There can be only only one......Highlander Remake

Hey Everyone,
It seems much like the character, the Highlander reboot is incapable of being killed, lol. Recently it has gained some traction in the news that John Wick director Chad Stahelski will helm the film. In an interview, the director was enthusiastic about the project:

At the same time, the only confirmed attached casting is for the main villain, the Kurgan, to be played by David Bautista. As for the hero, Connor Macleod, actor Ryan Reynolds was originally attached and as expected there was negative reaction to that casting choice but since has dropped out. As for the Spanish haggis, Juan Ramirez, no word on any casting choice.

The director Stahelski in the said interview however also added that the music of Queen will be included, the movie will maintain the rated R, and actually plans on making it into a trilogy

Please no
No remake of this

There should have been only one.

Leave. It. Alone.

I'm fine with this remake, I could barely understand what Christopher Lambert was saying half the time.


Cast the lead actor from the show Outlander.


Or practically any of the guys and gals from Game of Thrones could be the one.

Can't agree with you there, sir.

The original worked. It was a good story told in one film. There was no need for a sequel, especially when the sequel (and pretty much everything that came after it) went to ridiculous lengths to rewrite what the original put forth.

I never had a problem with the Immortals not knowing their own origins to begin with, but to try and explain it with the whole "planet Zeist" business in such a clumsy and ham-handed method in Highlander 2 was beyond a simple eye-roll or facepalm.

I was working in a video store at the time Highlander 2 came out on home video, and as a result we got free rentals as a perk for working there. My friends from college warned me against seeing the movie, but I gave it a shot. It was the only movie I ever regretted using a free rental on.

Highlander doesn't need a remake, much less a trilogy.

How bout we pick up after Highlander End game? Where Duncan picks up a new apprentice, and lets him go into the world and we have a brand new immortal to follow around. No more remakes for god's sake.

There's also the Highlander TV series, I'm pretty sure Highlander 2 was retconned out even by the other Highlander movies. I think for the new movies they will create their own mythology anyways since the original is already so convoluted. I think going by John Wick, the director knows that it's best to keep the specifics a mystery. I'm expecting to see what he did for gunplay-fu to happen with sword play.

Outlander is one of my favs. Sam Heughan is a good choice and would fit the role. And it's funny because in the original movie, Christopher Lambert, a french actor barely just learned to speak english but luckily it turned out alright.

For Juan Sanchez Villa Lobos Ramirez, my choice would be Antonio Banderas

While I have no problem for the movie being remade, my only worry is why a trilogy? I know its necessary for movie studios to have a franchise but are they going to stretch the original movie out into 3 films? Wouldn't it be better to wait and see if the movie is successful before planning sequels? Or my guess is that they would stretch out the original's premise by including some of the key parts from the other Highlander movies similar to the how the Highlander TV series used the flashbacks but in this case Connor's past (Meeting the immortal Nakano, his time during the French revolution etc.) I don't know about including anything from Highlander 2 The Quickening because as you said it was it was a dumb way to explain how the immortals came to be similar to star wars and midichlorians

I dont know about you guys but MOST of the remakes dont work for a reason

True, but Hollywood never changes. It's easier for them to do remakes or sequels than creating something original. But remember, the original movie wasn't exactly a success but has since become a cult classic and iconic that its referred every now and then in other movies.

I agree with that statement about hollywood.
But in my opinion some things they should not do.
Like you say and well its a cult movie.
To be honest i think i remember maybe 2 or 3 remakes that went well. That is way too low.
They always lack of giving something extra about the original movie.

This is just an example. Army of Darkness is not the best movie and the visual effects are the worst.
If they do a remake of that its gonna be a disaster because there can be only one Ash.
They did the remake of the first one and when i watch the movie was not the same if you understand what im saying.

And like i told before remakes actually didnt work so far but i hope im wrong.
We have to wait and see

Just remembered. Anyone remember Eidos / Square Enix's failed role-playing Highlander video game?

Or the Highlander anime movie?

The Movie yes but the game honstly at the moment no lol

I think I'd liken it to what Peter Jackson did with The Hobbit.

Compared to just the first book in the Lord of the Rings story, The Hobbit is a fraction of the size of that story. Rankin-Bass made an animated version of the book that was only 78 minutes long, and they hit all the important parts of the story in that amount of time. And yet Jackson managed to bloat it into a trilogy, with the first movie alone being over two hours long.

Mind you, I've been a fan of Jackson's films and his work, but it just seems like after the success of the LOTR trilogy he seems to have caught the same "films of epic grandeur" tendencies that James Cameron picked up. King Kong was okay but far more bloated and overblown than it needed to be, and if the first film in The Hobbit trilogy was any indication that trend is continuing (couldn't say about the other two films, haven't wanted to see them after watching the first).

The original Highlander was barely two hours long, but it told a complete story. Even setting my strong wishes for the original to be left alone, trying to create a trilogy out of an 80's movie (it is very much a film of it's time LOL) that stands well on its own just seems like a "films of epic grandeur" thing at best, or "delusions of grandeur" at worst.

After Highlander 2 I ignored everything but the original. LOL

Granted, the original is far from flawless but it set up the rules for its universe and followed them very well, which can't be said for a lot of films (especially films from the 80's lol). Everything that came after the original broke those rules.

It's weird, normally I'm a bit more forgiving when it comes to remakes and sequels and such. I even tried giving the Rocky Horror remake from Fox last year the benefit of the doubt, which didn't last long. But after the way Highlander 2 mucked with EVERYTHING that worked well and was established in the first film, my gut instinct is to say, "Leave it alone."

Some remakes work, just many do not. Like point break for instance. It was a remake, but it took the idea, made it completely different and made it it's own. Other remakes that just try to modernize it for today, yeah that doesn't go well. Just ask Footloose.

lol that is why i put MOST
I did like a few remakes but the ones i like werent that much if im gonna remember the one i didnt like.
Sometimes remakes are just a copy and dont give something extra.
Ghostbusters is another example of a bad remake. Even the jokes are bad.

One of the remakes i kinda like was Dredd because was different. They didnt just copy

They talk about another remake and this one i dont agree too its Big Trouble in Little China
They talk about Dwayne Johnson doing Jack Burton but Kurt was amazing in that role

only only