LK Straw Poll--Please vote
Jill Kirby
In article <32d0ed2d...@news.vitinc.com> sus...@vitinc.com (Susan M. Garrett) writes:
>Yes, it's a moot point and "Last Knight" is canon, but just for my own
>curiosity and since we're talking to a group of people who watch the
>show, would you answer the following questions with a YES or NO.
Oh, goody. I love polls.
>1. Did you enjoy "Last Knight" as the final episode of FK?
No.
>2. Would you have preferred a different episode, other than "Last
>Knight" to have been the final episode of FK?
Yes.
(There were actually pieces of it that I liked very much, but on the whole I
felt it was not true to the characters. Someone posted that if the show had
ended with "Ashes to Ashes," it would have been fine with them. Probably fine
with me too, even though there would have been a number of unresolved plot
lines.)
>3. If FK ever continues, would you want the continuation to ignore
>"Last Knight"?
No.
(While I disliked the episode, I also dislike it when shows ignore
continuity... and FK has done that enough already. <G>)
> As far as my returning the
>numbers, go . . . I suppose you'll just have to trust that I'm
>counting everything that comes in.
I think we can trust you, Susan. :)
Jill
Susan M. Garrett
Yes, it's a moot point and "Last Knight" is canon, but just for my own
curiosity and since we're talking to a group of people who watch the
show, would you answer the following questions with a YES or NO.
1. Did you enjoy "Last Knight" as the final episode of FK?
2. Would you have preferred a different episode, other than "Last
Knight" to have been the final episode of FK?
3. If FK ever continues, would you want the continuation to ignore
"Last Knight"?
Please note that this poll is highly unscientific. I ask you to vote
once only out of courtesy to me--these numbers are going to TPTB or
anybody else, they're just for us and to satisfy my curiosity. (By
the way, if you don't want to post but want to log in a response--I
understand very well why some people lurk, you can send your answer
directly to my e-mail, sus...@vitinc.com) As far as my returning the
numbers, go . . . I suppose you'll just have to trust that I'm
counting everything that comes in. This doesn't really mean anything;
I just wanted to get a sense of what people think. Feel free to
expand on your answers AFTER answering YES or NO to the questions.
My own answers:
1. NO
2. YES
3. NO --it's canon and we've gotta live with it.
Regards
kmu...@ix.netcom.com
Susan M. Garrett wrote:
>
> Yes, it's a moot point and "Last Knight" is canon, but just for my own
> curiosity and since we're talking to a group of people who watch the
> show, would you answer the following questions with a YES or NO.
>
> 1. Did you enjoy "Last Knight" as the final episode of FK?
>
> 2. Would you have preferred a different episode, other than "Last
> Knight" to have been the final episode of FK?
>
> 3. If FK ever continues, would you want the continuation to ignore
> "Last Knight"?
>
>
1. No
2. Yes
3.Yes
I have to say that up till the very end, I liked Last Knight. My only
real problem with it is that I doubt that LaCroix would kill Nick.
I just can't see him ever letting go. And I think LaCroix would have
brought Nat across just to keep Nick alive.Even if they continued to
search for a cure.
LizM
June Williams
> 1. Did you enjoy "Last Knight" as the final episode of FK?
> Knight" to have been the final episode of FK?
> 3. If FK ever continues, would you want the continuation to ignore
> "Last Knight"?
No..just deal with it. Hey we've all got nearly vampiric memory right?
Maria G. Corral
On Sun, 5 Jan 1997, Susan M. Garrett wrote:
> Yes, it's a moot point and "Last Knight" is canon, but just for my own
> curiosity and since we're talking to a group of people who watch the
> show, would you answer the following questions with a YES or NO.
>
> 1. Did you enjoy "Last Knight" as the final episode of FK?
No -
>
> 2. Would you have preferred a different episode, other than "Last
> Knight" to have been the final episode of FK?
Yes
>
> 3. If FK ever continues, would you want the continuation to ignore
> "Last Knight"?
>
Yes - Two reasons: 1. I don't believe LaCroix could actually kill Nick,
especially after what he (LaCroix) went through in Sons of Belial. 2. If
Nick asked LaCroix to bring Nat across, I think LC would do it just to
hold it over Nick's head. My $.02 worth.
Maria - Dark Knightie, Knightie, Light Cousin & all around immie groupie.
Chris Rosmini
sus...@vitinc.com (Susan M. Garrett) wrote:
>Yes, it's a moot point and "Last Knight" is canon, but just for my own
>curiosity and since we're talking to a group of people who watch the
>show, would you answer the following questions with a YES or NO.
>1. Did you enjoy "Last Knight" as the final episode of FK?
Yes
I don't know if "enjoy" is quite the word, but I thought it was moving
and very well done, and it provided a sense of completion.
>2. Would you have preferred a different episode, other than "Last
>Knight" to have been the final episode of FK?
No
Well, perhaps "Fever". Or AtA with a different ending.
>3. If FK ever continues, would you want the continuation to ignore
>"Last Knight"?
No
kap...@hawaii.edu
YES.
NO.
NO.
Dotti M. Rhodes
>1. Did you enjoy "Last Knight" as the final episode of FK?
>
Yes and no....as show it was an awesome episode, well done and all
that..but as the last ep for FK? NO!!!
>2. Would you have preferred a different episode, other than "Last
>Knight" to have been the final episode of FK?
>
Heck yea....
>3. If FK ever continues, would you want the continuation to ignore
>"Last Knight"?
>
No...it's happened you can't ignore it. But there are many ways you can
pick it up and keep going...
Pam Nilsson
sus...@vitinc.com (Susan M. Garrett) wrote:
>1. Did you enjoy "Last Knight" as the final episode of FK?
>
>2. Would you have preferred a different episode, other than "Last
>Knight" to have been the final episode of FK?
>
>3. If FK ever continues, would you want the continuation to ignore
>"Last Knight"?
>
1. Yes, very much. Ironically, the original showing of LK was the FIRST
ep of FK I'd ever seen. Nigel Bennet's wonderful voice doing that
terrific monologue over the suicide footage, the music, the unusual
camera angles all really made a terrific first impression in just the
first few minutes. Halfway through the ep though I had to get some
sleep, since it was airing in an ungodly middle-of-the-night time slot.
2.No. When I saw LK as a rerun, I was familiar with the show, but
hadn't been following the newsgroup enough to realize this was the last
episode of the series. I just thought it was neat to see my first
episode again. On the second viewing though, I was disturbed to see
Tracy get shot. I'd seen that before, but didn't realize she was a main
character. Then it seemed Natalie was killed. I was wondering how in
the world they were going to wrap everything up and have a happy ending
when the final scene took place and it appeared LaCroix killed Nick. I
was stunned, yet impressed. It certainly gave me the message that the
series had ended! I actually applaud the writers for having the courage
to kill so many of the characters. It elevated the series to a tragedy,
by any definition. And tragedy is cathartic. I think the writers
cleverly tapped into our (the viewers' and fans') natural sense of loss
at our favorite program ending and used it to enhance our feelings of
loss within the storyline.
3. No. At the moment when the camera leaves LaCroix, he merely has the
stake in the air. Opening scene of any subsequent specials, could
naturally show LaCroix stabbing the stake into the couch in anger, or
hitting Nick upside the head, etc. Perfectly rational. The romantic,
tragic side of me prefers to think, though, that LaCroix did kill Nick.
Aloha,
Pam
Not Honey
>On Sun, 5 Jan 1997, Susan M. Garrett wrote:
> Yes, it's a moot point and "Last Knight" is canon, but just for my own
> curiosity and since we're talking to a group of people who watch the
> show, would you answer the following questions with a YES or NO.
>
> 1. Did you enjoy "Last Knight" as the final episode of FK?
Yes
>
> 2. Would you have preferred a different episode, other than "Last
> Knight" to have been the final episode of FK?
Yes
>
> 3. If FK ever continues, would you want the continuation to ignore
> "Last Knight"?
>
No. LC didn't kill Nick. Nat may still be alive, and as we all know,
Janette's still out there ... somewhere <g>.
Sheryl
NotH...@aol.com
"...and the wild regrets and the bloody sweats, none knew so well as fair Janette." (shamelessly stolen from O. Wilde)
magi...@aol.com
LizM
I agree with your idea about LaCroix, but I wonder if it wasn't already
too late to save Nat? I don't remember hearing if it would be possible to
save someone as far gone as she. Any info?
Magic
Ms. Lisa B. Burstiner
> >
because it was the last episode and a bit too dark IMO.
> >2. Would you have preferred a different episode, other than "Last
> >Knight" to have been the final episode of FK?
> >
Yes, but not a
Nick-becomes-mortal-and-he-and-Natalie-ride-off-into-the-sunset
episode. I would have liked an all-around good Nick-Lacroix-Natalie
story, with no closure.
> >3. If FK ever continues, would you want the continuation to ignore
> >"Last Knight"?
> >
I don't think it realistically could.
LB
Laura
With regaurds to Nat being saved I will paraphrase the Princess Bride;
there's 'almost dead', 'mostly dead' and 'compltely dead', maybe she
was only 'mostly dead'. My personal theory was that she was not quite
dead and Lacroix spiked Nick with such force [conveiniantly missing
Nick's heart] that Nat's body was also peirced. Slowly Nick's vampiric
blood driped into her still somewhat circulating circulatory system
and revived her. This would leave her temporarily or perminantly a
vampir. I vote for temporary, but I don't have time to write fanfic
at the moment.
Laura A Ackerman
Susan M. Garrett
Please remember when you're voting--you may give as much explanation
to your answers as you'd like, but I must have a YES or NO right up
front of at the end of each answer to make things easier.
Also, please vote by 1/10/96. I've been told there have been a number
of newsgroup votes, but I've only had one of them drop into my box as
of this morning. However, I've gotten a goodly number via e-mail.
Regards
sus...@vitinc.com -- http://www.vitinc.com/~susang
Faithful Ravenette, because somebody STILL has to.
Save Forever Knight! More info at the web page at
http://members.aol.com/CuznJamiMR/SaveForeverKnight.html
Susan M. Garrett
Just one more thing. I'm trying to reply to each vote I see or
receive, to thank you all for participating.
A couple of these are bouncing--so if you don't hear from me and
you're not an an alias, check with me after 48 hrs from posting your
vote (I seem to be at least that far behind on the newsgroup).
Tina
Susan M. Garrett <sus...@vitinc.com> wrote in article
<32d0ed2d...@news.vitinc.com>...
>
> 1. Did you enjoy "Last Knight" as the final episode of FK?
How can any true fan of Forever Knight "ENJOY" this episode? Personally
speaking, I thought it was well-acted and well-written, but a horrible
ending to a wonderful show, mainly because it was the final episode which
meant finito, kaput, the end.
> 2. Would you have preferred a different episode, other than "Last
> Knight" to have been the final episode of FK?
I would have preferred it to end differently, with Nick only taking enough
of Nat's blood and leaving her alive and then through a slow progression,
become mortal again which is what the show was all about anyway.
> 3. If FK ever continues, would you want the continuation to ignore
> "Last Knight"?
No, absolutely not, but I would want it to address what happened after the
camera stopped rolling. Did Lacroix stake Nick, or did Natalie regain
consciousness in time for Nick to live, and did it work for them the way it
worked for Janette in Human Factor.
I agree though that it is canon and hopefully the writers would deal with
it the way the virtual 4th season has, but with maybe a little more
forgiveness on Natalie's part. After all, she's the one who BEGGED Nick to
try it after he refused time and time again.
Oh, well, just my opinions.
