Room For Rangers?

**DONOTDELETE** · Feb 9, 2002

SCI-FI's selection of original programs has been something that has baffled me for some time. They pick these shows, Black Scorpion, The Adventures of Jules Verne, The Chronicle, etc. From the advertisements you can tell they are going to suck, they have no chance at becoming successful. Along comes JMS with a proposal, a person who has a track record at writing successful TV series', and what does SCI-FI do. Well we will have to wait and see. I do have concern about SCI-FI's future, as I for one am getting fed up with the crap they are dishing out. The only time I turn that channel on anymore is watch a B5 rerun. I think that any original show SCI-FI has that scores better than a 1.0 share they should consider a success. I-man was drawing that, it had a loyal, if small following, and they cancel it. IMHO they need to keep their core audience happy. They talk about wanting shows that are going to bring in new viewers. That is fine but what good is that when you keep dissapointing your old viewers who start to turn you off.

------------------

KoshN · Feb 9, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by KoshN:
The CGI was originally rendered for the 4:3 (1.33:1) proportions of the original B5 airing. When Sci-Fi commissioned the widescreen version, Warner Brothers did not re-render the CGI for widescreen (16:9, or ~1.77:1), so if the CGI was going to fill the whole screen left to right, and match up with the top and bottom of the new widescreen live action shots, it would have to be cropped top and bottom.

If you do an A/B comparison of the CGI of say one of the TNT airings to the Sci-Fi airing, you'll see what I mean.

I'll try to get some screen caps to illustrate the point.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here are some screen caps from my Secrets of the Soul Laserdisc and the version broadcast on Sci-Fi a few days ago (SVHS SP). They are raw images (no alterations done).

Sci-Fi Widescreen / Laserdisc

------------------
KoshN
-------------
Vorlon Empire

Crusade (reruns) starting 03/26/2002 at 1PM EST on the Sci-Fi Channel
http://www.scifi.com/b5rangers/

[This message has been edited by KoshN (edited February 09, 2002).]

Joseph DeMartino · Feb 9, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The CGI was originally rendered for the 4:3 (1.33:1) proportions of the original B5 airing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but it was also designed, from the outset, to be cropped to 1.77:1, because JMS knew that it was unlikely that Warner Bros. would come up with the money to extend and re-render the CGI. They did the CGI the way directors do 1.85:1 theatrical films - shooting "flat" at 1.33:1, but composing the shots for the widescreen ratio. They "protect" the full 1.33:1 frame, so that cables and the like don't appear in it, but they also don't put anything vital in it, so that nothing important is lost when the film is (correctly) matted in a theater.

Thus the open matte CGI in B5 isn't "better" than the matted version, anymore than a full-frame video release of a 1.85:1 theatrical film is "better" because it "has more picture". In your examples I would say that the Vorlon ship approach is much better composed and better focused in the widescreen version than in full frame. This is true of most of the widescreen vs. full-frame screen shots I've seen, as well as my own comparison of the two versions of In the Beginning. The other CGI and composite shots are at least the equal of the full frame shots. And the final live action shot in medlab shows the more "theatrical" look of the widescreen frame extracted from the Super35 original.

I'm looking forward to those widescreen DVDs.

Regards,

Joe

------------------
Joseph DeMartino
Sigh Corps
Pat Tallman Division
joseph-demartino@att.net

KoshN · Feb 9, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by GaribaldiHairs:
Wow ! I'm shocked. I used to vaguely remember an interview with the lead FX guy on the original series, and told that the FXs was done for widescreen, but tended to place all the emphasis of the action in the middle of the screen, so when they cut left and right for P&S, there's no problem.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, that was true for the Live Action, not the CGI. That way they could shoot widescreen, but no important stuff in the Live Action shots would be lost by the right and left cropping for 1.33:1.

Note that since the top & bottom cropping of the CGI was mentioned by the fans, they also said that nothing important in the top & bottom of the CGI shots would be lost either.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by GaribaldiHairs:
But having compared side-to-side both version, I trust your observation as a big proof.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

See for yourself in the screen caps I posted in this thread.

------------------
KoshN
-------------
Vorlon Empire

Crusade (reruns) starting 03/26/2002 at 1PM EST on the Sci-Fi Channel

http://www.scifi.com/b5rangers/

Joseph DeMartino · Feb 9, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Yeah, but after looking at the Laserdiscs, the widescreen versions on Sci-Fi feel kind of claustrophobic to me, like Galen must have felt when he walked into Dureena's quarters that one time. Just look at the scene of the tubes on the Vorlon Homeworld.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, you just like seeing more of Pat's body, admit it.

Your point above has some validity, but only as it applies to certain CGI and composite shots - and they are a relatively small part of the total screen time. Take a look at the last two frame captures in your post, the two of the scene with Franklin and the Pak'mara in medlab. Now tell me which looks more "claustrophic" and "crowded". It seems to me that what is gained in the live actions shots more than makes up for the (relatively minor) cropping of the CGI and composite shots.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>...but I didn't know if the DVD and the Sci-Fi aired version of ItB would have "exactly" the same cropping.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only source for either the DVDs or the Sci-Fi broadcasts are the hi-res widescreen masters that Warner Bros. produced starting in 2000. The first batch was screwed up in various ways, but they were re-mastered and corrected. They were then downconverted to NTSC for broadcast by Sci-Fi and they'll be downcoverted to anamorphic 480-i for the DVDs. So they had to have the same cropping, they came from the same original source.

Regards,

Joe

------------------
Joseph DeMartino
Sigh Corps
Pat Tallman Division
joseph-demartino@att.net

bakana · Feb 9, 2002

A couple of the screen shots you posted DO have the top and bottom cropped.
BUT, at least one of them had the Sides cropped in the "VHS" version.

When the series originally aired, they did it Both Wide and USA aspects because there were a couple countries already using wide screen aspect ratios.

The problem Sci Fi is having is that, since Warner lost all the CGI files, the only stuff they have to work with is whatever already rendered masters Warners did manage to save.

If they still had the CGI files, they could just re-render everything, just as JMS planned from the very beginning.

------------------
Do not ascribe your own motivations to others:
At best, it will break your heart.
At worst, it will get you dead."

KoshN · Feb 9, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino:
Oh, you just like seeing more of Pat's body, admit it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, that's why I almost didn't post those two shots, for the obvious more revealing lower part of the Laserdisc shot.

As to whether I like seeing more of Pat's body, well, that's a given.

Just a guess, but I think you feel the same way.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino:
Your point above has some validity, but only as it applies to certain CGI and composite shots - and they are a relatively small part of the total screen time. Take a look at the last two frame captures in your post, the two of the scene with Franklin and the Pak'mara in medlab.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those were the only two that showed any benefit from the Widescreen treatment. I was surprised that the 2nd to last example didn't show the same effect. Was it because of the CRT Display in the left?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino:
Now tell me which looks more "claustrophic" and "crowded". It seems to me that what is gained in the live actions shots more than makes up for the (relatively minor) cropping of the CGI and composite shots.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The widescreen shot still lost at the bottom, but gained on the left and right edges.

------------------
KoshN
-------------
Vorlon Empire

Crusade (reruns) starting 03/26/2002 at 1PM EST on the Sci-Fi Channel

http://www.scifi.com/b5rangers/

KoshN · Feb 9, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by bakana:
A couple of the screen shots you posted DO have the top and bottom cropped.
BUT, at least one of them had the Sides cropped in the "VHS" version.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

6 of the 7 Sci-Fi Widescreen shots (from SVHS, the "left" column), have both the top and bottom cropped. The 7th has mainly the bottom cropped.

Only the 7th example has any benefit from being "widescreen" as it gains on the left and right edges compared to Laserdisc 1.33:1 (the "right" column), but it still loses on the bottom.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by bakana:
The problem Sci Fi is having is that, since Warner lost all the CGI files, the only stuff they have to work with is whatever already rendered masters Warners did manage to save.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let's hope Warner Brothers hasn't given up looking for them if they truly are misplaced. If, on the other hand, Warner Brothers knows that they threw all the stuff out, they wouldn't admit it because we'd all go and lynch them from the nearest tree.

I guess this is how they avoid having to be true to what they've done before, "lose" the files. Oopsie! Problem solved by making it not cost effective to maintain continuity.

If this was intentional, I hope the responsible parties burn in hell. Yes, this REALLY pisses me off!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by bakana:
If they still had the CGI files, they could just re-render everything, just as JMS planned from the very beginning.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Warner Brothers is infinitely too cheap to do that. Where the CGI files would come in handy, is using them on B5:LotR and Crusade, and not having to re-make everything.

To lose these files and then have to re-make them all from scratch (and you know nobody's ever going to be able to make then exactly the same, and even if they tried, it'd cost too much), is IMHO, absolutely criminal on WB's part.

