knight rider online

In the Knight Rider Visual Effects on Vimeo footage they're showing us how they did the turbo boost in more depth. They keep talking about the way they applied nanotechnology to the series which is also were the confusion sets off. Is it really nanotechnology they're using or is it pure digital graphics? I mean why use nanotech and in addition to that loads of computerized imagery and illusions when they managed so well without it in the 80's?

It's kind of funny because as they are watching Kitt transform into attack mode in the clip they're talking about how they actually managed to somehow finish the turbo boost with a reallife landing. Why is this so difficult to do 30 years later?

On the basis of what I've seen so far (i.e. the pilot and A Knight in Shining Armor) I'm not that impressed at all! Please don't get me wrong when I'm saying this because dudging from what I've also seen on the trailers from the episode Journey to the End of Knight things are starting to shape up pretty well (in terms of the plot/story, of course).

To answer your question, I do not know if they are using any real nano-technology. I would guess it's all CGI, but I could be wrong.

In accordance with the original KR mythology, only three people knew the formula for the MBS -- and two of the three were needed to recreate it. With the one doctor being killed off in Goliath, and Devon's passing, you can't recreate the MBS (since we don't know if KITT knew the formula).

A lot of people seem to be really hard on the new series, but I don't understand why. The original mythology seems to have been left intact. In TOS, Wilton Knight was having the car built -- It never said he was the one who created KITT (the AI). He was responsible for funding the creation of the Knight 2000 (vehicle and AI integrated). Since Wilton was an inventor, he was probably responsible for some of the components for the Knight 2000 (vehicle).

Many people don't like Val's voice...well, Daniels' voice was different when KR started (more metallic tone until KITT became more human).

I really enjoy the new series, and hope it survives all the tough critics.

krfan1

You see, if they were using actual nanotechnology on Ki3t then it would be a major breakthrough for the vehicle industry as well. Companies would put millions if not billions in trying to develop this a little further to apply it on your everyday car. Although, if this is all compuer generated imagery as you would suspect then this whole discussion about nanotech is really just fiction and should be left out of focus.

Knight-Armen wrote:Although, if this is all compuer generated imagery as you would suspect then this whole discussion about nanotech is really just fiction and should be left out of focus.

There have been many things that were on television or movies as fiction, but then later became real. While not up to the strength of KITT's MBS, there is a company that has been developing a 'spray-on armor' for the military (which is how the MBS was applied to KITT). Nanotechnology does exist, but may not be far enough yet to apply to a large surface, such as that of an automobile (I know little about nanotech, so if I'm wrong somebody correct me).

To answer your question from before, I think it is cheaper for them to CGI most of the Turbo Boost versus using real cars. Many cars were destroyed during Knight Rider and the Dukes of Hazard as a results of stunts/jumps. I would also guess that due to the uniqueness of the Attack KITT, it's not as easy to have another body ready as quick as the original KITT or General Lee (after one is destroyed).

-krfan1

Knight-Armen wrote:In the Knight Rider Visual Effects on Vimeo footage they're showing us how they did the turbo boost in more depth. They keep talking about the way they applied nanotechnology to the series which is also were the confusion sets off. Is it really nanotechnology they're using or is it pure digital graphics? I mean why use nanotech and in addition to that loads of computerized imagery and illusions when they managed so well without it in the 80's?

I don't want to come off like I'm singling you out, but in the words of Devon, "Surely you can't be serious?"

Hehehe, well in the words of Michael, "I'm dead serious!"

What's your opinion Lost Knight? Don't you think it's kind of a draw back to the series?

Well, Originally KITT did know the formula to the MBS. In Good Day at White Rock he is explaining himself to the store clerk while all of the bikers are beating him. He said " the chemical formula for the alloy is simply...." and then it cut off. I know that was rectonned by the MBS in Goliath. In the original pilot KITT's body was not metal or fiberglass but a new substance, much like in the pilot Michael's face was a younger Wilton Knight not Garth. There were many inconsistancies in the Original series. I always wondered how SPM was created and Bonnie states that it won't make up for the loss of the MBS but might help and then in the next episode KITT is back to crashing through walls with no mention of him ever getting the MBS back or how. Especially since 2 of the people that knew the formula were dead.

Yes, there is nanotechnology. There is nanotech armor, nanotech solar panels, nanotech gears, etc. They are even working on nanotech room temperature superconductors. But nanotechnology has not been developed to the point that we have coatings where you could fire a bullet at it and it heals in under a second. So, yes, of course the bullets bouncing off the car is a special effect! It was a special effect in the 80s too, man! Unless you're suggesting that they used a 1982 trans am that had been refitted with high density steel plating!

I'm pretty sure that the original poster realizes that both the MBS and the nanotech coating are elements of science fiction and neither car shown on either series is actually bulletproof.

I actually do think that nanotechnology is superior to MBS coating. The MBS coating cannot be reconfigured to new situations and can't change the color of the car for stealth and even invisibility. For example, if a truck goes by and sprays on a chemical meant to dissolve the coating, nanotechnology can be configured in real time to resist it, whereas the MBS would simply be dissolved.

But nanotech is a buzzword in the high tech world/silicon valley these days. For example, there is a company called nanosolar which has invented a process of making ultrathin, flexible solar panels comprised of nanoscale particles. The coating can be sprayed onto flexible metal the way an inkjet printer sprays ink onto paper. The factory they are building here in Silicon Valley will be the highest volume solar panel production plant in the world.

Nanotech solar ink

--Brian

Knight-Armen wrote:In the Knight Rider Visual Effects on Vimeo footage they're showing us how they did the turbo boost in more depth. They keep talking about the way they applied nanotechnology to the series which is also were the confusion sets off. Is it really nanotechnology they're using or is it pure digital graphics? I mean why use nanotech and in addition to that loads of computerized imagery and illusions when they managed so well without it in the 80's?

Are you seriously asking if the Nano-tech is real?

ex812 wrote:... in the Original series. I always wondered how SPM was created and Bonnie states that it won't make up for the loss of the MBS but might help and then in the next episode KITT is back to crashing through walls with no mention of him ever getting the MBS back or how. Especially since 2 of the people that knew the formula were dead.

As I recall it, the MBS formula was divided up into three parts. Deven knew two components, the dead guy knew two components (one of which Deven knew too). This meant, that in the event of one of their deaths, the two remaining people could still recreate the full formula. And if they were clever about it, they could recruit a new replacement and provide him with same two thirds of the formula that the dead guy held, without either Devon or ThirdGuy learning the complete secret.

AFAIK, Garthe is/was the only one person that knew the complete formula - after his father (I guess).

As a new fan, they can pretty much do no wrong with regards to the nanotech. The only stretch that exists is the issue of the hammerspace needed to pull off Attack Ki3t and 4x4 Ki3t, but heck, look at what else the car can do.

Are you seriously asking if the Nano-tech is real?

NO! I'm asking if the so called nanotechnology used in the series is ACTUAL nanotech or pure digital graphics.

Knight-Armen wrote:

Are you seriously asking if the Nano-tech is real?

NO! I'm asking if the so called nanotechnology used in the series is ACTUAL nanotech or pure digital graphics.

"Nanotech confusion" really is an appropriate title for this thread because I still don't know what the hell you're talking about!

I'm going to take a stab at what I think you're talking about. The nanotech in the show is supposed to be real nanotechnology (see Pilot). It's not some digital illusion for the bad guys. The car now also transforms as well, but it's still coated with nanotech (you can see the bullet shots in the windshield in the last episode). If you say it's not that you think there's real nanotech being used for the series production-wise, that would have to be what you're asking, right?

"Nanotech confusion" really is an appropriate title for this thread because I still don't know what the hell you're talking about!

