1 to 3 to Series to Endgame do work sort of as a continuity but even then everything past 1 needed to retcon the Game as never having been won and with Lambert not interested in doing a tv show they had to come up with Duncan instead who takes Conner's place as the protagonist in Endgame.
It was one of those "WTF are you doing making a sequel where the original film had a definitive ending event?" and yet they did so anyway and in such a bad way given how off track 2 was.
What's weird is that despite 2 and 3 being horrible (although 2 is a pretty cool cyberpunk film if you watch it in a vacuum and not regarding it in the continuity of the rest of the Highlander franchise) the series is what really brought fans back into the fold.
I originally didn't like Adrian Paul only because he was replacing Christopher Lambert as a new character and protagonist. However, his actual swordsmanship and skills as a martial artist absolutely won me over. They used real swords, partook in some fairly decent fight choreography, and included some compelling storylines. Not saying the series was great, but it was decent for what it was and actually better (story wise) than Highlander 2, and better all the way around than Highlander 3.
Endgame is a bittersweet entry because at least there's some story cohesion, and there are a couple of fantastic fights thanks to the underrated talents of Donnie Yen, but it's also such a horrible film. A better writer would have made Donnie Yen the final boss, betraying Thomas Paine's character because he doesn't believe he possess the "honor" to be the best, leading to an awesome showdown between Paul and Yen in the end. But alas... it's Highlander.
1 to 3 to Series to Endgame do work sort of as a continuity but even then everything past 1 needed to retcon the Game as never having been won and with Lambert not interested in doing a tv show they had to come up with Duncan instead who takes Conner's place as the protagonist in Endgame.
It was one of those "WTF are you doing making a sequel where the original film had a definitive ending event?" and yet they did so anyway and in such a bad way given how off track 2 was.
What's weird is that despite 2 and 3 being horrible (although 2 is a pretty cool cyberpunk film if you watch it in a vacuum and not regarding it in the continuity of the rest of the Highlander franchise) the series is what really brought fans back into the fold.
I originally didn't like Adrian Paul only because he was replacing Christopher Lambert as a new character and protagonist. However, his actual swordsmanship and skills as a martial artist absolutely won me over. They used real swords, partook in some fairly decent fight choreography, and included some compelling storylines. Not saying the series was great, but it was decent for what it was and actually better (story wise) than Highlander 2, and better all the way around than Highlander 3.
Endgame is a bittersweet entry because at least there's some story cohesion, and there are a couple of fantastic fights thanks to the underrated talents of Donnie Yen, but it's also such a horrible film. A better writer would have made Donnie Yen the final boss, betraying Thomas Paine's character because he doesn't believe he possess the "honor" to be the best, leading to an awesome showdown between Paul and Yen in the end. But alas... it's Highlander.
The expansion of the lore to "Immortalize" the Four Horsemen was a nice touch.