From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V2 #238 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 Friday, August 30 2002 Volume 02 : Number 238 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] <> [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] <> [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] <> [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] <> [Trek4u269@aol.com] [chakram-refugees] Kolton v. Lo Duca [KLOSSNER9@aol.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 21:32:23 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] <> On Thursday 29 August 2002 00:57, Lynn W Ribaud wrote: > > > > Before Lynn shoots me - *parabolic*, not hyperbolic. :( > > Damn. I had *such* a nice lesson in mind, too... At least I was > going to allow that the verbiage might be hyperbolic, even if the path is > not. > For the purists, I'll point out that the path is ellipsoidal, not > parabolic. So there! This is, presumably, because the Earth is (approximately) spherical, not flat. (I did wonder whether I shoulda said 'ellipse' not 'parabola' but I lazily didn't think it through). However, to a first approximation, I believe the difference between an ellipse and a parabola would be negligible. The error would (I think) be no greater than we get by using Newtonian mechanics and ignoring relativity. (So there! 8) > And, on topic, it *is* the jump in Lost Mariner that most gets to > me -- the forces required to launch a person on such a path would crush > bone -- no need to even wonder if muscles could do it. And while I agree > that the swing-around-the-spear-in-the-ground stunt is physically > impossible, it doesn't bother me as much -- a discussion we've had before. I *know* it is. Odd how the strength-of-materials argument grabs us both in different ways. (And before the other Chakramites dismiss us as a couple of hopelessly banal mechanics for bothering about such things - how many times have I seen people object to this or that storyline as being totally *wrong* because somebody "wouldn't do that". Well, all I can say is, people do the most unexpected things all the time, whereas 'things' usually don't. So before you deride us for bothering about such trivia, just reflect on your own lack of credence in the infinite unpredicatbility of human nature when you say "No way would Gabby ever do that!" :) 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: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 23:46:30 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] <> On Thursday 29 August 2002 13:36, abqbeach wrote: > > > We *have* to believe > > > that, fundamentally, 99% of what happens in XWP is > > > based on the 'real' world, > > > in order to understand or make sense of the series. > > All this talk of Xenaverse rules reminded me of the bio of Steve Sears that > still appears on the Dragoncon site (even though he will not be attending > this year) - > > "Having established himself in the elite niche of Fantasy/Sci-Fi genre > writer/producers, Steven has spent a lot of time concentrating on what > makes genre television work and what makes it fail. More importantly, what > makes it work for the fans and what makes it fail for the studios. Having a > minor degree in Psychology/Sociology, he has been fascinated with what he > refers to as "The Created Reality": worlds that are absolute fiction, but > which follow strict rules that range from physics to moral codes. In those > worlds, fantasy creatures can exist and can exist believably, as long as > they are subject to the rules of their universe. (snip for bandwidth) Nice quote! And yes, series like Xena or Star Trek or Farscape do have their own sets of 'rules' that they establish. When I say 'rules' I mean to include such things as the atmosphere of the show, the style, the type of story, the 'feel' of the show. And if the writers break those 'rules' they need to give us a good reason, or they risk 'losing' us. Some of these rules or conventions are set by the genre. For example sci-fi shows like Trek and Farscape have certain things in common that they don't feel the need to explain - like the fact that there's apparently 'gravity' on board their ships (nobody's ever tried to make a whole 'weightless' TV series so far as I know) or that ships can have energy-generated defensive 'shields'. But then, each individual show creates on top of that its own unwritten conventions. For example (sorry if I quote examples some of you are unfamiliar with) the crew of the Enterprise (Star Trek) are a disciplined bunch dedicated to fighting the enemy, while the crew of Moya (Farscape), if you can call them a crew, usually have their own agendas and are just as likely to be a danger to each other. If the Enterprise's crew behaved for a couple of episodes like Moya's, or vice versa, the fans would wonder just what the heck was going on. Xena, for example, has unwritten rules about the powers of the Greek gods - they can make themselves invisible, or visible to selected people only, they can travel anywhere instantly, they can 'zap' people, and they can enchant people or things. But they can only be in one place at one time, and they can only hear what's going on where they are, they're not omniscient, and they can't read minds. There are various minor anomalies about the varied ways to kill gods, but on the whole these rules are fairly stable. I expect there are a lot more unwritten rules and conventions that XWP follows, that could be listed. For example, there's a 'rule' that moral questions are rarely simply black-and-white (or, 'things are never simple'). Even though XWP was notoriously adventurous in trying new things or bending its own rules, if there was an episode (other than a comedy) where the 'goodies' were unmistakeably good, and the villains were unmistakeably bad, and the good side won without any losses, Lone Ranger - style, I think we'd be very disconcerted and feel there was something missing. 