Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Science Fiction Films

Rate this topic


Jim A.

Recommended Posts

What are your favorite science-fiction films? And why?

My own are: Forbidden Planet (1956), because of the story about the Krell and how advanced they had become (despite the Freudian/Platonic ideas about their demise);

Robinson Crusoe on Mars (1964), because of it's (Romantic) realism concerning a man who must rely on his mind to survive on another planet, a man who, incidentally, exhibits psychological health and high self-esteem (or he could not survive);

Fantastic Voyage (1966), which should really be classified as a fantasy, but anyway shows people dealing with a strange and alien context--being miniaturized and injected into a human body--in a rational manner;

Planet of the Apes (1968), because of its subplot: a spaceship launched by men who would not live long enough to learn of its successful arrival on another planet two-thousand years later. I've often wondered about and been fascinated by projects whose creators know they will not be around to experience the results and yet still go on and finish their endeavour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the best SF films (although like Fantastic Voyage it's really scientific fantasy) is Disney's "Tron."

The plot is very simple. A second-hander steals some software and uses it to climb the company ladder to the top, while keeping the software developers down. So the guy he steals from teams up with two developers and they expose the bad guy. Only thin is the main action takes place inside a computer, which is utterly ridiculous.

Still, the scenes inside the computer are amazing. It's early CGI work, pioneering in a way but also totally unique. About 75% of the movie involves CGI and hand-painted elements int he frame (the actors were filmed in black and white and tinted or painted). The effect is a world that consists mostly of light. What's most surprising is that it's a very dark world. The contrast, a world of light that is dark, makes for unique imagery that has never, as far as I know, been repeated on film. Near the end, when the hero wins, the world blooms with bright light, but we see very little of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of my favorite Sci-Fi films off the top of my head:

Alien 2 -- Get away from her you bitch!

The Fifth Element -- Aziz, Light!

Serenity -- I'm a leaf on the wind; watch how I soar.

Gattaca -- Never save anything for the swim back

The Matrix -- The blue pill or the red pill?

Terminator 2 -- The best sequel in cinematic history.

Blade Runner -- Do androids dream of electric sheep?

Pitch Black -- Best Vin Diesel movie ever. But I suppose that's not really saying much.

Reign of Fire -- Christian Bale vs Dragons. Plus he did a good impersonation of Darth Vader.

Short Circuit -- Johnny 5! Best robot ever. Brings tears to my eyes every time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By far, 2001: A Space Odyssey and its sequel 2010: The Year we make contact

I would like to see Robert Heinlein's Destination Moon

It was technically very accurate for its time but it's late 1940s/early 1950s work and quite dated today.

2001 was a good movie, and if one reads the book as well, it's a heck of a lot easier to understand.

2010 was ruined for me by the way they turned it into propaganda against US policy in Central America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alien - One of the two best monster horror films ever made.

The Thing - One of the two best monster horror films ever made.

The Omega Man - Charlton Heston was my first hero way before I learned of Ayn Rand (no, I am not equating them). In The Omega Man, Heston portrayed a scientist, a man of reason, in fact the last man of reason left alive, battling deformed, infected humans who blame civilization for their state, and seek to destroy all evidence of that civilization, including Heston. Ironically, Heston is the only one who can develop a cure for their condition. The Omega Man is the best of the 1970s-era end-of-the-world type movies. (It was a rough time in real life, too, with near hyper-inflation, the oil crisis, America's defeat in Vietnam, and Watergate. Uh, and I guess I would add 1970s bell-bottom pants!)

Blade Runner - What is a human? Of what value is life? These are questions asked and answered in part by this movie. I also love the future world presented. It is darker than I would imagine the real future to be, but it is gritty and reflects the push and pull of humans acting their lives in a dense urban setting. When I imagine the future, I imagine urban density as in this movie, albeit in a more positive way than this movie portrays. Harrison Ford in the lead role was superb, and Sean Young as Ford's love-interest was absolutely hot.

There are other sci-fi movies I love, but these four are my personal favorites.

Edited by Galileo Blogs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't you mean reading the book made it possible to understand the movie?

