File: "FKSPOILR LOG9605" Part 41 TOPICS: SPOILER: LAST KNIGHT A request.. SPOILER: LK (My warped mind:)) (2) (spoiler)LK: Love; ending... Spoiler: Last Knight (2) SPOILERS: Last Knight Last Knight-magic bullets SPOILER: Last Knight (& some Ashes to Ashes) SPOILER: Last Knight Spoiler LK: misogyny SPOILERS: LAST KNIGHT Rationalizations! Get your red-hot rationalizations here! :> (2) Spoilers:(not really)LK:Not just de big river in Egypt Spoiler: Last Knight affiliations "I'm too <blank> to kill" Wild thought... SPOILER: last knight: Natalie. SPOILERS: Last Knight (ep 22) ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 22:59:03 +0500 From: John Folden <jtfolden@e.......> Subject: Re: SPOILER: LAST KNIGHT > From: "LC Fenster" <lucienlc@i.......> > >S > > > >P > > > >O > > > >I > > > >L > > > >E > > > >R > > > > > >S > > > >P > > > >A > > > >C > > > >E > > > > >No, Nick doesn't go back for a second drink. He leans down and kisses > >Natalie on her right check and tells LaCroix "I can't condemn her to > >this darkness." > > It's not quite that clear. The way it was shot, frankly, you can't > tell. Nick leans over her, and since the shot is from behind, you > can't tell what he's doing, though I think he is drinking. It seems to > match the script, where he is NOT vamped out when he takes the second > drink. But it is ambiguous, and if one wants to believe that he's > only kissing her, one can. Certainly, at the end, when he rises, he > was kissing her. After watching the episode, I tend to believe he was NOT drinking a second time. If you listen closely in the background, you can hear what sounds like a "kiss" and then you hear it again when you actually see him kissing her cheek. The biggest thing is, of course, that there are no teeth marks on that side of her neck and there's no evidence on screen to suggest that he turned her head to bite the other side in the same spot as the first time. Nick didn't want to take her life anymore than he had already done and I suppose wanted her to "drift off" on her own. > However, what is not ambiguous is the fact that LC told him he had a > choice: bring her across or let her die, and he chose to let her die. > Whether he drank again or not. "I can't condemn her to this darkness." It also seems quite evident that she apparently wasn't dead YET, as least not by the last shot...It does seems to be an ambiguous ending for both her and Nick...Tracy, sad to say(fo some, I guess), seems to be entirely out of the running... John ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 23:05:49 -0400 From: Carrie Krumtum <CKrumtum@g.......> Subject: Re: A request.. >How *did* Tracy end up with a bullet in the *back* of her >head? I could see how she got shot in the stomach, but in the back of >her head? Must've been one of those Magic Bullets. Richocet. > 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, 19 May 1996 22:07:54 -0600 From: Crystal Guffey <guffeyc@t.......> Subject: SPOILER: LK (My warped mind:)) A thought just occurred to me a few minutes ago, I wonder if all the scenes of LC doing his treatises on love, etc. could really have taken place after Nick handed him the stake? Think about the things he says, and how they would fit in so well at that juncture. He is asking Nick is he really ready to make this sacrifice, he's seen "him" smell the sea, look at the stars, etc. This could be a whole LC dialogue to Nick to talk him into reconsidering his ambiguous "death." There is much more, but it has been a little while since I have seen it. I'm sure some brilliant person will come along and point out something I have forgotten about that would make this impossible. But it does seem something interesting to ponder. Crystal, A Vaquera Guffeyc@t....... ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 21:53:12 -0500 From: Margie Hammet <treeleaf@i.......> Subject: Re: (spoiler)LK: Love; ending... At 05:35 PM 5/19/96 -0400, Margaret L. Carter wrote: >I hate "it was all a dream" solutions and will be furious if that >is the tack taken by any future TV movie. I think I could take it if the part from the moment Nick walked into the loft to find Natalie there was all some sort of LaCroix induced dream of Nick's, that LaCroix created to try to get Nick away from Natalie. OTOH, after this episode, I no longer trust what I used to think was the vision of the creative Powers That Be (i.e. Parriot or whomever), and I don't trust a future TV movie to be any more satisfying than this episode was. I hope I'm wrong. Margie (treeleaf@i.......) N&NPacker The Unnamed Faction ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 20:20:23 -0700 From: Cynthia Hoffman <choff@v.......> Subject: Spoiler: Last Knight Re Laurie's scorpion story ... Nick never forgot about the nature of the vampire ... he tried to make sure Natalie paid attention to the nature of the vampire ... she said she didn't care. Cynthia and Jane, being prolific ... Cynthia Hoffman/choff@v....... Jane Credland/janes@i....... Raven ** IB ** MBDtK We cater to the occasional fetishist ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 22:31:14 -0500 From: TippiNB <Tippinb@i.......> Subject: Re: SPOILER: LK (My warped mind:)) Crystal wrote: > He is asking Nick is >he really ready to make this sacrifice, he's seen "him" smell the sea, >look at the stars, etc. This could be a whole LC dialogue to Nick to talk >him into reconsidering his ambiguous "death." There is much more, but it Well, you found something I liked about this ep besides Tracy's last line. I liked all of LC's little monologues, although I did want to drop kick him for wasting precious time! I mean, I love a LC monologue as much as the next Cousin, but I mean, there is a time and a place for everything. NB's delivery of the monologues was excellent, the text well-written, etc. It tweaked my little UF heart. But I would've gladly traded all of them for this season to have ended with Ashes. Wicked Cousin Tippi, dollar bill wrangler of the Thong Throng! *Charter Member of the Unnamed Faction*Voyeur of the Menage LaCroix* Come, dip your chip in the Velveeta Glory of LaCroix. http://www.netcom.com/~tippinb/wicked.html ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 23:21:01 -0500 From: "[M A Martin]" <mmartin@b.......> Subject: SPOILERS: Last Knight Just my 2 cents on how Tracy got a bullet in the back of her head- No problem. Perhaps she turned to look left or right and the bullet entered the side of her head at the back? Meg (mmartin@b.......) "Failure is not an option. It is just a nagging possibility that helps me stay focused." Yeah, right... ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 23:24:38 -0400 From: Michelle Mark <Raindance2@a.......> Subject: Last Knight-magic bullets <<How *did* Tracy end up with a bullet in the *back* of her <<head? I could see how she got shot in the stomach, but in the back of <<her head? Must've been one of those Magic Bullets. Yeah...and I think it came from the grassy knoll..... Cousin Michelle ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 23:25:32 -0400 From: Jennie Hayes <Finabair@a.......> Subject: SPOILER: Last Knight (& some Ashes to Ashes) Overall impressions: Wow. I find there is a *lot* of potential for the story to continue from this episode, and that's mostly all I wanted. But I was relieved to see that they gave Tracy a good death. I would rather she were alive, but I think that unless the whole ep is another 'Curiouser and Curiouser' (which is what I thought the episode resembled more than anything else) she has to be gone. It would be interesting if this whole thing were LaCroix's reacting to the guilt of what he did to Divia/what Divia did to Urs and Vachon. But I ramble. I actually have some specific responses to make this time... Cynthia and Jane wrote: >has no life without Nick, which underly this episode, are misogynistic. >However, this is the set of assumptions that has underlaid Nat's >character since Dark Knight. They are a large part of the reason why I have to disagree with part of this. Throughout first season, Natalie was portrayed as a normal woman, with an otherwise normal life, who happened to have gotten a little bit tangled with this vampire. She never really regrets anything except that once in awhile she wishes there were someone special in her life (Only the Lonely). Even then, I had a strong impression that *that* was more her way of trying to get herself less attached to Nick. Like she realizes that a relationship with Nick would be bad for her and is trying to find a way to distract herself - i.e. a different man. Obviously it wasn't working, but it's a totally different underlying assumption than we tend to see now. I will agree, however, that in *this* episode, and in several others throughout second and third season, there has been a lot of the attitude that Natalie has no life without a man. I think that's regrettable, because most of her actions and statements (especially those in this last episode) would make perfect sense simply from the fact that since the series started, she has lost a brother, a goddaughter, and several friends. Nick really may be pretty much all she has left by the end of this episode. That doesn't mean she needs a *man*, specifically, just that she needs *someone*. However, the way most people seem to take it (I mean characters on the show, here...), she'd be all better with a man in her life to take care of her. Sheesh. I think I'll stop talking now. :) >Ger's directing was great with one single exception. That morgue scene >makes for a very queasy stomach. It doesn't get any better on future Here, have some dramamine. It helps a little. ;-) I found that it distracted from the scene a lot. It made it seem totally unreal, which may have been some of the intent but it went a bit overboard, IMHO, and into seeming downright silly. On the other hand, the scene in the morgue with Nat reading Laura's journal was *superb*. I loved the way the balance was swinging like a ticking clock. >Fred's music was wonderful. It didn't overwhelm the episode, nor was it >sentimental. It added a dimension to the episode instead. I agree. I like the fact that the final note we heard struck in the episode sounded like a church bell. It gave an interesting flavor to that ending. >The script and the acting were equally good. No matter how anyone feels I thought the acting was superb. I had some problems with the script overall. It seemed a bit rushed, IMO. >Those tears were Ger's ... not Nick's. They probably didn't have enough >tape or money to re-shoot the scene. Either that, or Nick's search for humanity has changed them as well, now. I didn't really have any problem with Nick having non-blood tears. >Tracy: No Nick should NOT have trusted her. Witness how she was >killed: by walking directly into the line of fire when Nick almost had But as far as his being a vampire, she was perfectly capable of trusting him and keeping his secret, and he *knew* that. Despite several times where he was deliberately making it difficult to keep what she knew about Vachon secret, she never said a word to Nick about him. She wasn't like Schanke, for whom vampires didn't even exist, she knew they existed. >vampire. A GOOD cop does not move into the line of sight of someone that This was a foolish move on her part. No argument there, but this was an unusual circumstance and she made a mistake. There have certainly been mistakes on the part of cops before. >Tracy is definitely 100% dead. They pulled the sheet over her head. To >quote an original cousin: Bye Button. Well, yes and no. If at any point there is more FK, they can bring her back if they want her back. No matter what we say...<g> >And, by the way, Nat was wrong to stop him. She constantly tells Nick >that he has no right to make decisions for other people. How dare she >make this kind of decision for Tracy. Oh, and as for "how can you do >this for Tracy and not for me", Tracy was DYING. Nat was still alive and She didn't say stop at any point. She brought up considerations that he hadn't taken into account, which is what she's always done for him. He's the one who made the decision and stopped. And while she wasn't dying, she was willing. With Tracy he simply couldn't know whether or not she was willing. That was the whole point of her comments. And it's been a problem with Nick - he does tend to forget to take what *others* want into consideration, and then he gets confused when they don't want what he wanted for them. >it. But Nat couldn't leave well enough alone. She pushed .. and pushed >.. and pushed him into it. She pushed all the right buttons because she >knew what they were. Nick needs to feel loved and trusted. Did it ever occur to you that Natalie *does* love and trust him? The things she is telling him are sincere. She can't continue to live the existence she is living. To her, the best option is if she can truly be close to Nick, which she can't unless she's brought across or he's brought back. The only other option would be to shut Nick out of her life completely, and I don't think she can do that. She'd feel like she'd abandoned him, and after all the times she's told him not to abandon her that would be hypocritical. She has manipulated him in the past, with Richard (I Will Repay). To me, this was nothing like that. >she told him HE loved and trusted her >even when he was expressing his doubts about that very fact. As much as >we hate blaming the victim, in this case ... Not the way I heard it. He said she didn't want his love, and she corrected his assumption. At least, that's how the dialogue went... >Then there is the "sex" scene. If you can call it that. Janette became >mortal because she and Robert MADE LOVE. Nick fed. His idea of foreplay Yeah, well, I was watching with a friend and we probably woke my neighbors yelling, "FOREPLAY, NICK!" This is one of the places where I felt the script was too rushed, like they were trying to fit too much into that one hour so they failed to include things that should have been there. In fact, I think this was the most blatant point where I thought the script was weak. >Oh, and what was that 180 degree shift in her thinking. (snip) >Wasn't it only four years ago that >she was telling him that capturing criminals and saving people with the >help of the vampire didn't count? Actually, the dialogue with Nat in that one is that she was trying to get him to avoid using his abilities because she felt his using them might interfere with a cure. She asks him something like, "and you couldn't have caught him without the vampire?" He responds "Who cares *how* I did it?" and she replies, "You do." And she's right there. >more than made up for 800 years of past misdeeds? So, how long would he >be trapped in purgatory while Nat went on to other lives? This kind of Nat has never felt that he needs to atone. Nick does. That's been a very basic concept in the show from the beginning. >Nick was true to form. You can be angry at him for killing Natalie, but Actually I'm not, but then I don't think she's dead. The way it worked, she was either turned (which makes the most sense to me 'cuz she was getting his memories) or she will die without help. She's not dead when the scene is cut because otherwise it would be impossible for Nick to bring her across. We simply *don't* know what happened next. It certainly is ambiguous enough that there's no reason to assume Nat's dead unless we want to. As for what most likely happened with LaCroix, LC does not believe that Nick is going on to something better if he kills him. I think it's most likely that he *didn't* kill Nick, although it's possible that he did. I think he'd most likely want to keep Nick around, because that's what's best for Nick. He might, for once, have done what Nick wanted. Hard to say on that score. As for Natalie, while many people don't even take the idea seriously, LC has good reason to Nat fascinating - she's the only person we've ever seen him misread on the show. (Fever) By the same token, he might view her as dangerous but I can't believe it's within LC's scope to think that a vampire so much younger than he could pose a serious threat to him. There is no reason why he might not want her brought across, and if that's the best way to ensure Nick won't try to do himself in as soon as LC goes elsewhere, assuming LC didn't kill Nick, then I'd assume that's what he'd do. Again, assuming Nick didn't already bring her across. And I really don't believe that just because LaCroix verbally agreed with Nick that that's what he's thinking. I've always maintained that some of what makes LaCroix so dangerous is that he's always got plans nobody knows about or guesses at. Which is partially because he *doesn't* always tell us what he's thinking. >the truth. To Nick, Lacroix is not the devil; he is Nick's closest friend. And yet, *this* is an ironic turnaround from 'Va au diable' or however that's spelled. I don't know French. <g> >Guess that shoots the "Lacroix is 100% evil in Nick's eyes" theory in the Nick's opinions swing around like a pendulum throughout the series. There was a time when LaCroix *was* 100% evil in Nick's eyes. He just isn't right now. I think that LaCroix's ploy of playing Nick's game for awhile has actually gained him some ground, but it's still a short step back to where the show started out at. >and bringing Janette across at the end of Human Factor. Then again, he >wanted to bring Janette across. Yes, this is key. I think Nick is really convinced that if he brings Nat across, she will cease to *be* Nat. Everyone he's brought across has apparently changed drastically, although I suspect he simply didn't know them before he brought them across and the change brought out personality traits he *couldn't* have known about. Also, nobody he's brought across has had any idea of what was going to happen to them, so they had no idea what they needed to control and he doesn't stay with them until they learn control, he kills them when they lose control and rampage. So he really does think that if Nat is turned, he will *lose* her. That's how I see his viewpoint here, anyhow. OK, I've gone on *more* than long enough. I had best stop now, as I'd never intended to go on this long. I agree that this ending is ambiguous enough for *lots* of debate, which I was happy to see. Take care, Jennie finabair@a....... ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 23:40:09 -0400 From: Deborah Menikoff <menikoff@p.......> Subject: SPOILER: Last Knight All of the below is, naturally, our opinion (Dianne is sitting here as well, so you'll have to take us as a pair today). You're welcome to disagree. In fact, go ahead:-) We'll make more. :-) Our motto is "If you don't laugh, you'll cry" so if you can't laugh at the pain this ep may cause you (and us --- really!) , then skip this post. *********************************** Ok, those dead, those alive: 1.) Tracy is dead. - why? - sheet over face. 2.) Nat isn't dead...yet.... First clue, LC says to Nick "You have a choice" (there was no further "draining" so presumably he still does have time. Second clue - her heartbeat was fading out but was still going. Third Clue - it *did* appear that the "wavy LC-cam" effect was Nat's POV. (whoever suggested this - we *like* it :-)))))) 3.) Nick - alive - why - did *you* see him die? Did *you* see him struck down by the Shillelagh of Death? We didn't, so he's not dead. 4.) Dawkins is dead so presumably he "doesn't have to go back". Back where ? Who knows. But he got what he wanted and he's pretty much the only one in the ep. Now - was this the *longest* night in Tornoto history? What *is* the timeline here? Next - there needs to be some serious evaluation of the way that Capt Reese runs his precinct. Hello? Can you say "handcuffs"? Apparently not. Bad captain - two thwacks with the Shillelagh of Death. :-) Next - having chased Dawkins through the longest and most complex maze of police hallways in Canada (the only set left one must assume since they made such thorough use of it), are we now to accept that Tracy is a "good cop" for following the armed, ranting and one presumes *dangerous* Delbert (Delbert?) into a dark locker room without telling anyone or going for help? I can't. Can you? LaCroix - could he stake? Yes. Would he stake? No. So what happened at the end? Glad you asked. We have a theory - several actually. We have Nat elegantly sprawled on the floor of Nick's spacious yet sparsely decorated loft. Nick kneels above. LC raises the Shillelagh of Death on high saying "Damn you Nicholas", and brings it down on Nick non fatally (staked or not - whatever works for you) -- *Then* goes on to repeat the rest of the monologues that we have seen throughout the ep. What then? Whatever you want - Nick goes with LC alone leaving Nat to die. Nick goes with LC after asking him to "finish" Nat off (You can't believe *HE*'s going to do it) Nick changes his mind and brings her across and the three of them (and the Shillelagh of Death) ride off into the sunset together - getting slightly singed in the processes. LC pins Nick down with the SofD and brings Nat across to use her to keep Nick around LC brings Nat across at Nick's request Nat could come across on her own after the duo (trio if you count the Shillelagh) leaves. After all, it's happened before. Nat could regain consciousness ever so briefly, whisper "Bring me across. I don't want to die." And being anxious to please, they do. It goes on and on.....and on and on... ************************************** Please don't think weren't affected by the ep. (I mean, surely it's *obvious* that we were). Don't think we are callously mocking your pain? We are just trying to find a way to enjoy our show. Deb and Dianne Lo' though he raiseth the Shillelagh of Death up on high saying "Oh Nicholas, you *did* think this through...didn't you?", there was no staking, for the governor calleth with the repreive. menikoff@p....... ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 23:56:02 +0500 From: John Folden <jtfolden@e.......> Subject: Re: Spoiler LK: misogyny > From: "Elizabeth Mosler" <emosler@l.......> > Me: > Excellent observations. Although I wonder if Natalie meant that her life > was nothing without love in it? Not so much the "having a man" part, but > just the experience of love itself. I tend to agree with you on this one...There she is, in love with a man she's known for 6 years and yet they've never really showed commitment and love to each other in a full-fledged relationship. Nat also mentioned in a previous episode (My Boyfriend Is A Vampire) that sometimes you need to be told that you're loved. John ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 00:01:28 +0500 From: John Folden <jtfolden@e.......> Subject: Re: SPOILERS: LAST KNIGHT Rationalizations! Get your red-hot rationalizations here! :> > From: "D Echelbarger" <gryphon@e.......> > with it, I'm gonna inflict all my rationalizations on y'all. I sent this (with Thanks! Gives me even more "improbable but positive" theories to chew on... :) ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 21:17:03 -0700 From: LC Fenster <lucienlc@i.......> Subject: Re: Spoiler: Last Knight Cynthia and Jane wrote: >Re Laurie's scorpion story ... >Nick never forgot about the nature of the vampire ... he tried to make >sure Natalie paid attention to the nature of the vampire ... she said >she didn't care. True enough, but I still must disagree with some of what you have said here and in earlier posts. There are certain times where you just have to say no, and this was one of those times for Nick. For Nick to take the attitude - heck, I've warned her of the dangers; she still wants it, okay, it's her funeral - is not acceptable, imo. Nick is not absolved of blame in this by virtue of "informed consent". Natalie is emotionally distraught: she's just lost a friend (Laura) and a colleague of long-standing (Tracy); she's seen Nick implicitly reject her again by being willing to bring Tracy across but not here (the AMPH flashback that they cut does make a difference in perspective here, but I choose to believe that's what she's thinking about even w/o the flashback). She's not entirely rational at the moment. She's questioning everything about her life. Yes, Nick is under enormous stress as well; he's just lost his second partner in less than a year, but that doesn't excuse his behavior. He knows better. He knows his limitations far better than Nat knows them. And he certainly knows better than to "try to make love" on an empty stomach, without first fortifying himself with plenty of human blood to reduce the compulsion to feed. If he truly loved Natalie, *truly* loved her, he would have said no, regardless of what she said or how she pleaded. It's that simple, imo. Of course, imo, the only reason he agreed to "make love" (which he then didn't do anyway) was his old bugaboo: guilt. Guilt that Nat had caught him ready to bring Tracy across when he wouldn't do the same for her. It isn't *faith* that's driving him: it's guilt. Plain and simple guilt. And when, as a result, it all goes wrong, he can't bring himself to bring her across because then he would have to admit to her either that (a) he didn't love her enough to become mortal, as Janette had or (b) he didn't love her enough to discipline himself to take only a little, so he was forced to make her a vampire. By letting her die instead, he is spared a world of awkward explanations and embarrassment. Then he asks LC to stake him, so he won't have to feel guilty about letting her die. It's all about guilt, as usual. Or you can take Sharon's position, that Nick knew LC would never stake him, but asks him, in order to *prove* his willingness to die, and atone for killing Natalie; and therefore, the fact that he does not die and atone can be conveniently blamed on LaCroix and he is absolved. This isn't about faith, or love, or nobility, or anything else good and noble and admirable. This is about gluttony, and self-indulgence, and lack of discipline and GUILT. And, imo, it was a truly sucky way to end a marvellous television series. Just my two cents. Laurie Cousin M+B+D+T+K ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 00:41:16 -0400 From: Jill Gillham <jilkey@g.......> Subject: Spoilers:(not really)LK:Not just de big river in Egypt Yes, I am going through De Nile big time. As I sit typing, the vcr downstairs is furiously taping Last Knight. I don't know if I'll ever watch it. I just know that BAD THINGS are going to happen. Darn it, I've got too much of an emotional investment in these folks to let them go like that. I couldn't watch Ashes to Ashes either. Am I weird or just a Pollyanna? Gouda Prime never happened Last Knight Never Happened Tessa is alive and living as a vampire in southern France Schanke is an immie and revived as soon as they pieced him together Colonel Blake was on a different chopper Jill Marie the Revisionist jilkey@g....... ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 02:05:14 -0700 From: Romina Campos <raven@a.......> Subject: Spoiler: Last Knight affiliations >We inadvertently came up with a new game at Tami's last (k)night >in trying to find <the> Cheesy Rationalization that could bring >Natalie back to life... >Don't know about you guys, but <I> need the distraction! Well, I have another game: After all the is <insert character name here> dead or not, I think new affiliation names are needed for: Those who think that no one died (innocents, disneys?) Those who think that LaCroix brought Nat across and that he didn't stake Nick Those who think that LaCroix brought Nat across and that he staked Nick (a valentine dream, isn't it?) Those who think that Nat is dead, but Nick isn't (more angst to our boy) Those who think that <gulp> Nick and Nat died (masochists imho) Then we could add the new affiliation to our sigs, for example you could be a innocent knigthie or masochists Natpacker, etc. Any ideas for the Last Knight affiliations names? P.S: I'd like to add myself to the those who wouldn't mind at all if Nick came and whammied me into forgetting "Last Knight." Romina raven@a....... NickNatpacker ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 01:12:06 +0500 From: John Folden <jtfolden@e.......> Subject: Re: SPOILERS: LAST KNIGHT Rationalizations! Get your red-hot rationalizations here! :> > I'm with those who say that Tracy's death isn't final because we never saw > her die. Some strange things have been known to occur in FK hospitals. We saw the nurse cover Tracy's face with a sheet, and then her body was carted away...that seems pretty final to me...(assuming the whole episode wasn't simply a knightmare Nick had "Last Knight", of course) John ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 01:39:09 -0400 From: "Tammy Pond [Digest]" <nightmist@g.......> Subject: "I'm too <blank> to kill" I'm reading commentary on Last Knight, and hubby's sitting on the bed trying to disect the finer points of Nicola Tesla's magnetic experiments and patents. And playing with magnets. I think RL is weird, forget fantasy... <laugh> Anyway, the challenge (I *like* this!): "I'm too TOUGH and STRINGY to kill" (I've got a button that says the poor are tough and stringy, sorry...) "I'm too YOUNG and CUTE to kill" No, wait, that's Tracy and it's - supposedly - too late for her. Okay, so they're lame, but they're all I can think of at this point. Maybe when my head stops reeling a little more I can think better. Tammy nightmist@g....... ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 01:51:50 -0400 From: "Tammy Pond [Digest]" <nightmist@g.......> Subject: Wild thought... I just noticed....four FKSPOILR digests in my mailbox, and they're all dated for Sunday. That's how much stuff hit the list. Scary... but not that surprising. Tammy Nightmist@g....... ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 22:51:13 PST From: June Russell <Kat@g.......> Subject: Re: SPOILER: last knight: Natalie. JMR wrote: :Last Knight diatribe follows. : :A :r :e :W :e :S :t :i :l :l :D :o :i :n :g :spoiler space? Well, better safe than sorry. :Nat has a life. But it's a life that, for six years, has had a vampire in :it. :Imagine the implications. No close friends, because she can't afford to :get too close; she's keeping too many secrets. I don't think that she has few friends because of Nick, but because of her job. Believe me, college (if you want to go to medical school), medical school and residency don't leave a lot of room for anything else but that one note: medicine. That is, if you want to look good for the PTB who will put in the good word for you for your medical school, residency program, first job. Some medical schools realize that it's all too easy to do as Nat used to (before Nick) and Lori did: give up your life for the job. I was very lucky in that from the first day at UoWashingtonMedSchool they harped on making sure that you don't do that. It looks as if Nat was not as lucky. :And slowly but surely over the course of :those years, Nick and his vampiric nature have taken over more and more of :her existence, of her thoughts, until there's no room left for anything :else. When Nick points out that she has a life now, she points out that it began 6 years ago, April 14, when she met him. I don't believe that it was the misogynistic "finally having a man in my life", but rather: "I have something in my life that forces me to do something besides my job and only my job. :{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{Hugs}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}} for the spoiler list. A hug to all of you out there on the list. Right now we are all hurting because we have seen the last new episode of the series. However, I think that there is hope. They changed the last scene to make it more ambiguous for a reason. I think it is so that we can have more FK in the form of miniseries or TV specials. JP is good at this. Look at how many Bionic specials there have been. It would be better in the long run for the actors. That way they can *enjoy* being in FK rather than seeing it as having to give up a lot (like NB in Avonlea) for FK. They can do more than one thing. Kat Kat ( June Russell ) pacifier.com!grendal!kat kat@g....... Heu! Tintinnuntius meus Sonat! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 02:00:58 -0500 From: Sandra Gray <TMP_HARKINS@d.......> Subject: SPOILERS: Last Knight (ep 22) I know this is probably a mistake to do and may not make much sense. But I watched Last Knight alone and I just need to say something. I am torn between feeling dead and feeling pain, by turns. Was this episode really necessary? Maybe once I've rewatched it--yes, I guess I must be a glutton for punishment, but I guess I feel the need to understand *why* this was made, *what purpose* it can possibly serve to end the show this way. I feel *betrayed* by TPTB and especially Michael Sadowski in particular. I don't understand why this was done. Can someone tell me why this was done? Anyone with any inside info? I rewatched the ending twice after watching the episode. It is supposed to come on another channel in about half an hour and maybe I'll watch it again, maybe not. I keep thinking of LC's line to Fleur, "That a cold, still heart could feel such pain." Well, I hope LC suffers a *hell* of a long time for what he did! I can't believe that after AtA LC would do such a thing. The episode was filmed and directed well for the most part. Kudos to Ger. It engaged me emotionally in several parts. When Tracy got shot, I felt sorry about her. But Nick didn't need more pain. When he was considering bringing Tracy over, I was actually saying, "No, Nick, don't do it" and crying. Then Nat...Nat...well, on the one hand I'm glad she stopped him, on the other hand, she just made things harder for Nick by asking him why he could bring Tracy over and not her (guess we know Nat wouldn't have minded being a vampire, huh?). And the scene between them in his apartment. Nat made a good speech, and although I'm not a Nick and Nat Packer (or whatever you folks call yourselves), I was hoping it would work. But Nick's been away from human blood too long, not to mention he's not been one to show much control in the past. Poor Nat (I didn't think I'd ever say that). She looked like she was afraid of the images she was getting from Nick (that was *cruel*, *cruel* in the extreme for a mortal to have to get such *crap* from the vampire who attacks them--where was the love, the good memories of the two of them, or do we just assume that Nick reverted to the animal--to the *beast*!). And then *LC* showed up! Silly me, I was telling Nick not to listen to LC, to bring Nat over before she died. It sure didn't help to have the sound of her heartbeat stop right there either! But of course Nick would never bring Nat over. I cry thinking about it. And then for Nick to want LC to... I guess we can assume Nick had forgiven LC by calling him his "closest friend". And I'm sure the rising sun was meant to symbolize that Nick and Nat had gone together to a better place. BAH! What it felt like to me was that Nick didn't want to deal with the pain anymore. And LC's poisonous words to make Nick doubt his faith even at the end!!!!!!!!!!! What a horrible thing to do to Nick!!!!! After three years of rooting for him to achieve mortality, *this* is the only mortality Nick gets?!?!?! Silly me filled out the Sony survey where they asked if Nick should become mortal or not in the last episode (I gave in to temptation, so sue me!). I wrote under "Why?" that if this was indeed the last episode of the show, then Nick deserved to get a shot at mortality. But if he achieved it, I didn't want to see him die right afterwards. Just goes to show how much attention they paid to my response, doesn't it? Ah, well, should have known it was a mistake to respond. Well, I guess if the show is to go on from here, there will have to be some *major* story rewriting to bring Nick back, huh? Then again, I guess we can always lobby for ***FOREVER LACROIX***!!! :P :P :P I'd love to see him rotting in hell!!! If anyone was offended by any of the above, I'll probably feel sorry about it later sometime. Right now though, I don't give a shit. --Sandra Gray, disenchanted and disgusted Knightie --tmp_harkins@d....... =========================================================================
Previous |
This month's list |
Next |