Highlander : Is it wrong for me to see each film as a standalone?

Is it wrong for me to see each film as a standalone?

I think after the first film each other one just keeps contradicting the other. Connor looks different every time. Except in part 3 where he can pass off as coming right off the first film but it just doesn't make sense.

Re: Is it wrong for me to see each film as a standalone?

you pretty much have to to accept the information you're presented with.

Re: Is it wrong for me to see each film as a standalone?

Pretty much correct. Highlander III follows the original pretty well, it's just ludicrous to think that Mac only "thought" he won the prize. You'd think they'd atleast claim Kane was able to use his sorcery somehow ala Mephisto to trick him, but nope. No such attempt. I guess even Highlander II follows the original ok as well, as long as we assume things that were in the script (such as memory wiping and rebirth, or just accept that Connor couldn't remember his former life until the opera), but it is just too ridiculous and way out of left field.

Highlander: Endgame is a sequel to the tv show, but contradicts too much of that to follow it very well. Even if you want to bend over backwards and say they gave themselves enough wiggle room with the whole Duncan never marrying (maybe they meant a lasting marraige?), pre-immortals must die violently to become immortal (maybe they really meant just unnaturally), pre-immortals can actually have kids (maybe the watchers and Duncan were mistaken), fighting on holy ground does not result in natural disasters (just a myth), you still have the blatant fact that both Connor and Duncan have beaten immortals who were far older and taken many, many more heads they themselves in the show and films with no problem.

If I didn’t talk the way I talk I wouldn’t know who the hell I am, Sean Connery on his accent
Top