From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V4 #89 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 Tuesday, March 30 2004 Volume 04 : Number 089 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] Unattractive Xena [IfeRae@aol.com] 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] Re: [chakram-refugees] Eye of the Beholder [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Re; Unattractive Xena [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Eye of the Beholder [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Eye of the Beholder [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Eye of the Beholder [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Eye of the Beholder ["Mark B." MG, Ife, I think we should be a Laurel and Hardy team or sumpin'!! I > throw out wild opinions, you "translate"! ;) LOL >> Please, not L&H. To prove how gracious I can be, I'll be Gabs to your Xena. Oy. > > Ironically, since I'm going into journalism, I don't like writing long > opinion pieces, but I do like doing what I call the "surgical approach" to > issues: get to the heart of the matter, then get out. ;) > > You, OTOH, have the *knack* of expository.....;=) > > *WONDERFUL*!!! ;=) > > LOL! Um, I hate to tell you this, but I was trained and functioned in a previous life as a journalist. A lot of that involved interviewing, observing and reporting on other people -- trying my best to separate that from my own preconceptions or opinions. That's why I love lists like this, where I can express my own opinion to my heart's content. Thing is, I still have this obsession with getting "the whole story," which I don't feel I have until I figure out what the heck others are saying about the same topic. I suppose that can seem argumentative or nitpicky, but it truly is a search for the "heart" of similar or different impressions. It's information, part of the picture whether I like it or not. It's hard "listening" in cyberspace, without access to tone, facial expressions or body language. All I have to go on is words. In some cases, I've got patterns to go on, from several of a person's posts. (Hence my perceptions of what is "Jackie-esque." ) Believe me, it's not my greatest joy in life to translate other people. (Now I do that as a living in another capacity.) It's work. Literarily. I just get all fidgety and frustrated when it seems folks are completely misunderstanding each other. I love it when somebody translates me and helps me understand what I'm misunderstanding. (Hi, Cheryl) Otherwise, I may go on and on until I don't even know what the heck *I'm* saying. (If I'm lucky, KT's off on one of her trips and won't see this until next year.) - -- 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: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 03:43:55 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Unattractive Xena In a message dated 3/28/2004 4:54:18 PM Pacific Standard Time, jyoung@lava.net writes: > And the whole premise of "having it all", i.e., femininity, strength, > sexiness, would not have really been a package deal if there were no > attractiveness in the actress that played X. > I agree with that. I think Lucy's real challenge was overcoming her looks, making them part and parcel of Xena's conqueror mystique. Yes, reviewers talk about the T&A quotient, but it's seldom without mentioning the "kick ass" part. "Beautiful" is mentioned along with so many other characteristics that drew people to the character -- the strength, darkness, steely eyes, and no nonsense attitude among them. I loved Emma Peel. She usually got "classy" or "sophisticated" associated with her, which isn't bad, but was still acceptable for a woman. Wonder Woman was nicely unthreatening. I think Lucy achieved a remarkable blend of "femininity" and "strength" that defied pigeon-holing and the usual expectations. There were some viewers who tuned in for the T&A who were shocked at how "unfeminine" Xena could be. There were others (like me) who tuned in for the "kick ass" part and were stunned to discover how gorgeous Xena could be. I can't think of too many unknown, fairly "green" actors who could've pulled that off like Lucy. The very attractive ones might've given us a Xena who was described simply as "a beautiful warrior." - -- 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: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 03:43:59 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons In a message dated 3/28/2004 3:53:06 PM Pacific Standard Time, jyoung@lava.net writes: > I think Ife should be our "List Translator" or sumpin'. ;)>> No no no no no! I have enough gray hairs as it is! Not to mention problems I have making myself understood. - -- 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: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 03:44:01 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Eye of the Beholder In a message dated 3/28/2004 3:52:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, jyoung@lava.net writes: > > On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 23:16:39 +1200, cr wrote: > > >Maybe it's just my prejudice (or an eye of the beholder thing) but IMO > >Lucy rarely looked good in a hat and never in a helmet. And (IMO) that > >leather armour was always very unflattering and she looked much better in > >almost every other costume. So, for me, the suggestion that I let her > >get away with doing awful things just because she looked beautiful, just > >ain't so. I let her get away with doing awful things because she's > >interesting. > > --But the examples above are temporary "costumes" she donned as she played > different roles in her life. We all _knew_ underneath what she really > looked like, and how *good* she could look when she wanted to. > > You're getting a *temporary*, *superficial* look (i.e., camera