MovieChat Forums > Highlander: Endgame (2000) Discussion > Reasons I don't like Endgame

Reasons I don't like Endgame

posted 17 years ago by CountVladDracula
25 replies | jump to latest

Reasons I don't like Highlander: Endgame

1. The hypicrcy of the watchers and Sanctuary. So much for not interfering, eh?

2. Drawn out scene of a man with no legs carrying Duncan. Why didn't Methos help?

3. (Producer's cut) How did Kate escape?

4. What about the second season 'curse' that Duncan could never be married? And it turns out he was married all along and yet he wanted to marry Tessa? That doesn't sound like Duncan to me.

5. Death of Connor.

6. How could Connor have been in Sanctuary for ten years as of 2000 when in 1992 we saw him in Highlander the seies AND the third Highlander movie? That contradicts TWO versions of the Mythos right there.

7. Why would anyone subject themselves to that sort of sensory deprivation torture? It seems like very bad writing to me that Connor would do that to himself.

8. How can Rachel have been killed in 1990 / 1991 and appear in Highlander 3.

9. What happened to Connor's adopted son of Highlander 3. did he just abandon him.

10. How were immortals killed on Holy ground? It's not supposed to just be a matter of honour. Bad things happen if an immortal fights on Holyground. Such as Mt. Vesuveus errupting in Pompi.

11. It's not supposed to be how many heads you take that count but how powerful the immortals are that you fought topped with your own knowledge and training. It's how a young immortal CAN take on a very old immortal.

12. Why was Methos practically living with Joe and as Adam Peirson? I thought he gave up that persona when he was found out as Methos.

But Highlander: the source is much, much worse even than this.

[–] ferdinandhudson 17 years ago

6. Endgame's time is 2002 according to the producers. Him going to the Sanctuary would take place 1992-2002.

8. Rachel wasn't in Highlander 3 at all.

10. Mount Vesuvius may have been a fluke, it is not stated as fact that it was caused by a killing on holy ground. Besides, the producer's cut removes the notion of the Sanctuary being on holy ground. Personally, I stick by what the first movie says and say it is just an honour thing. What comes after the original is retconned and retconned over and over again.

12. He was still carrying on as Adam Pierson long after he was found out by Duncan and Joe. They knew who he was but not everyone else.

Still one can find a lot of holes in this franchise.

[–] CountVladDracula 17 years ago

Yes, Rachel was in Highlander 3. It might only be in the director's cut but she's there. When Connor goes back to New York shes' there. And also the third Highlander film takes place after his appearance on Highlander the series so explain that away.

And I was not talking about Methos being found out by Duncan and Joe. When Cassandra found him in Comes a Horseman so did her watcher. Later it gets mentioned that he was dishonourably discharged from The Watchers.

[–] ferdinandhudson 17 years ago

Rachel is neither in the Director's cut nor in the European cut of the movie.

[–] CountVladDracula 17 years ago

I could have sworn she was because that detective obsessed with what happened in 1986 mentions talking to her.

[–] ferdinandhudson 17 years ago

The cop talked with Alex, not Rachel. Rachel, the character as well as the actress playing her, only resurfaced in Endgame.

[–] CountVladDracula 17 years ago

Whoopse, my mistake on that one then. It's been a long time since I saw part 3.

[–] andrew-burke3 17 years ago

The biggest problem with this film is the fact that they kill off Connor there by making out highlander II didn't happen. I know a lot of people didn't like the film but the fact is it was made and we have to live with it.

I know on the goofs section they say that they were treated more like James Bond films and not strictly carrying on from one to the other but at no point have they killed James Bond only to have him apear in the next film.

[–] CountVladDracula 17 years ago

Right. I agree with you.

[–] dark_mullet 17 years ago

4. The curse was probably placed on him AFTER he married.

8. Highlander the series/Endgame takes place in a different Universe than Highlander 3. Also, Rachel wasn't in 3.

9. See above. Different Universe.

www.vgspoofs.com
www.darkmulletcinema.net

[–] CountVladDracula 17 years ago

So Endgame is an alternate reality from the show though it has the characters and quasi-back stories from the show and also it's a different universe from the first three films?

I miss the thing called continuity...

[–] dark_mullet 17 years ago

No, the series and Endgame are in the same Universe.

But the series and Endgame are not in the same universe as Highlander 1, 2, or 3.

In the original Universe, Connor won the prize and all is well.

In the second Universe he originally won the prize but hey it turns out he's an alien. Movie ends and that's the end of that story.

The the third Universe he battled Kurgan, but it turns out there's another immortal around. Connor wins and that's the end of that story.

The fourth Universe belongs to that of the series and Endgame. In this Universe Connor battled Kurgan, but it was not for the prize. Connor is far from near the last and this seems to be the peak of the Highlander age, whereas in the other dimensions the peak age was hundreds of years ago.

The Source, while possibly also taking place in the fourth Universe, is actually in its OWN separate Universe since it completely changes the whole purpose of Highlanders and the prize, which was set by EVERY previous movie.

www.vgspoofs.com
www.darkmulletcinema.net

[–] CountVladDracula 17 years ago

You just described four different realities for five films thare aren't about a multiverse or interdimensional travel...

[–] dark_mullet 17 years ago

Yeah, there is no interdimensional travel. And it's not ABOUT a multiverse.

But it IS a multiverse, due to the need for sequels and a series. There's another Universe for the animated series too.

www.vgspoofs.com
www.darkmulletcinema.net

[–] CountVladDracula 17 years ago

They could easily have done a connection of sequels WITH continuity to each other. There was no excuse for the way the Highlander franchise was handled. If the TV series could have had an on going continuity for over six years the movies could have too because the show's two parters pretty much WERE movies.

[–] daredevildk15 17 years ago

Well i personaly hated this movie for the reason that conner should not have died and in my belief that the series was created to capitolize on the orginal which states that 1985 or 86 was the gathering and that in essence duncan is not a valid character. Also, i feel that the writing for the series and this movie is all the same becuase its always duncan has a love intrest who reminds him of a past even and he fight an immortal, so to finish i found that this movie was stupid and pointless.

[–] jetdtw 17 years ago

The tv series had more depth than you described, especially around it's peak, imo series 3-5, as for the movie, it followed on from the series in a believable way unlike the previous movies.

The death of Connor was a shame as i liked the character but the scene itself was amazing and added to the movie, what i loved about the movie though is that it had a decent story that wasnt just about the 'big bad' like Highlander 3 and that it had themes that were followed through and resolved. I really enjoyed this one and is one of my faves.

[–] hanliz65 17 years ago

Endgame doesn't make sense as at the end of Highlander Connor kills the last immortal and gains the prize. However all this time at least Duncan Kate(Faith) and Kell have been around (plus however many more).

I think I speak for everyone when i say huh!

[–] CountVladDracula 17 years ago

Don't forget Methos. I guess the only way to connect the film to the series and the later movies is to say Connor only THOUGHT he was the last one.

[–] ferdinandhudson 17 years ago

Which they did in the series too. Imagine it, not only Connor but Fasil, Kastagir and the Kurgan essentially suffered from mass psychosis believing they'd reached the Gathering... and Rachel thought only the Kurgan had gone insane

[–] CountVladDracula 17 years ago

Hehe.

[–] Refrax5 17 years ago

I'm all for the idea of paralell universes....its the only way they all work, and that way, we have at least one (you could really argue three) where Connor won the prize, and then the series/Engame/The Source version. Besides, Duncan visited an alternate universe at the end of the series, so the TV show pretty much proves that there are other Highlander worlds out there.

The only things about this movie I really disliked were the villains, namely Kate (who wasn't REALLY a villain) and Kell...they were just hammy, bad TV fantasy movie performances. And I didn't like that the rules were broken with absolutely no consequence. I don't buy that it's a matter of honor, because Kell cannot have been the first one not to give a s--t about honor. And if he was breaking the rules, couldn't Duncan and Connor make an exception under the circumstances to take him on at once?

Because if the villain is breaking the rules and NOTHING happens, Connor's sacrifice seems unnecessary. I suppose you can say that Kell was SO powerful, he could shrug off any consequences, but thats still pushin' it.

The poster formerly known as Refrax2

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Refrax5 17 years ago

Well, I understand that a large part of him wanted to die, but I don't buy suicide as being the primary motive there.

I look at it this way--while he did feel guilt over killing Kell's dad (even though he deserved it), he lived with that for hundreds of years. The crux of it was that Connor's loved ones were paying for his mistake, and Duncan was next. He couldn't bear to have Duncan die for HIS transgression, so he wanted Duncan to kill him. However, I believe that Connor would have killed Duncan, had he refused, because more than any other reason, Kell HAD to be stopped.

I'm just saying that if the rules were being broken without consequence and Kell was about to become unstoppable BY breaking the rules, Connor and Duncan refusing to take him on two against one seems silly. I think, under the circumstances, breaking that rule (since nothing bad really seems to happen if you do) is less extreme than Connor forcing his best friend to behead him.

Thank God we still have a bunch of subpar alternate futures where Connor lives and thrives.

The poster formerly known as Refrax2

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Refrax5 17 years ago

Yes, you're right. Rainer merely raised him....I had forgotten.

But, yes. They're all a bit goofy continuity wise. The way I look at it is that the original film happens, and each subsequent version is a alternate future of the original film. That way, you don't have to try and figure out if The Final Dimension somehow happened in the show continuity, or how Connor is alive in the far future when Duncan kills jim in Endgame...basically each sequel or spin off is its own world.

And as I said before, the TV show had Duncan traveling to an alternate universe, so...there we go.

But a coherent Highlander trilogy is one of the great missed opportunities in fantasy movies. Too bad....

The poster formerly known as Refrax2