What's Wrong With Endgame?

[Andrew NDB]

Also, about the Producers' Cut's new opening scene: I remember Christopher Lambert's having said - despite the film's having been released in 2000 - that he thought its "present" should be 2002. Obviously, to preserve continuity with HL:TS: Connor had supposedly been in the Sanctuary for ten years, but we'd seen him with Duncan in the fall of 1992. But if we assume Season 1 of HL:TS unfolded in something at least close to real time, Duncan didn't relocate to Paris until about February of 1993!

See this thread: http://www.highlander-community.com/...-2004-weigh-in

It's definitely December, 1994.

It's only in the Rough Cut that we see what Connor was doing, after he "shook" Duncan: delivering a Christmas tree, anonymously, to an orphanage. Pointless. And probably dropped because the seasonal references were confusing. We saw somehing like a Christmas decoration atop, maybe, one building. But otherwise, it just looked like autumn.

There's also the business about it very, very obviously being a stunt double for Lambert that's doing the tree delivering. I like the idea of it (especially the payoff at the end, Duncan continuing the tree dropoffs... you know... Connor is still in there, somewhere), but the way they actually did it comes off a little dodgy.

[Wilusa]

To make my position clearer: In the film as released to theaters, Methos said the Sanctuary was on holy ground. Not surprising, considering how it was described. But then viewers saw Kell take heads in that Sanctuary, with nothing "bad" happening! I'm sure there were fan protests. There'd never been any ambiguity about holy ground - it was just about the only thing on which all Immortals supposedly agreed.

The producers' response: "Oh - in a new cut of the film, we'll just take out Methos's saying it was holy ground, and assume it wasn't!" But that wasn't a satisfactory response to the problem they'd created, because its not having been holy ground wasn't believable.

Also, about the Producers' Cut's new opening scene: I remember Christopher Lambert's having said - despite the film's having been released in 2000 - that he thought its "present" should be 2002. Obviously, to preserve continuity with HL:TS: Connor had supposedly been in the Sanctuary for ten years, but we'd seen him with Duncan in the fall of 1992. But if we assume Season 1 of HL:TS unfolded in something at least close to real time, Duncan didn't relocate to Paris until about February of 1993!

If we assume Duncan's having been in Paris, Connor's having asked him to come to meet him in New York - and then having brushed him off as cavalierly as he did - didn't make sense. If he wanted to keep Duncan safe from his unknown enemy, he shoudn't have asked him to come to New York at all! And if for some reason he'd decided to enlist Duncan's help - the only motive I can think of for having asked him to come - he should have done that immediately.

It's only in the Rough Cut that we see what Connor was doing, after he "shook" Duncan: delivering a Christmas tree, anonymously, to an orphanage. Pointless. And probably dropped because the seasonal references were confusing. We saw somehing like a Christmas decoration atop, maybe, one building. But otherwise, it just looked like autumn.

[Aleander]

But that's still more to him than with Kurgan, Kane, Katana, or Guardian.

Barely. At least Katana didn't want his rule to end, and wanted to secure his position as tyrant of Not Zeist forever.

He is a conflicted former priest with no interest in the Game or the rules, amassing a posse of other Immortals to little by little make Connor's life miserable while taking on little pet projects like Kate/Faith, yet still being able to command the loyalty of guys like Jin Ke.

He's not conflicted at all. He's pure, cheesy evil who spouts lame one-liners endlessly.

He's generally calm and collected, and a bit methodical in his planning.

I'm fairly sure Kurgan was calm and collected. The whole point of him kidnapping Brenda was that the Prize was so close and within his grasp, he lost composure and wanted to be over with it sooner rather than later. Hell, even Rachel says this.

His fighting is more tactical than "RAHHHHGHHH!!! SMASH!!" like Kurgan, Kane, or Katana. Somehow, he figured out about the Watchers.

The film is incredibly vague about him knowing about the Watchers. And while its not an invalid argument to say that he did, it also doesn't actually empower him as a character. I mean, a gypsy found out about them, so what?

And the fighting is also irrelevant. Aside from the fact that his fight scene with Connor is nigh unwatchable because of the constant one-liners spouting. Unbearable.

All of that alone puts him way above those guys.

In what way? He's a guy who used to be a Priest, who's now a loony with a gang. Sounds like a K'Immie with a touch of Kane (who also killed his follower).

Now, I'm not saying this makes him a BETTER character than Kurgan or the others, just a much more developed, multi-dimensional one.

Just because he has more character attributes, does not make him a multi-dimenstional character. He's literally a cartoon villain who chews the scenery endlessly. EXACTLY like all the others.

Because it's ingrained that well in them, even the really rotten ones. It works better when there's significantly less Immortals (ala H1 without the series) and less so with the world of the series where there's thousands, but it's one of the things I like most about Highlander that even they will respect it.

Realistically, all it takes is one bad egg. I will concede that it makes sense for it to be a tradition-only in a HL1-only reality, but for the show? You gotta have the supernatural. And is this even an argument after Ahriman AND the Abbott AND THE FUCKING Guardian?

[Andrew NDB]

And that's Kell, too. His motivation is barely a credible one. Connor killed his father? Yeah, right, after he baited him to come back and burn HIM and HIS MOTHER to the cross. Especially the poor old woman, who's a proud Scotswoman that would never deny her son and they knew it. Its his father's fault from bringing Connor back in the first place, especially if they knew he could SURVIVE DYING! That's like inviting Godzilla to dinner - you will be eaten, no matter what!

And its not that the motivation is flimsy, at best, its also that its a shaken and ludicrous foundation to making him a bad-ass Immortal that doesn't need to fight, but can when wants to. He effortlessly takes out a roughed up Connor, which is what Kurgan and Kane have done, too. He's literally one of the same.

But that's still more to him than with Kurgan, Kane, Katana, or Guardian. He is a conflicted former priest with no interest in the Game or the rules, amassing a posse of other Immortals to little by little make Connor's life miserable while taking on little pet projects like Kate/Faith, yet still being able to command the loyalty of guys like Jin Ke. He's generally calm and collected, and a bit methodical in his planning. His fighting is more tactical than "RAHHHHGHHH!!! SMASH!!" like Kurgan, Kane, or Katana. Somehow, he figured out about the Watchers.

All of that alone puts him way above those guys. Now, I'm not saying this makes him a BETTER character than Kurgan or the others, just a much more developed, multi-dimensional one.

But thats the point of it. Its not supposed to be a triumphant movie.

Nor is it supposed to depress audiences as some kind of art thing. They want people to actually go and see it.

Agreed. The show took a definitive stance on it, but the first film (and arguably the second) was purposefully vague about it, hinting at respectful tradition. But to quote Jer, how many Immortals can actually be respectful to that rule, out of novice? History is literally filled with endless tales of religious non-compliance and intolerance. If Immortals are part of the world, why would they respect the no-fighting-on-Holy-Ground, IF it wasn't an instinctive one?

Because it's ingrained that well in them, even the really rotten ones. It works better when there's significantly less Immortals (ala H1 without the series) and less so with the world of the series where there's thousands, but it's one of the things I like most about Highlander that even they will respect it.

I don't know how to use Quote, so I'm using copy-and-paste!

You just tap the Quote icon of the post you want to quote.

I don't understand what you mean. What I meant is that the most sensible explanation of what we saw is that there never were any consequences for killing on holy ground; but neither the Watchers nor any living Immortals (even Methos) had known that. So Immortals wouldn't have gone into a Sanctuary unless it was on holy ground - Watchers wouldn't have dreamed of asking them to - and fans seeing this film wouldn't accept the idea either!

Obviously, nothing startling happened when Kell took heads on holy ground. In reality, the writers hadn't given the issue enough thought. The way they could have gotten around it was by establishing that the Watchers, shocked by what they'd just learned, would subsequently try to keep more Immortals from learning the truth.

Maybe so, though that would seem a needless tangent in the movie.

[Wilusa]

I don't know how to use Quote, so I'm using copy-and-paste!

"Another possibility: there are no consequences of any kind for killing on Holy Ground. If Immortals really wanted to come and take the warehoused Immortals' heads there, they could, but the Watchers were betting that putting it on Holy Ground would deter the 99.999% of Immortals that would never break that rule, requiring the Sanctuary to only have minimal guards. Which it did.

"The removal of the line about Holy Ground probably had way more to do with keeping "the truth" about Holy Ground consequences ambiguous for fans than fixing any kind of "mistake." "

....................................

I don't understand what you mean. What I meant is that the most sensible explanation of what we saw is that there never were any consequences for killing on holy ground; but neither the Watchers nor any living Immortals (even Methos) had known that. So Immortals wouldn't have gone into a Sanctuary unless it was on holy ground - Watchers wouldn't have dreamed of asking them to - and fans seeing this film wouldn't accept the idea either!

