Chefelf.com Night Life: Superman Returns . . . - Chefelf.com Night Life

Jump to content

  • (11 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • Last »

Superman Returns . . . . . . and crash lands

#61 User is offline   Jedi_Arco Icon

  • Henchman
  • Pip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 74
  • Joined: 04-May 06
  • Country:United States

Posted 21 July 2006 - 11:28 AM

laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif Ink like blood! I love it!

And the Ironman movie is on the way. I'm sure you've heard. John Favreau (sp?) is directing and the poster is set to debute at ComiCon. No word on the actual plot, well except the basics, or cast. Fav's is pretty stoked about it though. I don't know what to think yet, but I'm keeping the faith for now.
0

#62 User is offline   Lord Aquaman Icon

  • Legend
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,976
  • Joined: 19-November 04
  • Location:Atlantis
  • Interests:Movies, comic books, some mythology... basically anything that's larger than life.
  • Country:United States

Posted 21 July 2006 - 01:19 PM

QUOTE (Jedi_Arco @ Jul 20 2006, 11:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'll agree with you barend. smile.gif They're all comics to me.
MyPantsAreOnFire - I believe we just had a bit of a misunderstanding. The way I read your response was that you felt the "Donnerverse" was the only way to do the films. This is clearly not your intent. We both agree that S:TAS is the best adaptation of Supes, and that if the film had been adapted from that series we would've been given something truly spectacular at the movies. I didn't like SR; you did. That's cool. I have quite a frew friends that stand with you, and others that stand with me, and we just have fun little debates and "arguments" about it. We all seem to agree, however, that the movie could've been a lot better. As for the comics, we just have to agree to disagree there too. I find the comics fun and interesting. While I might agree that 4 different Superman titles is a bit of overkill, I feel that way about most of the titles out there. Do we need 4 different Batman titles? Do we need a million spin-offs of the X-Universe? Do we need so many different Spider-man comics muddying up the continuity? Give me one, ongoing monthly title following the character and that's plenty for me. The occasional crossover, or having them as part of a team like the Avengers or JLA is cool too.

For me, SR dropped the ball. I really don't think a sequel will happen, but as you said, who cares? If it does happen, I won't be there. There are just too many problems now and I don't see how they can fix any of them and have it make sense. And if Singer is involved I fear that he'll mine the "Donnerverse" some more and just do Zod again. Yes, I'm being somewhat sarcastic, but look at SR, it's just a rehash of S:TM. Who's to say he won't do it again? biggrin.gif

And as far as doing a relaunch, the new Hulk is basically doing just that. They are going into the sequel with the attitude of "Let's just do the Hulk; forget the first one altogether and move foreward." I like that idea. It won't bring up things from the first, but it will assume that people know Hulk's origin. They should do something similar with Superman. Forget SR, assume people know the character (most do already), and just do something fun and exciting and interesting. He's a great character, at least I think so, and I know they can do him justice if they would just let Timm and Dini handle it. biggrin.gif
LordAquaman - Saw it Cartoon Network before it was released on DVD and I'm glad I dodged that bullet. While it was big fun to hear Tim Daly as the voice of Supes again, the rest of it was pretty awful. I liked the idea of Lance Henrikson, but the writing was pretty pitiful. How many times did he call Supes son of Kryton? What happened to him switching it up a bit with Kal-El and all that? And the change of Lex's voice was horrible too. Clancy Brown was sorely missed. Lex came off as almost like a Joker-esque character in this one to me. They didn't even resolve if Lois knows Supes is Clark or not, even though it was hinted at. And it never made it clear where this movie happened within the continuity. Was it during S:TAS or after; before JL or during; or during JLU or after? It wasn't clear. I think it was between S:TAS and JL but they never address it. I'd avoid it at all costs, or wait for it to hit the $10 mark.

I believe that "Brainiac Attacks" was set in a kind of neither verse that is neither SM:TAS or otherwise.

