posted
My apologies if this has been covered, but i searched it and didnt find it. A guy on hubby's softball team said that to get the realistic effect in Braveheart, where he rides the horse into the room and then bashes the old guy's head in with a mace, they filmed him bashing a corpse head and then did some creative cutting... well,
I watched my DVD frame by frame, and with the commentary, Gibson says something to the effect of "people ask how we did this, its really simple when you think about it." And the face does turn into this freakish looking thing.
Has anyone else heard this or know if this is even legal?
[ 05. January 2006, 02:41 AM: snopes ]
-------------------- "Don't you see? You're not making Christianity better, You're making rock and roll worse." -Hank Hill to the Rockin' Preacher Posts: 299 | From: Texas | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It certainly doesn't sound legal. Or maybe I'm confusing "illegal" with "creepy" again. Anyway, it'd be more interesting than donating your body to science, that's for sure.
-------------------- Me: "He's 19? Uh oh, I bought him a beer." A: "You contributed to the deliquency of a minor in drag!" "Sweet spell check: keeping drunks off the radar since 1995."- IND GodRe-AnimateGreenPorkBush Posts: 3986 | From: Illinois, jealous? | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If that guy who flays an plasticizes corpses can do it I don't see why Gibson couldn't. But yes, pretty creepy, if true.
Posts: 2352 | From: California | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If that guy who flays an plasticizes corpses can do it I don't see why Gibson couldn't. But yes, pretty creepy, if true.
as far as i know, all the corpses that are flayed by that guy ( i can never remember his name! ) were willingly donated before death by the individuals used. i've contemplated donating my body to him in the event of my untimely death. why not? ha ha
Posts: 131 | From: Portland, OR | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If that guy who flays an plasticizes corpses can do it I don't see why Gibson couldn't. But yes, pretty creepy, if true.
as far as i know, all the corpses that are flayed by that guy ( i can never remember his name! ) were willingly donated before death by the individuals used. i've contemplated donating my body to him in the event of my untimely death. why not? ha ha
His name is Professor Gunther von Hagen and his exhibition "Koerperwelten" is more than creepy. I had bad dreams for weeks after visiting the show.
Posts: 17 | From: Hamburg, Germany | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I watched my DVD frame by frame, and with the commentary, Gibson says something to the effect of "people ask how we did this, its really simple when you think about it." And the face does turn into this freakish looking thing.
I would imagine that they just made a very realistic splatterable dummy rather than using a real corpse. I very much doubt that using a real corpse is either legal or within the limits of propriety for Hollywood. Filmmakers are not inhuman after all.
-------------------- Officially Heartless Posts: 3065 | From: The Montgomery County of the West Coast- Berkeley, CA | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think anyone in hollywood would do it and I certainly don't think it's a good thing but I don't see how it could be illegal if you owned the corpse legally and had permission from the family and/or the decseased. Dead bodies have been made into artwork and put on display. Medical companies film and photograph autopsies of all sorts every day. I don't think there are many states with laws against it.
Posts: 4922 | From: Kyoto, Japan | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am under the impression that bodies have to be disposed of in certain ways to comply with the law. Body Worlds and Plastination both supposedly involve sealing the corpse in plastic, and I believe both were approved by some type of regulatory body. Splattering a corpse's head all over a set is definitely a threat to public health.
-------------------- Officially Heartless Posts: 3065 | From: The Montgomery County of the West Coast- Berkeley, CA | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I vote dummy. Scenes often have to be done more than once. YOu can manke dozens of dummies but getting acess to sorpses that look similar enough would be overtly expensive. Dummies are cheaper to make.
-------------------- W.W.F.S.M.D? But this image of Bush as some sort of Snidely Whiplash tying the fair maiden to the railroad tracks is beyond the pale. - Joe Bentley Posts: 2311 | From: Minnnesota | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
i guess you just have to watch the scene really slowly, because it doesn't look like the guy, i figure if they used a dummy they'd use one that looks like the guy. it suddenly turns into this really nasty thing...
-------------------- "Don't you see? You're not making Christianity better, You're making rock and roll worse." -Hank Hill to the Rockin' Preacher Posts: 299 | From: Texas | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stressed Nanny: i guess you just have to watch the scene really slowly, because it doesn't look like the guy, i figure if they used a dummy they'd use one that looks like the guy. it suddenly turns into this really nasty thing...
When I go home tonight I'm going to do exactly that. Do you happen to know what DVD chapter it is in, or whereabouts exactly in the movie? I haven't watched it in some time.
-------------------- Officially Heartless Posts: 3065 | From: The Montgomery County of the West Coast- Berkeley, CA | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Didn't the movie Three Kings use some shots of bullets entering cadavers?? I want to say that they filmed those scenes overseas to avoid certain laws, but I could be wrong.
-------------------- "this could increase your brain power, or it could kill you..." "Increase my killing power, ehh???" Posts: 1153 | From: Houston, TX | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There isn't much chance that they used a real body, reasons include
Laws against doing nasty things to fresh corpses (but you can do whatever you want to an old body)
Can only do the shot once. Braveheart was a very expensive movie, I doubt they did anything once.
