Watchmen

User avatar
Samwise
Realizador
Posts: 14973
Joined: 29 Dec 2004 11:46
Location: Monument Valley
Contact:

Re: Watchmen

Postby Samwise » 22 Sep 2008 16:29

"Watchmen" is "inherently unfilmable", diz Alan Moore (Steerpike, bem podes pegar no fio do novelo)...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomple...moore-on-w.html

Sam
Guido: "A felicidade consiste em conseguir dizer a verdade sem magoar ninguém." -

Nemo vir est qui mundum non reddat meliorem?

My taste is only personal, but it's all I have. - Roger Ebert

- Monturo Fotográfico - Câmara Subjectiva -

User avatar
Thanatos
Edição Única
Posts: 13870
Joined: 31 Dec 2004 22:36
Contact:

Re: Watchmen

Postby Thanatos » 22 Sep 2008 23:34

Samwise wrote:"Watchmen" is "inherently unfilmable", diz Alan Moore (Steerpike, bem podes pegar no fio do novelo)...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomple...moore-on-w.html

Sam


So... what's new? Qual foi a adaptação cinematográfica duma obra dele em que ele não «cuspisse veneno sobre ela»? O que não o impede de ir ao banco colher os proveitos da venda de mais uns exemplares dos books vindos a reboque do filme. :rolleyes:
Não importa como, não importa quando, não importa onde, a culpa será sempre do T!

-- um membro qualquer do BBdE!

User avatar
Samwise
Realizador
Posts: 14973
Joined: 29 Dec 2004 11:46
Location: Monument Valley
Contact:

Re: Watchmen

Postby Samwise » 17 Oct 2008 11:17

"Who will watch the Watchmen?"

«Having watched the trailer for Warner Brothers' $80million adaptation of Watchmen in a full theatre, the excitement was palpable. More than anything though, it left me wondering whether this is going to be a production closed to the general public, for the enjoyment of the well informed and the fanboys only, destined to be nothing more than a cool trailer. Will it register with the masses, as similarly obscure 300 did last year? Can it break out of the fanboy box, the bane of such films as V for Vendetta and A History of Violence? I'll admit, it's a question that has left me uncertain.

DC comics, the publisher of Watchmen, sold 100,000 copies of the graphic novel in 2007.

In July, The Dark Knight came to theatres around the world accompanied by a 3 minute trailer for the film version of Watchmen.

Less than a week later, DC comics ordered an additional print of 300,000 copies of the book.

That figure has since risen to 900,000.

The trailer, with its breathtaking visuals and dark brooding soundtrack (a pitch perfect remix of The Smashing Pumpkins' The End is the Beginning is the End), left audiences panting, asking, almost in unison, a solitary question;

What on earth was that?

Herein lies the problem for the Warner's marketing department. As cool as the trailer was, it relied heavily on two posits. One, that this film is from the 'Visionary Director of 300' Zach Snyder, and two, that whatever the Watchmen is, it's an action packed epic on the scale of 300 and The Dark Knight (this association was planted in the mind of the casual viewer with the trailer's attachment to said movie).

Addressing the first point, there is no doubt in my mind that Zack Snyder is visionary. He has taken a property which many, including the great Terry Gilliam, considered un-filmable. The visuals are striking and the faith to the source material is quite unbelievable. Several blogs have posted shot-by-shot deconstructions of the trailer against the frames of the graphic novel, and it's shot-for-shot. For a fan of the graphic novel, this is nothing short of inspiring. The care with which Snyder has approached every part of this film has quieted every raised doubt, calmed every worried pondering, and silenced the ever cynical critic within. The trailer is a vindication of Snyder's belief in his ability to bring this film to the screen, in his laborious, almost anal approach to everything from casting to set design, from costumes to scripting and editing. He deserves the prefix 'visionary' and all the accolades that come with it.

This, however, brings me to my second point. Watchmen is not an action packed epic on the scale of The Dark Knight and 300. Watchmen is, for the most part, a graphic novel in which the characters do little but stand in rooms talking to each other. This is no attack on Alan Moore, who wrote Watchmen, on the contrary, but the point is that the trailer would have you believe that the characters are too busy kicking ass and taking names to converse. It's cool, sure, but it does little to represent the content of the graphic novel, or the context of the visuals in the trailer.

The graphic novel was unique at the time it was first published, for the fact that it didn't rely on thought bubbles to describe to the reader what the characters were thinking and feeling. Dave Gibbons instead uses facial expressions to convey mood, and his artwork is second to none. Couple this with Alan Moore's incredibly sharp and literate dialogue, and you have a graphic novel which broke with conventional graphic story telling conventions to pioneer a more adult, more mature, more respectable style. It contains frame after frame of silence, and in its many exchanges, frame after frame of some of the best written dialogue you're likely to read. The depth of inter-textual imagery inserted by Moore is such, that after several readings I am still finding new ways to marvel at the genius of this work. The finished article is rightly one of the greatest novels of all time, graphic or otherwise.

It would seem then, that Warner's have pulled the old Bait and Switch, an infamous marketing technique used when studios have no idea how to pull in viewers. It works just how it sounds - audiences are baited in by a trailer which paints the film as one thing, and are left floundering when the true nature of the film is revealed in theatres, as if the movie they came to see has been switched out. Jarhead, Pan's Labyrinth and Bridge to Terabithia are all examples of films with misleading trailers. In each case, there was marked controversy on behalf of viewers who felt they did not see the film they had paid to see. After the action packed debut of Watchmen, it would seem that Warner's might be attempting some of the same.

The film, being distributed in the UK by Paramount, is released next March. It remains to be seen if the general public will be enticed by the outstanding trailer, and disappointed by the lack of action as promised. Or if, hopefully, audiences will embrace the film for what it is; a compelling character study about the humans behind the mask. After all, Watchmen isn't a story about heroes. It's a story about real people who happen to dress up and fight crime. It's a story about getting older, about staying relevant in a world that has moved on, about feeling needed when no-one is asking for help.

The task of marketing 300 was similar in scope. A genre graphic novel with a relatively small built in audience, a story unfamiliar to the masses, and a cast void of major A-list talent. But 300 was never anything more than it purported to be, and its subsequent box-office success shows the strength of the campaign - audiences were getting what they paid for and relishing it. 300 had little of the expectation placed on the shoulders of Watchmen, and in studio terms, it also had little of the budget.

As its March 2009 release date approaches, Warner's will be amping up every level of publicity for Watchmen, and will have to decide how to tackle public perception and expectation. Should they decide to pull a Bait and Switch, they may find themselves on the end of some heavy criticism and suffer at the box office. Should they be upfront, and focus on the human angle of the story, they will certainly not be criticised, but the risk may be too great. They want another 300, another Dark Knight. What they have is a film with the potential to equal both, if they get it right, if they find the audience. For the moment, nervous studio bosses and marketing heads will have to keep biting their fingernails.

Will Watchmen be the success it deserves to be?

Or will it prove a very expensive way to sell more graphic novels?

As for me, I could have told you my answer two years ago when the project was announced. I'll be there, my heart beating out of my mouth, with the right expectations of what I'm about to see, anticipating my favourite graphic novel brought to life.

The fanboys, sure, they'll be sitting right there with me.

And the rest of the world?

I don't know.

Who will watch the Watchmen?»

fonte: http://www.empireonline.com/empireblog/Post.asp?id=284


Sam
Guido: "A felicidade consiste em conseguir dizer a verdade sem magoar ninguém." -

Nemo vir est qui mundum non reddat meliorem?

My taste is only personal, but it's all I have. - Roger Ebert

- Monturo Fotográfico - Câmara Subjectiva -

User avatar
Thanatos
Edição Única
Posts: 13870
Joined: 31 Dec 2004 22:36
Contact:

Re: Watchmen

Postby Thanatos » 17 Oct 2008 13:11

DC comics, the publisher of Watchmen, sold 100,000 copies of the graphic novel in 2007.

In July, The Dark Knight came to theatres around the world accompanied by a 3 minute trailer for the film version of Watchmen.

Less than a week later, DC comics ordered an additional print of 300,000 copies of the book.

That figure has since risen to 900,000.


Ora lá está... o Alan Moore a descontar o cheque dos royalties e a «cuspir veneno». It's only rock'n roll but I like it! :tongue:
Não importa como, não importa quando, não importa onde, a culpa será sempre do T!

-- um membro qualquer do BBdE!

Dadupe
Manifesto
Posts: 72
Joined: 13 Sep 2008 01:08
Contact:

Re: Watchmen

Postby Dadupe » 18 Oct 2008 01:03

Por acaso é daqueles filmes que estou deserto para ver. Espero mesmo que a adaptação faço justiça ao livro que é simplesmente a minha graphic novel preferida.
Eu tenho sempre medo destas adaptações, uma vez que a única que eu vi decente até agora foi o V for Vendetta.

Não vi o 300, mas já não falando dos filmes de super heróis não gostei particularmente do Sin City. Principalmente ao nível do ritmo do filme, que quebra de vez em quando, enquanto que nos livros o ritmo é alucinante.
Do Frank Miller gostaria muito de ver uma adaptação do Ronin. Penso que seria um filme fabuloso se se arranjasse o realizador correcto.

Um que me escapou foi o 30 dias de noite que também ainda não vi...

User avatar
Thanatos
Edição Única
Posts: 13870
Joined: 31 Dec 2004 22:36
Contact:

Re: Watchmen

Postby Thanatos » 18 Oct 2008 11:46

Um artigo de Jonathan Ross sobre o efeito da nostalgia e da releitura dos «clássicos». Com especial incidência em Watchmen.
Não importa como, não importa quando, não importa onde, a culpa será sempre do T!

-- um membro qualquer do BBdE!

User avatar
Samwise
Realizador
Posts: 14973
Joined: 29 Dec 2004 11:46
Location: Monument Valley
Contact:

Re: Watchmen

Postby Samwise » 23 Oct 2008 15:49

"Is watchmen unfilmable?"

Mais um artigo sobre a adaptação do livro, apontando as dificuldades em fazer caber os detalhes inerentes à plataforma BD num filme.

http://www.overthinkingit.com/2008/10/15/i...men-unfilmable/

Sam
Guido: "A felicidade consiste em conseguir dizer a verdade sem magoar ninguém." -

Nemo vir est qui mundum non reddat meliorem?

My taste is only personal, but it's all I have. - Roger Ebert

- Monturo Fotográfico - Câmara Subjectiva -

User avatar
Thanatos
Edição Única
Posts: 13870
Joined: 31 Dec 2004 22:36
Contact:

Re: Watchmen

Postby Thanatos » 16 Nov 2008 21:50

Um trailer exclusivo no Blockbuster Buzz.
Não importa como, não importa quando, não importa onde, a culpa será sempre do T!

-- um membro qualquer do BBdE!

User avatar
Samwise
Realizador
Posts: 14973
Joined: 29 Dec 2004 11:46
Location: Monument Valley
Contact:

Re: Watchmen

Postby Samwise » 17 Nov 2008 19:26

Hehehe... música background dos Muse. Ainda me lembro quando coloquei aqui uma pergunta sobre o grupo (sem saber que grupo é que era).

É assim: o filme parece apetitoso, mas já começo a encontrar pequenas irritaçõezitas. A voz do R. está com aquele tique de rouquidão à Batman - não havia necessidade.

Sam
Guido: "A felicidade consiste em conseguir dizer a verdade sem magoar ninguém." -

Nemo vir est qui mundum non reddat meliorem?

My taste is only personal, but it's all I have. - Roger Ebert

- Monturo Fotográfico - Câmara Subjectiva -

User avatar
Thanatos
Edição Única
Posts: 13870
Joined: 31 Dec 2004 22:36
Contact:

Re: Watchmen

Postby Thanatos » 21 Dec 2008 02:28

Esta mania de dar exclusivos a cada site dá com um tipo em maluco. Eis mais um trailer «exclusivo» desta feita no Sky Movies.
Não importa como, não importa quando, não importa onde, a culpa será sempre do T!

-- um membro qualquer do BBdE!

User avatar
Sharky
Edição Única
Posts: 4587
Joined: 19 Jun 2008 00:04
Location: Margem Sul
Contact:

Re: Watchmen

Postby Sharky » 21 Dec 2008 13:57

Este filme vou ver ao cinema, pelo que vi nos trailers parece-me estar altamente :dribble: :pcorn:

User avatar
Samwise
Realizador
Posts: 14973
Joined: 29 Dec 2004 11:46
Location: Monument Valley
Contact:

Re: Watchmen

Postby Samwise » 09 Jan 2009 16:46

No momento em que a guerra pelo lançamento do filme entre a Warner Brothers e a Fox parece estar a atingir o seu clímax, um dos produtores, Lloyd Kevin, publicouuma carta aberta a expor alguns argumentos pró-Watchmen, criticando duramente a Fox. É a voz do coração que fala, mas é impossível negar que ele tem alguma razão:

"Watchmen. A producer's perspective.

An open letter.

Who is right? In the Watchmen dispute between Warner Brothers and Fox that question is being discussed, analyzed, argued, tried and ruled on in a court of law. That's one way to answer the question - It is a fallback position in our society for parties in conflict to resolve disputes. And there are teams of lawyers and a highly regarded Federal Judge trying to do just that, which obviates any contribution I could make towards answering the "who is right" question within a legal context. But after 15 plus years of involvement in the project, and a decade more than that working in the movie business, I have another perspective, a personal perspective that I believe important to have on the public record.

No one is more keenly aware of the irony of this dispute than Larry Gordon and I who have been trying to get this movie made for many years. There's a list of people who have rejected the viability of a movie based on Alan Moore and Dave Gibbon's classic graphic novel that reads like a who's who of Hollywood.

We've been told the graphic novel is unfilmable.

After 9/11 some felt the story's themes were too close to reality ever to be palatable to a mainstream audience.

There were those who considered the project but who wished it were somehow different: Could it be a buddy movie, or a team-up movie or could it focus on one main character; did it have to be so dark; did so many people have to die; could it be stripped of its flashback structure; could storylines be eliminated; could new storylines be invented; did it have to be so long; could the blue guy put clothes on... The list of dissatisfactions for what Watchmen is was as endless as the list of suggestions to make it something it never was.

Also endless are the list of studio rejections we accrued over the years. Larry and I developed screenplays at five different studios. We had two false starts in production on the movie. We were involved with prominent and commercial directors. Big name stars were interested. In one instance hundreds of people were employed, sets were being built - An A-list director and top artists in the industry were given their walking papers when the studio financing the movie lost faith.

After all these years of rejection, this is the same project, the same movie, over which two studios are now spending millions of dollars contesting ownership. Irony indeed, and then some.

Through the years, inverse of the lack of studio faith has been the passionate belief by many many individuals - movie professionals who were also passionate fans of the graphic novel - who, yes, wanted to work on the film, but more for reasons of just wanting to see the movie get made, to see this movie get made and made right, donated their time and talent to help push the film forward: Writers gave us free screenplay drafts; conceptual art was supplied by illustrators, tests were performed gratis by highly respected actors and helped along and put together by editors, designers, prop makers and vfx artists; we were the recipients of donated studio and work space, lighting and camera equipment. Another irony, given the commercial stakes implied by the pitched legal dispute between Fox and Warners, is that for years Watchmen has been a project that has survived on the fumes of whatever could be begged, borrowed and stolen - A charity case for all intents and purposes. None of that effort, none of that passion and emotional involvement, is considered in the framework of this legal dispute.

From my point of view, the flashpoint of this dispute, came in late spring of 2005. Both Fox and Warner Brothers were offered the chance to make Watchmen. They were submitted the same package, at the same time. It included a cover letter describing the project and its history, budget information, a screenplay, the graphic novel, and it made mention that a top director was involved.

And it's at this point, where the response from both parties could not have been more radically different.

The response we got from Fox was a flat "pass." That's it. An internal Fox email documents that executives there felt the script was one of the most unintelligible pieces of shit they had read in years. Conversely, Warner Brothers called us after having read the script and said they were interested in the movie - yes, they were unsure of the screenplay, and had many questions, but wanted to set a meeting to discuss the project, which they promptly did. Did anyone at Fox ask to meet on the movie? No. Did anyone at Fox express any interest in the movie? No. Express even the slightest interest in the movie? Or the graphic novel? No.

From there, the executives at Warner Brothers, who weren't yet completely comfortable with the movie, made a deal to acquire the movie rights and we all started to creatively explore the possibility of making Watchmen. We discussed creative approaches and started offering the movie to directors, our former director having moved on by then. After a few director submissions, Zack Snyder came onboard, well before the release of his movie 300. In fact, well before its completion. This was a gut, creative call by Larry, me and the studio... Zack didn't have a huge commercial track record, yet we all felt he was the right guy for the movie.

Warner Brothers continued to support, both financially and creatively, the development of the movie. And eventually, after over a year of work, they agreed to make the film, based on a script that, for what it's worth, was by and large very similar to the one Fox initially read and deemed an unintelligible piece of shit.

Now here's the part that has to be fully appreciated, if for nothing more than providing insight into producing movies in Hollywood: The Watchmen script was way above the norm in length, near 150 pages, meaning the film could clock in at close to 3 hours, the movie would not only be R rated but a hard R - for graphic violence and explicit sex - would feature no stars, and had a budget north of $100M. We also asked Warner Brothers to support an additional 1 to 1.5 hours of content incurring additional cost that would tie in with the movie but only be featured in DVD iterations of the film. Warners supported the whole package and I cannot begin to emphasize how ballsy and unprecedented a move this was on the part of a major Hollywood studio. Unheard of. And would another studio in Hollywood, let alone a studio that didn't show one shred of interest in the movie, not one, have taken such a risk? Would they ever have made such a commitment, a commitment to a film that defied all conventional wisdom?

Only the executives at Fox can answer that question. But if they were to be honest, their answer would have to be "No."

Shouldn't Warner Brothers be entitled to the spoils - if any -- of the risk they took in supporting and making Watchmen? Should Fox have any claim on something they could have had but chose to neither support nor show any interest in?

Look at it another way... One reason the movie was made was because Warner Brothers spent the time, effort and money to engage with and develop the project. If Watchmen was at Fox the decision to make the movie would never have been made because there was no interest in moving forward with the project.

Does a film studio have the right to stand in the way of an artistic endeavor and determine that it shouldn't exist? If the project had been sequestered at Fox, if Fox had any say in the matter, Watchmen simply wouldn't exist today, and there would be no film for Fox to lay claim on. It seems beyond cynical for the studio to claim ownership at this point.

By his own admission, Judge Feess is faced with an extremely complex legal case, with a contradictory contractual history, making it difficult to ascertain what is legally right. Are there circumstances here that are more meaningful, which shed light on what is ultimately just, to be taken into account when assessing who is right? In this case, what is morally right, beyond the minutiae of decades-old contractual semantics, seems clear cut.

For the sake of the artists involved, for the hundreds of people, executives and filmmakers, actors and crew, who invested their time, their money, and dedicated a good portion of their lives in order to bring this extraordinary project to life, the question of what is right is clear and unambiguous - Fox should stand down with its claim.

My father, who was a lawyer and a stickler for the minutiae of the law, was always quick to teach me that the determination of what is right and wrong was not the sole purview of the courts. I bet someone at Fox had a parent like mine who instilled the same sense of fairness and justice in them.

Lloyd Levin"

-----

Prevê-se para breve a decisão final de um juiz sobre o caso - uma complexa batalha judicial -, uma vez que ambas as partes foram incapazes de chegar a um entendimento.

-----

Também esta semana saiu um novo trailer da fita, desta feita dirigido ao mercado japonês, com bastantes cenas novas.


Sam
Guido: "A felicidade consiste em conseguir dizer a verdade sem magoar ninguém." -

Nemo vir est qui mundum non reddat meliorem?

My taste is only personal, but it's all I have. - Roger Ebert

- Monturo Fotográfico - Câmara Subjectiva -

User avatar
Samwise
Realizador
Posts: 14973
Joined: 29 Dec 2004 11:46
Location: Monument Valley
Contact:

Re: Watchmen

Postby Samwise » 19 Jan 2009 21:38

Aparentemente, a guerra chegou ao fim e vai haver filme nas salas em 2009.

«
Estreia assegurada para "Watchmen"

Warner paga milhões à Fox. Filme tem estreia marcada para 5 de Março em Portugal

A Fox e a Warner chegaram finalmente a acordo e o filme "Watchmen", de Zack Snyder, irá estrear na data planeada: 6 de Março nos Estados Unidos e dia 5 em Portugal. O acordo põe fim a quase um ano de desentendimentos entre os dois estúdios. Segundo a "Variety", a Warner vai pagar à Fox entre 3.8 e 7.6 milhões de euros e a este valor soma-se entre 5 e 8,5 por cento dos lucros das vendas mundiais e parte dos lucros de futuras sequelas.

Lawrence Gordon, o produtor de "Assalto ao Arranha-Céus", "Lara Croft" ou "Hellboy", assegurou originalmente os direitos de "Watchmen" em finais dos anos 1980, altura em que era director da Fox. Na altura, o estúdio investiu cerca de um milhão de dólares, mas o filme acabou por nunca se fazer e Gordon levou os direitos consigo ao sair da Fox.

Ao longo dos anos, "Watchmen" foi passando de estúdio em estúdio e de realizador em realizador (Terry Gilliam, Darren Aronofsky e Paul Greengrass foram alguns dos nomes ligados ao projecto), mas sem nunca chegar mais perto da concretização, tornando-se num daqueles "elefantes brancos" que já ninguém acredita que se venha a fazer. Mas em 2007, finalmente, a Warner deu finalmente luz verde ao filme de "Watchmen", entregue aos bons ofícios de Zack Snyder, que adaptara a infilmável BD de Frank Miller "300" ao cinema com grande êxito e respeito pelo original (transposto quase imagem por imagem), e com um elenco encabeçado por Patrick Wilson, Carla Gugino, Jackie Earle Haley e Billy Crudup. Ora, enquanto o filme continuava a ser um projecto "à distância", a Fox deixou andar, mas assim que a coisa começou a mexer-se, o estúdio decidiu fazer valer os direitos que entende ainda deter sobre "Watchmen".

O processo que a Fox pôs à Warner defende que Lawrence Gordon nunca exerceu a opção de comprar a parte dos direitos que ainda pertenciam à Fox, que, por isso, ainda tem um interesse proprietário no filme.

A decisão do juiz federal de Los Angeles Gary Allen Feess de dar razão à Fox e de lhe entregar os direitos de distribuição de "Watchmen" terá sido uma prenda de Natal envenenada para todas as partes envolvidas - não apenas a Fox e a Warner, mas também a Paramount, onde o filme esteve quase a ser feito por Darren Aronofsky e que ficou com a distribuição internacional. Alguns observadores apontaram que não era esta a intenção da Fox ao colocar o processo, pensado mais para ficar com uma pequena percentagem dos lucros do que para tirá-lo à Warner. Com a pós-produção já muito adiantada, os trailers a despertarem interesse mundial, os elogios do desenhador Dave Gibbons (que se mostrou satisfeitíssimo com a fidelidade aos desenhos), e a estreia mundial marcada para 6 de Março, a única possibilidade de "Watchmen" cumprir a data prevista era os estúdios seguirem as instruções do juíz Feess e chegarem a um acordo que evitasse a necessidade de ir a tribunal.»

fonte: http://cinecartaz.publico.pt/noticias.asp?id=221028

Sam
Guido: "A felicidade consiste em conseguir dizer a verdade sem magoar ninguém." -

Nemo vir est qui mundum non reddat meliorem?

My taste is only personal, but it's all I have. - Roger Ebert

- Monturo Fotográfico - Câmara Subjectiva -

User avatar
Samwise
Realizador
Posts: 14973
Joined: 29 Dec 2004 11:46
Location: Monument Valley
Contact:

Re: Watchmen

Postby Samwise » 04 Feb 2009 12:05

“100 million dollars – that’s what they spent on the Watchmen film which nearly didn’t come out because of the lawsuit, that’s what they spent on The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen which shouldn’t have come out but did anyway.

Do we need any more shitty films in this world? We have quite enough already. Whereas the 100 million dollars could sort out the civil unrest in Haiti. And the books are always superior, anyway.”

Mais outra (mini) entrevista polémica com o Alan Moore ...


Sam
Guido: "A felicidade consiste em conseguir dizer a verdade sem magoar ninguém." -

Nemo vir est qui mundum non reddat meliorem?

My taste is only personal, but it's all I have. - Roger Ebert

- Monturo Fotográfico - Câmara Subjectiva -

User avatar
Samwise
Realizador
Posts: 14973
Joined: 29 Dec 2004 11:46
Location: Monument Valley
Contact:

Re: Watchmen

Postby Samwise » 12 Feb 2009 11:36

Guido: "A felicidade consiste em conseguir dizer a verdade sem magoar ninguém." -

Nemo vir est qui mundum non reddat meliorem?

My taste is only personal, but it's all I have. - Roger Ebert

- Monturo Fotográfico - Câmara Subjectiva -


Return to “Cinema”




  Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron