› ›

Indiana Jones

1…163164166168169…201

Comments

  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    edited July 2023 Posts: 25,390

    I am not a fan of Grace though good points are made here.
  • JustJamesJustJames London
    Posts: 218
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    The biggest sin of KotCS was casting Shia.
    He didn’t had any impact back then and a couple of Transformers movies after that he started a path that led to destroying his career, forcing Lucasfilm to keep his character away from the last chapter.
    Ah, forgot to mention that I found Phoebe’s character extremely annoying.
    Praying for EoN to keep her away from any future Bond project, in any form.

    I liked Shia's character enough to enjoy KOTCS, and I love Phoebe's character in DOD. Also, if PWB had a measurable influence on the NTTD script, I commend her for that, since I love NTTD. As for the Indy films, best female actress in the franchise (sorry, Karen Allen...we love you too).

    Haven’t seen the film yet but, hear hear on PWB, and she would be good as M. Moneypenny at a push. Most of the bits even people not big on NTTD liked were most likely the bits she added as well.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,592
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    I never disliked Shia. In fact, I thought he had strong chemistry with Ford. If there’s any weakness, it’s that the movie doesn’t quite know what to do with Mutt by the time we reach South America because of the influx of other characters tagging along. I wish they had kept the focus strong in Indy and Mutt to the end, much like with Indy and Henry Sr, with Marion and Oxley taking a backseat (and Mac being deleted entirely).

    Yes I agree with this. It felt like a missed opportunity with Shia. It made it worse that he appeared in the worst CGI action scenes - with the monkeys swinging from the trees, and sword fighting and doing the leg splits while balancing on top of a jeep. Both scenes are absolute garbage and ruin the film.

    It is a shame because there is a stuntman doing that stunt for real on moving jeeps, but I agree that the memory that lingers of it is of the greenscreen stuff.
    But two people having a swordfight on the backs of moving jeeps is a good stunt, it's a shame that it gets disguised.

    He is also quite heavily in the bike chase of course, and that's all real stuntwork.
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    And Mac didn't add anything to the film at all really. He's a double-crosser, then not a double-crosser, then he is again, but Indy still wants to save him anyway, then he says he'll be allright knowing he's gong to die.

    Pointless character.

    Yeah. I don't mind the idea of a double-crosser, but again they just didn't quite seem to have a fully formed idea of what he's for. The Mummy did it better with the Beni character.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    edited July 2023 Posts: 9,081
    bondywondy wrote: »
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    It would be like getting Pierce Brosnan back for one more film as an older James Bond. It would certainly draw in Bond fans, particularly the older crowd, but I can’t imagine that generating as much excitement for broader audiences as casting a new actor in the part.

    It's subjective but 70 ish could be the maximum age to convince as an action star? Sylvester Stallone was 72 in the final Rambo film: Last Blood. Never seen the film but I guess a 70 ish old Rambo might be credible to some of the potential audience.

    Pierce Brosnan is 70. Maybe he could be convincing as a retired James Bond returning for one final mission. But an 80 year old Indiana Jones is too much of a stretch. In terms of fight sequences/leaping from fast cars etc is seems too unrealistic. Also, film makers can patronise older actors. You get younger actors cast playing their children or whatever and they treat the older hero as past it. If Brosnan returned to play Bond you might end up with a varation of Jinx played by a 20 something year old. "Hey, old man, leave the secret agent stuff to me."

    ;))
    In DOD, Indiana Jones is supposed to be 70 (in 1969). So if Sly could do Rambo until he was 72, and Broz could do a final Bond mission at 70+, I don't see why a 70-year old Indy should have less credibility (disclaimer: all those characters were never really credible anyway, but that's the charm of the stories). But I admit I thought that HF looked too old for a 70-year old (he was 77 when they started filming). On the other hand, this guy must have seen it all, broken every bone in his body at least once, and this may just be plausible as an extremely weathered face, rather than pure age.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,252
    Fire_and_Ice_Returns wrote: »

    I am not a fan of Grace though good points are made here.

