17

The following video purports to show a man performing a stunt leaping from beam to beam:

https://twitter.com/AKBrews/status/1733162018864267634?s=20

Many people in the comments are questioning its authenticity or denying it outright.

Is this a real stunt or a trick of a camera?

In case of link-rot, you can have this teeny gif as a backup. 2MB file limit, this is about all you can have.

enter image description here

Tetsujin
  • 151
  • 4
TheAsh
  • 4,057
  • 7
  • 27
  • 54
  • 4
    At ~9 seconds into the video it looks as if there is glass between the beams. – Michael Dec 14 '23 at 14:02
  • What is your condition of being authentic? For example, if he was doing it on a green carpet and everything was added in post-production, then it would obviously not be authentic. But if he was really doing the jumps at that height, but there was a hidden safety net outside of the frame, would you consider it to be authentic or not? – vsz Dec 15 '23 at 07:30
  • @Michael Of course that'd be a neat solution to the safety problem, but I can't see anything that looks like the edge of a pane of glass across the background. What are you looking for there? – Graham Dec 15 '23 at 10:03
  • 2
    @Graham: For example here the space between the beams looks slightly milky and you can kind of see a distinct edge where the glass would end https://paste.xinu.at/9jJ8/ (but could also be some kind of camera or compression artifact caused by the beams moving across the image) – Michael Dec 15 '23 at 10:09
  • Only tangentially related, but well worth the watch, is when the cameraman is also a skilled parkour/freerunning expert. Two videos linked in this petapixel article show both the construction of a couple of the shots plus the end result advert [which may also have some CGI components, that's unclear from context alone.] https://petapixel.com/2016/10/04/steadicam-operator-pulls-impressive-stunts-capture-shots-nike-ad/ – Tetsujin Dec 15 '23 at 12:06
  • I totally support the glass pane between the beams (except of course for the last jump) – dna Dec 19 '23 at 08:30

1 Answers1

77

The person in the video is performing the discipline of freerunning (related to parkour).

Free-runner Joey Evers (@_joeypk_ on Instagram) has released hundreds of videos of his stunts and "missions". This is one of them, apparently as part of a shoe sponsorship.

It is difficult to provide evidence that a video is not a fake, but given that it was filmed from several angles and is consistent with the other stunts performed by Evers and by other freerunners, the most prosaic explanation is this is not faked.

Jamiec
  • 9,005
  • 3
  • 54
  • 64
Oddthinking
  • 142,615
  • 46
  • 558
  • 646
  • 39
    It's probably also worth noting that what he is doing is not actually particularly difficult, the thing that makes it stand out is the element of danger from doing it at great height. – Jack Aidley Dec 14 '23 at 10:31
  • 56
    @JackAidley - And if it was in partnership with a shoe company, they probably insisted on a safety net out of frame (or edited out) even if Evers did not want it. Nothing says bad publicity like "died while wearing our shoes and filming a commercial for us." – Obie 2.0 Dec 14 '23 at 12:16
  • 3
    @JackAidley just as impressive was the person running along a narrow parapet at the same speed as Evers, while filming. – Weather Vane Dec 14 '23 at 17:03
  • 5
    The video may not be fake, but given Obie's comment, it is misleading that they don't show the safety net. – pacoverflow Dec 15 '23 at 01:05
  • @WeatherVane you can see that camera in the shot from below. Nobody is holding it. – OrangeDog Dec 15 '23 at 11:09
  • 7
    @pacoverflow at the end of one of the videos linked showing an alternative angle you can see all the way to the ground and there is no net there. If there was a net, it does not cover the whole route https://www.instagram.com/p/CyQbzXHN6WH/ – Tristan Dec 15 '23 at 13:47
  • 1
    @OrangeDog the second scene, taken from a static camera on the next building, clearly shows someone running along the parapet. The third scene below also shows the camera and part of the person holding it, but is masked by the grating next to the building, because the person is on the parapet, and because the view from below is, um, from underneath. – Weather Vane Dec 15 '23 at 17:01
  • 3
    @Obie2.0 there's no safety net. (This can be evidently and obviously seen.) Yes, it's very strange that a real corporation would put it's name to something with a high risk factor. (Perhaps - It could be they're some crap little shoe company of a couple guys with no legal advice, not a major corp.) – Fattie Dec 15 '23 at 19:56
  • @Fattie perhaps it's a thing that someone makes a "promotional video" and then sells it to the shoe maker, who adds a "sponsored by" spin. – Weather Vane Dec 15 '23 at 20:44
  • 2
    @Fattie - Maybe there is one, but it's difficult to see against the background or digitally edited out. – Obie 2.0 Dec 15 '23 at 22:26
  • @WeatherVane that's 100% correct and could well be the case. Obie I didn't think about editing it out! It doesn't seem that way but you're certainly correct in theory!! – Fattie Dec 15 '23 at 22:31
  • 3
    @WeatherVane: I have zero evidence, but I thought these sorts of sponsorships tend to be "We give you free shoes, and maybe a little pocket money, and you tag our shoes on your Instagrams and we get to use your content on ours. " I do not know if whether they had any prior knowledge of the stunt or not. – Oddthinking Dec 15 '23 at 23:51
  • @Oddthinking There is also the case that a brand asks for some amount of unspecified stunts over the next X months, and it is up to the performer/influencer to decide what they will do. Brands used to have far more input on what people do on the ads back then, but nowadays it's more of a "do your regular thing while you use our product" sort of deal. – T. Sar Dec 19 '23 at 11:40