Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice movie thread for your reading pleasure 2 2

[40sJohn]

See, even the great movies have something that comes across odd. So why carp all over the Batman v Superman movie? Because it is easy with Zack Snyder and plenty of content squeezed into 2.3 hours?

 

You're talking about the minutia. Packing content into 2.3 hours isn't justification for a favorable review unless the content serves a cohesive story revolving around characters we care about. When discussing superheroes and science it's always a stretch of the imagination. We are asked to suspend disbelief. That goes for Marvel product and DC, ...and all things in between.

 

The problem with Zack's take on Superman has nothing to do with the pseudo-scientific aspects of his Kryptonian power. This is all about subtext and the message Zack's BvS film sends. It goes back to the first film, MoS, where Mr. Snyder established his controversial take on the character. Most of the criticism of MoS was driven by the cynical albeit successful marketing strategy to approach ministers and show them pre-release versions that played up Christian friendly aspects of the film. Then they were asked to endorse it and recommend it to their congregations. Heavy handed religious metaphors we're woven into the story making the character into a depressingly serious, angst-driven seeker of redemption. Along with lame death scene of Pa Kent and the uncomfortably misogynistic portrayal of women (Lois.especially) MoS pushed all the wrong buttons.

 

I only mention this to set the stage for the critical train wreck of BvS that followed.

 

Since I refuse to support films that offend my deeply held view that superheroes should embody positive attributes and be an entertaining fantasy without any preconceived or cynically motivated studio agenda I've chosen to forego the "pleasure" of paying to see BvS. I'm relying on the consensus of highly qualified reviews to assess whether Zack's vision of the character has evolved or remained uncomfortably dystopian and angst-driven. I won't review the picture (that would be disingenuous), but it's entirely fair and reasonable to express shared disappointment with those who've been treated to more of the same jumbled mess and convoluted apocryphal messaging that permitted the first film.

 

You're right, great movies aren't perfect either, but when it comes to cynical film-making you have to draw the line somewhere.

 

Interesting tidbit that I had never heard. I am a man of faith, deeply Christian, and yet I never had anyone at our church or denomination recommend MoS. However, I would contend that the Christ like similarities of Superman were first heavily stressed in Superman Returns. In fact, I used sections of the movie in bible study lessons. While I think MoS continues some of those same ideals, they were not near as obvious as in the previous movie.

[bababooey]

Did anyone notice what the most positive demographic was?

 

I mean besides him Ben. Females under 18 - 7.7

 

Edited April 16, 2016 by bababooey

[jsilverjanet]

"misogynistic portrayal of women"

 

I'm curious if you were as critical of Marvel and how they've handled women (lack thereof) and/or Black Widow character

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/28/the-avengers-black-widow-problem-how-marvel-slut-shamed-their-most-badass-superheroine.html

[Cat-Man_America]

Exactly, it's an estimate limited to folks who were willing to take the time to fill out a survey and provide personal demographic information about a film most of the participants apparently liked. It may be random, but it's unscientific.

 

This is one of those occasions when a consensus of RT critics input has more validity in assessing the merits of a film than genre fans. A consensus of critical reviews can't be trusted in every case, especially when films receive generally mixed reviews in the 50 to 60% range, but when a film can't even garner 30% positive reviews it usually indicates something is seriously wrong. Of course everyone's mileage varies and my opinion is no more valid than anyone else's.

 

So your purpose in this thread is if anyone posts a positive comment, you intend to post the opposite?

 

I'm just wondering. As you have restated the same points. But no dog in this fight.

 

My dog is too tired to fight, but reiteration is an art form unto itself.

 

I don't have a specific purpose in criticizing Zack Snyder's concept of Superman nor the intent to offend anyone. ...Am I biased? Only after a few ales! ...Do I have a hidden agenda?

I'll let you know when I find it.

[Prince Namor]

The day and age when a $200MIL budget movie does $800MIL worldwide and considered 'underperforming'....

 

And all those other costs... This movie did so much product placement, it easily covered that.

 

This movie is a win for WB

[Cat-Man_America]

The day and age when a $200MIL budget movie does $800MIL worldwide and considered 'underperforming'....

 

And all those other costs... This movie did so much product placement, it easily covered that.

 

This movie is a win for WB

 

I'd dearly love to have the difference between the $200 million dollar budget in your estimate and the actual budget including marketing, non-production expenses and Ben Affleck's cut with points.

 

That would be an even bigger win for me!

[Batman]

Exactly, it's an estimate limited to folks who were willing to take the time to fill out a survey and provide personal demographic information about a film most of the participants apparently liked. It may be random, but it's unscientific.

 

This is one of those occasions when a consensus of RT critics input has more validity in assessing the merits of a film than genre fans. A consensus of critical reviews can't be trusted in every case, especially when films receive generally mixed reviews in the 50 to 60% range, but when a film can't even garner 30% positive reviews it usually indicates something is seriously wrong. Of course everyone's mileage varies and my opinion is no more valid than anyone else's.

 

So your purpose in this thread is if anyone posts a positive comment, you intend to post the opposite?

 

I'm just wondering. As you have restated the same points. But no dog in this fight.

Woof

[Batman]

See, even the great movies have something that comes across odd. So why carp all over the Batman v Superman movie? Because it is easy with Zack Snyder and plenty of content squeezed into 2.3 hours?

 

You're talking about the minutia. Packing content into 2.3 hours isn't justification for a favorable review unless the content serves a cohesive story revolving around characters we care about. When discussing superheroes and science it's always a stretch of the imagination. We are asked to suspend disbelief. That goes for Marvel product and DC, ...and all things in between.

 

The problem with Zack's take on Superman has nothing to do with the pseudo-scientific aspects of his Kryptonian power. This is all about subtext and the message Zack's BvS film sends. It goes back to the first film, MoS, where Mr. Snyder established his controversial take on the character. Most of the criticism of MoS was driven by the cynical albeit successful marketing strategy to approach ministers and show them pre-release versions that played up Christian friendly aspects of the film. Then they were asked to endorse it and recommend it to their congregations. Heavy handed religious metaphors we're woven into the story making the character into a depressingly serious, angst-driven seeker of redemption. Along with lame death scene of Pa Kent and the uncomfortably misogynistic portrayal of women (Lois.especially) MoS pushed all the wrong buttons.

 

I only mention this to set the stage for the critical train wreck of BvS that followed.

 

Since I refuse to support films that offend my deeply held view that superheroes should embody positive attributes and be an entertaining fantasy without any preconceived or cynically motivated studio agenda I've chosen to forego the "pleasure" of paying to see BvS. I'm relying on the consensus of highly qualified reviews to assess whether Zack's vision of the character has evolved or remained uncomfortably dystopian and angst-driven. I won't review the picture (that would be disingenuous), but it's entirely fair and reasonable to express shared disappointment with those who've been treated to more of the same jumbled mess and convoluted apocryphal messaging that permitted the first film.

 

You're right, great movies aren't perfect either, but when it comes to cynical film-making you have to draw the line somewhere.

 

Interesting tidbit that I had never heard. I am a man of faith, deeply Christian, and yet I never had anyone at our church or denomination recommend MoS. However, I would contend that the Christ like similarities of Superman were first heavily stressed in Superman Returns. In fact, I used sections of the movie in bible study lessons. While I think MoS continues some of those same ideals, they were not near as obvious as in the previous movie.

From my perspective, there are no Christ-like similarities in MoS or BvS. As for Superman Returns, I'd have to re-watch it...

 

There is confusion between "Christ-like" and "godlike" - note the lowercase "g". Superman being perceived as godlike is an established part of the mythos.

 

Looking at the words in bold type above, I find it hard to believe with all the violence in MoS, it would be seen as "Christian friendly". The only time in the movie Superman turned the other cheek, it happened to be Zod's...

[Bosco685]

From my perspective, there are no Christ-like similarities in MoS or BvS. As for Superman Returns, I'd have to re-watch it...

 

There is confusion between "Christ-like" and "godlike" - note the lowercase "g". Superman being perceived as godlike is an established part of the mythos.

 

Looking at the words in bold type above, I find it hard to believe with all the violence in MoS, it would be seen as "Christian friendly". The only time in the movie Superman turned the other cheek, it happened to be Zod's...

 

I have to agree.

 

It is the perception of some in MoS and BvS that Superman thinks he is a god. Which is why they distrust him, and want to find a way to counter any good he may offer that world.

 

Seeing the hint of an alternate reality like Injustice: Gods Among Us where Superman becomes a tyrant demonstrates people's fears how far he could go. But even then, it is Superman using his power to force his perception of peace.

 

In an alternate reality, the Joker destroys Metropolis with a nuclear weapon, killing millions of people, after tricking Superman into killing Lois Lane and their unborn child. A grieving Superman murders the Joker in retribution. In order to permanently eliminate conflict, Superman establishes a unified world government which he leads as its new High Councillor. A war ensues between the forces of Superman's regime and Batman's insurgency. Five years into the war, the insurgency discovers another universe where the Joker's plan did not succeed, and teleports Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Green Arrow, and Green Lantern into their world to help them defeat the regime. Batman and the Joker are also inadvertently transported during the process.

 

I find that to be interesting in this version of the DC Universe.

 

 

 

[40sJohn]

See, even the great movies have something that comes across odd. So why carp all over the Batman v Superman movie? Because it is easy with Zack Snyder and plenty of content squeezed into 2.3 hours?

 

You're talking about the minutia. Packing content into 2.3 hours isn't justification for a favorable review unless the content serves a cohesive story revolving around characters we care about. When discussing superheroes and science it's always a stretch of the imagination. We are asked to suspend disbelief. That goes for Marvel product and DC, ...and all things in between.

 

The problem with Zack's take on Superman has nothing to do with the pseudo-scientific aspects of his Kryptonian power. This is all about subtext and the message Zack's BvS film sends. It goes back to the first film, MoS, where Mr. Snyder established his controversial take on the character. Most of the criticism of MoS was driven by the cynical albeit successful marketing strategy to approach ministers and show them pre-release versions that played up Christian friendly aspects of the film. Then they were asked to endorse it and recommend it to their congregations. Heavy handed religious metaphors we're woven into the story making the character into a depressingly serious, angst-driven seeker of redemption. Along with lame death scene of Pa Kent and the uncomfortably misogynistic portrayal of women (Lois.especially) MoS pushed all the wrong buttons.

 

I only mention this to set the stage for the critical train wreck of BvS that followed.

 

Since I refuse to support films that offend my deeply held view that superheroes should embody positive attributes and be an entertaining fantasy without any preconceived or cynically motivated studio agenda I've chosen to forego the "pleasure" of paying to see BvS. I'm relying on the consensus of highly qualified reviews to assess whether Zack's vision of the character has evolved or remained uncomfortably dystopian and angst-driven. I won't review the picture (that would be disingenuous), but it's entirely fair and reasonable to express shared disappointment with those who've been treated to more of the same jumbled mess and convoluted apocryphal messaging that permitted the first film.

 

You're right, great movies aren't perfect either, but when it comes to cynical film-making you have to draw the line somewhere.

Interesting tidbit that I had never heard. I am a man of faith, deeply Christian, and yet I never had anyone at our church or denomination recommend MoS. However, I would contend that the Christ like similarities of Superman were first heavily stressed in Superman Returns. In fact, I used sections of the movie in bible study lessons. While I think MoS continues some of those same ideals, they were not near as obvious as in the previous movie.

From my perspective, there are no Christ-like similarities in MoS or BvS. As for Superman Returns, I'd have to re-watch it...

 

There is confusion between "Christ-like" and "godlike" - note the lowercase "g". Superman being perceived as godlike is an established part of the mythos.

 

Looking at the words in bold type above, I find it hard to believe with all the violence in MoS, it would be seen as "Christian friendly". The only time in the movie Superman turned the other cheek, it happened to be Zod's...

 

Here is a screen shot from Superman Returns. No doubt certain imagery was used within that movie to relate Superman with Christ, not just a god. As to MoS and BvS, I think you are correct that the more obvious similarity is with Supes being a god-like figure, however, as a Christian I do see some more similarities with Jesus than other religious figures. (Except of course with some specific actions like, as you said, turning Zod's cheek. Btw, good one!)

[Bosco685]

Batman V Superman Original Cut Was Nearly 4 Hours

 

Based on what Batman V Superman Editor David Brenner shared with Steve Hullfish (of Provideo Coalition) however, the original cut was nearly 4 hours long. In regards to the original -script, here is what he said.

 

"It was a lot to juggle. So the plot lines of a couple characters had to go. These people are currently in the movie but we don’t track them, and it’s okay. What’s kind of fun is that we went back and did an extended cut where we put a lot of this stuff back, and we refined it into the same rhythm as the theatrical release. So what was once a nearly four-hour cut with absolutely everything was ridiculous – ended up being about a three-hour cut, once all these added story lines were refined with the fat was cut out."

 

"I remember being a little worried. Three and a half hours, okay, that’s fine for a movie of this size, the way Zack likes to work. This was more daunting. But we cut down “Man of Steel” from about 3 and half hours, I knew we’d get this done."

 

If this had hit the theaters, then it would have required an intermission break like the old movies offered.

 

 

[Prince Namor]

The day and age when a $200MIL budget movie does $800MIL worldwide and considered 'underperforming'....

 

And all those other costs... This movie did so much product placement, it easily covered that.

 

This movie is a win for WB

 

I'd dearly love to have the difference between the $200 million dollar budget in your estimate and the actual budget including marketing, non-production expenses and Ben Affleck's cut with points.

 

That would be an even bigger win for me!

 

They made millions in product placement which off set who knows how much of those costs.

 

Product Placement in BVS

[Batman]

Batman V Superman Original Cut Was Nearly 4 Hours

 

Based on what Batman V Superman Editor David Brenner shared with Steve Hullfish (of Provideo Coalition) however, the original cut was nearly 4 hours long. In regards to the original -script, here is what he said.

 

"It was a lot to juggle. So the plot lines of a couple characters had to go. These people are currently in the movie but we don’t track them, and it’s okay. What’s kind of fun is that we went back and did an extended cut where we put a lot of this stuff back, and we refined it into the same rhythm as the theatrical release. So what was once a nearly four-hour cut with absolutely everything was ridiculous – ended up being about a three-hour cut, once all these added story lines were refined with the fat was cut out."

 

"I remember being a little worried. Three and a half hours, okay, that’s fine for a movie of this size, the way Zack likes to work. This was more daunting. But we cut down “Man of Steel” from about 3 and half hours, I knew we’d get this done."

 

If this had hit the theaters, then it would have required an intermission break like the old movies offered.

 

 

 

I was thinking "interval" (as we'd call here) even before I scrolled down to look at the clips!

 

4 hour cut...

[Batman]

See, even the great movies have something that comes across odd. So why carp all over the Batman v Superman movie? Because it is easy with Zack Snyder and plenty of content squeezed into 2.3 hours?

 

You're talking about the minutia. Packing content into 2.3 hours isn't justification for a favorable review unless the content serves a cohesive story revolving around characters we care about. When discussing superheroes and science it's always a stretch of the imagination. We are asked to suspend disbelief. That goes for Marvel product and DC, ...and all things in between.

 

The problem with Zack's take on Superman has nothing to do with the pseudo-scientific aspects of his Kryptonian power. This is all about subtext and the message Zack's BvS film sends. It goes back to the first film, MoS, where Mr. Snyder established his controversial take on the character. Most of the criticism of MoS was driven by the cynical albeit successful marketing strategy to approach ministers and show them pre-release versions that played up Christian friendly aspects of the film. Then they were asked to endorse it and recommend it to their congregations. Heavy handed religious metaphors we're woven into the story making the character into a depressingly serious, angst-driven seeker of redemption. Along with lame death scene of Pa Kent and the uncomfortably misogynistic portrayal of women (Lois.especially) MoS pushed all the wrong buttons.

 

I only mention this to set the stage for the critical train wreck of BvS that followed.

 

Since I refuse to support films that offend my deeply held view that superheroes should embody positive attributes and be an entertaining fantasy without any preconceived or cynically motivated studio agenda I've chosen to forego the "pleasure" of paying to see BvS. I'm relying on the consensus of highly qualified reviews to assess whether Zack's vision of the character has evolved or remained uncomfortably dystopian and angst-driven. I won't review the picture (that would be disingenuous), but it's entirely fair and reasonable to express shared disappointment with those who've been treated to more of the same jumbled mess and convoluted apocryphal messaging that permitted the first film.

 

You're right, great movies aren't perfect either, but when it comes to cynical film-making you have to draw the line somewhere.

Interesting tidbit that I had never heard. I am a man of faith, deeply Christian, and yet I never had anyone at our church or denomination recommend MoS. However, I would contend that the Christ like similarities of Superman were first heavily stressed in Superman Returns. In fact, I used sections of the movie in bible study lessons. While I think MoS continues some of those same ideals, they were not near as obvious as in the previous movie.

From my perspective, there are no Christ-like similarities in MoS or BvS. As for Superman Returns, I'd have to re-watch it...

 

There is confusion between "Christ-like" and "godlike" - note the lowercase "g". Superman being perceived as godlike is an established part of the mythos.

 

Looking at the words in bold type above, I find it hard to believe with all the violence in MoS, it would be seen as "Christian friendly". The only time in the movie Superman turned the other cheek, it happened to be Zod's...

 

Here is a screen shot from Superman Returns. No doubt certain imagery was used within that movie to relate Superman with Christ, not just a god. As to MoS and BvS, I think you are correct that the more obvious similarity is with Supes being a god-like figure, however, as a Christian I do see some more similarities with Jesus than other religious figures. (Except of course with some specific actions like, as you said, turning Zod's cheek. Btw, good one!)

That is intriguing...

 

For the first time ever, I find myself wanting to re-watch Superman Returns!

 

We have a "magician" over here who's used similar promotional imagery in the past. You can't help but think "get your own style"

 

And thanks, John!

[drotto]

I heard about the four hour original cut. Wow, think of how much cheaper a Zack Snyder movie budget would be if he was actually capable of shooting to a reasonable length. No wonder budgets explode when he does not use 30% of what he shoots.

[gadzukes]

See, even the great movies have something that comes across odd. So why carp all over the Batman v Superman movie? Because it is easy with Zack Snyder and plenty of content squeezed into 2.3 hours?

 

You're talking about the minutia. Packing content into 2.3 hours isn't justification for a favorable review unless the content serves a cohesive story revolving around characters we care about. When discussing superheroes and science it's always a stretch of the imagination. We are asked to suspend disbelief. That goes for Marvel product and DC, ...and all things in between.

 

The problem with Zack's take on Superman has nothing to do with the pseudo-scientific aspects of his Kryptonian power. This is all about subtext and the message Zack's BvS film sends. It goes back to the first film, MoS, where Mr. Snyder established his controversial take on the character. Most of the criticism of MoS was driven by the cynical albeit successful marketing strategy to approach ministers and show them pre-release versions that played up Christian friendly aspects of the film. Then they were asked to endorse it and recommend it to their congregations. Heavy handed religious metaphors we're woven into the story making the character into a depressingly serious, angst-driven seeker of redemption. Along with lame death scene of Pa Kent and the uncomfortably misogynistic portrayal of women (Lois.especially) MoS pushed all the wrong buttons.

 

I only mention this to set the stage for the critical train wreck of BvS that followed.

 

Since I refuse to support films that offend my deeply held view that superheroes should embody positive attributes and be an entertaining fantasy without any preconceived or cynically motivated studio agenda I've chosen to forego the "pleasure" of paying to see BvS. I'm relying on the consensus of highly qualified reviews to assess whether Zack's vision of the character has evolved or remained uncomfortably dystopian and angst-driven. I won't review the picture (that would be disingenuous), but it's entirely fair and reasonable to express shared disappointment with those who've been treated to more of the same jumbled mess and convoluted apocryphal messaging that permitted the first film.

 

You're right, great movies aren't perfect either, but when it comes to cynical film-making you have to draw the line somewhere.

Interesting tidbit that I had never heard. I am a man of faith, deeply Christian, and yet I never had anyone at our church or denomination recommend MoS. However, I would contend that the Christ like similarities of Superman were first heavily stressed in Superman Returns. In fact, I used sections of the movie in bible study lessons. While I think MoS continues some of those same ideals, they were not near as obvious as in the previous movie.

From my perspective, there are no Christ-like similarities in MoS or BvS. As for Superman Returns, I'd have to re-watch it...

 

There is confusion between "Christ-like" and "godlike" - note the lowercase "g". Superman being perceived as godlike is an established part of the mythos.

 

Looking at the words in bold type above, I find it hard to believe with all the violence in MoS, it would be seen as "Christian friendly". The only time in the movie Superman turned the other cheek, it happened to be Zod's...

 

Here is a screen shot from Superman Returns. No doubt certain imagery was used within that movie to relate Superman with Christ, not just a god. As to MoS and BvS, I think you are correct that the more obvious similarity is with Supes being a god-like figure, however, as a Christian I do see some more similarities with Jesus than other religious figures. (Except of course with some specific actions like, as you said, turning Zod's cheek. Btw, good one!)

