Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

‘Hateful Eight’ Makers Never Told Martin How Its Priceless Guitar Was Destroyed

rocketman

By rocketman
in The Gibson Lounge

Recommended Posts

Digger

Digger

Posted
Posted

What an absolute tragic shame! Irreplaceable, as well! [crying]

 

Frankly, I've never "gotten," the whole "smash up your instruments"

thing! :rolleyes: "Theater," for sure...but, WHY?! And, certainly NOT a valuable,

and/or irreplaceable instrument, like that Martin! [cursing]

 

 

CB

 

 

There seems to be a current fascination with smashing things on TV and I just think it sends the wrong messages out to people.

 

It takes me 12 months of saving almost every cent of the small amount I allow myself as a weekly allowance for discretionary purchases like guitars, and seeing stuff destroyed like that offends me.

 

All part of the diminishment of personal values as time goes by IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
'Scales

'Scales

Posted
Posted

what am I missing - I read the article as a movie scene where 'boy and girl fight, boy smashes girl's much loved guitar' - nothing novel there, but perhaps its based on a true story. a cheapo swap is planned (say like what Paul Stanley did every night with Marauders in the 70's) only actor doesn't realise and smashes valuable guitar (which he may well not have known was so). Stupid and a shame - sure, but destruction as an artform?

I must have missed something here. [confused]

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stein

stein

Posted
Posted

Yeah, and when some A-hole "celebrity" musician, like "Prince" BORROWS a vintage

guitar, and then destroys it, when he's finished, as he did with Kirk Douglas's

Epiphone, "on air"...that's pretty disgusting, as well.

 

I just don't get it!! [cursing]:rolleyes:

 

CB

I wouldn't put these in the same catagory.

 

One "seems" to be a genuine accident. The other a blatant disregard for another's personal possessions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
charlie brown

charlie brown

Posted
Posted

I wouldn't put these in the same catagory.

 

One "seems" to be a genuine accident. The other a blatant disregard for another's personal possessions.

 

Oh, I know...but, just getting back to the need to destroy instruments, makes no sense to me,

whether or not it's intentional, for a movie, play, or just "theater" on stage. Couldn't they

have written that scene, where he just took the guitar away from her, without smashing it?! :rolleyes:

 

And, even so, I don't blame Kurt Russell! I'd blame the prop manager! He/she should have made sure the

valued, and borrowed original guitar was nowhere to be found! Just the "prop" guitars! Then that never

would have happened. I mean, they went to all the trouble, to replicate the original, several times over,

AS props, in the first place. So...why did they even need that priceless original, on set?! Pffff!

 

CB

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stein

stein

Posted
Posted

Oh, I know...but, just getting back to the need to destroy instruments, makes no sense to me,

whether or not it's intentional, for a movie, play, or just "theater" on stage. Couldn't they

have written that scene, where he just took the guitar away from her, without smashing it?! :rolleyes:

 

And, even so, I don't blame Kurt Russell! I'd blame the prop manager! He/she should have made sure the

valued, and borrowed original guitar was nowhere to be found! Just the "prop" guitars! Then that never

would have happened. I mean, they went to all the trouble, to replicate the original, several times over,

AS props, in the first place. So...why did they even need that priceless original, on set?! Pffff!

 

CB

Oh I don't know. I think there are SO many guitars being built, there has to be a culling at some point. I LIKE seeing cheap, crappy guitars get what they deserve.

 

As for the Martin, I think there is PLENTY to blame all the way down the chain. That's what it feels like from where I sit. Careless for Martin to loan it out to a movie set, prop guys, script. Probably any one in the chain could have stopped it, and probably everyone in the chain was just careless enough to think someone else would take care of it.

 

Really, you can't expect the average person to know the difference between a junk guitar or a priceless artifact unless they are told. And even then, few would EXPECT to be in the presence of a priceless artifact and likely take for granted someone would have told them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
'Scales

'Scales

Posted
Posted

Couldn't they have written that scene, where he just took the guitar away from her without smashing it?!

 

 

I mean, they went to all the trouble, to replicate the original, several times over,

AS props, in the first place. So...why did they even need that priceless original, on set?! Pffff!

 

CB

 

Yes, i guess they could rename it 'The Hateful Seven Plus One Who is a bit Peeved' CB. [flapper]

 

And for all I know, Ms Leigh may be a very talented player, but I'm not sure how she would have fared trying to get a vintage Martin-esque sound out of a prop made mainly with smashability in mind....Then again, if I'd wrote the thing she would have been playing Marimbas ... Those things need a good smashing!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
charlie brown

charlie brown

Posted
Posted

Oh I don't know. I think there are SO many guitars being built, there has to be a culling at some point. I LIKE seeing cheap, crappy guitars get what they deserve.

 

As for the Martin, I think there is PLENTY to blame all the way down the chain. That's what it feels like from where I sit. Careless for Martin to loan it out to a movie set, prop guys, script. Probably any one in the chain could have stopped it, and probably everyone in the chain was just careless enough to think someone else would take care of it.

 

Really, you can't expect the average person to know the difference between a junk guitar or a priceless artifact unless they are told. And even then, few would EXPECT to be in the presence of a priceless artifact and likely take for granted someone would have told them.

 

 

I would expect, the people responsible for the care of a loaned out (in good faith) "Priceless" Antique, to be a lot more

"Responsible," and careful! But, maybe that's too much to ask, of "Hollyweird," where everything has it's price, so

nothing is "priceless?!" [tongue]

 

As to the "sound" of the original vs a prop guitar, that could have been added later (Foley'd in) in the sound track. All she had to do,

was simulate playing the prop guitar. That kind of thing goes on all the time, in movie making. So, again, there was no reason,

for that "priceless original" guitar, to be on set!

 

CB

Link to comment
Share on other sites
windhoek

windhoek

Posted
Posted

It looked like the actress knew it was an expensive guitar because the horror that appeared on her face when she realised the guitar's fate seemed genuine ... as did her reaction when it happened. She even seemed to glance off set in a vain attempt to communicate without words what had just happened. Yeah, maybe she knew.

 

I just watched it again and am sure she did as she says, 'Woah, woah, woah,' and I'm sure that's not authentic speech for a someone from them parts from that time :_

Link to comment
Share on other sites
charlie brown

charlie brown

Posted
Posted

Why would they loan a guitar in the first place? They could just have got a luthier to relic a budget model. Who would know? Someone needs the sack at the museum.

 

 

Well, Hollywood takes things, on loan (for a price), all the time. Knowing that, I think either the prop

department didn't know the script (i.e., the fate of the guitar in the scene), and didn't communicate that

fate, to the lender, or they just screwed up, putting in the original, instead of one of the prop guitars!

They had several, of those, for different takes. The original (I assume) was used to fashion the prop

guitars from, so they'd have a authentic "look." But, after the prop guitars had been fashioned, there

was NO reason, the original should have been there. It should have been put back in it's case, and sent

back to the museum! As to who knew what, especially the actors? Who knows?

 

CB

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rocketman

rocketman

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Here is what Newsweek had to say. Jennifer Jason Leigh knew that it was priceless. Here's the part (if true) that truly pi$$es me off:

It was a mistake, obviously, but knowing Tarantino, there had to be a small part of him that was glad it elicited such a real reaction on camera. Sure enough, there was. "Tarantino was in a corner of the room with a funny curl on his lips, because he got something out of it with the performance," Ulano said. At least they didn't need another take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
charlie brown

charlie brown

Posted
Posted

Gee, they (the Museum) don't sound very "upset" at all?! "Do you need another one?!" WTH???

 

Well, who knows what really went on, with the "loan?" Maybe the studio

insured it, for it's perceived value, as an antique? But, I'd read earlier,

that it was only insured for the selling price, of a new (current) version.

 

So...???

 

CB

Link to comment
Share on other sites
charlie brown

charlie brown

Posted
Posted

Here is what Newsweek had to say. Jennifer Jason Leigh knew that it was priceless. Here's the part (if true) that truly pi$$es me off:

It was a mistake, obviously, but knowing Tarantino, there had to be a small part of him that was glad it elicited such a real reaction on camera. Sure enough, there was. "Tarantino was in a corner of the room with a funny curl on his lips, because he got something out of it with the performance," Ulano said. At least they didn't need another take.

 

 

I know! In that world, there's no such thing as "Bad" publicity! So, all this will only help

fuel the mystic, of his film, even further. Pffff!

 

We may never know, what REALLY transpired, between the studio, and the museum. It may have

all been a publicity stunt, "accident" and all? NOTHING would surprise me, having worked

in and around, the "entertainment" business, out there. But, I'm cynical, that way. :rolleyes:

 

 

CB

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kidblast

kidblast

Posted
Posted

It looked like the actress knew it was an expensive guitar because the horror that appeared on her face when she realised the guitar's fate seemed genuine ... as did her reaction when it happened. She even seemed to glance off set in a vain attempt to communicate without words what had just happened. Yeah, maybe she knew.

 

I just watched it again and am sure she did as she says, 'Woah, woah, woah,' and I'm sure that's not authentic speech for a someone from them parts from that time :_

 

 

I read an article on this, she KNEW what it was, so that reaction was "Authentic" when she seemed horrified. She was.

 

Kurt Russel thought it was a set prop, and apparently had no idea what had just happened.

 

Tarantino most likely knew, and he's probably the guy you can pin it on if you're looking to blame any one.

 

On the other hand, Martin probably should have found something else to loan out.

 

and when it comes right down to it, This could have been done with a $100 dollar student guitar ordered from Musicians Friend.

 

there's plenty of stupidity to get spread all around for this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
charlie brown

charlie brown

Posted
Posted

Heck, Hollywood prop departments can make their own guitars! And, make them as authentic looking,

especially for "film," as one would ever need. The "sound" can be Foley'd in, later! I can see

them using the original, as a pattern, and to see what relicing to do, but...beyond that, there's

simply no excuse, for that original even being "on set!" In fact, they could have used just a

good set of photos, and spec's, of the original guitar, to make their copies!

 

A few hours on a movie set, and a beautiful 150 year old guitar, meets a totally unnecessary, and tragic end! [cursing]

 

 

CB

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pin

Pin

Posted
Posted

Yeah, and when some A-hole "celebrity" musician, like "Prince" BORROWS a vintage

guitar, and then destroys it, when he's finished, as he did with Kirk Douglas's

Epiphone, "on air"...that's pretty disgusting, as well.

 

I just don't get it!! [cursing]:rolleyes:

 

CB

 

Prince would certainly "get it" if he did anything to any guitar of mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...