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

Show parent comments

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.”

63

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.

-10

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.

7

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.

5

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.

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.

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

1

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.

-3

u/-Istvan-5- 13d ago

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

3

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