File: "FKSPOILR LOG9605" Part 40 TOPICS: About "Last Knight" ... (long) (2) Last Knight: Blurred images explanation SPOILER: Last Knight, Accepting It Spoiler: Last Knight (3) Last Knight spoilers & reaction Spoilers: Last Knight, Fever and blood tears (long!) LK -- clear vs. blood tears A request.. (4) SPOILER: Last Knight, edging off topic Last Night Spoilers Spoiler: LK (long) Nigel at SyndiCon LIST: The Babysitter SPOILERS:Last Knight (2) spoiler-lk Last Knight spoilers ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 15:01:02 -0700 From: Karen Stortz <firefox4@i.......> Subject: About "Last Knight" ... (long) Last Knight Spoiler space: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I won't see this ep til tonite, but I've been reading the spoilers and debates. I'm confident that the performances will be excellent: this is a great cast of fine actors who nearly always make the very most of the material they are given. A fine performance, however, can only cover for bad material to a somewhat limited extent. And from what I've read, the material is pretty bad. It's rather tacky that Tracy finds out about Nick at the end. Knowing about Vachon doesn't automatically give her that right, in my not-so-humble opinion. Schanke was a far better friend to Nick than Tracy was; if anyone had the right to know about Nick before dying, it was he, not Tracy. I can't believe what I'm reading about the way Natalie is written in this one. She believes not only in living, but in living as fully as possible. Sure, she panics when she thinks the world is coming to an end in AMPH. That's why she wants Nick to bring her across. Her fear of Spark came from the realization that he would <<kill>> her instead of bring her across. Her telling Nick that he was right not to bring her across was based on knowing that the world wasn't coming to an end: living as a vampire would be limiting (avoiding daylight, fear of discovery, sterility, etc.) compared to living the human life she had before the scare. Even so, she tells Nick she doesn't know what she wants. I CAN believe her wanting Nick to bring her across so they can be together, and perhaps she felt that way to some extent even after the meteor scare. After all, the progress she's made in her work to reinstate his mortality has gone slowly, and sooner or later, he'll have to move on. This ISN'T a case of living without Nick being worse than death (I groan at the mere thought of the silly sentimentality, the negative image of a woman being incomplete and having a meaningless and empty life without a man, and the horrendous and irresponsible suggestion made in the show that suicide is the answer to lonliness). If Natalie was written true to form, it would be a case of living as a human without Nick being more limiting than living as a vampire with him. I can't see her accepting death as an alternative, much less saying it to Nick. Natalie would also be the first to tell Nick that bringing her across wouldn't be an end to the search for mortality, but the means by which to continue it. Natalie finds logical arguments to back up what she's doing, even when her true reasons are emotional ones, so I find it surprising that I've seen nothing to indicate that she does this. Natalie is VERY resourceful. She's natually patient, ironically, far more so than Nick. Nick isn't the only vampire Natalie knows, nor is LaCroix. She's no longer suffering from end-of-the-world panic. And she probably met at least half the TO vamp community when she treated them for "lab rat fever." If she wanted to become a vampire in order to be with Nick and he refused, she'd find someone else, plan it, wait until s/he owed her a favor and knew it, and do it (she knows they're not all like Spark--we've seen in Urs that they don't ALL run around killing with abandon). Then, regardless of whether she expected a good or bad outcome from it, she'd find Nick. I don't want to argue about whether Nick's actions are in or out of character because the truth is, an arguement can be made for either case. I WILL say I think they cop-out on us. My take on it is this: I can't see Nick so totally losing control that he nearly kills Natalie, all so suddenly. Self-control is Nick's strongest vampiric skill, and he's better at it than a lot of others who are a lot older and more experienced. Realistically, it would make a lot more sense if he ended up killing her slowly, the way he did that gal in the flashbacks in whatever that forgettable episode was. Janette's secret was that she needed less and less each time: Nick