HIGHLA-L Digest - 22 May 2003 to 23 May 2003 - Special issue
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
Fri, 23 May 2003 12:58:32 -0400
There are 12 messages totalling 1013 lines in this issue.
Topics in this special issue:
1. Eurominutes - The Zone (2)
2. Highlander stuff-Original movie (6)
3. HL Novels
4. Eye For An Eye
5. Old age (2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 19:21:24 -0700
From: "Lynn G. Hocker" <penumbra9star@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Eurominutes - The Zone
Unless I'm mistaken -- I think the Eurominutes in the Zone were where Duncan
wakes up that guy who was refused to be bought by Kanan for a bowl of
soup -- and then Duncan gives him some money for a bowl of soup -- wasn't
that a new bit? Or did I just forget it from the original.....
(The Zone is not one of my favourites either) You desearve a medal for sure
for sitting thru it -- and TWICE yet! lolol
Lynn~
----- Original Message -----
From: jjswbt@earthlink.net
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 7:19 AM
Subject: Eurominutes - The Zone
I think I deserve a medal for sitting through The Zone twice. The twitch
may never go away.
There *have* to be 4 extra minutes in the Euro-version. There have to be.
But damned if I could find them. I can account for about 45 seconds. After
that..it must be dozens of micro-cuts of one or two frames- and if you think
I'm watching that thing again to count frames.....
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 20:05:11 -0700
From: FKMel <sgt_buck_frobisher@yahoo.com>
Subject: Highlander stuff-Original movie
I went back and watched Highlander today and didn't
realize until now how even it has its share of
contridictions.
1. When Ramirez first meets Connor, he tells him he's
feeling the Quickening. How's that possible when no
heads were taken? Did he mean the 'Nearby Immortal
Alert' sensation?
2. Connor tells Ramirez he felt the sensation of the
nearby Kurgan on the battlefield, but how's that
possible if he hadn't become an Immie yet? (If that
were the case, Richie'd have felt it all the time
during Season 1) (I do have to say I love the Kurgan's
battle scene, with the black horse and the animal
skins and all that....creates a nice picture. Evil,
but nice LOL. Is it just me or does he look something
like the Horsemen? At least just a little bit.)
3. When Connor gets dunked in the water, and when the
Kurgan gets shot, they don't die. But shouldn't they
have died, then revived? Or did that come later?
Because that's how it always happens to Duncan.
4. I didn't realize how much the whole ending
contradicts. I can accept the 'it was so massive a
Quickening he *thought* he'd won' theory, but what
about the 'I know...I know everything!!" stuff? And
note that Connor said he could grow old and have a
family after winning the Prize, but Duncan said that
if a good Immie got the Prize,he could rule 'for all
eternity' or something like that. (What ep was that?
The Gathering?)
Ever notice how the Quickenings changed? In the
series, the bodies don't rise off the ground, and
neither does Duncan. (Or whichiver Immie it is taking
the head)
Is it me, or did they thread a lot of small things
into the series? The Kurgan almost getting his head
chopped off made me think 'Kalas'. Connor's sword and
Duncan's sword bear a remarkable resemblence to each
other. Both Connor and Duncan were disowned by their
families after becoming Immies, and both were antique
shop owners.
Speaking of Quickenings, what determines whether a
Quickening is light or dark? It actually seems to me a
guy like the Kurgan would've given Connor a Dark
Quickening, but I don't know what makes the difference
between the two.
The trouble now is I can't watch the movie without
getting strange mental images at certain points.
During the 'From the dawn of time...' speech at the
beginning, there's a part that goes 'no one ever knew
were among you until now' and I want to keep hearing
Joe 'Excuse me? Some of us did" or something like that
even though I know that most Immies don't know about
Watchers. And when they talk about the Kurgan being
the strongest Immie, I could picture Methos (or maybe
Duncan) saying they could take him.
OK I should stop rattling...hope I'll have time
tonight to squeeze in the goodies from the copy I
rented. I keep doing it because my TV-recorded copy
doesn't have the Eurominutes. And the tape has a
little 'making of' extra with interviews.
Mel, who crys during the 'Who Wants to Live Forever'
montage anyway, but now it's even sadder because I
keep thinking of Duncan and Tessa
=====
The trouble with immortality is that it tends to go on forever-Herb Cain
FK:NickNatPacker, Knight of the Cross,Knightie, Natpacker/Highlander:Duncan Flag-Waver/Due South Fan/Tracker Fan/Angel Fan/Port Charles Fan
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 23:10:35 -0400
From: jjswbt@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Eurominutes - The Zone
Lynn wrote:
>Unless I'm mistaken -- I think the Eurominutes in the Zone were where
>Duncan wakes up that guy who was refused to be bought by Kanan for a bowl of
>soup -- and then Duncan gives him some money for a bowl of soup -- wasn't
>that a new bit? Or did I just forget it from the original.....
Nope..the soup scene is in both versions. I really think it is in the fight scenes. I didn't "clock" them to see if they are equally long. I'm guessing that there is a bit more to each fight, which when added to the two short bits I did find, add up to the necessary amount of time. There were several episodes over the years where the Eurominutes were hard to find because they were split into 5 and 10 second bits...a look that lasted a hair longer, a panning shot that lingered ever so few seconds longer.
Wendy (Or they could square dance forever)
Fairy Killer
jjswbt@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jjswbt/index.html
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 20:12:42 -0700
From: FKMel <sgt_buck_frobisher@yahoo.com>
Subject: HL Novels
I've been wondering...What's everyones opinion of the
HL paperback novels? Most of them look pretty good to
me, but can they be pegged into the storyline of the
movie and series? I did notice Shadow of Obsession
being basically an AU version of Band of Brothers.
I was really just curious as to if anyone else has
read any of them and what their thoughts are.
Mel
=====
The trouble with immortality is that it tends to go on forever-Herb Cain
FK:NickNatPacker, Knight of the Cross,Knightie, Natpacker/Highlander:Duncan Flag-Waver/Due South Fan/Tracker Fan/Angel Fan/Port Charles Fan
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 23:34:22 -0400
From: jjswbt@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Eye For An Eye
I said of Duncan's attitude:
>>I don't see it as having anything to do with Richie's latent
>>immortality. It probably has more to do with the idea that a man
>>ought to protect a woman.
Marina states:
>If it was the middle ages, the highlands of Scotland in the 17th
>century, or the 1950s. Not in the '90s when such attitudes have
>(I fervently hope) bitten the dust.
I have a feeling that Duncan will feel that way if he lives to be 1000. It is just too basic to his nature.
Me:
>>I never blamed Richie for acting 19. I blamed him for acting like a
>>dumb 19 year old. (There are smart 19 year olds) And I blame him for
>>still acting like a 19 year old when he was 23.
Marina:
>Well, he *is* frozen at that age. Just like Duncan seems to be frozen
>in his attitudes to women. "A couple of medieval songwriters come up
>with the idea of chivalry one rainy day, and you embrace it as a
>lifestyle."
I agree that some of Duncan's attitudes are frozen in time (see above) And I think that Richie is disadvantaged by being "frozen" at a particularly awkward age. A 19 year old in 20th century American isn't a child but isn't yet an adult. Society's expectations for a 19 year old - and thus his expectations for himself- are fairly minimal - school, dates, a small time job, few responsibilities. Richie didn't really think of himself as a man before he became Immortal - he didn't think of himself as a man afterwards. He saw himself as a "kid", a kid that was too old to be told what to do, but a kid nonetheless. I can sympathize with his plight. OTOH, as I pointed out before- not *all* 19 year old boys are so rudderless- especially when circumstances thrust them into adult roles. Millions of 19 year olds get tossed into battles with only a few weeks training and most get real serious, real fast. For most people, the fear of death is enough to focus one's attention on staying!
alive - to learn everything one can that might come in handy, to train like hell to be prepared, to listen to old pros who have survived past battles and are willing to share. Richie didn't seem all that interested in learning his new "trade". (Which supports my theory that Richie hated and feared being Immortal and subconsciously, or consciously, sought his own death right from the first)
>>Richie gets blamed for being in the same place on the day Duncan
>>beheaded him as he was on the day he became Immortal. He wandered...
>>he raced ..he orbited Duncan like a satellite..but he didn't ever
>>seem to start thinking that he *might* be alive a long time and so
>>he *might* want to think about learning a skill and saving some money.
>Right. And three years after becoming Immortal Duncan was still
>wearing filthy clothes and hanging out in the woods. Why didn't he
>get cleaned up and start thinking about the future? Highland barbarian.
But Duncan didn't have anyone to tell him what had happened. Duncan didn't know he might live forever. Duncan didn't know people would come for his head. Duncan didn't know about compound interest <eg> Richie knew about immortality *before* he was killed by that druggie. Richie had a teacher at his side from the first moment. Richie knew all the possibilities - both good and bad - from Day One.
>>But..Richie didn't really give it a fair chance and in the end, he
>>died long before he needed to
>But he was learning there. Unlike Duncan's other friends, Richie was
>the one who supported Duncan and stood by him. And got himself killed
>for his trouble. He would have been better off running away again.
>Yes, he'd get called a coward and a bad friend, but he'd still be
>alive.
Richie was being a good friend - if they were mortal friends. What he couldn't seem to grasp was that he and Duncan were Immortals, that heads could roll, and that Duncan had a propensity for going crackers and trying to kill him<g>. Richie should have known better. How many friends did he watch Duncan kill over the years? Duncan could be a great friend..Duncan would try to save you if he could ...but Duncan also knew when to either let go or finish the job. And..Duncan had tried to kill Richie *twice* before. The second time Richie was saved only because Joe was a good shot. Why didn't he learn that you stay far away from crazy Immortals with swords? Why didn't he learn that the *only* was you do approach a crazy Immortal with a sword is with *your* sword raised and ready? Despite everything that Richie had seen and head about in the 5 years he knew Duncan , he still ignored the most basic rule of Immortality- "Watch you head".
> Funny how no one calls Methos and Joe bad friends for discussing
>Duncan's mental health and thinking he was nuts.
I seem to remember that many people thought it was odd that Methos and Joe so quickly decided Duncan was just loony. Then again, they knew he had gone round the bend before. Methos had dragged Duncan's sorry ass back from the brink of insanity before. Joe had been forced to shoot Duncan before. They knew that he had killed people while suffering his previous delusions. They were both old and smart enough to stay well clear of the crazy man with the sword.
As I said before, I don't think Richie ever fully came to terms with his immortality and the reality of playing the Game. He wasn't raised to kill people. He wasn't raised to kill people close up with a big knife. He was a 20th century boy and the Game is very non-20th century. Unlike a lot of Immortals from earlier ages, he had not expected his life to be hard and brutal and filled with up-close-and-personal death. He didn't adjust well. He didn't want to adjust. He wanted to be mortal.
Wendy(We really needed an episode where Richie met Michelle.)(Two American kids growing up in the Heartland.)
Fairy Killer
jjswbt@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jjswbt/index.html
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 18:07:34 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Highlander stuff-Original movie
> I went back and watched Highlander today and didn't
> realize until now how even it has its share of
> contridictions.
HL1 is different. And odd. And pretty great in places, while hopelessly
cheesy in others. It has very little to do w/ the series, due to lots of
things like the practical reality of weekly TV. And, TPTB had time to think
things through; it works better dramatically for Immies to die, & then
revive, for instance. The Watchers created conflict & intrigue--& Horton
was a fabulous villain. Extra stuff & different methods were needed to make
the series work & evolve far past what Greg Widen envisioned for the 1st
film.
