movies on their own as leading men...in the case of Nicholson, he got top billing in the first Batman movie. This kind of established in the eyes of audience that Joker is as big as Batman, because they cast an actor who is also a leading man. The casting communicated that the villain is the hero's equal, that he's as big an actor as the hero so the character is as big as the hero's. I mean compare the actors who played Batman (Keaton, Kilmer, Clooney, Bale, Affleck) with the ones who played Joker (Nicholson, Ledger, Phoenix)...and you can see it's equally prestigious.

    So that makes it easier to make Joker a lead character in his own story. The audience and public are primed to thinking of Joker as a character with a certain prestige...which he does have as the only comic character to ever become an Oscar-winning role (Ledger for The Dark Knight). Whereas other villains who are usually not cast that big. And the MCU in general, with the exception of maybe Brolin, haven't cast really big actors for villains. It's usually character actors, cult actors, and so on.

    As it is Disney is doing a Loki miniseries on Disney Plus, thanks to Tom Hiddleston becoming a star in his performance but he's yet to establish himself as a leading man. I think if you want a feature film then it has to be Doctor Doom. Doing Doctor Doom in live-action is a hard challenge because whoever you cast has to be willing to spend a lot of time behind a face mask. This would require a performer and actor that hearkens back to Boris Karloff, an actor who managed to be brilliant despite all the makeup he wore, and Lon Chaney. Both Karloff and Chaney were leading men. Edward Norton's brilliant performance as the Leper King Baldwin in Kingdom of Heaven is another reference. Norton spent the entirety of Kingdom of Heaven behind a metal face mask used by the King of Jerusalem to cover his lesions. Getting Norton to play Doom might be hard since he might be a little old at this point for the part (and he seems to have burned his bridges with Feige) but he is a leading man.

    To do Doom justice you need to cast an actor like Adam Driver or DiCaprio. DiCaprio is in his 40s but looks a decade younger which works. Driver is mid-30s. Another option is Daniel Radcliffe who is now 30 years old and is famous for playing an orphan kid who became a hero because of his parents' sacrifice...which is who Doom is when he starts out and you kind of want to sell the idea that Dr. Doom has a traditional European epic hero's journey origin even if he twists later, and having Harry Potter become a bad guy is how you might want to approach Victor. Radcliffe is now 30 years old which means he's the right age for Doom when he started out and he can age into the '40s. if you want Doom to be the big-deal in live-action he is in comics. This is a character who has never been properly introduced to the moviegoing public and if you want to sell his story you need an actor with the right associations and backdrop to do it.
    QFT.... Fox never really gave us Doom first of all. Second, for the FF films they never used a prestige actor. Julian McMahon and Michael Chiklis were essentially contract players for Fox. Both had successful series on their FX channel. Chiklis's casting worked for the Thing, McMahon not so much. The part of Doom was essentially Victor von Trump, disgruntled business mogul. He even told Sue "You're fired!" at one point. Their second attempt at Doom was even more disastrous. Not blaming the actor but Toby Kebbell is not A list. And he wasn't even playing the role after the accident from what I read. He said he was never in the costume.

    At this point you have to be all in with Doom or don't even try. In an interview with Kevin Smith writers Chris Markus and Stephen McFeely (all the Captain America movies plus the last 2 Avengers ) Markus said this.

    "One: I would do the thing that they never do which is to stick to the comic book and make him the king of his own country and have a big metal helmet on. He looks like Darth Vader. It works in Star Wars, just do it again. They’re like, ‘He’s an American scientist who is jealous of their relationship.’ No! He’s a nut-bag with a metal mask!” I can completely understand the impulse. It’s like, you have to make it relatable. You have to relate it to these characters. You want them all to have a past together. I get it but it doesn’t work because he has to wind up in a ridiculous place unless you’re just gonna put him in a leather jacket and call him “Vic.” You’ve gotta go put on a cape. Either you’re gonna leave yourself the task of getting all the way over to a guy in a cape or just make him a guy in a cape!”

    It's encouraging to know that those in power at Marvel Studios have learned from those mistakes at Fox. Noah Hawley's script (if Kevin Feige is considering it) has the right direction but casting is just as important.
    Last edited by Iron Maiden; 10-13-2019 at 10:48 AM.

  4. #64
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Iron Maiden View Post
    Second, for the FF films they never used a prestige actor.
    I think Jessica Alba was the biggest name in the Fantastic Four at the time, and they basically gave us Stan Lee Susan Richards rather than the more impressive character that came later. Chris Evans...well his day hadn't yet come although I do think he did Johnny Storm well (albeit Johnny's not exactly a hard character to put on screen).

