bonnie or michael?

firebird91 · Post by **firebird91** » Wed Nov 06, 2002 11:41 pm

Who's supposed to be older bonnie or michael?

knightimmortal · Post by **knightimmortal** » Wed Nov 06, 2002 11:46 pm

Michael. But not by much.

Bonnie can be believable as a whiz-kid, and displays a lot of it in the show. Michael has a fairly backgrounded history that does make add on a few years.

And if you go by what we were given: McPherson's birthdate, and Michael's established birthdate, he is still older.

But once again, it is not meant to be by that much.

knightimmortal

Post by **Michael Pajaro** » Thu Nov 07, 2002 3:27 am

I'm not sure about that... did we ever see any mention of Bonnie's age like in a file or something? Maybe in Chariot of Gold? I agree that it feels right that Michael would be older, but off-hand I can't think of any specific on-screen information that would hint at Bonnie's age.

Michael

knightshade · Post by **knightshade** » Thu Nov 07, 2002 7:59 am

She has a PhD. If she went through the program in the normal amount of time, she wouldn't have graduated until she was 26 or 27. I don't think they ever hinted that she finished college early. She's certainly meant to be seen as smart and driven, but I didn't get the sense that she was genius level or anything (she did fail the Helios test [img]images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]). If we assumed FLAG was her first job out of school, then 26-27 but she had been at FLAG long enough for her to make a significant contribution to Kitt's development (I think, could be wrong about that -- was she just hired to care for him after he was built -- there's some hint of that), but she also wasn't around long enough to have known about KARR. So maybe a year before Michael arrived. So I would think 27-28.

But I think the short answer was that they were generically supposed to be about the same age. [img]images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

If you happened to be asking from a fanfic perspective (writing? she asks hopefully [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]), I think its wide open to interpretation. And I'd say use whatever you want.

[ November 07, 2002: Message edited by: knightshade ]

firebird91 · Post by **firebird91** » Thu Nov 07, 2002 9:37 am

actually yes was asking for part of my fan fic...yes I know its not done in time for the edwards but hopefully ready for the next one.

knightimmortal · Post by **knightimmortal** » Thu Nov 07, 2002 8:05 pm

Continued short answer: Michael was about 30, so Bonnie is still estimated to be younger.

But since it is fan fic, it's up for artistic license.

And don't rush it, you have 365 days or so until the next Eds. [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

knightimmortal

Army_F_Body · Post by **Army_F_Body** » Fri Nov 08, 2002 1:33 am

Remember in "Knight of the Phoenix," Michael mentions in the jail scene that he did some "nosing around for army intelligence in 'Nam." MI Separated from Special Forces to become its own branch in about '67, and to be in 'Nam that places him their from sometime between '67 and '75. So in 1982 when he joins the Foundation that would make him in his early to mid thirties, if we assume he went into the army in his late teens to early twenties.

Post by **Michael Pajaro** » Fri Nov 08, 2002 1:49 am

We can pin down Michael's age pretty precisely:

Michael Long was born January 9, 1949.
(from the tombstone in A Good Knight's Work). So Michael was 33 when he joined the Foundation. David Hasselhoff, the actor, was born in 1952 and would have been 29-30 years old when Knight Rider started.

The funny thing about this to me, as a thirtysomething person myself, is that I wouldn't really call a 33 year old ex-cop a "young loner". I think that's more of a "middle-aged loner". But that probably didn't work too well for the marketing department!

Mike

March2875 · Post by **March2875** » Fri Nov 08, 2002 3:33 am

Funny you should bring that up Mike about the young loner stuff. On the other Knight Rider board I was in an argument with a fan over if David should reprise his role as Michael Knight in the new movie or not. The fan's argument was NO David is to Old. Knight Rider is about a Young Loner and David can't play that role anymore. So according to that fan Knight Rider would absolutely have to be recast and started all over again with the Pilot. Based on your interpretation Michael wasn't a Young Loner even then. Kind of helps David's chances in my opinion.

[ November 08, 2002: Message edited by: March2875 ]

Post by **Michael Pajaro** » Fri Nov 08, 2002 3:50 am

(blasphemy alert)
Knight Rider was primarily about a talking car. That's the hook. The young loner aspect is the filler.

So just because Knight Rider DID happen to have a "young loner" back then, there's no reason why a new movie would have to stick to that premise. I don't think David Hasselhoff should be the main focus of the movie, but he shouldn't be left out of consideration simply because the voiceover 20 years ago used the word "young".

The original Star Trek was about a "5 year mission". That didn't mean that the movies had to use that theme.

Mike

knightshade · Post by **knightshade** » Fri Nov 08, 2002 8:39 am

Wow. I did now know that Michael was supposed to be in his thirties. I'm not even thirty yet and I feel like I'd be pushing the boundaries of 'young loner.' He did look younger than that though. I would have guessed that Hasselhoff was in his late twenties in the first season, so I was off by a little bit.

But that being the case, I would have been a bit younger.