GenVibe - Community for Pontiac Vibe Enthusiasts

hey has anyone seen the new commercial for the cog from honda pretty awsome!!!!http://www.imediaconnection.com/content ... honda.html

Must not be a North American commercial.... right hand steering wheel.

was that a commercial?...pretty long...cool, but long

They were talking it up on some news show its american counterpart is the Accord. Been a while since I've seen "a better mousetrap"but I do remember playing mousetrap when I was a kid.Oh no I sound like my parents

QuoteEnd quote Speaking of reality, I was wondering as I watched the "Cog" clip, could they could somehow have made the whole thing without computer trickery?My conclusion: No. There are a few improbable motions, but for sure those wheels couldn't sloooowly roll uphill like they do.Great clip regardless!

hehi watched that commerical in physics class, it took them over 1000 takes to get it rightall of that stuff is really happening its not computer generated, my class had quite the conversation about that commericial

The story I read about the making of this commercial indicated that no computer trickery was done. The wheels rolled uphill by balancing weights inside at the top of each wheel. When each wheel was tapped the weights moved off of center and pushed down and forward, thus, forcing the wheel to roll UPHILL. Pretty cool.I believe the commercial was made for the European Honda for the UK market. That Honda is the European Accord. The sedan version is sold in the US as the new Acura TSX. I wonder whether Acura will get the wagon version.I have the link to the story of making of this commercial at work. I will try to find it and pass it on next week.

quote:QuoteEnd quote Speaking of reality, I was wondering as I watched the "Cog" clip, could they could somehow have made the whole thing without computer trickery?My conclusion: No. There are a few improbable motions, but for sure those wheels couldn't sloooowly roll uphill like they do.Great clip regardless! Sorry, but your conclusion is incorrect. That was my first thought too but if you watch the wheel movement closely you can tell that they have been weighted on one side to cause them to roll that direction when tapped off balance by the preceding wheel.Check the Honda UK site and you'll find full details including that they took over 4 months to create this. According to the site the only "trickery" is that it was done in two segments (because they couldn't find one studio large enough to hold the whole thing!) and lighting effects on the car door.I'm curious as why they didn't feel the commercial would play well to US audiences.

It wouldn't play well because they don't offer that model in the US. I assume if Acura gets that model (the sedan version is the Acura TSX), they might use the commercial.

quote:It wouldn't play well because they don't offer that model in the US. I assume if Acura gets that model (the sedan version is the Acura TSX), they might use the commercial.I don't think that's what they meant ... afterall even if Acura brought the wagon model to the US the commercial, as it is, shows a Honda Accord.

How many more times is someone going to post about the Honda commerical? http://forums.genvibe.com/zerothread?id=3478 (Thread started on: 4/4/2003)http://forums.genvibe.com/zerothread?id=4051 (Thread started on: 5/14/2003)Here is an article explaining how they did some of that stuff without the use of CG!http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news/ma ... xhome.html

Interesting fact I stumbled upon in regards to this commercial.It never actually has been broadcast on US TV, and likely won't be:quote:So here’s the kicker! The only way for U.S. audiences to see the ad is on the Internet. Due to format restrictions (the spot is two minutes and trying to edit this into 30 seconds would be a travesty) and corporate logistics (different agencies, business units etc), it is not known if this will ever see the light of day on U.S. screens.

And as for computer trickery -- if you do enough looking around you will find there there is 1 tiny tiny tiny bit of CGI that had to be added to make it work.As was stated earlier, it had to be filmed in two parts due to the size and complexity. Although the 'machine' would work perfectly as shown if it was set up all at once, it was decided to do it in 2 shots.The only CGI there was is a 1 second bit when the muffler is rolling across the floor -- thus joining the 2 segments of filming.Everything else -- and that's EVERYTHING else -- was real and in-person shooting playing with physics.Aren't Goldbergian machines great?