knight rider online

Given that we'll probably see this again, I found this video on KRO; it's a slightly different version of the transformation to Attack Mode. I think it looks a little smoother, but it looks as though Masterkey went with a different transformation for the final cut.

What do you guys think? I personally like this transformation a little better - at least, what I can see from this angle.

http://knightrideronline.com/news/2008/ ... mation.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is a reference transformation. One of the main differences here is the front bumper and the deployment of the hood intake (it's slower in the alternate version).

http://knightrideronline.com/news/2008/ ... _after.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't like any transformations. They don't make sense, they only look convincing when you have a multi-million dollar film budget behind them, and they are overused. If you want to transform the headlight only to launch a missile fine. But transforming the whole car into something completely different that has no logical basis is silly.

Given that the transformations are probably here to stay, I'll live with what we have now (which is really good, considering).

I should clarify my initial question. Between the two transformations, which do you guys prefer? I personally like the "alternate transformation" link, as it seems a little more organic. I like the way the front bumper kind of flows to meet itself in the middle, instead of the pop-out bumper in current transformations. It feels more "nanotech" to me and distances itself from the Transformers comparison that many people have made. I like the idea of more organic transformations.

If they must keep the transformations, would you prefer the "alternate" transformation or the current one?

I don't like any transformations. They don't make sense, they only look convincing when you have a multi-million dollar film budget behind them, and they are overused. If you want to transform the headlight only to launch a missile fine. But transforming the whole car into something completely different that has no logical basis is silly.

nothing in this show is really logical.... as far as the technology goes.... I've decided to just sit back and watch what happens... i suggest it to anyone! its highly rewarding.


i like the transformation that you posted a bit better there lunchmeat

honnziva wrote:

I don't like any transformations. They don't make sense, they only look convincing when you have a multi-million dollar film budget behind them, and they are overused. If you want to transform the headlight only to launch a missile fine. But transforming the whole car into something completely different that has no logical basis is silly.

nothing in this show is really logical.... as far as the technology goes.... I've decided to just sit back and watch what happens... i suggest it to anyone! its highly rewarding.


i like the transformation that you posted a bit better there lunchmeat

There's complete fabrication from thin air and then there's something that looks plausible. KR 08 relies on the former and that's why the transformations look silly. TOS relied on turbo boost and later SPM and while not logical, they looked somewhat plausible. At least Andron's nanotech concept looked more plausible than a transforming car that looks like a hollow empty shell while its transforming!

A spoiler was popping up out of thin air in Andron's concept. How is that more plausible than what we have now?

I personally like the alternate transformation more as well.

NeoRanger wrote:A spoiler was popping up out of thin air in Andron's concept. How is that more plausible than what we have now?

I personally like the alternate transformation more as well.

Different degrees of plausibility can exist, its not an issue of absolutes where one is real and one is fake. The spoiler effect was more plausible b/c the nanotech built it in the same fashion that cells multiply and aggregate over an elapsed period of time. Its not real but its based on a concept that exists. The transformations look ridiculous b/c the car itself hollows out and components that could never be contained within the car come out and form together. At least Michael Bay used the idea that the vehicle body breaks apart into multi faceted pieces that attach to a thin metallic skeleton to make it appear plausible and lend credence to the transformations.

Regardless, I like the first transformation better due to the more organic feel. I don't know if we'll see a second season of this show, but if we do and the transformations must stay, I'd like to see something closer to the first transformation (unless the Masterkey guys have deleted that transform and it'd be too costly/time-consuming to recreate it).

the nano morph shown in the movie looked so ridiculous. I imagined a better looking nano morph......and I can't explain it.

So this comment is worthless..

Nah, it's not a worthless comment.

I liked the pilot nano-morph effect because it looked like it was building a framework for the nano-bot material to move on and take shape.

The transformation effect is growing on me as the series has gone on, but there's still that "hollow shell" look and the "where the heck did that big bit go?" moments where entire sections fold away into thin air. If it had been me designing it, I'd have gone with a powdery/ particle/ viral look where ripples of change flow over KITT, shifting bits around, rather than entirely replacing whole panels. I suppose the thought was go for "visually exciting" rather than "semi-plausible".

Another thought occurs: like Transformers they've shot themselves in the foot when it comes to merchandising. How on earth are they going to market transforming KITT as a toy? Kids (and adults) will have something that looks almost, but not quite like the one on TV. It might transform. Both modes might look mostly like the TV car, but the transform process... not going to happen.

Still nevermind.

J_Spaced wrote:Another thought occurs: like Transformers they've shot themselves in the foot when it comes to merchandising.

I don't understand this comment at all. "Transformers" produces really convincing vehicle to robot figures. Look at their current "Universe" line for examples of some great car to robot conversions. And "Transformers" has hardly 'shot itself in the foot' with its merchandise. Hasbro sold a record number of Transformers products between 2007 and 2008 thanks to the movie and the line is currently celebrating its 25th Anniversary. "Shot in the foot" implies failure, which Transformers hardly represents.

Lunchmeat, I'll agree with you on the transformation. That one does look nicer and less "improvised" than a lot of the ones we've seen recently.

