If they're all immortal and at some point their physical apperance stops changing (they're not getting older anymore) then why is the "border age" not the same for all of them? I mean, why did McLeod keep his youthful apperance while for Ramirez the aging process didn't stop until he looked like a middle-aged man? Was this issue explained in any of the sequels?
shareIt must be when they become immortal, then they stop the aging
remember we saw mcclowd almost dieded, and then he was living and breathing
[deleted]
My thinking is that an immortal can go from birth and age on and on until they die of old age, at which point they simply die and that's it. If they are mortally wounded during their life though, that's when they discover their immortality. They need to be wounded first for it to happen.
But once they are wounded, they become immortal, and remain fixed at whatever age they were at.
You stop aging after you experience the quickening for the first time. I always figured.
shareWow. Just wow... No offense, but you guys are ignorant.
The immortals, or rather PRE-immortals (aka pre-immies), must experience their First Death for immortality to be activated. Therefore, their age upon first dying determines their biological age. This means that immortals can be children, teenagers, old people--you name it. I thought the film made this pretty clear. And you would definitely know this if you watched The Series, which is really the best that the Highlander franchise has to offer.
Ignorant...?
No, not in the least.
Sure, watching the series might provide this information, I wouldn't know, I've never seen it. But this is the 1986-Highlander forum, and it actually should be assumed that any questions here are based exclusively on information - or lack thereof - that is in this particular movie.
And according to the original 1986 Highlander the take on why the immortals are all different ages is open for debate.
Any plausible theory is valid, because in 1986 that's how the story went.
Like I said, even this particular film, Highlander (1986), answers the OP's question. You can see Connor's First Death and the resulting immortality/cessation of aging...
shareWell no, again...
It certainly did not make it clear. It suggested perhaps, but never explained anything in detail.
Connor experienced the quickening before his death, and efter that got killed by The Kurgan. He then "comes to life" again, and seem to be fine.
Nowhere in the narrative are we to understand indefinately that his death (or the preceeding quickening for that matter) is the start of Connors immortality. This is left up to the viewers own interpretation. All we know is that this is the first time he has experienced the quickening and this is the first time he has survived fatal wounds.
So unless you can show me irrefutable proof that writer Gregory Widen made it clear his death started his immortality, I still hold this as interpretable.
The viewer is free to assume what he/she feels suit their own theories best.
It's very much implied and obvious in the film. You remain at whatever age you were when you became immortal. It's really not something that should have to be explained in the film.
--------------------------------
dies ist meine unterschrift
Ramirez really got killed when he was a geezer though? He was said to be a boy when the cart hits him and kills in the script. The novelization changed it to mid 40s (which Connery could pass for) and the film eliminates it all together.
If I didn’t talk the way I talk I wouldn’t know who the hell I am, Sean Connery on his accent