hepclassic

Gay True Stories That Need To Be On Film

91 posts in this topic

Oh please DO get political. Ha ha! Movies are ALL about politics. We may THINK they aren't, but they all have messages.

 

All joking aside, I agree with SOME of what you posted here.

 

Not this part though: "It is the right that has pushed the color blind \ assimilation POV."

 

The Right is NOT color blind. Mind you, The Left have their problems as well and I would never say the Left is "perfect" either, but those are different.

 

The right pretends to be color blind.   The left leads with color on many if not most issues.    

 

Related to movies,  take that fuss about the Oscars.   Liberal papers like the L.A. Times had a front page article every day leading up to the event about how people of color where being treated unfairly.   

 

Hey,  based on the make-up of the membership (overwhelmingly white males) the Times had a solid point.  But one can't claim to be color blind and at the same time notice that the membership is overwhelmingly white males.

 

The white males in the membership will say they are color blind since they are already members. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I do wonder why Alexander didn't do well at the box office.   Was it because it didn't have enough action for the target market?   The focus on the gay relationships?    Brad Pitt wasn't the leading star?   (his 'way back in the day' epics did well if I recall).

My guess? All of the above. Mainstream audiences are conditioned to like certain types of assembly line action films. And an action film that requires a bit of thinking is perhaps too taxing.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The right pretends to be color blind.   The left leads with color on many if not most issues.    

 

Related to movies,  take that fuss about the Oscars.   Liberal papers like the L.A. Times had a front page article every day leading up to the event about how people of color where being treated unfairly.   

 

Hey,  based on the make-up of the membership (overwhelmingly white males) the Times had a solid point.  But one can't claim to be color blind and at the same time notice that the membership is overwhelmingly white males.

 

The white males in the membership will say they are color blind since they are already members. 

 

All politicians LOVE to pretend. They operate in their own Make Believe World.

 

Much has been made about the Academy members' loony-ness. Not only are most Caucasian, but roughly two thirds are over 65. Recently there was a report about voters' off-the-cuff comments "leaked". One complained that too many Japanese features were being nominated in the Animated Feature category... in a year when none from that country were nominated... and that voter didn't bother watching any before choosing one. The Academy should just select members of this forum to do their voting since we are more likely to WATCH the films.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All politicians LOVE to pretend. They operate in their own Make Believe World.

 

Much has been made about the Academy members' loony-ness. Not only are most Caucasian, but roughly two thirds are over 65. Recently there was a report about voters' off-the-cuff comments "leaked". One complained that too many Japanese features were being nominated in the Animated Feature category... in a year when none from that country were nominated... and that voter didn't bother watching any before choosing one. The Academy should just select members of this forum to do their voting since we are more likely to WATCH the films.

 

So your point of "Everybody just blends into ONE community by nation rather than skin shade or orientation" is folly,  right?

 

I.e.  those that already have the power will support the concept of 'ONE community' while those that do NOT have the power will wish for some share of the power to be provided to their 'group'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So your point of "Everybody just blends into ONE community by nation rather than skin shade or orientation" is folly,  right?

 

I.e.  those that already have the power will support the concept of 'ONE community' while those that do NOT have the power will wish for some share of the power to be provided to their 'group'.

 

It is... *sigh*... just a folly. You need more than politicians and "people in power" to change society... and society doesn't necessarily want to change. I guess it is human nature to "differentiate" yourself from others. You can't stop human nature.

 

My earlier rant was just that... a rant. I am just exhausted. The only reason I brought the warring political parties into the mix is because one is giving me the bigger headache with all of their "religious freedom" talk.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess? All of the above. Mainstream audiences are conditioned to like certain types of assembly line action films. And an action film that requires a bit of thinking is perhaps too taxing.

 

You have to laugh. How many action films feature ANY kind of relationship... straight or gay? Half of them are "boys club" adventures with females stuck on the sidelines "back at mission control" while the dudes are battling the aliens. Maybe because the lead characters are so active flexing their muscles, they are too tired to do anything else?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it must be said that the only way for people not to create and dignify dehumanizing labels like "gay" and "African-American" and "women" would be to challenge and make positive those labels, and to stop blaming the people labeled for creating the label when anthropologically speaking, the people who weren't labeled as that made the labels and history needs to honestly be acknowledged. 

