Jump to content
goku262002

The Amazing Spider-Man (The Movies)

Recommended Posts

I dunno. People nowadays seem totally decisive about how awful the Raimi trilogy always was and how you aren't a real Spiderman fan if you think otherwise because of *minute change from the original source material* One need only look at the early pages of this thread to see it.

d3s0y.gif

Man Spider-Man 3 has aged better the more I think about it, even if it is a messy movie.

I suppose killing her off somehow ties into whatever theme the movie was trying to explore about Peter having to accept responsibility. I could buy into that, if it weren't for this movie being such a fucking mess that it has no idea what it wants to be and it wouldn't surprise me at all if said theme didn't factor into the writers' minds, and that Mary Jane is inevitably going to be appearing in ASM3 and a good chunk of it is going to be focused on Peter struggling between Gwen's death and his interest in someone else. All I got out of Gwen is that she dies because the comics say so.

That's the kind of baggage you get for bringing Gwen into the mix really. There is almost no other reason why you would want to put Gwen in a movie when MJ was always the love interest with more "character", even if Webb did an okay job with the depiction here.

Honestly the worst part about the whole responsibility thing you mention is that the movie actively tries to act like nothing Peter did is his fault. Gwen insists on "being" at the scene so adamantly that it moves all the blame away from Peter. The fact that they go through so many hoops to justify Peter's lack of responsibility and paint him like a paragon of virtue is completely baffling to me and completely destroys the core concept of the character. "Responsibility" isn't a word that exists in his vocabulary. I mean, moving to fucking England? Seriously?

Peter is a grade-A asshole in these movies and the narrative goes out of it's way to pull wool over that fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the kind of baggage you get for bringing Gwen into the mix really. There is almost no other reason why you would want to put Gwen in a movie when MJ was always the love interest with more "character", even if Webb did an okay job with the depiction here.

Honestly the worst part about the whole responsibility thing you mention is that the movie actively tries to act like nothing Peter did is his fault. Gwen insists on "being" at the scene so adamantly that it moves all the blame away from Peter. The fact that they go through so many hoops to justify Peter's lack of responsibility and paint him like a paragon of virtue is completely baffling to me and completely destroys the core concept of the character. "Responsibility" isn't a word that exists in his vocabulary. I mean, moving to fucking England? Seriously?

Peter is a grade-A asshole in these movies and the narrative goes out of it's way to pull wool over that fact.

 

This is really what everyone should've expected when they brought in Kurtzman and Orci in to write this thing, especially after the last two Star Trek movies. As Film Critic Hulk noted, the subtext of the film, intentionally or not, is that Peter Parker is a goddamn asshole, but that's okay, because everything he does is awesome and that he doesn't even need to bother with 'responsibility', and that his horrible human instincts are secretly right, especially considering Orci is also a harcore 9/11 truther, which doesn't help in the slightest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I agree and I personally don't believe that Gwen's death had anything to do with some theme surrounding Peter's responsibility or has any meaningful impact other than that was simply her fate in the comics. I really do not see how this, or anything else in this version of Spider-Man, is going to have any such impact on Peter, and although Garfield's performance is admirable, the handling of his character is so much worse than anything I've seen in the Raimi trilogy.

I thought sleeping on it would have softened my opinion of this film, but no. Hell, I think this movie as far as all Spider-Man films go has hit rock fucking bottom. If it wasn't already apparent that ASM1 was little more than Sony desperately holding onto the rights, then the sequel is basically a flashy means of dangling no less than four fucking sequels in our faces.

