FKSPOILR
Logfile LOG9605 Part 53
May 26-May 27, 1996
File: "FKSPOILR LOG9605" Part 53
TOPICS:
SPOILERS: Last Knight (ep 22) Tracy (4)
Bullets (Spoilers for HF) (3)
New "Last Knight" Waves
A new theory! (LK spoilers)
Nick 'n' Nat (General Discussion) (2)
SPOILER: LK -- What about Sydney?
Last Knight: An observation in non-continuity
SPOILERS: LK -- LC's view
SPOILERS: LK (was RE: Nick loved Nat!) (3)
Nick out in the daytime
HF and LK spoilers -- Nick and Nat: love?
Vampires Shot
Bullet Holes (2)
SPOILERS: LK - Encouraging words
Reese (Spoiler LK, etc)
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 02:18:26 -0400
From: Carrie Krumtum <CKrumtum@g.......>
Subject: Re: Fwd. Re: SPOILERS: Last Knight (ep 22) Tracy
>I've got a question: More than once it's been mentioned that bullets
>pass through a vampire uninterrupted. If that was always the case, then
>Nat wouldn't be digging them out of Nick, right? So what gives?
>
>--- TJ
Ah, come on. You didn't expect continuity did ya? While it's true that some
bullets pass right through, others most definitely do not. The difference,
IMHO, would be the need for an obvious plot device. E.g. FF in the first
season. We had already seen, in DK and FIHS, that bullets pass right through
Nick, and then in FF, one gets stuck in his shoulder. My interpretation is
that the need for the dialog Nick and Nat had was more important to the drama
of the ep then the minor incongruity of the bullets staying power.
:)=
Carrie, Slovenly Knightie AKA Carrie the Cruel
CKrumtum@g.......
It's hard to judge someone when you're blinded by your love for them.
--Mother Teresa
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 02:18:31 -0400
From: Carrie Krumtum <CKrumtum@g.......>
Subject: Bullets (Spoilers for HF)
>There may be other episodes where bullets have
>passed through Nick, but I can't recall any others right now.
It all began with DK, the bullets from the AK47 passed right through him from
the very beginning. FIHS, as Sandra mentioned, The Fix, QoH, FD (my personal
fav of this type scene, man, he must of had 20 rounds pumped into him), GVP,
CB, UTV, Hunted (remember the garlic bullets?), HF.
Eps where the bullets didn't pass right through: FF, NiQ, AFWTD.
I've probably missed something. But, from the above lists I think it's safe
to say that a bullet has a better chance of going right through than
remaining in the intended vampiric target.
I don't think we've seen any other vamp get shot, have we? I'm not counting
Janette in HF, she was mortal at the time.
Carrie, Slovenly Knightie AKA Carrie the Cruel
CKrumtum@g.......
It's hard to judge someone when you're blinded by your love for them.
--Mother Teresa
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 02:24:46 -0400
From: Carrie Krumtum <CKrumtum@g.......>
Subject: Re: Bullets (Spoilers for HF)
>I don't think we've seen any other vamp get shot, have we? I'm not counting
>Janette in HF, she was mortal at the time.
Okay, I'm brain dead. Janette gets shot, and the bullets get stuck in her in
AFWTD as well. I think I suffer from permanent Nick on the brain. At least I
caught my own mistake. Carrie, can you say dumb? I knew you could.
Carrie, Slovenly Knightie AKA Carrie the Cruel
CKrumtum@g.......
It's hard to judge someone when you're blinded by your love for them.
--Mother Teresa
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 02:50:09 -0400
From: Ray Heuer <RayHeuer@a.......>
Subject: Re: Fwd. Re: SPOILERS: Last Knight (ep 22) Tracy
Just in case no one has mnetioned this yet (I'm about 6 days behind on my
mail)-
Re: The bulletholes in Nick's jacket -
Nick's jacket already has numerous bulletholes in it. If anyone asks
about it, he says he got it off of a dead druglord "who had no further need
for it", and that the holes in it remind him to be careful, or some such
nonsense.
You may have noticed that Nick wears the same jacket most of the time,
but with all of the bullets we've seen Nick take, that jacket should be more
holes than jacket by now.
-- Ray
Nat Vamp Camp
Rage! Rage! Against the dying of the Knight!
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 03:00:45 -0500
From: Sandra Gray <TMP_HARKINS@d.......>
Subject: Re: Bullets (Spoilers for HF)
Carrie Krumtum writes:
>CB, UTV, Hunted (remember the garlic bullets?), HF
My brain is blanking on what "CB" is. But didn't Nat dig the garlic out
of Nick in Hunted?
>I don't think we've seen any other vamp get shot, have we?
Vachon got shot by Vudu in Black Buddha. And I think Tracy shot the
Inca too, didn't she? They never said if Vachon had to dig his bullet
out, of course, so no way to know if it went through or not.
--Sandra Gray, forever Knightie
--tmp_harkins@d.......
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 03:13:34 -0500
From: Sandra Gray <TMP_HARKINS@d.......>
Subject: Re: Fwd. Re: SPOILERS: Last Knight (ep 22) Tracy
Ray Heuer writes:
>he says he got it off a dead druglord "who had no further need for it",
>and that the holes in it remind him to be careful, or some such nonsense.
Yes, he made a comment like that in Dark Knight about his waist length
bomber-style jacket. I don't think we've seen that jacket since first
season. But Nick doesn't wear the same jacket most of the time. He's
worn long coats and several times this season a hip-length leather
jacket. Maybe he stopped wearing the bomber jacket because it got too
holey and started letting other coats get a proportion of the bullet
holes. :)
--Sandra Gray, forever Knightie
--tmp_harkins@d.......
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 06:09:03 +0000
From: "Laura W. Petix" <lpetix@d.......>
Subject: New "Last Knight" Waves
I've just finished putting a second collection of waves from "Last
Knight" online at http://www.dpcc.com/dpcc/assoc/lpetix/waves/
This one includes the following:
LaCroix: Nicholas, don't you see? You have overstayed your welcome.
The pain that you're causing your mortal friends is no longer
acceptable to them. Those that do survive will not allow their
relationship with you continue in the way that it was. They will
demand change, and you will be compromised.
Tracy: You could... have trusted me.
Nick: LaCroix, I'm in trouble.
LaCroix: Yes, I know.
Nick: You don't want my love. It will only destroy you.
LaCroix: Oh, Nicholas. You have thought this through, haven't you?
LaCroix: Are the sounds you hear the trumpeting of St. Peter's
angels, or the screams of Memnoch's tortured souls? You can't answer
that, can you? Because you will never know the answer, until after
the deed is done. (This is the version from the end of the
episode, when Nick is crying.)
LaCroix: Damn you, Nicholas.
--
From the scenes that take place after the last scene of the
episode:
LaCroix: Love--it warps our senses, twists our souls--can take us past
hope, past cure, past help.
LaCroix: Leaving is the purest form of love.
(The last thing we hear LC say to Nick.)
--
Laura WP, lpetix@d.......
"Last Knight" waves: http://www.dpcc.com/dpcc/assoc/lpetix/waves/
Lucard's Home Page: http://www.dpcc.com/dpcc/assoc/lpetix/lucard/
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 10:30:47 -0500
From: TippiNB <Tippinb@i.......>
Subject: Re: A new theory! (LK spoilers)
Leslie wrote in regards to my "theory":
>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!
So did anyone else pick out any other similarities?
Here are just a couple more I filtered out:
BB: Reese's insensitivity about the death of Nick's partner. Makes a
comment like "we all die sooner or later."
LK: Again, Reese makes a crass comment about Nick's partner along the lines
of "you'll get another partner."
BB: Nick drinks from the woman who offers him a chance at mortality.
LK: ditto.
Cheesy rationale: put it on a cracker and spread it around! :)
WCT, who is not fiercely optimistic, but *is* fiercely anal retentive and
has a habit of looking for links to explain the unexplainable...
