Highlander Reboot With Henry Caville
 

And he's saying he is brushing up on his Scottish heritage... so he's definitely Connor and not, say, the Kurgan (which I actually think he'd be better at).

Here we are, born to be kings
We're the princes of the universe
Here we belong, fighting to survive
In a world with the darkest powers
Heh
And here we are, we're the princes of the universe
Here we belong, fighting for survival
We've come to be the rulers of you all
I am immortal, I have inside me blood of kings, yeah, yeah
I have no rival, no man can be my equal
Take me to the future of you all
Born to be kings, princes of the universe
Fighting and free
Got your world in my hand
I'm here for your love and I'll make my stand
We were born to be princes of the universe
No man could understand
My power is in my own hand
Ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, people talk about you
People say you've had your day
I'm a man that will go far
Fly the moon and reach for the stars
With my sword and head held high
Got to pass the test first time, yeah
I know that people talk about me, I hear it every day
But I can prove them wrong 'cause I'm right first time
Yeah, yeah
Alright, let's go, let's go, ha ha
Yeah, watch this man fly, wooh
Bring on the girls, c'mon, c'mon, c'mon
Here we are (here we are)
Born to be kings, we're the princes of the universe
Here we belong
Born to be kings, princes of the universe
Fighting and free, got your world in my hand
I'm here for your love and I'll make my stand
We were born to be princes of the universe (universe, universe, universe)

Yeah based on Cavill’s comments he’s almost certainly Connor. Personally I could see him more as Duncan than Connor but I also wouldn’t be too surprised if they draw some elements from Duncan and the series mythology if they’re planning this out for sequels rather than just a one off.

This is interesting.
Was always a much bigger fan of the T.V. show than the movie's though....

So I looked into the Highlander series and as it turns out, they're all box office bombs, even the first one. The only exceptions are the TV/DVD movies for rather obvious reasons. How the hell does that happen?

"Let's make Highlander 2!"
"But sir, Highlander bombed! Why would we make another one?"
"Becuase it gained popularity on video!"
"OK..."

One movie later

"Let's make Highlander 3!"
"Sir, not only was Highlander 2 the second bomb in a row, it was hot garbage, nobody liked it."
"Sure, OK, let's just ignore it..."
"Sir, it doesn't matter, the general audience don't seem to like this series!"
"... And call it Highlander 3 despite ignoring the second one!"
"... OK, whatever you say..."

Another movie later

"Let's make Highlander 4!"
"Jesus Christ, why?"
"Why not?"
"We lost money three times in a row on this horseshit! Why do you want to make another one at all!?"
"..."
"Fine... Whatever, I'm dead inside..."

Yet another movie later

"Let's make Highlander 5!"
"..."
"You're not going to object?"
"What's the point?"
"Don't you... Have any objections at all?"
"Well... If home video is the only venue where people watch these, let's just ignore the theatres..."
"OK"
"OK"

I think it's basically just that there's a germ of a good idea in there that people like in theory, even if it's only really been successfully done once. It's a concept that gets people buzzing a bit when they hear that they might be getting more of it, but then they get a series of diminishing returns and over time that causes problems. But in theory, people are generally on-board with the broad strokes of it, to the point where they'd be okay getting more of it so long as it was done well.

I mean the "elevator pitch" is pretty cool, honestly; bunch of "immortal" guys hacking each others' heads off with swords, "last one standing claims The Prize", all that. There's lore and catchphrases... on paper it's got everything a franchise needs. They just continually forgot to make good movies after the first one. And another problem is, the first one ties things up SO neatly that it left nowhere to go unless they were either going to go full-prequel, rewrite the lore, or shift protagonists, each of which could be problematic (and some of which they've tried along the way, but in ways that always felt like desperation rather than organic storytelling).

It's honestly very much like the Terminator franchise, really. With a lot of the same things working for it but also a lot of identical problems along the way. Aside from the story being based around Future Robots instead of Ancient Immortals, the only real difference is that the Terminator franchise at least managed to produce two-and-a-half good movies and Highlander only managed the one.

Highlander 1 was modestly a success. They made Highlander 2 but it destroyed all credibility of Highlander as a movie franchise. Highlander 3 was a requel to the first movie, basically an apology... but too little too late and not as good as the first one. Highlander 4 was their attempt to (relatively cheaply) launch the Highlander from the TV series into his own while wrapping up Connor's story. Highlander 5 was an even cheaper attempt by Lion's Gate to literally make a Highlander slasher movie... it didn't work but nobody saw it anyway.

The TV series and the first movie is mostly what has made the fandom endure, in that order. Personally I really like the fourth movie. 90% of the fandom has always mostly been comprised of older ladies who dig the romance the most and want to have sex with Adrian Paul or Peter Wingfield (or write fanfics where they f*** each other). The remaining 10% is guys like me, who enjoy the idea of... you know... the guy on the subway might be a 2,000 year old Immortal packing a sword.

Highlander is a perfect movie. It doesn't need a rebbot.

Decent for its time but it hasn't really aged well (well, the Scotland stuff still looks great). And all the Queen stuff really dates it.

This exactly. It's a lot like the Crow. It's watchable, but it isn't timeless and it certainly takes you back for the good and the bad.

Not really sure what is the problem with it.
One of the strength of the Queen is that their music is not like anything else, thus, in effect, timeless.

Queen is largely associated with 70's arena rock. It's not a problem, but it is dated.

It's not Queen's fault that "culture" has fallen into the toilet since then.

We have not made progress.

I'm just surprised they are doing a reboot of a franchise and cast a white male as the lead.

It's always been a kind of "camp" music. Gloriously... but beyond hipsters today who appreciate that, it doesn't sound modern and hasn't for a couple of decades.

That said, I love the original Michael Kamen orchestral score. THAT is timeless.

They kind of have to. It's in the name Highlander. Not a whole lot of black Scots in the 1500s. And it was almost Ryan Reynolds maybe 5 years ago. That was all the news. Also that Tom Cruise would be Ramirez.

Agreed completely....
There's no denying Queen's popularity either, and I have some appreciation for what they did too. But the truth is that the biggest cross-generational bump that they got was renewed relevance because of Wayne's World.

I politely disagree. :lol:

As if wokesters would worry about that.
Guess, its just a lucky cards.

Right? I mean when you have Netflix casting a black chick as Neal Gaiman's Death for the sole purpose of trolling anyone who'd actually be interested in watching their "Sandman" show, you know that all bets are off.

By the way, we're super lucky that Netflix isn't in charge of the Highlander reboot.

Heresy.

But seriously,I hate the "it aged badly" argument since EVERY movie will look dated after a few years.