could manage it once or twice, but he'd end up wanting more and more rather than less. He's far more possessive than Janette, so her cure couldn't work for him. Even the way they wrote it with him losing control all at once, why the heck doesn't he just bring her across? The fact that we've seen him do it for casual acquaintances and strangers so often, but that he refuses to do it for Natalie, makes him come off as a complete twit. The situation with Tracy is the clincher. Think about this: he feels responsible for Tracy being shot, so he's WILLING to bring her across. He IS responsible for Natalie, but he's NOT WILLING to bring her across. He cares for Natalie, so he CAN'T bring her across. But Tracy's his partner, and he cares for her, so he WANTS to bring her across. Nick isn't the "Last Knight" in this ep, he's the Psychotic Knight! And consider this: Natalie might cast herself and Nick as the characters while she reads her Emily Weiss novel, but in NIQ, the dream of Natalie begging Nick to take her, him making love to her and bringing her across, <<all while LaCroix watched>> in the background--that was NICK'S dream, that's HIS suppressed fantasy. Seems odd that when he finds himself living it, he's so suddenly (and inexplicably) able to turn off, in mid-stream, the very vampiric temptations he was so fully ingulging in. Regarding the often-lamented lack of foreplay: that's unforgivable in most contexts <grin>, in this case, from a story POV. If we could SEE them starting to become, uh, involved (they wouldn't even have to remove any clothing if it was done well), if we could SEE him becoming aroused at a far faster rate than she, then we'd have some context for believing his loss of control. For him to just bite and afterwards say, "opps, gee, I couldn't stop" is about as believable as a politician's campaign promise. It's a given that if Nick DID bring Natalie across, it would forever alter their relationship. Their interactions would become MUCH more complex. OR If Nick did manage to take only a little, then more the next time, etc., it wouldn't take Natalie very long to figure out what was going on. Interesting to think what their reactions to that situation might be. Would Nick, unable to trust himself with her, move on, suddenly, without warning, and without saying good-bye? Or would he want to bring her across and give into the vampiric temptation to keep taking more and more, on and on, without end? Would Natalie still want him to bring her across? Or would she be so shocked that she'd want to break away from him permanently? Again, their relationship would suddenly become MUCH more complex. In fact, these kind of character interaction questions are far too complex to deal with in any single episode. And THAT, boys and girls, is the REAL CHEAT. TPTB knew they were cancelled. They knew they needed four more eps to complete the season. Once they knew they were going to make those last four, they could have given us (and SHOULD have given us) an arc. Yes, I KNOW arcs are harder to strip, but they wouldn't even HAVE anything to strip in the first place if it hadn't been for the fans, considering that the show was in danger while still in its first season, at the end of its first season, and the end of its second season. The fans kept it alive, and the fans deserve some kind of decent closure. If TPTB wanted to bring the Nick/Nat situation to a crisis point, they could have started it three episodes earlier while Reese was hunting for his serial killer. I for one, refuse to debate whether some little reaction shot or other in an earlier ep was a set-up for the events in "Last Knight"; as far as I'm concerned, that's just reading into it after the fact, and it certainly does NOT constitute an arc. A REAL arc is too obvious for anyone to miss (such as the events leading up to Delen's transformation or Londo's association with Mordan on B5). Putting an arc in at this point would hardly make any difference now, anyway. The original rationale for not doing so was so that the eps could be stripped without any regard to any need for sequence, but the three seasons are so radically different from one another that they have to be kept in some sort of order anyway. If TPTB had wanted a true arc, Nick and Nat could have started the slow route I mentioned earlier, perhaps even with some promise of success early on. If not that, one might have confronted the other and, they should have at least begun considering their options. Or, they could have made it look as if there was going to be some success with bringing