From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V3 #364 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, December 6 2003 Volume 03 : Number 364 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] EVEN MORE CURSES! FATES AGAIN! [cr ] [chakram-refugees] XENA SEASON 3 DVD NOW FOR SALE! (fwd) [Sarah Anne Pack] [chakram-refugees] Ngila Dickson - Last Samurai [Lilli Sprintz Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] EVEN MORE CURSES! FATES AGAIN! On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 17:41, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > > > > What?? lfe!! Am I sapping your resolve? Subverting your impulse to > > put > > the other fellow's point of view? I'm not sure whether to be smug or > > mildly embarrassed. ;) > > LOL! Sorry, but it was more a matter of not feeling the need to argue with > myself. > > -- Ife Ah, like Deimos at the end of 'Fade Out'. (Sorry for the Herc reference but I can't think of a Xena one) 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, 6 Dec 2003 21:06:17 +1300 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] EVEN MORE CURSES! FATES AGAIN! On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:05, KTL wrote: > CR wrote: > > > Therefore, Xena could > > > truly be an existentialist *in her world* and still believe > > > (because they > > > were empirically proven matters of fact for her) in the > > > Afterlife and the > > > gods. > > > > Umm...I'm confused here. Which Xena are we discussing? If we're > > still on the Fates Xena, then it is by no means clear to me that she > > *does* have such empirical evidence -- recall she sees Ares (the first > > Olympian she meets) for the first time in S1, and that'd be after C,JC. > > Ditto Hades and his realms. So the Fates Xena would have no more > > experimental evidence than most of us have... > > Well, I brought this up in my post to which cr was replying: > > "And even in Fates, Alti says to Xena, "Those images. They're not from > this life. There's something...more." And Xena agrees, "Yes, much more." > So at that point, Xena is aware that the life she is living in the > alternative world is not all there is either. Another life, a separate > reality exists there also and thus negates the basic premise of the > philosophy of existentialism for the Fates existence also. > > So I would disagree that Xena being an existentialist was a good reason > for Xena choosing suicide in Fates." > > And I would add now that Xena realizing in Fates that there is another > life (even though that life of course had never existed and Alti should > never have been able to acces it *cough*) opens the same questions that > any belief in another life opens in our world. Where is/was/will be that > other life lived? How is it possible that there are two livelines? Does > what we do in this life impact what we did/do/will do in that life, and/or > vice versa? And so on and so forth. > > > > > This therefore is not the reason that Xena decided to live a life of > > > > integrity. That leap of faith to accept that this life is > > > > all there is and > > > > to live a good life anyway was not required for Xena > > > > because she already > > > > knew there was something beyond this life. Of course with > > > > Olympus gone and > > > > most of her gods dead, > > > > Now -- whether this has anything to do with the way the Fates Xena > > (mis)behaves is quite another matter. Personally, I'd like to see what > > Fugate had written in full. As I've noted before, one of the curses of > > television is its need to be extremely telegraphic, especially so if > > you're allergic to serialization, as TV (or at least TV execs) seems > > often to be (long live B5). > > And long live Xena seasons three through five. > > > > So I want to consider the possibility that Fugate had > > > intended to show the crucifixion as inevitable in any time-line for Xena, > > but didn't have enough screen time to motivate that well and at the same > > time cover all the other ground she had in mind. In a perfect world, all > > that would have been accomplished. But Dr. Pangloss doesn't live here. > > Well, this is exactly what she WAS trying to show. She's said that at > cons. And another fan who also finds Fates totally lame, boring and > sometimes inadvertently amusing, sent me the following link. > > > http://www.katherinefugate.com/main_frameset.htm > > A few lines from it relate to your question above (Note: Miss Fugate > eschews punctuation on her site.) > > "just as when caesar and xena meet there will always be a crucifixion. it > is their destiny - their path together. and it will play itself out, > regardless." > > > And then later we have this: > > "however, now, in this incarnation, xena can accept - for the first time > in the entire series - that being crucified by caesar was meant to be. the > act may have spawned the evil xena period she so despises - but without > it, her need for redemption would have never come to be. and without that, > she would never have become the warrior princess." > > > I don't think it could be much more clear that Fugate considers Caesar the > most important person in Xena's life THE one whose connection with her and > actions towards her made her the woman she was. I don't agree at all. Me neither. Mind, I didn't like Caesar, from the first time I