    At this point you have to be all in with Doom or don't even try.
    Absolutely. There are Marvel characters that more or less work standalone (Spider-Man, X-Men, Daredevil) but I don't think the Fantastic Four work that way. You need the big scale of the Shared Universe. And Dr. Doom especially. There's great stories with Doom and the FF. But the best Doom is the shared universe Doom (Secret Wars, Triumph and Torment).

    In an interview with Kevin Smith writers Chris Markus and Stephen McFeely (all the Captain America movies plus the last 2 Avengers ) Markus said this.
    Interesting. I wouldn't quite do it like Vader though. The point of Vader is that he's dehumanized slave of Palpatine so him being a puppet in the sense that different parts of Vader are pulled by strings (voice by another actor, physical movements by another, fight scenes by another, breath by sound designer) makes sense. This is a guy who was never in control. But Doctor Doom was never anyone's slave and he's someone with a lot of control (except his impulses). He's a strong personality and presence and the Victor before the accident is absolutely the guy in the mask and hood and he's a strong human individual and presence. Adam Driver's Kylo Ren is an example of an actor putting himself entirely to the character so that you get that even when he's wearing that helmet he's Adam Driver in his body language, movement and so on. And that when he takes off that helmet, it's still him with that handsome face. Edward Norton in Kingdom of Heaven did that well too.

    It's encouraging to know that those in power at Marvel Studios have learned from those mistakes at Fox. Noah Hawley's script (if Kevin Feige is considering it) has the right direction but casting is just as important.
    If I were to do it, or able to do it...I'd cast DiCaprio as Doom, and for Richards, I'd cast...Tobey Maguire. And of course Kirsten Dunst will play Susan Storm. That's how you sell to people the Fantastic Four are the "first family" and major center. Cast the lead actors of the biggest romance in superhero movies (Raimi's Spider-Man) and in the comics Reed-Sue used to be presented as similar to Peter-MJ, and Reed is Peter Parker's role model and so on. Tobey Maguire and DiCaprio are also friends in real life, and of course they acted together in The Great Gatsby, so you can immediately sell Reed and Doom being friends or colleagues turned enemies.

    Whoever they cast as Doom needs to be someone who Chadwick Boseman's Black Panther, Hemsworth's Thor, Cumberbatch's Strange, and other Endgame survivors look at and go..."This one's someone to watch out for". If you cast some unknown actor and so on, it's not gonna work.

  5. #65
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    34,005

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    I think Jessica Alba was the biggest name in the Fantastic Four at the time, and they basically gave us Stan Lee Susan Richards rather than the more impressive character that came later.
    I don’t recall Lee’s Sue being a scientist.


    Interesting. I wouldn't quite do it like Vader though. The point of Vader is that he's dehumanized slave of Palpatine so him being a puppet in the sense that different parts of Vader are pulled by strings (voice by another actor, physical movements by another, fight scenes by another, breath by sound designer) makes sense. This is a guy who was never in control. But Doctor Doom was never anyone's slave and he's someone with a lot of control (except his impulses). He's a strong personality and presence and the Victor before the accident is absolutely the guy in the mask and hood and he's a strong human individual and presence. Adam Driver's Kylo Ren is an example of an actor putting himself entirely to the character so that you get that even when he's wearing that helmet he's Adam Driver in his body language, movement and so on. And that when he takes off that helmet, it's still him with that handsome face. Edward Norton in Kingdom of Heaven did that well too.



    If I were to do it, or able to do it...I'd cast DiCaprio as Doom, and for Richards, I'd cast...Tobey Maguire. And of course Kirsten Dunst will play Susan Storm. That's how you sell to people the Fantastic Four are the "first family" and major center. Cast the lead actors of the biggest romance in superhero movies (Raimi's Spider-Man) and in the comics Reed-Sue used to be presented as similar to Peter-MJ, and Reed is Peter Parker's role model and so on. Tobey Maguire and DiCaprio are also friends in real life, and of course they acted together in The Great Gatsby, so you can immediately sell Reed and Doom being friends or colleagues turned enemies.

    Whoever they cast as Doom needs to be someone who Chadwick Boseman's Black Panther, Hemsworth's Thor, Cumberbatch's Strange, and other Endgame survivors look at and go..."This one's someone to watch out for". If you cast some unknown actor and so on, it's not gonna work.
    Every major actor was an unknown at some point. Hemsworth was pretty much a nobody to anyone outside of Australia until the Marvel movies. The best choice is to go for somebody who can act before they start looking for a big name who may not end up being a good fit for the character any way and is just being used to bring attention to the film.

