From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V3 #133 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 Saturday, May 17 2003 Volume 03 : Number 133 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: chakram-refugees-digest V3 #129 [KTL > [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: chakram-refugees-digest V3 #129 [cr > [IfeRae@aol.com] [chakram-refugees] Xena moment ["Mark B." ] [chakram-refugees] Hudson Leick, again... [] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 23:28:51 -0800 (AKDT) From: KTL Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: chakram-refugees-digest V3 #129 > "The first question Vicky was asked was, "Did you bring your husband?" And > she looked down at the fan and answered, "I did." Then she raised her > eyebrows and challenged, "Is that a problem?" Cracked everybody up. > (Including Vicky.) > > Her husband of course is T. J. Scott, who's directed a handful of Xena eps" > > I didn't know that and that brings up the question of why wasn't he a guest > speaker too. Creations should have hired him on the spot. I love when we > have the technical people at the Cons and it would have been great to hear > from a director, especially one who has such a unique vision. > They did do that I think two years ago it was. He was there with Viky, watching from the back and she started joking around with him and then asked him to come up on stage. He did. But if I remember correctly, he mainly talked about Vicky. I wish he HAD gotten on stage this time and talked about the tech stuff. I like that stuff too. > > > > "At some point this day, we had the Kimmel Show folks show up. Without > any set-up or introduction, this big, unattractive man dressed as Xena > jumped up on stage. He began to chant, "Xena! Xena" and waved his arms > beckoningly to us to join in with him." > > I thought actually he was loose lunatic and I was wondering when security > was going to take him away. When it looked like security did take him a > way I was not surprised. LOL! Very true. I'm still surprised nobody said anything about who he was. respectful snippage > "At any rate, I thought the Kimmel thing was ugly and > obviously focused upon trying to make us look stupid. I felt they sure > didn't deserve any cooperation from us and was very glad to see they > didn't get much." > > Actually the segment on the Kimmel show was pretty good. The people > interviewed were the guy who dresses as Xena (he is always interviewed) and > two rather sensible women, who I think weren't Amaericans. The fans came > off a bit puzzled by the whole encounter and the only who came off as odd > was the guy from the Kimmel show, who I acyually felt sorry for. It wasn't > disrespectful at all which isn't that surprising since Lucy was the guest > that night and I doubt if she would have been pleased to have her fans > rediculed. In fact I thought it was one of Lucy's better talk show > appearances. She seemed relaxed and had a great put down for Hugh > Hefner. Lucy appearantly refused a Plyboy shoot and Kimmel was teasing her > about maybe changing her mind. She then said that when Playboy showed real > women like Jeanne Garlafalo (sorry about the spelling) then maybe she would > consider it. It was funny because they had just shown Hefs current silicon > bimbos. Ahhh and Jeanine Garofalo had a big interview about female nudity a few years ago. Damn, I kept the magazine, but I have no idea where it is. It was excellent. She was agin' it...grin I wonder if Lucy had read that also, or if Jeanine has also talked about it in other interviews. If I remember correctly, she talked about how Cathy Bates wouldn't be asked to do nudity. And now she has, in that movie with...oh hell, the guy from the Shining. They have a hot tub scene. Speaking of nudity, I'm watching movies that MIGHT have offered role models for Lucy for her role as Xena. I dont usually watch movies in the action/adventure genre. So last night I was watching Terminator because people always talk about what a toughie the Linda Hamilton character is. And she sure wasn't REAL tough in Terminator 1. Must be the sequel she runs around in the tank top with the guns in, eh? Anyway, nobody ever told me that the Terminator starts off with Arnie walking around nude. I would have watched it a lot sooner, had I known. Boy's got a nice butt--Maria Shriver is a lucky grrl. KT > > CherylA ========================================================= 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: Fri, 16 May 2003 20:01:53 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] <> On Thursday 15 May 2003 06:12, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > > << Oh dear, do I have to be tiresomely pedantic and point out that > *everyone* implicitly accepts that there is a main, linear, Xena story?>> > > You mean, that she was born, did a few youthful baddies, traveled the > world, had a kid unexpectedly, reformed, traveled the world some more, had > another kid (who did a few youthful baddies herself), and died? Sure, I > can accept that as the main, linear Xena story. Yes, exactly that. That's the skeleton all the rest of the saga is hung on. > << That, so far > as what I might call 'contemporary' episodes go (i.e. those which aren't > either flashbacks or ubers (have I got that term right?), the story starts > with HTLJ The Warrior Princess, continues via Sins of the Past, and > concludes > with Friend in Need. >> > > Nope, for me the main story starts when someone (presumable Atrius) and > Cyrene "rolled around like weasels," producing a baby girl destined to > change the world. Hmmm, wonder if infant Xena's first cry was > "Yiyiyiyiyiyi" (or something equivalent)? Yes, but we didn't see that on screen, so it wasn't shown in any episode as an event happening 'now', which is what I meant by 'contemporary'. It was only referred to in dialogue, as backstory. But I'll certainly agree it's part of the main storyline. > < the > development of the subtext, and every other theme in the series, assumes > the existence of this linear storyline. Extensive fannish efforts go > into fitting the 'flashbacks' into their right sequence in the storyline.>> > > Um, no, actually "everyone's" discussions don't do that. They often pick > something (e.g., a character trait, defining event, influence) and then > make the timeline fit with their theory, which sometimes means throwing out > or rearranging the "right" sequence to support that theory. I love the > hindsight stuff, where a flashback blows previous theories out the water. Hmm, yes, but without a reasonably well-defined main sequence of events to start with, what would they have to rearrange? What would they even have to disagree with? These attempts all implicitly accept that there exists a 'correct' linear storyline, even though they may have their own variant version of what that is. > Errm, no. The ep you mentioned. Takes One to Know One. Wasn't > subtexty, was it? I did like Discord though ;)>> > > How can two people who agree so often still end up talking from > different planets?!!! :: taking deep breath:: Okay, I was not referring > to that ep specifically, though I see my attempt at cleverness may have led > you to that. I was still talking about "Clones" and your complimentary > comment about the champagne scene. My "takes one" comment was a triple > entendre flying leap that obviously fell on its face -- referring to your > "take" on whether there was subtext, my "take" on your "take" (as it > appears that I may be a closet romantic), and your "take" on whether my > "take" had merit. Understand now? No? Umm, no. The subtlety of your mental gyrations exceeds my comprehension. ;) > `S'okay. I'm not sure I do either > anymore. Let's say my comment had nothing whatsoever to do with > "Takes One," and leave it at that. I think we've just about beaten it to death, actually. > << ... running for cover....>> > > Won't do you any good, as I'll probably be under there with you. > Platonically, of course. > > - Ife Better leave Plato out of it. The arguments would never end. ;) 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: Fri, 16 May 2003 21:34:56 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: chakram-refugees-digest V3 #129 On Friday 16 May 2003 19:28, KTL wrote: > Speaking of nudity, I'm watching movies that MIGHT have offered role > models for Lucy for her role as Xena. I dont usually watch movies in the > action/adventure genre. So last night I was watching Terminator because > people always talk about what a toughie the Linda Hamilton character is. > And she sure wasn't REAL tough in Terminator 1. Must be the sequel she > runs around in the tank top with the guns in, eh? Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton) isn't tough in the sense of beating people up, like Xena. She's tough in the sense of being resilient, determined and resourceful. She isn't a superhero, she's an ordinary person up against it (and the Terminator's one purpose is to kill her), who doesn't give up. More like Ripley than like Xena. 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: Fri, 16 May 2003 09:34:45 -0800 (AKDT) From: KTL Subject: RE: [chakram-refugees] 'There are thousands more like me' > I always found it interesting that TPTB > > showed Callisto controlling the chakram so early on.>>> > >I wish that someone would ask Stewart exactly WHY Callisto could handle > the chakram right from the first moment we saw her. I wonder if perhaps > because at that time in the series (Pre-rift, pre-Debt) Callisto and her > story of the way she became what she was stood as a metaphor for the evil > in Xena's soul. And as that creation of Evil Xena, Callisto almost became > Evil Xena or at least close enough to Evil Xena to have become her own > scourge upon the world. And as a living emodiement of Evil Xena, yeah sure > she could control the Chakram. ?>> > > The two other people we see controlling the chakram in the series are Eve > and Gabrielle (in FIN). Eve would fit with this theory, because she was in > her "evil" phase when she was controlling it. At that point she was > continuing the path that Callisto had started. The Evil Eve path > > Gabrielle, on the other hand, seems to have gained this ability only when > she came out of Xena's shadow as leader and warrior. A different path..... > > Ann Very good points. You know now that I've thought about it, I think we're attributing false characteristics to the Chakram. What I think is that only Callisto and Livia had the guts to TRY to snatch and use it as a weapon. Because actually, anybody who got a hold of it was able to use it. It didn't hurt anybody who grabbed it. (Not Princess Diana when she swishes it around that courtyard and not Gabrielle when she used it to cut up fish.) It only hurts people when it's used as a weapon--hell, it even hurt Xena when Callisto used it against her. Xena even hurt herself with it. She cut her palm in Valkryrie when she forgot who she was and was handling the chakram without realizing what it was either. It's not a common weapon and she didn't know it had a razor's edge. Sooooooooo I think that while it is a signature weapon for Xena, it's just a piece of metal, fashioned by the gods yes, but usable by any who dare. I think we've been barking up the wrong yonic symbol here guys. The only "magic" about it seems to be shown in FIN when the Chakram is the ONLY thing that Xena can't pick up. She can pick up ghosts and living people, she can wear clothes, she can pick up and use weapons like the katana. The ONLY things she can't pick up is the chakram. And this is obviously symbolic--her job as a warrior is finally over and she can at last rest in peace. So not only can she leave the chakram behind, she HAS to--she's not able to carry and use it anymore. And the next thing ya know, she's reborn as the Mother of Peace. KT ========================================================= 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: Fri, 16 May 2003 10:12:21 -0800 (AKDT) From: KTL Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: chakram-refugees-digest V3 #129 On Fri, 16 May 2003, cr wrote: > On Friday 16 May 2003 19:28, KTL wrote: > > > Speaking of nudity, I'm