Did they really do that?

[Iconic Ride]

Got back home a couple of hours ago, after my wife, younger son, and I became the last three people on the planet to see "The Dark Knight" (waited until my son had returned from a 6 week long computer camp in Chicago---the "Larini fund" is now severely depleted, and am a wee bit behind on the house payments, but I'll work it out). The obligatory chase scene, as most of you know, included a right trashing of a Lamborgini (looked to be a Murcielago, but I'm not the one to ask). I find the destruction of any "supercar", even the competition, to be somewhat upsetting. And yes, I know that this was a "big budget" flic, and that the producers could have sacrificed any number of "exotics" in their quest for blockbuster profits---and by all accounts they won't have any trouble paying their bills on this effort. Still, one has to wonder whether on not the complete car is sacrificed, or if only the "shell" is reduced to a pulp. Anyone out there "in the buisness" that has a handle on this?

[USAndretti42]

I too haven't seen Dark Night but in the original "Italian Job" the Miura that ran into the bull dozer at the end of the tunnel was an empty shell. You could, see as it fell down the cliff, that it had no engine in it.

With Dark Night being a big-budget, American-financed film, it probably was a complete car.

Do you remember seeing Jackie Chan taking the doors off a Countach in "Rumble in the Bronx?" As he was driving it around at the time, I suppose it was a complete car. And the DBS that James Bond wrecked in Casino Royale looked pretty complete ( but that car was probably free to the production company).

[garry_ludwar@hotmail.com]

its just the shell that is sacrificed the cars ar always a reinforced chassis and roll cage with the stock shell on top so it looks like the car can take more hits than are possable. certian cars are simply reinforced and used but there isnt much you can do with a lambo. so what they do is buy 1 stock lambo are a exact replica to use for the scenes where the car doesnt get touched, one or 2 kits to cut up to show close ups of the driving and looks a realistics damage, and finaly a shell to place on a reinforced go kart like frame to smash around a bit , its rarly even the real engine in these cars anymore they just make it look like its the right engine with cgi and add the engine note in post production

the car in casino royale wasnt real they tried doing it for real but they couldnt get the dbs to flip it kept righting itself and staying on its wheels, superior british design i suppose, so they used a bmw dont remember what model and placed a shell over it. just like to say that by doing this when the car rolled it worked so well that they set a world record for times rolled on a movie set

Edited August 12, 2008 by GARRY_R _L

[Iconic Ride]

Just so you know, Trevor, if you do go see the movie (and I recommend that you do), knowing the fate of the Lambo in Dark Knight isn't a "spoiler" (in the Hollywood sense). It didn't change the storyline all that much in the long run, just added to the "action".

Interesting stuff, Garry. Thanks for the input. Oh, and remember, never forget "Step 10."

John

[OwenGT3]

the car in casino royale wasnt real they tried doing it for real but they couldnt get the dbs to flip it kept righting itself and staying on its wheels, superior british design i suppose, so they used a bmw dont remember what model and placed a shell over it. just like to say that by doing this when the car rolled it worked so well that they set a world record for times rolled on a movie set

If I remember rightly they did use the Aston DBS, you are correct that it wouldn't roll over on its own, but what they did do is use an air ramp to create the start of the roll, this was set in the road. As the car drove over it it pushed the car up to assist the start of the roll, I don't think it was a BMW, I have the DVD and I know it's a while since I last saw it, but I don't remember anything about it being a shelled BMW. It may have had one of the American V8 engines fitted to reduce weight like what that they had used in Die Another Day in the Vanquish.

Owen

Edited August 12, 2008 by OwenGT3

[Glyn Harper]

The DBS that was crashed in Casino Royale was filmed at Millbrook proving grounds at about 2am.. trouble was, the way they flip it is to fire a log using compressed air out of the bottom of the car (seriousley!) and this gouged a big chunk out of the tarmac that had to be rapidly repaired in order to use the track again the next day.

I seem to remember that when they crashed the Esprit in 'Basic Instinct' is was just a shell, dummied up to look like a full car. They also had to seriousley mod the Esprit on the scene where Michael Douglas gets run over.. If you watch it in slow motion, you'll see the headlamp pod flip down as soon as he comes in contact with it, as it was actually just on a loose spring.

I believe part of the of reason a Lotus hasn't been in a Bond film of late is that the franchise demand about 7 or 8 new cars from the manufacturer for free. They destroy 4 or 5 during filming, and the other 3 or so are basically bribes for the directors.

Edited August 12, 2008 by Glyn Harper

[Simon350S]

Your right Glyn...

Casino Royale was filmed at milbrook, driven over that crest several times myself on rallies ...

Its a real fun place to drive around, would love to go back...!!

Ho hum, never mind

[bigsi]

oh yep, they really did smash up an lp640, it was one of 3 cars lambo gave them to use. read about it all here:

http://www.motortrend.com/features/auto_ne...ight/index.html

[Autocross7]

I know that in the movie The Rock (Nicholas Cage/Sean Connery), the Ferari 355 was a replica built by a boat manufacturing company. The production manager did not want to total a real 355, so he worked it out with Ferrari and the Fiber Fab Boats company. Ferrari supplied the molds and the boat company made the car. It had all the same body work, interior bits, and even the tube chasis was an exact replica. The motor was a V8.

The 'neat' thing is that there seemed to be a demand for the car as it could be bought from the boat manufacture for less than 80K. Well, they had the molds... so they made the cars. That is until Ferrari got wind of it and told them to stop. As I understand it, they stopped without a fight, but a long fight could have been on as Ferrari never bother to spell out the terms for providing the 'plans' in any sort of contract and only stated in contract that the plans were "provided for the purpose of producing a replica 355". And that was it. No howevers, whenevers, or term limits... every so often one of these comes up on ebay, and having seen one in real life, I'd buy one. Just for the movie history connection.

Cameron

Edited August 12, 2008 by Autocross7

[Iconic Ride]

A most interesting "link", Simon. Thanks. I suppose the "follow on" question would be, is any attempt made to repair the damaged example, and if so would it be worth less because of the repairs, or more, because of its association with the movie? And do the producers get to keep the other two as "perks"?

[Bibs]

Ouch! They should be forced to say 'no cars were harmed in the making of this movie' at the end of the film! They aren't allowed to harm animals, how come they can trash expensive cars for fun!

CGI is a wonderful thing, it worked for China at the opening ceremony of the Olympics so why can't these big budget Hollywood films trash computer cars instead?

[dbroughton]

It is bizzare that in a film with "heavy sustained threat". lots of violence, death and distruction, it was the crashing of a Lambo which traumatised us most.

I have to say that we all (myself included) need "help"

[Iconic Ride]

Indeed a sign of the times, Dan. We have, to a large degree, become inured to the depictions of violence thrown our way at every turn. Each new movie seems to up the ante in remorseless fashion. And, hypocrite that I am, I stand in line with the rest of the lemmings, eagerly awaiting my ticket to the mayhem.

At my age, I have convinced myself that I can "handle" such viewings without "acting out" upon exiting the theatre, but one has to wonder what the effect is on the more malleable minds of a newer generation. And as a parent I must admit that I have pretty much thrown in the towel on any consistent effort to limit my sons' exposure to today's entertainment options. The older one seems to have turned out quite well, thank you. And the younger one seems to be handling it in stride as he continues to develop his "eye hand coordination" with the latest M rated video game offerings. I have taken to referring to each new game as "another Family Values" oriented amusement, and my sarcasm is not lost on him. Still, it strikes me as passing strange that we will not truly know if we're raising the next generation of serial killers until 20 years of analysis has been performed. The grand social experiment of laissezfaire child rearing remains a work in progress, and one can only hope that the end results are not overly out of line with past historical methods.

This much I know for certain: no instuction book was provided by the delivering physician.