Science Fiction Interpretations

Topic List

Replies | Active | Stats

Post New

General Chat

Chain Games

Author Lounge

Help & Feedback

Movies & TV

Arts & Recreation

People & Celebs

Our World

Literature

Music

Sports

Virtual Blogs

Tributes

Recruiting

Subject: Science Fiction Interpretations

Posted by: brm50diboll
Date: Jan 02 17

I have debated with myself starting a Virtual Blog for months. I have so little free time nowadays that I may not be able to keep it up, but I think I'll at least try. This is intended to be wide-ranging, so it wouldn't fit in the Television, Movies, or Literature boards categories and I don't want to clog up General with just my observations but here I can rant if I choose and people can choose to ignore me or engage my flawed analysis if they wish.

469 replies. On page 19 of 24 pages. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

brm50diboll

It is annoying when you reach a point where you're "invested" in something that you absolutely *must* follow it to the end regardless of your thoughts as things are proceeding. And, as a person trained in the scientific method, I always try to avoid jumping to premature conclusions and withhold judgment until all the data is in.

All the data is now in on Game of Thrones.

It was difficult forcing myself to watch the six episodes that comprised the eighth and final season. Earlier in this blog, I had mentioned I was just getting around to watching Game of Thrones and I had enjoyed the episodes I had seen this far, but I had read that the quality of the writing of the show had begun to fall off as the seasons progressed. Well, I had managed to make it all the way to the end of the seventh season by February and, yes, I *did* have the provisional opinion that the quality of writing was deteriorating. The eighth and final season now sets that opinion of mine in concrete. Badly written fan fiction is a charitable description of the writing in the final season.

The main source of the problem was that the show had progressed beyond the point Martin's books were at, so the show runners did not have his "template" to work with. But there is more wrong than just that. Benioff and Weiss (the show runners) were in a rush to finish GoT so that they could move on to other things, like Star Wars. (Don't get me started on how awful the writing of the most recent Star Wars movies, especially The Last Jedi, have been, and Benioff and Weiss going to Star Wars is pouring gasoline on a burning dumpster fire. I mean, I've always liked Laura Dern since Jurassic Park, but that purple-haired admiral she played in The Last Jedi - OMG! - what a disaster!) HBO had wanted to run GoT for a few more seasons, but they agreed (under pressure from Benioff and Weiss, I believe) to make this the final season and wrap everything up in six episodes. The whole thing was rushed and the motivations of the characters were either poorly explained or just completely ridiculous. I could rant for pages and pages about everything that was done poorly. Let me just pick a few. Episode 3 "The Long Night" (about the Battle of Winterfell against the Night King and his army) was too dark. Couldn't hardly see anything. Arya killing the NK by "apparent teleportation out of nowhere" was ridiculous. It was Jon Snow who was motivated to kill the NK. Arya didn't even have NK on her "list". Pure PC, in my opinion. And Bran did nothing except warg into flying ravens that just flew randomly, as far as I could tell. When NK suddenly is killed, and his whole army instantly disintegrates with him, there are still three episodes left to go in this thing and the "Big Bad" has already been "Snoked". As for Cersei, all she did was stare out windows and drink wine.

I want to keep going, but I feel I'm in a routine of the late Sam Kinison: "Aaaaaaaaaaaaaugh! Aaaaaaaaaaaaaugh! Kill me now!"

It was pouring gasoline on Drogon's dumpster fire.

Reply #361. May 20 19, 4:40 PM

nasty_liar

I agree with this assessment. Rushed and badly written. Very unfortunate. Both seasons 7 and 8 suffered this problem and you’re right that it’s not necessarily because they had gotten past Martin’s book ‘A Dance with Dragons’. Much of the content in season 6 and some of season 5 was set after that book and I enjoyed those two seasons (6 more than 5) as much as the ones that went before.

I almost wish I hadn’t watched seasons 7 and 8 now because up to the end of season 5 I had read the content from the books prior to watching and enjoying them greatly. That is assuming Martin ever gets around to finishing the last two books of course...

