• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Can this be true, or is SNOPES wrong?

A couple of years ago I saw a domino falling thingie that went on for about 20 minutes. Interesting at the start but ultimately boring. Sorta the same with this. Seems to me they could have ended up in the same place using a bunch of undergraduates. It is sort of like those loons that write the new testament on a rice grain, initially impressive and then you want chinese food. Or something.
 
richardm said:
What I find most amazing about this is that this team spent $6 million and 3 months in order to produce something that is indistinguishable from computer animation.
Click to expand...

Yeah, bu then we wouldn't be here talking about it. Free publicity.

BTW... that ad is AMAZING.
 
I think I only saw it in it's entirety once on telly, usually when the ads were run they'd just show the last 30 seconds or so and save a bunch of money. As a part-time 3D animator and model maker I was sitting looking for the tell-tales that it was CGI, but couldn't really see anything. Never mind the ad, I think the design work that went into it must have been something else too.
 
luchog said:
"Leaving aside the coolness factor, do you really want your car made by engineers to took over 600 tries to get something right?"
Click to expand...

Would you rather have a car made by engineers who took two tries to get something right before giving up and marketing it anyway?

I don't always get along well with perfectionists, but I'll buy their products any day.
 
I'm amazed that anyone could think that ad is CGI. There would be no point to it, and the ad would be utterly trivial. The hoax theorists are simply too jaded and are forgetting that humans are capable of truly astounding feats.

I'm also amazed that anyone thinks the ad is a waste of money. Forget the fact that it's an advertisement. It's a beautiful work of art and will be remembered for decades because of it. Scratch that. It is outstanding. I'd put it in nearly any art museum and look at it as much as most of the other art there.

It is indeed a tribute to Rube Goldberg and his wonderfully complex devices for accomplishing simple tasks. It's also an extremely clever way of displaying all the beautiful parts that go into making a Honda Accord, and how wonderfully they work together.

It took over 600 tries because it is so complex and intricate and precise. Precision is hard. It requires patience and persistence and a great eye for detail. Thank Ed for the patient and persistent and sharp-eyed.

Engineering meets high art, and they both look better for it. How anyone could criticize or sneer at that is beyond me.

AS
 
AmateurScientist said:
I'm amazed that anyone could think that ad is CGI. There would be no point to it, and the ad would be utterly trivial. The hoax theorists are simply too jaded and are forgetting that humans are capable of truly astounding feats.

I'm also amazed that anyone thinks the ad is a waste of money. Forget the fact that it's an advertisement. It's a beautiful work of art and will be remembered for decades because of it. Scratch that. It is outstanding. I'd put it in nearly any art museum and look at it as much as most of the other art there.
Click to expand...

The only reason anyone would do this in CGI (Computer Generated Income) was to save time and money.

AmateurScientist said:
It is indeed a tribute to Rube Goldberg and his wonderfully complex devices for accomplishing simple tasks. It's also an extremely clever way of displaying all the beautiful parts that go into making a Honda Accord, and how wonderfully they work together.
Click to expand...

No offense, mateys, but Danish humorist Storm P. was way ahead of Goldberg with wacky inventions.

As usual, Danes kick ass.
 
CFLarsen said:
The only reason anyone would do this in CGI (Computer Generated Income) was to save time and money.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think it would probably have cost more and taken a lot longer to do it in CGI than for real. CGI ain't cheap, and it is very laborious.

If it had been done in CGI, it would be unremarkable, except that the motion is too smooth and lifelike for CGI, which still looks fake even today.

AS
 
I don't think the engineers who designed the vehicles are the same engineers who took 600 takes to get the commercial right.
 
Joshua Korosi said:
I don't think the engineers who designed the vehicles are the same engineers who took 600 takes to get the commercial right.
Click to expand...

I can see that taking 600 takes. I work in TV, and it usually takes multiple takes just for the person on camera not to flub his/her lines.
 
Just a thought: it would be possible to make the claim that no CGI graphics were used, but to use computers to composite two or more takes into one continuous shot.
 
TheBoyPaj said:
Just a thought: it would be possible to make the claim that no CGI graphics were used, but to use computers to composite two or more takes into one continuous shot.
Click to expand...

Well, you can also do this with conventional film editing techniques, which is exactly what they did. It's also how Hitchcock shot "Rope," which appears to be one long, continuous take. It was shot on one soundstage.

AS
 
AmateurScientist said:
Well, you can also do this with conventional film editing techniques, which is exactly what they did. It's also how Hitchcock shot "Rope," which appears to be one long, continuous take. It was shot on one soundstage.

AS
Click to expand...

Rope. Now that was some good mise en scene! The only problem was he had to focus on something that went dark whenever the film had to change reels.
 
I thought the deal with Rope was not that it was supposed to have been shot in one take, but that the events it portrays happen real-time. The 100 minutes (or however long it is) that the movie takes represent 100 minutes of time in the story.
 
CurtC said:
I thought the deal with Rope was not that it was supposed to have been shot in one take, but that the events it portrays happen real-time. The 100 minutes (or however long it is) that the movie takes represent 100 minutes of time in the story.
Click to expand...

That's close, and it's actually part of the illusion Hitchcock created. The film is actually 80 minutes long, but it is supposed to represent 100 minutes of real time. He did it by speeding up some of the action. It was shot in 9 takes, but Hitchcock took great pains to make it appear to be one long one. Hitchcock made only two intentionally visible cuts in the entire scene, and the others were clevered disguised. There were a lot of other things the cast and crew had to do to help maintain the illusion. It was quite intentional, and very bold and innovative at the time. This was 1948.

Here's a link to imdb's trivia page for Rope that discusses these issues:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0040746/trivia

AS
 
As I vaguely recall from all the hoopla (and well-deserved hoopla, too) about this the first time out, the producers admitted to one instance of computer assistance in this. I can't tell where or what it is, but after reading this thread, the sneaking suspicion is that it's to combine shots, not to get something to work.

And the bit about the wheels rolling uphill? They're weighted, inside the tires...

What I want to know is, who's the guy who figured all this out in the first place, and how did he convince TPTB at Honda to let him try it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom