Amph It's A Kind Of Magic... Highlander (The Remake Thread)

'Liked' this because of your analysis and because of your The Year Disney Makes All The Money comment. How accurate in this case.

 

Yeah, Highlander never could quite settle on what it was, and every film seemed to be a ret-con of the previous one. In my opinion they need to use the basic premise of the original film, clarify the back story, the rules and the stakes a bit better, and stretch out the battle for "The Prize" over 2-3 films, so that it becomes the clear central goal of the saga and not the first film. If you tie that up in film one, where do you go in film two? What you get is a confusing and contrived do-over like "Surprise, they're aliens!". In film one all you need to satisfy people is Connor getting revenge against the Immortal who killed his wife and his mentor. The Kurgan doesn't need to be the one he beats to get The Prize. That can come later.

 

God I hope this doesn't get a PG13.

 

Can't wait to see this movie. The original Highlander flick with Christopher Lambert and Sean Connery is irreplaceable imho, though. Them were some terrific films, they had there. Thought End Games was dreadful though, as Adrian Paul was great in the tv series, but I never wanted him to truly replace Lambert in the all too definitive way that he did. I do hope that the creators bring back the opening theme music "I am immortal," for the modern-day Highlander, but I doubt that they would. One of the many things I liked about Highlander were the frequent Lost-esque transitions between present-day events, and past memories as those were done very well, usually. The new Highlander needs to be careful with this though, because too many of those back-and-forth scenes could cause quite a bit of confusion within the context of the movie, and that could hinder an otherwise potentially great film, and dang it Highlander is far too iconic to fail to deliver.

 

The thing is that this time, they'd leave the door open for sequels and television series. The first film didn't have that luxury and if not for that investor that approached Panzer and Davis about doing a sequel, that would have been it in 1986.

The problem with the films wasn't that Panzer didn't know what story to tell, the problem was stupid ideas cropping up under his pen and some of which wound up in the finished product. Case in point, in his draft of the third film, he had Kane use his illusion powers to become a great white shark and try to kill Connor. According to Peter Briggs, he had tossed the script at the wall by that point. But when the ideas were good, like a good chunk of the fourth film, they would work well.

The television series, on the other hand, did get the point. Widen's point when he came up with "Highlander" is what would it be like if a man lived five hundred years, what would his point of view and experiences be like today. The series had enough room to really explore that with six seasons and almost 120 episodes. That's why it became a morality play.

The song is called "Princes Of The Universe" and unless Queen's version is used, it is probably best not to try again. Otherwise, we'd end up with a version like in "The Source".

 

Thanks for providing the title, as I've always liked that song, but have never taken the time to look up it up. Didn't even know Queen was responsible for singing it...definitely explains the high-quality.

 

So 2 is available for live streaming on Netflix (along with 3 and 4 still I think). Do I dare?

 

I like two. I can kind of think of it as an AU and plus, it has Lambert, Connery, and Michael Ironside.

 

Oh, I understand that much. But my point is that the film in 1986 should have been it. Highlander II never should have been made. The tv series granted them the popularity to make more films, but they were all crap.

No, they really had no idea what it was about. I mean, what it was all REALLY about. I'm not talking about one film here. I'm talking about the entire franchise. There are several versions of Highlander 2. In the theatrical version, I think they were aliens. In the Renegade Version they were sent into the future from the very distant past of Earth history, using some kind of time machine. For some reason, instead of killing them, their enemy did this to them as a punishment. This of course, never explains why they are all destined to kill each other. Highlander 3 retcons that, and was essentially little more than a retelling of the original, just with some name changes. End Game sort of came out of nowhere, in an attempt to merge the films with the series, and at the same time establish Duncan as the undisputed title character. The Source was irredeemable. It totally killed everything. Now, all of a sudden, the story isn't about fighting to the last man, and winning the Prize. They literally had no idea what to do with Highlander over that 20 year span of time.

