A few questions that have bugging me.

This forum contains discussions about all things Knight Rider.

Moderators: neps, Matthew, Michael Pajaro

User avatar
crashb648
Operative
Posts: 123
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 5:08 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: UK
Contact:

A few questions that have bugging me.

Postby crashb648 » Mon Apr 11, 2011 5:13 am

After watching a lot of knight rider recently, there is a few questions that I hope you people can answer.

1) We all know because of the home page of this very site, that the desert used in the opening isn't purple. So the creators made the introduction purple. However, how did they keep Kitt's scanner red, even through the desert and kitt to a certain extend is purple?

2) In the knight rider video game, kitt states that bonnie programmed himself and KARR. However, in trust doesn't rust, when devon explains about KARR, bonnie says it was before her time. Yet, she manages to create kitt from scratch in knight of the drones and espically in junk yard dog. So, did Bonnie have a hand in creating kitt's and/or KARR's systems to begin with?

3) Ever since purchasing the first season of knight rider on dvd, the image of michael at the bottom left corner of the back of the box confused me. It was mainly that michael held a gun, which was very rare for the series. Also, i have been wondering what episode it is from, even viewing the series, i have not been able to find out.

Here's a link to the picture
http://i475.photobucket.com/albums/rr11 ... 447105.jpg

4) We all know that KITT could go to speeds over 200mph, and i know that SPM version of the car (the proper car) could only do about 80mph, so how fast could the modified transam used for the show go?
http://www.thetributepages.info/ Online Tribute Pages for Video Games, Movies and TV Shows. Including: Knight Rider and Knight Rider: The Game!

User avatar
Skav
FLAG Operative
Posts: 1999
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2002 1:01 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: England, UK
Contact:

Re: A few questions that have bugging me.

Postby Skav » Mon Apr 11, 2011 2:09 pm

I may be able to answer questions 2 and 3.

The game and tv show shouldn't be considered as canon together. There may have been minor storyline mistakes in the game, or they decided to ignore events in the episodes and go with their own.

Michael had a gun on the set of a movie in season 4's 'Fright Knight'. He was playing a stuntman on the set and I recall him having a gun in his possession.

scatpack
Operative
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 8:19 pm

Re: A few questions that have bugging me.

Postby scatpack » Mon Apr 11, 2011 6:37 pm

he had a gun in KOTP

User avatar
KITTfan
FLAG Assistant
Posts: 986
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 1:01 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Finland

Re: A few questions that have bugging me.

Postby KITTfan » Mon Apr 11, 2011 8:50 pm

In some weather conditions the sunset or sunrise really do colour the sky and ground purple for a moment, I've seen it many times when driving to work early in the morning or watching the sunset in late night, it looks awesome and always remindes me from Knight Rider theme :)
Perhaps they filmed at least some of the Pilot intro sequence in early sunrise or sunset, later it looks it was done with purple lense though. Red scanner most likely look red even through purple lense.

User avatar
Victor Kros
FLAG Operative
Posts: 1600
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 7:10 am
antispam: No
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 1982
Location: Knight Manor

Re: A few questions that have bugging me.

Postby Victor Kros » Tue Apr 12, 2011 1:22 am

- I can answer a few of these burning questions of yours.

After watching a lot of knight rider recently, there is a few questions that I hope you people can answer.

1) We all know because of the home page of this very site, that the desert used in the opening isn't purple. So the creators made the introduction purple. However, how did they keep Kitt's scanner red, even through the desert and kitt to a certain extend is purple?

- The opening credits of Knight Rider were filmed by a guy named Wayne Fitzgerald who used special purple lenses to tint/filter the skyline of El Mirage (we've known about the filter). The scanner was indeed red, however the problem wasn't that it would appear "purple" under the filter which also allowed magentas and reds to slip through - but the speed of the shots themselves. Several passes of the opening credits had to be shot at different speeds which were then later as I understand it "double exposed" over a master print with a slower print to create the illusion of the Knight 2000 racing at high speeds towards the camera with a slower "scanner" effect. If they had just sped up or slowed down the film it would have looked unatural.

What you are seeing in the opening credits is a combination of the purple filter and a double exposed film (optical composting like in Star Wars) that when ran together appear to be all the same scene when in fact the scanner and the footage of the Knight 2000 racing towards the camera are two seperate sequences layered together to form a single sequence.

According to Glen's Q&A in The Knight Rider Companion, the opening titles and the pilot were shot at the same time in two different locations. The opening sequence effects were composited and finalized later in post production.


2) In the knight rider video game, kitt states that bonnie programmed himself and KARR. However, in trust doesn't rust, when devon explains about KARR, bonnie says it was before her time. Yet, she manages to create kitt from scratch in knight of the drones and espically in junk yard dog. So, did Bonnie have a hand in creating kitt's and/or KARR's systems to begin with?

- I agree with Skav's assesment of this question. The video game world often takes liberties with the original source material of a property it's being based on which causes controdictions. The Star Wars video games are a prime example as is the Knight Rider NES. Both the NES and Davilex both clearly had flaws in their design of say Goliath and the Knight Semi (Mobile Command Unit).

3) Ever since purchasing the first season of knight rider on dvd, the image of michael at the bottom left corner of the back of the box confused me. It was mainly that michael held a gun, which was very rare for the series. Also, i have been wondering what episode it is from, even viewing the series, i have not been able to find out.

Here's a link to the picture
http://i475.photobucket.com/albums/rr11 ... 447105.jpg

- This is kind of a goof on Universal's part. Skav is correct, the image shown on the Season 1 box set is in fact Michael using a prop sub machine gun from the Season Four episode, "Fright Knight". I can further validate this with this shot here which is a press photo taken on set for that episode and you can clearly see the clothes and gun match. It's not the same exact angle/photo but clearly the same source. Why they chose to use it? I really don't know, maybe it's a great heroic shot with him talking into his comlink looking like James Bond.

Image

4) We all know that KITT could go to speeds over 200mph, and i know that SPM version of the car (the proper car) could only do about 80mph, so how fast could the modified transam used for the show go?

- There were several different cars built for several different purposes. It would be hard to lock down exactly how fast each car went - some had bigger engines, some had better burn-outs, some were rigged for stunts like ski-mode, and some were lighter or specially weighted down for specific jumps and some were not even true Trans Ams at all.

User avatar
Michael Pajaro
Advisor
Posts: 3082
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 1:01 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: A few questions that have bugging me.

Postby Michael Pajaro » Tue Apr 12, 2011 2:22 am

crashb648 wrote:2) In the knight rider video game, kitt states that bonnie programmed himself and KARR. However, in trust doesn't rust, when devon explains about KARR, bonnie says it was before her time. Yet, she manages to create kitt from scratch in knight of the drones and espically in junk yard dog. So, did Bonnie have a hand in creating kitt's and/or KARR's systems to begin with?


Bonnie spent enough time working with KITT's systems that she was able to rebuild him in KotJ even if she wasn't the original designer. She clearly says that KARR was before her time, so the question is if she was brought in to create KITT.

In Junk Yard Dog, Bonnie says she CAN'T rebuild KITT. Michael asks her what it would take to bring KITT back and Bonnie says she needs "the original team Wilton Knight assembled." Was she on that team? The wording is vague. She doesn't say "our team" or "my team" which might imply she wasn't part of it. But she could just be speaking in the third person.

Bonnie doesn't appear in Knight of the Phoenix, but she is mentioned in the novelization. At the very end of the book, Michael sees Bonnie and Devon says "Bonnie is like KITT's stepmother." So in the book version, it's pretty clear Bonnie was one of if the not THE primary creators of KITT.

What do I personally believe? I'm pretty strict when it comes to what I consider canon. My philosophy is if it didn't happen on screen, it didn't happen. Books, early script drafts, interviews etc. may give us some insight to what the writers were thinking, but they are not absolute canon to me. Bonnie did not appear in KotP. Therefore, she was not there for the creation of KITT.
Join me at Las Vegas Car Stars!
May 14-16 • Las Vegas, NV
http://lasvegascarstars.com

User avatar
Knight Rider Archive
FLAG Assistant
Posts: 517
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2002 1:01 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: London, England
Contact:

Re: A few questions that have bugging me.

Postby Knight Rider Archive » Tue Apr 12, 2011 8:32 am

Michael Pajaro wrote:Bonnie spent enough time working with KITT's systems that she was able to rebuild him in KotJ even if she wasn't the original designer. She clearly says that KARR was before her time, so the question is if she was brought in to create KITT.

In Junk Yard Dog, Bonnie says she CAN'T rebuild KITT. Michael asks her what it would take to bring KITT back and Bonnie says she needs "the original team Wilton Knight assembled." Was she on that team? The wording is vague. She doesn't say "our team" or "my team" which might imply she wasn't part of it. But she could just be speaking in the third person.


