The F-Word: Man of Steel: Why All the Hubbub

Disclaimer: in the past, I've had a blog focused on my artwork. This is not such a blog, as I've more-or-less given up on that, and have decided to focus on this blog. No artwork is mine unless explicitly stated, and upon finding information about photographers, I will include that.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Welcome to the inaugural installment of my brand new comic book blog. The two or three of you who've read my blog on my own website might be wondering why I didn't post more often, and the reason is that I really didn't have much direction. I also tried to start a podcast, but it just wasn't coming together. This time, I have a more concrete idea: to share my thoughts on comic books and, to a lesser extent, movies and TV shows, especially ones based on comics. And what better way to start than with the most important character in the history of comics?

Yes, this is a Superman-centric comic book blog. If you don't like that... just go.

That being the case, I am going to talk about the most divisive thing to happen to Superman in... well, two years. Seriously, fellow fans, don't we have the most broken base in all of fandom? Well, in any case, I'm here to talk about why I loved Man of Steel, and why I--as with many fans, but I can only speak for myself--have been so emotional about it. Long story short, I feel like many of us fans had a hand in making it. Oh, we weren't on the set, rolling gaffer tape or lighting the actors; but I feel that without us, Warners would have either made a terrible film as a sequel to Superman Returns... or no film at all.

Before I begin, though, I'd just like to say that I know some people are going to be annoyed, or even insulted, by my sounding like I'm trying to read peoples' minds. Yes, I admit it's condescending. But I also think it's important to show that I have an understanding of where I think people are coming from, and to be honest that I think that a lot of old-time fans simply aren't being fair. Admittedly, many of the people who do like MoS are the irritating "highbrows" (note: we're using TV Tropes terminology here) and have an attitude about everything before 1986 (the year of a particularly significant reboot in the comics) just sucks, with the possible exception of things from the Golden Age because the early stories had more of an edge to them.

Truth, Justice and All That Stuff...

In 2004, Warner Bros announced that Bryan Singer, hot off the success of the first two X-Men movies, would be throwing his hat into a long list of directors who had been involved in making a Superman film. Tim Burton, McG, Brett Ratner and even Oliver Stone had all been courted to helm a new Superman film while writers such as Cary Bates, Kevin Smith, J.J. Abrams and others had written screenplays which have since leaked all over the internet. Long story short, it went from a sequel to the Christopher Reeve films (possibly starring Gerard Christopher of Superboy fame) to a Batman rip-off starring Nicholas Cage loosely based on the death & return saga from the comics (and with unfathomable alterations to the costume) to a reboot that was trying too hard to be The Phantom Menace and The Matrix all rolled into one, though not without the Superman magic.

That magic was what fandom expected more and more as the making of Superman Returns got under way. Singer was constantly talking about how much he loved the first film at a time when its influence was being felt thanks to Smallville and the Spider-Man films. Unknown Brandon Routh was cast in the leading role based on his resemblance to Christopher Reeve, who had passed away around the time the project began. My excitement reached a pitch when it was announced that it would follow the first two films, although I felt it was a little cheap to ignore the third-and-fourth films even if they were so unpopular. Also, as we would learn, it would be in broad strokes and in comic book time.

But anyway, the first two X-Men films were great and DC's other tentpole Batman Begins was awesome, so this would be great, right?

When I first saw the image above, the John Williams Superman theme started playing, but then the trumpet section fell out of breath. Oh, it wasn't any less faithful than Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man costume. All the elements were basically there. But just look at them. The S is too small, the red is too dark and muted, the neck-line looks too hoighty-toighty, the boots are just ugly, and I don't know what's going on with the belt and the trunks. It looks more like a speedo, and while I couldn't see it in this image, how could they take the S off the back of the cape (which makes him look less generic) and yet put it on his belt buckle like a prize from a box of cereal?

But anyway, what's important is the story, right? After-all, aren't you tired of superhero films that are all action and no plot? It was going to focus on the romance, which after the earlier Superman films, the first two Spider-Man films and even Daredevil... was one of those things that isn't original, but people talk about it like it is.

In a nutshell, this was the premise of Superman Returns: Superman catches wind that Krypton might not have blown up. He travels there just to check it out, and returns to Earth after five years have passed and without him, life on Earth... is pretty much what it was before. Seriously, the promotion for the film promised they'd explore a world without Superman. But since we DO live on a world without Superman, what's the point? 9/11 happened? There's war?

