Subscribe by EmailFree-Running Robot Does Death-Defying Stunts
July 1, 2009 by Geeks are Sexy | 6 comments
Created for Nike by visual effects studio Big Lazy Robot, this promotional clip features a hoodie-wearing robot doing some free-running over the rooftops of what looks like a major metropolis. The final result looks quite incredible to say the least. Video after the jump.
[Via Dvice | Big Lazy Robot]
- Funktionide: The Robot Replacement for Human Contact
- Ledger’s death equals higher Batman profits?
- Rat-Brain Controlled Robot
- Bye Bye ASIMO: New Toyota Humanoid Robot Can Outrun You
Did you enjoy this post? If so, subscribe to the geeksaresexy RSS feed.
So many things wrong this this video:
* The whole point of free-running, to me (at least), is totally normal people being able to do extraordinary things. To CGI (any) free-running is to defeat the point. When someone goes “wow” at free-running, it’s BECAUSE it’s real-life, not CGI.
* If you’re gonna animate anything, don’t do a robot. It’s tacky, and only further highlights that it’s fake. Now imagine if it was a REAL robot actually doing those things being filmed by a real videocamera..only highlights my first point, doesn’t it?
* The actual moves were pretty boring, and didn’t give the same feelings of my guts jumping around in my stomach as when I watch other videos like this. This is made worse, again, by the CGI. I’ve seen real people do far more exciting free-running, so why should I get at all excited over a CGI animation of a few pixels doing something boring?
Total fail. For an awesome CGI ad, check out Genetically Modified Turbine-Powered Rabbit, posted here a couple of weeks ago.
I agree completely. Looked like scenes from Wil Smith’s I Robot.
This is what happens when big companies try being cool, and miss the point completely.
Agree totally with andrew.
I was, at least, expecting some moves “breath taking”. Not even the “animatrix” jump is original
I agree that the video is not very exciting in the aspect of freerunning, but you have to admit, it’s very well made.
To be fair, I was thinking about making a another comment about how when you disregard the actual content, the technical work is pretty good.
However, in this case, the technical work is only as good as the content.
How can a CGI robot be ‘well made’ when that very thing is what jars the scene most? It feels out-of-place and fake. So however much time it took to animate and render is kinda meaningless. They could have taken the same time to animate and render another ad that didn’t miss the point of it’s subject matter.
They might have great technical knowledge, but it’s only when you have great technical knowledge AND a flair for creative content (that doesn’t miss the point of it’s subject) that you can be considered ‘great’.
A highschooler might submit a paper that took him months to research and was one of the best-written pieces in the class (the year, and perhaps the whole school’s entire history). But he’ll still get an ‘F’ if he misunderstood the question. Pretend that this animator was the over-eager class dunce.
Something about the lighting or texture of the hoddie is wrong, too. It doesn’t look realistic.