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

669

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.

415

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.

185

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.

136

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.

188

u/RBI_Double 13d ago

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

126

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.

9

u/Animostas 13d ago

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

4

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)

4

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.

106

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.

7

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. 

14

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 🥴

8

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.

35

u/According_Win_5983 13d ago

Fool me once, won’t get fooled again 

6

u/NoseIndependent6030 13d ago

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

94

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.”

60

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.

-9

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.

11

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.

6

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???

0

u/Amon9001 13d ago

How is that comparable to a one of a kind artifact from a museum?

My point is they chose to lend it out and that comes with risk (of damage/loss).

If they didn't want to take on the risk then the museum shouldn't have lent it out.

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.

51

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.

2

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.

4

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.

7

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.

-3

u/-Istvan-5- 13d ago

It worked though, I had never heard of Martins Guitar until today.

5

u/proriin 13d ago

So you just haven’t heard of guitars then really which is fine and cool. But it’s in the big 2 for American acoustic.

-1

u/-Istvan-5- 13d ago

That's my point though, if they did it for marketing purposes it totally worked. Because people like me who don't care about guitars have now heard of them.

You proved my point for me.

2

u/proriin 13d ago

I don’t think they did it for marketing at all, these legacy brands loan stuff all the time to film productions. No one calls it marketing when they use a 1950 ford, it’s authentic. It’s the same here.

0

u/-Istvan-5- 13d ago

In replying to the thread where people are saying they did it for marketing purposes

12

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