Small Talk: The Quiver

BunsenBurner · January 8, 2018

We sure have had some crazy weather these past 6-8 months.

I have lived where it was -40° and up to 120° F. I will take the cold every time. I prefer slightly cool weather.

Morrigan2575 · January 8, 2018

1 minute ago, BunsenBurner said:

We sure have had some crazy weather these past 6-8 months.

I have lived where it was -40° and up to 120° F. I will take the cold every time. I prefer slightly cool weather.

North Dakota? Someone once toldme that's the coldest place ever...they spent one winter there ?

BunsenBurner · January 8, 2018

1 minute ago, Morrigan2575 said:

North Dakota? Someone once toldme that's the coldest place ever...they spent one winter there ?

Montana.

Mellowyellow · January 8, 2018

1 minute ago, BunsenBurner said:

Montana.

Where the sapphires are!!!!!!! =P

My perfect temp is 79 degrees! Can still wear pretty dresses with bare arms but also drink hot tea!

Push comes to shove I prefer hot weather to cold because I HATE wearing lots of clothes (layers) and don't wear pants ever! Hard to wear pretty dresses in the cold!

SmallScreenDiva · January 8, 2018

We're finally emerging from 12 days of below freezing temps in NY. I'll be very happy to shed some layers.

leopardprint · January 8, 2018

On 1/6/2018 at 6:02 PM, ladylaw99 said:

Not sure if this is the right place, but someone has recommended The Punisher. Has anyone seen it and if so is it any good. They also said I should watch Daredevil first since I don't know anything about the comics.

I appreciate anyone's opinion. Thanks

Late chiming in, but I watched punisher without watching S2 of Daredevil and I didn't feel like I was missing much. I did see S1 of The Defenders though but he's not in that.

tv echo · January 10, 2018

As a longtime X-Files fan, I loved this tweet from DD in response to GA getting a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame...

Incidentally, David Duchovny got his star on January 25, 2016. His female co-star on The X-Files, Gillian Anderson, got her star on January 8, 2018 (two years later). Somehow, that seems typical Hollywood. FYI, here's an article on how one gets a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus-hollywood-walk-of-fame-20170817-htmlstory.html

Quote

That said, anyone can nominate a celebrity for inclusion on the Walk of Fame. Then it’s up to the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, which oversees the starry honors, to decide who gets to join the club.

For more detailed info, read: http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/07/16/how-to-get-a-star-on-the-hollywood-walk-of-fame/

Edited January 10, 2018 by tv echo

LeighAn · January 10, 2018

Just saw this on twitter:

I think this is more offensive because it's Mark Wahlberg against someone as brilliant as Michelle Williams.

As someone who right before Christmas found out from a male colleague who's in the exact same position that I am that he's making $15,000 more then I am for the same job I'm hoping Mark and the studio get feathered and tarred for this. I need the confidence boost when I ask my boss for a raise haha.

Chaser · January 11, 2018

KP commented on this. He said that Michelle Williams and the other actors were paid per diem for the reshoots but Mark Wahlberg and his management negotiated a deal for the 1.5m.

Michelle Williams needs better management.

Ridley Scott said that he wasn't even paid for them.

Edited January 11, 2018 by Chaser

Morrigan2575 · January 11, 2018

3 minutes ago, Chaser said:

KP commented on this. He said that Michelle Williams and the other actors were paid per diem for the reshoots but Mark Wahlberg and his management negotiated a deal for the 1.5m.

Michelle Williams needs better management.

Sadly she apparently uses the same Agency as Mark W.

While I respect Michelle W and the other actors who took low pay on the reshoots to get this picture made. I feel bad that the Mark W got paid so much.

Edited January 11, 2018 by Morrigan2575
Because Mark and Michelle had the same initials

way2interested · January 11, 2018

Just now, Chaser said:

KP commented on this. He said that Michelle Williams and the other actors were paid per diem for the reshoots but Mark Wahlberg and his management negotiated a deal for the 1.5m.

Michelle Williams needs better management.

Yeah, it was that the other actors made a deal to come back for basically nothing but Mark Wahlberg and his team held out because they knew Ridley Scott/distributors were planning massive awards show pushes for this movie despite the Kevin Spacey scandal. They took advantage of his demand. The other actors now get good word of mouth in the industry (and awards buzz) while MW (who wasn't going to get any awards from this) gets a payday, which is probably how their teams argued it for either of them. It looks bad but Mark Wahlberg is pretty savvy with his money (in both good and bad lights) and I don't see anything sexist about it.

Edited January 11, 2018 by way2interested

apinknightmare · January 11, 2018

5 minutes ago, Chaser said:

Michelle Williams needs better management.

To hear her talk about the situation, I wonder if her agent suggested negotiating for a big paycheck for the reshoots and she refused it because she, unlike Mark Wahlberg, isn't a complete shitbird.

lemotomato · January 11, 2018

Why does Mark Wahlberg even still get work? There are hundreds of generic good looking white guys in the industry that are can do what he does for less pay and less fuss.

Morrigan2575 · January 11, 2018

22 minutes ago, apinknightmare said:

To hear her talk about the situation, I wonder if her agent suggested negotiating for a big paycheck for the reshoots and she refused it because she, unlike Mark Wahlberg, isn't a complete shitbird.

I would like to hear her thoughts is there a link to read or is she tweeting about it?

apinknightmare · January 11, 2018

18 minutes ago, Morrigan2575 said:

I would like to hear her thoughts is there a link to read or is she tweeting about it?

It was in the original article published by USA Today:

Quote

In August, Forbes named Wahlberg the highest-paid actor of the year, calculating his pretax and pre-fee earnings at $68 million. The Washington Post first reported Wahlberg's reshoot fee, noting that the actor “along with manager Stephen Levinson and agency WME, have a reputation in Hollywood for driving a tough bargain.”

Williams previously told USA TODAY that when Scott's team called to request her time for the reshoot, "I said I'd be wherever they needed me, whenever they needed me. And they could have my salary, they could have my holiday, whatever they wanted. Because I appreciated so much that they were making this massive effort."

Morrigan2575 · January 11, 2018

Interesting, thanks for the link/blurb. I wonder if this is Much Ado about Nothing?

quarks · January 11, 2018

1 hour ago, lemotomato said:

Why does Mark Wahlberg even still get work? There are hundreds of generic good looking white guys in the industry that are can do what he does for less pay and less fuss.

It pains me to have to type this (I'm not a fan), but he's bankable. He has been in a couple of recent things that lost money - Deepwater Horizon and Patriot's Day - but neither of them were complete disasters. Against that, he's got a couple of high performing Transformers films, those Ted movies, and Daddy's Home, all within the last few years.

LeighAn · January 11, 2018

1 hour ago, way2interested said:

It looks bad but Mark Wahlberg is pretty savvy with his money (in both good and bad lights) and I don't see anything sexist about it.

It was mentioned at the golden globes that women are typically getting 23% less then their male costars and doesn't this just highlight that very fact? It's absolutely sexist.

Michelle Williams had the same agency who have obviously played on the fact that she has respect for the work to pay her basically nothing for the good of the work, while the happily negotiating a $1.5 million dollar payday with their male star. They obviously had the money willing to spend but the fact that they didn't bother to even offer Michelle more then $1000 is a effing joke.

apinknightmare · January 11, 2018

This doesn't seem like an equal pay issue to me, since Michelle flat-out told the director that he could have her time, her days off, whatever they needed. I think she basically accepted per diem for her time (which I'm pretty sure is required under SAG, but I could be wrong) without negotiating anything above and beyond because she didn't want to.

calliope1975 · January 11, 2018

I think it's more Wahlberg/Wahlberg's agent is an ass for negotiating so much when everyone else was donating their time.

Edited January 11, 2018 by calliope1975

Morrigan2575 · January 11, 2018

Just now, calliope1975 said:

I think it's more Wahlberg/Wahlberg agent is an ass for negotiating so much when everyone else was donating their time.

Reading around that's the impression I'm getting as well. Michelle and Ridley Scott (among others) came back for cheap because they believed in the movie, in the cause, etc but, Walberg's a greedy ass who only values money.

apinknightmare · January 11, 2018

3 minutes ago, calliope1975 said:

I think it's more Wahlberg/Wahlberg's agent is an ass for negotiating so much when everyone else was donating their time.

