AICN: Highlander Remake on the Way

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/36830

Please construct a phrase from the following words: "praise damn faint with."

I'm not quite sure how to take this news, except that maybe it's high time someone took the franchise out of Peter Davis's hands, considering the massive dog-rape that was the last film's screenplay "development" process...

...a term I use here mainly to describe Davis/Panzer taking a great script by Peter Briggs and David Abramowitz, running it through a Vegematic of non-WGA scab-hacks, resulting in a film that jerked around like a baby penguin in the jaws of a killer whale.

But mostly I'm concerned about how they're gonna solve the whole "Clancy Brown" problem, if they plan on using THE ALMIGHTY ************* KURGAN in the flick -- it'd be like recasting Snake Plissken with someone other than Kurt Russell.

(...Oh, wait...)

 

I'm not liking this. I liked the first and third film, and the series, but a remake wouldn't be cool at all. I'd rather see the series die than to have any more damage done to it regardless of who's taken the helm.

Edit: It can't be any worse than the last film, I hope.

 

As far I'm concerned, THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE Highlander film.

Sure, I'll go see it, but I won't have high hopes.

 

I'd be open minded about a remake.

 

I hope so..

 

Um, this is a bad idea.

First movie: not great, but had some ideas that gave it a cult following. Also very much the mood of the era.
Second Movie: not as bad as reputed to be. Just needed to follow it's own advice--put all the footage together in one time and place. Not really an entirely logical sequel
Third Movie: a talentless remake of the first.
Forth movie: tie in the TV series to the movie franchize and you get this awful mess.
Fifth movie: didn't see it.
TV series: about par for US tv, in that 1 episode in 10 is worth watching, and 1 in 20 has enough substance to warrent watching twice. Oversanitized for prime-time viewing.
Animated Series: um... Quentin MacCleud, the highlander elf, his kid sister, their hexapod dog, and a new Ramirez who still speaks with a scottish accent even though he's a Grandee of Spain. Post appocolyptic morality for children. No beheadings. Magic gems let them know when another is around... Do you really need me to go on, or do you get the idea that this cartoon was awful?
Anime movie: flipping awful, canadian writers telling Japanese how to do anime. Last time someone made a mistake of that magnatude was Karl Macek with Robotech Sentinels. While pretty (Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust), the story was so incrediblly lame that when the disk stopped (dirty) after about 30 minutes, I didn't bother to restart afterward.

 

The main thing that matters to me is: Is it a good film or isn't it? Time will tell.

That said, I get the sense this is a bad idea. How can you remake perfection? The original Highlander is a classic and should probably be left alone. They might as well remake Raiders of the Lost Ark while they're at it!

 

This comes the same week I hear word of a potential "Flash Gordan" and "Red Dawn" remake. Sigh... When will people realize that the 80's made for some classic cinema, and just leave it alone?

But anyways, back on track with the subject; I cringe at thinking of a remake of the first "Highlander", but I also realize there are some things that could've been improved upon, even in the first movie... as great as it was. I will still give it a shot, because it can't be any worse than the material following the first movie.

*Waits to hear the announcement that Flava Flav is playing Kurrigan, and awaits his mental command to crawl into a corner and weep for a straight day*

 

Flash Gordon was around long before the 80's..

 

QFT..

 

couldn't have been much worst than the 1996 American Doctor Who TV movie that FOX made. At least it was supposed to have car chases and sword fights...

 

Without having seen said Doc flick, I can say that Highlander: the Source was pretty much the worst things I've seen - movie, television, things swirling in my toilet after I flush.

I actually like "Endgame", but what on the face of earth possessed Adrian Paul to show up to work for that?

 

At least Endgame had a plot, and a semi-decent villain.

Anyway, remake the original?

No Connery, no Lambert, no Queen, forget it.

Peace,

V-03

 

Endgame did have it's moments, and I still watch it from time to time, because it was a part of the television H.L. universe.

 

[image=http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i282/nisus8/candy2.jpg]

 

EndGame: wow. You know, I always thought C.Lambert was a shoddy actor because he was in terrible movies or next to Connery. Now, seeing him next to Adrian Paul, he seems very capable and competent.

Somehow, though, Lambert seems to have forgotten everything about swordwork he learned from Bob Anderson, because "Day of Wrath" has some of the worst sword-fighting by supposedly professional soldiers I've seen outside of SW fanfilms.

 

It's called being blind. Lambert has poor eye sight to begin with and as he's said countless times over the years, it's dangerous to give him a sword. He's allergic to contacts and most of his characters do not wear glasses. He's also had several different sword masters, each teaching him different sword styles. That's why his sword fighting technique various from film to film. He's had Bob Anderson and F. Braun McAsh and all kinds of other sword masters doing teaching him. Adrian Paul looks consistant because he was playing Duncan for six years, with only two separate sword masters, (McAsh and Anderson) and wasn't blind. That's why in "Endgame", Lambert had a double for his fight with Paul. Lambert works with a sword for the length of pre-production and during filming. After that, he's done until the next time. Paul would practice during pre-production and filming, while also practicing from time to time when not playing Duncan.

 

He should be trained by a blind swordsman then and should be wearing a blindfold while he is being trained.

 

And blindness doesn't affect muscle memmory.
If he's trained, he's trained.
So long as you have a marginally decent choreographer and enough rehearsal time, there's no reason he shouldn't be able to do it. No, he may have a self-confidence deficit, but that's a personal, mental problem.

 

And blindness doesn't affect muscle memmory.

I know that, but if he's got crappy eyesight, training blind might work for him.

 

True.
Or just practice.
If both actors are doing the same routine over and over, it won't matter if he can see or not. It's the same routine. it's, well, routine.

So the eyesight problems are just an excuse.

Blindfold might help with confidence. Good choreographer and decent budgeting would take care of the rest.