death proof chargers?

[Crazy Larry]

I can say from first hand experience, you do not need any more than 3 of a vehicle to film a movie and car chase scenes. You just have to do some extra work and block out your scenes in order, so if there is a mistaken dent or bang - it doesn't throw a continuity error in the film (driving in one take with a good fender, then turning the corner with a banged up fender).

The problem is that Hollywood companies and directors, never do the extra leg work and proper planning - it is laziness when they use 12 of the same car.

IMO it is easier to just invest in parts and keep the three running and filming.

As for CGI - it will never ever look as good as the real thing.

Even in Jurassic Park, Spielberg used life sized animatronics, combined with CGI shots. Like when the kids are in the jeep, and the T-Rex head comes crashing through the glass roof - that was a real life sized head. It was ultra real. If it was a CGI head, it never would have been as believable.

The same goes for car chase scenes - just look at the real Mustang jump in the finale of the original 1974 Gone in 60 Seconds - when compared to the CGI jump in the 2000 Gone in 60 Seconds with nic Cage. The CGI was ridiculous and obviously fake...also it cost a hundred thousand times more than the original jump in 1974.

And the beauty of the original Gone in 60 Seconds was that Halicki (the director) filmed it with mainly one Mustang and just kept it running.
The great thing is at the end of the movie, you are dealing with actual metal that had been through the entire 40 minutes car chase scene.

[Mike DC]

 
I disagree about only needing three.  They usually don't need the 15 they get, but there's real logic to having at least 5 or 6.  It allows for multiple different suspension/engine setups, jump cars, etc. 

The camera cars are another issue too.  There can be a lot of logic to using several cut up shells or half-complete cars.  I know they didn't always do this back in the day, but the fact is that modern movies are usually improvements over the old movies in this area.   
   
 

[Death1970Proof]

         
The fate of musclecars does not depend on whether or not Hollywood wrecks another dozen raggedy ones. 



It depends a lot more on future young car guys continuing to fall in love with them, and the reproduction industry's continuing investment. 

Both of these things are helped a lot by musclecars being used as badass rides in TV & movies.



I couldnt agree more. The upside to the destruction is that some of the younger generation will gather intrest or be inspired because they had an influence or seen cars like these and then one day they are strolling along and find the car of thier dreams although it will be in rough condition but then they will look up and say "What if".........Another project is born and another car is saved!!

I will admit that for many that the influence of the General lee has probably saved many chargers from being junked or crushed...Maybe bullit has saved some '68's as well (just later in the time period by people who seen the film years after it came out...What about Vanishing Point?? Are we seeing a pattern here??

Im 26 and have been mopar since I was at least 9. Im sure it's way more intresting for you guys reading and talking to me and  providing help and advice along the way for my project charger instead of some honda civic.

The younger generation is important as well about preserving these machines. And if they are highly into cars (like me) it keeps them out of trouble- all is needed is the spark or influence. While I was working on my duster in high school all the guys around me were to busy living life to fast and trying to be with the in crowd. You know the examples - getting a young girl pregnant and ruining her future and only looking foward to getting high or waisted by various drugs. If that were all Id have to look foward to I'd definetly want a better life 


       

[Dave22443]

I understand the points about saving more then they are wrecking, but my area is quite devoid of 2nd Gen Chargers.  Believe it or not, but when you say that in just this movie alone, 12-15 Chargers were used up, thats probably equal to the total number of different 2nd Gens I've ever seen on the road in my life!  Maybe they have a bounty of them where you live, but in my world, that would be enough to wipe out an entire state. 

So maybe I'm a little overprotective?  To me, there aren't nearly enough left to justify that kind of waste.

[Death1970Proof]

I understand the points about saving more then they are wrecking, but my area is quite devoid of 2nd Gen Chargers.  Believe it or not, but when you say that in just this movie alone, 12-15 Chargers were used up, thats probably equal to the total number of different 2nd Gens I've ever seen on the road in my life!  Maybe they have a bounty of them where you live, but in my world, that would be enough to wipe out an entire state. 

So maybe I'm a little overprotective?  To me, there aren't nearly enough left to justify that kind of waste.

Nope they are not plentiful around here at all. I had to look forever to find mine.  Chargers should be protected, but enjoyed as well! 

