Talk:Highlander (franchise)/Archive 1

Character Pages

I'm putting this here because I don't want to have to go through each character page posting it. A vast majority of the pages are extremely poorly written, from both a neutral and a grammatical point of view. I personally don't know enough to rewrite the character pages, but it would be good if somebody did. Trick 18:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mortal?

"at the end of the original movie, when Connor MacLeod wins the Prize (according to that storyline), he obtains full mortality, and it is further hinted that the Prize may also consist of infinite knowledge"

I haven't seen the movie, but is this meant to be full immortality? --Cornflake pirate 11:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, "full mortality" is correct - those who have seen the film know that MacLeod comes to consider immortality (no children, watching everyone you love eventually grow old and die, et cetera) to be less than ideal, and thus welcomes the chance to live and die as a normal man a worthy Prize. --208.135.167.138 01:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, because in H2 he's an old man. I think the other kicker is that he gets to have children...thus, full mortality. -- nae'blis _(talk) 14:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It could be that the prize is not full mortality but what the Immortal that wins the prize most wants. This means that earlier in the film when it is stated that if Kulgan wins the prize hummanity would see an eternity of darkness, this could be that Kulgan wants to bring pain and suffering to the entire world. And Conor at that time wants to grow old and have kids with Brenda so thats what he gets. (Surgeon when 19:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Top

I've been using the <CODE/> method to prevent McLeod from being mistaken for an old-style link. It works but it seems to affect the browser's typeface, like this: McLeod, at least in this browser (MSIE). Any better ideas, please go ahead and change it. --clasqm

What do you think of moving description of each movie to a separate article? Ausir 13:22, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think each film deserves its own article - or certainly the first film, which works very well on its own without all the baggage of the subsequent sequels.--208.135.167.138 01:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I think that if someone trimmed out all the extraneous and unencyclopedic detail, there wouldn't be enough of each left to justify separate articles. --Paul A 09:00, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

500 years ago

"Oddly, both immortals were born before 1524 on Earth; whether the "500 years ago" message was in error or their Earth incarnations were somehow born before the death of their Zeist incarnations is left unexplained." - maybe it means 500 years ago from the viewers time, 1991.

No point in trying to make sense out of that...thing that was Highlander II. That movie is one of the most forgettable efforts ever made to provide a successful movie with a sequel. In fact, in the case of the Highlander franchise, this whole "expanded universe" stuff is just pointless. As far as I'm concerned, the first movie is all that counts. It's plot makes sense (once you accept the premises of the fantastic universe proposed) and it leaves certain doubts about the end of the McLeod saga (a good job at avoiding the old "all ends well"). I mean, the third movie tries to introduce some sort of "über immortal", with magical powers and who's so evil (meaning, worse than the Kurgan) that he doesn't care about even the most sacred traditions, such as no fighting on holy ground. It was pitiful. And that tv series with that "Connor wasn't really the last one, the game continues". It's one giant Gathering, with [at least] one new immortal showing up every week. And there's a "Duncan McLeod"?? They couldn't just have made up some other immortal, it had to be McLeod. But it couldn't be Connor, so let's come up with a great-great-nephew who is also an immortal. Please! And the guy even has Connor's sword! And I won't even get started on that "watchers" thing. It's just too much, the only possible way is to ignore the crazy explanations they came up with to try and integrate their story lines with the original movie. The game was over in 1988 and that's that. Redux 05:31, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, let's all join the Church of the First Movie, and shun the evils of the other movies and the series. Chill, man. You're getting worked up over a *movie*. Personally, I liked the series better. It's enojyment factor is justification enough for me for a divergent timeline. It's nothing that the major comic books haven't done. Jjensen2 Jul 5 2005

Ayup...chill, dude. In fact, the producers' original plan was to have Connor MacLeod the focus of the TV series, played by Derek DeLint (of Poltergeist: The Legacy fame), but then Adrian Paul was cast in the role, and the decision was made to create an entirely new character around the actor. The TV series possesses the most elegant expansion of the original movie's scope, without straining credulity to the breaking point (...most of the time).

Highlander

This page should redirect to a disambiguation I think. "Highlander" is more culturally significant as the name of people from the Scottish Highlands, and that will probably be remembered after this is forgotten

I completely agree and just went ahead and did it. At least 6 links on the disambig page -Husnock 3 July 2005 08:48 (UTC)

There's something missing

The section on Highlander III (6th paragraph) features the name "Pierre", without having introduced that person. --FAeR 30 June 2005 13:54 (UTC)

Beat me too it. Seriously, he just shows up in the article as offering himself for sacrifice.

That is the case in the film as well. There is no particular infromation who the guy was and why he sacrificed himself. User:Dimadick

Terminator criticism?

The original Highlander was released barely two years after the first Terminator film, and Highlander was widely criticized as a Terminator ripoff -- two time-travelers, isolated from their present-day surroundings and intent on battling each other to the death. It may not be NPOV to criticize Highlander directly, but this criticism was a major aspect cited by critics and reviewers. It should probably be mentioned.

If we consider Highlander (the first one at least) as a film featuring Time-travelers, then we would have to consider virtually every film ever made as a ripoff of terminator!