Same. If it came out that she'd only been able to get a percentage of what he was able to negotiate, or if everyone got paid but her, I'd definitely have a problem with it. This seems like everyone else handling a difficult situation with grace, and Mark Wahlberg going in for a payday because he could and he's an asshat.

quarks · January 11, 2018

17 minutes ago, LeighAn said:

It was mentioned at the golden globes that women are typically getting 23% less then their male costars and doesn't this just highlight that very fact? It's absolutely sexist.

Michelle Williams had the same agency who have obviously played on the fact that she has respect for the work to pay her basically nothing for the good of the work, while the happily negotiating a $1.5 million dollar payday with their male star. They obviously had the money willing to spend but the fact that they didn't bother to even offer Michelle more then $1000 is a effing joke.

I'm not in general inclined to defend Hollywood executives, but in this particular case I'm pretty sure that Tri-Star was not in the least happy to pay out that money to Wahlberg. Unfortunately, it was either that, or lose the $45 million they'd already invested in the film - distributors and theatres were refusing to carry it. Not to mention everyone else - including Michelle Williams - losing their shot at award nominations, virtually guaranteeing that Ridley Scott would spend the rest of his life complaining that Tri-Star's cheapness had "robbed" him of his Academy Award.

I don't doubt that WME was delighted to earn a percentage cut of $1.5 million instead of $1000, but I have to agree with the general consensus here that Mark Wahlberg chose to take advantage of a pretty crappy situation.

All this said, I think the real person at fault here is Kevin Spacey.

13 minutes ago, apinknightmare said:

I think she basically accepted per diem for her time (which I'm pretty sure is required under SAG, but I could be wrong)

Yep. Unless it's charity, and "shoring up Ridley Scott's ego and giving him another chance at that Academy Award" is not charity.

LeighAn · January 11, 2018

She was told/lied to that they were all working for free, regardless of whether she agreed to it they could have made the same offer to her that they were willing to negotiate with Mark:

And to me it speaks to something way deeper when it comes to Hollywood and sex based pay disparity that a talented woman is so willing to work for free because it's one of very few strong roles offered to women while a fairly mediocre white male actor can say that if he doesn't get paid millions he'll walk away because he knows there will be multiple roles available for him.

In no way is this okay whether she agreed to it or not imo.

apinknightmare · January 11, 2018

9 minutes ago, LeighAn said:

She was told/lied to that they were all working for free, regardless of whether she agreed to it they could have made the same offer to her that they were willing to negotiate with Mark:

Where in that article does it say what she was told when she was asked to do reshoots? The only thing Ridley Scott actually said in the interview was that he and Michelle were doing it for "free," but that Christopher Plummer and the crew were getting paid. He didn't mention anything about Mark Wahlberg. Is it in a different piece somewhere?

Quote

In no way is this okay whether she agreed to it or not imo.

I think this is an extenuating circumstance, because there are outside forces at play. If they had to do reshoots for pretty much any reason other than because they were replacing a sexual abuser, I think there is a legit issue. But Michelle very well could've not wanted to profit off of that kind of situation, which I - personally - do think matters in the discussion.

LeighAn · January 11, 2018

42 minutes ago, apinknightmare said:

Where in that article does it say what she was told when she was asked to do reshoots? The only thing Ridley Scott actually said in the interview was that he and Michelle were doing it for "free," but that Christopher Plummer and the crew were getting paid. He didn't mention anything about Mark Wahlberg. Is it in a different piece somewhere?

In this article here it says she was never told what Mark would be making (I thought it was written in the original article as well but on skimming through it again I couldn't find it) and considering Ridley was going around saying "we are all working for free" it's not that hard to assume they- either her agents the studio or both- knowingly kept her in the dark while she agreed to nothing based on good will that they were all donating their time while they were negotiating millions with her supporting actor and not once Mark pushed them for a payout not deciding to then say okay since we are paying him anyway let's at least offer Michelle something. That to me is a gender disparity. That once they had to pay out money they weren't transparent about that with their female star or even come to the conclusion that they should give her some kind of bonus at least so they- and Walhbergs team- don't look like greedy scum. And her agency whose job is suppose to be looking after the interest of their clients don't look complicit.

As result this film will now probably become more notable for the film that paid Michelle 1500x less then Wahlberg then it will for the story or the performances.

LeighAn · January 11, 2018

This article here also references a source saying that when reshoots where announced that they all- including Mark- agreed to come back to work for free suggesting that it was a mutual agreeement between the cast, but then Mark went and negotiated a deal for himself. Yes Mark is a greedy ass for that who should be called out but it's obvious the studio were comfortable to carry on the narrative that everyone is selflessly donating their time for a passion and letting Michelle believe that capitalising on her own good faith.

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/movies/shocking-claim-about-michelle-williams-pay-for-movie-reshoot/news-story/71db5c0dfdcc682db24e8fab94825a24

ETA: Also considering her best friend someone she'd refer to as her soulmate and I believe the god mother of her daughter Busy Phillips has been tweeting quite a bit about how shameful this story is I'm inclined to believe that this was probably surprising if not unpleasant news for Michelle.

Edited January 11, 2018 by LeighAn

quarks · January 11, 2018

2 hours ago, LeighAn said:

She was told/lied to that they were all working for free, regardless of whether she agreed to it they could have made the same offer to her that they were willing to negotiate with Mark:

And to me it speaks to something way deeper when it comes to Hollywood and sex based pay disparity that a talented woman is so willing to work for free because it's one of very few strong roles offered to women while a fairly mediocre white male actor can say that if he doesn't get paid millions he'll walk away because he knows there will be multiple roles available for him.

In no way is this okay whether she agreed to it or not imo.

I'm not saying any of this is ok, by the way - and I don't think anyone here is.

But, that said, from the reporting, it doesn't seem that Tri-Star made an offer to anyone. Ridley Scott has been running around telling everyone for months now that it was his idea to save the film through reshoots and he had to persuade Tri-Star (and Christopher Plummer) that it could be done. So it seems more that Tri-Star, facing a multi-million dollar loss, decided to take Ridley Scott up on that offer - and Wahlberg, knowing how much money Tri-Star could potentially lose, basically blackmailed Tri-Star into paying a high fee.

Regarding Ridley Scott's "We're all working for free" comments, I'm going to guess that Tri-Star simply didn't tell him the details of the contracts for the reshoots, or, being Ridley Scott, he was told and didn't pay any attention. More likely the second.

Regarding her agents - it's not at all clear if her agent knew about Wahlberg's deal at the time. Someone in WME, sure, but WME is a very large agency, and it's possible (probable, even) that Williams and Wahlberg are with different agents. IF her agent did know, then I agree with Twitter: she needs to fire her agent or at the very least have a very long talk with WME. On Tri-Star's side, their entire focus in November would - and frankly should - have been keeping costs down as much as possible. Those reshoots, even with people working at reduced rates, cost money, on a prestige film that was already unlikely to be a box office hit. (As of right now, two weekends post release, All The Money in the World has not earned back its principal budget costs.) The gender disparity is terrible, no question - but at the same time, I can see why Tri-Star/Sony executives were less worried about gender disparity issues and more worried about pouring more money into a film that they were already going well over budget for.

There's a couple of other nuances getting overlooked here - including the fact that unless Tri-Star is lying (and they could be) the initial budget numbers suggest that everyone, including Wahlberg, took lower fees for this film to begin with, in return for a promise that Tri-Star would do a big awards push. They started that push well before the Spacey allegations went public - and it focused on Michelle Williams, not Mark Wahlberg, despite his two previous Academy Award nominations. It's one thing to agree to do ten days of filming for very little when you know that you have a good shot of getting a major award. It's another thing entirely to be asked to do ten days of filming for very little in order to save Sony $40 million bucks. I'm by no means trying to defend Wahlberg here, because I also think that profiting from the situation is, at best, tacky, but I am saying that Wahlberg presumably knew that Kevin Spacey had been the choice of Tri-Star/Sony executives, and certainly knew that choice was why everyone was doing these reshoots in the first place.

And for what it's worth, Michelle Williams is one of the few Hollywood actresses who doesn't seem to have problems finding strong roles. She's been nominated four times for an Academy Award, appeared in three films in 2017, and has major roles in at least two upcoming 2018 films, including the big budget Venom. She could have walked away from this film, or she could have demanded more money. She chose not to profit off the allegations that one of her former costars had sexually harassed/assaulted teenagers and other men. She gets my applause and respect for that.

I still think the main person at fault in this particular situation is Kevin Spacey.

Edited January 11, 2018 by quarks

way2interested · January 11, 2018

50 minutes ago, LeighAn said:

As result this film will now probably become more notable for the film that paid Michelle 1500x less then Wahlberg then it will for the story or the performances.

Not to ignore the argument here, but for real this movie is going to be most notable for Ridley Scott refilming/restructuring almost an entire movie in a month to replace an actor after a scandal and not Michelle Williams.

Edited January 11, 2018 by way2interested

statsgirl · January 11, 2018

More than Scott refilming, I'm impressed that an 88 year old actor learned all the lines and turned in an amazing performance in such a short time.

But it may also be known as the film that highlighted even more what kind of pay disparity there is in Hollywood even when the woman is as talented as Michelle Williams and the man as bland as Wahlberg. It can be known for all three things.

BkWurm1 · January 11, 2018

15 hours ago, statsgirl said:

More than Scott refilming, I'm impressed that an 88 year old actor learned all the lines and turned in an amazing performance in such a short time.

But it may also be known as the film that highlighted even more what kind of pay disparity there is in Hollywood even when the woman is as talented as Michelle Williams and the man as bland as Wahlberg. It can be known for all three things.

One of the ongoing issues in gender pay disparity is it being considered more acceptable for guys to pull the kind of crap Walberg did. They get to play hardball while if a women did it, she'd have to worry about being labeled unreasonable, difficult to work with and a bitch.

Mellowyellow · January 13, 2018

Omg I just have to share this because it amuses me no end.

For the past 4 years hubby has insisted on carrying a swimsuit around for our son in his Go bag wherever he goes, even in winter in case they run into a clean body of water and my son wants to paddle/play. Never mind the fact that they go to the beach and pool all the time.

Well today after yum cha at a new restaurant we were driving around and ran into a water park we've never seen before. Lol guess who triumphantly pulled out a swimming cozzie? I think it's made his 2018. I've taken a tonne of pics of him looking smug while our son plays.

statsgirl · January 13, 2018

Your hubby sounds like a real keeper. :-D

Mellowyellow · January 13, 2018

7 minutes ago, statsgirl said:

Your hubby sounds like a real keeper. :-D

He gets awfully touchy about his Go Bag though! Rarely lets me borrow it! It's an awesome Go Bag! Has just about everything you could ever need! Especially if you didn't have to be the one to pack the stuff yourself!

BkWurm1 · January 13, 2018

I have no idea why I still sometimes watch Blue Bloods. Its casual and blind sexism is a constant, rampant thing that I don't think the writers or producers are even aware of doing half the time.

From the seemingly obvious "mistake" like casting a hot thirty year old as even the ex wife of the close to retirement, unfit (he can't stand for long without sweat dripping down his face), unhandsome cop - to the same old cop telling his female boss who apparently he talks to his ex about all the time, that he wants his daughter to grow up to be like her but "not because you are a hottie".

What the HELL?? In the context, the comment makes even less sense. Why would her looks have anything to do with him gearing up to explain why he admires her character? Why would anyone feel even the need to get that assumption out of the way first? Then the actress isn't even allowed to be offended when he says it.

This is also the same show that constantly uses that one lone sister of the family as a punching bag that gets blamed for everything constantly and even when she's right she first gets berated over her actions not to mention all the times when she is right but still ends up being portrayed or revealed as wrong. Like tonight when we find out she never wanted to be a cop but got her mom to lie for her and pretend to forbid her to take the test years ago so her dad wouldn't be disappointed in her, a lie she let stand and reinforced until now that her daughter actually wants to take the police entrance exam and she's freaking out about it. She ends the show looking calm and supportive of whatever her daughter wants to do, but they first make her look irrationally overcome by her motherly emotions before that happens.

And then there was the storyline where male and female patrol cops are talking and she's telling him about this dude that was ghosting her and her partner keeps badgering her to find out what she did to turn the guy off. She's allowed to get mad but does she get an "I'm sorry?" Hell no. Later he gets to make jokes about sleeping with her. Also, when she got upset that her superior officer would call her her partner's actual girlfriend, she's the one that gets suspend and the officer is never questioned about what he says. In the end, we find out the reason why the guy wasn't calling her back was because she talked too much about her partner and the partner gets to make more jokes about her wanting him.

The show thinks it's being all fair and balanced but the underlying misogyny is relentless.

BkWurm1 · January 13, 2018

Heads up for anyone that was thinking about watching The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, Amazon has the season available for free to watch through the 15th in honor of it winning the Golden Globe for best comedy and best actress in a comedy. (And on a side note, won the same two categories at the Critics Choice Awards since then )

Just binged it myself and it far exceeded my already high expectations. And not only is it funny and smart, but it’s gorgeous to look at and comes with the perfect soundtrack. I loved Gilmore Girls but this is its own beast in the best possible ways.

Sakura12 · January 13, 2018

I want to check out The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, but I hated Gilmore Girls and the rambling fast talking, all the characters annoyed me. Is Mrs. Maisel similar in that regard?

bijoux · January 13, 2018

They do talk fast, but I like it better than GG. It seems to fit better. And there are no 5 minute long tirades about pop culture just for the sake of it.

SmallScreenDiva · January 13, 2018

BkWurm1 · January 13, 2018

5 hours ago, Sakura12 said:

I want to check out The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, but I hated Gilmore Girls and the rambling fast talking, all the characters annoyed me. Is Mrs. Maisel similar in that regard?

The characters were distinct and there were some big personalities but quirk was not a driving force and the show isn't deliberately cutsey. It's not aimed at teens at all and the language, especially early on in the season, can be very coarse (she's upset, seemed reasonable to me, lol)

It has a fast pace and lots of dialogue but the flavor of the whole thing was not Gilmore Girls. And again, I really liked GG so I would have been perfectly happy if that was the case. Before I'd watched, someone else told me it didn't remind them of GG and I agree. I mean, as a big fan, I could see some similarities like how her parents are important characters but there's no resemblance to the Grandparents on Gilmore Girls or to their relationship with their daughter. (Tony Shalhoub plays her father and does it wonderfully) I was also perfectly able to predict the plot points in the final episode but was wrong in HOW everything played out.

It's funny, the main character is supposed to be 26 but she's so much more emotionally mature than Lorelai who was supposed to be in her thirties. At the same time, Midge is far more sheltered in many ways, but it's set in the fifties so that's to be expected. The period part of the show was fun all on it's own. I'd say watch the first episode, you'll know very quickly if it's for you or not though watch the whole hour to get the full feel for it. There's only 8 episodes in season one but they already have an order for the second season.

Edited January 13, 2018 by BkWurm1

bijoux · January 13, 2018

Also, I think Amazon put the first episode up on Youtube if you’re not subscirbed to Amazon.

Primal Slayer · January 13, 2018

Amazon is actually streaming the entire first season for free over the weekend if that wants to entice anyone to check it out.

tv echo · January 14, 2018

Another one (there are more details in the article, but I didn't want to quote them here)...

James Cameron addresses Eliza Dushku’s claim True Lies stunt coordinator molested her
NATALIE ABRAMS and DAN SNIERSON January 13, 2018 AT 08:48 PM EST
http://ew.com/tv/2018/01/13/james-cameron-eliza-dushku-true-lies/

Quote

James Cameron has addressed allegations made by Eliza Dushku that she was sexually molested by a stunt coordinator on the set of his film True Lies, praising the actress for her bravery in coming forward.

“Eliza is very brave for speaking up,” Cameron told reporters at the Television Critics Association’s winter press tour on Saturday, where he was promoting his AMC series Visionaries. “Had I known about it, there would’ve been no mercy.”

On Saturday, the 37-year-old actress alleged in a Facebook post that one of Hollywood’s leading stunt coordinators, Joel Kramer, molested her during the filming of the Cameron-directed 1994 film when she was 12 years old. Kramer has denied the allegations, calling them “atrocious lies” in an interview with The Hollywood Reporter.

Edited January 14, 2018 by tv echo

Morrigan2575 · January 14, 2018

I read her Facebook post it made me sick.

Sakura12 · January 15, 2018

Sign In

Small Talk: The Quiver

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

calliope1975

Posted Images

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment