What? Of course a car from one company would, if it was one of its features, transform into something from the same company? If, theoretically, Ford would make a car with such a feature, it wouldn't make too much sense having it transform into a Chrysler or a Mercedes, or any other car not made by Ford?
I have never watched a single episode of Knight Rider, so I don't know if it's some government agency-built car with no ties to its manufacturer, but it would still make sense to transform into models from the same company. Why waste space with parts from other companies if you can just use parts that fit naturally?
It just makes sense!
So I think, product placement as it may be, that it fits perfectly.
@MrThunderfield: Except, "Ford" didn't actually build KITT--the evil senator from X-Men did. And, presumably, if you had a car like KITT, the inside would probably not have any parts in common with ANY car on the road today.
@TrixRagnarok: Now, wait a minute--the product placement in 2001 was a purposeful, artistic choice. Kubrick specifically wanted to describe a world in which that kind of branding had become ubiquitous (also, to get money for his movie, but whatever). I don't think it's fair to count that one.
06/18/09
I have never watched a single episode of Knight Rider, so I don't know if it's some government agency-built car with no ties to its manufacturer, but it would still make sense to transform into models from the same company. Why waste space with parts from other companies if you can just use parts that fit naturally?
It just makes sense!
So I think, product placement as it may be, that it fits perfectly.
06/19/09
06/18/09
06/19/09
06/18/09
"Converse. Vintage 2004."
06/19/09
12/29/08