Obviously, nothing startling happened when Kell took heads on holy ground. In reality, the writers hadn't given the issue enough thought. The way they could have gotten around it was by establishing that the Watchers, shocked by what they'd just learned, would subsequently try to keep more Immortals from learning the truth.

[Aleander]

Sadistic, one dimensional Immortal rage monsters that talk in a gravelly voice and don't have any motivation for what they're doing beyond they enjoy it and want the Prize. That's Kurgan, it's Kane, and Katana, too,

And that's Kell, too. His motivation is barely a credible one. Connor killed his father? Yeah, right, after he baited him to come back and burn HIM and HIS MOTHER to the cross. Especially the poor old woman, who's a proud Scotswoman that would never deny her son and they knew it. Its his father's fault from bringing Connor back in the first place, especially if they knew he could SURVIVE DYING! That's like inviting Godzilla to dinner - you will be eaten, no matter what!

And its not that the motivation is flimsy, at best, its also that its a shaken and ludicrous foundation to making him a bad-ass Immortal that doesn't need to fight, but can when wants to. He effortlessly takes out a roughed up Connor, which is what Kurgan and Kane have done, too. He's literally one of the same.

It made sense, it's just a bit odd. "Dahncan, I need to meet you!" So Duncan goes to meet him. "What's wrong, Connor?" "Nah-thing. I'll see you later, Dahncan!" and then Connor just wanders off. Strange.

Its part of the film's attempt to keep Connor mysterious... in a film where he has devolved into a living corpse and is a shell of his former self. Maybe not having be a McGuffin and actually build a character arc for him would be a much better idea instead of hinting at said development having occurred.

I found it kind of triumphant, personally. But this is before I ever saw the series. Taken simply as movie #4, I thought it was awesome... where Connor had all these lost loves that died their mortal deaths, he's Duncan reconnecting with his estranged Immortal wife and quite possibly enjoying a lifetime of happiness with her.

Maybe a little sappy, but I enjoyed it. Otherwise, the movie would be a rather depressing affair.

But thats the point of it. Its not supposed to be a triumphant movie. People pay for their mistakes. Duncan lost Kate because of what he did to her. Connor died because he "created" Kell and brought destruction on his own life as a result. Besides, wasn't that what Connor was supposed to be saying to Duncan? Life brings hope and pain, and maybe redemption. And Duncan understood that. Kate living, and reuninting with Duncan is a narrative mistake that cheapns the rest of this already miscalculated film.

At least the very original idea was of Kate forgiving him, kissing him, giving him the necklace and then leaving him behind. At the very least, that's much more in-character for both.

Another possibility: there are no consequences of any kind for killing on Holy Ground. If Immortals really wanted to come and take the warehoused Immortals' heads there, they could, but the Watchers were betting that putting it on Holy Ground would deter the 99.999% of Immortals that would never break that rule, requiring the Sanctuary to only have minimal guards. Which it did.

The removal of the line about Holy Ground probably had way more to do with keeping "the truth" about Holy Ground consequences ambiguous for fans than fixing any kind of "mistake."

Agreed. The show took a definitive stance on it, but the first film (and arguably the second) was purposefully vague about it, hinting at respectful tradition. But to quote Jer, how many Immortals can actually be respectful to that rule, out of novice? History is literally filled with endless tales of religious non-compliance and intolerance. If Immortals are part of the world, why would they respect the no-fighting-on-Holy-Ground, IF it wasn't an instinctive one?

[Andrew NDB]

He is. He's a super powerful baddie who's undone by a surprising move by the hero that leaves him speechless. He's also such a bad-ass that everyone cowers around him, and goes alternately slient or OTT silly in various cases. I don't see how he's original, other than not having the Prize in mind (which is a lie, because he just knows he'll have it one day). If you think the motive is what makes a Kurgan clone, then General Katana or The Guardian are neither, cause they really didn't give a shit about the Prize either.

Sadistic, one dimensional Immortal rage monsters that talk in a gravelly voice and don't have any motivation for what they're doing beyond they enjoy it and want the Prize. That's Kurgan, it's Kane, and Katana, too, minus the Prize stuff (and that's only because the Prize is fundamentally a different thing in H2).

]I think there were three big problems in the film...all in the Producers' Cut.

The new opening scene. I'm sure the idea was to let us see Duncan right away - great, in itself! But the actual scene made no sense at all.

It made sense, it's just a bit odd. "Dahncan, I need to meet you!" So Duncan goes to meet him. "What's wrong, Connor?" "Nah-thing. I'll see you later, Dahncan!" and then Connor just wanders off. Strange.

The new closing scene. I couldn't stand the character of Kate/Faith. (The character - no fault of the actress.) She should have stayed dead.

I found it kind of triumphant, personally. But this is before I ever saw the series. Taken simply as movie #4, I thought it was awesome... where Connor had all these lost loves that died their mortal deaths, here's Duncan reconnecting with his estranged Immortal wife and quite possibly enjoying a lifetime of happiness with her.

Maybe a little sappy, but I enjoyed it. Otherwise, the movie would be a rather depressing affair.

The removal of Methos's statement in the version released to theaters that the Sanctuary was on holy ground. Yes, the "holy ground" issue is a big problem! But it's unthinkable that Immortals would willingly have gone into a "Sanctuary" not on holy ground - or that the Watchers themselves would have risked such a thing.

Another possibility: there are no consequences of any kind for killing on Holy Ground. If Immortals really wanted to come and take the warehoused Immortals' heads there, they could, but the Watchers were betting that putting it on Holy Ground would deter the 99.999% of Immortals that would never break that rule, requiring the Sanctuary to only have minimal armed guards. Which it did. And if there WAS consequences on Holy Ground, why would they even need armed guards at all?

The removal of the line about Holy Ground probably had way more to do with keeping "the truth" about Holy Ground consequences ambiguous for fans than fixing any kind of "mistake."

[Wilusa]

I think there were three big problems in the film...all in the Producers' Cut.

The new opening scene. I'm sure the idea was to let us see Duncan right away - great, in itself! But the actual scene made no sense at all.

The new closing scene. I couldn't stand the character of Kate/Faith. (The character - no fault of the actress.) She should have stayed dead.

The removal of Methos's statement in the version released to theaters that the Sanctuary was on holy ground. Yes, the "holy ground" issue is a big problem! But it's unthinkable that Immortals would willingly have gone into a "Sanctuary" not on holy ground - or that the Watchers themselves would have risked such a thing. (The "explanation" I've used in my fan fiction: The "holy ground" idea was just something thought up by very long-ago Immortals, as a way of scaring other Immortals into not taking heads there. The Watchers are shocked when the Sanctuary killings don't have any bad effect - and for at least a decade or so, they'll try to kill any Immortals they think have learned the truth.)

[Colleengael]

I hated the false trailer which showed Kell with a multi-blade and Connor and Duncan leaping through a time portal like they were getting a chance to change something in their past. So excited to see a Connor and Duncan adventure. So disappointed with what we were given.

It was also hyped that Edge would be one of the bad guys. Unfortunately, F. Braun said, because he had bronchial pneumonia during the shooting schedule the insurance company would not let Edge work on the film until it was cleared up. At the same time Edge was healthy enough to work for the WWE during those weeks. They slipped Edge in as the highway bandit during a secondary shoot in Belgium when Christopher had a break while filming his next movie.

As for a wrestler in it...several wrestlers were in the original film and so I saw nothing strange about having a wrestler in Endgame.

[RainbowRaven]

I started my topic for stating the positives of Endgame, so now I'm starting one in which people can say what they didn't like about the film. Even though it's my favourite Highlander film, I can think of more than a few things that bother me.


1: Connor's curse. I really love the back story between Kell and Connor as far as the Highlands of Scotland go, but I really hate the idea that Kell has been killing all of Connor's friends and lovers down through the ages for the simple fact that it colours all of Connor's life and changes not only what we've already seen of his past, but what we imagined of it. It didn't need to be written this way.

2: The Sanctuary. This makes no sense to me. If you're an immortal who is sick and tired of the game, why wouldn't you just kill yourself? Remember that imprisonment in the Sanctuary is forever. Why would you ever choose this state of undeath over plain old death? And of course the Sanctuary only makes sense if it's built on Holy Ground, but then Endgame's plot wouldn't work, and I'm sure you all know that in the theatrical cut it was on Holy Ground but that they changed it for the Producer's Cut. The one thing that I do like about the Sanctuary concept is the idea that some rogue Watchers want to imprison immortals to keep the Prize from being won. That's a cool idea. But I think that the Sanctuary only makes sense if you have it that the immortals are abducted and kept there against their will, though that would have nothing to do with anything in Endgame's plot, aside from that minor bit where Duncan is captured.

3: Christopher Lambert looks old, and there's no real reason for it. I've seen even fairly recent interviews in which he looks much better than in Endgame. Bad hair and makeup is responsible here.

8: The JVC sign. In the theatrical cut there's a massive, distracting JVC sign in the background of the fight between Connor and Duncan. In the Producer's Cut they tried to digitally erase it, but only partially succeeded. On the DVD commentary the producers' claimed that no-one noticed it during filming, which may well be the most obvious lie ever uttered by a human. So you spent hours, possibly days setting up and filming this scene that involved complex choreography, but not one person on the crew noticed a giant, glowing, red sign overshadowing it all? Okay.

I think that's about it. I've restricted myself to being critical of what's actually in the film. If I were to talk about what I thought should have been done, I'd never finish this post.


So what do you dislike about Endgame?

1. I think I conveniently edited out "Connor's curse." You ever do that? Actively make a story make sense when it doesn't. Or maybe I wasn't paying attention. What stuck was a revenge plot that Kell finally had the resources to kick into high gear. The curse was hard to give credence to with the first movie and the series as a backdrop. Even Final Dimension. It sounded like an exaggeration meant to rattle Connor with Kell claiming more kills than he actually had. I could picture something more subtle; Kell selectively killing people throughout Connor's life, when Connor was most vulnerable and least expected it before receding into the shadows only to do it again years later and so on, creating a mystery that Connor could not understand, could easily chalk up to mortal crime and just generally lending a feeling of unease to his life. It makes sense that Connor would seek Duncan out as he's falling into despair, but once he had Duncan with him, why be cryptic and cagey? Duncan's a big boy at this stage so the excuse of protecting him makes no sense.

2. Sanctuary still makes no sense to me as a thing that the Watchers would run. It is obvious they meant for this to be on holy ground even if the version I watched (the one on Starz) didn't state it. How hard would wheeling out immortals to be killed have been to film? Also, was that needle up the nose necessary? Ick.

3. Yup Christopher Lambert looked old. And he's nearly the same age as Adrian Paul. Don't know what they were thinking. My love and I both thought he looked like Vigo The Carpathian after our first viewing of this movie. We virtually said it at the same time.

- I had an issue with Kate/Faith story line. Copied what I wrote in the other thread below:

The first question that popped into my mind when Kate/Faith came into the story was "didn't that fortune teller say Duncan would never marry?" Then I saw that the marriage took place before that fortune was read by his gypsy lover. Eh... It was a beautiful story but I found it hard to take seriously given the series context on marriage and Tessa's death. The story would have been better for me if the fortune teller had noted Duncan had married once but would never marry again. It offers a good explanation for why Duncan leans towards relationships with mortal women and not immortal women long term. Trauma. I wouldn't have minded a flashback or two to the gypsies.

8. I can only say, thank god I never saw the JVC sign version. I saw the YouTube clip further back on this thread. Wow. It is glaring. The version on Starz makes it unnoticeable but now I will always look to where it's supposed to be. So this actually wasn't product placement? Hahaha.

[Aleander]

Well, Culloden makes sense enough, as he's left Scotland, but visits Ireland because of how it reminds him of his home... I'd argue killing Kate is the breaking point for him, the point where he abandons even his Scots accent after this, and truly becomes a man of the world like his mentor.

But yeah, Duncan killing Kate out of the blue is still very uncharacteristic of him. At any age.

[Coolwater]

Oh wait, wait! That's where Highlaner: Veritas comes in! The Quickening was small because it wasn't a "complete" Quickening! Connor used illusion powers to make Duncan believe he'd taken his head, and then GAVE Duncan as much of himself as he could! Yeah, that's it.

Yeah, that's the ticket!

Seriously, every time I see the fan edits, I want Davis to sponsor a complete re-edit of the sequels by the "amateurs," because they're so much better than the stuff the pros cranked out.

Anyway, in addition to the things you've listed above, I want a complete rewrite of the Faithless story. Duncan murdering Faith without talking to her first was so out of character, that I can't even use Colloden as an excuse (and if that were it, he'd probably wouldn't be hanging out with the English enough to meet her, would he?). Douche isn't the word that comes to mind, but the words stupid and cowardly do, and while Duncan is occasionally stupid, he's not cowardly. And why didn't he at least nab her and explain things to her afterwards? Oh, right, because the writers hadn't read the canon enough to know that Faith couldn't have become pregnant.

Hmph.

[Aleander]

astonishingly bad editing

The film had six editors. Six editors, in total. Maybe seven, counting Panzer. Thats so many people with so many different ideas that clearly didn't gel. Even the Rough Cut, which I respect for at least showing scenes in full and allowing some pace within them, still is horrendously edited (then again, at least it is called the rough cut).

[Tootsie Bee]

"What does 'incompetent' mean?"

The problem with Endgame is that it was made by a first-time director with no distinct artistic vision, set in an unconvincing Romania-as-NYC, and written by a guy whose normal realm is the DTV sequel market. The bargain-basement effects and astonishingly bad editing didn't help, nor did the pathetic attempts to broaden the film's appeal with rappers and wrestlers in the cast.

[dubiousbystander]

always thought Connor's Quickening was too damn small, although as is it works within the context of the movie, but it doesn't work so well in the context of that Universe, the Quickening was also too short, but, that's the way the cookie crumbled.


I do wish I had finished My De-Aging Lambert project

Oh wait, wait! That's where Highlander: Veritas comes in! The Quickening was small because it wasn't a "complete" Quickening! Connor used illusion powers to make Duncan believe he'd taken his head, and then GAVE Duncan as much of himself as he could! Yeah, that's it.

[Aleander]

Also, the score might be the one area where The Source beats it. I don't dislike it, but Endgame's score just always seemed... meh. It tried to be epic, and to its credit its not a rehash of the show's score, but it just never elevated the material for me. Maybe its got to do with how some tracks where used in the movie. For instance, when Connor leaves Heather behind to go back to his mother, I replaced that cue that was in with another one, in my fan-edit, and I thought it did wonders for the scene, as it allowed the emotion to flow and evoke a more adventurous tone.

[Aleander]

He is. He's a super powerful baddie who's undone by a surprising move by the hero that leaves him speechless. He's also such a bad-ass that everyone cowers around him, and goes alternately slient or OTT silly in various cases. I don't see how he's original, other than not having the Prize in mind (which is a lie, because he just knows he'll have it one day). If you think the motive is what makes a Kurgan clone, then General Katana or The Guardian are neither, cause they really didn't give a shit about the Prize either.

[Andrew NDB]

Kell's indecisive and inconsistent portrayal (he's basically a Kurgan clone

What? He's literally the only Highlander sequel villain who is not, with some motive other than just Prize-winning. How is he a Kurgan clone?

[Hatter76]

C'mon, Duncan even got a levitating Quickening off Lord Byron. And whoever the heck he fought on that rooftop to avenge Little Deer with the spear.

This is Connor.

if I had my way, it wouldn't have been so "Inadequate" works within the Context of the movie in the sense that if you haven't seen anything else Highlander related

[Aleander]

I have several issues with the film, but the core problem stems from how fabricated and cliched the whore story is designed to be. For me, Connor's lacklustre characterization, Kell's indecisive and inconsistent portrayal (he's basically a Kurgan clone, but without the charm to back it up and with a lot more bad dialogue to spew out) and basically retconning Duncan into a murderious asshole is what drives me out of the film.

Now, they could have easily fixed all of those issues. It wouldn't be too hard. Like, for example, putting Duncan immediately after the Culloden fiasco, and BOOM, his murderous attitude immediately has added meaning, as we know what happened to him there. Sure, the audience will still think of him as a douche, but its a solution, provided we can't get around this rather insipid plot throw.

[Andrew NDB]

always thought Connor's Quickening was too damn small, although as is it works within the context of the movie, but it doesn't work so well in the context of that Universe

C'mon, Duncan even got a levitating Quickening off Lord Byron. And whoever the heck he fought on that rooftop to avenge Little Deer with the spear.

This is Connor.

[Hatter76]

always thought Connor's Quickening was too damn small, although as is it works within the context of the movie, but it doesn't work so well in the context of that Universe, the Quickening was also too short, but, that's the way the cookie crumbled.


I do wish I had finished My De-Aging Lambert project

[Nicholas Ward]

Either of which were also vastly different compared to Connor whereas Connor and Duncan did not differ that much.
(But that's my take on Quickenings)

[Andrew NDB]

It was too short. Just a few extra scenes added to expand on the story of Kell, the posse and to get a more natural flow between events.
I thought Connors Quickening was fine, but I can see why others would want it 'bulkier'.

He's got the Quickenings of Kurgan and Kane inside of him (to say nothing of all the others)... either of which alone was way, way more impressive than Connor's own Quickening in Endgame, let alone all combined.

[Nicholas Ward]

It was too short. Just a few extra scenes added to expand on the story of Kell, the posse and to get a more natural flow between events.
I thought Connors Quickening was fine, but I can see why others would want it 'bulkier'.