FORKNI-L

FORKNI-L Digest - 17 Apr 2002 to 18 Apr 2002 (#2002-118)

Thu, 18 Apr 2002

There are 14 messages totalling 397 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. A More Permanent Thought
  2. Slow Motion Now???
  3. Technical aspects of serial movies (3)
  4. Technical aspects of serial movies (was: Interests dying -- NOT!)
  5. YKYBWTMFK......
  6. (Fwd) Re: Interests dying
  7. A question about Selene (4)
  8. Admin: About asking to have a topic taken offlist
  9. Condolences

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:    Wed, 17 Apr 2002 17:07:56 -0400
From:    Portia Eins <portia1@m.......>
Subject: Re: A More Permanent Thought

Awww, that blows my "designer stakes" theory!! "g"

Portia

On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 11:04:50 -0700 Viv <viv11374@y.......> wrote:
By the way, Nick stakes him with one of Nat's bedposts.

=====
Viv

------------------------------

Date:    Wed, 17 Apr 2002 17:22:31 -0400
From:    LeeAnn Pultz <leeann@d.......>
Subject: Re: Slow Motion Now???

Can this be taken this off-list?

It's getting to the point where the majority of the FORKNI-L email that I get
is complaints (from a small number of people) about the quality of the
broadcast.

I think we've established that Sci-Fi is having issues.  Complaining about it
every day on the list isn't going to help anything.


Quoting Kristin <kris1228@s.......>:

> Tell me you guys saw this today...
>
> During "Father Figure," as the 2 guys in the car drive off and then we
> see Nick and Nat, with Nat taking out Nick's bullet, there is a new


LeeAnn Pultz
Sesame Technology

------------------------------

Date:    Wed, 17 Apr 2002 14:28:45 -0700
From:    "Brooks, Julia A." <BROOKJU@m.......>
Subject: Re: Technical aspects of serial movies

>From: Sunny LaCountess
>I noticed that some of the most interesting episodes of
>FK were directed by Ger or Nigel, and that proved to me
>that they, along with the rest of the cast, were a major
>reason that the show worked so well.

Well, with that in mind, there is no reason why Ger and Nigel could not
bring their experience at directing and their perspective on the FK premise
to a new cast of characters in addition to cameo appearances. <G> (Nick
could even be *mortal*!)  It certainly a proven concept with former ST:TNG
actors and subsequent ST shows.

But as some have already mentioned, the historical flashbacks in Forever
Knight added a lot of depth and interest to the stories, so a replacement
set of characters would have to have some history to their undead life.

YMMV,
Julia B. (aka Brooksie) and Allie's Brook
forever Knightie crusader, Les Chevaliers de la Nuit
*************************************************
"And a screaming fine ride [he] is, too."
*************************************************
with Ginger (Woofpack) and Dusty (FoSiL)

------------------------------

Date:    Wed, 17 Apr 2002 18:44:12 -0000
From:    Barbara Vainio <bevainio@w.......>
Subject: Re: Technical aspects of serial movies (was: Interests dying -- NOT!)

Carla Martinek wrote:

> The only problem is that most likely we would *not*
> see our favorite and original characters in the parts.
>  Let's face it -- people age, and that includes all
> the FK cast members.

Is this really an issue to TPTB?  After all, their the only ones who count
in casting:-)  They've brought back Star Trek (Spock certainly aged more
than a Vulcan should probably have in the time that had passed), Alien
Nation (George Francisco didn't age at all) and a bunch of other shows I
can't even think of right now.

 I don't think that I would have a problem with an "older" Nick, LC or
Janette (if Ger can convince Deb Duchene to come out of retirement to do a
movie or 2)  After all, we all suspend disbelief in large amounts just to
accept that vampires "exist".  We also spread a lot of cheese around to
explain some of the more obvious contradictions we've seen.  So think of the
opportunities for brie, edam, gouda, etc. that an aging cast would produce
:-)

Be sides, with new lighting (doesn't Warren Beatty, among many others, bring
his own lighting to the Jay Leno show to make him look as young as
possible?)
and make up, I don't think we would notice much of a change.  Any change in
weight could be explained by an improvement in blood additives or something
(see, an opportunity for cheese already <g>).

I for one, would much prefer the original cast.  Although I would give
others a chance to win me over.  I think that we would have a good chance to
get the original cast for a set of movies, but not for a new series.  AS
someone else said: all the actors have moved on to other things and have
very busy schedules.

