FKSPOILR
Logfile LOG9605 Part 47
May 22, 1996
File: "FKSPOILR LOG9605" Part 47
TOPICS:
SPOILER: LK, Downloading Nick's Brain (2)
Apologies
SPOILERS: Last Knight
Last Knight (Nat)
Last Knight (bloody tears, Nat)
SPOILER: Last Knight: Blurred images explanation, etc
The LC angles (LK spoilers) -- HA! (3)
SPOILER: LK (3)
I have returned!
SPOILERS: AtA and LK "Cuts" and "Intent"
Spoiler: Last Knight (2)
SPOILER: Last Knight
SPOILER: Last Knight; Nick's impulses
Fan Fiction Request
Last Knight-Nigel
CROSS-POSTING: No!
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 01:00:45 -0700
From: Amy R. <akr@n.......>
Subject: SPOILER: LK, Downloading Nick's Brain
I've just watched LK for the third time, and this one took over three
hours. I think I'm almost ready to contribute some serious analysis, but
tonight I wanted to run through the last of my more trivial impressions.
To begin with, there is the sequence of flashback images poor Nat is
receiving as Nick drains her. I like to think that if LK had been a
novel, we would have read about what memories of Nat's Nick received. In
any case, I have a list, in order, of the images. Unfortunately, it is
flawed, both because I haven't yet seen all the early episodes, and
because I recorded LK on SP, which prevents my VCR from giving me a clear
still image. So any corrections or additions would be appreciated:
1. biting a woman in white, from flashback
2. draining Sylvaine, from LYTD flashback
3. draining Lisette, from TG flashback
4. draining Alissa, from DoN flashback
5. jumping the fire, from FIHS present
6. flying, from present
7. being vamped out, first season present
8. un-staking LC, from NiQ flashback
9. restrained on table, from "The Fix" flashback? Or LNMTA flashback?
10. being stabbed, second-season flashback
11. being held while unconscious, from present
12. draining Amalia, from CL flashback
13. riding as a mortal, from QoH flashback
14. LC attacking, from DK present
15. reaching for the cross, from FIHS flashback
16. staking LC, from DK present
17. kissing Janette just after coming across, from ND flashback
Talley: 5 memories of biting women, 7 memories of vampire behavior, 6
memories of killing people, 5 memories of being in mortal danger, 1
memory of mortality, 1 memory of faith, 1 memory of saving a life, and 1
memory of being liplocked with Janette while under the influence of first
hunger
In other trivia:
1. What is reflected in the faucet in the opening sequence? Ceiling fan?
2. The blood in the tub, and Tracy's blood -- remember how Nick used to
react to blood at crime scenes? I think he's come a long way.
3. Did Tracy *flinch*, or did she *shrug*, at Dr. Haynes's body? if it
was a shrug, then she overcame her problem with squeamishness.
4. Nat tells Nick he's considered suicide himself, but isn't that
selective memory? I'm told Nick said he'd never die by his own hand.
5. Poor Tracy died with the flu.
6. "I'm asking for an end" -- did Nat sound like Urs to you?
7. Three cheers for the Ger-cam! :) I actually liked the morgue work.
8. <wicked thought> S'pose Dawkins could represent JP? "I won't go back!"
9. 23:45 -- 11:45 pm -- Tracy is given lidocane. The longest night in
the history of the world, and there's the half-way point.
10. CERK doesn't know *anything* about marketing.
11. Do ya think the new manager of the Raven gets the bust of LC and the
portrait of Janette? If LC doesn't leave the Raven functioning, Janette
will be very displeased with him.
12. Another bad hair ep, for everyone but Nat. The flashbacks really rub
it in; someone out there does not interpret hair the way I do. <g>
15. The locker room was red until Tracy was shot, and then it turned blue!
16. "I've... seen too much." (Thank you, NB, for expertly delivering that
line like the stubborn lie we all know it to be!!!)
17. NB's eyes were wet, as well as GWD's, in the final moments. I'm a Light
Cousin -- I was looking. So the tears aren't enough for Nick to be mortal.
