Movies are just too damn long... [Archive]

Tom Lowe

11-02-2007, 06:04 PM

The last three movies I have seen - American Gangster, Jesse James and Lust Caution - have all been damn near three hours long. WTF.

Like Aronofsky said recently, what ever happened to the 90-minute movie?

I think these directors need to practice some discipline and keep their movies a reasonable length. I was nodding off in parts of Jesse James and Gangster. It's just unnecessary. The only one of the three that halfway merited such a length was Lust, Caution, and only because it encompassed such large story, taking place in two time periods.

I blame all of this on Peter Jackson for turning in a 3-hour Kong. :)

Eirik Tyrihjel

11-02-2007, 06:06 PM

I prefer films to be 1hr 45m to 2hr 15m, there are (in my humble opinion) very few films that justifies beeing up to 2hrs 30mins and over...

Desert Rune

11-02-2007, 06:18 PM

I like long movies...

Dances With Wolves
LOTR Trilogy
Titanic (:biggrin: )
Lawrence of Arabia
The Sound of Music
Das Boot, and
Apocalypse Now

Tom Lowe

11-02-2007, 06:25 PM

Yes, but those movies warrant the runtime, imo!

Not every damn movie needs to be that length.

Jeff Kilgroe

11-02-2007, 06:33 PM

I like long movies too, if they have a story that keeps me interested the whole time.

Jesse James put me to sleep. They could have trimmed that film up a bit for sure. I haven't made it to American Gangster yet.

3 Hour Kong? zzzzzzzzzz.... Didn't care for that one, I loved what Jackson did with LOTR, especially given the magnitude of the story that he was adapting, but Kong had way too much extra fluff. The whole dinosaur stampede was uncalled for.

A somewhat shorter movie (still about 2.5 hours) that was painful to watch (for me) was Transformers. Maybe it's because I had such high hopes for that movie and it disappointed on so many levels. ...Bad story, cheesy dialogue (every bit as bad as the old cartoon), designed to appeal to the pre-teen audience. I actually caught myself looking at my watch during the scene where all the Autobots were trying to hide around Sam's house. Come on... Who wrote that crap? Better yet, what studio exec approved the script. Ouch.

Tom Lowe

11-02-2007, 06:41 PM

Yeah, Transformers could have been cut down to 2 hours, easily, and it would have moved faster and been a better movie for it. I was a fan when I was a kid, so I still enjoyed the parts of it that moved well.

There is no reason Jesse James needed to be that long. The action didn't even really start until 2/3rds of the way through. Most of the rest was just build up, that was building up for waaay too long. I loved the photography more than I can tell you, but they could have cut out some meaningless scenes and still retained all the great shots that I think will win it an Oscar for photography.

I Bloom

11-02-2007, 07:01 PM

Mann + Spinotti: Heat. 171 min. When I saw this movie in the theatre I realized two hours in that I was watching a movie. Awesome.

Miltos Pilalitos

11-02-2007, 07:10 PM

Transformers would make me sleep even if it was 1 hour long!

Michael Bay can use all the eyecandy in the world but he still can't make an interesting movie. After all these years his best work remains "The Rock".

Jim Arthurs

11-02-2007, 09:43 PM

Like Aronofsky said recently, what ever happened to the 90-minute movie?

I couldn't agree more, a big pet peeve of mine as well.

There hasn't been a 120min+ movie I've seen in the last few years that didn't feel it should have been 30 minutes shorter. Throw in a spastic hand-held-tight-FOV-narrow-DOF-happy DP at the helm and I'm ready to jump ship and go home.

The wife and I won't even go without checking the running time nowadays.

I loved the LOTR's films, but I can remember the EXACT moment I started regretting the extra large Coke I had drank... and the movie still had a LONG ways to go. I still get, er, "muscle memory" at that particular moment when I catch it on TV.

Jim Arthurs

11-02-2007, 09:55 PM

I actually caught myself looking at my watch during the scene where all the Autobots were trying to hide around Sam's house.

I am a few years too old for Transformers, and missed the original completely so I had no real frame of reference for it. I hated it on every possible level, yet I've had everyone from the waitress at a local diner to the CEO of the largest real estate company in the world tell me how much they liked it. Whaaa?

The moment at the end where the kid is making out with his girlfriend on the hood of the transforming car was actually pretty damn creepy in an unintentional way... I mean, the car is like a third party to their little luv fest... is it just watching? Is the engine warm?... has it activated OnStar? echhh...

Albert Cheng

11-02-2007, 11:29 PM

I'm glad I'm not the only one that started nodding off while watching Jesse James. I mean I love the photography and all but it could have used some tighter editing and then some. sheesh. I can't even recall the last time I started to nod off while watching a film in the theater.

Adam C Lubkin

11-03-2007, 12:22 AM

Tom, I'm surprised you felt that way about JJ given your love of Terrence Malick. There was definitely a heavy Malick influence to the feel of that movie. How come you like that kind of thing in Thin Red Line, for instance, but not in JJ? Just curious.

I feel that some recent movies could have standed to be a lot longer. Eastern Promises, IMHO, was just getting interesting and then it was over. One thing I liked about Jesse James was that it actually had some development to it, which paid off during the epilogue. On the other hand Bourne Ultimatum could have had 20 minutes trimmed and been a better movie for it.

John V

11-03-2007, 12:34 AM

Ya long movie suck...Ben Hur, Gone with the Wind, Schindlers List...etc. Long means better...i.e. more detail. Not saying short is bad but there are gives and takes.

Ramesh Jai

11-03-2007, 01:49 AM

I thought Apocalypto was long but interesting. The characters just kept suffering and suffering. You just want the misery to end. Kind of like waiting for RED to be delivered.

PS. Anyone seen Indian movies? Average duration is 2 1/2 - 3 hours.

Dean Bull

11-03-2007, 02:04 AM

I think i will throw my addition to this thread (just for fun)

Transformers: the joke is on the general audience. By this time just about everyone is so trained to buy into the hype machine that they can't help but think Transformers was AWESOME! But, as it lives its life on DVD many will be left scratching their heads wondering why it "just isn't doing it for them" when they are away from the big marketing, big media tie ins.

But seeing how this is about the length of movies -- I think a few factors can attribute to long pictures. The big one, in my opinion, is the shortend post schedule for the big big movies. Directors are forced to lock reels around the visual fx needs to meet the deadline -- BANG -- no time to really finesse the cut. Second, the success of LOTR and other epics have allowed directors to sell longer cuts, and I have only met one director in my life who willinging wanted to cut his / her work down. Most directors (Jackson included) way over estimate the audiences endurance!

I think most movies should be 90 minutes myself, less time to screw up!

Desert Rune

11-03-2007, 04:31 AM

Yes, but those movies warrant the runtime, imo!

Not every damn movie needs to be that length.

... you've just pointed out the paradox of long movies.

Jeremy Hughes

11-03-2007, 07:24 AM

I had a weird dream last night, I was watching a movie and I think it must have had a short script, so in between every scene they'd have a minute long musical sequence. You know how they'll have an establishing shot with a quick burst of music? Well in my dream it went on for a minute. And they'd slowly move the camera a little to add life to it I guess. But in between every scene. And the worst part was I shot the movie. :)

Jaime Vallés

11-03-2007, 08:34 AM

Less is more. Always.

Steven Parker

11-03-2007, 09:08 AM

I keep waiting for some smart theatre owners to bring back the Intermission... that would help quite a bit

Tom Lowe

11-03-2007, 11:09 AM

Joel Kaye

11-03-2007, 11:22 AM

A somewhat shorter movie (still about 2.5 hours) that was painful to watch (for me) was Transformers. Maybe it's because I had such high hopes for that movie and it disappointed on so many levels

Transformers
I just watched that last night for the first time. I fell asleep somewhere in there. That story was close to nonexistent and didn't really start until about 1 hour in. Definitely should have been shorter. Some good action and incredible CG. Just exactly why did these huge machines that have already been stomping all over town and can morph into ordinary objects in a couple seconds need to hide from the parents? Was there really any tension there for anyone? I'm not 12 anymore so it was tough for me to
enjoy a lot of that movie.

And the product placement was so in your face it really felt like the ultimate TV commercial.

LOTR deserved to be long IMHO.

After all these years his best work remains "The Rock".

And that sucked.

Scott M

11-03-2007, 12:05 PM

Guys guys guys!

Come'on now, Transformers could have consisted of this scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2A90oHvHuY and 2 hours of dancing care-bears and I would've been happy to pay!

I was at one of the AF bases where the production was recording for audio etc. and couldn't wait for the film to come out to see how well they did the military scenes, and that particular scene was executed magnificently. The CG work was brilliant, there was humor and a large degree of nonsensical robotic pandemonium, you all knew exactly what you were getting into when you sat down.

No tears weeped for managing to find boredom in that film, this thread should instead be devoted to dwindling attention spans :bleh:

P.S.
Thin Red Line is one of my all-time favorite films, and like Tom, I'll watch anything Malick does. However, I can still enjoy a "popcorn film" as well.

krd

11-03-2007, 12:45 PM

How about 7-1/2 hours? One vote for the best film of the last 10-20 years goes to Satantango (dir. Bela Tarr, 1994). You have to relinquish the usual expectations of dramatic pacing and accept the film's own measure of time, and parts of it are difficult to sit through (more because of content, than length), but love or hate it, there's nothing else like this one, and duration is an element of the experience. And it *is* an "experience", in a way a 90 minute film never could be.

This director also has some interesting ideas on film construction. He repudiates what he calls "informational cuts" -- cuts which, like a comic book panel, serve no other purpose than to give the viewer a new piece of information or to answer a question ("what's J-Lo looking at"?). He wants every cut to be an epiphany, a divine shudder.... The result is a lot of 10 minute takes in his work (on film; who knows how long he might go with a Red).

So, if you buy this line, dial in 2K and invest in some very big CF cards....

Zack Bishop

11-03-2007, 01:05 PM

I don't mind any length of movie so long as I'm engaged the whole way through. One of my all-time most favorites is Kurosawa's The Seven Samurai, and it cranks the whole way through a three-and-a-half-hour running time. The movie never ceases to fascinate me, though: dozens of characters and all that length, but there's not an ounce of fat on the story. There's no extraneous scenes, not even a scene that's longer than it should be.

Contrast this with Gregg Araki's The Doom Generation, which weighs in at an hour and twelve minutes... and it drags. There are other reasons to dislike it, but a movie that feels too long at seventy-two minutes is just no damned good.

[Why do I remember the time? I saw an advance screening around 1995, and I remember looking at my watch and thinking "that's seventy-two minutes of my life I'm never gonna get back."]

I think it was Roger Ebert who said that by definition, a good movie cannot be too long and a bad one can't be over too quickly. I'm coming at the Red from an unusual direction as a film student who's main background is in writing (which is why I spend most of my time lurking and frantically googling technical terms), but the one rule about storytelling for which I have yet to find an exception is this: At All Costs, Don't Be Boring.

I Bloom

11-03-2007, 01:08 PM

Thin Red Line is one of my all-time favorite films, and like Tom, I'll watch anything Malick does. However, I can still enjoy a "popcorn film" as well.

Thin Blue Line is better than Thin Red Line. Talk amongst yourselves...

Tom Lowe

11-03-2007, 02:28 PM

I am in complete agreement that some films work well with longer running times, like The Seven Samurai, Lawrence, Braveheart, and on and on. My point is that too many films in the last two years or so have been unnecessarily long.

IMO, these films do not work with such long runtimes. Look at Jesse James. It's being totally ignored by movie audiences. Word of mouth is that it's too long, and too boring. Cut the film by 30 or 40 minutes and it would move better.

David Mullen ASC

11-03-2007, 04:33 PM

I agree that in general there is a feeling of self-indulgence on the part of these directors currently releasing these longer movies. "American Gangster", which I just saw, could have probably been shorter as well.

I was a student of poetry writing at UCLA as part of my minor (my major was English Lit) and one of my professors had an interesting rule about "difficult" poetry, i.e. demanding, hard to read, full of symbolism and obscure allusions, etc. -- his rule was that the amount of effort to read the poem should be equal to the amount of insight, enjoyment, whatever, that the reader gets out of poem. So a long, difficult work is OK if you feel like it was worth the experience once you were through reading that poem or book, or seeing that movie.

But if you get the nagging feeling that the meaning and content of the movie was padded out, or not equal to the running time it was given, then you start to feel that the extra length was not necessary. Of course, we all react differently to movies and won't agree necessarily if it was too long (though almost everyone seems to feel that Jackson's "King Kong" was too long.)

Jay A. Kelley

11-03-2007, 05:10 PM

I loved Transformers.

