|
|
Welcome to the Discussion page. This forum is for discussing scenes from mainstream sources, primarily TV shows and movies, but we venture off into newspaper and magazine articles, stage plays, and other areas. Please do not post regarding commercial videos.
|
|
| Thursday January 29 01:06:24 2004 Rachael Ray |
|
This post was moved to Anything Goes. Poster: Bill Reason: Off-topic. |
| The Moderator |
| Thursday January 29 01:10:31 2004 Re: Houston Press |
| (unsigned poster) wrote:
> Go to http://www.houstonpress.com In the section that > says(Authors)type in Richard Connelly and the > section(keywords)type in Metro , then seacrh and the > cover will appear. Here's the link for the issue in question, the image is a bit larger. See below. |
| Brian R |
| http://www.houstonpress.com/issues/2003-09-11/index.html |
| Thursday January 29 01:27:12 2004 Re: Rachael Ray |
| The Moderator wrote:
> This post was moved to Anything Goes. > Poster: Bill > Reason: Off-topic. Huh? How is this off-topic? A super-cute girl, a regular on TWO main-stream TV shows, and the topic was wanting to see her B & G'd. Have we not seen this exact topic, though concerning other girls / women, HUNDREDS of yimes here? |
| Bill |
| Coggs_53711 |
| Thursday January 29 01:34:22 2004 Another World 2 for 1 |
| The double gag scene for two damsels in one episode will air Thursday night at midnight on SoapNet.
The first damsel was tied to a chair and OTM gagged with a cranberry scarf at the end of tonight's episode. I'm not sure who she is, but it might be one of the scene database entries listed simply as "bound and gagged." In the same episode, female detective (I think this one is Joanna Going) was grabbed at gunpoint in her car and hand-gagged with a black glove. When tomorrow's episode starts, the female will still be tied to a chair and gagged in the room before she frees herself. Furious struggling. Also, Joanna is shown tied up and gagged with white tape in a phone booth. Unfortunately, she's wearing a thick overcoat that gets in the way and she frees herself instantly and we get no good shots of her gagged. Some good mmmppping though and she makes a phone call while tied up. I actually remember recording these scenes back in college in 1988. Can't believe that was 16 years ago. And I also remember being royally pissed off at the poor scene for the brunette in the phone booth. |
| Thursday January 29 05:15:04 2004 walter mitty reply |
| OK so I got the gag type wrong. My point was kaye spends the latter part of the movie looking for his lost 'girlfriend' who has been snatched by the bad guys.
She is first presented as an illusion seated in a chair bound and (cleve) gagged. I'm not disputing this was a classic scene. But when kaye eventualy finds her I would have expeced her to be in some kind of restraints. Sleeping just didn't ring true. Virginia Mayo created a wonderful vision for just those few seconds. Its just a shame we couldn't have seen more further on. alan a |
| alan a |
| gail425@iprimus.com.au |
| Thursday January 29 07:24:23 2004 Re: Naomi Watts is a DID in King Kong |
| > I don't think he'd dare omit the scene where the DinD is
> tied between two poles for Kong. He was pretty faithful > to Lord of the Rings so he should be here also. C'mon, if film history tells us anything, it tells us that directors would dare do any fucking thing they like to a script. I will grant you that the scene of Faye Wray at the altar is THE second signature scene for the Kong movie (the first being the Empire State Building scene) but I wouldn't put it past Jackson to dump it. I wouldn't put it past any director to say, "Let's make Kong a giant chicken!" |
| Pat Powers |
| Thursday January 29 09:12:45 2004 Re: Real World |
| > The scene last for about half a minute--nice close ups of
> the arresting officer applying the cuffs. Robin was > wearing a dinem mini-skirt as well. Did anyone happen to get captures of this. It sounds pretty cool!!!! |
| Thursday January 29 09:42:58 2004 Re: Naomi Watts is a DID in King Kong |
| > He was pretty > faithful to Lord of the Rings so he should be here also.
> Can we lobby him to do Dune properly after that, or a remake of At the Villa Rose? |
| Mad Dan |
| Thursday January 29 13:38:44 2004 Re: newsbabe gagged! |
| Hibiscus wrote:
> Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be working at the > moment, or anything else in the "Files" area of > the site. I'm looking forward to it when it gets fixed... can't wait!! :-) Did you sign in to Yahoo and join the group? Can't get to the files unless you join first. |
| zeppo |
| Thursday January 29 13:45:27 2004 The Wild Card |
| Has anyone heard anymore of this movie, from when it was first reported? I tried to find a website, or an information group, but came up empty. |
| M7 |
| Thursday January 29 13:57:20 2004 The Incredible Hulk "The Waterfront Story" |
| Another nice scene from Jay L's collection...clips and caps in the usual place. |
 |
| Raffish |
| http://www.abductor.com/raffish/canuck/ |
| Thursday January 29 15:02:45 2004 Re: Naomi Watts is a DID in King Kong |
| Pat Powers wrote:
> > I don't think he'd dare omit the scene where the DinD is > > tied between two poles for Kong. He was pretty faithful > > to Lord of the Rings so he should be here also. > > C'mon, if film history tells us anything, it tells us > that directors would dare do any fucking thing they like > to a script. I will grant you that the scene of Faye Wray > at the altar is THE second signature scene for the Kong > movie (the first being the Empire State Building scene) > but I wouldn't put it past Jackson to dump it. I wouldn't > put it past any director to say, "Let's make Kong a > giant chicken!" Pat, I love you like a brother, but if there was *ever* a director who deserved more than automatic cynicism, it's Peter Jackson. He did everything but channel Tolkein's ghost to make the *LotR* faithful to the books. Also, everything I've read says he's been *fighting* to do a Kong remake for YEARS. I have nothing but good feelings about Jackson's Kong. |
| Van |
| vvvan@earthlink.net |
| http://www.restrainedtastes.com/van/ |
| Thursday January 29 15:34:07 2004 Re: newsbabe gagged! |
| zeppo wrote:
> Hibiscus wrote: > > Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be working at the > > moment, or anything else in the "Files" area of > > the site. I'm looking forward to it when it gets > fixed... can't wait!! :-) > > Did you sign in to Yahoo and join the group? Can't get > to the files unless you join first. That problem occurred even after joining the group. However, I am pleased to note that today I had no problem at all accessing the file. Might have simply been some server weirdness. The Ali & Jack scene was shorter than I expected, but that's quibbling: A very nice, decidedly atypical scene, with Ali putting on a loose but very cute cleave. The tape gag was pretty lame, but again, it's hard to argue when she follows up a cute between-the-teeth cleave with a subsequent tape gag. Big props. |
| Hibiscus |
| Thursday January 29 15:41:12 2004 Kommissar Rex "Die Babydealer" |
| ...or as I like to think of it since I'm not German, "Die! Die! My Babydealer!" ;)
Maybe not a classic, for want of a gag, but not a bad little scene with respect to the struggling aspect. Anyway, I'm home with a cold and nothing better to do than to catch up on my capping, so I may have one more set coming up a bit later if the NyQuil doesn't zap me into oblivion first... |
 |
| Raffish |
| http://www.abductor.com/raffish/canuck/ |
| Thursday January 29 16:04:06 2004 Re: Smallville update |
| Better be a gag scene this time.
|
 |
| Thursday January 29 17:02:55 2004 Rendezvous Mit Dem Teufel |
| Count 'em, 40 caps (plus clips) from this very dynamic, somewhat violent sequence. Fortunately, both of our damsels do survive, though with somewhat less flattering hairstyles...
|
 |
| Raffish |
| http://www.abductor.com/raffish/canuck |
| Thursday January 29 17:43:22 2004 Great clips Raffish |
| Thanks for the latest batch of new stuff especially that german scene, good stuff! ;) |
| Thursday January 29 18:29:07 2004 interesting article i found |
| Thursday January 29 18:50:36 2004 Re: Aspect ratios |
| iD wrote:
> Besides "Idle Hands", here are a few > titles from memory that provide more visible DiD action > in their full frame versions: > > The Astro Zombies > Hitcher in the Dark (previously discussed here a while > back) > Lair of the White Worm > The Long Kiss Goodnight > Wild Wild Planet Nice list. And, by some kind of freakish double coincidence, Netflix just delivered what turns out to be another example, which also came up just today in another thread: Beverly Hills Ninja. You're definitely going to want to go with the full-frame version on this one, folks! I wonder if this sort of thing might be worth noting in the database? > As a film buff I prefer to see the film as it was > intended even if picture information is cut off. As a DiD > enthusiast however I want the version that shows the most > damsel. Yeah, gotta hate those conflicts of interest. > Where possible, it pays to compare both versions before capping. Agreed. It just so happens that I got lucky with the three titles you mention above that I've already clipped, in that I ran across the fullscreen versions before the widescreen DVDs became available. Now that DVD has become ubiquitous, though, I'm definitely making a conscious effort to do just what you say. |
 |
 |
| Raffish |
| Thursday January 29 19:31:05 2004 Re: Rachael Ray |
| Bill wrote:
> Huh? How is this off-topic? A super-cute girl, a > regular on TWO main-stream TV shows, and the topic was > wanting to see her B & G'd. Have we not seen this > exact topic, though concerning other girls / women, > HUNDREDS of yimes here? No, not really. We discuss ones that are in shows likely to produce a scene. The "wish-fullfilment" ones were ruled off-topic during the great "newscasters I'd like to see get it" craze. |
| Moderator |
| Thursday January 29 21:38:42 2004 Re: Aspect ratios |
| Raffish wrote:
> > Where possible, it pays to compare both versions > before capping. > Raffish, as a filmmaker, I'm completely confused as to how a widescreen version could have LESS picture information on it than a full-frame version. The widescreen retains the ENTIRE frame of picture information. The full-screen version CROPS INTO each frame, encompassing an area which the filmmakers/editors choose, and then print that enlarged, slightly less clear version. The ONLY way that a full-screen version could have more picture information than widescreen is if the widescreen version was not remastered from the original 35mm or 16mm film. So I really want to know more. Are the pictures you show in your entry real? Or did you crop in yourself? Thanks...regards to all... |
| Mo |
| mcholewa@hotmail.com |
| Thursday January 29 21:41:36 2004 P.S. |
| And Raffish, I mean no offense when I mention this, nor am I trying to intimate that you don't know any of these bits of information about film. I'm just shocked and confused and my brain would like some more proof.
So again, I hope I didn't offend... |
| Mo |
| mcholewa@hotmail.com |
| Thursday January 29 21:47:20 2004 Re: The Incredible Hulk "The Waterfront Story" |
| Raffish wrote:
> Another nice scene from Jay L's collection...clips and > caps in the usual place. Because so much conversation occurs about how writers screw up- well they still seem to be pretty much at the mercy of what the director feels like doing.. "script?? I don't need no stinking script!~" I have the original script for this Hulk episode, and the writer specifically mentions the bad guy pulling out a cloth and tying it between her lips. But somewhere between his pen and the screen, it became a tape gag. Still, a very good scene. Sheilah Larkin by the way. |
| David Knight |
| http://www.DavidKnightBondage.com |
| Thursday January 29 22:06:23 2004 Favorite Directors for Full-treatment scenes? |
| > Because so much conversation occurs about how writers screw up - well they still seem to be pretty much at the mercy of what the director feels like doing...
"script?? I don't need no stinking script!~" ---- Several months ago, I noted that one of my favorite actors of the late-1970s thru 1980s was Richard Lynch, because whatever movie or TV guest star appearance he made *seemed* to involve a very attractive DiD. I wonder if Brian's Pagers have any favorite directors for doing a righteous job on their actresses, given the appropriate opportunities? Perhaps Horror-genre directors, such as Dario Argento, might be in the lead here. |
| Kinky-napper |
| Thursday January 29 22:17:58 2004 Re: Aspect ratios |
| Mo wrote:
> Raffish, as a filmmaker, I'm completely confused as to > how a widescreen version could have LESS picture > information on it than a full-frame version. The > widescreen retains the ENTIRE frame of picture > information. The full-screen version CROPS INTO each > frame, encompassing an area which the filmmakers/editors > choose, and then print that enlarged, slightly less clear > version. In the hopes this doesn't get ruled off topic, I'll try to explain. There are a number of widescreen film processes. Most of them are as you say, where only the intended widescreen image is filmed, then a full screen version is later made for TV/video that cuts off picture information. Having said that, there are also a couple of processes where a film is composed for widescreen, but more picture information is shot to use for TV & video. The advantage is that no important picture information will be left out of the full screen version, the disadvantage being that the composition is an afterthought. The process is usually called a 'soft matte' thought the Super 35 technique similarly shoots for both versions then crops the filmed image according to whether it's for theaters or TV. In the case of 'Wild Wild Planet', the film was originally shot in standard aspect ratio as a European TV movie before a decision was made to release it theatrically. The US theatrical prints were matted to make it look like a widescreen film. Even though the unmatted version played on US TV, a subsequent lasrdisc release and TCM showings matted it to reflect the original US theatrical version. I could go into much more detail on these processes, but fear I've already risked getting off topic as it is. |
| iD |
| Thursday January 29 22:51:32 2004 Re: P.S. |
| Mo wrote:
> And Raffish, I mean no offense when I mention this, nor > am I trying to intimate that you don't know any of these > bits of information about film. I'm just shocked and > confused and my brain would like some more proof. > > So again, I hope I didn't offend... Not at all. And yes, those caps are straight off the DVD (with, of course, the matting bars removed from the widescreen cap). I think iD has just explained it nicely, but in case you're still confused, the link below goes into a bit more detail and includes some nice visual examples. Specifically, take a look at page 2 of the article, under "Other Options." |
| Raffish |
| http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/anamorphic/aspectratios/widescreenorama.html |
| Thursday January 29 23:25:11 2004 did "24" pan out? |
| I missed this week's episode of "24"...did anything noteworthy (DiD-wise) happen? I'd heard it was a possibility but since nothing has been mentioned about it I take it it's a bust? |
| JP |
| JAPfeif@aol.com |
|
|
