Talk:The Lego Movie/Archive 1

Will Forte as Abe Lincoln
In an REDDIT AMA with Will Forte, Forte himself confirms that he will indeed be "reprising" the role of Abe Lincoln for the film.

His reply went as follows:

''Thanks very much! Did you know that the guys who did Clone High also did Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, 21 Jump Street and the soon-to-come 22 Jump Street and Lego Movie? And they let me reprise my role as Abe Lincoln in the Lego Movie — it’s a tiny part, but it was really fun to work with those guys again — they’re amazing!''

Hope this helps with the casting section, and I don't know where the guy above got his information (the "credits")... they seem legit, but without a source it could all be hogwash.98.110.5.128 (talk) 06:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Reception section
We don't need 1,100 words and three long paragraphs of positive reviews. This isn't a fan site &mdash; half of this or less gets the point across and provides readers with a representative cross-section. If anyone has any particular critics or quotes they believe is especially necessary, say it here. That section is gong to be trimmed. And before anybody cites WP:NOTPAPER, note that the policy there specifies, "[T]his policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars" and the content guidelines on that page, including WP:INDISCRIMINATE.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I would suggest dropping grades and number of stars. The overall reaction is positive, so past the summary, we should sample reviews to nail down why the reaction is positive. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 01:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Exactly. And we'll also need to remove some of the reviewers as well. It's now 1,200 words. That's crazy with a movie where there aren't a lot of divergent opinions. This isn't Last Tango in Paris or 2001: A Space Odyssey. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's discuss the size of the section here. The general goal of this section is to state what critics thought of the film and why. Overly positive and negative responses overall tend to indicate a lack of nuance. We can say that most critics liked it, and then we highlight reasons why they did. Considering the nature of this film and the relative universality of the response, there shouldn't be a ton of reasons. We can keep the section straightforward in avoiding redundant highlights. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 02:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I usually write sections like this and no one ever has a problem with it. It looked clear concise to me.I never heard of a section limit. Koala15 (talk) 02:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It is more about good writing than a specific rule to limit a section. Any film article could theoretically cite all the available reviews available for a given film, but that would be too much. It depends on the nature of the film, I think -- the winners and nominees in the current awards season will be critiqued in a variety of ways, where this kind of film tends to be made for enjoyment. Considering that and the unity of the responses, it means more than other kinds of films that it is more straightforward to report what critics thought. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 02:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree with Tenebrae and Erik, the idea here is to showcase a few reviews to represent the general concensus of critical community, both of the film's strengths and faults.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Length of cast section
I don't know about anyone else, but I think the cast section is a little extensive. Do people really need to know who voices characters with only one line (e.g. Abe Lincoln, William Shakespeare, C-3PO, Lando Calrissian and so on. I think this should be the cast section.


 * Chris Pratt - Emmet
 * Will Ferrell - Lord Business/President Business, and the man upstairs
 * Elizabeth Banks - Wyldstyle
 * Will Arnett - Batman
 * Liam Neeson - Bad Coop/Good Cop, and Pa Cop
 * Morgan Freeman - Vitruvius
 * Nick Offerman - MetalBeard
 * Alison Brie - Unikitty/AngryKitty/BiznizKitty/AstroKitty/QueasyKitty
 * Charlie Day - Ben Spaceman "Benny"

And maybe Superman, Wonder Woman, and Green Lantern.

I would change it myself but the article is locked. Ig44165 (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Why can't we have a "cameos' section? The notable names that said one line deserve a mention. Koala15 (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm changing the cast section now. Ig44165 (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Someone did a good job with the cast section, though which character is Keegan Michael Key Ig44165 (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Last sentence of plot
Is "Lego" the plural of "Lego," like with the nouns "deer" and "sheep"? Or would it be "Legos" or "Legoes"? Because the last sentence reads, "...allowing Finn's little sister to play with his Lego as well," with seems grammatically incorrect. What do people with more experience in, um, Lego journalism say? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Its Legos 02:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ig44165 (talk • contribs)

"Lego" refers to the product, and is an uncountable noun. The individual bricks are called "bricks", or "Lego bricks". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.55.220 (talk) 12:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

It's generally "LEGOs" in America and "LEGO" in Europe, but both are wrong. LEGO is the company, and there is only one of those. The plastic items are "LEGO bricks". http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/10839/legos-not-lego --Sam (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

More Plot Bits
Are to be plundered here: Bachcell (talk) 04:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The Adventures of Clutch Powers
Is this movie somehow related to The Adventures of Clutch Powers? Or any other LEGO film or TV show (e.g. Ninjago, or CHIMA. I haven't seen these myself (other than an episode of Ninjago a few months ago). But I have heard about them. Ig44165 (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * No. --Sam (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure, I watched the movie again and noticed that the Green Ninja is a Master Builder, and Bionicle is a LEGO world 181.194.55.54 (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Infobox broken
Infobox broken as of 11:55am 24/02/14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.171.194.15 (talk) 11:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2014
I like to request to add a new edit is for the home video release for the Lego movie.

