HIGHLA-L Digest - 5 Jan 2001 - Special issue (#2001-13)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@LISTS.PSU.EDU)
Fri, 5 Jan 2001 14:41:19 -0500
There are 15 messages totalling 812 lines in this issue.
Topics in this special issue:
1. Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS (6)
2. Quick reminder re QOS (2)
3. ADMIN: 'True Fans' (3)
4. Scottish Guilt? (4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 10:29:55 -0500
From: LC Krakowka <liser@lightlink.com>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
Lance and I are talking about Connor:
> >.
> >.
> >.
> >.
> >.
> >.
> >.
> >.
> >.
> >.
> >.
> >.
> >.
> >.
> >.
> >.
> >.
> >.
> >.
> >.
> >.
> >.
> >.
> >.
> >.
> >.
> >.
> >.
> >.
>
Lance:
> >Only problem is the death was a cheap one. It reeked of gimmick and that
> >came across as distasteful.
>
>
>I thought it was a repeat of what we saw several times in the series, Duncan
>forced to kill a friend or ally and in angst over it. I was hoping for a
>fresher approach to the immortal concept and we got a rehas of the small
>screen.
A fresher approach to the immortal concept? Such as?
The theme "Duncan kills friend" was explored through-out the series,
yes. But it wasn't until Richie's death that it was taken up to a
notch that is close to "Duncan kills Connor". This is not Duncan
killing a friend...this is Duncan killing his brother. BIG
difference. Friends, he angsts over for a while and moves on.
This...this will be with him always.
And, as I said before, the idea of having to kill people you love is
integral to the Highlander concept of immortals. The Game is the
epitome of every man for himself. That's not light stuff to
consider. That has ramifications that go down to the very heart and
soul of every immortal. Even the worst of the worst k'immies
probably had *someone* in their life that they loved or cared about.
We don't need a "fresh approach", IMO...there are plenty of angles in
this one to explore.
>
>It was weak and lazy writing IMHO.
It's not the most rock-solid plot in the world, I'll give you that.
But I don't find it weak or lazy in the slightest. The themes in
this movie--loss, redemption, sacrifice--are big ones...and not the
sort that "weak" or "lazy" writers pull off.
Me, about why Connor had to be in this movie:
> << His presence was integral. First of all, the whole point of the bad
> guy was that he (Kell) wanted to stick it to Connor.>>
Lance:
>
>Connor could have been Methos or any other friend of Duncan's and the impact
>would have been the same. They killed Connor for the sake of killing Connor,
>but with no real thematic validity.
Not so. Not so at all. If you think that Connor and Methos rate the
same on Duncan's scale, you're suffering from a lack of understanding
of both Duncan *and* Connor.
Lance:
>Only because he was burned out and suicidal, both of which are out of
>character for him. It just wasn't Connor.
Connor has been burned out every time we've seen him on screen.
And I don't think that I would characterize him as "suicidal" in this
movie. At least not in the traditional sense. Connor made a
self-sacrifice that just happened to end his suffering while helping
the rest of the world. That's not a weak decision, in my book.
That's a martyr who had a bit of luck on his side when it came down
to the personal things.
If Connor were suicidal, he would have just offed himself somewhere
along the line, I think. He wouldn't have stuck around after being
woken from Sanctuary. He would have rigged a way to take his own
head, or picked a fight and lost deliberately. Instead, he fought
Kell as best he could, given his limited emotional resources, saw
that he was incapable of beating him, knew what that meant, and did a
noble thing--sacrificed himself to give Duncan the ability to kill
Kell.
<snipping out the buddings of a conversation about Richie's death
because I'm not sure I have the strength to deal with what it would
stir up>
>
> >Connor certainly seemed so at the end of HL1.
>
> Ah...but not so much at the beginning of HL2, eh? Talk about lonely,
> depressed, and tired of life and the world.
>
>He was also physically aged, which seemed to be a part of his disposition.
Not following.
His aging was a part of the Prize. He became mortal. Getting old is
part of mortality--it has nothing to do with disposition. Winning
the Prize brought Connor *temporary* happiness. Then he lost Brenda
to a car wreck, began to age, and created the shield that was
bringing about the destruction of mankind. His unhappiness at the
beginning of HL2 wasn't about being old, it was about loss and
regret. Oh...gee...and there are those "weak and lazy" themes again.
What do you know...
Liser
--
Lisa Krakowka ** liser@lightlink.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 10:53:17 -0500
From: "Claire L. Maier, Ph.D." <bioaw124@emory.edu>
Subject: Re: Quick reminder re QOS
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001 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.
It is the episode Gillian Horvath wrote, and I think she just did the one.
--
Claire Maier, Ph.D. bioaw124@emory.edu CLMaier (within AOL only)
To be different is not necessarily to be ugly;
to have a different idea is not necessarily to be wrong.
The worst possible thing is for all of us to begin
to look and act and think alike.
-- Gene Roddenberry
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 11:02:33 -0500
From: "Claire L. Maier, Ph.D." <bioaw124@emory.edu>
Subject: Re: Quick reminder re QOS
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Rebecca Wallace wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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)...
No, not in this ep, which is "The Counterfeit Queen." Elizabeth Gracen is
in it, but not Anthony DeLongis. His ep is "The Hanged Man."
And "Counterfeit Queen" will be airing the week of January 8.
--
Claire Maier, Ph.D. bioaw124@emory.edu CLMaier (within AOL only)
To be different is not necessarily to be ugly;
to have a different idea is not necessarily to be wrong.
The worst possible thing is for all of us to begin
to look and act and think alike.
-- Gene Roddenberry
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 17:30:26 -0000
From: Jette Goldie <jettegoldie@thefreeinternet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
Comet says:
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, virginia foster wrote:
>
> > At 03:59 PM 01/04/01 -0500, Sandy wrote:
> > >At 02:33 PM 01/04/2001, Lance Aldridge wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > 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.
>
> and a wonderfully bad matte painting it was
>
A matte painting? No, it was a photographic scene - just
that the light quality of the scene shot in the real Scottish
Highlands (the theatrical version) did not quite match
the light quality of the scene shot with AP (the 'workprint').
Trust me, I've seen the light in the Highlands do that to film
both still and movie. :-)
Jette (do we now need a thread for "Scottish light"? <g>)
jettegoldie@thefreeinternet.co.uk
http://members.tripod.com/~bosslady/fanfic.html
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 13:36:38 EST
From: Sweetness And Light <Ethelbert@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
> Spoilers:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
Sandy said:
> > 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.
>
Kintoun replied:
>I don't think you paid enough attention
Now, dear, don't go telling people they didn't pay attention just because
they disagree with you.
>at the beginning of the movie to the
> time that elapsed after Cracker Bob, Carlos, Winston, and Jin Ke were fatally
> shot. One of the Watchers immediately instructed the others to cut their
> heads
> off just in case they were immortal. At that point, Jacob Kell appeared and
> not
> only avoided gunfire but succeeded in slaughtering all the Watchers in the
> area.
And? How many times have we seen Duncan take on 4 or 5 mortals (even armed
ones) and defeat them all? More than once. It's a basic fact of
storytelling- the hero (or the villain) will defeat his opponents - however
numerous - right up until the moment the plot requires him to lose.
As for "avoiding" the gunfire- again..no one ever gets shot in a story until
they need to. How many gun battles have been filmed where the bad guys fire
over and over and never hit the good guys while the good guys manage to hit
every time they fire? And..*did* Kell avoid the bullets or did he simply keep
moving even though hit? Sometimes Immortals fall down when shot..sometimes
they keep moving.
> Afterwards, he kicked Winston's corpse and said "Don't be long." Kell made
> quite
> a speech when he entered the Sanctuary and it took a while for his
> followers to
> come back to life though.
>
Immortals revive just as soon as the plot requires. Duncan has revived almost
immediately and other times taken several minutes to come back to life. The
severity of the injuries is not determinative...getting shot may, or may not,
take less time to recover from than getting "squashed".
