‘Star Trek’ director J.J. Abrams on tribbles and the ‘Galaxy Quest’ problem

Jan. 29, 2009 | 6:54 p.m.

J.J. Abrams, who has made a name for himself writing, directing and producing such hits as "Lost" and "Star Trek," was tapped in January to direct "Star Wars: Episode VII." (Tracey Nearmy / European Pressphoto Agency)

Abrams made his first foray into television in 1998, co-creating the coming-of-age drama "Felicity," which starred Keri Russell as the title character. The show won a Golden Globe and an Emmy. (The WB)

Abrams created the Jennifer Garner-starring spy thriller series "Alias," which won four Emmys and a Golden Globe. (Norman Jean Roy / ABC)

J.J. Abrams on the set of "Mission: Impossible III," the first feature film he directed. The film earned nearly $400 million at the worldwide box office. (Paramount Pictures)

Director J.J. Abrams and star Tom Cruise on the set of "Mission: Impossible III." (Paramount Pictures)

Director J.J. Abrams and star Tom Cruise pose atop Shanghai's historic Bund 18 building after wrapping up filming in China for "Mission: Impossible III" on Nov. 30, 2005. (Associated Press)

Abrams co-created "Lost" with Jeffrey Lieber and Damon Lindelof. The suspense-filled show followed a group of people after their plane crashed on an island. The massively popular series became a cultural touchstone, with millions of viewers tuning in for twist after twist. (ABC)

J.J. Abrams is photographed in Los Angeles in April 2006. (Bob Chamberlin / Los Angeles Times

J.J. Abrams, second from left, poses with the cast members from "Fringe," a sci-fi television series he co-created with Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci. (Rich Lam / Getty Images)

J.J. Abrams reveals his first casting for his 2009 reboot of "Star Trek" during a 2007 Comic-Con panel in San Diego. (Spencer Weiner / Los Angeles Times)

A scene from Abrams' 2009 film "Star Trek," which raked in more than $385 million worldwide. (Paramount Pictures)

Steven Spielberg, left, co-produced the 2011 film "Super 8," which J.J. Abrams wrote and directed. The pair are shown here at a 2009 dinner honoring Spielberg in Beverly Hills. (Michael Kovac / WireImage)

J.J. Abrams and Steven Spielberg on the set of "Super 8." (Paramount Pictures)

Director J.J. Abrams and actor Kyle Chandler on the set of "Super 8." (Paramount Pictures)

Young actors Joel Courtney and Riley Griffiths discuss a scene with director J.J. Abrams on the set of "Super 8." (Paramount Pictures)

J.J. Abrams, left, and Eric Kripke executive produce the post-apocalyptic adventure series "Revolution." The pair are photographed here at Abrams' company Bad Robot in Santa Monica on Aug. 20, 2012. (Al Seib / Los Angeles Times)

Abrams, second from left, shares the stage with "Star Trek Into Darkness" actor Benedict Cumberbatch, star Chris Pine and producer Bryan Burk during a December 2012 press conference for the sequel to their 2009 blockbuster. (Koji Sasahara / Associated Press)

J.J. Abrams and his wife Katie McGrath are co-chairs of the Children's Defense Fund of California. They're photographed here in December 2012. (Mark Davis / Getty Images)

J.J. Abrams is photographed in Beverly Hills in June 2011. (Jay L. Clendenin / Los Angeles Times)

J.J. Abrams is photographed in Beverly Hills in June 2011. (Jay L. Clendenin / Los Angeles Times)

EXCLUSIVE: This is the first part of an interview with J.J. Abrams about his cinematic voyages aboard the Starship Enterprise. Read part two here.

Gene Roddenberry had this notion in the early 1960s about a television show that felt like “Wagon Train” in space, a frontier tale with groovy sci-fi imagery and a proud parable spirit. And just look what he started. In May, the pop culture phenomena of “Star Trek” proudly returns where it has gone before — the movie theater — with the 11th film in the franchise. This time the director is J.J. Abrams, a creative force in television with “Alias,” “Lost” and “Fringe” as well as the director of “Mission Impossible III.” He talked to Hero Complex about navigating his movie through the neutral zone that lies between hard-core “Trek” fans and summer moviegoers. This is part one of the interview.

GB: As franchises move into new eras it’s interesting to watch how they change — or don’t change. “Battlestar Galactica” could hardly be more different than it was in the 1970s while “Star Wars” is essentially the same. With “Star Trek” you seem to be pursuing a revival like we’ve seen with Batman and James Bond, which holds on to core mythology but recalibrates the tone.

JJA: I think I benefited because I came into this movie as someone who appreciated “Star Trek” but wasn’t an insane fanatic about it. The disadvantage is I didn’t know everything I needed to know immediately at the beginning and had to learn it. The advantage though is I could look at “Star Trek” as a whole a little bit more like a typical moviegoer would see it; it allowed me to seize the things that I felt were truly the most iconic and important aspects of the original series and yet not be serving the master and trying to be true to every arcane detail. It let me look at the things I knew were critical.

Star_trek_kirk_and_sulu

GB: What are some of the things that made that “critical” list?

JJA: The characters was the most important thing in it. We needed to be true to the spirit of those characters. There were certain iconic things — if you’re going to do “Star Trek,” you’ve got to do the Enterprise and it has to look like the Enterprise. If you’re going to do “Star Trek” you have to do costumes that feel like the costumes people know. You have to be able to glance at it and know what that is. Even the text, the font of “Star Trek” has to look like what you know.

The phasers, the communicators, the Starfleet logo — there are all these things that are the touchstones, the tenets of what makes “Star Trek” “Star Trek.” If you’re going to do this series those are things you don’t mess with. And yet, they need to withstand a resolution that “Star Trek” has never had to withstand before. And I don’t just mean IMAX — though it will have to work there too — but what I mean is that audiences are so savvy now and they’ve seen every iteration of “Star Trek,” “Star Wars,” two separate versions of “Battlestar Galactica,” they’ve seen “Alien” and “Aliens,” they’ve seen countless science fiction movies. They’ve seen it all. And even worse, they’ve seen a movie as “Galaxy Quest” that completely mocks the paradigm in its entirety.

UPDATE: J.J. Abrams directing ‘Star Wars’: Many voices cry out in reaction

GB: That’s very true, you can’t afford any accidental “Galaxy Quest” moments on your ship’s bridge.

JJA: The trick is how do you use a ship like that, uniforms like that, characters who look like that and the name “Star Trek” and make it feel relevant and legitimate. the challenge is to take the familiar — for better or worse — and embrace the elements that make it unique but be sure the master you’re serving is the making of the most entertaining movie possible. You can’t look backward and try to make sure that every decision you’re making is true to the past. that’s not to say that we weren’t true to the past, but that wasn’t our guiding principle.

GB: You know that no matter what you do, you’ll get an earful from hardcore fans.

JJA: The key is to appreciate that there are purists and fans of “Star Trek” who are going to be very vocal if they see things that aren’t what what they want. But I can’t make this movie for readers of Nacelles Monthly who are only concerned with what the ship’s engines look like. They’re going to find something they hate no matter what I do. And yet, the movie at its core is not only inspired by what has come before, it’s deeply true to what’s come before. The bottom line is we have different actors playing these parts and from that point on it’s literally not what they’ve seen before. It will be evident when people see this movie that it is true to what Roddenberry created and what those amazing actors did in the 1960s. At the same time, I think, it’s going to blow people’s minds because its  a completely different experience than what they expect.

Nimoy_kelly_and_shatner_tape_star_3

GB: In the footage you showed at the Paramount lot I was really struck by the comedic touches. There was a humor that felt natural and exuberant … there was also some vamping moments for your cast.

JAA: Yeah, among the kind of anecdotal critiques I read online some people said ‘Oh, look at this, they’re trying to sex it up,’ by having Kirk in bed with a girl or Uhura undressing, and they said, ‘Oh that’s not ‘Star Trek.’ Other people wrote, ‘Oh there’s comedy in it, that’s not ‘Star Trek’ I know.’ Look, if you actually watch the show, that show was always pushing buttons all the time and was considered very sexy for its time. It had the first interracial kiss on television and it was a show that was sexually adventurous. And it was very funny. One of my favorite things about “Star Trek” wasn’t just the overt banter but the humor in that show about the relationships between the main characters and their reactions to the situations they would face; there was a lot of comedy in that show without ever breaking its reality. That’s important to us.

GB: Last time I saw you, you mentioned there would be a tribble in the movie. That’s fun.

Jj_abrams_dan_steinberg_2008 JAA: Yes! There is a tribble in there. But you have to look for it. And there’s that other surprise I told you about but please don’t write about that one.

GB: I won’t,  I won’t, I promised. There’s plenty of other stuff to talk about. I’m fascinated by the challenge facing your captain. Chris Pine has the biggest acting dilemma of 2009: How do you play James T. Kirk without imitating William Shatner?

JAA: Totally. I think all of the actors have a similar challenge. We lucked out on “Star Trek” with the production designer, the costume designer, the visual effects, the composer — everywhere you look on this production we lucked out and got the people doing the best work in the business. They are all so good. But I have to say that the place where I could not be more grateful or amazed, is with the cast. To go into a movie like this where you are casting these iconic characters who were played by actors who defined them and created them — certainly as much as Roddenberry did –the odds of finding the right people to fill those shoes are very small. And having all of the people you cast actually work out is even smaller. I feel like we managed the impossible by finding actors who are so committed to their roles and so are all so right and funny and real and emotional and complicated but yet still familiar. They are the characters from the show and yet no one is doing an imitation of one of the former actors.

The reason that it works — or the reason I believe it is working — is that I and people who have seen it have walked away feeling that these are the characters. There’s a transition that happens. It’s a weird thing. it’s not that you will ever forget what DeForest Kelley did or George Takei or Shatner or any of them. It’s almost though as if another door opens and you’re letting in something else into a space that was sacred. It doesn’t diminish what was before, it doesn’t lessen the quality or impact of what was. It’s like when you look at James Bond. There are people out there that feel that Daniel Craig is it. And then there are people who say, “Oh my God, Roger Moore, that’s the only James Bond who will ever work,” and people who think Sean Connery is clearly the one true Bond. The thing is, what Craig is doing now doesn’t undermine what those other actors did. They can coexist.

PART TWO: Abrams says “Star Trek” must escape the shadow of “Star Wars”

– Geoff Boucher

Forbidden_planet_2The lowdown: 13 upcoming remakes of Hollywood sci-fi classics

“Star Trek,” “Star Wars” and “Battlestar” look for their future

First Look: The new “Star Trek” action figures

Exclusive: Arnold Schwarzenegger underwhelmed by “Terminator” revival

Exclusive: William Shatner vents about “Star Trek” snub

Will “Force Unleashed” be the next “Star Wars” film?

UPDATE: An earlier version of this post flubbed Abram’s funny Nacelles Monthly reference. Sorry.

Photo of J.J. Abrams by Spencer Weiner/Los Angeles Times. “Star Trek” images courtesy of Paramount Pictures. 1973 photo of Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley and William Shatner by Mary Frampton/Los Angeles Times

Comments


21 Responses to ‘Star Trek’ director J.J. Abrams on tribbles and the ‘Galaxy Quest’ problem

  1. I think J.J. has a grasp on what makes a good movie. He also has Bob Orci on the writing team and that gives me hope as well. I must say that I am a fan of all the shows that Abrams has been involved with and I'm sure I won't be disappointed by his version of Star Trek.
    Also, he did bring in Leonard Nimoy and even Scotty's son, Chris Doohan. That's pretty cool that he's working in the Transporter room like his dad did .
    You can see Chris'd IMDB here: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1067053/” target=”_blank”>www.imdb.com/name/nm1067053/

  2. Dan Dengle says:

    That's "Nacelles Monthly," not "Maysell's Monthly." There's no such thing as "Maysell's Monthly." He was making a joke about the ship's nacelles–the long, cylindrical, cigar-shaped parts on the back–as if there were fans geeky enough to write a monthly magazine about them.

  3. Call me Cassandra says:

    I'll be glad if this team turns out to really understand Star Trek (the way Nicholas Meyer did when he revived the franchise with Wrath o' Khan), but J.J. Abrams doesn't seem to understand Galaxy Quest very well.

  4. Joe Smith says:

    I would like to point out something that didn't make it onto Abrams's 'critical list' and that is the whole reason Roddenberry created the show: THE SOCIAL COMMENTARY!! Star Trek was created as social commentary dressed up as science fiction! I don't care about the font or the nacelles or phazers!. What is the message that the movie is going to impart to the audience and the world at large? In all the interviews I've read about this movie, not a word about any of this…

  5. Bryan, Austin-TX says:

    I'm glad he's infusing more action into this franchise.

  6. Richard Sierra says:

    Honestly,I feel that J.J. made a mistake in resigning the hole concept of Star trek in this movie.
    his new feel toward star trek alienate many faithful fans whom had kept the show alive for years.he should have feel deeper in how humans will experience a new age of humanity and the burden of survival.instead,the movie deal a with crazy villain who is out to get even with the character Kirk. the cast are beautiful,but the story dose not have the feel of a new adventures. Sorry j.j. May 9 will be feel like Friday the 13.

  7. Melody Ski says:

    I quote from your article, the very first line: "Gene Roddenberry had this notion in the early 1960s about a television show that felt like "Wagon Train" in space, a frontier tale with groovy sci-fi imagery and a proud parable spirit."
    Sorry, that is incorrect. Roddenberry had an entirely different plot line in mind. It was Desilu Studios, who held the purse strings, that demanded "Wagon Train to the stars." It was only by using brilliant writers and his own blessed deviousness that he was able to address as many social issues as it did. Please put the rotten eggs in the correct basket.

  8. Geoff Boucher says:

    Melody, well I see dozens of credible citations that refer to Roddenberry as the originator of the "Wagon Train" line. (I'm also not sure exactly what is so "rotten" about the high-concept shorthand, it is a TV show, after all, and that's the way they are casually summed-up in the industry.) William Shatner, in his autobiography "Up Till Now," even refers to Rodenberry as pitching the show that way Is there a source that you can point me to that suggests otherwise? I'd be happy to check it out. Thanks

  9. I think star trek has gotten boring. partially it is because of the lack of social commentary, but another part is the fact that it has no edge. They aren't doing anything new or ground breaking anymore

  10. Michael says:

    In the 70s when I was a teen, I sported the obligatory "Star Trek Lives!" bumper sticker. I "have been and always shall be" a Star Trek fan. When TNG came out in ;86, I refused to call it "Star Trek." I called it "Star Fleet: The Next Generation" instead. To call anything else but "Star Trek" Star Trek was blasphemy. I was wrong. TNG was awful at first, but by the second season was on its way to building on the core concept of Star Trek, i.e., what it means to be human – while at the same time giving us all kinds of neat, cool special effects (which any true fan will admit to loving). I loved DS9, the orphan of Star Trek, for being daring and examining the flip side of Roddenberry's utopian vision. I cringed at Voyager, and tolerated Enterprise. Now, I'm ready to boldly go once again. If Abrams gets that Star Trek is about loyalty to friends, about what it means to be human, and above all, about being hopeful about mankind's future, than the "franchise" will be in good hands.

  11. Jeff C says:

    My main question is why include Nimoy at all if this is a reboot?
    It certainly cannot be a prequel, as they have changed so many fundamental elements from the original show. They could have completely rebooted the series, as they did with Battlestar Galactica and cut all ties…and I might have a little more respect for their attempt.
    Having any connection to the original Universe (that this movie essentially wipes out) seems purely a stunt to pull in old fans, which shows a lack of confidence in it being an entirely new enterprise (pun intended).
    There are a lot of people who want to have anything new come out with the name Star Trek on it…but will it really be Star Trek? For 43 years, The world that the creators made only moved forward, gathering hundreds of hours of material into the largest science fiction franchise of all time.
    And why does it have to be Kirk, Spock and McCoy anyway to be Star Trek? That was only Star Trek for the first 20 years…then it expanded in new and even more exciting ways with the new series The Next Generation, and my favorite of the television shows, Deep Space Nine. The Next Generation crew also provided one of the best, exciting and most successful films, First Contact.
    So what killed the old Star Trek? In my opinion, it was when they tried to expand a fifth time with a Prequel show, Enterprise. Prequels, for the most part, do not work. The characters or worlds that they are detailing are already established and there is really no need to tell the story. And there is the inevitable and unexplainable advancement in technology and style that now exists BEFORE the events of the original film. Just look at the mess that is the Star Wars prequels as an example…or the aforementioned Enterprise TV show.
    Abrams and his writers could have moved FORWARD rather than backwards and without stepping on any toes and created a new crew, new ship, new situations and set it in a time of Adventure and Excitement…and basically created the same movie with different names…But that would have required a better understanding of Star Trek, rather than just wanting to cash in on the name.
    They tried something similar in 1998 with Lost in Space and that was a total fiasco.

  12. Brian W says:

    I have a shocking message for everyone — how about WAITING until the movie comes out BEFORE passing judgement on it. For crying out loud — we've seen almost NOTHING about this movie except for TWO trailers.
    I'd like to pose a question to all these star trek know-it-alls that are already trashing the movie before its release date: How do you know it's going to be bad without even seeing it? I want to know! The rest of us want to know.
    George Lucas even had to deal with so-called fans that wanted to hijack his franchise in remake it into some other image! This is no different. All these Star Trek snobs trying to lecture the rest of us on what Star Trek is or is not. Give it a freaking rest already! Wait until May 9!

  13. David Harris-Jones says:

    "the way Nicholas Meyer did when he revived the franchise with Wrath o' Khan"
    That was Harve Bennett, not Meyer. Meyer was the director and his input on the script cannot be understated, but it was Bennett's vision that carried "Wrath of Khan" and made it the best Star Trek ever.
    "I think star trek has gotten boring. partially it is because of the lack of social commentary"
    Social commentary was always Star Trek's weakest points. While dramatic stories like 'City on the Edge of Forever' and Balance of Terror' are still gripping and 'The Trouble with Tribbles' still makes us laugh, try watching "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" and tell me that soocial commentary can stand the test of time. Where the social commentary worked was in the quiet way it depicted a better humanity. Actually trying to *dramatize* that commentary was always ham-fisted and embarrasing.
    As was pointed out, "Wagon Train to the Stars" was not Roddenberry's notion. It was a catchy phrase (along with "Horatio Hornblower in space") that he used to sell it to the suits. That's why they were so upset with the first pilot. They fel he had misled them: promising frontier sdventure and delivering a think-piece.
    J.J. Abrams clearly does not know what he is doing. He says that "you've got to do the Enterprise and it has to look like the Enterprise", yet if you've seen any pictures, you know that it doesn't. It makes everything he says difficult to take without a *huge* grain of salt. If he doesn't realize that his Enterprise doesn't look like the Enterprise, what else has he got wrong?

  14. Jeff C says:

    My main question is why include Nimoy at all if this is a reboot?
    It certainly cannot be a prequel, as they have changed so many fundamental elements from the original show. They could have completely rebooted the series, as they did with Battlestar Galactica and cut all ties…and I might have a little more respect for their attempt.
    Having any connection to the original Universe (that this movie essentially wipes out) seems purely a stunt to pull in old fans, which shows a lack of confidence in it being an entirely new enterprise (pun intended).
    There are a lot of people who want to have anything new come out with the name Star Trek on it…but will it really be Star Trek? For 43 years, The world that the creators made only moved forward, gathering hundreds of hours of material into the largest science fiction franchise of all time.
    And why does it have to be Kirk, Spock and McCoy anyway to be Star Trek? That was only Star Trek for the first 20 years…then it expanded in new and even more exciting ways with the new series The Next Generation, and my favorite of the television shows, Deep Space Nine. The Next Generation crew also provided one of the best, exciting and most successful films, First Contact.
    So what killed the old Star Trek? In my opinion, it was when they tried to expand a fifth time with a Prequel show, Enterprise. Prequels, for the most part, do not work. The characters or worlds that they are detailing are already established and there is really no need to tell the story. And there is the inevitable and unexplainable advancement in technology and style that now exists BEFORE the events of the original film. Just look at the mess that is the Star Wars prequels as an example…or the aforementioned Enterprise TV show.
    Abrams and his writers could have moved FORWARD rather than backwards and without stepping on any toes and created a new crew, new ship, new situations and set it in a time of Adventure and Excitement…and basically created the same movie with different names…But that would have required a better understanding of Star Trek, rather than just wanting to cash in on the name.
    They tried something similar in 1998 with Lost in Space and that was a total fiasco.

  15. Justin says:

    Why not change the very-dated-looking font?

  16. MikeO says:

    I'm a TOS fan since '76, and I have to admit that I'm looking forward to this new movie. I hope it stands alone as a great story and good entertainment. I'm looking forward to a fresh view of the Trek universe. There's still lots of ground to cover.
    I like some of the points Jeff C writes above regarding starting fresh with Star Trek moving forward. However, I think a prequel series could work very well if the story arc is good. Of course Star Wars did this – finally getting it right with Revenge of the Sith. I'm hoping this new Star Trek movie gets it right out of the gate.
    I think the younger generation can easily identify with the younger versions of the characters we know so well from TOS. They won't have a strong attachment to the original actors. Frankly I'm looking forward to seeing what the new actors will bring. It's been a little depressing to watch our old friends, the original actors, age along with us. It'll be nice to ride along with the younger cast and experience some energy and optimism for a change.
    Warp 10 – engage!

  17. Brent Morris says:

    I was really hoping that there was a Nacelles Monthly :(

  18. Gareth says:

    I enjoyed reading this interview; thought the questions were well chosen and the answers were interesting and very sensible.
    I have been a Star Trek fan since I was a kid – so about 30 years – and have been a fan of every incarnation of it…..well I wasn't a fan of Enterprise for long but…..I loved the orginal series when I was a kid and felt the franchise just kept improving with every series after that – Next Generation and Deep Space Nine (DS9 still being the best incarnation of Trek in my opinion for all sorts of reasons) – I am pleased they've done what they've done – not necessarily what I would have chosen to do but it looks like an excellent film and its great to have more Trek around – I think he has been faithful to what went before – from what I know anyway – and think there's nothing wrong in getting a new cast, and what people have said above about social commentary – that varied really according to what episode you were watching – there are some that are purely there to tell a good yarn – after this film there may be a great allegorical film out to follow it – this is hopefully just the beginning of more Trek to come…..

  19. Mike Burton says:

    While most Star Trek fans are singing JJ Abrams' praises, I for one see this film as the death of Gene Roddenberry's original classic. You can't walk out of the theatre after seeing this movie and go back and watch any of the original TV series and feel like it fits, because it doesn't. Abrams went over the top using a black hole to get himself out of a black hole –being faitful to both the history of the characters and the characters themselves. Pine played Kirk as an irresponsble bungler who only gets ahead by being handed things to him by virtue of his lineage; Chekhov was a silly parody; the actor who played McCoy was trying so hard to mimic DeForest Kelly it was laughable. Now we can look forward to the sequel where Spock falls in love with Uhurua!

  20. Mike Burton says:

    While most Star Trek fans are singing JJ Abrams’ praises, I for one see this film as the death of Gene Roddenberry’s original classic. You can’t walk out of the theatre after seeing this movie and go back and watch any of the original TV series and feel like it fits, because it doesn’t. Abrams went over the top using a black hole to get himself out of a black hole –being faitful to both the history of the characters and the characters themselves. Pine played Kirk as an irresponsble bungler who only gets ahead by being handed things to him by virtue of his lineage; Chekhov was a silly parody; the actor who played McCoy was trying so hard to mimic DeForest Kelly it was laughable. Now we can look forward to the sequel where Spock falls in love with Uhurua!

  21. Wendell says:

    Well I liked the movie from an action point of view but I had a lot of problems with it from a Trek point of view. I am not talking about the timeline change. Trek fans need to get over that. After all there was a movie where the Enterprise whipped around the sun went back in time and brought back whales to save the day. For me there just wasn't enough Trek there. At least not what Trek had become which was solid story telling and social commentary. After seeing this I understand why.
    Abrams is too obsessed with Start Wars. No problem with that but he's obsessed with the 3 most recent movies. He's right, the ships, the look, the feel it's all great. But those three movies had the worst story telling and the worst acting I have ever seen. And there in lies the problem. He thinks that is what makes a great sci-fi movie. Look and feel.
    Sci-fi has come back to it's roots. In the beginning with special effects were bad it was all about the story. Then special effects became really good and it was all about the effects. No special effects are good and reality inexpensive. So everyone has great special effects. So in order for Sci-fi to be good it has returned to it's roots. Great stories. Yes the movie looked good.
    So what.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title="" rel=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <pre> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Close
E-mail It
Powered by ShareThis