FKSPOILR
Logfile LOG9606 Part 5
June 3-June 5, 1996
File: "FKSPOILR LOG9606" Part 5
TOPICS:
SPOILER: LK (4)
SPOILER: LK, HF (was Off-list fan phoned) (2)
SPOILER: LK, DoN - Nat's Fear (5)
mis-spellings in Mollin interview
ALERT: "Francesca" on CFPL NOW!!!
SPOILERS: All,Tiny bit VS/Mostly LaCroix AtA/LK (3)
SPOILERS: All, N&N 2/2
Lora "Haynes" .... & Sherri? :-) (Spoilers for Last Knight) (3)
spoiler: LK
Urs and Lacroix (AtA Spoilers)
Urs and LK spoiler
Spoiler: LK, Virtua
Spoiler: Jane Doe
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 16:04:00 -0400
From: Lynn Messing <messing@a.......>
Subject: SPOILER: LK
> And... did Nat have time to "take care of" Urs' body before she
>went to Nick's place, or could it be sorta just lying around in the morgue
>when Nat leaves for her fateful visit to Nick's place?
That got me thinking...The only other time I can recall Nick telling someone that
something was "taken care of" was when he was reassuring Nat about Perri at the
end of Blind Faith...In that instance, at least, things were "taken care of" in
a way very different from what the listener would have expected...Perhaps that
will give the Ursulites (I recall several possible Urs faction names being
proposed, but does Urs' faction have an official name? Are there any members of
this faction?) some small additional hope...
cheers, Lynn Messing messing@a.......
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 14:59:37 -0500
From: Margie Hammet <treeleaf@i.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: LK, HF (was Off-list fan phoned)
>On Mon, 3 Jun 1996, Mary Anne Espenshade wrote:
>> They are also certain that Janette is dead. Nobody off-list seems to find
>> anything ambiguous about either ending.
This makes me wonder if most people understand the importance of what we
have been calling "the tag", in Forever Knight. The tag in HF made it
pretty clear to my husband and me that Janette was alive. Of course, it
also probably helped to have someone right there to discuss it with.
A tag, in most shows, is often just a last, little, clever bit, that can
be left out without having any great effect. The so-called tag in FK is
usually the actual ending. Sometimes it gives critical information, as in
HF. Sometimes it functions as a denoument does in literature, with the
crisis occurring right before the last commercial, and the actual ending
coming after the last commercial. In either case, it just isn't the same
show without it.
Somebody needs to clue these off-line fans in about the so-called tag. It
isn't a time to get up and go to the bathroom or start dialing around.
Margie (treeleaf@i.......)
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 14:27:32 -0700
Subject: Re: SPOILER: LK
Post removed by request
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 17:44:00 EDT
From: Margie Gillis <MGILLIS@c.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: LK, HF (was Off-list fan phoned)
>On Mon, 3 Jun 1996, Mary Anne Espenshade wrote:
>> They are also certain that Janette is dead. Nobody off-list seems to find
>> anything ambiguous about either ending.
Then Margie replied:
>>The tag in HF made it pretty clear to my husband and me that Janette was
alive. Of course, it also probably helped to have someone right there to
discuss it with.<<
I wasn't on the list when HF aired, and didn't know *anybody* who
watched the show. Even so, it never even occurred to me that Janette
might be dead--even before I saw the tag. That's just because of my
own personal take on the ep, though, beginning with the fact that I
believed Nick when he told Janette he didn't even want to imagine a
world without her in it, combined with a pet theory of my own which I
don't particularly expect anyone else to agree with (basically, I
don't think Janette ever became completely mortal--if you want
details, email me offlist, but I warn you, it's a silly theory; it's
just one that works for me ;)). Once I saw the tag, however, personal
wishes had nothing to do with it: it was perfectly obvious that
Janette was alive and a vampire once again.
