From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V3 #245 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 Monday, August 25 2003 Volume 03 : Number 245 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH = Gabrielle [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] For Whom The Bells Tolls [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Zoe Bell pics at 3rd Annual World Stunt Awards ["X] [chakram-refugees] Gabrielle ["Cheryl Ande" ] Re: [chakram-refugees] For Whom The Bells Tolls ["Cheryl Ande" Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH = Gabrielle On Sunday 24 August 2003 15:35, H.J.J. Hewitt wrote: > >is there anybody besides me on this list who gives a > >hoot about gab, btw? i fell like i'm on the xena version of flawless. > > *sigh* (snip) > But because of the many > ways she is portrayed by different writers and in different eps, even our > most astute gotta-figger-a-way-out-of-THAT analysts are stymied. > Umm, what do they call it, 'multiple personality syndrome' ? ;) 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: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 20:27:33 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH On Sunday 24 August 2003 06:04, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 8/23/2003 1:24:07 AM Central Daylight Time, > > cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > > Don't let it bother you, lfe keeps telling me what *I* mean too and > > getting it totally wrong ;) > > At least I give you the chance to get it right. Bwhahahahahaha! > > -- Ife Oooh, thank you so much. cr ... trying to figure out how lfe would actually stop him... ;) ========================================================= 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: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 21:57:55 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH On Sunday 24 August 2003 06:04, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > > No no no no no no no no no! > > > > Anger is an emotion. One amongst many. I wouldn't care to define what > > is > > > > a 'true' emotion and what isn't but anger certainly is one of the primary > > ones. > > > > Stop getting hung up on your doctrinaire feminist viewpoint. Or at > > least, don't project its assumptions onto me. :) > > > > 'Emotional' in its common usage is taken to refer to certain particular > > emotions - usually a tendency to be easily upset. It is not commonly > > assumed to refer to all emotions equally. > > Nope, not a "doctrinaire feminist." I must apologise for stereotyping you (and I expected a much louder squawk than that!). I'm guilty of doing what I thought you were doing - -stereotyping my views. I am rather sensitive to anyone who interprets my views as being influenced by a 'typically male' perspective, which I what I felt you were doing with your suggestion that I don't consider anger an emotion since it's a male characteristic. Speaking in the abstract now (and not referring to your posts at all) - I do always object to what I consider to be attempts to judge the show in the light of current (frequently American :) social movements, whether that's feminism, political correctness, or what-have-you. (e.g. the suggestion that the Rift was an example of 'domestic violence'). I acknowledge that I myself doubtless have a world-view (there's probably a long German word for it) which colours my views, but I try not to impose it too strongly on the show. I try to be gender-neutral in my judgements of characters, and I don't accept that there are 'typically male' or 'typically female' traits. Specifically, I don't think men have a monopoly on anger, or women on emotionalism. > I'm only going on what I thought you > suggested, which seemed to equate crying with being "emotional," but not > anger. Roughly, in terms of common usage of the words, yes. > I also got the impression you believe "emotional" is somehow less > preferable than "restrained," Agreed, 100% > and that "emotional" somehow connotes more > "weakness" than "restraint" does. And again, agreed 100%. But I do *not* think this because anger is a male characteristic and emotionalism a female one, because I _don't_ think anger *is* an exclusively male characteristic or emotionalism a female one. I think that 'restrained' is good in anybody, and emotionalism (i.e. excessive emotion) is less desirable. This certainly applies to a 'warrior', of whichever gender. How far would Xena have got as a warrior if she'd been in the habit of breaking down at difficult moments? I also, though, think that sensitivity is good, and callousness or obtuseness bad. But sensitivity and restraint are quite compatible, and sensitivity does not automatically imply emotionalism. Nor does restraint necessarily imply obtuseness or a thick skin. > I thought this was your opinion, > regardless of dictionary definitions. I do respect your opinion, even if I > disagree with it. What's "commonly assumed" is a whole different argument > that I don't care to get into at this point. Am I wrong about the > impressions I got about your views about "emotional" in regards to anger, > restraint and weakness? > > -- Ife No, I think you got them right. Where you got it wrong (IMO) was in implying (intentionally or not) that I consider them gender-related, because I don't, or at least I try not to. 