FORKNI-L
FORKNI-L Digest - 31 Jan 2001 to 1 Feb 2001 (#2001-36)
Thu, 1 Feb 2001
There are 15 messages totalling 774 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. help with some info
2. So long, and thanks for all the FK
3. Curious (2)
4. Right Place, Right Time
5. FK ending (was Right Place, Right Time)
6. LK ending (2)
7. Horrorscopes (2)
8. Schanke and the boy (3)
9. Fwd: Re: Re: LK ending
10. Videos, maybe? :-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 17:19:49 -0600
From: Bob Cradock <cradock@s.......>
Subject: Re: help with some info
Muldy Sculler wrote:
[asking for some info on the rules of cricket]
Here's a link I found a while back, and have been itching
for a chance to pass along.
"Cricket for the curious"
http://leonardo.ucs.ed.ac.uk/~wex/cricket.html
And if you can resist including any "bat" and "century"
puns in your cricket fanfic, you're a better person than I.
Bob
--
Bob Cradock cradock@s.......
Star Trek: SF for people with good intentions.
Babylon 5: SF for people with good attention spans.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 17:33:42 -0600
From: Bob Cradock <cradock@s.......>
Subject: So long, and thanks for all the FK
Time to move on.
Much as I hate to do it, I'm going to have to unsubscribe
from FORKNI-L after all this time. The group is great,
but RL is rudely taking up too much of my time, and my email
account that makes reading the digests convenient is being
purged by my old department.
I still vividly remember my first encounter with FK. Late one
night, channel-surfing landed me in the middle of Black Buddha.
"Wait a minute, to get out of that explosion he'd have to be
able to fly or something! And those accents - wow!" I was
brought across right then. The fact that it reminded me of
my previous favorite nocturnal Canadian detective show
(Night Heat) didn't hurt at all.
Just before Last Knight I discovered the FK net community, and
you've been a great source of informational and attitudinal
support through all the ups and downs since then. FK fans
both on and off the net have turned out to be terrific people.
(There was even one woman I ended up dating for a while whom
I got to know after we talked about FK being one of our secret
TV pleasures.) Although the timing of my Toronto trips has
never allowed it, I've been grateful for the guided tour
invitations from those of you lucky enough to live there.
I've been involved in the net for longer than I want to think
about, and there's no question that this list is the nicest
place I've ever virtually visited. You should all be very
proud of the way your kindness, friendliness, creativity,
diplomacy, articulateness (?), silliness, perseverance, and
modest erudition come through so strongly in a world lacking
those things online and off.
Thanks to McLisa for her gentle herding of this group of cats
toward the pleasant state of affairs that exists here. It's
got to be a lot harder than she makes it look. Thanks to all
of you for the chance to smile at your kind words, soak up
your thoughtful prose, wander through your fanfic, support
charities, and even buy your books and t-shirts. I appreciate
all the chances I've had to learn dizzying varieties of
information, write some things that entertained me and
apparently a few other folks, and be a small part of a group
that believes goodness as an end and a means need not
be limited to fictional characters.
I'll miss my (mostly lurking) time here, though I do have
a whole lot of unread digests and fanfic to discover.
Hope that I can rejoin sometime in the future, and that
all of you keep having as much fun keeping Forever Knight
alive as it's been so far.
Bob
(soon to be bcradock@m.......)
Homicide: the best damned show on television
Forever Knight: the best television show on the damned
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 22:18:33 -0500
From: Portia <portia1@m.......>
Subject: Re: Curious
> I just recently re-watched 'Dead Issue' and was wondering... who is the
> little boy that Schanke is scolding, and then sends off to play, at the
> picnic?
> Any clues? Ideas?
I always wondered if they intended to infer that this was his son, but later
limited him to just Jenny?
Portia
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 22:42:47 -0000
From: Barbara Vainio <bevainio@w.......>
Subject: Re: Right Place, Right Time
Sandra wrote:
>If they had had Nick regain his mortality,
>I think it might have been more interesting if they left things up in the air
>some after that. It would have left an opening for movies or episodes (or
>fanfic).
>
Diane Harris just posted a story to the raven awards that covers some of
this territory well. It's called "Through a Glass, Darkly". The premise
isn't based on LK, but it provides a very interesting resolution and is also
wonderfully well written. If you haven't had a chance to read it yet, check
it out.
Barb
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 23:04:22 -0000
From: Barbara Vainio <bevainio@w.......>
Subject: Re: FK ending (was Right Place, Right Time)
Tim Phillips wrote:
> Emotionally, I don't like Last Knight.
> But it works in the larger story in the same way that Romeo
> and Juliet has to end like it does. Without a tragic ending, it is not
> the same story.
