|
|
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.
|
|
| Sunday September 24 00:12:18 2006 Re: Loser Takes All, MI3 |
| >a visitor
> who really knows his stuff says it's definitely Maro > Mavri. He found her name with the film on a Greek web > site. Many thanks. I appreciate the confirmation. Good for your site visitor. Looking forward to the caps! Dannysuling |
| Dannysuling |
| dannysuling@yahoo.com |
| Sunday September 24 00:38:50 2006 Las Vegas |
| I heard the girls would get in trouble this year.
I know Molly Sims will be B and Ged. I hope they cleave her with a bandana. She is so damn hot. |
| Joe |
| ilovewordbond@yahoo.com |
| Sunday September 24 00:45:42 2006 Urinetown |
| I found a link to some nice Urinetown pictures on photobucket. The actress is gagged with an over the mouth cloth gag.
http://s32.photobucket.com/albums/d30/fudgetheatre/Urinetown/?start=0 |
| J Par |
| Sunday September 24 00:59:54 2006 Veronica Lake--a nice clip, for a change |
| A nice clip-series from "This Gun for Hire" (1942), longer than I've seen on other sites, and providing more context for Veronica Lake's DiD scene. The non-bondage closeups in this clip make it so very clear why Lake was so celebrated as a beautiful woman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PYg93dwWkU |
| Dannysuling |
| dannysuling@yahoo.com |
| Sunday September 24 01:37:23 2006 teutonca |
| Teutonca,
what you're asking better off over on the Trades Page. So I posted it over there (Homepage) |
| Jay L |
| http://brianspage.com/showday.php?fname=trade%2Fhtml%2F266-2006 |
| Sunday September 24 01:49:28 2006 Re: New media presents new opportunities |
| Pat Powers wrote:
> You sell an original copy of each movie with your > "extended" version. > > There's a court case now working its way through the > system to determine if the unilaterial editing of such > films is legal, even if you do sell a copy of the > original with each altered version. I am not aware of the case to which you are referring, but it's hard to think it would be legal. That would open the door to almost unlimited copyright theft- just add some new stuff and you suddenly own the whole thing. |
| a lawyer |
| Sunday September 24 04:02:08 2006 Emmerdale |
| For you guys stateside, caps at the link below of the Patsy Kensit scene, unfortunately only one of her gagged (major putz interference) but hopefully some more will surface..
http://www.emmerdale.tartydoris.com/latest3.htm |
| Sunday September 24 04:47:38 2006 Rain, with Meghna Naidu |
| In the 2005 Indian movie, "Rain," Meghna Naidu (who i believe is playing a blind woman, or perhaps an hysterical blind woman) gets bound spreadeagled to a bed, gagged OTM with a white cloth, and then raped. The scene isn't long, and it's carefully cut so that the violation is implied--par for the course for Hindi films. But it's a nice scene anyway. I've found two links to it:
1. Including selected scenes from the film, ending with rape scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc1Gz6GtlUM 2. just the rape scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oP_fWL8kjo I'm not exactly a Hindi speaker, so I don't really know what's going on in the plot. Still, if you guys think the above description is enough, I'll enter it in the dB. |
| Dannysuling |
| dannysuling@yahoo.com |
| Sunday September 24 05:21:36 2006 Re: New media presents new opportunities |
| > > You sell an original copy of each movie with your "extended" version.
> > > > There's a court case now working its way through the system to determine if the unilaterial editing of such films is legal, even if you do sell a copy of the original with each altered version. I am not aware of the case to which you are referring, but it's hard to think it would be legal. That would open the door to almost unlimited copyright theft- just add some new stuff and you suddenly own the whole thing. ---- I'm guessing that when the original poster used the word "You", he's referencing the current owner to a film's copyright -- usually a large corporation -- although the rights to some minor films are probably affordable by a single person. We already know that owners of films have the right to edit DOWN the runtime of films to fit TV runtimes (w/ commercials), and for either TV or video/DVD-rerelease to edit scenes that generated an "R" rating for a film, and to dub objectionable language. Is the current court case asking whether the owners can ADD scenes, using different cast and producer? Seems like a reasonable question, especially if the decision were to be that such scenes could be added as "DVD extras", if there is separate crediting. However, I can certainly see the point of producers/directors/actors objecting to the changing of their vision to "purient" interests (whether that be added sex/violence -- or bondage), and new film copyright contracts requiring the express written consent to add scenes. |
| Kinky-napper |
| Sunday September 24 07:19:42 2006 Re: New media presents new opportunities |
| > However, I can certainly see the point of producers/directors/actors objecting to the changing of their vision to
"purient" interests (whether that be added sex/violence -- or bondage), and new film copyright contracts requiring the express written consent to add scenes. ---- And on further thought, I'd be firmly AGAINST the capability to add such scenes -- unless as a "DVD-extra" + Express written consent of the producer + director + cast. Supporting the ability to add scenes within an existing film itself would end film integrity as we know it. E.g., in "From Here to Eternity", after the iconic passionate beach kiss, adding a boinking scene. James Cagney and Edward G. Robinson gangster movies "too boring" for juvenile audiences? Add Al Capone taking a baseball bat to a hapless opposing gang. Think a classy actress (say, Jane Seymour or Jaclyn Smith) wants to see any romantic comedy or drama that has a "kiss-to-fadeout" scene "enhanced" with a extra's boinking scene? Or in our favorite sports films, changing the sexual orientation of a major chararcter with an "added" scene? Similarly, in his version of "The Collector" (1965) William Wyler no doubt deliberately DIDN'T include Fowles book elements such as Freddy re-gagging Miranda every time she's moved from her cellar to the main house & return trip. It's a character study, NOT a mainstream bondage movie. |
| Kinky-napper |
| Sunday September 24 08:45:16 2006 MAD TV |
| I saw a preview for next Saturday's MAD TV (Sept 30 on Fox
stations), in which one of the actresses was playing one of the Dixie Chicks, straitjacketed and getting hit in the head with a chisel. In case that's your thing. :-) |
| Greg |
| gb9304@yahoo.com |
| http://greggerbits.tripod.com |
| Sunday September 24 11:10:58 2006 Re: New media presents new opportunities |
| a lawyer wrote:
> I am not aware of the case to which you are referring, > but it's hard to think it would be legal. That would > open the door to almost unlimited copyright theft- just > add some new stuff and you suddenly own the whole thing. My homepage link contains a link to a news article about the case. Here's a more recent story about the ClearPlay DVD players now showing up in WalMart stores: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2004-05-05-clearplay-main_x.htm And you can find out more at http://wwww.clearplay.com Legal or not, sure seems to be a happening thing. |
| Pat Powers |
| http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=17528 |
| Sunday September 24 11:24:01 2006 Desperate? |
| Read in the paper a somewhat spoiler on the Desperate Housewives series.
"In the near future scenes, the Kyle McGlaglin(spelling) charecter will be the new mystery, and there will be a HOSTAGE senario" The paper did not specify who the hostage is or in what circumstance it will be in (ie. bank robbery, home, work) does anyone else have anything more they can add to this |
| Sunday September 24 11:30:22 2006 Re: New media presents new opportunities |
| > ----
> I'm guessing that when the original poster used the word > "You", he's referencing the current owner to a > film's copyright -- usually a large corporation -- > although the rights to some minor films are probably > affordable by a single person. No, the ClearPlay guys started out as a garage-type operation. They aren't asking for rights, they're just making the change. I think they are selling a copy of the original film with each altered version as a way of getting past the argument of economic harm to the copyright holder -- every time ClearPlay makes a sale, the original artist makes a sale, and gets compensated just as he would if he made a sale by any other means. And the purchaser still has the option of watching the original unedited version if he or she so wishes. ClearPlay says they're just offering viewers a choice. As would a DiD-added filmmaker. > Is the current court case asking whether the owners can > ADD scenes, using different cast and producer? I don't think the court case is asking that, but as the news article demonstrates, the same technology can be used for such purposes. > Seems like > a reasonable question, especially if the decision were to > be that such scenes could be added as "DVD > extras", if there is separate crediting. However, I > can certainly see the point of producers/directors/actors > objecting to the changing of their vision to > "purient" interests (whether that be added > sex/violence -- or bondage), and new film copyright contracts requiring the express written consent to add scenes. The directors object to the censorship on the grounds that their original vision of the film has been altered. Their artistic intent is being ignored. I am sure they would feel the same way about added scenes. Legally, it would all depend on the courts. Morally, I think there's nothing wrong with offering people a choice. |
| Pat Powers |
| Sunday September 24 11:31:43 2006 Fixed Clearplay link |
| It's in the homepage link now. |
| Pat Powers |
| http://www.clearplay.com |
| Sunday September 24 11:47:38 2006 Re: New media presents new opportunities |
| Pat Powers wrote:
> No, the ClearPlay guys started out as a garage-type > operation. They aren't asking for rights, they're just > making the change. I think they are selling a copy of the > original film with each altered version as a way of > getting past the argument of economic harm to the > copyright holder -- every time ClearPlay makes a sale, > the original artist makes a sale, and gets compensated > just as he would if he made a sale by any other means. If that is what they are doing, I doubt if that's going to fly. I can't rip off someone else's work and get around copyright by including the original in my rip-off package. You write a book. I add a chapter of my own to your finished product, I then sell the new book as well as your original in a shrink wrapped set. Okay. In this scenario, you no longer have control over how your book is marketed, despite the fact that you own it. As long as I "add" something, which may either have zero value or degrade your original entirely, I can do whatever I want with your property. The fact that you might make a buck because my book is sold WITH yours doesn't change that. Now, if you write a book, and I take your IDEA and write my OWN book, that's fine. There is of course a fuzzy line between borrowing an idea and borrowing the work itself- but I think this case is easily on the side of borrowing (copying) the work itself. >Morally, I think there's nothing wrong with offering people a choice. But there is something morally wrong with stealing. If you sell something you don't own, that you paid ZERO to create, you are stealing. Now if you fly under the legal radar and don't get caught, that's something different- but you are still stealing. |
| a lawyer with bad hair |
| Sunday September 24 12:46:10 2006 Re: Desperate? |
| (unsigned poster) wrote:
> Read in the paper a somewhat spoiler on the Desperate > Housewives series. > "In the near future scenes, the Kyle > McGlaglin(spelling) charecter will be the new mystery, > and there will be a HOSTAGE senario" They are getting desperate a bit, since their audience fell last season. They are already putting Eva Longoria in lingerie in tonight's opener from the promo clip I saw. Worth keeping an eye out. Same with "Las Vegas." They are also trying to boost the ratings with a move to Fridays. The Molly Sims storyline is a good start. |
| Sunday September 24 13:43:12 2006 This and that and nothing in particular... |
| ...or as Van Williams opined in the "Green Hornet" episode very appropriately titled "Give 'Em Enough Rope" after happening upon the well-gagged and securely chair-tied Diana Hyland: "You look uncomfortable, Claudia."
First, with regard to Alice Sebold's "The Lovely Bones," perhaps a little refinement and clarification is in order for those of you striking out into cyberspace on a downloading expedition to netLibrary to get it. The first "scene" is a definite GNB, and as I warned you, it doesn't end happily, although Sebold mercifully spares us the gore. Still, there's just something about hearing a female voice-especially an appealing one like Alyssa Bresnahan's-reciting: "...But he grew tired of hearing me plead. He reached into the pocket of my parka and balled up the hat my mother had made me, smashing it into my mouth. The only sound I made after that was the weak tinkling of bells." And the second occurrence of interest I described yesterday needs a liitle elaboration as well. It's the main character's mother-not the main character herself-who has the dream of seeing the young woman immolated. However, upon a subsequent hearing, it sounds more like an