File: "FKSPOILR LOG9605" Part 34 TOPICS: Spoiler: Last Knight SPOILER: AtA - Vachon & Urs SPOILERS: Ashes to Ashes (ep 21) Take 2 (2a/2b) SPOILERS: Ashes to Ashes (ep 21) Take 2 (2b/2b) Blood Knowledge (no spoiler) SPOILER: AtA: Maturity (also HF SPOILER) (2) Spoiler: LK (end) (2) SPOILER: FK (Nick & LC) Last Knight Speculations Wanted Long Spoiler for Last Knight Last Knight--tears ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 19:42:44 -0700 From: Antonia Spadafina <asginger@i.......> Subject: Spoiler: Last Knight Hi all-- Sarah quoted Melanie as follows: > Regarding Nat's belief that death isn't the end: > A very interesting insight into Nat, seeing as she has had trouble > believing in ghosts and reincarnation in the past? ===I think the point is not that Nat didn't believe in ghosts, reincarnation, etc, so much as she didn't want to admit it to anyone. Remember, she tells Nick in Francesca that she ..."believes in ten impossible things before breakfast, including you." Also, in DoN, she tells Nick that she had a "spiritual experience", but she's going to "take the 5th" if asked about the goings-on. And I agree with Sarah's MHO that OtL was one of the best episodes extant. (I'm partial, since that was my first episode...). Trepidatiously awaiting the airing of Last Knight, Toni Knightie from NYC ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 00:53:42 -0400 From: Apache <lf@c.......> Subject: Re: SPOILER: AtA - Vachon & Urs On Fri, 17 May 1996, Leslie I.Plummer wrote: > the scene where Vachon DOES call Tracy to say he knows who the killer it > (after Urs leaves). Vachon has a cel phone! Tracy & so many others do, > why not Vachon. It's easy to get & people only have to know your money, > not what kind of "house" you live in! > Vachon had a cel phone back in "Blackwing," remember? What I wondered about was where the electricity came from in "Fever." ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 02:37:12 -0500 From: Sandra Gray <TMP_HARKINS@d.......> Subject: SPOILERS: Ashes to Ashes (ep 21) Take 2 (2a/2b) This is part 2a of a two part post to comment on some other people's comments. There will not be much about LC (that will be in another post). Sarah Welsh writes: >After watching this episode, anyone's got to admit to Cousinly >tendencies. Not me. Particularly not from this episode. >Perhaps even Sandra will have warmer feelings toward LaCroix in this >one. ;) Nope (for reasons to be stated in my next post about LC). >So I guess we have to assume that Divia's illness and "cure" took >place at least a few months before the General returned. I'm going to have to watch AMPH and see, but I didn't get the impression that a lot of time had passed between Divia's "cure" and LC's return in that episode. >And that vampires *can* fly long distances pretty darn quickly if she >was spending time in Egypt killing her master without her mother >noticing her absence. Yes, another exaggeration in the canon to no purpose that I can see. Of course it's possible that Divia's master could have been old enough to have superior flight capabilities and flew her to Egypt (for what purpose?). But then Divia would have had to get home on her own after killing him. Hey, maybe she just hypnotized her mother and anyone else who would notice her absence into thinking she'd never been gone. :) Or those were good pillows in her bed. ;) >Not to mention the way that she brought the graverobber's body from >Egypt to Canada in a day's time. Ah, but that could be explained by whatever power Divia "stored up" after almost 2000 years trapped in that tomb. Although I still think this "super flight" capability was not necessary to the story. >I love the way JP is finally giving us answers to a lot of the questions >we've had about the nature of FK vampirism here at the end. Are we sure it's *JP* giving us answers? Francesca was written by Gillian Horvath, Ashes to Ashes by Lalonde and Bedarde. Seeing how L&B are in charge of the day to day filming, maybe they've had more say in the storyline than any of us know. And, personally, considering what we've gotten so far, I would have been happier with ambiguity. >I guess we know now why JP insisted on the memories-carried-in-the- >blood...It's sort of a major plotpoint here, what with Vachon having >all those Divia flashbacks. *Did* JP insist on the memories in the blood stuff? Anyway, I don't think it was necessary to introduce that in Francesca. Divia was obviously *not* your everyday, garden variety vampire. What happened to Vachon, imo, could have been just as explainable due to Divia's different (stronger?) powers. >do you suppose Divia could really take off her head just to fool with >Urs' mind? I wouldn't put it past Lalonde and Bedard. Although I would hope there was another reason. We've speculated on this list that LC might have influenced Nick's dreams or mind in the past. There's nothing that says that Divia could not do the same to Urse. >Think they actually planned that far ahead when they were shooting >AMPH, or it was just a happy coincidence? (re: the beheaded bust of LC) I don't know. Who wrote AMPH? I do get the impression that past episodes were looked at when writing this. That scene might have inspired L&B to have LC behead Divia. So in some sense it could be a happy coincidence (although I think "happy" is debatable). >When Divia told LaCroix that Nick was dead -- what a look on his face! But why should that have affected LC? He should have been able to *feel* Nick's death, if Nick was indeed dead. He knew when Nick was being affected by the drug in The Fix. One of the stupid parts of the plot, I think. >She'd (Divia) make great flashbacks for a first season of Forever >LaCroix, though. Nah, be too limited. She was only "active" for about twenty years. And don't you mean the *third* season of Forever LaCroix (seeing as how second and third seasons have focused so much on him)? >Have we actually seen them (Tracy and Vachon) kiss on camera? Yep. In Black Buddha and in Fever. >Seems that TPTB are coming down on the side that Nat really was >hypnotized in BMV. That's fine with me. I would expect LC to be better at hypnotism that other vampires because of his age and power. >TPTB are making it almost impossible not to hold to a primarily >supernatural basis for vampirism. Sigh. And why now? And how is it that Nat was able to effect any sort of changes in Nick if FK vampirism is supernatural? >You can tell that this episode is so good by the way it casts a new >light on all the episodes that came before. It casts a new light, but I wouldn't say that that made the ep "good". >Perhaps it was the power of the two of them together that managed to >regenerate her (Divia). I think Laurie said that was so, but what if the tomb was made with alien technology that kept Divia alive and aided her in her "recovery"? Hey, I can still look for a science fiction basis for her survival! :) Bonnella writes: >I thought it very interesting that, when Urse left Vachon in his >demented state, she went to see Nick and not LaCroix. Yes. I think it shows that LaCroix is not someone vampires would turn to for help or trust much. It may be more evidence that LC has not been close to any other vampires in Toronto. >it's not like she actually killed him -- he committed suicide! But Laurie said the script called for Tracy *to* kill Vachon. I wonder who decided to change it and how would you have felt if Tracy *had* killed Vachon? >Any speculation on whether Nat would have confided in Tracy. I don't see how she would have dared to do so. She has so much sensitive info on Nick that could get her in trouble with the Enforcers. I wonder if instead Nat would have asked LC to hypnotize Tracy into forgetting vampires existed. Although I think Nick's heart was in the right place for what he asked LC to do, Tracy's continued knowledge that vampires exist might make her try to seek out another vampire to try to have a relationship with. But the result might be a vampire who wanted to kill her or vampires in general deciding her knowledge was a threat to the community and getting rid of her. Carrie Krumtum writes: >I think he (Nick) knew he would be injured but had already realized >he could survive. How would he know that? He'd seen Urse *killed*. I don't understand why you got such an impression. I certainly didn't. I still am not sure how Nick survived. >I understand her thinking that there is a similarity between Vachon >and LaCriox, but why not Nick? She said in MBiaV that Nick is like >Vachon in a lot of ways, I think the comparisons she was making between Vachon and Nick in MBV were more to Nick's good traits (in a wishful thinking way). She has observed Nick is a good cop by both personal experience and by knowledge of his past record with the force. But, like Vachon, he is quiet, more private, a bit mysterious. As for why she wouldn't see Nick was similar to Vachon and LC, she thinks Nick is *mortal* (Vachon "hypnotized" him in Black Buddha). Might make a big difference to whatever she may sense about Nick's "dark side". >What was the source of the light eminating from the sarcophagus in >the tomb? Supernaturally? The light of hellfire. :) Scientifically? Some machine that was "preserving" Divia (and her master?) being damaged. :) >What portion of vampiric lore would generate such a light? Nothing that I know of. Pat Witham writes: >when did LaCroix get converted to Christianity?...his vampire ancestry, >through Divia, came from Egyptian mythology. Has LC been converted to Christianity? As for Egyptian mythology, depends on whether you think Divia's master was Egyptian or...something else that merely *lived* as an Egyptian. :) J.S. Levin/Stormsinger writes: >"All the killing,"...Divia's 20 years or so before she was tossed >into the sarcophagus? His own? Or (my choice), thru Divia, the >killings of all the vampires to whom Divia has a "blood" relationship. Well, although the third is interesting, I would hope it wasn't that. Actually, I thought Vachon went on an actual killing spree after he was attacked by Divia (due to her influence on his mind driving him out of control) and he was talking about that. >I think perhaps that Divia basically survived the last 2000 years by >hooking solidly into LaCroix's mind, and through him to his children. >He might not (having been a young vampire when it occurred) notice Interesting idea, but I would think a vampire would need something more solid than *thoughts* to survive. And I can just see people leaping on this as a way to excuse LC's evil acts by saying it was really Divia's influence on his mind. :P I have some other ideas about how she survived. Perhaps, like a frog or a bear, she did some "hibernating" until her body healed enough and then awoke (this could have taken a *long* time). The sarcophagus was a technological device that kept her in "stasis". Or...Divia was really not a *vampire* at all, but a vengeful vampire *spirit*, a poltergeist gone corporeal. >the institutionalized incest of the Egyptians really disgusted them. Mmmm...makes me wonder if Divia's desire for Dad was due to her master's influence. :) In AMPH, I thought Divia was more angry at her father for not acknowledging her than had the hots for him. >LaCroix somehow *not* realizing that between Urs' "nightmare" and >the body that *something* knew too much about him and was out to >get him. One of the "out of character" bits, I thought. Actually, I thought LC was wondering if some other vampire (like an Enforcer) had found out what he did to Divia and had come to call him on it (we don't, after all, know what vampire society thinks of children killing their masters). But I can't imagine LC being worried about any other vampire being after him (which still makes it out of character). (to be continued in part 2b) --Sandra Gray, forever Knightie --tmp_harkins@d....... ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 02:37:51 -0500 From: Sandra Gray <TMP_HARKINS@d.......> Subject: SPOILERS: Ashes to Ashes (ep 21) Take 2 (2b/2b) This is part 2b of a two part post. J.S. Levin/Stormsinger writes: >So metaphysical a method of death for Vachon and Urs that not even >LaCroix can explain it -- which is counter to *everything* we've >seen for the past three seasons. Damn straight! It was *totally* beyond necessary and introduces more *crap* into the universe that we don't need. Apache writes: >if Lacroix falls in love with a mortal, I'd say he might, like >Janette, run up against the 'human factor' himself. And that doesn't seem to bother anyone (no one's protested this statement). Goes to show just how *human* they've already made LC that such a statement would be made. So, Cousins (and other LC appreciators), how do you reconcile this statement with LC being a good *vampire*? I can't believe people can't see how LC's character has been so degraded. >When Hamid's brother opens the other sarcophagus, is *he* in for a >surprise! Divia was in the same sarcophagus as her master, so if he's alive, he's escaped too already. >Divia's master was...Satan? Geez, I hope not. But this episode seemed to take every trite tenet of "evil" and parade it before us, so it wouldn't surprise me to see L&B think in such uninspired terms that such is the case. Or at least that Divia's master was granted his power by Satan. Then again, maybe they were, as Toni Spadina speculated, ripping off Anne Rice's _Queen of the Damned_ (which is a definite possibility which I might have noticed had I not been distracted by St. Germain parallels in Francesca). In which case, we SF lovers still have a shot since it can be speculated that the cause of vampirism in Rice's universe is infection by an alien being. :) But L&B were sure pounding on the *evil* in this one. :P >the more generations you are away from the source, the less powerful >the pull of evil inherent in vampirism is -- and therefore the more >vulnerable to a biological, as well as metaphysical, "cure" the >"virus" is. Depends on how far down the line. If Divia's master was one step from the source, then Nick is only the fourth generation. That's not so far removed and would tend to argue against your theory. Divia says her master was among the first of their kind. Of course he could have lied maybe. But then how come Divia was so powerful? This idea smacks of Anne Rice and Vampire: the Masquerade. Meredith Pickering writes: >Unless the master was nothing more than a pile of ashes, where'd he >go? Well, it had only been 20 years since Divia killed him, so maybe he hadn't had time to regenerate when LC put Divia in with him. But by now he should have regenerated just like Divia. So either he's out and about again, or Divia and her master fused into one being. >He was older than Divia, and she managed to kill him (permanently)? Yeah, that was unbelievable to me too. Since she survived, I doubt she killed him permanently either. Apache writes: >he chased Urs out but wanted Tracy to stay -- so much wanted her >around that he asked for the world's toughest favor: help me die. I think he knew that Urse wouldn't be able to kill him, due to their vampire relationship to each other (besides, if Urse couldn't kill herself...). Otherwise, I think he would have asked Urse to do it. Sara Orel writes: >It does answer the question of where Laacroix lives, but not what >his quarters look like. Yes, I was glad of that statement, since I thought LC lived in the Raven too. Janette lived there and we saw parts of her place in AMPH and Close Call. The question is--did LC redecorate after she left? Toni Spadina writes: >Do you all think a vampire is evil simply because he exists? No. Nick is proof of that. Even though he considers himself evil, I don't think he is. >A vampire doesn't follow a moral code...He follows the code of >survival. But some vampires (like LC) do evil that is not in any way dependant on their survival. Janette Z writes: >It was like... fan fiction!!! Makes me wonder how much of this episode (and past episodes) has been influenced by comments we've made on this list. Stephanie Babbitt writes: >Nick seems to forget that he recently wished LaCroix dead. That's it! He doesn't remember due to the injury he suffered in Night in Question! LC didn't fill in all of his "blanks". >I think his quest for humanity took a major blow to the chin. If >Dad has a good side...then what's so bad, really, about being a >vampire? Turning into Divia? I would think just the opposite would be the case with Nick. He knows how evil LC can be, and seen that Divia is even more evil, and LC (if he told him) could perceive the greater evil of Divia's master. The older you are, the more evil you can be. :) Nick may have decided instead that it's even *more* vital to find his way back to mortality, so he won't risk turning more evil with more age. Leslie Plummer writes: >How about if it WAS THE LOCKET which upon which Divia homed in to >find her father?!!! But there's no guarantee that the locket would still exist. We have past evidence in the show of LC following Nick around, turning up like a bad penny whenever Nick was close to a cure. Unless he was homing in on the *watch* he gave Nick, I'd say it was just telepathic awareness of LC that Divia used to find him. Gehirn Karies writes: >I think that it is perfectly sane and logical to believe that Trace >will pull the stake out before she buries Vachon, I don't remember it being there when Nick observed them. Margie Hammet writes: >Divia was going after a few vampires that LC was friendly with, so >that other vampires would feel it was unsafe to be around LC. But not that much time seemed to pass before she went for LC. Although I wonder what the vampires would have done (or did) for food if they were leery of going to the Raven. >I wonder if Divia was jealous of Dad's favorite? :) I don't know if she had time to be jealous. Karen Parker (Ceirdwin) writes: >They were, I assume, buried inside that tomb thingy after Pompeii >was covered in ashes from the volcano. The tomb was in Egypt. We were shown in A More Permanent Hell LC and Divia standing outside as ash fell, but it didn't look like they were in danger of being buried in it. Roxanne Piccen writes: >BTW, is this the first time she's (Urse) vamped out. I think so. I don't remember ever seeing her flash fangs before. >But when it came right down to it, she didn't just give up and die. Yes, I liked that. Urs was a bit like Nick in her outlook, but she must have treasured life (even as a vampire) as much as he usually does. >Why the heck didn't Nick attack Divia as soon as she appeared in >the loft? Beats me. >(did he clean up the elevator that quickly) Maybe vampire blood when it dries flakes away, making it easy to vacuum up. :) >I'm going to miss her. Me too. But, like most of the new characters, TPTB didn't seem to know what to do with her (or maybe just didn't *want* to do much with her). Tammy Stephanie Davis writes: >When she asked then demanded that Lacroix make love to her, you >*know* there was no way he would have left that tomb alive unless >he complied with Divia's wishes. I wondered why she didn't exercise more of a "master" control of LC and *induce* him to obey her. Jenn writes: >One of the most telling bits to that scene...was when he looked up >at all the darkened windows, and saw that no one was helping. I got the impression he was looking for a trap myself, or another vampire. >did anyone else think there was anything going on between Urs and >Lacroix? I thought it felt more like, "Uh-oh. Dad caught us." Lynn Messing writes: >why does Divia not know about her (Janette)? I don't know. She hadn't read LC's mind enough? She was anxious to get back at LC *now*? >Or did she know about J, fly to her (off screen), and kill her, too? That would have been within her character, certainly, although I hope she didn't do that. Surely, even if Janette is *Nick's* child now, she *did* spend a majority of her existence as *LC's* child, which should have made her a target. >Wait! could all of this episode be *LC*'s guilt-induced hallucination/ >dream/whatever? That's it (except it's not guilt-induced)! :) My opinion of this ep has dropped some since my original review (Francesca too), so that I'd like to see it not be real, I think. But maybe I'm just feeling down because the last episode for now is going to be airing Sunday night. --Sandra Gray, forever Knightie --tmp_harkins@d....... ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 03:36:15 -0400 From: Deborah Bender <DBendr@a.......> Subject: Blood Knowledge (no spoiler) I checked out of the lists and the show several weeks ago and just got back yesterday to read the debate over whether vampires retain the memories they pick up from individuals whose blood they drink. I think I can reconcile Gillian Horvath's reported comment with Last Act. Horvath reportedly said that the memories transferred in the blood only last two hours. I imagine that this refers to the sense memories of the experience, by which the vampire who has fed recollects the experience as if it had happened to him. It makes sense to me that this memory would fade out when the blood had been digested or assimilated. Once the blood is gone, the vividness of the memory would fade out, along with the sensory details, and any accompanying reflexes, skills or reactions belonging to the person fed upon. But I don't see why that would prevent the vampire from storing a memory about the memory, in the same way that we remember incidents from books we have read, or an anecdote someone told us, or something that happened to us so long ago that we no longer have an immediate recollection of it, but only remember what we later thought or said about it. A vampire could in this way learn facts about a person (or vampire) that he had garnered from the blood memory, and retain that information indefinitely. Deborah Bender DBendr@a....... I edit a quarterly Craft magazine called The Witches Trine. Email me for details. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 10:08:43 -0500 From: "Stormsinger/J.S. Levin" <wabbit@e.......> Subject: SPOILER: AtA: Maturity (also HF SPOILER) A lot of people have been wondering why Divia went after the people she did and in the order she did. I think what we are missing is the fact that, for all her *chronological* age, Divia is no more than 12 or 14 *physical/emotional* years old. Whatever her chronological age, whatever her experience, much of Divia's thoughts and reactions will be those of a teenager. She finds LaCroix's club, and then sees Urs and Vachon apparently at their ease in it when no one else is around. Conclusion: these two are close to LaCroix, or he wouldn't let them in when the club is closed, and wouldn't allow them into what is obviously the private area of the club. My question is why she waited to strike Nick after having trashed Urs. Urs, hard as she fought, didn't seem to do any significant damage (any more than anyone else, including LaCroix!). Why didn't she immediately go for Nick, like when he's kneeling in stunned horror on the floor of the elevator? It really didn't seem to be part of Divia's nature to wait, and her brand of psychological torture would have been served equally well. Why didn't she go after Janette? Janette, quite simply, wasn't there. Also, LaCroix lost mental touch with her when Nick brought her back over at the end of Human Factor -- Divia could have interpreted that as Janette being dead already. After all, *she* has no reason to think anything else. Storm 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: Sat, 18 May 1996 11:30:44 -0400 From: "Margaret L. Carter" <MLCVamp@a.......> Subject: Re: Spoiler: LK (end) I find this episode credible right up until the final scene. It makes sense that Nick and Natalie's feelings would come to a crisis after forcing themselves to stay apart for so long; now Nat is faced with the suicide note and Nick with the loss of Tracy, esp. when he thinks it's his fault (again!). Natalie is making sense, at last! (If only Nick would listen.) Not everything is his fault, his good deeds ARE making up for his earlier crimes, their love can conquer adversity, and it's better to be together (even as vampires with the hope of a cure, maybe, in the future) than to renounce that love. Nat has every right to demand closure. Nick's final request to LaCroix seems (to me) perfectly in character, since he's a world-class virtuoso of guilt and despair. LaCroix's apparent character change, as some conceive of it (and dislike): I see it as a maturing process. Imagine spending almost 2000 years as a one-note "evil" hedonist. Also, I agree with the person who suggested that the first-season impression of LC as totally evil comes from seeing him through flashbacks in Nick's memory. When we see him in the present, (a) he has had time to change; (b) we see the real person rather than the "devil" Nick's memory has created. Hey, I absolutely loved the redemption of Darth Vader! Now, back to the climax of LK: Nick's reaction to his draining of Nat seems entirely in character. Right down to his failure to stop and think that suicide (which is what his request to LC amounts to) is far from a guarantee of reunion with one's beloved in the hereafter! The strict doctrine of the Catholic faith in which he was brought up would send him straight to Hell for suicide. At the very least, he should expect several millennia in Purgatory. That's a long time to wait for a reunion. However, I do not think killing him would be in character for LC. So I don't believe LC goes through with it. At first I visualized LC driving the stake into the floor, to give Nick a good scare and wake him up to the reality of what he is asking for. Then I decided that wouldn't be strong enough. I visualize LC staking Nick, then removing the stake shortly after (he could also use a dose of blood to restore Nick to "health"). Meanwhile, having resigned himself to the fact that Nick just is not going to let go of Nat, LC transforms her (he said she was on the brink -- there is no direct statement that she has died at any point). Then, when Nick regains consciousness, he has experienced another near-death ordeal, which ought to sober him up -- and he now has the *fait accompli* of Nat as a vampire, LaCroix's "gift" to him (just as Nick was LaCroix's gift to Janette, apparently). The responsibility of teaching her should get his mind off his guilt, and Nat's steadying influence will keep him from backsliding into killing again. Yep, that's how I see it. Of course, Janette is out there somewhere. The rivalry between her and Nat-as-a-vampire could get a bit awkward for Nick. Not to mention Nat's status as LaCroix's "child" rather than Nick's. I doubt that LC has completely gotten over his drive to control his family. I loved watching Nick and Nat declare their love -- finally! That's what I've been waiting through the whole series to see; too bad we had to wait for the very end. And I also think Nick should have spent some time on foreplay. Maybe that's why he has a bad track record with self-control. He needs some guidance -- know anybody who performs vampire sex therapy? (Maybe I should refer him to my character Roger, a psychiatrist who's a vampire.) And I wish Tracy had been able to know about Nick before the instant of her death. Overall, though, I do have to agree that this is the most depressing series finale I have ever seen. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 11:50:53 -0500 From: Sandra Gray <TMP_HARKINS@d.......> Subject: Re: SPOILER: AtA: Maturity (also HF SPOILER) J.S. Levin/Stormsinger writes: >Why didn't she immediately go for Nick, like when he's kneeling in >stunned horror on the floor of the elevator? I think she wanted news of Urse' death to get back to LC (and it could have been a longer time than she wanted before that happened if she killed Nick). Remember, Divia phoned the police station to report the body in the Raven. I don't think it was coincidence that she got connected to Nick's desk; I think she asked to speak to Nick. For all we know, Urse' decision to see Nick about Vachon could also have been Divia meddling with her mind. --Sandra Gray, forever Knightie --tmp_harkins@d....... ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 12:53:57 -0400 From: "Margaret L. Carter" <MLCVamp@a.......> Subject: Re: SPOILER: FK (Nick & LC) I'm glad to see that someone else independently (I posted before I'd read it) agrees with the notion of LC giving Nick a nonfatal wound and then bringing Nat across (fits with LaCroix's "I know what's best for you, and who cares what you think" attitude -- "He left out freedom" "So would I"). LC knows that if he doesn't appear to comply with Nick's last request, Nick will probably get desperate and do something really final on his own. A possible advantage to Nat not being Nick's "child" -- they can interact, as vampires, on more of an equal than a hierarchical (sp?) basis. Something occurred to me last night -- NICK DOES NOT REALLY WANT TO DIE. He is forcing his "Father" / "closest friend" to take the decision out of his hands. If he were not ambivalent about wanting to die, he would just walk into the sunrise. It's analogous to a suicide who takes pills and then phones a friend, instead of shooting herself (which she would do if she unambivalently wanted to end her life). Like Admiral Boorda. As a Navy couple, my husband and I have been much preoccupired with this event since it happened. My husband came up with what I consider a real on-target insight: The Admiral's suicide sends the message (from the highest officer in the Navy!) that if I can't be perfect, I don't deserve to live. Isn't that the way Nick has often seemed to behave, too? Refusal to tolerate anything less than perfection in oneself -- to make imperfection a cause for fatal despair -- is a sign of overweening pride, the sin that all Christian traditions identify as the fundamental sin, the root of all others. Nick can look forward to a really LONG time in Purgatory, if he does die now. (But I don't believe LC kills him, for reasons stated earlier.) Between the end of FK / multiple deaths in the show and Boorda's suicide, I have felt quite down the last few days. A lot of people would think it's a bit sick to equate fictional characters with the loss of a real live person. Is it? I feel a little guilty about this reaction. But OTOH, I didn't know Boorda personally (my husband was slightly acquainted with him, having served in BuPers when he commanded the Bureau); to me he is a name in the newspaper. I know Nick and Nat a lot better. There is some sense in which fictional characters become "real" to others in a special way, which doesn't negate the greater, eternal importance of actual people with immortal souls. Sigh -- enough for now. Margaret Carter Nick and Natpacker who believes there is always hope for the future. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 10:17:55 -0700 From: Cynthia Hoffman <choff@v.......> Subject: Re: Spoiler: LK (end) We've now watched this twice ... both of us (Jane's here too) liked it a lot, and have been reading the spoiler posts with great interest. Just a brief response here ... more later, I'm sure. On Sat, 18 May 1996, Margaret L. Carter wrote: > Meanwhile, having resigned himself to the fact that Nick just is not > going to let go of Nat, LC transforms her (he said she was on the > brink-- there is no direct statement that she has died at any point). Others have said this before. Why would LC do this? He says to Nick "Wise choice." That doesn't sound to me like a man who's going to look at Nick and say "oh well, sonny boy wants it so I guess I'll bring her across." On the other hand, if LC did do it, Nick would have to explain to Nat why the last thing she got from his blood was his clinch with Janette ... not to mention why LC had to do it instead of Nick. I mean Nick doesn't ALWAYS have trouble stopping, now does he? > I loved watching Nick and Nat declare their love -- finally! That's what When did this happen? Having sat through this episode twice, I still haven't heard Nick declare his love to Nat. I heard her say he needed to love her the way she loved him ... he just said it was too dangerous. The other time he just stayed silent. Is this that subtext thingie again that I can never see? > the very end. And I also think Nick should have spent some time on foreplay. Yeah. Well they could have at least made it to the bedroom. Janette and Robert had clearly made love ... maybe that's one (of many) of the missing pieces. TTFN. Cynthia (with Jane) Cynthia Hoffman/choff@v....... Raven ** IB ** MBDtK We cater to the occasional fetishist ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 13:23:18 -0500 From: Sandra Gray <TMP_HARKINS@d.......