Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Peter T Chattaway

Star Trek: the first ten movies (1979-2002)

121 posts in this topic

TSFS had the best klingons, too. I liked the parallel sacrifice Kirk makes (his son, his ship) effectively mirroring Spock's sacrifice in TWOK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CrimsonLine wrote:

: I'd agree about ST3's music, and about ST4's music, except for the opening and closing credits music. I think the music over the credits in TVH is sprightly, memorable, and cool.

Bah, I've never cared for it that much. Even less, since I realized it was basically a retread of the same composer's music for the animated version of The Lord of the Rings. (Not that James Horner, the composer of ST2 and ST3, could never be accused of self-plagiarism. His music for Aliens, produced two years after ST3 -- and apparently under an unusually tight schedule -- is eerily similar to his Star Trek music in places. (And in other places, it simply mimics the Khatchaturian ballet that played over one particular scene in 2001: A Space Odyssey.))

: When I was a newscaster for my college radio station, my co-anchor and I used music from ST3 - the scene where Kirk and Sulu discover that there is a cloaked ship orbiting the Genesis planet - to undergird one of our promos. It sounded awesome! Fast-paced, energetic, and purposeful.

Heh, I could see that. I remember a radio station in town used the Mutara-Nebula-battle music from ST2 in one of its promos over 20 years ago. I was still in high school then, and it was the first time I had any inkling that this music could be obtained and used APART from the movie, without the dialogue and sound effects. I became a soundtrack collector not long after.

Buckeye Jones wrote:

: TSFS had the best klingons, too.

Yeah, with the captain from Taxi and the only survivor from Night Court. :)

Though you have to love Christopher Plummer's eyepatched scenery-chewing in ST6:TUC. :)

: I liked the parallel sacrifice Kirk makes (his son, his ship) effectively mirroring Spock's sacrifice in TWOK.

When the movie first came out, I saw it almost as a desperate attempt to make SOME sort of permanent change to the franchise, since they were obviously about to UNDO the change that they had made in the previous movie. But yeah, you're right, there's a definite mirror effect there.

In fact, one of the really interesting things about the ST2/ST3 duo is the way the first film harps on the theme of "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one", while the second film turns that around at the end when Kirk tells Spock, "The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many." Talk about "mirroring"! But of course, the single principle that unites BOTH of these seemingly contradictory statements is the principle of voluntary self-sacrifice. The one must be prepared to sacrifice himself for the many. But the many can also sacrifice themselves for the one. It's like the parable of the lost sheep, or Saving Private Ryan -- the value of human beings cannot be reduced to mere mathematics, and there may indeed be times when affirming the value of the individual person requires us to jeapordize the lives of multiple other persons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TrekMovie.com reports that GITCorp will be releasing Star Trek: The Complete Comic Book Collection in a few weeks. The DVD will contain PDF files of Every Single Comic Book in the Star Trek franchise released between 1967 and 2002 -- including Marvel's adaptations of ST:TMP (1979) and ST:FC (1996) and DC's adaptations of ST3:TSFS, ST4:TVH, ST5:TFF, ST6:TUC and ST:G (1984-1994). There don't appear to have been any adaptations of ST2:TWOK (1982), ST:I or ST:N (1998-2002).

I collected the first few years of DC's "second series" in the late '80s and early '90s, and there were some pretty good stories there. I also collected some of the back issues of DC's "first series", which was kind of funny, since the movies between ST2:TWOK and ST5:TFF were all pretty tightly connected, and the comics released BETWEEN those movies had to invent storylines that could be "undone" before the next movie came along.

Edited by Peter T Chattaway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TrekMovie.com reports that the first six movies, at least, seem to be coming out on Blu-Ray next year (it's not clear what plans, if any, there are for the four NextGen movies), BUT the first movie will be released in its theatrical edition, rather than the slightly-improved DVD edition, because the carefully souped-up special effects were rendered in 480p and not in high-def.

