Highlander remake on the way
- Thread starter Dream
- Start date
My personal Highlander Universe includes the following:
Highlander (1986)
And... that's it.
I think he just made that other stuff up. There was only ever the one Highlander movie.
It was so obvious that the first movie was never suppose to have sequels. Connor WON the Prize. What the hell is there worth telling after that? Of course we got Highlander II next...
Truth. Would've been better off with the movie and the TV series but dey just hadda follow da money!
Last edited:
It would have been okay, sort of, if they'd just acknowledged that they messed up with Highlander II and completely ignored it in all facets. But then they went and screwed everything up again when they placed Highlander III in yet another continuity, rather than placing it in the continuity of the TV series (which was airing at the time).
I'm sure there's someone out there. There's always one. 
For me, personally, I consider Highlander III to be semi-canon, meaning Connor studied under Nakano and fought a Mongol Immortal named Kane, but (like with the first movie) they weren't the last two.
I consider Highlander II to be a drug-addled dream of Connor's, induced by the stuff the Watchers had him on when he was in the Sanctuary.
For me, personally, I consider Highlander III to be semi-canon, meaning Connor studied under Nakano and fought a Mongol Immortal named Kane, but (like with the first movie) they weren't the last two.
I consider Highlander II to be a drug-addled dream of Connor's, induced by the stuff the Watchers had him on when he was in the Sanctuary.
III is a terrible film, it's just a rehash of the first one without Ramirez, and it is horribly paced, with naff dialogue and below par special effects. The only reason it isn't constantly ragged on as an awful Highlander sequel is because it lacks the absurdity of the second one, making it instantly forgettable.
For all its faults in terms of taking outrageous liberties with the concept, Highlander II is a much better movie. At least it had some well played villains in the form of John McGinley and Michael Ironside and some interesting visuals and ideas about the future. Highlander III has virtually nothing to redeem it.
For all its faults in terms of taking outrageous liberties with the concept, Highlander II is a much better movie. At least it had some well played villains in the form of John McGinley and Michael Ironside and some interesting visuals and ideas about the future. Highlander III has virtually nothing to redeem it.
Highlander III is the equivalent of Escape From LA to the original's Escape From New York. Only without the rather awesome twist ending. It's bad in the sense that it's aggressively mediocre. I think the main problem with it is that it treats itself like just another installment in a series, when Highlander (the films, that is) does not lend itself well to a "series" form at all. The story ended in the original Highlander, so anything to follow that would have to basically start a whole new story in a new direction. That was basically the only thing that Highlander II got right -- I disagree that III is worse, though, because while II's approach was correct, its execution was just awful. II was actually terrible, but III was merely bad.
(And no, I didn't find Michael Ironside or John C McGinley impressive. Ironside was just coasting through, doing his normal Ironsidey thing, nothing special. McGinley was surprisingly awful -- I mean, I've seen Scrubs so I know he can act, but he just could not act in Highlander II! It was amateurish.)
I don't hold with that whole "semi-canon", "personal canon" stuff when it comes to Highlander. The different movies and series are irreconcilable anyway, so there's no point in trying to string them together. Trying to fit any of the first three films with the TV series is like trying to fit Smallville into the continuity of the Superman film directed by Richard Donner.
(And no, I didn't find Michael Ironside or John C McGinley impressive. Ironside was just coasting through, doing his normal Ironsidey thing, nothing special. McGinley was surprisingly awful -- I mean, I've seen Scrubs so I know he can act, but he just could not act in Highlander II! It was amateurish.)
I don't hold with that whole "semi-canon", "personal canon" stuff when it comes to Highlander. The different movies and series are irreconcilable anyway, so there's no point in trying to string them together. Trying to fit any of the first three films with the TV series is like trying to fit Smallville into the continuity of the Superman film directed by Richard Donner.
There can be only one!I'm sure there's someone out there. There's always one.
Come now, the scene where Ironside crushes McGinley's balls and throws him out of a window was great
I agree with you that Connor should be portray by a relatively young actor, and not that I was pimping Butler for the role. I had just heard a while back that he was sort of being considered, and I was curious if that rumor was still circulating.
Maybe the best answer is a relative unknown, who could come into the role without a lot of conceptions about their previous work. At best, I'm just hoping for something that stays relatively true to the original film's premise.
Vincent Cassel should play Connor and Iain Glen should play Ramirez.
Hey I just realized something wasn't Highlander basically remade when they did the third one?
No, I believe it was a continuation from the first. Totally ignoring the alien crap...
No, I believe it was a continuation from the first. Totally ignoring the alien crap...
Continuity-wise it was a sequel to the first movie, ignoring the TV series that was airing at the time. Plot-wise however it was basically a remake of the first movie. Conner wants to be left alone, meets girl, shares secret of immortality, challenged by large brutish Immortal, defeated in first battle, brute kidnaps someone Conner cares about, they battle, Conner wins.
I saw the original film, thought it was alright, never really felt I should see anything more. Nothing I've heard online (where apparently the first film is well loved) has convinced me to do otherwise... don't see much point in going to a remake, either, although I am vaguely impressed at just how many Highlander products seem to have been churned out, often to less-than-enthusiastic responses.
Now I'm not saying we should grab some guy of Sudanese parentage like Alexander Siddin... no wait I'm totally saying that.
Nah. For Ramirez they should get an actor that could plausibly be Spanish (but really Egyptian!), as opposed to a guy who'd be an awesome stand in for other Sean Connery roles, presumably ones where his Scottishness made a lick of sense.
Now I'm not saying we should grab some guy of Sudanese parentage like Alexander Siddin... no wait I'm totally saying that.
Of course, Highlander III lacks the awesome that were Ramirez and the Kurgan.
That's another flaw of the franchise, I think. Ever since the first movie they've always tried to make their villains into the next Kurgan, instead of just doing their own thing.
Yeah, it was a huge mistake trying to make all the villains into the next Kurgan. They should have tried different kinds of villains.
Nobody will ever be able to top Clancy Brown!
How about an Israeli playing an Egyptian pretending to be a Spaniard?
