User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170222073756/@comment-4028641-20170301001820

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170222073756/@comment-4028641-20170301001820 Amorkuz wrote: On this I must side with OttselSpy25.

There were plenty of mind-boggling transformations in the DWU, including transformations into toys. Amy Pond was turned into a peg doll in Night Terrors; the Eighth Doctor was turned into a ventriloquist dummy in Solitaire; the whole TARDIS crew has been miniaturised in Planet of Giants, to name just the few.

Just the fact of being toys cannot discount the characters from being themselves. What it boils down to (every time) is intent. They could be characters turned into toys.

They could be characters intended to be themselves but represented through toys, which would not be too different from animated images in Dreamland or images in comic stories, which do not match the original characters exactly. In fact, although provided in an invalid game, there is a very simple technobabble explanation ready for any writer to use: a computer virus affected our perception and we see things as 8-bit computer game characters/LEGO pieces/play-doh figures/etc.

Or they could be intended as toys, based on the characters from Doctor Who.

Like I said, I can object to very little that you've said here. My only qualm is that I'm still not convinced that the DWU within the LEGO muliverse is presented as a "bunch of toys." In the LEGO Batman film universe, for instance, there's a few jokes here and there about the fact that they are LEGOs. That sort of thing. But within all currently presented DWU material, it's basically just been used as a stylistic choice. Asking "Why do they look like LEGOS in this" would be like asking "Why does the Doctor have a weird butt-chin" in A Rose by Any Other Name or "Why does Gabby never look the same in any Titan comic ever?" Because art-style, basically.

EDIT: Ah, SOTO's WAY beat me to it!