The next Highlander show should be. . .
Donald
Ancient Immortal
Posts: 359
|
Post by Donald on Apr 11, 2008 11:51:42 GMT -5
Except when he was a butcher killing the English. 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. No. He killed the one Englishman that ordered the Scottish put down after Culloden. Not right but maybe justifiable. She was going to bomb a meeting of people, killing anyone there regardless if they did anything or not. Having ignorant or fascist view doesn't mean you can be whacked by anybody that cares to. 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. He was pissed at Kalas for killing two of his friends. Using the Monastery as a hunting ground was secondary. And that pissed off Duncan because of the betrayal involved. The biggest jerk thing of Duncan was he views on revenge-It doesn't bring anyone back and isn't worth while, unless their name starts with "K": Kalas, Kanwulf, Kern, Kinman.... |
|
|
|
Post by greg on Apr 11, 2008 13:52:01 GMT -5
He killed alot more then one Englishman... You need to watch the episodes again. He went on a rampage and killed LOTS of English, and not just in battle. He would ride up and attack them at their camps.
If she had killed Hitler, how many lives would have been saved? For all you know, the leader of the hate rally, and his followers go onto murder families of people. Duncan interjected his moral highground when it suited him, but he had no problem killing when it suited him either.
|
|
Donald
Ancient Immortal
Posts: 359
|
Post by Donald on Apr 11, 2008 14:26:06 GMT -5
I remeber a bit more of the episode now, he killed soldiers that were killing innocent Scots. He didn't murder the head Englishman's son when he had his hands on him and at least let him draw his sword and take a swing.
For all you know, he didn't. He could be just another big talker and no action. Weren't there reporters and other non-nazis there too? How many people do you kill to maybe prevent something?
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesmcmurray on Apr 11, 2008 15:37:09 GMT -5
Or they could make the immortal a cop who is looking all over New York for love. Oh, nevermind.
|
|
|
|
Post by greg on Apr 11, 2008 15:43:41 GMT -5
I kill all kinds of people to prevent things. =) But we're not talking about me, we are talking about a fictional character!
|
|
|
|
Post by prowler7 on Apr 11, 2008 15:48:02 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. I agree! Also, I think Duncan was a punk and NOT worthy of being "The One". Connor was a dedicated HEAD HUNTER, Duncan was just trying to get along, it seemed, and when things got a little rough, he would run to Holy Ground for years on end. Connor even chidded him for it. I think its a shame that Chris Lambert got too old and blind to play the part, cause Connor was the MUCH better MacLeod. |
|
|
|
Post by greg on Apr 11, 2008 16:30:16 GMT -5
I completely agree. And in Endgame, Connor acted much more like Duncan from the tv show...
|
|
|
|
Post by headswillroll on Apr 12, 2008 7:24:02 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. response #1-   response #2- I don't think so, I could barely handle the two episodes of him as it was, and what was up with that roar of his? |
|
|
|
Post by headswillroll on Apr 12, 2008 7:30:26 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? Actually there was a case in Florida in the late eighties where a man was sentenced to the electric chair and he survived. They had to let him go because his sentence did not say "death by the electric chair", it just said "electric chair" under the penalty. I am pretty sure that they changed the terminology after that one. |
|
|
|
Post by headswillroll on Apr 12, 2008 7:39:52 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. I agree! Also, I think Duncan was a punk and NOT worthy of being "The One". Connor was a dedicated HEAD HUNTER, Duncan was just trying to get along, it seemed, and when things got a little rough, he would run to Holy Ground for years on end. Connor even chidded him for it. I think its a shame that Chris Lambert got too old and blind to play the part, cause Connor was the MUCH better MacLeod. On that note I saw Christopher Lambert in a movie the other day called Southland Tales. It was okay, a little out there but it was all right. Lambert's parts were pretty funny though. |
|
|
|
Post by erikmodi on Apr 12, 2008 11:49:53 GMT -5
See, I loved Duncan when he had to deal with that morality.
Culloden and it's aftermath are the exception that proves the rule. He went on a bloodthirsty rampage slaughtering English soliders. . . with good reason, granted, but it was still what would today be a war crime, as well as whacking the Duke who'd given the orders.
