HIGHLA-L Digest - 4 Jan 2001 - Special issue (#2001-6)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@LISTS.PSU.EDU)
Thu, 4 Jan 2001 14:23:31 -0500
There are 19 messages totalling 860 lines in this issue.
Topics in this special issue:
1. Spoiler precautions for Endgame (2)
2. Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS (13)
3. ADMIN: Spoiler precautions for Endgame
4. not understandable (2)
5. SPOILERS:ENDGAME (wasRe: not understandable)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 00:51:12 -0500
From: "Claire L. Maier, Ph.D." <bioaw124@emory.edu>
Subject: Spoiler precautions for Endgame
Folks, remember that Endgame is still under spoiler precautions, and that
means 24 spoiler lines. There are people on this list outside of North
America waiting for the release in their countries who do *not* want to be
spoiled. Spoiler lines are *not* optional.
--
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: Thu, 4 Jan 1973 07:23:41 -0500
From: Judith Schneider <judiths@CapAccess.org>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Lance Aldridge wrote:
> In a message dated 1/3/01 3:45:07 PM Central Standard Time,
> diamonique@earthlink.net writes:
>
Reinserting
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
> <<
> >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.
>
Well, I think the Methos fans would object to letting Methos be the one
who had to die! I like both Methos and Connor, but I'd rather see Connor
die than Methos!
Personally, I think Connor behaved completely out of character for almost
all of the movie (minus the flashback to the rescue of the ladies'
carriage) and that Methos could have been any random immortal. Both
characters were not well used and were either cardboard cutouts or out of
character.
Judy, the Chocolate Slayer judiths@capaccess.org
Waving a flag for the blue feather and a turbolight for Apollo
"I never met a chocolate I didn't like"--Deanna Troi
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 07:16:25 -0500
From: Debra Douglass <ddoug@catrio.org>
Subject: ADMIN: Spoiler precautions for Endgame
Posts containing Endgame Spoilers must have both the word SPOILERS in
the subject line and the 24 spoiler lines. Generally these spoiler
lines contain at least one character (but never a single lone period)
per line. These are necessary for two reasons - 1) if you only used
blank lines some mail programs discard excess the white space so they
lose the effect of the spoiler lines and 2) a single lone period on a
line is the signal to some mail protocols of end-of-message.
Please remove the word SPOILERS from the subject of any post that does
not contain Spoilers.
-Debbie
(list owner)
On 1/4/2001, on HIGHLA-L@lists.psu.edu, Claire L. Maier, Ph.D. wrote:
>>Folks, remember that Endgame is still under spoiler precautions, and that
>>means 24 spoiler lines. There are people on this list outside of North
>>America waiting for the release in their countries who do *not* want to be
>>spoiled. Spoiler lines are *not* optional.
--
.------------------------------------------------------------------.
| No flames were thrown in the creation of this email message. |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Debra Douglass ddoug@catrio.org http://www.catrio.org|
`------------------------------------------------------------------'
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 07:33:07 -0500
From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
At 12:31 AM 01/04/01, Lance Aldridge wrote:
>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.
> >>
I didn't say this. Sweetness&Light said it. Please be a little more
careful with your quotes.
-- Sandy
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 07:31:50 -0500
From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
At 01:06 AM 01/04/01, Kintoun wrote:
> > >
> > >S
> > >P
> > >O
> > >I
> > >L
> > >E
> > >R
> > >
> > >S
> > >P
> > >A
> > >C
> > >E
>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.
Maybe it does. But how does that help us discuss the movie? Has everyone
read this script? I sure haven't. If Kell was lightning fast and/or
couldn't be harmed by bullets, but this was only brought out in the script
but not in the movie, how are we supposed to use this bit of information
when discussing things that happened in the movie? And how many scripts
were there? Which one are we supposed to use in our discussions? The
original draft? The 5th one? Do we first take a poll to find out how many
of us have read each draft before we decide which script can be used in our
discussions?
-- Sandy
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 07:38:46 -0500
From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Spoiler precautions for Endgame
At 12:51 AM 01/04/01, Claire L. Maier, Ph.D. wrote:
>Folks, remember that Endgame is still under spoiler precautions, and that
>means 24 spoiler lines.
Oops! Sorry. I'll be more careful.
-- Sandy
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 07:39:12 -0500
From: Elaine Nicol <ElaineN@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
|X|
|X|
|X|
|X|
|X|
|X|
|X|
(===)
| |
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
\ |
\|
>> and Connor was entiirely out of character for the
majority of the film. <<
There we will have to differ. Connor was very much in character. Connor
has always been much more of a loner than Duncan, and much more likely to
depression, something I think most immortals must go through at sometime.
Connor always took feelings deep, how many people would still be lighting a
candle for their dead wife of hundreds of years. Connor had simply
reached a point where he really didn't want to go on, but he knew Duncan
could, he knew Duncan still had the strength and vigour to go on fighting
the good fight. Maybe one day in the future Duncan will hand on to
another.
>> However, there was absolutely no need for him to die.
I would have preferred they left Connor out in the Game <<
Well you are forgetting the fact that Christophe stated that was what he
wanted to happen to Connor. The actor himself loves the character and
partly because of that he really didn't want someone else to play him and
he felt he was getting too old to the play the part. Now though Connor
will always be a part of Duncan Macleod, so Connor isn't really dead, he is
a part of his kinsman rather than a part of some enemy. I found that I
liked that idea very much more than if Kell had taken his head.
>> and let Methos be the
old friend who has to die. <<
Well you also seem to be missing the fact that Methos is not an old friend
in the terms of the years he and Duncan have known each other and there is
still a wariness between them. Methos's death would not have held the same
meaning for Duncan as Connor's his teacher his friend his kinsman did.
>> It was a waste of a good character and
meaningless to most true HL and Connor fans. <<
No it wasn't meaningless, together they were able to defeat Kell, without
Connor, Duncan would have fallen too. And lets not start the true HL fan
rubbish, we are all true HL fans here.
Elaine,
Same clan, different vintage.
OCA(Order of Connor's Advocates)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 08:31:40 -0500
From: LC Krakowka <liser@lightlink.com>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
>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
Sandy asked:
>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?
Nothing. As we saw. :-)
Liser
--
Lisa Krakowka ** liser@lightlink.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 08:50:14 -0500
From: LC Krakowka <liser@lightlink.com>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
Lance said:
>However, there was absolutely no need for him to die.
I think this is a matter of opinion. In the plot, as it was written,
there was a need for Connor to die.
Could there have been ANOTHER plot where he didn't? Sure.
Do I like the fact that he did? No, not really. (cried like a baby, actually)
But, the fact remains that, in this particular story, the whole point
of the story is LOST if Connor walks away smiling.
>I would have preferred they left Connor out in the Game and let Methos be the
>old friend who has to die.
I doubt it would have the same effect on Duncan if he were to lose
Methos. Yes, he cares about Methos. Yes, he would risk his life for
Methos. But Methos is not kin...not a clansman, not Duncan's
teacher...and most certainly not a brother in any sense of the term.
Duncan would mourn Methos, sure. But not the way he will mourn
Connor. He'll feel that for the rest of his life, every day, every
moment. As it should be.
>It was a waste of a good character and
>meaningless to most true HL and Connor fans.
I take issue with this generalization. I am both a HL fan AND a
Connor fan and it had meaning for me.
What we've seen when characters that are perceived as major within
the realm of HL are killed off is that the fans tend to have a want
of a happy ending. Connor didn't have to die, he could have walked
off into the sunset. Richie didn't have to die, he could have left
Mac and struck out on his own.
Phooey, I say. These people do not lead happy lives. The very
nature of their survival is kill or be killed. You don't walk away
into the sunset in that kind of world. Eventually, they will ALL
die. All but one. Think that guy's gonna be happy?
The whole point of Immortals, IMO, is that their existence is both
blessed and cursed. They have all the time in the world, get to lead
amazing lives, see amazing things, meet amazing people. The cost of
that, though, is that their existence is ultimately tragic. Every
bond they make will ultimately be broken...whether that be by the
death of a mortal, or the tenets of the Game. These are people who
are in the throng of humanity for thousands of years but are forever
alone. Sometimes figuratively, sometimes literally. Remove that
irony, IMO, and you take a rich, heady concept and make it saccharine
and hollow.
People die. It's part of living. Just like not every story has a
happy ending.
Liser
--
Lisa Krakowka ** liser@lightlink.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 09:40:50 -0000
From: Rita Ballantyne <kilmarnock.oradea@virginnet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
Join me down below for some discussion:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
.
.
> >
> >Fact: Methos said the sanctuary was on holy ground.
> Fact: Kell killed immies in the sanctuary.
nobody says u can't kill on holy ground, only that is a tradition not to.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 10:25:01 -0000
From: Rita Ballantyne <kilmarnock.oradea@virginnet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
> >>
> >>O
> >>
> >>I
> >>
> >>L
> >>
> >>E
> >>
> >>R
> >>
> >>S
> >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?
>
>
> Nothing. As we saw. :-)
and that is a good thing. it makes the story interesting.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 09:53:56 -0500
From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
At 07:39 AM 01/04/2001, Elaine Nicol wrote:
> |X|
> |X|
> |X|
> |X|
> |X|
> |X|
> |X|
> (===)
> | |
> |)|
> |)|
> |)|
> |)|
> |)|
> |)|
> |)|
> |)|
> |)|
> |)|
> |)|
> |)|
> |)|
> |)|
> \ |
> \|
>
>There we will have to differ. Connor was very much in character.
Thank you Elaine. I agree with you completely. The entire "depressed
Connor" thing seemed totally in character to me.
-- Sandy
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 10:52:15 -0000
From: Rita Ballantyne <kilmarnock.oradea@virginnet.co.uk>
Subject: not understandable
|X|
> > |X|
> > |X|
> > |X|
> > |X|
> > |X|
> > |X|
> > (===)
> > | |
> > |)|
> > |)|
> > |)|
> > |)|
> > |)|
> > |)|
> > |)|
> > |)|
> > |)|
> > |)|
> > |)|
> > |)|
> > |)|
> > |)|
> > \ |
> > \|
> >
Thank you Elaine. I agree with you completely. The entire "depressed
> Connor" thing seemed totally in character to me.
why does Methos not have depression? he confronted the same things over
time.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 10:27:57 -0500
From: comet <sph04346@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, LC Krakowka wrote:
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
5
-
6
-
7
-
8
-
9
-
0
Liser said:
> Could there have been ANOTHER plot where he didn't? Sure.
> Do I like the fact that he did? No, not really. (cried like a baby, actually)
I saw her do this!
> But, the fact remains that, in this particular story, the whole point
> of the story is LOST if Connor walks away smiling.
I agree. I actually with both the statements (the above). If he had walked
away from the movie the alive there wouldn't have really been a reason for
the whole thing.
> >It was a waste of a good character and
> >meaningless to most true HL and Connor fans.
>
> I take issue with this generalization. I am both a HL fan AND a
> Connor fan and it had meaning for me.
Ditto. I was sorry to see Connor go (2 of 3 of my favorite immies are dead
now). But, he's death had meaning (at least for me). And, as much as a I
don't like Duncan, had he not killed Connor (and taken the sacrifice that
Connor was offering) I would have thought even less of Duncan.
Connor wanted out. And, he wanted someone he cared for to be the one to
take him out.
> into the sunset in that kind of world. Eventually, they will ALL
> die. All but one. Think that guy's gonna be happy?
nope, cause almost everyone s/he has known will be dead. Probably some by
his/her own hands.
> People die. It's part of living. Just like not every story has a
> happy ending.
we would (probably) get bored if they did
comet
sph04346@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu
We who know nothing but how to fight can't immediately adapt to this new
world. It may be that the only way I can go on living is in battle. The
red planet awaits us. I plan to lose myself in this new fight. But this is
not a fight to kill... but rather a fight to stay alive. I will survive.
-- Heero, Gundam Wing "Episode 49: The Final Victors"
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 11:23:27 -0500
From: Darcel Darcel <ddarcel@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
Spoiler space
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Sandy wrote:
>So let's talk about that canon.
>
>Fact: Methos said the sanctuary was on holy ground.
>Fact: Kell killed immies in the sanctuary.
I thought Kell says something to Conner about the killings at the
Santuary. This isn't a quote but it goes something like... "all those
deaths, what a trip." I meant to listen for the passage in later viewings
but missed it. I had the impression it was in reference to the quickenings
on holy ground. Am I dreaming (or rationalizing) or did anyone else hear
that?
Darcey
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 12:26:37 -0000
From: Rita Ballantyne <kilmarnock.oradea@virginnet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
However, there was absolutely no need for him to die.
other than, probably Christopher didn't wanna be the Highlander anymore,
ever?
>I would have preferred they left Connor out in the Game and let Methos be
the
> >old friend who has to die.
he? that would've stirred up many people, including me!!! ne chance, body!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 17:08:27 -0000
From: Jette Goldie <jettegoldie@thefreeinternet.co.uk>
Subject: SPOILERS:ENDGAME (wasRe: not understandable)
Rita asks
> |X|
> > > |X|
> > > |X|
> > > |X|
> > > |X|
> > > |X|
> > > |X|
> > > (===)
> > > | |
> > > |)|
> > > |)|
> > > |)|
> > > |)|
> > > |)|
> > > |)|
> > > |)|
> > > |)|
> > > |)|
> > > |)|
> > > |)|
> > > |)|
> > > |)|
> > > |)|
> > > \ |
> > > \|
> > >
Sandy says
> Thank you Elaine. I agree with you completely. The entire "depressed
> > Connor" thing seemed totally in character to me.
>
> why does Methos not have depression? he confronted the same things over
> time.
>
Because he is =Methos= not Connor, not Duncan and not Amanda.
Elaine and I are both Scots but we don't see things the same way
nor react to every situation the same, so why should all Immortals
no matter how old?
Jette
jettegoldie@thefreeinternet.co.uk
http://members.tripod.com/~bosslady/fanfic.html
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 13:03:32 EST
From: "Renaissance (Karen Miller)" <RENMACWOW@aol.com>
Subject: Re: not understandable
In a message dated Thu, 4 Jan 2001 10:18:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, Rita
Ballantyne <kilmarnock.oradea@virginnet.co.uk> writes:
<< |X|
> > |X|
> > |X|
> > |X|
> > |X|
> > |X|
> > |X|
> > (===)
> > | |
> > |)|
> > |)|
> > |)|
> > |)|
> > |)|
> > |)|
> > |)|
> > |)|
> > |)|
> > |)|
> > |)|
> > |)|
> > |)|
> > |)|
> > \ |
> > \|
> >
Thank you Elaine. I agree with you completely. The entire "depressed
> Connor" thing seemed totally in character to me.
why does Methos not have depression? he confronted the same things over
time.
>>
Maybe it has something to do with what Sean Burns referred to as "Scottish
Guilt" <g>
~Rennie
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 14:22:52 EST
From: Lance Aldridge <GPrimeCEO@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
In a message dated 1/3/01 11:39:31 PM Central Standard Time,
bioaw124@emory.edu writes:
<<
> >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.
>>
It also sounds like a place that the real Connor macleod wouldn't be caught
dead in.
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 4 Jan 2001 - Special issue (#2001-6)
*************************************************************