Home Page How I Found Forever Knight Forkni-L Archives Main Page Forkni-L Earlier Years
My Forever Knight Fanfiction Links E-Mail Me

FKSPOILR

Logfile LOG9605 Part 51

May 24, 1996

File: "FKSPOILR LOG9605" Part 51

	TOPICS:
	SPOILER: Last Knight (re: Moo!)
	Spoiler: LC's choices w/his children (LK & AtA)
	SPOILER: LK, Show's Future (was Re: Did He?)  (2)
	Last Knight <Spoiler>
	SPOILER: LK, Peaches
	SPOILER--LK  (4)
	Spoiler: Last Knight  (6)
	Spoilers: Last Knight
	Moo!  (LK spoiler)
	LK SPOILER/One Night Theory (long)  (3)

=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 May 1996 13:08:33 -0500
From:         Sandra Gray <TMP_HARKINS@d.......>
Subject:      Re: SPOILER: Last Knight (re: Moo!)

Allison Percy writes:
>I think I'm leaning toward believing that Nick
>couldn't stop because his feelings were overwhelming him in Natalie's
>case.  It didn't look like it was about *hunger* to me.

If we're to believe what Nick said about what drinking human blood is
like in Francesca, then his draining Nat was due more to getting her
memories, feelings, life in her blood, something that Nick had not
experienced in such a direct and *fresh* manner in a long time than
to hunger.  He got carried away by her feelings for him, I expect.
At least I would think that drinking the blood of someone who loved
you would be a lot more pleasant than just your ordinary attack and
probably better than drinking from a "seduced" victim too.  Perhaps it
was part of the reason that Nick failed to bring over Alyssa (she
loved him).  It's possible that no amount of "preparation" would have
helped.

Although, personally, I think it would have been interesting to have
had Nick just "sip" from Nat, just to see if Nat would have reacted
to it like Amalia did.

Maybe drinking from Nat awakened the desire to "possess" that we saw
in Crazy Love and Nick couldn't stop himself from giving in to it.
That may be why we saw the flash of Amalia in the things that Nat saw.

But I still think that mortals getting knowledge from vampires when
being bitten is a bad idea.  In LK, it was came across to me as being
extremely cruel since the majority of the images Nat was getting were
negative (i.e. vampiric rather than human).

Although it does occur to me to wonder if those images registered in
Nat's mind for a reason.  Nat counted on Nick's love and his *humanity*
to give him control.  It's one thing to be *told* what blood drinking
is like, quite another thing to *know* what it is like (as she had to
have felt what it was like for Nick).  My opinion has always been that
it was the *human* that Nat loved (even if she sometimes felt attracted
to the vampire).  Intellectually she may have thought that she could
handle whatever happened, even become a vampire herself, but when it
came right down to it, she may have just been shocked and afraid of
what she saw.  If her fear overrode her love, then it might have felt
to Nick like "old times" (the standard grab and kill).

I don't think it was "hunger".  It was more like "intoxication".

--Sandra Gray, forever Knightie
--tmp_harkins@d.......
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 May 1996 10:17:27 PDT
From:         "Leslie I.Plummer" <lplummer@i.......>
Subject:      Spoiler: LC's choices w/his children (LK & AtA)

Amy Volpert <avolpert@a.......> wrote,
>LaCroix would rather indulge Nick's love for Nat and his search for
>redemption than lose him forever. (i.e. not stake Nick & bring Nat across)

Remember, Lacroix told Nick in AtA that "he HAD choices" when it had
come to an impossible situation with his other "child" (Divia).

Perhaps Lacroix reflected upon this statement for Nick's situation?
In both cases, Lacroix's children requested/demanded/pleaded for an
extreme act on his part:

  --Divia: incest, in the name of evil, lust, & power
  --Nick: assisted suicide, in the name of goodness, love, and faith

And, Lacroix could not comply with either.  For the same reason?
(That he found each request repugnant & would regret doing them forever?)

Hmm, interesting parallels!

