HIGHLA-L Digest - 3 Jan 2001 to 4 Jan 2001 - Special issue (#2001-5)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@LISTS.PSU.EDU)
Thu, 4 Jan 2001 00:39:09 -0500
There are 17 messages totalling 841 lines in this issue.
Topics in this special issue:
1. Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS (16)
2. Endgame DVD Info (Possible Spoilers)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 14:22:13 +1100
From: tunnack <tunnack@ozemail.com.au>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
Hi all
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
01
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
The problem for me with the Sanctuary being regarded as holy ground is that
it just doesn't make sense. I agree with Sandy on this - I find the whole
premise of Connor putting himself into such an arrangement just...silly! If
there is one thing Connor MacLeod isn't/wasn't it was trusting. Why on
earth would he have trusted Watchers???? I can understand a lot of things
about his despair....his wanting oblivion....but given that Duncan was, by
Connor's own admission, the only person on the planet he cared about, then
why would he have removed himself from any interest or oversight in Duncan's
life>
I thought that the plot was very weak in this regard.
It also just doesn't make sense that Sanctuary was holy ground. My take is,
I'm afraid, that Methos was wrong. By definition it could not have been
holy ground because if it was then the events that took place there could
not have occurred. Nothing in the Highlander universe, movies or series,
allows for Sanctuary to have been holy ground. It's PR might have been that
it was but if Kell and Connor actually believed it to be holy ground they
wouldn't have bothered stepping off holy ground at the cemetery and Connor
would not have ordered Duncan to stay on holy ground. It was clear that
Connor believed that Duncan was safe by staying put in the cemetery.
So I guess what I am rather provocatively saying is that I believe that
Methos was misinformed :-)
Kind regards
@ Carmel Macpherson:
<<<@{}=================>>> Chief EDFWs
@ carmel@hldu.org
http://carmel.simplenet.com/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Highlander DownUnder: An Official HL Fan Club.
http://www.hldu.org
***HLDU4: Apr 6-8, 2001. Brisbane***
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 20:37:16 -0800
From: Kintoun <kintoun@home.com>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
swrdlvr@webtv.net wrote:
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
> I do want to be fair to her ( I respect Gillian a lot) and I really
> don't know the inside story on all this. My understanding was that
> Gillian & Bill P. did the storyline and another dude did the
> script.(with all around mostly atrocious dialogue in my opinion)Whatever
> the truth is, IMO again, somebody goofed big time.
How did anybody goof? It's been a while since I've seen the movie but I
clearly remember that Cracker Bob, Winston, Carlos, and Manny were all
riddled with bullets at the first Sanctuary and dropped to the ground. Jin
Ke wasn't temporarily killed quite as easily but the Watchers had ample time
to behead them all if Jacob didn't emerge from the shadows.
Whether the actual movie depicted Kell's speed and rapid regeneration
ability well or not, the preliminary script made it very clear that hardly
anything could keep him dead longer than a second or two. The Watchers
weren't misguided in believing that they could deal with any immortal gang
that trespasses on to Sanctuary. Breaking the rules to defeat Jacob wasn't
even an option. The early script even included a scene in which Winston
figures that "the man can't stop a bullet" but the last supper was going to
prove him wrong.
Kintoun
"It's always been too easy for you, Kell, No reason this time should be any
different. Take your best shot."
-Duncan MacLeod
> Kelly
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 23:17:55 -0500
From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
At 10:22 PM 01/03/01, tunnack wrote:
>Hi all
>
>1
>2
>3
>4
>5
>6
>7
>8
>9
>01
>2
>3
>4
>5
>6
>7
>8
>9
>0
>It was clear that Connor believed that Duncan was safe by staying put in
>the cemetery.
Oooh! I hadn't thought about that one, Carmel. That cemetery scene
occurred *after* the killings at the sanctuary!
>So I guess what I am rather provocatively saying is that I believe that
>Methos was misinformed :-)
I like that! It doesn't solve the sanctuary problem (why would Connor --
or anyone -- trust enough to go there), but it takes care of Methos'
comments. At least it gets them out of the way. :-)
-- Sandy
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 23:21:18 -0500
From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
At 11:37 PM 01/03/01, Kintoun wrote:
>swrdlvr@webtv.net wrote:
>
>S
>P
>O
>I
>L
>E
>R
>
>S
>P
>A
>C
>E
>
>Whether the actual movie depicted Kell's speed and rapid regeneration
>ability well or not, the preliminary script made it very clear that hardly
>anything could keep him dead longer than a second or two.