saw him. I kept wishing to see Xena kill him, every ep he was in. I guess she couldn't, though, without clashing in a big way with history. As it was, TPTB had to settle for Xena 'setting up' Brutus to do the deed, which is next best thing as far as I'm concerned. As for Caesar being a major influence, how many eps was he in? Umm, Destiny, The Deliverer, When in Rome, A Good Day, Endgame (just, though nowhere near Xena), Ides. (I may have forgotten one). That's 5 eps (ignoring Endgame and WFC). Dahak was in as many. And Caesar Julius Caesar wasn't the major influence in When in Rome or A Good Day either, he was just background opposition. If I had to nominate the major influence on Xena's life I'd pick Ares. (Others might choose Gabby). Demonstrably though, Ares had waaay more personal influence on Xena, good and bad, than Caesar ever did. Caesar saw Xena as a threat, or a trophy. And (after her fling with him in Destiny) Xena just loathed Caesar. OTOH, Ares couldn't get his mind off her, and Xena couldn't get Ares out of her mind, most of the time. > And > I would argue that Xena has never accepted her dark side as being > absolutely part of herself and instrumental in who she is before Fates. > That's first strongly suggested in Dreamworker and appears in numerous > other eps. Chakram is one of the BIG ones on that theme. (Fugate appears > to be talking literally about the crucifixion here though. I personally > think that's not near so important in having made Xena as many other > things combined were.) > > > Next line in Miss Fugate's note: > "and then she would never have had a life with gabrielle." > > > Is this true? I think Xena the tavern keeper's daughter/Gabrielle the > slave, Armenestra/Shakti, and Maddie/whoever's body Xena was in at the > time, negate the belief that Xena has to be the Warrior Princess in order > to have Gabrielle in her life. It happens no matter who they are and what > they do. As Naima tells Gabrielle, she and Xena have been and will be > together in many lives. AND Alti and Xena will also be together in many > lives. As I said, there's nothing new in Fates that hadn't been done > before. Except for you know what. Right, sister. That's canon. It crops up all the time. (Not that I could care less about it, but there it is). I thought it was common knowledge. Maybe KF missed that ep . > Next line: > "thus, despite all the hatred and guilt xena associates with the cross, it > happened precisely as it was meant to be. and now, by accepting her > destiny in both lifetimes by willingly getting back up on that cross > again, she not only forgives herself, she unwittingly gets her original > life back by doing so." This is starting to get way too mystical for me. (Is that an oxymoron - complaining that a fantasy show is too mystical? :) Or maybe it just sounds a bit like pop psychoanalysis. ========================================================= 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, 6 Dec 2003 22:06:16 +1300 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] FIN and dying a hero's death on a dumb television show On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 17:41, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 12/3/2003 11:30:50 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > > The only reason I'd do something like that is if this list started > > to turn into a mutual-admiration society, and I don't see much risk of > > that happening. ;) >> > > You mean it's not?!!! Considering the criticisms we regularly level at episodes of the show, I think there's a fairly healthy level of scepticism around. ;) > > (snip) > > > > >Ife responded: > > >>>I'm sure it was. I just wonder how eagerly she would've chosen that > > >>>image, over the chance to have her partner with her in the flesh, > > >>>healthy and alive. (Yes, I'm doing the defending thing again.) > > >> > > >>Oh dear, lfe. That's an unfair comparison and a loaded question. > > >>Obviously the woman would rather have had her partner back. But her > > >>partner > > >> > > >>was dead. That wasn't a choice, it was a circumstance. Given that > > >>circumstance, she found FIN to be a consolation. KT was using it as a > > >>counter-example to the 'FIN destroyed my life' posts. >> > > > > > >Yes, I know. But if we're going to use real-life examples, I don't > > > think it's fair to confine ourselves only to the aspects that support > > > our view. > > > > If we're arguing a point, it's entirely legitimate, IMO. While > > recognising > > > > that the opposition will produce the opposite example. > > > > But your comparison was between a real-life death and a fictional one, > > presenting them as alternatives. That (IMO) is a quite unfair > > comparison. > > Um, KT used a real-life response to a fictional death, as a source of > inspiration for a real-life death. I don't understand how that's different > from talking about those who responded to the same fictional character's > death as depressing in terms of their real life. See below.... > > > To turn it on its head - would any of the FIN-destroyed-my-life brigade > > happily choose to sacrifice their nearest and dearest *if* it meant that > > Xena > > could stay alive at the end of FIN? An equally unfair comparison, no > > doubt. >> > > Yes, because that's not the choice the ep presented us with. However, I