Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Emperorjones

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 218
1
Hard Choices / Re: Teddy Pendegrass OR Luther Vandross
« on: September 04, 2018, 02:44:09 pm »
This is very tough. Teddy was rough, gruff, but at the same time tender and smooth, and Luther was smooth, graceful, but also powerful. I liked more Luther songs. I grew up more in the era when Luther was dominating R&B radio so I'm going with Luther. Nothing against Teddy because "Joy", "Hold Me", and "Believe in Love (Phat Philly Remix)" were all my jams when they came out and today still. And that's not even touching on his earlier solo classics and his time with Harold Melvin & the Blue Notes.

2
Hudlin TV / Re: Star Trek Discovery: Season 2
« on: September 01, 2018, 05:54:14 am »
At the time ENT was on (and after its cancellation) there was a lot of talk of Trek fatigue on some Trek message boards and railing at Braga and also Rick Berman, who oversaw all of Trek after Roddenberry. So yeah, there was a fatigue issue there, a lack of creative juices, but also I think studio interference with VOY and ENT. DS9 was mostly left alone because the suits were more concerned about VOY, which was a gift for the DS9 writers who had some flexibility to go into arc-based storytelling, etc.

I do think ENT was set in an interesting time period. We didn't know much about the pre-Federation Earth or how the Federation was formed. There was also the Earth-Romulan War they could've played with, but didn't do much with, and the show was canceled before they went there. Trek novels did cover the war, though I couldn't get into that two-book series. I did read some of the run-up books, The Good Men Do and Kobayashi Maru. I The Good Men Do better than Kobayashi Maru. Though my favorite ENT novel is Last Full Measure, which takes place during ENT Season 3.

Unfortunately for ENT it had a lot of competition that the other Treks didn't. It came out at a time when TV dramas/genre shows were very strong and ENT looked behind-the-times, with poorly developed characters. I couldn't stand ENT at first. It was nowhere near as exciting as 24, or when Battlestar Galatica came out, it blew ENT out of the water. Even the Stargate shows at the time were better than ENT. I don't think ENT ever figured out how to write for an ensemble show, though they did a good job with Trip the most. I did like the darker Archer from Season 3 though. And just when the show was getting better, and becoming a true prequel to TOS unfortunately it got canceled.

I don't know if it was intentional, or just my imagination, but I felt there were some parallels with Archer and George W. Both had chips on their shoulders over the treatment of their fathers. Both lived in the shadows of their fathers. But ENT didn't lean into that enough IMO. Season 3 had to have been inspired by 9/11 and there was the occasional episode that touched on a contemporary social issue, but not enough.




Yeah... that sounds accurate.

Hated the Trip character because he resembled dubya and I couldn't stand dubya at the time.

Funny you say that because he actually played George W. in a brief scene in the Tom Cruise movie American Made.

I do think Trip was the best developed character on ENT, so killing him off in the series finale in a way made sense-even if the execution was bad-since in many respects ENT was his story. He got over some of his biases, he found love with T'Pol, he suffered the most personal loss during the Xindi incident, and he lost a daughter along the way. With the show ending, I guess it made sense to end his arc if it was going to be anyone.

3
Hudlin TV / Re: Star Trek Discovery: Season 2
« on: August 31, 2018, 04:47:28 pm »
At the time ENT was on (and after its cancellation) there was a lot of talk of Trek fatigue on some Trek message boards and railing at Braga and also Rick Berman, who oversaw all of Trek after Roddenberry. So yeah, there was a fatigue issue there, a lack of creative juices, but also I think studio interference with VOY and ENT. DS9 was mostly left alone because the suits were more concerned about VOY, which was a gift for the DS9 writers who had some flexibility to go into arc-based storytelling, etc.

I do think ENT was set in an interesting time period. We didn't know much about the pre-Federation Earth or how the Federation was formed. There was also the Earth-Romulan War they could've played with, but didn't do much with, and the show was canceled before they went there. Trek novels did cover the war, though I couldn't get into that two-book series. I did read some of the run-up books, The Good Men Do and Kobayashi Maru. I The Good Men Do better than Kobayashi Maru. Though my favorite ENT novel is Last Full Measure, which takes place during ENT Season 3.

Unfortunately for ENT it had a lot of competition that the other Treks didn't. It came out at a time when TV dramas/genre shows were very strong and ENT looked behind-the-times, with poorly developed characters. I couldn't stand ENT at first. It was nowhere near as exciting as 24, or when Battlestar Galatica came out, it blew ENT out of the water. Even the Stargate shows at the time were better than ENT. I don't think ENT ever figured out how to write for an ensemble show, though they did a good job with Trip the most. I did like the darker Archer from Season 3 though. And just when the show was getting better, and becoming a true prequel to TOS unfortunately it got canceled.

I don't know if it was intentional, or just my imagination, but I felt there were some parallels with Archer and George W. Both had chips on their shoulders over the treatment of their fathers. Both lived in the shadows of their fathers. But ENT didn't lean into that enough IMO. Season 3 had to have been inspired by 9/11 and there was the occasional episode that touched on a contemporary social issue, but not enough.

The premise for ENT was fine, IMO. Just the execution was off. It needed to be bolder, more gripping, and take more risks than it did. It also needed to be more diverse. It stuck out like a sore thumb on UPN, to have a network that was catering to black and/or diverse viewers but have a strongly white ENT cast. ENT would've been a good chance to cast a Latino/a actor/actress in the lead role to push that diversity forward. But ENT was a step backward in a lot of ways.

That being said, if I sat down and actually watched Seasons 1 and 2 of the show today I would likely view it more favorably. I couldn't stand VOY either for the most part but today I don't hate that show anymore.

4
Hudlin TV / Re: Star Trek Discovery: Season 2
« on: August 31, 2018, 02:43:52 pm »
^
Brannon Braga, one of the ENT producers has said that they wanted to have the first season of ENT completely on Earth, but the studio nixed it. I think it would've set ENT apart even more. And I think it would've allowed us to go places we really haven't. We haven't seen that much Earth in Star Trek or the politics and bureaucracy of Starfleet, United Earth, or clarifying the whole United Earth Space Probe Agency thing, which ENT could've done. I wish Braga had been able to create the show they wanted to. I'm not going to say it would've been good-I think ENT often had a staleness or blandness to it in the earlier seasons-but it would've been more unique to the show.

6
Hudlin TV / Re: Star Trek Discovery: Season 2
« on: August 29, 2018, 03:34:57 pm »
Thanks Battle, but I can't take credit for that shorthand. They had the "DISCO" shirts in the show. I was trying to paste some pictures of it, but I'm not able to. CBS is also selling the shirts.






7
Hudlin TV / Re: Star Trek Discovery: Season 2
« on: August 29, 2018, 01:20:53 pm »
Good question. From what I recall the first time I saw it, it was a good, exciting story. The FX were the best of any Trek show at that time (for a pilot episode), though Discovery is top notch now. The ENT crew also wasn't bad in the first episode but I felt they were made too bland afterwards. Even though I didn't like how they did first contact with the Klingons (before that some conjecture was that the first contact had been disastrous), it was still cool to see the event happen on screen.

I don't recall much about TNG's pilot now, though I did like the parts with Q, but it likely dragged. DS9's pilot started off great with the Borg invasion, but then it got bogged down as it went into Bajoran mysticism, but overall, a very solid pilot. Similar to DS9, VOY started off interesting (but not as good as DS9) but also got bogged down when they made it to the Caretaker. I also didn't care for the unimaginative take on the Caretaker, but I guess that was due to budget limits. With DISCO I thought the action and FX were put ahead of the story so they had overwrought characters, and Burnham especially was making decisions that were not going to make her go over well if your goal was to establish her as a main character you respected and could empathize with. I wish now they had showed that pilot midseason or something as a kind of flashback episode so we could finally learn all the particulars of why Burnham did what she did. At least we could juxtapose that the brutality of the Klingons from the previous DISCO episodes by that point to better justify her actions. With the other pilots, I think the lead characters were more sympathetic. Kirk had to sacrifice his best friend. Sisko had to make peace with his wife's passing. Janeway had to sacrifice getting home to protect an alien species she just met. I can't say Picard or Archer though were that sympathetic. Mainly because I don't remember much about the TNG pilot and I do think they made Archer into something of an entitled, biased asshole on purpose. Unfortunately, they rarely had it where Archer got called on his b.s. They made the mistake of justifying his biases far too much, by demonizing the Vulcans he had issues with.

8
Hudlin TV / Re: Star Trek Discovery: Season 2
« on: August 29, 2018, 11:57:04 am »
>>>Emperor

Just thought about somethin'...


You mentioned ENT.  I'm assuming you meant 'Enterprise'...?  completely forgot about that one.  :-[

'Enterprise' was the worst out of the entire series.   

Yes, 'ENT' is my shorthand for 'Enterprise'. I wasn't a fan of ENT until the third and fourth seasons. I did think the pilot was the best Trek pilot though.

9
Hudlin TV / Re: Star Trek Discovery: Season 2
« on: August 29, 2018, 11:44:52 am »
Of course legal stuff impacts creative decisions. Right now, Trek is split between CBS (television) and Paramount (movies). Every now and then you hear about the head bumping between Marvel's television and movie divisions, but at least those are in the same house. So you can imagine how much more difficult things are to handle Trek.

I don't understand all of the legal and rights issues, but I do think because of them CBS can't use any Kelvin material. While I hated the Kelvin Klingon ships in Into Darkness, I liked their Klingon makeup design much better than what we got in Discovery. I also liked the TOS-style uniforms in the recent films, which were updated, but still similar to TOS, instead of the uniforms in Discovery. So, yeah, legal stuff does tell people what they can do or where they can go creatively.

Forgot that though I haven't watched Season 1, I have read some of the Discovery comics, The Light of Kahless and Succession. The Light of Kahless is a prequel for the Klingon leader T'Kuvma and Succession deals with
Spoiler (click to reveal)
the Mirror Universe which became a major story line in the second half of the first season
. While the Kahless book wasn't bad, I wished it had showed a more diverse Klingon racial makeup (i.e. show the TOS and TNG looking Klingons alongside the Discovery Klingons). I liked Succession more.

I'm halfway through the first Discovery novel, which is a prequel to the first season, but it's not that engaging, though it does show
Spoiler (click to reveal)
Burnham working with Spock
.

10
Hudlin TV / Re: Star Trek Discovery: Season 2
« on: August 29, 2018, 11:22:48 am »
A lot of discussions on when various Trek series improved is subjective. There were at least several other VOY episodes I enjoyed that third season (especially "Unity" which presaged "Scorpion") which shows the quality was on the upswing, like with TNG Season 2, which was an improvement over that show's first season, though it hadn't quite knocked it out of the park. That being said, Season 2's "Q Who" is one of the best Trek episodes period, even though that season was hampered by a writer's strike. And similarly, ENT's second season finale set in motion a stronger third season. So when does the quality raising start or is it a matter of when does a show become consistently 'good'? Even some of the worst seasons of Trek will have some gold among the dirt when it comes to episodes.

I think you're looking for a fight here where there is none. I think whenever you see one of my post you automatically are predisposed to dispute it. But a lot of this Trek discussion is based on personal taste where I'm concerned. My listing here is of some of the criticisms I've read or heard when looking at You Tube reviews/discussion or going to Trek message boards. I haven't watched much Discovery so I can't say from looking at it from acting, story, or writing standpoints and making judgments. I've watched a lot of You Tube reviews on the episodes and read some of the press. I intend to buy the Season 1 DVD/Blu-Ray and watch it myself and then I can determine what worked and what didn't.

I will say though that I don't think Trek needs nudity or cursing. Yes, it might adhere to 21st century entertainment and CBS definitely wants a show that people will be talking about the day after it airs, but I think  it could ultimately hurt the brand in the long-term. Trek got by for almost 50 years with minimal cursing and even less nudity. (They didn't show a backside until ENT Season 3). So, that made Trek more of an all ages kind of show, and was a way to inspire kids to get into science. But if you make it R-rated you are cutting out that audience and so that audience won't be there to support the franchise in the following decades. For example, I got into Trek when I was a teen and I've been supporting it going on 30 something years now. But that's because it was on network television, easily accessible and PG. I do get why CBS has put it on All Access (though I didn't agree and will not buy All Access) and why they are going the more 'adult' route but I don't know if it will be enough.

