Apple Music is 'Distractingly Good' for Taylor Swift in New Ad

[Thunderbird]

I have a feeling you don't work in entertainment whatsoever. If she got her doing this stunt, she couldn't tour for months, she has to dance and be physical as much as her voice is on show. They wouldn't risk the millions it would cost if she were hurt and couldn't tour. Sorry, but you're completely naive. And because there are obvious queues on where she is swapped out for a stuns double or green screen, makes it even move clear she didn't do the stunt. She wouldn't risk not being able to tour for a "75,000" commercial, which also, it was not, I'm sure they spent at least 3-4 thousand on it. I've worked in film, highly doubtful they skimped on this.

Sorry, but everything you wrote is completely false. It wouldn't take "months" to heal from anything she might theoretically break. Besides, she did the Apple commercial very recently, and her 1989 tour is over. TS has no upcoming albums to promote and no scheduled concerts.

Dancers learn how to land or fall without injuring themselves. She was probably also wearing pads underneath her clothes. Even the treadmill was likely padded, and the tread itself is just rubber. It's even possible the treadmill is CGI. With careful choreography, and a team of people helping her figure out just the right angle to shoot from, there is absolutely no reason why she couldn't have done the pratfall herself.

 

[knemonic]

Sorry, but everything you wrote is completely false. It wouldn't take "months" to heal from anything she might theoretically break. Besides, she did the Apple commercial very recently, and her 1989 tour is over. TS has no upcoming albums to promote and no scheduled concerts.

Dancers learn how to land or fall without injuring themselves. She was probably also wearing pads underneath her clothes. Even the treadmill was likely padded, and the tread itself is just rubber. It's even possible the treadmill is CGI. With careful choreography, and a team of people helping her figure out just the right angle to shoot from, there is absolutely no reason why she couldn't have done the pratfall herself.

You're hilarious. No one in Hollywood, as high profile as her would risk anything, ever. If they can cgi in a stunt double with no risk whatsoever to ts, then they're gonna do it. There are simply too many risks for them to not do it cgi. I have heard actors having stunt doubles stand in just to walk down low grade hills, just to avoid a sprang ankle, because that could slow down production. Ts is running around the world to do anything and everything to promote her brand, and anything that could derail that, she wouldn't risk. And if they're gonna cgi in treadmill, they might as well cgi in the fall and a stunt double. Explain to me why there is a ton of time there where you can see her face at all until she lifts her head up?

 

[jthompson666]

LATEST: Taylor Swift confirms apple paycheque 'distractingly large'!

 

[Tech198]

plus she's not injured... a fall like that would cause a bruise.

 

[Thunderbird]

You're hilarious. No one in Hollywood, as high profile as her would risk anything, ever. If they can cgi in a stunt double with no risk whatsoever to ts, then they're gonna do it. There are simply too many risks for them to not do it cgi. I have heard actors having stunt doubles stand in just to walk down low grade hills, just to avoid a sprang ankle, because that could slow down production. Ts is running around the world to do anything and everything to promote her brand, and anything that could derail that, she wouldn't risk. And if they're gonna cgi in treadmill, they might as well cgi in the fall and a stunt double. Explain to me why there is a ton of time there where you can see her face at all until she lifts her head up?

Breaking news: Lots of celebrities do their own stunts. You might want to actually do some reading up on that. If they CGI'd a different person, you'd be able to tell. There is no cut, no edit, no CGI, no stunt double, no motion capture, no nothing. They may have used wires. But however they did it, the person who did the fall was Taylor.

Your constant "too risky" gibberish is getting old. You seem to think music stars are fragile porcelain dolls, or 12 year old children who wear helmets. TS faces more risk on stage than in that commercial. Give your head a shake (shake it off...lol)

 

[Tech198]

We are all interested in this now... *rolls eyes* No one ever watched a movie and wondered why no one got hurt ?

Try that in real life, but u won't like the outcome.

 

[knemonic]

Breaking news: Lots of celebrities do their own stunts. You might want to actually do some reading up on that. If they CGI'd a different person, you'd be able to tell. There is no cut, no edit, no CGI, no stunt double, no motion capture, no nothing. They may have used wires. But however they did it, the person who did the fall was Taylor.

Your constant "too risky" gibberish is getting old. You seem to think music stars are fragile porcelain dolls, or 12 year old children who wear helmets. TS faces more risk on stage than in that commercial. Give your head a shake (shake it off...lol)

And you clearly have no experience or idea whatsoever with the abilities Hollywood has with cgi. That commercial for most companies would have been a cake job. And your ignorance is getting old, you know how many articles that pop up in Google if you search for Taylor switch apple commercial stunt double? There are tons of people out there convinced that it was a double, cause if you watch it frame for frame, there is some weird stuff going on there, it looks very odd to say the least. It's very easy for them to go the cgi route cause it costs little and there is no risk for the talent. And when an artists ability to be on tour, travel, be in the studio, ect., for a billion dollar artist like Taylor, not only would she probably question her doing the stunt, every invested interest would as well, her label, lawyers, family, etc.. Your ignorance in the situation is just overwhelming.

http://www.bustle.com/articles/1514...n-her-apple-music-ad-she-does-have-experience

 

[Thunderbird]

And you clearly have no experience or idea whatsoever with the abilities Hollywood has with cgi. That commercial for most companies would have been a cake job. And your ignorance is getting old, you know how many articles that pop up in Google if you search for Taylor switch apple commercial stunt double? There are tons of people out there convinced that it was a double, cause if you watch it frame for frame, there is some weird stuff going on there, it looks very odd to say the least. It's very easy for them to go the cgi route cause it costs little and there is no risk for the talent. And when an artists ability to be on tour, travel, be in the studio, ect., for a billion dollar artist like Taylor, not only would she probably question her doing the stunt, every invested interest would as well, her label, lawyers, family, etc.. Your ignorance in the situation is just overwhelming.

http://www.bustle.com/articles/1514...n-her-apple-music-ad-she-does-have-experience

Logical fallacy of appeal to popularity.

Like I said, if there was any CGI or tricks, you'd be able to tell. If you think there was, then it's up to you to prove it. Which that link doesn't do, btw. In fact, it corroborates what I said about celebrities doing their own stunts, including T.S.

 

[knemonic]

Logical fallacy of appeal to popularity.

Like I said, if there was any CGI or tricks, you'd be able to tell. If you think there was, then it's up to you to prove it. Which that link doesn't do, btw. In fact, it corroborates what I said about celebrities doing their own stunts, including T.S.

Based on your logic you can't prove the stunt was done by her either then. It's Schroedinger's stunt, until we open the box, she either did the stunt or it was a stunt double with cgi, you can't prove or disprove either approach.

And if you read the article, the author states there is clearly some weird things going on if you look at it frame by frame. And I agree, it's not seemless nor smooth. Break it down and you tell at specific frames there is something going on there.

Until you can prove me wrong, I'm not wrong.

 

[Thunderbird]

Based on your logic you can't prove the stunt was done by her either then. It's Schroedinger's stunt, until we open the box, she either did the stunt or it was a stunt double with cgi, you can't prove or disprove either approach.

And if you read the article, the author states there is clearly some weird things going on if you look at it frame by frame. And I agree, it's not seemless nor smooth. Break it down and you tell at specific frames there is something going on there.

Until you can prove me wrong, I'm not wrong.

You can look at any video and see 'weird things going on' if you look at it frame by frame.

You're the one claiming it is a stunt double, so the onus is on you to prove it, not up to me to prove it isn't. I can't prove a negative. That's how rational debate works.

 

[Tech198]

u can prove it, without going frame by frame...

Stunt double or CGI, it doesn't matter. the point were proving "it's NOT her" And if its not her, that only leaves us other options.