It isn't so much the tragic ending I object to, it's the fact that I feel it
violated the character's ideals and preferences, which AHD been built up and
explored so expertly for 3 years by a phenomenal cast of actors.
The reason "Romeo and Juliet" works, IMO, is that the characters a both
young teenagers who would be more likely to allow their emotions to rule
their reason. There's also that "how romantic" feeling that the FK cast
managed to avoid - one of the reasons the show works so well for me. Nick,
Nat and LaCroix are all adults who have displayed varying, but real, degrees
of self-control. Even at his most emotional, Nick always seemed to back
away from ultimate, final solutions. And Nat keeps pushing Nick to do
"human" things even when it means she has to put her own feelings second.
For me, if the same results had been gotten by different, more realistic
means, I would still hate the fact that the show was over, but could more
easily accept the finality of the ending.
Just MHO,
Barb
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 22:51:36 CST
From: Emily <emily.m.hanson@u.......>
Subject: LK ending
I've had my own idea to write a different ending for quite a while, but got
wrapped up writing the Schanke's Return series.
Are Star Trek XOVERs still allowed by the FKFANFIC list rules? Otherwise if I
ever get time to write it, I could just post it at my website.
E-mail: emily.m.hanson@u.......
Homepage: http://www.starbase-eprime.com
Fanfic: http://www.geocities.com/hansone.geo/myfanfic.html
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 11:50:31 -0800
From: Kryshana Dempsey <wldthngwthfngs@h.......>
Subject: Re: Curious
I've told KC that I personally think that it is supposed to be his son. She
disagrees with me, since she says that only child of Schanke's ever
mentioned is Jenny.
But I think the kid looks a lot like him. It wouldn't be the first time that
FK wasn't consistent, as I've read on this list.
That's just my $.02 worth.
~Shana~
wldthngwthfngs@h.......
wickdgrin@j.......
"Keep smiling. It makes people wonder what you've been up to."
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 00:32:52 EST
From: DanaKnight@a.......
Subject: Re: Horrorscopes
In a message dated 1/17/01 5:07:28 PM, LISTSERV@l....... writes:
<< Which makes me wonder, with so many relationship factions connected to FK
(and new ones being formed all the time), is there any place we would draw
the line -- one that would simply make the mind boggle? >>
How about Screed and Lacroix. ::shudders::
Judy
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 07:11:36 EST
From: Libratsie@a.......
Subject: Re: Horrorscopes
In a message dated 1/31/01 11:34:48 PM Central Standard Time,
DanaKnight@a....... writes:
> How about Screed and Lacroix. ::shudders::
>
I think I remember hinting at that in one of my "Screed's Adventure" stories
that are archived at the JADFE and Screed (www.screedwashere.com) sites. VERY
adult. I can't even mention the title here.
After all, as the Unnamed Faction knows, I think Screed could teach LaCroix a
thing or two. heheheheh
Libs
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 06:10:33 -0800
From: Lisa McDavid <cecily1349@y.......>
Subject: Re: LK ending
Emily asked:
>Are Star Trek XOVERs still allowed by the FKFANFIC list rules?
Yes, as long as the xover is with either of the ST
series.
Now, about the LK ending:
There are a few things that need to be mentioned.
James Parriott was both executive producer and writer
of the script for Last Knight. His first idea was to
kill everybody except Reese. LC would have walked into
the sun. (At least that's what I think I remember. If
I'm wrong, someone else please correct me.) Why he
left Reese alone I don't know, unless it was an
oversight. I've seen the final script for LK. The
stake descended. The only way the ending could be
described as ambiguous was that we didn't actually see
it go in.
It was plain that he intended Nick to die. Originally
the stock shot of the sun was going to have Nigel
doing a voiceover behind it, part of the Prince's
speech from the end of Romeo and Juliet. I can't
recall the exact quote, but it makes it clear that
Nick is dead.
Ger directed LK. He took out the staking and had CD
move after Nat is seen lying on the floor, to indicate
that she wasn't dead. The script has Nick deliberately
draining Nat in a second draught after he realizes
he's taken too much. Ger took that out. He was
planning to present JP with a fait accompli after it
was too late to re-edit.
Someone told JP about the script revisions. JP put the
cuts back. Ger took them out again. JP flew up to
Toronto to make sure the show was shot according to
his script.
The last scene in the episode was the last one filmed.
It was 2 A.M. on the set. Someone from SONY/Tri-Star
called and overruled JP to the extent that we would
not see the stake descend and there would be no
voiceover. JP still didn't let Ger put in the shot of
Nat moving after she was on the floor, but the second
draining was removed.
McLisa (Lisa McDavid)
listowner, Forkni-l and Fkfic-l
mclisa@m.......
