|
|
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.
|
|
| Saturday June 16 00:52:05 2007 Keira Knightley question |
| As I read in the database, Keira Knightley is apparently handgagged by Orlando Bloom in Pirates of the Caribbean but I wanna make sure that I don't miss the scene. Anybody knows exactly when it happens in the movie?
Thanks in advance |
| ACC |
| accasino@hotmail.com |
| Saturday June 16 01:45:39 2007 untitled |
| http://www.majorjohns.com/hostel2.rm |
| http://www.majorjohns.com/hostel2.rm |
| Saturday June 16 03:05:23 2007 Re: Keira Knightley question |
| ACC wrote:
> As I read in the database, Keira Knightley is apparently > handgagged by Orlando Bloom Are you referring to the Curse of the Black Pearl, which is referenced in the database and will be on ABC this weekend? Or are you referring to the current theatrical release? |
| The House of Le Bastard |
| Saturday June 16 11:01:45 2007 Full House |
| Alot of the entries in the database for Full House have the episode listed as unknown. Could anyone help me on identifying these episodes? In particular, scenes with Candace Cameron Bure, although any help on other episodes would be appreciated as well. Thanks. |
| Saturday June 16 11:11:35 2007 Re: nancy drew |
| Pat Powers wrote:
> Oh, I dunno, that wraparound tapegag in "Into the > Blue" was more than all right ... hard to fault > Jessica because not every movie contains a great scene > ... she's obviously a trooper where gags and bonds are concerned. And you got to love Ebay, item # 330132249150. Glad to see that we're not the only ones. |
| H |
| diddvd@yahoo.com |
| http://cgi.ebay.com/INTO-THE-BLUE-8x10-PHOTO-JESSICA-ALBA-BONDAGE_W0QQitemZ330132249150QQihZ014QQcategoryZ60329QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem |
| Saturday June 16 11:15:29 2007 Re: nancy drew |
| H wrote:
And you got to love Ebay, item # 330132249150. Glad to > see that we're not the only ones. > > > There's more where that came from, too. 330132243200 - That nice Vanessa Marcil tape gag scene from Las Vegas 330132246112 - Very nice cleave gag scene from Hostel 2 330132247108 - Bijou Phillips from Hostel 2 |
| H |
| diddvd@yahoo.com |
| http://www.diddvd.com |
| Saturday June 16 13:07:36 2007 Re: Full House |
| (unsigned poster) wrote:
> Alot of the entries in the database for Full House have > the episode listed as unknown. Full House? Okay 1 handcuff scene, and maybe 1 handgag for the beautiful Lori Laughlin. But 14 entries for comedic handgag scenes from this show certainly is pushing the limits of what this site is all about isn't it? |
| Saturday June 16 13:59:17 2007 Re: Keira Knightley question |
| If I remember correctly, it occurs during the treasure cove scene (just a few minutes after the scene where her wrists are bound). After Geofrey Rush knocks her off the treasure pile, Orlando Bloom sneaks over and handgags her so she won't alert the pirates to his presence. I'm almost certain that's the scene. |
| Dart |
| Saturday June 16 14:00:45 2007 Re: Full House |
| (unsigned poster) wrote:
> (unsigned poster) wrote: > > > Alot of the entries in the database for Full House > have > > the episode listed as unknown. > > Full House? Okay 1 handcuff scene, and maybe 1 handgag > for the beautiful Lori Laughlin. But 14 entries for > comedic handgag scenes from this show certainly is > pushing the limits of what this site is all about isn't it? Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not asking people to go out and find out if they don't know, I'm just asking anyone if they DO happen to know to share information. If no one knows, then that is fine. I still consider handgagging a form of bondage, and, for me those are the best kind of scenes. The ones you aren't really expecting, stuff on sitcoms and talk shows and what not. |
| Saturday June 16 14:54:17 2007 Re: Full House |
| (unsigned poster) wrote:
> > A lot of the entries in the database for Full House > have > > the episode listed as unknown. Best not to ask about Full House. Someone always starts complaining about the scenes. |
| The House of Le Bastard |
| Saturday June 16 15:57:27 2007 Hostel 2? Not interested. |
| Thanks for clip, now I know I have no interest in seeing the DVD when it comes out. It's an interesting time, Hollywood is flirting with torture and bondage but not because they want to test the limits of censorship or break new ground and create art; they are doing it because they think there is a fan base for this stuff and they want to cash in. My theory is that almost no one (in the audience) is interested in torture and snuff (I don't think anyone here is either) and I don't think the next step is even more graphic violence. People like peril and thrills and danger and fantasy, not torture and blood and death. But Hollywood doesn't know this and people like Eli Roth don't care (he's doing what he likes and what he thinks will sell and it doesn't go any deeper than that.)
It's why test audiences laughed when they saw Naomi Watts fall down in Funny Games; it's not because they are incapable of suspension of disbelief, or because the film is laughably bad, it's because they want to be entertained and they want to have fun (and most people think bondage is fun). They don't want to be hit over the head with the concept that torture and death is around every corner, and it's all unfair and mindless, and all innocent, simple people are easy targets. No, they are thinking that movies are like fantasies, that watching thrilling films is inspiration for your own creative life. Roger Corman said in a recent interview about his early horror films that the many rooms in the castle were the facets of sexual imagination in your mind, and that includes the dungeon. He said he was sure his young audience would go home after seeing his films and act out the scenes in the film like lovers indulging in sexual experimentation. That means it's all pretend, it's an escape. If films continue to get more real and more violent and more distrurbing and bloodier, the audiences will fade even quicker. I think this is a good thing for people interested in traditional, and modern DID. What I'm still wondering is, how long before a film comes out that is about normal people who act out their bondage fantasies and have no guilt or shame, and the film is about how much fun it is and how creative it can be? You see, Hostel 2 is about people who tie up and torture for real, with unwilling victims; it's a film about disturbed criminals and sad victims. What about a film where everyone is willing, and everyone is having thrills and fun? Too complicated for Hollywood, too narrow an audience, too deep, too soon? |
| Saturday June 16 17:33:05 2007 Re: Hostel 2? Not interested. |
| (unsigned poster) wrote:
> Thanks for clip, now I know I have no interest in seeing > the DVD when it comes out. It's an interesting time, > Hollywood is flirting with torture and bondage but not > because they want to test the limits of censorship or > break new ground and create art; they are doing it > because they think there is a fan base for this stuff and > they want to cash in. My theory is that almost no one > (in the audience) is interested in torture and snuff (I > don't think anyone here is either) and I don't think the > next step is even more graphic violence. People like > peril and thrills and danger and fantasy, not torture and > blood and death. But Hollywood doesn't know this and > people like Eli Roth don't care (he's doing what he likes > and what he thinks will sell and it doesn't go any deeper > than that.) > > It's why test audiences laughed when they saw Naomi Watts > fall down in Funny Games; it's not because they are > incapable of suspension of disbelief, or because the film > is laughably bad, it's because they want to be > entertained and they want to have fun (and most people > think bondage is fun). They don't want to be hit over > the head with the concept that torture and death is > around every corner, and it's all unfair and mindless, > and all innocent, simple people are easy targets. No, > they are thinking that movies are like fantasies, that > watching thrilling films is inspiration for your own > creative life. Roger Corman said in a recent interview > about his early horror films that the many rooms in the > castle were the facets of sexual imagination in your > mind, and that includes the dungeon. He said he was sure > his young audience would go home after seeing his films > and act out the scenes in the film like lovers indulging > in sexual experimentation. That means it's all pretend, > it's an escape. If films continue to get more real and > more violent and more distrurbing and bloodier, the > audiences will fade even quicker. I think this is a good > thing for people interested in traditional, and modern > DID. > > What I'm still wondering is, how long before a film comes > out that is about normal people who act out their bondage > fantasies and have no guilt or shame, and the film is > about how much fun it is and how creative it can be? You > see, Hostel 2 is about people who tie up and torture for > real, with unwilling victims; it's a film about disturbed > criminals and sad victims. What about a film where > everyone is willing, and everyone is having thrills and fun? Too complicated for Hollywood, too narrow an audience, too deep, too soon? If I'm allowed to have a response to this - I couldn't disagree more to the above. To make a too-long story short, there has always been an audience (Frankenstein in the 1930s, Hammer horror movies of the 1950s, Texas Chainsaw Massacre of the 1970s, Friday the 13th movies of the 1980s and on and on) for horror movies that border on the sick. Now that they 'cross the line' of taste (ask some of those 1930s audiences - and those who refused to see - "Frankenstein" - and also "Dracula," etc. etc., whether they thought the movies were too sick, they did) even more, the Hostels, Saws and all those other sick movies are the natural evolution of such movies, and based on the cheap cost to produce them, and the huge box office paid by people who seek such movies, they will continue. I don't like the storylines, and I certainly don't like the gratuitous killing and torture, but believe it or not, there are many of our fellow men and women who enjoy such things in the cinema, whether they realize what their motives are or not (and I'm sure few of them would admit they like 'torture porn'). I remember seeing something gruesome in a Friday the 13th or Nightmare on Elm Street movie in the theatre, and many members of the audience laughing hard! There is a debate there as to whether it's because they are releasing tension by laughing, think that the gore was poorly/laughably portrayed, or whether they actually though it was funny to see someone decapitated (drawn and quartered, body split in two, etc. etc. etc.). Yet, that response is frequently the finish to the experience those people are looking for, and that's why they go back to such movies again and again. I know no one can assume that the audience en masse is exactly like you, and that they go to see some 'innocent' peril with the hero victorious, etc. etc. If you poll the dating teens, the horror fanboys and others who exit any of these gorefest movies (well represented by all of Eli Roth's efforts), they will NOT tell you they want to see a damsel-in-distress who is "having fun" and rescued instead, and none of the gore. I'm afraid it's the other way around. (remember, the magazine 'Premiere' has been cancelled in the U.S., while mags like 'Fangoria' are successful and flourish!). Okay, that's my say, and I do think there are many people (it is certainly easy to believe, as I do, that many of them are 'sickos' and sometimes sociopaths to a degree in their own right) who love the sickest aspects of these horror movies. And unfortunately, we won't see that change for some time. Nicer, more survival-friendly thrilling action movies belong to a different genre, and therefore often a different audience (i.e. like the Indiana Jones movies, etc.). I doubt you have the same person hoping that "Nancy Drew" has a 'scene' as those looking forward to "The House of 1,000 Corpses" - for a scene or not! One more thing - you use "for real" quite absurdly - "Hostel 2" is a movie, and not even based on any real life events. All these movies we're talking about are fiction - whether pleasant or ugly - and that's always a self-judgment call. Okay, just ONE more thing - I bet "Funny Games" will do better at the box office than you might think - and it's precisely because of the sick nature of the antagonists in the movie and what they do without conscience, not Naomi Watts' presence, nor her 'comical bondage hopping.' |
| Clarifier's Cousin Once Removed |
| Saturday June 16 17:38:20 2007 Japan and Asian DID's Movie |
| There is an movie more than 200 of them in all and becomes WMV. |
| DIDPAY |
| http://didpay.goodgirl.jp/ |
| Saturday June 16 18:32:49 2007 Re: Hostel 2? Not interested. |
| Clarifier's Cousin Once Removed wrote:
> If I'm allowed to have a response to this - I couldn't > disagree more to the above. To make a too-long story > short, there has always been an audience (Frankenstein in > the 1930s, Hammer horror movies of the 1950s, Texas > Chainsaw Massacre of the 1970s, Friday the 13th movies of > the 1980s and on and on) for horror movies that border on > the sick. I tend to agree. While I personally find movies like Hostel and Saw et. all to be repulsive and refuse to watch them, there is most definitely a market for them. Original poster was way off-base when he suggested that Hollywood has screwed the pooch in producing these movies. The box office results from these latest toture-horror movies are showing that obviously people are going to see them. At the end of the day, the movie studios are still businesses, and films like Hostel and Saw have proven themselves to give a good return on investment. So the studio execs are going to keep ordering movies like this. The context of these movies makes it nearly impossible for me to get any satisfaction out of the DiD scenes in them, but I'm positive we'll keep seeing new offerings in this genre every year. |
| Not a Guest |
| Saturday June 16 19:33:28 2007 gruesome horror film |
| I actually DO enjoy those kind of horror movies, the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre is my all time favorite film, it has a blend of the sheer intense horror that I love, and a prolonged bound and gagged scene to boot.
For a horror film to have a DiD scene is just an added bonus for me. Ditto for films like Wrong Turn, and Eaten Alive. What bothers me more are the "exploitation/rape films" of the 60's and 70's that had DiD scenes, like Candy Snatchers or Last House On the Left. They weren't horror films per se, but they bothered me a lot more than a splatterfest film like Saw or Turistas would. Same for a couple of books like "Lets Go Play At the Adams" |
| Anubis |
| http://anuvids.com |
| Saturday June 16 23:59:22 2007 Re: gruesome horror film |
| Little thought experiment. Movies like Hostel, Saw, Captive, etc., involve women being bound, tortured, mutilated and killed. Suppose that instead a movie came along where a serial abductor captured women, who were then stripped, bound, fondled and kissed, then released. No actual sex, mind you.
Would it be more censored or less censored than the other movies? I think we all know the answer to that question. America is a pretty sick, sad place sometimes. |
| Pat Powers |
|
|