HIGHLA-L Digest - 25 Feb 2001 to 26 Feb 2001 - Special issue
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@LISTS.PSU.EDU)
Mon, 26 Feb 2001 16:31:12 -0500
There are 11 messages totalling 838 lines in this issue.
Topics in this special issue:
1. EG SPOILER: One for Wendy... (4)
2. ADMIN: Extended 'discussions' on HIGHLA-L
3. Endgame at Blockbusters
4. Endgame- Spoilers- Upon rewatching (4)
5. New Information about 2001 Fan Odyssey
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 18:14:10 -1000
From: Geiger <geiger@maui.net>
Subject: Re: EG SPOILER: One for Wendy...
> > > > >S
> > > > >P
> > > > >O
> > > > >I
> > > > >L
> > > > >E
> > > > >R
> > > > >S
> > > > >F
> > > > >O
> > > > >R
> > > > >E
> > > > >N
> > > > >D
> > > > >G
> > > > >A
> > > > >M
> > > > >E
> > > > >B
> > > > >E
> > > > >L
> > > > >O
> > > > >W
> > > > >/
> > > > >/
> >
Lynn before--
> > > It sounds like they did it intentionally. The two editors and the
visual
> > > effects person hated the thing. I don't think it was a matter of
legal
> > > clearance.
me before--
> > You're saying, real live _editors_ (as in--not caterers, not Davis or
> > Panzer, & not a toddler playing w/ markers) did it that way on purpose?
Lynn--
> No, that's not what I'm saying (surprise, surprise). I don't know for
> certain who was making *final* decisions on the DVD -- do you? I
> would be very surprised, however, if it was anyone other than Bill
> Panzer and Peter Davis, particularly since this is labelled as a
> producer's cut.
No, that's NOT what you said. You said the DVD stuff indicated that actual
editors hated the JVC sign & intentionally blotted it out the way it is
blotted out. The obvious incompetence of the result seems to undercut your
long-standing hymn to the greatness of editors everywhere (surprise,
surprise). DPP may have nixed the sign, but the involvement of editors in
the process makes it hard for me to believe that DPP mandated the grey blob
approach.
> What I am saying is that the two editors in that segment and the
> visual effects supervisor (who is not an editor and has a totally
> different job) didn't like the sign and had a voice in changing it.
> That doesn't mean the decision was theirs and theirs alone.
Well, someone actually _did_ the technical work (&, btw, to call it that is
not the insult you seem intent on making it) that replaced the JVC sign w/
an obvious, distracting & silly grey blob. Someone implemented the decision
to remove the sign, & that someone did a bad job. Since editors apparently
talked about doing this on the DVD, didn't these editors _actually_ do it?
me before--
> > So, what does your brother think of the blob, professionally speaking?
And
> > of the duplicated sequence in the final fight scene?
Lynn--
> Considering that he's working about 14 hours a day, he obviously
> hasn't had the chance to see it.
Sorry. I was just trying to get some info from the much-mentioned expert in
your family.
Lynn--
> But then again, it's
> easier to make broad, sweeping statements about who did what
> without actually having a clue as to what the realities involved, so
> why bother taking the time to learn something?
It's apparently easier for you to make snide & dismissive comments rather
than actually discuss something w/ those holding a differing view. Pity.
Nina
geiger@maui.net
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 21:18:09 -0800
From: Lynn <lloschin@sprynet.com>
Subject: Re: EG SPOILER: One for Wendy...
On 25 Feb 01, at 18:14, Geiger wrote:
> > > > > >S
> > > > > >P
> > > > > >O
> > > > > >I
> > > > > >L
> > > > > >E
> > > > > >R
> > > > > >S
> > > > > >F
> > > > > >O
> > > > > >R
> > > > > >E
> > > > > >N
> > > > > >D
> > > > > >G
> > > > > >A
> > > > > >M
> > > > > >E
> > > > > >B
> > > > > >E
> > > > > >L
> > > > > >O
> > > > > >W
> > > > > >/
> > > > > >/
> > >
> Lynn before--
> > > > It sounds like they did it intentionally. The two editors and the
> visual
> > > > effects person hated the thing. I don't think it was a matter of
> legal
> > > > clearance.
>
> me before--
> > > You're saying, real live _editors_ (as in--not caterers, not Davis or
> > > Panzer, & not a toddler playing w/ markers) did it that way on purpose?
>
> Lynn--
> > No, that's not what I'm saying (surprise, surprise). I don't know for
> > certain who was making *final* decisions on the DVD -- do you? I
> > would be very surprised, however, if it was anyone other than Bill
> > Panzer and Peter Davis, particularly since this is labelled as a
> > producer's cut.
>
> No, that's NOT what you said. You said the DVD stuff indicated that actual
> editors hated the JVC sign & intentionally blotted it out the way it is
> blotted out.
No, that's not what I said, which was:
> > > Did you watch the "visual effects progression" thing on the DVD
> > > yet? It sounds like they did it intentionally. The two editors
> > > and the visual effects person hated the thing.
I did not say, nor does the DVD say, that it was their idea, only their
idea, and that they had final say in the matter. Furthermore, it would
not have been the "editors" who did the "incomptent" work, since
that is a job for a *visual effects* person who is *not* an editor. All I
said was that they didn't like the way the sign was originally.
> The obvious incompetence of the result seems to undercut your
> long-standing hymn to the greatness of editors everywhere (surprise,
> surprise).
Surprise, surprise, that's not what I said either. There are great
editors, good editors, mediocre editors, and bad editors, just like
in every other profession that has ever existed in the history of the
world.
The point you seem to be unable to grasp is that a knee-jerk
response of "oh, it's the editors' fault" is ludicrous in the context of
an inherently collaborative medium which has dozens or tens of
dozens of people involved in different aspects of decision-making.
Just because an actor does something doesn't mean it's only the
actor's decision. Just because the director does something
doesn't mean it's only the director's decision. Just because the
cinematographer does something doesn't mean it's only the
cinematographer's decision. You might look at any of the decisions
and disagree with them, but saying "cinematographer decision,
bad cinematography, cinematographer doesn't know what she's
doing" is at best an inherent oversimplification and at worst just
completely wrong.
(It's particularly nonsensical to blame editors for the quality of work
that *editors do not do* such as visual effects. Which is why you
might really want to read a book on the subject, so at least you
know which people you're wrongfully blaming. Is the makeup their
fault too?)
> DPP may have nixed the sign, but the involvement of editors in
> the process makes it hard for me to believe that DPP mandated the grey blob
> approach.
You have absolutely no idea if that's the case. This is the
producers' cut, this is their version of the movie, and that certainly
implies that this version of the film and everything in it has their
approval, regardless of whether it was their idea.
> Well, someone actually _did_ the technical work
Yes -- a visual effects artist. That would be *their job*. Different
from an editor's job. Also different than the costumer's job and the
negative cutter's job and the gaffer's job.
>(&, btw, to call it that is
> not the insult you seem intent on making it) that replaced the JVC sign w/
> an obvious, distracting & silly grey blob. Someone implemented the decision
> to remove the sign, & that someone did a bad job. Since editors apparently
> talked about doing this on the DVD,
Again, repeating myself: it was not just editors on the DVD. It was
also the visual effects supervisor. They said they didn't like the
original red sign. That's all I said, and all I recall at the moment. I'm
sure someone will eventually transcribe what was actually said.
>didn't these editors _actually_ do it?
No -- due to the fact that editors do not do this type of work. Visual
effects artists, supervised by a visual effects supervisor, _actually_
do it. That would be, you know, their job. The editor cuts the visual
effects into the movie. They don't create the visual effects.
Whether a visual effect ultimately stays, goes, or gets replaced is a
collaborative decision finally decided by the person or persons with
final cut on the film.
> Sorry. I was just trying to get some info from the much-mentioned
> expert in your family.
You're right. It would be better to speak from a place of total
ignorance than actually talking to someone about moviemaking
who knows something about it.
> Lynn--
> > But then again, it's
> > easier to make broad, sweeping statements about who did what
> > without actually having a clue as to what the realities involved, so
> > why bother taking the time to learn something?
>
> It's apparently easier for you to make snide & dismissive comments rather
> than actually discuss something w/ those holding a differing view. Pity.
Hello, Pot? This is Kettle calling... guess what...
Lynn
"Bored now."
-- Evil Willow
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 00:01:42 -1000
From: Geiger <geiger@maui.net>
Subject: Re: EG SPOILER: One for Wendy...
> > > > > > >S
> > > > > > >P
> > > > > > >O
> > > > > > >I
> > > > > > >L
> > > > > > >E
> > > > > > >R
> > > > > > >S
> > > > > > >F
> > > > > > >O
> > > > > > >R
> > > > > > >E
> > > > > > >N
> > > > > > >D
> > > > > > >G
> > > > > > >A
> > > > > > >M
> > > > > > >E
> > > > > > >B
> > > > > > >E
> > > > > > >L
> > > > > > >O
> > > > > > >W
> > > > > > >/
> > > > > > >/
> > > >
> Surprise, surprise, that's not what I said either. There are great
> editors, good editors, mediocre editors, and bad editors, just like
> in every other profession that has ever existed in the history of the
> world.
Yes, & the great/good ones didn't work on HL:EG.
> The point you seem to be unable to grasp is that a knee-jerk
> response of "oh, it's the editors' fault" is ludicrous in the context of
> an inherently collaborative medium which has dozens or tens of
> dozens of people involved in different aspects of decision-making.
By your theory, the editors would share in the blame for virtually every
mistake of any kind related to the film as a whole, since the whole thing is
one enormous collaboration. Considering the mess HL:EG was, they might be
better off just shouldering responsibility for the more clearly
editing-related goofs, but whatever.
How about the duplicated sequence in the final fight? Do the actors,
make-up folks & caterers share responsibility for _that_ in this immense
collaboration called a movie? You think DPP _wanted_ to show that bit twice
w/in moments & made the editors do it that way? Or, did the editors goof
&/or then not catch the error before sending it out?
Lynn--
> No -- due to the fact that editors do not do this type of work. Visual
> effects artists, supervised by a visual effects supervisor, _actually_
> do it. That would be, you know, their job. The editor cuts the visual
> effects into the movie. They don't create the visual effects.
So, you're calling the grey blob a "visual effect"? That seems rather high
& mighty for something so poorly done. Guess the "visual effects artist"
needs to get a new box of Crayons.
me before--
> > Sorry. I was just trying to get some info from the much-mentioned
> > expert in your family.
Lynn--
> You're right. It would be better to speak from a place of total
> ignorance than actually talking to someone about moviemaking
> who knows something about it.
What _are_ you talking about? I _asked_ for the opinion of the very expert
you keep mentioning. You snippily said that wasn't possible & substituted
your own opinion, which doesn't seem to me to be any more expert than anyone
else who saw the film in its various versions.
Lynn--
> Hello, Pot? This is Kettle calling... guess what...
Please--we're supposed to post here like adults, even if it's a stretch.
Lynn--
> "Bored now."
Then we are agreed. If you insist on going on w/ this, please try to keep
it civil & restricted to the issues, as opposed to unpleasantly personal.
Nina
geiger@maui.net
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 07:31:08 -0500
From: Debra Douglass <ddoug@catrio.org>
Subject: ADMIN: Extended 'discussions' on HIGHLA-L
I've notice over time that certain 'discussions' eventually dwindle
down to just two participants who keep it going for days afterward.
Curiously it is usually the same two people. I congratulate those two
individuals for keeping it civil (most of the time).
BUT I think that when a discussion becomes a discussion between just
two individuals and there have been posts in that particular thread by
only those two individuals for over a day, then that discussion should
be taken to private email.
This is a guideline that I will be following in the future.
Of course if you find their discussion interesting please join in to
keep it a group discussion instead of just a dialog.
-Debbie Douglass
(list owner)
--
.------------------------------------------------------------------.
|Debra Douglass ddoug@catrio.org http://www.catrio.org|
`------------------------------------------------------------------'
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 08:01:32 EST
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Re: EG SPOILER: One for Wendy...
Just keep reminding yourself of the lady in the office, sipping tea and
nibbling on little cookies, Lynn.
:)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:38:57 -0500
From: Lisa Kadlec <lkadlec@Princeton.EDU>
Subject: Re: Endgame at Blockbusters
Carrie Key wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pat Bentley" <patb@hawaii.rr.com>
>
> > Hi gang,
> >
> > Well, good news is that Mark and I went to a couple Blockbusters (in
> > Honolulu) to try to rent Endgame. Every copy was out. So it seems that
> > it will be picking up good numbers from a video audience. I was also
> pleased
> > to see that it is the Producer's cut and am looking forward to seeing it
> > for myself. Thanks to all who have been posting spoilers about the
> > differences.
> >
> > Patter
>
> It's that way here in Charleston, SC as well. I finally nabbed one of the
> copies that had just come in:). But I finally got to see it! Yes! *Drool*
> They had like a whole section for just Endgame with the VHS and they were
> all gone and they had like five DVDs and they were gone as well. I overheard
> one of the employees say that they can't keep it on the shelf! I love it!
