On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 09:37:06 +1300, Anybody
<anybody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>In article <4ktuk2hcqg80hhp4lmcg3395dgs4hvsebh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Ed Chilada
><nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 09:24:59 +1300, Anybody
>> <anybody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> >I was asked what I would prefer!!! That is what I would prefer ...
it's
>> >also what any real fan of any show woudl prefer - something that
>> >actually resmebles the show they liked
>>
>> Nope, you actually said you'd prefer for the film not to be made, now
>> you're saying that any real fan would just require it to resemble the
>> show they liked. Now then, please explain how the film won't resemble
>> the show *after* you've discarded all the assumptions that *you* have
>> made about it.
>>
>> And as I've asked before, please actually state the characters,
>> actors, settings, technologies, cars, etc.. that you'd expect to be in
>> this film for it to still "resemble the show they liked".
>
>I've already told you what I prefer.
Yes, you said your preference would be for no film to be made. Yet
here, you seem to have changed your mind and said that what you would
prefer is "something that resembles the show". That's *two*
conflicting preferences you've stated.
>If you don't know what "Knight
>Rider" is by now, then it's far too late for me to try and explain it
>to you and you're in the wrong newsgroup. :-\
I'm very familiar with Knight Rider thanks. It's just that you don't
seem to be even familiar with your own opinion...
>> > Why would any real fan want to watch something that claims to be#
>> > "Knight Rider" and yet is different in almost every possible way??
>>
>> Who said it would be "different in almost every possible way"?
>
>Have you seen ANY of Hollyweird's
Idiot.
> "remake" / "updates" ... NONE of them are like the original.
Of course they're not. They're updated to current day and apply the
same concepts and setups to current day scenarios. That's the only way
to make them work with a current day audience in a current day world.
But they're not "different in almost every possible way", are they?
Let's take Charlie's Angels for example. If they were going to make it
"different in almost every possible way", then there wouldn't be three
women, there wouldn't be Charlie, there wouldn't be Bosley, the whole
scenario of the Angels being funded by Charlie, the mysterious
benefactor would have been different. But that's not the case is it?
They got new actors, updated the storylines to include more modern
themes and technologies and they obviously took advantage of better
technologies to create more extravagant and impressive action
sequences. As a result, the films were very popular and many people
enjoyed the films regardless of whether they were into the series or
not.
> Even ignoring the parody ones, they *DO* make
> lots of ridiculous changes that *DOES* create a new version.
No shit! But that doesn't mean it's "different in almost every
possible way". It's just updated, which is something you simply *have*
to do if you're going to make a film of a show that hasn't been made
in decades.
>As I've said, you can NOT recapture the magic that made Knight Rider
>what it was - it's a product of the people and time that it was made.
Of course you can. There's *nothing* about the scenarios, the ideals,
concepts, the driver/car interaction etc.. that cannot be transferred
to present day. If Knight Rider had never been made and they decided
to start making the series now, then *of course* it'd be set in
present day and would use present day concepts, technologies,
fashions, storylines etc.. So why should a film made today be any
different?
>All they do is end up making a new version, and therfore they may as
>well give it a new name.
Utter rubbish. If it's a new version, then it's still the same thing,
just updated. Another question you repeatedly avoid is whether you
were upset with the changes made for season 4 (SPM, RC3 etc..), since
they made a new version of the car, but didn't give it a new name.
> From every angle it make more sense, while it
>makes absolutely zero sense to re-use the same name for a different
>product. Any movie they make now WILL have silly changes, it WILL be
>modernised, and therefore will NOT be "Knight Rider". Hollyweir'd track
>record guarantees that 100%.
Once again, I ask you what actors, characters, technologies, cars,
scenarios, plots etc.. you would be happy with, in a film made today.
>If it's not worth making an actual movie of the show it was (even if
>they could recapture it), then why bother trying - why not simply make
>their NEW movie with their NEW ideas under a NEW name?? It's pure
>common sense.
Er.. if it's a new film with new ideas with a new title... isn't that
happening all the time? Isn't that just... a new film?
>At the very least, people who disliked the original "Knight Rider" will
>be more likely to give a movie a look-see if it's called something
>else since they won't have the preconceived ideas from
>the original.
People are ready to re-evaluate a film on its own merits if it's been
updated and it's all new. It's when they hear it's exactly the same as
the series (so as not to "pee all over the existing fan base"), that
they'll assume they're still not going to like it. I never watched the
series of Charlie's Angels, nor Mission Impossible or Lost In Space.
However I enjoyed every single one of those films. I highly doubt I'm
unusual in that.
>> >Yet another idiot with no brains meets the killfile.
>>
>> As "80 Knight", said. It's a bit poor if your reaction to someone
>> disagreeing with you is to killfile them. Have some balls and put up
>> an argument man.
>
>If I'd wanted to killfile the twitr for not agreeing with me, then he
>would have gone in there years ago. He's now there because I *REALLY*
>can't be bothered dealing with idiots who simply can't read or try to
>'mind-read' what I'm "really" trying to say
If you want people to really know what you're "trying to say", then
perhaps try answering some of the questions I've posed to you, rather
than ignoring them. Hiding your head under a pillow isn't going to
convince anyone.. However, I *do* find it very amusing that you're
getting upset with the idea that people are trying to "mind-read what
you're trying to say", yet at the same time you're posting conclusions
based on massive and complete assumptions about every aspect of what
the film will be and what changes will be made.
>And since it looks like you can't read either, I guess your inane reply
>to this will mean you get added to the killfile as well.
Well boo hoo. I think everyone over the age of 14 knows that running
away to the killfile means you know you're talking bollocks and you're
trying to hide from people pointing this out - hands over your ears
"la la la I'm not listening..". Course, most people who say they're
killfiling don't actually do so, because they still want to read the
reply.. but just *pretend* they're not... Either way, I can't lose, I
get to point out the bollocks in your POV to your face, or to everyone
else behind your back.
I would still be interested on responses to the above posed questions
WRT your idea of a film "that a real fan would prefer", how you
correlate your aversion to updates with SPM and perhaps provide this
extensive list of movies that bombed since "most of the time it bombs
badly".
|
