Our Sponsor Sideshow Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
Word Count
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

AndHeHandedHimTheTobaccoJar
Bree


Sep 1 2015, 8:00pm

Post #1 of 30 (2300 views)
Shortcut
Word Count Can't Post

http://lotrproject.com/blog/2015/06/16/character-dialogue-in-the-hobbit-trilogy/

Not sure if this has already been posted, I thought it was interesting. Here's my analysis of the results. If you don't want to read a long portion of text, then skip to the last (4th) part.

1. Top three are perfect. Bilbo should be where he is, and Gandalf and Thorin are the perfect characters to round out the top 3. Maybe Thorin should have been ahead of Gandalf, but then again, Gandalf has a lot of lengthy speeches with lots of words, so that may be the cause.

As far as character mentions go in the book (not the same as dialogue, but the closest I could find) it goes: Bilbo, Thorin, Gandalf.

2. Rounding out the top 10 are Bard, Balin, Thranduil, Dwalin, Smaug, Kili, and Alfrid. Ok, that's pretty bad. We have 3 members of Thorin and Co, 2 main characters from the book (Smaug, Bard), 1 character that never existed in the book (outside of a very, tiny mention) and a borderline minor character in the book (Thranduil). I'll start with the good ones. I'm alright with Balin for sure, he should be in the Top 5 (he's 5th). Smaug to me should be 4th-6th (he's 8th). Bard should be 6th-10th (he's 4th, a little high for me, but I don't mind his character being expanded on). The book's top 10 in mentions are: Bilbo, Thorin, Gandalf, Gollum, Smaug, Balin, Beorn, Bombur, Bard, Fíli, so all the characters I mentioned fit in the top 10. Dwalin is an effective replacement for Bombur, who I can understand them not wanting to have as large a role in a more serious, less comedic film. Kíli is also an effective replacement for Fíli (the two are nearly inseparable, in the book Fíli is highlighted more, in the film it is Kíli). Thranduil shouldn't be nearly as high in my opinion, at most he should be in the 8th-10th range, not in 6th. Finally, Alfrid does not belong in the top 10 most used characters. No argument. Seriously, why?

3. Next we'll do the bottom part. Gollum is in 13th, not bad considering they had to expand upon the book (in which Gollum got a whole chapter) so obviously Gollum will have a lower place than in the book. Tauriel and Legolas as 11th and 12th though? No way. Legolas is not ever once mentioned in the book, and Tauriel is a character loosely based upon the captain of the guard from the book (who is demoted to "keeper of the keys" in the movie). No way should two characters who 'technically' aren't mentioned in the book be higher than all but 4 of the members of Thorin and Co (not including Bilbo and Gandalf). Fíli and Bombur, who are two of the the top 10 mentioned characters in the books are 22nd and 41st (second last) respectively in the movie. Beorn, who has the 7th most mentions in the book is 24th in the movie. All three of these characters that are top 10 in the book are below: a) characters not in the book (Azog, Galadriel, Saruman, Radagast, Tauriel, Legolas, Alfrid) and b) characters that play minor roles in the book (Great Goblin, Master of Laketown, Elrond, Bofur, Thranduil). Other than that, I'm in general pissed off that Sigrid and Lindir get more dialogue than Bifur and Bombur; Tilda has more than Nori; Frodo, The Necromancer, Bain, and William have more than Ori; Tom and Bolg have more than Dori; Bert has more than Glóin and Óin; and Dain has more than all of them (not that he shouldn't have a good deal, but he's not as important in the book, and he's only in the last portion of 1 movie. That shows you how much Thorin and Co was used).

