knight rider online

For this go 'round, Ford Motor Co.'s Mustang Shelby GT500KR will be playing the role of Michael Knight's trusty steed --

Didn't they even bother to find out about the basics on the story line before making that lengthy article?

seeker78 wrote:btw how did the original KITT end up as a 1982 Trans Am? Wasn't that money as well?

As far as I understand it, Glen chose it because it was a totally unique, futuristic design, unlike anything else available from any other manufacturer at the time and Pontiac actually gave Glen the first cars from the production line so he could use them in the show ...

Matthew wrote:It seems to me that even if Ford hadn't offered up a huge amount of money, the Mustang would have been the only real option available to NBC. [...] so it would appear that we have the best car out of the options available to us, since having a two seater like the Corvette was obviously not an option since the Access Hollywood video on Justin's injury showed a scene with Mike Tracer, Sarah Graiman and Special Agent Carrie Rivai beside the Knight 3000 in a rather desolate looking setting.

Indeed, that's why whenever I say "the Corvette obviously looks very kitt-like" I add a qualifier "but it only has two seats" or words to that effect. Only having two seats puts restrictions on the story, which are, in my opinion, unnecessary.

It is true that the Mustang is probably the only two door, four seat, RWD, V8+ car from the "big three".

Of course, as I have said other times, there are many other cars from The Big Three and others that look more kitt-like than the Mustang, but I guess the car enthusiasts on here don't like them due to the size of the engine and/or the kind of drivetrain.

Still, the other thing is, there are Mustangs that look more KITT-like than the Shelby one, especially the previous generation, and in any case the Mustang GT versions always are more streamlined than the Shelby one is.

Plus, they could have modded the nose etc to make it more like KITT-like.

But I've made all these points before.

Yes you have seeker78, so the real question is, WHY are you bringing this up over and over???(in different threads) It's obvious people simply don't like the 'LOOK" of the G5, not just the car enthusiasts either, but most KR fans... Think about it, and please, for the love of KITT, drop it already...

The G5 could be powered buy a nuclear reactor, go 10,000MPH, be able to travel back and forward through time and cure cancer. But disregarding the whole FWD vs RWD/AWD and Horsepower/Torque, the car doesn't have the right look to me. Just because it's more aerodynamic and in black doesn't mean it's better choice and the boxy Shelby Mustang. I'm beginning to wonder if you own one yourself. It looks too "safe" or "not fun" if you will. Even with the dislike I have for the Shelby Mustang choice at least it looks like a car that would be fun to drive.

I found a pic on another board of the 2005 Shelby GR1 Concept and I've posted a link below to pics I found of it doing a search. If this car had made it with this body, paint it black it it would have looked much much better. I dunno if it made it out of the concept stages and it doesn't look nearly as roomy as the Mustang, obviously since it's only be a two seater so that means instant fail again.

http://www.seriouswheels.com/cars/top-2 ... m-Body.htm


It does seem kind of hard to find a good four seat American muscle car which the original KITT was too, before and after work done on it for the show and it's fictional abilities. All we can do is hope that the series takes off (if the movie is good) and down the line KITT gets a new body from a later and hopefully better looking iteration of the Mustang.


If I had the artistic talent (I really suck at drawing the things visualized in my head) I could design a car that would have the perfect look to me. But alas I can't, though I can try to give a physical description. If it were a custom car, I'd at the very least keep some of the original car's look. I've always liked the retractable headlights with their being hidden away when not in use though I'm sure in real life those damn motorized things broke regularly. Maybe around the edges, keep the black hubcaps, black interior though, didn't ever car much for the light brown crap. I wouldn't want it to look exactly like the old car but this is making it look that way. I should do this when I've had some sleep. It's almost a quarter after five here.

Art has been compromised to $$$ once more...

seeker78 wrote:Indeed, that's why whenever I say "the Corvette obviously looks very kitt-like" I add a qualifier "but it only has two seats" or words to that effect. Only having two seats puts restrictions on the story, which are, in my opinion, unnecessary.

It is true that the Mustang is probably the only two door, four seat, RWD, V8+ car from the "big three".

Up until a couple of months ago, I’d been supporting the Z06 version of the C6 Corvette for a couple of years, as it was, and still is, the only car that’s currently in production to maintain the spirit of the original KITT.