As for LK--I do have to admit, I've been feeling bad for anyone who
watched it and hadn't heard of the show's cancellation. I hadn't,
before I joined the lists (about two months ago). And let's face it,
if you didn't know what was going on behind the scenes, there wasn't a
lot of preparation for LK. I stayed unspoiled until I saw it, but at
least I knew going in that TPTB wanted it to be a final episode. If I
hadn't known that, I would've been in complete shock.
Not to mention, they don't have the advantage of fanfic to help them
rationalize an answer everyone can live with <g>.
Margie
mgillis@d.......
Dark Knightie/Immortal Beloved/Unnamed
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 18:08:26 -0400
From: "Lisa P." <LadysAVamp@a.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: LK, DoN - Nat's Fear
Nick was a "brand new" vampire when he tried to bring Alyssa across. She was
his first attempt. He hadn't even realized he had killed her until Lacroix
mentioned how the love nest reeked of death. Being new at being a vampire,
he was still enjoying what he had become. He wasn't carrying the emotional
baggage we see him with 800 years later. Alyssa wouldn't see the images that
Nat had seen because he had yet to experience all that comes with being a
vampire. What he would eventually loathe.
He went into his lovemaking with Alyssa open minded and without guilt.
Reveling in his nature and wanting to share it with her. Not so with Nat.
She was bombarded with 800 years of guilt and pain. If it hadn't been for
those images, or if the images were more pleasant, I think then she would
have found the experience pleasurable.
Lisa P.
***************************************************************************
Only one thing is truly permanent...Forever Knight
Cousinly Knightie w/NatPacker tendencies <I do so hate to limit myself>
LadysAVamp@a....... -- "Hey, who you calling a lady!?!"
oboyyme@t....... -- <Lacroix's unheard thoughts at end of LK>
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 17:37:51 -0500
From: D Echelbarger <gryphon@e.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: LK, DoN - Nat's Fear
In regard to why Nat got such nasty images when Nick bit her, and Alyssa
didn't,
On Mon, 3 Jun 1996, "Lisa P." <LadysAVamp@a.......> wrote:
>Nick was a "brand new" vampire when he tried to bring Alyssa across. She was
>his first attempt.
It's a nice theory, Lisa P (you're not Lisa Prince, right? You're a different
Lisa P?) but it's got this little, tiny flaw in it....
Alyssa was his first attempt, but he wasn't a "brand new" vampire at the time.
"He was brought across in 1228." If the costumes from those flashbacks were
from any earlier than 1500 (Susan G's timeline says 1528) I'll eat them. Without
catsup. :) (IMHO, judging by the costumes, those flashbacks take place *after*
the POTM flashbacks, where Janette dumps him.... Alyssa got him on the rebound.
<g>)
So he'd been a vamp for 300 years or so when he tried to bring her across--
plenty of time to experience all the "dark parts" of being a vampire. And he'd
shown traces of doubt as early as his first night across (Dark Knight, Canadian
cut). Not to mention that it has to have been shortly after this that he
decided to feed "only on the guilty"....
Diane E
# D Echelbarger gryphon@e....... #
# WWW HomePage: http://www.execpc.com/~echelbar/ #
# "Death cannot stop True Love" Wesley, _Princess Bride_ #
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 20:13:02 -0300
From: Stapleton <d7ux@u.......>
Subject: mis-spellings in Mollin interview
Well my system has been acting REALLY screwy today and decided to miss up
the spelling of Fred's last name. I sincerely apologize for the error.
However, as it would be too hard to go back and repost that first part [as
I believe only the intro had his name spelled wrong.] I also think it
would go against list rules to repost that size of a file. I will most
definitely be changing it before I send my copy to him. I do give
permission for any of you who are saving the file for personal keep or
showing others, to go ahead and correct the spelling of his name. [And
only that.]
Again, I apologize for any error.
Lynn Stapleton
d7ux@u.......
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 19:54:46 -0400
From: "Lisa P." <LadysAVamp@a.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: LK, DoN - Nat's Fear
In response to Diane E <gryphon@e.......>:
First, I'm one of the many Lisas that are on this list.
