I write about automotive history. Tucker was effectively put out of business by the government, not by a conspiracy of the Detroit automakers as Coppola's movie implies. In that sense, the movie is as anti-business as is typical of Hollywood.
To begin with, there are ample reasons why Preston Tucker's car company failed without getting into conspiracies. He was badly undercapitalized, he did some sketchy fund raising and dealer franchising, there were technical and quality control issues with the early production cars, and in the immediate postwar period the government was still controlling commodities under the War Production board, making it hard for startups to even get steel and aluminum. In order to get engines he had to buy the remnants of the Franklin car company, and then convert the Franklin air-cooled flat six into a water cooled engine. As much as people say the Tucker car was ahead of its time, much of those features were technological dead ends. There is exactly one production car made today with a rear mounted engine. The Tucker used rubber springs that would break down over time (I know the guy who has restored a couple of Tuckers and makes reproduction springs). The choice of transmissions was either a New Old Stock Cord preselector manual likely made in the 1930s (when E.L. Cord closed his car companies, there was a factory full of parts in Auburn), or a single speed Tuckermatic eight years after Cadillac and Oldsmobile had the three speed Hydramatic. No modern transmissions are related to the Tuckermatic design. Tucker's "safety cell" literally meant front seat passenger dove under the dashboard in the event of a crash. Modern cars use laminated safety glass, not pop-out windshields.
Did the big domestic automakers conspire against Tucker? In all the years since 1948, nobody's been able to come up with any concrete evidence of a conspiracy. If GM, Ford, and Chrysler were going to gang up on an automotive startup, that would have been Kaiser-Frazer. Preston Tucker was a promoter without a high school diploma. He'd worked with Henry Miller for Henry Ford on an ill fated front wheel drive Indy racer and during the war designed a rotating gun turret used on American planes and boats, as well as an armored combat vehicle that never saw production.
Henry Kaiser, on the other hand, was one of America's leading industrialists. His shipyards introduced mass production method to building Liberty ships during the war. Kaiser-Frazer failed too, but nobody says it was a conspiracy. Even established independents like Hudson, Nash, Studebaker and Packard had a hard time surviving. Nash and Hudson merged to form American Motors, which lasted as long as the late 1980s but that's gone now too. Studebaker and Packard merged, but it was too late to save them and they were gone by 1966.
Tucker was an early example how regulators and federal prosecutors make the process the punishment. Tucker was acquitted of all charges of stock fraud and conspiracy but by then his reputation was tarnished and he had no hope of raising funds to continue production.
Ronnie, wow, this is fascinating history. I have no doubt the filmmakers got the history wrong, they often do. I have written about that many times here at the Congress, but this time I was trying to make a slightly different point, that Hollywood loves iconoclasts and likes toe celebrate them as long as they have the right politics. In this case, it was better for the argument to take the film at its word... that Preston Tucker's story is "true" because it dovetailed so neatly with Musk's story and helped to make my point in stark relief. Anyway, I really appreciate you filling in the history, it's super interesting.
Your Excellency, once again excellent. I started my adult life in 1979 and lived through the Reagan years. Take it from me, I benefited from the trickle down. From irradic work in construction to steady work. And we even could afford to see "Tucker" in the theater when it came out.
While teaching Theory of Organizations for about 20 years (as an intensive writing course, no less) I quickly decided that Pournelle's Law comes for us all. Big Entertainment is as much a part of The Establishment as any Big Business. Those avante garde became garde about the same time all those blockbusters became routine billions in profits. (Well, not REALLY profits, given Hollywood accounting.)
Right now they have little room for either error (although they're pushing that line pretty hard) or disruptive creativity.
I think they're a shrinking, if not exactly dying, business.
Yes the coporatization of Hollywood was the worst thing that ever happened to creativity. there was a time where one guy, Robert Evans or Frank Yablans, let's say, could greenlight a movie all by themselves. Now heads of production are routinely overriden by the marketing department who will tell them "We don't know how to sell this." It's a terrible way to make movies.
I'm increasingly that way myself. But it is a show about movies AND each episode is only 30 min so you can get through the whole thing now in 4 hrs. ;)
I understand why people say that, but in my experience (35 years in the movie business) this argument gives Hollywood too much credit for being a brilliant and malevolent hive mind... a reputation it does not deserve. The Occam's Razor explanation, in my opinion anyway, is that Hollywood is Progresive and makes Progressive stories because that's what they find interesting. The age old questions is "did lots of people get divorced because Hollywood made Kramer Versus Kramer, or did Kramer Versus Kramer get made because a lot of people were getting divorced"? I happen to think it's the latter but reasonable minds can disagree. At any rate, "Hollywood suck because it's woke" is not really my beat... John Nolte writes that article three times a week at Breitbart and I've tried to take a slightly different tack. I want people to read my stuff and come away smarter about how Hollywood works. Anyway, thanks for reading an taking the time to comment!
I write about automotive history. Tucker was effectively put out of business by the government, not by a conspiracy of the Detroit automakers as Coppola's movie implies. In that sense, the movie is as anti-business as is typical of Hollywood.
To begin with, there are ample reasons why Preston Tucker's car company failed without getting into conspiracies. He was badly undercapitalized, he did some sketchy fund raising and dealer franchising, there were technical and quality control issues with the early production cars, and in the immediate postwar period the government was still controlling commodities under the War Production board, making it hard for startups to even get steel and aluminum. In order to get engines he had to buy the remnants of the Franklin car company, and then convert the Franklin air-cooled flat six into a water cooled engine. As much as people say the Tucker car was ahead of its time, much of those features were technological dead ends. There is exactly one production car made today with a rear mounted engine. The Tucker used rubber springs that would break down over time (I know the guy who has restored a couple of Tuckers and makes reproduction springs). The choice of transmissions was either a New Old Stock Cord preselector manual likely made in the 1930s (when E.L. Cord closed his car companies, there was a factory full of parts in Auburn), or a single speed Tuckermatic eight years after Cadillac and Oldsmobile had the three speed Hydramatic. No modern transmissions are related to the Tuckermatic design. Tucker's "safety cell" literally meant front seat passenger dove under the dashboard in the event of a crash. Modern cars use laminated safety glass, not pop-out windshields.
Did the big domestic automakers conspire against Tucker? In all the years since 1948, nobody's been able to come up with any concrete evidence of a conspiracy. If GM, Ford, and Chrysler were going to gang up on an automotive startup, that would have been Kaiser-Frazer. Preston Tucker was a promoter without a high school diploma. He'd worked with Henry Miller for Henry Ford on an ill fated front wheel drive Indy racer and during the war designed a rotating gun turret used on American planes and boats, as well as an armored combat vehicle that never saw production.
Henry Kaiser, on the other hand, was one of America's leading industrialists. His shipyards introduced mass production method to building Liberty ships during the war. Kaiser-Frazer failed too, but nobody says it was a conspiracy. Even established independents like Hudson, Nash, Studebaker and Packard had a hard time surviving. Nash and Hudson merged to form American Motors, which lasted as long as the late 1980s but that's gone now too. Studebaker and Packard merged, but it was too late to save them and they were gone by 1966.
Tucker was an early example how regulators and federal prosecutors make the process the punishment. Tucker was acquitted of all charges of stock fraud and conspiracy but by then his reputation was tarnished and he had no hope of raising funds to continue production.
Ronnie, wow, this is fascinating history. I have no doubt the filmmakers got the history wrong, they often do. I have written about that many times here at the Congress, but this time I was trying to make a slightly different point, that Hollywood loves iconoclasts and likes toe celebrate them as long as they have the right politics. In this case, it was better for the argument to take the film at its word... that Preston Tucker's story is "true" because it dovetailed so neatly with Musk's story and helped to make my point in stark relief. Anyway, I really appreciate you filling in the history, it's super interesting.
Well said, MF'r ;)
Thanks, Gary!
I remember catching this film on TV many years back and it's a testament to the craft that it has stayed with me all these years.
The closing courtroom scene is a masterclass in how rules can be exploited against the purpose they were intended.
Your Excellency, once again excellent. I started my adult life in 1979 and lived through the Reagan years. Take it from me, I benefited from the trickle down. From irradic work in construction to steady work. And we even could afford to see "Tucker" in the theater when it came out.
Yeah, it's not a GREAT movie, but it's good enough that I would not have been angry if I'd paid to see it in theaters
While teaching Theory of Organizations for about 20 years (as an intensive writing course, no less) I quickly decided that Pournelle's Law comes for us all. Big Entertainment is as much a part of The Establishment as any Big Business. Those avante garde became garde about the same time all those blockbusters became routine billions in profits. (Well, not REALLY profits, given Hollywood accounting.)
Right now they have little room for either error (although they're pushing that line pretty hard) or disruptive creativity.
I think they're a shrinking, if not exactly dying, business.
Yes the coporatization of Hollywood was the worst thing that ever happened to creativity. there was a time where one guy, Robert Evans or Frank Yablans, let's say, could greenlight a movie all by themselves. Now heads of production are routinely overriden by the marketing department who will tell them "We don't know how to sell this." It's a terrible way to make movies.
Have you watched the MAX series "The Franchise"? The season just finished with 8 episodes.
It's a hilarious critique on modern hollywood.
No but I should check that out. I’m such a movie guy that’s it’s often tough to motivate towards a TV show.
I'm increasingly that way myself. But it is a show about movies AND each episode is only 30 min so you can get through the whole thing now in 4 hrs. ;)
I always thought the purpose of those 70s and 80s movies was to complete the work of the 60s and tear down the existing culture.
I understand why people say that, but in my experience (35 years in the movie business) this argument gives Hollywood too much credit for being a brilliant and malevolent hive mind... a reputation it does not deserve. The Occam's Razor explanation, in my opinion anyway, is that Hollywood is Progresive and makes Progressive stories because that's what they find interesting. The age old questions is "did lots of people get divorced because Hollywood made Kramer Versus Kramer, or did Kramer Versus Kramer get made because a lot of people were getting divorced"? I happen to think it's the latter but reasonable minds can disagree. At any rate, "Hollywood suck because it's woke" is not really my beat... John Nolte writes that article three times a week at Breitbart and I've tried to take a slightly different tack. I want people to read my stuff and come away smarter about how Hollywood works. Anyway, thanks for reading an taking the time to comment!