From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V4 #122 Reply-To: chakram-refugees@smoe.org Sender: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk chakram-refugees-digest Saturday, May 1 2004 Volume 04 : Number 122 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] Fates Again [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] Fates Again [cr ] [chakram-refugees] Season 4 DVD [cande@sunlink.net] Re: [chakram-refugees] Fates Again [IfeRae@aol.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 01:09:23 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Fates Again In a message dated 4/29/2004 12:36:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > I also don't think you can compare Fates with AFIN in that > >regard. People were being threatened in AFIN. She needed to defeat or at > >least severly weaken the enemy forces before she *allowed* herself to be > >killed. Fighting in Fates would've accomplished little, in terms of ending > >that world. She obviously figured she had a better chance winning the > >bigger battle by dying as she did. The similarity is that, in both cases, > >she put a higher goal above her own image. > > Presumably you're saying that Xena dieing in Fates would have succeeded in > ending the world? But if that was required, then Xena could go down > fighting (as in FIN) and still achieve the same end, without having to > meekly > submit to Caesar's nastiness. >> No, I was saying that, in AFIN, she first needed to stay alive long enough to do damage to Lord Bad Guy, while killing Caesar or someone else wouldn't have addressed the larger issue of the whole world being wrong. And, no, Xena (nor I) knew for sure that her death would end that world, so much as whatever part she played in it. I keep saying that it was all tied to the moment *Caesar* chose, which could've been before he even met Xena. But he apparently accepted that the two of them were destined to meet up and affect each other's destinies. He figured she could be either an ally or the enemy she became. He chose the moment he believed most likely to produce the former. Now that you mention it, I'm not sure it was about "death" at all. If you recall, she didn't die when Caesar crucified her the first time. It's possible she figured she didn't have to really "die" (more or less permanently) in the warped scenario. She didn't say "I have to die." She said she had to accept, to "be" on that cross, not die on it. Indeed, it was her *survival* the first time which led to Rampage Xena and ultimately to the Reformed Xena indirectly responsible for Caesar's assassination. Again, she didn't know for sure whether she would die or what would happen next. She only knew that the the pain and consequences of Caesar's cross was the key the first time around and then to Caesar's revised destiny, so guessed that might be the case this time around as well. Dying some other way (by her own hand or by someone other than Caesar), killing Caesar or somebody else, fighting Caesar, taking over for him -- none of that seemed to matter as much as her being on the cross. I hadn't thought of it quite that way before, but now it makes even more sense and is a less fatalistic than I originally thought. The cross didn't kill her in Destiny or in Ides. She went on to "live" in some fashion or another. Given those odds, why not take her chances with the cross? > But if this wasn't the 'real' Xena, why did we waste a whole episode > watching > her? Huh? >> Same reason I watched her as Spirit Xena, Evil Xena, and Pure Xena in Fallen Angels and Chakram. Same reason I watched Rampage Xena or Callisto Xena. Same reason I tolerated Diana/Meg/Leah Xena for a good part of certain eps. I can't speak for other fans, of course, but watching Lucy/Xena was never a "waste" for me, even though my preference was Reformed (to me "real") Xena. > > > >>And if Xena was the 'wrong' one, what about Caesar? He set the whole > >>thing > >>up. Killing him would have been a far better bet to change things back, > >>than killing Xena. Now, if it was the _real_ Xena, she woulda broken > >>free and offed Caesar - or gone down fighting. That would have been in > >>character. >> > > > >Maybe she would've liked to kill him, along with Alti. Maybe she would've, > >if the visions she (conveniently) saw hadn't included the particular act > >that Caesar chose to change the course of things. As I said before, he > >could've chosen the moment before his assassination. If he had, then maybe > >Xena would've seen that as the "defining moment," and killed him herself. > >It's much more in character to me that she would rather pick the logical > >(and difficult, self-responsible) choice, than second-guess Caesar and make > >the easier choice of simply killing him. > > Errrm, 'in character' ? You were just saying this is _not_ the same Xena, > therefore (you said) 'in character' doesn't apply!! >> I purposely said "in