Some Good News For Widescreen Aficionados

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Black Locust, Nov 27, 2003.

  1. Black Locust

    Black Locust Guest

    For the first time in god knows how long, a major DVD release is only
    being offered in it's correct aspect ratio. The movie is Bad Boys 2. Ok,
    I know, not the greatest movie ever, but big kudos to Columbia Tristar
    for telling the FOOL screen nitwits to go **** themselves .

    Let's hope some other studios start following suit
    --
    BL
    Black Locust, Nov 27, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Black Locust

    Cernovog Guest

    On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:05:10 -0500, Black Locust wrote
    (in message <>):

    > For the first time in god knows how long, a major DVD release is only
    > being offered in it's correct aspect ratio.


    ALL RIGHT! That is fantastic news! I can't believe it!!! For something
    this good, there's usually a catch!

    > The movie is Bad Boys 2.


    **SHUDDER** Oh... what a horrible catch that is.

    > I know, not the greatest movie ever


    It's not even the *worst* movie ever. As one critic said, it's
    representative of everything that is wrong with Hollywood today.

    > but big kudos to Columbia Tristar
    > for telling the FOOL screen nitwits to go **** themselves .
    >
    > Let's hope some other studios start following suit


    Somehow, I can't help but wonder if choosing to release the worst movie
    ever made since Battlefield Earth in widescreen-only is an intentional slap
    in the face to widescreen enthusiasts.
    Cernovog, Nov 27, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. So, it's good news to widescreen aficionados that people are deprived of
    the choice of getting what they want? Fascism lives!

    As far as I'm concerned, I don't care if they come out with fullscreen
    editions as long as I can still sashay into Walmart and get my
    widescreen editions (like I did Tuesday for Bruce Almighty and X-Men
    2)for the same price as fullscreen.

    I always check the back of the package for "widescreen' or "Enhanced for
    widescreen TV's" (provided that it's not clear on the front) so I don't
    go home with the wrong version.

    I said it before and I'll say it again. The movie industry dropped the
    ball in the early 60's. If they made sure widescreen movies were shown
    letterboxed instead of cropped from the beginning Joe Sixpack would
    already be used to the black bars. They didn't do that and the oldest of
    the Joe Sixpack crowd are going to want to watch movies on TV in the way
    they have become accustomed.

    The movie industry let the pan and scan genie out of the bag in the
    early 1960's and even though widescreen releases now outsell pan and
    scan, pan and scan is still right behind widescreen in sales (meaning it
    is financially viable to continue producing them).

    BTW, Bad Boys 2 had a pretty lackluster showing at the box office. If it
    was a hit, you can rely on the fact it would get duel versions.

    That's where we are right now for the most part. If it's not a
    blockbuster, the default is widescreen (there are exceptions, like
    "Master Of Disguise"). If it is a blockbuster of mainstream appeal, it
    gets duel releases or a double format single release.

    Compared to the past where a movie might or might not get a VHS
    widescreen release if it was popular enough, we widescreen lovers are in
    the money. That's the real good news for widescreen aficionados.

    Mike




    Black Locust wrote:
    >
    > For the first time in god knows how long, a major DVD release is only
    > being offered in it's correct aspect ratio. The movie is Bad Boys 2. Ok,
    > I know, not the greatest movie ever, but big kudos to Columbia Tristar
    > for telling the FOOL screen nitwits to go **** themselves .
    >
    > Let's hope some other studios start following suit
    > --
    > BL
    Michael Rogers, Nov 27, 2003
    #3
  4. >So, it's good news to widescreen aficionados that people are deprived of
    >the choice of getting what they want? Fascism lives!


    So, it took you this long to figure out that the Republicans are in the White
    House? Hell, they should all be shot for selling the country down the drain.
    Best,

    Mark Allen Zimmerman * Chicago
    MarkZimmerman, Nov 28, 2003
    #4
  5. Black Locust

    Black Locust Guest

    In article <>,
    Michael Rogers <> wrote:

    > So, it's good news to widescreen aficionados that people are deprived of
    > the choice of getting what they want? Fascism lives!


    Damn straight! I've asked this before and I'll ask it again, where in
    the blue hell was our widescreen VHS the past 20 years? Oh yeah, it was
    "alright" for the widescreen fans to be deprived back then, right? As
    long as Joe Sixpack got his FOOL screen "videas." It's time those
    disrespectful, ignorant fucks be deprived while we bask in proper aspect
    ratio glory. And I'm sure the people who make these movies agree with me
    100%.

    > I said it before and I'll say it again. The movie industry dropped the
    > ball in the early 60's. If they made sure widescreen movies were shown
    > letterboxed instead of cropped from the beginning Joe Sixpack would
    > already be used to the black bars. They didn't do that and the oldest of
    > the Joe Sixpack crowd are going to want to watch movies on TV in the way
    > they have become accustomed.


    This I agree with 100%. There was no genuine reason to start panning &
    scanning movies to begin with. They should have just left well enough
    alone and Joe Sixpack would have dealt with it until he finally started
    to appreciate being able to see the WHOLE picture.

    > BTW, Bad Boys 2 had a pretty lackluster showing at the box office. If it
    > was a hit, you can rely on the fact it would get duel versions.


    I'm not sure about this(someone feel free to correct me if i'm wrong),
    but it also appears Pirates of the Caribbean is also widescreen only.
    Now you can't tell me that one tanked at the box office. I've gotta
    admit this is truly shocking as this is Disney, who have proven time and
    time again to be completely pro-pan & scan.

    > Compared to the past where a movie might or might not get a VHS
    > widescreen release if it was popular enough, we widescreen lovers are in
    > the money. That's the real good news for widescreen aficionados.


    As far as I'm concerned the FOOL screen lovers can go back to VHS. They
    don't deserve DVD.

    > Mike

    --
    BL
    Black Locust, Nov 28, 2003
    #5
  6. Hey you:

    If you wanna get political... please do it with someone else stupid
    enough to fall for the "It's all the Republican's fault" crap.

    Best,
    Mike The Republican


    MarkZimmerman wrote:
    >
    > >So, it's good news to widescreen aficionados that people are deprived of
    > >the choice of getting what they want? Fascism lives!

    >
    > So, it took you this long to figure out that the Republicans are in the White
    > House? Hell, they should all be shot for selling the country down the drain.
    > Best,
    >
    > Mark Allen Zimmerman * Chicago
    Michael Rogers, Nov 28, 2003
    #6
  7. Black Locust

    Richard C. Guest

    "Michael Rogers" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    : So, it's good news to widescreen aficionados that people are deprived of
    : the choice of getting what they want? Fascism lives!
    :
    =====================
    I want certain actors replaced in movies.

    THAT is my choice.

    I demand it be catered to!

    OAR is the ONLY way a movie should be released. It is not a matter of "choice".
    Richard C., Nov 28, 2003
    #7
  8. Black Locust

    Wade365 Guest

    << It's not even the *worst* movie ever. As one critic said, it's
    representative of everything that is wrong with Hollywood today. >>

    Wasn't this movie (can't call it a film now, can I?) a Mike Bay production?
    That would explain the representation...
    Wade365, Nov 28, 2003
    #8
  9. Not a fair comparison. Replacing certain actors in movies is not an
    established practice first started by the movie industry. Pan and scan
    however, was Hollywood's choice for dealing with widescreen movies on TV
    for nearly 40 years. It was a bad idea, yet an idea that some (mostly
    older) people are used to.

    Since the powers that be started this practice, it is understandable
    that they continue it, to satisfy people who are used to it.

    There is also another consideration. Older people who are used to pan
    and scan have trouble enjoying widescreen features on TV not only
    because they lack a larger TV but that thier eyesight is not as good as
    it used to be.

    There are older people I know that have an understanding of what is lost
    when they get a pan and scan DVD but still get them becuase it's thier
    version of large print books. Thier eyesight doesn't allow them to enjoy
    a reduced to fit image on thier TV.

    I, a widescreen aficionado, understands that.

    So, my attitude is that I'll pitch a major bitch if a movie does not get
    released in widescreen. But if they release paralel pan/scan widescreen
    versions, the only thing I care about is picking up the right version.
    Because it's way too late for the movie industry to decide to revoke pan
    and scan completely as an option and not get grief for it. They didn't
    set the agenda right from the beginning.

    OAR is the only way I'll accept a movie on DVD and the studios MUST
    cater to me and people that think like me. However, studios also created
    people that got used to cropped movies and will never accept anything
    else and they must cater to them too. After all, it's thier fault they
    exist in the first place.

    From the beginning, studios should've said "We will not let movies be
    cropped for Television presentation". Doing so, might've brought a
    widescreen TV about 20-30 years earlier. Studios must deal with thier
    mistake by catering to 2 groups instead of when when it comes to how a
    movie is viewed.

    Mike



    "Richard C." wrote:
    >
    > "Michael Rogers" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > : So, it's good news to widescreen aficionados that people are deprived of
    > : the choice of getting what they want? Fascism lives!
    > :
    > =====================
    > I want certain actors replaced in movies.
    >
    > THAT is my choice.
    >
    > I demand it be catered to!
    >
    > OAR is the ONLY way a movie should be released. It is not a matter of "choice".
    Michael Rogers, Nov 28, 2003
    #9
  10. Black Locust

    Shinner Guest

    Michael Rogers <> wrote in
    news::

    > Not a fair comparison. Replacing certain actors in movies is not an
    > established practice first started by the movie industry. Pan and scan
    > however, was Hollywood's choice for dealing with widescreen movies on
    > TV for nearly 40 years. It was a bad idea, yet an idea that some
    > (mostly older) people are used to.
    >
    > Since the powers that be started this practice, it is understandable
    > that they continue it, to satisfy people who are used to it.
    >
    > There is also another consideration. Older people who are used to pan
    > and scan have trouble enjoying widescreen features on TV not only
    > because they lack a larger TV but that thier eyesight is not as good
    > as it used to be.
    >
    > There are older people I know that have an understanding of what is
    > lost when they get a pan and scan DVD but still get them becuase it's
    > thier version of large print books. Thier eyesight doesn't allow them
    > to enjoy a reduced to fit image on thier TV.
    >
    > I, a widescreen aficionado, understands that.
    >
    > So, my attitude is that I'll pitch a major bitch if a movie does not
    > get released in widescreen. But if they release paralel pan/scan
    > widescreen versions, the only thing I care about is picking up the
    > right version. Because it's way too late for the movie industry to
    > decide to revoke pan and scan completely as an option and not get
    > grief for it. They didn't set the agenda right from the beginning.
    >
    > OAR is the only way I'll accept a movie on DVD and the studios MUST
    > cater to me and people that think like me. However, studios also
    > created people that got used to cropped movies and will never accept
    > anything else and they must cater to them too. After all, it's thier
    > fault they exist in the first place.
    >
    > From the beginning, studios should've said "We will not let movies be
    > cropped for Television presentation". Doing so, might've brought a
    > widescreen TV about 20-30 years earlier. Studios must deal with thier
    > mistake by catering to 2 groups instead of when when it comes to how a
    > movie is viewed.
    >
    > Mike


    Well said Mike, sums up my feelings perfectly....but the zealots in here
    will still not accept it. They're not happy with the availability of new
    releases in OAR, they're set on getting revenge for all they suffered
    back in the day (i.e. VHS).
    Shinner, Nov 28, 2003
    #10
  11. Black Locust

    Richard C. Guest

    How old do you have to be?

    I am 59 and demand widescreen.