Leslie
***FOREVER MEANS...FOREVER!!!***
N&NPacker/eternal Knightie... Wildly Romantic & Fiercely Optimistic
An FK Movie(s) sort of gal
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 May 1996 10:28:58 -0700
From:         Amy R. <akr@n.......>
Subject:      SPOILER: LK, Show's Future (was Re: Did He?)

Cousin Russ wrote:
> Possible? yes.  Likely? about as likely as a fourth season.

Something occurred to me as I was reading the LK fanfic. What we've all
been writing thus far have been *tags* -- you know, the missing final
scene.  We are picking up very close to where LK left off, and proceeding
with the known characters in a manner that accords with our interpretation
of them.

And we're doing it darn well, btw.  <applause for all of you>

But the interesting thing is that this could never work in a revival of
the show.  If we get -- *when* we get -- that movie, it will have to begin
in the middle of things, and it will have to make things understandable
and accessible for people who have never seen the show.  It cannot simply
pick up where LK leaves off.

It's like the difference between DK and the flashbacks in OtLonely.

That fascinates me.  Necessarily, it would begin with a crime, and
necessarily, Nick and LC would be in some other city where Nick is again
some sort of law enforcement officer.  Maybe Nat's there; maybe Janette's
there; maybe not -- but they wouldn't even *have* to explain it.
Thoughts?

**** Amy, Lady of the Knight  (akr@n.......) ****
"Once upon a time... They were young.  They were in
love.  They were heroes."  -- Chris Claremont
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 May 1996 13:33:51 -0400
From:         Tammy Stephanie Davis <tsd@u.......>
Subject:      Last Knight <Spoiler>

My two cents worth on "Last Knight"

I had a lot of trouble deciding just what to say about this one.
The emotions that this episode evoke is unlike any I've ever
experienced from a television show.  As such I've decided to
forego the usual "Good Things, Bad Things" categories and, like
Nick and Nat, go with my feelings.

Throughout the season I have ranted and complained about Tracy.
She represents all that was wrong with USA's involvement in
Forever Knight; an ineffectual, immature, woman woefully ill-
prepared for life as a homicide detective who only got the job
because of her father is the police commissioner.  Whatever
intelligence Tracy's exhibited was constantly uncut by her almost
laughable lack of commonsense and police procedure.  (This gave
the writers a perfect "out" whenever they wanted Nick to rescue
someone.)  She was a poor substitute for Schanke and an even
poorer one for Jeanette (which I think was part of the intent).
Even the impact of Tracy's death was undercut by her well-worn
impulsiveness prior to it.  Only her last words to Nick and his
reaction stirred any feelings of sadness in me over her demise.

Now that I've gotten that off my chest, I'll get to the heart of
the story:  Nick and Nat.

Frustrating, exasperating, tragic, uplifting, moving and a
hundred other words can be used to describe them in Last Knight.
From the first scene of Nat sitting in stunned silence after her
friend's suicide, I watched with growing excitement as the long
suppressed emotions of these two ill-fated lovers overwhelmed my
television screen.  Yet with excitement I also felt dread (in
part because I had read the spoilers and knew what was to
happen), but mostly because it was so painfully obvious that the
declarations of love and devotion, ultimatums and statements of
faith were happening for one reason - death; close personal death
permeating not just this episode, but most of the season.  The
effect of losing so many friends, colleges and associates in such
a short span of time (less than a year) had a profound affect on
Nick and Nat's relationship:  each lost removed or weaken an
inhibition, each death peeled away or diminished a defense.
Emotional and physical distance between them finally became
impossible as all distractions and trappings of "a life" were
systematically removed from them. The events of Last Knight were
a removal of those final strands; the last vestiages of
hesitation and caution for two people who believe they have
nothing left but their love and the overwhelming need to be
together....somehow.

Then Nick takes too much.