18. Whatever happened, LC's stuck in the loft till sunset. <g>
And, finally, the loop is imperfect. I will analyze the ramifications of
this some other time, but for now, note a few of the many differences:
"a ripe peach" vs "the freshest peach"
"unless, of course, you have faith" vs "or do you have faith"
"where you stand" vs "where you are"
"the rising sun" vs "the morning sun"
"is that sound you're hearing" vs "are the sounds you hear"
**** Amy, Lady of the Knight (akr@n.......) ****
"I could not risk condemning to the void one who so
surely deserves a Heaven." -- LaCroix, by TippiNB
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 01:07:54 -0700
From: Amy R. <akr@n.......>
Subject: Apologies
I don't know how that posted twice, when the first time it came back
telling me that I wasn't even subbed here. But it did, and I am ever so
sorry, especially because it was so long. My humblest apologies.
**** Amy, Lady of the Knight (akr@n.......) ****
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 06:20:06 +30000
From: Valerie Meachum <valerie@l.......>
Subject: SPOILERS: Last Knight
Okay, I've decided my best strategy in the detailed posts is to be an
example to Nick and take a little at a time. ;-)
And just 'cause I'm ornery, I work more or less backwards and take on
that very subject first.
I was disappointed--not in the story but in Nick. (Yes, I know he did
what the story told him to, but from my own way of working I don't think
that necessarily means it's what the *writer* told him to. I can't force
characters to do anything they don't want to do if my life depends on
it. Yes, I know how crazy that sounds, but I trust you folks to
understand it.) And, for that matter, *for* Nick. My only reaction on
the story level--which I had *after* I reacted on the Nick's-actions
level, my personal gauge of whether something was in character, your
mileage may vary--was to compare it to the R & J model called up as soon
as LC quoted the "kill our joys with love" line. And, of course, to find
it wanting--come on, even *they* got one night away from the unfairness
before the rest of all hell broke loose!
The thing that bothers me most, though, is that I think I understood
almost immediately why Nick did what he did. And it came down to what
has stood in the way all along: he couldn't believe himself worthy of
Natalie's trust and faith in him.
Oh, sure, I was hollering at the screen (well, more like hissing; it
*was* 1:30 in the morning and there *are* school-age kids next door) when
he was whimpering about taking too much, "Wel, what did you *expect* from
six years' worth of repressed desire?!?!? Good MORNING, Nicholas!" (But
be proud of me, Knighties--I made it all the way to Tuesday afternoon
without calling him a brick!)
But what's so sad is that's *exactly* what he expected; and I think the
much-lamented (by me as much as anyone, don't get me wrong) lack of
intimacy was his attempt to prevent that, by gambling that without it one
or both of them might retain the presence of mind to stop him in time.
It was a double-or-nothing gamble, and they lost. There was presence of
mind, all right (or at least as much as when they started, which is
admittedly very debatable); and Nat used it to stand against her own fear
and pain, unmitigated as it was by any real comfort from him. And you
can't get much more in keeping than that--once again, the sheer
stubbornness that is one of her greatest strengths also proves her
undoing. To stop him would have been to admit defeat, even though this
was *not* what she had asked of him; she knew that he'd probably never so
much as *look* at her again if she did. She was acutely aware of how
terrified he was of hurting her even while he *was*.
And she thought it was worth it, had decided that the risk of ending up a
vampire was an acceptable one. I'm not so convinced that the risk of
dying was acceptable--she was a little too insistently ceratin that
wouldn't happen, and while I *do* believe her faith in him was sincere, I
also think there was a little voice somewhere in her head sayin "but what
if he lets me die?" and she was shutting it up pretty forcefully. Not
wise. But something I understand *very* well, being someone who plays
with swords, and likes high places and balancing on narrow things, and
would jump out of airplanes if I had the money. (to which Jack keeps
saying "And if she had even more money she'd take a parachute." Living
proof that love is utterly impractical; poor guy's probably lost as many
years off his life as he's been with me, and you don't *choose* something
like that!) I take what I consider reasonable precautions to avoid
getting skewered or going splat, but I don't think much about these
things actually *happening.* Nat's safety net, such as it was, was her
acceptance of the possibility of being brought across. Which I've never
thought she wants in and of itself, and don't now; but it has become an
acceptable price for what she *does* want. A lot more intense, but
rather like Jack choosing to live with the woman who coined the phrase
"self-preservation impaired." :-) (I think that's a big part of why I
can't buy into this situation as yet another example of TV telling us a
woman is not complete without a man--in my life and the way I have always
seen FK, people fall in love and after that point do not feel complete
without *each other*. Any inequity here, IMHO, is because Nick is so
used to feeling incomplete and believes it's what he deserves. Even
with all that she's changed, Nat still believes she deserves better, and
that he does too. I don't know whether I'm up for a debate about this
just now; maybe. I just think women hurt ourselves more sometimes by
seeing enemies in the wrong places.)
