|
|
Science Fiction » alt.startrek » MI3
| MI3 [message #263089] |
Mo, 08 Mai 2006 15:44 |
|
Just went to see Mission Impossible III last night, with JJ Abrams as
director. Wonder if there is anything that can be gleaned from his
directoral style for Star Trek XI: Resurrection.
Story and plotwise, it was just a race from start to finish. Story was
weak, just a cart to carry the groceries from one action sequence to the
next. I will say that MI with Depalma and MI II with Woo were directed with
more style and flare. Abrahms seems to take it serious when he starts
filming and yells: Action! Alot of CGI stunts and explosions. However, the
essence of film making is interesting story (not here) and interesting
characters (definitely not here). The only real character that appeared
more interesting than the previous two was Ving Rhames. He was more than
just the tech, muscle, and crawl in the sewer guy. He had more character
development and was used very effectively as to the device to let us, the
audience, know what was going on in Hunt's head.
Most disturbing for us ST fans was there was very little resemblance to the
classic TV show. Mission Impossible, at its best, had very well plotted and
intricate plots where they had to scam some entity to give them what they
needed. The schemes were all with acting, disguises, and technology. If
anything, this movie more resembled an Alias episode and probably could have
subbed Sidney for Ethan. Sort of reminded me of that horrible I Spy movie,
which resembled the TV series in name only.
So what about the new ST movie? Will it be little plot, little character
development, but lots and lots of action, stunts, and explosions? Is this
what the powers that be think will make the movie a commercial hit, but
alienate the true fans more? As I said before, I think their best bet is
make a wonderful fan based movie and watch the profits go through the roof.
Can someone tell me what is so wrong with giving the fans what they want?
As I stated before, science fiction writing is a different breed and their
best best is to bring a known name sci fi writer on board. ST:X had action,
desert car chase, intimate marital relations, and explosions, but for what?
For a dud. Not a real good science fiction story, with some character
continuity problems thrown in.
All this to say that I am concerned about STXI: Resurrection. I think we
all need to walk out of the theater with the STII: Khan experience, well,
that's more like it. Nicholas Meyer could, but I really question if JJ can
pull this off.
|
|
|
| Re: MI3 [message #263178 ] |
Sa, 13 Mai 2006 04:59 |
|
"Marshall Karp" <marshallkarp [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BWH7g.2091$W83.1906 [at] trnddc07...
>
> As I stated before, science fiction writing is a different breed and their
> best bet [sic] is to bring a known name sci fi writer on board.
That makes sense. A sci-fi movie should have a sci-fi writer. You're one
step ahead of the competition.
> ST:X had action, desert car chase, intimate marital relations, and
> explosions, but for what? For a dud. Not a real good science fiction
> story, with some character continuity problems thrown in.
Maybe the producers are concerned about making a movie that is too cerebral,
and doesn't connect with an audience. Or maybe Rick Berman is still
convinced that the age 18-30 young male crowd is mainly attracted to Star
Trek because of big boobs and explosions.
I guess the most important thing about making a Star Trek movie is having a
writer who is a Star Trek fan--or at least a writer who isn't Rick Berman
(Enterprise) or Brannon Braga (Voyager). And hopefully a writer who doesn't
think that Klingons are merely supposed to be Russians, and Romulans are
merely supposed to be Chinese.
But it's not all bad. If the movie sucks sasquatch, they might put more time
and effort into the next movie.
W. Pooh (AKA Winnie P.)
|
|
|
| 'Religion from Da Vinci Code like learning science from Star Trek' [message #263199 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 10:59 |
|
On Mon, 08 May 2006 13:44:01 GMT, "Marshall Karp"
<marshallkarp [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>Just went to see Mission Impossible III last night, with JJ Abrams as
>director. Wonder if there is anything that can be gleaned from his
>directoral style for Star Trek XI: Resurrection.
