Hacker News Reader

Comment by arrowsmith | Hacker News Reader

Reminds me of the "lost" painting that was rediscovered via the movie Stuart Little:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Little_(film)#Lost_pain...

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.

Makes me wonder what either priceless lost artefacts are hiding in plain sight somewhere.

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)#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".

Almost certainly not a leonardo and passed off as one to the tune of $500million which is why it’s disappeared ever since.

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.

It is. They bought it from the production later, but before that it was reused in some TV shows.

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.

Time is important. How much would it have cost them to keep looking?

I was thinking Vigo from Ghostbusters.

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-t...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com