This could really be asked of the entire franchise of course, but I'm asking this question about the series specifically because it explored far more ideas. Everyone has those aspects that they really don't like whether it be an idea, a character, a particular episode, or what have you. These are my bugbears:
1: The Immortals as Foundlings. I really don't understand this. Most attributes of the immortals come about either so that their existence makes more sense or to get around obvious issues. So for example, they cant have children so that the writers never have to deal with them living alongside their bloodline down through the ages. But I cannot for the life of me figure out why they decided to make the immortals foundlings. I really don't like it. There's no reason they can't just have normal parents. I know it's implied, but is it ever explicitly stated that all immortals are foundlings? In my mind, Connor's mother in Endgame was his biological mother.
2: Dark Quickenings. I think that the problems with this one are fairly obvious. The idea allows for a different kind of story-arc, but I think it damages the mythology overall. Duncan was clearly possessed and ultimately not accountable for his actions during this period, so how do we know that other badguys aren't possessed in the same way? Maybe the Kurgan was a lovely guy but had just killed too many evil-doers. I think the Ahriman arc handled the issue of good and evil better, and I'm no fan of that either.
3: Holy Ground. The series established that immortals can't even hurt mortals on Holy Ground. I always thought that the sanctity of Holy Ground was tied in to the devastating effects of what would happen if a quickening occurred there, and this is strongly implied in the episode "Little Tin God" when Joe suggests that Vesuvius erupted because of a quickening. So I don't understand why immortals can't have a little scrap on Holy Ground or why they can't hurt mortals there. I think the films handle the idea of Holy Ground better. Connor and the Kurgan push each other around in the church. Connor and Katana push each other around in... that place. Connor and Kane have a full blown sword fight in the Buddhist shrine and Kane even stabs Connor's neck. And finally, Connor comes so close to beheading Kell on Holy Ground that he spills blood. If you say that the immortals can't fight at all on Holy Ground, well, define "fight". Imagine Connor grabbing the Kurgan's jacket in the Catholic chuch and accidentelly ushering in the apocalypse by doing so.
4: Kenny. Even back when I'd only ever seen the first film, I always kind of assumed that an immortal would have to be a certain age to come back to life after dying. Like with the Dark Quickening, the idea that someone can become immortal at any age kind of brings things to mind that I don't think should be part of the Highlander universe. I think that the writers didn't have one of the good guys kill Kenny off because they kind of knew that killing a kid wouldn't sit right with the audience no matter how sinister he was. But someone will have to do it sooner or later. I understand that writers want to try new ideas, but what I just mentioned is the kind of unnecessary dilemma that I think should be avoided by not introducing things like this.
5: The Four Horsemen. The episodes are fine, but I don't like those four characters being tied back to biblical material for the same reason I don't like magic or demons in the Highlander universe. And I say that as a Christian. I just think that these things belong in their own place. Highlander should remain exclusively about immortals, in my opinion.
6: The memories and emotions of the immortals. Okay, this one applies to the entire franchise, but I think it's weird. For example, In "Homeland", Duncan is still furious at the badguy for killing his father centuries earlier. But it's not like he targeted his father on purpose—he just happened to kill him during the course of warfare as was common at the time. In real life you have mortal people forgiving others who've intentionally murdered or maimed their loved ones, but Duncan can't be a bit more philosophical after four hundred years? This is one example of many of how the immortals don't really scale to normal people, if you know what I mean. Maybe they have REALLY exceptional memories and are REALLY sensitive.
7: Mickey. This is a bit more of an obscure one, but the conclusion of the episode "The Innocent" really bothers me. I just can't accept that Duncan and Richie are willing to behead a mentally impaired guy. It's not like he's evil or anything. He just can't help himself some times. I do always get a chuckle imagining Richie emerging from the tunnel now as impaired as Mickey was whenever I watch the episode though. Duncan's just like "oops, didn't know a quickening could do that." There's a fan-fiction waiting to happen.
Okay, those are mine! I was laughing a lot writing that. I think about Highlander too much to tell you the truth.
1: The Immortals as Foundlings. I really don't understand this. Most attributes of the immortals come about either so that their existence makes more sense or to get around obvious issues. So for example, they cant have children so that the writers never have to deal with them living alongside their bloodline down through the ages. But I cannot for the life of me figure out why they decided to make the immortals foundlings. I really don't like it. There's no reason they can't just have normal parents. I know it's implied, but is it ever explicitly stated that all immortals are foundlings? In my mind, Connor's mother in Endgame was his biological mother.
2: Dark Quickenings. I think that the problems with this one are fairly obvious. The idea allows for a different kind of story-arc, but I think it damages the mythology overall. Duncan was clearly possessed and ultimately not accountable for his actions during this period, so how do we know that other badguys aren't possessed in the same way? Maybe the Kurgan was a lovely guy but had just killed too many evil-doers. I think the Ahriman arc handled the issue of good and evil better, and I'm no fan of that either.
3: Holy Ground. The series established that immortals can't even hurt mortals on Holy Ground. I always thought that the sanctity of Holy Ground was tied in to the devastating effects of what would happen if a quickening occurred there, and this is strongly implied in the episode "Little Tin God" when Joe suggests that Vesuvius erupted because of a quickening. So I don't understand why immortals can't have a little scrap on Holy Ground or why they can't hurt mortals there. I think the films handle the idea of Holy Ground better. Connor and the Kurgan push each other around in the church. Connor and Katana push each other around in... that place. Connor and Kane have a full blown sword fight in the Buddhist shrine and Kane even stabs Connor's neck. And finally, Connor comes so close to beheading Kell on Holy Ground that he spills blood. If you say that the immortals can't fight at all on Holy Ground, well, define "fight". Imagine Connor grabbing the Kurgan's jacket in the Catholic chuch and accidentelly ushering in the apocalypse by doing so.
4: Kenny. Even back when I'd only ever seen the first film, I always kind of assumed that an immortal would have to be a certain age to come back to life after dying. Like with the Dark Quickening, the idea that someone can become immortal at any age kind of brings things to mind that I don't think should be part of the Highlander universe. I think that the writers didn't have one of the good guys kill Kenny off because they kind of knew that killing a kid wouldn't sit right with the audience no matter how sinister he was. But someone will have to do it sooner or later. I understand that writers want to try new ideas, but what I just mentioned is the kind of unnecessary dilemma that I think should be avoided by not introducing things like this.
5: The Four Horsemen. The episodes are fine, but I don't like those four characters being tied back to biblical material for the same reason I don't like magic or demons in the Highlander universe. And I say that as a Christian. I just think that these things belong in their own place. Highlander should remain exclusively about immortals, in my opinion.
6: The memories and emotions of the immortals. Okay, this one applies to the entire franchise, but I think it's weird. For example, In "Homeland", Duncan is still furious at the badguy for killing his father centuries earlier. But it's not like he targeted his father on purpose—he just happened to kill him during the course of warfare as was common at the time. In real life you have mortal people forgiving others who've intentionally murdered or maimed their loved ones, but Duncan can't be a bit more philosophical after four hundred years? This is one example of many of how the immortals don't really scale to normal people, if you know what I mean. Maybe they have REALLY exceptional memories and are REALLY sensitive.
7: Mickey. This is a bit more of an obscure one, but the conclusion of the episode "The Innocent" really bothers me. I just can't accept that Duncan and Richie are willing to behead a mentally impaired guy. It's not like he's evil or anything. He just can't help himself some times. I do always get a chuckle imagining Richie emerging from the tunnel now as impaired as Mickey was whenever I watch the episode though. Duncan's just like "oops, didn't know a quickening could do that." There's a fan-fiction waiting to happen.
Okay, those are mine! I was laughing a lot writing that. I think about Highlander too much to tell you the truth.
Comment