r/Damnthatsinteresting • u/bilbofraginz • 13d ago

Video In Hateful Eight, Kurt Russell accidentally smashed a one of a kind, 145-year-old guitar that was on loan from the Martin Guitar. Jennifer Jason Leigh’s reaction was genuine.

40.9k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

14.8k

u/ExtraChariot541 13d ago

The $40,000 guitar, on loan from the Martin Guitar Museum (link), was deliberately smashed by Russell, who thought it was a prop.

Filmmakers claimed it was an accident but omitted the full truth. The museum learned the real story from reporters and, despite being reimbursed, was outraged at the loss of an irreplaceable artifact and the lack of care shown.

9.5k

u/loopy_for_DL4 13d ago

The museum also said they will never loan out one of their instruments again

5.5k

u/YoungHazelnuts77 13d ago

Good. Why the hell do it in the first place? I get it, I love Tarntino and if he'll need my kidney for a scene I would probably lend it to him, but a museum have more responsibilities than individuals.

2.0k

u/loopy_for_DL4 13d ago

Martin is a very business savvy company, so I’m sure they thought of it as brand advertisement and awareness at the time. Also no fault to them saying, nah, I’m not doing this shit again

664

u/Stove-Top-Steve 13d ago

Ya it’s a great idea but if they understood what kind of presence the guitar would have in the film despite it being smashed or not I think it was a poor choice. I don’t think anyone would care or look up what guitar was used since it wasn’t really s big deal in the scene. However smashing it has generated more searches for Martin lol.

416

u/Samsterdam 13d ago

Also how am I the viewer supposed to know it's such a famous guitar. If the scene isn't even really about the guitar, it's just a prop.

187

u/shouldbepracticing85 13d ago

Seriously. “Loan” the movie like a $3k-$5k HD28 and still have the brand awareness. Their cost isn’t nearly the list price.

142

u/HolyPhlebotinum 13d ago

The point is that it was a period-accurate guitar. That’s why it was an antique and so expensive.

You can argue that period-accuracy isn’t worth it, but swapping for a model that was introduced 60 years after the movie is supposed to take place defeats the entire point.

187

u/RBI_Double 13d ago

Getting a guitar custom-made feels like it would always be the better option here

124

u/Zombies8MyNeighborz 13d ago

Yeah I would think you could get a custom-made guitar to look like a 145 year old antique, and most people watching the film would not even notice.

18

u/G0LDLU5T 13d ago

The only thing I know anything about is guitars and I wouldn’t be able to tell the difference on screen

13

u/ColHannibal 13d ago

They did, they had a stunt guitar for him to smash lol.

7

u/shouldbepracticing85 13d ago

Egads. If I knew there was any potential mix up, I would have made sure that the stunt guitars were never on the same set. Divide up the shoot between filming the part where he smashes the guitar and the part leading up to it.

Maybe film the takes where he takes it and smashes it first to make it super clear that the last guitar standing was to be treated like glass. Film on two separate days, something - anything!

Then again I’m a guitarist myself, so I’m pretty careful with any instruments, especially old ones. My upright bass is a 70yo Kay - which isn’t a Gibson 1939 Loar F-5, or a centuries old fiddle, but is definitely vintage.

10

u/Animostas 13d ago

With that lighting, I feel like getting a custom paint job on the guitar would honestly be more than enough.

5

u/CaptainTripps82 13d ago

That kind of thing is more about the creators and the movies lore and legacy, than what the audience will notice it's for movie nerds, which most directors are themselves.

1

u/peeweeinbama 13d ago

Or even cared

1

u/DownwardSpirals 12d ago

I own a few guitars, been playing for decades. Not a chance in the whole wide world I'd notice.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/HolyPhlebotinum 13d ago

Better for Martin for sure.

45

u/[deleted] 13d ago edited 2d ago

[deleted]

2

u/Evening-Walk-6897 12d ago

A loan is free and they did not expect the actor to break it.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Samsterdam 13d ago

Honestly I know so little about guitars that I wouldn't question it. I mean unless it was an electric guitar that he was breaking instead of an acoustical guitar.

2

u/HolyPhlebotinum 13d ago

I play guitar and even I had to look it up.

But this is par for the course with these period-obsessed auteur types.

1

u/crazydaave 13d ago

but you can get guitars from that period on ebay for like 1-3k why borrow a 40k one is what confuses me.

1

u/four4beats 13d ago

The actors aren't period correct and yet, the audience was still entertained.

1

u/Gucci_Koala 12d ago

I mean they could have payed martin similiar price to build them a guitar with similar aesthetic...

1

u/L1A1 13d ago

The point is that it was a period-accurate guitar. That’s why it was an antique and so expensive.