Though personally I don't give a shit about whether Marvel ever gets the rights back. I don't care about Spider-Man anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they wanted to get Gwen's death right, they should've included the part where Spidey accidentally snaps her neck when he manages to catch her. That would've been far more tragic and would've actually worked fine with the 'theme' of responsibility. They even had Pete learn his lesson from that tragedy in the comics when he's subjected to multiple similar situations across the course of his career, such as using several links of webbing (much more than necessary, in fact) to support the target's entire body, and to let them decelerate rather than stop them abruptly, which was pretty cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't seen The Amazing Spider-Man 2 yet, but I don't have my hopes up for it given its lukewarm response from critics. To be honest, I wasn't entirely sold with its predecessor. I should give it another shot, but I don't know if that is the right path to take. I think I'm being a little too generous with this reboot series. I can't tell if it's superhero fatigue or what, but I'm beginning to lose interest in this deluge of movies concerning masked heroes. I know why these films were made in the first place, so that isn't much of an issue for me. I know why Sony would want to milk this cash cow franchise while they still had the chance, but it's still weird to me. I can't help but compare and contrast both sets of movies with each other. That's how I felt watching The Amazing Spider-Man. I just kept lamenting on how Raimi did this and that better. Granted, his films weren't perfect [not by a long shot], either, but I think his vision of the character in Spider-Man was considerably better. That's just my opinion on the matter, so feel free to disagree with me. I was up for a reboot of the series, but I wish it got off to a better start. I just wasn't impressed with The Amazing Spider-Man when I first saw it. However, I still want to try and see if maybe I can enjoy it as a movie in its own right. I think I might enjoy it if I see it again with an open mind. On the other hand, I'm skeptical about its sequel. I want to give it a fair shot, but I haven't heard the best of news regarding its quality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I agree and I personally don't believe that Gwen's death had anything to do with some theme surrounding Peter's responsibility or has any meaningful impact other than that was simply her fate in the comics. I really do not see how this, or anything else in this version of Spider-Man, is going to have any such impact on Peter, and although Garfield's performance is admirable, the handling of his character is so much worse than anything I've seen in the Raimi trilogy.

I thought sleeping on it would have softened my opinion of this film, but no. Hell, I think this movie as far as all Spider-Man films go has hit rock fucking bottom. If it wasn't already apparent that ASM1 was little more than Sony desperately holding onto the rights, then the sequel is basically a flashy means of dangling no less than four fucking sequels in our faces.

Though personally I don't give a shit about whether Marvel ever gets the rights back. I don't care about Peter Parker anymore.

Fixed because you made this little nigga angry

tumblr_n5egrbl5ta1t1suj3o1_400.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fixed because you made this little nigga angry

tumblr_n5egrbl5ta1t1suj3o1_400.png

Might be nice if you explained why this upset you instead of just throwing it out there.  Seriously, this is hardly your first time doing this, and you're lucky we've not taken disciplinary action for it.  Last warning:  Posts must be contributive to the conversation at hand and must contain at least a few sentences worth of explanation.  Any more posts like this will result in a strike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think The Amazing Spiderman is still my favourite Spidey film. It just had something of a better feel to me. The Amazing Spiderman 2 was really good, but something felt off to me. I think it might be that the first is still quite young, with it not even being two years yet since it's release. I think it would have been better if they waited another year, and then released it when the first is nearly three years old.

Also, Electro/Max really didn't feel fleshed out enough to me, I think it would have been nice to see more of him as he's an interesting villain. I think if they left Goblin for TASM3, it would have been much better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

text

 

Ditto! I haven't seen ASM nor its sequel but I have seen the Raimi trilogy and I enjoy it for what it is, at least the first two movies anyway. Sure there were cheesy moments, CGI was dated in the first movie (but that's cos it came out in 2002, duh!) and Toby Maguire cries a lot but from what I've seen in the numerous trailers and clips from the ASM movies, doesn't Andrew Garfield do the exact same thing? It bothers me when people defend their precious reboot by saying things like "Peter cries more in the Raimi trilogy" or "the dialogue was lame" when the reboot has similar problems. Again, this is from what I've seen in trailers and stuff. Andrew's Peter also comes off as an asshole at times which Toby's Peter doesn't. Yeah yeah I know, teh comix. But do you really want to root for someone who's a dick and acts like he's the best thing since sliced bread? I certainly don't!