------------------
KoshN
-------------
Vorlon Empire

Crusade (reruns) starting 03/26/2002 at 1PM EST on the Sci-Fi Channel

http://www.scifi.com/b5rangers/

Joseph DeMartino · Feb 9, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The widescreen shot still lost at the bottom, but gained on the left and right edges.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, that is exactly what happens with Super35 photography. Both the widescreen and TV ratio images are "cropped" in one way or the other from the original frame. Neither is the "complete" picture. The difference between B5 and theatrical Super35 features (like Apollo 13 or Titanic) is that a lot less gets taken from the top and/or bottom, becasue B5 is 1.77:1 and the theatrical films are 2.35:1 in their widescreen form.

Super35 is a compromise. Its only advantage is that it allows you to simultaneously compose different 1.33:1 and widescreen shots at the same time while filming. (With some fine-tuning done later in the editing room and when extracting the two frames.)

So a film like Apollo 13 can be 2.35:1 in theaters, and yet not so destructively "panned & scanned" for the invevitable TV and airport versions. (BTW, if you watch the TV version of Apollo 13, you'll notice how claustrophobic and underpopulated mission control appears throughout the film. You never get any sense of the scale of the room, or the number of people constantly coming and goin on the periphery of the shots as they try to end the crisis.)

Regards,

Joe

------------------
Joseph DeMartino
Sigh Corps
Pat Tallman Division
joseph-demartino@att.net

KoshN · Feb 9, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino:
Yes, that is exactly what happens with Super35 photography. Both the widescreen and TV ratio images are "cropped" in one way or the other from the original frame. Neither is the "complete" picture. The difference between B5 and theatrical Super35 features (like Apollo 13 or Titanic) is that a lot less gets taken from the top and/or bottom, becasue B5 is 1.77:1 and the theatrical films are 2.35:1 in their widescreen form.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This would mean that for theatrical films that are 2.35:1 in their widescreen form, they'd have to protect an even larger part of the frame, so that nothing important was going on in that area, right?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino:
Super35 is a compromise. Its only advantage is that it allows you to simultaneously compose different 1.33:1 and widescreen shots at the same time while filming. (With some fine-tuning done later in the editing room and when extracting the two frames.)

So a film like Apollo 13 can be 2.35:1 in theaters, and yet not so destructively "panned & scanned" for the invevitable TV and airport versions. (BTW, if you watch the TV version of Apollo 13, you'll notice how claustrophobic and underpopulated mission control appears throughout the film. You never get any sense of the scale of the room, or the number of people constantly coming and goin on the periphery of the shots as they try to end the crisis.)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why doesn't everybody nowadays just shoot in whatever aspect ratio the theatrical release will be in, and then just show that aspect ratio for the TV broadcast? There's no extra tweaking involved, and once you've got the film perfected, it's done. No more errors should be able to creep into the process.

------------------
KoshN
-------------
Vorlon Empire

Crusade (reruns) starting 03/26/2002 at 1PM EST on the Sci-Fi Channel

http://www.scifi.com/b5rangers/

Joseph DeMartino · Feb 9, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>...and then just show that aspect ratio for the TV broadcast?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Becaues filmmakers don't control how their films are shown on TV. (Or on airplanes, for that matter.)

Broadcasters hate to air things in widescreen. They get complaint calls from people who think there is something wrong with the transmission, or with their TV sets. They complain about "those black bars". Why do you think Pan and Scan was invented? It is a way to get a basically rectangular picture to fit in a basically square frame (a TV screen).

Since so much of a film's total revenue comes from sales of VHS tapes to rental stores (which almost never take a letterboxed version even if it is available - again, because people return them and want their money back on the "defective" tape) and eventual PPV, premium cable and broadcast television, filmmakers adopted Super35 in self-defense. The stuidos have to sell the movies to television. And the television version has to fit the TV screen. At least this way James Cameron or Ron Howard decides what the TV version will look like, not some technician at Warner Home Video or HBO.

Regards,

Joe

------------------
Joseph DeMartino
Sigh Corps
Pat Tallman Division
joseph-demartino@att.net

KoshN · Feb 9, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino:
Becaues filmmakers don't control how their films are shown on TV. (Or on airplanes, for that matter.)

Broadcasters hate to air things in widescreen. They get complaint calls from people who think there is something wrong with the transmission, or with their TV sets. They complain about "those black bars". Why do you think Pan and Scan was invented? It is a way to get a basically rectangular picture to fit in a basically square frame (a TV screen).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Once again, the idiots ruin things for the rest of us.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino:
Since so much of a film's total revenue comes from sales of VHS tapes to rental stores (which almost never take a letterboxed version even if it is available - again, because people return them and want their money back on the "defective" tape)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I can verify that last part.

The place where I rent tapes always gets the 4:3 versions. I only rent to prevue movies before deciding if I want to buy the DVD or not (for films I didn't already see in the theater).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino:
The stuidos have to sell the movies to television. And the television version has to fit the TV screen. At least this way James Cameron or Ron Howard decides what the TV version will look like, not some technician at Warner Home Video or HBO.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was hoping that if only the correct widescreen aspect ratio was available, they wouldn't have a choice, and would have to show it in that aspect ratio. Then, the general public would get used to seeing widescreen, and would quit their stupid, ill-informed complaining.

------------------
KoshN
-------------
Vorlon Empire

Crusade (reruns) starting 03/26/2002 at 1PM EST on the Sci-Fi Channel

http://www.scifi.com/b5rangers/

GKarsEye · Feb 9, 2002

The problem though, is that people simply will complain. Networks, from a business perspective, must heed these complaints, because their income depends on people tuning in. Yes, some of us would like the network to take a stand and simply refuse their requests, allowing them to lose money in the short term. But the networks don't care about the "validity" of aspect ratios. They aren't art dealers, they're businessmen.

Besides, the only people who really object to fullframe presentations are film buffs and people who make a hobby out of it. These people will usually end up owning the DVD anyway.

Personally, I don't understand how people can watch movies on TV. Commercials, botched aspect ratios, and worst of all, they take out the nudity and swearing.

------------------
"You do not make history. You can only hope to survive it."

GaribaldiHairs · Feb 9, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by GKarsEye:
Personally, I don't understand how people can watch movies on TV. Commercials, botched aspect ratios, and worst of all, they take out the nudity and swearing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shout ! Those mother fudgers !

I'm french canadian. I moved in U.S. about a year ago. One of the first thing that jumped in my face is the tremmendous amount of censorship in US broadcasting. I remember seeing a blur placed over a used tampax !?!?! Or almost nude (but even not nude) womens censored at 2 am IN THE NIGHT !!!

That's what I call a cultural shock

It's probably my french blood that doesn't understand so much prudish...

Regarding aspect ratio, I'm a one-way widescreen lover. I just can't stand watching something in P&S when I know it was intended to be widescreen.

Now if only my budget would let me buy those huges widescreen HDTVs ...

------------------
"You are all in violation of security ordinance 22V3A. That means get the hell out of here!
"
- Zack

KoshN · Feb 10, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by GKarsEye:
Personally, I don't understand how people can watch movies on TV. Commercials, botched aspect ratios, and worst of all, they take out the nudity and swearing.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't watch movies on TV (network or cable), unless it's a miniseries like "Rose Red." And then I tape it to watch it later (so I can FF through the commercials).

Generally, the second I see a "Modified for..." screen, I switch the channel.

------------------
KoshN
-------------
Vorlon Empire

Crusade (reruns) starting 03/26/2002 at 1PM EST on the Sci-Fi Channel

http://www.scifi.com/b5rangers/

GKarsEye · Feb 10, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> True, but it was also designed, from the outset, to be cropped to 1.77:1, because JMS knew that it was unlikely that Warner Bros. would come up with the money to extend and re-render the CGI. They did the CGI the way directors do 1.85:1 theatrical films - shooting "flat" at 1.33:1, but composing the shots for the widescreen ratio. They "protect" the full 1.33:1 frame, so that cables and the like don't appear in it, but they also don't put anything vital in it, so that nothing important is lost when the film is (correctly) matted in a theater.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Joe, would you mind clarifying something for me, please? You say that the picture was designed to be "cropped" to 1.77:1, but was filmed the way 1.85:1 films are done. Is this a typo, or were you just using the 1.85 thing as an example? That is, what is actually the aspect ratio of the widescreen versions?

I haven't seen an episode in a while now, but my (usually poor) memory tells me it was 1.85:1.

After typing all of that, I just realised that I could just look at the DVD box when I get home tonight, but I'll leave the post here anway in case you want to correct anything.

The issue gets confused because, in this case, their is no "original" aspect ratio as there are in theatrically released films.

Thanks in advance.

By the way, if anyone is confused and wants to understand what the hell we're talking about, this is a good place to start: digital bits FAQ

------------------
"You do not make history. You can only hope to survive it."