  6. #66
    Incredible Member GrandEleven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    803

    Default

    I'm going to go unpopular/controversial opinion here: Doom would be a terrible choice for this style of movie. Putting aside costume complications, I don't think there's anything compelling about his character at all, instead he just screams "generic villain trope". I can't think of anything even remotely interesting about Doom, let alone building a full movie around him. I'd put Magneto ahead in a heartbeat, Kingpin, heck the Purple Man. And none of those are good choices. Just better than Doom.

    The thing is, at the end of the day, the Batman IP is unique in that Batman is a generic Mary Sue hero for the audience to pretend they are while exploring the real stars: the villains. There's a reason Batman movies have _always_ given top dollar and billing to the villains and not the actor playing Batman: Hollywood knows bats can be anyone and it simply doesn't matter. Batman's fiend folio is 2nd to none: the cast of crazies he has dealt with that stood the test of time are so far beyond any other IP it's not even fair. Marvel has never really had an IP that has been about he villains the way Batman has. I can't think of anything even close to Bat's rogue gallery. Spiderman, X-Men, they are always more foils than anything else. Foils without the star ... are just boring.

    If I had to pick a Marvel villain, I'd say King Pin is actually the best bet, but a lot of that is a combination on what a grounded villain he is with the fact that he basically has no well known backstory, giving the writers a lot of artistic license. He's drifted between the rogues gallery of various heroes enough to at least have some kind of real identity... but even so hes still just kind of a mob boss... so ... it's still not a great idea.

    I could think of a handful of characters in the bat-verse that should get his style of movie before a single Marvel villain. Heck the Riddler and Penguin basically drove Gotham for _seasons_. I really cant think of any Marvel villain that is worth the effort.

  7. #67
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GrandEleven View Post
    I'm going to go unpopular/controversial opinion here
    Self-awareness is always nice.

    I can't think of anything even remotely interesting about Doom,
    He's Harry Potter breaking bad...that will always be interesting. And he's a man who aspires to become a god and actually achieves that goal (twice). That's the perfect villain to segue into after Thanos. After doing a movie where an evil alien tyrant plays god...the next unexpected villain is a human being who becomes a god. And if we see Doom start out as an oppressed Romani kid, it would be all the more shocking and awesome when he finally usurps the Beyonder.

    The thing is, at the end of the day, the Batman IP is unique in that Batman is a generic Mary Sue hero for the audience to pretend they are while exploring the real stars: the villains.
    That's true until a certain point. It's true for the Adam West show and the Burton Batman movies, but I doubt if that's true for the Bruce Timm animated series, for the Nolan movies, and the Arkham games. Batman was a generic character in the comics for a lot of the time but in the 70s, Englehart and others developed his character and added more human elements. Frank Miller likewise gave Batman a tragic focus (he's so driven that he will end up alienating everyone around him) and since then Batman became a more complex and tragic character.

    There's a reason Batman movies have _always_ given top dollar and billing to the villains and not the actor playing Batman: Hollywood knows bats can be anyone and it simply doesn't matter.
    Only the Burton movies did that (and even then I doubt that Michelle Pfeiffer was paid more than Keaton for Batman Returns) but the Christopher Nolan movies gave Bale top billing.

    If I had to pick a Marvel villain, I'd say King Pin is actually the best bet, but a lot of that is a combination on what a grounded villain he is with the fact that he basically has no well known backstory, giving the writers a lot of artistic license.
    In other words it would basically be a Godfather ripoff except even less realistic in portrayal of crime. Kingpin can never carry a movie by himself. He's been played well by Michael Clarke Duncan and definitively by Vincent D'Onofrio and both of them are character actors primarily. And both actors only get certain parts right. Duncan gets the physicality of Kingpin and him being a great fighter, while D'Onofrio gets the arch-manipulator.

    I really cant think of any Marvel villain that is worth the effort.
    maxresdefault.jpg

  8. #68
    Astonishing Member your_name_here's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    2,253

    Default

    A Books of Doom adaptation would be great. Seeing Doom go from basically nothing to becoming the king of a country (especially the scene where he marches down Latveria and all the army takes a step aside for him)

  9. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post

    If I were to do it, or able to do it...I'd cast DiCaprio as Doom, and for Richards, I'd cast...Tobey Maguire.
    i pray that marvel listens to you. ROFLMAO!!

