Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie

Gamers can also use this forum to chat about any game related subject, news, rumours etc.

Moderator: maddog986

User avatar
Neilster
Posts: 2991
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:52 pm
Location: Devonport, Tasmania, Australia

RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie

Post by Neilster »

Which brings me back to the "Why don't we have Hollywood blockbusters with X nationality (non-American) focus?" To which I respond as Warspite1 did: Go then. Do it. Get it done. You've got the means. Have at it.

My guess is the very small market of Australia, New Zealand and Canada limits their options for independent self-focused "Hollywood-style" films. What's that? 70-75 million people total. There's insufficient market power there.

And then you lot would have to answer the same questions that Hollywood has for years: "What's the export market like?" Sure, you duped us with Yahoo Serious and Crocodile Dundee a few years back (don't think I've forgotten either mate), but do Australian films (particularly Australian-focused war films) have any exportability? If not, you're unlikely to recoup the massive budget required to export it.
I don't understand what you're getting at with this. I was merely suggesting that I think there is a global market for a British-centric movie with no Americans. A Dunkirk movie is being made and apparently a Battle of Britain one (although, as Warspite has mentioned, I bet there are some Americans in that one) too. I didn't say anything about making an Australian movie.

Cheers, Neilster
Cheers, Neilster
User avatar
TulliusDetritus
Posts: 5581
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:49 am
Location: The Zone™

RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie

Post by TulliusDetritus »

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


Sorry, their backing from "Mother Russia" and intrinsic 'patriotic' (read: Soviet now Russian propaganda) twist on things from the Great Patriotic War are too much for me to stomach.

I agree. At least two recent Russian war movies could be described as er... very Putinesque. I mean, picture His Excellency comrade Vlad riding the bear. No shirt obviously. They seem parodies to me, just like the US cheap war movies from the 80s. Except they are not parodies [:D] The spartan old Soviet realism (I'm talking about cinema) was far better IMO.

Call me weird, but as non British person I am more interested in the RAF night Bombing campaign. Less spectacular and glamourous perhaps, but I was very surprised when I learned the really huge losses à la U-Boot losses. A tough long fight.

As they said above, I hope Scott (79, now that's optimism) makes it.
"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24648
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: Neilster
I was merely suggesting that I think there is a global market for a British-centric movie with no Americans.

I will be interested to see how this fares at the global box office ex-Britannia. I wish it nothing but the best, but I truly *don't* know the global market for a British-centric war movie that focuses explicitly on only British (well, the Germans and French are in it too I guess [;)]) issues of historical importance.

Personally, I am awaiting with bated breath. However, the forum regulars here are very much *not* your average cinema goers. I've seen a couple trailer reviews of Dunkirk by 'average joes' that had me shaking my head at the ignorance of your average person. In between quietly weeping for the species, I wondered whether our interest in this topic means anything in terms of box office returns.

We shall see...
Image
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42129
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


Sorry, their backing from "Mother Russia" and intrinsic 'patriotic' (read: Soviet now Russian propaganda) twist on things from the Great Patriotic War are too much for me to stomach.

Call me weird, but as non British person I am more interested in the RAF night Bombing campaign. Less spectacular and glamourous perhaps, but I was very surprised when I learned the really huge losses à la U-Boot losses. A tough long fight.
warspite1

Not quite U-boat levels thank goodness (44% vs 75%) - but bad enough
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24648
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Neilster



Kokoda was made in 2006. I haven't seen it but apparently it's quite good. It focuses on small unit actions and the Japanese are almost never seen, emphasising the claustrophobic nature of jungle combat.

I can't help you with the other stuff. Of course you could always support our small and struggling film industry by actually buying it [;)]

Cheers, Neilster
I'd be happy to buy it. Where can I do that in San Antonio, Texas mate?
warspite1

Amazon sell it.

Actually, they don't. There *is* a Dutch export DVD that is available called the "Kokoda: 39th Battalion", that is seemingly the same movie, albeit with Dutch options amongst those for subtitles.

Being as it's a Dutch import ([&:]), it's extra special expensive at $27-28. Or I can do the online streaming version for *only* $14.95.

Amidst these costly options, it turns out the movie didn't receive really good reviews.