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: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 22:20:32 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] For Whom The Bells Tolls On Sunday 24 August 2003 16:11, Cheryl Ande wrote: > This is my favorite Xenalite episode and my favorite Joxer and Gabrielle > episode. Hmm. I was still suffering from Callisto withdrawal at this stage, and then in this ep we had Xena withdrawal as well. So I'm afraid I wasn't in the mood to really appreciate the ep. Not even the presence of Aphrodite really made up for it, much though I do like Aphrodite. I think I might have appreciated her better if I'd seen her before (wasn't this the first Xena ep she appeared in?). > It is of course a homage to the great Danny Kaye move the Court > Jester, if you get the chance watch this film it is a classic and Danny > Kaye is just wonderful. Anyway back to Xena. Ted Raimi is very good in > this episode. He is of course the doofus Joxer but at this point in the > series Joxer is still a rather endearing bumbler and hasn't become tiresome > as he does later on. Of course Joxer here has two personalities because of > Aphrodite's spell. When Joxer hears a bell ring he becomes a dashing > swashbuckler who enchants a betrothed princess whose marriage Dite wants to > prevent. Bell rings again he back to doofus Joxer and it rings again - > hero. So we have Joxer shuttling between coward and hero at a moments > notice. TR pulls it off. TR is actually very nice looking man and so he > plays the hero well - he is handsome and dashing. He doesn't have the > natural elegance and grace of Danny Kaye but he does convince in the role > of master swordsman. I'm afraid I just found it rather difficult to credit Jox as 'dashing' anything. I was just too indoctrinated with 'Joxer=klutz' for the transformation to seem credible. > This also the episode that introduced Aphrodite into the Xena series. It's > fun to watch her work. I loved watching Gabrielle's first encounter with > the goddess of love. It quickly goes from awe to disappointment when she > discovers how self-centered Aphrodite is. Gabrielle and Aphrodite don't > appear to like each other much at first meeting. Of course we all know by > know that these two will become friends and Aphrodite isn't quite as > self-centered as she first appears and will eventually exhibit great > nobility and courage. It is a testament to AT that although Aphrodite is > acting like a godly bitch in this episode she still makes the goddess > likable. In fact, in Aphrodite's first appearance on Hercules (the Apple) she was a thoroughly mischievous goddess, intent of stirring up a war between two kingdoms to stop them (IIRC) combining their temples and so reducing her to one temple between them. Notably Ares-like. As you say, a godly bitch. (Hey, wasn't she up to the exact same thing in this ep? Hang on (consults Whoosh). Oops, I was wrong about The Apple, slightly, Aph wanted the two kingdoms to make war and destroy each other so she could have their shrines - to Artemis and Athena respectively - rebuilt in her honour.) She gradually grew throughout the series (HTLJ and XWP). In fact her story is probably more evenly distributed between the two series than even Ares' was, since Ares (on Herc) tended to be a one-note baddie, whereas on XWP he was always much more than that. > One other thing I liked was that the attractive ladies in waiting for the > princess were not your typical Hollywood types. There were had a nice > assortment of girls of all shape and sizes and they were all treated as > desirable young women. > > CherylA Hmm. Must watch again. ;) 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: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 18:25:23 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH On Saturday 23 August 2003 15:12, mirrordrum wrote: > > > > Yes, I find it quite in character that Xena would go off > > > > 3000 miles to try to rescue Gabs. Maybe even go slightly off her > > > > head in the process. > > > > > > slightly? SLIGHTLY? if that's > > > slightly, m'dear, what would completely look like? ;) > > > > May I just put it this way - Xena was still very controlled in Sin Trade. > > There was a lot of method in her madness. She never looked like > > breaking down and just losing it. > > of course you can put it that way. and yeah, now you mention it, i said to > myself, i said, xena looks so very con*troll*ed there with the bloody > antlers on her head and that grief spread all over her face--actually a > very similar expression to the one she uses in . i was thinking > specifically of these scenes, just for instance (thanks to mike quick for > the incredible caps): I love it when you get sarcastic, md! But in Sin Trade I reckoned she was doing some shamanistic ritual. Like, this was a planned, intentional activity. She knew what she was going to do. In ITADITH she had no plan. > http://www.btinternet.com/~michael.quick/episodes/aitst/pages/aitst_5_mq_13 >3sd.htm > > http://www.btinternet.com/~michael.quick/episodes/aitst/pages/aitst_5_mq_13 >9sd.htm > > i watch those and that's what i say. yuppers, this is one controlled woman. > . oh thelo. Yeah. Desperate but controlled. IMO. > > > > I just don't see her breaking down and losing it like she did > > > > in ITADITH. > > well i do see her breaking down and losing it because that makes her human > and to me, her violence is an integral part of both her passion and her > "breakdown" prior to and the beginning of the show. violence *is* a > breakdown just as terrible grief is. both are part of the range of human > experience. but somehow it all made more sense to me in and i > found it marvelous. It appears we agree then. About Sin Trade. Sorta. > i tell you what i think it is for me. i see xena as a very passionate woman > and a very strongly emotional one. i realize i'm just very demanding and > picky about the way that's enacted. i'm also particular about the way > gabrielle is handled. is there anybody besides me on this list who gives a > hoot about gab, btw? i fell like i'm on the xena version of flawless. > *sigh* Makes a change from all those lists where ya can't say anything disparaging about Gabby without being flamed into extinction. Like Xenaverse useta be at one time. But you may notice that most of my complaints about later Gabby are about the dumb things she does. Not about her personality but about her actions - now that relates directly to 'the way she's handled', I think. Not that we'd necessarily agree on the *right* way to handle Gabs. (I'll leave you lot on the list to read all possible meanings into that one :) (snip) > back on the point. i went back and watched the scene again and actually, > there're really only two parts of the resuscitation i don't like, maybe 3. > there's a particular expression of lucy's that doesn't work for me. she > looks like a little girl who's about to bawl. i find crying perfectly > acceptable and i find strong emotion perfectly acceptable. it's just that > one expression and the way she does a kind of helplessness. i like xena's > anger, i'm okay with the "don't leave me," and i'm perfectly okay with her > persistence. turns out it's maybe 4 or 5 seconds in the entire scene. well. I think maybe you've put your finger on why I don't care for it. It makes her look helpless. And futile. > i feel rather, well, tacky even talking about it because i have so much > respect for what they did. . .i just want to make clear that i have that > respect and i know i couldn't do *any* of it. We know you have. > > > of course, all this is *so* post-mortem but fun nonetheless. is there > > any > > of it you *would* buy? since you don't like gab anyway, let's say just > > for the sake of argument, it were m'lila. > > > > Good analogy. Okay, I'll go on about that. Even if it were M'Lila, I > > don't see Xena breaking down like she did in ITADITH. > > okay, so it isn't just that it was gabrielle (i never do trust your > responses about gab or renee b/c you specifically dislike them). it was > xena's response, period. Yes. OK, partly influenced maybe by the fact that I can't see what she sees in gabs. But then, Sin Trade is 'about' Gabs in the same way, and I have no problems with that episode. Just for the record, though I 'specifically' dislike much of what Gabs does, I certainly don't dislike Reneee and I don't think I've ever said I do. I think she's probably a very nice person and I give her her share of credit for the happy atmosphere which prevailed on set. > > > or better yet, let's consider her > > > response to the loss of m'lila, realizing that this antedated her > > > relationship with gab by eversomuch. has this been discussed and i > > > missed > > > it? if so, sorry and you can just tell me it's been dealt with. > > > > No, I don't think it has. Xena, as we saw, didn't break down. It > > affected her deeply, emotionally, but she didn't lose control. > > of course she lost control. you don't think killing someone with that > savage, vengeful glee signifies a loss of control? i don't say i can't > understand it, i just say that in its way, it isn't really different from > the loss of control--or extreme of emotion--in . it's a different > combination of emotions and so the behavioral expression is different but > imo both involve a loss of emotional control if by control we agree to mean > regulation or restraint (i went to oxford just to see if those were indeed > appropriate). I think it is different. In the hut, she went on a killing spree, but very efectively. The Romans ended up dead, notwithstanding Xena's handicapped state. She was certainly in control to a very substantial extent. In ITADITH, she was futilely doing things which made no sense in the context of the time - we might recognise it as Xena inventing CPR, but it certainly made no sense then. In other words her actions were not driven by any logical reasoning. > > I don't think I'd call Xena guilty of > > either of those, though the writers of XWP were on occasion. When > > Dickens > > did it it was called 'tear-jerking'. I guess ITADITH strikes me that > > way. > > well here we part ways. i have no problem with things that appeal to my > emotions. xena did that constantly. where i'm balking is at those times > where either we or the actors, or both, were being pushed toward emotions > that were excessive, inappropriate, or over or poorly done. in the case of > , as i say, review shows me that i let myself be strongly > prejudiced by a facial expression i equate with whining which is not > something i associate with lucy, xena or for that matter gab or renee. they > couldn't have done what they did, either the characters or the actors, if > they were whiners and given to sentimentality. i think, however, that the > show slipped into sentimentality sometimes and in this scene, a couple of > expressions crossed over into that area for me. Yes! You've said it for me. It's just the way it was played. Which, when you think of it, isn't just some minor aspect of the show, it's absolutely pivotal to scenes of that sort. We don't part ways at all, in fact. I *like* shows that appeal to my emotions, which is quite independent from portraying emotions on screen. There's a very low correlation between the two. Though, too much on-screen emotion is likely to produce a negative correlation. ;) > > > i think it's both fun and important to clarify these things b/c there > > > is a > > > tendency to describe as acceptable in xena emotions and their outcomes > > > stereotypically assigned to men (violence, anger, hatred, direct > > > revenge). > > > Now we're running into shades of meaning - those emotions aren't the ones > > usually associated with the term 'emotional'. They have their own > > terms of opprobium. > > this must be a kiwi thing. or maybe it's a difference in training or > something. in my book, and education, emotions are feelings and feelings > basically cover the range of internal responses from extreme aversion to > extreme attraction. to me, emotions are the parts of internal experience > that lead us to act or contemplate acting. it's all very tricky to try to > separate cognition (thought), physiology, learning, behavior and emotion. > libraries are full of material on this. but generally speaking, feelings > are states of arousal (that's the physiology part) that we interpret > (that's the cognitive part) and on which we act (the behavioral part) in > certain ways under certain circumstances (the learning part). aversion > (fear or withdrawal) and attraction (pleasure), that is the tendency to > move toward or away from something, are basic and show up very early in > infancy. then you get the whole range of emotions that spin out from those: > terror, anger, rage, hatred, jealousy, desire, love, sentiment, compassion > etc. etc. I think you're going by the deeper meanings of those terms. Whereas I was thinking of the everyday meanings of those words (and not a 'kiwi' thing. Most of the books I read and the TV programmes I watch aren't Kiwi.) If I encountered some guy who was always angry, I probably wouldn't call him 'emotional', I'd probably find some other term. Like, maybe, 'angry'. ;) Or 'aggressive'. Or less complimentary terms, of which there are plenty. But some guy who was always breaking down, being unduly upset, I'm quite likely to call 'emotional'. In fact, I can be 'emotional' without being angry (I guess that's kinda obvious). I can also be angry about some things without being (what I'd call) emotional. If I'm so angry I get emotional I'd say then that I'd 'lost it'. > > > we are much more tolerant of xena's (yawn) > > > dark, self-sufficient side than of her more vulnerable side. > > > > Not so much that, as the fact that Xena wouldn't let her vulnerable side > > *show*. I think that's the key. When (like LL) you can make one > > word, or one look, speak volumes, why make a speech? > > you're asking that of the wrong person. and anyway, that's not > the issue. or. . .well, maybe it is. you're talking about the "less is > more," yes? Yes, defintiely. > and i agree generally but what's of interest is that we simply > dote on the xena who is absolutely over the top in terms of her violence. Ummm. Two categories: Evil Xena. Her violence was indefensible, but then it wasn't presented as being 'good'. Reformed Xena. Her violence was almost always justifiable. It was in defence of someone or thing (or herself). I have an intense dislike of 'action' movies where the violence is gratuitous, where the 'hero' seems to enjoy beating others up for its own sake. I think XWP always managed to avoid that. Admittedly I may be biassed by my liking for Xena. And there's a very large element of 'it's not what she does, it's how she does it' involved in my tolerance for violence on Xena's part. > you don't complain about xena's wild style or her vocalizations during > battle (definitely not a less is more style of fighting), Generally, with a few exceptions, I don't watch Xena for the fight scenes. However, I can't help feeling that 'less is more' does not apply to fight scenes anyway. There is no virtue in restraint when fighting for one's life. There may be virtue in calling a truce at the earliest possible moment. > her rage at gabrielle in I thought that was