In article <57aqj2to80oaobjfjf43b6j29mt0n9ldmt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Ed Chilada
<nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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.
Making a "good" movie isn't necessarily the same thing as making a
"Knight Rider" movie.
If they want to make a "Knight Rider" movie, then they should make a
"KNIGHT RIDER" movie. If they want to make something else, then they
should call it something else. It's very simple logic that seems to
escape the fools in Hollyweird ... then again, they have had decades of
experience in butchering books, etc. when making the "movie version".
> >> > ... 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.
If you update it, then it's no longer "Knight Rider", but merely "new
Knight Rider" or "based on Knight Rider". You get a different product.
> >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, I'm proposing that they make a movie for the show is MEANT to be
based on. Not create a whole new product and simply shove the "Knight
Rider" name onto it.
If they're making a movie for "todays kids and teens", then it makes no
difference what it's called, and in fact makes much more sense to use a
new name. If they're making a movie for the original fans, then it
needs to at least resemble the original, unlike all the other garbage
"remakes" / "updates".
> > 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
I can't be bothered with YouTube (it's worse than useless via dial-up),
but I'd guess that's not worth watching anyway.
> >> 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.
Again, if your making changes, then why use the same name???
> > 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.
It's not "standard" by any stretch of the imagination. It's a supercar,
you'd be lucky to EVER actually see one on the road, unlike the
original KITT.
> >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.
Again, KITT Vis not just "a car" ... he's a character and that
character IS that model of car.
> >> 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.
So, I can buy out Coca-Cola and release a "new" version that is pure
water or orange juice in the same bottle, same labelling and the same
name ... and expect everyone who liked the original to be extremely
happy about it. Yeah, right.
If I made a "new" Coke then people would expect and want a new name,
ie. Raspberry Coke.
> > 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.
I'm making a judgement based on the EXTREMELY bad track record
Hollyweird has in all the other garbage quality, barely recognisable
(or parody) "remaker" / "update" movies they've been making in recent
years. The likelihood of this one being any different and actually
being a "Knight Rider" movie are so small that it's non-existant.
> >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.
Then why on earth do you want a Knight Rider movie at all?!?!? And why
do you bother reading this newsgroup??
What you really want is 'Fast 'n' Furious' or some other modernised
movie that has nothing to do with "Knight Rider" at all ... well you
likely to be in luck since that's exactly what Hollyweird will give you
if they make this movie. :-(
> >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!
It won't be done if they make their ususal unrecognisable modernised
rubbish either.
> >> >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?
Yes it was. If it was supposed to be some sort of "futuristic" car then
they wouldn't have used a standard model. It would have been a
prototype, a custom car or (to satisfy the pedantic) a highly
noticeable supercar.
> >> >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.
DUH!! That's what "Knight Rider" *IS* - a 20 year old TV show. A movie
based on that show DOES have to be the same thing.
Calling some unrecognisable modernised garnage "Knight Rider" is
basically an insult to every fan of the original.
> >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?
For God's sake - if it has to relay on it's "own merits", which
presumably are some modernised load of garbage, then why bother calling
it "Knight Rider" ... trading on the good (or otherwise) name of the
original shows is simply beyond all common sense.
|