Reply #362. May 21 19, 7:04 AM

C30	Change of show...............anyone watched both seasons of Star Trek Discovery? If so.........like?, dislike?..........what you make of them ? Reply #363. May 21 19, 2:53 PM

brm50diboll

I unfortunately haven't. I would have needed a subscription to CBS All Access for that, and I didn't feel it was worth it, even though both Star Trek Discovery and the latest revival of The Twilight Zone are on CBS All Access and they intrigue me. What I have read about Star Trek Discovery and from the clips I have seen, they are attempting to connect it to the beginning of the Original Series. So they have introduced both the Spock and Captain Pike characters that figure prominently in the original pilot, "The Cage". In fact, I have heard Discovery even encounters the Talosians, the mind-reading aliens of "The Cage". But if anyone wants to discuss Discovery, I would be glad to read about it.

Reply #364. May 21 19, 3:29 PM

nasty_liar

I have watched Discovery because it just so happened to be shown by Netflix here in the U.K. and I happen to subscribe to Netflix.... unlike the new Captain Picard series that is going to be shown by Amazon Prime here in the U.K.... suffice to say I'm not paying for another streaming service!

Discovery looks absolutely amazing. The design and effects are spectacular. It feels movie standard in that department.

Unfortunately the writing is terrible. The characters are not developed or consistant. The scenes are often difficult to follow with nonsense technical jargon to explain scenes and situations instead of focusing on how scenes and situations affect characters. It has violence for the sake of violence, it has swearing seemingly just 'because they want to be different' (a totally random and inappropriate F-Bomb dropped into one season one episode being the example). And finally, they felt the need to drop original series characters into the mix in season two, presumably to try to keep fans interested.

It improved quite a bit for season two, but the underlying problems are still there. It improved enough, though, to make me think that perhaps there is the possibility of a good show underneath there especially with the ending of the season, that of course I will not spoil here, lending itself to perhaps more interesting possibilities in season three.

There is not enough sci-fi concept stuff being explored, so you would think the show would become reliant instead on character driven stories... except it writes its characters so badly... hmm...

I'm currently rewatching DS9 at a rate of one or two episodes per week and honestly, watching that concurrently with season two of discovery made it look very weak indeed.

Reply #365. May 21 19, 3:54 PM

nasty_liar

I just thought of a way to explain what Discovery does so badly...

One of my favourite episodes of Star Trek The Next Generation is called The Inner Light. In this episode a probe scans the Enterprise and scans the ship knocking Picard unconscious during which time he lives a lifetime on the planet from where the probe originated. It works well because it explores the concept of this species sending the probe as a way to pass on the information about their society to somebody and the idea of how a person copes with being placed into somebody else's life with no choice but to live it.
It works because the episode focuses almost exclusively on Picard and tracks him through years of life on the planet. It shows him have a family, have grandchildren, function amongst this society, come to love his friends and family and accept his place in that society.

If Discovery made that episode they would probably split the screen time between Picard's new life and on board the ship 50:50. The crew trying to revive Picard would be spouting long sequences of jargon, technical sounding dialogue at each other as one responds to the other working toward sone solution to the problem that the viewer cares nothing about because he or she has no idea what they are saying!!! Whilst this is going on they would no doubt have some crisis external to the ship threatening to collide or otherwise destroy the ship whilst the story goes along, probably with some sort of countdown ("we have 18 minutes until the hull breeches"). Because we'd have spent so long on the long boring scenes on board ship there isn't enough time with Picard on the planet to flesh out the story and allow the viewer to really care about Picard and his family, his new home or his conflict of emotion. So instead, at the climax of the story on the planet you get an overly emotional scene where the characters explain exactly how they are feeling against a backdrop of stirring music so that the audience knows they should be feeling sadness at this point. Oh and they'd throw in some random cliffhanger at the end to lead into the next episode.

Reply #366. May 21 19, 4:49 PM

brm50diboll

There are a lot of reasons (mostly bad) for the sort of writing you're describing. One is most episodes avoid focusing on one main character to the exclusion of the others because the writers and producers feel that every billed main character needs to be in every episode, even if what they say or do contributes nothing to the story of the episode. Writers who have the courage to "write out" main characters not needed for a particular episode are rare, nowadays. And there's "fan service", the idea that particular main characters appeal to particular demographics in the viewing audience and need to be shown triumphing over something. This leads to more stereotypes, not less. A good female character in a story, for example, is not one that needs to point out several times that they're female and can do everything a man can do. "Mary Sues" are a real problem in writing today. If a writer is not allowed to give female characters any weaknesses or failings, then they also cannot show any character growth. A well-written female character would be someone like Ripley in the Alien movies.

Reply #367. May 21 19, 5:29 PM

nasty_liar

I have read lots of commentary from people talking about 'Mary Sue's' recently and I reject it totally. Gender has nothing to do with it because if it were a male character written like that you wouldn't be commenting on the gender, just that they were badly written. Or even worse it might be more accepted that a male character could be written that way. So it's more a reflection on the people writing the commentaries I feel.

Equality on screen is here to stay, thankfully, it's not Mary Sue anymore than it was Johnny Sue when this type of show was filled to the brim with male characters.

Ripley was a great character and I've read her brought up for comparison when complaints are made about Mary Sue's. It's a great character, in a great film with a great performance... is that the only circumstance where a female lead is allowed in that genre without commenting on their gender?

Reply #368. May 22 19, 12:36 AM

brm50diboll

Rey in Star Wars is a Mary Sue. No training, no character growth, no deserving of her feats - defeating Kylo Ren with a lightsaber a few hours after learning of the existence of the Force, able to outpilot Han Solo in the Millennium Falcon. Total nonsense, deliberately and intentionally inserted into Star Wars by Kathleen Kennedy to promote an obvious (an completely unnecessary) political agenda. Girls don't need Mary Sues like Rey to watch Science Fiction. Of course there are many other examples of well-written female characters in science fiction besides Ripley. That is a straw man argument, threadbare and flimsy. The original Princess Leia, for example, Sarah Connor in Terminator, Dr. Sattler in Jurassic Park (I did say I liked Laura Dern), among many others. The key difference is, well-written characters are allowed to have flaws, including personality flaws, they are allowed to be hurt, they are allowed to suffer, they allowed to be disliked by other major characters, they do not have instant expertise in fields they have no training in, and other characters do not constantly praise them. Rey is a prototype Mary Sue.

The Mary Sue was originally invented in 1973 as Star Trek fanfiction, a short story submitted to a Star Trek fanfiction magazine about a 15-and-a-half year old Lieutenant Mary Sue on the Enterprise who is proficient at everything and impresses Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, saving them from their own carelessness. It is also nonsense that there is no male equivalent of the Mary Sue. Any self-inserted "perfect" version the author writes of a character that is instantly proficient in many areas and shows up established main characters qualifies. The male versions, which are rarer indeed because men do not feel a need to press a political "pro-male" agenda into science fiction, are known as Marty Stus or Gary Stus, depending on your source. And the best example of that is Wesley Crusher himself, created by Gene Roddenberry as a thinly-disguised perfect version of himself, and inserted into The Next Generation, who quickly became one of the most disliked characters in Star Trek, a fact even parodied in the early years of the Big Bang Theory when the brought in Will Wheaton to be Sheldon's "Nemesis". Yes, I know they made up later. But the original intent is still clear.

Characters do not need to be perfect or liked by the other characters to be well-written. In fact, the *opposite* is true! Han Solo's derision of Leia as "princess" only serves to show Leia's strengths. No good is done by giving characters traits they clearly do not deserve. This is why, for example, Arya had no business killing the Night King. This sort of lazy writing does not further equality. It just annoys the fan base.

Reply #369. May 22 19, 12:13 PM

brm50diboll

Wil Wheaton. The actor is actually great, and understands perfectly why his character was disliked by so many fans. A lack of humor is also a characteristic of Mary Sues or Gary Stus. The characters (not the actors) cannot understand why *anyone* would dislike them. Only the obvious villains dislike them in schlock science fiction, like The Last Jedi.

Reply #370. May 22 19, 12:22 PM

Skyflyerjen

Game of Thrones season 8 was a dumpster fire. I was going to watch the entire series with my sister, who hasn't seen it.
We're not doing that now.

Why make it just six episodes? What was Bran doing while all of these people were dying for him? What happened to Arya's horse at the beginning of the finale? Why send Jon to the Wall? Why even have a Night's Watch? I get they need to send "bad guys" somewhere, but they're guarding nothing now.

I don't even care about the coffee cup or water bottle. They messed up these characters.
It's still fresh in my mind and it has left a bitter taste in my mouth.