    ===========
    "Michael Rogers" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    : Not a fair comparison. Replacing certain actors in movies is not an
    : established practice first started by the movie industry. Pan and scan
    : however, was Hollywood's choice for dealing with widescreen movies on TV
    : for nearly 40 years. It was a bad idea, yet an idea that some (mostly
    : older) people are used to.
    :
    : Since the powers that be started this practice, it is understandable
    : that they continue it, to satisfy people who are used to it.
    :
    : There is also another consideration. Older people who are used to pan
    : and scan have trouble enjoying widescreen features on TV not only
    : because they lack a larger TV but that thier eyesight is not as good as
    : it used to be.
    :
    : There are older people I know that have an understanding of what is lost
    : when they get a pan and scan DVD but still get them becuase it's thier
    : version of large print books. Thier eyesight doesn't allow them to enjoy
    : a reduced to fit image on thier TV.
    :
    : I, a widescreen aficionado, understands that.
    :
    : So, my attitude is that I'll pitch a major bitch if a movie does not get
    : released in widescreen. But if they release paralel pan/scan widescreen
    : versions, the only thing I care about is picking up the right version.
    : Because it's way too late for the movie industry to decide to revoke pan
    : and scan completely as an option and not get grief for it. They didn't
    : set the agenda right from the beginning.
    :
    : OAR is the only way I'll accept a movie on DVD and the studios MUST
    : cater to me and people that think like me. However, studios also created
    : people that got used to cropped movies and will never accept anything
    : else and they must cater to them too. After all, it's thier fault they
    : exist in the first place.
    :
    : From the beginning, studios should've said "We will not let movies be
    : cropped for Television presentation". Doing so, might've brought a
    : widescreen TV about 20-30 years earlier. Studios must deal with thier
    : mistake by catering to 2 groups instead of when when it comes to how a
    : movie is viewed.
    :
    : Mike
    :
    :
    :
    : "Richard C." wrote:
    : >
    : > "Michael Rogers" <> wrote in message
    : > news:...
    : > : So, it's good news to widescreen aficionados that people are deprived of
    : > : the choice of getting what they want? Fascism lives!
    : > :
    : > =====================
    : > I want certain actors replaced in movies.
    : >
    : > THAT is my choice.
    : >
    : > I demand it be catered to!
    : >
    : > OAR is the ONLY way a movie should be released. It is not a matter of "choice".
    Richard C., Nov 29, 2003
    #11
  12. Black Locust

    JMas493 Guest

    Is there enough space on a DVD for both the widescreen and pan-and-scan
    versions?

    I am retired, my eyesight is still good, and I have a 35-inch TV. I have tried
    to adjust to widescreen versions because I have seen examples of how much is
    cut out with p+s. My problem is not with the black bars, but with the narrower
    picture. I don't know the exact ratios for widescreen, but I find
    approximately 5:3 satisfactory. When it gets to approximately 2:1 or more, the
    people and objects on the screen are too small for me to feel the same
    involvement in the film that I get with p+s.

    I'm not trying to convert anybody, just explaining why some of us prefer p+s.

    John
    JMas493, Nov 29, 2003
    #12
  13. Black Locust

    Black Locust Guest

    In article <>,
    (JMas493) wrote:

    > Is there enough space on a DVD for both the widescreen and pan-and-scan
    > versions?


    Technically, yes. The most effeciant way to include both is to use a
    DVD-18, which is double sided and most importantly, dual layer. The
    problem with this type of DVD is the studios have had trouble perfecting
    it and a lot of DVD-18 discs end up being defective. So for this reason
    you end up with DVD-14 most of the time, which is double sided, BUT
    single layer and this hurts the movie because it has to be more
    compressed and there isn't as much room for bonus material. I'm hoping
    they'll eventually get DVD-18 down to perfection. Not because I want
    both widescreen and pan & scan on one disc, but because it would be very
    convenient to have that much space on a single disc.

    > I am retired, my eyesight is still good, and I have a 35-inch TV. I have
    > tried
    > to adjust to widescreen versions because I have seen examples of how much is
    > cut out with p+s. My problem is not with the black bars, but with the
    > narrower
    > picture. I don't know the exact ratios for widescreen, but I find
    > approximately 5:3 satisfactory. When it gets to approximately 2:1 or more,
    > the
    > people and objects on the screen are too small for me to feel the same
    > involvement in the film that I get with p+s.


    By 5:3, you're probably thinking of movies shot in the 1.85:1 aspect
    ratio. Movies shot in this aspect ratio are pretty easy to watch, even
    on smaller tv's. The other commonly used aspect ratio is 2:35:1. This
    can definitely take some getting used too on a 4:3 tv, even a large 4:3
    tv. The problem with this is, even more picture is lost in 2:35:1, as
    it's a VERY wide aspect ratio. Infact a huge amount of picture is
    lost(roughly 43%; sometimes even more). 2:35:1 movies that are pan &
    scanned are basically completely destroyed and aren't really even
    watchable anymore(or at least not worth watching). So much picture is
    chopped off that many scenes end up not making sense, dialogue and sound
    effects comes out of seemingly no where, etc. They sometimes even have
    to re-edit scenes for 2:35:1 films that have been pan & scanned.
    Obviously that's totally unacceptable and film makers have been trying
    to stop this crap for many years now. I would suggest trying to adjust
    to the "narrower" picture(p&s is actually narrower, but whatever...).
    Buying a pan & scan DVD is like buying a CD with only one channel of
    sound. Would spending $15 for a CD with only half of the sound be ok or
    would you demand your money back?

    Another thing I would suggest doing is saving up for a HDTV. 2:35:1
    movies basically look like 1:85:1 movies on widescreen 16:9 tv's. The
    black bars are half the size they would be on a 4:3 tv.

    > I'm not trying to convert anybody, just explaining why some of us prefer p+s.


    Fair enough, but you really only prefer p&s because you were given it
    for many, many years. Believe me, if all that was available from the
    dawn of movies on tv was OAR, you would have no problem with widescreen.
    You would be so used to it that anything else would seem strange. Adapt
    and change my friend. You'll be better off in the end.

    > John

    --
    BL
    Black Locust, Nov 29, 2003
    #13
  14. JMas493 wrote:
    >
    > Is there enough space on a DVD for both the widescreen and pan-and-scan
    > versions?


    Technically, yes, but It's usually not a good idea to put pan and scan
    and widesceen on the same disc (like what was done in the beginning and
    what is still done sometimes now) becuase it cuts into the available
    memory on the DVD and causes compression errors or artifacts.

    The best way is to have a double sided DVD-18 that would have widescreen
    on one side and pan and scan on the other (this is what was done for for
    the new Chitty Chitty Bang Bang).

    Also, it can be a DVD 14 since it follows that most that would use a pan
    and scan version would also have tv's that would not expose as many
    compression artifacts. Make the widescreen duel layer (to stand up to
    large widescreen TV presentation and higher end set ups) and make the
    full screen single layer that will not have as much scrutiny.
    >
    > I am retired, my eyesight is still good, and I have a 35-inch TV. I have tried
    > to adjust to widescreen versions because I have seen examples of how much is
    > cut out with p+s. My problem is not with the black bars, but with the narrower
    > picture. I don't know the exact ratios for widescreen, but I find
    > approximately 5:3 satisfactory. When it gets to approximately 2:1 or more, the
    > people and objects on the screen are too small for me to feel the same
    > involvement in the film that I get with p+s.
    >
    > I'm not trying to convert anybody, just explaining why some of us prefer p+s.


    But trust me, when you know what is cut off, soon pan and scan will
    bother you. My brother in law rented Charles Angels 2 and it turned out
    to be pan and scan. I kept being kicked out of involvement with the
    movie because I could tell that stuff was being cropped. The movie
    wasn't so good anyway, but I couldn't even enjoy it on a visual level.
    It was like looking at the movie through tunnelvision.

    Mike
    Michael Rogers, Nov 29, 2003
    #14
  15. "Richard C." wrote:
    >
    > How old do you have to be?
    >
    > I am 59 and demand widescreen.
    >

    C'mon, give me a break will you? I didn't say all older people hate
    widescreen. Some, young and old, will never be happy with widescreen
    because pan and scan has been the way they are used to seeing stuff.

    It's the studios own fault for not doing it right in the first place.
    It makes good business sense not to shut out those people. I'm perfectly
    happy if they get their pan and scan version as long as I can get my
    widescreen version.

    Some just need some education to know what pan and scan takes off the
    movie image, others realize all that and don't care.

    It's safe to say that many people in the first catagory have gotten that
    education and have switched to widescreen(judging by the sales).

    Mike
    Michael Rogers, Nov 29, 2003
    #15
  16. >The movie industry dropped the
    >ball in the early 60's. If they made sure widescreen movies were shown
    >letterboxed instead of cropped from the beginning Joe Sixpack would
    >already be used to the black bars. They didn't do that and the oldest of


    actually, it's good that they didn't show movies letterboxed on tv back then.
    If they did, there would have been lawsuits aplenty against the tv stations and
    movie companies because back then, tv sets were very succeptible to burn-in.

    I distinctly remember that in the 60's and early 70's, whenever you turned off
    any tv set after watching it, you would see a frozen picture, frozen at the
    point you turned the set off, which would take about a minute or two to slowly
    fade away.

    This happened on every tv set I seen back then, the ones at my house, and the
    ones at other peoples' houses.

    That doesn't happen on today's tv sets.

    But it did on the old tv sets.

    even as late as the 80's (when I think tv sets no longer did that), there was
    some flak over burn-in caused by videogame consoles like the Atari 2600.
    Waterperson77, Nov 29, 2003
    #16
  17. Black Locust

    Richard C. Guest

    "JMas493" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    : Is there enough space on a DVD for both the widescreen and pan-and-scan
    : versions?

    ===================
    Only by sacrificing quality and extras.
    ===================
    :
    : I am retired, my eyesight is still good, and I have a 35-inch TV. I have tried
    : to adjust to widescreen versions because I have seen examples of how much is
    : cut out with p+s. My problem is not with the black bars, but with the narrower
    : picture. I don't know the exact ratios for widescreen, but I find
    : approximately 5:3 satisfactory. When it gets to approximately 2:1 or more, the
    : people and objects on the screen are too small for me to feel the same
    : involvement in the film that I get with p+s.
    :
    : I'm not trying to convert anybody, just explaining why some of us prefer p+s.
    :
    : John
    Richard C., Nov 29, 2003
    #17
  18. Black Locust

    Richard C. Guest

    "Michael Rogers" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    :
    :
    : "Richard C." wrote:
    : >
    : > How old do you have to be?
    : >
    : > I am 59 and demand widescreen.
    : >
    : C'mon, give me a break will you? I didn't say all older people hate
    : widescreen. Some, young and old, will never be happy with widescreen
    : because pan and scan has been the way they are used to seeing stuff.

    ================
    And they can get used to WS.
    ==================
    :
    : It's the studios own fault for not doing it right in the first place.
    : It makes good business sense not to shut out those people. I'm perfectly
    : happy if they get their pan and scan version as long as I can get my
    : widescreen version.

    ===============
    But this is an oppotunity to cease the P&S insanity!
    =================
    :
    : Some just need some education to know what pan and scan takes off the
    : movie image, others realize all that and don't care.
    :
    : It's safe to say that many people in the first catagory have gotten that
    : education and have switched to widescreen(judging by the sales).
    :
    : Mike
    Richard C., Nov 29, 2003
    #18
  19. From on top of The Wall I yelled "YOU! YES YOU Black Locust
    <>! Stand still laddie. Oh, and which one is Pink?"
    > I'm not sure about this(someone feel free to correct me if i'm wrong),
    > but it also appears Pirates of the Caribbean is also widescreen only.
    > Now you can't tell me that one tanked at the box office. I've gotta
    > admit this is truly shocking as this is Disney, who have proven time
    > and time again to be completely pro-pan & scan.


    Yes, "Pirates" is WS only on DVD - 2.35:1 anamorphic enhanced.
    Keep in mind also that "The Lion King" got a WS only release on DVD,
    same with "Beauty And The Beast" and many other Disney animated films.

    --
    Brian "Demolition Man" Little
    Brian \Demolition Man\ Little, Nov 29, 2003
    #19
  20. From on top of The Wall I yelled "YOU! YES YOU Shinner
    <>! Stand still laddie. Oh, and which one is
    Pink?"
    > Well said Mike, sums up my feelings perfectly....but the zealots in
    > here will still not accept it. They're not happy with the
    > availability of new releases in OAR, they're set on getting revenge
    > for all they suffered back in the day (i.e. VHS).


    Then why don't you go back to VHS then if you want your
    damn precious P&S. If anyone is a "zealot" in here its you.

    --
    Brian "Demolition Man" Little
    Brian \Demolition Man\ Little, Nov 29, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Steve Lee
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    423
    Chicha
    Jun 29, 2004
  2. Limited Edition Clear Vinyl

    Widescreen shows on widescreen TV

    Limited Edition Clear Vinyl, Apr 1, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    903
    Ronald Cole
    Apr 4, 2004
  3. liukaiyuan

    Widescreen: Widescreen TVs at SEARS

    liukaiyuan, May 4, 2008, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    608
    liukaiyuan
    May 4, 2008
  4. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    865
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  5. David Taylor
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    228
Loading...

Share This Page