I dont understand how this is a "commercial"
Moderators: neps, Matthew, Michael Pajaro
I dont understand how this is a "commercial"
Sure they will advertise the mustang, but it really wasnt that much. The original show did the same thing. Every opening showed the car's hood, surveillance meter, speed, wheels, sides, flying by the camera, THEN Michael/KITT would talk and it would begin. As for the other cars in the movie (focus chasing KITT), who the hell cares what car they drive. They dont say Im driving a focus to chase a mustang 20 times. I didnt even know the other cars were ford since I didnt really look. They dont say Im driving a ford, all the viewers should too. They just drove a car. If the drove a dodge, it would be the same thing and would you call it a Ford AND Dodge commercial?
Please stop with the its a 2-hour commercial comments. The advertising WASNT that bad and it would be the same no matter what car they picked.
Please stop with the its a 2-hour commercial comments. The advertising WASNT that bad and it would be the same no matter what car they picked.
Re: I dont understand how this is a "commercial"
I think the reason people focus so much on that, was because this movie didn't give us much ELSE to focus on. The plot was fairly pedestrian, and the new KITT didn't do a whole lot except drive really fast and look pretty.
It didn't help that every scene with the Mustang was SHOT like a modern day car commercial, with one loving closeup after another. The original wasn't nearly as blatant as that. The only closeups we would usually see of the Pontiac was a perspective shot from the wheels (to show that it was driving really fast) and of KITT's scanner. Most of the time the camera was a pretty good distance back to show us the whole car in action.
I'm not saying the advertising in the new movie bothered me (I personally liked the closeups), but I'm also not an idiot and realized what the real purpose of all that was.
It didn't help that every scene with the Mustang was SHOT like a modern day car commercial, with one loving closeup after another. The original wasn't nearly as blatant as that. The only closeups we would usually see of the Pontiac was a perspective shot from the wheels (to show that it was driving really fast) and of KITT's scanner. Most of the time the camera was a pretty good distance back to show us the whole car in action.
I'm not saying the advertising in the new movie bothered me (I personally liked the closeups), but I'm also not an idiot and realized what the real purpose of all that was.
- GN_WS6
- Rookie
- Posts: 77
- Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 12:37 pm
- What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Re: I dont understand how this is a "commercial"
Ditto. In the original they called it a Trans Am, but they also took off all emblems/badges/name plates off of KITT too. And they actually used other cars instead of Pontiacs for the viilans cars. In the new one, every single car was a FORD! except for the T/A "KITT" in the garage and the Yukon that gets demolished at the end.davejames wrote:I think the reason people focus so much on that, was because this movie didn't give us much ELSE to focus on. The plot was fairly pedestrian, and the new KITT didn't do a whole lot except drive really fast and look pretty.
It didn't help that every scene with the Mustang was SHOT like a modern day car commercial, with one loving closeup after another. The original wasn't nearly as blatant as that. The only closeups we would usually see of the Pontiac was a perspective shot from the wheels (to show that it was driving really fast) and of KITT's scanner. Most of the time the camera was a pretty good distance back to show us the whole car in action.
I'm not saying the advertising in the new movie bothered me (I personally liked the closeups), but I'm also not an idiot and realized what the real purpose of all that was.
The real KITT was born a Trans Am.
Re: I dont understand how this is a "commercial"
to me it's more like a 2 hours advertisement of new Ford's offerings. Don't complain, because Ford bid and win to sponsor the production. They surely want NBC to highlight their logo all the time. I thought it was rediculous, it's taking away the enjoyment of the story, which is lacking somewhat. I was expecting a "wow" factors in premiers, but this one hmmm...
- PHOENIXZERO
- FLAG Special Ops
- Posts: 2363
- Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:20 am
- What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
- Location: MI
Re: I dont understand how this is a "commercial"
The emblem focusing got a bit on my nerves I expected it but hoped they wouldn't make it so blatant. The big difference between this and the original KITT is that the original KITT had absolutely no markings declaring it being a Trans-Am, it would have been nice if the new TV movie didn't make it so blatant and only gone as far as mentioning the model of the vehicle, like the original show did in the first season until Pontiac told them to stop.
The new and again improved evil's advertisement is currently too long and too badass to display here. But let's just say that with now 50% more evil, this **** is great!



Re: I dont understand how this is a "commercial"
Well to be fair, the new car was only referred to as a Mustang once I believe. But of course with all those nonstop closeups, they probably didn't NEED to be more specific.PHOENIXZERO wrote:The emblem focusing got a bit on my nerves I expected it but hoped they wouldn't make it so blatant. The big difference between this and the original KITT is that the original KITT had absolutely no markings declaring it being a Trans-Am, it would have been nice if the new TV movie didn't make it so blatant and only gone as far as mentioning the model of the vehicle, like the original show did in the first season until Pontiac told them to stop.
Again, I didn't mind the product placement in and of itself. My problem is that the car didn't do much EXCEPT look pretty in this movie. If we got some cool 80s car stunts and a lot more functions and gadgets like in the original, I would have been fine with them showing off the car the way they did.
- Kaine
- FLAG Recruit
- Posts: 314
- Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2002 1:01 am
- What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
Re: I dont understand how this is a "commercial"
not ALL the vehicles were Ford...
the sherrif's car in the end for example was a chevrolet, and i didn't go back and watch for an example, it just randomly noticed that during the show.
it's really ridiculous how the haters just use false facts and make up arguments to bash this movie.
the sherrif's car in the end for example was a chevrolet, and i didn't go back and watch for an example, it just randomly noticed that during the show.
it's really ridiculous how the haters just use false facts and make up arguments to bash this movie.
- Solid Snake
- FLAG Recruit
- Posts: 460
- Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 12:55 pm
- What year did the original Knight Rider start: 0
- Location: Hengelo, The Netherlands
Re: I dont understand how this is a "commercial"
Yes... indeed haters and naysayers... the kind real Knight Rider fans don´t like. The movie was not a commercial... it did not feature powered by Ford in anyway in the movie... it did not show a Ford billboard saying " FORD FORD FORD". It was a perfectly nicely done movie with a good story and a good watch... and it used several car brands.
Knight Rider, powered by Ford!
Re: I dont understand how this is a "commercial"
It does get annoying but I just focused on not focusing on it.If that makes sense.lol