entirely justified, and understandable. Her son had just been killed. And anyway, she didn't 'lose it' at gabby, IIRC. Not in that ep. > or her treatment of gab in . i feel sure you think that justified . :) Oh, I'd say that was not only justified but obligatory. Hey, you just told me what to think, don't complain if I think it. :) > i'd say dragging people about behind a horse is way beyond > a word or look and definitely qualifies as a loss of control. i really > don't think there's any excuse for that kind of behavior, period. i may > have compassion for it because it is basically an insane and uncontrolled > response to grief. of course to really fit that, it should have happened > immediately and not in the next episode. that's never worked for me but it > isn't the acting, it's the entire set of assumptions and i know we'll never > agree so i won't go any farther with it. No, I don't think it justified, actually. I can *explain* it by the fact that Ares had evidently been 'working' on Xena for quite some time (which the brief snip we saw in BS didn't adequately convey). But 'loss of control'? I think we're talking now of a different kind of 'loss of control'. I'd say Xena's actions there were quite controlled - she knew what she was going to do and did it. They may not have been entirely rational, but they were planned and intentional. A suicide bomber for example may not be in an entirely rational frame of mind, but I would say that to get on a bus undetected in 'enemy' territory and blow oneself up requires a very considerable degree of self-control. Incidentally, I do agree that the Gabdrag would have appeared more convincing had it happened immediately. Still, episode timing being what it is, obviously TPTB couldn't do that. > in terms of this general ramble, we've got two things going here. one is > whether or not we liked the way a specific scene was done (we don't) and > the other is about the meaning of emotion and of control. we disagree about > that, er, those. Umm yes, well summed up. > > > nope, that's > > > not ture. many people like(d) that side of her and i did sometimes. it > > > depended on how it was enacted. about did me in for example. > > > > Not sure quite how you mean there? > > uh, xena's vulnerable side. the tears in when gab wallops her (such > a dumb scene and so well done by lucy) I thought it was a brilliant scene. And it absolutely illustrates 'less is more'. Xena did not allow herself to show any reaction. But you could almost see the emotions underneath. Certainly not dumb so far as Xena was concerned, and I don't think dumb on Gabs' part either. It may have looked like that, because we cut into the scene just as Gabs slapped Xena. But I imagine Gabs had been trying to reason with Xena, *and* having huge guilt feelings at betraying her, and Xena had just been giving her the big ignore - you know how infuriating it is when you're trying to get through to someone and they won't acknowledge your existence? > and the "scratch my nose" scene--well i liked it. > both, and especially the slap scene were > beautifully understated. imo. and i came as near to crying in that ep as in > any, i think, except . i found that a xena being vulnerable scene. 'scratch my nose', you mean? Yes. It was. I didn't mind that from the Xena-being-vulnerable aspect, but typically, I though Xena let Gabs off the hook way too easily. If someone got me condemned to death I don't think I'd speak to them for the rest of my life. ;) > the > scene in under the waterfall was also a xena being vulnerable scene > and i didn't like it. i didn't like the way it was directed, i thought it > was contrived, and i thought lucy was unable to pull it off convincingly > and i don't blame her! You and me and lfe, apparently :) > > > what i want to know is first of all, how do you define (acceptable) > > > emotionalism, specifically for xena. > > > > 'Acceptable' emtionalISM - zero. Acceptable emotion - a wide range. > > But > > it's how she expressed it that counts. I could see the emotion at the > > end > > of Orphan of War, but that seemed in character. The OTT breakdown in > > ITADITH seems both out of character and not what I want to see in Xena > > anyway. > > okay. sentimentality, not so much. Yes, I'm equating 'emotionalism' with 'sentimentality', pretty near. > emotions--and here i think you use it in > it's broader sense--from rage and hatred to profound love and compassion. > or whatever. yep. i guess i'm with you pretty much. i realize i could've > skipped to this bit and not written all the stuff above but why cut to the > chase when you can whitter on endlessly? that's what the xenaverse is for. Umm, this - chakram. Xenaverse - over there --> xenaverse@mlists.com ;) OK I know this is a way better list these days. I just can't resist the one-liners. > > > > Being true to the character (or 'in > > character') - yes, that's part of it. And part of it is in the > > writing, in > > setting up a situation where the emotion comes from the situation itself, > or the dialogue, so that the audience feels it without the actor > > necessarily having to be emotionAL. Much more subtle and effective, > > IMO. > > just