From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V4 #87 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 Sunday, March 28 2004 Volume 04 : Number 087 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] Eye of the Beholder [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] Eye of the Beholder [IfeRae@aol.com] [chakram-refugees] OT: 'Whale Rider' on OXY tonight [HJJH ] Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Eye of the Beholder [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Lucy in Celebrity Skin Issue #126 [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] Lucy in Celebrity Skin Issue #126 [IfeRae@aol.com] [chakram-refugees] Re; Unattractive Xena ["Cheryl Ande" But, umm, let's see now - if one's going to cavil about 'exploitative' > themes > in later seasons, how about a few in Seasons 1/2 - like Hooves &Harlots for > example, all those half-clad Baywatch babes - sorry, Amazons - and their > interesting style in dancing? I think the difference is mainly in application. I see the examples you give as more superficial, in terms of the typical physical stuff we might roll our eyes at (or glue them to the screen). Jackie (I believe) and I were referring to what might be received as more emotionally exploitative scenarios-- designed to hit hot buttons (e.g., violation, religion) or manufacture deeper feelings (e.g., "oh, poor things're being hounded by all those godly forces"). Obviously all that depends on individual interpretation. Is that clearer? - -- 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, 27 Mar 2004 01:13:32 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Eye of the Beholder In a message dated 3/25/2004 11:53:30 PM Pacific Standard Time, jyoung@lava.net writes: > But my question here is whether we would've _wanted_ to watch a Xena who > was constantly overweight and unattractive? My theory, and the theory for > that matter of Madison Ave. and the media folks, is that we'd rather watch > someone who's "beautiful" and who's got it all (femininity, > self-sufficiency, and sexual attractiveness). > You know, I wonder how much your question is related to the genre. There've been comedies where main characters weren't Barbie dolls. When XWP was conceived, there was the assumption that it had to appeal to males, especially since it was action adventure. (Not to mention the reality that men make most of the programming decisions.) I've little doubt they wouldn't have watched a Minya-type character for more than a few minutes or found it credible that she could leap across oceans. Lucy was perfect because she managed to blend eye candy with believability as a warrior. But, then, most of the major folks (certainly the women) on XWP did that. So, at least for XWP, I've mentioned before that I hadn't seen the eps (e.g., the trilogy, "Chariots") where she looked particularly attractive. I thought she was rather plain, dour and heavy for a female lead in any show, which I really liked. I took her seriously from the get-go because I thought the focus would be more on what she did than on how she looked. By the time I realized just how good she could look when she wanted to, I was already hooked. The "beauty" part simply became another aspect of Xena, which I saw that she could use like she could her fists. I appreciated the whole package and began thinking of Xena that way. I can't say at this point how I would've felt if she'd worn that poof hairdo six seasons. - -- 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, 27 Mar 2004 01:13:30 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Eye of the Beholder In a message dated 3/26/2004 3:19:30 AM Pacific Standard Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > What I'm saying is (IMO), for LL, the > performance came first, looks just followed from that. I don't think she > ever decided "Let's look ugly" for no reason. << > Yes, we're agreed on that. I simply believe she had a pretty good idea of which expressions were more likely to convey what she thought would make the performance work best. She once said she got a lot of her "mean" expressions from one of her brothers. To me, that means she practiced achieving some of the looks that might not've come naturally, maybe in front of a mirror. Girls aren't exactly encouraged to sneer, snarl, look menacing, homicidal or arrogant. I'm not saying boys are, but they're more likely to have a wider repertoire anyway. Lucy came up with many expressions that could've come off as comedic, "bitchy" or fake on a woman, if she hadn't at least checked out what she looked like doing them. Many of them would be considered "ugly" no matter how attractive the woman. So when I call them "intentional," I mean that she probably gave some thought to the ones that would work best for