angle, > lighting, costume) mixed up with LL's/X's actual day-to-day beauty. >> Why oh why can't I stop myself?! You're speaking of "beauty" as a whole -- a concept, one person (Lucy/Xena). To me, cr's examples suggest that he's looking at "beauty" in pieces, from different angles. He's distinguishing Lucy from Xena in some respects, by saying the *character* (Lucy as Xena) didn't always look attractive to him. The *character's* forgiveability was not solely dependent on her looks, regardless of whether she could be beautiful most of the time or Lucy is beautiful all the time (which she would probably dispute) underneath. He's not saying attractiveness wasn't a factor, or that he would've wanted to watch Minya for six seasons. He's saying that's not the *only* or even main reason he forgave Xena, that it was mainly because he found her interesting for reasons other than her looks. When he assembles his pieces of *Xena* (her costumes included), they don't all come out "beautiful." The reality is that a lot of pieces do go into our concepts of beauty. Some are physical -- bone structure; the spacing, size and color of eyes; weight -- which may depend on cultural notions. Others may be influenced by posture, make-up, clothes, lighting. Still others focus on what's inside, with the external being "superficial" and in some cases "temporary." Now, that may not be how you perceive beauty. As you've said, you like to "cut to the chase." If nothing else, we've learned cr is a very "logical" person. The pieces have to "add up" for him to say unequivically that something is "true" for him. He has to take into consideration many factors. I don't think you can call the pieces of beauty any more or less "superficial" or transitory than the whole, even if they're not part of the subject's body. (Ask 70-year-old actresses.) "Beauty" is not a thing. It's a concept. Cr's overall concept may be similar to yours (e.g., deeming Xena more beautiful than Minya), but how he arrives at it and uses it may differ. I believe he simply does not want all that reduced to "you forgave Xena because she's beautiful," to the exclusion -- dismissal -- of all his other reasons. Gods. I can just see cr saving this and copying it into a post the next time we're arguing because he's talking about the trees and I'm talking about the forest. See, that's why this "translation" stuff can drive you nuts. I wanna argue in my own stubborn, curmudgeonly way! Bwaaaaaa! Oh, well, so much for the Laurel and Hardy/Jackie and Ife routine. Hard come, easy go. It's okay. We'll be together again another week. - -- Ife > > I.e., would you have found her as "interesting" a character, if, as Ife > said, had looked like Minya? Over 6 seasons? > > > --Jackie > > ****************************************************** > * Proud to have the same birthday as Lucy Lawless! * > * * > * JACKIE YOUNG, JYOUNG@LAVA.NET * > * * > ****************************************************** > ========================================================= > This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with > "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. > Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. > ========================================================= ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 03:43:57 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Eye of the Beholder In a message dated 3/28/2004 4:30:04 PM Pacific Standard Time, jyoung@lava.net writes: > --I beg to disagree here. I never could believe HL as Callisto because > she was too skinny and psycho, and I never got into KMorris as Najara for > some of the same reasons. >> You mean, you couldn't believe them as warriors? Certainly the psycho part was believable, which I suppose is why they worked for me. They were like contrasts to Xena, in terms of the size Lucy had and projected. They made up for that in sheer, crazed determination, in their ability to attack Xena's weakest points -- her emotions, her friends, her guilt. If they'd been more like Xena -- more capable of defeating her physically -- that might've reduced Xena's superior status. I believed them as tough opponents because they used Xena and what she loved against herself in a way few could. > > OTOH, VPratt and DCormack were *great*! >> Yes, I liked them too. I felt they projected a moral strength to their characters. I always thought it ironic that Claire -- the one woman physically Lucy's equal -- played an opponent who primarily used psychic powers. The few times Xena and Alti actually fought as themselves (not skeletons), I wasn't concerned about Xena's being beaten physically, so much as with mind games. A wonderful bit of casting on many levels. Speaking of which, Alti was supposed to be kind of a "hag." While I didn't think of her as physically unattractive, Claire projected "ugly" from the inside out. > -- 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: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 18:37:32 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Eye of the Beholder On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 11:49, Jackie M. Young wrote: > On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 23:16:39 +1200, cr wrote: > >Maybe it's just my prejudice (or an eye of the beholder thing) but IMO > >Lucy rarely looked good in a hat and never in a helmet. And (IMO) that > >leather armour was always very unflattering and she looked much better in > >almost every other costume. So, for me, the suggestion that I let her > >get away with doing awful things just because she looked beautiful, just > >ain't so. I let her get away with doing awful things because she's > >interesting. > > --But the examples above are temporary "costumes" she donned as she played > different roles in her life. We all _knew_ underneath what she really > looked like, and how *good* she could look when she wanted to. > > You're getting a *temporary*, *superficial* look (i.e., camera angle, > lighting, costume) mixed up with LL's/X's actual day-to-day beauty. Hang on, how can anyone judge LL/X's 'day-to-day beauty' except by, in effect, averaging out all her appearances, good and bad included? We also knew she could look very unbeautiful, and frequently did. Are you saying that if some person looks good in one costume, with particular lighting and a particular camera angle, does that mean they're automatically 'beautiful' (i.e. good-looking) even if they look like the back end of a horse the other 99% of the time? I don't think so. > I.e., would you have found her as "interesting" a character, if, as Ife > said, had looked like Minya? Over 6 seasons? Do NOT confuse 'good looks' with 'interesting'. They are completely separate qualities. If an actor has both, it's a bonus. Minya's a bad example to use because she is just not interesting as a character, to me. A Xena wannabe. A better example would be to say, suppose we cut out of XWP all the scenes where Lucy looked gorgeous, and re-shot them in such a way that she looked plain or unflattering, would I *still* find her interesting for six seasons? And the answer to that is an unqualified Yes. Though I'd miss the 'good-looking' scenes, no doubt. 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: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 19:39:12 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 15:32, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 3/27/2004 5:53:24 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > > 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. >> > > Interesting. I never associated those eps with previous ones. But > Xenastaff were quite honest about XWP exploiting some of their favorite > work -- from the Hong Kong movies, to "Ground Hog Day" or "The Magnificent > Seven." There are probably younger viewers in particular who don't realize > just how much of XWP creatively "borrowed"from (heh, "paid homage" to) a > ton of previous fare in style, storylines, etc. Well, yes. This has been done throughout movie and TV history, though. For the first example off the top of my head, I'm certain 'The Magnificent Seven' was based on a Japanese movie. And of course, people are always stealing from Shakespeare. I don't see anything wrong with that, as long as the episode isn't a straight unacknowledged remake. (Btw, I just noticed, in A Fish Called Wanda, the crazy Otto saying "Disappointed!" when opened the safe and found it empty, and I'm wondering whether that came before The Sovereign (in Herc) and his trademark "Very Disappointed" - not sure who stole from who there. :) > > 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. > > Again, I meant more in terms of manufacturing emotional tension that didn't > come from the characters themselves. But surely, emotional tension can come from an external threat unrelated to the characters? Maybe 'tension' would be more appropriate than 'emotional tension' there, since I think 'emotional tension' probably can only come from the characters. I was just watching the first Lord of the Rings movie, and most of tension is due to dangers that are external to the characters - was Peter Jackson or Tolkien being 'exploitative' there? > However, there may be some who had > reservations about the treatment of religions and philosophies that still > exist. I personally had problems with RT's obsession with crosses and > other heavily Christian themes that muddied the water for me if I thought > about them too much. I purposely avoided allowing that to play on my > emotions I was a bit queasy about the religious stuff - starting with Giant Killer. I soon got over the thing about crosses, though, right from Destiny onwards, because though Christianity has tried to 'claim' crucifixion, really it was a Roman thing, and apparently as typically Roman as gladiators and orgies. (Real civilised people, the Romans ) Fallen Angel really did get me uneasy - all those angels. I was quite relieved later on when Michael turned out to be a scheming manipulative operator. > > 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. >> > > From the objections I saw, it was more about Gabs, not Hope. Hmmm. I woulda thought, playing on baby Hope's cuteness would have been potentially 'exploitative'. I don't think TPTB did so any more than was unavoidable, though. I suspect many of the objections you observed to Gabs experience were more inspired by the 'How dare they do that to our Gabrielle' school of Gabfans. I don't think that was any more exploitative than the equally bad things that happened to Xena, or to Callisto. It's to be expected in a series like XWP. (IMO :) > > 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 > > ;)> > > Maybe because they seem overdone or unnecessary to you? I guess I saw skin > and violence as "routine" exploitation, in that they were a part of the > fabric of the show. Beyond that, I saw other aspects as more provocative > than exploitative, in that they usually made me think -- as opposed simple > titillation with no other purpose. > > -- Ife Umm, yes, unnecessary. And (in the case of Gurkhan) overdone. IMO. Other violence I thought was more to be expected in the context of the show, and therefore didn't worry me. Of course, YMMV. As always, it's not _what_ is done, it's how it's done, that makes the difference. I found Xena killing the Amazon leaders far more shocking than Xena killing Khan's 100,000 army. Partly because in Sin Trade Xena was the aggressor, in Back in the Bottle she was under attack; partly because, in Sin Trade, it was more personal, in BITB - well, all the troops appeared to be volunteers, and quite prepared to butcher their victims, and the risk of getting killed goes with the job. I found Joxer's imaginary but gory description of his exploits at the end of the ep, much more disturbing than Xena zapping the whole army. 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: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 20:05:41 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re; Unattractive Xena On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 15:34, Cheryl Ande wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "cr" > To: "Cheryl Ande" ; > > > Good point. In order for Xena to have done all the things she did, she > > would have needed to be fit and good-looking, at least. (It's nice to > > have a logical argument to bolster my prejudices :) > > > > What the heck - I like to watch good-looking, intelligent, interesting > > people > > on screen (and the second and third of those are more important than the > > first). I really don't want to watch boring, nondescript, stupid > > people, I can do that at work > > > > If that's elitist, then I'm elitist. > > I don't know why so many of us are afraid to admit that we do like to watch > intelligen and interesting people who happen to be good looking. In fact > there have been studies to show that we actually view people we like as > being better looking than people we don't like so the question is : Is > Xena attractive because we like her or do we like her because she is good > looking? Bit of both, I think. There's probably a sort of 'feedback' effect - because we like Xena, we tend to notice the times when she's good-looking more often. Related to this is that sometimes, personality doesn't come over in photos. I've known a few people whose personality makes them very attractive indeed, yet in a photo they look as plain and uninteresting as could be, maybe even ugly. It isn't until you see them 'live' (or at least on film) or hear them talking that you feel the attractiveness. (This is of course the opposite of the what I call the 'Baywatch effect' - the cast are good-looking, till they start to talk. They'd go great in silent movies ;) > Now take Carl Urban - I thought he was better looking as cave boy > in Amazon High than as Caesar. Now was that perception of him formed > because he was a romantic lead in one show and a villian in another. I agree, he did look better in Amazon High. I think the reason I disliked him as Caesar was his arrogance, not his looks (though his hairstyle didn't help). > I thought Kevin Smith was handsom as Ares and rather ordinary looking as > Hercules's brother was that because Herc's brother was boring? Well, he was written as a much stronger character as Ares. And in the looks department, I think the beard helped. As Iphicles he always looked rather weak. But also, as Ares, much of the attraction was in his delivery of his lines - he has a very interesting delivery, and that (I'm sure) makes him seem even more attractive. > Callisto > was certainly attractive but I never forgave her character her crimes > because she was good looking - whatever sympathy I had for her came because > I understoood that her pain was destroying her. Callisto is *very* photogenic, and striking (the dark eyebrows and the blonde hair see to that), but IMO not all that conventionally beautiful. In the scenes with her and Xena, the visual contrast of the two is amazing. Aside from that, though, Hudson's delivery is what makes the difference - she gives the appearance of being dangerous, of having a lot of energy inside. Note the contrast with Angel Callisto - who probably looks more beautiful in a photo, but the energy is gone, the interest is gone, she looks good but only in a superficial way, not interesting. > Valasca was beautiful but > I don't think she garnered much sympathy from the audience. I don't find her beautiful - certainly not pretty. Possibly a cold sort of beauty, but then she was a very cold character. She had a few good lines, and ofter several viewings of ANE I now quite like her as a character. > I actually > don't think liking Xena or forgiving her has anything at all to do with > beautism - I think we just like Xena. > CherylA Well said! 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: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 21:02:58 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 11:42, Jackie M. Young wrote: (snip) > > The reason I asked you to define what you meant by it was that if you > >don't, it's just another of those vaguely pejorative terms that's so easy > >to apply. > > --But I did give some examples, which Ife used to "translate" for me. ;P > > And you also give sweeping generalizations about eps, mostly "I liked it" > or "I didn't like it", but it still all comes down to subjectivity, so > what's the difference? > > --Jackie Huge and obvious difference (leaving aside your commission of a 'sweeping generalisation' in the last sentence ;). "I liked it" quite clearly implies that it's a personal and subjective judgement. (Though I usually try to avoid anything quite so simplistic and give reasons). "It was good" (or "It was exploitative") implies that it is so by some objective and hence definable standard. 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: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 21:05:14 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Eye of the Beholder On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 15:32, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: (huge snippage) > > >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. > > > No, no, that "do" in Xena eps where she had this poof at the top of her > head. Umm... such as? (I can't call them to mind) 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: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 23:28:55 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Eye of the Beholder On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 20:44, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 3/28/2004 3:52:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > jyoung@lava.net writes: > > You're getting a *temporary*, *superficial* look (i.e., camera angle, > > lighting, costume) mixed up with LL's/X's actual day-to-day beauty. >> > > Why oh why can't I stop myself?! You're speaking of > "beauty" as a whole -- a concept, one person (Lucy/Xena). To me, cr's > examples suggest that he's looking at "beauty" in pieces, from different > angles. Umm, what I was saying was that, so far as 'beauty' (i.e. physical attractiveness) is concerned, the whole is made up of the sum of the parts. You can't say 'well, she usually looks ugly but she's beautiful underneath' any more than you can say 'well, she usually looks beautiful but she's ugly underneath'. What is 'actual day-to-day beauty' if it isn't made up of all those 'temporary' looks? (I'm _not_ talking about underlying character now, just looks - and specifically Xena's looks, not LL's. That's what the original subject was. I'm certainly not going to forgive _Xena_ some crime because, on some other occasion, _Lucy_ looks good.) > He's distinguishing Lucy from Xena in some respects, by saying the > *character* (Lucy as Xena) didn't always look attractive to him. The > *character's* forgiveability was not solely dependent on her looks, > regardless of whether she could be beautiful most of the time or Lucy is > beautiful all the time (which she would probably dispute) underneath. Well, I would always distinguish Lucy from Xena, partly in her looks (because Lucy, left to herself, would probably look rather different from Xena), but totally as regards character. The rest (which I must reluctantly snip :) you've got right - that is, I think I agree with what I think you're saying I meant. ;) Thank you Ife. 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: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 23:11:57 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Eye of the Beholder On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 20:43, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 3/28/2004 4:30:04 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > jyoung@lava.net writes: > > --I beg to disagree here. I never could believe HL as Callisto because > > she was too skinny and psycho, and I never got into KMorris as Najara for > > some of the same reasons. >> > > You mean, you couldn't believe them as warriors? Certainly the psycho part > was believable, which I suppose is why they worked for me. They were like > contrasts to Xena, in terms of the size Lucy had and projected. They made > up for that in sheer, crazed determination, in their ability to attack > Xena's weakest points -- her emotions, her friends, her guilt. If they'd > been more like Xena -- more capable of defeating her physically -- that > might've reduced Xena's superior status. I believed them as tough > opponents because they used Xena and what she loved against herself in a > way few could. Callisto always seemed much bigger on screen than she really was - all due to her intensity. The 'psycho Barbie' was just part of that. But I could never credit Najara the same way, she was flaky enough but just didn't have that dangerous edge to her. She just looked too delicate (IMO). > > OTOH, VPratt and DCormack were *great*! >> > > Yes, I liked them too. I felt they projected a moral strength to their > characters. I always thought it ironic that Claire -- the one woman > physically Lucy's equal -- played an opponent who primarily used psychic > powers. The few times Xena and Alti actually fought as themselves (not > skeletons), I wasn't concerned about Xena's being beaten physically, so > much as with mind games. A wonderful bit of casting on many levels. > Speaking of which, Alti was supposed to be kind of a "hag." While I didn't > think of her as physically unattractive, Claire projected "ugly" from the > inside out. I reckon Alti the best opponent since Callisto. And you're quite right, Claire (who IMO is reasonably good looking) managed to project 'ugly' and menacing. And I think she used her size to advantage in that. 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: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 11:40:33 -0600 From: "Mark B." Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Eye of the Beholder cr wrote: > On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 11:49, Jackie M. Young wrote: > >>On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 23:16:39 +1200, cr wrote: >> >>>Maybe it's just my prejudice (or an eye of the beholder thing) but IMO >>>Lucy rarely looked good in a hat and never in a helmet. And (IMO) that >>>leather armour was always very unflattering and she looked much better in >>>almost every other costume. So, for me, the suggestion that I let her >>>get away with doing awful things just because she looked beautiful, just >>>ain't so. I let her get away with doing awful things because she's >>>interesting.> What was that phrase from some time back.... 'Your mileage may vary'. I always thought LL looked great in all the various hats/headdresses they put on her. From Destiny's coins-on-a-string kind of headdress to the helmet given to her by Ares in Bitter Suite to her 'Emperor-ess' headdress in the Herc Crossover ep to the shiny helmet/mask in the alternate timeline with Caesar, Julius Caesar. It always struck me that she seemed to morph into the character in each of these types of eps and the hat/headdress/veil/whatever just seemed to 'fit' with her. I specifically remember how her helmet in BS, with its shape, seemed to accentuate her strong jaw line. My two dinars are now used up! Mark ========================================================= 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 #89 *************************************