What can be said about this?  We know that he's a vampire.  Every
flashback chronicles his struggles against overwhelming odds, his
failures and repeated surrenders to the bloodlust as he kills and
kills again. Yet the flashbacks were a mirror to his past and
because it is "the Past" it led itself to the now proven
misconception that Nick wouldn't, couldn't kill Nat; that his
love for her would somehow act as a buffer from the Vampire and
spare Nat's life.  But perhaps the greatest sadness and tragedy
in all of this is that Nick killed Nat *because* he loved her.
His desperate longing for her, for her acceptance, her love; and
his overwhelming graditute of her trust and faith in him (his
expression when Nat tells him she loves and trusts him is
heartwrenching) literally prevents him from stopping; from taking
her life.  This illustrates perfectly how insidious the Vampire
is and how unrelenting and unforgiving the grip it has on Nick.
No matter what he does or what he has done to regain control of
himself the fact is that the more he loves a mortal, the more
likely he is to kill them.

Realizing this, however, doesn't excuse or lessen the shock and
horror of Nick's killing Nat.  Frankly, I would have found this
totally unacceptable had Nick *not* decided to join Nat in death.
If he had done as Lacroix encouraged and moved on, it would have
been a gross slap in the face to Nat, to her faith and trust in
him, and to their love.  If he had brought her across, he would
have condemned her to an existence that he found unbearable, thus
committing the ultimate hypocrisy.

The only option Nick sees, the only thing he has left is to do as
Nat encouraged and embrace his long-suppressed faith in the
hereafter; in an afterlife where he and Nat would be together
forever.  Lacroix's moving speech of choosing life is wasted as
Nick is too far gone in his grief and pain. (Perhaps too, Nick
may have realized the sick irony of Lacroix's speech about the
preciousness of life while Nat laid dead at his feet.)  It isn't
til Nick tell Lacroix that he is his closest friend that Lacroix
*finally* accepts the depth of Nick's agony.  And it is only in
this acceptance that Lacroix can carry out his son's last
request.

In having faith, Nick finally achieves that which had alluded him
for over seven centuries:  his mortality.  It's a painful, sad,
but ultimately uplifting end.  I know I'm in the minority here,
but I sincerely wish that ambiguity wasn't inserted at the last
moment.  Having seen the stake enter Nick, seeing him collapse
next to his love thus having Lacroix finally pay the price for
his years of tormenting Nick would have been more helpful for me
to let go completely of these wonderful characters and this
marvelous show and move on.

But that's just my two cents worth.
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 May 1996 11:12:18 -0700
From:         Amy R. <akr@n.......>
Subject:      SPOILER: LK, Peaches

Laurie CF was struck by LC's use of the word "peaches."  Has LC been
pining for peaches for two-thousand years?  That stuck me as funny, and
the idea it sparked struck me as even funnier, for no discernible reason:
what if Fleur's blood smelled of peaches?  Then LC would only have been
pining for it for eight-hundred years....

But this morning, a much better explanation hit me.
It's Nat.
Nat's blood smells of peaches.

LC, in his best, most manipulative fashion, is pushing Nick's buttons by
implicitly equating Natalie to life, and reasons for living.

**** Amy, Lady of the Knight  (akr@n.......) ****
"Once upon a time... They were young.  They were in
love.  They were heroes."  -- Chris Claremont
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 May 1996 14:17:18 -0400
From:         Cassie Carter <ccarter@b.......>
Subject:      SPOILER--LK

Okay, this may be a stupid question, but it has been bugging me.  Exactly
what "darkness" would Nick be condemning Nat to if he brought her
across?  It seems to me that the "darkness" in Nick's case is his guilt
at having murdered so may people.  Yet he could bring Nat across, and she
would never, ever have to kill anyone.  Nick has survived on cow blood
for god knows how long . . .  I mean, seriously . . . or am I missing
something?

Cassie Carter                   |----------------------------------------|
English Department              |     Visit THE JIM CARROLL HOME PAGE    |
Bowling Green State University  |http://www.bgsu.edu/~ccarter/carroll.htm|
Bowling Green, OH 43403         |*Everything you want to know about JC!* |
ccarter@b.......          |----------------------------------------|
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 May 1996 14:21:44 -0500
From:         Sandra Gray <TMP_HARKINS@d.......>
Subject:      Re: SPOILER: LK, Show's Future (was Re: Did He?)

Amy R. writes:
>(re: a new movie) they wouldn't even *have* to explain it.
>Thoughts?

