northcntryblues Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Wow: https://ca.movies.yahoo.com/post/138729643601/kurt-russell-accidentally-destroyed-priceless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capmaster Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Sick. Why didn't they use replicas for the entire set? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Wilson Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 While no one likes to see a valuable instrument damaged, I can't understand why Martin didn't have someone on the set to keep an eye on things. Anyone who does the least bit of checking knows that the movie folks are bad about damaging other people's property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly campbell Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Exactly and tarrantino movies are alway violent in nature blowing things up etc...shame..I would also expect that QT should have probably told them that there was a chance this would go on and if they could build a replica to destroy?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissouriPicker Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Damn....I bet Kurt Russell feels sad about it. He comes across as a "stand up" kind of guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Wilson Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 I understand that they had copies on the set to tear up. It's just that no one told Russell that he was holding the original. And, you are right about Russell...I'll bet he gets hold of Martin and does everything he can to make it right with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Does anyone know what model it was that was destroyed? The Martins I have seen from the late 19th century have no serial number or model designations on them, and simply say "C. F. Martin New York" on the centerline back cleat back cleat. I had one purported to be from the 1870's and owned by James Whitcomb Riley ("The Hoosier Poet"). Provenance was decent, as the lady I got it from was in her 80's back around 1970, and had been given it by Riley not long before he died in 1916. It was 28 style (convoluted Brazilian back and sides), and had some (for me at the time)unusual construction details, such as a separate headstock joined to the neck with a complex bird's beak joint. The one-piece carved modern traditional Martin neck maintains that same shape on the back of the neck at the transition to the headstock, although it is no longer required. Wonder whatever happened to that guitar? I sold it to a lady from New York in about 1972. She drove up to my house in RI to buy it. I sold it by advertising it in the NY Times. Probably should have bought a 1930's D-28 with the proceeds from that sale, although I gave most of the profit back to the old lady I got it from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Excuse me - it sounds lame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Major miscommunication going on. I would be really surprised if Russel OR Terrantino wanted to smash this one up. Still, I need to see this movie. Not every day one gets to see a Vintage martin get destroyed. That's an archive in itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 And Martin responds - https://reverb.com/b...28307f-55336685 Don't listen to the soundtrack, , , it's ugly. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 Finally found what purports to be a photo of the guitar. If it is correct, it is one of the Stauffer models, with the scroll headstock (sort of pre-Fender), and what looks like maybe an ivory fretboard and ivory bridge, with wide marquetry body binding. Strange guitar, and not at all clear why they would choose it, but I don't know much about the movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fortyearspickn Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 Quentin Tarantino - probably did it on purpose for 'authenticity'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidblast Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 Read this some where a few days ago. Apparently, from the article I read, the lady playing it knew it was authentic, but it's not clear that Russel realized he was smashing a priceless antique. Could have been avoided, and martin should have not let something like that out on loan in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponty Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 I dont understand why Martin would loan out a museum piece for such a purpose. This is the reason that I dont permit anyone to play my guitars unless I am there with them.Most people dont understand this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Wilson Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 I don't share guns, girls, or guitars! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.