There was nothing shown on screen to indicate that Kell was super fast or
impervious to bullets.He avoided being killed only because, in that
situation, the plot required him to survive. Later, when it was time for him
to die, he did. At normal speed.
>The idea that a bad mortal Watcher could enter the Sanctuary and kill
numerous
> monks with shotguns is rather absurd. Perhaps dozens of armed renegade
> Watchers
> could kill all these monks and get to the immortals inside but there would
> certainly be casualties in that scenario. Is the average renegade Watcher
> willing to die to rid the world of immies? There's no denying the fact that
> the
> monks at the Sanctuary could handle taking out those 4 immortals.
I have to respectfully disagree that one determined Watcher (or one "normal"
Immortal) could not have invaded the Sanctuary. One would simply take out the
sentries with long range rifle fire, move quickly into the building tossing
grenades around every turn and spraying the whole area with machine pistol
fire as one went (a Kevlar vest would be useful). Maybe one would toss a few
tear gas grenades for fun (wear your gas mask) or even go in under cover of
dark with infrared goggles. A determined foe- ready and willing to kill
anyone in his path - could take on these "monks" who were not, really,
expecting trouble.
As for the four Immortals who preceded Kell ..they would have been
exceedingly stupid - except, of course, they were only a diversion. They were
easily killed because they arrived together in a tight pack and left
themselves open to attack. Had they come in from several directions under
covering fire, the monks would've been dead. Kell needed a diversion and the
four "horsemen" were it.
> The movie made it extremely clear that the Watchers had more than enough
> time to
> cut all their heads off.
No..the movie doesn't make that extremely clear. We don't *know* that any one
of the four might not have revived in time to save himself *if* Kell hadn't
arrived. But that would have been another story.
Kell, on the other hand, was too fast for them to hit
> once let alone sufficient times to get him to stay down.
Again..that is your interpretation. Nothing I saw showed Kell to be any
faster or more impervious to bullets than any other Immortal. He was simply
the villain and thus *had* to survive until the end of the movie.
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.
>
I doubt that anyone who knows about Immortals thinks they can be permanently
killed with a gun. They *can* , however, be knocked down with a gun. They can
be temporarily killed with a gun, In many situations, they would be
sufficient.
The fact that the monks at the Sanctuary were armed with guns suggests that
they expected attack by mortals and not Immortals. The "cutting off the
heads" comment was in the nature of "better safe than sorry". If the
Sanctuary was on Holy Ground..and if HG is (supposedly) inviolate..then the
only ones who *could* come to attack it would be mortals...either renegade
Watchers (like Horton) or mortals in the employ of an Immortal. An all-out
attack by several Immortals was probably never even dreamed of.
Sweetness&Light
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 13:40:29 -0500
From: Debra Douglass <ddoug@catrio.org>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
On 1/5/2001, on HIGHLA-L@lists.psu.edu, Lance Aldridge wrote:
>>In a message dated 1/4/01 2:04:50 PM Central Standard Time,
>>zklee@huskynet.com writes:
>>
>><< O
>> h
>> m
>> y
>> n
>> e
>> x
>> t
>> w
>> e
>> '
>> l
>> l
>> h
>> a
>> v
>> e
>> i
>> n
>> n
>> e
>> r
>> c
>> r
>> o
>> p
>> c
>> i
>> r
>> c
>> l
>> e
>> s
>>
>> >
>> > This is a matter of opinion. IMHO, anyone who thought Connor should die is
>> > not a true HL fan.
>>
>> :::: running around in circles screaming
>> "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!" and waving hands ::::
>>
>> Killing off Connor was a logical conclusion to the HL movie arc.
>>
>>Only in the mind of an insane person. Connor winning the Prize was the
>>logical conclusion.
Lance, we don't allow name calling here. Please don't do it again.
-Debbie Douglass
(list owner)
--
.------------------------------------------------------------------.
| No flames were thrown in the creation of this email message. |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Debra Douglass ddoug@catrio.org http://www.catrio.org|
`------------------------------------------------------------------'
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 14:11:17 -0500
From: Debra Douglass <ddoug@catrio.org>
Subject: ADMIN: 'True Fans'
I would truly appreciate it if we could knock off calling people 'True
Fans' as in 'true HL fan' or 'not a true Connor fan' or 'true Methos
fan' or 'true Richie fan' etc. In all my experience with Fandom
nothing set fans' teeth on edge more than someone calling into doubt
their level of fan devotion. Since I really don't feel like presiding
over the Great Highlander Fan War of 2001 I thought that I'd try to
nip this in the bud before it gets started.
-Debbie Douglass
(list owner)
--
.------------------------------------------------------------------.
| No flames were thrown in the creation of this email message. |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Debra Douglass ddoug@catrio.org http://www.catrio.org|
`------------------------------------------------------------------'
(Am I catching a whiff of 18-year-old-maleness around here?)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 14:20:38 -0500
From: LC Krakowka <liser@lightlink.com>
Subject: Re: ADMIN: 'True Fans'
>Since I really don't feel like presiding
>over the Great Highlander Fan War of 2001 I thought that I'd try to
>nip this in the bud before it gets started.
{{kicking the dirt}}
Aw, geesh, Debbie. You never let us have any fun anymore.
{{humming Little Bunny foo-foo}}
Liser
(who, believe it or not, kinda misses old enjibay)
--
Lisa Krakowka ** liser@lightlink.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 14:27:46 -0500
From: Elaine Nicol <ElaineN@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Scottish Guilt?
>> I'm also
wondering which is the chicken and which is the egg: Did
Scottish Prostestant theology come out of a penchant for Scottish
guilt, reflected in a rush to penance before the Reformation, or
did Scottish guilt come out of the theology? <<
I believe the reason the Scots embraced Presbyterianism was that it suited
their characters. It is very guilt ridden, but it is also very fair, no
bosses, no superiors, that's what it means. Presbyterians bend the knee to
no man.
One of the odd things about Presbyterianism is that it has changed. I did
5 trips to the Holy land with Church of Scotland(Presbyterians) Ministers,
and they have a reputation for being the happy and joyful Church, for being
the singing Church. Everyone along the way greeted us with great joy
because they said we brought light and love into their world. We never
dressed up, we went to each Church or religious site behaved respectfully
and moved on to the next place. Our visit was always the same, the group
leader would tell us what the place was, we'd say a prayer, sing a hymm,
and then we'd wander around looking at the place. On those trips I had
some of the greatest fun times I have ever had. How do you fancy walking
from the room of the last supper in Jerusalem down to the Garden of
Gethsemane in the dark with only torches to light the way, stopping every
now and then for a reading from the bible. After leaving the Garden it
was only a short walk to our hotel....my job was to get there first so I
could claim the seats in front of the TV so that the Minister leading our
group could see Dallas<BG> Not quite the perception we have of the Church
of Scotland. On those trips I met a number of Ministers, everyone of them
a gem and a character, probably the biggest character was the 4'11 and 3
quarter inch one, as she said when you were her height quarter of an inch
is important. And to quote her now....."ah memories<sigh>"
Elaine.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 14:27:49 -0500
From: Elaine Nicol <ElaineN@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
|X|
|X|
|X|
|X|
|X|
|X|
|X|
(===)
| |
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
|)|
\ |
\|
>> In HL2 he had the environmental piracy girl, and the guy he designed the
shield with. <<
After how many years alone? Remember he hadn't seen Alan in a lot of
years.
>> Even so, it still seems funny they didn't see more of each other. A
reference that Duncan has visited Connor during the summer hiatus, etc,
would
have been enough. <<
A point that has been commented on often by everyone on these lists and
various boards.
>> >> Connor was never depicted as prone to
depression or suicidal action, and I found this interpretation reeked of a
gimmick laden need to draw in the older audiences familiar with the first
Highlander, and less an attempt to keep him in character, and that hurts
for
Connor fans. << <<
I repeat you need to re-read what you said there. You contradict
yourself.
>> Didn't mean to offend you and it wasn't an attack. It is my opinion.
<<
Then you should state as an opinion, you are stating this as a fact all
over the place, and saying it to anyone who doesn't see things your way.
