×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Recreating the Matrix In Legos

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the better-than-the-sequels dept.

The Matrix 21

LoneHighway writes "Salon.com has a write up of what is being called an epic feat of Nerdity, the "Trinity, Help!" scene from The Matrix has been recreated using only Legos. It took 440 hours for Trevor Boyd and Steve Ilett to create Lego Matrix Trinity Help, which is a perfect shot-by-shot remake of a short but memorable scene from the Wachowski Brothers’ masterpiece, executed via stop-motion animation and a nearly infinite amount of Legos. They even provide a split screen comparison to the original. Very cool!"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

21 comments

So awesome, so conflicting (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 4 years ago | (#30274638)

Great work, but it would be nice if there were a non-evil [nytimes.com] product to make it with.

400 hours though - the surface characteristics of Lego plastic seem ideal for 3D rendering. Great practice of patience, guys.

Sorry... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30288240)

As an ex-child I find it really hard to sympathize with the creator of Mega Bloks, as much as I am against patent abuse. They shamelessly cash in on childrens' misfortune and Lego's good name.

A poor parent sees this noticeably cheaper Lego-looking thing (hey it's all lego right? Hmm looks just like any other lego I've seen...) and buys it for their child, happy they've finally found a gift they can afford. On their birthday/Christmas/whatever the child finds out THEY GOT LEG-oh wait, Mega Bloks. Which don't quite work with Lego. And only have generic large-block parts, like early 80s lego. Uh, thanks mom, hehe yeah this is great. No my poverty-stricken childhood is awesome, I'm really happy, this'll go right along with my Brick Boy and AM Zony Walkman. Child goes in their room and secretly cries. They know they shouldn't, it's the thought that counts, but they can't help it, their last hope for a while of having some cool toys is shattered. Child can only make toys...from scrap...again...and stare longingly at neighbor kid's awesome stuff, which seems totally out of reach.

Parent may also secretly cry. Mega Bloks laughs all the way to the bank.

Posting anon because that is a first-hand account :(

Re:Sorry... (1)

da5idnetlimit.com (410908) | more than 4 years ago | (#30295108)

Well, I do remember my father telling me about playing Cow Boys using sheep jaw bones as pistols, because they were poor.
He also told me about using old wheels to run along with a stick and a nail to direct them.

One thing that you could look at to understand the situation is the change in expectation in Bhutan since they "opened up" (The only country in the world that calculate Gross National Happiness...)
Now they have TV. And ads. And higher expectations about what they "need". And less happiness...

Re:Sorry... (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 4 years ago | (#30324944)

Why doesn't the poor parent just buy the Legos then? Oh, right, because they charge $25/lb for moderate-grade injection-molded plastic. Who hates the poor kids again?

There's some weird triangulation between marketing, entitlement and corporatism going on in that story.

Re:Sorry... (1)

mrslacker (1122161) | more than 4 years ago | (#30325938)

> Oh, right, because they charge $25/lb for moderate-grade injection-molded plastic.

And yet, it will last 30+ years, making exceptionally cheap compared to most other toys.

Re:Sorry... (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 4 years ago | (#30328212)

And yet, it will last 30+ years, making exceptionally cheap compared to most other toys.

indeed, yet the poor rarely buy on value. I get my kids nice quality used toys at the second-hand store, yet somehow it seems the box opening experience would have been important for the GP.

Re:Sorry... (1)

v1 (525388) | more than 4 years ago | (#30338808)

There is just no comparison between LEGOs and the cheap knockoffs. I remember having a giant amount of LEGOs and I was only interested in the functional ones. The men, windows, and other random parts quickly were thrown away.

I made things like a coin box with a functional three tumbler keyed lock. (if I would have glued the blocks to prevent disassembly, you'd be hard pressed to open it without the lego key) I wish those hadn't been given away to a relative when I got older.

I picked up a box of blocks a few years back, not realizing they were the crappy knockoffs. Can't make anything like that, the blocks catch and jam, don't fit well, have very little holding power, it's a mess. I remember being able to take the 2x4 LEGO blocks and make a stick almost six feet long held horizontally from the middle before they separated. Just try that with imitation LEGOs.

Many things you do get what you pay for. And LEGOs are one such example.

Re:So awesome, so conflicting (2, Insightful)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 4 years ago | (#30290870)

"it would be nice if there were a non-evil [nytimes.com] product to make it with."

Lego is not evil. The generic blocks are evil. I bought a box of the Best-Lock blocks mentioned in the article, which are supposedly "blocks compatible with Lego's", because the Star Wars kit they sold was about a quarter of what the Lego kit sold for.

It was absolute crap. I tried to build the kit following the instructions but the blocks don't fit well and the design instructions didn't overlap pieces so entire walls would not be connected to neighboring pieces and a slight touch would bring it crashing down. Best-Lock is absolutely horrible and I'll never buy another best-lock anything.

I can understand why Lego sued, if I made a successful children's toy and I saw competitors bringing crappy copies to the market I'd sue too.

Re:So awesome, so conflicting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30299456)

blocks compatible with Lego's

Why doesn't block's have an apostrophe if lego's does?

Re:So awesome, so conflicting (1)

RichardJenkins (1362463) | more than 4 years ago | (#30302400)

He's talking about blocks which are compatible with Lego's blocks.

If this is true then the blocks that are Lego's own ('Legos' if you will) are compatible with the blocks of some other company.

Re:So awesome, so conflicting (1)

TomXP411 (860000) | more than 4 years ago | (#30302768)

Lego is the name of a company, not an individual piece of an individual product. Lego bricks shouldn't be called "Legos" or "Lego's". They should be called Lego pieces, Lego bricks, or Lego blocks.

The article could read: "...recreated entirely from Lego blocks." and be grammatically correct.

Re:So awesome, so conflicting (2, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 4 years ago | (#30324770)

Lego is not evil. The generic blocks are evil. ... I can understand why Lego sued, if I made a successful children's toy and I saw competitors bringing crappy copies to the market I'd sue too.

I won't defend the low-quality blocks (that's why I used the negated form in my wish) but Corporations aren't granted patents for all time, they get to profit for a while, then they have to give back.

Re:So awesome, so conflicting (0, Redundant)

iainl (136759) | more than 4 years ago | (#30322700)

Well, you could use K'Nex blocks or Mega Blox, if you consider them less Evil.

Of course, then you just have to deal with the minor issue of them also being Shit.

Re:So awesome, so conflicting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30342756)

Oh, shut the fuck up moron.

Nice trailer... (1)

hallux.sinister (1633067) | more than 4 years ago | (#30353518)

now where is the rest of the movie? I made a whole bag of popcorn, and... WTF, just one scene? Seriously though, this is just about the nerdiest/geekiest thing I've seen since the Matrix itself, and I mean that as high praise.

440 hours?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30361724)

Holy hell that is some very slow stop animating. What were they really doing?

That segment in the the original movie is approximately 1080 frames.

That means were animating one frame every 24 minutes at best (I'm guessing the Lego version has much less frames).

Wow, you guys would get fired if you were working on a commercial project. You would be looking at 6 years of raw time (probably way longer in actual time) to create a 90 minute film. Sloooooooooow!

Re:440 hours?! (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30381664)

Uh, 1:24 at 30 frames per second is 2,520 frames, not 1,080.

Anyway, the 440 hours would also have to include the time it took to crop and align the photos, probably colour-adjust them where needed, and make them into a video. Professional equipment would have taken some of the intensiveness out of the post-processing, but professional equipment is expensive.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...