comment #1

Josh Massey says ...

Did he really need to write that article? I mean, isn't it obvious?

I remember Beverly Hills Cop running for in my local theater for six months, if not longer.

comment #2

Balthazar says ...

As a 37-year-old who wonders how he's going to maintain the current pace of everyday life for another 20 years without having a heart attack, stroke or spontaneous combustion, I'll say this: If the rush and pace of everyday life increases as much in the next 20 years as it has in the past 20 years ... well, well, let's just say that's a terrifying thought. I can't imagine what humankind will look like at that point. Suffice to say, I don't think there would be any human being able to sit down for the duration of Shoah ... or maybe even Casablanca.

comment #3

PerfectTommy says ...

When I was an usher we had "Raiders of the Lost Ark" in the theater for a year.

comment #4

shermy says ...

As someone noted, many blockbusters in the late 70s and early 80s would stick around for an entire year.

A major factor here is the home video window becoming remarkably shorter. So now everyone knows the dvd will be out just a few months later, and many are content to wait.

But not every film was rushed to VHS in the 80s, and once they did hit, they were priced for rental only- usually around $100.

I remember waiting a long time before Temple of Doom was priced to sell, and even Last Crusade didn't arrive on VHS until early 1990.

Today it's all about opening weekend, and then getting online Monday morning to ask, "Anyone know when the dvd will be out?"

comment #5

Rich S. says ...

The biggest factor is sell-through video. 20-25 years ago, only the very biggest hits went to sell-through on VHS on their initial release, and usually at about $30. Everything else went to the rental market and then to sell through. Until Burton's Batman, even the sell-through titles had a fairly long window until they were released.

As I've written here before, the theater I managed sold out Burton's Batman almost every show of every day for two weeks or so. Then it settled into a pattern where it sold out Friday night and most of the day Saturday. That lasted from the premiere in late June until they announced, I think in late August, that the VHS would be released that Thanksgiving. The crowds dried up virtually overnight.

But then DVD erased the distinction and the studios realized they could sell more DVDs by using the residual goodwill built up by the promotion for the theatrical release. The rest, as they say, is history.

comment #6

CinemaPhreek says ...

20 to 25 years ago?

Try 10 to 15 years ago. Because in that period the DVD window has collapsed to a cannibalistic 4 months on average and the average person (as opposed to just, uh, cinema freaks) has become aware of it.

When I was the relief manager/projectionist of town's premiere movie house the hit movies stayed 3 to 6 months. E.T. went 9 months.

And yeah, Kilday, wins this week's Most Obvious Trend statue.

comment #7

breadlymoore says ...

Cue the AICN stooges: "But nobody actually LIKES "Crystal Skull!"

Actually, it seems they do.

comment #8

Balthazar says ...

Also, the home viewing experience is so much better than it was in 1988.

And, yes, people have less disposable income and less time than they did even 10 years ago.

If the economy was booming, people would be going to more movies, buy more videogames, designer jeans, iPods, etc. But it's not. So those No. 2 and No. 3 choice movies that people would eventually have gotten around to on a lazy summer night are simply not an option. Now, on a lazy night, you stay home and watch reality TV, drink cheap beer and text-message your buds.

comment #9

MickTravis says ...

In addition to what's already been said about home video, "Temple of Doom" and "Last Crusade" were also far better films released much closer chronologically to the original.

On a related note, I was in Blockbuster this morning sifting through their "previously viewed" bins and picked up "Coming Home" for $4.99. I also saw the fantastic double-disc "Citizen Kane" for $4.99 and considered buying it just to give it a good home.

The manager sold me "Coming Home" and commented on all the good deals.

"You're getting rid of Citizen Kane???" I said.

She said they needed the shelf space for the newer releases.

"It seems like that's a movie every video store should offer," I said.

She nodded but said, "It hasn't moved in six months. If someone really wants it, they can rent it online."

To quote another Welles film, "The faster we're carried, the less time we have to spare...."

comment #10

corey3rd says ...

only reason I'd see Crystal Skull in the theater a second time: Handjob from Cate.

comment #11

Aris P says ...

Just because people see a movie, doesn't mean they like it. Indiana Jones was going to be seen by millions of people in North America just on curiosity alone. Sheer volume of a giant portion of the country = $$$. No one i've spoken to has liked it, but most people I know have seen it.

comment #12

Balthazar says ...

