|
Robert J. Omb posted:Useful if, like me, you watched the New Year’s special with your four year old who now wants more episodes with “squiddies”. So you're playing your four year old The Impossible Planet/The Satan Pit, right?
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2019 10:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 19, 2024 20:37 |
|
|
ConanThe3rd posted:Also the AI is a maverick and in need of retirement. The AI isn't really a malevolent maverick, though. You can fairly convincingly argue that it's the best person majorly involved in this whole thing until the Doctor turns up, aside from a whole 'murders a girl' thing. I don't really see the problem with Kerblam as an actually ideological one, but rather a writing one that accidentally becomes an ideological one. If they came up with the setting and the concept and most of the characters first, then they would've had a pretty clear problem of 'wait none of these pieces lead to an ending'. It's a great setting, but it's a setting in stasis, and there's no catalyst for that change except for the Doctor herself. And that's a big thing to change with a lot of little things that'll be hurt, and that's not a situation the Doctor would sign off on, so that's off the table and we're back to square one. So we rewrite, find a way to add in an antagonist and something resembling a happy ending, and oops the ending has come out looking really morally nebulous and debatably pro-megacorporation, and we don't have time to fix it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2019 22:10
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:There are any number of small fixes for the third act that could have fixed that episode, but as it stands, I think it's probably the worst of the season, which is a shame, because there's a lot to enjoy about it. Sometimes a bad ending can just ruin an episode, it's why nobody remembers any of the genuinely enjoyable parts of Love and Monsters. I've generally seen people rate Arachnids in the UK as worse, which I understand, even if I don't agree. Kerblam a good most of an episode, with decent ideas for the ending that it botches the execution of and looks kinda politically bad for it, even if its heart's in the right place. That, if nothing else, leads me to consider it better than Love and Monsters. There's no salvaging the ending of Love and Monsters without throwing it out completely, while Kerblam I think you can fix (like I said when the episode came out, I think adding Space Jeff Bezos as a background player would do it). Both of them are still better than In The Forest Of The Night, because there isn't even a fun part in that one.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2019 00:12
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Though seeing Whittaker in her older roles is a bit of a mindfuck now - "Come near my family again and I'll loving kill you!" I saw a bit of Broadchurch's third season when I was back home over Christmas, and Whittaker's character isn't too far a throw from the Doctor in that one, but it's a little unsettling in a 'close but not quite' way. It just felt wrong to see the Doctor brunette, and also talking about rape. I surprised myself when I saw a certain other actor and reflexively responded with 'wait is that Rip Hunter', though.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2019 08:06
|
|
|
The thing that made the good 'arc content' work, to me, was that it at best facilitated interesting plots and at worst acts as fun window dressing. It never distracts. Bad Wolf was great because, yeah, it never called attention to itself except for when you were supposed to notice it. The Torchwood namedrops in season 2 could be a little distracting sometimes, but they never really hijacked a scene or anything. My favorite of RTD's years was 'Mr. Saxon', because it means nothing until you hit The Sound of Drums, and at that point it means everything. The Cracks stood above and beyond anything else Moffat did for a big arc because they didn't just stand out of the way, they helped facilitate plots. They could act as nice 'explanatory glue' to make a story happen like in Vampires of Venice, they could play into the plot without distracting completely from the main focus like in Flesh and Stone/The Time of Angels. They were always at least neutral and at best positive for the story, and they did different enough things that they didn't get boring.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2019 13:28
|
|
|
Senor Tron posted:Yaz is the most disappointing character this series because they repeatedly refuse to use her police knowledge and training. They even explicitly called out at in the first episode that she wanted to have more responsibility, then never showed why she deserves it. The back half of the season has some great moments of it, though. It's just that it's not what you think police knowledge and training is. She works to calm people, to collect information, to make things safe. The stuff that isn't usually spotlighted in media, fiction or non-fiction, but are really important police skills. I saw some of it in what little I saw of Broadchurch, too. I love that, and I hope it becomes more prevalent in the next season. It's a nice character to have, not just in the show but in media in general.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2019 10:28
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:I assume the answer is " The only service I know that has countermeasures against review bombing is Steam, but even that's to prevent fake games with false numbers. I'm guessing it's really hard to figure out how to actually implement those measures. How can you reliably tell a deliberate review bomb apart from something that legitimately nobody likes, like Holmes and Watson?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2019 05:14
|
|
no" but do sites like this not have measures in place to remove or clear out obvious attempts to manipulate (for good or bad) scores?
|
CommonShore posted:Could do it something like noting that a bunch of reviews more than x standard deviations from the previous (or later) average all dumped in at the same time, and then just eliminating all reviews from that period from the calculus. Senor Tron posted:On another forum some idiot linked a YouTube video where a guy was boasting about how the dropping RT score showed that Series 11 was trash, seemingly missing that the score dropping down over time after the series had ended was a pretty good sign that it's a result of a campaign to bring the score down. This might be a good call for a platform with singular, established, unchanging items, yeah; to at least have a human eye look at them. In gaming this is out of play because it's entirely possible that a patch or DLC could straight gently caress up a game, but with movies or TV show seasons that's not gonna happen with any level of regularity. You wouldn't want it automated, though, because you'd still want to permit an R. Kelly scenario where later information lets people look back at past creations and oh god. Of course, this system won't actually be put in place at all because Rotten Tomatoes and the like don't give the slightest gently caress about veracity; Steam only does it to stop people literally scamming their system of money. I feel like the only time that anything will ever be done about this will be when Captain Marvel comes out, because you know they'll pull this poo poo again there, and I can't imagine Disney will take them bombing a tentpole movie of theirs a second time for the same reason. Or maybe they will, and we're at mercy of the chuds forevermore.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2019 10:24
|
|
|
I'm the weirdo that rates a season holistically, specifically by 'how would I feel about watching the entire season again, no skips'. So for new Doctor first seasons, Whittaker's first actually sits right behind Smith's first, because the worst they get is boring. Nothing cringey like Love and Monsters, nothing super-objectionable like Forest of the Night, just a quality line that never dips below 'passable'. Something I'd even grant season 11 over season 5 there is that none of its 'boring's are next to each other. The Hungry Earth is a two-parter that only has a high point completely disconnected from the main plot, and it's preceded by Amy's Choice which I'm personally just not interested in watching again, so that's three episodes of a downswing for me. Season 11 might debatably have more boring in it, but they're basically all between good episodes so you're not in the weeds for long.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2019 23:52
|
|
|
Jose Mengelez posted:hey remember how the daleks are a fascist analog that project power and superiority but deep inside (literally) are a wretched pathetic creature almost worthy of pity? well according to chris chibnall they're actually super strong and cool, ride around on your back like a boss and don't afraid of anything. The Recon Dalek is a repulsive bully that hides behind its victims, and can do literally nothing without them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2019 22:29
|
|
|
fist4jesus posted:Can we talk about how the newyears special is complete balls compared to eccie and Dalek instead? I don't even know if they are similar, really. The core element of 'a single Dalek turns up in a season devoid of them, wrecks poo poo, dies at the end' is there, but the episodes go in totally different directions with it. Dalek is a base under seige story that (rather literally) humanizes the Dalek, while Resolution is all about hunting this objective, undeniable monster down so they can stop it. Resolution has a lot of family and relationship-focused subplots with not much Doctor spotlight, Dalek is basically all about the Doctor processing that there's a living Dalek survivor of the Time War.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2019 01:55
|
|
|
fist4jesus posted:Dalek arrives on earth alone. Yeah, that's all sort of a base structural thing, rather than what most of the episodes actually focus on. You could probably deconstruct Rise of the Cybermen/The Age of Steel and World Enough and Time/The Doctor Falls similarly in a way that would make them sound similar, but I think most of us would disagree that they're alike outside of both being Cyberman origins. That is sort of an interesting way to look at it, that they're essentially totally different stories built from the same base skeleton of story beats, but I wouldn't decry one of them for being a worse version of the other because they're interested in such fundamentally different parts of that story. I wouldn't even necessarily say that comparing the two Doctors' reactions is called for, because it's actually a very different context they find themselves in; Nine didn't even know the Daleks could still be around, while Thirteen is abundantly aware of their presence and abilities. Selling it as 'smirking and saying she's The Doctor' is deliberately simplifying