MovieChat Forums > Forever Knight (1992) Discussion > They Should Make A Movie!

They Should Make A Movie!


I think the time is right.Vamps are pretty hot right now,with "Twilight" and "True Blood" being so hot now!Any Thoughts?


If I want Sookie, I can simply take her.

reply


There was a movie. It was called Nick Knight. It starred Rick Springfield as Nick.

reply

That was the original pilot episode for the show.I mean a big screan treatment.

If I want Sookie, I can simply take her.

reply


First people would have to remember Forever Knight. So many Moonlight and Angel fans don't even acknowledge it exists.

reply

That is very true,sadly.I just think that if they did a feature length movie now it would maybe bring in some new fans.

If I want Sookie, I can simply take her.

reply


Or get some ill-educated Teeny Boppers to whine that it's a rip off of Moonlight or Angel. Not knowing it really came first.

reply

There was a movie. It was called Nick Knight. It starred Rick Springfield as Nick.

that was before the series started...we're talking after the series ended..

i would love to see a made for tv movie.....

not sure though if they'd want to use the same actors though...because both gerrant, and what's her name have put on quite a bit of weight....

susan

reply

The DVDs are horrid. They used the syndicated versions to make them and they're edited. When I purchase DVDs I don't expect them to be the shortened versions!

We deserved better than we received. Sony should be ashamed of what they gave us. The DVDs are dreadful. FOREVER KNIGHT deserved better treatment from them. We deserved better from Sony.

reply

[deleted]

Here are a few problems with that:

1. Forever Knight was never as popular as we, the fans, made it seem when it was originally on the air. Yes, fans saved it from it's first cancellation because of letter writing but TPTB thought that there was a smaller active fan to passive fan ratio (i.e.- each letter writer represented a less number of non-writing fans than normal). It is true that TPTB believed that there were sufficient viewers to have a S3, but only because the show was changing distribution companies (Columbia/Tri-Star to USA Networks) and USA likes to buy shows, rework them and make a dollar profit before axing them.

2. Sony (the FK rights owner) lost a huge amount of money off the production of the DVD "Trilogy". It's like we fans begged and complained that TPTB wouldn't release FK on DVD and then when they did (and yanked FK off all television to entice us to buy) only maybe half of us actually did buy the set. No, I don't think that Sony will ever release anything with vampires and called "Forever Knight" again; and, they won't sell the franchise because they can continuously use FK as a tax write-off for all the financial losses they incured producing the DVDs (so much as they retain the rights).

3. None of the original actors (except for maybe Nigel) would be willing, able or have the look to play their parts anymore. Do I really need to mention each actor's (except Nigel) problem with picking back up his/her character?

4. Forget a "reboot" or "re imagining"...that's just another word for "remake" with new actors, slightly different plot elements and better special effects. Many fans of the "original" FK will not see it because it's "blasphemy" and never as good as theirs and new (younger) viewers will call it a "rip-off" of this-or-that vampire production and a cash in on the current vampire craze (which they would be right).

I'm sorry to burst your bubble there. From 1999 until 2004 I was advocating a continuation of the series with the production cost funded solely on fans' and viewers' donations.




"All These Moments Will Be Lost in Time. Like.....Tears in Rain."

reply

You have some valid points.Every couple of years I hear rumors of a movie.They are just fan fantasies probably started BY fans.

If I want Sookie, I can simply take her.

reply

I have to agree with you. Considering Geraint himself visibly aged during the show's original run, there's no way he'd be able to pull off the same character nearly 20 years later. I loved the show as a young teen, and I pull out the DVDs every now and then these days, but its time has passed regarding new content.

"Moonlight" tried to be the new FK and bombed, so I really think we're better off with the teen-romance vampire shows for a while. One day the kids watching those will grow up and look for something better, and perhaps come up with something as good as FK was.


reply

What if they did a movie with a new cast,and maybe have cameos from the original cast?

If I want Sookie, I can simply take her.

reply

What would be the point and purpose? To say that there's a "new" Forever Knight (regardless if it's a movie, mini-series or series)? Then that "new" Forever Knight becomes old and then it's "I wish there was/let's make a" "new" Forever Knight. Over and over and over again. I, for one, am in the group that is against remakes of any kind. The entertainment industry hasn't "lost" its originality...it just COSTS more to be original than to rehash and mutilate an idea (popular or not) that has come and go.

