|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Jun 15, 2017 15:57:45 GMT
The formula is simple 1) Have non-threatening villains 2) Have lots of quips, lame jokes and goofy characters to keep things light hearted 3) Keep the story basic and simplistic so children can follow it (often using a MacGuffin plot device) 4) Heros conflicts are diluted to the extreme to make them appear unbreakable (when have we ever seen a MCU character go through genuine conflict like in Spiderman, Dark Knight trilogy, X-Men even the DCEUs MoS) The good thing about this forumla is you can predict future films will follow these same tropes. I know exactly how Black Panther and Thor Ragnorok is going to play out, and thats sad. 1) Have non-threatening villains - because Lex, Zod, Enchantress and Ares are so much more threatening right? 2) Have lots of quips, lame jokes and goofy characters to keep things light hearted - something that apparently majority of audiences love. WW had a lot of this "lame jokes" as you put it, and yet look at how much more people loved that movie over the humorless first 3 DCEU movies. 3) Keep the story basic and simplistic so children can follow it (often using a MacGuffin plot device) - I believe you mean keep the story cohesive and understandable so that people of different ages can enjoy it. What? You want everything to be a complex mess like BvS? 4) Heros conflicts are diluted to the extreme to make them appear unbreakable (when have we ever seen a MCU character go through genuine conflict like in Spiderman, Dark Knight trilogy, X-Men even the DCEUs MoS) - compare that DCEU movies where Superman's hair isn't even messed up at the end of his fight against Zod and Wonder Woman didn't suffer a single scratch after fighting Ares... the task at hand as set out by the OP is to define the elements of the formula prevalent in the MCU movies, not to go into defensive fanboy mode and counter attack the DCEU. Do you think that DCEU having weak villains somehow affects this being true for the MCU formula...?Your comments are beside the point and deflective. You are better than this, dude. Why don't you create a separate thread regarding the DCEU or X-Men formula instead? Should be interesting...
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Jun 15, 2017 16:13:57 GMT
1)because Lex, Zod, Enchantress and Ares are so much more threatening right?Β Zod was threatening, he actually gave Superman a good fight in terms of linguistics as well as brute force. The others pale in comparison but I'm not sure why your referring to DCEU villains specifically, just take any of the other antagonists from Spiderman, X-men and DC and you'll find they are treated better than as punching bags for the hero like in the MCU. The point I was making is that the formula forces the villains to be as little threat as possible so the heros get all the limelight. Not saying thats wrong, just highlighting it. There's little balanced humour in the MCU. Its directed towards the extreme end of the humour scale, again to appeal to the widest audience (mainly children). The timing of jokes in the MCU is what distinguishes it from the rest - its often at the time of a dramatic sequence e.g Ultrons omelette joke or Darcys goofiness during Thors battle with Malketh. You wont find this in non-MCU movies. Its cohesive and understandable yes, but that still doesn't mean its not simplistic. It doesn't take too many risks. That's not what I mean by conflict. I'm referring to inner struggle, self doubt and trajedy. Arcs like Toby Macguires Spiderman struggling to balance his life in Spiderman 2 and giving up his heroic duties and facing the consequences. Magnetos family being killed infront of him in Apocalypse. Xavier on facing his crippling addiction in DOFP. Wolverine contemplating the darkness of suicide in Logan. Bruce Wayne self doubting his Batman persona after the Jokers actions in Dark Knight. What do we see in the MCU. Tony Starks PTSD for 2 minutes and supposdly giving up IronMan at the end of IM3 only to come back straight away with no explanation in Age of Ultron.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jun 15, 2017 16:49:10 GMT
1) Have non-threatening villains - because Lex, Zod, Enchantress and Ares are so much more threatening right?Β 2) Have lots of quips, lame jokes and goofy characters to keep things light hearted - something that apparently majority of audiences love. WW had a lot of this "lame jokes" as you put it, and yet look at how much more people loved that movie over the humorless first 3 DCEU movies. 3) Keep the story basic and simplistic so children can follow it (often using a MacGuffin plot device) - I believe you mean keep the story cohesive and understandable so that people of different ages can enjoy it. What? You want everything to be a complex mess like BvS? 4) Heros conflicts are diluted to the extreme to make them appear unbreakable (when have we ever seen a MCU character go through genuine conflict like in Spiderman, Dark Knight trilogy, X-Men even the DCEUs MoS) Β - compare that DCEU movies where Superman's hair isn't even messed up at the end of his fight against Zod and Wonder Woman didn't suffer a single scratch after fighting Ares... the task at hand as set out by the OP is to define the elements of the formula prevalent in the MCU movies, not to go into defensive fanboy mode and counter attack the DCEU. Do you think that DCEU having weak villains somehow affects this being trueΒ for the MCU formula...?Your comments are beside the point and deflective. You are better than this, dude. Why don't youΒ create a separate thread regarding the DCEU orΒ X-Men formula instead?Β Β Should be interesting... Because his post was specifically written in a condescending tone obviously meant to belittle MCU. For example: instead of saying MCU movies have humor, he instead said they have lame jokes. Instead of saying MCU has weak villains (which IS a pattern for most MCU movies) he goes non-threatening villains - which isn't exactly true as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2017 16:52:08 GMT
the task at hand as set out by the OP is to define the elements of the formula prevalent in the MCU movies, not to go into defensive fanboy mode and counter attack the DCEU. Do you think that DCEU having weak villains somehow affects this being true for the MCU formula...?Your comments are beside the point and deflective. You are better than this, dude. Why don't you create a separate thread regarding the DCEU or X-Men formula instead? Should be interesting... Because his post was specifically written in a condescending tone obviously meant to belittle MCU. For example: instead of saying MCU movies have humor, he instead said they have lame jokes. Instead of saying MCU has weak villains (which IS a pattern for most MCU movies) he goes non-threatening villains - which isn't exactly true as well. Don't bother replying to trolls like Tristan. You're just giving them the attention they are so desperately looking for.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Jun 15, 2017 16:57:55 GMT
the task at hand as set out by the OP is to define the elements of the formula prevalent in the MCU movies, not to go into defensive fanboy mode and counter attack the DCEU. Do you think that DCEU having weak villains somehow affects this being true for the MCU formula...?Your comments are beside the point and deflective. You are better than this, dude. Why don't you create a separate thread regarding the DCEU or X-Men formula instead? Should be interesting... Because his post was specifically written in a condescending tone obviously meant to belittle MCU. For example: instead of saying MCU movies have humor, he instead said they have lame jokes. Instead of saying MCU has weak villains (which IS a pattern for most MCU movies) he goes non-threatening villains - which isn't exactly true as well. fair enough, we seem all a little bit sensitive about our preferred junk food diets here. Still, separate threads on the other franchise formulas should be interesting, with fewer films they are harder to decode, but they are still there.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Jun 15, 2017 17:48:13 GMT
This is a great post, and well said.
In regard to classics, I think already have. Avengers will definitely hold up, and I don't know about you but Civil War at the very least does, and all of the rest of the series will be definitive versions of those characters, at the very least for Captain America and Iron Man and I think once Ragnorak hits there will be a universally praised Thor film. Perhaps Marvel will one day decades from now have a different run at these characters, or perhaps a recasting will happen within the current MCU that surpasses what we've seen. But all of these will hold up as far as the eye can see, as the standard bearing versions for these characters.
|
|
|
Post by Atom(ica) Discord on Jun 15, 2017 18:20:02 GMT
I thought I would take a stab at documenting the so-called Marvel formula as many of the attempts in this thread lean towards some personal bias or agenda. The Marvel formula has good and bad components that are all equally worth discussion and analysis.
I prefer to think of Marvel's "formula" as a set of guiding principles or an ideology that informs their brand of storytelling. The actual existence of the Marvel formula should not be held in dispute just as the existence of gravity is no longer in dispute.
Also, using a consistent formula is not a bad thing in and of itself - just ask the folks at the Coca-Cola company. It is the overuse of formulaic elements that can provoke fatigue or boredom.
In no particular order, here are the key attributes of Marvel's formula.
Hero's Journey With the MCU, Marvel is concerned first and foremost with the hero's journey. They are trying to recapture the wonder, and delight readers must have experienced when reading Amazing Fantasy #15, Journey into Mystery #83, Tales to Astonish #27, Tales of Suspense #39, etc., etc.
DC has some of the most iconic and colorful villains in the history of comic books but, I've always been critical of their tendency towards villain fetishism. DC tends to create wildly unhinged villains whose personalities and modus operandi are so colorful that they often dwarf the hero. Villian fetishizing is a valid and compelling way to approach comic book storytelling but, it isn't something that I gravitate towards.
I prefer the focus to be on the hero. If a villain organically becomes a force in his or her own right, that's fine. I prefer that a great villain grows into their role as such rather than being designed that way from day-one - it's too contrived. Of course, the rules are meant to be broken as Nolan/Ledger proved with their insidious take on the Joker as a drifter and criminal savant whose motive is simply chaos for chaos' sake.
S.T.E.M. A big part of the MCU formula is science and technology. I appreciate this aspect of their method because it creates interest in the same amongst young people. There is a child or preteen out there right now who is watching MCU movies and dreaming up a practical way to build Iron Man's armor, Spider-Man's web shooter, Cap's shield or a floating fortress - that's cool to me. Some kid may be dreaming of a way to become Superman when he grows up but, he's in for a big disappointment, all you can do is admire Superman from afar (as is the case with many DC characters).
Phases Although somewhat inadequately defined, the Phase structure is another franchise innovation that Marvel should be given credit for. Phases act as chapter markers in the overall story and show Marvel's continued commitment to world building. They also mark big pushes into the deeper territory of the Marvel Universe. I think they work well if only on a marketing level.
Temporary death It's true, for the most part, no one dies in the MCU. It's also true that no one really dies in comic books - not even Bucky. This aspect of the Marvel formula is a holdover from the source material on which the films are based. You could always count on serious injuries being healed and destroyed cities being restored all in the space of 30 days in the funnies. If this trope bothers you to distraction, you are either not a fan of comic books or you don't have a firm grasp of the genre.
CGI Yes, this is an often overlooked aspect of the Marvel formula. There would be no MCU if computer technology and visual graphics did not catch up to the material. Sometimes it's executed well, and sometimes we see it split at the seams. It's never been out and out bad to me. I think that all comes down to the Director's eye for detail in the end.
Strong female characters Whether you're dealing with Black Widow, Jessica Jones, Maria Hill, Gamora, Nebula, Peggy Carter or Sharon Carter, Marvel has given us strong, relatable women who can get the job done without a lot of fuss or drama. Is there room for improvement? Sure but, I think they've done a pretty good job so far. Strong women is fundamental to the Marvel formula.
Humor The "problem" of humor in the MCU has been blown way out of proportion. By the complaints of some, you would think we were dealing with the broad humor of an episode of Three's Company or some vaudevillian shenanigans from the early 1900s. My only complaint on this front is that the humor is often snarky and sarcastic. Excessive sarcasm can make a character seem unsympathetic and mean-spirited in my mind.
McGuffin/Plot device Marvel didn't invent this trope but, they are using it, I think, to great effect with the Infinity Stones.
Post credit scenes Again not a Marvel invention but, a very innovative piece of marketing that has now become a signature for their franchise. It's always nice to get a little extra content for your money. Even if it isn't always earth shattering.
Freak of the week Just like comics, and TV shows, Marvel relies on a villain of the week structure, villains arrive with flare and panache and then are never seen again once they're dispatched by the hero. I am ambivalent about this aspect of their formula and would like to see them try something new.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jun 15, 2017 19:45:10 GMT
#winning
Seriously though, I think the formula is fun. Showcase iconic characters in an exciting, fantastical setting while keeping those characters relatable. Give the audience a reason to want to learn more about these people and they'll keep coming back for more.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jun 15, 2017 20:20:45 GMT
I thought I would take a stab at documenting the so-called Marvel formula as many of the attempts in this thread lean towards some personal bias or agenda. The Marvel formula has good and bad components that are all equally worth discussion and analysis. I prefer to think of Marvel's "formula" as a set of guiding principles or an ideology that informs their brand of storytelling. The actual existence of the Marvel formula should not be held in dispute just as the existence of gravity is no longer in dispute. Also, using a consistent formula is not a bad thing in and of itself - just ask the folks at the Coca-Cola company. It is the overuse of formulaic elements that can provoke fatigue or boredom. In no particular order, here are the key attributes of Marvel's formula. Hero's JourneyWith the MCU, Marvel is concerned first and foremost with the hero's journey. They are trying to recapture the wonder, and delight readers must have experienced when reading Amazing Fantasy #15, Journey into Mystery #83, Tales to Astonish #27, Tales of Suspense #39, etc., etc. DC has some of the most iconic and colorful villains in the history of comic books but, I've always been critical of their tendency towards villain fetishism. DC tends to create wildly unhinged villains whose personalities and modus operandi are so colorful that they often dwarf the hero. Villian fetishizing is a valid and compelling way to approach comic book storytelling but, it isn't something that I gravitate towards. I prefer the focus to be on the hero. If a villain organically becomes a force in his or her own right, that's fine. I prefer that a great villain grows into their role as such rather than being designed that way from day-one - it's too contrived. Of course, the rules are meant to be broken as Nolan/Ledger proved with their insidious take on the Joker as a drifter and criminal savant whose motive is simply chaos for chaos' sake. S.T.E.M.A big part of the MCU formula is science and technology. I appreciate this aspect of their method because it creates interest in the same amongst young people. There is a child or preteen out there right now who is watching MCU movies and dreaming up a practical way to build Iron Man's armor, Spider-Man's web shooter, Cap's shield or a floating fortress - that's cool to me. Some kid may be dreaming of a way to become Superman when he grows up but, he's in for a big disappointment, all you can do is admire Superman from afar (as is the case with many DC characters). PhasesAlthough somewhat inadequately defined, the Phase structure is another franchise innovation that Marvel should be given credit for. Phases act as chapter markers in the overall story and show Marvel's continued commitment to world building. They also mark big pushes into the deeper territory of the Marvel Universe. I think they work well if only on a marketing level. Temporary deathIt's true, for the most part, no one dies in the MCU. It's also true that no one really dies in comic books - not even Bucky. This aspect of the Marvel formula is a holdover from the source material on which the films are based. You could always count on serious injuries being healed and destroyed cities being restored all in the space of 30 days in the funnies. If this trope bothers you to distraction, you are either not a fan of comic books or you don't have a firm grasp of the genre. CGIYes, this is an often overlooked aspect of the Marvel formula. There would be no MCU if computer technology and visual graphics did not catch up to the material. Sometimes it's executed well, and sometimes we see it split at the seams. It's never been out and out bad to me. I think that all comes down to the Director's eye for detail in the end. Strong female charactersWhether you're dealing with Black Widow, Jessica Jones, Maria Hill, Gamora, Nebula, Peggy Carter or Sharon Carter, Marvel has given us strong, relatable women who can get the job done without a lot of fuss or drama. Is there room for improvement? Sure but, I think they've done a pretty good job so far. Strong women is fundamental to the Marvel formula. HumorThe "problem" of humor in the MCU has been blown way out of proportion. By the complaints of some, you would think we were dealing with the broad humor of an episode of Three's Company or some vaudevillian shenanigans from the early 1900s. My only complaint on this front is that the humor is often snarky and sarcastic. Excessive sarcasm can make a character seem unsympathetic and mean-spirited in my mind. McGuffin/Plot deviceMarvel didn't invent this trope but, they are using it, I think, to great effect with the Infinity Stones. Post credit scenesAgain not a Marvel invention but, a very innovative piece of marketing that has now become a signature for their franchise. It's always nice to get a little extra content for your money. Even if it isn't always earth shattering. Freak of the weekJust like comics, and TV shows, Marvel relies on a villain of the week structure, villains arrive with flare and panache and then are never seen again once they're dispatched by the hero. I am ambivalent about this aspect of their formula and would like to see them try something new. I wouldn't include CGI in this list, simply because pretty much every modern blockbuster uses CGI nowadays. So I don't think we can say it's a Marvel formula, more that it's a modern film formula. In it's place I'd like to suggest a different point: Fight choreography - MCU likes utilizing "up close and personal" types of fight sequences. They'll pan out and do wide shots every now and then when necessary but they prefer focusing on close-fighting. I'm not saying it's super close and shaky cam like Bourne stuff (though this is also used in some fight scenes), merely that they don't do too many wide, epic shots. This is quite different from say X-men who love making wide shots like Magneto lifting very huge things, Apocalypse tanking multiple hits with his shield, Phoenix disintegrating anyone within a specific radius. DCEU also uses a lot of wide shots like during Superman vs. Zod fight flying through buildings, the showdown with Doomsday, even the gun fights in SS. WW was a bit different in that it actually used a lot of close-up fights.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jun 15, 2017 21:19:40 GMT
The formula is simple 1) Have non-threatening villains 2) Have lots of quips, lame jokes and goofy characters to keep things light hearted 3) Keep the story basic and simplistic so children can follow it (often using a MacGuffin plot device) 4) Heros conflicts are diluted to the extreme to make them appear unbreakable (when have we ever seen a MCU character go through genuine conflict like in Spiderman, Dark Knight trilogy, X-Men even the DCEUs MoS) The good thing about this forumla is you can predict future films will follow these same tropes. I know exactly how Black Panther and Thor Ragnorok is going to play out, and thats sad. 1) Making the movie all about the villains is lazy.
2) Levity is a part of life, you don't see anyone complaining about the jokes in James Bond movies.
3) You must really hate Star Trek, Star Wars, Dr Who, Lord of the Rings, etc....
4) The MCU characters go through real internal conflict every movie, they just don't angst over it. Their characters are more human than most of DC and the X-Men, all those films have going for them is the "grounded" aesthetic that appeal to people ashamed of comics.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Jun 16, 2017 3:01:59 GMT
Subquestion: do the FoX-Men films have a formula? What about DCEU?
In what ways do they overlap and diverge from the lists we've already compiled for the MCU?
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jun 16, 2017 4:49:05 GMT
1)because Lex, Zod, Enchantress and Ares are so much more threatening right? Zod was threatening, he actually gave Superman a good fight in terms of linguistics as well as brute force. The others pale in comparison but I'm not sure why your referring to DCEU villains specifically, just take any of the other antagonists from Spiderman, X-men and DC and you'll find they are treated better than as punching bags for the hero like in the MCU. The point I was making is that the formula forces the villains to be as little threat as possible so the heros get all the limelight. Not saying thats wrong, just highlighting it. There's little balanced humour in the MCU. Its directed towards the extreme end of the humour scale, again to appeal to the widest audience (mainly children). The timing of jokes in the MCU is what distinguishes it from the rest - its often at the time of a dramatic sequence e.g Ultrons omelette joke or Darcys goofiness during Thors battle with Malketh. You wont find this in non-MCU movies. Its cohesive and understandable yes, but that still doesn't mean its not simplistic. It doesn't take too many risks. That's not what I mean by conflict. I'm referring to inner struggle, self doubt and trajedy. Arcs like Toby Macguires Spiderman struggling to balance his life in Spiderman 2 and giving up his heroic duties and facing the consequences. Magnetos family being killed infront of him in Apocalypse. Xavier on facing his crippling addiction in DOFP. Wolverine contemplating the darkness of suicide in Logan. Bruce Wayne self doubting his Batman persona after the Jokers actions in Dark Knight. What do we see in the MCU. Tony Starks PTSD for 2 minutes and supposdly giving up IronMan at the end of IM3 only to come back straight away with no explanation in Age of Ultron. Excellent post! skaathar just got owned!
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jun 16, 2017 4:53:22 GMT
^ Apparently, everytime someone disagrees with someone else's post that person gets owned.
|
|
|
Post by darkpast on Jun 16, 2017 4:54:08 GMT
white main, black sidekick lame female characters fake deaths lame villains weak third acts lame jokes Mass Marketing Stan Lee Paid Critics
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jun 16, 2017 4:55:47 GMT
white main, black sidekick lame female characters fake deaths lame villains weak third acts lame jokes Mass Marketing Stan Lee Paid Critics Great list! Very accurate!
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Jun 16, 2017 8:25:42 GMT
4) The MCU characters go through real internal conflict every movie, they just don't angst over it. Their characters are more human than most of DC and the X-Men, all those films have going for them is the "grounded" aesthetic that appeal to people ashamed of comics. "Their character's are more human than most of DC and the X-Men" - I cant believe you seriously believe what you type. They go through real internal conflict but dont angst over it? Its because they're not allowed to. They dont have the full capacity to explore these conflicts, they're brushed aside because going deeper would steer away from the MCU formula which is to keep the heros on a untouchable pedestal and not reduce them to flawed humans with weaknesses. Take Banner in Avengers 1 when he clearly says he put a gun to his head to end it all. A startling admission of emotion which is never re-visited or explained ever again. Its brushed aside. Same as the Stark PTSD problem in IM3. Every MCU hero is a Mary Sue, they have monotone emotions and are never shown to be at rock bottom. Doesn't help when the villains present no serious challenge.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Jun 16, 2017 8:31:12 GMT
Subquestion: do the FoX-Men films have a formula? What about DCEU? In what ways do they overlap and diverge from the lists we've already compiled for the MCU? The X-Men films dont feel manufactured, they are individually made with no real planning on the next one. And thats a good thing because it causes all the focus to be on the 1 movie instead of looking to set up another down the line.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jun 16, 2017 12:00:12 GMT
4) The MCU characters go through real internal conflict every movie, they just don't angst over it. Their characters are more human than most of DC and the X-Men, all those films have going for them is the "grounded" aesthetic that appeal to people ashamed of comics. "Their character's are more human than most of DC and the X-Men" - I cant believe you seriously believe what you type. They go through real internal conflict but dont angst over it? Its because they're not allowed to. They dont have the full capacity to explore these conflicts, they're brushed aside because going deeper would steer away from the MCU formula which is to keep the heros on a untouchable pedestal and not reduce them to flawed humans with weaknesses. Take Banner in Avengers 1 when he clearly says he put a gun to his head to end it all. A startling admission of emotion which is never re-visited or explained ever again. Its brushed aside. Same as the Stark PTSD problem in IM3. Every MCU hero is a Mary Sue, they have monotone emotions and are never shown to be at rock bottom. Doesn't help when the villains present no serious challenge. IM3 handled Starks' PTSD better than DOFP did with Xavier's booze and drug problem. Tony was still struggling with the PTSD until he was given proper advice on how to combat it, while Xavier got over 10 years of booze and drugs after a few minutes talking to his future self.
|
|
|
Post by Atom(ica) Discord on Jun 16, 2017 14:22:30 GMT
I thought I would take a stab at documenting the so-called Marvel formula as many of the attempts in this thread lean towards some personal bias or agenda. The Marvel formula has good and bad components that are all equally worth discussion and analysis. ... In no particular order, here are the key attributes of Marvel's formula. Hero's Journey... S.T.E.M.... Phases... Temporary death... CGI... Strong female characters... Humor... McGuffin/Plot device... Post credit scenes... Freak of the week... I wouldn't include CGI in this list, simply because pretty much every modern blockbuster uses CGI nowadays. So I don't think we can say it's a Marvel formula, more that it's a modern film formula. In it's place I'd like to suggest a different point: Fight choreography - MCU likes utilizing "up close and personal" types of fight sequences. They'll pan out and do wide shots every now and then when necessary but they prefer focusing on close-fighting. I'm not saying it's super close and shaky cam like Bourne stuff (though this is also used in some fight scenes), merely that they don't do too many wide, epic shots. This is quite different from say X-men who love making wide shots like Magneto lifting very huge things, Apocalypse tanking multiple hits with his shield, Phoenix disintegrating anyone within a specific radius. DCEU also uses a lot of wide shots like during Superman vs. Zod fight flying through buildings, the showdown with Doomsday, even the gun fights in SS. WW was a bit different in that it actually used a lot of close-up fights. Fight Choreography feels as much like a staple of big tentpoles just as does CGI to me.
Close-up Fight Choreography is a signature of the Marvel brand. I don't know if it gets used consistently enough throughout their movies to be considered part of their formula. I'll have to revisit some of their earlier films to be sure.
I added CGI to the list because most Marvel movies tend to end with CGI-heavy third acts. I guess DCEU films finish with the same but, I've only seen Man of Steel, Wonder Woman and half of Batman v. Superman, so I'm not a good judge.SaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSave
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2017 15:59:33 GMT
^ Apparently, everytime someone disagrees with someone else's post that person gets owned. We're all Kunta Kinte y'all
|
|