Can this be true, or is SNOPES wrong?

[jmercer]

http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/hondacog.asp (http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/hondacog.asp)

If this is true... this is the most amazing video I've ever seen.

[rebecca]

Yes, it's true. Been around for a few years, too.

[Darat]

http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/hondacog.asp (http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/hondacog.asp)

If this is true... this is the most amazing video I've ever seen.


It's certainly always been claimed to be true, saw a documentary about it it was fascinating but rather a waste of money in my mind.

[c4ts]

That's even better than the dancing Citron ad.

[Jorghnassen]

Yes it is true. But Snopes can be wrong sometimes (as in the case of time of introduction of the tomato to England).

[Santa666]

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

[LTC8K6]

Snopes explains the wheels rolling uphill, obvious and simple really if you think about it.

[richardm]

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.

[jmercer]

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

[El Greco]

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.

I like that. It oozes self-confidence. "Look, we've got so much money that we can afford spending it in building Incredible Machines".

[luchog]

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.
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?"

[CFLarsen]

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.

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.

[H3LL]

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 (http://www.frif.com/cat97/t-z/the_way_.html) they produced in 1987 involving "100 feet of physical interactions, chemical reactions, and precisely crafted chaos worthy of Rube Goldberg or Alfred Hitchcock."


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

Nope. Nothing similar what-so-ever :)

.
.

[Peter Morris]

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

Haven't you ever seen one of those double cones that appear to roll uphill (but actually roll downhill due to the shape).

[Euromutt]

Nope. Nothing similar what-so-ever :) 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.

[Soapy Sam]

First time I saw this on TV, I actually stood up and applauded.
It was just so outstandingly , pointlessly grand.

[Zep]

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!

[Peter Morris]

And there's also a parody of the ad made by a different company (a telephone information service)

[Pyrrho]

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 :)

.
.
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.

[Ed]

ID, in the flesh

[Darat]

ID, in the flesh

Oh dear - I do hope none of them pick up on this advert. :( ;)

[Ed]

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.

[oglommi]

this AD is amazing. I wish I had the patience and skill to make stuff like this.

[BS Investigator]

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.


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

BTW... that ad is AMAZING.

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

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.

[rebecca]

"Leaving aside the coolness factor, do you really want your car made by engineers to took over 600 tries to get something right?"

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.

[AmateurScientist]

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

[CFLarsen]

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.

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

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.

No offense, mateys, but Danish humorist Storm P. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Storm_Petersen) was way ahead of Goldberg with wacky inventions.

As usual, Danes kick ass.

[AmateurScientist]

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



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

[CFLarsen]

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.

Give me 3 million bucks, and I'll do it.

[Checkmite]

I don't think the engineers who designed the vehicles are the same engineers who took 600 takes to get the commercial right.

[JLam]

I don't think the engineers who designed the vehicles are the same engineers who took 600 takes to get the commercial right.

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.

[CFLarsen]

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.

And cogs don't even have lines to flub. ;)

[c4ts]

Oh dear - I do hope none of them pick up on this advert. :( ;)

If they do they'll be taking each other apart trying to build Rube Golberg machines out of their bones...

[TheBoyPaj]

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.

[AmateurScientist]

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.

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

[c4ts]

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

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.

[CurtC]

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.

[AmateurScientist]

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.

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

[Charlie in Dayton]

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?

[Chaosium]

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.They did more than six hundred takes, so it's nearly impossible :)

[jj]

Well, and they aren't so hot on the origin of the "green ink for CD" myth, either.

But the commercial is a hoot.

[bagtaggar]

The one instance of computer assistance was to amplify the movement of the speakers so they would be visible.

As a CG artist, I've developed a knack for pointing out the difference between real and CG, and I've read a few articles about this. The whole thing, (except for the increased movement on the speakers at the end) is real. It took over 600 takes to get it right, with a whole lot of "misfires".

[petre]

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?

The pitch man said, "Do? It doesn't DO anything, that's the beauty of it!"

Sorry, in a topic about Snopes I couldn't resist :)

[moopet]

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.
There've been a couple of attempt to do this sort of thing since, most notably to my mind "Running Time" which uses the same sort of camera trickery but in a much less noticable way. It's worth watching mainly because they had something Hitchcock lacked: a Bruce Campbell.
It's always fun to watch out for the bits where they had to change :)

[c4ts]

If I were going to do something like this, I'd use digital.

[petre]

If I were going to do something like this, I'd use digital.

Almost certainly easier, but then, would people be discussing your advert 2 1/2 years later on messageboards across the world? :)

[c4ts]

They would if it were a damn fine movie that was tightly written and well acted, which is the real reason Rope works so well.