[HN Gopher] How did they make cars fall apart in old movies (2017)
___________________________________________________________________
How did they make cars fall apart in old movies (2017)
Author : mgsouth
Score : 249 points
Date : 2025-01-13 01:41 UTC (21 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (movies.stackexchange.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (movies.stackexchange.com)
| monkeymeister wrote:
| This is both engineering and art. Magnificent.
| ErigmolCt wrote:
| They didn't just build cars to fall apart... they choreographed
| it like a performance
| sirshmooey wrote:
| Just don't look up how they made the horses fall down.
| Over2Chars wrote:
| tripwires?
| wisty wrote:
| For those who don't know, Keaton was amazingly dedicated as a
| comedic stuntman - a silent era Jackie Chan (he was less popular
| after the silent era, but kept working until his death in the
| 60s).
|
| 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).
| ErigmolCt wrote:
| His dedication was truly next-level
| keiferski wrote:
| Video of some of his better stunts:
| https://youtu.be/yOo_ZUVU_O8?si=1OEwZTk-d88ma2Zs
|
| 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.
| acuozzo wrote:
| > A few months ago the local theatre was playing Sherlock Jr.
| with a live band
|
| AFI in Silver Spring?
| keiferski wrote:
| Nope, other side of the world
| exhilaration wrote:
| Wow, those stunts are incredible - it's hard to believe he
| died of old age and not of these super risky stunts.
| smusamashah wrote:
| All those falls, my toddler is going to love his films I
| guess.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > He was truly an innovator that makes today's "films of
| people talking to each other" look amateurish.
|
| 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.
| keiferski wrote:
| I was comparing Keaton to a modern film that has people
| talking back and forth without any interesting use of space
| on film. This video explains it well:
|
| https://youtu.be/jGc-K7giqKM?si=0sOBkBrsYa4IBo5N
|
| A lot of Keaton's gags and shots are similar.
| vodou wrote:
| Here is the stunt where he broke his neck:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOo_ZUVU_O8&t=187s
| exitb wrote:
| > 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."
|
| 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.
| thih9 wrote:
| I am also trading my short term wellbeing, if only for money
| - by working in an unappreciative startup; I suppose many
| others do the same, and even more would like to. My hope is
| that my long term wellbeing improves as a result.
| exitb wrote:
| That's true, although society generally does not applaud
| sustaining permanent injuries at work as dedication.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| https://www.sportico.com/business/media/2025/nfl-
| owns-73-of-...
|
| 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.
| thih9 wrote:
| I can't imagine staring at a screen for 8h+ hours a
| day[1] is not causing some permanent injuries.
|
| [1]: Not to mention daily zoom calls with a micromanaging
| boss and a mandatory video on rule.
| db48x wrote:
| Men sell their bodies all the time. Miners, fishermen,
| football players, etc. 97% of all workplace fatalities are
| men.
| draven wrote:
| I saw a Jackie Chan interview years ago (20 or so) in which he
| said Keaton was an inspiration.
| krisoft wrote:
| > 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.
|
| 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.
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| Then you have to stop watching any competition of anything
| because the winners are always among the ones sacrifying the
| most.
|
| Then stop reading about start up on HN as well.
|
| In fact, forget about any extra ordinnary human achivement.
| krisoft wrote:
| > Then you have to stop watching any competition of
| anything
|
| 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.
| daseiner1 wrote:
| Let's not scale mountains, explore the oceans, cross the
| poles, or go to space. Why be heroic when we can all hold
| hands and be safe.
|
| """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."""
| krisoft wrote:
| > Let's not scale mountains, explore the oceans, cross
| the poles, or go to space. Why be heroic when we can all
| hold hands and be safe.
|
| In terms of exploring the oceans my hero is Admiral
| Rickover and not Stockton Rush. Different kind of
| heroism. Not the lack of it.
| crazygringo wrote:
| > _I don 't want performers to risk their safety, health and
| life for my entertainment._
|
| 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.
| krisoft wrote:
| > Nobody is forced into it.
|
| And i'm not forced to watch it. So all is fair.
