|
Post by erikmodi on Apr 7, 2008 11:37:16 GMT -5
Something not dissimilar from the first show, except perhaps with a few more recurring villains. The biggest change should be in the role of the Highlander.
I think we're all ready to see Katherine MacLeod of the Clan MacLeod. I mean, I think it would be really neat for another female lead Immortal (Elizabeth Gracen as Amanda in The Raven was spectacular, it's just a shame the writers took so long to find their stride.)
Another change that should be made. . . I did love how Duncan was so honorable, it made for some very interesting conflicts. But I was kind of annoyed by how he'd ALWAYS been so noble. I'd really like to see the evolution of an Immortal's morality alongside the evolution of humanity's morality. I mean, a hundred years ago, things that are considered appalling today were commonplace. Show how far humanity has come through the eyes of someone who's watched us grow up over about 400 years.
|
|
|
Post by thomaskolter on Apr 7, 2008 12:22:16 GMT -5
And how about a bisexual or gay immortal heroine I mean they are all generally attractive, long lived and you can't tell me most of the ladies never had another woman for a lover at least once. Thats what pissed me off with the first show and the Raven with Amanda she was far older than many and never had any interests in other women?
Yes and maybe more of a from Firefly like Captian sort of hero will do some bad things and do good things but be not some perfect god like Duncan was. Just a good hearted rogue that is not above having fun.
|
|
|
Post by erikmodi on Apr 9, 2008 12:00:09 GMT -5
I take your point about Amanda. . . I mean, there was the scene in Methuselah's Gift where you see her getting out of a bed she's sharing with Rebecca.
Though writing such a character would need to be handled well. . . you don't want her to be a "fantasy lesbian."
|
|
|
Post by headswillroll on Apr 10, 2008 7:31:40 GMT -5
She could be a "Fantasy Bi-Sexual" though. I just watched the Methuselah's Gift episode, and it could go either way depending on how demented you want to be. Note to Prowler/DBaker/James: Did you notice I spelled it correctly this time?
|
|
|
Post by jamesmcmurray on Apr 10, 2008 8:52:16 GMT -5
It's ok. You made up for it by adding an unnecessary '-' to bisexual. The next Highlander show should be Kenny, the Early Years.
|
|
|
Post by erikmodi on Apr 10, 2008 11:33:18 GMT -5
Except that the actor who played Kenny died, ironically, in a car crash. That, and he'd be old enough by now to play a Richie-type character, if not a Duncan-type character.
|
|
|
Post by jamesmcmurray on Apr 10, 2008 11:55:20 GMT -5
The Disney Channel is overflowing with child actors.
|
|
|
Post by greg on Apr 10, 2008 13:43:32 GMT -5
Duncan honorable? Hardly. He was a self righteous jerk. One episode he would tell Richie not to do something, and then the next episode he'd be off doing it himself. He did the "wrong" thing all the time, and alot of times for the "wrong" reasons. He killed people all the time for not having the same beliefs as him.
|
|
|
Post by prowler7 on Apr 10, 2008 15:49:12 GMT -5
Duncan honorable? Hardly. He was a self righteous jerk. One episode he would tell Richie not to do something, and then the next episode he'd be off doing it himself. He did the "wrong" thing all the time, and alot of times for the "wrong" reasons. He killed people all the time for not having the same beliefs as him. Tommy Sullivan for example. Why not just turn him in to the police?
|
|
|
Post by greg on Apr 10, 2008 16:26:50 GMT -5
Tommy Sullivan is dead. Richie however, is still quite alive.
|
|
|
Post by jamesmcmurray on Apr 10, 2008 17:06:25 GMT -5
Tommy Sullivan for example. Why not just turn him in to the police? If an immortal goes to prison for murder, what happens 80 years later when their life sentence is still running? Or 5 years later when the execution keeps failing?
|
|
|
Post by erikmodi on Apr 11, 2008 10:46:58 GMT -5
Duncan was always being hoist by his own moral petard. Tommy killed a bunch of mortals, just because they crossed him. Immortal's don't have the right to decide mortal lives. However, Immortal's must fight to the death. Human law just doesn't really have a way to deal with them (you saw how that didn't work in The Colonel.) Witness his interactions with Carl Robinson in the past. Duncan's all for freedom and equality, though, in many ways, that was not the prevailing morality of the time and people around him. When he and Carl walk into the Segregated restaurant, Segregation was the law back then. Yet Duncan still knows it's wrong, and still beats up the Sheriff whose job it is to enforce that law. When he's in British-occupied India, he's very respectful of the native customs and cultures. Until he sees a girl's life in danger, and rescues her. And even when she's ready to go to her death nobly, he accepts that and sends her off personally.
More often then not, Duncan's far too happy to live and let live among other Immortals, not going after them until bodies have started to hit the floor. If he'd been more of a Hunter, more of a "chop-first-and-ask-questions-later" kind of guy, how many people would still be alive? Charlie, for one. I can think of several other mortals who'd still be alive in the show if Duncan had thrown down with a given Immie of the Week in the first act. But no, he needs a reason to go after a bad guy.
Now, I like that he's got such a strong moral compass, that he agonizes over matters of honor and ethics. It's what makes him a fascinating character to watch (in the show; in Endgame and Source he's not even Duncan MacLeod anymore.) But it annoys me how he's always written with modern ideals of peace, justice, and equality in times when people didn't even know what those words mean.
|
|
|
Post by greg on Apr 11, 2008 10:55:20 GMT -5
Except when he was a butcher killing the English. Or when he stalked the woman who went back to her husband in the episode about obsession. Or when he killed the German immortal who wanted to kill the neo nazi's... she wanted to kill them before they could kill people, he killed her before she could kill them... he did the same thing as her.
Duncan judged Kalas for killing immortals off of holy ground. Its what immortals do... kill each other. Its not like Kalas killed them ON holy ground.
Duncan judged Richie for killing Mako, acting Richie was in the wrong killing him over a girl. Of course if it was a chick Duncan was banging, Mako would have been dead much much faster.
Duncan was a jerk. He did whatever made him feel good about himself at the time. Richie or Methos should have cut off his head a long time ago.
|
|
|
Post by jamesmcmurray on Apr 11, 2008 10:59:38 GMT -5
Bitter?
|
|
|
Post by greg on Apr 11, 2008 11:11:01 GMT -5
/shrug/ I liked the show. I just never cared much for Duncan. I think they changed his character too often and had him change the way he acted way too much. And pacifistic Duncan in Season 6 was just horrid.
Methos and Richie were much more interesting characters. I think a good Highlander show would be about a brand new immortal, with a mentor. You still get the flashbacks from the mentor, but have the main action character be the young immortal finding his way.
|
|