Is it morally wrong to destroy 230 cars to make a commercially successful “Furious 7”?

Over 230 cars were destroyed during “Furious 7” shoot. Is it morally wrong to destroy to many cars to make a commercially successful movie discussed at www.quora.com.

Some quotes from this discussion:

Nick Hodgson, Teacher/ Mentor/ Coach/ Father

If the cars are beyond repair and have to be recycled then there will be two consequences.
– Firstly those cars will need to be replaced in the market place thereby keeping manufactures in business and keeping people employed by those manufacturers (and their service industries) employed.
– Secondly the materials these cars are made from will be recycled and used to make other products – again keeping recycling industries in business and people employed.

I fail to see the downside and the moral issues.
Care to enlighten me?

Jon Mixon

The production company making the film has paid for the vehicles and they own them. That means that they are theirs to do with what they wish. If that means that they destroy them, then they are doing what they want or need to do with to complete their production.

“Morality” does not factor into a situation like this as the cars would not be able to someone else if the production didn’t purchase them. And as Rick Bruno noted, many are not real cars anyway.

Owen Miller, software engineer interested in futurism and cocktails

No. Consider if they were CGI cars. An expert would’ve spent hundreds of hours crafting the car to look perfect and to create captivating images of the cars. All of that work is only relevant to this film and can’t be used in any other context. There was food used keeping them alive during this time, as well as the resources for a computer and electricity.

Consider someone making a car. They also spend a great deal of time and use their expertise creating the car, but it happens to be a physical creation. Are physical objects not allowed to be created for a film? Creating a car for a film is no more morally wrong than creating a video camera.

Douglas James, Australian, Photographer and Web developer

Morals don’t seem to have any meaning in movies. Many years ago I made TV commercials. I was horrified to see the massive budgets some manufacturer’s allocate to 20 second commercials. This picture is from a USA clothing commercial… Shot in Australia!

All this gear, hauled to a tropical island, half a dozen professional (American) dancers and 3 truck loads of gear just to shoot a commercial for Navy clothing you can’t even buy in Australia. Is this morel?

At least furious is entertaining. The clothing ad had to be paid for by selling over priced shirts made in China and having a fancy label.

They wouldn’t tell me the cost but 70mm camera operators who speak with a refined (American) accent don’t come cheap and neither do Jumbo jets to haul all this stuff around. So let’s not talk about morels in visual presentation unless they involve minors or some other REAL morel issue eh? Cars are no more or less than an extension of a man’s opinion of his sexuality… Expendable. LOL.

Andrew Gutsch, Retail Loss & Liability

Not according to me. Using 230 cars to film a movie sounds like a great way to stimulate industries that wouldn’t otherwise benefit much from making a film.

Mark R N Jones

ISIS is currently making movies of the destruction of antique art in the Middle East. If you regard rare or classic cars as works of art, and if they are destroyed for a movie then the difference is just a matter of degree. It seems right to most people that the owner of a work of art is its custodian, with a responsibility towards the future.
But consider the case of Ai Weiwei and the deliberately smashed 2000 year old Han vases. Ai Weiwei filmed himself dropping one, and it was called as art. Uli Sigg did the same with one of Weiwei’s Han vases, which he’d bought, and that too was called art. Maximo Caminero dropped one which he didn’t own, not realising its antiquity or value of $1m, expressed his deep remorse when told what he’d done, and was sentence to 18 months probation. In law, if you own it, you can destroy it.

Krishanu Karmakar, Gourmand, Researcher of Fiscal Policy, Arm chair bound social reformer.

No, why should it be? Even if they are real cars and not props, these cars are properties of the producer/production company (my guess) – who bought it solely for this purpose alone. It is not as if they did not destroy the cars then some poor famine ravaged country’s people could eat them. The cars are not alive either. So where is the issue of morality arising here?

Nicolas Daoust

Let’s say the movie destroyed 10 million dollars worth of cars. It is awful: a lot of human effort and resources are wasted, and all we’ve got for it are enjoyable images.

Would you feel better if the movie had 10 million dollars of CGI cars? Certainly! Yet, in both cases, the same measurable amount of resources is spent, is gone. Hmm.

The reason why you feel worse about the first case and wonder (justly) about its morality is that those wrecked cars feel “wasted” because they didn’t get to be used “as intended”. Whereas the human work on the CGI is used exactly as intended, which feels good.

Now, say you’re a artisan whose craft is handmade furniture: you get paid for your work, but part of the reward is knowing that your products will be appreciated by their users. If some rich person were to buy everything you make just to watch it burn, I bet you’d be quite disappointed! (And that person would be perceived as quite rude.)

One could argue that destroying a hand-made Rolls-Royce is less ethical than wrecking an equivalent value of factory-built carss, so that you don’t “steal” the artisans’ satisfaction. Luckily, the cars in Furious 7 were built specifically to be totalled, so everyone walks away happy.

(You might want to argue that high-budget movies waste too much human effort, though.)

Lucia Lu, Passionately Curious.

No.

Because the human community is not a centralized society where things are planned according to what’s efficient and best for everyone.

Instead, people can own individual properties, and do whatever they like with them, whenever they please.

Matt Chanoff, Follow http://flashpoint.gatech.edu

Nah. If they were real cars (which they’re not, per Rick Bruno’s answer) it would be morally positive to destroy them. Cars contribute to global warming. If they’re out of circulation, or replaced by newer, less polluting cars, that’s a good thing. Furious 7 is kind of a public service.

Arun Raj, The Lazy Perfectionist

I wonder if it’s morally right to even own a car when millions of people starve to death without proper food or shelter, if you start thinking that way.

They destroy cars because we love it that way and we make them successful.

Anthony Stenta, Looking for the Kernel of Truth & Messy Perfectionist: Quora User 59999765

Cars are not people people. So, no….

I can’t believe I had to say that. I understand the confusing with people thinking corporations are people.

But cars really?

Next time my three year old son plays smash the cars together I might have to lecture him on the ethics of destroying a car.

My answer is no it is not immoral to destroy a car.

Prakash Rajagopal

Well its just sad to see the amount of money wasted in any high budget movie. While you could argue that they generate money and jobs – the reality is that they pull so much investment because they can make so much money.
Which in turn leads to a situation that a promising research project or a welfare project which can have a much greater impact has trouble garnering even 10 million$, while mindless movies can get a few hundreds without even trying.
Its the great peril of capitalism that anything that that can make money quickly will get money quickly and vice versa. The term Art is probably the most misused marketing term in the world and so called “Artists” are the most reckless with money – So they can probably buy real cars and blow them up, its not morally wrong – Why ? , because you are probably ready to pay for it … (A Rant)

Bradford Mar

Absolutely not, because the commerce and productivity generated by their destruction was much greater than would have been the case were they simply used for transportation.

Contrast this with Cash For Clunkers, where the auto industry took a 3 billion dollar bath after they misguidedly destroyed 700,000 fully-functional cars. Cars that could have been sold downmarket. Cars that could have brought enormous improvements to the lives of 700,000 families in the US and abroad were instead incinerated with acid. All for a negative impact on the auto industry. A lose-lose transaction. Now that is morally wrong.

CJ Bowden

It’s not a question of morality. The costs of destroying these cars was part of the entertainment product they created, so these cars were part of the input costs of the film.

Tshawn Harris

Destroying cars for movie production is not a new concept. The Blues Brothers held a long standing record with most cars destroyed, filming the movie’s Chicago chase scene.

You need to understand that the producers are looking for realism or pay heavily for some really good cgi. Plus the cars used are not fully constructed there missing a lot of features that would be in the production model lowering cost. In James Bond films that one “Bond” Aston Martin has serveral copies each with different features (shattering glass, pneumatic puncture bullet holes, breakaway doors etc,) just for the sole purpose of that shot. To damage and repair these cars for another shot would increase cost and production time. Most of these cars are modified also for the stuntman’s safety.

If your question is could the money go to better use? The answer is always going to be yes but you could asked that about anything in the entertainment industry. The reality is each of us who contributed in box office grosses really paid for those cars amongst other things.

Aditya Vikram Khandelwal, I enjoy solving puzzles!

They are just cars, not humans or somebody’s livelihood or anything “deeply valuable” to someone.
As long as they could afford those 230 cars, I don’t see a problem!

If you are looking at it from a waste management / environment perspective, then maybe you should be looking at the big MNCs first!

Peng Nanqiao

They are paid.
They are not Wall-E or Baymax.
Morality is about things or animals ?
If destory cars are immoral, then how about destory arms?
there are something made to be destoried…

Sayam Chakravarty

if they were recycled after the stunts then there is no reason for it to be morally wrong….coz then there is little damage done to the environment and the money spent on making them( materials for coating etc.) is put to better use…

Zebulon Pike, a parent with over 20 years of film experience.

There are far more issues that should be raised about the immorality of major motion pictures before the concerns about a number of cars that are destroyed.

Peter Slaughter

As a big fan of The Blues Brothers which at one time held the record for the most cars destroyed in a movie I would say it may be morally wrong but looked like a lot of fun.

And I seem to remember they were all bought from a scrapyard anyway.

Francisco Sang

It is all recycled and I’m pretty sure they reuse these cars in the future or have used these in the previous Fast and Furious series.

Fazzy Nuri

I guess it is morally wrong to destroy even just one car, it’s a waste of resources. However, I’m sure they recycle all of it.

Vishnu MuraliVishnu Murali

It’s after all cars not like past where animals and plants were killed for movies.

Sarthak Shah

Not if they sell the junk of those fake cars and do something for the needy.
Actually we won’t see the same movie if no car was destroyed 😉

Jonah Jones

@rick bruno, as opposed to “the need for speed”
where the 3 ‘Koenigsegg’ replicas cost $300,000 each

Wia www.quora.com

Related posts: