Fair enough...(nm)

Posted by Patterson from 63.104.29.91 on September 12, 2000 at 15:39:35:

In Reply to: bad logic? posted by Micah on September 12, 2000 at 15:36:15:

: : I've held my tongue on this particular topic, but felt the need to ask a very basic question. Do any of you REALLY think that when they spent $20,000,000 on the movie that they were going to worry about saving $20 or $50 or $500 between the stuntman jackets and the ones worn by the headliner, risking that the audience may not believe that that's our hero being dragged under the truck? They go to great lengths to make the 2 indecernable on 35 mm file projected on a 20 foot high screen! Sorry but THIS IS THE STUPIDEST THING I'VE EVER HEARD!

: : I watched The Making of Raiders last night. I'd recommend it to everyone. It really brings you into the production of the movie. You see close-ups of Ford and his stunt men (Terry Leonard, et al), and you know they are pulling their costumes out of the same wardrobe...

: : Sorry, but sometimes the direction of the speculation goes in some strange directions. Why is there such a need to dismiss something new, different, and better? Fear? What?

: : Oh, well... Fire-away!

: On the particular point of whether stuntmen jackets were or were not created, I have no opinion, as I don't have any facts regarding that, however, I think the reasoning you give above is flawed. It is a well-known fact that there were many versions of fertility idols made with various levels of detail, "hero" closeup props and "stunt" props that weren't meant to be seen up close. It's conceivable that a jacket was required to be tougher or allow a freer range of movement for a stunt than the standard Ford closeup model. Once again, I don't know whether there were different versions, I just think your monetary argument doesn't necessarily nullify the case for "stunt" jackets. There may be more factors involved than money.

: --Micah

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: : : I've held my tongue on this particular topic, but felt the need to ask a very basic question.  Do any of you REALLY think that when they spent $20,000,000 on the movie that they were going to worry about saving $20 or $50 or $500 between the stuntman jackets and the ones worn by the headliner, risking that the audience may not believe that that's our hero being dragged under the truck? They go to great lengths to make the 2 indecernable on 35 mm file projected on a 20 foot high screen! Sorry but THIS IS THE STUPIDEST THING I'VE EVER HEARD!

: : : I watched The Making of Raiders last night.  I'd recommend it to everyone.  It really brings you into the production of the movie.  You see close-ups of Ford and his stunt men (Terry Leonard, et al), and you know they are pulling their costumes out of the same wardrobe...

: : : Sorry, but sometimes the direction of the speculation goes in some strange directions.  Why is there such a need to dismiss something new, different, and better?  Fear?  What?

: : : Oh, well...  Fire-away!

: : On the particular point of whether stuntmen jackets were or were not created, I have no opinion, as I don't have any facts regarding that, however, I think the reasoning you give above is flawed.  It is a well-known fact that there were many versions of fertility idols made with various levels of detail, "hero" closeup props and "stunt" props that weren't meant to be seen up close.   It's conceivable that a jacket was required to be tougher or allow a freer range of movement for a stunt than the standard Ford closeup model.  Once again, I don't know whether there were different versions, I just think your monetary argument doesn't necessarily nullify the case for "stunt" jackets.  There may be more factors involved than money.

: : --Micah

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Indyfan Forum ] [ FAQ ]