But the actual movie is the only thing that counts. The preliminary script
doesn't count.
>The Watchers weren't misguided in believing that they could deal with any
>immortal gang that trespasses on to Sanctuary. Breaking the rules to
>defeat Jacob wasn't even an option.
Huh? I think you lost me here. Explain please?
-- Sandy
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 23:31:19 EST
From: Dotiran@aol.com
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
In a message dated 1/3/01 11:19:20 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
diamonique@earthlink.net writes:
<< But the actual movie is the only thing that counts. The preliminary script
doesn't count.
I agree -- except again it is evidence of what we already know. The original
premise and script of this movie may have been flawed, but it was infinitely
more coherent and "true" than the reworked and edited- by- butcher finished
product.
[saw it 15 times anyway]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 15:34:35 +1100
From: tunnack <tunnack@ozemail.com.au>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
Hi all
---
>
>1
>2
>3
>4
>5
>6
>7
>8
>9
>01
>2
>3
>4
>5
>6
>7
>8
>9
>0
>Sandy said: <<I like that! It doesn't solve the sanctuary problem (why
would Connor --
or anyone -- trust enough to go there), but it takes care of Methos'
comments. At least it gets them out of the way. :-)..>>
Another thought that I've had since seeing the movie (over and over and over
and over :-) is that it would not be out of character for Methos to have
said that to Mac simply to try and keep the big lug out of it all!!! Methos
knows Duncan's propensity to rush in where angels fear to tread....he has
tried for years to keep Duncan safe ("...as long as I'm not writing *your*
epitaph!..") and we now find out that he either knew Connor (he certainly
spoke as if he was intimate with Connor's motivations) or he knew from his
Watcher life and hacking..
If we assume that Methos did indeed know Connor then it may well be that
Connor *assigned* Duncan's welfare to Methos??? this at least makes sense
to me of how Connor could have left Duncan essentially alone and
unprotected. If he knew who Methos was, knew him as a friend, knew that he
was in the Watchers, then he could have gone into his oblivion with some
belief that someone else was looking out for Duncan.
We have to assume, in this scenario, that Slan had been sent by Kell and
that Connor knew this. My dating of EndGame is 2003 which puts the Slan
Quince incident into the right time frame for Connor to have realised that
things were really heating up again in terms of those he loved being
hunted......not long after Rachel was killed.....so Connor then talks to
Methos about his intentions and even entrusts Methos to keep an eye out for
Duncan. There had never been anything like a Horton or renegade Watchers to
have alerted either of them to what we and later Methos saw happen inside
the Watchers.
Methos could do his watching from afar before Horton and before Kalas....but
as things started to really deteriorate around Duncan he emerged to actually
stand alongside Duncan, always his protector.
Was he on a mission from Connor MacLeod??? And did he tell Duncan that it
was holy ground because he knew that the Mother of all Immortals, Kell, who
had hunted Connor for centuries, was someone that he wanted to keep Duncan
well away from. What could be more terrifying to Duncan, a man whose only
certainty was that there were *some* rules....what could be more frightening
that the thought of an Immortal who could kill on holy ground and seemingly
get away with it? If Duncan believed that Connor was dead then it might
have been enough to keep him away.
Methos didn't reckon on Duncan's stubbornness...and fierce loyalty to
Connor.
I've also thought a lot about what it must have meant to Duncan to know that
Methos knew where Connor was, all along, and had never told him. There is
no way in the world that Duncan will not have believed that he might have
been able to do *something* for Connor to have prevented what happened.
After all, Connor's removal from the Game for a decade meant that the was in
the worst possible shape (emotionally and physically) that he could possibly
be in to fight Kell.
I *do* love this show !! ;-))
Kind regards
@ Carmel Macpherson:
<<<@{}=================>>> Chief EDFWs
@ carmel@hldu.org
http://carmel.simplenet.com/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Highlander DownUnder: An Official HL Fan Club.
http://www.hldu.org
***HLDU4: Apr 6-8, 2001. Brisbane***
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 23:58:03 -0500
From: Lisa Kadlec <lkadlec@Princeton.EDU>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
Sandy Fields wrote:
>
> At 10:22 PM 01/03/01, tunnack wrote:
> >Hi all
> >
> >1
> >2
> >3
> >4
> >5
> >6
> >7
> >8
> >9
> >01
> >2
> >3
> >4
> >5
> >6
> >7
> >8
> >9
> >0
<Carmel>
> >It was clear that Connor believed that Duncan was safe by staying put in
> >the cemetery.
>
> Oooh! I hadn't thought about that one, Carmel. That cemetery scene
> occurred *after* the killings at the sanctuary!
>
> >So I guess what I am rather provocatively saying is that I believe that
> >Methos was misinformed :-)
<Sandy>
> I like that! It doesn't solve the sanctuary problem (why would Connor --
> or anyone -- trust enough to go there), but it takes care of Methos'
> comments. At least it gets them out of the way. :-)
<me>
Hey! I *know* I remember suggesting that Methos could have been
misinformed way back when we had this conversation the first time! <g>
As to the 'sanctuary problem,' if we suppose that the Watchers didn't
have handy Holy Ground available, I could see them setting it up to look
like Holy Ground, complete with protectors dressed as monks. Unless
Immortals can actually 'sense' HG, it wouldn't necessarily be crucial
that Sanctuary really was on HG, only that people believed it to be.
Which could also explain how Methos ended up misinformed. The Watchers
may have figured that as long as everyone believed the 'PR,' as Carmel
put it, there was minimal danger, and the 'monks' with automatic weapons
would serve as a backup plan. Maybe Kell figured out the deception, or
maybe he just didn't care, and, luckily for him, it *was* a deception.
I think that one can make the case that since Methos said it was HG and
no one actively contradicted him or negated that statement, that it
probably *was*, and that there simply aren't any consequences for
killing on HG (Hi, Lynn). But, I also think that it is not unreasonable
to think that Methos was misinformed (especially given the later concern
for HG in the cemetery). In *either* case, I think the issue deserved
more attention in the film than what it was given.
Just a few semi-random thoughts.
Lisa
lkadlec@princeton.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 00:12:28 -0500
From: "Claire L. Maier, Ph.D." <bioaw124@emory.edu>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, sbdrake wrote:
> Ok guys I was able to get a copy of the original script of endgame and
> it is really different from the published one. I really wished they had
> used this one instead of what they did. Anyone want to discuss it.
I wasn't aware that there was a "published" Endgame script. Now, many
scripts undergo revisions prior to and during the shooting process.
Someone leaked a preliminary script which was put on the 'Net briefly, but
that's hardly to be taken as gospel.
--
Claire Maier, Ph.D. bioaw124@emory.edu CLMaier (within AOL only)
To be different is not necessarily to be ugly;
to have a different idea is not necessarily to be wrong.
The worst possible thing is for all of us to begin
to look and act and think alike.
-- Gene Roddenberry
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 22:06:09 -0800
From: Kintoun <kintoun@home.com>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
Sandy Fields wrote:
> At 11:37 PM 01/03/01, Kintoun wrote:
> >swrdlvr@webtv.net wrote:
> >
> >S
> >P
> >O
> >I
> >L
> >E
> >R
> >
> >S
> >P
> >A
> >C
> >E
> >
> >Whether the actual movie depicted Kell's speed and rapid regeneration
> >ability well or not, the preliminary script made it very clear that hardly
> >anything could keep him dead longer than a second or two.
>
> But the actual movie is the only thing that counts. The preliminary script
> doesn't count.
I belive that the preliminary script matters to a certain degree. Several
people were confused as to why Cracker Bob, Winston, Carlos, Manny, and
especially Jin Ke followed Kell after watching the movie. The script dealt with
this topic quite thoroughly though. The key issue being discussed above is are
the Watchers foolish for believing that they could protect immortals in the
Sactuary? It seems practical to me. They dispatched 4 skilled immortals easily
but Jacob Kell was way too quick for them. When the Watchers noticed him and
opened fire, he evaded each of the bullets. You weren't supposed to think that
they were poor marksmen. The point was that Kell is literally faster than a
speeding bullet.
> >The Watchers weren't misguided in believing that they could deal with any
> >immortal gang that trespasses on to Sanctuary. Breaking the rules to
> >defeat Jacob wasn't even an option.
>
> Huh? I think you lost me here. Explain please?
I guess I jumped topics a little bit suddenly there. So far, people seem to be
saying that all immortals can simply be shot as many times as necassary and
then beheaded. That was never intended to be the case with Kell. Remember that
he placed an opponent's sword next to his throat twice in the movie. Carlos'
decapitation happened so fast that few people acknowledge Jacob's skill in that
scene. Likewise, Connor was originally going to take advantage of his katana
reaching Jacob's neck but nevertheless fail to kill him.
Kintoun
"This is not a game won on points, I'm afraid. That's the beauty of eternity.
The fun never stops."
-Jacob Kell
>
> -- Sandy
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 00:19:01 EST
From: Lance Aldridge <GPrimeCEO@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
In a message dated 1/2/01 10:58:47 PM Central Standard Time, Bizarro7@aol.com
writes:
<<
<< Thanks, so basically it works just like on any other board. And it is not
my
intent to destroy this forum, but to add to its diversity. >>
Diversity is not, by definition, obsessing on the resurrection of a single
character to the point of mania; nor is it creating multiple personalities of
one's self to create a self-congratulatory 'committee'.
Agreed, diversity is the varying of opinions, no matter how extreme, and when
there is acceptance of that diversity, a foum and its idscussions are much
better as a result.
You've amply
demonstrated elsewhere that the attention you seek is not the negative sort
you provoke from females, in your desperate virtual 'pigtail pulling'. You
need the sort dispensed by a professional in matters of emotional
disturbance. Get help.
>>
This is a Highlander forum. I appreciate Ms. Douglass giving me the chance
to prove that I can participate in discussion here. We'll let her be the
judge of whether I am a troll, or whether I am honest in my assertion. As
for you attack on me personally, I hope it doesn't continue. It was my
understanding that this mailing list and its owner does not tolerate such
behavior.
Hope that we can all get on with discussing Highlander.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 00:21:08 EST
From: Lance Aldridge <GPrimeCEO@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Endgame DVD Info (Possible Spoilers)
In a message dated 1/2/01 11:50:22 PM Central Standard Time,
RENMACWOW@aol.com writes:
<<
Just In Case............
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
S
*
*
*
*
*
* >>
Was there any word as to wjether they will be offering a version of the film
in which Connor does not die? Also, any word on whether there will be an
official announcement that this new version is to be deemed canon? It is my
understanding that a coalition of fans has made a request that this happen.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 00:22:47 EST
From: Lance Aldridge <GPrimeCEO@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
In a message dated 1/3/01 8:48:46 AM Central Standard Time,
sbdrake@netsync.net writes:
<<
Ok guys I was able to get a copy of the original script of endgame and
it is really different from the published one. I really wished they had
used this one instead of what they did. Anyone want to discuss it. >>
I also have a copy of this script, and would very much like to discuss it. i
would also like to discuss Connor and his role in the film, particularly if
he was even necessary. I think his role could very well have been played by
Methos, considering the ultimate outcome.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 00:24:45 EST
From: Lance Aldridge <GPrimeCEO@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
In a message dated 1/3/01 12:13:50 PM Central Standard Time,
RENMACWOW@aol.com writes:
<<
<< Have you seen the illegal workprint
> version of the movie? That ending is closer to the leaked draft script,
with
> the exception that the dialogue in the leaked script was vastly superior
to
> the dialogue in the workprint.
why is it illegal?
>>
Mostly because it is theft of copyright material. >>
On the usrface perhaps, but I thought the workprint was vastly superior to
the what we actually got. The only possible improvement would be the
excising of a particular rooftop scene.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 00:31:12 EST
From: Lance Aldridge <GPrimeCEO@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
In a message dated 1/3/01 3:45:07 PM Central Standard Time,
diamonique@earthlink.net writes:
<<
>As for Connor..he died. So it goes. The king is dead, long live the king. In
>the end there can be only one....you know the drill. Somewhere Connor,
Richie
>and the Ewoks are smiling around a bonfire.
>>
This is, of course, my biggest problem with endgame. I agree that the story
was mediocre at best, and Connor was entiirely out of character for the
majority of the film. However, there was absolutely no need for him to die.
I would have preferred they left Connor out in the Game and let Methos be the
old friend who has to die. It was a waste of a good character and
meaningless to most true HL and Connor fans.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 00:33:53 EST
From: Lance Aldridge <GPrimeCEO@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
In a message dated 1/3/01 6:14:46 PM Central Standard Time,
jojoann@videotron.ca writes:
<< >S
>
>P
>
>O
>
>I
>
>L
>
>E
>
>R
>
>S
>
Did she not also gulped at the idea that <supposetely> <sp > sane Immortals
in search of safe ground, haven, sanctuary - would hide on NOT holyground
....
It came across as lazy, sloppy writing to me.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 00:37:59 EST
From: Lance Aldridge <GPrimeCEO@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
In a message dated 1/3/01 9:34:46 PM Central Standard Time,
tunnack@ozemail.com.au writes:
<<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
01
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
The problem for me with the Sanctuary being regarded as holy ground is that
it just doesn't make sense. I agree with Sandy on this - I find the whole
premise of Connor putting himself into such an arrangement just...silly! If
there is one thing Connor MacLeod isn't/wasn't it was trusting. Why on
earth would he have trusted Watchers???? I can understand a lot of things
about his despair....his wanting oblivion....but given that Duncan was, by
Connor's own admission, the only person on the planet he cared about, then
why would he have removed himself from any interest or oversight in Duncan's
life>
I thought that the plot was very weak in this regard.
It also just doesn't make sense that Sanctuary was holy ground. My take is,
I'm afraid, that Methos was wrong. By definition it could not have been
holy ground because if it was then the events that took place there could
not have occurred. Nothing in the Highlander universe, movies or series,
allows for Sanctuary to have been holy ground. It's PR might have been that
it was but if Kell and Connor actually believed it to be holy ground they
wouldn't have bothered stepping off holy ground at the cemetery and Connor
would not have ordered Duncan to stay on holy ground. It was clear that
Connor believed that Duncan was safe by staying put in the cemetery.
So I guess what I am rather provocatively saying is that I believe that
Methos was misinformed :-) >>
Great points, and I've been saying the exact same things since seeing this
film. Connor was so out of character, I found myself wondering if Lambert
was actually playing the Connor we all know and love, or someone's idea of a
castrated, weak Connor in contrast to a perfect Duncan. It just didn't ring
true.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 00:39:03 -0500
From: "Claire L. Maier, Ph.D." <bioaw124@emory.edu>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Sandy Fields wrote:
> At 07:10 PM 01/03/01, Dotiran@aol.com wrote:
>
> ><< So is this just bad writing?
> >
> >Maybe. But I do know that Gillian Horvath said she gulped when she
> >S
> >
> >P
> >
> >O
> >
> >I
> >
> >L
> >
> >E
> >
> >R
> >
> >S
> >
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
It's supposed to be 24 blank lines, folks, not just "some."
> >heard Methos utter that line about Holy Ground because the original idea
> >was NOT holyground but a fake monastery with fake monks who were
> >trustworthy and good watchers.
>
> Yes. I heard this too. But even if they filmed it that way, it wouldn't
> work for me. It would take away the HG problem, but it wouldn't explain
> why an immie would allow himself to be put into suspended animation like
> that. Even though these are "good watchers", what's to stop a kimmie from
> coming along, killing all the watchers, and then killing all the comatose
> immies? Or what would stop a "bad watcher" from doing the same thing?
>
> It just doesn't work.
I think it does. It sounds like Sanctuary was a place for immies who
wanted to die but didn't want an evil immie to win the Prize. So they
allowed themselves to be placed in Sanctuary as insurance to prevent that
from happening.
As far as kimmies coming along, the Watchers running Sanctuary went to a
lot of trouble to hide the place, the dialog says, although it doesn't say
how Kell managed to find it anyway.
I don't think fake holy ground was such a good idea though. Better to
hide them someplace completely unexpected-- like underneath a paper clip
factory. That would've made a cool quickening too, wouldn't it, when Kell
chopped all their heads off-- all those paper clips exploding into the
air. :)
--
Claire Maier, Ph.D. bioaw124@emory.edu CLMaier (within AOL only)
To be different is not necessarily to be ugly;
to have a different idea is not necessarily to be wrong.
The worst possible thing is for all of us to begin
to look and act and think alike.
-- Gene Roddenberry
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 3 Jan 2001 to 4 Jan 2001 - Special issue (#2001-5)
***************************************************************************