Priceless Martin guitar destroyed during Hateful 8 filming.

Some here may find this interesting: https://reverb.com/blog/cf-martin-r...n-of-145-year-old-guitar-on-hateful-eight-set

 

Well that was a pretty stupid thing to do. What git doesn't realize a 150 year old Martin is worth a fortune? They made 7 replicas, why not just use a replica the whole time? No one except a handful of experts would have known the difference. I didn't even recognize it as a Martin, period. They should have just distressed a made-in-Mexico Martin, they sound like crap anyway.

 

And still Hollywood refuses our demand for all end-credits to guarantee that "no guitars were harmed in the making of this movie".

 

I keep seeing the words "priceless" and "irreplaceable" in articles about this guitar but no-one has said what actually makes it special.

There are seriously at least ten other 1850-1870 era Martins of similar model for sale right now on reverb.com for under $10k, some as low as $2k.

Sure, it shouldn't have been destroyed but it's not like someone smashed a Stradivarius or set a Da Vinci painting on fire.

 

My reply to Laservampire is that guitars made of fine wood improve in their sound with age, and more importantly, each one is unique, and the one destroyed may have been the best of the bunch, not just "one of the ten." I don't know obviously, but this was stupid, stupid, stupid, and another one can't necessarily replace that particular one. Guitars a lot "younger" than this one (e.g., 50s Strats, LPs, etc.) was highly cherished by professional musicians for good reason.

 

Pete Townshend says "what's the big deal?"

 

Tarantino is such a "rebel", I'm not sure that I believe it was just an accident. Smashing culture is sort of what he does. If that's the case, I think it's pretty vile.

 

I haven't seen the movie yet - when they say Jennifer Jason Leigh reaction was genuine, I have to wonder if it was more than you would expect for what was happening in the film. (But I guess I'd have to see it to know what's happening - another reason now that I really want to go see this.)

 

Gee whiz...ten vaguely comparable guitars available in this solar system?
Nothing "irreplaceable" about that one then.

 

You gotta wonder why they didn't take a brand new guitar and "distress" it...

 

Its useless to even reply to such a viewpoint.

 

Depends. People talk about the sound of guitars like they talk about the sound of... audio amplifiers or phonograph styluses or CD player lasers.

It matters.

 

You would have to figure if it was in the Martin Museum, it might have been a very fine example. Sort of like a NM Beatles mono getting smashed vs a VG.

 

So then this happened:

https://reverb.com/blog/cf-martin-r...n-of-145-year-old-guitar-on-hateful-eight-set

 

Ten guitars available of a similar model, from the same era, based on checking a single website says to me that there's pretty good odds that quite a lot more Martins from that era have survived.

I'm not saying I'm happy the guitar was destroyed, I hate seeing anything old destroyed needlessly, as there's now one less of that particular thing, be it a vintage guitar or a classic car or a pile of 78s.

My point is that I haven't seen any evidence that this particular guitar was a "one-of-a-kind" special model, the only one known to exist or anything of the sort. I highly doubt that Martin would lend out one of there rarer pieces to a production anyway.

People are getting riled up like Tarantino personally pissed on the Declaration of Independence, when in reality an actor accidentally destroyed a vintage guitar that if it wasn't part of a museum collection would be worth bugger all in the grand scheme of things.

 

I think some are missing the point here. It's not whether it was a one-of-a-kind example, but it's the fact that they destroyed a museum-quality (and still very rare) examples of a guitar that was kindly loaned to them...then claimed it was "accidental." (Seems more like negligence than an accident.) Adding insult to injury, the guitar was only insured for the purchase price, not its actual value.

Anything less than the movie studio offering to find a replacement guitar of comparable age, build-quality, and value would be simply wrong.

It's about doing the right thing.

 

[QUOTE="Laservampire, post: 13751976, member: 8025".

People are getting riled up like Tarantino personally pissed on the Declaration of Independence, when in reality an actor accidentally destroyed a vintage guitar that if it wasn't part of a museum collection would be worth bugger all in the grand scheme of things.[/QUOTE]

Don't rule it out, ...QT hasn't pitched a Revolutionary War pic to Weinstein yet!


Cat

 

Have you been following Tarantino in the press lately? The reaction to this incident is not really much of a surprise.

 

Stories like this make me ill. I suspect that guitar had more lasting value to our culture than this film will.

 

And yet you did...

 

HOW DARE HIM!

 

I think he was referring to the post that "townsend" was replying to.

 

yea, an old Martin is something special!

 

difference with Pete IIRC he destroyed current at the time replaceable guitars...like that's any better...never understood the point.

 

I think it was a big mistake for the museum to lend this out to a film and not have proper insurance. Accidents happen.

Also, I doubt there was a very strong need to have the authentic guitar and not a replica used for shooting. It's a movie. Make a prop!

This is the museum's negligence.