Upcoming Blu-ray purchases

**Hdale85** · 03 July 2008, 19:04 Thursday

A lot of those titles I've never even heard of. But there are a few that I might potentially want depending on cost.

**Nolan B** · 03 July 2008, 20:06 Thursday

6 if i count the godfather box set as 1.

**Burke Strickland** · 03 July 2008, 20:18 Thursday

NOTA (None Of The Above) -- no BluRay player and while there are a lot of fine titles on the list, I already have the ones I want on (nicely upscalable) DVD so their pending BluRay availability is not an incentive to buy a player just yet.

**Ken49r** · 04 July 2008, 00:05 Friday

Zero, I own a Blu-ray player.

At $30.00 a pop for Blue-ray that is almost equivalent to 2 movie tickets and a soda or 2 SACD's. As little as I re watch a movie I could rent the same movie or rent ones I haven't seen 6 times to equal the purchase price.

It would be interesting to keep track of how many times movies are replayed in ones video library vs music library. CD's average 40 min run time vs 90 min on up to 3 hrs for a movie. Also I am able to play a few songs from a CD if I don't care to listen to the whole thing. But who breaks out the DVD and just plays a couple chapters?

Being a "junior"

audiophile/videophile on a budget, and with technology constantly changing and sometimes improving it's hard to keep up. But if we look at history I think the guy with 500 LP music collection faired better than the guy with 500 VHS tape movies.

Glad to see there a lot more titles coming out on Blue-ray though. Not much of a selection at the local rental store at the moment.

**George Bellefontaine** · 04 July 2008, 11:19 Friday

There will be a few new releases I will buy, but as for going back and buying replacements for those in my dvd collection, there won't be many if any at all unless the price is right.

**Gremal** · 04 July 2008, 11:45 Friday

So we've all seen new, critically acclaimed films like The Band's Visit and explored the upgrade in catalog titles enough to know that the BD advantages are not worth $30? :roll:

Really, I'm just astonished at many of the replies. I'd understand it on a forum unrelated to HT, but aren't we supposed to be interested in getting the best video and audio performance? Don't we spend thousand$ so our systems are optimized to show off the slimmest advantages in AQ and PQ?

Someone above mentioned SACD and how he'd rather go out and buy a couple of those than BD. Hello? The format's pretty much dead and the reason it's dead is because when it was alive, audiophiles were saying the same thing: it's too expensive, don't buy catalog titles, nothing's coming out of interest...it was an actively negative reaction to a format demonstrating improved sound. It never took off. Then digital audio all but killed music on optical formats. Audiophiles sure screwed the pooch on that one.

It would be a shame to see BD suffer a similar fate, but at the rate we are actively talking ourselves out of adopting or buying titles you'd actually enjoy, this is not going to take off. As quality-conscious HT enthusiasts, we're supposed to be the ones who are actively supporting the format. If we don't, no one will.

I'll go even further and say anyone not interested in adopting Blu-ray as the only 1080p format is not a true HT hobbyist. This format was tailor made for us. It blows my mind that HT enthusiasts are actively talking themselves out of it.

**Hdale85** · 04 July 2008, 13:11 Friday

I believe we just don't feel we should have to pay twice as much for a BD over a DVD. BD is better no doubt but its not THAT much better. You can upconvert a standard DVD very very well.

**George Bellefontaine** · 04 July 2008, 13:27 Friday

I wouldn't be too concerned about Blu-ray not taking off, Gremal. It will start gaining momentum a lot faster now that low end players are becoming avilable for less than $300. And prices will come down, too for software. We are already seeing bargains starting to show up. But let's face it, many of us are still a little pissed on how badly the whole thing started. First the stupid format war, then the players that wouldn't play the overpriced software properly. And even now we are faced with constant firmware upgrades. These are the kinds of things that have held up adoption of hi-def. You also have to remember that the difference between upscaled dvd and Blu-ray is not as great as the difference between vhs and dvd. So many of us are quite happy watching our dvds ( I have over 1000 ) rather than running out and replacing them with every new Blu-ray catalog title the studios release. But I bought my Blu player in January and already have 60 or so titles in my collection, and I will add more as time goes on. I just plan on being choosy on the titles I buy.

**Gremal** · 04 July 2008, 13:30 Friday

Technically it's called "upscale", and it's essentially line doubling (which faroudja was doing a long time ago). It does not add new detail to the picture; just tricks the eye into thinking you're seeing twice as much resolution. To my eye, and ear (for me, half the draw on Blu-ray is its high res audio), BD is a huge improvement over DVD. I honestly don't see how any HT fanatic could say otherwise.

I think I spent $22.99 for the double-DVD reissue of Unforgiven just a few years ago. I paid $19.99 for the BD. Yeah, some are more expensive. They're worth it.

**Hdale85** · 04 July 2008, 13:40 Friday

Well in my system I don't currently have high res audio capabilities. Also I would say most people would notice less of a difference in SQ then PQ.

**Ken49r** · 04 July 2008, 13:42 Friday

Gremal:

To be honest I will own BD titles when the music side of it kicks off.
I think the very 1st audio BD was just released a couple weeks ago.

http://www.2l.musiconline.no/shop/displayAlbumExtended.asp?id=34188

For $37.00 it's nice that Sony included both Blue-ray and SACD for comparison. I will definitely be getting this one!

For now my audio format of choice is SACD & DVD-A only because I just recently purchased a Universal Player and am astonished how well both digital formats compare to LP playback. It's how the introduction of CD should have been originally IMO.

BD movies are incredible too! The sight and sound is amazing and I'm sure I will own a few titles just for the purpose to promote and enjoy the new HD formats.
I was just pointing out above that for the price to own vs rent a movie I would not get enough return on my investment as I would purchasing music.

Attached Files

**impala454** · 04 July 2008, 13:58 Friday

I think the main notion that "well BDs cost $30+" is what seems to be sticking. $30+ BDs are becoming more scarce and the norm now is more in the mid $20 range. I can easily say I'll buy the blu-ray over the DVD for $5-7 more every day of the week.

I think by Christmas we'll be down into the typical current DVD prices.

**Hdale85** · 04 July 2008, 14:01 Friday

Yeah I don't have an issue spending 25 bucks on a BD.

**Gremal** · 04 July 2008, 15:13 Friday

Originally posted by Ken49r

Gremal:
To be honest I will own BD titles when the music side of it kicks off.
I think the very 1st audio BD was just released a couple weeks ago.

Yes, Ken, I'm familiar with the Divertimenti. It should be on its way to me now, and I look forward to hearing it and comparing the BD and SACD content. While I would never discourage your interest in audio, this is an HT forum, after all! As much as you enjoy SACD and DVD-A, you'll also enjoy BD--I'm sure you already realize that.

By the way, the Divertimenti is not the first audio-only Blu-ray. Ceck out the Grieg (see below) as well as many concerts and live music events, e.g., The Last Waltz, on BD.

Grieg, Edvard : In Autumn for Piano 4 hands, Op. 11
Conductor: Bjarte Engeset
Ensemble: Royal Scottish National Orchestra
Period Time: Romantic
Written: 1866

Grieg, Edvard : Concerto for Piano in A minor, Op. 16
Performer: Håvard Gimse (Piano)
Conductor: Bjarte Engeset
Ensemble: Royal Scottish National Orchestra
Period Time: Romantic
Written: 1868/1907

Grieg, Edvard : Symphonic Dances (4), Op. 64
Conductor: Bjarte Engeset
Ensemble: Royal Scottish National Orchestra
Period Time: Romantic
Written: 1896-1897

**Hdale85** · 04 July 2008, 15:20 Friday

Wasn't there a U2 BD as well? I guess it had video on it so maybe your talking about BD's with no video at all?

**Ken49r** · 04 July 2008, 21:04 Friday

Originally posted by Dougie085

Wasn't there a U2 BD as well? I guess it had video on it so maybe your talking about BD's with no video at all?

Dougie085.
Yes I was referring to AUDIO ONLY disc. (no video)

Yes, Ken, I'm familiar with the Divertimenti. It should be on its way to me now, and I look forward to hearing it and comparing the BD and SACD content. While I would never discourage your interest in audio, this is an HT forum, after all! As much as you enjoy SACD and DVD-A, you'll also enjoy BD--I'm sure you already realize that.

Gremal
I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts when you compare the 2 formats. Could it possibly be Sony's way of sending a hint if they discontinue SACD to promote the higher SQ Blue-ray audio? A little odd that they give you both disc's but don't promote both formats equally in their BD and PS3 players.

I think I was misunderstood in my earlier post. I did say I do enjoy both HT and audio equally. I also said I have a Blue-ray player but prefer to rent movies and purchase music relating to the thread topic. My choice of music format is only because there are no audio only BD (no video) to purchase yet. Honestly I'm looking forward to adding the new releases to my audio library when they become available. Will I abandon SACD for Blue-ray? Who wouldn't! The media that replicates the master video/audio from the studio is what were all seeking.

BTW: Thank you for the BD music video titles I will check around to see whats available now. I didn't realize there were a couple on the list I would purchase so now I have to change my vote to 1-5.

**David Meek** · 04 July 2008, 22:32 Friday

7 for me out of that list. Along with a BD player. I'll be bringing in the occasional title before I make my decision on which player to go with.

**Nolan B** · 04 July 2008, 22:51 Friday

ima movie lover and buyer, and the reason I only picked such a low number is becuase I own a lot on HD DVD and to be honest there just arent that many tittles in that list which are all that great..only a few. In fact I have determined that there are only about 200 (max) catalog tittles worth owning in total. The only other movies I will likely ever buy in my life aside from those tittles wil be good new releases.

BTW bluray is worth more then DVD. Not double but more. If a new release DVD is $15 the I think its fair to charge $25 for a BD.

upconverted DVD isnt even close to BD to my eyes.

**Ken49r** · 05 July 2008, 00:32 Saturday

I don't get it....renting a Blue-ray at my local Blockbuster is only .50 cents more than the DVD rental price. So why is the purchase price almost double? CC is still asking $29.99 for Blue-ray. How much special magic fairy dust do they actually use to make a Blue-ray disk that they can charge so much over DVD purchases? One would think the average Joe buys a DVD vs rent when there is not a huge $ difference in rental vs purchase price. Or like the old days...late fees included. Now those with money to burn are in a different category, but I would prefer to upgrade my electronics with the money saved.

I'm curious what titles on this list have folks wanting to spend that kind of money at todays prices? Could it be Actiongirls.Com 4? :T

**impala454** · 05 July 2008, 00:58 Saturday

Don't shop for blu-rays at CC? :B

**Gremal** · 05 July 2008, 01:42 Saturday

Originally posted by Ken49r

I don't get it....renting a Blue-ray at my local Blockbuster is only .50 cents more than the DVD rental price. So why is the purchase price almost double? CC is still asking $29.99 for Blue-ray. How much special magic fairy dust do they actually use to make a Blue-ray disk that they can charge so much over DVD purchases?

Ken, it's called "recouping R&D expenses". If you had been collecting SACDs from the beginning, you'd know that they initially went for $24.99 a pop. So did DVDs and laserdiscs the first couple of years they were available.

Newsflash: new technologies cost more than old ones. DVD is now an entrenched format. Manufacturing is cheap, the studios and electronics manufacturers have already made a pretty penny on it, and the fact is it's based on NTSC, a 60-yr old technology.

Why would anyone expect Blu-ray to be at DVD MSRP? Sure, in the long term there is no reason BD can't be as cheap as dvd, but in case you didn't notice, BD holds 50 gigs and carries 1080p and high res audio formats. Isn't that worth a premium even forgetting that Blu-ray is still very new?

**Chris D** · 05 July 2008, 02:38 Saturday

Some odd titles on this list. Uhhhhhhh....

Actiongirls.Com 4

As for those that I'd be interested in,

Blue Man Group: How to Be a Megastar Live! [Blu-ray]
Dark City Director's Cut
Fighter Pilot: Operation Red Flag
Scenic National Parks: Grand Canyon
Starship Troopers 1
The Final Countdown
The Godfather Collection - Four-Disc Coppola Restoration
The Hunt For Red October

As for how many of those I actually end up buying, especially at first, the number's going to be pretty low.

**Ken49r** · 05 July 2008, 02:42 Saturday

Ken, it's called "recouping R&D expenses". If you had been collecting SACDs from the beginning, you'd know that they initially went for $24.99 a pop. So did DVDs and laserdiscs the first couple of years they were available. Newsflash: new technologies cost more than old ones. DVD is now an entrenched format. Manufacturing is cheap, the studios and electronics manufacturers have already made a pretty penny on it, and the fact is it's based on NTSC, a 60-yr old technology. Why would anyone expect Blu-ray to be at DVD MSRP? Sure, in the long term there is no reason BD can't be as cheap as dvd, but in case you didn't notice, BD holds 50 gigs and carries 1080p and high res audio formats. Isn't that worth a premium even forgetting that Blu-ray is still very new?

(1) Yes its new technology. (2) Sure its storage capacity is 6 times DVD. (3) More importantly. Not enough people own BD players yet for them to lower the price and make budget.
I found it interesting that HD-DVD players were selling for under $200.00 when the Blue-ray were still going for $500.00 Isn't that the same new technology and capacity? IMO that's why the price is still high. I expect to see the disc price come down after the holiday when more BD players are under the tree this year. The smart ones have been buying new TV's in the past because (1) that market finally made it affordable for the average consumer, (2) the undecided format war, (3) and digital cable changing over next year.

**Gremal** · 05 July 2008, 02:59 Saturday

Originally posted by Ken49r

I found it interesting that HD-DVD players were selling for under $200.00 when the Blue-ray were still going for $500.00

Interesting is one way to put it. Fire sale is another. Toshiba had a losing format on its hands. It was getting annihilated in sales and repeatedly slashed prices in a failed effort to try to compete with the PS3.

Isn't that the same new technology and capacity?

No, as you know, BD has a 50 GB capacity and HD DVD had a 30 GB capacity, which would have made it impossible to include the high res audio tracks on most titles. BD also provided more robust copy protection, which pleased the studios. I think HD DVD was hacked right out of the box.

IMO that's why the price is still high. I expect to see the disc price come down after the holiday when more BD players are under the tree this year. The smart ones have been buying new TV's in the past because of the undecided format war and digital cable changing over next year.

Maybe, but be prepared for a more gradual decline in cost as time goes by. That said, Fry's is selling nearly a dozen BDs this week for $15, including Monty Python Life of Brian. So I'm not sure what folks are complaining about.

**impala454** · 05 July 2008, 03:00 Saturday

Originally posted by Ken49r

I found it interesting that HD-DVD players were selling for under $200.00 when the Blue-ray were still going for $500.00 Isn't that the same new technology and capacity?

I have a feeling this was because they knew more about what was going to happen in the format war than we did, and wanted to bank as much as possible off of HD-DVD before it went away.

**Ken49r** · 05 July 2008, 03:09 Saturday

No, as you know, BD has a 50 GB capacity and HD DVD had a 30 GB capacity, which would have made it impossible to include the high res audio tracks on most titles. BD also provided more robust copy protection, which pleased the studios. I think HD DVD was hacked right out of the box.

Ahhh, I didn't realize the difference in capacity had an effect on the hi-res audio format being added or not. Thanks for the info.

**Hdale85** · 05 July 2008, 08:16 Saturday

Well HD-DVD did have a 50gb disk coming. Or was it 60 or something? Anyways they were never really getting killed in sales like you say what killed off the format was the studios switching over. In fact if Warner had gone the other way I think we'd be looking at a different. winner right now. But that doesn't matter anymore.

**Gremal** · 05 July 2008, 11:34 Saturday

No, in fact BD was outselling HD DVD by about a 2:1 ratio every month, consistently. Check the Nielson ratings. And while HD DVD could have increased its capacity, so could Blu-ray--it has a 250 GB limitation, I believe. It's a matter of implementation, and the way the formats were implemented, BD had much more capacity.

As for the studios, they just needed to choose the more popular format with the more robust copy protection. They have only a small window of time to make an optical format succeed before downloadable or "on-demand" technologies do to home video what iTunes did to audio.

**impala454** · 05 July 2008, 12:09 Saturday

Dougie it was the 51GB disc you're thinking of.

Also no need to turn this into a format war thread.

Of course there will be people who don't feel there's enough difference to get BD over DVD, my main point in the poll was to see just how boring everyone else felt the current BD release schedule is. There are 178 titles in that list and 1 person out of 9 has voted that they will purchase more than 10 of them. And while one person has mentioned price as a factor, I'd imagine w/the type of equipment most of us have, price is not so much a factor as content. In other words, if that list was much more interesting I'd bet the poll numbers would be much different

**Hdale85** · 05 July 2008, 12:31 Saturday

Last thing I'll say on the subject is that Warner was going to go HD-DVD and both formats have copy protection that have both been cracked already. So I don't think the copy protection is going to change anything. I don't care the blu-ray won I honestly wish they would have just stuck to one format from the beginning. But either way we are where we are.

**DrJRapp** · 05 July 2008, 13:34 Saturday

NONE and I own 2 Bluray players

With the ever increasing cost of Bluray discs since the demise of HDDVD , Netflix has become my most frequented website.

**Gremal** · 05 July 2008, 15:29 Saturday

First of all, what percentage of DVD releases do you guys buy? I'd bet it's even less than the BD percentage. Expecting BD to release a greater percentage of titles of interest to you is unreasonable. It would be nice, but it ain't gonna happen. It's not Blu-ray's fault that most of the films coming to theaters turn out to be crap.

Secondly, I'm not turning this into a format war because there is no format war. HD DVD is dead. I don't know why others brought it into the discussion, but it's surrounded by the typical misconceptions--including the misconception that there has been an "ever increasing cost of Blu-ray discs since the demise of HD DVD". Where do you come up with this? From AVS blu-ray bashers?

Thinking of heading over to Fry's and grabbing the Life of Brian BD for the ever-increasing price of $15. :roll:

**impala454** · 05 July 2008, 17:16 Saturday

Originally posted by Gremal

Expecting BD to release a greater percentage of titles of interest to you is unreasonable. It would be nice, but it ain't gonna happen. It's not Blu-ray's fault that most of the films coming to theaters turn out to be crap.

Well my point isn't about new movies being released so much as older catalog titles that are desireable. I would think if I wanted my format to take hold with the public I'd want to release as many "good old" movies as possible as quickly as possible. I mean, blu-ray has been around now for what, 3-4 years and I still can't go buy a single Star Wars, Star Trek, or Lord of the Rings movie on it??

**Hdale85** · 05 July 2008, 18:05 Saturday

Well we know they are coming to Blu but noone can tell us when. The Starwars and Lord of the rings box sets will definitely be on my list of purchases probably regardless of price.

**Ken49r** · 05 July 2008, 19:11 Saturday

Originally posted by Dougie085

The Starwars and Lord of the rings box sets will definitely be on my list of purchases probably regardless of price.

Same here. I will most likely always have the smallest videophile library of anyone on the forum but those are must have titles.

Just rented Vantage Point and Michael Clayton on Blue-ray over DVD.
Hope my litle contribution helps keep the format alive and it doesnt suffer the same fate as SACD. But I don't remember blockbuster renting SACD's.

**Hdale85** · 05 July 2008, 20:46 Saturday

I don't think BD is going to go away unless something inferior comes out be it quality or convenience.

**Gremal** · 05 July 2008, 21:13 Saturday

I mean, blu-ray has been around now for what, 3-4 years and I still can't go buy a single Star Wars, Star Trek, or Lord of the Rings movie on it??

The first BD titles were released on June 20, 2006. That's two yrs ago, not 3-4. Also, do you realize how long movie fans waited for Star Wars on DVD before Lucas made that available? It was a lot more than two years. And what we did get was totally revised and no longer resembled the original movies. Let's not have unreasonable expectations, and let's hope the BDs are produced right. Plus, I'm honestly a little sick of Star Wars. the newer trilogy soured me to the earlier trilogy, which wasn't the world's greatest film series to begin with. It sure looked cool in the '70s, but there are much better sci fi things now.

I know how popular SW and LOTR are, but those are not the end-all be-all of cinema and believe it or not, Blu-ray would still be a worthwhile format even if they never saw the light of day on BD. They will, of course. Probably by Xmas 2009.

An incredible amount of work goes into transferring the titles to Blu-ray. It's more complicated than pushing a button. There is also the matter of the legal sign-offs and approval from the George Lucases, Francis Ford Coppolas and Peter Jacksons and of course the studio brass. I think the only reason we're getting The Godfather on Blu-ray so soon is because Coppola is running out of cash. I waited the better part of a decade before seeing the SW trilogy GF and GF Part 2 on DVD. Now that the GF trilogy is coming out on BD, I'm blown away and couldn't be more excited, but most folks here are acting like it's no big deal.

ok, rant over.

**impala454** · 05 July 2008, 23:21 Saturday

Eh I don't really buy into the "amount of work" it takes... star wars and LOTRs have all been played on HD channels. It wouldn't take them 2+ years to put these movies on BD.

And of course those movies aren't the end all be all of cinema, I was just thinking of some examples of titles that would get me excited. I'm sure I could think of plenty of others.. Back to the Future, Braveheart, Incredibles, etc. It's just that when I look at that huge list of releases and only see 5-6 movies I care to buy in 3-4 months, it's a little disappointing.

edit: Star Trek First Contact is actually on Universal HD right now

**Gremal** · 06 July 2008, 00:24 Sunday

Originally posted by impala454

Eh I don't really buy into the "amount of work" it takes... star wars and LOTRs have all been played on HD channels. It wouldn't take them 2+ years to put these movies on BD.

I know someone in the industry who says there is quite a bit of detailed work involved in these transfers. The broadcasts are 1080i and probably just upscaled standard def. Of course it wouldn't take 2+ years if they had approval to do the transfers. Clearly they don't.

And of course those movies aren't the end all be all of cinema, I was just thinking of some examples of titles that would get me excited.

Granted, but every time the subject of Blu-ray comes up and any excitement is expressed, the parade gets rained on with this kind of talk. It's as if Star Wars and LOTR are the pinnacle of cinematic achievement, and every BD from Casino Royal to Pirates of the Caribbean to Spider-Man to Unforgiven to Pan's Labyrinth, plus incredible foreign films like Oldboy and Persepolis, don't even matter. You've hammered the format in separate threads because SW and LotR haven't been released on BD yet.

I'm sure I could think of plenty of others.. Back to the Future, Braveheart, Incredibles, etc. It's just that when I look at that huge list of releases and only see 5-6 movies I care to buy in 3-4 months, it's a little disappointing.

To me it's even more disappointing that a fairly brisk BD rollout with announcements like the GF trilogy is being denigrated because the most overwatched films of our generation aren't yet available. Meanwhile there is absolutely no excitement about acclaimed new titles like The Band's Visit just because it doesn't have Harrison Ford, Gandalf or battle scenes, I suppose. And list price on the HD successor to DVD is not being paid in favor of fire sales on dead format vaporware. Oh well.

**impala454** · 06 July 2008, 01:05 Sunday

Bud, don't take it so personally. I'm not "hammering" the format in any thread. I own tons of blu-ray and love it, just wish there was more of em

.

**Chris D** · 06 July 2008, 06:45 Sunday

Originally posted by Dougie085

The Starwars and Lord of the rings box sets will definitely be on my list of purchases probably regardless of price.

...and you're certainly not the only one, my friend.

**Ken49r** · 06 July 2008, 11:23 Sunday

Originally posted by impala454

And of course those movies aren't the end all be all of cinema, I was just thinking of some examples of titles that would get me excited. I'm sure I could think of plenty of others.. Back to the Future, Braveheart, Incredibles, etc. It's just that when I look at that huge list of releases and only see 5-6 movies I care to buy in 3-4 months, it's a little disappointing.

I agree.

I believe your point and the general consensus is that in order to upgrade a DVD you already own to BD it will be those kind of titles that are worth paying twice.
Lightsabers, Rebelfighters vs Imperial Fighters, and ;x( Princess Leia in 1080p and HD audio.

**Gremal** · 06 July 2008, 11:52 Sunday

Couldn't disagree more. There is plenty of reason to be happy with the list of upcoming titles--One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Patriot Games, Batman Begins, The Band's Visit, Pale Rider, Kill Bill 1/2, Iron Man, Clear and Present Danger, Beetlejuice, Madagascar, Risky Business, LA Confidential, The Sixth Sense, Cool Hand Luke, The Omen (original), The Counterfeiters, The Doors, not to mention TV series that are some of the hottest sellers right now including Heroes Seasons 1 and 2 and Prison Break Season 3. Then in October we get all the old James Bond films. And I also disagree that only overhyped, overwatched films like Star Wars and LotR are worth the upgrade to BD.

**Hdale85** · 06 July 2008, 11:57 Sunday

We never said they were the only reason worth upgrading to BD. It's just a few of the titles we've been waiting for.

Upcoming Blu-ray purchases

Upcoming Blu-ray purchases

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment