THE BIGGEST DERAILED BLOOPER!

What movie? Just curious, man.

The Movie Is UNDER SEIGE 2 Dark Territory... :wink:

How do you become an expert in train derailment?

I have been studying for a long time various reasons of why collisions occur, what happens to the wheels when they go off the track, how the cars react to the impact force of a collision, determining and predicting the outcome of the accident by determining the actual weight of the cars and locomotive...etc. etc. etc...

HERE IS THE PHOTO OF THE BLOOPER!


CLICK HERE (UNDER SEIGE 2 BLOOPER)

Why I recognize that! It's a Lionel train set I used to have til my lousy brother threw it into our swimming pool!

The train used in this movie is 5 times bigger than a lionel train.
The locomotive stands about 3 feet high.

kewl

I think my favorite movie train wreck scene is the locomotive smashin' through Chicago's Union Station (although it actually was shot in Toronto) in Gene Wilder's Silver Streak. I really get a kick outta that one.

There's a blooper in that bit, too ... as the train enters the terminal shed, seen from the train's point of view, the end-of-track bumper clearly is there. However, when the camera angle switches to show the engine oncoming for the impact and the really hillarious damage travel (done as a great, lonnnnnng, single take ... ya just gotta see it), there is no end-of-track bumper. One of the background extras can be seen holding a pack of Canadian cigarettes (Export A), also.

HA! There you have it folks! Another great train blooper!
Anymore you guys can find?

I know DIE HARD 3 has a good one too.
Common! Did you see how the subway car only going about 10 mph put down all those steel columns that support the street wieght? It pushed the columns like a bunch of loose dominoes!
That has to be one of the most ridiculous train crash scenes I have ever seen!

How about the subway rain crash in Speed? I can't remember if there are any errors in it, but it was a pretty big scene.

Derail man,

There is no bigger film critic on earth than me, I can find fault with everything, but where train crashes are concerned I think we have to give the film makers some poetic licence, after all we cant expect them to run real life 1000 ton trains into grand central station at 100 MPH

I'm with Timberlandko, I think the crash in Silver streak was brilliantly done.

Every time i used to Watch the tv version of Wid Wild West, I always wondered how in the hell rthey managed to turn the train around so jim Wests car was alaways at the end of the train and not being pushed. im sure they didnt have roundhouses all ove the Western US.

Hell yea! That movie also has a big blooper. Those types of railway cars have a "third rail" which gives them power. Once the car goes off the rails, they have no power.

In this movie the car goes of the track, hits a column breaks in half and the car magically keeps on going and going and going broken in half and to top it off like I mentioned before, the car's lights are still on even tho its broken in half and off the tracks!

You can also tell that when the car flips aside and sparks start to shoot, the sparks where the the metal is supposed to be touching is not even touching the floor!

A movie with a great train crash with no bloopers is "Runaway train".

farmerman, there were fuel-and-water stops about every 25 miles or so - about as far as the tender's capacity would last before it needed refillin' - along the right-of-ways, and usually, towns grew up around 'em, since there was water and the trains stopped there anyway. There'd usually be a mill and grainery, an icehouse, sometimes a livestock yard, and almost always a freight and passenger depot which housed a post office. Stuff like churches, saloons, retail emporiums, and newspapers came along real quick-like.

All of these fuel-and-water stops had passing sidings, where a car could be set out and could be coupled onto from either end. About every 100 miles - a standard 8-hour run - was a crew-change and equipment maintenance facillity, where meals were served, senior employee housing and junior crew barracks were located, locomotive-tender lashups could be turned, and where everything from repackin' journal boxes to rebuildin' fireboxes and boilers might be done. Bigger towns grew up around those. Those old steam locos required about an hour-and-a-half of maintenance for every hour of runnin', and while a train crew was typically 5 men, another 50 to 75 men made up the support contingent.

Great finding timberlandko!

This is a really fun topic and needs to be featured.

I think my two favorite movie train crashes are in "The Greatest Show on Earth" (for the time it was somewhat obvious it was a model train but the with some clever slow motion it was the most real looking ever filmed to that point) and "The Fugitive" where I can't detect any blooper in the scene. It certainly got the adreline rush. It would be fun to run the DVD at slow motion to try to detect any flaws in the CGI. However, it could also look like nit-picking of an otherwise exciting film.

"Speed" is a fun action film and hard to pick on. You're suppose to believe the LA subway scene that the train had enough kinetik energy to propel it after leaving the rails. "Speed II" had a huge cruise ship running away and crashing into what looked too obviously like fake sets.

Don't we have to set aside credibility with some of these films? "Under Siege II" was a poor follow up to a perfectly good action thriller. I do agree that they can go off-track (sic) and lose all credibility which is the chance the film-makers take.

Well, even though I can't find any bloopers in the crash scene (even though the bus rolled down hill and magically appeared parallel to the track), there is something I quite can't understand.
When the locomotive derails and it's still connected to the cars, in one of the shots before it hits the bridge, you can see almost the whole train is off the tracks! In real life, this is not possible because since railway cars have a flange that holds the wheels in place, even though the front part of the locomotive goes off the tracks, the rest of the train is supposed to maintain on the track. It also defies the law of inertia. Newton's first law of motion states that "An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force." Objects "tend to keep on doing what they're doing." In fact, it is the natural tendency of objects to resist changes in their state of motion. This tendency to resist changes in their state of motion is described as inertia.

But since the cars have a flange, it is supposed to maintain the course on track regardless of the locomotive.

If the front of the locomotive derailed (I DON'T KNOW WHY) and the back is still on the tracks, the weight of the cars should push the locomotive aside and automatically detaching the coupler.