File: "FKSPOILR LOG9605" Part 11 TOPICS: SPOILER: Francesca (4) SPOILERS: Francesca/Flowers for Nat (3) SPOILERS: Francesca(Nat) (4) SPOILER: Francesca/replies SPOILERS: Francesca (ep 20) (5) SPOILERS: Francesca (2) SPOILERS: Francesca & maybe AtA SPOILER - Francesca (2) Francesca Spoiler and Annoyed Listmember SPOILERS: Francesca and evil ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 17:21:57 -0400 From: Marcia Tucker <ScFiMarci@a.......> Subject: SPOILER: Francesca Comments on posts to FKSPOILR: From: Stephanie Babbitt <stephanie.babbitt@g.......> >>Nick seems like a beaten man; his sense of humor is gone, he's so gawdawful *serious*, and he seems depressed. << Agreed - more of the backsliding trend here? I maintain that Nick these days is hurting big time and may be heading for a real crisis. Building up to something are we? >>>If the soul is in every drop of blood <snip> is it still there in a >bag of whole blood from the blood bank? It seems to me like the blood has to come *fresh* and warm from a living or very-recently-dead body to carry the soul. Once the intangible soul has left the body, presumably it has left the blood as well.<< Nick says that two hours after drinking fresh blood the effects (talents, etc.) of drinking it are gone. Could it be that this applies also to stored blood? I know, we're probably getting into metaphysics here, but it could be that this "effect" of the memories, abilities, etc. of the human being available to the vampire who drinks it does not remain long in the blood. Speaking of Nick explaining about the blood to Nat in the morgue - great directing in this scene, Nigel! The look on Nat's face was truly interesting. I think the description was a real-turn on for her - right up until Nick mentions sipping (another, and another, and...) - a reminder of Nick's fear that he wouldn't be able to stop. A really great scene! >> I couldn't believe her comment that made it sound like she thinks Nick is evil as a vampire and may continue to be as a mortal! Talk about kicking a man when he's down!<< Yes, well, that's the problem I've had with Nat this season. Although I think this was inadvertent. It goes back to Nat not accepting Nick's vampire side, what I believe to be the major problem with their relationship. >> Why wasn't LaCroix more upset about Francesca's death?<< Ditto! I wondered about that, too. Although I still think he was quite aware of how Nick would react to Francesca's tastes once Nick found out about them. Then the question arises: did Nick kill Francesca because of her behavior or was it self-defense? I think it may have been the latter as I believe she threw the axe at him first in anger. From: Deborah Menikoff <menikoff@p.......> >>I can't believe Nick even said "Why would he do that" when Nat suggested that perhaps Lacroix were messing with his head. The LC/ Nick relationship must be on much better footing thewn I thought to elicite such a question :-) << Oh, yeah, I'd say it was on better footing (I like to point to the brief scene with LaCroix in "Games" as point in case) - another trend! From Carrie Krumtum: >> Did anyone else notice the same musical thread from AA? It was wonderful. So appropriate. I was wondering if we would hear it again. Thanks Fred.<< Whew! Nice to know I wasn't imagining this! Not the exact same piece of music either, but enough recognizable elements of this. Now I have to go back and listen again! From: "J.S. Levin/Stormsinger" <wabbit@e.......> >> Also, wouldn't LaCroix also be disturbed by the lack of discretion? The "Toast of Paris" accepts an invitation to visit La Comtesse... and is never seen again. Hmmm. Arrogance is fine, indiscretion is not (from LC's POV)<< Wow, this gives me a great idea! What if LC was deliberately setting Francesca up by exposing her to Nick's tender sensibilities??? He HAD to have known how Nick would react and that there'd be a confrontation between them. Maybe LC even was curious as to which one would survive the confrontation. I'd like to think LC had more regard for Nick than that, but he may have been secretly embarrassed by Francesca's extravagant indulgences, and thought this might be a way to off her without having to get his own hands dirty. Enough for now! Caught up on digests! Marcia Tucker scfimarci@a....... Dark Knightie / Immortal Beloved Just finished Chapter 24 of "Transitions" with perhaps three left!! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 17:29:15 -0400 From: Beth Brown <BKBVA@a.......> Subject: Re: SPOILERS: Francesca/Flowers for Nat In a message dated 96-05-06 09:34:01 EDT, you write: >I liked the rose and perfume he left for her in the tag of DBTLOTM. I think >he gave a great deal of thought to that. I feel really stupid, but I have to ask this. I went to check this out, since I didn't remember it, and it's not on my tape. Does that mean it's in the Canadian version? I don't think my copy is snipped. (I know, this doesn't need to be on this list, but relates to the discussion) Thanks. Beth bkbva@a....... ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 17:38:33 -0400 From: Angie <alasher@e.......> Subject: Re: SPOILERS: Francesca(Nat) At 03:00 PM 5/6/96 -0400, you wrote: >I tend to agree that a vampire will maintain the "age" that he exhibits >when he is brought across (hmmm.... guess I better hurry). However, if >he were to attain the appearance of some "optimal" age, it probably would >happen slowly. The Mafia head in FD might have looked thirty a week >(month, year....) later. But I don't think so. And what about vampires that are brought over old who wear dentures? I mean this as a serious question folks. Lasher ===================== @-->-'- http://home.earthlink.net/~alasher http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/5069 --<-'-@ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 17:51:13 -0400 From: Gehirn Karies <SoulDebris@a.......> Subject: Re: SPOILER: Francesca/replies Lisa wrote: > she appeared to overpower and suppress Frank. Frank's physical >body became the outward manifestation for the persona of Francesca. > Any psychologists who have dealt with this please correct me if >I'm totally off-base, but isn't this sort of thing unheard of? Um ... I'm not a psychologist, but the first half of the title is a term of endearment I am quite familiar with. Sooo, close enough.... We're talking about a fictional application of reincarnation here. Francesca was a Vampire, nothing is unheard of. Her soul would be a bit more powerful and demanding, I should think, than say the soul of a housewife from western Massachusetts. Also, because of Francesca's soul mucking around in him all these years, it may have been a fantasy that Frank suddenly found himself very comfortable with. Next? Oh ... wrong list.... FrranCHEscah: >>Violinist is drunk at the "height of his talent". Oh no!! No!!! Ack, ack, >>they *know* the people they drink! Ack, no!! All those people they drank who (Shameless Plug) My non FK novelette "Sins of The Father" has the newly indoctrinated vamp saying: "Eeeww. Do I have to do that? I never wanted to know what my dinner was thinking before." Diane E.: >>Y'know, this could explain a *lot* about how Nick's really negative, >>down-on-himself attitude got started. Think about it. For, oh, 300 years or >>so, he made a point of dining only on the 'unworthy'-- drunks, prostitutes, >>criminals... talk about a depressing diet! <g> He's walking around for two hours after every meal going, I am the scum of the earth, I am evil incarnate, I am not worthy.... Talk about hearburn. Yikes! Nick needs to have a few Shiny-Happy-People over for a nibble. Perky ones, please form a line. <wcg> But it does open the doors to some interesting possibilities. I figure you invite Nick over, serve him a warm glass of LaCroix, (Hell, he'd do it if he knew it was for Nickie.) Then for two hours you've got the perfect man. Heh heh. Oh, but wait, then he'll wake up all guilty and tense.... Hmmmnn. Uh ... I better go now. Brutal Cousin Karies SoulDebris@a....... "Oh, don't stake my heart, my achy, breaky heart". Leslies Kid ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 17:51:19 -0400 From: Gehirn Karies <SoulDebris@a.......> Subject: Re: SPOILERS: Francesca (ep 20) Sandra wrote. >"Because he's evil? Sorry." YES! He is, Nat! :) I was really hoping the was a mass exodus of all the Knighties and the three Lite Cousins, running into the kitchen to grab a cup of herbal tea during that particular moment.... No such luck, eh? Nat was evil for not giving that poor disheartened and befuddled brick a reasuring hug. She's holding out on him as much as he's holding back. :^/ GK SoulDebris@a....... "Oh, don't stake my heart, my achy, breaky heart". Leslies Kid ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 16:56:18 -0400 From: Phillip Anderson <panderson@c.......> Subject: Re: SPOILERS: Francesca(Nat) Lasher said: >And what about vampires that are brought over old who wear dentures? I mean >this as a serious question folks. I would think the loss of teeth would be treated as an injury, and the teeth would regenerate. After all, people don't lose teeth *just* because they get old. So ignoring ageing would not necessitate ignoring tooth loss (on the part of the virus). -------------- FoolKiller panderson@c....... CSI ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 17:51:20 -0400 From: Gehirn Karies <SoulDebris@a.......> Subject: Re: SPOILER: Francesca Leslie writes: > I wonder if that is what Janette and LaCroix's "special vintage" is: > very fresh blood mixed with very old wine. "It's young, but it has an > earthy, robust taste and it finishes quite well." --LaCroix, TGVP >Sound like anyone you know? Do you mean *knew*, Leslie? And ... um ... yes. <wcg> GK ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 18:08:13 -0400 From: Apache <lf@c.......> Subject: Re: SPOILERS: Francesca On Mon, 6 May 1996, Sarah Chodrow wrote: > > (2) *Where* was Frank keeping his captives? And how did Nick figure it out? > He flashed to Francesca's comment about the slaughterhouse--I don't think she > said abbatoir--and then fooped to Frank's lair somehow. Let's not forget that this is the guy in all of Toronto who is most intimately acquainted with beef blood. He said (or flashed back to, I forget which) "slaughterhouse" -- and poof! Ap. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 18:08:58 -0400 From: Angie <alasher@e.......> Subject: Re: SPOILERS: Francesca (ep 20) >Speaking of that ax, that looked like the *same* set of weapons that >Francesca had on *her* wall. Is it possible, then, that this was not >a case of reincarnation but some sort of "haunting" of an object and >Frank was possessed by Francesca's ghost? > After having observed this myself, I went back and watched the tape again. Although it does indeed look like the same set of weapons, the holder of said weapons was different. Great catch there! I thought I was the only one who noticed it. Strange how I savor every episode nowaday! Lasher ===================== @-->-'- http://home.earthlink.net/~alasher http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/5069 --<-'-@ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 18:26:39 -0400 From: "Kathryn A. Kraus" <kak6@p.......> Subject: Re: SPOILER: Francesca Well, I thought I'd delurk for a moment, just cuz I'm feeling chatty and it's *really* slow at the office today.... (Please insert multiple <g>'s and :-)'s in the following, as needed.) Sarah Chodrow <sal@m.......> writes: >(1) It pays to be the director. You get the best makeup job. You also get to tell the lighting guy to turn off the dang blinking lights, for Pete's sake! The Nightcrawler sequence was nicely lit. Great way to light using bold, primary colors for dramatic purposes. Although other eps with the red-on-one-side, green-on-the-other, and blue-flashing-in-the-background were interesting to look at, I'd be afraid of brain seizures if viewed too often. Also, the slatted-light-thru-the-mini-blinds effect was used well here (as Frank leaves the doctor's office). Nice, big slats. The mini-blind effect seems popular lately. Remember the same thing in MBIAV? Nice way to convey, oh, I dunno, fragmentation and confusion, but if the slats are too small, one cannot make out the actors' facial expressions! (Nat says to Nick in MBIAV, "I saw more than you think I did." And I'm thinking, "How? I couldn't see a dang thing on his face but light and dark stripes!") >(2) *Where* was Frank keeping his captives? And how did Nick figure it out? >He flashed to Francesca's comment about the slaughterhouse--I don't think she >said abbatoir--and then fooped to Frank's lair somehow. Where, indeed! Possibly the slaughterhouse, but they gave us one, quick shot of an outside doorway, which looked *a lot* to me like the outside door entrance to Nick's loft. Do you suppose Francesca was having a bit of fun and putting the "chef in the slaughterhouse" by keeping the doctor in Nick's basement? (Does he have a basement in the loft?) Alternatively, he