> 'Nearby Immortal
> Alert' sensation?
Which is a lot like the look a toddler gets when filling his diaper.
> Ever notice how the Quickenings changed? In the
> series, the bodies don't rise off the ground, and
> neither does Duncan. (Or whichiver Immie it is taking
> the head)
Hah! Just wait--later on, DM levitates in Q's. Richie levitates--badly--in
Q's. Heck--a whole house levitates in season 4.... Levitation is very bad,
special effects-wise.
> Speaking of Quickenings, what determines whether a
> Quickening is light or dark? It actually seems to me a
> guy like the Kurgan would've given Connor a Dark
> Quickening, but I don't know what makes the difference
> between the two.
It seems to be a cumulative thing, but mostly it depends on the whimsey of
the writers.
Nina
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 03:33:08 -0400
From: "Janine R. Shahinian" <ja9shahinian@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Old age
on 5/20/03 4:39 PM, Sandy Fields at diamonique@comcast.net wrote:
> At 04:20 PM 05/20/2003 -0400, Robin Tidwell wrote:
>> Sorry if this has been asked before, but a person discovers that he/she is
>> immortal when they die, right. So what happens if they don't get
>> stabbed/shot/killed and they live to the ripe old age of 98 or so. I guess
>> they would be the first to lose their heads, huh.
>
> I've kinda sorta decided that *only* a violent death will bring out the
> person's immortality. A person who lived to a ripe old age and dying of
> natural causes would just be dead.
>
> All of the immies in the show whose deaths we were told about had died by
> some kind of violence, and we never saw any really old (physically) immies.
>
> -- Sandy
Sorry for being late, but mind if I go another round on one of my favorite
topics? :)
To understand my thoughts and conclusions about pre-Immortal death, I think
it helps if folks would first review the background of Immortal/pre-Immortal
birth. Just like the canon of pre-immortal birth has gone through stages -
from vague; to a bad, naturalistic answer; to all-out mystery - I choose to
ignore The Raven's "Dead on Arrival" and Endgame's naturalistic answer as a
bad decision and have settled on it being "a kind of magic".
What I wish folks would realize is that the option of a natural death and
just staying dead for a pre-immie was not canon for HL:TS, just like it
wasn't canon for the original movie. While HL:TS introduced two-stages of
immortality with, first, nascent immortals and then full immortals, the
original Highlander mythos was based on the simple fact that immortals
couldn't die - period - with the one exception being decapitation. Not only
did Connor not have a "first" death (remember, he was "all BUT a corpse" and
his survival - NOT revival - wasn't "natural"), he couldn't even temporarily
drown or be bothered much by the stabs during the drunken duel scene.
So... putting death aside for a moment, think about canon surrounding
immortal birth. In the original movie, Connor not only knows *when* he was
born, but *where*: "I am Connor MacLeod of the Clan MacLeod. I was born in
1518 in the village of Glenfinnan, on the shores of Loch Shiel and I am
immortal." There were no mentions of foundlings; Connor was simply a
kinsman.
Then came the abomination of "Highlander: The Sickening" that robbed Connor
of his noble birthplace and claimed that all immortals were actually born on
the planet Zeist. This, everyone agrees, was a Very Bad Idea. So HL:TS went
to great lengths to disavow that origins tale by replacing the Known with
the Unknown. Our new Duncan MacLeod of the Clan MacLeod is forced to ask,
"Where? Where do I come from?"
As we saw, Duncan's ignorance about his origins was not an isolated case.
Not only were we shown several examples where the foundling scenario was
retold (Michelle, David, Claudia, Kenny, Derek), but we were also shown
glimpses into Duncan's internal thought processes that let us know that
Duncan viewed this scenario as universal. In FAMILY TREE, there is an
exchange between Duncan and Tessa where Duncan expresses doubt that Richie
will find his father. In THE RETURN OF AMANDA, the cute exchange between
Amanda and Duncan makes it fairly plain: "You don't *have* a mother!" It's
not even a matter of Amanda simply not knowing her mother.
So now to anyone reading this message, I ask you: Did *you* view the
foundling rule as universal? If you did, then why? Just because every
origins tale that we were told in HL:TS involved immies being adopted, in
foster care or found living on the streets, why can't that mean that there
were immortals out there who were born into their families? Or did you come
up with some kind of "Seeds" theory to provide some kind of natural
explanation (i.e., with natural, earthly parents)? My sense is that most
fans accepted the foundling rule as a given, despite the paranormal
overtones that implied.
The evidence in HL:TS for "all pre-Immortals being immortal" is actually
stronger than "all Immies are foundlings". Even before THE IMMORTAL CIMOLI
provided the verbal proof of the violent/unnatural death rule, TIMELESS
provided the verbal proof of "all pre-Immortals are immortal".
To recap - the evidence for "all Immortals are foundlings" consists of both
A) _and_ B):
A) repeated, on-screen examples of Immortals having no known biological
parents and **NO** examples of an Immortal having natural parents (zip,
nada, none), and
B) Duncan indicating that this is a given through his behavior in FAMILY
TREE and THE RETURN OF AMANDA.
I think we're all in agreement that the evidence in B) is rather flimsy, yet
I don't think we doubt that Duncan ever thought otherwise.
Refreshing your memory for THE IMMORTAL CIMOLI:
In the presence of a far older Immortal (i.e., Amanda), Duncan voices his
belief in the Violent/Unnatural Death Rule to Danny: "You died recently - a
robbery, or an accident or something?" This is very strong "level B"
evidence. Not only does it top a string of on-screen "first death" examples
to express this phenomenon as a universal assumption and rule, but it's said
in the presence of another Immortal who can vouch for that assumption or
correct it if it were wrong.
The trouble with the "Violent" Death Rule is that it seemed to leave a
loophole open: If it takes an unnatural death to trigger full immortality,
then what happens in the case of a natural death by old age or disease? But
there never was a loophole. Not only did the mythos start out with Immortals
who never died except by decapitation, but in LEGACY, pre-immortal Amanda
was able to run amok and even eat bread taken from a disease-infested
neighborhood without being one of the casualties.
Once again, we have both A) and B) evidence for "all pre-Immortals are
immortal":
A) repeated, on-screen examples of pre-Immortals becoming full-fledged
Immortals after reviving from a violent death (14 by my count) and **NO**
examples of a pre-Immortal dying of natural causes and staying dead (zip,
nada, none), and
B) Duncan indicating that all pre-Immortals become immortal through
CLEAR-CUT ACTUAL WORDS TO THAT EFFECT:
[not in order]
#1 - In RoP, Michelle asks Duncan, "How long have you known?" To which
Duncan replies, "I knew this day would come since the first day I saw you
with your parents."
#2 - In the LotP flashback, when Richie states, "I'm an Immortal," Duncan
replies, "You always were."
#3 - In Glory Days, Duncan tells Johnny K that, "It doesn't have to be that
way.... You have much more of a future than you think."
And finally, the one you've been waiting for... the biggie:
#4 - Timeless - where we don't just have Duncan's belief, but also Walter's
and The Man, himself: Methos!
Refreshing your memory: After the mystery Immortal (Walter) tries to kill
Claudia the second time with the car, Duncan tells Methos about it. Methos
answers, "Who would want her dead before her time?"
Clearly, Methos is not talking about true death, as that's what the Game is
all about: killing Immortals. Instead, Methos is talking about Claudia's
*first* death and triggering her full immortality BEFORE HER TIME - an
inevitable time.
Later: Duncan and Methos talk again about Claudia before Walter shoots her.
As Duncan tries to protect Claudia at the dojo, Methos suggests simply
telling Claudia the truth so she'll know what she's up against. Duncan
disagrees: "She should have some semblance of a normal life. When she finds
out what she is, that becomes impossible."
What SHE **IS**, not what she could be. Also, if pre-Immortals could die
from natural causes and stay dead, then they *would* have had a REAL, normal
life, not just a "semblance" of one.
"Semblance": a. outward appearance; b. an assumed or unreal appearance of
something; mere show.
The rule that "all pre-Immortals are immortal" was Duncan's own belief in
HL:TS. It was a belief that motivated all his actions towards pre-Immies.
More importantly, it was expressed to the oldest Immortal who expressed
similar sentiments.
Further in the episode: Claudia *specifically* asks, "What's there to be
angry about?" Duncan doesn't really have an answer, so Walter gloats, "I
picked the perfect time." Duncan only grumbles, "It wasn't your right."
Is Duncan saying it wasn't Walter's right to *make* Claudia immortal at all,
or to simply "pick the perfect time"? If it were the former, and Claudia
could have had the option of a fully normal life, wouldn't Duncan have been
far angrier, not to mention Claudia?
The final bit of evidence is when Walter shouts to Claudia, "He would have
let you become a shriveled up old woman!" Why not, "He would have let you
grow old and die!"? The reason is that Walter shares the belief in the rule
that all pre-Immortals become immortal at some point in time. It was either
become fully immortal now or later, not now or possibly never.
That's THREE immortals, including the oldest one, who expressed their
beliefs and motivations on this subject - far more than what we saw with the
foundlings rule. This means that "all pre-Immortals are immortal" was canon
up until The Raven had Amanda expressing a different belief and Duncan going
totally against his HL:TS character by stabbing Kate in Endgame.
For me, filling in the alleged "loophole" was as pointless and
mythos-killing as Zeist. Why come up with Zeist when it is so much more
satisfying to have Connor MacLeod be born in Glennfinnan on the shores of
Lock Sheil? And why come up with non-immortal "pre" Immies when any really,
really old person is an accident waiting to happen anyway?
There was no loophole. Just because TPTB veered away from original canon
doesn't make it right.
*~*~*~*
P.S.
on 5/20/03 6:59 PM, Dawn Lehman at USTADAWN@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 5/20/2003 5:51:43 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> diamonique@comcast.net writes:
>
>> But... but... we were discussing this LONG before Raven, and many of us
>> (not all, but many) came to that conclusion a long time ago. I don't know
>> if TPTB ever really added the violent part. I've only heard it from
>> fans. It just seemed to fit everything we had seen on the series. Did
>> TPTB ever mention it?
>>
>
> Yes, I think that it was mentioned in the episode with Rae Dawn Chong (one of
> my Favorites; I think it was called Chilvary????) anyway, Duncan and Methos
> was talking about Rae Dawn's character becoming an immie; Duncan mentioned
> the fact that she had to die a violent death before "emerging."
The latter comment never happened in TIMELESS. AFAIK, the only verbal
acknowledgement of only unnatural causes being involved is in THE IMMORTAL
CIMOLI.
*~*~*~*
Janine (off to MediaWest!)
ja9shahinian@comcast.net
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 06:46:00 -0700
From: Stephen Bryce <sibryce@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Highlander stuff-Original movie
> 1. When Ramirez first meets Connor, he tells him
> he's feeling the Quickening. How's that possible
when
> no heads were taken? Did he mean the 'Nearby
Immortal
> Alert' sensation?
That was the impression I was under, though what we
see Connor go through doesn't quite match either of
them.
> 3. When Connor gets dunked in the water, and when
> the Kurgan gets shot, they don't die. But shouldn't
> they have died, then revived? Or did that come
later?
> Because that's how it always happens to Duncan.
That didn't happen until "Highlander II", and aside
from the third movie, it's been there almost
consistently ever since.
> Ever notice how the Quickenings changed? In the
> series, the bodies don't rise off the ground, and
> neither does Duncan. (Or whichiver Immie it is
> taking the head)
As has been pointed out, leviations were rare, but
they did happen from time to time.
A lot of the other contradictions were probably
because they didn't have some of this stuff firmly in
stone yet. For instance, The Kurgan seems genuinely
surprised in the church when he finds out who Heather
was, but seeing as we later find out that Quickenings
include knowledge as well as power, he should have
known Ramirez was lying as soon as his head hit the
ground.
Stephen
=====
"If we want to make any decent time, I say we ditch the cripple. No offense, Vriess."
(Vriess gives him the finger)
"None taken."
-- Dominque Pinion and Ron Perlman, "Alien: Resurrection"
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 10:49:46 -0400
From: jjswbt@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Highlander stuff-Original movie
I might as well take a shot at these as well.
Mel wote:
>1. When Ramirez first meets Connor, he tells him he's
>feeling the Quickening. How's that possible when no
>heads were taken? Did he mean the 'Nearby Immortal
>Alert' sensation?
The Quickening in HL1 is much more universal than it came to be in HL:TS. There was the nearby Immoral alert, there was also the "feel teh Force" sensation that allows Connor and teh stag to conmnnect, and then tehre was teh big bang of a decapitation.I think it was intended tobe more of a Force thing - the interconnection of all livingthings- which got changed when the Series was written.
>2. Connor tells Ramirez he felt the sensation of the
>nearby Kurgan on the battlefield, but how's that
>possible if he hadn't become an Immie yet?
In HL1 all Immortals are always Immortal with full sensing powers. IN HL:TS there are Immortals and then there are Pre-Immortals. You only get teh full sensor array after your first death (I'll deal with Janine's theory elsewhere<g>)
>3. When Connor gets dunked in the water, and when the
>Kurgan gets shot, they don't die. But shouldn't they
>have died, then revived? Or did that come later?
>Because that's how it always happens to Duncan.
Again, HL1 Immortals never die unless decapitated. L:TS Immortals die al teh time - just not permanaently.
>4. I didn't realize how much the whole ending
>contradicts. I can accept the 'it was so massive a
>Quickening he *thought* he'd won' theory, but what
>about the 'I know...I know everything!!" stuff? And
>note that Connor said he could grow old and have a
>family after winning the Prize, but Duncan said that
>if a good Immie got the Prize,he could rule 'for all
>eternity' or something like that. (What ep was that?
>The Gathering?)
You just have to accept teh fact that teh movie was intended to be <gasp> a movie. A one shot deal. A complete story that had an ending. Finis. Done. Then ..it wasn't done. There was a second movie and a Series. Either teh Series had ot be set in teh past (before Connor won) or history had to be rewritten to allow for teh Game to stil be going on. So..first we discover taht Connor was wrong about the whole Game Over scenario ..and then we discover taht what he thought was teh Grand Prize was really just a reward for winning a quarter final match.<g> For a TV series, the less scecific one can be about long term goals, the better. If you box oyurself in in Season 1, you may well regret it in Season 4 or 5.
>Ever notice how the Quickenings changed? In the
>series, the bodies don't rise off the ground, and
>neither does Duncan. (Or whichiver Immie it is taking
>the head)
As others have noted, levitations do aoccur. Most of us just try very hard ot blot them out of our minds.
>Speaking of Quickenings, what determines whether a
>Quickening is light or dark? It actually seems to me a
>guy like the Kurgan would've given Connor a Dark
>Quickening, but I don't know what makes the difference
>between the two.
There are no Dark or Light Quickenings. It's a myth. Despite teh lame ass explanation used in "Something Wicked" and "Deliverance", it makes no sense and I refuse to credit it. (so there)
Wendy(Dark Quickenings!)(What a joke!)
Fairy Killer
jjswbt@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jjswbt/index.html
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 14:48:44 +0000
From: beccaelizabeth <r.day@netcom.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Highlander stuff-Original movie
FKMel wrote:
>
> I went back and watched Highlander today and didn't
> realize until now how even it has its share of
> contridictions.
>
> 1. When Ramirez first meets Connor, he tells him he's
> feeling the Quickening. How's that possible when no
> heads were taken? Did he mean the 'Nearby Immortal
> Alert' sensation?
Quickening is the life force of an Immortal, what keeps them alive.
They feel it when another Immortal is near, and the sensation is
apparently unpleasant for some of them. The transfer of Quickening is
what is usually called *a* Quickening.
I think of Quickening as being the English translation of Qi, Ki, or
Chi, different ways of writing the Japanese / Chinese version of life
force. I think its Ka in Egyptian, that part of the multi part soul
that keeps you alive, represented by raised arms (and the last symbol of
my first name in hieroglyphs). A lot of languages have a word for it
but English pretty much doesnt. The traditional meaning of the
quickening is that moment where the soul/life enters a child and it
starts moving inside the mother. So its a sort of logical word for the
concept of life force.
all that said its all my understanding of the scraps canon presented,
rather than some big speech in canon.
most other differences are because the film is a slightly different
universe to the series.
> 4. I didn't realize how much the whole ending
> contradicts. I can accept the 'it was so massive a
> Quickening he *thought* he'd won' theory, but what
> about the 'I know...I know everything!!" stuff?
maybe thats what a Quickening feels like anyway?
Being connected to life like that.
but most people are too overwhelmed to articulate it
or just dont have anyone to say it to
yes I know doesnt explain the afterwards but it was meant to be the
Prize so maybe when theres no other Immortals confusing the signal the
last will be able to hear it all the time.
