Question:
Would you accept a fourth season if it had a
different setting and different characters?

Jessica Roop

Hmm... I don't know. I'd accept a different setting, like a different city (I think that'd be interesting), and as far as different characters, it depends on who they are. I'd accept them to an extent, but I'd also like some of the old characters (and actors!!) from the show. It'd be hard to watch the show without Geraint Wyn Davies, Nigel Bennett and Catherine Disher as Nick, LaCroix and Natalie. If those 3 were there, and there were other characters, yes, I'd definitely accept it. But if not, I don't know.

Wendy

I would love another season. But I loved the other characters to much that it wouldn't be the same.

B.A.

Yes if Nick and Natalie are played by the same actors.

Rosebud

Maybe, but I doubt it would be as good as Forever Knight's other seasons.

Natasha and The Wildman

The wildman likes the Toronto atmosphere. However, it never hurts to add a little fresh blood. Keep Nick and company. How about some well known guest vamps. Natasha would not watch a fourth season without Nick and LaCroix. I also would prefer to see Jeanette back at it, and think the show could do without Natalie. I see nothing wrong with a new city, however, I've grown quite fond of Toronto.

Reva

Yes, I would accept a fourth season with a different setting. I would also accept different supporting characters, albeit grudgingly. However, in my opinion it wouldn't be the FK we know and love without GWD and NB as Nick and Lacroix. They would definitely have to appear.

Julian Luna

No... I would not... I think that Nick cannot be replaced neither could LaCroix or Natalie... they made the show what it was... GREAT!!! Tracy on the other hand... would definatly have to be replaced... Vachon should return he too was good.

LB Burstiner

Absolutely not. For me, Forever Knight is Nick, Lacroix, Janette, Natalie, etc. I accepted the characters from the third season, because that is when I started watching, but it still centered around the trials and tribulations of Nick Knight. It wouldn't be Forever Knight without him.

Sharon Bauman

Having a fourth season of FK means retaining [some of] the same characters that the other three seasons had. Otherwise, it would be an entirely different program. [A good example is Star Trek, the Star Trek-The Next Generation]. So in order to have a fourth season of Forever Knight, there must be -- at least -- Nick Knight and LaCroix. They are central to the story and the series. If these two characters were not retained, there'd be no point in having a fourth season - give the show a new name and let FK live on in the reruns. Now, if by different characters, we were to suppose new characters that Nick and LaCroix interact with, that could be interesting. However, the script writing would have to be strong and the continuity retained. Continuity doesn't have to be the same setting -- a different setting would certainly provide the writers with fresh material. I'd certainly like to see Vachon back - Divia was resurrected from the dead, Vachon could be too - and Natalie [she was only near death, not dead when we left her]. That would have to be the core characters for a fourth season to interest me. Now, if the same actors could not play their characters, that's yet another dilemma! I could not imagine anyone else playing Nick, Nat, LaCroix, or Vachon then the original actors, but I'd probably tune in to see how the replacements were doing. I'm always willing to give actors a chance. However, recasting in a series or a soap opera or a [remake of a] movie often leaves me less than satisfied with the show and loses my interest.

Wilma

I would accept a fourth season in a different setting. Vampires do have to move on every decade or so. Nick's flashbacks have shown us that. I would not like to see different lead characters. Part of the magic of the show was how the actors played so well off each other. The original movie did not have the same quality as the series. Give me a fourth season, but give me Bennett, Disher, Duchene and Wyn Davies. I wish there was a way to bring Kapelos back. Do you think maybe Vachon could have made Schanke a vampire in the airplane's restroom? Just joking!

J Aldred

I would most definitely give the show a chance, but I would like the setting to be in another time in the future (say a few years). But most of all I would like to see references about the original characters to know that they weren't killed off and how they are doing. You get very attached to characters that were as well developed as those in the original storyline. I would hope that the standards of the show would be maintained and that storylines wouldn't suffer for the sake attracting an audience with crass tactics like alot of sex and gore (which of course is part of any drama series but shouldn't be sole reason people tune in every week). I would also hope that the creators would cast actors that are of the same caliber as Geraint Wyn Davies and Nigel Bennett. Their portrayal of their characters kept luring me to stay up late to watch, not caring if I was a bleary-eyed grouch the next morning!

