KITT in the new movie - CGI?

Sith · Post by **Sith** » Sun May 18, 2003 5:53 pm

I'm sure the producers of the new movie are pouring over which car to use for the basic shape of the new KITT.

I mean, they could yet use the old T/A, but I think its likely they'll try something ultra modern.

Which got me onto thinking... do they even need to build a car?

Put it like this. In the 80s, KITT looked so futuristic for the time. I think I can safely say, there isn't a modern car out there that evokes a similar kind of feeling in people. (Think Team Knight Rider. lol)

So... how about a CGI car? They could craft a stunning looking machine, fit it with new fictional devices that are yet to appear in cars - because they are unbuildable, and pull off turbo boosts that would be visually mesmerising.

I mean people complain that CGI is merely eye candy, but if its put to proper usage, people will believe it looks "real". For example, not many people know this, but around 60% of the car chase scenes in The Fast And The Furious are in fact CGI. (If you don't believe me, watch the extras on the DVD. lol)

Now in that movie, there were several vehicles to animate.... but in the new KR movie... they could concentrate on just the one. Thus getting an even higher standard of quality. The new movie is also budgeted at the same amount that TF&TF had. So cost shouldn't be an issue either.

The fact is, CGI has moved on so far now. Even in the 2 years since TF&TF was released. Anyone who has seen what has been done in The Matrix Reloaded will know what I'm talking about. Soon, effects will be truly lifelike. The naked eye won't be able to tell the difference.

To make a car that is visually stunning, and yet to be capable of mind blowing stunts, as the T/A was in the 80s, I think is no longer possible. Expectations in movies have been raised far higher nowadays. Stunts have to be absolutely amazing now, as so many movies keep raising the level of excellence. And to be honest, I think a point has been reached, where it would be cheaper, safer, and perhaps more visual, to let CGI take KITT to the new level of action movies.

Sure, the faithful fans from the 80s will love stunts at the same level of the TV series, but do you really see modern movie audiences getting that excited about a car jumping a wall? They want to be thrilled... and I'm sure the producers will be taking this into account. Modern action movies are all about the stunts. You can have the best acting in it, but if it ain't got the stunts, you're aiming at the wrong crowd.

Remember, trailers are now a major selling point for modern movies. Take Terminator 3, which has had 4 trailers thus far, with 2 months until release. Usually, the best scenes of a film are placed in them, and if the audience isn't "wowed" by the trailer, they ain't going to see the movie. Sad, but true.

So... fellow fans... what are your thoughts on this? Should the new KITT be CGI? Would you feel alienated knowing that truly this car was not "real" in any sense of the word?

And KITT replica builders... would you have a go at building such a car? lol

knightimmortal · Post by **knightimmortal** » Sun May 18, 2003 7:35 pm

Sorry, but CGI still doesn't look real enough to replace the reality of the real thing, and could definitely take away a whole lot of it.

Movies that base highly off of CGI look pretty darn cornball, and unrealistic, and part of the magic of the car is to be fooled into believing (as so many have) that he was real.

All CGI....major barf.

KI

Skav · Post by **Skav** » Sun May 18, 2003 8:35 pm

i will agree with KI on this...i don't like the idea of computer graphics taking over the movie world.

if they do this with KR, i won't even bother seeing it. as for F&F, it was only certain parts of car chases that they couldn't fill in or maybe attempted to make it look good but i could tell which was what.

i just don't think KR would be right for it. it's NOT matrix, which, btw, i think sux but thats just me.

Skav

Sith · Post by **Sith** » Sun May 18, 2003 8:43 pm

Skav wrote:i will agree with KI on this...i don't like the idea of computer graphics taking over the movie world.

if they do this with KR, i won't even bother seeing it. as for F&F, it was only certain parts of car chases that they couldn't fill in or maybe attempted to make it look good but i could tell which was what.

i just don't think KR would be right for it. it's NOT matrix, which, btw, i think sux but thats just me.

lol... this change is coming, gradual though it may be. As is the change to digital cameras, thus negating the term "film". Times are changing... CGI is far better than the stop motion animation of the 80s... like you see in them god awful horror flicks. lol

And regarding The Matrix... think you'll find you're in the minority there... Woah...

So... if you are so against the CGI idea, what car model would you consider appropriate? (excluding the original Trans Am)

knightimmortal · Post by **knightimmortal** » Sun May 18, 2003 8:48 pm

Just because mindless minions will flock to a movie and make it gain a lot of money does not make it popular amongst those who are actual film lovers. For every person who says they liked the Matrix, you will also find somebody who says that they didn't.