I'm going to take a stab at what I think you're talking about. The nanotech in the show is supposed to be real nanotechnology (see Pilot). It's not some digital illusion for the bad guys. The car now also transforms as well, but it's still coated with nanotech (you can see the bullet shots in the windshield in the last episode). If you say it's not that you think there's real nanotech being used for the series production-wise, that would have to be what you're asking, right?

Oh really? So now you are complaining about the title as well? Everyone else seem to get it right and they didn't require any further explanation, so what is the problem?

"If you say it's not that you think there's real nanotech being used for the series production-wise"

Well, that's precisely what I'm saying isn't it?

"I'm asking if the so called nanotechnology used in the series is ACTUAL nanotech or pure digital graphics."

Yet you managed to answer the question...

Knight-Armen wrote:Oh really? So now you are complaining about the title as well? Everyone else seem to get it right and they didn't require any further explanation, so what is the problem?

"If you say it's not that you think there's real nanotech being used for the series production-wise"

Well, that's precisely what I'm saying isn't it?

"I'm asking if the so called nanotechnology used in the series is ACTUAL nanotech or pure digital graphics."

Yet you managed to answer the question...

With all due respect, you do quite a bit of complaining around here for what is in my opinion, frankly, nonsensical things (Hasselhoff not being the lead actor as one example). Whether it's for the sake of being heard, or you're complaining just for the sake of complaining, or if these things truly bother you that much, I don't know.

Your question was ambiguous and I was certainly not the only person confused in this thread. I suggest you re-read it again. Instead of being so defensive all the time, maybe a little more clarity or more well thought out ideas might be best because honestly, my patience with you is growing thin.

Knight-Armen wrote:Is it really nanotechnology they're using or is it pure digital graphics? I mean why use nanotech and in addition to that loads of computerized imagery and illusions when they managed so well without it in the 80's?

That flat out comes off as if you think the producers really use a car with nanotechnology for filming.

ex812 wrote:Well, Originally KITT did know the formula to the MBS. In Good Day at White Rock he is explaining himself to the store clerk while all of the bikers are beating him. He said " the chemical formula for the alloy is simply...." and then it cut off.

I do recall that. However, I have trouble believing that KITT would simply just tell someone what the EXACT formula was. I could see him saying "is simple three elements that combined together."

I always wondered how SPM was created and Bonnie states that it won't make up for the loss of the MBS but might help and then in the next episode KITT is back to crashing through walls with no mention of him ever getting the MBS back or how. Especially since 2 of the people that knew the formula were dead.

The three people who had the elements for the MBS were Devon, DR. Kyle Elliott, and a 'man who is alive and well in Switzerland' (Just rewatched that first part of Goliath). Only Dr. Elliott was killed (by Elizabeth Knight in 'Golaith') so there was no continuation gap concerning the MBS in season four. When I said in my earlier post that 2 of the 4 people were dead, I was referring to using MBS on KI3T.

-krfan1

Ah, I have been waiting for this discussion to start up.

I like the nanotech, but one thing bothers me. I don't think just having nanotech alone will allow the new KITT to do all the same things the old one did. The MBS allowed him to crash through walls, while nanotech allows self-repair. If the new KITT tries going 100+ through a wall, he'll smash himself. Sure, the nanotech can repair it.... if there is anything left to repair. I am not sure Mike would survive either. This little factoid is why I had a problem with the end of the Pilot where the Yukon smashed into the side of KITT.

Thus, the nanotech does not make the new KITT invincible. This might explain why we have yet to see him go through any walls or semi trailers. He's going to need the MBS for that. Hopefully they will get around to it in the second season...

Now, the new KITT with MBS -and- nanotech self-repair. I think he'd be more invincible than the original, dare I say it...

With all due respect, you do quite a bit of complaining around here for what is in my opinion, frankly, nonsensical things (Hasselhoff not being the lead actor as one example). Whether it's for the sake of being heard, or you're complaining just for the sake of complaining, or if these things truly bother you that much, I don't know.