Carolyn Alutius

Not without Nick - specifically not without Ger as Nick! It wouldn't be the same AT ALL without him. I also think I'd really miss LaCroix. The others I could probably do without. A different city wouldn't be a problem, that would open up a whole avenue of story lines.

Sharon Bauman

Having a fourth season of Forever Knight implies that there's some continuity of characters from the first three seasons. If the major characters - Nick, LaCroix, and Natalie - were not a component of the fourth season, I would be very unhappy. I would probably tune in, to see what the writers/producers had done with the concept, but I'm not sure it would hold my interest. A show that has a loyal following does so because of: the actors, the story line - which has to make sense - and the recurring characters. Many shows have gone down the drain because major actors or characters were changed. One of the enduring qualities about FK is character continuity. I could accept a different setting. Everyone tires of a place at some time. Nick and LaCroix had overstayed their welcome; Natalie could go with them because she loves Nick and doesn't want to lose him. She can always get a job in another location. So, different setting - yes; different major characters - no; the return of Vachon - yes; new characters - yes.

John Lindsey

It would be acceptable only under certain conditions. The show should still have Nick played by Geraint Wyn Davies even if he would be the only chatacter to return. However if he should not want his old role back then fans may not be angered as they might be if he had not been alowed to still play Nick. If it would return and if it was decided not to tip toe around Nat and Nick dying and a whole new cast was chosen, then the plot and style of the show should just not be a carbon copy of the first one.

Navidia

I don't think that it would be the same. Aside from the fact that we are all in love with the characters now, it would be like watching a new show. It wouldn't be Forever Knight anymore, it would be another vampire show. I like vampire shows, but each one has its own personality in the characters it has, and the struggles they have. This really isn't a valid question if you think about it, it is like asking would you read your favorite book over if it was entirely different. What would be the point of calling it Forever Knight, if Nick Knight isn't there anymore? People would watch it because we all have that dark side of us that calls for vampires, but it would not be the same. To me it seems like it would just be a faulty use of a known name to get ratings. Instead of going through the pilot and struggles of a new show, it would already have a strong audience. I wouldn't watch it.

Heidi Anderson

Only if Lacroix was the main character!

Sonia

Yes yes yes. Anything to get more... I'm addicted!

Troy Fredde

Yes, I would. I think there would have to be a least one original chatacter, however. Or what they could do is, expand on Nick's thinking back, and have show about their past. I don't know how the cast feels about a fourth season though. If it was done in the same style and with the same gusto a new season with different characters might work, if the right connections and stories bring the new and the old cast together in some way.

Sabrina Cagle

I really doubt that any new cast of characters could ever capture the "magic" that the originals had. They worked marvelously together. As much as I love this show, I believe that it should be saved and remembered, not ripped off for another version of undoubtedly lower quality. Though a movie would be nice. (With the same cast as the show)

Richard Manly

I still think the "Dallas Solution" would work. Just have Nick turn a corner and come face-to-face with Schanke. "Nick, what's wrong? You look like you've seen a ghost!" Then you're off. Even the third-season cast might return in repertory. Keep casting them in blonde hair or glasses so Nick can keep asking himself where he's met these people before? Failing that, yes, I would accept a different setting and characters. The essential situation of a vampire using his powers for GOOD, not EVIL, works in plenty of settings. Look at NBC's "The Pretender" on Saturdays at 9 p.m. Every week our hero fights evil from a new identity in a new situation. If a mortal can do it, Nick can do it.

K-A

Ah NO!!!!!! I would not accept anything without Nick and Natalie...

Karen

A fourth season with different setting and different characters, humm... why even bother calling it Forever Knight? Sounds like a totally different show to me. Only Nick, Natalie, Janette, Lacroix, Vachon and yes, even Tracey belong in Forever Knight. Accept no substitutes! That's my motto!!

Katherine

I probably would. What makes FK enjoyable for me is not the setting or the characters, necessarily. I enjoy the fine quality of the writing and acting. I adore the deep, philosophical turns that the show makes perpetually. If these elements are not completely destroyed in the rewrite, if they keep the same writers or hire writers just as capable, if they hire actors as excellent as the previous ones, I would watch the new and revised Forever Knight.