>> Who is Angus? <<
Can I make a suggestion here. You go back and watch the original film,
Angus was very important to Connor and the whole of the Highlander story.
I get the feeling from some of your answers here that you have not watched
the movie in a long time, I may be wrong there perhaps you just missed it.
Personally I watch and thrill to every single moment of it. But then
what was it Adrian called me Jette....A Highlander nut wasn't it?
Elaine.
Order of Connor's Advocates.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 14:27:47 -0500
From: Elaine Nicol <ElaineN@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Scottish Guilt?
>> 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? <<
Absolutely 100% spot on.
Elaine.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 14:27:45 -0500
From: Elaine Nicol <ElaineN@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Scottish Guilt?
>>
That's for sure. Maybe some of the guilt comes from the wealthy,
landowner nobles allying w/the English in the first place? Just
throwing something out there. . .I could be much mistaken. <<
The problem with the clearances like so much of Scottish history is that
it's gotten messed up with people's myths of what happened. Mostly it was
a pure economic thing. The wealthy landowners that is the Clan Chiefs
that every thinks were great, realised that sheep were more profitable than
people, so they replaced the people with sheep. These days the sheep are
being replaced by trees.
>> Perhaps the Scottish men don't mind
showing their feelings as much or are more sentimental? <<
The only time Scots of either sex get emotional is Hogmanay, that's also
when we throw our arms round strangers and kiss and hug them. The rest of
the year, well you will rarely even see physical contact between husband
and wife...come to think of it you'll never see that.<EG> That is an
example of the Scottish sense of humour.
Elaine.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 19:33:00 -0000
From: Jette Goldie <jettegoldie@thefreeinternet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: ADMIN: 'True Fans'
(says Debbie)
> >Since I really don't feel like presiding
> >over the Great Highlander Fan War of 2001 I thought that I'd try to
> >nip this in the bud before it gets started.
>
Liser responds
> {{kicking the dirt}}
>
> Aw, geesh, Debbie. You never let us have any fun anymore.
>
> {{humming Little Bunny foo-foo}}
>
> Liser
> (who, believe it or not, kinda misses old enjibay)
Poor Debbie - she certainly had to *preside over* a few
fan-wars of days past <g> I bet she's tired (wielding
a whip properly is hard work) (witness the muscles on
ADL <g>) - tis nice to see some *life* back on this list,
but I agree, nothing worse than a "true fan"/"not a true
fan" furore! (whatever the universe)
Jette
jettegoldie@thefreeinternet.co.uk
http://members.tripod.com/~bosslady/fanfic.html
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 19:35:06 -0000
From: Jette Goldie <jettegoldie@thefreeinternet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
> Personally I watch and thrill to every single moment of it. But then
> what was it Adrian called me Jette....A Highlander nut wasn't it?
I think that was the polite version <g>
Jette
jettegoldie@thefreeinternet.co.uk
http://members.tripod.com/~bosslady/fanfic.html
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 19:40:28 -0000
From: Jette Goldie <jettegoldie@thefreeinternet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Scottish Guilt?
Elaine:
> The only time Scots of either sex get emotional is Hogmanay, that's also
> when we throw our arms round strangers and kiss and hug them. The rest of
> the year, well you will rarely even see physical contact between husband
> and wife...come to think of it you'll never see that.<EG> That is an
> example of the Scottish sense of humour.
Not quite - I've seen Scotsmen get really emotional at international
sporting events, Burns Night suppers, St Andrew's Day events,
in the pub <g>.
And as for physical contact between husband and wife - maybe
not in the West, but here in the East elderly couples hold hands
in the street (but that's about as far as is decent to go) - and I
know that in Glasgow we did shock at least one of the Homeland
visitors from the US because she had never seen women friends
link arms while shopping (or nightclubbing) when they weren't
.......... "unusually happy" women friends <g>. (well, do YOU
know a better way to keep together with your pal on a crowded
street? huh?) ;-)
Jette
jettegoldie@thefreeinternet.co.uk
http://members.tripod.com/~bosslady/fanfic.html
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 5 Jan 2001 - Special issue (#2001-13)
**************************************************************