On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 23:25:17 -0400, "80 Knight"
<80_knightREMOVEMEPLEASE@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>"Ed Chilada" <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:d8n7g2lj2oqn6a8t4eh4gv47ppakmltjl1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 03:57:22 -0400, "80 Knight"
>> <80_knightREMOVEMEPLEASE@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>>"Ed Chilada" <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>news:15e5g2t0q7cilm7nfelghjpqs2bu04ri6q@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>> Having a car from the early 80s in the new film is going to look
>>>> stupid. It'll *have* to be updated. Besides, didn't they pretty much
>>>> state that KITT wasn't the car as such anyway, so it'll still be KITT
>>>> regardless of the model of car it's in.
>>>
>>>In the movie version of "The Dukes of Hazzard" they still used the 1969
>>>(much older then the 1982 Trans Am KITT) Dodge Charger for the General
>>>Lee.
>>>I see no reason why a 1982 Trans Am can't be brought back. KITT is a
1982
>>>Trans Am, and always will be.
>>
>> One film was set in backwards redneck America, and even included a
>> scene where they went to the 'big city' and got laughed at.
>
>You fail to see the point. The General Lee was a 1969 Dodge Charger, just
as
>KITT is a 1982 Pontiac Trans Am.
That's the only reason y'see - precedent. If Knight Rider didn't
previously exist and they brought out a film now with a similar plot,
and based KITT on a 1982 Trans Am, it'd seem totally bizarre.
Unfortunately, unlike Dukes of Hazzard and Starsky and Hutch, the car
is supposed to be modern or futuristic. With the prior two, both cars
are supposed to be retro.
>> The other film is supposed to feature a futuristic car, and having it
>> based on a car from 80s simply isn't going to work.
>
>You have your opinion, and I have mine. The 1982 Trans Am is one of, if
not
>*the* most beautiful car ever produced. I once owned one myself, back in
>2000. It was red with black interior, totally mint shape, and only had
>86,404 KM's on the clock. Drove better then anything I had ever driven,
or
>have driven since.
All of which is irrelevant to giving the viewer the impression that
this is a futuristic car. I'm not saying it's a crap car, I'm sure it
was great for the time. But it's 25 years old (and the design probably
much older than that).
|
