Jump to content

Recommended Posts

FWIW, with a little help from inflation and 3D surcharges, Up has just passed The Incredibles to become Pixar's 2nd-highest-grossing movie ever, domestically; its $264.9 million cume-so-far trails behind only Finding Nemo's $339.7 million. (It is currently about $10 million behind where Finding Nemo was at this point in its release, and it's making slightly less on a day-to-day basis too.)

Overseas, however, Up has barely made even a dent, having grossed only $35.4 million in foreign markets. I assume this is because they just haven't released it very widely yet; the only Pixar film that has ever made less than $200 million overseas is the original Toy Story, which topped out at $170.2 million back in 1995. And that was back in the days when a film that made less than $200 million domestically could still be #1 for the entire year, as the original Toy Story was. (Worldwide, the original Toy Story was beaten only by Die Hard 3, though if you look at the overseas figures only, it was beaten by several other films too.)

"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 post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 436
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Overseas, however, Up has barely made even a dent, having grossed only $35.4 million in foreign markets. I assume this is because they just haven't released it very widely yet

Yes. Pixar uses a rolling release strategy overseas, so week-to-week international numbers are pretty meaningless. It hasn't opened in any of the big market countries yet (Japan, UK, Germany, France) nor in any Western European market. Mostly its only opened in Latin America, where its done so-so, and Russia, where it did well. There is no reason to think it won't be successful internationally at this point, but we don't have many numbers yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh brother.

Got a query (or should that be "queery"?) about this at Decent Films and looked it up. I almost hate to post it here, but it's probably worth a mention.

Is Kevin, the Tropical Bird in Pixar’s UP, a Nod to the LGBT Movement?

Hunter Stephenson's argument in a nutshell: Kevin is rainbow-colored! And bears a boy's name, but is actually a girl!

Of course, Kevin is a girl because Kevin is a mother, which implies a Mr. Kevin Bird and the usual heteronormative thing. That doesn't give Stephenson pause, though: "To young kids watching, I wondered then and now if a message was being implanted and hammered “home”: what “looks” and appears to be a boy can sometimes be a girl."

Of course, Kevin doesn't "look" or "appear" to be a boy, at least in any way that implies what a female bird of that type would look like. (Well, okay, it is true that brightly colored plumage is often a trait of male birds, and females are usually duller in color. But female birds of some species can be as brightly colored as males -- and since we don't know what a male Kevin bird looks like, maybe they're even more flamboyantly plumed.)

At any rate, it seems likely that Russell gives the bird a boy's name because Russell is a boy. Incidentally, Stephenson apparently finds it very suggestive that Russell is a boy scout, a term he italicizes just like that. (Actually, he's a "Wilderness Explorer," but never mind.) Apparently in some universe of discourse to which Stephenson is privvy but I am not, the very phrase "boy scout" is fraught with such potent associations or significance that its very mention in the present context is potentially very telling. (Possibly -- I'm only guessing -- because of the Scouts' traditional but embattled adherence to all senses of the term "morally straight"? Is the idea here that the "boy scout" Russell imposes heteronormative or patriarchal assumptions on a bird with no pretensions of being anything but female?)

Other unconvincing arguments:

One of the recurring themes in UP is that nothing is what it first seems to be: the now-iconic house becomes a quixotic mode of air-transportation; the old codger, Carl, comes to find that a life-long hero is a complete a****** bent on destroying him. (In all his wisdom, Carl views the twist as being in tune with life’s dark sense of humor.) Viewers’ and the characters’ grand introduction to Dug—the fan-favorite floppy canine—is the most literal example of the “looks are deceiving” theme: Dug appears to be one of a handful of foreboding rock-formations shaped like living things. And the other dogs in the film rotate between mean and friendly, ferocious and docile. As dogs often do, of course. Their leader, the most dangerous-looking of the villains, is eventually revealed to have a wimpy (if temporary) voice a la Mike Tyson.

My main reaction to all this is that I'm not sure that "nothing is what it first seems to be" is a particularly illuminating rubric for analyzing this film. For example, I wouldn't say that of Carl, Ellie, the perilous-looking board in the abandoned house, the construction site around Carl's house, the expressionless man in the suit, Russell, the storm, etc.

Even Stephenson's examples aren't much more persuasive. Carl's house doesn't "appear" to be one thing that it's actually not. It is exactly what it appears to be, and more. Muntz turns out to be something quite different from what Carl expected, but don't practically all stories have surprises like characters who reveal unexpected sides or who turn out to be not what you think? Alpha's squeaky voice is an unexpected juxtaposition, but doesn't practically all humor rely on similar dissonant juxtapositions? Likewise the reveals in which a seeming man turns out to be a rock formation and a seeming rock formation turns out to be a dog: Aren't such reveals among the oldest and commonest storytelling tricks in the book?

How easy would it be to name a family film that wouldn't equally support a "looks are deceiving" meme? How, then, is it particularly helpful here?

Stephenson's only real stab at critical leverage, that Russell continues to call the bird Kevin even after its sex is known, comes in this rather awkward passage:

What is interesting to me is the number of times Kevin’s name is said loudly by Russell on screen afterward. Family film formula and pet-calls withstanding [sic], the effect of “Kevin” being said over and over in regard to an ousted [sic] female character is still curious; and in the film, Kevin deliberately stands out against diverse settings, so as to be a conscious decision on behalf [sic] the filmmakers.

In passing, has anyone ever seen "ousted" used in this manner? Or does anyone have any idea what "Kevin deliberately stands out against diverse settings" could possibly mean? Is it simply that a brightly colored bird is easy to see? What does this have to do with anything?

At any rate, Stephenson appears to acknowledge the flimsiness of his own case in that phrase "family film formula and pet-calls [not]withstanding." Inappropriate pet names are as old as the hills, which goes to the gap between the social roles we imagine for our pets and their actual nature, as well as being another obvious source of humorous juxtaposition. What Russell calls the bird has nothing to do with its own identity as a female and a mother. (Stephenson even goes on to suggest, with an acknowledgment that he might be "really reaching" here, that the rainbow in the waterfall further "affirms" his theory.)

Edited by SDG

“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 post
Share on other sites

Just looking back at the thread on Gran Torino -- which, as widely noted, is also, like Up, about an unlikely friendship between a widowed curmudgeon in a changing neighborhood who wants you to stay off his lawn and an Asian kid he doesn't really want to befriend -- and ran once again over the following:

kenmorefield wishes the movie had had a talking dog, among other things

Okay. How freaky weird is it that? I'm surprised Ken didn't at least give Up points for the talking dog(s) in his negative-leaning take (discussed earlier by me).

Yes, I know Dug does not actually narrate Carl's adventures. But still.

“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 post
Share on other sites
Of course, Kevin doesn't "look" or "appear" to be a boy, at least in any way that implies what a female bird of that type would look like. (Well, okay, it is true that brightly colored plumage is often a trait of male birds, and females are usually duller in color. But female birds of some species can be as brightly colored as males -- and since we don't know what a male Kevin bird looks like, maybe they're even more flamboyantly plumed.)

At any rate, it seems likely that Russell gives the bird a boy's name because Russell is a boy.

Yes. My 9-year-old son still does that, assuming animals are male unless he knows for sure that they are female. Also, "male-sounding" names for females seems to be somewhat of a trend these days, so I don't think there's anything to read into his repeatedly calling the bird Kevin even after he knows she's a girl.

As ridiculous as I think Stephenson's article is, I'm somewhat surprised that he didn't pick up on something that I thought would be a much-more noticed incidence of "gender-confusion" than a girl bird with a boy's name. Specifiically, at the beginning of the film, I didn't think it was very obvious that Ellie was a girl when Carl first met her. I personally was confused about this until she said her name (I've never met a boy named Ellie), but my son said he wasn't sure until they showed her grown up and marrying Carl.

Edited by MichLK
Link to post
Share on other sites

Great catch, SDG.

bowen wrote:

: Mostly its only opened in Latin America, where its done so-so . . .

Interesting, since the bulk of this movie takes place there. Not that it really celebrates Latin American culture or anything -- it basically treats that part of the world as a play place for American adventurers. (I write this as my children are watching the 1940s Disney film The Three Caballeros. Given how "informational" films like this and Saludos Amigos were supposed to be, I wonder what sense it makes to play these films for my kids, since it's possible the cultures in that part of the world have changed a LOT in the past 60+ years. And then there's the question of how "accurate" these films were to begin with. But I digress.)

Anyway. Ratatouille did phenomenal business overseas, compared to what it did in North America, and I think part of that success is due to the way it celebrates certain aspects of French and/or European culture. So it would be interesting if Up, set in South America, failed to register with South Americans.

SDG wrote:

: At any rate, it seems likely that Russell gives the bird a boy's name because Russell is a boy.

That would be my assumption, yeah. I mean, nearly every character in this movie is a guy (and the one main character who ISN'T is dead before the prologue ends). Russell is a guy, traveling with a guy, etc. So naturally, he projects guyness onto the animals he meets. (Hey, what if "Dug" were actually a girl, but we were all assuming she was a guy because the gizmo around her neck was using a masculine voice?)

: Incidentally, Stephenson apparently finds it very suggestive that Russell is a boy scout, a term he italicizes just like that.

Oh brother.

"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 post
Share on other sites
bowen wrote:

: Mostly its only opened in Latin America, where its done so-so . . .

Interesting, since the bulk of this movie takes place there. Not that it really celebrates Latin American culture or anything So it would be interesting if Up, set in South America, failed to register with South Americans.

While I certainly can't speak for South America or even Mexico, I did see the film here in Mexico where I was the only gringo in the audience. Everyone clearly enjoyed it immensely, laughing in the right places, etc. Everyone also really responded to Partly Cloudy (if I'm correctly remembering the name of the short preceeding the feature).

I saw the English version with subtitles. Mostly its playing here dubbed into Spanish. One interesting feature of the subtitled version was that all of the text in film, including the text in Ellie's book, had also been turned into Spanish. A very nice touch, I thought.

It seemed very popular here, with multiple showings including the 3-D version.

One side note: movies in general are very, very popular here with theatres often quite full, especially on weekends. The cinemas mostly are new, with stadium seating, excellent sound, large screen and admission is relatively affordable. Normal admission converted to US dollars is about $5.00. Wednesday evenings shows are half-price. For the price of a US ticket, you can go to the VIP cinema which features wide leather recliners, waiters, sushi, beer, wine, crepes, etc. A great way to watch a 3 hour plus film when one comes along.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because Kevin is caring for young ones is not sufficient reason to presume it's a female. In penguins, it's the male who hatches the chick, y'know.

Is Russell really supposed to be Asian? I didn't think there was anything distinctive about his features that said, "Hey, we're trying to draw an Asian kid here."

Methought Russell's domestic arrangement is that he lives with his mum and his dad has either remarried or has a girlfriend. I wasn't sure, however, what to make of Russell's anecdote about sitting on the curb having ice cream with his dad ... I thought it could be either a fiction or a distant memory and was not sure which.

Miscarriage + infertility makes the most sense of the brief scene in the doctor's office, methinks. Explains why Carl & Ellie remain childless and repaint the nursery.

How bad is Carl's eyesight without his glasses? He might've been 4F for WWII.

I honestly can't remember the Star Wars reference, but don't tell me.

Anyone else think Muntz looked more than a little like Charlton Heston?

RE: death of villains, Edgar the butler will indeed be dead by the time that trunk reaches Timbuktu. It would have to go by steamer and he won't live more than 2 or 3 days without water. Ironically, the cats would've had a better chance of survival than Edgar.

Edited by mrmando

Let's Carl the whole thing Orff!

Do you know the deep dark secret of the avatars?

It's big. It's fat. It's Greek.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone else think Muntz looked more than a little like Charlton Heston?

I thought he was dead ringer for Kirk Douglas. (This has probably been mentioned by others; I havne't read through the thread.)

"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 post
Share on other sites
Just because Kevin is caring for young ones is not sufficient reason to presume it's a female. In penguins, it's the male who hatches the chick, y'know.
IIRC, we have the inside scoop on Kevin's sex from Dug, who I'm assuming would know.

Is Russell really supposed to be Asian? I didn't think there was anything distinctive about his features that said, "Hey, we're trying to draw an Asian kid here."
I think Russell at least looks could-be-Asian, and IIRC his mom is at least the same level of Asian-lookingness or more.

Methought Russell's domestic arrangement is that he lives with his mum and his dad has either remarried or has a girlfriend. I wasn't sure, however, what to make of Russell's anecdote about sitting on the curb having ice cream with his dad ... I thought it could be either a fiction or a distant memory and was not sure which.
Yep. Distant memory seems like the best bet.

Miscarriage + infertility makes the most sense of the brief scene in the doctor's office, methinks. Explains why Carl & Ellie remain childless and repaint the nursery.
Yep.

I honestly can't remember the Star Wars reference, but don't tell me.
...okay.

RE: death of villains, Edgar the butler will indeed be dead by the time that trunk reaches Timbuktu. It would have to go by steamer and he won't live more than 2 or 3 days without water. Ironically, the cats would've had a better chance of survival than Edgar.
Heh. Well, assuming he fails to get someone's attention by shouting/kicking, etc.

“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 post
Share on other sites

"Marketing Up's Asian-American Lead Character"

Why have Disney/Pixar chosen not to highlight the idea that he’s Asian-American?

If you choose to look at it cynically, you could say that Pixar purposefully wants to make Russell’s ethnicity ambiguous, so as to make him more relatable to more of the American target audience for Up. I thought about this possibility, but it seemed a bit incongruous given Pixar’s past track record of films with progressive themes. After some consideration, I’ve decided to take a more charitable, and maybe more hopeful viewpoint: When an Asian-American can play the lead character in a major summer tentpole release without any notice or fanfare, that’s progress.

I agree with the idea expressed in this article that Pixar did the right thing by not making an issue of it; if they'd made it any more obvious, it might have come across as flaunting progressiveness. Best to just let it be. I love Russell, and that's a relief since his appearance in the preview worried me a bit; I was concerned that he might be annoyingly cute. Instead, he strikes me as a kid imagined by people who really know... and love... kids.

Anyway, they've come a long way since Toy Story in creating animated human characters, in animation, in character development, and in how they approach voice talent.

Edited by Overstreet

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

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

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I honestly can't remember the Star Wars reference, but don't tell me.
...okay.
You can tell me though, with a spoiler tag or something. I've been trying to think of it without success.

“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 post
Share on other sites
I honestly can't remember the Star Wars reference, but don't tell me.
...okay.
You can tell me though, with a spoiler tag or something. I've been trying to think of it without success.
Show hidden text
It's at the beginning of the dogs-in-biplanes bit, where the dogs have some opening radio chatter in which they use call signs like "Red Leader," "Red 1" etc. Don't remember if they actually say "Red Leader standing by" or just something reminiscent of it.

Oh! I completely missed that... I thought all this time everyone was referring to:

Show hidden text
The credits slide with Carl and Russell in front of the theater showing Star Wars.
::blush:: 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 post
Share on other sites

I had no idea Ratatouille was the story of a homosexual's coming-out.

As soon as someone pointed out that Russell was Asian (months before the film came out; it was in that article that first pointed out the Gran Torino connection under the banner "geriatric chic"), I took another look at the movie's trailer (or the images therefrom) and realized that this had to be true. And then I looked up the actor at the IMDb and discovered that he, too, is of Asian descent. So it all fits. I don't know if Pixar went looking for an Asian kid, or if they simply modelled the character after the child actor who best resembled the kind of personality that they were going for, but either way, I'm glad they didn't make an issue of it.

It's kind of like how I had no idea Karl Malden was of Serb descent until he died, and suddenly I began hearing about his Serb connections and people began pointing me to articles where he talked about attending Serbian Orthodox churches with Yul Brynner etc. Apparently Serb-Americans were very proud of Malden, as well they should have been, and I think Asian-Americans can take a similar pride in the Russell character simply because he's there. Those who know, know, and those who don't, can have the pleasure of finding out some day.

Darryl A. Armstrong wrote:

: Oh! I completely missed that... I thought all this time everyone was referring to:

Show hidden text
The credits slide with Carl and Russell in front of the theater showing Star Wars.
::blush::

Yeah, that just sealed the deal, for me. It proved that the filmmakers had had Star Wars on the brain. (I'm curious as to why Carl and Russell

would be going to see

Star Wars

, BTW. Carl's far too old for that film, and Russell's arguably too young.)

"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 post
Share on other sites
I had no idea Ratatouille was the story of a homosexual's coming-out.

Well, what Stephenson says is that Ratatouille "was originally conceived as a metaphor for a homosexual 'coming out of the closet.'"

Taking that at face value, the natural inference would be that original developer Jan Pinkava saw the story that way.

According to WaPo, Pixar brass weren't satisfied with Pinkava's development and gave the project to Bird, who rewrote the script and directed the film (Pinkava's co-direction credit notwithstanding).

I see no reason to think that Bird saw the story in the same light that Pinkava did, or that the story as he wrote it offers much traction for that reading over any other (e.g., the much more applicable Pixar-excellence versus Disney-commercialism reading).

“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 post
Share on other sites

SDG wrote:

: Taking that at face value, the natural inference would be that original developer Jan Pinkava saw the story that way.

Ah, okay. Interesting.

: According to WaPo, Pixar brass weren't satisfied with Pinkava's development and gave the project to Bird, who rewrote the script and directed the film (Pinkava's co-direction credit notwithstanding).

Yeah, this is one of a few cases where Lasseter has taken a project out of its originators' hands and given it to someone else (see also Bolt and possibly Rapunzel). Jim Hill had a post a while ago about this, underscoring the fact that Ratatouille was meant to be Pixar's first independent post-Disney film, and so there was a lot riding on this film for Pixar, and so Lasseter ended up summoning Bird back to work sooner than Bird had expected after The Incredibles. (And so, too, we get the somewhat self-serving "Pixar-excellence versus Disney-commercialism" subtext.)

It's interesting, because much has been made of the idea that Pixar is devoted to directorial control of a story, to the point where no sequels will be made unless the original director has given it his blessing (or, as with Toy Story 2 and the rumoured Monsters Inc. 2, is directing it himself). Ratatouille would seem to be one case where that didn't apply.

"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 post
Share on other sites
It's interesting, because much has been made of the idea that Pixar is devoted to directorial control of a story, to the point where no sequels will be made unless the original director has given it his blessing (or, as with Toy Story 2 and the rumoured Monsters Inc. 2, is directing it himself). Ratatouille would seem to be one case where that didn't apply.

My understanding is that the director gets to make the decisions, but only as long as he is the director. As long as Pixar's version of the nine old men believe in him, he's in control. If they get to the point where they don't believe in him, they don't micro-manage him, they replace him. That's the way it worked for Bolt too once Lasseter was in charge of Disney animation.

Edited by bowen
Link to post
Share on other sites

Always heed the analysts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/business/media/09analyst.html?_r=1&ref=movies' target="_blank">Analyst Admits to Being

"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 post
Share on other sites
My understanding is that the director gets to make the decisions, but only as long as he is the director. As long as Pixar's version of the nine old men believe in him, he's in control. If they get to the point where they don't believe in him, they don't micro-manage him, they replace him. That's the way it worked for Bolt too once Lasseter was in charge of Disney animation.

That is a very interesting approach.

It is possible that Richard Greenfield understands better what makes a successful movie than Pete Doctor and the Pixar staff do, but it isn't obvious why anyone would assume that to be the case.

Heh. Indeed!

Edited by SDG

“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 post
Share on other sites

: Since the film

"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 post
Share on other sites
Jim Hill on the marketing challenges around this film. FWIW, he notes at the end that people now think there's a good chance this film will gross over $300 million domestically, which would make it only the sixth Disney film to do so (following The Lion King, Finding Nemo and all three Pirates of the Caribbeans).

"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 post
Share on other sites
Jim Hill on the marketing challenges around this film.

Interesting article.

Transformers, by the way, is not in 3D although the article says that it is. There is a common confusion surrounding 3D and iMax; Transformers was in iMax, but not 3D. So far as I know, there are no movies that are in both iMax and 3D and no screens equipped for both, so an iMax movie and a 3D movie can happily co-exist without stealing screens from each other. Where Up did get hurt was with the release of the new Ice Age movie, which is in 3D. Right now there are not enough 3D screens for two 3D movies in wide release to co-exist. I'm sure this has not escaped Disney's attention with regard to the scheduling of G-Force, a 3D movie that is scheduled to do to Ice Age what Ice Age did to Up: cut off its legs by stealing all the 3D screens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

bowen wrote:

: So far as I know, there are no movies that are in both iMax and 3D and no screens equipped for both . . .

I'm pretty sure the press screening that I attended for Beowulf was in 3D and on an IMAX screen. But that was a "real" IMAX screen, and not one of these IMAX "lite" screens that became somewhat controversial this summer. It may be that there is no overlap between those screens and 3D screens, I dunno.

I have also heard that certain scenes in the IMAX versions of Superman Returns and the last few Harry Potter movies were shown in 3D, but my only exposure to those films has been at the regular multiplex.

"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 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.


×
×
  • Create New...