New RETRO Challenger?... looking likely... AutoWeek story with pics...

[xs29j8Bullitt]

I like dark or amber beers, & the strawberry smoothies at the fairgrounds are good too.  

How about the new versions now posted on Moparts by KISSAlien... Larger "full size" pictures that don't appear to be retouched or tampered with... have a look:

http://board.moparts.org/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=Test&Number=2157651&page=0&fpart=5

Depending on preference settings, the posts might be on a page other than 5, but was made today at about noon...

XS

[ChargerBill]

The SMALL victory here is that DCX must have learned a lesson from the verbal beating they've taken over the Fugly Creeder. What's Bass Ackwards about them is that they NOW decide to DOWNPLAY the cool car when just a year ago they couldn't contain themselves like lile school girls over the hideous creation of the Magnum Sedan....like being PROUD of creating the Frankenstien monster and saying (in Hans and Frans Austrian accent) "Look at his smooth green skin and huge muscles, isn't he sexy?" Just because someone at DCX has tallent (it isn't Creed guaranteed) I'm not going to start singing the praises of Heir Chrysler anytime soon. I want to see if they produce this concept without bastardizing it...and even at that it will only be redemption...no brownie points deserved on this one.

[ChargerBill]

BTW: Who in the HELL does this Brenda Priddy chick think she is?! It's obvious that her "COPYRIGHTED" versions of the Challenger have been doctored...is she a COMPLETE moron or just a partial idiot?

[Orange_Crush]

BTW: Who in the HELL does this Brenda Priddy chick think she is?! It's obvious that her "COPYRIGHTED" versions of the Challenger have been doctored...is she a COMPLETE moron or just a partial idiot?

That Brenda Priddy chick is one of the premier spy photogs in the US, her pics appear everywhere.  The pics are genuine (see Kissalien's posts on the last page of the Moparts "New Challenger" thread).  Her pics are copyrighted because she took them.

[Old Moparz]

How about the new versions now posted on Moparts by KISSAlien... Larger "full size" pictures that don't appear to be retouched or tampered with... have a look:

XS

Okay, I looked. The 2 pictures are larger & much clearer, but now I see another problem with the image that leads me to believe it's a fake. Look at the guy behind the "concept car" in the white T-Shirt & compare the size of his head to the other 2 people standing there. He is actually standing farther away from the camera, but appears to be larger in size. That tells me the perspective is off, & it should at least be the opposite. I know people vary in size, but a person's head? I'm still going with my first instinct that it's a fake photo.

I tried to post the 2 pics from Moparts, but they're too large. Here is a cropped portion of the one with the head sizes, but I didn't reduce or enhance it.

[Orange_Crush]

How about the new versions now posted on Moparts by KISSAlien... Larger "full size" pictures that don't appear to be retouched or tampered with... have a look:

XS

Okay, I looked. The 2 pictures are larger & much clearer, but now I see another problem with the image that leads me to believe it's a fake. Look at the guy behind the "concept car" in the white T-Shirt & compare the size of his head to the other 2 people standing there. He is actually standing farther away from the camera, but appears to be larger in size. That tells me the perspective is off, & it should at least be the opposite. I know people vary in size, but a person's head? I'm still going with my first instinct that it's a fake photo.

I tried to post the 2 pics from Moparts, but they're too large. Here is a cropped portion of the one with the head sizes, but I didn't reduce or enhance it.

Its an illusion caused by the fact that someone is standing DIRECTLY behind him and the dark tree branch blurrs the definition of his head.

I have included the same pic lightened with photoshop.  You can see the blue jacket the guy behind him is wearing.

[Orange_Crush]

One more thing....why do they have photographic lighting equipment there if there's nothing to take a pic. of?

According to several people, these spy pics were taken during the time the car was being prepped to shoot publicity photos. hence the lack of camouflage on the car.

And just in case none of that convinces you.

It perfectly matches the car in the drawing released by Chrysler yesterday.

[RD]

i dont know i still think its real.  we are looking at something 2D and trying to deduce 3D aspects without knowing true perspective angles and distances.

on another note, i never did notice the challenger name at the rear of the quarter panel until those pics were lightened up! coolidge

[Old Moparz]

Hey OC,

Okay, I'll admit the head size in the image makes more sense now, & probably not something to use to discredit the photos, but I initially made up my mind before the head size was an issue. There still seems to be discrepencies in the images overall to me, so I still feel they're not real. It's not to be stubborn, it's just what I'm seeing. I actually hope I'm wrong, I like the car. BTW, just because a magazine posted a couple of photos of something doesn't mean entirely much. I've seen other articles in the past that turned out to be a just a tad untrue.

[ChargerBill]

OK, for arguments sake let's just say the pics are real....

How do you legally copyright an image of a copyrighted car? A car that hasn't been released for public consumption and is a proprietary creation? I'm sorry, but as far as I've ever known, copyrighted images of proprietary copyrighted designs don't have too much of a leg to stand on. So, can I take a photo of an artists original painting hanging in a gallery and copyright it to myself and reproduce it at my discretion? NO!! This chick is out of luck and it really pi$$es me off when people like her try to pull this crap. So what, she took the photos...she gets credit for that, but she really has no say in what becomes of them. Chrysler has more to say about the use of these images than she does...

[Orange_Crush]

Hey OC,

Okay, I'll admit the head size in the image makes more sense now, & probably not something to use to discredit the photos, but I initially made up my mind before the head size was an issue. There still seems to be discrepencies in the images overall to me, so I still feel they're not real. It's not to be stubborn, it's just what I'm seeing. I actually hope I'm wrong, I like the car. BTW, just because a magazine posted a couple of photos of something doesn't mean entirely much. I've seen other articles in the past that turned out to be a just a tad untrue.

NOT THE BAT CHILD!!!!  Say it ain't so!

Stubborn old coot!

[71Charger500]

http://www.autoblog.com/entry/1234000270066570/

I found this.  That 392 looks pretty sweet.  Anyone have any guesses on what it will make as far as horsepower?  (It says "505", im thinking thats a little optimistic."

[SeattleCharger]

     Looks nice in this shot I got from that link that someone lightened in photoshop.   The big head guy looks more normal here.   Anyways, the color of the car looks great.   Too bad she put her copyright crap all over it, I would try and blend it out in photoshop but the "nice" lady would prob. sue me.     

edit:   just noticed, kind of looks like only one person's shadow is on the Challenger, and one reflection in the windows, weird.

[ChargerBill]

I would try and blend it out in photoshop but the "nice" lady would prob. sue me.     

She'd probably lose too...she has no exclusive rights to images of the Challenger concept....

[SeattleCharger]

In that image above, the short guy appears in the shade, no sun on his head, but if that was the case how come the car is clearly being hit by the sun behind him where shade should be?  That doesn't look right.

[ChargerBill]

Actually, the short guys shadow isn't hitting the car at all....there are 2 guys but just 1 shadow (the taller guys shadow) and you can see the reflection of his head in the window above the door handle area. So, the tall guy is definitely there, but where's the short guys shadow? This is probably just because of the angle of the sun and the fact that the short guy is far enough away from the car to not cast a shadow on it, but it looks strange. Heck, you could pick this photo apart for days...sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. i've seen strange lighting effects happen in photos that I personally took...

[xs29j8Bullitt]

Another promising post on Moparts by MoparMal... MM has had an ongoing exchange with Eric Andrews of DCX and has been on vacation in the US (MM lives in Austrailia)...

Here is his post:

OK Guys...a Heads up...I won't be around long enough to discuss this ..(leaving Albany tonight for NYC)..but!!

MMISSILE and I were given a personalised conducted tour of Auburn Hills three days ago..by Eric Andrew, Manager Dodge Advertising.

Not only did he line up an SRT 8 Charger for us to fool around in for 45 mins.. ..but he took us through part of Skunk works where they detail show cars etc...Saw the old Razor and some very tuff Vipers done out for racing.. ...

There was also a 72 Chally there...seems they have been using it for an "undisclosed" reason....

He also introduced uas to some of his staff...and I was asked about the 4 door Charger...I mentioned Australias history of 4 door Muscle cars, and then asked Eric if he knew whether there was going to be a 2 door Charger...here was the discussion:

EA: "Def not , however, we have some more exciting models on the drawing board and you may well see an exciting 2 door coupe released in late 06...using a familiar name, possibly even CHALLENGER." !!!

And then he WINKED at us!!!!

My guess is its almost a def.......

BTW...did you know DCX are selling "on track " for the Chargers?.......and as for SRT Charger we really gave it a hiding...I have pics but can't post them till I get back to Australia...but it sure bags them up!!!

I'm sure MMISSILE would have more to add.....

Maybe it is closer to production than we thought!

XS

[bull]

I would try and blend it out in photoshop but the "nice" lady would prob. sue me.     

She'd probably lose too...she has no exclusive rights to images of the Challenger concept....

Bill,

As long as this woman is not trespassing she has a right to take photos of anything within public view, just as you have the right to see anything within public view. I'm guessing she has a lense about as long as my arm and took those shots from a public area. The same goes for spy shots of celebrities. As long as the photographer is not breaking any property rights laws they can take pictures of anything a person can see with their own eyes.

[bull]

BTW, does DCX have 4,000,000 gallons of that burnt orange paint laying around that they need to use up? I'm getting a little fed up with that color.

[89MOPAR]

  Do some research on Getty Images, ChargerBill.   [There is another company as well :  Con-somethingorother. ] That have vast libraries of copyrighted images, photos, etc.  They are large companies with millions of dollars of " intellectual property".

[Sinister68]

I wonder what Wayne Wooten's take is on this concept car?

At the Boerne TDC show this year he was really livid that DCX called people "Dinosaurs" who chose their old Chargers over the new one.   Now DCX appears to be attempting to cater to us "Dinosaurs".

DCX = All hail the might dollar!

IF that Challenger makes it to the showroom floor, save for a few minor modifications, I'd buy one.

[Brock Samson]

 yeah speaking of the brenda photos,.. interesing how they circled around to get theshot from the oppisite side of the car... wonder what the range was?..

[ChargerBill]

  Do some research on Getty Images, ChargerBill.     [There is another company as well :   Con-somethingorother. ] That have vast libraries of copyrighted images, photos, etc.   They are large companies with millions of dollars of " intellectual property".

You're missing my point. DCX OWNS the Challenger design, just like an artist who owns a painting they've painted. Getty images could no more OWN the rights to a photograph of a painting than you or I could. The designer, painter OWN the rights to reproduce their "intellectual property". Go onto Getty and tell me if you find a photo of a Rembrandt, or a 65 Mustang for that matter. Photo's of cars are a major grey area...especially OLD cars. But something new like the Challenger concept that is unquestionably protected by a current copyright is undoubtedly no ones to won but the copyright holder. Getty's images are of particular scenarios, arrangements of items, metaphors, ideas, landscapes, NOT of other peoples intellectual property. BTW: your trying to educate a graphic designer and artist about intellectual property...isn't THAT ironic.

[bull]

As far as a copyrighted design I don't think a photo is a problem. You can take photos of paintings (as long as the museum doesn't have a policy that claims the flash can cause damage to the painting) and not face any copyright infringement from the artists or owner of the art. Just like you can take a picture of a can of new Coke, or Halle Berry, or spy shots of cars. Now if you try to make money with that image as in printing it on a brochure or something there might be a problem, however I believe you can sell your photos of art work or cars, or Halle Berry because you took them and they are your copyrighted work, even if they are of someone else's 'art' or face.

[472 R/T SE]

A lot of spent energy on these pix...lol


So how 'bout a different angle.  Anyone ask Wakko, Telvis or any of our G-men to run the plates on the white van?     Couldn't hurt.