 

As mentioned before, I have yet to see the ASM and its sequel but every time I want to I just sort of change my mind and ignore it again. Could it be superhero fatigue or is it just because Spiderman, who used to be my favourite Marvel hero, has become less fun to watch and more annoying? Instead I'll stick to the Raimi trilogy. Okay maybe not the third but you know what I mean! I do hope I get a chance to watch ASM soon, but I'm not sure if I will like it. =[

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I'm sure Andrew Garfield is great in these movies! Hell he's a great actor in general and has far more acting ability than Toby Maguire, but I don't like this new characterisation for Spiderman. Not his fault he has to act that way though lol. XP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno. People nowadays seem totally decisive about how awful the Raimi trilogy always was and how you aren't a real Spiderman fan if you think otherwise because of *minute change from the original source material* One need only look at the early pages of this thread to see it.

 

 

 

It reminds me a lot of the Fullmetal Alchemist pretentiousness that boiled over the second they announced Brotherhood.

That is not the same because Raimi's trilogy was loathed by fans of the comic books because of how he simplified entire themes and origins as well as characters just to streamline it for the movie. Raimi's Spider-man is for fans who just get a summary of Spider-man that could fit into a nice paragraph while Amazing Spider-man at least tries to cater to the comics(rather poorly) by incorporating events and dialogue from established comic books into some overly convoluted mess. Raimi's Spider-man had a boring romantic interest and a complete fuck up in interpretation in character, Mary Jane, while ASM took elements from Ultimate Mary Jane(just as much as a grade stickler as Peter, revealed his secret identity to rather early into his career, pretty much his only friend) and 616 Mary Jane(gregarious personality) and put them in a Gwen Stacey archetype that's only ties to the character was that she was blonde and was killed in a Green Goblin/Spider-man fight(not even the same Green Goblin). Raimi's Spider-man literally came from nowhere with characterization such as Doctor Octopus(making him sympathetic and then tying him to Peter somehow for the sake of Drama).

 

"But they felt like more complete movies." So? I am a fan of Spider-man. I have read so many Spider-man comics and watched several adaptations that I appreciate a movie that actually gave a shit about the nuances of the characters over a movie that does things for the sake f his arrogant assdirector. Instead for the first trilogy, I get a butchered and shallow Mary Jane, a Peter Parker who has his priorities ridiculously skewed than usual, and characters that ruined the entire theme of the character. Things like the idea of webshooters get thrown out because of some inane justification such as "why is he even called Spider-man if he does not shoot his own webs. This bothered me because it ignores a reoccurring theme called priority. Spider-man runs out of webs because so much is happening his life that he conveniently forgets to restock on them. It is a plot element that it is used to show that the emotional stress of being a vigilante and wanting to still keep a normal life is starting to wane in on Spider-man and show the dangers of his head not being in the game or him being distracted. Can't necessary do that with organic web shooters as it is a lazy element of "stress."  Then you have Raimi's Spider-man's informed intelligence while Web's Spider-man regularly showing how intelligent he was(another element lost on the webshooters being organic) and Raimi's Spider-man being neurotic and whiny. Does Peter cry? Yes, Peter is the classical anti-hero. He does doubt himself. He does want cry about his life being a curse, but crying because he no longer wants to help people? Crying because he wants to be happy with Mary Jane(a character who in the movie does not deserve to be happy) and giving up a cause that he would no sooner give up because all of what he lost and what he valiantly fought for? No. That is not Peter Parker. That has more in common to do with his clone Kaine, than Peter. Peter is tragically heroic, not heroically pathetic.  Doctor Octopus had no business being sympathetic.  

 

Raimi's fucking trilogy took entire themes out of the character of Spider-man and told a completely different story and people rightly pissed about. Full Metal Alchemist simply told two different stories for the sake of time to complete a series which compared to Spider-man which already had 40 years worth of character to tell a story that at least made fucking sense to the movie. Even then, I did welcome a new reboot mainly to do with Raimi's previous handling of the series and I am no way happy with Amazing Spider-man either, but to get on folks for hating Raimi's Spider-man due to this film's shortcomings? Yeah, no. Fuck Raimi. 