Tina
mckensy
Laura wrote:
>
>
> With regaurds to Nat being saved I will paraphrase the Princess Bride;
> there's 'almost dead', 'mostly dead' and 'compltely dead', maybe she
> was only 'mostly dead'. My personal theory was that she was not quite
> dead and Lacroix spiked Nick with such force [conveiniantly missing
> Nick's heart] that Nat's body was also peirced. Slowly Nick's vampiric
Nick, by the way has been wrong about someone being dead and being a
vampire before while they were in the sleep state. see DK pt 2, with
Alyce Hunter.
G. Sample
sus...@vitinc.com (Susan M. Garrett) wrote:
>Yes, it's a moot point and "Last Knight" is canon, but just for my own
>curiosity and since we're talking to a group of people who watch the
>show, would you answer the following questions with a YES or NO.
>1. Did you enjoy "Last Knight" as the final episode of FK?
YES - though with much explanation and qualification.
Definately had mixed feelings. I could never really "enjoy" seeing
an eps. designed to end the series (inspite of all the talk of how
"ambiguous" it was *supposed* to be...), however I felt that it
was very dramatic and moving - seemed as if the writers refused
to compromise artistic ideals for the sake of commercial television -
I liked that.
Must admit, I *did* have problems with the way Nat seemed to do
so many turn-arounds from her well established character - not
quite enough motivation for my tastes. It didn't really seem
believable to me.
This eps. was certainly far from perfect . I found the 'kiss and
bite' scene between Nick and Nat to be extremely frustrating and
unrealistic in it's almost complete lack of love and passion - and
*I'm* IB - I can imagine how it must have affected all the N&N
people... But other parts of it really blew me away - especially when
I tried to watch and appreciate it for what it was, without all the
analysis and criticism that we FK fans find so tempting.
I was totally drawn in by LC's monologues, inspite of the confusion
of the point of view caused by the camera work. And though the
physical culmination of Nick & Nat's relationship was handled
poorly, I very much supported and was moved by Nick's decision
*not* to bring her across.
I also found the final scene between Nick & Lacrox, continuing
and deepening the themes of closeness which had been touched
on in AtA, to be beautifully poignant - a bond that I always felt
existed.
>2. Would you have preferred a different episode, other than "Last
>Knight" to have been the final episode of FK?
NO. Inspite of all the things that I liked about LK, I must admit
that I *would* have appreciated a final eps. which was not "quite" so
..... final. Thank goodness, at least, for FK fiction - the embodiment
of *true* immortality! <grin>
>3. If FK ever continues, would you want the continuation to ignore
>"Last Knight"?
NO. I would prefer that it was dealt with as such. Even though the
ultimate tragic ending appeals to my romantic side, to be honest
I would really want to see continued eps. with Nick (as an immortal),
Nat (as a mortal), Lacroix (as his inimitable self) and the newly
reborn Janette. So my choice would be for LK to be 'nullified' -
preferably as a dream sequence.
Gail
>Please note that this poll is highly unscientific. I ask you to vote
>once only out of courtesy to me--these numbers are going to TPTB or
>anybody else, they're just for us and to satisfy my curiosity. (By
>the way, if you don't want to post but want to log in a response--I
>understand very well why some people lurk, you can send your answer
>directly to my e-mail, sus...@vitinc.com) As far as my returning the
>numbers, go . . . I suppose you'll just have to trust that I'm
>counting everything that comes in. This doesn't really mean anything;
>I just wanted to get a sense of what people think. Feel free to
>expand on your answers AFTER answering YES or NO to the questions.
>My own answers:
>1. NO
>2. YES
>3. NO --it's canon and we've gotta live with it.
>Regards
*******************************************
If I am not for myself, who is for me?
If I am only for myself, what am I?
If not now, when?
Hillel
Sharon Himmanen
On Tue, 07 Jan 1997 12:02:18 -0600, mckensy <gr...@uslink.net> wrote:
>Nick, by the way has been wrong about someone being dead and being a
>vampire before while they were in the sleep state. see DK pt 2, with
>Alyce Hunter.
Plus, there are several instances of someone being brought across
without a blood exchange (drinking from the wrists). The Barber and
Brigit from "Bad Blood" come to mind, as does Richard from "I Will
Repay."
Natalie got a hefty dose of Nick's memories, which I take to mean she
got a hefty dose of his blood (backwash through the fangs or
something). I think there's an extremely good chance she's not dying
at the end of LK but becoming a vampire. Nick has been oblivious to
this sort of thing before (Alyce and Brigit both are good examples).
In fact, I suspect that's why JP had that second draining of Natalie
in LK, to preclude this and make certain there was no question she was
dead. Removing it not only (slightly--murder is murder after all,
whether it's a particular harmful action against a person or
deliberately *not* doing something when there's something that can be
done) redeems Nick for going against her wishes, but also makes her
fate more ambiguous.
Sharon
BoZZ
sus...@vitinc.com (Susan M. Garrett) writes:
>Yes, it's a moot point and "Last Knight" is canon, but just for my own
>curiosity and since we're talking to a group of people who watch the
>show, would you answer the following questions with a YES or NO.
>1. Did you enjoy "Last Knight" as the final episode of FK?
Well, I didn't enjoy it as much as I should have, but I do think
it was a good thoughtful episode. So yes and no (Yes if I must
choose)
>2. Would you have preferred a different episode, other than "Last
>Knight" to have been the final episode of FK?
Yes. For probably obvious reasons.
>3. If FK ever continues, would you want the continuation to ignore
>"Last Knight"?
Yes. But either ignore it completely or give a damn good explanation.
No waking up and finding out it was all a dream...
And why is Last Knight canon? Because it was on tv? Does that
make both versions of the pilot canon?
Rosebud
BoZZ wrote:
> And why is Last Knight canon? Because it was on tv? Does that
> make both versions of the pilot canon?
Fk canon is what we actually saw on TV. All 70 episodes are canon.
"Nick Knight" is not canon for Forever Knight.
--
Ros...@gnv.fdt.net Gainesville, FL, USA
----------------------------------------------------
* Knightie-4-Ever * Deputy Defender of the Knight *
* N&NatPacker * GWDFC * FFK-T * NBFC * JKFC * FFF *
* FoD * Keeper & Distributor of BVNOAG <tm> *
* Adoptive Bat Mom ^^v^^ *
----------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Marcelja
> Nick, by the way has been wrong about someone being dead and being a
> vampire before while they were in the sleep state. see DK pt 2, with
> Alyce Hunter.
He was also wrong about it regarding Alexandra in the episode where
Stonetree shot a guy after he robbed a convenience store. Nick
definitely thought Alexandra was dead, LaCroix made a comment to Nick
about her being dead, then later LaCroix gave her some of his blood and
brought her across.
Julia Kocich
Susan: when you post the results of your poll, would you also tell us how
you would have had the third season conclude? Thanks.
Tammy Stephanie Davis
In article <32D28F...@uslink.net>, mckensy <gr...@uslink.net> wrote:
:Laura wrote:
:>
:>
:> With regaurds to Nat being saved I will paraphrase the Princess Bride;
:> there's 'almost dead', 'mostly dead' and 'compltely dead', maybe she
:> was only 'mostly dead'. My personal theory was that she was not quite
:> dead and Lacroix spiked Nick with such force [conveiniantly missing
:> Nick's heart] that Nat's body was also peirced. Slowly Nick's vampiric
:> Laura A Ackerman
:Nick, by the way has been wrong about someone being dead and being a
:vampire before while they were in the sleep state. see DK pt 2, with
:Alyce Hunter.
I'm not so sure he thought she was dead so much as he morned her
being brought across by Lacroix. I don't recall anything he did
and/or said that indicated he thought she was dead. Also he didn't
seemed too shock at seeing her all vamped out while she was looking
down at him from the skylight.
mckensy
That part that indicated to me that he thuoght she was dead was when
he says to Nat at the end "No, Alyce and LaCroix, they're the lucky
ones" and Nat says something to the effect of 'you dont really mean that
- or is the reason you want to become mortal is so you can die'.
Mckensy
gr...@uslink.net
Allison Percy
On Sun, 05 Jan 1997 18:15:14 GMT, Susan M. Garrett (sus...@vitinc.com) wrote:
: Yes, it's a moot point and "Last Knight" is canon, but just for my own
: curiosity and since we're talking to a group of people who watch the
: show, would you answer the following questions with a YES or NO.
: 1. Did you enjoy "Last Knight" as the final episode of FK?
Whew, I'm glad you said this is just for your curiosity and not a
scientific poll. IMO it's nigh-on-impossible for many folks to give a YES
or NO answer to this question.
Last Knight made me cry. It was powerful. The acting was awesome. The
direction was bold. The storyline was tragic. In that sense, it was
damned good television.
On the other hand, it's not the way *I* would have wrapped up the show if
it were mine. But it ain't mine. I'm just a fan. And the fans are just
a small subset of the viewers.
: 2. Would you have preferred a different episode, other than "Last
: Knight" to have been the final episode of FK?
Once again I'm not going to give a YES or NO answer to the question,
because one word isn't going to express my opinion on this subject. So
put me down as a LONG-WINDED ANSWER THAT WASN'T A YES OR A NO on your
tally sheet, if you must. ;-)
I might have preferred a different episode from "Black Buddha" to open the
third season. I might have chosen a very different way to open the whole
series than "Dark Knight." It's simply not up to me, though, and nothing
I saw in "Last Knight" is stopping me from loving Forever Knight and
continuing to watch the reruns on the Sci-Fi Channel, buy the books when
they're published, etc.
But if pressed, I'll say that I would have preferred to see the version
of "Last Knight" that involved baby kangaroos.
: 3. If FK ever continues, would you want the continuation to ignore
: "Last Knight"?
NO. Finally, a question to which I can give a simple answer.
There are many interesting, compelling ways to pick up the story from the
end of "Last Knight." There's no *reason* to ignore the episode. It
would be a challenge for the writer(s) to find a good direction to move
in next (in a movie or whatever). But it would *not* be impossible, and
frankly I think shaking the characters up would be interesting.
: Please note that this poll is highly unscientific. I ask you to vote
: once only out of courtesy to me--these numbers are going to TPTB or
: anybody else, they're just for us and to satisfy my curiosity.
I presume you mean the numbers are *not* going to TPTB. (?)
I think, given the number of excellent episodes we got in the third
season, I'm glad that Last Knight was the last episode rather than being
left with nothing after the final episode of the first season (Love You to
Death, I think) or the final episode of the second season (was it Crazy
Love??) or the last episode USA Network was willing to fund (The Human
Factor).
--
Allie (Allie...@aol.com -or- per...@wharton.upenn.edu)
Charity auction info: http://members.aol.com/AlliePercy/auction.html
Blooper script info: http://members.aol.com/BouncerFK
--
Dotti M. Rhodes
In article <32d2e8c...@news.mindspring.com>, rom...@mindspring.com
says...
>
>
>True, but I also think Nick owes Natalie a huge, honking apology for
>trying to murder her (and I don't mean the accidental draining
>either).
>
>Sharon
>
Oh for heaven's sakes, he didn't TRY to murder her, he tried to take a
little and he couldn't control it. I suppose if you want to be totally
picky if she should die, he brought about her death and in the fact
that he is responsible for her death, murdered her, but he didn't TRY
to do it. Geez....
Dotti
kap...@hawaii.edu
Dotti's right. Nat was the one who told Nick to "make love to me" and all that.
He TOLD her repeatedly that he might hurt her, but she chucked that off and said that
"all I have...is love and faith"--and no BRAINS obviously. It was, in essence, her fault.
She asked for it, and she got it.
Nat should, in fact, apologize to Nick for stinking up his home with her dead,
fat, rotting, useless old carcass.
Ms. Lisa B. Burstiner
mckensy wrote on Wed, 08 Jan 1997 14:22:32 -0600:
Plus the fact that he wasn't actually looking up at the skylight at
her. I just interpreted that shot to mean that Nick perhaps sensed
something, but since he believed Alyce to be dead, he let it pass.
LB
kap...@hawaii.edu
BTW, let's stick to the polls people!
:)
Edan Harel
Rosebud <ros...@gnv.fdt.net> writes:
>BoZZ wrote:
>> And why is Last Knight canon? Because it was on tv? Does that
>> make both versions of the pilot canon?
>Fk canon is what we actually saw on TV. All 70 episodes are canon.
>"Nick Knight" is not canon for Forever Knight.
You proceed to say that what was shown on TV was canon, but then that
"Nick Night" isn't. :-). And what of the edited versions? In
Canada is there 7 minutes worth more canon in each episode than in the
US? And 3 more than those that have cable? And then there are the European
versions. So, which is it? And I haven't "seen" all the FK episodes.
Are those not canon? And what of the book (that I heard was coming
out... when?)? And if they should happen to find some extra footage
and should tack it on on certain video releases, are those canon?
Edan
"Canon is what you want it to be, unless of course, you don't want it to be"
--
*********Edan Harel******edh...@remus.rutgers.edu*****AKA Bozzie************
Math & Comp Sci Major * http://remus.rutgers.edu/~edharel *Int-fictioner
Computer Consultant * Software and System Support and Development
"Heaven's above, Gromit!" Wallace [_Wallace and Gromit:The Wrong Trousers_]
Tammy Stephanie Davis
In article <32D402...@uslink.net>, mckensy <gr...@uslink.net> wrote:
:Tammy Stephanie Davis wrote:
:>
:> In article <32D28F...@uslink.net>, mckensy <gr...@uslink.net> wrote:
:> see DK pt 2, with
:> :Alyce Hunter.
:>
:> I'm not so sure he thought she was dead so much as he morned her
:> being brought across by Lacroix. I don't recall anything he did
:> and/or said that indicated he thought she was dead. Also he didn't
:> seemed too shock at seeing her all vamped out while she was looking
:> down at him from the skylight.
:
:That part that indicated to me that he thuoght she was dead was when
:he says to Nat at the end "No, Alyce and LaCroix, they're the lucky
:ones" and Nat says something to the effect of 'you dont really mean that
:- or is the reason you want to become mortal is so you can die'.
Oops. You're right. I didn't pick that up.
Ms. Lisa B. Burstiner
Nicholas Marcelja wrote on Tue, 07 Jan 1997 19:04:55 -0800:
>
> > Nick, by the way has been wrong about someone being dead and being
a
with
> > Alyce Hunter.
>
> Stonetree shot a guy after he robbed a convenience store. Nick
> definitely thought Alexandra was dead, LaCroix made a comment to Nick
> about her being dead, then later LaCroix gave her some of his blood
and
> brought her across.
And I apologize if I'm getting too far off the topic, but will someone
explain to me why Lacroix did that to Alexandra? Why did he lie to
Nick? Other than to be his usual twisted self. ;)
LB
Dotti M. Rhodes
In article <5b2ko5$j...@news.Hawaii.Edu>, kap...@hawaii.edu says...
>
>Dotti's right. Nat was the one who told Nick to "make love to me" and
all that. He TOLD her repeatedly that he might hurt her, but she
chucked that off and said that"all I have...is love and faith"--and no
she got it.
WHOA!!! Don't use my name and follow it with a nasty diatribe like
that!! THat is NOT the way I think. I see an equal problem here, they
are both to blame for the way things worked out, Nat was NOT stupid
here, and neither was Nick. All I have ever said is that Nick is not to
blame for not bringing her across as if it were against her wishes
because nowhere does he promise to do so, and she knew all the
consequences. In no way do I blame Natalie for all of this, and we can
definitely do without the way you trashed her in this message. That was
uncalled for and unnecessary.
Don't ever use my name in a message like that again.
Dotti
Donna Serdula
In article <32d0ed2d...@news.vitinc.com>, sus...@vitinc.com
says...
>
>Yes, it's a moot point and "Last Knight" is canon, but just for my
own
>curiosity and since we're talking to a group of people who watch the
>show, would you answer the following questions with a YES or NO.
>
>1. Did you enjoy "Last Knight" as the final episode of FK?
>
anyone could read their own ending into it. My mother believes that
Nicholas sacrificed his life to be with Nat. My sister believes that
somehow Nat survived and is now a vampire. I believe that LaCroix
missed and he and Nicholas are now living in San Francsco. I'm in no
way happy about the ending but I enjoyed it and can accept it.
>Knight" to have been the final episode of FK?
>3. If FK ever continues, would you want the continuation to ignore
>"Last Knight"?
However; I feel that a very successful way of ignoring Last Knight
would be to continue the series or TV movie by just using flashbacks.
Susan M. Garrett
The results from the POLL as of 4:50 PM, 1/10/96 are as follows:
>1. Did you enjoy "Last Knight" as the final episode of FK?
Yes - 35%
No - 57%
Undecipherable -- 2
>2. Would you have preferred a different episode, other than "Last
>Knight" to have been the final episode of FK?
Yes - 61%
No - 30%
Undecipherable - 2
>3. If FK ever continues, would you want the continuation to ignore
>"Last Knight"?
Yes - 22%
No - 74%
Undecipherable - 1
I'll continue to accept votes on this through 1/31/96.
Please note that this poll is highly unscientific. I ask you to vote
once only out of courtesy to me--these numbers are NOT going to TPTB
or anybody else, they're just for us and to satisfy my curiosity. (By
the way, if you don't want to post but want to log in a response--I
understand very well why some people lurk, you can send your answer
directly to my e-mail, sus...@vitinc.com) Feel free to
expand on your answers AFTER answering YES or NO to the questions.
Regards
Dotti M. Rhodes
In article <5b3dls$n...@remus.rutgers.edu>, edh...@remus.rutgers.edu
says...
>
So, which is it? And I haven't "seen" all the FK episodes.
You can't be serious are you? Obviously what is canon for "Forever
Knight" is anything that was filmed for that show aired. As it is a
Canadian production then what was originally aired there, in it's
entirety is canon. The loss of the 7 minutes for commercial time over
here doesn't mean it didn't happen. It was filmed, it was shown, it's
canon.
Because you didn't see it doesn't make it any less legit. Nick Knight
is not part of Forever Knight, merely the movie that made it possible.
Otherwise, they wouldn't have bothered to redo it as Dark Knight. Canon
is canon, we don't change it to suit us, or what we want it to be. What
was filmed and originally broadcast is canon.
Does this clear it up for you? Kewl!!!
Dotti
Finabair
Now, I haven't had a chance to follow this entire thread, but someone
pointed out to me that I should check out where it had gone so I did.
So this note is solely in response to the statements below but does
not take into account whatever may have gone before. :-)
>Nat should, in fact, apologize to Nick for stinking up his home with her
>dead, fat, rotting, useless old carcass.<
Well, now, if Nick doesn't have the grace or manners to clean up after
his meal, it's *his* fault if his apartment gets stinky. Don't try to
blame his lousy housekeeping on Nat, you have to admit *her* lab and
apartment are generally neat and tidy.
I assume the rest of the description is based on the fact that a dead
corpse will bloat and rot and generally just lie there. If you tried
to tell me that Nat was fat, rotten or useless when she was alive, I'd
have to knock you upside the head or something. 8-P
Now, as to the rest of the note:
>Dotti's right. Nat was the one who told Nick to "make love to me"
>and all that. He TOLD her repeatedly that he might hurt her, but she
Oh, I am really getting sick of everyone trying to shift *all* the
blame for the events of Last Knight to *either* Nick or Nat. They
both had a fairly significant part to play in *everything* that
happened, and they both made decisions that played into the final
result. Either of them could have made a different decision at
several points that would have totally changed the outcome.
Besides, we *all* know that all the blame for whatever happened in it
should rest squarely on the shoulders of those who *wrote* the ep.
;-)
>chucked that off and said that "all I have...is love and faith"--and
>no BRAINS obviously. It was, in essence, her fault. She asked for
>it, and she got it.
Another thing everyone seems to assume is that Nat wasn't willing to
accept the consequences of her actions. The situation she was in with
Nick was not one she was willing to continue to live with. She
obviously thought that anything, *even* death, was a reasonable risk
to take in exchange for getting herself out of that situation.
Before anyone starts saying this makes Nat suicidal, let me assure you
there is a *big* difference. Nat wanted to gamble on the life she
*wanted* rather than on a compromise. Yes, the stakes were her life,
but she wanted that life enough to make such a big gamble. From the
point of view of her preferring to stay alive but be able to live her
life with Nick, she lost.
But from the point of view of her not wanting to live in the rut she
and Nick were living in already, she won.
Remember, this woman made a choice years ago that she was willing to
take the risk of associating with Nick, whom she knew was dangerous,
for the sake of curiosity (and perhaps attraction, depending on how
you view OTL). Perhaps her priorities regarding life are not quite the
same as those of the people who keep insisting that this is all her
*fault* and that she is a loser of some sort. Or, for that matter,
the same as anyone who thinks this is all *Nick's* fault. I strongly
doubt Nat would.
Nat wanted a happy, fulfilled, challenging life more than she wanted
life itself. This does not make her a loser, IMHO. It makes her a
gambler.
Well, that's what I think about the situation, assuming you think Nat
is dead. Given that this is TV, I'm willing to say there's a better
than even chance she is either alive or a vampire. In which case, the
story is *far* from over, and she may 'win' even more. But then, I've
always been an unrepentant optimist. :-)
Everyone take care,
Jennie
fina...@aol.com
Nancy Parry
Tammy Stephanie Davis wrote:
>
> In article <32D402...@uslink.net>, mckensy <gr...@uslink.net> wrote:
> :Tammy Stephanie Davis wrote:
> :>
> :> In article <32D28F...@uslink.net>, mckensy <gr...@uslink.net> wrote:
> :> :Alyce Hunter.
> :>
> :> I'm not so sure he thought she was dead so much as he morned her
> :> being brought across by Lacroix. I don't recall anything he did
> :> and/or said that indicated he thought she was dead. Also he didn't
> :> seemed too shock at seeing her all vamped out while she was looking
> :> down at him from the skylight.
> :
> :That part that indicated to me that he thuoght she was dead was when
> :he says to Nat at the end "No, Alyce and LaCroix, they're the lucky
> :ones" and Nat says something to the effect of 'you dont really mean that
> :- or is the reason you want to become mortal is so you can die'.
>
> Oops. You're right. I didn't pick that up.
to be vampires (enjoyed it, etc) and Nick didn't. Therefore, he didn't
think she was dead, he knew she wasn't.
Nancy
Nancy Parry
kap...@hawaii.edu wrote:
>
> Dotti's right. Nat was the one who told Nick to "make love to me" and all that.
> "all I have...is love and faith"--and no BRAINS obviously. It was, in essence, her fault.
> She asked for it, and she got it.
>
> fat, rotting, useless old carcass.
That's funny, she speaks well of you... Nancy
Susan M. Garrett
Julia Kocich <julia...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>Susan: when you post the results of your poll, would you also tell us how
>you would have had the third season conclude? Thanks.
Well, I haven't concluded the poll, but I can think of lots of other
plots and endings for a final episode that I would have preferred, all
possible within the same financial constraints imposed upon shooting
that last episode (i.e., a bottle episode, shot in four days, using
clips from other episodes).
Firstly, let me say that FK has done the BEST bottle episode I've ever
seen a series produce--Close Call. The script on that thing wove so
well into the clips and it made sense, not to mention that phenomenal
scene between Schanke and LaCroix. Simply remarkable. And, I guess,
part of the reason I was so disappointed in LK as a bottle--they'd
done one before and done it brilliantly.
My personal choices for options for a final episode, using the
financial and cast constraints (and clips from the first two seasons):
1) Have it open with the suicide, and Natalie deciding to leave her
life in Toronto and start somewhere else. Have her friend's suicide
investigated a bit more, talk about what constitutes a life,
relationships, how we relate to our jobs, our friends, our family.
After ATA, Nick has reached at least the beginning of an understanding
with LaCroix--should he stop Natalie from trying to leave or should he
free her to make her own life by giving in to LaCroix's request to
leave? Add Tracy trying to decide what she wants to do with her
life--she thinks Vachon has moved on--perhaps she has a falling out
with her father and quits the force, talking control of her destiny.
It would be an episode about the relationships within the series which
are highlighted during an investigation into the victim's life--how
much do you influence someone else's right, when do you have a right
to interfere, when should you walk away, autonomy, etc. It's not for
me to say whether Nick convinces Natalie to stay or whether he leaves
with LaCroix . . . it could be done in such a way to leave the
question hanging, that we know a decision will be made, that the
status quo is over and it's time for something new to happen.
2) After the events in ATA, the Enforcers show up to 'clean up' the
recent problems that have happened around Nick (from Fever on,
vampires have been dropping like flies, there). As the episode
progresses, more and more people are drawn into this 'hearing,'
LaCroix, Janette, Natalie, Tracy--Nick hasn't been the best person at
keeping his existence a secret. Have a police case going that Nick
obviously can't be part of--he's busy--that leads Reese to put him on
suspension and possibly terminate him for dereliction of duty. I can
think of a dozen different ways, with various plots and plot twists
that could end this episode, with no one having to die and the ending
still being left open for just about any type of continuation.
3) Nigel had mentioned at more than a few conventions that he would
like the series to end with Nick becoming mortal through a one-time
use cure and LaCroix walking into the sunlight . . . which makes Nick
a vampire again. A wonderful bottle episode could have been
constructed with Natalie finding a possible cure and being hesitant to
use it because of the danger involved--the decision has to be Nick's.
It will work or it will destroy him. Nick tries to decide what he's
going to do, what he really wants from mortality, from life and
finally makes the decision to take the cure, which succeeds. End the
episode the way Nigel suggested (yes, I know the Cousins will be
disappointed, but what a way to go and there's always flashbacks . . .
.).
These are just a few of the many endings I could think of within the
constraints given, that provide an ending, leave something open, use
flashbacks for most of the episode, etc. I think I would have found
any of them more satisfying and easier to deal with than LK.
But, obviously, it's all a moot point. We have LK. We had one hell
of a run. I hope we have some sort of a future. I'd like for Sony
and JP to bring back something of FK. It would have to be
different--financing, aging actors, and the business world give us no
choice in that matter. But with a little imagination, a little soul,
a damn fine cast (I still claim you'll never find better actors than
the ones we were priviledged to watch) and a little creativity, it
could still embody most of what we loved about FK
Regards
Finabair
>1. Did you enjoy "Last Knight" as the final episode of FK?
No. While I did like certain aspects of it, I would have to say that I
found it to be more torture than anything else. Now, were the series
going to continue, it would have made an excellent cliffhanger, but
leaving things this way is more open-ended than letting the series go with
a less dramatic ending where nothing is resolved. I don't mind being left
hanging a little, and I don't mind endings that are open to
interpretation, but I do mind being left hanging off a cliff in the middle
of a windstorm, so to speak, forever.
>2. Would you have preferred a different episode, other than "Last
>Knight" to have been the final episode of FK?
Well, yeah. Not sure which. 'Ashes' I could live with, although I'd
prefer to have kept Vachon and Urs so I'd be inclined to go even further
back.
>3. If FK ever continues, would you want the continuation to ignore
>"Last Knight"?
No. Definitely not. Now that it's happened, I would find it really
sloppy if it were either left out or not dealt with. I mean, if Nick were
to come back saying, "I'm too old and powerful for that" I would be
extremely disappointed. Especially if Nat were back in the morgue saying,
"Yeah, what he said..." too. <g> I do see a lot of potential for this
story to *not* be the awful unhappy ending it appears most people think it
is, and I think with a bit of work it could be made into a very powerful
story of growth and learning and all of those things that many of us have
craved to see in this show. If Nat survives, vampire or mortal, and Nick
is *not* killed by LaCroix (and we never actually saw a death blow, only
the start of the movement) then we still have three of the characters.
Not to mention Reese. (Poor guy - can you imagine all the paperwork that
ep entailed for him?) I would love to see the ensuing powerplays and I
would love to see them result in growth and development for all of those
characters.
And while it might be slightly contrived to resurrect Tracy and Vachon, I
wouldn't mind contrived to get them back too. And there's always Janette
out there, somewhere. Janette, cockroaches and twinkies...<g>
Whoops, more than a simple vote, huh? I'll stop now.
Take care,
Jennie
fina...@aol.com
Susan M. Garrett
We've had a flurry of votes come in--I HAVE said that I'll count votes
placed through 1/31, but I wanted to update the numbers.
The results from the POLL as of 11:15 PM, 1/10/96 are as follows:
>1. Did you enjoy "Last Knight" as the final episode of FK?
Yes - 38%
No - 56%
Undecipherable -- 6%
>2. Would you have preferred a different episode, other than "Last
>Knight" to have been the final episode of FK?
Yes - 65%
No - 29%
Undecipherable - 6%
>3. If FK ever continues, would you want the continuation to ignore
>"Last Knight"?
Yes - 24%
No - 74%
Undecipherable - 2%
As I said, I'll continue to accept votes on this through 1/31/96.
Please note that this poll is highly unscientific. I ask you to vote
only once out of courtesy to me--these numbers are NOT going to TPTB
john...@aol.com
Yes, Yes, Yes.
JF
Allison Percy
On 10 Jan 1997 20:57:15 GMT, Finabair (fina...@aol.com) wrote:
: Oh, I am really getting sick of everyone trying to shift *all* the
: blame for the events of Last Knight to *either* Nick or Nat.
At the risk of making a "me-too" post... Me, too.
Folks can go round and round about what Nat really meant when she asked
Nick to make love to her -- exactly what she intended to ask him to do if
it didn't work, or whether she simply was leaving it up to him, or
whatever. I don't think it's likely that we'll all agree on that.
I've mentioned before that the whole episode makes it clear to me that
what the characters all needed was an Emergency Holographic
Psychotherapist. Unfortunately I don't think the writers considered
the possibility of a Star Trek crossover plot... darn!
Maybe it was the writers who needed an Emergency Holographic
Psychotherapist. And sometimes when I read the discussions/debates/
bitter arguments among fans about Last Knight, I think *we* all need an
Emergency Holographic Psychotherapist, too.
"Please state the nature of the mental health emergency..."
Regardless of my interpretation of the final episode, I love Forever
Knight and I've made some great friends through FK fandom, and that's
just peachy with me. :-)
Undecipherably,
Dotti M. Rhodes
In article <19970110205...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
fina...@aol.com says...
>
>Now, I haven't had a chance to follow this entire thread, but someone
>pointed out to me that I should check out where it had gone so I did.
Dotti
P. Hatch
In article <19970111000...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
fina...@aol.com (Finabair) wrote:
> >1. Did you enjoy "Last Knight" as the final episode of FK?
>
No. It was depressing, from beginning to end. The only redeeming quality
was Uncle, and this was because, as so many others have pointed out, he
was the *only* character to stay true to his nature throughout the series
in this episode!!
>
> >2. Would you have preferred a different episode, other than "Last
> >Knight" to have been the final episode of FK?
>
Yes. After just reading the *brilliant* post from Susan, any one of those
scenarios would have been much better. Why not have some sort of "living"
and therefore "hopeful" conclusions?
>
> >3. If FK ever continues, would you want the continuation to ignore
> >"Last Knight"?
>
No. As stated, it is "canon." There has to be a way around this, along
the lines of Uncle not killing Nick, and, unfortunately, the end of
Natalie Lambert. I hate to say this, but I think the show would have to
continue without her. I know there are alternatives, but I don't think
there are any that realistically corrresponds to her nature.
Patty Hatch
h...@pop.tiac.net
Chris Doerksen
> >1. Did you enjoy "Last Knight" as the final episode of FK?
Yes. Many people argue that it wasn't FKish, but I thought it was
perfect. The difference between FK and other shows (A-Team,
Highlander), is that the characters don't always do the moral thing,
don't always get everything right, people get hurt, and sometimes they
die. The ending was entirely consistent. Nick and Nat's characters
were also consistent. Nat as an undying optimist, and Nick as a
well-intentioned loser. Nothing wrong with that.
> >2. Would you have preferred a different episode, other than "Last
> >Knight" to have been the final episode of FK?
No. See above.
> >3. If FK ever continues, would you want the continuation to ignore
> >"Last Knight"?
No. I think it would be better to go on to new territory. Lacroix and
Janette are still kicking, and it's about time the show refocussed on an
interesting female character. The women of the third season were too
ditz city for my tastes.
Chris.
--
"It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the Juice of
Sapphu that the lips acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is
by will alone I set my mind in motion."
Rosebud
Susan M. Garrett wrote:
> Firstly, let me say that FK has done the BEST bottle episode I've ever
> seen a series produce--Close Call. The script on that thing wove so
> well into the clips and it made sense, not to mention that phenomenal
> scene between Schanke and LaCroix. Simply remarkable. And, I guess,
> part of the reason I was so disappointed in LK as a bottle--they'd
> done one before and done it brilliantly.
I have to agree with you completely on this. I've never seen such fine
work any place else.
--
Ros...@gnv.fdt.net Gainesville, FL, USA
----------------------------------------------------
* Knightie-4-Ever * Deputy Defender of the Knight *
* N&NatPacker * GWDFC * FFK-T * NBFC * JKFC * FFF *
* FoD * Keeper & Distributor of BVNOAG <tm> *
* Adoptive Bat Mom ^^v^^ *
----------------------------------------------------
Sheila L. Bailey
Tracy may be alive too.
Sheila
Laura A
Sheila L. Bailey wrote:
>
> Tracy may be alive too.
> Sheila
>
In order for Tracy to be alive Nat had to lie to
have lied to Nick. The idea that she would have
used such a lie to force Nick to decide has
interesting remiphications, (especially if they
are all still alive).
Laura A
Edan Harel
Samir Sinha
>1. Did you enjoy "Last Knight" as the final episode of FK?
YES. I tried to judge the episode from its merits regardless of it
being the last episode. Lacroix's speech during the episode was rather
moving, or thoughtful at least. When I saw "Last Knight", I'd only seen
most of the 2nd season and all of the 3rd season. A lot of the
flashbacks in LK made me look forward to seeing the 1st season this
January.
>2. Would you have preferred a different episode, other than "Last
>Knight" to have been the final episode of FK?
YES. As far as last episodes go, I thought it could been either less
open-ended (ex:The Prisoner). It could've been an interesting story with
no major deaths, like 'this is the FINAL episode, but you'll see us
again.' (example Star Trek:Next Gen). Ashes to Ashes was a good 2nd
last episode too, but it needed more resolution at the end for it to be
'the' last episode.
>3. If FK ever continues, would you want the continuation to ignore
>"Last Knight"?
NO. I don't see how this could be done without giving it the Dallas 'it
was all a dream' treatment, and that would just suck. I think the
writers have some pride in their work, regardless of what someone thinks
of Last Knight.
-Samir
Susan M. Garrett
The latest Tally as of 8:45 PM, Monday 1/13--
1. Did you enjoy "Last Knight" as the final episode of FK?
Yes - 42%
No - 53%
Undecipherable -- 5%
2. Would you have preferred a different episode, other than "Last
Knight" to have been the final episode of FK?
