Talk:Knight Rider (2008 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fair use rationale for Image:Knight Rider 2008 01.jpg[edit]

Image:Knight Rider 2008 01.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continuity[edit]

It should be addressed whether this new series is a re-interpretation/re-imagining or is a continuation of the continuity.

Hasslehoff is making some for of appearance as Michael Knight, so most likely it is some sort of continuation, but until it airs or more plot details are released, it can't really be addressed with certainty. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it can, people involved with the show have stated in several interviews that it is a continuation and that Mike Traceur plays the son of Michael Knight though Michael Knight (and probably Mike) don't know it. I see some names are still not right, including Charles Kamen which was changed to Graiman later on and Mike Tracer is apparently going to have his last name spelt Traceur. In fact I'll go ahead and make the corrections now with a reference which will be the first video located on this page that plays when it loads. http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=14&id=47690 I really need to remember to sign my name... PHOENIXZERO (talk) 10:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to use a different source and placed the link to the video under external links. PHOENIXZERO (talk) 10:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Mechanics Article[edit]

Admittedly I have no legit source to back this up as the source is an apparent insider that is unverifiable but has posted legitimate info in the past before it was announced. The article that is used as a reference should not be taken seriously as what they have listed does not accurately reflect the new car's actual abilities, while I know some are true (the ones that have been confirmed by other sources), others should be taken with a grain of salt as apparently the producers were messing around and coming up with "ideas" on what the new KITT could do but not serious as PM apparently took it, it's especially apparent as you get further down the list with things such as "1000-Watt Quadraphonic Stereo System". They've also made mistakes on the original KITT's abilities or excluded them in the comparison list, most notable is there being no mention of Turbo Boost. The article really shouldn't be used as a reference in my opinion even if the sillier things are excluded from what is listed here. PHOENIXZERO (talk) 11:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I think is ironic is half the stuff KITT can do (or supposedly can do) - high speed internet access - GPS tracking - infared nightvision - hybrid engine - can be found as standard equipment on most Cadillacs today. Yeah, they have yet to include optical camouflage but hey, at least half the list has been knocked out already. :) Cyberia23 (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wot no Fax machine? Felneymike (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio[edit]

NOTE: Please do not copy and paste from the Knight Rider site. I understand the attempt to improve the article, but doing this is considered a copyright violation requiring undoing/reverting. VigilancePrime (talk) 07:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Villain[edit]

The villain was "Blackriver Security" (a company with contracts in Iraq), a very obvious reference to Blackwater... AnonMoos (talk) 06:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KITT[edit]

I think the fact that KITT can heal itself from impacts and bullet-holes should be mentioned under the 'Knight Industries 3000' section. --68.4.73.34 (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then add it. RC-0722 communicator/kills 19:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That information already exists in the article. El Greco(talk) 20:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Connections[edit]

