From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V2 #149 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Thursday, July 13 2000 Volume 02 : Number 149 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Xena question ["Berni Phillips" ] o/X-Men movie (was Re: b/sappho2) ["Berni Phillips" ] Re: o/X-Men movie (was Re: b/sappho2) [GHighPine@aol.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 18:00:44 -0700 From: "Berni Phillips" Subject: Re: Xena question WARNING: I GIVE SPOILERS ABOUT THE SEASON JUST ENDED. >From: GHighPine@aol.com > Do Xena addicts have this feeling that the characters are "real"? The way >that Buffy fans can feel? No, the characters don't feel quite real, at least not Xena herself. She's too perfect when she's not evil and too much of a caricature when she is/was evil. Gabrielle is much closer to a Buffy character. She's almost real but, again, falls a little short. Joxer is meant as more of a joke, but I find him more real and I was very sorry that they just killed him off. > Do Xena fans get truly emotionally caught up in the story? I don't. I like some of the situational things. There was an interesting episode that was retelling Cinderella from various viewpoints. The typical-ugly-and-stupid-henchmen in drag as the stepsisters was amusing. (You can always tell the bad guys on Xena by their teeth. Bad guys have bad teeth; good guys have nice teeth.) I was caught up in the beginning of this season wondering how they were going to continue the show after they killed off the main character. And now they've brought them 25 years into the future and killed off most of the Greek gods, basically killing off their supporting cast. > Let me ask the Xena fans: suppose that up front lesbian relationships (a >la Willow & Tara) were commonplace on the tube. So there was no novelty to >the idea that Xena and Gabrielle might be lovers, any more than if they were >of the opposite sex. Would there be enough in their relationship, as >individuals, to sustain the interest of the fans who are so interested in >their relationship now? I'd have to say yes to this. The relationship is one of the best aspects of the show, and I don't think that if it were declared and were common on tv, that it would have less of an impact on the show. I'm not one who thinks they have a lesbian relationship. The writers/directors/producers are playing with the fans. But even if they do have a lesbian relationship, I would still enjoy the show. (Unless they had graphic sex scenes. I'm not a graphic kind of gal. And Xena and Gaby would be bi -- we do know they have sex with men.) Berni ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 18:06:42 -0700 From: "Berni Phillips" Subject: o/X-Men movie (was Re: b/sappho2) >From: GHighPine@aol.com > Totally off the subject, but I forgot to turn the channel to Buffy (didn't >forget, actually, but the TV in my computer room doesn't get WB) and right >now there is a Fox special about the X-Men movie that makes me think that >this movie could actually be good. It actually has ideas in it! The clips >used aren't emphasizing super special effects but centering around Senate >hearings debating the ethical implications of the genetic engineering that >created the X-Men mutants. People having thought-filled discussions of >whether the mutants can legitimately be considered God's creation or >aberrations of God's plan, whether proposals to contain the mutants are the >equivalent of the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII, etc. I >can't believe it -- a big-screen, big budget, big studio comic book movie >that appears to be literate and contain actual ideas and thought. In the movie, the X-Men were genetically engineered? Whoah, that's a deviation from the comic! In the comic, they are either naturally occurring mutations (from that greatest source of radiation, the sun) or a result of parental exposure to mysterious science and things like that. None are deliberately engineered (although some of the more recent villains have been, and one character had been cloned.) Other than that, the internment issue and "are they fully/really human" are straight from the comic. They certainly have tried to go for a good cast: Patrick Stewart as Professor X, Ian McKellan as Magneto, Anna Paquin as Rogue, etc. Berni ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 18:24:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Todd Huff Subject: Re: Xena question > She's too perfect when she's not evil and too much > of a caricature > when she is/was evil. Gabrielle is much closer to a > Buffy character. > She's almost real but, again, falls a little short. > Joxer is meant > as more of a joke, but I find him more real and I > was very sorry that > they just killed him off. Ted Raimi wanted out of the show, so they didn't have much choice. I'll miss his comic relief too. > > > Do Xena fans get truly emotionally caught up in > the story? > I don't, but some certainly do. The question of Xena and Gabrielle's sexuality has been the #1 topic for fan discussion for a long time. Some do go quite overboard, and back when I did follow some of the boards there were a few lesbian fans who insisted that Gabrielle's short-lived marriage and Xena's several short-term affairs with men were forced upon the show by homophobe executives pressuring the writers. No suggestion of bisexuality was acceptable to them. Personally, I think they swing both ways but prefer each other. The best episodes for me are usually the ones where they bicker like an old couple, and the funniest episodes are the ones where the writers are obviously toying with the fans. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 23:11:49 EDT From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: o/X-Men movie (was Re: b/sappho2) In a message dated 7/12/00 5:59:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time, bernip@ix.netcom.com writes: << In the movie, the X-Men were genetically engineered? Whoah, that's a deviation from the comic! In the comic, they are either naturally occurring mutations (from that greatest source of radiation, the sun) or a result of parental exposure to mysterious science and things like that. None are deliberately engineered (although some of the more recent villains have been, and one character had been cloned.) >> As I have mentioned, I read Marvels in the 1960s, and of course there was no such thing as genetic engineering in those days. So of course it couldn't have been used as part of their origins, but it seems like a natural updating of the story for the 21st century (a time in which genetic engineering is certain current as a concern and a theme). It wasn't clear whether their creation (in the movie) was deliberate or an accident, though. I had the impression that the characters themselves (either the mutants or their critics) did not know if the mutants' origins were accidental or deliberate. So the public fear and distrust of the mutants hooks right into apprehensions about genetic engineering in the present day. The special suggested that angst and identity crises and so on played an important role in the movie. Back when I read X-MEN (starting with issue #3), that element was not as strongly developed as it was in SPIDER-MAN (which I started reading with issue #9), though it was present. So was the theme of public distrust of the mutants, who have to band together in part to survive. This appears to be strongly developed in the movie. Altogether, my impression from the special is that this movie could turn out to be thoughtfully written and very good. Gayle ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V2 #149 *****************************