FKSPOILR
Logfile LOG9605 Part 49
May 22-May 23, 1996
File: "FKSPOILR LOG9605" Part 49
TOPICS:
Spoilers:LK,AtA; LaCroix (3)
SPOILER: LK -- What about Sydney?
LK SPOILERS / LOVE RULES from OMNI FK CHAT
spoiler-lk
Oops
LK;Damned? Not IMO
SPOILER: Last Knight - (One night or more?)
LK spoiler- why Lacroix...
LK Spoilers...sort of) Love Making Rules for Vampires/Mortals
A new theory! (LK spoilers)
Spoilers: Last Knight
ORIGINAL Ending?????
Feelling of hope
Spoiler: Last Knight
SPOILER: Last Knight (2)
SPOILER: LK, AtA, Downloading Nick's Brain
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 20:17:19 -0700
From: Idalia Kakesako <idaliak@i.......>
Subject: Re: Spoilers:LK,AtA; LaCroix
Cousin Diane, the positive cousin & Eternal Seducer wrote:
>"How could LaCroix possibly kill Nick now, after all this time?!" I believe it
>is quite possible that he could. Simply because of this new dimension that has
>been revealed in his character.
Thank you, Diane, and Sandra, too, for posting this. I've been trying to
think of ways to express the same ideas, but you've both already covered it
well. I don't necessarily think that LC *did* stake Nick fatally, but I do
think he was quite *capable* of doing so, and that he might've done so out
of his love for Nick. LC was moved, upset, teary-eyed (!) while talking to
Nicky-boy there at the end, which I interpreted as him finally being able to
let go of Nick, as much as he would hate to.
But that's just me. I've only seen the episode once, and my opinion after
that 2 a.m. viewing was that both Nick and Nat were dead. As I've said
before, that's not how I *wanted* to see it, but that's what I saw.
Just dropping in my own two cents,
Idalia Kakesako <idaliak@i.......>
Light Cousin, NatPacker, N&NPacker; TTwF
"I blame you for the moonlit skies and the dream that died ..."
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 23:23:24 -0400
From: Siona <siona@n.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: LK -- What about Sydney?
On Wed, 22 May 1996, Amy R. wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 1996, Bonnie F Rutledge wrote:
> > It occurred to me that *if* Nat is *really* deceased, what will become
> > of Sidney?
>
> If Nat really is gone, there will be people (and cats) to mourn her, which
> someone should have reminded her of when she was talking about having an
Pat Swann has already written a fanfic piece called "Sydney Lambert's
Final Lament". Written from Sydney's perspective it gives a good answer
to what could become of Sydney,
Siona@n.......
Dark Knightie!
Help save Forever Knight! see http://www.netaxs.com/~siona/
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 23:41:36 -0400
From: Marcia Tucker <ScFiMarci@a.......>
Subject: LK SPOILERS / LOVE RULES from OMNI FK CHAT
Additional warning besides the spoilers - ah, somewhat ADULT in content!
Do
we
still
need
spoiler
space??
The chatters who attended the Tuesday night OMNI Magazine Online Horror Chat
in which the featured topic was "Forever Knight" ended up compiling quite a
list of lovemaking rules that mortals and vampires might want to follow.
Some of these might seem sacriligeous or like they're making fun/light of
what we had to watch in "Last Knight", but I think this was a healthy way of
working through our frustration and grief.
Here we go!
RULES FOR VAMPIRES PLANNING TO MAKE LOVE TO A MORTAL:
1. Don't kill
2. don't make major life changes when you're still dealing with other issues
3. Making love does not mean chow down before kissing
4. Run! (or rather fly in the opposite direction!)
5. hitting the bedroom instead of the floor.
6. clothing optional.
7. You better not be in love with them
8. THERE ARE NO RULES!!!!
9. hit the sheets, not the dirt!
10, No biting below the garter belt? ;) Actually, it should be, no biting
ABOVE the garter belt.
11. There are nicer things to suck on than the neck... .I can't believe I
said this
12. Think about baseball.
13. Urge becomes too great...the Bible is better than a cold shower
14. If you mess up, call your Uncle! (Well, gee, Nick does always seem to run
to daddy for help..) In fact, whether you need help or not, let Uncle go
first :)
15. If your name is Nick Knight, you'd better go back to rule 1 or stop now.
16. Tab "A" should . . . (you get the idea, right? :))
17. And even if you don't need help, call Uncle anyway!
18. If you love something let it go. (forget the rest) *Before* draining it
dry
19. Make sure you don't think about your former vampire lovers. (Especially
if you plan on actually bringing the new love of your life across, otherwise
you don't want to spend the first century apologizing for it and buying her
gifts, but what the heck, if your name is Nick Knight you can afford that,
right?)
20. And if you think of former vamp lovers, think quickly of SCHANKE IN A
TUTU!!"
If you're Nick...the above rules will self destruct in 5 seconds....
RULES FOR MORTALS PLANNING TO MAKE LOVE TO A VAMPIRE:
1. Make sure you get what you want before you let him near your neck
2. Be afraid, be very afraid.
3. If it goes for the wrist, it ain't going no further.
4. bring protection, a stake.
5. (paraphrase) Make him start at the big toe and work up, not the neck
6. Make sure it isn't Nick.
7. Make sure a medical swat team is standing by with lots of salsa picante
8. And if Uncle isn't there, time to panic!
9. Don't panic! Increase in heartbeats will only add to your dilemna
10. Flashbacks don't help.
Rules edited a little and reorganized for numbering purposes.
Thanks for contributions to the above from: CleopatraK, JudithF955,
LadysAVamp, LisaLCroix, Penchk68, REGENTIC, TXMMC, VAL WORTH (and of course
mine are in there, too!)
Marcia Tucker
ScFiMarci@a.......
Dark Knightie / Immortal Beloved / Unnamed
"Their canon met my imagination and was outgunned." -
(J.S.Levin/Stormsinger)
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 23:03:02 -0700
From: Lisa Marvin <wyllow@n.......>
Subject: Re: spoiler-lk
linda c. fried wrote: 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!
Hi Linda!
No need to apologize - the party was a lot of fun and we had a good
time, in spite of being together to watch the "dying of the (k)night"
! Crummy reason for a party - let's do another get together over the
summer and watch our favorite old episodes where everybody is still
alive!
I thought Tracy did a good job of dying in her scene, in spite of the
head wound thing that no one can exactly figure out. I'm a
Nick&NatPacker myself, so my only thought about Tracy is that I wish
she could have found out about Nick being a vampire _before_ she bit
the dust. There would have been some interesting story material in
that.
I'm still trying to decide what I think about the end. Can't comment
until I have time to watch it again.
Thanks for coming to the party!
Lisa M.
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 14:19:27 -0700
From: "Andrew E. Nystrom" <wo991@f.......>
Subject: Oops
In the course of sending a private message to Jamie, I accidently set
the parameters wrong (eg the quoting and Reply To mechanisms). I then tried
cancelling the message but evidently my comptuer decided to post the
message to the list instead. Bad computer!
Sorry about sending a cancelled message to the list. I tried not to let
it happen again.
--Andy
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 03:46:45 -0400
From: Diane Shea <KerrRaven@a.......>
Subject: Spoiler:LK;Damned? Not IMO
Finally getting around to reading the digests.
Ah well, I knew a Cousin and a Knightie could never agree for long:)
Sandra writes in regards to LaCroix's possible staking of Nick;
>>I hope LC saw in that moment how responsible he has been for Nick's agony
over the centuries, how much his selfishness 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*.<<
Sheesh! Methinks you have not learned the lessons that have been given us in
this whole story. Forgiveness! LaCroix had a lot to be personally
responsible for. Nick forgave LaCroix. Nick had a lot to be personally
responsible for, (just take the basement scene in Fallen Idol.) I like to
think that Nick's God forgave Nick after his attoneing period.
>>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.<<
Well to me it does excuse him to some degree. One grain of light shinning in
the evil sands can sometimes make a great difference, perhaps more of a
triumph on the side of love and kindness than a whole desert full of
goodness.
