menards wrote:
For $5m, I'd commission a few fiberglass copies that could be intentionally destroyed... they all crash the same anyways. That said....how is your "hypothetical" any different than the well-to-do pilot who gets into a rare war bird and destroys it? Aren't they both one in the same?
Seems in this case Hollywood (if ligit.) has no interest in fiberglass or CGI. They (he) wants a $5m warbird to destroy. That's what I read. As for crashing the same way? How's that work? One's fiberglass, one's the real deal, I'm sure the results would look quite different.
My "hypothetical" to your unfortunate "reality" are quite different in this case as well. One is possibly preparing to purposely destroy a warbird for a movie, the other usually is not the result of a well-to-do pilot
intending to destroy his warbird. Other than that your results are the same, but not one in the same. If that made any sense.
I'm sure this is all BS for some strange reason. Not sure the point or reason in drumming up a story like this if it's not true. Who's supposed to be the fall guy here? Is this director trying to upset the warbird/historical community by threatening to destroy a warbird? An item we enthusiasts view on the level of valuable artwork?
I don't see the point ..... but nothing surprises me anymore. There's a real possibility of having Donald Trump as our new President.
