HIGHLA-L Digest - 2 Jun 2005 to 3 Jun 2005 (#2005-57)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
Fri, 3 Jun 2005 22:00:08 -0400
There are 11 messages totalling 542 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. the stuff we were talking about...yeah, kinda OT (5)
2. HIGHLA-L Digest - 31 May 2005 to 2 Jun 2005 (#2005-56)
3. Hey Highlander movies and tv ;)
4. Endgame (4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 22:55:05 -0400
From: Wendy <Immortals_Incorporated@cox.net>
Subject: Re: the stuff we were talking about...yeah, kinda OT
> Remember Quantum Leap? How the main character (you know, the
> guy in StarTrek: Enterprise) leaped into various historical events...
> The Methos Chronicles could have been something like that (with
flashbacks rather
> than leaping)... only the narrated stories could have flash backs --
with
> Methos very much involved --- and sometimes the as bad guy... We
could maybe
> have seen him evolve as an imortal -- form a conscience.. something
like that...
> What do you think?
Honestly? I don't think it would have worked.
One big problem with it is the idea of Methos being the "bad guy" part
of the time. It was fine to find out that Methos had been a bad guy and
to see him - once - in that role. To see him that way too often
though...you'd begin to root against him, wouldn't you? Even knowing
that he eventually becomes, if not good, than at least less bad <eg>,
how would it go over to watch him whack good guys? Do you think
viewers would appreciate him being a rapist on more than one occasion?
How about Methos sacking a town and leaving the children to starve
stories? No...TPTB would have to sanitize him (the way they did Amanda
for "Raven") and then he wouldn't be Methos any more.
Further, the problem with a series done mostly in flashback is that you
get stuck in the "Methos was at every important event in the last 5000
years syndrome". Living 5000 years doesn't mean you were there to see
all the great events of history and yet the temptation would be to drop
him into all those juicy happening. Methos meets Copernicus. Methos
meets Christ. Methos invents irrigation., Methos builds the pyramids.
Methos finds the head of the Nile years before Speke. What really
happened was undoubtedly hundreds and hundreds of years of Methos just
....living. Not doing anything exciting and not seeing any notable event
or meeting any notable person.
Quantum Leap worked because Sam (was his name Sam?) dropped into
*other people's* lives so he could, theoretically, always be at an
important juncture of history. It wasn't one man through history, it was
one man living through dozens of other people through history. Methos'
life is singular and linear...so you'd have a lot of
Methos-meets-another-Immortal-and-kills-him stories...else-wise he'd be
dead already. Or Methos-sees something-interesting-but-runs-away
stories...not too exciting. Or
Methos-really-was-a-hero-but-doesn't-like-to-brag stories .... which
undercuts what we know of his character.
Further, do we know that Methos has evolved? That he has a conscience?
Or do we know that he does what is necessary to blend into his
environment? When the times called for Death on a horse, he was Death.
When the times call for quiet grad students ... he is Adam Pierson. I'd
trust him to "do the right thing" only so long as there was no risk to
him...and that's not "having a conscience".
Wendy(Methos-The Pillaging Years.)(I'd watch<eg>)
Immortals Inc.
immortals_incorporated@cox.net
"Weasels for Eternity"
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 20:47:22 -0700
From: FKMel <sgt_buck_frobisher@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: HIGHLA-L Digest - 31 May 2005 to 2 Jun 2005 (#2005-56)
It's not solely BP and DA, though. Watching the
Stargate commentaries (also some Angel and Buffy
ones),
Yeah I think I've seen that on some of the TV
documentaries on the show. I don't think much about
that but what would annoy me is what was also said,
about the fans thinking the actor is the character.
I find that not only do the TPTB do it, even the
*actors* sometimes get it wrong. They'll say, "And I
did this..." when
they're clearly referring to something they did as
that character. They will talk about themselves as
though they are that character
Didn't Jim Byrnes do that once? The subject of his
legs came up and he accidentally said he lost them in
Vietnam, then realized no, that was *Joe*, not him and
had to correct himself
__________________________________
Discover Yahoo!
Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out!
http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 06:56:20 +0200
From: T'Mar <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
Subject: Re: the stuff we were talking about...yeah, kinda OT
>One big problem with it is the idea of Methos being the "bad guy" part
>of the time. .. To see him that way too often
>though...you'd begin to root against him, wouldn't you?
Nuh-uh. There are people out there who root for *Hannibal Lecter*!
Come on, who doesn't get a thrill when he says, "I'm having a friend
for dinner?" And he's a cannibal who murders people and eats them!
And yet I wanted to clap and cheer him on. I read in a review of
the movie in Cinefantastique (or one of those) that it was a common
reaction. Not that Methos should take up cannibalism, but you see
what I mean.
>(Methos-The Pillaging Years.)(I'd watch<eg>)
Me too!
- Marina.
\\ "You've heard it said that living well is ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// the best revenge? Au contraire - living || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ forever is the best revenge." - Lacroix ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
//===============tmar@sifl.iid.co.za===========|| \\
\\=============Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie============//
"What about the fact they thought we were gay?"
"Adds mystery." - Wesley and Angel; 'Expecting' (Angel)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 01:24:39 -0700
From: Jason Delong <jasondelong2000@yahoo.com>
Subject: Hey Highlander movies and tv ;)
Jason Delong has invited you to join hi5. By joining hi5, you will be connected to Jason and all of Jason's friends.
hi5 is the place where friends meet. You can use hi5 for the following purposes:
* Find old friends
* Meet new people
* Browse photos
Join Jason, meet Jason's friends, and meet people that share your interests now!
Click here:
http://www.hi5.com/register/C55CS?inviteId=2UTHXMI5CI24052325h0
This invitation was sent to highla-l@lists.psu.edu on behalf of Jason Delong (jasondelong2000@yahoo.com).
If you do not wish to receive invitations from hi5 members, click on the link below:
http://www.hi5.com/friend/displayBlockInvite.do?inviteId=2UTHXMI5CI24052325h0
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 11:27:20 -0400
From: JJSWBT <jjswbt@cox.net>
Subject: Endgame
So I'm aimlessly channel surfing last night and found myself stopped on the
SciFi Channel in the middle of Endgame. Now, there is no denying that AP
was pretty. Unfortunately, I happened on the scene where Duncan is wandering
the remnants of Connor's home and finds Kate/Faith and all of Kane's
henchmen.
First...there was Kate/Faith with her huge collagen lips and starving model
body and ratty hair and zero personality. Flashback or present-day, there
was never any indication why Duncan would fall in love with this woman
...let alone marry her... let alone stab her on her wedding night to "save"
her.
Then there is the entrance of 3 Immortals - none of whom Duncan seems to
notice until they crash through a wall. Guess he was too fixated on Kate's
huge lips to feel any other "buzz".
Then there is the three-on-one fight. OK, against the Rules much? Then the
fact that all the three managed to do was cut Duncan up a bit. Three guys
with sharp objects fighting one guy with sharp object and *they* lose? Only
on TV and in movies.
Then the Chinese Guy appears - again without any apparent "buzz". They
suddenly all agree that honorable combat requires Duncan and Chinese Guy to
fight. Ok...why not. Then, Duncan manages to disarm the Chinese Guy and
instead of taking his head or the opportunity to escape, Duncan decides he
must battle the guy mano-a-mano. After all, honor is in the man and not the
weapon. Guess Duncan has been dishonorable all these years when he used his
sword.
The Kane appears, chewing scenery as he comes. Again...no "buzz". Then
Duncan gets thrown out a window (a truly unexpected and stupid development).
This allows Kane to chew more scenery and explain (not) why these Immortals
follow him around like whipped dogs instead of ganging up on *him* and
ending his Rule of Boredom..I mean... Terror.
Then we have the spectacle of a van full of Watchers appearing from nowhere
with a circular saw (conveniently fitted with a metal cutting blade) to free
Duncan from his impalement on the fence outside. Do we even need to ask
*why* they had a saw?
Then, most horrible of all ..Kane beheads the idiot Immortal who tossed
Duncan and we get to see his still-living head blinking on the floor.
Then it's on to Watcher Dungeon Central where a Watcher informs Duncan that
an Immortal has gone "renegade"? What does that mean? Further, said
Immortal is now so powerful he can't be beat. WTF? Further, the Watchers are
keeping Immortals in chains....I mean "safety"...to prevent Kane from
winning. Never mind that Kane already knows about this trick and killed the
last bunch of iced Immortals. Never mind that they are *still* not on Holy
Ground so Kane could come back and do it again. (And never mind that the
first group *was* on HG originally)
Then they prepare to shoot a syringe of blue crap up Duncan's nose or in his
eye and I , after only 5 minutes , changed channels.
And people wonder why I'm not enthused about a possible HL-Whatever?
OK. .I'm done ranting now. <EG>
I wonder if the promised new movie will start up where Endgame left off. Or
will it be a new universe *again*? If Kane was so damned powerful....and
Duncan killed Kane...does that mean that Duncan is unbeatable now? Or does
the fact that Duncan beat Kane mean that the Watchers were, once again,
totally wrong about everything?
Wendy ( Why do I still care?)(Obsession.)
Immortals Inc.
immortals_incorporated@cox.net
"Weasels for Eternity"
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 11:42:59 -0400
From: L Cameron-Norfleet <cgliser@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Endgame
>Then we have the spectacle of a van full of Watchers appearing from nowhere
>with a circular saw (conveniently fitted with a metal cutting blade) to free
>Duncan from his impalement on the fence outside. Do we even need to ask
>*why* they had a saw?
This is my favorite scene in the movie. It makes me laugh
hysterically. Or maniacally, maybe.
Lisa
--
Lisa Cameron-Norfleet ** cgliser@earthlink.net
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 13:33:50 -0400
From: Wendy <Immortals_Incorporated@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Endgame
I said:
> >Then we have the spectacle of a van full of Watchers
> >appearing from nowhere with a circular saw (conveniently
>> fitted with a metal cutting blade) to free
> >Duncan from his impalement on the fence outside. Do we even
>>need to ask *why* they had a saw?
Lisa says:
> This is my favorite scene in the movie. It makes me laugh
> hysterically. Or maniacally, maybe.
It is funny. I'm not sure it was suppose to be funny.
Unless....
Maybe Endgame was a comedy all along and we missed it? Took it too
seriously? Because, now that I think about it...there were a lot of
funny things.
Wendy (Always looking for the sunny side of life.)(It's my gift.)(And my
curse)
Immortals Inc.
immortals_incorporated@cox.net
"Weasels for Eternity"
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 17:38:09 -0400
From: Jill Gillham <selkie@cox.net>
Subject: Re: the stuff we were talking about...yeah, kinda OT
>
> From: "T'Mar" <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
> Nuh-uh. There are people out there who root for *Hannibal Lecter*!
> Come on, who doesn't get a thrill when he says, "I'm having a friend
> for dinner?" And he's a cannibal who murders people and eats them!
> And yet I wanted to clap and cheer him on.
And House had a good deal of success on US tv recently. Granted, House does have some solidly redeeming qualities, but here's a guy who also comes across as misanthropic, misogynistic, manipulative, and an utter horse's ass in order to get what he wants from people.
And the show's producers say that the feedback they get from viewers is that they really like the cranky version of House and they don't want to see him become too likeable because that would wreck the show.
If you could have that same sort of Methos as anti-hero tone, it could have worked well.
Jill
selkie@cox.net
http://members.cox.net/selkie/
"Carpe carp!"
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 19:08:22 -0400
From: Wendy <Immortals_Incorporated@cox.net>
Subject: Re: the stuff we were talking about...yeah, kinda OT
I said:
> >One big problem with it is the idea of Methos being the "bad
> guy" part of the time. .. To see him that way too often
> >though...you'd begin to root against him, wouldn't you?
Marina suggests:
> Nuh-uh. There are people out there who root for *Hannibal Lecter*!
> Come on, who doesn't get a thrill when he says, "I'm having a friend
> for dinner?" And he's a cannibal who murders people and eats them!
> And yet I wanted to clap and cheer him on. I read in a review of
> the movie in Cinefantastique (or one of those) that it was a common
> reaction. Not that Methos should take up cannibalism, but you see
> what I mean.
Hannibal is a thoroughly disgusting character and I waited through each
movie hoping someone would put a bullet through his head. I didn't find
him charming - but that's just me, I guess. I do know that people (some
sick twisted people <eg>) like to root for really bad guys - especially
ones they see as suave or sexy or much-cooler-than-the-police. Part of
Hannibal's "appeal" is that he is educated and civilized on the outside
and an animal underneath. Methos didn't really strike me as that kind
of bad guy. He was the raping, pillaging, killing for the hell of it
kind of bad guy. Sure *we* know he turned out to be vaguely civilized -
but back in the bad old days he wasn't a charming rogue, he was a cold
blooded killer. That's not so appealing (even when wrapped in an
attractive package.)
Jill says:
>And House had a good deal of success on US tv recently. Granted, House
does have some solidly
> redeeming qualities, but here's a guy who also comes across as
misanthropic, misogynistic,
> manipulative, and an utter horse's ass in order to get what he wants
from people.
But it's those redeeming qualities that make the difference. The doctor
on House may be "misanthropic, misogynistic, manipulative, and an utter
horse's ass" but he saves people's lives. He's a shitty person but a
great doctor. What if he was just a shitty person? Would people still
watch to see him verbally abuse everyone and have him kill patients?
Or... if he wasn't a doctor at all....just a nasty man?
A show about Methos could be more like the Sopranos, I suppose. ( Or The
Shield or OZ etc) The lead character does horrible things but can be a
nice guy. So part of watching is also knowing that eventually this bad
man will have to pay for what he's done. Either the FBI will get him or
a competitor will kill him. Either way, it won't end well. But...we
know Methos survives and we know Methos lives well. So there isn't the
"edge" of waiting for him to get what's coming to him - no matter what
he does in flashback we know he's alive and well in the present.
Now, I'm not saying that Methos character could not have been
re-developed to make his past more rogue-with-a-heart-of-gold and less
do-whatever-I-want-as-long-as-I-survive. They could have focused on the
later years when he was trying ,with more or less success, to be an
average guy. The Byron years, for example could work..except that his
"survival instinct" means he either avoided fights or wasn't shy about
killing any threats. An Immortal who runs from fights is not a dynamic
character for TV and we'd already done the whole "I only kill bad guys"
shtick with Duncan. So..were we going to see Methos kill "good" guys?
Pretend like he only met bad guys? Just ignore the whole Immortal stuff
altogether?
I just don't see it. ..unless they had changed Methos .And if they
changed him what would have been the point?
Wendy(Why does Anthony Hopkins mispronounce "chianti"?)(Totally throws
him out of character)
Immortals Inc.
immortals_incorporated@cox.net
"Weasels for Eternity"
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 13:35:45 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Endgame
Wendy--
> First...there was Kate/Faith with her huge collagen lips and starving
> model
> body and ratty hair and zero personality.
And, has the actress done anything lately? I recall being horrified at this
person's casting, only to be told that she was lovely & a huge talent
clearly destined for better things.... Guess not, though. Maybe the lips
didn't hold up.
> Then they prepare to shoot a syringe of blue crap up Duncan's nose or in
> his
> eye and I , after only 5 minutes , changed channels.
You did well to last 5 minutes. I trust you showered.
> And people wonder why I'm not enthused about a possible HL-Whatever?
Oh, come on, have a little faith (just not Faith). I'm sure the next
regurgitation from the franchise will be loads better than Endgame. All our
hopes for fabulous story-telling, fascinating characters, inobtrusive
editing, stunning effects, mythic drama, & riveting acting will finally be
realized on the big screen in a widely successful film. A GOOD movie.
It'll be something we can not only admit to going to see--we'll be able to
take non-HL friends, & they won't think we're total morons by the time the
credits roll. It'll be DPP's gift to the fans. With PURPLE nose goo.
Nina (it'll suck)
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 21:01:07 -0400
From: Trilby <trilby23@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: the stuff we were talking about...yeah, kinda OT
Interesting thread! I'll jump into the speculation and what-iffing.
Jill:
> >And House had a good deal of success on US tv recently. Granted,
> >House
> does have some solidly
> > redeeming qualities, but here's a guy who also comes across as
> misanthropic, misogynistic,
> > manipulative, and an utter horse's ass in order to get what he wants
> from people.
Wendy:
> But it's those redeeming qualities that make the difference. The
> doctor on House may be "misanthropic, misogynistic, manipulative, and
> an utter horse's ass" but he saves people's lives. He's a shitty
> person but a great doctor. What if he was just a shitty person? Would
> people still watch to see him verbally abuse everyone and have him
> kill patients? Or... if he wasn't a doctor at all....just a nasty man?
Me:
Methos was a sometime doctor too. Maybe the skill to heal was only a secondary,
even accidental byproduct of a lively curiosity about the human body, but there
were surely times he saved lives. (And maybe there were times he cut people open
for the sake of that curiosity... God, I love the dichotomy that is Methos!!)
But the point is, his earlier years don't necessarily preclude him being lead character
material, nor does he have to be sanitized. Somewhere in between Death on a
Horse and Mild-Mannered Grad Student, there were centuries of evolution when
Methos began to develop, or nurture, the redeeming qualities (loyalty, courage,
independence, compassion, the occasional willingness to be vulnerable) that endear
him to us present-day. I should think those years, and that character, would be
tremendously fertile soil.
Wendy:
> A show about Methos could be more like the Sopranos, I suppose. ( Or
> The Shield or OZ etc) The lead character does horrible things but can
> be a nice guy. So part of watching is also knowing that eventually
> this bad man will have to pay for what he's done. Either the FBI will
> get him or a competitor will kill him. Either way, it won't end well.
Oh, man, do I hope you're wrong!! In fact, for me, it's the opposite. I watch almost
every episode of The Shield with the fear that THIS time everything will catch up to
Vic Mackey. I want him to get away with everything! Because he may be a
horrible, brutal man, but everyone else out there is even worse, so where's the
emotional justice in THEM winning??? :-)
And maybe that's the key to a show with Methos as the central character.
Wendy:
<snip>
> I just don't see it. ..unless they had changed Methos .And if they
> changed him what would have been the point?
They don't have to change him. The "Dark midnight of the soul" schtick worked
gangbusters for the other shows you brought up, not to mention Xena. In some of
the stories that flashed back to her darker past, she was as nasty a character as
Methos was. I think the Horsemen years on the one extreme, and the Duncan years
on the other, provide a natural framework for the vast, amazingly rich life that came
in-between. Bookends, so to speak, providing the beginning and ending points to
the character's evolution thus far, with the storyline being his journey from one to
the other.
The thing is, I don't know whether that's the story TPTB would want to tell. Duncan
McLeod was/is a hero, and that's what they seem to do best. Amanda was NOT a
hero; but they tried to make her over into one anyhow, and look how well THAT
turned out. They didn't HAVE to sanitize her (leaving aside the issue of what the
network was willing to buy), and they don't HAVE to sanitize Methos. I just don't
know if they want to spend every working moment, for as long as the show is on the
air, living and breathing that dark, mercurial, subtle anti-hero character. But if they
don't, it wouldn't be The Methos Show. It would be the Some Other Really Old Guy
Show.
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 2 Jun 2005 to 3 Jun 2005 (#2005-57)
************************************************************