TheLegoMan2014 (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 15:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Animation Type
Is the animation type for this movie really computer-animation? Based on the trailer, it looks more like a computer/stop-motion hybrid.  Rowdy the Ant  talk to Rowdy  14:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's computer-animated in a way to make it look like stop-motion animation. Some sources say it does feature some stop-motion, but primarily it's computer-animated.  Micro phonics talk 23:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The only portion of the movie using actual stop-motion is the end credits. --Anterras (talk) 22:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Grammar change
The name Business is not plural so the use of "s+apostrophe" is incorrect. The text has multiple examples of Business'   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.120.79.241 (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

RS discusses Oscar snub- where to put it?
I've found an RS (Washington Post) specifically discussing the Oscar snub (and I could probably find more). Should this be a one sentence thing in reception, or possibly a paragraph, a sub section, or should it not be placed in the article at all? Luthien22 (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Probably under Allocades. "The Lego Movie was not nominated for Best Animated Feature for the Oscars, which caused many critics to question its absence. etc etc." There's a few sources out there that, in serious review, do note why it was likely overlooked (non-traditional animation compared to the others, etc., which should be added, plus one could include the oft-repeated lego statuette Phil Lord made following that. --M ASEM  (t) 03:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * While not super important in the long run, this moment generated enough conversion to where I feel it'd be important enough to include a paragraph detailing its omission. Specifically things like Lord's tweet. Also could be included: a description of the Oscar song performance. I wrote a nice paragraph on this and it was deleted earlier, so there's starting material if we decide to go through with something like that. Saginaw-hitchhiker (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Aside from not thinking it should be included, that paragraph was way too much. Others are talking about a sentence and you wrote a chapter. Every year, there is some film that everyone says was "snubbed". And people talk about it, for a few weeks, then life moves on. The fact is, most films don't get nominated and there are only so many that can be. Lego Movie didn't get nominated. WP:RECENTISM suggests using a 10 year test. I honestly don't think that the lack of a nomination for this movie will be of continuing interest 10 years (and probably 2 sequels) from now. Just because something got reported doesn't mean it gets included. There are thousands of articles talking about Travolta kissing Scarlett Johanssen and touching Idina Menzel. That doesn't mean it belongs in the bio of either woman. And, for the record, I loved the Lego Movie and I think it should have been nominated, but that's just opinion. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Did the live action stuff at the end (Will Farrel) disqualify it as animated? Eric Cable |  Talk  14:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that wouldn't have disqualified it. The Academy rules state that "animation must figure in no less than 75 percent of the picture’s running time." The animated portions of the film were well over 75% of the running time; the film didn't have to be 100% animation to qualify. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it belongs at all. Most films don't get nominated. Although there was a little talk about it, it's not really that notable. Including it would be more a matter of WP:RECENTISM or WP:NOTNEWS. In the bigger scheme, it's not that important. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Spelling of Emmett
I have corrected the spelling of Emmett throughout the article to match the back cover of the soundtrack album. Alan (talk) 07:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Official credits
These might be available online, in which case they're useable; as just listed here, it's OR. Still, In the meantime, if it helps with tracking down confirmations, leads and spellings, it's a good resource to start.


 * A WARNER BROS. PICTURES Presentation iIn Association with VILLAGE ROADSHOW PICTURES in Association with RATPAC-DUNE ENTERTAINMENT in Association with LEGO SYSTEM A/S
 * A VERTIGO ENTERTAINMENT/ LIN PICTURES Production

CAST (In Alphabetical Order)

Additional Voices by CRAIG BERRY, DAVID BURROWS, TODD HANSEN. CHRIS McKAY, DOUG NICHOLAS, JORMA TACCONE
 * Batman/Bruce Wayne 	WILL ARNETT
 * Wyldstyle/Lucy	ELIZABETH BANKS
 * Blake 	CRAIG BERRY
 * Unikitty	ALISON BRIE
 * Octan Robot	DAVID BURROWS
 * C-3PO	ANTHONY DANIELS
 * Benny	CHARLIE DAY
 * Mom   AMANDA FARINOS
 * Han Solo 	KEITH FERGUSON
 * Lord Business/President Business/The Man Upstairs 	WILL FERRELL
 * Abraham Lincoln	WILL FORTE
 * Wally 	DAVE FRANCO
 * Vitruvius 	MORGAN FREEMAN
 * Gandalf 	TODD HANSEN
 * Green Lantern	JONAH HILL
 * Barry 	JAKE JOHNSON
 * Foreman Jim	KEEGAN-MICHAEL KEY
 * Lord Business’ Assistant 	KELLY LAFFERTY
 * Larry The Barista	CHRIS McKAY
 * TV Presenter	CHRISTOPHER MILLER
 * Duplo	GRAHAM MILLER
 * Bad Cop/Good Cop/Pa Cop	LIAM NEESON
 * Surfer Dave 	DOUG NICHOLAS
 * Shaq	 SHAQUILLE O’NEAL
 * Metal Beard 	NICK OFFERMAN
 * Robot Foreman	CHRIS PALUSZEK
 * Emmet Brickowski	CHRIS PRATT
 * Joe 	CHRIS ROMANO
 * Finn	JADON SAND
 * Wonder Woman 	COBIE SMULDERS
 * Gail/Ma Cop 	MELISSA STURM
 * Shakespeare	JORMA TACCONE
 * Superman	CHANNING TATUM
 * Lando	BILLY DEE WILLIAMS
 * Voice of Computer	LEIKI VESKIMETS

FILMMAKERS

--Tenebrae (talk) 02:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Directed by	PHIL LORD & CHRISTOPHER MILLER
 * Screenplay by	PHIL LORD & CHRISTOPHER MILLER
 * Story by	DAN HAGEMAN & KEVIN HAGEMAN and PHIL LORD & CHRISTOPHER MILLER
 * Produced by	DAN LIN,ROY LEE
 * Executive Producers	JILL WILFERT, MATTHEW ASHTON. KATHLEEN FLEMING, ALLISON ABBATE, ZAREH NALBANDIAN, JON BURTON, BENJAMIN MELNIKER, MICHAEL E. USLAN, SEANNE WINSLOW, JAMES PACKER, STEVEN MNUCHIN, MATT SKIENA and BRUCE BERMAN
 * Animation Supervisor	CHRIS MCKAY


 * I don't know where you got this information from, but there is no source to back this casting claim. Can you provide one? 98.110.5.128 (talk) 06:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I got it as a member of the press, and as I said right off, we can't use it since it's OR. I put it here as background only and so that we have exact search terms that we can use to try to to find it online, since studios and press websites sometimes post such official cast lists. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you're allowed to cite videos, so do you think we could cite the actual movie, based on its credits at the end? We'd have to confirm that it corresponds to this set of credits, though (by watching the movie?).--Bananasoldier (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * These credits match pretty closely what’s on IMDB, so I would leave them. I would change the spelling of Emmett to match what’s on the back of the CD. I can upload a picture showing that if required and advice given on how to do that.Alan (talk) 07:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Film series
High, I recently created a Lego film series page. I am new to Wikipedia and apologise that I didn't discuss this here. The article can be found here - Lego (film series). Feel free to contest or delete the article. --OldmanPrime (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There is already List of Lego films and TV series, and in my opinion we don't need another article just for The Lego Movie sequels and spinoffs. "Lego (film series)" is also very general name, which does not limit the article to have only the theatrical films, but also covers direct-to-video films, which are numerous.--Carniolus (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Infobox Layout - Director and Screenplay Setup
I am putting this here to be a centre for discussion amongst Wikipedians, particularly those who have been making these changes, in regards to the changes that have been made to the article's infobox. More precisely, to two sections that keep being changed - "Directed by" and "Screenplay by". This discussion is mainly because for both sections, they were done by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, but constant changes continue to switch between going for this (1.):

"Phil Lord and Christopher Miller"

And this (in Plainlist format)(2.): * Phil Lord

Christopher Miller

Personally, I believe changing between these two setups has got to stop, and one of these used indefinitely, so a consensus needs to be reached over which to go for on this article. I prefer the plainlist format arrangement, because it's neat and splits up those involved. Please discuss and comment below on which you prefer, highlighting in bold the number for the format you wish to see being used indefinitely. Once consensus is reached, wikipedians must do their best to maintain this format and revert anyone trying to change it to the other. GUtt01 (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, the back and forth is getting a bit silly. I don't see why two separate people shouldn't be listed as two separate people, unless "Phil Lord and Christopher Miller" is a formal production entity of some sort. The problem is that they have a combined article, but again, unless that's a formal entity of some sort, I don't think it should affect how they're credited in an infobox. And, noting the talk page section at their article, there seems to be some debate over that combined article in the first place... --Fru1tbat (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I took a look at that Talk Page link you put up, and made my own opinion to that matter. But I later started a new section concerning the whole content of the article, if you like to check that out. GUtt01 (talk) 08:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Just to let Editors know, I may remove the HIDDEN TXT in the infobox in the next few days, as there hasn't been any trouble of late, of people changing the layout of this section. But if the ridiculous switching around starts up again, I may return it. GUtt01 (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The HIDDEN TXT I put in has now been removed from Infobox, as there's been no trouble of late from people changing the layout of certain sections within it. But if the ridiculous switching around starts up again, I will re-instate it. For now, this matter's discussion is suspended until further notice. GUtt01 (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Themes
Someone attempted to add a "Themes" section and it was reverted because it was unsourced. It wasn't a bad first draft though and it would be worth adding something similar if someone could find suitable sources to base it on instead of writing their own original analysis. -- 109.78.235.236 (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)