Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: Someone can breathe again. :-) nm | |
| Posted by: ryhog 07:13 pm EDT 04/11/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Someone can breathe again. :-) nm - oddone 06:45 pm EDT 04/11/23 | |
|
|
|
| To me, all of the announced decisions were pretty much no brainers. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: Someone can breathe again. :-) nm | |
| Posted by: oddone 10:01 pm EDT 04/11/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Someone can breathe again. :-) nm - ryhog 07:13 pm EDT 04/11/23 | |
|
|
|
| Agreed. I wasn't sure if Prince Sebastian would be considered a lead in Bad Cinderella, but assumed probably not. It's mostly the end-of-season shows I'm curious about. Shucked for example. | |
| reply to this message |
| Riverside is a 9 year old play from 2014 | |
| Posted by: dramedy 07:17 pm EDT 04/11/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Someone can breathe again. :-) nm - ryhog 07:13 pm EDT 04/11/23 | |
|
|
|
| I saw it locally years ago. I assumed it was a revival at this point. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Riverside is a 9 year old play from 2014 | |
| Posted by: Delvino 07:34 pm EDT 04/11/23 | |
| In reply to: Riverside is a 9 year old play from 2014 - dramedy 07:17 pm EDT 04/11/23 | |
|
|
|
| It won the 2015 Pulitzer and has been produced in NYC; a new play designation, even on technicalities in the mutable rules, is odd. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Riverside is a 9 year old play from 2014 | |
| Posted by: sirpupnyc 08:35 pm EDT 04/11/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Riverside is a 9 year old play from 2014 - Delvino 07:34 pm EDT 04/11/23 | |
|
|
|
| Does the lack of mention necessarily indicate that (a) they've made a decision and (b) what that decision is? I'd be wary of drawing any conclusions about anything not specifically addressed in the release. Though this would be the usual point for the category decision to be mentioned. Just last season, How I Learned to Drive and Lackawanna Blues were determined to be revivals at the same meetings where their other issues were considered. It's not something anyone actually needs to know until the nominating committee meeting. Maybe it's so obviously a revival that they don't think that's something they need to determine and announce. Or maybe Second Stage submitted it as a revival (less likely). Maybe Second Stage is still debating the point, so final determination has been put off. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| It's a New Play | |
| Posted by: oddone 10:19 pm EDT 04/11/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Riverside is a 9 year old play from 2014 - sirpupnyc 08:35 pm EDT 04/11/23 | |
|
|
|
| It's being considered for the New Play category. It's pretty clear. The lack of a mention, in regards to a play that hasn't been on Broadway before, means it's being considered a new play. Much like the lack of mention of someone billed above the title means they are eligible as a Lead, etc. I don't think I've ever seen the TAC consider some elements of a production in one meeting, and wait to rule on others. When they consider a production, they consider it. The lack of a mention IS the decision here. Last season, Lackawanna Blues and How I Learned to Drive were explicitly mentioned as being Revivals, because again, the default would be that they would otherwise be considered as New Plays. This season, there were three plays dealt with in the first round that were all written and first produced more than a few years ago, but never on Broadway: Cost of Living, Ain't No Mo', and Ohio State Murders. The only one explicitly called out as being a Revival (for Tony purposes) was Ohio State Murders. The other two were not mentioned, and so are by default New Plays. Somewhat crucially (I suspect), both of these were being done with mostly the same casts and design teams as the Off Broadway versions (only half the cast is the same in Cost of Living, but the other two actors are the same). The same is the case with Between Riverside and Crazy, which is the strongest argument for considering it a New Play - it's in some ways a "transfer" of the production at the Atlantic (almost entirely same cast and design team). People get hung up on how many years since the first production, and I don't think that is really the determining factor. It's part of it, but certainly not in a "less than 5 = New, more than 5 = Revival" sort of way. True, How I Learned to Drive also used the same cast as the original Off Broadway production. But it was a different creative team, and in that case, it was around 20 years since that first production. It had that feeling of a Revival, but where we got a chance to "revisit" that original cast in a new light. In contrast, Between Riverside and Crazy feels like other transfer productions - "if you missed it Off Broadway, now you can see the same production on Broadway." |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Is doll’s house new? | |