4. Pretty much, I thought the top 3 was perfect, as long as Bilbo is No. 1. I didn't like that Alfrid was in the top 10, let alone the top 30. I thought Thranduil and Bard could have been a bit lower, but in general was ok with their use. I loved that Balin was used a lot, and it was nice to see that he didn't overshadow Dwalin as much as he did in the book (Dwalin effectively replaced Bombur as a dwarf in the top 10). Kíli replaced Fíli in the top 10 as well, which is alright, I just don't like how big the margin of difference was between two inseparable characters, but oh well. I thought that Gollum's role was effectively reduced, and Smaug had a large enough speaking part. Most of my complaining came in the last bit, where I highlighted that Bombur, Beron, and Fíli, three of the top 10 mentioned characters in the book are 22nd, 23rd, and 41st (2nd last) in dialogue in the movie, behind characters that were either a) not in the book or b) played minor roles in the book. I also thought it strange that characters like Tilda, Sigrid, the trolls, Frodo, Bain, and Bolg managed to overshadow various members of the company. I also think it a little bit weird that of the small amount of dialogue that the minor members of Thorin and Co got, Bofur got so much of it, but then again, James Nesbitt is awesome!

So let me know what you guys think. Do you agree with the way the characters were used in the movie? Or should some of the changes I suggested (or other changes) have been made? Keep in mind, I'm not bashing the movie, there were many things I loved about it, it's just that some of my favorite characters from the book were underused.


Spriggan
Tol Eressea

Sep 1 2015, 8:18pm

Post #2 of 30 (2212 views)
Shortcut
Interesting but looks like I would expect. [In reply to] Can't Post

Just before that can I check what you mean my "mentions" in the text. Do you mean how often their name is mentioned? If so I'm not sure why that would equate to dialogue (Take Sauron for example in LOTR - lots of mentions but hardly any dialogue).

To the rest, I think we see the same method as in LOTR. Firstly the plot is focused on a small number of core "heroes". Then, when the plot branches, we see smaller groups for each plot-strand/location and we see "peoples" exemplified by interactions between two or three representatives.

So here we see the overall "heroes" then 2/3 representatives for dwarves, elves and men. The rest are plot driven.


AndHeHandedHimTheTobaccoJar
Bree


Sep 1 2015, 8:25pm

Post #3 of 30 (2198 views)
Shortcut
Mentions vs Dialogue [In reply to] Can't Post

Pretty much, I was using them as a basic metric for how much attention a character is given. It's hard to find data on that sort of thing, so excuse the crude correlation. I'm pretty sure mentions is just how often the character is mentioned in the text, pretty self explanatory.


Spriggan
Tol Eressea

Sep 1 2015, 8:33pm

Post #4 of 30 (2180 views)
Shortcut
I'm not sure that comparison tells us that much. [In reply to] Can't Post

To take a clear example that analysis would look at mentions of Sauron in the text (lots if we include his pseudonyms) - but not his dialogue - whilst looking at his dialogue in the films but not his mentions. The analysis would suggest that Sauron got much less "attention" in the films - though actually I wouldn't say that is the case in actuality.

Equally a character who is known about for more of the book, like Smaug say, will get lots more "advance" mentions than a character who is unexpected - even if both had the same amount of dialogue "time" on page etc etc.


(This post was edited by Spriggan on Sep 1 2015, 8:35pm)


Smaug the iron
Gondor


Sep 1 2015, 8:35pm

Post #5 of 30 (2175 views)
Shortcut
Well [In reply to] Can't Post

Bifur have more dialogue than Bombur, it seems like they don't count khuzdul. And in the book Tom, Bert and William have more dialogue than Nori, Ori, Oin and Gloin. And Ori dose speaks in TBOFA so the list is wrong on a few.


Smaug the iron
Gondor


Sep 1 2015, 9:13pm

Post #6 of 30 (2134 views)
Shortcut
Is this for the EE or the theatrical version? [In reply to] Can't Post

 


Never_Underestimate_A_Dwarf
Rivendell


Sep 1 2015, 9:21pm

Post #7 of 30 (2125 views)
Shortcut
Really puts it into perspective [In reply to] Can't Post

I hated witnessing my favorite character get fewer and fewer lines with each movie. Fili spoke a lot in the book and had several important moments. I know that means nothing when translating it to film, but it's very disappointing.

And we all disagree about certain aspects of the movies but I think one thing most of us can agree on is that Fili should have had more lines and a bigger role than Alfrid. All of the dwarves should have. I hate that they essentially made a couple of them mute because they couldn't be bothered with giving them dialogue.

