villan in new Movie

K.I.T.T · Post by **K.I.T.T** » Mon Oct 28, 2002 12:13 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Mike Knight:

Bonnie Barstow = April Curtis

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LMAO very good!! lol

K.I.T.T

Johnathan Kent · Post by **Johnathan Kent** » Mon Oct 28, 2002 8:00 am

ys know people I do have a Star Trek mirror universe group, where I had a similar idea with Knight Rider...Where KITT and Michael get sent to the evil Mirror Universe and their evil counterparts start wreaking havok in ours, while the real michael and KITT try to figure out how to get back home...nahhhhhhhh wouldn't work...sounds to much like a bad plot line from a bad Tv series

tharpdevenport · Post by **tharpdevenport** » Mon Oct 28, 2002 11:39 am

Now, i'm not a Star Wars fan, but when you compare Episode 1 and 2 to the originals decades ago, it is clear that they suck powerful ass.
What's my point? George Lukas was involved. But he had to appeal to a younger audience. Can anybod say (and hate) Jar Jar?

Just because people involved in the original are involved, doesn't mean it will be any good.

I hope it is good, i can't wait to see it.

knightimmortal · Post by **knightimmortal** » Tue Oct 29, 2002 12:10 am

Let's try to remain on a positive note, shall we?

And by the way, some people may actually say that Episode 1 & 2 are pretty awesome.

For all of those who would like to tear into this person for their slightly negative views again, just remember: Opinions are like A**holes, everybody has one. And here, they are entitled to share. (oh how a bad analogy can go really bad... [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] )

knightimmortal

Johnathan Kent · Post by **Johnathan Kent** » Tue Oct 29, 2002 1:21 pm

I certainly have not heard of a A-team movie, and btw, Star Trek is different then Star Wars...Star Trek deals with our universe in the future whereas Star Wars takes place in "a galaxy far far away"

Skav · Post by **Skav** » Tue Oct 29, 2002 3:35 pm

Phil, well, I did hear some stories that they're in the process of looking at scripts at the moment but once they have chosen, I think we could be looking at a 2004-2005 release. It wouldn't surprise me to see this movie get done rather quickly to cash in on all the other remakes of classic shows that are going about.

I'm not sure if it's on here but check out: http://www.upcomingmovies.com for a lowdown on the production stages of movies that are being developed. a great and TRUTHFUL site! no bull****!

Skav

knightimmortal · Post by **knightimmortal** » Tue Oct 29, 2002 7:11 pm

I too have heard the same things, but have not much to back it up. I also heard that they are having problems with production crews, writers, the whole shebang. It is one of those projects that ran headlong into a roadblock.

knightimmortal

Skav · Post by **Skav** » Tue Oct 29, 2002 10:47 pm

I can never understand how these problems come about with certain movies such as this one. You'd think it'd just go through the normal production procedure just like any other film.

Skav

knightimmortal · Post by **knightimmortal** » Tue Oct 29, 2002 10:51 pm

For the most part, it is a case of ego clashes. One side wants one thing, another wants another, they can't come to a mutual agreement, so the project either dies, or gets postponed.

knightimmortal

knightrider_ni · Post by **knightrider_ni** » Wed Oct 30, 2002 12:48 am

skav, you brought up something which i had completely forgotten about. the supposed a-team movie. after we reject all the bull**** the tabloids have thrown out, i can't remember seeing one shred of evidence that the idea of making the film was going ahead. have you (or anyone else here btw) heard anything about it? cause i sure haven't, unfortunately. you;'re right, if we were to believe the papers it should be out by now lol! [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

knightrider_ni · Post by **knightrider_ni** » Tue Nov 05, 2002 11:25 am

too true laura. movie-making is an extremely complicated procedure for big titles such as this. sometimes though you can't help but wonder that if a smaller production company got a hold of some of these bigger movies then maybe we'd have an awful lot more films with a true heart (as in, a real willingness to tell the stories and create the characters and stay true to the ethic of creating a film instead of a "movie") instead of these 2D money makers we're plagued with.

knightimmortal · Post by **knightimmortal** » Tue Nov 05, 2002 1:11 pm

Then you would have the special effects junkies whining about the lack of special effects. There is no winning. [img]images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img]

knightimmortal

toffa · Post by **toffa** » Thu Nov 07, 2002 11:19 am

Personally I'm so excited about the movie, can't wait to see what they do with it. As for the villian? Rebecca Holden! She could setup the evil foundation for suddenly disappearing after series 2! At the end she and Bonnie fight for the right to take KITT's red scanner home!

knightrider_ni · Post by **knightrider_ni** » Sat Nov 09, 2002 5:48 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by knightimmortal:
Then you would have the special effects junkies whining about the lack of special effects. There is no winning. [img]images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img]

knightimmortal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

just to take two completely different examples of special effects in movies... (though i do see your point and agree there is no winning as there are still people who would rather see a two-hour CGI-fest with no plot or characterisation to "get in the way" [img]images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img] )

spiderman - big-budget, big studio movie which failed to produce top effects in key places in the film. true, most of the movie was spectacular, but just one example of a "sore thumb" of a sequence was when peter was swinging through the city getting used to his powers, with the camera angled from above. it was incredibly fake looking, and there were other such scenes which took away greatly from the overall movie for me. such a shame, as the characterisation was quite good for a comic book film (though nothing can touch the first of burton's batman films [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] ) and the characterised fight sequences (especially at the end) were spectacular. but they concentrated too much on effects so when they went wrong they took away GREATLY form the film.

on the other end of the scale are films like cube. yes, a completely different kettle of fish and neither of these examples tie in with the forthcoming knight rider movie i know, but my point is that cube was a VERY small independent company's film, made for less than a quarter of a million, basically by media students, yet with a LOT of imagination and a LOT of hard work they churned out a movie which to me looked a lot better than spiderman overall, had great characterisation, a better (twisted in a very evil-scriptwriter-type-way lol) plot and overall was a more satisfying film.

back to the topic at hand. yeh i know knight rider is going to have money thrown at it, but i hope to God that they don't throw the money at it first without thinking about what really matters first! all CGI/stunts/etc with no content to back it up, no plot to make it make sense, and no characterisation to make us actually care about what is going on will not a good film make! (and yes, that is not a typo [img]images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] )

it could make the difference between this movie being a jurassic park, or a jurassic park 3(!)