Jedi Council Forums - Should Kirshner have directed ROTS

Jedi Council Forums » Star Wars Films » Revenge of the Sith »

Locked Topic | Read Only Topic | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: Should Kirshner have directed ROTS
LordIsurus Registered: Jun '99	Date Posted: 1/23/06 7:52pm Subject: RE: Should Kirshner have directed ROTS
	No, George did a great job for Episode 3. And, for ESB, it's not like GL wasn't always in Kirch's ear and it's not to say Kirshner wouldnt have done a good job with Episode 3. But the scenes George shot were really fantastic. In an older thread, that scene Jedi_Master_Conor brings up, I had it listed as one of my favourite scenes. The view out to Anakin...seeing him lower the hood of his Sith robe, and begin to run was fantasic. I cant say why, but the pace, the moment, the emotion there was perfectly put together. NOONE else could have shot that scene and there are tonnes of scenes like that in RotS. Sure, there are scenes that didn't stand out as much, but the ones that do, are just perfect. Another scene for example....no dialogue.....Anakin in the Jedi Temple....Padme in her penthouse, and they look out at their city...the music...the calm before the storm. Breathtaking, even to the Sith Lord :P Isurus the White p.s. has there been a 'thank you George' thread yet? There should be -----signature----- The one and only Bright Lord of the Sith Don't worry. We will deal with your Rebel friends soon enough. Boss #8 Star Wars is a history lesson. Now, sit up, and pay attenion! ®¬¶\|*%%%*\|=\| ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ ËËËËËËËËË EEEEEEE ÐÞ
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
JohnWesleyDowney Registered: Jan '04	Date Posted: 1/23/06 8:23pm Subject: RE: Should Kirshner have directed ROTS
	And by the way, looking at the thread's subject line, it's correctly spelled "Kershner" not Kirshner. Yeah, I know I'm being picky, but a little respect please. -----signature----- Peace.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
darth-sinister Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Jun '01	Date Posted: 1/23/06 11:50pm Subject: RE: Should Kirshner have directed ROTS
	CJedi72 posted: darth-sinister posted: Wouldn't matter anyway. Last I heard, Kershner retired a few years ago. Besides, the film is fine. I never seen a difference between what Kershner and Marquand did and what Lucas has done. The one thing the director is responsible for is the actors performances. Compare the three OT movies, Marquand did the worst job. Alfred Hitchcock also didn't believe in method acting. He just told people that their character was in the script and that the motivation was their paycheck. He may have not said it to everyone, but that was his belief. Actors who take issue with it are engrained with the notion of method acting. Lee, Jackson and McDiarmid have praised Lucas as he can get them without their needing intense discussion on their motivations. CJedi72 posted: Lucas got very good performances out of the big three Luke, Leia, and Han in ANH. They were funny, and the chemistry is great. The characters don't go into too much detail, but that is the way the story is, general. Kershner one up'd them, Han Solo steals ESB, that is his movie. Leia is great to as her and Han bicker in the millenium falcon, and really make a small side plot romance very believable. Luke is very good next to a damn puppet! ROTJ, Han & Leia give subpar performances. They are more subdued, and the humor between them is lacking in the movie as it was in the previous two movies. True, their characters were beginning to change, but overall Han & Leia are not nearly as good as the first two movies. Luke on the other hand steals the show, as the throne room scenes he is great in, but everyone has said that Lucas directed those scenes. So Marquand really did an average job with the actors. Watch the OT again, Darth Sinister, and let me know if Han & Leia's performance in ROTJ is nearly as good as ANH & ESB? It certainly is different, I admit that. But that's more of the script direction than Marquand's direction. Since both Han and Leia are on more even ground here, than in the last two films, the tension between them is less palpable. The humor isn't there with Leia, but it is there with Han. Not as intensely, but it's there. And yes, Luke does get more out of this. I recall reading once that Lucas directed the duel in ROTJ. If this is true, this is probably where Luke and the Sith get much of their focus. I do admit that Marquand probably wasn't the best director. Especially when the actors also confirm this. This was a factor, though not the only one, in Lucas' decision to helm all the PT films himself. -----signature----- Stewie: "Oh, this is an even bigger jackpot than when the Emperor came up with the formula for great Star Wars dialouge." Palpatine: "Something, something, something. Dark side. Something, something, something complete."