could have been keeping her in the basement of his own apartment building. Say, which apartment building do you think he lives in, btw? Could it be the....Building Of The Damned? On the reincarnation bit, I've heard the theory that some souls are linked together throughout eternity, constantly reappearing in each other's lives in varying combinations - mother & child in one, husband & wife later, acquaintances in the next, etc. Ooooh - a Nick/Tracy link? Maybe he'll get to be the perky one in the next incarnation.... One vague, idle thought occurs. How does the victim's "life" info get downloaded like that? If we take a physical as opposed to meta-physical approach, what process is taking place here? Are the electro-chemical memory patterns somehow impressing themselves into the bloodstream? Or maybe this is more ESP stuff. For the blood in the cup bit, that might be like a psychic holding someone's recently-worn sweater and saying "she owns a dog named Queequeg!" Hmmmm. Well, don't look at me, I don't have the answers. .sig under review kak6@p....... ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 18:28:07 -0400 From: Carrie Krumtum <CKrumtum@g.......> Subject: Re: SPOILERS: Francesca/Flowers for Nat >I feel really stupid, but I have to ask this. I went to check this out, >since I didn't remember it, and it's not on my tape. Does that mean it's > in >the Canadian version? I don't think my copy is snipped. (I know, this >doesn't need to be on this list, but relates to the discussion) I do have the Canadian version. I didn't know if it was in the cut version or not. It is in the tag. A beautiful gesture just the same... Carrie, Slovenly Knightie CKrumtum@g....... It's hard to judge someone when you're blinded by your love for them. --Mother Teresa ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 18:30:23 -0400 From: Allison Percy <percy91@w.......> Subject: SPOILERS: Francesca & maybe AtA I saw Francesca today and loved it, of course. If you've seen spoilers for AtA (I'm *not* going to give them away here), you might have had the same reaction I did. Remember that Francesca was actually filmed *after* AtA, although it appears earlier in the airing order. So Ben Bass played the scene with the guitar *after* acting in AtA. Realizing this put a new twist on his performance for me. Hmm. Back to Francesca, in the scene in which Nick tells Nat how vampires experience life through blood, I couldn't help wondering what was going through Nick's mind as he looked at Nat. Was it sadness & love & regret, or was it "Mmmmmm, Natalie...", rather like Homer Simpson responds to a doughnut? And if he ever did snack on Natalie, does that mean that for two hours he would be able to perform amazing feats of forensic pathology? ObSelf-Chastisement: Bad Knightie, no biscuit. Picking on Our Boy. <slinking away> P.S. Did anyone else find weird FK parallels in the latest Star Trek: Deep Space 9 episode, which featured a brain-sucking creativity vampire? (This is surely off-topic, so reply off-list if you want to discuss!) Allison (percy91@w.......) "I don't know, maybe someone's messing with your head -- Lacroix?" "Why would he do that?" "Because he's evil?" ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 18:34:00 -0400 From: "Donna G. Albrecht" <WriterDGA@a.......> Subject: Re: SPOILER - Francesca I wish this ep had gone on for another five minutes. When Tracy "remembered" her life as the musician killed by Francesca for Nick's beverage, wouldn't she also remember the face of the last person she/he met and who she/he would have held responsible at least in part for the death? Having Tracy remember meeting Nick there and then confronting him would have been something else. Anyone else wonder about that? Donna ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 19:39:03 -0300 From: Paula Hurley <dkknight@a.......