But hey, what do I really care. I love Nick. I love him in the way LaCroix
loved him. If not for his quest then for his passionate emotions. If you
take it that Nick is dead by LaCroix's hand then to me LaCroix made the
ultimate sacrifice. He's on the road to understanding, and perhaps
redemption, (not that he would care,) just like Nick began along that road
after he killed the dancer, after he realized that killing whores was a sin
too.
Well if Sandra's fears are actually realized and Nick was never forgiven by
any higher power as FK sometimes implies, if Vachon, Screed (see you in hell
sailors), Urs (another doomed to damnation vampire), and of course someday
LaCroix (because he sure isn't going to be redeemed with just two episodes
nosiree!) then there must one *hell* of a hot party going on in Hell at the
moment and I wouldn't mind being there. To bad for Nat, Tracy, Schanke, etc,
all those doomed to a boring life in heaven eh? Just one agnostic's take on
the whole damned problem.
>>My apologies if anything I've posted about LK has offended any
listmembers.<<
My apologies if I will voice my offense, instead of forgiving you for being
emotional. :)) It's two a.m. and I'm as pissed at the moment as everyone
else is, but for the opposite reasons. Of course now that Laurie has
explained what was indended in the script as far as the Distorted scenes, I
suppose I am no longer confused. My only bit of happiness has been squashed
for good, but that's ok.
Cousinly mode on:(and at it's strongest, most arrogant setting)
I have tried to be fair, to be hopeful, to be forgiving, but I'm just too
tired at the moment. The only thing that I can be sure of in the end of LK
is that LaCroix is alive! Ha ha! hahaha. *And* Janette is still out there
somewhere too. So...the Knighties, NandNpackers, Perkulators, Vaqueras, ec
set ter ra, can fight out the ending amongst themselves.
The Cousins, Light Cousins, and Seducers will just rejoice and be happy.
It's our night to shine.
--Cousin Diane
LaCroix is alive, there is hope for everyone if you believe in it.
The Truly Eternal Seducer
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 06:56:19 -0400
From: Janette Z <Janette92@a.......>
Subject: Re: Spoilers:LK,AtA; LaCroix
In a message dated 96-05-22 21:03:20 EDT, you write:
>When vampires are disturbed by something, they leave that something (or try
>to at least:)
With the possible exception of Nick, of course!!! (Sorry, I've just been
so quiet lately I'm starting to feel like a Lurker and I simply HAD to make
SOME pointless post, and this was it!!!) Let's see if I can find SOME point
to make.... hmm.... um..... a point, huh...... I wish this episode had never
happened!!! I didn't watch it till 2 days after I taped it, and I regretted
it! It's a good ep, (hey it has to be Natalie dies!!!) but I rather wish it
had come at the end of a 4th, 5th, or 6th season. (Though I'm sure I'd be
JUST as upset then, at least I'd have more to re-watch) Which reminds me,
(Look at all these points I'm coming up with!) what ep was that scene from
when Nick woke up on the bed and did that really chessy "something very
different than you" scene. (Why am I glad I missed that episode :-)
Seducer, Cousin, Ravenette,
Immortal Beloved (ish), Un-
named Faction, CO-CFW for
Evil MacLeod and Evil Tessa,
Richie Reservist -- Janette92@a.......
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 05:05:49 -0700
From: LG Soward <lgs@i.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: Last Knight - (One night or more?)
At 01:45 AM 5/22/96 -0400, Apache wrote:
> No kidding. Doesn't this all happen in one night -- the night of
>Laura Haines' suicide?
Actually, no it doesn't. I think that it's one night, up to the point where
Tracy is shot. If you watch, you'll notice that up to that point Nick is
wearing a shirt with buttons. In the next scene, with Nick and Tracy at the
hospital, his shirt had changed. So it would be safe to assume that at
least a day has passed.
Besides, if Tracy received her lidocane at 11:45pm (Re: Amy R.), then
is it possible for the following to have happened in the six hours before
dawn? Even allowing for the possibility that Tracy had the world's fastest
surgeons on call that night.
