From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V4 #83 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 Wednesday, March 24 2004 Volume 04 : Number 083 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] OT xena mail order catalogues vs browsing the websites [IfeRae@a] Re: [chakram-refugees] Eye of the Beholder [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] Forgiving Xena [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons [was: Ratings] [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] Eye of the Beholder [IfeRae@aol.com] [chakram-refugees] The Seasons [was: Ratings] [Lilli Sprintz ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Eye of the Beholder [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Forgiving Xena [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Eye of the Beholder [cr ] Fw: [chakram-refugees] OT xena mail order catalogues vs browsing the websites ["abqbeach" what > multi-channel retailers have found is that the catalog customer who also > buys on the web (and the retail store if available) is much more likely to > be a repeat buyer and buy with more frequency. Bless you and your expertise. I still have most of my old Xena catalogs, which I consider souvenirs like I do other Xena stuff. A pre-Computer Age person, I ordered first from the catalog by mail, then by phone and fax. I've gotten a little more comfortable with online shopping. And your research is right - -- I'm much more likely to be tempted into buying something when it's staring at me from my coffee table. And if I'm interested in a source's product once, I'm more likely to buy something else if there's a catalog to remind me and to show what's new (or I wished I'd gotten before). Whether I order from a site depends heavily on how user friendly it is. I have ordered online from Creation, with so-so ease of use. It's still a small enough operation where I find it's sometimes easier to call. Regardless, it's usually after I've had a chance to see something in the catalog (as opposed to on the website), as it's often hard to tell what I'm getting when I have to rely on those internet photos. E.g., the catalog may have an item in a setting where I can get some idea of what size it is. Out of curiosity, do you have age info on the people who like catalogs and may still order online? I'm thinking that XWP has a lot of middle-aged fans or parents of fans, who still like paper. But maybe even the Computer Age folks like thumbing through the catalogs? At any rate, it amazes me how much marketing strategies are geared toward younger (under 35) folks, when we have this huge Baby Boom group with a bit of disposable income. When companies try to force me to go electronic, I shop around for competitors who offer me other options. I like that I can email or order online if I want, but I doubt I'll ever wade through internet pages the way I browse through something I can hold in my hand whenever, wherever I want. - -- 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: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 02:06:02 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Eye of the Beholder In a message dated 3/22/2004 3:00:44 PM Pacific Standard Time, spri0037@tc.umn.edu writes: > Jackie Young said, > > "Although I highly respect LL's skills, I don't believe she was that > great of an actress at that time to be cast only based on her skills, IMO. > A good example of this would be to watch her acting in the HTLJ Trilogy. > Very rough. Yet it was good enough to get her a series. But only because > 5 others weren't available. > > > yes, and i agree, though i've never said it publically in this very biased > crowd, that Lucy Lawless has not always been that great of an actress. > despite that, however, she exuded a kind of power i had not seen often before in > ANY woman actress over the years. I have a mixed reaction about Lucy's acting -- especially early on. I think Roma Downey was a much better choice than Lucy for the Amazon queen in the Herc eps. She and Alison Bruce (Melosa) seemed like "mature" actresses, in terms of their skill. I think Renee and Danielle were also more "polished" earlier on than Lucy. I also agree that Lucy's screen "presence" is a large part of why I enjoy watching her, as is the intrigue of never being quite sure of what she's going to do. Now, that second part is why Lucy is one of the folks who makes me question my preconceptions about actors. Even as she's had more formal training, there's something about her that refuses to do the expected, that makes her take risks regardless of how "off" or silly it might look. I don't think that's simply lack of skill. She really grew during XWP and showed a lot of depth and variety, as well as a greater comfort level with acting. Yet, she still made choices one might attribute to someone with less experience. I guess I'm saying that she goes for something "organic" which -- when it works -- can be awesome. When it doesn't, you wonder what the heck she was thinking. To me, that's precisely what makes her an actress who can communicate the innards of a "real" person. It's why I feel "heart" or anger or whatever from her that goes beyond the performances of other actors who seem more "professional." Kevin had a very similar "presence" for me, which is why I loved the two of them together. The other aspect I can't quite articulate is that Lucy and Kevin made me interested in them as people, even as they made me believe in their characters as totally different, standalone "people." Lucy's idol Susan Sarandon is one of those actors to me. I like Glenn Close as well, but she doesn't bring that added dimension. I guess it gets back to the question of how much "presence" is created by skill and how much of it is "spirit" or style or personality or whatever we call it. All those other actresses they initially wanted may have had a track record or more experience, but no one will ever convince me that they would've made Xena into a phenomenon the way Lucy did, even with the exact same cast of supporting folks. And some of that is because of what Lucy did off-screen -- the tone she established on set, the camaraderie she fostered off-set, her interaction with fans and the media. Lucy has a way of getting people to give her the benefit of the doubt, to help her look good -- at least those who aren't immediately turned off for some reason. In almost every staff interview, you hear directors, cameramen, etc. talking about how hard she worked, about how they did their best to make sure that the "something" she has came shining through. Cameras and spotlights seem to love her, which can't be totally separated from the people operating them. She puts it all out there for people to connect with if they want, and it's hard not to. If she draws us in, makes us interested, then does something that might make us uncomfortable -- something provocative in the sense of stirring the pot, making us think or argue. Either way, we *care* more than we might with other actors and even if we disagree with her choices. I think Lucy will always "go fer it" in a way that makes people question what she's doing. She doesn't want to be "comfortable" to the point of knowing what she's going to do all the time. And because she's always looking for new and challenging roles, she'll probably always do something that sets us back on our heels. I don't think that will change no matter how experienced she gets. I fully expect to see her 10 years from now and still have questions as I did when I saw her in the Herc Amazon ep. I don't mean in terms of acting skills per se, but in terms of acting choices that may have less to do with the level of skill and more to do with Lucy's "natural" approach. In a way, I regret that Lucy's attractiveness gets connected so much to her physical appearance. Her looks, to me, aren't more "beautiful" than a lot of other actors. Who she is inside is what makes her "beautiful." Now, I'm not naive enough to believe that facial features don't contribute to that. But you can put a lot of equally physically attractive people in front of a camera or an audience, and you see is a pretty face. There's something she does that transforms her from a nice-looking country girl, into someone with charisma and beauty that knocks folks' sox off. Okay, what's the point of all that rambling? I suppose it's that, for me, her power, her "presence" lies outside of "acting" as I usually think of it. It lies in not seeming to act so much as to *be* -- with the uncertainties and missteps that implies. It's also in getting everyone/everything around her to enhance her presence. The trade-off (which she seems to accept) is that may also mean that she won't be regarded as a "great" actress until she's in her late 40's and unless she's got a sufficient body of "respected" work where she can go beyond being considered an attractive, likeable "fluke." - -- 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: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 02:06:04 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Forgiving Xena In a message dated 3/22/2004 12:10:40 AM Pacific Standard Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > I think it depends on circumstances. Good looks are an attention-getter > only. > > Sure, if a gorgeous-looking girl was to stop me on the street and ask for > directions, she would instantly get my full attention. While a > plain-looking one would get my attention if I wasn't otherwise busy. What's interesting is that I'm more likely to help people who might not be considered attractive. I figure attractive people can get help from anybody, so they don't need me. (My motives in that might be different, in that all I'm concerned about is whether I can be of assistance or not.) I also figure they're more likely to ask for something minor, since they may not worry about rejection. When a "plain" person needs help, I'm more likely to notice them and care about doing something, as I figure they won't ask unless it's important. Yes, that's stereotyping on my part. Yes, I'm more likely to notice an attractive person who's walking along minding his/her own business. I'm just saying the helping scenario isn't true in my case. - -- 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: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 02:06:06 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons [was: Ratings] In a message dated 3/21/2004 8:34:16 PM Pacific Standard Time, jyoung@lava.net writes: > --Sure, I thought the Gab-having-a-demon-baby plot was manipulative and > exploitative. > > And the X-fighting-all-the-gods-in-the-world-even-those-not-from-her-land > exploitative. Interesting, but exploitative. > I *think* I understand where Jackie's coming from there. (Jackie? You okay? Yes, it's me, Ife. Need some smelling salts?) I felt these themes were imposed on the charcters in a way that didn't feel as "natural" to me as other story lines. They were designed to provoke big emotions from us --"exploit" certain subjects and our feelings about them -- as opposed to letting that depend more on X&G. The impetus was external forces, not from within X&G or their "normal" world -- e.g., Bacchus, Callisto, Ares, the Centaurs. Xenastaff felt they needed to "shake us up," which was fine with me. I liked the philosophical issues (loved S3), but I had to ignore the epic stuff in order to connect with the "heart" of what X&G were going through. I'm not a big "feeling" person, but I could see how the "betrayal" events in particular were thinly veiled mechanisms for twanging our heart strings. If Lucy and Renee hadn't pulled it off as well as they did, I might not've been able to go along with it as I did. Not sure that's what Jackie meant, but I could see it as "exploitative" in that way. - -- 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: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 02:06:05 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Eye of the Beholder In a message dated 3/22/2004 12:10:23 AM Pacific Standard Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > However (and IMO), Xena frequently looks less than > good-looking. Any actor who plays an 'action hero' under stress is going > to look non-beautiful on frequent occasions. As her expressions change, > and > camera angles do, often Xena looks - well, less than flattering. I could > give many instances but since I don't think instantaneous expressions are > really relevant, and it would read like an attack on Lucy, I won't do it. > Hmm, I wouldn't read it that