HIGHLA-L Digest - 4 Jan 2001 to 5 Jan 2001 - Special issue (#2001-11)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@LISTS.PSU.EDU)
Fri, 5 Jan 2001 08:43:21 -0500
There are 10 messages totalling 860 lines in this issue.
Topics in this special issue:
1. Quick reminder re QOS
2. Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS (8)
3. Scottish Guilt?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 22:42:39 -0400
From: Rebecca Wallace <becky717@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Quick reminder re QOS
Bizarro7@aol.com wrote:
> Just a reminder that Elizabeth Gracen will be the guest star featured on next
> week's QUEEN OF SWORDS. I believe this is one of the episodes written by
> Gillian Horvath, as well. For those not following the show regularly, might
> be worth peeking in.
>
> Leah CWPack
>
> "Look at me--look at my eyes. That's not life you're looking at, it's death.
> And death leaves a trail." --Dr. Helm (PW, QOS)
And Anthony de Longis has an actual role in the ep this week, right? (He was
seen in the
pilot as Tess's fencing trainer, but this ep he has a major part)...
Becky
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 20:35:39 -0800
From: Kintoun <kintoun@home.com>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
Geiger wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >S
> > > > > > >P
> > > > > > >O
> > > > > > >I
> > > > > > >L
> > > > > > >E
> > > > > > >R
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >S
> > > > > > >P
> > > > > > >A
> > > > > > >C
> > > > > > >E
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> Kintoun--
> >I'm quite surprised by how few people recognize Kell's abilities.
>
> You shouldn't be. There's precious little in the _movie_ that shows he was
> anything special at all. That's part of the problem the movie had;
> characters _said_ Kell was a big deal, but we never saw any proof of it.
> (Not that I _wanted_ to see the crappy special effects they teased us w/ in
> the 3rd trailer.) Joe, knowing DM had defeated the Horsemen & Ahriman, said
> Kell was out of DM's league just because he'd killed a lot of Immies--makes
> no sense to me. Specifically, there was nothing to indicate _why_ Kell's
> flock followed him.
For the sake of arguement, how was the Kurgan shown to be special by your
standards in Highlander 1? We only saw him behead Ramirez and Kastagir. At least
we saw Kell kill lots more immortals than that. How can you amass 666 confirmed
immortal kills in less than 435 years and not 'earn' your reputation? It's
unfortunate that Kell's followers recived very little solo camera with the
possible exception of Jin Ke. One of the highlights of the preliminary script is
a conversation between Calvin, who didn't appear at all in the movie, and
Winston. This quote sums up why they followed Kell quite succinctly: "You're
out. You're out...You don't get out. You saw what he did to Carlos. He's Genghis
the fucking Hun, man. You live his way or you die your way. Be grateful you got
the choice."
> Kintoun--
> >I'm quite surprised
> >that so many people believe any immortal can be killed with a gun. If
> that's the
> >case, it's just a matter of time until renegade Watchers achieve their
> >objective.
>
> Again w/ the surprise. But here I really don't know what you are talking
> about. Of course an Immie can be "killed" w/ a gun; it just isn't permanent
> _unless_ someone cuts his head off prior to revival. And that _does_ work;
> Xavier had a nice racket doing just that along w/ Horton's renegade Watchers
> in HL:TS' Unholy Alliance I & II. And, yes, that's a possibility when _any_
> mortal (renegade Watcher or not) knows about Immies--that a gun or other
> surprise attack can give the mortal time to BH the Immie. That it didn't
> work for the Watcher monks in the movie was just due to Kell's surprising
> them; he _was_ dressed as a monk himself & so was able to sneak up & kill
> them before they got to the BHg part as to the posse.
There was no need to comment on the fact that I repeated a statement above. My
point is quite clearly expressed. I already brought up the fact that Jacob Kell
wouldn't stay dead no matter what you did to him except for decapitation of
course. There was originally going to be a terrific homage to the Kurgan playing
chicken in Endgame and it would have revealed that even being mangled in car
crash wouldn't keep Jacob dead. Kell was different than other immortals. He was
fast and he simply wouldn't say dead. You bring up a good possibility on how
Jacob could have survived the Watcher's gunfire but I don't believe that was the
intent.
> As for you putting so much importance on length of time various Immies took
> to revive, that seems to vary in the movie simply according to dramatic
> requirements--just as it did in previous movies & in HL:TS.
Are you disputing that the Watcher monks didn't have time to kill Cracker Bob,
Carlos, Winston, Manny, and Jin Ke if Kell hadn't shown up? The issue being
discussed was could the monks at the Sanctuary kill and behead those 4
immortals. There's no doubt that they would have done so if Jacob wasn't a
factor. In general, I believe that the concept of the Sanctuary works.
> Kintoun--
> >>>Kell initially hides for cover when he makes his presence known to
> the Watchers at the Sanctuary and therefore certain fans believe that he was
> just
> lucky. Seconds later, he strikes that very same Watcher with his sword from
> behind. The question is how did he manage to do that? I say that's very good
> proof
> of his remarkable speed.>>>
>
> How about sloppy editing? I see nothing in the movie to indicate Kell has
> any speed advantage at all over his various opponents. Frankly, they way
> you describe it in your various alleged examples makes the movie sound even
> sillier than it was.
You've dodged my question. There's nothing in the movie to suggest that there
was a gap in between those 2 events. The film, as it is, indicates that Kell is
very quick in that scene. If Jacob did indeed disappear, wouldn't that Watcher
be stupid not to turn around?
> Kintoun--
> > >Every source of info helps to better understand a movie.
>
> I disagree. A movie is the # of minutes it played across the big screen (&
> in the case of HL:EG, that # was pathetically small).
>
> All the rest is like hearsay in a trial--generally inadmissable & basically
> irrelevant. I might be interested in what AP or BP or the director or one
> of the lesser actors has to say, but it doen't change what I think of the
> movie itself. Nothing can change what TPTB (whoever the heck they really
> were as to this flick) decided to send to the theaters. Either that was
> good or it wasn't. I HATE it, but in my opinion HL:EG wasn't a good movie.
> All the other stuff--interviews, scripts, workprint, etc.--only goes to help
> me figure out _why_ that is. Some days that's interesting, others it's just
> depressing.
I don't see what point you're getting at here. Are you honestly saying that the
preliminary script should never be brought up on this ML? I'd rather not read
e-mails about whether Kell's followers viewed him as God like Larca when the
script dispelled that theory. Nobody is suggesting that every element present in
the script matters. When Faith's past following the wedding was being discussed
a while ago, I thought a few quotes from the script made that thread a lot more
interesting
Kintoun
"I watched Connor MacLeod stand up to Kell tonight. Got me thinking."
-Winston
> Nina (totally pissed that what was supposed to be a "gift to the fans"
> turned out to be a nightmare)
> geiger@maui.net
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 06:17:05 -0000
From: Lore Krajsman <lilith93@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
>From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@EARTHLINK.NET>
>Reply-To: Highlander movies and TV series <HIGHLA-L@lists.psu.edu>
>To: HIGHLA-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU
>Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
>Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 15:59:16 -0500
>
>At 02:33 PM 01/04/2001, Lance Aldridge wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>>This is a matter of opinion. IMHO, anyone who thought Connor should die
>>is
>>not a true HL fan.
>
>IMHO, anyone who thought Connor shouldn't have died in Endgame is not >a
>true HL fan. All true HL fans recognize Duncan MacLeod of the Clan
> >MacLeod as the one true Highlander.
>
>Long Live The Highlander!!!
Man this is getting a bit stupid isn't it?
I've been a HL-fan since the first movie, though I must admit I watched for
the Kurgan and I hated Connor when Kurgie baby got killed.
I didn't mind the third movie, though I kept thinking, that's the damn
(censured here) who killed Kurgie.
To be honest I haven't seen the fourth movie yet, being European and all,
but I'd see it just to see Connor die, does that keep me from being a 'real'
HL-fan.
Lore
And oh yes, Duncan's the best of the two Highlanders (nah nah nah nah nah)
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 06:50:17 -0000
From: Jette Goldie <jettegoldie@thefreeinternet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Scottish Guilt?
Liser
> I know it was Elaine's phrase, not yours, Jette, but does "Scottish Guilt"
> have a similar defition to <Liser's Ex-Faith> Guilt? That feeling of the
> world's problems being somehow related to you, personally....that if you
> were better, things in general would be better? Do Scots, in general, even
> feel that way?