I think you're right there, Amy.  After all, we never got much of an
explanation about how LC returned after being staked and burned in
Dark Knight.  All LC said about how he survived was, "I'm too old
and powerful."

Nick wouldn't even have to be some sort of law enforcement officer.

Another (but less likely) possibility would be for TPTB to withdraw
LK from the rerun package entirely.  Then, of course, unless a movie
was forthcoming *really* soon, the show will have ended in
syndication and Sci Fi Channel will have started airing first season,
so the idea would be that new viewers wouldn't have seen LK and
who cares what the fans who did see it think?

--Sandra Gray, forever Knightie
--tmp_harkins@d.......
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 May 1996 14:32:27 EDT
From:         Lisa McDavid <D020214@u.......>
Subject:      Spoiler: Last Knight

I'll have to wait until I can get home and check the script, but I'm
pretty sure the stage directions called for Nick and Nat to kiss after
the wrist slurp (which is in the script, btw). I do remember that the
stage direction just before he bites her reads, "their passion builds."

So for some reason, it looks as though Ger chose to ignore this part.

Another thing he changed was that in the script, once he bites, Nat
clings to him and holds him with her arms around his neck and behind
his head so he can't pull away. The part about not being able to pull
away is actually in the script.

If I get a chance, I'll post the relevant passages, because to me it's
interesting to know what was written and what Ger, as director, actually
did.

Oh, btw, in the script, when Nick tries to tune in LaCroix on the
radio, he gets only static. I suppose someone, possibly Ger, felt
that the point had to be underlined by actually stating that the Nightcrawler
was no longer on the air.

Cousin Lisa -- "That will be trouble."
Lisa McDavid
mcdavid-lisa@s.......
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 May 1996 14:42:13 EDT
From:         Lisa McDavid <D020214@u.......>
Subject:      Spoiler: Last Knight

Maybe I'm overlooking something, but I don't see why any continuation
of FK would have to be in another city. Even if you believe, as I do
not, that Nat is now a vampire, she could continue as a coroner on the
night shift. If anything, it ought to be easier for her to do that than
it's been for Nick to be a cop.

There's no logical reason why Nick should have to leave Toronto if he
wants to continue as Detective Knight. Only Tracy saw him vamped out,
and she's dead. Even if it turned out that she wasn't (people have
been mistakenly declared dead in hospitals before now), her last words
were, "you could have trusted me." Nick doesn't need to leave if he
doesn't want to, because he's not in danger of being revealed as a
vampire.

This also applies to LaCroix. He hasn't been compromised. He could have
decided to go back to being the owner of the Raven and the Nightcrawler.
If he really does own the station, this shouldn't be a problem. I'd like
to think that if there ever is any kind of sequel, Deborah Duchene can
be persuaded to come back as Janette and take back the Raven.

Cousin Lisa -- "That will be trouble."
Lisa McDavid
mcdavid-lisa@s.......
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 May 1996 14:47:17 -0500
From:         Sandra Gray <TMP_HARKINS@d.......>
Subject:      Re: SPOILER--LK

Cassie Carter writes:
>Exactly what "darkness" would Nick be condemning Nat to if he brought
>her across?

Nick has long felt that vampirism is a curse worthy of damnation.  It
probably has something to do with his Catholic upbringing.

>she would never, ever have to kill anyone.

There's no guarantee of that.  We don't know what could happen in the
future--world war, ecological disaster, invasion by space aliens...
The world is not constrained to keep to the constant of the current
time that allows for easier access to blood without necessarily
getting it from the source (although even LC, when giving Nick the
bottle of human blood in GVP, described its contents in a way that
suggested it was drawn "live" rather than gotten from a blood bank).

Another thing to consider is the desire to feed in a new vampire.
If you had a choice between beef jerky and a thick, juicy steak hot
off the grill, which one would you want?  Nat would have felt a
compulsion to feed that would have had to have been controlled until
she was able to control it herself.  But, even if she eventually
achieved control, I still think it probable that she would kill at
least a few humans.  Even LC still kills, and his age is such that
he should have more control over that urge.

