knight rider online

Some might be interested to read our interview with Tom D.

http://www.tombsofkobol.com/bsg/DeSanto-int01.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think at last count he'd noticed over 30 similarities between the new show and his proposed show.

Obviously Moore and Eick had access to that material because it is after all, the property of Universal.

As for the Father/Creator's movie, as a 30-year fan, I hope it comes to pass, there's been a lot of felgercarb and false hope coming from that direction in the last few years.

I think the point I was trying to make was did the new series creators have access to the material when they did their work ups, and so do we have proof of plagerism or as I said was it just convergant evolution, insects and birds both have wings but that come at them from diffrent angels for the same result. Any number of fan stories follow similar line, all because they come from the BSG:TOS source material.

There was no missundertanding on thee previous point of yours. I'm just a bit wary of taking things a face value. No biggy no foul.

rwmu wrote:I think the point I was trying to make was did the new series creators have access to the material when they did their work ups, and so do we have proof of plagerism or as I said was it just convergant evolution, insects and birds both have wings but that come at them from diffrent angels for the same result. Any number of fan stories follow similar line, all because they come from the BSG:TOS source material.

There was no missundertanding on thee previous point of yours. I'm just a bit wary of taking things a face value. No biggy no foul.

- In the future you should not tell someone who values their credibility that you stood up for them and got egg on your face because they were wrong. I don't believe the situation between Moore/Eick and Singer/DeSanto is "convergent evolution", especially since Ronald Moore was bold enough to create his Sci-Fi Manifesto in which he essentially criticizes the concepts of "cheesy escapism" that both Battlestar Galactica and Star Trek relied upon.

http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Natur ... ce_fiction" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Moore believed in a more realistic, gritty, and dark exploration of the Sci-Fi genre and clearly his approach to BSG was vastly different than what came before it. Some say it's better, some say it's boring or convoluted and repetative. In either sense, there are comparisons that go beyond coincidental ideas.

As Bishop37 pointed out there is more than enough evidence to show it's more than coincidental that both visions of the future of BSG were approached in similar fashion, especially with story direction - but this is my opinion based on information the general public doesn't have access to so I would expect skeptisism.

I'm not saying what I believe is a undisputable fact but it is what I believe in based on the evidence I have found from multiple sources that go beyond the internet.

As for taking things at face value, that's entirely up to you.

=VK=

Don't worry I won't make the mistake of standing up for you again Victor in another thread, heck try and be nice get beaten down.

As for this thread I see no proof of plagerism, if there had of been there would have been law suits all over the place however since in your in your earlier posts you claimed they did steal the ideas, can we have the proof to back it up please, or as your latter posts suggests is it just a theory on your part with no real basis in fact?

I think Galactica has a pretty defind structure and you maybe be able to add a bit of realism but its going to end up on similar paths no matter which way its writtten. Yes the stories from both parties are similar but they grow from the same idea so we couldn't expect anything less. I susupect any new BSG movie would be similar.

rwmu wrote:Don't worry I won't make the mistake of standing up for you again Victor in another thread, heck try and be nice get beaten down.

As for this thread I see no proof of plagerism, if there had of been there would have been law suits all over the place however since in your in your earlier posts you claimed they did steal the ideas, can we have the proof to back it up please, or as your latter posts suggests is it just a theory on your part with no real basis in fact?

I think Galactica has a pretty defind structure and you maybe be able to add a bit of realism but its going to end up on similar paths no matter which way its writtten. Yes the stories from both parties are similar but they grow from the same idea so we couldn't expect anything less. I susupect any new BSG movie would be similar.

- I think you are missing the point - if you're going to stand up for someone and defend them, you don't find said person and tell them they embarassed you because you believe they were wrong. Whether you choose to defend me in another forum or not is not the issue (I appreciate the support that is given from anyone), the issue is accusing me of being wrong in a public manner.

I admit I can be wrong on occassion, I'm not infalible but I greatly value my overall credibility so I don't take kindly to people making accusations that I'm wrong in some manner without proper explaination.

Regardless of that comment - as per the others, I've already stated what I needed to say in regards to Eick, Moore, and DeSanto - you can believe what you wish. As for a pretty "defined structure" behind Moore's vision, I think this forum here is a good place to explore how Moore's Manifesto was in itself controdictary by the series finale.

I stress they are people's opinions but they do bring up some good points about where Moore claimed BSG was supposed to start and where it ended up being.

http://manifestomultilinko.blogspot.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Don't get me wrong however, I think Moore's approach was successful and the ratings and popularity of his vision are proof of that. On the same hand I also believe he just wrote himself into a corner and ran out of gas in the creative think tank. Perhaps this is why he's chosen to go down the "prequel" road with Caprica.