Justice for Fili


Smaug the iron
Gondor


Sep 1 2015, 9:26pm

Post #8 of 30 (2120 views)
Shortcut
Tolken did the same thing. [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I hate that they essentially made a couple of them mute because they couldn't be bothered with giving them dialogue.



Never_Underestimate_A_Dwarf
Rivendell


Sep 1 2015, 9:52pm

Post #9 of 30 (2091 views)
Shortcut
True [In reply to] Can't Post

But if you're going to go through the trouble of creating character designs and personas for these characters for a film adaptation, it seems reasonable to throw them a line or two.

I love watching AUJ and DOS with a good set of speakers/headphones - you can hear all the muttering and complaining and conversations the dwarves have in the background.

Justice for Fili


dormouse
Half-elven


Sep 1 2015, 10:22pm

Post #10 of 30 (2077 views)
Shortcut
I'd say that one major weakness of this.... [In reply to] Can't Post

Is that film being primarily a visual medium the analysis is missing the one thing that sets a film apart from a book. The non-verbal screentime given to the characters and the amount they can convey by look, gesture and action.

Bombur is an obvious example. A word count tells you nothing about Bombur's screentime. Just think about it - Bombur in Bag End, Bombur breathing moths in and out when he snores, Bombur as the cook, Bombur fighting trolls with his ladle, Bombur in Rivendell, Bombur fighting goblins, Bombur running from Beorn, Bombur in the enchanted river, Bombur's barrel ride, Bombur and the bellows, Bombur's expression as Smaug attacks Laketown, the look on Bombur's face when Bilbo confronts Thorin..... Bombur barely says anything at all and yet his character comes across very strongly. If you were to compare the amount of time Bombur is on screen with the amount of time Sigrid is, or Lindir, I think you'd be looking at a very different result and nothing whatever to complain about in terms of over- or underuse of his character.

Film is about seeing as well as hearing.

The other side of the coin is that if you only count dialogue you give the impression that minor characters carry more weight than they actually do. Lindir's a prime example. His screen time is so limited that he needs words or you won't notice him at all. The dwarves, who are onscreen almost all the time in the first two films, get the chance to make an impression non-verbally - it is part of acting, after all!

As for why Alfrid, that's easy, seriously. The world of men is an important part of the story which had to be properly represented. Not necessarily by Alfrid, of course, but if not Alfrid, then some other man. Men needed to be in the film and as Tolkien only gave us Bard and the Master, whose role must fade out after the fall of Laketown to allow Bard to come forward, the script needed some other man (or woman). At the very simplest level, they couldn't expan Bard's role without giving him someone to talk to.

Same is true of Legolas and Tauriel. Didn't have to be those characters but there did have to be elf characters - or was Thranduil to be all on his own?


AndHeHandedHimTheTobaccoJar
Bree


Sep 1 2015, 10:28pm

Post #11 of 30 (2065 views)
Shortcut
I believe theatrical [In reply to] Can't Post

 


AndHeHandedHimTheTobaccoJar
Bree


Sep 1 2015, 10:48pm

Post #12 of 30 (2053 views)
Shortcut
Alright [In reply to] Can't Post

I get the first part of your post. I'm not trying to say that dialogue is a perfect measure of how much attention a character gets and how well developed they are, but on a basic level, and with some very large differences, it can be quite telling.

In terms of your support for Alfrid, Tauriel, and Legolas, my question is (honestly just wondering, not trying to be rude), why do there need to be elves and men in such prominent roles in the film? I mean, in the book, no elves play a major part whatsoever (Thranduil and Elrond would be considered tertiary characters), and Bard is the only human who play even a secondary role (and he doesn't come in until more than halfway through the book!).

I think the essence of what I'm trying to say is that the book (and thus what this movie should be) is about a hobbit and his adventures with 13 dwarves and a wizard. Those are the characters that are there from beginning to end, and for the most part (outside of the main antagonists and Bard) have the largest supporting roles to play. I guess I just don't get why you say "Men needed to be in the film" and "there did have to be elf characters" etc.