BTW, since many of the original cast members have returned to the stage,
wouldn't it be terrific to have Ger, Nigel, Lisa, Greg, Catherine,et al,
appear in a stage production together?  Any ideas for a good play for them
to do?  I've thought of "The Tempest" although I don't know whether I'd
prefer Greg or Ger to do Caliban :-)

Barb

------------------------------

Date:    Wed, 17 Apr 2002 19:03:36 -0400
From:    Amanda Berendt <debrabant@h.......>
Subject: YKYBWTMFK......

I just turned on Jeopardy - the returning champion is "Ben Bass"  No, not
THE Ben Bass, it just put a grin on my face.

-Amanda
http://operacellar.tripod.com/phantomslair.html


------------------------------

Date:    Wed, 17 Apr 2002 19:15:14 -0400
From:    Don Fasig <phase3@g.......>
Subject: (Fwd) Re: Interests dying

This message forwarded on behalf of "Loreal" <llavigna@n.......>

------- Forwarded message follows -------
From: "Loreal" <llavigna@n.......>
Subject: Re:      Re: Interests dying
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 19:14:04 -0400

I think you're right on the money! When I started watching FK back in 1995 I
remember the first episode was Night In Question.
Loreal
http://home.nycap.rr.com/llavigna/

Jeannie said:
> My family thinks I'm nuts too, but they tolerate it.  FK to me is
> about, love, faith, hope and a lot of exceitement and a cast of very
> fine actors. (Not to mention some very sexy men :)=).

------- End of forwarded message -------

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 18 Apr 2002 05:30:47 -0700
From:    Emily <emilymhanson@y.......>
Subject: Re: Technical aspects of serial movies

Personally, I've enjoyed every incarnation of Star Trek there has been.  The
reason it worked, though, was because the chacters were (mostly) human and
mortal.  Spock has been seen in several of the reincarnations because Vulcans
are longer-lived than humans.

Regarding new FK sequels:  if you had a new set of characters (with one or two
recurring ones) and one of the new vamps wanting to become human again, like
Nick, and placed it in the present time or even the future, it could work.
There would still be lots of opportunities for flashbacks to scenes from the
original FK.  It could work.  But it would have to be a believeable plot and
the actors would have to be talented.  Also, with a new series, we'd all have
to admit that Nick & Natalie died in Last Knight.  Not something I personally
want to, given the dreamlike feel of that ep and the opportunities that present
themselves in fanfics for "resurrection" of the characters.

Emily

--- Sunny LaCountess <countessa2000@y.......> wrote:

 I don't speak for everybody and
> I'm definitely not in the Star Trek fandom to know how
> they felt about the changing cast and the sequels.

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 18 Apr 2002 08:42:05 -0500
From:    Tim Phillips <Timp@d.......>
Subject: Re: Technical aspects of serial movies

>  Also, with a new series, we'd all have to admit that Nick & Natalie
> died in Last Knight.
        I don't think that is necessary.
        It is all a question of writing and good acting ability.
        LaCroix reappeared after being staked and set of on fire in the
1st episode.  He was clearly understood to be dead until they decided
that they wanted the character in more than just flashbacks.  Then they
gave LaCroix a line (which Nigel Bennet sold with simply fantastic
finess) about how he is too old to die so easily.   Logic hole plugged
and on with the show.

        To see how you can honer the past while not being
constrained by it, check out Halloween: H2O.    The little dancing
number they did with this one leaves an opening for long-time fans like
me to say that Halloween 4,5 did in fact occur, but without it having to
constrict what happened in Halloween H2O.

        If the new show wanted to use Nick and Nat in a current time-
line, then obviously they would have to decided what really happened
in Last Knight and be true to their own vision.
        If Nick and Nat are only in flashback....well, you permit the
watcher to chose the outcome that best fits them.
        Good writing and acting can compensate for a lot of problems.
The limit is one of creativity and ingenuity.

                Tim Tim Phillips
 timp@d.......

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 18 Apr 2002 09:46:12 -0400
From:    Patty Costantino <psmoot43@h.......>
Subject: A question about Selene

Hi everyone,

I had a question about the episode A More Permanent Hell. I've always been
confused about the referral to Selene's prostitution.  Whenever I've watched
the AMPH flashback, I've never heard a discussion or seen an indication that
she was a prostitute or that LaCroix and his soldiers were in a brothel.
But maybe I'm just dense!  <g> The only hint that I've picked up on came
during the discussion LaCroix had with Selene.  When talking to her, he did
refer to Divia as "your daughter,"  but IMO, that comment could also mean
that Divia's mother was LC's mistress, couldn't it?

