Talk:Highlander: The Source

Specious Claims in the Introduction

"Highlander: The Source is the fifth, and by far best installment of the Highlander film series by leaps and bounds..."

What evidence do we have of that? The only critical reception known to date is from the Russian leak, and this very article said fan reception was largely negative. Really, an intro like that reeks of irresponsible hype.--Martin Boyden 05:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"Secret" Website

A new link has surfaced, found by those who purchased the Official soundtrack CD:

[1]

It provides an extended "trailer" (first seen at Highlander Worldwide convention and included on the "Best of the Best: Ultimate Collection" DVD set), a picture gallery, interactive flash game, and more. It looks like there is more content to come. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.214.22 (talk) 04:07, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Sci Fi Channel

[2]

It'll be shown on TV first!

Sept. 15, 2007, 9pm and 1am eastern time, to be exact!

From scratch

hmm... apparently it has to be from scratch. if it has to be deleted, do it. i just copied it from the previous page because it was too long. HoneyBee 04:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, with the DVD release in Russia, the whole article needs to be scrapped and re-written based on undeniably accurate information: the film itself.--TOOTCB 06:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

But as we all know, it is not the official release accoring to Davis/PanzerStephan 16:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It's more "official" than the leaked information that was here before. --TOOTCB 14:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sean Connery

Since when is he in this movie? There's nothing on the official website about his participation in the film and I figure that's a big name for the official site to overlook. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spookyadler (talk • contribs) 21:20, December 29, 2006

Oh, no. Not again.

It is my opinion that there should be a mention somewhere of the general opinion among critics that the Highlander franchise gets worse with each successive film. Such critical opinion is relevant to an article about a film, in my opinion. Would it be appropriate to cover that in detail on the page of the original Highlander (film), possibly in the section of that article currently labeled "Reception", and link to it from this article? Or should it be covered (or at least summarized) in this article? -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2007-01-11 16:19Z

The film isn't even out, so there's no point in trying to compare this film to the previous incarnations just yet. The best one could do is find reliable sources of film journalists who contest the quality of this film based on the franchise's past, but even so, that would be non-notable speculation about the subject at hand. Considering that you had a previous comment that I reverted that contested the quality of this upcoming film, I'm concerned about the neutral approach on your suggestion. I don't think such a viewpoint is necessary until the film comes out, so it can be appropriately compared by reviewers to the other films. If readers of this film article want to find out how the other films performed, they can visit the relevant film articles. In the meantime, there should be an addition of a Production section and similar sections. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"Neutrality" does not mean ignoring criticism. Critics nigh-universally pan the various Highlander sequels, nominating them for Razzies, putting them on Worst Movies Of The Year (and occasionally Worst Movies Ever) lists, and so on. Wikipedia is not a marketing device. If a work in progress is important enough to merit an article when the film hasn't even been released, then it merits reference to the sordid history of its franchise. Come to think of it, I am not sure that this merits an article, since the subject of the article does not yet exist. This article is essentially just advertising, and should be deleted. I am not going to nominate it for speedy deletion, because there may be some precedent here that I am unaware of, but I am going to propose it be deleted. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2007-01-13 15:46Z

I have been a highlander fan since the first film. I have all of the movies and the entire series on DVD. I watched it when i premiered on Sci-Fi and I want to say that this movie was a complete and utter disappointment. Kageskull 17:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal can be seen here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highlander: The Source. I've voted Strong Keep because AfD does not apply here at all. AfD, when it comes to films, is often used for films that do not have the strong possibility of coming out, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Dwarf: The Movie. Instead of deleting the article on the basis of promotional material, I suggest you check out Wikipedia:Template messages and apply whatever templates you think are necessary to suggest that the article needs to be improved. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it can be improved. Until the film is released, there is nothing to write an article about. But that's just my opinion. At most, there should be a footnote in the article of the real Highlander saying that another sequel is planned. However, if the general policy of Wikipedia is to permit articles which are simply advance promotional material for products soon to be on the market, or if films are some kind of special case where advertising is permitted on Wikipedia, then the consensus will be to keep the article, and no harm will have been done. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2007-01-13 17:16Z

I've added a brief Production section to reflect when Lions Gate acquired the rights to make the film, mention of a follow-up franchise, and a title change. All this information is encyclopedic and improves the article. I'm fine with the "Story" section being reduced, rewritten, or even deleted, though. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The overwhelming consensus was to keep the article (and by extension, all such articles, which is a learning experience for me). As such, I have no problems with the article's current content. You have done a good job. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2007-01-18 06:20Z

Important: Please note that the AFD outcome only applies to this article (there is no "by extension, all such articles" in this case). All articles of some type don't automatically become immune to deletion if one of them is kept in an AFD. --Coredesat 23:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The results of the AfD were that the reasons I gave for proposing the article be deleted -- verifiability and advertising -- were not even worthy of being refuted. Read the AfD. If those reasons for deletion do not apply to this unreleased film, they don't apply to any unreleased film. That's not to say that an AfD might not be appropriate for this or other articles for other reasons. But to see the overwhelming -- unanimous, other than myself -- response to the AfD and not learn something from it would be unreasonable. I have learned something from it, at any rate. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2007-01-18 23:10Z

2006 gap

According to the citation in the article, filming was completed in December 2005. However, it is now January 2007, so there may have been difficulty by the studio in getting the film released, either in theaters or straight-to-DVD. If anyone comes across information citing the on-goings of this completed film in 2006, please share. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Loons