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 12:02:28 -0500
From: "Stormsinger/J.S. Levin" <wabbit@e.......>
Subject: Re: Nick 'n' Nat (General Discussion)
Okay, I give up. I'm gonna pull out the drachmas again and put in two
(apologies in advance to the N&NPackers, the Knighties, and anyone else out
there I'm gonna upset):
1) Nat doesn't love Nick. She is infatuated by what she thinks Nick can
become, like a woman looking at an alcoholic and seeing how nice the sober
man would be. She hates, fears and loathes Nick's "vampire side", which
after 800 years, quite frankly, is more "Nick" than the human he was for
only 35 years.
I really don't buy into treating "the vampire" and "the person" as two
separate entities. It smacks of some of the alleged MPD cases I've heard of
-- the not-real, self-indulgent ones. (PLEASE! I am not discounting MPD as
a verified mental illness -- I'm just saying that there's been a lot of
backpedalling on it over the past decade, based on the fact that, for a
while, *everybody* seemed to have "repressed memories" and "other selves")
"The vampire" is as much Nicholas de Brabant, aka Nick Knight as is the
crusader. Or the college professor. Or the archeologist. Or the
dilletante gentleman.
Nick cannot separate "the vampire" from himself. Trying to treat that part
of himself as a separate entity has thrown him into the same endless guilt
loop as the early monks who tried to "kill" their human desires to get
closer to God. He's trying to become Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde -- then kill
Hyde, and it won't work anymore than it did in the book. Like Robbie
Egersdorf's very nice "Thin Line between Dark and Dawn" story, Nick *needs*
that part of himself. The part that can hunt and kill for blood is also the
part who can stand up to a perp with a gun, to LaCroix, to the dawn if he
has to. The blood of the Crusades was on his hands before he ever took his
first sip of the stuff.
I don't think Nat has any real idea of *who* Nick really is. Would she have
liked the Crusader? I don't think so. She doesn't like his automatic
assumptions (after *800 years*, for heaven's sake, he *still* hasn't
learned) regarding "protecting" people and making their decisions for them
as if he were their liege lord. He is *naturally* a lot colder and crueler
than I think she wants to realize -- look at how often she was boggled and
put off by it in the first and second seasons. That's not just "the
vampire"; that's the basic assumptions of a man raised in the 13th century.
2) Nick *cannot* love Nat the way she wants. First, he's not a mortal man,
and it ain't happening any time soon (I won't even go *into* the
UNSCIENTIFIC basis of Nat's general attempts at "cures")
But vampirism aside, Nick and Nat have different definitions of Love. His
is 13th century, born in the middle ages and the Court of Love, full of
daring deeds and endless struggles and a woman forever on a pedestal out of
his reach. However tempered by later experiences and versions this may be,
this is *still* his "gut reaction". For the Lady of one's Courtly Love, no
deeds are ever sufficient, no gesture is ever *quite* sublime enough, and
one strives *eternally* to be worth her. But the Lady is Pure, Innocent,
Heavenly, and FOREVER UNTOUCHABLE. One dreams, one aspires, but one *never*
achieves. The only alternative to this is trajedy. Tristan and Isolde.
Romeo and Juliet. Death, sorrow, pain, separation, loss.
Nick has made Nat his "Lady Love". But in the canon of Courtly Love, you do
not wed or bed your "Lady Love". You make a purely practical, business
arrangement for a hopefully aquiescent lady of good birth and dowry, who
will run your demesne and bear your children. You'll probably have a
mistress, too. *And* your Lady Love, although by now you may have
"sacrificed" your love for her to your "duty" -- and some younger knight
will have taken up your stand. "Happy ever after" is *not* a 13th century
concept.
Nick is simply trying to do too much right now. Develop and maintain
relationships with mortals unlike anything he's ever done. Live more in the
mortal world than he's ever done. Try to stop being a vampire. Learn a new
concept of love, and while he's at it, apply it to the person in front of
him who *thinks* they're on the same wavelength.
Six years ain't *near* enough time!
Well, that should get the barbeque going <G>!
Storm (Vaquera, Scrapper, Gangrel)
wabbit@e....... (J.S.Levin/Stormsinger)
Their canon met my imagination and was outgunned.
If you practice being fictional, you discover that "characters"
are as real as people with bodies and heartbeats...