As for the show getting to the point, it really didn't. It wandered off into Lala land, with Duncan fighting demons. The very first episode was called The Gathering. They had 6 seasons to bring the gathering to an end, but by the end of the very last episode, you don't have the slightest clue how many immortals are left. All you get is a "What if Duncan never existed " episode.

 

Actually, the third film was already in development when the decision to do it on television was made. As to quality, well, the third film wasn't too bad and the fourth was pretty good.

That's because the fans got upset over the second film and the RV was created as a compensation to both the fans and Mulcahy.

That was the director's doing. It was more of a sequel, but Panzer and Davis weren't present during filming and left it to producer Claude Leger, who let Andy Morahan essentially retell the same story.

That wasn't the intention with Duncan. Lambert was ready to move on, but was willing to do this since the fans wanted to see that. It was decided to have Connor be killed off, since it would be his exit from the story. Connor and Duncan's story was already merged in "The Gathering" and various episodes of the series that referred to the first film's storyline. It was just not being told in a theatrical tale. It was set in the series continuity since it didn't have the issues of the two previous sequels.

Actually, it still did. The problem is that the final film doesn't make it clear, because the last scene was never filmed and a poor voice over was added at the end of the second cut of the film. See, the final scene would reveal that Immortals still existed and that Duncan's child would be the one to carry on through to the end and win the Prize. It was changed by the director, after Panzer had died, into being that the child would be humanity's savior without killing all of the Immortals.

That's because the show was going to lead into the fourth film. That was planned out since 1997, after Gregory Widen's script was rejected by the studio. Panzer and Davis had intended to use "Star Trek" and "Star Trek: The Next Generation" as a guideline. Abramowitz and Panzer came up with the Ahriman arc to try and add a deeper meaning behind the purpose of the Immortals. The final episode was designed as a summation of Duncan's entire life, resolving all of the storylines from the previous seasons. They had never intended to end the show, especially since "The Raven" was in development.

 

There are reasons for why everything turned out the way they turned out. I'm not disputing that. But you can't get past the fact that the Highlander film franchise is a complete, convoluted, mess. Instead of making films that worked really well with each other, they made films that didn't work. I think we can all be glad when any film franchise turns out making more sense than Highlander does.

I'm not so sure how much the fans wanted to see the Connor character in a movie with the Duncan Character. I'm sure they were out there, but not all of them did. I certainly didn't, and I can recall much dismay on the internet over the death of the Connor character. As for the show merging the series with the films? It didn't. Connor was a part of Duncan's back story, and so they had him appear in the pilot. As far as the films were concerned, Connor had already won the Prize. After End Game, Christopher Lambert was moving on. True. Adrian Paul stayed, but he only ended up making one more Highlander film, that was supposed to open things up for an entirely new chapter? But it went nowhere.

That's the important part, because that is now how the story goes. Highlander should have never come to this. How it came to this, and what it could have been, or was supposed to be, is all great, when you're gathering facts about the storytelling process. But I'm under the impression that we're getting a reboot now, instead of a movie about Duncan's son, because someone realized that they had finally come to a dead end after The Source was released.

But still, at the end of the fourth film, you have absolutely no clue how many immortals are left. After 6 seasons, and a film, the audience should have some sense that there are far fewer immortals than there were during the series pilot. We do not get that sense. We get the sense that in these movies, they can continue to pull random immortals out of their hat, as if for the next episode. Highlander was supposed to be about a group of people who fight to the last. Regardless of the excuses, we never get that from the spinoffs.

 

Michael Ironside?! Hell. Yes.

 

Which version is it, theatrical or "Renegade"? Not sure it makes much difference other than the fact that with the latter you'll have to endure an extra 9 minutes .

 

I think it's the theatrical, but I'm not entirely sure.

 

Theatrical runs 100 min, Renegade 109, so you can check the run time against that and tell which one you're watching.

All this talk gave me the itch to watch the original Highlander today for like the 100th time. It has such a great visual flair. I can't believe that director Russell Mulcahy did have a bigger career.