Second, as for the tiny flaw...oops. I plead ignorance, or the fact that I
have never seen the first season or most of the second season. It just
seemed that he was so "innocent" in this scene, that he couldn't have been a
vampire for very long. Poor Nick, it took approx. 300 years to lose his
vampiric virginity...and his wife, all in one night.
Down..Cousinly tendencies...down!!!! I know I'm going to get flamed for
this!!! :)
Lisa Patnaude (the other Lisa P.)
***************************************************************************
Only one thing is truly permanent...Forever Knight
Cousinly Knightie w/NatPacker tendencies <I do so hate to limit myself>
LadysAVamp@a....... -- "Hey, who you calling a lady!?!"
oboyyme@t....... -- <Lacroix's unheard thoughts at end of LK>
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 19:48:47 -0500
From: TippiNB <Tippinb@i.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: LK, DoN - Nat's Fear
Lisa P. wrote:
>Nick was a "brand new" vampire when he tried to bring Alyssa across.
Did anyone ever post what period this flashback was? I thought by the
costumes it was the 1500's, which would make Nick 300, and not too new.
Vachon, after all, brought Urs across when he was the same age, and if he
was, indeed, the one who brought Screed across (who was 450 years old), then
Vachon really *was* brand new. Nothing against Nick, but I think some vamps
are just inherently skilled at making other vamps. You know, like how some
people can never learn to play a musical instrument even with years of trial
but some can pick it up right away.
Anyway, your point is still basically the same, that Alyssa didn't feel the
fear that Nat felt because Nick did not yet have *all* the emotional
baggage. Maybe that's when he started packing? ;)
Wicked Cousin Tippi (Tippinb@i.......)
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 20:49:30 -0500
From: Carrie Krumtum <carriek@e.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: LK
Margie Gillis wrote:
>As for LK--I do have to admit, I've been feeling bad for anyone who
>watched it and hadn't heard of the show's cancellation. I hadn't,
>before I joined the lists (about two months ago).
I am reminded of how I felt watching Riker say 'fire' meaning he was
attempting to blow up the Borg vessel that contained Locutis(sp?) aka
Picard. I racked my brain for months trying to figure out how Picard
could possibly come out alive. I have to admit that the obvious NEVER
occured to me, that the weapon wouldn't work.
With this particular ending for FK I kind of feel the same way. When
(note: I did NOT say if) they pick up the story in the FK universe, the
obvious will most likely be something I had never thought of. I'm
counting on everyone else on this list to help prepare me. <g>
--
Carrie, Proud Knightie
The Nurse is a hampster
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 22:22:48 -0400
From: Dalton Spence <dalton.spence@f.......>
Subject: ALERT: "Francesca" on CFPL NOW!!!
For folks who unfortunately got "Francesca Doe" from WKBW a few weeks
ago, you now have a second chance! CFPL channel 10 London (Roger's Cable
21 in Hamilton) is showing "Francesca" RIGHT NOW!!! If you can get your
tape in the VCR before 10:30, you can get the last half of the show. But
HURRY! You have only until the next commercial break!
Dalton S. Spence, B.Sc. <ag775@f.......>
Home Page: http://www.freenet.hamilton.on.ca/~ag775/home.html
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 18:58:44 PST
From: June Russell <Kat@g.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: LK, DoN - Nat's Fear
:Nick was a "brand new" vampire when he tried to bring Alyssa across. She was
:his first attempt.
He was brought across in 1228. However, Alyssa became his wife some time in
the 1500 (exact time varies between shooting script and final episode form
evidently). It was evidently his first try at bringing someone across. (I
personally think LC should consider Alyssa the "Fleur" payback and leave him
alone with the other ladies. Especially Nat;)
Kat
Kat ( June Russell )
pacifier.com!grendal!kat kat@g.......
Heu! Tintinnuntius meus Sonat!
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 22:50:39 +0500
From: John Folden <jtfolden@e.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: LK
What a 'cute' name! I rather like Urs myself...never even knew a faction
had been considered...
//----------------------------------------
// John T. Folden, a demented victorian
// lost in the DARK SHADOWS of an endless
// FOREVER KNIGHT...
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 23:15:14 -0400
From: Gehirn Karies <SoulDebris@a.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILERS: All,Tiny bit VS/Mostly LaCroix AtA/LK
Lady Amy wrote:
>The most important advantage of the so-called Virtual Season is its
>potential to reinvigorate those who have been severely disenchanted by LK.
>Its disadvantages have been thoroughly pointed out by <snip> who I notice
>re all Cousins and Ravens, most of whom were not much upset with LK.
About the virtual season, I thought it was about ongoing enjoyment
of the series presented in a uniform format. Those who choose to
participate can provide us with some entertainment, the rest of us
can go on posting our stories to FKfiction. From the Spoiler
discussions anyway I saw no indication that the virtual season was
about lessening any disenchantment, the folks involved seem to be
working on an agreeable starting point post AtA and LK, which is
what the production staff will do if we get movies.
Margie wrote anout LK:
>A large part of it was about three people (Nick, Natalie, and LaCroix),
> who could only see their own needs or their own pain and disregarded
>the needs or feelings of others. I'm not saying that's typical of either
> Nick or Natalie (LaCroix is a different question),
About LaCroixian emotions.... Perhaps I am blinded by my own
feelings since AtA and LK, but generalizing about how Cousins
may feel since AtA and LK is just that, generalizing. I made it pretty
darn clear I was upset by LK. Why is LaCroix a different question?
Many people on the lists seem to view LaCroix as a one dimensional
creature incapable of deep feeling or change. I don't want to argue
with you gals, but I want to assure you that there are 1000 different
views of each character on this list, and some of us were
devastated by what LaCroix went through in AtA and LK.
I only talk privately with one Cousin, but we both saw AtA and LK
as tragic for LaCroix. We were both seriously depressed after LK.
To steal some of Jamies' (The Fuzzie One) words, I know
my own little corner of LaCroix. In my little corner he's hurting.
In AtA LaCroix had to see his daughter kill and be killed, then tried
to cover it up with his little speech about a parent outliving their child
and "fortunately there are exceptions." Which was blown out the
window when he said he might even pray for her.
He cared enough about Urs and Vachon to inquire about their
bodies. You could argue that he was being thorough, but I think he
felt bad that his chosen action two millennia ago was ultimately
the instigation for everything that Divia did.
The events in AtA prompted LaCroix to move on. To the point where
he was somewhat willing to leave Nick behind. Then in LK he had to
see Nick in total distress, once again unable to talk him out of his
chosen course of action. I don't see LaCroix as disregarding Nick's
needs or feelings entirely. He *is* far too possesive, and I like that
about him, <wcg> but as far back as FD he showed he does listen
to Nick. He talked Don Constantine into letting David go, and he
*was* moved by the embrace between the Don and David.
He backed off a bit then, saying "If you love someone let them go. If
they're really yours they will learn their lessons and return. You will
come back, Nicholas. I can wait. I have all the time in the world."
He wasn't as nasty in "The Fix", which was later in second season, as
he was in the flashbacks of "1966" or "Father's Day" when Nick went
after cures. In "The Fix" he just sorta smoldered and made his point.
Unfortunately for LaCroix all the time in the world wasn't enough.
Gehirn Karies
SoulDebris@a.......
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 01:55:46 -0400
From: Ray Heuer <RayHeuer@a.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILERS: All, N&N 2/2
I agree with virtually all of the points made by Amy in her discussion
here, and I won't bother quibbling with the rest, I just want to add one note
from possibly the least romantic episode of the third season (and yet, it
clearly shows strong love of *some* sort between N/N and N/LC).
