|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..11~12~13~14~15..19~20~21 [Next] | ||||||||||
Beth Loyal user Missouri 277 Posts 
|
Quote:
On 2005-08-02 20:37, the levitator wrote: Yes some ppl posted on this thread dislike what Cris did...some ppl like what he is doing on his show...But hey this is a forum where ppl give opinions and debate ALL the time. Do you seriously think only ppl who share your viewpoint should post? Noone should ever give critism ever? I don't think anyone should be upset because a variety of opinions are being given here. That is the nature of debate. My own reason for speaking out is certainly not about hating Cris. To me it's about speaking the truth as I see it, and I feel that the trick editing he did maligns all magicians. It is the eqivalent to lip syncing in my opinion, and it injures all magicians. Noone is screaming or ranting, although you seem a tad upset. I thought Randwill and Verno laid out there opinions and viewpoints in a calm logical manner without ranting...and no exclamation marks in their posts  You see this all the time. Ppl want everyone to have the right to an opinion until it diverges from theirs lol.
Peace Beth
"All creative art is magic, is evocation of the unseen in forms persuasive,enlightening, familar, and surprising."
|
|||||||||
the levitator Special user Spellbound Productions 546 Posts
|
You are right Beth. I'm wrong. Criticizing a fellow magician because they don't appeal to you is an exercise in positive thinking that can only help our "brotherhood". I'm not upset that people have negative opinions Beth. What upsets me is their thinking that spewing it all over a message board is somehow helpful to our "brotherhood". I have all kinds of opinions, I just don't feel the need to breed negative energy in an overly negative "brotherhood". I was taught that if you don't have something nice to say about someone, you should say nothing. What possible outcome do people hope to come to that can be seen as positive from ripping a fellow magician apart? Do you honestly believe that all of these negative, unasked for opinions are really helpful to anyone? The only people this kind of negativity helps are those who take cheap shots at high profile entertainers to make themselves feel better about their low profile. Explain to me exactly how ripping another "brother's" show and style apart is a positive thing for magic and magicians. Explain to me how dissecting his shows and methods and dismissing everything you don't have an answer to is GOOD for magic and magicians? When you can explain to me the good that comes from negativity, I'll gladly jump on board and start tearing down other magicians right along with you all.
|
|||||||||
Randwill Inner circle 1914 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2005-08-02 22:19, the levitator wrote: It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Randwill |
|||||||||
|
the levitator Special user Spellbound Productions 546 Posts
|
How eloquent! That still doesn't explain how unsolicited negative comments about our own are helpful to the advancement of magic. The overintellectualization approach isn't winning me over either. Of course, elitism is nothing new in the magic circle.
Not all thoughts need to be shared. It goes back to "if you don't have something nice to say......". I know it's an infantile concept to those who would rather be verbose and overly philisophical to justify being negative, but it has worked for me for years. |
|||||||||
|
Beth Loyal user Missouri 277 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2005-08-02 22:55, the levitator wrote: So are you saying that leaving the Blaine should kiss his ass comment in his show was positive or negative...implying that he was outdoing Houdini...was that positive?...or saying that he left Blaine in the past? I'm sorry it just seems you are of two minds. Are you saying it's ok to be critical about other magicins on ones show and on TV venues but not on a magic forum?
"All creative art is magic, is evocation of the unseen in forms persuasive,enlightening, familar, and surprising."
|
|||||||||
|
the levitator Special user Spellbound Productions 546 Posts
|
If you would read my posts, I clearly stated that if Blaine and Angel haven't gotten together on the whole competition thing, that it was a bit over the line. Criss' statements about Houdini aren't offensive or disrepectful in my opinion, or apparently the opinions of Banachek, Burton, Jermay, Thompson, etc. It's only magicians looking for anything they can to criticize about someone doint better than them that found anything he said about Houdini offensive. I greatly respect Lance Burton and having had the pleasure of meeting him and getting some 1 on 1 time with him, know that he would never put his name behind any magician he found offensive. Are you seriously performing your magic with the attitude that you can't hold a candle to other magicians? There's nothing wrong with being confident in what you are doing. There is nothing offensive about anything he has said or did pertaining to Houdini and it's common knowledge that he has great respect for Houdini's accomplishments.
