| Register  | FAQ  | Search | Login 
It is currently Wed Apr 23, 2014 7:43 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: star trek: into darkness (spoilers)
PostPosted: Fri May 17, 2013 4:23 pm 
Not NOT A Furry
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 5:19 pm
Posts: 491
Location: TN
KHHHHHAAAAAANN!!!!

i think it merits its own thread outside of the star trek thread. who else thoroughly enjoyed themselves while watching this? who wants to pay $$$ to see it in theatres another bazillion times? who else wonders why Bones kept appearing on the bridge when he probably should've been pretty well occupied in sick bay? who else was like, "what's with that model of the crazy huge black starship" during the introduction-of-the-mysterious-torpedo scene?


Top
 Profile WWW  
 
 Post subject: Re: star trek: into darkness (spoilers)
PostPosted: Sun May 19, 2013 11:17 am 
Lactose Intolerant...Literally
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 6:28 pm
Posts: 725
Location: Funky Town
I was ridiculously entertained by this movie. First of all, my geek was WAY on overload with BBC actors all up in that biz-nus.
I realize that if you've seen Wrath of Khan you've kind of seen this movie in some forms. The basic elements are all there, but characters are mixed up, situations are mildly changed. But it was so FUN.
Plus Benedict Cumberbatch is AMAZING as Khan in my opinion. I loved him in that role. He was perfect.
I will likely see it again because I like to go back and try to catch stuff I missed. I didn't need to see it in 3D. I won't waste the extra dough next time around.

_________________
~Sweet songs the youth, the wise, the meeting of all wisdom. To believe in the good in man.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: star trek: into darkness (spoilers)
PostPosted: Sun May 19, 2013 12:35 pm 
Invented Vegan Meringue
User avatar
Online

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:46 pm
Posts: 3832
Location: 5 mi east of philly
somebody on facebook invited one of my friends to an event titled "Star Trek XII: The Wrath of Cumberbatch." (luckily i had already seen the movie, but that's an insanely spoilery, and assholeish thing to do on facebook. maybe they weren't aware that the title would show up on attendees' friends feeds? i dunno. luckily not too many people accepted the invite. it could have been much worse.)

_________________
I solved it for once and for all -- and for everyone -- by intentionally leaving behind some 9-lives burritos... ~Lorelei4mc
supercarrot.com, vegan groupony things, vegan coupons


Top
 Profile WWW  
 
 Post subject: Re: star trek: into darkness (spoilers)
PostPosted: Sun May 19, 2013 12:42 pm 
Chard Martyr
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 8:43 pm
Posts: 9993
Location: Astoria, NY by way of San Diego, CA
People have been talking about how cumberbatch is khan for so long that I had no idea it was even going to be a spoiler. I liked the movie a lot better than the first one. It was really fun. Corny with all the references, but I liked that. I feel like Lens Flare should had top billing in the credits. Jesus abrams, get a grip!

_________________
I am not a troll. I am TELLING YOU THE ******GOD'S TRUTH****** AND YOU JUST DON'T WANT THE HEAR IT DO YOU?


Top
 Profile WWW  
 
 Post subject: Re: star trek: into darkness (spoilers)
PostPosted: Sun May 19, 2013 2:58 pm 
Invented Vegan Meringue
User avatar
Online

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:46 pm
Posts: 3832
Location: 5 mi east of philly
ijustdiedinside wrote:
Jesus abrams, get a grip!

nice one. har har.

both mr. carrot and i went in completely spoiler-free, we both went "whoa" when he said his name.

_________________
I solved it for once and for all -- and for everyone -- by intentionally leaving behind some 9-lives burritos... ~Lorelei4mc
supercarrot.com, vegan groupony things, vegan coupons


Top
 Profile WWW  
 
 Post subject: Re: star trek: into darkness (spoilers)
PostPosted: Sun May 19, 2013 5:27 pm 
Spent a night at the Bates Motel
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 8:31 pm
Posts: 1997
Location: detroit, mi
The extent of my foray into the star trek fandom is limited to seeing the first one by JJ Abrams, so I didn't go in with a lot of preconceived notions of what the second one would be like. I enjoyed it very much! As usual, the actors were all fantastic. I agree that Benedict was very well cast as Khan. ZQ is one of my favorite actors and he had a lot of great moments in this film.
And I agree, we get it JJ, you like lens flare. Enough already.

_________________
I'm still buddhist & I still love cupcakes.
My crochet blog! http://threadbythreadzen.blogspot.com


Top
 Profile WWW  
 
 Post subject: Re: star trek: into darkness (spoilers)
PostPosted: Sun May 19, 2013 8:36 pm 
Should Write a Goddam Book Already
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 9:51 am
Posts: 1038
Location: Minnesota
Wait, Khan was frozen... Is Abrams rewriting more Star Trek history?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: star trek: into darkness (spoilers)
PostPosted: Sun May 19, 2013 10:28 pm 
Should Write a Goddam Book Already
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:20 pm
Posts: 1050
Location: Land of the First Kaiju
So much fun. Thoroughly enjoyed it, moreso than the first.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: star trek: into darkness (spoilers)
PostPosted: Sun May 19, 2013 11:20 pm 
Not NOT A Furry
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 5:19 pm
Posts: 491
Location: TN
i was noticing how much of the movie contains elements of star trek scenarios that i just love to see over and over again: going rogue because the higher ranks can't be trusted, the captain boarding an enemy ship, (temporarily) befriending the enemy, losing your best men but getting them back in the end (Scottie)... and lots of stuff.

the new Klingon look was a fun surprise.

i love how well well hashed-out the characters have become. i love the new take on Uhura. i love Quinto's portrayal of Spock-- it's so animated! any Kirk who doesn't talk like Shatner is appreciated. seeing Sulu at the helm was fun.

would've liked to've seen/heard more from Chekov.

zomg Spock dove from one space taxi to land on another space taxi!

i thought the ending was a little weird. a lot of points didn't make much sense: why didn't they just take the blood of the genetically engineered guy that they took out of the torpedo when they had to freeze Kirk? why did it have to be Khan's blood?

i did like how they edited all the "in conclusion" stuff. it had a nice finish that took its time, but still kept pace w/ the already fast-paced movie.


Top
 Profile WWW  
 
 Post subject: Re: star trek: into darkness (spoilers)
PostPosted: Sun May 19, 2013 11:23 pm 
Not NOT A Furry
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 5:19 pm
Posts: 491
Location: TN
oh yeah and that convo in the turbolift between Uhura & Kirk where Kirk's like, "are you two fighting? oh my god! what is that even like?!"
and then their whole convo together on the shuttle on their way to Kronos was really sweet.


Top
 Profile WWW  
 
 Post subject: Re: star trek: into darkness (spoilers)
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2013 4:52 am 
Chard Martyr
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 8:43 pm
Posts: 9993
Location: Astoria, NY by way of San Diego, CA
rohai wrote:
Wait, Khan was frozen... Is Abrams rewriting more Star Trek history?


Khan was frozen when we first met him in TOS. And then I thought they refroze him to make that TOS episode theoretically possible (even though they already would have met him.

_________________
I am not a troll. I am TELLING YOU THE ******GOD'S TRUTH****** AND YOU JUST DON'T WANT THE HEAR IT DO YOU?


Top
 Profile WWW  
 
 Post subject: Re: star trek: into darkness (spoilers)
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2013 7:40 am 
Should Write a Goddam Book Already
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:20 pm
Posts: 1050
Location: Land of the First Kaiju
I feel like I also need to add that people scream KHAAAAN to me all the time, because that may or may not be my last name (spelled differently), and I never understood the reference other than that it was from Star Trek. Now I am enlightened, and will probably be hearing people scream it at me for months to come.

But hey, one more oblique link from Benedict Cumberbatch to myself? I will take it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: star trek: into darkness (spoilers)
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2013 8:22 am 
Invented Vegan Meringue
User avatar
Online

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:46 pm
Posts: 3832
Location: 5 mi east of philly
chouettes crêpes wrote:
i thought the ending was a little weird. a lot of points didn't make much sense: why didn't they just take the blood of the genetically engineered guy that they took out of the torpedo when they had to freeze Kirk? why did it have to be Khan's blood?

i thought the same thing, but i assume it's because in order to be able to draw it, they'd have to reanimate the other person in order to have liquid blood, and 2 genetically engineered war criminals on the loose is not better than 1. (also, they said they'd have to thaw them slowly, so it might have taken longer than just capturing khan alive. also, sequels. also, i guess they know for sure khan's blood works. taking from another might have been a crapshoot.)

alice, definitely watch the original. the way kirk says it is pretty comical. it's on par with anakin's "noooooooo"

_________________
I solved it for once and for all -- and for everyone -- by intentionally leaving behind some 9-lives burritos... ~Lorelei4mc
supercarrot.com, vegan groupony things, vegan coupons


Top
 Profile WWW  
 
 Post subject: Re: star trek: into darkness (spoilers)
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2013 8:25 am 
A gift from the crasshole god.
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2010 11:57 am
Posts: 2523
I have seen the movie twice now (first time midnight showing, second for my sister's birthday) and after it I was all like "forking awesome" and I loved the references and had a bit of a nerdgasm but after I thought about it I just, I dunno. I have debated this to death, so I am a little talked out about it but it isn't Star Trek any more. I loved it for what it was - a big action movie - but I feel like JJ Abrams doesn't quite get that Star Trek was never really about space and explosions or battles. I don't even understand why he had to touch Khan, he had cleverly set up an alternate time line and therefore it could have been ANY story so why remake such a great movie instead of making an original story? How about dealing with the destruction of Vulcan other than Spock's one line about it?