I amend my previous comments. I am no longer 'happy to buy it'. [:D]
Image
User avatar
Mobius
Posts: 10339
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 10:13 pm
Location: California
Contact:

RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie

Post by Mobius »

ORIGINAL: Neilster
Which brings me back to the "Why don't we have Hollywood blockbusters with X nationality (non-American) focus?" To which I respond as Warspite1 did: Go then. Do it. Get it done. You've got the means. Have at it.

My guess is the very small market of Australia, New Zealand and Canada limits their options for independent self-focused "Hollywood-style" films. What's that? 70-75 million people total. There's insufficient market power there.

And then you lot would have to answer the same questions that Hollywood has for years: "What's the export market like?" Sure, you duped us with Yahoo Serious and Crocodile Dundee a few years back (don't think I've forgotten either mate), but do Australian films (particularly Australian-focused war films) have any exportability? If not, you're unlikely to recoup the massive budget required to export it.
I don't understand what you're getting at with this. I was merely suggesting that I think there is a global market for a British-centric movie with no Americans. A Dunkirk movie is being made and apparently a Battle of Britain one (although, as Warspite has mentioned, I bet there are some Americans in that one) too. I didn't say anything about making an Australian movie.

Cheers, Neilster
Man, they had War Horse, be thankful of that.
All your Tanks are Belong to us!
panzer
User avatar
Neilster
Posts: 2991
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:52 pm
Location: Devonport, Tasmania, Australia

RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie

Post by Neilster »

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Neilster
I was merely suggesting that I think there is a global market for a British-centric movie with no Americans.

I will be interested to see how this fares at the global box office ex-Britannia. I wish it nothing but the best, but I truly *don't* know the global market for a British-centric war movie that focuses explicitly on only British (well, the Germans and French are in it too I guess [;)]) issues of historical importance.

Personally, I am awaiting with bated breath. However, the forum regulars here are very much *not* your average cinema goers. I've seen a couple trailer reviews of Dunkirk by 'average joes' that had me shaking my head at the ignorance of your average person. In between quietly weeping for the species, I wondered whether our interest in this topic means anything in terms of box office returns.

We shall see...
Yes. My original point was that the British Empire was the largest the world has ever seen and there are lingering cultural ties. This is perhaps not obvious to our American friends. Cricket anyone? [;)] Plucky underdogs battling menacing Nazis is a universally popular theme anyway.

I remember my older brother talking to a French girl who said, "The British were just jealous of the French Empire". Said Brother, "Exsqueeze me? Ever heard of the British Empire?" Apparently she hadn't [&:]

As for the Philistines who make up most movie audiences, I agree, but there is hope that if the movies are excellent enough and word of mouth is good, people will turn up. Most who do will learn something. I remember during the opening scenes of Saving Private Ryan overhearing someone say, "I didn't know they had machine guns in WW2!" [8|]

Cheers, Neilster
Cheers, Neilster
User avatar
Mobius
Posts: 10339
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 10:13 pm
Location: California
Contact:

RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie

Post by Mobius »

Largest in land mass or population?
All your Tanks are Belong to us!
panzer
User avatar
Neilster
Posts: 2991
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:52 pm
Location: Devonport, Tasmania, Australia

RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie

Post by Neilster »

ORIGINAL: Mobius

Largest in land mass or population?
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire

"At its height, it was the largest empire in history and, for over a century, was the foremost global power. By 1913, the British Empire held sway over 412 million people, 23% of the world population at the time, and by 1920, it covered 35,500,000 km2 (13,700,000 sq mi), 24% of the Earth's total land area. As a result, its political, legal, linguistic and cultural legacy is widespread. At the peak of its power, the phrase "the empire on which the sun never sets" was often used to describe the British Empire, because its expanse around the globe meant that the sun was always shining on at least one of its territories".

Also...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires

Cheers, Neilster
Cheers, Neilster
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24648
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: Neilster
Yes. My original point was that the British Empire was the largest the world has ever seen and there are lingering cultural ties. This is perhaps not obvious to our American friends. Cricket anyone? [;)] Plucky underdogs battling menacing Nazis is a universally popular theme anyway.

Meh. Were that central premise true, British global 'cultural ties' to cinema would still be meaningful. What was the last British movie that was popularized in Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, En Zed, Ozz or Canada? Seriously.

Or do you think this ephemeral cultural touchstone of which you speak is exclusively relegated to British military films involving non-American audiences? Because I don't see it. Obvious or subtle, I just don't see a universality to British-focused films.
Image
User avatar
Neilster
Posts: 2991
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:52 pm
Location: Devonport, Tasmania, Australia

RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie

Post by Neilster »

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Neilster
Yes. My original point was that the British Empire was the largest the world has ever seen and there are lingering cultural ties. This is perhaps not obvious to our American friends. Cricket anyone? [;)] Plucky underdogs battling menacing Nazis is a universally popular theme anyway.

Meh. Were that central premise true, British global 'cultural ties' to cinema would still be meaningful. What was the last British movie that was popularized in Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, En Zed, Ozz or Canada? Seriously.

Or do you think this ephemeral cultural touchstone of which you speak is exclusively relegated to British military films involving non-American audiences? Because I don't see it. Obvious or subtle, I just don't see a universality to British-focused films.
Since, say, 2010...The King's Speech, Sherlock Holmes, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, X-Men: First Class, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Anna Karenina, Life of Pi, Skyfall, Les Misérables, The Bling Ring, Man of Steel, The Wolverine, Gravity, Saving Mr. Banks, The Trip to Italy, The Grand Budapest Hotel, X-Men: Days of Future Past, Guardians of the Galaxy, The Imitation Game, The Theory of Everything, Interstellar, Paddington, Kingsman: The Secret Service, Fifty Shades of Grey, The Martian.

According to Wikipedia, all these are British films and all have been popular to various degrees in Commonwealth countries. Seriously [;)]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_British_films

Cheers, Neilster
Cheers, Neilster
AndyG1
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 2:24 pm

RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie

Post by AndyG1 »

Real flying, only love story is the plane:)

https://youtu.be/4iOoiEbtf2w
User avatar
Neilster
Posts: 2991
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:52 pm
Location: Devonport, Tasmania, Australia

RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie

Post by Neilster »

ORIGINAL: AndyG1

Real flying, only love story is the plane:)

https://youtu.be/4iOoiEbtf2w
It's a classic bit of footage [8D]

Cheers, Neilster
Cheers, Neilster
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24648
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: Neilster
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Neilster
Yes. My original point was that the British Empire was the largest the world has ever seen and there are lingering cultural ties. This is perhaps not obvious to our American friends. Cricket anyone? [;)] Plucky underdogs battling menacing Nazis is a universally popular theme anyway.

Meh. Were that central premise true, British global 'cultural ties' to cinema would still be meaningful. What was the last British movie that was popularized in Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, En Zed, Ozz or Canada? Seriously.

Or do you think this ephemeral cultural touchstone of which you speak is exclusively relegated to British military films involving non-American audiences? Because I don't see it. Obvious or subtle, I just don't see a universality to British-focused films.
Since, say, 2010...The King's Speech, Sherlock Holmes, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, X-Men: First Class, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Anna Karenina, Life of Pi, Skyfall, Les Misérables, The Bling Ring, Man of Steel, The Wolverine, Gravity, Saving Mr. Banks, The Trip to Italy, The Grand Budapest Hotel, X-Men: Days of Future Past, Guardians of the Galaxy, The Imitation Game, The Theory of Everything, Interstellar, Paddington, Kingsman: The Secret Service, Fifty Shades of Grey, The Martian.

According to Wikipedia, all these are British films and all have been popular to various degrees in Commonwealth countries. Seriously [;)]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_British_films

Cheers, Neilster

Not to put too fine a point on it, but your list includes a majority of films that were decidedly non-British in origin.

Sure, there may have been sound editing or some green screen contributions from a special effects studio in the UK, but that doesn't make a British film, except by the loosest definitions. Per the Wiki: This article fully lists all films, including short films that have a release date in that year and which were at least partly made by the United Kingdom.

Take "The Imitation Game" for example. A quintessential piece about Bletchley Park codebreakers. Produced by...a FRENCH company (StudioCanal). Directed by a Norwegian, written by an American. The film's Oscar for Best Original Score? By a FRENCHMAN. International distribution rights largely held by Weinstein Brothers distribution (American) and Warner Brothers (American).