J_Spaced wrote:Nah, it's not a worthless comment.

I liked the pilot nano-morph effect because it looked like it was building a framework for the nano-bot material to move on and take shape.

The transformation effect is growing on me as the series has gone on, but there's still that "hollow shell" look and the "where the heck did that big bit go?" moments where entire sections fold away into thin air. If it had been me designing it, I'd have gone with a powdery/ particle/ viral look where ripples of change flow over KITT, shifting bits around, rather than entirely replacing whole panels. I suppose the thought was go for "visually exciting" rather than "semi-plausible".
.

You know, I'd go for the nano morph over the current transformation if they could make what you're saying a little more......well, I guess a little better. But I think with nano morph, we would have to see close ups on KITT to really get a wow factor, where as the origami version does it and makes you wonder if technology could ever come to that.
Like Spiderman 3's Sand Storm - the best scene of him forming was the slow one in the beginning. Could editors pull that off with KITT, but fast? Naw...remember that scene in the movie when Sarah asks KITT to stop at the bridge and we just see KITT's spoiler wing erase?

KnightINSTINCT wrote:

J_Spaced wrote:Nah, it's not a worthless comment.

I liked the pilot nano-morph effect because it looked like it was building a framework for the nano-bot material to move on and take shape.

The transformation effect is growing on me as the series has gone on, but there's still that "hollow shell" look and the "where the heck did that big bit go?" moments where entire sections fold away into thin air. If it had been me designing it, I'd have gone with a powdery/ particle/ viral look where ripples of change flow over KITT, shifting bits around, rather than entirely replacing whole panels. I suppose the thought was go for "visually exciting" rather than "semi-plausible".
.

You know, I'd go for the nano morph over the current transformation if they could make what you're saying a little more......well, I guess a little better. But I think with nano morph, we would have to see close ups on KITT to really get a wow factor, where as the origami version does it and makes you wonder if technology could ever come to that.
Like Spiderman 3's Sand Storm - the best scene of him forming was the slow one in the beginning. Could editors pull that off with KITT, but fast? Naw...remember that scene in the movie when Sarah asks KITT to stop at the bridge and we just see KITT's spoiler wing erase?

I actually thought that scene was pretty awesome...

I believe that part of the reason for the current transformations is that it's simply easier to animate. The effects guys have a model of KI3T animated to transform into Attack and back, and they can reuse it - so it's easier to just composite a 3D animation into a number of frames than it is to go through, frame by frame, and create the nanoskin effect we saw in the pilot. It looked damned cool, for sure - but I don't think we'll see it again.

I hadn't seen the Sandman scene until 2 minutes ago (wooo Youtube!) and yeah, it's kind of cool, but I don't think we'll see much, if anything, in Knight Rider on par with those effects (besides the nano morph in the pilot and KARR in the series).

I guess it's kind of difficult - I'd like a more organic transformation, with more stretching and morphing, but it's possible that something like that would only be effective in close-up shots. The transformation....you can spot that from close up, or really far away. A combination of the two, transforming and morphing, would be best, but I also wonder if the transformations were easier from a 3D modelling point of view. I don't know.

I still think the transformation from the pilot is the best to have for the Knight Rider. all the nano technology thing was more attractive than the auto thing.

lunchmeat wrote:

KnightINSTINCT wrote:

J_Spaced wrote:Nah, it's not a worthless comment.

I liked the pilot nano-morph effect because it looked like it was building a framework for the nano-bot material to move on and take shape.

The transformation effect is growing on me as the series has gone on, but there's still that "hollow shell" look and the "where the heck did that big bit go?" moments where entire sections fold away into thin air. If it had been me designing it, I'd have gone with a powdery/ particle/ viral look where ripples of change flow over KITT, shifting bits around, rather than entirely replacing whole panels. I suppose the thought was go for "visually exciting" rather than "semi-plausible".
.

You know, I'd go for the nano morph over the current transformation if they could make what you're saying a little more......well, I guess a little better. But I think with nano morph, we would have to see close ups on KITT to really get a wow factor, where as the origami version does it and makes you wonder if technology could ever come to that.
Like Spiderman 3's Sand Storm - the best scene of him forming was the slow one in the beginning. Could editors pull that off with KITT, but fast? Naw...remember that scene in the movie when Sarah asks KITT to stop at the bridge and we just see KITT's spoiler wing erase?

I actually thought that scene was pretty awesome...

I believe that part of the reason for the current transformations is that it's simply easier to animate. The effects guys have a model of KI3T animated to transform into Attack and back, and they can reuse it - so it's easier to just composite a 3D animation into a number of frames than it is to go through, frame by frame, and create the nanoskin effect we saw in the pilot. It looked damned cool, for sure - but I don't think we'll see it again.

I hadn't seen the Sandman scene until 2 minutes ago (wooo Youtube!) and yeah, it's kind of cool, but I don't think we'll see much, if anything, in Knight Rider on par with those effects (besides the nano morph in the pilot and KARR in the series).

I guess it's kind of difficult - I'd like a more organic transformation, with more stretching and morphing, but it's possible that something like that would only be effective in close-up shots. The transformation....you can spot that from close up, or really far away. A combination of the two, transforming and morphing, would be best, but I also wonder if the transformations were easier from a 3D modelling point of view. I don't know.

Well, the nano morph still kind of exists with KITT. I was happy to see that the basic nano morph transformation was used to repair battle-wounded KITT after the KARR fight. The thing about it to me is, it's almost "magical" looking.

OH, just had a thought. Has anybody else on here wondered when we will see an interior shot of KITT transforming the cab? With Mike sitting in there, the only logical transformation with his seat and steering wheel has to be the nano morph. That would be so wild to see!

goldbug wrote:

J_Spaced wrote:Another thought occurs: like Transformers they've shot themselves in the foot when it comes to merchandising.

I don't understand this comment at all. "Transformers" produces really convincing vehicle to robot figures. Look at their current "Universe" line for examples of some great car to robot conversions. And "Transformers" has hardly 'shot itself in the foot' with its merchandise. Hasbro sold a record number of Transformers products between 2007 and 2008 thanks to the movie and the line is currently celebrating its 25th Anniversary. "Shot in the foot" implies failure, which Transformers hardly represents.

Ah, I wasn't very clear was I? I'm referring to the movie line, where you can buy a toy that looks like the vehicle but not the robot form or vice-versa. They can't replicate the fantastically complex transformations you see in the movie on a plastic toy. Perhaps "shot in the foot" was an exaggeration. I meant: as a toy manufacturer they must have looked at the special effect of transformation and gone: "sod it, we'll do what we've always done." Which is still good, but doesn't look anything like the impossible transformation you see in the movie.

So if we see a KITT toy with amazing Attack mode transformation, it would be miles away from the transformation that appears on screen BECAUSE it's so impossible.

Has that made it clearer? I think I've confused myself.

Back to the subject of KITT transformation. I was looking at the HD MasterKey Films reel and I realised that what would be more convincing is if we could see KITT's internal engine and associated workings as he transformed. You look at the transformation into an F150, there is absolutely no engine there at all.

Maybe I'll photoshop a couple of frames to show what I mean?

If the transformation had involved perhaps pre-prepared "rolling" elements, like the doors panels flip to reveal intakes, rather than the intakes sliding out of nowhere or if the front bumper thing extended from the existing bumper, rather than bumper one sliding into the car and bumper two coming from "somewhere" to replace it.

The rear wheels too, simply resize and all four wheels temporarily "float" while their axles are pulled inside then replaced. There's nothing holding the wheels to the car for a split second and while it's stuff that's almost too fast to see I think we still pick up on it unconsciously. (Or like me, sit and watch the reel in slo-mo.)

Don't know how many of you have seen the french movie Taxi 2 but the car transformations in the film were realistic and gave it a bit more credibility.

here's a clip so you understand where i'm coming from.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yypcyrkiZV8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think a lot CGI stands out too much in KR2008.
The transformations need to be toned down / simplified to make them more realistic.

not a complaint. just an observation.

That transformation in Taxi is more TOS than KR08...it's somewhat realistic, but it lacks the wonder of the current transformations. It doesn't have the same type of sci-fi dream quality - it'd be like the crew members in Star Trek TOS having pistols instead of phasers.

if the front bumper thing extended from the existing bumper, rather than bumper one sliding into the car and bumper two coming from "somewhere" to replace it.

This is one of the main problems I have with the transformation. See, it looks completely awesome...it really does, but it doesn't make that much sense and the bumper transform is one of the most apparent points of the transformation. I think that the bumper is the main reason that people have drawn parallels to Transformers - if you look at the rest of the car, the transformations are a little more subtle (because the moving parts are, in general, smaller and darker; the bumper seems to have internal lights).

The thing I really like about the preliminary transform that I posted is how the sides of the car scoot forward a bit - and then the bumper kind of grows in between them. On the whole, it makes the entire transformation seem more subtle - the bumper is a main focal point when you're seeing the car transform.

(Note that this is only for the Normal to Attack transform; I wouldn't really be sure how to handle the other transforms in a non-transformers manner unless the budget was huge.)

The rear wheels too, simply resize and all four wheels temporarily "float" while their axles are pulled inside then replaced. There's nothing holding the wheels to the car for a split second and while it's stuff that's almost too fast to see I think we still pick up on it unconsciously. (Or like me, sit and watch the reel in slo-mo.)

I never really thought of it that way, but yeah, I suppose it'd have to be true....because of the way the spokes flip out and retract. (Although, I confess, I love that part of the transform; it's really my favorite part of the entire thing. It just looks so cool. )

KnightINSTINCT wrote:Well, the nano morph still kind of exists with KITT. I was happy to see that the basic nano morph transformation was used to repair battle-wounded KITT after the KARR fight. The thing about it to me is, it's almost "magical" looking.

That's true. It's definitely not the same effect from the pilot, but it's an adequate approximation. It looked more "magical" than the pilot because they used the blue glow from the nanotech, instead of the "paint peeling" effect from the pilot. I can see something like that being used for color changes, if they go that route again, but I'm not sure how it will work for larger transformations.