ext_346115 ([identity profile] ddstory.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] talkpolitics2012-12-07 06:54 pm

LoL. Legless Lego Legolas!

With just a week remaining before the official premiere of The Hobbit part 1, news and hints of the movie are flooding the global info-sphere like a horde of Orcs. Now that we know the movie will be stuffed with spectacular battles and elf-on-dwarf love (Kate from Lost playing an elvish warrior princess, WTF?), the latest addition to this awesome hype is Colbert's series of interviews with actors from The Hobbit, which has spanned the whole week: first Gandalf ("You! Shall!... Pass!"), then Bilbo himself ("Here's a Lego Legolas. A leg-less Lego Legolas."), and then monkey Caesar... er, I mean Gollum, etc etc etc. Also, where the Orodruin Hell did Colbert get the Sting from!?

The map at the beginning of this week's Colbert Report is hilarious btw:



"Hipster's Deep"? ROFL!

I loved this bit the most:

http://data.whicdn.com/images/45326739/6006181_460s_large.jpg

And yes, there IS a legless Lego Legolas!

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mejklb8geH1qf3ne4.gif

Btw what's all this debate on the 48 frames per second thing? Why do some people seem to hate it so much?

[identity profile] chron-job.livejournal.com 2012-12-07 05:09 pm (UTC)(link)
I am disappointing. I was expecting some explanation as to how a Lego Legolas could be very drunk.

[identity profile] dexeron.livejournal.com 2012-12-07 05:18 pm (UTC)(link)
48 frames isn't what we're used to, so it's jarring. Without getting into the technical aspects, it's actually "closer" to "real", but because we're not used to seeing films on the big screen like that, it seems more "fake".

Apparently there were similar complaints when films were moving towards the current 24 fps - people were used to the jerky motion of the 14 fps silent films, and 24 just seemed wrong to them. I'm sure we'll all get used to 48 fps, eventually. Hell, even Edison, back in the day, thought we shouldn't be showing films at anything less than 46 fps.

[identity profile] jerseycajun.livejournal.com 2012-12-07 05:44 pm (UTC)(link)
I think it has to do with the mental associations we have with that speed of film, as it's used mostly for television, which may make if feel a bit "small screen".

[identity profile] htpcl.livejournal.com 2012-12-07 05:53 pm (UTC)(link)
The Hobbit gets the Colbert bump? Or rather, he feeds his enormous LOTR-geekiness. Either way: me happy! :-)

[identity profile] abomvubuso.livejournal.com 2012-12-07 07:24 pm (UTC)(link)
If Arthur Dent is Bilbo Baggins, then what does it make Zaphod Beeblebrox?

I'm betting on Gollum.

[identity profile] fizzyland.livejournal.com 2012-12-07 07:28 pm (UTC)(link)
The problem with 48fps is that it destroys most depth illusions - greenscreens and such become obvious and it makes interior scenes look like stage play sets.

Also things like seeing Gandalf wearing contact lenses creates distraction rather than enhancement.

[identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com 2012-12-07 07:56 pm (UTC)(link)
Honestly, I'm impressed he stretched out to three movies on the one hand, but then again they split the last Harry Potter and Twilight films and people went to go see it. Nothing like bilking the system for money.

[identity profile] peristaltor.livejournal.com 2012-12-07 08:08 pm (UTC)(link)
Colbert's Sting: a gift from Peter Jackson. He's also got a chess set of LOTR characters, made from white and dark chocolate, a gift from Vigo Mortenson (sp?).

That guy is a complete and utter Tolkien geek. Back when he was on the Daily Show, Stewart read a question to Elijah Wood concerning the specific Elvish dialect spoken before the shards, a question so full of detail that it had to be Colbert. Wood confirmed what the question asked, shocking Stewart; he had probably assumed Stephen pulled the question out his ass.