As far as elves go specifically, we also had Elrond and Galadriel in the first and third films, so that counts for something. As far as Bard needing to talk to Alfrid, I can get that, but I still think they could have reduced his role significantly, making Bard converse with other characters such as Bain, Thranduil, and Bilbo. Or they could have done it like they did in the book, and had the Master survive, but have the people of Esgaroth realize Bard is a better leader and put him in charge (sort of like how they put him in charge despite Alfrid's supposed right to be the new master). Alfrid's character pretty much fulfills what the Master did anyways (running off with gold), the only difference being that the Master was not present during the battle.


AndHeHandedHimTheTobaccoJar
Bree


Sep 1 2015, 10:50pm

Post #13 of 30 (2048 views)
Shortcut
I can understand this [In reply to] Can't Post

But when you expand the book over three films, you are also expanding these characters. So they shouldn't be mute in the book as well as in the film if you get what I mean. The expansion such be distributed somewhat proportionately over all the characters.


Spriggan
Tol Eressea

Sep 1 2015, 10:58pm

Post #14 of 30 (2045 views)
Shortcut
I find your last point interesting and it's something [In reply to] Can't Post

I've wondered about for a while.

As a thought experiment, if everyone's lines stayed the same but Alfrid's lines were instead spread across a number of extras (though their volume and other aspects remained the same) would you think that were better?


AndHeHandedHimTheTobaccoJar
Bree


Sep 1 2015, 11:01pm

Post #15 of 30 (2041 views)
Shortcut
Honestly [In reply to] Can't Post

It's hard to tell. There are some things about Alfrid's character that only he (and probably the Master) would say. I think that having 1 character to say those lines is more effective than having a bunch of extras say the same things. However, when I talked about Bard having conversations with different characters, I was also thinking him having different conversations, not the same ones as he had with Alfrid (although you probably already knew that; I just wanted to clarify in case).


Spriggan
Tol Eressea

Sep 1 2015, 11:19pm

Post #16 of 30 (2029 views)
Shortcut
I suppose what strikes me [In reply to] Can't Post

Is that from purely volume terms it wouldn't make any difference to other characters and I think, though I can't prove that this is right, that there is a further layer of objection, which is not about volume per se be about some sort of "unfairness" between characters.

I don't think that makes sense to me, but it often seems be a deep-seated foundation to many views which are expressed in the topic. I don't know how that strikes you?


CamdenMcAndrews
Rivendell


Sep 1 2015, 11:29pm

Post #17 of 30 (2019 views)
Shortcut
Word Count Doesn't Tell You Much [In reply to] Can't Post

To me, the most amusing thing about that word count chart is that someone would take the time to create it. Smile


Counting words spoken in English really doesn't tell you much beyond how many words the character spoke in English. Bifur, for example, could only speak Dwarvish, so course he doesn't show up on the chart.


Beyond that, I wouldn't make too much stew from that one oyster. The story in the movie is about Bilbo Baggins; his life and how he changed over the course of events, his values and how he exercises them, and of course how he acquired the One Ring and its role in introducing the primary conflict of the Lord of the Rings. (We're talking about the films here; not the original version of the children's book.)


The amount of dialog, or screen time, or close-ups, or any other metric you might invent are just measures of what the filmmakers thought were best to tell the lead character's story. It's what survived the final edit when they had to squoosh it all into the theatrical time slot and get it all done before the scramble to the theater for the premiere. And the final edit came down to a closed room, one computer, one chair, one sofa, two guys, and a cup of tea. (The cup of the tea plays a vital supporting role in this adventure, but it has no lines. It really deserves an award for Best Performance by an Inanimate Object in a Supporting Role.)


Amusement: This is my very first post on the One Ring forum. Howdy, y'all!


Mooseboy018
Grey Havens


Sep 2 2015, 12:02am

Post #18 of 30 (1996 views)
Shortcut
Thank you. [In reply to] Can't Post

You're exactly right. I get tired of people using "well it was that way in the book" as an excuse for this sort of thing. It completely ignores the fact that the book was made into a 8+ hour trilogy with actors that were hired to portray these characters. And then the writing team went to great lengths to develop personalities, relationships, and backstories for these characters, only to leave the majority of them as mute extras in the finished product. The point is that they had the opportunity to go further than the book, and from the beginning it really looked like they were going to. But in the end, I feel they fell short of what they were aiming for.