| adamc wrote:
| Your position is similar to why I stopped watched NFL
| games. I get that players choose to play (for money), but
| at the end of the day, I am unwilling to contribute to
| brain damage.
| crazygringo wrote:
| I think there's a pretty big difference between long-term
| _brain damage_ and bruises though.
|
| Stuntpeople aren't getting blows to the head, generally
| speaking.
| josefx wrote:
| > There is the principle attributed to Houdini
|
| 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.
| krisoft wrote:
| > You can manage the danger of stunts, you can reduce it
| and prepare for anything that could go wrong.
|
| 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.
| gigaflop wrote:
| There's a youtube channel out there that used to be a sort of
| nature channel, but seems to have devolved into 'Get
| stung/bit by painful animal X'. I haven't watched their stuff
| in ages, but I'm very aware that the original channel host
| isn't the one getting stung anymore. I have to wonder what it
| was like from their perspective, watching the view counts go
| up and up with each successive "Hurt yourself on camera"
| video, and wondering what to do next.
| astura wrote:
| >There's a youtube channel out there that used to be a sort
| of nature channel, but seems to have devolved into 'Get
| stung/bit by painful animal X'. I haven't watched their
| stuff in ages, but I'm very aware that the original channel
| host isn't the one getting stung anymore.
|
| Brave Wilderness?
| gigaflop wrote:
| Yeah, that's the one! With the guy named Coyote.
| adamc wrote:
| You can see some classic Keaton in "A Funny thing Happened on
| the Way to the Forum". He remained great, even as an old man.
| throw4847285 wrote:
| Wow, I completely forgot that he played Erronius. Every time
| I think about the way he says "stolen in infancy by pirates"
| in that gravelly voices of his I have to stifle a laugh.
| hilbert42 wrote:
| Those reasons seem to make sense but I'd say just as much has to
| do with Buster Keaton himself, he had nerves of steel.
|
| 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.
| ggm wrote:
| My favourite Keaton movie is the one near his end where he goes
| across Canada by hand crank car on rail roads.
|
| "The railrodder" (1965)
|
| Kenton died 1966
| hilbert42 wrote:
| Yeah, I came across that one by sheer accident some years
| back. It was such a surprise. Now you've reminded me of it
| I'll watch it again. :-)
| mkl wrote:
| I found the movie interesting in that they managed to make the
| Confederates the good guys by simply never showing a Black
| person on screen or mentioning slavery. There were a few good
| stunts and it was worth watching as a historical curiosity, but
| I didn't think it was all that good as a movie. I'm not
| American, so may have missed some things that would have let me
| follow the story better.
| db48x wrote:
| It's a comedy; the sides don't matter. It's a hilarious
| movie, in fact.
| hilbert42 wrote:
| I'm not an American either so I've not a patriotic fervor
| over the outcome of the Civil War to the extent as that most
| Americans have.
|
| 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.
| saalweachter wrote:
| Some context for non-Americans: the 1920s (when the film
| was released) was the hey-day of Civil War revisionism;
| that was when most of the statues of Confederate generals
| were erected and the narrative of the noble Confederates
| was written. "1920s film made Confederates the good guys"
| is one of the least surprising things ever.
| hilbert42 wrote:
| Thanks for that, that's a perspective of which I was
| unaware but I've long been aware there was a reasonable
| level of criticism when the film was released.
|
| 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.
| saalweachter wrote:
| Well, it wasn't _just_ putting up statues and making
| movies where the Confederates were the good guys -- the
| 1920s was also the peak of organized white supremacy like
| the Ku Klux Klan, when lynching and other mob violence
| was common. The Tulsa massacre, which involved burning
| one of the wealthiest black neighborhoods in the United
| States, was only 5 years before this film came out.
|
| 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."
| scarface_74 wrote:
| There are eight states that have a Confederate memorial
| day and two that combine Martin Luther King and Robert E.
| Lees birthday.
| hilbert42 wrote:
| _" It's the old quote -- "The past is never dead. It's
| not even past."_
|
| 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 Revolution francaise_ 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.
| nejsjsjsbsb wrote:
| The entire film is embedded on the wiki page. Public domain
| is cool!
| hilbert42 wrote:
| If you can, buy a DVD copy from Kino, it's a much higher
| quality copy than any of the public domain copies
| available. In fact, the quantity is quite excellent.
|
| 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.
| throw4847285 wrote:
| I recommend listening to the episode of the Blank Check
| podcast about The General (and Battling Butler), if you can
| sanction some buffoonery. It's a mix of a comedy podcast and
| deep movie analysis, which is not for everybody. For that
| episode they brought in writer Jamelle Bouie who is both a
| huge movie buff and a student of American history who brings
| in some great perspective on the Lost Cause.
|
| https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/battling-butler-the-
| ge...
| hilbert42 wrote:
| Have started listening to it, thanks.
| csours wrote:
| "The only secret of magic is I'm willing to work harder on it
| than you think it's worth" - Penn Jillette
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trRJ4J15xU8
| wisty wrote:
| Spending more time and effort than other people are willing to
| do works in a number of fields.
| ErigmolCt wrote:
| It's hard to believe they could make cars fall apart so perfectly
| without the tech we have today.
| mkl wrote:
| Seems easier back then; way fewer parts, not held together as
| well, no roof.
| mrb wrote:
| I immediately assumed this article was about the French movie Le
| Corniaud (1965) in which a 2CV falls apart in 250 pieces in an
| accident--this scene specifically:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnLj5Xo4zBc&t=19s It became one
| of the most iconic scene of French comedy movies. To prepare the
| scene, the special effects engineer sawed off the car in 250
| pieces, reattached every piece with hooks, and secured the hooks
| with "explosive bolts". At the right moment, the actor driving
| the car pushed a button to trigger the (tiny) explosives which
| made the car fall apart. Here is a French article about it:
| https://2cv-legende.com/expo-de-la-2cv-du-film-le-corniaud-a...
|
| 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...
| 4gotunameagain wrote:
| Super impressive ! Thanks for sharing.
|
| Similar (albeit a bit heavier from the all paperwork) explosive
| bolts are user for stage separation in launch vehicles
| (rockets).
| amelius wrote:
| By the way, I always wondered why we got modern versions of the
| Mini and the Beetle, but not the 2CV.
| dostick wrote:
| Was one 20 years ago, Citroen c5 or c3 or something. Maybe
| still is.
| amelius wrote:
| It doesn't have the iconic 2CV look ...
| prmoustache wrote:
| Nor do the new mini ever had the original mini look. The
| Daihatsu Trevis was much closer to the Issigonis Mini
| look than the new mini ever was.
|
| 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.
| hommelix wrote:
| The first generation C3 (FC/FN) was close to the 2CV.
| There was as well the C3 Pluriel, where the top could be
| removed, a little bit like the 2CV.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citro%C3%ABn_C3
| kjellsbells wrote:
| I guess the answer depends on which aspect of the 2CV is
| being replicated in the new version.
|
| If its "outrageously small but can still take you and a goose
| to market", Citroen 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.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| There's still simple cars being produced but they're aimed
| at the Chinese and Indian markets, same with motorcycles.
| Example is (was?) the Tata Nano
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_Nano), at $2500 a very
| affordable and simple car, mainly aimed at
| motorcycle/scooter drivers.
| iglio wrote:
| There's the Ineos Grenadier[1]
|
| > 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.
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineos_Grenadier
| jimnotgym wrote:
| It is a lot more complicated than a defender though,
| isn't it. It has electronics!
| doikor wrote:
| For Defender there is Ineos Grenadier
| https://ineosgrenadier.com/
| regularfry wrote:
| The Hilux went the other way: you _can_ apply wrench to
| nut, but the odds of you needing to do so recede into the
| distance.
| foobarian wrote:
| Well since we're talking about Citroen I'll say where is
| the button I can press to make the car raise up 20 cm :-D
| Always loved watching my uncle come visit in their CX. We'd
| always wait to see the car start and lift up.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| Because the 2CV is mostly replaced by the entire crossover
| and compact SUV market segment.
| eichin wrote:
| https://2cev.co.uk/ showed up on ev-youtube last year (but
| other than the drive train, it's going out of it's way to not
| actually be modern... the 2cv aesthetic of "you think a VW
| Bug is too fancy" kind of limits the options.)
| andrepd wrote:
| Well but the modern Mini and Beetle are related to the
| classics in name only, not in spirit.
| moffkalast wrote:
| That scene would've been a lot more impressive if wasn't edited
| like Liam Neeson jumping over a fence, haha
| yowzadave wrote:
| The one I thought of was the Silver Hornet from Revenge of the
| Pink Panther:
|
| 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.
| dylan604 wrote:
| This seems very much like an homage to the French film
| example, just done less well.
| af78 wrote:
| I'm not sure how to translate this line: << Ah ben maintenant
| elle va marcher beaucoup moins bien, forcement ! >> (Bourvil
| reportedly improvised it, causing de Funes to start laughing
| and bow his head to hide it).
|
| 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).
| colanderman wrote:
| All four sound fine to my native ears. "It's going to run
| ..." is most natural when talking about a vehicle. (French if
| I recall does not distinguish "working" from "running" for
| machines generally.)
| af78 wrote:
| Thanks.
|
| 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.
| colanderman wrote:
| Yes, I might naturally say "It's no longer going to run
| as smoothly." But, to me, phrasing it as "It's going to
| run much less smoothly" adds to the humor by suggesting
| that it will to _some_ degree still run "smoothly" (when
| in fact it won't run at all).
| maxerickson wrote:
| Something like "Oh well now it will run a lot less well,
| obviously." Seems like the more or less literal translation.
|
| "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.
| Terretta wrote:
| The Google one seems dead on, except it should be gendered,
| native English refers to boats and cars as female gender:
|
| _"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
| llsf wrote:
| I also thought first about the 2CV in Le Corniaud (1965) :)
|
| I had no idea that explosives were involved!
| OuterVale wrote:
| This made me think of the scene in _Chitty Chitty Bang Bang_ when
| Lionel Jeffries is captured and forced to convert a car into the
| titular phantasmagorical fuel-burning oracle. I was wondering
| just the other day how they achieved that effect.
|
| Wonderful little read. Thanks!
| vodou wrote:
| I love Buster Keaton. For me he might be the greatest performer
| ever.
|
| 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.
| watersb wrote:
| I'm surprised there's no mention yet of the incredible scene from
| the 1980 film "The Blues Brothers".
|
| 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.
| gregoriol wrote:
| It's a very nice scene, but not as good as the 2CV from Le
| Corniaud.
|
| 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
| blululu wrote:
| I remember watching that movie recently and seeing that the
| cast was almost half stuntmen. The fact that the Chicago police
| basically gave them free range and unlimited extras also made a
| lot of things possible. The final chase scene is about 15
| minutes of car crashes including the one where the neonazis fly
| off the bridge and the camera jump cuts to the car dropped from
| an airplane into Lake Michigan.
| https://youtu.be/FD9N7v5qGig?si=p-QYJSkkYJIlN3b4&t=110
| lenerdenator wrote:
| _takes off hat_
| radar1310 wrote:
| Kinda looks like the Michael Waltrip 1990 crash at Bristol in the
| NASCAR race.it's on YT, look it up.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Much of these tricks comes from how cars used to be constructed.
| Without any concept of safety cages, they were basically a bunch
| of very light structures secured atop a heavy metal frame. So
| long as the actor remains on the seat above the frame, they are
| in a falling house of cards. Today we build the frames around the
| people. Pull such a stunt in a modern car and you will be trapped
| amongst twisted metal rails.
|
| 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.
| josefritzishere wrote:
| This is brilliant. Today it'd all be CGI trash.
| DonHopkins wrote:
| Or a CyberTruck dumpster falling apart, bursting into flames,
| then exploding, naturally.
| betimsl wrote:
| They loosened the screws.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-01-13 23:01 UTC)