DEATHPROOF CHARGERS FOUND AND RESTORED

[Cooter]

Funny how Deathproof was so boring to this many, when "Bullitt" is only remembered at all for the car chase that destroyed two Classic Chargers as well.(Blue and Yellow cars)..Hmmmm...(Yes, I know they destroyed a classic Mustank too). The first 1 1/2 hour really is boring. At least Q. T. kept you wondering what crazy thing was gonna happen next, even if you didn't understand it.

[TK73]

Funny how Deathproof was so boring to this many, when "Bullitt" is only remembered at all for the car chase that destroyed two Classic Chargers as well.(Blue and Yellow cars)..Hmmmm...(Yes, I know they destroyed a classic Mustank too). The first 1 1/2 hour really is boring. At least Q. T. kept you wondering what crazy thing was gonna happen next, even if you didn't understand it.

Thank you.

I appreciate a well developed story line with complex characters, you can certainly see that in Tarantinos work. 

[Kern Dog]

Bullitt was a slow going, borehole of a movie. I suffered through it a few times, but what I liked best besides the chase was the exterior shots of late 60s San Francisco. Its interesting to see how barren the city looked back then.

[68X426]

Hi!

I got the Charger marked as STUNT #1, in my garage.

Stuntman Mike

Pics please. 

[hatersaurusrex]

Deathproof is boring?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfXtmnxhtTY

If you don't like that vid, here's another link for you that you will love:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFFqeeNwOhI&feature=fvst

[Fred]

 

I'm going to go with Professor Sumner Miller here and say............what does it all mean???

[Kern Dog]

Deathproof was  NEW Tarantino. By THAT, I mean it was similar to dating a virgin. You talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and by the time the action begins, I dang near lost interest. Oh yeah, AND the final payoff wasn't that great either...

[surmanajaja]

Death Proof was boring as hell. and when Mr. QT tries to act its a horrible sight, maybe he pen a cool sentence now and then, but he sure cant deliver them.

I love Kurt Russell, from The Thing to Escape from NY to Big trouble in chinatown...but this movie was a big mistake.

also the driving looks like shit in it, it reminds of the worst "chase" movies of 70´s, when theyre going 20-30mph on dirt roads and throwing the cars.

[Mike DC]

also the driving looks like shit in it, it reminds of the worst "chase" movies of 70´s, when theyre going 20-30mph on dirt roads and throwing the cars.

I think Tarantino was purposely going for a chase with that sort of look to it.


I do give them credit for going pretty fast in that chase, especially for having a live person strapped to the hood of a car they were banging.  It might not have looked THAT fast, but the live person in the frame meant they couldn't speed up the footage as much as Hollywood normally does.  It's industry standard to show vehicle chase footage at 150% of real speed.  With the girl on the hood I doubt they could do more than 120%.

[myk]

Deathproof was  NEW Tarantino. By THAT, I mean it was similar to dating a virgin. You talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and by the time the action begins, I dang near lost interest. Oh yeah, AND the final payoff wasn't that great either...

Lol.  My Tarantino fan days ended with the 1st Kill Bill, and even that was pushing it...

[MaximRecoil]

also the driving looks like shit in it, it reminds of the worst "chase" movies of 70´s, when theyre going 20-30mph on dirt roads and throwing the cars.

I think Tarantino was purposely going for a chase with that sort of look to it.


I do give them credit for going pretty fast in that chase, especially for having a live person strapped to the hood of a car they were banging.  It might not have looked THAT fast, but the live person in the frame meant they couldn't speed up the footage as much as Hollywood normally does.  It's industry standard to show vehicle chase footage at 150% of real speed.  With the girl on the hood I doubt they could do more than 120%.

I doubt that. Footage that is sped up significantly is obvious due to the unnatural physics, which the brain automatically picks up on; unless the car is going in a perfectly straight line on a perfectly flat surface. I've seen it used in old TV shows like The Dukes of Hazzard (even then it was rare) and Knight Rider (more common) and old low-budget movies; but rarely (if ever) in modern big budget movies.

[1974dodgecharger]

Looks like mine in 2004.

you in arizona lennard?

[TheGhost]

That's a joke, right?

No, watchin it again right now.

Seems the humor, cinematography, dialogue and character development that Tarantino exhibits is too much for some people...

I love most Tarantino films, but Deathproof's only saving grace was the cars.

[Dino]

Love Pulp Fiction and Inglorious Basterds.  Great dialogue in both.  Some great dialogue in Reservoir Dogs as well but the guy bleeding to death for two hours kinda ruined it for me.

I sorta enjoyed Kill Bill 1 and thought the slashing scene with the 88's was hilarious.  Second one kinda sucked and now I can't watch either of them.

The dialogue in Deathproof was much more than I could take.  That whole grindhouse thing is not for me! 

[Lennard]

Looks like mine in 2004.

you in arizona lennard?

[Mike DC]

I doubt that. Footage that is sped up significantly is obvious due to the unnatural physics, which the brain automatically picks up on; unless the car is going in a perfectly straight line on a perfectly flat surface. I've seen it used in old TV shows like The Dukes of Hazzard (even then it was rare) and Knight Rider (more common) and old low-budget movies; but rarely (if ever) in modern big budget movies.

Yeah it's obvious when the increase is too much.  But 150% isn't huge.  Do the shot at a real speed of 30-40mph, and it only adds another 15-20mph onto it.  

Keep your eye on the driver/steering wheel during any of the classic movie car chases, and you can catch glimpses of unnaturally fast steering movements from time to time.

[MaximRecoil]

Yeah it's obvious when the increase is too much.  But 150% isn't huge.  Do the shot at a real speed of 30-40mph, and it only adds another 15-20mph onto it.  

Keep your eye on the driver/steering wheel during any of the classic movie car chases, and you can catch glimpses of unnaturally fast steering movements from time to time.

In really old movies perhaps; but most stunts looked cheesy/fake back then anyway ...

It isn't the apparent MPH increase that makes the sped up film noticeable, it is the wrong physics. As I said, if driving perfectly straight over a perfectly flat surface, it wouldn't be noticeable; but any turns or bumps makes sped up film obvious; even a 150% increase. A car looks different cornering at 40 MPH than it does cornering at 60 MPH, and it reacts to bumps differently too.

For example, it is well known that the famous Bullitt car chase was filmed at normal speed:

Before 1968, most car chases were filmed at slower speeds, then sped up at the studio to give the illusion of danger. Fraker said the "Bullitt" car chase was conceived during an Italian meal with Yates at a small Hollywood restaurant called Martoni's.

"We had dinner there one night and came up with the idea of not speeding up the camera," Fraker said. "We would shoot in the cars at 24 frames, actual sound speed, and speed up the cars."

Here's part of the Bullitt car chase scene, unaltered. Now here's the same scene that I sped up 150%.

[surmanajaja]

yes, you cant fool physics. speed-up will always look unreal. same thing with special effects, computer generated crap just never looks "real" to me, they cant seem to make movement look real to the eye, at least to me. I mean these ppl jumping two stories up, over cars etc. just looks bad. and give me a real crowd over cg one any day.

if you want a nice looking car chase in your movie, I think you have to go to europe to make it. for example, in Ronin it looks good. french drivers can make it with real speed.

[Mike DC]

In really old movies perhaps; but most stunts looked cheesy/fake back then anyway ...

It isn't the apparent MPH increase that makes the sped up film noticeable, it is the wrong physics. As I said, if driving perfectly straight over a perfectly flat surface, it wouldn't be noticeable; but any turns or bumps makes sped up film obvious; even a 150% increase. A car looks different cornering at 40 MPH than it does cornering at 60 MPH, and it reacts to bumps differently too.

Yes I agree, the physics look different.  But we have been seeing things in mildly sped-up form so long that we think it is normal that way when we see it on TV.  

Look at the jumping shots in Bullitt, like the long zoomed-in shots from the front (camera farther down the street looking upwards at them).   The cars sometimes seem to fall pretty fast once they get into the air.  That's because gravity is yanking them down little bit faster when you speed up the footage.

For example, it is well known that the famous Bullitt car chase was filmed at normal speed:

Some shots of the chase filmed at real speed?  Yes.  The whole thing?  No.  

Look at the shot of Steve McQueen botching the corner and backing up to peel out.  Watch HIM the whole time.  That has definitely been sped up just a little bit.

It's not even about trying to cut corners and not go fast, it's about trying to stretch the physics of what production cars can do.  They are typically still telling the drivers go to at it full-blast, which is why the cars are bouncing & sliding so much.  The undercranked footage just helps make a 4000-lb car look more responsive & agile than it really is.  

Here's part of the Bullitt car chase scene, unaltered. Now here's the same scene that I sped up 150%.

Yes I agree that it looks phony when you speeded it up like that.  

But let's assume I am correct for a moment - starting with footage of a car at 150% speed, x 150% again, equals 225% of real speed.  I was never trying to argue that taking a 50 mph shot and showing it at 112 mph is very believable.  I'm just saying they often show it at 75 mph and we buy it.

yes, you cant fool physics. speed-up will always look unreal. same thing with special effects, computer generated crap just never looks "real" to me, they cant seem to make movement look real to the eye, at least to me. I mean these ppl jumping two stories up, over cars etc. just looks bad. and give me a real crowd over cg one any day.

if you want a nice looking car chase in your movie, I think you have to go to europe to make it. for example, in Ronin it looks good. french drivers can make it with real speed.

"Ronin" had numerous sped-up shots too.  The key is that they are MILDLY sped-up.

[MaximRecoil]

Yes I agree, the physics look different.  But we have been seeing things in mildly sped-up form so long that we think it is normal that way when we see it on TV.  

Look at the jumping shots in Bullitt, like the long zoomed-in shots from the front (camera farther down the street looking upwards at them).   The cars sometimes seem to fall pretty fast once they get into the air.  That's because gravity is yanking them down little bit faster when you speed up the footage.

Some shots of the chase filmed at real speed?  Yes.  The whole thing?  No.  

Look at the shot of Steve McQueen botching the corner and backing up to peel out.  Watch HIM the whole time.  That has definitely been sped up just a little bit.

It's not even about trying to cut corners and not go fast, it's about trying to stretch the physics of what production cars can do.  They are typically still telling the drivers go to at it full-blast, which is why the cars are bouncing & sliding so much.  The undercranked footage just helps make a 4000-lb car look more responsive & agile than it really is.

There are probably dozens of sources that say the Bullitt chase scene was shot at normal speed. Keep in mind that the YouTube clip is PAL, so there is a slight speed-up there (25 FPS vs. 24 FPS; about 104% speed). I increased that to 37.5 FPS (150% speed). I should have increased it to 36 FPS to represent 150% speed compared to the original 24 FPS, but I didn't think of it until just now. It wouldn't have made much of a difference though.  

Yes I agree that it looks phony when you speeded it up like that.  

But let's assume I am correct for a moment - starting with footage of a car at 150% speed, x 150% again, equals 225% of real speed.  I was never trying to argue that taking a 50 mph shot and showing it at 112 mph is very believable.  I'm just saying they often show it at 75 mph and we buy it.

Even if you argue that some of it was sped up; if that's true then it was only slightly; and most of it was not sped up at all (this is well-sourced common knowledge, as well as being obvious from observation). I could speed up some random amateur YouTube footage of traffic 150% and the results would be the same; it looks fake. 150% is actually quite a bit.

[Mike DC]

  
Filmmakers love to claim they didn't speed up their chase footage, just like they love to claim they didn't use CGI these days even when they blatantly did.  IMHO you have to interpret those kinds of statements to mean "we didn't OVER-use it."  

I've played around with lots of these chases with computer software to fine-tune the playback speed faster & slower in small increments.  I'm convinced the undercranking is present a lot of the time, and it's usually about 16fps.  You can see cues from people in the background, the steering wheel motions, the motions of the cars themselves, etc.  150% is way too much undercranking to use on footage of a human, but 4000-lb cars on small tires are easier to sell. 

[Indygenerallee]

I liked Deathproof and it was meant to be corny and cheesy in the vein of 1970's B movies, I hated the "Kill Bill" movies but "Pulp Fiction" and "Deathproof" I like and QT is a douche in real life very weird guy if anyone has ever seen any of his interview, I have seen plenty of videos of him lashing out at fans also.

[aussiemuscle]

annoying (... and inane ... and long-winded ... ) dialog from a group of airheaded chicks

it's like watching an episode of 'the view'  
Bullitt is also boring, GISS is also crap.

i watch these movies all the time, i just skip to the car chase and enjoy it!!



How come these 4 pages has nothing about a 'restored' deathproof charger, even though that's the thread title?

[surmanajaja]

How come these 4 pages has nothing about a 'restored' deathproof charger, even though that's the thread title?

because none of them are "restored". and by the way, I dont think the 1-post threadstarter has any deathproof cars, the cars were for sale before the movie was on theathers and I could have bought one or all of them, they were all in bad shape and as far as I know, 3 chargers are now in sweden, and one challenger in finland. if I remember correct, there were 6-7 chargers, at least one was cut up for camera work. they were not "expensive" by the way.

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,61876.0.html

[Brock Lee]

I've seen it used in old TV shows like The Dukes of Hazzard (even then it was rare)

Dukes of Hazzard did it way more often than you think. I have shooting logs from the first season and detailed notes were maintained on frame rates and lenses used. Just about all car footage, with exception to the jumps, was filmed at a modified speed. It was subtle, but it was done.