True, Cumberbatch, Kinghtly and Goode are English headline actors. But, other than being shot partially in the UK, I'm not seeing much of a UK focus here. About this movie about Bletchley bleedin' Park.

In general, the UK does not punch above its weight regarding international film production. Yes, the BBC have made or produced or co-produced some fine films. But to say that the British Empire of old=current societal ties to the UK from abroad= world leading film production is inaccurate.

Even "Dunkirk" was written and directed by an American-Englishman (reverse emphasis mine [:'(]), shot on site in France, the Netherlands, United States and the UK with a musical score by a German and distribution by an American company. It's a co-production by the United States, France and the UK. So, this most British of experiences during WWII has to be some multinational conglomerate in order to get international buzz and production value.
Image
User avatar
Mobius
Posts: 10339
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 10:13 pm
Location: California
Contact:

RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie

Post by Mobius »

ORIGINAL: Neilster
Since, say, 2010...The King's Speech, Sherlock Holmes, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, X-Men: First Class, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Anna Karenina, Life of Pi, Skyfall, Les Misérables, The Bling Ring, Man of Steel, The Wolverine, Gravity, Saving Mr. Banks, The Trip to Italy, The Grand Budapest Hotel, X-Men: Days of Future Past, Guardians of the Galaxy, The Imitation Game, The Theory of Everything, Interstellar, Paddington, Kingsman: The Secret Service, Fifty Shades of Grey, The Martian.

According to Wikipedia, all these are British films and all have been popular to various degrees in Commonwealth countries. Seriously [;)]
Don't mix British produced films and films with British actors with films on British history.
Guardians of the Galaxy?
Is the raccoon British?
All your Tanks are Belong to us!
panzer
User avatar
Neilster
Posts: 2991
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:52 pm
Location: Devonport, Tasmania, Australia

RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie

Post by Neilster »

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Neilster
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy




Meh. Were that central premise true, British global 'cultural ties' to cinema would still be meaningful. What was the last British movie that was popularized in Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, En Zed, Ozz or Canada? Seriously.

Or do you think this ephemeral cultural touchstone of which you speak is exclusively relegated to British military films involving non-American audiences? Because I don't see it. Obvious or subtle, I just don't see a universality to British-focused films.
Since, say, 2010...The King's Speech, Sherlock Holmes, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, X-Men: First Class, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Anna Karenina, Life of Pi, Skyfall, Les Misérables, The Bling Ring, Man of Steel, The Wolverine, Gravity, Saving Mr. Banks, The Trip to Italy, The Grand Budapest Hotel, X-Men: Days of Future Past, Guardians of the Galaxy, The Imitation Game, The Theory of Everything, Interstellar, Paddington, Kingsman: The Secret Service, Fifty Shades of Grey, The Martian.

According to Wikipedia, all these are British films and all have been popular to various degrees in Commonwealth countries. Seriously [;)]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_British_films

Cheers, Neilster

Not to put too fine a point on it, but your list includes a majority of films that were decidedly non-British in origin.

Sure, there may have been sound editing or some green screen contributions from a special effects studio in the UK, but that doesn't make a British film, except by the loosest definitions. Per the Wiki: This article fully lists all films, including short films that have a release date in that year and which were at least partly made by the United Kingdom.

Take "The Imitation Game" for example. A quintessential piece about Bletchley Park codebreakers. Produced by...a FRENCH company (StudioCanal). Directed by a Norwegian, written by an American. The film's Oscar for Best Original Score? By a FRENCHMAN. International distribution rights largely held by Weinstein Brothers distribution (American) and Warner Brothers (American).

True, Cumberbatch, Kinghtly and Goode are English headline actors. But, other than being shot partially in the UK, I'm not seeing much of a UK focus here. About this movie about Bletchley bleedin' Park.

In general, the UK does not punch above its weight regarding international film production. Yes, the BBC have made or produced or co-produced some fine films. But to say that the British Empire of old=current societal ties to the UK from abroad= world leading film production is inaccurate.

Even "Dunkirk" was written and directed by an American-Englishman (reverse emphasis mine [:'(]), shot on site in France, the Netherlands, United States and the UK with a musical score by a German and distribution by an American company. It's a co-production by the United States, France and the UK. So, this most British of experiences during WWII has to be some multinational conglomerate in order to get international buzz and production value.
You asked me about British films and what I produced was from a list of British films in Wikipedia. Take it up with them. All I said was, "Culturally, countries like Australia, New Zealand and Canada still have a close affinity with Britain and this is most obvious with respect to military history" and that there are "lingering cultural ties".