Bonnie is quite specific in Juggernaut - she says that she can recreate K.I.T.T.'s systems and technology - it's the structural damage that is more than she can handle (or more than she and Michael bargained for). This is in keeping with the work she did in Drones and Junk Yard Dog - she need Von Voorman and the original team to work on the car, the engine and, presumably, a new coating of the Molecular Bonded Shell. The writer's bible of the show stated that she was always an electronic mechanic (or a 'cyber technician', as K.A.R.R. calls her), never an automotive one, although she could convert the car's engine to run on liquid hydrogen, re-time his rotors, and design Super Pursuit Mode. April seemed to be much more capable with the automotive aspects of the car - happily adjusting the Turbo Boost, adding High Traction Drop Downs, Silent Mode, Parachutes, and a Third Stage Aquatic Synthesizer. It's a shame she couldn't have guested in 'Junk Yard Dog' as well.

Michael Pajaro wrote:Bonnie doesn't appear in Knight of the Phoenix, but she is mentioned in the novelization. At the very end of the book, Michael sees Bonnie and Devon says "Bonnie is like KITT's stepmother." So in the book version, it's pretty clear Bonnie was one of if the not THE primary creators of KITT.

What do I personally believe? I'm pretty strict when it comes to what I consider canon. My philosophy is if it didn't happen on screen, it didn't happen. Books, early script drafts, interviews etc. may give us some insight to what the writers were thinking, but they are not absolute canon to me. Bonnie did not appear in KotP. Therefore, she was not there for the creation of KITT.


As far as canon is concerned, I agree that if it didn't happen in the series, it didn't happen. I disagree with you that because Bonnie did not appear in the pilot, she wasn't there for the creation of K.I.T.T. That's like saying Michael Long wasn't engaged to be married, because Stevie didn't appear, or wasn't mentioned in the pilot; she's still a huge part of the canon of Knight Rider. For me, it's a grey area, you could argue it either way based on dialogue from different episodes.

I find the scripts fascinating (as anyone familiar with my site will be aware of) especially scenes that were shot but cut out later. The novelisations veer too far from the show to fit in with continuity - they are kind of an alternate universe in themselves. It's interesting that the line "Bonnie is like Kitt's stepmother" turns up in a later episode ('Ten Wheel Trouble'), which was produced after the novel was published. I wonder if Burton Armus had read it...

Anyway, a list of the people involved in K.I.T.T.'s creation (as per the original series):

Wilton Knight (Pilot/'Knight of the Phoenix')
Dr. Von Voorman ('Junk Yard Dog')
Dr. Breeland ('Junk Yard Dog')
Dr. Yamata ('Junk Yard Dog')
Marco Berio ('Killer K.I.T.T.')
Dr. William Albert ('Killer K.I.T.T.')
Dr. Ian Browning ('Deadly Knightshade')
And possibly Dr. Karl Elliott ('Goliath'), who was one of three people close to Wilton who were entrusted with components of the Molecular Bonded Shell. Devon himself was the second. Dr. Von Voorman can be safely considered as the third, since Bonnie says he was on the original team and he lives in Switzerland (where Devon tells Michael the third man lives in 'Goliath' the year before).

User avatar
Victor Kros
FLAG Operative
Posts: 1600
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 7:10 am
antispam: No
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 1982
Location: Knight Manor

Re: A few questions that have bugging me.

Postby Victor Kros » Tue Apr 12, 2011 12:20 pm

I can shed a bit more light about Bonnie not being in the pilot as per an interview with Glen A. Larson which appears in I believe both Knight Rider Legacy and The Knight Rider Companion which states the following:

Why didn't Patricia McPherson appear in the pilot?

Larson: McPherson was not something we needed in the pilot because remember, Michael sort of breaks with the organization and takes off. Good entertainment comes out of conflict. At that point, he really did not have a support team. It was just him and the car. We then realized that if you are going to have a machine like that, you are probably going to have to have some support for it. Things are going to need fixing and such, and also it was a way to bring Devon into play a bit more often. It was something we needed for the series, not the pilot.

If you go by Glen's perspective, there was no Bonnie around when K.I.T.T. was created - she came on the team after Michael had become Michael Knight, not while he was Michael Long nor recovering from his surgery. On screen "canon" would dictate then, she was a later addition to the original "team" Devon put together after Michael accepted his role as a F.L.A.G. operative/agent in Knight of the Phoenix. Keep in mind it isn't until half way into episode 02 - Deadly Manuevers - we are first introduced to Bonnie and the Knight Semi (Home Office/Mobile Command Center - stock white paint) It's not clear how much time has passed between the pilot and Deadly Manuevers but clearly expansions were made.

=VK=
:dash:

User avatar
Michael Pajaro
Advisor
Posts: 3082
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 1:01 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: A few questions that have bugging me.

Postby Michael Pajaro » Tue Apr 12, 2011 1:24 pm

Knight Rider Archive wrote:
Michael Pajaro wrote:As far as canon is concerned, I agree that if it didn't happen in the series, it didn't happen. I disagree with you that because Bonnie did not appear in the pilot, she wasn't there for the creation of K.I.T.T. That's like saying Michael Long wasn't engaged to be married, because Stevie didn't appear, or wasn't mentioned in the pilot; she's still a huge part of the canon of Knight Rider. For me, it's a grey area, you could argue it either way based on dialogue from different episodes.


I hear what you're saying, but I'm not sure the Stevie analogy holds up. Suppose it was October 1982 and we asked "was Michael Long ever married or engaged?" We couldn't say yes or no for sure. It simply wasn't brought up. We could look at the supporting evidence and might say "well, he's a bit of a playboy... although nothing really happened between him and Maggie in the pilot it seemed like he was trying to hit on her... he wasn't acting like someone who just had an engagement called off. Michael Long probably was not engaged." Of course later we meet Stevie and we learn otherwise.

When we see Bonnie in Deadly Maneuvers, she isn't specifically introduced to Michael (or the audience) as a new employee. They clearly already know eachother. Michael was still driving around reading user manuals for KITT in the early episodes so I don't think much time passed between Phoenix and Maneuvers. Again, if it was October 1982 and you asked me "was Bonnie around for the creation of KITT?" I would say "yeah, although we don't specifically see her in the pilot it seems odd that FLAG would hire a new person to be in charge of maintaining a brand new project like KITT." This kind of logic - connecting the dots using common sense - can really get us into trouble when discussing a show about a talking car but it's one of the tools we have. But then Trust Doesn't Rust changes things.

Using that same (dangerous) common-sense logic: We know that Bonnie was not around when KARR was built. Fact. I assume we all agree that Bonnie essentially says that not only did she not build KARR, she was completely unaware of KARR's existence (you could still make an argument that she knew of KARR, but just hadn't told Michael.) KITT and KARR were twins - the only difference was in their programming. At best, Bonnie was brought in to program KITT during his creation. If that were true, you would think that when she started working someone would have mentioned "oh, by the way... we had another car and it kinda tried to kill people. Try not to let that happen again."

My position is this: If Bonnie was one of KITT's original programmers, she would have known about KARR. She didn't, so she wasn't.
Join me at Las Vegas Car Stars!
May 14-16 • Las Vegas, NV
http://lasvegascarstars.com

User avatar
Knight Rider Archive
FLAG Assistant
Posts: 517
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2002 1:01 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: London, England
Contact:

Re: A few questions that have bugging me.

Postby Knight Rider Archive » Tue Apr 12, 2011 1:33 pm

Victor Kros wrote:I can shed a bit more light about Bonnie not being in the pilot as per an interview with Glen A. Larson which appears in I believe both Knight Rider Legacy and The Knight Rider Companion which states the following:

Why didn't Patricia McPherson appear in the pilot?

Larson: McPherson was not something we needed in the pilot because remember, Michael sort of breaks with the organization and takes off. Good entertainment comes out of conflict. At that point, he really did not have a support team. It was just him and the car. We then realized that if you are going to have a machine like that, you are probably going to have to have some support for it. Things are going to need fixing and such, and also it was a way to bring Devon into play a bit more often. It was something we needed for the series, not the pilot.

If you go by Glen's perspective, there was no Bonnie around when K.I.T.T. was created - she came on the team after Michael had become Michael Knight, not while he was Michael Long nor recovering from his surgery. On screen "canon" would dictate then, she was a later addition to the original "team" Devon put together after Michael accepted his role as a F.L.A.G. operative/agent in Knight of the Phoenix. Keep in mind it isn't until half way into episode 02 - Deadly Manuevers - we are first introduced to Bonnie and the Knight Semi (Home Office/Mobile Command Center - stock white paint) It's not clear how much time has passed between the pilot and Deadly Manuevers but clearly expansions were made.

=VK=
:dash:


Well, the choices Glen made with the pilot were sound - the story would have been diluted if Michael had a support team, and it was much more fun for us to learn what the car could do along with Michael, instead of having Devon and Bonnie playing Q and explaining it all to him. Show, don't tell.