 

And, I'm not asking in my question for orientation-blindness, let alone color-blindness. Someone who is actually blind has heightened senses, and heterosexual white people have yet to heighten their senses in society towards color- and orientation-consciousness, which to me, means an awareness that not everyone has your experience and your experience shouldn't dominate in attitude and reinforcement in social institutions like entertainment out of respect towards your fellow human being and allows everyone an equal voice. Most heterosexual white people want to cheat the experience entirely and get to the result where it doesn't matter who you sleep with and the color of skin you are, i.e. "just don't judge ME" But the reality is is that while heterosexual white people don't want to be judged, they are free to do whatever false judgment comes their way based on the fear of differences they have and are freely allowed to express it whether maliciously ("Mexicans are rapists!") or benevolently ("I have a Mexican maid, but she loves to do housework and I pay her well"). This creates a double standard, which excellent art like The Help (2011) attempted to fix because stating a designated "other" is a human being is still revolutionary. 

 

How this double standard translates to film, we get mainstream Hollywood CEOs attempt only once to reach out to audiences with a different perception of what "gay" means via Alexander (2004). Since Hollywood believes box office is on par with blood pumping through the veins, that attempt didn't do well, so let's get back to the stereotypes heterosexuals know and love, and leave the challenges for the indies, and award well-known actors in indies awards if they play gay, like Sean Penn in Milk (2008). 

 

Not to downplay Milk(2008)- but it is actually a good example of my OP. The movie is more about his life as a politician than it is about his love life. It is about how he noticed and lived under heterosexist circumstances in the first scene before realizing that the GLBT ghetto that was formed in San Francisco was good enough reason to consider politics, and we follow that. Still, his career in politics was the focus of that film. His personal love life, though affirmed throughout the film as normal as Abraham Lincoln's to Mary Todd Lincoln's in Lincoln (2012), is secondary to the shift in politics he brought to the states and to the country as a city administrator. The fact that more films weren't made, if not bought by HBO out of homophobic concerns by studio heads, spells out the point that there is a need for them. 

 

This is what the GLBT community has in common with the African-American, Hispanic-and Latino-American, Asian-American, and Native American community. We represent strongly in the box office, but film has yet to dignify that representation by representing us and representing us well. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With this kind of ambivalent filmmaking - that is, "addressing" gay subject matter that cannot be addressed as such - there are a lot of - what shall we say? - "inside jokes".

 

Like Douglas Sirk casting a gay actor, Rock Hudson, as the "gay" Dean Hess, whose homosexuality could not be depicted on-screen or casting Cary Grant as the "gay" Cole Porter, whose homosexuality, again, could not be depicted on-screen.

 

Or casting an actor with such a "macho presence" - Charlton Heston as Michelangelo in "The Agony and The Ecstasy" - that, when a half-hearted attempt is made to reveal the famous man's homosexuality - the audience can say, "Well, he just wasn't interested in that woman." - and the filmmakers can say, "Well, we did try to be truthful".

 

Or bringing in a really voluptuous woman - like Gina Lollobridgida in "Trapeze" - to cover up what is essentially a homosexual romance - between Burt Lancaster and Tony Curtis - so the filmmakers can say TO THEMSELVES - "Well, we did get away with it!" - the film is based on a gay novel.

 

Actually, these last two films were made by Carol Reed - perhaps this "subterfuge" was the only way that he could deal with homosexuality in his films - that is, back-handedly.

 

And the list can go on and on.

 

Next?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With this kind of ambivalent filmmaking - that is, "addressing" gay subject matter that cannot be addressed as such - there are a lot of - what shall we say? - "inside jokes".

 

Like Douglas Sirk casting a gay actor, Rock Hudson, as the "gay" Dean Hess, whose homosexuality could not be depicted on-screen or casting Cary Grant as the "gay" Cole Porter, whose homosexuality, again, could not be depicted on-screen.

 

Or casting an actor with such a "macho presence" - Charlton Heston as Michelangelo in "The Agony and The Ecstasy" - that, when a half-hearted attempt is made to reveal the famous man's homosexuality - the audience can say, "Well, he just wasn't interested in that woman." - and the filmmakers can say, "Well, we did try to be truthful".

 

Or bringing in a really voluptuous woman - like Gina Lollobridgida in "Trapeze" - to cover up what is essentially a homosexual romance - between Burt Lancaster and Tony Curtis - so the filmmakers can say TO THEMSELVES - "Well, we did get away with it!" - the film is based on a gay novel.

 

Actually, these last two films were made by Carol Reed - perhaps this "subterfuge" was the only way that he could deal with homosexuality in his films - that is, back-handedly.

 

And the list can go on and on.

 

Next?

Charlton Heston as Judah Ben-Hur and Stephen Boyd as Messala in Ben-Hur (1959)- we know they were friends, but when Messala betrayed Judah, no more beddy-bye time with everyone's favorite Roman. That, and William Wyler did tell Stephen Boyd to play Messala like a gay man, and to not like Charlton know. 

 

But even so, Messala was evil because he was a Roman, not because him and Judah put horns on each other's bed. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With this kind of ambivalent filmmaking - that is, "addressing" gay subject matter that cannot be addressed as such - there are a lot of - what shall we say? - "inside jokes".

 

Like Douglas Sirk casting a gay actor, Rock Hudson, as the "gay" Dean Hess, whose homosexuality could not be depicted on-screen or casting Cary Grant as the "gay" Cole Porter, whose homosexuality, again, could not be depicted on-screen.

 

Or casting an actor with such a "macho presence" - Charlton Heston as Michelangelo in "The Agony and The Ecstasy" - that, when a half-hearted attempt is made to reveal the famous man's homosexuality - the audience can say, "Well, he just wasn't interested in that woman." - and the filmmakers can say, "Well, we did try to be truthful".

 

Or bringing in a really voluptuous woman - like Gina Lollobridgida in "Trapeze" - to cover up what is essentially a homosexual romance - between Burt Lancaster and Tony Curtis - so the filmmakers can say TO THEMSELVES - "Well, we did get away with it!" - the film is based on a gay novel.

 

Actually, these last two films were made by Carol Reed - perhaps this "subterfuge" was the only way that he could deal with homosexuality in his films - that is, back-handedly.

 

And the list can go on and on.

 

Next?

 

You really think what was going on between Tony and Burt in Trapeze was a homosexual romance?    I don't.  But hey, I'm living this right now.    I play jazz with a homosexual guy about 15 years younger then me.   His now ex-boyfriend was always making jokes related to wondering is something else was going on.    My wife even said to me, 'hey I know those are jokes but I really think the guy is jealous'.     Yea, the two of us have a common deep passion but it isn't about each other but instead music.   Having an artistic bond can make for a strong relationship so I wouldn't assume it means something else. 

 

The play These Three relates to this (there the passion was about opening a school and educating young folks).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's face there are people who would rather leave the gay out of the picture- a friend did not like the fact that James Whale was depicted as an active homosexual man in " God's and Monsters" .  I don't think "Alexander" failed because of the homosexual content- which Oliver Stone trimmed under studio pressure.  Of course from a marketing point of view the gay angle of movie is sometimes hidden from advertisement aimed at wider audience- there were posters for "Brokeman Mountain" with Heath Ledger embracing Michelle Williams not Jake Gyllenhaal.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whereas classic films can only hint at gay relationships, why in today's quest for artistic and personal authenticity in art forms, like film, theatre, and music, why are studio bosses still afraid to tap into exploring this natural, normal human condition and its expressions? There is no excuse for it, especially when we claim to be "progressed." 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whereas classic films can only hint at gay relationships, why in today's quest for artistic and personal authenticity in art forms, like film, theatre, and music, why are studio bosses still afraid to tap into exploring this natural, normal human condition and its expressions? There is no excuse for it, especially when we claim to be "progressed." 

You're right...Hollywood and society in general is not as progressed as it likes to think it is. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right...Hollywood and society in general is not as progressed as it likes to think it is. 

 

I don't assume it has anything to do with being progressive or not.   Making films is a business and the goal of a business in a capitalist society is to make money for the investors.   It is audience that is progressive (or progressive enough),  to green light films that feature certain topics. 

 

e.g.  Today L.A. Times features a story on the CEO of Warner Bros, Kevin Tsujihara.   He laid out bold plans to release 10 superhero films based on characters from their prized DC Comic library.     The first release,  Batman v. Superman cost 250 million to make and is the first film from these plans.  

 

Does anyone really believe Tsujihara laid out these plans from an artistic POV?     NO.   He did so because if he can't keep WB from being one of the top 3 studios in terms of box office market share he will be fired. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't assume it has anything to do with being progressive or not.   Making films is a business and the goal of a business in a capitalist society is to make money for the investors.   It is audience that is progressive (or progressive enough),  to green light films that feature certain topics. 

 

e.g.  Today L.A. Times features a story on the CEO of Warner Bros, Kevin Tsujihara.   He laid out bold plans to release 10 superhero films based on characters from their prized DC Comic library.     The first release,  Batman v. Superman cost 250 million to make and is the first film from these plans.  

 

Does anyone really believe Tsujihara laid out these plans from an artistic POV?     NO.   He did so because if he can't keep WB from being one of the top 3 studios in terms of box office market share he will be fired. 

James,

 

Are you thinking progress is just measured by people who identify as "progressive" or actual socio-political progress that has taken place in this modern age? 

 

Also, Hollywood will always suffer from the box office over the art form- but sooner rather than later, it will have to compromise business for audience insistence on what pleases them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt that Hollywood studio will produce a big budget gay theme movie ( unless it's a super hero and I'm sure he is getting a girlfriend)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's face there are people who would rather leave the gay out of the picture- a friend did not like the fact that James Whale was depicted as an active homosexual man in " God's and Monsters" .  I don't think "Alexander" failed because of the homosexual content- which Oliver Stone trimmed under studio pressure.  Of course from a marketing point of view the gay angle of movie is sometimes hidden from advertisement aimed at wider audience- there were posters for "Brokeman Mountain" with Heath Ledger embracing Michelle Williams not Jake Gyllenhaal.

Yes, for example, "A Single Man" was marketed as a "heterosexual romance".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't assume it has anything to do with being progressive or not.   Making films is a business and the goal of a business in a capitalist society is to make money for the investors.   It is audience that is progressive (or progressive enough),  to green light films that feature certain topics. 

 

e.g.  Today L.A. Times features a story on the CEO of Warner Bros, Kevin Tsujihara.   He laid out bold plans to release 10 superhero films based on characters from their prized DC Comic library.     The first release,  Batman v. Superman cost 250 million to make and is the first film from these plans.  

 

Does anyone really believe Tsujihara laid out these plans from an artistic POV?     NO.   He did so because if he can't keep WB from being one of the top 3 studios in terms of box office market share he will be fired. 

When these kind of "blockbusters" are successful at the box-office world-wide, they can bring in mountains of revenue for years and years and years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James,

 

Are you thinking progress is just measured by people who identify as "progressive" or actual socio-political progress that has taken place in this modern age? 

 

Also, Hollywood will always suffer from the box office over the art form- but sooner rather than later, it will have to compromise business for audience insistence on what pleases them. 

 

I'm sorry but it appear you really don't understand a standard business model.   Take your last sentence.  

 

"it will have to compromise business for audience insistence on what pleases them".

 

That is completely upside down.   One does NOT have to 'compromise business' to provide an audience 'what pleases them'.   Instead a business is in the business of providing to an audience 'what pleases them'.

 

As time marches on more and more people will be less phobic and open to what today are termed 'alterative lifestyles'  (a term in itself that is offensive).      Movies based on those themes will make a profit and more and more producers will green light similar projects.

