Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North Carolina
Thanked 14 Times in 10 Posts
Rep Power: 7
Re: HMS Bounty in trouble...
Sorry, Chef and others....
It was a movie prop, maybe a good one, but neverless a movie prop. And if it was significantly longer, wider, heavier, with about the same draft as the original as has been reported, it is a different vessel even though it might look similar and the original Bounty plans served as a reference basis for it's design.
Regarding movie props, did you ever visit the production lot of a movie producer...blocks of buildings that are really just fronts with no backs, and often painted to look like stone construction? Just a little common sense would tell you that movie houses, even MGM, would watch the investment. But Bounty was a ship, therefore they wouldn't mind costs so much...? That it may have been built by well known shipbuilders with a history of building wooden vessels is not surprising; it was after all not the cardboard and toilet paper thing that Chef alluded to earlier. For the builder, there was money to be made in building this prop, which required specialized skills that few yards have today/or had in 1960. And there was the publicity value of being awarded the job. From movie makers standpoint, even if it was a prop, it had to be sufficiently capable of getting the job done, so they might prefer someone experienced in the field. Builders will generally adhere closely to the plans provided when they build something.....so what goes into the ship would have been determined by the naval architects or engineers.
Chef....your question of what makes me qualified to speak.....you really don't want to go there. Can you answer the same question as it pertains to you?