|
|
Welcome to the Database Correction page. This page is for letting me or the other editors know of corrections that need to be made. Please read the posting instructions carefully.
|
|
| Wednesday January 16 00:48:48 2002 Re: #6515 |
|
> > > > > > Is this still a 'mainstream' film? > > > > Hmm, doesn't look like it. It's not in the IMDb (and > > they've got plenty of non-mainstream bondage films in > > their database. I've tracked it down on to the website > > > listed above (below? nearby?) > > > > That's JT's Stockroom, a "toy" store. From the > description, it looks like a high-end fetish vid. If no > compelling evidence to the contrary's offered, I'd flush it. It's been flushed. In fact, I deleted two duplicate entries for the same film yesterday. |
| CM |
| Wednesday January 16 01:01:54 2002 Re: No. 1876 |
| >
> BTW, what do catfights and harem outfits have to do with bondage? Biff: Been done as a favour. Mostly for the fellas that only like scenes with certain types of clothing. Skirts, dresses, nylon, high heeled shoes, etc. So I'd put the Harem outfits in as a favour as well. |
| Jay L |
| kdnpr@yahoo.com |
| Wednesday January 16 01:07:03 2002 Re: Biff |
| Biff:
Forgot to add here, We've only been doing the clothes for a favour. Figure ladies scrapping belongs on Brians Anything Goes Page. |
| Jay L |
| kdnpr@yahoo.com |
| Wednesday January 16 01:24:55 2002 Re: Pat & David's Posts |
| > ....But I was thinking there might be a > lot of other movies that were entered into the database > early on that might turn out to be much better than their > original entries indicate.... "Pat, my guess would be that the original entry was: a) a description copied from another website, or... b) entered based on a description from the discussion page, or... c) information entered based on a set of DiDcaps. I've submitted hundreds of entries sight unseen based on second hand knowledge," Just to add, Ones like that normally have a ? beside the episode title. "trusting that others would update or correct the description as better information becomes available. I suspect others have done the same." Yes, Done it so as to warn of a Possible Alert?, or, trigger a collector's memory. "IMHO incomplete information is better than no information. That's why there's the editor's page after all." I agree, Often Canadian channels will pick up & air US series a couple years or so later. I don't mind scanning and filling in the gaps with information. Another case where we can confirm and edit it down the road. |
| Jay L |
| kdnpr@yahoo.com |
| Wednesday January 16 01:36:20 2002 Re: No. 1876 |
| > I'd think folks enter what interests them, for the most
> part. I don't include every instance of anything > associated with bondage. I do, insofar as is reasonable. Hell, if I were a foot fethishist into bondage, I'd be pretty damn disappointed in that entry. Those are three really nice closeups of bound feet in a mainstream film. As a guy who generally likes bondage scenes, I'm kinda disappointed in the writeup as it is. While anybody's free to enter anything they like in a scene description, I used to tend to assume that what's in the database represents all the actual instances of bondage in a film, though I'm well aware thatinstances of harem girl outfits or catfights are necessarily included. Because in most cases, the descriptions are accurate in that respect. But now I know that in some cases the descriptions are so incomplete as to be misleading. > BTW, what do catfights and harem outfits have to do with bondage? What does foot fetishism have to do with bondage? Or nylons? Or handgags? They're just part of the general milieu. I don't even like catfights or feet and handgags don't strike me as real gags, but I include them if I come across them because I know lots of bondage guys like them. |
| Pat Powers |
| Wednesday January 16 01:37:46 2002 Re: Pat & David's Posts |
| I agree with David, except with entries like this: ___________ Record number: 0000 Title: unknown Medium: TV Series Actress: unknown Description: bound and gagged _______________ Deleted a few like this in one night, as figured one of Brian's buddies was having some fun with him. But, they keep appearing, so figure it's a serious attempt at assistance here. Just I find ones like this unworkable, kind of a wasted effort on the part of Buddy who entered them. |
| Jay L |
| kdnpr@yahoo.com |
| Wednesday January 16 01:42:10 2002 Re: No. 1876 |
| > Pat, my guess would be that the original entry was:
> a) a description copied from another website, or... > b) entered based on a description from the discussion > page, or... > c) information entered based on a set of DiDcaps. I'm not sure of the provenance, but the fact that the only scene that was included was the gag scene, which was written up in great detail including descriptions of the damsel's motions, I'd say it was written by someone who saw it, and that whoever saw it either never saw the rest of the movie, or most likely, was a gag snob and ignored the other scenes. |
| Pat Powers |
| Wednesday January 16 02:35:49 2002 Re: No. 1876 |
| >
> While anybody's free to enter anything they like in a > scene description, I used to tend to assume that what's > in the database represents all the actual instances of > bondage in a film, though I'm well aware thatinstances of > harem girl outfits or catfights are necessarily included. > I'm not sure why you would've had that assumption, given the innumerable contributors and wide variety of interests. And do you mean "*aren't* necessarily included"? No reason they should be, as they have nothing to do with bondage ... nor do rapes or nudity, for that matter. If the scene deals with restraint in some way, that's a different story. I've deleted references to rape with no bondage extant. I can't remember if I've done any for unbound nudity, but it's possible. Most anything else I don't bother with. > > What does foot fetishism have to do with bondage? Or > nylons? Or handgags? They're just part of the general > milieu. I don't even like catfights or feet and handgags > don't strike me as real gags, but I include them if I > come across them because I know lots of bondage guys like them. > Handgags are restraint. The rest I don't have a problem with ... unless they're the primary focus for the entry: "There's a great catfight scene in this movie ... (yadda yadda). She's arrested and cuffed at the end." Including such secondarily I don't mind. But it is, after all, a bondage (broadly defined) scene database. |
| Biff |
| Wednesday January 16 03:23:56 2002 Re: Biff's Post |
| "And do you mean "*aren't* necessarily included"? No reason they should be, as they have nothing to do with bondage ... nor do rapes or nudity, for that matter. If the scene deals with restraint in some way, that's a different story. I've deleted references to rape with no bondage extant." Biff: Believe that 'rape' in an entry was as a favour as well. Lot of fellas were asking to be alerted to it, as it ruins the scene for them. I believe anyway? David: Was not there a request along those lines? "But it is, after all, a bondage (broadly defined) scene database" Well, Intent was a favour. Mostly started where alerts and such concerned, of the roughly 16 Yanks that regularly use the Canadian alerts, 15 only want scenes with gags, and alerted to 'non-gag' scenes. (A few call themselves 'Gag Snobs') Then, Some fellas started on about clothing. (skirts & dresses), barefeet, etc. Figured a quick mention in the entry, would allow them to search specifically. But If you fellas think this is starting to become a hassle? Let me know here. Thanx |
| Jay L |
| kdnpr@yahoo.com |
| Wednesday January 16 07:22:23 2002 Re: Biff's Post |
| Biff:
Believe that 'rape' in an entry was as a favour as well. Lot of fellas were asking to be alerted to it, as it ruins the scene for them. I believe anyway? David: Was not there a request along those lines ------------- Not that I recall, but I can't remember what I had for breakfast yesterday either. I include rape in my descriptions for the same reason I note when a damsel comes to an unhappy end -- because it's a turn-off therefore, let the viewer beware. |
| David |
| Wednesday January 16 14:08:07 2002 Re: Favours |
| "Believe that 'rape' in an entry was as a favour as well. Lot of fellas were asking to be alerted to it, as it ruins the scene for them." "Not that I recall, but I can't remember what I had for breakfast yesterday either. I include rape in my descriptions for the same reason I note when a damsel comes to an unhappy end -- because it's a turn-off therefore, let the viewer beware." David: That's what I recall being brought up as well, or, why in the entry. Figure all these favours are starting to become a hassle? Thinking, I could gather up skirt-dress, barefoot, whatever? scenes, put them on Brian's Favourite Scenes Page. Then the fellas could search on the title over there. What do you think? |
| Jay L |
| kdnpr@yahoo.com |
| Wednesday January 16 14:51:42 2002 Re: Pat Powers & David |
| Pat Powers Comments: "I'm not posting this just to rag on whoever entered the scene, as there probably wasn't a standard for how thoroughly movies should be described when entered (though you'd think all bondage scenes involving women should be mentioned). But I was thinking there might be a lot of other movies that were entered into the database early on that might turn out to be much better than their original entries indicate." "the difference between what I saw in the Tarzan movie and what the database said, makes me think a "heads up" is appropriate." "I used to tend to assume that what's in the database represents all the actual instances of bondage in a film," "Because in most cases, the descriptions are accurate in that respect. But now I know that in some cases the descriptions are so incomplete as to be misleading." David: Think I've discovered part of this problem here. Going to respond here, so Pat can follow as well. From The Boy Here's Notes: Was trying to assist you with entering scenes from Brent Smith Lists After asking who Brent was?, someone (David Knight?) referred me to a page (Slavelabourproductions), where there was lists, But, the lists often had Title, Actress, & Bound & Gagged description. Know our intention at the time was to use them as reference, then add to the entries down the road. Good bet that's what happened with the Tarzan movie here as well. |
| Jay L |
| kdnpr@yahoo.com |
| Wednesday January 16 14:52:21 2002 Re: Biff's Post |
| >
> But > > If you fellas think this is starting to become a hassle? > Including rape as a caveat's fine ... my problem was with it being included when no bondage is involved in that scene and it's described as a "selling point". That's beyond the pale to me, and I'll delete it. I guess I'm reacting to entries where rape, sex, nudity or other aspects are a primary focus, regardless of whether they're paired with bondage. This is a bondage DB, and the purpose of an entry should be to alert users to bondage scenes. Anything else included should be secondary. I'm not on any search to find these, but when I come across them I apply that sense of purpose. |
| Biff |
| Wednesday January 16 16:59:18 2002 Correction to correction |
| Record number: 2903
Title: Secret Agent, aka Danger Man (1964) Medium: TV Series Actress: Rebecca Nygard (?) or Lola Glaudini (?) Description: Episode: Breach (1-12) The character Margo has her hands tied behind her with a white scarf and with a black rope that is attached to the ceiling, allowing her to run around in a circle. She is also cleave-gagged with a white scarf and blindfolded with a black one. She makes plenty of noise as she struggles in her limited running space. Action occurs in the last 30 minutes. --- This is a rare case where the recent cleanup went the wrong way. The scene is from the shortlived 2000 series "Secret Agent Man" which has nothing to do with the 1964 "Secret Agent". Addendum: Strangely, the 12 episodes were shown in disorder in the United States. In Germany, this ep aired correctly as no. 6. |
| Peter de K |
| Wednesday January 16 17:24:49 2002 Re: Correction to correction |
| Record number: 2903 Title: Secret Agent, aka Danger Man (1964) Medium: TV Series Actress: Rebecca Nygard (?) or Lola Glaudini (?) Description: Episode: Breach (1-12) [Deleted] --- "This is a rare case where the recent cleanup went the wrong way. The scene is from the shortlived 2000 series "Secret Agent Man" which has nothing to do with the 1964 "Secret Agent"." Peter de K: Got it, thanx for the assist here. Figure the series year mix-up was more likely the boy here's error, than an error in the clean-up. :) BTW: Were the two ladies names correct? "Addendum: Strangely, the 12 episodes were shown in disorder in the United States. In Germany, this ep aired correctly as no. 6." David: I got (1.12) from using epguides.com. Figured that was a US standard? Figure (1.12) is the US number? Or want to go with the Germany (1.6)? Thanx |
| Jay L |
| kdnpr@yahoo.com |
| Wednesday January 16 20:29:21 2002 Re: Biff's Post |
|
> Including rape as a caveat's fine ... my problem was with > it being included when no bondage is involved in that > scene and it's described as a "selling point". > > That's beyond the pale to me, and I'll delete it. That's fine. > I guess I'm reacting to entries where rape, sex, nudity > or other aspects are a primary focus, regardless of > whether they're paired with bondage. This is a bondage > DB, and the purpose of an entry should be to alert users > to bondage scenes. Anything else included should be > secondary. Yes, but I wouldn't say to delete such references either. If it is a bonafide entry, and there are some collateral references, that's not a big deal. |
| Brian R |
| Wednesday January 16 22:20:19 2002 Re: Correction to correction |
| > "Addendum: Strangely, the 12 episodes were shown in
> disorder in the United States. In Germany, this ep aired > correctly as no. 6." > > David: > I got (1.12) from using epguides.com. > Figured that was a US standard? > Figure (1.12) is the US number? > > Or want to go with the Germany (1.6)? I think we should use the episodes as they were aired in the country of origin. Since this is an American series, we should use the American chronology. If it were a Mexican series, rebroadcast on a Spanish-speaking American network in a different order, I'd use the sequense they were shown in Mexico (assuming that could be determined). |
| David |
| Wednesday January 16 23:16:58 2002 Re: Biff's Post |
| >
> Yes, but I wouldn't say to delete such references > either. > If it is a bonafide entry, and there are some collateral > references, that's not a big deal. > If they relate to a bondage scene, I don't. If that's not the case, it would depend on how they're presented. Again, I'm not actively searching for 'em. When I see something of this nature, I make a judgment call. Make sense? |
| Biff |
|
|