No announcement yet.

Would Highlander Have Worked As Well Without a Definitive Conclusion?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by David McMurdo View Post
    With all this talk of the remake and how it's going to go about establishing a new Highlander universe, I've been thinking ("why are you smiling? Because I've been thinking?")—would the original film have worked as well if the Game hadn't been concluded?

    Personally, I think it could have. You could have the exact same film, minus any references to Connor and the Kurgan being the only two remaining. You could still have the same end scene in Scotland, except that instead of a monologue about what it's like to have the Prize, you could have a monologue about the relief of having overcome such an evil adversary, but also a statement about how the Game goes on and that there's no telling how long it'll go on for. So in that sense the film would have a definitive conclusion, because it's really about Connor's war with the Kurgan, but things are still left open for a sequel. In some ways I think that this could have been a superior way to end, because instead of closing everything off, you leave the audience with the knowledge that there are still immortals out there in the world. So even if a sequel never happened, it's still a cool bit of wonder to end on. It would fire people's imaginations.

    Any thoughts on this matter?
    I like that could have saved us a lot trouble if they had left an ambiguous ending.

    I would have ended with Connor not fully realizing what the Prize and The Game is all about.

    From what I understand that's the general idea the reboot is taking....tease the potential of the Prize while Immortals are slowly trying to figure out what the hell are they....I think