Be fortunate that we have the "Trilogy" in its complete entirety. As I explained in my earlier post, the mass "popularity" of Forever Knight that prompted Columbia/Tri-Star to have a second season, USA to have a third season and Sony to make a DVD set was a myth enforced by overinflated buzz. I am not knocking FK or the fans (I AM ONE), I just speak the truth. I digress, though. The reason I say "be fortunate" is that Sony was going to stop with "Part One" because it was not a success that Sony expected or fan hype implied it was to be. Sony made "Part Two" because we, the fans, lied to them. We said "Yeah, sales weren't that high for part one, but that because a lot of fans don't know it is out." So Sony pumped out "Part Two" and spent a crap ton more money on advertisement. "Part Two" sold even less. Sony said in essence "We're done!" We replied (in essence), "They didn't sell because you gave us a crappy video and audio transfer, no special features and stupid packaging!" Sony, basically, finally relented and produced "Part Three" to finish the series and to get the loyal fans off its back. Because of that, "Part Three" was never discounted to retailers like "Parts One and Two" were.

So, now you have the story. Sony still retains the rights and, as I've explained, will not give them up.

Besides, what is the point of being a Forever Knight fan if you cannot cherish the series we love and watch the dvds over and over?



"All These Moments Will Be Lost in Time. Like.....Tears in the Rain."

reply

Set 1 was just bare bones (and used the shorter U.S. episode for Part 1 of "Dark Knight"!). I would have liked the S1 episodes to have full version episodes, everything put in, so it would be combined Canadian and U.S. episodes (for instance, only the U.S. episode had a scene of the outside of the precinct, Nick in the hallway talking to Stonetree, then going into the squadroom and sitting down. The Canadian version just has Nick sitting down and the scene continues from there).

I don't know what they'd do for "1966" though, for instance, two scenes were longer in Canada, and were a medium shot so everyone is seen but not many close-ups, but in the U.S. version, the picture was more zoomed in and some of the dialogue was missing (for instance, Canadian version made it clear that it was vodka being drunk in the scene, but not in the U.S. version).

Set 2 had a few commentaries, (3? 4?) and I think a short interview with Geraint Wyn Davies and James Parriot.

Set 3 was also bare bones (no commentaries, no interviews) but had three or so fan videos thrown in as an extra.

reply

I don't think we the fans lied to Sony as much as they lied to us. They released the DVD's as cheaply as they could and priced them highly. I say highly because the first set had no extras. No cast comments, no extra scenes, no writer comments ,nothing. No remastering. More than than that just how much advertising did they do? Just threw it out there without much buzz and expected something for nothing. The second DVD's were somewhat better, but the commentary was only one one episode and again no extras. The third season DVD's were the same way except with Kristin's Fan video's. They did not give us anything. Hardly any advertising for them either. It was mostly word of mouth.
In fact I had to order my copies on line because I couldn't find them locally.
Sony didn't try very hard.

As to a movie, I don't think that will happen either. It's been 18 years
since it started and 14 since it ended.

"Listen, I don't tan, I don't burn, I implode."

reply

rsanders27, you forget: Forever Knight had limited popularity because it had a very limited potential viewership, and those limits were set by network and local program directors. It wasn't exactly sabotage, but they sure didn't try to give the show a big audience. Forever Knight was also syndicated from the very beginning, and the overwhelming majority of U.S. broadcast stations that showed it put it in a very late-night time slot (11 pm or later). I recall watching it at 11:30 pm or midnight Saturday nights in Chicago, on the local CBS station. Forever Knight had that late time slot because back then (it premiered in 1989), most stations considered the show too racy to run during prime time and network time was taken up with network shows. And the show got zero promotion. This meant Forever Knight was *never* going to have a big audience, so blame the CBS and local program directors for a foregone conclusion, not the fans. Sony's stupidly coy machinations later on didn't help, either. And when Forever Knight did go into reruns, it wasn't until years later on SciFi Channel (usually as daytime programming), so that limited the audience as well.

Compare that to eight straight years of week-night prime time and heavy hype on the WB for Buffy/Angel, plus syndication, plus seemingly neverending reruns on TNT (even now!), and the difference in the potential audience is HUGE. Not to mention obvious. The Buffyverse fan base is bigger because A LOT more people got to see those shows in the first place, they were heavily marketed, and we've been inundated with reruns ever since, which just increases the audience. You can barely avoid the reruns. Sheesh, I wish they'd stop, already.

Forever Knight was simply ahead of its time. Had it appeared less than a decade later, say 1995 or so, it probably wouldn't have been shunted to late nights but would have had the opportunity for a much larger prime time audience. Or, had it found a home on cable, it might have carved out a niche for itself there. We'll never know. As it is, the availability of the DVD set ironically gives the show a better opportunity to gather a following now than it could ever have had back then.

reply

rsanders27, you forget: Forever Knight had limited popularity because it had a very limited potential viewership, and those limits were set by network and local program directors. It wasn't exactly sabotage, but they sure didn't try to give the show a big audience. Forever Knight was also syndicated from the very beginning, and the overwhelming majority of U.S. broadcast stations that showed it put it in a very late-night time slot (11 pm or later). I recall watching it at 11:30 pm or midnight Saturday nights in Chicago, on the local CBS station. Forever Knight had that late time slot because back then (it premiered in 1989),


The Rick Springfield movie was 1989. As a television show, it premiered in May, 1992 on a Monday and Tuesday (Part 1 and Part 2) and ran on Tuesday nights on CBS (I used to tape the Crimetime After Primetime show on Monday nights, for the short FK ad for the next night). Second and third seasons, it would run late night on various stations for syndication, usually a weekend night.

reply

I don't know about all the legalities of it, but I'd like to see a TV movie -BUT I believe it would have to be done w/a younger cast & maybe if they're willing, some cameos of the original actors -What do you think the story should be Eric?

reply

Don't know,but the last ep ends on a cliffhanger,so maybe they could pick it up from there?

If I want Sookie, I can simply take her.

reply

What cliff hanger? I've heard that a million times and I really don't see it. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be bitchy at you or anyone else who says that. I just don't see the ambiguity in LaCroix standing over Nick with a stake, saying "damn you, Nicholas", raising the stake, and then starting the stake on a downward path toward Nick's back. I'd seriously love to see the ambiguity in it instead of it being such a tragic end.

reply

No, it IS a cliffhanger. Watch that scene again. LaCroix "freezes" at the top of the movement with that huge stake. There is NEVER a downward motion with it. Which was performed perfectly and they did it "clearly on purpose," in order to leave the door open for a potential continuation. Natalie may not have been dead just yet either.


There was still time to bring her across since Nick hadn't completely drained her. LaCroix says, "There she lies at the brink, Nicholas. Bring her across, or let her die. You must decide." Although, Nick replies, "I just can't condemn her to this darkness." There is STILL TIME to bring her over by the end of the episode. Besides, LaCroix could have brought Nat across just to be spiteful. You know how vindictive LaCroix has been. Although, I couldn't see him doing it to be spiteful at this point, since he was really showing a father's love for Nick.


I thought it was a little strange that they killed off Screed in "Fever," but.....then, when I saw they really cleaned house by taking out Vachon and Tracy and even Divia (There was a lot of potential with Divia.) in "Ashes to Ashes," boy, I knew then that BAD was coming.


I found this show 2 months after it's final episode aired in 1996 and fell in love with it totally and completely. I've never really been into a show or been emotional about a show before this one or since this one. And I can say, when I saw that final episode I was genuinely, and no joke, seriously SCREWED UP emotionally for quite a few WEEKS afterwords. Perhaps unlike many of you, I had NO IDEA the end was coming at all. I LOVE THIS SHOW SOOO DAMN MUCH. It's sooo tragic it ended so soon. Just so very tragic.


reply

You're kidding, right? That's not a cliffhanger -- it's a definite resolution, an ending that effectively prevents any reboot that would continue the storyline. And who really wants a new version without the actors who made us love this series in the first place?? For me, Geraint Wyn Davies will always be Nick Knight/Nicolas de Brabant -- and the time when he could still play Nick has long passed, more's the pity. Besides, can you seriously think of anyone other than Nigel Bennett who could play Lacroix? And would you want a lesser actor to try? Come on, now.

Be happy the DVD set is still available, and introduce it to friends who have never seen the show. If they like Moonlight, Blood Ties, or True Blood, I'll bet they'll love Forever Knight.

reply

You're kidding, right? That's not a cliffhanger.
I agree that at this point, when any revival couldn't logically involve the original actors (ageless LaCroix will have aged 14 years), a revival just wouldn't be as good. But I disagree that the ending provides definite closure. Instead, the producers wisely left the possibilities open to the fans--who ran with it in megabytes of fan fiction, including "virtual" further seasons.

For all we know, LaCroix brought that stake down on Nick's head and just beat him with it crying, "You took too much blood? You idiot!"

-----------------
"I've always resisted the notion that knowledge ruined paradise." Prof. Xavier

reply