Obviously, Dany was my favorite character. Nuff said.

Reply #371. May 24 19, 11:36 AM

brm50diboll

The reason that they rushed GoT to a finish was that the showrunners Benioff and Weiss (referred to in YouTube comment posts as D&D or even Dumb and Dumber) were in a big hurry to leave to go ruin Star Wars even more (if that is even possible.) I don't have that big a problem with turning Dany into "The Mad Queen". It could have been done gradually and believably in 5 or 6 episodes, but doing it the way they did was crazy. The worst character assassination of the rushed ending, in my opinion, was of Jaime Lannister, who suddenly abandons seven seasons of character development to rush back to Cersei because "she is hateful, and so am I". A great meme of that is the famous picture of Jaime from the pilot episode as he is about to push Bran out the window (The things I do for love, remember?) with the caption: This was foreshadowing the writers pushing eight seasons of character development for Jaime out the window at the end. The same picture has also had the caption: Jaime was such a great Kingslayer that he tried to kill King Bran eight years early.

Reply #372. May 24 19, 3:19 PM

brm50diboll

I just finished rewatching season 3, episode 20 of The Flash (I know, it was Season 3). Anyway, at the end of the episode comes the "big reveal" as Savitar shows Flash and the audience who he really is.

Much earlier in Season 3, Savitar (the Season 3 "Big Bad") had said something to Flash that Flash had thought was: "I am the future, Flash."

But in the big reveal, Savitar says, "Like I told you from the beginning: 'I am the future Flash' ."

Amazing the difference a comma makes.

The much better Season 5 of The Flash is now available on Netflix, with the return of archenemy Reverse Flash. All this time travel and changing the timeline. In The Flash, characters don't just get simply killed. Altered timelines erase them from existence so that they never existed. Too bad for Savitar in the last (23rd) episode of Season 3, too bad for Nora West-Allen in the last (22nd) episode of Season 5. But Reverse Flash survives even erasure from the timeline. Those "erasure" scenes are always pretty cool to watch. Kind of like 1984. Savitar and Nora are unpersons.

Reply #373. Jun 01 19, 4:02 PM

brm50diboll

So both Hulu and Netflix decide to do an "episode dump" on the same day, yesterday and I've just now emerged from the binge watching of the first three episodes of the new third season of "The Handmaid's Tale" on Hulu and *all* three episodes of the new fifth season of "Black Mirror" on Netflix.

How Charlie Brooker can get away with calling three episodes a "season" is beyond me. I know, he complained that the "Bandersnatch" interactive special episode released last December set back his timetable, but still. I'm not too impressed by the "fifth season", though. The three episodes: "Striking Vipers", "Smithereens", and "Rachel, Jack and Ashley Too" were definitely lower in quality than previous Black Mirror episodes. I did get a bit of a kick out of the last one, "Rachel, Jack and Ashley Too", which guest starred Miley Cyrus. Yes, it was an obvious publicity stunt, but it was funny. Seeing Miley Cyrus doing some sort of heavy metal/punk rock concert in a seedy dive bar as the closing credits rolled was hilarious, especially as the teen fangirls ran out screaming "That was horrible!". For all her myriad of problems, Miley Cyrus does have a bit of a self-deprecating sense of humor. I should've noticed that when she did SNL.

"Bow down before the one you serve.
You're going to get what you deserve...."

So (spoiler alert!) Miley's character of Ashley is saved by her doll, Ashley Too, which apparently contains a complete duplicate of her consciousness. The whole consciousness-duplicated AI concept was used in earlier episodes to more profound effect, but a little "comic relief" is OK for a series as dark as Black Mirror.

As to the third season of "The Handmaid's Tale", that one still has a bunch more episodes to come but I thought the first three episodes set a good stage. I'm intringued by the new character played by Bradley Whitford, Commander Joseph Lawrence. He seems complex, which I like. Neither the "savior" he appeared to be in the final episode of season two nor the "psychopath" June thinks he is by episode 3 of season 3. The development of this character, and the fleshing out of whatever his true motivations are, should be interesting.

As one of the "architects" of Gilead, the story seems to be playing out for commander Lawrence as if he were a sort of Karl Marx who had somehow lived to see the reign of Stalin in his name and now is rethinking his philosophy.

