How did they make cars fall apart in old movies (2017)(movies.stackexchange.com) |
How did they make cars fall apart in old movies (2017)(movies.stackexchange.com) |
PS: the French wikipedia article on the movie has a picture of the explosive bolts they used: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Corniaud#L'accident_de_la_2...
https://youtu.be/0z-FtAMg6Vw?si=zGsEnyt4NKtsMnLb
Even though I’ve seen many different versions of this gag, they are all still funny to me.
If its "outrageously small but can still take you and a goose to market", Citroën have a tiny little electric vehicle, the Ami, today.
If its "something simple enough that a farmer can weld the panels themselves", I fear those days are long gone, in the same way that the OG Land Rover Defender is no longer a car you can wrench on. The spiritual heir of such cars is probably a toyota hilux(?). Modern safety standards and the presence of complex electronics beneath every surface, to say nothing of the more complex sheet metal shapes, probably stop that idea in its tracks.
Google Translate: “Ah well now it’s going to work a lot less well, of course!”
Deepl:
- It's going to work much less well.
- It's going to run much less smoothly.
- It's going to run a lot less smoothly.
None of these suggestions sounds good to me (in case it isn't clear I'm not a native English speaker).
“Ah well, now she'll work a lot less well, of course!”
Since you mentioned Google and Deepl, here's O1:
“Ah well, obviously she’s gonna run a lot less well now!”
“Ah well, looks like she’ll be running a lot less well, naturally!”
My own thoughts on google were replace work with run, replace it with she, and I wasn't sure about of course, versus, say, naturally. My own would have been:
“Ah well, now she'll work a lot less well, naturally!”
The context is that the 2CV driver is fussing to the Rolls driver who bumped him to make it fall apart. It keeps the Galois humor of a 2CV running well ever, and the naturally rhymes with that.
// English native, FSL here
"a lot less well" is the awkward part, a more natural construction would be a negation "is not going to run well" or something like that.
Similar (albeit a bit heavier from the all paperwork) explosive bolts are user for stage separation in launch vehicles (rockets).
I had no idea that explosives were involved!
From Wikipedia: Garry Moore recalled, "I asked (Keaton) how he did all those falls, and he said, 'I'll show you.' He opened his jacket and he was all bruised. So that's how he did it—it hurt—but you had to care enough not to care." This would have been in about 1955, when Keaton (born 1899) was an old man and well past his heyday of really dangerous stunts (he once broke his neck during an early stunt).
And he usually had an amazing commitment to film in a lot of other ways. The first time he was shot in a film he took a camera apart to figure out how it worked, because he really cared about every detail (though in the middle of his career this really hurt him, as execs wanted to just trot him up in front of the camera as a high paid celebrity - they didn't want him wasting his valuable time fussing over details, or risk their investment letting him do stunts).
During the filming of the Civil War movie The General there are images of Keaton doing things that even the bravest of stuntmen wouldn't do these days and we'd now rely on film animation and tricks to make the scenes work.
For instance, Keaton—who obviously was very fit and agile—is filmed sitting on a cowcatcher of a moving locomotive whilst removing rail ties that were placed on the line to impede the train's progress and then tossing them aside.
I read somewhere that Clyde Bruckman the film's director gave instructions to the cameraman "to keep filming the scene until finished or until Keaton is killed" or words to that effect.
I can't remember whether Bruckman was referring to this scene or another such as when he's running across the locomotive's tender (the comment could equally have applied to many other scenes I reckon). Others who are more knowledgeable could perhaps fill in the details.
I like this movie, Keaton was a great performer and his movies are a testament to that.
https://youtu.be/QfN1GRqKXpM?si=-4Mwmipl5sCFtCWN
This practical effect took weeks to set up.
I can't find documentation specifying any special techniques used to create this version of the car. I recall reading an interview naming the builder who set it up, and how no one on set was allowed to touch it except the actors, John Belushi and Dan Ackroyd. Only one take. Can't find that interview now.
