This Model Dangled Over a 1,000 Foot Drop Without Safety Equipment for the Sake of a Photo

This Model Dangled Over a 1,000 Foot Drop Without Safety Equipment for the Sake of a Photo

A model recently allowed herself to be dangled over the edge of a skyscraper — all in the name of a photo with shock factor.

Viktoria Odintsova, who has over 3 million followers on Instagram, agreed to do the shoot without any safety equipment. It took place atop the Cayan Tower in Dubai, formerly the world’s tallest high-rise building. As if snapping a few photos of her leaning back over the ledge wasn’t enough, she then let the male model suspend her over the edge of the building, only holding on to her by her arm and without no safety net or harness in sight.

Video footage taken at the time reveals that Odintsova, 23, proceeded to kick her legs out once being hung from the ledge, with the Dubai marina visible in the distance beneath her.

Odintsova, who is originally from St. Petersburg in Russia, said:

I still cannot believe that I did it. Every time I watch this video, my palms get sweaty.

But now many of her followers have called her out for her lack of regard for her own safety, with many noting that she wouldn’t have stood a chance of survival had she fallen.

So was the final result worth it? Decide below.

And if you can stomach it, here's the video footage.

Full video (link in bio)! @a_mavrin #MAVRINmodels #MAVRIN #VikiOdintcova #Dubai

A post shared by Viki Odintcova (@viki_odintcova) on

[via Metro]

Log in or register to post comments

59 Comments

Bigger breast than brain... What a fucking moron.

I just realized, most big model agencies take insurances on their talent... Can you imagine when this gets to their insurance broker? She won't be insurable and could lose a lot more down the line...

Michael Einspahr's picture

Candidate for a Darwin Award. I see no reason to shoot this or anything like it without safety gear. Two models and at least one photographer, and no common sense between the three of them.

Adam Ottke's picture

I was thinking the same thing! I could just see it on The Onion: "Model Disappointed In Receiving Only Honorable Mention After Misunderstanding How to Actually Win a Darwin Award, Vows to Earn Award by Year's End"

Chris Adval's picture

I agree, but they saw others do it for views/fame, etc... even though it was mentioned they both have lots of followers but I guess it wasn't enough... maybe get on mainstream media/spotlight than just intsa.

Robert Nurse's picture

Could there not have been a whole series of safety netting out of camera range? If given this level of access, why couldn't the photographer have taken the extra safety measures? Just plain stupid.

Adam Ottke's picture

The worst part about this is the quality of that photograph/the end result. I'm not sure what would have made it worth the risk, but this certainly isn't it.
(Okay, maybe that's not the WORST part about this. But it's up there.)

Stephen Kampff's picture

How do these people get up there??
To their credit, that must be half the battle.

deacon blues's picture

Fucking idiot. Darwin cried.

We're all upset with the model for agreeing to this but what about the photographer who presumably came up with this (idiotic) idea? Alexander Mavrin appears to be a hugely popular and successful glamour photographer, with close to 700K followers on Insta. I don't get why he (or the model) would think this was a good idea, neither seems to need the publicity and as others have noted, apart from the "Oh Shit! Why?" factor these aren't very interesting photos.

Adam Ottke's picture

Oh totally. It's definitely on both of them just the same. Just....wow...

Michael Kormos's picture

She gives all of the real models a bad name. I see nothing but an insecure girl obsessed with taking selfies of her cleavage and behind. Success isn't based on the number of "likes" on Instagram. In this case, it's 3m boys - a fleeting audience. The fact that she is risking her life in hopes of growing her following is further proof of her lack of self-worth and desperation.

That photo isn't even any good. To risk your life, for that? Seriously? To risk your life, the outcome should be absolutely epic.

Two idiots, in addition to anyone else that participated in this idiotic act.

Phil Stefans's picture

I'm calling bullshit. I think theres some sort of harness they've retouched out, and this is just a viral stunt...

Adam W's picture

"Roger" on the bullshit. There will be a reveal of the real shoot with the harness. All in the name of "getting people talking" "generating buzz" or some such bollocks. It's still irresponsible. One failed "copy" cat is all it needs.

Taz Rahman's picture

Firstly, I salute the bravado. Secondly, I salute this need to go beyond what is normally expected of a model. It is this second salute that I feel slightly uncomfortable about. We saw photos like this from the early era of photography and cinema. Is there any need to put oneself at this sort of risk when a retoucher could pull off something like this more around $25?

Roman Kazmierczak's picture

This wasn't done for the photo but for the views. Here you have the age of instagram and facebook...

Roman Kazmierczak's picture

BTW, good they did that over the water. Less mess to cleanup in case she fell...

Richard Vert's picture

Right . All the debate on either side is really a waste of time .

Ryan Cooper's picture

Where do we draw the line between dangerous stupidly and exciting risk? It seems from the comments above that this model has passed it. Every day we take risks that could be the end of our lives. What odds mark stupidity? Or is it the sheer magnitude of this particular stunt that makes it so stupid?

How is this women any different than a free climber? Or a slack liner? Or a mountain climber? She is choosing to take an exhilarating risk for a combination of her passion and to attract attention. In the great big scheme of risks, I imagine this one actually isn't as statistically likely to result in death as it may seem. How many crazy urban explorers who dangle off the sides of buildings actually die? I've only ever heard of one or two.

Compare to say climbing K2, 25% of the people who have summited that mountain never come down.

I think that ultimately, it is her life to do with as she pleases. She effectively eliminated the risk of collateral damage if a mistake did happen by shooting over water instead of say a busy street. Her life was at risk but it is her life to risk. I say all the power to her to do as she wishes with her body and her life.

Also the photo did turn out pretty well. It would suck to do something like that and have it turn out looking like a snapshot.

David Bengtsson's picture

I feel the fine line goes between doing something that may kill you and a doing something risky that is almost enteirly certain you will get out alive from.

But I feel like this shoot was mostly done for attention? And also she basically put her life in the hands of the male model which probably would have got into a lot of trouble if something bad happend.

I can see the comparision to free climbers, but most of them have years of training with saftey equipment and have done stuff like bouldering so I would also argue that they have some common sense. The slacklining dudes I can't really relate to as I haven't seen anyone doing that on dangerous heights without saftey but I wouldn't be surprised if there is some people that do.

But as you said its her choice. But I would say its a very stupid choice. Bad location, essentially putting two people at risk in someway and also risking her own life in a way where a lot can go wrong.

Tomash Masojc's picture

That guy wasn't a model, but professional.

OSVALDO VÁZQUEZ's picture

Your ignorance is astonishing and sad. I'll go by points:

1.-It is very very VEEEERY stupid to compare professional climbers that have trained for years and have the necessary equipment to succeed with 2 idiots that wanted to do a risky picture. Please stop using this imbecile comparison.

2.-There are boats passing by on the water.

3.-There's also the moral problem of them doing this for attention, disregarding their lifes for the sake of fame and people liking their content or following them for morbid reasons. Like psychopaths that don't understand why this is wrong because they lack the brain capability to feel empathy. This will encourage more and more people to do the same or step up the bar to recieve attention. It's a vicious cycle that brings nothing good to humanity or to one self.

Ryan Cooper's picture

1. A free climber doesn't use any equipment other than climbing shoes and chalk. And I didn't say professional. Most free climbers aren't pros. And even with gear, take for example my K2 comment, a quarter of people that climb that mountain die. Thats way higher risk than this, protective gear or not. Also you are assuming that these two models have no professional training, for all you know both are trained gymnasts.

2. There are, but the odds of a falling person striking the odd boat going by are very low compared to say doing it above a busy sidewalk.

3. Where do you draw the line? You could say the EXACT same thing about any extreme athlete. I've personally been in many higher risk situations than this that would lead to equally fatal results if I screwed up. Many people have been. There really is no moral ambiguity here, its their lives, their choices, and they should be free to risk or not risk them however they please so long as they are not posing a significant risk to others. Which they aren't.

OSVALDO VÁZQUEZ's picture

Amazing. Look, first of all, comparing this stupid risky situation with other stupid risky situations doesn't make one of them ok, they are both stupid but in different percentage. People climbing K2 of course have a reason, have thought about it for years, have climbed other mountains, have experience, have a whole life dedicated to their ultimate goal, bring equipment with them because their goal is to succeed. It is very stupid to compare both cases in a way of making look this altive or good. It is only stupid. There's no high meaning of art, humanity won't be better by doing this, there's nothing artistic or worth seeking.

Secondly, how do you know the risk to others is not high? You are just talking bullshit trying to make it look ok, you can see boats are passing by, how do you know the amount of probability for her to not crash into a boat and kill it's passangers? Kill even babies or kids or mothers or fathers? How do you know it is not high? Just by looking the videos and pictures you can see the probability is not low.

And finally, they having the ability to risk their lifes (by doing illegal things) doesn't take from the fact that it is stupid. No ulterior porpouse or meaning comes from this action. It was only done to impress. If we don't attack this kind of behavior young impressionable people will mold into thinking this kind of thing it's ok as long as it gives you fame. Not even for the thrill of it. You helping them look ok may very well help a young man in the future to do something like this (which he can do because he has free will and it's his life) and to die leaving his family destroyed or his son or daughter just because he saw society praised this kind of things, not because of art or to push the boundries of humanity to achieve a spiritual goal or help others, only because it looked cool and people would give it a like.

You being stupid enough to not understand why this is wrong doesn't make it ok. You are doing very stupid comparisons and giving idiotic reasons as to why this is ok or good.

Ryan Cooper's picture

You can always tell when someone's argument really has no actual weight when they repeatedly are calling the person they are arguing against stupid rather than actually forming a compelling or coherent argument. Your entire position is based on emotion and the presumption that others are not responsible for their own free will. The risk here is actually much lower than it appears, however, the consequences are fatal. I really don't think anyone would attempt this without being aware of that. Its pretty obvious. If they still choose to do it. Its their choice to make.

What evidence do you have to suggest these two individuals haven't thought about a shoot like this for years? And again, how do you know they haven't trained at all or practiced before taking the risk? You assume they don't but you have no grounds for that assumption. Like I said, both of these individuals could have been highly trained gymnasts or have experience with stunts. You simply don't know. Also a great many people climb mountains on a whim, particularly rich people who want a thrill so head up with little or no experience after dropping thousands of dollars on gear they don't really know how to use.

You can pretty easily make a presumption on the odds of a 5-6 foot tall human landing on a boat based on the boat traffic that you see in the photo. Sure it won't be perfectly accurate but its a pretty easy estimation to make. In the photo I see 5 boats currently being driven through the water. They look to be between about 5 and 10 metres long. While in a marina a boat won't be going more than 20 km/h or so. Which means a boat would only be directly under where she would be falling for about 5-6 seconds maybe every 15-20 minutes at best. The odds of a boat being directly beneath her projected fall at the exact time she falls based on this simple estimate is about 1 in 250 and that estimate is probably higher than it actually is. Particularly if you consider that most boats will be towards the centre of the channel, not along the edge where she would fall. I bet you could toss pennies from where she is all day actually trying to hit one of the boats and still not succeed. We are talking very low odds of her striking a passing boat. And even after all that, the 5-10m long boat likely only has a small group people on it. So even if the stars align and she does strike a boat the surface area of the boat covered by humans is likely no more than 5% which means the odds of her striking a human is also no more than 5%. So now we are at an estimated 1 in 7500 of her actually striking a human while falling. All of which is based on very generous estimations and the presumption that a fall is inevitable, which it isn't. (and of course this is an oversimplification, there are other factors such as wind, humidity, etc that would have an impact on exactly where she falls but I wouldn't expect them to vastly alter the odds)

We risk our lives every day. Each time you get in a car or step out your door, there is a risk to your life. The question is where do we draw the line in terms of odds of death between too risky and not. There are many popular activities that have easily higher risk than this one Especially given that this was a one time thing that lasted no more than a few moments. If you play Russian roulette once with a gun with something like 100 chambers. The risk is quite low. If you play it frequently with a similar imaginary gun that has that same number of theoretical chambers eventually you will die.

I'm no statistician but I bet if they did a study and compared the odds of dying in a car crash over the course of your life to the odds of falling from a building you dangle from for 15 seconds once that driving for your entire life is far more risky.

I'm sorry but you can't compare the sports you mentioned with this stunt. All the sports you mentioned have safety standards and equipment; even free climbing. This is as bad as taking a picture on a functioning railroad, times a million IMHO.

Of course it's her life and she can risk her life however she wants, but it's still stupid. Saying otherwise means we're normalizing the bahvior.

A free climber dying from falling is a tragic accident, someone like her falling is a logical conclusion :)

Two words ... but why?

Wix Mo's picture

1 word: Greed.