From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V4 #128 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 Friday, May 7 2004 Volume 04 : Number 128 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] OT: Someone's address file was scalped! [HJJH ] [chakram-refugees] Re: Xena mention [cande@sunlink.net] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 03:05:57 -0500 From: HJJH Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] OT: Someone's address file was scalped! Was it thru C-R or Flawless? Well, \I/ didn't get it, and I'm only on Chakram-Refugees. TEXena ========================================================= 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, 7 May 2004 00:04:06 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Fates Again On Thu, 06 May 2004 16:16, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 5/5/2004 12:50:53 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > > Since you mentioned watchdog groups and censorship, I'd point out that > > their > > decisions are notoriously capricious and liable to fluctuate from one > > town to > > the next. Probably depending on the personal bias of whoever happens to > > be > > > > top dog in the particular group.>> > > Agreed. I simply meant that their "standards" can have enourmous power, > regardless of capriciousness. Hmm, OK. 'Standards' in a rather different sense from the one I usually use the word in. (I acknowledge right now that the word, like many others, can have multiple meanings). > > Take violence, for instance. (snip) > > In fact, you try and define a criterion for judging such things and I'll > > find > > you plenty of examples that disprove it. (I'm not proposing this as a > > serious exercise, as it only leads to frustration :) .> > > No, my whole point was that I think such standards or criteria or whatever > we call them are inherently subjective. Okay, we agree completely then. > You have a personal whatever it > is, which determines what is exploitative, "acceptably" violent or > scantily-clad, etc., as do I. We got into this because I was asking you > how you determined those things, which you answered. I initially thought > you were suggesting it was "obvious" what was "too much," which suggested > some "standard" or criteria I should know about. I didn't believe there > was such a commonly agreed upon standard, which I guess we do agree on. Errrmm... do you mean, you think we agree that there _isn't_ a commonly-agreed-upon standard ? If so, I agree with you ;) > > >>Cut out the last ten seconds. Just end with them hanging on the > > >> crosses and > > >>fade to black. An enormously powerful ending, which that 'angel' > > >>moment just kicked the legs out from under. >> > > > > > >Those last seconds are what made the ep so powerful for many viewers. > > > > If you mean the 'angel' bit, that's another example of opposite > > reactions. > > > > Because I hated that. It was incongruous. >> > > Yes, I meant the "angel bit." > > > >I'm > > >not a big fan of "tear jerkers," but I certainly wouldn't have wanted to > > > go through the summer with my last image of X&G on those blasted > > > crosses. Sure, I > > >considered the "angel" moment a bit sappy, but I couldn't come up with > > > any better way to picture them as rising triumphant in some way. I > > > guess, for me, that's one of those images which was important to the > > > story, if the point was to suggest X&G weren't defeated victims. > > > > But - we knew that X &G weren't going to stay dead. (Btw, they died > > remarkably quickly - if it hadn't been for the angelic stuff, I would > > have assumed they were merely unconscious, not dead yet). So it wasn't > > 'defeat', > > any more than every season-ending cliff-hanger is. >> > > I think you bring up another good reason for the "angel bit" -- to indicate > that they were dead. Again, I just didn't want that image of them hanging > on those crosses, possibly suffering, through the whole summer. As to > "defeated," it's the same reaction others had to Xena on the cross in > Fates. She's hanging there, helpless, which is not something I like to > see. Hardly! Don't confuse 'Xena time' with real time! The next season invariably takes up right where the previous one leaves off. There is no gap. The fact that you (the viewer) is left in suspense right through the summer is part of the genre - why it's called a 'cliffhanger'. Actually, if I hadn't known that Season 5 was on the way, I would have been more uncertain (because of the 'angel bit' and the fact that they were indeed dead) of the series continuing, than if they'd just been left hanging on the crosses - which is a real cliffhanger and hence in a way more conventional and reassuring. The difference between Xena's 'defeat' in Ides and the one in Fates was (IMO) that in Fates she meekly accepted defeat. I never saw that in Ides. > Sure, I can rationalize whatever I want, to explain why hanging there might > not mean much in the long run. But at the time, I felt much better > actually seeing some indication that she'd "risen above" the cross, had not > been defeated by it. The "angel bit" did that for me in Ides. Her > voluntarily getting on the cross, yelling Gabs' name and inspiring Gabs to > destroy the loom (thus succeeeding in defeating Caesar) did that for me in > Fates. Well, it seems, in both cases, the bits you like are the precise bits I _don't_ like. ;) > There are still folks who may think she was defeated in both those > scenarios, despite the following scenes. Crosses can do that. I'm > speaking solely for myself and why those scenes worked for me in terms of > suggesting X&G's triumph. > > > Actually, I would *much* rather they'd stayed on the crosses, then in the > > next ep Amarice and Joxer had got them down *before* they died, and Eli > > had maybe used a bit of his healing powers to help them recover. I > > would have accepted that much more readily than the whole > > mediaeval-Christian Fallen Angel thing. >> > > I wasn't all that happy about the religious aspect either. Again, I'm just > saying I was glad the girls got off those crosses (continuing on in some > fashion) however it was done. That's probably why some people prefer the > DC ending of AFIN, where Ghost Xena is still visible at the end. I like > (well, am satisfied with) the original ending, even tho it tugs my heart > more. but only because I got to see Xena continuing on for so long as a > ghost. Well, I prefer the original ending, too. Precisely _because_ it affects me more, emotionally. > > >>>You're saying the subtext only > > >>>existed if the two were together physically? It vanished if one of > > >>>them wasn't there? > > >> > > >>So Xena is so taken by this bit of fluff she's only met a few days ago > > >>that she finds time while dying in agony to parrot out "I love you > > >>Gabrielle"? Sounds like a subtexters' wet dream to me. >> > > > > > >Wow, talk about different views. Sounds like, for you, the "subtext" is > > >about sex more than love, about short-term dalliances rather than a > > >long-term relationship (however it's defined). No, I was being sarcastic about the suddenness of their relationship. In the 'real' XWP, it took years to develop. In Fates it took - what, two or three days? > > > Certainly by the time > > > she'd made her decision, Xena knew what Gabrielle's "true" importance > > > to her was, even if she hadn't > > >lived through some of the experiences that made it "real." I suppose > > > she could've screamed, "I hate you, Caesar!" or "Gods, this hurts!" or > > > been stoically silent. Or said "Oops, I just realised I got it all wrong and this ain't gonna fix anything. Bugger!" ;) > > >To me, she was more like someone who gets executed in a foreign land and > > >cries out the name of her country or someone close, not the name of the > > >enemy. Sort of going out with that person's name on her lips, declaring > > >what she was fighting for, not against. The purpose and meaning go far > > >beyond what's physically around her at that time. Instead, it's more > > > about what she carries in her > > >head, which she's affirming that the enemy can't take or sully. > > > Certainly XWP was about hate as much as love, but I felt the ultimate > > > purpose (not just of Fates) was to show the triumph of the latter over > > > the former. Obviously, if you didn't see all that, it's understandable > > > why you assess that moment as you do. > > > > > >-- Ife > > > > I guess, if one's main interest is the subtext, the ep all makes sense. > > >> > > I can't answer that, as you're the one who brought it up. I meant, the ep seemed to revolve around Xena's attraction for Gabrielle - a person who (in this ep) she's only just met. If one accepts that they were 'fated' to be together, and regards that as the main driver of the episode, I expect some of the improbabilities diminish. As you know, that's not a view I'm in sympathy with > I'm still not > sure what you mean by "subtext," but I can say the ep made sense to me > regardless of a romantic/sexual relationship. In the specific situation > above, I gave examples involving love of country and possibly of one's > mother. No doubt there are other fans who found the ep meaningful in terms > of a very close friend they regard as a "soul mate." What struck me the > first time around was not the magnetic moments between X&G, so much as the > "logic" of how Caesar's world got created, operated and ended. I accepted > it, but I didn't understand it. Now I do, though I certainly don't expect > that to be the case for you or somebody else. Well, I could see how Caesar's world got created. And how it got destroyed - - Gabby wrecked the loom. (Though why that restored the 'real' world instead of just causing total global annihilation I don't know). And, Xena was in error in assuming that dying on the cross would restore the 'real' world. What we differ on is whether she had any grounds for making that assumption. In fact, Gabs was nearer to getting it 'right' on this occasion than Xena - another very odd circumstance, since Xena was the expert on godly institutions, not Gabby. (snipped the rest, since I'm not about to disagree with it. :) 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: Thu, 6 May 2004 15:35:34 -0400 (GMT-04:00) From: cande@sunlink.net Subject: [chakram-refugees] Re: Xena mention - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 04:45:00 -0800 (AKDT) From: KTL "He paused, then went in for the kill. 'But if you're down in the barn, as opposed to watching reruns and pay-for-view, then so be it. Don't think I'm going to bring down bags of microwave popcorn, 'cause I ain't. I'll be sittin' right here watchin' Xena's boobs bobble.' Marjorie's eyes watered and her snout began to drip on the new tangerine area rug." Hmmm. Now this doesn't sound right. What with all that leather and bronze armor it was pretty hard for Xena's boobs to bobble. Perhaps he got her confused with Gabby from season 5 or 6 when her bobble skills became more apparent. Of course he could have just seen Femmes, Fins, and Gems where Xena did get a chance to bobble as she tried to give Gabby mouth to mouth. Oh yes I think Universal just doesn't realize the purchasing power of livestock. I understand barnyard animals are loyal Argo fans especially donkeys. Creation right now is trying to organize a con just for them. CherylA KT ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ End of chakram-refugees-digest V4 #128 **************************************