tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13727952.post6333063993005439296..comments2024-03-28T05:50:51.675-04:00Comments on Doux Reviews: Highlander: The Modern PrometheusBillie Douxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17141769005175631213noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13727952.post-17708310776869795122017-02-10T14:52:40.326-05:002017-02-10T14:52:40.326-05:00This episode contradicts the idea, raised in a cou...This episode contradicts the idea, raised in a couple of preceding episodes, that immortality does not work well with fame. If Byron reinvented himself every once in a while as an avant-garde artist, at least occasionally named Byron, someone would eventually have noticed.<br /><br />The way Duncan ultimately killed him also does not fit with how Duncan handled similar situations in other episodes. When he feels he needs to kill a friend who has gone off the rails, he grieves before and after. Here, he quotes a few verses and offs Byron like any other evil immortal of the week. Sure, Byron was not his friend, but he knew this was not a run-of-the-mill he was killing! Plus, Methos pleaded for the man's life. I don't buy Duncan's non-chalance here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13727952.post-12404975256718808432009-11-04T15:31:25.758-05:002009-11-04T15:31:25.758-05:00Billie,
Thank you for responding. Eventually, whe...Billie,<br /><br />Thank you for responding. Eventually, when I get around to rewatching the episode, I'll try to watch with a more open mind. <br /><br />Regards,<br />JAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13727952.post-74820431685475712202009-11-03T22:42:43.733-05:002009-11-03T22:42:43.733-05:00Hello, Anonymous:
What can I tell you? I'm no...Hello, Anonymous:<br /><br />What can I tell you? I'm not a Byron scholar, and this episode didn't air on the History channel; it's an episode of a fantasy television show. I think it's an exceptionally exciting, complex and well-written episode of a television show that featured my favorite character. I loved it a lot when it aired, and it's still my favorite in the series.<br /><br />I'm not going to refute Keith's review point by point. I'm sure he's right about the historical inaccuracies. I could add that it's established at the beginning of the episode that Shelley and Mary aren't married yet, but that he refers to her as his wife. And it was also established throughout the series that immortals tended to get nastier as they got older. A lot of them turned into serial killers. I think there's precedent in the series for Byron as a young immortal being a jerk in 1816, and Byron as a much older immortal being a homicidal jerk in 1997.<br /><br />There's a line I should probably put at the end of all of my reviews, and let's pretend I put it at the end of this one: your mileage may vary. If the historical inaccuracies are too much for you, and you feel the dramatic flaws in the episode outweigh its strengths, then so be it. Your opinion is just as valid as mine, and you're certainly entitled to it.Billie Douxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17141769005175631213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13727952.post-14380593633442580352009-11-03T22:17:19.697-05:002009-11-03T22:17:19.697-05:00Billie,
You said that Modern Prometheus is your f...Billie,<br /><br />You said that Modern Prometheus is your favorite Highlander episode. I read a review a while ago regarding this episode where the reviewer held the opposite opinion, and I find myself agreeing with it. Byron's character did not seem to evolve from 1816 to 1997. And some of the historical innacuries, such as how Mary came up with Frankenstein, bother me. There are other inaccuracies, but they don't bother me as much. I'm kinda wondering how you would respond to Keith's review. I'm hoping you'll help me find things to enjoy in this episode, since I am looking to be pleased. It's possible reading this review (before I ever saw the episode) may have tainted my initial watching experience. Anyway, what do you think of Keith's points? <br /><br />http://www.sff.net/people/krad/modern.htm<br /><br />[Exerpt] "'I have no poetry left!' he cries... But that's the only evidence we get of that transformation, because Byron as portrayed in 1816 is exactly the same as Byron in 1997. He's a drunken, fornicating baboon in Switzerland and he's a drunken, suicidal baboon in Paris. "You used to reach for heaven," Methos says in 1997, but in 1816, the only thing Byron reaches for is womanly flesh and another drink."<br /><br />Thoughts?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13727952.post-77785069339815301172009-06-21T16:55:20.469-04:002009-06-21T16:55:20.469-04:00Hi, Kelly, thanks for the feedback.
I don’t doub...Hi, Kelly, thanks for the feedback. <br /><br />I don’t doubt that Methos and Byron had a close relationship once but when Duncan and Methos often discussed him Methos repeatedly raised the issue of his talents, even directly quoting ‘She Walks in Beauty’ at one point. He never spoke of what Byron was like as a friend or offered any insight into his character. Even when he was pleading with Hans Kershner to spare Byron he cited the man’s reputation (“Would you be Lord Byron’s killer?”) above all else. It felt like Methos was grasping for excuses to justify his student’s survival and all he could come up with was how talented his was. Perhaps deep down Methos knew that without his gifts he was no different from any other spoiled brat who liked to live to the extremes. <br /><br />As for Mike, that character always felt a little underdeveloped to me. His sole purpose was just to give Duncan a motivation for confronting Byron.Mark Greighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12984193299389764649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13727952.post-88553335206421534152009-06-21T11:19:05.152-04:002009-06-21T11:19:05.152-04:00I thought you mentioned a lot of great things, Mar...I thought you mentioned a lot of great things, Mark, though I don't have time to address them all. But reading your comment, what struck me in the part where you said:<br /><br /><i>It was also a little hypocritical that in the past Methos has often encouraged Duncan to take down troublesome immortals, regardless if they’re Duncan’s mates or not, but is willing to let it slide when its one of his friends. I did notice that Methos’ only reasons for sparing Byron were because of his poems and his music, as if the genius was more important than the man who embodies it.</i> <br /><br />As Billie mentioned in her review, I think there was more to their relationship than Methos simply admiring Byron's talents. Besides Byron being his student as well, there did seem to be love or affection there, to whatever degree you want to read into it.<br /><br />What struck me now is that this episode is a role reversal from 'Chivalry.' Duncan had once loved Kristin and so was unable to kill her, even though she murdered other people. Methos stepped in and removed the threat, and Duncan does the same here when Methos cannot.<br /><br />But what also always bothered me about this episode (not that it excuses Byron) is that Mike was awfully easy to influence. One encounter with Byron and he's off taking drugs, partying with him and engaging in risk taking behavior... seems to me that if it hadn't been Byron, it would've been somebody else. Not necessarily killing him, but certainly drawing him into addiction and hedonism that could derail his musical dreams. There wasn't a gun put to Mike's head; he just didn't have the willpower to say no to someone he looked up to. Not saying this makes Byron innocent, but you also have to be smart enough to make the right choices.<br /><br />On one last note, I loved your comment about Methos being content to watch--that he doesn't want to make history, just experience it. I think it's so spot on for the character. That's exactly what he's done, at least for most of his life it seems.Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12205722077148940238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13727952.post-52038132777776750702009-06-20T19:42:07.014-04:002009-06-20T19:42:07.014-04:00This is a brilliant episode and would be perfect i...This is a brilliant episode and would be perfect in my eyes if not for one fatal flaw that I can never get past; the bloke playing Byron. I think Jonathan Firth was badly miscast, making one of the most fascinating people in history into an annoying and despicable twerp. I find it had to believe anyone would follow this guy across a room let alone off a roof.<br /><br />Encouraging Methos to essentially rape the incapacitated Mary was a touch too far but I blame the writer for that not the actor. George Byron was an utter bastard, especially towards women he’d grown bored with, but he wasn’t a complete degenerate. Well, maybe a tiny bit degenerate. Although, there’s never been any definitive proof he had an affair with his half-sister, some say that was simply a viscous rumour spread by Lady Caroline Lamb, one of Byron’s many bitter ex-lovers. And yet, he was very close to his dog, Boatswain. Perhaps a little too close, that dog did get a grander burial than its master. <br /><br />Despite that one personal put off I still like this episode for many reasons. Performance aside I thought the way they handled Byron was interesting. Near the end he ranted on to Methos about how for centuries he had lived but he really hadn’t lived at all, he was stuck, unable to let go of his former life as the infamous Lord Byron. Both Methos and Duncan, especially Methos, understand that to be immortal life has to be about change. The world is constantly moving forward and you have to move with it or risk being left behind. Even someone like Kronos, in his own twisted way, managed to adapt to the ever changing times. Byron was still clinging to his legendary past, even down to his wardrobe, refusing to be anyone other than Lord Byron. Immortality will get boring if all you do is party, fornicate and do drugs for two hundred years. Should’ve considered gardening. <br /><br />We got some nice little insights to Methos’ character as well when Byron asked him what he wanted written on tombstone. Methos answer was simple, he doesn’t want a tombstone. He’s not bothered about being the guy on stage, adored by millions. He’s happy just to be in the audience with everyone else. He wants to be the guy who can say he saw the first performance of Hamlet, watched Mozart compose Don Giovanni and witnessed Queen steal the show at Live Aid. Byron wanted to make history, Methos wants to experience it. <br /><br />It was also a little hypocritical that in the past Methos has often encouraged Duncan to take down troublesome immortals, regardless if they’re Duncan’s mates or not, but is willing to let it slide when its one of his friends. I did notice that Methos’ only reasons for sparing Byron were because of his poems and his music, as if the genius was more important than the man who embodies it. If Byron were a talentless hack would Methos have been so defensive of him?<br /><br />Byron is my favourite poet so I loved all the references and quotations from his works. The flashback scenes at Diodati were luxurious and the use of Beethoven was great if a little obvious. As a director Adrian Paul has certainly come a long way since ‘Homeland’. Byron becoming a rock star was understandable since Byron and Shelley were practically the Mick & Keith of their day. Shame he seemed to be a rather average Goth rocker. <br /><br />Sadly, after this it was all downhill for the series. There were a one or two good episodes next season but this was the last truly great, if flawed, episode of Highlander.Mark Greighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12984193299389764649noreply@blogger.com