Nick back across, and a failure of it working could have triggered some of the events in the last ep. What I CAN'T ACCEPT are the contrivances devised to end everything in a single episode, or the hopeless and negative attitudes in the way they end it. I'm venting now, because I probably won't care enough to want to write about it after I've seen it. I heard spoilers for things I thought were ghastly in past episodes, but actually seeing it was worse. Yeah, I'll probably watch it tonight. I'll probably tape it, just to complete my collection, if for no other reason. I'll probably put it away and never watch it again. Then I'll probably start wondering how JMS plans to wrap up this season on Babylon 5. Anyone want to make any bets about whether Sheridan is Valen, and whether he'll morph into a Mimbari or part-Mimbari (the way Delenn morphed into a part-human) before he takes Babylon 4 back into the past? Karen ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 18:01:39 -0400 From: Chana Rossman <bonney@i.......> Subject: Last Knight: Blurred images explanation Hey, just had a sudden insight. (I don't think anyone has suggested this one...) Throughout the episode we see blurred images of LaCroix's oratory to Nick. We don't know what quite to make of them because of (1) their dreamlike quality and (2) the perspective from which they are shot. We are not looking at LaCroix from Nick's perspective. In fact, we see Nick in some of the shots. What if we are viewing all of this from Natalie's perspective? She is laying on the floor. The shots are all sort of shot at an upward angle. She is semi-unconcious (at least) which would explained the blurred, dream-like quality. I'll have to go back and watch it yet again to see if this idea really works. But hey, it's a theory! Chana bonney@i....... * I have been one acquainted with the [K]night * ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 15:07:42 -0700 From: Amy R. <akr@m.......> Subject: SPOILER: Last Knight, Accepting It I've been reading the spoilers for hours, and I'm still not caught up. I hoped that I could resist posting until I saw what everyone else had to say, but you all know how that goes. :) One part of me feels like snarling at all the Cousins and Ravens. That's awful, isn't it? And unfair. But every time I read something dismissive, I get closer to plunging off the deep end of insane, irrational -- even "snarky" -- Nick-defense. I will let my hero die. I will not allow him to be damned. As yet, in my reading, no one has discussed what seemed obvious to me -- that the whole episode was a flashback loop (ironic: Nick's own personal Hell -- his memories). All of the commentary from LC was delivered to Nick, as he lay on the floor of the loft with the stake through his heart. Nick was 800; he should survive a decent interval with a stake in his heart (look how far LC got in NiQ). LC was attempting to convince Nick to ask him to remove the stake, to save him. Nick chose to follow Natalie into that other eternity. And LC, who has always, since Fleur, defined Love in the letting go, had to let Nick die. You all may rationalize away the deaths. I won't stop you. I'll even help. I have three scenarios for Tracy and two for Nat already. And saving Nick has no *logistical* problems whatsoever. But, philosophically, I have to accept this ending, these deaths. I want to hate this episode, but all I can hate are TPTB for making it such that I can't hate it. True Love and Faith -- that's what I've always asked from the show, and that's what they gave us here. All of the characters went out in the best part of their natures -- Tracy, the good cop; Natalie, the generous woman in love; Nick, in a declaration of faith. And LC, in giving up Nick, as he gave up Fleur, was finally also true to the best of his character as I understand it. I know I'll have more to say after I've seen the episode again, after I've copied out the dialogue, after I've read all of your posts. (Just to start with, they gave us Nat's birthday as April 14, and defined the "six years" of Nick's stay in Toronto.) But I can see no way out of the deaths that preserves their nobility. I asked for closure, and they provided it. D**n them. *** Amy, Lady of the Knight (akr@m.......) *** "Now cracks a noble heart. Good night, sweet prince; And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest!" -- W.S. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 18:29:48 -0400 From: Arletta Asbury <g4akl@e.......