Board Thread:Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170222073756/@comment-5918438-20170301001150

(They-sters unite!) So the plot thickens... A lot of new information has been brought up. I'm a bit too bogged up in other work right now to devote time to a more extensive reply just yet, but I'm loving how this is already turning into a debate of Clara Oswald (or Osgood) proportions. Even in Doctor Who proper, we're never quite sure where Moffat (or anyone else) is going, just yet, so we have to just work with what we've got.

In this case, I'm not sure it does quite boil down to "it's all definitely just toys". It might even get a lot more complex than that in future films, and importantly, the people in charge don't even know where they're going with it all yet. Them-being-actual-LEGO certainly plays into the humour this time, but it can equally be read as its own self-contained universe.

Representation in LEGO form does not equal invalidity. I would have given the exact same argument expanded on above: in comic stories, or in Dreamland, there is no narrative explanation for why the visuals are depicted in a certain way, and there's no real reason for it. Unless in the end, it was all just a play session, these are characters who are being represented as LEGO minifigures--and that's just how they look and function in this story, and we accept that.

Oh no! I'm giving a full-length reply! This NB admin will be back in the next issue of... THE LEGO SAGA: DWU EDITION