"Ed Chilada" <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:7dvkg299f8fvfajerg9eqrjfchje7nr0ha@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 23:25:17 -0400, "80 Knight"
> <80_knightREMOVEMEPLEASE@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
<SNIP>
>>>>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.
Actually, if you take a good look at KITT, and then at a stock 1982 Trans
Am, they are virtually identical on the outside. KITT has a different
front
bumper, a front scanning light, and a black-out piece on the tail lights.
Other then that, KITT is identical to a stock 1982 Trans Am. As for the
inside, that's totally different. My only point with the '69 Charger
being
used, is that the fans *expected* to see it, and were happy as pig's in
****
to have it on the big screen. I feel the same way about the '82 Trans Am.
After thinking about it, I *could* see KITT being a brand new Trans Am,
but
it would still feel different. Same as it felt when he was a Dodge in
"KR:2000". The voice was the same, but it just wasn't KITT.
>>> 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).
Actually, 1982 was the first model year of the "KITT-Like" Trans Am's.
Plus,
look at what some companies are making these days. Chevy has a truck out,
that supposedly looks like one from the 40's (not sure on the year). Dodge
has that awful looking PT Cruiser, which, once again, is made to look like
a
much older car, and look at Chevy's new Camaro, and Dodge's new
Challenger.
Both look just like they did back in the 70's. The Challenger IMHO, is
almost a direct copy.
All I am saying is with the proper people doing it, having KITT as a 1982
Trans Am could work. But, seeing how the movie is taking so long to be
made,
perhaps they can wait until GM rolls out the new Trans Am (which I hope
they
do). That would be acceptable to me.
|