Again, I loved it for what it was but it has lost the philosophy and heart of the Star Trek I love and don't even get me started on his female characters. Uhura is now reduced to her interactions with Spock and Carol Marcus (compare her to the original and you'll cry) - WHAT THE fork? Was there any point to her other than her getting her clothes off? I think there were about 3 other women in the whole movie, 2 of whom were sex toys for Kirk (in that all we see of them is that they wake up in a state of undress next to him and do not contribute anything to the movie). This is not my Star Trek.

The Wrath of Khan makes me sob my heart out every single time. With this I was like, whatever, they have magic blood so now no one will die ever.

Cumberbatch was wonderful and chilling as Khan and I still love Zachary Quinto as Spock. In fact I love everyone that they have cast (especially Bones) and I like that they explored the relationship between Spock and Kirk, just without any subtlety. In fact the entire script lacked nuance. And why did they fall to the ground when the gravity failed? There should be no up! They were still in space! And why did they need Khan's blood when they had 73 other GM people-popsicles? Why is Khan borg (notice how he went down after being stunned once earlier and at the end it took about 20 times? Did he upgrade?) Why do Kirk and Spock go on away missions together all of the time when it is against Star Fleet regulations? I DON'T KNOW!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: star trek: into darkness (spoilers)
PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2013 9:25 am 
Invented Vegan Meringue
User avatar
Online

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:46 pm
Posts: 3832
Location: 5 mi east of philly
they were within earth's pull. there is gravity there.
as for the peopsicles, i submitted a comment about that while you were typing up your reply. i think that might explain it. (they should have vocalized it though. i think they were expecting it to be common sense, but they should have just come out and said it.)

_________________
I solved it for once and for all -- and for everyone -- by intentionally leaving behind some 9-lives burritos... ~Lorelei4mc
supercarrot.com, vegan groupony things, vegan coupons


Top
 Profile WWW  
 
 Post subject: Re: star trek: into darkness (spoilers)
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2013 3:07 pm 
Not NOT A Furry
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 5:19 pm
Posts: 491
Location: TN
sarah-jane-- i think when Khan went down with the single stun shot on the ominous-black-death-starship he was faking it because there was that one quick shot (hahaha that movie was made up of quick shots!) of him lying on the floor, eyelids fluttering to show he was faking being out. the phaser didn't really affect him.

speaking of Khan, i loved that one scene where he's got those two ridiculously huge guns and he's all taking out the Klingons left and right. i felt bad for them, but knew they thought they were dying with honor, so i guess it wasn't all bad.

but yeah, Sarah-Jane. it was a great movie-goer's movie, but it did lack a lot of core elements that make star trek what it is: discussion, diplomacy, the examination of humanity as a whole.... i get it, space cowboys are cool, but i don't think that's necessarily the defining feature of Kirk or how that era of ST operated. it's a dim (albeit fun!) reflection of TOS.

still, i loved it and i certainly don't want to have to wait another four years for the next one.


Top
 Profile WWW  
 
 Post subject: Re: star trek: into darkness (spoilers)
PostPosted: Thu May 23, 2013 12:14 pm 
Invented Vegan Meringue
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:20 pm
Posts: 3722
Location: Edinburgh
I really, really liked it. Like, so much that I want to see it again. Cumberbatch's "noooooo" was just excellent. And I love Zachary Quinto as Spock. He's such a good Vulcan. And I loved Kirk punching Khan! That was one of my favourite scenes in the whole movie.

I have almost no knowledge of TOS (I'm a TNG girl all the way), so I wouldn't know if they changed things about. But it's given me the push to watch TOS. I have to say, though - no way is Ricardo Montalban's Khan hotter than Cumberbatch. Phwoar. (And I did get the reference to Nurse Chapel - nice touch.)

