Well, there are these things called "cables" ;)

You hook them up to the replica, hook up a couple of semis or whatever and say "Go!". Then you edit out the cables in post production.

It could, of course, also be CGI. But more and more movies are doing the stuntwork for real and then cleaning it up with CGI rather than generating it from scratch on the computer.

Watch "the Making of Unstoppable" for some excellent insight on that. For example, the giant mailhook type device they used to yank the engine off the track sideways at the right instant. They edited out a lot of stuff in that scene.

Just took a look at the trailer, and blast it, between the wild stunts, the rock soundtrack, and the special effects, I can't help but think this is another attempt to update something that maybe shouldn't have been updated, at least not in this way.

It reminds me of the updated film version of "The Wild, Wild West" some years back, which didn't turn out too well. . .

in the recent transformers movie they are still doing live stunts, a stunt female driver was injured by one of those -cables-, the cable was to flip another car over. Seriously done on one of the near chicago highways.

you would think of all the CGI today and do stunts like this safely they would still be doing live stunts...

its the usual hollywoodizing of design. We experts know the difference, the average movie goer these details will zing past you because you are more into the action/plot.

I think Disney's Great Train chase is one of the best realistic railroad themed movie, well hence they used real railroad equipment...

Take a look at the trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11Fs-32- ... r_embedded

and look closely at 1:20, what the heck kind of Janney coupler is that supposed to be???

Richard Wilkens

Disney faux steampunk. Like the quartz watch at 0:29. I used to call these the products of the Society for Creative-License Anachronism.

Fascinating to watch the old standards get done over in a darker, postmodern way. Four quadrants, here we come, with a brave new twist!

a) What quartz watch?

b) Coupler - I bet they did that on purpose, to frame the actors face in the scene. Just like they changed the throttle motion on Polar Express to fit the script.

1. That is the gnarliest watch I have ever seen.
2. That is the weirdest coupling system I have ever seen.
3. The locomotive slide is cool but how are the wheels turning with no main rod?

A. Right, the watch is old thus must be ugly.
B. Right, we would not see Johnny's face with a real coupler. And if you are paying millions for that face, you want to see that face on the screen.
C. Silly me, obviously the right side main rod is moving the wheels. (Even with tons of weight bearing down on it.)

I didn't notice the watch at all, even after going back and seeing it again and looking for it. I'm willing to let that slide.
The coupler? I can't believe I didn't notice that, though.
As for the slide, a while back I saw some film from WW2 of a locomotive rolling over and it was throwing rods on one side and while roling down an ambankment, you could clearly see the wheels still turning under power. It makes sense as long as one set of rods was still connected to the drivers. That's one nit that was probably left unpicked. Now, it sliding along level ground without understanding how it got that way, well, I'd be willing to bet the whole wreck will look silly when the whole thing is seen (kind of like how unnatural the SD-40 rolling all the way over in "Unstoppable" seemed).

Looked at the watch again, and couldn't tell if it was a "quartz" job or not; it's poor appearance may be due to some sort of abuse (perhaps being buried with a body, and later dug up).

Egads, what a cra-zee coupler! How did I miss that? If the design was to frame the character's face properly, then I wish my mug was worth something like Johnny's! Question--Given the makeup on the character, and the potential risk if this were done live (which it likely wasn't), is it really Johnny D. there?

Did anybody else notice, during the slide sequence, that besides at least one missing main rod, that there is a flame--A BLOOMING ORANGE FLAME--peeking out from under the boiler jacket above the center driver? I say, did the locomotive suffer a collapsed crown sheet because the boiler was completely dry?

Of course, the opening credit sequence for the trailer features a steam train with a diesel horn. Wonder if that will be corrected in the movie? Sheesh!

As for "Unstoppable," there's an even loonier scene than the one where the two SD-40s derail and roll and explode (Ha! Try to use kerosene--which is basically what diesel fuel is--to light a fire with; you practically have to light it with a blowtorch!). That's the climatic scene on the stone bridge in Beallaire, Oh., where the train balances on one set of wheels! Whooee!

