Robert Washington

Long Island City
New York
msg tools
Okay, I may have been deliberately provocative in the subject line just to catch a few extra eyeballs, and may not necessarily believe it to be entirely true.

And I really don't mean to shout anyone down or be a troll - I honestly do appreciate this Trek is a radical departure from all previous versions and it won't be for everyone - and I understand opinions are subjective.

Nevertheless, I have a hard time not responding to criticisms I feel are unfair, don't make sense, or are simply unfounded, and it seems like most of the criticism of the iTrek movie are faulting it for flaws the original article was more guilty of.

Knocking the 'bad science'? Come on - Trek was literally founded on some of the worst sceince imaginable - in fact, when a group of scientists voted onthe most ludicrous tech ever imagined, the Phaser, Transporter, and Warp Drive took 3 of the top 5 slots.

To restate ungently: Actual, real-world scientists considered Trek's signature tech to be more ridiculous than both Giant Robots That Transform Into Cars and The Jetson's FoodaRacaCycle.

The "lack of depth"? Really, now - the TOS cast had almost nothing to distinguish them as personalities than their ethnicities, their skillsets, and their trademark phrases, and for most purposes, are utterly interchangeable otherwise.

TOS once played a slap fight with a pregnant woman for laughs and inrtroduced a computer sophisticated enough to enslave an entire planet yet utterly incapable of dealing with the most basic and obvious of logical paradoxes and presumed not one of that computer's designers or maintenance engineers would figure out that little flaw for themselves - they all just sat there, getting bossed around by a frigging laptop until Mighty Kirk dropped by to help.

Further - the new movie gives like 40 times more insight into why the Big 2 are the kind of people they are than TOS and every TOS movie gave them combined.

Old Kirk was a Barfightin' Horndog with a built-in Rebellious Streak because he was a Barfightin' Horndog with a built-in Rebellious Streak.

New Kirk is a Barfightin' Horndog with a built-in Rebellious Streak because his dad died a Big Deal Starfleet Space Hero before he was born, which meant that he not only never had a dad, he never got to know his dad, only knows what a dad is even supposed to be by watching other people with their dads, and everyone around him while he was growing had these Impossibly High Expectations he'll live up to his dad they let him know about over and over all his life, and those are the kind of things that fuel self-destructive behaviors like Barfightin', Bein' a Horndog, and Knee-Jerk Rebellion as a Lifestyle.

Many people would tag that as an example of the movie having more depth and substance than the original, since it gives us insight for the motivations for his Classic Kirk behaviors TOS totally ignored even thinking about bothering with.

And it's that scene so many find so unnecessary - the joyride in the vintage car - that establishes that.

"Pointless?" You can safely question the point of any narrative that doesn't have an obvious moral spraypainted across the ending, but given the number of TOS/TNG episodes that are obviously pointless
(A PIECE OF THE ACTION, THE TROUBLE WITH TRIBBLES, SHORE LEAVE, anything involving the Holodeck), this feels right up there with the jibes about the science and the 'lack of depth'.

"Just make more new characters"? Hey, the last time they did that, it was a hopeless failure so bad it's like the only Trek with zero licensed products attached to it and the ratings and response to it made the ratings and response to the original show's original run look good by comparison, and the time before that (VOYAGER) was marginally sucessful at best.

Soo, they didn't do that again because it didn't work the last 2 times and the very last time it almost killed the franchise.

In all honestly, you could make a valid case for Freudian projection being in effect here, i.e. old fans are accusing the new movie of all the flaws of the original as a way of avoiding having to admit to and deal with those flaws - I personally would only say that as a joke, but it kinda does fit most of the complaints I'm seeing here.

So yes - everyone's sweatier yet better looking than the original, and like any movie, there's tons of goofy stuff to niggle over here and there.

But the acting is yards more beliveable, the writing is tons more emotionally effective, the story actually spends some time showing us the characters motivations for their actions, and the fight scenes way more watchable and realistic than even the most recent iterations of the original, and it would be nice to see more acknowledgement of those things, even if you didn't like the results overall.

There could also be more exposition on prescisely what and/or why you feel it 'lacks this or that' or "mocks x aspect of the original", and less trying to claim that it's a failure because it has some of the exact same flaws of the original - in many ways, I honestly feel it actually does have several aspects that are significantly superior to the original, and I don't just mean the special effects.

7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
Outkast wrote:
Nevertheless, I have a hard time not responding to criticisms I feel are unfair, don't make sense, or are simply unfounded, and it seems like most of the criticism of the iTrek movie are faulting it for flaws the original article was more guilty of.