>
> ---
> Carrie Key
I was at my mom's in Reading, PA this weekend. We tried to pick up Endgame on
our way back to her house Saturday (early evening), and both the local
Blockbuster *and* the local Hollywood video had two rows of copies, all of which
were already out! I was disappointed, but pleased. <g> Did manage to get a
copy Sunday afternoon when we were out again.
Lisa
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 13:43:14 -0500
From: jjswbt@earthlink.net
Subject: Endgame- Spoilers- Upon rewatching
The nice thing about having a movie at home is the ability to watch over and over and over at one's leisure. The bad thing is that one can see the same "mistakes" over and over and over
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
So..I was rewatching Endgame and still came away with a hundred things that either don't make sense or just plain bother me. I'll number them just for fun.
1) Connor's comment to Duncan before Rachel explodes: "People change. You'll learn that." It makes it seem as if Duncan is much younger than Connor..rather than less than 75 years younger. It's not as if Duncan is a kid..nor is it like Duncan hasn't seen *lots* of people change. A small point but it bothered me.
2) Rachel. Why did she go into the store when she found the door unlocked? When Connor didn't answer her - and the VCR was eerily playing old home movies - why didn't she realize something was amiss. Why did she seem so afraid of the telephone? Hadn't it never rung before- it *was* a store, wasn't it?
3) Why didn't Connor feel Kell outside the shop when it exploded. Kell was standing only a few yards away.
4)Glenfinnan 1555 Connor feels "something" just before Kell and the Priest enter his mother's house. But he doesn't know what. He says he felt it once before. Now..are we to take from this that Rameriz was remiss it explaining the Buzz to Connor? And..in fact..hadn't he felt it several times before (Rameriz *and* the Kurgan). After spending time with Rameriz..who did Connor *not* know that there was another Immortal outside the door?
5) Sanctuary.All those years in business and they never installed an alarm system *inside* to warn of approaching hostiles? No steel doors? No guards behind bullet proof glass?
6)Why did Duncan get visions of the Sanctuary being destroyed while he was in Paris/London /wherever. *Connor* couldn't even see what was happening..so how could Duncan?
7) From the Watcher's comment, this wasn't the fist time Sanctuary had been destroyed.
Watcher 1: What do we do?
Watcher 2: What we always do. Find another volunteer.
So...if Immortals sign on for a one-way trip..the only way to "lose" a "volunteer" is for either a Watcher to kill him or for another Immortal to invade the place. Seems like the system is truly less than perfect.
8) How does Duncan have a flashback to the shop exploding when he wasn't there?
9) What was the whole point of the Jin Ke/Duncan duel in the burned out shop? Besides showing off their moves, that is.
10) The Watcher says things have changed- an Immortal (Kell) has gone renegade. Define renegade. Just what has Kell done that we haven't seen other Immortals do in the past? That whole 661 kills things is pretty worthless..that's not so many over 400 years, especially since he uses a posse. Duncan killed..90?.. in 5 years time all by himself.
11) If the Immortals in Sanctuary are drugged senseless all the time....why do they need restraints and eye guards? Why do they need eye guards at all?
12)When Duncan wants to see Connor's body- we see Duncan & Co. driving. Then we see Kell in NY at his cathedral.Then we see the guys arrive in the cemetery..and then a few minutes later Kell arrives. Can he fly?
13)Kell really is a loon, isn't he.
14)The damn necklace. She is wearing it while fully clothed apparently while they are still at the table after the wedding. Then Duncan is holding it in the rain. Then she is wearing it in bed.
15) Wouldn't the whole scene where Kell confronts Kate about "being" with Duncan ( the whole sewer chat) be better *after* she had been with Duncan...rather than before?
16) Why did Kell levitate after whacking his 4 disciples..but not after whacking 11 Immortals in the Sanctuary?
17) How did Kell manage to cut the necklace off Kate and *not* behead her? And why did he leave her alive?
18) The JVC sign. Funny how they blocked it out in the long shots but had to leave it in for the close up. It is clearly visible hen Duncan and Connor talk before they fight.
19)What was up with the Watcher trying to kill Duncan? If he was so afraid of Kell winning..wouldn't killing *Kell* make more sense?
20) What was up with Dawson and the overkill? I can see him shooting to stop the guy from killing Duncan- but pumping 4 more shots into the guy was way too much.
21) Why did Duncan stop to tie up an insignificant leg wound in the middle of a fight? He had already been gut-sliced and had both arms cut...have we ever seen an Immortal bother with field dressings during (or even after) a fight? Don't they just..heal?
22) Connor's grave. Did that look like the same place Heather was buried originally? And I won't even mention the bad superimposement.Or the PEACE shirt.
23) Can somebody give Kate a sandwich before she blows away.
24)This should have been up near the top - are there cathedrals for rent as apartments in NYC?
Wendy(Still and all, the hotsweatysexscene was nice)
Fairy Killer
jjswbt@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jjswbt/index.html
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 18:58:20 -0000
From: Jette Goldie <jette@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Endgame- Spoilers- Upon rewatching
Wendy says:
> The nice thing about having a movie at home is the ability to watch over
and over >and over at one's leisure. The bad thing is that one can see the
same "mistakes" >over and over and over
Hmm, I'd like that opportunity.
> 1
> 2
> 3
> 4
> 5
> 6
> 7
> 8
> 9
> 1
> 2
> 3
> 4
> 5
> 6
> 7
> 8
> 9
> 0
> 1
> 2
> 3
> 4
> 5
> So..I was rewatching Endgame and still came away with a hundred things
that either don't make sense or just plain bother me. I'll number them just
for fun.
>
> 1) Connor's comment to Duncan before Rachel explodes: "People change.
You'll learn that." It makes it seem as if Duncan is much younger than
Connor..rather than less than 75 years younger. It's not as if Duncan is a
kid..nor is it like Duncan hasn't seen *lots* of people change. A small
point but it bothered me.
Haven't you ever had someone who is a mere year or two
older than you trying to "explain" life to you, though at
your age you really ought to know it yourself?
Parents keep on treating adult offspring as children, older
siblings will continue to behave as if "kid" brother is indeed
still a "kid", even when the "kid" is in his 40s.
Connor is caught in that "older brother, younger brother" trap.
No matter if they both lived to be the age of Methos, Connor
would still consider Duncan to be a "kid", to have things
explained to him.
Jette
Glory may be fleeting, but obscurity is forever!
bosslady@scotlandmail.com
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/fanfic.html
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:15:02 EST
From: C K Harroz <CEEKAH@aol.com>
Subject: New Information about 2001 Fan Odyssey
Additional Information regarding 2001: A Fan Odyssey from another list:
Anyone registering for 2001: A Fan Odyssey by St. Patrick's Day will be in
the running for three mystery prizes.
We've been hard at work on the exact scheduling of events (including some
rather unique, not-to-be-missed opportunities), as well as a soon to be
unveiled FAQ page.
Remember, if you want a small, relaxed, personal, intimate gathering of fans
and stars, without long lines or time-conflicting parallel events, this event
is for YOU!
Spaces are *currently* still available, but please remember that we are
absolutely capping the adult registrations to insure a quality experience for
all attendees!
http://www.onholyground.net/2001con.html
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:01:44 -0500
From: Marina Bailey <tmar@fast.co.za>
Subject: Re: Endgame- Spoilers- Upon rewatching
Wendy wrote:
>The nice thing about having a movie at home is the ability to watch over
>and over and over at one's leisure. The bad thing is that one can see the
same >"mistakes" over and over and over
Well, I've only seen it once (the theatrical release) but it's still
fresh in my mind, so...
>1
>2
>3
>4
>5
>6
>7
>8
>9
>1
>2
>3
>4
>5
>6
>7
>8
>9
>0
>1
>2
>3
>4
>5
>9) What was the whole point of the Jin Ke/Duncan duel in the burned out
>shop? Besides showing off their moves, that is.
Wasn't that the *entire* point? Really, there can never be too much
kung fu in a movie. :)
>12)When Duncan wants to see Connor's body- we see Duncan & Co. driving.
>Then we see Kell in NY at his cathedral.Then we see the guys arrive in
>the cemetery..and then a few minutes later Kell arrives. Can he fly?
Well, you *have* been waiting for that, haven't you, Wendy? And now
you get the proof. You could always cackle and yell, "I told you so"
at us!
>13)Kell really is a loon, isn't he.
Yes.
>17) How did Kell manage to cut the necklace off Kate and *not* behead her?
>And why did he leave her alive?
I liked the version where she was killed, myself. Leaving her alive...
ptui. She was annoying and stupid. Give me Tessa, Cassandra or even Anne
any day.
