"Ed Chilada" <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:8l7lg256bodvi7gnlse9ljohpq0cqrk8d5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 08:06:39 -0400, "80 Knight"
> <80_knightREMOVEMEPLEASE@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>
> If they had a plot where KITT was planted in a modern car, but it just
> seemed to not work out and various things failed and missions were
> going wrong etc.. and then they decided to go back to the original
> design - within the context of the film, then that would make sense.
> It would probably make the crowd whoop with a "yay! old KITT was the
> best", etc...
I could see that. Perhaps they couldn't get all of KITT's features (turbo
boost, ski mode) to work with the new model. Hell, in KR:2000, KITT
doesn't
have turbo boost, which sucked. Maybe that would cause them to revert to
the
older model.
|