Look what happened when Nick bit Nat.  Eight hundred years (and the
past hundred staying away from humans and subsisting mostly on
animal blood) didn't afford him control when he needed it.

--Sandra Gray, forever Knightie
--tmp_harkins@d.......
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 May 1996 11:52:38 -0700
From:         Amy R. <akr@n.......>
Subject:      Re: SPOILER--LK

Re: Cassie's question

Nick believes that to be a vampire is to be damned.
He doesn't believe that it is possible to live as a moral vampire, that
the hunger will always overwhelm you, and that it wouldn't matter if you
could resist anyway -- your soul was damned the minute you came across.

The "darkness" Nick refused to condemn Nat to is damnation.

**** Amy, Lady of the Knight  (akr@n.......) ****
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 May 1996 15:34:26 EDT
From:         Tanya Smith <bodybldr@v.......>
Subject:      Re: SPOILER--LK

Vampire theology.  Deep.  FYI--I'm busy providing salvation for
them as we write ALA fkfic.
This way, Nick can get to heaven safely. (-;
And, of course, we all know where LUCien is going.  That name
isn't just a mild coincidence.
Tanya
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 May 1996 15:43:10 -0500
From:         Sandra Gray <TMP_HARKINS@d.......>
Subject:      Re: Spoiler: Last Knight

In response to Cousin Lisa's comments that Nick and Nat wouldn't
have to be in another city in a movie, that might be so.  But it
would depend on how much "real time" passed in the FK universe.
Even though there were only three seasons of FK, Nat's comment to
Nick about having met him six years before means that TPTB counted
the time that passed between the end of first season and the start
of second season some what--18 months later?--as part of the "real
time" that passed in the FK universe.  There's nothing that says a
movie has to take up right at the end of LK.

Another consideration also depends on how long a time would have
passed before a movie.  Sure, Nick hasn't been found out to be a
vampire, but eventually people will start noticing that he doesn't
age.  So he'd have to leave Toronto eventually.

I also don't think LC wants to remain in Toronto because of what
happened with Divia.  He will either leave Nick and Nat to their
own devices or make them leave with him (the latter would be more
likely if LC brought Nat across).  The former would remove him from
the show, the latter would change the setting.  Of course if enough
"real time" passed, LC could have decided to return to Toronto.

One thing for sure, if Nat was brought across, and Janette returned,
the show would definately lean more heavily to the vampire in focus.
As for the rest, that would depend, I think, on the time frame of
the movie.  And, of course, whether Nick still *had* a job after
killing Dawkins.

--Sandra Gray, forever Knightie
--tmp_harkins@d.......
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 May 1996 16:13:22 -0400
From:         Ken Hart <Ken888888@a.......>
Subject:      Spoilers: Last Knight

Sandra Gray wrote:
> But I still think that mortals getting knowledge from vampires when
> being bitten is a bad idea.  In LK, it was came across to me as being
> extremely cruel since the majority of the images Nat was getting were
> negative (i.e. vampiric rather than human).

Agreed. I have less of a problem with the reverse (vampires gets memories
from those they feed on, as shown in "Francesca") since the act of feeding is
a one-way process from mortal to vampire. It was rather nasty that Nat's
final images of Nick be of him as the killer. Good point about how Nat's fear
might have inadvertently spurred on Nick's vampiric side.

Should Nat have been better prepared for such a reaction? Probably. Nick
certainly didn't sugar-coat the stories he told of his past. Still, that
"monster" of the past was nothing like the man she now knew (and loved), so I
don't think she ever successfully reconciled the two images in her head. The
other question I have is, was Nick subconsciously "projecting" these images
as he fed? Were his own doubts about his self-control causing these images of
himself as The Killer to manifest in both his and Nat's minds?

I also agree (two agreements -- shocking! <BG>) about how little difference a
pre-bite cow's blood "cocktail" would have made. Again citing "Francesca,"
Nick tells Nat how powerfully intoxicating human blood is, especially with
all the memories and sensations that may come along with it.

