GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

the scary calculations involving getting Serenity to profit

POSTED BY: ETHAN
UPDATED: Tuesday, January 3, 2006 10:01
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 15059
PAGE 2 of 2

Monday, January 2, 2006 7:31 AM

PAMELAONE


Actually, places like walmart, pay almost 17.00 a dvd. In the case of Serenity, they paid 16.98. So that's how much goes back to Universal not 7.00.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 2, 2006 7:41 AM

CBY


What about film funding, sponsoring and other external sources of capital? I doubt that Universal payed all the money themselves.

°°°°°°°°°°°°
http://www.byond-trax.com - my selfmade ambient/lounge/chillout music

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 2, 2006 7:48 AM

ANDRE83


And for the zillion time; Marketing isn't taken into consideration when deciding wheather a movie has made profit or not. Dont ask me why, because i have no idea.

My only guess would be that each studio have a total marketing budget for the year or something. For all the released movies together.

Jayne: All those years of preacher training, getting knocked out by one bounty hunter
Book: Oh, dont get me wrong. I gave him a hell of a fight
Jayne: Epic i'm guessing

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 2, 2006 7:53 AM

ANDRE83


Quote:

Originally posted by SameErtia:
I was dragged to see "Underworld" at the theater with a group of friends. Second worst 10$ I've ever spent. Worst was for that overcooked hamburger at the Blue Chalk Cafe in Palo Alto.

So really, when a movie rates only slightly better than a dried out burger, it's amazing to me that it gets a sequel.

Then again, "Highlander; The Source" is in post-production, even with the agony that was "Endgame", so there's no accounting for Hollywood.



I honestly dont know why people needs to have this explained but...Hollywood is about making money. Not quality.

Jayne: All those years of preacher training, getting knocked out by one bounty hunter
Book: Oh, dont get me wrong. I gave him a hell of a fight
Jayne: Epic i'm guessing

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 2, 2006 8:01 AM

MYCROFTXXX


Chiming in one more time, the other advantage that Serenity / Firefly has over, say, the St*r Tr*k movie / TV franchise from a business and artistic point of view is that not all of the stories have been told in the new 'verse. It has truly unique possibilities thus when Joss (and let's not forget Tim Minear) pitches his next Big Damn Idea in the Firefly 'verse it will be refreshing yet still have that all important sequel feel to it (execs LOVE sequels, especially ones that have built-in fan bases like ours). It may take a year or three so I hope y'all are in for the long haul.

I, for one, am in the for the long haul right down to the firefly decals on my Saturn VUE. Already had someone ask me what the Chinese was all about. Needless to say, they were intrigued when I explained it.



"We'll be in our bunk..."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 2, 2006 8:13 AM

CWNEK


Quote:

Originally posted by GatorMarc:
Quote:

Originally posted by cwnek:
Quote:

Originally posted by GatorMarc:
1) The Box office is at about $38.5 million now, not $35 million.
GatorMarc

Eat 'em up, chomp, chomp.



Assuming that you get your #s from the same source as I do (boxofficemojo.com...visit often...get Serenity back into the top 5 most popular!), it's worth noting that this figure does not include earnings post 11/17. Overseas is more up to date, and accounts for the slow trickle over the last 6 weeks.



Yep. And that also never calculated in the revenue that Universal brought in from the pre-screenings of the movie over the summer.

GatorMarc

Eat 'em up, chomp, chomp.



I hope you're right, but I believe:

(1) Pre-screenings get included in opening weekend estimates, and that

(2) They did not amount to much $wise.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 2, 2006 8:31 AM

ROCKETJOCK


Quote:

Originally posted by ChrisPV:

And I just can't picture Spider-Man not making money until DVD.



Ah, but you're figuring in real-world 1+1=2 math, not Hollywood math. I suggest you read Art Buchwald's book "Fatal Subtraction" for a review of how the latter works.

Buchwald proved in court that the Eddie Murphy movie "Coming to America" had been plagerized from a story outline he had submitted years before; having lost, the studio proceeded to claim that the movie--one of the largest grossers of 1988--had never turned a profit. And weirdly, by standard entertainment industry mathematics, it hadn't. They charged off every possible expense against the film's budget--including advertising and promotion for other, totally unrelated films--while discounting every source of profit for the film. More or less a standard practice, a way to screw those whose pay for the film was expressed as a percentage of profits.


"Nothin' into nothin' is -- let me do the math here--carry the nothin'..." -- Jayne Cobb

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 2, 2006 8:37 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by Andre83:
And for the zillion time; Marketing isn't taken into consideration when deciding wheather a movie has made profit or not. Dont ask me why, because i have no idea.

My only guess would be that each studio have a total marketing budget for the year or something. For all the released movies together.

Jayne: All those years of preacher training, getting knocked out by one bounty hunter
Book: Oh, dont get me wrong. I gave him a hell of a fight
Jayne: Epic i'm guessing



For the second time in the same thread, that's just not true. In fact, it's rather silly. When the average cost of marketing a hollywood movie is in the ballpark of $34 million (That's the 2004 average, though I doubt thet spent 1/2 that on Serenity, but that's the indusrty average) that money is going to be factored in. Serenity's opening on 2,189 screen cost around $9 million in print costs alone. Someone is counting.

Yes, studios are notoriously sketchy about how they cook their books, and the marketing cost may not go into any public offical budget statement, but studios are rarely honest with official budgets, and you can be damn sure someone is accounting for that money.


"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 2, 2006 8:38 AM

SUASOR



Uh...No. Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch's Newscorp. Universal is owned by Vevendi/Seagram Corporation. Totally different mega-massive-evil-conglomerates.


Oops, sorry, That's what happens when you hang out with investment bankers. You get the deals that didn't go through mixed up with the ones that did. It's hard to figure out who owns who in the entertainment business these days.

One thing's for sure, Fox made a pile of cash off Firefly, and it's still rolling in.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 2, 2006 9:07 AM

DEFIANT1701


Quote:

Originally posted by Ruxton:
I'm gonna go out on a limb here, based on some of the insight I've got from this thread's commentators combined with my own empathetic perceptions, and PREDICT that within six months a second Serenity movie will be greenlighted. Or at the latest, whenever Wonder Woman gets some obvious and dedicated publicity.

Within six months........Serenity #2 greenlighted... = prediction.



Hi all,

New Browncoat here. Just for a bit of background...I am one of the people you are all talking about. Someone that had never watched the TV series until about a week ago when my housemate let me borrow it. I watched it straight thru and just finished watching Serenity (for the second time). I LOVE this show! I had always wanted to watch back in the day when it was on, but never got the chance.

Anyway, I wanted to respond to your prediction. I sincerely hope and pray that there will be more of this fabulous crew but I hope it's not on the big screen. In order to get any kind of serious character developement, it has to be on the small screen. I hope Sci-Fi smartens up and ponies up the cash to make it an original show like they did for SG-1 and BSG.

That's it for now. Keep fighting!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 2, 2006 9:48 AM

ANDRE83


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:

Originally posted by Andre83:
And for the zillion time; Marketing isn't taken into consideration when deciding wheather a movie has made profit or not. Dont ask me why, because i have no idea.

My only guess would be that each studio have a total marketing budget for the year or something. For all the released movies together.

Jayne: All those years of preacher training, getting knocked out by one bounty hunter
Book: Oh, dont get me wrong. I gave him a hell of a fight
Jayne: Epic i'm guessing



For the second time in the same thread, that's just not true. In fact, it's rather silly. When the average cost of marketing a hollywood movie is in the ballpark of $34 million (That's the 2004 average, though I doubt thet spent 1/2 that on Serenity, but that's the indusrty average) that money is going to be factored in. Serenity's opening on 2,189 screen cost around $9 million in print costs alone. Someone is counting.

Yes, studios are notoriously sketchy about how they cook their books, and the marketing cost may not go into any public offical budget statement, but studios are rarely honest with official budgets, and you can be damn sure someone is accounting for that money.


"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle."



Well, seeing as you think that the "avarage" marketing cost for a hollywood movie is 34 million bucks, i guess that says what i need to know about your credibility.

To take an example; SW ep 2 had a marketing cost around 25 mill. If you truly think that the avarage movie spend 10 mill more then that then...well....

Jayne: All those years of preacher training, getting knocked out by one bounty hunter
Book: Oh, dont get me wrong. I gave him a hell of a fight
Jayne: Epic i'm guessing

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 2, 2006 11:26 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:


Well, seeing as you think that the "avarage" marketing cost for a hollywood movie is 34 million bucks, i guess that says what i need to know about your credibility.

To take an example; SW ep 2 had a marketing cost around 25 mill. If you truly think that the avarage movie spend 10 mill more then that then...well....



Okay, first of all Star Wars is one movie that didn't really need that much promotion, as everyone knew it was coming. Second, some of the SW hype wasn't paid for by the studio, such as the Burger-King tie-ins and such. And it still cost $25 million to market. 3 years ago (costs tend to rise).


As for my credibility, I have backing for my numbers....

http://www.slate.com/id/2120335/
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/11/06/business/web.1106holson.php
http://www.indiescene.net/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/hollywood/picture/openbi
g.html

http://www.mecfilms.com/moviepubs/memos/moviein.htm
http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-movies-generating-losses

Your turn to prove YOUR credibility.

Let's just do some math here. Film prints cost a bit over 4 grand each. There were 2189 prints of Serenity. That works out to around $10 million with tax. I saw ads for Serenity durring the season premiers of Lost and The Simpsons. Ads durring those programs run about $500 thoudsand on a normal night, and were surely more for the season premiere. Now factor in the other ads played durring non-peak viewing. It adds up quick.

"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 2, 2006 5:07 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC


On the subject of Underworld, I liked the movie.

One of the things I thought was good was the difference of the goals. The goal of Vampires was to exterminate the Werewolves, the goal of Werewolves was to coexist with Vampires.

I also thought the start of the war was a refreshing change. The war wasn't started by a slave revolution, it wasn't started by an assassination or any other conflict between Vampires and Werewolves. The war was started by a Vampire executing a Vampire. It is the kind of thing that makes perfect sense in all possible ways but is in no way cliché.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 3:48 AM

ANDRE83


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:


Well, seeing as you think that the "avarage" marketing cost for a hollywood movie is 34 million bucks, i guess that says what i need to know about your credibility.

To take an example; SW ep 2 had a marketing cost around 25 mill. If you truly think that the avarage movie spend 10 mill more then that then...well....



Okay, first of all Star Wars is one movie that didn't really need that much promotion, as everyone knew it was coming. Second, some of the SW hype wasn't paid for by the studio, such as the Burger-King tie-ins and such. And it still cost $25 million to market. 3 years ago (costs tend to rise).


As for my credibility, I have backing for my numbers....

http://www.slate.com/id/2120335/
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/11/06/business/web.1106holson.php
http://www.indiescene.net/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/hollywood/picture/openbi
g.html

http://www.mecfilms.com/moviepubs/memos/moviein.htm
http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-movies-generating-losses

Your turn to prove YOUR credibility.

Let's just do some math here. Film prints cost a bit over 4 grand each. There were 2189 prints of Serenity. That works out to around $10 million with tax. I saw ads for Serenity durring the season premiers of Lost and The Simpsons. Ads durring those programs run about $500 thoudsand on a normal night, and were surely more for the season premiere. Now factor in the other ads played durring non-peak viewing. It adds up quick.

"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle."



Listen mister. I dont need any proof, nor anything to back up my facts. Because its self-explanatory that the avarage cost of marketing a movie in hollywood is WAY lower then 34 mill bucks. But you believe that. Be my guest. Now i see here and there in those text that (quote) "avarage is 39 mill", "avarage is 34 mill", "avarage is bla bla bla". Now i dont feel like using time figuring out what they are talking about (by that i meen, what movies they are counting in) But just as you know; there are more movies then just BIG WB and sony blockbusters coming out each year.



Jayne: All those years of preacher training, getting knocked out by one bounty hunter
Book: Oh, dont get me wrong. I gave him a hell of a fight
Jayne: Epic i'm guessing

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 4:42 AM

TOMSIMPSONAZ


I think Michael Crichton said it best:

“Hollywood is just a bunch of fabulously stupid people working in a business of idiots.”




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 5:24 AM

ETHAN


Quote:

Originally posted by pamelaone:
Actually, places like walmart, pay almost 17.00 a dvd. In the case of Serenity, they paid 16.98. So that's how much goes back to Universal not 7.00.



You are forgetting how much it costs Universal to produce each DVD unit. The lower end is supposed to be around $5, but that number may be just more Hollywood phony baloney.

Also some places were selling Serenity at $14.95 pre-Christmas. I'm thinking most places were paying way lower than that per DVD to Universal if they were going to have any kind of profit margin.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 7:46 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Listen mister. I dont need any proof, nor anything to back up my facts. Because its self-explanatory that the avarage cost of marketing a movie in hollywood is WAY lower then 34 mill bucks. But you believe that. Be my guest. Now i see here and there in those text that (quote) "avarage is 39 mill", "avarage is 34 mill", "avarage is bla bla bla". Now i dont feel like using time figuring out what they are talking about (by that i meen, what movies they are counting in) But just as you know; there are more movies then just BIG WB and sony blockbusters coming out each year.



Okay, let me get this strait...

You attach my credibility, so I post evidence to back my claims. You claim you don't need evidence, because your claims are "self-explanatory", even though they are not, and you have presented no evidence to back them up. And the best you can come up with to refute my evidence is to go "blah blah blah". Very mature.

You must have been captain of the debate team.

And yes, there are movies released besides the blockbusters. But prints costs are print costs. And ad rates are ad rates. And while some films only spend $15 million on marketing, others spend $40 million or more. Blockbusters spend a WHOLE LOT more on marketing then those smaller films. They spend enough to greatly skew the average. In the end, as the evidence shows this AVERAGES to $30-35 million. That how an average works. Doesn't mean every one.... it means the median average dimwit.

Now, next time you want to be a chump and start attacking someone, back it up with something more substantial than "Bah to your petty facts and research, I'm right 'cause I said so".

Quote:

I dont need any proof, nor anything to back up my facts.


Without proof it's not a fact -it's an opinion. Facts, averages.... Read a dictionary.

"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 8:14 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by ethan:

Also some places were selling Serenity at $14.95 pre-Christmas. I'm thinking most places were paying way lower than that per DVD to Universal if they were going to have any kind of profit margin.



Well, I don't know about other places, but Wal-Mart has said publicly that they often sell their CD's and DVD's at a loss. The corporation considers the CD/DVD section a tool to draw people in to buy other products, and thus consider the loss acceptable.

"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 8:27 AM

ANDRE83


Prints has nothing to do with marketing....

But as i said. Believe what you want. You have that right.

And thanks for the book recomendation. But no thanks, its so reptetive.

ANd ps; Median value aint the same as avarage. Read a mathamatical book.

Jayne: All those years of preacher training, getting knocked out by one bounty hunter
Book: Oh, dont get me wrong. I gave him a hell of a fight
Jayne: Epic i'm guessing

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 8:37 AM

PHILYBURKHILL


What about the DVDs world wide? I'm just really hoping for a sequel tbh.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 8:45 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by Andre83:
Prints has nothing to do with marketing....


Well, everything I've read from industry professionals and analysts is to the contrary. Or do you think thats another multi-million dollar expenditure that no one counts.


Quote:


But as i said. Believe what you want. You have that right.



Fair enough. You have that right as well. But I'm still going to believe the facts.

And BTW:


Main Entry: av·er·age
Pronunciation: 'a-v(&-)rij
Function: noun
1 a : a single value (as a mean, mode, or median) that summarizes or represents the general significance of a set of unequal values b :
Synonyms: MEAN, MEDIAN, NORM mean something that represents a middle point.

Main Entry: me·di·an
Pronunciation: 'mE-dE-&n
Function: noun
synonym see AVERAGE


"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 9:20 AM

AMITON


Okay, okay, okay. This was bound to get nasty with just about anyone coming in here with their opinion that the chance of a sequel is dead. There's too much passion in this forum for that.

That being said, this discussion has degraded to a point that's not beneficial to the community. There isn't a need to point fingers, either. Opinions have been stated, some have been supported with outside references. There's no need for browncoats to collapse into ourselves. As a general rule, from what I understand of this forum, we like to try to be intelligent and supportive - but I've been wrong before...

The information alluded to in the opening post may be true, and the outside links may be accurate. *someone* said it didn't look good for a sequel. *Someone* said they got their information from an industry professional. Okay, that may be true, and I have no way to dispute that at all :)

We're all here because we love Firefly, and we would like to see Serenity flying again. It was cancelled...I'm going to pause there for a moment because cancelled means it's *finished*. We all know that, and industry professionals said it was dead and gone. We said otherwise, and put forth our best efforts.

Here again, a source, perhaps with industry insight, has said we're finished again. Okay? We've never let that stop us before, and now we have two *major* successes that weren't there the first time - the Box set and the BDM. We've said it here, and Joss Whedon, the source of all of our joy and anguish, has said it too -- the normal rules don't apply here. We're dealing in areas that we haven't gone before, so we're going to try to do our best until we can't any longer. How does anything that was said here diminish that?

We're all good, and passionate people. One of the things that set Firefly fans apart is our intellect as a community. Why are we deteriorating into personal attacks over this? Storymark (I think...sorry, I don't have the thread open to reference) had some information he wanted to share; he thought we should hear it. I thank him both for doing so and for being caring enough to be active in the community.

Could he have done it as a troll and to stir things up? Maybe; it's certainly possible, but I'm not going to assume that people are bringing hatred into the community. Even if they do, it's come and gone before. We'll still be here when things return to "normal".

I'm not going to argue this or that about Hollywood. I don't know enough about the inner workings. We fly with love and hope, ride on the highs and ride out the lows. It's all part of being.

Just as a closing and a point of clarification (I'm not being nasty, just addressing the point), and average is an equal portion dividend of the sum products of numbers, the median is the number in a series that has equal instances before it and after it in a sequence, and a mode is the most commonly occuring number in the series in layman's terms. e.g., given a sequence of numbers 2, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 7, 8, 8, 8, 9, the avg is 5.909, the median is 7, and the mode is 8.

Smile, guys...we'll come out of this alright!

Amiton.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 9:23 AM

AMITON


By the way...I'm not stepping in and trying to settle things into not having an intelligent debate or kill the conversation! I think that's tremendously important, and we as intelligent fans need to stay aware of both sides of any of our arguments in order to stay that way. I think (e.g. it's my opinion) that we need intelligent debate to grow as people :)

Amiton.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 10:01 AM

JBJ


A while back a new browncoat gave detailed info on how he -as the owner of a marketing company- would be able to extract a profit out of Serenity. I've forgotten the details and I may be wrong about the type of company he owns, but he was OPTIMISTIC about Serenity being profitable. As Viking pointed out, this franchise does make money in licensing! We have comic books, Rpg's, trading cards, action figures, books, all doing quite well in sales. As the fanbase is expanded so will licensing profits! Most movies make little or no coin in this area. I'm sure we're all thankful that there are no Wedding Crasher action figures, 40 Year Old Virgin condoms, and/or Flightplan Airplanes for sale. Seriously, I'm hoping that the marketing guy would post again or if someone could find the thread? Thanks all!

JBJ

faith: Being sure of what you hope for and certain of what you do not see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Fan-Made ‘Green Lantern’ Trailer Receives Nathan Fillion’s Endorsement
Fri, December 20, 2024 18:31 - 9 posts
MERRY CHRISTMAS
Fri, December 20, 2024 17:58 - 5 posts
Why Firefly deserved to die
Wed, December 18, 2024 16:34 - 99 posts
Where are the Extraterrestrial Civilizations
Tue, December 17, 2024 08:58 - 56 posts
What if... Firefly had been British?
Tue, December 17, 2024 08:40 - 44 posts
Shiny New Year 2025 — Philadelphia, PA
Sun, December 15, 2024 15:25 - 2 posts
Joss was right... Mandarin is the language of the future...
Fri, December 13, 2024 20:35 - 36 posts
James Earl Jones, commanding actor who voiced Darth Vader, dies at 93
Thu, December 12, 2024 09:17 - 6 posts
What's wrong with Star Trek Voyager, and Enterprise?
Thu, December 12, 2024 09:14 - 30 posts
WE WAITED 18 YEARS FOR A REBOOT AND DISNEY IS GOING TO DO IT...AND THEN STERILIZE COMPANIONS???!
Tue, December 10, 2024 14:25 - 95 posts
Host the 2025 Browncoat Ball! - Request for Proposals
Mon, December 2, 2024 00:22 - 4 posts
Is Joss Whedon finished as a film maker, is his future destiny to be some muttering version of Brigitte Bardot, Jane Fonda, Sean Penn, Charlie Sheen, Danny Glover?
Sun, November 24, 2024 06:15 - 13 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL