Honestly, Whats with all the destroying of classic cars in new(er) movies and tv shows.

I can pretty much ensure that there are no "irreplaceable" cars being destroyed in the course of shooting most entertainment. The mere nature of the production makes destroying something that's hard to replace a bad idea.

In fact, I'd be willing to bet that high-profile destructions of cars on-screen actually benefit the marques in the long run by creating interest in the particular model. How many "Eleanor" clones would just be rusty Mustangs in junkyards today if it weren't for Gone In 60 Seconds?

jg

I remember seeing an awful movie from the 80's, I think it was Massacre at Central High or something like that, and I'm pretty sure they blew up a real '66 GT350.

Rufledt wrote:

oldsaw wrote:

Rufledt wrote: i think they should only destroy old cars that are made by dynacorn or the like. That way, original metal won't be wrecked, and they'll start making more shells! everybody wins. Of course for a while we'll only have old mustangs and camaro's being destroyed in movies, but those are cool enough to hold us over until they develop replica charger shells and 2000gt shells and AMC eagle wagon shells...

You can buy an about-to-be-crushed old car for a lot less than a Dynacorn body. Even the extra costs of making it road-worthy and presentable are exponentially less than what it take to put a repli-body in front of a camera crew.

You're missing the point, if they start mass producing AMC eagle bodies we could have a spec eagle rallycross class! or spec 2000GT replica class! who cares about the movies...

Your point only has validity if there is enough demand for AMC and 2000GT replicas. So far, there isn't and it's not likely to happen.

JG sums it up very well. And when was the last time we saw Eagles or rare Yota's experience a celluloid/digital death?

A little ot but I had a chance to meet the stunt driver who did the bridge jump in "Dirty Mary Crazy Larry" he said it was a big block and they had a heck of a time keeping it from landing on it's nose. I think he said they shot that scene five times and had to rebuild the entire front end every time eventually they put a bunch of weight in the trunk to get it to land the way they wanted it.

oldsaw wrote:

Rufledt wrote:

oldsaw wrote:

Rufledt wrote: i think they should only destroy old cars that are made by dynacorn or the like. That way, original metal won't be wrecked, and they'll start making more shells! everybody wins. Of course for a while we'll only have old mustangs and camaro's being destroyed in movies, but those are cool enough to hold us over until they develop replica charger shells and 2000gt shells and AMC eagle wagon shells...

You can buy an about-to-be-crushed old car for a lot less than a Dynacorn body. Even the extra costs of making it road-worthy and presentable are exponentially less than what it take to put a repli-body in front of a camera crew.

You're missing the point, if they start mass producing AMC eagle bodies we could have a spec eagle rallycross class! or spec 2000GT replica class! who cares about the movies...

Your point only has validity if there is enough demand for AMC and 2000GT replicas. So far, there isn't and it's not likely to happen. JG sums it up very well. And when was the last time we saw Eagles or rare Yota's experience a celluloid/digital death?

I was mainly just trying to joke, hence the AMC eagle, but in seriousness I agree with you on the cost efficient method of the movie makers.

Except in that aweful 2 Fast 2 Furious movie, i heard they destroyed a real Saleen, not a replica or dolled up rickety 'stang, but that just makes the movie slightly more puke worthy.

nicksta43 wrote: A little ot but I had a chance to meet the stunt driver who did the bridge jump in "Dirty Mary Crazy Larry" he said it was a big block and they had a heck of a time keeping it from landing on it's nose. I think he said they shot that scene five times and had to rebuild the entire front end every time eventually they put a bunch of weight in the trunk to get it to land the way they wanted it.

That's one of the scariest car stunts I've seen. That thing is hauling ass.

The feelings expressed here are similar to the ones I had every weekend a few years ago when I would watch all the cars headed to the dragstrip a few miles from my house. Seeing a '69 Camaro or Firebird CONVERTIBLE on huge slicks with traction bars jutting out from under it almost made me cry. Why I never saw something as ugly/useless as a '74 Chevelle or a similar '77 Buick made me want to scream. Yeah, I know, no one wants to see those '70s boxes hurtling down a strip of asphalt at insane speeds....just like no one cares how many Camrys or Accords are blown up in movies. But still, a '69 Camaro?

In reply to integraguy:

Over the years I've seen more '69 Camaro's than OctoMom has seen little wiggling tails; I'd rather have some of those Accords.

Camry's don't count; they have as much appeal as a bacon vendor in Tehran.

JG raises a good point. If it wasn't for Gone in 60 Seconds, I'd think of the '71-73 Mustang as an overweight, bloated turd.

But given that I've seen (the second half of) that movie about thirty times, I think of the '71-73 Mustang as a COOL overweight, bloated turd!

Knurled wrote: JG raises a good point. If it wasn't for Gone in 60 Seconds, I'd think of the '71-73 Mustang as an overweight, bloated turd. But given that I've seen (the second half of) that movie about thirty times, I think of the '71-73 Mustang as a COOL overweight, bloated turd!

I credit Diamonds are Forever

On the opposite note, I really wish they'd stop using brand-new-off-the-dealer-lot cars as movie heroes. Everyone knows it's just a lame attempt at product placement and hype generation. Make the hero car a nicely-done classic Celica or 911 or something and blow up the 2010 Mustang instead!

at least in LeMans, the 917 that they slow-mo crashed was a Lola T70 with different body panels so they weren't ruining an actual 917, but it's still a lesser of two evils type deal.

that recent movie "Redline" though... no idea if the cars destroyed were real or not (I hope that Carerra GT or the 612 Scaglietti weren't authentic cars), but I know they were not permitted by Ferrari to make a reproduction of the Enzo they had to prevent damaging a $1.5million supercar, otherwise they would face legal action from Ferrari (doesn't quite make sense, but then again Ferrari does run things a bit funny from time to time...)

and then in Bad Boys II, seeing that 575M get the dash shot up by the idiot in the passenger seat was painful, but that might have been a reproduction also

Slyp_Dawg wrote: but I know they were not permitted by Ferrari to make a reproduction of the Enzo they had to prevent damaging a $1.5million supercar, otherwise they would face legal action from Ferrari (doesn't quite make sense, but then again Ferrari does run things a bit funny from time to time...)

too bad they cant control plain bad driving http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNVrMZX2kms

There is quite a back story to the producer/director of Redline, involving bait and switch mortgage lending, fraud, huge ego, and take the money and run/hide by the producer. All by a guy who started out by selling used cars, then got into the mortgage bundling/selling business. 60 minutes even did a piece on him.

I did read an article once about the guy that sold his beloved mint E-Type Coupe to a movie studio that promptly destroyed it in the Avengers movie. They neglected to tell him it was going to be destroyed and he had invited all of his friends to the movie premiere. His comment was basically he would not have sold it to them had he known their intentions.

This has long been a sore spot for me. I don't mind new cars getting cars geting wrecked, but when something old and rare gets wasted I just cringe. They rolled a mid 60's Vette in "7 pounds", threw another off a cliff in an episode of "Hardcastle and McCormick". Ever see an early 50's Chevy panel van with right hand drive? One was driven off a pier in an episode of the A-team. (no, it was not a film reverseal, it really was right hand drive) The remake of "60 Seconds" used 14 Mustangs, wrecking 7. One was sliced in half front to back for better camera angles

They don't care how many cars they destroy, they've got the budget. There's a slight difference to me at least when you see cars in movies like "Bullit" or "The Vanishing Point" and movies from that era get wrecked because at that point these cars were common and somewhat affordable. Now when I watch a stupid movie that has no plot and poor acting, they drop a wrecking ball on a Chevelle for no apparent reason. I don't get it. If you love your car hold onto it or sell it to someone that will, not Hollywood.

Holy Zombie Thread.

motoscavenger will eventually launch a paddle-powered watercraft. send me a PM when he does.

triumph5 wrote: There is quite a back story to the producer/director of Redline, involving bait and switch mortgage lending, fraud, huge ego, and take the money and run/hide by the producer. All by a guy who started out by selling used cars, then got into the mortgage bundling/selling business. 60 minutes even did a piece on him.

I actually had an old acquaintance who worked for the guy who made Redline. He told me that the guy made his money doing crooked mortgages and made the movie basically just to show off his car collection. This was right when it came out, by the way, before the stuff we know now became public.

JoeyM wrote: motoscavenger will eventually launch a paddle-powered watercraft. send me a PM when he does.

I'm glad I didn't have any form of liquid in my mouth.

SyntheticBlinkerFluid wrote:

oldtin wrote: Just watch the original italian job if you want to see a tragedy - although the cars were pretty new at the time.

Oh yeah I forgot about that. I cringe everytime I see them destroy those two XKEs and Aston Martin, but you have to think that those were new when that movie came out. I think they destroyed a Lambo Miura in the beginning too.

the Aston they destroy in the beginning of that movie is not an Aston, It is a Lancia. They did a quick replacement before the bulldozer moved in

In 1969 my oldest Brother moved to California and sold his 1965 Mustang convertible to a studio guy that did some sort of location work. This car is still alive and well and has been a background car in about 100 TV episodes and even in a few movies. .

My oldest Brother is still friends with the guy and sees the car often. It has been in minor wrecks twice and repainted many times. He claims that the car has earned nearly $500,000 in the last 40 odd years.

Bruce

I suddenly want a white Challenger

Meh..., I used to get upset by this, but nowadays, IMO, they're just old hunks of metal, I could care less how many classics Hollywood destroys. My opinion has changed mostly because every Tom, Dick, and Harry has gotten into the old car hobby over the last decade or so, and ruined it for those of us that were in love with old junk long before it was "hip".