In article <ilukg2l8sno4dscpo4b6afle9553d9lvhd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Ed Chilada
<nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:59:36 +1200, Anybody
> <anybody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >In article <i50bg2tnf9pr0ec4m27pq6i87eh3q1cult@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Ed Chilada
> ><nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 18:02:32 +1200, Anybody
> >> <anybody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <0nu7g2tkjkvqies8uo382pfo7p3p9pc4n2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Ed Chilada
> >> ><nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 07:43:07 -0400, "Wombat-Pipex-News"
> >> >> <wombat@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Just dont think that a vampet up plastic molded peace of ****e
modern
> >> >> >car
> >> >> >will do the trick. The Trans-am styling was almost Perfect.
> >> >>
> >> >> For 30+ years ago!
> >> >
> >> >It's still a great looking car. Most of the "supercars" are far too
> >> >wide and many of today's more normal s****ts cars are simply ugly.
> >>
> >> Whether it's great looking is irrelevant. It's *dated*
> >
> >It doesn't look "dated" though. It is still a great looking car (of
> >course that's just opinion-based, so your's may be different).
>
> I guess it's an opinion thing as to whether the *style* is dated, but
> you can't argue that the car itself is dated because it's a fact that
> it's a 25+ year old model - and that's dated.
"Dated" implies that it looks out of date, but the car doesn't. It
still looks good, and in fact the car I drive daily is the same shape
)although being built in 1994 means you probably think that's "dated"
too).
> >> and it's not even been in production for .. how many years?
> >
> >So it hasn't been in production!?? So what, neither are most of the
> >cars in TV shows.
>
> This is a film, that is supposed to be set in current day, and it's
> supposed to be a futuristic car. Basing it on a car/revision that's
> been out of production for many years is crazy. FLAG wouldn't do that.
KITT is a character and is that particular model of TransAm. A new film
may or may not be set in the current day, but that doesn't mean a
character suddenly changes. Changing the car would the same as changing
"Michael Knight" to suddenly be a blonde 22 year old bimbo (probably
Asian or black as well to appease the "Politically Correct" brigade)
.... ridiculously stupid and makes no sense. Not that that's stopped
Hollyweird before of course. :-(
> >The point is that KITT is that car. Changing it would be extremely
> >stupid ...
>
> I guess we disagree then. I vehemently think that keeping it would be
> extremely stupid... unless I suppose, the premise was that it was the
> same KITT and he was still going after all these years. If the plot is
> that FLAG has to re-invent KITT again, then having them go back to a
> 1982 car to base it on would just seem stupid.
>
>
>
> >> "I am the prototype of the car of the future" (KARR actually, but
same
> >> appearance of course).
> >
> >KARR and KITT are two different characters. The only "futuristic"ness
> >about either is the ability to drive themselves, etc. The actual look
> >of the cars was normal.
>
> Sure. But it wasn't retro. It wasn't 25 years old. KITT of 2006
> shouldn't be based on a 1982 car no more than KITT of 1982 was be
> based on a 1957 model.
Changing something like that WILL also lead to changing Michael Knight
to being played by someone younger ... and therefore giving the
character their own spin and thus (along with other silly changes) is
changing the show from "Knight Rider" to "new Knight Rider" - the basic
idea might (only might) be the same, but the entire style and character
of the show changes into something different, in which case they may as
well call it something different to match the new version.
> >And that's the entire point. KITT is from the 1980s, so it's pointless
> >putting him in a new body. If you change the car, then it is not KITT.
>
> They've already establised that KITT was the CPU, not the car model
> itself, so it would seem fine to me. The original KITT was from the
> 80's, but the 2006 one is not.
A you are simply your brain, so swapping that to another body surely
won't affect any of your friend****ps would it? :-\
KITT is not just a computer or a car, he's an established character
with an established look and even an established birth date. You can't
simply change it because you want to without causing a mess.
> > Fro example, Thomas Magnum is Tom Selleck, any other acting
> >is simply a pretender and will completely change the character and the
> >movie / show would not actually be "Magnum PI", just some awful "new"
> >version of it.
>
> Having the current 61 year old Tom Selleck in it wouldn't work either!
> Do you have problems with different actors playing the same characters
> in movies? James Bond films, Charlie's Angels, Dukes of Hazzard,
> Starsky & Hutch etc..?
I've never really watched James Bond, but the rest are those are
EXACTLY the problem I'm talking about - Hollyweird re-using the same
name for some garbage "new" version of show / movie that's not really
the same as the original in anything but the name, and that's exactly
what we don't want for Knight Rider.
Even going back to James Bond, everyone has their favourite actor in
the role, and may despise movies using a different actor. Changing KITT
is no different to this, and likely to be just the first step to
stupidly "updating" the idea making it unrecognisable rubbish using the
name - as we've already seen, some idiot at a studio didn't even want
KITT to talk. :-\
Every show is a product of the time it was made and the people
involved. You can not ever recapture that - even if ALL the same people
were involved, times have changed. Trying to then "update" it to match
today results in something different. Hollyweird's continual attempts
to do this simply prove again and again that it can't happen and
doesn't happen - we end up with a "new" version that isn't the
original.
Even worse, why does some young idiot think they know better than the
original's creator how to make the show "better". As fans of the
original we like the show the way it was.
Yes, any one person may like the "new" version, they may even prefer it
to the "old" version - but the fact that we have to call them "new" and
"old" again proves that they're different beasties.
Battlestar Galactica (and even Thunderbirds with its one attrocious
movie) proves this. The original version now has to be called "Classic
Battlestar Galactica" to help avoid confusion and let people know which
is the one they're talking about. The original Thunderbirds now has to
be called "Gerry Anderson's Thunderbirds" in the same way.
|