it, too, because she's clearly got two very different responses to it, being smirking and bombastic to the Dalek's face while taking it seriously behind its back, which I think is a unique approach to things among revival Doctors but is something Thirteen seems to have made a thing of (I think Eleven might've done it sometimes, but Thirteen's been doing it a lot). So simplifying it as only one of those two sides is kinda reductive. Also, the Brexit joke will age just fine, because they weren't specific about it so it won't date the episode much. The worst joke in the episode is the cut to the family with no internet, and that one will always be a groaner. Cleretic fucked around with this message at 11:37 on Jan 23, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2019 11:34
|
|
|
Burkion posted:Wait they're filming a brand new season this year Post-production and editing: It's A Thing.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2019 23:04
|
|
|
fist4jesus posted:Yeah, nah I dont think so. Fun how you ignored the actual point I was making that she treats it far differently to its face than behind its back.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2019 23:52
|
|
|
I am trans, and it isn't really the same. When someone deadnames a trans person they're using a very specific name from their past that could cause stress and emotional pain, just misnaming a trans person is kinda nothing. Someone deadnaming me actually hurts, but if someone just decided to call me 'Alex' it's mostly just confusing. I've written characters that deliberately get an overly grand character's name wrong, though. And just my personal preference, I don't like Tim Shaw because it's too short a road to your destination. It's way more fun if you take a bit of a journey to get there, or go entirely off the rails and go 'gently caress it, I'ma call you Gary'.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2019 04:20
|
|
|
Maera Sior posted:It struck me more as going "Your name is too hard to pronounce, Foreign Person." It's a lovely thing to do. Yeah, this is mostly what it came off as to me, which isn't cool but to me is more just lazy than offensive. The joke here is that they're undercutting his grandiosity by giving him a mundane name. That's a good joke, that can work, but it's the wrong punchline. You need to actually make fun of his big-talking bullshit, the things he clearly gave himself, rather than his actual name (think the Valeyard). Or, you make his name genuinely really long and unwieldy, and possibly self-chosen, and working around that is the joke (like the Slitheen planet, but I'm phoneposting so no way in hell am I trying to spell it).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2019 05:22
|
|
|
It must be exhausting watching every single BBC channel at all hours of the day, then. To 'keep abreast of your investment'.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2019 21:33
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:That three parter is extremely Davies era. It's a complete and utter goddamn mess, but portions of it are so enjoyable. Like, Martha revealing that the gun with four parts was a ruse the whole time gets you excited, and then the actual solution is the Dobby-Doctor magically transforming, being wreathed in light, and floating toward the Master with a sad Jesus look on his face and it goes from "goofy soap opera" to "you're back in high school watching a play your friend wrote and you're trying so hard not to laugh at his earnest efforts." I just realized the fourth season of Arrow had essentially this ending, only somehow both less dumb and less entertaining.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2019 11:50
|
|
|
Narsham posted:The show has yet to dare casting the next Doctor secretly and having her meet the current one. I think that'd ultimately be a bad idea. If they don't put on a good performance (which could be hard since it'd be their first performance as the Doctor) then it causes consternation going forward, but if they knock it out of the park then it casts a shadow on the rest of the 'current' Doctor's run.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2019 07:40
|
|
|
I think I always knew in my mind that aggregated user scores were useless, but the review bombing of stuff like the latest season of Who, of The Last Jedi, of Ghostbusters and the like kinda proves it plain-faced. Hell, it might actually be worse than useless. Yeah, there's valid complaints to be made about all of those; we know our own issues with Who pretty well, and while I've never seen those other two I've heard drat good and well-reasoned criticisms about what's wrong with them. But a nuanced, considered and explained opinion carries exactly as much weight as an idiot screaming 'BUT WOMEN' at his computer screen, so why bother.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2019 21:42