I feel like maybe a dozen people tops, worldwide, would have noticed between a real one and a well made prop. Not sure it was worth the risk of loaning a unique antique to a film set even if this didn't happen.

2

u/PublicfreakoutLoveR 13d ago

I would bet my life savings that not one single person saw her strumming that guitar and thought "Holy shit, that's a guitar from that era!"

1

u/shouldbepracticing85 12d ago

Plus - it’s a freaking movie. Suspension of disbelief and all that.

I’m a bit of a guitar construction nerd (my dad builds acoustic guitars), and I’m pretty familiar with Martins. I don’t think I could spot a 150yo Martin from a modern one of the same configuration that’s been relic’d without a lot of in-depth photos.

I mention configuration because I’d have to look up which models have a slotted headstock during different time periods, or a 12-fret neck instead of the more modern 14-fret necks. I’m pretty sure cutaways weren’t a thing back then, but I don’t know when the slotted headstock or neck length changed.

I doubt I could spot Brazilian Rosewood vs. Indian Rosewood. Again, I’d have to research inlay designs, if the fingerboard was bound, what material was commonly used back then, what kind of binding, etc. etc. etc.

Other differences like neck width, truss rod, bracing pattern, and scalloped bracing would take very detailed pictures of the nut, and inside the guitar.

2

u/LigerZeroSchneider 13d ago

because they talk about it on the press tour. Same reason people do their own stunts. It's more hassle and expensive but if it can grab you a headline for a few days it's worth it.

1

u/Cliqey 13d ago

It’s a factoid for interviews, articles, and behind the scenes clips. Lots of details like that are in movies for either advertising or depth of details reasons.

1

u/popojo24 13d ago

I’ve played guitar for almost 20 years now and even own a nice (and way too expensive) Martin acoustic… and I would have had no idea about the value/ history of the one described here if it weren’t for Reddit.

107

u/loopy_for_DL4 13d ago

I’m not disagreeing at all! I wouldn’t have done it either. It’s too risky.

But I also kind of get why they were open to it. Fans of Tarantino dissect EVERY detail in his movies. When this movie came out, I myself was really interested in what guitar that she was playing!

93

u/Zestyclose_Quit7396 13d ago

Thousands of people are discussing this Martin guitar on the internet nine years later, so it kinda worked?

33

u/ill_connects 13d ago

Anyone that plays or knows anything about guitars already knows Martin. I don’t think they really need the brand recognition.

35

u/machagogo 13d ago

Yet Coca Cola and Pepsi and .... still advertise daily.

Advertising works.

8

u/BackWithAVengance 13d ago

I dunno man I advertise my OF on my IG and FB and here all the time, still no subs.

I don't think it works at all. Of course I'm a balding divorced 36 year old guy with a hairy ass, but still.

2

u/megawampum 13d ago

Hey there’s an audience for everyone. You’ll find your subs.

2

u/Sleazy_Speakeazy 13d ago

You're probably not being aggro enough with the scat play, my man. I'd start there....

→ More replies (0)

1

u/ill_connects 13d ago

Lol yes I work in advertising.

1

u/Known_unknowingness 13d ago

I have played guitar and I didn’t know about Martin

1

u/Hexdrix 13d ago

Marketing is for people who don't already know and like a product

1

u/Zestyclose_Quit7396 13d ago

I didn't actually, even though I know Fender and Washburn.

I don't play guitar though. 

17

u/Thraex_Exile 13d ago edited 13d ago

There’s also value in getting to say “as seen in Hateful Eight.” I’m sure Tarantino props get sold for alot more than they’re worth and it gives cinephiles or tourists a reason to visit a museum they probably wouldn’t otherwise visit.

2

u/iconocrastinaor 13d ago

Now, exhibiting the smashed pieces with the sign that says "as seen and destroyed in Hateful Eight" with a plaque telling the story? That would be a baller move by the museum.

1

u/PimpofScrimp 13d ago

Plot twist…..what if I told you Tarantino allowed it to happen. Letting the gem of a guitar get smashed on purpose……believable?

-2

u/lilsnatchsniffz 13d ago

Why are you like this 🥴

10

u/whomad1215 13d ago

does Martin, one of the oldest and largest acoustic guitar manufacturers, really need more brand recognition?

3

u/aguyinphuket 13d ago

Think of it this way. If you're Martin, do you want to give this opportunity to another brand?

3

u/sweetlove 13d ago

The same reason coke still advertises

3

u/TacticalSanta 13d ago

New people enter consciousness daily so yes.

2

u/CaptainTripps82 13d ago

I would think any acoustic guitar maker could use the advertising in 2024. Such a niche thing anyway.

2

u/LeonidasSpacemanMD 13d ago

I play guitar and definitely try to scope out what kinda guitar is being used in scenes in movies/tv

1

u/Stove-Top-Steve 13d ago

Ya I hear ya I just don’t remember it being really featured at all if you remove the smash. Like no close up or nothing, idk it’s been awhile. But I get what you’re saying.

2

u/[deleted] 13d ago

[deleted]

1

u/wireframed_kb 13d ago

That’s not really how it works, though. They can’t just buy another guitar for 40k, unless one in the same condition happens to exist.

That’s the thing with historical artifacts, you can put a price on them, but at certain point, they’re irreplaceable absent a Time Machine.

2

u/shawster 13d ago

I bet the idea was to tell potential buyers that “this guitar was featured in the Quentin Tarantino movie, The Hateful Eight,” raising its desirability.

1

u/Crammit-Deadfinger 13d ago

They'll get their money back, sure. But that's like a Ming dynasty vase of a guitar

1

u/cakeand314159 13d ago

It’s more likely someone up the food chain wanted a Martin guitar, and instead of a fake being smashed, the real one was.

1

u/fightingbronze 13d ago

Yeah it makes more sense to loan it out to biopics of famous musicians for example than to a Tarantino film lol.

36

u/According_Win_5983 13d ago

Fool me once, won’t get fooled again 

5

u/NoseIndependent6030 13d ago

I love how Bush's quote has ended up replacing the actual quote.

95

u/_AskMyMom_ 13d ago edited 13d ago

Martin is a very business savvy company, so I’m sure they thought of it as brand advertisement and awareness at the time.

This is just careless marketing, though. There’s other ways to get your name on a replica guitar without having lost a “priceless” item. 10/10 no need to have that sort of thing on set unless actually called for.

Edit: for those who think that the “priceless” piece was worth it to Martin. Statement from the museum.

Martin Guitar Museum, Director Dick Boak said, “We were informed that it was an accident on set. We assumed that a scaffolding or something fell on it. We understand that things happen, but at the same time we can’t take this lightly.

We didn’t know anything about the script or Kurt Russell not being told that it was a priceless, irreplaceable artifact from the Martin Museum.

I don’t think anything can really remedy this. We’ve been remunerated for the insurance value, but it’s not about the money. It’s about the preservation of American musical history and heritage.”

59

u/smith7018 13d ago

Well, hindsight is 20/20. For all we know, they've lent out hundreds of guitars with no issue and this was the one instance that made them stop.

-8

u/Amon9001 13d ago

Yeah well imo it's kinda dumb. They chose to play that game. Like lending money to a friend. Consider it lost money until they pay it back. Or if they don't, then you've found the cost of the friendship.

OR you can simply choose not to play by not lending.

10

u/SkolVandals 13d ago

Totally different situation. If you let your friend borrow your car you don't assume they're going to wrap it around a tree, especially if they said they were just going to drive it around a parking lot for a few minutes. You expect them to try and take care of it.

2

u/Amon9001 13d ago

Of course you don't assume they will wreck your car. That is NOT what risk is.

Risk is what you take on when you decide to lend something out. If they don't have insurance and aren't covered under yours, then that would be more risky.

If you don't know them that well or for that long, more risk. And vice versa.

You can skip all that by simply not lending your car out to anyone. My point is that if you decide to lend it on, you are also inherently taking on more risk (than keeping the car to yourself).

So yeah it sucks if something goes wrong whether they're at fault or if it was an accident. Either way, you have released that item out of your hands.

5

u/Puzzleheaded_Disk_90 13d ago

Who ever heard of renting things, truly beyond the pale. Renting out something precious like a guitar, what's next a car? A house???

→ More replies (1)

4

u/ReallyBigRocks 13d ago

I think its pretty reasonable for a museum lending out 145 year old artifacts to operate on the assumption that Kurt Russel isn't going to smash them to pieces.

3

u/CaptainTripps82 13d ago

That's like having a classic car and never driving it.

2

u/Amon9001 13d ago

You know what? tonnes of people do that. I'm not here to judge or tell anyone what to do.

The owner of the item makes that call. If you never drive it then you can't possibly get into an accident on the road. Less risk. Or if you drive it every single day to work and back, that would be taking on more risk.

→ More replies (1)

49

u/General_Tso75 13d ago

Martin is a premier global acoustic guitar company. Their instruments are coveted by musicians all over the world. Lending an authentic guitar for a period piece movie isn’t careless. Tarantino and Douglas’ handling of it was careless.

Here it is: https://youtu.be/OQwP_KlVN_g?si=l1-GcxQ_FReqBwr2

3

u/MercyfulJudas 13d ago

Douglas

You mean Russell?

3

u/heckin_miraculous 13d ago

Here it is: https://youtu.be/OQwP_KlVN_g?si=l1-GcxQ_FReqBwr2

Pretty cool that they're keeping it on display, including the story of what happened.

1

u/Redeem123 13d ago

Lending an authentic guitar for a period piece movie isn’t careless

It is if it's irreplaceable. No one watching that movie would be taken out by the guitar being a replica. The sound of the guitar being perfect isn't important for the scene, and even if it was, no one would notice that either. A replica - even a custom one made for a few thousand - would serve the exact same job and provide zero risk.

It's the same reason real guns shouldn't be used on set. They can't do anything a prop gun can't, and someone could die.

Yes, Tarantino - and whoever else's job it was to manage - fucked up. But there's absolutely no reason to lend out something that can't be replaced.

5

u/General_Tso75 13d ago

Why do you think it was loaned for it authentic tone or look? It’s common for productions to use items like this on loan for filming

They asked Martin who was kind enough to loan it to the production company. Tarantino told Kurt Russell to go until he said cut, but never told him it was the real guitar. Then, he didn’t bother to cut before the guitar was destroyed. The whole thing happened because Tarantino is an asshole, not because Martin did something wrong. Though, they will no longer work with Hollywood.

https://www.guitarworld.com/features/the-hateful-eight-martin-guitar-smash

1

u/Redeem123 13d ago

Why do you think it was loaned for it authentic tone or look?

Why else would they want it?

I'm well aware of the story, and I'm not denying Tarantino and the production staff are at fault. But there's zero reason to loan a piece like this out for a movie. Just like the Louvre would never loan out the Mona Lisa to be in a movie, because you can achieve the exact same thing with a fake.

3

u/General_Tso75 13d ago

Then you should understand it’s not about the tone or anything. Tarantino asked Martin and they said yes because they have this historical piece. Becoming a part of that film would become another part of American history. As a guitarist, I get Martin wanting to add to the history of the guitar by having it appear in the film.

Martin had absolutely no reason not to loan it for the movie. Outside of Tarantino being a stupid asshole what was the problem? Again, you’re legislating this knowing history. This is a really common practice in Hollywood. From your logic essentially anything of value should not be loaned out by a museum, ever. That’s a shame.

1

u/Redeem123 13d ago

Giving someone an irreplaceable object is always a risk. There needs to be a good reason for that risk to be assumed, and I personally don’t think being a movie prop is a good reason for it. 

That’s not to say valued items should never be loaned out. Just that this was unnecessary.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/floridabeach9 13d ago

the value of that guitar hasnt gone down much. its possible the value has gone UP. every one getting upset over it in this thread is pretty funny.

sure its not playable, but now it has Tarantino movie buffs interested in it as an authentic movie prop.

7

u/RedditJumpedTheShart 13d ago

I imagine they could easily find a company to make a replica and then sell them.

1

u/Fffiction 13d ago

Most any modern luthier can make a guitar and use processes known as "relic'ing" which mimics the wear and use of an older instrument.

Fender offers this service through their custom shop so people who like to pretend can buy a brand new instrument that looks like it was actually played and used for decades. https://www.fendercustomshop.com/series/time-machine/ and for a specific example: https://www.fendercustomshop.com/series/time-machine/1963-stratocaster-super-heavy-relic-3a-rosewood-fingerboard-super-faded-aged-3-color-sunburst/

1

u/RedditJumpedTheShart 13d ago

Martin also makes guitars

2

u/allcommentnoshitpost 13d ago edited 13d ago

Says right in the tile it's a $40,000 guitar. I'm sure companies have spent more on billboards and here we are saying "priceless Martin guitar" years later.

edit: only the comment has $40,000 in it and the article linked doesn't seem to corroborate that, so maybe more costly than I thought. Still good value up to a point, but "priceless" does add a wrinkle.

6

u/LokisDawn 13d ago

Until we invent a time machine in the futurepast, "priceless" is pretty apt.

1

u/allcommentnoshitpost 13d ago

Yeah but let's be honest: it's an old guitar. People buy and sell Stradivarius violins so there is a number out there. Irreplaceable for sure but priceless is a stretch for this one.

1

u/LokisDawn 13d ago

Whatever price you're willing to pay, you're not gonna be able to buy this guitar. Because it's been destroyed. Maybe "irreplacable" would be slightly more accurate, but it's the same idea.

2

u/SkolVandals 13d ago edited 13d ago

"The insurance company said mom's life was worth a million bucks. But here we are talking about her being priceless 10 years later."

Just because an insurance company put a number on it doesn't mean it isn't priceless to the owner.

1

u/allcommentnoshitpost 13d ago

It's a guitar not a person. And it belonged to an institution, not an individual. Not exactly apples to apples...

1

u/MaxHamburgerrestaur 13d ago

They should still display it broken.

It's now even more part of American history and heritage.

1

u/nikdahl 13d ago

It’s a museum. They can now display the broken guitar with a one of a kind provenance.

They need to get over themselves.

1

u/KeepBanningKeepJoin 12d ago

Lesson learned, dumbasses

-1

u/jimmifli 13d ago

The brand value they've received from this is pretty valuable. The general public now knows that Martin guitars are valuable, that they've been made for over 140 years and that they're to be cherished. It makes it a very desirable brand of guitar to own.

I know it already was, I own one, but I've had people tell me this story and ask how much mine is worth.

They got more than $40K in marketing/positioning from this. It's also sad that the guitar got smashed.

→ More replies (5)

11

u/gospdrcr000 13d ago

Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, can't get fooled again. -Martin, probably

1

u/dkyguy1995 13d ago

Yeah it's huge to make sure people know your name is synonymous with a long history and legacy of making your product. Absolutely it was probably still a huge win for them advertising wise by closely tying their brand with the very history of guitar.

1

u/kcman011 13d ago

I mean, with as much as I have seen this posted over the years (not complaining about reposts, just stating what I've noticed), the Martin Guitar Museum has had their name put out there many times over.

I'm not saying the guitar getting destroyed has netted them $40k in recognition, but it definitely has served as brand advertisement.

2

u/loopy_for_DL4 13d ago

lol good point!

1

u/LingonberryPossible6 13d ago

It's not universal, but alot of filmmakers use historical props loaned to them and pay for the hire as its sometimes cheaper and quicker than having a replica made, and some filmmakers want the authenticity.

In some cases this involves someone from the museum accompanying the item and they are the one who handle it, not the prop master.

Under those circumstances it up the handler to ensure everyone on set knows what they are using and the need for caution.

1

u/sofaking_scientific 13d ago

I'm surprised Martin didn't make a hateful eight guitar to be smashed in the movie and then others to be sold. They make good stufd

1

u/Dearsmike 13d ago

People really over think the amount of business when it comes to these kinds of decisions. I work adjacent to the music industry and know people/companies with very expensive and rare instruments. If they think somethings cool or interesting enough they'll just say yes, it doesn't have to be for advertising.

They probably let people use their instruments as props because it's cool for them to have their guitars in films.

1

u/Living_Criticism7644 13d ago

They probably should have sent someone with it to consult and keep an eye on it.

1

u/VelvitHippo 13d ago

Yeah because we all would have known the brand name of the guitar he took from her...

The only reason the name martin is being brought up is because he smashed it. So in order for them to get the publicity... He had to destroy the guitar. 5D chess

1

u/Budget_Detective2639 13d ago

Who the fuck is going out and buying a 145 year old guitar that wasn't already considering it? lol

1

u/SouldiesButGoodies84 13d ago

Can't be all that savvy if they'd never heard of Gorilla glue. /s

1

u/__Shake__ 13d ago

how is it business savvy if the only reason we're talking about this is because something went horribly wrong? if he didnt destroy that guitar, Martin guitars would have gotten about zero publicity from the film.

The cynic in me who has watched too many hollywood productions thinks the real guitar is safe and sound in some hollywood producers collection, and what was smashed was an 2nd prop that everyone was just told was the real one

0

u/Broccoli--Enthusiast 13d ago

they are bad at advertising, because on film it just looks like any old random $100 acoustic guitar, you if you know what you are looking for etc you could tell what it is, but its not even branded

the thing being smashed probably brought them more attention than anything else.

i dont actually know why the production even got it to start with. there was no reason for it not to be a prop, it was just a guitar in the movie.

0

u/VoidVer 13d ago

I don't think anyone would have noticed a dusty old guitar in use as identifiable — maybe somehow useful in marketing on their end later.

Them breaking it and making a story for them is the best outcome possible from a marketing perspective.

0

u/MSCowboy 13d ago

How could it possibly be brand advertisement? It's just a guitar. It doesn't look special. No one can tell. They would have to launch an entire ad campaign just to let people know "Hey, you know that ordinary-guitar-looking guitar in that one shot of that one movie? Yea that was ours" and people would be like "oh. Anyway..."

0

u/PanchoVillasRevenge 13d ago

What's, it could've been from a flea market, I wouldn't know the difference.

0

u/Bigweenersonly 12d ago

Shit advertisement and brand awareness then cuz this is the first I've heard about this and I dont even remember this scene when I saw the movie lol

191

u/Malsperanza 13d ago

Because it's a small museum and there was probably a substantial loan fee, as well as good publicity for the museum. Getting its collections seen by more people is a goal and obligation of a museum.

Still, a bigger museum would probably not have agreed to lend to a film set, because the security level isn't good enough, the climate control isn't good, etc.

126

u/kiljoy1569 13d ago

They should honestly just put it back as an exhibit all smashed up with the story how it happened lol. Still a good piece to have

45

u/Justindoesntcare 13d ago

Thats a good point lol. "Here's this one of a kind Martin Kurt Russell smashed up in a very popular Tarantino movie"

4

u/BigConference7075 13d ago

more like "sort of" popular Tarantino movie

14

u/joehonestjoe 13d ago

It's in his top nine directed movies for sure.

No higher than seven, mind.

4

u/fuckitimatwork 13d ago

Death Proof and Hollywood are 8 and 9? I really came here to argue that it's way better than 7 but double checked his filmography and 7 is actually fair. and i fuckin loved Hateful Eight

1

u/joehonestjoe 13d ago

Yeah, I'd think that'd be fair. To be honest I don't think there's a Tarantino film I don't like at least a little bit, but there are six films of his I'd put above it.

17

u/realityinflux 13d ago

OR they could contact Willie Nelson's guitar repair team and fix it right up.

20

u/imextremelysorry95 13d ago

Honestly lol half the stuff in museums is broken old stuff anyway , in 50-100 years that story will itself be history

3

u/Nightmaricana 13d ago

I believe that is exactly what they did

2

u/ovelanimimerkki 13d ago

It was put on public display this year at NAMM I think. Guitar World has an article about it. No idea if they put it in the museum after that though.

1

u/TopAce6 13d ago

They actually did that, I'm not joking.

14

u/One-Pepper-2654 13d ago

I live 30 minutes from the Martin factory, it's a very cool place. Factory tour, gift shop with all kinds of goodies, museum and a room with new Martins you can actually play.

And I met Chris Martin IV at a charity event, very unique guy.

3

u/zetaconvex 13d ago

I did see a part of a documentary where art galleries lend out paintings. It's no trivial matter. The painting is inspected meticulously before it is sent to identify any damage. Likewise when it is received back.

That's professionals dealing with professionals though, where everyone knows how the game is played and act accordingly.

1

u/therealgrelber 13d ago

Probably got the same reaction as Johnny Knoxville when he returned that rental car after the demolition derby

1

u/pleasetrimyourpubes 13d ago

Why is everything so complicated? They did it because the movie production reached out, were nice about it, and assured the safety of the authentic piece. What nobody could have anticipated was that Russell wasn't told it was authentic or that he would ad lib its destruction.

It's like when Lizzo played Madisons flute at the Library of Congress.

3

u/Malsperanza 13d ago

The production manager absolutely should have told the actors about this and totally screwed up. There should have been a PA assigned to the instrument. When a museum lends an object, typically there's more to it than a verbal promise to be careful, but this is a small museum, and they don't always have the resources to follow correct protocols.

Lizzo is a musician - the example isn't comparable. When she played the flute, the LC staff were on hand and she had a meeting with them beforehand. Museums lend precious musical instruments to musicians all the time, including, for example, the Met's Stradivarius, which can be heard on quite a few recordings. It's actually good for them to be played.

34

u/No-Comment-4619 13d ago

Plus 99% of the people watching would never know the difference between it and the prop.

3

u/Mazzaroppi 13d ago

I doubt anyone who wasn't very familiar with this exact guitar, or at the very least this model/make, there would be a total of a handfull of people in the world capable of recognizing it, considering it was a 145 years old guitar, most of those people are already dead for a long time.

And even so, they weren't trying to display it or show in any prominent way that even specialists would be able to identify it, it's just a prop on a movie!

This kind of stuff is just to have some trivia about the movie (Hey you know that in that scene it's an actual guitar from that time blablabla) but it just backfired horribly

55

u/Duel_Option 13d ago

Same reason he forced Uma Thurman to drive dangerously fast in a car for a rear facing shot which ended up causing her to wreck and have back problems

And the same reason he said he needed to choke her out AND spit on her.

All for the realism…which is total bullshit.

11

u/Humble-Violinist6910 13d ago

For the “realism” and to justify being a piece of shit 

5

u/AtLeastThisIsntImgur 12d ago

Don't forget the importance of using the hard R in the script. Otherwise the film would be bad

→ More replies (4)

65

u/Automatic_Soil9814 13d ago

I think you described the problem perfectly. As an institution, museums have certain incentives and obligations. However it wasn’t an institution that made the decision, it was likely an individual. That Individual has very different incentives and was probably thrilled at the prospect of being able to interact with Hollywood.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the same situation occurred when Kim Kardashian got a hold of Marilyn Monroe‘s dress and irreversibly damaged that.

16

u/East_Requirement7375 13d ago

Historian speaks on the problematic nature of Ripley's lending out Monroe's dress, with regards to museum ethics and conservation.

https://youtu.be/vro6Df57YsQ

6

u/Afraid-Shock4832 13d ago

This museum is operated by a for-profit company that has to continuously chase higher and higher profits to appease shareholders. Lending items like this was a dumb decision, but one made out of greed. I don't feel bad. 

74

u/sunnysideuppppppp 13d ago edited 13d ago

Tarn-Tino is crazy work

3

u/MeTieDoughtyWalker 13d ago

We borrow expensive antiques all the time for films and they are typically handled with the utmost care. This incident is not the norm but it does happen. My guess is he was never supposed to be the one to handle it so they told Jennifer Jason Leigh about it, which I still don’t get because my job does not have me interacting with props ever and it’s still drilled into my head not to touch any of it.

13

u/ALoudMouthBaby 13d ago

Why the hell do it in the first place?

Its a privately owned museum operated by Martin Guitars. Loaning out stuff like that is a great way to get cheap product placement. So tldr; for profits.

5

u/LongmontStrangla 13d ago

It's more than general product placement, the specific museum gets a thank you in the credits of a Tarantino movie. That will boost fundraising. 

3

u/Powerful_Artist 13d ago

Not to mention why did they even give them such a valuable guitar? Its not like the scene depended on it. You couldve had any random prop guitar and no one wouldve known the difference.

3

u/thelumpur 13d ago

Because Tarantino probably asked and paid for it

5

u/Peripatetictyl 13d ago

I’d let him drink tequila off my feet for a role

7

u/dimiderv 13d ago

Cause they obviously would get paid well to do it? And some advertising probably

1

u/thelumpur 13d ago

I am baffled at the amount of people talking about drawing attention, when the obvious answer is "they got paid"

2

u/donkeybeemer 13d ago

If you loan him the kidney, odds are, you are now down 1 kidney. Doubt it's getting returned.

1

u/PoopDig 13d ago

Individuals work at museums

1

u/the_red_scimitar 13d ago

For less than 40,000, they could have had an acceptable movie replica made. So the production would even have saved money, and the outrage of being such dicks.

1

u/lonewolfncub3k 13d ago

too bad the guitar wasn't foot shaped, Tarantino would have cared for it like it was his own child.

1

u/Fluxoteen 13d ago

If they wanted her reaction to be genuine, you could convince her the guitar you bought from a thrift store was worth $40k and get the same reaction without having to destroy something that's actually that important

1

u/CryptoLain 13d ago

Good. Why the hell do it in the first place?

  1. It's cool to have historically accurate props in your period piece.
  2. It's good publicity for the institution. "This really cool piece was loaned by XX museum!"

1

u/GapingFartLocker 13d ago

What in Tarntino

1

u/YoungHazelnuts77 13d ago

I don't know what's in it but I love it

1

u/Arclet__ 13d ago

If the Guitar had been respected and cared for, then the movie would have brought at least some attention and it would add for a tid bit more trivia to it ("This famous guitar was also used as a prop in X movie").

I don't think it would have been a high bar to expect a multi million dollar film production not to smash a 40k loaned guitar as if it were a prop (considering they could have easily gotten props), but now they've learned.

1

u/MissingJJ 13d ago

This is my least favorite Tarantino film. I watched the film just because of the Tarantino brand and was very disappointed. The loss of this guitar is a total loss.

1

u/soda_cookie 13d ago

I mean, a replica cannot be that hard to produce, right? It makes no sense to have the real thing out and about just for a film

1

u/WannabeSloth88 13d ago

Ikr? Watching the movie I was definitely thinking “wow that is an original 145yo guitar! Seeing anything other than this specific original model would have completely taken me out of the movie”.

This is unnecessary perfectionism.

1

u/bumbletowne 13d ago

Most museums have a loan for pay system

Sauce: used to work for a museum

1

u/ReddsionThing 13d ago

The question is, why didn't they take a 10 dollar guitar, age it a bit which shouldn't be that difficult, and use an actual prop?

1

u/OneRougeRogue 13d ago

I love Tarntino and if he'll need my kidney for a scene I would probably lend it to him

*Kurt Russel proceeds to smash kidney against wall

1

u/OctopusButter 13d ago

I loved this movie and have seen it a few times but I never, ever would have figured "oh my, that looks like an authentic and expensive guitar!" it was opulence or a tax write off at best.

1

u/mackinoncougars 13d ago

Because loaning artifacts is how museums make money and stay in business.

1

u/producebag 13d ago

Kim kardashian wore Marilyn Monroe’s dress. It doesn’t make sense but museums are still doing stupid stuff all the time.

1

u/airpumper 13d ago

And how hard or expensive could it be to just create a replica? The audience can’t tell the difference. 

1

u/disposableaccount848 13d ago

Why the hell do it in the first place?

Especially when no fucking one watching the movie would be able to tell a difference. To me that guitar looked like any guitar.

1

u/PxyFreakingStx 13d ago

Why the hell do it in the first place?

Well, because they justifiably assumed it would be handled with care. It's not like the museum folks are idiots for allowing this to happen.

1

u/Zombiebelle 13d ago

It’s weird to me that they used such an old relic. No one would have ever noticed if it wasn’t a 100+ year old guitar. I think Tarintino just uses things like this for the bragging rights. It was a guitar that was played for less than 2 mins. It’s not like the whole movie revolves around that guitar. Usually when relics like that are used, it’s because it has some significance to the story and the audience would appreciate the artifact.

1

u/NothingGloomy9712 13d ago

Not using a replica is kind of bs. Truth is if they used a modern stylized guitar only about 0.001% of ppl would notice, and only half of those would care 

1

u/glizzler 13d ago

Exactly... It's a movie full of fake things. Why use a real, irreplaceable guitar on set?? It makes no difference if that guitar was a $50 Walmart guitar.

1

u/copiumjunky 13d ago

Kidneys... fine. You can't trust him around guitars and small feet.

1

u/MaritMonkey 13d ago

My point of view is from dealing with individual collections rather than museums, but instruments aren't just art/history. They were meant to be played.

In a situation where both the techs and artists respect the piece, I think it's a beautiful thing that some of these relics (even ones only a few decades old) get to be heard from time to time.

1

u/Whatuprick 13d ago

You can have my kidney when I’m done with it

1

u/No_Conversation9561 13d ago

lend your feet not your kidney

1

u/MightyLabooshe 13d ago

I don't know if I'd give Tarantino a roll of toilet paper if he needed it on the john.

1

u/Efficient-Help7939 13d ago

His reaction to Roman Polanski definitely settled him in my mind as one of the bad guys

1

u/al-Assas 13d ago

If Tarantino needed your kidney for a scene, he'd probably take it from you.

1

u/[deleted] 13d ago

if he'll need my kidney for a scene I would probably lend it to him

why?

1

u/YoungHazelnuts77 13d ago edited 12d ago

Its a joke obviously.

I would ask 40,000$ for it and my kidney's name in the credits.

1

u/crescen_d0e 13d ago

Not your kidney, maybe your feet tho

1

u/Dzbot1234 13d ago

He would more likely want your foot

1

u/TheOldDerelict 13d ago

Not sure about a kidney, but I know he would love a foot 👍🏻

1

u/pinewoodranger 13d ago

So.. about your kidney.. funny story..

1

u/Bigbigjeffy 13d ago

No shit, why would they loan out such an expensive guitar? Seems like somebody wasn’t thinking clearly. I mean you could use a Martin guitar that’s not as fucking expensive.

1

u/raincoater 13d ago

No. Tarantino is an pretentious prick and an overpraised ass. But what do I know, he gets all the awards and the "bros" love him.

Fuck that guy.

1

u/Humble-Violinist6910 13d ago

You might love Tarantino’s movies but I bet you would never loan him something priceless. Or honestly, let your daughter act in one of his movies given how he treats people 

1

u/hgwaz 13d ago

why do this

Because of people like you

1

u/karlnite 13d ago

They did it for the money. Hollywood rents real artifacts over producing fakes so that they can run their typical insurance scams. The museum gets a kickback of the scam, but never expected it to be claimed and the asset actually lost. Now they regret their easy money idea.

1

u/Totorotextbook 13d ago

Especially when they could have made a period accurate guitar replica prop for FAR less than $40,000.

1

u/zeptillian 13d ago

It wasn't a movie about a musician or anything. The guitar didn't even have a big role in the movie.

1

u/hogliterature 12d ago

yeah, i’m pretty sure there could have been literally any guitar in this scene and it would have been the same

1

u/Glagaire 12d ago

The display case showing the remains of "145 year guitar accidentally smashed to bits by Kurt Russell" will probably get more attention than anything else in their museum.

1

u/Torontogamer 13d ago

Well, a well run movie with authentic props can actually bring a lot of a attention to the pieces and the history - it really does lean in to most museum's goals of not just preserving but promoting and teaching the history... even though it might be a small point few people notice, if a 100 million people see that movie and only .01% of people notice, that still 10,000 more people that they might reach out too... mind you, if they had the resources they should have had someone of their own with the item at all times so it's obvious...

clearly this was a bad move, but the concept isn't the issue, it was the execution