Peter Jackson's The Hobbit to be Made into a Trilogy


Movies

151 to 200 of 269 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
If you guys think Tolkien is a reactionary, you should read Homer!

D'oh.


Mmmmmmmmmm. The cattle of Helios. <gargles on own saliva>


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lord of the Rings through a modern perspective.

Spoiler:
Sauron! Saruman! Susan Sarandon! Salamander! Sauron! Saruman!


Jason Nelson wrote:
...In fact, they were never even making the novel into TWO movies. The plan has always been to include all of that "off-screen" stuff from the Hobbit and the LotR appendices into the movie, since it happens in and around the time frame of when Bilbo & Co are heading to Erebor. Instead of Gandalf just disappearing to wherever and then coming back later, we are going to be seeing all of the bits and pieces of what else is going on in the world at the same time. If you've read things like Unfinished Tales and the Tolkien errata books, you know there is puh-lenty of material there...

This is an issue I had with Lotr. The off-screen stuff is off-screen for a reason, it is NOT critical to the overall plot and telling of the tale. It's afterthought information that doesn't really matter. As I said, I'm going to see the Peter Jackson's HAFLING movie, he did a great job with HIS telling of Lotr. However, it's not going to be The Hobbit I love, it's going to be something else entirely. Entertaining? Absolutely. Look at what PJ did for King Kong. Will it be The Hobbit? Not to me.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
pres man wrote:

Lord of the Rings through a modern perspective.

** spoiler omitted **

"Rep. Grima Wormtongue

(D) Rohan"

"...Mordor, largest oil reserves in Middle Earth."

lol


Dicey the House Goblin wrote:
I'd like to serenade you, Doodlebug, but I can't decide between "Forever Young" and "Time in a Bottle"...

[facepalm]

My god, Dicey! What are you learning in that den of iniquity?

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Erik Mona wrote:

Can't believe people are disappointed by this.

Peter Jackson can make as many Tolkien movies as he wants. The boringest hour of the Lord of the Rings trilogy is pretty much better than any other fantasy movie ever, so I don't see too much in this news to complain about, personally.

Moar, plz.

C'mon Erik. You should have had enough experience with Fans to know that the moment that there is the slightest bit of change you'll see an eruption of Fan Dumb.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Dicey the House Goblin wrote:
I'd like to serenade you, Doodlebug, but I can't decide between "Forever Young" and "Time in a Bottle"...

[facepalm]

My god, Dicey! What are you learning in that den of iniquity?

Learning? I was promoted to the rank of house goblin, I'm teaching the kennel goblins things!


Hitdice wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Dicey the House Goblin wrote:
I'd like to serenade you, Doodlebug, but I can't decide between "Forever Young" and "Time in a Bottle"...

[facepalm]

My god, Dicey! What are you learning in that den of iniquity?

Learning? I was promoted to the rank of house goblin, I'm teaching the kennel goblins things!

I love it when they post under the wrong name.


LazarX wrote:
Erik Mona wrote:

Can't believe people are disappointed by this.

Peter Jackson can make as many Tolkien movies as he wants. The boringest hour of the Lord of the Rings trilogy is pretty much better than any other fantasy movie ever, so I don't see too much in this news to complain about, personally.

Moar, plz.

C'mon Erik. You should have had enough experience with Fans to know that the moment that there is the slightest bit of change you'll see an eruption of Fan Dumb.

And that any Fandom will be full of people who think their thing is the best thing ever and not understand that other people might not agree.

And not just because of FanDumb. In fact, the denial of any flaws in their object of obsession is pretty much their own version of FanDumb. In the case of fans of adaptions any criticism can be dismissed as "Your just erupting over a slight bit of change."

Grand Lodge

thejeff wrote:


And that any Fandom will be full of people who think their thing is the best thing ever and not understand that other people might not agree.

And not just because of FanDumb. In fact, the denial of any flaws in their object of obsession is pretty much their own version of FanDumb. In the case of fans of adaptions any criticism can be dismissed as "Your just erupting over a slight bit of change."