It's always strange to me that usually these deletion nominations are pushed by one person who seems to be totally against the article for whatever odd personal reason. Keep this article. I've never seen any of the films and don't intend to but when in doubt KEEP. And, oh yeah, find something else to obsess about. 69.224.122.60 08:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That's terribly rude. While I am have no doubt that the movie itself will be atrocious, that has no bearing at all on whether or not the article itself should be kept. If you read the RfA proposal, you would see that my reasons for submitting it for consideration for deletion were based on the Wikipedia policies of advertising and verifiability. The community consensus was that these policies do not apply to unreleased films in the same way that they apply to other articles, and that this article should not be deleted. That's good enough for me, and it ought to be good enough for you. Personal insults are not warranted. I am not going to delete the personal attack, even though it has been made by an anonymous editor, because I don't think you quite crossed the line where automatic deletion is warranted. But you ought to delete it yourself. If you do, you may delete this comment, as well. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) • 2007-01-18 14:12Z

It seems that the surest way to end up hating a movie is to go in with no doubt that you'll hate it. Typically you'll always find a reason to if you're that sure it will be terrible. That is perfectly in keeping with critical response to Endgame. It may not have been great, and the closing fight with Kell reeked after the spectacular scene in Connor's loft, but it was miles ahead of either of the previous sequels. I have my own reservations about this film. I'm affraid that it is going to make some of the same mistakes that Highlander 2 did, but I will go in hoping for the best. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.180.41.47 (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

The talk page is not for general discussion about the film, per talk page guidelines. Please keep your comments focused on improving the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Leaked?

At least in Poland, the early cut has already been officially released... Ausir 20:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there a source for that information? I really can't imagine them release a leaked version officially. If it really has been released, then many parts of the article need to be rewritten. But if there's no confirmation for this information, I am going to take that part out of the article. --87.122.19.181 23:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the sentence. --85.233.18.3 08:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

People may find it hard to believe that a Highlander film would be released and then have another version of it released later as a "final cut" but let's face it, these can only be newbies. EVERY film in the Highlander series has had at least one alteration. The movie was not "leaked" but officially released in Russia, Poland and Holland before its official premiere on the Sci Fi Channel this Sept 15/16. The DVDs that are out now are not "illegal" or "rips" but the real official product released in various countries. Believe it or not, the US is not always the first country to get a movie. This was a low budget sci fi movie made for a niche market, so it really shouldn't be a huge shock. You can go to Russian, Dutch and Polish websites to order the official DVD. What more proof do people need? Davis-Panis productions has said that the "final producer's cut" of the film will be the one released in September, they never said that any of these other releases were "illegal" or "bootlegs" as many deluded fans have tried to claim (sorry, but what else can they be called? apparently they can't believe Highlander would reach such lows, but let's face it, it can and it has!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.214.22 (talk) 13:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Citation

• Highlander's Paul Goes To Source —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Plot? What?

The "Plot" section is horrible. It seems to assume you've seen the movie already. It jumps around. It has now flow to it. Chrismon 04:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks like no one edited the plot since this was posted a while back, but indeed that is an accurate and chronologically accurate plot summery (unfortunately). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.201.129.140 (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Profitability

Does anyone know if this flic made back its production costs? Bloody Sacha 09:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Early releases

Why is the German release, which has not even been released yet, referred to as a new cut when it is in all likelyhood the same cut as the one that was issued in Russia, Poland and Brazil earlier this year? The run time stated at the distributors site is the same as the two previous PAL releases (Russia, Poland). There is nothing to support the notion there is another re-edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferdinandhudson (talk • contribs) 21:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

UK aspect ratio

"UK: The Region 2 release is out now from 7 January 2008. This is the same version as the Dutch DVD albeit in the incorrect aspect ratio of 1.78:1."

Whats incorrect about it? its the standard European Hi-Def widescreen aspect ratio, since the film was made in filmed in cinema aspect ratio 2.35:1 it would have to be cropped to some more standard tv ratio.

Why should it have to be cropped? The intended theatrical aspect ratio is 2.35:1 and should be kept for DVD/BD release. So far all DVD/BD releases worldwide have used the intended aspect ratio except for the UK and Brazil releases. The TV ratio should not dictate the ratio of commercial home release or next we would see cropped releases of Gone With The Wind or Casablanca.Ferdinandhudson (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Followed by...

The info box states this movie is followed by Highlander: Prophecies, but I can't find any reference to it beyond a similarly named episode of the TV series. What is it? a cancelled sequel, perhaps? --M4roho (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It is just complete nonsense. What comes next is the remake of the original and that one is only known as "Highlander" at the moment, a title of "Highlander: The Reckoning" has also been mentioned here but that has been addressed by the admin on the Highlander board as incorrect. There are just too many unsourced entries on this wiki-page that I can't bother to use this for any credible information. Ferdinandhudson (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The Island

The article claims that: "....they leave to find the Source, which they have determined to be on an island in a lake in Eastern Europe." This is partly incorrect. It is in fact an Island in the eastern part of the Baltic Sea and not in a lake. I stopped the movie at 37.50 as it today was shown on BBC iPlayer. --86.146.123.9 (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC) It appears to be a fictitious island of the coast of Lithuania. --86.146.123.9 (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Highlander: The Source. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120163732/http://www.filmcritic.com/misc/emporium.nsf/reviews/Highlander-The-Source to http://www.filmcritic.com/misc/emporium.nsf/reviews/Highlander-The-Source
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151128044716/http://highlander-thesource.com/album/secret_site.html to http://highlander-thesource.com/album/secret_site.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Highlander: The Source. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722142202/http://www.monolith.com.pl/film.asp?kod=niesmiertelny-zrodlo to http://www.monolith.com.pl/film.asp?kod=niesmiertelny-zrodlo
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070225151452/http://highlander-thesource.com/news-updates.html to http://highlander-thesource.com/news-updates.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)