 

Leaving aside the second and fifth films, then the ones left mostly congeal together.

Oh, there was about the death. That is true. But there was quite a number that had wanted to see a team-up film, since there were a few attempts at having Connor in the series after "The Gathering", though Lambert was unavailable. Most noteworthy was the episode "Archangel" which had Connor make a brief cameo at the end of the 1625 flashback. Lambert wasn't available and they had double whose face was obscured. Ultimately, that was cut from the episode.

The series was originally created as the continuing adventures of Connor MacLeod, who was still an Immortal and had killed the Kurgan. This evolved into Duncan because Paul had been cast and it was felt that if they couldn't get Lambert, then Paul would play Connor. If they could get him, then Duncan would be the lead and Connor would be the mentor. The series was designed to take place in a parallel universe to the first film, much like with "M*A*S*H*" the film and the series. Throughout the show's run, there were references to the story of the first film happening, but not all of the Immortals were killed off in 1985. "The Watchers" cemented this by having Joe say that Connor killed Kurgan and "Revenge Is Sweet" which dated the opening flashback as being post 85.

"The Source" only ended up being one film because Panzer died. He was the driving force behind the stories for the sequels and overseer of the series and its spinoffs. Davis hasn't been which is why he went with the remake idea.

See my last reply.

Initially as the series was first developed, only a small number of Immortals were around, but no numbers were given. As the writers found it difficult to rely on mortals to be a threat, the show began phasing that aspect out and concentrated on rogue Watchers in season two. But starting in the latter half of that season and going into season three, they just had Immortals nearly every week with comedies and flashback tales in between, which would allow for reoccurring threats. Likewise, Immortal threats that weren't killed off, for a possible return later on. By doing this and pushing the Gathering to the background, they didn't have to limit themselves and could go for as long as possible in the show. Which would carry over into the films, the novels, the comics and "The Raven". The Gathering became less important and the morality play became the dominant story aspect. The battles were less about winning the Prize and more about the moral responsibility Immortals have to the mortal world. They could go as long as possible and when it was time to end the story, they could by going to the final Gathering and winning the Prize. That's why "Endgame" is able to tell a better story than the other sequels, since it didn't have to get around the whole "All the Immortals are dead except for these few, who were hidden somehow". The film went right into the morality play aspect of the series, which gave a story to the four leads and a reason for their conflict. The very thing that made the show work, which was not about the Prize, but about what it means to be Immortal.

 

The first one doesn't fit well with any of them, no matter how they tried to make it so. They can't take dialogue like "Kastagir is dead, and only you and I remain." (The Kurgan) or "Tell me about the prize." (Brenda Wyatt) and make it work with sequels. At the end of the third film, Connor, as narrator, confirms that he's at peace, and, "It's finally over." All the films that came after only work with the series. The only two films that don't get into each others way, are End Game, and The Source.

Despite having Connor appear in the series, it was still a simple matter to keep the series and the films separate for many fans. When they began making films based on the series, it just confused things even more. Plenty of fans would have liked to avoid that.

I recall seeing a youtube video in which Adrian Paul takes credit for convincing them to make the series about another character. In said video, he claims that they wanted him to play the Connor part. He came up with the Duncan character, and was instrumental in plotting out his history. When I can find the video, I'll post it.

Winning the Prize was all about moral responsibility to the mortal world. It's redundant to try and spin the story as if there is yet a separate moral responsibility to the mortal world. And that could be one of the reasons why the show started to lose it's way. Fighting rogue watchers is one thing, as it would be a likely eventuality that mortals who discovered immortals would want to exterminate them. However, the demon was a storyline that came totally out of left field. It didn't fit well. As a result, they had difficulty ending that arc in a way that made any sense at all, which is a trap that the series fell into on a whole. They had trouble ending it in a satisfactory way. The last villain Duncan had to face was quite the weak character, and the story wasn't all that enjoyable, though, it wasn't totally horrible. In the last season, Adrian Paul seemed to be interested in doing almost anything more than he was in actually starring in the series that made him famous. Out of the 13 or so episode, he may have appeared in half of them. All of it just seemed to fall apart at the end. Going into adapting it into a film franchise, they seemed like they were losing steam, rather than picking up the pace.

 

If you're taking it at face value. But within the series narrative, the confrontations in the first film still happened, but the reasons are slightly different. Kurgan was after the Immortals who gotten away from him, which was hinted at in the Kurgan's file in "The Watchers". Likewise, the first film implies that Connor knows Fasil. They could have a personal history together. The narrative in the series is that Connor and Kurgan fought, but not for the Prize. They fought because the Kurgan feared Connor, which was taken from the shooting script and Connor wanted justice for his loved ones. After a Quickening, he and Brenda moved to London and lived there until her death. The third film is a bit more difficult, but still manageable within the context of the series narrative. References to all Immortals being dead didn't occur within the narrative. Kane was wanting retribution for being buried alive and Connor wanted his adopted son back.

The two were never truly separate. The fans have known that. "The Gathering", "Freefall", "The Watchers", "Prodigal Son", "Line Of Fire", "Homeland", "Something Wicked", "Prophecy", "End Of Innocence", "Archangel" and "Black Tower" all made references to Connor, Kurgan and Ramirez. Even the first novel, "Element Of Fire" had Connor in it. Both editions of "The Watchers" CD-ROM had references to the film characters. The only reason a direct crossover didn't happen in the films, was due to the fact that it would mess up the production of the show. Once that was no longer an issue, it was on.

I know the story. They were still debating about having Paul play a separate character from Connor right up to the last minute, because Lambert's asking fee for "The Gathering" was in dispute. If Lambert refused, Paul would play Connor and an Immortal named Fletcher would be playing Connor's role in the story. If he agreed, Paul would be Duncan and Lambert would be Connor. "Freefall" was filmed before "The Gathering", because of the pay dispute. In the early stories, Duncan is referred to Mac for the most part. The agreement was made and Lambert would film for three days.

According to the first film, Connor could use the Prize to help people to overcome their fears and uncertainties, because he could read their minds. Within the series context, the responsibility as Duncan saw it was that Immortals shouldn't be anything less than they were. They shouldn't break the laws of the mortal world to suit their purposes. They shouldn't be terrorists, war profiteers and thieves. They should strive to be leaders and teachers. He didn't believe in hunting Immortals for the sake of it. He believed in stopping Immortals who got out of hand. Likewise, not every Immortal spent their time headhunting. They found other ventures and pursuits. Occasionally there were those who hunted like Slan Quince and Damon Case. One chose to terrorize his victims, while the other couldn't see beyond the black and white of the Game. He didn't believe in a level playing field. In that one, Duncan didn't want to kill him because he was just following his training to a T. He just couldn't let an inexperienced Immortal die. The show found its voice by going this route. It was following Widen's idea of what would be like to live hundreds of years.

Two things.

1. The arc was meant to run 22 episodes, not 3. It was supposed to take place in a ravaged world, not too different from the way things looked in "The Source". The budget for season six was slashed by USA Network and a condition for getting the season at all, was that they finished that story and move on to creating potential leading Immortals for the spinoff. Not to mention that Paul's contract was only for ten episodes. So they had to work around that.

2. The resolution was simple. Duncan's negative emotions fueled Ahriman and as a result, gave it power. By taking away his anger and hate for the creature, could it be defeated. That's why it appeared as two of the men that Duncan hated most of all.

That's because the story was about Duncan's own issues finally reaching a climax, rather than making O'Rourke be like Kalas or Xavier. It was about resolving his guilt over Richie's death, as well as his feelings from all the things that he had done since Culloden.

He was burned out. He had carried the show for six seasons. That can get tiring. David Duchovny was the same way with "The X-Files".

Well, that was true. But given the nature of season six's origins, its surprising it turned out even remotely well at all.

 

The way I see it, you almost have to take the first movie at face value. Unless you disregard certain key moments. At the end, Brenda Wyatt asked Connor to tell her about the prize. Connor explained what he could do with it, and his last comment was to Ramirez, "You never prepared me for that, you Spanish peacock." Ramirez had taught Connor about the prize, but he had never experienced it. Connor's words at the end pretty much confirms that he is now speaking from the perspective of experience, not inexperience. To carry on the series, they would have to do their best to ignore that part of the film. I did find it interesting that they decided to make the first film a part of the series, but they can't be connected perfectly.

I read Element of Fire. It was ok. But Connor has always been a part of Duncan's back story. They built the show off of what came before it. As I stated above, they adjusted things in the show, to make the movie fit into it better. But there are certain things in the movie that can't be adjusted. They have to be ignored for the show to work. Many fans don't see them as the same thing. I haven't come across too many fans who do.

It's sort of like the cartoon. Connor is in it, and Ramirez is in it, but it isn't the same as the series or the movies.

In the first film, the basic explanation is that the world would either suffer an eternity of darkness, or it would be saved, depending on who won the prize. The show never really changed that. In fact, In the pilot episode, Connor pretty much repeats that. It's all about moral responsibility to the mortal world. The show made Connor more of a head hunter than he was in the first film. In the films, he got caught up in living many different lives, rather than head hunting. He wasn't the type of person to go hunting for Slan Quince. The show sort of changed him, as Slan knew of Connor only by reputation, and not by his appearance, meaning Slan and Connor had no prior history before Connor went hunting him.

I can understand why USA would slash their budget. 22 episodes of Ahriman sounds tiresome. The fact that Paul's contract was winding down could have given them a good time frame for developing a strong finish. It's unfortunate that rather than focusing on finishing off the series really strong, they probably decided to focus more on The Raven. And we all know how that turned out.

The Ahriman resolution was simple, but bad. It was predictable, and watching Duncan fool around with a midget in an empty otherworldly plane of existence didn't get the job done. When I think of the great stories told throughout the first five seasons, I have to wonder if they fired a few writers towards the end.

The flashbacks in Highlander were always a great vehicle for resolving issues that came up in the story. But the creators were too focused on the past, and not focused enough on moving forward with a strong central theme. That's why the ending was so weak. Duncan had "seemed" to come to terms with Richie's death after the Ahriman story arc. He had "seemed" to come to terms with Tessa's death several seasons before. As you've stated, there were a lot of issues behind the scenes of that last season. Unfortunately, it shows in the quality of writing and acting. I love the show, but the ending didn't really get me excited about the next Highlander film. I didn't go to see it in theaters. Endgame felt episodic, which isn't a horrible thing, but it retconned a part of Duncan's history when they decided to marry Duncan off to that Faith woman, which is something I can't really understand. And then of course, in the next movie, they decided to marry him off to someone else By that time, though, I was sort of laughing at what had become of Highlander. I just wish Adrian Paul hadn't taken part in it.

 

No one said that they were perfectly connected. Most fans accepted that. And most fans when connecting the first film's backstory to the series and "Endgame", disregard that. That's why the series left bits of reference to what the story of the first film is in relation to the series. "Highlander Origins: The Kurgan" put it into so many words.

As I've said for years, the franchise is best viewed as a multiverse. Makes everything go round. On the official boards, save for the really grumpy fans, they've gone along with that.

Yeah, but you have to remember. The first film is at the end of things in the present day. The series is in the middle of things. The Gathering was treated as an ongoing event that had started in 85, but hadn't reached its crescendo yet. As to Connor, actually, there was a bit of backstory that didn't make it into "The Gathering". He was after Slan for a purpose, which is why he knew of him, even though they hadn't met.

Actually, it wasn't because of the arc. It was due to the network wanting to have a show that was in the same vein as "La Femme Nikita" which had been on for about two seasons. They didn't care about the story arc, just getting what they wanted. Season five came out to be eighteen episodes and the Ahriman arc didn't come into play until they got to Paris.

Abramowitz said that the challenge was creating an ending that reflected the show, but wasn't a permanent ending.

It was a little person because they were told no to the original idea, which was a ten year old girl. Particularly, Duncan swinging his sword at a child, before it changed to Kronos. By the end of the show, they only had a budget for two directors and a few writers. None were fired for that.

He wasn't over Richie's death which is what drove season six for him. He takes back his sword, but hesitates to use it. And he only kills once with it, before the finale. As to Tessa, it had been brought up more than once since "Counterfeit". And as Connor said, Duncan tended to live in the past.

Note that Duncan hesitated when Richie asked if he was ever married. True, it was a retcon, but one built in thanks to Paul's performance.

As the fifth film developed, the relationship with Anna kept changing, as did her role in the story. Originally, she wasn't tied to Duncan at all. Then in Peter Briggs drafts, Kate was brought back, only to be killed off while the Anna character was just a past love, but nothing more to Duncan. She was in fact, the Source. It was following his work, that the Anna character became his wife and Kate was dropped.

 

That's why fans don't see them as the same thing.

If Connor had been a head hunter in the films, there were plenty of opportunities for him to go out hunting, with either Fazil, Kastagir, or the Kurgan. He did none of that, even after the Kurgan attacked him the first time. Fasil and the Kurgan hunted Connor, and he and Kastaigr met on the bridge, but remained friends. In the movies, Connor was portrayed as much the same type of character that Duncan was. Connor definitely had reason to hunt for Slan, and yet Slan did nothing to attack Connor personally. I can't be sure what exactly his reasons were, but I have a feeling it had something to do with Duncan having been pretty much out of the game for the last century or so, and either not wanting Duncan to be pulled back in, or not believing that Duncan could win. The movie character would have just let Duncan handle his own business, just as he let Kastagir handle the Kurgan on his own. Connor had plenty of reason to hunt the Kurgan too, but he just never does.

My overall point isn't actually targeting the Ahriman arc. That arc is just an example of the larger picture, which was the writing, and maybe a few other issues that Highlander the series was dealing with. It says a lot, when a successful long running show get a cut in funds, because the network wants it to be more like a newer show. By this time, the Highlander series had begun to lose touch with what had made it popular, and the core methos that made the first film a cult classic. Most people who were watching it at the time were expecting them to bring the Gathering to an end, and they weren't going in that direction. Had the story been stronger, and better executed, the network would have never compared it to La Femme Nikita.

Well, they achieved the "not permanent" part. But the show, on a whole, was far better than its ending.

I have to wonder why they seemed intent on putting anyone of shorter size in that role at all. This was a 3 episode story arc, and something that I should take seriously, but they seemed more intent on trying to make me laugh. The great shame of it all is, that despite the fact that they took a complete left turn with a demonic story arc, most of that story did hold together well. The ending fell to pieces, much as the ending of the entire series did.

Duncan's tendency to live in the past was great, for pushing the series forward, with all the flash backs and everything. This is taking that statement a little too literal. Whether he killed with his sword once, or not, he did take it back. Let's not forget that he didn't appear in very many episodes that last season, so killing once was enough. I don't see what happened in Counterfeit as a good example, because had the events of Counterfeit occurred after the last episode, things would have played out much the same way. Duncan was not going to just ignore a woman who looked just like Tessa. Not ever. That's part of the big reason why I believe the last two episodes of Highlander were a waste.

 

They still share the common link of characters and backstory.

We don't know that Connor wasn't hunting Fasil. Especially with the way he was dismissive of professional wrestling. With Kastagir, they were friends and chose to have one last celebration before a confrontation. This was especially evident in the full party sequence, where after getting hammered with Bedsoe, the next day they talk about fighting the Kurgan and each other.

Though it was cut, Connor and Kastagir talked about double teaming Kurgan, but then realized that wouldn't work as they'd try to kill the other when it was done.

The show was getting a reduction in budget not because the show had gotten away from the core, but because the investors didn't want to fund it anymore. And the fourth film had been announced as far back as 1996, with Paul saying that he would do a film in 97. So anyone who honestly believed that the show would end with the Prize being won, was greatly misinformed. As to the network, the show was already going to end with season six. Wanting to have a spinoff that changed the formula is not unheard of. See "The Lone Gunmen", "Deep Space Nine" and "Fraser".

They were trying to go for a David Lynch/"Twin Peaks" type of thing with Ahriman being represented as a child.

When Joe said he should take his sword, Duncan said that he wasn't going to use it and would find another way. That's why in "Sins Of The Father", Duncan puts his sword in a box and use a cudgel to fight Alex Raven. He had no intention of killing anymore Immortals. Then he changes his mind to deal with Willie, but won't kill because of their friendship and that he had gotten even with killing Ambassador Banner. He kills Merek only because he was forced to.

No, I meant that after "Counterfeit", Duncan still felt the loss of Tessa as shown with his relationship with Anne in season three, the anger he felt in "Leader Of The Pack" and how Ahriman tried to use it against him in "Avatar".

 

They do. It doesn't make them the same. The series pics out the pieces of the movie that it wants. It disregards the most important part of the movie because those make them incompatible.

If you read the novelization of the film, it makes it quite clear who was being hunted in that scene, and why Connor left the show early.

It's not surprising, given the nature of the story, that they explored the idea of two friends fighting each other. Ultimately, that wasn't the story they wanted to tell, and they didn't want to answer the question of "What if this happened?" They flirt with the idea several times in the movie, but they don't take it any farther than cheerful flirtation.

It's fortunate for the tv series that this scene was cut, as it would make it decidedly more difficult for the series to integrate the story of the movie and pass these guys off as little more than a few immortals who escaped the Kurgan centuries ago, if the friends were discussing turning on each other after double teaming the Kurgan.

During production, of anything, it's common to cut parts of the script that just don't work well, or themes that time does not permit them to explore. Or themes that for one reason or another, would be very difficult to integrate into the story. As I stated above, the movie flirts, but never answers the question of what two immortal friends would do if it came down to just the two of them. When Connor asks Ramirez about this very topic, he never gets a definitive answer. The movie was not set up to handle this delicate theme amidst all the others they were juggling. I have a feeling they wanted to remain focused on telling a straight good vs. evil story. It would have been unfortunate if they had decided to draw attention away from the Kurgan, as THE threat, by doing more than just flirting with the idea of Mac fighting Kastagir.

I've found that when big important budget decisions, and cancellations are made, it's for more than one reason. We can be sure that investors didn't want to fund it anymore for several reasons. The show wasn't as successful as it had been for several reasons. If you look back at most shows that suffers such penalties, the easy answer is that they didn't want to fund it. But there are reasons why funding starts to suddenly disappear. Often, the writing and the direction of the show are more to blame than anything. You can come up with examples where the biggest factor is something else, of course, but usually, the hardest thing to fix is the writing.

Whether the fourth film was announced or not is irrelevant when you consider that as far as the series timeline goes plus the two following movies, no one ever wins the prize. To keep the story of Highlander strong in the minds and hearts of fans, you can't afford to get away from the central theme as much as they did. They failed to inform their fanbase during the last 13 episode exactly how close to the end of "the game" things were, so fans started to lose interest.The fact that the two following movies suffer from the same flaw is a big part of the reason why they will never reach the popularity of the original film.

My point was it was a waste of a series finale to go back and deal with these issues, like the whole Tessa issue, because he would never get over her what happened to her. Every season had a few of these throw away/less than mediocre episodes, but generally, all the season finales were very strong. While I don't agree with the direction of the story in the season 5 finale, it was still a strong, interesting, episode. But they ended the entire a series on a throw away episode

 

So is Sean Connery only the sequel, or is in the third one as well?

 

He's only in the original, and the first sequel.