FKSPOILR
Logfile LOG9605 Part 41
May 19-May 20, 1996
File: "FKSPOILR LOG9605" Part 41
TOPICS:
SPOILER: LAST KNIGHT
A request..
SPOILER: LK (My warped mind:)) (2)
(spoiler)LK: Love; ending...
Spoiler: Last Knight (2)
SPOILERS: Last Knight
Last Knight-magic bullets
SPOILER: Last Knight (& some Ashes to Ashes)
SPOILER: Last Knight
Spoiler LK: misogyny
SPOILERS: LAST KNIGHT Rationalizations! Get your red-hot rationalizations here! :> (2)
Spoilers:(not really)LK:Not just de big river in Egypt
Spoiler: Last Knight affiliations
"I'm too <blank> to kill"
Wild thought...
SPOILER: last knight: Natalie.
SPOILERS: Last Knight (ep 22)
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 22:59:03 +0500
From: John Folden <jtfolden@e.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: LAST KNIGHT
> From: "LC Fenster" <lucienlc@i.......>
> >S
> >
> >P
> >
> >O
> >
> >I
> >
> >L
> >
> >E
> >
> >R
> >
> >
> >S
> >
> >P
> >
> >A
> >
> >C
> >
> >E
> >
>
> >No, Nick doesn't go back for a second drink. He leans down and kisses
> >Natalie on her right check and tells LaCroix "I can't condemn her to
> >this darkness."
>
> It's not quite that clear. The way it was shot, frankly, you can't
> tell. Nick leans over her, and since the shot is from behind, you
> can't tell what he's doing, though I think he is drinking. It seems to
> match the script, where he is NOT vamped out when he takes the second
> drink. But it is ambiguous, and if one wants to believe that he's
> only kissing her, one can. Certainly, at the end, when he rises, he
> was kissing her.
After watching the episode, I tend to believe he was NOT drinking a second
time. If you listen closely in the background, you can hear what sounds
like a "kiss" and then you hear it again when you actually see him
kissing her cheek. The biggest thing is, of course, that there are no
teeth marks on that side of her neck and there's no evidence on screen
to suggest that he turned her head to bite the other side in the same
spot as the first time. Nick didn't want to take her life anymore than
he had already done and I suppose wanted her to "drift off" on her own.
> However, what is not ambiguous is the fact that LC told him he had a
> choice: bring her across or let her die, and he chose to let her die.
> Whether he drank again or not. "I can't condemn her to this darkness."
It also seems quite evident that she apparently wasn't dead YET, as least not
by the last shot...It does seems to be an ambiguous ending for both her
and Nick...Tracy, sad to say(fo some, I guess), seems to be entirely out
of the running...
John
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 23:05:49 -0400
From: Carrie Krumtum <CKrumtum@g.......>
Subject: Re: A request..
>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.
Richocet.
>
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 22:07:54 -0600
From: Crystal Guffey <guffeyc@t.......>
Subject: SPOILER: LK (My warped mind:))
A thought just occurred to me a few minutes ago, I wonder if all the
scenes of LC doing his treatises on love, etc. could really have taken
place after Nick handed him the stake? Think about the things he says,
and how they would fit in so well at that juncture. He is asking Nick is
he really ready to make this sacrifice, he's seen "him" smell the sea,
look at the stars, etc. This could be a whole LC dialogue to Nick to talk
him into reconsidering his ambiguous "death." There is much more, but it
has been a little while since I have seen it. I'm sure some brilliant
person will come along and point out something I have forgotten about
that would make this impossible. But it does seem something interesting
to ponder.
Crystal, A Vaquera
Guffeyc@t.......
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 21:53:12 -0500
From: Margie Hammet <treeleaf@i.......>
Subject: Re: (spoiler)LK: Love; ending...
At 05:35 PM 5/19/96 -0400, Margaret L. Carter wrote:
>I hate "it was all a dream" solutions and will be furious if that
>is the tack taken by any future TV movie.
