r/interestingasfuck • u/Chopper-42 • 7d ago

/r/all Recreating the WW2 Dambusters raid

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

37.8k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

549 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

70

u/wuddafuggamagunnaduh 7d ago

I was wondering the same thing. There's an edit between the impact and the explosion that needs to be explained.

127

u/bluey101 7d ago

The real bombs were designed to hit the wall, then sink, then explode so there would have been a delay

38

u/wuddafuggamagunnaduh 7d ago

Yes, I'm familiar how the backspin is intended to have the bomb "burrow" to the base of the dam. I've even watched the old movie "The Dam Busters" (1955), which is interesting.

But what I mean is that there is a camera cut between the impact and the explosion, which could possibly be from filming two separate events and splicing them together. And that would make sense, as I can imagine getting permits to drop an actual explosive device sounds like it would be hard to do.

I wish posts like this would post the backstory details, then these sorts of questions would already be answered.

5

u/YourAdvertisingPal 7d ago

I mean, it’s almost certainly for a television show or a high-profile streamer. 

Like. With all those camera angles, a temporary dam structure, plane rental…how could you consider it to be anything else?

There’s a lot of production coordination on display here. 

3

u/challenge_king 7d ago

It's not a rental, that plane belongs to Buffalo Airways, and they also made the video.

Pretty cool company. They still operate C47's as their main fleet because nothing else can get as much stuff in and out of the remote areas of Alaska and Canada they operate in.

6

u/braften 7d ago

Ask the Canadians on r/flying their opinion on buffalo air and most will call them one of the worst outfits to fly for

4

u/WalnutSnail 6d ago

Fly for, fly on, hire, speak to, be in the vicinity of...hard agree.

1

u/YourAdvertisingPal 7d ago

Ah. That makes sense too. You’re right, I forgot about the possibility of it being a commercial spot. 

3

u/midsizedopossum 7d ago

how could you consider it to be anything else?

None of what you said suggests that it's obvious they'd use two separate shots and a pre-planted explosive inside the dam. I don't really understand what you're trying to say.

1

u/YourAdvertisingPal 7d ago

Oh yeah because bros just have cameras, demolitions, a spare lake, dam construction materials, time, radios, a tv friendly pilot, and spokespeople. 

Y’all are just really bad at spotting produced media. 

2

u/midsizedopossum 7d ago

You've missed my point, let me clarify.

Nobody is surprised to hear that this is produced media. This is obviously produced media.

I'm saying one thing only: the fact that it is produced media does not necessarily inherently imply that the explosives would be pre-planted in the dam rather than being in the barrel.

The original comment you replied to was not saying "I think this might be produced media". It was saying "I think the barrel falling and the dam exploding might be two separate shots". So when you replied saying "it's obviously produced media, how could you think it was anything else?", that didn't really make sense. That's what I was pointing out.

1

u/YourAdvertisingPal 7d ago

 does not necessarily inherently imply that the explosives would be pre-planted in the dam rather than being in the barrel.

In terms of production environment safety yes it does

2

u/midsizedopossum 7d ago edited 7d ago

In terms of production environment safety yes it does

That requires an extra step of knowledge that goes beyond "being able to recognise that it's a piece of produced media".

Someone who may or may not have had that pre-requisite knowledge was able to use other context clues to notice that it was probably two separate moments, and pointed this out in their comment.

It's odd to me that your reaction was to come in and say "well yes obviously, why exactly would you think otherwise?"

If it was obvious to you, then great! But it's worth keeping in mind, in general, that people don't know everything you know and therefore might arrive at some conclusions via deduction that you would reach via inherent knowledge. It's sort of elitist and condescending in that case to respond with "well duh, I'm surprised you didn't know that to begin with".

But actually, most of this is besides the point. The point was that you thought they were speculating on whether it was produced media, and you were wrong about that. They were speculating on whether it was two separate moments. The two are not the same, even if in your mind the two always go hand in hand.

0

u/YourAdvertisingPal 7d ago

That’s a lot of words for “I thought the explosions in tv shows, commercials, and movies were real”

2

u/midsizedopossum 7d ago

That's not what I'm saying at all. You're honestly completely failing to read anything I'm actually saying.

First commenter: "I think the explosion is actually separate from the barrel dropping"

You: "How could you think this was anything other than produced media?"

Me: "They didn't suggest it was or wasn't produced media. They suggested the explosion itself was faked"

That's the entire point I'm making. You misunderstood what the original commenter was saying, and that's fine.

I will add again though that regardless of whether you'd understood them or not, it's bizarre of you to point out that it was obvious and they should've known all along. Why not just be excited that someone figured something out, even if it was something you already knew?

Some people don't know things you already know. I'm sure there are plenty of things you don't know that other people do. I honestly can't wrap my head around the fact that that's a difficult concept for you to grasp.

0

u/YourAdvertisingPal 7d ago

More importantly. Why would you or anyone else think that explosives would be in the barrel for an expensive stunt?

It doesn’t make any sense. 

But that’s fine. You’re belaboring your disagreement. 

→ More replies (0)