It wasn’t until the announcement by NBC that I actually switched my support over to Camaro, because whilst I am a car enthusiast, I’m not immune to the specific needs of KITT. As much as I’d love to believe that a two seater would suffice, which it would most of the time, there would be too many occasions where it wouldn’t be enough, and since Wilton Knight was all about helping the helpless, it would make no sense for his final creation to only be able to help one helpless person at a time.

seeker78 wrote:Of course, as I have said other times, there are many other cars from The Big Three and others that look more kitt-like than the Mustang, but I guess the car enthusiasts on here don't like them due to the size of the engine and/or the kind of drivetrain.

The main problem with the G5 isn’t that it’s a front wheel drive car with a small engine, because that can be changed to suit production needs, it’s actually that the car is just far too small. Yes it may look more aerodynamic than a Mustang, but it’s merely Pontiac’s equivalent of a Ford Focus, and when it comes to KITT, size matters. The Trans Am and the Mustang have a look of shock and awe about them due to their size, which makes them perfect for their roles as the Knight 2000 and the Knight 3000, whereas the G5 looks like it’d be most at home at a pee wee soccer game.

Matt

Also, and as I've said before. While I would love, and much prefer, KITT to be some sort of Trans Am or Pontiac if not just for the spirit of continuity - there's at least a little part of me that sees some justice in this.

Pontiac/GM, for their STUPID move in the 80s of forbidding KR to refer to KITT as a T/A, totally deserves to be snubbed this time around. I don't know what kind of morons ran their marketing back then, but the free advertising should have ingratiated them to NBC. Case in point: Ford paying so much for the new KITT to be a Mustang. See the difference in decisions here? Larsen had to purchase T/As to use for KITT, whereas Ford is paying NBC to use their Mustang. So, as much as I would like to see a Pontiac KITT once more, they TOTALLY had this coming.

I wasn't too fond of the Mustang at first, but the more I see of it, the more I like it.
And it seems it was not only the logical choice, but I can image that it turns out to be a good choice.

Still, I would have taken a more simple version of the car, no racing stripes, and the scanner in a different place. And black rims.
Small changes on the front and the car would be perfect:

(The rear spoiler on KITT is great, the car on the image would need one of those, too)


But at least I don't have the "it's that bad" feeling and I am very excited to see the movie when it's done.

cloudkitt wrote:Pontiac/GM, for their STUPID move in the 80s of forbidding KR to refer to KITT as a T/A, totally deserves to be snubbed this time around. I don't know what kind of morons ran their marketing back then, but the free advertising should have ingratiated them to NBC. Case in point: Ford paying so much for the new KITT to be a Mustang. See the difference in decisions here? Larsen had to purchase T/As to use for KITT, whereas Ford is paying NBC to use their Mustang. So, as much as I would like to see a Pontiac KITT once more, they TOTALLY had this coming.

Amen! I was also astonished when they AGAIN turned down a chance to have one of their vehicles featured when they were approached about the feature film. I'm also surprised Glen would even bother with Pontiac since the Trans Am no longer exists (other options would be a concept car or the G5 and G6s). Every business has an obligation to increase profit any way they can and to outdo themselves each year. Their decision-making went against a giant opportunity being served to them on a silver platter. It makes no sense to me at all.

Garthe Knight wrote:I wasn't too fond of the Mustang at first, but the more I see of it, the more I like it.

I feel the same way.

Still, I would have taken a more simple version of the car, no racing stripes, and the scanner in a different place. And black rims.
Small changes on the front and the car would be perfect:

(The rear spoiler on KITT is great, the car on the image would need one of those, too)
[picture of Mustang GT]

Yeah I agree, the Mustang GT as opposed to the Shelby Mustang would have been better. Although, where would the scanner go on any current Mustang? I suppose in the case of the GT it would be in the grille?

It seems like the nose could be modified to be more aerodynamic, and in that process the scanner would be in a place more congruent to the original KITT...

PHOENIXZERO wrote:The G5 could be powered buy a nuclear reactor, go 10,000MPH, be able to travel back and forward through time and cure cancer. But disregarding the whole FWD vs RWD/AWD and Horsepower/Torque, the car doesn't have the right look to me.

That's cool, at least some people are starting to address my point as far as drivetrain/engine is not the issue. It seems here that we are least addressing the same issue. I just hate how sometimes with the subject of which car should be KITT, others seem to be talking past me.

(seeker78 edited, to enhance clarity 20:49 PST on 6 Jan 08)

Just because it's more aerodynamic and in black doesn't mean it's better choice and the boxy Shelby Mustang. I'm beginning to wonder if you own one yourself. It looks too "safe" or "not fun" if you will. Even with the dislike I have for the Shelby Mustang choice at least it looks like a car that would be fun to drive.

lmao, no I don't own one. I have never even driven a car or ever had a license, despite having driven a nuclear submarine and being qualified that watch (and "qualified in submarines"). Good thing my actual job was sonar, because I suck at the helm, they should probably only have you qualify that if you've driven a car or airplane, lol. Periscope depth is the hardest, because there you've got the surface of the sea rocking the boat, and you're trying not to "breach", that is to say, cause the boat to come above the surface of water (hello, satellite! luckily I never did that, emphasis on "luck" lol). Second hardest is "single stick" at any depth, there you are controlling both depth and course (normally, one guy does course and another does depth, or they might put one of those functions on autopilot, usually depth). But, I saw a red Pontiac G5 today and I thought it looked sporty.

I found a pic on another board of the 2005 Shelby GR1 Concept and I've posted a link below to pics I found of it doing a search.

Woah, that car is awesome!

obviously since it's only be a two seater so that means instant fail again.

Oh well. As has been said in other places, using two seats restricts the story.

It does seem kind of hard to find a good four seat American muscle car which the original KITT was too, before and after work done on it for the show and it's fictional abilities.

Exactly.

Matthew wrote: As much as I’d love to believe that a two seater would suffice, which it would most of the time, there would be too many occasions where it wouldn’t be enough, and since Wilton Knight was all about helping the helpless, it would make no sense for his final creation to only be able to help one helpless person at a time.

Exactly, that's the main problem with both the Corvette and the Viper. Although according to Victor Kros, carbon fiber content in the Corvette is also a problem.

The main problem with the G5 isn’t that it’s a front wheel drive car with a small engine, because that can be changed to suit production needs, it’s actually that the car is just far too small. Yes it may look more aerodynamic than a Mustang, but it’s merely Pontiac’s equivalent of a Ford Focus, and when it comes to KITT, size matters.

Well like I told Phoenix Zero, at least it sounds like you're addressing my point in the context intended. I just hate it when people disagree with me in a way that implies they didn't care to see what my point was. Like saying "kitt must be rwd and a V8 and that is the problem with the g5", well I recommended it because of the EXTERNAL appearance!!! At least it looks like you, Matthew, are taking that point into consideration. If we still disagree, at least it is for good reasons.

Disagreement where we are at least on the same page is a lot cooler.

I never said carbon fiber content was a problem with the corvette? I said it was too low to the ground to handle stuntwork. I think you got me confused with someone else's comment, unless I'm mistaken?

=VK=

seeker78 wrote:Yeah I agree, the Mustang GT as opposed to the Shelby Mustang would have been better. Although, where would the scanner go on any current Mustang? I suppose in the case of the GT it would be in the grille?

It would have to go in the front grille unless the nose was modified to accomodate it. If the scanner was built into the front grille, however, it would look as if it's floating in the middle, not unlike how the scanner looked when Michael installed K.I.T.T. into the '57 Chevy in Knight Rider 2000.

The fact that this new scanner is not the same scanner as the Knight 2000's is actually its saving grace to me, and how I could attempt to get used to it being placed in the hood. I do have to wonder, though, if the decision to change the scanner had anything to do with NBC Universal trying to distance themselves from Glen further, as classic K.I.T.T.'s scanner originally came from a previous series of his, Battlestar Gallactica. Even that one detail is already a major trademark of Glen's vision.

victor kros wrote:I never said carbon fiber content was a problem with the corvette? I said it was too low to the ground to handle stuntwork. I think you got me confused with someone else's comment, unless I'm mistaken?

=VK=

Glad you cleared that up about the carbon fiber issue.

By being “too low to the ground to handle stuntwork”, are you referring to being able to do any jump type stunts? If so, I would say that carbon fiber would still be an issue. For example, the Acura NSX (has the low height as well) is to have a carbon fiber underbody that would pose a problem structurally doing any jump type stunts. Having Low-Profile tires and big rims won’t survive a jump stunt either.

1982 wrote:

msKEN wrote:

so why all the derisory comments about a 2hr ford commercial???

Further more, if KITT would have been any other car I honestly don't think I would have been a big of a fan as I am now. The car was perfect and what drew me in was my pre existing love for the 1977 car in Smokey and the Bandit. The 82 was just so sleek and way ahead of its time. Mustangs have always been boxy... could you honestly have seen and accepted kitt as a 1982 fox body mustang.... I couldn't.

I agree. The 82 Trans Am was a perfect choice. It had it's own unique personality, that others didn't. The Mustang looked too much like the Charger.

The other way around buddy. Charger looked like the Mustang... as the Mustang is the original pony car. Just a friendly reminder.

I think Ford was smart... GM was the sucker that got left out... healthy politics if you ask me. You snooze you lose...

As it stands now in my eye, If this movie is good, which I think it will be especially since it essentially has NO COMPETITION, Glenn's movie is pointless. Especially with with an appearence from the HOFF it will offically make it certified good. They will have REINVENTED knight rider to a new generation and it will be impossible for Glenn's movie to be successfull on a major scale. Think of it like this.... The other copywrite owners of transformers comming out with another transformers movie with another car being bumblebee and all that. It won't work!!!


As far as todays marketing indrustry, it is completely different from 1982. Product placement is everthing. I hate to say it but Ford did the best thing it possible could. YOu see NBC making moves and promotion and we are getting exactly nothing from the Larson Camp. Only promises from this Victor guy. I am not attacking anyone, nor calling anyone a liar, but I'm just calling it as I see it.

As it stands now in my eye, If this movie is good, which I think it will be especially since it essentially has NO COMPETITION, Glenn's movie is pointless. Especially with with an appearence from the HOFF it will offically make it certified good. They will have REINVENTED knight rider to a new generation and it will be impossible for Glenn's movie to be successfull on a major scale. Think of it like this.... The other copywrite owners of transformers comming out with another transformers movie with another car being bumblebee and all that. It won't work!!!

- NBCU is able to do so without competition because of the WGA strike. It's a strategy of timing, nothing more and when the strike is over they will once again have to contend with other network projects that will plaster the airwaves with new material. What would you rather have? A rushed out script that has problems slapped up on the big screen in a you get what you ask for quality? Or something that's actually had a lot of thought and research put into making it the best possible representation it can be?

Patience is a virtue people have seemed to have forgotten these days, especially with movie development. You're not going to be convinced or satisfied until you see things in print and in magazines about the movie and I accept that desire. You'll get your wish, I assure you of that but it's going to take time to do it properly.

People forget that it takes time to tell a good story and it takes years of development before a movie is released in it's final theatrical print. Television moves much quicker but it also has a more limited budget and tighter deadlines to follow. Will the NBCU backdoor pilot be a success? No one at the moment can confirm or deny its potential until after it's aired, all we can do is speculate at this point. Just like all you can do is speculate that it can make or break the feature film.

The script for the backdoor pilot however is going to make or break it since they could not make any changes after the deadline. If there was no WGA strike happening, you would see more progress from the Larson camp to develop the feature film. If history has taught us anything, having David Hassellhoff in a movie as a CAMEO let alone a starring role (Knight Rider 2000) in a Knight Rider movie will NOT, "offically make it certified good".

As far as it being impossible for Glen's movie to be a success, I'm sure others besides myself would disagree with you. I'm not going to comment on Transformers because that's a poor example. I will say simply that it is true it rarely happens in this day and age when a tv show is forced to compete with a feature film using the same brand name. Keep in mind that Knight Rider is 25 years old and when it was created, contracts were different and the world viewed rights differently. From a legal standpoint, these do not change with the times.

I guess the closest example I can think of would be Superman Returns and Smallville, using Superman. However in this case, Bryan Singer worked very closely with Alfred Gough and Miles Millar to ensure that neither project would step on the other's toes so to speak. While not in direct competition with one another, each one is a different take on the fundamentals of the character involved and how they developed over time (Superman/Clark Kent/Kal El).

I was supremely disappointed with many of the choices made in Superman Returns but I can respect that both properties attempted to work with one another, rather then against. Also just because it's Warner Bros making both does not mean they cannot complete with one another within the department. You'll notice that the "S" shield in Smallville is the same as in Superman Returns which further demonstrates the understanding between Bryan's feature film and WB's television properties.

This is not the case here. In this case both properties are competing against one another from different creators.

You are correct, the only official source of information from the Glen camp comes from me because I happen to think that the fans matter and should be involved/informed while most of the other people out there in the industry choose to overlook them. Fandom is one thing but your viewing audience is the key and if you can get both the older generation of fans to come see the movie, and not just a newer generation of fans...everyone wins.

I am not attacking anyone, nor calling anyone a liar, but I'm just calling it as I see it.