>
These days? Only when the drink hits <g> But, yes, sort of.
>
> Elaine said:
>
> >The other thing to remember about Scots is that duty and honour
> >come very high in the scheme of things for them. Both Connor and Duncan
> >had that. Sometimes looking after those can seem like being guilt
ridden.
>
> Right.
>
> I think Duncan carries both the burden of guilt (for those he has killed,
> for those he hasn't saved, etc) AND the burden of duty (to protect, to
> always do the right thing, to set a good example). Is that the cocktail
of
> emotion you were referring to as Scottish Guilt?
>
That's a good definition of Scottish Guilt.
Jette
jettegoldie@thefreeinternet.co.uk
http://members.tripod.com/~bosslady/fanfic.html
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 06:52:35 -0000
From: Jette Goldie <jettegoldie@thefreeinternet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
Liser
> >Spoilers:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
> Sandy:
>
> >Exactly. So why would an immie make himself vulnerable like that? Even
if
> >we go with the "sanctuary is a deep dark secret" scenario, I still think
> >immies just aren't that trusting.
>
> But...if they THINK it's Holy Ground (assuming that there isn't something
> that allows them to know for sure--like a HG Buzz or the like), then they
> would THINK they were safe there--even though, in reality, they're not.
>
>
>
> >
> >Take Duncan for example. He knows about the watchers, understands them
and
> >their true purpose (let's forget about the renegades for a moment) and
sees
> >the importance of it. But would he trust them in such a way? I doubt
it,
> >and I doubt that the others would either.
>
> Duncan knows WAY more about the Watchers than your average immortal,
> though. In the case of random immortals seeking entrance to the
Sanctuary,
> ignorance of the organization would be bliss. In fact, what's to say that
> those immies even knew what a "Watcher" was? Maybe they thought the
> Sanctuary was tended by Monks...as befitting a place on HG. There are
> enough legends in the immortal world that I don't find it a stretch for
> them to think there might be a special order of monks that has taken on
the
> duty of guarding The Sanctuary.
I wondered myself if Sanctuary was _always_ a Watcher thing?
Perhaps it _had_ been something tended by a special order of
monks, that the Watchers in more recent years (a couple of
centuries) had infiltrated and taken over as their own.
Jette
jettegoldie@thefreeinternet.co.uk
http://members.tripod.com/~bosslady/fanfic.html
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 06:14:35 -0500
From: virginia foster <vfoster@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
At 03:59 PM 01/04/01 -0500, Sandy wrote:
>At 02:33 PM 01/04/2001, Lance Aldridge wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>>This is a matter of opinion. IMHO, anyone who thought Connor should die is
>>not a true HL fan.
>
<snort> oh gee.. thank you for clearing that up for me. Does this mean I'm
a "true HL fan" because you say so. <snort><chuckle>
Sandy:
>IMHO, anyone who thought Connor shouldn't have died in Endgame is not a
>true HL fan. All true HL fans recognize Duncan MacLeod of the Clan MacLeod
>as the one true Highlander.
>
>Long Live The Highlander!!!
>
ROTFLMAO!!
Lance says I am, Sandy says I'm not. And people wonder why I stay
so confused all the time. :-)
Of course, what you all missed is the highly emotional ending to Endgame
that sadly ended up on the cutting room floor...
To celebrate the death of Kell and to celebrate the life of Connor MacLeod
the Ewoks were dancing a particularly joyous dance. As he's halfheartedly
clapping along with the music, Duncan looks to the side and sees the
ghostly appearance of his mentor and clansman, Connor. On Connor's
right, stood bonnie Heather, looking beautiful and young and happy to
have her husband with her. To Connor's left stood Brenda Wyatt, hand
clasped with Connor, watching him fondly. Connor smiles at his young
kinsman as the three fade.
Duncan smiles and goes back to the celebration, his heart lighter.
And *that* was how the movie was supposed to end. But once again,
the Ewoks hard work for was nothing. The entire scene was whacked in
favor of a bad matte painting.
virginia
Virginia Foster *** PWFC: Let Friendship Thrive *** CFW
vfoster@mindspring.com ** http://www.mindspring.com/~vfoster/va.html
"Yub, yub, Commander."
