Board Thread:Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170222073756/@comment-4028641-20170227045236

I hate to the first person to reply to each and every comment, but I just sometimes can't hold myself back.

I agree with a lot of what SOTO has said. I think it is a very mixed bag, but my main form of contention with his analysis is that I don't think there's ample evidence that this is still entirely within the kid's head.

I think that it's unclear exactly what they meant for that point in the first movie to mean in-universe. We know they're going to explore the "connection" in future films, but for all we know the tangent between the "live action" and "LEGO" movies is much more natural than just the imagination of a kid. By the sounds of it, they're looking to change and expand the rules, not do the same twist over-and-over again. Again, it's clearly not just in the kid's head. It's an actual portal to an actual alternate universe where the LEGOS do not lose their sentience.

I don't see any evidence that they planned this entire movie out as a play-cession of some kid. There's scenes of pools of lava flooding streets, complex bat-robots transforming and flying away, huge sets that no one could actually be able to build in real life... I know the first film has stuff like that, but in that film they at least talk about that aspect. The Lego Batman Movie is self-contained for the most part, and concentrates on exploring the film's universe. Any goofiness comes not from "oh Andy doesn't know much about Harry Potter or homosexuality," but simply from the tone of the film and its comedy.

I think if the creators had meant for the Will Ferrell basement twist to be concretely interpreted across their entire franchise, they would never have connected to something like Lego Batman: The Game (2009). I think it's clear that the bigger picture here is much more harder to gage than just that "Will Ferrell Jr controls every single universe in the LEGO-verse."