Reply #374. Jun 06 19, 3:30 PM

brm50diboll

I'm still getting a kick out of Miley Cyrus' performance as "Ashley O" in the latest Black Mirror episode, "Rachel, Jack and Ashley Too". Multiple YouTube videos of her music performances in that episode are popping up. They are mostly cover versions of the Nine Inch Nails song "Head Like a Hole". "Ashley O" does two different versions of this song. I read that Black Mirror got permission from Nine Inch Nails to do the altered lyrics in the covers.

In the first version, the pop one, entitled "On a Roll", major alterations in the lyrics and the tone were performed as pink-haired Ashley in a paean to narcissism.

Oh honey, I'll do anything for you
Oh honey, Just tell me what you want me to
Oh honey, Kiss me up against the wall
Oh honey, Don't think anything Just have it all

Yeah, I can't take it. So don't you fake it
I know your love's my destiny
Yeah, I can't take it. Please demonstrate it
'Cause I'm going down in history

Hey yeah o ho!
I'm on a roll!
Riding so high
Achieving my goals

Hey yeah o ho!
I'm on a roll!
Riding so high
Achieving my goals

I'm stoked on ambition and verve
I'm gonna get what I deserve
So full of ambition and verve
I'm going to get what I deserve

[Repeat lyrics once]

Now, there are several things I find truly hilarious about this. For one, the lyric I listed as "Hey yeah o ho!" I'll just say was *generously* interpreted by me. One YouTube video actually lists that particular lyric as "Hey I'm a ho!", which in fact is *exactly* what it sounds like. Charlie Brooker doesn't do anything in Black Mirror by accident. The "Ashley Too" doll, a kind of twisted version of Alexa (a digital personal assistant), also with pink hair, contains a copy of Ashley's actual consciousness which has been "limited" so that only the "positive, upbeat" parts of her brain are accessible. But the teen girls Rachel and her sister Jack manage to delete the "limiter" giving the doll full access to Ashley's full consciousness, at which point Ashley Too lets loose with a string of profanities which I completely cracked up over. Now Rachel is a big Ashley O fan with a complete obsession with her positive, upbeat pop message. But her older sister Jack (who wears a nose ring) is a sort of downbeat grunge/indie/punk rock musician who hates Ashley O but helps rescue her anyway from her evil aunt who keeps her drugged and comatose in her Malibu mansion while she creates an "Ashley Eternal" hologram of her to cash in on her pop fame.

After the rescue, as the final credits roll, Ashley, now with curly dirty blonde locks reminiscent to me of one phase of Madonna's long career with her multiple reinventions of herself, does a more true cover of "Head Like a Hole" in the dive bar with Jack providing backup lyrics. The fans are all bobbing their heads like Beavis and Butthead, and doing the "UT Hook'em horns" hand gestures. Rachel is there, looking confused, with the Ashley Too doll still sporting pink hair, but now with an anarchist "A" emblem, also head-bobbing. The tone is much darker, and the lyrics now are:

(Dedicated to her s***ty aunt)

God money, I'll do anything for you
God money, Just tell me what you want me to
God money, Nail me up against the wall
God money, Don't want everything he wants it all

No you can't take it
No you can't take it
No you can't take
That away from me

No you can't take it
No you can't take it
No you can't take
That away from me!

Head like a hole!
Black as your soul!
I'd rather die
Than give you control!

Head like a hole!
Black as your soul!
I'd rather die
Than give you control!

Bow down before the one you serve
You're gonna get what you deserve

Bow down before the one you serve
You're gonna get what you deserve

(As this point two teen fangirls run out of the bar, shouting "That was awful!")

1,2,3,4!

Bow down before the one you serve
You're gonna get what you deserve

Bow down before the one you serve
You're gonna get what you deserve!

God money, I'll do anything for you
God money, just tell me what you want me to
God money, nail me up against the wall
God money, don't want everything, he wants it all

No you can't take it
No you can't take it
No you can't take
That away from me!

Head like a hole!
Black as your soul!
I'd rather die
Than give you control!

Head like a hole!
Black as your soul!
I'd rather die
Than give you control!

Bow down before the one you serve
You're gonna get what you deserve! (4×)

[Fade to Black]

Compared to the "pop" version, this version really brings out the contrast between Ashley's fake upbeat "personality" (Hannah Montana? Disney, anyone?) and her real personality (Anyone see the "Wrecking Ball" video?)

The tendency for child stars (especially girls, for some reason) to "go bad" on becoming adults is worth a full discussion in and of itself. Lindsay Lohan? Britney Spears? Of course, Miley Cyrus! It was so predictable. But Miley seems to have a self awareness of this that is remarkable. What a good sport, mocking herself like this on Black Mirror, of all places!

I especially noticed the change in the lyrics from "I'm gonna get what I deserve" in the pop version back to "You're gonna get what you deserve" in the punk rock version. Back to the old Clint Eastwood line from "Unforgiven": "We all have it coming, kid." Black Mirror is so fixed on dark consequences (cosmic karma) like The Twilight Zone before it, but with so much ferocious intensity, that it is clearly evident even in a "comic relief" episode.

Reply #375. Jun 12 19, 12:11 AM

brm50diboll

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2ua3O_fdCY

Reply #376. Jun 12 19, 10:27 PM

brm50diboll

Little fun with that last one. Too bad people's comments in YouTube videos make so many good music video links unplayable here, or I'd bring people into the modern age if I could. No sense being stuck like something out of Pauly Shore's "Encino Man". What? Guess that's too recent a reference.

But Miley's a good sport. I have to give her that.

Reply #377. Jun 12 19, 10:32 PM

brm50diboll

Summer has been going a little slow for me. Not a whole lot going on. I've been watching the third season of "The Handmaid's Tale" on Hulu, but the episodes so far haven't moved the plot forward much. Seems like a lot of filler so far. I kind of expected a revolution, but that hasn't happened, at least not yet. There are several things that I've seen promos for that seem like they could be interesting, but they are months away. HBO is planning series versions of Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" and "The Watchmen" which could be something. I saw the promo for "His Dark Materials" and it looked pretty good. The potential that the movie version of "The Golden Compass" (with Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig) was unfulfilled because the movie watered down the ending. It looks like the show version will stay closer to Pullman's vision, including his controversial look at religion ("The Magisterium"), which the movie wimped out on. I don't know about the series version of "The Watchmen" though. It is set years after the original story, and only Ozymandias (played by Jeremy Irons) of the original characters appears in the promos I've seen. I'm hoping the Dr. Manhattan character will be somewhere in the series, though. HBO will bring the third season of "Westworld" with more focus on "the real world" outside the Westworld park, and with new star Aaron Paul (of "Breaking Bad" fame) to have a major role as a "real world" character. But it isn't due until well into 2020, so that's quite a wait. This weekend has San Diego Comicon to feature the CWs "Arrowverse" shows. The original show, "Arrow", is ending with a ten-episode abbreviated season. I really only watch "The Flash" regularly. So far, it looks like all the "Arrowverse" shows will be building up to the annual crossover episodes, which this year is to be called "Crisis on Infinite Earths". This will be Stephen Amell's swan song as the Green Arrow, but I'm going to be looking at it from the point of view of the Flash's contribution. I suspect archenemy Reverse Flash will be involved in it somehow. I doubt they'll give away too much of their ideas at the Comicon, though. The only thing new that has caught my eye and is airing now is Hulu has a miniseries version of "Catch-22" which I watched the first episode of. Seemed interesting. A series version can explore the concepts much more fully than the old 70s movie version could. And I see George Clooney and Hugh Laurie have roles in "Catch-22", which is interesting, though their roles are fairly small supporting roles. But they're great actors and they shine even in the bit parts I saw of them in the first episode. I'll probably have more to say about these things when there's actually something to say, but there's still a long hot boring summer going on.

Reply #378. Jul 19 19, 11:45 AM

terraorca

I'd like to revisit and revise a post that I had made earlier. It was Post #196, and I was talking about comic books being a lower form of literature.
I just recently finished a class titled "20th Century Graphic Novels."
I learned a lot and had a great time. I now have newfound respect for the form.
If you would like to continue this discussion, I would be more than happy to share the novels that we read and studied.

Reply #379. Jul 21 19, 12:25 AM

brm50diboll

Do you have a particular one that you really liked, and why?

Reply #380. Jul 21 19, 4:00 AM

469 replies. On page 19 of 24 pages. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Legal / Conditions of Use