 

This makes me think of the scene from "Cool Hand Luke" after he eats the 50 eggs. The director turned him into a Christ figure on the table.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1871/2060/1600/Cool%20Hand%20Luke%20cruciform.jpg

[Batman]

I heard about the four hour original cut. Wow, think of how much cheaper a Zack Snyder movie budget would be if he was actually capable of shooting to a reasonable length. No wonder budgets explode when he does not use 30% of what he shoots.

That's not bad. For most males, it's usually 99.999999999999999999999...%

[40sJohn]

See, even the great movies have something that comes across odd. So why carp all over the Batman v Superman movie? Because it is easy with Zack Snyder and plenty of content squeezed into 2.3 hours?

 

You're talking about the minutia. Packing content into 2.3 hours isn't justification for a favorable review unless the content serves a cohesive story revolving around characters we care about. When discussing superheroes and science it's always a stretch of the imagination. We are asked to suspend disbelief. That goes for Marvel product and DC, ...and all things in between.

 

The problem with Zack's take on Superman has nothing to do with the pseudo-scientific aspects of his Kryptonian power. This is all about subtext and the message Zack's BvS film sends. It goes back to the first film, MoS, where Mr. Snyder established his controversial take on the character. Most of the criticism of MoS was driven by the cynical albeit successful marketing strategy to approach ministers and show them pre-release versions that played up Christian friendly aspects of the film. Then they were asked to endorse it and recommend it to their congregations. Heavy handed religious metaphors we're woven into the story making the character into a depressingly serious, angst-driven seeker of redemption. Along with lame death scene of Pa Kent and the uncomfortably misogynistic portrayal of women (Lois.especially) MoS pushed all the wrong buttons.

 

I only mention this to set the stage for the critical train wreck of BvS that followed.

 

Since I refuse to support films that offend my deeply held view that superheroes should embody positive attributes and be an entertaining fantasy without any preconceived or cynically motivated studio agenda I've chosen to forego the "pleasure" of paying to see BvS. I'm relying on the consensus of highly qualified reviews to assess whether Zack's vision of the character has evolved or remained uncomfortably dystopian and angst-driven. I won't review the picture (that would be disingenuous), but it's entirely fair and reasonable to express shared disappointment with those who've been treated to more of the same jumbled mess and convoluted apocryphal messaging that permitted the first film.

 

You're right, great movies aren't perfect either, but when it comes to cynical film-making you have to draw the line somewhere.

Interesting tidbit that I had never heard. I am a man of faith, deeply Christian, and yet I never had anyone at our church or denomination recommend MoS. However, I would contend that the Christ like similarities of Superman were first heavily stressed in Superman Returns. In fact, I used sections of the movie in bible study lessons. While I think MoS continues some of those same ideals, they were not near as obvious as in the previous movie.

From my perspective, there are no Christ-like similarities in MoS or BvS. As for Superman Returns, I'd have to re-watch it...

 

There is confusion between "Christ-like" and "godlike" - note the lowercase "g". Superman being perceived as godlike is an established part of the mythos.

 

Looking at the words in bold type above, I find it hard to believe with all the violence in MoS, it would be seen as "Christian friendly". The only time in the movie Superman turned the other cheek, it happened to be Zod's...

 

Here is a screen shot from Superman Returns. No doubt certain imagery was used within that movie to relate Superman with Christ, not just a god. As to MoS and BvS, I think you are correct that the more obvious similarity is with Supes being a god-like figure, however, as a Christian I do see some more similarities with Jesus than other religious figures. (Except of course with some specific actions like, as you said, turning Zod's cheek. Btw, good one!)

 

This makes me think of the scene from "Cool Hand Luke" after he eats the 50 eggs. The director turned him into a Christ figure on the table.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1871/2060/1600/Cool%20Hand%20Luke%20cruciform.jpg

 

Thanks for that link! I never had seen that before. Cool Hand Luke is a classic!

[paperheart]

$8.5MM estimated weekend. This thing is disappearing faster than a speeding bullet.

[Bosco685]

$8.5MM estimated weekend. This thing is disappearing faster than a speeding bullet.

 

You forgot to finish with your trademark laugh.