LoL. Legless Lego Legolas!

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

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:



And yes, there IS a legless Lego Legolas!



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

Comments

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

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".

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

Small-screen sounds kinda quaint.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

Exactly. Because of differences between what frame rates are used in film vs .video, we tend to associate a certain "look" with one or the other. Folks watching some of the early released fottage of the Hobbit at 48fps said it seemed to them (at first, at least) like a made-for-TV thing. Our brain associates that "look" with television, and it seems out of place on the big screen, where we're used to 24. Supposedly, after watching for awhile, one gets used to it, but it's supposedly pretty jarring at first.

That said, once you get those big gorgeous landscape shots or massive effects sequences, the higher frame rate really makes it pop.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

I do think if it becomes commonplace to use it, audiences will adapt just as they did for color, 'talkies' and computer animated films.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

Me too.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

4K HD uses 120 fps. I have no idea who will be buying those new TVs here in the states, but....cool shit!

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

Seriously. I have a friend who's always up to date (well, more up to date than I am, at least) on the latest electronic stuff. The new stuff they've got coming out is pretty awesome.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Have never seen those before. Can you really see a difference after a certain frame rate? Sometimes I think you'd have to have the eyes of an eagle to perceive the difference in quality advancements visually these days.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

No, the resolution is significantly improved in the newer HD formats that are coming down the pike; and that's why the frame rate is upped so high with 4K HDTV, otherwise motion is very uneven.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

So really, tv evolves and movies stay one step behind. Brilliant :)

[telemann.livejournal.com]

No, it's the other way around. TVs are catching up to motion picture film. Film negatives have much more detail than any TV set could output, even with the planed HDTVs. Frame rate has nothing to do with that ;)

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Are any movies shot on film anymore?

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Most of them still are, and even if they aren't, those movies are shot at rates much much higher than anything done in broadcast TV production.

[pauraque]

Yep, that's it. This is the same reason that sometimes when I play games I cap the framerate at 24 because it makes it feel like a movie, so it tricks me into seeing it as a more "epic" experience. I'm well aware of how it works, but I enjoy fooling my brain. :)