Highlander: where did it go so wrong?

The original Highlander movie was a surprise success when it came out in 1986, paving the way for a whole franchise of tv and movies. There were some interesting ideas and some cool visuals, plus plenty of action. But so much of what followed that original movie has been terrible. Was it really that hard to write a sequel that had at least the usual amount of Hollywood plausibility? Even setting aside the astounding contradictions created by the second movie, there were all kinds of problems created at every turn... like, who was this Duncan guy if "there could be only one" and where do the Watchers really fit into all of this, and how in the hell did anybody think it made sense for that annoying prat Richie to suddenly become a highlander type?

It went wrong right after the original movie ended. (And, if we're honest about it, the first movie wasn't that great, either. A lot of fun, sure, but hardly great.)

Sequels and spinoffs happen for three reasons:

1. The story doesn't end with the original.
2. There are compelling stories beyond the original.
3. People like making easy money.

These are not mutually exclusive, of course, and I'm not critical of making money at all, but when that's your only reason for creating a sequel, you're pretty much guaranteed to produce a pile of steaming crap. Like with Highlander.

The tagline says it all: there can be only one. Interesting premise, but that story has a natural end to it, which occurred at the end of the original movie. I'm sure talented individuals could continue in this universe with new, compelling stories, but, seriously, who has talent that's involved in this franchise?

That's true, the original movie was certainly flawed. In particular, that final swordfight was too long, and too bombastic with all the shooting sparks. Christopher Lambert had a bit of a tendency towards mumbling. And as you pointed out, the neat wrap-up of the whole point of the concept by the end of the movie made any sort of sequel very problematic. As flawed as the second movie was, it at least tried to cope with that built-in problem for any sequels. Problem was, the enjoyable parts of the original movie would all be lost unless that movie was retconned out of the way.

Bullwinkle got it in one - the storyline ended with the first movie. There was no where for a sequel to go.

I'd argue the Matrix was the same.

I've only ever seen the first one and I thought it was pretty terrible. I remember seeing it in the theater and thinking it was weird that Connery was in something so cheap and sleazy. I saw about five minutes of the one with Mario Van Peebles, and I think his presence in the move pretty much explains it all.

It's that whole nerd movie thing where people THINK they want more and when they get more, it's garbage and they turn on it. Nerds have this thing about series, just like in books...it's rare to see sometihng that's one, complete story that's done without needless continuation.

Mr Skeletor wrote:

Bullwinkle got it in one - the storyline ended with the first movie. There was no where for a sequel to go.

I'd argue the Matrix was the same.

The movies beyond the first were atrocious. I liked the TV show myself if only for giving Roger Daltry a job [and Ritchie had to die and, fortunately, he did...]

Michael Barnes wrote:

I've only ever seen the first one and I thought it was pretty terrible. I remember seeing it in the theater and thinking it was weird that Connery was in something so cheap and sleazy. I saw about five minutes of the one with Mario Van Peebles, and I think his presence in the move pretty much explains it all.

It's that whole nerd movie thing where people THINK they want more and when they get more, it's garbage and they turn on it. Nerds have this thing about series, just like in books...it's rare to see sometihng that's one, complete story that's done without needless continuation.

I've had the misfortune to see FOUR and an episode or two of the tv show. I look on the first one fondly, even though I have no urge to watch it again just because I was raised watching it and other, often laughably bad, action movies; I knew names like Dolph Lundgren, Jean Claude van Damme, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone before I could name five presidents.

The best thing about the movie is the tremendously under-rated Clancy Brown (few people can pull off portraying Barbarians with the same skill they do the Anti-Christ mascarading as a preacher) as the Kurgan, and his various over-the-top shenanigans. That and the Queen soundtrack. I put it up there with the DeLaurentiis Trifecta and Mad Max films as essential 80s movies.

As an aside, all following incarnations of the film are downright unwatchable.

Highlander was and still is one of my favourite movies. Yeah it's B-grade, but that's a part of it's charm. It had a kick-ass soundtrack, swords, great one-liners, men in kilts and Clancy Brown as the Kurgan was awesome.

BUT, it should have ended with the original movie. I was mortified when I watched The Quickening. They hacked the original story to pieces and then tried to put it back together with band-aids. Bastards - I still haven't forgiven them.

It only got worse with the one featuring Mario van Peebles, and the TV series was incredibly weak and aimless.

I agree that the story ended with the first movie and in my world, it did end with the first movie and none of the rest ever happened. There can be only one.

The only clearer sign than Van Peebles that a movie is going to be bad is a Wayans brother.

The first one was okay. The second one was a train wreck. The third one was less than a train wreck but not as good as the first.

Never watched the series.

Spin off question:
Has Queen ever done a shit soundtrack?

Mr Skeletor wrote:

Spin off question:
Has Queen ever done a shit soundtrack?

Not in my book. The soundtrack to Flash Gordon was the only redeeming feature. Ditto for that Top Gun ripoff Iron Eagles (One Vision).

Damn, there were FOUR Highlander movies? I thought there were only three. I've seen the first two. The first one is a personal favorite. It's movie junk food. Totally not good for you but you can't resist it. But seriously Sean Connery as a Spaniard? Christopher Lambert as a Scotsman? Totally mixed up accents. Not like anyone cared during the 80s ...

The TV show always confused me, how did two cousins end up being Highlanders. And they really aren't "highlanders" only Christopher Lambert was a highlander because he was from the Scottish highlands! Anyways, they should've done what they did with the Buffy series, just forget the movie ever happened and do your own thing with it.

metalface13 wrote:

Damn, there were FOUR Highlander movies?

There are five of them, actually. Sad, isn't it?

Anyways, they should've done what they did with the Buffy series, just forget the movie ever happened and do your own thing with it.

Didn't Buffy acknowledge the movie? I thought she moved to Sunnydale because of the events in the movie; she wrecked her high school and wasn't welcome there any more.

I do agree that a TV series should be given some leeway in rewriting a movie's history, though.