FORKNI-L
Digest - 23 Aug 2013 to 24 Aug 2013 (#2013-133)
Sat, 24 Aug 2013
There are 6 messages totaling 237 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Series Finale: What and why it happened
2. Series Finale: Interpretation (4)
3. Admin: Please keep the quote limits.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 18:07:21 -0400
From: L McDavid <mclisa1014@g.......>
Subject: Series Finale: What and why it happened
The way I heard it at the time through a friend who got it from a
staff member (none of the cast in either case), what happened was that
James Parriott was really furious at Sony TriStar. I can't blame him.
They had cancelled after planning a big push to promote the next
seaon, because the company which produced Highlander threatened to
pull their show from the cable channel USA if they didn't cancel and
stop producing FK . FK was beginning to cut into Highlander's ratings
in markets where they competed. Please note that this was not the
HIghlander producers or cast's fault.
Shows with a known downer ending don't do well in syndication. So JP
wrote a real downer. Ger, who was directing, tried to make it
ambiguous by having Catherine Disher move on camera as Nat lay on the
floor, having the stake only raised, and cutting the Romeo and Juliet
voiceover for Nigel as Lacroix. JP heard about this and insisted on
putting the speech back in. Ger made the change again. JP flew to
Toronto to be there and make sure the ending was filmed as written.
Late on the final night of shooting, someone called Sony and got
through to an executive with the authority to overrule JP.The
executive called the set. I don't know who made the call. I have
wondered if it was Ger, but have no evidence or knowledge to prove it.
So we didn't see the stake go in. Nat could have been barely alive.
Nigel insisted he thought LC had killed Nick, but that's only his
opinion.
McLisa (Lisa McDavid)
"That will be trouble."
listowner, Forkni-l & Fkfic-l
mclisa1014@g.......
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 23:52:12 -0400
From: James Mender <jamesmender@g.......>
Subject: Re: Series Finale: Interpretation
That's interesting ... and it's completely glossed over in the commentaries
on the S2 DVD set. They made it sound as if it was a good ending, that
LaCroix's obsession with Nick was finally overcome and that Nick's soul was
"saved".
And that brings up another chew toy of a topic. By the end of the series,
the metaphysics of the series was all over the map: Christian ideas of
damnation of the soul (with an actual demon), reincarnation of the soul,
ghosts, the power of faith, the power of love (too much Huey Lewis?), etc.
As they described it in the commentary, Nick and Nat supposedly ended up
together, in the afterlife (assuming not as vampires). That was described
as a positive ending but it ignores the several afterlife variations of the
show. Additionally, I think that interpretation of the ending (together in
heaven) rings hollow in the way the end of The Chronicles of Narnia does
for some of *its* fans: we don't want the bland human heaven, we want
Narnia. Or, in FK terms, we want vampires.
Anyway, I'm curious as to what the list thinks about the different
metaphysical choices. If Nick and Nat *did* die, which would you prefer:
together in Heaven? Ghosts? Reincarnation? Anything I missed? Or do you
think all of those are compatible in some form? Seriously, if we're
supposed to take their deaths as a good thing, which way does that work
best for you?
~ James
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 6:07 PM, L McDavid <mclisa1014@g.......> wrote:
> Shows with a known downer ending don't do well in syndication. So JP
> wrote a real downer. Ger, who was directing, tried to make it
> ambiguous
>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2013 01:12:54 -0500
From: Margie Hammet <treeleaf@p.......>
Subject: Re: Series Finale: Interpretation
On 8/23/2013 10:52 PM, James Mender wrote:
> That's interesting ... and it's completely glossed over in the commentaries
> on the S2 DVD set. They made it sound as if it was a good ending, that
> LaCroix's obsession with Nick was finally overcome and that Nick's soul was
> "saved".
Who did the commentary? If it was Parriott, then that's understandable,
because he's the one that insisted on the blood bath in the first
place. If it was Nigel, then that's his interpretation. If it was
anyone else, it might just have been an after-the-fact attempt to put a
good face on it.
> And that brings up another chew toy of a topic. By the end of the series,
> the metaphysics of the series was all over the map: Christian ideas of
> damnation of the soul (with an actual demon), reincarnation of the soul,
> ghosts, the power of faith, the power of love (too much Huey Lewis?), etc.
Which is one of the indications that the ending was out of keeping with
the series as a whole.
> Anyway, I'm curious as to what the list thinks about the different
> metaphysical choices. If Nick and Nat *did* die, which would you prefer:
> together in Heaven? Ghosts? Reincarnation? Anything I missed? Or do you
> think all of those are compatible in some form? Seriously, if we're
> supposed to take their deaths as a good thing, which way does that work
> best for you?
>
It just plain doesn't. As much as I like the idea of Nick and Nat
together, I don't think a Nick and Nat love story is the main point of
the series. The questions in the series revolve around life, not afterlife.
Margie
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2013 02:20:15 -0400
From: Nickis Mom <Nickismom1228@a.......>
Subject: Re: Series Finale: Interpretation
Heaven of course. Nick believed in being forgiven I think in the end, he
wanted to be free of the Vampire and to have that foregivness from is
Catholic days. I'm not sure what I believe and what they believe match up but
since it was fantasy it doesn't matter.
Jeannie
In a message dated 8/23/2013 9:12:50 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
jamesmender@g....... writes:
That's interesting ... and it's completely glossed over in the commentaries
on the S2 DVD set. They made it sound as if it was a good ending, that
LaCroix's obsession with Nick was finally overcome and that Nick's soul was
"saved".
And that brings up another chew toy of a topic. By the end of the series,
the metaphysics of the series was all over the map: Christian ideas of
damnation of the soul (with an actual demon), reincarnation of the soul,
ghosts, the power of faith, the power of love (too much Huey Lewis?), etc.
As they described it in the commentary, Nick and Nat supposedly ended up
together, in the afterlife (assuming not as vampires). That was described
as a positive ending but it ignores the several afterlife variations of the
show. Additionally, I think that interpretation of the ending (together in
heaven) rings hollow in the way the end of The Chronicles of Narnia does
for some of *its* fans: we don't want the bland human heaven, we want
Narnia. Or, in FK terms, we want vampires.
Anyway, I'm curious as to what the list thinks about the different
metaphysical choices. If Nick and Nat *did* die, which would you prefer:
together in Heaven? Ghosts? Reincarnation? Anything I missed? Or do you
think all of those are compatible in some form? Seriously, if we're
supposed to take their deaths as a good thing, which way does that work
best for you?
~ James
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 6:07 PM, L McDavid <mclisa1014@g.......> wrote:
> Shows with a known downer ending don't do well in syndication. So JP
> wrote a real downer. Ger, who was directing, tried to make it
> ambiguous
>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2013 13:55:49 -0400
From: L McDavid <mclisa1014@g.......>
Subject: Admin: Please keep the quote limits.
Look, the quote limits are still in effect. I just sent the list a
reminder yesterday. After Monday, I will start enforcing them again.
Please don't quote more than four lines from the post to which you are
replying. This is per point answered. The idea is four lines, then
your comment, then if necessary, four more. If you have a phone that
won't let you delete or edit the previous post, please say so at the
beginning of the post.
Thank you, aa of you who've done this, or simply had accidents.
McLisa (Lisa McDavid)
"That will be trouble."
listowner, Forkni-l & Fkfic-l
mclisa1014@g.......
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2013 14:08:44 -0400
From: L McDavid <mclisa1014@g.......>
Subject: Re: Series Finale: Interpretation
James wrote:
"in the commentaries on the S2 DVD set. They made it sound as if it
was a good ending, that
LaCroix's obsession with Nick was finally overcome and that Nick's
soul was "saved.".
I'd say that was nonsense. I'm sure that if Nick died, yes, he went
to heaven. He was a devout if medieval Catholic in his mortal life.
He might have gone first to purgatory, since that would be what he
expected, but he would have been saved. Please note: I'm aware that
modern Catholic doctrine has changed as to the existence of purgatory.
I just think Nick in the afterlife might first have perceived himself
as being in purgatory at first.
Perhaps I should say, in the interests of full disclosure, that I am a
Christian myself, although an unorthodox one, a member of the
Episcopal Churcch. I'm sure Nick and Nat would be together in heaven.
Part of my non-orthodoxt is a belief in reincarnation, so yes, I think
he and Nat might well be together in a future life.
As for LaCroix, I think his behavior can be explained by a sheer,
monumental, final loss of temper. <eg>
Please just let me remind us that in discussing the religious aspects
of FK (which we did at the time), we'll again do so with respect to
all faiths and viewpoints. James has provided a good example. Thanks!
McLisa (Lisa McDavid)
"That will be trouble."
listowner, Forkni-l & Fkfic-l
mclisa1014@g.......
------------------------------
End of FORKNI-L Digest - 23 Aug 2013 to 24 Aug 2013 (#2013-133)
***************************************************************
Knight graphics and parchment background created by Melissa Snell and may be found at http://historymedren.about.com/
