On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:59:36 +1200, Anybody
<anybody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>In article <i50bg2tnf9pr0ec4m27pq6i87eh3q1cult@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Ed Chilada
><nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 18:02:32 +1200, Anybody
>> <anybody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <0nu7g2tkjkvqies8uo382pfo7p3p9pc4n2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Ed Chilada
>> ><nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 07:43:07 -0400, "Wombat-Pipex-News"
>> >> <wombat@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >Just dont think that a vampet up plastic molded peace of ****e
modern car
>> >> >will do the trick. The Trans-am styling was almost Perfect.
>> >>
>> >> For 30+ years ago!
>> >
>> >It's still a great looking car. Most of the "supercars" are far too
>> >wide and many of today's more normal s****ts cars are simply ugly.
>>
>> Whether it's great looking is irrelevant. It's *dated*
>
>It doesn't look "dated" though. It is still a great looking car (of
>course that's just opinion-based, so your's may be different).
>
Of course it's great. But it's great in a classic way. Which means
that, beautiful though it may be, it's no longer a design which
"works" as "the car of the future". If you tried to pass off an '82
Trans Am as the "car of the future" these days, you'd be consigning
yourself to the realm of parody, just like if you tried to make a
science fiction movie where everyone wore flares, space ****ps looked
like V2s with tail fins, and every noun had the modifier "space-" in
front of it.
The details of what Knight Rider was were right *for its time*.
Trying to do it now without making it right *for this time* is a
terrible mistake.
|
