Forum:Coverage/validity: The LEGO Batman Movie

The LEGO Batman Movie is not currently covered by this wiki because it was believed that the movie's use of the Daleks was unlicensed. However, DWM 564 confirms that they were, in fact, officially licensed. So I believe that it should be covered by this wiki, although I'm not sure about validity. I'm aware that Cookieboy 2005 planned to start an inclusion debate after our eventual LEGO Dimensions debate because he believes he could use Rule 4 By Proxy to argue for its validation if Dimensions is ruled valid, but I think we could just start another thread after that debate (assuming R4BP is still a ting, that is). Cgl1999 ☎  22:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion
I do agree with coverage of the film, although I still think this would've been best after a LEGO Dimensions validation. Cookieboy 2005 ☎  22:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thread:211485 at User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates 2 is the relevant discussion. What does 564 actually say? Najawin ☎  22:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I have a forum I've been writing about LEGO Dimensions. In my opinion, we should not have this debate until after that point. Hugely relevant topics - such as if Rule 4 by proxy applies - can not be discussed again until we've had that discussion. My OP is about 90% done but I have not had time to finish it totally. I request some patience as I've been very busy this summer.


 * To clarify this point - yes the Daleks were always licensed. We had evidence they were licensed in the original forum, with quotes from the director. The idea that they are not licensed is just an untruth that was invented on the fly. But I don't think we gain anything by having a debate about this when it very clearly is a topic we aren't ready to tackle yet. OS25🤙☎️ 23:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


 * (I, er, also agree with this; should definitely be covered, but it’s much easier and simpler doing LD first) Cookieboy 2005 ☎  23:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I just thought we could potentially validate it later via another thread after the LD one. Cgl1999 ☎  23:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

(Yeah, I saw those quotes. I'd just really like to know what 564 says.) Najawin ☎  00:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * So in short Cgl1999, do you want this forum to establish non-valid coverage so a future forum can tackle validity? If so surely this should be in the Panopticon? OS25🤙☎️ 00:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Najawin:

"ㅤOh, and Daleks! Or, as they're referred to in the film itself, "British robots". ㅤNow, this euphemism wasn't used for some contractual reason – rights were granted. But director Christ McKay told the CBR.com website that this was, in fact, a different take on the line by Zack Galifianakis. McKay, who grew up watching Doctor Who, thought it was funnier and it stuck."

- DWM 564


 * Hope this helps. 00:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh and this is the CBR article.

"“The BBC said we could use the Daleks, and we could’ve called them the Daleks,” he said, explaining that the scripted version of the scene – in which Joker introduces special guest villains like Sauron, the Kraken, and Lord Voldemort – featured the Clown Prince of Crime introducing the Doctor’s major adversary in a quippy way. However, when actor Zack Galifianakis recorded the lines, one of his takes featured a joke in which "he says all the names, and he mispronounced Sauron and Voldemort, and then he said ‘British robots.’” To McKay, a fan of "Doctor Who," the “point of view that [the Joker] didn’t understand who the Daleks were” struck him as funnier than original line. To the director, it recalled the days when "Doctor Who" was a cult show in the United States, airing on random public TV stations. “It’s way more mainstream than when I was a kid,” he said. “There are kids now growing up on ‘Doctor Who’ and get it and love it. But it’s still not something everybody knows, so I thought [Joker saying] ‘It’s British robots, ask your nerd friends,’ was just a great joke.”"

- British Robots, Bane Voice & More LEGO Batman Movie Questions Answered


 * So this is purely a stylistic choice. Nothing to do with licensing. 00:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Ah, the CBR article is in the old thread. So no new evidence per se, just that the old thread had a weird conclusion. Najawin ☎  01:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with coverage and validity of this, unless somebody has explicitly stated that it's not intended to be in the DWU. Aquanafrahudy   📢   06:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

No, no, no. Validity is its own can of worms. Even if we settle coverage here, we really shouldn't touch validity until after Lego Dimensions. It's.... Complicated. Najawin ☎  06:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Why? Surely Lego Dimensions, a completely separate work by separate writers, has no bearing on the validity of this? Aquanafrahudy   📢   06:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * It's complicated. Suffice it to say that the production team matters as well as just the individual author, and there's the same overall corporate vision. Ish. I'm just gonna grab a random quote from OS25 in the original LEGO Batman thread.
 * I will never stop bring up Lego Dimensions because, for the billionth time, it being invalid doesn't meant that it doesn't exist. We do not need to prove from an in-universe perspective that that the Daleks aren't from a universe where they're a toy. All that we need to prove is the authorial context for why they included the Daleks and their logic.


 * The fact is, Lego Dimensions does count for the people making the LEGO films.
 * It's really just a headache that we're better off taking in the right order. It's still going to give everyone migraines, but it will hopefully end with conceptual clarity, rather than just more confusion. Najawin ☎  07:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Coverage, rather than validity, was what I was really trying to resolve with this, but I didn't see how I could make a coverage debate thread for something the wiki doesn't cover without also throwing validity in there. Cgl1999 ☎  07:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)