An attempt at fixing this flop of a car:

Cadillac Cimarron
1280px-Cadillac_Cimarron_2_--_07-01-2009.jpg


In OTL, the Cadillac Cimarron was produced from 1982 to 1988 and was a failure due to being seen as a cynical cash-grab and attempt to compete with European marques.

In the ATL, I would have marketed it as a Holden - not wearing the Camira nameplate - but another name, and it would have been available with the 1.8-liter/84hp 4-cylinder and 2.0-liter/95hp 4-cylinder engine, and, sourced from Australia, the 3.3-liter/111hp 6-cylinder Blue engine.

The Cimarron was only sold as a sedan - this would have been sedan, coupe and stationwagon.

It would have been available in SL, SL/X, Executive and GT trim levels, with four colors in the palette - bright hues like red, blue, white and gold, and the GT would be available with the 3.3 6-cylinder engine gaining an increase to 142hp. There would also be the SS version, with the 3.3 6-cylinder engine boosted from 142hp to 178hp; it would only have red or black paint colors.

Holden would, ITTL, be available in the U.S, but selling the Holden sedan mentioned above, the Commodore (adapted for U.S. and Canadian standards) and a sporty coupe based on the Camaro/Firebird's F-body platform.

It would fill a niche between Pontiac and Buick, and there'd be Holden-Pontiac-Buick dealers.
 
Last edited:
Not sure what the last part means in any reality.. Star wars has always had a political overtone, look no further then Reagan.. Or the prequels.. The sequels didn't really have a political bias in reality.. What Trump is palpitine?

Oo they had a black man and an Asian.. That's woke?

Eh.. Your dragging tok much reality into star wars.. Which Btw.. Has the force.. Light sabers and the ability to travel S fSt or slow as it wants at light speed and still get between star systems without a potty break.
Although there are parallels between Emperor Palpatine and dictators such as Hitler and Napoleon Bonaparte, the direct inspiration for the saga’s evil antagonist was actually an American president. According to J.W. Rinzler’s “The Making of Star Wars: Return of the Jedi,” when asked if Emperor Palpatine was a Jedi during a 1981 story conference, Lucas responded, “No, he was a politician. Richard M. Nixon was his name. He subverted the senate and finally took over and became an imperial guy and he was really evil. But he pretended to be a really nice guy.” In a 2005 interview published in the Chicago Tribune, Lucas said he originally conceived “Star Wars” as a reaction to Nixon’s presidency. “It was really about the Vietnam War, and that was the period where Nixon was trying to run for a [second] term, which got me to thinking historically about how do democracies get turned into dictatorships? Because the democracies aren’t overthrown; they’re given away.”

The originals already had a fair political bias (this isn't even getting into Lucas' position on Vietnam), but add a women of authority with purple hair and that's when the series gets too political apparently.
 
The originals already had a fair political bias (this isn't even getting into Lucas' position on Vietnam), but add a women of authority with purple hair and that's when the series gets too political apparently.

The originals weren't 'political'

They were a re-telling of the US War of Independence with the Great Britain as the Empire . . . and King George' portrayed as The Emperor and Vadar being Cornwallis.

It's like Avatar being a re-telling of the US-Indian Wars but only this time the Indians win!
 
An attempt at fixing this flop of a car:

Cadillac Cimarron
1280px-Cadillac_Cimarron_2_--_07-01-2009.jpg


In OTL, the Cadillac Cimarron was produced from 1982 to 1988 and was a failure due to being seen as a cynical cash-grab and attempt to compete with European marques.

In the ATL, I would have marketed it as a Holden - not wearing the Camira nameplate - but another name, and it would have been available with the 1.8-liter/84hp 4-cylinder and 2.0-liter/95hp 4-cylinder engine, and, sourced from Australia, the 3.3-liter/111hp 6-cylinder Blue engine.

The Cimarron was only sold as a sedan - this would have been sedan, coupe and stationwagon.

It would have been available in SL, SL/X, Executive and GT trim levels, with four colors in the palette - bright hues like red, blue, white and gold, and the GT would be available with the 3.3 6-cylinder engine gaining an increase to 142hp. There would also be the SS version, with the 3.3 6-cylinder engine boosted from 142hp to 178hp; it would only have red or black paint colors.

Holden would, ITTL, be available in the U.S, but selling the Holden sedan mentioned above, the Commodore (adapted for U.S. and Canadian standards) and a sporty coupe based on the Camaro/Firebird's F-body platform.

It would fill a niche between Pontiac and Buick, and there'd be Holden-Pontiac-Buick dealers.

A truly better move that could have been done to fix the Cimarron is to order Cadillac to design a Compact car platform from the ground up that is both properly designed and engineered and is suitable for their needs (And the platform can also be utilized by other GM divisions is needed).
 
A truly better move that could have been done to fix the Cimarron is to order Cadillac to design a Compact car platform from the ground up that is both properly designed and engineered and is suitable for their needs (And the platform can also be utilized by other GM divisions is needed).
Would Holden have been as good a choice of badge for the GM J-car in the U.S.?

Cadillac could be on a new platform, I agree on that; perhaps it could be used for a new Holden to be sold in Oceania and Chevrolet in South Africa, unlike in OTL, where Holden never had much reach beyond Australia and New Zealand.

Come to think of it, this would be good for a new Chevrolet Belair in South Africa on this platform, perhaps with 2.2-liter 4-cylinder engines and a V6 petrol?
 
Would Holden have been as good a choice of badge for the GM J-car in the U.S.?

One major issue with Holden being a choice of badge for a J platform vehicle in the U.S. would have been the number of GM divisions that were in existence in North America when the J platform had launched (Chevrolet, Buick, Cadillac, Pontiac, Oldsmobile and GMC which only makes trucks) and using Holden would have crowded the field unless they decided to not allow Cadillac any ability to design a vehicle on the J platform (Telling them that if they want a Compact car that they would have to design it from the ground up themselves) and for example reject Oldsmobile's J platform offering at the proposal stage.

The most plausible way to bring Holden to the U.S. market would be to reposition Pontiac to be strictly a performance car brand and have it's non sporty and performance offerings be replaced by Holden.

Cadillac could be on a new platform, I agree on that; perhaps it could be used for a new Holden to be sold in Oceania and Chevrolet in South Africa, unlike in OTL, where Holden never had much reach beyond Australia and New Zealand.

Come to think of it, this would be good for a new Chevrolet Belair in South Africa on this platform, perhaps with 2.2-liter 4-cylinder engines and a V6 petrol?

Such a properly designed Compact car platform that is developed by Cadillac can be utilized by all of the GM divisions except GMC is they choose to and if the development of the platform started in early 1980 when GM had started the development of the Cimarron IOTL it would be ready to go for the 1986 model year.

The problem regarding Chevrolet in South Africa was in 1986 due to the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act being enacted GM had divested it's South African assets which became the Delta Motor Corporation (GM would eventually repurchase the company some time after the end of Apartheid) and the Chevrolet brand got withdrawn from South Africa for several years afterward.
 
One major issue with Holden being a choice of badge for a J platform vehicle in the U.S. would have been the number of GM divisions that were in existence in North America when the J platform had launched (Chevrolet, Buick, Cadillac, Pontiac, Oldsmobile and GMC which only makes trucks) and using Holden would have crowded the field unless they decided to not allow Cadillac any ability to design a vehicle on the J platform (Telling them that if they want a Compact car that they would have to design it from the ground up themselves) and for example reject Oldsmobile's J platform offering at the proposal stage.

The most plausible way to bring Holden to the U.S. market would be to reposition Pontiac to be strictly a performance car brand and have it's non sporty and performance offerings be replaced by Holden.



Such a properly designed Compact car platform that is developed by Cadillac can be utilized by all of the GM divisions except GMC is they choose to and if the development of the platform started in early 1980 when GM had started the development of the Cimarron IOTL it would be ready to go for the 1986 model year.

The problem regarding Chevrolet in South Africa was in 1986 due to the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act being enacted GM had divested it's South African assets which became the Delta Motor Corporation (GM would eventually repurchase the company some time after the end of Apartheid) and the Chevrolet brand got withdrawn from South Africa for several years afterward.
Makes sense about Holden, ITTL Pontiac wouldn't have the 6000 sedan would it, good as some people thought it was?
Would the Camira look more like the one sold in Australia or the U.S.-spec Chevrolet Cavalier? (IIRC, parts on a European Vauxhall Cavalier and Chevrolet are possibly interchangeable unless I'm wrong - never owned a 1981-1988 Vauxhall Cavalier or a Chevy Cavalier).

1280px-Pontiac-6000-2.jpg


ITTL, would we see a Holden variant of the Pontiac 6000, maybe the Commodore instead as an import? Or would the Pontiac 6000 remain as a sports sedan only, so no Base and LE models, only a GT sports version?

I forgot that bit about South Africa and apartheid though.
 
Last edited:
If you want to discuss politics, could you please take it elsewhere? You don't want to poke the bear.

On topic, I wonder how many flops could be saved just by making the production a bit smoother. By that I mean keeping the final product the same but making the road to get there less troubled.
 
Makes sense about Holden, ITTL Pontiac wouldn't have the 6000 sedan would it, good as some people thought it was?
Would the Camira look more like the one sold in Australia or the U.S.-spec Chevrolet Cavalier? (IIRC, parts on a European Vauxhall Cavalier and Chevrolet are possibly interchangeable unless I'm wrong - never owned a 1981-1988 Vauxhall Cavalier or a Chevy Cavalier).

1280px-Pontiac-6000-2.jpg


ITTL, would we see a Holden variant of the Pontiac 6000, maybe the Commodore instead as an import? Or would the Pontiac 6000 remain as a sports sedan only, so no Base and LE models, only a GT sports version?

I forgot that bit about South Africa and apartheid though.

Regarding the Holden Camira - Just take the ones sold in Australia and make the following changes besides making it left hand drive for example.

1. - Use sealed beam headlights for the federalized JB and JD series models (Composite headlamps can be used for the JE series).
2. - Replace the front and rear bumpers with 5 MPH bumpers.
3. - Replace the wheels with ones that have the 5 lug setup.
4. - Use fuel injected engines.
 
An attempt at fixing this flop of a car:

To be fair they did but it was towards the end of the production run when GM just gave up.

There's an interesting article on YT "Old.Car.Memories about this car.

There's nowt wrong with sharing the platform but they should've spent some $$$$ designing a different body instead of scrimping with the Chevy.

It was a bit like asking punters to but a Vand Plas Allegro instead of the bog standard Allegro all because it's got a grille on it!
 
To be fair they did but it was towards the end of the production run when GM just gave up.

Regarding the attempts by Cadillac to fix the problems with the Cimarron - A major issue that was encountered was the definite need by Cadillac to prioritize the major updates that were needed for the Eldorado and the Sedan de Ville/Fleetwood for the 1988 and 1989 Model Years respectively in a attempt to reverse some of the deficiencies that affected Cadillac due to GM stupidly continuing it's downsizing plans well into the mid 1980's (They should have really curtailed it in 1982) and was working on redesigning both the Eldorado and Seville from the ground up for the 1992 Model year. The sales of the Cimarron falling below expectations and GM wanting to limit the price overlap between Cadillac, Buick and Oldsmobile also contributed to the vehicles demise

There's nowt wrong with sharing the platform but they should've spent some $$$$ designing a different body instead of scrimping with the Chevy.

Platform sharing is a real good idea if the platform in question is suitable for all of the needs of every vehicle that they decide to develop and build on that platform. One real problem that GM had encountered regarding the use of the J platform in North America were the platform being found to be too insufficent for the needs of Cadillac, Buick and Oldsmobile but both Chevrolet and Pontiac did not run into the same issues as the vehicles their respective offerings built on the platform did fit real well in their brand portfolios and sold real well (Not surprisingly both Chevrolet and Pontiac continued to use the J platform until the end of the 2005 Model Year).

The need for a separate platform other than the J platform was a complete necessity for any Compact car built by Cadillac.

The reasoning for Cadillac resorting to badge-engineering when they developed the Cimarron was the decision to stupidly fast-track the vehicle for a 1982 Model Year launch (The Cimarron was originally scheduled for a mid 1980's release).

A properly Compact car that is suitable for Cadillac to use needed 5 years (Common vehicle development process) for the vehicle to be properly designed and developed.
 
To have success with the Sinclair Have the British government select it as the replacement for the invacar and fund it.


The returned invacar s become like the British Telephone boxes as British icons and collectable for today. owners cant be younger then 16 to drive one after passing a road test This ruling eliminates the objections of the RSAC& AA plus other consumer protection groups. By making this Road worthy Exports roll in .as well.
third generation Going strong


 
The Thing (2011)

Use more practical effects/animatronics instead of CGI, and have the transformations be more disgusting and gruesome. The original had blood, guts, gurgles and all sorts of nasty stuff everywhere.

Also, use this alien design in a scene. Its eyes look like maggots!

 
So, Disney, right?
A quick search for most Woke movies got me:
12 Years a Slave
Her
Selma
Arrival
Interstellar
Wall-E
Black Panther

And I am pretty sure those are all pretty Woke and none of the went broke.
(But I could sit corrected for the broke part, if anyone knows)
How is Arrival and Interstellar Woke?
 
How is Arrival and Interstellar Woke?
Interstellar comments upon Climate Change.
Arrival comments upon understanding, aliens, and against intolerance and violence.
Honestly, I think I just Googled Woke Movies, got an article and used the top money makers to show a contradiction to the idea that they did not make any money, but rather, made a lot.
The article I cribbed from probably explained on why they were all Woke.
 
Not sure if this would technically be considered a flop though given the new Spidey stuff, I am reminded of that goddamn debacle that was One More Day and forced down on us by the will of Quesada. While part of it did orginate from the fustercluck that was Civil War, it was still a black mark that future writers useto keep screwing Spidey over (and still hasn't stopped since they insist on keep bringing it up).

But could it have been handled better? I think so. Or at least in such a way to provide an out of sorts.

I would've had it to where rather than Peter make a deal with Mephisto, it's instead Peter bringing up his favor with Loki to figure a solution. Given how Peter's ordeal is based on the public knowledge of his identity has resulted in his loved ones being in danger, Loki could interpret it as casting a spell to undo everything that had happened, but one of the side effects was Peter and MJ not getting married, likely due to him never sharing his secret with her out of concern for her safety. This would be something he wouldn't be aware of what happened until later on and the whole thing could be pointed toward Loki's own interpretation because... it's Loki.

As such, the whole thing was an unintentional side effect, based on how Loki chose to pursue the matter. And given how Loki as we know them would soon bite it at the hands of the Void, it leaves it open-ended until they decide to visit that, likely by the time Loki has become God of Stories. Heck, we could even Loki themselves be unsure of why their past self did it, but give various explanations for it, including perhaps a jab at it being possibly a "more interesting story". Regardless, it leaves hte possibility of undoing that alot easier.
 
Here's another one: Striptease (1996)

For starters, have any actress other than Demi Moore play Erin--she played it like it was a drama when it was supposed to be a comedy. I could see Helen Hunt (she was born in 1963, while Moore was born in 1962, so they're in the same age range) play Erin funny, IMO (and she did play a similar role in Pay It Forward)...
 
Here's another one: Striptease (1996)

For starters, have any actress other than Demi Moore play Erin--she played it like it was a drama when it was supposed to be a comedy. I could see Helen Hunt (she was born in 1963, while Moore was born in 1962, so they're in the same age range) play Erin funny, IMO (and she did play a similar role in Pay It Forward)...

Honestly, Striptease also came out in a time where erotica films ended up being more bad than good. Like, this was the third erotic film to win the Razzie for Worst Picture in a row, following Color of Night and Showgirls.
 
Top