KoshN · Feb 10, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino:
Thus the open matte CGI in B5 isn't "better" than the matted version, anymore than a full-frame video release of a 1.85:1 theatrical film is "better" because it "has more picture". In your examples I would say that the Vorlon ship approach is much better composed and better focused in the widescreen version than in full frame.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I like the Laserdisc version better because I like to see more of the ship coming directly out of the upper right corner. It just feels more "dynamic" that way to me.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino:
This is true of most of the widescreen vs. full-frame screen shots I've seen, as well as my own comparison of the two versions of In the Beginning.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Initially, that was the comparison I was going to make, ItB Laserdisc to DVD, but I didn't know if the DVD and the Sci-Fi aired version of ItB would have "exactly" the same cropping. So, I decided to try The Summoning(SVHS to Laserdisc comparison). It had some nice Comp. shots. However, after making several screen caps, I was wondering if this SVHS copy (made 12/2000) might have been back when they were still airing the top & bottom cropped 4:3 episodes (false widescreen). So, I decided to go with an SVHS copy of Secrets of the Soul that I made from Sci-Fi a couple of days ago.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino:
The other CGI and composite shots are at least the equal of the full frame shots.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, except for the top and bottoms. Look at Lyta's hands when Ulkesh frags her.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino:
And the final live action shot in medlab shows the more "theatrical" look of the widescreen frame extracted from the Super35 original.

I'm looking forward to those widescreen DVDs.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, but after looking at the Laserdiscs, the widescreen versions on Sci-Fi feel kind of claustrophobic to me, like Galen must have felt when he walked into Dureena's quarters that one time. Just look at the scene of the tubes on the Vorlon Homeworld.

Look at the scene of Lyta in the tube. I like it when she's not cropped so close at the top. You get more of a feel for the space around her.

One thing I'll say for Sci-Fi and the upcoming WHV DVDs, if everybody gets used to seeing just the Sci-Fi Widescreen versions, they won't get the feeling they're missing anything when they watch the DVDs. It's only those of us who have the Laserdiscs or TNT-era tapes that will miss the look of the 1.33:1 version.

------------------
KoshN
-------------
Vorlon Empire

Crusade (reruns) starting 03/26/2002 at 1PM EST on the Sci-Fi Channel

http://www.scifi.com/b5rangers/

**DONOTDELETE** · Feb 10, 2002

Yes, JMS has Polaris in the works, but we don't know how far into development that is.

Riverworld is a mini-series, not a regular series.

The Outer Limits has been canned as far as I know.

As far as the Outer Limits people doing some series, I just remember hearing that Sci-fi was hoping to use some episodes of the Outer Limits as pilots for possible shows.

And Sci-Fi picking up Firefly could happen..but maybe not.

There was talk awhile back on FOX and Sci-Fi sharing Battlestar Galactia and now it seems that Batterstar is in limbo.

And Sci-Fi might have some secret projects in the works, but who knows.

Right now were all just mainly guessing and HOPING.

IMO, a Farscape, Stargate, & Rangers line-up would be a great Friday prime for sci-fi.

Of course who knows if Stargate new ones (and old ones) will do well for sci-fi.

Maybe by the time Rangers comes about, Stargate will be gone and we'll have some other show like Firefly..

Time will tell.

I'm just hoping right now that Rangers gets picked up.

And from what we see, here, there is room for Rangers.

Course like you said, maybe Sci-fi has other plans. Maybe they are planning to have a Friday Prime of Farscape, Stargate, and Polaris next year. Or Farscape, Stargate and some unknown. Heck for all we know they already have a third new show planned for the summer w/ Farscape & Stargate, but are keeping it mum.

Who knows.

Here's hoping sci-fi gets a great schedule of shows.

DF2506
" Whos dream schedule would be: Farscape, Rangers, Stargate, with Polaris, Jermiah, and maybe Firefly on the other half of the time."

------------------

**DONOTDELETE** · Feb 10, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Citizen DF:

Riverworld is a mini-series, not a regular series.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've read it's also a potential regular series.

As you said, time will tell.

------------------

bakana · Feb 10, 2002

I suspect that Riverworld will be Too Expensive for consideration as a series, regardless of how well they do making it.

Unless they do major changes to the concept, they'd need a different location almost every episode, too.
Rebuilding your sets every week is a Lot of work.
That would also mean different guest Actors every episode. Lots of them.
Riverworld would be an "extra people" intensive series most of the time.

That said, I'd like to see them looking at some of the Classic SF novels for more movies, mini-series and series.

On that I think would work well if done right would be Alfred Bester's "The Stars My Destination".

------------------
Do not ascribe your own motivations to others:
At best, it will break your heart.
At worst, it will get you dead."

Room For Rangers?

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest

Super Moderator

Moderator

Super Moderator

Moderator

Beyond the rim

Super Moderator

Super Moderator

Moderator

Super Moderator

Moderator

Super Moderator

Regular

Member

Super Moderator

Regular

Super Moderator

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest

Beyond the rim

Share this page

We value your privacy

DONOTDELETE

DONOTDELETE

DONOTDELETE