head-on collision: old car vs new

[rocketeer]

The wonders of modern computer technology might make it possible, that no real cars need to be "killed off" any more. If they blow up a vintage car, they can do it in photoshop.

Be honest, it would look fake, just as the disappearing car in one of the new James Bond films looked fake. . Stunts, human or mechanical now look awful and nothing special. This of course is a personal view but I would rather see real old cars pushed to the limit for realism than obvious fakes, that is to say were it a gangster film, an old Nash or Lincoln being used in a cops n robbers chase with the inevitable crash, You couldn't really see Al Capone or his henchmen, being driven around in an armour plated Model A could you
When they crashed the Ford in Chinatown, this was a rare car even at that time, but with a multi million pound budget, would a film company really worry about damaging or scrapping an old car if it was essential to the plot? Such as the cars in the mountain scene fro the original Italian Job, was that a real Lamborghini Miura with its engine removed they chucked over the cliff? What about the Aston martin arguing with the JCB? Or would it have been better using non prestige cars for this scene with rich Italian gangsters.

 

[J.W.]

I'm pretty sure it won't take much longer until they do these kinds of special effects with a computer without them looking fake. Look at the behind the scenes footage of recent films: blue/green boxes everywhere and with every movie, the illusions are getting better.

 

[scottyrocks]

This from FerrariChat discussion board:

'My recollection from magazine articles is as follows:

The red Miura in the driving sequence was a brand new customer car loaned by Lamborghini. The serial # wasn't disclosed (doubt the owner would have been that happy to find his/her "brand new" car had been blasted round the alps! Might have felt differently though once the car became such an icon with the films success) so no one knows which one it was.

'The one tipped over the cliff was an engineless wreck, I think the story was that it was owned by a Shah or a Prince and they wrecked it and it was returned to the factory. You can see it's engineless as it goes over the cliff. The crew said they returned for filming the next day and no parts could be seen in the ravine.'

I just watched the opening sequence. You would think that if the car had an engine that it would've visibly dislodged and been visible falling down the cliff, large as it was.

 

[scottyrocks]

I'm pretty sure it won't take much longer until they do these kinds of special effects with a computer without them looking fake. Look at the behind the scenes footage of recent films: blue/green boxes everywhere and with every movie, the illusions are getting better.

As of right now, CGI is hard for me to feel anything over because I know it's not real. There's nothing like real flying glass and steel.

 

[Rathdown]

I seem to recall Douglas Slocombe saying that an XK-E doubled for the Aston Martin pushed over the cliff in "The Italian Job". My personal take on CGI is that while I'm not a fan (although I've used it when necessary) it can save valuable time when sets or locations aren't readily available. Still, if I could, I'd rather see the film unfold with real actors filmed on real locations and sets.

 

[Mr Vim]

Oh that poor Bel Air!

Suffice it to say, that does not seem to be a safe car to drive and wreck. But if you did survive, you'd probably wish you hadn't once you saw what was left of your car.

 

[Edward]

I'm pretty sure it won't take much longer until they do these kinds of special effects with a computer without them looking fake. Look at the behind the scenes footage of recent films: blue/green boxes everywhere and with every movie, the illusions are getting better.

It's there already. I've certainly seen a lot of stuff I wouldn't like to bet money on telling the difference.

 

[vitanola]

Those are counted but in tines past, there were far higher cases of ancillary damage more than there is today. More people rode bicyles and walked back then. They were out there more often.

Adjusted, how nice. How did they adjust the figures?

Those sources for mileage traveled are bogus. They are purely estimates. People didn't travel those kinds of distances when they lived, worked and played in the same city or maybe one over at the most. Most mileage was logged on vacations---not everyday travel like we commute to work every day. Their "commutes" were not over five miles---both ways.

Less but not dramatically less like you make it to be record breaking. If it goes up next year due to more driving does it mean the cars are less safe then?

You keep believing modern cars are safer. Keep buying their lines but it doesn't mean they are in real life outside the test facility. The independent tests I posted before show exactly what the real damage would be when you got into a real accident. You can hide behind figures but the body count will still mount. You can delude yourself into thinking a Fiat 500 is safe, a Mini Cooper is safe or even that a Smart car is safe but the ratings still come back POOR.
I have been in several accidents with my vehicles and they are still on the road today and so am I. In the process, the cars I hit are off the road. Interestingly, none of those accidents were deemed to be my fault.
I'll take this:
View attachment 261
(I ran broadside into another car in my 1957 Chevrolet and sustained similar damage but I could still drive it away---although illegally without headlights etc.)
Over this any day:

Me too!

I have a dimple in my sternum from the steering wheel nut of a Ford (black ice and youth, a deadly combination if ever there was one).

The problem with the older cars, real antiques like the ones I enjoy aside, is that the driver bounces around inside of the passenger compartment, receiving more injuries with each bump. A 'Fifties sedan can survive a moderate crash in reasonable, repairable shape even with a driver or passenger fatality due to a snapped neck or crushed skull. Modern cars are unquestionably safer in this regard, due to their active and passive restraint systems.

 

[rocketeer]

I seem to recall Douglas Slocombe saying that an XK-E doubled for the Aston Martin pushed over the cliff in "The Italian Job". My personal take on CGI is that while I'm not a fan (although I've used it when necessary) it can save valuable time when sets or locations aren't readily available. Still, if I could, I'd rather see the film unfold with real actors filmed on real locations and sets.

Click here at 1.10, it sure looks more like an Aston Martin than a Jag.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gPEx82vgi4

They just don't make many great films like this any more, would you enjoy just as much it if the Mini's chasing through Turin were CGI? And all the stunts didn't really happen?

 

[Edward]

would you enjoy just as much it if the Mini's chasing through Turin were CGI? And all the stunts didn't really happen?

TBH, I think I would, actually. The whole point of cinema is the suspension of disbelief. Where do you draw the line? As the Bard himself put it - "Tis merely a play". If the CGI is done well enough (as it absolutely can be), and more to the point the narrative, plot, dialogue etc are sufficiently engaging, it wouldn't generally occur to me to question whether something is real or CGI. I absolutely loathe 99% of everything George Lucas has put out, but that's got nothing to do with the effects technologies he uses, but rather his over-reliance thereon to the detriment of everything else.

 

[Rathdown]

Click here at 1.10, it sure looks more like an Aston Martin than a Jag.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gPEx82vgi4

Yup it looks like an Aston, and that's what I always thought it was; Slocombe, however, the cinematographer who shot the scene obviously mis-remebered. It turns out that the actual car that goes over the edge in the film is a Lancia, not an Aston (the car Caine drove in the film still exists). Looks like we were both fooled, and not by CGI effects

They just don't make many great films like this any more, would you enjoy just as much it if the Mini's chasing through Turin were CGI? And all the stunts didn't really happen?

Well I rather doubt it. What makes movies interesting -- especially the stunts -- is that they are performed by real people doing real things. If this wasn't so, all films would be animated, like "TinTin", and the films of Buster Keaton wouldn't be both amazing and funny at the same time.

Don't get me wrong, CGI does have a place in cinema-- but films that only succeed because of CGI are all the poorer for it in my opinion.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Well I rather doubt it. What makes movies interesting -- especially the stunts -- is that they are performed by real people doing real things. If this wasn't so, all films would be animated, like "TinTin", and the films of Buster Keaton wouldn't be both amazing and funny at the same time.

There's a reason why Keaton is considered a genius and Larry Semon is considered a hack: Semon's films contained as many spectacular stunts as Keaton's, but they were very obviously faked: you never see the master shot, like you did with Keaton. When Keaton dropped a train off a burning bridge, you saw the actual bridge collapse, on screen, full size, in a full shot, and audiences still gasp with astonishment when they see it. Semon would have done the same scene with miniatures and trick cutting and people would say "so what?"

 

[jamespowers]

I can fit this into the 'you get what you deserve' category. I can honestly say that I would not be driving at at the speeds required to land my car in that position and level of damage. Maybe if I was caught in a hurricane it would be a different story, but then again, houses, as well as '57 Chevys, can be uprooted in hurricanes. A little common sense while driving goes a long way.

:rofl: True that.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

There's a reason why Keaton is considered a genius and Larry Semon is considered a hack: Semon's films contained as many spectacular stunts as Keaton's, but they were very obviously faked: you never see the master shot, like you did with Keaton. When Keaton dropped a train off a burning bridge, you saw the actual bridge collapse, on screen, full size, in a full shot, and audiences still gasp with astonishment when they see it. Semon would have done the same scene with miniatures and trick cutting and people would say "so what?"

Or the classic hurricane scene from Steamboat Bill, Jr. (1928)

[video=youtube;8LdY0ROdpp4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LdY0ROdpp4[/video]