I waited 26 years for this????

Archive for discussions from 2008. Please post new discussions in the appropriate forum.

Moderators: Matthew, neps, Michael Pajaro

Kram061-1
FLAG Recruit
Posts: 458
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 4:25 pm

Re: I waited 26 years for this????

Post by Kram061-1 » Mon Feb 18, 2008 1:34 pm

i was one of the biggest critics of this movie before hand, But I did like it enough to say I would be open to a series--what I mean is, there IS Potential. Maybe their first mission could be a 2-hr movie (with a few less commercials). It does need some tweaks. Maybe I though better of the movie b/c of my low expectations. The plane was very stupid, although I could live with it from time to time if they are changing continents. For domestic missions, bring the 18-wheeler back

User avatar
ckeller22
Operative
Posts: 177
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 11:22 pm

Re: I waited 26 years for this????

Post by ckeller22 » Mon Feb 18, 2008 1:36 pm

I am not implying and I am not attacking you for your opinion Everyone is entitled to there opinion and may express it.I just would like to that people take the time to fully understand before going on bashing sprees' If I offended I apologize but I hope you can see my point. Evey one is welcomed to there views of course that's what make s the world go round. My point is that going through all the rants people are not making sense (not aimed at you) about the show when i see KITT 2000 being hacked by an inferior computer like the 64 it's all for story lines nothing will be perfect nothing will live up to the original because it is immortalized in our brains. This is entertainment and in order to have story's the super car and it's team has to have faults and limitations.

Kram061-1
FLAG Recruit
Posts: 458
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 4:25 pm

Re: I waited 26 years for this????

Post by Kram061-1 » Mon Feb 18, 2008 2:11 pm

I thought that I read somewhere there was going to be a KITT mini recon drone. Did I miss it, or it wasn't there?

also, I DO agree with alot of you here that there was far too much pointless driving. And yeah, the car didn't do a whole heck of alot of tricks.

User avatar
GN_WS6
Rookie
Posts: 77
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 12:37 pm
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Contact:

Re: I waited 26 years for this????

Post by GN_WS6 » Mon Feb 18, 2008 2:13 pm

The whole thing was basically a 2 hour Ford commercial with the hopes to start a series. Nothing more, nothing less. :kitt:
The real KITT was born a Trans Am.

User avatar
Kaine
FLAG Recruit
Posts: 314
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2002 1:01 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0

Re: I waited 26 years for this????

Post by Kaine » Mon Feb 18, 2008 2:20 pm

that's propably what a lot of people thought 26 years ago:

"The whole thing was basically a 2 hour Pontiac commercial which is going to series. Nothing more, nothing less"

fortunately for them, we had no internet back then and the people were a lot more open minded in the eighties.
nowadays it's a common attitude to dislike things as an end in itself.

89 formula
Recruit
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 1:22 pm
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: I waited 26 years for this????

Post by 89 formula » Mon Feb 18, 2008 2:37 pm

Kaine wrote:that's propably what a lot of people thought 26 years ago:




Not me man, I remember sitting there watching the pilot as a 11-year old, and between Devon unveiling KITT to Michael and KITT blasting through the bad guys, my jaw became permenantely attached to the floor and my eyes were so wide open that I couldn't close them for a week.

User avatar
Kaine
FLAG Recruit
Posts: 314
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2002 1:01 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0

Re: I waited 26 years for this????

Post by Kaine » Mon Feb 18, 2008 2:49 pm

89 formula wrote:
Kaine wrote:that's propably what a lot of people thought 26 years ago:




Not me man, I remember sitting there watching the pilot as a 11-year old, and between Devon unveiling KITT to Michael and KITT blasting through the bad guys, my jaw became permenantely attached to the floor and my eyes were so wide open that I couldn't close them for a week.


well, if you were an 11-year old today you would propably have reacted in the same way yesterday evening.

pdjfunk
Stranger
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 1:56 pm

Re: I waited 26 years for this????

Post by pdjfunk » Mon Feb 18, 2008 2:57 pm

Another show with more product advertising and placement than talent.

The show was cheesy and the commercials were longer than the show. I thought I was watching a Ford promo commercial.

Like most others, I thought they should have used a similar car as the old show, like a new camaro or something, but after the intitial shock of seeing KITT as a mustang, I did grow on me. I have to admit I'm not a Mustang fan, but thought it was okay... except the fact that FORD used the show as a big promo commercial. If you take away the commercials and product placement, there wasn't any substance, less story and even less mojo.

Anyone else like a car chase where a 500hp+ mustang can't outdrive an minivan EDGE? Nice of ford to make the edge able to break and stop in front of a semi doing 60mph+ around corners.

Deanna was cute, but didn't hit the mark. Her performance wasn't believeable at all. Laughing, smiling when her dad was missing and thought dead? She was like a wet noodle.
Sorry Val, I think your a great actor, but KITT had NO personality at all. Too bad, so sad....

It was so outrageously horrible, anyone else who says differently either worked on the show or never saw the originals.

User avatar
BrowncoatKal
Volunteer
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 3:42 pm

Re: I waited 26 years for this????

Post by BrowncoatKal » Mon Feb 18, 2008 3:56 pm

Well to be fair, I heard that the writer was on set for some of the filming and wanted to change some of the dialogue and other things, but due to the writers strike was unable to. Perhaps some of your complaints would have been answered if he'd been able to make the changes he wanted to.
Personally, I really liked it.

89 formula
Recruit
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 1:22 pm
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: I waited 26 years for this????

Post by 89 formula » Mon Feb 18, 2008 5:23 pm

Kaine wrote:
89 formula wrote:
Kaine wrote:that's propably what a lot of people thought 26 years ago:




Not me man, I remember sitting there watching the pilot as a 11-year old, and between Devon unveiling KITT to Michael and KITT blasting through the bad guys, my jaw became permenantely attached to the floor and my eyes were so wide open that I couldn't close them for a week.


well, if you were an 11-year old today you would propably have reacted in the same way yesterday evening.



I'm not sure that it's only the age issue. A few weeks ago, I found myself cheering out loud, as did most of the theater, for the 61-year old Rambo.

An 11-year old 89Formula would've probably love the final SUV into KITT car crash, I'll certainly give you that. What the 37-year old 89Formula was hoping to see was at least a few minutes of a bunch of bad guys getting totally desperate as they're unable to defeat this incredible force coming at them. And it may just be me, the original series was just way more to my liking than the movie.

BTW, what happened to the opinion poll? This morning, with only a few votes in, the majority of us seemed to like it.

User avatar
superman3010
Volunteer
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 4:45 pm

Re: I waited 26 years for this????

Post by superman3010 » Mon Feb 18, 2008 6:31 pm

everyone can say what they want to but you all are being an just plain stupid its the next gen. of not not what we grew up watching come on it your opinion that it was no go but there are far more ppl that liked it so if you dont like it dont watch it plain and simple so just stop piss and moning

knightjp
Rookie
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 2:01 am

Re: I waited 26 years for this????

Post by knightjp » Mon Feb 18, 2008 11:42 pm

I'm not sure what to make of it now... Not seen it yet cuz I live outside the US.
Nanotech vs MBS??? The original story of the MBS is very very sketchy. I mean if 3 people were need to make the original formula, how was Garth able to create Goliath using info from only 2 people???. In "Knight of the Juggernaut" how was KITT's shell neutralized after the formula was taken from Devon??? Is the 3rd part only a misleading plan to avoid the MBS replication?? Basically a lot of questions need be answered.
I would have loved to see the MBS in aciton in the new car, but if the Nanotech is the only way to go in order to keep the storyline, its the right choice. Besides, KITT was never completely indestructable... remember when he fell into the Toxic Waste in one episode??
The new Mike's profile of being an ex-serviceman and having such issues of a messy apartment and gambling problems, etc..... Sure, i would believe that any day. You see alot of that in other movies where ex-military people live that way and it happens in realife when they try to cope with normal civilian lifestyles.
From what is going around if this is a Ford Ad, then Transformers was a GM ad. I didn't hear anyone complaining about that..... Infact people loved the movie. There were fans who made comments about it too, but they too were won over.

Derekasaurus Rex
Volunteer
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 11:19 pm

Re: I waited 26 years for this????

Post by Derekasaurus Rex » Tue Feb 19, 2008 12:19 am

In general I agree. But it's not like the original series offered up airtight plots either. ;-) I'm sure anyone older than 12 at the time had similar criticisms of the original show.

And as for the gay cop scene, there are gay cops in the real world and they are hardly over-represented in the media, so I have no issue with seeing a hot one on TV. I was far more annoyed by KITT reading from the Bible. :-)

User avatar
ckeller22
Operative
Posts: 177
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 11:22 pm

Re: I waited 26 years for this????

Post by ckeller22 » Tue Feb 19, 2008 1:12 am

By the way. Michael Knight at the end of the episode "ICE BANDITS " Michael Knight inside the semi reads the bible to KITT. So i don't understand how it's all right for them to do it in the original but not today.hmmmm hypocrtical

knightjp
Rookie
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 2:01 am

Re: I waited 26 years for this????

Post by knightjp » Tue Feb 19, 2008 8:48 am

ckeller22 wrote:By the way. Michael Knight at the end of the episode "ICE BANDITS " Michael Knight inside the semi reads the bible to KITT. So i don't understand how it's all right for them to do it in the original but not today.hmmmm hypocrtical

Do we have a bible reader in our midst???

User avatar
Kaine
FLAG Recruit
Posts: 314
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2002 1:01 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0

Re: I waited 26 years for this????

Post by Kaine » Tue Feb 19, 2008 8:56 am

very early in this movie there is this one short scene:

a trucker on the road, looking in the rear mirror seeing a strange red pulsing light and... whooosh! the new KITT passes the truck with incredible speed leaving the trucker with the most dumb WTF-expression on his face you could possibly imagine.

if that ain't a classic knight rider moment then i don't know what is... i simply loved it!

User avatar
goldbug
FLAG Recruit
Posts: 492
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 1:31 pm
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: A world where criminals operate above the law

Re: I waited 26 years for this????

Post by goldbug » Tue Feb 19, 2008 9:24 am

Derekasaurus Rex wrote:I was far more annoyed by KITT reading from the Bible. :-)


Actually he was following up on a quote made by Sarah - so you can be annoyed at her too for using a very common, every day phrase. :)
"One man can make a difference." - Michael Knight (2008)

lucid hysteria
Volunteer
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 1:27 am

Explaining "the gay agenda" & why the lesbian bit was insult

Post by lucid hysteria » Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 pm

goldbug wrote:
89 formula wrote:3. Why do they need to push the gay agenda with the lesbian cop scene????

Can someone explain to me what the "gay agenda" is? Are they holed up in a mountain somewhere building a Cyberdyne computer to take over the world? Are they building an army of transforming robots to conquer mankind? People keep using this phrase over and over and it smacks of nothing but intolerance to me. So she's gay, big deal. She's still a good agent and helped Mike on the mission. Who cares who she sleeps with?


The "gay agenda" could be defined as the movement by a vocal minority to subvert the moral foundation of the vast majority of the world as well as the obvious laws of nature - no matter the cost - in order to excuse all manner of depraved and socially destructive behavior, using empty postmodern rhetoric (about moral relativity or gender as a "social construction") that could just as easily be (and must be, if we are being intellectually honest) used to justify ANY form of sexual deviancy, from polygamy to incest to pedophilia (for example, if we cannot say homosexuality is wrong because "truth is subjective" and "any restraint on sexuality is equal to oppression and narrowmindedness" (as some might suggest), then we cannot say that it would be wrong for a man to marry his sister, or even his sister's 6-year-old daughter, for the same reasons). The purpose of this "agenda" has proven to not only consist of the defense of the homosexual lifestyle, but indeed encompasses an attempt to overturn any standard for morality (particularly sexual morality, but all morality by extension), until the mere act of suggesting that there is some kind of standard becomes "intolerant," if not a "hate crime." This is why in many parts of the country, laws now exist to ensure that public schools have to bend over backward to accomodate a second grade child who may one week think he is a male, and the next think he is a female. If this is not the definition of insanity, I don't know what is.

This, of course, does not mean that homosexuals themselves are any worse people than anyone else (I have had several great teachers in college who were homosexual, and known homosexuals who were great businesspeople, artists, or otherwise simply very nice people, in general); it does not mean they should be ridiculed or harrassed or punished by the secular government, nor that they should be respected any less than any other human beings. But it means that the worldview they propogate is an especially dangerous one, and more and more it is being unfairly and unnecessarily forced on the rest of the world in the name of "tolerance."

Tolerance used to mean coexisting peacefully and respectfully with others despite disagreement; now, in order to be considered "tolerant" and moral, one must actually embrace and celebrate other peoples' beliefs, even to the point that he/she values his/her own (unless the beliefs in question do not align with those of the academic elite or the secular media - then it's ok to mock and disregard them at will... such as the idea that homosexuality is unnatural and unhealthy). This leads to a madness wherein, if all beliefs and ideas are supposed to be equally true (as the Oprah-styled pseudo-philosophy of the age tries to tell us), NO idea can really be true, and the only thing that will matter, in the words of Dr. Voddie Baucham, is "who has sufficient power to exercise his or her will" (ironically, this is precisely the point of the "survival of the fittest" mentality that comes straight out of Darwinism which, when it has been taken to its logical conclusion, has led to some of the most heinous acts in history, from the serial killings of Jeffrey Dahmer to the attrocities of Adolf Hitler - both of whom justified their actions by the theory of evolution).

If you'll pardon my long-windedness, my point in all this is that, as Richard Weaver wrote in the 1940s, ideas have consequences. No idea exists in a vaccuum, as I have often heard it said, and as such, the many and varied subversive, revisionist philosophies pervading our culture (such as secular humanism, naturalism, philosophical pluralism, and other relativistic, "postmodern" worldviews) are not unrelated, and the homosexual movement is not under attack because homosexuality is some kind of harmless personal choice. People are opposed to the legitimation of homosexuality because the larger issue is upholding some sort of foundation for reason and morality in the world, without which we succumb to total anarchy and moral wilderness (social studies have long confirmed - sometimes even reluctantly - that societies begin to fall apart without traditional families at their core). As I've said, you can't endorse homosexuality without eventually having to applaud every other imagineable vice that someone feels he/she has a right to enjoy (without the inconvenience of an "intolerant" moral standard). And you cannot follow this path of logic very far before it becomes obvious that at the end of the road is a world without an adequate basis for law or reason, because every foundation and every shred of truth and meaning has been "overturned" by the whims of an increasingly self-centered, placated, and pleasure-seeking population.

I hope I have helped to clear up what people mean by the "gay agenda."

If it's any consolation, the worldview that says it's ok for a guy to wake up in bed with two women (in other words, the worldview that says we should use each other casually and indiscriminately for our own pleasure, throwing commitment and responsibility out the window, and that as long as it "feels good," there are no consequences) is just as damaging to the moral fiber of a civilization as the lesbian cop idea.

I'm hoping, however, that if the new Knight Rider goes to series, they will deal with these character flaws of Mike's in a way that we never got in the Eighties with Michael Knight, when it was even more acceptable to be a serial womanizer. And by that I mean, perhaps Mike will be changed from that lifestyle, which clearly doesn't bring him any happiness, and develop a real relationship with Sarah or someone else. It's good to have characters with flaws - arguably not so good to GLORIFY those flaws.

That being said, from what I hear (I missed the first half hour, but I have seen pictures and heard about it from various sources), the opening scenes of the show were very gratuitously sleazy, and for that I lost a lot of respect for the movie. I am thankful that Sarah seems to actually be a somewhat level-headed, potentially strong character (not the bimbo eye candy that they try to feed us in a lot of "entertainment" these days - think "Transformers," which I consider possibly more harmful than some more hardcore graphic material, because it's a more subtle shallowness that tries to come off as harmless, whereas the hardcore stuff pretty much never pretends to be wholesome). I like her better than Mike, as of right now, and I do think there is potential for at least decent character development in a series, though it's anybody's guess if the showrunners would actually handle it that way.

The lesbian bit seems especially offensive in this instance, however, because it is a shameless bid to be shocking (and also because "sex sells," and because lesbianism is no doubt used to sell extra well to adolescent and even immature adult males, for whom a situation like the one Mike Tracer wakes up then is the ultimate shallow fantasy) and to recklessly jump on the bandwagon to appease a culture that ignorantly celebrates rebellion against traditions without any standard of truth or reasoning to justify said rebellion. I tend to agree with the sentiment "Who cares who she sleeps with," because, after all, IT HAD NO BEARING ON THE PLOT whatsoever. As my wife just pointed out, "if it doesn't matter, then why show it?" The answer is precisely what I have outlined above - that it's not a necessarily plot element, but rather a cheap plea to be cool and hook more viewers on sex rather than on substance.

- lucid hysteria

PS - Other than this opening garbage and an anti-climactic lack of plot, I actually like the setup for a new show, and the Mustang has, to my surprise, grown on me quite a bit (including the great voice by Val Kilmer, who is not my favorite actor by far, heh) - this just goes to show that I need to listen to Mike Pajaro more often (which I should have already known from his years of KR wisdom) and not jump to conclusions. Hopefully the stories will be more exciting if the show gets picked up, and maybe the acting will improve, as well, heh.

knightjp
Rookie
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 2:01 am

Re: I waited 26 years for this????

Post by knightjp » Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:39 am

I was sceptical at first that anyone would be able to achieve an improvement from the original show. However after actually seeing the show for myself, I haev to give credit to where it is due. Its good. Its not great, but it doesn't have to be. Its not a full on 2 hour movie that needs to be perfect to get good box-office ratings... Its a TV movie (A pilot). Its a sort of glimpse of things to come... a showcase if you will.. of what ideas the filming crew have for the show.
I loved the idea of the nanotech. Seemed quite incorruptable unlike the bonded shell that people found a way to destroy. Its sad that it only works when the computer is on, buts that to be expected. Something has to give the nanotech the commands to repair.

I certainly hope they make into a full on series... Can't wait

Locked