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: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 23:49:54 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] <> On Thursday 29 August 2002 05:25, Meredith Tarr wrote: > Hi, > > Thel responded: > > Yeah, I know that, it's just that I can accept some > > impossibilities while others just 'get' me. > > This is what doesn't make any sense to me ... if some, > then why not all? Because *some* things just strike me as more 'impossible' than others. I could give more examples but really, they wouldn't throw any more light on the subject. > > No. Because it was ballistically feasible. If Xena > > coulda launched herself > > with the required velocity (OK I know no human could > > really do that) then > > she would have described a parabolic trajectory > > that ended up on the ship. > > (I fixed the errant word for you, so as not to provide > a reminder ... :) I wouldn't have noticed if you hadn't made that comment ;) > > Right, no human could really do that. And no human > could really wrap themselves up a vine, either. In my > view, you either have to accept both or you have to > reject both. Anything else is a double standard. No, absolutely not. It's more a 'shades of grey' thing. > > We *have* to believe > > that, fundamentally, 99% of what happens in XWP is > > based on the 'real' world, > > in order to understand or make sense of the series. > > Right -- I agree with you there. But why are you > assigning some of the "impossible" elements that > happen to the other 1%, and not all of them? Because (as I said) what is 'impossible' is different for each of us. Each of us would see 99% of XWP as being quite 'ordinary' or at most, slightly exaggerated. And 1% as being 'impossible', but it wouldn't be the same 1% for all of us. So my 1% will be different from Lynn's 1% or yours. (OK, and for some of us it might be 2%, or 5%, or maybe just a tenth of 1%, but that's not really relevant). But we do have to have a solid base of 'reality', I think, to watch the show (or any show), otherwise we're lost. If Gabrielle suddenly and for no reason turned into a camel and ate Xena's chakram, with no explanation given, we'd wonder what the hell was going on. There would need to be a reason (godly interference would do, but we would have to be told about it). Otherwise, after a few such unreal incidents, we'd be unable to follow the story, and we'd lose all interest. And, truly surprising events (like, say, Khrafstar's flower children turning out to be Dahak followers) would lose all their impact. > > All the exceptions to 'reality' need some > > explanation, even if the > > explanation is witchcraft or magic or godly > > interference. > > ... or the simple fact that Xena Isn't Like The Rest > Of Us. Hence she can jump from a cliff all the way to > a far-away ship. And roll herself up a vine. They're > the same thing. Well no, they're not. Every stunt is different. For example - Xena successfully deflected every sword that Hope launched at her in Sacrifice 2. So - why couldn't she deflect every arrow that was shot at her in Friend in Need? If I accept that some arrows hit her in FIN, do I have to reject Sacrifice on the grounds that she *couldn't* have deflected all those swords? Personally, I find both instances credible. It was just that the limits of her ability were passed in FIN. For another example - I assume Lynn has no great problem with that fairly common stunt where Xena jumps over somebody in a fight and lands behind them. So, why does he have a problem with her leap onto Cecrops' ship? It's all a matter of degree, one is within his tolerance, the other exceeds it. (I'm sure Lynn will correct me if I'm wrong here!) On another tack - if I can watch Xena getting thrashed by Alti in Between the Lines and rate it the best fight, why do I cringe at 'The Way' or when she gets beaten in Gurkhan? I'm not employing any double standards, it's just that the different incidents strike me differently. 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: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 06:39:57 EDT From: Trek4u269@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] <> >>>> that, fundamentally, 99% of what happens in XWP is > > > > based on the 'real' world, > > > > in order to understand or make sense of the series. >>>Each of us would see 99% of XWP as being quite 'ordinary' or at most, >>>slightly exaggerated. And 1% as being 'impossible', but it wouldn't be the >>>same 1% for all of us. So my 1% will be different from Lynn's 1% or yours. The percentage would also be different as Sami may see 80% of what happens on xwp as based on real world....considering zapping, teleportation, physics, gods, etc. > > Some of these rules or conventions are set by the genre. For example > sci-fi > shows like Trek and Farscape have certain things in common that they don't > feel the need to explain - like the fact that there's apparently 'gravity' > on > board their ships (nobody's ever tried to make a whole 'weightless' TV > series > so far as I know) or that ships can have energy-generated defensive > 'shields'. I always marvel at how many older shows totally skipped the whole "bathroom" or going to the bathroom. And most every planet has gravity simular to "earth", and all creatures tend to exist in the same atmopsphere.hehee ========================================================= 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: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:23:40 EDT From: KLOSSNER9@aol.com Subject: [chakram-refugees] Kolton v. Lo Duca from Internet Movie Database news-- Ghostwriter Claims He Wrote Music For 'Xena,' 'Hercules' Threatening to expose one of Hollywood's "dirty little secrets" -- that TV and film composers often write little more than the themes for productions they receive credit for, while farming out work on the incidental music -- a Ferndale, MI composer is claiming the legal copyright to music that he says he wrote for some 100 episodes of Xena: Warrior Princess and the two Hercules series. Dan Kolton says that he wrote the music for Joe LoDuca, who is credited as the sole composer. Kolton claims that he has retained his original music sheets and tapes of the series' music. Mark Northam, publisher of Film Music magazine, who says he himself has done ghostwriting for film composers, told the Detroit Free Press: "More and more composers are delegating work to ghostwriters. ... It's definitely one of the dirty little secrets of the film and television music industry." Northam added that music ghostwriters in Hollywood are unlikely to complain because "they could face retaliation in the workplace from the composer they've ghosted for." Boeotian ========================================================= 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 #238 **************************************