HIGHLA-L Digest - 5 Jan 2001 - Special issue (#2001-14)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@LISTS.PSU.EDU)
Fri, 5 Jan 2001 18:17:16 -0500
There are 8 messages totalling 906 lines in this issue.
Topics in this special issue:
1. Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS (5)
2. ADMIN: 'True Fans'
3. not understandable
4. Scottish Guilt?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 11:10:04 -1000
From: Geiger <geiger@maui.net>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >S
> > > > > > > >P
> > > > > > > >O
> > > > > > > >I
> > > > > > > >L
> > > > > > > >E
> > > > > > > >R
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >S
> > > > > > > >P
> > > > > > > >A
> > > > > > > >C
> > > > > > > >E
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
me before (as to Kell's lack of special abilities)--
> > 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.
Kintoun--
> For the sake of arguement, how was the Kurgan shown to be special by your
> standards in Highlander 1?
You seem to be replying to my above statement, yet I never mentioned HL1 or
The Kurgan. But, I'll try to clear up your confusion. The Kurgan was said
to be a specially evil fellow (no special powers other then his immie-ness,
just evil to the bone & good at it) in HL1. Ramirez told Connor that The
Kurgan's people entertained themselves by tossing newborn human babes to
starving dogs, as I recall. Then, HL1 showed us The Kurgan in action, in
the FBs & in curent action, every bit as vicious & brutal as advertised (if
you've seen the movie, there's no reason for me to catalog his acts; if you
haven't--rent it).
> We only saw him behead Ramirez and Kastagir. At least
> we saw Kell kill lots more immortals than that.
And we _saw_ DM BH more Immies than anyone else, in the whole HL universe/s.
That doesn't mean DM is specially evil.
Maybe most of the immies Kell whacked were newbies. Maybe he picked on the
elderly & the tots of immiedom. There are many ways an immie could rack up
an impressive tally, w/o being impressive himself. What we _saw_ Kell do
wasn't impressive; we never _saw_ him BH a resisting opponent. Maybe he
never did.
Numbers are largely worthless, as to what you are talking about. Pity TPTB
didn't remember that, when they relied on the Watchers' headcount to
establish Kell was the ultimate evil Immie.
>How can you amass 666 confirmed
> immortal kills in less than 435 years and not 'earn' your reputation?
As has been mentioned, that's about 1.5 kills per year. So? What we _saw_
Kell do is hide behind a posse of immies, kill some mortals, whack drugged
men shackled into chairs, & then whack his own unresisting followers at the
dinner table--hardly impressive.
> 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."
Irrelevant as to discussion of the _movie_. (see below)
me before--
> > 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.
Kintoun--
> There was no need to comment on the fact that I repeated a statement
above. My
> point is quite clearly expressed.
I felt a need, & no--your point was NOT clear. In fact, several others have
commented that this & others of your comments are confusing. You make
statements, & then you get irked when people comment on them. Odd.
> 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.
That's universally true of immies. So?
> 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?
(BTW--That sentence structure make it impossible to tell what you mean.)
It depends on whether the writers _wanted_ them to have time. In the HL
universe/s, revival time has always been fluid. Immies can be temporarily
killed w/ guns (& otherwise); sometimes the opponent gets the chance to BH
them prior to revival, sometimes not.
>In general, I believe that the concept of the Sanctuary works.
Really? It failed utterly in the movie.
> 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?
Oh, I think all the rest of the sloppy editing in the movie creates a
presumption that this was a similar glitch. But, even if Kell _did_ do what
you say in that one instance, it proves nothing overall as to his supposed
special powers. Immies sometimes revived immediately in the series--if it
was convenient as to the plot; it didn't make them specially powerful or
guarantee that they would always revive instantly.
me before-
> > 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.
Kintoun--
> 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?
(What do you mean--"on this ML"?)
Yes. Well, you can bring it up, but don't expect me to be swayed.
There's an argument, in fact, that if something (call it "X") was in the
script but not in the movie, then someone in charge specifically decided
that X was utterly ridiculous, it ruined the overall concept, & it didn't
belong there--& so X was purposely deleted. After all, TPTB had the script
right in front of them; if they hated X & deleted it from the final product,
then X is totally irrelevant to understanding the movie.
Of course, in practice, there are lots of reasons why something that's in
the script isn't in the movie, but you can't be sure as to any given thing
that it wasn't purposely rejected.
> I'd rather not read
> e-mails about whether Kell's followers viewed him as God like Larca when
the
> script dispelled that theory.
So, don't read them. If you're saying that you only want to interact w/
people who 1) have read the script & 2) interpret it as you do, then I doubt
you'll enjoy it here.
Nina
geiger@maui.net
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 11:35:00 -1000
From: Geiger <geiger@maui.net>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
I respect Debbie's recent directive re: the true fan stuff, & I don't mean
to get that going again. But....
> <<
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
Lance--
> For most of us, Connor was the first, and only Highlander.
Exactly _who_ does "us" above refer to? Just who are you authorized to
speak for? HL fans? HL movie fans? HL fans from another forum? HL fans
who are male? Hl fans w/ 5 letters in their 1st names? (And, like C & D in
the highwaymen FB of HL:EG--I want to see your authorization from the King.)
If you personally feel that way about Connor--that's peachy; say so.
(Nicely, of course.) It doesn't say a lot for your tolerance, imagination
or ability to grow, but.... if it's true as to you personally, fine.
Since you've just arrived on this list, you aren't speaking for list
members, so your unqualified use of the word "us" re: just about anything is
out of place.
Nina
geiger@maui.net
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 16:48:44 EST
From: Susan Kirt <SUQKRT@aol.com>
Subject: Re: ADMIN: 'True Fans'
In a message dated 1/5/01 2:21:07 PM, liser@lightlink.com writes:
>
>{{humming Little Bunny foo-foo}}
>
>Liser
>(who, believe it or not, kinda misses old enjibay)
>--
>Lisa Krakowka ** liser@lightlink.com
>
now I'm going to be giggling inappropriately all evening, because of THAT
song.
Suz
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 20:41:37 -0000
From: Rita Ballantyne <kilmarnock.oradea@virginnet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: not understandable
> | |
> |)|
> |)|
> |)|
> |)|
> |)|
> |)|
> |)|
> |)|
> |)|
> |)|
> |)|
> |)|
> |)|
I do think though that Methos has been there and been one of the few who
> has come through the other side of it. It's partly what gives him his
S**T
> Happens attitude. He has seen it all. I think the problem that Methos
now
> has is that Duncan is starting to make him care again. He sees something
> in Duncan something good maybe there is hope for people. Anyway that's my
> take on it.
I like that, that would explain a lot abt Methos/
Rita
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 20:43:46 -0000
From: Rita Ballantyne <kilmarnock.oradea@virginnet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> .
> .nobody says u can't kill on holy ground, only that is a tradition not
to.
>
> >>
> The events of HL3 and Joe's testimony in the series seem to indicate
there
> are dire, physical consequences if HG killing occurs between immortals.
> Endgame failed to respect this and further lessened it impact, IMHO.
ok, but hl3 is completely disregarded.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 15:17:56 -0800
From: Kintoun <kintoun@home.com>
Subject: Re: Greetings and Question about Endgame SPOILERS
Sandy Fields wrote:
> 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.
The implication that any member of this ML wouldn't know the only way an
immortal can be permanently killed is pretty silly. There's no need for you to
assume that lurkers are totally clueless when it comes to Highlander.
> >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.
Many people have said so in as many words. My initial responce to this thread
was directed at those who believe the Sanctuary is a flawed method for
safeguarding immortals. It's obviously far from perfect but there were lots of
monks at that first location and they were capable of making their shots count
until Kell appeared. Guns can temporarily murder an immortal in almost all
situations. The question is how long will the dead immie remain that way? I
don't believe the simple theory that it's all random and dictated by the plot.
The prelimininary script definitely hinted that the number of Quickenings lessen
an immortal's revival time.
> >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>
Well, topics can swerve into other issues. I'd be very interested to hear what
you and others 'believe' truly happened during the climactic fight scene. Of
course, Jacob is dead so there's no doubt that Duncan is now better. ^_^
> >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.
You've once again ignored commented on Carlos's decapitation. That's the prime
example of Kell's speed. No matter how skilled you are, there is no logical way
to save yourself from that move. If you refuse to accept that Jacob was
abnormally quick, how in the world did he do that? I'm in no way saying Kell was
akin to the Flash. Jin Ke's speed was probably superior to peak physical
condition too. I heard that the fight between him and Duncan was sped up a bit.
Is there any confirmation that this was true?
> >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.
Geiger said that Kell wasn't special and therefore I was curious whether she
felt the Kurgan was special. The main example of Jacob deserving his hype is his
battle with Connor in Connecticut. He managed to severely slash Connor four
times if I remember correctly. It wasn't a fluke. Jacob was simply better. If
you don't believe he was special, I guess you think even less of Connor's
abilities.
> >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!
As for the Last Supper scene, have you forgotten the fact that Jin Ke expected
Jacob to betray them all? He revealed that he was prepared to defend himself
before Kell made the first move. So Jacob beheads him. No one else had a weapon
nearby and there's an uneasiness at the table. He next turns to Cracker Bob and
chops his head off. Manny's death was conveniently skipped and we next see
Winston with a smug look on his face. Within the blink of an eye, he's dead and
Jacob turns to Faith. It's debatable whether he truly would have turned on his
flock that evening if Jin Ke didn't threaten him. In the preliminary script,
Winston formed an alliance with Calvin to shoot Jacob at the dinner and Kell was
apparently going to slaughter them in one fell swoop. That would have been much
more unique. We've never seen one motion kill 4 immortals.
> >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?
Judging from the opening view of the Sanctuary, there were a lot more than "one
or two monks" for Jacob to kill. Matthew Hale did state that the heads of all
immortals defeated by his flock are reserved for Kell alone but he must have
been pretty powerful before he had followers for them to do that.
> >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.
Jin Ke's death should come as no surprise. He didn't verbally challenge Kell but
the body languague showed he wasn't going to die without a fight. I'm positive
that the other guys didn't have blades within reaching distance so what do you
expect them to do?
> >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.
Neither I or anybody else is pretending that the script matters half as much as
the workprint or the movie. It's just interesting extra information that can
clarify a few things if you want to trust it.
> >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.
You're assuming that the monks at the front doorstep were the only Watchers
around. That's incorrect based on the present day opening scene.
> >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.
It's also possible that all the evil immortals in the world will unite, invade
every Sanctuary, and divvy up the immortals in suspended animation so everyone
benefits. How likely is that scenario though? You can't expect the Watchers to
prepare for everything. Kell was supposed to be the most formidable immortal in
the world.
> >If Jacob did indeed disappear, wouldn't that Watcher be stupid not to turn
> >around?
>
> He can disappear too?!
If you hide behind a wall and someone can't find you there anymore, you have
disappeared. The Watcher monk kept shooting where Jacob was hiding. However,
Kell struck him in the legs from behind. To the audience at my local theatre,
this seemed to be the second funniest moment in the film. The scene that
generated the most laughter was the look Connor gave to one of his captors as
the guy's sword got stuck in the ceiling during the 1565 flashback.
Kintoun
"The man can't stop a bullet. I know that much but I need your help."
-Winston
> -- Sandy
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 18:04:26 -0500
From: Elaine Nicol <ElaineN@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Scottish Guilt?
>> 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?) ;-) <<
Oh good heaven yes... I rememeber that. We had to exlain that to a few of
The Highlander Clan tour group too. Of course they got even more confused
when we were up in Inverness and came across and Italian group.<VBG>
Elaine.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 16:09:49 -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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> me before (as to Kell's lack of special abilities)--
> > > 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.
>
> Kintoun--
> > For the sake of arguement, how was the Kurgan shown to be special by your
> > standards in Highlander 1?
>
> You seem to be replying to my above statement, yet I never mentioned HL1 or
> The Kurgan. But, I'll try to clear up your confusion. The Kurgan was said
> to be a specially evil fellow (no special powers other then his immie-ness,
> just evil to the bone & good at it) in HL1. Ramirez told Connor that The
> Kurgan's people entertained themselves by tossing newborn human babes to
> starving dogs, as I recall. Then, HL1 showed us The Kurgan in action, in
> the FBs & in curent action, every bit as vicious & brutal as advertised (if
> you've seen the movie, there's no reason for me to catalog his acts; if you
> haven't--rent it).
You don't need to mention the Kurgan or Highlander 1 for me to integrate it into
the conversation. If you say that Kell wasn't special, that implies that other
k'immies were somehow special in your opinion. I've seen HL1 many times. How
would I know about Kastagir otherwise? He never appeared in any other Highlander
movie or TV episode? You seemto be the one who is confused in this thread. I'm
sorry if you can't follow when when topic strays into another issue.
> > We only saw him behead Ramirez and Kastagir. At least
> > we saw Kell kill lots more immortals than that.
>
> And we _saw_ DM BH more Immies than anyone else, in the whole HL universe/s.
> That doesn't mean DM is specially evil.
Where did I imply that Duncan MacLeod was evil. Certain people don't believe
Jacob deserves his reputation. I merely pointed out that we have more on screen
evidence of his evil than we do of the Kurgan. I never even hinted that the
number of immortal kills indicates whether someone is good or bad.
> Maybe most of the immies Kell whacked were newbies. Maybe he picked on the
> elderly & the tots of immiedom. There are many ways an immie could rack up
> an impressive tally, w/o being impressive himself. What we _saw_ Kell do
> wasn't impressive; we never _saw_ him BH a resisting opponent. Maybe he
> never did.
>
> Numbers are largely worthless, as to what you are talking about. Pity TPTB
> didn't remember that, when they relied on the Watchers' headcount to
> establish Kell was the ultimate evil Immie.
I agree 100% that numbers alone don't necessarily prove Kell lived up to his
hype but both Joe and Methos felt he deserved the recognition. Why would they
show concern for Duncan if Kell limited his headhunting to really easy targets?
> >How can you amass 666 confirmed
> > immortal kills in less than 435 years and not 'earn' your reputation?
>
> As has been mentioned, that's about 1.5 kills per year. So? What we _saw_
> Kell do is hide behind a posse of immies, kill some mortals, whack drugged
> men shackled into chairs, & then whack his own unresisting followers at the
> dinner table--hardly impressive.
It's all relative to how many kills are commited by the 'average' immortal.
Connor and Duncan's tally combined didn't equal Kell's final count.
> > 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."
>
> Irrelevant as to discussion of the _movie_. (see below)
It's may be irrelevant to you but I'm sure several people are interested in
reading it. Fans have different opinions as to what should be trusted as cannon.
> me before--
> > > 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.
>
> Kintoun--
> > There was no need to comment on the fact that I repeated a statement
> above. My
> > point is quite clearly expressed.
>
> I felt a need, & no--your point was NOT clear. In fact, several others have
> commented that this & others of your comments are confusing. You make
> statements, & then you get irked when people comment on them. Odd.
How am I getting irked? When I said that Kell disappeared after one of the
Watchers opened fire on him, Sandy choose to interpret the word as become
invisible. I have the right to correct her error.
> > 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.
>
> That's universally true of immies. So?
The key issue is the speed with which that happens. As I've said numerous times
before, Kell wouldn't stay dead for longer than a second or two no matter what
prior to Duncan cutting his head off. If he had been been magled in the car
crash fr4om the script, you would definitely have believed this.
> > 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?
>
> (BTW--That sentence structure make it impossible to tell what you mean.)
Are you the grammar police all of a sudden. It's awfully petty to nitpick
sentence structure.
> It depends on whether the writers _wanted_ them to have time. In the HL
> universe/s, revival time has always been fluid. Immies can be temporarily
> killed w/ guns (& otherwise); sometimes the opponent gets the chance to BH
> them prior to revival, sometimes not.
I realize that revival times vary depending on the circumstance. I initially
said that the Watcher monks could have cut off Cracker Bob, Winston, Carlos, and
Jin Ke's heads if Jacob wasn't involved in the raid. Pay close attantion to how
close they are to the bodies and how long Jacob's speech in the Sanctuary takes.
The monks had enough time. It's indisputable like Simon Killian having had the
opportunity to behead Duncan after he was shot.
> >In general, I believe that the concept of the Sanctuary works.
>
> Really? It failed utterly in the movie.
You can't prepare for every imaginable situation. I bet a nuclear bomb would
wipe out the sanctuary too. Should they construct a bunker?
> > 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?
>
> Oh, I think all the rest of the sloppy editing in the movie creates a
> presumption that this was a similar glitch. But, even if Kell _did_ do what
> you say in that one instance, it proves nothing overall as to his supposed
> special powers. Immies sometimes revived immediately in the series--if it
> was convenient as to the plot; it didn't make them specially powerful or
> guarantee that they would always revive instantly.
I'm ackowledging your view as a possibility but you don't seem willing to do the
same. Perhaps it wasn't sloppy editing. I honestly don't see what reviving time
has to do with Jacob Kell in this discussion. He never suffered a wound in the
present day at all until Duncan chopped his head off.
> me before-
> > > 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.
>
> Kintoun--
> > 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?
>
> (What do you mean--"on this ML"?)
>
> Yes. Well, you can bring it up, but don't expect me to be swayed.
I've never tried to sway your opinion. I simply wanted to point out that *maybe*
Kell really was faster than humans can ever become.
> There's an argument, in fact, that if something (call it "X") was in the
> script but not in the movie, then someone in charge specifically decided
> that X was utterly ridiculous, it ruined the overall concept, & it didn't
> belong there--& so X was purposely deleted. After all, TPTB had the script
> right in front of them; if they hated X & deleted it from the final product,
> then X is totally irrelevant to understanding the movie.
I'm not arguing with that. Faith & Jacob are lovers in the preliminary script.
However, the movie shows no proof whatsoever they actually were a couple. They
still could have been involved even though there aren't any hints in the film.
> Of course, in practice, there are lots of reasons why something that's in
> the script isn't in the movie, but you can't be sure as to any given thing
> that it wasn't purposely rejected.
>
> > I'd rather not read
> > e-mails about whether Kell's followers viewed him as God like Larca when
> the
> > script dispelled that theory.
>
> So, don't read them. If you're saying that you only want to interact w/
> people who 1) have read the script & 2) interpret it as you do, then I doubt
> you'll enjoy it here.
You seem defensive that anything brought up from the script is an attempt to
show that the movie was 'wrong.' I've already been here for years and I know
that the script isn't easily available. IMO, the movie shows clear examples of
Kell's speed. You've provided good reasons why he may not be so remarkable. Who
knows which of us is right?
Kintoun
"Yeah and who takes his head, huh? Gets that bucket fulla lucky charms. You, Mr.
Cool? Who's gonna be master then?"
-Calvin
>
> Nina
> geiger@maui.net
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 5 Jan 2001 - Special issue (#2001-14)
**************************************************************