Eh, I'm not sure I would consider those drawings of real life people as graffiti...at least not the vandalism-type of graffiti.
I bet it looked better in person.

 

Just because you think it's garbage doesn't mean that the community thought it was garbage. Indeed, the community let the studios borrow their territory to shoot the film and in essence the studio defaced it in the process.

 

I'm not defending the actions of the studio, but I could see someone not being familiar with the area not giving a second thought to painting over some shabby artwork.

 

Maybe if they had a ranger standing guard screaming, "HALT, THIS IS PROTECTED LAND", the mural would've fared better /s

But speaking from the heart as a guy who documents promotional material of outdated stuff, it really hurts to see something historical decimated with just one careless action. And even if the mural could be exactly repainted in appearance, it will never have the same qualities it once did

 

Call me when something actually important happens

 

Why did they paint it over, anyway? What's the purpose?

Was the wall such an important piece to the plot that they just had to paint it? I don't get the thought process behind painting a random mural for your movie.

 

That's ultimately the question that's never going to get answered, because whoever made the decision ultimately is going to be liable for why the mural was destroyed.

 

Wait, what?

Why does that person being being liable mean we'll never know why the wall was painted?

 

Doesn't give them the right to paint over property that doesn't belong to them.

 

Never said it did.

 

We're in agreement then.

This was an self entitled act on their part. They did not have express permission to do so and they're lucky they weren't forced to pay damages and told to take their little film elsewhere.

 

It could just as easily have been a misunderstanding.

 

How is it a misunderstanding? Lets say a studio wants to do a movie in a specific time set, they aren't going to demolish a billboard for a modern store like Starbucks without express permission, just because it wasn't around in the sixties. Even the residents in the article were asking Why they felt the need to paint it, instead of opting for an impermanent solution.

 

For all we know the guy who painted it was told the crew had permission to do so.

 

Paramount promised to pay for repairing the mural almost immediately after they realized somebody fucked up, before any possible lawsuits could be filed or whatever to make Paramount pay up.

 

Yes, I know that. I'd still tell them to take their movie elsewhere.

 

People seem to think this has to be a simple issue, but that's not the way people work. That's not how communication works. Misunderstanding happens, shit happens. It's not necessarily cut and dry.

 

You misunderstand me, I'm faulting the self absorbed people who decided it was alright to do whatever the hell they wanted without permission. Not the poor saps getting fired for their bosses blatant inconsideration for public property.

 

And you misunderstand him. What if they did get permission from someone?

 

Then this whole thing wouldn't have been an issue and Paramount wouldn't have to apologize and fix their screw up.