Also looking at it closely, you can see at the camera angle change that the car is not the same (roof shape cut, rear door a bit open, ...), and that it is not standing on its wheels with supports appearing below
Today that's replaced by crappy CGI done on a crunch by a sweatshop.
I actually watched the video linked in the comments with his greatest stunts and also one short movie together with my kids (5 and 8 years old) just the other day. They laughed their heads off!
So if you can hear me, Buster, wherever you are: Your films are holding up a hundred years later. That is quite a feat.
Cars were also much simpler to take apart. A few bolts here and there and a couple people could remove an engine. A few more and the roof came off too. Today, it is all spot welded and tight tollerances. Removing any substanial part of a modern car, anything beyond the seats, requires planning and specialized tools.
Wonderful little read. Thanks!
And a great Every Frame a Painting film essay on his work: https://youtu.be/UWEjxkkB8Xs?si=n-4ZNr_cMnYVKijs
He was truly an innovator that makes today’s “films of people talking to each other” look amateurish.
A few months ago the local theatre was playing Sherlock Jr. with a live band, and it was awesome. Try to see it in similar circumstances if possible.
I feel you could have said the first part without attempting to critique films with a different aesthetic aspiration.
I just watched Eisenberg's "A Real Pain" last night, and there is no way that any of the things Keaton was good at would have improved that film at all. Which is not to say that Keaton was not an innovator .. just that there is more than one aesthetic goal for films, and room for all of them.
AFI in Silver Spring?
It reminds me of the glass eating trick by David Blaine, where the trick is to… just eat glass. It makes it quite bittersweet, as after all, those men are trading some of their wellbeing for some of their fame. Not sure how to feel about it.
I don't want performers to risk their safety, health and life for my entertainment. Obviously I cannot stop it, but I can stop watching those who engage in things like this. (And I don't just mean the stunt performer, but the director, the producers, the studio and the franchise.)
I have unsubscribed from youtube channels when I felt that they were pushing themselves in dangerous directions. It is not like that alone will stop them, but if I would keep watching I would be complicit in the harm which might befall them.
There is the principle attributed to Houdini by Penn Jillette that a performance/trick should not be more dangerous than sitting in one's living room. Especially when it appears dangerous. I don't know about the exact line though. Strictly interpreting the "not be more dangerous than sitting in one's living room" definition would disqualify any performance where the performer had to drive (or be chauffeured) to the location of their performance. And that would be a bit ridiculous.
Houdini died from a rather trivial stunt he performed many times before. A hit to the abdomen before he could flex his muscles most likely ruptured his appendix. Keaton died of lung cancer well past the end of his fame.
You can manage the danger of stunts, you can reduce it and prepare for anything that could go wrong. You can never completely avoid it and sometimes a single error is all it takes.
I mean, they pretty much all do to some degree. It's not healthy on your body to do eight Broadway shows a week. Or to be constantly switching between all-day and all-night shoots on a TV show. And performing a role of high emotional trauma every day for weeks or months takes its own kind of toll too.
Obviously nobody should be at risk of life or of permanent injury, that goes without saying.
But getting bruises while doing stunts, that's just what being a stuntperson is. Nobody is forced into it. And this is why there are stuntpeople in the first place -- it's not just for skills. Sometimes the regular actor could do it fine, but there's no time in the schedule for their body to recover afterwards.
"The railrodder" (1965)
Kenton died 1966
That the movie showed the Confederates in better light than the Yankees wasn't appreciated much when it was released. Back then, there were Civil War veterans who were still alive who criticized the film which contributed to its poor ratings. Also, keep in mind the film was based on the story The Great Locomotive Chase, changing it to having the Yankees as the main subject just wouldn't have been feasible.
Nevertheless, the film's stature has grown over the years and has developed a bit of a cult status:
https://www.oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/the_general_film...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_General_(1926_film) (read 'Legacy')
Oh, and I just noticed on the Wiki page there's even an image of Keaton riding the cowcatcher.
I'm not a film buff so I'll let those comments/reviews stand on their own merits.
https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/battling-butler-the-ge...
https://youtu.be/jGc-K7giqKM?si=0sOBkBrsYa4IBo5N
A lot of Keaton’s gags and shots are similar.
I think that is all I'm asking. Or not even that. Just saying that if they don't, i don't want to watch it.
> Houdini died from a rather trivial stunt he performed many times before.
The blows which allegedly killed Houdini were not suffered during a performance or stunt.
I may be wrong but I don't think the 2cv has a design that can translate as easily to a newer version the same way as the beetle design could without being completely denatured. I think it would be easier to build a modern HY looking van.
Its like trying to fix a single broken strand in a spider web, even with the tiniest thread you can find and the most delicate hands and tools, any manipulation of the web at all is likely to cause even more defects and any successful patch job will need to be way over-kill compared to what was originally broken. You can't just fix that one thread that broke, you gotta throw a large patch over the entire area and hope that the original spider thread designs that were undamaged will be able to hold up against your much stronger patch job.
> The Grenadier was designed to be a modern replacement of the original Land Rover Defender, with boxy bodywork, a steel ladder chassis, beam axles with long-travel progressive-rate coil spring suspension (front and rear), and powered by a BMW B58 inline six turbocharged engine.
Roads are mostly in better shape today, but in remote places of California there are still secondary roads where long-travel suspension is of benefit (partly explaining the popularity of pick-up trucks there).
While the primary meaning of 'marcher' is 'to walk', it can be used for machines and vehicles indeed. 'Rouler' is for vehicles only. Interestingly in English the verb 'to run' is used, suggesting higher speed.
The expression “to work better” is quite common but I don't remember seeing “to work less well”. And as I was taught that « plus grand » translates to “taller” but « moins grand » to “not as tall as”, I expected something more involved.
Usually 90 of the top 100 shows on American TV are football games. It was 72 out of 100 in 2024 because it was an election year.
[1]: Not to mention daily zoom calls with a micromanaging boss and a mandatory video on rule.
Brave Wilderness?
And i’m not forced to watch it. So all is fair.
Stuntpeople aren't getting blows to the head, generally speaking.
Done. Easy.
> stop reading about start up on HN as well
I don’t think there the motivation is to create entertainment though. But i don’t care much about that kind of content either.
> forget about any extra ordinnary human achivement
I disagree with that. Plenty of extraordinary human achievements were created under circumstances I find acceptable to celebrate and watch.
"""They have left the regions where it is hard to live; for they need warmth. One still loveth one's neighbour and rubbeth against him; for one needeth warmth."""
In terms of exploring the oceans my hero is Admiral Rickover and not Stockton Rush. Different kind of heroism. Not the lack of it.
It's notable from this outsider's perspective that there's still levels of animosity over the War and that statues of Lee get desecrated and or damaged from time to time.
You can kind of think of this era as a sort of "anti-Civil Rights movement", and it was the same group of people burning houses and lynching and putting up statues and working politically to keep black Americans disenfranchised. And it's still a salient issue today -- disenfranchisement of minorities (closing polls in minority neighborhoods to create multi-hour waits to vote; gerrymandering to concentrate minorities in a small number of Congressional districts; disproportional felony convictions and the accompanying loss of franchise) is an issue in every election. Hell, one of the initial backlashes against public health measures early on in the COVID pandemic was that the early waves primarily affected large cities and the initial mortality rates were higher for blacks than whites, so it was viewed as a problem more for blacks than whites, and therefore, not a problem.
The white-washing of Lee and the other Confederate traitors is still part of modern American politics -- it reframes the Civil War from a bunch of rich slave-owners rebelling against the United States to maintain their power and privilege, and getting hundreds of thousands of other people killed for it, to cast these men as victims of a rapacious Federal government meddling where it didn't belong. This narrative that was (and is still, eg, Shelby County v Holder) used to claim the Federal government had no right to improve the lives of minorities over the wishes of the States, is now used to claim the Federal government has no right to mandate minimum wages, or environmental regulations, or educational standards, or a thousand other things, over the wishes of the individual States.
So it's still modern politics to cast down Lee and declare that he was not a noble martyr fighting for States Rights against an oppressive Federal government, just a traitor to his oaths who was personally and politically reprehensible. And to point out that States Rights have always just been a political shell game -- Slave States were happy to use the power of the Federal government to override the will of Free States, and force them to extradite escaped slaves back to the Slave States, just like issues like abortion are "sent back to the States" until a Federal ban can be passed, at which point it will miraculously no longer be an issue for the States to resolve.
It's the old quote -- "The past is never dead. It's not even past."
The reason the DVD copy is in copyright is because it has a new musical soundtrack. That said, the soundtrack is excellent and the music (which includes Civil War tunes) is both appropriate and is well integrated into the visual material.
“One hundred seventy-three performers (80%) indicated at least one head impact/head whip during their stunt career. Of these, 86% exhibited concussion-like symptoms and 38% received one or more concussion diagnoses. Sixty-five percent continued working with concussion-like symptoms.”
Right, how very true. One of my aunts married a French soldier at the end of WWII and went to live in France. She often told me La Révolution française was far from settled, just scratch the surface anywhere in France and you'll still find much contention. BTW, it was ≈235 years ago.
I've been to the US many times, have relatives who live there and have even worked there so I'm somewhat familiar with many of those events you've.mentioned. I suppose I'm still surprised by the intensity and vehemence of the attacks—whether verbal or physical—towards both the black population and the various underclasses/undeprived. That's not say this country I'm in is lily-white by any means—we've had our fair share of atrocities in the past—but present-day vitriol and animosity towards certain peoples certainly isn't as intense as I've seen it in the US. The question is why.
Let me give you two instances that come to mind (and I've more) that I think wouldn't be commonplace here (but that's not to say they couldn't happen as sometimes they do). First, I was the only person in a manually-driven elevator and its driver was black and as I was alighting I said to him "thank you very much sir" and with a great big smile he said "and thank you too sir, not many people are so nice and say that to me these days". I've never forgotten the encounter.
The other example is some years back I was traveling around California in a minivan with about a half dozen of my compatriots after having been to a computer conference and we were in Redwood City and had to refuel. At the servics station we were served by a local who asked where we were from and we told him. He then went into a tirade that I'll never forget which I won't repeat in full here to the effect "you're fucking lucky that down there you don't have any of those… (you can guess the rest), and that was only a small part of his outrageous and vitriolic tirade. It wasn't just his tirade that so surprised me but that he was so open to strangers who he'd never met previously. BTW, that exchange was well after the 1960s civil rights stuff—mid 1980s in fact.
Despite me agreeing with your quote, as I said I suppose I've never been fully reconciled to or able to get my head around why the US continues to cycle over these issues with such intensity for so long. One would have thought that after 150+ years things would have settled down much more than they actually have. That said, I accept that discrimination and racism never seem to fully go away no matter where one is, although nowadays in many places it's softer and more nuanced that it once was.
My position is pretty straightforward, that is I've found there's a small percentage of bastards in every country and racial group on the planet (certainly in ones where I've been for some length of time to know) but almost without exception most people with whom I've met have been kind and nice to me. I always try to be nice to those who I meet and deal with and again—almost without exception—they reciprocate similarly—no matter who they are and where they come from.
That's the rough outline, I'd like to develop that discussion further and make specific comments on the issues and instances you've mentioned. Trouble is, to make my position clear and not be misinterpreted and or misunderstood would take some considerable effort and lots of text not to mention the large amount of time involved—and anyway it'd be too much for a HN post.
One thing I've learned online—and HN is no exception (albeit it better than most)—no matter how neutral or impartial one is when discussing these matters at any reasonable depth it's almost impossible not to upset some people, they'll often take great umbrage at the slightest provocation and or at the most innocuous comment for reasons I find unfathomable.
Once I was taught formal argument and debating, they've structure and people can (mostly) say what they want without fisticuffs breaking out. Unfortunately, this art of debating propositions in an orderly manner on the web is almost unheard of. It's why I usually steer clear of such topics.