Endgame: 1992 & 2002 or 1994 & 2004? Weigh in!

[AndySloane]

Season 3's "Song of the Executioner" clearly states Joe's bar having closed in November of '94. Shortly thereafter, Duncan leaves Seacouver behind and moves to Paris again. Now, the only statement of Fitzcairn's passing as shown in the very next episode, "Star-Crossed", has him dying in '95, which is a good indicator that between November of '94 and March (?) of '95, Duncan could've arrived in Paris and left again before "Star Crossed", maklng that episode a "direct" follow-up to Rachel's death and Connor's disappearing, from a timeline perspective

Song of the Executioner and Star-Crossed are both in November 1994. Fitzcairn's death was exactly a week after Paul's.

The events of Methos are in March 1995.

I have the entire timeline for this season -- including the realities of Anne's pregnancy and Kalas' imprisonment -- all ironed out. Will share the info for those interested in such things.

The original premise of Endgame was that it was to coincide with the then-present day year of 2000, its present-day stuff being in December 2000 with the flashback being to December 1990, prior to Christmas. The official Highlander: Endgame website said as much.

But, as has been noted, Connor couldn't have been out and about with Duncan in August 1992 in The Gathering if he was supposed to have been in the Sanctuary from 1990-2000. This also would not allow for the events of Highlander III to take place. (But since the producers had purposely constructed the plot of Endgame to negate the plot of the third movie anyway because Endgame was supposed to be the true sequel to the first movie and the Series, per their own admission, I don't see a problem here.)

The producers didn't realize their timeline error until after the fact, and so they said on the DVD commentary that the dates were shifted by 2 years so as to be December 1992 for the flashback and December 2002 for the present-day stuff (not exact quotes, mind you). (Now, the whole idea that Duncan should be bothered by not having seen Connor in a decade is really preposterous, in my opinion; they were never joined at the hip after first parting ways in 1634, so I'm sure there were plenty of decades that went by in their lives where they didn't see each other. But whatever.)

With the assistance of the 1996 and 1998 Watcher Chronicles CD-ROMs, it was established in the Series that Duncan had permanently moved to Seacouver from Paris sometime between January and July 1988, where he stayed until February through June 1993. Then you had the requisite back and forth between Paris and Seacouver for Seasons Two through Five.

Moving the December 1990 flashback to December 1992 doesn't resolve the issue of Duncan not living/being in Paris at that time as his dialogue to Connor indicated that he did. Filming the Vancouver segment of Season One ended in November 1992 and filming of the Paris segment commenced in December 1992, but at times, the actual overall story they were creating didn't always line up with the dates of filming as revealed by the Watcher Chronicles.

In moving the December 1990 flashback to December 1994, you do solve the issue of Duncan's line of dialogue to Connor about him having been in Paris when Connor summoned him to New York, because, as noted above, Duncan left Seacouver for Paris in November 1994. I am actually onboard with this particular change, and it is fortunate that we can safely place that there.

However, I'm not too keen on moving the present-day stuff to December 2002 -- but especially to December 2004. If you leave it all in 2000, then it makes the stated 10-year span a mere 6 years, which is even more preposterous that Duncan would have cared that he hadn't seen Connor in such a small amount of time. But at least then the timeline could still otherwise be correct and you'd still have a valid setting in which the World Trade Center is still standing and folks drove cars with more feasible year models. If you move it to 2002 or 2004, then even more suspension of disbelief is required since no one is driving cars later than 1999 models even though you're saying that it's now 2002 or 2004 (to say nothing about the WTC still standing). Also to think about is the sign that Methos, Joe, and Duncan pass along the interstate on the way to Connor's supposed grave that mentions the Governor of Connecticut being John G. Rowland. Rowland was not the Governor of Connecticut after 1 July 2004, so we can't really say that these events were in December 2004.

The way to fix this, in my opinion, is to leave the present-day setting in December 2000 (as was its original intention), have the flashback be in December 1994, and create a fan edit of the film wherein Duncan tells Methos that his bloody nightmares occurred 6 years to the day from when Connor disappeared instead of 10. There is at least one instance of Duncan saying the number "6" in the Series, so I think it could work. Shouldn't be too hard to dub over, I wouldn't think. Aleander, you on this?

[Tootsie Bee]

Because that's what the words "Ten Years Ago" naturally refer to in a film.

[Nicholas Ward]

Why exactly does it matter when the movie came out?

[Tootsie Bee]

1990 and 2000. The screen says, "Ten Years Ago." The movie came out in 2000. Simple as that. Yes, it contradicts the TV series, but so does Kate. The easiest way to understand it is to regard the first episode of the show as semi-apocryphal, namely Connor's present day appearances.

[Aleander]

Look, lets forget HL3 for a moment.

The key, is the opening flashback sequence. Season 3's "Song of the Executioner" clearly states Joe's bar having closed in November of '94. Shortly thereafter, Duncan leaves Seacouver behind and moves to Paris again. Now, the only statement of Fitzcairn's passing as shown in the very next episode, "Star-Crossed", has him dying in '95, which is a good indicator that between November of '94 and March (?) of '95, Duncan could've arrived in Paris and left again before "Star Crossed", maklng that episode a "direct" follow-up to Rachel's death and Connor's disappearing, from a timeline perspective.

That's it. Anything else is just not relevatory. I mean, obviously Panzer liked the idea of 1992-2002 because that way, Endgame occurs roughly a decade after the show's premiere, but... is it really that important a difference?

THAT BEING SAID.... I'm a much, much bigger fan of the 1994-1999 idea that Tootsie Bee promoted a long time ago... and it makes sense to me, as it combines the above dating of the show WITH the film's release, which was a year after, in 2000. Makes sense to me.

[Andrew NDB]

What dates do you go with for Endgame's present and "10 years ago"?

As I recall, the original idea from TPTB was that it was 1990 and 2000 (I think those were even the dates on screen in the theatrical?), but that wouldn't work for the obvious reason of Connor's presence in "The Gathering" in 1992 in season 1. For the producer's cut it was changed to "10 Years Ago" and "Present Day," being more coy about things but with "the idea that it is 1992 & 2002." But that doesn't really work. The only Christmas time Duncan was in Paris was around "Star Crossed" in season 3, and that was 1994.

There is also the caveat that as long as Endgame is set in 1994 & 2004, it is fully compatible with Highlander 3 (minus the pesky talk about their being the last Immortals and all of that, but you have to minus that from the first movie, too, anyway).