 

As for the conclusion that Gwen's death did not teach Peter responsibility in the comics, yeah, it did. Amazing fucked that up. One of the key differences between the "Gwen Stacy"s is that Gwen did not know Peter was Spider-man so she died because Peter did not tell her. Of course, it was not in his best interest to because Spider-man had a hand in the death of her father. The moral of her death was supposed to teach Peter that just like his inaction to do something causes pain for other's(Uncle Ben), his action causes it as well. Of course, it was a rather inane lesson simply because it reduces Peter to a bout of consequentialism, but her death does serve a purpose. Amazing Spider-man 2 screwed it up because there was nothing Peter could learn from it. It was literally beyond his control. He did everything right and just like the audience, no one could see Harry going nuts and just seemingly throwing Gwen Stacey down the Clock tower for seemingly no reason(Norman Osborn had the same reason as Harry, but Norman had years of built up frustration with Spider-man's meddling to build a criminal empire. Harry just threw one fit with Spider-man after he said no to a simple request that wasn't really a no, it was more of "maybe we should do more research before we do something rash"). So yeah, color me a bit annoyed with Sony at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh. It's impossible for me to ignore the issues these movies have now, and being unable to come up with actual plausible defenses for the criticisms people have has proven to me that my love for the character has unfortunately clouded my judgment a fair bit. It makes me sad to see so many people just not care about Spider-Man anymore thanks to the films because in spite of everything I still think the new ones at least did capture a lot of what makes the character himself so fun, entertaining, and compelling in his own right in my opinion. He's engaging, funny, and easy to identify because in spite of his mistakes he still does his best to do the right thing and protect the people he loves without relentlessly pushing them away like Raimi's Spider-Man always did. 

 

I at least enjoy the Webb films more than the Raimi ones because I have a very pronounced preference for their source material and inspiration (Ultimate) over Raimi's (60's Amazing), but yeah... I'll finally admit it, they're just not very good if you don't already care about Spider-Man. 

 

Hopefully Spidey gets a great movie without any corporate bullshit in the way soon, but I still don't think Marvel Studios is the right studio for it. Literally the only other superhero whose films I've ever been able to really get invested in was Nolan's Batman. Marvel just doesn't interest me.

 

Bleh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm actually going to watch both ASM movies again before I make my judgment on the reboot series as a whole. I saw the first movie with my friends, and I couldn't get into it all that much back then. I suppose I had my own nostalgia blind me from objectively enjoying the movie on its own merits. I also need to revisit the Raimi films, so that I can watch them from an adult perspective. It's been twelve years since Spider-Man. I'm sure my opinion on it will be considerably different from how I saw it all those years ago. They aren't perfect by any stretch, but they're still worthy of such critique. I really do want to like these films. I don't want to go into the cinema with an axe to grind on behalf of Sam Raimi. I just want the character done justice.

 

Also, would it have been sacrilege for Gwen to have survived in 

The Amazing Spider-Man 2? Most of us knew it was only inevitable, but did it have to happen? It would have been a neat swerve to have seen her live by the end. I mean, this reboot series could have done things differently to set itself apart. However, would that have been a travesty to the legacy of Gwen Stacy as a character? Does she need to perish in every adaptation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, would it have been sacrilege for Gwen to have survived in 

The Amazing Spider-Man 2? Most of us knew it was only inevitable, but did it have to happen? It would have been a neat swerve to have seen her live by the end. I mean, this reboot series could have done things differently to set itself apart. However, would that have been a travesty to the legacy of Gwen Stacy as a character? Does she need to perish in every adaptation?

 

No, but it'd be lame if they ignored one of the most important moment in the entire franchise's history yet again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you have Raimi's Spider-man's informed intelligence while Web's Spider-man regularly showing how intelligent he was(another element lost on the webshooters being organic)

So intelligent that despite developing highly advanced future-technology web shooters his source of learning about magnets was YouTube and Gwen "had to be" on the scene to save the city while Spider-Man was really just a distraction.

I've kinda said this before but I don't really think adhering to origins is what causes a "better" movie. The first two Spider-Man movies were, at the very least, adhering to what was mostly the concept in and of itself but understood that it had to change things around to maintain a willing suspension of disbelief in the context of a movie. For me that really felt more like the kind of Spider-Man movie I'd imagine for that very reason, particularly one based around the origins of a character who was only allowed to be cool whenever he was in a mask.