The most awful thing is that it remains an accomplishment--though a bitter
one indeed, for in many ways this is worse--that he didn't take her in
outright violence. ANd what makes me wnat to cry even now is that if he
*had* had the faith in himself to make love with her properly, I believe
*that* would have allowed him to stop at the right time where fear and
attempted forcible control did not. Or, barring that, perhaps he would
have at least had less fear that to bring her across would be to destroy
who she is, as Jennie has pointed out. None of us believe that, but he
seems *certain* of it, which makes it easier to understand his insistence
on not doing so. (I shouldn't say *none* of us believe that, but I think
it's more ore less the prevailing opinion. Please correct me if I'm wrong."
Whew. I warned you guys there would be very plural spoiler posts. Hope
I haven't put everyone to sleep with my babbling...
--Tigger, slightly manic-depressive NatPacker in mourning (but not
because I think she's dead!) %-}
Valerie Lynn Meachum <valerie@l.......>
THE CRUCIBLE * by Arthur Miller * directed by Valerie Meachum * June 6-22, 1996
Rosebriar Shakespeare Company, Columbus, OH * (614) 268-7986
Visit us on the Web at http://members.aol.com/wiliqueen/rosebriar.html
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 07:30:43 EDT
From: Tanya Smith <bodybldr@v.......>
Subject: Last Knight (Nat)
Apache, you are correct, suicide is "contagious" according to therapists.
Just look at the Kurt Cobain phenomenon. Often people identify too much
with the individual; hence, they kill themselves.
I believe a similar incident just occured with the death of FK.
TO let her autopsy her friend's body was a poor choice on the writer's
part. As a doctor, Nat would have known better than to do that.
Hence, Nat is very out of character in this episode.
Tanya
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 06:50:23 -0500
From: TippiNB <Tippinb@i.......>
Subject: Re: Last Knight (bloody tears, Nat)
At 07:50 PM 5/21/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Okay, maybe vampires cry bloody tears when they have fed heavily and/or
>recently, but not the rest of the time.
Well I haven't seen all of the 1st season eps, but of the eps I recall, I
don't recall seeing any vampires cry blood tears. Anybody else know for sure?
>Some think this episode is out of character for Nat. I can easily see her
>losing perspective, after all the recent events; she is probably suffering
>from depression, which destroys all sense of perspective -- no solutions seem
>possible, and illogical, extreme acts seem appropriate.
I thought this episode was out of character for just about everyone. Reese
was insensitive about Tracy at the hospital, Nick caved in after *six*
years, LaCroix didn't slap Nick silly... You get my point. ;)
Wicked Cousin Tippi, dollar bill wrangler of the Thong Throng!
*Charter Member of the Unnamed Faction*Voyeur of the Menage LaCroix*
"TV shows, like vampires, have a way of coming back from the dead."
"I'm not in denial. I'm in a state of creative readjustment!"
http://www.netcom.com/~tippinb/wicked.html
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 05:07:18 -0700
From: Roxanne Piccen <CHIRMP@a.......>
Subject: SPOILER: Last Knight: Blurred images explanation, etc
Hurrah to Chana for coming up with the following:
>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-unconscious (at least) which
>would explain the blurred, dream-like quality.
Good answer. Good answer. <g> I'd also like to point out that
no one checked her vital signs. I know. Nick's a vampire, he
can hear the heartbeat, but he was a *little* panicky at that
moment. At least take her pulse before declaring her dead.