way. I think Lucy quite consciously made Xena look less than flattering, especially those "kill 'em all" moments or during some fight scenes. On the other occasions, I think she'd shrug and say, "How many people look good when they're just getting up or doing their chores?" That's part of the reason I believed she cared more about the character than in looking good. - -- 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: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 01:52:11 -0600 From: Lilli Sprintz Subject: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons [was: Ratings] Jackie and cr going at it: Jackie- >> --The Shatner/Nichols kiss is widely documented in ST circles as TV >> history-making because it caused so much controversy in the >> still-paranoid, race-conscious US... > > cr- Ah, Trek stuff. Doesn't register on my radar. Trek circles might document that but is that just fannish overstatement? Does everyone else agree? (I don't know the answer). regarding Jackie's statement--- Yes. absolutely yes, having been raised in the 50's and 60's in the U.S., it was a BIG deal. 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: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 02:08:15 -0600 From: Lilli Sprintz Subject: [chakram-refugees] OT xena mail order catalogues vs browsing the websites Sharon Delaney said, "I'm curious. We've been having a debate in the office about whether or not catalogues drive web sales. " i do search the web some, to see what's out there. actually, being as much of a non-consumer as possible, i'm not very driven by either. i'm poor and don't believe alot in just buying unless there is something REALLY thrilling, interesting or useful. i like the tapes. haven't been able to get them all, but when i watched the series the tapes were all i really wanted. not much else. sometimes a bumper sticker [I knnow you don't make them sharon; they've been given to me &: ) ] or other element (a friend sent me a xena letter-opener sword, and it's fun, and has come in very handy - as a letter-opening tool), and i've ordered a couple t-shirts because sometimes, darn it, i just need to feel "strong." like having an emotional buzz. however, sometimes i've "seen" things on the website i haven't "seen" in the catalogue, perhaps because things are presented differently. 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: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 21:42:46 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons [was: Ratings] On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 19:52, Lilli Sprintz wrote: > Jackie and cr going at it: Errrm, I think 'going at it' has maybe a different connotation in New Zealand circles > > Jackie- > > >> --The Shatner/Nichols kiss is widely documented in ST circles as TV > >> history-making because it caused so much controversy in the > >> still-paranoid, race-conscious US... > > cr- > > Ah, Trek stuff. Doesn't register on my radar. > Trek circles might document that but is that just fannish overstatement? > Does everyone else agree? (I don't know the answer). > > > regarding Jackie's statement--- Yes. absolutely yes, having been raised in > the 50's and 60's in the U.S., it was a BIG deal. > > Lilli OK, that's some independent corroboration. Umm, what about the Xena - Marcus kiss? Was that indeed a big deal? 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: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 21:46:31 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Eye of the Beholder On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 19:06, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: (snip) > In a way, I regret that Lucy's attractiveness gets connected so much to her > physical appearance. Her looks, to me, aren't more "beautiful" than a lot > of other actors. Who she is inside is what makes her "beautiful." Now, > I'm not naive enough to believe that facial features don't contribute to > that. But you can put a lot of equally physically attractive people in > front of a camera or an audience, and you see is a pretty face. There's > something she does that transforms her from a nice-looking country girl, > into someone with charisma and beauty that knocks folks' sox off. Yes! (Sorry for the one-liner, but it's what I've been trying to say all through this debate :) 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: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 22:00:48 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Forgiving Xena On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 19:06, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 3/22/2004 12:10:40 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > > I think it depends on circumstances. Good looks are an attention-getter > > only. > > > > Sure, if a gorgeous-looking girl was to stop me on the street and ask for > > directions, she would instantly get my full attention. While a > > plain-looking one would get my attention if I wasn't otherwise busy. > > What's interesting is that I'm more likely to help people who might not be > considered attractive. I figure attractive people can get help from > anybody, so they don't need me. (My motives in that might be different, in > that all I'm concerned about is whether I can be of assistance or not.) I > also figure they're more likely to ask for something minor, since they may > not worry about rejection. When a "plain" person needs help, I'm more > likely to notice them and care about doing something, as I figure they > won't ask unless it's important. Yes, that's stereotyping on my part. Yes, > I'm more likely to notice an attractive person who's walking along minding > his/her own business. I'm just saying the helping scenario isn't true in > my case. > > -- ife I think what you're giving is the reasoned, logical response :) As I said, I'm just as likely to help a plain person as an attractive one, if the opportunity arises. The attractive one is simply more likely to - umm, attract - my attention in the first place. HOWEVER, the term 'attractive' is more complicated than it at first appears (and my comment about 'gorgeous girl' was probably misleading). It's not just 'looks'. Some people have an attractive or interesting personality that shows through even on a momentary first acquaintance, yet their looks may be very ordinary. So in a photo they may not appear unusually 'attractive' at all. So far as this debate goes, I think 'looks' are a red herring in many ways. 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: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 22:12:23 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Eye of the Beholder On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 19:06, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 3/22/2004 12:10:23 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > > However (and IMO), Xena frequently looks less than > > good-looking. Any actor who plays an 'action hero' under stress is > > going to look non-beautiful on frequent occasions. As her expressions > > change, and > > camera angles do, often Xena looks - well, less than flattering. I > > could give many instances but since I don't think instantaneous > > expressions are really relevant, and it would read like an attack on > > Lucy, I won't do it. > > Hmm, I wouldn't read it that way. I think Lucy quite consciously made Xena > look less than flattering, especially those "kill 'em all" moments or > during some fight scenes. On the other occasions, I think she'd shrug and > say, "How many people look good when they're just getting up or doing their > chores?" That's part of the reason I believed she cared more about the > character than in looking good. > > -- Ife I agree, LL cared more about the character than looking good. OTOH, I doubt if she deliberately made Xena look 'less than flattering', I think it was more just an incidental side-effect of the way she played the role. In other words, I don't think she thought "Do I look good? Do I look ugly?" but rather, "What would Xena's expression look like in these circumstances?" 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: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:45:30 -0600 From: "abqbeach" Subject: Fw: [chakram-refugees] OT xena mail order catalogues vs browsing the websites > Out of curiosity, do you have age info on the people who like catalogs and > may still order online? I'm thinking that XWP has a lot of middle- aged fans or > parents of fans, who still like paper. But maybe even the Computer Age folks > like thumbing through the catalogs? At any rate, it amazes me how much > marketing strategies are geared toward younger (under 35) folks, when we have this > huge Baby Boom group with a bit of disposable income. When companies try to > force me to go electronic, I shop around for competitors who offer me other > options. I like that I can email or order online if I want, but I doubt I'll > ever wade through internet pages the way I browse through something I can hold in > my hand whenever, wherever I want. > > -- Ife Interesting question. One study says that half of US online shoppers in the next five years will be over age 35 - more representative of the US population than the younger early adopters. I'm looking for age stats on multi-channel shoppers, but not coming up with much. A shop.org survey from 2001 found that 45% of tri-channel shoppers (web, catalog and retail stores) from 22 different retailers were young, age 18 to 34. [But perhaps that is a function of the younger web shopper?] 68% of all online customers who received a catalog first shopped the catalog and then bought online. Sorry, can't really find much else without spending too much time digging. Here are a few recent articles on the multi-channel subject and why catalogs are recognized as important to online sales, especially in the niche markets - like XWP merch (vs Cheryl's apparel example, which may not have quite such a strong catalog driver if retail is present). http://ecommerce.internet.com/news/insights/trends/article/0,,10417_3307 431,00.html http://ecommerce.internet.com/news/news/article/0,,10375_3308671,00.html http://www.forrester.com/ER/Research/Brief/0,1317,17225,00.html (requires registration) angie in NM http://xenawp.org ========================================================= 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: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 21:00:26 -0500 From: "bookdaft" Subject: RE: [chakram-refugees] OT xena mail order catalogues vs browsing the websites I dunno. I still get a ton of catalogs - often based on my web purchases, I suppose. Frankly, I do miss getting the Creation catalog, even though I do a lot of my buying via the web. I still have old copies of many issues of the catalog, although I suppose that is due to the fact I rarely throw out anything Xena-related. I'm a hard-copy kinda person. I like the tactile sense, the smell and the visual essence of books, catalogs, newspapers: anything that speaks of ink on paper. And since I spend a good portion of my day in front of a computer, I often will use a catalog, if possible, prior to ordering anything on the web. I find I can get really tense looking at a screen all day. bd - -----Original Message----- From: owner-chakram-refugees@smoe.org [mailto:owner-chakram-refugees@smoe.org]On Behalf Of Creation (Sharon Delaney) Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 7:51 PM To: flawless@yahoogroups.com Cc: chakram-refugees@smoe.org Subject: [chakram-refugees] OT xena mail order catalogues vs browsing the websites I'm curious. We've been having a debate in the office about whether or not catalogues drive web sales. Some of us think that people find a new item in a catalogue and then order it online. Others think most people nowadays just browse web sites looking for new goodies. Lots of mail order companies are no longer sending out catalogues. They're assuming their customers will browse their web sites looking for new merchandise. Being a devout catalogue reader in bed at night and having no way to bring my computer into bed with me, to the lunch table, on the bus I miss getting catalogues and I don't think I shop as much from some of those places. Any opinions? Sharon ========================================================= 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 message scanned for viruses by CoreComm ========================================================= 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 V4 #83 *************************************