Star Allen

NO! NO! NO! NO! ARE YOU KIDDING? There would been no point. What makes the show what it is is the characters, their relationships! How could there be Forever Knight without Nick Knight, without the woman he loves, without LaCroix! I could accept him having a new partner, though I did like Tracy, but come on no Nick, Nat and LaCroix! I'd boycott it! I'd go on a mission to make sure it never saw the light of day (no pun intended). I wouldn't even watch it if who ever decided to do it couldn't get Geraint Wyn Davies, Cathrine Disher and Nigel Bennett. These three made the show they shaped those characters, no one else could play them and without them and their characters the show wouldn't be worth diddly squat!!! I could accept a new setting, maybe a new city, different jobs for the three of them but that's it! What made the show so amazing, so unique was the interaction between these three (and what ever other characters there where at the time, Schanke, Janette, who I loved and boy was it a bummer when she left, Tracy ex.ex.) how they handled their trails and tribulations. The show was about Nick! How could it exist without him and Nick couldn't exist without the two most important people in his life. It just wouldn't work. To create a Forever Knight devoid of the people that MADE the show would be stupid, idiotic a BLASPHEMY!!! It would destroy the whole concept! A fourth season with different characters could never do justice to the show. Does anyone remember what happened when they did that horrid miniseries SCARLET. It was a catastrophe! That piece of trash completely shamed the original movie. It would be like taking someone drawing and stappeling it to a Picaso and then saying that it was simply a continuation of the original work. It would be like destroying a masterpiece!! Why fix it if it ain't broken!!! Anyone who attempted to do it could not in my eyes be considered a REAL fan of the show. I'm sorry for being so mouthy but this is a subject I've dicussed with other fans and I feel very strongly about it. NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! Period!

MagicPAC

Yes, because I like the premise behind FK. The story line is excellent, and I'd watch it with all new characters. I like to watch vampire stories and this is the best there is out there. BUT, I'd deeply mourn Ger and Nigel, just as I have to mourn John, Lisa, Ben and the others. But none of the characters are really dead! Right?

Patricia Elmore

A fourth season in another setting would be acceptable. New characters okay, but not without Nick and LaCroix. Without them, it would be better just to have another show entirely and forget Forever Knight.

Kelly Green

I would accept a fourth season if it had a different setting, after all, vampires move on when they've overstayed their welcome, but a different cast would be really hard to swallow.

KnightByrd

I know that Sony or whoever would be sponsoring this would have only the best of intentions, but I have to say that without Geraint Wyn Davies as Nick and Nigel Bennett as LaCroix, whatever they might come up with simply would not *be* Forever Knight. Therefore I could not accept it as such. We saw many changes during the three seasons, but there was always the stable core of Nick and LaCroix. These two actors/characters *are* Forever Knight and anything without them would be a poor imitation. Any alternative might be an acceptable vampire show, but a duck is still a duck, not matter how often you call it an eagle or how many times it waddles across the screen while eagle music is played.

Edna Walker

Well it would be hard to have a fourth season titled "Forever Knight" because its based on the character Nick Knight. I'd have to know more about how the creator would work with it.

Marie

Yes and no. I wouldn't mind a new setting (maybe Chicago? <g>) because it seems like it's time for them to move on. People were starting to grow suspiscious, so the change of scenery wouldn't bother me too much, but I would miss the sights and places. Now, a different cast I couldn't handle. Only Ger could play Nick properly. I can't and don't want to see Uncle played by anyone but Nigel, it wouldn't be the same. If they changed everything, it wouldn't be the Forever Knight we've all come to know and love. We know the actors as their characters and it would be like spliting a family. It was because of this cast that we all started watching and it's what possess us to sit up at all hours of the night on the computer talking to other fans. It's also why we get together in person at private parties and cons. We've all become like a large family and if the cast was changed, it would tear some of us apart. I would give the fourth season a chance to prove itself worthy, but I will not like it as much as the last three seasons. Okay, I'm done ranting and raving. No flames, but nice letters to [email protected]

Arletta

No, absolutely not. Putting all of our favorite characters in a different locale than Toronto would be OK (but why would you?) but FK is NOT FK unless it has Nick, Lacroix, Natalie, and the others.

Margie

A different setting, yes. Different characters - absolutely not.

Eric McCann

Sure, I'd accept it. Just as long as they don't call it "Forever Knight." What's the purpose, if Nick and Nat aren't trying to cure Nick (and get together!), LaCroix and Janette aren't trying to lure him back, Tracy or Schanke aren't around... I guess I wouldn't really accept it, in that case! Nor could I really warm to it with the same characters played by different actors. The interaction and just plain *talent* of the cast made Forever Knight come alive. Even with actors of the same caliber, it wouldn't be the same. Ger will always be Nick, Cath Nat, etc, so far as I'm concerned, with Forever Knight.

Naomi S. Engle

I really don't know if I would accept new actors or not. Probably not but I can see where Sony might not want to try and get original cast back because of expense. I do think that maybe as a group we shouldn't be too negative about it. If they pick up a new audience with new actors it might encourage the new audience to take a look at the old FK episodes and the more fans there are the more chance there is for videos and maybe a movie.

Ellen Ashton-Haiste

It it had a different setting and different characters, it wouldn't be Forever Knight, IMHO. It would be another show about a vampire cop and coroner. And it could hardly pick up from where Last Knight left off and finish the story in that format. So answer is definitely not! I only want Forever Knight back. Otherwise I'll watch totally new and different shows and gorge myself on fanfic (which I'm doing anyway <G>.)

Julia Brooks

No, it would not *be* Forever Knight without the same actors playing the same characters. The great cast of actors made just as lasting an impression on their characters as the original Star Trek cast did. Could you ever imagine anyone else playing Captain Kirk other than William "over-the-top" Shatner? And with Highlander they brought back only the same premise, and Adrian Paul was smart enough to have his character be different than Connor from the movie. They also wrote a bridge from the movie to the TV show. A fourth season or a movie would have to be with the same actors/characters. A Forever Knight II would have to be totally different, but a nice link might be cameos by Nigel Bennett/ LaCroix to tie things together (as the only survivor of Forever Knight I).

Susan Ellen Field

Different setting, yes, different characters? NO! "Forever Knight" without Geraint Wyn Davies and Nigel Bennett, is not and could never be "Forever Knight". New supporting characters, I could get used too, but the main ones, Nick and Lacroix MUST remain the same "FOREVER"!!!

Watcher

Different settings, perhaps (though I suspect it would mean Nat is really dead, which I wouldn't welcome - so other reason, please); different central characters would mean different series.

Michele

Maybe, it would depend on which characters... A show with Divia, yes; or maybe Screed. As long as it was someone recognizable from the original. And really I'd prefer most of the original cast (including Vachon). But yes, I'd at least watch the first few shows to see what they were like and if it was worth watching again.

Amethyst

Different setting, that I could handle. Different character everyone could go except Nick and Lacroix. I'd like to have Nat but that's not a deal breaker for me.

Louella Downey

Well, setting wouldn't matter at all. And I'd probably watch if it had different characters just because it was about vampires... but why call it Forever Knight? It wouldn't be Forever Knight without at least Ger returning as Nick and Nigel as LaCroix.

Tracy Morris

You mean Forever Knight, without Nick and Company? Interesting idea. Considering the title is Forever KNIGHT. And the basic theme was Nick's struggle to regain Mortality. However, if the show was well written, contained insightful characters, and a well crafted theme, I might take it on it's own merits. But to carry the Forever Knight name, it would have a high standard to live up to.

Leslie Plummer

No way... No how... different actors! New location, yes a possibility, especially after Last Knight. New supporting actors, OK, well it seems to be the thing to do with each new season. But without Ger, Nigel, Catherine? No way. And, I want Deb back, too!

Tina Moreschi

Well, it wouldn't be a fourth season to the FK we know and love. It would be a new season for an entirely new FK, which if it was well-written and well-acted, maybe, but definitely not including any of the previous FK characters, otherwise it would be a sacrilege to portray Nick, Nat or Lacroix with other actors.