do > think it would be fair to ask them if they would sacrifice the well-being > of thousands of strangers (regardless of the reason), if it meant the > salvation of their nearest and dearest, as that was one of the options the > ep presented. Umm, you've gotta compare like with like. KT was quoting a real life woman who had been consoled by FIN, as (I think) a counter to those fans who said they were devastated by FIN. i.e people's real-life responses to FIN in each case. You said: "I just wonder how eagerly she would've chosen that image, over the chance to have her partner with her in the flesh, healthy and alive". As I read it, that is *not* comparing like with like (unless I misunderstood you). Quite obviously anyone would choose the real-life benefit (their partner alive again) over an episode of a TV series, however inspiring. > > > Thing is, how I or that > > > > >woman KT mentioned feels has nothing to do with the validity of how > > > someone else feels. > > > > What do they call this, 'moral relativism' or something? Regarding all > > viewpoints as equally valid? >> > > I wasn't talking about morality, so much as emotions. People can't help > how they feel. We may disagree with the reasons they feel as they do, but > how can we say the emotion is not valid *for them*? And, yes, I do > believe all viewpoints are valid for each person presenting a viewpoint. > It's based on their experiences, values, needs, etc. It's what makes sense > to them until or unless something causes them to see it differently. > > > At the risk of being thought elitist, I do _not_ agree with that > > proposition > > (and nor, in practice, does 99% of the earth's population). > > > Yes and no. Those wishing to live with others in some order and harmony > agree to accept certain rules or viewpoints they don't necessarily agree > with -- as long as that suits our needs. When it doesn't, we may use all > sorts of means -- including killing -- to impose or defend our will. I have a logical problem with these sorts of issues. You see I don't accept that there are some sort of moral absolutes (e.g. the Ten Commandments) for the pragmatic reason that most such lists are culturally based and full of taboos that are quite irrelevant in other cultures. OTOH, I am quite certain that some things are morally bad - murder, gratuitous cruelty to animals, and slavery for example. (I don't think the Ten Commandments even mentions the last two). So I could not accept a society whose morals (rules, viewpoints) permitted slavery or setting fire to foxes. So on the subject of good or bad, all I can say is "I know it when I see it". But this does *not* mean that I have to accept that a slave-trader has as much right to his point of view as I have to mine. (Nor did Xena :) > > As a reductio ad absurdum demonstration, there are some peoples' > > viewpoints that are > > patently ridiculous, or morally wrong. I'm sure most serial killers > > (e.g. the Green River killer) would produce very good 'reasons' for their > > careers. > > Why use serial killers or other sociopaths? There are wars going on all > over the place where each side believes absolutely that it has good > "reasons" and the moral authority to eliminate the opposition. I'm not > seeing universal agreement among "reasonable" people about which viewpoints > are "wrong" or ridiculous. Just an example, use any one you like. If one took your viewpoint to its logical extreme, though, the courts would have to close down because their entire existence is based on the assumption that some actions are wrong and that a judge or jury can make a judgement on that. > > I'd concede that: > > most viewpoints have some validity > > but I'd strongly assert that: > > not all viewpoints are equally valid. >> > > Let's say your sociopath walked up and declared, "I'm going to kill > everyone I see who's wearing red." Perhaps you would stare at him or try > to get him to understand why that's not rational or nice. Maybe you'd call > him crazy and wait for him to come to his senses. Me, I'm a basically > practical person with a pretty strong instinct for survival. I'd take him > seriously, even though whatever view he had didn't fit my idea of sanity. > I'd probably first check to see if I was wearing red. I might ask him, > "How come?", while surreptitiously glancing around for help. I might run > like Hades or see if my kickboxing classes were worth anything. I don't > know why or how he came to believe what he does, but I'm not going to > assume it's not valid enough *to him* that he wouldn't act on it. I'd > accept whatever was going on in his head -- whatever world he pictured > himself in -- as "real" (true, valid) for both of us. It wouldn't mean > anything to me in that moment whether it's more or less valid than my own > or society's view. Dismissing it puts me in peril. It confines my scope > of possibilities to a "sane" person's way of thinking. So, you wouldn't consider bopping him over the head quick as 'dismissing' his viewpoint? I would. But I'd still bop him (assuming, of course, that I was physically able and believed that he really meant it). That in no way implies that I accept his viewpoint as valid. > > > In other words, some viewpoints are more valid than others. In fact, if > > we > > > > didn't feel that was the case, there'd be no point in arguing our point > > of view, because there would be nothing to 'prove' by it. Personally, I > > tend to give most weight to those who can state their viewpoints > > coherently and back them up with rational argument. (And doubtless, I > > have an inherent bias towards those who agree with me, I can't help that > > :) << > > I assume most of us are on this list because we've chosen to express and > listen to other viewpoints. We start out with opinions that are valid for > us, however we arrive at them. Some of us simply state our opinion and > don't feel the need to "back it up." It's ours. We shared it. 'Nuff > said. Some folks are perfectly fine reading that, with simply knowing > where others stand. Some of us want more. We go on for days (months, > years) giving our reasons for something, prodding others to do the same. > Sometimes what we read shifts our perspective a little. Sometimes it > convinces us we were "right" all along. The determination of "validity" is > totally subjective, based (as you acknowledge) on our biases. Yes, I think > what I'm saying is valid. For me. But my viewpoint is no more or less > valid *to me* than your viewpoint is to you. I simply don't agree > with you. Well, I usually have to give your viewpoints a certain amount of validity because they have some ijnnate credibility and you argue them coherently. For a few viewpoints that are way out in Cloud Cuckoo Land*** check out the Letters pages of back issues of Whoosh ;) (*** I think the American equivalent is 'left field' ? ) > > Coming back to your specific example in FIN, maybe most of us wouldn't > > accept > > our partner's decision to stay dead. Gabby didn't. >> > > She didn't?!! All the times I've watched AFIN, you're saying I missed the > part where she immersed Xena's ashes anyway? She wasn't happy about it, was she? Without splitting hairs about what 'accept' means, she made it quite obvious that she disagreed with Xena's wishes. > > But that doesn't mean > > her views were necessarily correct. Some things may be more important > > than > > the 'relationship'. Apparently TPTB (and Xena) thought so. (I rather > > think that's where a lot of the complaints arose from). >> > > Wow, I've got to watch that thing again. Not sure if Gabs' response was > "correct," but I came away thinking she ultimately supported (albeit > reluctantly at first and with understandable pain) Xena's decision to stay > dead. Not sure if 'supported' is the right word there. She allowed her immediate instinctive reaction to be overruled by Xena. Ultimately, she may have come to accept it - there was some acceptance implicit in the final scene, possibly, but it was never explicitly stated. > I agree that many fans saw that as making the relationship > secondary. I didn't see it that way. I saw X&G as loving each other body > *and* soul. Even without the "eternal soulmates" thing, I believed neither > would want the other to live by betraying what she believed in. The more > selfish response would be to want the other with her in the flesh, no > matter what the other wanted or needed, and regardless of the consequences > to the larger society. Well I agree there. > They chose to honor what their life together stood > for, what gave it meaning and mutual respect. That became the "heart" of > their partnership and would endure long after their bodies were gone. I > think that's what the woman KT quoted also saw. Well as I said, we don't *know* (because it wasn't explicitly stated) that that's how Gabs felt at the end of the episode. Given time to think about it, she may have come to agree with Xena's decision. Or not. My opinion for what it's worth is more or less similar to yours. > > > << TPTB's choice to tell the story their way. >> > > I agree. > > > Just as it was in Fates, of course. In that instance (and some others), > > I happen to think they made an error of judgement. But I certainly > > won't let > > that cancel out all the things they did right or accuse them of bad faith > > on the strength of it. > > As you say, they had a story to tell. Some of us are still busy making it > ours. > > -- 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: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 22:43:57 +1300 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Peekabo, I see you On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:16, KTL wrote: > > > Take a scene - for example, Akemi honouring her grandfather's shrine in > > FIN, when Xena makes as if to behead her and Akemi calls her bluff and > > coolly pulls her hair out of the way. This was fantastic on-screen. > > I'm not sure any writer could have done justice to it on the printed > > page. But as to what Xena and Akemi were thinking at the time, that is > > entirely left to our imaginations (working off what we know of their > > characters and can deduce from their dialogue). A written version might > > well have been much more explicit about their thoughts. > > Possibly. But GOOD literature would leave much to the imagination > also--would rely on subtext in the classical artistic sense of the word. > They would be talking about one thing on the surface, but actually meaning > or referring to other things that are really the point of the story. > Hence, SUBtext. As you know... Yes and no. :) A lot depends on the skill of the writer. A good writer could give an indication of what Xena and/or Akemi were thinking without having to spell out their thoughts in tedious and explicit detail. There's a certain degree of subtlety that I like. But not too much, I know perfectly well that in reality people are thinking about something completely different 90% of the time, but in a novel I just find that obscure and annoying. > > More subtle themes are > > much more difficult to convey on TV - TPTB tried in FIN, when Xena was > > teaching Akemi to listen - > > > > Xena stops and listens. > > XENA Like listening. Listen to that. > > AKEMI To what? > > XENA To life and death. Every sound, every movement, is a message. A > > wagon just crossed a creek up ahead. (closes eyes) A deer grazing nearby. > > > > But of course, we the audience can't hear or sense any of this, so (at > > least for me) it didn't have a very strong effect. > > Hey--do you remember Rob talking about that in the commentary? How he and > someone--maybe Joe DoLuca went around and around--should they do the > sounds Xena was talking about or should they do music in that scene. Now you mention it, I do. Okay - given a wide screen in a cinema, and a very quiet audience, (and even better, 360-degree surround sound), it might have been effective. But these conditions are rarely met. Whereas with a written passage (such as the one I quoted), one can reasonably assume that the reader is concentrating on the image in his mind and mentally blanking out other distractions (i.e. noises off). > > Compare it with a _written_ > > > passage (about a skirmish in a Finnish forest in the very early morning): > > > > "It wasn't one of those tall, dark, cathedral-like forests; no northern > > forest is. The trees were small and thin and sparse, and didn't stop > > much of the dim, misty light from the low clouds overhead. The mist > > itself had pretty well stopped at the edge of the forest; all that was > > left was a faint blurriness and weird bottom-of-the-sea light that had no > > source and cast no shadows and faded off not into darkness but > > uncertainty. ... You would see a man stand up thirty yards away, in > > this light, but he might not stand up; he might be sitting on the other > > side of the rock you're leaning against." > > > > Now I can just 'see' that forest, but you *could not* film that scene > > effectively. Because the entire point of it was that the 'hero' and his > > opponent were stalking each other in this weird half-light where you > > couldn't be certain what you were looking at. But in that sort of > > light, and that sort of forest, listening for little noises and knowing > > the shape of the ground are crucial, and of course film/TV cannot give a > > sense of direction at all. And all you'd see on your TV screen would be > > a dim blur. So in that respect, the written version (IMO) is actually > > more specific than a filmed version could be; but it also makes use of > > the reader's imagination very strongly to visualise the scene. > > I dispute that you couldn't film that. I think you could. AND once it was > filmed, then everyone would think of that forest in exactly the same way. Well, no. You could film it, but it would look absolutely useless on screen. (Even more, of course, a scene where everybody's floundering around in the dark). Thing is, you can describe it in print as easily as you can a full-daylight scene. TV is even worse than movies for that, because TV is not normally watched on a big screen in a darkened room. So all you see on your set is a dim blur. The atmosphere gets completely lost. It's a purely practical limitation of the technology. > Just like we all KNOW what the wagon Xena hid behind in FIN looked > like--we all got that exact same wagon in our heads. Same color, same > size, same position on the ground. It is THAT important that we know what > that wagon was like? Not really. But it's like Plato's wagon now--it's > there in all or our minds. The wagon is unimportant. The way the arrows started coming from *both* sides, though, is very significant. It meant No Hiding Place. That was what gave me (watching it) a chill up my spine and a wish to crawl into a hole and pull the hole in on me. A *very* good writer could possibly describe that moment as effectively in a book, but it wouldn't be easy. > > Where am I going with this? I guess I'm just saying that film gives > > more information *in one respect* - visually (though only in a good > > light). But I don't think even then that extra information 'restricts' > > the imagination, I think it gives more material for the imagination to > > feed on. > > I think the visual sense is "restricted" in films. We see how characters > stand in relation to each other and get information from things like that > too. But the imaginative sense of interpretation, of what's going on in > this place we all see is not restricted. > > I think Bitter Suite was obviously one of XWP's finer visual creations. > And BOY are there LOADS of interpretations to hang on just about > everything in that ep. I had no idea that they were dressed as Tarot > cards. THAT was WAY kewl to find out about on line. Now you're talking about something rather different, I think. You're talking about particular symbolism of the scene. It requires a knowledge of tarot to fully understand it. Whereas, a scene such as the one I mentioned earlier where Xena went to behead Akemi, has implications of Xena and Akemi's thoughts that you can read into it, but requires no special knowledge to interpret. > > > But the > > written word and film each have their own strengths and they are not > > interchangeable. > > Again, absolutely agreed. > > KT > > > The most nearly interchangeable feature is dialogue. > > > (I'm not knocking 'Xena' at all, just pointing out the limitations of > > film). > > > > ('The Most Dangerous Game' by Gavin Lyall, if you want to know where the > > quote came from). > > > > 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. > ========================================================= ========================================================= 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, 6 Dec 2003 12:53:27 -0500 (EST) From: Sarah Anne Packard Subject: [chakram-refugees] XENA SEASON 3 DVD NOW FOR SALE! (fwd) Hey, Creation now gives the S3 dvd release date as Jan 14th...interesting. First we heard Jan 30th, then Feb 10, now Jan 14! *shrugs* :) Creation promises extras if you get it through them - an auto'd photo, woo! But I am still wondering - will there be any of those extra features only available if you get it from Best Buy like the last 2? Hmmm... -Sarah, aka the abbagirl- - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 16:22:52 -0800 From: Creation Entertainment Reply-To: 11353-feedback-1231@lb.bcentral.com To: List Member Subject: XENA SEASON 3 DVD NOW FOR SALE! XENA SEASON 3 DVD NOW FOR SALE! We're happy to announce that orders are being taken for the eagerly awaited Season 3 DVD set, and the best news is that our own Sharon Delaney conducted interviews included in the production! Further, when you order this set directly from CREATION you will get some great exclusives, including a free hand-signed autographed photo, randomly selected, of a Xena celebrity (and LUCY and RENEE are included in the batch!). Place your orders now and you'll get your XENA DVD SEASON 3 SET hot off the presses! Visit us at: http://www.creationent.com/iwwida.pvx?;products_no_tree?cat=XE?comp=CET to get set! And, also: we are down to less than 300 copies of two of our three XENA CALENDARS 2004 (we still have a larger quantity of the desktop left). We won't be going back to print on these so please order quickly to guarantee you'll have yours! Visit us at: WWW.CREATIONENT.COM for the calendars, please. Thanks, Your friends at Creation Entertainment _______________________________________________________________________ Powered by List Builder To unsubscribe follow the link: http://lb.bcentral.com/ex/sp?c=11353&s=4F5C3128347ABF25&m=1231 ========================================================= 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, 06 Dec 2003 14:19:03 -0600 From: Lilli Sprintz Subject: [chakram-refugees] Ngila Dickson - Last Samurai KLOSSNER9@aol.com said, "Note that Ngila Dickson, costumer for Xena and the LOTR films, is also the costume designer for The Last Samurai." Nice to know! Lilli ========================================================= 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, 06 Dec 2003 14:21:47 -0600 From: Lilli Sprintz Subject: [chakram-refugees] Tarzan - one last time I have a question. is there anyone out there who has video copies of the tarzan series? Please email me. I have a request. Lilli ========================================================= 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, 6 Dec 2003 13:59:53 -0900 (AKST) From: KTL Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] FIN and dying a hero's death on a dumb television show Ife: > > > Bottom line, there will > > always > > >be disagreement over what's a "good" reason to die, kill or go along. For > > >some, the "greater good" begins with being true to one's self or an ideal, > > doing > > >what feels right personally. For others, the "greater good" may be tied to > > >the number of others you intentionally or inadvertently help. Still others > > will > > >argue there's no such thing as an absolute "greater good." > > > > > > > > > > KT: > > But in the series Xena: Warrior Princess, dying for the greater good was > > absolutely tied to sacrificing oneself for the good of others--to save > > them. Not just to enoble them or to be a good example for them, but to > > literally and actually save them from death. Or worse. (As in the case of > > the Amazons in Adventures in the Sin Trade and Grunhilda in The Ring > > Arc.) >> > > Your nightmare is discussing Fates ad nauseum. Mine is feeling > stupidly compelled to defend points of view I don't necessarily agree > with. That's what I was doing in the case of those who believe Xena > did not die for a good reason in AFIN -- who in fact may never have > accepted "sacrifice" as preferable and even see it as "giving up." > Oh, crap, there I go again. > LOL! Well, many of us do that. But there's no need to defend them--nobody on this list tries to shut people up who don't agree with them. We all give everybody has the right to see what they saw. Disagreeing with their conclusions is not saying they have no right to have those opinions. > > > > In fact, one of the most moving posts I ever read about FIN was written by > > a woman who had lost her partner to death a number of years ago. And she > > talked about how FIN validated for her that the love between her and her > > partner transcended the death of one of them. And that the sight of Xena's > > spirit at Gabrielle's side was incredibly heart fulfilling and satisfying > > for her as an emblematic image of the never ending love in her own life. >> > > I'm sure it was. I just wonder how eagerly she would've chosen that image, > over the chance to have her partner with her in the flesh, healthy and alive. Oh Ife, that is TOTALLY a stalking horse. Of COURSE she'd prefer not to have her partner gone from her life. But she refuses to agree that the death of a partner totally negates the good things about their life together. Which is what people were trying to say. That Xena's death somehow contaminated everything that had gone before. They claimed this as if it were an absolute truth for everyone. And that is ALWAYS bogus. That is exactly the opposite of what you're saying. They refuse to accept the validity of other peoples' lenses. And THAT'S what many of us objected to. Not their opinons. But the fact that they discounted ours. md by the way also has a absolutely fabulous post on FIN in which she states how Xena dying did nothing to destroy the life she and Gabrielle had lived together and how positive that life had been portrayed. And that if md had had the chance to live Xena's life, why, they could behead her all they wanted to. BWAHAHAHAHHAAH! She wrote that one also in response to the EVERYBODY (i.e. all REAL fans) should hate FIN brigade. IFE: > > You know why I didn't see the Xena in Fates as "wrong" in quite the > same way as you or Cleanthes? Because I *must* see my Xena as somehow > triumphing -- being in control of what *she* makes of herself -- no > matter what. Our Xena would never give up, yet we see her on that > cross, accepting that this is what must be. You say she wouldn't do > that under any circumstances, that it's "wrong" in terms of her core > character and therefore should be relegated to the "never happened" > bin. No, no, no, no, no. That's totally wrong. I do NOT claim that Fates doesn't exist. The problem for me is that it does. grin. Snip snip > > Though we use different rationalizatins, none of us gives credence to > "real" Xena giving up. For you, Fates Xena doesn't exist. Wrong again. She does. She's just not credible. I have no problem with saying that the creators of XWP screwed up sometimes. They made mistakes. Rob admits they made mistakes in a number of interviews and in the commentaries he's been doing. I don't feel I have to swallow everything they gave us and try to rationalize it. They are too good to have to be patronizing towards. Making a tv show is HARD. It's a hysterically high pressure job with inexorable deadlines. The wonder to me is that with the standards of excellence that Rob set in terms of settings, visuals, costumes, music, outdoor filming, and a mythic storyline that they ever got anything in the can at all on time. Never mind that they pulled off such amazing "movies" such as the Debt, Sin Trade, The Valkyrie Arc and FIN on a TV budget and timeframe. And with such self-imposed show requirements of course they failed sometimes. And when they did, I cut them slack since I'd much rather watch people fail through reaching too high than succeeding in producing the lackluster, ho-hum, trite, unimaginative plodding crap that much of TV presents. BUT when they failed abysmally as for me in the presentation of Xena in Fates, while I still refuse to think I should kill Rob over it, I also refuse to go so far as to say, "Nope. Not a failure. Let me figure how I can make this work..." KT > That has much less to do with the "evidence" in the show > (though I've argued it endlessly, heh), than with what I *want* to > see. > > -- 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: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 14:02:07 -0900 (AKST) From: KTL Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Back to "Reality" (Was Re: Peekabo, I see you) KT: > > What you SAW made you think > > > Xena was a more satisfying hero than Wonder Woman. Didn't this come about > > because of what you SAW? And what you saw was what was on screen. I'm > > totally confused if your point is that what you see onscreen doesn't > > matter. Help, me, Obewaniferae, you're my only hope... >> > IFE: > LOL! What's on screen *doesn't* matter to me, so much as what I make of it. > What "matters" is what it *means* to me -- how I interpret it, what I focus > on, what I ignore, how it compares with what I "know" and believe, what value I > place on it. I bring that with me to everything, and it is unique to me, > regardless of how similar it might be to what someone else sees. Absolutely true. But what's on screen does matter or else Wonder Woman would have been perfectly acceptable to you. Just ignore that Steve! Ignore those heels and that girly gait as she skittered down the sidewalk! PRETEND she's what we know women can be! I *recognized* > the portrayal I'd never seen before but knew was missing from my experience. I > knew it when I saw it, because the concept was in my head. Lucy/Xena gave it > a particular "look" and characteristics. > Yup. She brought that to our screens and into our heads where it banged into things that were already in there. Yup. > Maybe when you were growing up, you didn't think about seeing or being > someone like Xena. I did. Oh Ife, please! All of us are here because of what we saw in Xena. (Except for those of us who are here because of what they saw in Gabrielle. But they're here too.) And of course some are here because of what they saw in them as a "set". But for women of a certain age, (like you and I, Ife) what we saw on screen in XWP we had never seen in anything before. This is what I'm seeing even more at the cons--women as old as us (and even OLDER if you can believe it--most of them of course, are using walkers,) are suddenly showing up as brand new rabid fans of XWP, way after it's final ep. These women are apparently finding it on Oxygen. And they are AS wonderously enthralled with it as any Hard Core Nutball every was. It strikes such a cord in those of us who lusted over seeing women portrayed this way and never got to. I KNOW there were some strong women pictures, but for me nothing ever came anywhere near Lucy's Xena in being "right". snip snip > IFE: > That's all I'm saying above. I'm saying "perception" is sort of like > the chicken and egg. I don't mean to dismiss the very show I love, or > the actress who brought Xena alive. But (being the fossil I am) I > remember when I relied on my imagination to do that, as I read books > or listened to radio dramas. However "lost" I got in Xena, I knew it > was an interactive process, not one where I was completely under the > influence of what was being projected. Art is always interactive. Art is communication and without an audience, there's no art. Without an artist there's no art either though. THEY generate the response we bring to the event. And while a cliche, it's absolutely true to say that "I may not know art, but I know what I like." And the HUGE response to Xena from non-genre fans shows that what they were showing was different in its truth from what had gone before. Even so, it still amazed me > when people didn't see what I did. I don't find that amazing. For some reason, this is a common occurance for me. grin. But what amazes me even more is > when I suddenly see what they did. I love that! I love that too. That's exactly why I'm on these lists. > > > Ife, you cut out important parts of my paragraph above. > > > > Sorry. I figured we agreed on that part. :-) > LOL! I cut out the parts we don't agree on in this thread, the parts where we're doing nothing but repeat ourselves. snip snip > > If you're simply saying that visual media can give us a more commonly shared > and defined starting point, I'm with you. If you're saying it gives us > something we can show other people, I'm with you. We didn't "make up" seeing Xena > do certain things. We saw her do it, even if we disagree about what it means. Yes, that's what I'm saying. And it certainly refers to why most of us love XWP. Because of what we saw on our screen. Lucy's Xena stood head and shoulders above any other presentation of a warrior woman anyone else had ever portrayed in Western mass media. (Note: Never having seen any of the Hong Kong female action films that Rob based Xena upon, I can't say if those women were as valid and believable as Lucy's Xena. My genre buds say they are. For them.) > Most of us have tapes we can go back and refer to. I omitted that part of > your post because I agreed with it. Are you also saying that visual art > produces more "objective" data or interpretation, since presumably we're all looking > at the same "board"? That what we take away from the visual image is less > subjective than if we'd read it in a book? > > > -- Ife Yes. But only in terms of the fact that onscreen we see the artifact and therefore it is the same for everyone. Unlike in a book where we each see our own imagined artifact. Again, this has nothing to do with interpretation of events, emotions, or motives of the character. BUT it can in its own way help explain the character. For example, Tarzan's Aunty Kathleen lives in a very lush apartment in a very expensive part of town. This tells us things about her. It tells us not only that she's rich but that she wants to live rich. And that tells us things about her character. AND it's an immutable fact about her. Xena is homeless. Xena has relegated herself to a spartan life. No more fancy yurts nor big tents with servants for her. This also is absolutely true. Differing interpretations come in when we think about why it's true. I believe most would agree that she has decided to move from place to place to right wrongs. Later, as the series developed, she also went specific places to right OLD wrongs or was literally sent for to do so. And hell, she's always been a traveler and experienced travelers always pack lightly. (And of course, Gabrielle can only carry so much in her little bag, though she certainly at times has carried amazing amounts of stuff.) Now I would further say that Xena denying herself creature comforts is part of her "atonement thing". THAT absolutely gets into speculation. That has never been stated directly in the series. And that is where the interpretation of what we see onscreen comes in. 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. ========================================================= ------------------------------ End of chakram-refugees-digest V3 #364 **************************************