The only reason why CGI is getting so popular, is because of those who are easy pushovers for eye candy, and those who would like to have a certifyable budget (rather than unknown, with real stunts) are pushing forth to them,

Now, as for the model of car, that one has been done to death. Now that the search function is back, you can use it to find the topic, after topic, after topic about which new car should be used. Mine is still a Corvette.

KI

Skav · Post by **Skav** » Sun May 18, 2003 8:54 pm

that is true....it is to make things as cheap as possible and to be honest, its also rather lazy of the film makers to sit on their asses and not do it the old fashion way.

just cos its easier, doesn't mean they should put CGI in movies for the sake of it!

oh, sith...i am in the minority? makes me feel good, read my signature! roflmao.

Skav

Sith · Post by **Sith** » Sun May 18, 2003 9:04 pm

knightimmortal wrote:Just because mindless minions will flock to a movie and make it gain a lot of money does not make it popular amongst those who are actual film lovers.

lol, so all these people that go to the cinema are not film lovers? They are just there for the hell of it are they?

And I find your stereotyping comment of being "mindless" to be insulting, not just to myself, but for several million others.

Just because you do not approve of another film or TV series, gives you no right to attack their fanbase in such a way. But then again, I forget, your mind is closed to nothing but Knight Rider.

knightimmortal · Post by **knightimmortal** » Sun May 18, 2003 9:25 pm

Excuse me? You would be the one who would be getting their undies in a bunch because people are not rushing right out and agreeing with you. If you want me to be the bad guy, then at least give me some warning first.

I personally do not mind the Matrix, (thanks for not even bothering to ask, just get defensive first, and watch the fireworks later) but to proclaim that CGI is the way to go because of it, is a little silly. It is the lazy man's way for trying to get away with things that are not real, and when you look at it, nobody is trying to push that the Matrix could be real in any way, shape or form. It's sci-fantasy, while the whole thing that Knight Rider was pushing was the possibility of reality.

If you don't like it, then go find a Matrix board to go feast on, but do NOT snap at those who are trying to share their views, even if they dare to oppose yours. I think you need to cool off before you continue on with this, because to be honest, I am not in the mood to deal with another set of snippy temper tantrums yet again.

KI

rusti_knight · Post by **rusti_knight** » Sun May 18, 2003 9:38 pm

I really don't see the point of doing a movie entirely in CGI. You end up with 'cartoons' like Shrek, Toy Story, Monster's Inc and Finding Nemo. That's not an action movie at all, it seems to be geared more towards a younger audience.

I know that I, personally, would much prefer that any KR movie be shot the old fashioned way with select CGI'd special effects, and those should be used discreetly, because, however well disguised, you can still spot them.

Yes, it would defeat the purpose of the movie to have it done entirely by computer.

Rusti

Centaurus17 · Post by **Centaurus17** » Sun May 18, 2003 9:44 pm

KI...i do agree with you that going all out on CGI is a bit much and would probably fail(Knight Rider and CGI really don't mix in my book). But i think Sith was objecting to your comment about the "mindless minions" flocking to go see the matrix so it would make tons of money. Even i had to do a double take when i read that, as I was someone who saw Matrix on opening day and will probably end up seeing it again. I mean, what exactly is an "actual film lover"?

Whatever, to each their own i guess.

knightimmortal · Post by **knightimmortal** » Sun May 18, 2003 10:03 pm

You all need to get over it. The mindless minions are the ones who watch it once, turn around within the same day, watch it again. Those are the one who drive it up. Not to mention, there are those who will go see any movie without even bothering to think about it. Are you one of those? If you are, then you are a mindless minion.

You all have said a whole lot worse about me, so grow the heck up! Geeze! And if you really thought 'to each their own', then you wouldn't have thrown your two cents in, now would you? No.

An actual film lover is not somebody who goes just to see all the cool action and crap, but actually looks for a storyline, and for the actual artistic side of the movie, not just the eye candy that can be thrown out there to make the kids go 'ooo'

KI

Skav · Post by **Skav** » Sun May 18, 2003 10:33 pm

Even though matrix isn't my cup of tea, i believe you should be entertained without really thinking about the 'artistic side' of a film...a motion picture is about motion...to be dazzled by its qualities.

now, you can hardly think about the artistic side of a movie such as 'freddy vs jason' can u?

it all depends on what type of film it is, to start thinking about it's "art".

but as i said, we can't go thinking about films too deeply everytime we watch one.

i believe that ppl who do that, need to start thinking there is more to life than just movies!