Barb Erickson

Fourth season Forever Knight? I have no problem with a different setting. I don't care what city the stories might be set in, but it just wouldn't be Forever Knight without Nick and Natalie. I never cared much for LaCroix, but it seems I'm in the minority here, so any 4th season would probably need to have Nigel Bennett in it at least occasionally. But new characters? Only in supporting roles. Without Nick, Natalie and LaCroix, you might as well call it: "Kindred, the Embraced."

Rosefever

I'd at least check it out. If I liked it, I'd watch it, if not, I wouldn't. I think *almost* everyone here would watch at least the first show to see what they're doing with the 'Forever Knight' name.

Lisa McDavid

If you mean would I watch something that called itself Forever Knight, but wasn't set in Toronto and didn't have the characters, no. If you mean, the same universe as FK, same producers, but didn't call itself Forever Knight, maybe. It would depend on whether or not I liked the new show (for that's what it would be) after giving it a chance.

William Says

NO! It would not be Forever Knight. So what would be the use.

Beverly Turner

I would only accept a fourth season if it had Ger and Nigel. I would not mind a different setting, or addition characters, but I wouldn't want to see them replace established characters with different actors. This is not an afternoon soap opera, it's more real than that!

Cathy

It must have GWD and Nigel Bennett to keep me addicted. The rest are optional.

Brenda Kay

A different setting would be neat but without Geraint Wyn Davies as Nicholas and Nigel Bennett as Lacroix, it would not be acceptable. It would be great to see Deborah Duchene. She is the only person right for Janette. I miss John Kapelos as Don Schanke.

Jackie I. Wilson

No way. When I found Forever Knight I thought that the story lines were well written (for the most part), that the plots were well thought up (most of the time), but the real thing that drew me and kept me with Forever Knight were the characters and the actors who played them. Without characters such as Nick Knight, LaCroix and Janette, particularly, the show would loss much of its appeal to me. I mean, at the time that Forever Knight was coming towards the end, Fox had "The Kindred" on, which was another vampire series. I watched it once and never watched it again. Its the characters (and the actors who played them) and their interaction with each other that made the show unique. The setting could be anywhere -- it doesn't have to be in Toronto. Heck, it could be in the middle of a desert or on the moon for all I care about the setting. I just want the characters... oh, and to bring Schanke back from the dead (perhaps they could call in a little magic for that one).

Dotti Rhodes

That's easy...... NO!!! It wouldn't be a fourth season would it? Different characters, different setting... it would be a different show and thus not a continuation.

Ann Raper

Absolutely, unequivocably, and uncategorically, NO!! If it had different characters it wouldn't be Forever Knight. A different location is an altogether different thing. If it had the same characters, different locale, it would be acceptable, and probably intriguing. (sp? I gave it up for lent!)

Mariah McElroy

You know, I think a show based on Lacroix would be very cool.. I think I am the only Forever Knight fan who took Last Knight at face value <ducks as bottles of Mango body wash fly by>. I think it was an incredibly moving and powerful ep.. Call me the anti-christ, but I liked the fact that they died in the end <or at least seemed to die> for each other. How romantic.. =) I think the next show should be based on LaCroix, you know The Adventures of the Nightcrawler. Or, what would be even cooler, if he in Last Knight actually did kill Nick, then brought over Natalie.. It would be a show based on their adventures.. you could call it Forever Nat.. I think I could deal with a new show..

Marchell

I could accept a different city, or even country for that matter, but it would have to have the same main characters and at least the main actors. GWD, NB & CD at the very least would be needed to make it work... I'm old enough to remember the original "Dark Shadows" (jr. high & high school age at the time) and although I tuned into the remake a few years back the special magic that made the original so good was missing. The same thing occured when Catherine was killed in B & B. While I did enjoy Star Trek: TNG I never seemed to have quite the same passion for it or any of the later spin-offs. Without GWD, NB, and CD it wouldn't be Forever Knight. I can and would gladly accept new supporting characters. They add to the interest and fill out the realness of the main characters but they do not have to be the same in order to perserve the basic continuity of the story.