Batman didn't instantly become the "Smartest and Most dangerous man in the world" out of the gate. His first time out in costume in Year One he messed up plenty.
Yeah, but he just looked a little too mentally confused half the time in Batman Begins. I'm not really sure Intelligence (problem solving) is something all of a sudden aquired late in life.
Also, I would have liked Batman Begins more if he carried a gun. Not just because of Frank Miller's stuff... but because Bob Kane himself originally had him using one.
Well, visually for Megatron and Starscream it is unfaithful. Storywise…I’ve been spoiled by a lot of posts hinting at changes that I do find somewhat disturbing including a mute BB, no Ark (where’s their base of ops?) humans destroying Transformers and other things.
Right. The designs. Not the actual story or tone of the material.
We’ll see when the movie comes out…because I am not going to read the script. If they can get the tone of the movie and characters right then I can overlook the drastic design changes. If the Transformers get adequate screentime and character development then I’ll be happy. If they are played as secondary characters then I will not come out of that theater a happy camper.
That is not what I meant by "fault". I was simply saying "If you haven't read the script, how can you make a call on how faithful they're being to the mythology or how serious they're taking it"?
I guess I can’t…but if they make drastic changes to iconic characters like Megatron and Starscream what else will they make drastic changes to? Pretty much everything right?
You and your puns. Let's be honest for a second. The only reason someone would ever go "Hey, that's Optimus Prime" if they saw the picture of him is his head design, the red and blue motif of him, and maybe, maybe, maybe the leg design. If he had a different head design, he wouldn't be all that recognizable as Prime. Optimus, like any other Transformer in this movie, has mostly just ELEMENTS of his comic and TV show design that are recognizable, but he too has been reworked pretty drastically for the film, in terms of his body structure, how much he resembles his automobile form in robot form, etc.
Whatever they did to make him resemble Prime works. IMO it doesn’t for Megatron. And even though there are more familiar design elements on Starscream…that one doesn’t work at all either.
I'll wait for you to get to the similarities before I comment. Suffice it to say that I feel that Megatron, as he exists in the comics and TV show, is kind of bland, generic-looking, and not very visually stimulating beyond the basic elements of his design. I can see why the movie team felt the need to spice him up a bit. The blocky, clunky Megatron (And this is really about all his design has going for it, that he's a big un') simply would not look right in the midst of their sleek, reconceived Transformers. Even Optimus Prime looks sleeker.
That’s fair…but as an individual I have individual concerns. They may be fanboyish but my devotion to Transformers rivals my devotion to my wife…j/k…or am I?
True, but something to consider is that Transformers also is serial in nature. There have been many different versions/approaches to it over the years. Yes, some other film adaptions remain fairly faithful, but name me a few film adaptions of something like Transformers, which draws from YEARS of serial material and multiple versions, that has not undergone several major changes in adapting it to film. Specifically a comic book or science fiction adaption.
Star Trek. But I don’t know enough about the series to really make any significant examples…hell, it might even work against my argument.
Other than that, I can’t really think of any right now. Let me dwell on it. But having a unique history Bay could’ve really only went two ways. Make it as close the the origin as possible with modernization and realistic approach or reimagine the origin and make whatever changes and say its because of realism and to give audiences, “something they’ve never seen before…Bay went with the latter. We’ll see if he made the right decision.
I'm not excusing changing the mythos drastically, just explaining why it happened. You asked what reason there is for deviating from the source material, and I answered your question. Sure there are movies that have been more faithful to their source material. However, those movies are also usually based on novels (one source to adapt, not hundreds), and the concepts they're based on don't tend to be as absurd and in some ways, over the top (and even then many of them undergo large changes in story and even mythology). There's also the aspect to consider, speaking of reasons for the changes in design, that Transformers are inherently a pretty far-out concept with some very cartoony and simple (and dated) designs, and would require some serious re-working in general to be palpable as a live-action film in 2007.
Serious re-working…that’s all I asked for. Realistic, modernization to iconic characters could have been done more visually faithful to the original designs with some imagination and a lot of money. Let’s take Prime. While I don’t mind his design I feel that they could have made a more faithful design and still made it look more sleek and modern if they wanted to. But I have no real beef with the design…except for maybe the face because from afar he kind of looks like he has a beak.
If you remove the mustache from Liam then he is a faithful representation of Ras.
