File: "FKSPOILR LOG9605" Part 46 TOPICS: Somebody tell me... A new theory! (LK spoilers) SPOILERS: LK & the Perky One Spoiler: Last Knight (a "top 10" list) SPOILER: Last Knight Last Knight (bloody tears, Nat) SPOILERS: Last Knight (also AtA) - Think a moment .... (2) Top 10 List (fwd) Last Knight thoughts SPOILER: Last Knight (Top Ten for Nick) LK Spoiler-Humorous & short SPOILERS: AtA and LK "Cuts" and "Intent" (2) Last Knight ( Nat) Spoiler: Last Knight "Final Farewell" / SPOILERS: LK ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 19:00:12 -0230 From: Jason Ryan <ibe0018@i.......> Subject: Somebody tell me... Could somebody tell me what is going on? I wachted LK and at the end, well i think i know what happened but is there a way to definatly know what had happened just as the writters of the show had intended? like, I don't know, a script or somethink like that, anyways get back to me. *************************************** "La vie pour toujours, ma chere petite" -Jason Ryan ibe0018@i....... *************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 16:41:51 -0500 From: TippiNB <Tippinb@i.......> Subject: A new theory! (LK spoilers) Hey all... S P O I L E R S P A C E Okie if you haven't averted your eyes by now, tough luck!! At first, after watching LK, I went into denial mode. But, as Cousin Cherri pointed out, we have to deal with reality. Okay. I can do that. Especially if I can alter reality! Ashes to Ashes felt more like a series finale to me than LK does. A lot of people agree, so I'm not just whacko here. Anyway, so I'm going to think of LK as the 1st ep of the 4th season that we just haven't gotten yet. Yes? Evidence! I have evidence! To coin Apache's trademark: I have a Cheesy Rationalization (tm)!! Remember Black Buddha, the 1st ep of the 3rd season? Let's compare notes on the similarities: LK: Partner (Tracy) dies. BB: Partner (Schanke) dies. (Or so they say. I know for a fact he's living in Phoenix, AZ! Muaha!) LK: Nick blames himself for partner's demise. BB: Nick blames himself for partner's demise. LK: The owner of the Raven, LC, is leaving. BB: The owner of the Raven, Janette, has just left. LK: Nat shows up in Nick's loft just as he's deciding whether or not it's time to move on. BB: Ditto. I'm sure there are more but I don't have LK on tape just yet so I can't say. I don't *care* how cheesy my rationalization is. Put it on a cracker and call in an hors d'ouerve! (ooh, I may have even spelled that right!!) She of dairy product explanations, Wicked Cousin Tippi, dollar bill wrangler of the Thong Throng! *Charter Member of the Unnamed Faction*Voyeur of the Menage LaCroix* "TV shows, like vampires, have a way of coming back from the dead." Firmly believing that LK was the 1st ep of the 4th season. Why not? http://www.netcom.com/~tippinb/wicked.html ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 17:51:45 -0400 From: Allison Percy <percy91@w.......> Subject: SPOILERS: LK & the Perky One I'm feeling particularly caffeinated right now, which is creating an artificial sense of courage, so I'm going to venture a post on "Last Knight." First off, I am enjoying the diversity of opinion about what the heck happened in "Last Knight." I have my own opinions, but there was enough ambiguity in the episode to allow for many other opinions, even without resorting to "it was all a dream." (Which is also a reasonable possibility, I think, given the ephemeral quality of the direction.) Thanks to whoever is responsible for the ambiguity. GWD? The mysterious phone call at 2am? Whoever you are, one and all, thanks. Not to bore you too much with my own opinion, here's the quick rundown: Tracy: dead (sob!) Reese: still thirsty Nat: coma? just resting??? pining for the fjords???? Most likely she's a vampire now, I think. Nick: mortal (that's how I interpret the tears; yes I know it's not the only way to interpret them, it's just the way I *want* to interpret them, thank you very much); may or may not be half-staked by LC at the end (but not killed; LC wouldn't kill his boy) LC: pissed off Agree? Disagree? Both? Good. No one has to toe the line on this episode, IMO. OK, now on to my point: out of loyalty to the Perkulators, I feel I have to come up with some way to bring Tracy back. But looking at the episode, I can't think of a way to bring her back as a mortal. Yet if she is brought across (by whoever), she is going to have to give up drinking coffee, and so she'll go through one heck of a caffeine withdrawal phase. Or she's going to have to start haunting alleys near coffee shops for her victims. ;^) A perky vampire would sure shake things up for LC and the rest. <g> ObBabysitting Stuff: When posting to the FKSPOILR list, be sure to put SPOILER: <episode name or abbreviation> in the subject line of your message. This makes it a lot easier for people to sort their mail and avoid spoilers for episodes they've missed. Also, spoiler space is *no longer necessary* for Last Knight on the FKSPOILR list, according to the info I was given. But do put spoiler space in any fiction posts to FKFIC-L if the story includes spoilers for any of the last few episodes. And label your FKFIC-L postings carefully, noting which episodes if any your story contains spoilers for. Double-check your message headers before sending your mail to make sure spoilers go to the proper list. If you're replying to a message that contains spoilers, be sure the original message was sent to the correct list. A few spoiler posts have snuck onto FORKNI-L lately and we'd like to keep that to a minimum. Thanks. --- Allison Percy (percy91@w....... -or- AlliePercy@a.......) --- ------- List Babysitter (FORKNI-L, FKSPOILR, FKFIC-L) for a week --------- -- *Free* copy of list rules! http://cac.psu.edu/~jap8/FK/FKRules.html --- --------------------------- Rule #1: BE NICE! --------------------------- ------------ "Does your mommy know you're reading this stuff?" ----------- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 16:42:16 -0500 From: John & Donna Spert <jjs@i.......> Subject: Spoiler: Last Knight (a "top 10" list) Hi, In trying not to be depressed about LK, I came up with the following. I hope it engenders a few chuckles. John Ten things LaCroix didn't say as he held the stake: 10) Better you than me. 9) Tis a far better thing I do than I have ever done before. 8) Does this mean you're definitely not moving with me? 7) Ten bucks says I get the heart first try. 6) Give in to the Dark Side. It is your destiny. 5) I get double points if the stake hits Natalie too. 4) Am I in your will? 3) My horoscope said this would be a bad Knight. 2) Is it too late to audition for Kindred? And the number one thing LaCroix didn't say as he held the stake: 1) There can be only one! ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 15:51:22 -0500 From: Robbi Egersdorf <egersdor@m.......> Subject: SPOILER: Last Knight I have now watched Last Knight 5 times. It took me 4 times to realize that Nick Killed Dawkins by throwing him up against the wall. I am still working through my spoiler digests so I don't know if anyone has brought out this point. Here goes. In Feeding the Beast Nick tried to give up blood and it sent him on a spree (Just from what I understand having never seen the episode myself) We know that Nick has denied his nature by not drinking human blood (although there are exceptions) and does not drink blood from people (there are exceptions here. Wouldn't his urges be a little harder to control since he is not committing these acts on a regular basis. When we see him sip from a neck it was only in flashbacks from a period in his life when he was doing all that is in the nature of a vampire to do. Another factor that needs to be considered is how long has it been since the poor boy has had sex! Only once in this whole season (if you consider bringing Janette back across, having vampire sex with her) Otherwise Nick has been celibate this whole year. No wonder he couldn't control himself and there was no foreplay (which I would have loved to see ) Other than kissing Natalie's wrist. No telling what might have happened if he got himself real excited. See. I can be coherent after Last Knight. Robbi Long Live the Knight egersdor@m....... ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 19:50:14 -0400 From: "Margaret L. Carter" <MLCVamp@a.......> Subject: Re: Last Knight (bloody tears, Nat) Okay, maybe vampires cry bloody tears when they have fed heavily and/or recently, but not the rest of the time. Why didn't it occur to Nick, while Nat lingered on the brink, to fly her to a hospital and get a massive blood transfusion? He could have hypnotized the staff so they wouldn't wonder how she lost all that blood. Nope, too simple, and would require him to think about her welfare instead of his own guilt. (But I still love him.) Some think this episode is out of character for Nat. I can easily see her losing perspective, after all the recent events; she is probably suffering from depression, which destroys all sense of perspective -- no solutions seem possible, and illogical, extreme acts seem appropriate. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 16:54:13 U From: "Talkovic, Jeannine" <talkjm1@a.......> Subject: Re: SPOILERS: Last Knight (also AtA) - Think a moment .... Ray wrote: > Oh, and I hate to break it to the Vaqueras, but on close examination, >Vachon had that stake still in him when he delivered his "wish me luck" exit >line. Hmmm...we don't see his burial, though. Would Tracy bury Vachon with the stake still in his heart? Jeannine, Vaquera talkjm1@a....... ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 20:17:22 -0500 From: John & Donna Spert <jjs@i.......> Subject: Re: Top 10 List (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 20:50:38 -0400 From: LadysAVamp@a....... To: jjs@i....... Subject: Re: Top 10 List How's this one? 11. "Here's your stake (steak), tartare Nicholas!" I really don't know where these things come from... Could you forward this to FKSPOILR, I've been put on NOPOST until I have a name. Funny, I thought I had one. Thanks :) Lisa ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 19:22:35 PST From: June Russell <Kat@g.......> Subject: Re: Last Knight thoughts Monique wrote: :Two: Poor Nat! :smooch & Pepe le Peu wrist kiss is NOT foreplay. Don't :TPTB have sex lives? I don't think that's what Nat had in :mind when she told Nick to make love to her. After watching it *again* I realized there *was* more to that part of the scene than I had realized: Nick pulls back from Natalie, gazes into her eyes for quite a while (making love to her with his eyes it seemed) before he plunged into her neck. Natalie knew he was going to go for her neck *soon* but didn't suggest they go to the couch, lay down, go upstairs or anything more. I don't think she was hypnotized. I think she felt she was ready and didn't *try* to ask him for more "foreplay". (But that doesn't mean I didn't think we were cheated a bit. We certainly saw Janette do a lot more with Robert and JP evidently said that FK vampire sex was more than just above the neck.) Kat Kat ( June Russell ) pacifier.com!grendal!kat kat@g....... Heu! Tintinnuntius meus Sonat! ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 21:57:09 -0500 From: John & Donna Spert <jjs@i.......> Subject: SPOILER: Last Knight (Top Ten for Nick) Hi again, As a gesture of protest against his portrayal in Last Knight, here's Nick's Last Knight Top Ten: John Ten Things Nick didn't think after draining Natalie: 10) I wonder if that's what Nat meant by "making love"? 9) If I were gentle and sensitive, the other vampires would make fun of me. 8) This is going to make Captain Reese's day. 7) Wham, Bam, Thank'ya Ma'am! 6) Gee, that wasn't at all like doing it with Janette... 5) Why do I feel a kinship with Perry? [Both tried to bring a loved one across and both are sons of b*****s.] 4) Life is like a box of chocolates; stuff yourself until they're all gone. 3) If you love something set it free. If it won't go, suck it dry. 2) Now LaCroix will have a guilt trip too. And the number one thing Nick didn't think: 1) (That's right. He *didn't think*!) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 19:50:58 PDT From: "Leslie I.Plummer" <lplummer@i.......> Subject: LK Spoiler-Humorous & short Driving home tonight I heard something on the radio which sent me laughing & back into the office to send this message (way too late on a "school" night): Not really much of a spoiler... but just in case... F O R E V E R K N I G H T F O R E V E R ! ! ! Remember, in LK, where Nick is driving from the Raven back to his place & he's finding the worst (yet most appropriate) stuff on the radio for his mood? Well, imagine, if you will, that as Nat drove from the morgue to Nick's, what would have been playing on HER radio. "Midnight Train to Georgia" by Gladys Knight & the Pips!!! ^ (there's THAT name again!) Lyric samplers to prove my point... "He needs to go back to the life he once knew... to a simpler place & time..." "I'd rather be in his world, than without him in mine..." "His world, my world, our world..." "Gonna be on that MIDNIGHT train to Georgia.." "His love, my love, our love..." Repeated over & over (w/other words which presently excape me), and at the end... a crescendo of: "I GOT TO GO! I GOT TO GO! I GOT TO GO! Hey, hey!" ...hmm, just a thought anyway. Heck, even the train timing & title accommodate a vampire's schedule! No wonder Nat thought it was fated! Leslie ***FOREVER MEANS...FOREVER!!!*** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 20:10:00 -0500 From: Sandra Gray <TMP_HARKINS@d.......> Subject: SPOILERS: AtA and LK "Cuts" and "Intent" I've been reading the spoilers that have been posted about Last Knight and while I won't go into specific quoting in this letter, there are some points that have been raised that I want to address, as well as some comments of my own that I want to make. As the subject line indicates, a major focus of this post is going to be on the filming of episodes and how cutting a scene or filming it differently does not in itself (imo, anyway) change the emotional and story content of a scene. I have watched LK four times through now and so far, I see the same thing that I saw on my first viewing of it: Nat and Nick are dead. Tracy is too, but, although I felt more in her "death scene" (even though she wasn't technically "dead" when she was shot, that's what that scene felt like to me) than I did for Vachon in AtA, her death doesn't have so devastating an effect because she hasn't been around since the beginning. Anyway, in order to illustrate my point in part, I want to reference first scenes from AtA. Much criticism of Nick was raised for him asking LC to hypnotize Tracy into forgetting what happened with Vachon, but to leave her with the memory that vampires existed. This speech of Nick's looks bad because of how we saw Vachon essentially commit suicide by running upon the stake Tracy held (or possibly, it could also be viewed as an accident--that Vachon had Divia's evil overtake him and he was actually trying to attack Tracy before he got impaled on the stake she held). But I believe it was Laurie Fenster who posted that the *script* had Tracy actually *killing* Vachon with the stake. Obviously when it came to filming, someone (the director, Lisa Ryder, Ben Bass, *whoever*) decided that they didn't want to go with the scene between Tracy and Vachon as originally written (Tracy kills Vachon) and we saw a different scene instead. BUT, changing that one scene about how Vachon dies, makes the scene at the end with Nick asking LC to hypnotize Tracy then *not make as much sense*. It's my feeling that Nick's request was *still couched in the same lines that were in the original script*. If Tracy *had* killed Vachon, Nick's words to LC about how Tracy should be hypnotized out of the memory of what happened, make *much* more sense. Does anyone think that Tracy would want to remember having purposely *killed* Vachon? Anyway, my point is that I think Nick's lines in that final scene over Divia's body (and of course LC's lines) are the same lines from the script where Tracy *does* kill Vachon. They changed the scene with Tracy and Vachon from the original, but *didn't think to look at how that change affected any other scenes in the script*. I won't get into the argument about whether it was wrong or right for Nick to have asked LC to hypnotize Tracy, but I do think that Nick's lines make a bit more sense if looked at in context of the *original* script where Tracy kills Vachon (fwiw, I think the change to Tracy *not* purposely killing Vachon was a good one, btw). Now, on to LK. To me, making "cuts" so that we don't "see" LC stake Nick, or we can't completely "tell" whether Nick bit again to "finish her off" *doesn't* change the *emotional* and *story* content of the script. People say that Nat isn't dead. Then why after Nick bends down to "kiss" her a second time, does LC say, "Wise decision. We may even have time for a burial."? *Those lines* carry the emotional content that *Nat **is** dead*. And Nick's reactions after that also point to the *same* conclusion to me. Much has been made about the "LC distortions"--that they're Nat's viewpoint, for example. I see no reason why this should be so. LC appears to be looking at and *directly addressing* someone and why would he be saying what he is saying to *Nat*? In my view, his lines seem to be directed to Nick and he is speaking *to Nick*. At one point in one of the distortions, he says something like "all that's happened tonight should tell you this" and *looks down and to the side*, which I interpret as him looking at Nat's body on the floor. IOW, I agree with Amy R. when she says these "distortions" are from *Nick's viewpoint* as he is lying on the floor after being staked. I think there is a reason for the last part (before LC raises the stake) to be clear rather than distorted. It's the final clarity before Nick's final death, as a lot of the preceding moments of clarity (the bulk of the rest of the episode) is Nick flashing back to the prior events of the evening. There is, imo, no other way to explain the "LC distortions" dialogue any other way than him addressing Nick as Nick lies staked. Others have said LC would never kill Nick. I believe he did, that he had no other option. I believe this for one major reason. LC makes his speeches, pulling out every past trick he's used to bend Nick to his will *to no effect*, then says to Nick something on the order of, "So to you, I'm the devil." (Why would LC make such a statement after Nick just saved his life in AtA? LC is not stupid; if Nick did indeed think LC the devil, why would he have saved LC from Divia in the first place?) LC was trying with that line his last ditch attempt to get Nick to *put the blame for his failures on LC again*. But Nick was too far beyond that. When Nick says, "You're my closest friend," LC understood what he said as he meant it: "Kill me, I beg you." We have seen in Sons of Belial that the one thing LC cannot resist is *Nick begging him*. And LC says, "Damn you, Nicholas" and complies with Nick's request because he knows he's lost Nick, that Nick cannot and will not go on as he has anymore. Nick, with his words, has said that he understands LC's need and love for him and that he depends on LC's love for him to outweigh LC's selfish need of Nick. LC is defeated; he no longer has a way to "hold" Nick by "force". I hope LC saw in that moment how responsible he has been for Nick's agony over the centuries, how much his selfishishness contributed to Nick's wish not to go on anymore. I hope LC spends a millenium of suffering without Nick and when LC experiences his own true death, he will *rot in hell*. Understanding of LC's viewpoint, his need for Nick, his love of Nick, *does not* im my mind excuse the way he treated Nick for so many centuries. LC bears a great deal of the responsibility for the disastrous end of this final episode. Why disastrous? Well, let's discuss more of the emotional content of this story. It opens with a suicide. Dawkins also wants to commit suicide, because *he can't go back*. I think the parallel with Nick is clearly there with Dawkins, that Nick feels that *he can't go back* to being the type of vampire LC would like him to be. But Nick feels he can't go *forward* either. Look at the symbolism Ger has added to the episode. Many scenes are filmed through *bars*--the barred windows of Nick's loft, the "bars" of vertical blinds, the bars of the gate to Janette's private quarters (where LC has packed his trunk) are behind Nick as he *paces* (like a *caged animal*) back and forth while talking to LC. The whole effect is that Nick feels *trapped* in his current existence with *no way out* of it. This is also borne out by the events of not just this episode, but past episodes (not just the ones in the flashbacks of this either). Consider. Nick was backsliding toward the end of second season, culminating with him turning to Janette for *vampire* comfort in Crazy Love. There was the failure of the cure in The Fix, Nick's loss of memory due to a bullet wound in Night in Question, the possession by a demon in Sons of Belial, the fever in Fever, Divia's attack in Ashes to Ashes. Then the disasters of Janette leaving, Schanke and Cohen dying, not daring to be with Nat (especially after Be My Valentine) and the problems that had arisen in their relationship because of Nick's fear of harming her. Janette returns mortal and rather than letting her die, Nick brings her back across and she leaves him *again*. Then this episode Nat's old friend suicides and she decides it's time to issue an ultimatum to Nick. Tracy gets shot--Tracy, whom Nick has probably looked on as something like a sister--and of course if was *his fault* that she got shot. I saw his desire to bring Tracy over as Nick reacting to *pain*--pain that had built to extreme levels by the time of this episode. He's about to be investigated on his job (his one *secure mortal haven*) for killing Dawkins. And then when he turns to LC