    Normally I can’t make it past her voice and exaggerated presentation, but here she’s, no pun intended, dialed it back a bit and really does make some very good observations.

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,592
    The Kennedy/Iger thumbnails are enough to make me wary of watching that one.

    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    bondywondy wrote: »
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    It would be like getting Pierce Brosnan back for one more film as an older James Bond. It would certainly draw in Bond fans, particularly the older crowd, but I can’t imagine that generating as much excitement for broader audiences as casting a new actor in the part.

    It's subjective but 70 ish could be the maximum age to convince as an action star? Sylvester Stallone was 72 in the final Rambo film: Last Blood. Never seen the film but I guess a 70 ish old Rambo might be credible to some of the potential audience.

    Pierce Brosnan is 70. Maybe he could be convincing as a retired James Bond returning for one final mission. But an 80 year old Indiana Jones is too much of a stretch. In terms of fight sequences/leaping from fast cars etc is seems too unrealistic. Also, film makers can patronise older actors. You get younger actors cast playing their children or whatever and they treat the older hero as past it. If Brosnan returned to play Bond you might end up with a varation of Jinx played by a 20 something year old. "Hey, old man, leave the secret agent stuff to me."

    ;))
    In DOD, Indiana Jones is supposed to be 70 (in 1969). So if Sly could do Rambo until he was 72, and Broz could do a final Bond mission at 70+, I don't see why a 70-year old Indy should have less credibility (disclaimer: all those characters were never really credible anyway, but that's the charm of the stories). But I admit I thought that HF looked too old for a 70-year old (he was 77 when they started filming). On the other hand, this guy must have seen it all, broken every bone in his body at least once, and this may just be plausible as an extremely weathered face, rather than pure age.

    Plus people aged more around then anyway. Not sure you'd find many 80 year olds looking as good as Ford does here in 1969.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    delfloria wrote: »
    What are the reasons DOD may not fair well at the box office? Is Indy a character from another generation than that of the movie going audience of today? Does a younger audience not want to watch an 80 year old actor, no matter what character he is playing? Just wondering.

    The budget + P&A set the film up as having an impossible task in making back a lot of money. Deadline reports a roughly $329 million budget when all is said and done, and that doesn't even take into account the $100 million they sunk into marketing the movie.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    edited July 2023 Posts: 4,600
    Not to mention people just skip most movies now and wait for it to come out on streaming services that they already pay for, myself included. I mean I wouldn't have seen it yesterday if I didn't have an AMC gift card that I've been holding on to since Christmas. I think since COVID-19 faded and theaters fully reopened, I've seen maybe 5-6 films. And thats mostly due to having kids who want to go. NTTD, Matrix 4, Sing 2, Sonic 2, Super Mario and Indy. I usually just wait nowadays for streaming.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    Last_Rat_Standing wrote: »
    Not to mention people just skip most movies now and wait for it to come out on streaming services that they already pay for, myself included. I mean I wouldn't have seen it yesterday if I didn't have an AMC gift card that I've been holding on to since Christmas. I think since COVID-19 faded and theaters fully reopened, I've seen maybe 5-6 films. And thats mostly due to having kids who want to go. NTTD, Matrix 4, Sing 2, Sonic 2, Super Mario and Indy. I usually just wait nowadays for streaming.

    That too. I still don't think we're close to a "theaters are dead" stage but when the turnaround rate is so fast and you save so much money in the process, why not be patient? I really only go anymore if it's something I'm absolutely dying to see or if it's one I could probably wait on but I really don't want to get spoiled in doing so.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,600
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Last_Rat_Standing wrote: »
    Not to mention people just skip most movies now and wait for it to come out on streaming services that they already pay for, myself included. I mean I wouldn't have seen it yesterday if I didn't have an AMC gift card that I've been holding on to since Christmas. I think since COVID-19 faded and theaters fully reopened, I've seen maybe 5-6 films. And thats mostly due to having kids who want to go. NTTD, Matrix 4, Sing 2, Sonic 2, Super Mario and Indy. I usually just wait nowadays for streaming.

    That too. I still don't think we're close to a "theaters are dead" stage but when the turnaround rate is so fast and you save so much money in the process, why not be patient? I really only go anymore if it's something I'm absolutely dying to see or if it's one I could probably wait on but I really don't want to get spoiled in doing so.

    Exactly. I mean I could have watched Ant Man 3 in theaters and took my sons and pay $50 including tickets and snacks or just wait 2-3 months and watch it on Disney+.

    Only Indy and MI:Dead Reckoning are the films that were on my must see in theaters. I still would have seen Indy at some point with or without a gift card. Because those are tentpole franchises such as Bond and Marvel prior to Endgame.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    Last_Rat_Standing wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Last_Rat_Standing wrote: »
    Not to mention people just skip most movies now and wait for it to come out on streaming services that they already pay for, myself included. I mean I wouldn't have seen it yesterday if I didn't have an AMC gift card that I've been holding on to since Christmas. I think since COVID-19 faded and theaters fully reopened, I've seen maybe 5-6 films. And thats mostly due to having kids who want to go. NTTD, Matrix 4, Sing 2, Sonic 2, Super Mario and Indy. I usually just wait nowadays for streaming.

    That too. I still don't think we're close to a "theaters are dead" stage but when the turnaround rate is so fast and you save so much money in the process, why not be patient? I really only go anymore if it's something I'm absolutely dying to see or if it's one I could probably wait on but I really don't want to get spoiled in doing so.

    Exactly. I mean I could have watched Ant Man 3 in theaters and took my sons and pay $50 including tickets and snacks or just wait 2-3 months and watch it on Disney+.

    Only Indy and MI:Dead Reckoning are the films that were on my must see in theaters. I still would have seen Indy at some point with or without a gift card. Because those are tentpole franchises such as Bond and Marvel prior to Endgame.

    Dead Reckoning: Part One is one of the last "must see" films in theaters on my radar in 2023, and if I get the opportunity I'll probably see it twice. I don't remember the last time I did that.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,592
    I wanted to see MI in IMAX and now I find I can’t because of the nuclear bore-a-thon.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 698
    The funny thing is that Hollywood has a Millennial-aged Ford lookalike who even sounds like him, and they didn't cast him as young Han Solo or as young Indy himself in the opening to DOD, even though it would have been better than using a deepfake. They had no problem with using River Phoenix in TLC, so why the modern obsession with CG fakery instead of young actors?

    ROuXnrqPFcZZ02Mh5WImxHN0H0WTa73_Wq5550LcIjA.jpg?auto=webp&s=20da69728206b808ac944b1606edbcab81436a78

    I think Disney and the rest of Hollywood are testing the waters for making deepfaked Star Wars and Indy movies in the future using the likenesses of the original actors. It's pointless and dumb and even goes against the whole point of filmmaking, but nobody ever said these people were smart.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited July 2023 Posts: 8,452
    I have seen nothing but negative reviews for this film, so I went in with the most modest of expectations. As far as I was concerned this film rested on harrison ford. As long as they did Indy justice, I couldn't care less about any of the BS that happened around him. The difference between this film and Crystal Skull was that while both films are filled with distracting CGI sequences and credibility-stretching plotlines, Indy 5 has the heart and emotion at its core that CS lacks completely. This film by no means lives up to the originals, but it never had to. It gives Indy a fitting end to his 4 decade long adventure and that's all I wanted. 7/10
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    edited July 2023 Posts: 9,081
    slide_99 wrote: »
    The funny thing is that Hollywood has a Millennial-aged Ford lookalike who even sounds like him, and they didn't cast him as young Han Solo or as young Indy himself in the opening to DOD, even though it would have been better than using a deepfake. They had no problem with using River Phoenix in TLC, so why the modern obsession with CG fakery instead of young actors?

    ROuXnrqPFcZZ02Mh5WImxHN0H0WTa73_Wq5550LcIjA.jpg?auto=webp&s=20da69728206b808ac944b1606edbcab81436a78

    I think Disney and the rest of Hollywood are testing the waters for making deepfaked Star Wars and Indy movies in the future using the likenesses of the original actors. It's pointless and dumb and even goes against the whole point of filmmaking, but nobody ever said these people were smart.
    That guy (don't know who he is) really has a certain resemblance to Harrison Ford, and I won't comment on young Han Solo (quit watching new Star Wars films after the second ("prequel") trilogy because I hated it), but as for DOD, Indiana Jones is in his mid-forties in the 1945 scenes, and the last time we saw him before that year was in TLC (1938, was it?). And we know from KOTCS that he reached the rank of colonel in the war. A twenty-ish actor wouldn't be credible with that age and rank even if they aged him digitally. De-aging HF is definitely the better solution. And I think it worked out fine.
  • ZekidkZekidk
    edited July 2023 Posts: 3,278
    TR007 wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    matt_u wrote: »
    The biggest sin of KotCS was casting Shia.
    The biggest sin was letting Lucas get too much creative control, leading to a bunch of silly CGI animals.
    Lucas wasn’t responsible for CGI animals.
    I read years ago that the CGI squirrel in the beginning and the CGI monkeys in the jungle, were there because Lucas pushed for it.
    delfloria wrote: »
    What are the reasons DOD may not fair well at the box office? Is Indy a character from another generation than that of the movie going audience of today? Does a younger audience not want to watch an 80 year old actor, no matter what character he is playing? Just wondering.
    For action the young audience in general wants John Wick, Marvel/DC-movies, and Fast and Furious, the same way I preferred ROTLA, FYEO and First Blood as a teen in the early 80's as opposed to my dad's *Bullitt' and 'French Connection'. I know that I am generalizing here, but most teens today in the western world, have no idea who icons like Rambo, Rocky, Indiana Jones etc are, unless you show it to them. Darth Vader and James Bond will suffer the same fate in the coming generations.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited July 2023 Posts: 9,511
    slide_99 wrote: »
    The funny thing is that Hollywood has a Millennial-aged Ford lookalike who even sounds like him, and they didn't cast him as young Han Solo or as young Indy himself in the opening to DOD, even though it would have been better than using a deepfake. They had no problem with using River Phoenix in TLC, so why the modern obsession with CG fakery instead of young actors?

    ROuXnrqPFcZZ02Mh5WImxHN0H0WTa73_Wq5550LcIjA.jpg?auto=webp&s=20da69728206b808ac944b1606edbcab81436a78

    I think Disney and the rest of Hollywood are testing the waters for making deepfaked Star Wars and Indy movies in the future using the likenesses of the original actors. It's pointless and dumb and even goes against the whole point of filmmaking, but nobody ever said these people were smart.

    Did you see DOD @slide_99 ?; and I ask this with all seriousness: how is using deep fakes “against the whole point of filmmaking”?

    I don’t agree with it myself, but what’d you mean by this statement?

    And calling “these people” dumb is kinda arrogant. They may be greedy. They may be self centered and egotistical, they may be lazy, but I have yet to meet a “dumb” producer (maybe dumb as a fox, but that’s about it).
  • shimplyshocking007shimplyshocking007
    Posts: 131
    That chap has played Ford in age of Adeline so he could have played a young Indy but maybe a pre raiders Indy would work better.
  • GerardGerard
    Posts: 6,021
    We already got a pre-Raiders Indy. In Temple of Doom. Which is referenced in Dial of Destiny.
  • shimplyshocking007shimplyshocking007
    Posts: 131
    Well, yes, it is a prequel. A pre 1935 Indy then.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,081
    shimplyshocking007 wrote: »
    That chap has played Ford in age of Adeline so he could have played a young Indy but maybe a pre raiders Indy would work better.

    But for the 1945 scenes of DOD we definitely do not need a "pre raiders Indy", but someone who looks ten years older than the "Temple Indy", nine years older than the "Raiders Indy" and seven years older than the "Last Crusade Indy". And who looks 12 years younger than the "Crystal Skull Indy". But most of all, who looks credibly like Harrison Ford. I think they found the perfect solution that leaves no doubt as to who the character is. Employing a different actor would have been much more problematic because everyone would have wondered why the hell Indy changed his appearance between 1938 and 1957, but then reverted to his previous looks.
  • SomethingThatAteHimSomethingThatAteHim
    Posts: 533
    I’m surprised at all the positive comments in here, I got out of it and thought it was by far the worst one. Muddled motivations, plethora of nothing side characters, sluggish action beats, lots of unconvincing VFX, all the Indiana Jones tropes you’d look forward to are either rushed or poorly executed. Maybe worst of all Indy felt barely there despite being in almost every scene, kind of like a ghost haunting his own film. Third act was atrocious. Half a dozen screenwriters were involved and they still couldn’t crack a meaningful reason to bring Indy back into action or give him a compelling adventure to be a part of.

    I did find the opening sequence by far the most fun in the movie, which is strange because most I’ve heard say that’s the weakest part. It was quick paced, and had a lot more creative beats to bring both laughs and tension to the sequences. BUT I found the de-aging unconvincing and Ford’s voice distracted me the whole time, so even that part of the film I was not fully engaged with (not to mention including the Paramount logo only to dissolve out of the Lucasfilm one was honestly insulting and I wouldn’t be surprised if Disney insisted that Paramount couldn’t have the most prominent honors).
  • cooperman2cooperman2 Uk
    Posts: 380
    Saw it last night and initial feeling is not as bad as I feared but not as good as I'd hoped. Although it shares some of the problems of CS in its over reliance of CGI overall it's a much more entertaining movie. The pros.. Ford is as great as I would expect. Mads is a terrific bad guy, as good as he was in CR. I was particularly worried about Waller Bridge but actually she was very good and didn't dominate the film. Toby Jones very good. Loved Shaunette Renee Wilson and would have enjoyed seeing more of her character. Some of the de-ageing was excellent some not so much. The cons.. too much CGI and some of it shockingly bad(Indy running across the top of the train). Far too long it could easily lost 30 minutes. And a frankly ludicrous last reel. But overall much more fun than Crystal Skull.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited July 2023 Posts: 16,592
    slide_99 wrote: »
    The funny thing is that Hollywood has a Millennial-aged Ford lookalike who even sounds like him, and they didn't cast him as young Han Solo or as young Indy himself in the opening to DOD, even though it would have been better than using a deepfake. They had no problem with using River Phoenix in TLC, so why the modern obsession with CG fakery instead of young actors?

    ROuXnrqPFcZZ02Mh5WImxHN0H0WTa73_Wq5550LcIjA.jpg?auto=webp&s=20da69728206b808ac944b1606edbcab81436a78

    I think Disney and the rest of Hollywood are testing the waters for making deepfaked Star Wars and Indy movies in the future using the likenesses of the original actors. It's pointless and dumb and even goes against the whole point of filmmaking, but nobody ever said these people were smart.

    The problem is he's a terrible actor who is more dead-eyed than the CG Ford. Actually that's not fair; he's not bad, but Harrison Ford is Harrison Ford- unless you have the screen charisma of River Phoenix you can't do an impression of him and expect it to come anywhere near.

    He is actually in the film, incidentally. I believe he did do some doubling for young Indy, plus you can see him in the Tangier auction scene.

    8691ce671c8ef57c-600x338.jpg
  • ShakenNotStirredShakenNotStirred
    Posts: 1,399
    mtm wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    The funny thing is that Hollywood has a Millennial-aged Ford lookalike who even sounds like him, and they didn't cast him as young Han Solo or as young Indy himself in the opening to DOD, even though it would have been better than using a deepfake. They had no problem with using River Phoenix in TLC, so why the modern obsession with CG fakery instead of young actors?

    ROuXnrqPFcZZ02Mh5WImxHN0H0WTa73_Wq5550LcIjA.jpg?auto=webp&s=20da69728206b808ac944b1606edbcab81436a78

    I think Disney and the rest of Hollywood are testing the waters for making deepfaked Star Wars and Indy movies in the future using the likenesses of the original actors. It's pointless and dumb and even goes against the whole point of filmmaking, but nobody ever said these people were smart.

    The problem is he's a terrible actor who is more dead-eyed than the CG Ford. Actually that's not fair; he's not bad, but Harrison Ford is Harrison Ford- unless you have the screen charisma of River Phoenix you can't do an impression of him and expect it to come anywhere near.

    He is actually in the film, incidentally. I believe he did do some doubling for young Indy, plus you can see him in the Tangier auction scene.

    8691ce671c8ef57c-600x338.jpg
    mtm wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    The funny thing is that Hollywood has a Millennial-aged Ford lookalike who even sounds like him, and they didn't cast him as young Han Solo or as young Indy himself in the opening to DOD, even though it would have been better than using a deepfake. They had no problem with using River Phoenix in TLC, so why the modern obsession with CG fakery instead of young actors?

    ROuXnrqPFcZZ02Mh5WImxHN0H0WTa73_Wq5550LcIjA.jpg?auto=webp&s=20da69728206b808ac944b1606edbcab81436a78

    I think Disney and the rest of Hollywood are testing the waters for making deepfaked Star Wars and Indy movies in the future using the likenesses of the original actors. It's pointless and dumb and even goes against the whole point of filmmaking, but nobody ever said these people were smart.

    The problem is he's a terrible actor who is more dead-eyed than the CG Ford. Actually that's not fair; he's not bad, but Harrison Ford is Harrison Ford- unless you have the screen charisma of River Phoenix you can't do an impression of him and expect it to come anywhere near.

    He is actually in the film, incidentally. I believe he did do some doubling for young Indy, plus you can see him in the Tangier auction scene.

    8691ce671c8ef57c-600x338.jpg

    I knew I recognized him ! Really happy he got a cool cameo in the film.
  • TheSkyfallen06TheSkyfallen06 Buenos Aires, Argentina.
    Posts: 1,125
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 16,222
    I just got back from DIAL OF DESTINY and I loved it! Right up my alley and it really hit the spot.
    indiana-jones-5-harrison-ford.jpg

    I thought it had one great scene after another, and I loved Mads as the villain. I can't really find much fault with this entry and I have no problem ranking DOD quite high...............

    1. RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK
    2. INDIANA JONES AND THE DIAL OF DESTINY
    3. INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE
    4. INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM
    5. INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OD THE CRYSTAL SKULL
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    On a side note, given its $329M budget just to produce it, this film will likely become the biggest flop maybe ever.
    It won’t even top Raiders’ $389M gross… and we are talking about 1981…
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    2023 is the year of some truly major box office flops then.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,081
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I just got back from DIAL OF DESTINY and I loved it! Right up my alley and it really hit the spot.
    indiana-jones-5-harrison-ford.jpg

    I thought it had one great scene after another, and I loved Mads as the villain. I can't really find much fault with this entry and I have no problem ranking DOD quite high...............

    1. RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK
    2. INDIANA JONES AND THE DIAL OF DESTINY
    3. INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE
    4. INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM
    5. INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL
    Welcome to the club of DOD appreciators! I'd rather put it in fourth place right now but this is on a rather high level, like 8/10, along with TOD (as opposed to 10/10 for ROTLA and 9/10 for TLC).
Sign In or Register to comment.