You are right of course "thejeff." You are very much entitled to your opinion. But considering that we are on a site devoted mainly to Fantasy RPG; and that J.R.R. Tolkien maybe the most influential fictional writer in the genre; it stands to reason that those that point out any "flaws" in the works of this author become immediate fair game to counter criticism. So by all means pick away. But please don't expect the rest of us to sit idly by.

Cheers,

Mazra


thejeff wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Erik Mona wrote:

Can't believe people are disappointed by this.

Peter Jackson can make as many Tolkien movies as he wants. The boringest hour of the Lord of the Rings trilogy is pretty much better than any other fantasy movie ever, so I don't see too much in this news to complain about, personally.

Moar, plz.

C'mon Erik. You should have had enough experience with Fans to know that the moment that there is the slightest bit of change you'll see an eruption of Fan Dumb.

And that any Fandom will be full of people who think their thing is the best thing ever and not understand that other people might not agree.

And not just because of FanDumb. In fact, the denial of any flaws in their object of obsession is pretty much their own version of FanDumb. In the case of fans of adaptions any criticism can be dismissed as "Your just erupting over a slight bit of change."

There is a reason fans, rather purists, "erupt over a slight bit of change"...because they LOVED the work as it was first presented. Sadly, I have yet to see a single movie or TV show that has been better than the novel. Sadly, all I see is reinforcement of TV/movies turning awesome stories into not so awesome stories. It doesn't stop me from enjoying what the 'vision' of the TV/movie maker, it does however disappoint me that they can't seem to leave well enough off and just present the ORIGINAL story...no based upon crap, no adapted from crap. just take what's there put it on the screen/big screen and be done. All because the Old Forest and Tom Bombadil being considered the silliest part of the whole tale of Lotr, it was during that section of the story that Frodo showed his strength of character. However, because the decision was made NOT to film that section, Frodo had to be rewritten to fit within Peter Jackson's OPINION of how Tolkien "should have" told the tale. "A slight bit of change" as you phrase it is all it takes to change the original into something altogether different, not better, just different. I will never apologize for being a purist with those things I cherish, particularly something like The Hobbit, the novel that shaped my imagination with the Fantasy/sword and sorcery/dungeons and dragons genre. So I may be guilty of FanDumb, but that's because the SUPER GENIUSES in Hollywood need to stop with remakes and adapting stories and just present what is their. Remakes and reboots are just the way to grab more money and a poor excuse for the inability to come up with something original. Adaptations are almost as bad.


thejeff wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Dicey the House Goblin wrote:
I'd like to serenade you, Doodlebug, but I can't decide between "Forever Young" and "Time in a Bottle"...

[facepalm]

My god, Dicey! What are you learning in that den of iniquity?

Learning? I was promoted to the rank of house goblin, I'm teaching the kennel goblins things!

I love it when they post under the wrong name.

Aw, well Jeez, I'm glad I'm the only person who's ever posted in hurry, like, ever!


Mazra wrote:
thejeff wrote:


And that any Fandom will be full of people who think their thing is the best thing ever and not understand that other people might not agree.

And not just because of FanDumb. In fact, the denial of any flaws in their object of obsession is pretty much their own version of FanDumb. In the case of fans of adaptions any criticism can be dismissed as "Your just erupting over a slight bit of change."

You are right of course "thejeff." You are very much entitled to your opinion. But considering that we are on a site devoted mainly to Fantasy RPG; and that J.R.R. Tolkien maybe the most influential fictional writer in the genre; it stands to reason that those that point out any "flaws" in the works of this author become immediate fair game to counter criticism. So by all means pick away. But please don't expect the rest of us to sit idly by.

So if I criticize Jackson's movies, which is what we're talking about, I'm just picking. Anything I point out is just a "flaw", not really a problem.

For the record, I love Tolkien's work. I've been reading it for more than 30 years and he remains one of my all time favorites. Not just the LotR and the Hobbit, but Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, the Narn and some of his non-Middle Earth work.

As for the movies, I don't think they belong on the pedestal some put them on and that is not because they were not word for word copies of the books.