> Subject: Re: SPOILERS: Francesca (ep 20) At 17:51 06/05/96 -0400, Gehirn Karies wrote: >Sandra wrote. >>"Because he's evil? Sorry." YES! He is, Nat! :) > >I was really hoping the was a mass exodus of all the Knighties >and the three Lite Cousins, running into the kitchen to grab a cup >of herbal tea during that particular moment.... No such luck, eh? > Okay, first off I don't drink tea, herbal or any other kind, second off, I don't know how you want to interpert Nat saying LC is evil, I didn't like it, because it's not true!! This coming from a Knightie, oh lord I'm in trouble now, Dotti put down the stake!! :-) Anyways, as I was saying. This like any other show has its protagnist and its antagonist, Nick being the "good" guy and LC being the "bad" guy, but there is no such thing that can be so easily defined, LC is simply different from Nick, and that's that!! They are not even true flip sides of the coin anymore, because Nick has been backsliding so much, therefore you can not say that LC is evil, just because you think Nick is good, it's really too close to call. This was not meant to be such a serious post, so take it light guys, I did not mean to offend anyone, just offering my own opinions. Paula dkknight@a....... Dark Knightie * Light Cousin * Valentine * Nick&NatPacker * Member of the CSS * "It's ALWAYS about YOU!" - LaCroix(Can't Run, Can't Hide) "If this is the cure, give me the disease!" - LaCroix(The Fix) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 17:27:15 -0500 From: Margie Hammet <treeleaf@i.......> Subject: Re: SPOILER: Francesca >>> I couldn't believe her comment that made it sound like she thinks Nick is >evil as a vampire and may continue to be as a mortal! >It goes back to Nat not accepting Nick's vampire side. Except that Nat said, "Evil is part of the human condition." She's talking about everyone, not just vampires. I think it's similar to what Vanderwald said in SoB; "Everyone has both good and evil within them." Margie (treeleaf@i.......) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 18:50:35 -0400 From: Apache <lf@c.......> Subject: Re: SPOILERS: Francesca(Nat) On Mon, 6 May 1996, Angie wrote: > At 03:00 PM 5/6/96 -0400, you wrote: > >I tend to agree that a vampire will maintain the "age" that he exhibits > >when he is brought across (hmmm.... guess I better hurry). However, if > >happen slowly. The Mafia head in FD might have looked thirty a week > >(month, year....) later. But I don't think so. Aristotle looked old. And if he were, as I think we were supposed to imagine, "the" Aristotle, he'd been a vampire for quite a while. > And what about vampires that are brought over old who wear dentures? I mean > this as a serious question folks. If I can stop laughing, I'll try to think of a serious answer <g>. OK -- how bout this: you don't bring over toothless vamps? Or... the fangs are now the only teeth the vamp has? Or... if you can dig to China with a teaspoon eventually, you can gum your way down to an artery? Ap. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 19:04:27 -0400 From: Angie <alasher@e.......> Subject: Re: SPOILER - Francesca At 06:34 PM 5/6/96 -0400, you wrote: >When Tracy "remembered"her life as the musician killed by Francesca for Nick's >beverage,wouldn't she also remember the face of the last person she/he met and who >she/he would have held responsible at least in part for the death? I would think that she/he would remember the moment of terror, and the last face that she/he saw in real life. That would be Francesca. And since Nick was only there for a moment, relatively speaking, that was probably something that she/he would forget in favor of the more frightning reality of bring at deaths door. Nick reaction to Francesca when he realizes who's blood it is, made me wonder yet again about LC bringing him over. Sometimes I believe that he was brought across because LC wanted to use him as an experiment to see just how far his control could reign over someone with the morals and sensabilities of Nick, and at other times it seems as though LC only brought him across because he was one of the *beautiful People*. Has this been address and I just missed out on the discussion? Another point brought up at one point - Nick's seemingly getting along with LC much better. I for one am relieved that the awful tension between them is calmed down somewhat since the bullet to the head. I felt awkward in watching thier scenes together, and could never quite understand how after so many hundreds of years Nicky couldn't quite get it together and make peace with LC. We am mortals only have so much time to make our peace with the world, and vampires must know thier fate is a precarious one at best, so why would they expend all that energy on the negative, when there is so much time to enjoy! I know I am rambling here... I am glad to see Vachon and Tracy being more comfortable with each other, this is certainly leading to intimatacy (sp). The quality of this episode was top flight! It seems a shame that we are so close to the end and getting so much quality! Lasher p.s. Is the fight to keep Knight dead? Is there anything else in the works right now? ===================== @-->-'- http://home.earthlink.net/~alasher http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/5069 --<-'-@ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 19:19:10 -0400 From: Dotti Rhodes <dottir@w.......> Subject: Re: SPOILERS: Francesca (ep 20) At 07:39 PM 5/6/96 -0300, you wrote: No, no Stake Paula. But as far as Nat's concerned, and from the atrocitie she's heard that Nick has suffered at the hands of LC, yes, he is definitely evil. Ofcourse, we all know that no one, and particularly LC, is all one thing or another. We have begun to understand LC's behaviors--a little extreme--but we understand where they come from. I don't consider him evil for evil's sake, he's a pragmatist, black is black and red is red and you're a vampire, they're food, get over it. Neither is Nick evil, Nat sort of annoyed me by the way she said it, but it doesn't help Nick's feelings at all. This whole backsliding thing annoys me anyway so I won't get into that. When he asked her why bother, she should have held him and explained a little better that there is a bit of evil in everyone that has to be controlled - otherwise we'd be running around looking like people who work at Disney World!!! His is a little more tangible at the moment, but once across he'd be no worse than any other mortal. But it didn't quite come out that way and he looked like he was ready watch the sunrise. He just looked so tired and weary of the whole thing. Poor baby, he should come to me, I'll make him feel better..... Dotti R Knightie 4-Ever dottir@w....... ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 16:26:37 -0700 From: LC Fenster <lucienlc@i.......> Subject: Re: SPOILERS: Francesca/Flowers for Nat Beth wrote: >I feel really stupid, but I have to ask this. I went to check this >out, since I didn't remember it, and it's not on my tape. Does that >mean it's in the Canadian version? I don't think my copy is snipped. Yes, it's in the Canadian version. No, it's not in the American version. Another one of those little edits that actually made a big difference to the story. Laurie ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 19:31:11 -0400 From: Marf Shopmyer <aa108460@d.......> Subject: Francesca Spoiler and Annoyed Listmember >Mr. Bennett did a good job of directing. The teaser was particularly >well done and I think would have kept a casual viewer interested in >seeing more. I agree. So do I. I've been waiting for this show to see how he did, noted his name in the proper space, and promptly forgot. This is a compliment, so don't go flaming me (verfaaren!). This means the directing was invisible. It's like not seeing the strings in a magic show. Now, I'm really cheesed off that I only got one out of 8 digests to properly give me what I asked for today. REALLY cheesed off. I keep getting the "extracting [blank number] of items" messages and the rest is BLANK! Thanks for listening. marf ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 19:53:20 -0400 From: Loose Cannon <LoosCanN@a.......> Subject: Re: SPOILERS: Francesca and evil Sandra Gray writes (and I'm sorry, I can't compress it into four lines and have it make sense. It's too closely reasoned.): >Another thing on the "evil" issue. Gillian Horvath has just about >confirmed the "evil" of vampirism with this episode. If we're to >accept that Francesca's soul has survived, then that means that the >FK vampire keeps the soul he or she was born with (at least I can't >see any evidence that becoming a vampire gives you a vampire *soul* >as well as a vampire *body*). Therefore, vampires are *augmented >humans*. With *human* souls, they *cannot* be considered separate >or above humans. A human who kills another human is murdering that >human. The FK vampire *should* be held responsible for murdering >his fellow human souls. If we're accepting reincarnation as a working hypothesis in this episode, there are a few ideas that go along with it. First, everything has a soul, even cows. Those souls are just on a different stage in their path than other beings. A soul is not a "cow soul" or a "human soul". It is just a soul, occupying a particular body for a particular lesson derived from the kharmic accretions of past lives. So for whatever kharmic reason, a person is brought over for some experience or lesson they can only have as a vampire. Of course that vampire is responsible for all their actions, including the deaths of their meals. As are we all. What we don't know are the kharmic reasons a mortal ends up as a vampire's meal. Or a cow ends up as ours. Which isn't to say that the vampire doesn't incur a "kharmic debt" for their acts. And that those debts won't be balanced out somewhere along the line. For us, it may be two life-times down the line, for a vampire maybe it'll come around sometime in the next century. Is a vampire "evil"? If one were chomping down on my neck, I'd certainly _feel_ that he was. But who knows what kind of kharmic dance our souls are doing? Maybe this will end up being a "good" thing for me. Yes, the personality will die with the body. However, you cannot murder a "soul". It is eternal, a spark of Deity. Of course, if you don't buy the reincarnation premise, this is all a bunch of yow-yow. Namaste, Leslie ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 20:22:50 -0500 From: Cyberspace Vanguard Magazine <vanguard@p.......> Subject: Re: SPOILERS: Francesca >Perhaps this explains Vachon and Urs staring blankly into their glasses at >the Raven (TG) -- no images left in the blood, no images transfered to their >minds. Kinda gives new meaning to all those old horror flicks where 'the >mindless undead' are roaming the streets. Maybe that's part of the reason older vampires get so much respect. After all, they've REALLY lived more, right? ---- TJ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 20:44:23 -0400 From: Sharon Bhandari <sbhanda@e.......> Subject: Re: SPOILERS: Francesca(Nat) On Mon, 6 May 1996, Angie wrote: > And what about vampires that are brought over old who wear dentures? I mean > this as a serious question folks. I would think that they would just extend out of the gums. Sort of makes an odd looking person though. Wrinkled face, only two front teeth. Kind of like a demented baby. All his victims would be overcome with laughter so he wouldn't need to expend too much effort:) Sharon B. Natpacker and Valentine SKLs resident Divia sbhanda@e....... ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 18:01:52 -0700 From: Cynthia Hoffman <choff@v.......> Subject: Re: SPOILERS: Francesca (ep 20) I should not be doing this. I really am old enough to know better. Really, I'm old enough to know better. But sometimes ... On Mon, 6 May 1996, Sandra Gray wrote: > Why does Nat assume the killer is a her? Could be a guy in drag. Heterosexist imperative. If someone's sublimating sexual desire by killing men, must be a woman. > The killer is the black guy who was in the therapist's office, I > thought at the first commercial. I don't think that was supposed to be a secret by then. > Sudden death sweetens the blood? Another reason to wonder why LC > didn't kill Hitler. Huh? This is a total non-sequitur. Why on earth is part one related to part two? I'm confused ... but no matter. The reason this makes no sense is if in fact sudden death sweetens or intensifies the blood, you get more intense Hitler flavor. Yick. And if you want sense everything about a person through the blood, LC showed good taste NOT killing Hitler. Imagine the nightmares. > Tracy is having psychic dreams about being killed by Francesca? No. She's not. > I liked Nick's explaining what feeding on human blood was like for > him. Nice dialogue for Nick for once. Although I personally don't > like the Ricean flavor of that explanation, How is this Ricean? Rice only ever talks about drinking human blood as being peaceful. There's no indication in her novels that it's more than that. NO discussion of human blood being the carrier of information in the way that Nick talks about. > maybe it will give some of > you critics of Nick's resolve to be mortal again just how hard it has > to be and have been for Nick to give up feeding on human blood. Another non-sequitur. No one is saying giving up feeding on human blood is easy for him; we question his resolve in his search for mortality. Two very distinct ideas, I think. > > And how about Nat's reaction to Nick's explaining what feeding on > human blood is like for a vampire? She seemed to be getting off on > it. You know, I keep seeing this stated and I didn't see it in that scene. I saw fascination, I saw interest and I saw wonder, but I didn't see arousal, no way no how. > From her reaction and > attentiveness, I don't think he'd ever told her what it was like in > such detail before. Explains why sipping might be hard too, I think. No argument from me here. None at all. > 400 years--Francesca was brought over in 1355? So where were Nick > and Janette when LC did this? And was she very agreeably trained by > LC or something? Because it seemed Nick had never met her before. This isn't correct. Frank stated that "she'd" been living there for 400 years and that she was older than Nick. I don't think that necessarily meant Francesca was only 400 years old. > Anyone else feel like Gillian Horvath must have read some of Chelsea > Quinn Yarbro's St. Germain books? This has a St. Germain flavor > somehow. How? > Nick's being psychic again--he thought about Francesca early on and > before hearing about Frank's therapy. No. He saw the murder signature and remembered her. > Frank--Francesca (please! Can we be more blatant?). Wasn't aware this was supposed to be subtle. > "Because he's evil? Sorry." YES! He is, Nat! :) No, he's not. And Nick's reaction is why Nat said "sorry." Even Nick doesn't think he's evil Sandra. Give it up. > "Curing you won't eradicate the evil in you, but it will help you to > control it." Good line, Nat, but strange coming out of her. She's > considered his affliction physical in the past. Why wouldn't the > removing of the vampire remove the tendency to "evil"? Another non-sequitur. Evil is not the vampire. Sometimes Nick thinks it is, but Nat hasn't ever stated that in that way. Vampirism is a physical affliction; evil is a human condition. > tendencies. But to say something like that to Nick may make him > doubt that a cure will make a difference in his life. She just sort > of pushed him into fearing a cure with that sort of remark. Even > though I know that wasn't her intent. But I think she should have > thought a bit more before speaking. I'm not sure about this. A good dose of reality is sometimes a wonderful thing. As long as Nick believes that the vampire is the root of all his evil, he won't pay attention to the good things he does. Nat's words are more or less on target. > Why did Vachon seem to recognize the name Nicolas Chevalier? Have he > and Nick become buddies and swapped past life stories? :) At the risk of stating something that 400 others have said before me: Chevalier = Knight in French. 'Nuff said. > Why did the therapist have her tape running with Fuller there? Can > we say "plot device"? She tapes her appointments. Fuller was an appointment. > Where was the karmic lesson in this? That he can come back after he dies this lifetime. That's the lesson, period. > The "karmic" thing for Nick to have done was to *not* kill Francesca > again. Sigh... You know, in case number one, killing her was an accident, and in case number two, killing her was an accident that saved someone else's life. This was a case of another person's life repeating itself, not Nick dealing with karma. > seeing more. I thought some of the flashback repeated wasn't as > necessary. Every repeated flashback was from another person's perspective. The only complete flashbacks were from Nick's perspective. > Overall, this was a good episode. I think it introduced more issues > than it really had time to deal with Probably. Most of the good episodes do. The Fix and A More Permanent Hell come to mind right off the bat. > Francesca) and that, along with the characters of Nat and LC not > seeming in character, makes it only get a B- in my book. How, exactly, were either Nat or LC out of character? I liked Nat for almost the first time all season because she was IN CHARACTER; and LC was the LC of second season. I personally give this episode close to perfect marks. And I still should have known better. Cynthia Cynthia Hoffman/choff@v....... Raven ** IB ** MBDtK We cater to the occasional fetishist =========================================================================
Previous |
This month's list |
Next |