RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,377
Posts: 5,504,656
Members: 25,125
Currently online: 592
Newest member: Ted Dave

TrekToday headlines

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Paramount Star Trek 3 Expectations
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Star Trek #39 Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Star Trek 3 Potential Director Shortlist
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Official Starships Collection Update
By: T'Bonz on Dec 15

Retro Review: Prodigal Daughter
By: Michelle on Dec 13

Sindicate Lager To Debut In The US Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12

Rumor Mill: Saldana Gives Birth
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12

New Line of Anovos Enterprise Uniforms
By: T'Bonz on Dec 11


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Future of Trek

Future of Trek Discussion of future Trek projects.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 18 2013, 07:36 PM   #136
bountifulboxesjeg
Vice Admiral
 
bountifulboxesjeg's Avatar
 
Location: bbjeg
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

BillJ wrote: View Post
Thing is, it's still just a variation on the same theme that we've seen seven-hundred plus hours of. That's kind of the problem.
What was in "Into Darkness" that we haven't seen?
What are they going to do go Warp 9.99999975 instead of Warp 9.975?
With technologies like transwarp and slipstream drives that were exstablished already, they can break the warp 10 barrier.
Star Trek is running into a problem that it has already used the same ideas over and over and over again.
The story in 2009's Star Trek could have been used in the prime timeline, future ship or not. All that was needed was new writers.
With Enterprise it was a glaring issue where they simply renamed technology that served the exact same purpose in latter series. Hull plating instead of shields, photonic torpedoes insteab of photon torpedoes, phase pistols/cannons instead of phasers. Voyager ran into the problem by first giving us the Kazon, which looked like Jamaican Klingons, then went to the Trek well over and over and over again.
Transwarp would be as confusing to a new viewer as NuTrek's regular warp is. Your point?
The strength of any new Trek is going to be based on its characters not the background information that people already know so well.
The same can be said about a new prime trek show.
And the strongest characters Trek has are Kirk and Spock.
Your opinion.
nightwind1 wrote: View Post
Uhm, "Enterprise" IS in the prime timeline.
I'm not knocking it because it wasn't the best series but a ship and crew that was never mentioned, aliens that never existed, with a plot that was suppose to use that alternate reality nutrek idea. Enterprise's series finally's "Hey, we're still prime trek" sadness can be your prime trek.

Last edited by bountifulboxesjeg; August 18 2013 at 07:53 PM.
bountifulboxesjeg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 18 2013, 07:50 PM   #137
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

bbjeg wrote: View Post
Your opinion.
Well...

The general population still knows the characters fifty-years after they debuted and the two newest movies have done about three times the revenue of the four TNG films would seem to suggest that Kirk and Spock (they are part of Time Magazines "100 Greatest People Who Never Lived") are still the most viable characters the franchise has.

What was in "Into Darkness" that we haven't seen?
I'm not sure where I claimed there was anything new in Star Trek Into Darkness?
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 18 2013, 07:58 PM   #138
bountifulboxesjeg
Vice Admiral
 
bountifulboxesjeg's Avatar
 
Location: bbjeg
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

BillJ wrote: View Post
The general population still knows the characters fifty-years after they debuted and the two newest movies have done about three times the revenue of the four TNG films would seem to suggest that Kirk and Spock (they are part of Time Magazines "100 Greatest People Who Never Lived") are still the most viable characters the franchise has.
Iconic characters =/= Strongest characters .
bountifulboxesjeg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 18 2013, 08:05 PM   #139
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

bbjeg wrote: View Post
Iconic characters =/= Strongest characters .
They are the strongest characters, almost every other character has been a variation of those two. They are also the most popular. Which makes it a no-brainer that if Trek comes back to TV, it will feature Kirk and Spock.
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 18 2013, 08:27 PM   #140
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

bbjeg wrote: View Post
nightwind1 wrote: View Post
Uhm, "Enterprise" IS in the prime timeline.
I'm not knocking it because it wasn't the best series but a ship and crew that was never mentioned, aliens that never existed, with a plot that was suppose to use that alternate reality nutrek idea. Enterprise's series finally's "Hey, we're still prime trek" sadness can be your prime trek.
If everything's new as you claim, wouldn't that make Enterprise your ideal Trek series?

That said, in ENT showed us a few species we'd previously head of in TOS but never seen, like the Axanar and Coridanites. The links are all there. It certainly fits as well and TOS and Voyager, which have completely incompatible ideas of how fast warp speed is (TOS, TAS, the classic movies and he new ones cross the galaxy at a whim, wheras it's a lifelong journey for Voyager), yet they still crossed over in "Flashback".
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 18 2013, 08:51 PM   #141
Shazam!
Rear Admiral
 
Shazam!'s Avatar
 
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

Belz... wrote: View Post
I sure don't. Move forward, I say.
When are they going to start?
Shazam! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 18 2013, 09:16 PM   #142
bountifulboxesjeg
Vice Admiral
 
bountifulboxesjeg's Avatar
 
Location: bbjeg
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

BillJ wrote: View Post
bbjeg wrote: View Post
Iconic characters =/= Strongest characters .
They are the strongest characters, almost every other character has been a variation of those two. They are also the most popular. Which makes it a no-brainer that if Trek comes back to TV, it will feature Kirk and Spock.
I'm not doubting that possible outcome at this point, but their are tons of characters, like Picard, who were made to not be another variation of Kirk, but I'm not starting a Picard vs Kirk character fight. I think I lost you in your meaning of the word strongest. If you're saying the companies strongest, then yes. I thought you were saying the strongest character role. Kirk is a hot headed smart space cowboy, which is why I like him, but the character has been done.

If instead of the reboot they made a post Dominion movie, same story, new crew, Enterprise G 20ish years after a mysterious lightning storm in space ship destroys the Enterprise F (with no other tie to previous stories), 2009 Trek budget and effects, and it turned out it was 27th century Romulan that destroyed Vulcan, and Nemoy's Spock pops up because it was his blackhole theories that doomed Romulus (told to him by Nero), and he runs into a marooned hotheaded commander (kirk-like), along with the other past blackhole scientist (scotty-like), and Spock believes the half-vulcan running the Enterprise G is emotionally compromised, and so on with that 'something starfleet lost premise', IMHO, They would have made the same amount of money. It would have been new and epic and 3D upcharged rewatchable.

Last edited by bountifulboxesjeg; August 19 2013 at 01:19 AM.
bountifulboxesjeg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 18 2013, 09:26 PM   #143
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

That's like saying Man of Steel would have been exactly as successful if it had starred a new, orange-suited superhero called Sunman.

The famous characters have an appeal. That's why reboots and prequels are so successful.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 18 2013, 09:38 PM   #144
bountifulboxesjeg
Vice Admiral
 
bountifulboxesjeg's Avatar
 
Location: bbjeg
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
That's like saying Man of Steel would have been exactly as successful if it had starred a new, orange-suited superhero called Sunman.
It's not, the movie I mentioned would still be Star Trek.
bountifulboxesjeg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 18 2013, 11:35 PM   #145
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

But it wouldn't be any Star Trek that would capture the public's imagination. I want to see the famous Trek characters again, not blatant ripoff descendants.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 19 2013, 02:42 AM   #146
Shaka Zulu
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Bulawayo Military Krral
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
Which are, of course, only read by those 100 people who voted at the con. Don't risk alienating your audience, Mr. Cox!
He's not alienating any audience that he knows of, but telling the truth as far as business realities are concerned, which you and others need to deal with.

Timewalker wrote: View Post
Damn, you're bossy.

Did I EVER claim to speak for you? No, not even once. The only person I claim to speak for is ME. It's MY opinion that I hate the Abramsverse crap. I wasn't at this convention, didn't vote, and have no idea what it was about. In fact, I've only ever been to one fan event in the US - in the late '80s, when I met Sylvester McCoy at a Doctor Who event at the PBS TV station in Spokane, Washington. So kindly do not tar me with whatever animosity you hold for the people at this other event. And taunting me with "your version of Trek will never be on TV or in the movies again, neener-neener-neener!" is just childish.
I'm not taunting you or saying 'neener-neener-neener!' anymore than anybody else here on this board is-I'm simply agreeing with them when they say that the Prime Universe isn't coming back no matter how much you and other fans want to see it come back, and I stated it in as serious a tone as I could convey on the printed page, just like those others. That you choose to be offended is your prerogative. You and others here can choose to see the fan shows, watch all of the old episodes and movies, read all of the older novels/comic books, and play all of the video games based on the previous continuity as much as you want until you're blue in the face or your eyes bleed, but you'll all have to face facts; the old continuity is dead, gone, finished (except for fan fiction, novels and Star Trek Online) and that's it. Your dealing with this, or not, is up to you and those others.
Shaka Zulu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 19 2013, 03:31 AM   #147
Santa Kang
Fleet Admiral
 
Santa Kang's Avatar
 
Location: North Pole,Qo'noS
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

bbjeg wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
bbjeg wrote: View Post
Iconic characters =/= Strongest characters .
They are the strongest characters, almost every other character has been a variation of those two. They are also the most popular. Which makes it a no-brainer that if Trek comes back to TV, it will feature Kirk and Spock.
I'm not doubting that possible outcome at this point, but their are tons of characters, like Picard, who were made to not be another variation of Kirk,
Picard is half of Kirk. The other half is Riker. Spock was split into Data, Troi and Worf. They even tried to take some Kirk away from Riker by making Picard into a action hero.
__________________
Nerys Myk
Santa Kang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 19 2013, 03:32 AM   #148
thumbtack
Commodore
 
Location: Ankh-Morpork
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
the "bean counters" couldn't care less what universe Trek is set in as long as its something that gets people in theatres or people in front of their TVs (or whatever)
Precisely.

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
I think what really will determine what universe a new Trek production is set in will be the person hired to create it.
Exactly.

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
If that person wants to use the prime timeline, the Abrams timeline, or a new timeline of his/her own, that person will be given the keys to do so.
Absolutely.











Now do the math.


.
__________________
Last Vote: 2takesfrakes, T'Girl, wulfio. Next Vote: Joel Kirk, orphalesion, Hapless Crewman, Synnove, HIjol.
thumbtack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 19 2013, 03:53 AM   #149
bountifulboxesjeg
Vice Admiral
 
bountifulboxesjeg's Avatar
 
Location: bbjeg
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

Shaka Zulu wrote: View Post
I'm not taunting you or saying 'neener-neener-neener!' anymore than anybody else here on this board is... ...play all of the video games based on the previous continuity as much as you want until you're blue in the face or your eyes bleed,

Not alot of us are saying that. Timewalker, if your eyes bleed seek medical attention.
...you'll all have to face facts; the old continuity is dead, gone, finished (except for fan fiction, novels and Star Trek Online) and that's it. Your dealing with this, or not, is up to you and those others.
Did you know they said the same thing about Kirk's Trek? If you believe 40 some years down the line, after the reboot craze (and that horrible 2030 fashion statement) ends, that a next gen reboot or throwback tv series is not even a possibility then try to open your mind a bit.
bountifulboxesjeg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 19 2013, 03:55 AM   #150
Timewalker
Cat-lovin', Star Trekkin' Time Lady
 
Timewalker's Avatar
 
Location: In many different universes, simultaneously.
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
JarodRussell wrote: View Post
Greg Cox wrote: View Post

Clearly, the much older Spock had revised his thinking after reviewing the latest theoretical studies from the Vulcan Science Academy.

Seriously, given that over a century had passed between "Yesteryear" and the Narada incident, it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that a better understanding of time-travel and parallel universes had developed over the previous hundred-plus years!

It's not like Einstein knew about string theory back in the day, and that was less than a century ago.
He WITNESSED how everything disappeared in CotEoF.

Had Einstein witnessed a spaceship going faster than light, he would have re-thought his relativity theory.
He witnessed it, but he may not have interpreted it correctly. I doubt his tricorder was capable of registering the existence of co-existing parallel universes.

Remember, time-travel itself had only been discovered a few months earlier--in "The Naked Time." It's not like anyone was an expert on the topic back then. They were still learning the ropes.

By the time Romulus blew up, there'd been over a century of additional thought and study on the subject.
Einstein first published his theories in 1905, if I remember correctly. 1905 + 100 = 2005. Your math is off a little bit, Mr. Cox.

(unless you're talking about his later published work... in which case, I have no problem with your calculations )

As for time travel only being discovered in "The Naked Time"... has it been established that this was the VERY FIRST instance of time travel in the prime universe? Considering the Enterprise and Borg's visit to Earth, I think not. That episode was just the first time anyone on the Enterprise had done it.

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
Greg Cox wrote: View Post
JarodRussell wrote: View Post

He WITNESSED how everything disappeared in CotEoF.

Had Einstein witnessed a spaceship going faster than light, he would have re-thought his relativity theory.
He witnessed it, but he may not have interpreted it correctly. I doubt his tricorder was capable of registering the existence of co-existing parallel universes.

Remember, time-travel itself had only been discovered a few months earlier--in "The Naked Time." It's not like anyone was an expert on the topic back then. They were still learning the ropes.

By the time Romulus blew up, there'd been over a century of additional thought and study on the subject.
Didn't the Guardian himself explain that the timeline was altered and needed to be restored?
The Guardian said the timeline was changed. It didn't say the timeline needed to be restored. It just provided the means for Kirk to do so, if he chose.

The Guardian had to be capable of storing data about multiple timelines, or Spock would never have been able to discover what would have happened if Edith had survived.

The Emissary wrote: View Post
Belz... wrote: View Post
My problem with the idea is that, aside from longtime fans, no one would care and it could serve to just confuse people.

Personally, I wouldn't mind, but since we've made the switch already, I'd rather just stick to the new timeline. Besides, we can still watch the older stuff !
No one would care? You say that with such absolute certainty. Do you really think that with a good story and a good cast, that it'd be pointless to try it?

Who would it confuse exactly? People who don't pay attention. Does Trek really need to continue to dumb itself down to reach out to modern audiences that find old Trek boring? I agree that jumping back and forth between time lines can get a bit cumbersome, but Abrams' Trek is only two movies (and then one more). It is not equal to the 40 years plus that's been on before it.

And honestly, my questions to the people that say we should stick with Abramsverse...are... How and why? Because it is the latest Trek? Because Trek is "really about Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise. No one cares about the other crews." What nonsense. If Trek was only about them, Roddenberry wouldn't have made TNG. The other Treks, despite the criticism they got, wouldn't have lasted so long. Trek is not about Kirk, etc.
This is a huge reason why I loathe the nuTrek stuff. It is dumbed down. The characters, their motivations, their actions, even the acting... are just too much like a cartoon meant to appeal to the lowest common denominator. And TAS, which technically was a cartoon, was far superior to nuTrek.

Roddenberry, et. al had their faults, but they never assumed the audience was basically stupid. Abrams does. I find that insulting, no matter if it's nuTrek, nuBSG, or nu-anything else (ie. Dune; KJA/BH started out assuming their reading audience was stupid, and dumbed down their books so people wouldn't have to actually think to enjoy them).

I'd rather think in conjunction with my SF viewing/reading. Consider all the university courses and papers and discussions that have been held over the decades about Star Trek philosophy, ethics, economics, etc. Anybody here think this nuTrek crap will generate that level of thought? I sure don't.

Hound of UIster wrote: View Post
Shikarnov wrote: View Post
I'm a fan of the prime universe for multiple reasons -- the main one of which is that it gave us something to aspire to. The new universe is designed to appeal for the drooling mass audiences who care nothing of big ideas, plausible (albethey fictional) technologies, or characters that actually work to earn their status, etc.

I understood that on ST09's opening day; in the bathroom of the movie theater, listening to two teenage street thugs who could hardly construct a coherent sentence, talk about how surprising it was that this new Star Trek was actually good. "And yo, man, that was hot when they was blowin up the black hole." I remember thinking in exactly that moment that Trek was truly and completely doomed.

That said, I think that NuTrek is well suited for the big screen. It's hard to derive 100s of millions of dollars in sales from Trekkies alone. But on television, I don't think this universe can carry its own weight. Real fans looking for more than a fun moviegoing experience will never tune in long term. For a long-running series, it will need to appeal to folks that enjoy a rich history and a wealth of ideas that produce many stories. And, sorry to say so, that's not going to happen with the new low-brow Trek universe.
Not really. Like you said it's so successful, because it's not intelligent and instead appeals to the lowest common denominator. Voyager and Enterprise did that, but the fandom ultimately rejected both. But Abrams managed to sell this version and most of the critics and fans ate it up, which goes to show how lots of special effects, good directing and explosions can hide all that superficiality and bad writing. I think you just need to come to a greater appreciation what he did.

Just think of those two hoods as new fans to ST and two more warm bodies that will help keep ST alive for another generation.

The franchise ultimately has to adapt to changing conditions. What Abrams did was for the good of the franchise.
Abrams deliberately dumbing down the stories, characters, motivations, and science is for the "good" of the franchise?

thumbtack wrote: View Post
The elephant in the room, the great big whopping fib, the bluff the bean counters are going to call again and again, is that Star Trek can only be smart if it is set in the prime universe.

No one in Hollywood is buying that.
No one in Hollywood ever will.

Star Trek can be smart anytime and anywhere it decides to be. What does 40 years of canon have to do with being smart?

A far more believable approach is needed if the canon fans are to be taken seriously. I can't think of one offhand and I've certainly never seen one posted on the internet, but it would have to be an approach that appeals to both logic and profitability.

It seems quite a daunting task. A precedent has now been set (twice) that it simply isn't necessary. How do you convince the creative types that they should be beholden to the canon fans? How do you convince the suits, who are well aware that the prime universe hasn't posted decent numbers since the mid 90s?

Maybe someone will come up with an argument that doesn't provoke the giggles. "Because that's how I want it" isn't going to cut it. In the meantime, I would advise saying "These movies are dumb." instead of "This universe is dumb."
Okay. The movies are dumb. The movies were dumb, so I'm convinced that the universe Abrams created is also dumb. He's done nothing to convince me otherwise.

Belz... wrote: View Post
The Emissary wrote: View Post
No one would care? You say that with such absolute certainty. Do you really think that with a good story and a good cast, that it'd be pointless to try it?
Pay attention: not one would care in which timeline this is, except die-hard fans.

Who would it confuse exactly? People who don't pay attention.
Don't project. If a character dies in one timeline and suddenly reappears, or the reverse, casual viewers who are NOT obsessed with reading and knowing everything Trek might get a bit confused, and confused viewers lowers ratings.
Yep, can't have viewers who might possibly have to exercise a couple of brain cells, at least enough to ask someone else a question or look up the answer online. I do that with some of the shows I've followed off and on over the years and am confused about. Hell, I've spent this whole summer watching 3 YEARS' worth of General Hospital because the current storyline keeps referring back to events that happened in a time when I wasn't watching. I got tired of being confused and decided to educate myself with YouTube and other sources. Are you suggesting that STAR TREK fans would be too lazy to do likewise?

Dumb down ? What are you talking about ?
Dumb down. To make smarter things more stupid, so they're not so difficult to understand or think about.

I am honestly curious about those that want to stay in this nutimeline, what will it be about? What can be done in this universe that can't be done by going back to the original?
How about we reverse the question: now that we're in the new timeline, why bother going back ? What can we do in the prime timeline that we can't do on this one (aside from having dinner on Vulcan, that is) ?
We could have more intelligent stories, and less character assassination.

BillJ wrote: View Post
The general population still knows the characters fifty-years after they debuted and the two newest movies have done about three times the revenue of the four TNG films would seem to suggest that Kirk and Spock (they are part of Time Magazines "100 Greatest People Who Never Lived") are still the most viable characters the franchise has.
They're only viable as long as there are actors capable of portraying them. These new guys can't act (in my opinion of course).

BillJ wrote: View Post
They are the strongest characters, almost every other character has been a variation of those two. They are also the most popular. Which makes it a no-brainer that if Trek comes back to TV, it will feature Kirk and Spock.
Uh-huh. TNG, as bland and PC as it was, survived for 7 seasons without Kirk. Spock was occasionally mentioned and was featured in a few episodes. He didn't walk in and eat the show, like Worf did to DS9. Star Trek does not require Kirk and Spock to be successful. It just requires the same universe, presented intelligently, respectfully, and without the character assassination that Abrams perpetrated.

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
The famous characters have an appeal. That's why reboots and prequels are so successful.
They may have an appeal, but they need to follow through in a way that's respectful to the audience, the source material, and have a story that makes sense. Take the Star Wars prequels, for example. They're dumb. Sure, the guy who played adult Anakin could do a hair commercial, but his acting is subpar, and that's the kindest thing I could say about it. The story doesn't make sense to me, and from what I've gathered from SW fans who are a lot more hardcore than me, the story made no sense to them, either. And I have yet to see all 3 prequels from start to finish. They're so boring, I literally fell asleep partway through the first one. I've heard that Harrison Ford may be in the upcoming sequel; if so, I'll give it a chance. But if the story is stupid, or retcons too much in a way that doesn't make sense, that's it. I'll confine my personal SW universe to the first 3 (in production order, obviously) and ignore the rest.
__________________
"Let's give it to Riker. He'll eat anything!"

For some great Original Series fanfic, check out the Valjiir Continuum!
Timewalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
prime trek

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.