HIGHLA-L Digest - 5 Jan 2001 - Special issue (#2001-12)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@LISTS.PSU.EDU)
Fri, 5 Jan 2001 10:23:45 -0500
There are 12 messages totalling 859 lines in this issue.
Topics in this special issue:
1. does anyone know anything about the Ogham? (3)
2. Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS (9)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 08:56:32 -0500
From: LC Krakowka <liser@lightlink.com>
Subject: does anyone know anything about the Ogham?
I've been doing some surfing on the web and found plenty of sites
that contain background info and tables of the Ogham alphabet. But
none of them seem to tell whether it was used like we use an alphabet
or whether it was used more like a pictogram/runic system.
That is, did the Celts use the letters of the Ogham to spell out
words, or did the combination of symbols indicate concepts? (Did that
make sense?) In our alphabet, for example, we spell out
t-r-o-u-b-l-e...in the Chinese alphabet, it's one character that is a
combination of two others.
Anyone know how the Ogham works?
Liser
--
Lisa Krakowka ** liser@lightlink.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 00:30:33 +1100
From: tunnack <tunnack@ozemail.com.au>
Subject: Re: does anyone know anything about the Ogham?
Hi all
Lisa I have found that :
http://www.google.com
is a terrific search engine. I just did a search on your query and the
first web page it gave seemed to have answers to your questions:
http://members.aol.com/plieadesqu/ogham.htm
Good luck...fascinating topic.
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: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 09:09:45 -0500
From: LC Krakowka <liser@lightlink.com>
Subject: Re: does anyone know anything about the Ogham?
>http://members.aol.com/plieadesqu/ogham.htm
Thanks, Carmel.
I had used Google, but, for some reason, over-looked that page.
Liser
--
Lisa Krakowka ** liser@lightlink.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 09:40:34 EST
From: Lance Aldridge <GPrimeCEO@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
In a message dated 1/4/01 2:04:50 PM Central Standard Time,
zklee@huskynet.com writes:
<< O
h
m
y
n
e
x
t
w
e
'
l
l
h
a
v
e
i
n
n
e
r
c
r
o
p
c
i
r
c
l
e
s
>
> This is a matter of opinion. IMHO, anyone who thought Connor should die is
> not a true HL fan.
:::: running around in circles screaming
"AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!" and waving hands ::::
Killing off Connor was a logical conclusion to the HL movie arc.
Only in the mind of an insane person. Connor winning the Prize was the
logical conclusion.
I keep remembering Connor's expression when the cops had him
slammed against the Porsche when he tried to get away after the
Madison Sq. Garden fight. His whole demeanor in even that first
movie was that he was tired, tired, tired.
But not SUICIDAL.
<< He found Brenda and
lost her. He nearly lost his foster son. He lost Rachel. He
had too many centuries of losing people, and I think there's a
limit to what a human being can lose and still survive, even an
Immortal human being. Or maybe it's "especially an Immortal
human being".>>
Connor was always written as strong, not pathetic. He survived what life
threw at him, he didn't give up.
<< Duncan expressed the same thing in The Gathering flashback -that
he was tired of the killing; of the endless, mindless death. He
said essentially the same thing in FUOT, in the church, talking
to Darius.>>
But Duncan didn't commit suicide, did he?
<< So Connor's step of hiding was not a surprise to me. It was just
like Duncan's retreating to the island in 1872, and for the same
reason. And I was not surprised to not see Connor recover from
the weariness. He wanted to go, and he went out in style, and
for a good cause.>>
Bottom line, Connor would never have given his welfare over to a Watcher. It
was out of character for him.
<<I'm glad Gillian Horvath and Bill Panzer finally gave Connor what
he wanted.>>
He wanted peace, he could have had it with winning the Prize. (He did have
it at the end of the first film.) What they gave us was bad writing.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 09:49:40 EST
From: Lance Aldridge <GPrimeCEO@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
In a message dated 1/4/01 2:21:27 PM Central Standard Time,
liser@lightlink.com writes:
<< >spoiler space
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
Lance:
>
> >However, there was absolutely no need for him to die.
>
Me:
> I think this is a matter of opinion. In the plot, as it was written,
> there was a need for Connor to die.>>
Lance:
>Only problem is the death was a cheap one. It reeked of gimmick and that
>came across as distasteful.
<>
I thought it was a repeat of what we saw several times in the series, Duncan
forced to kill a friend or ally and in angst over it. I was hoping for a
fresher approach to the immortal concept and we got a rehas of the small
screen.
It was weak and lazy writing IMHO.
>
> << 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.
<< His presence was integral. First of all, the whole point of the bad
guy was that he (Kell) wanted to stick it to Connor.>>
Connor could have been Methos or any other friend of Duncan's and the impact
would have been the same. They killed Connor for the sake of killing Connor,
but with no real thematic validity.
<< I realize that this movie might not have been what you wanted, but
you seem to be confusing your wants with the reality of the
situation. The reality is that Connor needed to be in the movie *as
it was written*. Did he have to be in ANY fourth HL movie? No,
certainly not. They could have written a film without him. This one,
though, had Connor in it and his role was crucial to the plot of the
film.>>
Only because he was burned out and suicidal, both of which are out of
character for him. It just wasn't Connor.
Me:
><< I take issue with this generalization. I am both a HL fan AND a
> Connor fan and it had meaning for me.>>
Lance:
>The fact that you hated Connor's death makes you a true HL and Connor fan.
<>
You weren't happy with it, and that's enough to justify your validity as a
true 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.
Oh, I don't agree at all. But that's another discussion entirely.
Yes, we'll have to have it. To be to the point, Richie didn't need to die
in the way that he did.
>
><< 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.
Ah...but not so much at the beginning of HL2, eh? Talk about lonely,
depressed, and tired of life and the world.
He was also physically aged, which seemed to be a part of his disposition.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 09:51:26 EST
From: Lance Aldridge <GPrimeCEO@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
In a message dated 1/4/01 3:00:06 PM Central Standard Time,
diamonique@earthlink.net writes:
<< At 02:33 PM 01/04/2001, Lance Aldridge wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>This is a matter of opinion. IMHO, anyone who thought Connor should die is
>not a true HL fan.
IMHO, anyone who thought Connor shouldn't have died in Endgame is not a
true HL fan. All true HL fans recognize Duncan MacLeod of the Clan MacLeod
as the one true Highlander.
Long Live The Highlander!!! >>
For most of us, Connor was the first, and only Highlander.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 09:57:35 EST
From: Lance Aldridge <GPrimeCEO@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
In a message dated 1/4/01 3:35:11 PM Central Standard Time,
ElaineN@compuserve.com writes:
<< |X|
|X|
|X|
|X|
|X|
|X|
|X|
(===)
| |
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
\ |
\|
>> Connor always kept someone close to him nearby. <<
er when... in Highlander 2 he'd been alone since Brenda's death.
In HL2 he had the environmental piracy girl, and the guy he designed the
shield with.
Okay in
3 he'd had the boy with him for a good while. In the series he turns up
out of nowhere, he has been hunting Slan we are led to believe.
I got the feeling he had left his base of operations and Rachel and his son,
to hunt Slan for a reason.
<<Connor was very much alone it's part of his character.>>
I disagree.
>> It was a wonder he
and Duncan didn't spend more time together during the series, considering
they were nearly like brothers. <<
<<Well if you have been following this as you claim you'll know that it's
simply the fact that the production company couldn't afford CL on their
budget. The world maybe fantasy but it has to be paid for in the real
world.>>
Even so, it still seems funny they didn't see more of each other. A
reference that Duncan has visited Connor during the summer hiatus, etc, would
have been enough.
>> 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. <<
<<Excuse me...care to read what you have just said...they tried to draw in
the audience attracted to the first Highlander(Connor) but took him out of
character...I'm afraid that just doesn't work.>>
It sure didn't. look at the performance of the film for proof of that.
>> Duncan would. he was very much this type of character. <<
Don't think so. Duncan would remember, but he is more of the type who gets
on with life after a period of mourning. Duncan is very much the optimist
type of Scot and Connor is the depressive type.
>>
Once again, not at all like Connor. <<
<<For me very much the Connor I fell in love with all those years ago.>>
For me, not at all like the Connor of the first films.
>>
Actually, Duncan was more the type to give up from weariness, as he almost
did in To Be or Not To Be. <<
<<Almost did, but he didn't, maybe one day he will.>>
And it would be out of character for him.
>> IMHO, anyone who thought Connor should die is
not a true HL fan. <<
<< Well I am a Connor fan, I am a Highlander fan and I find this kind of
attack offensive.>>
Didn't mean to offend you and it wasn't an attack. It is my opinion.
<< One of the great things in Highlander fandom has always
been the fact that there is room for so many fans of so many of the
characters, we all have our personal favourites, that's one reason that
Highlander has spawned so many different fan clubs, but we are all HL fans
and we respect each other for that, we do not say that because someone does
not like the same character as us they are not a true fan. Highlander is
not about one character it has grown beyond that if it ever was that,
Ramirez was as important a character as Connor was, even Angus was an
important character. >>
Who is Angus?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 09:59:23 -0500
From: "Claire L. Maier, Ph.D." <bioaw124@emory.edu>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Geiger wrote:
> > 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
>
>
> 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?
So that an evil immie couldn't win the Prize.
> 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.
But Methos said Sanctuary had been around for centuries. I don't think
Kell was the reason that Sanctuary was set up in the first place; I think
Kell was the reason the Watchers running it started "drafting" immies
(like Duncan) for Sanctuary rather than taking volunteers, as they had in
the past.
> 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
I don't think Sanctuary was set up because of Kell, per se. I think the
Watcher's comments to Duncan were to explain why Duncan was taken for
Sanctuary, not why Sanctuary existed in the first place.
I'm not even sure that the Watchers would have been the ones who started
it. Perhaps it was started by immies, and was on holy ground initially,
but somewhere along the line, it could have changed management and been
moved. But I found Sanctuary to be an interesting idea. If a good immie
doesn't want to face life anymore, if they are beheaded, they are no
longer any use in the battle to prevent an evil immie from being the last
one. But as long as they live, there is hope for the world, even if an
evil immie defeats all the good immies still in the Game.
> 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?
Again, I don't think Kell was the reason it was set up. Kell wouldn't
have been that powerful when it was started.
> 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.
GMTA ;)
> 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.
I don't see Connor and Methos as being pals, either. My theory on this is
that Methos, being a Watcher at the time as well as an immie, may have
been a sort of "gatekeeper" for those wanting into the Sanctuary.
(Nothing official; maybe just a sort of grapevine thing of "meet this guy
under the bridge at midnight and he'll tell you about Sanctuary.") But
Methos may have been the one who told Connor how to get into Sanctuary,
and as such, he may have asked (and been told) why Connor wanted to be
there.
--
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: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 10:12:22 -0500
From: comet <sph04346@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, virginia foster wrote:
> At 03:59 PM 01/04/01 -0500, Sandy wrote:
> >At 02:33 PM 01/04/2001, Lance Aldridge wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
> And *that* was how the movie was supposed to end. But once again,
> the Ewoks hard work for was nothing. The entire scene was whacked in
> favor of a bad matte painting.
and a wonderfully bad matte painting it was
comet
sph04346@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu
I refuse to be held hostage by you freaks in red! -- HCK
The custom of tipping waiters and waitresses began in England's
coffeehouses, when patrons began to put money in boxes marked T.I.P.,
which stood for To Insure Promptness.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 10:18:14 EST
From: Dotiran@aol.com
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
In a message dated 1/5/01 8:43:46 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
tunnack@ozemail.com.au writes:
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
<< as Nina offered, I too thought the scene where Kell was dead
one minute and then there slashing at the Watcher the next was simply poor
editing.
Granted the edited-by-butcher thing is such a major irritant that it wrests
me from my pacifism when I think about it , but I want to make sure I
understand this comment. Kell was dead one minute and then slashing at the
Watcher the next? I trust that you mean we saw Kell dead in the flashback
and then moved to the sanctuary where Kell was slashing Watchers by appearing
out of thin air or from behind very thick pillars.
But your sentence implies more. Was Kell shown dead somewhere else and
despite all my 15 viewings of Endgame, I still didn't see it? [wouldn't
surprise me at all. I thought it would only take the first three or view
viewings before I'd be able to see anything else on the screen except Adrian
Paul but alas 15 viewings into the movie I still only saw him most of the
time, though I had fleeting images of the rest of the cast by then, and I
never did discern a plot.........oh, I forgot, you said I didn't miss
anything there *vbeg*........
distracted again by thoughts of stubble faced angst ridden graveyard
Duncan........]
oh yes, I think I had a question in here somewhere.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 08:23:52 -0700
From: Barbara Osgood Designs <hairbows@northerntel.net>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
Replacing the periods with Elaine's sword...
|X|
|X|
|X|
|X|
|X|
|X|
|X|
(===)
| |
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
\ |
\|
At 01/04/2001 02:40 PM -0500, Lance Aldridge wrote:
>Only problem is the death was a cheap one. It reeked of gimmick and that
>came across as distasteful.
I was NOT happy about Connor's death, and would have preferred that he went
off to the old Immie's retirement home (but not another Sanctuary!),
however, I would hardly call that a cheap death. I thought it was a very
moving scene (despite the film being screwed up the first time around so
the top 1/3 of the screen was on the bottom - UUURGH). On my second
viewing, I realized that I wasn't crying over the loss of Connor, I was
crying for Duncan.
Barbara
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 10:23:11 EST
From: Susan Kirt <SUQKRT@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
In a message dated 1/5/01 6:13:23 AM, vfoster@mindspring.com writes:
>At 03:59 PM 01/04/01 -0500, Sandy wrote:
> >At 02:33 PM 01/04/2001, Lance Aldridge wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >>This is a matter of opinion. IMHO, anyone who thought Connor should
>die is
> >>not a true HL fan.
> >
><snort> oh gee.. thank you for clearing that up for me. Does this mean
>I'm
>a "true HL fan" because you say so. <snort><chuckle>
>
>Sandy:
> >IMHO, anyone who thought Connor shouldn't have died in Endgame is not
>a
> >true HL fan. All true HL fans recognize Duncan MacLeod of the Clan MacLeod
> >as the one true Highlander.
> >
> >Long Live The Highlander!!!
> >
>ROTFLMAO!!
>
>Lance says I am, Sandy says I'm not. And people wonder why I stay
>so confused all the time. :-)
>
>Of course, what you all missed is the highly emotional ending to Endgame
>that sadly ended up on the cutting room floor...
>
>To celebrate the death of Kell and to celebrate the life of Connor MacLeod
>the Ewoks were dancing a particularly joyous dance. As he's halfheartedly
>clapping along with the music, Duncan looks to the side and sees the
>ghostly appearance of his mentor and clansman, Connor. On Connor's
>right, stood bonnie Heather, looking beautiful and young and happy to
>have her husband with her. To Connor's left stood Brenda Wyatt, hand
>clasped with Connor, watching him fondly. Connor smiles at his young
>kinsman as the three fade.
>
>Duncan smiles and goes back to the celebration, his heart lighter.
>
>And *that* was how the movie was supposed to end. But once again,
>the Ewoks hard work for was nothing. The entire scene was whacked in
>favor of a bad matte painting.
>
>
>virginia
>
>
Dang those editors they always cut out the goodstuff. Hi there btw.
Suz
Fandom is like religion, if you believe, you are.
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 5 Jan 2001 - Special issue (#2001-12)
**************************************************************