Reality usually is not nearly as spectacular as a special affect. With a special affect the director gets to decide exactly how it splatters. With a real body he gets what he gets.
It is fairly common for movies to do things in special affects, instead of the real word, not only because of cost and practicality, but becuase in FX they can make it look the way they think it should look.
Posts: 629 | From: Greenwood, IN | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Joe Bentley
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:Originally posted by mouse goddess: Didn't the movie Three Kings use some shots of bullets entering cadavers?? I want to say that they filmed those scenes overseas to avoid certain laws, but I could be wrong.
No, I'll try to find a site but although there were reports of medical cadavers being used for the "internal body views" seen in Three Kings (Though who have seen the movie will know what I'm talking about), that was later found to be false.
-------------------- "Existence has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long." - Rorschach, The Watchmen Posts: 8929 | From: Norfolk, Virginia | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
Laws against doing nasty things to fresh corpses (but you can do whatever you want to an old body)
I don't think so. While I agree with thistleS that there are regulations as to how a body can be disposed and that there may be charges, such as health-related charges, that could be brought against someone who did this, I don't think there is any reguulation about the age of the corpse.
AFAIK, in the case of plastination, just like any other autopsy or medical use of the body, the only thing that had to be proven was that the people who gave the body gave permission for it to be used, either in the specified way or in any way. No special permission from the government was required beyond what is ordinarily required for handling dead bodies.
Posts: 4922 | From: Kyoto, Japan | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The most obvious reason you would not use a real corpse is it would not bleed. You may get some ooze but you would not get real bleeding. Bleeding is a product of the heart beating, and a corpse would of course not have that problem.
Posts: 4580 | From: Walnut Creek, CA | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Reality usually is not nearly as spectacular as a special affect. With a special affect the director gets to decide exactly how it splatters. With a real body he gets what he gets.
I think this is the heaviest reason. Reality isn't as "real" as effects. It would probably be both cheaper and simpler to tear up a real car with a machinegun than to do special effects, but it would not look as good or as "real". The same goes for bashing someone with a mace.
-------------------- /Troberg Posts: 4360 | From: Borlänge, Sweden | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Laws against doing nasty things to fresh corpses (but you can do whatever you want to an old body)
I don't think so. While I agree with thistleS that there are regulations as to how a body can be disposed and that there may be charges, such as health-related charges, that could be brought against someone who did this, I don't think there is any reguulation about the age of the corpse.
But people who own mummies can do all kinds of things to them (sounds kind of NFBSK eh?). A mummy is a human body, granted an old and desicated one, but a human body nonetheless. Same with human bones. Recently saw a PBS Nova episode where they treat a mummy about the way they would have treated an old book.
So, like I said, it can depend on how old the body is.
Posts: 629 | From: Greenwood, IN | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jimmy101: But people who own mummies can do all kinds of things to them (sounds kind of NFBSK eh?). A mummy is a human body, granted an old and desicated one, but a human body nonetheless. Same with human bones. Recently saw a PBS Nova episode where they treat a mummy about the way they would have treated an old book.
So, like I said, it can depend on how old the body is.
I don't think that has anything (legally, at least) to do with the age of the body but where it came from and why you have possession of it. I'm sure laws vary from place to place but if you donate your body to "medical research" or some other place which uses dead bodies then the owners of the body can treat you "like an old book" -- except for the health issues -- whether you are a mummy or not.
Other laws cover how a body may be disposed, again, mostly for health purposes but also to ensure nobody's body parts get sold without permission (as has happened recently), etc.
Finally,there are laws covering how you can deal with archeological finds. If you find bones, such as a mummy, you can't just bring them home. You first have to establish whose they were and who they belong to before you can become the owner. This issue has come up even in the oldest human bones found in North America. (But I guess you could say that these finds depend on how old the body is because you certainly can't dig up a grave and call it an archeological find.)
Posts: 4922 | From: Kyoto, Japan | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Finally,there are laws covering how you can deal with archeological finds. If you find bones, such as a mummy, you can't just bring them home. You first have to establish whose they were and who they belong to before you can become the owner. This issue has come up even in the oldest human bones found in North America. (But I guess you could say that these finds depend on how old the body is because you certainly can't dig up a grave and call it an archeological find.)
Laws relating to archeological finds are fairly recent. In many places in the world you can still remove mummies, and other burials, without breaking the law. In most places that do have laws there are "official channels" and procedures that can be used. People are still removing mummies from the middle east, though now the local gov'ts want a piece of the action.
The only real, universal restriction is whether or not any relatives of the body are around. That is, does anybody care what you do with the body?
Digging up bones, mostly from burials, is pretty much what archeologists do.
The oldest bones in the US are probably Keniwick (sp?) man. And yes, there is a legal battle about who "owns" the bones. However, the archeologists pretty much believe they can do whatever they wish with the remains.
So I think it is clear that there is a de facto standard of what can and cannot be done to a body and that part of that standard has to do with the "age of body".
Posts: 629 | From: Greenwood, IN | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
