On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 09:43:54 +1300, Anybody
<anybody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>In article <2uphj2th8n1fo9l9em7885v6cogbufq7uu@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Ed Chilada
><nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 12:59:41 +1300, Anybody
>> <anybody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <IQQZg.21236$7I1.4079@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, milt
>> ><netrage@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Anybody wrote:
>> >> >
>> >and no doubt that what some idiots in Hollyweird want as well
>>
>> Everytime you say "Hollyweird", I just think I can't take you
>> seriously and that you're an idiot. I'm sure you're not, so I figure
>> you might want to know how that comes across. It's kinda childish
>> y'see.
>
>When you're talking about the morons in Hollyweird, you ARE talking
>idiots childish idiots. They're iself-serving fools that are solely
>interested in their own bank accounts and don't give a single damn
>about the fans. :-(
If they're interested in their own bank balances then they have to
make a *good* movie. Making an elongated episode of Knight Rider, with
everything the same and no updating will just make it something that
the fanboys are into. Only the old fans will think it's good, for the
rest of the target audience, they'll think it's strange and dated
rubbish.
>> > ... and
>> >that simply starts the avalanche of idiotic changes that result in the
>> >usual movies that Hollyweird is churning out some barely recognisable,
>> >modernised garbage that is NOT "Knight Rider" in anything but name.
>>
>> You *have* to update it, to update the scenarios and the technologies.
>
>"Knight Rider" is a product of it's time and if you try and "update" it
>you end up with something different that is no longer "Knight Rider" in
>anything except name ...
Utter tripe. The whole concept of FLAG, the advanced car, the one man
working alone stuff, is all do-able today after they've updated the
relevant technologies. It's just that the *advanced* car can't be
based on one from 1985.
> in which case they should simply use a
>different name. This insane idea that old shows have to somehow "grow
>up" just because the original fans have now supposedly grown up is
>ridiculous.
That's not what I said. I said that you have to have a car that will
capture the imagination of *today's* kids and teens. Imagine how
impressed you'd have been if when Knight Rider first came out, it had
been based on a car from 1957. That's exactly what you're proposing
for the film.
> No doubt we'll be seeing "grown up" movie versions of
>Barney and Elmo in 20-30 years time too. :-\
http://www.youtube.com/watch?eurl=&v=3nBPrMEzm5A
>> This is supposed to be futuristic!!
>
>Wrong. Knight Rider was never "futuristic", that's why it was set
>"today" using a fairly standard car of the time
Yes - "of the time". 1985 is not of the time today. It's 2006 and "of
the time", doesn't mean a 1985 car. It means a current purchasable
model from today. The Koenigsegg is just that.
> rather than some ugly-looking prototype or custom-made car.
Which the Koenigsegg is not. It's a standard car that you can go and
buy today. Unlike the Trans-Am of course.
>Changing that car is like the silliness in soap operas where the actor
>wants to leave so they replace them hoping nobody will actually notice
>it's a new actor in the same role. :-\
It wouldn't be for that reason whatsoever. It's to do with
acknowledging that a car from 1985 is going to look silly as being
used for a car of the future in a film based in 2007 or so.
>> Things have to change or all we're
>> left with is an elongated episode of Knight Rider, and that's going to
>> be popular only with the existing hard-core fans. For the film to be
>> successful, it has to appeal on its own merits, whether you're
>> familiar with the series or not. It has to appeal to the *current*
>> generation of kids & teens. They're not going to be impressed with a
>> 'futuristic' car being based on a car from before they were born...
>
>Then why make a "Knight Rider" film at all. Simply make their own new
>stupid version and call it whatever they want. Re-using the same name
>is simply non-sensical in every single way ...
Notice how the very title that you're rejecting doesn't stipulate the
car *whatsoever*. It can still be Knight Rider without basing the car
on a discontinued 20-year old model.
> the only reason is to
>con (unwary) fans of the original into going to see the new rubbish,
>and therefore boost their bank accounts.
"new rubbish". You've made your mind up about the film already. Not
only before you've seen it, not only before they've made it - but
before they've even started it. Sheesh.
>Re-using the same name means that people who didn't like the original
>are likely to simply steer well clear.
Nope, re-using the same *car* and changing absolutely nothing (as you
would prefer), is what will make people who don't like the original
avoid it - because they'll know it's exactly the same as the programme
they know they already didn't like.
> Fans of the original will go and see it, discover it's nothing like the
> original and be disappointed ... it's lose-lose.
Only if we swallow your complete assumption that fans of the original
will be disappointed if it's nothing like the original. I for one (and
others in this thread), would be disappointed, embarrassed and feel
cheated if it were exactly like the series they stopped making over 20
years ago. I'd feel like they hadn't put any effort in and had just
churned out another episode in order to make money from the fans.
>If they use a new name for their new movie, then everyone is happy.
Er.. wouldn't that be just making a different movie then? And then
effectively the Knight Rider movie still wouldn't have been done!
>There's more chance the people who disliked the original will go and
>give it a try, fans of the original will see what it's like knowing
>it's not simply peeing all over their favourite old show for the sake
>of making money.
Ah, but like I say, surely if they want to just make a bit of easy
money, then the *easiest* way is to do *exactly* what you're
suggesting and don't bother changing anything - just wheel out the
same car, the same interior, the same sets, the same semi, the same
gadgets, maybe even the same stock footage. Is that what you'd want?
Why don't you just watch the episodes again if you don't want anything
to be updated?!
>> >Even if you could change the car, KITT is meant to be a fairly
ordinary
>> >car on the street ...
>>
>> It is? Where is that ever said?
>
>That's what KITT was. That's the whole premise of the idea - one man
>can make a difference - and that one man is simply an apparently
>average man in an average car.
LOL! The idea that KITT is an "average car" is crap. Please quote
where you think that it was said that KITT was supposed to look like
an average car. A Trans-Am wasn't exactly average in 1985 was it?
>> >something a Koenisegg definitely is not, so it's still an idiotic
choice.
>>
>> It's awesome! I wouldn't be surprised all the exotic car manufacturers
>> are punting their cars as the new vehicle for KITT!
>
>No doubt they would since again it all goes back to stuffing someone's
>pockets with money and sod the fans of the original.
Only the fans who can't accept change and think that the film should
be exactly the same as a 20-year old episode, only longer.
>The one piece of luck is that David Hasselhoff has SLIGHTLY more
>intelligence than most of Hollyweird and did simply sell out to the
>first idiot who didn't want KITT to talk.
No doubt he's also mature enough not to keep referring to
"Hollyweird", as if it's some kind of smart pun. Really mate, it just
comes across like you're an idiot.
>Hopefully this movie never gets made. If it does it will just be
>another in the unrecognisable "updated" garbage spewing out of
>Hollyweird in recent years ... and then they usually sit there
>wondering why it doesn't do as well as they thought. :-\
Then don't go see it - because no matter what happens, you're not
going to like it simply because you won't view it on its own merits,
you'll just moan about anything that isn't quite the same as the
series. Speaking of which, were you similiarly upset when they
introduced SPM for season 4? Do you consider the whole of that season
not to be canon?
|