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 12:38:40 +0000
From: Katja Stokley <cstokley@c.......>
Subject: Re: Fwd. Re: SPOILERS: Last Knight (ep 22) Tracy
On 26 May 96 at 1:22, Cyberspace Vanguard Magazine wrote:
> Nick Knight: The world's only owner of the vinyl and Leather Repair
> Kit (remember those?)
In some early first season episode, someone notices the bullet holes,
and Nick says he got the jacket from a drug dealer and wears it to
remind him of his mortality (!)
> I've got a question: More than once it's been mentioned that bullets
> pass through a vampire uninterrupted. If that was always the case, then
> Nat wouldn't be digging them out of Nick, right? So what gives?
In the episode with the little girl, Nick and Nat assume that the
fact that it hurts when she digs the bullet out means that he's
getting more mortal.
Katja
Katja Stokley
cstokley@c.......
It is a good day to put slinkies on escalators
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 13:37:44 -0500
From: Cyberspace Vanguard Magazine <vanguard@p.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: LK -- What about Sydney?
>On Wed, 22 May 1996, Amy R. wrote:
>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,
I've gotta say, this is quite possibly my favorite piece of LK-Fic. Not
necessarily the senario I would favor (and don't!) but it's a hell of a
piece of writing. Really captures things. Great job, Pat!
(As for what happened to him, Nat knew she was going SOMEWHERE, as evidenced
by the suitcases at the morgue. I'm sure she made arrangements with Grace or
someone to take care of him.)
---- TJ
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 13:37:51 -0500
From: Cyberspace Vanguard Magazine <vanguard@p.......>
Subject: Re: Last Knight: An observation in non-continuity
>1) In LK Natalie tells Nick that her life changed 6 years ago on April 14th,
>the day he showed up on her slab.
>2) Nat then flashes back to OtL where we learned that Nat was celebrating her
>30th birthday.
>3) The OtL f/b then flashes back to what I guess is DK, where we learn it was
>Nat's 28th birthday when Nat ended up in the morgue.
No, it's not Dk that they flash back to. That FB is supposed to be 2 years
earlier. Also, I just rewatched a couple of 1st season eps, including DK
(it's really WEIRD to see it now!) and Last Act and in one of them somebody
mentions that they've known each other for a year and a half.
BB also says that they've known each other for 4 years, so I guess 3rd
season is supposed to be 2 years long.
---- TJ
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 12:31:21 -0500
From: michael wayne jackson <mjay@n.......>
Subject: Re: Nick 'n' Nat (General Discussion)
At 12:02 PM 5/26/1996, Storm of the ill mannered VCR wrote:
> She is infatuated by what she thinks Nick can become,
I wonder how many of us in our off-line lives do this? Is this part of the
human condition, to not see the reality in front of us and to always wish
for the fantasy in our minds? I see Natalie acting this way as a powerful
sub-theme in Forever Knight, an underlying text that JP might not have even
though about consciously but is there nonetheless.
>Nick *needs* that part of himself.
Absolutely. To deny our darker sides is to deny ourselves. Nick is
totally out of spiritual balance with this behaviour and it keeps him
locked into the closed loop of action-guilty reaction. Give up guilt for
Lent I say.
>For the Lady of one's Courtly Love, no deeds are ever sufficient, no gesture
>is ever *quite* sublime enough, and one strives *eternally* to be worth her.
Again I wonder how many men are still caught in this web. I look around me
and I see so many actions and behaviours that reinforce this outmoded way
of thinking. I know that I've had to deal with elements of this in my own
life and I'm more than 700 years removed from what Nick grew up with and
has imprinted on as correct behaviour. I think that Nick is no more seeing
the real Natalie than Natalie is seeing the real Nick.
From one point of view, Nick expectations have been justified. He grew up
expecting to never be worthy of his Lady, his subconscious influenced him
both overtly and covertly based on this belief. He could no more act
another way that I could become pregnant. Until he radically alters his
mental biochemical balance through the use of proper Leary/Lilly imprinting
techniques, then Nick will repeat the same patterns of thought and
behaviour with each successive love interest.
michael wayne jackson -- mjay@n.......
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 12:39:17 -0500
From: "Stormsinger/J.S. Levin" <wabbit@e.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILERS: LK -- LC's view
At 09:49 PM 05/25/1996 -0500, Wicked Cousin Tippi wrote:
>we're talking about LC here. Given his history and past attitudes, I don't
>think that *he* thinks one's being repentent is going to excuse one from hell.
LaCroix, IMHO, doesn't believe in Heaven *or* Hell. From his monologue in
LK, he appears to believe in Existance and Void. His talk of St. Peter and
Memnoch was deliberate use of the images *Nick* related to, not his own.
His expression of his *own* beliefs was in the "throwing the gift of life
away on the void" part of his speech. He has existance only so long as he
can hold onto it. After that, *nothing*. No wonder he's furious at Nick.
Whatever Nick may believe or not is immaterial. He knows what *HE* believes
-- and it's that there is THIS LIFE, whatever you make of it, or NOTHING.
Storm (Vaquera, Scrapper, Gangrel)
wabbit@e....... (J.S.Levin/Stormsinger)
Their canon met my imagination and was outgunned.
If you practice being fictional, you discover that "characters"
are as real as people with bodies and heartbeats...
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 14:47:17 -0400
From: Lisa Prince <Moonlight@g.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILERS: LK (was RE: Nick loved Nat!)
Hey, Hey All :)
Just delurking to offer my very humble .02 :)
At 06:57 PM 5/25/96 -0700, Amy R. wrote:
>>besides Cynthia and Jane, are there very many people who feel
>>that there was never any romantic love toward Nat from Nick?
I'd have to agree with Cynthia and Jane. I really don't see
anything even remotely romantic in their relationship. They have
always struck me as good friends, maybe even brother/sister, but
nothing else. IMVHO, there needs to be total acceptance for there
to be true love. (For example: <waving to Amy> LaCroix truly loved
and accepted Fleur as an intelligent woman worthy of his love.
Fleur, knowing LaCroix's nature, loved and accepted him in return
-- all that he was, vampire and man.) I have always believed that
Nick would remain uncapable of loving anyone else until such a time
as he was capable of loving himself. He hates the vampire in him
so badly that he can not bare the thought of anyone actually loving
all of him. How long before he starts to question the love of his
lover? How could this other person love him totally when he
despises part of himself? If that person loves all of him,
including the vampire, how long before he destroys the relationship
because that person loves the part of him that he hates most?
The times that there has been *romance* in Nick and Natalie's
relationship usually seems to come about because of external
circumstances that created an overwhelming compulsion for Nick to
do *something*. A lot of the time it has to do with something
Natalie has said or done; sometimes it just has to do with the
circumstances.
For example, in BMV, Nick discusses love and such, but only after
Natalie says that she can relate to the victims of the murders.
She feels that she is in the same situation as the victims on some
level -- a woman who is ruled by her work. Nick recognized that
Natalie needed something, so he did something. However, he was
very quick to give up on his course of action, IMH. He reacts
against LaCroix and his dictates on so many levels, why does he
stop when it comes to his *true love*? Also, Natalie has the
rather lengthy speech to Nick about "the illusion of love and how
do we know that that's not what we have." Does Natalie love Nick
or does she love the challenge that he represents? She calls Nick
a fascinating creature when she is talking to LaCroix in Azure --
"a creature" not a man. Does she love the "man" Nick? Or is she
simply fascinated by the scientific challenge of the "creature"?
The implication, to me, is that she is "fascinated" by the creature
-- not in love with the man.
In HF, besides the dream sequence which I personally thought was
kind of goofy, what do you have? You have Janette saying that she
loved Robert enough to only take a little at a time and his love
and trust/faith made her human. What does Nick reply to this? "I
can't take that chance with your [Natalie's] life." There is no
chance to take if there is true love between Nick and Natalie. So,
who's love is he doubting? His own or hers? I would be
predisposed to believe that it is his own feelings that he doubts.
Anyway, regardless of episodes which I could list examples from for
another ten pages and bore you all more than I already have ;), I'm
always left with the belief that Nick is uncapable of true love.
Besides the fact that he is selfish, self-concerned,
self-deprecating, angsty, and miserable, he believes not only that
he is unworthy of God's love and redemption (Nick's view) but also
unworthy of the love of a woman. I think it is valid to say that
he cares deeply for Natalie and even that he might love her on some
level, but, to me, there is no romance there. How can you love and
accept love if you hate that which is loved by another?
Again, just my very humble little opinion.
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 14:42:40 -0600
From: Deb <drowland@a.......>
Subject: Re: Nick out in the daytime
In GVP this season, NIck met the killer at a church in the daytime. He runs
in the door and rips off his coat which is smoking.
Deb Knightie with strong Cousinly urges
"You can't run away forever, but there's nothing wrong with getting a good
headstart." _Rock and Roll Dreams Come Through_ by Meatloaf
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 19:57:41 -0500
From: Sarah Welsh <welshkin@d.......>
Subject: HF and LK spoilers -- Nick and Nat: love?
I caught one or two episodes of first season FK Way Back When when it was
on CBS Crimetime after Primetime, or whatever they called that. Now that
I've rewatched all of first season on tape, I couldn't even tell you
which ones I'd seen before. But the one thing I did remember was the
chemistry between Nick and Nat. I didn't realize the show was on again
until the middle of second season, about the same time I discovered this
list. I believe the first episode I saw was Stranger Than Fiction, and
the first message I posted to the list was one of confusion: What was
Nick doing with another woman? What happened to him and Nat? Had they
called things off?
I don't remember who it was (Cynthia, maybe?), but someone posted that
all she saw between Nick and Nat was a deep friendship with a healthy
dose of hormones. As far as I'm concerned, that *is* love. That's all
I'm looking for. I don't want grand passion. It burns itself out too
quickly. Nick and Janette had grand passion, which continued to reignite
several times in their very long lives. There's always something
smoldering between them. But grand passion isn't enough to last. And,
if you ask me, Janette is the one who can't accept Nick for who he is.
Until HF, she did nothing but ridicule his search for mortality, and that
quest is very much a part of who Nick is. He's not just a vampire who
needs to accept himself, as a lot of people seem to think and as Janette
thought. There isn't one stock "vampire" personality that all vampires
must have, anymore than the Jewish, Italian, Christian, Southern, Asian,
etc., stereotypes should be what all members of those groups are like.
Everyone is an individual, even vampires. We have no right to tell Nick
what he should be like, anymore than he has a right to whammy anyone else
into being what he thinks they should be.
That's why I see more potential between Nick and Nat than between Nick
and Janette. It's not like when Natalie met Nick, she told him, "You
have to become mortal again because being a vampire is evil." In fact,
she's repeatedly told him that vampires are *not* inherently evil when he
insists that they are. Nick's the one who thinks that becoming mortal
again will make him "good"; Natalie keeps telling him that there is evil
in mortals as well, not wanting him to have the same illusion about the
mortal state that some of you try to pin to Nat. Sandra, I believe,
posted that Natalie was afraid by what she saw when Nick drank from her.
I didn't see fear. I think she was overwhelmed -- anyone would be
getting 800 years worth of images in a few moments. But I didn't think
she was in terror. Natalie doesn't accept the "human Nick" and reject
the "vampire Nick;" she doesn't use those labels at all. She just sees
Nick, who happens to be a vampire, who has a lot of destructive impulses
that he wants to learn to control (by his own repeated admission), who
tends to throw himself pity parties and needs to be read the riot act now
and then to snap him out of it. Who is an individual, just like anyone
else.
And I believe Nick appreciates the fact that she sees him this way. Most
of the women in his past have either been terrified and repulsed (i.e.,
Alexandra and the basement bimbos) or else starstruck romantics who have
been seduced by the demon-lover thing (Amalia, Alyssa, Emily Weiss).
Either outright rejection of who he is or rapt adoration of what he is.
And rapt adoration wears thin pretty darn quick, no matter how big your
ego is. The down-to-earth women have been few and far between: Catherine
Barrington (with whom there was never a question of romance), Lilli, or
whatever her name was, from 1966 (with whom there was chemistry but no
romance), and Nat. And then there are the out-of-left-field women like
Alyce "Hold me" Hunter and Marian Blackwing, which I never understood.
I think most of us have gotten used to the Hollywood/TV/Harlequin romance
portrayal of love, which is usually two incredibly attractive people who
have great sex. Nick and Janette definitely fit into that category. But
most real-life love -- the kind that lasts -- is based on good, solid
friendship and appreciation of each other for who they are more than for
what they look like. And that's where I see Nick and Nat.
Sarah
welshkin@d.......
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 20:31:16 -0500
From: Margie Hammet <treeleaf@i.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILERS: LK (was RE: Nick loved Nat!)
>> romantic love toward Nat from Nick?
Lisa Prince wrote:
>I'd have to agree with Cynthia and Jane. I really don't see
>anything even remotely romantic in their relationship. They have
>always struck me as good friends
What I'm wondering about this is whether people are discounting a friendship
aspect to a romantic relationship. I've had romantic relationships
without friendship, and I've got a romantic relationship now (i.e. -
a marriage) with friendship. The relationship with friendship is better.
I have another question. Since I _do_ see romantic love toward Nat from
Nick and vice-versa, and after Last Knight, is there anyone writing fan
fiction about Nick and Nat that takes place _after_ Last Knight? I think
I'm really gonna need it.
Margie
N&NPacker
Still looking for a Nick-LaCroix faction, etc.
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 19:27:40 -0700
From: Antonia Spadafina <asginger@i.......>
Subject: Vampires Shot
Sandra Gray wtote on 25 May 1996:
>>Subject: Re: Bullets (Spoilers for HF)
>>My brain is blanking on what "CB" is. But didn't Nat dig the garlic
>>out of Nick in Hunted?
Hi there all--
If I remember correctly, CB is Cherry Blossoms, the one with the old
Chinese acupuncturist (sp??). Nick gets shot and the old man sees.
Remember, Nick's worried that the old man will tell Capt Stonetree, and
that he'll (NK) will have to leave. He promises Nat to get in touch
once he's settled. (And I always wondered: wouldn't that break
Aristotle's rules?) But I can't recall if Nat dug the bullets out, or
if they passed thru. I'll need another viewing.
Toni
Knightie from NYC
"It's tuck-in time at the pillow ranch."
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 14:54:40 +1000
From: Joanna Keenan <Joanna.Keenan@a.......>
Subject: Re: Fwd. Re: Bullet Holes
>>he says he got it off a dead druglord "who had no further need for it",
>>and that the holes in it remind him to be careful, or some such nonsense.
>season. But Nick doesn't wear the same jacket most of the time. He's
>worn long coats and several times this season a hip-length leather
I've always pictured him buying numbers of identical jackets, shirts etc. so
that he could just throw them away but not appear to be spending suspicious
amounts of money on clothes. Why not, if he's so wealthy?
Joanna
As pedantic as circumstances allow.
Joanna.Keenan@a.......
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 01:23:19 -0400
From: Allison Percy <percy91@w.......>
Subject: SPOILERS: LK - Encouraging words
I'm posting this message here due to "Last Knight" spoiler content.
I've been given permission by Jim Parriott to quote from some private
e-mail he sent me. I had written to him asking about the possibility for
future FK movies. He said:
> An FK television movie could happen with enough fan interest -- and I think
> the logical place to air it would be on USA. At this moment in time, I'm
> sure that letters and calls would only fall on deaf ears. But you never
> know. If the re-runs pull decent Neilsen numbers they might be interested.
Most particularly, I had asked him whether he and others involved with FK
were *interested* in doing future movies, and whether the ambiguity they
had left in "Last Knight" was intended to leave the door open for such
movies. He said:
> And, yes... we left ourselves an open door to continue where we left off.
>
And also:
> That ending was crafted to allow us all options... while permitting
> closure if, indeed, that will be the last FK.
So... the way I interpret this is that certain characters are *not* dead,
at least if we succeed in convincing someone to make future FK movies.
After a few more weeks of FK on the Sci-Fi Channel (where hopefully the
show is building an audience), I think it will be time to formulate a
strategy to encourage USA and/or the Sci-Fi Channel to invest in FK
movies. Even now, thank-you letters and goodies to the Sci-Fi Channel
are certainly in order.
Of course, in my mind and in any post-LK fanfic I ever write, the
characters aren't dead anyway. <g>
-- Allison Percy (percy91@w....... -or- AlliePercy@a.......) --
-- Knightie -- Perky List Babysitter -- Bunny -- This Space Available --
- *Free* copy of list rules! http://cac.psu.edu/~jap8/FK/FKRules.html --
------------ Delusions of Grandeur Now Available at a Discount ---------
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 01:27:12 -0400
From: Gehirn Karies <SoulDebris@a.......>
Subject: Re: Reese (Spoiler LK, etc)
> Does anyone think that Reese is long overdue to lose his job?
Oh yeah! In Last Knight alone, he made two unbelievable bad calls,
leading to the loss of an inmate AND Com. Vetter's Daughter.
Nick should not take the heat for Tracy catching lead, nor should
Tracy. Dawkins should have been cuffed just as a transfer,
let alone a berserk one, and the lights should not have been raised
until the situation in the locker room was known to be stable.
Plus, he has a lousy partner-on-her-death-bed-side manner.
Gehirn Karies
SoulDebris@a.......
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 11:29:11 -0400
From: Carrie Krumtum <CKrumtum@g.......>
Subject: Re: Fwd. Re: Bullet Holes
Joanna wrote:
>I've always pictured him buying numbers of identical jackets, shirts etc. so
>that he could just throw them away but not appear to be spending suspicious
>amounts of money on clothes. Why not, if he's so wealthy?
Got to admit I thought about this as well. Remember in UTV, he finds the
bullet hole in the jacket he had wore the day before and grabs a different
one before leaving the loft? I loved that scene. My guess is that that
happened A LOT! :)
Carrie, Slovenly Knightie AKA Carrie the Cruel
CKrumtum@g.......
It's hard to judge someone when you're blinded by your love for them.
--Mother Teresa
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 12:28:43 -0400
From: Lisa Prince <Moonlight@g.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILERS: LK (was RE: Nick loved Nat!)
Hey, Hey All :)
Lisa Prince wrote (that would be me :)):
>>I really don't see anything even remotely romantic in their
>>relationship. They have always struck me as good friends
Margie wrote:
>What I'm wondering about this is whether people are discounting a
>friendship aspect to a romantic relationship.
I agree that there is definitely a friendship aspect necessary in a
love relationship in order for it to last beyond the initial
passion phase. However, I don't believe that Nick and Nat have
presented us with a romantic relationship that includes friendship.
If anything, I would say it is the other way around. They have a
friendship that, at certain times, due to circumstances outside
their control, causes them to *attempt* to force romance into their
relationship. IMVH, romance and that type of love is there or it
is not there; it is not something that should be or could be
forced.
>I've had romantic relationships without friendship, and I've got a
>romantic relationship now (i.e. - a marriage) with friendship.
Right, but there are also friendships between men and women that
*don't* include a romantic nature or have any pretensions to have a
romantic nature. I have many men as *friends* and while we *might*
make a good couple that is not going to happen for one reason or
another. Just because one or both people think there could be a
romantic relationship doesn't mean that there *is* a romantic
relationship. In most relationships, there is a certain time or
juncture where you have a choice to go down the road to romance or
continue on in friendship. It is my belief that there might have
been romantic interest on the parts of both Nick and Nat earlier in
their relationship, but I believe most of those feelings have been
relegated to the realm of eternal friendship and caring. IMH,
there is nothing wrong with believing that they love each other
only as friends rather than as romantic lovers. I can't see them
as lovers, so I see them as friends.
Again, just my extremely humble .02 I think I'll go back to
lurking now ;)
Lisa
"Ignore loss, and the memory of what you have lost cannot be
retrieved."
=========================================================================
Knight graphics and parchment background created by Melissa Snell and may be found at http://historymedren.about.com/