watching movies that MIGHT have offered role > > models for Lucy for her role as Xena. I dont usually watch movies in the > > action/adventure genre. So last night I was watching Terminator because > > people always talk about what a toughie the Linda Hamilton character is. > > And she sure wasn't REAL tough in Terminator 1. Must be the sequel she > > runs around in the tank top with the guns in, eh? > > Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton) isn't tough in the sense of beating people up, > like Xena. She's tough in the sense of being resilient, determined and > resourceful. She isn't a superhero, she's an ordinary person up against it > (and the Terminator's one purpose is to kill her), who doesn't give up. > > More like Ripley than like Xena. > > cr > Or like Gabrielle. Actually, Alien is on my list to check out also. BUT I know I've seen clips of Sarah in a little tank top carring a mongo weapon. And this wasn't part of Terminator 1. This actually has to do with XWP because I'm trying to figure just how uterine (heh) Xena was for the portrayal of female heroes. Nowadays, we have lots of tough female heroes--I see the coming attractions for the Matrix and for X-Men and see women who are absolutely as good as any boy fighting out there. Alternately, I've been able to catch Farscape while Outside too. And what I see in Farscape are male heroes with a sensitive side. Male heroes for whom love both sexually and in terms of friendship is as important to them as it is to any traditional female character. And I also wonder if XWP had anything to do with this? If the presentation of Xena being the best warrior in the world but also absolutely loving her partner (which IS a big part of the male buddy movies, but they usually show the love through noble acts, the gods forgive they would TALK about it), working to restore her relationship with her mother, making atonement to those she hurt, etc. etc. has made it more acceptable to show the softer side of male warriors. If Xena being a successful warrior with a soft heart makes any warrior with a soft heart more acceptable. OR if they just figure that people who show their emotions will also bring in more fans than a straight up shoot-em-up will. Crichten loves Aeryn and MOONS over her for crying out loud. Dargo loves and misses his son and is betrayed in love and shows that it HURTS! When one of the main characters dies, everybody shows their grief. Picard of course was a sensitive male. But he didn't wear his emotions on his sleeve like the Farscape boys do. It's just intriguing to me to try to pinpoint the "XWP Effect" on shows and movies produced after Xena. I'm sure it will be impossible to ever absolutely define. KT ========================================================= 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: Fri, 16 May 2003 18:17:31 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] 'There are thousands more like me' In a message dated 5/16/03 12:35:25 PM Central Daylight Time, fsktl@aurora.uaf.edu writes: << Sooooooooo I think that while it is a signature weapon for Xena, it's just a piece of metal, fashioned by the gods yes, but usable by any who dare. I think we've been barking up the wrong yonic symbol here guys. >> No argument from me. As I've said, I like the idea that the user determines whether it becomes an instrument for good or evil. Xena had enough questionably unusual human abilities as it was, without giving her a "magic" weapon. - -- 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: Fri, 16 May 2003 18:17:35 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] <> In a message dated 5/16/03 4:17:57 AM Central Daylight Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: << > < the > development of the subtext, and every other theme in the series, assumes > the existence of this linear storyline. Extensive fannish efforts go > into fitting the 'flashbacks' into their right sequence in the storyline.>> > > Um, no, actually "everyone's" discussions don't do that. They often pick > something (e.g., a character trait, defining event, influence) and then > make the timeline fit with their theory, which sometimes means throwing out > or rearranging the "right" sequence to support that theory. I love the > hindsight stuff, where a flashback blows previous theories out the water. Hmm, yes, but without a reasonably well-defined main sequence of events to start with, what would they have to rearrange? What would they even have to disagree with? These attempts all implicitly accept that there exists a 'correct' linear storyline, even though they may have their own variant version of what that is.>> Okay, I'll accept that we have our view of XWP and construct a timeline of what "really" happened that would support such a view. I thought you were saying there was some "main storyline" we all agreed on beyond the basics -- e.g., birth, childhood, terrible teens, etc. << Better leave Plato out of it. The arguments would never end. ;) >> I doubt he'd be the main reason for that. - -- 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: Fri, 16 May 2003 19:23:07 -0500 From: "Mark B." Subject: [chakram-refugees] Xena moment I was just flipping channels and came across 'The Celebrity Look alike Show' on WB. The cameras were panning the crowd and I saw a Xena costume in the group. I've never seen the show, so don't know if it was just an 'avid' audience member or if they are going to have some contest. On stage, they have a bunch of Jennifer Lopez and Ben Afleck look alikes. 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. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 21:41:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Subject: [chakram-refugees] Hudson Leick, again... Ok, so I went and started the Hudson community on livejournal. :) It's at http://www.livejournal.com/community/hudsonleick, please go join and start posting! Thanx! -Sarah, aka the abbagirl- ========================================================= 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 V3 #133 **************************************