In Sons of Belial (I'm sorry, I just *can't* bring myself to use the
abbreviation), toward the very end, when the exorcism of Nick is at its
critical point, and Nick jumps from the table (bed? alter?), I think if the
person who walked through the door at that moment had been ANYONE other than
Natalie, he/she would have been toast. Nick grabbed Nat, and suddenly the
love he felt for her defeated the demon and broke its control.
Yes, "love". No question. But, what *kind* of love? Romantic,
man/woman love as most of us would like to believe? Or filial,
brother/sister love?
The only kind I would rule out is comradely friend/friend love. Had it
been Tracy instead, I am quite certain that Reese would have had to make
*that* call to the Commissioner.
-- Ray
Nat Vamp Camp
And just where WERE Tracy's parents in LK?
Rage! Rage! Against the dying of the Knight!
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 10:17:38 -0400
From: Will Steeves <goid@i.......>
Subject: Lora "Haynes" .... & Sherri? :-) (Spoilers for Last Knight)
Here's a much-needed tension breaker...I hope. :-)
(Yes, I _almost_ put this on the FORKNI-L list, as I was responding to a post
there. Err, whoops.)
Sherri Haynes <abadi@p.......> writes....
^^^^^^
Hey, wait a second.... in the script for "Last Knight", Lora's name is written
"Dr. Lora Haynes" (conceivably so that they don't get into legal trouble for
spelling Lora Haines' name as it is actually spelled!), which brings up the
question:
So, Cousin Sherri, are you related to the good doctor? :-)
(File this under "YKTYBWTMFK", of course.... :-) )
Cheers,
"Perky" Cousin Will, &c.
---
Will Steeves, B.Sc. (Toronto, 1991), goid@i....... - "Neil Hull is GOiD"
Publisher & Managing Editor, The New Edition (U of T); Nu '96, Psi Upsilon
Ontario Area Coordinator, FREE (http://www.vix.com/free)
If possession is 9/10 of the law, what's the other 1/10? - Steeves' Laws Vol. I
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 13:12:00 -0500
From: Sherri Haynes <abadi@p.......>
Subject: Re: Lora "Haynes" .... & Sherri? :-) (Spoilers for Last Knight)
"Perky" Cousin Will writes:
>So, Cousin Sherri, are you related to the good doctor? :-)
>
Yeah, she's my second cousin on my dad's side .... She never did have much
of a life--always working!
Instead of sending flowers to the funeral home, you can send them to me. :)
Cousin Sherri
who is no relation to the real Lora Haines
Cousin Sherri
Member of the Unnamed Faction
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 14:07:32 -0400
From: Lynn Messing <messing@a.......>
Subject: spoiler: LK
OK, I think I have just come up with the epitome of whacky hypotheses
explaining Nat's suicidal behaviour *and* her "mistaking" her birthday
(April or June?) in LK:
She was possessed by the ghost of Urs! Urs, even in the afterlife, had a
suicide wish, and decided to fulfill it through Natalie. And if April 14th
were really Urs' birthday, Nat/Urs might have confused days...
Nat: I met Nick on my birthday.
Urs: My birthday is April 14th.
Nat/Urs: I met Nick on April 14th. QED
All right, now that I've just proved to everyone how off-the-wall I am, I'll go
back into lurkerdom. :) cheers, Lynn messing@a.......
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 15:19:24 -0500
From: Margie Hammet <treeleaf@i.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILERS: All,Tiny bit VS/Mostly LaCroix AtA/LK
At 11:15 PM 6/3/96 -0400, Gehirn Karies wrote:
>Margie (i.e. - me) wrote about LK:
>>....could only see their own needs or their own pain and disregarded
>>the needs or feelings of others. ....not typical of Nick or Natalie
>>(LaCroix is a different question),
>Why is LaCroix a different question? ... The events in AtA prompted LaCroix
>to move on. To the point where he was somewhat willing to leave Nick behind.
I don't think he was willing to leave Nick behind, if he could possibly
help it. I think he tried to manipulate Nick into going with him. Nick
wanted LaCroix' help with the guilt he felt, but LaCroix just reinforced
Nick's feelings of guilt. He said, "The pain you're causing your mortal
friends is no longer acceptable to them. Those that do survive will not
allow their relationship with you to continue in the way that it was."
What LaCroix wanted Nick to believe was that it indeed was his fault that
Tracy was dying and the Natalie was in so much pain. The message he was
giving Nick was, "You need to leave to stop causing people all this pain."
Also, at a terribly vulnerable time for Nick, LaCroix was threatening to
abandon him. He said he would come to Nick's loft later, "and then I'm
leaving, with or without you." It's a manipulative trick of acting like you
don't really care, which makes the vulnerable person even more dependent.
Nick didn't want to leave, but that didn't matter to LaCroix. That's
what I meant by disregarding Nick's needs and feelings. I'm not saying
that LaCroix always disregards Nick's feelings.
My question is why LaCroix did it. Was it really because of the events in
AtA or was it just that LaCroix had been wanting to get Nick out of there
all along and saw his chance to do it? And if it really was because of the
events in AtA, was LaCroix so upset over what had happened that his behavior
can be explained by the pain that he himself was feeling?
I don't really know what to think about this. When I thought about the
bust that LaCroix had in the Raven, I thought it was an indication that
what had happened in AtA, painful as it was, had brought some closure to
LaCroix over what had happened with Divia so long ago. Why would he put
a bust out there that would remind him of something painful? (Nick does
that sort of thing, not LaCroix.) I saw it as a sign that LaCroix could now
look back at the past without pain.
>In AtA LaCroix had to see his daughter kill and be killed, then tried
>to cover it up with his little speech about a parent outliving their child
>and "fortunately there are exceptions." Which was blown out the
>window when he said he might even pray for her.
I do see LaCroix as trying to cover up his feelings a lot of the time.
Maybe putting the bust out there was just another way of doing that. Maybe
it's a way of saying, to himself and others, "See, I don't care. I am
perfectly fine," even when he didn't really feel that way.
If that's true, then his behavior is more like Nick's and Natalie's. All
three of them were in pain. They all did disregard others. Natalie, in
pushing Nick to do what he was afraid he could not do and what would cause
him terrible pain if he failed; Nick, in taking such a risk with Natalie's
ife; LaCroix in making Nick feel even more guilty and putting Nick in even
more pain. If all three were in pain, then the behavior of all three,
while not excusable for any of them, is at least understandable and
forgiveable for all of them.
Gehirn, I hope you're right about LaCroix. It makes me feel a little bit
better. BTW, Nick is alive. LaCroix wouldn't kill him. Nick tried to
guilt him into doing it with that, "You are my closest friend," bit, but
that kind of thing is not going to work with LaCroix.
Margie (treeleaf@i.......)
N&NPacker
Cousin of the Knight
Margie (treeleaf@i.......)
N&NPacker
Cousin of the Knight
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 15:09:57 -0700
From: Amy R. <akr@n.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILERS: All,Tiny bit VS/Mostly LaCroix AtA/LK
> My question is why LaCroix did it. Was it really because of the events in
> AtA or was it just that LaCroix had been wanting to get Nick out of there
> all along and saw his chance to do it?
I just saw "Killer Instinct" for the first time last night. I vote that
LC has been trying to get Nick out of this life ever since KI, ever since
DK. I vote that he merely changed tactics.
I also vote, however, that LC *has* changed during these past two years.
Staying in one place, interacting with the same mortals, watching Nick and
Janette interact with the same mortals, observing Nick's few moments of
happiness amidst all the pain. The LC who taunted Natalie in Fever was
still behaving in a manner I would call evil, but look how far he is from
the LC who was going to kill her in BMV. The LC of LK is still playing
with Nick's mind in an attempt to talk Nick out of what he sees as
suicide, but look how different the approach is from The Fix! Did you
notice that JD, which immediately precedes AtA, also included an admission
of something LC had never told Nick? Not a hugely important admission,
but still, a change. LC's speech about moving on in LK echos that of the
flashback in PotM, not the present of KI.
LC's resumed presence in Nick's life has hurt him immensely, twisting his
few triumphs. However, the full circle that was completed from DK to LK
is a spiral, and we're a flight higher.
When LC fails to stake Nick, they will have finally become equals.
Or so I think this afternoon.... :)
*** Amy, Lady of the Knight (akr@n.......) ***
** Knightie *** Light Cousin *** Fleur-Booster **
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 19:25:22 -0500
From: Sherri Haynes <abadi@p.......>
Subject: Re: Lora "Haynes" .... & Sherri? :-) (Spoilers for Last Knight)
Responding to my own message:
>Instead of sending flowers to the funeral home, you can send them to me. :)
Forget the virtual flowers. In lieu of flowers, the Haynes family asks that
you send a donation to one of the three FK charities:
Pediatric AIDS Foundation (which is very close to the $10,000 mark)
Casey House
Children's Hospital Foundation
A check for $5.00 made out to any one of these charities will get you a
blooper script. Send it to: Lisa Prince, 360 Connecticut Avenue, Suite
133, Norwalk, CT 06854-1824. Contact Lisa at Moonlight@g....... for info
about how much to cover mailing costs. I think its 4 stamps (in the US).
Thank you from the family of dear, departed, fictional cousin Laura Haynes.
<Sniff>
Cousin Sherri
Unnamed * "We have a very special relationship." LC to Nick (NiQ)
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 23:06:26 -0400
From: Roxanne Piccen <RoxanneP@a.......>
Subject: Re: Urs and Lacroix (AtA Spoilers)
Apache wrote:
>And Urs had had 120 years of vampire life to hone her intellectual
>leanings, if she had any. She doesn't; she's not a bookish sort.
120 years as a vampire would be similar to the age of a mortal child
or adolescent, I would think, and not many children are interested
in intellectual pursuits. I'd say she's into partying and having fun at
this stage, which could explain her dancing at the Raven, but she's
too melancholy for that.
>look at the company she keeps. There's Vachon, who does not
>exactly choose to present himself to the world as an intellectual
>powerhouse, and Screed
Vampire fraternity boys? :-) Interested in a good time and Urs tags
along out of habit?
>She is bighearted; <snip> it makes me wonder how often she killed;
Me too. That's why I thought it was a big deal to actually see her
vamp out in AtA; we'd never seen her bare fangs before. Maybe in
the beginning, she took a page from Nick's book and only killed those
"bad" people who deserved it. Or maybe Vachon did the actual
biting/killing and she simply fed off the victims as they lay dying.
Fanfic idea, anyone?
>the presumed age at which she (Urs) ran up against Vachon.
Ah, but wouldn't a lot of us like to run up against Vachon? :-)
Roxanne // Cleopatra - a woman who liked to party with the boys
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, 5 Jun 1996 13:48:31 -0600
From: Deb <drowland@a.......>
Subject: Re: Urs and LK spoiler
When this list shuts down I'll be gone 'cause I can't sub to FORKNI until
at least Sept. Just wanted ot say goodbye and I'll miss you all. Here's my
last .02 on Urs and LK.
I think HoD made it evident that Urs danced at the Raven in an attempt to
get men's approval the only way she knew - with her body. At the end of HoD
she seemed to understand this but didn't know if knowing it would be enough
to change. I think the little we saw of her after HoD showed that she did
change. She stopped dancing, dressed better and didn't seem quite as
spacey. I also don't think she was dumb, I just think she never saw the
need to be anything other than decorative.
Also related to LK. While we're talking about doing things out of
character. When Nat asked Nick to make love to her, she said she'd be with
him no matter what- here in this life, as a vampire or whatever came next.
Nick said he'd be with her - no matter what. She knew he didn't have a good
track record of sipping or bringing people across, therefore there was a
better than average chance she'd end up dead. The only way Nick would be
with her was if he killed himself. Would Nat really want Nick to do that? I
don't think so.