I went in to Fellowship with low expectations and liked it much better than I thought I would. There were some glaring annoyances, the wizard battle being one, dwarf-tossing being another. The actual plot differences didn't really bother me. There were some things I had misgivings about that foreshadowed later developments, but at that point I gave him the benefit of the doubt.

I had much higher expectations for the Two Towers and was much less impressed. I don't even remember much of it now, though the whole Aragorn falls off the cliff and kisses his horse sequence stands out. There were more annoying silly bits Legolas shield surfing for example.

My expectations were low for Return and it still failed to meet them. Green scrubbing bubbles and Denethor's death, just too much.

Some of it is just his style, I've talked about that before
on this thread.

thejeff wrote:

found many of his action scenes overdone. A general tendency to either go over-the-top with action or with extra drama irritated me throughout the trilogy. Just in the Eowyn scene, following her slaying of the Witch King with her being threatened by a single orc doesn't work dramatically. It seems like it's trying to push the tension back up, but it can't.

And then things like the Legolas/Mumakil scene are just too far over the top for me.

Some of it's more serious. Changes not to scenes or minor details, but to major characters and themes. Aragorn's story arc bothered me the most and that was one of the things I was worried about from the first movie. In the books Aragorn doesn't really have what we'd consider character development today. What we see in Aragorn's story is a slow revelation of his character, from Strider to Aragorn to Elessar. This isn't Aragorn's coming of age story. He's almost 90 years old and he's been fighting the war against Sauron for 60 years. He already knows who he is and he accepted the burden a long time ago. This isn't a flaw in the story. It's not that Tolkien can't do character growth. The hobbits get plenty of it. It's an older style of characterization and, for me at least, very effective.

Seeing Aragorn trying to avoid leadership and struggle against the role of king was just painful. It really felt to me like Jackson didn't get what Tolkien was doing with him and just slapped a bog-standard growth arc on him instead.

But what do I know. I'm just a FanDumb purist, picking at "Flaws" in the Best Fantasy Movies ever!!!!


So...we now have one more decent movie we can count on this decade, another singular extra gem to stand out against a mire of the sub-cretinous to downright mediocre, and somehow this upsets people?

What, they are annoyed that an extra Hobbit movie might cut into quota they were otherwise going to be extending to such luminaries as Uwe Boll?

Peter can make TEN movies if he wants, I won't complain.


Mazra wrote:

I don't agree. I believe Jackson wanted to portray how tortured Frodo was with the burden of carrying the One Ring. In that, Jackson and Elijah Wood pulled it off very well.

Cheers,

Mazra

Huh, different strokes I guess. I also loved Elijah Wood in the role, I just felt like for a good chunk of the movie the ring totally eclipsed his character. In my more recent rewatches it's begun to grate on me having him faint nearly every other scene.

As a side note, the cast crack me up. As does Drunk Elijah Wood


thejeff wrote:
FanDumb...

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

thejeff wrote:
Aragorn's story arc

Is probably my favourite part of the films. Different strokes, again, but surely you can see SOME good in it? Surely Viggo's acting is a little better than "just painful"? He took a different direction, and that's fine by most of the audience. That kind of "slow reveal" works a lot better in a book than in a film. It was that or some kind of BIG EXCITING TWIST kind of reveal. Which would you prefer, honestly?

I'm interested in discussing this, but does it belong in another thread? I'm not sure.


the jeff wrote:
More stuff than would even fit in a quote!

Personally (and only my own point of view) I enjoyed the way PJ held back the reforging of Narsil/Anduril until the third movie; it made the reforging a plot point instead of something that just happened while they were staying at Rivendell.

At this point, I'm very curious about how The Hobbit: Five Too Many Movies will turn out. I think it will be a PJ vs Middle Earth grab bag, and that I will enjoy watching it.


thejeff wrote:

I went in to Fellowship with low expectations and liked it much better than I thought I would. There were some glaring annoyances, the wizard battle being one, dwarf-tossing being another. The actual plot differences didn't really bother me. There were some things I had misgivings about that foreshadowed later developments, but at that point I gave him the benefit of the doubt.

I had much higher expectations for the Two Towers and was much less impressed. I don't even remember much of it now, though the whole Aragorn falls off the cliff and kisses his horse...

There's a certain Black Goblin out there somewhere who has watched the LOTR movies 100 times+. Or at least parts of them. I think there was a good three-year stretch back around 2006 where every night I would come home from work and find him passed out, surrounded by Budweiser cans, the Mines of Moria battle scene blaring from the speakers.

What does that have to do with what you're saying? Nothing.

There are lots of parts of LOTR that I don't think are awesome. But I do remember that pre-LOTR, your choices for fantasy movies were Willow or Highlander. Not many Altmans or Scorseses working in movies about wizards and orcs. "If you don't expect too much from me, you might not be let down."


Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:

But I do remember that pre-LOTR, your choices for fantasy movies were Willow or Highlander.

Im shocked and horrified that you make this claim!

How can you so readily discount the timeless classics from the 70's and 80's!? Take THIS GEM for example. Point made?


That scene is pretty awesome.


Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
That scene is pretty awesome.

Do you want the Axe or the Sword?


I want the head!


Aw-oooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:

But I do remember that pre-LOTR, your choices for fantasy movies were Willow or Highlander.

Don't forget Ladyhawke, I like that movie (although the soundtrack...ugh).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Twigs wrote:
thejeff wrote:
FanDumb...

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

thejeff wrote:
Aragorn's story arc

Is probably my favourite part of the films. Different strokes, again, but surely you can see SOME good in it? Surely Viggo's acting is a little better than "just painful"? He took a different direction, and that's fine by most of the audience. That kind of "slow reveal" works a lot better in a book than in a film. It was that or some kind of BIG EXCITING TWIST kind of reveal. Which would you prefer, honestly?

I'm interested in discussing this, but does it belong in another thread? I'm not sure.

Oh, Viggo's acting is fine. I just don't like what he's being directed to do.

I don't see why that kind of character revelation can't be done in a movie. It isn't very often, but it isn't done very often in books either. It's more of an old technique, not really used much in modern lit.
Something very different from most modern fiction, replaced by a standard commonplace rejection, then acceptance of responsibility, that we've all seen a thousand times.

To me, in the movie, it seemed entirely predictable and boring. As I said, I saw the roots of it in Fellowship and was afraid he was going in that direction. Sadly I was right.

There's a post on this blog that describes what I'm talking about with Tolkien's approach to characterization better than I ever could.


Callous Jack wrote:
Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:

But I do remember that pre-LOTR, your choices for fantasy movies were Willow or Highlander.

Don't forget Ladyhawke, I like that movie (although the soundtrack...ugh).

I hear you on that one. I was maybe 13 when I saw that movie in the theatre. I was emotionally involved from moment one, but then the score was awful. I've watched it may times since, mostly on videotape, and the visuals work for me, but the soundtrack is horrible.

Reverse adaptation: the novelization by Joan D Vinge is surprisingly good.


For the record, I'm not saying that every fantasy movie pre-LoTR blew chunks.


Hawk the Slayer was pretty awesome, but don't quote me, I fell asleep halfway through a CBS Late Night Movie broadcast back in 1981 or something...

And that link doesn't even work? Thatcher's bloody Britain!

Sovereign Court

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

In some essay, Ursula le Guin wrote that if Sam had called Frodo "sir" one more time, she was going to start a Socialist Hobbit Party.

Right on, sister!

You'd think Le Guin would understand what a batman was and how the trenches of WW1 operated...

oh, and the best pre-LotR fantasy film is Princess Bride.

Grand Lodge

thejeff wrote:


To me, in the movie, it seemed entirely predictable and boring. As I said, I saw the roots of it in Fellowship and was afraid he was going in that direction. Sadly I was right.

OK! We get it! You clearly had issues about Jackson's LotR trilogy early on. What I don't get is why you are posting on this thread. You are entitled to your opinion of course. But it seems you relish in spewing your anti-Jackson LotR diatribe. Why don't you start a new thread, "Things I hate about Jackson's LotR Trilogy." You might find some love there. Please don't expect a lot of love here.


Mazra wrote:
thejeff wrote:


To me, in the movie, it seemed entirely predictable and boring. As I said, I saw the roots of it in Fellowship and was afraid he was going in that direction. Sadly I was right.
OK! We get it! You clearly had issues about Jackson's LotR trilogy early on. What I don't get is why you are posting on this thread. You are entitled to your opinion of course. But it seems you relish in spewing your anti-Jackson LotR diatribe. Why don't you start a new thread, "Things I hate about Jackson's LotR Trilogy." You might find some love there. Please don't expect a lot of love here.

Because the thread is called " Peter Jackson's The Hobbit to be Made into a Trilogy" and not "LOVE Peter Jackson's interpretations or post somewhere else"? Heck, the first responce was a negative responce.

Greg

Grand Lodge

Greg, I get it if you are perplexed by The Hobbit being made into a trilogy. I can see where this deserves some ire. But "thejeff" is coming in with a "hate" viewpoint from much earlier on.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shifty wrote:

So...we now have one more decent movie we can count on this decade, another singular extra gem to stand out against a mire of the sub-cretinous to downright mediocre, and somehow this upsets people?

What, they are annoyed that an extra Hobbit movie might cut into quota they were otherwise going to be extending to such luminaries as Uwe Boll?

Peter can make TEN movies if he wants, I won't complain.

The Hobbit: Volume I - Bilbo considers leaving Bag End

The Hobbit: Volume II - Bilbo packs his stuff
....


I think his "hate"* started with the term "FanDumb". A term I admit to being unfamiliar with and just by seeing it slightly offensive as well. Very marginalizing. Well, that and dumb is kind of offensive all on its own. Still haven't clicked the link even.

And truthfully, threads without dissenting opinions are usually less interesting. Lots of Ditto's and Me toos! :P

*But "hate" seems kind of strong... disappointed seems to be the word thejeff uses.

Greg

Dark Archive

I get perplexed of people complaining about how the hobbit is being made into a trilogy without even having seen the first movie to have a solid judgment. It recalls me the hate on Enworld (and other online communities 12 years ago) about the Lotr movies , and how they would be crap and totally ruin and destroy Tolkien's legacy when preview was aired (Sauron with spiky helm, etc etc)...

Grand Lodge

Greg Wasson wrote:

I think his "hate"* started with the term "FanDumb". A term I admit to being unfamiliar with and just by seeing it slightly offensive as well. Very marginalizing. Well, that and dumb is kind of offensive all on its own. Still haven't clicked the link even.

And truthfully, threads without dissenting opinions are usually less interesting. Lots of Ditto's and Me toos! :P

*But "hate" seems kind of strong... disappointed seems to be the word thejeff uses.

Greg

I guess I get a little tired sometimes of all the NAYSAYERS.

Cheers,

Mazra

Shadow Lodge

blundith wrote:
I get perplexed of people complaining about how the hobbit is being made into a trilogy without even having seen the first movie to have a solid judgment.

Well, to me, the Extended Editions dragged in several places. And LotR is about 4 times the story that the Hobbit is. Seriously, one long movie should do the Hobbit well. Two movies was going to drag some. But three? Either it's going to make Jackson's King Kong look fast-paced, or it's going to have so much extra stuff thrown in that entitling it The Hobbit will be an outright falsehood.

Grand Lodge

Maybe with The Hobbit we will get something different after its run in the theaters, the condensed version with only the parts from the actual book. That would be unique. Personally I have no problem with Jackson making three movies. Good fantasy movies are so hard to come by. But I do understand your point Kthulhu, the extended versions of LotR were long. There were worth a watch though.

Shadow Lodge

What's even scarier...you KNOW there will be Extended Editions of the Hobbit trilogy.

Grand Lodge

Kthulhu wrote:
What's even scarier...you KNOW there will be Extended Editions of the Hobbit trilogy.

That is a scary thought.


GeraintElberion wrote:


You'd think Le Guin would understand what a batman was and how the trenches of WW1 operated...

Or maybe that just would make her want to form a Socialist Hobbit Party even more?

Turn the guns the other way! The main enemy is at home!

No war but the class war!


Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
For the record, I'm not saying that every fantasy movie pre-LoTR blew chunks.

Does anyone remember the Sword and the Sorcerer? With lee Horsley? Cheesy B Movie goodness.


Not the full article, but even the fact that some of it is there is a pretty impressive testament to the internet.

And, oh, it's not a Socialist Hobbit Party, it's a Hobbit Socialist Party. My bad.


Mazra wrote:
Greg, I get it if you are perplexed by The Hobbit being made into a trilogy. I can see where this deserves some ire. But "thejeff" is coming in with a "hate" viewpoint from much earlier on.

Well, a thread of all LoTR-love would get boring pretty quickly.

Excellent work, "thejeff!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mazra wrote:
thejeff wrote:


To me, in the movie, it seemed entirely predictable and boring. As I said, I saw the roots of it in Fellowship and was afraid he was going in that direction. Sadly I was right.
OK! We get it! You clearly had issues about Jackson's LotR trilogy early on. What I don't get is why you are posting on this thread. You are entitled to your opinion of course. But it seems you relish in spewing your anti-Jackson LotR diatribe. Why don't you start a new thread, "Things I hate about Jackson's LotR Trilogy." You might find some love there. Please don't expect a lot of love here.

Because I don't hate Jackson's movies. Because I have hopes for the Hobbit movies, plan to see them and hope they're good. I am worried to hear that he's expanding it to three movies because I think it would work better more tightly focused on the main story and I don't have faith in Peter Jackson to flesh out the storylines he's expanding from a paragraph or two in the appendices. Or for that matter the character arcs he's apparently adding for each dwarf: The elf-dwarf romance being the only one that I've seen spelled out.

Part of the reason for me posting that "diatribe" was to point out some of the things in the original that made me leery of Jackson's additions. The other, larger, was to counter the implicit and explicit claims that the only criticisms were from purists who object to even minor changes to their work and to present some criticism that was directed both at stylistic decisions and at larger, though maybe not as apparent, thematic changes.

That and the FanDumb post both amused and irritated me. The idea of people tolerating no criticism of their particular "best fantasy movies ever!!" and crying out "FanDumb" at any perceived slight is somehow both mindboggling and not surprising at all.

TL/DR: I didn't hate the movies. I do hope the Hobbit movies work. The PJ fanboys tire me just like the NAYSAYERS do you.


thejeff wrote:
There's a post on this blog that describes what I'm talking about with Tolkien's approach to characterization better than I ever could.

Cool! Thanks, I'll check it out.

Edit: GREAT post. Thanks for sharing! I'll have to read the rest of them.

Grand Lodge

"thejeff wrote:

Because I don't hate Jackson's movies. Because I have hopes for the Hobbit movies, plan to see them and hope they're good. I am worried to hear that he's expanding it to three movies because I think it would work better more tightly focused on the main story and I don't have faith in Peter Jackson to flesh out the storylines he's expanding from a paragraph or two in the appendices. Or for that matter the character arcs he's apparently adding for each dwarf: The elf-dwarf romance being the only one that I've seen spelled out. <clip>

TL/DR: I didn't hate the movies. I do hope the Hobbit movies work. The PJ fanboys tire me just like the NAYSAYERS do you.

This is a good post "the Jeff." You could have fooled me about about not hating the LotR in some of your earlier post though. I am glad you cleared that up. Now I can see and understand your points a little better. For me waves and waves of negativity is a downer; especially when it is aimed at something I treasure. So I tend to attack those being negative. Conveying that you actually don't hate the movies, lightened the tone. As a result, I far more open to your criticisms. And actually agree with you in some of them.

Cheers,

Mazra


Bah! I prefer poorly-thought out rants with outrageous opinions, unreasonable trains of thought and questionable facts.

More like that, please.

Grand Lodge

Burgomeister of Troll Town wrote:

Bah! I prefer poorly-thought out rants with outrageous opinions, unreasonable trains of thought and questionable facts.

More like that, please.

That is a perfectly acceptable viewpoint, coming from a Goblin. ;)

151 to 200 of 269 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Entertainment / Movies / Peter Jackson's The Hobbit to be Made into a Trilogy All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.