Don't get me wrong. It's not that it doesn't look like a 68, hell, the 66 - 67 didn't look anything like the 68-70, nor did the 71 - 74 look like any of the afor mentioned bodys. The problem is it shares NOTHING with any of them.
Or the 75-78 road arks or the A-body Charger sold in South America or the little compact Charger sold in Austrailia OR the largest sales volume of all the Chargers, the 82 - 89 front wheel drive car.
To me the only thing any of those cars had in common was 2 drs. If they were to take any cues from a previous version of the car you would think it would be the one they sold the most of the FWD 82-89. Dodge has had a long running history of using the Charger name on what ever suits them so I fail to see why there is such an uproar over the usage on the current car.
No one seemed to get up set over the 300 being introduced as a 4dr. The 300 name carried the Chrysler performance banner from 53 through the early 70's. It was always a 2dr and was always their performance car unlike the Charger that had a \6 as it's base engine.