Home› Movies
Click here to check out Digital Spy's Movies section for the latest news, updates, cast interviews and reviews of your favourite films.
Options

Is Highlander the messiest franchise canon ever?

Slarti BartfastSlarti Bartfast Posts: 6,607
Forum Member
✭
in Movies #1
In a way it's kind of impressive how so many sequels can contradict each other in so many ways. The first Highlander was a great film and remains one of my favourite films to this day, but the writing was on the wall when the first sequel rewrote history by making the immortals aliens.

Just how and why did so many sequels and spin offs of such terrible quality and disastrous continuouity get made? A reboot of the original has been on the cards for the last few years but would anybody serious about film making (or watching) touch this maligned franchise ever again?
«1

Comments

  • Options
    Pob-BundyPob-Bundy Posts: 1,321
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #2
    It's a shame how it all turned out. Flawed film due to the restraints of the time, but it was a truly original idea. When you see it for the first time you do wonder why it wasn't thought more highly of, then the sequels kick in and then you know why. I don't think we would have gotten shows like Buffy and Angel amongst many more because of it though. It seemed to have set a new standard for TV shows due to Russell Mulcahy's visual style. Even when Highlander became a TV show itself you could see many flashback elements of the first film in a lot of other works during the 90's/00's especially.
  • Options
    Sniffle774Sniffle774 Posts: 20,290
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #3
    Highlander 2......*shudders*.
  • Options
    kegsiekegsie Posts: 2,801
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #4
    Sniffle774 wrote: »
    Highlander 2......*shudders*.

    There was no Highlander 2 . For some reason they went straight to Highlander 3.

    At least that's what I like to tell myself.
  • Options
    Matt DMatt D Posts: 13,153
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #5
    I think that all the sequels were awful, although Highlander 2 was the worst.


    The TV series just ignored all of them, plus also changed the end of the first film for obvious reasons. The TV series itself then had some film follow-ons (2 or 3?), which weren't exactly great...
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,440
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #6
    No doubt the rumoured reboot of Highlander will make things more confusing.
  • Options
    Trsvis_BickleTrsvis_Bickle Posts: 9,202
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #7
    I really struggle with this use of 'canon' in the context of cinema. A film should stand alone. You see the Trekkies and Dr Who fanboys arguing back and forth about the 'canon' as if it were a religion or factual. Get a life and accept each one on its own merits. Arguing about differences to earlier works is just a waste of intellectual energy. Take a film on its own merits and let's stop this pretentious bollox about 'canon'.
  • Options
    plateletplatelet Posts: 26,386
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #8
    Matt D wrote: »
    I think that all the sequels were awful, although Highlander 2 was the worst.

    Sorry, got to be 5 that was the worse. 2 was bad but "The Source" was pure excrement
  • Options
    mialiciousmialicious Posts: 4,686
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #9
    The crow was a terrible franchise as well that they are also talking about remaking.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,440
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #10
    Trsvis_Bickle wrote: »
    I really struggle with this use of 'canon' in the context of cinema. A film should stand alone. You see the Trekkies and Dr Who fanboys arguing back and forth about the 'canon' as if it were a religion or factual. Get a life and accept each one on its own merits. Arguing about differences to earlier works is just a waste of intellectual energy. Take a film on its own merits and let's stop this pretentious bollox about 'canon'.

    I agree to an extent, as long as they are attempting to be stand alone films. If however they keep referencing previous films then I think it's justified that the viewrs or fans start doing the same. It was the film makers or TV show makers that started the whole continuity and Arc's stuff.

    I think it gets silly when you cross mediums. Trying to do 'canon' between books and TV shows or comics and films is especially pointless.
    Different producers, different franchises, different mediums etc,
  • Options
    Slarti BartfastSlarti Bartfast Posts: 6,607
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #11
    Trsvis_Bickle wrote: »
    I really struggle with this use of 'canon' in the context of cinema. A film should stand alone. You see the Trekkies and Dr Who fanboys arguing back and forth about the 'canon' as if it were a religion or factual. Get a life and accept each one on its own merits. Arguing about differences to earlier works is just a waste of intellectual energy. Take a film on its own merits and let's stop this pretentious bollox about 'canon'.

    Take a chill pill. I haven't seen anyone arguing about it or treating it like its fact so why the rant? If I had asked "Does the Highlander franchise have the messiest continuity ever" would that have annoyed you less? That's all people mean when they discuss canon, in this case the various instalments of Highlander are hugely inconsistent with each other. If nothing else it's interesting how and why a franchise ends up like that.
  • Options
    Trsvis_BickleTrsvis_Bickle Posts: 9,202
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #12
    Slarti Bartfast wrote: »
    Take a chill pill. I haven't seen anyone arguing about it or treating it like its fact so why the rant? If I had asked "Does the Highlander franchise have the messiest continuity ever" would that have annoyed you less? That's all people mean when they discuss canon, in this case the various instalments of Highlander are hugely inconsistent with each other. If nothing else it's interesting how and why a franchise ends up like that.

    Rant?:confused: Get a grip. If you can be bothered to go over to the Dr Who forum or, indeed, the Star Trek Into Darkness thread, you can see just what I'm talking about. You wouldn't happen to be one of these obsessive fanboys yourself, by any chance as you seem desperately defensive?
  • Options
    Big Boy BarryBig Boy Barry Posts: 35,391
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #13
    There is no Highlander franchise.

    There is just the film "Highlander"


    Nothing else exists. Never happened. Ever.
  • Options
    Johnny ClayJohnny Clay Posts: 5,328
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #14
    Trsvis_Bickle wrote: »
    I really struggle with this use of 'canon' in the context of cinema. A film should stand alone. You see the Trekkies and Dr Who fanboys arguing back and forth about the 'canon' as if it were a religion or factual. Get a life and accept each one on its own merits. Arguing about differences to earlier works is just a waste of intellectual energy. Take a film on its own merits and let's stop this pretentious bollox about 'canon'.
    Indeed. A lot of fanboyism seems to be about elevating trash (often from childhood) beyond its true artistic worth, and so all this reverence, all this 'mustn't touch', is just symptomatic of that. Regardless of nostalgia (if applicable), it resembles a sort of envy for the more widely-acknowledged reverence other things are held in. But it's Highlander, folks. Not The Godfather.

    It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't so wrong-headed from the off. The theatre world has been re-interpreting Shakespeare and the like with many a radical change/bent/whatever for years. But you alter the colours of a dalek and it's all out war....
  • Options
    Slarti BartfastSlarti Bartfast Posts: 6,607
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #15
    Trsvis_Bickle wrote: »
    Rant?:confused: Get a grip. If you can be bothered to go over to the Dr Who forum or, indeed, the Star Trek Into Darkness thread, you can see just what I'm talking about. You wouldn't happen to be one of these obsessive fanboys yourself, by any chance as you seem desperately defensive?

    Lol, chill out pal.
  • Options
    Slarti BartfastSlarti Bartfast Posts: 6,607
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #16
    Johnny Clay wrote: »
    Indeed. A lot of fanboyism seems to be about elevating trash (often from childhood) beyond its true artistic worth, and so all this reverence, all this 'mustn't touch', is just symptomatic of that. Regardless of nostalgia (if applicable), it resembles a sort of envy for the more widely-acknowledged reverence other things are held in. But it's Highlander, folks. Not The Godfather.

    It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't so wrong-headed from the off. The theatre world has been re-interpreting Shakespeare and the like with many a radical change/bent/whatever for years. But you alter the colours of a dalek and it's all out war....
    I broadly agree. I should point out though that my OP has nothing to do with reverence, envy, or anything else you mentioned.
  • Options
    Johnny ClayJohnny Clay Posts: 5,328
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #17
    Slarti Bartfast wrote: »
    I broadly agree. I should point out though that my OP has nothing to do with reverence, envy, or anything else you mentioned.
    True enough. But some fanboy whining regarding the actual quality of the product strikes me as a case of wanting a silk purse from a sow's ear.
  • Options
    Slarti BartfastSlarti Bartfast Posts: 6,607
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #18
    Johnny Clay wrote: »
    True enough. But some fanboy whining regarding the actual quality of the product strikes me as a case of wanting a silk purse from a sow's ear.

    I'm not sure what you mean.
  • Options
    Johnny ClayJohnny Clay Posts: 5,328
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #19
    ^ I meant regarding reboots etc (should've made that clear): they want it to be of a quality it couldn't feasibly reach. You have to be realistic. Who's going to invest in Highlander now? They're hardly going to be top drawer are they.

    As said, enjoy these things for what they are by all means. But don't bemoan them for not being what they were never going to be.

    e.g. 'Chris Nolan should take over the Transformers franchise', IIRC, said on this very forum, is a good yardstick for fanboy delusion.
  • Options
    kippehkippeh Posts: 6,655
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #20
    Johnny Clay wrote: »
    True enough. But some fanboy whining regarding the actual quality of the product strikes me as a case of wanting a silk purse from a sow's ear.

    Canon isn't the same as mere quality though, it's about maintaining a coherent sense of continuity within any given fictional universe isn't it?
  • Options
    Johnny ClayJohnny Clay Posts: 5,328
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #21
    kippeh wrote: »
    Canon isn't the same as mere quality though, it's about maintaining a coherent sense of continuity within any given fictional universe isn't it?
    True, but by insisting on 'canon' even when it wasn't the creator's intention, often acts as blinkers to seeing the film/series in its own right. It's just fanboy arrogance - striking something down because it isn't exactly how they think it should be, as if the creators are under some sort of all-encompassing obligation to please them. A dreadful conceit. Who's film is it anyway?
  • Options
    RebelScumRebelScum Posts: 16,008
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #22
    kippeh wrote: »
    Canon isn't the same as mere quality though, it's about maintaining a coherent sense of continuity within any given fictional universe isn't it?

    These days it seems to be more about "authenticity" than continuity. A coherent sense of continuity would always be ideal, but something could come along and contradict previous events yet if it comes from or is approved by the official source it would still count as canon. On the other hand, a non-official source may add to or compliment previous events yet that wouldn't count...it can lead to all sorts of silly discussions, which I have to say, I've been guilty of taking part in on more than one occasion.
  • Options
    baldtonybaldtony Posts: 105
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #23
    I'm always baffled by this talk of sequels to Highlander, when clearly there are no such things.

    They made one film, and that's it.

    They didn't make any others, and definitely didn't make a TV show.
  • Options
    Slarti BartfastSlarti Bartfast Posts: 6,607
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #24
    Johnny Clay wrote: »
    ^ I meant regarding reboots etc (should've made that clear): they want it to be of a quality it couldn't feasibly reach. You have to be realistic. Who's going to invest in Highlander now? They're hardly going to be top drawer are they.

    As said, enjoy these things for what they are by all means. But don't bemoan them for not being what they were never going to be.

    e.g. 'Chris Nolan should take over the Transformers franchise', IIRC, said on this very forum, is a good yardstick for fanboy delusion.

    Ah right, it's just not clear from the way you write whether you are meaning that in general or at me. I'm not even sure who Chris Nolan is but if by take over the Transformers franchise they mean tie it up in production limbo forever I'd be all for that. :D the first reboot was poor enough, I don't need to see more.
  • Options
    Slarti BartfastSlarti Bartfast Posts: 6,607
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #25
    Johnny Clay wrote: »
    True, but by insisting on 'canon' even when it wasn't the creator's intention, often acts as blinkers to seeing the film/series in its own right. It's just fanboy arrogance - striking something down because it isn't exactly how they think it should be, as if the creators are under some sort of all-encompassing obligation to please them. A dreadful conceit. Who's film is it anyway?

    I wasn't insisting on canon, you know, nor do I think anyone is obligated to please me or anything else like that. I think the Highlander franchise is pretty unique (and therefore interesting) in how inconsistent its constituent parts are. From your replies thus far I think you've grossly misunderstood my OP. Or maybe my first foray into this sub forum was predicated on naïveté and all this fanboy malarkey is the usual script, excuse the pun.
  • Options
    Johnny ClayJohnny Clay Posts: 5,328
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #26
    Slarti Bartfast wrote: »
    I'm not even sure who Chris Nolan is
    :o Erm...Christopher Nolan?
    Slarti Bartfast wrote: »
    I wasn't insisting on canon, you know, nor do I think anyone is obligated to please me or anything else like that. I think the Highlander franchise is pretty unique (and therefore interesting) in how inconsistent its constituent parts are. From your replies thus far I think you've grossly misunderstood my OP. Or maybe my first foray into this sub forum was predicated on naïveté and all this fanboy malarkey is the usual script, excuse the pun.
    Aye, fair enough. I may have spiralled off into general fanboy bashing, an opportunity I rarely refuse.;)
Sign In or Register to comment.