Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Miscellaneous / Verschiedenes » alt.fan.james-bond » Comments on the Toby Stevens article
Comments on the Toby Stevens article [message #227978] Mi, 01 März 2006 04:50
FTseng2749  
Recently read the BBC article about Toby Stevens' criticism of DAD and
praise of Craig.
Yes, I agree DAD was a bit "over the top," so to speak, but audiences
loved that "over the top" to the tune of $161 million domestically and
$432 million worldwide (shattering Bond box-office records in the
process). A lot of people would simply say, "if it ain't broke, don't
fix it,"
in other words, common sense would say, "why would Eon make such a big
change on something that was working so well?" I don't have an answer
for that, except maybe TPTB saw the trend that happened with Connery
and Moore (both of them peaked in the box-office during their 4th Bond
movie and started to go downhill after that) and wanted to prevent
history from repeating itself with Brosnan. Or perhaps they saw how
successful the Jason Bourne series was (The Bourne Supremacy actually
outgrossed DAD domestically, albeit not worldwide), with a much younger
Matt Damon, and, to be able to compete and appeal to the younger
demographic, decided to go younger. Who knows. All I can say is,
Pierce Brosnan deserved to be treated better, that's all. It's a
business, of course, but still...

Toby must feel pretty strong and secure in his conviction to criticize
the movie that put him on the map (I never heard of him until DAD came
around), though. I'm sure Craig is a fine actor, but the American
public will have a lot of trouble accepting him as Bond, with Brosnan's
indelible image fresh in their minds. He's better known in the UK,
so he'll have an easier time there. All I can say is good luck to
Craig, you're gonna need it.

-Frank

P.S. Here's the article below:

Bond villain defends actor Craig
By Simon Holden
in London



Stephens is the son of Sir Robert Stephens and Dame Maggie Smith
Former Bond villain Toby Stephens has defended the latest 007 star
Daniel Craig in the wake of criticism from some fans over his casting.
Website ww.craignotbond.com asked fans on Wednesday to boycott the new
film Casino Royale, saying Craig's casting was "ruining the future" of
James Bond.

Stephens, who played Gustav Graves in 2002's Die Another Day, said Bond
was becoming "too cliched and unrealistic".

He said the casting of Craig in the lead role was "inspired".

"The last Bond film took it to an extreme in one direction and it
became fantastical," he said.


Daniel Craig took the role in October last year

"It was all those things people want from Bond but it was stretched to
its absolute limit."

Stephens, who is starring in upcoming ITV1 drama The Best Man, said the
decision to choose Craig as the latest bond took the character "back to
its roots".

"Craig is a serious actor and doesn't look like a traditional James
Bond," he said.

"He is a very dark actor and a very interesting one and I think he will
be brilliant. It will reinvigorate the whole thing.

"It is not going to be to everyone's taste but that is the thing when
you take over a role, you are not going to please everyone."

British actor Craig, 37, was announced as the sixth James Bond in
October last year.


Brosnan has defended his successor

Best-known for his roles in gangster thriller Layer Cake and the recent
Spielberg drama Munich, he has been the subject of media criticism
since he made his debut as the secret agent at a lacklustre press
conference.

Earlier this week former Bond star Pierce Brosnan defended his
successor. "I think Daniel is a very fine actor," he said.

And veteran actor Christopher Lee has also called on critics to give
the new Bond star a chance.

"People should not pass judgment until they have seen the film," said
Lee, a former Bond villain and a distant cousin of 007 creator Ian
Fleming.
Re: Comments on the Toby Stevens article [message #227982 ] Mi, 01 März 2006 06:23
JHause  
I think it's going to make a LOT of money out of sheer curiosity alone.
The test will be what his second film earns.
Re: Comments on the Toby Stevens article [message #227999 ] Mi, 01 März 2006 13:33
phil.gerrard1  
Frank wrote:

> Yes, I agree DAD was a bit "over the top," so to speak, but audiences
> loved that "over the top" to the tune of $161 million domestically and
> $432 million worldwide (shattering Bond box-office records in the
> process). A lot of people would simply say, "if it ain't broke, don't
> fix it,"
> in other words, common sense would say, "why would Eon make such a big
> change on something that was working so well?"