  10. #70
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    34,005

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post

    In other words it would basically be a Godfather ripoff except even less realistic in portrayal of crime.
    Audiences care more about execution than originality. The Joker's similarities to Taxi Driver and King of Comedy haven't hurt it.


    Kingpin can never carry a movie by himself. He's been played well by Michael Clarke Duncan and definitively by Vincent D'Onofrio and both of them are character actors primarily. And both actors only get certain parts right. Duncan gets the physicality of Kingpin and him being a great fighter, while D'Onofrio gets the arch-manipulator.
    D'Onofrio's Kingpin absolutely was a good fighter.

  11. #71
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    Audiences care more about execution than originality. The Joker's similarities to Taxi Driver and King of Comedy haven't hurt it.
    Neither Taxi Driver nor KoC belong to a fixed genre so it's a good fit for a movie on Joker (who is a blend on criminal/terrorist/super-villain/evil philosopher without really being any of those things). And Joker made more money than KoC (which while a great film and a masterpiece was too bleak and critical to actually make money in the year of its release). When you have villains like Joker who are if not necessarily interesting characters but interesting as concepts, you have a lot of options on how to tackle him, without really being tied to any conventions.

    A Kingpin movie without any Marvel hero trappings will be indistinguishable from any crime drama. Heck the real problem will be the title because there are a ton of crime dramas (movies and TV) called Kingpin out in the market, since Kingpin is a generic name for mob boss. And not to put too fine a point to it, a movie whose protagonist is a huge tall bald tough guy (To paraphrase that line in Deadpool 2, there aren't many plus-size lead actors) is a tough sell...maybe if they got Bruce Willis at one point, he could have played him and sold the role.

    Every supervillain belongs to a genre of some sort or other, and that allows superhero stories to explore different concepts and ideas and variety in stories.
    -- A Norman Osborn movie idea for instance is basically a Jekyll/Hyde story mixed with mid-life crisis issues (a bit like Fight Club).
    -- A Doctor Doom movie would basically be an epic fantasy, a horror story, a political Game of Thrones story, and a swashbuckling adventure.

    D'Onofrio's Kingpin absolutely was a good fighter.
    In some scenes, based on the lighting and staging he came off that way...like that season 2 scene where Matt means him in jail in his lawyer identity and Kingpin ragdolls him while his guards stand outside. But in an actual fight scene he wouldn't work. To the extent that I find Kingpin hard to take seriously as a physical threat against Spider-Man, I would find D'Onofrio's Kingpin far less believable. He works against Matt in some moments here and there but even then that alley fight in Season 1 didn't look too good.

  12. #72
    Latverian ambassador Iron Maiden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Latverian Embassy
    Posts
    20,624

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GrandEleven View Post
    I'm going to go unpopular/controversial opinion here: Doom would be a terrible choice for this style of movie. Putting aside costume complications, I don't think there's anything compelling about his character at all, instead he just screams "generic villain trope". I can't think of anything even remotely interesting about Doom, let alone building a full movie around him. I'd put Magneto ahead in a heartbeat, Kingpin, heck the Purple Man. And none of those are good choices. Just better than Doom.

    The thing is, at the end of the day, the Batman IP is unique in that Batman is a generic Mary Sue hero for the audience to pretend they are while exploring the real stars: the villains. There's a reason Batman movies have _always_ given top dollar and billing to the villains and not the actor playing Batman: Hollywood knows bats can be anyone and it simply doesn't matter. Batman's fiend folio is 2nd to none: the cast of crazies he has dealt with that stood the test of time are so far beyond any other IP it's not even fair. Marvel has never really had an IP that has been about he villains the way Batman has. I can't think of anything even close to Bat's rogue gallery. Spiderman, X-Men, they are always more foils than anything else. Foils without the star ... are just boring.

    If I had to pick a Marvel villain, I'd say King Pin is actually the best bet, but a lot of that is a combination on what a grounded villain he is with the fact that he basically has no well known backstory, giving the writers a lot of artistic license. He's drifted between the rogues gallery of various heroes enough to at least have some kind of real identity... but even so hes still just kind of a mob boss... so ... it's still not a great idea.

    I could think of a handful of characters in the bat-verse that should get his style of movie before a single Marvel villain. Heck the Riddler and Penguin basically drove Gotham for _seasons_. I really cant think of any Marvel villain that is worth the effort.
    But you're comparing two different types of villians......Batman is usually matched up with criminals on the lower end of the scale. Batman in the movies tackles crimes in his home turf of Gotham City. Marvel's heroes for the most part operate on a larger scale than than that. Kingpin isn't the kind of character that can cause a problem for the Avengers or whoever becomes the focus for their stories with larger scope. Ideally, I would like a Doom solo film but they could also due a mini series on the Disney streaming service and adapt Books of Doom. But IMO they could even get away with introducing Doom in a similar manner to how The Usual Suspects introduces Keyser Sose. Have a character narrate a story to tell you why this character is dangerous.

    I'll cut you some slack about saying Doom is a generic villain. What stories have you read to inform this opinion?
    Last edited by Iron Maiden; 10-14-2019 at 10:26 AM.

  13. #73
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Iron Maiden View Post
    But you're comparing two different types of villians......Batman is usually matched up with criminals on the lower end of the scale.
    I don't think scale is the issue. People mistakenly think that Joker works well because he's street level and they think that Marvel's street-level villains will go better. But that's not the case.

    The thing about Batman villains and Joker especially is that they are thematically quite deep and interesting. Joker for instance is about something funny being frightening, it's about the line between comedy and tragedy, violence lurking beneath the most beguiling surfaces. That's a lot of interesting concepts for film-makers to play around with. Batman villains are theme villains in that each villain allows storytellers to play different concepts and different genre. Poison Ivy allows you to do environmentalism and feminism, Scarecrow allows you to deal with fears, chemicals, and other stuff. Batman's a detective and in any good detective series, each victim and case allows a change of scenery/locale/genre. In one Holmes story he's dealing with a small-time crime in London, another he's in Baskervilles chasing down ghost dogs, another one he's fighting a mastermind in some Swiss waterfall, another chasing diamonds in India and so on. So that's why his rogues gallery is so rich and varied. Other superheroes don't have that. Like Spider-Man villains don't have much thematic density and variations. Marvel villains likewise don't have that.

    Doom though does have that thematic density and richness.

  14. #74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    I don't think scale is the issue. People mistakenly think that Joker works well because he's street level and they think that Marvel's street-level villains will go better. But that's not the case.

    The thing about Batman villains and Joker especially is that they are thematically quite deep and interesting. Joker for instance is about something funny being frightening, it's about the line between comedy and tragedy, violence lurking beneath the most beguiling surfaces. That's a lot of interesting concepts for film-makers to play around with. Batman villains are theme villains in that each villain allows storytellers to play different concepts and different genre. Poison Ivy allows you to do environmentalism and feminism, Scarecrow allows you to deal with fears, chemicals, and other stuff. Batman's a detective and in any good detective series, each victim and case allows a change of scenery/locale/genre. In one Holmes story he's dealing with a small-time crime in London, another he's in Baskervilles chasing down ghost dogs, another one he's fighting a mastermind in some Swiss waterfall, another chasing diamonds in India and so on. So that's why his rogues gallery is so rich and varied. Other superheroes don't have that. Like Spider-Man villains don't have much thematic density and variations. Marvel villains likewise don't have that.

    Doom though does have that thematic density and richness.
    Doom's not any deeper than any of those other villains you just threw under the bus. i could make the same garbage argument about Norman Osborn's story really being about the corruption of the american dream, the dissolution of ideals, the sins of the father, the plight of mental illness, etc. Doom is just a cape-wearing narcissist mama's boy. it's really all surface. teen girls fall for it because they are indoctrinated to equate brooding with depth. when you boil it down, Doom has the same motive as the Wizard. he wants credit for being better than other people. it's why he always throws away the power that he gains. he can't seal the deal because he's hollow inside. he doesn't stand for anything. if they want to make a movie about a marvel villain, it should be someone underdeveloped enough to be altered for screen. it's what they just did with the Joker. Phoenix isn't playing the comic book character. they just borrowed his 'likeness.' and, thematically, who would be the villain in Doom's solo movie? some no-name king?

  15. #75
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Watkins View Post
    Doom is just a cape-wearing narcissist mama's boy. it's really all surface. teen girls fall for it because they are indoctrinated to equate brooding with depth.
    Teen girls are a huge part of the moviegoing demographic. Why do you think Titanic made all that money? So yeah if Doom's story appeals to teen girls...that's all the more in his favor.

    thematically, who would be the villain in Doom's solo movie? some no-name king?
    The ultimate villain is Mephisto. You can also have minor villains like the Baron who drove away Doom's father into the cold leading to his death and who later becomes King until Victor's revolution...yeah. Those are guys you can root for Doom against. No one would seriously claim that Mephisto and the Baron are better than Victor or that the Latveria before Doom was preferable to him.

Posting Permissions

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