character." No, she was not the *same* Xena, but I do think Fates Xena retained the "core" (fundamental "character") of Xena as the strong-minded, courageous, action-oriented, intelligent, curious, basically honorable leader who initially kidnapped Caesar. (Rampage Xena was "different" in that she showed the underside of the same potentially positive characteristics used in the extreme for the wrong ends.) Second, the Xena who decided to get on that cross had seen (if not experienced) what she was supposed to be as the "real" (Reformed) Xena. She made a decision that was both self-centered (in a self-responsible way) and altruistic, as well as extremely painful -- just as Reformed Xena might. I resist the notion that Reformed Xena's "character" was based solely on physical fighting prowess. She used seduction, subtletly, deceit, mind-games, alliance with enemies, or whatever else might most effectively acheive her goal. In Fates, it was to to surrender to (embrace) what she hated most. That's why she was heroic to me -- not because she had a one dimensional character that dictated she slice her way through every challenge. > Now imagine Xena, _without_ the events of her career as Dark Xena on her > conscience, and the personal anguish of all those years - instead, the Xena > of 'Destiny', say, just with a few years of being the leader of Rome's > forces > - would that Xena make the really tough self-sacrificing decision? I can't > > see it. She woulda killed Caesar instead. > > And, getting back to the 'real' Xena - as I said, she would never have > meekly > submitted to Caesar. Like I said, it Wasn't In Character. ;) >> I agree, if Fates Xena hadn't seen the visions of what she was *supposed* to be, she might've offed Caesar. Upon that awareness, she became "real" Xena to me, in terms of analyzing the situation and believing that fighting Caesar in that scenario wouldn't have "set things right." Sure, she could've ignored her wounds, taken on those guards, rallied those loyal to her, and killed both Caesar and Alti. For what? To enhance her resume as "kick butt" Xena? So she could live out her days ruling the world Caesar created? To me, even "real" Xena wouldn't have been that short-sighted, bull-headed, or petty, given the circumstances. She would've made the choice most likely, in her mind, to "set things right." > >As to "exploitative," are you saying the crucifixion in Fates is moreso > >than all the others, even the first crucifixion in Destiny? > > > >-- Ife > > Oh yes, very much so. I think I'll leave it for KT to tell you just > exactly > how much so.... > > Actually, I was hoping to hear you expand upon *your* meaning of "exploitative." :-) As I said, I'm not big on crucifixions. But given the religious connotation for many people, it's hard for me not to view any crucifixions on-screen (in the usual scenarios) as not exploitative of certain emotions or allusions. I understand that the practice was not unique to religious scenarios, that it had the primary purpose of warning and defeating opponents. However, I think its use in XWP was consciously exploitative in a religious sense, especially when later accompanied by prophets, angels and devils. At a "baser" level, it can appeal to sado-machistic interests. Some people may view Xena's agony in Fates as somehow worse or more "exploitative" than that in Destiny or Ides. I don't. The pain of being hung like that or having spikes hammered through your body isn't better or worse to me because of how much a person screams. The reason it's being done doesn't matter to me, in terms of the fact that it's being done at all. I guess that's why I can't distinguish between levels of cross-appropriateness in XWP. That's why I'm interested in why you see the cross in Fates as "very much so" more exploitative. - -- Ife ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 20:47:17 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Fates Again On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 17:09, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > > But if this wasn't the 'real' Xena, why did we waste a whole episode > > watching > > her? Huh? >> > > Same reason I watched her as Spirit Xena, Evil Xena, and Pure Xena in > Fallen Angels and Chakram. Same reason I watched Rampage Xena or Callisto > Xena. Same reason I tolerated Diana/Meg/Leah Xena for a good part of > certain eps. I can't speak for other fans, of course, but watching > Lucy/Xena was never a "waste" for me, even though my preference was > Reformed (to me "real") Xena. Yeah, OK, I'll grant that. To steal a phrase from Beth Gaynor's site, "I'd watch this woman read the phone book". > > >>And if Xena was the 'wrong' one, what about Caesar? He set the whole > > >>thing > > >>up. Killing him would have been a far better bet to change things > > >> back, than killing Xena. Now, if it was the _real_ Xena, she woulda > > >> broken free and offed Caesar - or gone down fighting. That would > > >> have been in character. >> > > > > > >Maybe she would've liked to kill him, along with Alti. Maybe she > > > would've, if the visions she (conveniently) saw hadn't included the > > > particular act that Caesar chose to change the course of things. As I > > > said before, he could've chosen the moment before his assassination. > > > If he had, then maybe Xena would've seen that as the "defining moment," > > > and killed him herself. It's much more in character to me that she > > > would rather pick the logical (and difficult, self-responsible) choice, > > > than second-guess Caesar and make the easier choice of simply killing > > > him. > > > > Errrm, 'in character' ? You were just saying this is _not_ the same > > Xena, therefore (you said) 'in character' doesn't apply!! >> > > I purposely said "in character." No, she was not the *same* Xena, but I do > think Fates Xena retained the "core" (fundamental "character") of Xena as > the strong-minded, courageous, action-oriented, intelligent, curious, > basically honorable leader who initially kidnapped Caesar. (Rampage Xena > was "different" in that she showed the underside of the same potentially > positive > characteristics used in the extreme for the wrong ends.) Second, the Xena > who decided to get on that cross had seen (if not experienced) what she was > supposed to be as the "real" (Reformed) Xena. She made a decision that was > both self-centered (in a self-responsible way) and altruistic, as well as > extremely painful -- just as Reformed Xena might. Oh, hardly. Ten seconds of seeing Alti's vision and that made her act just like the real thing? And anyway, as I was arguing, the 'real thing' would _not_ have meekly allowed Caesar to crucify her. IMO. > I resist the notion that Reformed Xena's "character" was based solely on > physical fighting prowess. She used seduction, subtletly, deceit, > mind-games, alliance with enemies, or whatever else might most effectively > acheive her goal. In Fates, it was to to surrender to (embrace) what she > hated most. That's why she was heroic to me -- not because she had a one > dimensional character that dictated she slice her way through every > challenge. Nor did the real Xena, either. But she wasn't stupid. And allowing your worst enemy to crucify you on the vague 1-in-100 possibility that it just might be the magic ingredient - that's not just stupid, that's brain damaged. :) > > Now imagine Xena, _without_ the events of her career as Dark Xena on her > > conscience, and the personal anguish of all those years - instead, the > > Xena of 'Destiny', say, just with a few years of being the leader of > > Rome's forces > > - would that Xena make the really tough self-sacrificing decision? I > > can't > > > > see it. She woulda killed Caesar instead. > > > > And, getting back to the 'real' Xena - as I said, she would never have > > meekly > > submitted to Caesar. Like I said, it Wasn't In Character. ;) >> > > I agree, if Fates Xena hadn't seen the visions of what she was *supposed* > to be, she might've offed Caesar. Upon that awareness, she became "real" > Xena to me, in terms of analyzing the situation and believing that fighting > Caesar in that scenario wouldn't have "set things right." Sure, she > could've ignored her wounds, taken on those guards, rallied those loyal to > her, and killed both Caesar and Alti. For what? To enhance her resume as > "kick butt" Xena? So she could live out her days ruling the world Caesar > created? To me, even "real" Xena wouldn't have been that short-sighted, > bull-headed, or petty, given the circumstances. She would've made the > choice most likely, in her mind, to "set things right." No, for me that just doesn't stand up. I still see absolutely no reason why Xena (any Xena, the 'real' one, the 'Fates' one, the 20-years-ago one of 'Destiny') would have *any* reason to conclude that getting herself crucified would 'fix' things. That just ain't Xena! She does _not_ surrender. She killed all the Greek gods rather than let them kill her daughter. > > > >As to "exploitative," are you saying the crucifixion in Fates is moreso > > >than all the others, even the first crucifixion in Destiny? > > > > > >-- Ife > > > > Oh yes, very much so. I think I'll leave it for KT to tell you just > > exactly > > how much so.... > > Actually, I was hoping to hear you expand upon *your* meaning of > "exploitative." :-) As I said, I'm not big on crucifixions. But given > the religious connotation for many people, it's hard for me not to view any > crucifixions on-screen (in the usual scenarios) as not exploitative of > certain emotions or allusions. I understand that the practice was not > unique to religious scenarios, that it had the primary purpose of warning > and defeating opponents. However, I think its use in XWP was consciously > exploitative in a religious sense, especially when later accompanied by > prophets, angels and devils. I hate the religious stuff too. Didn't like it right from Giant Killer on. Still.... Hmmm... in practical terms, I'd define 'exploitative' as putting in a scene or showing a scene in a particular way, 'just for effect'. IMO, if the scene or theme is an integral part of the story, it's not really 'exploitative'. And in many ways, it's not *what* you do, it's *how* you do it, that affects how 'exploitative' it is. It's not just *whether* you have scantily-clad Amazons, for example, but how you shoot them, that defines how 'exploitative' that factor is. I suppose one could call the habit of including historical figures (Caesar, Cleopatra et al) 'exploitative' - name-dropping, cashing in on their reputations. It all depends how well they are used as a part of the story, I think. If you have a undistinguished 'warlord-of-the-week' story and someone says 'Let's spice it up, let's write a walk-on part for Caesar', then IMO that's exploitative. OTOH, if Caesar's part is 'in character' and well-written and the episode wouldn't work so well without him, then that isn't exploitaive. Similarly, repeating a successful episode or scene always (IMO) renders the writers liable to suspicion of exploitation. I'm suspicious of sequels. Batman Returns. Friday the Thirteenth Part 27. yadda yadda. 'Them Bones', and Purity/Back in the Bottle, although they're eps I quite like, are exploitative to the extent that they attempted to cash in on The Debts and Sin Trade. Back to crucifixions.... Well, now, let me see. I would argue first that the Romans frequently used crucifixion (which just shows them up for the barbarians they really were, IMO, but that's a side issue :) The only reason it has come to have religious connotations is because, quite by chance, they happened to use it on Jesus, and the Christian church has been obsessed with it ever since. I suppose it's just as well they didn't let his compatriots stone him or Xena (and Renpics) would have had to think of a totally different way to control Callisto... but I digress. (had you noticed?) Anyway, in Destiny, they were rather restrained in the way they used it, I thought. They didn't even nail Xena up (ropes work equally well, I believe). So, aside from some religious/culturally inspired 'shock value' that it was being done at all (to which I think TPTB have an excellent defence in that the Romans as I said did that sort of thing all the time, so it was authentic), I think that instance was restrained. Not exploitative. (And Caesar really was captured by pirates, really did track them down, and really did have them killed - I can't remember if he crucified them, but if so, that would make 'Destiny' doubly authentic). The next occasion - Ides. That was foreshadowed right through Season 4 in 'the Vision'. It was a dramatic device, I think it escapes the 'exploitative' charge because, whenever it cropped up, it was subtly edited to emphasise some aspect of it that suited the episode and the circumstances of its appearance. In other words it was woven into the plot in such a way as to make it an essential part of the story. So, not exploitative IMO. The actual crucifixion - did they over-dramatise it? I don't think so. In fact they 'softened' it, if anything, by inter-cutting with Caesar getting his, and without that it might have been too intense for anyone to watch. So, again not exploitative. > At a "baser" level, it can appeal to sado-machistic interests. Some people > may view Xena's agony in Fates as somehow worse or more "exploitative" than > that in Destiny or Ides. I don't. The pain of being hung like that or > having spikes hammered through your body isn't better or worse to me > because of how much a person screams. Nope. "It ain't what ya do, it's the way that ya do it" > The reason it's being done doesn't > matter to me, in terms of the fact that it's being done at all. I guess > that's why I can't distinguish between levels of cross-appropriateness in > XWP. That's why I'm interested in why you see the cross in Fates as "very > much so" more exploitative. > > -- Ife However, wfc. I mentioned Them Bones, BITB and Purity attempting to 'cash in' on previous eps, but they were nothing compared with the way WFC and its climactic scene was an attempt to cash in on Ides. That's count one. Then, (IIRC) they showed Xena's crucifixion in much more agonising detail than in Ides, and then they intercut that with Alti shagging/stabbing Caesar. Violence, death *and* sex. I'm not sure there's anything they left out. Oh yeah, "I love you Gabrielle" (cringe). Subtext too. Everything _including_ the kitchen sink. ;) Does that answer your question? 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: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 14:35:02 -0400 (GMT-04:00) From: cande@sunlink.net Subject: [chakram-refugees] Season 4 DVD The price increase in Xena 4 DVd actually doesn't appear to be a big deal. There are plenty of discounted prices out there. In fact it is very possible to pre-order the DVDs at less than $50 so what exactly was the point of a price increase anyway. In fact why charge $69 or $77 if they can be so deeply discounted? Is this a pricing tactic so the retailers can present a bargain to the public. This is not a slam at the TPTB I am genuinely curious about how prices are determined in the retail market. CherylA ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 17:57:28 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Fates Again In a message dated 4/30/2004 3:43:33 AM Central Daylight Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > >I resist the notion that Reformed Xena's "character" was based solely on > >physical fighting prowess. She used seduction, subtletly, deceit, > >mind-games, alliance with enemies, or whatever else might most effectively > >acheive her goal. In Fates, it was to to surrender to (embrace) what she > >hated most. That's why she was heroic to me -- not because she had a one > >dimensional character that dictated she slice her way through every > >challenge. > > Nor did the real Xena, either. But she wasn't stupid. And allowing your > worst enemy to crucify you on the vague 1-in-100 possibility that it just > might be the magic ingredient - that's not just stupid, that's brain > damaged. > :) >> Heh, I deleted a line from my post saying Xena wasn't "stupid," which is what I thought she would've been to fight Caesar on the 0 in 100 possibility that it would be the "magic" ingredient or "just because." Alti's vision had already given her the clue to what Caesar thought that ingredient was, which at least raised the odds above any other ingredient. She was smart enough to use Alti (her enemy) for that key to the "past," just as she had for the future during season 4. I'm not understanding why you think she should've spent time on some other action, when the most likely answer was right in front of her. It seems you believe protecting her image should've been more important to Xena than achieving her larger goal. "Me beat up Caesar. That the only thing me care about." Sorry, but "my" Xena was more strategic (smarter) than that. > << still see absolutely no reason > why Xena (any Xena, the 'real' one, the 'Fates' one, the 20-years-ago one of > > 'Destiny') would have *any* reason to conclude that getting herself > crucified > would 'fix' things. That just ain't Xena! She does _not_ surrender. > She killed all the Greek gods rather than let them kill her daughter. >> She was willing to surrender to that same daughter, rather than fight back, when she was about to let Eve skewer her. She surrendered to those folks in Reckoning and Locked Up. She surrendered to Devil Callisto in Fallen Angel. She was willing to surrender to death in Sins, to join Gabrielle. I submit she essentially surrendered to Lord Morimoto (?) in AFIN. She had a different reason each time, but on the surface it looked like she'd given up. She had no way of knowing that it wouldn't mean dying. She did not fight back physically, which seems to be your sole definition for not surrendering. Or perhaps you credit her with giving Caesar far more importance than I do -- that she would rather kill him (or not allow him to kill her) under any circumstances, than possibly focus on something beyond him. "Me no need look for 'reason.' Me beat up Caesar." > Hmmm... in practical terms, I'd define 'exploitative' as putting in a > scene > or showing a scene in a particular way, 'just for effect'. IMO, if the > scene or theme is an integral part of the story, it's not really > 'exploitative'. And in many ways, it's not *what* you do, it's *how* you > do it, that affects how 'exploitative' it is. It's not just *whether* you > have scantily-clad Amazons, for example, but how you shoot them, that > defines > how 'exploitative' that factor is. >> I'm not even going to ask you to 'splain that. I might snort, which isn't conducive to a respectful discussion. > > > I suppose one could call the habit of including historical figures (Caesar, > Cleopatra et al) 'exploitative' - name-dropping, cashing in on their > reputations. It all depends how well they are used as a part of the story, > > I think. If you have a undistinguished 'warlord-of-the-week' story and > someone says 'Let's spice it up, let's write a walk-on part for Caesar', > then > IMO that's exploitative. OTOH, if Caesar's part is 'in character' and > well-written and the episode wouldn't work so well without him, then that > isn't exploitaive. >> Okay, not how I see it, but that makes sense, even though Xenastaff are quite willing to admit they exploited all types of genres and cultures and legends, etc. to "spice up" XWP. > > Similarly, repeating a successful episode or scene always (IMO) renders the > writers liable to suspicion of exploitation. I'm suspicious of sequels. > Batman Returns. Friday the Thirteenth Part 27. yadda yadda. 'Them > Bones', and Purity/Back in the Bottle, although they're eps I quite like, > are > exploitative to the extent that they attempted to cash in on The Debts and > Sin Trade. >> Not sure I'd know the difference between "build on" and "cash in," but I'll go with it. > The only reason it has come to have religious connotations is because, > quite > by chance, they happened to use it on Jesus, and the Christian church has > been obsessed with it ever since.>> Well, it wasn't "quite by chance," in the sense that he was another person who posed a threat, whom they wanted to warn others away from in the most convincing of ways. My understanding is that the method of punishment (e.g., imprisonment, stoning, crucifixion, being fed to lions, banishment, etc.) were chosen quite thoughtfully, in terms of the message to be conveyed. Them Romans had it down to an art. > Anyway, in Destiny, they were rather restrained in the way they used it, I > > thought. They didn't even nail Xena up (ropes work equally well, I > believe). >> I suspect what they thought they could get away with at the time was a factor. As I said, I don't make distinctions between degrees of crucifixions, but you are explaining how you do. So, aside from some religious/culturally inspired 'shock value' > > that it was being done at all (to which I think TPTB have an excellent > defence in that the Romans as I said did that sort of thing all the time, so > > it was authentic), I think that instance was restrained. Not exploitative. > >> No "shock value" to seeing Xena hanging there like that? Impotent and defeated? Mind you, I think it accomplished -- quite visibly for all the world to see -- what crucifixions are supposed to. I'm surprised you don't think it had "shock value" regardless of religious aspects. > The next occasion - Ides. That was foreshadowed right through Season 4 > in > 'the Vision'. It was a dramatic device, I think it escapes the > 'exploitative' charge because, whenever it cropped up, it was subtly edited > to emphasise some aspect of it that suited the episode and the circumstances > > of its appearance. In other words it was woven into the plot in such a way > > as to make it an essential part of the story. So, not exploitative IMO. >> But why? Why did Xena's tie to Caesar have to be on the cross? Why not some battle where they fought a duel? Why not some situation where one of them outmanuevered the other to gain key territory? Why did they add all the obvious religious (and heavily Christian) references? I loved season 4 and Ides, but to me it was the most "exploitative" of all in terms of using the crucifixion. Not for me personally, but in terms of playing on the emotions of those for whom the crucifixion has a larger meaning. > > The actual crucifixion - did they over-dramatise it? I don't think so. In > > fact they 'softened' it, if anything, by inter-cutting with Caesar getting > his, and without that it might have been too intense for anyone to watch. > So, again not exploitative. >> More blood and violence to "soften" the blood and violence. Interesting theory. Less "shock value"? I'm not feelin' it, but okay. > > >At a "baser" level, it can appeal to sado-machistic interests. Some people > >may view Xena's agony in Fates as somehow worse or more "exploitative" than > >that in Destiny or Ides. I don't. The pain of being hung like that or > >having spikes hammered through your body isn't better or worse to me > >because of how much a person screams. > > Nope. "It ain't what ya do, it's the way that ya do it" >> Not sure Xena would agree. Or Lucy. But I'll try to stay with ya. > < climactic scene was an attempt to cash in on Ides.>> Um, actually, Fugate says the director wanted to "tie it" to Destiny and in particular to Ides, but I'll go with your "cash in" interpretation. > > Then, (IIRC) they showed Xena's crucifixion in much more agonising detail > than in Ides, and then they intercut that with Alti shagging/stabbing > Caesar. > Violence, death *and* sex. I'm not sure there's anything they left out. >> Fugate reminded me that the sex part was also in Ides, in Caesar's dream. She didn't have that in her script for Fates. Again, that was the director's idea. I agree, all the elements of "shock value," except religion wasn't quite as prominent as in S4. > > Oh yeah, "I love you Gabrielle" (cringe). Subtext too. Everything > _including_ the kitchen sink. ;) >> We had that in Ides too. > > Does that answer your question? > Yep. On both "Me kill Caesar" and on what's "cross appropriate." "Cash in" sounds like a more negative version of "tie in." Still shaky on what's "scantily-clad Amazon appropriate," but I think I can factor personal preferences into that well enough on my own. - -- Ife ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ End of chakram-refugees-digest V4 #122 **************************************