I don't know if people tend to gloss over this fact but despite the Marvel Cinematic Universe being the biggest thing in Hollywood right now that's largely been fueled by a huge chunk of die-hard fans, the depiction of characters like Iron Man and Thor are probably some of the least accurate ones in comic book adaptations, and yet the entire franchise is getting along swimmingly. Tony Stark was practically anti-communist propaganda in comic book form and hardly developed to the extent that he has in the movies. Hell most people deriding Iron Man 3 do it solely because of the Mandarin twist and the lack of "Iron Man" action despite it being the only movie in that particular trilogy with any sort of story attached to it.

This is why I have to acknowledge that despite my animosity towards it, TASM is a structurally much better movie compared to TASM2 even if the latter touched some more buttons with getting Spider-Man "stuff" down, such as his design, wise-cracking etcetera. Compromises need to be made in some aspects if a better movie has to come out of it. It's not about "being" the source material, it's more about respecting it, because the super hero comic book space never sat still and always had multiple arcs to follow. Ideally the movies will do that and have the characters we're familiar with put into brand new circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not the same because Raimi's trilogy was loathed by fans of the comic books because of how he simplified entire themes and origins as well as characters just to streamline it for the movie.

 

You literally couldn't have done a better job proving that it was exactly the same as that stupid shit with Fullmetal Alchemist if you had intended to. Your entire post was essentially "true Spiderman fans wouldn't put up with this shit" peppered with bitter insults at Raimi himself; and then a straight up list of the individual things (of questionable objectivity) we, as people looking for a good movie rather than a comic book collector circle jerk, should be outraged they changed.

 

 

 

Here's one example: You specifically, kept saying that they needed to kill Gwen Stacy to stay accurate to the comics (usually with some snort towards how Raimi wouldn't have done it) rather than even try to do anything interesting with a plot "twist" that is 40 years old. Now they've done that. Now they've killed off one half of what nearly every review for these two movies said was the best thing about them (and in some reviews one of the few redeemable things). And what did it accomplish for this movie?

He won't grow any from this, because this movie was essentially the Batman Forever of this series as the turning point of when it stops being about him. The next movie is already being sold as "A Bunch of Cool Villians and Spiderman Part 1." And it didn't do anything for this movie, because it was such a mess thematically that it's hard to get what did drive the characters at any point. So now the beloved chemistry between Stone and Garfield is gone despite several sequels that Sony is going to try to sell us are worth seeing, for what? To satisfy a fan checklist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raimi did not change anything. Raimi did not follow any character interpretation, but the one he made up and the one he made up was shit. He did not even keep the simplest of themes in Spider-man such as the death of Uncle Ben(How could it be Peter's fault for not stopping a guy who he could see was visibly armed and has no reason to believe that he could dodge a bullet?). You can change character interpretation all you want and I fucking encourage you to do this, but you can't change themes of a franchise and Raimi did that without impunity. Ultimate Spider-man is a decade old and yet does a rather interesting job at sticking with the themes by not killing Gwen Stacy or Mary Jane. They killed off Peter and somehow managed to make something out of it by placing a completely new character to fulfill the mantle. Raimi's Spider-man did nothing inventive with Mary Jane or Peter, but turned her into a whiny overly entitled mess and Peter to someone acts like his life is too centered around his needlessly whiny partner. And even then, I question your willingness to change things that had a place to begin with. I don't mind it unless you have a damn good reason to change it and Raimi had no fucking reason other than to just do so. If you are going to change something that a writer who spent years with the character set in stone, ask yourself what will be accomplished if I did this? Nothing? Okay then, don't change it. Raimi was verging on Tim Burton's Batman territory and I am damn happy that he is done with Spider-man after reading the shit he was planning for Spider-man 4.

 

As for Web's killing of Gwen, even I said that it was off as they already wiped out scenes with Mary Jane, there is no other supporting cast other than those two, and as I said in the post, there is nothing Peter could learn from it. There are ways to kill a character and Webb fucked up as he had no reason to kill Gwen in order to fulfill a great comic event. Webb's problem is that he seems to be in a rush to reach conclusions without thinking how they have gotten to this point. Textbook example: Why is Webb's Spider-man in the costume? Even Raimi was able to logically display the reason as to why Peter chose such a gaudy outfit to wear.The costume is meant to symbolize Peter's sin. He was wrestling in that costume made for him when Uncle Ben died. It serves as a constant reminder why he should never give up helping people in need right then because his actions carry weight. Webb's Spider-man did not do anything that would have him just make a Spider costume other than he was a fan of lucha libre. That is a flaw as was Gwen's death and not because the fact that she was killed off, but how she was killed off. That difference is lost on Webb. Raimi's problem is that he created shit that was completely alien to Spider-man mythos and theme. He wasn't creating anything innovative and was a complete debauchery to the series. Doc Ock became a villain because he was picked on all the time and felt that he was better than every one. He felt that he was always right and everyone else was wrong. His actions are guided by the notion that he is superior to everyone. He is not some guy trying to right what he wronged or trying to redeem himself. And yeah, Raimi did get some aspects of the character right(Did not hurt Aunt May when she tried to stop him from hurting Spidey, used distraction of civillians in danger to hold up Spider-man), but Raimi was creating a sympathetic villain or a villain that Peter was sympathetic to so Peter acted out of character(lack of snark which is intregral to the whole Peter and Octavius dynamic as it is like a snarky internet troll versus a college professor). Raimi missed that for the sake of drama and tension. Don't get me started on Mary Jane. The only constant is that Sony have been complete fucking idiots all-around. If you want to keep bring Fullmetal Alchemist in the picture, what Raimi was doing was like Edward and Al are no longer brothers because fuck it, I feel like they are cousins. What Webb is doing is that he wants to do so many fucking things at once without linking them together and when he tries to, he does it with the grace a four year old mashing legos together like, for the sake of FMA, rushing to introduce Pride without explaining how the fuck Pride came to be. I don't really like either, but I give Webb more kudos for at least not being a snobby fuck who would turn down direction in character because he felt that the type of Spider-man snark was too immature. So fuck off with your misreading. Getting sick of people on this board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raimi did not change anything. Raimi did not follow any character interpretation, but the one he made up and the one he made up was shit.

So basically he changed things?

Your air of superiority is pretty hard to tolerate.

So fuck off with your misreading. Getting sick of people on this board.

Yeah, nah, you get a time out here. Quit getting mad about comics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the notion that the movies don't have to follow the comics exactly. It's called an adaptation for a reason, and a lot of things that are perfectly fine and good in comic book format look plain silly when real people act them out.

What was Nolan's Batman most closely based off of, anyway? Because those are very easily the best comic book movies out there, and I say that as someone who's never been much of a fan of Batman prior to them. Seemed he took quite a lot of liberties, and that creative freedom ended up making two of the best superhero movies ever (Rises disappointment aside).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think following the comics exactly is a good idea, because what incentive besides the art would there be to read them? This us why the movies should only follow really key thing but do them in their own way. That seems to be what the MCU is doing anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I prefer Raimi's films. They have far more heart put into them and I felt he got the character more. Raimi's Peter knew to stay away from MJ until she told him that it's ok, Webb's went against a dying man's wish (thereby not learning about responsibility.) Even with Gwen's death he still hasn't as they made such a big deal about it being Gwen insisting on going there so her dying ultimately isn't his fault anymore.

Peter just comes across as a massive jerk to me in the reboot films, he hasn't learned about responsibility and that annoys me.

I also laugh whenever people mention it being closer to the comics, I read them and Raimi got the origin spot-on (well apart from the web shooters.)

And the reboot ruined one of the most iconic aspects of the comic, the everyman aspect. In the reboot Peter got bit by a spider in a room no-one was meant to be in and in TASM 2 we find out only people with Richard Parker's DNA would be compatabile.

 

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.

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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.