Netflix's Lost in Space, while darker likely than the original show (guessing here, I didn't see the original, only the '90s movie), it didn't go completely '21st century' when it came to sex yet and it got renewed. If some You Tube reviewers are correct about Discovery's financial situation, Discovery might not make it to a third season. If you make the stories good enough, the characters engaging enough, and the FX cool enough, then I don't think you need to resort to graphic violence , heavy cursing, or nudity at all.  From what I've read of Discovery they haven't done heavy cursing or excessive nudity, though the show does appear to be more violent than other Treks. To a larger point, that kind of stuff can just become shock for shocks sake.

The one thing Discovery has done very well is the FX from what I can tell. The cast looks talented, though I wasn't super impressed with the writing or acting when it came to the pilot episode, the only one CBS showed for free on it's network. Production values are good for it. And that helps, but I do think if the characters don't catch on, if the writing doesn't 'improve' then the show might be in trouble. ENT was dogged with cancellation at least since the second season and unfortunately got the ax just when it had really hit its stride in season 4. I also have an issue with the canon. I wished that they show looked more in line with what had been established in previous shows when it comes to the Klingon appearance and technology. Discovery is too much of a radical departure from that. I also didn't care for the Sarek as adoptive dad angle for Burnham. It doesn't bother me as much as it does for some fans, about why Spock never mentioned her before, but still it just felt shoe-horned in when you could've had Soval or T'Pol (both from ENT) be the adoptive Vulcan. I also didn't care for the advanced looking Starfleet uniforms and ships, though I am pleased that from the Season 2 trailer the TOS aesthetic-to some extent-looks to be back. I'm also not a fan of the name "Michael" Burnham. Yes, there are women named Michael, and the show's original creator, VOY vet Bryan Fuller, has a thing for giving female characters masculine names, but for me, it reminds me too much of Hollywood masculinizing (sp) black women. From what I've seen in interviews, etc. Martin-Green is a great ambassador for her show and Trek, but I still don't care for the masculine name, or the trend of the black woman/non-black man romance.

Some of the legal stuff is interesting because it impacts the show. It affects the creative decisions.

11
Hudlin TV / Re: Star Trek Discovery: Season 2
« on: August 29, 2018, 04:43:35 am »
From my listening and reading of Trek fandom in general I find the opinions on Discovery are mixed, at best. And recently CBS got hit with a lawsuit over plagiarism issues.

Before the lawsuit controversy, some of the complaints were Discovery is not honoring canon enough, that it is too politically correct, that it adds cursing and nudity (albeit very, very sparingly) for shock value more than to serve the needs of the story. And then there were complaints about the some of the characters and the writing. The lead character, Michael Burnham (Sonequa Martin-Green), arguably was a lightning rod there.

When it comes to improvement in Trek quality I tend to think it's season 3 where I've noticed marked improvement for TNG, DS9, and ENT. I can't judge VOY because I didn't watch it consistently enough. Though "Scorpion Part 1", one of my favorite VOY episodes was the season 3 finale, so arguably, that's when the show went on an upswing as well. TOS is the only show that arguably decreased in quality be season 3, with the first two seasons being stronger.


! No longer available


! No longer available


! No longer available


! No longer available

12
From those interview snippets I'm surprised Lee didn't also say 'all lives matter' or 'what about Chicago'. Just kidding, almost. But he's entitled to his view. He's earned that right, even though he can and should be critiqued like anyone else. As should Riley. His work stands to be critiqued as well. I don't think the question about whites being centered in the civil rights movement at the end of the film was a fair question.
Spoiler (click to reveal)
Lee took footage from Charlottesville and there were a lot of white anti-racist activists there, and Heather Heyer lost her life there. Could he had focused more on the black protesters, the young black man that was ganged up on, the black man who pushed his girlfriend out of the way of the car, the black man who used a makeshift torch against the white nationalists? Yes, but Lee likely believes that the broader audience will care more about Heyer-she paid the ultimate price and she's a white woman to be honest. It reinforced, in a sense, Stallworth's demand/plea of Driver's character in the film, "about him having skin the game.". I have to wonder if Lee was also trying to shake the conscience of white America and show them that white racism victimizes and destroys them too.

And Spike's comments about police seem to lack a systemic look at the overall criminal justice system more so for a bad apple approach. Which is also Lee's right to do. It's an idea held by many. And I think that's okay for him to hold that view, just like it's okay for someone to come along and criticize that view because we need to see various viewpoints. Lee is right, we are not 'monolithic' though whenever I heard black people in the media saying that I feel they are about to start tap dancing or something ("See, I'm not like the rest of the Negroes"). I don't think Lee did that here with this film, though it is a film that will not ruffle white liberals. Conversely, some white liberals are also praising Riley's film. Arguably, while Riley acknowledges racism he also centers class, and a transracial struggle-along the Bernie Sanders side of the game.