Yup, things are pretty much the same except for Lois who has moved on with a son and a fiancé
and is angry enough with him to write an opinion piece about how the world doesn't need Superman. After-all, it's not like he saved her from a helicopter accident, being killed in the aftermath of an attack on the San Andres Fault, and a terror attack on the Eiffel Tower. So why the ingratitude? Well, he left without saying goodbye.

Here's the thing: I really don't know how to feel about that. After-all, him leaving and not telling her (because it would be "too painful," he being such a noble hero) is a dick move, but to be fair, did it ever cross her mind that he was in some sort of danger from a possible secret mission in space?

Whatever, throughout the course of the film, we have to sympathize with Superman because the only woman he ever loved for some reason, has moved on to find a guy who seems nice enough, and while that goes unresolved, we also learn he's the real father of Lois' son.

THIS is our Superman, folks: this is the "oh, thank God they didn't turn him into an anti-hero or he'd be a bad role-model," we've been waiting for. Someone to say, "if you had a kid you didn't know about, it's okay, Superman made the same mistake," and, "if something's too painful for you on an emotional level, it's not worth doing." Now, to this day, fans are trying to defend the film and they always say, "look, Superman made that big speech at the end, so he's totally going to watch over Jason."

Ignoring the rumored script for the sequel (which REALLY doesn't help their position), all Superman did was make a speech about how he plans to watch over Jason... which is what he's supposed to do for everyone. Really, that's as specific as it gets, and unless the next film started immediately after this manipulative scene ended (highly unlikely), it would by definition make him a deadbeat dad, even if the predictable ending of the two of them ending up as a couple raising Jason did eventually take place.

Oh, and I almost forgot: there was some story in the movie about how Lex was going to use Superman's crystals to cover the con... you know, it's really too stupid.

So Now What?

It's hard to describe how broken the base was after Superman Returns. In a more convenient world, that film with the undesirable ending would have been the "darker and edgier" one, so Hollywood could roll up its sleeves and make a film that was so vibrant and uplifting that fans would flock to see it.

Sadly, since Singer was at-least trying to make a film that was, at once, joyous and intellectual and where we're supposed to think of Superman as not especially noble, but a Christ-like figure; it was hard to explain to people that this film pissed me--and I'm not alone--off because they had portrayed him in a way many fans found offensive. The typical Singer-Puppet accused me of wanting a film with nothing but action.

I wasn't alone, however Warner Bros did not seem to be happy with the box office figures either. The film was budgeted at a staggering $270 million, and while this figure may have included earlier incarnations of the project, the fact was that a worldwide gross of under $400 million, with just over $200 million coming from the U.S. wherein it was one of the slowest films to reach that all-important figure (the distributor gets a smaller share of ticket sales with each passing week) it was a disappointment.

Now, to follow what I'm about to say, I am asking for a conceit: that film studios DO look at what fans have to say. Yes, they are going to make changes to the source material to make it more commercial, and yes, different fans are going to have different things to say about it; but it's clear that after a certain Bat-bomb in 1997, movie studios--least of all, Warner Bros--cannot just simply say, "eff the fans, we know what we're doing," and while there will never be a perfect translation of any comic book--especially with Superman and Batman who have been rebooted so many times in the comics alone and had many influential outings on TV and in earlier films--if enough fans can agree on a certain sentiment, it will be heard and considered.

This was our opportunity as a fandom to say, "look, Warner Bros., this didn't go as well as you'd hoped, did it? Now, what you're gonna do is go back to the drawing board, and give us a new Superman. If you do, we will give you some dinero. If not, you'll have squandered the most important fictional character of the 20th century."

Unfortunately, while they seemed to have gotten the memo by August of 2008 (the summer of The Dark Knight and Iron Man), with Warners CEO Jeff Robinov saying, "we're going to try to go dark to the extent that the characters allow it," which is a relatively generic thing to say, but at that very moment, the internet was abuzz about a "dark" Superman reboot. Whatever "dark" meant.

