Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Andrew NDB
    started a poll Endgame: 1992 & 2002 or 1994 & 2004? Weigh in!

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

    9
    1992 & 2002
    11.11%
    1
    1994 & 2004
    77.78%
    7
    Something else (explain)
    11.11%
    1


    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).

  • Aleander
    commented on 's reply
    I doubt they went out of their way to differentiate it with the show. They just didn't care if the end result sat well with the show at all. Kind of different.

  • Hatter76
    replied
    Click image for larger version

Name:	NoHighlands.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	187.0 KB
ID:	4051 Bagh!

    Leave a comment:


  • Hatter76
    replied
    Dimension just want the damn money, they run things into the ground, didn't want to pay to film in Scotland either, it's a freaking Highlander Movie!, they do some 2nd unit Scotland shots of a stunt woman on a Horse, throw stock footage in there, mix it with the Romanian shot stuff, and pass it off as Scotland

    Leave a comment:


  • Tootsie Bee
    replied
    Dimension didn't even want to include Joe and Methos, lest the film be too closely tied to the TV series. Bill and Peter eventually won that battle, but they lost others.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hatter76
    replied
    oh hell, enough wit the universe this and that, WTC is only in it because it was standing when the movie was filmed and when it was released, if the movie had been filmed after 911, it would not have been in the movie, if the movie had been filmed before 911, and released after, there likely would have been an attempt to remove it from the film. the Present Day thing is always a joke in movies, especially when people get around to seeing a movie late, say 15-20 years late, present day don't set to well then. would be nice if a future release of the film actually clarified some dates onscreen, but then in addition it would be appropriate to digitally remove the WTC from certain shots, hell even during the final quickening in the movie it can be see in the NY Skyline.

    and the stuff of it being in a differn't Universe than the TV Series, rubbish, it was clearly meant to be the same universe, continuity just got screwed up, Lambert saying it wasn't a sequel to the TV Series means nothing, the dude was only in the Pilot Episode, and had to nothing to do with the rest of it, so it didn't exist for him the way it did for Adrian.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tootsie Bee
    commented on 's reply
    1542 was a very bad year.

    Catherine Howard was executed for adultery. Solway Moss drove James to an early grave. And Charles began a war with the king of France.

  • Aleander
    replied
    And yet, the official word is not on the film itself. Its the same argument about Ramirez's death - 1541 or 1542? Who cares, really. Personally I prefer the latter, cause it gives more time for Connor and Ramirez to bond, but either way, its not wrong when, say, a comic makes a reference to the latter date instead of the earlier date. Its a retcon, but not a visual one, and one thats not as offensive as you might think.

    That being said, I remember reading a curious interview with CL that said that very same thing - that the film wasn't a sequel to the TV or any of the film, but rather it just brought those two characters together in a story. To this day, I've no idea what he meant by it, and of course I can't verify it by now, but I do remember reading it. Strange.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tootsie Bee
    replied
    I think a core cause of the headaches is that the theatrical cut, at least, isn't really a follow-up to the TV series. It's a movie that borrows elements from the first movie and the TV series, which isn't exactly the same thing. Dimension didn't care whether or not Duncan had ever been married. They didn't care whether or not Connor appeared in the first episode. They were like Jacob Kell: "I don't care about the rules." That's why their website said that the movie happened in 2000. Bill and Peter, on the other hand, kinda-sorta cared, which is why their Producers' Cut is indeed a sequel to the TV series, albeit a flawed one that fails to fix all of the continuity problems that were introduced in the original version of the film.

    Leave a comment:


  • Leto II
    replied
    Especially given the Dynamite Comics series, which has the world falling into chaos and a massive nuclear detonation occurring in North Africa, in the year 2012, as part of the Duncan-verse. It's definitely divergent from our own at this point.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aleander
    replied
    No, I don't they intended that. However, its also too large an event to simply ignore or wave over. Its better to just see the Highlander universe as one that diverges from ours from around that point.

    Leave a comment:


  • Andrew NDB
    replied
    Originally posted by Aleander View Post
    2004 (or even 2002) and the WTC is seen in the background.

    There.
    Well, that's one of those things you have to just overlook. It's not like the producers foresaw the WTCs falling when they were filming in 1999, nor did they intend to make Endgame in an alternate universe where real life events don't happen.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aleander
    replied
    Originally posted by Andrew NDB View Post

    Why wouldn't it?
    2004 (or even 2002) and the WTC is seen in the background.

    There.

    Leave a comment:


  • Leto II
    replied
    Given that the Highlander universe is a completely fictitious universe (since Immortals don't exist in our world), it's not necessarily bound by our "own" history, which would open up totally new storytelling avenues for the creators, if they wish. Indeed, for example, we could get a story where, in the Highlander continuum, a group of Immortals managed to prevent 9/11 from even happening, which could go in all sorts of cool and interesting new directions afterwards.

    Leave a comment:


  • Andrew NDB
    replied
    Originally posted by Leto II View Post
    Yup, it's clear that 9/11 didn't happen the exact same way (or even at all?) in the Highlander universe,
    Why wouldn't it?

    Leave a comment:


  • Leto II
    replied
    Originally posted by Tootsie Bee View Post
    You just compared a movie with an onscreen date (albeit an obscure one) to a movie with a "Present Day" tag. I stand by my point.

    The closest thing we have to an onscreen date in Endgame *is* the WTC, tragically.
    It's the "present day" of the characters, in their fictitious universe, is the point I was making, there -- for example, in the Terry Gilliam film 12 Monkeys, the future era in which Bruce Willis's character resides decades hence is constantly referred to as the "present day," and there's even an onscreen title card referring to this as such. And there are other similar examples in movies and television, as well.

    In Hollywood, saying something occurs in the "present day" has long been an unreliable device for determining true narrative-chronology.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tootsie Bee
    replied
    You just compared a movie with an onscreen date (albeit an obscure one) to a movie with a "Present Day" tag. I stand by my point.

    The closest thing we have to an onscreen date in Endgame *is* the WTC, tragically.
    Last edited by Tootsie Bee; 06-28-2017, 05:50 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Leto II
    replied
    Originally posted by Tootsie Bee View Post
    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.
    But since when does a vague onscreen date ALWAYS have to conform to real life? This is a fictional universe, after all, and as such exists in a potential state of fictional timelessness, unconnected to the exact minutiae of "our" reality -- for example, many people instantly assumed that Terminator 2: Judgment Day must obviously take place in the "present day" of its year of release (1991), but in reality it occurs circa 1996-97, due to John Connor's age (plus the police-scanner data pulled up by the T-1000).

    To absolutely insist that an onscreen date automatically conform to year-of-release places a severe restriction on the storytelling techniques that the creators can bring to the table.

    Originally posted by Aleander View Post
    That's why, in my fan-edit, I fixed that, and made the line "five years to the day." That way, you have 1994 to 1999 without much of a fuss.

    But as it is, we just have to assume that the WTC wasn't demolished in 2001. That there wasn't a 9/11, at least not until later. Its a feasible assumption that has to be made given the visual circumstances. Also, Andy, the Watcher Chronicles show Fitz's death in 1995, I believe? I'm not certain.
    Yup, it's clear that 9/11 didn't happen the exact same way (or even at all?) in the Highlander universe, and indeed, why should be instantly assume that the two universes are necessarily identical in every single way anyhow? As we all know, the Immortals do not exist in "our" universe, which means that their fictional universe can deviate in ways both minor and significant from ours.
    Last edited by Leto II; 06-27-2017, 04:02 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nicholas Ward
    replied
    I think the point is to try and make things fit a well as possible, not remake the entire movie. (Although if Aleander finishes his Fan edit I'd probably reconsider) So 1994 to 2004 fits the best.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wilusa
    replied
    I advocate considering the years in question to be 1992 and 2002. Re using 1990 and 2000 because something in the "Present Day" showed the World Trade Center intact:

    I rewatched the Producers' Cut yesterday, and the only place I'm sure I saw it was in the shot identifying the "Present Day." (It had also been in the identifying shot for "Ten Years Ago," but that of course poses no problem.) I'm not sure whether one street-at-night shot included the WTC or other tall buildings. And I don't think I saw it in the night-ttime sequence where Duncan took Connor's head - if it was in the background, probably no one else would have seen it either.

    I certainly don't think that's any reason for using the years 1990 and 2000! We all have scenes we don't like, and would delete or change if we could. (With me, it's been the entire first scene in the Producers' Cut... the entire last scene...and the omission of Methos's original statement that the Sanctuary was on holy ground.) Now I'd also say that "Present Day" identifying shot should be cut, and some other scene be used with a simple voiceover for "Present Day." And to make the identifiers match, the same should be done with "Ten Years Ago."

    To make "1990 and 2000" work, we'd have to ignore the all-important pilot episode of HL:TS. We could only justiy that by considering HL:TS and Endgame as taking place in totally different universes. And then, we'd have a situation where the film wouldn't explain who Joe and Methos are, let alone how Duncan knows them! The very existence of the Watchers would be unexplained.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aleander
    replied
    It can't be very long. The film came out in 2000. And Joe's very close to his age in the show.

    Leave a comment:


  • Andrew NDB
    replied
    Originally posted by Aleander View Post
    That's why, in my fan-edit, I fixed that, and made the line "five years to the day." That way, you have 1994 to 1999 without much of a fuss.
    Well yeah, if you physically go in there and change spoken dialogue and stuff, it can be 1994/1999. It can be anything you want.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aleander
    replied
    Good point. Plus, Duncan knows what Rachel meant to Connor. He has no idea what did Connor do about it - did he flee, seek to persue the killer and die in the process? No clue.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tootsie Bee
    replied
    Originally posted by AndySloane View Post
    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.
    The Gathering wasn't occurring circa 1634. It was occurring in the 1990s, however. That's a potentially significant difference.

    But yeah, my preferred dates are December 1994/1999. Duncan is upset over Connor's disappearance because of Kalas, and the feeling never quite goes away.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aleander
    replied
    That's why, in my fan-edit, I fixed that, and made the line "five years to the day." That way, you have 1994 to 1999 without much of a fuss.

    But as it is, we just have to assume that the WTC wasn't demolished in 2001. That there wasn't a 9/11, at least not until later. Its a feasible assumption that has to be made given the visual circumstances. Also, Andy, the Watcher Chronicles show Fitz's death in 1995, I believe? I'm not certain.
    Last edited by Aleander; 06-11-2017, 04:29 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X