70 Members of Cast and Crew Were Injured While Making the Most Dangerous Movie Ever
Jul 13, 2015
Allen Mowery
Allen Mowery is a Nationally-published Commercial & Editorial Photographer with over 20 years of experience. He has shot for major brands as well small clients. When not shooting client work or chasing overgrown wildlife from his yard, he loves to capture the stories of the people and culture around him.
Share:
Film sets can be dangerous locations for both man and beast. But, one film takes the cake in terms of hazardous working conditions, with 70 members of the cast and crew being injured during the process.
Roar was shot over the course of 11 years (NOT a typo) and is basically a reality movie with director/producer/actor Noel Marshall (The Exorcist) and his family (including stepdaughter Melanie Griffith) living with 150 untamed and untrained wild animals. As one can imagine, living with a collection of dangerous animals, including lions, tigers, and jaguars, can lead to a little bloodshed. As HitFlix describes it, “It’s Like Walt Diney went insane and shot a snuff version of Swiss Family Robinson.”
As reported by Indiewire, some of the injuries included:
“cinematographer Jan de Bont was scalped, requiring 220 stitches; Griffith was mauled by a lion, which required facial reconstructive surgery; an A.D. narrowly escaped death when a lion missed his jugular by an inch; Hedren, who was also attacked by birds on the set of “The Birds,” endured a fractured leg and multiple scalp wounds; and Marshall himself was wounded so many times that he was hospitalized with gangrene.”
For a production with this many (and this many severe) injuries, it’s amazing that nobody was actually “snuffed.”
The film cost about $17 million (in 1981 terms) to produce, much of that being fronted by Marshall after financial backers pulled out (with good reason, I might add). Unfortunately, it only grossed $2 million in box office sales during it’s one-week showing overseas.
However, this little gem of a movie was re-released in April, thanks to Drafthouse Films, and this time in the U.S. It raked in $102,445 in box office sales from 100 theaters.
While not the blockbuster the creators were hoping it might be, this dangerous piece of cinema is a testament to human tenacity and, admittedly, stupidity. Here are two clips to demonstrate:
https://youtu.be/4H2D6zvNuYM
I wonder…
Exactly how legal was it to produce a movie like this? Even though the film was shot in South Africa, you’d have thought that authorities would’ve stepped in and put an end to filming. And let’s not even discuss the liability premiums that I assume (or, hope) were in place…
[via No Film School]
Allen Mowery
Allen Mowery is a Nationally-published Commercial & Editorial Photographer with over 20 years of experience. He has shot for major brands as well small clients. When not shooting client work or chasing overgrown wildlife from his yard, he loves to capture the stories of the people and culture around him.
Related Posts
Atomos Ninja Cast lets you control your AtomX Cast from your desktop
Shooting Kim Coates: How To Balance Crew, Cast And Client Needs In A Corporate World
Photographer robbed and severely injured while trying his new camera on Christmas Day
Formula 1 photographer injured after Monaco Grand Prix crash
Join the Discussion
DIYP Comment Policy
Be nice, be on-topic, no personal information or flames.
15 responses to “70 Members of Cast and Crew Were Injured While Making the Most Dangerous Movie Ever”
I’m on the animals side.
I’m on the plants side.
the plants thank you for that :-P.
Wtf…
Tigers live in Asia and lions live in Africa. How are they together?
This is no longer a “DIY” or “Photography” site. Please release the domain to someone who can provide actual tips and tricks for photography. This is utter garbage.
This comment is ridiculous. A quick perusal of the site indicates 12 articles specifically about how to DIY a solution for various situations in the last 12 days, i.e. one per day. In addition, there are quite a few articles about things photographers might want to be aware of, such as changes in policies (White House photo policy, EU and copyright issues, etc.), a number of articles regarding the recent photo release debacle, behind the scenes information about visually-impressive shoots, etc. DIY Photography is certainly still a DIY and Photography site. In fact, since the start of July (nearly two weeks ago), this was one of only 10 articles (out of 62) I could find that could not be described as being about a photographer, interesting photograph, photo or video technique, gear, or issue that impacts photography. The others were:
1. A photo series about a dog (still related, in my opinion, as it shows technique and it’s about the photographer as much as the dog)
2. Why someone doesn’t answer his phone (arguably related to photo biz, though it’s a stretch)
3. A video shot entirely on an iPhone (vaguely photo related, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt
4. A Russian selfie safety campaign (again, has to do with photography, but I’ll include it)
5. A story about a mugshot
6. A drone operator crashing his drone into his head
7 & 8. Two articles about why smartphone photography stinks (still about photography, but…)
9. A commentary on Google Photos app tagging african americans as gorillas (a photo tool, but…)
10. Sharks following paddleboarders around
That’s 10 articles out of 62, or 16%. You’re complaining about less than 1/6 of the content of the site, and ignoring the other 84% of the content.
Are there seemingly pointless editorials mixed in? Sure. But the statement ‘This is no longer a “DIY” or “Photography” site’ is demonstrably false. If you don’t like this article, fine, but don’t misrepresent the situation, the site, or its direction. It is most assuredly still a photography and DIY site, and I personally both value and appreciate what it puts in my feed. (Most of the time.) ;-)
Not that rediculas, the balance of content is moving further away from photo tips into anything that is click fodder….
The comment is ridiculous because there’s a pretty big difference between the balance of content shifting by 16% vs. ‘This is no longer a “DIY” or “Photography” site.’ and using that as a justification for releasing the domain name to someone else.
I didn’t say the commenter was wrong in being annoyed at this content. I wouldn’t have disagreed with that. But his claim that the site no longer has *anything* to do with photography or DIY is absurd and easily disproven. Thus, it is ridiculous.
What…. the……
Bizarre.
It’s intense just watching the movie, I went to the US premier in Austin. Highly recommend this movie.
Roar!
Very solid Oscar candidate. Excellent acting, phenomenal, photography. It CAN’T MISS!