Take care of yourselves. I'll miss "talking" with you.
Deb Knightie with strong Cousinly urges
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 15:52:22 -0500
From: Katharine Scarritt <katharine.scarritt@a.......>
Subject: Spoiler: LK, Virtua
Hi, all--I've been lurking on the FK lists for ages, but
rarely post, since I'm on digest and everybody usually has
said more or less what I want to say about the eps and I
don't want waste space. However, this Virtual Season idea
has me really intrigued--I think it's a wonderful idea and
hope it goes forward. I have some thoughts on structuring
the stories:
Set it up like a 'real' season, 22 eps, etc. with
corresponding limits on story length and content. (If we
do this well, think of all the fanfiction that will spawn
off the 4th season!)
I see no problem with bringing any or all of characters
back per se with one proviso. The death of the characters
in Last Knight is symbolic and has to be accounted for: at
the very least, the old ways the characters had of relating
to each other has died and something new must come about.
For the most story scope, I say bring back the major ones,
Natalie (mortal) and Nick (vampire) to preserve the premise
of the show, and Tracy, Vachon, and Janette at least.
Schanke if a really good way can be managed. I would even
enjoy seeing Stonetree again. Cohen, Urs and Screed should
stay dead, as a reminder that there can be consequences in
this universe, but I think some form of flashback sequence
could do a lot to flesh out their characters and give them
and their passing a significance the show could have used.
So on one level, everything would return to 'normal';
Janette at the Raven (or perhaps a new club, or
restaurant), LaCroix hanging about, either as the
Nightcrawler or something new, Nick a cop, Nat the coroner,
etc., but on another level, everything has shifted.
I would love to participate in this project if it's still
on--perhaps we could get a list of everyone who's
interested and vote on various canonical issues.
Katharine
(katharine.scarritt@a.......)
* RM 1.31 1969 * Marching to a different kettle of fish
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 20:09:00 EDT
From: Margie Gillis <MGILLIS@c.......>
Subject: Spoiler: Jane Doe
Taking advantage of the spoiler list for the few days we have left...
My apologies if this has already been hashed out, but I didn't see any
mention of it in the posts I read on Jane Doe. I had a problem with
this ep, and was wondering if anyone else had the same reaction. When
Reese told Tracy to "go help Dr. Lambert" with the autopsy, I
initially assumed he meant to say "observe". Then Tracy goes to the
coroner's office, says "I'm supposed to help", and Nat basically says
"You start at that end and I'll start at this one."
Huh??
Since when does the ME take orders from a police captain (I always
thought the coroner and the police were separate entities that work
*together*, not that one worked *for* the other)? And, more
importantly, who would let a completely untrained police officer
*assist* during an autopsy?! Any competent defense attorney could get
all results from the autopsy excluded from the trial. The *most*
Tracy should have been allowed to do was hand instruments to Nat.
Not only should Tracy's assistance have invalidated the results of the
autopsy, it could have turned really ugly for her, Reese, and Nat. I
can just hear an attorney--"Capt. Reese, who is clearly obsessed with
the idea of the defendant's guilt, assigns one of his new
detectives--a woman eager to gain his approval--to *assist* the
coroner in her examination of the body, despite the fact that this
detective not only has no training in forensic pathology, but has no
basic *medical* training--and said detective just *happens* to find
the crucial bit of evidence to help convict my client..."--it could
sound really, really bad.
I think they were lucky that he suicided in his cell...
I agree with everyone who said that this was a terrific ep for Nat
(showing how good she was at her job, what it meant to her, letting
her teach a bit), but they could have done that with Tracy just
observing, as well.
So did anyone else think this, or did the idea of Tracy helping Nat
make sense to the rest of you?
Margie
mgillis@d.......
Dark Knightie/Immortal Beloved/Unnamed Faction
=========================================================================
Knight graphics and parchment background created by Melissa Snell and may be found at http://historymedren.about.com/