The original TV series was crappy TV. The new movie is a crappy movie. They seem pretty equivalent to me!
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
フィル
Australia
Ashfield
NSW
flag msg tools
designer
badge
I've got an 808 and a 303 and a record collection like the ABC
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I thought the movie was okay, but had too much action and not enough plotting or character development. The new Spock and McCoy were good, but the rest of the actors seemed to lack the spark of the original cast. I am a fan of Simon Pegg, but he just seemed like Simon Pegg with a funny accent rather than Scotty. The design was solid (costumes, spacecraft, cities, etc).

The scene of young Kirk in the car added nothing to the film and was a negative for me. I would have snipped that and put in more characterisation. Also, having the Beastie Boys on the soundtrack took me out of the future setting.

Having said all that, it was still better than most Star Trek movies I've seen. It just wasn't as good as, say, Iron Man, in the popcorn munching special effects adventure genre.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Sadler
United States
Olney
Maryland
flag msg tools
From the Halls of Montezuma...
badge
...to the Shores of Tripoli...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
clearclaw wrote:
Outkast wrote:
Nevertheless, I have a hard time not responding to criticisms I feel are unfair, don't make sense, or are simply unfounded, and it seems like most of the criticism of the iTrek movie are faulting it for flaws the original article was more guilty of.


The original TV series was crappy TV. The new movie is a crappy movie. They seem pretty equivalent to me!


Preach on!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
"that's a smith and wesson, and you've had your six"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
clearclaw wrote:
Outkast wrote:
Nevertheless, I have a hard time not responding to criticisms I feel are unfair, don't make sense, or are simply unfounded, and it seems like most of the criticism of the iTrek movie are faulting it for flaws the original article was more guilty of.


The original TV series was crappy TV. The new movie is a crappy movie. They seem pretty equivalent to me!




20 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Neil Carr
United States
Barre
Vermont
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Outkast wrote:
But the acting is yards more beliveable, the writing is tons more emotionally effective, the story actually spends some time showing us the characters motivations for their actions, and the fight scenes way more watchable and realistic than even the most recent iterations of the original, and it would be nice to see more acknowledgement of those things, even if you didn't like the results overall.


I'd disagree here when comparing this latest movie to Wrath of Khan. WoK is simply a more well constructed movie. First, you have a more sedate pacing which allows the story and the performances to breath more. With iTrek you've got an almost constant swirling camera whether in space or not, everything is almost alway moving. The performances themselves are also far more energetic, needing to keep up with the fast pace and that in and of itself makes the emotional impact diminish.

On the other hand WoK, with that slower pacing, is able to set up motivations for the characters that can be digested by the audience. Now most of the character development was built around Kirk, with his issues of growing old and being mothballed, then having his past thrown at him with Khan and his son, which consequently revitalizes his spirit.

The rest of the cast's interaction with Kirk is used to pull these themes out. At the most overt level we even have literary commentary, with A Tale of Two Cities providing lines that bookend the movie and Kirk's relationship with Spock, meanwhile Moby Dick is used wonderfully by Khan to frame his obsession with Kirk as the White Whale.

Can it honestly be argued that Nero is a stronger character than Khan? I like Eric Bana, but all he was given here was to snarl and leap about. He's supposedly mad, even obsessed, with Spock however the character as a whole makes no sense. He's in a rage about losing Romulus, blaming Spock who seemed to be the only person in the galaxy attempting to save the planet. When he goes back in time to get his sweet revenge, he hangs out for 25 years in the past and does nothing to help his homeworld from it's cataclysm. Huh?

Khan... Ricardo Montalbán delivers one of the best villain performances on screen in any movie. Obsessed, brilliant, and with a character history that echoes back centuries there just isn't any comparison with Nero. It's time travel that doesn't even need an unbelievable technobabble explanation. His grudge with Kirk even holds legitimacy, "This IS Ceti Alpha Six!" as we learn that Kirk's solution to exile of his people only led to death and suffering.

Then we move onto the Kobayashi Maru thread. Death and failure, how does one deal with these eventualities. The movie begins with this theme as we see the exercise underway, Spock's death is foreshadowed twice, once on the fake bridge and again in the corridor with Kirk playfully asking, "Aren't you dead?". We catch the thread again in the middle of the movie in the Genesis cave where we get the tale of Kirk's test and he exudes his confidence saying "I don't believe in no win scenarios" and then finally at the end when he has to confront death, that winning requires sacrifice.

And so lastly we get to the death of Spock. Really, is there a better moment in the entire corpus of Star Trek than this scene? Spock didn't get much character development, instead Saavik was the green who needed to learn a bit. Spock didn't need development because he had already arrived as a character. Kirk couldn't cope with aging, but Spock is in his prime. "What did you think of my solution?" he says, once again referencing back to the test. Kirk had cheated because of his arrogance, Spock however took it seriously and was at peace with his decision. Then, "I always have been and forever shall be your friend. Live long and prosper."

That scene is what really gives oomph to Spock Prime's lines in iTrek when he says "Jim" and speaks about the friendship the two will have with each other. It's unfortunate that in iTrek even these lines have to race through the scene. The audience hardly has a moment to recall the reference before we zip to the next shaky cam shot.

The Wrath of Khan is a well constructed story where several weighty themes are intertwined with each other. Not only do the themes provide a satisfying repetition, but they also help frame the story as a whole.

iTrek in comparison is a mess. There is a lot of energy and bombast, and origin stories always carry an inherent weight to them, but the story as a whole is simply not as well crafted. The pace catapults you along and makes it hard to notice the flaws, but if you just sit back and think about the movie as a whole it's obvious that all of the pieces do not fit into place. It's the difference between a dovetail joint or just nailing two pieces of wood together.

I certainly hope that iTrek 2 will be a Godfather Part 2, Empires Strikes Back, Superman 2, or even just an X-Men 2. The cast is great and the energy is there, but they need to run a tighter ship and slow things down enough so that the audience can breath.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
...
South Africa
Cape Town
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sbszine wrote:
I thought the movie was okay, but had too much action and not enough plotting or character development.

That seems to be what JJ Abrams does.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Simon Crowe
United Kingdom
Sheffield
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
clearclaw wrote:


The original TV series was crappy TV. The new movie is a crappy movie. They seem pretty equivalent to me!


Yup. My comment after seeing the film was 'It was just like Star Trek - really dull'
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Washington

Long Island City
New York
msg tools
sbszine wrote:
I thought the movie was okay, but had too much action and not enough plotting or character development.

The scene of young Kirk in the car added nothing to the film and was a negative for me.


Again, I'd disagree - it established Kirk's 'bad boy' behavior as being longstanding, which in turn estblishes it as 'acting out' over his father's death by implication. And I think snapping people out of their expectations was kind of the point of SABOTAGE (and many other elements of the film).

I'd agree there could be more background and characterization for the rest of the crew, but
a) they used up a lot of screen time on the Big 2 and still didn't do enough to suit everyone
b) I can see the story potential there,
c) the film's 2 hours as it is - doing the Full Monty on even 2 more characters would tack on another hour and
d) that is what sequels are for...

sbszine wrote:

Having said all that, it was still better than most Star Trek movies I've seen. It just wasn't as good as, say, Iron Man, in the popcorn munching special effects adventure genre.


I still feel like I got 3 movies worth of that, but these things are subjective.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Carc >> BSG
United States
Topeka
Kansas
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I stopped reading after you got all reasonable.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Washington

Long Island City
New York
msg tools
echoota wrote:
Outkast wrote:
But the acting is yards more beliveable, the writing is tons more emotionally effective, the story actually spends some time showing us the characters motivations for their actions, and the fight scenes way more watchable and realistic than even the most recent iterations of the original, and it would be nice to see more acknowledgement of those things, even if you didn't like the results overall.


I'd disagree here when comparing this latest movie to Wrath of Khan. WoK is simply a more well constructed movie.


I can't argue point for point because it's been too long since I've seen WRATH OF KHAN, and frankly, I'm not inclined to - it's always been my candidate for Best Trek Ever, with large portions of DS9 running 2nd.

I can go as far as the following:

1) I agree WRATH OF KHAN is at least comparative to and arguably, equal or superior to, the current movie on the specific points I called old Trek out on.

Obviously, I disagree heartily on the painting of iTrek as a hot mess in comparison - it's very different in style, but I just disagree that those differences are such that either is quantitively 'better', so much as 'different'.

But at least you did a phenom job of explaining the whats and whys of your position - I don't agree entirely and might only agree marginally (have to try and see WoK again soon), but I at least feel I understand what you mean and have some specific ideas of why you mean it, miles more than most such.

However, while I am formally conceding a lot of your points are well-made and credible, I do have to popint out that

- I suspect you can admit the extent to which WRATH OF KHAN is amazingly unique and hopelessly singular in nearly all of these qualities, which is to say what I said still is still valid when looking over most all the other Trek-o-verse.

