Jump to content

Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 990
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

NBooth wrote:
: Side note: any ideas on the chronology here? It's 30 years or so ABY, but how long has Luke been missing? Five years? Ten? If they mentioned it, I missed it. 

I've wondered about this too. Obviously Luke stuck around long enough for Han and Leia to have grown-up offspring, at the very least. (Minor note: how does one measure "years" in a story that spans multiple planetary systems?)

Attica wrote:
: I can see them doing interesting things with Finn's backstory and future involvement with the stormtroopers etc.  For example, what family was he stolen from, and how does that link up with the other families and story at large?  

Oh dear Lord, not more Shrinking World Syndrome!

: This new interface is a nightmare.

Yep.

Evan C wrote:
: Anakin's betrayal, murdering of the Jedi children . . .

That part of Episode III never made any sense to me. I mean, first of all, when Episode IV told us that Vader helped the Empire hunt down and destroy the Jedi Knights, it turns out that all Vader did was kill a room full of kids and let the stormtroopers kill the actual, y'know, Jedi Masters and whatnot. Second, I never bought that Anakin would be all "we have to follow proper procedure and arrest Palpatine by the book!" one second and all "I must now kill all the children because Palpatine says so!" the next.

Ryan H. wrote:
: McDiarmid is great in JEDI. In SITH he goes so over-the-top that he loses any real sense of menace. The fight with Yoda is awful.

I'll give The Force Awakens this much: there are no lines of dialogue on par with "My little... green... friend."

: Rey was abandoned when she was five, so ten years at least.

Can we assume that Rey's abandonment coincided with Luke's disappearance? Did the movie actually spell that out?

Brian Godawa:

Probably the biggest disappointment was the feminist angle on the action genre. It just doesn’t work.

In homage to the gender confusion of our culture, Lukess is a girl, but given a male name, Ray.

The ridiculous absurdities that proceed to pile up by making a female action heroine are too much to bear, even for my suspension of disbelief, which is pretty dang tolerant.

MOVIE FANTASY: It’s all about “women are no different from men,” and “women can do anything men can do.” So of course, Lukess can be a scavenger just as well as the original Luke could! (Which was funny watching her struggling to drag a small pile of scavenged pieces. Even then, I bet the pieces were made of plastic). And she is a brilliant mechanic who can fix and fly anything. She doesn’t really need a man to save her. She learns the force instantly and can wield a light sabre with the skill of a trained Jedi, all without having to be trained (Wow, better than a man! Luke needed to be trained by Yoda for that!). She can fight and shoot and climb anywhere just like a man! The height of ridiculousness though was watching her equal another Jedi in a light sabre match, having never used a light sabre before, AND she was equal in strength as they wrestled for control. It was ludicrous, this skinny little woman in a physical standstill with an experienced Jedi two feet taller than her. Except for the fact that she was fighting a feminized metrosexual Millennial with soft flowing hair, so maybe it wasn’t all that far off the mark.

And there's more where that came from. (Please Brian, don't make me defend this movie. I don't *want* to defend this movie. But comments like that... sigh.) (And it's Rey, not Ray. Or Rae, for that matter, which -- last I checked -- was a female name.)

"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 can't be bothered to read the entire Godawa piece because that excerpt is too silly to contemplate (and then I did, for my sins).  Silly is the nice way to put it--I'm going to actively hold back from saying more, because if I do I may well collapse from the absurdity of trying to argue against absurdity. Then again, perhaps I just dislike Godawa's comments because I'm a soft feminized metrosexual Millennial (which, as if. Metrosexuals are *so* 2001).

"Gender confusion" my aunt's eyebrow.

tumblr_n2l97xGF0V1sryfg2o1_500.gif

Edited by NBooth
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Peter T Chattaway said:

NBooth wrote:
: Side note: any ideas on the chronology here? It's 30 years or so ABY, but how long has Luke been missing? Five years? Ten? If they mentioned it, I missed it. 

I've wondered about this too. Obviously Luke stuck around long enough for Han and Leia to have grown-up offspring, at the very least. (Minor note: how does one measure "years" in a story that spans multiple planetary systems?)
 

The funny thing is that there is a TON of back story leading up to this installment. 30 years' worth at least. They really shot themselves in the foot by calling this Episode 7. They could easily have made this "Episode 10" and then gone back to do a prequel trilogy for the years between ROTJ and The Force Awakens. I'm only kidding!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Last thing I'll say in defense of McDiaramid in Sith - he's a talented actor straining to turn in a decent performance when he has Lucas' atrocious dialogue to work with, and you can see parts of his ability shining through. (Or maybe I really do need to rewatch the prequels, because I'm remembering them as better than they are.)

 

Can we just ignore Godawa and hope he goes away, or should someone write a rebuttal of that stupidity?

"Anyway, in general I love tragic artists, especially classical ones."

"Even the forms for expressing truth can be multiform, and this is indeed necessary for the transmission of the Gospel in its timeless meaning."

- Pope Francis, August 2013 interview with Antonio Spadaro

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Evan C said:

Last thing I'll say in defense of McDiaramid in Sith - he's a talented actor straining to turn in a decent performance when he has Lucas' atrocious dialogue to work with, and you can see parts of his ability shining through. (Or maybe I really do need to rewatch the prequels, because I'm remembering them as better than they are.)

 

Can we just ignore Godawa and hope he goes away, or should someone write a rebuttal of that stupidity?

Well, we can ignore him. But his book on worldviews is popular with evangelicals in faith and culture classes in Christian colleges. I have it recommended to me all the time. I tried to read it once. Couldn't get very far.

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

NBooth said:  

As I've said, I grew up on the Original Trilogy--I can't think of a time when I didn't know that Darth Vader was Luke's father. 

 
I think I've mentioned here before about Lucas interacting with a psychiatrist about Empire as he was worried that children would find Vader telling Luke that he was Luke's father too traumatizing and the psychiatrist said that the kids would just think that Vader was lying to Luke.  It's true, that's exactly what my 11 year old mind thought when I saw it as a kid. 
Of course this fits with what I'm going to say about the original films.  There wasn't a film out there that was as integral to my childhood.  I was greatly influenced by watching the Star Trek television show after midnight in reruns during the 70's and early 80's but I never retained a love for Star Trek like I had for those early Star Wars films.
 
NBooth said:  

Star Wars--having him climb into my lap during the final X-Wing assault and point (and make audible observations about the fate of various characters--sorry, Peter)--underlined for me how very special this whole thing still is. My nephews are getting their own Star Wars trilogy. So I can gripe that it's not my Star Wars, but it was never going to be, anyway. 

 

That's an interesting and probably a fair point.  I grew up in a household that listened mainly to country music and in the 80's at around 13 discovered Rock and Roll and Heavy Metal.  When the 90's rolled around and this movement mostly died off with the replacement of grunge I really didn't *get* the fascination with the new music scene.  But now I look back and realize that the music of the 80's was becoming redundant and there needed to be something fresh and new too reinvigorate music.  Of course now Rock and Roll has made a come back in often fresh and exiting ways.  But this all serves something greater, being that every generation needs their own music that is integral to where their world is at and their own concerns, thinking and values.  The world of the 90's was a different place from the world of the 80's and we are in a *much* different place now.

If Star Wars has become as great of a cultural icon as it is, then it makes sense that new generations are going to need their own Star Wars and it makes sense that the series shouldn't be *my* Star Wars.  I don't think this gets me past my own issues with the film though. :)

But really I think this was probably part of the thinking behind a certain character dying.  *My* Star Wars and the Star Wars of the original fans has been laid to rest.

 

Peter T Chattaway said:

Oh dear Lord, not more Shrinking World Syndrome!

 

We know it's going to happen though... right?  (not saying that I necessarily like it)  I mean I'm betting that his past family will be either connected to the where the series came from or a family that is connected to where the series is going.   There's opportunity for them to explore different avenues in that.

 

-

 

So far as Rey and the feminist angle.  That's all just silly.  She was fine and there has been a feminist angle in story telling since ancient pagan mythology.  Not sure if Godawa needs a big rebuttal though, maybe just someone to "officially" say that it's silly and leave it at that.  I had enjoyed his book about film at the time, but it seems to me that over the years since his book both his and my views have grown further apart.  I do remember having a pleasant short E-mail exchange with him after I first read his book.  

One thing that I did find to be a bit of a stretch was the female leader of the stormtroopers.  This was mainly because she seemed to be the only woman in the whole army.  It was a little too obviously thrown in there in order to have a feminist angle and this into a world where the fit was tenuous.  Rey wasn't like that, she was pretty natural.

 

 

 

Edited by Attica
Link to post
Share on other sites

Attica wrote:
: So far as Rey and the feminist angle.  That's all just silly.

Oh, absolutely. Princess Leia was once praised for her feminism back in the day (no mere damsel in distress, she actively took a blaster in her hand when the "flyboys" couldn't rescue her). Although there were other people who complained that Lucas couldn't imagine a woman who wasn't basically just a boy in a woman's body (because she actively took a blaster in her hand, etc., etc.).

It's interesting, actually, to see how Leia becomes progressively more "feminine" over the course of the original trilogy, in ways both dodgy (the "slave Leia" outfit) and not-so-bad (letting her hair down among the Ewoks; how would that scene have played if she were put in the same peril as the men?).

: Not sure if Godawa needs a big rebuttal though . . .

I wouldn't say so. I thought his comment about Rey being a "male" name was just so transparently silly, it really stands in for the review as a whole.

: One thing that I did find to be a bit of a stretch was the female leader of the stormtroopers.  This was mainly because she seemed to be the only woman in the whole army.  It was a little too obviously thrown in there in order to have a feminist angle and this into a world where the fit was tenuous.

And they didn't really *do* anything with her! (Captain Phasma's her name.) Not only that, but the film doesn't even clarify what *happens* to her -- though apparently Kathleen Kennedy has said that Phasma will be back in the next film, so I guess she isn't dead after all. Or something.

"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

Seems appropriate:

Meanwhile, at biblioklept: Thirty-point riff on Star Wars: The Force Awakens:

 

Quote

A childhood fantasy: Watching SW: TFA feels like watching a Star Wars film—which is the film’s intention, obviously.

[snip]

[T]he entire series is Oedipally structured—which The Force Awakens replicates and continues.


Yet Abrams’s reverence for Star Wars bears no clear trace (at least on my first viewing) of Oedipal anxiety towards Lucas. No attempt to transcend or surpass—as such a move would entail a kind of critical (if metaphorical) violence directed at Lucas’s vision. (Notably, many of the criticisms of the so-called prequels rest on the way those films look beyond their predecessors (in a way that Abrams’s film doesn’t)).

 

I'd argue that there's one place where Abrams actually does act out an Oedipal anxiety toward Lucas, and it's in precisely the place that Attica points out in a response to me here. But it's a fairly minor point and one that's more related to bringing about a transition between eras than one that's concerned with Lucas himself.

And the conclusion:

Abrams’s goal was not to criticize Star Wars or poetically engage it; his goal was to praise it—to praise it as stasis, to replicate its comforts, to avow and vindicate its forms and tropes. And he succeeded.

And of course the biggest success of the film: I want to watch it again.

Edited by NBooth
Link to post
Share on other sites

I gotta say — I am so enjoying this thread. Those who enjoyed the film are saying so, those who aren't seem free to say so, and I don't see any of the flame wars that would have happened once upon a time. It's not turning into a party that makes those who are disappointed unwelcome, and it's not turning into a pile-on. 

As someone who has very mixed feelings and opinions about the film — I love a lot about it, I'm frustrated with a lot about it — I feel right at home here. These are good days at A&F.

 

 

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've been talking a lot about things that don't sit right with me, but there was a lot I also liked.  Like I had said, originally I had quite enjoyed it in the theatres, and I plan on seeing it again.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Peter T Chattaway said:

: One thing that I did find to be a bit of a stretch was the female leader of the stormtroopers.  This was mainly because she seemed to be the only woman in the whole army.  It was a little too obviously thrown in there in order to have a feminist angle and this into a world where the fit was tenuous.

And they didn't really *do* anything with her! (Captain Phasma's her name.) Not only that, but the film doesn't even clarify what *happens* to her -- though apparently Kathleen Kennedy has said that Phasma will be back in the next film, so I guess she isn't dead after all. Or something.

I alluded to this in my review. What happened to her? Where did she end up after Finn & Co. were done with her? We only know she escapes the destruction of the Starkiller (<--is it ever actually called this in the film?) because producers and actors have said she's coming back. I had similar questions about Maz--was she killed when the Storm Troopers invade her bar? Captured? Did she escape? Did I miss something? The film doesn't seem to care much about answering these questions, which is troubling, especially regarding Maz, who seems to play a significant (though supporting) role here.

 

32 minutes ago, Overstreet said:

I gotta say — I am so enjoying this thread. Those who enjoyed the film are saying so, those who aren't seem free to say so, and I don't see any of the flame wars that would have happened once upon a time. It's not turning into a party that makes those who are disappointed unwelcome, and it's not turning into a pile-on. 

As someone who has very mixed feelings and opinions about the film — I love a lot about it, I'm frustrated with a lot about it — I feel right at home here. These are good days at A&F.

I appreciate this too, due to my mixed feelings about the film. I nearly made my entire review "This was fine," and could have left it at that. Still, it has some very strong moments.

Also, my favorite origin-of-Rey theory thus far is a friend who said tongue-in-cheek that she's Luke and Leia's daughter. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick note.  I have avoided this thread.  Now that I've seen it, I've been catching up, but, let's face it.  Too many of you wrote "I must avoid this board so I can see this movie afresh."

For those of you who disliked this film (yes, there are weaknesses and callbacks), could it be because you were prepared in advance because of this forum? 

Are you also haters of directors who homage legendary filmmakers before them? (DePalma, Kurosawa, etc.?).

Nick Alexander

Keynote, Worship Leader, Comedian, Parodyist

Host of the Prayer Meeting Podcast - your virtual worship oasis. (Subscribe)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick,

I can only speak for myself obviously, but I avoided this thread until I watched the film and wrote about it.  Nonetheless, the more I contemplate this film, the more disappointed I am.  If it weren't the end of the year, I'd even consider writing a follow up column entitled, "Star Wars VII:  A Disappointed Hope."

My objections have largely been captured here, so I won't reiterate them.  But to answer your last question, I think there's a huge difference between standard-issue homage and what Abrams has done here.  Abrams, in what was supposed to be a new film in the Star Wars chronology, has taken so many elements out of A New Hope and Empire Strikes Back that this feels like an incoherent mash up of new story and remake.  Overall, this film comes across as a failure, despite its pluses (the charm and chemistry of Rey and Finn, the excitement of the battle scenes, some cool visuals).

Here's the link to my review:  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularcinephile/2015/12/star-wars-episode-vii-the-nostalgia-awakens/ - Here's the major paragraph for the purposes of this discussion:   "I’m going to blame director and co-writer J.J. Abrams for the recycled qualities of this film.  After all, his second Star Trek movie was an amped up remake of The Wrath of Khan.  Based on his movies so far, Abrams strikes me as a moderately talented plunderer rather a brilliant inventor.  Just as disquieting, Episode VII feels as though it’s setting up for an Empire Strikes Back retooling in Episode VIII." 

To be an artist is never to avert one's eyes.
- Akira Kurosawa

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularcinephile/

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 Abrams, in what was supposed to be a new film in the Star Wars chronology...

You see, that's not how I came into this film at all.  I look at this movie as a reintroduction to the Star Wars mythos for new generations, kind of a mashup between "The Muppets" and "Star Trek: Generations."  And to establish a new mythos, you first have to lay the foundation.  This was a highly entertaining approach to balancing that.

And as probably the lone dissenter of that horrific Mad Max 4, I couldn't agree more with this approach.

Nick Alexander

Keynote, Worship Leader, Comedian, Parodyist

Host of the Prayer Meeting Podcast - your virtual worship oasis. (Subscribe)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Andrew said:

"Just as disquieting, Episode VII feels as though it’s setting up for an Empire Strikes Back retooling in Episode VIII." 

I don't think this is true at all, actually. VIII will go a new way.

And I think my film experience benefited from seriously spoiling the film in advance. I already knew what the film's specific weaknesses would be, so I was able to look past them and at the positive aspects.

Edited by Ryan H.
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Ryan H. said:

.. I think my film experience benefited from seriously spoiling the film in advance. I already knew what the film's specific weaknesses would be, so I was able to look past them and at the positive aspects.

Sometimes this can be true for me, especially for controversial movies.  I can respect that.  Also, Psychology Today seems to support this notion.

Nick Alexander

Keynote, Worship Leader, Comedian, Parodyist

Host of the Prayer Meeting Podcast - your virtual worship oasis. (Subscribe)

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Ryan H. said:

And I think my film experience benefited from seriously spoiling the film in advance. I already knew what the film's specific weaknesses would be, so I was able to look past them and at the positive aspects.

This was my experience as well; I actually went into the movie expecting to really, really hate it--based on the spoilers I had read as well as my growing dissatisfaction with the way the movie was marketed. My ultimate, mostly-positive (though not ecstatic), response came as a surprise to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Joel Mayward wrote:
: The film doesn't seem to care much about answering these questions, which is troubling, especially regarding Maz, who seems to play a significant (though supporting) role here.

Apparently Maz was originally supposed to go to the Resistance/Republic planet along with Han and company; that's why one of the trailers showed Maz's hand giving Luke's lightsabre to Leia. But in the end, Abrams dropped that part of the plot because Maz had nothing else to do once she got to the Resistance/Republic planet.

It's similar, perhaps, to how George Lucas decided to kill off Obi-Wan Kenobi while shooting the original film, because he realized Obi-Wan had nothing to do once the final battle against the Death Star began (in the 1983 book Skywalking, Dale Pollock reported that it was Marcia Lucas's idea to kill Obi-Wan, and that Alec Guinness was upset at having his part cut down like that, while in a 1999 interview, Guinness claimed it was *his* idea to kill Obi-Wan because he was sick of the dialogue).

But Lucas actually figured out how to drop the character *within the narrative*; we never lost sight of what had actually happened to the character. Abrams just ignores the characters when they're not convenient to him.

Nick Alexander wrote:
: Are you also haters of directors who homage legendary filmmakers before them? (DePalma, Kurosawa, etc.?).

Heck, the original Star Wars itself had some significant homages to Kurosawa! (The severed arm on the floor a la Yojimbo, the story being told from the droids' perspective a la The Hidden Fortress...) But occasional or general homages like that are a far cry from the sort of beat-for-beat narrative replication that *this* film is engaged in. Plus there's the fact that, with this film, the franchise is primarily referencing *itself*, which just adds to the incestuousness of it all.

: I look at this movie as . . . kind of a mashup between "The Muppets" and "Star Trek: Generations."

Well, just like Star Trek: Generations, it has a sun-destroying superweapon and the death of a major character, so yeah, there are parallels... (Heck, I half-expected Han Solo to say, "It was... fun.")

"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
Quote

But occasional or general homages like that are a far cry from the sort of beat-for-beat narrative replication that *this* film is engaged in.  Plus there's the fact that, with this film, the franchise is primarily referencing *itself*, which just adds to the incestuousness of it all.

Just like how the Muppets followed a similar series of redux plot-points in both "The Muppets Take Manhattan" and "The Muppets", in referencing "The Muppet Movie."  Or how James Bond franchise re-invents themselves with every movie, including a faux remake of "Thunderball" from a non-Brocoli production. 

The longer a franchise, the greater likelihood of an individual film reigniting specific themes that made the original great.  I thought there were more than enough elements in TFA that made it unique, and stand apart from Ep. IV.  Not a perfect film by any means, but my wife and I greatly enjoyed ourselves. 

Nick Alexander

Keynote, Worship Leader, Comedian, Parodyist

Host of the Prayer Meeting Podcast - your virtual worship oasis. (Subscribe)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to Overstreet for noting this on Facebook. 

A couple of thoughts.  I'm not sure if all of the "holes" it's pointing out are as gaping as it suggests, but it also points out a few that I hadn't thought of.  I also found it interesting when the article talks about Rey understanding Wookie.  As I had said above the film seems to make a point to show us that she has an uncanny ability with languages leaving us with questions about her identity and past, so understanding wookie would certainly be fine, but the article does make a good point in that Han and Chewbacca don't even seem surprised by this.

One thing that has been nagging at me which the article doesn't talk about is when Han borrows Chewbacca's crossbow.  He says something along the lines of "I like this thing."  But even at the time I found myself thinking "You mean you've been working with Chewbacca and in various battles for decades and have never fired his weapon until now, and this when you still have your own weapon and when Chewbacca could have just shot those bad guys more easily."

 

Another thought.  It's kind of funny that those stormtroopers are all such shitty shots with a blaster, but we see at least two of them who are pretty darn smoking with a lightsaber and some sort of sword like weapon that a lightsaber cannot cut through (even though it can cut through the armor of an AT-AT.)    This when blasters are obviously a major part of their training and lightsabers and swords are basically foreign to them (except of course with the guy who happens to meet up with Finn in battle.)

 

Has there ever been a film with as many story problems and plot holes as this film that still ends up being as generally entertaining and impacting on the emotions?

Edited by Attica
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick Alexander wrote:
: Or how James Bond franchise re-invents themselves with every movie . . .

There's a difference between formula, in a franchise dedicated to stand-alone stories that always leave things where they were at the beginning, and lazy recycling, especially in a franchise where each story is supposed to be part of a larger arc.

Speaking of which, I'm old enough to remember when people complained that *Return of the Jedi* was a lazy re-hash of the original Star Wars. (And then Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade was sort of a quasi-rehash of Raiders of the Lost Ark. For a while there it seemed like the third movie in every George Lucas trilogy had to be a rehash of the first movie.)

Attica wrote:
: . . . some sort of sword like weapon that a lightsaber cannot cut through (even though it can cut through the armor of an AT-AT.)    

Ah, but in the very same film where Luke cuts through the AT-AT, his lightsabre *also* bounces off of Darth Vader's armour -- wounding him, to be sure (Vader grabs his shoulder and lets out a loud noise), but not exactly slicing *through* him.

Me, I've always wondered why the stormtroopers even bother with armour when a single blaster shot is capable of taking them down.

"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

Peter T Chattaway said:  

 

where Luke cuts through the AT-AT, his lightsabre *also* bounces off of Darth Vader's armour

 

I had forgotten about that.  It would make sense that Vader had the best armour.  Who knows maybe that kind of material is too expensive to want to put into larger equipment, and maybe the new stormtrooper sword is on the cutting edge.  So I guess this would probably be acceptable.

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...