In article <7a1tg29t43sco8md20ou5jhumo3800213q@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Ed Chilada
<nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 12:41:29 +1200, Anybody
> <anybody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >In article <jaydnQvVm9Lj3pDYnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, "80 Knight"
> ><80_knightREMOVEMEPLEASE@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Again, I don't see how you would get confusion. For starters, if they
> >> started talking about KITT being 2006 Camero (or whatever he will
be),
> >> that
> >> would limit it down right there. All you have to do is glance at the
post,
> >> and if you are interested in the show to be reading it's group, you
should
> >> be able to tell which show/movie is being talked about.
> >
> >Just one simple example:
> >
> >In ten years time (after they've made a different version) you look in
> >your TV listings and see that "Knight Rider" is being re-run ... which
> >Knight Rider is it??
> >
> >On the other hand, if they actually used a different name, even
> >marginally different, then you look in your TV listing and see "Knight
> >Rider 2007" is what they re-running.
> >
> >The first cause confusion and disappointment when someone wanting one
> >version tunes in to find it's the other version. The second option
> >causes absolutely no confusion at all and those wanting to watch that
> >particular version can tune in while those not wanting to don't bother.
>
> Huh? Is this a good reason for dictating the direction of the film,
> because in 10 years time, some retard reading the TV guide can't
> figure out whether that 45 minute "Knight Rider" programme is the
> movie or not?
I did say "ONE example". :-\
It also has nothing to do with whether it was a "movie or not" - it was
whether it was the new (usually buggered up) version or the original
version of the show.
|