-For some reason, they did kind of take back a lot of what WoK established in later movies and episodes in various ways, which I feel does undercut the overall potency of both Spock's death scene in WoK and the overall value of the movie in the larger context of the whole of the franchise's continuity.

Both of which mostly add up to "If only it wasn't pretty much the only thing like it in nearly all of Trek in these regards."

So yeah - looking exclusively and specifically at WRATH OF KHAN, there's some grounds for the idea that particular old Trek might be almost as good as iTrek
(whistle, , )

but I'd be interested if you really feel there's anything beyond that movie that really qualifies...





 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Washington

Long Island City
New York
msg tools
Koldfoot wrote:
There's a new Star Trek movie?


No.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
True Blue Jon
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
What's iTrek?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Washington

Long Island City
New York
msg tools
ejcarter wrote:
I stopped reading after you got all reasonable.


No!


Wait!

That's...uh...

...just what the Nazis would have said about my posts!

You...geez...umm...don't have any references for anything you said!

I...challenge you to a...Steel Cage Match???

YEAAHHH!!!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Washington

Long Island City
New York
msg tools
quozl wrote:
What's iTrek?


A waggish, memorably quotable reference to the shiny, white-intensive, smoothsleek design sense of this movie that doesn't exist.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aloha!
United States
Kalamazoo
Michigan
flag msg tools
Meega, nala kwishta!
badge
AAGH! YOU'RE TOUCHING ME!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thumbs for iTrek if nothing else.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Phil Shepherd
United States
Arlington
Virginia
flag msg tools
badge
Be on your guard. There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.
Avatar
mb
echoota wrote:
Can it honestly be argued that Nero is a stronger character than Khan? I like Eric Bana, but all he was given here was to snarl and leap about. He's supposedly mad, even obsessed, with Spock however the character as a whole makes no sense. He's in a rage about losing Romulus, blaming Spock who seemed to be the only person in the galaxy attempting to save the planet. When he goes back in time to get his sweet revenge, he hangs out for 25 years in the past and does nothing to help his homeworld from it's cataclysm. Huh?

Khan... Ricardo Montalbán delivers one of the best villain performances on screen in any movie. Obsessed, brilliant, and with a character history that echoes back centuries there just isn't any comparison with Nero. It's time travel that doesn't even need an unbelievable technobabble explanation. His grudge with Kirk even holds legitimacy, "This IS Ceti Alpha Six!" as we learn that Kirk's solution to exile of his people only led to death and suffering.

Then we move onto the Kobayashi Maru thread. Death and failure, how does one deal with these eventualities. The movie begins with this theme as we see the exercise underway, Spock's death is foreshadowed twice, once on the fake bridge and again in the corridor with Kirk playfully asking, "Aren't you dead?". We catch the thread again in the middle of the movie in the Genesis cave where we get the tale of Kirk's test and he exudes his confidence saying "I don't believe in no win scenarios" and then finally at the end when he has to confront death, that winning requires sacrifice.

And so lastly we get to the death of Spock. Really, is there a better moment in the entire corpus of Star Trek than this scene? Spock didn't get much character development, instead Saavik was the green who needed to learn a bit. Spock didn't need development because he had already arrived as a character. Kirk couldn't cope with aging, but Spock is in his prime. "What did you think of my solution?" he says, once again referencing back to the test. Kirk had cheated because of his arrogance, Spock however took it seriously and was at peace with his decision. Then, "I always have been and forever shall be your friend. Live long and prosper."

That scene is what really gives oomph to Spock Prime's lines in iTrek when he says "Jim" and speaks about the friendship the two will have with each other. It's unfortunate that in iTrek even these lines have to race through the scene. The audience hardly has a moment to recall the reference before we zip to the next shaky cam shot.

The Wrath of Khan is a well constructed story where several weighty themes are intertwined with each other. Not only do the themes provide a satisfying repetition, but they also help frame the story as a whole.


By far the most well-reasoned criticism to date.

Nero (the character, not Bana's performance) was definitely the weakest link in the movie as whole.

I also agree that the pacing of iTrek was rushed, but I wouldn't go as far as to say the whole thing's a mess (even if only by way of comparison).

Perhaps iTrek works so well for me precisely because WoK is the only Trek movie I've seen several times... I'm comparing iTrek to the body of "original Star Trek" as a whole and not just Wrath of Khan.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Carc >> BSG
United States
Topeka
Kansas
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Speaking of Wrath of Khan, the space battles seemed more intense in that movie, didn't they? Or am I just misremembering it? Yes, the Enterprise moved like a whale with a sedentary occupation, but when Reliant's phasers ripped into the side of the ship it was an emotional experience. In iTrek (yes, I'm continuing it) the ships were getting blasted much more, but the emotion wasn't there.

Maybe it's nostalgia, maybe it's the scene coupled with the score, I don't know. But am I right?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Washington

Long Island City
New York
msg tools
ejcarter wrote:
Speaking of Wrath of Khan, the space battles seemed more intense in that movie, didn't they? Or am I just misremembering it? Yes, the Enterprise moved like a whale with a sedentary occupation, but when Reliant's phasers ripped into the side of the ship it was an emotional experience. In iTrek (yes, I'm continuing it) the ships were getting blasted much more, but the emotion wasn't there.

Maybe it's nostalgia, maybe it's the scene coupled with the score, I don't know. But am I right?

I recall WoK as having more tension/suspense, whereas iTrek is going for the whole "Chaos of War/SAVING PRIVATE RYAN feel", which to me felt different, not necessarily, "more" anything.

But part of the reason I don't want to argue too hard is because WoK is one of those "things I was enchanted with when I was young" deals, and I'm not sure if I can be fair about its faults.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Washington

Long Island City
New York
msg tools
clearclaw wrote:


The original TV series was crappy TV. The new movie is a crappy movie. They seem pretty equivalent to me!


BeatPosse wrote:

Preach on!


Scrowe wrote:

Yup. My comment after seeing the film was 'It was just like Star Trek - really dull'


See, Trekkers?

This is what I mean - even people who didn't like Trek to begin with freely admit the idea iTrek is somehow inferior or an insult to original Trek is patently preposterous.

Thanks for being brave enough to come out and admit it, guys.

I'd say we have a mandate here... whistle
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Washington

Long Island City
New York
msg tools
kaytel wrote:
sbszine wrote:
I thought the movie was okay, but had too much action and not enough plotting or character development.

That seems to be what JJ Abrams does.


I'd agree halfway - I think FELICITY and ALIAS had issues with character development, but I think ALIAS did a reasonable job of 'doubling back' and fleshing out some of the more one-note characters like Marshall (the Gadget Geek). Also I feel LOST has done a phenom job on character development, with several supporting well-developed characterizations of very minor characters.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
True Blue Jon
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I just saw the new Trek movie last night. I am so glad they got rid of the whole next generation, et al feel and went back to the feel of the original series. My wife and I both liked it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Carc >> BSG
United States
Topeka
Kansas
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
quozl wrote:
I just saw the new Trek movie last night. I am so glad they got rid of the whole next generation, et al feel and went back to the feel of the original series. My wife and I both liked it.


I think one of the biggest things about Trek is Kirk/Spock/McCoy. The Next Generation was a fine idea, but like Star Wars was Luke/Han/Leia Trek is, really... Kirk/Spock/McCoy. You can have all the Enterprise Blanks you want, but those characters are what define the franchise.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Key Locks
United States
McCordsville
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
ejcarter wrote:
quozl wrote:
I just saw the new Trek movie last night. I am so glad they got rid of the whole next generation, et al feel and went back to the feel of the original series. My wife and I both liked it.


I think one of the biggest things about Trek is Kirk/Spock/McCoy. The Next Generation was a fine idea, but like Star Wars was Luke/Han/Leia Trek is, really... Kirk/Spock/McCoy. You can have all the Enterprise Blanks you want, but those characters are what define the franchise.

I haven't seen the new movie, but for my, well... generation, for lack of a better term, what defines Star Trek to me is Picard/Data/La Forge. This is not to take anything away from the original, because I understand that it is largely a function of when I was born. This is simply what I grew up watching, and it holds a certain place in my heart, just as the original holds a certain place in yours.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
True Blue Jon
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Leezer wrote:
ejcarter wrote:
quozl wrote:
I just saw the new Trek movie last night. I am so glad they got rid of the whole next generation, et al feel and went back to the feel of the original series. My wife and I both liked it.


I think one of the biggest things about Trek is Kirk/Spock/McCoy. The Next Generation was a fine idea, but like Star Wars was Luke/Han/Leia Trek is, really... Kirk/Spock/McCoy. You can have all the Enterprise Blanks you want, but those characters are what define the franchise.

I haven't seen the new movie, but for my, well... generation, for lack of a better term, what defines Star Trek to me is Picard/Data/La Forge. This is not to take anything away from the original, because I understand that it is largely a function of when I was born. This is simply what I grew up watching, and it holds a certain place in my heart, just as the original holds a certain place in yours.


When were you born? I think Next Generation came out while I was in high school. I only saw the original series as reruns. Do they still show the original series anywhere?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.