One other thing about "Unstoppable" was how bright and colorful that railroad seemed to be, particularly the "rescue" unit, No. 1206. And how is it that that road had units in at least FOUR color schemes--a black unit on a passenger train, the blue and yellow 1206, the grey units that derailed in the stop attempt, and the 700 series "villain" units in a predominately red, yellow, and black scheme that may have borrowed elements from the Santa Fe's warbonnets? I thought the fictitious Allegheny & West Virginia was supposed to be a fairly large regional road, with halfway decent revenues!

I know a fellow who's into television production (he makes commercials locally). He would likely comment that the use of live stunts is to bring a realistic look that still isn't possible with computer generated images, at least not without higher cost. Interestingly, he also said cheapest way to simulate such things as disasters--and in some cases, still the best way--is to work with miniatures, as was done with train wreck sequences in "The Greatest Show on Earth" and the more recent "Hugo."

I would still like to know how this expensive Lone Ranger film got made. Even more, I would like to know how to get my proposed television series made. It has great stories, and they're mostly authentic ones, too.

I wonder if a secret would be to sell it to a studio as something "steampunky." Maybe late "steampunky," tying in with "dieselpunk." After all, the series, as I wrote it and envisioned it, was set in the 1940s, would have covered the steam-vs.-diesel debate from the perspective of the employees and railroad they worked for being in the Pocahontas region. Bet the Hollywood types would have trouble believing a real locomotive looked like an Allegheny! I even figured to work in Nazis--a wonderful collection of villains for any time--in the form of spies out to destroy this railroad and other important facilities.

Heck, the real Nazi spy cases of WW II would make a great movie in their own right!

My thoughts exactly!
[quote="Utah Josh

I have a feeling most of the rail scenes are CGI. No way are they going to get any locomotive, replica or otherwise, to slide like that in real life. The props are probably going to be used as static background anchors or as the sets themselves.

And there was a scene of a steam engine sliding on its side, I don't think you will do that to a museum piece, thats why the replicas.
[/quote]

The props will probably do more than that. They will probably be used for the trains casually travelling along the tracks, pushed by a diesel that would be edited out. The derailing scenes will probably be CGI.

Bobharbison is right about why they'd use replicas. Back in the western film days of the '30s through '60s, the steam engines used in those films, not the least of which being the V&T engines, were usually owned by the film companies, so they could do what they pleased with them.

Nowadays, the engines are owned by tourist railroads and museums, who are quite wary on how the engines are used. What's more is that studios don't want any liability troubles from damaging valuable equipment.

they actually pulled these on the trailers for moving shots, they will add tracks digitally later, (and other things and fit everything right)

It's be interesting to see a history on the making of this movie.

Looking at more clips from this, and it looks like the producers and director are using a variety of techniques, including the full-sized replica trains (the railroad they run on, according to a print source, was a loop five miles around), a truck with trailers on a highway with track added by CGI (see references above), and a collapsing bridge that looks to be a combination of a blown full-scale set and CGI.

The producer is quoted as saying the rail sequences added up to $115 million of the $200+ million movie. I'll say most of them look pretty good (except for some wild sliding effects), but I still can't help but think we could do a really good rail flick for a fraction of that money, say $35 million to $70 million or so.

Some clips and trailers I've been able to find; some are for international audiences, and as a result they may have different footage, may have subtitles, and at least one may be in Russian:

http://video.disney.com/watch/trailer-3 ... 8f730231a5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W67JrFjVzY8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... aR5v-VoS78

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhN7R7TdUbc

A couple of "slide shows" with some rail car photos and evidence of considerable wire work for Depp:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vg6hmXGgH-Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RU9eJ9jq-64

For those wondering, I journeyed to the Fillmore & Western Railroad out here in Fillmore California and to my surprise found the prop engines here! Not surprised that they eventually would find their way here for some shooting cause the Fillmore & Western is practically California's #1 film spot for railroad related needs. I have more photos if you wish but it was hard to get good angles.

Thanks for the tip about the engines at Fillmore & Western--there's going to be a busload of Pacific RR Society members and friends going up there for a train excursion next Saturday.