Jump to content

The Dark Knight (2008)


Overstreet
 Share

Recommended Posts

One of the big things I got out of the movie, though, was something sanshiro_sugata noted when we were leaving the theater: Batman's role as a Christ-figure. I even realized at church the following morning that

Batman's moment of doubt, in which he asks for Alfred's advice and is simply told to "Endure," is rather like his own Gethsemane scene

. In a way, it was rather encouraging and inspiring to begin making a lot of connections, even if they weren't intentional.

From Gotham's rejection of the very one who was really doing the most to protect them, to Batman's own dedication to what he believes is right-- even when that is most challenged, even when he's reached the point where few would blame him if he gave up on that belief and killed just one person intentionally.

I was thinking something along similar lines. I felt that Batman explicitly becomes a Christ-figure in this film

. He, literally, takes Harvey Dent's sins upon himself, and sacrifices himself as an act of redemption.

I've been thinking about this a lot, and I think that there is even more to the parallel.

Consider this, and let me know if I'm reading too much into it, or if I'm reading it incorrectly. The police are like the Old Testament law. They come into play after the "sins" have already been committed, arresting those responsible for the crimes. Harvey Dent, as an idealistic DA, represents something like New Testament salvation, in which the problem of sin is addressed at its roots instead of merely being a punishment that takes place after the fact. The Joker, who I guess is the Devil, shows up to tempt

Dent & Batman

by asking them how far into the darkness they are willing to go in order to put a stop to his depravity. Every time they resist, he keeps upping the stakes, asking them to betray themselves in order to stop him. In the end,

Dent is the weaker man, and he crosses far over to the other side, going beyond mere vigilantism to outright madness.

The Joker seems to have won.

Except,

Show hidden text
Batman steps in, taking Dent's place. He knows that he has the power to do what no other man can do. He can take the condemnation in Dent's place. It works, at least partly, because Batman's identity, so he can avoid capture if he just puts away the mask. But Batman won't abandon his fight against crime, so he takes the additional risk in the event of his capture. Batman separates himself from the police, and by extension the city, through this act, in the same way that Christ was separated from the Father when He took upon Himself the sins of the world. The metaphor isn't exact, since Batman also acts like a John the Baptist who is paving the way for the true savior(Dent) who is yet to come. But I guess you could say that Gordon is Batman's one true disciple, who knows the truth. How he will treat the police pursuit of Batman is something I'm curious about. I also wonder if the next film will feature a "resurrection" of Batman's reputation, when everyone sees him in his full glory. In this way, Batman has fulfilled the the law, which says that someone must be punished for Dent's crimes. But, like Christ, Batman's special nature allows him to transcend the usual punishment.

What do you think? Too much?

And does any of this play into some of the Batman comcis (like The Dark Knight Returns) that present him as someone who has bought into his own cult of personality.

Not to mention the fact that Dent figuratively lost his head and John the Baptist lost his literally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 487
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I loved the film. Loved the ambiguities, the ferry, yes Heath Ledger, all that.

So this is a minor concern.

Show hidden text
The Joker is a lawless individual who becomes so frustrating to Batman that Batman himself chooses to "break the rules" by using the cell phone sonar thing that Lucius doesn't want him to use. I like that Batman struggles here and decides (arguably unethically) to use this technology. What I don't like is this: because such a big deal is made out of it (Bruce's keeping it a secret from Lucius, Lucius protesting loudly and threatening to resign because of the technology), and because it serves the story well by making Batman choose to break the law, this should have been something that was unavoidable - that Batman couldn't have done any other way. It seems that the technology doesn't serve a big purpose in the end. I know it helps Batman find The Joker, but it just seems that if this technology were absent, The Joker could have been found with some other form of (ethical) cleverness. I wished that I had been left with the idea that they really did have to use the technology, otherwise many more would have died. This would have added to the impact of the ambiguity in the decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff: OTOH, maybe the ambiguity that

breaking the rules

didn't necessarily provide the single decisive help

is even more interesting and relevant.

I agree with this.

"What matters are movies, not awards; experiences, not celebrations; the subjective power of individual critical points of view, not the declamatory compromises of consensus." - Richard Brody, "Godard's Surprise Win Is a Victory for Independent Cinema," The New Yorker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SDG wrote:

: But it also definitely matters that

a strong man stood up and took the choice out of the hands of a weak one -- and did the right thing

, and also that

individuals willing to accept a tiny share of diffuse social responsibility for the destruction of the other ship were not willing to actually push the button

.

I agree it matters, I just can't help seeing those plot elements in light of Ra's al Ghul's remark that "Training is nothing! Will is everything! The will to act!" I am not sure that humanity is vindicated, or the Joker

proven wrong

, simply because

the majority are weak and there are a handful of people who are willing to act -- for good

.