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 06:22:14 -0800
From: Lisa McDavid <cecily1349@y.......>
Subject: Schanke and the boy
Since the show never had a bible, there was some
confusion at first about Schanke's family. In a scene
which was cut in the original U.S. airing, we see
Schanke talking to Myra on the phone. He refers to
"you and the kids."
So, yes, the intention in the picnic scene could have
been that the boy was Schanke's son.
McLisa
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 09:30:04 -0800
From: Lisa McDavid <cecily1349@y.......>
Subject: Fwd: Re: Re: LK ending
Forwarding for Portia, who sent this by mistake to me
only -- McL
>
> mclisa@m....... wrote:
> >>LC would have walked into the sun. <<
>
> Wow, McL! Of all the ways I imagined the scene
> proceeding after that last shot, I *never* thought
> of LaCroix going for a tan, so to speak! From the
> various symbolic touches and from the way the series
> and the ep had progressed to that point, I believed
> that Nick and Nat were dead, and I had to come up
> with ways to justify the ending that would allow
> them both to maintain the dignity, affection and
> respect I have for both characters. I also had to
> justify why LaCroix would have complied with Nick's
> request.
>
> I saw Nat taking a big gamble prompted by extreme
> sadness and frustration -- it seemed as though she
> had reached a point of "all or nothing," and the
> gamble didn't pay off in the manner that she hoped.
> Because the gamble didn't pay off, Nick's "moment of
> destiny" came when he realized that Nat's
> life/destiny hung on the balance of his decision --
> it was his defining moment, whether he would try to
> bring her across or let her die. His own destiny
> was intrinsically bound to hers at that moment --
> either because he had so sworn to her or literally,
> because of what his decision would mean. She was
> the symbol of his quest for mortality, and to bring
> her across would have been the ultimate betrayal of
> that quest (as I believe he perceived it). To allow
> her to "pass over" into whatever lay beyond would
> mean that such must be his destiny, too -- and I
> don't think he took death lightly. By allowing her
> to pass over into death, he was entrusting her and
> himself to the faith that there was something beyond,
> and that it would be worth that faith. Was it right
> or fair, I can't say --
> only that in the scant moments that Nick had to make
> that decision, he *did* believe that it was. Was the
> whole evening a series of rash, hasty acts? Well,
> yeah, but once his and her life hung in the balance,
> it was a matter of ultimately choosing...I don't
> know...where he and they stood in the...cosmic
> balance? before God? intrinsically as people? I
> think that Nick believed that whatever he decided
> would penultimately "define" who he and Nat would
> be, and their ultimate spiritual fate. I didn't
> want this ending for either of them -- I love happy
> endings! -- but I didn't want it to negate what they
> had been. So I try to see it in the light that Nick
> was trying to make a decision between good and evil
> for himself and the woman he loved deeply...and he
> chose good.
>
> As for LaCroix -- I tried to picture it from his
> point of view and from what I imagined of his
> character. I thought of the Roman sense of honor,
> the cultural precedence of euthanasia and assisted
> suicide, and LaCroix' pride, and his belief in his
> ultimate "ownership/responsibilty for" Nicholas. I
> imagine him swearing to himself that if Nick ever
> did achieve the impossible by regaining his
> mortality (from which it is unlikely he would have
> voluntarily returned), he would rescue him from
> living in such a "degraded" state, from such
> dishonor, by "putting him out of his misery," as a
> Roman father might do for his hopelessly insane or
> disabled child. Then I thought about how he seemed
> to treat Nick with an increasing (to a more or less
> degree) level of gentleness as the season
> progressed, and then I thought how Nick seemed to
> somewhat physically degrade over the series (sorry
> GWD, nothing personal! I know he had a tough time
> with travel and whatall the last season). It made
> me wonder at the toll Nick's quest was having on him
> physically -- and maybe even mentally, to some
> degree. I think Nick's will was strong at the end,
> but I wonder if something else hadn't irreparably
> broken, whether his spirit, his connection with the
> world, his health, his soul, whatever. LaCroix,
> intimately connected to Nick, would have known this,
> and out of compassion and out of his sense of
> committment as a friend and father, he put his son
> "out of his misery." Basically, I reason that,
> after holding onto the guy for *800* years, he
> wasn't going to let him go unless he had a darned
> good reason. If he did kill Nick, it had to be out
> of some prompting of love, and there had to be no
> other recourse -- he had to *know* that *nothing*
> else (for whatever reason) could be done.
>
> Maybe this is all reaching, all advanced
> rationalization, but it's the best I could do to
> make what we were given work, without resorting to
> "they wouldn't act that way" and "it doesn't work!"
> And because, I feel, there were enough elements
> provided, I can sadly accept these rationalizations.
>
> As for LaCroix killing himself(!), I'm glad they
> didn't even hint at that! I would have to twist my
> brain into a pretzel to make that work! (Yeah,
> yeah, I know what some of you are saying -- "well
> then, what shape *is* it now?") I've always seen
> him as, although capable of love and giving,
> paramountly selfish. Or, if that is putting it too
> harshly, then prone to living by the motto of "look
> out for number one, first." I think that is his
> basic philosophy, perhaps instilled in him by life
> and how he was raised. I think he tries to live by
> this and instill it in his children, but that
> sometimes his heart gets the better of him --
> something he probably perceives as weakness. I also
> imagine his philosophy is "survival at all cost."
> If Nicholas' death (especially at his hands) were to
> lead to LaCroix'suicide, it would not be in so
> direct a manner -- it would be in a manner
> subconciously induced, I would imagine. But whether
> it happened in a round about manner or by his deliberately
> walking into the sun, it certainly would
> reveal the depth to which LaCroix felt connected to
> his Nicholas.
>
> Of course, it could be argued that he'd lived a
> thousand years without Nicholas and Janette, and
> could use that experience to remind himself that it
> could be done. But then it could also be argued
> that it had taken him a thousand years to find and
> establish such a connection, and he knew how rare it
> was and how little savor there was in living life
> without it.
>
> Man, this is all making me sad -- and *very* behind
> in my work! <sad smile>
>
> Portia
>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 12:05:08 -0800
From: Kryshana Dempsey <wldthngwthfngs@h.......>
Subject: Re: Schanke and the boy
HA! I told you so, sis!
Now, why are the Canadian versions of FK different than the US versions?
Time? Content?
I watched 'Be My Valentine' last night (again) and was trying to figure
out why LaCroix was so easily fooled by Nick's speech. If he supposedly is
connected to Nick in some way, wouldn't he know that he was lying?
~Shana~
wldthngwthfngs@h.......
wickdgrin@j.......
"Keep smiling. It makes people wonder what you've been up to."
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 16:03:07 EST
From: Dolpfin220@a.......
Subject: Videos, maybe? :-)
Hi everyone,
I recently sent an email to a video/DVD company, Acorn Media, regarding their
upcoming release of the series LEXX. Of course, I had to ask about a certain
vampire show while I was at it. Below, you will see the response I received
followed by my original email to them. I've had a few more email exchanges
with them regarding the series and (with their approval) will keep everyone
informed of any news. I've also informed Susan at KTK. I've removed my
contact's name at Acorn Media, just to be cautious.
Janet
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that,
you've got it made. -Groucho Marx
Dear Janet:
Thank you for your recent e-mail:
Acorn Media will release in 2001 further episodes of LEXX (this I believe is
the third series). As for the first series my understanding is that the
license to release these episodes on DVD is with another company. The
Canadian company Salter Street Production would perhaps have further details
about episodes of LEXX that Acorn does not have the rights to release.
As for the title FOREVER KNIGHT, I promise that I will take a look into this
and speak with our acquisitions staff about this title. That said there may
be a reason why it is not yet available on DVD.
Regards,
<snip>
===== Original Message from Dolpfin220@a....... at 1/30/01 8:49 pm
>Hello,
>
>In light of your recent announcement of second series "Lexx" episodes coming
>to DVD this year, I wanted to inquire if the first and third series of "Lexx"
>would also become available eventually.
>
>As a tie in to "Lexx", one of the third series continuing stars, Nigel
>Bennett, was a costar of the series "Forever Knight". There has been a huge
>campaign to get this series released on DVD and/or video, including a full
>size ad in a recent Hollywood Reporter and an ongoing Internet site devoted
>to bringing this about at
><A HREF="http://www.ktk.op.nu/">http://www.ktk.op.nu/</A>.
>I understand the series is
>owned by Sony. I would be interested in your views about the possibility of
>Acorn Media making "Forever Knight" available as well.
>
>Janet Reimer
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 16:26:54 EST
From: Laudon1965@a.......
Subject: Re: Schanke and the boy
In a message dated 2/1/01 7:22:37 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
cecily1349@y....... writes:
<< In a scene which was cut in the original U.S. airing, we see Schanke
talking to Myra on the phone. He refers to "you and the kids."
So, yes, the intention in the picnic scene could have been that the boy
was Schanke's son. >>
Well, if the producers or whoever wanted add a little retro-active
cheese, they could just say that it was another policeman's
son and that the police being such a tight-knit society: people
looking out for each other, taking care of their own, that it's
perfectly natural for Schanke to have a kind of avuncular
relationship with a fellow officer's kid.
I'll take smoked gouda please. <g>
Laurie of the Isles
------------------------------
End of FORKNI-L Digest - 31 Jan 2001 to 1 Feb 2001 (#2001-36)
*************************************************************
Parchment background created by Melissa Snell and may be found at http://historymedren.about.com/
