MovieChat Forums > Mulholland Falls (1996) Discussion > Can't believe they trashed a DC-3 for th...

Can't believe they trashed a DC-3 for this movie

posted 18 years ago by Jigsaw737
11 replies | jump to latest

The Douglas DC-3 is one of the greatest planes ever built, and every single one of those that remain (less than 400) should be preserved and not be trashed for stupid movies. Well, the movie was quite good, but I'm sure you know what I mean. Well, at least it looked like the damage wasn't that severe. If the airframe stayed intact it probably could be restored with some work, but still...

Does anyone know what happened to the plane used in this movie? It didn't look likw a model or special effect.

------------------------------------------
~No matter where you go, there you are~

[–] inoldhollywood 18 years ago

I understand the studios can rent wrecked airplanes (as they did for "War of the Worlds") and older cars for such scenes in films. They are stored and re-used over and over. You won't see a real historic vehicle trashed for a film these days. When you see a crash, you can almost be certain it's a very skillfully made LARGE model. Usually 6 or 7 feet in size, so it really looks full size. The James Bond cars are often 3 and 4 foot long scale models with James replicated in Barbie doll size in the seat. They are so well made, you really can't tell they are models.

[–] Jigsaw737 18 years ago

Hm... I don't know. That scene looked like a real belly landing of a full sized and fully functional plane excuted by a stunt pilot. I ususally can identify model work easily, as there are always lots of telltale signs, be it rocks or plants that don't look quite right, or the usual slow motion to make it look like it's bigger and heavier than it really is. I'm quite adept at figuring out these clues. But there was nothing like it in the scene I'm talking about.

------------------------------------------
~No matter where you go, there you are~

[–] inoldhollywood 18 years ago

Another possibilty is that they got one of the old DC-3 planes from Davis Monthan A.F.B. in Tucson, Arizona. They have a huge graveyard there with thousands of old airplanes called "The Boneyard".... is that a possibility? I rewatched Mulholland Falls and though I agree with you that the scene looks authentic in every way, I also would hate to think they scrapped a perfectly good DC-3.

[–] furryforest 18 years ago

I don't know-three Aston Martins were trashed for Casino Royale-REAL Aston MArtins-almost made me cry!

Oh yeah baby, it's Stifler time woo-hoo!!

[–] spocktom 18 years ago

Yes...a real DC3 was belly-flopped for this film. Minimal body damage, as the underbody had already been reinforced for the desert landing. The props are easy to replace and, in the scheme of things, not too expensive to replace.

[–] Jigsaw737 18 years ago

That's good to hear. :)

I don't know-three Aston Martins were trashed for Casino Royale-REAL Aston MArtins-almost made me cry!

Well, that's a new car. Easily, though expensively, replaceable. But they don't make DC-3s anymore... :(

--------------------------------------------------------
~No matter where you go, there you are~

[–] artwk 17 years ago

Sorry, but I don't believe that three Astons were crashed for Casino Royale. I saw the movie, and noted that the scene was edited in such a way that it was impossible (at least for me) to identify the crashing vehicle — and I am a car enthusiast.

It's not difficult for a competent panelbeater to modify another car so that it looks like an Aston, for crash purposes. This would cost a mere $10,000 or so. Why would anyone destroy a mega-expensive car for a few seconds of footage shot in almost total darkness? I wonder where the information about the three aston martins originated?

Many people believe things about movie-making that seem interesting, but are based on unsubstantiated stories they have heard — for example, that top-line stars like Angelina Jolie and Antoniao Banderas have real sexual intercourse in front of the camera, with an entire camera crew watching.

[–] blockett 17 years ago

In addition, the main landing gear wheels extend out of the bottom of the engine nacelle. Very little of the airplane comes into contact with the ground in a belly landing.

[–] ragreen259 17 years ago

Is there a dearth of DC3's I'm unaware of?

[–] Jeffthinx 15 years ago

In view of the fact that DC-3s haven't been manufactured for 65 years or so, I would say Yes...there is a dearth of DC-3s. But it didn't look like they beat up that plane very much for the movie. I imagine, in fact, that they didn't damage a DC-3 at all...just set it where they needed it. The rest was cinimatographic "magic".

[–] gnome-5 15 years ago

"Does anyone know what happened to the plane used in this movie? It didn't look likw a model or special effect."

You've just paid the production team a great compliment.

I haven't studied this scene with an eye toward this question, but -- I doubt they trashed an actual, working plane. For one thing, I don't believe you see a wide shot of the flying plane making contact with the ground. If I remember correctly, it's mostly closer shots of the body. My guess would be that they mounted the shell of a plane on a vehicle that they could drive along and it would look like it was crash landing. That might explain how they got the coverage they needed, including that final, wider shot of the plane coming to a halt.