If you remove Megatron’s face, body, hands, add in a big gun and a more Vader-like helmet then it might be a decent representation of Megatron.
Agreed. Michael Bay gets a bad rap because his movies tend to be action-oriented and melodramatic. But that doesn't mean they're completely devoid of character or depth.
I want to say something about faithfulness to a mythology. I'm a die-hard Batman fan. I lived and breathed the comics growing up, and I'm essentially a student of the Batman mythology. I went and watched BATMAN BEGINS, which has the following "changes.
various changes
And so on, and so forth. And that's just BATMAN BEGINS. And yet fanboys aren't all hating on it? Why? Because the changes worked. You can find major changes to almost ANY adaption in the last, oh, fifty years or so. Change isn't always bad. And sometimes, actually, quite often, it works.
Fanboys didn’t really hate on it because they knew they were going to get a serious, dark take on a character that is serious and dark from a renowned director and a SUPERB cast. We have an action oriented director who has not done anything more than popcorn action movies with what seems like a thrown together cast of, for the most part, non name brand actors/actresses. The biggest name attached to this thing is Steven Spielberg…which is great IMO and I hope he has an active role in the production.
Why do his words suddenly seem all for naught? Did they suddenly go back and time and not work on getting the license because they don't now have it? We know the story. They tried, VW wouldn't allow it. The only reason his words lose any weight is because you misinterpreted them to begin with into something you wanted to believe/hear.
Don’s words of them trying to get a VW because he HAD to be a bug were kind of pointless. Why try SO hard to remain faithful to the original design and then when you can’t get it do a 180 and get the almost opposite of a VW bug…which is a muscle car.
They were looking for a "cool" car. The kind of car a kid would want/be able to afford. Which VW's used to be.
Its not faithful to the underdog characterization that BB was known for though. That’s my point…it’s a completely different approach from his original statements.
No, but it's the same concept. He's getting fans hopes up, or, more specifically, fans are interpreting what is being said as not being his opinion or desire, but as being the likely outcome of the project, and getting their hopes up.
This whole production needs PR reps to go through all stuff released to the public. Less damage control, less backlash from fans on things they are trying to do but can’t, and less heartache for everyone.
Fair enough. In that case, Megatron's design is a non-issue, because I don't see a robot having that clunky, generic-robot design in a realistic movie. Clothes are absolutely an issue in this instance, as we're talking about classic designs. Ra's Al Ghul's especially. Ra's Al Ghul's robes/cloaks, etc are almost a signature outfit when it comes to his character.
So in order to remain totally faithful, Ra’s has to wear the same outfit through the whole movie? That’s not realistic…that’s bad hygiene.
Like I said earlier, I will try and sketch what I feel is an updated yet modernized design of Megatron that could have worked in this movie.
No. Size...color, helmet, limb shape, in some ways, and his massive gun.
Megatron has a helmet, correct? A helmet with a distinct shape to it? Now, his helmet is sharper in the movie, but it still seems to have that distinct shape.
I don’t see any deeper physical resemblance. Maybe in characterization they will more resemble each other but not physically other than color…and color.
We've seen pictures of it. And it's in the script.
Answer me this, then: 1. What are the basic visual elements of Megatron's design? 2. How much of that can be realistically and appropriately translated to film?
It's possible Bay simply mixed up his numbers. He's working some long hours, after all. He's clearly a longnosed semi because A, it's more modern-looking, and B, it does give him some additional mass without making him look too clunky.
Not making any allusions to you saying anything about melodrama. Just hedging my bets in case someone called me on referring to the drama of the script/film being melodrama. Again, please define "heart" in the context of Transformers. To me, that equals things like how much Optimus Prime cares about the people of Earth, and how much the Autobots care about each other, the autobots loyalty to Prime and their mission, and the friendships and alliances forged between Autobots and humans along the way.
Also how much of this movie will be devoted to the actual Transformers. It’s a movie entitled Transformers, but I am afraid that this movie will be more about human ordeal instead of telling the story of the Transformers.
I meant put all the Transformers from the movie in a lineup and ask someone who would know the characters well enough to be remotely able to tell "Which one is Megatron"? Whether it looks exactly like Megatron does in the show and comics is kind of irrelevant. Prime doesn't look exactly like Prime does in the comics/show, either. Try asking your wife if she can pick out common elements between the cartoon/comic version and the movie version.
So I'm to blame for the reason why Mr. Donald Murphy berates, belittles and insults everyone that criticizes him?
Wow, I didn't know that I had that much power in Hollywood.
Anyway, I really just want to know why Donald has to respond to ciriticism EVERY SINGLE TIME with insults and flames? I also would love to know why he cares so much about what the fans care about his work? I mean, cmon, he's Hollywood. He doesn't need to worry about what the lowly blue collar fan thinks. Why get so worked up to the point of hurling insults over criticism from people he'll never know, meet or even interact with in the real world?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietstorm of DM boards So I'm to blame for the reason why Mr. Donald Murphy berates, belittles and insults everyone that criticizes him?
Wow, I didn't know that I had that much power in Hollywood.
Anyway, I really just want to know why Donald has to respond to ciriticism EVERY SINGLE TIME with insults and flames? I also would love to know why he cares so much about what the fans care about his work? I mean, cmon, he's Hollywood. He doesn't need to worry about what the lowly blue collar fan thinks. Why get so worked up to the point of hurling insults over criticism from people he'll never know, meet or even interact with in the real world?
And Donald, to quote your own disclaimer....
"It's just a movie...."
Don's reply:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Murphy And you're an jerkwad
What can I do to help you?
Yep that sums up DM, any form of intelligence addressed to him, and he replies with a dumbass comment. He provokes people and wonders why all the hate.
Jesus Mary and Joseph!.... Is Don Murphy on drugs? I can't believe Steven Spielberg is even part of this whole project. Someone has to expose that lunatic to the general public beyond these "fan communities." The guy is a total goon.
Oh and Nosebleed's replies to The Guard (who I think is Don Murphy) are all totally on-point. I wish I could formulate my thoughts that well.
In 1984? The "cool" car in 1984 was a Trans-am (because of Knight Rider). VW's weren't really all that cool to have in 1984. Jim Shooter and Bob Bodiansky at Marvel (the guys who wrote the whole backstory and character bios) specifically chose the Beetle toy over any other to make the "liason." They even had a Trans-am / Camaro (in some molds) to choose from (Windcharger).
In fact, they probably picked him over Windcharger or Cliffjumper (BB's fellow minibots) EXACTLY BECAUSE HE WASN'T THE "COOL CAR."
Dear lord... I can't believe I even have to explain that s***.
I misspoke. Thank goodness it's now irrelevant, as Bumblee is no longer a VW.
Me neither. I don't want any of the robots to have their designs exact in the movie. We'd have a Power Rangers type movie. But I do think they need to bear iconic semblances with the originals. Prime looks pretty good (except for the super-tacky flames). Megatron looks like the turd monster from Dogma. But I'd be happy if they just gave him a cannon. This movie has disgusted me so much I'll take anything.
What does that even mean? You don't want them to have theirt designs exact in the film, but they have to "bear iconic resemblances with the originals"? How does a robot design bear iconic resemblance to it's original but still be new and fresh and visually interesting...when it's ORIGINAL is a generic, blocky robot body, arms and legs, and a "character helmet"?
OIC...he loves doing that. You should've seen the Batman Begins boards before it came out. I think I've seen some of it over at Superman Returns also. He has some valid points and the debate (for lack of a better word) is fun...but keeping an open mind can be applied to both sides. Keep an open mind about new ideas but also keep an open mind about the production having ulterior motives when they make certain changes to these characters.
I address the points that the people I am talking to make. I consider it polite. I consider it incredibly rude when people pick and choose which points (major ones) to ignore because it suits their argument. If I don't address something, it means I agree with you, or that, at least I do not strongly disagree.
If you read enough of my posts, you'll start to see that I do in fact, keep an open mind. The studio may well have ulterior motives, I'll admit that. Hell, Batman began as a Superman clone, a way to cash in on Superman's success. But ideas don't end where they began. The fact that the studio may have wanted more humanity to the story, or more alien-looking robots, or what have you...does not neccessarily make those things bad ideas. One of the most amusing situations on these boards is the fact that when a new idea is presented, most fanboys go "No! It's not like the old ideas!" Then watch them embrace it when it works.
Well, visually for Megatron and Starscream it is unfaithful.
If the designs we've seen for Megatron and Starscream are the final designs, then yes, it's unfaithful to their original designs. Which, frankly, as I've stated before, aren't all that impressive to begin with. Again, I've always considered their original designs very generic and not terribly innovative beyond a few basic design elements. Someone needs to address this point, because I see no reason to remain faithful to what is essentially "generic and blocky human-looking robots". The elements that make their designs interesting? Absolutely, those should remain. And I think they have.
Storywise…I’ve been spoiled by a lot of posts hinting at changes that I do find somewhat disturbing including a mute BB, no Ark (where’s their base of ops?) humans destroying Transformers and other things.
If you're going to be disturbed by every story change, how do you expect to enjoy any adaption of Transformers? How do you enjoy any adaption, period?
We’ll see when the movie comes out…because I am not going to read the script. If they can get the tone of the movie and characters right then I can overlook the drastic design changes. If the Transformers get adequate screentime and character development then I’ll be happy. If they are played as secondary characters then I will not come out of that theater a happy camper.
The humans do have more screentime, at least to begin the film. This is a story told from their POV. The Transformers are visitors, who sort of gradually take over the story and the screen. I don't know if they'd be considered secondary characters or not, because from the moment they arrive, they all play key roles in the story and have quite a bit of screentime. This script sort of plays like X-MEN did, serving as an introduction the the concept of Transformers.
I guess I can’t…but if they make drastic changes to iconic characters like Megatron and Starscream what else will they make drastic changes to? Pretty much everything right?
Nope. If nothing else, Optimus Prime's character and role in the mythology seems to be intact, as does his relationships with various Transformers and Megatron.
Whatever they did to make him resemble Prime works.
The second I started to post that, I thought "crap, what about Star Trek". However, I'm not so sure that's an accurate statement. Like anything else, the occassional "liberty" has been taken with Star Trek's mythology, and I'm positive you'd find some Trek fans who will ***** about various things (entire films, even). It'll be interesting to see how JJ Abrams plays it with his new Trek film.
Other than that, I can’t really think of any right now. Let me dwell on it.
I can't think of any. Not even STAR WARS. Every single "serial" adaption I've ever seen makes some fairly drastic changes to its source material.
But having a unique history Bay could’ve really only went two ways. Make it as close the the origin as possible with modernization and realistic approach or reimagine the origin and make whatever changes and say its because of realism and to give audiences, “something they’ve never seen before…Bay went with the latter. We’ll see if he made the right decision.
I really don't think "realistic" should be a word associated with Transformers. Maybe "slightly more believeable in the context of suspension of disbelief".
Serious re-working…that’s all I asked for. Realistic, modernization to iconic characters could have been done more visually faithful to the original designs with some imagination and a lot of money.
No he wouldn't be. Design alone does not make a character faithful. Nor would the design of the movie Ra's Al Ghul be even visually faithful to the comic book version if you simply removed his mustache. You'd have to remove the stache, change his hairline, change his hair color, and change his features a bit. As well as his costume. That's a pretty drastic leap to make him "faithful".
If you remove Megatron’s face, body, hands, add in a big gun and a more Vader-like helmet then it might be a decent representation of Megatron.
Fanboys didn’t really hate on it because they knew they were going to get a serious, dark take on a character that is serious and dark from a renowned director and a SUPERB cast.
Trust me on this. I was active on the Batman boards for about three years, before, during, and after BATMAN BEGINS. They hated on it. They hated on the costume, the Tumbler, the story, the changes to the origin, to the mythos, the invention of Rachel and Earle, you name it. A large amount of fanboys *****ed and whined about damn near everything EXCEPT the cast (yes, there wasn't a whole lot of *****ing there, but there was some dissension) until the magical moment that someone else told them not to via review. And even then many of them kept *****ing.
We have an action oriented director who has not done anything more than popcorn action movies with what seems like a thrown together cast of, for the most part, non name brand actors/actresses.
What's wrong with popcorn action movies? I know, I know. I keep forgetting that Transformers has always been a high concept. But what do you want, a Transformers movie with two action scenes and a bunch of talking? I thought you wanted faithfulness to the mythos.
And are you actually equating name recognition with acting talent and entertainment value? If anything, casting a crew of mostly unknowns with some solid veteran talent was a smart move. Shia, in particular. And maybe it's, so they, you know, don't overshadow the Transformers?
The biggest name attached to this thing is Steven Spielberg…which is great IMO and I hope he has an active role in the production.
What makes them pointless? He meant what he said, not what you seem to have misinterpreted him into saying. Let's say a firefighter dies trying to get some kids out of a burning building? Was his death pointless? Does it change his actions, or his intent?
Why try SO hard to remain faithful to the original design and then when you can’t get it do a 180 and get the almost opposite of a VW bug…which is a muscle car.
What it boils down to is...because they didn't want to. Or maybe...
Its not faithful to the underdog characterization that BB was known for though. That’s my point…it’s a completely different approach from his original statements.
Fair enough. Put this in perspective for a moment. He's a camaro, yes...but he's also essentially painted as a junkyard car. That makes him an underdog right there. There's a whole metaphor to that. A warrior in disguise (which I imagine is why he
scans a newer version of Camaro as his confidence grows throughout the script
). Which Bumblee has always been, right? Nevermind that he's mute and smaller than most of the other autobots, another two things which make him what?
An underdog.
This whole production needs PR reps to go through all stuff released to the public. Less damage control, less backlash from fans on things they are trying to do but can’t, and less heartache for everyone.
What would be the point of that? Unless the designs changed to your liking, most of you would just go "Now you're just spinning things", no matter what any PR rep said.
There really hasn't been that much damage control from the studio. They've simply told you the truth about their approach, and you all haven't liked their answers because it doesn't net you the result you want to see.
What I see is fans whining because they aren't happy with how faithful the production design on this film has been to a cartoon and comic from the 80's...when no one promised it would be in the first place. Again, this is fan misinterpretation, not a PR problem.
So in order to remain totally faithful, Ra’s has to wear the same outfit through the whole movie? That’s not realistic…that’s bad hygiene.
No, I never implied that, and that's really completely irrelevant to our discussion. When did we start talking about realism in the context of our Ra's discussion? Could have sworn we were talking about faithfulness to design. We didn't see him wear anything close to his comic book design in the film. Not once. My point is...in order to be faithful to that DESIGN, something resembling his costume has to show up on him. Nothing does.
Like I said earlier, I will try and sketch what I feel is an updated yet modernized design of Megatron that could have worked in this movie.
I saw one. Might have been a manipulation, but it looked pretty legitimate. His helmet is totally different? Sure, if we're splitting hairs. It's the movie design, after all, a far more intricate take on the basic helmet he's known to have. But then it stands to reason that a simplistic 2D design isn't going to go over well visually in a cinematic setting atop the movie design's body. Just like Batman wears a more complicated cowl in the films than he does in the comics visually.
Ok, so the villain is a tiny bit taller than the hero, which may or may not ever be actually noticeable onscreen. Helps them look imposing, adds some intimidation factor, and makes sense, to boot, in the context of Megatron's character. Is it really that big a deal?
Distinct yes. Completely different from anything resembling any previous incarnation of Megatron? Yes.
He's wearing a helmet with a sloping peak at the top, that covers most of his face, and has those protruding "prongs" on the bottom sides of it. Is it more intricate? Yes. Is it the same helmet? No. Are there definite similarities? Absolutely.
I don’t see any deeper physical resemblance. Maybe in characterization they will more resemble each other but not physically other than color…and color.
That's fine, but hang on...why can't you just TELL me what classic designs of Megatron have that you consider the basic elements of his design? If they are so darned iconic that their omission or change in the movie design matters so much, then it should be easy to simply rattle them off. To me, it seems the helmet (and red eyes), the broad shoulders/upper body, the legs, the feet, and his massive cannon are the visually iconic elements of any design I've seen of Megatron.
Also how much of this movie will be devoted to the actual Transformers. It’s a movie entitled Transformers, but I am afraid that this movie will be more about human ordeal instead of telling the story of the Transformers.
Not sure, dude. While I am sorry for his family's loss. I can't feel too much sorrow for Steve Irwin. You keep massing around with dangerous animals, one of them is going to get you eventually. But, again, I do feel for his family.
Grabbing deadly snakes by the tail, swimming with crocs at night, chasing dangerous lizards into holes and then reaching in after them...
I'd call that taunting death. Kind of like daredevils and the stunts they attempt.
Grabbing deadly snakes by the tail, swimming with crocs at night, chasing dangerous lizards into holes and then reaching in after them...
I'd call that taunting death. Kind of like daredevils and the stunts they attempt.
that doesn't change the fact that he enjoyed what he was doing and made it enjoyable for others as well, not to mention he was a nice guy and a family man.
that doesn't change the fact that he enjoyed what he was doing and made it enjoyable for others as well, not to mention he was a nice guy and a family man.
No debate there at all. I do have to admire him for getting the chance to do something I think everyone would want. He died doing what he loved, and that's something most of us just don't get the chance to do. I know he was a great family man. Just cheated death one too many times. It is sad.
Yeah, but he just looked a little too mentally confused half the time in Batman Begins. I'm not really sure Intelligence (problem solving) is something all of a sudden aquired late in life.
Also, I would have liked Batman Begins more if he carried a gun. Not just because of Frank Miller's stuff... but because Bob Kane himself originally had him using one.
i never understood why batman didn't carry at least a tranquilizer gun or a tazer or something. sure, bolo's and batarangs are cool, but why purposefully make things harder on yourself?
i never understood why batman didn't carry at least a tranquilizer gun or a tazer or something. sure, bolo's and batarangs are cool, but why purposefully make things harder on yourself?
Now it's to the point of 'extreme nerdy fanboy' talk if they want Batman to carry a 'gun' cuz he had one back in the 40s.
BTW, I think the Batman Begins board is probably the most postive place when it was released. There wasn't much of a backlash since it was a good movie. There were some of nitpick and some who loved the movie so much that they forced other people to agree, but they were a handful, really.
Even now, The Dark Knight board isn't that bad, unlike the mess that is known as the Superman Returns thread..
i never understood why batman didn't carry at least a tranquilizer gun or a tazer or something. sure, bolo's and batarangs are cool, but why purposefully make things harder on yourself?
I'd love to see Batman use some sort of a tazer device. Maybe work it into his suit so if he's being overwhelmed bybadguys, he could shock them off of him.
i never understood why batman didn't carry at least a tranquilizer gun or a tazer or something. sure, bolo's and batarangs are cool, but why purposefully make things harder on yourself?
Batman has carried tasers (both handheld and the kind that is woven into his and the other members of his "family's" costumes, and The Batmobile is also outfitted with several kinds) for years in the comics. He's also utilized paralyzing darts, tranquilizers, tranq-batarangs and even sodium pentathol in the past. All that is nothing new.
Now it's to the point of 'extreme nerdy fanboy' talk if they want Batman to carry a 'gun' cuz he had one back in the 40s.
BTW, I think the Batman Begins board is probably the most postive place when it was released. There wasn't much of a backlash since it was a good movie. There were some of nitpick and some who loved the movie so much that they forced other people to agree, but they were a handful, really.
Even now, The Dark Knight board isn't that bad, unlike the mess that is known as the Superman Returns thread..
Well, I wish we were more like the TMNT guys. Boy those are some good-spirited folks.
Batman Begins was good. But, IMHO, it wasn't all that great. I think after the horridness of the Shumacher movies, everyone was just glad that they didn't all out screw it up. After watching Sin City just a month or two before, Batman Begins just seemed trite... and not all that different than Burton's Batman 89 (same doomesday poison-the-water story). At least Burton got the classic The Shadow/vampire/goth vibe right. They BOTH completely missed the Detective noir aspect of Batman (which Sin City had... and so did the 90's Batman Animated Series).
Just like I think people will be "happy" with Bay's Transformers. He's not gonna give us good sci-fi, the natural resources subtext, or machines-controlling-our lives allegory. But he'll likely give as all the superficial action and not completely screw it up.
As for Superman... I feel bad for Singer because I can totally see what he was trying to do-- show that Superman isn't a 2-dimensional person. And, he delivered a beautiful, very well done movie. But, I can see why people were underwhelmed by it. Something seemed "off." Maybe that was his point. I for one loved the movie. It made me think. I wonder if Transformers will too. I doubt it.
Yeah, but he just looked a little too mentally confused half the time in Batman Begins. I'm not really sure Intelligence (problem solving) is something all of a sudden aquired late in life.
Also, I would have liked Batman Begins more if he carried a gun. Not just because of Frank Miller's stuff... but because Bob Kane himself originally had him using one.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