> Subject: Re: Spoiler: Last Knight >Nick was willing to bring Tracy across to save her life. His actions >weren't provoked by thought, but by instinct. If Natalie had been the >one lying on that hospital bed (and dying as the result of someone >else's actions), he probably would have done the same thing. > No, he wouldn't that's the whole point. He is willing to save anyone else's life EXCEPT Natalie's by making them a vampire. He is not willing to SAVE her life by that means. Nat called him on it at the hospital, and rightly so. His claim that it's for her own good - not to suffer the darkness strikes me as just plain wrong-thinking on his part. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 18:48:41 -0500 From: Stephanie Babbitt <stephanie.babbitt@g.......> Subject: Last Knight spoilers & reaction First off, I agree with Sharon B. that I would have been much worse off seeing this alone. Thanks to the Atlanta FK contingent for staying up all night! At the viewing (allusion to dead bodies intended), Sharon observed that she would have been bawling a week ago but after LK felt like she'd been hit over the head. So did I, and I RESENT IT! I started out feeling drained, went into the next day miserable, and now I'm getting mad, which is probably better for my productivity. I wrote my own next-episode scenario, complete with sarcasm and tongue-in-cheek references, and I'm about to post it to the FIC list (look for "Last Knight Plus One." I feel immeasurably better now. That said, I'm still mad. I'm mad at the following people for the following reasons: * I'm really, really mad at the writer (Sadowski?) for shoving this bit of heavy-handed moralism down our throats and for writing most of the characters SO OUT OF CHARACTER! And was using Lora's name for the suicide supposed to send the fans a message about the ultimate outcome of our SOS-FK efforts? * I'm mad at GWD for agreeing to direct this ep and for jerking us around so completely. It's probably not rational, but it's there. * I'm mad at most of the cast for accepting the distortion of their characters. I read that CD insisted on playing Nat in BMV differently than the script called for because it was so out of character. But this! Natalie suicidal? Nick considering bringing Tracy across? LaCroix giving Nick *choices*? What is this world coming to? It's almost like everyone just wanted to be done with it and get the hell out of there (which may not be too far from the truth). *I'm mad at myself for caring this much. That said, the acting was incredible. CD portrayed Natalie especially well. In BMV and NiQ, it almost seemed that she was doing the love scenes with Nick reluctantly. Here, the passion was real. Nigel was awesome as always, even given lines that to me had no place anywhere near LaCroix's lips (a *peach*?). The way GWD reacted when CD touched his face gave me goosebumps. Lisa Ryder did a great job. There now, I've said something nice. Be looking for the Atlanta quote list. At least we had fun before, during, and after the carnage. And as I kept repeating at the party: I'm not giving up. The show must go on. The show will go on. Taking deep breaths, Stephanie (now and always a Vaquera) ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 17:31:54 -0500 From: Margie Hammet <treeleaf@i.......> Subject: Re: Spoilers: Last Knight, Fever and blood tears (long!) At 05:11 AM 5/19/96 -0300, l.d. steele wrote: >Forever Knight has been inconsistent in the matter of tears. Serena in >"Baby, Baby" seems to cry blood tears at the end, but... I distinctly >remember Nick crying once before in his loft and it wasn't blood. In Stranger Than Fiction, it seemed to me that Nick had tears in his eyes in the tag, and they weren't blood. So sometimes vampires cry tears of blood, and sometimes they cry regular tears. That kind of inconsistency doesn't bother me. I just figure we mortals don't know everything about vampire physiology. Margie (treeleaf@i.......) ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 16:21:59 -0700 From: Karen Stortz <firefox4@i.......> Subject: LK -- clear vs. blood tears If anyone wants to believe he became human, ok, so be it. As far as I'm concerned, we can believe almost anything we want about this ep, but the tear arguement just doesn't wash. Go back and re-watch the flashbacks in "Bad Blood." Janette is crying. She is a vampire. The tears are clear. Karen ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 16:33:31 -0700 From: Karen Stortz <firefox4@i.......> Subject: Re: About "Last Knight" ... (long) On that B-5 paragraph in my previous post, I didn't mean Sheridan, I meant Sinclair--brain drain, I guess. Karen ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 19:56:14 -0400 From: Carrie Krumtum <CKrumtum@g.......> Subject: Re: Spoiler: Last Knight > He is not >willing to SAVE her life by that means. Nat called him on it at the >hospital, and rightly so. His claim that it's for her own good - not >to suffer the darkness strikes me as just plain wrong-thinking on his > part. And who says that when you love someone so deeply that you can't even define HOW deeply for yourself that you 'think rightly' about them. I believe that Nick's love for Natalie placed her in a category all by herself. Literately. Carrie, Slovenly Knightie AKA Carrie the Cruel CKrumtum@g....... It's hard to judge someone when you're blinded by your love for them. --Mother Teresa ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 19:58:20 -0400 From: Carrie Krumtum <CKrumtum@g.......> Subject: Re: Spoiler: Last Knight >Natalie is dead. When confronted by Lacroix, Nick clearly said that he >would not "condemn her" to a vampire existence. Lacroix then said "wise >decision". Lacroix is not going to bring her across either because he >agrees with Nick. I don't think we can make this leap. What LaCroix says and what LaCroix does are almost ALWAYS two different things. He has an agenda of his own. I would not put bringing Nat across past him. Nor would I put allowing her to die past him. I do not feel his character has evolved to a stage, at least for this set of circumstances, that anyone can even guess what his agenda might be. His love for Nick could motivate him in either direction, so could his feelings about mortality, vampirism and the state of his own soul. Just MHO. Carrie, Slovenly Knightie AKA Carrie the Cruel CKrumtum@g....... It's hard to judge someone when you're blinded by your love for them. --Mother Teresa ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 19:59:44 -0500 From: "[M A Martin]" <mmartin@b.......> Subject: A request.. I was nomail until I saw Last Knight (in order to avoid spoilers - looks like it was a good thing, too, from what I've seen of the badly-labeled subject lines) but would really like to read those posts now. I tried getting all the mail from the 18th using Jasmine's search methods, and it worked just fine except that it cut off at 19K+ lines. The message from listserv itself said this (it was the last line) and I know my mailer can handle large files w/o a problem. I can't think of any way to make the search smaller and requesting each message individually is too much trouble. (gotta write that damn thesis!) So, would some *Kind Soul* (bow to Susan Garrett for stealing the phrase) please send me the fkspoilr digest(s) for the 18th? Or perhaps just all the _Last Knight_ messages from that day? Whatever is easier. After a last night's "Last Knight"-induced nightmares, I *really* need to read something about this episoded (instead of focusing on my own reactions). Many thanks, Meg (mmartin@b.......) Do not allow your children to mix drinks. It is unseemly and they use too much vermouth. Fran Lebowitz, _Parental Guidance_ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 17:15:52 -0700 From: Amy R. <akr@m.......> Subject: SPOILER: Last Knight, edging off topic We used to complain about this season leaning too much toward "Forever Vetter," and "Forever LaCroix" has become the slogan of the wishful. I may have been spending too much time with a certain irreverent Vaquera <g>, but it occurs to me that "Forever Janette" is a much more plausible scenario. :) More seriously, does everyone recall that filming ended on Ash Wednesday? Well, today, the day that most of us saw LK in the wee hours of the morning, is Ascension Sunday (at least on the west coast of North America, but that's another story). *** Amy, Lady of the Knight (akr@m.......) *** "Now cracks a noble heart. Good night, sweet prince; And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest!" -- W.S. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 19:29:18 -0500 From: Perri Smith <perridox@i.......> Subject: Last Night Spoilers Well, I was thoroughly spoiled going in, and I was still sitting there saying prayers right up 'till the end. And i suppose it was better than it could have been, but that's not saying a lot. :P Everyone did an excellent job of acting -- this one almost made a cousin out of me, which is saying quite a *lot* -- and niiice direction from Ger -- the flipshots with Nick and Nat would have been great if they'd been a little shorter. Tracy's death was very well-done - she died well, at least. And the scene in her hospital room, with Natalie demanding why he would bring Tracy across, but not her (although the answer is obvious -- he cares for Tracy enough to want her to live, but doesn't spend much time agonizing over her soul. But he *loves* Natalie and therefore agonizes a great deal. Where was I? Oh, yeah.) was a great confrontation. And Natalie's speech to Nick about faith was absolutely jerk-jerking. As for the bust -- I distinctly saw a chip out of the neck of the bust, and Pompeii has been fairly throughly excavated, I believe? Wonder how much it cost LaCroix to buy and restore that sucker? And they end was left quite open for a bunch of people who promised us closure, dammit! Whatever happened to happy endings, eh? Well, actually, they let us choose our own, didn't they? So far, I've heard two theories I like -- Nick became human and Nat wasn't dead (he *didn't* finish draining her, he just kissed her), or Nick ain't human, but LaCroix, instead of staking him, shoved him out of the way andbrought Natalie across, to give Nick a reason to live. -- and I'll be happy with either of these. And as for how I feel about the show as a whole.... well, read the .sig. Perri --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "do you hear the people sing, lost in the valley of the night it is the music of a people who are climbing to the light for the wretched of the earth there is a flame that never dies even the darkest night will end and the sun will rise" -- 'Les Miserables' THE KNIGHT LIVES FOREVER!!!!!!! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 20:56:15 -0500 From: Cyberspace Vanguard Magazine <vanguard@p.......> Subject: Re: A request.. If you don't get anybody with the digests, let me know and I'll send you the individual messages. ---- TJ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 20:00:52 -0500 From: Margie Hammet <treeleaf@i.......> Subject: Re: Spoiler: LK (long) At 01:53 PM 5/19/96 -0700, Antonia Spadafina wrote: >....Nat s heartbeat. It is my "cheesy rationalization" for why I believe >Nat is alive. Her heartbeat fades in volume, not strength, as if Nick has >let his awareness of it slide away. It doesn t falter or stop abruptly. I >believe she is only unconscious, though very weak. I'm glad somebody else thinks this too. It's my "cheesy rationalization" for not only why Nat is alive, but why she doesn't necessarily have to be brought across to survive. It also has to with the "blood knowledge" thing. Yeah, I like that blood knowledge idea, even though it does cause problems. Surely, they're not problems that we can't handle. (Though it's really up to TPTB to handle something as important as this. Right now, I'm not counting on TPTB to handle anything decently, though.) The Theory - (Otherwise known as The Cheesy Rationalization) - When Natalie was bitten by Nick, the first impressions she had seemed terribly violent to her. They were all those memories of the women Nick had killed, taking their blood, as he was now taking Natalie's. That happened because of both Natalie's and Nick's feelings right before he bit her. Natalie was frightened. It showed on her face. Rather than acceptance being something that automatically happens with blood sharing, acceptance is _necessary_ for the blood sharing to be a pleasant experience. It's an attitude that one must bring to the experience, not something that automatically happens. And despite what Natalie had said, she was afraid, not really accepting. Nick's attitude affected the situation also. He was still overcome with the guilt he felt about what happened to Tracy as well as lots of other pain and guilt. It shows clearly in his face. Usually, when we see Nick about to chomp down on some lovely being, he is a very happy fellow. Not this time. As a result, the first impressions Natalie had were of the memories that give Nick guilt and pain. Rather than accept the memories, Natalie tried to fight the memories. That only made it worse. Soon, she felt like she was going to die. That's what Nick felt (or tasted), and that's why he thought he had taken too much. Eventually Natalie, with her faith in Nick, realized that Nick was not going to kill her, and she stopped fighting, and just let the memories and impressions, good and bad, wash over her. She is weak and unconscious, but she is alive and will eventually regain consciousness. Margie (treeleaf@i.......) N&NPacker The Unnamed Faction ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 19:12:13 PDT From: "Leslie I.Plummer" <lplummer@i.......> Subject: Nigel at SyndiCon >Oh, and Nigel has been logging on almost every night to forkni and >spoiler. He volunteered his own two cents on the "does Nick get cow >thoughts from cow blood" debate. Thanks Laurie for Nigel comments. They are great. This is probably an OLD question, but how did folks keep human blood "fresh" at the Raven? I noticed in AtA, LaCroix was retrieving bottles from the rack (just like red wine), or was that wine? If vamps need love blood, wouldn't this have to be refrigerated? Leslie **FOREVER MEANS...FOREVER*** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 19:20:55 -0700 From: Idalia Kakesako <idaliak@i.......> Subject: Re: A request.. Meg <mmartin@b.......) asked for copies of the May 18th FKSPOILR digests. I've sent these to her. ObSPOILER: How *did* Tracy end up with a bullet in the *back* of her head? I could see how she got shot in the stomach, but in the back of her head? Must've been one of those Magic Bullets. Idalia Kakesako <idaliak@i.......> Light Cousin, NatPacker, N&NPacker; TTwF ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 02:28:12 GMT From: Jamie Melody Randell <immajer@n.......> Subject: LIST: The Babysitter Posting this 24 hours early, so I don't forget... ----------------------------------------------------------------- Last time I went away, Amy KR wrote: >Did Jamie leave a babysitter? Do we need one? Wellllll... let's just say, this time I'm leaving a babysitter <g>. And the recipient of this dubious honor is... Allison Percy! While I'm away, from this Tuesday to next, Allison <percy91@w.......> will be keeping an eye on y'all. Allison: there's soda in the fridge, chips and cookies in the cupboard, and you can order a virtual pizza and put it on the house account. <g> She will be supported in this endeavor by Jaye, Our Phoenix <jap8@c.......>; Laurie The Supreme Salopek <lms5@p.......>; Don "Listwizard" Fasig, for tech support <phase3@g.......>; and the usual cast of supporting characters that (with the assistance of the letters C and Q and the number 7) bring you the Forkni lists. Oh, and of course, the hamsters. Can't forget the hamsters. Anyone looking for me between this Tuesday and next Tuesday can reach me at <immajer@a.......>. All right, kids, remember: five-line sigs, four-line quoting, NO SPOILERS ON FORKNI-L, and make sure you announce spoilers and leave spoiler space on your AtA and LK fanfic! And as always, Be Excellent To Each Other. See y'all in a week or so. (Will see some of you in Michigan!) :-) -- -:-:-:-:- Jamie M.R. <immajer@n.......> -:-:-:-:- Asst. Listowner, The Smoking Natpacker, ConvCoS, NDNEDnik -->>> Illustrated Webgoddess & Keeper of Warm Fuzzies <<<-- ** List Rules <http://cac.psu.edu/~jap8/FK/FKRules.html> ** The Truth Is Out There. Just maybe not in our jurisdiction. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 22:28:54 -0500 From: "[M A Martin]" <mmartin@b.......> Subject: SPOILERS:Last Knight Margie's description of Natalie and the The Theory reminded me of an interesting scene in the movie _The Abyss_. Not a great movie on the whole, but it had some memorable moments. In a nutshell, the main female character is on board a disabled deep-sea vessel with the male lead (and romantic interest). They need to get back to their underwater station because the vessel is rapidly filling with water, but there is only one survival suit. The man is tring to convince the woman to take the suit and swim back to the station, leaving him to die (despite the fact that he is currently wearing the suit and with the speed at which the water is rising there is no way he could take it off and give it to her before they both drowned - ah, brickish chivalry!). She comes up with the Hollywood idea: he keeps the suit, she drowns, he swims back to the station with her body (he's the stronger swimmer), they revive her at the station (hypothermia prevents brain (and other organ) death upon drowning). And yes, it works. This is a happy movie, not angst-ridden FK. But the interesting part is when she is convincing him that it is the only way to save both of them. She is much like Nat in her passion and her faith that this will work. He agrees, ultimately, and then has to watch her effectively drown. Quite a bit of mental anguish there, don't you think? (Nick wouldn't have handled it well, but it is a nice parallel since if the guy survives and she doesn't, she has given her life for him (guilt, guilt).) So as the water inches up, she becomes more agitated (kinda like Nat when she's seeing Nick's f/bs to other kills). When only a few inches of air remain, she is struggling and says something like "I don't think this is a very good idea!" as the realization of what she has done truly sinks in. She knows, rationally, that it was the correct thing to do but when faced with the visceral reality of possible death, she fights it (somewhat ineffectively, as it is now too late to change her mind). Well, perhaps it is not a perfect parallel, but it came to mind. Meg (mmartin@b.......) "Failure is not an option. It is just a nagging possibility that helps me stay focused." Yeah, right. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 22:55:12 EDT From: "linda c. fried" <103213.3530@c.......> Subject: spoiler-lk spoiler on last knight below: o.k., guys, my apologies to everyone at the denver party that were so upset over tracey- i'm glad she's gone! still! she gave blondes a bad name. i admit i clapped and laughed with glee. she can't even die right, that hokey head wound-a huge exit wound and no enterance wound. what bull! as to nick and nat, they're both still around-either as mortals, or as immortals(how did they make love fully dressed? i rather prefer to take my clothes off-or at least some of them). at any rate, my apologies to allin denver. hopefully a movie will be in the future and we can try again... regards, linda c. fried aboarts@v....... check out our home page at http://www.colorado.net/aboarts ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 19:56:33 -0700 From: LC Fenster <lucienlc@i.......> Subject: Re: SPOILERS:Last Knight Meg wrote: <snip Abyss story for line limits> >Well, perhaps it is not a perfect parallel, but it came to mind. This put me in mind of a different parallel: the story of the turtle and the scorpion. The scorpion comes to the turtle and asks him to ferry him across the lake. The turtle at first refuses, afraid of the scorpion's sting which is deadly. But the scorpion points out that if he stings the turtle, he too will die, so he has no reason to use his sting and every reason to avoid it. The turtle agrees and starts to ferry the scorpion across the lake. But while they are on the way, the scorpion stings the turtle anyway. The turtle asks why, since now they will both die. The scorpion replies: Because it is my nature. Nick and Nat both did their best to forget about the nature of the vampire. To their cost. Laurie Cousin M+B+D+T+K ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 22:13:37 -0500 From: TippiNB <Tippinb@i.......> Subject: Last Knight spoilers Idalia wrote: >ObSPOILER: How *did* Tracy end up with a bullet in the *back* of her >head? I could see how she got shot in the stomach, but in the back of >her head? Must've been one of those Magic Bullets. Maybe that guy who shot her was the reincarnated spirit of Lee Harvey Oswald and that's why he kept saying "I'm not going back!!!" Because he was afraid the reincarnated spirit of Jack Ruby would be there waiting to shoot him again. So maybe Lee Harvey Oswald, now known as The Guy Who Shot Tracy (Darkens? Derkins?), did that single bullet thing again? It riccocheted off Nick's wrist, hit the wall, bounced off John Conelly, and shot Tracy in the back of the head. See what this episode has made me do? I've had to resort to silly explanations! To me, my main complaint besides the fact that this felt more like opening a wound than closure, was that some of the characters seemed like alien pod people imposters. Reese being insensitive about Tracy? (Saying essentially that if she died, Nick could get a new partner.) Nick biting something that doesn't moo? LaCroix not bapping Nick in the head with that staff and playing baseball with his brains? Get real! I have to say kudos to Lisa Ryder for that scene. If you have to go out, you might as well got out with a great last line -- one that has poignancy, and truth. I'm still no big Tracy fan, but she has my respect in this and the AtA eps. Wicked Cousin Tippi, dollar bill wrangler of the Thong Throng! *Charter Member of the Unnamed Faction*Voyeur of the Menage LaCroix* Come, dip your chip in the Velveeta Glory of LaCroix. http://www.netcom.com/~tippinb/wicked.html ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 20:02:41 -0700 From: LC Fenster <lucienlc@i.......> Subject: Re: A request.. Idalia wrote: >ObSPOILER: How *did* Tracy end up with a bullet in the *back* of her >head? I could see how she got shot in the stomach, but in the back of >her head? Must've been one of those Magic Bullets. Ricochet off the concrete wall? Laurie =========================================================================
Previous |
This month's list |
Next |