Home Page How I Found Forever Knight Forkni-L Archives Main Page Forkni-L Earlier Years
My Forever Knight Fanfiction Links E-Mail Me

FKSPOILR

Logfile LOG9605 Part 44

May 20-May 21, 1996

File: "FKSPOILR LOG9605" Part 44

	TOPICS:
	SPOILERS: Last Knight
	Spoiler: LK: Forevermores  (2)
	LK comments  (3)
	Ashes to Ashes request
	SPOILER: LK - Nat  (2)
	SPOILER: Last Knight Math  (2)
	SPOILER: LAST KNIGHT-- WATCH THOSE SUBJECT LINES!
	FKSPOILR Digest - LK spoilers
	Last Knight:  Blurred images explanation  (2)
	SPOILER: LK (HF), Distorted views
	SPOILER: LK
	Blood Knowledge (Francesca & AtA)
	SPOILER: AtA and HF
	Spoiler: LK (long)
	Spoiler: Last Knight
	Last Knight - Major Spoilers
	SPOILER: LK Details

=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 May 1996 20:03:37 -0400
From:         Mary Dutterer <Vulkurt@a.......>
Subject:      SPOILERS: Last Knight

*Absolve, Domine, animas omnium fidelium defunctorum ab omni vinculo
delictorum.*

I have watched this episode several times now.

*Et gratia tua illis succurrente, mereantur evadere judicium ultinonis.*

I have watched the show since Season One.  I remember seeing it with someone
I was quite enamored with at the time.  Someone who taught me a great deal
about life.

*Et lucis aeternae beautitudine perfrui.*

I have watched that relationship, along with others, fade and die.  One
constant thing was Forever Knight.  It was a sort of touchstone when all
around was dark and grey.

*In Paradisum deducant te Angeli.*

I do so wish that the show is brought back.  It has come back in the past.
 But, then again, it has never ended like this.

*In memoria aeterna erit justus:  ab auditione mala non timebit.*

This episode was a shining example of how great this show was, is, and will
always be.  It is, in my opinion, the best television show of all time.

*Dominus vobiscum.*

I shall miss this show a great deal.  The only other show I watch had its
last episode on this weekend.  Needless to say, this has been an exceedingly
unpleasant and sobering weekend.

*Libera me, Domine, de morte aeterna, in die illa tremenda:  Quando caeli
movendi sunt et terra:  Dum veneris judicare saeculum per ignem.  Tremens
factus sum ego, et timeo, dum discussio venerit, atque ventura ira.  Quando
caeli movendi sunt et terra.  Dies illa, dies irae, calamitatis et miseriae;
dies magna et amara valde.  Dum veneris judicare saeculum per ignem.  Requiem
aeternam dona eis.  Domine:  et lux perpetua luceat eis.  Libera me Domine de
morte aerterna in die illa tremenda:  quando caeli mo vendi sunt et terra:
 Dum veneris judicare saeculum per ignem.*

Thanks to everyone that ever had a hand in producing this show.  EVERYONE.
 You did an exceedingly good job.

*Kyrie, eleison.  Christe, eleison.  Kyrie, eleison.*

I wish you all the best of luck in the future, all of you.

*Requiescat in pace.*

There will never be another show like this, and of this caliber.

*Requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine.*

I think that the wobbly camera shots were Nat's POV.

*Et lux perpetua luceat eis.*

"...in his endless Forever Knight."

Vulkurt@a.......
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 May 1996 18:47:15 PST
From:         "P. L. Montgomery" <plcm@j.......>
Subject:      Re: Spoiler: LK: Forevermores

From: Jamie Melody Randell <immajer@n.......>
Spoiler...
        Spoiler...
                Spoiler...
                        Spoiler...
                                Spoiler...
                                        Spoiler...
                                                Spoiler...
                                                        Spoiler...

Spoiler...
                                                        Spoiler...
                                                Spoiler...
                                        Spoiler...
                                Spoiler...
                        Spoiler...
                Spoiler...
        Spoiler...
Spoiler...
> should be used for LK spoilers until later tonight...

> Natalie is as dead as Janette.  That's all there is to it.

> Jamie M.R. - Proud "Forevermore"
> While I'm Away: <immajer@a.......>


                          Amen, sister!
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 May 1996 18:11:58 -0700
From:         Abby <albrecht@s.......>
Subject:      LK comments

Yup, I'm jumping in with my $0.05... Hit delete now if you must...