Did you buy the Kane? I'd give you $10 for it!

comment #13

MickTravis says ...

Balthazar, it's only $11.99 on Amazon. And it comes with the great PBS documentary "The Battle Over Citizen Kane" (not to be confused with the awful dramatization RKO 281).

A steal at twice the price.

comment #14

Arran says ...

Some arthouse films tend to have incredibly long runs in New Zealand. Gloomy Sunday played in at least one theatre here for literally years. It may have been a world record for longest sustained run.

But even that's becoming a thing of the past.

comment #15

frankbooth says ...

Balthazar,

You'll just download Shoah directly into your brain and watch it on fast-forward while you're standing in line at a bank or supermarket.

Because no matter how advanced we get, we'll STILL have to stand in line. And they won't move any faster.

comment #16

shermy says ...

>>>Sheer volume of a giant portion of the country = $$$.

This would be true for opening weekend, and maybe one or two after that. But Indy is one of the few movies this summer that has actually had legs at the box office. So, it clearly found an audience to support it.

I think it just appealed to a mix of older crowds and families. So you have film buffs and younger (15-30) moviegoers who can't understand why it's doing well, since none of their websites or friends were very fond of the movie.

But I've had so many people over 40 tell me it was their favorite of the sequels. They like the 50s setting and older portrayal of the character. This seems to mirror what Wells had posted here about the early screenings- where the older fans were more pleased than the younger ones.

Last week, I went with a friend to see it one last time. I was expecting us to be the only ones in the theater, since we attended an afternoon showing. Instead, we found it about 1/4 full. This was HIGHLY unusual for my local theater- especially for a film in its 7th or 8th week of release.

comment #17

Howlingman says ...

INDY is about 3 mil short of IRON MAN's haul, which makes it the second highest grosser this year (so far), so, yeah, to say nobody liked it is a little off -- nobody liked LOVE GURU or THE HAPPENING or even HULK.

Though I'm sure DZ will be along momentarily to proclaim INDY was a flop and made no money (and he'll be right, because he's DZ and he says so).

comment #18

CinemaPhreek says ...

Today's Lesson in How the Blockbuster Is Long Dead.

INDIANA JONES/CRYSTAL SKULL.

Domestic Gross To Date: $310,487,614
Average Ticket Price $6.88
Admissions 45,499,244
Population of US/Canada* 336,213,897
Percent of total = 13.5% of Population

So, no, "everyone" has not seen this film. Not even 1 in 5 have seen the film. Compare to...

LAST CRUSADE

Domestic Gross $196,183,500
Average Ticket $3.97
Admissions 49,665,442
1989 pop 275,996,112
Percent of Population 35.9%

*based on 2008 est/2006 censuses respectively

comment #19

Balthazar says ...

Frankbooth: But if I'm watching Shoah on fast-forward in my head while standing in line at SuperValueCostCo, that would make for an awkward moment when the old lady in front of me interrupts me and asks me to smell her celery to see if it's gone bad.

MickTravis: Thanks for the amazon tip! Oh, for the days of disposable income. I would love to have Kane in my library.

comment #20

gruver1 says ...

Wells to Cinemaphjreek: Good point, good data. Wat...the average ticket price today is $6.88? I pay $11 or $12 or $14, so there must be shitkickers somewhere paying $3.40 or $4.50 to even things out....no?

comment #21

T. S. Idiot says ...

I realize the IMDb ratings are crap, but 45% gave Crystal Skull an 8, 9, or 10.

comment #22

Howlingman says ...

Jeff, AMC offers half-price admissions for those able to rouse themselves for a 10:30-11:00 am showtime Fridays through Sundays.

And as an added bonus the theater is always devoid of teenagers that time of day.

comment #23

Arran says ...

Not sure I agree with the math on percentage of population there, Phreek. My calculator says it's just shy of 18% - about half of the figure you give.

Then again, this is the Windows calculator so who knows.

comment #24

Arran says ...

I'm referring to the Last Crusade figures, in case that wasn't clear...

comment #25

Chapman Carruthers says ...

Arran, I got the same thing. The Crystal Skull numbers are right, but according to the Last Crusade figures, only 17.99% of the population bought tickets to see it, assuming there were no repeat offenders.

comment #26

Rich S. says ...

I just paid $6 to watch Hancock at the 10:15 a.m. show last Saturday morning at the local AMC. I still feel burned...

comment #27

Arran says ...

Right. It's still significant, but nowhere near as precipitous a drop as Phreek indicated.

And I would hazard a guess as to say that there were a LOT more repeat viewers back in 1989, given that foilk didn't have the option of waiting just a few months for a gleaming DVD copy.

comment #28

CinemaPhreek says ...

Blame the Windows calculator, I re-ran the numbers to get 17.9% like everyone else. Thought it sounded a little high as my impression has always been that CRUSADE did fine but not a giant hit (yes, no 2 for the year, but still not a phenom)

Doing RAIDERS now...

comment #29

Arran says ...

Ha! I was actually right about the Windows calculator.

That wouldn't happen on a Mac calculator, of course. Those things are straight and true. And can cure cancer.

comment #30

CinemaPhreek says ...

With RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK you get real blockbuster numbers:

$242,374,454 gross
$2.71 average ticket price
89,437,067 admissions

254,286,382 Domestic (US/Canada) pop
35.1%

To see how that translates, in adjusted dollars (bear in mind that it is calculated solely on average ticket price and not against any cost-of-living factors) RAIDERS made $606,416,000

comment #31

Chapman Carruthers says ...

I'm curious to see the Raiders result. I wouldn't be surprised if a trend appears, with the %seen number being at least 4 or 5 percentage points higher than that for Last Crusade.

comment #32

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Not during the summer it ain't, Howling.

comment #33

MAGGA says ...

I was wondering when people would look back at the late eighties with fondness and nostalgia. All my life I've been hearing it was the worst time in pop-cultural history, but no time is ever worse than the present, I guess. Never mind the fact that we can get all our favourite classics in high quality and play them on better screens with better sound. God bless worn out VHS-tapes, cinemas with no sound isolation where sounds from next door would drown out the sound of the film you're watching. How I miss John Huges, buddy movies each damn week and synth soundtracks. I don't think wer're at a high point in cinema history right now, but I'm sure we'll all feel that way in twenty years. Each damn generation has resented the new ones since Socrates, but I'm pretty happy we're in a different place right now.

comment #34

Howlingman says ...

CitizenCaned: "Not during the summer it ain't, Howling."

I saw HELLBOY 2 at the 42nd Street AMC on Sunday morning for 6 bucks. It depends on where you live.

comment #35

Count Thread says ...

A couple things.

First, while I agree with the "other entertainment options/availability (superiority, even) of home theater experience" arguments, no one-- not even Wells, who hates everyone under 40-- has mentioned one major difference between today and yesteryear: advertising.

In, say, 1986, if you wanted to know about an upcoming movie, you had to seek out that info. If you were a dedicated film geek, you'd hear they were making a sequel to Alien. You might even pick up the Starlog and read all about it. But you'd know far, far less about the film even on opening night than *anyone*, of any age, knows about movies today.

Casual filmgoers in the 1980s not only still went to movies, they also did something very few people do today-- walk-ups. If you don't know anything ahead of time about the movie, you just show up and see something. Today, teenage crowds aside, people are far more selective because they have the information to make judgments long before they arrive at the theater. Not only do you get the ads on TV or stories in the print (which can smell like crap a mile away), you also get internet buzz months in advance, script reviews, leaked spoilers, etc.

The difference between 1986 and 2008 is that for the majority of films the word-of-mouth factor is *over* before the movie comes out. Audiences have already-formed opinions about the "product" that's coming out, enough to know what to stay away from, or refuse to see it based on their prior biases, or wait for it on video.

In 1986, nobody had that information. In fact, I'd argue that Wells is 100% wrong about audiences today-- we're even LESS of a herd than we were back then, because we have the power to "self-select" what we want to see, and how we want to see it, long before opening weekend.

Bottom line: the people who wanted to see Indiana Jones and tthe Kingdom of the Crystal Skull in the theater *chose to see it in the theater*, and did so early, because they were A) motivated to do so, and B) cognizant that movies aren't in theaters for very long, and C) still eager for that "packed house" atmosphere.

The rest of America will see it at home, on DVD, or cable, because they can, or because they prefer that (too busy, hate rowdy theatergoers, hate ticket/concession prices in relation to quality of the product).

comment #36

Count Thread says ...

