Director's Guild winners

Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Post by Sabin »

Three things.

1) A lot of my friends are catching up to The King's Speech right now and it's going over rather well. I mean, gun to their heads, they will admit that the film is akin to being tickle-fucked by banality, but their apprehension was that it was going to be a dry, not visual case of BBC-stuffiness. And it's not. I don't know anyone who thinks it's great but all of my friends who are now seeing it are treating it with a degree of refreshment. Which is to say that if it is refreshing twenty and thirtysomethings in the industry, then it must be a geyser of welcome to the Oscar voting bloc elders scratching their heads in apprehension at The Social Network juggernaut.

What's great about The King's Speech? Nothing. But it's more pleasurable than a lot of my friends had thought, and that's enough to convince me that it's our winner.

2. Dogtooth.

3. Everyone Else.


(Big Magilla @ Feb. 03 2011,6:08)
Here's a typical IMDb. review I picked at random. It talks about how wonderful the film is, but the praise is mostly for the characters and the situation with no mention about art direction, cinematography or any of the other "arts" involved in the making of film.

I agree. That's why I'm a much bigger fan of The Social Network. It's a bigger triumph of technical conception than most films this year in addition to its other virtues. But then we broach the film vs. filmmaking argument and it seems to me that the voters will always side with the story over the substance. Who really spoke about the filmmaking in Brokeback Mountain? Or Crash? What about Martin Scorsese's directing did people really go on and on about? They just dug his sensibility, and likely there was a great deal of affection for the editing, but I doubt Michael Ballhaus' name got brought up terribly much, and I think his work in The Departed is much stronger than the post-work done on The Aviator. Speaking of which, the "great filmmaking" in The Aviator (and a lot of it is very cool) couldn't help it overcome Million Dollar Baby. Yes, The Hurt Locker, Slumdog Millionaire, and No Country for Old Men had a lion's share of discussion for their technical specifics, but less so than Avatar, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, and There Will Be Blood, or for that matter Atonement. I think discussing the filmmaking more than any other nominated film may be a new kiss of death.
"How's the despair?"
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

I should have seen that one coming. :D

To me, nothing this year deserves to be called great.
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Post by Damien »

Big Magilla wrote:
Damien wrote:
Big Magilla wrote:Several of us have written about the film's shortcomings, so there's no need to repeat them here, but I just don't get the praise for this thing, and I really don't think it's winning all these recent awards because anyone else does either. It's just a vote against The Social Network, which I wouldn't have a problem with if the vote was for something worth voting for. But what?
Big, I don't know why you keep repeating your mantra that people don't really like The King's Speech. I talked to threer more people today -- one's a hip sculptor from Williamsberg, another's a special needs teacher from New Jerseythe third is a prize-winning poet with far left politics and they all went on about how wonderful The King's Speech is. They praise it for its intelligence, humor and warmth. Sorry, but people ARE responding to The King's Speech, and I don't think I've ever seen this level of bitterness from a film's admirers against another film, not even the Tarantino fan boys when Pulp Fiction lost to Gump.
That's all well and good, but no one can tell me what it is they find so damn great about this film. I
And ever since I saw it, I've been saying the same thing about The Social Network.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

FilmFan720 wrote:Also, don't forget that Chicago barely squeezed in as Best Picture, almost losing to the last minute surge of The Pianist (with a much more sympathetic protagonist).
I'd say it's debatable whether The Pianist's protagonist is especially sympathetic. Being familiar with Polanski's other work, I'd guess he sees Szpilman as a guy who'd do anything -- screw nobility or character -- to survive. The film's success (in Oscar terms) was to make this opaque enough that, while people like me could hold that view, those older voters so inclined could see him instead as heroic and vote for the film on that basis.

It's not especially big news that a good chunk of Academy voters like to be emotionally engaged. Where the bigger fights come in is when that emotion tips over into sentimentality. Plenty of people found Brokeback Mountain moving, but its lack of overt heart-tugging -- its good taste -- probably worked against it with voters who preferred the cheap manipulation of a cute Arab child's life being threatened. And people here were pretty universally aghast at that.

When you get down to it, universalist arguments (including this one) are silly, because we all make ad hoc judgments based on our feelings in the current moment. You could have applied "cold-hearted movie/unlikable people" to Hurt Locker and "good cry/uplift" to Precious -- but if the latter had started running away with last year's guilds, many of the same people now thrilled with King's Speech's run would have been screaming bloody murder. (Damien of course excepted)
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

Damien wrote:
Big Magilla wrote:Several of us have written about the film's shortcomings, so there's no need to repeat them here, but I just don't get the praise for this thing, and I really don't think it's winning all these recent awards because anyone else does either. It's just a vote against The Social Network, which I wouldn't have a problem with if the vote was for something worth voting for. But what?