I think I could take it if the part from the moment Nick walked into the
loft to find Natalie there was all some sort of LaCroix induced dream of
Nick's, that LaCroix created to try to get Nick away from Natalie. OTOH,
after this episode, I no longer trust what I used to think was the vision
of the creative Powers That Be (i.e. Parriot or whomever), and I don't
trust a future TV movie to be any more satisfying than this episode was.
I hope I'm wrong.
Margie (treeleaf@i.......)
N&NPacker
The Unnamed Faction
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 20:20:23 -0700
From: Cynthia Hoffman <choff@v.......>
Subject: Spoiler: Last Knight
Re Laurie's scorpion story ...
Nick never forgot about the nature of the vampire ... he tried to make
sure Natalie paid attention to the nature of the vampire ... she said she
didn't care.
Cynthia and Jane, being prolific ...
Cynthia Hoffman/choff@v.......
Jane Credland/janes@i.......
Raven ** IB ** MBDtK
We cater to the occasional fetishist
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 22:31:14 -0500
From: TippiNB <Tippinb@i.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: LK (My warped mind:))
Crystal wrote:
> He is asking Nick is
>he really ready to make this sacrifice, he's seen "him" smell the sea,
>look at the stars, etc. This could be a whole LC dialogue to Nick to talk
>him into reconsidering his ambiguous "death." There is much more, but it
Well, you found something I liked about this ep besides Tracy's last line.
I liked all of LC's little monologues, although I did want to drop kick him
for wasting precious time! I mean, I love a LC monologue as much as the
next Cousin, but I mean, there is a time and a place for everything. NB's
delivery of the monologues was excellent, the text well-written, etc. It
tweaked my little UF heart. But I would've gladly traded all of them for
this season to have ended with Ashes.
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 23:21:01 -0500
From: "[M A Martin]" <mmartin@b.......>
Subject: SPOILERS: Last Knight
Just my 2 cents on how Tracy got a bullet in the back of her head-
No problem.
Perhaps she turned to look left or right and the bullet entered the side
of her head at the back?
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 23:24:38 -0400
From: Michelle Mark <Raindance2@a.......>
Subject: Last Knight-magic bullets
<<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.
Yeah...and I think it came from the grassy knoll.....
Cousin Michelle
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 23:25:32 -0400
From: Jennie Hayes <Finabair@a.......>
Subject: SPOILER: Last Knight (& some Ashes to Ashes)
Overall impressions: Wow. I find there is a *lot* of potential for the
story to continue from this episode, and that's mostly all I wanted. But I
was relieved to see that they gave Tracy a good death. I would rather she
were alive, but I think that unless the whole ep is another 'Curiouser and
Curiouser' (which is what I thought the episode resembled more than anything
else) she has to be gone. It would be interesting if this whole thing were
LaCroix's reacting to the guilt of what he did to Divia/what Divia did to Urs
and Vachon. But I ramble. I actually have some specific responses to make
this time...
Cynthia and Jane wrote:
>has no life without Nick, which underly this episode, are misogynistic.
>However, this is the set of assumptions that has underlaid Nat's
>character since Dark Knight. They are a large part of the reason why
I have to disagree with part of this. Throughout first season, Natalie was
portrayed as a normal woman, with an otherwise normal life, who happened to
have gotten a little bit tangled with this vampire. She never really regrets
anything except that once in awhile she wishes there were someone special in
her life (Only the Lonely). Even then, I had a strong impression that *that*
was more her way of trying to get herself less attached to Nick. Like she
realizes that a relationship with Nick would be bad for her and is trying to
find a way to distract herself - i.e. a different man. Obviously it wasn't
working, but it's a totally different underlying assumption than we tend to
see now.
I will agree, however, that in *this* episode, and in several others
throughout second and third season, there has been a lot of the attitude that
Natalie has no life without a man. I think that's regrettable, because most
of her actions and statements (especially those in this last episode) would
make perfect sense simply from the fact that since the series started, she
has lost a brother, a goddaughter, and several friends. Nick really may be
pretty much all she has left by the end of this episode. That doesn't mean
she needs a *man*, specifically, just that she needs *someone*. However, the
way most people seem to take it (I mean characters on the show, here...),
she'd be all better with a man in her life to take care of her. Sheesh. I
think I'll stop talking now. :)
>Ger's directing was great with one single exception. That morgue scene
>makes for a very queasy stomach. It doesn't get any better on future
Here, have some dramamine. It helps a little. ;-) I found that it
distracted from the scene a lot. It made it seem totally unreal, which may
have been some of the intent but it went a bit overboard, IMHO, and into
seeming downright silly.
On the other hand, the scene in the morgue with Nat reading Laura's journal
was *superb*. I loved the way the balance was swinging like a ticking clock.
>Fred's music was wonderful. It didn't overwhelm the episode, nor was it
>sentimental. It added a dimension to the episode instead.
I agree. I like the fact that the final note we heard struck in the episode
sounded like a church bell. It gave an interesting flavor to that ending.
>The script and the acting were equally good. No matter how anyone feels
I thought the acting was superb. I had some problems with the script
overall. It seemed a bit rushed, IMO.
>Those tears were Ger's ... not Nick's. They probably didn't have enough
>tape or money to re-shoot the scene.
Either that, or Nick's search for humanity has changed them as well, now. I
didn't really have any problem with Nick having non-blood tears.
>Tracy: No Nick should NOT have trusted her. Witness how she was
>killed: by walking directly into the line of fire when Nick almost had
But as far as his being a vampire, she was perfectly capable of trusting him
and keeping his secret, and he *knew* that. Despite several times where he
was deliberately making it difficult to keep what she knew about Vachon
secret, she never said a word to Nick about him. She wasn't like Schanke,
for whom vampires didn't even exist, she knew they existed.
>vampire. A GOOD cop does not move into the line of sight of someone that
This was a foolish move on her part. No argument there, but this was an
unusual circumstance and she made a mistake. There have certainly been
mistakes on the part of cops before.
>Tracy is definitely 100% dead. They pulled the sheet over her head. To
>quote an original cousin: Bye Button.
Well, yes and no. If at any point there is more FK, they can bring her back
if they want her back. No matter what we say...<g>
>And, by the way, Nat was wrong to stop him. She constantly tells Nick
>that he has no right to make decisions for other people. How dare she
>make this kind of decision for Tracy. Oh, and as for "how can you do
>this for Tracy and not for me", Tracy was DYING. Nat was still alive and
She didn't say stop at any point. She brought up considerations that he
hadn't taken into account, which is what she's always done for him. He's the
one who made the decision and stopped. And while she wasn't dying, she was
willing. With Tracy he simply couldn't know whether or not she was willing.
That was the whole point of her comments. And it's been a problem with Nick
- he does tend to forget to take what *others* want into consideration, and
then he gets confused when they don't want what he wanted for them.
>it. But Nat couldn't leave well enough alone. She pushed .. and pushed
>.. and pushed him into it. She pushed all the right buttons because she
>knew what they were. Nick needs to feel loved and trusted.
Did it ever occur to you that Natalie *does* love and trust him? The things
she is telling him are sincere. She can't continue to live the existence she
is living. To her, the best option is if she can truly be close to Nick,
which she can't unless she's brought across or he's brought back. The only
other option would be to shut Nick out of her life completely, and I don't
think she can do that. She'd feel like she'd abandoned him, and after all
the times she's told him not to abandon her that would be hypocritical.
She has manipulated him in the past, with Richard (I Will Repay). To me,
this was nothing like that.
>she told him HE loved and trusted her
>even when he was expressing his doubts about that very fact. As much as
>we hate blaming the victim, in this case ...
Not the way I heard it. He said she didn't want his love, and she corrected
his assumption. At least, that's how the dialogue went...
>Then there is the "sex" scene. If you can call it that. Janette became
>mortal because she and Robert MADE LOVE. Nick fed. His idea of foreplay
Yeah, well, I was watching with a friend and we probably woke my neighbors
yelling, "FOREPLAY, NICK!" This is one of the places where I felt the script
was too rushed, like they were trying to fit too much into that one hour so
they failed to include things that should have been there. In fact, I think
this was the most blatant point where I thought the script was weak.
