AVS Forum

AVS Forum (http://www.avsforum.com/forum/)
-   3D Content (http://www.avsforum.com/forum/196-3d-content/)
-   -   Godzilla 3D (http://www.avsforum.com/forum/196-3d-content/1532077-godzilla-3d.html)

tonyburns 05-16-2014 04:41 PM

HI
Im just back from watching this i thought the 3d poor i expected to see some objects flying from the screen or even some of the monsters popping out but nothing
My friends were disappointed as well im pretty sure this was a convert job and a pretty bad one at that Hansel & Gretel was converted to 3d and shows conversations do work when done right
The movie was well worth watching its just pity the 3d lets it down

Jedi2016 05-17-2014 08:19 AM

I'm guessing from your statements that you're in the camp that believes that 3D has to come flying out of the screen at you. This seems to be the consensus from what I keep hearing... "the film has no 3D at all", etc. You don't spend that kind of money on a conversion to create a 2D film.

So let me ask this one simple question: How is the DEPTH? 3D goes in two directions, remember.

You see, when you're dealing with something very large, like oh... Godzilla, just to throw out something random, it has to be very FAR from the viewer to give a sense of scale. If he were in the theater with you, it would significantly ruin any sense of scale the film may be trying to achieve. So in a case like this, the monsters should actually be very far away, rather than very close.

So... are they?

tonyburns 05-17-2014 03:54 PM

I look forward to reading your review once you've seen it was expecting a lot more
I didn't think there was much depth to it either what did you think of superman i thought that was terrible as well its botched up movies like these that are killing 3d

tbuick6 05-17-2014 06:24 PM

I saw it in a GENUINE Imax theater and thought the 3D to be perfect for its purpose. The only pop out was in the beginning as nuclear fallout "snow" sprinkled out towards the audience. All other 3D was depth and it added to the presentation. I was totally immersed in the experience and I believe the 3D added scale and mass to the monster goings on. I was truly impressed by the size of Godzilla and his adversaries. Best in theater experience I've had in quite sometime. Will definitely be going for another viewing and I can't wait for the 3D Bluray!

Don Landis 05-18-2014 12:19 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi2016 View Post

I'm guessing from your statements that you're in the camp that believes that 3D has to come flying out of the screen at you. This seems to be the consensus from what I keep hearing... "the film has no 3D at all", etc. You don't spend that kind of money on a conversion to create a 2D film.

So let me ask this one simple question: How is the DEPTH? 3D goes in two directions, remember.

You see, when you're dealing with something very large, like oh... Godzilla, just to throw out something random, it has to be very FAR from the viewer to give a sense of scale. If he were in the theater with you, it would significantly ruin any sense of scale the film may be trying to achieve. So in a case like this, the monsters should actually be very far away, rather than very close.

So... are they?

Exactly! In all my shooting of large mountains such as Valley of Fire and Bryce Canyon, Monument Valley, the basic scenery key subject in the scene is pushed back behind the screen plane. In Valley of Fire, I tried an experiment in extreme depth for the large mountains in the distance but then ALSO shot the ground extending all the way into the room in front of the screen plane. While I feel it worked. it made for some rather difficult 3D viewing to be able to see both extreme negative and positive parallax in the same scene. Too much of this and the view quickly gets eye fatigue. Plus, the scene like this requires a longer view time that can interfere with the story timing. This longer view time is necessary to allow the eyes to adjust to it. I found most people had trouble with these shots so I consider that experiment a failure and avoid that in future projects.

My current rules-
When shooting big stuff, push them back and avoid anything in the foreground, or allow the background to be flat and pop out some foreground object in center screen. Anything near the perimeter of the screen needs to stay just behind the screen plane to avoid edge violations, but this last rule is often broken with little consequence. Edge violations doesn't have eyestrain issues, just composition pros and con issues from some critics.

tonyburns 05-18-2014 05:01 AM

Im glad you enjoyed it me and my three freinds thought the 3d was pretty poor what did u think of superman
I watched Godzilla on a Sony 4K cinema

Jedi2016 05-18-2014 08:08 AM

I"m going to see Godzilla in a couple hours, I'll give my opinions when I get back.

I have Man of Steel on Blu-ray, but I haven't sat down to watch the 3D version yet. I'll watch it soon, and I'll be able to give you some thoughts on that one (and comparisons) in a few days.

tonyburns 05-18-2014 09:36 AM

Great i hope you enjoy the film

TonyDP 05-18-2014 12:43 PM

I saw Godzilla on a Real-D 3D screen today; to my eyes, the 3D fell into the "subtle and un-intrusive" category - in other words quickly tuned out and forgotten. There was no pop out of the screen to speak of and while a few scenes benefited from the added sense of depth, for the most part the 3D added very little to the experience and seemed largely pointless. Much of the film took place at night, further compromising and 3D effect.


In terms of the film itself I found it to be, like its titular star, big, slow and lumbering. The story is divided between the monsters and several human subplots, all of which fall completely flat. Brian Cranston is by far the most interesting and compelling human character, so it was a surprise and a disappointment to see the film quickly leave him behind (the trailers are really misleading about how much he directly factors into the plot). Aaron Taylor Johnson is, like so many actors of his generation, capable of only one expression: the blank stare; his quest to get back to his family and interactions with the military bring the film to a screeching halt again and again. The rest of the cast is made up of stereotypes: the clueless military, the worried mom, the wide-eyed kid; Ken Watanabe has a particularly thankless role that asks little of him beyond looking worried and spewing inane dialog about the insignificance of man.

For a disaster movie, there is very little disaster. Again and again, the camera arrives at the scene of carnage long after the monsters have left so that all we usually see are a few quick shots of the aftermath. The Las Vegas sequence in particular is so short that you could miss it in its entirety if you took a bathroom break.

As for Godzilla, the filmmakers waited far too long before having him flex his muscles. While we see glimpses of him throughout, he doesn't get to be the "force of nature" everyone spews on and on about until the final section of the final act. By then, they had completely lost me as I had been lulled into indifference.

So overall, I was really disappointed with this one and just don't see where all the fawning praise in the reviews is coming from. I found it to be a pedestrian, slow-paced and downright boring movie for much of its runtime and the flourish at the end hardly redeems what came before.

Jedi2016 05-18-2014 01:13 PM

Okay, just got back. On the whole, I really liked the film. This is the sort of Godzilla movie I've been waiting to see for a long time. Totally epic, way more than we got back in '98, without resorting to the cheesiness that most of the classic Toho Godzilla movies had. In response to DP's post above, this is not a Transformers movie, and does not require constant action and mayhem from start to finish. I found the slower pace quite refreshing after so many other recent examples of non-stop action. IMO, those movies tend to leave the plot behind. This one didn't.

Now, about the 3D. I saw it in RealD, big screen, big sound. This is apparently a nice setup at my local theater, because I've seen fantastic presentations there that some people complain about at other theaters, so I'm confident in the screen's ability to show a good 3D presentation. For me, I was not disappointed. But this is one that I think will be polarizing due to the large number of people that have some kind of need to see crap flying out of the screen to remind them that they're watching 3D. But I'm in the other camp... I believe that 3D shouldn't be blatantly noticeable, and should only be used to help boost immersion and, especially in this case, give a sense of scale. And that's exactly what this delivered. There are very few moments of noticeable negative parallax (they are there, despite reports to the contrary), and none of them involve any kind of gimmicky "OMG3DWOW" stuff. The rest of it is a "window into the movie" kind of depth, pushing back behind the screen, and by a pretty good distance.

To summarize:

If your kind of 3D is Sammy's Adventures, then this will probably disappoint.

If your kind of 3D is Prometheus, then this is right up your alley.

On a more technical note, the conversion appeared to very well done. It lacked that sense of "artificiality" that can often plague conversions. The result was a very natural feeling of depth, and I would have had a hard time pegging this one as conversion or native if I didn't already know it was a conversion. There are a few giveaways here and there, but I only saw them because I know what to look for, I don't see even a 3D-holic normally noticing things like that. There was also an odd shimmering here and there during some shots, similar to what my TV does if some of the image processing is left on during 3D content (I can only describe it as a sort of "wobble"), so I'm going to blame it on the projector or something in the setup. It only reared its head in maybe four or five scenes, all near the beginning of the film, and I never noticed it again after that.

Hope that helps for the folks that are on the fence about whether to see it in 2D or 3D. But one thing you shouldn't be on the fence about is whether to see this, or whether to see it in theaters. YES, go see it, and YES, go see it in theaters, and on the biggest, loudest screen you can find. 3D or not, it's definitely worth it.

tonyburns 05-18-2014 01:44 PM

So the 3d was crap then
LOL

TonyDP 05-18-2014 01:52 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi2016 View Post

In response to DP's post above, this is not a Transformers movie, and does not require constant action and mayhem from start to finish. I found the slower pace quite refreshing after so many other recent examples of non-stop action. IMO, those movies tend to leave the plot behind. This one didn't.

Believe me, the last thing I want to see is another Transformers movie; that is not what I was looking for at all. However I do feel the slow burn in revealing Godzilla went on far far too long. I also think having the devastation that the MUTOs wreak for the first 3/4 of the film happen off camera (or at best be shown via quick cut TV feeds that the characters were watching) was another creative misstep. It got downright annoying to me after a while as every time we are about to see Godzilla, the camera pans away, some heavy doors close to block our view, or something else happens to divert the plot elsewhere.

The human subplots just didn't resonate with me at all and if they had been all left out I'm pretty sure it would not have affected the outcome of the film in any way, thus making them largely superfluous (it's the Indiana Jones in Raiders argument all over again).

cakefoo 05-18-2014 06:01 PM

The cinematographer hates 3D and shot Godzilla as a 2D movie.

http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/godzilla-director-speaks-3d-go-see-godzilla-3d/

TonyDP 05-18-2014 06:10 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

The cinematographer hates 3D and shot Godzilla as a 2D movie.

http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/godzilla-director-speaks-3d-go-see-godzilla-3d/

In reading his comments, he sounds like a closed-minded and not particularly organized cinematographer; just another luddite who is stuck in the past and cares for no one's viewpoint but his own. Of course, despite his hatred of 3D he still cowtows to Scorsese and Cuaron - talk about gutless. Its a pity that the studios don't take a more active role in making sure these 3D films are helmed by people who are skilled in 3D cinematography.

Still, its just more evidence that the 3D in Godzilla was an afterthought and that the filmmakers put minimal effort into it - which is exactly what I got out of the presentation.

Toe 05-18-2014 06:24 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi2016 View Post

Okay, just got back. On the whole, I really liked the film. This is the sort of Godzilla movie I've been waiting to see for a long time. Totally epic, way more than we got back in '98, without resorting to the cheesiness that most of the classic Toho Godzilla movies had. In response to DP's post above, this is not a Transformers movie, and does not require constant action and mayhem from start to finish. I found the slower pace quite refreshing after so many other recent examples of non-stop action. IMO, those movies tend to leave the plot behind. This one didn't.

Now, about the 3D. I saw it in RealD, big screen, big sound. This is apparently a nice setup at my local theater, because I've seen fantastic presentations there that some people complain about at other theaters, so I'm confident in the screen's ability to show a good 3D presentation. For me, I was not disappointed. But this is one that I think will be polarizing due to the large number of people that have some kind of need to see crap flying out of the screen to remind them that they're watching 3D. But I'm in the other camp... I believe that 3D shouldn't be blatantly noticeable, and should only be used to help boost immersion and, especially in this case, give a sense of scale. And that's exactly what this delivered. There are very few moments of noticeable negative parallax (they are there, despite reports to the contrary), and none of them involve any kind of gimmicky "OMG3DWOW" stuff. The rest of it is a "window into the movie" kind of depth, pushing back behind the screen, and by a pretty good distance.

To summarize:

If your kind of 3D is Sammy's Adventures, then this will probably disappoint.

If your kind of 3D is Prometheus, then this is right up your alley.

On a more technical note, the conversion appeared to very well done. It lacked that sense of "artificiality" that can often plague conversions. The result was a very natural feeling of depth, and I would have had a hard time pegging this one as conversion or native if I didn't already know it was a conversion. There are a few giveaways here and there, but I only saw them because I know what to look for, I don't see even a 3D-holic normally noticing things like that. There was also an odd shimmering here and there during some shots, similar to what my TV does if some of the image processing is left on during 3D content (I can only describe it as a sort of "wobble"), so I'm going to blame it on the projector or something in the setup. It only reared its head in maybe four or five scenes, all near the beginning of the film, and I never noticed it again after that.

Hope that helps for the folks that are on the fence about whether to see it in 2D or 3D. But one thing you shouldn't be on the fence about is whether to see this, or whether to see it in theaters. YES, go see it, and YES, go see it in theaters, and on the biggest, loudest screen you can find. 3D or not, it's definitely worth it.


I don't need "crap flying out of the screen", but I do need aggressive and strong 3d depth. If the depth in this film is similar to Prometheus then this will be a disappointing 3d experience for me as the depth in Prometheus was much too conservative IMO. Oh well...........I will judge when I see it. I fall in the other camp that wants to know I am watching 3d and needs clear and strong separation from the 2d counterpart.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyDP View Post

I saw Godzilla on a Real-D 3D screen today; to my eyes, the 3D fell into the "subtle and un-intrusive" category - in other words quickly tuned out and forgotten. There was no pop out of the screen to speak of and while a few scenes benefited from the added sense of depth, for the most part the 3D added very little to the experience and seemed largely pointless.


Bummer. Thanks for the report. Why do we get watered down conservative depth 3d? If 3d is so subtle for a large portion of a film that it feels pointless, what is the point? Might as well just watch the 2d version in these instances.

Jedi2016 05-18-2014 06:36 PM

You do realize there are physical limitations to consider when it comes to depth, right? Having to do with separation and screen size? Ocular distance? No?

Don Landis 05-18-2014 11:58 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

The cinematographer hates 3D and shot Godzilla as a 2D movie.

http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/godzilla-director-speaks-3d-go-see-godzilla-3d/


Its obvious this DP doesn't care for a challenge of the genre, hates dealing with technical complexities of 3D, and wishes to stay in "flat world" cinema. I have no problem with that. It's a choice he makes, to do the easy job. I do have a problem when these guys are hired, they accept the job of making a 3D movie and then complain how much trouble it is to do their job. Generally speaking, a person who hates his job will do a lousy product so he is wasting everyone's time and money. It's a mistake for the production to hire a DP who hates the job. Let's grant him his wish and never hire him to do any movie that is in 3D ever again. When you hire enthusiastic people, they have vision and will make an effort to learn the technical aspects to put that vision on the screen. I want to see movies made by people who enjoy their job.

" Each lens change was 45 minutes, it was a disaster to align the cameras up. In the end we did it in post which is a much better way of doing it."

That says a lot! Tells me he clearly didn't know what he was doing. Yes, let someone else deal with the 3D in Post is a much better way of doing it says you don't know what you are doing on the set. In the business there is a saying when you screw up the shoot, 'Fix it in Post" I've seen directors say that often when they weren't the editor. For those of us who shoot and edit what we shoot, we work hard to get it right in the camera.

Thanks for the link. I won't bother looking at the film now unless it's free. Another Godzilla didn't excite me anyway, but now, knowing it was done by an incompetent who wants to blame the technology for his lack of knowledge, I'll pass on the film.

Don Landis 05-19-2014 12:42 AM

One more thing I see from the article. He says he likes to shoot dark because he likes dark look in his movies. One thing we all know about 3D is dark shooting is not as good as bright shooting. It deemphasizes the 3D effect and overall lots of shadow on the screen tends to go flat at the screen plane. That's another reason I will avoid spending money on this film.

BleedOrange11 05-19-2014 06:35 AM

It was definitely shot as a 2D movie, made up of a lot of quick cuts and horizontal motion and no story-related z-axis movement. Technically, they did a nice job with the conversion. Depth strength and roundness were fine for me despite dark nighttime scenes. It's just very bland creatively for 3D.

Don Landis 05-19-2014 09:16 AM

I guess the real question here is, Does the story make up for his inability to direct the 3D Photography? In the end, if the story isn't engaging, I don't care how good the 3D is, it fails. Story and performance of the story is key in my book.

Toe 05-19-2014 01:03 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi2016 View Post

You do realize there are physical limitations to consider when it comes to depth, right? Having to do with separation and screen size? Ocular distance? No?

Sure, but as I said, if those limitations equate to conservative barely there 3d, I have less motivation to watch in 3d and might as well just go 2d at that point.

SFMike 05-19-2014 04:20 PM

Won't see Godzilla until Tuesday but thought all these comments were interesting after reading the glowing review of the 3D use in this film on the Cinema Blend site.

[URL=http://www.cinemablend.com/new/3D-Or-3D-Buy-Right-Godzilla-Ticket-42967.html[/URL]

They end up saying "If you're only going to see one 3D movie this year, I'd make it Godzilla."
Can't wait to see this one for myself.

Jedi2016 05-19-2014 04:50 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

Sure, but as I said, if those limitations equate to conservative barely there 3d, I have less motivation to watch in 3d and might as well just go 2d at that point.
What are people like you going to do when there is no more 2D? Just not watch movies at all unless the 3D agrees with you? Is 3D some kind of major pain in the ass to you, that you only do it if it's "worth it" for the right kind of effect?

Because 3D is not a pain in the ass to me, so given the option, I'll take the 3D every time. I'd much rather watch a film with any kind of 3D than no 3D at all. The only exceptions being 3D that is technically flawed, which Godzilla absolutely isn't, the conversion itself is very solid. And that's saying something coming from a guy who vastly prefers native 3D over conversions.

Don: To my knowledge, the DP was not involved with the conversion. And it's not the DP's movie in any event.. it's the director's. And Edwards was involved in the conversion, and from his statements, I believe the 3D version is his preferred version. That's plenty enough for me. Unless, like you said, you just don't like Godzilla movies, in which case none of this matters.. lol. I'm not going to make you go see a movie you wouldn't enjoy regardless of what kind of presentation it is. wink.gif

ekaaaans 05-19-2014 04:52 PM

After reading all the comments it seems I made the right decision in buying the 2D ticket for this one.

Quote:
But this is one that I think will be polarizing due to the large number of people that have some kind of need to see crap flying out of the screen to remind them that they're watching 3D. But I'm in the other camp... I believe that 3D shouldn't be blatantly noticeable, and should only be used to help boost immersion and, especially in this case, give a sense of scale. And that's exactly what this delivered.

3D you barely notice?  A very strange thing to expend time and energy producing. Funny thing about stuff we don't notice...it doesn't much matter if it disappears altogether. Consumers being asked to pay extra(and WEAR extra)for a very subtle effect, are already starting to ask if it's worth it. I personally found the 3D experience of Titanic(by all accounts a very good conversion) virtually identical to the classic 2D. Nothing will make 3D go away faster than making it's use basically irrelevant.

 

Btw I don't feel like fans of 3D have to fall into the polar extremes of Sammy's Adventures vs. Prometheus. The aggressive pop-out strategy of Sammy would be a bad fit for certain projects of course. The increased depth has been used to spectacular effect many times. But seriously folks...a Godzilla movie ought to be an epic 3D playground with zero limitations.

 

As for the movie itself: I agree with some of the reviewers elsewhere that Godzilla is basically a co-star in his own movie. Until the finale, the director weirdly cuts away from every monster confrontation prematurely. Still...it compares so favorably to the Matt Broderick version from way back, and has such a great last act...I'm going with a marginal thumbs up. :)


TonyDP 05-19-2014 06:38 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by SFMike View Post

Won't see Godzilla until Tuesday but thought all these comments were interesting after reading the glowing review of the 3D use in this film on the Cinema Blend site.

[URL=http://www.cinemablend.com/new/3D-Or-3D-Buy-Right-Godzilla-Ticket-42967.html[/URL]

They end up saying "If you're only going to see one 3D movie this year, I'd make it Godzilla."
Can't wait to see this one for myself.

The cinemablend 3D review is stirring a bit of controversy as lots of commenters are crying foul about it being very misleading. In particular, it giving the film a 4/5 for pop out of the screen seemed pretty far out to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi2016 View Post

What are people like you going to do when there is no more 2D? Just not watch movies at all unless the 3D agrees with you? Is 3D some kind of major pain in the ass to you, that you only do it if it's "worth it" for the right kind of effect?

I think a better question to ask is just how many more movies are going to be in 3D going forward. If so many 3D enthusiasts complain about the subtle 3D of movies like Godzilla in forums like this, I think its a pretty fair bet that the average filmgoer (who does equate 3D with popouts and extreme depth) will avoid them completely. We've already started to see some movies only get 3D releases for the foreign markets. I only see that trend becoming more prevalent if Hollywood gives us too many of these types of movies where the 3D version isn't a sufficiently different experience from its 2D counterpart.

Toe 05-19-2014 06:51 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi2016 View Post

What are people like you going to do when there is no more 2D? Just not watch movies at all unless the 3D agrees with you? Is 3D some kind of major pain in the ass to you, that you only do it if it's "worth it" for the right kind of effect?

Because 3D is not a pain in the ass to me, so given the option, I'll take the 3D every time. I'd much rather watch a film with any kind of 3D than no 3D at all. The only exceptions being 3D that is technically flawed, which Godzilla absolutely isn't, the conversion itself is very solid. And that's saying something coming from a guy who vastly prefers native 3D over conversions.

Don: To my knowledge, the DP was not involved with the conversion. And it's not the DP's movie in any event.. it's the director's. And Edwards was involved in the conversion, and from his statements, I believe the 3D version is his preferred version. That's plenty enough for me. Unless, like you said, you just don't like Godzilla movies, in which case none of this matters.. lol. I'm not going to make you go see a movie you wouldn't enjoy regardless of what kind of presentation it is. wink.gif


We are definitely on a different page which is OK. I will commonly watch a new 3d blu ray in both 2d AND 3d and then decide which way it worked best for me. I certainly don't feel that just because a film has a 3d option that it is the best way to watch it. If a 3d film is so subtle for whatever reason that there is very little difference to distinguish it from it's 2d counterpart, the 3d is pointless for me and I would rather leave the goofy glasses off and watch in 2d. I want good reason to watch in 3d. cool.gif

2d is not going anywhere, at least not anytime soon and if it did, well of course I would adapt since I love movies. smile.gif

Don Landis 05-19-2014 08:27 PM

Quote:
Don: To my knowledge, the DP was not involved with the conversion. And it's not the DP's movie in any event.. it's the director's. And Edwards was involved in the conversion, and from his statements, I believe the 3D version is his preferred version. That's plenty enough for me. Unless, like you said, you just don't like Godzilla movies, in which case none of this matters.. lol. I'm not going to make you go see a movie you wouldn't enjoy regardless of what kind of presentation it is. wink.gif

I guess I shouldn't base too much on the reviews and some dumb comments from a guy who obviously was out of his element in shooting. It isn't the comments here from those who saw the mo0vie that the 3D was subtle, but more, the comments that the DP likes dark look in what he shoots. Every dark 3D movie for me has been a ruined experience if it was not bright enough. If it has to be shot dark, then maybe I will enjoy the 2D better. The Hobbit is about as dark as I will tolerate and I didn't mind that. Most animations are plenty bright.
The old story of Godzilla is not what I didn't like. I did enjoy it as a kid. I will probably enjoy this story in the 21st century. But, combined with the dark look, I just won't be putting it on my high priority list or will pay a premium, like I did with Frozen this year. Paying what I did for that movie is very rare. But, I sure got my money's worth as it has been played over 15 times now. The Grandkids just love it. But only the 5 year old will sit through the 3D. The 2 year old does about 30 minutes max on the 2D version.

I guess I'm through beating this title for now. We shouldn't make to rash predictions on the industry based on this one movie. Last year it was Pacific Rim debate and Del Toro's controversy. While the story seemed stupid to me, I thought the 3D was fine. I watched it once.

NickTheGreat 05-20-2014 10:12 AM

Our local news has been HD for several years now. WHEN WILL THEY GO 3D?!?!?

cakefoo 05-20-2014 01:36 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTheGreat View Post

Our local news has been HD for several years now. WHEN WILL THEY GO 3D?!?!?
When autostereoscopic TVs are $400 and have 16+ viewing locations, then we can maybe begin to ponder the possibility of 3D being more than useless for the news.

tonyburns 05-21-2014 05:37 AM

But seriously folks...a Godzilla movie ought to be an epic 3D playground with zero limitations that's what i was hoping for no doubt the new X-men will be much the same


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:57 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.