There are 15 messages totalling 866 lines in this issue. Topics in this special issue: 1. Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS (9) 2. List rules--for Lance (2) 3. not understandable (2) 4. SPOILERS:ENDGAME (wasRe: not understandable) 5. Highlander:Endgame UK Release date ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 14:26:03 EST From: Lance Aldridge <GPrimeCEO@aol.com> Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS In a message dated 1/4/01 6:16:47 AM Central Standard Time, judiths@CapAccess.org writes: << 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! True, but Connor, as the original Highlander, is more integral to the HL universe and the continued success of the franchise. next to Connor, Methos is merely a minor character and this disposable. << 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. >> Agreed, though the injustice done to Connor was much greater. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 14:33:53 EST From: Lance Aldridge <GPrimeCEO@aol.com> Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS In a message dated 1/4/01 6:40:31 AM Central Standard Time, ElaineN@compuserve.com writes: << |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. I will agree he is more of a loner, but not alone, two entirely different things. Connor always kept someone close to him nearby. It was a wonder he and Duncan didn't spend more time together during the series, considering they were nearly like brothers. Connor was never depicted as prone to depression or suicidal action, and I found this interpretation reeked of a gimmick laden need to draw in the older audiences familiar with the first Highlander, and less an attempt to keep him in character, and that hurts for Connor fans. Its as if he were depicted this way to set up his death. Connor always took feelings deep, how many people would still be lighting a candle for their dead wife of hundreds of years. Duncan would. he was very much this type of character. 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. Once again, not at all like Connor. Maybe one day in the future Duncan will hand on to another. Actually, Duncan was more the type to give up from weariness, as he almost did in To Be or Not To Be. It would have been more believable had he handed his head to Connor. >> 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. He has also stated that he will depict the character again if asked. 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. This is a cheap way out. Connor, at least TV Connor is dead, and dead by reason of gimmick. 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. I think Methos is as importatnt to Duncan as Connor, even though the friendship is not as long lasting. >> 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. This is a matter of opinion. IMHO, anyone who thought Connor should die is not a true HL fan. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 15:10:35 -0000 From: Rita Ballantyne <kilmarnock.oradea@virginnet.co.uk> Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS > P > O > I > L > E > R > > S > P > A > C > E > True, but Connor, as the original Highlander, is more integral to the HL > universe and the continued success of the franchise. next to Connor, Methos > is merely a minor character and this disposable. Connor is the base, but their are lots of branches coming out. nowadays series, methos is just as important, as duncan. or u think duncan is not as imp as connor and so disposable as well? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 09:35:53 -1000 From: Geiger <geiger@maui.net> Subject: List rules--for Lance Lance wrote-- >>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. >> I don't know about that last bit, but one way this list differs from others is that everyone is limited to 5 posts per day--you posted at least 7 messages yesterday (under this name--I don't know or care about your alleged multiple personas). Read your list rules, that you received upon subscribing, & follow them please. Nina geiger@maui.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 14:40:36 EST From: Lance Aldridge <GPrimeCEO@aol.com> Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS In a message dated 1/4/01 7:51:59 AM Central Standard Time, liser@lightlink.com writes: spoiler space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . << >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.>> Only problem is the death was a cheap one. It reeked of gimmick and that came across as distasteful. << 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)>> Then you are a true HL fan, IMHO and a true Connor fan. << But, the fact remains that, in this particular story, the whole point of the story is LOST if Connor walks away smiling.>> The story would have been better had he simply not been included. Connor presence was unnecessary IMHO. >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.>> Already stated in another message, but I believe methos is just as important to Duncan, albeit in a different sense, as Connor. << 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.>> On this we agree. >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.>> The fact that you hated Connor's death makes you a true HL and Connor fan. << 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.>> In Richie's case, the happier ending would have been more realistic. << 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?>> Connor certainly seemed so at the end of HL1. <<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. >> The real (Movie) Connor's story ended in HL 1 on a great happy note. It can be done if the writers are talented enough. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 14:41:24 -0500 From: Elaine Nicol <ElaineN@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: not understandable |X| |X| |X| |X| |X| |X| |X| (===) | | |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| \ | \| >> why does Methos not have depression? he confronted the same things over time. << I knew somebody would ask this.<EG> I think Methos probably has gone through the depression bit. Personally I think Gillian should write a book about that, I know I'd love to read that. Not the sort of thing you'd like to read when you were depressed mind you. <BG> I do think though that Methos has been there and been one of the few who has come through the other side of it. It's partly what gives him his S**T Happens attitude. He has seen it all. I think the problem that Methos now has is that Duncan is starting to make him care again. He sees something in Duncan something good maybe there is hope for people. Anyway that's my take on it. Elaine. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 14:41:28 -0500 From: Elaine Nicol <ElaineN@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: SPOILERS:ENDGAME (wasRe: not understandable) |X| |X| |X| |X| |X| |X| |X| (===) | | |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| \ | \| >> 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? << Excellent point that. Also shows why Duncan and Connor are different. It's something I have always thought the writers handled well too. Elaine. Same Clan, different vintage. OCA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 14:42:02 EST From: Lance Aldridge <GPrimeCEO@aol.com> Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS In a message dated 1/4/01 8:15:12 AM Central Standard Time, kilmarnock.oradea@virginnet.co.uk writes: << 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. >> The events of HL3 and Joe's testimony in the series seem to indicate there are dire, physical consequences if HG killing occurs between immortals. Endgame failed to respect this and further lessened it impact, IMHO. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 14:41:29 -0500 From: Elaine Nicol <ElaineN@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: not understandable |X| |X| |X| |X| |X| |X| |X| (===) | | |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| \ | \| >> 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> << Scottish guilt is more inclined to lead to anger rather than depression, or maybe drunkeness. Elaine, OCA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 14:41:33 -0500 From: Elaine Nicol <ElaineN@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Highlander:Endgame UK Release date >> How wonderful. Is that theater release finally, or is this the DVD or video release. ? << Well it's the theatre release, but I'm hearing rumblings that it may be wrong. However I am going to live in hope for the present.<G> Elaine. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 14:41:32 -0500 From: Elaine Nicol <ElaineN@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS |X| |X| |X| |X| |X| |X| |X| (===) | | |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| \ | \| >> So I guess what I am rather provocatively saying is that I believe that Methos was misinformed :-) << Or maybe he lied deliberatly, like Methos would do anything like that.<EG> Elaine. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 14:41:30 -0500 From: Elaine Nicol <ElaineN@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS |X| |X| |X| |X| |X| |X| |X| (===) | | |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| |)| \ | \| >> On the usrface perhaps, but I thought the workprint was vastly superior to the what we actually got. << It maybe but it's still a Theft of copyright material that is not a matter of opinion it's just a fact. Elaine. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 14:45:11 EST From: Lance Aldridge <GPrimeCEO@aol.com> Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS In a message dated 1/4/01 1:36:07 PM Central Standard Time, kilmarnock.oradea@virginnet.co.uk writes: << > P > O > I > L > E > R > > S > P > A > C > E > True, but Connor, as the original Highlander, is more integral to the HL > universe and the continued success of the franchise. next to Connor, Methos > is merely a minor character and this disposable. Connor is the base, but their are lots of branches coming out. nowadays series, methos is just as important, as duncan. or u think duncan is not as imp as connor and so disposable as well? >> Good point. If the base is taken away, everything above it will fall. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 14:45:52 EST From: Lance Aldridge <GPrimeCEO@aol.com> Subject: Re: List rules--for Lance In a message dated 1/4/01 1:38:43 PM Central Standard Time, geiger@maui.net writes: << Lance wrote-- >>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. >> I don't know about that last bit, but one way this list differs from others is that everyone is limited to 5 posts per day--you posted at least 7 messages yesterday (under this name--I don't know or care about your alleged multiple personas). Read your list rules, that you received upon subscribing, & follow them please. >> Sorry, i didn't realize we were limited to 5 posts. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 09:52:00 -1000 From: Geiger <geiger@maui.net> Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS > 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > 5 > 6 > 7 > 8 > 9 > 01 > 2 > 3 > 4 > 5 > 6 > 7 > 8 > 9 > 0 M O R E S P O I L E R S P A C E S Dorothy wrote-- >>>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.>>> I remember back when the script appeared on the net. I read it & was terribly disappointed--the plot was full of holes, the dialogue was stilted, canon was ignored, the villain was silly, the female lead was unbelievable, etc. As I recall, the script was roundly criticized here & elsewhere. And then, TPTB stated several places that the bootleg script was nothing like what was being filmed--major changes & improvements were being made. Now, the script looks good, which is a sad commentary on just how crappy the movie was. And, really, they didn't make many meaningful changes to the script in filming--they just for whatever reason left out a heck of a lot of it. Carmel wrote-- > 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! Yes. If he wanted to die, that was easy enough to arrange. If he was so miserable, why prolong things indefinitely in Sanctuary? But, for me, Sanctuary is senseless even from the Watchers' perspective. According to the unnamed Sanctuary Watcher's lines to the captive DM, Kell is the reason Sanctuary was created & why the Watchers decided, after millenia of non-interference, to isolate Immies as a safeguard against one evil Immie winning the Prize. Yet, we're never told WHY Kell, of all the evil Immies, is such a threat. Or why the Watchers didn't just take him out; surely BHg Kell would be less interference than setting up Sanctuary. Plus, Methos tells DM that Sanctuary has been around since before he was born. So, how could the Watchers have realized Kell's unique danger & set up Sanctuary just to foil him, back in the 1500's? From what we saw, Kell didn't start menacing Connor until a considerable time after his Mom was flambeed & the priest killed in the 1555 flashback. If the Watchers back then were worried about what Kell was doing, why didn't someone tip off Connor, so _he_ could go after Kell before he got so strong & Connor got so weary? I suppose (though it seems odd, given The Game) the Immies themselves might have created Sanctuary originally, w/ Watchers just stepping in later as managers, but we certainly aren't told that in the movie. Carmel-- > 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> According to the dialogue, C realized those he was near died, so he was protecting DM by leaving him. (I'm not saying it makes sense....) Carmel-- > I thought that the plot was very weak in this regard. And in many others. > It also just doesn't make sense that Sanctuary was holy ground. My take is, > I'm afraid, that Methos was wrong. Hmmm. How many other important Immie-related things have we known Methos to be wrong about? Considering his long-time connection to the Watchers & his personal stake in knowing the truth about such things, how _could_ he be wrong about this? Carmel-- > 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!!! That isn't how it sounded to me, & when was the last time DM stayed out of anything because it sounded scary? Or difficult? Or too much for him to handle? This is the guy who took on & defeated the 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse & Ahriman, after all. >If we assume that Methos did indeed know Connor then it may well be that >Connor *assigned* Duncan's welfare to Methos??? I cannot wrap my head around Connor & Methos being pals, despite M's dialogue to DM that he knew what Rachel meant to C, etc. It just doesn't ring true as to either C or M--they are simply oil & water. >Was he on a mission from Connor MacLeod??? I'm sure that would make for juicy fanfic, but I don't buy 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. Then Methos is a fool, & I don't believe he is that. If _anyone_ should know that stuff about DM, it's Methos. If he'd wanted to send DM straight into this particular mess, Methos would have told DM exactly what he did. So, I guess that means Methos intended DM to get involved & do exactly what he did--take on Kell & win. For some reason.... Nina geiger@maui.net ------------------------------ End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 4 Jan 2001 - Special issue (#2001-7) *************************************************************