Indian (meaning "of India," not "Native American") funeral rite, although the narration clearly states that she's alive. It describes her as being "wound up in a white sheet" before being set upon the pyre. Your guess is as good as mine as to what it all means. Read or listen to it and figure it out for yourself. There's nothing else of particular interest to us in it, but at any rate, it's a good book that's well worth your time. And hope springs eternal; a movie version is in the works, according to the IMDb. I can certainly think of some parts that would be helped by a little rope or duct tape. May we be blessed with a director who agrees. Oh and with regard to this Clear Play thing: Didn't Congress pass a law last year giving them a free pass as far as copyright infringement is concerned? Seems I recall they did. Now isn't that just ducky? If any of you who take up my suggestion and borrow "The Lovely Bones" from your netLibrary-affiliated local branch ask me how it got onto an iPod in playable form, I can't legally answer you-at least not directly. However, it'll be all right for me to take the movie version when it shows up on DVD and chop out anything I don't think your kids ought to watch, then pass it along to you at a nice markup to boot, and not have to kick back a dime either to Sebold, the director, the scriptwriters or the production company-and both artistic integrity and faithfulness to their vision be damned. Is this a great country, or what? Not that I'm against parents being able to protect their kids from what they don't want them to see, mind you-and with regard to the story we've been discussing, there's definitely going to be stuff in it that they SHOUDN'T see. I'm just hopeful that as technology progresses, the decision will be put back into the only pair of hands in which it belongs-that of parents, and ONLY parents. |
| Fettershackle |
| Sunday September 24 13:53:20 2006 Rain |
|
This post was deleted. Poster: KM Reason: Abusive |
| The Moderator |
| Sunday September 24 13:53:53 2006 Re: Rain |
|
This post was deleted. Poster: Kid Monster Reason: Follow-up to deleted post. |
| The Moderator |
| Sunday September 24 15:08:17 2006 Re: Desperate? |
| (unsigned poster) wrote:
> Read in the paper a somewhat spoiler on the Desperate > Housewives series. > "In the near future scenes, the Kyle > McGlaglin(spelling) charecter will be the new mystery, > and there will be a HOSTAGE senario" It's a sweeps stunt, Episode 3.07. The wife of a supermarket owner takes hostages in the store after she learns some of her husband's secrets. Lynette, Edie, and Julie are hostages. |
| Sylvie |
| Sunday September 24 15:53:35 2006 "Her Fatal Flaw"...anything on this one? |
| It seems that tonight on Lifetime the movie "Her Fatal Flaw" (2006) is running, and Victoria Pratt stars therein. The blurb in my TV section indicates that she plays "an attorney who has a one-night stand with a murder suspect and [gasp!!] comes to regret it." It's not listed as a premiere, but the flick's new to me and would certainly seem to have possibilities for DiD connoisseurs. There's nothing in the DB, but does anyone out there have word on this one? A non-starter or....???
thanx in advance... |
| Overlooker |
| Sunday September 24 17:05:18 2006 Re: New media presents new opportunities |
| a lawyer with bad hair wrote:
> If that is what they are doing, I doubt if that's going > to fly. I can't rip off someone else's work and get > around copyright by including the original in my rip-off > package. No, and this was confirmed by the decision last year against CleanFlicks. However, as the article that Pat posted and the ClearPlay site make clear, ClearPlay are doing something different: they're selling downloadable filters that selectively skip or mute scenes from existing DVDs. There's no physical product involved, which, with a little help from the Family Movie Act of 2005, makes ClearPlay immune from the CleanFlicks decision. Personally, I consider this a reasonable compromise (as does the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which usually can be trusted to weigh in sensibly on such matters). The ClearPlay approach strikes me as fundamentally no different from entrusting your remote to a third party who knows which parts of a movie you want to skip. I'm disappointed that people would choose to watch movies in this manner, and I sympathize with the directors whose work is being bowdlerized, but it seems to me that the consumer-choice angle outweighs such concerns. From an economic perspective, it does seem as though ClearPlay's technology is encouraging its customers to watch movies that they otherwise wouldn't. If it were to catch on to a great enough degree, I might even speculate that it would free up writers and directors to include content that *they* otherwise wouldn't: "You don't like the profanity in my movie? F'in ClearPlay it, motherf'er." :) |
| Raffish |
| Sunday September 24 17:59:45 2006 Anyone know the story behind this scene? |
| I found this clip while browsing through You tube earlier and I was wondering if any of you good folks recognised it.
A young woman in a hospital gown has apparantly been bound and gagged with medical tape and locked in a closet while her twin sister (or at least a passable doppleganger) is taking a medical exam in her place. While the captive beats her bare feet helplessly against the closet door the imposter frets "What will happen when they find the real Heather?" I'd bet money is one of those US daytime soaps but I don't have a clue which one. Also this seems to be the middle part of a longer scene and no explanation is given for why poor Heather is locked in the closet. So I'd be eternally grateful if someone could answer the following questions: 1) What show was this 2) Who is the DiD? and most importantly 3) What in the name of Doctor Kildare is going on? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrkqBWxZEbg&mode=related&search= |
| moxx of balhoom |
| Sunday September 24 18:52:06 2006 Prison Break Possibility Monday? |
| Saw a preview of the escapees talking about getting into a garage to retrieve money then a scene flashed quickly showing a pretty blonde with a gun to her head. Haven't seen nor heard anything further but it might be worth a look. |
| Silk |
| Sunday September 24 18:58:24 2006 Re: New media presents new opportunities |
| a lawyer with bad hair wrote:
> If that is what they are doing, I doubt if that's going > to fly. I can't rip off someone else's work and get > around copyright by including the original in my rip-off > package. > > You write a book. I add a chapter of my own to your > finished product, I then sell the new book as well as > your original in a shrink wrapped set. Okay. > > In this scenario, you no longer have control over how > your book is marketed, despite the fact that you own it. > As long as I "add" something, which may either > have zero value or degrade your original entirely, I can > do whatever I want with your property. The fact that > you might make a buck because my book is sold WITH yours > doesn't change that. > > Now, if you write a book, and I take your IDEA and write > my OWN book, that's fine. There is of course a fuzzy > line between borrowing an idea and borrowing the work > itself- but I think this case is easily on the side of > borrowing (copying) the work itself. > > >Morally, I think there's nothing wrong with offering > people a choice. > > But there is something morally wrong with stealing. If > you sell something you don't own, that you paid ZERO to > create, you are stealing. Now if you fly under the legal > radar and don't get caught, that's something different- but you are still stealing. OK, from what Raffish said in his post further down, ClearPlay has gotten around the "alteration" issues by making DVDs with "filters" that skip over the unwanted content. You put the DVD in the ClearPlay player and if it has the requisite filters, out goes the bad language, nudity, etc., possibly including bondage someday. OK, I still think this is altering the movie. The DVD is essentially a black box, and when you put in a copy of Saving Private Ryan and what comes out is soldiers watching their buddies getting their faces blown off and saying "Gee whillikers" and "Shucky darn!" or silence, you're watching an altered version of Private Ryan no matter what the technology does. And if the viewer still has the option of watching the unfiltered version, I don't see it as "stealing" in any way. |
| Pat Powers |
| http://www.bondagerotica.com |
| Sunday September 24 19:27:53 2006 Re: New media presents new opportunities |
| Raffish wrote:
> > Personally, I consider this a reasonable compromise (as > does the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which usually > can be trusted to weigh in sensibly on such matters). > The ClearPlay approach strikes me as fundamentally no > different from entrusting your remote to a third party > who knows which parts of a movie you want to skip. OK, so let's assume the existence of a DVD player that can play two movies at once. In one, you slip the original DVD of, say, Gor the movie. In the other you slip the Gor The Movie Extras DVD. It contains the Augmented Catfight Scene in which both opponents wind up nude and the loser winds up chained naked and gagged in an alcove, serving various onlookers in the way of a Gorean slavegirl. It also contains the Augmented Slavegirl Auction Scene, in which the slaver strips the clothes from his merchandise and forces them to display themselves to the men in various poses of submission. And there's the Augmented Dancing Girl scene in which the dancers remove their clothes as they dance, dance their slavegirl needs, and throw themselves to the floor, to be dragged off to the wall and chained there for the pleasure of whatever men in the audience might want to help them out with all those slavegirl needs they have. And there's the Augmented ... well, I think you get the idea. At the appropriate point in the original movie, the DVD would switch over to the augmented scene on the Extras DVD, then seamlessly blend back to the original movie. Now, just as with ClearPlay, it's just like someone is watching the movie and then lets a friend run the remote control for him, trusting that friend to switch over to various sexy bondage movies at various times. It's not like the original has been changed in any way. How does that differ from ClearPlay? |
| Pat Powers |
| http://www.hentairevue.com |
| Sunday September 24 20:01:23 2006 Re: Anyone know the story behind this scene? |
| moxx of balhoom wrote:
> I found this clip while browsing through You tube earlier > and I was wondering if any of you good folks recognised > it. > Passions clip from last year. Alison Robertson is the damsel. Female knocked her out with choloroform and took her place to be inseminated with ex-boyfriend's sperm. |
| Sunday September 24 21:08:11 2006 Re: New media presents new opportunities |
| a lawyer wrote:
> Pat Powers wrote: > > > > You sell an original copy of each movie with your > > "extended" version. > > > > There's a court case now working its way through the > > > system to determine if the unilaterial editing of > such > > films is legal, even if you do sell a copy of the > > original with each altered version. > > I am not aware of the case to which you are referring, > but it's hard to think it would be legal. That would > open the door to almost unlimited copyright theft- just > add some new stuff and you suddenly own the whole thing. > > > I do not agree with the nameless lawer, as counsel myself I find it easy to conceive that I could defend a client who was selling copies of an edited movie as long as he actually sold me a legal copy of the movie that he had edited, which is what it sounds like here. I do agree that if I purchase one copy and make an edit and then sell many copies of the edited work I have a problem. But if I buy a copy, and then re-sell it, generally there is no issue. |
| Richar |
| richardBruce@lpemail.com |
| Sunday September 24 22:07:51 2006 Sitcom DID bankruptcy? |
| Don't get me wrong...I'm a huge fan of how this fall season has started. But it seems to me that all the scene's we've gotten so far have been in the CSI Law and order type shows.
Can anyone recall the last time a Sitcom delivered a scene, played for laughs? |
| el tinko |
| Sunday September 24 22:20:12 2006 alternative to shooting addtl. scenes |
| If a film group would/could produce 'mainstream' style shows with the damsel in distess/bondage themes, would there be enough of an audience to support that?
For example, taking storylines straight from a commercial bondage story site. (examples are posted on the Friends section of this site, and yes, I'm avoiding naming sites) Cast mainstream actresses, and actors, and so on. It would be series of shows that would follow a Damsel in Distress character (female detective, for example), and write and produce this series as a mainstream series: Plot, sub-plots, character development. Would there be sustained interest? Would there be a revenue stream, i.e. distribution, other than the Net? |
| Lyter |
| Sunday September 24 22:52:23 2006 Re: alternative to shooting addtl. scenes |
| Lyter wrote:
> If a film group would/could produce 'mainstream' style > shows with the damsel in distess/bondage themes, would > there be enough of an audience to support that? I think the DiD market is always going to be a tiny portion of the mainstream market, and what the mainstream market is going to want is movies and TV shows with vanilla hetero sex scenes added in, using porn actresses made up to look like the stars of the movies/TV shows. Think about it, they can take any movie with a sexual romance for the leads and make it a SEXUAL romance with added extras. OK, maybe not a lot of interest for that one with Anne Heche and Harrison Ford as castaways, but what about any movie starring Jessica Alba or [insert hottie]? Just as the primary market for VCRs was vanilla porn but DiD fans managed to take advantage of them too, I suspect the same will be likely with the technology I envision. The big market will be vanilla scenes, but DiD fans will find a use for it, too, and the large vanilla audience will make the tech affordable for all. The thing is, I don't think the courts will let it happen. They'll find that there's some substantive difference between adding scenes, even without altering the original, and skipping scenes, because the people who have political power generally favor censorship and oppose sexing things up. They'll find some other grounds for their decision, but the real basis will be politics. |
| Pat Powers |
| Sunday September 24 23:37:18 2006 Re: Sitcom DID bankruptcy? |
|
> el tinko wrote: > Don't get me wrong...I'm a huge fan of how this fall > season has started. But it seems to me that all the > scene's we've gotten so far have been in the CSI Law and > order type shows. > > Can anyone recall the last time a Sitcom delivered a > scene, played for laughs? One of the comedy show I can remember is Night Court. Markie Post tied to a chair, then hops over to a file cabinet to try & cut her ropes. Putz alert there. Then there was a short lived comedy (can't remember the name) that starred Bronson Pinchot & Courtney Cox. There was a robbery/tie-up scene there. Putz alert again. Then, of course, there's the Married With Children scenes. But to the best of my knowledge, nothing in the recent past. |
| Jason |
|
|