Big, I don't know why you keep repeating your mantra that people don't really like The King's Speech. I talked to threer more people today -- one's a hip sculptor from Williamsberg, another's a special needs teacher from New Jerseythe third is a prize-winning poet with far left politics and they all went on about how wonderful The King's Speech is. They praise it for its intelligence, humor and warmth. Sorry, but people ARE responding to The King's Speech, and I don't think I've ever seen this level of bitterness from a film's admirers against another film, not even the Tarantino fan boys when Pulp Fiction lost to Gump.

That's all well and good, but no one can tell me what it is they find so damn great about this film. I have disagreed with many of Oscar's choices, but usually I can understand what someone else sees in a film that I don't.

It seems to be the story itself, which has been done before on TV as Bertie and Elizabeth with James Wilby as Bertie, in which the stammer was not the focal point, which is what people are responding to as opposed to the presentation aside from the principal performances.

Here's a typical IMDb. review I picked at random. It talks about how wonderful the film is, but the praise is mostly for the characters and the situation with no mention about art direction, cinematography or any of the other "arts" involved in the making of film.

What a film should be, 20 January 2011
9/10
Author: Jack Blackburn (blackburnj-1) from England

[5 Stars] If the basic aim of any film review is to tell the reader whether or not to go and spend their money on a film, let me fulfil that now: go and see this film, because it is almost the very definition of your money's worth. Director Tom Hooper has delivered a witty, engrossing, moving and thrilling film, driven by an excellent script from David Seidler and an exemplary cast, led by two terrific performances from Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush.

The story of George VI, one of Britain's finest modern monarchs, and his struggle with his stammer has usually been a footnote in the history of the 20th century, swept aside by the tempest and tumult of the Second World War and the defeat of the Nazis. However, this film finds the deeply human story of the man who had been bullied by many crucial figures in his childhood and had developed a stammer, and found himself in the unwanted position of voice of a nation at the time of its greatest trial.

Firth is quite magnificent. Whilst Rush's Lionel Logue (the controversial speech therapist) has many of the best lines and is utterly charming, it is the power of Firth's subtle performance which makes the film so gripping. Far beyond the perfect representation of a stammerer that he delivers, one is with Firth's "Bertie" all the way, delighting in his charming story-telling with his children, and weeping with him as he discloses the surprising harshness of his childhood.

All of this builds and swells, never once dropping pace or losing the audience's interest. The final speech is utterly thrilling and spine-tingling, the perfect climax of a film which has made you laugh, cry and told a quite wonderful and inspiring story.
FilmFan720
Emeritus
Posts: 3650
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
Location: Illinois

Post by FilmFan720 »

MovieWes wrote:
rolotomasi99 wrote:I saw THE KING'S SPEECH in the first few weeks of its release, before the hype got out of control. While I always thought it had a shot at Best Picture, I knew for sure it could go all the way when the audience was sobbing during the final speech. I seriously had to hold back my laughter. I had enjoyed the film and found it quite entertaining, but I was very confused about why people were being so emotionally moved by such a simple moment. So he got over his stutter, that is great and all, but please do not act as if it is the equivalent of THE MIRACLE WORKER or something. I strongly believe it is the emotional connection the audience makes with the characters that is propelling this film to the top. THE SOCIAL NETWORK is about horrible people doing horrible things to each other. THE KING’S SPEECH is about friendship and love overcoming disability.

While the comparison of REDS vs CHARIOTS OF FIRE is good, I think another one is RAIN MAN vs DANGEROUS LIAISONS. According to IMDB, neither film won all that many precursors (I am not sure how accurate that is), but according to RottenTomatoes RAIN MAN has a score of 87% while DANGEROUS LIAISONS has a 93%. Here you have another case of horrible people doing horrible things vs friendship overcoming disability. The movie that made people cry won over the much more cinematically accomplished film. The analogy is not perfect since I think DANGEROUS LIAISONS is a better film than THE SOCIAL NETWORK and THE KING’S SPEECH is a better film than RAIN MAN, but my larger point is never underestimate the power of tears. Tears were the main reasons films like A BEAUTIFUL MIND, MILLION DOLLAR BABY, CRASH, and SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE won Best Picture. The Academy voted for the film they loved over the films they may have admired.

I really do not think it is a conspiracy against THE SOCIAL NETWORK. I doubt that many different artists could be pulling off some grand plan to deny one film Best Picture by rallying around another. THE KING’S SPEECH will win Best Picture because the Academy just likes it better.
Well, American Beauty, Chicago, The Departed, and No Country for Old Men were also about horrible people doing horrible things to each other and they still won Best Picture. I'd also argue that Crash was a far more negative picture than Brokeback Mountain.
Yes, but you could argue that they all won DESPITE being about "horrible people." The Departed and No Country won mostly because of the desire to honor their filmmakers, and American Beauty was more the emblem of a "hot new director" who took Hollywood by storm in a year being celebrated for its edgy, changing of an era type filmmaking (and was more accessible than alternatives like Being John Malkovich or Three Kings). Also, don't forget that Chicago barely squeezed in as Best Picture, almost losing to the last minute surge of The Pianist (with a much more sympathetic protagonist).
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
User avatar
MovieWes
Professor
Posts: 2019
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:33 pm
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Contact:

Post by MovieWes »

rolotomasi99 wrote:I saw THE KING'S SPEECH in the first few weeks of its release, before the hype got out of control. While I always thought it had a shot at Best Picture, I knew for sure it could go all the way when the audience was sobbing during the final speech. I seriously had to hold back my laughter. I had enjoyed the film and found it quite entertaining, but I was very confused about why people were being so emotionally moved by such a simple moment. So he got over his stutter, that is great and all, but please do not act as if it is the equivalent of THE MIRACLE WORKER or something. I strongly believe it is the emotional connection the audience makes with the characters that is propelling this film to the top. THE SOCIAL NETWORK is about horrible people doing horrible things to each other. THE KING’S SPEECH is about friendship and love overcoming disability.

While the comparison of REDS vs CHARIOTS OF FIRE is good, I think another one is RAIN MAN vs DANGEROUS LIAISONS. According to IMDB, neither film won all that many precursors (I am not sure how accurate that is), but according to RottenTomatoes RAIN MAN has a score of 87% while DANGEROUS LIAISONS has a 93%. Here you have another case of horrible people doing horrible things vs friendship overcoming disability. The movie that made people cry won over the much more cinematically accomplished film. The analogy is not perfect since I think DANGEROUS LIAISONS is a better film than THE SOCIAL NETWORK and THE KING’S SPEECH is a better film than RAIN MAN, but my larger point is never underestimate the power of tears. Tears were the main reasons films like A BEAUTIFUL MIND, MILLION DOLLAR BABY, CRASH, and SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE won Best Picture. The Academy voted for the film they loved over the films they may have admired.

I really do not think it is a conspiracy against THE SOCIAL NETWORK. I doubt that many different artists could be pulling off some grand plan to deny one film Best Picture by rallying around another. THE KING’S SPEECH will win Best Picture because the Academy just likes it better.

Well, American Beauty, Chicago, The Departed, and No Country for Old Men were also about horrible people doing horrible things to each other and they still won Best Picture. I'd also argue that Crash was a far more negative picture than Brokeback Mountain.




Edited By MovieWes on 1296774136
"Young men make wars and the virtues of war are the virtues of young men: courage and hope for the future. Then old men make the peace, and the vices of peace are the vices of old men: mistrust and caution." -- Alec Guinness (Lawrence of Arabia)
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Post by rolotomasi99 »

I saw THE KING'S SPEECH in the first few weeks of its release, before the hype got out of control. While I always thought it had a shot at Best Picture, I knew for sure it could go all the way when the audience was sobbing during the final speech. I seriously had to hold back my laughter. I had enjoyed the film and found it quite entertaining, but I was very confused about why people were being so emotionally moved by such a simple moment. So he got over his stutter, that is great and all, but please do not act as if it is the equivalent of THE MIRACLE WORKER or something. I strongly believe it is the emotional connection the audience makes with the characters that is propelling this film to the top. THE SOCIAL NETWORK is about horrible people doing horrible things to each other. THE KING’S SPEECH is about friendship and love overcoming disability.

While the comparison of REDS vs CHARIOTS OF FIRE is good, I think another one is RAIN MAN vs DANGEROUS LIAISONS. According to IMDB, neither film won all that many precursors (I am not sure how accurate that is), but according to RottenTomatoes RAIN MAN has a score of 87% while DANGEROUS LIAISONS has a 93%. Here you have another case of horrible people doing horrible things vs friendship overcoming disability. The movie that made people cry won over the much more cinematically accomplished film. The analogy is not perfect since I think DANGEROUS LIAISONS is a better film than THE SOCIAL NETWORK and THE KING’S SPEECH is a better film than RAIN MAN, but my larger point is never underestimate the power of tears. Tears were the main reasons films like A BEAUTIFUL MIND, MILLION DOLLAR BABY, CRASH, and SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE won Best Picture. The Academy voted for the film they loved over the films they may have admired.

I really do not think it is a conspiracy against THE SOCIAL NETWORK. I doubt that many different artists could be pulling off some grand plan to deny one film Best Picture by rallying around another. THE KING’S SPEECH will win Best Picture because the Academy just likes it better.




Edited By rolotomasi99 on 1296772658
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Post by ITALIANO »

The Original BJ wrote:I have to side with Damien on this one. I don't know a single person in my real life who doesn't ADORE The King's Speech. Everyone I know either flat-out loves it or can't wait to see it...or can't wait to see it again.

People look at me flabbergasted when I suggest that I wasn't crazy about the movie.

Same here. Friends, relatives, colleagues - they can't understand why I don't think that The King's Speech is a very good movie. They just adore it. This is the kind of movie people - rightly or wrongly - fall in love with. And in a way, it's pity - if it wins the Best Picture Oscar it will be considered by American film critics as one of the worst winners ever, only because of their adored The Social Network (which is exactly the kind of movie critics love to embrace). And it won't be the worst winner ever, definitey not.




Edited By ITALIANO on 1296772092
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

Applause in movie theaters isn't frequent where I live, but King's Speech got a round of applause during my showing. I disagree with it as I thought I was watching a movie that was two steps removed from Lifetime (those two steps being Geoffrey Rush and Colin Firth). But I can understand why people find it so good. They seem to be reacting to the fact that it's a triumph-over-adversity story.

I don't buy this whole How Green Was My Valley/Citizen Kane debate. Hooper is no John Ford. I think this is far more reminiscent of Reds vs. Chariots of Fire. Reds was popular with critics (though, not to Social Network's extent, it only won NYFCC and NBR in a tie with Chariots), but Chariots of Fire was populist, triumph-over-adversity entertainment and managed to win, I think, because it was such a positive film. That they both Chariots and King's Speech aren't directed by big name directors while Reds and Social Network are, it is probably the most apt comparison I can think of.

At RT, Reds has 93% positive, Chariots has 86%
Social Network has 97% with King's Speech at 95%.

So, while Social Network is tops by more critics, there was still a positive response towards King's Speech, so it's not exactly a critical failure.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Post by The Original BJ »

I have to side with Damien on this one. I don't know a single person in my real life who doesn't ADORE The King's Speech. Everyone I know either flat-out loves it or can't wait to see it...or can't wait to see it again.

People look at me flabbergasted when I suggest that I wasn't crazy about the movie.
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Post by Damien »

Big Magilla wrote:Several of us have written about the film's shortcomings, so there's no need to repeat them here, but I just don't get the praise for this thing, and I really don't think it's winning all these recent awards because anyone else does either. It's just a vote against The Social Network, which I wouldn't have a problem with if the vote was for something worth voting for. But what?
Big, I don't know why you keep repeating your mantra that people don't really like The King's Speech. I talked to threer more people today -- one's a hip sculptor from Williamsberg, another's a special needs teacher from New Jerseythe third is a prize-winning poet with far left politics and they all went on about how wonderful The King's Speech is. They praise it for its intelligence, humor and warmth. Sorry, but people ARE responding to The King's Speech, and I don't think I've ever seen this level of bitterness from a film's admirers against another film, not even the Tarantino fan boys when Pulp Fiction lost to Gump.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

When Rolo speaks, the Academy's listens. :)

I get that there are a lot of people who think The Social Network was over-hyped and over-rewarded by the critics, but the Guild awards and the Oscars are supposed to be for something, not against something.

I like sentimental movies as much as anyone in AMPAS and, in fact, considered and still consider Ordinary People and My Left Foot to be the best films of their respective years despite the critical consensus for Raging Bull over Ordinary People and Do the Right Thing over My Left Foot and Driving Miss Daisy, but there is nothing really sentimental and nothing especially moving about The King's Speech. In fact I think it goes out of its way to be unsentimental, which is a product of our time where sentiment is left to treacly made-for-TV movies and completely absent from high tone dramas that are catnip to the stiff upper lip set that ran (still run?) England during the time in which The King's Speech takes place.

Several of us have written about the film's shortcomings, so there's no need to repeat them here, but I just don't get the praise for this thing, and I really don't think it's winning all these recent awards because anyone else does either. It's just a vote against The Social Network, which I wouldn't have a problem with if the vote was for something worth voting for. But what?




Edited By Big Magilla on 1296759372
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Post by rolotomasi99 »

To qoute BROADCAST NEWS: I say it here, it comes out there.


How "The Social Network" became this year's "Up In The Air"
-Owen Gleiberman

Okay, I’ll own up to it. When it comes to predicting the winners of the Academy Awards, I’m a shameless amateur. An Oscar pariah wiener. At this point, it’s clear that I should simply leave the odds-making to my infinitely shrewd colleague Dave Karger, who had the Zen wisdom to see, weeks before anyone else, that despite the mountains of praise and accolades heaped upon The Social Network, The King’s Speech was still going to push all those Academy buttons — that it was exactly the kind of tastefully uplifting spectacle of Classy Anglophilia meets the Cinema of Affliction (think Ordinary People + My Left Foot + every British costume drama that ever got you to sniffle through a stiff upper lip) that is still, after all these years, catnip to a great many people who work in Hollywood. The PGA, the DGA, and SAG have all spoken. They all prefer The King’s Speech to The Social Network. So be it.
What interests me is that this lagging, if rather abrupt, indicator of collective underwhelmed response to The Social Network isn’t merely going on within the Hollywood guilds. All over the Internet — I’ve encountered it, quite often, on the comment boards of this site — moviegoers are standing up, with an “I’m Spartacus!” solidarity, to declare their doubts, their latent shrug, their dutiful respect but definitive lack of love for what was, up until a few weeks ago, the most robustly acclaimed movie of the year (and also, not so incidentally, the most popular acclaimed movie of the year). The responses go something like this: “The Social Network was overhyped.” “It was decent, but far from great.” “I mean, what were the critics gassing on about?”

Hey, if that’s how a lot of people feel about it, then that’s how they feel, right? To object can sound like a critic’s sour grapes. Except that I can’t help noticing, and wondering about the fact, that the backlash against The Social Network carries such a familiar echo of what I kept reading last year about Up in the Air. Overrated. Kind of thin. What’s the big deal, anyway? At the time, I chalked up the niggling backlash of disenchantment with Up in the Air to several specific things about it. A lot of the movie’s bashers seemed to loathe the ground, or maybe the air, that George Clooney walks on (I wonder what they’d think if he ever co-starred in a movie with Gwyneth Paltrow), and the fact that he played a corporate jet-setter, always flying away from all that downsizing despair, seemed to stick in a lot of people’s craws.

But The Social Network, though I guess you would have to say that it, too, is about members of the affluent elite (then again, so is The King’s Speech), is a very different movie from Up in the Air. It’s not a felicititous lark of a romantic comedy, or an exquisitely touching movie-star vehicle. It’s fast and brittle and nervous and icy-heady-cool, wired to the speed of minds that are hooked to technology. And frankly, the uncanny repetition of the criticism — Just okay! Not all that! Another empty critics’ darling! — has me wondering: Could it be that the real reason people are reacting against these movies isn’t that the movies are underwhelming…but that they’re understated? That they’re both spun from a subtle and super-fine psychological mesh? It’s hard to escape the suspicion that, as different as the two films are, the kind of gossamer dramatic nuance from which both The Social Network and Up in the Air are spun ended up working against them.

To me, part of the power of The Social Network is that you could take any dozen people who like it — who think that it’s flawlessly written, directed, and acted — and find that they don’t necessarily agree on what the movie is saying: what its true take is on the Facebook revolution, or whether the Mark Zuckerberg it portrays is more of an awesomely driven yet loutish betrayer or a visionary renegade-brain hero. That’s what makes The Social Network, to me, the kind of movie that you can watch over and over again, like All the President’s Men or Sweet Smell of Success. That, I thought, is what the praise for it was all about. It’s enough to make me wonder whether the Oscar-death-by-deflating-pinpricks it’s now on the receiving end of is really the covert expression of a hostility to any movie that is daring, and artful, enough to ask for our engagement without showing us its hand.

So will anyone join me in the backlash to the backlash? The King’s Speech tweaked my heartstrings too (hey, I’m not made of stone), but does that really make it a greater movie than The Social Network? Or does the fact that The Social Network, like Up in the Air, is such a critical darling say more about critics than it does about the movies? If so, what do you think it says?

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2011....the-air
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
Reza
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10031
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Post by Reza »

Hustler wrote:
Eric wrote:Rush is admittedly the highlight in this cast. I'd be cool with him upsetting Bale. Or, rather, I'd be among the 1% not apoplectic if he did.
Agree with you
Ditto !!
Post Reply

Return to “83rd Predictions and Precursors”