On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 12:49:39 +1300, Anybody
<anybody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>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.
Sure, but it *could* be and it should be. It seems like you're willing
to forego the idea of making it a "good movie", so long as it's a 100%
the-same-as-the-series Knight Rider movie.
Imagine if they put out an episode of 80s Knight Rider as a movie. All
the same, but a bit longer. Imagine the reviews of how lazy they'd
been, how it was all just a money-making exercise etc.. It would
*totally* bomb.
>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.
Yes, this is simple logic. However, you can still make a Knight Rider
movie even if you update the car that KITT is fitted in to a car from
the current day rather than a car from the 80s.
> It's very simple logic that seems to escape the fools in Hollyweird ...
Sorry mate, but when you persist with the "Hollyweird" rubbish,
there's only one fool readily apparent..
> then again, they have had decades of
> experience in butchering books, etc. when making the "movie version".
A film is not the same as a book. Page-by-page reproductions of books
would often make very poor movies. That's why people have to write
screen plays. Even many of the classic Shakespeare plays don't make
for good reading, because they're not novels. It doesn't make them bad
plays though.
>> >> > ... 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.
If you *update* it, you get "*updated* Knight Rider", and that's fine
by me. If you *don't* update it, you get "old 80's style Knight
Rider", which would be embarrassing, interesting only to fanboys and a
total flop.
Would you rather *nothing* was updated and therefore it was set in the
80s? Or are you happy that it be set in the current day, with current
day themes, politics, fashions and technologies (mobile phones, the
internet etc..)..?
Just how did you deal with the SPM upgrades for season 4? Do you
consider them not valid or not canon?
>> >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.
It's not a whole new product, it's simply bringing it up-to-date...
>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.
No it doesn't. They're making a Knight Rider movie, which is based on
the same concepts, themes, ideas, plot styles, etc.. It just has to be
updated because the original Knight Rider is over 20 years old, that's
all.
> If they're making a movie for the original fans
Which they won't be doing, because that will bomb - because only the
original fans (and only the fanboy contingent of those - essentially
people on the likes of groups & lists such as this), will bother to
see it.
>needs to at least resemble the original, unlike all the other garbage
>"remakes" / "updates".
Please list some of these garbage remakes please, and what problems
you had with them. Also, I'd be interested to know if there have been
any remakes that you've been pleased with. Here's a small list as a
reminder, but there must be others:
Starsky & Hutch
Miami Vice
Charlie's Angels
Mission Impossible
Hulk, perhaps?
>> >> 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???
Because everything else is the same! It's still the same ethos, the
same
Just because you update it, doesn't make it something entirely
different so that it can't be called the same thing!!!
>> > 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.
Perhaps in the US you have a different angle on this and see Trans Ams
all over the place. In the UK, we do not. I don't think I've ever seen
one in the flesh.
>> >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.
Which is *exactly* where we disagree. The character of KITT is not a
Trans-Am. They even stipulate this in the series and KITT becomes
removed from the Trans-Am on a number of occasions. In 2007, KITT will
not still be in a car from the 80's, KITT will be in a new body, a car
from the present time.
>> >> 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.
Don't be such a dick! That's a wholesale change, you're changing the
entire product. Now then, if you brought out an updated bottle (as
they have) or labeling (as they have), or brought out a new-improved
version (as they have), or brought out a diet/light version (as they
have), they'd still all be called Coca-Cola (as indeed THEY ARE!!).
But in your world, this would be bad!!
>If I made a "new" Coke then people would expect and want a new name,
>ie. Raspberry Coke.
Well there you go!! It's still called "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
Idiot.
> has in all the other garbage quality, barely recognisable
>(or parody) "remaker" / "update" movies they've been making in recent
>years.
As I said earlier, please name and explain. You seem to not like the
remakes, but some of them have been extremely popular and in the case
of MI and Charlie's Angels, have spawned sequels. I'd say that in
those cases Hollywood (as the adults call it), have got it spot on and
created very popular films that huge amounts of people the world over
have enjoyed.
> The likelihood of this one being any different and actually
> being a "Knight Rider" movie are so small that it's non-existant.
Like I say, you've written it off already - before they've even
started to film it!!
>> > 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??
Huh? What has that comment got to do with what I'd written?! I read
this group because I'm interested in KR to some degree (I wouldn't
call myself a fanboy, for sure), and I'm interested in KR film news,
or any other news for that matter.
>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. :-(
No it isn't, and no they won't. Please don't tell me what I want.
>> >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.
Clearly you have issues with Hollywood (as the adults call it), in
general, which is causing you to make massive assumptions and
resulting conclusions about a Knight Rider film which hasn't even been
properly announced or started filming yet. That's quite bizarre.
>> >> >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.
The Trans Am wasn't a run-of-the-mill car at the time. I'd suggest
that it was a trade off between wanting it to look futuristic (how
many cars had red scanners across the front at the time, eh?), and not
really having the budget to smash up $100k cars each week. The film
won't have quite the same budget problems.
>> >> >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.
Er.. but whilst the show is 20 years old, the film won't be. It'll be
set in present day. So it clearly can't be the same thing!
Unless of course they set it in the 80's, which I doubt they'd do
because you'd expect Hasselhoff to be 20 years younger and Edward
Mulhare would have to be alive!
>Calling some unrecognisable modernised garnage "Knight Rider" is
>basically an insult to every fan of the original.
It is bollocks! Churning out an elongated episode using all the same
cars, features, technologies etc.. and making no effort to make it
something fresh, new and special would be an insult to the fans.
>> >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
You *do* do a lot of presuming, and then you get upset about the
results of your own presumptions!! Bizarre!!
A shame you didn't respond to my questioning about SPM in S4. I'd be
very interested to hear whether you reacted negatively to that also,
since it was changing something and was presumably an insult to the
fans of S1-3?
> then why bother calling it "Knight Rider" ... trading on the
> good (or otherwise) name of the original shows is simply
> beyond all common sense.
It's because it's still a Knight Rider film, even though they realise
that FLAG in 2007 aren't going to still be using a car from the 80s
for their futuristic (or *even* present day), car.
|