> Subject: Last Knight Speculations I won't see LK until midnight Sunday (early Monday) here, but I thought it would be fun to post some of my speculations about it. I haven't been reading any of the spoilers. First, I think it's possible that Divia has survived and that she will possess one of the following people: Urs, Vachon, Nick or LC. If she possesses Nick, he may go on a killing rampage and Nat will be one of his victims. Killing her may so distress Nick that it will give him the strength he needs to fight off the possession, but he will be so upset, he'll kill himself (I hope this doesn't happen). Part of Nick's final redemption will depend on his ability to forgive LC for making him a vampire in the first place. Nick's reaction to LC in AtA certainly shows he has the capacity to make such a decision. Nick has to get past blaming LC and his own vampirism for all of his problems before he can be "saved". However, it also seemed to me that in AtA *LC* was being set up for a change in his thinking and a possible redemption. If this happens, it will confirm my worst fears--that TPTB have lost total sight of the show's premise that it's supposed to be *Nick's* story and I will probably *hate* the episode if this is what happens. The show is not supposed to be "Forever LaCroix". If LC *does* get redeemed ( :P ), talk about casting all the past eps in a new light!!! We would have to go back to see how each ep impacted on *LC's* character. And assume the voiceover is not just a narration on Nick too. :) I will not read any responses (if there are any) to this post until after seeing LK, since I'm still trying to avoid being spoiled on LK. --Sandra Gray, forever Knightie --tmp_harkins@d....... ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 13:35:15 -0400 From: "M. Vrzoc" <vrzoc@s.......> Subject: Wanted Long Spoiler for Last Knight I thought I saved this detailed, transcript of the final episode ... but I didn't. Could someone forward me a copy? Many thanks. M. Vrzoc (vrzoc@u.......) | Just a little off the top! | -- A. Boleyn ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 13:38:43 -0400 From: Sharon Bhandari <sbhanda@e.......> Subject: Last Knight--tears Here's some space because I know some of you will not be watching until tonight: * * * * * * * * * * * * Ok, did anyone catch that a *clear* tear fell down Nick's face when LaCroix is talking about the strength of Nick's faith? You can really see it fall down his right cheek when LaCroix says "So, in your eyes I am the devil." I do know that I am not seeing things since everyone else I saw this episode with saw the tear as well (Hi! - waving- I don't think I could have gotten through watching this episode alone. Thanks for being there!) What do you all think this means? I think I am still too stunned to make a coherent argument, but I will say that I am glad that they left it ambiguous on this point. What I mean is, when we were contemplating this episode earlier this year some wondered if he would become mortal or not. This way, we are just not sure. Do you think her blood did something unusual to him? As someone said before, he must have been getting something good, like all her love, for him to keep on drinking. On another note, I really enjoyed the Romeo and Juliet allusions. Especially in the scene between Nick and Nat in the end where she is talking to him about her faith and love. Her words reminded me of Juliet's words to Romeo: "My bounty is as boundless as the sea, My love as deep; the more I give to thee, The more I have, for both are infinite." I think these are the perfect words for Nat at this time. In contrast to LaCroix, she does represent another type of infinite power. However, i am reluctant to say that they are opposite powers since I do think that LaCroix loves Nick. Ug, I need a support group or something!!! Sharon Bhandari Natpacker (and I think some Cousinly tendencies are peeking through) sbhanda@e....... =========================================================================
Previous |
This month's list |
Next |