Incidentally, I found myself thinking of the ferry sequence today in light of the crowd scenes in the first two Spider-Man films.

Show hidden text
The first Spider-Man, produced around the time of 9/11, had an embarrassingly glib citizens-all-band-together scene in which the people of New York stick up for Spider-Man and fight back against the Green Goblin because "You mess wid one of us, you mess wid all of us!"

The second Spider-Man nicely subverted this, by having citizens band together in Spider-Man's defense, but [1] they are anything but glib about it, in fact you can see it takes real courage for them to do so, and [2] their efforts are completely ineffectual. But the notion that the citizenry would band together pretty much unanimously for the superhero is still there.

The Dark Knight, on the other hand, presents a citizenry that is more mixed, more varied, so much so that they even take a vote on what to do, and then they aren't sure that they want to abide by the results. This is so much more realistic, and in some ways so much more satisfying. (Though I still love the scene in Spider-Man 2.)

I'm just going back through the thread and wanted to comment on this...

Show hidden text
It's interesting that in the Spider-Man films, with the exception of J. Jonah Jameson, the public embraces and sticks up for Spider-Man so much*. And here, apparently (I have yet to actually see the film), in Nolan's Batman film(s) the "citizenry...is more mixed, more varied, so much so that they even take a vote on what to do, and then they aren't sure that they want to abide by the results."

Traditionally in the comics the opposite has been true. The DC Universe's populace largely embraces and supports their super-powered heroes, whereas the Marvel Universe depicts it's citizens as often at odds with or at least very distrustful of their heroes as most recently seen in their Civil War storyline. Marvel's portrayal of it's Universe has always struck me a slightly more realistic in this sense, as you note it does in The Dark Knight.

In fact, one of Marvel/DC's crossover events (I believe it was this one) had Marvel heroes wandering around DC's Universe commenting on (I'm paraphrasing from memory) how lucky the DC heroes must be to have people erect monuments in their honor and treat them as respected icons, whereas they are hounded by people in their own world.

Granted, Batman has always been a "vigilante" even in the comics and lends himself to more of this sort of ambiguity than Superman or some of the other DC heroes traditionally have, but I thought this is an interesting flip from comics to screen.

*The Fantastic Four movies also treat the heroes as, if not loved, at least respected media darlings. I can't think of any other examples off the top of my head...

Edited by Darryl A. Armstrong

"It's a dangerous business going out your front door." -- J.R.R. Tolkien
"I want to believe in art-induced epiphanies." -- Josie
"I would never be dismissive of pop entertainment; it's much too serious a matter for that." -- NBooth

"If apologetics could prove God, I would lose all faith in Him." -- Josie

"What if--just what if--the very act of storytelling is itself redemptive? What if gathering up the scraps and fragments of a disordered life and binding them between the pages of a book in all of their fragmentary disorder is itself a gambit against that disorder?" -- NBooth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh my word, do we have a hit on our hands.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, The Dark Knight isn't the first film to clear $150 million in a single weekend. Spider-Man 3 did that just last year.

But Spider-Man 3 -- which had a bigger first Saturday than The Dark Knight did -- made only $10.3 million on its first Monday. Whereas The Dark Knight made $24.5 million yesterday. More details here.

Granted, that's only the fourth-best Monday of all time. But the top three Mondays -- held by Spider-Man 2, Indiana Jones 4 and Pirates of the Caribbean 3 -- were all holidays (the day after July 4 in the first film's case, Memorial Day in the other two films' cases). Whereas yesterday was ... what, exactly?

Yesterday, The Dark Knight grossed another $20.9 million ... thus giving it the second-highest Tuesday of all time (behind only Transformers, which OPENED on a Tuesday), and thus making it the first movie to gross $200 million in FIVE DAYS (the previous record was held by Pirates of the Caribbean 2, Spider-Man 2 and Star Wars: Episode III, all of which crossed this line in EIGHT days). And didn't all those other films have the benefit of holiday weekends or something?

I think it's a given that this film will gross at least $400 million when all is said and done. Only five other films have done that in their initial release: Titanic (which is also the only film that has ever crossed the $500 million and $600 million lines), Shrek 2, Star Wars: Episode I: The Phantom Menace, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, and Spider-Man. (Star Wars and E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial also crossed the $400 million line, but not until their 20th anniversaries, by which point they had been re-issued multiple times.)

And just to put this in perspective:

Batman Begins grossed only $205.3 million three years ago, total. The Dark Knight almost certainly passed that figure sometime this morning.

Also, Tim Burton's Batman -- the first film to make $100 million in ten days, as I recall -- grossed $251.2 million in 1989, which, at the time, was enough to make it the #5 film of all time (behind E.T., Star Wars, Return of the Jedi and Jaws), and which, according to BoxOfficeMojo.com, translates to $433.1 million in today's dollars. Think The Dark Knight can pass that?

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The characterization of Batman in this book is so over-the-top that I still can't tell if it is an intentional parody of Miller's own work(and the awful work that derived from it), or an unintentional parody by an out of touch writer.

According to artist Colleen Doran, who counts Miller as a friend, he told her that it is very much parody and a mockery of his style and the general grim and gritty route Batman traveled after works like the Dark Knight Returns.

"You know...not EVERY story has to be interesting." -Gibby

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically, it is set within Miller's own Batman universe(which begins with Year One, and continues through The Dark Knight Returns and The Dark Knight Strikes Again) and Miller's premise is that Batman's relentless war on crime, coupled with his complete isolation from society, has turned him into a deranged maniac who cripples criminals and wages war with the police. Robin is the balancing force that eventually brings him back to a stable sanity.

:huh:

I guess this happens in DK3? How does that square with DK2, which follows a trajectory

?

I hated that story, and hated Miller for writing it. Does he turn it around in DK3?

“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Returning briefly to the question of the next movie's villain, I'm surprised no one seems to have mentioned the bit of foreshadowing The Dark Knight gives us when Bruce asks Fox if his new suit is dog-proof and Fox responds that it depends on what kind of dog, but

at least it's cat-proof.

Partner in Cahoots

www.cahootsmag.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This movie hit me with the force of a falling skyscraper, and I left the theater at 2:30 last Sunday a.m. stunned and giddy. It demands rewatching (so I can shift the blame for my reaction from tiredness), but I thought that this was as close to a "perfect" movie as I'd seen all year. Definitely set new standards of complexity and art for costumed hero flicks.

I'd be happy if Nolan and team left this as the last in the series, but I know that won't happen. So, I second the brilliant suggestion of Phillip Seymour Hoffman as the Penguin. Also, Summer Glau might possibly work as Catwoman. ::w00t::

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Spoilers not just for The Dark Knight, but for The Bourne Supremacy.)

In how many other franchises does the main love interest die in the second film?

Bourne, of course.

I think Austin Powers started this trend. :P

"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - Groucho Marx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you think? Too much?

Bobbin, where are you from? I do this exact same thing with nearly every film I watch. Of course, the Christ-figure analogy only extends so far, and at times it becomes a exhausting exercise, but I love to see the grace and action of my Lord and Savior in film. Your post definitely stretches the analogy, but it is refreshing, so I applaud it.

"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - Groucho Marx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that eternity is written in human hearts... not just Christian hearts, but all hearts. So if a film has any kind of a true "hero," that hero will mirror Christ to some extent, whether the artist intended that or not. (And whether he will admit it or not.)

Ego, failures, rough edges, bad habits... all fictional hero figures also demonstrate their humanity. And in doing so, they reveal an artist's inability to full understand the mystery of Christ. Our experience limits us to limited and fractured portrayals of perfection.

But I'm more interested in looking at what heroes show us about Christ, and how human beings are capable of being like him, than I am in allegorizing or declaring one character The Christ Figure. That oversimplifies the movie for me, in a way. In the best stories, we see glimpses of Christ in several characters... sometimes even in the villain (during a lapse in wickedness).

I am excited about the conclusion of this film, and all that it implies about the necessity of a person who will shoulder the consequences of others' sins... a person who will be hunted and accused and persecuted. That's an unusual manifestation of Christ-likeness. But I also see Christ in Dent's passion for the crime-wracked city, in Lucius's conscience, in Rachel's care for broken and conflicted men...

I don't see him in the Joker, except insofar as the Joker's intelligence and cleverness is a gift with great potential... but alas, how he's squandered it.

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that eternity is written in human hearts... not just Christian hearts, but all hearts. So if a film has any kind of a true "hero," that hero will mirror Christ to some extent, whether the artist intended that or not. (And whether he will admit it or not.)

Ecclesiastes 3:11 in the NIV

11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you think? Too much?

Bobbin, where are you from? I do this exact same thing with nearly every film I watch. Of course, the Christ-figure analogy only extends so far, and at times it becomes a exhausting exercise, but I love to see the grace and action of my Lord and Savior in film. Your post definitely stretches the analogy, but it is refreshing, so I applaud it.

Not sure what you mean, "where I'm from?" Short bio, I have a degree in media arts and art history, work on computer graphics and full dome(planetarium) film production, and love thinking about movies and faith. I co-host a podcast and blog about Christian movies at www.supercandid.net

I guess this happens in DK3? How does that square with DK2, which follows a trajectory
Show hidden text
pretty much the exact opposite of that, in which Robin turns into a deranged regenerating supervillain and is destroyed by Batman with help from Superman... after which Superman looks to potentially take over the world with his and Diana's daughter
?

I hated that story, and hated Miller for writing it. Does he turn it around in DK3?

It's not really DK3, since Miller has said that it takes place a year or two after Batman: Year One. The wikipedia entry is pretty comprehensive. It is, IMO, awful, but I can sort of see what Miller is going for. At least with DK2 I thought he still had enough great ideas(Atom trapped in a frozen petri dish) that kept it entertaining, and I appreciated the continuation and expansion of the epic scope of DK1. Just wait though, Frank Miller has another upcoming Batman book, again in the same continuity, that features Batman fighting Al Qaeda.

I am excited about the conclusion of this film, and all that it implies about the necessity of a person who will shoulder the consequences of others' sins... a person who will be hunted and accused and persecuted.

That's an unusual manifestation of Christ-likeness. But I also see Christ in Dent's passion for the crime-wracked city, in Lucius's conscience, in Rachel's care for broken and conflicted men...

Exactly! I appreciated that the film didn't stoop to the obvious visual references that other films (ie. Braveheart) use when they evoke a Christ-figure. Instead of physically positioning Batman as Christ, the filmmakers have him take on some of Christ's spiritual characteristics. And I also agree that this might not be a intentional symbolic reference, and it might just be my tendency to see Christ wherever I see goodness in people.

owlgod.blogspot.com - My thoughts on all kinds of media

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does she have to be blonde? Two Face certainly isn't blonde, but Eckhart carried the role. (I would have cast someone like Eric Roberts, actually...)

I guess I thought she was blonde for some reason, but now that I think about it one of the cat-women in the Adam West Batman series was dark haired.

That opens up a lot of new possibilities. Connelly is the most beautiful woman in Hollywood, but I don't think she'd fit the role very well. Rebecca Romijn would be a pretty natural choice, but she's not very well known for her acting. Edit: Uma Thurman and Milla Jovovich would both be good.

My guess is that they'll come up with 30 actresses and decide that none of them are good for the role. Then they'll just cast Cate Blanchett.

And my joking suggestion as to who should play the Joker in the next movie: Katie Holmes.

Edited by theoddone33
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am excited about the conclusion of this film, and all that it implies about the necessity of a person who will shoulder the consequences of others' sins... a person who will be hunted and accused and persecuted. That's an unusual manifestation of Christ-likeness. But I also see Christ in Dent's passion for the crime-wracked city, in Lucius's conscience, in Rachel's care for broken and conflicted men...

As I said before, I think Batman

taking the blame for Dent/ Two Face's crimes really works for the story since Dent had stepped up to turn himself in to the police as Batman.

But what is the film saying about truth? In Gordon's closing speech he says something to the effect of "Sometimes the truth isn't good enough." and "Sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded.". Is the film saying that sometimes the truth is too awful for people to know? Doesn't the public in Gotham have a right to know

what Dent became and who really killed those people

? Am I just mistaking facts for truth? Again, I still think this was a brilliant film and the ending moved me. It was a much needed ray of light in a really dark film. But these are the questions I've been wrestling with since then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The film now has the 12th-highest Wednesday of all time ... and of the 11 films that beat it, 10 are films that OPENED on Wednesday. (The one exception is Transformers, which opened on a Tuesday.) The Dark Knight, by comparison, was on its 6th day of release, not its 1st or 2nd.

Overstreet wrote:

: I am excited about the conclusion of this film, and all that it implies about the necessity of a person who will shoulder the consequences of others' sins... a person who will be hunted and accused and persecuted. That's an unusual manifestation of Christ-likeness.

Perhaps. But what do you make of Brett's suggestion that the ending of this film shows Batman helping to perpetuate a lie because he assumes that he, and only he, can handle an inconvenient truth which the common man would NOT be able to handle? What do you make of Brett's suggestion that, if Batman continues down this path, he will become in truth the villain that he is now only pretending to be?

Backrow Baptist wrote:

: As I said before, I think Batman

taking the blame for Dent/ Two Face's crimes really works for the story since Dent had stepped up to turn himself in to the police as Batman.

But what is the film saying about truth?

Exactly. And just as Batman's decision has its mirror image in Dent's decision, on one level, it also has a mirror image in a decision that Alfred makes, to hide the truth and to let someone believe a lie because it is the lie, rather than the truth, that might keep them motivated.

: But these are the questions I've been wrestling with since then.

FWIW, the reason I don't mind these elements is because I think the film WANTS us to wrestle with them. :)

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I pretty much agree with Brett. While there are glimpses of Christ in Bruce Wayne's choices, there are also glimpses of profound confusion. Batman is being designed and imagined here as a clumsy answer to a universal longing. Having rejected Christ, the world keeps trying to imagine a savior who will... essentially *be* Christ. And it never really works.

I think that's why superheroes end up resembling Christ... usually poorly. I don't think they start with the question, "How can we make him a Christ figure?" They probably aren't thinking of Christ at all, but rummaging around for available materials that they can compress into something that will fill that "God-shaped hole" in the world.

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe that I'm actually jumping back into A&F, especially on such an already weighted thread, but I think that any discussion about the meanings in this or any film is best served by hearing what the screenwriters had to say. To that end I listen to the Creative Screenwriting Magazine podcast (you can, of course, subscribe to it via iTunes). The interviewer, Jeff Goldsmith, spoke recently with Jonathan Nolan about the film - at this point it is the first entry on the webpage. It is rather enlightening about the themes and issues that the filmmakers desired to convey, and their take on the various characters. It is also FULL of spoilers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Bush and Batman Have in Common

By ANDREW KLAVAN

The Wall Street Journal

There seems to me no question that the Batman film "The Dark Knight," currently breaking every box office record in history, is at some level a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war. Like W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand. Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past.

And like W, Batman understands that there is no moral equivalence between a free society -- in which people sometimes make the wrong choices -- and a criminal sect bent on destruction. The former must be cherished even in its moments of folly; the latter must be hounded to the gates of Hell.

"The Dark Knight," then, is a conservative movie about the war on terror. And like another such film, last year's "300," "The Dark Knight" is making a fortune depicting the values and necessities that the Bush administration cannot seem to articulate for beans. ...

The answers to these questions seem to me to be embedded in the story of "The Dark Knight" itself: Doing what's right is hard, and speaking the truth is dangerous. Many have been abhorred for it, some killed, one crucified.

I'll give him credit for two uses of "seem to me" in the same article. It's a cop-out of sorts, but best to qualify such bold statements than pretend their objective matters.

Edited by Christian

"What matters are movies, not awards; experiences, not celebrations; the subjective power of individual critical points of view, not the declamatory compromises of consensus." - Richard Brody, "Godard's Surprise Win Is a Victory for Independent Cinema," The New Yorker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have no time to read the thread--but I will say I found it to be a brilliant work. Really, when the film decided to

sacrifice Dawes

it transcended the superhero genre for me. Brave piece of commercial art. Hats off to the filmmakers. BTW, about half the audience applauded at the conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have I mentioned that I like Stephen Hunter? :) From his chat today:

Washington, D.C.: I might be in the minority but I found the new "Batman" dreary, dull, and pointless. From the first scene to the last, I was unimpressed. The movie didn't have much of a dramatic arc...it flatlined. The much hyped performance of Ledger was sunk by the inertia of the storyline. Yes, the Joker was a psychotic killer with flair but so what...the character wasn't developed enough to keep me interested. Ledger's maniacal shtick grew tiresome.

Stephen Hunter: Why, sir, what is wrong with you? I may have to dispatch the Washington Post goons to your house (we know who you are) and gently massage you until you achieve compliance with our policy statement of last Thursday. My advice: send a groveling, sniveling apology before this session is over or enjoy the consequences!

Seriously: imho, it got worse as it progressed and my goodwill for the first half just barely carried the day over my badwill for the second.

That last sentence reflected my own experience leaving the theater. My review came out much too positive, which makes me uncomfortable. No do-overs, however.

Edited by Christian

"What matters are movies, not awards; experiences, not celebrations; the subjective power of individual critical points of view, not the declamatory compromises of consensus." - Richard Brody, "Godard's Surprise Win Is a Victory for Independent Cinema," The New Yorker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christian great link ty ty -

Well working in the trade as photojournalist for some years that "Seem to me" might very well be the influence of a left brain dominant Managing Editor... noting the fact that he is talking about a piece of commercial art special after the context of the Bat=W rorshach analogy. This line the "Leftists frequently complain that right-wing morality is simplistic. Morality is relative, they say; nuanced, complex. They're wrong, of course, even on their own terms." Is a doozy. Again great catcherino, Mr. Christian.

Cant wait to see what he writes about come time The Watchman debuts. Interesting to note that Iron Man is absent from his analogies... not surprised though as i that film seems in comparison to DK like the diet-lite version of the genre.

Link to comment
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.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...