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
SEPARATESICKLEROOK2 Registered: Sep '03	Date Posted: 1/24/06 3:56am Subject: RE: Should Kirshner have directed ROTS
	Absolutely not. The PT is far more kinetic, and i believe that is due to Lucas. No one could have done it better. -----signature----- "I DO NOT FEAR THE DARKSIDE, I EMBRACE IT!"
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Cryogenic Registered: Jul '05	Date Posted: 1/24/06 4:53am Subject: RE: Should Kirshner have directed ROTS
	Kershner did fine with TESB. It remains the most fluid, layered, dynamic and involving of all the Star Wars pictures. It is also my favourite installment of the original trilogy (Revenge of the Sith is my favourite of the prequels and favourite of the saga). But, what many people conveniently overlook, is that Kershner was working with a meatier story, a punchier screenplay and a higher budget than was afforded to Lucas when he directed ANH. The visuals ended up being more beautiful and cerebral and the actors themselves were more comfortable in their roles and the demands of making a Star Wars picture. Topping things off, John Williams greatly expanded the musical palette of Star Wars with his seminal score. TESB had a lot going for it no matter which of the two men - Kershner or Lucas - ended up in the director's chair. I'm glad that Lucas got to direct the prequels. I think he was chomping at the bit ever since TESB, to be honest, but back then, it wasn't entirely practical for him to do so. He sure put that right! There are many moments of true visual and emotional power in the prequels. Could Kershner or another director have made a moment here or there ring with more authenticity? Possibly - but they might have rendered other moments inferior. Filmmaking is about trying to get from A to B but continually being re-routed and going from A, to G, to Z, to P, just to get back to B. In other words, bringing a story to the screen, especially one as technically and thematically complex as Star Wars, is a tangled journey that is hard to gauge quantitatively. I think Lucas did just fine. -----signature----- I have a great admiration for George. These films are very well-intentioned. All right, they make tremendous amounts of money and appeal to kids, but they say good things, and they say them in a broad way. I believe in the Star Wars films. - Ian McDiarmid
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
G-FETT Registered: Aug '01	Date Posted: 1/24/06 5:10am Subject: RE: Should Kirshner have directed ROTS
	I agree with whats being said about possibly losing certain things if Lucas didn't direct ROTS. For instance, theres nothing in ESB to make me believe that Kersh could have come up with anything as moving or beautiful as the Ruminations scene. Or Order 66. Yes, you may have got a slightly better performance out of Natalie Portman or Ewan Mcgregor if Kershner had helmed ROTS, but you would have lost other things, too. -----signature----- I felt a great disturbance in the force. As if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror. Then were suddenly silenced. The Saga returns; August 15th 2008.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
mastersith69 Registered: Mar '05	Date Posted: 1/24/06 5:15am Subject: RE: Should Kirshner have directed ROTS
	no
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Veloz Registered: Aug '04	Date Posted: 1/24/06 9:37am Subject: RE: Should Kirshner have directed ROTS
	No.. i think George did just fine with it -----signature----- "Hello there!" "Remember the Force will be with you..always" - Obi Wan Kenobi, ANH "Who's the more foolish...the fool or the fool who follows him?"- Obi Wan Kenobi, ANH
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
El Kabong Registered: Sep '99	Date Posted: 1/24/06 10:40am Subject: RE: Should Kirshner have directed ROTS
	mikadojedi posted: I can't help but think that Kirshner would have done a better job on ROTS. Nope - not a chance. Put simply, the man is not all that good. He got lucky with Star Wars, did a passable job remaking Thunderball and directed a whole bunch of crap otherwise. People, for god sake - he gave us Robocop 2! Thats a slightly lesser crime against humanity than Alien 4 was.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
darth-sinister Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Jun '01	Date Posted: 1/24/06 10:58am Subject: RE: Should Kirshner have directed ROTS
	I liked RoboCop 2. Though the script by Frank Miller was a lot better before it was filmed. Having read the novelization, certain things were done differently from the final film. Things that would've been better had it been left alone as it was and not as it came out to be. I don't know if that was Kershner's doing or Orion Pictures doing. -----signature----- Stewie: "Oh, this is an even bigger jackpot than when the Emperor came up with the formula for great Star Wars dialouge." Palpatine: "Something, something, something. Dark side. Something, something, something complete."