1.) Paramedics to get Tracy to the hospital
2.) Tracy has surgery on TWO major wounds (head and abdominal)
3.) Nick attempts to bring Tracy across and is stopped by Natalie
4.) Nick goes to see LaCroix
5.) Nick is driving and realizes that the Nightcrawler show is not on anymore
6.) Nick goes back to the loft.
Lana
lgs@i.......
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 08:57:57 +0000
From: Katja Stokley <cstokley@c.......>
Subject: Re: Spoilers:LK,AtA; LaCroix
On 23 May 96 at 6:56, Janette Z wrote:
> (Look at all these points I'm coming up with!) what ep was that scene from
> when Nick woke up on the bed and did that really chessy "something very
> different than you" scene. (Why am I glad I missed that episode :-)
Only the Lonely.
Katja
Katja Stokley
cstokley@c.......
It is a good day to put slinkies on escalators
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 06:10:17 -0700
From: Bonnie F Rutledge <br1035@i.......>
Subject: LK spoiler- why Lacroix...
If the following is a repeat of anyone's ideas- sorry, I've been
nomail. Just sit back and have a Tracy deja-vu stupor.
Stuff about Last Knight follows... If you haven't seen it yet and don't
want to be spoiled, don't PEEK!
I saw a reference to a post concerning how Lacroix could kill/stake
Nick at the end of Last Knight <shudder>. I agree that the kinder,
gentler, "I have guilt too" Lacroix that's been developing ever since
BMV could have done it as an act of kindness, to spare Nick the grief
and guilt over being responsible for Nat's death. After all, it's been
reinterated how tormenting Lacroix has found losing Fleur...
But I don't like thinking about any of those tender, mushy reasons.
I squealed with glee at the flashback to the Joan of Arc eps. This was
always one of my favorites because of the scenes of naughty Nick. When
I first saw it, the thought became ingrained in my mind that this is
the Nick Lacroix wanted at his side: the Nick who taunts saints, mocks
their mortal idea of faith, and sneers at God. Of course, the
flashbacks also have that reaching for the cross scene, a portent of
angst to come.
The idea of Lacroix only being satisfied with naughty Nick as a
companion has persisted in my mind. We've been inundated with images of
Nick regretting his actions, being guilty,sneering at Lacroix's
behavior for three seasons, and Last Knight is no exception (except
there wasn't much sneering going on). But Nick is guilt-ridden over
Tracy, and exhibits the brickiest behavior to date towards Nat. He's
totally J. Alfred Prufrock, he wants to be with Nat, but he can't risk
feeding from her and he won't bring her across. After a couple of
merry-go-rounds with Nat I was screaming "Just make a decision!!!! And
stick to it!!!"
But the point I'm working up to with these ramblings is why Lacroix
staked Nick. At the end Nick tells Lacroix " You are my closest friend."
LaCroix's won! He finally has Nick back at his side! But he hasn't won,
really. Nick doesn't choose to be with Lacroix, he simply has nothing
else left. Lacroix had to force the issue of leaving; when he informed
Nick that he'd be at the loft later, he almost sounded threatening. I
think that these images flashed through Lacroix's mind before he
uttered "Damn you, Nicholas". This locale in their eternity may be
ended, but there will be others, other disappointments, other guilts,
just somewhere else. Lacroix has two choices: put up with the
irritation Nick's conscience has provided for centuries for the rest of
eternity, or make an executive decision and end it. Frankly, I could
imagine Lacroix finally being fed up.
So was the staking an act of anger or an act of love, or both? I don't
know. This is just my muddled interpretation. I don't have to know what
I'm talking about.( Do I?)
************************************************************************
Bonnie Rutledge br1035@i.......
" Sure, men make fools of women, women make fools of men, but 9 times
out of 10 men make fools of themselves." - my Dad
************************************************************************
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 09:22:16 -0400
From: Lisa Prince <Moonlight@g.......>
Subject: Re: (LK Spoilers...sort of) Love Making Rules for
Vampires/Mortals
The Other Lisa P. wrote: (Do you guys ever get the feeling that
there are far to many Lisas around here :)):
>On the OMNI chat last night I started a RULES FOR MAKING LOVE TO
>VAMPIRES/MORTALS topic. Well, let's just say some of the
>suggestions were very interesting. ;)
I recalled a few additional ones so . . . so, here goes
Top 10 Things To Remember For Mortals About to Be *Made Love* To
(yeah, right :P) By A Vampire
------------------------------------------------------------------
#10 Remember to bring a stylish muzzle.
#9 Fang Corks could come in very handy.
#8 A quick slobber on the wrist does not equal foreplay. (800
years old and he hasn't learned yet, it truly boggles the
mind)
#7 Remind vampire (especially if named Nick) that foreplay is
called foreplay because it's supposed to come *before*
everything else! ;)
#6 Force feed him lots of cow blood before hand.
#5 Be prepared to be very pissed off because of the overwhelming
flashbacks of previous lovers, wives, girlfriends,
boyfriends, masters, victims, etc. etc. etc.
#4 Steel collars are wonderful in preventing premature
exsanguination.
#3 Never, ever, ever, trust a vampire that hasn't had a *real
good time* in over a year.
#2 Explain that a bedroom and a bed is much preferable and more
stylish than a living room and the floor, especially if one
is wearing a very nice white pants suit.
#1 If the guy's name is Nick -- be afraid, be *very* afraid.
As the other Lisa mentioned, there was a group of about 13 of us
coming up with these. I remember everyone who was there, but not
who said what. Sorry :( We actually came up with a lot more of
these, but I can't remember them at this moment.
Lisa
Mercenary**Cousin**Valentine**Vachon-ogler**QoE**MBDtK
The Forgotten L -- Third over to the right -- Deserter of the Ls
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 08:40:57 PDT
From: "Leslie I.Plummer" <lplummer@i.......>
Subject: A new theory! (LK spoilers)
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
Tippy wrote about a new theory...
>Anyway, so I'm going to think of LK as the 1st ep of the 4th season
>that we just haven't gotten yet.
YO, TIPPI!!
I LIKE this explanation, and all of us will have BB1 & BB2 to watch in
the coming weeks to add to your already-wonderful list! I'd even suggest
a new faction/reality for this! It makes such good sense! We didn't see
the end of the show & third season. Those who love us (in the PTB &
there was at least ONE who made a call @2am), love us SOOOOOO much that
they snuck in the first ep of the next season/movie/etc for our viewing
delight!
YES!!!!! (my sig DOES warn that I'm fiercely optimistic, right?)
Yours in cheesiness...
Leslie
***FOREVER MEANS...FOREVER!!!***
N&NPacker/eternal Knightie... Wildly Romantic & Fiercely Optimistic
An FK Movie(s) sort of gal
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 13:35:17 -0400
From: Ken Hart <Ken888888@a.......>
Subject: Spoilers: Last Knight
Because of a variety of reasons that I won't bore anyone with, I didn't get
to watch this until last night (no pun intended).
Whoa. It left me exhausted.
If I had simply heard over the weekend what the body count would be at the
end of the story, I probably would have been extremely P.O.'d. But I stayed
away from the list for that very reason. Now that I've seen it, I can only
say "Bravo!" and congratulate Ger, Nigel, Catherine, etc. on one stunning
episode. To be sure, it did not leave me overjoyed, but the quality was
superb.
I had one major nitpick was the primary plot device, i.e., the disturbed guy
in the police station. Way too obvious that Something Bad was going to
happen, though to be honest, I expected it to be the end of Reese, not Tracy.
When the guy broke loose, it looked like a cop pulled a gun on him, which is
why he didn't have to wrestle one out of a holster. If this guy was -- even
when unarmed -- so dangerous that an officer needed to pull a gun on him,
then why wasn't he in handcuffs to begin with?
OK, enough with the peccadilloes. On the heavy stuff... Based on comments
I've seen here, some people believe the episode puts to shame every dream
that Nick and Nat had. In other words, what was the point? I must politely
disagree. Nick and Nat's dream is as pure as it ever was. They knew that it
was always a path full of risk. What happened in "Last Knight" was not
inevitable, yet such an outcome was a probability, and a high one at that.
Deep down, they occasionally had to wonder, "If we can't find a cure, how
long *can* this go on as is? At what point must there be a Change?" This
time, they hit that point. (They came close to it before in "My Boyfriend is
a Vampire," but here Natalie got a glimpse of her future, and she didn't like
it.) Yes, the outcome was tragic, but that doesn't invalidate the value of
the goal for which they strived. Their love tried to survive in the midst of
incredibly difficult odds, and they almost succeeded.
Why didn't Nick truly make love to Nat before biting her? As Valerie said, he
probably feared that he would lose control in the midst of passion. He also
might have thought that if he didn't bite her now, his doubts would quickly
resurface. It's even more tragic that Nat's final thoughts of Nick may have
been of him as the vampire than as the man.
(On a lighter note, Lisa had wondered what Nat's horoscope would have been
for that date. I don't know, but I did grab a biorhythm program online and I
ran it to see what Nat's pattern was for May 19: Negative Emotion and a
Critical Day for Physical!)
Tracy's death was a surprise. I expected Nick's attempt to bring across
afterward: Whether for selfish reasons or not, he simply wanted to avoid the
pain of another friend's death, not to mention prevent his "Black Buddha"
fears from resurfacing. Her last words, "You could have trusted me," and his
obvious pain were really wrenching.
LaCroix's monologue: My take was that he said the entire thing to Nick before
Nick handed him the stake. He began to repeat what we heard during the
teaser, and I simply assumed that his entire speech about life was inserted
at that point. A neat dramatic device, though I agree that Ger could have
made this much clearer in the direction. Speaking of which, another great
job. Some shots were framed so well (even the way the scale in the morgue
swung back and forth as Nat read the journal), and others have already
commented on the use of "bars" as a visual theme throughout.
Strangely, my first thought during the end credits was "Poor Reese! How the
hell is he going to handle this?" <g>
As endings go, it's obviously not one that will satisfy many. As painful as
it is, though, it's an ending that developed naturally from the characters'
hopes and fears, which is more than can be said for some other series
finales.
Are Nick and Nat dead? Don't know. Thanks to fanfic and the ambiguity of the
ending, it doesn't really matter, does it? If we want them to live, they'll
live, won't they? {{group hug}}
Ken Hart, Raven / Ken888888@a....... / http://www.xensei.com/users/khart
LaCroix: "'A father provides love, discipline, guidance, protection, and
support' -- That's not bad."
Nick: "He left out freedom." LaCroix: "So would I."
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 05:00:00 EST
From: "Cork, Lisa A." <CORKL@m.......>
Subject: ORIGINAL Ending?????
It has been posted on this list that there was a different ending to
Last Knight in the original script...Or maybe it was that it was a
different story altogether. Could someone please post or send me a
synopsis of the original story/ending....I want to know how it was
supposed to be Thanks
Lisa
corkl@m.......
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 05:00:00 EST
From: "Cork, Lisa A." <CORKL@m.......>
Subject: Feelling of hope
Hi
While watching Last Knight I was, of course, extermely upset but I
had read the major descriptive spoiler so I was able to watch and
control major emotions until the end. Anyway, I got the feeling that
the cast/characters/script, etc. was trying to comunicate to us, the
viewers/fans/etc. that there is life after death for the show....
I know the lines were meant to prepare us for the ending...but I
couldn't help thinking that the lines were written with the knowledge
that Forever Knight might go on (in movies, books,syndication,
whatever) maybe to give us a glimmer of hope
Did anyone else feel this way?
LIsa
corkl@m.......
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 15:44:42 EDT
From: Lisa McDavid <D020214@u.......>
Subject: Spoiler: Last Knight
The original ending had Nick and Natalie definitely dead. Nick had
deliberately finished draining her after realizing that he'd taken
too much, and LaCroix had definitely staked him. LaCroix then spoke
the lines from Romeo and Juliet about "Oh, my child, my soul and
not my child."