Xena in certain situations, then made them part of Xena's repertoire. I only emphasize this because I think it's moreLucy's work ethic, dedication to the character and skills, as opposed to accidental,"natural" or simply a result of lighting and camera angle. - -- 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, 27 Mar 2004 00:43:14 -0600 From: HJJH Subject: [chakram-refugees] OT: 'Whale Rider' on OXY tonight That is, Saturday nite at 7 Central. ========================================================= 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, 27 Mar 2004 13:44:38 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Lucy in Celebrity Skin Issue #126 On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 12:19, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > Well, there certainly is a lot of skin shown, much of it centered around a > body part Lucy recently celebrated in her performance in the NZ production > of The Vagina Monologues. The other parts featured are a little higher up. > Let's just say that the young man behind the bookstore counter got quite a > good laugh at the shock on my middle-aged face when I saw what I was > buying. Three copies, no less. ROTFL!!! This is where you say, as matter-of-factly as you can muster, "It's not for me, it's for my friend who lives in - ummm - New Zealand" and you can see the guy thinking "Yeah, they all say that" :) > So. I'll let bygones be bygones and simply forge ahead, 'kay? We thumb > through various known and unknown ladies in various states of undress and > testing out various pieces of ... equipment. Midway through (page 44 to be > exact), we reach Lucy. We see a small piccie of her as Xena and a nice one > in civvies with the dark hair -- both quite innocent. We have three other > photos from "Miss Amphipolis" -- a small one in the sauna, where you see > her back and a side of her breast; plus two where she's twirling in that > gold costume, revealing the bottom portion of her ... bottom. (The > magazine folks really did their research, huh? At least they didn't go for > the obvious hot tub scenes.) Probably nothing _showing_ in the hot tub scenes. Just thousands of subtexters' fevered imaginations > The copy gives her birth date, mentions XWP in passing, and focuses on the > largest photo -- which, of course, depicts Lucy's glorious moment singing > the American national anthem at that hockey game, when "she raised her arm > emphatically and out tumbled her warrior's weapons for all the world to > see." And here we thought she'd always be remembered for Xena. Weapons plural? I thought it was only one.... > There are also pages devoted to XWP alums Jennifer Sky (three photos in a > bikini, three in lace underwear, four where her "pert little sweater > puppies are on full display" from the 2002 film "My Little Eye") and Vicky > Pratt (five photos from the 1999 movie "Whatever It Takes," which > demonstrate why "vivacious Vicky's topless scene is more than memorable"). Oh the editors have been busy, haven't they. Bit sad really, isn't it? (Howcome those FHM and Maxim shots of LL and ROC didn't feature? Maybe they're copyright and cost too much). > No, I do not have a scanner. You'll have to don a wig and trench coat to > buy your own copy if you're so inclined. Heh, I'd already decided not to bother..... I find LL *much* more sexy and appealing as Xena in the bikini in the forge (FIN), or in Varia's Amazon gear, than in her little mishap at the hockey game. > As it is, I'm praying > overenthusiastic agents for Homeland Security don't check the package I > promised to send two other fans. Boy, will they be surprised. Who? The fans or Homeland Security? What do you think their usual reading matter is anyway? Your friends should probably be expecting to find overenthusiastic thumbprints on the pages.... 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, 27 Mar 2004 12:05:13 +0000 From: Silenus Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Lucy in Celebrity Skin Issue #126 Ife writes >I diligently reserved Celebrity Skin when I first heard it had Lucy in it. I >hadn't heard of it before, but Lucy pops up Excellent choice of wording >in a lot of places I'm not >familiar with. I picked it up today. Now I know why I didn't know about it. >My, >my, my. I guess the name should've given me a clue, eh? LOL. Ife, thanks for an hilarious post. How do you guys manage to write so much? I can't keep up. I see something in a post I want to comment on but by the time I've got round to putting my post together, the conversation's moved a hundred miles down the road. Still, I am retiring from work at the end of the month, so I should be able to do better. - -- "Well, congratulations! Looks like we're a two-horse family." - Xena: "Animal Attraction" Silenus, an