[Crazy Larry]

 
I disagree about only needing three.  They usually don't need the 15 they get, but there's real logic to having at least 5 or 6.  It allows for multiple different suspension/engine setups, jump cars, etc. 

The camera cars are another issue too.  There can be a lot of logic to using several cut up shells or half-complete cars.  I know they didn't always do this back in the day, but the fact is that modern movies are usually improvements over the old movies in this area.   
   
 

I do believe they only had 2 '55 Chevy's for two Lane Blacktop.

Vanishing Point only used 5 Challengers - and that was because the car was brand new, not on the market yet - so two or three of them were just for parts.

Gone in 60 seconds (1974) used 1 yellow 73 Mustang Mach 1

You can get any shot in or around a car by rigging smartly - in Two Lane, they rigged a board along the base of the Chevy, and had a guy stand outside while being strapped to the car, with a steady cam and shoot interior dialogue while the car was driving. this not only cuts down on rigging time and shooting time, but also saves the roof of the vehicle from bolt-on camera clamps.

Today, they'll literally cut a car in half and attach it to a truck, for interior shots - like the new Dukes of Hazard. Thats crazy.

I'm just saying, you can do a great car movie with 1 to 3 of the same muscle car - it just takes work and some smart camera rigging.

In the end, one should be totaled and the others could be salvaged.

I see your point in wanting to do jumps, but what credible car movie has the car do a complete 100 foot in-air jump, and then land unscathed - only the Dukes of Hazzard movies really. Everything else is usually a minor air jump and a rough landing.

To go through anymore than 5 or 6 is an absolute waste.

and the greatest car chase scene of all time - Bullitt, only went through 2 Chargers and 2 Mustangs.
Its just that the crew were full of gear heads and superior camera men - hence the smart use of the vehicles and not much waste.

[Dave22443]

I agree, they need to be protected.

If you took this exact same movie with the exact same plot, only you replaced the Charger with a 1983 Chevy Pickup and the Challenger with a 1998 Carivan, you still have the same movie, only without the loss of classic mopar muscle 

But yeah, I know, not nearly as many people would have plunked down the $$$ to see it without the classics, but maybe there's a reason for that?

I just think its a terrible thing to make the main draw of your movie the destruction of the classics.

[Crazy Larry]

I agree, they need to be protected.

If you took this exact same movie with the exact same plot, only you replaced the Charger with a 1983 Chevy Pickup and the Challenger with a 1998 Carivan, you still have the same movie, only without the loss of classic mopar muscle 

But yeah, I know, not nearly as many people would have plunked down the $$$ to see it without the classics, but maybe there's a reason for that?

I just think its a terrible thing to make the main draw of your movie the destruction of the classics.

believe me, it just speaks volumes about the skill of the filmmakers - they didn't want to work hard so they bought 12 Chargers because they could and they have all the money....

Remember, Dirty Mary Crazy Larry - in my opinion, the best Charger chase movie of all time (more action with the Charger than Bullitt) - they only used 3 chargers, one 1968 and 2 1969's. If an entire half a movie could be made with just 3 chargers, why would it take Quentin Tarantino  12 Chargers to shoot a 10 minute car chase scene.

Pure laziness and lack of class with the filmmaker, that's all it is.

I agree, a director should have some respect while filming - this movie was atrocious in how it handled the filming. Maybe instead of Tarantino wanting so bad to reference the great car movies in his movie, he should have taken some time to research the filming of these movies - we'd have a few more Chargers on the road.

[Death1970Proof]

 
I disagree about only needing three.  They usually don't need the 15 they get, but there's real logic to having at least 5 or 6.  It allows for multiple different suspension/engine setups, jump cars, etc. 

The camera cars are another issue too.  There can be a lot of logic to using several cut up shells or half-complete cars.  I know they didn't always do this back in the day, but the fact is that modern movies are usually improvements over the old movies in this area.   
   
 

The intresting story that I heard about bullit was that Steve's mustang that was highly modified couldnt even think about keeping up with the STOCK '68 charger. In fact they stated the charger would RUN circles around it!


I do believe they only had 2 '55 Chevy's for two Lane Blacktop.

Vanishing Point only used 5 Challengers - and that was because the car was brand new, not on the market yet - so two or three of them were just for parts.

Gone in 60 seconds (1974) used 1 yellow 73 Mustang Mach 1

You can get any shot in or around a car by rigging smartly - in Two Lane, they rigged a board along the base of the Chevy, and had a guy stand outside while being strapped to the car, with a steady cam and shoot interior dialogue while the car was driving. this not only cuts down on rigging time and shooting time, but also saves the roof of the vehicle from bolt-on camera clamps.

Today, they'll literally cut a car in half and attach it to a truck, for interior shots - like the new Dukes of Hazard. Thats crazy.

I'm just saying, you can do a great car movie with 1 to 3 of the same muscle car - it just takes work and some smart camera rigging.

In the end, one should be totaled and the others could be salvaged.

I see your point in wanting to do jumps, but what credible car movie has the car do a complete 100 foot in-air jump, and then land unscathed - only the Dukes of Hazzard movies really. Everything else is usually a minor air jump and a rough landing.

To go through anymore than 5 or 6 is an absolute waste.

and the greatest car chase scene of all time - Bullitt, only went through 2 Chargers and 2 Mustangs.
Its just that the crew were full of gear heads and superior camera men - hence the smart use of the vehicles and not much waste.

[Khyron]

Remember, Dirty Mary Crazy Larry - in my opinion, the best Charger chase movie of all time (more action with the Charger than Bullitt) - they only used 3 chargers, one 1968 and 2 1969's. If an entire half a movie could be made with just 3 chargers, why would it take Quentin Tarantino  12 Chargers to shoot a 10 minute car chase scene.

and 1 of them survived the movie to be purchased by an employee.


but only for that guy to get drunk and kill it

[Mike DC]

They're usually not cutting up a whole car for camera work.  For that job, they usually start with the same kinds of $600 hulks that we see on Ebay every week and shake our heads at. 

The movie press might refer to using a certain number of cars but that doesn't mean they used that many complete & solid cars at all.  I get the feeling that they just like to publish the high number to emphasize the effort that they put into their show.   

--------------------------------------


Just look at the 2005 DOH movie as an example of the exaggeration that goes on: 

I read in TIME magazine that the 2005 theatrical DOH movie used 30 Chargers and totalled 24 of them. 

They really used about 26 or 27.  They really demolished about 5-6, and they cut up maybe about 3 more solid ones.  Everything else was either already a bare hulk when they started or it was still in one piece when they were done.  And let's not forget that 6 of the "complete & running" cars that they started with came directly from HLPAG.

   

[Crazy Larry]

That is a very valid point - because movie companies do try to inflate their stories and numbers to justify the costs/labor.
And yes, they do start with some bare boned dead cars and restore them to wreck them....but its just so sad to even see one get wrecked.

[ChargerSG]

They could done like Vanishing point, put right hood on a Camaro and smash it
With todays movie tec they could have done it easyaly without trashing a Charger...

[Mike DC]

On Death Proof, did anybody else catch the evidence of an unscripted Charger rollover that must have happened during shooting?

Look hard at the Charger just as it goes into the ditch and both cars stop in mid-chase.  (When Kurt clmbs out of the car & gets shot in the arm.)  That car had to have been rolled to get the roof/pillars distorted in such a way.   

[Crazy Larry]

On Death Proof, did anybody else catch the evidence of an unscripted Charger rollover that must have happened during shooting?

Look hard at the Charger just as it goes into the ditch and both cars stop in mid-chase.  (When Kurt clmbs out of the car & gets shot in the arm.)  That car had to have been rolled to get the roof/pillars distorted in such a way.   

I never caught that - I'll have to re-watch and check it out.

I do like that one scene where the Charger gets lost in the dust as it goes off road, and the camera man loses it for a bit, then it comes blasting out of the dust cloud....that was a pretty cool spontaneous shot.

I just wish they had more of them

[JimShine]

The rolled roof damage was replicated on multiple cars. Why would they replicate that damage if the car is rolled, rests on its wheels and the chase is over? I am going nuts looking for some of the pics I had. There was one of 2 or 3 Chargers side by side with same roof damage. It just makes me wonder why they would create copies of a car that wasn't going to move again.

[Mike DC]

Jim, I'm referring to rollover damage that appeared on just one car/shot.  It was long before the car actually got rolled in the storyline.  I don't think showing it was intentional.

I hear ya on the duplicated rollover damage by the time the final cars were done though.  Didn't make any sense to me either.  (Maybe there was a scripted rollover than ended up being cut out?)


It happens a lot though.  Unnessecarily bashed cars for just a few shots that could have just been done with the real stunt car. 

If you ever pay close attention to the season#4 DOH episode "Double Dukes," I once counted no less than three different Chargers getting bashed for the ending phony-GL rollover.  One '69 stunt car (complete with chrome rockers and a 4x4-cut RF fender), a second '68 lying in the ditch, and then a third '69 shell back at the town square on the forklift. 

-----------------------------------------------------


But Michael Mann really did it right in "Collateral" though. 


Ever watch the special features on that DVD?  For the ending rollover stunt, they actually did it right!  They really did what you'd never  expect a film crew to bother to do --

They filmed a Crown Vic being cannon rolled at the scene, then took the car back to the shop, cut the rollcage back out, reinstalled the interior back into the stunt car, and then laid the wrecked car back onto ground upside down at the scene! 

 

[THE CHARGER PUNK]

They did use 2 cars for the scripted rollover in the end of deathproof, the cannon car that shoots into the air and rolls, then the destroyed car they pull him out of, so both those cars would need the roof damage, also the jump car that was for sale on ebay and as well as for sale in sweden now has roof damage so maybe it rolled after the jump? personally i couldnt tell ya but i wouldnt mind finding out more facts and info on these cars and their roles in the movie -MATT

[Brock Samson]

 Personally, i think it's awful they crash all these Chargers for dumb movies and T.V. shows and I don't understand your facination with them... B.F.D.  I thought that death proof movie was terrible, but i liked the companion film alot...  IMO.

[Ghoste]

And to make matters worse, Tarantino is proud of the fact that he destroyed as many real cars as necessary to bring you the ultimate in realism.   

[Crazy Larry]

Personally, i think it's awful they crash all these Chargers for dumb movies and T.V. shows and I don't understand your facination with them... B.F.D.  I thought that death proof movie was terrible, but i liked the companion film alot...  IMO.

It all  started with Bullitt - I remember reading a quote from one of the producers of Bullitt - of how the Dodge Charger started to sell really well after Bullitt, Dodge saw this as a way to jump sales (marketing in movies) so they started to cater to film productions (hence Vanishing Point getting 5 Challengers before the Challengers hit the market).....

But the producer sited Bullitt as to why the General Lee was a Charger - Dodge was just willing to play ball after the sales peak of Bullitt.

After the Dukes hit the TV and became part of entertainment lore, it was all over...now those who are in movies or filmmaking - the first thing that is brought up when talking car chases and wrecks is Dodge Charger.

I agree, it is a absurd and I wish they could just stick to Mustangs - wreck all of them you want, Ford made a million of 'em.

[JimShine]

Jim, I'm referring to rollover damage that appeared on just one car/shot.  It was long before the car actually got rolled in the storyline.  I don't think showing it was intentional.

 

Ahh, I didn't notice the roll that shouldn't have made it in. Now I need to find it. But yeah, you get where I am going with the replicated roll damage.

Yeah, I know what you mean by the Double Dukes thing.

[Mike DC]

 
   
You guys are missing my point about the extra rolled Charger in Death Proof ---


I'm saying that this rollover must have happened BEFORE the Chargers took on their severely damaged appearance.  No matter whether we are talking about damage that the crew did with sledgehammers or something they did while driving the car.  This didn't match up either way. 

This car was only side-scraped otherwise.  The damage on the rest of this car was too little to be anything they were showing later on in the chase.  It didn't even have the massive rear-end hit from the Challenger yet.  So the possible rollover that I'm suggesting could not have been related to the ending rollover scene.

 

[SFRT]

And to make matters worse, Tarantino is proud of the fact that he destroyed as many real cars as necessary to bring you the ultimate in realism.   

seperated at birth:

[THE CHARGER PUNK]

*BUMP*


Anyone got any updates on their replicas or any added info to this thread???