>Oh, and what was that 180 degree shift in her thinking. (snip)
>Wasn't it only four years ago that
>she was telling him that capturing criminals and saving people with the
>help of the vampire didn't count?
Actually, the dialogue with Nat in that one is that she was trying to get him
to avoid using his abilities because she felt his using them might interfere
with a cure. She asks him something like, "and you couldn't have caught him
without the vampire?" He responds "Who cares *how* I did it?" and she
replies, "You do." And she's right there.
>more than made up for 800 years of past misdeeds? So, how long would he
>be trapped in purgatory while Nat went on to other lives? This kind of
Nat has never felt that he needs to atone. Nick does. That's been a very
basic concept in the show from the beginning.
>Nick was true to form. You can be angry at him for killing Natalie, but
Actually I'm not, but then I don't think she's dead. The way it worked, she
was either turned (which makes the most sense to me 'cuz she was getting his
memories) or she will die without help. She's not dead when the scene is cut
because otherwise it would be impossible for Nick to bring her across. We
simply *don't* know what happened next. It certainly is ambiguous enough
that there's no reason to assume Nat's dead unless we want to.
As for what most likely happened with LaCroix, LC does not believe that Nick
is going on to something better if he kills him. I think it's most likely
that he *didn't* kill Nick, although it's possible that he did. I think he'd
most likely want to keep Nick around, because that's what's best for Nick.
He might, for once, have done what Nick wanted. Hard to say on that score.
As for Natalie, while many people don't even take the idea seriously, LC has
good reason to Nat fascinating - she's the only person we've ever seen him
misread on the show. (Fever) By the same token, he might view her as
dangerous but I can't believe it's within LC's scope to think that a vampire
so much younger than he could pose a serious threat to him. There is no
reason why he might not want her brought across, and if that's the best way
to ensure Nick won't try to do himself in as soon as LC goes elsewhere,
assuming LC didn't kill Nick, then I'd assume that's what he'd do. Again,
assuming Nick didn't already bring her across. And I really don't believe
that just because LaCroix verbally agreed with Nick that that's what he's
thinking. I've always maintained that some of what makes LaCroix so
dangerous is that he's always got plans nobody knows about or guesses at.
Which is partially because he *doesn't* always tell us what he's thinking.
>the truth. To Nick, Lacroix is not the devil; he is Nick's closest friend.
And yet, *this* is an ironic turnaround from 'Va au diable' or however that's
spelled. I don't know French. <g>
>Guess that shoots the "Lacroix is 100% evil in Nick's eyes" theory in the
Nick's opinions swing around like a pendulum throughout the series. There
was a time when LaCroix *was* 100% evil in Nick's eyes. He just isn't right
now. I think that LaCroix's ploy of playing Nick's game for awhile has
actually gained him some ground, but it's still a short step back to where
the show started out at.
>and bringing Janette across at the end of Human Factor. Then again, he
>wanted to bring Janette across.
Yes, this is key. I think Nick is really convinced that if he brings Nat
across, she will cease to *be* Nat. Everyone he's brought across has
apparently changed drastically, although I suspect he simply didn't know them
before he brought them across and the change brought out personality traits
he *couldn't* have known about. Also, nobody he's brought across has had any
idea of what was going to happen to them, so they had no idea what they
needed to control and he doesn't stay with them until they learn control, he
kills them when they lose control and rampage. So he really does think that
if Nat is turned, he will *lose* her.
That's how I see his viewpoint here, anyhow.
OK, I've gone on *more* than long enough. I had best stop now, as I'd never
intended to go on this long. I agree that this ending is ambiguous enough
for *lots* of debate, which I was happy to see.
Take care,
Jennie
finabair@a.......
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 23:40:09 -0400
From: Deborah Menikoff <menikoff@p.......>
Subject: SPOILER: Last Knight
All of the below is, naturally, our opinion (Dianne is sitting here as well,
so you'll have to take us as a pair today). You're welcome to disagree. In
fact, go ahead:-) We'll make more. :-)
Our motto is "If you don't laugh, you'll cry" so if you can't laugh at the
pain this ep may cause you (and us --- really!) , then skip this post.
***********************************
Ok, those dead, those alive:
1.) Tracy is dead. - why? - sheet over face.
2.) Nat isn't dead...yet....
First clue, LC says to Nick "You have a choice" (there was no further
"draining" so presumably he still does have time. Second clue - her
heartbeat was fading out but was still going. Third Clue - it *did*
appear that the "wavy LC-cam" effect was Nat's POV. (whoever suggested this
- we *like* it :-))))))
3.) Nick - alive - why - did *you* see him die? Did *you* see him struck
down by the Shillelagh of Death? We didn't, so he's not dead.
4.) Dawkins is dead so presumably he "doesn't have to go back". Back where
? Who knows. But he got what he wanted and he's pretty much the only one in
the ep.
Now - was this the *longest* night in Tornoto history? What *is* the
timeline here?
Next - there needs to be some serious evaluation of the way that Capt Reese
runs his precinct. Hello? Can you say "handcuffs"? Apparently not. Bad
captain - two thwacks with the Shillelagh of Death. :-)
Next - having chased Dawkins through the longest and most complex maze of
police hallways in Canada (the only set left one must assume since they made
such thorough use of it), are we now to accept that Tracy is a "good cop"
for following the armed, ranting and one presumes *dangerous* Delbert
(Delbert?) into a dark locker room without telling anyone or going for help?
I can't. Can you?
LaCroix - could he stake? Yes. Would he stake? No.
So what happened at the end? Glad you asked. We have a theory - several
actually.
We have Nat elegantly sprawled on the floor of Nick's spacious yet sparsely
decorated loft. Nick kneels above. LC raises the Shillelagh of Death on high
saying "Damn you Nicholas", and brings it down on Nick non fatally (staked
or not - whatever works for you) -- *Then* goes on to repeat the rest of
the monologues that we have seen throughout the ep. What then? Whatever you
want -
Nick goes with LC alone leaving Nat to die.
Nick goes with LC after asking him to "finish" Nat off (You can't believe
*HE*'s going to do it)
Nick changes his mind and brings her across and the three of them (and the
Shillelagh of Death) ride off into the sunset together - getting slightly
singed in the processes.
LC pins Nick down with the SofD and brings Nat across to use her to keep
Nick around
LC brings Nat across at Nick's request
Nat could come across on her own after the duo (trio if you count the
Shillelagh) leaves. After all, it's happened before.
Nat could regain consciousness ever so briefly, whisper "Bring me across. I
don't want to die." And being anxious to please, they do.
It goes on and on.....and on and on...
**************************************
Please don't think weren't affected by the ep. (I mean, surely it's
*obvious* that we were). Don't think we are callously mocking your pain? We
are just trying to find a way to enjoy our show.
Deb and Dianne
Lo' though he raiseth the Shillelagh of Death up on high saying "Oh
Nicholas, you *did* think this through...didn't you?", there was no staking,
for the governor calleth with the repreive.
menikoff@p.......
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 23:56:02 +0500
From: John Folden <jtfolden@e.......>
Subject: Re: Spoiler LK: misogyny
> From: "Elizabeth Mosler" <emosler@l.......>
> Me:
> Excellent observations. Although I wonder if Natalie meant that her life
> was nothing without love in it? Not so much the "having a man" part, but
> just the experience of love itself.
I tend to agree with you on this one...There she is, in love with a man she's
known for 6 years and yet they've never really showed commitment and love to
each other in a full-fledged relationship. Nat also mentioned in a previous
episode (My Boyfriend Is A Vampire) that sometimes you need to be told that
you're loved.
John
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 00:01:28 +0500
From: John Folden <jtfolden@e.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILERS: LAST KNIGHT Rationalizations! Get your red-hot
rationalizations here! :>
> From: "D Echelbarger" <gryphon@e.......>
> with it, I'm gonna inflict all my rationalizations on y'all. I sent this
(with
Thanks! Gives me even more "improbable but positive" theories to chew on... :)
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 21:17:03 -0700
From: LC Fenster <lucienlc@i.......>
Subject: Re: Spoiler: Last Knight
Cynthia and Jane wrote:
>Re Laurie's scorpion story ...
>Nick never forgot about the nature of the vampire ... he tried to make
>sure Natalie paid attention to the nature of the vampire ... she said
>she didn't care.
True enough, but I still must disagree with some of what you have said
here and in earlier posts. There are certain times where you just have
to say no, and this was one of those times for Nick. For Nick to take
the attitude - heck, I've warned her of the dangers; she still wants
it, okay, it's her funeral - is not acceptable, imo. Nick is not
absolved of blame in this by virtue of "informed consent". Natalie is
emotionally distraught: she's just lost a friend (Laura) and a
colleague of long-standing (Tracy); she's seen Nick implicitly reject
her again by being willing to bring Tracy across but not here (the AMPH
flashback that they cut does make a difference in perspective here, but
I choose to believe that's what she's thinking about even w/o the
flashback). She's not entirely rational at the moment. She's
questioning everything about her life. Yes, Nick is under enormous
stress as well; he's just lost his second partner in less than a year,
but that doesn't excuse his behavior. He knows better. He knows his
limitations far better than Nat knows them. And he certainly knows
better than to "try to make love" on an empty stomach, without first
fortifying himself with plenty of human blood to reduce the compulsion
to feed.
If he truly loved Natalie, *truly* loved her, he would have said no,
regardless of what she said or how she pleaded. It's that simple, imo.
Of course, imo, the only reason he agreed to "make love" (which he
then didn't do anyway) was his old bugaboo: guilt. Guilt that Nat had
caught him ready to bring Tracy across when he wouldn't do the same for
her. It isn't *faith* that's driving him: it's guilt. Plain and
simple guilt. And when, as a result, it all goes wrong, he can't bring
himself to bring her across because then he would have to admit to her
either that (a) he didn't love her enough to become mortal, as Janette
had or (b) he didn't love her enough to discipline himself to take only
a little, so he was forced to make her a vampire. By letting her die
instead, he is spared a world of awkward explanations and
embarrassment. Then he asks LC to stake him, so he won't have to feel
guilty about letting her die. It's all about guilt, as usual. Or you
can take Sharon's position, that Nick knew LC would never stake him,
but asks him, in order to *prove* his willingness to die, and atone for
killing Natalie; and therefore, the fact that he does not die and atone
can be conveniently blamed on LaCroix and he is absolved.
This isn't about faith, or love, or nobility, or anything else good and
noble and admirable. This is about gluttony, and self-indulgence, and
lack of discipline and GUILT. And, imo, it was a truly sucky way to
end a marvellous television series.
Just my two cents.
Laurie
Cousin M+B+D+T+K
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 00:41:16 -0400
From: Jill Gillham <jilkey@g.......>
Subject: Spoilers:(not really)LK:Not just de big river in Egypt
Yes, I am going through De Nile big time. As I sit typing, the vcr
downstairs is furiously taping Last Knight. I don't know if I'll ever
watch it. I just know that BAD THINGS are going to happen. Darn it, I've
got too much of an emotional investment in these folks to let them go like
that. I couldn't watch Ashes to Ashes either.
Am I weird or just a Pollyanna?
Gouda Prime never happened
Last Knight Never Happened
Tessa is alive and living as a vampire in southern France
Schanke is an immie and revived as soon as they pieced him together
Colonel Blake was on a different chopper
Jill Marie the Revisionist
jilkey@g.......
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 02:05:14 -0700
From: Romina Campos <raven@a.......>
Subject: Spoiler: Last Knight affiliations
>We inadvertently came up with a new game at Tami's last (k)night
>in trying to find <the> Cheesy Rationalization that could bring
>Natalie back to life...
>Don't know about you guys, but <I> need the distraction!
Well, I have another game:
After all the is <insert character name here> dead or not,
I think new affiliation names are needed for:
Those who think that no one died (innocents, disneys?)
Those who think that LaCroix brought Nat across and that he didn't stake Nick
Those who think that LaCroix brought Nat across and that he staked Nick (a
valentine dream, isn't it?)
Those who think that Nat is dead, but Nick isn't (more angst to our boy)
Those who think that <gulp> Nick and Nat died (masochists imho)
Then we could add the new affiliation to our sigs, for example you could be
a innocent knigthie or masochists Natpacker, etc.
Any ideas for the Last Knight affiliations names?
P.S: I'd like to add myself to the those who wouldn't mind at all
if Nick came and whammied me into forgetting "Last Knight."
Romina
raven@a.......
NickNatpacker
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 01:12:06 +0500
From: John Folden <jtfolden@e.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILERS: LAST KNIGHT Rationalizations! Get your red-hot
rationalizations here! :>
> I'm with those who say that Tracy's death isn't final because we never saw
> her die. Some strange things have been known to occur in FK hospitals.
We saw the nurse cover Tracy's face with a sheet, and then her body was carted
away...that seems pretty final to me...(assuming the whole episode wasn't
simply a knightmare Nick had "Last Knight", of course)
John
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 01:39:09 -0400
From: "Tammy Pond [Digest]" <nightmist@g.......>
Subject: "I'm too <blank> to kill"
I'm reading commentary on Last Knight, and hubby's sitting on the bed
trying to disect the finer points of Nicola Tesla's magnetic
experiments and patents. And playing with magnets. I think RL is
weird, forget fantasy... <laugh>
Anyway, the challenge (I *like* this!):
"I'm too TOUGH and STRINGY to kill" (I've got a button that
says the poor are tough and stringy, sorry...)
"I'm too YOUNG and CUTE to kill" No, wait, that's Tracy and
it's - supposedly - too late for her.
Okay, so they're lame, but they're all I can think of at this point.
Maybe when my head stops reeling a little more I can think better.
Tammy
nightmist@g.......
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 01:51:50 -0400
From: "Tammy Pond [Digest]" <nightmist@g.......>
Subject: Wild thought...
I just noticed....four FKSPOILR digests in my mailbox, and they're
all dated for Sunday. That's how much stuff hit the list. Scary...
but not that surprising.
Tammy
Nightmist@g.......
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 22:51:13 PST
From: June Russell <Kat@g.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: last knight: Natalie.
JMR wrote:
:Last Knight diatribe follows.
:
:A
:r
:e
:W
:e
:S
:t
:i
:l
:l
:D
:o
:i
:n
:g
:spoiler space? Well, better safe than sorry.
:Nat has a life. But it's a life that, for six years, has had a vampire in
:it.
:Imagine the implications. No close friends, because she can't afford to
:get too close; she's keeping too many secrets.
I don't think that she has few friends because of Nick, but because of her
job. Believe me, college (if you want to go to medical school), medical
school and residency don't leave a lot of room for anything else but that
one note: medicine. That is, if you want to look good for the PTB who will
put in the good word for you for your medical school, residency program,
first job.
Some medical schools realize that it's all too easy to do as Nat used to
(before Nick) and Lori did: give up your life for the job. I was very lucky
in that from the first day at UoWashingtonMedSchool they harped on making
sure that you don't do that. It looks as if Nat was not as lucky.
:And slowly but surely over the course of
:those years, Nick and his vampiric nature have taken over more and more of
:her existence, of her thoughts, until there's no room left for anything
:else.
When Nick points out that she has a life now, she points out that it began 6
years ago, April 14, when she met him. I don't believe that it was the
misogynistic "finally having a man in my life", but rather: "I have
something in my life that forces me to do something besides my job and only
my job.
:{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{Hugs}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}} for the spoiler list.
A hug to all of you out there on the list. Right now we are all hurting
because we have seen the last new episode of the series. However, I think
that there is hope. They changed the last scene to make it more ambiguous
for a reason. I think it is so that we can have more FK in the form of
miniseries or TV specials. JP is good at this. Look at how many Bionic
specials there have been. It would be better in the long run for the actors.
That way they can *enjoy* being in FK rather than seeing it as having to
give up a lot (like NB in Avonlea) for FK. They can do more than one thing.
Kat
Kat ( June Russell )
pacifier.com!grendal!kat kat@g.......
Heu! Tintinnuntius meus Sonat!
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 02:00:58 -0500
From: Sandra Gray <TMP_HARKINS@d.......>
Subject: SPOILERS: Last Knight (ep 22)
I know this is probably a mistake to do and may not make much sense.
But I watched Last Knight alone and I just need to say something.
I am torn between feeling dead and feeling pain, by turns. Was this
episode really necessary? Maybe once I've rewatched it--yes, I guess
I must be a glutton for punishment, but I guess I feel the need to
understand *why* this was made, *what purpose* it can possibly serve
to end the show this way. I feel *betrayed* by TPTB and especially
Michael Sadowski in particular. I don't understand why this was done.
Can someone tell me why this was done? Anyone with any inside info?
I rewatched the ending twice after watching the episode. It is
supposed to come on another channel in about half an hour and maybe
I'll watch it again, maybe not. I keep thinking of LC's line to
Fleur, "That a cold, still heart could feel such pain." Well, I hope
LC suffers a *hell* of a long time for what he did! I can't believe
that after AtA LC would do such a thing.
The episode was filmed and directed well for the most part. Kudos
to Ger. It engaged me emotionally in several parts. When Tracy got
shot, I felt sorry about her. But Nick didn't need more pain. When
he was considering bringing Tracy over, I was actually saying, "No,
Nick, don't do it" and crying. Then Nat...Nat...well, on the one hand
I'm glad she stopped him, on the other hand, she just made things
harder for Nick by asking him why he could bring Tracy over and not
her (guess we know Nat wouldn't have minded being a vampire, huh?).
And the scene between them in his apartment. Nat made a good speech,
and although I'm not a Nick and Nat Packer (or whatever you folks
call yourselves), I was hoping it would work. But Nick's been away
from human blood too long, not to mention he's not been one to show
much control in the past. Poor Nat (I didn't think I'd ever say
that). She looked like she was afraid of the images she was getting
from Nick (that was *cruel*, *cruel* in the extreme for a mortal to
have to get such *crap* from the vampire who attacks them--where was
the love, the good memories of the two of them, or do we just assume
that Nick reverted to the animal--to the *beast*!).
And then *LC* showed up! Silly me, I was telling Nick not to listen
to LC, to bring Nat over before she died. It sure didn't help to have
the sound of her heartbeat stop right there either! But of course
Nick would never bring Nat over. I cry thinking about it.
And then for Nick to want LC to... I guess we can assume Nick had
forgiven LC by calling him his "closest friend". And I'm sure the
rising sun was meant to symbolize that Nick and Nat had gone together
to a better place. BAH! What it felt like to me was that Nick didn't
want to deal with the pain anymore. And LC's poisonous words to make
Nick doubt his faith even at the end!!!!!!!!!!! What a horrible thing
to do to Nick!!!!! After three years of rooting for him to achieve
mortality, *this* is the only mortality Nick gets?!?!?!
Silly me filled out the Sony survey where they asked if Nick should
become mortal or not in the last episode (I gave in to temptation, so
sue me!). I wrote under "Why?" that if this was indeed the last
episode of the show, then Nick deserved to get a shot at mortality.
But if he achieved it, I didn't want to see him die right afterwards.
Just goes to show how much attention they paid to my response, doesn't
it? Ah, well, should have known it was a mistake to respond.
Well, I guess if the show is to go on from here, there will have to
be some *major* story rewriting to bring Nick back, huh? Then again,
I guess we can always lobby for ***FOREVER LACROIX***!!! :P :P :P
I'd love to see him rotting in hell!!!
If anyone was offended by any of the above, I'll probably feel sorry
about it later sometime. Right now though, I don't give a shit.
--Sandra Gray, disenchanted and disgusted Knightie
--tmp_harkins@d.......
=========================================================================
Knight graphics and parchment background created by Melissa Snell and may be found at http://historymedren.about.com/
