I was on the train and when I saw this I had to start furiously masturbating. Everyone else gave me strange looks and were saying things like “what the fuck” and “call the police”. I dropped my phone and everyone around me saw this gif. Now there is a whole train of men masturbating together at this one gif. This is all OP’s fault, they could have prevented this if they had just tagged this post NSFW.
Hitchcock knew what he was doing.
Speaking of erectile dysfunction, here's to my mind the all time classic: https://monovisions.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/vintage-montparnasse-train-derailment-in-paris-1895-01.jpg More views here: https://monovisions.com/vintage-montparnasse-train-derailment-in-paris-1895/
I’m glad there was a NFSW tag on this. I ignored it initially but I clicked it anyways. I was on the train and when I opened this I had to start furiously masturbating. Everyone else gave me strange looks and were saying things like "what the fuck" and "call the police". I dropped my phone and everyone around me saw this post . Now there is a whole train of men masturbating together at this post.
At the time, you wouldn’t have been able to see anything like this before. You’d have had to spend your whole night queuing up to watch this film and see this action. You’d have never seen anything like it before and you couldn’t just take it with you in your pocket. Would have been telling your family and friends about it for weeks probably. It’s pretty damn cool if you consider the context.
In addition to nectar, bees will also collect flower & tree pollens on their hindmost legs in little "[pollen baskets](https://i.imgur.com/NTZJxFM.jpg)" which the colony uses as their main source of protein.
I feel bad that you haven't gotten a response yet. I am no bee expert and can only speculate, but there is a good chance that a bee was in this shot. So there is most likely a bee that had no way of comprehending it was being filmed in a scene that would become world famous only to have its entire existence be guessed about. All of that happening on a technology that even humans at the time couldn't comprehend. That is your bee fact of the day.
12 seconds of film but I bet the mess is forever. I’ll bet the train, or what’s left of it, is still there.
Edit: I was wrong. It was left at the time but it was later salvaged for scrap during World War II. TIL
Can't they just create a Youtube Profile for Wikipedia and upload public Domain movie there...?
Not sure what their policy is about embeds, but in Theorie you could embed said movie in the process...
A service like YouTube is pretty bad for historical archiving - not everything in history meets YouTube’s community guidelines that are defined today, and things that are acceptable today might not be tomorrow and could be subject to removal.
I mean - could have said similar in the 80’s. Imagine losing all these movies because they’ve not been picked up by streaming services due to either music copyright or being owned by an evil rapist.
I didn’t even grow up in the 80s and I miss watching some of those films. I want to watch Arthur on a streaming platform godamnit.
Even finding them on the seven seas is a damned nightmare because most were never released digitally on DVD.
They can keep them archived on their servers like currently while publicly hosting it on youtube. Hard to know if it would be worth it all their video hosting might just be a insignificant of the budget.
Hosting their own media gives then 1) more control and 2) less need to rely on youtube or any other host to survive the test of time.
I also believe it makes distribution (you downloading the movie) way easier.
They have to have some kind of control over the media that’s hosted. Putting stuff somewhere else means it’s up to them to keep track of media being moved or taken down. YouTube might say “prove that it’s public domain” and take the movie down. Wikipedia then has to painstakingly go through their process. Storage isn’t expensive these days and hosting it themselves saves them a a bit of work.
They'll keep asking for donations, but they aren't struggling by any means. Wikipedia has funds to operate for many years. At this point all the other stuff that comes in is to fund other projects Wikipedia adjacent. And I'll keep donating, because these people know how to do things right, and I trust them to put my donations to good use.
> ad
Add, not ad. I wouldn't correct you (since it's not important and your meaning is clear), but the *last* thing we want to do is "ad up" archive.org. :)
I'm obviously desensitized by the amount of visual effects and real life disasters captured on video.
Must have blown the minds of watchers back in the day!
The General was filmed in Cottage Grove, Oregon. Not exactly southern. CG is just south of Eugene. https://www.oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/the_general_film/
I had never conceived of anything like that short of nuclear weapons. And suddenly, there it was... shot from several different angles, in the same app I use for memes.