Balthazar wrote: "And, yes, people have less disposable income and less time than they did even 10 years ago."

Less time, yes. Less disposable income? No chance, in any demographic, at any income level.

comment #37

breadlymoore says ...

"Just because people see a movie, doesn't mean they like it. Indiana Jones was going to be seen by millions of people in North America just on curiosity alone."

"Crystal Skull" wouldn't still be making money as we speak if audiences truly hated it.

Curiosity doesn't last this long.

comment #38

CinemaPhreek says ...

Count Thread - you seem to be speaking from second hand experience.

In the 80's people read more (mags, newspapers) and watched more TV (back when E.T. and Siskel & Ebert reigned supreme). These days, the number of things competing for the AVERAGE persons (ie, not film geeks) attention means they are even less likely to know about upcoming films unless there's a mitigating factor (ie Ledger's death & KNIGHT).

These days, people are much less likely to know about movies coming out unless they have sought the information out on their own. In 1986 you would stumble across it all over the place.

comment #39

Movie Watcher says ...

Today, Indy is still playing at my local movieplex in Ohio, and it hasn't hit the discount movie theater, at least not yet. Now the price is 10 bucks to get in.
Pretty soon, when a movie is released, there will be a dvd machine in the lobby and you can buy it as soon as the movie is done, or maybe go home and buy it online. The latest Indy was not good at all; to me it is tied with temple of doom. The attention span of kids is short. I should know, I have 3 teenagers. They will see a movie once and that's it, unless it is great, they forget about it. I see a new movie and I think 'When is it out on dvd?' How soon will blockbuster be out of business?

comment #40

Balthazar says ...

Count Thread: Are you saying the economy is better now than it was in 1998?

MAGGA: To be precise...

Here's what I do NOT miss from 1988: The fashion, the TV shows (TV was a wasteland), most of the movies, most of the music, and most other elements of the pop culture.

Here's what I DO miss from 1988: That era of Major League Baseball and, mostly, the sense that I wasn't reachable 365/24/7 and that I wasn't tied down to cellphone, pager, e-mail and a million other technologies designed to make my life "easier and more stress free." I bet the average American has way more on his or her weekly plate of responsibilites than in 1988. We're at a breaking point in our capacity for juggling crap.

comment #41

The Winchester says ...

Not for nothing, but when even Temple of Doom was released, it didn't have two wannabe blockbusters duking it out every weekend after it's release. Or in some cases, 5 movies opening wide on a single weekend.

That being said, Kilday's definitely a little late to this party.

comment #42

Count Thread says ...

"Count Thread - you seem to be speaking from second hand experience."

No, I'm not. And what you write (reading/watching TV/Siskel & Ebert effect) doesn't contradict my point.

In 1986, for the average filmgoer there may have been a higher awareness of the *existence* of a particular movie (doubtful, but sure), but there was far less awareness of the *quality* of movies. There was still a "word of mouth" effect at play, but the word of mouth was delayed-- and no one had problems with that.

A movie could play in theaters for far longer because it would simply take that much more time for awareness of the quality of a film to take root. I vividly recall Siskel & Ebert reviewing films not just before the films were released, but also a few weeks *after* they were released. The "opening night crowd" phenomenon was still there for blockbusters, but not to the degree it is today.

Today? I knew whether Iron Man was a good movie before it opened. I knew the entire plot, I knew all the twists and turns, and I knew how people reacted to it-- again, all before it even opened. How many people in the 1980s had access to that information even about the BIG movies, let alone the smaller ones? Not very many.

The audience for film today in the theater is really two groups of people-- the elitists who still enjoy the theater experience, and the "date movie" crowd who will always need something to do on a Friday night. One group knows *exactly* what they are getting into when they see a movie-- and they self-select all the time ("Nah, ain't gonna see that, it's not worth my dollar). The latter crowd will see whatever shit comes out on the opening weekend.

That vast filmgoing "middle" that as late as the 1980s took weeks to discover a movie on their own? They don't exist any longer-- because they stay home and watch the movie on DVD, or HBO, or TNT.

comment #43

corey3rd says ...

There are also a heck of a lot more 20 plus screen megaplexes that devote 10 or more screens to the big blockbuster to insure that for a majority of people, they won't have to make a second choice.

comment #44

Count Thread says ...

"Count Thread: Are you saying the economy is better now than it was in 1998? "

Yes, in the terms you chose. And *far* better than 1988.

Again, "disposable income", as characterized as what can be spent and purchased on personal entertainment.

How many TVs do you own? How many stereos? Have an iPod? More than one? What about a cell phone? How many movies do you see in a year? How many DVDs did you buy? Music that you bought/downloaded? Computer and console games? Have internet? Broadband? What about cable? How many channels-- 50? 500? Visit an amusement park? Go to a ball game? Take a flight anywhere? Just across the U.S., or overseas?

Every American generation defines "wealth" down, to the point that being "middle class" today means a 4,000 sq. foot house and a (filled) three-car garage, and being poor means you only buy two pairs of $100 shoes and you have to make due with their old Razor instead of an iPhone.

Movies are expensive, yes. But that's not the primary, let alone the sole, reason why people choose other forms of entertainment. It's because they HAVE that disposable income today, and the other forms of entertainment are so relatively inexpensive compared to yesteryear, that movies are forced to compete in a crowded marketplace.

comment #45

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Howling - I was referring to the theaters being devoid of teenagers during the summer, not the price....

Perhaps that still is dependent on where you live, but not really so much, anymore....kids be everwhere, yo!

comment #46

CinemaPhreek says ...

Count Thread - you keep intermixing your premise's subject. Either make it about film geeks or make it about the average person, not both. Your first post was about "Casual filmgoers" but in your rebuttal you started talking about how YOU knew the plot points, etc, etc of IRON MAN. Only a fool argues that a film geek today has less access to info.

But for those "casual filmgoers" I say they were better off in 80's. You even brought up something I overlooked: in the 80's when a film stuck around in the top 10 for weeks on end, word of mouth continued and no one cared that you didn't see it opening weekend.

Winchester - the irony of this summer for Indy IV has been the opposite: it has had a lack of serious competition until this very week. For awhile back last winter, HANCOCK looked like it would take the crowds away but it never really caught fire. Think about it, there haven't been any other big films. Contrast that with what happened back in May.

comment #47

Howlingman says ...

CitizenKaned, I've been lucky to have a teenage-free movie oasis.

comment #48

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

Read this for some contrast on how big hit movies used to play. Pretty interesting.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,835003,00.html

comment #49

Balthazar says ...

Count Thread asked: "Again, "disposable income", as characterized as what can be spent and purchased on personal entertainment."

How many TVs do you own? THREE, IN A FIVE-PERSON HOUSEHOLD

How many stereos? ONE

Have an iPod? NOPE

What about a cell phone? NOPE. (WIFE DOES)

How many movies do you see in a year? 4-5, IN THEATERS

How many DVDs did you buy? LESS THAN HALF-DOZEN IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS

Music that you bought/downloaded? NONE

Computer and console games? I BOUGHT TWO USED PLAYSTATION GAMES. THAT'S OUR MOST ADVANCED PLATFORM AT THE MOMENT

Have internet? Broadband? YEP. ROLLED INTO OUR MONTHY $100 BILL FROM COMCAST THAT STRANGLES OUR BUDGET

What about cable? YEP, BASIC

Visit an amusement park? ONCE EVERY COUPLE YEARS.

Go to a ball game? ONCE EVERY COUPLE YEARS

Take a flight anywhere? NOT SINCE 2004

GUESS I'M THIRD WORLD NATION BY YOUR STANDARDS. THEN AGAIN, I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR STANDARDS, OR YOUR "POINT"

comment #50

Luke Y. Thompson says ...

"being poor means you only buy two pairs of $100 shoes and you have to make due with their old Razor instead of an iPhone."

Who are you hanging out with?

I'm somewhere around lower middle class to poor, and I own a $25 Best Buy phone, a TV I bought off a friend for $50, and a computer that I haven't upgraded in years. My income goes to rent (mostly), food, gas, seeing movies, buying affordable clothes (my last pair of shoes cost $30, not $100), and the occasional collectible toy (my vice). My car was given to me by my dad a few years ago, and when I need to repair it, the bill gets added to my unending credit card debt. Yes, I was recently laid off, but even on salary I wasn't doing that great -- could maybe afford a fancy sushi meal twice a month in addition to everything else. Plus I had health insurance, which I used exactly once.

10 years ago I was working for minimum wage. Nine years ago I had more disposable income than now, as rent and gas have both gone up substantially more than my relative income over the years.

As for what's better now than 20 years ago...the lack of a Cold War is a big one. Though I fear McCain's itching to bring that back.

comment #51

Howlingman says ...

"As for what's better now than 20 years ago...the lack of a Cold War is a big one. Though I fear McCain's itching to bring that back."

No, it won't be a "Cold War" LYT...

comment #52

moviemaniac2002 says ...

I'll tell you what's scarier and scarier to me...
...the obsession and reliance on weekend
boxoffice numbers. Given the millions upon
millions spent on making and marketing theatrical films...this has become truly insane. First, it got to the point where a movie had one week to prove
itself....then it quickly shrunk down to Friday-Saturday-Sunday...then it went down to Friday and Saturday, with Boxoffice verdicts being announced and predicted by Sunday afternoon.
And it now appears to have wittled down to
Friday f*****g night! Yes, a movie's success or
failure is now analyzed on websites by Saturday
morning. And so we have reached the ludicrous
point where studio films have about 12 hours to
find an audience or die trying. (And this comes
after some of these films have spend decades in
development hell, survived multiple script rewrites,
a revolving door of producers, directors, actors, even studios)
And so theatrical exhibition has evolved into
a billion dollar Gong Show....and theatres briefly
(but very briefly) clogged with theme-part rides
masquerading as movies. Okay, maybe I sound
like an old fart whining for the good ole days...but
no one will ever convince me that all this boxoffice weekend lunacy, rife with squandered
money and bankrupt artistic choices, is doing any good for the movies or their audiences.

comment #53

Chapman Carruthers says ...

Countthread:

I don't necessarily agree that disposable income has gone up since 1989. In fact, I'd argue that the perceived surge in disposable income is largely attributable to easy credit and a zero personal savings rate (PSR). In 1989, the PSR was between 7-8%. Presently, it's hovering around 0.0%. For a person with a monthly income of $4,000, the difference in the PSR results in an additional $233.00 per month to spend on entertainment. This doesn't even take into into account the increased use of credit over the past 20 years.

Disposable income hasn't changed. Our ability to push away from the table has.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/PSAVERT.txt

comment #54

Balthazar says ...

Great point, chappiesan.

To the extent that disposable "spending" has gone up, it's because of credit cards, not real income.

comment #55

BNick says ...

Count Thread: I get what you're saying but I think you're mistaking "conspicuous consumption" with an increase in disposable income. Clearly people have less disposable income, in general, than they did even two or three years ago, because basic consumer staples like food and gas have gotten so much more expensive.

Most goods have gotten more expensive over the years, but if you look at what types of goods have gotten cheaper, it's mostly electronic goods like TVs, computers, DVD/VCR players, portable audio devices and home video accessories.

comment #56

bill weber says ...

Far worse, most foreign/indie films in NYC now last a week or two.

comment #57

lipranzer says ...

Very late to the party (though not as late as Kilday), but I have to agree with TheWinchester's post. Sure, the economy, the diminishing window between theatrical and DVD release, the vast improvement of the home viewing experience, and the increase of sources available to find information about any given movie today have all contributed to the declining theatrical runs of most movies, but I think one of the primary points is the sheer volume of big and little movies competing for our atttention. This is up from even nearly 10 years ago: I remember when PHANTOM MENACE opened, and the only somewhat big movie to open up against it that weekend was LOVE LETTERS (the one significant counter-programmer, NOTTING HILL, didn't open in theaters until nine days later). This week, THE DARK KNIGHT is opening up against its significant counter-programmer, MAMMA MIA!, in the same weekend, plus the animated film SPACE CHIMPS. That's not even counting the arthouse movies that are opening in New York and L.A. (the new Francois Ozon, the new Brad Anderson). Is it any wonder films are leaving theaters earlier than usual? There are simply too many films waiting in the wings. It's no wonder there's been an increase of direct-to-DVD films with high profile talent attached to them, or that many of them get sent off to cable instead.

comment #58

saramie says ...

This is great news!! i'm very excited about it! of course, maybe we can say he is a good man! so, i have read some news about him on a celeb dating site " TALLMEET .COM "..he put his story on this site ..u should find out how him and her met..that's really fun..

comment #59

janee says ...

Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability server