"The book version is lamer than the movies."

View previous topic View next topic Go down

"The book version is lamer than the movies."

Post by Radaghast on Mon Jan 25, 2016 4:56 pm

No doubt the quote marks indicate that this is not a statement of mine. Rather, it's given by a denizen of Quora.com, in response to the following question:

In the third movie, some invincible ghost guys show up and fix everything. Which I thought was kinda lame. Is this the same in the book?

The response is here https://www.quora.com/The-Lord-of-the-Rings-creative-franchise/In-the-third-movie-some-invincible-ghost-guys-show-up-and-fix-everything-Which-I-thought-was-kinda-lame-Is-this-the-same-in-the-book

But for convenience's sake (and to actually force myself to read the entire thing rather than skimming it), I thought I'd post the entire response here as well (there are pictures in the actual post which are not repeated here):

You're not the only one

Even the director, Peter Jackson didn't like the idea of the Army of the Dead. He thought it was unbelievable, but decided to keep it in for die-hard fans of the books. Problem is, many die-hard fans are purists, meaning they hate his interpretation no matter what his decisions are.

The book version isn't better - it's worse

The book version of the story, no matter how hard people beneath and below me try to describe it as 'not as lame' or 'way cooler', is as lame (if not more lame) than the movie version.

In the book the Army of the Dead doesn't fight at Minas Tirith, but at Pelargir, a port in the south of Gondor which was also under attack from the Corsairs of Umbar (a city way down south).

But at the sight of the Army of the Dead the enemy forces flee, many of them into the water and drowning as a result. The remaining Gondorian forces are then taken upstream to Minas Tirith, and that's what helps them out in the book. So the Army of the Dead does not even fight, and doesn't do much beyond a massive beyond 'boo, I'm a scary ghost'.

Just think about that for a second: it's an entire army of ghosts, and they give one scare and thousands of evil battle-hardened Men run away, and the ghosts win the battle.

Nobody gives up a fight against the ghosts, which is odd given the fact that these are people born under evil lords, trained to do evil all their lives, serve someone who openly calls himself the dark lord and is known for his wickedness and malice, but now they are scared by the sight of ghosts?

Some of them even deal with the undead on a fairly regular basis. Remember the Nazgûl?

Yeah those guys. They are Men and over 4000 years old. They are described as Ring-wraiths for God's sake, and they have led the forces of the Enemy for thousands of years. But when the Haradrim suddenly see the undead in the ranks of Gondor they go batshit crazy and suicidal? I find that extremely hard to believe.

But that isn't everything that's wrong with the Army of the Dead - it's even unclear whether or not the ghosts of the enemy are actually dangerous!

In the book, Legolas tells Merry and Pippin what he saw at Pelargir and somewhat touches on this:

'Faint cries I heard, and dim horns blowing, and a murmur as of countless far voices: it was like the echo of some forgotten battle in the Dark Years long ago. Pale swords were drawn; but I know not whether their blades would still bite, for the Dead needed no longer any weapon but fear.'

So not only do you have an army that is evil through and through and has experience dealing with ghosts, the ghosts they now have to fight may not even be able to harm them, and the very sight of them makes them suicidal.

So what does that make the plot of the book?

The book version is lamer than the movies.

People always assume that the books on which a series or movie is based is better, and that whatever the movie industry touches it turned into a rotting perversion of the canon works, something less than an echo of the source material. No reasons are given for this, but this the popular opinion. And boy, is it wrong.

Tolkiens dialog isn't perfect or flawless. His work isn't God's gift to mankind. It is not that when you tinker with the work you can only go backwards. You can very much, progress from the source material. And at times, Peter Jackson & Company (which include Alan Lee, Philippa Boyens, Fran Walsh) did progress.

But this isn't what people like to read. They like to gloat about how what monumental failures Peter Jackson made, and how he missed key moments, or iconic scenes. Whatever Peter Jackson (& Co) did, whatever we see, whatever way the producers decided to portray it, purists will always argue that the movie is the exact opposite of how it should be done.

That's not criticism

This gloating over how Peter Jackson "screwed up" is harming what could otherwise be a well-written answer. Many answers here on Quora regarding Tolkien issues have large portions dedicated on bashing Peter Jackson personally, and at times the most powerful language of the answer is dedicated to this dishonerable goal.