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:I mean, I think the Ghostbusters reboot is actually quite bad? I'm sure there's people who were angry because WOMEN GHOSTBUSTER but it's also a movie with basically no script or directorial vision Yeah, but it's a lot harder to cut through with the latter when there's so many people brainlessly screeching about the former, is my point. They're drowning out actual criticism.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2019 01:37
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:Let the casting begin. Matt Berry. Matt Berry will always be my answer for Master casting, but he'd do this idea great.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2019 23:36
|
|
|
Harlock posted:https://play.acast.com/s/davidtennant I love this, but it's a weird listen because it was clearly recorded months ago, probably during the season airing. There's a point where she's very clearly thinking about The Witchfinders in particular, but avoids specifics in a way where that's still spoiler territory.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2019 03:16
|
|
|
My favorite part of that is that it triggered one of my favorite things on Twitter, when a related thing starts trending because so many people are making the same specific joke or thinking the same thoughts about what's happening. This time it's just Peep Show trending because everyone is recommending it to everyone else, which is sweet.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2019 13:20
|
|
|
So one of my favorite podcasts' April Fools episode was focused on Doctor Who, and ended up really fun. It's by a goon, although I don't think he frequents SA anymore. A history podcast goes over the history of the entire world... as depicted in Doctor Who.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2019 11:20
|
|
|
Fortunately I think Graham Linehan would burst into flames the moment he wrote the first word of a script with a female Doctor, so we're safe from that one, at least. Still, it is pretty lovely to see. I've overall been really disappointed in the UK for continuing to give this oxygen, and all I can do is hope that at some point things turn around.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2019 12:38
|
|
|
I would've been reflexively 'oh gently caress no' before this last season, but Demons of the Punjab did show that they do have it in them to do this intelligently and respectfully. I'm still not okay with it, if that's even what they're doing, but I'm not terrified of the result.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2019 16:22
|
|
|
Rochallor posted:I don't dislike Rosa. It's about as good as a Rosa Parks episode you could make in the Chibnall era, which is an indictment of the Chibnall era. And yet I still think I'd trust a Chibnall era Rosa Parks episode more than I would have Davies or Moffat era. I can only picture a Davies-era Rosa Parks episode involve Parks personally fighting against some absurd alien. And I can't picture Moffat doing an episode about Rosa parks at all. Chibnall's run so far seems to have a genuine respect for the people involved in historical events, and that counts for a lot.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2019 06:36
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:I believe the original plan for Twice Upon A Time involved them wanting to actually fully recreate The Tenth Planet with David Bradley and the other actors? But in the end we just got a few brief snippets. The original plan was actually, instead of splicing in archival footage, to re-shoot those scenes they use from The Tenth Planet. There was never a plan to totally recreate it, it was just an alternative way to do that opening bit. They did shoot the stuff, using the original camera positions and blocking (the bits they did reshoot and use with Bradley were using the methods they normally use for New Who), and you can see it in the behind-the-scenes special they did. EDIT: Mark Gatiss did say, in that exact special, that he'd have liked to see that approach to recreating the missing episodes. Because when they actually did do it, it wasn't too hard and did look pretty good, although of course a big part of it was being able to re-use stuff they already had around from Adventure in Space and Time and New Who. Never would've happened if they hadn't just that season made O.G. Cybermen costumes. Cleretic fucked around with this message at 07:26 on Jul 1, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2019 07:20
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:That's a sweet idea, but how slavishly do you adhere to the idea of remaking something that's techniques and technology have dated so much? Do you include any goofs or noted bad acting? Its very much a no win scenario I think. They kinda did luck out that the scene they showed was totally goof-free, but their acting was intentionally in-keeping with the sixties style, and they did recreate and play straight an old-fashioned and kinda lovely special effect. On one hand that's probably exactly the energy we'd hope for as people who'd like faithful recreations of lost episodes, and it was most likely SUPER cheap to do, but I also feel like that effect might've been what killed the whole 'shot-for-shot recreation' idea, and for good reason, it would've played very weirdly to viewers who don't get the idea. Deliberately lovely or outdated special effects in particular are really hard to sell when you're not treating it as a joke. I think the version I'd want, and the version that would probably be the most 'right' were they to actually do it, would be to retain the intentional things that don't work well, but not the unintentional ones. A 'best case scenario with what they would've had' situation. Not only would keeping goofs be really hard, but we're also talking about lost episodes. They didn't have the chance to have well-known goofs or bad acting that's important to preserve, because nobody's seen them for decades.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2019 10:33
|
|
|
I don't see Chibnall having a short tenure, but not necessarily because he'd want to be holding onto the job. Rather, I see something like a more positive version of the JNT situation; not 'we'll cancel the show if you leave', but 'you're good enough to stay on until someone else turns up', and Chibnall seems like he'd generally be pretty okay with a pretty long tenure of 'pretty good' caliber until someone does. Certainly it seems like his style of doing the show could have a long life, because he seems disinclined to do the big season-long arcs that Davies couldn't sustain the escalation of and Moffat couldn't save from his own habits. Part of this comes from the fact that I don't know who'd replace him, though. Moffat was really quickly the obvious successor for Davies, and Chibnall wasn't the only pick to follow Moffat but he was a natural one. I just don't have an answer for who the showrunner after him could be, and so my natural answer is 'why do we even have to consider this now'.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2019 12:56
|
|
|
I like an interpretation that I think I adapted from some of Jerusalem's old writeups: Ten wants to be like some of the older Doctors, but isn't very good at actually being like them. He wants to have Five's optimism and happiness, but can't manage to keep that up when action comes. He wants to be as clever as Seven, but can't really prepare well enough to pull that off. He wants Four's overall benevolence, Six's self-confidence, even Two's occasional childishness, but he honestly just doesn't have any of it. He can only pretend he has them, possibly to cover up for who he really is, and that's a person who regrets that he had to do what he did in the Time War but would also absolutely do it again.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2019 11:02
|
|
|
Voting Floater posted:The whole "image of an angel becomes an angel" thing in particular annoys me to an irrational degree. This part upsets me more than anything else about the Angels, who otherwise end up being fairly consistent and interesting monsters, because this is him cramming in an entirely different interesting monster idea. A creature that reproduces through depictions of them is an awesome idea, and one that'd be really interesting to play with in a show that stretches time periods especially. You'd be able to explore how they proliferated differently in certain eras based on how they could best get people to depict them; some animal beast in caveman times so that they put them in cave paintings. Associating themselves to famous figures so that people drawing folkloric heroes also draw them. Come the Renaissance, posing as something divine so that they weasel into Catholicism's art. In the modern day where everyone has smartphones it suddenly becomes easier than ever. And that's without getting into the notion that writing is also a depiction, which is a crazy story idea by itself. But that story can't work if it's the Angels, because the Angels already have their thing, and this is a totally unrelated extra bit for them.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2019 06:04
|
|
|
Fair Bear Maiden posted:I can't wait for Doctor Who to do Cyber-men as social media or something equally topical for 2011. They did that, you just forgot because the story that did it only started there, and then went in wild directions afterwards. The 3W group and the overall concept at play in Dark Water was playing on social media, just indirectly. Profiles remaining as memorials, and then using the dead to sell a message or product. An automated advertisement using your dead friend's Facebook profile to sell you something, or a celebrity's sponsored endorsement going out after their death, ultimately isn't all that different to what 3W was pulling.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2019 00:55
|
|
|