The "idea" for Battlestar Galactica originated with Glen, of course his movie would follow the same idea that both DeSanto and Moore drew inspiration from.

Given this is a Knight Rider Forum and not a BSG forum, might not be the best idea to continue debating/exploring this subject here any more than is necessary.

=VK=

Bishop37 wrote:Some might be interested to read our interview with Tom D.

http://www.tombsofkobol.com/bsg/DeSanto-int01.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think at last count he'd noticed over 30 similarities between the new show and his proposed show.

Obviously Moore and Eick had access to that material because it is after all, the property of Universal.

As for the Father/Creator's movie, as a 30-year fan, I hope it comes to pass, there's been a lot of felgercarb and false hope coming from that direction in the last few years.

- Great interview Bishop, thanks for posting the link. It was a great read and I think we can both agree that Tom DeSanto is a true fan of not just movies and comics but he also "gets it" where others in the industry do not.

=VK=

This is the Thread I was refering too

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14030&start=25" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and you still provide no proof of plagerism just more web theory theory relating to the aborted and actual new series BSG.

Take a chill pill you seem to take yourself way to seriously, they are only shows. As for credability its definately a matter of action rather than self opinion. You do seem somewhat agressive to anybody who A) Has a diffrent opinion to you B) Dares to suggest you might be wrong.

I've seen some of the stuff you've done and its seems very good, and i'm sure it will be only a few years before you've made a real name for yourself and your work.

rwmu wrote:This is the Thread I was refering too

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14030&start=25" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and you still provide no proof of plagerism just more web theory theory relating to the aborted and actual new series BSG.

Take a chill pill you seem to take yourself way to seriously, they are only shows. As for credability its definately a matter of action rather than self opinion. You do seem somewhat agressive to anybody who A) Has a diffrent opinion to you B) Dares to suggest you might be wrong.

I've seen some of the stuff you've done and its seems very good, and i'm sure it will be only a few years before you've made a real name for yourself and your work.

- You are citing a topic that was expressly stated from the start was a OPEN DISCUSSION with no right or wrong answers so honestly I don't know what to tell you if you took what I said as some definative truth as I stated it was my opinion and I wanted to see what others thought about the recognition between Knight Rider and Dr. Who.

If I believed I was right and everyone else is wrong, why would I bother to open the topic up for discussion? I made the topic to get different viewpoints other than my own, that was the purpose and that purpose was explored by those who favor Dr. Who , those who do not, or those who haven't heard of it.

You don't need to tell me to "take a chill pill", you need to pay attention to what is written, not what you assume.

I'm aggressive towards people who accuse me of being wrong without the means to back up their accusations, something you continue to do. I honestly don't care if people have a different opinion of me - in fact there are people who can't stand me and there are people who seek to discredit or find dirt on me despite the fact that the majority of what I do is both selfless and for the fans more than myself. I have been honest about who I am, what my position is within the fandom, and what my limitations are.

As you stated action rather than self option. I have taken more than enough action to prove what I say is true (when I say it is a fact - usually backed up by examples) while seperating what is fact from what is speculation or opinion.

Based on what I have seen and heard, I will continue to believe that Moore and Eick stole ideas from Singer and DeSanto - Nothing you're going to say is going to change that view and vice versa. That topic is a stalemate where we can agree to disagree.

I can respect a difference of opinion and people are free to disagree with me. If they think less of me or seek to challenge my crediblity, I prefer they do so in a manner that is not publicized. The fact people have this inherent urge to confront me in a public forum is bad form and I try to be civil but even I have limits.

It's not a question of differences of opinion, it's a matter of respect.

As far as Knight Rider is concerned, I've already made a name for myself and people have seen my work. As far as the world outside of Knight Rider circles that is a whole other matter entirely.

I would suggest the next time you seek to confront me on something I've said or done, you have the respect to do so in a PM.

Thanks.

=VK=

How is confronting you by PM more respectful than be honest and open. I have nothing to hide.

You made a supposition in the other thread, after research I found that supposition to be wrong on many counts. Why is that a problem for you, you claim to be able to take it if your wrong.

Your the one claiming plagerism I'm asking for your proof, not fan theory, not blogs, proof. You said you had it lets see it.

"They had their run and a successful one it was. Clearly they didn't hurt the property and kept it strong but Battlestar Galactica does not begin and end with them. Not to mention that most of their ideas were stolen from another friend of Glen, Tom DeSanto...a man who has created two of the top grossing movie franchises of our time - X-Men and Transformers."

"My sources come from Tom DeSanto himself who has all the concept art and reference material that was generated for the updated series and its direction prior to Moore and Eick's involvment - designs that mirror what Moore and Eick claimed to have created themselves."

I don't see why your getting so upset by this, surely its a valid point to debate and resonable to ask for the evidence.

Alright you forced my hand on this, I have attemped to be understanding but you're choosing to continue to be confrontational. I apologize if this sounds condecending but trying to explain it you in simple terms apparently isn't going to work.

"How is confronting you by PM more respectful than be honest and open. I have nothing to hide."

- It's called respect. It has nothing to do with having things to hide. It's called having the character to take your disputes outside of the public spotlight but that apparently is what you've been after. You've been instigating a response from me in the other Dr. Who thread which I chose to ignore because it wasn't about proving who was right or wrong - you assumed as much and when you felt "betrayed" you tried to place the blame on me for your misunderstandings.

"You made a supposition in the other thread, after research I found that supposition to be wrong on many counts. Why is that a problem for you, you claim to be able to take it if your wrong."

- Let's look at that word "supposition" which means what? a hypothesis or the act of supposing.

What is a question? a hypothesis - a theory on what could or could not be proven true. Not something declared as fact. I declared the thread was an open discussion with no right or wrong answers. You apparently continue to neglect to recognize that.

I did not state Knight Rider was more recognized than Dr. Who, I said in my personal belief and experience I have not seen it proven that Dr. Who is more recognized. I also stated it was dependent on region. I'm not getting back into this who discussion again at this point. It was not about saying "I am right" and everyone else is wrong - it was about getting other people's POV on the subject - you need to understand what "open discussion" means.

"Your the one claiming plagerism I'm asking for your proof, not fan theory, not blogs, proof. You said you had it lets see it."

- I posted my beliefs and my examples of why I believe them. With all due respect I have nothing to prove because I'm not declaring what I feel is how everyone else should feel. You are trying to turn open discussions into debates where someone has to be right and someone has to be wrong.

With all due respect, I'm not going to ask Tom to get on a board just to playcate your need for "proof" from someone other than myself who has a valid understanding and had personal involvement with the situation. You got online accounts/examples of what happend, you make your own conclusions.

Whether you feel you are right or wrong is of no consequence to me. When you accuse me of being wrong in the context of credibility especially in public - when you accuse me of saying things that I did not - then I care.

"They had their run and a successful one it was. Clearly they didn't hurt the property and kept it strong but Battlestar Galactica does not begin and end with them. Not to mention that most of their ideas were stolen from another friend of Glen, Tom DeSanto...a man who has created two of the top grossing movie franchises of our time - X-Men and Transformers."

- Where in my original statement does it say "I know for a fact" - or "everyone knows" or "we all know"?

"My sources come from Tom DeSanto himself who has all the concept art and reference material that was generated for the updated series and its direction prior to Moore and Eick's involvment - designs that mirror what Moore and Eick claimed to have created themselves."

- This is a fact. Whether they had access to the material after the fact it was created is not the issue is it? If they referenced what DeSanto/Singer created PRIOR to their involvement it is a fair statement to say they borrowed ideas that they did not originate themselves. You claim "convergent thought" but I am not as easily convinced.

You don't see me jumping on Bishop for bringing up his point that Universal owned the art do you?

"I don't see why your getting so upset by this, surely its a valid point to debate and resonable to ask for the evidence."

- I am getting upset because it is not a debate and you are turning it into one. You're twisting my words and trying to confront me without having a understanding of what they mean and lacking the respect to ask me in private rather than continue to hold a public spectacle over it. This isn't a debate, nothing has to be proven other than the direction of the forthcoming motion pictures.

It's about respect and you continue to breach it.

I asked you to agree to disagree on this subject but you choose to neglect my requests to do so or send me a PM over this matter which forces me into defensive position where I honestly don't want to be in a public light.

You believe what you believe and I do the same.

I think the thread is veering off topic over this difference of opinion and I don't want to see it locked down for others because we can't reach a compromise.

Therefore I'm going to insist that if you wish to explore this matter further, you do so in private.

Thanks.

=VK=

Well, I think it’s fair to say that for the time being, any movie based on the original version of BSG would be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to cash in on the success that Ron Moore has generated for the franchise over the last six years, and if fans of the original are to be served faithfully, it would be unfair to produce it in the immediate aftermath of the recent series.

At this point in time, I honestly believe that the best route for a BSG movie would be for it to embrace the human aspect of the recent series, warts and all. After all, no hero is perfect, and no villain entirely evil. The shades of grey within each of us is what makes the human race so interesting to explore, and whilst I’m all for aliens in most Sci Fi movies, in the case of BSG, it’s just so much more interesting when it’s concentrating on people like us, and how we would deal with everything we know and love being destroyed by our own petty and self indulgent behaviour.

Matt

I will now leave off from this since Matthew asked so nicely.

@&^# off with Battlestar!

Not a fan of Battlestar then?

Not really;)