Home Your Ad Here

Go Back   IndieTalk - Indie Film Forum > Making The Film > Cinematography/Lighting

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-05-2008, 08:30 AM   #1
clive
Basic - Premiere Expired
 
clive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Milano, Italy
Posts: 2,436
The Prosumer Myth is bad

OK, I know I'm not going to make any friends with this thread, but I really need to share my thoughts and feelings about the mythology of Prosumer camcorder film making.

The basic problem with cheap prosumer camcorders is they give both too much and too little to make a movie.

They give too much in terms of formats: DV/Dvcam/HDV/HD720p/DVCPro50/DVCProHD etc etc... and yet neither the chips or the optics are good enough to serve the formats... and because the price you pay for a cheap camcorder is HAVING to use the sub-standard lens they provide, there is always going to be a huge difference between what those camcorders promise and what they deliver.

Not only that, because they are always light weight and either won't shoulder mount... or when they can, don't have the right kind of balance for hand held camera work... they present a set of limitations, which isn't out weighted (IMO) by their cheapness.

One of the common arguments made by DV film makers is that the cheap camcorder gives them the opportunity to learn how to make films without having to invest huge amounts of money.

However, this arguments doesn't hold up for a number of reasons:

Firstly, when people talk about the maths of DV production they are talking about $3K for a prosumer camcorder, $2K on a computer and editing software, and about $2K on other bits and pieces collected over time. Seriously, by the time you've added on some fancy pluggins to make the DV look like film, a 35mm adaptor, a Matte box, a cheap steadycam, some lights, a decent mic, a boom pole and three hundred books on how to make Hollywood movies on DV cams, then you're easily looking at another $2K.

So, all in all you've invested $7K on equipment that almost, by isn't quite good enough to do the job.

Secondly, working on prosumer camcorders with no crew is completely different from working with a professional crew and equipment. Only about 30% of the skills acquired shooting on camcorders translates over to working with professional kit... even less when it comes to camera operating or producing.

So, actually the skills a DV camcorder film maker acquires don't relate to the industry at all... they are not good learning tools.

If we go back a few years... then indies worked in a different way (this is more true in the UK and Europe where there has never been a market for home grown direct to DVD movies)... basically, a film maker made some short films... either on digital or on film... saved up their money and honed a really good short, which they shot on 35mm with a name actor... and they they used this demonstration of technical competence to chase down a budget large enough to shoot their first feature film... on film.

Every step of that process they worked with the best professional crews they could... they shot less often... but they invested more time in development of their ideas and their scripts.

Now, professional HD equipment and film cameras are still available for us to use... not always at a huge price... there are skilled professionals out there who want to work on interesting projects.

Primer was shot, on film, for $7000.

The very practice of working on film... or on professional HD means you have to prepare your story and your shoot. You can't just pick up you camera and waste both tape and time noodling about.

What I've seen in the indie world isn't the explosion of new talent into the industry... but instead a ghetto mentality... "we make films on camcorders... we only do it this way... we think every new format development or gadget is going to allow us to live the dream of making movies, without actually having to make movies."

Instead of seeing hundreds of breakout movies hitting the cinema, made with the advantages of new technology, instead I see more and more indies going from film making as a career to film making as a hobby.

Somewhere in the last seven years the possibilities of new digital technology destroyed the indie film scene... a scene that has stopped talking about distribution deals... a scene that has stopped talking about budgets... a scene that has replaced movie making with talk about the new cameras.

And we've let this happen... what the hell went wrong... and when did the ambition to make real movies stop being a part of indie film making.

Somewhere the difference between being a film maker and being an indie became a yawning chasm... and it all happened in the last five years.

I do have a solution though... stop making films, stop buying equipment... work out what movie you really want to make and spent the next year writing it... then make it with a professional crew on either film or at the very least the Panasonic Varicam.

Either that...or somebody make a film on a prosumer camcorder that gets an international cinema release and some decent press.

Last edited by clive; 03-05-2008 at 08:35 AM.
clive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today   #1A
film guy
Basic Member
 
Posts: 17

 
Old 03-05-2008, 09:42 AM   #2
oakstreetphotovideo
Basic - Premiere Expired
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Jacksonville NC
Posts: 971
Send a message via AIM to oakstreetphotovideo Send a message via Yahoo to oakstreetphotovideo Send a message via Skype™ to oakstreetphotovideo
I agree with you Clive on many points, except the point about dollars. Due to the cost of entry, I can make money and pay for all of my equipment with a small business, shooting commercials and events, then I can work with a talented group of individuals to produce something that we're all proud of, without having to spend a lot of our own money, or sell our souls to a distributer. If we come up with something great that eventually gets distribution, then that's wonderful. If we don't we've had an opportunity to collaborate on creative expression that is priceless.

I guess my point is that I, for one, am not trying to get rich from my creative endeavors. I'm making a decent living doing semi creative commercial work, and there are lots of local film festivals that wouldn't even exist if it weren't for inexpensive technology, where I can show off my creativity, which means more to me than a million dollars.

Furthermore, cheap cameras allow me to shoot video from the bow of my kayak and other hazardous places without toting 60 pounds of gear or risking a huge investment. I've seen indie movies made in remote places (mountain climing, remote ocean kayaking, etc.) that would not have been possible with a 35mm rig.

I'm in your camp on some points. I do believe that "cheap" has given rise to a rash of low quality work that has obscured the occasional short with high production values. I must say, though, that some of my favorite movies were made on a small budget. It's been said here, ad nauseam, that the camera does not make the movie. Do you really need to require a big budget to work hard on your script, look for good/name actors, have high production values, good light, etc? I agree that the professionals are accustomed to more robust tools, but that is just another challenge for the DP, it's not a reason to throw away your prosumer camera.

Just to avoid sounding like I'm in total disagreement, let me reiterate, that you are absolutely correct about the rush to buy equipment and start shooting, with nothing more than a loosely defined concept ... hell, I've done it. Maybe it's good advice to stop buying equipment and focus on script/preproduction if your target is an international cinema release. It's a good idea to do good preproduction in any case, but if you don't intend to find a distributor for your film, then a small budget just makes good business sense to me.
oakstreetphotovideo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2008, 09:53 AM   #3
Joe999
Basic - Premiere Expired
 
Joe999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 313
One could argue that there is a viable market for movies shot on digital over film. I am sure it is a given that many to most of these digital theatrical release movies were made with high end digital camcorders, not prosumer camcorders, but as with all technology the quality of digital camcorders will increase according to Moore's Law and the prices of such camcorders will become affordable to most of us, meaning digital may become the future of moviemaking. Some of these were shot on prosumer camcorders (e.g Open Water).

Here is a list of theatrically released films shot on digital as opposed to film:
Source: Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...shot_digitally
9 Songs
Able Edwards
The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl in 3-D
Afrodite Superstar
Aliens of the Deep
The Anniversary Party
Apocalypto
Atanarjuat
Boat
Buena Vista Social Club
Caachi
Caché
Cars
The Cats of Mirikitani
The Cell
Click
Cloverfield
Codex Atanicus
Collateral
The Company
Corpse Bride
Curious George
Dancer in the Dark
Darkened Room
Dear Pyongyang
Dogville
Domino
The Edukators
Ellie Parker
Evenfall
Böse Zellen
Full Frontal
Gabriel
Godzilla: Final Wars
Grindhouse
How High
Hustle & Flow
Inland Empire
The Kingdom
The League of Gentlemen's Apocalypse
Looking for Kitty
Manband the Movie
Manderlay
Me and You and Everyone We Know
Miami Vice
My Scary Girl
New Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Next
Once Upon a Time in Mexico
Open Water
Pieces of April
Planet Terror
A Prairie Home Companion
Rainbow (1996 film)
The Right Way
Russian Ark
S1m0ne
Saraband
Scarlet Diva
Scary Movie 4
Silent Hill
Sin City
Sketches of Frank Gehry
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow
Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over
Spy Kids trilogy
Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones
Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
The Storm
Superbad
Superman Returns
The Talent Given Us
Tape
Tears Of God
The Cave
U2 3D
Ultraviolet
Under the Raven's Wing
La virgen de los sicarios
Zodiac
The Zombie Diaries

Last edited by Joe999; 03-06-2008 at 12:45 PM.
Joe999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2008, 10:08 AM   #4
Joe999
Basic - Premiere Expired
 
Joe999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 313
Somewhat related, I would have to say that I believe the cheap affordability of digital prosumer camcorders and related equipment (NLEs for home quadcore PCs, etc) is likely giving rise to a rush of wannabe indie filmmakers (I am one of them) who write up a screenplay or acquire one cheap. The story, the screenplay, has not had to pass through the normal filtration process to assure its quality for hollywood. So I think, and this is just my opinion, that there will be a plethora of indie films made because of the affordability of prosumer equipment that lets anybody produce and direct just about any screenplay. But the success stories will come from those indies that have the great stories, the great screenplays. Too often I fear most indies will be made just because their scripts can be made into movies, without going through a screening process.
Joe999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2008, 10:18 AM   #5
oakstreetphotovideo
Basic - Premiere Expired
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Jacksonville NC
Posts: 971
Send a message via AIM to oakstreetphotovideo Send a message via Yahoo to oakstreetphotovideo Send a message via Skype™ to oakstreetphotovideo
It is also worth noting that Hollywood uses a cookie-cutter approach to making movies that they know will be popular in the box office. Just because a movie isn't hugely popular, grossing in the 100's of millions of dollars, doesn't mean it's not a great movie. If it weren't for indie film makers who don't need to gross 100 million to satisfy their investors, we'd have nothing but the same shit coming out of Hollywood, year after year.

Doug
oakstreetphotovideo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2008, 10:23 AM   #6
Joe999
Basic - Premiere Expired
 
Joe999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 313
Replying to my own post, I just have to comment on a purchase I made yesterday. I bought an 8GB usb flash drive, the size of a car key. Now they make them up to 32+ GB but I just bought the 8GB, plan to hook it on a carabiner on my bookpack. Now what amazes me is I was thinking of the 1.44MB floppy disk I still use to store some financial info on, to keep it off my PC or the net. That 8GB little car key flashdrive is about 6,000 of those 1.44MB floppies. That blows my mind. I just can not imagine what sort of digital camcorder technology we will have in 5-10 years out, it just will have to be mind numbing. Red.com quality digital camcorders will likely be <$3000 ten years from now, seriously.

[QUOTE=Joe999;69103]... as with all technology the quality of digital camcorders will increase according to Moore's Law
Joe999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2008, 10:39 AM   #7
clive
Basic - Premiere Expired
 
clive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Milano, Italy
Posts: 2,436
The vast majority of those digital films were shot on Cinealta or the equivalent. A lot of them had multi-million pound budgets.

I'm not arguing against digital... hell, I was one of the early pioneers of HD film making... five years ago people on this forum, who now shoot on HD, were calling me an idiot for predicting that HD would replace film as the indie format of choice.

All I'm making is a personal observation about how cheap prosumer camcorders have effected the indie scene.
clive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2008, 10:47 AM   #8
georgiahoosier
Basic - Premiere Expired
 
georgiahoosier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Statesboro, GA
Posts: 137
Send a message via ICQ to georgiahoosier Send a message via Yahoo to georgiahoosier
Once again Clive hits the mark, generally there's a ton of discussion about best this best that, film look this film look that.
I'm yet to read "I shoot with a Panaflex on 35mm and am trying to get my film to have the "video" look"

There have been some films done that way, the pioneering work in "deep focus" was Citizen Kane.

Crystal clear from front to back. It would be interesting to see someone shoot a piece in BW on video to give that effect a whirl.

I still believe story is king and should hold sway over equipment and technology (which is what Clive is saying about taking enough time to make sure the screenplay is done to your satisfaction).

If the story is good (or great even) it doesn't matter if you shoot the movie on a Kodak Brownie and clothespin all the pictures to a wheel and look at them through a magnifying glass, it's still a good story.

I purchased old tech DV cameras (original Canon Opturas) because they were dirt cheap, and coming from a background in radio I wanted to experiment with video, put me in the "hobbyist" category for now.
So for the time being I work within the limitations of the camera and create content that will most likely be seen on tv or computer until I build some credibility and then move up into buying or hiring better gear and the people to go with it.

I've always considered myself more a writer than anything, so the access to low priced equipment has allowed me more of an opportunity to see if my writing holds up. The latest and greatest tech stuff doesn't interest me so much at the moment, but in ten years I'll be buying it from people that thought there was something magical about it a decade back.

I really thought the new technologies in distribution and equipment would indeed lead to an explosion in content from independents, but I think Clive is right that the access may actually have led to a lowering in the amount of production. If I missed your points Clive feel free to smack me down.

Being the eternal optimist I would like to think of that as an opportunity. It's a vast unexploited market for well written and well executed productions.

Neil
georgiahoosier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2008, 11:17 AM   #9
VPTurner
Premiere Member
 
VPTurner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cypress, Texas
Posts: 1,214
Clive, I agree, and that is my plan. But I can study light, exposure (basic), camera movement, blocking, framing, and editing among other things, without film cameras. And the professional digital cameras are getting very close to the quality of film cameras. Yes, there is still a plethora of data in the analog world that does not directly translate, but there are limits to what the human eye can perceive. I have both an analog 35mm still camera and a digital SLR. For some things, I prefer the analog camera (especially black & white photography). Others, the digital is more convenient and still produces an excellent image. What I love about digital is instant feedback. When I snap a digital photo, I will know right away if my exposure settings were correct or if I need to aim and bounce the light in a different direction. Then I can snap several others while experimenting until I get just the image I want. I guess I'm too into instant gratification and don't want to have to wait for processing to find out whether I missed the mark.

But I understand your point in that I shouldn't need to buy all of those things. I could just rent equipment, hire writers, a Production Manager, DP, gaffers, key grip, script supervisor, assistant directors, costumers, makeup artists, et. al. and just sit back and watch it happen if I were in it solely for the money. But I'm not. I am in it as a creative outlet. And if I do ever get to a point where this endeavor pays more than my day job, my knowledge in all of the other areas of the process would prove invaluable because I could wear many hats depending on the needs of the production. If nothing else, I can watch the machine and know what parts need oiling and what parts need replacement.

And on the costs, I can empathize. The more I evaluate what I have and what it can do relative to what I want to do, the higher the investment. I am about $3000 into obsolete camera equipment. Everything else will carry over (computer systems, C-Stands, tripods, sound recording equipment, flags, lights, etc.).

Considering what that $3000 got me relative to what it would have cost brand new, I'd say I was doing pretty decent all things considered:

__________________
"The one that I hear a lot... that I've never really taken to heart as a writer or as a reader is that we should avoid all adverbs in our descriptions." -- Joel Haber
VPTurner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2008, 11:55 AM   #10
clive
Basic - Premiere Expired
 
clive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Milano, Italy
Posts: 2,436
I think it's because I came into indie film making as a writer/director with no technical skills.

So, all of my early films were shot with a DOP, sound guy, first AD, gaffer, and about a dozen runners. I've only acquired technical skills as the industry has developed in the weird prosumer way it has.

I never expected to be a camera operator/sound guy/art director/writer/director/producer/1st, 2nd and 3rd AD/editor (offline and online)/colourist/foley artist and sound designer. (better add 3D animator to that as well, these days)

I learned how to frame a shot/about exposure/about DOF, from my years as a professional photographer... so, I never needed to learn those skills on a camcorder... and the camera operating skills you acquire on a prosumer cam really don't translate to professional cameras. (A fact you really won't appreciate until you knock out the back focus on a professional camera).

The fundamental skills of exposure and framing I can teach to fourteen year old in about two hours... after that it's just practice... something you can do as easily on a good stills camera. And the body memory skills you learn from moving a prosumer camcorder are detrimental to professional camcorder use.

Often as indies we talk about film makers like Rodriguez as a model, but overlook people like Bruce Robinson... who made "Withnail and I" with absolutely no technical knowledge at all. He delegated the entire shooting process, lens choices, shot choices, lighting and sound to professionals, whilst he concentrated on getting his script and his performances right.

Ironically there are a whole world of indies who are making innovative films and acquiring a radically different skill set... you should check them out, they're fab:

Straight 8
clive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2008, 12:08 PM   #11
directorik
IndieTalk's Resident Guru
 
directorik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: hollywood
Posts: 9,054
If you limit the discussion to learning how to use a pro camera. I agree.

However, there is so much more to learning how to make a movie than
learning how to use a camera. I became a camera operator more than ten
years after I started directing - directing semi-professionally. So for fifteen
years ( if you count the dozens of short films I made as a teenager) I
knew nothing about cameras.

Learning about filmmaking a film isn't limited to cameras. So I still deeply
believe that a consumer camera or a prosumer camera is a great tool in
the learning curve.
Quote:
Originally Posted by clive View Post

One of the common arguments made by DV film makers is that the cheap camcorder gives them the opportunity to learn how to make films without having to invest huge amounts of money.

However, this arguments doesn't hold up for a number of reasons:

Firstly, when people talk about the maths of DV production they are talking about $3K for a prosumer camcorder, $2K on a computer and editing software, and about $2K on other bits and pieces collected over time. Seriously, by the time you've added on some fancy pluggins to make the DV look like film, a 35mm adaptor, a Matte box, a cheap steadycam, some lights, a decent mic, a boom pole and three hundred books on how to make Hollywood movies on DV cams, then you're easily looking at another $2K.

So, all in all you've invested $7K on equipment that almost, by isn't quite good enough to do the job.
Here's just a few things one can learn:

Casting and working with actors.
Working with crew.
Scheduling.
Finding locations.
Camera and lights placement to tell your story effectively.
Creative ways to move a camera.
Controlling the set - getting the best out of people and "making the day".

And you can learn all this without spending $7k. You can learn all these
very important aspects of making a movie for much, much less. A $600
camera, free editing software and $200 worth of lights and reflectors. So
I think you can learn without spending huge amounts of money.

And every single one of those things directly relates to the industry.
directorik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2008, 12:25 PM   #12
VPTurner
Premiere Member
 
VPTurner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cypress, Texas
Posts: 1,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by clive View Post
I think it's because I came into indie film making as a writer/director with no technical skills.

So, all of my early films were shot with a DOP, sound guy, first AD, gaffer, and about a dozen runners. I've only acquired technical skills as the industry has developed in the weird prosumer way it has.

...
I am the opposite. I bring all of the technical knowledge to the table. Working in computers all those years, I can build and troubleshoot practically anything, from a gaming system to a high-end server or workstation. Working in computer graphics engineering for a number of years, I play with the oscilloscopes, spectrum analyzers, pattern generators, broadcast TV signal analyzers, etc. As a Home Theater enthusiast, I calibrate my own equipment (sound and video). And the third variable is a love of movies and all things visual. I started out in my younger days studying screenwriting, so I’ve spent several years developing that skill and story sense. What better way to bridge what I was doing in my younger days with what I’ve been doing as a career? Maybe my approach is wrong and I should just focus on one skill. Don’t know yet. I’ll know after a few short video productions. I may not have the patience to work with a full crew, in which case I’d be resigned to writing and/or editing anyway. I am not a makeup artist or a costumer and don’t want to be, so I will need to outsource those duties no matter what.

At middle age, I am exploring my options. One will float to the surface and I will end up where I am supposed to be one way or another. The more I learn about the production process and go through the planning phase on my own projects, the more I think of ways to delegate and who I'll need to ride along with me. There is no way I can do this all alone no matter what my skill set.
__________________
"The one that I hear a lot... that I've never really taken to heart as a writer or as a reader is that we should avoid all adverbs in our descriptions." -- Joel Haber

Last edited by VPTurner; 03-05-2008 at 12:27 PM.
VPTurner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2008, 12:49 PM   #13
Joe999
Basic - Premiere Expired
 
Joe999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 313
Take a Cenealta $250,000 digital camcorder. Playing voodoo with the cards, it is possible that might sell for $2500 ten years from now. I look back ten years ago and I recall RAM memory sold for $100+/MB. That means the 4GB memory in my personal PC would have a 1998 value of
4000MB => $400,000
Amazing. I get what you are saying. But if such almost film equivalent digital camcorders become affordable, indeed almost cheap, in ten years, film might become extinct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by clive View Post
The vast majority of those digital films were shot on Cinealta or the equivalent. A lot of them had multi-million pound budgets.....
Joe999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2008, 01:18 PM   #14
clive
Basic - Premiere Expired
 
clive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Milano, Italy
Posts: 2,436
Rik, I do understand that you learned how to do those things by making films on DV... but actually the very skills you're talking about are the skills that the new generation of film makers aren't learning, simply because they've got camcorders that allow them to 85% of the process without technical support.

As a result of this they never even consider working with other professionals... and they never acquire the kinds of skills and disciplines we acquired working "old school" but with new technology.

What bothers me is the widening gap between "DIY" indies and the film making industry.

What also bothers me is the idea that a $4K camera can be made to do what a $50K camera is designed to do, if you bolt the right bits on.

There is a growing industry out there of people who benefit from selling that lie, because it allows them to sell books, products, camcorders, half assed steady cam rigs and any number of pieces of kit/software and manuals.

It's a cynical industry that knows there are a million wannabee film makers out there who want to believe they can become the next Tarantino, if they just put the right lens adaptor onto their $2K camcorder.

The scene has become obsessed with the "how to" and has lost sight of the business side of the business. As a result the digital revolution that showed so much promise is dying on its ass.

It's turned too many potential film makers into Youtube content providers; it's become victim of anyone who can see a fast buck to be made from screenplay contest, 48 hour film contest, online film festivals and a million other diversions from the actual task of making films.
clive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2008, 02:04 PM   #15
John@Bophe
Basic Member
 
John@Bophe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Norristown, PA
Posts: 1,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by clive View Post
It's turned too many potential film makers into Youtube content providers; it's become victim of anyone who can see a fast buck to be made from screenplay contest, 48 hour film contest, online film festivals and a million other diversions from the actual task of making films.
I view this as the most important statement in the thread.

REASON: Unfortunately, this is where our entertainment culture is already headed. Look to the music industry as a mirror example -- 20 to 30 years ago, the cost of producing your own media and getting it into the hands of a wide, diverse market was cost prohibitive. Today, with computer recording equipment and MP3 uploads to the internet, anybody can make a bad recording of poor talent and be heard around the world. The middleman, whose job it is to weed out the mediocre and offer recording/distribution deals to the truly promising -- these guys are becoming obsolete. However the public does not seem to mind. They have an unlimited pool of content from which to choose. The days of one band taking the world by storm are probably over. I would challenge anyone to name a band since 2000 that has captured the fan base earned by classic artists like The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, etc. Does anyone today even have that potential? Sorry if I digress from the true thread topic, but I think this situation mirrors what Clive is saying.

This cheap technology is already out there, and people are already doing what they do with it and flooding the world with YouTube content. That can't be taken back. Its like trying to take pee out of the pool. The world of professional visual content will likely struggle to re-define itself as the music industry has been forced to do.
John@Bophe is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


©IndieTalk