Page 1 of 1
Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2003 9:50 pm
I've been watching the new Battlestar Galactica mini-sries on sci-fi, and it's just a remake of the original. It's quite good, but it's a remake none the less.
The point I'm trying to make is, a lot of old tv shows and movies are being remade. Batman and Superman did it. Same with Spiderman and the Hulk. Lost in Space had a new movie. So did My favorite Martian. If this is the trend in the movie industry today, then our beloved KR will fall into the same fate and be remade.
Personally, I do not want to see KR remade. The original should stay as it is. The new movie, or series, should, in my opinion, take place after the original KR series. If the series was remade, we'd be nitpicking about it all the time, comparing the 2 versions, taking polls on which was better, taking away from the fun of seeing KR again.
I think the story should be, in 1990, Devon dies, Michael leaves and the one man, one car program is shutdown, KITT being dismantled. In 2003, the program needs to be restarted due to some major criminal activity, either using the old KITT or creating a new one, using william daniels voice. It would have a new driver, new technician, new everything.
I guess my question to all is, do you want to see KR remade or do u want to see it continued sometime down the road?
Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2003 2:06 am
Knight Rider 2000 royaly sucked, I agree, but Team Knight Rider had potential, and if it had gone into a second season, it probably would ofbeen popular, the problem was, by the time they got around to the stuff we fans wanted to know, and was interested in, most had lost interest.
But I wouldn't mind another remake, long as it aint another KR2K.
Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2003 2:54 am
Sorry I don't agree, Team Knight Rider is such a sucking boring cheap series and should not be compared with Knight Rider
Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2003 6:09 pm
I do agree that Team Knight Rider was a good attempt to bring KR back, but the cars were too much (plus they were Ford, which made it worse), and took too long to get into KITT and MK stuff from the original.
Oh, and if you want sucking, boring, and cheap? watch Knight Rider 2010. Them people were smoking crack! It had nothing to do with Knight Rider! At least TKR made a effort to address Knight Riders past.
But that is my opinion. Everyone to his own.
Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2003 6:15 pm
TKR was not good. ONE MAN not 5 people in 5 vehicles. ONE man and his ONE car. Plus, the cars should have been made by Pontiac. like the original Trans Am
Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2003 6:29 pm
KnightAvenger77 wrote:Plus, the cars should have been made by Pontiac. like the original Trans Am
Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2003 9:25 pm
I think the 80's TV series is good enough as is. Something tells me that if they made a new TV show, it would not be that great and probably not even last. But I would rather it be something that brings Michael back than just starting over with a new character.
I usually think of the story stopping with Knight Rider 2000. But since it is so weird compared to the actual show, I think they should kill it off. I have never seen Team Knight Rider. Seems like they were only making a silly thing based off of something that started off the saga.
I basically just say let the original TV series be by itself. Starting in 1982 and stopping in 1986, we don't know what happens from there. Everything made after it just seems like crap trying to bring it back, but only making stupid stuff insulting the story. I will not ever bother watching Knight Rider 2010. Why did they even make that one?
Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2003 8:58 am
TKR was not Knight rider. It was a power rangers-like.
Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2003 1:35 pm
Well, looking that continuing the storyline has failed, not once, twice, but THREE times, remaking it from scratch may be the better option. This means revising a lot of details, including Michael's backstory, KITT and his functions and apply new storylines the could easily be found in todays headlines.
Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2003 2:07 pm
From what I've read on websites, TKR does seem like just a Power Rangers version of KR. That was only screwing around with the good story from the 80's.
I only watch the story where it is one man and one car. I saw Knight Rider 2000 just to see the story after the show was canceled. Wanted to see what life is like for Michael in retirement and KITT being dismantled. But as I said before, it is so silly compared to the show. The only good thing it actually did was show that something happens to Devon. I'm glad this didn't get made into a series.
As for the other stuff, they only wasted their time. I can tell just reading about those things on the KR Archive and IMDb search how stupid they sound. If Knight Rider is to be brought back, then may it be a series having Hasselhoff return and be assisted by the voice of William Daniels.
Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2003 2:44 pm
CB2001 wrote:Well, looking that continuing the storyline has failed, not once, twice, but THREE times, remaking it from scratch may be the better option. This means revising a lot of details, including Michael's backstory, KITT and his functions and apply new storylines the could easily be found in todays headlines.
Continuing the story hasn't failed three times. They never honestly continued the story, they embellished and tried to recreate it in Knight Rider 2000 and TKR, and Knight Rider 2010 didn't even revisit the storyline at all.
Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2003 11:22 pm
But it still counts as three times. Three different times they tried to continue "Knight Rider" series wise.
Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2003 12:26 am
But they didn't continue the series. Knight Rider 2000 was the only one to honestly try to continue, but even then it fell prey to writer creation, they tried to recreate the original. The others took elements, but didn't stay true to the original, and didn't continue a darn thing.
If Team Knight Rider truly continued the thing, there would have been a whole lot more mention and concentration on the original, instead it was a recreation of the original using the spirit of the original.
If Knight Rider 2010 truly continued the thing, there would have been mention of the original, as well as a concentration on it, but once again, it was a recreation and a drastic veriation of the original without the spirit of the original.
Knight Rider 2000 tried to reference the original with a concentration on the original. But they strayed from the original with 'writer's vision'. Knight Rider 2000....was a success. It was one of the higher rated TV Movies of the Week. But it didn't make it to series, because Hasselhoff couldn't commit to it, and that is what people wanted, and they didn't like the replacement characters, because they strayed so far from the original.
So, no, it doesn't count as three times. They tried the make it from scratch option, and THAT is what failed. Just take the commentary from several people about the three variations of Knight Rider. The most common complaint is the fact that they in some way, strayed from the original. Three different times, they tried to recreate Knight Rider, in many cases starting from scratch and going in their own direction. And three different times, people rejected it.
Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2003 12:49 am
You know what I think, none of the stories after the original series should have been made. Not even Knight Rider 2000.
Knight Rider 2010 and Team Knight Rider never should have been thought up. But they still could have done a TV movie after the cancellation of the original series. It should not have been some weird thing taking place in the future though.
I believe it should have been more like the original. They could have at least brought back Patricia McPherson and Peter Parros. How bout it have been a story taking place in 1990 when Michael decided to leave the Foundation?
KITT is dismantled when they think he is no longer needed. Michael thinks he can just quit to finally settle down and live a normal life. But terrible trouble occurs and he ends up going right back. Therefore, KITT ends up being rebuilt into a better model. Devon still gets murdered so that way Edward Mulhare would not be needed for anything made years later.
Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2003 1:59 pm
I go back and forth on this one... I think creatively, there is more potential for a better and more interesting movie if they do it as a complete remake. (The word "remake" is a little confusing; in this context I ask the question "does the new project assume the events of the original took place?" Yes means continuation, no means remake. Galactica 1980 was a continuation, the new mini-series is a remake.)
I'm trying to think of other TV series-turned-movies which were continuations. Obviously, there's Star Trek. X-Files and Twin Peaks were also continuations. I'm not sure how to classify Charlie's Angels.
It gets me wondering why are TV series remade (as opposed to continued) on the big screen. Usually it's because the original actors are too old to play the sexy leading roles audiences expect. Knight Rider is sort of unique in the sense that because KITT is a car, there is a built-in excuse to put the same character, 20 years later, into a sexy young body again. (yes, I'm treating KITT as a sexy leading man... just go with me on this one!) Hasselhoff could still work as the action-adventure hero (think Harrison Ford) but he does carry the baggage of being, well, David Hasselhoff.
My gut tells me they'll do a continuation. But my heart wants them to take the risk and do a remake.
Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2003 3:12 pm
Michael Pajaro wrote:My gut tells me they'll do a continuation. But my heart wants them to take the risk and do a remake.
After seeing the new Battlestar Galactica,
I'm starting to think the same way. A continuation of Knight Rider
wouldn't be as good without Edward Mulhare around, just like a continuation of BSG wouldn't be as good without Lorne Greene and John Colicos.
Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2003 6:40 pm
Here's something that may seem of interest.
I remember there being a Robocop series being made that takes place after the first movie, yet I know Robocop 2 was made before the series.
If someone has more information about the exact timeline of movies and series, please post it.
The point I'm trying to make is, if writers could make a series before a second movie has already been shown, then a new KR movie or series could be made before KR2000, in effect eliminating it from any timeline whatsoever.
Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2003 7:10 pm
Good idea! But the way Knight Rider 2000 acts, Michael left the Foundation in 1990 and spent the following ten years just out on the lake fishing. KITT was left in dustballs for a whole decade until Maddock had him dismantled. So the TV movie acts like nothing went on at all except four years after the show was cancelled.
In order to make a series taking place before the future, they would just have to scratch the idea of Knight Rider 2000. Even though it's the best story made after the show was taken off the air, I don't like it and think it needs to be removed.
To correct the failure of Team Knight Rider, they ought to make a new TV series bringing Hasselhoff and the voice of William Daniels right back. But there will be no Devon or Bonnie cause Edward Mulhare is deceased and Patricia McPherson is no longer acting. They could just do a story where Michael left for a few years and KITT got dismantled after his services were no longer necessary.
But with the new TV series, Michael is recruited back and KITT is rebuilt as a better model. A new man is running the Foundation (hopefully not a jerk like Maddock) and a new technician has been hired. This could be taking place during the 90's. It will be Knight Rider- a decade later.
Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2003 11:21 pm
But ignoring the fact that KR2000 didn't take places pushes more KR fans away and actually criticize the movie/series before its release. I refer you to the "Halloween" movie series. Before "Halloween H20" was released, fans heard the film ignored the events in 4, 5, and 6. The fans thought it was a stupid idea. Even though the film was good and the followup, "Halloween Resurrection", was just as good, they still thought the idea of ignore the events in those three films was a very bad idea.