To make a long story short, the problem with Superman Returns was somewhat misdiagnosed. To me, and I don't think I'm alone, the problem wasn't that it wasn't "dark" enough, but that in a manner of speaking, it was "too dark." But I also know that some people didn't see it that way. One thing we could all agree on was that Superman Returns could have at-least used some more action. Sadly, another lesson people took from it was that was that the earlier films were somewhat "dated," and that while I think we can all agree that quoting so many lines from Superman: the Movie was overwrought, I for one don't think it was that approach that failed Superman Returns, however, trying that approach again would not be easy to market.

Simply put: the feeling was that they had to start over.

Enter Nolan

After a year-and-a-half of speculation, it was announced that Christopher Nolan would produce the new Superman film and it wasn't long before David Goyer and Josh Nolan were announced as the writers. For many fans, this was the shot in the arm we'd been waiting for, but for the unfortunate onlookers, it was another reason to fear a "dark reboot." Why? Because Chris Nolan's Batman films were seen as the preeminent "dark" superhero movies, and because... let's face it... most people who talk about films on the internet seem to be under the impression that a given filmmaker is some sort of "tone machine," and that he would only be capable of making a film that was identical to The Dark Knight, which despite its acclaim, was easily as "dark" as Tim Burton's Batman films, and when he was on the project, we know he had a lot of terrible ideas up his sleeve.

Sadly, people neglected to see that the reason The Dark Knight was so successful wasn't just that it was "dark" but because it was a great suspense thriller. Nope. He brought whiskey onto the playground, and while that's great for Batman, it's wrong to do it with Superman.

Let the posturing begin.

Meanwhile, in fandom, we Superman fans began asking ourselves some intense questions. What is tone? Why is it so important? Is it more important that the film isn't "dark," or that the character himself isn't? How do you even define or quantify "dark?" Couldn't we use the D-word to describe some key storylines? Like Doomsday and Reign of the Supermen? Or Kingdom Come? Or even some episodes of The Adventures of Superman like "Czar of the Underworld," or, "Mystery in Wax?"

Soon enough, announcements were being made: Nolan had a shortlist of directors including Tony Scott, Matt Reeves, Jonathan Liebesman, Duncan Jones and his eventual choice, Zack Snyder. I really wasn't happy at first, because Snyder had said something about him not being able to see Superman in a "modern context," but then I thought, well, Bruce Timm has said a lot worse, and the animated series he'd directed was still great, so what's really important is what's on screen.

I held my breath as I waited for more announcements, and after a while, they were coming at us thick and fast... and a bunch of self-styled purists, eager to stake their claim their title as the greatest of the elite, couldn't keep their mouths shut.

The Bitch Is Back

First off, Zack Snyder wasn't exactly the most popular director in Hollywood. His adaptations of Dawn of the Dead and 300 were successful enough, but his Watchmen movie (based on one of the most revered miniseries' in comic book history) was controversial to say the least, and his magnum opus Sucker Punch was universally decried. Still, the casting of Kevin Costner as Jonathan Kent was inspired, and since Henry Cavill was a fan-favorite, you'd think he'd be praised, right?

Nope. Suddenly, people were complaining about a British actor playing an American Icon. Yup. How dare they cast a man from another country as a man from another planet? And it only got worse from there. Amy Adams as Lois Lane? Too perky. Russell Crowe as Jor-El? I don't know what their beef was. Lawrence Fishburne as Perry White? Yes, people decried him because he was black. Now I'm not going to accuse them of racism, but I do think that when we're talking about a respected actor of the same body-type, it's okay if his skin is a little darker. Then, there was the announcement that Michael Shannon was the main villain: one General Zod. Welp, the same people who had complained about how this wasn't similar enough to the earlier films were now complaining that the villain who was mainly important for being the enemy in Superman II was the villain here instead of someone who hadn't graced the silver screen before (e.g. Brainiac, Metallo, Parasite, Bizarro, Darkseid, Doomsday, etc.) and many of those who had clamored for a reboot were right with them.

Then came the costume.

Admission: when I first saw this costume, I didn't notice the bracelets or other details, and I couldn't tell whether or not he was wearing the trunks. Furthermore, it looked like he was wearing a black belt, which I'd have been fine with. In a sense, this costume told us a lot... without telling us much at all. In the meantime, the comics had rebooted the characters (or were about to, I'm a little fuzzy on the dates) and a new costume had surfaced for the character with a more aggressive attitude and certain political bent. I'm actually NOT going to get into the "New 52" here, except to say that I really hope DC stops calling it that.

Anyway, I could walk you through every little development along the road, but the point here is that it seemed like no matter what they did, people were convinced that this was going to be some sort of "grim & gritty" attempt to "make Superman dark," and that this movie about a man from another planet who can fly and see through walls would be "too realistic."

So What's So Great About Man of Steel?

Basically... the same thing that was great about the rest of the Superman canon. If I were to sell it to a longtime fan, I'd say that yes, it's the familiar origin, but with more depth and better special effects than anything since, or even including, Superman: the Movie. Henry Cavill was the greatest Superman since Christopher Reeve, that Amy Adams is the best Lois since Teri Hatcher, that Russell Crowe is the greatest Jor-El ever, and even the changes to the mythos were interesting. To non-fans (not haters, but just casual viewers, eff the haters), I'd say that it's a science fiction epic about first contact, and what someone might do if they found out there's an alien... and there's a lot of pulse-pounding action.

This movie may have a darker tone, but it's nothing like some people made it out to be. It's not "gritty" except for the scenes of young Clark being bullied (which were somewhat intense) and for everything people were worried about, Clark is not an anti-hero, except in the classical sense of lacking some of the traits of a hero. Some might say they're turning him more into Spider-Man, plagued with self-doubt, but all that means is that they're using outside influence to find a new light on something that was already there.

Finally, as I go through the various complaints with this film, I want to say that while I'd have been up for a nostalgic, bolder-than-a-rainbow Superman film that tried to be more like the Iron Man films or whatever people were expecting, it is its own take. Any exploit of any long-running superhero, will only ever be someone's own take. The two youngsters who created the character are long gone, and their original Superman was tamed within a few years. Ironically, the people who hate this film for trying to go for any "dark" or "modern" trends are forgetting that the early stories were "dark" and that the Superman they tend to favor IS a modernization. The unflappable, all-powerful Superman of the '40s and '50s was a product of the atomic age. In my heart, I love those stories, but I also know that the character's past can only be preserved with an eye on the future, as that's what they did back then.

For that matter, where would the great Christopher Reeve have been if his films weren't in an arms race of special effects with the Star Wars pictures?

Anyway, the best way to defend Man of Steel is to start at the end and work our way back, so let's do this.

Superman snaps Zod's neck... killing him! How can you possibly defend that!?!

In 1988, writer/artist John Byrne had wrapped up his two year run on the character (which began with a reboot called, yes, Man of Steel) in a story entitled The Supergirl Saga. Explaining the ins-and-outs of that story would be beyond the scope but it ends with a story in which Superman kills General Zod and two other Kryptonian villains.

Now, by itself, this might not have been enough to justify it. After-all, the events leading up to the killing of Zod, and the nature of the killing itself, weren't especially similar to this three-part story. And yet, because what took place in this story was an execution, rather than a snap-judgement with people in immediate danger like in the film itself, the film version is even more justified. Also, as in the comics, Superman shows great remorse, so at the very least, this isn't just, "¡Hasta la vista... baby!" this is a moment he regrets, despite it being necessary to protect other lives. Even that might be somewhat impeachable as the writers could have put him in some completely different scenario, however this wasn't just any comic, but a very pivotal one, whose effects spawned even more important events in what's known as the "From Crisis to Crisis" era.

Despite what some utterly ignorant people have claimed, this was not an attempt to make Superman "hip" by killing a bad guy, but a direct reference to a monumental moment in the character's history.

What about the destruction of Metropolis during the fight?

Well, for one thing, it's not like Superman flew into these buildings just for shit and giggles, General Zod was punching him into them. But at the risk of pointing at bad behavior to justify more bad behavior, this is such an obvious double-standard. This sort of thing happens in an action movie. Buildings get destroyed, and you just gotta say, "welp, I hope it was Sunday so everyone was at home praying."

Then there's the charge that there weren't enough scenes of Superman saving people, there's really two ways to address this. On a pragmatic level, Superman is in mortal combat with the most powerful supervillain in the universe. He has to keep fighting back, nobody else can. Hopefully, emergency response and the military are getting people the help they need. On a more thematic level, well, there's a shot of Superman saving a military pilot from a helicopter. This is to remind us all that he's not just there to punch bad guys, and while you may not feel it was enough, don't tell me that they didn't even attempt to show that side of him.

Why didn't Martha...

If we're to take some peoples' complaints at face value, they seem to want a scene where Martha and Clark rebuild the Kent home brick by brick. To be fair, it shouldn't be a task for Clark, and I'll have to review the DVD sometime to see if they did, indeed, not fix it while Clark was trying to figure out a new vocation.

And yes, it's contrived that he became a "stringer" at a bigtime newspaper without any apparent journalistic education or experience. I'm not sure about Smallville, but as far as I know, the only live-action version that had a really convincing account of how Clark ended up at the Daily Planet was Lois & Clark.

The Codex thing was hard to follow, and so was the hologram of Jor-El.

I agree, the Codex was--as McGuffins go--hard to follow. I also think it would have been better if the Jor-El hologram had an effect on it to remind us that it is a hologram, and I think they could have done so without being too derivative of the earlier films. It does get confusing. I won't argue.

That said, if you can't agree that Lois Lane--played by Amy Adams--running around a space ship with a ray gun is awesome, you can take the purist attitude and stick it in your ear!

Incidentally, I do wish they'd dyed her hair black, or at-least a darker shade of red, but whatever, she had red hair in the comics during the '90s...

Drawing © D.C. Comics circa 1997. Artist unknown.

...and in the later episodes of The Adventures of Superman.

Superman should have sought Jor-El's advice instead of going to some random priest.

First, for all we know, he's an exceptional priest. Second, he wasn't consulting him for some sort of strategy, he wanted moral advice. He wasn't sure what to do, and while the priest didn't seem all that helpful ("what does your gut tell you?") I'm not really sure that he didn't consult Jor-El or that he would have told him to do something he didn't already do.

I'll recheck when I get a chance to watch the DVD, but let's face it: I doubt that Jor-El--who ends up being re-killed--would have had all the answers anyway.

The costume... how could they change something so iconic?

I agree that this is an incredibly iconic costume.

I also think this was iconic.

And yet, with each film, costume designers veer further away from that design with Batman. And yet, in almost all of these designs, and yet, they're still Batman...

What the alterations have done is make us look at what makes Batman who he is. What are the basics of the costume that make it so identifiable? When we can distill that, we understand what makes the costume so "iconic" and so it is with Superman.

Between the New 52, Man of Steel, Injustice and even Superman: Earth One, what does not get changed reminds us of what makes the character an "icon" that's so well-known. Even though the "underwear on the outside" is a part of the classic Batman design, it was jettisoned in the movies, and eventually Warners realized they had to do so with Superman as well. The important elements are still there: the red cape, boots and S atop a blue bodysuit.

And if you want to say it's too dark, fine, I won't argue, but it's not the first time.

Okay, bad example.

They fundamentally changed the relationship between Lois & Clark

And that is true. However, this is another example of "my Superman vs your Superman." By the time I started reading the comics with even a mild regularity, she knew Superman and Clark Kent were one-in-the-same. Of course, it didn't start out that way. In fact, he only revealed his true identity after they were engaged. However, I think that because so many people found it a bridge too far that this ace reporter couldn't tell that her own co-worker was really this powerful figure she had a crush on, I think they made the right decision. It just all kind-of adds up.

Everything about Jonathan Kent was wrong.

Well... that's a tough one. In Superman: the Movie, they make a meal out of how, "all these powers... and I couldn't even save him." Yes, Jonathan's callousness about the other kids on the bus was out of character. They'd basically changed him from someone trying to inspire altruism to someone fearful of what will happen if they find out about Clark. However, it's not completely without precedent. I will agree that the death scene itself is somewhat contrived and they could have filmed it better.

As for those of you who think that the wonderful thing about Superman is that he doesn't have a particular motivation, but just does good for goodness' sake, well, I won't argue with you, but it was a major bone of contention with some other fans (especially on imdb) that there was no such motivating factor, so my question is, is it really so wrong?

Okay, at one point, he trashes a guy's truck for bullying him.

Well, first, he wasn't just bullying him, he was also harassing a waitress. But also, this isn't the first time Superman's gotten petty revenge on a bully. Heck, a bully character was introduced--Steve Lombard (who appears in the movie, but doesn't bully Clark, ironically enough)--to allow Clark to pull pranks on him, which you can see in the animated films Superman: Unbound and All-Star Superman or read most comics from the '70s.

Plus, at the end of Superman II, he basically assaults a guy in a diner who had beaten in up back when he didn't have his powers. Here, he just broke his truck. "What if there was a kid inside taking a nap..." oh, go to Hell.

There's a part where he has a beard and trying to look all scary...

No, he's not trying to look scary. Listen, in most comic versions, there's a time when Superman doesn't have his costume, and solves some problem in plain clothes. That's what we've got here. Yes, he'll have his red & blue costume, but in the meantime, here he is before he gets it. He's still saving people from a horrible disaster.

Krypton...

Yes, they changed Krypton drastically from what it had been in the Christopher Reeve movies. But do you really want a history lesson on the planet Krypton? At every point before the films came out, Krypton was supposed to resemble this futuristic wonder world like in an old Flash Gordon serial and it stayed that way even after the film came out. In the 1986 reboot, it was reimagined as this cold, anticeptic world from which this film took some cues, but it was still a far cry from the ice planet with magic crystals of the Christopher Reeve movies. That never entered the comics until the 2006 reboot, which tried to incorporate elements of the Christopher Reeve movies.

Every version of Krypton has been different, and this was just another example. What works and what doesn't is subjective, but the important thing is for it to appear technologically advanced enough to support a rocket that can travel a few galaxies away.

Finally, the tone of the film is just too dark...

...and yet, isn't there a certain amount of subjectivity? Look: there is more to Superman than the blazing trumpets of John Williams and the million dollar smile of Christopher Reeve, and while those films could hardly be considered dark (except for maaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyybe the fourth one, relatively speaking) they weren't a two-hour long pep rally either.

What Superman Returns taught me, in all its manipulative glory, is that tone is neither that important nor easy to pin down. You can have a sociopathic killer as your protagonist in a light-hearted movie (The Spy Who Loved Me) and a more compassionate, basically good protagonist in a dark and scary movie (Halloween). The tone of a horror movie can actually be pretty light (Jaws) and an incredibly dark and sinister film can have a hopeful message (Terminator). Superman fandom cannot continue to make everything about light and dark, especially when the character is becoming "the other guy" to Batman whose made a fortune for Warner Bros off of "darker" material, even though his credentials as an anti-hero are a bit inflated.

Some fans (young and old) love to put their hands on their hips and say, "today, everything has to be so dark and gloomy just to make a buck, whereas in the days of Christopher Reeve, a delightful and whimsical film could still make everyone happy and that's the way things ought to be," but the Marvel Studios films and for that matter, J.J. Abrams Star Trek films are acorns of the Christopher Reeve Superman films that haven't fallen too far from the tree. Meanwhile, films like Avatar and The Hunger Games may be somewhat "dark" but that's not exactly the first word that comes to mind, and that's about where I'd put this movie.

As for the idea that the film is "too realistic," not only is it still basically a sci-fi/fantasy film at heart, but this is the first time anyone has ever criticized realism in films. No really, find another example of that.

The idea they're trying to convey is that they've tried too hard to make Man of Steel out to be a clone of Chris Nolan's Batman films, but they're way off. People keep talking about them making him a "vigilante" but he had no choice but to fight of Zod's forces, and in the meantime, he never deals with street crime, which makes a vigilante a vigilante: a tag you'd have an easier time trying to pin on George Reeves in the '50s.

However, both Man of Steel and The Dark Knight do have something in common, which is that in each case, the hero kills a major villain. But again, both of them mirror the issue I talked about earlier, which is to say, in both cases, it was done with extreme reluctance and there were major consequences for the hero.

Man of Steel is not without its problems. There are times when Snyder's direction isn't tight enough, and there are times when important elements are almost lost (such as when Clark overhears some soldiers talking about the Canadian outpost he ends up traveling to) but for the shit storm the film had to put up with, it's still a great film.

It's a lot more entertaining than you may have been lead to believe. I'm tired of all of these artificial notions of what Superman can and can't be. The Superman of this film isn't a drunk or a womanizer or a cold-blooded killer. This Superman may have had a face-lift, but he's steeped in the traditions of the character, even if the last Superman-outing made Warner Bros. a little gun shy about laying on the homages.

The F-Word

Monday, November 11, 2013

Man of Steel: Why All the Hubbub

No comments:

Post a Comment