From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V2 #116 Reply-To: chakram-refugees@smoe.org Sender: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk chakram-refugees-digest Thursday, May 2 2002 Volume 02 : Number 116 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] Con 2002 Day 3 Part 4 ["Jackie M. Young" ] [chakram-refugees] Re: Xena and her sidekick [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: Xena and her sidekick [cr ] [chakram-refugees] Twilight of the gods [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Twilight of the gods [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] Con 2002 Day 3 Part 4, etc [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: Xena and her sidekick [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] Twilight of the gods [Meredith Tarr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Con 2002 Day 3 Part 4 On Tue, 30 Apr 2002, KTL wrote: > (*ummm*... and it's "Iolaus" ;P > > [ya know, I love ya, KT! ;) ] ) > > Yes and so does he, and that's why *I* get to drop the "a" and call him > by his nickname, "Iolus". (wink!) - --*Whaaaaa*?!? Did I miss sumpin'?!? ;=) Are you and he *great buds* or sumpin'?!? ;P Wanna *spill the beans*?!? ;P - --Jackie ****************************************************** * Proud to have the same birthday as Lucy Lawless! * * * * JACKIE YOUNG, JYOUNG@LAVA.NET * * * ****************************************************** ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 21:18:54 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Con 2002 Day 3 Part 4, etc On Wednesday 01 May 2002 04:10, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: (fighting styles) > > I'm wondering if this also has to do with their different > personality/acting styles and characters as well. Lucy goes all out, which > is reflected in Xena's large, swinging movements and passion for battle -- > mowing down anybody near or 50-feet away . Renee tends to be more > controlled, "disciplined," which not only is more consistent with the > martial arts, but her character and approach in general -- usually > selectively fighting as necessary. Their size may also play a role, in > terms of Lucy's broad moves and Renee's more compact ones. > > -- Ife Yes, I think there's a lot in what you say there. Hmm, I guess it's also a reflection of the suitability of the actors for their roles, too. I mean, they both do suit their roles. (Sorry for the 'me too' post but I did raise the subject ;) cr ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 20:57:46 +1200 From: cr Subject: [chakram-refugees] Re: Xena and her sidekick On Wednesday 01 May 2002 03:04, cande@sunlink.net wrote: > cr wrote: > "Respectfully, I disagree with that last sentence. That's a very > metaphysical subtexty point of view. The 'partnership' couldn't exist > independently of Xena and Gabs. How, therefore, could it be called a > 'character' or assume an importance equal to Xena or Gabby? > > In fact it's possible to watch the show and pretty much ignore the > 'partnership' except as background, 99% of the time, just like Batman and > Robin or the Lone Ranger and Tonto.... You certainly can't ignore an > actual character, like Xena or Gabby, the same way." > > Alas I'm a kind of metaphysical subtexey kind of person. Anyway I didn't > like the way I put things either. Well, I didn't quite succeed in putting my view to my satisfaction either, I must admit. > As you so correctly pointed out a > relationship can't be a character but what I wanted to convey was that Xena > and Gabrielle together - how they interacted, how they affected each other > and events became a very important aspect of the show. I know there are > people who ignore Xena and Gabrielle's relationsip - I just can't quit > understand what they do when episodes like Fallen Angel, Sin Trade, Between > The Lines, Deju View, or The Quest show up. How can ignore something that > is the primary motivation of the episode. The relationship between the > Lone Ranger and Tonto or Batman and Robin never became the focus of any > episode that I know of. In Xena the relationship itself became catalyst > for many episodes. > > CherylA I'm pleased you mentioned Sin Trade! It's still my favourite ep. But the point is that 'the relationship' is indeed Xena's motivation in that ep - or part-way anyway, up to the point where she decides to rid the world of Alti - but it's not on screen. A complete newcomer to the series who had never seen Gabrielle could happily watch Sin Trade and all the explanation she'd need would be "Xena's looking for her dead friend". It wouldn't matter if the friend was Marcus or M'Lila. Or Joxer. So in that sense it's background, certainly not the focus of the ep unless you want to view it through subtexty spectacles. just like Xena's dark past is an ever-present background (though it happens to be much more prominent in Sin Trade, btw). In that respect, as I just said, the 'relationship' is background, so is Xena's dark past (and you can't understand Xena or the relationship until you understand her dark past). Nevertheless, some fans don't like Xena's past and quite successfully manage to watch the series while overlooking or downplaying the 'dark past' bits. Just as some people don't like the comedies, for example. There are other background factors that crop up all the time - Xena's relationship with Ares, for example, or Gabs' authorship of the scrolls. They too may be essential to understanding the story. Doesn't mean everybody who watches necessarily has to like those aspects, and in episodes where they don't take centre stage they can be conveniently relegated to 'background'. The other eps you mentioned - I like 'em all, but for good reasons other than subtext. I won't bore everyone with details but there's plenty else to see in them. Depends on your point of view. Thelonius ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 22:42:28 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: Xena and her sidekick On Wednesday 01 May 2002 10:50, Cheryl Ande wrote: > Pan the Acrobat and Khan The Great - now that would have been different. > You are probably right Pan became Joxer - too bad the lost the mute part. > Anyway it would have been interesting to have a mute as recurring character > on a TV show. Eventually they would have had to have him be able to > communicate in some ways or he would become rather boring as a character ( > probably Gabrielle would have had to spend all her screen time interpret > his hand signals for the viewers). Khan seems to have met into Callisto. > > CherylA Well, M'Lila certainly wasn't mute but she spoke no Greek, which made her a near equivalent to being mute. What with the sign language and all. Thelonius ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 23:47:14 +1200 From: cr Subject: [chakram-refugees] Twilight of the gods *** Spoilers for Motherhood *** s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s I was having a discussion on another list, of how the gods got killed in Motherhood. And I was struck by the way in which each god was killed. Poseidon - hit by Hades' fireball off Xena's sword Discord - charged Xena with a sword, got beheaded Hephaestus - threw his hammer at Xena, got it thrown back Hades - was about to blast Xena and Eve with a fireball at point-blank range, when Xena did the fire-breathing trick on him Deimos - threw a fireball at Xena, who batted it back with her chacky, it lifted a wagon into the air and it landed on him Artemis - shot two arrows at Xena from ambush, Xena threw them back Athena - swordfighting with Xena and killed by Xena's sword (Not one of them got chackied) The intersting thing is, every single one except Poseidon was killed, either by their own weapon or missile, or by the same type of weapon they were weilding. I rather think this was intentional. Remember Ares' warnings to the gods that they would only bring about their own destruction if they went after Eve? This seems to tie into that very neatly. Thelonius ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 13:59:36 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Twilight of the gods In a message dated 5/1/2002 5:35:14 AM Central Daylight Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: @ @ @ @ @ @ @ > The intersting thing is, every single one except Poseidon was killed, either > by their own weapon or missile, or by the same type of weapon they were > weilding. > > I rather think this was intentional. Remember Ares' warnings to the gods > that they would only bring about their own destruction if they went after > Eve? This seems to tie into that very neatly. > Yes, and as you point out, even Poseidon was killed because Xena re-directed Hades' fireball, which wouldn't have happened if they hadn't attacked her. It does make you wonder what power she actually had to kill them, if she'd gone after them without any real cause. Perhaps it was assumed she'd only use the power defensively? Maybe that's why it was taken away when she tried to drown Michael even after she'd stopped his immediate threat? - -- Ife ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 13:59:29 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Con 2002 Day 3 Part 4, etc In a message dated 5/1/2002 3:21:02 AM Central Daylight Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > Hmm, I guess it's also a reflection of the suitability of the actors for > their roles, too. I mean, they both do suit their roles. > > (Sorry for the 'me too' post but I did raise the subject ;) > LOL! No problem. You brought up an interesting point that I'd given surprisingly little thought to. Actually, I might not have been as aware of the personality/size aspects of their fighting styles if I hadn't just watched the "Last Dance" video of the Pasadena Con. Lucy and Renee moved around on stage a lot like their characters -- even tho ROC was 5 months pregnant. Lucy paced (prowled?) a lot, exuding energy, hamming it up, not seeming much concerned about looking awkward or slumpy at times, often shooting off comments. ROC was like this fairly calm center (despite her nervousness), moving less and more gracefully, usually taking more time before answering questions. Someone asked if Xena had influenced Lucy. Her answer suggested that there came a point when the characters reflected the actresses, more than the other way around. Many of us always said they *were* their characters. Certainly that supports what you say about so many aspects of their suitability for their roles. It's hard for some of us to picture others playing X&G precisely because Lucy and Renee made the characters so much their "own." - -- Ife ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 13:59:33 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: Xena and her sidekick In a message dated 5/1/2002 3:21:07 AM Central Daylight Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > There are other background factors that crop up all the time - Xena's > relationship with Ares, for example, or Gabs' authorship of the scrolls. > They too may be essential to understanding the story. Doesn't mean > everybody who watches necessarily has to like those aspects, and in episodes > > where they don't take centre stage they can be conveniently relegated to > 'background'. > > The other eps you mentioned - I like 'em all, but for good reasons other > than > subtext. I won't bore everyone with details but there's plenty else to see > > in them. > > Depends on your point of view. > I agree that it was amazing how many points of view seemed extremely satisfied by XWP. It does seem that many people completed filtered out some aspect of the show (both in general and periodically) that was the focus for other people, whether it was the violence, the subtext, the mythological/religious stuff, a particular character, etc. I personally found myself having to watch on multiple levels, which is why I re-watched eps so much. Often I'd read a bunch of posts and then look at an ep through somebody else's eyes. I almost always saw reasons for why they responded as they did. As I've said before, that's actually what made the show so rich for me -- all the aspects I tended not to see on my own. Whether something was "intended," suggested, accidental, subliminal, or an interpretation based on projection/perception of the viewer, didn't make it more or less "real" or possible. Maybe not "logical" or supported by the "evidence" to *me,* but that's another issue. - -- Ife ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 11:00:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Meredith Tarr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Twilight of the gods Hi, Thelonius noted: > The intersting thing is, every single one except > Poseidon was killed, either > by their own weapon or missile, or by the same type > of weapon they were > weilding. ... and Poseidon was killed by Hades' weapon, not Xena's. > I rather think this was intentional. Remember > Ares' warnings to the gods > that they would only bring about their own > destruction if they went after > Eve? This seems to tie into that very neatly. Wow, you're right! That never occurred to me, but you just might be onto something there. On another level, the gods brought about their own destruction because they wouldn't leave well enough alone. If they had just stopped hounding Xena and trying to kill Eve, Xena wouldn't have been forced to knock them off. All she was doing was trying to protect her daughter. Meredith meth@smoe.org Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness http://health.yahoo.com ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 13:25:25 -0500 From: Mark & Denise Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: Xena and her sidekick IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > <> I personally > found myself having to watch on multiple levels, which is why I re-watched > eps so much. Often I'd read a bunch of posts and then look at an ep through > somebody else's eyes. I almost always saw reasons for why they responded as > they did. > > As I've said before, that's actually what made the show so rich for me -- all > the aspects I tended not to see on my own. Whether something was "intended," > suggested, accidental, subliminal, or an interpretation based on > projection/perception of the viewer, didn't make it more or less "real" or > possible. I've got to agree 100%! An example I always use is 'Bitter Suite'... on my first viewing I was not that thrilled with it. Being rather clueless about Tarot cards/readings, etc., it went over my head. However, once I started reading posts from everyone and 'seeing it through their eyes', I rewatched the ep [more times than I'm gonna admit here] and with each viewing I was able to glean the little -- or not so little-- things that I totally missed the first 20 or 30 times through. Now I've got a separate tape of the ep because I was getting kinda worried about wear and tear! And, of course, my BS CD has sure gotten a workout as well!! With even the 'worst' eps -- whichever that is to any of us -- I've always managed to enjoy at least some scenes. Over the years, I think I went through various cycles where my main interest may have been Xena, or Gabrielle, or subtext, or Xena's dark history [always liked that one!]. I've even found that being forced to watch the now only reruns, an ep I may have first enjoyed for one reason now interests me for some other reason. My ramble meter just dinged, so I'd better quit while I'm ahead.... Mark ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ End of chakram-refugees-digest V2 #116 **************************************