Skav

knightimmortal · Post by **knightimmortal** » Sun May 18, 2003 10:38 pm

Great, everybody take apart everything I say and turn it negative, go right ahead, have at it, knock yourselves out, no matter what I say, even my former supporters are going to look at it negatively.

I am not slamming anybody down. I went and saw it today. (Didn't like it, because it felt more like they were trying to go for eye candy over storyline) but I am not somebody who is going to go back again, and again within 24 hours to see a movie again to help drive it up. There are people who do that.

So how about you all just get on with life? I am not attacking any of you or your sensibilities. I just don't approve of lazy filmmaking, which CGI is.

Is that better, or are people going to find something else to beat the crap out of me on?

KI

Centaurus17 · Post by **Centaurus17** » Sun May 18, 2003 10:45 pm

knightimmortal wrote:You all need to get over it. The mindless minions are the ones who watch it once, turn around within the same day, watch it again. Those are the one who drive it up. Not to mention, there are those who will go see any movie without even bothering to think about it. Are you one of those? If you are, then you are a mindless minion.

You all have said a whole lot worse about me, so grow the heck up! Geeze! And if you really thought 'to each their own', then you wouldn't have thrown your two cents in, now would you? No.

An actual film lover is not somebody who goes just to see all the cool action and crap, but actually looks for a storyline, and for the actual artistic side of the movie, not just the eye candy that can be thrown out there to make the kids go 'ooo'

KI

I apologize for my comments. I didn't mean to take anyone's side in this matter and alienate someone else. Again, i am very sorry.

DJGM · Post by **DJGM** » Sun May 18, 2003 11:24 pm

IMO, the KR movie should use a little bit of CGI, albeit in a limited sense, and only in
scenes were it's absolutely necessary to do so. Maybe in some of the more dangerous
stunts involving KITT, where realistically someone could get seriously injured, and the
car used could get completely trashed (and I mean 100% totalled, not just the nose
and scanner parts being smashed off) I think careful use of CGI, would look so much
better than the scale models they had to use in the original TV series of Knight Rider.

(Let's face it, most of those models looked crap! Even when on occasions they weren't
used in any stunts. One example being the model of KITT they used in the quicksand
scene in "Goliath Returns". That thing just looked plain fugly! Another example was
the (glaringly false) model of KITT going under in the acid pit in "Junk Yard Dog".)

Even if CGI isn't used in any of the stunts in the KR movie, it should at least be used
for displays on KITT's video monitor(s). Although, I have to agree, that if CGI effects
are overused, or used just for the sake of using CGI, that would definitely spoil it.

Mind you, if ever they decide to make an animated spin off from the KR movie, perhaps
mainly for a younger audience, like the Knight Rider cartoon that had been previously
rumoured, then IMO, that should be made with 100% CGI based animation . . .

Darknight · Post by **Darknight** » Mon May 19, 2003 12:12 am

I agree with KI here. The Matrix aside (I don't mind the Matrix), movies like Daredevil sucked because they blew the cgi effects way out of proportion, not to mention a score of other unbelievables(chemicals getting in your eyes can make you jump 50 feet in the air?). I wouldn't go see 2stupid2watch if you paid me. Ludacris' new video "Act a Fool" aptly sums it all up, I think. If you see that video, you'll never wanna see the movie, ever! I don't care if Ja Rule is in it. I don't care if Elvis Presley is in it. I'm never seeing that pitiful excuse...

Dkg

CB2001 · Post by **CB2001** » Mon May 19, 2003 1:40 am

Well, if you're going to make KITT CGi, you might as well make the whole movie CGI ala "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within" and "The Animatrix: The Final Flight of the Osiris" (short film). The funny thing is that with such CGI films (as mentioned) have a funny way of fooling your mind into believing that the characters are actually real.

AlmostThere · Post by **AlmostThere** » Mon May 19, 2003 5:36 am

Hmmm perhaps yes, but you will always know it's not 100% real.

I would feel very betrayed if the Kitt was all cgi, where the "One man can make a difference" life and soul in that? " One sfx, can make a difference."