| Posted by: dramedy 12:13 am EDT 04/12/23 | |
| In reply to: It's a New Play - oddone 10:19 pm EDT 04/11/23 | |
|
|
|
| The committee didn’t state it was a revival. And it’s a new translation. It should be a revival as a “classic”. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| No | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 11:37 pm EDT 04/12/23 | |
| In reply to: Is doll’s house new? - dramedy 12:13 am EDT 04/12/23 | |
|
|
|
| And the fact that you don't (or pretend not to) know the difference between a translation of a 150-year-old play and the first Broadway production of a fairly recent play does point to the absurdity of most of this thread. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Is doll’s house new? | |
| Posted by: oddone 12:33 am EDT 04/12/23 | |
| In reply to: Is doll’s house new? - dramedy 12:13 am EDT 04/12/23 | |
|
|
|
| Again, they don't NEED to state it's a revival, because there have been plenty of productions of A Doll's House on Broadway. And in fact, they WON'T say that it's a revival, because that's what it is by default, and they don't address anything where the "by default" eligibility is what they decide goes. They only address when something deviates from the "by default" (aka, "consistent with the opening night credits") - like when someone above the title should be considered Featured, or when someone below the title should be Lead. Take a look at this season's A Christmas Carol. That's a piece that has been on Broadway before, so the "default" position there would be that it's a Revival. If it wasn't addressed in their announcement, that's where it would be eligible. However, the TAC decided (rightly so, to my mind) that this adaptation (mostly one-person show, etc.) was significantly different enough to consider it as being a new play. (The same decision was made with the version that was on Broadway in December 2019, in fact). So therefore, you see the explicit mention that it's a New Play in the Feb 1 announcement. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| It’s not so much years | |
| Posted by: dramedy 12:04 am EDT 04/12/23 | |
| In reply to: It's a New Play - oddone 10:19 pm EDT 04/11/23 | |
|
|
|
| But productions around the country. I saw a local production in San Fran probably around 2015. I doubt that was one of only a few productions over the years. The rights were clearly not held for an imminent broadway production. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It's a New Play | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 10:51 pm EDT 04/11/23 | |
| In reply to: It's a New Play - oddone 10:19 pm EDT 04/11/23 | |
|
|
|
| Also, you have to discount 2 - 3 years megastar of the pandemic. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Yet Disgraced was regarded as a new play. | |
| Last Edit: Delvino 09:33 pm EDT 04/11/23 | |
| Posted by: Delvino 09:32 pm EDT 04/11/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Riverside is a 9 year old play from 2014 - sirpupnyc 08:35 pm EDT 04/11/23 | |
|
|
|
| I find the Pulitzer and a widely reviewed New York City production disqualifying. But: Disgraced was produced twice in the US in 2012, at the American Theatre Company (Chicago), and then Lincoln Center. It won the Pulitzer. it came to Broadway in 2014 and was nominated for Best Play. So it's a case by case basis. Perhaps 9 years vs. 2 is determinative. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Yet Disgraced was regarded as a new play. | |
| Posted by: writerkev 10:11 pm EDT 04/11/23 | |
| In reply to: Yet Disgraced was regarded as a new play. - Delvino 09:32 pm EDT 04/11/23 | |
|
|
|
| But in the case of “Disgraced,” it was that Lincoln Center production that moved to Broadway. If that wasn’t considered a new play, then no Off-Broadway transfer ever would be. (To penalize it by making it ineligible for new-play consideration because it won the Pulitzer would be bizarre.) That “felt” like the same new play in a way that, for example, the first Broadway run of “How I Learned to Drive” unquestionably did not. I agree “Between Riverside and Crazy” feels more like a revival, but I think a case could be made for its being “new,” given that it’s been largely the same cast and director driving it to Broadway and it simply took a very long time to get there. If it’s determined to be a new play (doubtful), it would certainly be on the very furthest edges of the definition. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Yet Disgraced was regarded as a new play. | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 10:54 pm EDT 04/11/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Yet Disgraced was regarded as a new play. - writerkev 10:11 pm EDT 04/11/23 | |