Fair Bear Maiden posted:On the other hand, it's even funnier if you assume that the Dalek said that in earnest. It genuinely calculated everything and concluded that the only thing the Cybermen are better at is dying. NOT EVEN GRABBING THINGS. THEY ARE NOT EVEN BETTER AT THAT. I used to think that it was actually the Cybermen acting out of character in that scene, because like you said, the Daleks aren't trying to be smug, they genuinely think that's the truth. Meanwhile the Cybermen are talking about elegance and claiming themselves superior, which doesn't seem like something the Cybermen would give a poo poo about. But I just realized when reading this discussion that I think that because my natural inclination is to think of the Mondasian Cybermen, and that scene actually touches on one of the clearest differences between the two. Mondasian Cybermen were born of survivalism, a natural inclination to just keep going by any means necessary, and they don't think of themselves as 'superior' so much as a necessary evolution. That's not actually part of the Cybus Cybermen; they weren't converted because they had to be, they were upgraded by a corporation that saw it as a step up. Cybus was very much an Apple style of company, who became pervasive because they were offering a trendy product, so of course their Cybermen have an inherent superiority and a feeling that they look cool as poo poo; they're born in part out of technology as a fashion statement. I never realized how different the Cybus Cybermen could have been, mostly because they never really bothered to explore it. It's unfortunate; especially now that we do have the 'technology as a necessity for survival' Cybermen back and established again, it'd be neat to put them up against the 'technology as identity and fashion statement' Cybermen.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2019 11:02
|
|
|
I'm still a fan of Whittaker's first season, because it's a few really good episodes surrounded by decent or at its worst 'meh'. I don't always like boring failures over interesting ones, but with Doctor Who I do, judging by how I'll happily watch all of Whittaker's season but any of Capaldi's have at least one episode that I'd absolutely dread sitting through again. Maybe it's because I actually have an emotional investment and connection to Doctor Who right now at this point in my life. A Sonic thing can go ahead and be a weird awful mess, I won't be hurt because I grew out of being very connected to Sonic ages ago. But I've noticed that I do get really worked up about significant and unusual failures in things I actually have some investment to care about; I think a few friends of mine are outright afraid of bringing up Final Fantasy around me online, because it's a minefield of weird unexpected things that'll set me off on an unexpectedly long rant that may or may not be reasonably agreeable but sure is a rollercoaster. Notably Bad Who actually hurts me, probably because I care. So Whittaker's first season having its worst moments be 'I see the potential but it didn't really work' was a welcome year.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2019 17:58
|
|
|
marktheando posted:Day the Doctor is so great. I got it on 3D blu ray recently since I got a PSVR, 3D feels very appropriate for the big epic anniversary. Apparently the 'allegedly educational' days were actually an inspiration for Chibnall. Hence those bits, the historical episodes actually managing to be fairly good at diving into an actual historical event/period, and why the episode count is pretty close to balanced between past, present and future stories. Weirdly, I think it actually kind of works for giving Whittaker her own 'thing' to distinguish herself from other Doctors pretty quickly. It makes her feel a lot more particular about some things, and a lot more encouraging of other people's solutions. It also helps along the 'Thirteen is high-functioning autistic' feel, which I'm still not sure is intentional but I love how valid an interpretation it is.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2019 02:01
|
|
|
Hi everyone, I'm working on an extremely bad idea, and could use your help! I'm working on a music-based project (I'm not comfortable calling it anything more specific than that, because I have no idea what I'm doing), and I've realized there's part of it that could use, specifically, Classic Who music famously connected to the Daleks or Cybermen. I was going to go with their respective Murray Gold themes largely because I'm familiar with them and they're easy for me to find, but I think this project could use a touch of some good classic sci-fi synths and the like if at all possible. Are there any that jump out to anyone here?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2019 15:33
|
|
|
There hasn't been any statements that refute that Bradley Walsh exploded in a big fiery ball that was visible from space. So that's probably a true thing that happened, too.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2019 00:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 19, 2024 20:37 |
|
|
I've been interested in getting a Thirteen cosplay together, but it strikes me as an outfit that you need just a bit more figure than I have to pull off. Otherwise I'd sorta get lost in the coat.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2019 06:32
|
|