My comments are varied, so be forewarned.

1) Did anyone (besides my mom ;) notice the bleeped up scale in the
morgue? It was very empty, yet it said something weighed over 4 lbs. Is
Toronto air that smoggy? It gives a whole new meaning to the line "You cut
cut through the tension in the air with a knife."

2) Umm... LaCroix could close up the Raven without Nick noticing??? C'mon,
the Raven was Nick's only recreation! It would be as impossible as us not
noticing the absence of Forkni!

3) Thanks to who ever made the crack about the neverending hallway! I was
giggling through the whole scene.

4) Nat Is Not Dead! All of LaCroix's monologues were seen from the pov of
someone laying down. (I leaned in the appropriate position and the image
made a lot more sense.) It couldn't be Nick because you can see him in one
of the monologues...

5) Umm, I forgot... Oh, well.  Stop laughing D + D!

Until later...

abby -- Mercenary of the Knight
albrecht@c.......   Down the hall  lThe first Merc Knightie
eponymous2@a.......       Turn right!    lDDEB3, Duchovniks, NLEB, and more
                    http://www-scf.usc.edu/~albrecht
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 May 1996 21:27:42 -0400
From:         Melanie Hernandez <Gitanita@a.......>
Subject:      Ashes to Ashes request

Hello all!

Due to a minor VCR mishap I was unable to watch "Ashes to Ashes" and not
knowing the whole story is killing me!!  Could one of you kind souls fill me
in on this ep (via private email to Gitanita@a.......)...I understand it was
pretty darn good!

~Melanie~
*Ravenette*
 In favor of "Forever Janette" :-)
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 May 1996 21:34:32 -0400
From:         Deborah Menikoff <menikoff@p.......>
Subject:      Re: LK comments

Meanwhile back in NYC, the Dianne FK tour continues from Club Deb
*****************************************************
Abby writes:
>Yup, I'm jumping in with my $0.05... Hit delete now if you must...

Hey wait just a cotton picken' minute! How come *you* get $0.05? If you get
5, then we (Dianne and I) get 10! :-pppppppppppppp

>1) Did anyone (besides my mom ;) notice the bleeped up scale in the
>morgue? It was very empty, yet it said something weighed over 4 lbs. Is

<grabs keyboard and wrests it violently away from Deb...>
[Yes! Yes!  I did!... (but they shouted me down with some sort of _rational_
explanation :(  --Dianne]

Give that *BACK*! Thank you...as I was saying <ahem> - the "underweight" was
to account for the bowl holding whatever specimen is in there. You don't
just toss livers in there higgldy piggldy you know :-)

>Toronto air that smoggy? It gives a whole new meaning to the line "You cut
>cut through the tension in the air with a knife."

Or a shillelagh.
[Thought we were over that, didn't you? ;-)You would be very, very wrong.
Deb's been thinking up shillelagh theme songs all day... be afraid *Be very
afraid!*  -- Dianne]

>2) Umm... LaCroix could close up the Raven without Nick noticing??? C'mon,
>the Raven was Nick's only recreation! It would be as impossible as us not
>noticing the absence of Forkni!

Well he might have done it really fast and besides Nick was busy that
evening. Unless it was more than one evening...I...I am confused.

>3) Thanks to who ever made the crack about the neverending hallway! I was
>giggling through the whole scene.

[That would be us.  I'm convinced the Magic of the Shillelagh caused the
Endless Precinct Hall Effect(TM) --Dianne]

>4) Nat Is Not Dead! All of LaCroix's monologues were seen from the pov of
>someone laying down. (I leaned in the appropriate position and the image
>made a lot more sense.) It couldn't be Nick because you can see him in one
>of the monologues...

You leaned?  Interactive FK? I feel so...non participatory. I should have
leaned. I should have thrown socks. I should have taken my dramamine. *Why*
was the swinging pendulum effect necessary? Very distracting.

[Well they apparently sold off Ger's little wheeled cart. He had to have
*something* to play with... <g> --Dianne]

>5) Umm, I forgot... Oh, well.  Stop laughing D + D!

Huh? Us? *NEVER* Bwhahahahahahahahaha.....
********************************************
Deb and Dianne
Lo' we depart soon for other lands, we taketh with us the protection of the
Shillelagh which --  though not technically a harbinger of death (He's not
dead), must at least be considered a Shillelagh of Great Pain -- so don't
mess with us!
menikoff@p.......
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 May 1996 22:19:37 -0400
From:         "Lisa P." <LadysAVamp@a.......>
Subject:      SPOILER: LK - Nat

S
P
O
I
L
E
R

S
E
C
T
I
O
N

I have been staying away from the spoiler list so I don't know if this has
been mentioned yet.

First, I agree with those who feel cheated out on the "love scene" between
Nick and Nat.  I know that there was alot to cover to achieve closure, but
after 3 years of building up to this moment, more time could have been spent
in showing the deep feelings that they feel for each other.  It just seemed
rush.  No romance.

While Nick was drinking Nat's blood, Nat was seeing Nick's life.  In
"Franchesca", Nick spoke of how by drinking the blood, all was learned of
that person - there fears, loves, death, etc.  How is it that Nat could see
Nick's life just by his drinking her blood?  Shouldn't it be the other way
around?  I know in AtA Vachon was seeing Divia's life after she bit him.  But
I thought this was something between vampires.

Any thoughts?

Lisa P.

p.s.  The very last scene of the sun rising instead of descending was, I
felt, a glimmer of hope.  Anyone feel that this could have a special
significance, or am I reading too much into it?
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 May 1996 22:13:04 -0500
From:         MS CHRISTINA L KAMNIKAR <VQRW76A@p.......>
Subject:      SPOILER: Last Knight Math

Our esteemed Listmommy gave us the equation; now it's just a matter of
plug'n'chug. Easy! [Hey, I'm an engineer, I can do anything... and I'm in a
very, very weird mood]

*Warning! Algebra Ahead! Skip if you don't like math humor!*

B = R(1/C) + K  where B is the outcome
                      R is the will of the person involved
                      C is Nick's involvement in the outcome
                      and K is random factors we don't know about

Start with the unknown, go to the known. We can approximate.

R = will of person involved = Natalie's will; lets set this at 1000. (Hey,
do you think you can talk her out of this? Be my guest)

C = Nick's involvement in the outcome = Deep personal interest, angst,
guilt, sorrow; unfortunately, this is also 1000. Unfortunate, because this
is inverted in our equation. (Anything Nick tries, inevitably gets screwy)

So, R(1/C) = 1000(1/1000) = 1.  Which gives us  B = 1 + K  with the outcome
dependent on random factors, and a slight positive inclination.

        Now, if K > -1, we end up with a positive outcome.

        If K = -1, then B = 0, and we have a stalemate for all eternity...
       and Nick and Natalie and Lacroix remain frozen in suspended
animation until the TV  movie.

        If K < -1, then B < 0, and we have a negative outcome.

What are the Random Factors? (or, K = X ) Outcome is Random Factor dependent.

Let's set Lacroix as -1, equal to Natalie and Nick's effect on the outcome
 combined.

If all the Random Factors are Lacroix, we end up in Stalemate Land.
 [ B = 1 + -1 = 0 ]

If there other Random Factors outside of Lacroix? Such as?  Well, let's
write an equation.

X = K = L + R + E + J + T + S + V + MPD

Random factors  = Lacroix + Reese + Enforcers + Janette + Tracy + Schanke +
Vachon + Metro PD + Y

Lacroix = -1, to balance Natalie and Nick

Reese = (1/WC)  = or, the inverse of the watercooler, which always wins, so
we can discount this.

Enforcers = - (0.0001(Fate)) = or, a negative ten-thousandth of the force
of Fate. Fate would really, really have to want Nick & Nat's outcome to be
positive for this to be a factor. Highly unlikely, since Fate = TPTB, The
Powers That Be, so we can discount this.

Janette = (0.01C)/D = one-tenth of Janette's concern divided by distance.
Again, way too small. Blow it off. Janette probably will.

Tracy = 0, unless you can prove she's undead or a ghost, and has a clue
what to do.

Schanke = +(F) = The likelihood that Schank's ghost will show up and talk
Natalie and/or Nick into a different course of action. Unknown. And we
don't have an equation! We must discount at this time.

Vachon = 0.  Even if he's not dead, he has other problems.

MPD = Metro PD paging factor, since they have such wonderful timing.
Unknown; can only be proven in the field. We'll check on it during the test
run.

Y = Anything we don't know about, including Nielson numbers, Kay
Koplovitz's salary negotiations, and the sales on the Forever Knight CD.
Also letters to TPTB, new terms of the actors contracts, and the cost of
rebuilding the sets. Not to mention the actual power of True Love, which
has never been well-defined.