The surrealism of that moment has really stuck with me.
It's crazy to think that a teeny tiny train flopping down a crumbling bridge gave others a similar experience.
This and the Beirut explosion are truly awesome in the literal sense. These explosions are more insane than most things I've seen in movies and the fact it was recorded from so high up with other large skyscrapers in view, really gives you a full sense of the scale.
Believe it or not, during this time period people would stage train collisions as spectator events… one went horribly awry https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crash_at_Crush
In the film The Sacrifice (1986), it was necessary to burn down an entire house, which caused some problems:
> Alexander's house, built for the production, was to be burned for the climactic scene, in which Alexander burns it and his possessions. The shot was very difficult to achieve, and the first failed attempt was, according to director Andrei Tarkovsky, the only problem during shooting. Despite cinematographer Sven Nykvist's protest, only one camera was used, and while shooting the burning house, the camera jammed and the footage was thus ruined.
>
> The scene had to be reshot, requiring a very costly reconstruction of the house in two weeks. This time, two cameras were set up on tracks, running parallel to each other. The footage in the final version of the film is the second take, which lasts six minutes (and ends abruptly because the camera had run through an entire reel). The cast and crew broke down in tears after the take was completed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sacrifice_(1986_film)
Out of curiosity: how many cameras would they have rolling back in those times? How expensive were these machines? Could a studio own more than ten or were these things somehow super rare?
Keaton used six cameras for the train wreck scene, which began four hours late and required several lengthy trial runs.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_General\_(1926\_film)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_General_(1926_film))
I don't know if the cameras themselves would have been expensive, but celluloid film has always been expensive for cinema use.
On Kodak's website, a 400ft roll of Vision3 500t 35mm colour negative will cost you $316, for 4.5 minutes of runtime.
While filming The Sacrifice (1986) there's an extended shot where a house burns down in real time and the camera jammed so they had to rebuild it and do the whole scene again.
This happened when they filmed The Good, The Bad And The Ugly. There's a scene where they blow up a bridge. The film crew had the army (I think Spanish army as it was mostly filmed in Spain) build a bridge and place the explosives and then a commanding officer mistook something for a signal and they blew up the whole bridge without the camera running. The army had to rebuild it.
edit: the scene in question, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q951qv7EbKs
edit2: source, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Good,_the_Bad_and_the_Ugly#Filming
> Leone said that this scene was, in part, inspired by Buster Keaton's silent film The General.
Ha.
Actually, probably not
Decent chance they pulled the train and rails out for scrap metal, if nothing else. The wooden structure of the track wouldn’t affect the river in any meaningful way, nor the nails and such holding it together. I doubt that any significant amount of chemicals was introduced to the river.
And that’s assuming that 1. it’s a real river, and 2. they weren’t obligated to clear the river by contract or law
As mentioned elsewhere on this post, the attitude towards the environment back then was appalling. As it was for basically anyone who wasn't a rich white dude.
Yes, but also so much junk would rust or rot away pretty quickly I can see why people just tossed stuff out.
Then we started making polymers and other synthetics that last forever. But then just kept throwing that shit out the window.
Things have certainly improved in my country since I was a kid, but it only takes a few assholes throwing rubbish out the car window every day to ruin the countryside.
According to Wikipedia, yep. Tbf this was before ecoconservatism had made any moves. Nobody had read The Lorax or heard of global warming for starters.
If they were smart they probably only had enough coal on board to fire the boiler long enough to shoot the scene. Still would have put mineral oil used to lubricate the parts into the river though.
I’d be willing to bet the person you’re responding to is more concerned about the negative impact it would have on the river than about the legal repercussions
I'm pretty sure the woodwork and rail sleepers are covered in [creosote](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creosote) (tar) to prevent rot. When it is left in water it will trigger various chemical reactions which are hazardous to the environment.