Your question was ambiguous and I was certainly not the only person confused in this thread. I suggest you re-read it again. Instead of being so defensive all the time, maybe a little more clarity or more well thought out ideas might be best because honestly, my patience with you is growing thin.

Well, you've been against me ever since I joined this forum and that's starting to get me on my nerves too. You're just sitting there behind your screen waiting for me to type something that you can make a big deal of. I don't know why but somehow I know that you have something against me which makes a place such as KRO that's so fun, quite painful at times were I have to spend hours in trying to settle over such a superficial matter. Why can't you just let go of all that nagging and complaints about me making bad topics or whatever so that we can discuss these matters like grown ups?

I think it's increadibly wierd of you to say that I'm confused in my own thread, something that I created. Almost everyone DID understand the topic and their replies were even more than great and to the point. You on the other hand seem to have a problem very few have. Now, I've asked you repeatedly not to engage in my topics because you can't run a normal debate without turning it into a tug of war. Let's be honest, you don't like me anymore than I like you so why don't you just give it a break and carry on your discussions elsewhere. I honestly mean it and it's not to upset you.

Knight-Armen wrote:Well, you've been against me ever since I joined this forum and that's starting to get me on my nerves too. You're just sitting there behind your screen waiting for me to type something that you can make a big deal of. I don't know why but somehow I know that you have something against me which makes a place such as KRO that's so fun, quite painful at times were I have to spend hours in trying to settle over such a superficial matter. Why can't you just let go of all that nagging and complaints about me making bad topics or whatever so that we can discuss these matters like grown ups?

Now that's nothing but an unfounded accusation which is simply not true. If you want to play victim here, people can see right through it. To act like a grown up, that's the first thing that needs to change. However, if that's the impression you have of me, I will apologize for that, because it's not my intention to make you feel uncomfortable here. I believe you're the one making a mountain out of a mole hill here, so to speak, unless you can give me examples of all the times I supposedly attacked you in the past. I do not sit here just waiting to attack you. Saying something like that is just immature and downright ridiculous. You yourself just admitted you don't know why which means it's nothing more than an impression on your part.

Secondly, you damn well know I don't go around bashing all of your topics. We are talking about TWO separate threads here which are very recent, not every topic you make. I am not going to sit here and let you get away with blatantly making things up without calling you out on it.

Knight-Armen wrote:I think it's increadibly wierd of you to say that I'm confused in my own thread, something that I created. Almost everyone DID understand the topic and their replies were even more than great and to the point.

So now you've gone from "everyone else understood my question" to "almost everyone." Changing your tune after consistently being proven wrong (not only by me, but in other threads) isn't going to work with me.

You're either misunderstanding me or deliberately twisting my words around to imply that I'm saying you're confused. I along with a few others are the ones who were confused by what you meant. On top of that, this whole thread is about YOU being confused in the first place!

Knight-Armen wrote:You on the other hand seem to have a problem very few have. Now, I've asked you repeatedly not to engage in my topics because you can't run a normal debate without turning it into a tug of war.

Really? And when was this? Show me the quotes and instances. It's one thing if you feel victimized by me (if that's not a lie in and of itself) but quite another to make up things that never happened to help you come off as someone being picked on.

Knight-Armen wrote:Let's be honest, you don't like me anymore than I like you so why don't you just give it a break and carry on your discussions elsewhere. I honestly mean it and it's not to upset you.

You assume I don't like you. I'm only losing patience with you as of late. From this point forward I will stay out of any topics you start and overlook them so that you don't continue to feel uncomfortable. In fact I'll put you on ignore altogether if that makes you feel any better. That should put an end to this charade and keep your topics on-topic.

Lost Knight - You're not fooling anybody and feelings are not evoked from out of the blue. I can talk more sense into my 5-year-old nephew than I've done thus far with you. Whatever argument or source I present you seem to feel the urge of questioning just about everything in it. Since you don't have the math skills to count the number of members that were confused by my topic I'll count them for you (as if it will make any difference). Only two people were confused and one of them are you! BIG SURPRISE! The other member didn't even bother asking what I mean.

You're either misunderstanding me or deliberately twisting my words around to imply that I'm saying you're confused. I along with a few others are the ones who were confused by what you meant. On top of that, this whole thread is about YOU being confused in the first place!

Contradiction! In the first sentence you stated that I mistakably twist the words into thinking that you're saying that I'm confused. In the third sentence you actually say it yourself, well done!

You're very twisted Lost Knight if you don't mind me saying so and the fact that I won't have to deal with you anymore gives me a great reason to continue this discussion without any further mouthing from you.

Knight-Armen wrote:Lost Knight - You're not fooling anybody and feelings are not evoked from out of the blue. I can talk more sense into my 5-year-old nephew than I've done thus far with you. Whatever argument or source I present you seem to feel the urge of questioning just about everything in it. Since you don't have the math skills to count the number of members that were confused by my topic I'll count them for you (as if it will make any difference). Only two people were confused and one of them are you! BIG SURPRISE! The other member didn't even bother asking what I mean.

LMAO. Talk about talking to a brick wall. Before I put your botched up, confused posts that try desperately to sound intelligent on ignore forever, other people (whose names I won't mention—no, Knight-Armen, not because I don't have the "math skills" but because I have the decency to keep this between us [good diss there, by the way!]) have PM'd me telling me they had to do the same thing. You are not capable of "getting it" but I am responding to this just to make myself feel better. (Sorry, Mods, I just couldn't resist it.)

Knight-Armen wrote:Contradiction! In the first sentence you stated that I mistakably twist the words into thinking that you're saying that I'm confused. In the third sentence you actually say it yourself, well done!

Knight-Armen wrote:You're very twisted Lost Knight if you don't mind me saying so and the fact that I won't have to deal with you anymore gives me a great reason to continue this discussion without any further mouthing from you.

The only thing I mind (or have ever minded) was the idiocy of your posts. (That means I don't think you're very bright.)

Goodbye and good riddance.

Knight Armen this is the 2nd time i have read your posts and have just slapped my head and said to myself oh lord.

you literally asked in your first post if they really did use real nano technology on the actual shelby GT500 used i nthe Knight rider show. although not the exact words ths choice of words and how they were worded in context literally asked that same question.

Now whether or not thats what you really meant to ask i dont know but at this time i woudnt be surprised

Lost Knight - I thought you already pulled the plug you dumb wit? Your posts has been nothing but trash to my topics so if you want to keep spamming I'd suggest you put your trash were your mouth is.

This time I will unplug you myself to avoid your stupid replies.

Knight Armen this is the 2nd time i have read your posts and have just slapped my head and said to myself oh lord.

you literally asked in your first post if they really did use real nano technology on the actual shelby GT500 used i nthe Knight rider show. although not the exact words ths choice of words and how they were worded in context literally asked that same question.

Now whether or not thats what you really meant to ask i dont know but at this time i woudnt be surprised

Well, I would work on my english if I were you because your post doesn't make any sense to me. You can't even structure a sentence nor spell correctly. The whole package!

But don't worry, it'll take some time before you know how to type like an adult!

Knight-Armen wrote:

Are you seriously asking if the Nano-tech is real?

NO! I'm asking if the so called nanotechnology used in the series is ACTUAL nanotech or pure digital graphics.

What are you referring to by digital graphics?

Im confused by all this bickering!

Is or was someone in this thread saying any of the following?

1) Nanotech (as presented on the show) =/= Nanotech

2) "Nanotech", as presented on the show, is really the show's version of another technology entirely

3) "Nanotech", as presented on the show, is just an illusion in-show. Ki3t is actually masking heavy damage and it's still there.