In short (well, okay, too late for that):

B = 1 + (-1 + (MPD) + Y) = 0 + MPD + Y = MPD + Y

So it all depends on really random factors and the Metro paging system. :)
Notice that the definition of a positive outcome is never circumscribed,
since this is dependent on the viewer's position in time and space, re
Einstein's Theory and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. {Or, good and
positive are in the eyes of the beholder}

This was brought to you by the letters Y and C, and the number 2 to the
16th power.

Christina, doing the geek thing in cyberspace           vqrw76a@p.......
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 May 1996 22:30:29 -0400
From:         The Phoenix <jap8@c.......>
Subject:      Re: SPOILER: LAST KNIGHT-- WATCH THOSE SUBJECT LINES!

On Sun, 19 May 1996 gryphon@e....... wrote:

[ A very bitchy note re: spoilers. ]

Boooooooy, are you kids glad I was away from the terminal this weekend.

I woulda said the same exact things.

Only I wouldn't've been quite so nice about them.

*evil smile*

Red,
Yer Listowner.
Not quite on vacation, so watch it.

/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-
  The Tastiest Crayon, Her Royal Redness, Jaye the First, the Phoenix.
             jap8@c....... // http://cac.psu.edu/~jap8/
                                MIAWOL.
/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 May 1996 22:57:34 -0400
From:         Stuart Drucker <StuartDruc@a.......>
Subject:      Re: FKSPOILR Digest - LK spoilers

Listmom wrote (I'm doing this on AOL, so I'm not as handy with the line copy
thing):

>>Now if what you're saying is "Since there's no way in hell Janette's dead,
>>I am using this as a constant, a standard, a measure by which to declare
>>Natalie's aliveness!!!" . . . then that's pretty cool.



> Actually, it's Nick's Constant:

> Where R represents the determination (i.e. will) of the person in question
> Where K represents random factors beyond anyone's control
> Where B represents the outcome of the situation in question
> Where C represents Nick's proportional involvement in the matter

> B=R(1/C)+K

> Do we have any mathematicians who can check this for validity?

Well, short of doing a regression analysis to check the R-Square of how well
this "fits" the outcome, I can't say, but assuming that high B is a "good"
outcome, and knowing our favorite Brick:

     B=  R-CK


Somehow, I think that his involvement is negatively related to a "good"
outcome, not just a proportional effect. At least, Raleigh from Blind Faith
might agree.

.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 May 1996 22:59:27 +0000
From:         "Laura W. Petix" <lpetix@d.......>
Subject:      Re: Last Knight:  Blurred images explanation

Spoiler space
 .
 .
 .
 .
 .
 .
 .
 .
 .
 .

Perhaps I am being heartless to say so, but I cannot understand why
so many people are feeling miserable and bitter about Nick's supposed
death.  As both Chana Rossman and Larissa Field have already pointed
out, it's perfectly clear on a second viewing that LaCroix does *not*
stake Nick, and that Natalie is not completely dead.  One need only
rewatch LaCroix's three monologue scenes for the evidence.  As Chana
said:

> Throughout the episode we see blurred images of LaCroix's oratory to
> Nick. We don't know what quite to make of them because of (1) their
> dreamlike quality and (2) the perspective from which they are shot.
> We are not looking at LaCroix from Nick's perspective.  In fact, we
> see Nick in some of the shots.

Indeed, we see Nick in the very last monologue sequence, and he is
perfectly alive.  The circular nature of LaCroix's speech indicates
that it in fact starts at the end of the episode and continues, looped
back around, showing us what happens *after* LaCroix raises the stake
at the end.  The evidence:

* The monologues are filmed in the loft.  (Wouldn't we normally
expect LaCroix's words "out of nowhere" to show the Raven in the
background?  One does not associate LaCroix with Nick's loft. The
only reason that makes sense for them to be filmed there is that that
is where he physically is when he is speaking them.)

* Nick is shown kneeling on the floor in front of LaCroix, in the same
position he is in when LC raises the stake. (Indeed, why else would
Nick be in this position?  Why show Nick at all?)

* As Chana said, the odd perspective that we are getting is Natalie's.
>The shots are all sort of shot at an upward angle.  She is
>semi-unconscious (at least) which would explained the blurred,
>dream-like quality.

The monologues aren't there just to be weird.  "Last Knight" is a work
of art, and things do not exist for no reason in a work of art.  If
you watch all three monologues again, you will see that LaCroix is
talking Nick out of dying.  The last thing he says is, "Leaving is the
purest form of love."  He is trying to convince Nick to let Natalie
die and move on, with him.  We *don't know* what happens after that.
Maybe Nick does leave with LaCroix and let Natalie die; maybe not.
That part is left to us--to our imaginations and fan fiction.  I
think it's a brilliant episode.

Laura WP
lpetix@d.......
"Last Knight" waves:  http://www.dpcc.com/dpcc/assoc/lpetix/waves/
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 May 1996 23:08:03 -0400
From:         Cassie Carter <ccarter@b.......>
Subject:      Re: SPOILER: LK - Nat

On Mon, 20 May 1996, Lisa P. wrote:

> S
> P
> O
> I
> L
> E
> R
>
>
> S
> E
> C
> T
> I
> O
> N
>
>
> While Nick was drinking Nat's blood, Nat was seeing Nick's life.  In
> "Franchesca", Nick spoke of how by drinking the blood, all was learned of
> that person - there fears, loves, death, etc.  How is it that Nat could see
> Nick's life just by his drinking her blood?

Nick *also* said that the person being drained learns all about the
vampire, too.

By the way, hi guys!  I'm back!  In case anyone missed me, I've been no
mail for about two months.  After LN, I definitely needed to return to
the "community" for moral support . . .

Cassie Carter                   |----------------------------------------|
English Department              |     Visit THE JIM CARROLL HOME PAGE    |
Bowling Green State University  |http://www.bgsu.edu/~ccarter/carroll.htm|
Bowling Green, OH 43403         |*Everything you want to know about JC!* |
ccarter@b.......          |----------------------------------------|
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 May 1996 20:13:28 -0700
From:         Amy R. <akr@m.......>
Subject:      SPOILER: LK (HF), Distorted views

First, let me echo Diane's plea for any decisive information.  I spent
months convinced Janette was dead through the omission of forty seconds of
footage that I didn't realize had been omitted, and I'd hate for that to
happen to anyone with LK.  (Luckily, I'm away from that syndie now. <g>)

Sci-Fi has shown LK once, so I think we may now dispense with spoiler
space, but just in case -- "Last Knight" spoilers ahead!

Diane writes:
> As many have already pointed out, I too wonder about the distorted LC
> sequences in the beginning.  I like what someone said about it being Nat who
> is seeing this, (since at one point we see Nick too) as she lies on the
> floor.

Unfortunately, seeing Nick isn't reason enough to discount the possibility
that it's all from Nick's point of view.  First of all, Nick appears in his
own flashbacks and dream sequences on a regular basis.  Secondly, at the
time we see Nick, we are going into the BMV flashback, which may belong to
LC.  Goodness knows, this would be an appropriate time for Nick to recall
the decision he made for his sister, and why, but I'm not sure why LC
would want to risk recalling for him the revenge he promised he would one
day have -- "I will deprive you of the mortal you love, or I will deprive
her of you.  Either way, your promise will be fulfilled" (BMV).

As easily as I could go all Light Cousinly at this point, it seems
reasonable to believe that one reason LC would not allow Nick to die is
because the only way, now, to deprive him of the mortal he loves is to
keep him here in the world of the living -- "such as it is" -- while she
slips away.

But I digress.  LC's speech creates a loop, linking the end of the
episode to the beginning.  It seems to me that the only thing that is
actually happening in the episode is LC's speech to Nick; everything else
is flashbacks, which is why the things we recognize as flashbacks begin
in black and white, as they never have before -- they are flashbacks
within flashbacks (bear with me -- this is the guy who had a flashback
during his own "guilt trip to Wonderland," after all).

The reason that Nick's view of LC is distorted as this speech is delivered
is because he's been staked, and he's looking up through a haze of tears
and impending death.  Through the heart or not, Nick would easily survive
long enough for LC to sermonize on the value of life while Nick endures
wrenching physical pain.  LC expects Nick to come to his senses and ask to
have the stake removed.

I have been happy with this interpretation.  Unfortunately, it has a
problem.  The problem is, the speech at the beginning comes, at the end,
before both "You are my closest friend" and "Damn you, Nicholas," which
are not repeated in the loop.  If LC began his speech after staking Nick,
or even if he delivered it *instead* of staking Nick, there must be a key
to the loop -- the loose thread that indicates where we came into the
circle.  And I can't find it!  Can you?

Moving on to another aspect of LK, I think I need to explain why I believe
that LC would not only stake Nick, but would allow his son to die
afterward if Nick so chooses.  It's the same rationale that falsely led me
to find Janette's death in HF.  Then (and remember, I was missing a scene)
I could not believe that Nick would go against against Janette's
all-too-explicitly stated desire to die as a mortal.  I couldn't accept
that he would deprive her of what he wanted so much for himself.  Now, and
perhaps it is the same part of me that declares her views as a Light
Cousin and Fleur-Booster, I cannot imagine but that LC will give Nick what
he asked for, now that he believes he's found what he's sought so long.

In that line, Tippi recently posted a thoughtful -- and, surprisingly,
serious -- story, which contains a particularly striking insight: Nick
forgave LC.  "You... are my closest friend."  In that declaration, and in
all that was behind it, Nick was telling LC that he forgave him --
everything.

That's something that could never have been predicted from DK.

*** Amy, Lady of the Knight (akr@m.......) ***
"Now cracks a noble heart.  Good night, sweet prince;
And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest!" -- W.S.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 May 1996 23:29:43 +0500
From:         John Folden <jtfolden@e.......>
Subject:      Re: Last Knight:  Blurred images explanation

> From: "Chana Rossman" <bonney@i.......>
>
> What if we are viewing all of this from Natalie's perspective?  She
> is laying on the floor.  The shots are all sort of shot at an upward
> angle.  She is semi-unconcious (at least) which would explained the
> blurred, dream-like quality.

I love this theory! I'd have to agree that judging by the angle it
would appear to be coming from Nat's perspective.

//----------------------------------------
// John T. Folden, a demented victorian
// lost in the DARK SHADOWS of an endless
// FOREVER KNIGHT...
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 May 1996 21:20:45 -0500
From:         Robbi Egersdorf <egersdor@m.......>
Subject:      SPOILER: LK

Please indulge me in my lamentation.

I finally got to watch it and now I can start reading the list digests that
I have piled up because I didn't want to get spoiled (after what happened
with ATA) and still I was spoiled by what I thought was an innocent fkfic
post.

I was devastated by Lacroix's opening dialog (and could tell that it was
being delivered in Nick's loft) even before the show really got started.

 When the crazy guy grabbed the gun, my heart nearly stopped (and I do mean
that literally!  Don't worry.  I do not have a heart condition.)  I knew
what was going to happen.

Part of the way through, I couldn't believe what Natalie was saying and it
hit me like a bad piece of fanfic where the characters just aren't plausible
.  I kept repeating to myself,  "This has to be a dream,  It can't be real."
 Maybe it was just my sense of denial kicking in, but it went on from there
to be less plausible.  I can't see the motivating factors that were given to
be sufficient to move our beloved FK characters to act in this way!

Would I miss this marvelous journey of self discovery in order to avoid this
most exquiste pain?  I have to answer no. no, I would not.

I agonize, I suffocate, I dispair.  The pain.  Make the pain go away.   I
cannot, I must not.  There is so much that will be missed.  I must ask why?
Why do I subject myself to this?  Why is this important?
 It's just a tv show.  Why does it move me so?

Nothing can compare with the exquite agony I feel for these characters I
have grown to love over the past 6 months.  How can it be?  It can't be.  Oh
please, don't let this be true.  There is nothing I can do to stop this.  I
am helpless as are you.  This play of  sympathies must be accepted as it is,
but how is it.  I do not know.  All I know is that I hurt and the pain will
not go away.

I have lost my son  and my mother through personal chocies that I could not
control this week.  How am I to deal with my grief?

My life has become so sweet become of this, this that can only be termed as
a television show.

Do not fear for me.  I understand the difference between reality and fantasy
.  How then does this touch me on such a level as nothing before has ever
done before nor will it ever again.

I am sorry to subject all of you to this, but I must say this to someone or
I must die.   I have noone who understands and would not ridicule the depths
of my passion or the pain of my sorrow.  I feel safe in baring this to you.

Believe me I have tortured myself through this not once, but twice.  The
second time being even harder than the first because I knew what would
happen.  I swore to myself that I would not watch.  Then it was I would turn
it off if it got difficult.  When it got difficult I could not.  I was a
helpless captive and could do no less than follow it to it's tragic
conculsion.

I will be all right.  I have sworn off the tears that I can only shed in
make believe.  I could not cry for my son, I could not cry for my mother.
All is the same and  comes together in the agony of the Last Knight.  I have
no power to resist.  I have no choice in the matter.  It is as it is and no
less and no more.

Robbi
Long Live the Knight
egersdor@m.......
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 May 1996 00:22:53 +0500
From:         John Folden <jtfolden@e.......>
Subject:      Re: Spoiler: LK: Forevermores

> From: "Hilary Doda" <Hilary_Doda@t.......>
> Natalie is as dead as Janette.  That's all there is to it.
>
> Nicely put.  very nicely put.  Thank you!
> Katya.

I missed the original post...You do realize that Janette is not
dead, don't you?

//----------------------------------------
// John T. Folden, a demented victorian
// lost in the DARK SHADOWS of an endless
// FOREVER KNIGHT...
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 16 May 1996 16:03:01 -0500
From:         Margie Hammet <treeleaf@i.......>
Subject:      Re: Blood Knowledge (Francesca & AtA)

At 12:40 PM 5/16/96 -0500, Sandra Gray wrote:

>If vampires remember nothing from blood sharing, then how come Nick
>remembered the conversation after he and Erica shared blood (and more :) )
>in Last Act *centuries* later?

Since I didn't see the episode, it's hard for me to say, but maybe it
was because they did have a conversation after.  Maybe he remembers what
was said in the conversation even if he can't remember what he actually
experienced while sharing her blood.

Margie (treeleaf@i.......)
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 17 May 1996 21:10:48 -0500
From:         Margie Hammet <treeleaf@i.......>
Subject:      Re: .SPOILER: AtA and HF

>She went after Vachon who, if he is any relation
>whatsoever to LC, is his grandson;

Huh?  How would Vachon be LC's grandson?

>....maybe Divia *thought* she had killed Janette (after all, she
> thought she had killed NIck), but she was mistaken?

I don't think Divia was being quite so systematic.  She wanted to get
everyone to stay away from LaCroix, and it appeared to be working.  If
Divia hadn't been killed, and if she had decided not to kill LaCroix,
and if Janette had come around, Divia would have killed her.

Margie (treeleaf@i.......)
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 May 1996 21:34:30 -0400
From:         "Robert A. Rosenberg" <hal9001@p.......>
Subject:      Re: Spoiler: LK (long)

At 13:53  -0700 5/19/96, Antonia Spadafina wrote:


>I ve watched the scene 6 times now.  I still cannot tell how Tracy was shot in
>the back of the head.  Gut, yes.  Head, no.  Where did the bullet ricochet
>from?
>(Someone asked that question last week in a spoiler.)  I can t figure it.  The
>angles were all wrong.

Also, he only got off ONE shot in her direction (I think it was aimed at
Nick and passed though him to hit her). All the other shots were aimed at
the ground or hit Dawkins.

>Okay, wait a minute, you say.  Was Tracy actually shot in the head?  The
>paramedic says she has a really bad head wound.  Does this imply gunshot?
>Perhaps the force of the bullet to her gut knocked her backward with enough
>force to fracture her skull. - I know, there was blood.  How else to
>explain it?  Any medical people out there who can justify that amount of blood
>from blunt trauma to the occipital?

I think the paramedic said TWO Shots.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 May 1996 23:29:03 -0400
From:         "Robert A. Rosenberg" <hal9001@p.......>
Subject:      Re: Spoiler: Last Knight

At 11:10  -0700 5/19/96, Cynthia Hoffman wrote:


>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
>healthy.  Figure it out!


Also, making her a Vampire (even if she would not have chosen this step if
she were still awake but was still going to die) is perfectly OK in my
opinion since Tracy could suicide if she wanted (just like Urs could have
after she was made one due to a misunderstanding) after waking up a
Vampire. She would thus be given the ability to choose for herself
(something that not vamping her would deny her).
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 May 1996 00:25:41 +0500
From:         John Folden <jtfolden@e.......>
Subject:      Re: Last Knight - Major Spoilers

> From: "Beth Washington" <Beth_Washington@a.......>

>
> S
> P
> O
> I
> L
> E
> R
>
> S
> p
> A
> C
> E
>
> I am truely sad.  Even though Nick and Nat are together, they are still
> dead, dead to us, and LaCroix is now truely alone.  This is not a happy
> ending, or even a hopeful ending...it is just an ending.  A final
> ending.  So sad.

Call me a brick, but I don't believe they are dead. The ending was too
ambiguous, too open.  If they were truly dead, we'd have seen it. We
would have seen Nick take that "second drink" from Nat and finish her
off. We would have seen Lacroix stake Nick through the heart and watched
him die. As it stands now, I feel each and everyone of us can draw our
own conclusions from what little closure we were left with...

Personally, I don't believe Lacroix would ever stake Nick. It's not in
character, even after the new insights we've seen in the last two
episodes. If I were in a position to film an ending to LK, I would have
shown lacroix jab the stake into the floor(or knock Nick unconscious with
it) and then use Natalie as a weapon to control Nick(either by bringing
her accross or simply by making sure she survived, if only to make sure
Nick didn't carry out any other suicidal thoughts).


> (wondering why they had to kill everyone.  How can they bring them back
> for a fourth season.  They can't.  They ruined it!)

IMHO, the only one who can't come back from LK is Tracy. Unless of course
the entire last episode was simply Nick's Knightmare brought about because
of Divia's "bad Blood".



//----------------------------------------
// John T. Folden, a demented victorian
// lost in the DARK SHADOWS of an endless
// FOREVER KNIGHT...
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 May 1996 01:13:42 -0700
From:         Robin Carroll-Mann <harper@t.......>
Subject:      Re: SPOILER: LK Details

Melanie Moser <moser@c.......> said:

> The impression
> left here is how lonely Nat has always been.  The one thing that
> changed that was when Nick entered her life.  (Come on, she
> remembers the exact date!).

Well, it *was* her 28th birthday.  I'd remember that kind of birthday
present pretty clearly. :-)

--
Harper *** Robin Carroll-Mann
harper@t....... OR rcmann@d.......
"Mostly Harmless" -- Douglas Adams
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 20 May 1996 22:27:28 -0700
From:         Sherri <sherric@e.......>
Subject:      Re: SPOILER: Last Knight Math

On Mon, 20 May 1996, MS CHRISTINA L KAMNIKAR <VQRW76A@p.......> wrote:
>Our esteemed Listmommy gave us the equation; now it's just a matter of
>plug'n'chug. Easy! [Hey, I'm an engineer, I can do anything... and I'm in a
>very, very weird mood]
>
>*Warning! Algebra Ahead! Skip if you don't like math humor!*

Yeah, but what is this in English ????????? <waaaaaaaaaaiiiiillllll>

PS. ROTFLMAO....

Sherri        sherric@e.......   Founding Member, SFKS
Save FK: http://members.aol.com/CuznJamiMR/SaveForeverKnight.html
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 21 May 1996 01:35:34 -0400
From:         Gehirn Karies <SoulDebris@a.......>
Subject:      Re: LK comments

Abby remarked:
>2) Umm... LaCroix could close up the Raven without Nick noticing??? C'mon,
>the Raven was Nick's only recreation! It would be as impossible as us not
>noticing the absence of Forkni!
Deb and Dianne replied.
>> Well he might have done it really fast and besides Nick was busy that
>>evening. Unless it was more than one evening...I...I am confused.

I reckoned he hadn't re-opened since Divia's private party.  But, then again
how does time travel in FK land?

A>*Why* was the swinging pendulum effect necessary? Very distracting.

D & D>>[Well they apparently sold off Ger's little wheeled cart. He had to have
>>*something* to play with... <g> --Dianne]

I really like the Ger-Cam.  The whole suicide, Nick and Nat on the brink of
total dispair thing is soooo heavy, the Ger-Cam kinda mixes it up, gives you
that Virtigo feeling.
I *needed* a distraction.

Lisa P:
>First, I agree with those who feel cheated out on the "love scene" between
>Nick and Nat.  I know that there was alot to cover to achieve closure, but
>after 3 years of building up to this moment, more time could have been spent
>in showing the deep feelings that they feel for each other.

Too bad the set didn't have a shorter hallway.  Would've been more
time and tape left to film foreplay.

My $0.00 worth
Gehirn Karies

"The Shillelagh of Death v/sThe Ger-Cam"....  The sequel to "Ricochet, The
Tracy 'Button' Vetter Story." another CluelesSA pictures original.
=========================================================================

Previous digest
Previous
This month's list
This month's list
Next digest
Next






Knight graphics and parchment background created by Melissa Snell and may be found at http://historymedren.about.com/