> note that Connor said he could grow old and have a
> family after winning the Prize,
my favourite explanation for that was in fanfic, though I cant remember
the name. Connor and Duncan in a bar, talking about some Immortal
groupie who wouldnt take a hint and get lost. So Connor pretended to be
mortal. So then they're sitting on a hill in Scotland and Connor's all
'mortal' but he feels another Immortal approaching and has to get his
sword out.
erm, its funnier in the proper written version.
>but Duncan said that
> if a good Immie got the Prize,he could rule 'for all
> eternity' or something like that. (What ep was that?
> The Gathering?)
The Prize hasnt happened yet in the series so everyone just believes its
whatever thing they personally think would be worth all this fuss.
I personally cant think of any prize worth the game.
>Connor's sword and
> Duncan's sword bear a remarkable resemblence to each
> other.
In 'The Gathering' iirc Connor wasn't using the dragon head katana, and
in, I think Freefall talking to Felicia?, Duncan said the katana was
given him by a kinsman. Implication, Duncan was using Connor's sword.
And it looked different for merchandising purposes. But later they
figured that was a dumb idea and Connor was still using Connors sword so
they made up a new story about where Duncan got his sword. Which made a
liar of Duncan but thats hardly the only time.
>Both Connor and Duncan were disowned by their
> families after becoming Immies, and both were antique
> shop owners.
both logical reactions to being Immortal. I mean a garage sale would be
a bit of a waste after a while, eventually even your cutlery gets to be
antique. And it is a good way of disposing of all the swords you could
acquire, whilst making a bit of money.
beccaelizabeth
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4212/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 10:51:46 -0400
From: jjswbt@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Highlander stuff-Original movie
Whoa!
Please excuse the 3654 typos in that last message I sent. I really need to move the "Send" button far away from the "Spellcheck" button on my tool bar.
Yikes!
Wendy(Now you all know what a crappy typist I am<eg>)
Fairy Killer
jjswbt@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jjswbt/index.html
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 12:59:26 -0400
From: jjswbt@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Old age
Janine wrote:
>Sorry for being late, but mind if I go another round on one of my favorite
>topics? :)
Only if I can have another round too<g>
>To understand my thoughts and conclusions about pre-Immortal death, I think
>it helps if folks would first review the background of Immortal/pre-Immortal
>birth. Just like the canon of pre-immortal birth has gone through stages -
>from vague; to a bad, naturalistic answer; to all-out mystery - I choose to
>ignore The Raven's "Dead on Arrival" and Endgame's naturalistic answer as a
>bad decision and have settled on it being "a kind of magic".
While I'm all for ignoring all the movies as a canon apart from the Series, I object to ignoring one episode of the Series (in which I include Raven) just because it doesn't suit your theory.
>What I wish folks would realize is that the option of a natural death and
>just staying dead for a pre-immie was not canon for HL:TS, just like it
>wasn't canon for the original movie.
What you wish folks to realize is that *you think* that the option for a natural death isn't canon.
>While HL:TS introduced two-stages of
>immortality with, first, nascent immortals and then full immortals, the
>original Highlander mythos was based on the simple fact that immortals
>couldn't die - period - with the one exception being decapitation. Not only
>did Connor not have a "first" death (remember, he was "all BUT a corpse"
>and his survival - NOT revival - wasn't "natural"), he couldn't even
>temporarily drown or be bothered much by the stabs during the drunken duel scene.
As has been noted numerous times over the years, HL1 and HL:TS are not consistent on a number of points. One can't really use evidence from HL1 as definitive proof for or against whatever happens in HL:TS. HL1 Immortals clearly *don't* die unless decapitated. HL:TS Immortals clearly *do* die all the time. Unless one wishes to ignore hundreds of HL:TS examples, I think you have to accept that HL:TS Immortals can and do suffer temporary deaths. They die and then revive. That's Series canon.
>So... putting death aside for a moment, think about canon surrounding
>immortal birth. In the original movie, Connor not only knows *when* he was
>born, but *where*: "I am Connor MacLeod of the Clan MacLeod. I was born in
>1518 in the village of Glenfinnan, on the shores of Loch Shiel and I am
>immortal." There were no mentions of foundlings; Connor was simply a
>kinsman.
*So far as Connor knew* he had been born on the shores of Loch Shiel. That doesn't negate the possibility that he was *found* on the shores of Loch Shiel as a baby and handed off to the MacLeods to raise. Many a foundling wasn't told the real circumstances of his/her birth. If you had asked Duncan at age 5 or 17 or 25 or 29 where he was born, he would have said the same thing "born in Glenfinnan". He would have thought he was telling the truth...he would have been mistaken.
>Then came the abomination of "Highlander: The Sickening" that robbed Connor
>of his noble birthplace and claimed that all immortals were actually born
>on the planet Zeist. This, everyone agrees, was a Very Bad Idea. So HL:TS went
>to great lengths to disavow that origins tale by replacing the Known with
>the Unknown. Our new Duncan MacLeod of the Clan MacLeod is forced to ask,
>"Where? Where do I come from?"
But Duncan didn't ask that question until after he was told the truth about his being a foundling. Any foundling anywhere (and not just Immortal ones) is likely to ask "where do I come from" .
>As we saw, Duncan's ignorance about his origins was not an isolated case.
>Not only were we shown several examples where the foundling scenario was
>retold (Michelle, David, Claudia, Kenny, Derek), but we were also shown
>glimpses into Duncan's internal thought processes that let us know that
>Duncan viewed this scenario as universal.<snip>
>So now to anyone reading this message, I ask you: Did *you* view the
>foundling rule as universal?
Yes.
>If you did, then why?
Because, of all the Immortals we saw or heard about, we never saw one that had real parents. Because the Watchers told us that *they* had never seen a case of an Immortal with real parents.
> Just because every
>origins tale that we were told in HL:TS involved immies being adopted, in
>foster care or found living on the streets, why can't that mean that there
>were immortals out there who were born into their families?
One can't prove a negative, so I won't bother to try<eg> The fact that 100% of the origin stories we heard about said that the Immortal involved had no real parents seems good enough for me.
>Or did you come
>up with some kind of "Seeds" theory to provide some kind of natural
>explanation (i.e., with natural, earthly parents)?
Lord, no. That theory is so much more difficult to swallow that I refuse to try.
>My sense is that most
>fans accepted the foundling rule as a given, despite the paranormal
>overtones that implied.
And is there something wrong with "paranormal overtones"? <g> Belief that "it's a kind of magic" is sort of a prerequisite for watching the show.
>To recap - the evidence for "all Immortals are foundlings" consists of both
>A) _and_ B):
>A) repeated, on-screen examples of Immortals having no known biological
>parents and **NO** examples of an Immortal having natural parents (zip,
>nada, none), and
>B) Duncan indicating that this is a given through his behavior in FAMILY
>TREE and THE RETURN OF AMANDA.
If you're going to use proofs, I'm going to use math - and things are going to get ugly<g>
>I think we're all in agreement that the evidence in B) is rather flimsy,
>yet I don't think we doubt that Duncan ever thought otherwise.
I don't see why B is flimsy. It's Duncan's opinion - based on 400 years of experience. I'll agree that that doesn't mean many things couldn't have happened outside his experience.
>The trouble with the "Violent" Death Rule is that it seemed to leave a
>loophole open: If it takes an unnatural death to trigger full immortality,
>then what happens in the case of a natural death by old age or disease?
They die. Bye-bye.
> But there never was a loophole. Not only did the mythos start out with
>Immortals who never died except by decapitation,
As noted above, the movies and the series are not the same. Things that are a given in HL1 are directly contradicted by the Series (and by later movies). Are you willing to say that all the times we saw Immortal in HL:TS "die" , they really didn't die? I don't think so. We saw them flat-line in hospitals, we saw them laid out for burial, we heard numerous Immortals talk about being "dead" and coming back. It is a major difference between HL1 and HL:TS. If that huge point can be different, why can't the "always Immortal" versus "pre-Immortal/violent death trigger" be different?
>but in LEGACY, pre-immortal Amanda
>was able to run amok and even eat bread taken from a disease-infested
>neighborhood without being one of the casualties.
A) Not everyone exposed to the the plague died. If so, there wouldn't have been anyone left in much of Europe. There are always some individuals who are immune. So, Amanda's lack of disease is not unequivocal proof that she was already Immortal.
B) She was killed almost immediately after she took the bread. For all we know, that was the first time she had entered a disease infested house. It takes time to die from disease- she didn't get that time. (Of course , if you believe she didn't die when she got whapped on the head, that's another story)(Of course, it is canon that she did die then)
C) While we have little or no evidence about the effects of viruses and bacteria on Pre-Immortals (if we accept that there *are* Pre-Immortals), it seems possible that they *do* get sick at a rate consistent with the mortal population. If they didn't - it would sooner or later draw attention to the little kids who never ever ever caught any disease.
>Once again, we have both A) and B) evidence for "all pre-Immortals are
>immortal":
No...we have evidence that all the Pre-Immortals we knew about eventually became Immortal. That's different.
A) repeated, on-screen examples of pre-Immortals becoming full-fledged
>Immortals after reviving from a violent death (14 by my count) and **NO**
>examples of a pre-Immortal dying of natural causes and staying dead (zip,
>nada, none), and
There are some interesting points to consider, however. Pre-Immortals continue to age at a normal rate. Immortals don't. Immortals are frozen at the age of their first death. So...a Pre-Immortal who lived a nice safe life would continue to live and age "forever". If that were true, we would see more evidence of 500 year old Pre-Immortals all withered up and living in hospital beds for centuries. We don't.
>B) Duncan indicating that all pre-Immortals become immortal through
>CLEAR-CUT ACTUAL WORDS TO THAT EFFECT:
NO <g> It is hardly clear cut at all.
>[not in order]
>#1 - In RoP, Michelle asks Duncan, "How long have you known?" To which
>Duncan replies, "I knew this day would come since the first day I saw you
>with your parents."
Michelle didn't strike me as the type of teenager you'd bother to explain the finer points of Pre-Immortality/Immortality to. She was freaked out and, at that moment, no more detailed explanation was required. What good would it have done to say " I knew this was a possibility from the first day I saw you but I didn't bother to warn you that you ought to be careful or else you'd end up a snotty 17 year old forever"? The deed was done. Why confuse the issue?
>#2 - In the LotP flashback, when Richie states, "I'm an Immortal," Duncan
>replies, "You always were."
But he *wasn't* - he was Pre-Immortal. There is a difference. If every Pre-Immortal is really Immortal...what *is* a Pre-Immortal? An accident waiting to happen?
>#3 - In Glory Days, Duncan tells Johnny K that, "It doesn't have to be that
>way.... You have much more of a future than you think."
A) Any mortal man might say the same thing to any mortal teenager in an attempt to get them to look long term and
B) what else could he say? "You *could have* much more of a future is you just let yourself get killed while you're still young and strong" and
C) Given Johnny's attitude and actions, Duncan was probably pretty certain he'd meet with a bad end eventually.
>And finally, the one you've been waiting for... the biggie:
>
>#4 - Timeless - where we don't just have Duncan's belief, but also Walter's
>and The Man, himself: Methos!
>
>Refreshing your memory: After the mystery Immortal (Walter) tries to kill
>Claudia the second time with the car, Duncan tells Methos about it. Methos
>answers, "Who would want her dead before her time?"
>
>Clearly, Methos is not talking about true death, as that's what the Game is
>all about: killing Immortals. Instead, Methos is talking about Claudia's
>*first* death and triggering her full immortality BEFORE HER TIME - an
>inevitable time.
Not so clear at all. She was a young woman who had almost been gunned down. It wasn't an accident. Someone was trying to *kill* her before her time or "before nature took it's course". Nature, in this case, being either an accident or old age/disease. What he was asking was "Why did someone want her to become Immortal?" "Who benefits by this?" "Who took the decision out of fate's hands?"
>Later: Duncan and Methos talk again about Claudia before Walter shoots her.
>As Duncan tries to protect Claudia at the dojo, Methos suggests simply
>telling Claudia the truth so she'll know what she's up against. Duncan
>disagrees: "She should have some semblance of a normal life. When she finds
>out what she is, that becomes impossible."
>
>What SHE **IS**, not what she could be. Also, if pre-Immortals could die
>from natural causes and stay dead, then they *would* have had a REAL,
>normal life, not just a "semblance" of one.
But what she is is *Pre-Immortal*. The state of *not yet* being Immortal. If she found out that she *might* become Immortal..she couldn't have a normal life because she would always be thinking about that possibility. She would change the way she lived - worry more about being careful. Watch every step. That's not normal. The only way for her to have "a semblance " of a normal life is to *not* let her know of the possibility before it, perhaps, became a reality.
>The rule that "all pre-Immortals are immortal" was Duncan's own belief in
>HL:TS. It was a belief that motivated all his actions towards pre-Immies.
>More importantly, it was expressed to the oldest Immortal who expressed
>similar sentiments.
No, I think the "rule" is your own belief.
>Further in the episode: Claudia *specifically* asks, "What's there to be
>angry about?" Duncan doesn't really have an answer, so Walter gloats, "I
>picked the perfect time." Duncan only grumbles, "It wasn't your right."
>
>Is Duncan saying it wasn't Walter's right to *make* Claudia immortal at
>all, or to simply "pick the perfect time"? If it were the former, and Claudia
>could have had the option of a fully normal life, wouldn't Duncan have been
>far angrier, not to mention Claudia?
What's done is done..what good does getting angry do...especially since Claudia was so entranced by the idea? Claudia thought it was cool that she'd be young forever and never get arthritis. (That was before she lost the fire and realized people would try to take her head). Duncan's belief is, IMGLO, that no one has a right to purposely make someone else Immortal. If they end up that way, that's fate..but you don't take it upon yourself to give fate a push. You don't tell Pre-Immortals what they are..because that changes their lives too..they'll act differently, live differently (more care..less careful) because you messed with their path in life.
>The final bit of evidence is when Walter shouts to Claudia, "He would have
>let you become a shriveled up old woman!" Why not, "He would have let you
>grow old and die!"? The reason is that Walter shares the belief in the rule
>that all pre-Immortals become immortal at some point in time. It was either
>become fully immortal now or later, not now or possibly never.
Or maybe it was just a figure of speech? Maybe he chose to emphasize the "shrivelled up and "old" aspects because he knew those would bother a pretty young woman the most?
>That's THREE immortals, including the oldest one, who expressed their
>beliefs and motivations on this subject - far more than what we saw with
>the foundlings rule. This means that "all pre-Immortals are immortal" was canon
>up until The Raven had Amanda expressing a different belief and Duncan
>going totally against his HL:TS character by stabbing Kate in Endgame.
No. I don't think so. I think we had lots of evidence that could go either way. HL:TS Immortals have a Pre-Immortal stage that movie Immortals (at least HL1 movie Immortals) lack. What is the point of having this Pre-Immortal stage? Why not just have HL:TS Immortals be just like movie Immortals? Because, I assume, TPTB wanted to add the drama of the audience seeing Pre-Immortals become Immortal. Because it allowed for Immortals stuck at all stages of life, instead of the Immortals in HL1 who seemed to continue to age albeit at a slow rate. Because, perhaps it allowed for the possibility that some poor Pre-Immortal schmuck would live out his days and die of old age, never having gotten his chance to lop off heads.
>For me, filling in the alleged "loophole" was as pointless and
>mythos-killing as Zeist. Why come up with Zeist when it is so much more
>satisfying to have Connor MacLeod be born in Glennfinnan on the shores of
>Lock Sheil? And why come up with non-immortal "pre" Immies when any really,
>really old person is an accident waiting to happen anyway?
But TPTB *did* decide that all Immortals are foundlings. They decided that Immortals are frozen in time instead of aging slowly. They did decide that there are Pre-Immortals as well as Immortals. They did decide that Pre-Immortals must die before becoming fully Immortal. They did decide that Immortals can die and revive instead of never dying at all (except by decapitation.). They did decide that some Immortals can sense Pre-Immortals and don't seem to be able to. In moving from HL1 to HL:TS, TPTB made numerous changes in "canon". The fact that they made something canon that you don't like doesn't make it less canonical.
>There was no loophole. Just because TPTB veered away from original canon
>doesn't make it right.
The *fact* is that there was ample evidence to support a finding that violence was necessary to create a full Immortal. Raven and Endgame merely spell it out in more direct terms.Unless you can find an example in HL:TS were any authoritative character clearly stated that "Pre-Immortals can not die and stay dead from old age" , canon wasn't changed. It wasn't even veered away from. It was clarified.
My complaint with Raven was *not* that Amanda demonstrated a belief that only violence would trigger Immortality, it was her belief that poison didn't count as violence. The Watcher's Chronicles have many examples of Immortality being triggered by poison- both natural (bad food) and unnatural (deliberate poisoning by enemies). I can excuse this apparent break with canon by saying that it was only Amanda's *belief* that poison wouldn't work to trigger the Immortality- I believe Nick *would* have become Immortal from the poison even if she hadn't shot him.
Wendy(I licked Silas.)
Fairy Killer
jjswbt@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jjswbt/index.html
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 22 May 2003 to 23 May 2003 - Special issue (#2003-88)
******************************************************************************