Oh well.

Jay

David Mullen ASC

11-03-2007, 05:21 PM

I've been a sci-fi/fantasy/action film fan since I was a kid, but maybe I'm just getting too old for the recent crop of efx-spectaculars because my eyes start to glaze over at another 20-minute long efx action set-piece. Any individual moment would have been great, but too much of it and it's like eating too much Holloween candy. It reminds me of Kurosawa's remark that a movie can't just be a series of climaxes strung together, but too often, that's the feeling you walk way with. Combine that with the plot and character development still needed and you get these endless movies like "Pirates of the Caribbean 3" or "Spider-Man 3" which stop being fun or emotionally involving and just become a chore to get through. Of course, that's a different problem than the length of these dramas like "Lust Caution", "Jesse James", "American Gangster", etc. but even there, I think some of it comes down to the classic problem of not wanting to "kill your babies" when editing, the director falling in love with decent scenes at the expense of pacing.

Some of the problem stems from weak screenwriters not knowing how to tighten a script before it goes into production, or good screenwriters having to pad a script because of director/studio interference to add various elements for whatever reason, for commercial reasons (add another action scene!) or some studio exec who thinks he knows something about writing (add some backstory about so-and-so's marriage, let's humanize him by adding this, add a funny scene to lighten the mood, etc.) so nothing ever gets cut, they try to solve story problems by adding more story elements, like fixing a house design by adding more rooms rather than starting from scratch at the foundation.

And some of it comes from no one wanting to make hard decisions in the pre-production and writing phase about what to eliminate, so they leave it to editing, despite the strain it puts on the production from working with an unwieldly script, and then in editing, the director falls in love with all those scenes he spent so much time shooting.

John Godden

11-03-2007, 05:42 PM

Jeff Kilgroe

11-03-2007, 06:49 PM

Come'on now, Transformers could have consisted of this scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2A90oHvHuY and 2 hours of dancing care-bears and I would've been happy to pay!

...I will agree about that scene. Probably the best scene in the whole movie. I was really hoping that the movie would pick up from there, but it didn't.

The movie had no shortage of eye candy, I'll give it that.

And yes, I did know what I was getting into, I guess. Perhaps why I didn't bother to pay to see it. I borrowed the HD-DVD from my brother, who also warned me not to expect much.

But in a way it's sad. I was a big fan of the cartoon series, as are many people today and I feel that this movie left us older fans high and dry. In some ways the movie was faithful to the cartoon. The dialogue and story were on par with the cartoon, that's for sure. But I know a lot of us were hoping that a big budget, feature film would take the concept to the next level. It only did in a visual sense. Being a big-time sci-fi guy and someone who loves watching good military / combat scenes on the big screen, I had such high hopes for this film. Oh, well... I gave the HD-DVD back to my brother, because my 5-year old nephew was having withdrawal symptoms and needed to watch his Transformers movie again.

Adrian Correia

11-03-2007, 07:02 PM

stayed for two consecutive screenings of Jesse James....I loved the pacing myself.

number6

11-03-2007, 08:09 PM

I know this thread is about movies, and mostly it seems quality trumps time. That was certainly my driving force when I watched past tv mini series like Lonesome Dove, Shogun and Centennial. I would even forego a night on the toun if it interfered with watching an episode. Of course, that was before Tivo.

Dean Bull

11-03-2007, 10:29 PM

I think David has really hit the nail on the head here. As usual.

If I was to gaze into my crystal ball, I would estimate that the future of commerical films will probably start to run shorter.

Jeff Kilgroe

11-04-2007, 12:19 AM

I think David has really hit the nail on the head here. As usual.

Yep.

If I was to gaze into my crystal ball, I would estimate that the future of commerical films will probably start to run shorter.

I've been predicting this for some time, yet it never comes true. Movies just seem to be getting generally longer. I'm not sure why. From an economic point of view, it doesn't make that much sense. Longer development and production, most likely a bigger budget is needed and this has negative financial effects on everything right down to distribution to the cinemas. Even at the destination end, you would think that shorter movies would equate to more show times and a few more butts in the seats. Or maybe the current studio thinking is that people are more willing to spend $8 on a seat, plus $15 for popcorn and a drink if the show lasts 3 hours instead of 90 minutes. ...Maybe I'm just guessing, but I'm not sure what the reason is behind the current trend of 3 hour movies. Or is it because a few like Titanic and LOTR did so well, that others feel like they need to follow suit?