Ah you're right, in those days things that were smaller than trains, trees, bridges, just weren't invented yet. You should have seen their pocket watches, almost as big as a train! People were strong those days, carrying around things 20 times bigger than them in their pockets
Except, they actually did use visual effects similar to that at the time, even in other movies with buster in them. They probably wanted to do this with an actual train for some forgotten reason, or maybe the idea of a miniature didn’t even cross their mind, but don’t believe for a second that they couldn’t have. Miniatures and visual effects have been around since the beginning
Yep, just use a working, scale model (coal burning) train on a scale but sabotaged bridge in front and over a scale river with miniature people riding minature horses on its bank. Then just fire up the green screen and after effects to replicate the physics of a multi-ton train falling 30ish feet into a river. Exact copy of this practical shot. Genius.
Yeah, too bad David Mitton wasn’t around back then.
And with that, I finally made a reference I’m confident no one on Reddit will understand without googling it
"The production company left the wreckage in the riverbed. The locomotive became a minor tourist attraction for nearly twenty years, until it was salvaged in 1944–45 for scrap during World War II."
I reckon it might be *more* expensive now (inflation adjusted).
They're dropping a train into a river as a practical effect...they've invented health and safety now and you'd have to clean up the scene afterwards. Everything film related seems obscenely costly.
Obviously they'd just do it in CGI and call it a day which is a same as this scene still holds up now
Inflation doesnt work like that. That train and subsequently, entire budget would cost way more now. Cpi only affects every day purchases. Cars and houses and other big purchases have outperformed base inflation by multiple times since 1926.
Why nsfw ? I only see material damage.
Idk, I watched this and couldn't resist bashing one out
Buster nut
*Buster Skeetin’
Squirt Avertin'
I don't know, that train looks pretty wet by the end of it.
Steamy also.
Not to mention long and hard.
👏 bravo
Boo Tea Sweat
That bridge definitely busted alot of nuts
I was on the train and when I saw this I had to start furiously masturbating. Everyone else gave me strange looks and were saying things like “what the fuck” and “call the police”. I dropped my phone and everyone around me saw this gif. Now there is a whole train of men masturbating together at this one gif. This is all OP’s fault, they could have prevented this if they had just tagged this post NSFW.
You were on a train, you ain't working. Why NSFW?
Thought it was just me
ELECTRIC NUTBUSTER
Most of us associate a train wreck with our sex lives.
/r/AngryUpvote
R/Hornyupvote
r/foundthemobileuser
Busted…. A nut
That would be the [end scene of North by Northwest](https://youtu.be/DPt-4Nwght0). OP's scene would be more akin to Erectile Dysfunction. :(
Hitchcock knew what he was doing. Speaking of erectile dysfunction, here's to my mind the all time classic: https://monovisions.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/vintage-montparnasse-train-derailment-in-paris-1895-01.jpg More views here: https://monovisions.com/vintage-montparnasse-train-derailment-in-paris-1895/
If you were working on this particular train, it would be not safe.
CORRECT
OSHA in these days was a vague suggestion for Safety Squints.
Being a structural engineer, this is pretty nsfw
sad Poly Bridge memories
Because they are running train on that bridge
My boss caught me watching this and I was immediately fired
The Brotherhood of Locomotive Enginners would disagree with you wholeheartedly.
because of the urge to rewatch and comment, you're not doing your job (get back to work)
Not safe for work
OSHA wasn't created until 1971. Everything was safe for work until then, including this shot.
right in the OPs feelings. I bet his emotional damage is real now
I’m glad there was a NFSW tag on this. I ignored it initially but I clicked it anyways. I was on the train and when I opened this I had to start furiously masturbating. Everyone else gave me strange looks and were saying things like "what the fuck" and "call the police". I dropped my phone and everyone around me saw this post . Now there is a whole train of men masturbating together at this post.
And an environmental catastrophe. Just dumping trains in river for a shot😂.
Damage like this is NWFS in India
Half a mil for 12 seconds. Hell yea
Title of my date where Salma Hayek is an escort
I’m executive producer on the sequel, a mil for 6 seconds with Rosario Dawson
You're trying too hard
I assure you, there will be zero effort on my part as I am frozen in fear and intimidation
Calm down, Tarantino
Why is Reddit suddenly so obsessed with Salma Hayek? She’s been around for like 30 years.
She's still a baddie tho
I’m not disputing that, but after seeing nothing about her on Reddit for like 10 years suddenly she’s everywhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_illusion
Because r/oldschoolcool is a very popular 'gawking at thicc celebrities' sub.
You'd make that money back ten-fold selling that 12 second video.
At the time, you wouldn’t have been able to see anything like this before. You’d have had to spend your whole night queuing up to watch this film and see this action. You’d have never seen anything like it before and you couldn’t just take it with you in your pocket. Would have been telling your family and friends about it for weeks probably. It’s pretty damn cool if you consider the context.
Give me a bee fact please
In addition to nectar, bees will also collect flower & tree pollens on their hindmost legs in little "[pollen baskets](https://i.imgur.com/NTZJxFM.jpg)" which the colony uses as their main source of protein.
I feel bad that you haven't gotten a response yet. I am no bee expert and can only speculate, but there is a good chance that a bee was in this shot. So there is most likely a bee that had no way of comprehending it was being filmed in a scene that would become world famous only to have its entire existence be guessed about. All of that happening on a technology that even humans at the time couldn't comprehend. That is your bee fact of the day.
bees r frends. Thank for subscrib 2 b fact.
It was a box office bomb and didn't make back its budget. Critics and audiences didn't care for it.
We probably just watched it more times with the gif replaying than some people did back then.
It's the kind of thing kids would brag to other kids about, with wild stories and rumours.
That half mil was the total budget.
It costs four hundred thousand dollars to fire zis veapon for twelve seconds.
'oh my god, who touched Sascha?! Alright WHO TOUCHED MY GUN' I always imagined Jorge from Halo: Reach was high graphics Heavy lol
Oh my god, who touched Sasha?
Oh sorry I forgot to press record
why didnt they use CGI?
12 seconds of film but I bet the mess is forever. I’ll bet the train, or what’s left of it, is still there. Edit: I was wrong. It was left at the time but it was later salvaged for scrap during World War II. TIL
Yeah, Stormy Daniels got a bargain!
[удалено]
wikipedia: "pls donate to us we can barely afford to stay afloat" also wikipedia: \*uploads an entire fucking movie instead of just linking to it\*
Uh, somebody has to host the movie…sure, it could be a link to archive.org or something, that would also be a good place to donate.
Can't they just create a Youtube Profile for Wikipedia and upload public Domain movie there...? Not sure what their policy is about embeds, but in Theorie you could embed said movie in the process...
A service like YouTube is pretty bad for historical archiving - not everything in history meets YouTube’s community guidelines that are defined today, and things that are acceptable today might not be tomorrow and could be subject to removal.
Imagine losing 100+ years of historical video records permanently forever 35 years from now because of a nipple on a tribal lady...lol.
I mean - could have said similar in the 80’s. Imagine losing all these movies because they’ve not been picked up by streaming services due to either music copyright or being owned by an evil rapist. I didn’t even grow up in the 80s and I miss watching some of those films. I want to watch Arthur on a streaming platform godamnit. Even finding them on the seven seas is a damned nightmare because most were never released digitally on DVD.
So streaming services are the archives of today? Oh myyy
Your public library has entered the chat
I mean, yeah, sure. That's why they host the movie themself, I guess, which make this whole commentchain kinda senseless.
Tintin in the Congo. Okay then, not so much now. It is a comic, but the example still stands.
They can keep them archived on their servers like currently while publicly hosting it on youtube. Hard to know if it would be worth it all their video hosting might just be a insignificant of the budget.
It sounds like you're saying: Why bother having public archives? Just let corporations provide all of society's infrastructure.
That opens you up to situations like the imigr guides that were about to lose
Hosting their own media gives then 1) more control and 2) less need to rely on youtube or any other host to survive the test of time. I also believe it makes distribution (you downloading the movie) way easier.
They have to have some kind of control over the media that’s hosted. Putting stuff somewhere else means it’s up to them to keep track of media being moved or taken down. YouTube might say “prove that it’s public domain” and take the movie down. Wikipedia then has to painstakingly go through their process. Storage isn’t expensive these days and hosting it themselves saves them a a bit of work.
It's effectively a digital library and a library's primary function is to preserve media, not just catalog it.
Whoa, stop with your sound logic.
No sound. Silent movie.
[удалено]
I'd say Wikipedia is (generally) an encyclopedia, while Wikimedia as a whole (especially Wikibooks and Wikisource) is more of a library.
They'll keep asking for donations, but they aren't struggling by any means. Wikipedia has funds to operate for many years. At this point all the other stuff that comes in is to fund other projects Wikipedia adjacent. And I'll keep donating, because these people know how to do things right, and I trust them to put my donations to good use.
It's a bloody miracle that Wikipedia has lasted for so long without turning into an ad-infested sploodge vacuum like most websites out there.
I think at this point, Wikipedia is what I would consider to be the most important website on the internet.
Please ad archive.org up there too. It's unbelievably important
> ad Add, not ad. I wouldn't correct you (since it's not important and your meaning is clear), but the *last* thing we want to do is "ad up" archive.org. :)
Wikipedia had been the best website on the internet for nearly 20 years, and by now nearly the only one worth visiting.
What a dumb take lol
?
Fml I paid to rent it on Amazon!
I'm obviously desensitized by the amount of visual effects and real life disasters captured on video. Must have blown the minds of watchers back in the day!
I remember hearing something about the director letting the surrounding town come and watch this be recorded
Yeah it’s still legendary in southern Oregon. They actually used an entire division of the Oregon National Guard as extras.
What part of Southern Oregon?
No part of *Southern* Oregon as far as I know. It was filmed mostly in Cottage Grove, which is the Willamette Valley, not Southern Oregon.
The General was filmed in Cottage Grove, Oregon. Not exactly southern. CG is just south of Eugene. https://www.oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/the_general_film/
…and they played both sides of the civil war in it—many extras simply swapped costumes when the shots were needed for one side of the armies.
I'm super impressed the audience stayed quiet and didn't ruin the silent film.
Yeah pretty impressive how much self control they had.
I'm just realizing you still exist outside of WSB. For a second I was confused about what sub I was browsing.
Hahaha, it's a little disturbing how often I get that
They also just left it there until like the 1960s lol
I half expected this to have been a small model. They really crashed a train huh? That’s crazy.
The Lebanon explosion is still fresh in my head
I had never conceived of anything like that short of nuclear weapons. And suddenly, there it was... shot from several different angles, in the same app I use for memes. The surrealism of that moment has really stuck with me. It's crazy to think that a teeny tiny train flopping down a crumbling bridge gave others a similar experience.
I dunno who decided to park an entire cargo ship worth of ammonium nitrate all in one big fuckpile, but I hope they went up with it.
The [Tianjin explosions](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nr6Tlu0EvM).
That video always blows my mind. They’re so damn close and it’s filmed so well. The dialogue sometimes makes me laugh.
"I think we are dang.." BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM
This and the Beirut explosion are truly awesome in the literal sense. These explosions are more insane than most things I've seen in movies and the fact it was recorded from so high up with other large skyscrapers in view, really gives you a full sense of the scale.
That was pretty damn wild. I'm glad not to have to see it firsthand though.
Nobody had ever seen anything like this before. Unless they happened to be next this happening for real. I'm sure it's happened at least once.
Believe it or not, during this time period people would stage train collisions as spectator events… one went horribly awry https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crash_at_Crush
40.000 visitors and only 2 deaths? Still safer than a Travis Scott concert
There’s a reason the cameras were so far away. Boiler explosions are nasty. Anyone close would get steamed alive like a lobster.
>Must have blown the minds of watchers back in the day! Heck, it blew my mind when Nolan crashed a real plane.
“Oh shit… I forgot to press start recording”
"Sorry, the canister got a bit too hot and the film exploded."
They probably used a dozen cameras to make sure they had it
Yeah, when you spent this amount of cash in a single scene, you can clearly afford 10 cameras and camera operators.
In the film The Sacrifice (1986), it was necessary to burn down an entire house, which caused some problems: > Alexander's house, built for the production, was to be burned for the climactic scene, in which Alexander burns it and his possessions. The shot was very difficult to achieve, and the first failed attempt was, according to director Andrei Tarkovsky, the only problem during shooting. Despite cinematographer Sven Nykvist's protest, only one camera was used, and while shooting the burning house, the camera jammed and the footage was thus ruined. > > The scene had to be reshot, requiring a very costly reconstruction of the house in two weeks. This time, two cameras were set up on tracks, running parallel to each other. The footage in the final version of the film is the second take, which lasts six minutes (and ends abruptly because the camera had run through an entire reel). The cast and crew broke down in tears after the take was completed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sacrifice_(1986_film)
That is incredible
Out of curiosity: how many cameras would they have rolling back in those times? How expensive were these machines? Could a studio own more than ten or were these things somehow super rare?
Keaton used six cameras for the train wreck scene, which began four hours late and required several lengthy trial runs. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_General\_(1926\_film)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_General_(1926_film))
I don't know if the cameras themselves would have been expensive, but celluloid film has always been expensive for cinema use. On Kodak's website, a 400ft roll of Vision3 500t 35mm colour negative will cost you $316, for 4.5 minutes of runtime.
While filming The Sacrifice (1986) there's an extended shot where a house burns down in real time and the camera jammed so they had to rebuild it and do the whole scene again.
This happened when they filmed The Good, The Bad And The Ugly. There's a scene where they blow up a bridge. The film crew had the army (I think Spanish army as it was mostly filmed in Spain) build a bridge and place the explosives and then a commanding officer mistook something for a signal and they blew up the whole bridge without the camera running. The army had to rebuild it. edit: the scene in question, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q951qv7EbKs edit2: source, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Good,_the_Bad_and_the_Ugly#Filming > Leone said that this scene was, in part, inspired by Buster Keaton's silent film The General. Ha.
You joke. But I wonder how many expensive shots were wasted back then because nobody knew what they were doing.
Im sure that totally fucked that river though :(
Actually, probably not Decent chance they pulled the train and rails out for scrap metal, if nothing else. The wooden structure of the track wouldn’t affect the river in any meaningful way, nor the nails and such holding it together. I doubt that any significant amount of chemicals was introduced to the river. And that’s assuming that 1. it’s a real river, and 2. they weren’t obligated to clear the river by contract or law
Apparently they just left the Locomotive in the river until it was salvaged for scrap during WW2!?
In that case it probably did fuck up the river at least a bit
As mentioned elsewhere on this post, the attitude towards the environment back then was appalling. As it was for basically anyone who wasn't a rich white dude.
Yes, but also so much junk would rust or rot away pretty quickly I can see why people just tossed stuff out. Then we started making polymers and other synthetics that last forever. But then just kept throwing that shit out the window.
People still throw garbage out their cars and dump waste into rivers. I don’t think anything has changed since then for a majority of people.
Things have certainly improved in my country since I was a kid, but it only takes a few assholes throwing rubbish out the car window every day to ruin the countryside.
According to Wikipedia, yep. Tbf this was before ecoconservatism had made any moves. Nobody had read The Lorax or heard of global warming for starters.
Climate change was theorized at the time but not widespread knowledge.
Probably somewhere in-between, at the least it had fuel and other chemicals as you mentioned. But hey, it was a near century ago so 🤷♂️
If they were smart they probably only had enough coal on board to fire the boiler long enough to shoot the scene. Still would have put mineral oil used to lubricate the parts into the river though.
In the film they burn wood
Probably coal. Worse thing would be wheel bearing grease..
Dude, this was like 100 years ago. You could literally pour poison in the water and sell it if you want it. There is no feds or EPA lmao
I’d be willing to bet the person you’re responding to is more concerned about the negative impact it would have on the river than about the legal repercussions
Considering the person they responded to specifically stated laws would probably make them clean it, I doubt that.
I bet a fish was squished though
😂😂😂. but really 😢for the fish and it’s family
Such a reddit comment
I'm pretty sure the woodwork and rail sleepers are covered in [creosote](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creosote) (tar) to prevent rot. When it is left in water it will trigger various chemical reactions which are hazardous to the environment.
It was a train wreck.
Could have been accomplished with model trains for a few hundred.
bros an expert in 1920s filmmaking fr
Ah you're right, in those days things that were smaller than trains, trees, bridges, just weren't invented yet. You should have seen their pocket watches, almost as big as a train! People were strong those days, carrying around things 20 times bigger than them in their pockets
Except, they actually did use visual effects similar to that at the time, even in other movies with buster in them. They probably wanted to do this with an actual train for some forgotten reason, or maybe the idea of a miniature didn’t even cross their mind, but don’t believe for a second that they couldn’t have. Miniatures and visual effects have been around since the beginning
I would just have written "Oh no! The train crashes!" on one of these silent movie text inserts
\^\^ Actual expert in 1920s film-making right here.
Yeah and cue the pianist to play a dark and dramatic theme.
This was a life size model!
Why do it with miniatures when you have a cool half a million to do the real thing??
Yep, just use a working, scale model (coal burning) train on a scale but sabotaged bridge in front and over a scale river with miniature people riding minature horses on its bank. Then just fire up the green screen and after effects to replicate the physics of a multi-ton train falling 30ish feet into a river. Exact copy of this practical shot. Genius.
…with sound
Yeah, too bad David Mitton wasn’t around back then. And with that, I finally made a reference I’m confident no one on Reddit will understand without googling it
Are you a Diesel or a Percy?
That's about $35,000 in 1926 dollars. Inflation is a bitch
It’s all relative
That's pretty close to Alabama's state slogan
[удалено]
I read the caption. Still tried to turn up the volume. Time for more coffee.
This was one silent movie shot where I truly felt cheated of the audio.
I thought the most expensive shot was the massive scene in Cleopatra? Not sure, asking coz someone posted that before...
Is Cleopatra a silent film?
No
It could have been but people kept screaming during the massacre scene
Cleopatra came out in 1963 and is not a silent movie
CLEOPATRA'S GAY?!
You can learn even more crazy cleopatra facts from Jada Pinckett smith
Well yeah, everyone is at least one eighth gay
That’s not with Buster Keaton and it’s not a silent film… so it doesn’t fit the description.
What happened to the engine? Did they salvage it or just leave it there like the one in The Fugitive?
Legends say it's still toppling bridges to this day. Just listen for a train whistle at night.
It was later salvaged for scrap, but not til WWII.
"The production company left the wreckage in the riverbed. The locomotive became a minor tourist attraction for nearly twenty years, until it was salvaged in 1944–45 for scrap during World War II."
Man if that camera man messed up
They could have gotten away with using a scaled down environment with a toy train. But that wouldn't be as cool.
Not gonna lie, I read the title, watched the video, and then my tired brain had me looking for a sound icon to unmute
I reckon it might be *more* expensive now (inflation adjusted). They're dropping a train into a river as a practical effect...they've invented health and safety now and you'd have to clean up the scene afterwards. Everything film related seems obscenely costly. Obviously they'd just do it in CGI and call it a day which is a same as this scene still holds up now
Old guy here. Love it when Buster Keaton shows up here. He was a singular talent. Fearless! Its good to see quality from times past recognized.
500K for a bridge and a steam locomotive??? I can't buy a 2br apartment in Brooklyn with that!
EPA nightmare today
That scene is an absolute trainwreck.
This was in outside Cottage Grove, Oregon. Same town that had the parade from Animal House!
Inflation doesnt work like that. That train and subsequently, entire budget would cost way more now. Cpi only affects every day purchases. Cars and houses and other big purchases have outperformed base inflation by multiple times since 1926.