--Charlesknight 22:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was in college when Highlander came out, and I devoured all the press coverage at that time. This is the first I've ever heard of anyone suggesting that Highlander could be considered a ripoff of Terminator. Additionally, I'd like to know how -- years before the "renegade version" of the then-unplanned sequel retconned some of the Immortals as time travelers -- anyone would have been able to synthesize an argument that the first film was in any way about time travelers. I think you need to present some sources before attempting to add such a suggestion to the article. 12.22.250.4 20:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack

The claim that "[a]ll the Queen songs in Highlander were purposely written for the movie" is incorrect. There is a scene where the Kurgan is seen parking his car in an alley; his car stereo is playing "Hammer to Fall" from the 1984 Queen album "The Works".

It is also incorrect that "Queen saw an early screening of Highlander, and decided to do the film's soundtrack"; Queen were shown an early cut after accepting the assignment, and (the story goes) came up with "Who Wants to Live Forever" in the limo on the way back from the screening.

--80.232.36.160 08:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

youre right about "the hammer to fall" song part in the movie but in the interviews found in Queen greatest hits vol 2 dvd, Queen says in thier interviews about the movie that they wrote the songs to match the moods of the scenes found in the movie this topic is also talked about in the audio commentary of the directors cut of the movie.19:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Except for "One Vision". That was already written by John Deacon for the Iron Eagle soundtrack. Backward 21:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highlander canon?

Hey, folks. I was wondering if some intrepid Highlander fan would be interested in adding a Highlander entry to Canon (fiction), based on the "Series/Film separation" section in this article. The situation is clearly complex and might be interesting to people investigating how various series have handled the question of canonicity.

I'd do it myself, but I know next to nothing about Highlander and I'm afraid some horrendous error would slip in. Thanks in advance to whoever takes this on! —Josiah Rowe 07:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of canon, I trimmed down the section on the multiple timelines, since the series universe is essentially the Endgame-Source timeline. Also, I removed the "first film only" reality and noted this viewpoint as part of another paragraph, since the timeline is best interpreted as alternate continuations of the original movie.--TOOTCB 03:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially (in a nutshell), even the novels and comics are considered canonical — personally vetted by Bill Panzer prior to publication — unless somehow explicitly contradicted by the movies or series episodes. This also holds true for The Watcher Chronicles material on the DVDs (and the earlier CD-ROM). Could be an interesting section to write; very similar to Babylon 5 's canonicity policies in many respects (and the exact opposite of Star Trek 's). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.136.72.103 (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Unless we have a citation or quotation from Panzer and Associates to that effect, the only canon are the movies. That unfortunately includes even Highlander 2. The "canonicity" policies of Babylon 5 do not rise to the requirements of Wikipedia. If the article is about Highlander movies, the citations should be about that movie, and not citing non-canonical material from other mediums.Arcayne 05:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

separate articles?removing articles to new pages

can we make separate articles about highlander movies? there are too many highlander movies in one page, plus there are also about highlander the series and animation. maybe we should just put this page about main idea/info about highlander. i mean, i read batman (1966 movies, tim burton movies, chris nolan movie, tv series movies, etc) and star-trek have their separate articles. HoneyBee 04:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'd like to do it...Only I have a limited knowledge, so I'd be glad to accept any kinds of help. I think I'm gonna move the movies into separate pages (all of them). We keep this page as a basic info about Highlander. How about that? Make it clean and neater, so people won't get confused.....(Help!)HoneyBee 03:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone apply the rules of Highlander like The Game, The Quickening, etc...as far as I know, it's differ from the series - HoneyBee 04:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hmm... apparently some of the new pages is going to be deleted and made from scratch. if it has to be deleted, do it. i just copied it from the previous page because it was too long. HoneyBee 04:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for this! It really allows for more depth in discussing the films without worrying about the length of the article.--TOOTCB 03:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename this?

Should this article be named Highlander (films), since it's about them all? --Xyzzyplugh 16:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely.--TOOTCB 03:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually its not only about the films but the TV series and the novels so I would think this should be renamed Highlander (franchise) or something else along those lines. -- UKPhoenix79 03:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The series / endgame continuity

I think we should cut the part about endgame not being consistent with the tv series, because the supposed inconsistencies can be explained:

- the gipsy curse ocurred after Duncan married Kate;

- the scene where Connor first meets Duncan it's 1625; Duncan became immortal in 1622. This means Duncan was already an immortal at the battle of Glen Fruin and didn't die for the first time there as it appears.

What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secretaria (talk • contribs) 09:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Kate inconsistency is still there, even if one could "explain it away." Since this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, personal opinions on the validity of an apparent inconsistency should not be included. It could be noted that the inconsistencies are small and questionable, but that would be the best that we could do.--TOOTCB 19:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

character categories

I'm not much of an expert on Highlander or the various attempts to fix it up but I'm trying to streamline the Caregory "Fictional immortals" as it's getting a bit unweildly. Would anyone object to me creating a "Category: Highlander Immortals" as a subcategory? (And then placing the relvant characters there instead of "Fictional Immortals?") Palendrom 23:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not create s sub-page for all Highlander Immortals. I can imagine that would be quite a job, but the end product might be pretty spiffy.Arcayne 04:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]