Can everyone endure another comment on the camera work in the
morgue scene? It started to make *me* dizzy, and I watch all
those cop shows that use shaky camera movements and quick
cutaway shots. My eyes started rolling around in my sockets.
Foreplay? We don't need no stinking foreplay. Oh, yes, we
do. :-p Or else that must have been one heckuva kiss Nick
planted on her wrist. I thought this scene was a rip-off for
Nick and Nat fans. Certainly the air was thick with tension
and we could feel the emotion in their words and expressions,
but some kind of physical action would have been nice. (Could
they kiss more than once, please?) I didn't expect them to
tear each other's clothes off and do it atop the piano, but
there was more physical closeness in NiQ and BMV. (Ah, the
image of Nick licking and kissing Nat's neck with such relish.
Now where did I put my BMV tape?) This was the last episode.
They could have thrown us a bone, or something. (No. Down,
Perri, down. I don't really have a bone. Here. Here's a nice
juicy bag of blood. Good boy.)
Ray Heuer wrote:
>Is it just me, or is Uncle a first-class Peeping Tom? Every
>time Nick tries to bring someone across, there's LaCroix with
>some wry comment. Has he been all the time, watching?
LOL! LC does have a habit of showing up to critique Nick's
choice of who he's bringing across or his method of doing so.
Maybe that's why Nick can never successfully bring someone
across -- he's paranoid that LC is looking over his shoulder
grading him. ("No, you took too much, Nicholas. That's an F
for works and plays well with others.") Ooh, that could also
explain LC's eyebrows. Hasn't everyone heard as a child "if
you keep making that face, your face will freeze that way"?
LaCroix's been peering is so many windows watching all these
intimate moments over the centuries, that his eyebrows got
higher and higher until they froze that way.
Roxanne --> Lichen-Clinging Cleopatra
RoxanneP@a....... (Home) // CHIRMP@a....... (Work)
Save Forever Knight! // Save American Gothic! Check out:
http://members.aol.com/CuznJamiMR/SaveForeverKnight.html
http://www.best.com/~owls for The Trinity Guardian
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 07:23:59 -0500
From: TippiNB <Tippinb@i.......>
Subject: The LC angles (LK spoilers) -- HA!
(No spoiler space because it's after Tuesday, so avert your eyes, you little
peekers you!)
Some comments have been made about the angle at which LC is shown and that
the only explanation for this is that it is from Nick's POV *after* being
staked. Sorry folks, I don't get it. I'm no Nick and Natpacker, so I'm not
bringing up these arguments because I want these two characters to go
traipsing off together happily ever after. Phooey. I hate cheery romances.
First off, the angle is off. If you're lying on the floor looking up at
someone, you're going to see straight up that person's nostrils. "My what
lovely sinuses you have, LaCroix!" The angle is more from a kneeling
person's POV.
In fact! They even at one point swing the camera around a bit and show Nick
kneeling in front of LC as he's delivering a piece of the monologue -- same
basic angle. I think ol' Nick's just peeking over his shoulder. You know
how sometimes things look all wavery in the periphery of your vision --
blammo! Explanation for the blurry LC image!
Besides THAT, how can it be from Nick's POV if Nick is lying FACE-DOWN on
the floor? EH?? You get staked thru the back, you fall face-down on the
floor. He can't be lying on his back if there's a STAKE IN IT! Simple!
PLUS, if Nick had already been staked, then why would LC be asking him if he
was sure that this was what he wanted? I mean, it'd be a little late,
wouldn't it?
I am NOT in denial here. I'm trying to find scraps of continuity. My
explanation makes sense to me. Still, though, I feel cheated by TPTW. No
question about that, dearies.
Wicked Cousin Tippi, dollar bill wrangler of the Thong Throng!
*Charter Member of the Unnamed Faction*Voyeur of the Menage LaCroix*
"TV shows, like vampires, have a way of coming back from the dead."
"I'm not in denial. I'm in a state of creative readjustment!"
http://www.netcom.com/~tippinb/wicked.html
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 08:16:41 -0400
From: Carrie Krumtum <CKrumtum@g.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: LK
>Three cheers for the Ger-cam! :) I actually liked the morgue work.
