From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V5 #32 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, February 6 2005 Volume 05 : Number 032 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] Another Xena location [NZJester ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Another Xena location [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Another Xena location [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] The end of Season Four... [cr ] [chakram-refugees] One Weekend A Month ["Cheryl Ande" Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Another Xena location At 10:18 a.m. 5/02/2005 +1300, cr wrote: >As for the detective work, I usually only bother to mention my successes >After all, the failures don't make a very interesting story. Spectacular failures can make the best stories Fishermen are always telling stories of the one that got away Some how the fish in the stories keeps getting bigger - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Catch ya later NZJester - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ========================================================= 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, 5 Feb 2005 01:03:39 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Tonight Show In a message dated 2/4/2005 9:57:51 AM Pacific Standard Time, candex@verizon.net writes: > On a brighter note since NBC and Universal are now family - it's nice to > know > that NBC sees Xena as a property that still has cache and will bring in > viewers. So perhaps in some small way it may help spur a Xena movie (or > miniseries that's my wish). > Hehh, I'm a "glass half-full" kinda gal myself, but your glass is fuller than mine on the movie prospects. - -- 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, 5 Feb 2005 01:03:42 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Xena above all the imitators In a message dated 2/4/2005 12:54:57 AM Pacific Standard Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > Well, I couldn't care less about Najara's perspective. But if you watch, > I > think you'll see that Gabrielle wasn't given a chance to make up her mind > whether to go with Xena or not - Najara pulled her sword out. From the > camera's perspective, Najara started the fight. > > But we've been all over this thing, time to let it die I think. > Had to get that last punch in, eh -- from "the camera's perspective"? You taking the camera out for drinks? I'm picturing the two of you walking off arm in arm. Heh. - -- 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, 5 Feb 2005 01:03:40 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Another Xena location In a message dated 2/4/2005 12:55:07 AM Pacific Standard Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > I believe all the land immediately surrounding the lake is privately owned. > > Whether the lake itself is probably depends on the relevant bit of New > Zealand law - but since the land entirely surrounds the lake, that's kinda > academic. > > The fringe of the forest goes very close to the lake, maybe 50 yards away, > and _if_ that section of pine trees is legally part of Woodhill Forest, then > > it's Crown (government) land over which Carter Holt Forests have a lease. > Such leases provide for public pedestrian access, and also Carter Holt allow > > access by permit for various things like horse riding, trail bike riding, > etc. It may be that pedestrian access to the forest is legal without a > permit, and that could mean pedestrian access to any part of the forest - or > > maybe only defined trails. (I've tried ringing Carter Holt to ask but keep > > getting the standard "we're not here right now" message). So, it may be > that one can quite legally walk through the forest to 50 yards from the > lake. > I did it without being challenged, but then, it was a Sunday and there was > no-one about to challenge me anyway. > > I would imagine RenPics got Houghtons (the landowners) permission, and > probably Carter Holt's permission to take their trucks along the forest > track > to the lake. >> I was mainly curious about laws regarding ownership of certain natural resources. > > As for the detective work, I usually only bother to mention my successes > > After all, the failures don't make a very interesting story. > > They might if you're trekking through NZ. - -- 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, 5 Feb 2005 01:03:42 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] The end of Season Four... In a message dated 2/4/2005 12:54:58 AM Pacific Standard Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > I > think the other bits were just put in as warm-ups, handy bits grabbed from > other eps they happened to have 'in the can' by the time they filmed the > Alti > fight. The crucifixion sequence, OTOH, they filmed specially for Sin > Trade. >> Um, I'm agreeing that these other scenes were secondary. I simply meant I thought they were put in to serve a purpose beyond "filler." As you say, the crucifixion was obviously the key, so they could've used that by itself. I think we're disagreeing on the significance they had for us and the possible intent TPTB had in using them. > > >Alti's intent, > >after all, was to create havoc in Xena's life, uncertainty about where or > >when she might die. I don't think Alti counted on Xena focusing solely on > >the part connected to Gabs. > > I don't know that Alti was after creating uncertainty. Her intent was to > imbue Xena with the certainty and inevitability of her own approaching > death, > I think. >> Then why not show the crucifixion scene and leave it at that? That would indicate a certainty about time and place. Why would Alti chortle, "What's *that" about?" regarding other scenes, if not to try and heighten Xena's concern about even "ordinary" encounters? And (leaving aside Alti's intent, which we can only conjecture), > > Xena was certainly concerned about the apparent inevitability of the > crucifixion. She gave no thought at all to the other bits that Alti showed > > her. If she had, wouldn't she have recognised Najara for a bad hat a bit > quicker? >> Of course it's conjecture about Alti's intent. She might not've even known what vision would pop up until it did. I agreed that Xena wasn't concerned about the other scenes, though I doubt Alti knew that. The irony is that, yes, Xena might've been more suspicious of Najara if she *hadn't* been so focused on the crucifixion. Each of us chooses to focus on or dismiss aspects of what we're shown. I like the psychological stuff, which the extra vision scenes heightened for me. They raised questions for me about what might've been going on in Xena's head -- why she herself choose to focus on or dismiss certain aspects of what Alti showed her. > > >Similarly, I wasn't sure how harmful some of > >those scenes might prove to Xena's well being. I was stunned by the scene > >where she fought the mystery woman and was left lying -- perhaps seriously > >injured or dead -- on the floor. Sure, I figured Xena would survive, but it > >was still a shock to me. > > > >-- Ife > > Yes, but that sort of thing was always happening to Xena. Whereas, the > crucifixion - that was new, and attention-getting in every way. > If TPTB had preceded it with a fanfare of trumpets and a little notice > saying > "Hey folks, get a load of this!" they couldn't have made it more obvious.>> Being on crosses wasn't exactly new to either Xena or Gabs. Having future events shown like that was the unusual aspect. You heard the loudest trumpet in the fanfare we got with the whole idea of the vision. I heard the other trumpets as well. I'm not putting a value judgement on that, simply saying we listen differently. - -- 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: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 10:32:20 +1300 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Xena above all the imitators On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 19:03, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 2/4/2005 12:54:57 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > > Well, I couldn't care less about Najara's perspective. But if you > > watch, I > > think you'll see that Gabrielle wasn't given a chance to make up her mind > > whether to go with Xena or not - Najara pulled her sword out. From the > > camera's perspective, Najara started the fight. > > > > But we've been all over this thing, time to let it die I think. > > Had to get that last punch in, eh -- from "the camera's perspective"? You > taking the camera out for drinks? I'm picturing the two of you walking off > arm in arm. Heh. > > -- Ife I'm just relating what's on screen. :) But really, what with Xena and Najara arguing, the fight started before Gabs had had time to make a clear-cut decision - it's one people need to watch for themselves, I think. 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, 6 Feb 2005 10:26:50 +1300 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Another Xena location On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 19:03, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > > I would imagine RenPics got Houghtons (the landowners) permission, and > > probably Carter Holt's permission to take their trucks along the forest > > track to the lake. >> > > I was mainly curious about laws regarding ownership of certain natural > resources. Well, large rivers and large bodies of water are Crown (publicly) owned. There is supposed to be a chain-wide strip of public land all around them. Small streams and lakes don't qualify. Lake Okaihau is probably not big enough to qualify for public ownership, and (being in sand-hill country) there is no stream flowing out of it. So my guess would be, it's just part of the surrounding private farmland. Woodhill Forest, OTOH, is Crown land, and used to be run by a Government department until some years back when a lot of forests were leased out. But the land remains in public ownership. > > As for the detective work, I usually only bother to mention my successes > > > > > > After all, the failures don't make a very interesting story. > > They might if you're trekking through NZ. > > -- Ife Hmmm... my more interesting travels are not Xena-related so really OT on this list. 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, 6 Feb 2005 10:42:23 +1300 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Another Xena location On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 18:34, NZJester wrote: > At 10:18 a.m. 5/02/2005 +1300, cr wrote: > >As for the detective work, I usually only bother to mention my successes > > After all, the failures don't make a very interesting story. > > Spectacular failures can make the best stories > Fishermen are always telling stories of the one that got away > Some how the fish in the stories keeps getting bigger Yeah, but I'm not sure how one would arrange a 'spectacular' failure to find a Xena location (By the way, I was wrong about Renee mentioning Muriwai in the Sin Trade interviews, it was in the Deja Vu interviews that she mentioned it - but in connection with Sin Trade). 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, 6 Feb 2005 10:37:38 +1300 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] The end of Season Four... On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 19:03, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 2/4/2005 12:54:58 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > > I > > think the other bits were just put in as warm-ups, handy bits grabbed > > from other eps they happened to have 'in the can' by the time they filmed > > the Alti > > fight. The crucifixion sequence, OTOH, they filmed specially for Sin > > Trade. >> > > Um, I'm agreeing that these other scenes were secondary. I simply meant I > thought they were put in to serve a purpose beyond "filler." As you say, > the crucifixion was obviously the key, so they could've used that by > itself. I think we're disagreeing on the significance they had for us and > the possible intent TPTB had in using them. Yes, we are. > > >Alti's intent, > > >after all, was to create havoc in Xena's life, uncertainty about where > > > or when she might die. I don't think Alti counted on Xena focusing > > > solely on the part connected to Gabs. > > > > I don't know that Alti was after creating uncertainty. Her intent was > > to imbue Xena with the certainty and inevitability of her own approaching > > death, > > I think. >> > > Then why not show the crucifixion scene and leave it at that? That would > indicate a certainty about time and place. Why would Alti chortle, "What's > *that" about?" regarding other scenes, if not to try and heighten Xena's > concern about even "ordinary" encounters? As a build-up to the big one, that's why. > > And (leaving aside Alti's intent, which we can only conjecture), > > Xena was certainly concerned about the apparent inevitability of the > > crucifixion. She gave no thought at all to the other bits that Alti > > showed > > her. If she had, wouldn't she have recognised Najara for a bad hat a > > bit quicker? > > Of course it's conjecture about Alti's intent. She might not've even known > what vision would pop up until it did. Yes, Alti's visionary powers were patchy. She obviously couldn't see how the 'flying fight' was going to end, for example. And in When Fates Collide, she was obviously surprised and intrigued by some of the things she 'saw' when she touched Xena in the prison cell. > I agreed that Xena wasn't concerned > about the other scenes, though I doubt Alti knew that. The irony is that, > yes, Xena might've been more suspicious of Najara if she *hadn't* been so > focused on the crucifixion. Yes, that's so. > Each of us chooses to focus on or dismiss > aspects of what we're shown. I like the psychological stuff, which the > extra vision scenes heightened for me. They raised questions for me about > what might've been going on in Xena's head -- why she herself choose to > focus on or dismiss certain aspects of what Alti showed her. > > >Similarly, I wasn't sure how harmful some of > > >those scenes might prove to Xena's well being. I was stunned by the > > > scene where she fought the mystery woman and was left lying -- perhaps > > > seriously injured or dead -- on the floor. Sure, I figured Xena would > > > survive, but it was still a shock to me. > > > > > >-- Ife > > > > Yes, but that sort of thing was always happening to Xena. Whereas, the > > crucifixion - that was new, and attention-getting in every way. > > If TPTB had preceded it with a fanfare of trumpets and a little notice > > saying > > "Hey folks, get a load of this!" they couldn't have made it more > > obvious.>> > > Being on crosses wasn't exactly new to either Xena or Gabs. Having future > events shown like that was the unusual aspect. You heard the loudest > trumpet in the fanfare we got with the whole idea of the vision. I heard > the other trumpets as well. I'm not putting a value judgement on that, > simply saying we listen differently. > > -- Ife Yeah, OK. 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, 5 Feb 2005 23:14:04 -0500 From: "Cheryl Ande" Subject: [chakram-refugees] One Weekend A Month This is the link to One Weekend A Month. I don't if you have to = register to watch the film. If you do registering doesn't cost anything = but you are asked to donate but you don't have to. CherylA http://www.sundanceonlinefilmfestival.org/2005/index.aspx [demime 0.97c-p1 removed an attachment of type application/octet-stream which had a name of SUNDANCE ONLINE FILM FESTIVAL.url] ========================================================= 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, 5 Feb 2005 23:07:28 -0500 From: "Cheryl Ande" Subject: [chakram-refugees] Boogeyman (spoilers big time) # # # # # # # Well I went to see Boogeyman this weekend. I was disappointed in the film. Not that it is a bad film - it really is very intriguing until the very end when it just turns into a monster in the closet movie. I was hoping for something a little more imaginative or at least surprising. Barry Watson is good in the film. He has nice nervous tension and is neurotic enough to make you think there is more behind his fear of the closets than just monsters. As for Lucy - as one review has said she is woefully underused - - not simply because I wanted to see more Lucy but because the movie sets her character up as a possibly pivotal character for the film and then never uses the character at all. Charles Mesure is also underused - I couldn't tell if he was a bad father or just a dumb one with a really bad bed time story - a story by the way which is alluded to but never told in the film. Supporting characters aren't bad. I thought Emily Deschanel was good as Watson's childhood friend (I assume, their relationship isn't explained). Also very good is Skye McCole Bartusiak as a mysterious little girl that befriends Watson. The film has pretty good product values. The sets are atmospheric. Lots of familiar names pop for Xena fans - Joe LoDuca (music), Chloe Smith (producer), and Jane Holland (costumes). I just wish the writers hadn't gone with the obvious. Monsters of the mind are much more interesting than real ones and this film just begged to for the boogeyman to be more than just a special effect. 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: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 00:05:44 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Another Xena location In a message dated 2/5/2005 12:34:00 AM Pacific Standard Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > Well, large rivers and large bodies of water are Crown (publicly) owned. > There is supposed to be a chain-wide strip of public land all around them. > > Small streams and lakes don't qualify. >. Thanks! NZ is so tiny, to have such a wealth of ecological diversity, I never considered how much of it might be privately owned. As large as the U.S. is, there are always fights over that. > >>After all, the failures don't make a very interesting story. > > > >They might if you're trekking through NZ. > > > >-- Ife > > Hmmm... my more interesting travels are not Xena-related so really OT on > this > list. > > "Not Xena-related"?! You actually go places for other reasons than, or without thinking about, XWP? More than that, you think there's anything about NZ that would be OT to some of us XWP fans? I'm aghast! - -- 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: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 00:05:47 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] The end of Season Four... In a message dated 2/5/2005 12:33:53 AM Pacific Standard Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > >Then why not show the crucifixion scene and leave it at that? That would > >indicate a certainty about time and place. Why would Alti chortle, "What's > >*that" about?" regarding other scenes, if not to try and heighten Xena's > >concern about even "ordinary" encounters? > > As a build-up to the big one, that's why. >> Okay, I can go with that. > Yes, Alti's visionary powers were patchy. She obviously couldn't see how > the 'flying fight' was going to end, for example. >> LOL! Good point! Kinda defeats the purpose of foreseeing someone else's death if you can't foresee your own. > > >I agreed that Xena wasn't concerned > >about the other scenes, though I doubt Alti knew that. The irony is that, > >yes, Xena might've been more suspicious of Najara if she *hadn't* been so > >focused on the crucifixion. > > Yes, that's so. >> So you can see why, from my standpoint, it's not as interesting if, in reality, TPTB threw those other scenes in with no intention of suggesting Xena would remember them. To be honest, I wouldn't put it past them to have completely forgotten that, since they showed those scenes, some of us might wonder why Xena didn't at last say, "Hmmm, that weird get-up she's wearing looks kinda familiar." I suppose we could attribute some of that to Xena's initial "What they heck?" expression when she sees Najara, but it would mighty subtle. Like I said before, TPTB probably said, "We won't worry about what happens when Xena actually experiences those moments. That's the fans' job." That's why I'm not arguing the scenes were necessarily intended to go beyond "build up." I willingly give you that it could be quite accidental -- and very personal on my part -- that the scenes contributed more than that for me. - -- 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: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 00:05:45 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Xena above all the imitators In a message dated 2/5/2005 12:33:56 AM Pacific Standard Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > But really, what with Xena and Najara arguing, the fight started before > Gabs > had had time to make a clear-cut decision - it's one people need to watch > for > themselves, I think. > So ... am I to believe you believe Gabs capable of making a "clear-cut" (fill in "sensible") decision even if she had six years? That whatever Xena decided wasn't inherently "best," so she didn't need to consult Gabs anyway? Riiiight. Nice try, though. Your friend The Camera is quite the "spin doctor." - -- 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 V5 #32 *************************************