=VK=

DevonStyles wrote:As it stands now in my eye, If this movie is good, which I think it will be especially since it essentially has NO COMPETITION, Glenn's movie is pointless. Especially with with an appearence from the HOFF it will offically make it certified good. They will have REINVENTED knight rider to a new generation and it will be impossible for Glenn's movie to be successfull on a major scale. Think of it like this.... The other copywrite owners of transformers comming out with another transformers movie with another car being bumblebee and all that. It won't work!!!

On the other hand, look at the Terminator franchise. Fox is launching the "Sarah Connor Chronicles" next week, which picks up after T2 and completely ignores T3 and that continuity, while at the same time T4 is in production, continuing from T3, starring Christian Bale as the adult John Connor and as part of a planned trilogy.

So it is possible for a TV series and a movie to be based on the same source material, have totally different treatments and co-exist at the same time. Time will tell.

Mango19 wrote:On the other hand, look at the Terminator franchise. Fox is launching the "Sarah Connor Chronicles" next week, which picks up after T2 and completely ignores T3 and that continuity, while at the same time T4 is in production, continuing from T3, starring Christian Bale as the adult John Connor and as part of a planned trilogy.

So it is possible for a TV series and a movie to be based on the same source material, have totally different treatments and co-exist at the same time. Time will tell.

I've seen the Pilot episode of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles and have to say I am as disappointed with the creative decisions they've made with the series as I am with the God-awful Superman Returns. (But there is some great CGI and action, by the way.) Fortunately in Batman Begins' case (and hopefully Knight Rider's as well), reboots are easier to accept than simply picking and choosing which films to ignore and which films to continue from.

KR has never had a major motion picture series before, and setting things in a different continuity altogether with an origin story is the best course of action. The trick is to do it with a fresh enough twist to make it worth watching familiar material. I think it's ridiculous to simply ignore films like Superman III & IV, for example, just because they might not have been particularly good films, or because the director wanted to avoid having to do an origin story. And the continuity is going to get even more ridiculous if Warner Bros. focuses their attention on the Justice League Of America movie. The new Terminator series is following the same method, which is even worse in its case because Terminator 3: Rise Of the Machines was such a recent film and more fresh in the public's memory. (Then again, there is a lot of time-travel involved, and when that's a plot point of any story, things can get very messy and nothing can really ever be set in stone.) And of course there's also already going to be a reboot of Hulk, which was also very recent. It would be better for the Terminator series to have entirely different characters with an entirely different story, so as not to interfere with the movies' continuity.

Series-to-movie, or movie-to-series, the circumstances need to be right for both versions to be successful. The only question is: Is competition or coexistence the better course of action? KR's case is tricky, but I think competition works best for the franchise, especially with picky fans. If one project fails altogether or in just one aspect or two, the other can avoid the same mistake(s). I think that's a primary reason why Glen's film has a perfect chance of succeeding on its own, without any previous continuity to pick up from.

I saw the pilot too and I really didn't see much of anything that contradicted the third movie just stuff that wasn't brought up (well except for the staying off the grid thing), they even kept the screwy age change though I can understand the argument that John Conner should have been older in the second movie since his being ten didn't fit at all.


I read earlier that the JL movie might be in trouble and not make it our of pre-production with the high ups at Warner Brothers having second thoughts and script having problems that can't be fixed until after the strike is over, so at least there's hope still that it won't actually get made. Though I did like the rumored casting of Megan Gale as Diana/Wonder Woman, if just due to her looks.

PHOENIXZERO wrote:I saw the pilot too and I really didn't see much of anything that contradicted the third movie just stuff that wasn't brought up (well except for the staying off the grid thing), they even kept the screwy age change though I can understand the argument that John Conner should have been older in the second movie since his being ten didn't fit at all.

As for the contradicting, the entire series already contradicts the movies' continuity between the second and third films, and it goes beyond simply never having been mentioned. There are more contradictions involving the time-travel, too, but I don't want to get too into it because of spoilers and taking the thread off into too much of a tangent.

I'm sure there will be a lot of contradictions, that's the curse of a show involving time travel. I prefer to think T3 never existed either.

ok victor I stand corrected on claiming that you said something about carbon fiber issues with the Corvette. However, you do say that you said there is a problem with stunts.

It sucks that so many "sports cars" are 2 seaters.

In that sense the Mustang is the best choice, despite that the 2008 shelby is not that sporty/sleek/stealthy looking in my opinion...but you could modify the Mustang for a movie, to make it more aerodynamic, like in Garth Knight's picture in my "photoshop 2008 mustang" thread.

--Brian