MovieChat Forums > Highlander II: The Quickening (1991) Discussion > Proper Highlander III

Proper Highlander III

posted 13 years ago by bondukkevin
9 replies | jump to latest

IMO they should have carried on from this film somehow with it all being a dream (I know stupid but...) or having even more immortals coming from somewhere?

I know this film is hated by most but they kind of copped out making III and then carrying on from the TV series. This was the most successful financially I think of the Highlander films in theatres so I think IMO the producers shoudl have carried on somehow.

Trouble is not sure how they shoudl haev carried on.... :-)

[–] donutpower 13 years ago

not sure what u mean by financially. this movie was all about being over budget. sure they had the marketing hype behind it but that was back when the movie was expected to be an epic sequel for the first film.

they did good in just ignoring it. reason for that was cause fans hated it so much. they didnt want to know where immortals came from cause that took away from the mystery and romanticism of what was established in the first film. so the producers decided to just do a copy of the first movie but with a few changes. but even that pissed people off cause it was too similar to the original rather than being bigger and better.

i think if they firmly established that Highlander was basically an anthology series that had MacLeod and Ramirez as the two main characters being put in different adventures and realms..THEN they could have pulled off having a Highlander 3 that has the two characters in like WaterWorld or in space.

[–] bondukkevin 13 years ago

from wikipedia

"Highlander II: The Quickening was released on November 1, 1991 and opened at #3, grossing $5,280,490 in 960 theaters in the opening weekend. Despite its negative reputation, in the US, it grossed $15,556,340, nearly three times as much as the original. In the UK, it pulled in $9,319,978 at the end of its run. In Spain, it pulled in 1,128,132 admissions at the end of its run, and in Australia, did $2,616,414. In France it pulled 1,377,109 admissions. It was # 20 of the top grossing films in Italy during its run there, and did 7 million in Germany."

[–] tito-the-titan 12 years ago

Highlander III was most successfull financially than the first two.
They made it very similar to the first one after the poor reception of
Highlander II.

[–] Times_Up 11 years ago

It's one of those movies that made bank off of the reputation of the original.

[–] dan-willi84 11 years ago

If Highlander II wasn't a "Aliens from another planet" story and was true to the original. I could imagine Katana was an medieval tyrant, whom was overthrown by rebels, which Ramirez fought alongside with. Instead of beheading Katana, Katana was left at the mercy of the rebels and survived his first death. When Katana resurfaces in NYC, determined to behead Connor McLeod and other immortals and win "The Prize". Connor, learning he also possesses Ramirez's soul, after he defeated The Kurgan whom killed Ramirez, is able to communicate with Connor (Hence the ending of Highlander I) and Ramirez helps Connor prepare to face Katana and realizing Katana will be a more powerful and more deadly opponent than The Kurgan.

[–] ozzmosiz 11 years ago

Highlander II would've made more sense if they followed this premise:

"The Prize" should've been about killing all the immortals at the time. You have the prize for a certain amount of time.
BUT.....
Others can be born immortal and perhaps only become immortal after a certain age has passed, thereby the title becomes free to claim once again.

[–] dan-willi84 11 years ago

Yes. But maybe in the end, there really is no prize and it will be a neverending battle that lots of immortals will continue to fight for all eternity.

[–] ghostgate2001 10 years ago

It's one of those movies that made bank off of the reputation of the original

Correct. I was there... They must've spent a lot on marketing, because I remember seeing huge billboard posters for "Highlander II" all over - and I was really excited to see it, having loved the first film.

No-one had any idea about all that "Planet Zeist" nonsense until the subtitle appeared on the cinema screen before our eyes.

I guess it's difficult for people to imagine it now, but 1991 was a world without the internet - people simply weren't clued-up on movies. You saw posters, maybe even a trailer at the cinema, but not much else - you mostly went in blind, on the strength of the previous film.

The only "news" I remember hearing about the film before it opened was that the budget was massive - double the original film? - and this was presented as a positive thing, i.e. this is a BIG-budget sequel, folks - no expense spared!

Me, I thought the fact that the director of the original film was also helming the second film guaranteed it would be a worthy sequel, and the massive budget he'd been granted was the icing on the cake. It seemed like a safe bet for greatness, and greatness was expected - but ... well, we all know how things turned out.

[–] Times_Up 8 years ago

No one liked the idea, but I guess if they continued with Zeist idea they should have had a full scale Zeist invasion of Earth. Perhaps the war left the world basically uninhabitable and they had to move civilization to the past, thereby showing the origins of the past with high-technology.

UPDATE:

Interestingly enough, a proper Highlander III is what Mulcahy had in mind when he was still attached to what became The Source. Duncan was only to be a framing device and he was going to do a story about the oldest immortals in the ancient civilization.

All good things must come to an end - Chaucer