|
|
|
| It’s the original New York production on Broadway for the first time; it’s a New Play, not a revival. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Yet Disgraced was regarded as a new play. | |
| Last Edit: Delvino 10:28 pm EDT 04/11/23 | |
| Posted by: Delvino 10:18 pm EDT 04/11/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Yet Disgraced was regarded as a new play. - writerkev 10:11 pm EDT 04/11/23 | |
|
|
|
| Yet with Disgraced, three of the four leading characters were recast for Broadway. The argument weakens. The central couple received a new take with the new actors. Noted even by the playwright. Wasn’t Karen Pittman the only original? Weren’t the designers new? Yes. Only the director remained. Maybe a technicality, but telling. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Yet Disgraced was regarded as a new play. | |
| Posted by: writerkev 05:42 am EDT 04/12/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Yet Disgraced was regarded as a new play. - Delvino 10:18 pm EDT 04/11/23 | |
|
|
|
| You totally lose me there, because casts change constantly throughout runs on Broadway, and that is never determinant of a new production. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| There is a rule, and that rule doesn't really speak to most of what is being discussed in this thread | |
| Posted by: ryhog 11:34 pm EDT 04/11/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Yet Disgraced was regarded as a new play. - Delvino 10:18 pm EDT 04/11/23 | |
|
|
|
| The rule focuses on: (1) is it a "classic"? " (2) is it a part of the historical repertoire? (3) is it a part of the popular repertoire? Clearly it is not (1) or (2). Perhaps (3) is open to interpretation but the data on that is readily available. I confess that I do not know how often Riverside has been performed regionally and also that I am too lazy to look. Yes of course the committee can ignore its own rule (or, more likely, follow it with an interpretation that is counter to that of those who disagree with it, but the stuff being discussed above in this thread really seems like an unlikely detour. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Wiki lists some of the productions | |
| Posted by: dramedy 12:09 am EDT 04/12/23 | |
| In reply to: There is a rule, and that rule doesn't really speak to most of what is being discussed in this thread - ryhog 11:34 pm EDT 04/11/23 | |
|
|
|
| Across the country. I’m sure the list is not exhausted but a sample. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: There is a rule, and that rule doesn't really speak to most of what is being discussed in this thread | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 11:45 pm EDT 04/11/23 | |
| In reply to: There is a rule, and that rule doesn't really speak to most of what is being discussed in this thread - ryhog 11:34 pm EDT 04/11/23 | |
|
|
|
| I think the rule only makes sense in the context in which it was created, which was the two Sam Shepards and then Fortune’s Fool (I think it was), juxtaposed with “Not About Nightingales”. The rule became a somewhat official way of saying that plays that took 20+ years to come to Broadway after becoming widely produced - and generally in brand new productions - were no longer to be seen as new, especially in an era when most Off-Broadway plays transferred in the same season. Now that we’re in an era where Off-Broadway plays are routinely taking many years to come to Broadway - and sometimes getting re-tooled out of town - the rules get fuzzier to parse. So while I agree that a lot of the logic in this thread is faulty, the way it’s being debated is true to the reasoning behind the rule. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: There is a rule, and that rule doesn't really speak to most of what is being discussed in this thread | |
| Posted by: ryhog 01:10 am EDT 04/12/23 | |
| In reply to: re: There is a rule, and that rule doesn't really speak to most of what is being discussed in this thread - Singapore/Fling 11:45 pm EDT 04/11/23 | |
|
|
|
| I am having trouble understanding how the debate here relates to the reasoning behind the rule. I know the context. Fool was too old to be new and the Shepard plays were to popular to be new, but all were deemed new. I don't feel Nightingale has a place in this because it had never been produced until a year or two before it appeared on Broadway, and the previous mountings (London and Houston) were a part of a single production spearheaded by Vanessa Redgrave. Riverside was, as I said, clearly not a classic or historical play, and (now that I have looked quickly) does not appear to have been (in your words) "widely produced" in the interim decade or so. To me, the "context" does not provide a hook on which to hang Riverside and thus there is no rational basis for treating it as ineligible as a new play. (Thus, I point out, we don't disagree on the ultimate point.) But I don't see how this conclusion is in anyway informed by the people in the two shows, the amount of time that has past, etc. The bottom line is that the show has not been widely produced in the context of [the context you describe.] Note to Dramedy (since I feel confident you [S/F] would not dispute this): the appropriate metric is not wikipedia but the TCG data published in American Theatre. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: There is a rule, and that rule doesn't really speak to most of what is being discussed in this thread | |
| Posted by: oddone 01:30 am EDT 04/12/23 | |
| In reply to: re: There is a rule, and that rule doesn't really speak to most of what is being discussed in this thread - ryhog 01:10 am EDT 04/12/23 | |
|
|
|
| I think we all agree that "widely produced" is, at least to some extent, open to interpretation / up for debate. There is no specific number of productions as to what constitutes a play being "widely produced." I think the Tonys are intentionally vague here, to leave the TAC wiggle room to act on a case-by-case basis. While it's true that a Broadway production's similarity to a previous Off Broadway production is not explicitly mentioned in the rule about New vs. Revival, I have to believe it's a factor, or at the very least would be something producers would point to when arguing for the play (and thus the playwright) to be eligible as a new play. (Interestingly, Ohio State Murders is eligible as a Revival, BUT Adrienne Kennedy will also be eligible as playwright, so I guess you can have both.) If you as a Producer can make the point that your production is akin to a "transfer" (because it's more or less the same as an Off Bway production, with the same cast and creatives, no matter how long ago that same Off Bway production was), it would seem to me you'd sidestep those considerations about whether or not the play has been "widely produced" in the interim. Again, I could be wrong. And I understand the term "transfer" isn't in the rules per se. But given that this is how Broadway "works" now - where a show can have a decent life around the country before finally getting to Broadway - being able to argue this would seem to shore up your claim for a play being "New." Basically, we agree that Producers petition the TAC to consider an actor as Lead/Featured, and presumably, there are times they are successful, and other times they are not. Aside from billing, there is no hard and fast rule about what is a "Lead" role - Producers make a case, presumably drawing in as many facts as they think will help. I suspect the same is the case here - even if there is no explicit "rule" about a show being like a "transfer," I'd bet it would be a point producers would mention in making their case one way or the other. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: There is a rule, and that rule doesn't really speak to most of what is being discussed in this thread | |
| Posted by: ryhog 10:32 am EDT 04/12/23 | |
| In reply to: re: There is a rule, and that rule doesn't really speak to most of what is being discussed in this thread - oddone 01:30 am EDT 04/12/23 | |
|
|
|
| I think you are significantly overestimating the committee's deliberations. And although I agree it's case by case, I do not see a reasonable argument that Riverside is a part of the contemporary repertoire with so few productions. A couple of other things to mention: First, the method a producer uses to create the "default" differs for the revival vs original designation and the lead vs. supporting question. In the former case, the declaration is a part of the registration, not the opening night credits. Second, the committee can "administer" on its own. No petition is needed. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: There is a rule, and that rule doesn't really speak to most of what is being discussed in this thread | |
| Posted by: oddone 12:02 pm EDT 04/12/23 | |
| In reply to: re: There is a rule, and that rule doesn't really speak to most of what is being discussed in this thread - ryhog 10:32 am EDT 04/12/23 | |
|
|
|
| You’re probably right that I’m overestimating their deliberations. Fair. But I’m not the committee so I can only guess as to what their “sole discretion” is. Here’s the main clause from the rules: A play or musical that is determined by the Tony Awards Administration Committee (in its sole discretion) to be a “classic” or in the historical or popular repertoire shall not be eligible for an Award in the Best Play or Best Musical category… That “sole discretion” phrase is the wiggle room I had mentioned. I have no way of knowing what they will do. I also don’t have access to the producer’s petition, or to their registration. (Re new/revival vs acting categories - I understand these determinations come from different things. But we only have access to opening night credits, and that’s the only thing mentioned in the TAC’s press releases). But I do have access to the fact that a production is more or less the same as a somewhat recent Off Bway one. That suggests the producers would be positioning the show as a new play, and thus how it would be framed on any petition/registration. And I know no petition is needed. Basically, I’m using this kind of info as a proxy for info I don’t have. “Popular repertoire” is so vague as to be almost pointless. One other thing to point out - in Revival land, a recent NY production (borough of Manhattan) can make the Revival ineligible. It’s only a 3-year window, but it’s why the rights to perform many shows are just not available to companies in Manhattan. Even if no Broadway production is on the calendar. You’re probably going to say I’m trying to compare apples and oranges. I only bring it up to say that with Revivals, a recent production is a negative. But with New Plays, it’s not a problem at all. (And yes, I understand the ‘New Play or not’ question is decided first, and then the ‘eligible for Revival’ question is decided second). And yes, Atlantic’s production was over three years ago, so it doesn’t matter anyway. But to my mind, if I see there was a substantial NY production that is markedly similar to the Broadway production, of a play that was never on Broadway until now, that’s a good sign it will be in the New Play category. I don’t bother trying to parse if it’s in the popular repertoire or not, because that’s so fuzzy. I know it isn’t determinative and it’s possible the producers don’t even bother mentioning it. But especially in this case (it’s pretty much the exact same production as the one at the Atlantic), it is a much easier way to think about it than trying to figure out how many other productions there have been and whatnot. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: There is a rule, and that rule doesn't really speak to most of what is being discussed in this thread | |
| Posted by: ryhog 12:43 pm EDT 04/12/23 | |
| In reply to: re: There is a rule, and that rule doesn't really speak to most of what is being discussed in this thread - oddone 12:02 pm EDT 04/12/23 | |
|
|
|
| Yes there is wiggle room in some elements and yes you can make guesses (with which I or others might disagree). I think I'll just leave it as that. One thing that it seems you might not be aware of is that you DO have access to (at least this part of) the registration: it is listed in ibdb.com. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: There is a rule, and that rule doesn't really speak to most of what is being discussed in this thread | |
| Posted by: oddone 12:57 pm EDT 04/12/23 | |
| In reply to: re: There is a rule, and that rule doesn't really speak to most of what is being discussed in this thread - ryhog 12:43 pm EDT 04/12/23 | |
|
|
|
| Thanks for ibdb.com. I've used it before but I was never clear where the info was coming from. If they are taking info from the show's registration, that's helpful to know. I checked Ohio State Murders on ibdb.com, and that is listed as "Play" and "Original." So I guess the producers registered it as a new play? Or was this just how ibdb decided to categorize it (since it's the first entry for that piece)? It sounds like you're saying that "Original" tag is a reflection of the show's registration? In any case, the Administration Committee deemed it a Revival. Which makes sense to me. It feels more "historical/popular repertoire." It was first done in 1991, even though it wasn't done in NY until 2007. And that was a much different production than this one. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: There is a rule, and that rule doesn't really speak to most of what is being discussed in this thread | |
| Posted by: ryhog 01:26 pm EDT 04/12/23 | |
| In reply to: re: There is a rule, and that rule doesn't really speak to most of what is being discussed in this thread - oddone 12:57 pm EDT 04/12/23 | |
|
|
|
| ibdb is part of the league so the info is coming from the league which gets it off of the registration. Caveat is that one can change the registration details, up to a point. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: There is a rule, and that rule doesn't really speak to most of what is being discussed in this thread | |
| Posted by: oddone 01:49 pm EDT 04/12/23 | |
| In reply to: re: There is a rule, and that rule doesn't really speak to most of what is being discussed in this thread - ryhog 01:26 pm EDT 04/12/23 | |
|
|
|
| Good to know. I see the League's logo and association are there, but it's helpful to know the path for the information - where it comes from, etc. That's sort of hinted at with "official source" and "title page information," but it isn't spelled out explicitly. I also remember when ibdb looked a lot less professional than it does now. Which of course is not indicative of the accuracy of the information. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: There is a rule, and that rule doesn't really speak to most of what is being discussed in this thread | |
| Posted by: Revned 02:14 am EDT 04/12/23 | |
| In reply to: re: There is a rule, and that rule doesn't really speak to most of what is being discussed in this thread - oddone 01:30 am EDT 04/12/23 | |
|
|
|
| Regarding your comment: "Interestingly, Ohio State Murders is eligible as a Revival, BUT Adrienne Kennedy will also be eligible as playwright, so I guess you can have both." I'm not sure what you mean by that. Awards are given for Best Play and Best Revival of a Play, but there's not a separate award for Best Playwright. It's not unheard-of for the Best Revival of a Play award to go to a production of a play by a living writer (it happened last year with Take Me Out) but officially the award is presented to the producer. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| I'm just repeating what the Administration Committee decided... | |
| Last Edit: oddone 02:45 am EDT 04/12/23 | |
| Posted by: oddone 02:40 am EDT 04/12/23 | |
| In reply to: re: There is a rule, and that rule doesn't really speak to most of what is being discussed in this thread - Revned 02:14 am EDT 04/12/23 | |
|
|
|
| I'm well aware of the precedent and who normally gets the Tony for a Play Revival. That's why I said "Interestingly." I didn't make this up - I'm just repeating what the Administration Committee decided: "Ohio State Murders will be considered eligible in the Best Revival of a Play category. Adrienne Kennedy will be considered eligible as author." For whatever reason (presumably because she wasn't eligible for a Tony before for this play), if Ohio State Murders wins Best Revival, Adrienne Kennedy will share that award with the Producers. (And to my points elsewhere on this thread - this is not the norm, thus is the reason they mention it explicitly. For all other revivals, the author(s) don't share the award.) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I'm just repeating what the Administration Committee decided... | |
| Posted by: sirpupnyc 08:32 am EDT 04/12/23 | |
| In reply to: I'm just repeating what the Administration Committee decided... - oddone 02:40 am EDT 04/12/23 | |
|
|
|
| There was a tweak to the play revival rules several years back, giving the award to the author in addition to the producers in certain situations. (I don't remember the exact details and don't have time to check right now...but something like the author's alive and the play hasn't been on Broadway before...maybe after Larry Kramer wasn't actually included in the award for The Normal Heart? Or so that he would be?) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I'm just repeating what the Administration Committee decided... | |
| Posted by: oddone 11:07 am EDT 04/12/23 | |
| In reply to: re: I'm just repeating what the Administration Committee decided... - sirpupnyc 08:32 am EDT 04/12/23 | |
|
|
|
| Thank you! Now that you mention this it’s coming back to me that this rule had changed. And yes- you’re right. I looked it up and the playwright can’t have been Tony-eligible before, and also must be alive. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: There is a rule, and that rule doesn't really speak to most of what is being discussed in this thread | |
| Last Edit: oddone 12:35 am EDT 04/12/23 | |
| Posted by: oddone 12:25 am EDT 04/12/23 | |
| In reply to: re: There is a rule, and that rule doesn't really speak to most of what is being discussed in this thread - Singapore/Fling 11:45 pm EDT 04/11/23 | |
|
|
|
| I agree with this. And yes- while there are clear rules, one can always argue for varying interpretations of these rules. It's one reason why I wasn't 100% sure how the committee would consider Between Riverside and Crazy, until they decided. I was pretty sure it would be deemed a New Play, but not positive. But what IS clear is that the Administration Committee HAS decided. If a play hasn't been on Broadway, it's by default a new play, unless they say otherwise. They didn't, so it's a new play. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.268066 seconds.