Actually, there are more than two versions of the first movie; if memory serves, the VHS edition was based on the TV version, which added a bunch of new footage. The DVD version was longer than the theatrical version but shorter than the TV version -- and the bonus disc included all the bits of footage from the theatrical and TV versions that had been left out of the DVD version. So you have to wonder if the Blu-Ray will really, truly be based on the actual theatrical version, which I don't believe has ever been released on home video before, or on the expanded version that was previously released on VHS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been reflecting, these past few days, on how pro-life the basic conflict surrounding the MacGuffin of The Wrath of Khan is. Think about the assignment the Reliant is on - searching for a completely lifeless planet to test the Genesis device on. "You boys have to be clear on this - there can't be so much as a microbe, or the show's off." Why? Because the film posits that it is morally wrong to "destroy such life, in favor of its new matrix." I presume the moral issue is that the microbe could eventually evolve into sentient life, billions of years hence, and that to eliminate that possibility is - what? - pre-emptive genocide? Kind of like what Q was getting at in the final episode of TNG?

What's bizarre to me is that this radical pro-life stance is accepted as par for the course for our heroes, but it was written, directed, and enacted by folks who are probably pro-choice when it comes to abortion in the real world. Is that irony?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been reading Moby Dick for the first time; I don't know if Meyer et al touch on this in the commentary to TWOK, but the storyline plays remarkably like "Moby Dick" in reverse, with the Enterprise as the White Whale, and Khan as Ahab. Obviously his last lines in the film are lifted, knowingly, from Melville, but I'm wondering if the rest of the overall plot structure was modelled on the book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't recall if Meyer gets into that in the commentary.

What I do like, however, is a point made by the authors of the book Deep Space and Sacred Time. They point out that the two Star Trek movies that make explicit reference to Moby Dick do so in a way that shows the opposite ways in which stories can impact our lives. In ST2:TWOK, Khan uses the story to deepen his obsession, his prejudice, and he completely misses out on the POINT of the story, just as he misses out on the advice offered to him by his closest friends. In ST:FC, on the other hand, Lily refers to this story when Picard is in the middle of his own obsessive quest for revenge, and Picard's awareness that he is becoming like Captain Ahab actually wakes him up from his obsession. The story serves as a mirror in both cases, but for Khan, it confirms his vanity, while for Picard, it is an opportunity for reflection, in the truest sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I found that profound and insightful, as well, and had never before considered it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The theatrical versions of the first six movies are coming to Blu-Ray in a variety of packages -- including a "trilogy" edition that includes ST2:TWOK, ST3:TSFS and ST4:TVH.

Okay, granted, those three films are far more interconnected than any of the other movies ... they are all linked by cliffhangers between the episodes ... and they all contain bits of that famous "Genesis Planet" footage created by Pixar back when it was still a branch of Lucasfilm ... and they do provide an "arc" of sorts, by introducing Kirk as an admiral but concluding with him as a captain again, and by killing and resurrecting (in a manner of speaking) both Spock and the Enterprise, thus bringing us right back to where we were at the end of any previous episode ... but the word "trilogy" still doesn't quite feel right.

I mean, tonally, and even genre-wise, the third film in that "trilogy" is completely different from the first two films. It doesn't exactly feel like the third act in a single united story, know what I mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree that Star Trek TVH is more a time travel comedy and in many ways doesn't fit in terms of a trilogy, though it does wrap up that arc or odyssey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last year, I got all obsessive about the Wallace & Gromit DVDs and made a list of all the bonus features and which discs they appeared on. (Some appeared on multiple discs, some appeared on only one, and at least one of them was significantly longer on one disc than it was on the other(s).)

I've just finished going through the Blu-Rays for the first six Star Trek movies (no word yet on when the remaining four will be re-issued in that format), and comparing and contrasting their bells and whistles with those of the two-disc "collector's editions" of the same. (I also looked at the original one-disc versions of three movies: in two cases, because the movies were re-edited for the two-disc sets; and in one case, because the one-disc version had a bonus feature that the two-disc version didn't have.)

I COULD post the list of features for each and every movie, but I won't. Not unless people really, really want me to. But I can say this much, in general:

-- All six of the Blu-Rays include brand-new featurettes and audio commentaries and BD-Live and so on.

-- The Blu-Rays are all based on the original THEATRICAL versions of the various films. Thus: ST:TMP, which was 2:16.19 on the "director's edition" DVD and even longer on TV (and VHS, if I'm not mistaken), is only 2:12.00 on the Blu-Ray; ST2:TWOK, which was 1:52.52 on the one-disc set and 1:56.22 on the two-disc set, is back to 1:53.01 on the Blu-Ray; and ST6:TUC, which was 1:53.09 on the one-disc set and 1:53.14 on the two-disc set, is 1:49.58 on the Blu-Ray.

-- I didn't double-check this, but the Blu-Rays also all appear to be in the original 2.35:1 aspect ratio (or whatever it was), which would mean they've abandoned the director's preferred 1.95:1 aspect ratio (or whatever it was) that ST6:TUC had on the two-disc set (but not on the one-disc set, if I'm not mistaken).

-- The Blu-Rays for five of the movies (all of them except for ST:TMP) include every bonus feature from the two-disc sets EXCEPT for the text commentary by Michael & Denise Okuda. (The Blu-Ray for ST3:TSFS also omits the trailer for ST:N, which came out theatrically around the time the two-disc set for ST3:TSFS came out.) (Note also: Two of these movies, ST2:TWOK and ST6:TUC, are several minutes shorter on the Blu-Ray than they were on the two-disc DVD, so part of the original audio commentary would presumably be missing, too.)

-- The Blu-Ray for ST:TMP omits virtually ALL of the two-disc set's bonus features, with the exception of two trailers (out of three), seven TV spots (out of eight), three storyboards (out of three) and eleven deleted scenes (out of eleven). Note, however, a certain oddity about the deleted scenes: The "director's edition" that came out on DVD eight years ago was a brand-new cut of the film that included SOME of the TV footage but also deleted about six minutes, if not more, from the theatrical version; the DVD therefore included two different sets of deleted scenes, one showing the theatrical scenes that were left out of the "director's edition" and one showing the TV scenes that were left out of the "director's edition". Since the Blu-Ray shows the entire theatrical version of the film, no more and no less, there is no reason to show the first set of deleted scenes. (Indeed, they were not deleted this time!) But by including the second set of deleted scenes exactly as it was presented on the DVD, the Blu-Ray includes ONLY those TV scenes that were deleted from the theatrical version AND the "director's edition"; the TV scenes that were included in the "director's edition" -- about ten minutes' worth, I'd estimate -- are simply missing from the Blu-Ray altogether.

-- The Blu-Ray for ST4:TVH omits the 'Paramount Director's Series' featurette (0:15.52) that was originally created for VHS back in the late '80s, and was included in the one-disc DVD version of that film. This featurette was also omitted from the two-disc DVD set.

I think that about covers it. Another interesting thing I noticed is that, in the case of the three films that have never been re-edited (ST3:TSFS, ST4:TVH, ST5:TFF), the Blu-Ray version of the film was between 9 and 11 seconds longer than the DVD version of the film. Something like that seems to have happened between the one-disc DVD and Blu-Ray versions of ST2:TWOK, too, as per the lengths I mentioned above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The theatrical versions of the first six movies are coming to Blu-Ray in a variety of packages -- including a "trilogy" edition that includes ST2:TWOK, ST3:TSFS and ST4:TVH.

Okay, granted, those three films are far more interconnected than any of the other movies ... they are all linked by cliffhangers between the episodes ... and they all contain bits of that famous "Genesis Planet" footage created by Pixar back when it was still a branch of Lucasfilm ... and they do provide an "arc" of sorts, by introducing Kirk as an admiral but concluding with him as a captain again, and by killing and resurrecting (in a manner of speaking) both Spock and the Enterprise, thus bringing us right back to where we were at the end of any previous episode ... but the word "trilogy" still doesn't quite feel right.

I mean, tonally, and even genre-wise, the third film in that "trilogy" is completely different from the first two films. It doesn't exactly feel like the third act in a single united story, know what I mean?

A couple of things--I'm rewatching TWOK, and while the tone is def. different than TVH, the conclusion of TVH, with Kirk and crew on the bridge of the Enterprise, with his demotion to Captain, brings the concerns of Spock and McCoy for Kirk (that he should be commanding a starship) to final resolution. Its only after Kirk's willing to sacrifice his freedom and his ship for the sake of his friends and home, that he's reunited with his full purpose. Its too bad that a fitting adventure in that newfound purpose was never filmed.

Also, how are the BluRays? The DVD is dreadfully grainy on my BluRay player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buckeye Jones wrote:

: Also, how are the BluRays? The DVD is dreadfully grainy on my BluRay player.

I can't really tell the difference on my current TV, but the screen captures at TrekMovie.com are certainly promising -- with the glaring exception of ST5:TFF, where the light during the encounter-with-the-God-creature sequence is so bright you can't see the face of "God" within the pillar of light any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been going through the Blu-Rays of the first six movies the last few days, and it's been interesting. A few days ago I blogged an item on the first two films and how both of them, despite their stylistic differences, have a few interesting things in common, such as their use of transparent doors to emphasize the loneliness of Kirk.

It's also been fun to see how time and perspective have allowed some of the filmmakers to wax negative on some of the Trek films. Star Trek: Generations, for example, is not in the current boxed set because it is a "next generation" film and not one of the six films that starred all seven members of the original series' cast -- but some of the people who worked on it are involved in the supplemental features here, and they're clearly no longer in "hype the movie" publicity-tour mode.

For example, the boxed set comes with a seventh disc containing an hour-long conversation between William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, Patrick Stewart and Jonathan Frakes (Stewart never directed any of the feature films, but the other three guys directed five of the original ten films between them) -- and in there, Frakes, who co-starred in ST:G, openly says to Shatner that his character (Shatner's, that is) was killed "badly" in ST:G.

And then there is the new commentary track for ST3:TSFS, recorded by Ronald D. Moore (a former Trek writer, now better-known perhaps as producer of the revamped Battlestar Galactica) and one other guy, and Moore freely states that he and co-writer Brannon Braga simply weren't "ready" to write a film like ST:G and that's why it didn't turn out so well.

I've only made it as far as the fourth movie so far, and the new commentary on THAT disc features the writers of the new J.J. Abrams film, and in the spirit of nitpicky Trekkies everywhere, I have to say that those guys offer some lame excuses for some of the things that made it into their film. Like, for example, they say that they decided to have the Enterprise built on the ground (instead of in space) because the Klingon Bird of Prey was capable of landing on the ground. But, um, guys? The Bird of Prey is a tiny, tiny ship, and it is structurally built for landing on the ground -- whereas the Enterprise simply isn't. Plus the Enterprise is huge -- much huger in the new film than it was in the earlier films, if you compare the blueprints -- so lifting that puppy off the ground would be a much more complicated task. There is a reason elephants aren't built like ants or spiders, if you know what I'm saying. (Though I'm half expecting a tenured physicist to step in here and explain why I'm wrong about this, now.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nicholas Meyer, director of ST2:TWOK and ST6:TUC and a co-writer on ST4:TVH (i.e. all the even-numbered original-series films, i.e. the films that are popularly believed to be the best of the original series), has a memoir coming out in August, detailing his work on the series. TrekMovie.com has an exclusive excerpt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paramount has been coming up with all sorts of weird ways to repackage the old Star Trek movies this year.

First they put out a boxed set of the first six "original series" movies (with a bonus seventh disc); in tandem with that, they also put out a boxed set containing the so-called "trilogy" spanning the 2nd, 3rd and 4th movies (i.e. the movies with the deaths and resurrections of Spock and the Enterprise).

And now, they are planning to put out a boxed set of the last four "next generation" movies (with a bonus fifth disc) ... and in addition to that, they are also putting out FOUR films as individual discs in their own right. Which four films? Well, you know how everyone says the even-numbered Star Trek films are the "good" Star Trek films? Yeah, they're releasing THOSE films as stand-alone discs. And just to drive the point home, they're even adding an "VIII" to the title of Star Trek: First Contact, which I believe marks the first time that any of the "next generation" movies has been released with a number in the title (even if it's just in the home-video packaging and not in the film itself).

Oh, but they are NOT releasing Star Trek: Nemesis (i.e. the 10th film) as a stand-alone disc. Hmmm. Wonder why. (Rhetorical question.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the spirit of my earlier post on the Blu-Ray editions of the original-cast movies, I figured I might as well note what's different between the two-disc DVD and one-disc Blu-Ray editions of the next-generation movies. (The Blu-Rays came out last Tuesday.)

Basically:

-- All four of the Blu-Rays include brand-new featurettes and audio commentaries and BD-Live and so on.

-- The Blu-Ray versions of the films are basically identical to the theatrical and DVD versions (I don't believe any of the next-generation films were ever re-edited), but for some reason they are all about 9 or 10 seconds longer on the Blu-Ray than they are on the DVD.

-- The Blu-Rays for all four movies include every bonus feature from the two-disc sets, including the Easter eggs, EXCEPT for the text commentary by Michael & Denise Okuda that was included on all four DVDs and the Star Trek Experience: Borg Invasion 4-D trailer that was included on the last three DVDs.

So, a lot less complicated than the original-series Blu-Ray boxed set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently revisited the TREK flicks. A lot of my childhood nostalgia for them melted away, as I found most of them pretty dire. I only found three of them particularly likable: THE MOTION PICTURE (a little drawn out, but visually, it's the best of all the TREK films, with a sense of grandeur none of the others really match), THE WRATH OF KHAN (just a great pulp sci-fi story), and THE VOYAGE HOME (preachy and dumb, but good fun).

Regarding Abrams' STAR TREK, I found it entertaining, but little else. I wish they'd gone for a different visual aesthetic than STAR WARS prequel-style CGI garishness mixed in with lens flares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ryan H. wrote:

: I recently revisited the TREK flicks. A lot of my childhood nostalgia for them melted away, as I found most of them pretty dire.

I sympathize. It's hard for me to give up on them entirely, though, because I associate each one with a very particular phase in my life, and each film brings back all sorts of memories.

: I only found three of them particularly likable: THE MOTION PICTURE (a little drawn out, but visually, it's the best of all the TREK films, with a sense of grandeur none of the others really match), THE WRATH OF KHAN (just a great pulp sci-fi story), and THE VOYAGE HOME (preachy and dumb, but good fun).

I more or less agree with that assessment, though there are moments to like in all of the other films as well (yes, even ST5:TFF: think of the euthanasia scene, or Kirk's declaration "I NEED my pain!"). I agree that ST:TMP has a "grandeur" that the other movies are missing -- thanks no doubt to the fact that it probably had the biggest budget and the longest shooting schedule of them all, at least until the JJ Abrams film came along -- but the visuals are compromised in one very significant way: namely, the costumes and the set design are so drab, so grey, so bland. If the filmmakers were trying to set up a contrast between V'Ger's mechanical emotionlessness and humanity's emotional vitality, then it probably wasn't a good idea to make humanity look so dull and boring. The later films were wise to go an entirely different route, in that department.

Re: the nostalgia factor, it's striking to compare-and-contrast the TOS discs and the TNG discs, both in terms of the films themselves and in terms of the bonus features that each disc gets. The TOS films really ARE an act of nostalgia -- the gap between the final TOS episode and the first TOS movie was a full ten years, after all (we'll ignore the Saturday-morning cartoon for now) -- whereas the TNG movies were all produced while the various TV shows were going strong. So there's an "it's nice to see the fans still want us" feel to the TOS movies, whereas the TNG movies feel like they're being cranked out as part of a larger franchise; they're just bigger episodes in a sea of ongoing episodes.

(To recap: ST:G movie actually went into production while the TV show was still being produced: they shot the Kirk scenes while the final episodes of the TV show were in production, and then the TNG actors had only three days off between the end of the TV show and the beginning of their work on the movie. The final episode was broadcast in May 1994, and the movie came out in November 1994, only six months later. After that, ST:FC and ST:I both came out while DS9 and VOY were on the air, and ST:N featured a cameo by Admiral (formerly Captain) Janeway in 2002, only one year after her series came to an end.)

The difference between the two parts of the franchise is also evident in the bonus features, where the makers of the TOS films tend to have a lot more perspective -- and a greater ability to admit where they went wrong -- than the the makers of the TNG films, who seem to be in hype-the-movie mode because the memories of making the movie are still so recent. This is most glaringly obvious with ST:N, which is the only film to have been produced after bonus features became a staple of the DVD market: it's funny to hear everyone sing the filmmakers' praises, to hear them all be so on-message publicity-wise, knowing that just a few years later some of the actors would admit that the film had certain problems, not the least of which was that it was directed by someone who didn't "get" Star Trek.

Incidentally, I realized just last night how incredibly incestuous and tightly-knit some of these filmmaker relationships can be. Bryan Singer has a cameo in ST:N because Patrick Stewart invited him to the set, following their work together on the first X-Men movie. And the X-Men movies are produced by Lauren Shuler Donner, who is married to Richard Donner. Richard Donner directed all of the first Superman movie and part of the second one, and Bryan Singer went on to direct Superman Returns. And the editor who worked with Richard Donner on Superman (and The Omen, and Ladyhawke, and Lethal Weapon, etc., etc.) was Stuart Baird ... who directed ST:N.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This month marks the 30th anniversary of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, and with it, the first anniversary of the Jerry Goldsmith theme that would go on to be used in 5 of the first 10 movies, as well as every single episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation. (Goldsmith would also go on to write an excellent opening-credits theme for Star Trek: Voyager.)

But did you know that there almost WASN'T a special Jerry Goldsmith theme for the first Star Trek movie? The video below explains all:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9094042749703335213

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Juliette Harrison at the always-enjoyable Pop Classics blog (devoted to ancient Greco-Roman references in movies and TV shows) has an entertainingly detailed look at the many significances of James T. Kirk's middle name, looking especially at its first live-action usage in ST6:TUC but also commenting on its use in the new J.J. Abrams movie.

(Just for the record, I have no trouble calling the animated series "canonical", since it featured many of the same actors and many of the same writers as the original series. Yeah, sure, some of the animated episodes are pretty silly and embarrassing, but so too are some of the live-action episodes.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had forgotten that TAS introduced "Tiberius." Then again, I never actually saw TAS--just read about it, and read some of the short-story adaptations--so I guess the lapse is excusable. I do like the point about the way "Tiberius" is used in the new movie. In a movie that doesn't quite reach far enough, emotionally, the fact that the name belongs to the father's side is a nice touch.

BTW, isn't it interesting that TUC "canonized" the name, but other details from TUC (Klingon blood, for instance--as you mention above,I think) are basically ignored by the "canon"? (Another illustration of why the concept of 'canon' as applied to fictional worlds is pretty slippery).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NBooth wrote:

: BTW, isn't it interesting that TUC "canonized" the name, but other details from TUC (Klingon blood, for instance--as you mention above,I think) are basically ignored by the "canon"?

It's a hazard, especially in a series as sprawling as this one.

In all of the previous movies and TV episodes, every crew member had his or her own quarters, and food was provided by machines called replicators, and so on and so on. And then along came ST6:TUC, and suddenly crew members were sleeping in bunk beds, and the food was prepared in a galley over old-fashioned stoves, etc., etc. The director on this film wanted the Enterprise to feel a little more "nautical", so he deviated to some degree from the world that had been established by the earlier stories.

I don't think canonicity has to be a guarantee of consistency. Tensions can exist WITHIN canons, I think, though some may be easier to resolve than others.

I mean, since we're talking about Kirk's middle name, here's a case in point: The very first episode that featured Kirk also "revealed" that his middle initial was R., not T. But the R. appears on a tombstone created by a former friend of his who has since become a villain. So we can always explain that away by saying that his friend was taking a dig at him by putting the wrong middle initial on the tombstone. But if no future episode or movie had given Kirk the middle initial T., we would probably have accepted R. as gospel.

o8rme8.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0