Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Series VS Movie question

0 views
Skip to first unread message

LAB

unread,
Sep 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/13/00
to
<<There seems to be fundamental differences between the series and the
movies.>>

Oh, just a few <EG>

<<Can anyone tell me about the
status uf the Gathering, and the Prize, and all the stuff from the first
film that don't seem to have any relevence now...>>

They have no revelance now :) Actually, season 1 starts out saying, "Now is
the time of the Gathering" I think. (I know if I am wrong, it *will* be
pointed out!)

There can still be only one, supposedly, however, the Prize is never
discussed!


Simon Brown

unread,
Sep 13, 2000, 7:49:47 PM9/13/00
to
I've never seen the series...I *think* it was on here very late at night,
but only the first season...

There seems to be fundamental differences between the series and the movies.

I *did* see the series first episode, and I assumed the series was set
around 1985, about a year before the Gathering. Can anyone tell me about the


status uf the Gathering, and the Prize, and all the stuff from the first
film that don't seem to have any relevence now...

Simon

HiRene23

unread,
Sep 13, 2000, 11:44:03 PM9/13/00
to
><<Can anyone tell me about the
>status uf the Gathering, and the Prize, and all the stuff from the first
>film that don't seem to have any relevence now...>>
>
>They have no revelance now :) Actually, season 1 starts out saying, "Now is
>the time of the Gathering" I think. (I know if I am wrong, it *will* be
>pointed out!)
>
>There can still be only one, supposedly, however, the Prize is never
>discussed!

Like Lisa pointed out, the Prize just doesn't have the same relevance in the
series as it did in the films. The series still acknowledged the Prize on
occasion but the emphasis was more on the the immortal life of Duncan Macleod
and the unique perspective it gave us on some of life's BIG issues. The series
was the story of the journey, with the ultimate destination being a secondary
concern.

I don't think it can be said that the Prize is totally irrelevant, after all
that is the foundation for TCBOO. Besides, without it we wouldn't have had all
those really cool swordfights. <g>


Rene

Simon Brown

unread,
Sep 14, 2000, 2:28:58 AM9/14/00
to
> I don't think it can be said that the Prize is totally irrelevant, after
all
> that is the foundation for TCBOO. Besides, without it we wouldn't have
had all
> those really cool swordfights. <g>

OK, so Connor never got the Prize, and Kurgan wasn't the second-last
immortal...right?

The series obviously didn't end with Duncan's death, so does Endgame follow
straight on from the end of the series?

And what happened to the second series, The Raven? Didn't do well?

Simon

Claire Maier

unread,
Sep 14, 2000, 2:16:43 AM9/14/00
to
Simon Brown (manonf...@yahoo.com) wrote:

: OK, so Connor never got the Prize, and Kurgan wasn't the second-last
: immortal...right?

Yeppers. See, here's what happened.

The first HL film ended with no immortals. Connor had won the Prize,
become mortal, and all the other immies were dead.

Not very good for sequels, huh? But they tried to make one anyway. It
was Highlander 2: The Quickening, the movie that makes Star Trek V (the
one written and directed by Shatner) look wildly popular by comparison.
HL 2 was set in the future and immortals were from Zeist. Even Panzer
wasn't happy with it.

So, on with a series. Well, it had to be before the Prize was won. So
they set it in the present (and yes, they timestamped it; there was a
flashback to 1989 that was "3 years ago"). They had the Gathering still
going on at that time.

In the second year, they established that Connor had killed the Kurgan in
1985, as in the movie. Obviously, they weren't the last two immortals.
Also, starting in the second year of the series, they dispensed with any
mention of the Gathering. The time when there would be only one immortal
was set in the indefinite future.

Meanwhile, they did a third movie. Forget the events of HL2. HL3 was a
direct sequel to HL 1.

The series ended after 6 seasons. Endgame was written as a "pass the
torch" movie shifting the movies from Connor to Duncan. Sort of like the
shift from Kirk to Picard in Star Trek: Generations. HL:Endgame is in the
series continuity, barring some canon discrepancies.

: The series obviously didn't end with Duncan's death, so does Endgame follow


: straight on from the end of the series?

With a few intervening years, yeah. The series ended in 1998. HL:E seems
to be set in 2002, perhaps a bit later.

: And what happened to the second series, The Raven? Didn't do well?

It didn't. It ran one season, and was not renewed.

--
Claire Maier, Ph.D. bioa...@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

ogam...@my-deja.com

unread,
Sep 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/14/00
to
In article <8ppqgb$jeu$1...@jet.cc.emory.edu>,

bioa...@emory.edu (Claire Maier) wrote:
>
>
> >
> Meanwhile, they did a third movie. Forget the events of HL2. HL3
was a
> direct sequel to HL 1.


But you can go ahead and dismiss what happens in HL3 as well :)


>
> >
> : > --


> Claire Maier, Ph.D. bioa...@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
>


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Simon Brown

unread,
Sep 14, 2000, 8:03:14 PM9/14/00
to

> > >
> > Meanwhile, they did a third movie. Forget the events of HL2. HL3
> was a
> > direct sequel to HL 1.
>
>
> But you can go ahead and dismiss what happens in HL3 as well :)

Why? As long as it's understood that Connor still doesn't have The Prize at
the end, 3 works doesn't it? If Connor loses his head in Endgame, then only
2 can really be wiped out...

yes? no? maybe?

Simon

>
>
> >
> > >
> > : > --


> > Claire Maier, Ph.D. bioa...@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
> >
>
>

ogam...@my-deja.com

unread,
Sep 14, 2000, 8:32:57 PM9/14/00
to
In article <SDcw5.51061$c5.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>,

"Simon Brown" <manonf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >
> > > Meanwhile, they did a third movie. Forget the events of HL2. HL3
> > was a
> > > direct sequel to HL 1.
> >
> >
> > But you can go ahead and dismiss what happens in HL3 as well :)
>
> Why? As long as it's understood that Connor still doesn't have The
Prize at
> the end, 3 works doesn't it? If Connor loses his head in Endgame,
then only
> 2 can really be wiped out...
>
> yes? no? maybe?
>
> Simon


HL3 can be wiped out because it makes about as much sense as 2. The
errors aren't quite as awful and glaring in HL3 as they are in HL2
though. As far as the Movie Continuity is concerned, HL1 is the only
one that matters.

0 new messages