In article <0uSdnUoOZr-ENZHYnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, "80 Knight"
<80_knightREMOVEMEPLEASE@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Anybody" <anybody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:160920061136480196%anybody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > In article <2KSdnW0T85p8zpfYnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, "80
Knight"
> > <80_knightREMOVEMEPLEASE@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> >> "Anybody" <anybody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >> news:150920061846278207%anybody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > In article <hhkOg.59616$OI1.5409@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, lraszewski@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(L.
> >> > Ross Raszewski) wrote:
>
> <Snip>
>
> >> > This is the same silly idea which means we're now stuck with the
awful
> >> > and barely recognisable new "reimaginaed" Battlestar Galactica -
about
> >> > the only thing that's remotely the same is the name and core idea.
> >> >
> >> > We've also got fools at Paramount that want to "reboot" the Star
Trek
> >> > franchise, this time basically ignoring anything they want to
that's
> >> > already been established.
> >> >
> >> > Two examples among lots of other ridiculous "remake" / "update"
rubbish
> >> > coming out of Hollyweird in recent years.
> >> >
> >> > If these idiots like this want to make their own shows with their
own
> >> > ideas, then they should go and make their OWN show, and not hi-jack
an
> >> > old one and bugger it up beyond recognition. The ONLY reason to do
this
> >> > is to stuff more money into big-wigs pockets at the expense of the
> >> > original versions' fans.
> >> >
> >> > What we definitely do NOT want is some garbage masquerading under
the
> >> > "Knight Rider" name - we've already been there with the awful Team
> >> > Knight Rider. They should simply release the DVDs of the original
and
> >> > make a new show with a NEW NAME ... just put "based on Knight
Rider" in
> >> > the credits if by some miracle it has anything remotely
recognisable in
> >> > it.
> >>
> >> All 4 seasons are out on DVD, and even if they do make a new Knight
Rider
> >> movie, and even if it sucks, the new movie won't erase the DVD's from
> >> history. They will still all be there, for you and everyone else to
> >> watch.
> >> Does Hollywood care about money, and only money? Yep, it sure does.
> >> Does Hollywood making a new Knight Rider movie mean the original show
is
> >> going to be harmed? I can't see how it would be.
> >> The point is, no one knows if it will be any good or not. You can't
judge
> >> something that hasn't even been made yet.
> >
> > True, but you can have stomach-turning expectations based on all the
> > other unrecognisable garbage coming out of Hollyweird that uses the
> > same name as an old show. Their track record is attrocious, so a "new"
> > Knight Rider isn't somthing to look forward to, but rather dreaded.
> > :-(
>
> The track record depends on who you ask. I for one enjoyed the new
"Dukes of
> Hazzard" movie. It wasn't anything like the original show, but I still
> enjoyed watching it.
Whether anyone liked it or not isn't relevant. The point is that it
wasn't the original, so why use the same name?? It's pointless using
the old name for a show / movie that isn't really the same thing.
> > A "new" Knight Rider doesn't "harm" the original in the sense that it
> > does still exist, but it does cause confusion and split the fan-base.
>
> I don't see how it splits the fan base. Some will like both shows, some
will
> like one or the other. Look at Star Trek. There are 6 series'. Some fans
> love all of them, some fans hate some, and like some. I don't think it
> splits anyone up. Everyone has there own opinion.
OK, so someone comes along posting messges about "Knight Rider" - which
one are they on about, the original or the new unrecognisable one with
lots of silly changes??? You've got confusion already. If they're
making such a different show, they should give it a different name and
it save PILES of problems as well as not antogonising the original
fans.
> > It makes no sense at all to use the same name on a new show that's SO
> > different - people expecting to se the original (or something remotely
> > recognisable) end up disappointed,
>
> If it has KITT and Michael Knight in it, then the show is Knight Rider.
> Perhaps a "2006 version", but it's still Knight Rider. Changing the name
> won't do anything. It's still the same as I said before. If it's not
liked
> by audiences, then it won't make any money, and will be forgotten, and
won't
> harm the original KR at all.
It's not the same. You've made changes, therefore it's different. If
it's different you use a different name.
If Coca-Cola suddenly changed what's in the same bottles to orange
juice, they'd get complaints galore from fans of the proper
"Coca-Cola".
> Look at "Team Knight Rider". It didn't even
> last one season, but it sure didn't hurt the original series. They even
> threw Michael Knight and KITT in there, and it still didn't harm the
> original. Movies and TV series' have been re-made since TV began. It's
part
> of TV and movies.
Exactly the point - they made lots of ridiculous changes and created
rubbish ... but at least they had the decency to use a different name,
as happen with the awful Galactica 1980.
> > and people who didn't like the
> > original are unlikely (or at least less likely) to watch the new
> > version because of the name.
>
> I doubt this at all. "The Dukes Movie", "Star Trek: TNG" and "Battlestar
> Galactica" all did quite well. The "Charlie's Angels" movies did quite
well
> too.
Again, opinions and popularity of any new version isn't the point. The
point is that the new version is exactly that, a NEW version. Give it a
new name and it would be just as popular or a "good show" in those
people's opinions. But by re-using the old name for a different product
they're simply causing themselves problems that are so eailsy avoided
by a tiny glimpse of common sense.
> > Simply changing the car used for KITT of course is not what I mean by
a
> > "new" Knight Rider show, but it is the first step in the wrong
> > direction of making silly changes for the sake of "updating" a show to
> > current ideas. The show is a product of its time. If they want to make
> > a "new" show, then they should make a NEW show with a different name
to
> > match the different ideas they're using.
>
> I guess I just don't get your problem with using the same name. For
arguer's
> sake, I will say that you are entitled to your own opinion. However,
should
> the new KR movie come out and be totally un-like the original KR, and
bomb
> big time, I will still have my original KR DVD's, and I can still watch
them
> with pride.
OK, so let's all go around calling anything we want by any name we
want, - it doesn't matter we still know what we talking about don't we
"20 Knight"? ;-)
|