_________________
A pie eating contest is a battle with no losers. - amandabear


Top
 Profile WWW  
 
 Post subject: Re: star trek: into darkness (spoilers)
PostPosted: Thu May 23, 2013 8:19 pm 
Drunk Dialed Ian MacKaye
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:39 pm
Posts: 1850
Location: St. John's Newfoundland
Sarah-Jane wrote:
I have seen the movie twice now (first time midnight showing, second for my sister's birthday) and after it I was all like "forking awesome" and I loved the references and had a bit of a nerdgasm but after I thought about it I just, I dunno. I have debated this to death, so I am a little talked out about it but it isn't Star Trek any more. I loved it for what it was - a big action movie - but I feel like JJ Abrams doesn't quite get that Star Trek was never really about space and explosions or battles. I don't even understand why he had to touch Khan, he had cleverly set up an alternate time line and therefore it could have been ANY story so why remake such a great movie instead of making an original story? How about dealing with the destruction of Vulcan other than Spock's one line about it?

Again, I loved it for what it was but it has lost the philosophy and heart of the Star Trek I love and don't even get me started on his female characters. Uhura is now reduced to her interactions with Spock and Carol Marcus (compare her to the original and you'll cry) - WHAT THE fork? Was there any point to her other than her getting her clothes off? I think there were about 3 other women in the whole movie, 2 of whom were sex toys for Kirk (in that all we see of them is that they wake up in a state of undress next to him and do not contribute anything to the movie). This is not my Star Trek.

The Wrath of Khan makes me sob my heart out every single time. With this I was like, whatever, they have magic blood so now no one will die ever.

Cumberbatch was wonderful and chilling as Khan and I still love Zachary Quinto as Spock. In fact I love everyone that they have cast (especially Bones) and I like that they explored the relationship between Spock and Kirk, just without any subtlety. In fact the entire script lacked nuance. And why did they fall to the ground when the gravity failed? There should be no up! They were still in space! And why did they need Khan's blood when they had 73 other GM people-popsicles? Why is Khan borg (notice how he went down after being stunned once earlier and at the end it took about 20 times? Did he upgrade?) Why do Kirk and Spock go on away missions together all of the time when it is against Star Fleet regulations? I DON'T KNOW!


JJ Abrams was on Jon Stewart a little while ago talking about how he never liked Star Trek so is trying to make the movies enjoyable for people who also don't like Star Trek.

I like Cumberbatch, but I thought it was pretty racist that a guy named Khan Noonien Singh, the most genetically perfect human who rose to power in Asia during the Eugenics War, has to be a white guy. I mean the original Khan was played by a guy in brownface, but you'd think it would be better to correct that rather than just make him white. That with how they treated Carol, it seems Abrams is actually making Star Trek way less progressive than the sixties show. Which is super disappointing because diversity is a big aspect of Star Trek that really can't be replaced. Whitewashing and sexism is pretty par for the course in Hollywood, but with Star Trek to me its a total betrayal of what Star Trek is supposed to be.

_________________
I was really surprised the first time I saw a penis. After those banana tutorials, I was expecting something so different. -Tofulish


Top
 Profile WWW  
 
 Post subject: Re: star trek: into darkness (spoilers)
PostPosted: Thu May 23, 2013 8:20 pm 
Mispronounces Daiya
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 6:11 pm
Posts: 1457
I liked it, but there were a few places where they tried too hard. Speaking solely about the reboot, I liked the 2009 movie better.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: star trek: into darkness (spoilers)
PostPosted: Fri May 24, 2013 2:27 pm 
A gift from the crasshole god.
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2010 11:57 am
Posts: 2523
Again, I did like it for what it was. I saw it twice! It's just, dude, if you don't like Star Trek don't dumb it down and remove all of the philosophy and every reason that Star Trek fans love it. Why not just make another movie instead of using the name of a franchise people love to spoon feed mindless, sexist and racist (I never thought about the fact that Khan was a white dude in this, which actually says a lot about me) Hollywood drivel. Every movie is the same these days and I am sure most people wouldn't even notice if you just changed the names and marketed it as a new franchise. Like you said, ShyMox, a show made in the 1960's is more progressive than a movie made now. Way to go Abrams! (And did anybody see his response to the Carol Marcus underwear scene. He basically said that we saw Kirk topless, so he didn't get the big deal. Whatever, the guy is responsible for Lost so ...)

Chouettes crêpes I actually think he did go down the first time because he seemed out of it for a very short time, then we saw him awake and wait before he got up. I can accept the gravity because I guess they were in Earth's gravity so that does make sense but I think they just forgot the magic blood in the other folks. And if anyone ever dies in this universe I am going to be mad because they have forking magic blood now.

I was also a little annoyed that Starfleet just plopped the popsicles into storage. Did they give them a trial or anything? It just didn't seem very Starfleet to me.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: star trek: into darkness (spoilers)
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2013 8:36 pm 
Smuggling Raisins
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:57 pm
Posts: 325
Location: Mini Apple
LOVED it.