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Philip023 Registered: Aug '02	Date Posted: 1/24/06 1:15pm Subject: RE: Should Kirshner have directed ROTS
	would a more actor and performance-oriented filmmaker have produced a better film? I cannot say. I very much appreciate the picture as it now stands, so in that sense I don’t look for what could or could not have been improved. Others, who may dislike or even loathe the film, will feel differently. I will try to address my personal feelings on this matter below Any time you get the best performance out of your actors, the end product will always be better. My assessment is that some (not all) of critical moments in ROTS suffered because of a lack of character depth. The one that stands out is Anakin's quick turn to the Dark Side. I am thinking, specifically, of passages such as Palpatine’s discussion with Anakin at the Opera; the confrontation between Padme, Anakin, and Obi-Wan on the Mustafar landing platform; the wordless "rumination" scene; Palpatine’s revelation to Anakin within the corridor of his chambers; Obi-Wan’s emotional plea to Yoda to send him to kill Sidious, rather than Vader; the immolation scene; and so on. In this film, Lucas and his actors really identified the specific emotional beats that needed to be played in order for this tricky material to function properly, and for the most part, I think they succeeded. I think for the most part these are excellent scenes. One line that seems a little rushed is Anakin's "you will not take her from me!" line. But all scenes with McDiarmid in them are very well paced. These scenes are excellent because of McDiarmid's acting experience. The extent to which the actor is involved is another aspect - particularly as it relates to no tactile contact with his/her environment. The blue screen element often plays havoc with an actors performance (see numerous comments by Liam Neeson and MacGregor). And Portman's performance leaves something to be desired in all three films. On padme's death: I would agree with you on most points. The material with which an actor is given is part and parcel of the performance given. Ultimately, Padme somehow "losing the will to live" (as if her existence was intrinsically tied to Anakin) fails because it goes completely against what we know to be her character. Rather, Anakin should have bee completely responsible for her death - whether that was physically ending her life or killing her by mistake. I quite liked the duel – it resounded with a visceral ferocity that gave weight to the interpersonal drama that was being played out in the physical engagement between these two characters. If anything, I felt the sequence could have been a bit longer and more expansive. The ferocity of the duel is present. However, it doesn't necessarily display the drama or significance of the duel between Yoda and Sidious. Perhaps this was out of expectation but Yoda's efforts to make one last lonely effort to correct things was unexpected and was filled with drama and desperation. That the galaxy hinged on the battle taking place in the senate chambers is poignant - the concept that Yoda tried to end it; that Palpatine vanquishing him resulted in Imperial rule and oppresion is quite stirring. Whereas the Duel while spectacular leaved little to the imagination with the exception of how it actually ends. On ESB: the praise that is heaped upon ESB inside and outside of this forum (if it matters) is due in large part to the story itself. Of course, we cannot forget that ESB benefits from one of the greatest plot twists in film history. This adds to the films drama which left so many people wanting more at the end. The last 30 minutes of the film are probably the best with ROTS coming in second or third (depending on how much of a purist you are). Insert a better dialogue between characters and the added depth of the protagonists and antagonists, it makes for a more emotionally charged film. Although, I will concede that the end of ROTS leaves the SW fan in an emotional trainwreck. Again we will never know for sure. However the added depth that might have been given had Kirshner been at the helm could only have helped ROTS. Nice discussion.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Tyranus_the_Hutt Registered: Nov '04	Date Posted: 1/24/06 3:42pm Subject: RE: Should Kirshner have directed ROTS
