Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What Aspects of the Series Didn't You Like?

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

  • David McMurdo
    started a topic What Aspects of the Series Didn't You Like?

    What Aspects of the Series Didn't You Like?

    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.
    Last edited by David McMurdo; 05-19-2017, 08:02 PM.

  • TheWolfEmperor
    replied
    Originally posted by somecallmejames View Post
    To me, (other than the continuity errors with the original movie), it was it's tendency to kill off good characters in horrible ways:
    -James Horton was killed multiple times before they finally settled on a definitive death.
    -Charlie De Salvo got a good send off in season 3, just to come back and be killed for no good reason in season 4.

    AND of course.

    -Richie, he got the worst death of all. He just stands there like an idiot while Duncan chops his head of (even though he had already fought Duncan in the previous season), then again, that whole story-line was terrible.
    Knowing that Season 6 was basically the season of test screenings for potential female leads of a new series, I kind of wonder if Season 5 was the intended end of the series. Like how Babylon 5 wrapped up all of its story lines in season four because J. Michael Strasinsky didn't think there was going to be a season 5.

    Leave a comment:


  • somecallmejames
    replied
    To me, (other than the continuity errors with the original movie), it was it's tendency to kill off good characters in horrible ways:
    -James Horton was killed multiple times before they finally settled on a definitive death.
    -Charlie De Salvo got a good send off in season 3, just to come back and be killed for no good reason in season 4.

    AND of course.

    -Richie, he got the worst death of all. He just stands there like an idiot while Duncan chops his head of (even though he had already fought Duncan in the previous season), then again, that whole story-line was terrible.

    Leave a comment:


  • dubiousbystander
    replied
    Originally posted by Saber Dog View Post

    Also, let's not forget Kyra. When he challenges her with the pipe she did well against Duncan and in the end made short work of a male immortal.
    Except that Kyra was part of the season 6 sudden plethora of female Immortals, mostly clumsily written in an attempt to make a spinoff without Amanda.

    Leave a comment:


  • dubiousbystander
    replied
    Ah, and let's not forget Irena Galati. So utterly helpless we have a scene in the episode dedicated to her getting raped.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheWolfEmperor
    replied
    1: Continuity in a series with multiple writers is always going to be shaky. The Foundlings concept doesn't bother me so much because it gels well with the other pseudo-mystical aspects of the story like the Methuselah Stone, certain immortals having advanced powers of persuasion and prophecy, the Ahriman legend, etc. That I being said, I don't like the constant character shield that surrounds Duncan. I get he's the main character and you can't have a show called Highlander without a Scottish Immortal from the Highlands but it's not just the way he seemingly avoids death that got to me. It was the way that he was always morally justified in any given situation. How many other immortals were "punished" for the same things he got away with? A minor example is when Richie tries to have his own family and Duncan pressures him to walk out on them. Duncan has had countless lovers and he has been a surrogate father to many children, with all of the same dangers Richie faced. And he's taken revenge on the people who took those lovers from him. So why couldn't he just let Richie figure stuff out for himself? Heck, Richie might actually have lived longer if he had remained with what's her face and the kid.

    2: I agree with another poster about the sexism. Two female immortals are killed in the opening act in the least believable way possible - one of whom was allegedly Duncan's teacher at one point. Go figure.

    Leave a comment:


  • Muireannpendrgon
    replied
    Originally posted by dubiousbystander View Post
    Moreover, any time you have oracles, you really need to keep them vague. Highlander child born on the Solstice... *sigh*
    True it's better if prophecys are vague since you never know how they will turn out.

    Leave a comment:


  • dubiousbystander
    replied
    Moreover, any time you have oracles, you really need to keep them vague. Highlander child born on the Solstice... *sigh*

    Leave a comment:


  • Coolwater
    commented on 's reply
    But I don't accept what Garrick did. Duncan just has sporadic bouts of insanity, that's all. I have to admit that I love the scene where Duncan downs the whole bottle of pills. Temporary suicide as a way of getting some rest is novel.

  • dubiousbystander
    commented on 's reply
    Same way Garrick did. If you accept what Garrick did, then you can accept this other guy. Or, I suppose, gal.

  • Coolwater
    replied
    Yes, but HOW?

    Leave a comment:


  • dubiousbystander
    replied
    Originally posted by Coolwater View Post
    I didn't mind the ep where Rich got killed because you could argue that Duncan went right round the bend. Ditto the one with Steven Webber as the the Im that was trying impose dreams on Duncan while he was awake. if we assume Duncan is skippy in the head, we can skip the magic.
    Again, I want Ahriman to prove to be a mad Immortal imposing dreams on Duncan (and his associates) while he was awake! Heh.

    Leave a comment:


  • Coolwater
    replied
    I didn't mind the Immy of the week, although some of the WOWS were pretty awful. I'm one who loathed the addition of the magical stuff. To me one of the pleasures of HL was that you had these Immortals running around an otherwise natural, rational world. Prior to the introduction of magic in the stories, the storyline had to make sense. Once you have magic, the plot introduces a straw man in the form of a predicted fate or destiny or in the form of a magic imbued object. After that the plot becomes predictable running around until the magic "works" and the fate comes about. And isn't it amazing that the magic won't work until three minutes before the end of the episode? Bah.

    I didn't mind the ep where Rich got killed because you could argue that Duncan went right round the bend. Ditto the one with Steven Webber as the the Im that was trying impose dreams on Duncan while he was awake. if we assume Duncan is skippy in the head, we can skip the magic.

    Leave a comment:


  • Haplo
    replied
    I now something mentioned the episodic nature of the show but I wanted to make a more precise gripe than that. I hated the Immy of the week thing. Are there really that many Immortals running around that particular part of the Pacific NW town (whether it's actually Seattle or Vancouver) and the particular part of Paris for Duncan to run into them and fight constantly? All three cities are fairly big and there should be plenty of room for two Immortals to live there without accidentally running into each other.

    Leave a comment:


  • Muireannpendrgon
    replied
    Originally posted by Saber Dog View Post

    Was that a rule for immortals or a restriction in the religions?
    I have no clue.

    Leave a comment:


  • Saber Dog
    replied
    Originally posted by Muireannpendrgon View Post

    I couldn't agree more. I also hated the fact that a male immortal could be a priest or shaman but not a woman. Plus it would have been really neat to see more magic.
    Was that a rule for immortals or a restriction in the religions?

    Leave a comment:


  • Saber Dog
    replied
    Originally posted by Gardner View Post
    What I dislike about the show is the treatment of Immortal women treated as wimps, as defeseless before the swords of male Immortals, i.e Rebecca, May-Lign, Grace. They lived for centuries and to survive in the Game would have developed more than one survival skill. Remember the female is the deadliest of the species in many cases; and when they are the equals of Duncan MacLeod, they are either a murdering b*** like Felicia Martins or a thief like Amanda. Even with Alex Raven : Duncan tries to sleep with her, thus trying to impose his sexual power over her as he did to Ceirdwyn.
    I think Grace was unique in that she'd made a moral choice. You can't say she lacked courage. She didn't hide on holy ground.

    I would say that Ceirdwyn was no wimp and a match for Duncan in force of character. They each helped the other when they needed it.

    Also, let's not forget Kyra. When he challenges her with the pipe she did well against Duncan and in the end made short work of a male immortal.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aleander
    replied
    That's basically the reason why I disliked Amanda not beating Luther. She simply should've, to prove a point.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gardner
    commented on 's reply
    A druidess would have done the trick. Cassandra as the oracle of Delphi, for instance.

  • Muireannpendrgon
    replied
    Originally posted by Gardner View Post
    What I dislike about the show is the treatment of Immortal women treated as wimps, as defeseless before the swords of male Immortals, i.e Rebecca, May-Lign, Grace. They lived for centuries and to survive in the Game would have developed more than one survival skill. Remember the female is the deadliest of the species in many cases; and when they are the equals of Duncan MacLeod, they are either a murdering b*** like Felicia Martins or a thief like Amanda. Even with Alex Raven : Duncan tries to sleep with her, thus trying to impose his sexual power over her as he did to Ceirdwyn.
    I couldn't agree more. I also hated the fact that a male immortal could be a priest or shaman but not a woman. Plus it would have been really neat to see more magic.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gardner
    replied
    What I dislike about the show is the treatment of Immortal women treated as wimps, as defeseless before the swords of male Immortals, i.e Rebecca, May-Lign, Grace. They lived for centuries and to survive in the Game would have developed more than one survival skill. Remember the female is the deadliest of the species in many cases; and when they are the equals of Duncan MacLeod, they are either a murdering b*** like Felicia Martins or a thief like Amanda. Even with Alex Raven : Duncan tries to sleep with her, thus trying to impose his sexual power over her as he did to Ceirdwyn.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wilusa
    replied
    I just remembered the thing I disliked most about the series! Maybe not surprising, given the type of thing it is - no one else has mentioned it either. It's our having had to pretend that Vancouver, British Columbia, was really a U.S. city - eventually, with the ridiculous name "Seacouver." I assume there was some convoluted legal, contractual reason why it had to be "disguised" as a U.S. city. But the producers never should have let some subset of fans pick a name for it...accepted a silly squashing together of parts of the words "Seattle" and "Vancouver"...and made it official by using the resulting name in - I think it was a sign posted on a wall - in an episode.

    Leave a comment:


  • dubiousbystander
    commented on 's reply
    I decided to dedicate myself to the idea I read in at least one fanfic: Ahriman is really just a powerful psychic Immortal, and Duncan burnt him out.

  • Aleander
    replied
    Originally posted by dubiousbystander View Post

    Well, that's pretty much what happened to Rebecca, May Ling, Sean Burns...
    Well, not quite. Rebecca and May Ling knew it was coming, and may Ling and especially Sean Burns were shocked that they were going to die the way they were. Richie seemingly didn't even try to defend himself against a raging lunatic waving his sword around like a real nutcase, screaming obscenities. Talk about horrible writing - they should've just had him hold a sign like Willie Coyote that said "BEHEAD ME, PLEASE" and be done with it.

    See, its not just the concept of magic and especially of a demon roaming the centuries that's stupid. Its the writing that accompanies it that makes it especially idiotic. Stuff like the above in inexcusable, because its simply a means to an end.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wilusa
    replied
    I don't see why anyone should "dislike" such concepts as all Immortals being foundlings, beheadings on holy ground having catastrophic consequences, or one you didn't mention, belief that one last Immortal will triumph in a future "Gathering." Every fan should be willing to acknowledge the existence of a universe in which some - though undoubtedly not all - Immortals believe these things (while others live and die without ever hearing of them). And then, every fan can decide for himself or herself whether, in their view of that universe, the concepts are true, or simply myths. Some of us incline more to fantasy, others to quasi-"realism."

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X