Kevin's Watch

Is Howard the Duck sci-fi?

aTOMiC wrote:Well these beings are "born" believing they are human but clearly are quite different but kindred in their own nature. The fact that the "race" of immortals all fight to the last man suggests that they all share a common "Life Force" perhaps mutant, maybe alien in origin. The Lifeforce they "suck" is simply the shared life energy condensing down with each passing victory until one immortal gains it all. The end product is the rather amazing abilities that come from "The Prize". The "Life force" energy entitiy may have traveled through space as part of a comet or meteor that might have struck the earth in ancient times and eventually found host in the form of newly born humans.
Of course this is all speculation on my part but you did request some kind of explanation to back up my opinion.

But that explanation could easily fit fantasy or horror. It's too vague and unscientific to be sci-fi. Look, I'm saying you cant think that, I personally don't think it sits easily within the SF genre.

But my explanation was air tight. *leaves sobbing like a 4 year old girl who just found out that no one came to her birthday party*

aTOMiC wrote:But my explanation was air tight. *leaves sobbing like a 4 year old girl who just found out that no one came to her birthday party*

The original Highlander wasn't really sci-fi, but Highlander II made it so.

Deep theological question: what if Highlander III made what Highlander II did to make Highlander sci-fi not sci-fi by negating whatever Highlander II did to make Highlander sci-fi?

Wait--is there a Highlander III? And a better question: why was Beastmaster 2 ever made? That movie sucked!

I think there was, and it did...highlander bunnies

Being a fan of the original Highlander film, I foolishly watched Highlander II. I sat aghast at what an idiotic premise they used for the sequel. I had assumed (like I'm sure every one else did) that the Connor McCloud story had to end at the end of the first film and that any possible continuation of the franchise would have to explore the many adventures of the many other immortals from the time of the beginning to before 1985. They said it and I believed them. "THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE". So I sit in horror and watch Highlander II, feeling sick to my stomach but certain after this abomination there can't possibly be another film. But nooooooooooooooooo. Here comes Highlander III. The gathering missed an immortal who was trapped underground. You don't think the cosmic forces of the universe wouldn't know there was another immortal somewhere and withhold "the gift" until that matter was addressed? WTF?!? How stupid must they think we are? And to add insult to injury we have a good, well produced but purely impossible Highlander series. I've always contended that the Highlander televeision series should have been set in the 1960s so it didn't screw with the established facts. In summary only the first film is real to me. I can't UNWATCH the other films or the tv show but what cha gonna do?

I watched Highlander II in the theater. My wife and I actually went on opening night.

I've never seen a group of moviegoers more ready to trash a theater.

Great post, Tom. Ha ha, I'm glad I didn't suffer through all that!

The original Highlander film never captivated me. I really wanted to like it - heck, I had bought a copy of it purely on the recommendation of a friend, basically trusting that it would be a good movie. That's something I almost never do. But the movie mostly bored me - even with Sean Connery's presence. I just don't know what people see in Highlander that's so remarkable, and I'll be the first to say that it could be a total failure on my part to really understand the movie. Its acclaimed status puzzles me - I guess in the same way that the rest of you are bewildered by the high praise given to Blade Runner.

Oh, well, the saying holds true: one person's treasure, another person's trash.

Stop editing my posts for your own amusement dAN. It's not amusing.

Ok, fine. Well, after this one last time - dAN

Luckily for me, I heard ahead of time what the premise for Highlander II was, so I was never subjected to it's destruction of canon. II however remains irrelevant to this discussion. In fact, it was clearly specified in the post that we were talking about the original, and I agreed wholeheartedly.

I liked the series, except for one tiny niggling detail...it was impossible. I agree that a different setting would have made a big difference.

To return to the question though, I agree with LoreMaster. A definition is a statement of the essential properties of a certain thing, in this case a genre. Sci-Fi. What essential properties that allow inclusion in the specific genre does Highlander share with all other films in that genre?

What element does it share with other sci-fi films that makes it sci-fi? Swords are certainly not an essential element of sci-fi...nor is immortality. In fact, your earlier description of the life-force being sucked out reminded me more of vampire movies than sci-fi. *shrug*

(Oh, on an unrelated note, I finally watched Serenity for the first time this weekend. Enjoyed it immensely. Just don't think it was really as stand-alone as it was supposed to be. )

--A

Primer is on my netflix, btw.

Marvin wrote:Is Howard the Duck sci-fi?

I think I'd just categorize it as "comic adaptation".

dANdeLION wrote:

Marvin wrote:Is Howard the Duck sci-fi?

I think I'd just categorize it as "comic adaptation".

I'd classify it as "Suckeriffic".

Forget continuity. You have to take each Highlander creation on its own. The first was good. The series was great (with the exception of Richie, who died just when he stopped being annoying and Charlie, who didn't die nearly soon enough) I liked II (the only one that could be categorized as sci-fi). Hated III. I can barely remember the last one (though the fighting on holy ground part really pissed me off... I thought everything was supposed to go all Vesuvius and crap).

Liked the series. Hated III. Haven't seen the last one yet...once bitten and all that.

--A

Can't really think of much right now, but 12 Monkeys is probably my favorite. Madeleine Stowe is one of my all-time favorite actresses (love Blink, too, although it's not really sci-fi). Oh, and I love pretty much any giant spider, snake, salamander etc. movie that's on the sci-fi channel on saturday morning.

Thought of another: Fortress. I pretty much love any cheesy movie with Christopher Lambert in it. Red Foreman (from That 70's Show) plays the prison warden. Love that guy.

One final one: Groundhog Day. That's gotta be a sci-fi movie, because somewhere someone is using a time machine. Love that flick.

Recently rewatched Highlander for the first time in maybe ten years. I don't know what you're all so excited about; it's a bit pants.

I felt the same way the last time I watched it. It's a decent film, but it hasn't aged well at all.

1) Star Wars Holy Trilogy
2) Alien Trilogy
3) T2 & T1
4) Predator
5) The Matrix
6) Wall-E
7) Star Treks: 1, 2, 4, and 6
2001
9) Planet of the Apes (original)
10) 12 Monkeys
11) Close Encounters
12) ET
13) Akira
14) Dark City
15) The Abyss
16) Contact
17) MIB
18) Signs
19) Minority Report
20) Space Balls
21) Bladerunner

Most Overrated) Blade Runner
Most Underrated) Alien 3