Yes - 66%
No - 29%
Undecipherable - 5%
3. If FK ever continues, would you want the continuation to ignore
"Last Knight"?
Yes - 24%
No - 74%
Undecipherable - 2%
As I said, I'll continue to accept votes on this through 1/31/96.
Please note that this poll is highly unscientific. I ask you to vote
only once out of courtesy to me--these numbers are NOT going to TPTB
or anybody else, they're just for us and to satisfy my curiosity. (By
the way, if you don't want to post but want to log in a response--I
understand very well why some people lurk, you can send your answer
directly to my e-mail, sus...@vitinc.com) Feel free to
expand on your answers AFTER answering YES or NO to the questions.
Just a brief comment on the poll results so far--I think the answers
to #2 and #3 are statistically significant in that the results in
those categories are remaining fairly consistent. I find it
interesting that a large proportion of the people who voted YES to the
first question also voted YES to the second; although they enjoyed LK,
they would have liked to have seen a different ending.
I think the results of #3 are very telling with regard to the fans
doing a personal reality check--most agree that it wouldn't make much
sense to them to pull a Bobby Ewing and deny LK or, and which may be
more important, that any PTB that continue the series would be
unlikely to change the ending significantly from what we saw in LK and
would probably pick up from there.
The results to the first question are significant in that there seems
to be a very strong divide on the issue--at least half the audience
didn't enjoy the episode, which the other half did. A curious
response, but to be expected, considering the number of posts we've
seen on the subject and the number of post LK stories that turned up
on FkFic after the episode aired.
Regards
JuliaDnly
1) No. It was a horrible way to end the series. It betrayed everything
the series stood for. All that time of hoping he could overcome his dark
side, and Nick unintentionally kills Natalie? Say it ain't so!
2) Yes. A more open-ended episode would have been better, with the
audience wondering what direction the series might have taken, instead of
such a depressing final ending.
3) Yes unless they can come up with a *very good* way out of it.
Shari
Discrashr
I am a little lost on this....didn't the soundtrack and the words
spoken by Nick seem to indicate that he had drained Natalie a second time?
I hate the thought of it myself....but it seemed that the writers
implication was for Nat to die.......yet I wonder, how could it be Forever
Knight without Natalie? ( I am definitely grasping here....I want a new
season too......with Natalie involved!)
Susan Bennett
P. Hatch (h...@tiac.net) wrote:
--snip for space--
: No. As stated, it is "canon." There has to be a way around this, along
: the lines of Uncle not killing Nick, and, unfortunately, the end of
: Natalie Lambert. I hate to say this, but I think the show would have to
: continue without her. I know there are alternatives, but I don't think
: there are any that realistically corrresponds to her nature.
: Patty Hatch
: h...@pop.tiac.net
I disagree. The show could not continue without Nat. If Nick let her die and
didn't follow through with his promise to be with her whatever happened, he
would pummel himself into a hell he would never escape from. His search
for mortality and redemption would become a sick joke, the entire series
would become a sick joke.
Susan B.
Nick&Natpacker
cd...@torfree.net
Dotti M. Rhodes
In article <19970115123...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
disc...@aol.com says...
>
> I am a little lost on this....didn't the soundtrack and the
words
>spoken by Nick seem to indicate that he had drained Natalie a second
time?
>
removed that and had her lean down and kiss her instead. He didn't like
that at all and changed it himself.
Dotti
BlueMood2
4. I have to two answers to that question. If it was meant to be a
season-ending cliffhanger, then it was great. It left me sitting there
saying "Oh my God, Nick!!" I would have been on the edge of my seat and
counting the days till the new season if that were the case. If it were
meant as the series finale, shame on the producers! We fans of Forever
Knight waited a long time for our favorite vampire to return to TV. There
had to be a better way of ending the show. It didn't have to be a "happily
ever after" kind of thing, but really! For me the killing of Vachon was
the beginning of the end. I should have known the last show would be so
disturbing. I think we fans deserved better and so did the characters we
came to love.
myke...@aol.com
In article <32D031...@westnet.com>, June Williams <cou...@westnet.com>
writes:
>> 1. Did you enjoy "Last Knight" as the final episode of FK?
Yes.
>> 2. Would you have preferred a different episode, other than "Last
>> Knight" to have been the final episode of FK?
No
>> 3. If FK ever continues, would you want the continuation to ignore
>> "Last Knight"?
No.
>
Sharon Himmanen
Patty Hatch <h...@pop.tiac.net>
> No. As stated, it is "canon." There has to be a way around this, along
> the lines of Uncle not killing Nick, and, unfortunately, the end of
> Natalie Lambert. I hate to say this, but I think the show would have to
> continue without her. I know there are alternatives, but I don't think
> there are any that realistically corrresponds to her nature.
Actually, I can think of a number of realistic and interesting ways
for Natalie to survive "Last Knight" that correspond with her nature.
Throughout the course of the series she's always chosen life as the
alternative to death. I can easily see her as a vampire. I can
easily see her as something in-between. There's precedence for it in
the series, it would highlight the fact that she's caught between two
worlds, and now that is physically evident as well, and it's never
really been done before. You always have stories about outsiders
wanting to belong (and that's Nick's story, though he does sort of
have a home with LaCroix and Janette so he's not totally an outsider)
and she would be the ultimate outsider--belonging to neither world.
The Virtual Season going on on the internet mailing list has dealt to
some extent with this, but I'd like to see more--it's a fascinating
idea with a lot of potential.
Susan Bennett wrote:
>I disagree. The show could not continue without Nat. If Nick let her die and
>didn't follow through with his promise to be with her whatever happened, he
>would pummel himself into a hell he would never escape from. His search
>for mortality and redemption would become a sick joke, the entire series
>would become a sick joke.
Yep, put me down as a "me too" on that one--Natalie needs to be
physically alive in some form (mortal, in-between mortal and vampire,
or vampire) after LK. Not that it's any surprise to anyone that this
would be my opinion <g>.
Sharon
Chris Doerksen
> I am only speaking from my limited experience with the series (third
> season, and now the reruns of the first season on Sci-Fi). Natalie came
> across to me as someone who was *very opposed* to Nick's vampire nature.
> I believe she is accepting of the vampire community, but she's the only
> character who understood, accepted and worked for Nick's mortality (even
> when Nick didn't seem to want to).
>
> In rewatching "Last Knight", I realized that Natalie said that she wanted
> to be with Nick no matter what the outcome-even if it meant that she were
> to become a vampire, so I am wrong in my answer anyway. It just doesn't
> make sense to me, though. What's the point of the series if *no one* is
> going to be a mortal?
>
> I didn't mean to offend, and I thank you for the additional information.
>
> Patty Hatch
> h...@pop.tiac.net
I have no more info than you do but I think Natalie's willingness to become
a vampire was a product of not only her love for Nick but also her
unfailing optimism. She always believed that if Nick would just apply
himself he could regain his mortality. By implication I take this to mean
she thought she could do the same. Becoming undead would thus only be a
temporary inconvenience.
What do you think?
P. Hatch
Grmsly1969
I agree got to have Nat
Donna
In article <19970129190...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
grmsl...@aol.com says...
>
>I agree got to have Nat
The only one I need is LaCroix!
P. Hatch
> In article <19970129190...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> grmsl...@aol.com says...
> >
> >I agree got to have Nat
>
Chris, et. al,
I really like the character of Natalie Lambert. I think that she is
earnest in her quest to find a cure for Nick. I think that making her a
vampire would be a big mistake on the part of the series.
Having said that, if she could remain a vampire for a very short time (I
mean, one episode, the first one after Last Knight), then become a mortal
again (in some fashion, maybe using her cure to date would work for a new
vampire), then resume the search for a cure for Nick, I could go along
with bringing her back. I just don't think that the show makes any sense
if no one (especially one of the main characters) is a mortal. How can
Nick realistically search for his mortality (which, it is my
understanding, is the whole *point* of the show), without an anchor to the
mortal world. Someone to represent to him why he seeks his mortality
again. That is how I view Natalie Lambert. She is hope, light against
darkness.
This was why I felt it was not possible to bring her back. From what I
hear and see when I watch "Last Knight", I find LaCroix telling Nicholas
that Natalie is on the brink, he can either bring her across, or she
dies. Unless LaCroix is wrong (or is trying to lead Nick away from his
quest once and for all, which is of course possible), I think it would be
very hard to justify bringing her back.
Which leads me to another dilemma. Another poster who responded to my
original vote in the Straw Poll pointed out that not bringing Natalie back
would destroy Nick-the guilt he would feel in causing her death would be a
crushing blow to him. That poster is absolutely correct. So, I'm caught
in a real quandry here. How to bring Natalie back as she was without
losing Last Knight as the final episode.
I've been racking my brains (which is why I've waited so long to respond
to you) to try to think of a way that would not belittle the fans, and I
am befuddled. I wonder if the producers thought that this could be the
final blow to the show-leave Nick in ambiguity, leave LaCroix alive, kill
off Tracy, but leave no hope for the one mortal who knew everything and
represented what the show was about-light against darkness. I certainly
hope that this is not the case.
I know that there are highly creative people on this list, and probably
capable of creating a scenario that would work--and the series could
continue as before. So, I will not lose hope that there will be no
return of Forever Knight. I just hope that a way can be found to
integrate all the characters as they were-or at least what they
represented.
Patty Hatch
h...@pop.tiac.net
Sharon Himmanen
On Mon, 03 Feb 1997 01:24:34 -0500, h...@tiac.net (P. Hatch) wrote:
>I really like the character of Natalie Lambert. I think that she is
>earnest in her quest to find a cure for Nick. I think that making her a
>vampire would be a big mistake on the part of the series.
For aired version of the series, I mostly agree, though I think they
*could* get away with making her a vampire, thus having a vehicle
through which to explore the fledgling vampire condition. It would
also help Nick as a character because he'd *have* to take some
responsibility for her. So I think making her a vampire could work if
done right. If it was a choice between losing her altogether or
having her be something silly like a ghost or an angel, and making her
a vampire, then I'd rather have her around as a vampire.
>Having said that, if she could remain a vampire for a very short time (I
>mean, one episode, the first one after Last Knight), then become a mortal
>again (in some fashion, maybe using her cure to date would work for a new
>vampire), then resume the search for a cure for Nick, I could go along
>with bringing her back.
This is a neat idea, but to be satisfying, I would go longer than an
episode. A season arc or half-season arc or something would do it
justice. One episode for something that intense and cool wouldn't be
enough.
>How can
>Nick realistically search for his mortality (which, it is my
>understanding, is the whole *point* of the show), without an anchor to the
>mortal world. Someone to represent to him why he seeks his mortality
>again. That is how I view Natalie Lambert. She is hope, light against
>darkness.
Well, I see your point, but it's also the case that Nick's quest is
his own. It would probably help him to have his icon of mortality
fall so he can put his quest into perspective. Nick's quest is about
redemption more than it's about mortality, though he's got the two all
mixed up in his mind. He's in for a big surprise when he becomes
mortal and finds out he's basically the same person he was as a
vampire. It might also do him some good to see someone change from
mortal to vampire and actually *handle* the change, which I think
Natalie could.
Also, Natalie is less his hope and light, and more his conscience,
IMO. But he needs to start doing that for himself too.
First season, the point of the show was Nick's quest for mortality.
That got *really* lost in subsequent seasons, IMO. Nick became more
and more ambivalent toward becoming mortal and in fact wanted to be
cured rather than actually work for it. So I don't know that
mortality is what he's really after, though that's his stated goal. I
do sometimes get the impression from second and third season that this
is just another interesting way to kill time for Nick.
>This was why I felt it was not possible to bring her back. From what I
>hear and see when I watch "Last Knight", I find LaCroix telling Nicholas
>that Natalie is on the brink, he can either bring her across, or she
>dies. Unless LaCroix is wrong (or is trying to lead Nick away from his
>quest once and for all, which is of course possible), I think it would be
>very hard to justify bringing her back.
Remember, though, Nick was very upset and suicidal at that point. I
doubt very much that LaCroix was speaking the truth. Or you can
certainly make that arguement through hindsight.
I think the best course of action would be to have Natalie somewhere
in between mortal and vampire. Not necessarily a hunter, but
definitely physically changed by the experience. It could be done-she
saw Nick's memories which means she got a healthy dose of Nick's
blood. My personal feeling is that as she's lying on the floor she's
in the process of becoming a vampire, but it could work to sustain her
life until help arrives, too. One thing consistent about the series
is that no one is every quite the same after being bitten by a
vampire.
>Which leads me to another dilemma. Another poster who responded to my
>original vote in the Straw Poll pointed out that not bringing Natalie back
>would destroy Nick-the guilt he would feel in causing her death would be a
>crushing blow to him. That poster is absolutely correct. So, I'm caught
>in a real quandry here. How to bring Natalie back as she was without
>losing Last Knight as the final episode.
I agree about Nick. Natalie *needs* to be alive for his character to
be at all redemed, or to even survive, IMO. A lot of people point to
shows like B&TB and HL for examples of how a show can survive without
a leading lady (though third season B&TB was largely a disaster). The
point people miss is that in those series the lead character never
*killed* the leading lady. I would never be able to buy Nick just
picking up, moving on with his life, and finding another mortal woman
to love after the events of "Last Knight." It's just too far out of
character for me to picture him doing that.
Sharon
Laura A
h...@tiac.net (P. Hatch) wrote:
>
>I really like the character of Natalie Lambert. I think that she is
>earnest in her quest to find a cure for Nick. I think that making her a
>vampire would be a big mistake on the part of the series.
>
>mean, one episode, the first one after Last Knight), then become a mortal
>again (in some fashion, maybe using her cure to date would work for a new
>vampire), then resume the search for a cure for Nick, I could go along
>with bringing her back.
Well there is the old idea of a vampire not being perminantly
so till his first kill. [Well at least as old as Lost Boys.]
From a scientific standpoint it probably makes more sense to
say a vampire isn't fully a vampire until he feeds on blood,
(remember that first thing Lecriox had Nick do after being
brought across was feed and one of the ways for creating a
vampire involves drinking the vampires blood),then the rest
is easy:
Say Natalie is left something like a vampire after Last Night.
She goes to Nick's fridge and instead of blood she takes one
of those concoctions she was trying to make Nick drink instead
of blood. That way she never became a full vampire and was
able to fight her way back to full mortality with a cure that
is totaly useless to Nick, (unless of course she developes
antibodies in the manor that one developes antibodies against
smallpox from an exposure to cowpox...).
Laura A
grmsl...@aol.com
Sounds like a good way to get Nat back....
Denise Grimsley Grmsl...@aol.com (yes, that is the year I was born)
Donna
In article <19970204143...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
grmsl...@aol.com says...
>
>Sounds like a good way to get Nat back....
**Donna**
ma...@prolog.net
susan...@aol.com
>Am I the only FK fan who doesn't want Natalie brought back?
I don't know. I know that I certainly would like her back and that I
wouldn't consider it FK, first generation, without her.
If the series spun off into a new set of characters, with maybe LaCroix or
Nick linking them but not being central figures . . . yeah, then I could
see Natalie not being involved. But if Nick's there, I'd darn well want
Nat there, as a human (however altered, if at all) or as a vampire, but
THERE.
Everyone sees or expects something a little different from FK. That's
what makes it so interesting.
Regards
Grmsly1969
why would you not want Nat back ?
Linda S. Musgrave
Donna wrote:
> Am I the only FK fan who doesn't want Natalie brought back?
>
"I don't want her back", but I certainly don't think she's as crucial as
others in this forum do. I never saw FK as the Nick and Nat show -- it
was about NICK. I doubt that nobody in Nick's 800 years of existance
besides Nat ever tried to figure out a way for him to regain his
mortality. And we're talking about an 800+year old vampire as the
central character! Nat's been in his life, what 3-ish years? A mighty
small percentage. I personally would love to have learned more about
the various "incarnations" Nick has used through the years....I'd love
to learn more about his life and interactions during the Joan of Arc
period, the Rasputin period, WWII, Crusades...... For me, much of the
time the flashbacks were the best part of the show...and Nat wasn't
involved with those directly. Sure I like Nat, but she's not
necessarily crucial to telling the story of Nick.
(Besides, I thought Nick's relationship with LaCroix to be far more
interesting that his relationship with Nat.)
Linda
Donna
In article <32F8C5...@ccit.arizona.edu>, l...@ccit.arizona.edu
says...
Linda, thank you! You've just expressed my exact feelings on this
issue.
I've never seen Nick and Nat's relationship as a great romance
as so many in this newsgroup espouse. In my mind, Nick never took the
relationship half as seriously as did Nat. He flitted around with so
many other women during the course of the series. What he wanted out
of their relationship was a cure to his vampirism. In this desire his
own feelings became confused thus leading to Last Knight.
(Linda, I too prefer the Nick-LaCroix relationship, so much more
complex and twisted.)
Nancy Parry
Linda S. Musgrave wrote:
>
> Donna wrote:
> > Am I the only FK fan who doesn't want Natalie brought back?
> >
> I don't think you're necessarily alone. I wouldn't go so far as saying
> "I don't want her back", but I certainly don't think she's as crucial as
> others in this forum do. I never saw FK as the Nick and Nat show -- it
> was about NICK. I doubt that nobody in Nick's 800 years of existance
> besides Nat ever tried to figure out a way for him to regain his
> mortality.
WRONG!! Lots of people did. In flashbacks, he seeks a cure in lots of
places, over the centuries, and several people try to help him with all
kinds of bizarre techniques. Only Natalie had "modern" technology to work
with.
I'd miss her. She was my favorite female on the show. And not just
because she was trying to help Nick. She was a good representative of
today's modern woman -- strong, intelligent, capable, sensitive,
understanding, successful in her career, attractive, caring, occasionally
feisty (1st season) and much more. None of the other women in the show
came close to having all of those qualities IMO. And no one weaker or who
had less on the ball could've handled Nick the way she did. Wattawoman!!
Nancy
Sharon Himmanen
ma...@prolog.net (Donna) wrote:
>In article <32F8C5...@ccit.arizona.edu>, l...@ccit.arizona.edu
>says...
>Linda, thank you! You've just expressed my exact feelings on this
>issue.
> I've never seen Nick and Nat's relationship as a great romance
>as so many in this newsgroup espouse. In my mind, Nick never took the
>relationship half as seriously as did Nat. He flitted around with so
>many other women during the course of the series. What he wanted out
>of their relationship was a cure to his vampirism. In this desire his
>own feelings became confused thus leading to Last Knight.
>(Linda, I too prefer the Nick-LaCroix relationship, so much more
>complex and twisted.)
Remember, all this is IMO. Your mileage may vary; I'm just providing
food for thought and my reasons for why Nat needs to be there.
Well, I don't consider it a great romance either, for a lot of
reasons. For me, though, Natalie is crucial on a lot of levels. For
one thing, she is a representative of the audience, being a mortal
character who knows Nick's secret. She is the resonating character
because she's the one who lets us into the story even if not everyone
identifies with her strongly. Schanke filled the same role.
I don't think the Nick-LaCroix relationship is any more or any less
complex and twisted than the Nick-Nat relationship which wasn't
explored nearly as thoroughly (meaning there's still a lot of ground
that could be covered) or the Nick-Janette relationship, the
Natalie-Janette relationship, or even the Natalie-LaCroix relationship
(one that we were not often enough shown but which is IMO *the* most
interesting relationship on the show because Natalie and LaCroix are
so similar to each other on so many levels). Not to mention all the
various copshop aspects rolled up into all of this.
I'm not a Knightie by any stretch and don't particularly care for
Nick, so I often found myself wondering just what it was about him
that caused people to make him the center of their universe. I
finally realized it isn't *Nick* per se that is so special that they
have to devote all their time to him (because I just don't think he's
worth all the effort). It has more to do with the *type* of people
Nick surrounds himself with: obsessive, stubborn, intelligent, etc.
That's why I tended to see FK as more of an ensemble show than a show
about Nick, though he is the central figure.
I think that's why certain elements, such as Natalie, LaCroix and
Janette *must* be in place, along with the present day cop-show aspect
of it which I think is just as vital, for it to be Forever Knight for
me. A study of Nick's 800 year life with lots of flashbacks, or a
show devoted solely to Nick's struggles with LaCroix would bore me to
tears, quite frankly, and it's one I wouldn't tune in to watch, though
I have no doubt it would probably be a good show. Also, in the
aftermath of "Last Knight" in order for Nick to have any redeming
characteristics at all, Natalie has to be alive in some form or
another. Or Nick, and by definition, the show in general just become,
as someone said, a sick joke.
Mortal-vampire, present-flashback, copshop-vampire life, all need to
be balanced for Forever Knight to be what it is, and that means the
presence of certain characters and elements. Otherwise, it's just
your everyday run-of-the-mill cop show, vampire show, historical
romance, soap opera (take your pick). The fact that FK can pull off
all of these has a lot to do with how the show is set up, and the
various complex relationship inherent in its premise. They aren't
disposable or interchangeable, IMO.
Sharon
Dotti M. Rhodes
In article <5dbbi3$i...@news.cuny.edu>, rom...@mindspring.com says...
>
>
>I'm not a Knightie by any stretch and don't particularly care for
>Nick, so I often found myself wondering just what it was about him
>that caused people to make him the center of their universe. I
>finally realized it isn't *Nick* per se that is so special that they
>have to devote all their time to him (because I just don't think he's
>worth all the effort).
NOT WORTH...ahem, okay. I'm fine now....(giggle). Well, ofcourse,
without Nick you don't have a damn show...I mean, you could have a show
that centered around the vampire community and LaCroix but that
wouldn't be FK would it? that's the main reason for him being the
center of the FK universe..it is called Forever KNIGHT!!! Aside from
that, the show is about his trying to find HIS redemption and HIS
relationship with the people around him. Whether anyone likes him or
not, Nick is the center of the FK universe and everyone else spins
arouind him....otherwise there is no FK and Natalie is a definite part
of his universe that is necessary to him..and I wouldn't want to see FK
without her...Ofcourse, I could very easily jump into that role without
a thought...( yumm)
Dotti
Linda S. Musgrave
> I wrote:
> > I doubt that nobody in Nick's 800 years of existance
> > besides Nat ever tried to figure out a way for him to regain his
> > mortality.
Nancy Parry wrote:
> WRONG!! Lots of people did. In flashbacks, he seeks a cure in lots of
> places, over the centuries, and several people try to help him with >all kinds of bizarre techniques.
Errr....Nancy --
Double negatives in a sentance usually makes a possible. When I said "I
doubt that nobody did..." that MEANS "I believe somebody did...."
We're in agreement about other trying to cure Nick.
Linda
TedJills
I think that Nick's relationship with Nat is very interesting, especially
when contrasted with his relationship with Janette. To me, the
Janette-Nick-Nat triangle is one of the most fascinating aspects of the
show. Janette represents the comforts and the challenges of the vampiric
lifestyle, while Nat represents the mortal life, with its joys and
heartaches.
In the 3rd season, I found the relationship between Nick and Nat was less
interesting with Janette out of the picture.
In article <32F8C5...@ccit.arizona.edu>, l...@ccit.arizona.edu
says...
>(Besides, I thought Nick's relationship with LaCroix to be far more
MoJo
>
> >In article <32F8C5...@ccit.arizona.edu>, l...@ccit.arizona.edu
> >says...
>
> >Linda, thank you! You've just expressed my exact feelings on this
> >issue.
> > I've never seen Nick and Nat's relationship as a great romance
> >as so many in this newsgroup espouse. In my mind, Nick never took the
> >relationship half as seriously as did Nat. He flitted around with so
> >many other women during the course of the series. What he wanted out
> >of their relationship was a cure to his vampirism. In this desire his
> >own feelings became confused thus leading to Last Knight.
> >(Linda, I too prefer the Nick-LaCroix relationship, so much more
> >complex and twisted.)
It seems to me that Nick's attitude towards Natalie is just one more
example of outstanding characterization. Does he love her? Yes, I think
he does. I love my cat, too, but I know that someday I will lose her
and in time there will be other cats, and I will love and lose *them* too.
People live longer than cats...it is as simple as that...and unless
I accept that fact, I will grieve each loss until I can no longer
bear to continue my own life. In fact, that is one reason I have
four cats, all different ages...because if I piled all of my love
on just one, I'm not sure I'd have the strength to survive her.
It's not that I'm saying Natalie is a *pet* to Nick, but as an immortal,
Nick really *has* to remember always that someday he will lose her.
Otherwise, how could he possibly remain sane?
Nick is also hopeful of a cure, though. On the one hand, he is faced with
a history of losing the people he loves (with the exception of Janette),
but on the other hand, he is hopeful that in the end, he and Natalie will
have similar life expectancies. So of course his attitude towards her
must be somewhat ambivalent given the uncertainty of their potential
future together.
Of course, even if that happens, he's still already got 800 more years of
experience than she does. He hopes to regain his mortality, but I
wonder if someone with 800 years of life behind him could *ever* really
be human again?
The writers of this show do an excellent job of always keeping Nick
'apart' from the people around him, and GWD did an excellent job of
portraying it. With very few exceptions, Nick never really relaxes
into his life. GWD never lets himself look completely comfortable
in his own skin when he's around other people. That, by the way, is
the reason I believe we see those occasional weird scenes with Nick alone
in his apartment, staring into candles or playing chess by himself.
It gives us some contrast of how this being who isn't *quite* a man
behaves when he has nothing to hide. He's not human, folks. He's
doing things that look absolutely bizarre to us because he is NOT
one of us. He wants to be one of us, and he pretends to be so, but
if you look closely you will see that he never really gets away from
the knowledge that he's 'passing', not really 'being'.
I've seen Nick with Janette, and clearly they have some serious history
together. She is, also, a woman he can be with and not worry about
killing. Vampires are very sexual beings after all...what could possibly
be more intimate than drinking the blood, the essence of your partner?
So how does this being survive when he has pledged to forswear all that
makes him what he is? Catholic priests practice celibacy but they remain
human, and they have other aspects to their lives. But a vampire *is* sex...
Nick has given up *all* that makes him what he is. It's not surprising
that he reaches for Janette with such a desperate hunger, because he
*is* literally starving to death. Cow's blood may nourish his body, but
it does nothing to nourish his soul.
There are so many layers to these characters, I think this is why FK has
so many fans, and why the list of fans continues to grow as the program
is more widely broadcast.
Oh, and for the record...if the show ever continues, I think they need
Natalie. She's a very important part of the chemistry, and without her
presence to balance the character of Nick, I think he will not be
able to continue to pull off his act. She is indeed his anchor to the
mortal world.
MJ
J. Sadler
*Sensitive Material Ahead*
!! If you really hate spoilers and you haven't watched the 'early
seasons' read this at your own risk !!
*Sensitive Material Ahead*
: I've seen Nick with Janette, and clearly they have some serious history
: together.
I belive they were married for nearly 100 years, i remember a flash back
were they break up just before there 100 year aniversery [though it
could be 200 or some other century mark]
: It's not that I'm saying Natalie is a *pet* to Nick, but as an immortal,
: Nick really *has* to remember always that someday he will lose her.
: Otherwise, how could he possibly remain sane?
i can see it now: Nick: Here Nat, Heeeree NatNatNat, Comeeer Nat :)
E J Andrew
Dotti M. Rhodes wrote:
...Ofcourse, I could very easily jump into that role without
> a thought...( yumm)
>
Err Dotti I'm sure you would and a good job you'd do as well except
theres one small, teeny tiny problem. Nat tried as best as posible most
of the time to keep some emotional distance from Nick and in doing so
mangaed to keep forever knight going for 3 season before the awful 'Make
love to me line' can you tell me 'and I want you to be painfully honest
here' that the new season staring you would last more than say 30 mins.
Liz
E J Andrew
E J Andrew wrote:
> Err Dotti I'm sure you would and a good job you'd do as well except
Sorry folks, sorry dotti
That was meant to go to Dotti privatly.
A bad case of wrong button finger again.
realy sorry
Liz
Ms. Lisa B. Burstiner
MoJo wrote on Fri, 7 Feb 1997 22:08:26 GMT:
>
> The writers of this show do an excellent job of always keeping Nick
> 'apart' from the people around him, and GWD did an excellent job of
> portraying it. With very few exceptions, Nick never really relaxes
> into his life. GWD never lets himself look completely comfortable
> in his own skin when he's around other people. That, by the way, is
> the reason I believe we see those occasional weird scenes with Nick
alone
> in his apartment, staring into candles or playing chess by himself.
> It gives us some contrast of how this being who isn't *quite* a man
> behaves when he has nothing to hide. He's not human, folks. He's
> doing things that look absolutely bizarre to us because he is NOT
> one of us. He wants to be one of us, and he pretends to be so, but
> if you look closely you will see that he never really gets away from
> the knowledge that he's 'passing', not really 'being'.
>
This is one of the best analyses of Nick I've seen. I never really
thought about the fact that he is not completely comfortable. Yes, I've
noticed that he acts guarded around most people, but it wasn't until I
saw the bizarre behavior he exhibits when he is alone that I see what
you mean.
> I've seen Nick with Janette, and clearly they have some serious
history
> together. She is, also, a woman he can be with and not worry about
> killing. Vampires are very sexual beings after all...what could
possibly
> be more intimate than drinking the blood, the essence of your
partner?
> So how does this being survive when he has pledged to forswear all
that
> makes him what he is? Catholic priests practice celibacy but they
remain
> human, and they have other aspects to their lives. But a vampire
*is* sex...
> Nick has given up *all* that makes him what he is. It's not
surprising
> that he reaches for Janette with such a desperate hunger, because he
> *is* literally starving to death. Cow's blood may nourish his body,
but
> it does nothing to nourish his soul.
Yes, which is why I completely understand his reaching out to Janette.
I don't think he is using her. She understands his nature and his needs
like no one else can. She provides something physical and emotional
that Natalie cannot ever give him.
> There are so many layers to these characters, I think this is why FK
has
> so many fans, and why the list of fans continues to grow as the
program
> is more widely broadcast.
>
> Oh, and for the record...if the show ever continues, I think they
need
> Natalie. She's a very important part of the chemistry, and without
her
> presence to balance the character of Nick, I think he will not be
> able to continue to pull off his act. She is indeed his anchor to
the
> mortal world.
Agreed, especially now that Schanke is gone. She is the _only_ thing
giving him hope for mortality. Without her, Lacroix could easily
manipulate Nick into coming back to the fold.
LB
Dotti M. Rhodes
In article <32FDE5...@shef.ac.uk>, E.J.A...@shef.ac.uk says...
>
>
>here' that the new season staring you would last more than say 30
mins.
>
Dotti
Dotti M. Rhodes
In article <32FE1F...@shef.ac.uk>, E.J.A...@shef.ac.uk says...
>
>
>Sorry folks, sorry dotti
>
>That was meant to go to Dotti privatly.
>A bad case of wrong button finger again.
>
Dotti
Nancy Parry
E J Andrew wrote:
>
> Dotti M. Rhodes wrote:
>
> ...Ofcourse, I could very easily jump into that role without
> > a thought...( yumm)
> >
>
> of the time to keep some emotional distance from Nick and in doing so
> mangaed to keep forever knight going for 3 season before the awful 'Make
> love to me line' can you tell me 'and I want you to be painfully honest
>
The questions is, would NICK last more than 30 minutes...?? Nancy
Dotti M. Rhodes
In article <32FE17...@earthlink.net>, npa...@earthlink.net says...
>
>
>The questions is, would NICK last more than 30 minutes...?? Nancy
Hey....with some of my experiences...30 minutes is a LONG time....
Dotti
Susan Bennett
: ma...@prolog.net (Donna) wrote:
: >In article <32F8C5...@ccit.arizona.edu>, l...@ccit.arizona.edu
: >says...
: >Linda, thank you! You've just expressed my exact feelings on this
: >issue.
: > I've never seen Nick and Nat's relationship as a great romance
: >as so many in this newsgroup espouse. In my mind, Nick never took the
: >relationship half as seriously as did Nat. He flitted around with so
: >many other women during the course of the series. What he wanted out
: >of their relationship was a cure to his vampirism. In this desire his
: >own feelings became confused thus leading to Last Knight.
: >(Linda, I too prefer the Nick-LaCroix relationship, so much more
: >complex and twisted.)
Most of Nick's "flitting around" was in flashbacks. It's too bad you
missed Nick & Nat's relationship develop from friendship, to loving
friendship, to real love. You missed something very important - Nick's
realization of the one human emotion that had always eluded him - the
ability to love someone more than his own life.
Susan B.
Nick&Natpacker
cd...@torfree.net
janet ann dornhoff
>MoJo wrote on Fri, 7 Feb 1997 22:08:26 GMT:
>> GWD never lets himself look completely comfortable
>> in his own skin when he's around other people.
I dunno, I thought he looked very comfortable (and yummy!) perched
on his desk at the precinct, talking with Schanke and Natalie in
"Last Act."
>> That, by the way, is
>> the reason I believe we see those occasional weird scenes with Nick
>alone
>> in his apartment, staring into candles or playing chess by himself.
Um, in Real Life, those scenes are in there because the show was
contractually bound to run 47 minutes per ep in Canada, and they
occasionally ran short. They shot a bunch of filler scenes, and
then spliced them in wherever, occasionally adding appropriate
(or inappropriate) audio clips or music.
Mind you, not that I object to watching Nick tossing Tarot cards into
the air, or brooding on a window ledge two stories up with narry a
ladder in sight. But it occasionally plays havoc with the continuity.
Like Nick golfing in his pajamas when he's supposed to be dashing off
to buy a forgotten birthday gift for Natalie...
>> Oh, and for the record...if the show ever continues, I think they
>> need Natalie. She's a very important part of the chemistry, and
>> without her presence to balance the character of Nick, I think he
>> will not be able to continue to pull off his act. She is indeed
>> his anchor to the mortal world.
Absolutely. And I'm not just saying that because I'm an original
NatPacker, either! :-) They have managed to do fairly well without
Janette, or Schanke, or any given Captain. But Nick, LaCroix, and
Natalie are the core of the show. Trying to go on without them
would be like trying to continue the original Star Trek without
keeping Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. Better to go on to a Next
Generation than to see our favorite characters messed with so
seriously.
-Janet <dorn...@uiuc.edu>
Forever Vet, NatPacker, Watcher, Lurker, X-Phile, and so much more...
susan...@aol.com
In article dorn...@students.uiuc.edu (janet ann dornhoff) writes:
>But it occasionally plays havoc with the continuity.
Like Nick golfing in his pajamas when he's supposed to be dashing off
to buy a forgotten birthday gift for Natalie...>
Actually that's supposed to be there and it points out a very important
thing--
Nick lies to Natalie after he gives her the flowers. He found out it was
her birthday, went hom, changed into his jammies, and did some golf
thinking. At which time he realizes he's being an idiot and he needs to
go see her.
He runs out, buys her flowers, and finds her in front of the grocery with
Roger. Gives her the card and the flowers, then when she ask if he wants
to come back to his place, he tells her that Schanke's waiting for him--
The man was home in his pajamas. Their shift ended. Nick avoids going
back to Natalie's place with her. He lies.
That isn't evident in the US cut or the SciFi cut, but it's very evident
in the original Canadian cut.
The odd thing is, I still consider that lie a very mortal, very emotional
thing--avoidance, fear of rejection, guilt over having forgotten and, on a
vampire note, fear of being alone with her in a situation he won't have
control over and in which he might a) tell her how he really feels and b)
end up killing her.
Regards
janet ann dornhoff
susan...@aol.com writes:
>In article dorn...@students.uiuc.edu (janet ann dornhoff) writes:
>>But it occasionally plays havoc with the continuity.
>>Like Nick golfing in his pajamas when he's supposed to be dashing
>>off to buy a forgotten birthday gift for Natalie...
>Actually that's supposed to be there and it points out a very important
>thing--
*snip*
>Roger. Gives her the card and the flowers, then when she ask if he wants
>to come back to his place, he tells her that Schanke's waiting for him--
>The man was home in his pajamas. Their shift ended. Nick avoids going
>back to Natalie's place with her. He lies.
Sorry, but I don't see it that way. I *know* that they added in
extra scenes of Nick brooding to fill out the whole 47 minutes.
The golfing scene has all the characteristics of an added
time-filler; you'll notice that Nick isn't doing anything at all related
to the episode, the voiceovers were recycled from earlier in the
episode and are unnecessary, as they repeat what was just said a minute
ago, and Nick's facial expressions don't match up with what he's
supposedly thinking about.
The plotline of the show makes a *lot* more sense if Schanke tells
Nick about the birthday party as they're getting into Nick's car,
and Nick makes a side trip to buy Nat flowers, with Schanke waiting
in the car, before they go home. It fits better.
Given the choice between believing the writer had some convoluted
and obscure motivation for Nick designed to make him look bad, and
thinking that some idiot screwed up the continuity for the sake
of their contract, I choose the latter. :-)
-Janet <dorn...@uiuc.edu>
"I *can* handle it."
"Why would you want to?"
"Because the alternative is unthinkable."
-Methos and Alexa [an incredibly romantic scene, in honor of the day]
susan...@aol.com
In article dorn...@students.uiuc.edu (janet ann dornhoff) writes:
>Sorry, but I don't see it that way. I *know* that they added in
>extra scenes of Nick brooding to fill out the whole 47 minutes.
>The golfing scene has all the characteristics of an added
>time-filler;
>The plotline of the show makes a *lot* more sense if Schanke tells
>Nick about the birthday party as they're getting into Nick's car,
>and Nick makes a side trip to buy Nat flowers, with Schanke waiting
>in the car, before they go home. It fits better.
Ah, but you see, <I> work within the idea that what we see is what we've gotta work from. Knowing personally that this actor was having a bad day or that they they were forced to film against a backdrop because it was too windy and had to reblock the scene, or that costumes weren't available so a bridge had to be reshot doesn't make a difference to me--it's an explanation, but not an explanation within the context of the story. And I trust the story. If it doesn't make sense, I try to make it make sense. (Of course, Schanke's missing sideburn is ALWAYS going to be a problem, unless you go with the 'psychotic ex-barber armed with a battery operated razor who Schanke single-handedly wrestled to the ground but not before losing one of his sideburns' theories . . . .).
This means, of course, that it depends entirely on what cut you're watching. There's a wealth in pauses, in personal moments, even in driving around the same streets of Toronto or throwing cards up into the air. The card scenes in particular--they FILL time but what they imply is that Nick wastes a lot of time and has wasted a lot of the time during his existence. It adds a weariness to his character, gives him a bit more depth and explanation. Much as I like the pace of Quentin Tarentino movies and fast cuts, there's a reason I enjoy going back to the old Hollywood films in which a character was given quiet time and the pacing would be slowed down for contemplative or emotional context shots. Sure, it slows the action, but there can be such power to them when they're done well and taken in context.
Taken in context. That's the phrase I was looking for. Yeah, I know they're filler. And I know that if I was still watching Highlander, I'd be holding my breath for the release of every single video tape that had Eurominutes on it, because even though some of the 'filler' scenes are driving scenes, some are actually quiet moments of character development. Neither moves the plot forward, but the latter can be savored, precious as a forgotten treasure that one comes across quite by accident when looking for something else entirely.
>Given the choice between believing the writer had some convoluted
>and obscure motivation for Nick designed to make him look bad, and
>thinking that some idiot screwed up the continuity for the sake
>of their contract, I choose the latter. :-)
I don't think it made Nick look 'bad'--I think it made him look human. My reading on that is that he did lie about having to get back to Schanke because he was uncertain about returning to Natalie's apartment with her at that moment. He cares for her--that's evident in his words and his body language throughout that whole episode. Any mortal male might have done the same thing for a number of different reasons, ranging from fear of commitment to fear of rejection to just plain fear. Nick's got a whole wad of stuff piled up on top of that.
I like Nick's momen's of success, but I also like his moments of pure, human weakness. It makes him more accessible, less a blood-drinking, super-strong, long-lived aristocrat, but a guy who has hopes and dreams and desires and loves and hates and fears. I prefer Nick as a complex character than as a cardboard 'good-guy.'
Regards
john...@aol.com
>>But it occasionally plays havoc with the continuity.
>Like Nick golfing in his pajamas when he's supposed to be dashing off
>to buy a forgotten birthday gift for Natalie...>
>
>Actually that's supposed to be there and it points out a very important
>thing--
>
>Nick lies to Natalie after he gives her the flowers. He found out it was
>her birthday, went hom, changed into his jammies, and did some golf
>thinking. At which time he realizes he's being an idiot and he needs to
>go see her.
In-fi-del!! That is Ice-Farmer Apocrypha! You must die for your blasthemy! But first...
I don't buy this analysis: he's clearly on his way after Schanke reminds him, and the above scenario doesn't work for me.
JF
"Golf thinking?" Like OJ?
Mike Miller
> : ma...@prolog.net (Donna) wrote:
>
> : >In article <32F8C5...@ccit.arizona.edu>, l...@ccit.arizona.edu
> : >says...
>
> : >Linda, thank you! You've just expressed my exact feelings on this
> : >issue.
> : > I've never seen Nick and Nat's relationship as a great romance
> : >as so many in this newsgroup espouse. In my mind, Nick never took the
> : >relationship half as seriously as did Nat. He flitted around with so
> : >many other women during the course of the series. What he wanted out
> : >of their relationship was a cure to his vampirism. In this desire his
> : >own feelings became confused thus leading to Last Knight.
> : >(Linda, I too prefer the Nick-LaCroix relationship, so much more
> : >complex and twisted.)
>
I completely understand your point. Have you seen "Be My Valentine"
yet? (Second Season ep, I believe). If not, I won't spoil it for you
here, but needless to say, up until that ep I was a die-hard
Nick&Natpacker, but still somewhat drawn to Janette. Some things that
Nick says to LaCroix in that ep made me re-think my original position,
and start leaning more toward the Immortal Beloved direction, and, of
course, Ravenette (as the series progressed my fascination with Janette
grew stronger than my desire to see Nick and Nat united, which is what
kept me watching in the beginning, and even now I have to admit the
chemistry between N&N (IMO) was *much* stronger - and better overall -
in the first season).
But if you haven't seen it, watch for it on SFC, if you get SFC. It is
a very pivtoal FK episode, for more reasons than one, and (just like
X-files) they never *really* give you the straight-out answer that you
want after having watched the episode.
~~Christina~~
janet ann dornhoff
susan...@aol.com writes:
>In article dorn...@students.uiuc.edu (janet ann dornhoff) writes:
>>Sorry, but I don't see it that way. I *know* that they added in
>>extra scenes of Nick brooding to fill out the whole 47 minutes.
>>The golfing scene has all the characteristics of an added
>>time-filler;
>>The plotline of the show makes a *lot* more sense if Schanke tells
>>Nick about the birthday party as they're getting into Nick's car,
>>and Nick makes a side trip to buy Nat flowers, with Schanke waiting
>>in the car, before they go home. It fits better.
>Ah, but you see, <I> work within the idea that what we see is what we've
>gotta work from.
*snip*
>doesn't make a difference to me--it's an
>explanation, but not an explanation within the context of the story. And
>I trust the story. If it doesn't make sense, I try to make it make sense
We both seem to focus on the story, but I view the story as the thing
that comes from the writers and actors and directors. Maybe if it weren't
such *blatant* filler, and mess up the continuity so obviously, I might
consider making up an explanation. But when it's such an obvious
screw-up and so clearly there only for contractual reasons, I'd rather
just forget about it. Like "Highlander 2."
>be holding my breath for the release of every single video tape that had
>Eurominutes on it, because even though some of the 'filler' scenes are
>driving scenes, some are actually quiet moments of character development.
Yes, but none of the "Highlander" Eurominutes destroys the continuity
of the episode. They wrote scenes of discussions between characters,
unrealated to the episode, or wrote their scripts long and cut off the
tail end, or even added and filmed an extra scene when they came up
short. They didn't throw something in willy-nilly without figuring
out where to put it first.
I *love* the extra character scenes. If they have to throw in a few
brooding bits to keep the extra seven minutes as the standard, I'm
willing to sit through them. But I don't have to accept every single
one of them as canon, on equal footing with what the writer actually
put into the story. This is the *only* brooding bit I can think of
that I don't accept, and that is *only* because it does mess up the
episode itself, which I see as far more important.
Again, kind of like "Highlander 2." Just cause they put it on the
big screen that the Immortals are aliens from the planet Zeist, that
doesn't mean I have to believe it!
>>Given the choice between believing the writer had some convoluted
>>and obscure motivation for Nick designed to make him look bad, and
>>thinking that some idiot screwed up the continuity for the sake
>>of their contract, I choose the latter. :-)
I guess it's just a matter of priorities.
-Janet <dorn...@uiuc.edu>
"It's not as if just *anyone* can become Immortal." -Yuta, _Mermaid Forest_
Susan Bennett
05558...@infinet.com>:
Organization: Toronto Free-Net
Distribution:
Mike Miller (mmil...@infinet.com) wrote:
: I completely understand your point. Have you seen "Be My Valentine"
: yet? (Second Season ep, I believe). If not, I won't spoil it for you
: here, but needless to say, up until that ep I was a die-hard
: Nick&Natpacker, but still somewhat drawn to Janette. Some things that
: Nick says to LaCroix in that ep made me re-think my original position,
: and start leaning more toward the Immortal Beloved direction, and, of
: course, Ravenette (as the series progressed my fascination with Janette
: grew stronger than my desire to see Nick and Nat united, which is what
: kept me watching in the beginning, and even now I have to admit the
: chemistry between N&N (IMO) was *much* stronger - and better overall -
: in the first season).
--snip--
: ~~Christina~~
Nick was trying to save Nat's life by convincing LC that he did not love
her - that is why he said those things. You could tell by the way he was
clutching her at the end just how much he loved her.
Susan B.
Nick&Natpacker
cd...@torfree.net
LazyZoe
I don't want Nathalie back either, i think Nick is better off without her
. I always thought that they were a mismatched couple... let's give him a
real challenge!
Sonia