for help, he finds that LC is leaving town. His *vampire security* was also deserting him. Nat has made him fear she'll commit suicide if he leaves. Tracy dies and he is pushed by all of what's happened into deciding to leave town. Then Nat wants him to try Janette's cure. I've always thought it was a mistake to have indicated a romance between Nick and Nat since I always thought it would have to end it disaster (as it *did*, imo). Nat asks Nick about faith. Is it an accident that he remembers Joan of Arc? I don't think so. But that flashback had only a "glimmer" of hope that Nick could regain his faith. Nick still had doubts there so we can only assume that it's supposed to reflect that he *still* has the same doubts. But he *wants* to believe, so he allows himself to be convinced by Nat to try the cure. But the doubts that it will work have already been laid in previous scenes and flashbacks. Nick is not able to control himself enough due to many things: his previous limited blood diet, not being used to human blood, not being used to *fresh* human blood, but most of all, *emotional turmoil*. It was the *wrong time* to try such a thing. Nat was willing to leave with him, if he was leaving. Nat, in a state of emotional turmoil herself, wasn't thinking clearly. She should have tried to prepare Nick beforehand instead of depending solely on "love" (especially when it seems from the flashbacks that, although Nick cares for her, his "love" may not be the same as hers). And then comes the worst part of this episode--Nick *fails* once again. He's taken too much--Nat will have to die or be brought over. But the whole emotional tone of the previous parts of the episode is that Nick can't cope with it anymore. That the *pain* of trying to live mortal while a vampire has built beyond his endurance. Rather than any sort of *hope*, what happens with Nat is just the *final straw* (much like Sylvaine was the straw that made him swear off feeding on humans). The *bars*, the *suicide plot elements*, come together to make Nick decide that he just can't go on. And, of course, instead of *supporting* Nick, LC falls back on all the lines and arguments he's used to hold Nick in the past, tearing down the slim, fragile hope that if he dies, Nick will find peace. Nick's tears are not just for what's happened to Nat, but the outward manifestation of the *extreme pain* Nick is in from his *whole existence* to that point. He has reached the point of not being able to take it any more. So he begs LC to kill him. And LC complies. No amount of "film editing" or "cutting" to me can alter the thrust of the story and the emotional content of it. Nat and Nick are dead. If FK comes back in some form (movie or whatever) the story would have to be *exceptional* to make me believe that Nick survived. Whether I'll feel this way after ten, twenty, however many viewings, I don't know. But it *didn't need* to end in such a fashion. I still feel *betrayed* by TPTB. Nick didn't necessarily need to become mortal in the end or live happily ever after with Nat. I don't object to tragic endings. I was one of the few people who wouldn't have minded if Spock, my favorite character on Star Trek, had been left dead after "The Wrath of Khan"--because his death was *good* and *noble*. What I *cannot* forgive TPTB for in this is the suggestion that Nick's death achieved *nothing*, that he *didn't* find any redemption or forgiveness. A sun rising through dark clouds? Why not a sun rising in a clear blue sky at least? The images we see when Nick bites Nat are all mostly *vampire* images. No goodness, no hope. The dialogue with LC afterwards is an attempt to tear down any hope that Nick's death will lead to any sort of *peace* for Nick. I didn't necessarily want the glowing door from Near Death, but there was *not*, imo, *any* indication that God (or whatever benevolent deity appeals to you) accepted Nick, *no* indication that Nick expected God to forgive him. Essentially TPTB seemed to indicate that all Nick's past good deeds were for nothing!! Vampires are unredeemable! Nick's only fate is *damnation*! Nick's death is a *defeatist* death, a **senseless** tragedy. I've never done this with any other show I've enjoyed, but Last Knight has made me come very close to *never* wanting to watch *any* FK again. When Quantum Leap ended the way it did (with the statement that Sam Beckett never returned home), my husband was so angered that he hasn't watched the show since. With LK, I've come to understand better why he did that. In fact, Bruce has decided he doesn't want to watch LK after hearing about my reaction to it and reading some of the spoilers about it for fear that he'll hate JP as much as he hated Bellasario for ending Quantum Leap the way it was ended. Anyway, I can't buy the "rationalizations" people have come up with for Nat and Nick surviving after LK. To my mind, a few "scene cuts" doesn't remove the "intent" of the story. The "intent" is that they are *dead*, and worse, for what seems an almost "vindictive" reason. Nat's death didn't affect me that much, but being a Knightie, *Nick's* death did. As the center of the story, he deserved a *better* death-- one with *hope*, one with *meaning*. I will grant that it is a powerful episode, with good acting, and mostly good filming and direction. It's just *wrong.* My apologies if anything I've posted about LK has offended any listmembers. --Sandra Gray, forever Knightie --tmp_harkins@d....... ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 01:45:20 -0400 From: Apache <lf@c.......> Subject: Re: Last Knight ( Nat) On Tue, 21 May 1996, Margaret L. Carter wrote: > Some think this episode is out of character for Nat. I can easily see her > losing perspective, after all the recent events; she is probably suffering > from depression, which destroys all sense of perspective -- no solutions seem > possible, and illogical, extreme acts seem appropriate. > No kidding. Doesn't this all happen in one night -- the night of Laura Haines' suicide? It's sort of notorious among psychologists, therapists, analysts and people in 12 step programs that suicide is "contagious" -- people close to a suicide are at greater risk of suicide themselves, particularly immediately afterward (and for families, the heightened risk is *forever*). In 800 years, Nick hasn't figured this out? He couldn't just stall Natalie for a day, a week? He couldn't say, Nat, your reasoning is not at its tiptop form just now? And the department let Nat autopsy her friend, unaccompanied? All of this struck me as odd, and poorly thought through. We're told three story proposals were rejected before this one was accepted, and this script went through multiple rewrites. Bah. Humbug. Ap. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 01:47:20 -0400 From: Apache <lf@c.......> Subject: Re: SPOILERS: Last Knight (also AtA) - Think a moment .... > Ray wrote: > > > Oh, and I hate to break it to the Vaqueras, but on close examination, > >Vachon had that stake still in him when he delivered his "wish me luck" exit > >line. > But not when, a few minutes later, Tracy was doing her weeping Pieta scene over him. The cheesy rationalization has to do with vampires being able to recover if a stake is removed (e.g., Lacroix in "Night in Question"). Cheers, Ap. author of Vachon's C.R. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 02:41:45 -0400 From: Apache <lf@c.......> Subject: Re: SPOILERS: AtA and LK "Cuts" and "Intent" About the change in script vs. produced scene of Tracy staking Vachon and Nick's request to Lacroix in "Ashes": Either way, Nick didn't know what he was asking Lacroix to remove from Tracy's memory. Nick wasn't present at the scene where Vachon wound up impaled (either by Tracy's intent, as in the script, or by Vachon's intent, as in the produced scene). Nick showed up when Tracy was talking to the corpse. Presumably there was a hole visible in his chest, so Nick had some idea of what happened, but he can't have know specifics. Whether or not LC went through with staking Nick... was purposely left to our imagination in the final version. Ap. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 02:57:52 -0400 From: Amy Potter <APotter@g.......> Subject: Spoiler: Last Knight Well I finally watched my tape last night, and had to delurk to through in my $.02 worth... I thought it fit the series, but I have to admit I was lucky I was alone when I watched it, I'm sure my family would wondered at the shouts of "NO! They can't *DO* that"! I was hoping Nick would bring Nat across, I always liked that idea more than him becoming mortal. I really liked the way the writers set up the true conflict of the epidose, and indeed the series: 1. The ultimate expression of nat's love for nick is her willingness to join him in "eternal darkness". 2. The ultimate expression of Nick's love for nat is to refuse under any circumstances to bring her across. And finally, before I go back under my rock, here's my theory on how to resurrect the series: LC does stake Nick. However, as he stands over the two dead(?) lovers, he realizes that his life is looking very lonely indeed. He then brings Nat across, and together they resurrect Nick (we know vampires can survive being staked, LC did it once, if not twice). Having LC bring nat across sidesteps the whole issue of Nick's conscience, and focuses any resentment nat has about it on LC and not Nick, freeing Nick and Nat to have a undying (pardon the pun) relationship. They move, (maybe Paris, a la Highlander) and the new episodes focus on their realationship and Nat learnign to be a vampire. Tracy stays dead, I'm kind of indifferent on whether Vachon comes back. Returning to lurk mode, --amy Email: APotter@g....... Home Page: http://members.gnn.com/APotter/page1.htm You're almost 800 years old . . . what's an egg? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 20:21:08 -0400 From: Marcia Tucker <ScFiMarci@a.......> Subject: Re "Final Farewell" / SPOILERS: LK Spoiler space if still needed because I want to be a good listperson: s p o i l e r In regards to: (posted originally to FKFIC-L) >>LC Fenster <lucienlc@i.......> Subject: A Final Farewell (1/1) (contains LK spoilers)<< This is a personal message, but more than that as I try to express to *all* of you how I'm trying to deal with LK: Laurie, I LOVE this story! It mirrors a little what I tried to do with "Second Chances", namely that cooler heads needed to prevail to prevent the senseless tragedy and that Nat had to let Nick go. YES, YES, YES! I'm still hurting inside - the Nick of my fiction (in particular my Black Velvet Nick) has been trying to console me, to get me beyond the single interpretation of the end of the show - that the show vision is only ONE of many, and that my own visions of FK (in the nearly completed "Transitions" and certainly in "A Taste of Black Velvet) are just as real and valid. Nick is alive to me - visible from the screen version and alive in another way through my writing. The ache I feel from LK is as sharp as if I'd lost a family member the same way - uselessly, senselessly. But this, I have to keep telling myself over and over, is not the definitive FK. FK is what I make of it for myself in my own mind. And in that universe, Nick is very alive, closer to LC than ever before (I do have to thank TPTB for letting us see that beautiful resolution), and learning to live without the crushing guilt with which he has burdened himself for far too long. But it's still hard. I've written 3 post-LK pieces now, and I don't think I'm done. Although I'm not one to see Nat as a vampire, I can accept it far, far better than seeing her dead from Nick's inability to control himself. Of course I'm an Immortal Beloved and want Janette to find her way back to the family and to Nick. But I find I mind Nat in Nick's life a little less - I just want to see my Nick free from pain. He hurts, I hurt. So, I return to my writing. Big time. Finishing the last half of the last chapter of "Transitions" - returning to work on the sequel to "A Taste of Black Velvet", titled "House of Cross", working on the fun FK/Kindred crossover I'm writing for the Kindred list, and maybe even get back to the post-Human Factor story I started back then. Yeah, I watched Kindred, too, and enjoyed it, but there is no way it can ever get inside me to the degree that FK can. I can't imagine any television show EVER topping this. Nick is eternal. I comfort myself imagining his wonderful smile, his incredibly beautiful voice, his essential goodness, his love of life which I think every bit matches LaCroix's. That is the Nick of my stories, the Nick who teaches me about appreciating life and love, who walks with me in my mind, sharing my pain as he's allowed me to share his. Thanks, again, Laurie, for "A Final Farewell", for writing a Natalie that I can recognize. FOREVER KNIGHT IS FAR MORE THAN A TELEVISION SHOW!!! It is all of us and our collective visions, too! Marcia Tucker / scfimarci@a....... Dark Knightie first and foremost / Unnamed / Immortal Beloved Committing FK fan fiction furiously - Tanya, can we pick our own mental institution? Any ideas? =========================================================================
Previous |
This month's list |
Next |