>
>Story and plotwise, it was just a race from start to finish. Story was
>weak, just a cart to carry the groceries from one action sequence to the
>next. I will say that MI with Depalma and MI II with Woo were directed with
>more style and flare. Abrahms seems to take it serious when he starts
>filming and yells: Action! Alot of CGI stunts and explosions. However, the
>essence of film making is interesting story (not here) and interesting
>characters (definitely not here). The only real character that appeared
>more interesting than the previous two was Ving Rhames. He was more than
>just the tech, muscle, and crawl in the sewer guy. He had more character
>development and was used very effectively as to the device to let us, the
>audience, know what was going on in Hunt's head.
Probably a lot of Scientology horseshit: aliens, evil spirits,
volcanoes, brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Tom Cruise sucks as an actor, he's
just a male model with the acting range of a wet dream.
>Most disturbing for us ST fans was there was very little resemblance to the
>classic TV show. Mission Impossible, at its best, had very well plotted and
>intricate plots where they had to scam some entity to give them what they
>needed. The schemes were all with acting, disguises, and technology. If
>anything, this movie more resembled an Alias episode and probably could have
>subbed Sidney for Ethan. Sort of reminded me of that horrible I Spy movie,
>which resembled the TV series in name only.
Tom Cruise could have chosen to play Jim Phelps in MI1. Instead, he
had the hero of the TV series betray everyone while Ethan Hawke strode
in to save the world. Can't Tom Cruise masturbate to his boyfriend
and not on the movie screens? No wonder he's lost his female
audience. He's a dick.
>So what about the new ST movie? Will it be little plot, little character
>development, but lots and lots of action, stunts, and explosions? Is this
>what the powers that be think will make the movie a commercial hit, but
>alienate the true fans more? As I said before, I think their best bet is
>make a wonderful fan based movie and watch the profits go through the roof.
>Can someone tell me what is so wrong with giving the fans what they want?
The fans are like the US Democrats: mean well yet too many directions.
Unite behind something and give the brain-dead Americans something to
chant or put on a bumper sticker. Watch the original Trek and see
what worked, not what needed improvement like prettier sets. If I
wanted prettier sets, I'd go to a shopping mall.
>As I stated before, science fiction writing is a different breed and their
>best best is to bring a known name sci fi writer on board. ST:X had action,
>desert car chase, intimate marital relations, and explosions, but for what?
>For a dud. Not a real good science fiction story, with some character
>continuity problems thrown in.
Problem is movies are all about explosions and CGI. American
audiences are too stupid to think, they have to be shown everything
cartoon style, passively.
Good characters change, mature, risk and fail sometimes. Not in the
Star Trek universe. Plastic people with a plastic philosophy. Techno
mumble is their prayer chants.
>
>All this to say that I am concerned about STXI: Resurrection. I think we
>all need to walk out of the theater with the STII: Khan experience, well,
>that's more like it. Nicholas Meyer could, but I really question if JJ can
>pull this off.
Look at that vomit bucket The Da Vinci Code.
"So let’s go with Sunday’s Da Vinci Code wrap-up. Jeffrey Weiss has
done amazing work covering the book and movie this week. Daniel
praised his piece earlier in the week that looked at some of the facts
Dan Brown got wrong in his "factual" piece of fiction. The piece
struck a nerve with readers, and all of the letters to the editor on
May 13 were about Weiss’ religion writing, many of them praising his
work. Weiss also wrote about a satire of Brown’s work called The Da
Vinci Mole. He followed that up with a Frequently Asked Questions
piece. Sample:
Can I learn about art, history or theology by reading the book?
Most experts say that’s like trying to learn science from watching
Star Trek.
As the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, "Everyone is
entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." And Mr. Brown
gets plenty of facts wrong."
http://www.getreligion.org/?p=1592
|
|
|
| Re: 'Religion from Da Vinci Code like learning science from Star Trek' [message #263200 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 19:36 |
|
<mullet [at] momma.hed> wrote in message
news:obfg625bbgc6875f4gf52s3qnhf7t02p4o [at] 4ax.com...
> On Mon, 08 May 2006 13:44:01 GMT, "Marshall Karp"
> <marshallkarp [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Just went to see Mission Impossible III last night, with JJ Abrams as
>>director. Wonder if there is anything that can be gleaned from his
>>directoral style for Star Trek XI: Resurrection.
>>
>>Story and plotwise, it was just a race from start to finish. Story was
>>weak, just a cart to carry the groceries from one action sequence to the
>>next. I will say that MI with Depalma and MI II with Woo were directed
>>with
>>more style and flare. Abrahms seems to take it serious when he starts
>>filming and yells: Action! Alot of CGI stunts and explosions. However,
>>the
>>essence of film making is interesting story (not here) and interesting
>>characters (definitely not here). The only real character that appeared
>>more interesting than the previous two was Ving Rhames. He was more than
>>just the tech, muscle, and crawl in the sewer guy. He had more character
>>development and was used very effectively as to the device to let us, the
>>audience, know what was going on in Hunt's head.
>
> Probably a lot of Scientology horseshit: aliens, evil spirits,
> volcanoes, brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Tom Cruise sucks as an actor, he's
> just a male model with the acting range of a wet dream.
>
>
>>Most disturbing for us ST fans was there was very little resemblance to
>>the
>>classic TV show. Mission Impossible, at its best, had very well plotted
>>and
>>intricate plots where they had to scam some entity to give them what they
>>needed. The schemes were all with acting, disguises, and technology. If
>>anything, this movie more resembled an Alias episode and probably could
>>have
>>subbed Sidney for Ethan. Sort of reminded me of that horrible I Spy
>>movie,
>>which resembled the TV series in name only.
>
> Tom Cruise could have chosen to play Jim Phelps in MI1. Instead, he
> had the hero of the TV series betray everyone while Ethan Hawke strode
> in to save the world. Can't Tom Cruise masturbate to his boyfriend
> and not on the movie screens? No wonder he's lost his female
> audience. He's a dick.
>
>
>>So what about the new ST movie? Will it be little plot, little character
>>development, but lots and lots of action, stunts, and explosions? Is this
>>what the powers that be think will make the movie a commercial hit, but
>>alienate the true fans more? As I said before, I think their best bet is
>>make a wonderful fan based movie and watch the profits go through the
>>roof.
>>Can someone tell me what is so wrong with giving the fans what they want?
>
> The fans are like the US Democrats: mean well yet too many directions.
> Unite behind something and give the brain-dead Americans something to
> chant or put on a bumper sticker. Watch the original Trek and see
> what worked, not what needed improvement like prettier sets. If I
> wanted prettier sets, I'd go to a shopping mall.
>
>
>>As I stated before, science fiction writing is a different breed and their
>>best best is to bring a known name sci fi writer on board. ST:X had
>>action,
>>desert car chase, intimate marital relations, and explosions, but for
>>what?
>>For a dud. Not a real good science fiction story, with some character
>>continuity problems thrown in.
>
> Problem is movies are all about explosions and CGI. American
> audiences are too stupid to think, they have to be shown everything
> cartoon style, passively.
>
> Good characters change, mature, risk and fail sometimes. Not in the
> Star Trek universe. Plastic people with a plastic philosophy. Techno
> mumble is their prayer chants.
>
>>
>>All this to say that I am concerned about STXI: Resurrection. I think we
>>all need to walk out of the theater with the STII: Khan experience, well,
>>that's more like it. Nicholas Meyer could, but I really question if JJ
>>can
>>pull this off.
>
> Look at that vomit bucket The Da Vinci Code.
>
> "So let's go with Sunday's Da Vinci Code wrap-up. Jeffrey Weiss has
> done amazing work covering the book and movie this week. Daniel
> praised his piece earlier in the week that looked at some of the facts
> Dan Brown got wrong in his "factual" piece of fiction. The piece
> struck a nerve with readers, and all of the letters to the editor on
> May 13 were about Weiss' religion writing, many of them praising his
> work. Weiss also wrote about a satire of Brown's work called The Da
> Vinci Mole. He followed that up with a Frequently Asked Questions
> piece. Sample:
>
> Can I learn about art, history or theology by reading the book?
>
> Most experts say that's like trying to learn science from watching
> Star Trek.
>
> As the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, "Everyone is
> entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." And Mr. Brown
> gets plenty of facts wrong."
>
> http://www.getreligion.org/?p=1592
Rant much?
|
|
|
| Re: 'Religion from Da Vinci Code like learning science from Star Trek' [message #263203 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 23:41 |
|
On Mon, 15 May 2006 17:36:30 GMT, "Numan" <tbrdmann [at] sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
>
><mullet [at] momma.hed> wrote in message
>news:obfg625bbgc6875f4gf52s3qnhf7t02p4o [at] 4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 08 May 2006 13:44:01 GMT, "Marshall Karp"
>> <marshallkarp [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Just went to see Mission Impossible III last night, with JJ Abrams as
>>>director. Wonder if there is anything that can be gleaned from his
>>>directoral style for Star Trek XI: Resurrection.
>>>
>>>Story and plotwise, it was just a race from start to finish. Story was
>>>weak, just a cart to carry the groceries from one action sequence to the
>>>next. I will say that MI with Depalma and MI II with Woo were directed
>>>with
>>>more style and flare. Abrahms seems to take it serious when he starts
>>>filming and yells: Action! Alot of CGI stunts and explosions. However,
>>>the
>>>essence of film making is interesting story (not here) and interesting
>>>characters (definitely not here). The only real character that appeared
>>>more interesting than the previous two was Ving Rhames. He was more than
>>>just the tech, muscle, and crawl in the sewer guy. He had more character
>>>development and was used very effectively as to the device to let us, the
>>>audience, know what was going on in Hunt's head.
>>
>> Probably a lot of Scientology horseshit: aliens, evil spirits,
>> volcanoes, brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Tom Cruise sucks as an actor, he's
>> just a male model with the acting range of a wet dream.
>>
>>
>>>Most disturbing for us ST fans was there was very little resemblance to
>>>the
>>>classic TV show. Mission Impossible, at its best, had very well plotted
>>>and
>>>intricate plots where they had to scam some entity to give them what they
>>>needed. The schemes were all with acting, disguises, and technology. If
>>>anything, this movie more resembled an Alias episode and probably could
>>>have
>>>subbed Sidney for Ethan. Sort of reminded me of that horrible I Spy
>>>movie,
>>>which resembled the TV series in name only.
>>
>> Tom Cruise could have chosen to play Jim Phelps in MI1. Instead, he
>> had the hero of the TV series betray everyone while Ethan Hawke strode
>> in to save the world. Can't Tom Cruise masturbate to his boyfriend
>> and not on the movie screens? No wonder he's lost his female
>> audience. He's a dick.
>>
>>
>>>So what about the new ST movie? Will it be little plot, little character
>>>development, but lots and lots of action, stunts, and explosions? Is this
>>>what the powers that be think will make the movie a commercial hit, but
>>>alienate the true fans more? As I said before, I think their best bet is
>>>make a wonderful fan based movie and watch the profits go through the
>>>roof.
>>>Can someone tell me what is so wrong with giving the fans what they want?
>>
>> The fans are like the US Democrats: mean well yet too many directions.
>> Unite behind something and give the brain-dead Americans something to
>> chant or put on a bumper sticker. Watch the original Trek and see
>> what worked, not what needed improvement like prettier sets. If I
>> wanted prettier sets, I'd go to a shopping mall.
>>
>>
>>>As I stated before, science fiction writing is a different breed and their
>>>best best is to bring a known name sci fi writer on board. ST:X had
>>>action,
>>>desert car chase, intimate marital relations, and explosions, but for
>>>what?
>>>For a dud. Not a real good science fiction story, with some character
>>>continuity problems thrown in.
>>
>> Problem is movies are all about explosions and CGI. American
>> audiences are too stupid to think, they have to be shown everything
>> cartoon style, passively.
>>
>> Good characters change, mature, risk and fail sometimes. Not in the
>> Star Trek universe. Plastic people with a plastic philosophy. Techno
>> mumble is their prayer chants.
>>
>>>
>>>All this to say that I am concerned about STXI: Resurrection. I think we
>>>all need to walk out of the theater with the STII: Khan experience, well,
>>>that's more like it. Nicholas Meyer could, but I really question if JJ
>>>can
>>>pull this off.
>>
>> Look at that vomit bucket The Da Vinci Code.
>>
>> "So let's go with Sunday's Da Vinci Code wrap-up. Jeffrey Weiss has
>> done amazing work covering the book and movie this week. Daniel
>> praised his piece earlier in the week that looked at some of the facts
>> Dan Brown got wrong in his "factual" piece of fiction. The piece
>> struck a nerve with readers, and all of the letters to the editor on
>> May 13 were about Weiss' religion writing, many of them praising his
>> work. Weiss also wrote about a satire of Brown's work called The Da
>> Vinci Mole. He followed that up with a Frequently Asked Questions
>> piece. Sample:
>>
>> Can I learn about art, history or theology by reading the book?
>>
>> Most experts say that's like trying to learn science from watching
>> Star Trek.
>>
>> As the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, "Everyone is
>> entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." And Mr. Brown
>> gets plenty of facts wrong."
>>
>> http://www.getreligion.org/?p=1592
>
>Rant much?
Multi-syllables confuse much?
|
|
|
| Re: 'Religion from Da Vinci Code like learning science from Star Trek' [message #263205 ] |
Di, 16 Mai 2006 03:04 |
|
<mullet [at] momma.hed> wrote in message
news:obfg625bbgc6875f4gf52s3qnhf7t02p4o [at] 4ax.com...
> On Mon, 08 May 2006 13:44:01 GMT, "Marshall Karp"
>
>Tom Cruise sucks as an actor, he's
> just a male model with the acting range of a wet dream.
Are you sure you didn't like 'Interview with the Vampire' or 'Collateral'?
W. Pooh (AKA Winnie P.)
|
|
|
| Re: 'Religion from Da Vinci Code like learning science from Star Trek' [message #263207 ] |
Di, 16 Mai 2006 07:28 |
|
On Tue, 16 May 2006 01:04:58 GMT, "Christopher M."
<nospamcm_anon76 [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
><mullet [at] momma.hed> wrote in message
>news:obfg625bbgc6875f4gf52s3qnhf7t02p4o [at] 4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 08 May 2006 13:44:01 GMT, "Marshall Karp"
>>
>>Tom Cruise sucks as an actor, he's
>> just a male model with the acting range of a wet dream.
>
>Are you sure you didn't like 'Interview with the Vampire' or 'Collateral'?
>
>
>W. Pooh (AKA Winnie P.)
TBH, the only movie I liked Tom Cruise in was "Risky Business." He
makes Steven Segal look like Olivier.
|
|
|
| Re: 'Religion from Da Vinci Code like learning science from StarTrek' [message #263208 ] |
Di, 16 Mai 2006 08:58 |
|
mullet [at] momma.hed wrote:
> TBH, the only movie I liked Tom Cruise in was "Risky Business." He
> makes Steven Segal look like Olivier.
I liked Top Gun, MI(1), and Minority report.
|
|
|
| Re: 'Religion from Da Vinci Code like learning science from Star Trek' [message #267406 ] |
Mi, 17 Mai 2006 10:34 |
|
On Tue, 16 May 2006 01:04:58 GMT, "Christopher M."
<nospamcm_anon76 [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
><mullet [at] momma.hed> wrote in message
>news:obfg625bbgc6875f4gf52s3qnhf7t02p4o [at] 4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 08 May 2006 13:44:01 GMT, "Marshall Karp"
>>
>>Tom Cruise sucks as an actor, he's
>> just a male model with the acting range of a wet dream.
>
>Are you sure you didn't like 'Interview with the Vampire' or 'Collateral'?
>
>
>W. Pooh (AKA Winnie P.)
>
>
>
Tom Cruise is the Andy Dick of leading man characterization.
|
|
|
| Re: 'Religion from Da Vinci Code like learning science from Star Trek' [message #267407 ] |
Mi, 17 Mai 2006 10:50 |
|
LMAO!!!
I couldn't have siad it better myself.
<mullet [at] momma.hed> wrote in message
news:bsnl62tbur4ph1c4uo970nrhn13b16obt9 [at] 4ax.com...
> On Tue, 16 May 2006 01:04:58 GMT, "Christopher M."
> <nospamcm_anon76 [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>><mullet [at] momma.hed> wrote in message
>>news:obfg625bbgc6875f4gf52s3qnhf7t02p4o [at] 4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 08 May 2006 13:44:01 GMT, "Marshall Karp"
>>>
>>>Tom Cruise sucks as an actor, he's
>>> just a male model with the acting range of a wet dream.
>>
>>Are you sure you didn't like 'Interview with the Vampire' or 'Collateral'?
>>
>>
>>W. Pooh (AKA Winnie P.)
>>
>>
>>
>
> Tom Cruise is the Andy Dick of leading man characterization.
|
|
|
| Re: 'Religion from Da Vinci Code like learning science from Star Trek' [message #267410 ] |
Mi, 17 Mai 2006 17:02 |
|
In article <bsnl62tbur4ph1c4uo970nrhn13b16obt9 [at] 4ax.com>, mullet [at] momma.hed wrote:
>On Tue, 16 May 2006 01:04:58 GMT, "Christopher M."
><nospamcm_anon76 [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>><mullet [at] momma.hed> wrote in message
>>news:obfg625bbgc6875f4gf52s3qnhf7t02p4o [at] 4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 08 May 2006 13:44:01 GMT, "Marshall Karp"
>>>
>>>Tom Cruise sucks as an actor, he's
>>> just a male model with the acting range of a wet dream.
>>
>>Are you sure you didn't like 'Interview with the Vampire' or 'Collateral'?
>>
>>
>>W. Pooh (AKA Winnie P.)
>>
>>
>>
>
>Tom Cruise is the Andy Dick of leading man characterization.
But Andy Dick knows his place and doesnt take himself seriously. Tom Cruise just
doesnt get that he is a freak!
|
|
|
| Re: 'Religion from Da Vinci Code like learning science from StarTrek' [message #267417 ] |
Do, 18 Mai 2006 02:19 |
|
ToolPackinMama wrote:
> mullet [at] momma.hed wrote:
>
>> TBH, the only movie I liked Tom Cruise in was "Risky Business." He
>> makes Steven Segal look like Olivier.
>
> I liked Top Gun, MI(1), and Minority report.
I liked "Born on the Fourth of July," probably his most serious work to
date.
WK
|
|
|
| Re: 'Religion from Da Vinci Code like learning science from Star Trek' [message #267418 ] |
Do, 18 Mai 2006 03:46 |
|
<mullet [at] momma.hed> wrote in message
news:uioi629rk3riti6m6em4fshrur5la471gr [at] 4ax.com...
>
> TBH, the only movie I liked Tom Cruise in was "Risky Business." He
> makes Steven Segal look like Olivier.
I also am not a big Steven Segal fan. In fact I was disgusted when a
businesswoman was killed by being rammed by a car and then killed by an
explosion in his movie 'On Deadly Ground' (the one in Alaska with the Inuit
tribe). I guess the communists who made this movie don't assign much value
the lives of successfull people.
I am, however, a fan of two of his Steven Segal's movies:
*Executive Decision (also starring Kurt Russel and Halle Berry)
*Above the Law ('Above the Law' features ass-kicking in Vietnam, China
(where he studied martial arts), the 'hood, and he even kicks mob butt, and
there's also a stakeout and an undercover operation, a bar fight, an
ass-kicking priest, and he even meets up with an awesome computer hacker,
and he prevents a senator from being assasinated, and he deals with the
CIA--the only thing I didn't like about this movie was Sharon Stone, and
maybe the creepy music, and it's too bad that that one of the priests was
killed).
I am also a big fan of hunny. It is good for the tummy.
W. Pooh (AKA Winnie P.)
|
|
|
| Re: 'Religion from Da Vinci Code like learning science from Star Trek' [message #267898 ] |
So, 21 Mai 2006 20:57 |
|
On Mon, 15 May 2006 03:59:22 -0500, mullet [at] momma.hed wrote:
>
>Tom Cruise could have chosen to play Jim Phelps in MI1.
I don't think he want to play the invisible villain in the story. And
making Phelps the villain was DePalma's choice, his kind of plot
twist.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: So Feb 5 15:41:09 CET 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,05957 Sekunden |
