With today's publication we open a series of articles that have caused heated discussions in our VKontakte community. One of the active subscribers, Igor Shurkhovetsky, has done a lot of work on dismantling the tricks and injuries of Jackie Chan in his films. So that his efforts do not go unnoticed, we will duplicate these materials on the website.
Good evening everyone. I very rarely write anything in the group, especially posts. But today I wanted something, so I invite those who want to discuss (only without flames and getting personal) one of the tricks Jackie Chan. Namely, a jump from the roof to the balcony from "Showdown in the Bronx"If the topic is relevant to the group members, then we can continue. I’ll say right away that I’m not discovering America and I’m not reinventing the wheel. I just want to hear different objective opinions of the participants, maybe I’ll learn something for myself. Live and learn !
For a very long time (mainly in childhood), I thought that this trick was performed by Jackie himself, but later, having studied the moment with the jump itself and additional. info about the trick I tried first Stanley Tong, the opinion has changed somewhat and today it looks different.
Jump from roof to balcony
So let's get started. The jump from the American version of the film will have to be rewinded to the right moment, namely to 4.31. (Video below).
Scene 1, the moment of pushing away from the car, it is clearly visible that it is Jackie, you can also pay attention to the mesh of which the fence is made. But in the 2nd scene, the fence, it seemed to me, was different (perhaps the places for the run and jump were different), plus Jackie’s face was no longer visible.
Next, the jump itself is demonstrated in the 2nd and 3rd scenes, then the 4th scene and landing; in the still frames you can see (especially considering all the Blu-ray rips of very good quality) that the silhouette of the one who is jumping is clearly not look like "JackieChanovsky", and landing in front of the doorway and more or less without rolls to the sides. But in the next scene it’s Jackie, with a clear predominance in landing slightly to the left and already in the middle of the opening, again in my purely personal opinion.
But there is another version of the film (Japanese), in which the jump is shown in more detail, so to speak (but unfortunately without video).
In this version, the picture is more “wide-angle”, there are more scenes (takes) with jumps, and there is even a moment where the jump is shown in full, from take-off to the landing itself in one take, only Jackie’s face is again not visible at the moment of the jump itself.
Jump onto a hovercraft. Injury.
This time I propose to analyze whether what is written on the Internet regarding Jackie’s injury while jumping onto an “aircraft” really corresponds to reality, namely:
When jumping from a bridge onto a hovercraft, he damaged the bones of the hip, lower leg, and ankle joint, broke his left ankle, and received an open fracture of his toes. Finishing the shoot, Jackie put a sock painted to resemble a sneaker over the cast.
Yes, in the credits they seemed to show the moment where Jackie is injured, her leg is in a cast... But still, let's study everything in more detail.
A video of the credits themselves is attached (from 44 sec to 2.20).
The video was removed by video hosting :(
Let's start in order. I don't quite understand how Jackie could damage the hip bones if the cast was knee length and this is clearly visible in the video. Further. It’s completely incomprehensible to me how you can “break your left ankle.” First of all, she’s on the right, that’s obvious. Secondly, people usually get sprained ankles from what I know. I also don’t understand why anyone would write anything about the ankle if the definition of injury includes the concept “damaged the bones of the ankle joint,” which in theory includes the ankle. Or does Jackie have a different composition of the joint capsule? But then it’s even better - “damaged the bones of the lower leg,” although the ankle also belongs to the lower leg, if you think about it that way, just like the joint itself in principle. Initially, it was simpler, shorter and more correct in my opinion, it could have been written like this, for example: "Injured my ankle. joint, suffered a fracture of the tibia".
“I got an open fracture of my toes” - seriously? There are 2 moments where it is clearly visible that Jackie's toes are in perfect order (video credits).
We seem to have sorted out the wording a little, now about the injury itself. At least 2 points speak in favor of NOT falsification: screen 1 and Jackie’s noticeable limp in the chase from the bikers, followed by a run to the parking lot.
But what is not clear is this. In the film, Chan jumps and falls with his head against the movement of the boat (screen 2-3), but in the credits, after editing, for some reason he suddenly changes position, his head is already looking in the direction of movement. Did he roll over on his own? For what? Is it easier for him? And after the injury, when he is being carried on a stretcher, it seems to him that he is not in pain at all, even a slight smile can be seen, although I will not undertake to say anything here, perhaps he was injected with something, but he is afraid of injections... About the sock that he supposedly dressed and continued filming, perhaps I won’t say anything.
Bottom line: there was still an injury, but not as serious as it is described in many sources. In my opinion, it was some kind of ankle injury, it was even possible that Jackie just twisted his ankle.
In general, something like this. Offer your options and correct them. I will be especially glad to see people with honey. education, which in this situation can say a lot of interesting things, point out errors, if any, in the post.
Igor Shurkhovetsky and Mikhail Other
Especially for FFI
Home » Articles »
Tags: Jackie Chan, Showdown in the Bronx, controversial tricks, Stanley Toon
Tags: Jackie Chan, Showdown in the Bronx, controversial tricks, Stanley Toon
Who cares? In the water skiing stunts (jumping over obstacles), Jackie was doubled by John Sampson.
https://vk.com/wall-95290533_27446?z=photo-95290533_456239852%2Fwall-95290533_27540
Also, the same Stanley Tong, according to some information, replaced Jackie where driving one or another vehicle was required.
There is a film called “Finding Jackie” where the creators talk about exactly this. Yes, the old man has already relaxed, we will still love you. “Rotten” in the sense that the revelation was about 20 years late. Well, in “Project A” it was not Jackie who fell from the clock, but Chin Kar Lok, who also dubbed him in “Snack on Wheels.” What I mean is that Jackie, he’s like Bruce Lee, he’s an icon, and even if I sign up, nothing will change here. And what's the difference? Well Stanley Tong so what? Not Stanley Tong so what?
This is not an expose, but an objective look at things, just because... in Hong Kong, I think in certain circles, everyone has known everything for a very long time. And this topic was raised for the first time, in RuNet, about 10 years ago, if not more. This is the first thing. Secondly, why did Chin Kar Lok fall in Project A? According to some information, it was from the arrows that Mars fell (double in the film), I personally don’t know about the double in the credits, but very knowledgeable people (based on reliable sources) assumed that Danny Chow tried the trick first, and most likely the fall in the credits it belongs to him. And about Chin Kar Lok in the "Snack Shop", I'm also a little surprised. Can you somehow justify your arguments? Links there, screenshots and other sources would not hurt.
Third. Is anyone changing anything? This is just an article, nothing more. Just a person's opinion, that's all. But as for the difference, I will explain briefly. Jackie Chan is a man who is positioned as an actor who performs all his own stunts (even Jackie personally stated this many times). But in reality, this is far from the case. I understand that absolutely everyone is duplicated and this is normal and necessary. But again, in addition to tricks where special skills are required. skills (auto, motorcycle, skate, roller skates, etc.), Jackie was also often duplicated in those tricks that were quite in his style, consistent with his skills, i.e. theoretically they were within his power. And they have been actively duplicating him since the late 70s, when he was still young and “whole.” I’m not even talking about acrobatics and punches. On the one hand, all these statements can be attributed to a kind of PR of the person. But PR and PR are different. It's one thing when PR is mostly insignificant exaggeration, with rare exceptions. And it’s completely different when it’s an exaggeration, which can be called a very stretch, and the word deception is much more suitable.
But be that as it may, I still RESPECT Jackie, sometimes I watch the film with him, I recommend them to many, I also write regular reviews, in addition to analysis, I throw rare materials into the group on JC’s work. But it’s not true, I don’t respect it. And no one denies that Jackie is a legend and the like.
Dmitriy,