• 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?

Yes it is true. But Snopes can be wrong sometimes (as in the case of time of introduction of the tomato to England).
 
My only problem with the video is when those three wheels roll from a stop, uphill, with only the slightest bump. Perhaps it is simply a matter of perception within the video, but it looks impossible.


Santa
 
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.

In fact despite what they say, I still suspect it is computer animation, and a hoax. But that's just my nasty suspicious mind at work.
 
Thanks, folks - the whole thing was totally new to me. And the uphill roll was one of the things that bugged me. :)
 
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...

I like that. It oozes self-confidence. "Look, we've got so much money that we can afford spending it in building Incredible Machines".
 
Santa666 said:
My only problem with the video is when those three wheels roll from a stop, uphill, with only the slightest bump. Perhaps it is simply a matter of perception within the video, but it looks impossible.
Click to expand...
One of the most interesting critical comments I read back when it first came out was regarding the fact that it took 606 takes to get it right. "Leaving aside the coolness factor, do you really want your car made by engineers to took over 600 tries to get something right?"
 
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...

I'm not amazed. These days, commercials are, second-by-second, far more expensive than even the most expensive Hollywood blockbuster movie.

Cog: 2 minutes at $6 million. $3 million/minute.

Spiderman 2: 127 minutes at $200 million. $1.57 million/minute.
 
The film mentioned at the end of the Snopes article is worth a look too:

In May 2003, filmmakers Peter Fischli and David Weiss threatened legal action against Honda over similiarities between the "Cog" commercial and "The Way Things Go," a 30-minute film they produced in 1987 involving "100 feet of physical interactions, chemical reactions, and precisely crafted chaos worthy of Rube Goldberg or Alfred Hitchcock."
Click to expand...

Link: http://www.tcfilm.ch/pop_lauf1e.htm

Nope. Nothing similar what-so-ever :)

.
.
 
jmercer said:
Thanks, folks - the whole thing was totally new to me. And the uphill roll was one of the things that bugged me. :)
Click to expand...

Haven't you ever seen one of those double cones that appear to roll uphill (but actually roll downhill due to the shape).
 
H3LL said:
Nope. Nothing similar what-so-ever :)
Click to expand...
By that token, Fischli and Weiss' film is remarkably similar to Milton Bradley's "Mousetrap" game, Sierra's "The Incredible Machine," the drawings of Rube Goldberg and Heath Robinson, etc. etc. with the only exception that they captured it on film. But then again, Honda's ad team can claim that they were doing something new, namely by only using parts from a Honda car, rather than whatever could be made to work. The notion that anyone can claim intellectual property of the concept of such ridiculously complex arrays of machinery is simply ludicrous.
 
First time I saw this on TV, I actually stood up and applauded.
It was just so outstandingly , pointlessly grand.
 
There is actually ANOTHER one by Honda that is very similar - probably made by the same crew at the same time. We have had it on our TV for a few years now. Certainly it uses parts of this one, but it has a different start (not the cog) and a different ending (different car model).

All the same, an excellent piece of visual art!

And have a look at the expense of some music video production these days. Makes this and movie production look REAL cheap!
 
H3LL said:
The film mentioned at the end of the Snopes article is worth a look too:



Link: http://www.tcfilm.ch/pop_lauf1e.htm

Nope. Nothing similar what-so-ever :)

.
.
Click to expand...
I think they're out of luck. Unless it is something unique and extremely identifiable as belonging to you and you alone, you really cannot copyright a concept. What you can copyright is the execution of the concept. That the Honda ad is vaguely similar in concept to the previous film is not sufficient grounds to claim copyright infringement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom