What is Digg?51 Comments
- sockpuppets, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24Your membership in the repost police has been duly noted, Sergeant Dove.
- vudicarus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22"A technical tour-de-force." too bad it was blurry.
- sockpuppets, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23Yeah I wish I could agree but I can't. It's a shame he went through all that effort yet apparently used a camera phone to record the whole thing.
- CamoChris, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14It's Lego not Legos.
- vudicarus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13...and camera movement was jerky. and the camera angles weren't always the same, lighting was off, and it was obviously hard to match dancing moves. . . not that i could do better...just can't call it a "technical tour-de-force". enjoyed none-the-less
- leoedin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9get a camera with MACRO MODE!!
It must of taken so many photos - they could of taken the time to borrow a better camera and tripod :o - DBiz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9It was a bit blurry, but I appreciate the effort that was put into it.
Still... I think the Bollywood Thriller that was posted a few days back tops this one, if not only because of the hilarity. - VeganG, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8There's always a Lego fanboy ready to point out this fact that NO ONE CARES ABOUT.
- ekleinunt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I rate it an E for effort
and an F for f*cking sucked to watch. - thatgirlismine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Do you use tissue instead of Kleenex and photoopy instead of Xerox too?
- Eccohawk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5He's mostly right. It's LEGO, not Lego or Legos, or legos. It might seem like splitting hairs, but to most LEGO enthusiasts and AFOLs (Adult Fans of LEGO) it's fairly universally known. As to the question regarding the plurality of it all, you would refer to them as LEGO bricks.
As far as the video is concerned, I wouldn't really call it a LEGO video, although it uses a lot of LEGO in it. But seeing as it also uses a lot of clay, construction paper, and poster board, it's not a true LEGO animation. Probably their first attempt at stop-motion animation. Seems like their focus was on the background instead of the minifigs, which is why so many seem to be crying foul about the poor video quality. The auto-focus might simply have been off. Check out www.BrickFilms.com if you want to see some masterfully done LEGO animations. - Dalif, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5You know, there's this new invention.. it's called a pause button. Get friendly with it, and it might save you from having to post a comment here in the future.
- gharding, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I'm digging you down because it's LEGO, not Lego. Get it right.
- sockpuppets, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Meece, I think.
- ElSimo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3dugg for coolness. To all the whiners: Please post the link to all your perfectly done Thriller Lego videos.
- Stuntaneous, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2plural: lego
- Blizzardman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It was hard to tell which voice was Michaels and which was the girls =/.
- VaporBro, on 10/26/2007, -0/+2Dugg for effort. That must have taken forever to do. I have done stop motion before, but it didn't look nearly as blurry. My sugguestion to the person that did this stop motion Lego fest:
If you are going to invest the amount of time that you did, make sure you have a good camera. Also, I see that you used Ticky Tack to hold the lego people in place. Good idea, but I would recommend NOT just starting your Lego people over and over again on the same Tacky Runway. Grab tacky that the chars have already stepped on, and add it to their path. It will look a LOT smoother. The entire first verse was the Michael Lego Jackson going back and forth on the Tacky Runway.
Good job though! Must have smoked a LOT of weed to do that...Good job. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What's the name for multiple small plastic pieces in a Lego set?
- ehmjay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2the monty python lego vid was much better, but I digg it cause its Michael Jackson! And thriller seriously was teh greatest music vid...err..."short film" ever made.
- beelz, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MG7HKjgUKw
- lsatkins, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That's why google paid 1.6 billion for youtube! It's amazing videos like this. Honestly i thought it was great. I can't imagine the time and patience it took to make the video. The creativity of some people amazes me.
- terrya64, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I just looked at it side by side with the Real Thriller , and I must say excellent work..
- davidod87, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1More depth than the original.
- sylviarocks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I thought it was awesome, it must have taken such a long time to do...I used to do small movies with "LEGO Toy's" (did I spell that right?) and it's hard not to get frusturated with it after awhile. So what if he spelled it wrong, the effort put out is enough to make up for it.
- cprincipe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I prefer the Hyderabad (sp?) version.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Someone put a good version of this on stage6.divx.com... the video quality sucks
- Brightside, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4digg++ for Thriller awesome song. And this thing is pretty cool. Stop whining about it being blurry, it still took a lot of work. Plus its better than that Bollywood version.
- yahoofrom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Golimar mar mar mar.....
- JonDiggsIt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1it sucked
- TheJerome, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I know several other people who could point out flaws for its non-legoness (I hope I don't get ripped for inventing a term that destroys the integrity of the word "lego"), but I thought it was creative. Why didn't they take the time to acquire a better camera? It probably took a couple of hours to make.
- limbuster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0this was great. A real treat.
- kennyvader, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"The word LEGO® is a brand name and is very special to all of us in the LEGO Group Companies. We would sincerely like your help in keeping it special. Please always refer to our bricks as 'LEGO Bricks or Toys' and not 'LEGOS.' By doing so, you will be helping to protect and preserve a brand of which we are very proud and that stands for quality the world over. Thank you! Susan Williams, Consumer Services."
- Kennedy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This was on digg about a year ago. Hmmmm, just in time for Halloween... NO DIGG Old Story!
- sundancekid503, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Blurry video, kinda jumpy, poor quality, but still ***** sweet! In a weird way I think the low production quality gave it a fun "campy" feel.
- tomkin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Super old movie.
- PixelVision, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@ joelhardi
That's just wrong. There's so many people who use language such as "should of", that will never be correct just because lots of people use it. You can't go around CHANGING the correct grammar of language. If a lot of people say it wrong it means they need educating. It just goes to show that people would prefer to say something grammatically incorrect and change the dictionary than admit they're wrong. People can call it what they want.. but they need to accept they may not be calling it by it's correct name. The lego corporation isn't setting language anyway, they're telling you the name of their own damn product. I refer you to my sand analogy for the correct way of talking about lego. - Bob_Oliver, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I wonder if Lego Michael Jackson likes sleepovers with little Lego boys...
- HtownAllen, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4I don't remember Thriller being out of focus.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Duplicate Story
http://digg.com/movies/Michael_Jackson_s_Thriller_Video_Lego-Style - joelhardi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Language is made by people, not corporations. If I want to google or xerox something, or play with legos or tinkertoys, I can do it. And the words that people actually use win out and make it into things like dictionaries, the AP/NYT/Chicago style books etc. When that happens, things like capitalization (no camelCase) and plurals (in English, usually ends with s) conform to actual usage, not some company's vain attempts to protect its corporate branding. The last time I checked, "lego" or "Lego" or "LEGO" or "legos" hadn't made it into any standard references, so people can call it whatever they want.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0"You know, there's this new invention.. it's called a pause button. Get friendly with it, and it might save you from having to post a comment here in the future."
Are you technologically illiterate or something? I mean, do you even KNOW what you just said and realize how it make absolutely no sense? :)
A pause button has nothing to do with how fast something can load and stream.
Get friendly with knowledge, and it might save you from having to post a stupid reply here in the future. - DoubtfulSalmon, on 10/12/2007, -14/+9Buried for 'Legos' typo in title.
'Lego' = singular, 'Lego' = plural, 'LegOS' = an operating system for an embedded system.
Get it right you stupid sheeps! - GalacticCmdr, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Dear god! Was that shot with a camera phone?!? Completely sucks
- PixelVision, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Indeed. I'm not going to bury it because it is actually a cool video.. But it is correct to say lego for one or many lego bricks. It helps to think of it being similar to sand. You don't call lots of sand "sands", you call it "sand". For singular you say a "grain of sand", for lego it's "a lego brick" or "a lego piece". Legos is simply wrong. Refer to the following statement from the Lego company.
"The word LEGO® is a brand name and is very special to all of us in the LEGO Group Companies. We would sincerely like your help in keeping it special. Please always refer to our bricks as 'LEGO Bricks or Toys' and not 'LEGOS.' By doing so, you will be helping to protect and preserve a brand of which we are very proud and that stands for quality the world over. Thank you! Susan Williams, Consumer Services."
Oh and yes! I do care about this way too much. - Cozmcphish, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2Funny this story was one of my first diggs to hit frontpage (over a year ago). Does this mean I can submit my other frontpagers again?
- Cozmcphish, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3If so check this one out: http://digg.com/music/Physical_Proof_Why_Nickelback_is_LAME
- joelhardi, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1Agreed. I'll never get back the time I lost watching this thing. Fundamental things like the video taking place at night would have been good to capture.
I did enjoy the disclaimer at the beginning about how they don't endorse belief in the occult. Ummm guys, when you are Michael Jackson or you make a real music video, then maybe people will care. But I don't see too many kids deciding to turn to satan-worship after watching your lego men twitch around. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2So poorly done. I guess the 11 year olds are impressed.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -12/+1Good concept, but it's obnoxious that it has to stop and load every 10 seconds. Almost unwatchable.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is