The General Knight Rider thread.

[Owain Taggart]

I think while a ship's computer is in range then it's computing power can be used to amplify computing power of various devices, although I don't think that is something that is ever specifically stated, but there's been plenty of times where things like tricorders have been used without a ship nearby. As for communicators, there must have been a time when crewmembers used them to communicate with each other without a ship nearby but I can't think of a specific episode at the moment.

My point was that I don't think the commbadge is really much of a computing device on its own. I think It's more of a relay device. At least that's been my interpretation of things based on their behavior. Tricorders on the other hand would definitely have onboard computing, especially when you consider the size of the original tricorders from the original series and their onboard database. And if there are instances of commbadges working without a ship nearby, it's possible they use a tricorder's power similar to a wifi hotspot.

 

[theenglish]

My point was that I don't think the commbadge is really much of a computing device on its own. I think It's more of a relay device. At least that's been my interpretation of things based on their behavior. Tricorders on the other hand would definitely have onboard computing, especially when you consider the size of the original tricorders from the original series and their onboard database.

I believe you are correct on that. It is just a communication device on its own. I remember reading somewhere that it has a specific range but that range can be extended if in contact with a starship.

 

[Candleicious Ghost]

Interestingly this thread unlocked a memory. I remember in the 80s around 1983 when I was in high school the show was on every Friday 730pm and popular, there was a line of toys and items that were related to the show and one of them was a replica of the watch Michael wears. I got one and the dial on the front was a tuning dial as it was actually an AM radio with a headphone socket on the side. I bought one and it lasted a couple of years before playing up.

I'm pretty sure the watch on the show is the same watch minus the long cord and headphones. You can see the tuning dial in closeups

 

[Owain Taggart]

I believe you are correct on that. It is just a communication device on its own. I remember reading somewhere that it has a specific range but that range can be extended if in contact with a starship.

And nevermind the fact that I'm postulating based on our current technology levels, which in theory is fine, but it is sci-fi, and they'd likely find a way to make it happen in different ways. Maybe the tricorder has a way to extend a signal just by having it at a person's side, which I feel is plausible enough.

 

[Candleicious Ghost]

Here's another fun TV car

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Candleicious Ghost]

Found another one and this was an actual vehicle

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[SantaTom]

Knight Rider was one of my favorite shows growing up, long before I even found Trek. And it remains so today. As goofy as they are, I love 80's shows like Knight Rider, A-Team, etc.

To me, there were two secrets to Knight Rider's success. The first was David Hasselhoff. He was just so right for the role. He had a charm to him and he could sell it when he was put in ridiculous situations delivering ridiculous dialogue.

But even more than that was that the show didn't take itself too seriously. It knew it was goofy fun and it leaned into that heavily. That, to me, is what is wrong with the reboots. Even the reunion film. They all take themselves too seriously and try to be real sci-fi rather than capturing that 80's goofiness.

 

[Candleicious Ghost]

Knight Rider was one of my favorite shows growing up, long before I even found Trek. And it remains so today. As goofy as they are, I love 80's shows like Knight Rider, A-Team, etc.

To me, there were two secrets to Knight Rider's success. The first was David Hasselhoff. He was just so right for the role. He had a charm to him and he could sell it when he was put in ridiculous situations delivering ridiculous dialogue.

But even more than that was that the show didn't take itself too seriously. It knew it was goofy fun and it leaned into that heavily. That, to me, is what is wrong with the reboots. Even the reunion film. They all take themselves too seriously and try to be real sci-fi rather than capturing that 80's goofiness.

I think you hit the nail on the head. They should have leaned more into the goofiness and fun.

 

[Skipper]

Knight Rider was one of my favorite shows growing up, long before I even found Trek. And it remains so today. As goofy as they are, I love 80's shows like Knight Rider, A-Team, etc.

To me, there were two secrets to Knight Rider's success. The first was David Hasselhoff. He was just so right for the role. He had a charm to him and he could sell it when he was put in ridiculous situations delivering ridiculous dialogue.

But even more than that was that the show didn't take itself too seriously. It knew it was goofy fun and it leaned into that heavily. That, to me, is what is wrong with the reboots. Even the reunion film. They all take themselves too seriously and try to be real sci-fi rather than capturing that 80's goofiness.

Uh, what reunion film? Knight Rider 2000?

 

[Christopher]

That, to me, is what is wrong with the reboots. Even the reunion film. They all take themselves too seriously and try to be real sci-fi rather than capturing that 80's goofiness.

Hunh. If anything, I'd say Team Knight Rider was probably the goofiest of the lot. Or at least the dumbest.

 

[Skipper]

Hunh. If anything, I'd say Team Knight Rider was probably the goofiest of the lot. Or at least the dumbest.

I only watched the episode with KRO because it's usually considered one of the best and, jeez, I thought "If this is the best I don't dare to think about what the others are like!"

 

[Candleicious Ghost]

I only watched the episode with KRO because it's usually considered one of the best and, jeez, I thought "If this is the best I don't dare to think about what the others are like!"

Oh goody I'm glad then I missed nearly the whole series

 

[SantaTom]

Uh, what reunion film? Knight Rider 2000?

Yes. The people making that film had nothing to do with the original series and clearly had no idea what made the original work.

 

[Owain Taggart]

That, to me, is what is wrong with the reboots. Even the reunion film. They all take themselves too seriously and try to be real sci-fi rather than capturing that 80's goofiness.

To me, the strangest trend of the 90-2000's was the trend of taking TV shows and making comedy movies out of them even when those TV shows weren't comedies in any shape or form, like say the Starsky and Hutch movie. So, I'm kind of glad we didn't get a Knight Rider theatrical movie back then.

 

[JD]

Yeah, I never really understood that trend, all something like that would do is piss off the old fans, but at the same time by making fun of the original, they're not exactly going to getting new people to watch it either. So to me that kind of defeats the whole point of doing a reboot or a new version of something like that.

 

[Christopher]

To me, the strangest trend of the 90-2000's was the trend of taking TV shows and making comedy movies out of them even when those TV shows weren't comedies in any shape or form, like say the Starsky and Hutch movie.

The thing is, the mentality of movie executives isn't to make movies that are faithful to their sources, but to find source material that they can turn into movies that fit successful formulas. After all, the vast majority of the audience for any movie remake is going to be people who aren't fans of the original, but are fans of the actors in the movie, or maybe of the director, or just want something to take the kids or a date to. So being true to the source isn't as important as having general audience appeal, and executives assume that means reusing formulas that have succeeded in the past.

In this case, I guess there had been some successful comedy remakes, or maybe just comedy movies in general were big at the time, so the execs figured all the remakes needed to conform to the mold of '90s or '00s comedy movies, even if that was nothing like the tone of the original. In the case of something like Starsky & Hutch, though, I suppose the show had gained a reputation for being kitschy, seen in retrospect as something of a joke, so that's probably why they decided to do it as a comedy (much like how the 1966 Batman sitcom was inspired by audiences' mockery of the re-release of the 1943 serial).

The earliest example I can think of where the movie revival of a TV drama was done as a comedy is Dan Aykroyd's Dragnet from 1987. The weird thing about that was that it wasn't a remake, but a direct sequel to the TV series, complete with Harry Morgan reprising his TV role. So it purported to be in continuity with the show while still parodying it. I always found that strange.

 

[Owain Taggart]

^ The odd thing about those efforts is that the tone can be all over the place, and they mostly seem to have a laugh at the expense of the properly they're making a movie of. I wouldn't necessarily call them remakes or even reboots due to the different tones they evoke that are very different from their originator. Some of them have been successful, I agree , such as the Brady Bunch movie, which somehow managed to be its own thing while still working as a tribute to the original TV show, and maybe that's the key difference, in that it was a sitcom in the first place. And maybe the movie's style meshed well with the original show.

Good point about Dragnet. I'd almost forgotten that one. I think Dan Aykroyd still puts in a good performance, but I think we'd maybe be forgiven to think his character in it isn't taking his job seriously.

Strangely enough, while we no longer have that style of movie, it seems the trend now has come to making slasher movies out of lapsed properties, which is another strange one.

Yeah, I never really understood that trend, all something like that would do is piss off the old fans, but at the same time by making fun of the original, they're not exactly going to getting new people to watch it either. So to me that kind of defeats the whole point of doing a reboot or a new version of something like that.

Yeah, pretty much my feeling. I mean, I understand the reasons for doing it, but it kind of comes across as a cheap shot at the property in question.

 

[Christopher]

Good point about Dragnet. I'd almost forgotten that one. I think Dan Aykroyd still puts in a good performance, but I think we'd maybe be forgiven to think his character in it isn't taking his job seriously.

As I recall, Aykroyd's character was ultra-serious, a parody of Jack Webb's no-nonsense performance. It was Tom Hanks as his partner who was the goofy one.

It's not a bad movie for what it is. It's just weird to do a comedy that's supposedly a direct sequel to a cop show defined by its matter-of-fact seriousness. Although I guess there's precedent; Young Frankenstein can be considered essentially a sequel to at least the first few Universal Frankenstein movies. But that's a bit more indirect, since it differs in the specifics (e.g. calling Dr. Frankenstein Victor instead of Henry) and doesn't bring back any actual cast members, so it's more a spiritual sequel than a literal one. And there are more recent examples of comedies and dramas sharing a reality, like St. Elsewhere and Cheers doing a crossover, and of course Lower Decks existing in the Star Trek universe and crossing over with Strange New Worlds.

And the reverse has happened once or twice, e.g. the drama Lou Grant spinning off from the sitcom The Mary Tyler Moore Show, and the drama Trapper John M.D. indirectly spinning off from the sitcom M*A*S*H (indirectly because it used the character but not the actor -- and for legal reasons, the producers insisted it was spun off from the original movie instead).

 

[Owain Taggart]

Yeah, the sequel thing I agree is quite odd, and the funny thing is, I'd completely forgotten that Tom Hanks was in it as well. But I do remember liking it quite a bit despite the oddity.

 

[Qonundrum]

Found another one and this was an actual vehicle

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Also, let me guess: it's a vehicle made for Universal Studios? (not nitpicking, set and prop reuse is not uncommon...)