 

Until then we can expect more and more cardboard superhero films and movies where cars are the center of attention.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James,

 

I understand how a business works. However, what is "standard" is exclusive for many and that's why business owners aka studio executives/CEOs/heads need to compromise with what the people want, which is racial and sexual diversity. Insisting their model is the only one that works when there are countless films with good box office that suggest otherwise is bad for business. There is money that is the first consideration, yes, but money can silence and suppress as easily as it can purchase and support. Right now, studios risk losing money when certain film-goers protest films and award shows because it does not respect their interests. I've seen it done, and I participate in those demonstrations. 

Edited by hepclassic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James,

 

I understand how a business works. However, what is "standard" is exclusive for many and that's why business owners aka studio executives/CEOs/heads need to compromise with what the people want, which is racial and sexual diversity. Insisting their model is the only one that works when there are countless films with good box office that suggest otherwise is bad for business. 

 

First there is no such thing as 'the people'.   People have different taste and therefore can't be viewed as group from a marketing perspective.   Instead the question is;  do ENOUGH people want films with racial and sexual diversity?       

 

IF there are countless films with racial and sexual diversity with good box office results (i.e. they make a profit),  then studio producers will make those type of films since profit is their only motive.   i.e. there is NO need to compromise IF your claim is correct that there is a profitable market for those type of films.

 

But really if there are countless films with racial and sexual diversity,  why did you create this thread?   Isn't the point of this thread that there are not enough films with storylines that focus on racial and sexual diversity?      

 

I believe there is NOT enough of a market for those type of films to compel studio producers to make more of those films.  Especially the major studios.    The proof of my POV is the fact you felt the need to create this thread.    

 

PS:  Additional proof is that Trump is doing so well (as well as Cruz).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First there is no such thing as 'the people'.   People have different taste and therefore can't be viewed as group from a marketing perspective.   Instead the question is;  do ENOUGH people want films with racial and sexual diversity?       

 

IF there are countless films with racial and sexual diversity with good box office results (i.e. they make a profit),  then studio producers will make those type of films since profit is their only motive.   i.e. there is NO need to compromise IF your claim is correct that there is a profitable market for those type of films.

 

But really if there are countless films with racial and sexual diversity,  why did you create this thread?   Isn't the point of this thread that there are not enough films with storylines that focus on racial and sexual diversity?      

 

I believe there is NOT enough of a market for those type of films to compel studio producers to make more of those films.  Especially the major studios.    The proof of my POV is the fact you felt the need to create this thread.    

 

PS:  Additional proof is that Trump is doing so well (as well as Cruz).  

Well, I am glad I live just to prove your points (sarcasm) 

 

And, really, there aren't much heterosexual white men pay attention to anyway unless a heterosexual is playing homosexual. 

 

Trump is doing so well because the generation before baby boomers still votes, and they are going to be dead in 10-15 years of old age anyway. I'd rather have someone better in my future than someone who deserves to be in a federal jail, and Cruz should stop using the hand he uses to pleasure himself to **** on the Bible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Hollywood was OK with diversity for a couple years in the seventies. Part of this was due to catastrophic losses in "establishment" war epics, elephantine musicals and other tried-and-true genres. Even westerns were losing money. There was an "anything goes" period of experimentation that lasted at least until JAWS and STAR WARS brought back "traditional" Hollywood's reliance on stock genres and glossy production values. Since the older generation was content to sit home and watch Lawrence Welk instead of flock to see FINIAN'S RAINBOW and STAR! in 1968, the Baby Boom was being courted for the first time after THE GRADUATE made a killing at the box-office (being released December '67). 1968 was also the year that Sidney Poitier temporarily topped the Quigley box-office lists, although... sadly... it was just a "hic-cup". Another two decades passed before Eddie Murphy broke that color barrier again. (Then again, actresses didn't top the annual charts for two decades as well.)

It is hard to appreciate just how big an impact that MIDNIGHT COWBOY made at that time. Although previously you saw VICTIM and other (mildly) sympathetic gay films during an early bumper period of 1961-62 (ADVISE AND CONSENT, THE CHILDREN'S HOUR, WALK ON THE WILD SIDE, etc.), by 1968 the filmmakers fell into another rut with shock-and-death tales like THE DETECTIVE, THE SERGEANT and THE KILLING OF SISTER GEORGE. This film moved the pendulum back in the appropriate direction. Yes, the two leads Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman played characters over-emphasizing their heterosexuality, but there were still two sympathetic gay characters (even if one got strangled) and one transvestite who was just arrogant, not necessarily a psychopathic villain as in the later FREEBIE AND THE BEAN. I recall reading back issues of PARENTS magazine of 1969 giving the very adult MIDNIGHT COWBOY high reviews despite warning its readers it was "unsuitable" for the tykes. Hard to believe something like that would be a "critics' darling" (well, maybe not with Roger Ebert but practically everybody else), but it was released at the right time to push envelope for the better.

Director Schlesinger then moved on to filming SUNDAY BLOODY SUNDAY in 1970, a very British film like VICTIM a decade earlier. Released in the summer of '71, it coincided with Hollywood's "coming out party". Practically all of the major studios put out product with gay themes that year and, in December, the first hard core porn feature BOYS IN THE SAND got attention with (I think) both Variety and the New York Times. (Unlike June 1972's heterosexual DEEP THROAT, this gay film boasted artsy cinematography to make the sex on screen more "stylish" and "tasteful". Angela Lansbury and other celebrities allegedly went to see it without any shame.) Also in 1971, PBS was backing AN AMERICAN FAMILY, aired early '73 with a real life son coming out to his parents in the earliest "reality TV show". In fact, early 70s TV was filled with "normal", not stereotyped, gay characters (ALL IN THE FAMILY, MAUDE, etc). All of this entertainment exposure just might have helped make homosexuality and bisexuality no longer "psychological disorders" by the medical profession in 1973. Despite all of the noise made by Jerry Falwell and Anita Bryant, the years 1970-82 really was a golden age, culminating with the success of James Broughton's enormously popular experimental films and poetry and even 20th Century Fox's  mainstream MAKING LOVE.

I really think the AIDS crisis... and especially President Reagan's total neglect to do anything about it because it was initially dubbed the "gay virus"... really set things back in BOTH popular culture and entertainment. No, we would not have a thread like this on the forum had all of the religious fanatics not taken advantage of the situation. The impact is still felt today in... of oddly... modern internet porn. Virtually all gay videos online show the participants using protection unless there is a "warning" at the start against "BB" (you folks can look up those initials yourselves). Yet heterosexual porn performers rarely... if ever... bother with "protection" on screen since many people still THINK that kind of love-making is "disease free" (even though it is not). Virtually every character in a movie or TV show that has AIDS is gay, even though that is NOT the reality... just a stereotype.

However what I think has been happening this past decade is that movies and TV shows are all in "niche markets". A company like TLA will provide dramas for exclusively gay-interested viewers, while Warner Brothers will focus on super heroes who have no sex life at all... instead they just fight villains up in the sky. Entertainment Weekly had an article a year ago commenting that FIFTY SHADES OF GREY was practically the only mainstream movie (unlike the independent NYMPHOMANIAC) with any nudity or sex at all, despite being relatively tame. The moguls in charge assume the theater goers can see all of THAT STUFF online and simply come to movies for the 3-D and IMAX special effects.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a great deal of gay independent cinema - you couldn't keep up with it even if you made a valiant attempt.  In the NYC area, these kind of films open up for a week and, then, sadly, they are gone - where, I'm not exactly sure. Perhaps onto Netflix, which has an astonishing variety of these films.  A recent surprise for me was the quality film, "From Beginning To End", an engrossing tale of two brothers - who fell in love.  It was anything but "a sordid tale" - the brothers' love for each other was both "real" and overwhelming. Surprisingly, what could have been "a tragedy" ended up on a triumphant note.

 

2056d%5B1%5D.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indie films unless they have name attached are getting harder to market- there is always going to be a audience for gay films specially if you feature a cute shirtless guy on the poster- Amazon has many European "gay" films which seem closer to soft core porn - many are sold by TLA too.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us