...who thinks that the ship looks a LOT like a model effect in several of the down-the-rapids scenes? It really does to me.
Sure, there are plenty of shots of the actual boat bumping into stuff, but at least twice its overtly a model. Bad water, the ship is not dented enough, etc.
I wouldn't normally mind at all (they look better than average for the time period) but everyone claims it was done with No Special EffectsTM.
Wow...jesus...have you actually seen the film? Damn, get this guy off the boards.
shareI think it was a model. It reminded me of the opening credits of "Land of the Lost".
shareWHat's wrong with the question? Maybe you should chill out.
sharecome on man don´t mind it,... lame attempt of a trollie job
shareWatch the documentary "Burden of Dreams." It is NOT a model.
share[deleted]
In fact, Herzog himself helped pilot the boat in those scenes, because the captain they hired for the movie refused to do it.
shareI have watched Fitzcarraldo several times (and Burden of Dreams, and listened to Herzog's commentary on both, and watched My Best Fiend, which also talks about it) and I take Herzog's word for it that all those shots are a real boat. But I agree that there are a couple places where it really does look like a model. I think it's simply because there's no external reference so that the viewer can see the scale. I mean, you see trees and you see cliffs, but those could be models, too, for all you can tell if you're just watching the shot. That's why models work as special effects in the first place.
shareI've seen enough films over many years to know that those couple of scenes are, in fact, miniatures. If Herzog has actually said it was ALL actual live shots with the real full-scale boat, he is, well, kidding us. The miniatures are not used very much--their total screen time may be a minute or so--but they are in this film. This is the scene when the boat goes over the brink and down a cascade, and for a bit after it reaches the bottom of that cascade. There is NO WAY they would risk the real boat doing that. The slow-mo used in that scene--a common technique used in such miniature action shots to, usually unsuccessfully, help mask the fact that it's a miniature--is not used in any other, and the details just do not--and can not--match the live action before & after that cascade scene.
share[deleted]
Those specific cascade scenes were, in fact, miniatures. And there is NOTHING in "Burden of Dreams" that says otherwise. That specific footage was never mentioned or referenced by Herzog or anyone else and there are no contradictions.
As for "they wouldn't go to all that trouble . . .". This entire film production was trouble--4 years of it. Having a miniature set constructed for those scenes would have been the easiest element to execute because it would be done in a studio setting in Germany or wherever, not in the middle of the Amazon jungle!
And finally, there is no optical effect that can make the water and the movement of the boat in those specific scenes look that way in full scale, live action.
And by the way, this is not a bone of contention; I could care less that Herzog used miniatures--it's a common movie technique.
Common movie technique, which is considered special effects. I don't care if he used it (which is sure as heck-fire he did), but at least he shouldn't say he didn't.
"Muchos años después, frente al petón de fusilamiento, el coronel Aureliano Buendía..."
[deleted]
All the ships used in the film were real and some of them can still be found in Iquitos. The ship used in the scene showing the construction of Fitzcarraldo's boat used to exist. Last year the ship was torn down as it was going to sink to the bottom of the Amazon river(it was placed on the side of a riverbank and was all rusted out). The ship used in the scenes of Fitzcarraldo travelling down the Amazon river is called the Juliana and is a replica, it still exists but is in really bad condition, you can still find it in Iquitos. The ship used in the rapids scene as mentioned by other posters earlier is indeed or rather was real, I believe it was converted into another boat. I am not going to bother to spell out its name, but yes it was used in that scene, and I also recommend anyones who's interested in the film to visit Iquitos.
" If Herzog has actually said it was ALL actual live shots with the real full-scale boat, he is, well, kidding us. "
I'm not sure, but I think all that Herzog said, was that they really went down the rapid with the ship.
There's a relatively short sequence (as you say, maybe only a minute or so) where it clearly seems to be a model. It's a very well done model, and well shot, but a model.
The main way you can tell (which I first realized as a kid watching Ultraman, Godzilla, Gamera, etc.) is look at the water splashing around the boat. You can tell the scale of the shot right there, from the water you can tell the boat is a miniature.
I don't specifically look for these things, because I'm watching the movie and not looking for effects. Most all of the other shots seem to be of a real boat.
Watched this over the weekend. Great film. But yeah, when the boat goes down the rapids it's obviously a model in some shots, just as it's obviously a real boat that they drag up the hill.
share[deleted]
see? this is a better attempt for a trolling? =)
no one could be dumb enough to think there are models in this jajajajajaja
Sure looks to me like a model.
I mean those quick few scenes where the ship is seen from down river on the one main plunge.
Here's why I think it's a model:
The water splashes and drops look as if they would when you spray a garden hose into a bucket. Lived near many rivers all my life and never seen real water splash up in what would be huge globs as it looks there. (Also, look at other shots of water in the film, such as when the natives drop the trees into the water. The splashes are much finer, just a mist.)
The boat also bumps around much too quickly in those few scenes, even though it is slowed a bit.
There are no people seen on the boat during those shots, though of course Kinski was not on the top deck and the others were nowhere to be seen yet. But, none of the shots with people were from those angles.
The front of the boat submerges significantly on the descent. This wasn't shown in the film taken on the boat or even the film taken of the boat from another boat.
In fact, there isn't any footage of the big plunge from any other camera except that one angle we see. None from on the boat, none from upriver or downriver from other boats.
The water isn't the same color in the shots of the boat going down the plunge compared to the rest of the rapids footage.
Not sure if miniatures count as special effects, but honestly I don't know.
Keep in mind that we are only talking about 3 short shots- one early on of the rapids without the ship, and two later of the ship going over them. The footage shot on the ship is of course real but in parts of the river nowhere near as dramatic as that one plunge, and of course the ship was really hauled up the hill. Sounds like a lot of people confuse what is being discussed here.
Lastly, but most significantly in my mind, is exactly what others have said in order to prove their points that those shots were NOT models. They say that it should be kept in mind that this is not some other filmmaker or director, but Herzog. Well, with exactly that in mind, know that Herzog is infamous for disliking cineme verite, among other things, I believe it is a model. He keeps tactfully vague on those specific shots, and Burden of Dreams does not address those exact shots either (again, we know the other shots are real!).
Herzog is a proponent of bending the rules for the larger picture, espousing notions of "poetic, ecstatic truth" that can not be captured simply by turning on a camera and filming. Of course, this is what he says when specifically referencing his documentary works, but his documentaries are more scripted and directed than other documentaries, and his fictional works are more documentary like themselves....
In the end, all we can do is watch those shots over and over, and find what seems like evidence in his work and the work of others that will back up what each of us ALREADY believes. Knowing though, his treatment of truth vs. fact, and how he is famous for not believing all footage as truth, I think those three short shots are miniatures.
Hope this is all coherent, don't have time to re-read thoroughly.
I agree with you, the scene featuriong a model was when the boat almost seems to capsize after apparently taking a lot of water on the deck
shareI'll add simply with this great scene from Monty Python & the Holy Grail:
"Camelot!"
"Camelot!"
"Camelot!"
"It's only a model"
"Shh!"
"I'm gonna sleep in your bloody carcasses tonight!"
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
I just found this thread and I can tell you that at least one shot features a model. It obvious by looking at the water......water doesn't scale down.
shareMost of the movie is real, but there is a model used a couple of times. THe best thing to do is look at the water because, as everyone has pointed out, water does not scale down. When the bost goes down the rapids at one point and it looks like it is aboutto sink but doesn't, I'd say that was a model.
shareThe vessel used in the rapids scene is about as realistic as MacKob's argument!
It is so obviously a scaled-down model that I can't believe there are people who think otherwise, unless it's merely blind faith in Herzog's statement (or lack of total transparency as I'd rather call it).
Sure they built three ships. They just happened to be two large ones and a little'un!
[deleted]
I do ;)
shareBoh! It did cross my mind that Herzog could have used models (I hadn't read or heard any background info on the film before watching the movie), but only because I presumed most filmmakers would have. But I did not feel that it was obvious from watching the finished film that they DID use models. So when I read that Herzog didn't use models, my admiration for his madness grew! - and it didn;t go against what I had seen on film.
They call me MISTER Jinx
this discussion is more than ridicoulus.
this movie (as well as herzog himself) is a legend, and is famous for NOT using any model of effect. they had three ships they used.
its interesting that, after all they had gone through to create such a brilliant movie, still someone shows up and says.. "naahh.. thats a model!" and then proceeds to explain why, although EVERY SINGLE other information available shows otherwise...
The ship getting bounced around the flooded river - real, on-location and inhabited by Kinski and crew. They might have done it twice, once empty and externally shot.
The ship going down the waterfall/rapids - rather obviously a model. two or three brief external shots no more than ten seconds. This is what people are pointing at.
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/479/pdvd028uv8.jpg
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/8273/pdvd026li7.jpg
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/6241/pdvd025lm3.jpg
I don't think Herzog ever claimed to not use miniatures here, but never denied or confirmed it because it's a pointless matter. The 10 seconds of it go unmentioned in the DVD commentary, for all the talk of the real footage happening around Kinski on the real boat. I don't think it matters, and I don't blame him, because getting everything else in the film was an awful, physical job. But fans taking it on blind faith and perpetuating a 'purity myth' (not merely that, but affronted at the suggestion otherwise) is a bit annoying.
I love this film, and Herzog's work in general, but I've always thought a model was used in a couple of the rapids shots. The water droplets are too big otherwise. Get the DVD out and watch it again. Model, slo-mo. The links posted in the comment above also make it perfectly obvious.
The dragging the ship over the mountain scene was certainly done without SFX, and some of the rapids scenes, but the shots people are referring to here are frankly about as convincing as the SFX in "Thunderbirds" (Gerry Anderson vintage).
I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.
You are all wrong, Herzog used CGI! It's absolutely obvious! Only computer generated water acts like that! I've seen enough CGI movies to recognize a CGI scene instantly!
And Klaus Kinski was a scale model throughout the film!
In the scene where the ship goes over the falls it is clearly a model....watch the film again in slow motion...there's a scene where the smokestack tips towards the camera and it appears to be solid on top.....obviously the real ships smokestack would be open on top....model...
Any contrary claims by Herzog are just Herzog having a laugh.....
[deleted]
Actually when I watched the film second time, on one scene (where the ship almost tips over) the camera was focused in a way in would focus on a smaller scale. However that is the only scene where this occurs, and most of the time it's something one can't do with a model.
I wonder why they felt a need to use it though...
I'm no expert, and wasn't studying it too hard, and actually don't care if was a model- but it sure looked like one to me.