"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.
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.