Duncan was all for killing Hitler, he was trying to get the bomb put back into place when it went off. What he wasn't for was killing a roomful of potential innocents. He didn't REALLY act to punish her for her actions. . . he killed her to prevent her from killing. Being the overly moral sort he his, he considers it "judgement," not "defense of others," and grapples with that question for. . . uh, THE WHOLE EPISODE.
Richie and Mako. . . okay, what? Duncan wasn't peeved at Richie for going after this guy over a girl, he was peeved at Richie for getting involved in something without knowing the details. Richie had no idea who Mako was, who the girl was, or what was going on. For all he knew, she could be a serial killer. That was what was making Duncan twitchy. . . not knowing what, exactly, was going on, and knowing that Mako wouldn't be after her unless there was a reason. He was also concerned for Richie's saftey, knowing that he was potentially not ready to face Mako. In the end, Duncan isn't angry with Richie. . . He doesn't send him away out of anger, but because he's learned all that Duncan can teach right now, and he needs some time away from his teacher to become his own Immortal. When they meet later, it's on more even terms. . . as friends, rather then as teacher-student.
As for revenge. . . revenge for revenge's sake, indeed, doesn't accomplish anything. But how often does Duncan actually kill out of revenge? Kern and Kanis both came after him, not the other way around. Kanwulf and Kinman Duncan had to kill to stop them from killing more people. The only Immortal I recall seeing Duncan go after purely for revenge was Cullbraith, and he even gave that one up, allowing Richie to kill him. Duncan didn't even go after Kalas for revenge, Kalas went after Duncan for revenge. Duncan was, indeed, going to follow Kalas off Holy Ground and kill him, but Brother Paul stopped him. Duncan and Kalas met by chance later, and Kalas decided to try and take his pound of flesh from Duncan then. Then again even later, Kalas deliberately set about destroying everything around Duncan to get back at him, in the end even being prepared to out every single Immortal in the world, himself included. Duncan killed Kalas out of pure, simple self-defense.
Now, I do agree the character was handled very inconsistently at times. They even admit to it, in the example of the Obsession episode. . . it was totally out of character for Duncan, and they should have done something else. Dave Abramowitz, I believe, said that exactly. But in general, their guiding principle was to have Duncan being a strong moral center, and he was that, for the most part. And when he's not, those are the exceptions that prove the rule, and the most interesting episodes to watch.
|
|
|
|
Post by greg on Apr 12, 2008 14:02:15 GMT -5
How about the Chivalry episode... in it he says he cant kill her because he's made love to her, and wont bring himself to do it. But he killed Nefertiri back in season 2 even though he had made love to her. His moral compass only applies when he chooses it to.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesmcmurray on Apr 12, 2008 16:22:58 GMT -5
His moral compass only applies when he chooses it to. So you're saying he's human? |
|
|
|
Post by erikmodi on Apr 13, 2008 11:14:44 GMT -5
Besides, he'd basically watched Nefertiri knife someone to death. All he had about the chick in Chivalry was Methos' word and some suspicions that may or may not have been true. Once he did find out they were true, he took her down, but didn't kill her. . . because she was no threat to his life, and he believed, in some way, that the threat of him really coming for her and killing her if she pulled this again would be enough to stop her. If you actually look deep into character motivations, his actions usually make sense within the context of his established code of ethics. Usually, because sometimes they do write inconsistencies for dramatic purposes (as in Obsession) or simply because, as was pointed out, he's human. All he can do is what all the rest of us can do. . . whatever seemed like a good idea at the time.
That's what I'd really like to see explored in a new Highlander show. . . a person who, a hundred (or two, or three, or four hundred) years ago, was following the prevailing morality of the time, a morality that has changed significantly since then. Then having to deal with the consequences of those changes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorr on Apr 13, 2008 15:48:02 GMT -5
That's what I'd really like to see explored in a new Highlander show. . . a person who, a hundred (or two, or three, or four hundred) years ago, was following the prevailing morality of the time, a morality that has changed significantly since then. Then having to deal with the consequences of those changes. This is exactly what pretty much EVERY 'bad guy' was doing. Just watch every highlander episode form the point of view of the enemy and you have this idea done. |
|
|
|