Don't get me wrong - there are parts of the movies that indeed could have played out better, both in terms of adaption of the book as in screenplay. But many of the answers here on Quora are not about that, and put up a façade as if their answers are about that. But these answers and posts are actually about insulting people and their work.

Dichotomies are created by those purists to give a notion of what the movies portray, and "what actually happened". And in the answers of the purists, those two are always the exact opposite of each other. Not because Peter Jackson made something that is the exact opposite of the source material, but because the purist makes it appear as if they are the opposite of each other. One such a person went as far as to say that The Hobbit movie trilogy has more in common with Conan the Barbarian than with the Hobbit. And it's not as such a comment is presented as a hyperbole - in this case, the guy means it.

So when you ask about something being lame, and then ask 'was it the same in the book?' many people will always say 'No, the book is always better!'. Some do so because they think the book version is indeed better in this particular case, and some will say so because they think that the book on which something is based is always better, and again others say that the book is better because they want to insult the people who made the movie.

But in this case, the movie version is better. And no amount of background information on geography, troop strength of tactical importance change the fact that the Army of the Dead is one of the weakest, if not the weakest point of the story (both movie and book-wise). The movie gave the army actual power and the oppertunity to do something meaningful to everyone. In the books, they only solve a problem that is presented late and in a minor way. But that's not the only thing that is wrong with the Army of the Dead.

Army of the Dead is an army of ghosts. Horror movies and horror stories always revolve around having one or very few monsters: Dracula (there is one vampire that is the source of evil), Frankenstein, The Mummy, etcetera. The idea of a ghost isn't new to us, and so we cannot approach it without biases and expectations. We know the power of one ghost: they can make people go insane, they can possess people and some are even capable of killing people.

So an entire army must have incredible power! And yet, canonically they never show this power. It's even unclear whether or not they can do anything at all. They are faced with forces that have thousands of years of experience in dealing with wraiths that are far more evil than the ones they are faced with, and yet they manage to scare them to death? The forces of Sauron are familiar with death, carnage and pillage, but this time they are scared of it?

That sounds unbelievable

To me, that sounds unbelievable. The only thing that I am not sure if it's a good thing or not is that in the books the whole ordeal with the Army happens more or less off-screen, and is only told by the characters in hindsight. This is good in the sense that we shy away from a weak point in the story. It is bad because you have an army of ghosts, and you don't even get to see it in action. It's like having a group of the coolest guys ever which do all kind of crazy cool stuff, but when you see them they sit around and do nothing.

Yeah, it's like that, but then in a book. So the whole ordeal with Pelargir being attacked was avoided in the movies, and with that a several minor characters that were thankfully omitted in the movie. Instead of "fighting" offscreen, they actually join the main battle and do something. That solved:

  • The power issue of the Army of the Dead - instead of being a scary army, that may or may not be actually able to kill someone, it turns the army into an actual army
  • The Army of the Dead, amazing as it is, is moved from backstage to the front stage and we actually get to see the show down between the forces of Mordor and this new Army
  • The Pelargir line involves several extra characters, which were thus avoided. People already had trouble distinguishing every character in a movie that had over 20 characters
  • It made sure the movie audience didn't grow 'battle-tired'. The main focus of the movie is the battle of Minas Tirith. It takes about 15 minutes, and is full of action. You don't want people to grow tired of fighting before the actual battle starts.

The importance of the battle at Pelargir was so that Aragorn could get Gondorian forces in time to Minas Tirith. Since not using the Army of the Dead for this (or only showing them in a very short way) was a no-go, this battle would have needed to happen early on in the movie, so you can have Aragorn panicking about not getting to Minas Tirith in time.

This screws up the pace of the movie, which otherwise builds up to the Battle for the Pelennor Fields, and you would have to show them another battle after the first one that involved an army of ghosts. The audience would be bored of fighting by the time the Pelennor battle starts, and it would be very difficult to top a battle involving the undead.

  • It would also break the rhythm that was now established after two movies - a big battle at the end, followed by a closing epilogue (Amon-Hen in Fellowship of the Ring and Helm's Deep at the Two Towers).

How did all of this work out? Pretty well, I think. The army is just what the Allies needed to turn the tide of the battle after the Oliphaunts of the Haradrim showed up.

The only problem is that it is still a so called deus-ex machina, a God weapon so to speak. And it's still an army of ghosts. That's like going to Middle-earth and plot-twist! We take machine guns with us.

So is it lame? Yes, definitely. But at least it's better than in the books.


Last edited by Radaghast on Mon Jan 25, 2016 6:47 pm; edited 3 times in total

_________________
The wolf one hears is worse than the orc one fears.

http://helob.deviantart.com/gallery/
https://stopthesecrecy.net/

avatar
Radaghast
Barrel-rider

Posts : 1748
Join date : 2013-06-12
Location : The place where that thing is.

Back to top Go down

Re: "The book version is lamer than the movies."

Post by Radaghast on Mon Jan 25, 2016 4:59 pm

Suffice to say, I disagree. But I'm curious to see if there are any other opinions? Does this guy have a point?

_________________
The wolf one hears is worse than the orc one fears.

http://helob.deviantart.com/gallery/
https://stopthesecrecy.net/

avatar
Radaghast
Barrel-rider

Posts : 1748
Join date : 2013-06-12
Location : The place where that thing is.

Back to top Go down

Re: "The book version is lamer than the movies."

Post by Eldorion on Mon Jan 25, 2016 5:21 pm

My first thought is that his insistence on calling the Dead Men of the books "the Army of the Dead", when that phrase is a Jackson invention, really undercuts this guys credibility, even though he (or she) throws in a few book quotes.  Like, complaining that they're not "an actual army" in the book as if the name is deceptive when it's not something Tolkien ever used is just Laughing

I'll come back and read through it closer later.
avatar
Eldorion
He Who Seeks To Become a Master at Ye Old Temple In Merry Land... of Oz, or so I presume.

Posts : 22362
Join date : 2011-02-13
Age : 22
Location : Maryland, United States

http://nolondil.tumblr.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: "The book version is lamer than the movies."

Post by Eldorion on Mon Jan 25, 2016 5:45 pm

This is one of the most disingenuous and/or dishonest PJ apologist posts I have read in years. Seriously, I'm having flashbacks to like 2009 here. [EDIT: I hope it's clear that none of this is directed at you, Raddy, but rather the author of the post.]

Even the director, Peter Jackson didn't like the idea of the Army of the Dead. He thought it was unbelievable, but decided to keep it in for die-hard fans of the books.

This conveniently leaves out that PJ didn't realize that he was diverging from the book by making the Dead Men invincible. So the thing that he "didn't like about the books" wasn't something that ever happened in them! Same with how he "didn't like" Sauron being a disembodied eyeball in the books but felt compelled to portray him that way in the films.  He isn't that in the books!

Nobody gives up a fight against the ghosts, which is odd given the fact that these are people born under evil lords, trained to do evil all their lives, serve someone who openly calls himself the dark lord and is known for his wickedness and malice, but now they are scared by the sight of ghosts?

Some of them even deal with the undead on a fairly regular basis. Remember the Nazgûl?

Bullshit. There is zero evidence that the Corsairs deal regularly with the Nazgul. They do not live under the Dark Lord. They live in an independent city-state and are simply (subservient) allies of Sauron. They mainly work as pirates (who, at least in real history, are famous for being superstitious). This guy actually has a point that the real denizens of Mordor who deal with Sauron, Nazgul, and/or sorcerery on a regular basis wouldn't have been as afraid of the Dead Men. This is actually a point in favor of letting the Dead go once they fight the corsairs instead of bringing them to Minas Tirith.

Yeah those guys. They are Men and over 4000 years old. They are described as Ring-wraiths for God's sake, and they have led the forces of the Enemy for thousands of years. But when the Haradrim suddenly see the undead in the ranks of Gondor they go batshit crazy and suicidal? I find that extremely hard to believe.

I already addressed this but it bears mentioning that the Corsairs are not the same as the Haradrim (though there was plenty of overlap). Oh, and also, the Haradrim live in their own country and again there is no evidence that they have any significant interaction with the Nazgul, who are primarily stationed in Minas Morgul and Dol Guldur.

So not only do you have an army that is evil through and through and has experience dealing with ghosts, the ghosts they now have to fight may not even be able to harm them, and the very sight of them makes them suicidal.

