From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V3 #312 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, October 18 2003 Volume 03 : Number 312 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] <> [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] warrior women with Lucy Lawless [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] OS: Tarzan [was: OS: Charmed and Tarzan] ["Jackie ] RE: [chakram-refugees] OS: Charmed and Tarzan ["Ribaud, Lynn" > In a message dated 10/16/2003 6:22:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time, fsktl@aurora.uaf.edu writes: > The Xena before the credits is credible. It's when she falls into the > (what did Thel call it?) the immediately non-savvy totally sappy mindset > that the flimsy fabric of this episode rips into tiny little shreds. > The wild young woman in Destiny just would never go there... >> My apologies for the massive snipping, but the "what's credible and what's not" in Fates is obviously another one of those "agree to disagree" thingies. How's that? > She relied on herself and her chakram more than on behind the scenes > scheming. > > Hey--she didn't have her chakram in the Debt, did she? I just realized > that. Now THAT is interesting. >> Yes, it is. I can't believe it was an oversight, but I certainly don't think of any reference to it in the ep. Think I'll let others handle that one. You've already sapped what little life my poor brain had. > >I'm thinking this was more "anti" schmaltz, in terms of how it was shown > as > >originating falsely, blown to kingdom come, and dissed by "our" X&G > gratefully > >riding off into their "real" world. > > > > Ife, you keep straining like that to find some gold in this ep and your > neck veins are going to blow out. >> What's blowing my veins is trying to get you to understand why, for me, it wasn't that much of a strain. Yes, I cringed at many aspects I wasn't prepared to see. No, I'm not a fan of romance novels, thought I admit to never having read one. It's not "gold" in terms of my favorites, but it's certainly not the crap it is to you. I just happen to have come to appreciate the ep for reasons you'll never accept, which I'm conceding before my veins do blow out. :-) > >that, or if this is another example of my ability to rationalize almost > anything. > > More and more, I'm thinking it could be Fugate. > > > I'm thinking it's you rationalizing plus you loving to argue with me. > grin.>> LOL. Maybe so, but I've convinced myself the ep is neither the shlock you saw it as nor the idealized romance others took it for. > >>Help me, season six has turned me into a Fatuous Fury Fan and I can't > shut > >>up>> > > > > > >Sure, sure, claim you want help, but there's no way you're gonna be able to > >watch "Fates" with any semblance of neutrality. > > > >-- Ife > > > I did that the first time around. << I can just picture you remaining neutral the first time X&G exchanged googoo eyes. The second time only reinforced the > > rightness of my original impression. >> Humph. Big surpise. Fine. You put "Fates" in your "Stomp and Toss" file. I'll put it in my "Hmmm I Need To View That From A Different Angle" file. :-) - -- 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, 17 Oct 2003 00:39:49 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] warrior women with Lucy Lawless In a message dated 10/16/2003 2:01:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time, a.reddecliffe@ntlworld.com writes: > Well this was fun. Lucy looked great and it was an interesting episode - > the series started with Joan of Arc. It had a lot of reconstructions and > Lucy doing the voice overs and appearing in the "these events happened in > this very room" slots. She did a very good job of keeping the pace and > keeping it interesting. > > Thanks so much for your report! I finally have a "feel" for how the shows are being done. - -- 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: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 22:11:56 -1000 (HST) From: "Jackie M. Young" Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] OS: Tarzan [was: OS: Charmed and Tarzan] On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 00:56:53 -0500, "H.J.J. Hewitt" wrote: >>--Actually, I disagree with Cheryl on this. I was disappointed in how >LL handled the role. > >Me, too. And as Jackie said, too many of Kathleen's actions/reactions >seemed artificial or ambiguous. I didn't feel any of the spark Lucy had >even in the early travel shows she hosted. In fact, the one character - --*Hehe!* TEXena and I seem to have this "history" of agreeing with each other! ;) I remember *years* ago we backed each other up on how *phoney* Girls Just Wanna was! ;) _Any_way, a "lack of spark" is a good way to put LL's first performance here. ;( Another way is "laxidasical", "lackluster", "uninspired". ;P Do you think it could be because she feels the pressure to be LUCY LAWLESS now, rather than Lucy Lawless? (Barry Manilow said of his early career that he always had to "pump himself up" before a show to become this unreal personage, BARRY MANILOW, in all caps, rather than his real personality, Barry Manilow.) WB did give LL quite a bit of hype, after all....;=/ Or, do you think it's because she's out of practice.....?? ;( Whatever the reason, it just wasn't up to her usual performance level, IMO.....;( >Grumpily, >TEXena *Dissatisfied*, - --Jackie ****************************************************** * Proud to have the same birthday as Lucy Lawless! * * * * "I think New Zealand geographically comes from * * ... Hawai'i." --Lucy Lawless, Late Show, 4/9/96 * * * * 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: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 08:53:18 -0400 From: "Ribaud, Lynn" Subject: RE: [chakram-refugees] OS: Charmed and Tarzan > H.J.J. Hewitt wrote: > > In fact, the one character who > > struck me as "alive", and vital, and motivated, much as I > disliked him, was > > Michael. (And even wounded, Tarzan's inability to hold > onto Michael makes > > his having so \effortlessly/ lifted Jane back up over the > parapet in the > > pilot look all the more ridiculous.) > > Me thinks that blood was kinda slippery . > > > I was mixed about him. He seemed good for Jane, but he had a > dark side > that came out when he was trying to capture Tarzan. In his favor > though, I think it was not specifically malicious towards Tarzan -- > merely protective towards Jane as 'his'. Does that make him > 'wrong'??? Umm...can you say "possessive"? And I don't mean in a good way. He struck me as someone who could turn violent if things didn't go his way. He was certainly manhandling Jane roughly to get her away from T. I'd have thought that would have opened her eyes a bit. Still, the result -- Michael's death -- could give plenty of angst to work with, if the writing develops (both in the sense of an issue between T and J, and now having the other cops on the hunt for, and very much set against, him). None of this is rocket science, but it doesn't have to be. Remember, X had three eps of Herc to become X before "Sins"; give the show time to find its path. Lynn Lynn Ribaud ribaud@bnl.gov ========================================================= 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, 17 Oct 2003 17:36:01 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] OS: Tarzan [was: OS: Charmed and Tarzan] In a message dated 10/17/03 3:13:00 AM Central Daylight Time, jyoung@lava.net writes: << _Any_way, a "lack of spark" is a good way to put LL's first performance here. ;( Another way is "laxidasical", "lackluster", "uninspired". ;P Do you think it could be because she feels the pressure to be LUCY LAWLESS now, rather than Lucy Lawless? >> I thought Lucy was intentionally being a bit enigmatic, giving her character a bit of mystery as well as room to go in different directions later. I actually thought she did a very good job with what she had. I don't think she felt any pressure to be a big star. However, she doesn't have the luxury of big, center-of-attention type performances she did with XWP. I seriously doubt this new character could ever have the impact Xena did, no matter what Lucy does. Indeed, I'm not sure it would be appropriate in Tarzan. Problem is, we know what she can do under the right circumstances. I admit, it's made me scale back considerably what I expect, even though, perhaps like you, I can't quite forget her past performances either. But she started XWP very restrained, very dour. (Same with the X-Files character.) I recall our recent discussion when she suddenly let go in "Doctor" -- a surprise that some of us liked and some of us didn't. I think Lucy'll show more "spark" as she becomes more comfortable with the character, though I still doubt it'll captivate us in the same way as with Xena. - -- 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. ========================================================= ------------------------------ End of chakram-refugees-digest V3 #312 **************************************