• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

  • Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here

Why They Can't They Leave Highlander Alone!!

The first movie was cool everything after that was bad but that animation is nice.
 
......what the **** to spider legged machine gun toting robots have to do with Hilander? Also, there wasn't any Queen music, so the trailer (and thus by nature of relation the film) is dead to me.
 
Personally, that looked kickass...
 
I hate to be the one to break it to some of you, but the original Highlander wasn't that great a film to begin with. It was ok, and that's about it.
 
I guess the only route left for the series to take is anime.
 
First was great (Queen also made awesome soundtrack), but sequels were bad.
 
Ugh....Animation was cool....but that's not highlander. For Christ's sake...he doesn't even have the right sword!!!
 
I been waiting for a decent Highlander remake for like ever :(
 
Movies205 said:
I been waiting for a decent Highlander remake for like ever :(

Why?!

The movie only came out in 1985. It's not like it's King Kong.
 
Cinemaman said:
First was great (Queen also made awesome soundtrack), but sequels were bad.
That's about the size of it.
 
Dr. Fate said:
That's about the size of it.

Making sequels to Highlander was the ultimate silly decision. Why did the producers, director, someone, anyone say, " Hold it....a sequel will ruin the original. The original ends the story, MacLeod is the one. But he's lived for thousands of years, so we can make movies set anytime between Connor's birth and 1985. Or, without Connor, we can do it with Ramirez, or make up immortals."

Imagine, if you will, a trilogy made backwards...Highlander in 1985, the middle movie in 1991 (instead of Highlander II) and the start of the trilogy in 1994 (instead of Highlander III). Think of all the stuff you could have....samurai, world wars, musketeers, Spanish civil war, pirates, you could go Last of the Mohicans....they could have done anything.
 
Link wouldn't work for me. But I suppose it would be nice to relive Highlander. I really miss the TV show,too.
 
Kevin Roegele said:
Making sequels to Highlander was the ultimate silly decision. Why did the producers, director, someone, anyone say, " Hold it....a sequel will ruin the original. The original ends the story, MacLeod is the one. But he's lived for thousands of years, so we can make movies set anytime between Connor's birth and 1985. Or, without Connor, we can do it with Ramirez, or make up immortals."

Imagine, if you will, a trilogy made backwards...Highlander in 1985, the middle movie in 1991 (instead of Highlander II) and the start of the trilogy in 1994 (instead of Highlander III). Think of all the stuff you could have....samurai, world wars, musketeers, Spanish civil war, pirates, you could go Last of the Mohicans....they could have done anything.


Thats what I always thought.
 
That reminds me there was a sequence cut from the film showing Connor saving Rachel back in WW2.
I personaly think that would be a great movie in its own.
Highlander v.s Nazis.
 
Kevin Roegele said:
But he's lived for thousands of years, so we can make movies set anytime between Connor's birth and 1985. Or, without Connor, we can do it with Ramirez, or make up immortals."

connor was only alive for 400 years. "i am connor macleod of the clan macleod. i've lived for nearly 4 centuries and i cannot die..." and so on and so forth. but your trilogy idea still works.
 
Kevin Roegele said:
Why?!

The movie only came out in 1985. It's not like it's King Kong.

A remake should remake something that had a good concept but was poorly executed. I know you love Highlander but it's merely a mediocre movie plastered with the 80s. It'd be cool if someone with some vision took the property and completely reworked the idea. Like just take the core concept there there are these immortals who walk the earth and they are fighting each other for a grand prize they don't know, but forget everything else and start all over again. Just my two-cents... I think that'd be cool because you wouldn't be ****ting on fans of the original highlander because it something completely different, and you'd actually be introducing something new to the general public.
 
Movies205 said:
A remake should remake something that had a good concept but was poorly executed. I know you love Highlander but it's merely a mediocre movie plastered with the 80s. It'd be cool if someone with some vision took the property and completely reworked the idea. Like just take the core concept there there are these immortals who walk the earth and they are fighting each other for a grand prize they don't know, but forget everything else and start all over again. Just my two-cents... I think that'd be cool because you wouldn't be ****ting on fans of the original highlander because it something completely different, and you'd actually be introducing something new to the general public.

I would say that the original Highlander was above mediocre. It was an enjoyable popcorn flick, but it wasn't really groundbreaking. A nice cult film.

From what I saw of HL2, it didn't really make much sense or interest me. I never saw HL3, though it looked like it might be better than 2. Watched a little of HLE, but it didn't do much for me either.

Also, I never really got into the Highlander TV shows. I'm not much of an Adrian Paul fan. I preferred Christopher Lambert.

So, I said all that, to say this. I think Highlander could be remade or reimagined because the concept is a good one, but the execution has been haphazard.

Now, with the virtue of hindsight, somebody with talent and vision could go back and redo the HL saga and make it cogent.

The old fans would still have the original movies and TV shows, but new fans might be able to get into HL without worrying about the muddled mythology and baggage.
 
Why must it be a saga? Simply make one damn good movie and leave it at that, the concept is "There can only be one!" am I correct? It's completely ******ed to have sequals.
 
Kevin Roegele said:
Making sequels to Highlander was the ultimate silly decision. Why did the producers, director, someone, anyone say, " Hold it....a sequel will ruin the original. The original ends the story, MacLeod is the one. But he's lived for thousands of years, so we can make movies set anytime between Connor's birth and 1985. Or, without Connor, we can do it with Ramirez, or make up immortals."

Imagine, if you will, a trilogy made backwards...Highlander in 1985, the middle movie in 1991 (instead of Highlander II) and the start of the trilogy in 1994 (instead of Highlander III). Think of all the stuff you could have....samurai, world wars, musketeers, Spanish civil war, pirates, you could go Last of the Mohicans....they could have done anything.
I hear that.

Woe the Highlander, woe.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"