As much as you would like to think that I'm contradicting myself, I'm not. I don't believe in negativaty as a way to express yourself. I don't agree with the "Blaine comment" but that doesn't mean I'm going to jump all over him about it. Blaine's a big boy and doesn't need all of you fighting his battles. It's funny that there are magicians here who care much more about that than the person it was aimed at. Do you honestly think Blaine's losing sleep from that comment? And who are all of you to interpret things that another person says? When Criss said he doesn't look behind him, MAYBE he meant that the back and forth bickering between he and Blaine were in the past and he was focused on his own future. But those of you looking for anything to latch onto to bag the guy will just interpret it how you want. I appreciate the effort you have made to make me look a man with 2 minds, even though it wasn't successful. Just because I'm not the person to criticize people who are much more successful than me doesn't make me a man with 2 minds. Nobody, not even Lance Burton or Banachek will convince you that Criss is a great entertainer with great respect for magic and it's history and future. Just keep spewing the negativity, oops I'm sorry, "constructive criticism". It's great for our art and is sure to advance it in leaps and bounds! |
|||||||||
|
Beth Loyal user Missouri 277 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2005-08-02 22:19, the levitator wrote: well first I never ripped his style ever. I disliked 2 things...trick editing...and the public dishing of other magicians during his show. Ok if you really want me to explain how being critical of his show can be a positive thing, this is my take on it. When you see something wrong you speak out. I've always believed this is right. You don't pretend it's other than what it is because ppl wish it to be so... even when it goes against popular opinion or the powers that be. I believe that is a a positive thing and in the long run truth is always positive. It is a positive thing because in my opinion if noone speaks out then it becomes accepted. Specifically,for me for this situation, I would hate for trick editing to be accepted as magic. I think it's a negative thing for magicians and for magic as an art. Peace Beth
"All creative art is magic, is evocation of the unseen in forms persuasive,enlightening, familar, and surprising."
|
|||||||||
DaveB New user Toronto 83 Posts
|
I've noticed that some of the complaints have gone from "camera tricks", to "camera edits". So basically a few people are upset because the show had edits? Because they did not show an ENTIRE illusion from start to finish without an edit?
One person is complaining about an edit on the bus... who cares? If it was the part where the girl was asked if she could see her card in the deck, maybe she didn't see it the first time around and he had to go back and show her the cards again. Maybe someone asked a question or something else happened that needlessly prolonged the trick, and they wanted things to move quickly & smoothly. The bottom line is the edit had nothing to do with the success of this illusion. I'm sure many people here know that a varation of this effect can be purchased. Other stuff: Ice cube/ring trick  oes not need camera tricks or edits. Varations of this have been done for years.
Pen and breaking glass: oes not need camera tricks or edits. Varations of this have been done for years.
Deja vu: Does not need camera tricks or edits. CAN be done in person, but you have to watch the angles. Board of nails: I'm sure you have seen this done before with an Elephant and cars before. Burned Alive: Less dangerous versions have been done before live on stage. No tricks or edits required. Trash can: Yes believe it or not this can be done without camera tricks or edits, and variations have been done before. Pardon the pun, but this one really mind freaked some of you! Let your mind relax and you will be pleasantly surprised by the answer. Wine barrel: Less dangerous versions have been done before. No camera tricks or edits required. Needles from stomach: He even did this one at a press party for reporters! So no camera tricks or edits required. Variations have been done before. Restaurant levitation, on the escalator, and the one outside by the flowers. Peter Loughran.. the maker of the elevator, is jealous of this one! Completely different method. No edits or camera tricks required. As mentioned before. These shows are not made for magicians. They are not instructional videos so you can learn how to do the effects yourself. Sorry, they are not going to show you an angle tipping the method, or a camera just trained on his hands, or the entire trick filmed by one camera from beginning to end. The bottom line is that Criss is a very talented individual who has proven himself for years performing live. If you wish to think that overnight he forgot everything, and has to resort to camera tricks or as some are calling it now.. "edits" because it was not filmed the way you would have liked, that is your opinion. I respectfully disagree. |
|||||||||
|
the levitator Special user Spellbound Productions 546 Posts
|
I totally understand where you are coming from Beth and I apologize if my comments seemed directed at you. The first part of that quote was directed at everyone in gerneral. The questions were directed towards you because I know you are being honest about your opinion. You've been very honest about not only what bugged you, but more importantly, why. You will just have a very hard time convincing me that Criss Angel used editing any more than others who have been on TV. Every magician that's ever been on TV has used editing to their advantage.
