No announcement yet.

Is Highlander stronger as a movie (or movie series) or TV show?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is Highlander stronger as a movie (or movie series) or TV show?

    What say you? Fundamentally?
    It's stronger as a single movie
    It's stronger as a movie series
    It's stronger as a TV show
    It's strongest as a combination of films and a TV show
    Highlander: Dark Places

  • #2
    The TV show is fine, but the central premise of Highlander is diluted by the presence of a franchise. Imagine if Warner Bros. had made a long-running Gremlins series. The creatures would have lost their initial impact. The concept would have become too familiar and tired. The dubious parts of the in-universe rules would have stood out more. Suspension of belief would have dissipated over time. That's what happened with Highlander. It's best in concentrated form, one-and-done.

    "Really? We are trapped in a room with a machine that can cut off my head. Now that's a longshot."
    --Connor MacLeod in Peter Bellwood's original Highlander II script


    • Tootsie Bee
      Tootsie Bee commented
      Editing a comment
      I should add that I'd be more inclined to pick the "TV show" option if Seasons 1-2 weren't so mediocre and if Season 6 didn't exist. So too, the "movie/TV combo" option would be more appealing if Endgame and The Source were any good, which they're not. And the "movie series" option speaks for itself: we either have a sequel that's practically a send-up of the original or one that's practically a remake of the original. Even if some of us like those movies, they don't need to exist, and they arguably hurt the first movie simply by existing.

  • #3
    It's almost a trick question for me. The TV series, in being popular, seems to mean that the writers felt they had to put off mentioning the Gathering. Eventually, it even meant they made The Source, effectively saying that "there can be only one" was really a misnomer. That is a cheat, to

    Of course, I understand the urge to get around "there can be only one" because, that statement being true, then every Immortal character except one has to die, and some by our hero's hands. And if that other person is the hero's true friend, or lover, and they don't want to kill each other… then the writers are in the awkward position of either forcing them to kill each other, or leaving us with a "So what would happen?" For example… Maybe the world is in such horrible shape not because of an inevitable disaster, but because the last immortals are not killing each other… ooooh.

    With the new Star Trek movies, I keep getting really annoyed that the writers like to mention adventures from the TV series as having taken place between movies. Spock and Kirk can get no friendship development, in the movies, really, because it has to take place between movies. Spock and Uhura's relationship, on the other hand, being the only way the current writers can seem to think of to give the female lead dialogue, has to have developments happen onscreen in the movie.

    So, for me, the TV series would be better because you have time for character development. And I was fine with the idea that the Gathering would happen over the course of years, and not oh my gosh we're down to the last three right now. And it would've been an excellent way to close out the series, with the Gathering actually happening, Yeah, that would've meant that someone we don't want killed would die… And it would not have been Joe except for drama. They could always use hit points and "did our character make their saving throw?" If they wanted to be semi realistic about it.


    • #4
      I liked the series because it allowed the writers to explore a lot of different issues that would have come up if there really were Immortals. And because the group of writers had some continuity, there was a lot more consistency to the HL universe over time, I didn't miss the Gathering plot line at all.
      “A sinner can always repent, but stupid is forever.”
      Billy Sunday


      • #5
        Just have an Immortal who wins the final battle of a gathering hear a voice during the quickening say...There can be only one immortal truth. Good must battle evil to maintain balance in the universe. Then show new immortals rising from death as well as seeing babies being found across the world. The game has just restarted. They can be new immortals entirely or reincarnated versions of old favorites. This also allows for the original actors to be the inner voice of the reborn immortal.

        I would also like to see any young actor that is playing a new version of an old favorite character have to spend time with the original actor to learn about their character and mannerisms. It would aid them in making the rebooted character more acceptable to the die-hard fans.


        • #6
          I have an issue with this "good and evil must maintain balance in the universe." I don't believe there is any such balance in the universe... I'd prefer a different reasoning. Movie 1 was pretty good. And perhaps the winner of the Prize has, each time, chosen to regenerate Immortals... Recently I theorized that the Source appeared because the last Immortals were NOT fighting each other.


          • #7
            The concept of Highlander lends itself to a one-and-done movie because of the tagline (there can be only one!) and the prize, but the reason this board is here is because of the series. So in a vacuum the first movie wins but the series did an excellent job exploring and expanding on the mythology of the first film, better than the sequels.

            As much as I hate voting for both that's what I have to do, although if the question were what makes the Highlander franchise strongest, I'd vote just TV series based on what is and what could be. Imagine what could be done with a Highlander TV series if they had half the budget of Game of Thrones: there would no need for any films.


            • #8
              The movies made a convoluted mess. The TV shows at least made sense.


              • dubiousbystander
                dubiousbystander commented
                Editing a comment
                Ahriman. And that's just the most obvious.

            • #9
              But not a "new" TV show: a rebroadcast of the original!


              • #10
                I preferred the shows myself, and use those as the basis for my own characters, vs the movie. I did, in my character's background, have an encounter with one of the McLeods in the First World War. They would have tried to kill each other, except both were caught in no-mans land, during an artillery barrage, which was considerably more dangerous than anything else, and neither wanted to raise their heads above the shell crater they were occupying at the time, so called a truce instead. I also personally tend to treat The Game and The Gathering as something more empowered by those Immortals who believe and participate in it, as opposed to being any kind of absolute, so it's kinda like religion that way--some believe, some don't, but life goes on regardless. This attitude more favors the show.