In the short term it might well make sense to follow the DAD blueprint,
hoping to repeat that film's success, but we've been down that route
before with TSWLM being followed by MR. In its day, MR was a huge
financial success, but history and the mainstream of Bond fan opinion
have been far less kind to it. Had there been a third film in the same
vein, not only do I suspect that audiences would have started to desert
the series, but perhaps more importantly, I think a lot of previously
hardcore Bond fans would have been alienated for good.

After a film like DAD, Bond has to come back down to earth sooner or
later, not only for the series to survive artistically, but in the long
term to make sure it survives financially. For a franchise to survive
over forty years it has to be able to adapt to changing times, and
making the same kind of movie several times in a row is going to limit
your ability to do that.

> I don't have an answer
> for that, except maybe TPTB saw the trend that happened with Connery
> and Moore (both of them peaked in the box-office during their 4th Bond
> movie and started to go downhill after that) and wanted to prevent
> history from repeating itself with Brosnan.

Exactly. I suspect DAD's box-office success is going to represent a
peak, and that even a Brosnan follow-up would have done considerably
less well at the box-office. DAD benefitted hugely from the 40th
anniversary hoopla, the Halle Berry hype, and continuing goodwill
towards Brosnan, but the public and the press can be mighty fickle.
Who's to say that if Bond 21 had been DAD part II, familiarity wouldn't
finally have bred contempt, that the public wouldn't finally start
saying 'seen it all before', or that there wouldn't have been
mutterings about Brosnan's visible aging?

> Or perhaps they saw how
> successful the Jason Bourne series was (The Bourne Supremacy actually
> outgrossed DAD domestically, albeit not worldwide), with a much younger
> Matt Damon, and, to be able to compete and appeal to the younger
> demographic, decided to go younger.

I don't know. Filming a fifty-plus-year-old novel which I suspect very
few people under the age of thirty will have read, with a near-unknown
and unconventional-looking leading man, doesn't seem to me an obvious
way to reach the youth demographic. Josh Hartnett as Bond challenging
Le Chiffre to a two-player game on his PSP - that's what I'd call going
younger.

> I'm sure Craig is a fine actor, but the American
> public will have a lot of trouble accepting him as Bond, with Brosnan's
> indelible image fresh in their minds.

Of course, the press aren't helping matters any...

> He's better known in the UK,
> so he'll have an easier time there.

I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous answer... :-)

> All I can say is good luck to
> Craig, you're gonna need it.
>
> -Frank

Best

Phil
Re: Comments on the Toby Stevens article [message #228046 ] Do, 02 März 2006 02:04
FTseng2749  
Very insightful comments. Much better than that annoying "Cupcake"
guy (or scojo guy, since we all know he's the same person).

Anyway, as we all know, huge box office success doesn't necessarily
mean a great movie (otherwise the mediocre-at-best Fantastic Four movie
would not have grossed over $150 million in the U.S. and over $300
million worldwide). Perhaps the box office success of DAD, as you
said, was more the result of other factors besides the quality of the
movie itself. Who knows. CR's quality will probably be better than
that of DAD (at least in terms of satifying the older Bond fans), but
it may not translate to box office success. We'll see.

Didn't realize the Bourne novels were 50+ years old, since in the 2nd
Bourne movie Matt Damon was using all sorts of James Bond-like
modern-day gadgets. At that point, I thought, "This is like James
Bond without the humor!" I guess they adapted the novel for the
present day.

-Frank


phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:

> In the short term it might well make sense to follow the DAD blueprint,
> hoping to repeat that film's success, but we've been down that route
> before with TSWLM being followed by MR. In its day, MR was a huge
> financial success, but history and the mainstream of Bond fan opinion
> have been far less kind to it. Had there been a third film in the same
> vein, not only do I suspect that audiences would have started to desert
> the series, but perhaps more importantly, I think a lot of previously
> hardcore Bond fans would have been alienated for good.
>
> After a film like DAD, Bond has to come back down to earth sooner or
> later, not only for the series to survive artistically, but in the long
> term to make sure it survives financially. For a franchise to survive
> over forty years it has to be able to adapt to changing times, and
> making the same kind of movie several times in a row is going to limit
> your ability to do that.
>
> Exactly. I suspect DAD's box-office success is going to represent a
> peak, and that even a Brosnan follow-up would have done considerably
> less well at the box-office. DAD benefitted hugely from the 40th
> anniversary hoopla, the Halle Berry hype, and continuing goodwill
> towards Brosnan, but the public and the press can be mighty fickle.
> Who's to say that if Bond 21 had been DAD part II, familiarity wouldn't
> finally have bred contempt, that the public wouldn't finally start
> saying 'seen it all before', or that there wouldn't have been
> mutterings about Brosnan's visible aging?
>
> I don't know. Filming a fifty-plus-year-old novel which I suspect very
> few people under the age of thirty will have read, with a near-unknown
> and unconventional-looking leading man, doesn't seem to me an obvious
> way to reach the youth demographic. Josh Hartnett as Bond challenging
> Le Chiffre to a two-player game on his PSP - that's what I'd call going
> younger.
>
Re: Comments on the Toby Stevens article [message #228048 ] Do, 02 März 2006 02:23
phil.gerrard1  
Frank wrote:

> Didn't realize the Bourne novels were 50+ years old, since in the 2nd
> Bourne movie Matt Damon was using all sorts of James Bond-like
> modern-day gadgets.

My fault. I phrased my original post badly: I was referring to CR,
rather than the Bourne novels, which are only twenty-odd years old.
(Younger than me - sigh...)

> At that point, I thought, "This is like James
> Bond without the humor!" I guess they adapted the novel for the
> present day.

Well, sort of. I got somewhat irritated by the way the film of 'The
Bourne Identity' portrayed Berlin as if it was still a drab, grey,
Cold-War-type satellite, whereas my experience is that it's one of the
most exciting and vibrant cities in Europe.

Best

Phil
Re: Comments on the Toby Stevens article [message #232365 ] Do, 02 März 2006 11:04
phil.gerrard1  
> Well, sort of. I got somewhat irritated by the way the film of 'The
> Bourne Identity' portrayed Berlin as if it was still a drab, grey,
> Cold-War-type satellite, whereas my experience is that it's one of the
> most exciting and vibrant cities in Europe.

Oops - it's 'The Bourne Supremacy', not 'Identity', which uses Berlin
as a location. Apologies.

Best

Phil
Re: Comments on the Toby Stevens article [message #232393 ] Fr, 03 März 2006 05:53
Mike Feeney  
Frank wrote:

> Recently read the BBC article about Toby Stevens'
> criticism of DAD and praise of Craig.

I read it too.

> Yes, I agree DAD was a bit "over the top," so to speak,
> but audiences loved that "over the top" to the tune of
> $161 million domestically and $432 million worldwide
> (shattering Bond box-office records in the process).

Well stated. Something the DAD-bashers seem to forget.

>A lot of people would simply say, "if it ain't broke, don't
> fix it," in other words, common sense would say, "why
> would Eon make such a big change on something that was
> working so well?"

I'm one of those people. DIE ANOTHER DAY was the most fun
I've had watching a 007 film since 1979. Truly. The magic
was back. Let's try to keep it going for at least two films
in a row -- is that too much to ask?

>I don't have an answer for that,
> except maybe TPTB saw the trend that happened with Connery
> and Moore (both of them peaked in the box-office during
> their 4th Bond movie and started to go downhill after
> that) and wanted to prevent history from repeating itself
> with Brosnan. Or perhaps they saw how successful the
> Jason Bourne series was (The Bourne Supremacy actually
> outgrossed DAD domestically, albeit not worldwide), with a
> much younger Matt Damon, and, to be able to compete and
> appeal to the younger demographic, decided to go younger.
> Who knows. All I can say is, Pierce Brosnan deserved
> to be treated better, that's all. It's a business, of
> course, but still...

> Toby must feel pretty strong and secure in his conviction
> to criticize the movie that put him on the map (I never
> heard of him until DAD came around), though.

My thoughts exactly. Never heard of him until DAD -- so in
my mind it was his "breakthrough" film -- and he has the
nerve to bash it? And what has he done since that has been
so great? Haven't seen him in a movie since DAD, although
admittedly my movie attendance has been on the decline
lately.

>I'm sure
> Craig is a fine actor, but the American public will have a
> lot of trouble accepting him as Bond, with Brosnan's
> indelible image fresh in their minds.

Agreed completely. I keep hearing "but he's a very fine
actor". Yeah, well so was Timothy Dalton (or "is" I should
say). But he made a poor James Bond and the two films he
starred in are among the weakest we've been given. So the
"fine actor" comments don't hold much weight for me. Does
he have charisma? Does he have a larger-than-life screen
presence? Is he going to convince me that he's the same
suave superspy who defeated the likes of Red Grant, Odd Job,
Jaws, etc? If not, then he's not going to convince me that
he's James Bond.

>He's better known
> in the UK, so he'll have an easier time there. All I can
> say is good luck to Craig, you're gonna need it.
>
> -Frank
>

This was a great post, Frank, and I agree wholeheartedly
with you. I think the direction they appear to be going
with the film is a big mistake. Its the over-the-top
element that I love most about the 007 adventures, and all
previous attempts to deliver a "serious/realistic/grounded"
plot have been failures (in my humble opinion).

--Mike
Re: Comments on the Toby Stevens article [message #232394 ] Fr, 03 März 2006 06:22
Mike Feeney  
Phil wrote:
>
> In the short term it might well make sense to follow the
> DAD blueprint, hoping to repeat that film's success, but
> we've been down that route before with TSWLM being
> followed by MR. In its day, MR was a huge financial
> success,


Yes! By all standards, MR was a box-office success.


>but history and the mainstream of Bond fan
> opinion have been far less kind to it.

Well, that's debatable. Guess it depends to a large extent
on your definiton of "mainstream of Bond fan opinion". And
while there is no doubt that this forum (i.e., afjb)
represents a collection of the most knowledgeable 007 fans
to be found anywhere, I wouldn't necessarily consider afjb
to represent mainstream Bond fan opinion.

> Had there been a
> third film in the same vein, not only do I suspect that
> audiences would have started to desert the series, but
> perhaps more importantly, I think a lot of previously
> hardcore Bond fans would have been alienated for good.

We'll never know. But I, for one, truly wish FYEO had been
written by either Christopher Wood or Tom Mankiewicz and
directed by Lewis Gilbert.


> After a film like DAD, Bond has to come back down to earth
> sooner or later, not only for the series to survive
> artistically, but in the long term to make sure it
> survives financially. For a franchise to survive over
> forty years it has to be able to adapt to changing times,
> and making the same kind of movie several times in a row
> is going to limit your ability to do that.
>


Again, I disagree. Frank stated it very well in his
original post when he said that DAD was "over the top" but
that "over the top" is what 007 movie fans want to see.
When I order a coca-cola, I expect it to taste like a
coca-cola. If it instead tastes like a Dr. Pepper, then I
would probably be disappointed with it. There are certain
elements that the majority of 007 movie fans want to see.
Stuff like really cool sports cars & gadgets, incredibly
beautiful women, exotic locations, exciting villains with
fearsome henchmen and schemes of world-domination, grandiose
chases, witty one-liners, a memorable score, etc. Now, of
course -- all these things are secondary to a great script,
great acting, and great directing. But even as secondary
elements, they have come to be expected in a 007 movie.
Just like the gunbarrel opening, for example. By itself,
not the most important element in a 007 movie by far --
almost near the bottom in fact in terms of importance...
but..... take the gunbarrel opening away (like NSNA for
example)... and you know what? The movie just somehow
"feels" different -- like something familiar and cozy is
missing.

Stripping the over-the-top elements from the next Bond film
is like removing the gunbarrel opening. It just won't feel
like a 007 adventure. It might have great acting and a
grounded story -- but it will probably end up feeling more
like James Bond has somehow stepped through a dimensional
portal and ended up in a Jack Ryan or Jason Bourne film.
Blah.