Did anyone else read this? http://whatculture.com/film/star-trek-i ... missed.php

Most of them were sorta obvious, but I totally missed (dismissed) the Mudd reference. I loved Harry Mudd.

_________________
"Sunday, Sunday, SUNDAY, one night only: it's the amazing...the outstanding...the unbelievable.....VULVODYNIA!" -- Desdemona

"I can't help but feel bad for the Tofurky for having a beer can shoved up it's soy hole." --nickvicious


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: star trek: into darkness (spoilers)
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2013 10:50 pm 
Invented Vegan Meringue
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 3:10 pm
Posts: 3807
Location: St. Louis
Shy Mox wrote:


I like Cumberbatch, but I thought it was pretty racist that a guy named Khan Noonien Singh, the most genetically perfect human who rose to power in Asia during the Eugenics War, has to be a white guy. I mean the original Khan was played by a guy in brownface, but you'd think it would be better to correct that rather than just make him white. That with how they treated Carol, it seems Abrams is actually making Star Trek way less progressive than the sixties show. Which is super disappointing because diversity is a big aspect of Star Trek that really can't be replaced. Whitewashing and sexism is pretty par for the course in Hollywood, but with Star Trek to me its a total betrayal of what Star Trek is supposed to be.


I was also really disappointed by this. Cumberbatch did a great job, but the role of Khan would have been an excellent spot to showcase a non-white actor with mad acting skills (of which there are many, duh) and I think JJ Abrams really missed an opportunity by playing the "this guy is talented and has rabid followers in nerd culture and will bring in all the rabid fangirls with their deep pockets" card and whitewashing the whole film.
also perpetually annoyed by what they've reduced Uhura's role too, and that the only other female lead was written in to a "daddy issues" trope tbh.

all that being said, I really did enjoy the movie! I think the re-boots have the opportunity to take a really excellent spin with TOS and there are SO MANY options since they established in the first film that this was occurring in an altered timeline! anything is possible! I just wish JJ Abrams didn't take the easy route with his casting and resting on the misogynistic laurels of the majority of SCIFI, y'know???

_________________
Space has stared into the tiny syrup holes of our shame and it does not judge us. - Amandabear

I have a blog: http://upthefolks.tumblr.com/
art: http://upthefolksstudio.tumblr.com/


Top
 Profile WWW  
 
 Post subject: Re: star trek: into darkness (spoilers)
PostPosted: Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:28 pm 
Should Spend More Time Helping the Animals
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:35 pm
Posts: 6427
Location: Norristown, PA
Just saw it! I agree with all the criticisms AND I also forking loved it. Would definitely see it again. I just about laughed my face off when Spock yelled KHAAAAAAAAAAN, which was probably not the appropriate emotional response to that scene but, what can I say, it was fantastic.

Also, Scotty and his aqua friend...totally doing it, right? I want to watch that romance spinoff.

_________________
Man, fork the gender card, imma come at you with the whole damned gender deck. - Olives
Did you ever think that, like, YOU are a sexy costume FOR a diva cup? - solipsistnation
blog! FB!


Top
 Profile WWW  
 
 Post subject: Re: star trek: into darkness (spoilers)
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2013 1:45 pm 
Nailed to the V
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 3:12 pm
Posts: 579
Keep in mind that while not Asian, Ricardo Montalbán was from Mexico. So much much MUCH better than the modern casting.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: star trek: into darkness (spoilers)
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2013 2:17 pm 
Heart of Vegan Marshmallow
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 2:55 pm
Posts: 3028
Location: The land of maple syrup and beavers.
supercarrot wrote:

both mr. carrot and i went in completely spoiler-free, we both went "whoa" when he said his name.


This was me. When he said his name I freaked out and yelled "KHHAAAAAAANN!" a little too loudly.

I haven't seen the original WOK in 20 years probably, so I don't have the burden of comparing this one to it since i barely remember it. And I loved this movie. The only shitty part for me was the totally unnecessary underwear scene because, really, what purpose did that serve? The could have done the scene and still had him peek without showing her just standing there posing and not even looking as though she was in the midst of changing.

Watching Chekov run around stressed out of his mind made me so happy for some reason. He's adorable.

_________________
Anyone for some German Shepherd Pie? - daisychain
Well! Fruit is stupid! These onions taste nothing like fruit! - allularpunk
Dwarf-tossing for God: A Story of Hope - Invictus


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Template made by DEVPPL/ThatBigForum and fancied up by What Cheer