>19)What was up with the Watcher trying to kill Duncan? If he was so afraid
>of Kell winning..wouldn't killing *Kell* make more sense?
The Watchers don't seem to operate using any form of logic.
>23) Can somebody give Kate a sandwich before she blows away.
Can somebody put back the footage that lets us know she DIED!!
>Wendy(Still and all, the hotsweatysexscene was nice)
Not with Kate. Ptui.
- Marina. (They can keep Kate alive but not Richie? There is no
justice in this world.)
\\ "Marina Bailey? She waves a flag. ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// In South Africa." || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ - Stan Kirsch at SyndiCon, May 1997 ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
//=====Marina Bailey=======tmar@fast.co.za=====|| \\
\\============Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie=============//
"I'd rather be watching 'The Sentinel'... no, 'Highlander'... wait,
'Stargate SG-1' is on... Oh, hell, make it all and make it so!"
- Tarryn
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:36:05 -1000
From: Pat Bentley <patb@hawaii.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Endgame- Spoilers- Upon rewatching
Hi there,
Just finished watching the Producer's version of Endgame I rented at
Blockbuster. I am leaping around the room! FINALLY, improvement!!!
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
That should do it.
Okay, the sound quality of the music sucked big time. I'm a musician, I
notice stuff like that. Whats up? The soundtrack was so beautiful, and the
sound was so clear and wonderful in the theatre. How could they mess that
up on the released video? Duh. But that's my only major gripe, at least,
at the moment. Let me watch it a few more times and I'll see what else
comes up. I'm sure Mark will have plenty of gripes to add after I force him
to watch it. He's like that, you see. He thinks Connor took the Prize,
case closed.
What were those people thinking when they released this movie in the
original form? This one was soooo much better.
Smart move on cutting the line about Methos saying Sanctuary was on Holy
Ground. That still only skirts that whole issue, but we've been round and
round on that already. I was all grins that they added another line in the
cemetary scene for him and Jim. And Methos handing the sword to Duncan in
the car. THANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOU! However, it still leaves it wide open
whether Methos knew Connor was still alive after the Santuary annilation,
and hiding out at the cemetary (dumb), which is the best theory I could come
up with. Maybe Methos just never bothered to tell Joe. You know how he
likes to keep his little secrets until they can pop up for thrills. LOVE
THAT CHARACTER!
What I really loved about this version was that they not only used lots of
the footage that was in the Workprint, but added several wonderful scenes,
or bits of dialogue, which helped out A LOT to clarify the plot, enhance the
fight scenes, clarified some details that are supposed to be canon, and
deepened the characterizations.
But mostly, what I wanted to talk about was the ending. First off, I don't
think people give the actor who played Kell enough credit for his sword
prowess. He was amazing!. Then that wonderful scene where Joe shoots the
Watcher guy about to shoot Duncan (I assume) from an onlooking window during
the final fight. Awesome! Yeah Joe!!
Then, the producers had the intelligence to show how Duncan and Kell got to
the roof of the whatever that place they were fighting in was (maybe the
soon-to-be Kell's church constructed from a redecorated factory??).
People on other lists have made a big deal about the JVC sign being blocked
out during the final dual. What I noticed was that you could see the 'VC'
part of the sign when Duncan and Connor start their battle on the roof, then
suddenly it looks like a blank screen from a drive-in movie theatre.
However, there was one spot where the JVC ghosted through. Whatevahs. That
didn't distract things for me. Maybe it's just me, but I was much more
interersted in the swordwork going on at that moment.
But what really 'made my heart glad' was the ending. Somebody listened to
our moans. They didn't just leave us high and dry, with Duncan standing
over Connor's grave -- the torch being passed, but so what. There was more!
Lovely stuff between Duncan and Kate that sang "sequel". Yesss! She didn't
get whacked during the dinner scene (however, I think the 5th guy at the
table during the 'Last Supper' was hiding under the table, munching on some
bloodied bread.. ick)
Now, if only someone could convince Adrian about the sequel part...
And, btw, METHOSANDJOESTILLWANTTHEIROWNSHOWDAMMIT!
Patter
PS.
I need my Red Dwarf and I need it NOW. Blockbuster has all the eps, and I'm
going quietly mad with laughter enjoying them. Now, if only to acquire all
the eps of League of Gentlemen, then I will be a very happy surfer gramma...
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 25 Feb 2001 to 26 Feb 2001 - Special issue (#2001-81)
******************************************************************************