over-exuberant fan ========================================================= 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, 27 Mar 2004 19:06:53 -0500 (EST) From: Sarah Anne Packard Subject: RE: [chakram-refugees] "Double Dare"! For those of you interested in "Double Dare", the official site is at www.runawayfilms.com! Yay! Oh, and there's a cool interview w/ Zoe Bell at Whoosh! right now! :) She's Sharon Stone's double for the new "Catwoman" movie coming out this summer, that is so cool... - -Sarah- > Anyone know when this film will be available to the masses? (ie: not a film > festival) > 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: Sarah Anne Packard > >To: chakram-refugees@smoe.org > >Subject: [chakram-refugees] "Double Dare"! > >Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 15:02:40 -0500 (EST) > > > > I just saw the documentary "Double Dare" (at the Ann Arbor Film Festival > >here in Michigan), and I have to recommend it highly to everyone > >here...not only because it's a fabulous film about a subject that doesn't > >get a lot of attention (stuntwomen!), but because it has TONS of Xena > >stuff. :) You see, it's about 2 stuntwomen in particular - Zoe Bell > >(Lucy's double from Xena) and Jeannie Epper (Lynda Carter's double for > >Wonder Woman)...and it follows the two over a couple of years of work and > >life. Anyway, they show LOTS of Zoe working on the set of Xena, Lucy does > >some commentary and stuff! I even recognized specific eps they were > >filming (including "A Friend In Need"), heh heh. :) And, they follow Zoe > >as she goes to the big Xena con in Pasadena, 2001! They even show many, > >many fans (people in the audience of the screening were kinda giggling at > >the whole convention part, seeing the fans in costume and all; meanwhile I > >was turning to my sister and pointing to people and saying, "I know him! I > >know her! And her too!" Lol...all the convention regulars) and Zoe > >interacting with fans, giving autographs and everything. Plus, Zoe > >apparently was at one point going to be Vicky Pratt's double on "Mutant > >X", so they show her going to Vicky's house and interacting with Vicky and > >T.J. Scott! (She didn't get the job though. :( ) Anyway, Zoe comes off as > >a real doll, I wish I coulda gone to that con (I almost did!) and met her! > >Sharon, if you're reading this - please consider getting Zoe for another > >Burbank con please?! :) Zoe's career is really taking off too, and the > >film captures that - it shows her auditioning for and then landing the job > >of Uma Thurman's double for the Quentin Tarantino flick "Kill Bill"! > > > >Does anyone know what she (Zoe) is up to now?? > > > > > > -Sarah, aka the abbagirl- > > > > > >P.S. This was the first time this film has been screened here in Michigan; > >I think it's mainly doing festivals and stuff right now, it probably has > >been released some places though...y'all must go see it!! :) > >========================================================= > >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. > >========================================================= > > _________________________________________________________________ > http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines > ========================================================= > 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: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 13:25:20 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Eye of the Beholder On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 18:13, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > You know, I wonder how much your question is related to the genre. > There've been comedies where main characters weren't Barbie dolls. When > XWP was conceived, there was the assumption that it had to appeal to males, > especially since it was action adventure. (Not to mention the reality that > men make most of the programming decisions.) I've little doubt they > wouldn't have watched a Minya-type character for more than a few minutes or > found it credible that she could leap across oceans. Lucy was perfect > because she managed to blend eye candy with believability as a warrior. > But, then, most of the major folks (certainly the women) on XWP did that. > So, at least for XWP, umm, should there be something else there? I think maybe you left that sentence unfinished? > I've mentioned before that I hadn't seen the eps (e.g., the trilogy, > "Chariots") where she looked particularly attractive. I thought she was > rather plain, dour and heavy for a female lead in any show, which I really > liked. That was just the terrible leather 'armour' made her look like that. I'm surprised she didn't clank when she walked ;) > I took her seriously from the get-go because I thought the focus > would be more on what she did than on how she looked. By the time I > realized just how good she could look when she wanted to, I was already > hooked. The "beauty" part simply became another aspect of Xena, which I > saw that she could use like she could her fists. I appreciated the whole > package and began thinking of Xena that way. Seeing as how I didn't get 'hooked' until Royal Couple of Thieves or Destiny, I can probably say the same. Not that she didn't look good in those eps, 'cos she did, but it was the comedy between her and Auto (in RCOT) and the drama in Destiny, that really got me. (Besides, in the 'looks' stakes, I reckon M'Lila upstaged Xena ) > I can't say at this point how > I would've felt if she'd worn that poof hairdo six seasons. > > -- Ife You mean the one in the Herc trilogy? I could've lived with it. I thought it made her look good. But anyway, as we've seen, LL's acting was the important ingredient, not her hairdo, so I doubt if It would've bothered me. Having said that, it was probably a good thing that her hairdo changed from time to time - avoided the 'sameiness' creeping in. OTOH, sometimes her hairdo was very unflattering (IMO) and I would've hated to see her stuck with one of those for 6 seasons. 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, 28 Mar 2004 13:45:02 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 18:13, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 3/26/2004 4:03:47 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > > But, umm, let's see now - if one's going to cavil about 'exploitative' > > themes > > in later seasons, how about a few in Seasons 1/2 - like Hooves &Harlots > > for example, all those half-clad Baywatch babes - sorry, Amazons - and > > their interesting style in dancing? > > I think the difference is mainly in application. I see the examples you > give as more superficial, in terms of the typical physical stuff we might > roll our eyes at (or glue them to the screen). Jackie (I believe) and I > were referring to what might be received as more emotionally exploitative > scenarios-- designed to hit hot buttons (e.g., violation, religion) or > manufacture deeper feelings (e.g., "oh, poor things're being hounded by all > those godly forces"). Obviously all that depends on individual > interpretation. Is that clearer? > > -- Ife Hmmm, OK, I see what you mean. In one way, that was probably inevitable - having 'done' numerous permutations of 'warlord of the week' (which pose few heavy moral questions) in Season 1/2, they wanted to find something 'weightier' for Season 3. This is something every series is faced with - "we did that last year, how do we top that?" And in the course of finding something 'heavier', it was almost inevitable that they would hit some 'hot buttons'. How could they not? I do agree that indivdual interpretation is much involved, specially in judging what's 'exploitative'. What I would have called 'exploitative' though, was eps that tried to 'cash in' on previous successful eps e.g. Them Bones and Purity/Back in the Bottle - though I hasten to say I *liked* those eps, still they couldn't compete with Sin Trade or The Debt. (In the same way that any movie 'sequel' is exploitative *unless* it's a genuine continuation of the story and as good / better than the original). Personally, I didn't find the 'death of the gods' theme exploitative at all. The Greek gods (as seen in Herc/XWP) were, after all, as much RenPics' creations as anyone else's, and IMO RenPics could use them as they saw fit. Nor did I find the Rift at all exploitative - (but then I never felt Hope was cute, just the spawn of the devil) - and it led to some of the best stuff they'd done. What I would say is 'exploitative' would be an ep that brought up heavy themes and then *didn't* do justice to them. Hmm, Xena getting crucified in 'Fates', maybe. Xena getting beaten up in the dungeon in 'Gurkhan'. (The more perceptive among you will notice those are scenes I don't like ;) 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, 28 Mar 2004 13:46:44 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Eye of the Beholder On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 18:13, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: (snip) > > Lucy came up with many expressions that could've come off as comedic, > "bitchy" or fake on a woman, if she hadn't at least checked out what she > looked like doing them. Many of them would be considered "ugly" no matter > how attractive the woman. So when I call them "intentional," I mean that > she probably gave some thought to the ones that would work best for Xena in > certain situations, then made them part of Xena's repertoire. I only > emphasize this because I think it's moreLucy's work ethic, dedication to > the character and skills, as opposed to accidental,"natural" or simply a > result of lighting and camera angle. > > -- Ife OK, agreed. cr (listmum please excuse the one-liner :) ========================================================= 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, 28 Mar 2004 13:51:03 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 18:13, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 3/26/2004 4:03:47 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > > But, umm, let's see now - if one's going to cavil about 'exploitative' > > themes > > in later seasons, how about a few in Seasons 1/2 - like Hooves &Harlots > > for example, all those half-clad Baywatch babes - sorry, Amazons - and > > their interesting style in dancing? > > I think the difference is mainly in application. I see the examples you > give as more superficial, in terms of the typical physical stuff we might > roll our eyes at (or glue them to the screen). Jackie (I believe) and I > were referring to what might be received as more emotionally exploitative > scenarios-- designed to hit hot buttons (e.g., violation, religion) or > manufacture deeper feelings (e.g., "oh, poor things're being hounded by all > those godly forces"). Obviously all that depends on individual > interpretation. Is that clearer? > > -- Ife Hmmm, OK, I see what you mean. In one way, that was probably inevitable - having 'done' numerous permutations of 'warlord of the week' (which pose few heavy moral questions) in Season 1/2, they wanted to find something 'weightier' for Season 3. This is something every series is faced with - "we did that last year, how do we top that?" And in the course of finding something 'heavier', it was almost inevitable that they would hit some 'hot buttons'. How could they not? I do agree that indivdual interpretation is much involved, specially in judging what's 'exploitative'. What I would have called 'exploitative' though, was eps that tried to 'cash in' on previous successful eps e.g. Them Bones and Purity/Back in the Bottle - though I hasten to say I *liked* those eps, still they couldn't compete with Sin Trade or The Debt. (In the same way that any movie 'sequel' is exploitative *unless* it's a genuine continuation of the story and as good / better than the original). OTOH, 'Return of Callisto' and the subsequent Callisto eps are exempt from that criticism because they were an integral part of the ongoing story and each one excellent. (Other than perhaps 'Surprise' where they brought Callisto in just to add a bit of sparkle to a Herc ep and didn't IMO do her justice). Personally, I didn't find the 'death of the gods' theme exploitative at all. The Greek gods (as seen in Herc/XWP) were, after all, as much RenPics' creations as anyone else's, and IMO RenPics could use them as they saw fit. Nor did I find the Rift at all exploitative - (but then I never felt Hope was cute, just the spawn of the devil) - and it led to some of the best stuff they'd done. What I would say is 'exploitative' would be an ep that brought up heavy themes and then *didn't* do justice to them. Hmm, Xena getting crucified in 'Fates', maybe. Xena getting beaten up in the dungeon in 'Gurkhan'. (The more perceptive among you will notice those are scenes I don't like ;) 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, 27 Mar 2004 23:30:54 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Lucy in Celebrity Skin Issue #126 In a message dated 3/27/2004 5:00:56 AM Pacific Standard Time, silenus@simnet1.demon.co.uk writes: > Ife writes > >I diligently reserved Celebrity Skin when I first heard it had Lucy in it. > I > >hadn't heard of it before, but Lucy pops up > > Excellent choice of wording >> Yes, that occurred to me later. Seems to be a pattern I'm encapable of breaking. > LOL. Ife, thanks for an hilarious post. >> Humph! I'm glad you and that bookstore kid got a good laugh. I'm still waiting for the smut police to break down my door. > > How do you guys manage to write so much? I can't keep up. I see > something in a post I want to comment on but by the time I've got round > to putting my post together, the conversation's moved a hundred miles > down the road.>> In case you haven't noticed, that never stops us. Heck, KT answers stuff that's grown mold. Rule of thumb -- if Xena could come back from the dead, so can any topic that's been discussed. Those of us who write a lot have apparently dedicated our lives to supporting the resuscitation of anything remotely related to our favorite show. So, what would you like to resurrect first? > > Still, I am retiring from work at the end of the month, so I should be > able to do better. >> Oooo, I am sooo envious! I'm starting to hate the "R" word -- at least until I can apply it to myself. Congratulations! We'll expect you to devote at least three hours a day to starting, continuing or resurrecting discussions. That'll help make up for the ones you didn't do. How's that? - -- Ife ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 23:31:01 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Lucy in Celebrity Skin Issue #126 In a message dated 3/27/2004 12:04:00 AM Pacific Standard Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 12:19, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > Let's just say that the young man behind the bookstore counter got quite a > >good laugh at the shock on my middle-aged face when I saw what I was > >buying. Three copies, no less. > > ROTFL!!! This is where you say, as matter-of-factly as you can muster, > "It's not for me, it's for my friend who lives in - ummm - New Zealand" > and > you can see the guy thinking "Yeah, they all say that" :)>> No, for once I was speechless. I couldn't begin to think of a good excuse. My chin dropped -- literally -- on the checkout counter. When I raised my head, the kid was grinning like a Cheshire cat. He hesitated ringing me up, but I hate to have stuff put on reserve, then not buy it. That issue wasn't in yet when I ordered it. I told the clerk I ordered it from that I hadn't heard of the magazine. He hadn't either. When he looked at a past issue, I can't believe he didn't warn me. I guess all magazines are the same to him. > < >emphatically and out tumbled her warrior's weapons for all the world to > >see." And here we thought she'd always be remembered for Xena. > > Weapons plural? I thought it was only one.... >> Sword. Chakram. > > >There are also pages devoted to XWP alums Jennifer Sky (three photos in a > >bikini, three in lace underwear, four where her "pert little sweater > >puppies are on full display" from the 2002 film "My Little Eye") and Vicky > >Pratt (five photos from the 1999 movie "Whatever It Takes," which > >demonstrate why "vivacious Vicky's topless scene is more than memorable"). > > Oh the editors have been busy, haven't they. Bit sad really, isn't it? > (Howcome those FHM and Maxim shots of LL and ROC didn't feature? Maybe > they're copyright and cost too much). >> Except for publicity shots, all the images are screen captures, which I guess can be reprinted without permission. In my state of shock, I forgot to mention this other tidbit on Lucy's page: "FACT: The WB has offered Lucy the chance to develop her own show. Might we suggest a strapless costume?" Oy. Also, a less hurried scan of the magazine revealed (heh) that the very first ... spread ... of TV "hotties" is devoted to a "Mindy" Clarke who looks suspiciously like Melinda CIarke (Velesca). There are 11 photos that leave very little to the imagination in terms of what her top and bottom look like. They're from the films "Return of the Living Dead (1993) and "Return to Two Moon Junction" (1994). Maybe those Skin folks didn't do such good research after all when it came to XWP alums. Or maybe that's actually Melinda's lookalike cousin? > >As it is, I'm praying > >overenthusiastic agents for Homeland Security don't check the package I > >promised to send two other fans. Boy, will they be surprised. > > Who? The fans or Homeland Security? >> The former. No doubt the latter have seen it all. -- 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, 27 Mar 2004 23:58:30 -0500 From: "Cheryl Ande" Subject: [chakram-refugees] Re; Unattractive Xena Jackie wrote: "But my question here is whether we would've _wanted_ to watch a Xena who was constantly overweight and unattractive? My theory, and the theory for that matter of Madison Ave. and the media folks, is that we'd rather watch someone who's "beautiful" and who's got it all (femininity, self-sufficiency, and sexual attractiveness)." Well I think the answer is no, we would not have wanted to watch a Xena who was over weight (I do not consider first season Xena over weight, in the same way I do not consider Marilyn Monroe fat) or unattractive. If Xena was over weight she would have a heck of a time flipping through the air and she would get terribly winded in those sword fights (she also would have had trouble getting up on Argo and poor Argo would given out some time in the middle of season 1 if she had to carry both a fat Xena and a chubby Gabrielle). Also if Xena would have been unattractive it would have been fairly difficult for her to have a.) seduced Iolus in Warrior Princess, b.) get her heart unchained by Hercules (although Herc would have tried to reform her any way but probably without the kissing), c.) had Ares lust after her, d.) seduced Borias, or e.) fascinated Gabrielle enough to run off with her. The general outcome would have been no Xena, Warrior Princess. Yes people would rather watch sexy attractive people in escapist entertainment. The fact is that was the hook that Xena was predicted on. That TPTB and Lucy were able to move away from this and tell compelling stories is a tribute to their talent and imagination. You cannot compare Xena with the movie Monster. They are two entirely different genres and the job the Charlize Theron had to do was entirely different from the job Lucy had. Theron was portraying a real person and her appearance was altered to make her look like that person. Lucy was portraying a fantasy character. Could Lucy gain thirty pounds and look unattractive - I'm sure she could if it made sense for that character. I however did not make sense to do that for Xena. CherylA PS: There is however a very amusing fan fiction story by Ella Quincy that does address the fact that Gabrielle may have fudged a bit about both Xena's and Gabrielle's appearance and fighting abilities. ========================================================= 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, 28 Mar 2004 17:13:54 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Lucy in Celebrity Skin Issue #126 On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 16:31, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > > Let's just say that the young man behind the bookstore counter got quite > > a > > > > >good laugh at the shock on my middle-aged face when I saw what I was > > >buying. Three copies, no less. > > > > ROTFL!!! This is where you say, as matter-of-factly as you can muster, > > "It's not for me, it's for my friend who lives in - ummm - New Zealand" > > and > > you can see the guy thinking "Yeah, they all say that" :)>> > > No, for once I was speechless. I couldn't begin to think of a good excuse. > My chin dropped -- literally -- on the checkout counter. When I raised my > head, the kid was grinning like a Cheshire cat. He hesitated ringing me > up, but I hate to have stuff put on reserve, then not buy it. That issue > wasn't in yet when I ordered it. I told the clerk I ordered it from that I > hadn't heard of the magazine. He hadn't either. When he looked at a past > issue, I can't believe he didn't warn me. I guess all magazines are the > same to him. Probably figured it's your affair, not his. Suppose you knew what you were buying, being questioned by the shop assistant could cause offence. I expect for that reason, assistants learn never to comment on customers' choices. > > < > >emphatically and out tumbled her warrior's weapons for all the world to > > >see." And here we thought she'd always be remembered for Xena. > > > > Weapons plural? I thought it was only one.... >> > > Sword. Chakram. Errm, nope, I was referring to the weapon (singular I think) that 'tumbled out' as the guy so regrettably put it. > > >There are also pages devoted to XWP alums Jennifer Sky (three photos in > > > a bikini, three in lace underwear, four where her "pert little sweater > > > puppies are on full display" from the 2002 film "My Little Eye") and > > > Vicky Pratt (five photos from the 1999 movie "Whatever It Takes," which > > > demonstrate why "vivacious Vicky's topless scene is more than > > > memorable"). > > > > Oh the editors have been busy, haven't they. Bit sad really, isn't it? > > (Howcome those FHM and Maxim shots of LL and ROC didn't feature? Maybe > > they're copyright and cost too much). >> > > Except for publicity shots, all the images are screen captures, which I > guess can be reprinted without permission. Actually, I rather doubt that - copyright is still copyright. Technically, all the screen caps on all our Xena web pages are in breach of copyright. We get away with it because RenPics (or Universal or whoever owns the copyright) has been remarkably broad-minded about such things, IMO. I expect CS gets away with it because it's sufficiently obscure that nobody 'featured' therein is going to give them any free publicity by suing. > Also, a less hurried scan of the magazine revealed (heh) that the very > first ... spread ... of TV "hotties" is devoted to a "Mindy" Clarke who > looks suspiciously like Melinda CIarke (Velesca). There are 11 photos that > leave very little to the imagination in terms of what her top and bottom > look like. They're from the films "Return of the Living Dead (1993) and > "Return to Two Moon Junction" (1994). Maybe those Skin folks didn't do > such good research after all when it came to XWP alums. Or maybe that's > actually Melinda's lookalike cousin? Umm, you mean they missed the fact that Melinda Clarke was in XWP? 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. ========================================================= ------------------------------ End of chakram-refugees-digest V4 #87 *************************************