I say get Jim Caviezel for Iron Man. They wouldn't let him be Superman, compensate him with Iron Man at least.
I am the Fisher King.

I'd like a qui-gon jinn please with an obi-wan to go.
0

#63 User is offline   Jedi_Arco Icon

  • Henchman
  • Pip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 74
  • Joined: 04-May 06
  • Country:United States

Posted 23 July 2006 - 02:58 AM

Howdy folks. biggrin.gif

Just doing some research as to how the box office this weekend is shaping up and I found something interesting. Did anyone here know that SR hasn't even made it's budget back WITH the international totals added to its domestic total? So far, SR has only grossed approx. $250 million. That's its grand total. It cost $260 million to make, not including promo. Domestic total is now up to approx. $173 million and it looks poised to be in the ninth spot on the weekend box office with a projected $1.9 million. Pirates looks like it might just hold onto the top spot again, but I can't be sure yet. Lady in the Water might be right behind it. (Oh, by the by, Lady in the Water = amazing film! Go see it. Modern day myth or fairy tale or what have you. Great movie.)

Anyway, just found it interesting that SR hasn't even made back it's budget when you take in worlwide totals.

And yes, before anyone decides to bring it up, I did hear about Singer's little ComiCon interview where he says he'd like to see the sequel come out some time in 2009. However, what's he gonna say? "Oh yeah, the ticket sales were lackluster, and WB is rolling heads, and I didn't do as good a job as most people thought I would, so no sequel." That's just suicidal! He's gonna go out and be all political about it and say a sequel will happen, because he does want a sequel to happen. The bottom line is that he isn't the one who will decide that. WB and their shareholders are. And with the money that has been lost on SR I seriously doubt they will do a sequel to this one. Oh, and Singer's comment about the next villian being an "alien" sounds like a rehashing of Zod to me. He's gonna remake the first two in his own image. hehehe I'm rich, biotch!
0

#64 User is offline   Jedi_Arco Icon

  • Henchman
  • Pip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 74
  • Joined: 04-May 06
  • Country:United States

Posted 23 July 2006 - 02:00 PM

Here's the interview with Singer from ComiCon direct from ComicsContinuum.com:

QUOTE
At the Warner Bros. panel at Comic-Con International on Saturday, Superman Returns director Bryan Singer said that he wants to direct another Superman film for Warner Bros.

"I haven't concluded a deal to do it yet -- which is also iffy -- but my intention is to do it," Singer said. "My intention is to do it for 2009.

"With this one, we kind of introduced the characters and the universe to some degree, which required some measure of re-introduction since it had been several years since Superman had been around," Singer said. "The next one enables me to get all Wrath of Khan on it."

Singer said that he hoped screenwriters Dan Harris and Michael Dougherty would be involved in the next film. "If I can afford them," he said. "They're best friends and best writers."

He also noted that in the next movie he should be able to incorporate more contemporary aspects from the comics. "I'm very respectful of that," he said.

Singer was joined by Superman: The Movie director Richard Donner. "If he hadn't done that movie, there would be no comic-book movies," Singer said. "There would be template for Batman or X-Men on Spider-Man."



So, there you have it. He has not been asked to do it yet, nor has WB even talked to him about it yet. It is just what he would like. Nothing has been confirmed yet. And the whole Wrath of Khan thing doesn't sound good to me. By that example he means to imply (at least to me) the return of a villian that we have seen before that has a major grudge against Supes. Add to that his comment about the next villian being an "alien" and a match for Supes, and it reeks of Zod rehashing to me. Maybe not, but I wouldn't put it past him at this point.


Also of note is the Christopher Reeve's Collection that will be released in November. It will contain all 4 of the Chris Reeve Superman movies with new features and commentary. Of note is the inclusion of Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut. The cut that has been laying on a shelf somewhere in London all these many years. It should be interesting and has to be better than the cut that we currently have. Guess that's all for now. cool.gif

This post has been edited by Jedi_Arco: 23 July 2006 - 02:00 PM

0

#65 User is offline   MyPantsAreOnFire Icon

  • Level Boss
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 317
  • Joined: 15-May 06
  • Country:United States

Posted 23 July 2006 - 03:31 PM

I took the "Wrath of Khan thing" more as an example of what happened with the Star Trek films...1st film was supposed to be the big-relaunch will maintaining the feel of a previous version...it did alright, but generally was considered "meh" at best by most people, so much so that by the time the 2nd rolled around they basically ignored the 1st film and started fresh without toally relaunching everything...something that could be done here with the Superman films very easily.

Personally, I'd be OK for a Zod re-match. I know Jedi Arco likes the Superman universe, but in my opinion, he's in short supply of decent movie-worthy villains. Lex, Brainiac, Zod are the top guys...maybe Metallo or Parasite...I know he has others, but they're "villian of the month" type of guys. And Doomsday...please, God, no. Death of Superman = death of quality comics.
0

#66 User is offline   Lord Aquaman Icon

  • Legend
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,976
  • Joined: 19-November 04
  • Location:Atlantis
  • Interests:Movies, comic books, some mythology... basically anything that's larger than life.
  • Country:United States

Posted 24 July 2006 - 11:52 AM

Have you ever heard the jokes some people make about Christopher Reeve's paralysis? I was flipping channels once and I came across this red neck stand up comedy thing once and Larry the Cable Guy was on there and he said "This TV show was so bad, Christopher Reeve stood up, walked over, and changed the channel." A similar joke that has circulated is "This movie was so bad that Christopher Reeve stood up and walked out of the theater."
I am the Fisher King.

I'd like a qui-gon jinn please with an obi-wan to go.
0

#67 User is offline   Jedi_Arco Icon

  • Henchman
  • Pip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 74
  • Joined: 04-May 06
  • Country:United States

Posted 24 July 2006 - 12:02 PM

Hillarious... yet horrible at the same time. tongue.gif

My favorite was the South Park episode where they had Reeve, who was just calling himself Chris, versus Gene Hackman, who Chris called Hack-Man. hehehe Matt and Trey were closer to capturing Superman than Singer was. Oooooohhh..... sorry, had to get a little dig in.

And I don't know what to make of Brainiac Attacks. If you look at Justice League Unlimited there are a couple episodes with Lois, and one of them has her give Clark this look like "I know you have to go because of who you are and it's okay." And he goes and saves the day, but they never acknowledged if she knew or not. And then in this you have that same sort of thing going on. I think this happened right before the JL continuity, but I'm not sure. It's just something I wish they would've addressed. The Lois knowing thing, not the continuity thing. I don't care about that so much in the Animated Series universe. Like Batman Beyond... never happened, and it is not the future of Batman or that world. Oh boy, why do I have the feeling I just opened up a whole new can 'o worms? smile.gif
0

#68 User is offline   Lord Aquaman Icon

  • Legend
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,976
  • Joined: 19-November 04
  • Location:Atlantis
  • Interests:Movies, comic books, some mythology... basically anything that's larger than life.
  • Country:United States

Posted 26 July 2006 - 11:47 AM

QUOTE (Jedi_Arco @ Jul 24 2006, 10:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Hillarious... yet horrible at the same time. tongue.gif

My favorite was the South Park episode where they had Reeve, who was just calling himself Chris, versus Gene Hackman, who Chris called Hack-Man. hehehe Matt and Trey were closer to capturing Superman than Singer was. Oooooohhh..... sorry, had to get a little dig in.

And I don't know what to make of Brainiac Attacks. If you look at Justice League Unlimited there are a couple episodes with Lois, and one of them has her give Clark this look like "I know you have to go because of who you are and it's okay." And he goes and saves the day, but they never acknowledged if she knew or not. And then in this you have that same sort of thing going on. I think this happened right before the JL continuity, but I'm not sure. It's just something I wish they would've addressed. The Lois knowing thing, not the continuity thing. I don't care about that so much in the Animated Series universe. Like Batman Beyond... never happened, and it is not the future of Batman or that world. Oh boy, why do I have the feeling I just opened up a whole new can 'o worms? smile.gif

The internet was invented just for the can o' worms.

From IMDB today 7/26/06 -

QUOTE
Director Bryan Singer has acknowledged that the less-than-stellar performance of Superman Returns has made prospects for another Man of Steel sequel a bit "iffy." The Associated Press quotes him as saying, "We haven't concluded a deal," but if a sequel gets a green light from Warner Bros, "the intention is to do it for [release in] 2009." Separately, Singer told Britain's Empire magazine, "Now that the character is established, I'd like to take the opportunity to bring in a more threatening element, a more terrible, foreboding element." Superman Returns, starring Kevin Spacey, Brandon Routh, and Kate Bosworth, has taken in $178 million at the domestic box office, below such other summer hits as The Da Vinci Code, X-Men: The Last Stand, Cars, and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest.

I am the Fisher King.

I'd like a qui-gon jinn please with an obi-wan to go.
0

#69 User is offline   MyPantsAreOnFire Icon

  • Level Boss
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 317
  • Joined: 15-May 06
  • Country:United States

Posted 27 July 2006 - 12:06 AM

Jesus jumping Christ on a broken trampoline, The Da Vinci Code made THAT much money?

That's fucking pathetic.
0

#70 User is offline   Lord Aquaman Icon

  • Legend
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,976
  • Joined: 19-November 04
  • Location:Atlantis
  • Interests:Movies, comic books, some mythology... basically anything that's larger than life.
  • Country:United States

Posted 27 July 2006 - 10:15 AM

QUOTE (MyPantsAreOnFire @ Jul 26 2006, 10:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Jesus jumping Christ on a broken trampoline, The Da Vinci Code made THAT much money?

That's fucking pathetic.

Those are the breaks.
I am the Fisher King.

I'd like a qui-gon jinn please with an obi-wan to go.
0

#71 User is offline   Lord Aquaman Icon

  • Legend
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,976
  • Joined: 19-November 04
  • Location:Atlantis
  • Interests:Movies, comic books, some mythology... basically anything that's larger than life.
  • Country:United States

Posted 28 July 2006 - 01:26 PM


SUPERGIRL: "That blonde guy in the black & gold costume is so hot..."

SUPERMAN: "Stop seducing my cousin you brute!"
I am the Fisher King.

I'd like a qui-gon jinn please with an obi-wan to go.
0

#72 User is offline   Jedi_Arco Icon

  • Henchman
  • Pip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 74
  • Joined: 04-May 06
  • Country:United States

Posted 28 July 2006 - 04:50 PM

LOL!! laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

That is great LordAquaman! I haven't seen that before.


On a completely unrelated note: Why do girls suck?!? That is all. smile.gif
0

#73 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 29 July 2006 - 01:59 AM

QUOTE (Jedi_Arco @ Jul 28 2006, 04:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
On a completely unrelated note: Why do girls suck?!?

Because we paid for the movie, that's why! devil.gif
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#74 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 29 July 2006 - 02:11 AM

QUOTE (Jedi_Arco @ Jul 15 2006, 01:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I totally disagree, though, that Batman Begins is anywhere near Superman Returns. Batman Begins is a great film; it holds true to Batman in every sense and it is extremely entertaining. At least to me. Superman is neither faithful to Superman, nor is it a good movie. These are my opinions, and I have a feeling that you disagree, and that's just fine. We can all coexist. smile.gif

Oh, and Batman Begins borrowed story elements from established Batman lore. It took from some of the classic stuff that Bob Kane thought up, and mostly from the newest versions of his origins, namely Year One by Frank Miller and The Long Halloween by Jeph Loeb. And it's actually pretty damn close to the current origin that Batman has in the comics, and it's way closer to Batman as a character than the new Superman is. Again, just me here. biggrin.gif


I I really disagree that BB holds true to Batman in "every sense." I wrote this in another part of these forums (that is, in a topic about Batman Begins, but I thought I'd reprint it here, just because.

Spoilers spoilers spoilers
(ie you're reading this only because you've already seen the film)

"I went in knowing little other than that this was not going to be Batman: Year One. Right away however, I started to put some things together. I knew the League of Shadows was going to be the point of the film once they introduced it: Ra's al Ghul is too minor a Batman villain to be given more than one movie. So, ok, I thought, this is really not going to be Year One. Fine.

"So why the Dog In the Manger approach to the screenplay? Why borrow elements of Year One and then not use them? The only purpose seems to be to piggyback your story on something already popular, for street cred. However the actual effect of it is that nobody else can ever follow up and do that story (ok: fine, Year One was already so cinematic that it might have been trivial to adapt it to the big screen, you say? Tell that to Frank Miller and Robert Rodriguez. That's exactly what they did with SIN CITY).

"Specific criticisms coming: I liked the look and feel of Gotham, of the trains and Wayne Tower. Hated the fact that setting up these elements meant they would play a pivotal role in the final action sequence. Gotham is as much a character as any of the people in the film, and needn't be developed only for the sake of plot. I did NOT like how the one exit from the opera opened right onto Crime Alley. Frank Miller's idea that the crime took place near a movie theatre makes more sense; who places an opera house in the middle of a slum?

"I liked the focus on Batman being born out of guilt and fear as well as rage. This hasn't been touched on very much. This in its way made the Scarecrow a perfect villain for the first installment. In fact, the whole city being under a spell of fear could have made the Scarecrow an ideal villain to counterpoint the Roman, and that could have been enough meat to fill up the thin plot of Year One, which again, grr, they didn't do. I did NOT like that Batman's guilt and fear needed to be used to serve the plot directly. Like the train and Wayne Tower, we learned about these elements of Batman's personality only because they served the final action sequence. Add to that, there is supposed to be something elemental about Bruce Wayne, something he learned on his self-directed tour of Buddhism and Eastern martial arts. What makes him able to face Scarecrow in the comics is the fact that he has learned to live with his fear. In the film, Batman faces Scarecrow because he has a convenient chemical antidote. Yawn; how prosaic. How very STAR TREK, or worse, "Robin, hand me the Bat shark repellent!"

"So too Batman's development with the League of Shadows. I've already hinted at my problem with this stuff: Batman's drive to fight crime had always been self-directed. Now in the film, Bruce Wayne was a self-destructive rogue until Ra's came along and shaped him; Falcone knew he was gunning for him; his childhood sweetheart tried to build him up to be the good man she knew he could be. Wayne enterprises apparently wasted a lot of money annually developing the products Batman needs. Cool. But rather than this being a secret branch of the organization that Bruce sets up early on when he begins his development, this is something he discovers by accident. The Batsuit is already sitting in a locker somewhere; so too the Batmobile. Jeepers; these things have been field-tested and rejected by the US Army; don't you figure someone is going to be able to connect the dots? Especially recently-unemployed and embittered Rutger Hauer? ... All of these complaints add up to a general concern with the film: Batman is developed from the outside by people and forces other than himself. This downplays his obsession. He didn't spend all those years learning how to fight crime so he could come back and channel his rage; he did that because he was lost and alone until daddy Ra's came along and found him. Likewise he didn't waste loads of money developing secret miltary props so he could use them in his crusade; that stuff was already there. Lucky Batman.

"I found the screenplay to be fairly paint-by number in ways I've already gotten into and a few other ways as well. Nothing happened for character; everything was there to service the plot. Even the strange blue flower and the fight-your-fear training sequence had to play out in the final act. The effect is actually quiet hokey, and it's a hell of a thing to favour that over the nice slow development of the real heart and soul of Year One, Jim Gordon. I thought Gary Oldman was well cast, and he has the stuff to have done that part. But damn did they ever not do it. I also really didn't like the way Harvey Dent was removed in exchange for Katie Holmes, the most pointless superhero love interest since Nicole Kidman. And yes, did they do it? Did they have Batman reveal his secret identity to her? You bet, and what is worse is why: he did it just in case they didn't survive the night, in case they all died and Gotham was destroyed. When did Batman become so hopeless? A couple of minor villains like the Scarecrow and Ra's al Ghul are terrorizing the city with some panic gas, and he despairs? So, add Rachel Dawes to the long list of folks in this film who know or who ought to know Batman's identity, a list that includes Lucius Fox, Falcone, and the entire League of Shadows. No wonder they were able to burn down Wayne Manor; the same Bruce who was too stupid to put in sprinklers and/or chemical fire retardent also didn't think it's pretty good insurance to keep people out of the "who is Batman?" loop.

"Lots of the film I did like. Christian Bale is great. No better actor could have played Alfred than Michael Caine. And the filmakers got the tone right, more or less. It's not a comic-book adaptation by any stretch, but it happens to be as close as anyone has yet come to doing Batman any kind of justice. Too bad they didn't have the balls to come just a little closer."

PS: I also didn't think the film was "extremely entertaining."
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#75 User is offline   Jedi_Arco Icon

  • Henchman
  • Pip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 74
  • Joined: 04-May 06
  • Country:United States

Posted 30 July 2006 - 07:00 PM

Three things.

1) Batman Begins was adored by critics and fans en masse. Unlike Superman Returns which has a pretty even split down the middle. Box Office Mojo has it's overall reveiw rating at a 'B'; it's 'A' rating stands at only 60%. BB has an 'A-' overall and a 75.5% 'A' rating. I don't go by Rotten Tomatoes, they can be a bit too fanboy driven, and we can all admit that we fanboys can be blinded by just the fact that it's a movie centering around a character(s) we love and tend to be forgiving if it sucks.

2) Batman Begins is a more faithful and well done adaptation of Batman. Say what you will about it borrowing certain elements and ignoring others. It worked. I wish Superman had borrowed more from the comics, if only little nuggets here and there. Superman was too reliant on the Donner film and this only hurt it; hell, it was the Donner film redux. Batman is true to the characters it represents and presented them realistically.

3) Batman Begins made it's money back and more. Believe what you want about the quality of the movie, audiences must have found it a hell of a lot more fun and entertaining than Superman Returns. Batman made it's money and more. It's domestic total finished at $205.5 million; it's foreign gross was $166.5 million. It's budget was only $150 million. Superman has only made $185.8 million domestically and $110 million in the foreign markets with a budget of $260 million. Which movie is the box office champ? Superman tanked.

Given the box office alone I'd say that the public (however easily pleased or choose-y you might think them to be for picking the same movie in a different wrapper, since you feel that BB and SR are just as bad when compared) doesn't agree with you. And it's not because Batman is "cooler" than Superman or anything like that. Superman is a messy film and a lesson on how not to do a comic movie. Batman, on the other hand, was unique in it's approach and had a style all it's own. It is, for me, the quintessential comic book movie surpassing Spider-man and Superman: TM. It's in my top 3 comic adaptations of all time along with The Crow and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

And word is there are no plans for a sequel. Thank God! The suits at WB aren't as desperate as I thought.




On a side note: LordAquaman! Did you hear the news? There's talk of an Aquaman movie! Some big Hollywood players have been talking and WB is apparently kicking the idea around. It all started when they saw the number of downloads the pilot for the WB tv show had. It broke records on iTunes! It's a great show, by the way. Hopefully they'll pick it up as a mid-season replacement since the online numbers were so high and it's being embraced by the fans. Heck, it would probably be on the air this season if WB and UPN hadn't gone ahead with that merger.
0

  • (11 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • Last »


Fast Reply

  • Decrease editor size
  • Increase editor size