What has bugged me is the accusation that Criss' effects could ONLY be done with editing. Let me give an example. People have been frame by frame analyzing the Fire Illusion. It's obvious to anyone with a VCR that there was editing done on that effect. BUT, the editing wasn't done to accomplish the effect, it was used to compress time. It was edited because time passes much more slowly to the unblinking camera and I think they were trying to give the TV audience the same feeling as those witnessing it in person. The illusion was performed in front of a live audience. Realistically, the big finale probably took closer to 7-10 seconds, instead of the 2 second transformation on TV. But if you were to ask people who were actually there, they would have said it happened in the blink of an eye! Anyone who's performed a disappearance/reappearance illusion knows this is true. I used to perform a flash vanish at the end of my stage show. Seconds later, the rear doors would open, the lights would come on and people would start leaving the show. I would be out there sitting at a table to thank people for coming. Their impression was that I went from the stage to the exit in a few seconds. In reality it was close to 25 seconds. I'm curious as to which effects specifically you believe were ONLY possible with camera editing. We all know the hallway thing took advantage of the camera frame, not editing, so that doesn't count. Maybe if I knew specifically which effects you are talking about I would have a better understanding of your dissapointment in his style of editing his show. In regards to his "bashing" of Houdini, I personally don't see it. But I'm not alone. I don't think guys like Burton, Banachek, Thompson and Jermay would associate themselves with someone they felt was being disrepectful. There are sooooo many negative threads about Criss Angel and David Blaine, that it's hard to remember what was said where. But I think you can admit that there are plenty of people doing nothing more than kicking others they don't like who are more successful than them. That is the part that disgusts me. You don't have to love Blaine or Angel or agree with his style or music or magic or methods or anything else. But there are better ways to debate than simple cheap shots. I know that you aren't doing that Beth, but many of our "brothers" are and it seems pretty sad to me. |
|||||||||
|
Randwill Inner circle 1914 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2005-08-03 00:20, the levitator wrote: This statement is outrageously false. When you make a statement as ludicrous as this it makes it difficult to take anything else you say seriously. My shelves all full of tapes recorded off of television of excellent performers doing amazing magic. The same acts they do, or did, live and in person and without the help of editing to accomplish these effects or compress time to make them more entertaining to a television audience. If you sincerely believe that Criss Angel didn't use editing "any more than others who have been on TV" I can only conclude that you have seen very little of the magic that has been on television in the last 40 years. You should seek it out. Your eyes will be opened. Randwill |
|||||||||
|
the levitator Special user Spellbound Productions 546 Posts
|
You got me. I don't know what I'm talking about. No other magicians performing magic on television have ever altered their performances to better suit TV or used editing in any way to enhance their performances. The best you could do was jump on a generalization I made that still didn't make your point. You openly criticize a performer for doing something many other magicians have done in the past like he's the first and only to do any kind of editing. You shouldn't attempt to conclude anything about people you don't know, it's bad manners and very judgemental. My point still stands that he isn't the first or only performer to do it and if it's so wrong, why are so many admired magicians behind him? If I appear irritated, it's because your passive/aggressive way at attempting to appear intellectual is condescending and rude. My generalization may be inaccurate, but my point still stands. Criss Angel isn't the first or only magician to use the camera to their advantage. Saying that my opinion is ludicrous is also rude and condescending. You might find that pointing your finger at yourself and improving your own performances a more positive activity than pointing out the faults of others. It's so easy to criticize others, isn't it? I still don't see how it's conducive to magic as an art or a brotherhood.