Except, of course, for the mystery of what happened to Saturn? :D

I do think it was unfortunate they took Saturn out for the movie--they said it would have been too complicated and confused moviegoers (as if the rest of the movie didn't do that). The Iapetus connection in the novel was a good one.

In subsequent novels (2010, 2061, 3001) Arthur C. Clarke took the movie as the previous installment, not the novel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think it was unfortunate they took Saturn out for the movie--they said it would have been too complicated and confused moviegoers (as if the rest of the movie didn't do that). The Iapetus connection in the novel was a good one.

Iapetus was where the monolith stood in the novel, right?

In any case, Saturn is the most beautiful planet in the Solar System. I can forgive Kubrik, barely, only because doing decent Saturn effects with the technology he had available would ahve been next to impossible.

In subsequent novels (2010, 2061, 3001) Arthur C. Clarke took the movie as the previous installment, not the novel.

He's been mercilessly ribbed about it, too. I think he's anive to expect much of the movie-going audience to be literate enough to want to read books based on a film. Some do, no doubt, but most don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Thing - One of the two best monster horror films ever made.

You mean the 1982 Carpenter film, not The Thing from Another World (1951) that it was sorta based on (or that shared the same source, anyway), right? I like the original story most myself, John Campbell's "Who Goes There?"

Edited by Adrian Hester
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I greatly liked the original Battlestar Galactica pilot movie - a crew of intelligent, competent and fun-loving characters, refusing to give up either life or hope despite massive devastation. There was plenty of genuine human care and concern, but they had no time for mawkishness. They then set out on a long an arduous journey, to hell with the odds. They display that intelligence and competence in the process, while also doing what needs to be done to survive without compromising the principles on which their civilisation was based. Glen Larsen based the series on parts of Mormon dogma, but really that isn't obvious at all and the movie can be enjoyed without knowing or recognising any such connection - the reference to the "Lords of Kobol" can easily be written off as just artistic expression and not taken seriously.

The production values of the movie were good, and the suspension of disbelief is easily achieved. For example, the vessels actually looked REAL. They had a proper gritty and used appearance to them, not out of oh-god-we're-too-screwed-to-clean-up but showing the simple result of being bona-fide working vehicles pressed into unusual service at a moment's notice. Compare them to the wholly unreal appearance of the Enterprise and other CGI objects in ST:TNG, which I never liked at all. The computer systems and electronics were not overdone either - similarly, compare them to the utterly ridiculous pastel touchpads from TNG. The interiors also looked entirely believable, all steel and machinery on working vessels, decent decor in what were once luxury liners, and so on.

Unfortunately the same could not be said for the series it was the pilot of :( The Wikipedia entry states that many takes were reused over and over in different episodes, and I personally recall that some of the scripts were atrocious. The new re-imagined series is watchable, but not that great either.

JJM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I greatly liked the original Battlestar Galactica pilot movie - a crew of intelligent, competent and fun-loving characters, refusing to give up either life or hope despite massive devastation.

I actually saw that ep in a movie theater in Mexico. It came with "sensarround," an earlier sound system and sort of forerunner to THX. I loved it. Later I got it on tape and must have watched it 10 times or so. It was good, but I never did figure out the casino sequence. Also, it would have been better without the kid, or at least without his mechanical dog.

- the reference to the "Lords of Kobol" can easily be written off as just artistic expression and not taken seriously.

That was actually fun. I do recall some jokes on the folly of praying to the Lords of a rather old computer language and such.

Unfortunately the same could not be said for the series it was the pilot of :(

There were a couple of good eps. But yes. Overall it stank. I kept watching because I hoped it would improve, and because Maren Jansen was on every ep.

The Wikipedia entry states that many takes were reused over and over in different episodes,

Pretty much all battle scenes were the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean the 1982 Carpenter film, not The Thing from Another World (1951) that it was sorta based on (or that shared the same source, anyway), right? I like the original story most myself, John Campbell's "Who Goes There?"

Yes, the 1982 "The Thing." I have neither seen nor read the other works you mention. Thanks for mentioning them. I will have to check out the Campbell story. Was the 1951 movie good?

As for "The Thing," I really enjoyed the lead character played by Kurt Russell. He is a common sense man who faces the reality of The Thing most squarely, and therefore has the best odds of survival. I like Kurt Russell movies generally. Physically, I like his looks and I generally like his movie roles. The other part of the "The Thing" I liked was the sheer outrageousness of The Thing. It is an audacious monster, if there can be such a thing as an audacious monster. One last note on "The Thing," the scene where Kurt Russell has everyone tied up and is testing their blood to see which one is The Thing is just damn funny. I don't think every reader of this forum will find it funny, but it appealed to my love of imaginative, even if bizarre, situations.

Edited by Galileo Blogs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the post that launched this thread, I listed what were my favorite science-fiction films. Now here are the ones I consider the best of all time:

Metropolis (1926), for its architectural vision of a city of the future;

Things to Come (1936), for its optimistic vision of, and endorsement of, scientific and technological progress, despite its Fabian Socialism;

Destination Moon (1950), for its glorified depiction of a first voyage to the moon, for its advocacy of private enterprise being the prime technological and financial mover behind the conquest of space, and for the fact that it's one of the few space films set in a benevolent, Aristotelian universe;

20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954; the Walt Disney version); for its colorful adventure story of life in a submarine, something not completely realized in the time of the writing of Jules Verne's novel;

This Island Earth (1955); for treating the mind as something noble, good and heroic, and doing so in an outer-space setting;

Village of the Damned (1960); for showing how that reasoning mind can confront even the most terrifying and formidable threats to human life;

Robinson Crusoe on Mars (1964) (And I just got the DVD!); for presenting how an individual of high self-regard and a healthy mind can survive even on an alien world;

The Andromeda Strain (1971); for showing four or five individuals, who often disagree with one another regarding method and, sometimes, ethics and politics, using their reason to find a way to halt and destroy a microscopic organism carried to Earth from space.

Tempted to include:

The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951); very well done movie, in all respects--directing, acting, photography, writing, and, certainly, the music score by Bernard Hermann; however, I did not include it in this list for two reasons: 1) its focus is not on reason and science--though these are brought up--but rather on the issue of physical force on a global--or interplanetary--level; and 2 (though really 1!): the movie is just one big plug for the U.N., just like another of director Robert Wise's well-done pictures, The Sand Pebbles.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1957); terrifying movie showing how collectivism is deadly to the individual. But the focus is not on science and the workings of the reasoning mind, so I did not include it in the list; it belongs in another list, such as the Best Horror Films Ever Made, or something;

Forbidden Planet (1956); I enjoy it for the reason I stated in my first post, but, again, it's adulterated and darkened by Sigmund Freud ("Monsters, John...monsters from the Id!") and Plato ("A civilization without instrumentalities...")

The Time Machine (1960); very imaginative movie, but I put time-travel stories in the fantasy category;

The Time Travellers (1964); really, really cheesy (so much so it's often unintentionally hilarious), but shows alot of imagination and has some neat special effects; but, again, it's time travel;

Fantastic Voyage (1966); for the reason I stated in Post #1, but not included because it is "fantastic", and belongs on a "Best Fantasy Films" list;

Fahrenheit 451 (1966); one of my favorite movies of any kind, but deals with the issue of intellectual freedom and not primarily with science and the application of reason; also, I consider the film fantasy, because it would not be possible to have complete prohibiting of reading material and still have the level of technology possessed by the future society in this story;

Planet of the Apes (1968); for the reason I stated above; however, the film is anti-Man, anti-technology, and, almost, anti-science;

Star Wars (1977) and The Empire Strikes Back (1980); because both movies are "sunlit", exciting, colorful, have great direction, acting, writing and music; but both have the mystical "Force";

Alien (1979); another space film set in an Aristotelian universe (an astronaut's question when entering a millenia-old derelict alien spacecraft and finding only the skeleton of the pilot: "Where's the rest of the crew?"; in other words, even the alien beings we imagine cannot fly spaceships by mystical means)--but it's not a benevolent universe;

Aliens (1986); great action thriller, and the heroine does win, again; but the film has an extremely dark and heavy streak;

Back to the Future (1985); a "delightful fantasy", as I heard someone say; but it's time travel.