The new 2008 Knight Rider has direct connections to the 1990s NBC series Viper. Viper was about a crime-fighting task force who worked with the government and a special morphing car. What's the new KR about again? Oh, right. Additionally, it is important to note that the Knight Rider 2000 film, which starred the Hoff, has had it's plot elements ignored in the production of this new one. This is important due to continuity. --Erroneuz1 (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have a source (WP:V & WP:RS) that states that Viper and Knight Rider have connections? If you don't it's WP:OR and not allowed. And what does KR 200 have to do with this? El Greco(talk) 01:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greco, obviously you haven't viewed KR, the new KR, KR2000, or Viper, so I strongly question your presence here. KR2000 relates directly to this new incarnation: KR2000 was a made-for-tv film as a sequel to the tv series (sound familiar yet?) that was going to inspire a new TV series. In KR2000, it's set in the year 2000, and not as we know it. Michael Knight is a character in this film, played by Hoff. For the new KR, (set in 2008), the alternate 2000 is skipped over. How do we know this? Because the car in KR2000 is the Knight Industries Four Thousand, and 2008 Kit is the Three Thousand.
Furthermore, Viper and KR having connections is not OR. Viper was based off of the original KR, however they made the car shape-shifting. Viper pioneered the morphing crime-fighting car. Now, in a twist of irony, the new KR is based off of Viper, because the car morphs. This was directly original to the show Viper. But don't take my word for it. See here [1]. --Erroneuz1 (talk) 02:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A blog is not a reliable source. WP:RS. El Greco(talk) 02:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google News considers it reliable enough to list in it's news search results. This isn't OR. Anyone who has watched NBC for the past 10 years knows this. The first shape-shifting crime-fighting car was Viper, which was inspired by KITT. Both shows are/were produced by NBC. This isn't a coincidence. [2] --Erroneuz1 (talk) 02:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care what Google news thinks (it a search engine to begin with). Wikipedia does not allow blogs as reliable resources. El Greco(talk) 15:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a blog. [3] --Erroneuz1 (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it is a blog or not is immaterial. The point is that this is not a reliable source because the person writing it possesses no inside information (or any reliable resource information whatsoever) aside from maybe having seen Viper and the various KR works. It is simply an opinion from an outside critic that really cannot be relied upon when stating whether one show is based off of another. Just because some random person off the street happen to share your opinion, it does not make that opinion true. The writer's sole reason for the connection is "this car kind of morphs, that car kind of morphs, therefore they must be related." It is no better reasoned than to say that 2 Chinese people must be related because they are similar in appearance. You may feel compelled to agree with him because of the Viper morphing CG - which may or may not have been nanotechnology but it is immaterial since NBC (not Viper) throws nanotech around for any application it can. In any case, that would be your OPINION - which is more appropriate for discussion and this page as opposed to the main page. Furthermore, to make the further leap to KR2008 being "based off of," or worse yet, "directly connect(ed)" to Viper is nothing short of ridiculous. KR2008 is based off of KR, simply stated. Aside from morphing CG cars (which is used in many works and isn't Viper's to begin with), there are absolutely zero connections - story or otherwise - between KR2008 and Viper - even the creative minds behind each are different people as far as I can tell. There was nothing used in KR2008 that wasn't KR to begin with, so how can anyone say that the newest is based on the intermediate? It is like hearing someone quoting Shakespeare and the listener then attributes the quote to the teller as opposed to Shakespeare himself - and then compounding it by trying to argue that later works based upon that quote are due to the intermediate teller's retelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.223.20.120 (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the conclusion I'm reaching whatsoever Anon. What was Viper? A show about a task force that works with the government to fight crime with a morphing car, produced by NBC. If you'd like to argue that the new KR is not about a task force fighting crime and working with the government using a morphing car without NBC production, I'd like to hear it. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 04:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, your source was not a legitimate one to begin with. I'm assuming you agree since you fail to bring that up in your counter. Secondly, KR is a show about a crime fighting unit using a talking car. Later, Viper is an unrelated, but perhaps influenced by KR, show about a crime fighting unit, etc. KR2008 is a show about a crime fighting car that was built to replace KR. Viper has nothing to do with it. KR is the original creation and it is KR that is directly connected to KR2008. Just because some show in between the two times has a (very loosely) familiar theme does not a connection make, because the original convention resides in KR alone. Viper's idea wasn't Viper's to begin with, so your connecting it to a subsequent work fails to credit the proper source. It is like saying a subsequent work by an author is influenced by fan fiction just because the fan fiction came in between the original and the sequel. I'm not saying Viper is fan fiction, but that is about the extent of the connection you made. Also, the Viper team WAS the police, while the Foundation in KR is a private organization that merely cooperates with the police from time to time. This is a huge distinction because it is the difference between a state actor and a private actor - anyone who knows the law knows what a large difference that is. On a different note, the morphing/nanotech thing is due to NBC influence on both shows. It is not a Viper convention. The evidence is apparent when you watch later syndicated first run episodes when it was not shown on NBC when they changed the morph into a panel flipping effect - which completely differs from KR2008 altogether. Once again, just because the network influenced a type of technological CG hook does not mean one show is based off of another or related in any way besides having been on the same network. You have still failed to produce one reliable source of information that proves your point to be anything more than mere conjecture. And given the chance to clarify your position, you simply restated the broadest of parameters in determining that the shows are related and directly connected. Advanced technology crime fighters? That's all you've got? How many shows/movies are about that? Goodness gracious, everything must be directly connected with the other if that is the whole criteria. NCIS MUST be directly connected to CSI, or Criminal Minds, or Numb3rs just because they're on the same network... forget about the fact that they come from different creators and writers, have completely independent stories, etc. - small detail after all since they all fulfill the all encompassing "crime fighting police" category.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.223.20.120 (talk) 09:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you're seriously telling me that in your opinion, when the "creators" of this new Knight Rider film sat down and re-designed the car, you honestly believe that they didn't look at an earlier show from their own network and get some ideas? I reject that notion. Yes, Viper was influenced by the original KR, but you cannot deny the new KR has some Viper influence. There is nothing "loose" about crime-fighting organizations using technologically advanced cars, let alone ones with morphing capabilities. The fact that you acknowledge that the morphing is due to NBC influence is all the confirmation necessary. A connection exists. --Erroneuz1 (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It really doesn't matter what his opinion is. Without a reliable, third party source it doesn't get mentioned in the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I want his opinion anyway -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 10:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read the top of this page where it says, "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Knight Rider (2008 film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." Your request should be made on his talk page. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "generally discussing" the article's subject. This has to do with improvements to the page. --Erroneuz1 (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) It has already been determined that there appears to be no reliable source for your assertion that there is a connection so it can't go in the article. That's the end of that. You've confirmed that you're now seeking somebody's opinion and that is general discussion. As I said, if you want his opinion, ask on his talk page. General discussion is subject to removal as it's inappropriate content. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No "reliable source" for now. Believe me, when I have one, it will be known. --Erroneuz1 (talk) 07:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike's age[edit]