Ramesh Jai

11-04-2007, 01:45 AM

I don't think movie lengths are going to be shortened as a planned strategy by studios.

There probably would be more movies releasing to straight to DVDs (HD quality) where duration will be of little consequence.

As TV manufacturers begin offering TV sets which closely mimic the cinema hall experience (bigger screens, better picture and sound), more and more people will be staying at home to watch.

Studios will (IMHO) then give writers and directors more time to develop stories.

I can't watch a movie in a Cinema hall for more than 100 minutes but I can watch 24 at home for hours on end.

My 2¢ of fragmented thoughts...

Eirik Tyrihjel

11-04-2007, 02:19 AM

There is always one solution though.... fast forwarding with sound at x1,5 (or x2) speed, I have a friend who actually prefers to see films this way, whenever it gets "interesting" he plays them at normal pace.

This "soultion" doesn´t work in a movie theatre, yet...

Dave Digby

11-04-2007, 02:43 AM

“The length of a film should be directly related to the endurance of the human bladder.”

"A good film is when the price of the dinner, the theatre admission and the babysitter were worth it."

-Alfred Hitchcock

Dean Bull

11-04-2007, 02:45 AM

Just to provide my competely unsubstantiated reasoning for my prediction of "shorter films"...

Fragmented Media (current online media, and more professional media as the net becomes a stable platform for content creation)

More movies based off a concept or hook that don't require epic lengths for big impact (300 comes to mind, but I could probably point to others)

It might all come down to perception of value -- the studios spend 100-200 million and a big honking movie def. looks like $$$. The audiences probably feel the same way.

I think Eirik's friend has the right idea! I have been watching more and more DVD's on my laptop, and I gotta admit, 9 out of 10 I will start jumping around!

Curran Giddens

11-04-2007, 03:50 AM

I don't like watching long movies in the theater. But that may be just because I think I have RLS (Restless Leg Syndrome). :sad:

Or, maybe I don't have RLS and the movie is just way too long....

krd

11-04-2007, 07:29 AM

Bloat is probably inevitable when moviemaking becomes big business -- stars and directors pulling in millions per picture need to look for ways to justify their payday, length is taken to be a measure of moral seriousness and potential box office (when did a 90 minute film last win an Academy Award?), and the whole venture, as David points out, is subject to interference from MBAs who are under pressure to prove they know something the writer doesn't.

So it all starts looking like a business plan -- maximum coverage to achieve broad acceptance, redundancy in case of failure of any one element, and protecting the posteriors of everyone involved when this much money is being spent. And so the movies start running 3 hours to accommodate everyone.

Could this be an industry in decay?

Jay A. Kelley

11-04-2007, 07:48 AM

I Bloom

11-04-2007, 08:27 AM

Could this be an industry in decay?

Or undergoing metamorphosis.

IBloom

Tom Lowe

11-04-2007, 09:58 AM

The weird thing is, a lot of these directors are hurting their films unnecessarily at the theater by refusing to exercise some discipline. It's not like they have to "kill their babies" forever. Six months later they can release a freakin 4-hour cut if they want to, on the DVD, HD-DVD, Bluray, etc.

It used to be that only a very small handful of films would run over two and a half hours, now people seem to think that long running times = prestige or Oscars or something. A couple of long epics a year is fine. Not every damn film needs to be that long, though.

krd

11-04-2007, 02:19 PM

And when you consider what Hollywood used to be able to condense into 110 minutes or less in the 30s and 40s -- The Lady Eve, Double Indemnity, Nightmare Alley - and even as late as the 1950s, say, Sunset Boulevard....

One difference, I'd argue, was the caliber of the writing. In the Golden Age, there was no such profession as "screenwriter". They were all novelists, playwrights and journalists who went to Hollywood for a pot of money. The Coen brothers' Barton Fink is a very funny satire of this period, but the stuff they did in those days, good and bad, was actually written in a way today's movies are not.

And today, as Stanley Kubrick pointed out, few real writers go into "screenwriting" in the first place. Too damn frustrating and unrewarding.

And boy, does that absence show! What self-respecting professional writer would ever have come up with Jaws, ET or any of the action franchises? This is the work of amateurs, no matter how many tickets it sells. Or maybe that's why the stuff sells so many tickets -- thoroughly in tune with the meager fantasies of the age and instantly recognizable by mass audiences. For all the offended Jaws fans, sorry. Go ahead and check out Satantango and damn me for a fool.

Tom Lowe

11-04-2007, 05:12 PM

It's the auteur who is usually the real writer and artist, IMO. If you want to criticize screenwriters, spread the love and criticize novelists and songwriters and all other types of writers, too. Where are the Tolstoys of today?

I think the most talented creative people today are working in film, because it's a medium that encompasses photography, music, writing, acting, etc. It's the most powerful artistic medium today.

krd

11-04-2007, 06:45 PM

I guess I'd argue that an "auteur" might be possible in Hollywood, but rare in actual fact. Is Spielberg an "auteur", however accomplished he may be at what he does? I can't see it, frankly. David Cronenberg, on the other hand, whether you like his stuff or not....

As for dumping on screenwriters, there are highly skilled writers working in the industry, but on cable (and lots of them are novelists, just like the 30s and 40s--look at the roster for "The Wire"). Maybe these talents are also in Hollywood, but the work is stifled by the executive suite, the stars and the director. In any case, it's not getting up on the screen. Not to my eyes and ears, anyway.

number6

11-04-2007, 06:50 PM

C'mon guys... cool it about the writers. It's almost monday. If they strike, then non-union Independents will have to make all the movies.

Joel Kaye

11-04-2007, 07:06 PM

What self-respecting professional writer would ever have come up with Jaws

Jaws actually was a hit novel first. As scary movies go that one was good IMHO. Tragically Transformers is topping both the DVD rentals and Sales charts. And HD-DVD. The decline of the western civilization is on track.

Transformers is a fine example of "stars don't matter". Spectacular matters. Well marketed matters. (not to me personally... but the sales numbers don't lie. Bay will be back. Kinda like Freddie. But scarier.)

I tend to agree with Tom about the auteur. In film everyone likes to talk about how collaborative it is. And sure enough - it is. BUT I don't think Tolstoy needed to be rewritten by 8 other writers along with notes from executives. And actors. And the "everyone else".

I remain unconvinced that makes the final product any better. Different maybe. So I'm looking forward to more movies where a singular creative mind takes as much control as they can. The desktop tools are trending that way. Perhaps high powered directors have had this all along. I don't know.

Jeff Kilgroe

11-04-2007, 07:51 PM

If they strike, then non-union Independents will have to make all the movies.

Sounds fine to me. Sign me up.

Dean Bull

11-04-2007, 08:01 PM

Speaking of Transformers... I just watched my 3 year old, bratty, undisciplined nephew shovel a McDonalds Happy Meal greedily down his face as he incoherently spurted praise for Transformers.

I believe that says it all about Transformers!

I am in KRD's corner on his comments. I think its important to make a distinction between something being populist and really being great -- and in the field of motion pictures, lots of films get over-praised for genius when in reality it simply exploited some "hack" (like sentimentalism, melodrama, genre, or stereotype).

Did I mention it was Bee Movie Happy meal?

Keith Alan Morris

11-04-2007, 08:21 PM

on this one, i have to disagree with you Tom, i thought Jesse James was the perfect length. i like how it took its time. how it "showed" and didnt tell. i got lost in it. affleck played such a great worm.

and dean, i've been counting the days when Bee Movie would come out. only for a respite from the non-stop schilling by Seinfeld, etc. ugh... shameless.

Jeff Kilgroe

11-04-2007, 08:21 PM

Oh, joy... I promised my 4 year old daughter that I'd take her to see Bee Movie in a couple days. She's got her Bee happy meal toy. I didn't let her watch transformers, although she would probably love it. Edit> I'm going to confess that I'm interested in seeing Bee Movie. I've been very pleased with most of Dreamworks' animated features and I'm definitely curious about this one, even though it looks a little weak. OTOH, Shrek 3 left a bad taste in my mouth.

But I think a lot of the popularity of Transformers is due to the kids. Most everyone I know who's bought the DVD has done so for their kids. Quite honestly, if I ever decide to just make something for the sake of making a $h1tl0ad of money, I'm making a damn kids show. :greedy:

number6

11-04-2007, 09:10 PM