as a final comment, i think tptb generally did much better with the > negative emotions than the positive ones except for their use of humor > which i thought was great and which was used to convey both negatives and > positives and i'm knackered. > > cheers all, > > md Much easier to do, too. As Hudson demonstrated with Callisto, 'bad' is much easier to do well than 'good'. And yes, their humour was often good, but would you call 'black humour' a 'positive' emotion? because I think their use of irony and black humour was one of the best things in the series. But then I just like 'dark'. See ya again when you've revived. ;) 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: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 10:18:01 -0700 From: "Xena Torres" Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Zoe Bell pics at 3rd Annual World Stunt Awards Hey, thanks SO much for the link! There's a huge list of stunt doubles on this page! I hate how on tv they never list who these amazing people are. Maybe I can hunt down so other Xena stunt doubles besides the wonderful Zoe Bell. I would love the FULL name of Renee's double! ;) BATTLE ON XENA! Xena Torres: Warrior Writer http://www.geocities.com/bitchofrome "And most importantly, I've learned that the heart can betray, but the sword never lies." - Eve "Heart of Darkness" >From: "Katsunori" >Reply-To: katsunori@excite.com >To: chakram-refugees@smoe.org >Subject: [chakram-refugees] Zoe Bell pics at 3rd Annual World Stunt Awards >Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 01:41:40 -0400 (EDT) > >Hi >I just found pics of Zoe (was LL's stunt double) on 3rd Annual World Stunt >Awards. She attended it with Quentin Tarantino, Monica Staggs on Kill bill. >http://www.worldstuntawards.com/ >Click on Press Service and choose "2003 Red Carpet" >There were 2 of Hi-Res pics > >She really look a like LL on the pics that is different from convention >pics. > >I hard she have fractured and dislocated her wrist at a rehearsal in the >final weeks of shooting Kill Bill and had 6 months of rehab but looks like >she is OK now from the pics. > >Also There were Jennifer Garner (Alias) with double Shauna Duggins pics in >"2003-Show" section > >Also there are more Zoe's pics on Star File Photo Agency site >http://www.starfileonline.com/eventpics.asp?EventName=3rd+Annual+World+Stunt+Awards&offset=-1 >But they don't allow you to download pics unless you pay for it. > >Her arm on the pic is like a log! >Enjoy! > >Katsu >The most personalized portal on the Web! >========================================================= >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. >========================================================= _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ========================================================= 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: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 18:35:22 -0400 From: "Cheryl Ande" Subject: [chakram-refugees] Gabrielle > ------------------------------ > > Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 22:35:35 -0500 > From: "H.J.J. Hewitt" > Subject: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH = Gabrielle > > >is there anybody besides me on this list who gives a > >hoot about gab, btw? i fell like i'm on the xena version of flawless. *sigh* > > There sure IS! > Yes there is. Gabrielle is just as interesting to me as Xena. Yes there were times especially in the comedies that Gabrielle's character got twisted to suit plot purposes but she is as complicated and fascinating as Xena as a character. She was written as comic relief but grew to be a fine co-star. Under her seemingly innocent facade was a woman who could be as dark as Xena. Watch how the writers developed Gabrielle. In season one she is for most of the season just a tag along and then suddenly in The Greater Good we see a new side emerge. When she thinks Xena is dead she risks all to retrieve Xena's body. We not only see the emergence of fighting skills but also a profound loyalty to her friend. In Callisto we see the idealist emerge who believes that love and forgiveness will overcome all things. In season two we continue with the emergence of an almost saintly character. One who seems to always fight on the right side who even can be right when Xena is wrong ( The Execution and The Price), Xena begins to place Gabrielle on a pedestal and Gabrielle begins to see herself as morally superior to Xena. In season three TPTB kick over that pedestal and Gabrielle tumbles off with a crash. Her dark side emerges - jealously and self-pity seem to take hold of her. She lies, betrays, and commits murder (Hope not Meridian). She discovers very disturbing things about the world and herself - evil cannot always be overcome by love and it can wear a saintly face and violate at will. She finds out that love is not always good it can lead to jealously that can destroy the very person one loves. All these are lessons can destroy a person. She however does not crumble; she tries to rebuild her faith in herself and the world. She is willingly sacrifices herself to save a treacherous world and the friend whom she often doubted. In season fourth we go on her spiritual journey as she tries to rebuild her faith in herself and in the universe. She tries different philosophies out and is in many ways is self-indulgent in her quest. She however is trying to discover if her principles of peace and love can withstand living a life with a warrior. She finds that she can't reconcile the two. In the end she is forced to choose - she must either abandon her life of violence or embrace it. She finally chooses to embrace it when she comes to Xena's rescue. At the end of season four Gabrielle is the most at peace we have seen for two years. Although she is facing death she now has chosen her path. She will live as Xena's equal partner. In Season 5, she embraces the life of the warrior. She no longer tries to flee violence. She has a new mission to protect Xena which she does with abandon, Gabrielle was a bit of a zealot. Yet inside of Gabrielle there is still a person who strives to understand her motives and realizes that there are consequences to all her actions. She is disturbed by her choices but she no longer allows those doubts to hinder her from taking action when needed. In season six she is committed to the warriors life but she discovers there are unexpected temptation and pitfalls to such a life. When her family is murdered the warrior in her wants vengeance and not justice. In Legacy she confronted by the fact that a mistake by a warrior can have devastating consequences and that a person must live with their guilt and not give into it. In To Helicon and Back she faces the consequences of being a leader and the damage that can do to a soul. Finally in FIN she must decide whether she can allow her friend the peace she deserves and put aside her own selfish desires. Gabrielle's journey is as complex as Xena's. She goes from idealist to pragmatist to cynic and then rediscovers her humanity. She is on a hero's journey. She emerges from her journey scared and damaged but still committed to the greater good. She now knows that to know what the greater good is the real challenge. 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: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 18:39:42 -0400 From: "Cheryl Ande" Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] For Whom The Bells Tolls - ----- Original Message ----- From: "cr" > > She gradually grew throughout the series (HTLJ and XWP). In fact her story > is probably more evenly distributed between the two series than even Ares' > was, since Ares (on Herc) tended to be a one-note baddie, whereas on XWP he > was always much more than that. > I actually think that Aphrodite was an excellent character in Hercules. She developed into a very sympathetic character and she did seem very much like Herc's little sister (tough considering she was millennia than Herc.) I think we saw her softer side on Herc more often there then on Xena. 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: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 21:08:04 EDT From: KLOSSNER9@aol.com Subject: [chakram-refugees] 3 new books There are three new acadeic books about action heroines on TV in Amazon.com. Fantasy girls, edited by Elyce Rae Halford. With a chapter Feminism, queer studies and the sexual politics of Xena: Warrior Princess, by Helford the editor. The warrior women of television, by Dawn Heinecken. (contents?) Athena's Daughters: Television's New Warrior Women, edited by Franes H. Early. (contents?) 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. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 23:56:26 EDT From: HawkFalco@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Gabrielle "H.J.J. Hewitt" > >is there anybody besides me on this list who gives a >> >hoot about gab, btw? i fell like i'm on the xena version of flawless. Then cande@sunlink.net writes: >> >> There sure IS! >> And continues to expound upon Gabrielle's journey and write a quick, nice, consise overview of the six seasons. Boy, oh, boy, CherylA, What you said!!! Thanks. I'm a devout Gabrielle fan too, and her part of the story appeals to me deeply. I lurk mostly because I have little time to post my ideas much less read all that crosses through my e-box. No, Gab fans. You are no alone. Hawk ========================================================= 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: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 00:01:32 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH In a message dated 8/24/2003 5:14:22 AM Central Daylight Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > >>Don't let it bother you, lfe keeps telling me what *I* mean too and > >>getting it totally wrong ;) > > > >At least I give you the chance to get it right. Bwhahahahahaha! > > > >-- Ife > > Oooh, thank you so much. > > cr > ... trying to figure out how lfe would actually stop him... ;) > Stop you from agreeing with me (i.e., "get it right")? I wouldn't even try. - -- Ife (imagining cr gnashing his teeth) ========================================================= 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 #245 **************************************