Originally, this article gave Mike Traceur's age as 23, which every other online reference still maintains. What's the rationale/source for the change to 28? --TimPendragon (talk) 04:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the screenshot of Mike's driver's license on KITT's dashboard it says that his birthday is in June of 1983 that would make him 24 or 25 depending on when the movie was set in 2008. Coincidentally (or perhaps not) June 1983 is exactly 9 months after the September 1982 premiere of the original Knight Rider. Perhaps indicating that Jennifer (Mike's Mom) had just conceived right before the accident that transformed Michael Arthur Long into Michael Knight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.194.152.85 (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cast[edit]

Any particular reason Susan Gibney was not credited as part of the cast as Jenny, Mike Traceur's mother? I was going to add her but wasn't sure if she was omitted for a reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.229.9.245 (talk) 05:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Knight[edit]

Will Michael Knight be in more episodes or was the torch passed on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.154.240 (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was a TV movie, it might, it might not lead to a new tv series being produced. El Greco(talk) 17:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hence the description of it as a backdoor pilot. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not completely ruled out that he won't appear again, so the door isn't closed. --Erroneuz1 (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tracer/Traceur[edit]

IMDB's page has it as "Traceur". The official NBC page has it as "Tracer". I think in this case, the official page trumps the other sites. I haven't had a chance to look at the actual credits, but unless they differ from the NBC page, in which case a choice would have to be made, I think it's best to keep it as "Tracer". --Fru1tbat (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only does the official site spelled it "Tracer", an onscreen profile of the character specifically spelled it "Tracer." Therefore, that's the canon spelling. -- Voldemore (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that according to a recent edit summary, the spelling "Traceur" was seen on his driver's license? Can anyone confirm this? Right now, the article is half and half, which is ridiculous... --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite ridiculous. I just changed it to Traceur in one of the sections and was reverted, with an editor telling me to check this talk page. I, of course, changed it to Traceur because most sources spell it that way, and this article's plot summary does as well (at this moment in time). If it's Traceur, then this article needs to spell it that way all the way through. Or at least decide on one way to spell it, and go with it...completely Flyer22 (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's been made uniform throughout the article. El Greco(talk) 14:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just changed it back to Traceur, before I looked here, because this is the way it is spelled on-screen. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What scene is this? Cause NBC better get their act together if they're different. El Greco(talk) 14:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's at about 20:47 when KITT says that after ensuring Sarah's safety he has been programmed to enlist the help of Mike Traceur. There's an image of the dash display and his name is listed as "Mike Traceur". The name badge he is wearing in the photo reads "TRACEUR".[4] --AussieLegend (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's good enough for me, looks like NBC made a spelling mistake on their site. El Greco(talk) 15:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Super Pursuit Mode reference[edit]

The KITT heading showed that the Knight 3000 morphs into SPM, which is factually inaccurate. SPM actually provides a power boost to the Knight 2000 that enables it to travel faster than in non-SPM form. However, the morph of the Knight 3000 does not appear alter the power output of the car. It simply functions to give the car a lower (and more performanced-based) profile in order to improve its handling at higher speeds. In other words, it gives itself a body kit. This does not mirror the functionality of SPM aside from the profile chances. It seems to me that calling it "morphing into SPM" makes it fairly inaccurate. I didn't make the change myself since this will likely draw a discussion; any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.223.20.120 (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is all irrevalent, because I don't think the new shape was ever referred to as SPM by any official Knight Rider source. Smoothy (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GT500KR[edit]

Anyone have a definitive source for whether the cars used were actually GT500KRs or just dressed-up GTs? How about a picture under the hood of the actual cars used? I don't want to change/add that without something other than Jalopnik to back it up. Andy Christ (talk) 23:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Knight 3000 KITT.PNG[edit]

The image Image:Knight 3000 KITT.PNG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why?[edit]

Question, why does this have it's own separate article when it is just a pilot episode, albeit an extended one? This should be merged with Knight Rider (2008 TV series). MisterShiney ✉ 14:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mistake[edit]

Delete mistake. My bad for believing Facebook's improper link. -- Davidkevin (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Knight Rider (2008 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Knight Rider (2008 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Knight Rider (2008 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Knight_Rider_(2008_film)&oldid=1203334182"