On another subject, one of the above posters praised 2001: A Space Odyssey. For years, I've enjoyed watching that movie. However, I call it "a bad movie with great moments". I call it bad because there is no plot; rather there are four stories only tangentially related by the monolith, which cannot even be considered a "MacGuffin": the "Dawn of Man" story, the moon monolith story, the HAL story, and the "worm-hole" (or whatever the hell that was!) story. But the photography, the special effects (still unsurpassed), the use of sound (and silence), the editing, the sets, and the sometime use of classical music were all great, and the film did have some great scenes: the ape's discovery of the first tool and weapon (the bone), the sudden cut from that primitive tool to the spaceship in the year 2001, a man's first touching of the alien monolith, the "waltz of the spaceships" to the Blue Danube Waltz (by itself it would be a great music video).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim,

That is a thoughtful list. I have seen many of the movies you mentioned, and had forgotten! I share your enthusiasm for the ones I've seen: Metropolis, Things to Come, The Andromeda Strain, Fahrenheit 451, Planet of the Apes (also one of my favorites), Star Wars and Alien. Some of the others I had seen too long ago to voice an opinion, or have not seen them at all. Now I have a great viewing list to watch for. Thank you!

GB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never did figure out the casino sequence.

The casino was a honey-trap for humans, run by the insectoid Ovions. The odds were put in favour of the players because what the House was getting out of the set-up was kidnapping the occasional player to turn into food for the larvae.

As to the clothing trick, that was because Adama and Tigh came to the conclusion that the Cylons were intending to judge the poor state of Galactica's battle-readiness by counting the number of pilots' uniforms evident at the planned peace ceremony - after all, it is not as though the Cylons were in any position to identify specific faces. The peace activists lead by Sire Uren were also counting uniforms (for being similarly ignorant, except of Apollo and Starbuck) to make sure that all the Colonial Warriors were there to make the gestures of laying down their weapons. In reality, the majority of the pilots were elsewhere in the Casino complex, ready to run to their Vipers at the first sign of trouble, instead of at risk of being caught up in the room the ceremony was being held. Adama and Tigh were correct, the pilots did get away, and the Cylons ended up being caught with their pants down.

At the time, I didn't know Cobol was a programming language so jokes like that would have been lost on me :D

The local video store started getting in the episodes on tape, but after four episodes they stopped because few were hiring them. As I recall, the first two weren't terrible but the one about the cylon as the bad-guy in a wild-west scenario was BLEAGHHH! My memory from waywayback is also of some idiot thing with guys dressed up as doofus birds or somesuch. That being said, Pegasus was not bad, but nowhere near as good as the first movie.

JJM

Edited by John McVey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understood what the casino was used for. What i dind't get is: Didn't those people know their worlds were destroyed? If they did, why were they frolicking in a casino?

The bit with the uniforms was well done. I also liked the scene were Col. Tigh was caught stealing them "If the Commander were to see dress uniforms in this condition...."

That being said, Pegasus was not bad, but nowhere near as good as the first movie.

But it was the wrong kind of episode for that series. I mean, in TV there is a status quo (the show's premise) which involves a particular situation that cannot change (unless the show gets retooled for some reason). So you know anything that changes the balance will be done away with and the balance restored. And there's no way either ship commander would allow Pegasus to be lost.

There was an ep I never saw complete. I don't know if it was in the first season, or in the ill-conceived attempt to bring Galactica to Earth in the second season (or spinoff). In any case it involved Starbuck being stranded in a desserted planet (with breathable air!) along with a Cylon. I think it wasn't bad, but I hardly remember much of it.

So that's three reasons to buy the classic Galactica DVD set: 1) the pilot ep, 2) the Starbuck ep, and 3) Maren Jansen. Maybe I'll get around to it someday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are your favorite science-fiction films? And why?

My own are: Forbidden Planet (1956), because of the story about the Krell and how advanced they had become (despite the Freudian/Platonic ideas about their demise);

Robinson Crusoe on Mars (1964), because of it's (Romantic) realism concerning a man who must rely on his mind to survive on another planet, a man who, incidentally, exhibits psychological health and high self-esteem (or he could not survive);

Fantastic Voyage (1966), which should really be classified as a fantasy, but anyway shows people dealing with a strange and alien context--being miniaturized and injected into a human body--in a rational manner;

Planet of the Apes (1968), because of its subplot: a spaceship launched by men who would not live long enough to learn of its successful arrival on another planet two-thousand years later. I've often wondered about and been fascinated by projects whose creators know they will not be around to experience the results and yet still go on and finish their endeavour.

Got any picks from films made after 1990?

Growing up on special effects I cannot stand men in rubber suits knocking over model houses...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't those people know their worlds were destroyed?

I don't think they had a clue. Carillon was somewhat remote from the twelve colonies. Note that the humans didn't even know that their return path home had been turned into minefield, and that was right on Carillon's doorstep! I haven't thought about the whole thing much, but I imagine that if transmissions cannot be made faster than light (unlike flight itself) then they'd never hear about the destruction without someone physically coming along and telling them. Think of it as people vacationing in a dodgy South American resort on a package tour in the days before undersea cables and radios.

But it was the wrong kind of episode for that series. I mean, in TV there is a status quo (the show's premise) which involves a particular situation that cannot change (unless the show gets retooled for some reason). So you know anything that changes the balance will be done away with and the balance restored. And there's no way either ship commander would allow Pegasus to be lost.

That's true -

though in the Pegasus movie the ship wasn't lost. Cain disobeyed orders and disappeared to follow his own agenda. Of course, Adama should have seen that coming and shifted some staff around. After that, the Galactica wasn't about to chase after it in Cylon-infested territory that Cain knew far better than Adama did.

There was an ep I never saw complete. I don't know if it was in the first season, or in the ill-conceived attempt to bring Galactica to Earth in the second season (or spinoff). In any case it involved Starbuck being stranded in a desserted planet (with breathable air!) along with a Cylon. I think it wasn't bad, but I hardly remember much of it.

Yes, I remember that one - if it is the same one I am thinking of then it's in the 1980 series. It was, roughly, where that Super Smart Kid had a vision that explained what happened to Starbuck.

Starbuck and a Cylon raider had crashed on a planet together, though I can't remember if the cause was them fighting each other. For whatever reason, Starbuck then fixed up one of the Cylons and tried to get along with it, which he succeeds at eventually. Also, at some point along the way an initially mute woman showed up. I don't know if Starbuck did it or she already was pregnant, but she later gave birth. At the end of the episode it turned out she was some divine messenger or something and pronounced judgement upon Starbuck's soul. Presumably he is then accepted into heaven.

JJM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think they had a clue.

Didn't that strike you as bizarre?

I haven't thought about the whole thing much, but I imagine that if transmissions cannot be made faster than light (unlike flight itself) then they'd never hear about the destruction without someone physically coming along and telling them.

As far as I recall, they never did address the issue of FTL flight or information. they seemed to follow old Trek practice "It's as fast or as slow as it needs to be for the plot's demands." Still, I'd rather they ignore physics than make their own up.

Think of it as people vacationing in a dodgy South American resort on a package tour in the days before undersea cables and radios.

That too. Pournelle has a series where FTL travel is possible but FTL communication isn't. I can buy that.

Yes, I remember that one - if it is the same one I am thinking of then it's in the 1980 series.

I don't recall why, but I saw only a few 1980 eps. I dind't like most of what I did see. I would have liked to listen to an explanation how come their Earth cousins were so backwards.

I can see why people would like to remake it, too. it's almost good, almost captivating. Alas, 1970s TV was hardly the time or place for a smart SF epic. Nor is today much better, B5 to the contrary notwithstanding. I caught a couple of eps of the remake. Interesting styling, but there seemed to be too much going on, too tangled, and not very interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't that strike you as bizarre? As far as I recall, they never did address the issue of FTL flight or information. they seemed to follow old Trek practice "It's as fast or as slow as it needs to be for the plot's demands." Still, I'd rather they ignore physics than make their own up.

It didn't strike me as bizarre at all, because I picked up on the non-fast communication ability right from the start when Apollo and Zak couldn't radio back the fact that swarms of Cylon raiders were en route to destroy the fleet.

I would have liked to listen to an explanation how come their Earth cousins were so backwards.

I can't help you there.

I can see why people would like to remake it, too. it's almost good, almost captivating. Alas, 1970s TV was hardly the time or place for a smart SF epic. Nor is today much better, B5 to the contrary notwithstanding.

Re-imagining Blake's Seven would be extremely topical for the UK, and I am not the first to make that observation either. The intro credits starting with that ever-watchful security camera were just so... prescient.

A barely-formed thought of mine is that much of sci-fi suffers from being the product of mere world-building for geeks rather than having an actual story to tell. B5 worked because it really did have a story. Ditto B7 and Star Wars, and ditto Dune after eliminating Herbert's silly welding of opposites (eg Buddislamic, Orange Catholic, etc). I have recollections of someone writing something about how, to be successful, sci-fi needs at least some means for non-geeks to connect with it, and lots of sci-fi fails miserably in that regard. I don't recall what this writer had to say were the main points, but I think there were three of them.

JJM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It didn't strike me as bizarre at all, because I picked up on the non-fast communication ability right from the start when Apollo and Zak couldn't radio back the fact that swarms of Cylon raiders were en route to destroy the fleet.

I forgot about that.

Re-imagining Blake's Seven would be extremely topical for the UK, and I am not the first to make that observation either. The intro credits starting with that ever-watchful security camera were just so... prescient.

I've never had a chance to see Blake's 7.

On the subject of remaking old SF, I wish everyone would leave The Twilight Zone alone. There have been two attempts at remakes (three if you count the movie), and they all failed misserably. The old, classic series remains very powerful melodrama. Short of resurrecting Rod Serling, I don't see that it can be improved.

A barely-formed thought of mine is that much of sci-fi suffers from being the product of mere world-building for geeks rather than having an actual story to tell. B5 worked because it really did have a story. Ditto B7 and Star Wars, and ditto Dune after eliminating Herbert's silly welding of opposites

Right. Galactica had the beginnings of a story, but not a story per se. It wound up using too many Trek cliches that really dind't belong there (even if it gets compared mostly to Star Wars).

World-building is fun. And reading stories set in well-built worlds can be gratifying. But they are mere background for the action. Niven's Known Space or Asimov's Foundation Universe wouldn't work without good stories set in them. Niven's Gil "The ARM" Hamilton's mysteries work wonderfully as SF mysteries and would be just as good if Known Space began and ended with him.

Did you ever see a short-lived show called "Earth 2"? Among the hype surrounding it (it beat Voyager for the first female leader! who cares?), they never once mentioned it was a story-arc show, meant to tell a story over several seasons. When you don't know that, and I dind't, all the eps seem to end short and all the action seems inconclusive (much like B5 season 1). Naturally it was cacnelled after 13 eps.

I have recollections of someone writing something about how, to be successful, sci-fi needs at least some means for non-geeks to connect with it, and lots of sci-fi fails miserably in that regard. JJM

A lot of modern visual SF has become little more than special effects extravaganzas or action movies writ large. Now, I do appreciate good visual effects, and I like well-made action sequences just fine. But a movie, or a TV show, needs to be more than that. Trek, for all its faults, comes up with interesting plots or character-driven plots every now and then. That's why it succeeded accross thre and a half showes (Voyager was never consistently good to be a full show).

I've this notion of taking a good, long novel, or a series of novels, and making them a TV show, meant to run 5 seasons or so (I don't think any TV exec would pick up something that was supposed to end after less than 5 years). Card's Homecoming series might work (despite the religion in it). Asimov's Foundation might work, but I'm not sure how the audience would cope with so many character changes. TV series need continuity of charcaters that Foundation simply lacks.

Or take a novel and make it the starting point for a series. I can imagine taking up two seasons with Niven and Pournelle's Mote duo, then building up three or even five more seasons of aftermath, involving a long war against groups of Moties. they are even more fractitious than humans (and isn't that a nice twist for SF, where aliens are often a tool to bash humanity with?)

For now, though, work beckons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...