	I know what you're saying about older directors working into their 70s and 80s and so forth. David Lean was very old when he died, and he was well into pre-production on a feature film at the time. I believe Lean was hard at work on an adaptation of Conrad’s "Nostromo," which he had planned to be film in 70mm, at the time of his death. But very few films are as demanding and complex as a SW film. That's one of the reasons Kersh took so long on EMPIRE and went over budget. From my understanding, that production had a number of setbacks, including technical malfunctions, prop difficulties, the untimely death of a crew member, and so on. Needless to say, there were countless difficulties, and depending on whom you choose to believe, producer Gary Kurtz was supposedly held responsible for the mismanagement of the production. He had never come up against anything that big before. It's also one of the reasons he turned down doing ROTJ. He didn't want to do it again because SW films are very tough to do. Most of Kershner’s pre-ESB films were considerably less ambitious in terms of their technological scope – in other words, modestly-budgeted character-driven pieces – and so the enormity of ESB’s production likely proved daunting to the filmmaker. What Kershner brought to the picture – as others have already noted – was a particular attention to character nuance and performance, two qualities which aided the picture immeasurably. The first one nearly killed George, and he was 32 and in good health. That's why HE didn't want to direct the next two. That’s true. The process of making ANH proved to be so strenuous that Lucas decided it would be best for him to hand over the reigns to other filmmakers, and just oversee the production instead of managing the specific mise-en-scene. I just don't think Kersh should have done it. Lucas did a fine job of wrapping it all up. I agree. Any time you get the best performance out of your actors, the end product will always be better. Generally speaking, this is true. In some instances, a filmmaker chooses to coach an actor into a deliberately specious performance, such as Keir Dullea’s work in "2001: A Space Odyssey," to generate a certain effect. The "Star Wars" pictures, while not exactly distinguished by their acting, do benefit from more soulful characterizations, particularly in an ambitious project such as "Episode III," in which the story requires the actors to carefully negotiate some complex emotional terrain, the likes of which is somewhat, though not entirely, foreign to this franchise. My assessment is that some (not all) of critical moments in ROTS suffered because of a lack of character depth. The one that stands out is Anakin's quick turn to the Dark Side. Although I would have preferred that the grotesquerie which seemed to characterize the Palpatine-Windu confrontation had been contained, the sequence in which Anakin finally commits himself to the Chancellor is not one that I find to be entirely problematic; Christensen finds most of the right notes to portray Anakin’s psychology during this passage, and the moment in which he kneels before Sidious, almost literally collapsing underneath the weight of his own conscience, is skillfully managed by the young actor. My complaint about Anakin’s turn to the Dark Side pertains almost specifically to the fact that there isn’t enough of a clearly-defined emotional trajectory for us to follow in the sequence itself, one that would bridge the moment of submission to the "Order 66" montage in a more cogent psychological fashion. This is more of a narrative or screenwriting flaw, I imagine, and less of a deficiency in performance on the part of Christensen. I am particularly fond of the following excerpt, taken from Ty Burr’s review of ROTS, in which the writer defends Christensen’s (maligned) portrayal of Anakin: "Is Hayden Christensen a great actor? Not even close, but you could argue that a great actor might have done too much with the role. By setting his chin low and keeping his voice to a truculent whine, Christensen effectively portrays the kind of talented kid whose moral ruin is that it's always somebody else's fault. At the same time, Anakin feels like a legend unfolding in real-time. The actor grows into the role here, and the role grows with him." – Ty Burr, The Boston Globe I think for the most part these are excellent scenes. One line that seems a little rushed is Anakin's "you will not take her from me!" line. I liked that line (and its delivery) because it was indicative of the manner in which Anakin had become consumed by his own evil, unable to grasp a larger perspective because of his immersion in villainy; this serves to identify the underlying nature of the character’s greed – his desire to "save" Padme stems directly from his own insecurity and fear, which has manifested itself in misdirected rage and confusion. The only part of this scene that I find to be perhaps a bit much is when Anakin suggests to Padme that they join together and overthrow the Chancellor – the rapidity of that development seemed to be incongruous to the surrounding fabric. But all scenes with McDiarmid in them are very well paced. These scenes are excellent because of McDiarmid's acting experience. The extent to which the actor is involved is another aspect - particularly as it relates to no tactile contact with his/her environment. McDiarmid was undoubtedly able to draw on his experience in theater in order to craft his performance on-set, amidst the relatively sparse sets and rampant blue-screen environments. His work in the picture is utterly magnificent - a sinewy, accomplished portrait of villainy that (transformation scene aside) is not only representative of some of the finest acting in the six-film cycle, but is more than deserving of serious Oscar consideration. The blue screen element often plays havoc with an actors performance (see numerous comments by Liam Neeson and MacGregor). That’s probably true, yet I liked the performances by both of those actors (although McGregor was not terribly impressive in TPM, due in large part, I imagine, to the nature of his role as it was scripted; for large parts of that film, Obi-Wan was relegated to the periphery of the narrative, given little to do apart from some relatively menial errands issued by his mentor). Neeson was the heart of "Episode I," giving what is arguably one of the more distinguished performances in the entire SW canon; yes, there were scenes in which he did not seem to fully inhabit his character – his line-readings were a bit starchy, you might say – and yet Neeson was able to bring a certain gravitas to his portrayal that made Qui-Gon an immensely soulful and well-defined figure. And Portman's performance leaves something to be desired in all three films. Once again, I am inclined to agree with you; however, contrary to popular opinion, I feel that Portman was very effective in the concluding act of "Episode III," in which her character’s pleas to her husband were heartfelt and genuinely affecting, consequently imparting the denouement with a moral gauge of sorts, as well as a significant amount of emotional, and dramatic, resonance. On padme's death: I would agree with you on most points. The material with which an actor is given is part and parcel of the performance given. Ultimately, Padme somehow "losing the will to live" (as if her existence was intrinsically tied to Anakin) fails because it goes completely against what we know to be her character. As I had stated earlier, I don’t in principle have a problem with the concept of Padme "losing the will to live," even if it is against her dogmatic civil beliefs; if Lucas intended to cultivate a transcendent spiritual connection between Padme and Anakin (a conceit which is perhaps given a modicum of credence in the "rumination" sequence), then the idea could theoretically function within the context of the material, as it is meant to traverse pragmatism and standard personal ideology. However, there wasn’t enough substantial material within the framework of Episodes I-III that properly anticipated this development, which only results in the viewer’s common sense undermining the dramatic weight of the crucial passage which describes Padme’s death. Personally, I am able to forgive the shortcomings of the scene’s underlying concept because I felt that the sequence was generally well-performed and thus worked on a more visceral, dramatic plane. Rather, Anakin should have bee completely responsible for her death - whether that was physically ending her life or killing her by mistake. I’m not sure that any of this ultimately matters; what is important is that Anakin thinks that he is responsible for his wife’s death, something which gives the Faustian entreaty between Skywalker and Palpatine a sad, fated irony. The ferocity of the duel is present. However, it doesn't necessarily display the drama or significance of the duel between Yoda and Sidious. I think that there is a slightly different tonality that characterizes each of the duels in question; however, they are interwoven in such a way that Lucas is able to synthesize a vigorous, chimerical power that makes all of the on-screen transpirations unfold with a dizzying immediacy. Perhaps this was out of expectation but Yoda's efforts to make one last lonely effort to correct things was unexpected and was filled with drama and desperation. That the galaxy hinged on the battle taking place in the senate chambers is poignant - the concept that Yoda tried to end it; that Palpatine vanquishing him resulted in Imperial rule and oppresion is quite stirring. Whereas the Duel while spectacular leaved little to the imagination with the exception of how it actually ends. Lucas' accomplishment in the duel between Obi-Wan and Anakin, apart from the obvious technical and effects wizardry, was to make a fierce, interpersonal engagement whose outcome we knew, appear both spectacular and urgent. The suspense factor is diminished, I supposed, due to our collective foreknowledge, and yet the sequence is surprisingly effective in terms of its dramatic impact, given weight, I suspect, by the masterfully realized sequence that preceded it on the Mustafar landing platform. That said, some of the dialogue between the two combatants seemed to be a bit forced – tacked-on, if you will (which is probably not a coincidence, as it would appear that the lines were added during pick-ups). The Yoda-Sidious duel, as you have eloquently suggested, did have an element of uncertainty to it (meaning it was lost amidst the hype surrounding the "main event," as it were), and indeed its epic and intimate details were well-considered by director Lucas. On ESB: the praise that is heaped upon ESB inside and outside of this forum (if it matters) is due in large part to the story itself. Of course, we cannot forget that ESB benefits from one of the greatest plot twists in film history. True, while the plot twist in "Empire" is classic, it can only be "new" once (I was aware of it before I even had the chance to see the film); the success of ESB does not therefore hinge specifically upon the gimmickry of a plot device, and it is a measure of the film’s power that it is able to work in spite of it. Kershner and his actors do such a good job of realizing the conclusion to the picture that Vader’s revelation functions dramatically within the context of the material, which probably explains why it continues to endure. This adds to the films drama which left so many people wanting more at the end. The last 30 minutes of the film are probably the best with ROTS coming in second or third (depending on how much of a purist you are). That’s true; my only significant complaints about "Empire" pertain to the endless opening scenes on Hoth. Once Han and Leia are aboard the Falcon, and Luke arrives on Dagobah, the film achieves – and sustains – a kind of perfection. Conversely, the latter portion of ANH has not aged particularly well for me – indeed, that film is sort of like ESB in reverse, in which the first three quarters of the picture are brilliant, and the final half-hour, including the assault on the Death Star, just goes on and on. Insert a better dialogue between characters and the added depth of the protagonists and antagonists, it makes for a more emotionally charged film. Although, I will concede that the end of ROTS leaves the SW fan in an emotional trainwreck. ROTS' denouement is terrific filmmaking. Again we will never know for sure. However the added depth that might have been given had Kirshner been at the helm could only have helped ROTS. I think that, as other posters have pointed out, Kersh would have brought some elements to the film that might have improved aspects of it, and yet there would undoubtedly be some trade-offs as well, probably in the visionary/spectacle aspects of the picture. Whether that is a good or a bad thing is impossible to say. It is, however, interesting to speculate. Nice discussion. -----signature----- "The screen is a magic medium. It has such power that it can retain interest as it conveys emotions and moods that no other art form can hope to tackle." - Stanley Kubrick
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
MasterP Registered: Jun '03	Date Posted: 1/24/06 3:54pm Subject: RE: Should Kirshner have directed ROTS
	Should Kirshner have directed ROTS No. Episode III is fine the way it is. Except it. -----signature----- Oh Lord, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the Earth. Mad Halo gamer - XBOX LIVE Gamertag: Pflugs
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
emporergerner Registered: Jul '05	Date Posted: 1/24/06 4:00pm Subject: RE: Should Kirshner have directed ROTS
	After watching Empire of Dreams documentry it states that Kirshners greatest quality is that he portrays the characters personality very well. And in my opinion ESB has the greatest character portryal, than in any other SW film. So maybe if they had Kirshner do the Character dialog or scenes that really focused on the character.Would really have added character depth to ROTS. Emporer Gerner Dark Lord of the Sith -----signature----- Student of Vancouver film school "What fuels your power with the Force but your passion? The stronger, darker emotions. Anger, hatred, fear… these passions empower us." " I believe whatever doesn't kill you simply makes you... stranger. "
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
redsabreanakin Registered: Feb '05	Date Posted: 1/24/06 4:33pm Subject: RE: Should Kirshner have directed ROTS
	No I do not. Kirshner made a fine film; one of the best in the saga. Does this make him a terrific director? No? look at his other work, not exactly what you would call "great works of art"; and don't believe for a second that Kirshner did this all himself. Lucas was around. -----signature----- "you always were a cunning linguist; James" "of course..no sense in going off half cocked" "keeping the british end up sir!" "well? providing the collars and cuffs match" "you'll just have to decide how much pumping is needed"
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 - Previous | Next | Reload

Jedi Council Forums » Star Wars Films » Revenge of the Sith »