Apparently this guy forgot Sam's thoughts in TTT (turned into a monologue by Faramir in the film) about how the Haradrim weren't actually evil and were just fighting for what they thought or had been told, same as the men of Gondor. Same point holds true for the Corsairs, though arguably less so since they're pirates. It's bizarre, this guy refers to the books at plenty of points, but he either has an incredibly selective memory or he's just being dishonest.

People always assume that the books on which a series or movie is based is better, and that whatever the movie industry touches it turned into a rotting perversion of the canon works, something less than an echo of the source material. No reasons are given for this, but this the popular opinion. And boy, is it wrong.

Screw you, dude. Purists have spent almost seventeen years explaining WHY they think that PJ's changes were not improvements. If you're too lazy to read up on the history of the debate before mouthing off, that's your problem.

This screws up the pace of the movie, which otherwise builds up to the Battle for the Pelennor Fields, and you would have to show them another battle after the first one that involved an army of ghosts. The audience would be bored of fighting by the time the Pelennor battle starts, and it would be very difficult to top a battle involving the undead.

It would also break the rhythm that was now established after two movies - a big battle at the end, followed by a closing epilogue (Amon-Hen in Fellowship of the Ring and Helm's Deep at the Two Towers).

What the hell is he talking about? FOTR had zero big battles other than in the Prologue, but it's largest and most famous action set piece occurred in the middle of the film, in Moria. TTT did have the big climactic battle at the end, but it also had the warg battle at the mid-point, which might seem small by Middle-earth movie standards but would've been a pretty big and elaborate fight for most movies. ROTK is even more different! It has the battle(s) of Osgiliath early in the film, the Siege of Gondor/Pelennor Fields takes up most of the middle of the film, and then the final battle is the Black Gate. But there is a lot more plot movement in the "closing epilogue" of ROTK than in the other films, even without the Scouring.

That said, would adding yet another battle to ROTK have been too much? One can argue it. But as this guy was complaining about earlier, Pelargir is not actually that much of a battle, because the Dead Men end things so quickly. Make up your goddamn mind.

How did all of this work out? Pretty well, I think. The army is just what the Allies needed to turn the tide of the battle after the Oliphaunts of the Haradrim showed up.

The only problem is that it is still a so called deus-ex machina, a God weapon so to speak. And it's still an army of ghosts. That's like going to Middle-earth and plot-twist! We take machine guns with us.

I love how he relegates the largest complaint to the very end of his post and still doesn't really mention the heart of most people's issue with it, namely, that the sudden arrival and total victory of the Dead Men represents a negation of the sacrifice by everyone else at Minas Tirith and is an anticlimactic end to the battle (as opposed to being just part of the build-up to the main battle).

God, what a terrible post. I feel dirty just quoting it.
avatar
Eldorion
He Who Seeks To Become a Master at Ye Old Temple In Merry Land... of Oz, or so I presume.

Posts : 22362
Join date : 2011-02-13
Age : 22
Location : Maryland, United States

http://nolondil.tumblr.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: "The book version is lamer than the movies."

Post by Radaghast on Mon Jan 25, 2016 6:36 pm

Eldorion wrote:
Nobody gives up a fight against the ghosts, which is odd given the fact that these are people born under evil lords, trained to do evil all their lives, serve someone who openly calls himself the dark lord and is known for his wickedness and malice, but now they are scared by the sight of ghosts?

Some of them even deal with the undead on a fairly regular basis. Remember the Nazgûl?

Bull fucking shit. There is zero evidence that the Corsairs deal regularly with the Nazgul. They do not live under the Dark Lord. They live in an independent city-state and are simply (subservient) allies of Sauron. They mainly work as pirates (who, at least in real history, are famous for being superstitious). This guy actually has a point that the real denizens of Mordor who deal with Sauron, Nazgul, and/or sorcerery on a regular basis wouldn't have been as afraid of the Dead Men. This is actually a point in favor of letting the Dead go once they fight the corsairs instead of bringing them to Minas Tirith.
Excellent point (well, excellent points all around, but this is one that occurred to me too). We don't know that these guys treated with Sauron or the Ring-wraiths. Most likely Sauron sent men like the Mouth of Sauron as an emissary to the eastern nations. But even if they were in the proximity of the Nazgûl, we don't know that they weren't scared of them. I think even the orcs were scared of them. Also, there are only nine of them and they can't be omnipresent. It's a bit different from a massive wave of ghosts being led by your enemy and advancing upon you.

So not only do you have an army that is evil through and through and has experience dealing with ghosts, the ghosts they now have to fight may not even be able to harm them, and the very sight of them makes them suicidal.

Apparently this guy forgot Sam's thoughts in TTT (turned into a monologue by Faramir in the film) about how the Haradrim weren't actually evil and were just fighting for what they thought or had been told, same as the men of Gondor. Same point holds true for the Corsairs, though arguably less so since they're pirates. It's bizarre, this guy refers to the books at plenty of points, but he either has an incredibly selective memory or he's just being dishonest.
It really seems he is bending over backward to defend Jackson here. He is also disregarding that the Corsairs have no way of knowing what the army of specters can do. Also, he quotes Gimli's line (misattributing the quote to Legolas) about how he knew "not whether their blades would still bite" as proof that the ghosts were possibly harmless.—as if Gimli (or Legolas) was some kind of authority. He even acknowledges that ghosts are traditionally able to generate terror just by their very presence, but somehow this isn't enough. They have to be shown to kill people too Rolling Eyes

People always assume that the books on which a series or movie is based is better, and that whatever the movie industry touches it turned into a rotting perversion of the canon works, something less than an echo of the source material. No reasons are given for this, but this the popular opinion. And boy, is it wrong.

Fuck you, dude. Purists have spent almost seventeen fucking years explaining WHY they think that PJ's changes were not improvements. If you're too lazy to read up on the history of the debate before mouthing off, that's your problem.
Laughing

Yeah, pretty strange to say "no reasons are given". I mean, seriously? Rolling Eyes

How did all of this work out? Pretty well, I think. The army is just what the Allies needed to turn the tide of the battle after the Oliphaunts of the Haradrim showed up.

The only problem is that it is still a so called deus-ex machina, a God weapon so to speak. And it's still an army of ghosts. That's like going to Middle-earth and plot-twist! We take machine guns with us.

I love how he relegates the largest complaint to the very end of his post and still doesn't really mention the heart of most people's issue with it, namely, that the sudden arrival and total victory of the Dead Men represents a negation of the sacrifice by everyone else at Minas Tirith and is an anticlimactic end to the battle (as opposed to being just part of the build-up to the main battle).
That's another great point. I think it really does cheapen the battle to have an army of ghosts just charge onto the battlefield and scour it clean; especially showing the ghosts swarming over an oliphaunt like a horde army ants (I'm almost surprised the oliphaunt wasn't stripped to its skeleton).

God, what a terrible post. I feel dirty just quoting it.
Laughing


Last edited by Radaghast on Mon Jan 25, 2016 6:46 pm; edited 1 time in total

_________________
The wolf one hears is worse than the orc one fears.

http://helob.deviantart.com/gallery/
https://stopthesecrecy.net/

avatar
Radaghast
Barrel-rider

Posts : 1748
Join date : 2013-06-12
Location : The place where that thing is.

Back to top Go down

Re: "The book version is lamer than the movies."

Post by Eldorion on Mon Jan 25, 2016 6:42 pm

Aw man, you quoted my post before I went back and edited out all the fucks. Laughing But yeah, I think we're on the same page with this one.

I mean, I can kinda empathize with the guy resenting seeing the constant attacks against PJ, but he does a really bad job of trying to counter those criticisms here. Why would you pick the Army of the Dead of all things as your hill to die on?
avatar
Eldorion
He Who Seeks To Become a Master at Ye Old Temple In Merry Land... of Oz, or so I presume.

Posts : 22362
Join date : 2011-02-13
Age : 22
Location : Maryland, United States

http://nolondil.tumblr.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: "The book version is lamer than the movies."

Post by Radaghast on Mon Jan 25, 2016 6:54 pm

He's pretty relentless in his defense of PJ. He had a post defending the movies that numbered 14 pages when cut and pasted into Microsoft Word Laughing

_________________
The wolf one hears is worse than the orc one fears.

http://helob.deviantart.com/gallery/
https://stopthesecrecy.net/

avatar
Radaghast
Barrel-rider

Posts : 1748
Join date : 2013-06-12
Location : The place where that thing is.

Back to top Go down

Re: "The book version is lamer than the movies."

Post by halfwise on Tue Jan 26, 2016 12:07 am

Load the photon torpedoes.

_________________
Halfwise, son of Halfwit. Brother of Nitwit, son of Halfwit. Half brother of Figwit.
Then it gets complicated...
avatar
halfwise
Quintessence of Burrahobbitry

Posts : 12557
Join date : 2012-02-01
Location : rustic broom closet in farthing of Manhattan

Back to top Go down

Re: "The book version is lamer than the movies."

Post by Mrs Figg on Tue Jan 26, 2016 12:09 am

make it so.
avatar
Mrs Figg
Eel Wrangler from Bree

Posts : 21703
Join date : 2011-10-06
Age : 87
Location : Holding The Door

Back to top Go down

Re: "The book version is lamer than the movies."

Post by Radaghast on Tue Jan 26, 2016 12:15 am

Shrugging

_________________
The wolf one hears is worse than the orc one fears.

http://helob.deviantart.com/gallery/
https://stopthesecrecy.net/

avatar
Radaghast
Barrel-rider

Posts : 1748
Join date : 2013-06-12
Location : The place where that thing is.

Back to top Go down

Re: "The book version is lamer than the movies."

Post by halfwise on Tue Jan 26, 2016 12:20 am

Radagast, we're about to take this guy out. Step aside, please.

_________________
Halfwise, son of Halfwit. Brother of Nitwit, son of Halfwit. Half brother of Figwit.
Then it gets complicated...
avatar
halfwise
Quintessence of Burrahobbitry

Posts : 12557
Join date : 2012-02-01
Location : rustic broom closet in farthing of Manhattan

Back to top Go down

Re: "The book version is lamer than the movies."

Post by Mrs Figg on Tue Jan 26, 2016 1:09 am

avatar
Mrs Figg
Eel Wrangler from Bree

Posts : 21703
Join date : 2011-10-06
Age : 87
Location : Holding The Door

Back to top Go down

Re: "The book version is lamer than the movies."

Post by Radaghast on Tue Jan 26, 2016 1:16 am

Thumbs Up

_________________
The wolf one hears is worse than the orc one fears.

http://helob.deviantart.com/gallery/
https://stopthesecrecy.net/

avatar
Radaghast
Barrel-rider

Posts : 1748
Join date : 2013-06-12
Location : The place where that thing is.

Back to top Go down

Re: "The book version is lamer than the movies."

Post by Orwell on Tue Jan 26, 2016 1:23 am

Laughing

No thread, however interesting and well argued, can ever be completely safe from Forumwights. Very Happy Very Happy

_________________
"Skirts!" cried our respectable Master Odo. "Skirts! And they have the temerity to call them 'kilts'.... Eru darn my socks!"

From "The True Tale of the Un-magical Coal Scuttle."
avatar
Orwell
Dark Presence with Gilt Edge

Posts : 8548
Join date : 2011-05-24
Age : 98
Location : Ozhobbitstan

Back to top Go down

Re: "The book version is lamer than the movies."

Post by Lancebloke on Thu Jan 28, 2016 8:50 pm

It was a pretty shitty critique though. And I agree Eldo.... he might as well have picked the colour of horses or type of grass...


_________________
Follow me around the world at www.lancebloke.com
avatar
Lancebloke
Adventurer

Posts : 3917
Join date : 2012-04-10
Age : 33
Location : Essex

http://www.lancebloke.com

Back to top Go down

Re: "The book version is lamer than the movies."

Post by Radaghast on Fri Jan 29, 2016 1:27 am

Yeah, the reasoning is very shaky, imo.

_________________
The wolf one hears is worse than the orc one fears.

http://helob.deviantart.com/gallery/
https://stopthesecrecy.net/

avatar
Radaghast
Barrel-rider

Posts : 1748
Join date : 2013-06-12
Location : The place where that thing is.

Back to top Go down

Re: "The book version is lamer than the movies."

Post by Eldorion on Fri Jan 29, 2016 3:31 am

Lancebloke wrote:It was a pretty shitty critique though. And I agree Eldo.... he might as well have picked the colour of horses or type of grass...

I'm glad to be at a point in my life where the grass stuff doesn't really bother me anymore. Razz

{{{But I still understand why some people care.}}}
avatar
Eldorion
He Who Seeks To Become a Master at Ye Old Temple In Merry Land... of Oz, or so I presume.

Posts : 22362
Join date : 2011-02-13
Age : 22
Location : Maryland, United States

http://nolondil.tumblr.com/

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum