XENA MEDIA REVIEW #30 (04-15-97) Borg 02 of 11 ================= CUT HERE =================== THE INTERNET I'll admit to being an Internet newbie at the time of Lawless' accident. I was probably impressed by Internet phenomena that are common knowledge to online veterans. However, the aftermath of Lawless' accident provided a vivid example for me of how the Internet is changing the information flow in our society. Two things stand out: How RP used the Internet to keep in touch with fans, and the fact that the Internet was a better source of information than the news media. RP's use of the Internet is one of the most fascinating aspects of this story. At the time, MCA/Universal appeared to want to say as little as possible about the accident. Meanwhile, RP appeared to be making every effort to step around MCA/Universal's corporate restrictions and connect directly with fans. This began with Tapert's talk to fans at the Acapulco Restaurant only two and a half hours after the accident. Tapert's comments gave fans more information than any of the official press releases ever did. Details of Tapert's statement were posted to the Internet and flashed around the world within a few hours. If the Internet had not existed, then Tapert's comments would have only been heard by about 50 people. Meanwhile, Mellette was posting on the NetForum to dispel rumors. Because MCA/Universal earlier had forbidden staff to post to the NetForum, Mellette could do little more than correct misinformation. MCA/Universal's ban meant that the unofficial channels of communication, like fan-run mailing lists, were the only channels open to RP. Because of this, the XenaVerse mailing list became the best place to find up-to-date information. XenaVerse was run by fans and appeared to be free of monitoring by MCA/Universal. It was also the Internet home base to Tyldus aka Supervising Producer Steve Sears, who took on the role of unofficial spokesman to the fans. Sears would post messages to XenaVerse and ask fans to repost them to other online forums, including the NetForum. Within minutes, the information would be flashed around the world. The day after the accident, for example, Tyldus posted a short note describing his visit that morning with Lawless. "She looked a little worse for the wear but was in good spirits," Tyldus wrote. (See item #28) Throughout the next few weeks, Tyldus kept fans updated on Lawless' condition, gave hints about what the upcoming "Lucy-Lite" episodes might be like, and on October 21, 1996, relayed a thank-you note from Lawless. The note, available at the XENA FAQ on WHOOSH (http://www.thirdstory.com/whoosh/faq), thanked fans for their well wishes and "good vibes", asked fans to stop sending gifts, and noted that she was "raring to get back to work." It also provided yet another example of the power of the Internet by including a personal message for Roo, the injured fan who's plight probably would not have been communicated to Lawless if the Internet had not existed. Among other things, Lawless said in her note: "Lot's of love to you, Roo! From me and Renee (O'Connor)!" Lawless' statement via Sears is a good example of how anyone depending on the news media would get half the story. This statement, for example, was never released to the news media. Along with Tapert's appearance at the restaurant on the night of the accident, Mellette's posts to NetForum and posts by XWP Editor Rob Field (aka Avicus) to the Chakram mailing list, Sears' posts to XenaVerse probably did more than anything to guarantee that the rumor mill did not run out of control. Think about what might have happened if Tapert, Mellette, Field and Sears had not acted as they did. Fans would have been in the dark, relying on the mainstream news media, which had little information, and MCA/Universal press releases, which said even less. If RP hadn't acted, the fans main sources of information during October would have been the eyewitness accounts of fans at the scene who saw a frightening fall and a star who did not get up or even move afterwards. Tapert, Mellette, Field and Sears are to be commended for their actions. Not only were their actions smart public relations, but perhaps more importantly, they provided a compassionate response to worried fans. In a time when MCA/Universal was providing meaningless pap in its public statements, RP appeared to have side-stepped their own bosses so that they could give fans the information they needed. While all of this activity was occurring online, little was appearing in the mainstream media. Associated Press, the main information source for out-of-town news for all media in the United States, did not pick up the story until October 10 after Stephanie Reader, an online fan who is also a journalist, wrote a story based on information from online sources for her newspaper. Because The Boston Globe also published a story that day, it is impossible to say which story AP borrowed for its news wires. However, it is interesting to speculate that the Internet and a fan may have scooped the powerful AP and have generated the flood of newspaper stories that were to come. THE MEDIA What can you say about the news media coverage? It began with ENTERTAINMENT TONIGHT videotaping Lawless as she lay on the pavement and then replaying that tape every time ET mentioned her for the next year. It included cutesy stories that confused the real-life actress with the character she plays and chortled over the fact that "Xena" had been hurt. At the same time, the majority of the media repeated the basic facts of the accident, staying close to the tell-little press releases issued by MCA/Universal. All of this is pretty ho-hum and seems to illustrate, yet again, the shortcomings of the news media. However, you should never under estimate the power of the old fashioning media, which still reaches far more households than the Internet. The coverage of the accident came in several waves, starting with a wave of stories reporting the accident. Another wave reported Lawless' release from the hospital about a week later and another wave about two weeks later reported on her appearance on THE TONIGHT SHOW. According to TV Guide and Lawless, all of this publicity provided XWP with an unprecedented amount of free advertising, and that helped boost ratings. Perhaps the ultimate lesson here is that while the Internet might seem all-powerful at times, the traditional media are still supreme. =========== ANNOTATIONS =========== [533] 10-01-96 SKY. http://www.sky.co.uk/one/xena.htm COMMENTARY: This brief article provides nothing more than an introduction to the series. Hardcore fans will be able to recite this in their sleep, but first-time viewers might find this helpful. [DS] This is a description released by an on-line service which promotes the satellite system which was carrying XENA: WARRIOR PRINCESS in the united Kingdom. REPRINT: Sky 2: XENA: WARRIOR PRINCESS NEW ADVENTURE SERIES Sundays at 7pm, Sky 2 Xena: Warrior Princess is an hour-long action/adventure series from critically-acclaimed film makers Rob Tapert and Sam Raimi (Army Of Darkness, Darkman, American Gothic). A Renaissance Pictures production, the series is a spin-off of the company's highly successful Hercules: The Legendary Journeys and stars New Zealand actress Lucy Lawless who first captivated audiences with her portrayal of the character, Xena, in three top-rated episodes of Hercules. Xena is set in the golden age of myth, long before ancient Greece or Rome, on the distant frontier of known civilization far away from the land of mighty Hercules. The whims of capricious gods and the greed of human tyrants make her world a treacherous one. Surrounded by enemies, barbaric tribes, slave traders and a host of other evils, the warrior princess is on a mission to help people free themselves from tyranny and injustice. Xena was first introduced in an episode of Hercules as an intrepid warrior bent on destruction, who sets out to kill Hercules in her quest for power. But when a simple act of compassion causes her own army to betray her, she undergoes a radical conversion. Realizing she's lost sight of her own humanity in her obsession to prove herself as the ultimate warrior, Xena becomes Hercules' ally and love interest before heading homeward to begin a new life. Sundays at 7pm, Sky 2 *Don't forget that in addition to Xena: Warrior Princess on Sky 2, on Saturdays at 2pm and 7pm on Sky 1 you can see Hercules [534] 10-01-96 TV GUIDE. Insider. http://www.mci.newscorp.com/tv/magazine. "Xena's Sidekick." by Annabel Vered. COMMENTARY: This article on Renee O'Connor appears to be the first time O'Connor was given space by TV Guide. This is part of the publicity blitz for the second season of XWP. [DS] EXCERPT: XENA'S SIDEKICK Scaling Mount Kilimanjaro, sailing the Nile, swimming with dolphins. Sounds like a typical day for Xena not glib sidekick Gabrielle (Renee O'Connor), on Xena: Warrior Princess But the 25-year-old Texan is more athletic than her character: Now on safari in Africa with her mom, she's also into hiking, climbing, and martial arts. And in the hit series' second season, Gabrielle is getting more like O'Connor. "She's more independent, more her own person," says the actress. In addition, "I think she's better with the staff than she expected. The writers have decided that's her special ability now." O'Connor's also coming into her own, getting recognized by Xena-philes on the street. "It's nice to hear what they like, especially women. They appreciate that our characters are intellectually and physically strong -- Xena more than Gabrielle, but still..." [535] 10-01-96 WRITER'S DIGEST. Section: Vol. 76, No. 10. Page 47. 2130 words. "Sense and responsibility, the scriptwriter and society. By Lawrence DiTillio. COMMENTARY: Lawrence DiTillio works on Babylon 5. [KT] Written for aspiring scriptwriters, this article is in XMR because it uses Xena and Hercules as examples of how "fact" is not always "truth" when it comes to TV. DiTillio explains that both series are truthful, although historically inaccurate. They work, he says, because they are fantasies and are not intended to be factually accurate. DiTillio's article is reprinted in full because it does more than mention Xena. The article offers a look at how scriptwriting works from the writer's point of view. I thought that might be handy given the criticism of the writing of the third-season episodes. DiTillio ends with a discussion of whether or not TV influences people, which is another topic that has been debated heatedly in Xenadom. [DS] REPRINT: Our topic today is the responsibility of the scriptwriter. Several varieties affect scriptwriting. First and foremost is the writer's responsibility to his or her own work. Two factors apply here: passion and truth. A writer must have a genuine desire to tell a story, otherwise the story isn't going to generate much response from the audience. This doesn't mean a passionless story won't make it to the screen; film and television are rife with scripts that lie there like week-old lox and yet get produced. This odd phenomenon has to do with time and money. Television in particular is a very fast-paced medium (at least in the episodic area) and it's no mean feat to generate 13, 22 or 26 episodes of a TV series in the course of a single year (the actual production time is much less but I'm including the script process). Given such an effort, the last thing a producer wants is to shelve a script, so bad scripts get produced. More on this later, but now let's examine the truth part of the equation. Truth is every bit as important as passion. However, it's a somewhat more flexible concept. In the context of your responsibilities, truth refers to being truthful to the characters, tone and milieu of the work. Two of my favorite shows--Hercules: The Legendary Journeys and Xena: Warrior Princess--are examples of this. Before these shows' creations, most fantasies involving mythic characters were played fairly straight--characters talked in pseudo-archaic style and avoided obvious references to contemporary things. Hercules and Xena take this notion and stand it on its head. Though both characters work in a milieu that is supposed to be Ancient Greece and its environs, they talk in contemporary style and are constantly tossing in sly references to contemporary life. If you were to look at this series with an eye to historical accuracy you'd come up painfully short. But the truth of both series is that they're not trying to be accurate; they're trying to be funny, offbeat and appealing to a contemporary audience. Yet at the same time, both shows are very truthful to their main and supporting characters, never deviating from who they are as presented by the creators of the shows. As a counterpoint, take Dr. Quinn: Medicine Woman, a show set in the old West that takes pains to be historically accurate. In this case, a deviation from the truth would be inconsistent with the general thrust of the series. When writing an original work, truth depends on your objective. If you're writing a wacky comedy a la Mel Brooks or a fantastic piece like Star Wars, you need pay little attention to reality. If you're penning a romantic comedy or a drama, you probably want your setting to be as realistic as possible. In all cases, you must be truthful to the characters, either as they exist or as you create them. Let me give you a generic example. Say two characters, at odds throughout an entire story, suddenly fall wildly in love. This is a classic cliche in film and TV, and whether it works or not depends on the truth of the change. If the writer takes care in detailing the change of emotions, paying close attention to who his characters are and what event (or events) motivates them from antagonism to love, then the audience accepts it. If not, it falls flat. So truth in scriptwriting is relative to the piece. Indeed, one could say nothing in a fictional piece is actually true, but simply appears true. The fancy word for it is verisimilitude, and that's what film and TV strive for. Your final responsibility to your own work: When writing a first draft, indulge your passion and your truth fully. You must write the very best writing you can, and you can't do that by nit-picking your own work as it's pouring out of you. In subsequent drafts, you'll have sufficient time to pull back, alter and drop material. Do so with utter brutality for that's the real craft of writing. No matter how in love you may be with a scene, if it doesn't enhance the work, cut or change it. The Good, the Bad and the Un The late Arthur Nadel, the writer/producer who gave me my second big break in showbiz, once explained to me the three kinds of scripts: good producible, bad producible and unproducible. The good producible script meets most of the employer's needs in terms of content, budget, production time and audience appeal. Writing them makes you a viable commodity in the industry. The bad producible script falls short in terms of content and audience appeal, but is doable in terms of money and time. A bad producible script will immediately require the services of a story editor (in TV) or a script doctor (in film). An unproducible script can be either bad or good writing, but in both cases it simply can't be produced within the allotted budget or time. A bad unproducible script is usually beyond the help of even the greatest script doctor; it almost always winds up being shelved (along with the writer's career momentum). A good unproducible script can sometimes be reworked enough to make it producible, which leads us to: The Second Responsibilities The second brand of responsibility is responsibility to your employers. Professional scripting is work for hire, and as such you must fulfill the needs of those who pay you. You'll note that in discussing the good producible script I said it fulfills most of the employer's needs. I said it because the writer has needs as well, and knowing how to fulfill those needs without alienating a producer, network executive or studio maven is a fine art. No matter how good a script is, the writer is going to get notes--comments and critiques and rewrite orders--on it. Deciding which of these notes to implement and which to fight against until blood flows from your brow is part of being a professional. One key to making such decisions is to realize that the notes are not coming from a writer (except in the case of a writer-producer). Non-writers can't always see why something in a script works; They're often simply going on a gut feeling that it's "wrong." The writer's job is to change that perception through tactful argument rather than to merely dismiss it. I stress tactful because screaming at a producer that he's a first-rate moron who should be castrated so that no more of his kind can be bred is not likely to help your career--or win the argument. If a script change is small and doesn't overly impact the whole, your best bet is to go ahead and make the change. On the other hand, if you're certain a change will severely damage the script, fight the fight to the best of your ability. This may require walking away from the project, a situation no pro ever really likes but one that is sometimes necessary. The final responsibility of writer to employer is to do the work on time. When working on a film, or a made-for-TV movie or special, time is a bit more flexible and this is not so great a problem. But in episodic television, time is crucial. Once, a writer who owed me a rewrite disappeared for a month. This writer never worked for me again. The Third Responsibility The final responsibility is that of writer to audience. It's this responsibility that often casts me and my colleagues in the role of "menace to society." Anyone who can read a newspaper or listen to Oprah knows that the industry I labor in has been under virulent attack for the past several years. According to certain journalists, psychiatrists, watchdog groups, politicians and assorted other critics, the film and TV industry is responsible for every societal misfortune since the assassination of Lincoln. Gangs, child abuse, drug abuse, divorce, crime, riots, murder, mayhem and war are all dropped casually on Hollywood's doorstep as concerned citizens gravely nod agreement. The usual industry response to this is to agree that we are creating a climate of violence and moral turpitude in America and solemnly agree to do better. My response is "Horse hockey." Film and TV are powerful mediums. Their blend of word and image can influence people, as advertising agencies know all too well. There's a difference, however, in getting a person to buy laundry detergent and getting them to take an ax to their mother-in-law. It's the difference between the trivial and the significant between what has meaning in life and what doesn't. With this in mind, here's my take on the thorny question of the scriptwriter's responsibility to audience--and to society. Conflict is part and parcel of every good story. These conflicts may be emotional, such as those that drive most comedies and dramas, or they may be physical, the stock in trade of action-adventure and thrillers. Now, the majority of us want and do live nice, peaceful lives--but none of us want to see that on the screen. It is boring, and it does little to help us through the trials and tribulations of life. And helping us get through life is what writing is about; helping us understand the good and the bad in human nature, aiding us in confronting our fears, appreciating the joys of living, giving us a sense of wonder and comforting us in hard times. To help our audiences through their trials and tribulations, writers must have passion and truth and one thing more: freedom. We must be free to explore the light and the dark in our nature, without fear of V-chips, political correctness, draconian rating systems or moral platitudes. Our freedom is our greatest strength. Conversely, it is what people fear most about us. We say the things others won't or can't say, and for our troubles we are often resented, hounded, hated and persecuted, not only by those outside our industry but by those inside as=7F well. It's a frightening responsibility, this freedom to explore, and if you don't see that I'd suggest another line of work. But if you do accept it, understand this: 98% of the scripts churned out every day in film and TV are designed strictly to entertain. They're not meant to impact our life; they're meant to divert us from it for a time. The very best of these scripts may indeed give us an emotional response and even a life lesson or three. Nevertheless, the goal is still diversion. (The other 2% aim right for our hearts, souls and minds and are generated by talented writers, directors and actors who seek to create art.) The attacks on my industry center on the entertainment more than on the art, but they impact both because they ignore an essential fact: We are all creatures of light and darkness, striving to cast off our baser natures and become truly civilized. The entertainment industry gives us a way to indulge the less savory aspects of our humanity without hurting anyone. That's a good thing. I also believe that the politicians who rant about our industry should take a good hard look at their own output. If there is a climate of violence, I believe it's these heinous jarheads who have caused it. I have less rancor toward the various parents' groups who make the same charges, because I believe they have been misled. I'm a parent, and I know it's hard to raise children in these times. My daughter is 9 and has already been through an earthquake, a flood and the worst of all riots. When I looked out my window and saw things burning two blocks away in all directions, I, too, was angry and scared. But I am not naive enough to believe the event was caused by a cartoon show--or even a Steven Seagal film. I don't doubt that some of you--scriptwriters and casual readers--are seething at this point. I propose to you a small experiment. Take the latest copy of TV Guide and get yourself a red pencil. Circle every show you consider violent, page by page. Ignore pay-cable services; most of what they're showing are feature movies that must be paid for by the viewer. Now compare what you've circled to what you haven't. I'm confident you'll find the nonviolent far outweighs the violent. Remember also that entertainment is a choice. If you don't like a show, you're not forced to watch it. If a movie doesn't appeal to you, no one makes you plunk your bucks at the box office. That's called freedom and it is meaningful, not trivial. Politicians want you to believe this industry is responsible for the world's troubles. It's a smoke screen to keep you from seeing the real scoundrels. It's your responsibility to question this smoke screen both as writers and as consumers of the industry's wares. With a bit of common sense and a willingness to accept responsibility, we can change the world. In Boca Al Lupo. Lawrence G. DiTillio's views are, as always, solely his own. He wouldn't have to any other way. This column is copyright 1996 by Lawrence G. DiTillio. GRAPHIC: Other [536] 10-01-96 THE WEB MAGAZINE. October/November 1996. Page 110. "WebReviews" by Derk Richardson COMMENTARY: What follows is Kym Taborn's commentary on how this modest little mention of XMR in The Web Magazine led to the publication of the first issue of WHOOSH. We think it's a red-letter day in the history of Xenadom, but then we are a tad biased. Here's Kym. [DS] XMR (the newsletter you are reading now!) was originally archived on the IAXS (International Association of Xena Studies) website, which was originally designed and maintained by Tricia Murphy Heintz (web-page princess) and subtly manipulated by me, Kym Taborn (web-page pest). This very same web page was reviewed in the premiere issue of The Web Magazine, yet another consumer-oriented web guide entering an already glutted market. Released September 17, 1996, the review got carried away in its description of a research project. Of the 36 different projects listed, Mr. Richardson fixated on one alone and embellished upon it. The actual research project was titled, "018. Ambiguities in the Relationships Among the Women of XWP". Mr. Richardson called it "sexual preference ambiguities". Is that Freudian? You betcha! Although he called the page thin, Mr. Richardson deemed the site "promising". He also added that the page "emulates both the cult series' medieval-meets-modernist atmosphere (graphically) and its ironic attitude (in wry approach to content)..." On a scale of 1 (avoid it at all costs) to 5 (marry it), Mr. Richardson rated the page "2" for content, "4" for design, "3" for links, and "3" overall. The overall score was weighted towards the links score, since the reviewer placed a very high value to the number of links on a given site. Because of this article reviewing the IAXS site, Betsy Book and I decided that September 17th (the day the October issue hit the stands) would be an excellent time to premiere the first issue of WHOOSH. For about three weeks we spent over thirty hours a week online working to get the WHOOSH website together. Talk about mythic bonding. By the time the third issue was up, we were shell-shocked and confused as to whom was who. Nonetheless, we made that first deadline and a very modest WHOOSH premiered on September 17, 1996, all because of this stupid WEB MAGAZINE review. I got a free copy of the magazine and what amounts to a new career in web publishing. This is deliciously surreal. I am reviewing a review of my website without using any mirrors! [KT] The web address subsequently changed to http://www.thirdstory.com/whoosh/iaxs and then recently to http://whoosh.org REPRINT: ...INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF XENA STUDIES http://www.teleport.com/~gater/IAXS.html Emulating both the cult series' medieval-meets-modernist atmosphere (graphically) and its ironic attitude (in wry approach to content), this thin but promising addition to the ranks of online-philes calls itself the online home of the International Association of Xena Studies. The IAXS "requires" participation and assigns research topics (such as sexual preference ambiguities) to willing students. A newsletter, Whoosh!, is on its way. Content: 2 Design: 4 Links: 3 Overall: 3... [537] 10-01-96 DETROIT MONTHLY. October 1996. Page 12. 3880 words. "Upfront" COMMENTARY: XWP composer Joe LoDuca was mentioned in a story about a Hollywood Literary Retreat seminar and workshop. [KT] EXCERPT: ...Although she's been making semi-regular stops in metro Detroit for a year or two now, L.A. writer-producer Lynn Isenberg's popular Hollywood Literary Retreat program is extending its reach now to other showbiz meccas including New York, Miami and even Paris, France. Her seminar-workshops in Motown cover acting, writing and scoring music for the movies, and have attracted talent near (Joe LoDuca, who scores syndicated successes Hercules: The Legendary Journeys and Xena: Warrior Princess for Sam Raimi) and far (Oscar-winning composer Herbie Hancock). She returns to the Detroit area Oct. 12-13 with ''Screenwriting & Producing." For details, call (810) 645-2538 or visit the program's Web site at http://www.metroguide.com/hollywoodseminars.Hot Air ================= CUT HERE =================== XENA MEDIA REVIEW #30 (04-15-97) Borg 02 of 11