The scene changed to a standard shot of Toronto at sunrise and LaCroix
continued with the final lines from the play, the ones that end
"for never was story of more woe/ than this of Juliet and her Romeo."
Cousin Lisa -- "That will be trouble."
Lisa McDavid
mcdavid-lisa@s.......
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 14:43:04 -0500
From: Robbi Egersdorf <egersdor@m.......>
Subject: SPOILER: Last Knight
I have been watching LK repeatedly in order to try and make sense of it all.
I keep reading the posts that say they understand why the characters acted
the way they did. The more I watch the less it makes sense to me.(I'm on 9
now.)
This last time I realized that the scene where Tracy gets shot is
implausible. This is how I see it:
Nick is standing in front of Dawkins, trying to whammy him into putting down
his gun. The lights come on and Dawkins sees Tracy. The spell is broken
and he shots Nick, who starts to go down then stands up and goes towards
Dawkins. As Tracy is watching, she witnesses Nick get shot. She lowers her
gun in shock and when she sees Nick stand back up and go to Dawkins she
lowers her gun even more. Nick is clewed in to Tracy's presence by
following Dawkins' eyes and looks back to see Tracy. She gets a glimpse of
Nick, vamped out and realizes that he is a vampire, she lowers her gun even
more. Nick turns back to Dawkins, grabs him and pushes him up against the
wall as several shots are fired. Tracy gets hit by richocet and is thrown
up against the wall. Nick, not knowing that Tracy has been shot, he throws
Dawkins up against the cement wall with deadly force. (Dawkins dies later)
Nick then looks back to Tracy and realizes now that she is shot.
Tracy has been trained to react to similar situations. Why, then did she
lower her gun when her partner was being shot? (I do not believe that she
was hit until the second bullet was fired.)
Why did Nick throw Dawkins against the wall so hard that it killed him? Why
didn't he just take the gun and cuff the guy? You can't argue that he
wasn't thinking straight or was angry because he had shot Tracy, he didn't
know.
Through all of this, we have to understand that the whole of what I
described above took place in the space of less than a minute's time. The
slowmo just makes it look like an eternity.
Could someone please shed some light on this?
Another thing that really bothers me about this show is the timetables when
things occur during the night. Can we really say that everything happened
on one night. How many hours did it take to do "everything humanly
possible" for Tracy? Everyone is talking like Lacroix shows up at Nick's
apartment at near sunrise. He is there to pick up Nick and start a long
jouney. Why would they start out in the morning? Nick does say to Natalie
that he would be leaving tonight. Does that mean that night, or if it is
morning the next night? Nowhere except after Tracy is shot, do they refer
to time. I know, I've looked.
Robbi
Knightie
Long Live the Knight
egersdor@m.......
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 16:25:46 -0500
From: Margie Hammet <treeleaf@i.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: LK, AtA, Downloading Nick's Brain
lucienlc wrote:
>The way the script presents it ... The speech in the tag
>is merely an edited version of what LC actually says,
>**NICK: I have that faith, too.
><script notes> we'll say that this is where it all connects.**
I'm not sure that what was said in the script notes is that much less
ambiguous than what we saw on the screen as to when the monologue actually
took place. "This is where it all connects" does not literally have to mean
that the entire speech happened after Nick said, "I have that faith, too,"
but before LaCroix raises the stake.
In any case, I'm not sure that script notes can be taken as canon anymore
than scenes that were cut out can be taken as canon. Any intention that
was written into the script notes can still be changed in final editing.
It seems to me that all we really have that is definate is what we saw on
the screen.
It might be nice if one of TPTB would tell us when the monologue took
place. But even if one of them did, I'm not sure it would really matter.
In a way, each of the episodes is really produced by committee. So which
PTB should we listen to?
For the time being, I think that the only part of the monologue that took
place before LaCroix raises the stake is the part we heard before he
raised the stake. The rest comes afterwards. It may not make an ultimate
difference in deciding whether Nick is alive or dead, but it does make
some difference. If the rest of the monologue happens after LaCroix raises
the stake, then there are clues that Nick is still alive. Seeing his face
during part of the monologue is obviously the strongest clue. It's true
that he could have the stake sticking out of his back at that point, but
considering how long that stake was, I would think it would have had some
effect on his posture!
If the entire monologue took place before LaCroix raises the stake, then
it's up for grabs whether Nick is alive or not. It all comes down to
whether you believe that LaCroix could kill Nick. Some people said LaCroix'
behavior in AtA indicated a sudden change of character, but I don't think
so. The changes in LaCroix' and Nick's relationship had been happening
gradually, and everything that happened between them in AtA made perfect
sense to me. Someday, LaCroix may be at the point where he is ready to let
Nick go, to accept Nick becoming mortal (no matter how sad that would make
him), but I don't think he's at that point yet. Someday he might even be
willing to let Nick walk into the sun if that's what Nick chooses, but he's
not at that point either. But to take a stake and kill this child that
he loves because the child is unhappy and the child asked him to? I don't
think LaCroix could do it, not now, not ever.
Margie (treeleaf@i.......)
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 18:08:00 +0000
From: Katja Stokley <cstokley@c.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: Last Knight
On 23 May 96 at 14:43, Robbi Egersdorf wrote:
> This last time I realized that the scene where Tracy gets shot is
> implausible. This is how I see it:
I've only seen it three times, but my take on the scene is a little
different.
> Nick is standing in front of Dawkins, trying to whammy him into putting down
> his gun. The lights come on and Dawkins sees Tracy. The spell is broken
> and he shots Nick, who starts to go down then stands up and goes towards
> Dawkins.
I'm not sure that he actually shoots Nick. I think the bullet goes by
Nick on Nick's left and HITS Tracy. Nick turns towards/looks back at
Tracy...
As Tracy is watching, she witnesses Nick get shot. She lowers her
> gun in shock and when she sees Nick stand back up and go to Dawkins she
> lowers her gun even more.
I think her look of shock, gradually lowering of the gun, and sagging
against the wall is because she has already been shot.
She gets a glimpse of
> Nick, vamped out and realizes that he is a vampire, she lowers her gun even
> more. Nick turns back to Dawkins, grabs him and pushes him up against the
> wall as several shots are fired. Tracy gets hit by richocet and is thrown
> up against the wall.
Tracy may have been hit again.
Nick, not knowing that Tracy has been shot, he throws
> Dawkins up against the cement wall with deadly force. (Dawkins dies later)
> Nick then looks back to Tracy and realizes now that she is shot.
I think Nick *does* know that Tracy has been shot, and that's why he
vamped out - he's mad.
>
> Tracy has been trained to react to similar situations. Why, then did she
> lower her gun when her partner was being shot? (I do not believe that she
> was hit until the second bullet was fired.)
I think she was already hit, and that's why she lowered her gun. I
also think that the blood on the back of her head and again on Nick's
hand is blood from the abdominal wound, smeared on the wall as she
slid down.
> Why did Nick throw Dawkins against the wall so hard that it killed him? Why
> didn't he just take the gun and cuff the guy? You can't argue that he
> wasn't thinking straight or was angry because he had shot Tracy, he didn't
> know.
Ah, but I can, because I think Tracy was shot earlier than you do.
Look at her face!
Just my humble opinion, of course.
> on one night. How many hours did it take to do "everything humanly
> possible" for Tracy?
Several people have said that it would have taken a long time to work
on Tracy - I don't think it necessarily would - she's taken to the
hospital very promptly, she's in a large city, which presumably has a
large hospital with a trauma team in place, and if she was hurt badly
enough, they wouldn't have necessarily done much. Even if she was in
the OR for several hours, there might be plenty of darkness left when
she came out.
Katja
Katja Stokley
cstokley@c.......
It is a good day to put slinkies on escalators
=========================================================================
Knight graphics and parchment background created by Melissa Snell and may be found at http://historymedren.about.com/