I did too. The whole scene, IMHO, was wonderful. The movement of the camera
seemed to relate the absence of balance for Nick. What Nat was telling him,
she loved him, she needed him to love her, she felt her life needed closure,
etc. etc. was making him feel unbalanced, emotionally. It was a lot for him
to take in all at once. I thought the camera movements were wonderfully
appropriate. An enhancement to the mood of the scene, not a distraction.
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: Wed, 22 May 1996 08:23:24 EDT
From: Tanya Smith <bodybldr@v.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: LK
Ger's cam work mimicked Copolla's "The Doors". Check it out.
Talk about camera work!
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 08:34:55 +0000
From: "Laura W. Petix" <lpetix@d.......>
Subject: Re: The LC angles (LK spoilers) -- HA!
Tippi asks:
> Besides THAT, how can it be from Nick's POV if Nick is lying FACE-DOWN on
> the floor? EH?? You get staked thru the back, you fall face-down on the
> floor. He can't be lying on his back if there's a STAKE IN IT! Simple!
Because LaCroix *didn't* stake him, Tippi. You didn't actually see
him do it, did you? I certainly didn't. Raising a stake does not
have to equal plunging it down.
> PLUS, if Nick had already been staked, then why would LC be asking
> him if he was sure that this was what he wanted? I mean, it'd be a
> little late, wouldn't it?
He wouldn't. The theory only makes sense if you believe that
LaCroix did *not* go through with staking Nick, and that he is talking
him down. The dialogue makes perfect sense that way. Not only that,
but, in my opinion, anything else would be out of character for
LaCroix. He wouldn't stake Nick.
Laura WP
lpetix@d.......
http://www.dpcc.com/dpcc/assoc/lpetix/waves/
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 08:56:00 EDT
From: L M <LMS5@p.......>
Subject: I have returned!
I never realized there were so many NEW members out there!!
Anyway, I'll make this short.. Jamie's on vacation and I have returned as
list God.. for now :-) I've never really left, just been very busy and lurking
Laurie
lms5@p.......
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 06:54:36 -0700
From: lucienlc <lucienlc@i.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILERS: AtA and LK "Cuts" and "Intent"
Netcom ate this reply the first time, so I've had to start from scratch.
Grrrr. I hate that!
Sandra wrote:
>As the subject line indicates, a major focus of this post is going to
>be on the filming of episodes and how cutting a scene or filming it
>differently does not in itself (imo, anyway) change the emotional and
>story content of a scene.
Imo, that's not true. Cutting or changing a scene is a way of editing and
revising that scene, not very different from changing the words in a script.
Or would you suggest that the script on February 16 is the one that should
be looked to for the meaning of LK, even though it was revised significantly
on February 20?
>I have watched LK four times through now
>and so far, I see the same thing that I saw on my first viewing of it:
>Nat and Nick are dead.
That is a perfectly valid interpretation. Not, however, imv, the only
interpretation.
>I won't get into the argument about whether it was wrong or right for
>Nick to have asked LC to hypnotize Tracy, but I do think that Nick's
>lines make a bit more sense if looked at in context of the *original*
>script where Tracy kills Vachon (fwiw, I think the change to Tracy
You make a valid point, but for one thing: I think it may make more sense
to the audience, but it doesn't change one's view of Nick's conduct: Nick
didn't know that Tracy had finished off Vachon, even in the script. He
assumed Vachon had died as a result of Divia's attack. Still, I agree that
those lines were probably there in the first place because she had *killed*
Vachon.
>Now, on to LK. To me, making "cuts" so that we don't "see" LC stake
>Nick, or we can't completely "tell" whether Nick bit again to "finish
>her off" *doesn't* change the *emotional* and *story* content of the
>script.
Even in the original, very worst of the scripts, we don't *see* LC finish
off Nick. They were *very* specific about that: "NOTE: Which we do not
see go through him"). What we see is Nick reacting to the staking. Which
could, of course, be non-life-threatening, under those circumstances. In
fact, I could have very easily envisioned LC staking Nick in non-lethal
fashion to buy time for Nick to get over his suicidal bent and keep him from
walking into the sun.
>People say that Nat isn't dead. Then why after Nick bends
>down to "kiss" her a second time, does LC say, "Wise decision. We
>may even have time for a burial."? *Those lines* carry the emotional
>content that *Nat **is** dead*.
Very true, but Nick has been wrong before (cf Alexandra). And for you of
all people, Sandra, to be taking LC's word about anything <g>...
>Much has been made about the "LC distortions"--that they're Nat's
>viewpoint, for example. I see no reason why this should be so.
><snip> In my view, his lines seem to
>be directed to Nick and he is speaking *to Nick*.
It's very clear in the script that he is talking to Nick.
>At one point in one of the distortions, he says something like "all that's
>happened tonight should tell you this" and *looks down and to the side*, which
>I interpret as him looking at Nat's body on the floor.
Based on the script notes, you are very correct. I believe the same.
>IOW, I agree with Amy R. when she says these "distortions" are from *Nick's
>viewpoint* as he is lying on the floor after being staked. <snip>
>There is, imo, no other way to explain the "LC distortions" dialogue
>any other way than him addressing Nick as Nick lies staked.
Ah - but here's where you're wrong! :-)
If you go by the SCRIPT, as you are suggesting we should do, the script
makes it very clear that the LC speeches all take place at the point where
Nick says "I have that faith" and just before LC says "Don't be a fool,
Nicholas. Life is a gift." The way the script presents it, the monologues
at the beginning of each segment are the long, unedited version of what LC
says to Nick when he's trying to talk him out of it. The speech in the tag
is merely an edited version of what LC actually says, because to have him
make the entire speech at that time would totally disrupt the flow of the
episode (and bore the heck out of the audience). This is a not uncommon
literary device, and is made VERY CLEAR in the script notes, which suggest
editing the speech and maybe not even using it in the tag. **"But we'll say
that this is where it all connects."** Right after Nick says "I have that
faith."
So - the speech occurs when LC is trying to change Nick's mind, trying to
talk him out of suicide. Before the staking, if there is a staking.
As for the distortion, that was Ger's directoral choice. Why attribute
deeper meaning to it than the fact that he's trying to convey an ominous
situation where nothing and nobody is quite in focus? Ger likes to play
around with the camera when he directs. This is the same man who made most
of us seasick during the Morgue scene. There is NO distortion called for in
the script. All the script calls for is a tight shot on LC, so we can't see
who he's talking to or what he's talking about, obviously done in order to
preserve the suspense until the final scene ("where it all connects").
(Yes, the script does call for the pullback of the camera during the
"leaving is the purest form of love" monologue, so we can see it is Nick he
is talking to, but that's all.)
Hopefully, the above will be of some comfort.
I won't debate the LC stuff with you. Suffice it to say that I disagree
completely <g>.
>I will grant that it is a powerful episode, with good acting, and
>mostly good filming and direction. It's just *wrong.*
Yes, it is. I think there is virtual unanimity of opinion on that.
Laurie
Cousin M+B+D+T+K
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 07:07:01 -0700
From: lucienlc <lucienlc@i.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: LK, Downloading Nick's Brain
>And, finally, the loop is imperfect. I will analyze the ramifications of
>this some other time, but for now, note a few of the many differences:
>"a ripe peach" vs "the freshest peach"
>"where you stand" vs "where you are"
>"the rising sun" vs "the morning sun"
(Sorry for the extra line)
Not sure I made this clear enough in my answer to Sandra. This was
apparently quite deliberate. Let me quote the entire bit from the script:
**NICK: I have that faith, too.
ON LACROIX - stunned - and roughly matching the first speech in the Teaser.
We can take license here (dialogue edits) and we may not even use this. But
we'll say that this is where it all connects.**
Laurie
Cousin M+B+D+T+K
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 10:07:47 EDT
From: Lisa McDavid <D020214@u.......>
Subject: Spoiler: Last Knight
H'mm, now that they've arbtrarily given Nat April 14th as a birthday
(although I really think they'd forgotten that Nick was brought in
on her birthday), it might be interesting to cast her horoscope for
April 14, 1962 and see what comes out.
We don't have a time, so it would have to be one of the generic systems
for use when the birth time is unknown. We don't have a place, but it's
probably safe to assume Toronto or somewhere in the vicinity.
Cousin Lisa -- "That will be trouble."
Lisa McDavid
mcdavid-lisa@s.......
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 08:34:00 -0600
From: Deb <drowland@a.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: Last Knight
>Another factor that needs to be considered is how long has it been since the
>poor boy has had sex! Only once in this whole season (if you consider
>bringing Janette back across, having vampire sex with her) Otherwise Nick
>has been celibate this whole year.
If you remember in Blackwing Nick is shown rebuttoning his shirt while
Marion lies asleep in bed. I always took this to mean that he and she had
been "together". Since she had taken the killer out of him , he was safe to
have sex (and why didn't he run to Nat? HUH? No, I'm not a Natpacker but
that little one night stand was too much for even this Knightie!).
Deb Knightie with strong Cousinly urges
You can't run away forever, but there's nothing wrong with getting a good
headstart. _Rock and Roll Dreams Come Through_ by Meatloaf
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 11:26:06 -0500
From: MS CHRISTINA L KAMNIKAR <VQRW76A@p.......>
Subject: SPOILER: Last Knight; Nick's impulses
Darn you, Valerie Meachum. :)
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
?
W
H
Y
N
O
T
I was hoping no one would catch this reason for Nick's lack of foreplay
until AFTER I'd written my fanfic response explaining it. But I think
you're right---Nick was trying to preserve Natalie's life by not getting
too, umm "excited" over biting her. I think he would have done better to
feed like a pig first, like Vachon did in Apache's story "Best Laid Plans",
rather than go into the situation hungry. So to speak.
Why do I think this? History. There is actually a lot of continuity to
support this idea. Richard and Elizabeth were both brought across by a
somewhat uninvolved Nick, who was biting each of them as a last resort and
as a reason to cure them of illness. Both became vampires. Alissa, Amalia,
and Alexandra (man, he goes in for those A names, doesn't he?) were all
drained dry when Nick was EXTREMELY interested in the proceedings.
Alexandra was later brought across by Lacroix because Nicky boy was too
distracted to realize there was some life left in her.
The only anomaly is Serena, who was brought across after a passionate
interlude with Nick. Of course, he wasn't in love with her, he was (again)
doing her a "favor" by making her a vampire (well, that's what he thought,
anyway). So Nick has some reason to suspect that if he let things get
passionate with Natalie that he'd end up taking WAY too much.
Which doesn't mean I was happy about the situation. After those kisses in
Night in Question, and all the times we've seen Nick get romantic with
variuous necks-of-the-week, I was really hoping for something more
interesting than an intense look, a wrist slurp, and one kiss. But I have
the feeling that the episode was running out of time, too. Toooo bad.
Christina vqrw76a@p....... Merc FoFoD Cleopatra Night DJ, CERK
"Death can not stop True Love"
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 10:37:59 -0500
From: michael wayne jackson <mjay@n.......>
Subject: Re: Spoiler: Last Knight
At 10:07 AM 5/22/96 EDT, Lisa McDavid wrote:
>H'mm, now that they've arbtrarily given Nat April 14th as a birthday
It's more than just that. In the wee hours of April 14 of this year began
the Saturday Knight Live mini-loop.
michael wayne jackson -- mjay@n.......
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 12:17:43 -0400
From: "M. Vrzoc" <vrzoc@s.......>
Subject: Fan Fiction Request
In light of the sadness of Last Knight I've decided to go back and read
some good FK fiction.
I am trying to locate any stories by Denise Bridger especially anything
featuring her heroine Gabrielle. If anyone has these stories and could
forward them to me, I would be most appreciative.
Thank you.
M. Vrzoc (vrzoc@u.......) | Just a little off the top!
| -- A. Boleyn
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 12:35:22 -0500
From: Sandra Gray <TMP_HARKINS@d.......>
Subject: Re: The LC angles (LK spoilers) -- HA!
In response to Tippi's comments about the LC distortions, it's possible
that Nick was kneeling instead of lying on the floor at some points.
Nick might have tried to keep from falling down on Nat. I don't think
that just because Nick is staked means he then has to have *no* control
of his body. LC lingered in NiQ (and didn't fall down on the soldier
when staked either, but rose up and struggled some before falling back).
--Sandra Gray, forever Knightie
--tmp_harkins@d.......
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 12:53:55 -0500
From: Joni Latham <jlatham@g.......>
Subject: Last Knight-Nigel
I have been sitting hear quitely and reading your comments with great
interest.
I watched the show up until about November, then I became very
disillusioned with the way that the characters and the plots were going.
Nick to me was becoming wishy washy, although I realized that many women
had a crush on him, I did not care much for the charcter anymore. I thought
that LaCroix was much more interesting and should have been more developed.
I felt that he was totally misunderstood. I kept imagining what I would do
with the stories and characters, if I wrote the show. Someone told me to
write it down and before I knew it, I had written my 1st novel and the only
thing Forever Kightish that remained was that the main male hero looks
liked Nigel in my mind. It is at the agents right now.
I had stopped watching the shows because I was afraid that they would
influence my characters and I did not like the plots, but kept up with the
plots through the NET so I know the storylines. Against my better
judgement I watched the last episode and as usual I was disappointed and
wanted to rewrite it. I had known all along though that LaCroix and Nick
had a special bond, otherwise why would he always help Nick and why would
Nick always go to him for help. The answer in TV land always seems to be
"kill'em off" (such as Chris in Silk Stalkings) or kill them in such a way
that it could have all been a dream (Dallas).
As you can probably tell, I was disechanted through most of the last season.
Joni Latham
jlatham@g.......
102113.1053@c.......
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 13:52:09 -0400
From: Gehirn Karies <SoulDebris@a.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: LK
Robbi lamented:
>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 would hope the majority of us do. There are a lot of intelligent articulate
people lamenting the same question. On the four a.m. drive home from
watching LK, Shell the lurker and I discussed this, we're pretty baffled by
our own involvement.
My point is, many of our lives are surronded by cascading despair.
Suicides, senseless murders; phone calls at all hours from friends,
family, the ER; nowhere jobs, Cops in the family, abuse, the list is
endless. Those of us who are the rocks, the GFI's grounding all this
pain electric have to find escapism, entertainment.
The people involved in making television know it is escapism. The
FK people know they have dedicated fans. You guys made your
presence so well known that even the likes of me updated thier
computers and got on line just to join your ranks. (and rankle your joints)
It was very wrong for TBTB to heap such an overwhelming dose of
hopeless despair onto our favorite form of entertainment.
PTB, I *know* that you're out there, and I know no one can turn
back the clock. But you people were wrong. We have seen you leave
looser. FK deserved looser. The actors, among the best on television,
cable included, deserve better. You people should take more
responsibility for your product.
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 11:03:40 -0700
From: "Andrew E. Nystrom" <wo991@f.......>
Subject: Re: CROSS-POSTING: No!
On Thu, 11 Apr 1996, Jamie Melody Randell wrote:
> There's been a distressing tendency toward cross-posting lately...
>
> This is not a good thing.
>
> The reason we have three lists is because each of them exists for a
> specific purpose: FKFIC for fiction, FKSPOILR for spoilers, FORKNI for
> everything else. These are fairly distinct categories; there should be no
> overlap. Cross-posting is almost always unnecessary, and wastes bandwidth
> for people who pay by-the-word/line/minute to get their e-mail. It's like
> the emergency broadcast system: it should be saved for the most extreme
> circumstances.
>
> NOBODY should be posting the same message to more than one list, unless
> they've cleared it with a listowner in *advance*. If it's important enough
> to be posted to a whole bunch o'lists, it's important enough for you to
> tell us about it first.
>
> Okay? Thanks.
>
> --
> Jamie M.R. -- Asst. Listowner -- http://members.aol.com/immajer/
> Illustrated Webgoddess & Keeper of Warm Fuzzies
> "I may do what I have done. I may smash the hollow rock
> without breaking stride and splinter the glitter inside
> all over a midnight street." -- L.F.
>
=========================================================================
Knight graphics and parchment background created by Melissa Snell and may be found at http://historymedren.about.com/
