Highlander 1

**Skweres** · 28th March 07, 11:59 AM

i was wondering, i know that highlander 2 was ignored for the rest of the movies, but how did they explain the imense quickening connor went through and how he was supposed to win the prize?

**LK-13** · 28th March 07, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by Skweres

i was wondering, i know that highlander 2 was ignored for the rest of the movies, but how did they explain the imense quickening connor went through and how he was supposed to win the prize?

at that point in time the only 2 other immortals left were removed from the game,
Duncan was on wholly Ground so therefore removed.
and the Van Pepeoles character was walled up in a cave, so again removed.

**arrogcow** · 28th March 07, 04:44 PM

Actually 2 takes place in time after 3. Connor was the only immortal left on Earth and had won the prize. Another came from another planet (Ok actually another 3).

However having said that #2 and #3 don't really exist (kind of like SW 1-3), and should be ignored (2 is just bad - though the director's cut is better, 3 actually changes the rules - i.e. Van Peebles is around even though Connor should have been the last). Endgame on the other hand is tied to the tv series and should also not be really considered a sequel to the original.

Adam

**Zardoz** · 28th March 07, 08:34 PM

I know this can turn into one of those Trek vs. B5 style arguments, but I'm just gonna say of the whole bunch I only like Highlander I and II, (Maybe its just Virginia Madsen, but I really like II ) the director's cut of II "renegage version" is the only way to see it though, the original version of II, with the aliens, was largely the product of interferance from the films Argentine money backers, who since they were paying, figured they knew how to make a better film. Lots of films in the 80s and early 90s suffer from that kind of thing.
Never watched the TV show.

**Monkey@Arms** · 29th March 07, 12:05 AM

One rocks.

Everything else was a HUGE disappointment.

Best regards,

Jake

**Skweres** · 29th March 07, 08:48 AM

well, after thinking about all of this? and ive come up with a good theory that still works with all the movies and the tv series. My theory is that the first movie, just involved a quickening that was extremely powerful and that he didnt win "the prize" he just became much more powerful and that #2 is just thrown out, and taking the idea from the series that imortals are always being born and you just need to die a violent death to have it activated

**Skweres** · 29th March 07, 08:49 AM

fyi, thats the information i got from multiple highlander websites, and wiki

**James73** · 29th March 07, 08:50 AM

You all know that LionsGate is going back to the well and releasing another Highlander film, titled Highlander:The Source, in September, right? Here is the movie's IMDB page and it's Wikipedia entry.

**escherblacksmith** · 29th March 07, 09:37 AM

which is just a continuation of the tv series . . .

I have been convinced that all of the subsequent highlander films after the first were from alternate universes, and therefore don't need to follow logical continuity.

Not that I watched after the van peebles debacle. Oh the pain, the pain of it all.

**LordKiltClad** · 29th March 07, 09:42 AM

I just like Highlander I since it was filmed at my ancestral castle of Elian Donan. And the sword play was cool. And the whole walking underwater scene, and training with Sean Connery. The others I've watched, but still not as cool as the first one.