Mike
Re: Comments on the Toby Stevens article [message #232396 ] Fr, 03 März 2006 06:38
JHause  
Mike Feeney wrote:
>
> We'll never know. But I, for one, truly wish FYEO had been
> written by either Christopher Wood or Tom Mankiewicz and
> directed by Lewis Gilbert.
>

AAAAAAHHH!!!! Did somebody just wish a Bond movie had LESS Fleming in
it?!?

>
> Again, I disagree. Frank stated it very well in his
> original post when he said that DAD was "over the top" but
> that "over the top" is what 007 movie fans want to see.
> When I order a coca-cola, I expect it to taste like a
> coca-cola. If it instead tastes like a Dr. Pepper, then I
> would probably be disappointed with it.

Exactly. You want a bland, sugary concoction with nothing good for you
mixed in.

> There are certain
> elements that the majority of 007 movie fans want to see.
> Stuff like really cool sports cars & gadgets, incredibly
> beautiful women, exotic locations, exciting villains with
> fearsome henchmen and schemes of world-domination, grandiose
> chases, witty one-liners, a memorable score, etc. Now, of
> course -- all these things are secondary to a great script,
> great acting, and great directing. But even as secondary
> elements, they have come to be expected in a 007 movie.
>

Lately a groaning audience has come to be expected.

> Just like the gunbarrel opening, for example. By itself,
> not the most important element in a 007 movie by far --
> almost near the bottom in fact in terms of importance...
> but..... take the gunbarrel opening away (like NSNA for
> example)... and you know what? The movie just somehow
> "feels" different -- like something familiar and cozy is
> missing.
>

I felt more familiar and cozty watching Connery than any EON picture
from that period with a gunbarrel in it.

> Stripping the over-the-top elements from the next Bond film
> is like removing the gunbarrel opening. It just won't feel
> like a 007 adventure. It might have great acting and a
> grounded story -- but it will probably end up feeling more
> like James Bond has somehow stepped through a dimensional
> portal and ended up in a Jack Ryan or Jason Bourne film.
>

Or an Ian Fleming novel.
Re: Comments on the Toby Stevens article [message #232405 ] Fr, 03 März 2006 13:04
Carcharias  
"Mike Feeney" <moonraker79 [at] excite.comPLICATE> wrote in message
news:440888e5.6c4.41 [at] news2...
>> There are certain
> elements that the majority of 007 movie fans want to see.

What follows is a bit of a blanket statement -- I'm not sure anyone knows
what the 007 fans want to see, and I'm not sure there is one typical fan.
Here, you see various factions. I don't totally disagree that these may be
the basic elements, but the degree of reality and restraint they're given is
a matter of taste.

> Stuff like really cool sports cars & gadgets, incredibly
> beautiful women, exotic locations, exciting villains with
> fearsome henchmen and schemes of world-domination, grandiose
> chases, witty one-liners, a memorable score, etc. Now, of
> course -- all these things are secondary to a great script,
> great acting, and great directing. But even as secondary
> elements, they have come to be expected in a 007 movie.
> Just like the gunbarrel opening, for example. By itself,
> not the most important element in a 007 movie by far --
> almost near the bottom in fact in terms of importance...
> but..... take the gunbarrel opening away (like NSNA for
> example)... and you know what? The movie just somehow
> "feels" different -- like something familiar and cozy is
> missing.

I agree that people like to feel like they're settling in for a familiar
Bond experience -- I would not want Bond films to veer wildly from one movie
to the next. They shouldn't be experimental, but I believe there's room to
work within the genre and that sometimes, leaving out something or having a
variation on it can be exhilirating for a fan to watch.

>
> Stripping the over-the-top elements from the next Bond film
> is like removing the gunbarrel opening. It just won't feel
> like a 007 adventure. It might have great acting and a
> grounded story -- but it will probably end up feeling more
> like James Bond has somehow stepped through a dimensional
> portal and ended up in a Jack Ryan or Jason Bourne film.
> Blah.

I think it's a fine line. I view over the top as a pejorative term, but I'm
guessing you meant it in the sense of larger than life. I would not want
every Bond film to be a sleek, no stunts affair, but I do believe that it's
possible to go too far with some things and disrespect the franchise in that
direction.

The comparison I've always made is that Bond films are not individual units,
they're more like the way a band like the Beatles is about the sum total --
you had Sgt. Pepper but then you also had more restrained albums like Abbey
Road. And the ebb and flow makes the impact of them greater. We, as Bond
fans, analyze them more than most people, but I could guess that most casual
fans would be like "Oh, cool, this one was a little more stripped down"
rather than being disappointed by it. And the next movie could let loose a
little. I think a big mistake would be to place a new Bond actor in a movie
and have him diminished by a bunch of ludicrous stunts around him. Instead,
let's take the first one, establish him as a screen presence and then open
it up next time around. The Bond franchise allows that flexibility.
Re: Comments on the Toby Stevens article [message #232412 ] Fr, 03 März 2006 16:05
Paul Clarke  
Mike Feeney wrote:

>
>>Toby must feel pretty strong and secure in his conviction
>>to criticize the movie that put him on the map (I never
>>heard of him until DAD came around), though.
>
>
> My thoughts exactly. Never heard of him until DAD -- so in
> my mind it was his "breakthrough" film -- and he has the
> nerve to bash it? And what has he done since that has been
> so great?

So an actor is never allowed to criticize a work they were in, unless
they are famous? Come on!

>
>>Craig is a fine actor, but the American public will have a
>>lot of trouble accepting him as Bond, with Brosnan's
>>indelible image fresh in their minds.
>
>
> Agreed completely. I keep hearing "but he's a very fine
> actor". Yeah, well so was Timothy Dalton (or "is" I should
> say). But he made a poor James Bond and the two films he
> starred in are among the weakest we've been given.

Absolutely not. TLD and LTK are two of my favourite Bond films, and
Dalton was excellent. But I feel like I'm contributing to another rehash
of an old debate.

So the
> "fine actor" comments don't hold much weight for me. Does
> he have charisma? Does he have a larger-than-life screen
> presence? Is he going to convince me that he's the same
> suave superspy who defeated the likes of Red Grant, Odd Job,
> Jaws, etc? If not, then he's not going to convince me that
> he's James Bond.

Fair enough, but why deny the chance to check this out in a movie
theatre when the film comes out?


> This was a great post, Frank, and I agree wholeheartedly
> with you. I think the direction they appear to be going
> with the film is a big mistake.

I love the direction they're going with it and I would surely have
considered deserting the series if they kept delivering the same fantasy
adventures instead of spy thrillers. It's a risky move, both
artistically and commercially, but I applaud the producers for doing it.
The series needs refreshment and redirection sometimes or it all gets
just too stale.

Its the over-the-top
> element that I love most about the 007 adventures, and all
> previous attempts to deliver a "serious/realistic/grounded"
> plot have been failures (in my humble opinion).

So DN, FRWL, OHMSS, FYEO, TLD, LTK, TWINE, and much of the first half of
DAD are failures? Hmmm...news to me.
Re: Comments on the Toby Stevens article [message #242856 ] Mo, 27 März 2006 02:05
Lee Edward McIlmoyle  
"Mike Feeney" <moonraker79 [at] excite.comPLICATE> wrote in news:440888e5.6c4.41
[at] news2:

> Stripping the over-the-top elements from the next Bond film
> is like removing the gunbarrel opening. It just won't feel
> like a 007 adventure. It might have great acting and a
> grounded story -- but it will probably end up feeling more
> like James Bond has somehow stepped through a dimensional
> portal and ended up in a Jack Ryan or Jason Bourne film.
> Blah.
>
> Mike

I hope you enjoy the new movie as much as I suspect I'm going to. I've got
a lot of good feelings that this movie is going to exceed both of our
expectations. Harder edged, but fresher and more relevant, while still
retaining the charm and wit of the classics.

Lee Edward McIlmoyle,
hoping
Vorheriges Thema:Rewatched TWINE.....
Nächstes Thema:Re: More photos via www.mi6.co.uk
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Fr Mai 25 10:29:53 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,06402 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered