|
|
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.
|
|
| Tuesday February 05 01:04:02 2002 Re: Witchblade update |
|
> For DB entry #5636 (the episode showing on TNT tonight): > > The unknown actress is Malin Akerman--blonde model, > wrists chained overhead with menacing python. > Cross-checked on multiple sources: IMDB, Movie Fan files, > and Witchblade fan site. Got it, Thanks! I also went ahead and added episode numbers for the "Witchblade" entries. |
| CM |
| Tuesday February 05 01:35:43 2002 Re: Episode numbers |
| >
> What's missing is the 2802 television series database > entries that don't have this information, while only 4 > do. That sounds like a lot of work for somebody, > especially for information which, IMHO, isn't worth the > effort. So, Biff, how many thousand corrections can I put you down for? > You misread my meaning. If you have the info, and you're already doing something to the entry ... why not add it in? CM made a good point, I thought ... and said he'd add what he had, as I read him. And I don't see any need to remove it if it's already there. As I said, I wasn't talking about running this shit down and adding it. And I was asking what I was missing 'cause I'm really not sure what the issue is here. What I'm saying doesn't make any more work for anyone who doesn't want to do it. And man, do I resent your tone, David. Yeesh. I'm here by choice, and I don't need that attitude tossed in my face. |
| Biff |
| Tuesday February 05 07:40:27 2002 Re: Episode numbers |
| > >
> > What's missing is the 2802 television series database > > entries that don't have this information, while only 4 > > do. That sounds like a lot of work for somebody, > > especially for information which, IMHO, isn't worth the > > effort. So, Biff, how many thousand corrections can I > > put you down for? > And man, do I resent your tone, David. Yeesh. I'm here > by choice, and I don't need that attitude tossed in my > face. Sorry, Biff. In the cold grey light of dawn, my response does come across as quite sarcastic. I should have added a ";-)" at the end of my response. My bad. |
| David |
| Tuesday February 05 12:33:05 2002 Re: Episode numbers |
|
> And man, do I resent your tone, David. Yeesh. I'm here > by choice, and I don't need that attitude tossed in my > face. Let's cool down. |
| Brian R |
| Tuesday February 05 13:47:41 2002 Re: Episode numbers |
| >
> Sorry, Biff. In the cold grey light of dawn, my response > does come across as quite sarcastic. I should have added > a ";-)" at the end of my response. My bad. > Thanks for being a mentsch about it, David. But do you understand what I'm saying about the total ep numbers? Is there any problem with keeping those already in, or adding new ones *if* one wishes to? That's what I'm unclear on. |
| Biff |
| Tuesday February 05 13:50:49 2002 Re: Episode numbers |
|
> > > And man, do I resent your tone, David. Yeesh. I'm > here > > by choice, and I don't need that attitude tossed in my > > > face. > > Let's cool down. > I reacted appropriately to what I thought was a snotty comment. David's clarified his meaning, and we're copa. |
| Biff |
| Tuesday February 05 14:19:30 2002 Re: Biff Barksdale's Post |
| > But do you understand what I'm saying about the total ep
> numbers? Is there any problem with keeping those already > in, or adding new ones *if* one wishes to? > > That's what I'm unclear on. Biff: We're running down the TV Series section trying to make everything uniform, Titles, Ep #'s etc. The whole thing, almost 3/4 done now. Ep #'s in the first descript line. AKA ep title line, we're trying to uniform them like this (1.1). Working on this, and adding ep#'s for all, but it's going to be awhile. We have been putting favours in the bottom of the description, (skirt, heels, barefoot, etc), so any additional ep information could be put down there without a problem as I see it. Agree David? Haven't been removing ep #'s, just adapting them to the (1.1) style. Basically, I agree about uniform entries, because as you're going through, you'll see people are entering their own wacky ways. (see my post @12:58 yest) I don't do as much editing as David, and already I'm tired of going in and correcting some of these fellas. Can only imagine what the hell David feels about it. :) Did this make it clear Buddy? |
| Jay L |
| kdnpr@yahoo.com |
| Tuesday February 05 14:41:41 2002 Re: Biff Barksdale's Post |
| >
Did this make it clear Buddy? > Nope ... sorry. You're still not getting my point. I'm not talking about the seasonal info, or how it's input ... that's fine with me. I'm trying to understand if there's some objection to placing *total ep* numbers alongside the seasonal info (e.g., (2.1, #27). I don't see a problem with that ... other than it might be confusing to users, who wouldn't know what the "#27" meant. So placing it in the body of the description, with an explanation ("the 27th total episode in the series") might be better. Honestly, this is getting to be more complicated than it's worth ... all I'm trying to do is see if there's a way to conveniently include info that someone may find useful. If we were physically together we could resolve this in minutes, but via post it seems a quagmire. Urf. |
| Biff |
| Tuesday February 05 15:35:31 2002 Re: Biff Barksdale's Post |
|
> Nope ... sorry. You're still not getting my point. I'm > not talking about the seasonal info, or how it's input > ... that's fine with me. > > I'm trying to understand if there's some objection to > placing *total ep* numbers alongside the seasonal info > (e.g., (2.1, #27). I don't see a problem with that ... > other than it might be confusing to users, who wouldn't > know what the "#27" meant. They (under my suggestion/order) are trying to develop a standard template for the Episode information. Having some optional stuff is likely to cause confusion, and raise David's question, "should someone now go through and make it all uniform again?" |
| Brian R |
| Tuesday February 05 17:07:40 2002 Re: Biff Barksdale's Post |
| >
> Having some optional stuff is likely to cause confusion, > and raise David's question, "should someone now go > through > and make it all uniform again?" > So you don't want it in the first (the "Episode") line ... but there's no objection to adding it to the body of the description, I gather? |
| Biff |
| Tuesday February 05 20:00:07 2002 Silk Stalkings update - Poppy Montgomery, etc. |
| For DB entry #1312 - Silk Stalkings "Natural Selection, Part 2" (4.2). Actresses: Juliet Tablak, Poppy Montgomery, Mitzi Kapture
There are a total of 3 captured damsels in this episode. The method of restraint is identical for all: chained in an upper spreadeagle, i.e. wrists over head, but no gags. First up is Juliet Tablak (Junie) who is seen only in bra and panties, chained in an upper spreadeagle, while menaced by a baddie in a black leather hood. Very short scene viewed thru a video playback. Occurs in the first 2-3 minutes of the episode, before the opening credits. Untimely end for Junie off-screen. For completists, her character was kidnapped in the previous episode (4.1), at the 40 minute mark--no bondage but she did receive a nice handgag. Next up is Poppy Montgomery (Angel) in probably the longest scene of the three damsels. Begins around the 11-12 minute mark. She too is captured like Tablak, upper spreadeagle clad only in underwear. (I think she is the "musclebound unknown damsel" in the original DB entry) Scene lasts almost two minutes before commercial break as the baddie, clad in the same black leather hood, engages her in dialogue. He also menaces her with a whip and then a razor blade. She meets an untimely end off-screen, presumably during the commercial break. The videotape that the killer makes of Angel ends up in police hands and two brief playback scenes are shown later in the episode. Mitzi Kapture (Rita) goes undercover to try to lure the baddie into a trap, but something goes wrong and she gets strung up as well. For some reason though, the bad guy does not strip her down to her underwear like the others. The shots are also framed so that her wrists and manacles are annoyingly just out of frame. While struggling, she manages to free one wrist before the climactic rescue by her partner. Scene begins around the 51 minute mark. |
| Eagleton |
| Tuesday February 05 20:31:08 2002 Re: Silk Stalkings update - Poppy Montgomery, etc. |
| > For DB entry #1312 - Silk Stalkings "Natural Selection,
> Part 2" (4.2). Actresses: Juliet Tablak, Poppy > Montgomery, Mitzi Kapture Eagleton: Got it, thanx for the assist here. |
| Jay L |
| kdnpr@yahoo.com |
| Tuesday February 05 23:22:32 2002 Oh, for heaven's sake... |
| ...will you dadburned newbies WAKE UP???
Record number: 2230
Title: Ladies' Day (1943) Medium: Movie Actress: Lupe Velez Description: Farce about a ballplayer (Eddie Albert) who loses his athletic prowess whenever he gets romantically involved. That's why some of the other players' wives have banded together in a crazy scheme to keep his new bride (Velez) away from him during a pennant race. About halfway through, they lash her to a chair in a hotel room with what looks like a white tablecloth, tying her hands behind her with another white cloth and wrap-gagging her with still another. After lifting her from the chair when she feigns fainting, then begins screaming after they briefly pull off the gag, they spend the next few minutes shuffling her in and out of a closet to hide her from a hotel detective attracted by the racket she's putting up. Record number: 6613
Title: Ladies' Day (1943) Description: From the IMDb plot summary: Wacky Waters (Eddie Albert), the greatest pitcher in baseball, is burning up the league until he meets Pepita Zorita (Lupe Velez), a bundle of Mexican dynamite from Hollywood. The wives of the ballplayers, led by Hazel Jones (Patsy Kelly), devise a plan to get rid of Pepita. They fly to Kansas City, meet Pepita with a baseball bat and other kidnapping tools and Pepita wakes up in a bathroom on the 22nd story of a hotel tied and gagged with two guardians. After fights with everyone ranging from the house detective to a Civil War veteran, Pepita escapes and heads east where the team is in the seventh-and-deciding game of the World Series with Wacky on the mound. |
| Old Pro |
|
|