Is there a reference to her prostitution in the script or a missing scene?

Inquiring minds would like to know! <g>

Patty

N&Npacker, Knightie with Dark Tendencies and Light Cousin.

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 18 Apr 2002 09:30:35 -0400
From:    Lisa McDavid <mclisa@m.......>
Subject: Admin: About asking to have a topic taken offlist

I know this isn't in the rules, because it doesn't happen a lot. What you do if
you think a topic should go to offlist discussion is to write to me,
mclisa@m....... and ask me. If I agree -- which I might -- that the topic
should now go to private email, I will ask that the list to take it offlist.

Yes, I realize maybe this should be in the rules. It will go in once I get a
chance to sit down and revise.

Thanks, all!

McLisa
listowner, Forkni-l
mclisa@m.......

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 18 Apr 2002 14:11:45 +0000
From:    Nancy Kaminski <nancykam@a.......>
Subject: Re: A question about Selene

Patty wrote:

> Is there a reference to her prostitution in the script
> or a missing scene?

Yes, the script describes her as a prostitute. Long ago
on the list someone mentioned that she was also wearing
the color stola that prostitutes were required to wear---
a red one. (I haven't watched this ep for a while so I
can't remember if Seline was wearing red).

It appears that Lacroix not only had a child with this
courtesan, but was a patron of the brothel (indicated by
the presence of that bust of himself). It looked like a
pretty high-class place.

Nancy Kaminski
nancykam@a.......

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:20:59 -0400
From:    Lisa McDavid <mclisa@m.......>
Subject: Re: A question about Selene

On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 09:46:12 -0400 Patty Costantino <psmoot43@h.......>
wrote:


>I had a question about the episode A More Permanent Hell. I've always been
>confused about the referral to Selene's prostitution.

Nancy Kaminski's already answered this. I'll add that the script specifies that
she is the madam of a brothel and that the other women in the scene are also
prostitutes. For Roman men, there was no shame or dishonor in patronizing a
brothel or having an illegitimate child. This doesn't mean, of course, that
Roman wives didn't raise cain over husbands who were known to do either. <g> It
just means that Lucius wouldn't have to keep his association with Seline --
which is how the script erroneously spells it -- and the existence of Divia
quiet lest he suffer social consequences. Come to think of it, there's no reason
for the implied secrecy about Divia in the mores of Roman society. It would make
interesting fanfic to find out why it's clear that Lucius's paternity isn't
apparently known. Yes, I know this is an example of cheese spread over the fact
that the writers didn't know that ... :)

 > that LaCroix and his soldiers were in a brothel.
 > But maybe I'm just dense!<g>

No, you're not dense. There's nothing directly in the dialogue. The only hint is
Seline's red dress and that may be an accident. The reference is in a stage
direction.

Btw, those are not Lucius's soldiers. They're men of his own social standing. If
he's a general ("legate" in Latin), he's a senator on appointment to command a
legion. Senators came only from upper class and/or wealthy families because a
senator had to have at least a million denarii invested in Italian land. Very
few families could afford this.

McLisa
mclisa@m.......


------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:20:12 -0700
From:    StormBorn <thestormborn@m.......>
Subject: Re: A question about Selene

Nancy K. wrote:
>> Yes, the script describes her as a prostitute. Long ago on the list
someone mentioned that she was also wearing the color stola that prostitutes
were required to wear--- a red one. (I haven't watched this ep for a while
so I can't remember if Seline was wearing red).<<

She was wearing a red toga--the toga was a male garment and prostitutes were
required to wear a red one.

>>It appears that Lacroix not only had a child with this courtesan, but was
a patron of the brothel (indicated by the presence of that bust of himself).
It looked like a pretty high-class place.<<

It's altogether possible that Lucius owned the establishment in question,
and/or that Selene was a manumitted slave (a freedwoman) of his family.
Roman society at this period had a complex system of patron-client
relationships quite like the traditional Mafia.

Molly/StormBorn
thestormborn@m.......
"It's not fair!"  "You say that so often.  I wonder what your basis for
comparison is?" -Sarah and Jareth, Labyrinth

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 18 Apr 2002 12:17:05 -0700
From:    Laudon1965 <Laudon1965@c.......>
Subject: Condolences

I would like to extend my deepest sympathies to our
Canadian listmembers over the senseless deaths of
their troops in Afganistan.  Please know that you are
not alone in your bewilderment, grief and anger.

Laurie of the Isles

------------------------------

End of FORKNI-L Digest - 17 Apr 2002 to 18 Apr 2002 (#2002-118)
***************************************************************