I'm the clueless one, yet you maintained in your first post on the subject that the first special contained no real magic: Quote:
On 2005-07-20 23:36, Randwill wrote: Banachek himself has stated on this very forum that you guys are way off base in your conclusions that all these stooges and camera tricks were used or necessary to accomplish his magic. Just keep spewing your negativity. The things you have to say are much more positive than anything I have to say about fellow magicians. Sit up on your pedastal and keep trying to look down on those you don't approve of and invent more and more ways to insult them and their show to make yourself feel better. You can pretend to be a super-intellectual but you can't win this arguement with me. I didn't come on here disrespecting a fellow magician and you did. Your category by category dissection of Criss' show with free bonus sarcasm wasn't constructive in the least and quite rude. Quote:
On 2005-07-20 23:36, Randwill wrote: You wrongly blamed camera tricks for an actual effect: Quote:
On 2005-07-20 23:36, Randwill wrote: Luke Jermay describes pretty much this same effect in 7 Deceptions. And Jonathan Townsend also once commented that a similar effect was described in Vernon's "Tribute To Leipzig". Andrew Goldenhersch's Origami Butterfly effect is also similar in mechanics and performed without camera tricks. Are they ALL using camera editing to perform it? You don't even give Angel the courtesy of being on YOUR level: Quote:
On 2005-07-21 01:51, Randwill wrote: Criss had a VERY successful Off-Broadway show that earned $4 million in 14 months. Let me guess, he did over 600 stage shows with camera tricks? You showed NO respect to one of the more respected visitors of this board: Quote:
On 2005-07-21 02:35, Randwill wrote: Further, you made your self seem unknowledgeable because many magicians know that the effects you screamed stooge and camera tricks can be accomplished without either. The bottom line is, negativity is bad. Being rude and condescending and attempting to appear overly intellectual is not a popular way to make a point. I never bagged the guy. I don't think it's right to openly bag someone just because I don't agree with them. But if it makes you feel better, continue. |
|||||||||
|
Randwill Inner circle 1914 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2005-08-03 00:13, DaveB wrote: To understand why this was such a bad edit you really need to watch it. But I'll try to explain the problem with it one more time and without running afoul of the Café rules. The girl takes a card. (This is a f**ce.) She signs the face of the card. Card is returned to the deck, brought to the top, p***ed off using the on-handed top p**m. He hands her the deck and his guilty hand goes out of frame while she shuffles the deck. He takes the deck back and, holding the faces towards her, fans through the cards, one at a time, revealing only the top indices. (Remember her name is written on the other card.) He asks her if her card is still in the deck. When she sees the d*p*l*c*t* of the f**ce card she says, "Okay." RIGHT HERE THERE IS A CUT. In the next shot he asks the spectators on the bus to count 1,2,3. He then throws the deck at the front windshield. Because the camera's aperture is automatically opened wide to shoot inside the bus, the windshield is "burned out" in the video image, making it impossible to see the card until the camerman zooms in on it. Card is seen stuck to windshield, on the outside as we soon learn. Now maybe I'm completely wrong. This has happened on this board in this very topic. But I know a little bit about magic. I watched the replay of the performance a few times. What I have described is a perfectly viable method of creating this illusion. Except for one thing. You'd need more time, an unseen accomplice and perhaps even a bus stop to do it. If that's the case, where I wrote "RIGHT HERE THERE IS A CUT" would be the place for certain things to happen. On the other hand, let's say I'm completely wrong. Let's say Angel and crew have created a totally new way to do this (and the other effects) that transcends not only my knowledge, but that of the most learned magicians in the world. Isn't it too bad that there is a cut right where the dirty work would need to be done, but, of course, wasn't? Therefore making it look like, to poor ignorant me, that editing was used to accomplish the trick. My biggest complaint about these programs, I'll say it again, is that the editing does not well serve the creators or the performer. Randwill |
|||||||||
tpdmagic Elite user 459 Posts
|
Well here I am with no sleep as of yet relizing I need to say what is on my mine!
