4 ms·

Reminds me of the "lost" painting that was rediscovered via the movie Stuart Little: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Little_(film)#Lost_painting_unknowing

Reminds me of the "lost" painting that was rediscovered via the movie Stuart Little: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Little_(film)#Lost_painting_unknowingly_used_on_set https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Little_(film)#Lost_pain...

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
lawlessone 2y ago
I was thinking Vigo from Ghostbusters.
- rob74 2y ago
  Actually, that (as I just discovered myself) wasn't a painting at all, it was a photo of the actual actor posed and lit to look like a painting: https://triviahappy.com/articles/what-happened-to-the-vigo-the-carpathian-painting-from-ghostbusters-ii https://triviahappy.com/articles/what-happened-to-the-vigo-t...
qingcharles 2y ago
That's wild. Also wild that the set dresser paid $500 from the film's budget for a random piece of non-key set dressing like this.
- arrowsmith 2y ago
  Makes me wonder what either priceless lost artefacts are hiding in plain sight somewhere.
  - rob74 2y ago
    One is definitely the Salvator Mundi painting which (at least according to most experts) is a lost Leonardo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvator_Mundi_(Leonardo)#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvator_Mundi_(Leonardo)#Hist... - it was considered a copy of the lost original for most of its existence because at some point it had been very badly "restored".
    - gizajob 2y ago
      Almost certainly not a leonardo and passed off as one to the tune of $500million which is why it’s disappeared ever since.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  The article says that after the movie was made, the painting was owned by a set designer. I wonder if it was the same person who bought it for Sony. Seems kind of dodgy.
  - qingcharles 2y ago
    It is. They bought it from the production later, but before that it was reused in some TV shows.
- djeastm 2y ago
  Yeah, I don't know what the going rate is for decent-looking background paintings, but I can see why films cost so many millions of dollars to make.
- ska 2y ago
  Time is important. How much would it have cost them to keep looking?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

lawlessone 2y ago

I was thinking Vigo from Ghostbusters.

rob74 2y ago
Actually, that (as I just discovered myself) wasn't a painting at all, it was a photo of the actual actor posed and lit to look like a painting: https://triviahappy.com/articles/what-happened-to-the-vigo-the-carpathian-painting-from-ghostbusters-ii https://triviahappy.com/articles/what-happened-to-the-vigo-t...

qingcharles 2y ago

That's wild. Also wild that the set dresser paid $500 from the film's budget for a random piece of non-key set dressing like this.

arrowsmith 2y ago
Makes me wonder what either priceless lost artefacts are hiding in plain sight somewhere.
- rob74 2y ago
  One is definitely the Salvator Mundi painting which (at least according to most experts) is a lost Leonardo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvator_Mundi_(Leonardo)#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvator_Mundi_(Leonardo)#Hist... - it was considered a copy of the lost original for most of its existence because at some point it had been very badly "restored".
  - gizajob 2y ago
    Almost certainly not a leonardo and passed off as one to the tune of $500million which is why it’s disappeared ever since.
lupusreal 2y ago
The article says that after the movie was made, the painting was owned by a set designer. I wonder if it was the same person who bought it for Sony. Seems kind of dodgy.
- qingcharles 2y ago
  It is. They bought it from the production later, but before that it was reused in some TV shows.
djeastm 2y ago
Yeah, I don't know what the going rate is for decent-looking background paintings, but I can see why films cost so many millions of dollars to make.
ska 2y ago
Time is important. How much would it have cost them to keep looking?