I still haven't finished the memoir, but to me,
Spoiler (click to reveal)
Lee could've not had Stallworth be a rookie in the film. He wasn't in real life. He had been on an officer for several years before he took on the case. Having him be a rookie served no purpose really in the film.
Perhaps Lee thought it heightened the stakes, but they didn't need to be heightened, in that way at least. 
Spoiler (click to reveal)
Also, the real story happened in the late '70s, not 1972. I do get why Spike might have put it in 72 though, to tie it to Nixon, and the Nixonian Trump. And he wanted to perhaps set the story while the Black Power movement was more happening. But doing that doesn't connect it to the rise of the Reagan era, which is the real setting of the story, and a missed opportunity by Lee. Nixon is a discredited villain, so that was easy.
The KKK are the acknowledged white racists in America, so mocking, pillorying them is also safe.
Spoiler (click to reveal)
Tying their ideology to Trump's rise was riskier, but not by much, since mainstream media has been doing that to some extent definitely since Charlottesville.

Spoiler (click to reveal)
I do get the invention of the girlfriend as well because maybe Lee, screenwriters also felt a little uneasy about how Stallworth would be viewed by black audiences, along the lines that Riley is coming from IMO. Though there's almost a sense of equivalency in the juxtaposing of the black activists and the KKK, it comes off that way in the trailer, more than the movie, that I wasn't cool with. The movie does juxtapose them, but in a way that shows-or attempts to-the horrific consequences of the Klan cause.

13
I've seen both films and I'm currently reading the memoir which the BK movie is based on. While I did enjoy BK more than Sorry to Bother You (BK is a more commercial film, perhaps one of Lee's most commercial films) I do think Riley makes some good points.

Some of the criticisms I've heard online about BK is that parallelism to today. And like it was said above Lee has never been subtle. Going into the film, I didn't care for the trailer because I didn't find the 'humor' all that funny. While watching the film it wasn't as grating as I thought it would be. And now that I'm reading the memoir I do see the divergences and I can only wonder if some were done due to time constraints-but that being said, the movie was a little over 2 hours long, so some of the divergences perhaps weren't necessary.
Spoiler (click to reveal)
I also think some things were shuffled around (and I've heard invented-but I haven't gotten to all those parts yet-likely for dramatic effect.
I can accept that a movie is not going to be 100% accurate. It can't be. Though I do find it curious that the hue and cry that some in the press and online had over Nate Parker's Birth of the Nation's historical 'inaccuracies' I haven't heard that much tumult here, or with any other film based on a true story either. Somehow most people are okay with it now, but found it disqualifying for Parker's picture. And I think that's because the white press got behind this film. They wanted us to see BK, they gave it their stamp of approval in a way they didn't for Nation and Parker. Some of the issues raised by Riley might explain why that is.

Spoiler (click to reveal)
The scene that bothered me the most was toward the end where the most racist-as depicted-police officer is arrested in a sting operation that includes a good deal of the police department it seems, even including the police chief who has been an obstacle to Stallworth and the Klan investigation along the way. It played like a party scene, at a bar, and everyone was celebrating removing this racist cop. And shortly after that 'victory' over the racist officer, the chief shuts down the case and orders Stallworth to destroy all files of it. His joining in on removing the racist officer doesn't jibe with his actions throughout the film. But it felt like Spike wanted a feel good moment, and there were some black folks who did clap at that scene. The scene also involved Stallworth's radical black girlfriend, who I've heard is invented as well (in the scene that introduced her, in the book it was a white German woman Stallworth met, but he didn't pursue a relationship with because he was dating at the time). Earlier, the officer had sexually assaulted her while harassing a carload of activists, including Kwame Ture. She had expressed her strong feelings against the police throughout the film, but yet, joins in here to be part of a police sting? It also didn't ring true to me that Stallworth-who lies to her from their very first meeting and hides that he's a police officer for a good deal of the film, when he finally comes clean, she doesn't leave him. Though at the end she does say she can't continue sleeping with a police officer. The film ends before we know what became of their relationship though. And it ends with them together, guns pointed, as they are looking at a cross burning. So, ultimately Stallworth's efforts didn't demolish the Klan in that area, but it did strike a blow-according to the film. I have not completed the memoir yet, so I'm curious to see how the 'real' story goes, but even then, that could also be in doubt if all the files were actually destroyed and what we have to go on is just Stallworth's word.

Other criticisms I've seen are that John David Washington-who I enjoyed for the most part in the film-doesn't change his voice in a scene where he meets David Duke, after talking to him on the phone. Even though earlier in the film he says he knows how to speak 'jive' as well as the 'King's English'. But he never really speaks 'jive' in the film. I also didn't think they did enough of a good job of merging Washington's and Adam Driver's- white Stallworth-together. He came across differently on the phone than Driver does when he plays Stallworth in person. But I rolled with that for the most part.

I do like that the radical black girlfriend (Laura Harrier, Liz from Spider-Man: Homecoming) did raise questions, present opposing viewpoints, and so I get why Lee placed that character in there. She also helped root Stallworth to his blackness, perhaps in an attempt by Lee to get ahead of some of the criticisms that Riley is throwing at the film.
BK is not perfect, but I enjoyed it. I enjoyed some of the ideas discussed
Spoiler (click to reveal)
-like W.E.B DuBois's double consciousness
-I mean where are you going to hear that in any other wide release film? Certainly not a Kevin Hart or Tiffany Haddish film.

I recommend checking out both BK and Sorry to Bother You. Bother You also brought up some interesting ideas. The film itself was a little too art house for me though.

14
Latest Flicks / MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: FALLOUT REVIEW
« on: July 27, 2018, 05:46:54 pm »
I checked this one out. While the film is good, don't believe the hype that it's the best of the Impossible films or that it's the best action film of all time. I saw a You Tube comment that the film reminded them of SPECTRE and I can see that. I mean the trailer-which I really liked and made Fallout the most anticipated movie this summer for me-did have a SPECTRE vibe, and similar to SPECTRE, Fallout did not live up to that trailer. That being said, I liked Fallout more than SPECTRE.

In this film, Hunt and his Impossible Missions Force team are trying to stop the sell of nuclear weapons to a shadowy group. The film is a sequel to Rogue Nation. It's not necessary to see Rogue Nation first, however if you have seen that movie it helps. Rebecca Ferguson and Alec Baldwin, both introduced in Rogue Nation return.
Spoiler (click to reveal)
So does that film's main villain, Solomon Lane.
New to the franchise are Angela Bassett's Sloan and Henry Cavill's Walker, who Sloan places on Hunt's team to help them get the weapons.

The action was solid, but there wasn't any major stunts or action sequences that could top what was seen in Ghost Protocol or Rogue Nation. Still, they were well made action scenes, but not anything much different than other action movies in terms of creativity, though likely better executed than many other action films. Cruise continues to be an iron man, breaking an ankle while filming, and that shot is in the film. There is some humor, and some character moments, though character development has never been a strong point for this franchise, and that remains so the character moments don't completely connect.

A big part of the promotion IMO is Cavill and I thought he did well as Walker. I'm not gushing about his performance. I still see that same stiffness there like in the DCEU films and in Man from UNCLE.

I thought the story was confusing, and the action wasn't wowing enough to make me ignore some of the issues I had with the story. The long run time didn't help either. If this had been a 90 minute or even two hour film it could've zipped by and perhaps I wouldn't have been thinking about what doesn't make sense even as much.

If you already like this franchise I think you'll like Fallout. If you are new to the franchise I would not start out with Fallout. I would start with Mission Impossible 3, which is my favorite, or Ghost Protocol because I feel Protocol, Rogue Nation, and Fallout look and feel more cohesive than the first three films, those had more distinctive styles and looks.

I didn't stay all the way to see if there was an end credits scene, but usually there aren't.

My rankings for this franchise:
MI3
Ghost Protocol
Rogue Nation
Fallout
MI
MI2

15
Latest Flicks / Re: The First Purge
« on: July 23, 2018, 02:06:03 am »
http://io9.gizmodo.com/at-the-purge-city-emporium-even-murderers-get-a-place-1827691834

Trailer for Purge TV series:

! No longer available


http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-purge-tv-series-producer-shares-just-how-much-purgi-1825774951

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 218