Wes Janson to Wedge Antilles "Wraith Squadron" by Aaron Allston
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 1973 07:24:05 -0500
From: Judith Schneider <judiths@CapAccess.org>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Kintoun wrote:
> Geiger wrote:
>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >S
> > > > > > > >P
> > > > > > > >O
> > > > > > > >I
> > > > > > > >L
> > > > > > > >E
> > > > > > > >R
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >S
> > > > > > > >P
> > > > > > > >A
> > > > > > > >C
> > > > > > > >E
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > Kintoun--
> > >I'm quite surprised by how few people recognize Kell's abilities.
> >
> > You shouldn't be. There's precious little in the _movie_ that shows he was
> > anything special at all. That's part of the problem the movie had;
> > characters _said_ Kell was a big deal, but we never saw any proof of it.
I agree wholeheartedly. I thought Kell was a bad cartoon character. Flat,
dull, boring, uninteresting, nothing special. I thought the Xavier was a
much more interesting k'immie. He was suave and debonair, but he cheated,
he worked with a mortal, he didn't follow the one-on-one rule. He'd smile
nicely and shake your hand, and then shoot you with the gun in his other
hand.
<snip>
> we saw Kell kill lots more immortals than that. How can you amass 666
confirmed
> immortal kills in less than 435 years and not 'earn' your reputation? It's
Actually, that's only about 1 and a half per year. By that definition,
the last couple of years of Duncan's life (the ones we saw in the series)
make him MUCH worse than Kell. He was averaging a heck of a lot more than
1.5 per year.
> unfortunate that Kell's followers recived very little solo camera with the
> possible exception of Jin Ke. One of the highlights of the preliminary script
is
> a conversation between Calvin, who didn't appear at all in the movie, and
> Winston. This quote sums up why they followed Kell quite succinctly: "You're
> out. You're out...You don't get out. You saw what he did to Carlos. He's
>Genghis the fucking Hun, man. You live his way or you die your way. Be
>grateful you got the choice."
>
But bringing in scripts or unaired bits of stuff that were filmed means
that we're not all discussing the same thing. While they may be
interesting, we haven't all see the workprint or read scripts, so we're
not on equal footing.
<snip>
> point is quite clearly expressed. I already brought up the fact that Jacob
Kell
> wouldn't stay dead no matter what you did to him except for decapitation of
> course. There was originally going to be a terrific homage to the Kurgan
>playing
And this makes him different from other immortals ... how, exactly?
> chicken in Endgame and it would have revealed that even being mangled in car
> crash wouldn't keep Jacob dead. Kell was different than other immortals. He was
> fast and he simply wouldn't say dead. You bring up a good possibility on how
But the same is true of every other immortal.
> Jacob could have survived the Watcher's gunfire but I don't believe that was the
> intent.
>
> > As for you putting so much importance on length of time various Immies took
> > to revive, that seems to vary in the movie simply according to dramatic
> > requirements--just as it did in previous movies & in HL:TS.
>
> Are you disputing that the Watcher monks didn't have time to kill Cracker Bob,
> Carlos, Winston, Manny, and Jin Ke if Kell hadn't shown up? The issue being
I don't think Nina meant that the Watchers couldn't have killed them.
(Nina, please correct me if I'm misrepresenting you.) There is no
consistency either in the movies or the TV series about how
long it takes an immortal to revive. It all depends on how long the
writers needed for an immortal to stay dead to make the plot work.
<snip>
> > How about sloppy editing? I see nothing in the movie to indicate Kell has
> > any speed advantage at all over his various opponents. Frankly, they way
> > you describe it in your various alleged examples makes the movie sound even
> > sillier than it was.
>
I have to agree with Nina here. Nothing in the movie showed any special
abilities that Kell had. Except to rant and rave. He did that _really_
well. <eg>
<snip>
Judy, the Chocolate Slayer judiths@capaccess.org
Waving a flag for the blue feather and a turbolight for Apollo
"I never met a chocolate I didn't like"--Deanna Troi
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 07:28:09 EST
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
In a message dated 1/5/01 7:17:33 AM Eastern Standard Time,
judiths@CapAccess.org writes:
<< I agree wholeheartedly. I thought Kell was a bad cartoon character. Flat,
dull, boring, uninteresting, nothing special. I thought the Xavier was a
much more interesting k'immie. He was suave and debonair, but he cheated,
he worked with a mortal, he didn't follow the one-on-one rule. He'd smile
nicely and shake your hand, and then shoot you with the gun in his other
hand. >>
The problem, it seems, is that they didn't convey anything 'special' about
Kell and how powerful he was in the final cut. The choice of actor eliminated
the ability to show Kell as an incredibly superior swordsman. All he seemed
to have was a willingness to cheat and better endurance. We'd never seen or
heard of him before in the HL universe, despite his headhunting score. He did
not seem as dangerous or extraordinary as Kurgan, so it was impossible to see
him as more of a menace to Connor than Kurgan.
What they probably *wanted* to do was borrow a page from STAR TREK II: THE
WRATH OF KAHN and bring back a truly worthy villain, perhaps augmented by
having taken additional heads galore since we'd last seen him. The problem
with *that* is that our intrepid Highlander heroes haven't left any such
villains with their heads on in the course of the TV series. It was all
rather final. The only truly monumental baddie left intact from the neck up
"isn't like that anymore." And they were wise enough to know that Methos is
much more of an asset as a flawed friend of the hero than a reformed ancient
villain who suddenly backslides.
Leah CWPack
"Is that an alien in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?" --Tracy
Scoggins to an overly ardent male fan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 08:14:14 -0500
From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
Last time into the brink:
At 09:27 PM 01/04/01, Kintoun wrote:
> > > > Spoilers:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >I'm
> > >quite surprised that so many people believe any immortal can be killed
> > >with a gun.
> >
Me:
> > No one believes an immortal can be killed with a gun. Where did you get
> > that from?
>
>Oh, give me a break. Don't you think I already know that?
See your sentence above. You brought this into the conversation, not me.
>I never said immortals can be killed only with a gun.
Neither did I. And neither did anyone else. But you seem to think that
many people believe it can be done. I simply asked why you think this.
>However, you want to interpret the ending, I don't think Duncan proved
>himself better in any way to Jacob.
Again... I never said that. You're arguing points that I never made. But
since you brought it up, Duncan sure was better *that* day! <g>
>If Jacob grabbing a sword that's already slicing it's way into his skin
>isn't enough evidence to show that he's fast, what would it take to
>convince you?
Something in the movie that clearly shows Kell being speedy. I saw speed in
the fight between Duncan and Kin (Jin?). It was there, and it was
obvious. The viewer didn't have to "pay close attention" or read the
script to see it. It was right there on the screen for all to see.. and it
was FAST. Not super-human, but it was certainly fast enough that everybody
saw it and nobody is arguing about the speed of the fighters. If Kell was
supposed to be super fast, and if it was supposed to be so relevant to the
plot (as you seem to feel), it would have been quite easy for the
filmmakers to show it in a way that would have made it obvious to everyone.
>For the sake of arguement, how was the Kurgan shown to be special by your
>standards in Highlander 1? We only saw him behead Ramirez and Kastagir.
Who said he was special? He was just bad.. mean... brutal... whatever, but
no one has ever claimed that he had any special superhuman powers. The
thing that made him scary at first was the fact that he was after Connor
who, in the beginning, was a new immortal with little or no experience. In
the present day, his sociopathic behavior made him scarey. The brutality
with which he killed Ramirez in the past and Kastagir in the present, and
what he did to that guy in the alley, matched perfectly with what we had
been told about him by Ramirez. Nothing Kell did in this movie supported
or lived up to the hype he was given.
>At least we saw Kell kill lots more immortals than that.
The immortals in the sanctuary were strapped down and unconscious. The
henchmen sat at the table like a bunch of idiots and let him kill them. Oh
yeah.... this proves just how powerful Kell was alright!
>How can you amass
>666 confirmed immortal kills in less than 435 years and not 'earn' your
>reputation?
By having others do all the dirty work for you, or by killing helpless
immortals (like those in the sanctuary). He let his henchmen do all the
work outside the sanctuary, making it pretty easy for him to take down the
one or two monks that were left and just walk on in and killed the strapped
down immies. How do matadors get such great reputations and rack up big
numbers of kills when others go in stab the poor bulls a gazillion times
and the poor things are already bleeding to death when the big bad matador
enters the arena?
>It's unfortunate that Kell's followers recived very little solo camera
Yes. I would have liked to see a little more about them if only to show me
why they were with Kell, and especially to show me why they sat there and
let him behead them.
>with the possible exception of Jin Ke. One of the highlights of the
>preliminary script is a conversation between Calvin, who didn't appear at
>all in the movie, and Winston.
Frankly I like a lot of stuff that's in the workprint but wasn't in the
theatrical release, but I don't confuse the two. For example, in the movie
there's no doubt that Kell killed Kate during the "last supper" scene. In
the workprint he doesn't kill her, and she's still alive at the end. But
when I'm discussing the movie I don't say things like "After Duncan buried
Connor I'm sure he went back to see if he and Kate can try it again"
because I know that Kate was dead. The fact that she didn't die in the
workprint is irrelevant to discussions about what happened in the
movie. And it would be a lot easier (and more reasonable) to use workprint
scenes -- rather than the stuff you're talking about in the script -- to
explain stuff that was in the movie because at least we know those scenes
were filmed and many of the people in this discussion have seen them.
>The issue being discussed was could the monks at the Sanctuary kill and
>behead those 4 immortals. There's no doubt that they would have done so if
>Jacob wasn't a factor.
Kell used camouflage and surprise. Another immortal could have done the
same thing.
>In general, I believe that the concept of the Sanctuary works.
This makes no sense. You're saying that the concept of the Sanctuary works
because Kell and his henchmen figured out a way to kill all the monks and
behead all the immortals. The fact that they were able to do this proves
that the concept *doesn't* work.
>If Jacob did indeed disappear, wouldn't that Watcher be stupid not to turn
>around?
He can disappear too?!
-- Sandy
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 00:10:01 +1100
From: tunnack <tunnack@ozemail.com.au>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
Hi all
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
Well I watched EndGame ...hmm....some 15 times and like Sandy I never once
cottoned onto all these superhuman powers that Kell was supposed to have.
Maybe I'm as thick as two short planks...but I certainly consider myself a
*true HL fan*...and I was watching very very closely...and I love going over
and over scenes, analysing them (ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZz says the
list..)..but as Nina offered, I too thought the scene where Kell was dead
one minute and then there slashing at the Watcher the next was simply poor
editing.
I thought Kell was a most disappointing K'Immie. The over-acting from Bruce
Payne didn't help at all but really frightening characters don't actually
need to *speak* like a cartoon character trying to sound frightening. His
kills only averaged one per year...and I thought it very silly to equate
quantity with quality of kills anyway. And as Sandy has pointed out, when
did we see Kell actually do anything that indicated superior warrior
skills?? We saw him being very domestic (playing the mouth
organ....preparing the evening meal for the family.....(that *was* an apron
he had on wasn't it??? I was wondering where the Chef hat was.)...but what
did we actually see that came close to a Kronos in terms of true
menace....or a Hyde..or a Horton......Kell hid behind his gang (who all
appeared to be pretty dorky if you ask me, apart from Jing Ke who stood out
like a sore thumb in terms of there not being any sense at all in why on
earth he was even *in* the gang)...and Kate, who took 300 odd years to work
out that there is a difference between an act perpetrated by hate and one by
love. What a waste of many lifetimes.
Don't get me wrong - there was much about EndGame that I really loved - many
scenes that were to die for (and I include the rooftop scene in that). And
of course the music was incredibly and hauntingly beautiful. Indeed, the
music was more threatening than Kell was!
But great plot it certainly wasn't...I found it derivative and the
characters mono-dimensional and with plot holes that you could drive a truck
through. Kell's actions were always depicted as cowardly in the extreme -
attacking on holy ground; burning Connor's Mother; surrounding himself with
brawn and not brain; killing defenceless people like Rachel; shooting
Connor's family and friends from cover...and of course the final sign of his
limited abilities was his need to put a pre-school like sign on his shoes so
that, I presume, he could tell which ones were his???
Kind regards
@ Carmel Macpherson:
<<<@{}=================>>> Chief EDFWs
@ carmel@hldu.org
http://carmel.simplenet.com/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Highlander DownUnder: An Official HL Fan Club.
http://www.hldu.org
***HLDU4: Apr 6-8, 2001. Brisbane***
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 4 Jan 2001 to 5 Jan 2001 - Special issue (#2001-11)
****************************************************************************