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).
I guess it's an opinion thing as to whether the *style* is dated, but
you can't argue that the car itself is dated because it's a fact that
it's a 25+ year old model - and that's dated.
>> and it's not
>> even been in production for .. how many years?
>
>So it hasn't been in production!?? So what, neither are most of the
>cars in TV shows.
This is a film, that is supposed to be set in current day, and it's
supposed to be a futuristic car. Basing it on a car/revision that's
been out of production for many years is crazy. FLAG wouldn't do that.
>The point is that KITT is that car. Changing it would be extremely
>stupid ...
I guess we disagree then. I vehemently think that keeping it would be
extremely stupid... unless I suppose, the premise was that it was the
same KITT and he was still going after all these years. If the plot is
that FLAG has to re-invent KITT again, then having them go back to a
1982 car to base it on would just seem stupid.
>> "I am the prototype of the car of the future" (KARR actually, but same
>> appearance of course).
>
>KARR and KITT are two different characters. The only "futuristic"ness
>about either is the ability to drive themselves, etc. The actual look
>of the cars was normal.
Sure. But it wasn't retro. It wasn't 25 years old. KITT of 2006
shouldn't be based on a 1982 car no more than KITT of 1982 was be
based on a 1957 model.
>> >That's why they used a TransAm in the first place and not some silly
>> >looking prototype / custom car.
>>
>> Please provide a reference for this. I largely suspect that basing it
>> on a production model was mostly budget related.
>
>If it was budget-realted, then they would have used something like a VW
>Beetle that is cheaply available by the ton.
But then it would have looked crap, and of course I think a
self-driving VW Beetle has been done before!!
>> Oh, and you'll find that the Koenigsegg isn't a "prototype / custom",
>> car. It's a current production model (albeit exotic), that is simply
>> from this century, not the last one.
>
>And that's the entire point. KITT is from the 1980s, so it's pointless
>putting him in a new body. If you change the car, then it is not KITT.
They've already establised that KITT was the CPU, not the car model
itself, so it would seem fine to me. The original KITT was from the
80's, but the 2006 one is not.
> Fro example, Thomas Magnum is Tom Selleck, any other acting
>is simply a pretender and will completely change the character and the
>movie / show would not actually be "Magnum PI", just some awful "new"
>version of it.
Having the current 61 year old Tom Selleck in it wouldn't work either!
Do you have problems with different actors playing the same characters
in movies? James Bond films, Charlie's Angels, Dukes of Hazzard,
Starsky & Hutch etc..?
|