Kitt has to be real, with cgi used as a catalyst to help increase the wow factor of stunts but not replace them. It's very dangerous cgi technology, because you can do anything you want with it, and you can ruin a film and it's rep by doing so.

As stated before the films you mention do seem to work great because they are sci-fi and it appeals to the genre's side. Can you imagine a cgi version of Michael on screen? It will NOT look realistic and doesn't belong to KR's pushing the envelope of reality as KI mentioned. If KR were to be entirely cgi, I'd laugh, and never watch the thing either. But as many said cgi does have its benefits, but must be used very carefully. And remeber, less is more!

Sith · Post by **Sith** » Mon May 19, 2003 7:35 am

knightimmortal wrote:do NOT snap at those who are trying to share their views, even if they dare to oppose yours.

Perhaps you should heed your own advice occasionally.

knightimmortal wrote:I think you need to cool off before you continue on with this, because to be honest, I am not in the mood to deal with another set of snippy temper tantrums yet again.

And thats just hypocritical. At no point did I get angry. Look over your own comments. This is only a forum - for lively debate. Yet you succeeded in turning it into yet another argument, and drifting off-topic on to how the world is out to get you. The exact opposite of a moderator's role. Keep up the good work.

Anyway, we've wasted enough breath on this. I have to say I agree with some of the comments about CGI. It does ruin some movies. But I'm saying using it in a sensible manner, it could work.

I guess we'll just have to see what the producers decide.

March2875 · Post by **March2875** » Mon May 19, 2003 9:24 am

Being a person that has seen the trailer of the upcoming Incredible Hulk Movie, I must say CGI looks fake and cartoonish. Some of the people behind the making of that movie argued CGI was better for the Hulk than Lou Ferrigno was. Yeah right long live the original Hulk series. The special affects there were timeless.

Sith · Post by **Sith** » Mon May 19, 2003 9:46 am

lol... the thing with the Hulk is, even though it looks cartoony, he looks far more faithful to the original comic creation. There's not a man on earth with the build to fit him. But I see your point.

A CGI car would be far easier to animate though... and look less sloppy. Hell, anyone who's played the Gran Turismo games know how realistic they can recreate car movements now.

I've no doubt some CGI will be used in the new movie. Just what amount, will be interesting to see. Hopefully the producers will leak us some more news soon.

Post by **neps** » Mon May 19, 2003 11:14 am

I agree with Ang Lee's decision on making the Hulk cgi. The original vision of Hulk stood 15 foot tall. There isn't a person alive that could play him the way it was supposed to.

A car on the other hand, since is created with metal and fiberglass, it's alot easier to make a car like KITT in reality, why bother doing cgi. Thats not saying that they wont CGI him a little bit for explosions and camera movements like they do. Spiderman had alot of CGI, but the basis was all human, but when camera movements or effects required things not humanly possible without risk of serious injury, they turned to CGI, and for then I think it's okay.

Skav · Post by **Skav** » Mon May 19, 2003 11:53 am

Neil Epstein -"A car on the other hand, since is created with metal and fiberglass, it's alot easier to make a car like KITT in reality, why bother doing cgi"

Which is why they shouldn't throw in CGI for the sake of it. i hate it when film makers do that. it's a sign of laziness.

Skav

DJGM · Post by **DJGM** » Mon May 19, 2003 12:48 pm

neps wrote: The original vision of Hulk stood 15 foot tall. There isn't a
person alive that could play him the way it was supposed to.

Not necessarily. If they could find an actor with the sort of muscley build as
the Hulk, no matter what height he stands in real life, the film makers could
always use color seperation overlay (CSO*) to make him look a 15 feet tall.

(*CSO is also known as chromakey or bluescreen, and is mostly used in weather forecasts.)

Sith · Post by **Sith** » Mon May 19, 2003 12:51 pm

Skav wrote:Which is why they shouldn't throw in CGI for the sake of it. i hate it when film makers do that. it's a sign of laziness.

Skav

Just imagine SPM using CGI...

lol

I hope the producers are reading this post... lol... we've certainly given them a variety of opinions.

I certainly don't envy them. Whether they use CGI or not, they face the near impossible task of appeasing existing fans, and appealing to the wider movie audience.

Good luck Mr Hasselhoff...

KITT in the new movie - CGI?

KITT in the new movie - CGI?

knight rider: original

knight rider: 2008-2009

team knight rider

other knight rider

news

user contributed

videos

photos

follow us