These statements are true and your assertion that, "But to say that the British Empire of old=current societal ties to the UK from abroad= world leading film production is inaccurate" is simply a straw man. I didn't say anything about "world leading film production".

This debate is stupid and I don't have time for it any more.

Cheers, Neilster
Cheers, Neilster
User avatar
Neilster
Posts: 2991
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:52 pm
Location: Devonport, Tasmania, Australia

RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie

Post by Neilster »

ORIGINAL: Mobius
ORIGINAL: Neilster
Since, say, 2010...The King's Speech, Sherlock Holmes, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, X-Men: First Class, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Anna Karenina, Life of Pi, Skyfall, Les Misérables, The Bling Ring, Man of Steel, The Wolverine, Gravity, Saving Mr. Banks, The Trip to Italy, The Grand Budapest Hotel, X-Men: Days of Future Past, Guardians of the Galaxy, The Imitation Game, The Theory of Everything, Interstellar, Paddington, Kingsman: The Secret Service, Fifty Shades of Grey, The Martian.

According to Wikipedia, all these are British films and all have been popular to various degrees in Commonwealth countries. Seriously [;)]
Don't mix British produced films and films with British actors with films on British history.
Guardians of the Galaxy?
Is the raccoon British?
Sorry...you're giving me directives?

If you don't like those films being considered British by Wikipedia, take it up with Wikipedia. I don't care.

Cheers, Neilster
Cheers, Neilster
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24648
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: Mobius
Don't mix British produced films and films with British actors with films on British history.

I agree Mobius. The more I reviewed the Wiki entry provided, the more I realize that films were included as "British" for only the thinnest of reasons. By the same logic, all of the films listed could be identified as American films. But one gets what one gets when one uses Wikipedia as a primary source.

I was actually impressed with how *little* British film makers produce of their own accord or as majority in-house production.

It's a bit of a tangent (but only a bit), but what major British film makers are there? Other than the odd BBC movie, I can't think of any. Makes it difficult to tout your nation's rightful historical heritage (or market same abroad) when you're beholden to another country's film studios to get things done, idnit?
Image
User avatar
TulliusDetritus
Posts: 5581
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:49 am
Location: The Zone™

RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie

Post by TulliusDetritus »

ORIGINAL: Neilster
At the peak of its power, the phrase "the empire on which the sun never sets" was often used to describe the British Empire, because its expanse around the globe meant that the sun was always shining on at least one of its territories[/i]".

I have seen this twice lately (I think Warspite said it). That sentence was hijacked by the British. It was coined by Spanish king Philip II in the 1500s to describe his empire, the first global empire. The Portuguese had obviously started the whole thing, but their approach was a Venitian approach: get to India => grab some key points in between (outposts). It was a merchant approach. Whilst the Spaniards were about exploring, conquering and swallowing huge chunks of land.
"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42129
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Ridley Scott To Direct A Battle of Britain Movie

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
ORIGINAL: Mobius
Don't mix British produced films and films with British actors with films on British history.

Makes it difficult to tout your nation's rightful historical heritage (or market same abroad) when you're beholden to another country's film studios to get things done, idnit?
warspite1

Well of course, but thems the facts of life as mentioned earlier. But it's disappointing that this comes down to another country based argument, not least because life is more complicated than that. Frankly, speaking for the UK, our film/theatre people are mostly of a certain political persuasion and frankly I would be very dubious of their version of any historical episode of ours as a general rule.

As further evidence that this is not another boring country vs country issue, just look at Pearl Harbor. Now that is really simple. An iconic event that unified American resolve to get into the war and get it won. An American film, largely American stars, American event - no problem right? Here's a film that can be used to teach the kids about WWII. Er no, the film was a freakin' embarrassment to anybody and everybody from the US I have ever spoken to or had an online discussion with. Crass, pathetic, embarrassing dross that was an insult to every veteran, anyone interested in history or indeed any person avec a brain. And as useful in getting across historical heritage as Keeping up with the Kardashians.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”