Unless you view Knight Rider as the pilot only, Glen's perspective doesn't really make much difference (plus, that quote he made to the Legacy authors sounds like he's talking with his producer hat on; "We realized" as opposed to "Devon realized" they needed a support team). Storytelling for ongoing series is always fluid, as you've got many other writers and producers creating what is now considered canon, filling in the gaps and building on Larson's ideas. For example, in 'Knight of the Drones' we learn that Bonnie was well aware of C.J. Jackson and his backstory firsthand - which placed her in the F.L.A.G./Knight Industries environment long before K.I.T.T. was being built (Jackson shot Ken Franklyn "one night... several years ago", and Wilton closed the Foundation until he found Michael Long). This doesn't fit with the dialogue from 'Trust Doesn't Rust', unless you reinterpret "before my time" as "before my time as chief cybernetic technician." Maybe she was too proud to associate herself with the failures of K.A.R.R. Maybe she got promoted at the expense of someone else that worked on that project.

Like I said in the last post, you can argue this stuff every which way, and that's how we end up with fan fiction. You could do the same with April, who also has a great deal of knowledge about the history of Michael and the Foundation (especially in 'Knightmares' and 'A Good Knight's Work'). Maybe she was around on the team during the pilot, and we just didn't see her. Unfortunately, her background is even more vague, and not elaborated upon (except that she once worked in a travel agency).

You've also got Stevie, who didn't figure at all in Larson's script but greatly enriched the Knight Rider mythology. Then there's K.A.R.R., Garthe, Elizabeth and Jennifer Knight, and Jim Courtney. All of these characters have pasts that could just have been unfolding offscreen. They didn't 'exist' when the pilot aired, but they are still canon that added texture to the story as it went on.

User avatar
Knight Rider Archive
FLAG Assistant
Posts: 517
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2002 1:01 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: London, England
Contact:

Re: A few questions that have bugging me.

Postby Knight Rider Archive » Tue Apr 12, 2011 1:38 pm

Michael Pajaro wrote:I hear what you're saying, but I'm not sure the Stevie analogy holds up. Suppose it was October 1982 and we asked "was Michael Long ever married or engaged?" We couldn't say yes or no for sure. It simply wasn't brought up. We could look at the supporting evidence and might say "well, he's a bit of a playboy... although nothing really happened between him and Maggie in the pilot it seemed like he was trying to hit on her... he wasn't acting like someone who just had an engagement called off. Michael Long probably was not engaged." Of course later we meet Stevie and we learn otherwise.


What I'm trying to say is that we aren't in 1982; where we are now the series can be viewed as a whole. This is how many of us have had fun revisiting the show in reruns, because there is a texture that is added as the story continues. The best moment I can think of is Devon's line to Wilton, and Wilton's reaction to it - "Doesn't it strike you that there's an uncanny resemblance between this young fellow and you as a young man?" It has one meaning in the pilot, but another after 'Goliath'.

Michael Pajaro wrote:When we see Bonnie in Deadly Maneuvers, she isn't specifically introduced to Michael (or the audience) as a new employee. They clearly already know eachother. Michael was still driving around reading user manuals for KITT in the early episodes so I don't think much time passed between Phoenix and Maneuvers. Again, if it was October 1982 and you asked me "was Bonnie around for the creation of KITT?" I would say "yeah, although we don't specifically see her in the pilot it seems odd that FLAG would hire a new person to be in charge of maintaining a brand new project like KITT." This kind of logic - connecting the dots using common sense - can really get us into trouble when discussing a show about a talking car but it's one of the tools we have. But then Trust Doesn't Rust changes things.

Using that same (dangerous) common-sense logic: We know that Bonnie was not around when KARR was built. Fact. I assume we all agree that Bonnie essentially says that not only did she not build KARR, she was completely unaware of KARR's existence (you could still make an argument that she knew of KARR, but just hadn't told Michael.) KITT and KARR were twins - the only difference was in their programming. At best, Bonnie was brought in to program KITT during his creation. If that were true, you would think that when she started working someone would have mentioned "oh, by the way... we had another car and it kinda tried to kill people. Try not to let that happen again."

My position is this: If Bonnie was one of KITT's original programmers, she would have known about KARR. She didn't, so she wasn't.


I've just posted my thoughts about that in the post above :)

User avatar
Michael Pajaro
Advisor
Posts: 3082
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 1:01 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: A few questions that have bugging me.

Postby Michael Pajaro » Tue Apr 12, 2011 2:25 pm

Knight Rider Archive wrote:
Michael Pajaro wrote:What I'm trying to say is that we aren't in 1982; where we are now the series can be viewed as a whole. This is how many of us have had fun revisiting the show in reruns, because there is a texture that is added as the story continues. The best moment I can think of is Devon's line to Wilton, and Wilton's reaction to it - "Doesn't it strike you that there's an uncanny resemblance between this young fellow and you as a young man?" It has one meaning in the pilot, but another after 'Goliath'.


We're totally on the same page about how to view the series and the fun in dissecting it. To be honest I wasn't thinking about Drones so that is some interesting insight.

And I also LOVE Devon's line to Wilton! There are some things in Knight Rider that they pretty much retconned (KARR was destroyed in Trust Doesn't Rust, but was intact for KITT vs. KARR). But the amazing thing about Michael's reconstructed face is that they didn't have to rewrite the mythology at all. Michael's evil twin makes perfect sense even when you go back and look at the pilot. It fits in beautifully.
Join me at Las Vegas Car Stars!
May 14-16 • Las Vegas, NV
http://lasvegascarstars.com

User avatar
Victor Kros
FLAG Operative
Posts: 1600
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 7:10 am
antispam: No
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 1982
Location: Knight Manor

Re: A few questions that have bugging me.

Postby Victor Kros » Tue Apr 12, 2011 4:57 pm

If Glen stated that in his vision of Knight Rider, Bonnie wasn't in the pilot - then she couldn't have been around when KITT was built or they would have shown her. Although he mentions that they needed a technition for the sake of the series - his comments absolutely are relevant as he created Knight Rider in the first place. He speaks both as a producer/creator and as a storyteller. Notice he says "Michael was this, Michael was that" - not so much David needed this or the "production" needed that. He keeps it centered on story and character.

If you choose to discount Glen's viewpoint about Bonnie not being in the pilot either as a character or as Mcpherson, then you are submitting to the idea that revisionist history is "ok" which is quite frankly the weakest aspect of storytelling.

However I will agree that the mythology of Knight Rider needed to be expanded and clearly in that exploration of filling in the blanks, mistakes were made. Drones really throws off any logical path for Bonnie to follow in order to be involved with the pilot when the fact is she was never intended nor written to be there from the get-go. You could then dispute Glen never intended to create KARR either - but if you take that approach, you have to keep in mind Glen supervised the first 13 episodes of Knight Rider so he knew of the "other car" and Universal's intentions to use him. Since he never created KARR, that's expanding on his original mythology - but if they wanted Bonnie to be included in the pilot in their expansion of history, they would have written her in as such with some line or scene in Trust Doesn't Rust to solidfy she was around when KARR was either created or went bezerk. She's as surprised as Michael is that there is another car out there.

You're right, it can go either way but in my view - If she wasn't there from the start, she wasn't there for KITT or KARR - she came somewhere after the pilot and was brought in to maintain KITT after Devon decided to expand his team to run F.L.A.G. after Wilton and Tanya's passing. For me, she's introduced in Deadly Manuevers and there's no concrete evidence to place her earlier than that - except for the contridiction in Knight of the Drones.

I guess what we believe is true "canon" is in the eye of the viewer. With so many writers and exec producers handling the property season after season, its hard to keep definative continuity. Let's face it, Knight Rider was more about entertainment and stunts than it was cohesive storytelling but I will say this - Robert Foster did a fantastic job of keeping the show going as best he could and progressing the mythology Glen started.

=VK=
:dash:

User avatar
Lost Knight
FLAG Special Ops
Posts: 2716
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 7:45 pm
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Long Island, NY

Re: A few questions that have bugging me.

Postby Lost Knight » Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:39 pm

Victor Kros wrote:If you go by Glen's perspective, there was no Bonnie around when K.I.T.T. was created - she came on the team after Michael had become Michael Knight, not while he was Michael Long nor recovering from his surgery. On screen "canon" would dictate then, she was a later addition to the original "team" Devon put together after Michael accepted his role as a F.L.A.G. operative/agent in Knight of the Phoenix. Keep in mind it isn't until half way into episode 02 - Deadly Manuevers - we are first introduced to Bonnie and the Knight Semi (Home Office/Mobile Command Center - stock white paint) It's not clear how much time has passed between the pilot and Deadly Manuevers but clearly expansions were made.


In my opinion, the series was always set in 'approximate' real-time, meaning that months and years were always pretty much the same as the dates episodes aired on. For example, "Knight Of the Phoenix" takes place from August - September 1982 (as we can tell from Michael Long's tombstone in a later episode and a quick shot of Michael's drivers license, among other things). "Deadly Maneuvers" aired in early October of '82, so I think it's safe to say about a month's time elapsed in-between episodes. (Also my explanation on how and when Michael met the mysterious Jenny character and fathered Mike Traceur from the 2008 backdoor pilot.) So it's reasonable to say that during that time Bonnie was hired and the mobile semi was being equipped for Michael's field missions.

I have to rewatch "Knight Of the Drones" again, but can't we assume that Bonnie was only filled in on the information regarding C.J. Jackson and Ken Franklyn after the fact? From what I've read in this thread, I don't see why not, unless it's a little more definitively explained in the episode.
“Gimme maximum turbo thrust and blast me outta here, will ya!?”
:kitt: :dash4:

User avatar
Knight Rider Archive
FLAG Assistant
Posts: 517
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2002 1:01 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: London, England
Contact:

Re: A few questions that have bugging me.

Postby Knight Rider Archive » Tue Apr 12, 2011 7:59 pm

Victor Kros wrote:If Glen stated that in his vision of Knight Rider, Bonnie wasn't in the pilot - then she couldn't have been around when KITT was built or they would have shown her. Although he mentions that they needed a technition for the sake of the series - his comments absolutely are relevant as he created Knight Rider in the first place. He speaks both as a producer/creator and as a storyteller. Notice he says "Michael was this, Michael was that" - not so much David needed this or the "production" needed that. He keeps it centered on story and character.


Bonnie was not in the pilot. I don't dispute that. But to say that "she couldn't have been around when KITT was built or they would have shown her" is nonsense. We didn't see the Knight 2000 being built - we didn't need to. We see everything from Michael's point of view - the technicians filtering in and out of the warehouse, and it piques Michael's - and our - interest. Again, in that quote, Glen uses "We" to refer to the writers and the producers, not the characters or "Knight Industries"; yes, it's centred on story, but the story of the pilot episode. We're talking about canon here, and that extends beyond the script Glen wrote. If Bob Foster or any other writer slipped a reference or backstory in there, it overrules Glen because it's in the continuity. That's what canon is.

Victor Kros wrote:If you choose to discount Glen's viewpoint about Bonnie not being in the pilot either as a character or as Mcpherson, then you are submitting to the idea that revisionist history is "ok" which is quite frankly the weakest aspect of storytelling.


I think there is an element of "revisionist posting" going on here - I didn't say that Bonnie, or McPherson, was "in the pilot". Nor do I discount Glen's viewpoint on the matter (in fact I agree with him - she wasn't needed in the first story). My point is that through dialogue that was used in later episodes (which is "canon") the character of Bonnie can be placed on the scene working for F.L.A.G./Knight Industries at the time of the events of the pilot. I have to ask: Is your love of Knight Rider confined to just the pilot episode? If not, you might be surprised to find that there is plenty of "revisionist history" that goes on throughtout the rest of the series; K.A.R.R. is revisionist history (check out Devon's backstory about that in 'Trust Doesn't Rust'). Stevie is revisionist history (Michael Long was secretly engaged). Garthe Knight is revisionist history (there was a reason for the choice of Michael's new face, not just vanity on Wilton's part). K.A.R.R.'s return was revisionist history ("But I saw him explode! You saw him explode!" "I know!!"). All of that plays with established history, and creates something new in the canon. Without "revisionist history" we wouldn't have some of the greatest Knight Rider episodes, nor would the show (or any other show that has ever hit the air) have been able to create its mythology.

Victor Kros wrote:However I will agree that the mythology of Knight Rider needed to be expanded and clearly in that exploration of filling in the blanks, mistakes were made. Drones really throws off any logical path for Bonnie to follow in order to be involved with the pilot when the fact is she was never intended nor written to be there from the get-go. You could then dispute Glen never intended to create KARR either - but if you take that approach, you have to keep in mind Glen supervised the first 13 episodes of Knight Rider so he knew of the "other car" and Universal's intentions to use him. Since he never created KARR, that's expanding on his original mythology - but if they wanted Bonnie to be included in the pilot in their expansion of history, they would have written her in as such with some line or scene in Trust Doesn't Rust to solidfy she was around when KARR was either created or went bezerk. She's as surprised as Michael is that there is another car out there.


Like I said before, this stuff can be argued either way. If you view the canon as a whole, there's evidence for and there's evidence against. It just depends how you choose to fit the pieces together. The bottom line is that the writers and producers didn't view it as something important enough to spell out directly. I'm sure Mr. Larson would agree - you cannot spell everything out in a pilot episode; if you do, you write yourself into a corner and drastically limit what you can do with the characters in later episodes.

Victor Kros wrote:You're right, it can go either way but in my view - If she wasn't there from the start, she wasn't there for KITT or KARR - she came somewhere after the pilot and was brought in to maintain KITT after Devon decided to expand his team to run F.L.A.G. after Wilton and Tanya's passing. For me, she's introduced in Deadly Manuevers and there's no concrete evidence to place her earlier than that - except for the contridiction in Knight of the Drones.

I guess what we believe is true "canon" is in the eye of the viewer.


Well, "canon" is something that is official continuity, so Devon's backstory about C.J. Jackson and Ken Franklyn in 'Drones' is canonical. But I'm not going to argue semantics, every fan is entitled to their opinion.

Victor Kros wrote:I will say this - Robert Foster did a fantastic job of keeping the show going as best he could and progressing the mythology Glen started.


Agreed.

User avatar
Michael Pajaro
Advisor
Posts: 3082
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 1:01 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: A few questions that have bugging me.

Postby Michael Pajaro » Tue Apr 12, 2011 8:20 pm

Knight Rider Archive wrote:K.A.R.R. is revisionist history (check out Devon's backstory about that in 'Trust Doesn't Rust'). Stevie is revisionist history (Michael Long was secretly engaged). Garthe Knight is revisionist history (there was a reason for the choice of Michael's new face, not just vanity on Wilton's part). K.A.R.R.'s return was revisionist history ("But I saw him explode! You saw him explode!" "I know!!").


Creating a backstory is not necessarily revisionist history. I think Stevie can safely exist because nothing about her (that I can think of) contradicts anything we knew about Michael. Similarly, they ALMOST could have gotten away with KARR as a prototype vehicle, except for that whole Michael Long's Trans Am paradox. Definitely some revisions going on there, and CLEARLY KITT vs. KARR is a complete change.

I actually think Garthe Knight fit in just fine with existing canon, with one assumption: Michael was wrong. Wilton would have looked like Garthe when he was younger, so Michael = young Wilton = Garthe. Michael assumes his face was remade to look like Garthe, but he was wrong. He was made to look like Wilton and by coincidence he looked like Garthe.

The writers' INTENTION with Goliath was to rewrite canon, and yet bizarrely enough, they didn't have to.

(good discussion!)
Join me at Las Vegas Car Stars!
May 14-16 • Las Vegas, NV
http://lasvegascarstars.com

User avatar
Knight Rider Archive
FLAG Assistant
Posts: 517
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2002 1:01 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: London, England
Contact:

Re: A few questions that have bugging me.

Postby Knight Rider Archive » Tue Apr 12, 2011 8:38 pm

I agree that backstory is not revisionist history - but it is when it overrides earlier story elements, or subtly changes their meaning.

I included Stevie as a good example in the sense that Glen Larson certainly didn't have it in mind when he was writing the pilot - it's documented that the idea came from Catherine Hickland and David fought for it (although there would have definitely been a 'lost love' episode at some point if the show was successful - all the shows of that era had 'em!). You made some points too, about Michael hitting on Maggie that didn't sit well with Michael having just 'lost' his fiancee and his past life. Of course, he could just have been trying to move on...

The 'Trust Doesn't Rust' situation alters the idea that Michael Long's car was the donor for K.I.T.T. 'K.I.T.T. Vs. K.A.R.R.' chooses to sidestep the issue of K.A.R.R.'s "destruction" at the end of 'Trust'.

I like your interpretation of the Garthe/Michael face reconstruction! That did slot in fine regardless, although I will include it as revisionist history as it added a new layer of meaning to Devon and Wilton's exchange. :D

User avatar
Victor Kros
FLAG Operative
Posts: 1600
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 7:10 am
antispam: No
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 1982
Location: Knight Manor

Re: A few questions that have bugging me.

Postby Victor Kros » Tue Apr 12, 2011 8:48 pm

"Unless you view Knight Rider as the pilot only, Glen's perspective doesn't really make much difference (plus, that quote he made to the Legacy authors sounds like he's talking with his producer hat on; "We realized" as opposed to "Devon realized" they needed a support team)."

- That is what you said - Glen's perspective doesn't really make much difference outside the pilot. I replied otherwise. Secondly, we have conflicting views on what "canon" means. As Michael Pajaro pointed out - if it didn't happen on screen, it didn't happen - THAT to me is canon - what is seen on screen is canon or what the producer/creator declares canon is canon. Regardless of how Bonnie's story was revised later in the series the fact is she was not there in the pilot and did not appear until Deadly Manuevers - this we both agree on.

Glen is all about story - to say he was talking strictly as a producer, is kind of insulting. His passion has always been storytelling in everything he does. I would say it's more fair to say his response was addressing both being a producer and speaking from a story point of view. I agree that we see everything from Michael's perspective but as Glen stated there was no need for Bonnie in the pilot - only the series. Robert Foster tried to work within Glen's initial concept while expanding on it - it does not "overrule" what he started.

You wouldn't write a Star Wars novel, go to George Lucas and tell him that your novel "overrules" his movie concepts would you?

I think you misunderstand the use of "revisionist history" in my example - I think you may confuse it with "expansion". Robert Foster expanded on what Glen started - but some of the other writers in the series used "revisionist history" especially with K.A.R.R. I don't believe Garthe was revisionist history because it was never established Wilton had a son until "Goliath" - which was expanding the mythology not contridicting it. Revisionist history is stating something happened one way then later down the road changing that established history to state it happened another way. Knight Rider 08 used revisionist history by saying a made up character Charles Graiman created KITT - yet he's never mentioned anywhere in the original series. Not just created KITT but its also implied he created the Knight 2000 - Paul Campbell has proven Graiman was not involved with the original KARR - so he couldn't have been around when KARR (82) was created and with that the Knight 2000. The concept operates on a benefit of a doubt and yet there's nothing solid to build from - you just "go with it". Established Knight Rider history states he never existed and now in the "continuation" they rewrote the original mythology to say he did.

Lastly - as I stated, "canon" appears to be based on the eye of the beholder. You have your viewpoint and I have mine. We both agree there are flaws in continuity.

This statement here in my opinion is nonsense

"Bonnie was not in the pilot. I don't dispute that. But to say that "she couldn't have been around when KITT was built or they would have shown her" is nonsense. We didn't see the Knight 2000 being built - we didn't need to. We see everything from Michael's point of view - the technicians filtering in and out of the warehouse, and it piques Michael's - and our - interest. Again, in that quote, Glen uses "We" to refer to the writers and the producers, not the characters or "Knight Industries"; yes, it's centred on story, but the story of the pilot episode. We're talking about canon here, and that extends beyond the script Glen wrote. If Bob Foster or any other writer slipped a reference or backstory in there, it overrules Glen because it's in the continuity. That's what canon is."

- If Foster wanted to include Bonnie as being around when KITT or KARR was created he would have made sure to include a line of dialogue or scene that stated she was after the pilot - this did not happen nor did she recognize KARR when he was first established. The reference in Knight of the Drones is obscure to say the least but Knight Rider was full of obscure answers when it came to backstory.

We return to your first point - it could be disputed either way. I choose to respectfully agree to disagree with your perspective and agree with Michael Pajaro's view of what "canon" is when it comes to Bonnie and Stevie's backstory.

This is a great discussion, its facinating to see different perspectives on the same subjects.

=VK=
:dash:

User avatar
Michael Pajaro
Advisor
Posts: 3082
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 1:01 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: A few questions that have bugging me.

Postby Michael Pajaro » Wed Apr 13, 2011 1:49 am

Victor Kros wrote:As Michael Pajaro pointed out - if it didn't happen on screen, it didn't happen - THAT to me is canon - what is seen on screen is canon or what the producer/creator declares canon is canon.


I'm going to make a pretty bold statement, because we still have different definitions of canon. For me, canon is what happened on screen. Period. The producer/creator can NOT declare canon.

WHAT?! That's crazy talk!

I have always believed that writer comments, early scripts, novelizations... all of these things give us great insight into how to interpret what we see on screen. But they don't create canon, because the Knight Rider universe (or Star Wars, or Trek, or any other fictional world) is bigger than the sum of its parts.

Think of the character of Michael Knight. Larson had a vision for the character. He created him. Then other writers added to it. Hasselhoff put his spin on the character. Directors framed how the character would interact with his world. A writer, a director, and an actor all have different interpretations of the character and collectively they create the final entity. Any single individual can't change the character.

Having said that, I can't think of a single thing that Larson has said that goes against my understanding of Knight Rider canon. But if he were to say "Michael Knight was an Eagle Scout, that's what I had in mind when I created him" I still would not accept that as canon. I can't say Michael Knight WASN'T an Eagle Scout, but if it isn't backed up on screen I won't accept it. Again, I think it would be great insight to the character, just not as an absolute fact.

Ridley Scott has gone on record publicly to answer the question of whether or not Deckard is a replicant in Blade Runner. And there is a strong fan base out there who say that he is wrong. I don't know the movie well enough to make my own opinion, but I do accept the possibility that Ridely Scott is wrong about his own creation.
Join me at Las Vegas Car Stars!
May 14-16 • Las Vegas, NV
http://lasvegascarstars.com

User avatar
Victor Kros
FLAG Operative
Posts: 1600
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 7:10 am
antispam: No
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 1982
Location: Knight Manor

Re: A few questions that have bugging me.

Postby Victor Kros » Wed Apr 13, 2011 3:28 am

There is an exception to this belief though Michael, Glen Larson was only around for 13 episodes - what happened on screen after he chose to leave would be considered "our" canon as long as it doesn't go against where Michael started. In writing a story, a character must evolve or you have to kill them off - that's the rule because if they don't, then they will become boring and stale and you lose the interest of the audience. With Robert Foster's addition of Garthe Knight and Catherine's addition of Stevie, it kept Michael fresh and allowed his character to evolve from what Glen originally intended him to be which was a rogue detective, rebellious, and impulsive - a cowboy who played by his own rules - however in that evolution, his backstory though expanded was not changed by revisionist history but rather the characters he interacted with had their backstories expanded like what Wilton did before he came about, Tanya's boss Cameron Zachary, KITT's creators, and so on. Foster kept Michael's backstory in tact for the most part but he expanded on what Glen started to introduce new elements into Michael's past that could plausibly had happened even though we didn't see them on screen.

Bonnie is the exception - there is no efforts to legitamently connect her to being around during KITT or KARR's creation. Why is that? If Robert wanted to expand her backstory to include her involvement with Wilton, why not write it as such? He had control over everyone else? I think the answer is - she was meant to come later as Glen had intended and be recognized as a necessity for the series - not dependent on connections to the pilot or whatever events came before it. KARR was the perfect opportunity to say she was there, Junkyard Dog as the perfect opportunity to say she was there as part of the team that created/built KITT - even Goliath but none of these opportunites are taken to establish her as being part of the pilot from a story point of view by either Foster nor the writers. Bonnie didn't even know about Stevie. I'd say she knew of Michael's past but she wasn't there to experience it for herself. If she didn't know about KARR in TDR, then how would she have been around that far back? Wouldn't she remember a car going rogue if she was on that team? Wouldn't she had some fond memories of Wilton to share with Michael or at least say something like, "Wilton Knight, I never managed to meet him. I'm told by Devon he was a great man but I was always stuck in his garage working on KITT." Additionally Bonnie never mentions anything about being there for Michael's recovery while Wilton is still alive - or even working while he was recovering.

So I think it might be safe to say while Glen was in control of his vision - he dictacted what was canon but when he left, Foster created a newly expanded universe that expanded on Glen's original 13 episode vision which. To that degree I think it's also fair to say you're right in the sense Glen can't step back in later down the line today and say - no, you can't have Goliath or Garthe because the story left his control and evolved beyond whatever intentions he might have had.

I think in terms of what the fans consider canon, it's like I said - Robert started with what Glen felt was canon at the time and then expanded on it. In that expansion with so many hands handling the property mistakes in continuity were made but I think the basics dictated in the writer's bible Foster created

That's just how I see it. It's Glen's world, we just play in what he established and see where we can take it.

=VK=
:dash:

User avatar
Victor Kros
FLAG Operative
Posts: 1600
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 7:10 am
antispam: No
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 1982
Location: Knight Manor

Re: A few questions that have bugging me.

Postby Victor Kros » Wed Apr 13, 2011 3:51 am

Stupid edit time limits

"kept things in tact for the most part."

If Foster had moved on and they had brought someone else in to take over Knight Rider for a fifth season then that person in charge would dictate what was "canon" according to their vision and we can only hope they would honor and respect what Glen and Foster started and continue on with it on screen - without changing previous established events - otherwise it would be revisionist history and we know what happens right? We get Gary Scott Thompson's vision of the Knight Rider universe with a "new" mythology loosely based on the previous timeline set by Glen, Foster, and even David Andron as his "continution" contridicted the backdoor pilot that Andron established as his continuation of the original series - in that change GST used revisionist history to restructure the world of Knight Rider to fit his vision and that in my opinion was a poor direction to take which only further confused the fans.

We as fans determine what our perception of canon is. Whether you accept or reject Andron's KR08, GST, KR2010, TKR, etc - just because these different takes exist - they are part of the Knight Rider universe but not necessarily part of the mythology itself. This is why its so difficult to build a cohesive timeline of events from one vision to the next.

=VK=
:dash:

User avatar
Knight Rider Archive
FLAG Assistant
Posts: 517
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2002 1:01 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: London, England
Contact:

Re: A few questions that have bugging me.

Postby Knight Rider Archive » Wed Apr 13, 2011 7:32 am

Victor Kros wrote:"Unless you view Knight Rider as the pilot only, Glen's perspective doesn't really make much difference (plus, that quote he made to the Legacy authors sounds like he's talking with his producer hat on; "We realized" as opposed to "Devon realized" they needed a support team)."

- That is what you said - Glen's perspective doesn't really make much difference outside the pilot. I replied otherwise. Secondly, we have conflicting views on what "canon" means. As Michael Pajaro pointed out - if it didn't happen on screen, it didn't happen - THAT to me is canon - what is seen on screen is canon or what the producer/creator declares canon is canon. Regardless of how Bonnie's story was revised later in the series the fact is she was not there in the pilot and did not appear until Deadly Manuevers - this we both agree on.


That is what I said, and I stand by it in the context of my argument (which I went on to explain in the rest of that paragraph). I have also said many other things relating to Glen and the pilot in this thread, and I have also already explained why the things said in Glen's quote in Legacy don't make much difference when it comes to the mythology that followed. Yes, he created the characters. Yes, he thought up the show. Yes, he gave notes on the following 12 episodes. But his creation is out of his hands once Bob Foster, Tom Greene, Rob Gilmer, William Schmidt, Richard Okie, Burton Armus, Bruce Lansbury, Stephen Downing, David Braff, Janis Hendler, Gregory S. Dinallo, Calvin Clements Jr et al all contribute to it. From behind his typewriter, Glen made the decision that a mechanic wasn't needed in his pilot script. He was right. A support team in the pilot episode would have been horrible. But nowhere does he say that Bonnie categorically was not one of those overalls at the Knight Estate, or at the airport. He talks about a casting decision that was necessary when the show went to series.

Regarding "canon". I do disagree with you. It's not just what you see on screen. It's what you hear on screen. So, it's canon that April once worked in a travel agency. It's canon that Devon once went undercover in occupied France as Valentino the Knifethrower. It's canon that Michael had a record company interested in a demo tape he made. The Ken Franklyn story is canon. SID is canon. 'Voo Doo Knight' is canon. If it's not there in the episodes, unfortunately I don't consider "what the producer/creator declares" as canon. Mike's Eagle Scout example is a good one. So, once again, all Glen is saying in that quote is that the character wasn't needed in that story, not that the character wasn't there among the technicians building K.I.T.T.

Victor Kros wrote:Glen is all about story - to say he was talking strictly as a producer, is kind of insulting. His passion has always been storytelling in everything he does. I would say it's more fair to say his response was addressing both being a producer and speaking from a story point of view. I agree that we see everything from Michael's perspective but as Glen stated there was no need for Bonnie in the pilot - only the series. Robert Foster tried to work within Glen's initial concept while expanding on it - it does not "overrule" what he started.


It's not "insulting" at all, it's just acknowledging the business. Glen is a writer and a producer. He has to think like both. All the passion of the storyteller is poured into that script, but when it's finished it has to be read and considered with a producer's eyes. You say you agree that "we see everything from Michael's perspective but" (emphasis mine). You then proceed to argue the same point I've been making through the earlier posts - I have said over and over already that Bonnie was not needed in that story.

Victor Kros wrote:I think you misunderstand the use of "revisionist history" in my example - I think you may confuse it with "expansion". Robert Foster expanded on what Glen started - but some of the other writers in the series used "revisionist history" especially with K.A.R.R. I don't believe Garthe was revisionist history because it was never established Wilton had a son until "Goliath" - which was expanding the mythology not contridicting it. Revisionist history is stating something happened one way then later down the road changing that established history to state it happened another way. Knight Rider 08 used revisionist history by saying a made up character Charles Graiman created KITT - yet he's never mentioned anywhere in the original series. Not just created KITT but its also implied he created the Knight 2000 - Paul Campbell has proven Graiman was not involved with the original KARR - so he couldn't have been around when KARR (82) was created and with that the Knight 2000. The concept operates on a benefit of a doubt and yet there's nothing solid to build from - you just "go with it". Established Knight Rider history states he never existed and now in the "continuation" they rewrote the original mythology to say he did.


Please don't condescend to me about the meanings of "revisionist history" or "expansion". Both terms are quite self explanatory. And for the record, "Revisionist History" doesn't have to mean a complete retcon, like the Charles Graiman case; it can include anything where a previous meaning has been "revised", or subtly altered. I gave some examples earlier, and explained why these are "revisionist". Some "expansion" is also "revisionist". Fancy that!

Victor Kros wrote:This statement here in my opinion is nonsense

"Bonnie was not in the pilot. I don't dispute that. But to say that "she couldn't have been around when KITT was built or they would have shown her" is nonsense. We didn't see the Knight 2000 being built - we didn't need to. We see everything from Michael's point of view - the technicians filtering in and out of the warehouse, and it piques Michael's - and our - interest. Again, in that quote, Glen uses "We" to refer to the writers and the producers, not the characters or "Knight Industries"; yes, it's centred on story, but the story of the pilot episode. We're talking about canon here, and that extends beyond the script Glen wrote. If Bob Foster or any other writer slipped a reference or backstory in there, it overrules Glen because it's in the continuity. That's what canon is."


I don't understand why you think that statement is nonsense. We didn't need to see Bonnie in the pilot. Nor did we need to see the process of K.I.T.T. being built. And regarding the Bob Foster comment; when Glen wrote the pilot, I think we can all agree that the line about Michael looking like a young Wilton was just that. In 'Goliath', Roberts Foster and Gilmer changed that meaning with the creation of Garthe - they "overruled" Glen's original meaning to serve the story that they were telling. In Glen's pilot script, Wilson refers to the Knight 2000 as a "prototype", which at that point he was; then Steven E. de Souza's script introduces K.A.R.R., and we have a similar example. In 'Knightmares', the newspaper headline that April flashes up on her computer reads "Officer Michael Long Was Declared Legally Dead Today When His Car Was Found" - that does away with the idea that K.I.T.T. was installed in his Trans Am, and sits better with the K.A.R.R. history. It's all canon, even at the expense of the writer's original meaning or intention.

Victor Kros wrote:- If Foster wanted to include Bonnie as being around when KITT or KARR was created he would have made sure to include a line of dialogue or scene that stated she was after the pilot - this did not happen nor did she recognize KARR when he was first established. The reference in Knight of the Drones is obscure to say the least but Knight Rider was full of obscure answers when it came to backstory.


"Nor did she recognize KARR when he was first established"? Really? She happily shares information about K.A.R.R.'s programming. So, by the time we get to the scene in Devon's office, she's familiar with the backstory. Why would Devon brief her when he was going to have to explain to Michael himself anyway? K.A.R.R. may have been "before her time", but I feel that Bonnie knew all about it. So again, we're arguing semantics.

I will say that I think the idea of Devon recruiting Bonnie for her role after the pilot story happened doesn't make much sense. Knight Industries has plenty of people working on the car in the pilot episode, who must already be familiar with the car's systems and circuitry. It makes so much more sense to me that Devon recruited from that pool of personnel, rather than having to train someone later on.

Michael Pajaro wrote:Think of the character of Michael Knight. Larson had a vision for the character. He created him. Then other writers added to it. Hasselhoff put his spin on the character. Directors framed how the character would interact with his world. A writer, a director, and an actor all have different interpretations of the character and collectively they create the final entity. Any single individual can't change the character.


I totally agree. We started with a Lone Ranger Michael Knight, and we finished with a James Bond Michael Knight. That's where we still are, and I hope Larson brings it back to the former in his screenplay. Here is a quote from Glen in a 1982 TV Guide interview* that sums up part of his original vision: "I believe David [Hasselhoff] will come across like David Janssen in The Fugitive, an underdog running barefoot through the world, while looking over his shoulder for danger." I love the idea of that interpretation (I'm also a big fan of the David Janssen version of The Fugitive). Is that necessarily how Michael Knight turned out, even in "Larson's 13"? That's debatable.

*The Prime Time of David Hasselhoff, TV Guide (Canada), December 11, 1982

Michael Pajaro wrote:Having said that, I can't think of a single thing that Larson has said that goes against my understanding of Knight Rider canon. But if he were to say "Michael Knight was an Eagle Scout, that's what I had in mind when I created him" I still would not accept that as canon. I can't say Michael Knight WASN'T an Eagle Scout, but if it isn't backed up on screen I won't accept it. Again, I think it would be great insight to the character, just not as an absolute fact.


Me neither, and I certainly never said he did. One aspect I wish they had explored more was Michael's involvement in Vietnam, which was touched on superficially in the pilot. There were a lot of story opportunities there, and I wish that that part of his backstory was explored, as it was in Magnum and Airwolf and other shows of the time. Perhaps it didn't fit with the tone of the show. Still, I'm more than happy with what we got. :D

I'll leave it there.

User avatar
Victor Kros
FLAG Operative
Posts: 1600
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 7:10 am
antispam: No
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 1982
Location: Knight Manor

Re: A few questions that have bugging me.

Postby Victor Kros » Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:09 am

"Unless you view Knight Rider as the pilot only, Glen's perspective doesn't really make much difference (plus, that quote he made to the Legacy authors sounds like he's talking with his producer hat on; "We realized" as opposed to "Devon realized" they needed a support team)."

- That is what you said - Glen's perspective doesn't really make much difference outside the pilot. I replied otherwise. Secondly, we have conflicting views on what "canon" means. As Michael Pajaro pointed out - if it didn't happen on screen, it didn't happen - THAT to me is canon - what is seen on screen is canon or what the producer/creator declares canon is canon. Regardless of how Bonnie's story was revised later in the series the fact is she was not there in the pilot and did not appear until Deadly Manuevers - this we both agree on.

That is what I said, and I stand by it in the context of my argument (which I went on to explain in the rest of that paragraph). I have also said many other things relating to Glen and the pilot in this thread, and I have also already explained why the things said in Glen's quote in Legacy don't make much difference when it comes to the mythology that followed. Yes, he created the characters. Yes, he thought up the show. Yes, he gave notes on the following 12 episodes. But his creation is out of his hands once Bob Foster, Tom Greene, Rob Gilmer, William Schmidt, Richard Okie, Burton Armus, Bruce Lansbury, Stephen Downing, David Braff, Janis Hendler, Gregory S. Dinallo, Calvin Clements Jr et al all contribute to it. From behind his typewriter, Glen made the decision that a mechanic wasn't needed in his pilot script. He was right. A support team in the pilot episode would have been horrible. But nowhere does he say that Bonnie categorically was not one of those overalls at the Knight Estate, or at the airport. He talks about a casting decision that was necessary when the show went to series.

've already agreed that "canon" changes from one person in charge of the series to the next. No further explaination necessary. If he didn't want a technition for KITT from the get go - why would she be in the background somewhere? She wasn't even thought of - clearly he's explained that - she DID NOT exist in his world until episode 02.

Regarding "canon". I do disagree with you. It's not just what you see on screen. It's what you hear on screen. So, it's canon that April once worked in a travel agency. It's canon that Devon once went undercover in occupied France as Valentino the Knifethrower. It's canon that Michael had a record company interested in a demo tape he made. The Ken Franklyn story is canon. SID is canon. 'Voo Doo Knight' is canon. If it's not there in the episodes, unfortunately I don't consider "what the producer/creator declares" as canon. Mike's Eagle Scout example is a good one. So, once again, all Glen is saying in that quote is that the character wasn't needed in that story, not that the character wasn't there among the technicians building K.I.T.T.

- You have your beliefs and I have mine, clearly we will not agree. You can't say canon is this and canon is that and also say that Knight Rider made mistakes in continuity, that becomes revisionist history.

Victor Kros wrote:Glen is all about story - to say he was talking strictly as a producer, is kind of insulting. His passion has always been storytelling in everything he does. I would say it's more fair to say his response was addressing both being a producer and speaking from a story point of view. I agree that we see everything from Michael's perspective but as Glen stated there was no need for Bonnie in the pilot - only the series. Robert Foster tried to work within Glen's initial concept while expanding on it - it does not "overrule" what he started.


It's not "insulting" at all, it's just acknowledging the business. Glen is a writer and a producer. He has to think like both. All the passion of the storyteller is poured into that script, but when it's finished it has to be read and considered with a producer's eyes. You say you agree that "we see everything from Michael's perspective but" (emphasis mine). You then proceed to argue the same point I've been making through the earlier posts - I have said over and over already that Bonnie was not needed in that story.

- That is your opinion but look at your tone - you use words like "overrule", "doesn't matter" - I don't see you addressing my point about George Lucas and Star Wars which was a valid rebuttal to your original opinion. In my opinion what you said was insulting - it's insulting to say to someone who created something, you did it wrong and I am going to make it right thereby replacing what you started with - rather than expanding on it. That's exactly what Gary Scott Thompson did to Glen and David Andron and that's a large reason of why the "new mythology" fell apart.

Victor Kros wrote:I think you misunderstand the use of "revisionist history" in my example - I think you may confuse it with "expansion". Robert Foster expanded on what Glen started - but some of the other writers in the series used "revisionist history" especially with K.A.R.R. I don't believe Garthe was revisionist history because it was never established Wilton had a son until "Goliath" - which was expanding the mythology not contridicting it. Revisionist history is stating something happened one way then later down the road changing that established history to state it happened another way. Knight Rider 08 used revisionist history by saying a made up character Charles Graiman created KITT - yet he's never mentioned anywhere in the original series. Not just created KITT but its also implied he created the Knight 2000 - Paul Campbell has proven Graiman was not involved with the original KARR - so he couldn't have been around when KARR (82) was created and with that the Knight 2000. The concept operates on a benefit of a doubt and yet there's nothing solid to build from - you just "go with it". Established Knight Rider history states he never existed and now in the "continuation" they rewrote the original mythology to say he did.


Please don't condescend to me about the meanings of "revisionist history" or "expansion". Both terms are quite self explanatory. And for the record, "Revisionist History" doesn't have to mean a complete retcon, like the Charles Graiman case; it can include anything where a previous meaning has been "revised", or subtly altered. I gave some examples earlier, and explained why these are "revisionist". Some "expansion" is also "revisionist". Fancy that!

- I am not condescending you but you are me in your initial post by dictating why your belief in what "canon" means is correct and my perspective is wrong. I said words like, "I believe, I think, in my view" - you on the other hand declare your point of what is canon as some sort of "fact" and furthermore attempt to explain to me in no uncertain terms why your view is right and continue to do so with Bonnie. This is a healthy discussion and clearly you and I have not and will continue not to see eye to eye on certain aspects of the series. I think your viewpoint of what is "canon" is flawed because you in my view continue to confuse what is "expansion" from what is "established history". Let's keep it respectful here Paul - this is not an argument it's a discussion - there is no point to be "won" either way.

Victor Kros wrote:This statement here in my opinion is nonsense

"Bonnie was not in the pilot. I don't dispute that. But to say that "she couldn't have been around when KITT was built or they would have shown her" is nonsense. We didn't see the Knight 2000 being built - we didn't need to. We see everything from Michael's point of view - the technicians filtering in and out of the warehouse, and it piques Michael's - and our - interest. Again, in that quote, Glen uses "We" to refer to the writers and the producers, not the characters or "Knight Industries"; yes, it's centred on story, but the story of the pilot episode. We're talking about canon here, and that extends beyond the script Glen wrote. If Bob Foster or any other writer slipped a reference or backstory in there, it overrules Glen because it's in the continuity. That's what canon is."


I don't understand why you think that statement is nonsense. We didn't need to see Bonnie in the pilot. Nor did we need to see the process of K.I.T.T. being built. And regarding the Bob Foster comment; when Glen wrote the pilot, I think we can all agree that the line about Michael looking like a young Wilton was just that. In 'Goliath', Roberts Foster and Gilmer changed that meaning with the creation of Garthe - they "overruled" Glen's original meaning to serve the story that they were telling. In Glen's pilot script, Wilson refers to the Knight 2000 as a "prototype", which at that point he was; then Steven E. de Souza's script introduces K.A.R.R., and we have a similar example. In 'Knightmares', the newspaper headline that April flashes up on her computer reads "Officer Michael Long Was Declared Legally Dead Today When His Car Was Found" - that does away with the idea that K.I.T.T. was installed in his Trans Am, and sits better with the K.A.R.R. history. It's all canon, even at the expense of the writer's original meaning or intention.

- I've already explained this, I won't go round and round about it.

Victor Kros wrote:- If Foster wanted to include Bonnie as being around when KITT or KARR was created he would have made sure to include a line of dialogue or scene that stated she was after the pilot - this did not happen nor did she recognize KARR when he was first established. The reference in Knight of the Drones is obscure to say the least but Knight Rider was full of obscure answers when it came to backstory.


"Nor did she recognize KARR when he was first established"? Really? She happily shares information about K.A.R.R.'s programming. So, by the time we get to the scene in Devon's office, she's familiar with the backstory. Why would Devon brief her when he was going to have to explain to Michael himself anyway? K.A.R.R. may have been "before her time", but I feel that Bonnie knew all about it. So again, we're arguing semantics.

I will say that I think the idea of Devon recruiting Bonnie for her role after the pilot story happened doesn't make much sense. Knight Industries has plenty of people working on the car in the pilot episode, who must already be familiar with the car's systems and circuitry. It makes so much more sense to me that Devon recruited from that pool of personnel, rather than having to train someone later on.

- This is your opinion yet you continue to neglect the point I brought up about a person who is in charge having the right to dictate what is canon/shown or otherwise heard on screen during the time they have to control the progression of the series mythology -the fact is, if Robert Foster had intended to have Bonnie be known as being around during Knight of the Phoenix, he would have WRITTEN it as such or had it written as such to establish on screen as such as he took the time to expand so many other aspects of the original concept Glen created before he left -- how do you not "get" that?

You just hit the nail on the head when you said "Bonnie knew all about it" - but you didn't say she "experienced" it for herself. Just because she may have cruised some research files about past projects, does not mean she was there when they happened and clearly she was not there when Michael Long was recovering nor given KITT in Wilton's garage. Foster did not "overrule" Glen's original structure put in place, [b]he expanded upon[/bi] - he used and explored characters from the pilot - its not like he all of a suddent said - and Tanya Walker didn't actually die, she survived and here's why. Michael Knight had a twin brother and there's why - he didn't go the cheesy soap opera route in the sense of making things up that made no sense when compared to the original groundwork Glen started.


When you use a term like "overrule" with respects to story mythology, you're rewriting something someone else has already established - and in that sense changing what was originally there - that becomes revisionist history to say again - that person's vision was wrong and I'm going re-write it to make it right. For example, when someone creates a new spin on the Batman or Superman mythology - they are saying "the creators" and their established mythology was wrong and this is why. It's a great reason why many "remakes" fail - because someone says no, this isn't right - I'm going to make it better and here's how I'm doing it. Or they can choose to expand on what has been established and add on to it - such as what Smallville has done as the propery has changed hands from one producer to the next. Then it is not revisionist history, it is expanding the original mythology into a newer contemporary direction that still aknowledges what can before it and does not state for example - Bruce Wayne's parents never died, it was all in his head. What Tim Burton did with Batman directly controdicted the original mythology of what Bob Kane, Batman's creator established as canon - the Joker did not shoot Bruce's parents but in Tim Burton's world, he did. In Nolan's world The Joker never fell into a vat of acid - but in the comics he did, in Tim Buton's Batman he did.

Nolan openly admits he created a brand new take on the Batman mythology - he's not trying to continue where Tim Burton left off. Foster was trying to continue where Glen left off - Andron was trying to continue where Foster left off but GST decided to create his own "spin" on what a continuation should be in his world of Knight Rider and pass off his changes as a "continuation" of the original series - which is clearly not an expansion of the original mythology of Knight Rider but a revised one and it DID NOT FIT. - revision = revisionist history

In story there are two things - the plaausible impossibility (flying Delorean that can go back through time) and the impossible probability - which is too many cliche's and coincidences. You want an audience to believe a probably impossiblity - as if for example I wrote a book that states Garthe Knight survived his plummet in Goliath Returns and Wilton had a brother he neglected because his sibling conflicted with his views of right and wrong. If I put out a novel that stated this, it's revisionist history - unless Glen or Foster state what I want to do is acceptable in their mythology or I'm given control of the mythology they started. You play with the idea, it's possible Garthe could have survived rather than say - well he got away unscathed, found out another man was a his father, and also had a relationship with Bonnie behind Michael's back - then it becomes improbable or coincidental - I'd clearly be making things up in an attempt to revise what was already established - certain aspects you can't change because they're already established as fact or canon by what was shown on screen.


Michael Pajaro wrote:Think of the character of Michael Knight. Larson had a vision for the character. He created him. Then other writers added to it. Hasselhoff put his spin on the character. Directors framed how the character would interact with his world. A writer, a director, and an actor all have different interpretations of the character and collectively they create the final entity. Any single individual can't change the character.


I totally agree. We started with a Lone Ranger Michael Knight, and we finished with a James Bond Michael Knight. That's where we still are, and I hope Larson brings it back to the former in his screenplay. Here is a quote from Glen in a 1982 TV Guide interview* that sums up part of his original vision: "I believe David [Hasselhoff] will come across like David Janssen in The Fugitive, an underdog running barefoot through the world, while looking over his shoulder for danger." I love the idea of that interpretation (I'm also a big fan of the David Janssen version of The Fugitive). Is that necessarily how Michael Knight turned out, even in "Larson's 13"? That's debatable.

*The Prime Time of David Hasselhoff, TV Guide (Canada), December 11, 1982

Michael Pajaro wrote:Having said that, I can't think of a single thing that Larson has said that goes against my understanding of Knight Rider canon. But if he were to say "Michael Knight was an Eagle Scout, that's what I had in mind when I created him" I still would not accept that as canon. I can't say Michael Knight WASN'T an Eagle Scout, but if it isn't backed up on screen I won't accept it. Again, I think it would be great insight to the character, just not as an absolute fact.


Me neither, and I certainly never said he did. One aspect I wish they had explored more was Michael's involvement in Vietnam, which was touched on superficially in the pilot. There were a lot of story opportunities there, and I wish that that part of his backstory was explored, as it was in Magnum and Airwolf and other shows of the time. Perhaps it didn't fit with the tone of the show. Still, I'm more than happy with what we got. :D

I'll leave it there

- You and I can agree to disagree, I'll leave it there - I am more inclined to agree with Michael Pajaro's perspective for the most part than I am yours on this subject.

=VK=
:dash:

User avatar
Victor Kros
FLAG Operative
Posts: 1600
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 7:10 am
antispam: No
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 1982
Location: Knight Manor

Re: A few questions that have bugging me.

Postby Victor Kros » Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:37 am

Revision -

In story development there are two concepts - the "plausible impossibility" (flying Delorean that can go back through time) and the "impossible probability" - which is too many cliche's and coincidences. You want an audience to believe a probable impossiblity - as if for example I wrote a book that states Garthe Knight survived his plummet in Goliath Returns and Wilton had a brother he neglected because his sibling conflicted with his views of right and wrong - that is plausible, unlikely but plausible. If I put out a novel that stated this however, it's revisionist history - unless Glen or Foster state what I want to do to expand on their mythology of Knght Rider is acceptable or I'm given control of the mythology they started and adhere to the rules/sequences they showed on screen. You play with the idea, it's possible Garthe could have survived rather than say - well he got away unscathed, found out another man was a his father, and also had a relationship with Bonnie behind Michael's back and Stevie faked her death so that she and Michael would secretly raise a child who became Mike Traceur in secret and eventually gave him over to Charles to handle - then it becomes improbable or too coincidental - I'd clearly be making things up in an attempt to revise what was already established to make my vision fit where it doesn't - certain aspects you can't change because they're already established as fact or canon by what was shown on screen.

Maybe I don't have the established script writing background or experience in the industry - but I've studied aspect of storytelling intimately and extensively - I understand how storytelling works and the terminologies and theories behind what is good storytelling and character development vs. what makes a horrible story or unbelieveable character people won't believe in or accept is possible. It's my job as a creator as well as other creators to make you believe what is possible - and if I want to claim to be a "continuation" of something, you then inherit the responsibility of making newer ideas fit in what has already been established, not the other way around. George Lucas changed the original films o fit in with his modern day "prequels", which was clearly revisionist history. He changed the rules and events - that is the prime example of flawed storytelling - yet in his case he created Star Wars to begin and he is changing his established mythology to say to us "what we believe based on the original trilogy is wrong" to which many people reject what he declares as his official canon which clearly evolved beyond what his original intentions were and rewrote history and what we consider "our" perception of canon.

=VK=
:dash:

User avatar
Knight Rider Archive
FLAG Assistant
Posts: 517
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2002 1:01 am
What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Location: London, England
Contact:

Re: A few questions that have bugging me.

Postby Knight Rider Archive » Wed Apr 13, 2011 12:05 pm

Victor Kros wrote:- That is your opinion but look at your tone - you use words like "overrule", "doesn't matter" - I don't see you addressing my point about George Lucas and Star Wars which was a valid rebuttal to your original opinion. In my opinion what you said was insulting - it's insulting to say to someone who created something, you did it wrong and I am going to make it right thereby replacing what you started with - rather than expanding on it. That's exactly what Gary Scott Thompson did to Glen and David Andron and that's a large reason of why the "new mythology" fell apart.


Look, Nick, I have said countless times throughout this thread THAT I THINK GLEN DID IT RIGHT. I am not going to keep going over and over the same old ground, which you constantly ignore. I have been a fan of the show, and Glen's pilot, since it first aired. I have been a loyal fan and contributor to this community for the last 15 years. I have nothing to prove, no points to win. I love the show, and it's brought me some good friends.

What concerns me is that you continue to quote me out of context - claiming that I am insulting Glen or saying he did this or that wrong. Come on!! That makes absolutely no sense to me at all, and frankly it's a little weird. Why would I devote years of my life building a website, researching, collecting, helping other fans, and rewatching a TV show that I thought was "all wrong"? I know the episodes backwards, and I don't want to go back and change anything. I don't think I could do it better. The only conclusion I can come to is that you have some kind of personal issue with me; that's fine if that's the case, people can take me or leave me.

And I haven't claimed to be "right" - I have consistently said we are talking about grey areas, and refused to argue semantics.

Victor Kros wrote:- I am not condescending you but you are me in your initial post by dictating why your belief in what "canon" means is correct and my perspective is wrong. I said words like, "I believe, I think, in my view" - you on the other hand declare your point of what is canon as some sort of "fact" and furthermore attempt to explain to me in no uncertain terms why your view is right and continue to do so with Bonnie. This is a healthy discussion and clearly you and I have not and will continue not to see eye to eye on certain aspects of the series. I think your viewpoint of what is "canon" is flawed because you in my view continue to confuse what is "expansion" from what is "established history". Let's keep it respectful here Paul - this is not an argument it's a discussion - there is no point to be "won" either way.


Yes, let's keep it respectful here Nick. I am quite capable of determining "expansion" and "revisionist history", I assure you.

I really don't have any inclination to continue with this anymore. It's tiresome. It's boring. I have a website to work on.


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests