|
|
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.
|
|
| Saturday June 28 03:08:42 2003 Database |
| Ok, back up. Let me know if you see any problems.
I remembered to fix up the foreign letters that were hosed previously. |
| Brian R |
| Saturday June 28 04:42:10 2003 Re: Record number: 7529 |
| Warm wrote:
> leading man (Franco > Nero) gets tied up, the lovely Ms Rampling does not. Got it, thanx for your assist here. |
| Jay L |
| kdnpr@yahoo.com |
| Saturday June 28 12:44:17 2003 Upcoming Balko Entry Ref-Post |
| Brian R & Others Receiving This One: Going to try to work out a rough episode ID. Problem being, sent tapes out whilst DB down and now can't find my list of credits. Figure Peter de K will know and ID both, but for now, give you this for your tape lists & notes: Rough Description: Be about half way in (35mins), two unknowns are duct-taped to chairs, arms at sides, with the tape wrapped around their bodies to the chairs. Gagged with tape. This the episode figure it is, if running in order? ep: "Gefährliche Vaterschaft" This what I got running the French ep title through translator into German: ep: "Nie ohne meine Fäden" In English, both titles are similar in mentioning babies-kids, and the main plot revolved around a baby. This is the ep numbered previous in the ep: guide: ep: "Mord unter Palmen" One that aired here plot about a fella trying to smuggle bombs and a rifle into a bikini pagent? This one mentioned after in the guide: Ep: "Höllenfahrt" This the ep title for one aired here, translated from French to German: ep: "Reisen in Hölle" Main plot revolves around a biker gang. One of the bikers gets blown up, etc. Believe good chance actress ID'd either by Peter, or when caps go up? |
| Jay L |
| kdnpr@yahoo.com |
| Saturday June 28 16:29:04 2003 Re: Database |
| Brian wrote:
> Ok, back up. Let me know if you see any problems. > Any ETA on adding/editing scenes? |
| Biff |
| Saturday June 28 18:20:47 2003 Re: Database |
| Biff wrote:
> Any ETA on adding/editing scenes? Everything is up. You may have to refresh the edit page. |
| Brian R |
| Saturday June 28 18:41:41 2003 Something I noticed |
| While plugging in changes, I noticed some things like this :
Original: Description: This is a Hong Kong martial arts film staring Jackie Chan, sequel to the first POLICE STORY. Kidnappers hold Maggie tied to a chair and tape gagged. She is grabbed around the 80' mark (with commercials), and then seen bound and gagged a few minutes later. About 100' in, she's again seen in the same predicament when Jackie finds and releases her. IMPORTANT NOTE: In the letterboxed version, you get to see the entire scene, in the far more common pan & scan cut, you only briefly see her b/g on screen, as she is being held in the corner of the room and is cropped out of the picture for most of the scene. (As I'm not the author of the note above, I don't know if this refers to the first, the second, or both scenes.) Replacement: Description: This is a Hong Kong martial arts film staring Jackie Chan, sequel to the first POLICE STORY. Kidnappers hold Maggie tied to a chair and tape gagged. She is grabbed around the 80' mark (with commercials), and then seen bound and gagged a few minutes later. About 100' in, she's again seen in the same predicament when Jackie finds and releases her. IMPORTANT NOTE: In the letterboxed version, you get to see the entire scene: Approx. 30 minutes before the end of the movie, May (Maggie Cheung) was kidnapped from her aunt apartment. Later Jackie Chan received call from 3 kidnappers. When he came to the villain hideout, he was beaten unconscious. When he awoke, he saw his girlfriend bound (arms behind her back) and tape gagged with silver tape, sitting on a long, chair (without armrest - some sort of wooden horse). The villain removed the tape gag. They torture her by throwing firecrackers at her (still bound), to force Jackie Chan to carry bomb to Police station. Lots of screaming and struggling. She was wearing brown sweaters and white dress. Guy alert. Approx 20 minutes before the end, She was bound to a wooden chair (arms behind her back) and tape gagged (silver tape) in a large (multi stairs) abandoned warehouse. Jackie saw her from a windows and he break into the room to rescue her. Same dress. The new part was just grafted on and didn't actually replace the original. Also, the grammar is atrocious. Please proofread these suggested replacements, especially from our overseas contributors. Here was my reworked version: escription: This is a Hong Kong martial arts film staring Jackie Chan, sequel to the first POLICE STORY. Kidnappers grab Maggie around the 80' mark (with commercials), she is bound (hands behind her back) and tape-gagged with silver tape, sitting on a long chair without armrests. The villain removes the tape gag, then they torture her by throwing firecrackers at her (still bound), to force Jackie to carry a bomb to the police station. Lots of screaming and struggling. She was wearing brown sweaters and white dress. Guy alert. About 100' in, she is tied to a wooden chair (hands behind her back) and tape-gagged (silver tape) in a large warehouse. Jackie sees her from a windows and he break into the room to rescue her. IMPORTANT NOTE: In the letterboxed version, you get to see the entire scene, in the far more common pan & scan cut, you only briefly see her b/g on screen, as she is being held in the corner of the room and is cropped out of the picture for most of the scene. |
| Brian R |
| Saturday June 28 18:47:03 2003 Re: Something I noticed |
| Naturally I see a couple more things that I missed. Try this:
This is a Hong Kong martial arts film staring Jackie Chan, sequel to the first POLICE STORY. Kidnappers grab Maggie around the 80' mark (with commercials). She is bound (hands behind her back) and tape-gagged with silver tape, sitting on a long chair without armrests. The villain removes the tape gag, then they torture her by throwing firecrackers at her (still bound), to force Jackie to carry a bomb to the police station. Lots of screaming and struggling. She is wearing a brown sweater and white dress. Guy alert. About 100' in, she is again tied to a wooden chair (hands behind her back) and tape-gagged (silver tape) in a large warehouse. Jackie sees her from a window and breaks into the room to rescue her. IMPORTANT NOTE: In the letterboxed version, you get to see the entire scene, in the far more common pan & scan cut, you only briefly see her b/g on screen, as she is being held in the corner of the room and is cropped out of the picture for most of the scene. |
| Brian R |
| Saturday June 28 20:32:56 2003 Re: Database |
| >
> Everything is up. You may have to refresh the edit page. > I tried that earlier ... it's an MSN TV cache goober, I guess. All's in working order now. |
| Biff |
| Saturday June 28 20:44:09 2003 Re: Something I noticed |
|
>Brian R wrote: NOTE: In the > letterboxed version, you get to see the entire scene, in > the far more common pan & scan cut, you only briefly see > her b/g on screen, as she is being held in the corner of > the room and is cropped out of the picture for most of > the scene. >(As I'm not the author of the note above, I > don't know if this refers to the first, the second, or > both scenes.) > Did you mean to leave out this caveat in your revision? I inserted it because it was unclear which scene it referred to ... or if it applied to both. Oh ... and the insertion of the quoted poster's name has had the unintended effect of eliciting the "top down" error message. It can be circumvented by tossing in a ">" before the name. |
| Biff |
| Saturday June 28 21:06:07 2003 Re: [#7685]- Veils On Topic? |
|
> Biff wrote: > > Jay, I know what you're saying, but it doesn't seem to > apply to this situation. I didn't see any challenge to > the original entry ... just the addition of the detail of > the scarf around her face. I didn't see any reference to > it as a gag, so I don't understand how that addition in > any way conflicts with the original entry. > > I'm really not in the mood to continue this, as it seems > you're not following me. I simply saw you admonishing a > poster, and didn't understand the context. Now that I > do, I think your annoyance is misplaced based on the > reasons above. > > Again ... if I missed something, point it out. You know > I'm not trying to be contentious ... or you should, at any rate. > Jay, I added the detail about the scarf, as I couldn't see any legitimate reason not to. If you have any objection, let me know ... I've tried both here and in private messages to get a response from you, but for whatever reason I haven't heard back. |
| Biff |
|
|