And if "well it was that way in the book" works to justify character screentime, then Legolas, Tauriel, and Alfrid shouldn't even be in the movie at all.


EgyptRaider
The Shire


Sep 2 2015, 12:27am

Post #19 of 30 (1983 views)
Shortcut
Spot on [In reply to] Can't Post

I completely agree with this line of reasoning. Arguing that the films should have given much more dialogue to all of the 13 dwarves, with even all of them having more to say than Alfrid, simply because the dwarves and bilbo and gandalf are the focus of the book... I don't like it a single bit. While in the last film they might have gone too far (and yes, when it comes to the EE I am mostly hoping for new screentime for the dwarves) it's simply ridiculous. The movie would be lacking severely if the elves and the humans didn't have their extra characters. We need their perspectives on the matter, and yes... I would argue that their stance is just as important as that of the dwarves, because otherwise the different twists in the BotFA would pass by without people really understanding why. It's called the Battle of the Five Armies after all, not the Battle of the 13 Dwarves, a Wizard, a Hobbit and some other people.

Yes, in the book their role was much smaller but the reason why is very simple: it's a children's book. and the Hobbit trilogy is not; it's an epic movie series, based on the novel, primarily made to match the scale of Lord of the Rings so their would be a consistent saga of six movies. Thus to achieve this, certain focusses had to be shifted (more Dol Guldur, and an entire movie centered around the Battle of the Five Armies)/. Therefor more elven and human -lead- characters were needed and I am glad that the lead cast is not restricted to just dwarves.


(This post was edited by EgyptRaider on Sep 2 2015, 12:30am)


CamdenMcAndrews
Rivendell


Sep 2 2015, 1:34am

Post #20 of 30 (1963 views)
Shortcut
The Story of The Hobbit Encompasses Much More Than One Little Book [In reply to] Can't Post

Expanding on that: The film series is about Bilbo Baggins; it's most emphatically not a book report on the original children's story named "The Hobbit." Peter Jackson made that clear long before they started work on the films.


The only way I know of to get a dramatic presentation that is 100% about that book and only about that book would be to buy an audio book of someone reading the story; or maybe get someone to read it to you.


The book, "The Hobbit," really wouldn't make much of a film; but J. R. R. Tolkien wrote more about that period of Middle of Earth in his notes and letters and revisions and the Appendices to the Lord of the Rings than he did in the published version of the story he wrote for his children. The writers of the screenplay (Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson, Guillermo Del Toro) did a brilliant job of putting all those bits together to bring the whole story to life and to fit in all we now know about all those bits from The Lord of the Rings. I really don't know of anything that's not from Tolkien; even the romance between an elf maiden and dwarf is from Tolkien, albeit different characters in a different time who happen to be in stories that the filmmakers didn't have license for so we won't mention that here thank you veddy much.


MyWeeLadGimli
Lorien

Sep 2 2015, 4:16am

Post #21 of 30 (1926 views)
Shortcut
. [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
The book, "The Hobbit," really wouldn't make much of a film


I definitely disagree on that point. It wouldn't be an epic film like Lord of the Rings, but it could be a wonderfully charming adventure.


MyWeeLadGimli
Lorien

Sep 2 2015, 4:18am

Post #22 of 30 (1927 views)
Shortcut
Poor Balin [In reply to] Can't Post

What stood out most to me was that Balin's dialogue in BOFA is about a quarter of what he had in DOS.

And I'm surprised Thorin had relatively little to say in AUJ. It didn't come across that way in the film itself.


dormouse
Half-elven


Sep 2 2015, 8:40am

Post #23 of 30 (1870 views)
Shortcut
"This, Master Baggins, is the world of men...." [In reply to] Can't Post

You ask why there need to be elves and men in such prominent roles in the film. To be honest, I'm surprised you even need to ask. They have to be there because they are part of Bilbo's journey - part of his encounter with the world that exists beyond the borders of the Shire. The film isn't the book, they made that clear from the beginning, but even if it were, the idea that the elves and men are only tertiary characters leaves me stunned. Even as a seven-or-eight year old I knew that the elves opened a door on something mysterious and wonderful, stretching back across centuries, and I fell completely in love with the Elvenking with his seasonal crown and his beautiful, flowing language. The world of Bilbo's journey grows in scale and becomes larger and deeper and more complex the further he goes on his journey. And in terms of the drama, bringing the thing to life on film, how on earth could they tell the story of Bilbo's encounter with the worlds of elves and men if they didn't show them? And how could they show them without personalising them - putting individual characters on screen to represent the lives of elves and men and to speak for them?

I'm finding your idea of secondary and tertiary characters quite bizarre. Even in a book you can't measure these things by word count. How on earth can you reduce Bard to a secondary role when he pulls off one of the key moments in the story by killing Smaug? That makes him a major character even though Tolkien doesn't tell us much about him. It also gives him the authority to lead the army of men even though he doesn't want the job.

This isn't about 'support for Alfrid, Tauriel and Legolas'. I'm not aware that they need support - whatever anyone thinks, they are in the film version of The Hobbit now and for all time. They're the way Peter Jackson & co chose to bring personality to the worlds of men and of elves and carry the story forward. It could have been done in any number of other ways, but anyone adapting The Hobbit would have done something. They would have had to give screen time and lines to men and elves or the story would not have been complete.

Or to put the thing at its most basic level, take away the elves and the men of Laketown and where is your Battle of Five Armies?

I think the real disagreement between us here is something much more fundamental than word counts or screen time. It's about The Hobbit itself. You say:


Quote
I think the essence of what I'm trying to say is that the book (and thus what this movie should be) is about a hobbit and his adventures with 13 dwarves and a wizard.


I say no, that's a misunderstanding of the book. The Hobbit to me is about Bilbo's encounter with the whole world outside the confines of his safe little Shire. It's about learning his place in that world.


Quote
Eyes that fire and sword have seen
And horror in the halls of stone
Look at last on meadows green
And trees and hills they long have known.


"You are a very fine person, Mr Baggins, and I am very fond of you; but you are only quite a little fellow in a wide world after all!"
"Thank goodness!" said Bilbo laughing, and handed him the tobacco jar.





arithmancer
Grey Havens


Sep 2 2015, 12:29pm

Post #24 of 30 (1805 views)
Shortcut
Some thoughts... [In reply to] Can't Post

Re: 1. and Gandalf - this would be a consequence of the choice to develop the Dol Guldur subplot. I am confident that if one removed all Radagast, WC, and DG related scenes, Gandalf would drop into lower position.

Re 2. and Smaug - he has one dialogue, only, in the book. The films expanded on this, by including the chase in Erebor, the confrontation in the golden hall and having him speak to Bard in Laketown, yet with all his expension, he was still only in 8th. I thougth the expansino was generally good, but I think even more might have been a mistake and I thus don't think he could reasonably be higher than he is.

Re: 2. and 3. and Alfrid, Bard and Thranduil - this is an adaptation choice I personally like. First, I do not see why you feel Bard is in the right place and Thranduil is not- he is no more a major character than Thranduil, in the book. The film enlarged both their roles (and to do so, enlarged roles for other members of their respective communities to provide foils for them.) To me the word counts you shared, actually suggest this was done right - Legolas and Tauriel get less dialogue than Thranduil, and Alfrid less than Bard.

I am not sure mentions and dialogue should be interchanged...to me the film equivalent of a mention is screen time. So I might agree we had too little Beorn compared to the book (mentions or dialogue) but less so about Fili/Bombur. However, more Beorn would have involved restructuring the end of Film 3. Which I personally loved, so I can't consider it a "problem area".



arithmancer
Grey Havens


Sep 2 2015, 1:08pm

Post #25 of 30 (1790 views)
Shortcut
They missed Bifur. [In reply to] Can't Post

But they do generally include all words spoken in all languages (note Azog and Lindir's counts - characters who spoke only in Dark Speech/Orcish and Elvish, respectively).

Welcome!



(This post was edited by arithmancer on Sep 2 2015, 1:08pm)

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.