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:         Fri, 24 May 1996 16:25:06 -0500
From:         TippiNB <Tippinb@i.......>
Subject:      Re: Moo!  (LK spoiler)

Sandra wrote:

>all with her.  Still, I resent Nick being totally blamed.  Nat was
>stupid too.

Besides, I never totally blamed Nick.  If you'll recall some of my first
posts I blamed *everyone* for the whole fiasco, LaCroix included.  What *I*
resent is TPW trying to pass this ep off as closure.  If there's any
resentment to be going around, let's aim it at the right people.  After all,
I have scrolled by *many* a message containing anti-LC comments in the past
and I have not resented a one.  They had nothing to do with me in the least,
and I didn't take them personally.  I do, however, get a little ruffled at
excessive Q-tip comments. ;)

If it sounds like I, or others, are blaming Nick entirely, it's because he's
such an easy target. ;)  I mean, *he* seems to blame himself for so much
that he just makes it soooo easy for the rest of us to do it too!!

Wicked Cousin Tippi
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 May 1996 15:36:03 PDT
From:         "Leslie I.Plummer" <lplummer@i.......>
Subject:      LK SPOILER/One Night Theory (long)

I reviewed LK under a microscope & studied the continuity. (Did you
know there are no clocks in hospitals, cop shops, morgues or an
anyone's wrist except Reese & Dawkin's hostage?!) With the following
observations, I propose this all COULD have happened in one "night":

ASSUMPTIONS (please be gentle, I actually researched this):
--SUN times in Toronto (mid April): sunset ~7:30p, sunrise ~6:30a.
  (11hrs + 1 hr of daylight/overcast time @ suicide= 12 hours)
                        --and--
--Filming date (early Feb?) sunset ~4:30p, sunrise ~7:30a.
 (15 hrs + 1 hr of daylight/overcast time @ suicide= 16 hours)

--Date of episode (in story): Late March?  (Francesca: Frank's last
  tape at doctor's was March 10 or 17).  If the next two eps were
  up to two weeks later, then LK happens 3/23-4/1/96.

===>Hence, we have about 14 hours (including the daytime part) to
    accomplish ACT 2 till sunrise the next morning. A lot can happen
    in 14 hours, with sunset roughly at 6pm/sunrise 7am.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
OPENING -- SUICIDE
Nick is not present, nor are any nightshift people on yet. It can
be daytime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ACT 1 -- OPENING SCENE: Suicide Discovery
Laura Haynes' body discovered @ opening scene is BEFORE sunset
(bear w/me).  Can vamps be outside if the late day if it is heavily
overcast?  (i.e. diffused daylight vs. the sun's actual rays?)
      -- CLOTHES=
Nick: Brown, button-down shirt; black jacker; short leather overcoat
Nat:  Brown turtleneck top, brown pants, camel coat
Reese:His tie stays the same throughout.

      -- ENDING SHOT: "Simple. Love me as much as I love you"
All this has happened before the sun has set! (be patient...)
      -- CLOTHES=
Nick: Same
Nat:  Fresh scrubs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ACT 2 -- OPENING SHOT: Exterior/from water
Skyline w/sun approaching sunset, but with heavily overcast skies &
choppy water. (Could be near 6pm.)
      --CLOTHES=
Nick: Same
Nat:  Same scrubs

     --MIDDLE SHOT: Exterior Police Dept.
Dark now. Slow motion to set up Dawkins-gun scene.  Could be 6:30pm.

      --ENDING SHOT: Tracy shot ("You could have trusted me.")
Dawkins/Tracy gun events didn't take long.  This scene could end
at 7pm.
      --CLOTHES=
Nick: same clothes w/bullet holes & lots of cops (Internal Affairs)
wanting details of what went down.  (Makes sense for Nick to change
clothes, see all those clothes hanging around in the locker room?
It could happen!)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ACT 3 --OPENING SHOT: EMT (w/NO sense of time) Reads Tracy's Vitals
Why is the EMT calling meds at 23:45???  Even w/Washington, DC's
ambulance response time problems, we don't wait 4+ hours to get to
a gunshot victim in a police station.  Haven't they heard of the
"golden hour"?  THE EMT call was a red herring.  This could be 8pm.
      --CLOTHES=
Nick:  Same but shot up?
Reese: His tie stays the same throughout.

      --HOSPITAL SHOT, Tracy's Room (after they've done all they can):
This could be 10pm; 3 hrs after the shots. Ab wound could be short
surgery. Think headwound was inoperable. (How does she get away w/out
having her head shaved for surgery!) Nick & Reese there after visiting
hours.  They got in as active investigators of the crime (& gathering
facts for Nick's IA problem.) Tracy's family down the hall in a waiting
room, giving her partner visiting time?  Nick considers bring Tracy
across & is caught by Nat. He rushes out of room & goes to the Raven.
      --CLOTHES=
Nick: Black, mockturtleneck top.  Black pants, longer black coat.
      Can't have those nurses asking about the bullet holes in his
      clothes, can we?
Nat:  Back to brown top & pants & camel coat.
Reese:His tie is the same throughout.

      --ENDING: Raven w/LaCroix:
This could be at 10:30pm. LC has had time to hear about she shooting
(news) @ 7pm & been packing for 3 hours, or more.  To him, 10:30 is
still a vampire's/club owner's morning.  "Tonight" could mean after
midnight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ACT 4: --OPENING SHOT: Nat @ morgue; packed, reading lines from journal.
This could also be 10:30pm. Nat has decided to leave (Nick's left her
behind at hospital after "why her & not me" question.) We see her get
phone call about Tracy's death.
       --CLOTHES:
Nick: Same
Nat: Lacy cream camisole & over sweater w/cream & taupe flowery skirt.
Long taupe coat.

      --ENDING SHOT: Nick's loft.
Nat is already there when he appears.  This could be 11-11:30pm.
Nat tells Nick about Tracy & he is thunderstruck.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ACT 5 --OPENING SHOT: Nicks loft.
They've had time to take off their coats & reflect on Tracy.
They get right into it & by the time Nick has fed & Nat is on floor,
it could be 12:30am.  Well if it wasn't "safe"(sex), I'm sure
everyone would agree it was a "quickie"!

        --ENDING SHOT:
LC has given his speach & Nick is not lingering.  Nat is on the brink
(she's still in her "golden hour") (So she's NOT dead! Sorry, N&N
reality creeping in around the edges.) LC's reference to "time for a
burial" leaves them till 6-7am before the sun comes up!
Time enough!
----------------------------------------------------------------


CONCLUSION:
If you thread only the main characters (it is all about them & their
deadlines, demands, choices, etc.) & don't worry about Dawkins' lack
of cuffs, or Tracy's headwound, or that ditsy EMT(!), this could have
all happened in one night!  NOT COUNTING 2 WEEKS OF FLASHBACKS!

INCONSISTENCY (I found only one)
--EMT reading time she administered lidocane wrong?  Actress state
  it wrong w/no time to reshoot? (Red Herring tossed in, BECAUSE WE
  FANS PAY SUCH CLOSE ATTENTION (& love to)? )  There's NO other
  mention of time, except Nat saying tracy died 20 minutes ago &
  Reese looking at his watch when Tracy asks to take off early!

How about that?

Leslie
***FOREVER MEANS...FOREVER!!!***
N&NPacker/Knightie... Wildly Romantic & Fiercely Optimistic
An FK Movie(s) sort of gal
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 May 1996 16:08:06 PDT
From:         "Leslie I.Plummer" <lplummer@i.......>
Subject:      Re: LK SPOILER/One Night Theory (long)

Amy wrote:
>You see, unless you've seen episodes that contradict this, FK
>vampires *can't* go out in even overcast sun.
--That's why I asked.  I've only seen since late 2nd season.  But, on
  a chance, when I saw the scene with the sunset (& still daylight at
  dusk) after ACT 1, I got to wandering.  Even if that scene shows dusk,
  & we back everything up 1-1.5 hours, it could fit. Dusk is the sun
  actually below the horizon & sun's rays no longer on the ground (from
  the POV of the scene camera). And, it was overcast so more obscured
  sunray residuals. Better?

>I also think it's just one night
--What got me going was the clothes,etc. & the time of sunrise & sunset.
  I started out trying to prove two nights, w/lots of nice points to
  make.  But Reeses tie after the time I thought the day had passes got
  me thinking one night.

>Nick never starts his shift before sundown except under the *most*
>unusual of circumstances.
--even for a major thunderbolt call on Nat's behalf?  (I know I'm
  stretching.) But, he'd come to her "rescue" if so summoned,
  wouldn't he?

p.s. That EMT scene just reminded me of someone's relative getting to
play a walkon part.  Not as real as the rest of the show.

Leslie
***FOREVER MEANS...FOREVER!!!***
N&NPacker/Knightie... Wildly Romantic & Fiercely Optimistic
An FK Movie(s) sort of gal
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 May 1996 16:38:47 -0700
From:         Angie <alasher@e.......>
Subject:      Re: LK SPOILER/One Night Theory (long)

>--Date of episode (in story): Late March?  (Francesca: Frank's last
>  tape at doctor's was March 10 or 17).  If the next two eps were
>  up to two weeks later, then LK happens 3/23-4/1/96.

Yes I knew it! This was a horrible April Fools Joke on us all! I vote that
April 1 be used for the date. Meantime, I complete see where your time line
is feasable Leslie, you may have possibly made a believer out of me!

                     Lasher
        ~~Unnamed Faction * Unknown Faction~~
        ~~~~~~~Under a lot of stress~~~~~~~~~
        ~~http://home.earthlink.net/~alasher~
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 May 1996 21:12:32 -0400
From:         Siona <siona@n.......>
Subject:      Re: Spoiler: Last Knight

On Fri, 24 May 1996, Sandra Gray wrote:

> Nick about having met him six years before means that TPTB counted
> the time that passed between the end of first season and the start
> of second season some what--18 months later?--as part of the "real
> time" that passed in the FK universe.  There's nothing that says a

I believe that they had actually met 2 years before the series started.

Siona@n.......
UF - Dark Knightie!
Help save Forever Knight!  see http://www.netaxs.com/~siona/
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 May 1996 22:32:09 EDT
From:         Lisa McDavid <D020214@u.......>
Subject:      Spoiler: Last Knight

Actually, we have seen Nick outside during the day. In the first season,
in Dying for Fame, Stonetree calls out the night shift during the day
for help with the furor over the concert and the murder. Nick shows up
in coat, and hat and I think gloves. However, his wrist between the glove
and his cuff catches a moment of sun and burns. Schanke, getting into the
car, doesn't know what he's smelling and asks in Nick's been barbecuing in
the car.

So yes, they can go out in the sun as long as they're protected from
direct rays.

Cousin Lisa -- "That will be trouble."
Lisa McDavid
mcdavid-lisa@s.......
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 24 May 1996 22:47:29 -0500
From:         Sandra Gray <TMP_HARKINS@d.......>
Subject:      Re: Spoiler: Last Knight

Siona writes:
>I believe that they had actually met 2 years before the series started.

Yes, I know.  It's in the flashback of Only the Lonely.  But 2 years
plus 3 full seasons of episodes is only 5 years, not 6 years.  So the
"hiatus" between first and second seasons is being counted for Nat to
say it's been 6 years since she met Nick.

And wasn't Nick in town for a year before meeting Nat?  In Dark Knight,
when he goes to the bar to see Janette for the first time in a while
(for info about LC being in town), she says, "I'd heard you were in
town." and he replies, "Three years."

BTW, Leslie (or whoever came up with the one night timeline), I think
you'll have to revise the day to after April 14th or else we would
have to assume Nat met Nick *7* years ago (but if it was close to
April 1, she'd probably have said "almost seven years ago" instead).

But Nick, I think, had been in town for a year before he met Nat.

So he'd been in Toronto for seven years.

--Sandra Gray, forever Knightie
--tmp_harkins@d.......
=========================================================================

Previous digest
Previous
This month's list
This month's list
Next digest
Next






Knight graphics and parchment background created by Melissa Snell and may be found at http://historymedren.about.com/