we are magicians not whinning crying babys! This has to be the craziest thing I have seen. Here we have a magician who is bringing our art to the public and all people can talk about is the editing and stooges. Lets get real, I am a entertainer and in my live show I use 2 stooges. Why? well it is simple I get a great reaction from the audience using them. It is for entertainment not the magic. If magicians would relize we are in the business of entertaining then mayby they would be o.k. with editing, stooges, and what I call Tv magic. personally I see nothing wrong with it as editing is a art form in its self. I believe that everything we saw on the specials so far Chris can do live on a stage and that is the bottom line. If he was to tour doing a show on a full stage he could do everything we saw on Tv. It is smart marketing and smart editing. I have done tv work and can say that they did some editing to clean some stuff up and I am o.k with it as I know I can do the stuff live and in the audiences view it is as clean. I know as I do it live with great reactions. This in my opionon is just people being jelouse that they are not on tv and they are not getting there shot. The thing that gets me is why do people have to shoot this stuff down. Who cares about the method. Think about it, if you get a gig because some ceo just watched the specials are you not getting something positve out of the specials. There are so many things that people are missing when it comes to the magic that we see on TV. But the most important thing is that a fellow brother in magic is doing well for himself and we should all be happy and proud to say that a magician has a special again. And trust me when I say this 16 specials shot in 10 weeks is amazing. I shot 13 specials in 3 weeks and it was the hardest work I have ever done. long days constant rehearsing and a lot of challenges along the way. I give chris and his team a lot of credit and wish them the best of luck with the specials as I know that more things are to come from it. PEOPLE MAGIC IS MAGIC BUT BEING A ENTERTAINER IS THE MAIN PART OF OUR JOB...NOT THE DARN METHOD........... tpdmagic p.s. sorry about the grammer and spelling no sleep...LOL |
|||||||||
|
the levitator Special user Spellbound Productions 546 Posts
|
Well said tpdmagic. Unfortunately, you aren't going to convince the jealous ones here that what they are doing is wrong. They don't care that Criss had a very successful stage show that made $4 million in 14 months. He cheated on Tv. Waaaaaa! They don't get it, and never will. I'm a little jealous of guys like Blaine and Angel too. The difference is that I don't turn it outward and dissect him on a public forum so I can sleep better at night. I turn it inward and dissect myself to try and improve my character and my show. I'll probably never get on Tv, but watching Criss and David and others on Tv inspires me to improve my own show.
I'm convinced from reading all these destructive threads that few magicians here even understand what the word presentation even means. |
|||||||||
|
Scott Grimm Regular user Chicago 141 Posts
|
I can't help but wonder how many of the internet tough talkers granting all of that "constuctive critisizim" even know the word BUISINESS much less PRESENTATION. They seem to want to see everything that has already been done. Why doesn't he dress in a sequened tux and do the things that Henning and Copperfield did on TV? Because that has been done. What he is doing has not. You can absolutely not like it all you want. But just say it and let it go. The things said (oversaid?) here are not going to convince people who like his stuff to saying, "Oh, your right! I now hate him!"
Some here are more than welcome to share the expertice they have. I won't mention any names, but those of us who do perform for a living can see very clearly who is pretending to have real input and who does not. But, hey, you can keep the hope alive, right!? BTW. You can always go to his site and send Criss a letter telling him what he should be doing. Wouldn't that be more constuctive? Why tell other people why they shouldn't enjoy his show? What about going to the source and tell him how wrong he is? Go ahead. Not only would that be better time spent but you would get him to drop an act that is acualy different and modern. the only other option is to not watch his show if you don't want to. We can't have that! And I personally thought the David Blane comment was... funny!
Faith is at the heart of all magic.
|
|||||||||
Payne Inner circle Seattle 4571 Posts
|
There really isn't much more of value that can be said here as there appears to be an inseperable rift between those who feel that the advantageous use of video editing is an acceptable tool for the modern MTV magician and those who don't.
I fear I fall into the latter camp and believe that what could have been very strong presentations were severely weakend by the liberal use of editing. As many have said before in one way or another, the second the camera cuts away, for any reason, the magic of the moment is lost as it gives the spectator the out they need to dismiss, what very well could be a very perplexing presentation of prestidigitation as nothing more than a camera trick. I understand the need to tighten up a live presentation to make it more suitable for a television production but I must admit that if I had the chance to air a magic special on Television I would strive to create effects ad presentations that could be done in a single unedited take. But then that's just me and perhaps Mr. Angel has a differnt vision.
"America's Foremost Satirical Magician" -- Jeff McBride.
|
|||||||||
MopKrayz Elite user 423 Posts
|
I have been following Criss Angel since 1997, since the first time he appeared prominently on TV. It was on the tv special "The Science of Magic" doing his exceptional subtrunk. I had high regards to Pendragons' subtrunk, but Criss premise & presentation were way too beyond their time. it was too good.
Incidentally the first David Blaine "street magic" also appeared in the same year. I have most of Criss' apperances on video. I adore his stage shows. I don't like his challenges to Blaine. He can do without them. I don't like the way he spoke about Houdini trying to belittle his escapology stunts. Most probably there is a reason behind this kind of actions. MindFreak does not contain camera trickery. If you can't work out how the tricks are done, why don't you just accept the fact that some of the greatest minds in magic stand begind the methodology. Criss has made an investment and he got the best tricks around! Mindfreak is not his best work so far. His area par escellence are the post-apocalyptic world stage shows. Later on this year he will be on tour with his new show. Just go and see that. |
|||||||||
|
the levitator Special user Spellbound Productions 546 Posts
|
I agree with you on effect selection Payne. My guess is that they are some of his strongest pieces and he decided to make them work as well as possible, rather than start from scratch on new effects. I sent out 35 emails to my friends who I have sat and watched Criss' show with me. I asked them what they thought about the show, and if they had any idea how he accomplished his magic. I've gotten 19 replies so far, and only 2 of them suspected camera tricks. I guess all the negative cheap shot artists will just argue that I have stupid friends. Maybe I'll give them the opportunity to tell my friends directly. Criss' ratings are going up, not down. So the argument that editing is the overwhelming public explanation isn't holding much water. It reminds me of threads I've seen in the past of people bashing the DL. "It's soooo obvious!" they proclaim, yet dozens of magcians pay their bills with the DL. I personally believe that Criss' show will actually help those who are criticizing him more than those who are supporting him. Payne is right that magic is best performed live and in person. Those who are proficient at that will seem even MORE incredible than the guys on TV. That's why it blows my mind that the "purists" are so upset that someone is actually helping THEMto look even more amazing!
I totally agree with you Scott. The majority of our "brotherhood" are amatuers and hobbyists, so things like presentation, storyline and marketability don't seem to have much meaning. It seems to be all about learning the coolest new move to show off at the next magic meeting for many of them. I stopped going to magic meetings early in my study of magic because A. most of the magicians I've met there were mostly finger flingers unconcerned with magic as an artform or business and B. there weren't any other "working" magicians showing up that I could ask the kinds of questions I felt were important. It's unfortunate for me that I spent six months taking care of my mother who was dying of brain cancer. I stopped performing to take care of her and my then 2 month old daughter. That left me with time to check out these boards and "catch up" on my fellow "brotherhood". My Mom has since passed and now I am starting to get busy again. It hasn't come at a better time. These last couple of months reminded ME why I do magic. It isn't to impress a bunch of magicians who have nothing better to do than sit around and tear others down to make themselves feel better. I perform magic for people who ENJOY magic. I used to think that the people who enjoyed magic the most were magicians, but that's sadly not the case. There's just no making sense to the bitter and jealous, so I won't bother to remind anyone anymore what's supposed to REALLY be important to us as magicians. You can go back to your armchair quarterbacking and systematic deconstruction of all the magicians doing more for magic than you. I'm going to get back to booking and go out and make magic, not try to destroy it. |
|||||||||
cocomax Loyal user North Fork, CA 289 Posts
|
>> I guess all the negative cheap shot artists will just argue that I have stupid friends. <<
No, I doubt that. The negative cheap shot artists would more likely tell us that David Blaine should kiss Criss Angel's A**. . . . or tell us what a fake Houdini was, he never really risked his life you know. . . |
|||||||||
|
Magicbarry Loyal user Toronto 276 Posts
|
It's a shame that threads like this become a matter of bickering and backbiting ... on both sides. I actually have to remind myself which "side" I'm on, because I find both sides so unappealing in this little debate. (For the record, I'm on the "pro" side, even if Angel is not my cup of tea, style-wise.)
What should have been a constructive discussion about the merits (or lack thereof) of a successful magician, and a discussion of the kinds of effects he brings to the table, has become a debate about the merits of the people posting. Those who like Angel are "gullible", those who don't are "jealous". And both sides suggest that if the other side doesn't agree with them, it's because they're not a good/experienced magician. So, here's a magician with a weekly show. A great opportunity for discussion. As an added bonus, some of the magicians who worked with him on the show have appeared in this very thread. But bickering is the order of the day. What a waste. |
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Magic names and the media » » Criss Angel Mindfreak series? (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..11~12~13~14~15..19~20~21 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Aug 3, 2005 01:52 am 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.15 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
|
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < 
|