Forum:The LEGO Dimensions Conundrum, Reconsidered

Index → The Panopticon → The LEGO Dimensions Conundrum, Reconsidered

Spoilers are strongly policed here.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.

Opening post

I keep bumping into pages on the wiki that refer to the events and characters of LEGO Dimensions and the Twelfth Doctor's involvement. Typically, I can't find them when I actually want to (like right now) but they're out there.

Anyway, I know we have an "all canon is canon" policy but I really think we should have a seperate page for "the Doctor (LEGO)". I argue that the events of LEGO Dimensions can't be canon to Doctor Who because the Doctor (LEGO) is not the Doctor from the show, in the same way that the game features LEGO Batman, not regular Batman. LEGO's use of their brand in shows and movies (eg: The LEGO Batman Movie) and the general way LEGO Dimensions and the world of The LEGO Movie are set up make it quite clear that these LEGO representations of the characters are not the characters themselves. They are characters in their own right.

Additionally, the Doctor's own abilities in LEGO Dimensions are different from the "real" Doctor's. Regeneration works on a cycle with no limits, for example. The Twelfth regenerates into the First if defeated in battle. There's also the very obvious fact that the characters are made of LEGO and have the abilities of LEGO. They can fall apart and be put back together.

So even if we consider LEGO Dimensions canon, that is not The Doctor, that is the Doctor (LEGO). So I propose a new page [The Doctor (LEGO)], relevant mergers, and expunging or editing of LEGO details from the relevant pages. Bringing it to the forums because it sounds like a big project. Sorry if this doesn't belong here, it's my first time with something like this. CaptainKaibyo ☎ 19:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

I believe that Lego Dimensions is currently considered invalid, but Doctor, Doctor, Doctor (autocomplete how I miss you) is valid. The nuances of this are many and are to be resolved in a thread coming Soon^TM, from OS25, I believe. It's a complicated topic. Najawin ☎ 19:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

(I don't have much opinion on the topic of this thread, but I'd like to say that autocomplete will be added back very soon.) Bongo50 ☎ 20:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

So as it's been discussed, I've been working on an OP for this topic for a while now. The truth is that the minor alterations I wanted to make were able to be rushed, so since we're having this discussion right now... Here's my OP for it! (Apologies if there are any minor typos or errors) OttselSpy25 ☎ 20:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

In light of this refocusing of the discussion, I have taken the liberty of re-naming the thread to something which makes it clear that we are relitigating something we already ruled upon a long time ago, and also to remove the misguided usage of the word "canon". (This said with no offence to the original poster, the effort is appreciated!) --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 20:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Reopening Post

So to many of you, I'm sure this is a topic that is quite infamous, and there might even be some resistance to revisiting the topic in the first place. So before we get into things, allow me to explain why this forum is not only a discussion that I want to have, it's required due to the circumstances.

LEGO Dimensions was first discussed in Thread:176459, which you can find archived currently at User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates 1. The original forum featured a lot of discussions from users who, quite frankly, did not understand the title and were trying to get a hold on what it was about. Eventually, some users took offense with the game's use of side missions and easter eggs which were optional and relied on the "toys to life" feature of swapping characters. Eventually, User:CzechOut delivered this final conclusion:

"I'm around every day, guys. :)

LEGO Dimensions is not a valid source. As has been discussed numerous times this decade, any game which has multiple outcomes depending on how the player chooses to play isn't an actual narrative. It's a "choose your own adventure", which aren't allowed. Full stop. The presence or absence of cut scenes is irrelevant. This has long been stated at Tardis:Valid sources#When the licensor is the BBC.

Fortunately Wikia has a place for you to contribute about LEGO Dimensions. If you'd like to write articles about LD characters, please proceed to w:c:legodimensions. Here, it's an invalid source which should only really spawn the NOTDWU article, LEGO Dimensions (video game).

User:CzechOut, 9 November 2015"source

This forum not only continued the trend of branching narratives being non-valid by default, it furthermore stuck to the precedent of Worlds in Time, as Dimensions was not only non-valid but not-covered. No pages on writers, unique voice actors, or anything of the like were to be created.

As anyone active in the forums will tell you, both of these elements were recently systematically dismantled via Forum:Revisiting fiction with branching elements and historical policy therein. With Rule 1 of T:VS no longer having anything to do with narratives, it is not a coherent argument that all brands of interaction fiction "aren't narratives". Because of this, the original 2015 forum is now effectively null and void - we can no longer accept the closing statement above as justification to remove LEGO Dimensions from every aspect of the website.

What has been even more problematic in recent years is that the above closing post does not actually tackle the most contentious part of the original debate - whether LEGO Dimensions passes Rule 4 or not. Banning the game itself due to its gameplay elements has left numerous promotional shorts - such as Supergirl Meets E.T. and Doctor, Doctor, Doctor - in a total state of half-coverage. Without the LEGO Dimensions title, it becomes speculation to say that Supergirl, E.T., and the Doctor are not all from the same universe! Thus, these webcasts have been covered in ways that I would not recommend.

But I also want to hammer home that even if we find that this game and the above shorts fail Rule 4, I still think this game deserves someplace on the website.

I will also start things off here by saying that I do not think there is any great value in reassessing every single argument made in the original forum over this topic. Not only were many arguments based on poorly informed understandings of this title, but our policy has been so fundamentally revised that I do not see anything great that is contributed by saying "Well, in 2015 admin1 said this!" The main goal of this forum is to reassess all of the information we have and then make a judgment in the present.

With that, let's begin.

Part 1: The Basics

LEGO Dimensions released on September the 27th, 2015 in North America and the 29th of September 2015 in Europe. The game was the latest iteration of the "toys-to-life" video game genre, started primarily by Skylanders. There's a great Scott the Woz video about this if you want more information.

Anyways, so LEGO Dimensions basically operated off this idea that if LEGO took some of the most beloved franchises in the world and created a game about a group of inter-dimensional travelers falling into these franchises, they could then sell even more game content by releasing individual level packs for said franchises. Each purchase would come with a set of LEGO minifigures, alongside scannable plates. The user could then place any combination of figures on the toy pad. This would make it seem that these different characters had been "summoned" to assist in the gameplay, but this would be disregarded by the greater story and cutscenes.

The main bulk of the game features Wyldstyle, Batman and Gandalf. Wyldstyle was from 2014's The Lego Movie. Meanwhile, the incarnation of Batman featured in the game debuted in 2008's Lego Batman: The Videogame. These two sources had entirely different lore about how the LEGO elements of their respective worlds operated, and arguably the game illustrated a multiverse of stories with their own separate multiverses.

Wyldstyle, Batman, and Gandalf fall through the many universes set out before them, eventually ending up in the Doctor Who universe. There, the Doctor saves them from the vortex and then a group of Daleks before setting them on their way. At the end of the game, the group recruits several characters they met during their adventures to help them defeat the final boss. The Twelfth Doctor is crucial to their plan.

That is the full plot of the main game as it pertains to the Doctor Who content.

After this, we have the Doctor Who DLC pack. Here, crucially, you play as the Doctor. The main hub-world of the game features many mini-levels you can complete featuring characters like Jack Harkness and River Song.

But the main level in this section is The Dalek Extermination of Earth. Here, the Doctor discovers that Davros has taken over the Earth and has converted all of its people into Imperial Daleks. The Doctor has to go back in time and save humanity, then defeat Davros

In theory, that's the basics of the game's story. However, there's then the third aspect: the LEGO figure packs and the gameplay mechanics that come with them.

Because of the play feature of the LEGO toy pad, it was possible to play all of the game with DWU characters through character packs. The total packs released included the TARDIS, the Twelfth Doctor, K9, a Cyberman, and a Dalek. Again, this would not affect the plot or in-game narrative. However, it would allow players to (controversially?) discover easter egg moments that had their own mini-narratives.

The Doctor figure could also turn into the first eleven Doctors before Capaldi, and enter the TARDIS as each Doctor reveals a fully recreated TARDIS interior based on each Doctor's era. Again, this does not affect the in-game plot and is essentially a glorified skin.

Hopefully, this clears things up, as I've seen a lot of confusion, as I've seen a lot of people on here just not understanding how the game works.

Next, let's move on to trying to find some policy here.

Part 2: Coverage

So the first thing I'm hoping we can all agree on about LEGO Dimensions is that, when it comes to Tardis:Valid sources, the game easily passes our first three rules. It is a work of fiction, the Doctor Who elements are commercially licensed, and it has been officially released.

Now, whether this makes everyone happy or not, passing these three parts of T:VS means that LEGO Dimensions is automatically viable for coverage on Tardis wiki.

Now, please take note that coverage and validity are not the same thing. To run through some examples: The Stranger by BBV has no site coverage, Blue Peter special 2005 has coverage but isn't valid, TV: Twice Upon a Time has coverage and is valid.

My general point here is that you've come to this post to say "LEGO Dimensions is/isn't valid", I'm afraid it's not that simple. Even if we decide this game isn't valid... We still have to cover it. This means, no matter the consensus, no matter if the info ends up on Twelfth Doctor or Twelfth Doctor/Non-valid sources, we have to sort through the weeds and figure out how to cover LEGO Dimensions and more specifically how much of the title to cover.

So I'm going move any debates about rule 4 or validity to much further down in the post. I'm also going to be splitting the discussions into two parts to make things easier for everyone.

In this specific part I am instead going to be discussing what I call the phases of coverage, starting with no coverage and ending with all coverage. The understanding is that both ends are extreme to a point of caution, so somewhere in the middle must be the correct answer.

Phase 0

Phase 0 represents... Absolutely nothing. We don't allow in-universe pages to be written about the LEGO spin-offs, we treat the game like a charity novel and authoritatively ask that no one ever mention it again.

Phase 1

So Phase 1 is, very simply, the version of the policy that I pitched back in the old thread (which I think was active between 2015 and 2016).

So the idea of this is that split the main non-DLC campaign of LEGO Dimensions into the core levels. Then we specifically only allow for coverage of the levels that feature the Twelfth Doctor in the plot - the cutscenes - on top of the entire Doctor Who DLC.

To help clear things up, I'm going to start listing LEGO Dimensions wiki articles on all the content this would entail:

1. A Dalektable Adventure
2. The Final Dimension
3. The Dalek Extermination of Earth

So the basic gist here is that the story of these three levels, and nothing else, would be valid sources. However, the actual ruling of the 2016 thread was that we can't go with just Phase 1. This is what caused the game to be declared non-valid. So... What was the controversial phase 2?

Phase 2

So the basics of Phase 2 is this: we cover these three levels but don't stop at just the cutscenes. We also cover any in-game easter eggs in these sections, no matter how they might have been achieved. The reason this is controversial is that it involves us actually confronting the part of the game that originally resulted in it being non-valid: the ability to customize gameplay by summoning other playable characters from other franchises.

For instance, in the main Doctor Who story pack, if you know where to do it, you can summon the K1 robot through the rift. Clara Oswald also appears and K1 grows to a massive size and grabs her. You are then asked to summon someone with magic abilities (the game suggests Gandalf but I think you can use anyone from Harry Potter to the Wicked Witch) to throw rocks at K1 until he is defeated.

As another example, there is one point where you can find and repair a hidden TARDIS travel point. Doing so will take the TARDIS directly to the Black Archive, where Kate Stewart and Osgood are mulling around. Inside this room are A LOT of easter eggs. Omega's mask is in a box if you manage to put it back together, Missy is hidden if you can find her, the Genesis Ark is tucked away in a corner, and you can also find Bessie taken apart in various pieces. If you put Bessie back together, the Third Doctor appears through a portal and is chased away by the Time Scoop.

But the most famous easter egg is that if you do a series of very specific things involving summoning characters like Batman, the infamous Cyberbrig will come out of a panel in the wall and salute you.

So this was the specific reason this game was declared invalid ages ago. No one quite knew how we were supposed to cover something like this. And to be honest, I'm still not 100% sure myself.

The basic theory is we would cover these side-steps as potential things experienced by whatever main character was supposed to be experiencing that part of the story (the Twelfth Doctor for the expansion pack, Wyldstyle, Batman and Gandalf for the main game). Then, in a case-by-case basis, we would decide if the characters needed to summon said easter egg require their own pages. For instance, if you can summon any wizard/witch to do a task, we shouldn't go through the complexity of who was summoned. But if you need to summon specifically Batman to do something, yeah we'd cover Batman being a part of that easter egg's story.

I was also told by someone that there is some kind of in-game purchase you can now have hologram access that in-game content without physically having the required LEGO. This either makes things more complex or less depending on the viewpoint. We can either say that we've decided only the "hologram" version is valid for pages, or we can say that the hologram is just another possible path.

Phase 3

The coolest moment in Doctor Who video game history came in a LEGO expansion pack for The Goonies because of course it did.

So here's where things get tedious. There are two levels that I know of outside of those listed in Phase 1 which feature mini-levels that feature some Doctor Who concept in them.

The main pitch of phase 3 is that we would allow coverage but only of the specific mini-levels and their set-up.

These are the LEGO Dimensions levels included in phase 3 (stories marked with * were not there before):

1. A Dalektable Adventure
2. The Final Dimension
3. The Dalek Extermination of Earth
4. The Mysterious Voyage of Homer*
5. The Goonies*

In The Mysterious Voyage of Homer you can find the 200 from TV: Planet of the Dead. When broken, this reveals a TARDIS travel point. If the TARDIS is then used, the player can transport themselves to a small mini-level based on The Jetsons.

In The Goonies, if the player repairs another TARDIS travel point, they can find an entire hidden area based on The Power of the Daleks. When you arrive, the Twelfth Doctor is already there and yells at you. You can then repair and break a few things, eventually leading to you summoning the Dalek Emperor (but this time, the 1960s one!)

This is the coolest easter egg in the game and it is, without question, a Doctor Who level. So the theory is, at this point, we'd just cover the mini-levels and the direct set-up for them.

Phase 4

Okay, so Phase 4 is worse than phase 3.

On top of the mini levels listed above, several levels in the game also features cameos and easter eggs by Doctor Who universe characters and concepts. These are significant enough that if they happened in, say, a Marvel comic, they'd be covered without question. These are:

1. A Dalektable Adventure
2. Painting the Town Black*
3. Once Upon A Time Machine in the West*
4. GLaD to See You*
5. Riddle-earth*
6. Prime Time*
7. The Final Dimension
8. The Dalek Extermination of Earth
9. The Mysterious Voyage of Homer
10. The Goonies
11. 71264 Story Pack*

Let's start off with the non-expansion levels.

Firstly, in Once Upon A Time Machine in the West (the Back to the Future level) the villainous Lord Vortech summons various random things from across the multiverse to hinder Wyldstyle, Batman and Gandalf. One of these is the Valiant, the aircraft carrier used by The Saxon Master in series 3.

(It's my theory that the creators of this game really wanted to go ham with crossing over Back to the Future and Doctor Who but were only able to do it a few times in more implicit ways. The promotional trailers play up the ability to have both on-screen at the same time.)

Riddle-earth features a secret level you can unlock depicting the spaceship from Dinosaurs on a Spaceship.

Daleks then cameo in: Painting the Town Black (the DC level), GLaD to See You (Portal level), and Prime Time. Specifically, in the last level, a Special Weapons Dalek is pulled out to attack Lord Vortech.

Some of these cameos are for literally a cutscene, others go on for longer. So there are cases where we could, say, cover a specific moment without covering the entire level. It would just get dicey.

Finally, the last thing we have to discuss is the 71264 Story Pack. This one doesn't have the official name on the wiki and I kept it there as a bit of a surprise... But yes, this is the LEGO Dimensions level pack based on the LEGO Batman movie.

Obviously, this was created at a completely different time than the rest of the packs, but it's hard to think of a metric of separating this level from the rest. And indeed this has very dire implications to those of you who might want this game validated.

Phase 4.5

Phase 4.5 is basically that we would also cover the level content of Phase 3 in its entirety even outside of the mini-levels, because why not?

Phase 5

Phase 5 is including all potential character interactions as valid. This is already a presumed part of coverage, as you'll discover at the page Batmobile.

You see, if you place the Twelfth Doctor on the gamepad alongside the Batmobile LEGO piece, you can have the Twelfth Doctor drive it. As he does, he'll comment that he prefers Bessie. Placing the Cyberman figure will result in a similar comment.

This also means that we logically have to cover any character interaction which has any relevancy to our pages. For instance, placing Wonder Woman near the TARDIS results in her saying that it looks like something Superman would change clothes in. So based on the logic of Phase 5, we would say on Wonder Woman's page:

According to one possible telling of a source, a version of Wonder Woman who was a real superhero was pulled from her dimension into a dimension also occupied by the TARDIS. The superhero commented that it reminded her of something Superman would change clothes in. (GAME: LEGO Dimensions)

Going as far as this means that we'd have to reconcile that we're fully covering not only the narrative of the title and the narrative of the easter eggs... But also the entire gameplay itself. Once we do this, we might have to consider details like... the Doctor regenerating when he's killed or the option being available to switch Doctor incarnations, historically details we've let slide with topics like GAME: Dalek Attack, GAME: The Mazes of Time and PROSE: Doctor Who and the Rebel's Gamble. Which is a very messy messy thing to get into, as we literally would have to say that the Twelfth Doctor might have regenerated into the First Doctor... When that's only a part of the gameplay.

Phase 5 is entirely optional moving forward for the most part. You can be in favor of phase 8 but not phase 5. However, I think not including Phase 5 opens up a puzzle: let's say we call LEGO Dimensions valid. But we tell people we're not covering the gameplay interactions which aren't part of the plot...

Then where do we write that information down? Because surely it can't go on LEGO Dimensions, the page discussing the content of the (hypothetically) valid game and all the content within. We might need to have a unique subspace, for instance /Gameplay, if we go down a heavily anti-Phase 5 route.

Phase 6

One of the hidden mini-levels in LEGO Dimensions, depicted the Red Dwarf ship from Red Dwarf. This level can only be accessed by using the TARDIS to travel from the Fantastic Beasts world. Does this mean we have to cover the Red Dwarf mini-level? And if so, do we have to cover the entire Fantastic Beasts DLC?

Okay, so remember those TARDIS travel points? The kind of landing pads you can build to summon the TARDIS? Phase 6 includes every single level where one of these exists. The logic is that as this is a physical point where the TARDIS is designed to travel to in-game, we should cover the entire level, or at the very least whatever easter egg level the TARDIS is used to access. (Presuming we're not including 4.5 earlier)

For instance, in the Harry Potter level, a TARDIS Travel point can be used to summon the TARDIS and take it to... Red Dwarf. Yes, the Red Dwarf ship from Red Dwarf.

Yes, it is awesome. No, I don't know why it's in the Harry Potter level.

Initially, I was heavily against this, mainly because... well, I don't consider the TARDIS travel points to be a licensed DWU element! I think if LEGO wanted to release a set using one tomorrow they wouldn't have to pay the BBC. And I don't think the potential of summoning a DW element for gameplay justifies us insisting on coverage.

However, when you see how these are used the need to cover them is obvious. The Red Dwarf level does not exist without the TARDIS. It's not just "oh this a place where you COULD use a DW thing," it's "This doesn't exist without that DW thing."

Phase 7

Phase 7 is the natural extension of phases 5 and 6. The basic logic is that once we allow ourselves to cover minor elements exclusive to the gameplay, like random dialogue that happens when you put certain characters and vehicles together, then we no longer have just six levels to cover. We now have to cover any level where the Twelfth Doctor, K9, the Dalek, or the Cyberman make any unique comment of any kind.

This would essentially mean that we would have to cover most of the game, and in a sense which is nearly impossible to define without extensive research.

Again, phase 7 is heavily stand-alone. You can want phase 8 without phase 7.

Phase 8: The Final Phase

Everything. Or at the very least, the entire non-DLC game. We cover all of that and whatever expansion packs we need to be relevant.

The logic here would be that there are few other crossovers we dissect like this. Where we say "Part 2 is valid but not part 3." And more importantly, if we go with coverage as overly simple as the stuff in Phases 1-3, there are huge chunks of the story that will be nearly incoherent in such limited coverage.

Another argument which could be made, that I know is an annoying point... Is that the "vortex" seen throughout the game is consistently referred to as "rift" technology, "the rift" etc.

I am fairly certain they did this as an extended reference to Doctor Who. So basically the logic might be that even the technology of hopping between these worlds might be DWU in nature.

At some point, there is an argument to be made that Phase 8, despite being extreme, is the most consistent with active precedent. I just think, given everything before us, that it might be just slightly too extreme. So I would want us to seriously consider any of the options before this.

A theoretical Phase 9 would be the entire non-DLC campaign + all the DLC content. As in, the bonus levels where the protagonists are not Wyldstyle, Batman and Gandalf. I didn't include this here because... Why would we do that? Like, why? If there's a standalone DLC featuring the 2016 girl Ghostbusters and it has no DWU connections and it's a separate release... Why cover it? It doesn't make sense.

But Phase 8 would include all the DLC which do have any Doctor Who material. So we'd probably throw in The Goonies, the two Fantastic Beasts levels, the Simpsons DLC, etc. So, in theory, this is the coverage of phase 8:

1. The entire non-DLC campaign
2. The Dalek Extermination of Earth
3. The Mysterious Voyage of Homer (The 200, The Jetsons)
4. The Goonies (Power of the Daleks)
5. Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them: A Walk In The Park (Red Dwarf)
6. Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them: Demiguise Double-Cross (TARDIS can take you to S.T.A.R. Labs from The Flash)
7. 71264 Story Pack (LEGO Batman)
8. Probably others. This game is filled with so much DWU content that I'm sure there might be more discoveries after we even close this discussion.

It's also entirely possible that for the DLC bonus levels which only feature the use of the TARDIS for mini-levels, we'll go ahead and only cover the mini-level. So we'd say, "The Red Dwarf mini-level is valid. The rest of A Walk in the Park is not." But again, it all depends on how comfortable we feel with ultimatums like that.

Conclusions

So, personally, I think my instinct is for us to go with Phase 4... but the more that I think about it, I'm fairly certain it's just because Phase 8 scares me. Since I joined this website people have told me that one day I would destroy the wiki with one of my bad ideas, and I guess I've started believing it at some point.

I'm also kind of pro-phase 5... until it's ridiculous. Minor interactions between, like, the Doctor and Wonder Woman... That's fine. But when you're saying, "Oh the gameplay element of swapping between Doctors needs to be discussed in-universe?" No, no it doesn't.

Basically, I think there's narrative stuff in the game and then gameplay stuff in the game. The former was actively designed to be wikified, the latter was not. We can still make it work but only to a certain extent.

This is a very very difficult topic. Again, this debate has nothing to do with validity, as this content will be on the wiki even if it's non-valid and we never gave this game an actual proper debate with the full scope in front of us.

I should also clarify that these phases are not totally linear. You can be fond of some elements of Phase 6 but not be a fan of Phase 5. I just thought it would be a good idea to lay everything out.

If you're ready to start debating this topic, you'll find a section for community discussion on phases of coverage below.

Part 3: Validity

Alright, so this is the thing a lot of you probably came here for. The big topic, does LEGO Dimensions pass Rule 4 of T:VS: stories must be intended to be set inside the Doctor Who universe.

So basically, the entire debate about this topic is this: in the Doctor Who sections of this game, is the inclusion of LEGO designs diegetic or non-diegetic?

To be diegetic is to exist within the fictional world as well as the real world. For instance, in The Stolen Earth, when Sarah Jane Smith comments on Mr Smith's music that plays when he boots up, this retcons that Mr Smith's music is a diegetic element that exists to the characters as well as us.

Meanwhile, when "The Doctor's Theme" plays and no one comments on it, that is understood to be non-diegetic. It's just an aspect of the world intended for the audience that doesn't actually impact the story.

As another example, Doctor Who Magazine artist Roger Langridge is famous for drawing extremely exaggerated depictions of the Doctor Who characters he presents, often for comedic effect. But this is considered to be something that exists to us, the reader, but not to the characters in the comic. It's merely a filter through which the story is told. Thus it is non-diegetic.

So basically, for any part of this game to be valid, or at least valid as the primary DWU, the LEGO elements in the Doctor Who sections need to be non-diegetic. As in, "this is the regular Doctor Who universe, and it just happens to look like LEGO, but the characters in the story do not recognize that."

Whereas if the story is completely diegetic, and the characters physically exist as LEGO bricks and not as an art style, the story is not set in the "real" Doctor Who universe, meaning it's either non-valid or valid as a parallel universe... depending on who you ask.

I want us to start this discussion with as much context as I can muster. Clues, arguments, possible answers, etc. However, I've been often stumped as, if we're being honest, this is sort of a silly question to try and find an answer to and very few people have done this officially. I, for instance, read through an official review of the game in DWM 494 but found no mention of if the LEGO elements are an art style or a facet of the universe.

So let's go ahead and go through what I have pieced together.

The thing about The LEGO Movie

Okay, so when discussing validity I think this is probably one of the main things I need to get ahead of.

As I mentioned before, LEGO Dimensions is essentially a multiverse connecting to franchises who have their own multiverses. This is most important when it comes to The LEGO Movie, which is where Wyldstyle comes from.

This was something I had to clarify in 2016, so I think it's something we need clarified now. The LEGO Movie is essentially already a multiverse movie, showing a long string of LEGO dimensions which can be traveled between by the protagonists. In the final act, however, it is revealed that there is another universe - the real world - and that the events of the film are essentially a metaphor for the physical space occupied in Will Ferrell's basement. (It's a lot less creepy sounding in context)

So when Wyldstyle goes to PIRATE WORLD in the movie, Pirate World is a physically existing part of Will Ferrell's LEGO Display in his basement. The universe of the LEGO population is still seen to exist, and Chris Pratt retains his autonomy in the real world. But the basic plot being that all the characters are semi-metaphorical toys is a pretty important part of the lore.

However, this is not the internal logic of LEGO Dimensions. Again, the version of Batman we see in the title is from Lego Batman: The Videogame. The game, in no way, retcons that the entire story depicted in the DC LEGO games dating back to 2008 secretly take place in Will Ferrell's basement. Furthermore, while Gandalf appears identical to the version of him from the LEGO Movie, he not only explicitly is not familiar with the LEGO Movie reality but is also not a "master builder" like he is in the film. (Wyldstyle is the only "master builder" out of the original three, meaning in the main campaign if you want to build something you have to switch to her)

In fact, and I implore you to look this up for yourself, if you carefully watch the animations and gameplay footage, Wyldstyle moves at a different frame rate than everyone else. This is because she imitates the animation style of the LEGO Movie while none of the other characters do (unless they're also from the LEGO Movie).

So it would not be an accurate summary to say that the Twelfth Doctor's adventures in this game are merely metaphorical, or that the game depicts toys brought to life by imagination or such things. So in general, the world-building inside of the LEGO movies has close to no bearing on the actual worlds depicted in this title.

So generally, try to avoid going on a Tommy Westphall tangent in the discussion below.

The contents of the game itself

Okay, so this section will deal with commentating on the actual content of the game, specifically the three most important levels: A Dalektable Adventure, The Final Dimension and The Dalek Extermination of Earth. The point here is to depict the main bulk of the material relevant to validation: the actual segments that feature the Doctor or are set in the Doctor Who universe.

To try and get you immersed in the dedicated character work of the first game, I wanted to start off with a brief transcript of the opening cutscene:

Wyldstyle, Batman and Gandalf are falling through the vortex.

Wyldstyle: "Shouldn't we have arrived by now?"

Batman: "Yes. Something's up. Check your relic scanner."

Wyldstyle pulls out the scanner, which shows an error message.

Wyldstyle: "Uh... Not good!"

Gandalf: "So what do we do?"

Twelfth Doctor: "Well I suggest you mind your heads!"

The TARDIS appears in the vortex. The Twelfth Doctor emerges momentarily.

Twelfth Doctor: "Hold on a sec! Not that you have a choice in the matter. You're stuck in a rift loop."

The Doctor runs back inside the TARDIS, pulls a switch, and grabs a grapple gun, which he uses to grab the three and bring them inside.

Twelfth Doctor: "C'mon! Don't just sit there, you've got a bunch of monsters to meet."

Batman: "Who are you? What did you do to us?"

Twelfth Doctor: "Is he always like this, Wyldstyle? I assumed I'd just caught him at a bad time before."

Wyldstyle: "Uh, what?"

The Doctor scans Wyldstyle's relic scanner with his Sonic screwdriver

Twelfth Doctor: "I'm the Doctor. I locked onto your scanner. Remember that."

Batman: "Before. You said before."

Twelfth Doctor: "Well spotted Batman - go to the head of the class!"

The Doctor throws Batman an orange.

Twelfth Doctor: "This is the TARDIS. It travels in time. I've met you three before, but you haven't met me yet. That's time travel for you."

As the Doctor talks, Gandalf briefly is shocked by the TARDIS control console. For a moment, he turns from Gandalf the gray to Gandalf the white.

Batman: "You're lying."

Twelfth Doctor: "No, here's your grapple gun."

Batman pulls out another grapple gun, identical to the one given to him by the Doctor.

Batman: "Clearly a copy."

Twelfth Doctor: "Again, no. like I say, time machine - not a 3D printer. Just give me your grapple gun later."

The TARDIS lands in some sort of military base.

Twelfth Doctor: "Okay, out you go."

Batman: "Where are we?"

Twelfth Doctor: "Does it matter? Call it, I dunno, "Dave."

The Doctor hands Wyldstyle the same calling card the Seventh Doctor gave to the Black Dalek Leader in Remembrance of the Daleks.

Twelfth Doctor: "This is my phone number. You'll call it when you get into trouble and I'll help you out - I'm nice like that."

The Doctor heads back to the TARDIS.

Twelfth Doctor: "Look. Normally I'd come along with you, but if I cross my own time-stream here I'll rip a hope in the universe so big you could drive [Batman's] ego through it. Anyway, good luck!"

The TARDIS dematerialises.

Gandalf: "Can someone explain to me what's going on, please?"

Wyldstyle: Not really, no. But I think another Keystone's here.

Now if at any point in reading the above text you found yourself forgetting that everything in this scene is built out of LEGO, you'll be interested to know this is often something that happens when you're playing the game. It's like when you're watching a 1960s run of serials, and then you put on a story filmed in color and everything looks very weird because you were used to the monochrome.

The eventual reveal is that Dave is infested with Cybermen and Daleks - and specifically the Dalek Emperor - and the group are rescued by the Doctor. That is, the Doctor from just before they had met him before. After sending them back into the Rift, the Doctor then travels back in time to live out the cutscene transcribed above.

Twelfth Doctor: "Okay, I should be able to lock onto this no problem."

The Doctor scans Wyldstyle's relic scanner then throws it back to her. He begins scanning the Gateway with his screwdriver

Twelfth Doctor: "Someone's using this rift technology like a Gallifreyan time scoop. They're pulling in monsters and madmen from everywhere!"

Batman: "We noticed."

Twelfth Doctor: "But that... should stop whoever's behind this track you from now on. No more rift loops. Speaking of which, I should go and rescue you from one."

Batman: "You'll need this."

Batman throws the Doctor one of his grapple guns.

Twelfth Doctor: "I usually take the stairs, but thanks. I'll go finish up with the Daleks and their pals."

Batman: "And we'll deal with the rest."

Batman: "Good. See you later. Or earlier."

The TARDIS begins to fade.

Gandalf: "What an odd fellow?"

Gateway Keeper: "The Scale Keystone. I'll handle that."

The keystone lifts into the air and is taken by a disembodied voice.

Towards the end of the game, the Doctor comes back to help stop Vortech. The entire finale heavily involves the TARDIS being used to create a space-time prison to hold Vortech in - there's a very in-character moment where it seems that the Doctor might have sacrificed himself to make this plan work... But he's fine in the end.

The DLC pack contains a set of missions you can go on which feature Missy, Captain Jack and others. The main narrative of the DLC is the Doctor battling Davros, who has created a new race of white Imperial Daleks. There's a good amount of Timey-Wimey stuff, including the Doctor being shocked to briefly arrive on the alternate future Trenzalore, despite that future being erased by his own existence.

Steven Moffat quote

Okay, so this is the infamous smoking gun, or so we thought eight years ago...

At the San Diego Comic Con 2015, Steven Moffat, Michelle Gomez, Jenna Coleman and Peter Capaldi were on a panel about the game. There, the (mildly annoying) host asked Steven Moffat, directly: "Is LEGO Dimensions canon?"

Moffat's response? "Everything is canon."

Now, there are two big points of view about this. Some people argue that because this is a direct quote from Moffat saying "this game is a part of the Doctor Who canon, as is everything else", we have to cover it. Others think Moffat was joking, and was saying the opposite. "RIIIIGHT, THIS is canon. (laugh track)"

I have mixed views. Firstly, I believe in a third option. I think he said this because he thought it was a stupid question. So not "YES THIS IS CANON" or "NO THIS ISN'T CANON I AM BEING SARCASTIC." It was his way of saying "Why should I be expected to answer this question? Why did I come to this panel in the first place?"

But yes indeed, it does represent the general showrunner mindset of "If you want this to be canon, it is." Which I also think he was being very earnest about and does accurately represent how the Doctor Who portions of this game were branded. It's another story in the Doctor Who expanded universe that existed in the Capaldi era, and no distinction was made in discussing its contributions.

And it hard for me to imagine Moffat turning with a smile and saying "No, this isn't Canon. If you like this that's stuuuupid. You're stuuuupid."

Mark Warburton quote

While doing research, I was able to find this quote in the academic paper LEGO Dimensions meets Doctor Who: Transbranding and new dimensions of transmedia storytelling?:

Speaking at the opening day of the Doctor Who Festival at the ExCeL London (13th—15th November 2015), TT Games’ producer Mark Warburton noted of Dimensions’ relationship to Doctor Who: “don’t ask me how it fits into continuity; …that’s irrelevant – it’s fun” (Warburton, 2015).

Academic paper quotes

And now let's highlight some general quotes from that academic paper.

Now, I don't want to over-emphasize any of these because I find a lot of the analysis here disagreeable on a broader wiki sense... I think the standards used in this paper to define what is a "what if" story would not be good if used for all Doctor Who media, and the paper is very cynical. More importantly, these opinions serve as no concrete evidence as per authorial intent.

BUT since it is an analysis of the topic we're discussing, I thought it would be worth providing a few quotes:

"This ethos of “fun” and creative imagination means that it is the LEGO brand that ultimately predominates, not only bridging all the licensed properties that are communally rendered in digitised and physical LEGO brick form, but also overwriting them as part of a rather more singular LEGO dimension. For all the emphasis on hopping between storyworlds, the game reads as a kind of commercial ‘alternate universe’ where multiple franchises can collide precisely because the entire enterprise is plausibly, playfully and representationally insulated from all of the varied textual canons involved. Returning to the game’s #breaktherules promotion, then, it can be said that “LEGO characters… create the impression that they are outside the rules that bind games too closely to” TV source material (Aldred, 2014, p.115). The LEGO Doctor is patently not the Doctor as he appears on TV, but is instead a parallel twelfth incarnation existing in a distinctive LEGOverse."

"Considering what value might accrue to the brand of Doctor Who by participating in LEGO Dimensions, I identify this as a particular example of “What If?” transmedia (Mittell, 2015), arguing that LEGO Dimensions’ Doctor Who nevertheless fluctuates in terms of its brand (in)authenticity."

"LEGO Dimensions, I would suggest, complicates any clear binary of ludus versus paidia, according with Mittell’s careful recognition that “What Is” and “What If?” transmedia “can best be seen as vectors or tendencies rather than distinct categories, with fluidity and blur between the dual approaches” (2015, p.315). The overall ‘LEGO dimension’ of transformative play in brick form certainly resonates with the idea that this Doctor Who should be viewed as a parallel “What If?” version: this mode of transmedia extension avoids the threat of continuity errors which can bedevil “What Is” narrative extensions, for example the ‘Adventure Games’ released alongside series five in 2010 (see Perryman, 2014, p.235). Yet the gameplay involved in mastering ‘The Dalek Extermination of Earth’ involves ludic aspects at the same time as exemplifying “What If?” Doctor Who, while free roaming further intensifies the player’s capacity to engage in “paidia”, going beyond the basic ‘tone’ of LEGO Who. Complicating matters yet further, Marie-Laure Ryan has indicated that different types of player, e.g. achievers/explorers, may engage more fully in “ludus” or “paidia” (2006,p.199). If this is so, it should be noted that the Doctor Who Level Pack allows for broad differences in play orientation, whether gamers want to achieve high scores or explore the gameworld.

And to give a full context as per what is discussed in the bulk of the essay, here is the conclusion:

"In this article, I’ve suggested that the transmedia storytelling of LEGO Dimensions amounts to a commercialized ‘Alternate Universe’ version of multiple franchises that are reimagined in LEGO brick form (and in line with LEGO’s brand values). Insulated from issues of canon and continuity, this represents “What If?” transmedia (Mittell, 2015) but it simultaneously combines the play-forms of paidia and ludus, as well as displaying uctuating relationships to Doctor Who’s brand ‘authenticity’ (Catherine Johnson, 2013, p.108). In particular, although the Starter Pack represents its Daleks in ways that are more authentic to Traveller’s Tales LEGO games rather than to televised Who, the Level Pack uses paratextual shifters (variants of the theme music) to perform a greater degree of transmedia authenticity. At the same time, though, the Level Pack does not straightforwardly interpellate Doctor Who fans, since it also fails to feel like Who via its transformation of aliens into cannon fodder, its rewriting of K-9 as an in-game vehicle/gadget and its lack of a companion. For all LEGO Dimensions’ marketing as a playful combination of storyworlds, the realization of this transbranding is nevertheless strongly delimited by licensing agreements and by Time Warner’s ownership of various IPs. Fans’ “affective play” (Hills, 2002, p.90) may well be enmeshed in new dimensions of transworld storytelling and transbrand gaming, but Dimensions’ story of corporate licensing and fan-consumer socialization remains far from novel."

-Matt Hills, Professor of Film and TV Studies, Department of Theatre, Film and Television Studies (Aberystwyth University)

Again, I find this analysis interesting but I'm not sure the whole "Any Doctor Who story which is sillier than the TV series must be a What If?" really stands as coherent on a wiki that covers Rose-the-cat and the Cedric (Search Out Space) without cracking a smile.

The essay just kind of screams "Steven Moffat says there is no Doctor Who canon, now here's what the Doctor Who canon is." I mean, one of the quotes above is literally him saying "Fun exists in the LEGO brand but not the Doctor Who universe." That's ridiculous.

But he does make a lot of good points despite that.

LEGO Batman movie

So the hardest part of the discussion of validity is that there is a clear argument to be made that if we validate all of the Doctor Who content in LEGO Dimensions... We'd also validate the video game adaptation of The LEGO Batman Movie.

Now, recapping this topic for those of you who weren't there, LEGO Batman never officially failed Rule 4. It was declared unlicensed by one of our admins... Which was a lie. We just made up a lie basically. (If you want official word on this, the film is confirmed to be licensed in DWM 564!)

BUT as the person who started that debate, I think the feeling was very much that we needed to talk about this... But very few people were excited for the LEGO Batman film to be a valid source on the website. And I think that's a weight that's going to bear down on this discussion. Basically, if we validate LEGO Dimensions, LEGO Batman would have a potential claim to Rule 4 by proxy, as it's depicted in this game as an alternate dimension... although one featuring a completely different Batman than the one in this game.

I just feel it's important to get this talking point out there, because obviously it's difficult.

I would argue there's a chance that the "rule 4 by proxy" argument isn't solid here. It's hard to think of a very very good argument... But imagine if, for some reason, we had evidence to validate the Back to the Future novelisation. Should we be able to validate Back to the Future based on this? That's the best comparison I have because the game adaptation of The LEGO Batman Movie is not the same as the movie at all.

Another detail is that while The LEGO Movie is canon to LEGO Dimensions, LEGO Dimensions is not canon to The LEGO Batman Movie and The Lego Movie 2. But I've been told the LEGO Batman Movie DLC is in-continuity with the rest of the game, down to featuring the LEGO Dimension versions of the Daleks. So you could almost read it as a what if based around LEGO Batman, "What if The LEGO Batman Movie treated LEGO Dimensions as canon?"

The point is that The LEGO Batman Movie would need its own debate, but it's fair to say that it is the end of the slippery slope.

"LEGO Worlds" and the human world

So one of the more contentious discoveries made recently has been a promotional video made for the LEGO Dimensions game. It stars the LEGO cast meeting Joel "I need a better agent" McHale, also a voice actor in the main campaign. You can find the video under the title LEGO Dimensions - Joel McHale Trailer.

However, I later discovered that game developers actually later hid this video in the game itself via a hidden level titled Mystery Dimension. The Dimension is, very clearly, the "real world." Here you have to battle waves of bad guys from all of the "year one" levels, which includes Cybermen, Daleks and Zygons.

(My guess here is they made this promo video, then they built a battle royale hidden level type thing just to show off that they could recreate Joel McHale's desk from the video)

Once you beat the level, the cutscene plays.

So the big controversial moment is when Wyldstyle says this line:

Okay so here's the deal. There's this real bad dude, wears a helmet, he's been tearing rifts between all the LEGO worlds.Wyldstyle

Later, when Joel McHale helps rebuild the Batmobile, the group commends Joel. He responds: "I play with LEGO a lot." The group act awkwardly and head back to the portal.

Now the big controversial thing is that this is the only time in the game that Wyldstyle uses that controversial phrase: "LEGO worlds." At any other point in the story, the writers are very careful to not use phrases like this. In fact, if you'd like to be overly detailed...

Here is every other time they say the phrase "LEGO" in the non-DLC sections of the game.

The first instance happens after Gandalf and Batman fall into the LEGO Movie universe. Gandalf has been pulled out of time while fighting the Balrog, Batman while protecting Gotham city. Immediately after falling into the LEGO Movie reality, the Will Arnett Batman and the Troy Baker Batman start fighting.

Gandalf: Might I suggest that we set on a quest to find this, er, "rift" you say?

Unikitty: A quest?! Let me go pack some rainbow-coloured LEGO bricks!

Emmet: And I'll get my wrench!

Gandalf: We shall be the Fellowship of the-

Gandalf and Wyldstyle: Aaaaarrrrrr!

Batman (The LEGO Movie): "Fellowship of the Aar!"? That's a terrible name.

That's it.

An interesting moment does happen at another point in the game, wherein they've put X-PO (the robot Joel McHale voices) back together. X-PO explains that Lord Vortech plans to "collapse the dimensions" together. Gandalf questions what that means.

X-PO: "Real bad. To put it in a way that each of you would understand. (to Gandalf) It's like if Sauron ruled all of Middle Earth. (to Wyldstyle) Or your entire world got glued together. (to Batman) Or everyone found out you're actually Bruce Wayne."

I think this is one of the most telling quotes in the entire game, as it hammers home one of my biggest points: that the LEGO Movie dimension has internal rules not followed by any of the other universes. So while the world being covered in glue is a threat to Wyldstyle's world, it isn't a threat to Gotham City.

And I think it's very telling that only characters from the LEGO Movie universe have any understanding of the phrase "LEGO", a natural extension of the plot to the first film.

However, on that note, it's still hard to get around that promotional video and especially hard to get around it being hidden inside the game as an unlockable cutscene. If you consider that part of the greater plot it does seem to indicate that the LEGO elements in the story are indeed universally diegetic.

I also think there's an argument to be made that LEGO can have two meanings: "LEGO" the physical bricks and then "LEGO" the brand. Given that the phrase "LEGO worlds" originates from what was clearly created as a commercial and then thrown into the game as a secret, I'm leaning towards the latter being the intention. It was basically just a way of saying "LEGO Dimensions" in a clever way. But this doesn't get around, you know, Joel McHale playing with LEGO...

My final statement: this easter egg does not give extra context to the lore and intentions of the game. It actively contradicts the lore and intentions of the game because it was just meant to be a little fun gag. But if this level was the only evidence we had in this debate I think it would be enough to call the title either an alternate universe or non-valid.

Stephen Sharples "interview"

Okay, so because there have been so few official articles and interviews just about this topic, I decided to try and reach out to a few people who worked on the game. I eventually ended up finding the contact info of Stephen Sharples, who not only was involved with the writing but also was present when Peter Capaldi recorded his audio.

Now, often in these forums, there might be accusations of leading questions. So, to be professional, I will also be including the exact email I sent to get this response.

Hi! Thank you so much for the follow and for sending an email. I had a few questions I wanted to ask specifically about the production of the game LEGO Dimensions.

So I'm part of a pretty large Doctor Who community, and we're essentially setting up to encourage more people to cover the in-game content of the title. However, I've always felt there was some ambiguity and there's sort of a debate that's been waiting to happen. So I'd be grateful if you humored a few stupid questions that I have.

When you play the game I think it's immediately obvious that the Doctor Who content is treated completely differently from the content of any of the other worlds and franchises. The most obvious detail is that the included stories are brand new instead of just being a retelling of some random episode. But you could also argue the internal logic of each "LEGO world" is implied to be different, such as the LEGO Movie's rules not applying to the other dimensions.

So the basic question I wanted to ask if this: was it the intention at the time that the LEGO elements in the Doctor Who levels were diegetic or non-diegetic? As in, was this a parallel version of N-Space which is made out of LEGO, or did the creative team intend that this was the regular N-Space and it just happened to appear as LEGO as a stylistic choice?

As a specific example: when the Twelfth Doctor lands on Trenzalore, would that content be best for the main Trenzalore page? Or would it fit better on a page like Trenzalore (LEGO universe)?

[I sign my real name]

Now here is his response:

Hi [my real name],

First of all, thanks for the email and for the enthusiasm for the Doctor Who content in LEGO Dimensions.

I think it's fair to say that Doctor Who had some special treatment in the game that was primarily down to members of the team being huge fans of the IP (me included). We felt that this was very much a one-off event that would never happen again, so we were determined to create something truly memorable, and a love letter to the show and its history.

It's an interesting question on whether the Who content is set in its own parallel LEGO Universe or not. My take on it is that the Doctor Who content is all in the main Universe of Who, but perhaps on an alternate timeline. The fact that things are made of LEGO is purely stylistic.

So, with your Trenzalore example, I would include it in the main page rather than separating it off...even though it made little sense having the 12th Doctor end up there briefly.

At the end of the day, we just wanted to cram as much fun content into the Doctor Who portion of the game to give Whovians something to cheer about in the games space....because there's not been much of that . It's the same reason I still work on my own little fan projects years later because I don't think anything has ever topped what we did with Dimensions, and I still have a desire to see great standalone Doctor Who games out there.

Hope this helps you out, if you have any other questions, I'm happy to answer them, providing it doesn't break any NDAs or anything.

Thanks,

Stephen

So I think that pretty much confirms what I've always suspected, that the Doctor Who levels received special treatment. We can pretty much confirm that while some dimensions in the title are intended to be literal LEGO, such as the LEGO Movie universe, the Doctor Who universe being made out of LEGO bricks "is purely stylistic."

I think his saying that the game is "maybe an alternate timeline" is merely a representation of what the academic paper referenced before. The hesitation to be bound by continuity. I suspect Stephen made this comment due to minor contradictions that were not purposeful, such as Davros meeting the Twelfth Doctor for the first time here despite that later being contradicted by TV. Imagine if a writer for the Virgin novels said "Well, they're maybe an alternate timeline." Very much the "maybe" hinges upon if the player/reader finds the material offensive to content created later.

I think the more telling quote is him stating that we should cover the level set on Trenzalore at Trenzalore, not any sort of subspace or subpage. I think that says that the "alternate timeline" reading is entirely optional.

At the very least I believe that this email debunks any narrative of us making a page like LEGO N-Space or LEGO Twelfth Doctor or the such.

My thoughts

So I'm going to ramble about my personal opinions here and my big take on whether this should be a valid source or not. This isn't going to be easy, as one could argue every piece of evidence above feels like the smoking gun if studied apart from the rest.

So LEGO Dimensions, when it comes to those original three levels we talked about in Phase 1, is probably my favorite Doctor Who video game ever. It just has so much charm to it and in such a way that no one else has been able to capture. My honest feeling is that the BBC constantly proves they don't understand the show or its fanbase and I think that's why the best Doctor Who game was made by an outside publisher and probably without interference. I mean, having a team who not only carefully recreated each Doctor's TARDIS interior within the game but hid an entire sub-level that is exclusively an extended homage to The Power of the Daleks? We'll be lucky if we ever get something that cool again.

And I'll state my ongoing hot take. When it comes to the depiction of the Doctor Who universe in these three levels, I think there was a consistent effort to make them indistinguishable from the real deal. When the Twelfth Doctor lands on the aborted timeline Trenzalore and comments that this paradox shouldn't be possible... That doesn't feel like "OH this is a sequel to LEGO The Time of the Doctor." It feels like a very, VERY earnest exploration of the Doctor Who universe.

And indeed, it is not easy for us as a community to look past an official quote from Moffat. "Everything is canon," everything specifically including this game. I would also be quick to say that the other quote we have, "it's just fun", does not imply a lack of DWU connections.

However, I think things get more dicey when we start to realistically explore how we intend to cover this title. Once you get into the logic of "Oh, every Dalek cameo has to be covered like it's a Doctor Who level" you start to feel the slope get very slippery. And the end of that slope is, as we know, LEGO Batman being valid as a parallel universe to the DWU.

At the end of the day, I think validating all of this stuff is a lot less harmful than we would otherwise admit. As I've said in other debates, only the content from the main Doctor's universe would actually be relevant to T:NPOV. So actually covering this game would improve our coverage of stuff like Batman. Instead of the wiki blindly saying "some sources say Batman was fictional while other sources say he's a real guy," the article would say "Batman was a fictional character in the Doctor's universe" and then waaaaaaay down the article we'd link to Batman (LEGO Dimensions) and we'd say in one universe Batman was real.

This is a detail we can't currently say when covering things like Supergirl Meets E.T., because while the multiverse storytelling is made clear in-game it's not stated in the webcasts. So it will be extremely helpful to our readers to be able to say "In one universe, ET was a real person. The Twelfth Doctor met this version of ET at some point."

Others might disagree, but I've found that when we validate things for being "alternate universes" they tend to stay in their own corners of the site. I call this the anti-T:NPOV, the idea being that while sources set inside the Doctor's immediate universe must be covered equally, this doesn't apply to other realities. So AUDIO: Exile is not brought up every time gender-changing regenerations occur - because it's set in a parallel universe, not the main DWU.

So while levels set in the Doctor's universe in this title would necessitate some sense of T:NPOV, this wouldn't be true for levels set in GLaDOS' universe.

I would go as far as to say that if a non-LEGO image is available for a character like Superman, that should be what is in the infobox. Because Superman's page should always cover his content in the Doctor's universe first, and once Dimensions is valid we'll have evidence that the "Superman who looks like LEGO to us" comes from another dimension and not the Doctor's.

At the end of the day, I think this topic is a little more complex than either side would admit. It's not 100% accurate to say "The entire Doctor Who level pack was exclusively meant to be a gag LEGO version of the character who had no connection to the established universe," but it's also not right to say "Covering the DW content of this game would be easy and without consequence."

At the end of the day, I think we have three main options here:

1. All LEGO crossover content becomes non-valid on the website, including stuff like Doctor, Doctor, Doctor and Supergirl Meets E.T.. We continue to allow coverage but only in the non-valid subspace.
2. We validate whatever parts of LEGO Dimensions we choose to cover, with the segments set in the Doctor Who universe being covered as the actual Doctor Who universe and all other segments being covered as segments set in other dimensions.
3. We validate whatever parts of LEGO Dimensions we choose to cover, with even the Doctor Who universe segments being considered a separate universe. This is the basic idea of the "LEGO N-Space" or however you want to put it.

I think a big problem with saying "Oh, well this is a copy of the Doctor's universe made out of LEGO" is that we have no in-universe proof of that being the perspective of the actual citizens of the universe. The Twelfth Doctor does not identify as being a LEGO minifigure. I fear that saying "This was a universe made out of LEGO bricks, instead of a universe which appeared in the LEGO style" is extracting something from the material that is never stated or even implied when it comes to depictions of the Doctor's universe in-game.

As per the promotional video, later hidden in the game, I think it's very useful to us that Wyldstyle, canonically from one of the only universes that has a concept of "LEGO", is the one to use the term "LEGO worlds."

And I also just do not like the idea of disqualifying the entire game and throwing out all the evidence we do have just because this one easter egg level does a fun little idea that doesn't mesh with the rest of the content. It feels very "fun police," like it's an arena level with a fun gimmick why are we busting in here and saying "weee wooo weee wooo fourth wall gag entire game invalid now!"

To me, it's like when you're reading a Find Your Fate novel, and ending 1 has lore that contradicts ending 2. This is heavily an "according to one telling" sort of thing, not something that defines how the story has to be covered.

But regardless, it's my opinion that each dimension in the title has its own internal logic. And we have direct confirmation from someone who worked on the title that in the Doctor Who universe, the LEGO art style is just that. A stylistic choice. The Twelfth Doctor is not in an alternate universe where he's made out of LEGO, he's the regular Twelfth Doctor but he appears to us in the LEGO style. And that's an important distinction, even if it's not one we can make in each dimension in the title.

Final, Final thoughts

So if you're at this point in the OP and you still feel left behind, I'd like to make a recommendation. Go to YouTube and search for a compilation of cut scenes from this game. You should be able to find a 94-minute cutscene compilation of the main game and a 5-minute cutscene compilation of the Doctor Who level pack. I think this will set you up for the extent of what we might cover and the sort of stakes at hand. The non-Doctor Who portions do not feel DWU-esque at all. But once they're physically inside the Doctor Who universe, I think it's very convincing... And I think that's the point?

The big thing that's always shocked me about this game is that they just let the Doctor take over the final arc. Like, it's the Doctor as the main guest and then other franchises mull around in the background. I think if you try to judge this game without seeing the full ending you're doing it a disservice.

There's a lot here, and clearly, I have a bias towards validation. But I at the very least like to believe that I have left no stone uncovered and no truth hidden in the discussion we have before us. If you want to argue for this being non-valid, you have all the info you need to do this. OttselSpy25 ☎ 20:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

LEGO Dimensions coverage discussion

Note: This section is exclusively for discussing how to go about covering LEGO Dimensions, regardless of if it is valid or non-valid. Please do not discuss if the title passes rule 4 in this section.

Personally, I think that covering the main game and the level packs featuring clearly "DWU" content is "obvious", but that's just me, probably one of the biggest contributors to crossover pages on this site. I, again personally, also think that any levels intended to be in-continuity with the main game should be covered (might be all of them?) - stuff like Sonic Dimensions using the vortex and A Book and a Bad Guy featuring Batman, Gandalf, and Wyldstyle in cameo appearances at the end (if I remember correctly from when I was younger).

In addition, I think the promo material for the game should, at least in some cases, be covered as effectively an extension of the main game - stuff like "Does it Come in Black?" or even something like Team Building - which often makes use of elements of the game, or at least the general idea of these characters interacting (specifically, these versions of these characters).

I can see how these could be controversial, but I think we should cover as much as it feasible. (All adventure worlds? Might be a bit much, but I can see an argument for them, depending on how diagetic the portals on Vorton are) Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 21:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, reading through this and rereading Forum:Revisiting fiction with branching elements and historical policy therein, I think we have to at least do Phase 8. I'm not sure Phase 9 is necessary, but if we're doing validity I don't see a way around Phase 8.

Only information which tangibly exists within the source is Wikifiable and thus potentially valid. For example, in a video game, a pre-set cutscene or element which may or may not play depending on your choice can be cited, but not the detail of actions which a player-character might undertake moment-to-moment.

All of this seems to qualify under this standard. I don't see a clear demarcation here. If we had restricted our ruling in that thread, been more cautious... Maybe. But otherwise, if we're going to have validity, I think the entire thing becomes valid - it's all wikifiable. Najawin ☎ 02:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I concur, Phase 8 is the option that (looks, to me, at least, to) at minimum lines up with current policy and precedent for coverage. - CodeAndGin | 🗨 | 14:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Ottel, may I make a request? Would you mind making condensed, "TL;DR" versions of the coverage phases? Just to make it that little more accessible. WaltK ☎ 18:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, if my jargon is too advanced, here's a simple rundown.

Phase 1 would only cover the segments, cutscenes, and levels that feature the Doctor. Phase 8 would cover the entire game and some DLC, even during levels without the Doctor or DWU elements. This is the reality of covering a crossover which the Doctor isn't in 100% of the time - it would probably mean a bunch of pages that cover things like Harry Potter characters without a direct link to the Doctor within the text. But covering just small portions of the game would be very hard.

On top of that, there's the discussion about how much of the game is "fiction" and not just gameplay elements with no impact on the story. OttselSpy25 ☎ 23:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Before I get into my post proper, I'll note that while browsing the LEGO Dimensions Wiki to help make sense of this issue I discovered two more levels which feature the Doctor. These are Ghostbusting! and the Mission: Impossible level, which would both slot into Phase 4 and any later phase incorporating Phase 4 according to Ottsel's theory of coverage.

With that out of the way, okay. I've been aware of this thread since it was being drafted but it's taken me until now to comment because this is a complex issue and my opinions on it have changed over time. My current preference would be to go with Phase 4, using {{NCmaterial}} to cover other sections of the game where relevant e.g. at Lord Vortech for his role in the over-arching plot. I'd consider Phase 4 to be minimum acceptable amount of coverage for LEGO Dimensions because every level encompassed by Phase 4 features an incontrovertible Doctor Who universe element, whether that be the Valiant or a Dalek.

The reason why I've been somewhat conflicted when coming to this opinion is I don't believe there to be any reason rooted in T:VS that we shouldn't be going with Phase 8. However, I have concerns Phase 8 will be detrimental to the Wiki if we choose to enact it. LEGO Dimensions is a massive game even outside of the 13 or so levels we'd cover with Phase 4 and, simply put, I just don't see the point in Tardis covering all that content when it doesn't connect to Doctor Who in any tangible way. I'd maybe feel differently if we were the only ones well-placed to provide coverage of the game but there already exists a fairly comprehensive LEGO Dimensions Wiki to cover all the non-Doctor Who bits. This is also a matter of Tardis Wiki editors' resources; to be frank I think what we're likely to end up with in most cases is stubbier or non-existent versions of another wiki's articles and I don't believe accomplishing such a thing would be productive.

With that said, only covering Phase 4 would be a bad thing when it comes to making sense of certain characters' involvement in other non-Doctor Who levels. This is why I think utilising {{NCmaterial}} (in conjunction with {{cite source}} which allows attribution to specific levels) is a good middle ground. This, in effect, will allow Phase 8-esque for characters who appear in Phase 4 levels while preventing the Wiki from being bombarded with articles for characters and concepts entirely divorced from anything in Phase 4. To provide some examples, the aforementioned Lord Vortech, plus Batman, Wyldstyle and Gandalf would probably be the most Phase 8-esque and cover great swathes of the game to contextualise the bits of the wider plot seen in the Doctor Who levels. Meanwhile, pages for the Ghostbusters team seen in Ghostbusting! would have coverage for the entire Story Pack DLC (of which Ghostbusting! is the second chapter of six).

Hopefully all that makes sense. To summarise, we probably should be covering Phase 8 (i.e. the entire game) by a strict letter-of-the-law reading of T:VS but I think the uniqueness of LEGO Dimensions as a piece of media (at least one within the Wiki's remit) merits some consideration towards carving out a bespoke ruling which would allow us to enact Phase 4 instead. {{NCmaterial}} and {{cite source}} are both innovations since the original forum thread on LEGO Dimensions which would aid in this approach. --Borisashton ☎ 00:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see it being all that detrimental covering the rest of the game, especially with it all being segmented as alternate universes. In any case, there's one thing I want wrapped up before this forum closes: coverage of the tie-ins. In particular, the gameplay footage seen in Endless Awesome ^[+]Loading...["Endless Awesome (webcast)"] and Supergirl Meets E.T. ^[+]Loading...["Supergirl Meets E.T. (webcast)"] (or any other promo videos I forgot). Despite my prior coverage, I'm not too sure the gameplay shown in those warrants coverage (other than that which is explicitly shown diagetically, like the bit with the Riddler). Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 23:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't really see the value in covering things that appear in gameplay footage seen in trailers. To me, the relevant part of a trailer is the content unique to it.

Phase 8 makes sense (although, personally, I like the idea of Phase 7), but I feel like there are some ways in which it could make more sense than others. Covering literally everything on a single behemoth page would make parsing the Doctor Who parts difficult in a way that, if we went with Phase 4, things wouldn't be so difficult. Based on the precedent of games like The Christmas Trap and Bigger on the Inside, we see the value of covering separate commercial add-ons to prior bigger video games on separate pages. We could have Lego Dimensions (series) for the wider franchise and Lego Dimensions (video game) for the baseline, no-frills game. At the very least, I think that the Lego Doctor Who world and The Dalek Extermination of Earth should get separate (video game) pages from the main Lego Dimensions game, because The Dalek Extermination was content only accessible with purchase of the Twelfth Doctor figure and the Doctor Who world could be accessed by purchasing either the Doctor or the Cyberman. Distinct commercial content. This principle would extend to the add-ons such as the Fantastic Beasts level pack - cover them as distinct entities.

The question from this structure would be: how to cover character/vehicle interactions? The DC Comics character Cyborg, for example, makes a comment if he's near the playable Cyberman, so would that mean we should have a page for the individual commercial release of the Cyborg Fun Pack? Maybe this is just autism speaking, but I see the value in that. But I would also see the value in a page called [Lego Dimensions character and vehicle interactions] or [Lego Dimensions (video game)/character and vehicle interactions], with a chart of all the ones relevant to Doctor Who. TheChampionOfTime ☎ 16:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

As somebody who doesn't want to spend ages analysing the OP to find my answer, which phase would best describe the following: covering all episodes of the main story, plus any DLC episodes that tie directly into said story (the Portal, Midway Arcade, and Sonic episodes, according to the LD wiki). WaltK ☎ 18:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The above had reminded me that this discussion hasn’t concluded yet - I don’t recall my exact points earlier but my stance is that I think the whole game should probably be covered, but definitely tie-ins to the main story and ones that have DWU elements (the TARDIS travel thingies, even if we don’t consider them inherently relevant outside of the following, do feature an image of the TARDIS). Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 18:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The more I think about this, the more I feel that my ideal coverage for this game also happens to be the coverage that we probably will never be able to get... Which is that we really should cover most everything... But with some level of discretion. Like, ideally we cover all the broad strokes and important characters on their own pages, but with a level of... Dude, come on. We don't need Harry Potter's page to be every single detail of his use in the game, we don't need a page on every member of the Goonies... We should be able to just go "Oh, let's cover this DW easter egg" and leave it at that.

The issue is that any sense of "Dude, come on" is the antithesis to Tardis Wiki rules and precedent. So while covering just the relevant chunks would make the site better, allowing these random fringe LEGO character pages would just end up being a big mess in my head. OttselSpy25 ☎ 17:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Always nice to see you around OS25. And I get where you're coming from. But even without Talk:Howling Halls/Archive 1 and everything after setting very strong precedent the other way, I do think there are Sorites style concerns here. Najawin ☎ 17:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

(written before Najawin's post) Well, this is a forum thread in the Panopticon, it does have the power to change policy. Perhaps enshrining a sort of "Dude, come on," clause into T:VS, if you will, wouldn't be such a bad idea. Ultimately, our validity rules should have some semblance of common sense to them, otherwise, well, we find ourselves in all sorts of various ridiculous states of affairs.

(in response to Najawin) Could you elaborate on your concerns? Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 17:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Adapted from the general Sorites the argument would run something like, "We clearly agree that object (1) should be covered, and object (2) is only marginally different from (1). So (2) should be covered. To generalize, if (n+1) is marginally different from (n), we should cover (n+1). We cover (1). Thus, by induction, 'we should cover all things'." The bit in single quotes there is a little problematic, because we don't have a clean induction step, there isn't just one path to take over induction and a guarantee that there will never be non-marginal differences.

But the "dude c'mon" argument is supposed to be a way to step back and look at big picture differences in a way that this argument says we just can't. (In the Sorites as it's generally discussed the argument runs something like "if we have a heap of sand and we remove one grain, it's still a heap, so do this repeatedly, therefore one grain of sand is a heap". "Dude, c'mon.") So I'm just skeptical that we can ever draw these boundaries with any consistency or clarity, even if on the big picture we think it looks ridiculous. Yeah, Doctor Men looks ridiculous. Dimensions in Time looks ridiculous. Curse of Fatal Death looks ridiculous. The Noodle stuff look ridiculous. (I say these things with all the love in the world. You know that's how it looks to outsiders.) But finding clear demarcations to keep them out and other stuff in? I just don't buy it. Najawin ☎ 20:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, fair enough, that seems sensible. Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 20:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that I mentioned Team Building earlier - I believe that one's actually built into the game, not a promo video. So if it's cited as its "own thing" (as some DLC levels may be), I wonder if it should be as a "(home video)"? As far as I recall, there's no interactive element in the story itself. Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 13:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, something else, I feel like, assuming everything is covered (as that's my ideal outcome of this thread), we'd cover the main game as "LEGO Dimensions (video game)" with each level as a "namedpart" in cite source, while adventure worlds would be covered as stuff like "Adventure Time World (video game)". Level packs would be split in a similar fashion, although I'm unsure how story packs would be handled. The only thing I'm unsure of is how we'd cover the hub world, and how we'd cover the character/vehicle interactions and other misc. dialogue in the game. Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 18:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Something I thought I'd add, I feel like one further thing that links the various bits of the game together is the dialogue that characters have with each other, which I feel "proves" that they're part of the multiversal shenanigans the game's based around, to some degree. I also would like to question how we deal with the portals in Vorton/the Shard (the hub world)? The Doctor Who portal is among the various portals to different universes which can be seen, and assuming we consider these diagetic (which I feel makes sense), surely we'd then need to cover the existence of these portals, at which point I feel it would be a disservice to coverage to not cover what's on the other side, i.e. the adventure worlds based upon the various franchises. Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 23:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

LEGO Dimensions validity discussion

Note: This section is exclusively for discussing the validity of LEGO Dimensions, specifically if it passes Rule 4. To discuss extent of coverage, see section above.

More to come, to note that in addition to Thread:176459 at User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates 1, people should probably read Thread:211485 at User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates 2 as well. (The Lego Batman thread.) Not quite as relevant, but still of some use. Najawin ☎ 20:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

One more, still working my way through these threads, but I will say, as a note, that I'm very convinced that if we adopt some form of R2bp, as we've been gesturing towards for the last year, I don't see a way in which Lego Batman can be guaranteed to be the end of the slippery slope if we let it be valid, per the evidence presented in the old threads. I think there's a very good chance that we'd have to let in Ninjago and LM2, depending on what happens in the forthcoming movies in the franchise. (Indeed, I think we might just immediately have to let in LM2 due to the presence of Alfred.) This wouldn't extend to the original LM, but these three alone would already have "real world bleed" that we'd have to really handle delicately. (As we handle all metafiction delicately.) That subject is messier than I think it's being portrayed. Najawin ☎ 23:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay. I'm... Not sure about validity. (As a very minor note, I think the frustration Moffat has is about being asked about canon, not about being at the panel, per se. But it doesn't change things at all. Not least of which because he's only one of the relevant creatives here, and not the most relevant imo.) Per the original thread, you yourself reference at least one point towards the Lego-ness being diegetic:

Jack Harkness: "Is it just me, or does everyone look pretty shiny today? And I don't think that it's any moisturizer."

I'm unsure as to any others, but there's at least one here within the DWU content itself. As far as authorial intent is concerned, the original thread has two relevant quotes not mentioned here.

What’s the secret to the franchise’s appeal? Look at Lego Gandalf. He has maize-yellow skin, a squat squared-off torso, and a ridiculous waddling gate. “But he truly believes that he is the Gandalf, just like Buzz Lightyear believes that he’s an actual a Space Ranger,” says Burton. -Wired

Note that this article says as well

Ultimately, Burton says, the big design constraints with Lego Dimensions weren’t the licensing hurdles—they were the limits of real-life Lego toys. The Lego Batmobile has to move the way it would if it were actually made of Legos.

“We’ve always tried to be very honest to the brick,” says Burton.

And notes that Burton was one of the people who pushed for Doctor Who, because he wanted a Lego TARDIS. A second quote mentioned in the thread is

"As with the other IPs, I think it might be better categorized as 'inspired by' the original IP (or in the same vein as) instead of 'being canonical,'" a Valve spokesperson told Polygon.

This quote is of particular relevance, because the Portal level pack level is very much so a "Portal 3", a third interaction between the relevant parties, with explicit references to this fact, and references to the prior events. It's no mere retelling. It's a new, original story, if a small one. Obviously this doesn't have direct bearing on the DWU work. But in the older threads there were occasionally claims that only DW was treated in this way. And not only is this false, but one of the other franchises where this is the case has explicit comments from its IP owner suggesting they don't consider it canonical. Again. We don't have that from the BBC. But this, combined with the statements from Wired, do give me pause as to what people actually thought. At the very least it seems murky. (With all due respect to OS25, I have to bring up T:NO SELF REF here as to his email exchange. I'm 100% sure it's accurate, I don't think it impacts my analysis here, my conclusion is that this is really, really murky, not obviously wrong, and I think one person thinking this should be DWU is in accordance with the idea that there's conflicting authorial intent. But, procedurally, should we even be considering that email exchange? I mean this without a hint of malice, I assure you.)

The trailer is really worrying, I gotta say. Especially given the larger issues with the Lego Movies more generally. I think the quotes I've given push the needle back towards invalidity given that, but, I mean, wow, this is a messy one. Najawin ☎ 03:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

If you're referring to Endless Awesome ^[+]Loading...["Endless Awesome (webcast)"], that's probably not meant to be taken very seriously - when trailers were validated, I specifically left that one as invalid while validating stuff like New Adventures Await! ^[+]Loading...["New Adventures Await! (webcast)"]. (I will also note that I personally think the game should be valid, but obviously that's just my opinion) Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 11:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Najawin: Well hold on. This quote from Jack seems predicated on "Jack is momentarily noticing that everything is made of bricks in contrast to how it usually is", so it seems if taken at face value to be in line with "this is the real DWU which has temporarily been turned into plastic somehow", more than "this is an alternate DWU where everything is made of bricks and always was", no? (I would read it as more of a fourth-wall joke than anything — not unlike if the first appearance of a black-and-white monster in the colour era had the Doctor quipping "huh, is it me or do you look… brighter?" — but the point is the same however seriously you take the line.)

But in any event, I'm mostly stepping in with my admin hat on to say yes, we can admit the evidence of the e-mail, come on. If you want to be extremely technical about it, there is an argument that we technically can't "believe" Ottsel's account of his original email…?… But this does not disqualify him from making statements about somebody else said, so the reply, which is what we care about, is kosher. More broadly there would be no procedural quibbles whatsoever to be had if Ottsel reached out to a serious online documentary resource e.g. the blog of a trusted fandom historian, and reposted the email there; and I think it would be very silly to demand that extra step when we all agree that it's a straightforwardly possible chain of events. T:WIKIFY OWN ultimately exists as a policy on sourcing personal details in situations where the interested party has an incentive to lie due to the nature of showbiz e.g. actors giving their height or their birthday inaccurately. A Wiki user reporting on the results of asking policy-related questions to a wholly-unrelated DWU creative, about the work and their intentions with it rather than the DWU creative themself, simply is not the intended use-case. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 11:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Cookieboy 2005 - I'm referring to the Joe McHale trailer, and it's existence in the game in the "mystery dimension". That's a gnarly issue (in the original usage of the term). Especially combined with the statements I found about authorial intent above. Saying that you try to stay true to the brick in the game? That's... That's a real problem given everything else. Again, any one of these isn't much, but together they constitute a pattern, imo, that even if some people involved think this is just Doctor Who with a LEGO gloss, (and thank you for clearing that up Scrooge) others involved, other very relevant people, think this is a LEGO version of Doctor Who.

As for the Captain Jack issue, I mean, this isn't completely untrue, but there's the fourth wall breaking nature of the various LEGO properties. I don't think we can guarantee that it's saying (realDWU->made of Bricks) rather than (thought they were real DWU->noticed they weren't). Especially, once again, the comments cited. Either way, it's a reference towards the LEGO gloss being diegetic. (And to clarify my disposition here, I'd really, really like the various LEGO stuff to be valid. I find it hilarious. But these comments are really deeply worrying to me. And I'd still have probably supported validity even still, until I found the "true to the brick" one, and then OS25 mentioned the trailer. Those two were just enough to make me think this is probably invalid, in conjunction with the other issues.) Najawin ☎ 20:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

To me, the Jack line seems to confirm that this story takes place inside the continuity of the regular DWU. If Jack can make a fourth wall joke on the art style of this story looking unique - that itself implies that this is not a Jack from an alternate universe where everything has always looked like LEGO. If anything it kind of adds credit to the theory of it all just being a filter for the audience. Captain Jack, indeed, was not born a LEGO man in this reality, his noticing the filter does not discredit the story. Imagine if in a Roger Langridge comic someone remarked "Everything looks very abstract today."

To think this was evidence of the art style being diegetic, you'd have to argue that the entire LEGO DWU portions take place within a splinter universe created in the moment before the gameplay started - that some force copied the DWU to another reality and turned everything LEGO the instant the gameplay starts, while the characters maintained their direct memories from the prime universe. And I just don't see any particular evidence that said reading of events is accurate to the intention itself. OttselSpy25 ☎ 22:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Or, alternatively, we have the (thought they were real DWU->noticed they weren't) option, which is in complete accordance with that line, and lines up as well with the Wired quote. I don't think there's a definitive reading here, let me be clear. But it's not as cut and dry as you're saying imo. Najawin ☎ 23:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

That Captain Jack quote should not be taken as anything more than a cheeky wink-nudge to the audience. We know it's a meta joke, but in-universe it's just "Jack thinks everybody looks extra shiny today for some unelaborated-upon reason". WaltK ☎ 20:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm curious what the issue @Najawin has with the "true to the brick" thing exactly is. I understand that line from a game development and art direction perspective; They made a game using LEGO as the specifically licenced art style, they wanted it to look and feel as close to real LEGO as they could, before having to take liberties for game design reasons (Because if they didn't, what would be the point in making it a LEGO game in the first place, and not just a brand mashup game in a different stylised art style that didn't have physical, brick based limitations?). - CodeAndGin | 🗨 | 14:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Alright, coming back to this. I think we're talking a bit at cross purposes here with the Captain Jack thing. OS25 says

a big problem with saying "Oh, well this is a copy of the Doctor's universe made out of LEGO" is that we have no in-universe proof of that being the perspective of the actual citizens of the universe

and

And we have direct confirmation from someone who worked on the title that in the Doctor Who universe, the LEGO art style is just that.

But we have specific confirmation from the cofounder of the alternative - it doesn't matter whether or not the characters seem themselves as LEGO, they are LEGO regardless. Their belief otherwise is part of the joke, as it were. But even putting that to the side, the premise is false. We do have evidence (proof is for alcohol and algebra) that the denizens of the game, even those not from the LEGO Movie dimension, sometimes reference their own LEGO-ness.

As for the "true to the brick thing", this is not how the quote is portrayed in the article, no, they're specifically talking about a vehicle's movement corresponding to a LEGO product. That's not just an art style. That's matching the physics engine of the game to how LEGO is supposed to behave, or the specific physics properties of the object insofar as it interacts with that engine. That's a qualitatively different sort of thing than just an art style. Now, that's not a direct quote, I admit. It's context the reporter provides for the "true to the brick" thing. So they could just be making it up. But I just don't see how that quote isn't worrying. Najawin ☎ 09:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a narrow conception of "art-style". I could imagine a pastiche of 60s Who which boasted of taking specific pains to deliberately imitate the flaws of old-fashioned special effects with their fancy CGI; which wouldn't mean that they intend the Dalek spaceship to be actually diegetically made of cardboard in a way the characters would notice. (Didn't Lance Parkin deliberately plot The Dying Days in such a way that each scene could have been filmed with a specific, realistic number of Ice Warrior extras in rubber suits?) I think limiting vehicle movements to things which could be achieved if this really were a stop-motion brickfilm can very easily be understood in those terms, and doesn't particularly move my needle with regards to whether the brickiness is textual.

As regards the "that's the joke" quote from "the cofounder", hang on — is it, in actual fact, about LEGO Dimensions, or is it about the broader franchise? Because I would definitely say that a quote about the specific authorial intent on this story in particular would trump broad corporate directives for our purposes. Maybe the authorial intent on this story didn't match the project bible. We don't believe in canon, we'd accept that. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 13:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I can see the reasoning there, but let me ask this question. If we're only considering parts of the video game, not external paratext, and the designers wished to communicate to us that the characters were made of a specific substance but weren't necessarily aware of it, how could they show this to you? What things within the game would move your needle for the specific hypothesis that we're discussing here and now? If there aren't any, well, I'm not convinced you should be having this discussion, it's just a red herring. It just seems like we're focusing on an area where you'll never be convinced. Other people might be convinced in this area, but for you, if there aren't any, no matter what they do it's just art style. For me, well, aside from visual identification and the physics, I don't see much else that can be done here except for the audio of the game. Maybe parts of the gameplay, but I think that's broadly a wash.

Jon Burton is not only the cofounder of the studio, he was one of the three story writers, one of nine dialogue writers (along with Sharples), and was listed as multiple other types of directors. This isn't a matter of people following the franchise bible or not, it's a matter of someone intimately involved in the project expressing a view about the nature of one of the characters that is diametrically opposed to the argument OS25 is presenting. Now you could interpret that quote as specifically applying to the past game of LEGO Lord of the Rings and not the current iteration of LEGO Gandalf as he appears in LEGO Dimensions, but this seems very difficult to do, given that any IU evidence that characters don't seem to comprehend their LEGO-ness is simply not in conflict with this statement at all. Najawin ☎ 21:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

That's all fine on paper, except that we have some clear statement that the Doctor Who sections of the game were treated with different gravity and intent than the other segments. Again - it's a difficult standard to point to evidence of UniKitty believing herself to be made out of LEGO when in the text the LEGO Movie universe explicitly is said to operate with different internal logic than every other universe in the series. This is not an opinion, it's one of the main elements of the game that Wildstyle is not the same as the other characters on her team. (Given the name drop of Gandalf here, it's important to remember that Gandalf and Batman can not "master build" in this game. The reason is that they are not LEGO Gandalf and LEGO Batman, they are versions of Gandalf and Batman from universes that have no understanding of what a "LEGO" might be.)

Given that the multiverse story element was used to justify each dimension having different internal logic, it is entirely valid that the designers intended that the Doctor Who dimension just be the regular DWU with a "filter" on top. This on top of Moffat's refusal to declare it non-canon is very important information - and I don't think bringing out more general quotes discussing stuff like GLaDOS debunks that. OttselSpy25 ☎ 23:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The reason is that they are not LEGO Gandalf and LEGO Batman, they are versions of Gandalf and Batman from universes that have no understanding of what a "LEGO" might be.

But this first clause is precisely wrong. They are LEGO Gandalf and Batman, namely, LEGO Gandalf and Batman from LEGO universes where the LEGO inhabitants believe they are not LEGO; they believe they're Batman and Gandalf from the original properties completely. This is what the Burton quote illustrates! They're not LEGO Movie Batman and Gandalf, of course. But this is a different statement. They're still LEGO! I also once again direct you back to the Portal issue when you're insisting that the Doctor Who sections were treated with different gravity. This is true here as well, and we know that this is irrelevant here. I get that you don't like this comparison, but it's sufficient to show that extra care to a section, not simply redoing something that previously existed, doesn't entail that there was intent for it to "count". You need more than that. And the Sharples quote could be that! But I think the Burton quotes and the Mystery Dimension are more than enough to make this very very messy as far as intent is concerned. Is it enough to get R4 disqualification? I dunno. It is for me. But everyone has their own standards. Najawin ☎ 01:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I've been on the fence about adding to this discussion as I feel that, before I could give an entirely informed opinion on the matter. It's hard, as I don’t expact this discussion to be reopened but I'll never be able to contribute now. I've been considering watching a playthrough, but without actually interacting with the game I don't feel that I could understand the material. (Damn you devs for never making a 3DS or Switch port!)

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

23:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Switch doesn't really do many peripherals, does it? Labo, I guess. Just wouldn't be possible on 3ds. Najawin ☎ 00:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Idk, the 3DS was often pushed to its limits and it did have its number of toys-to-life ports. (Even if half of them were technically entirely new games that served as sidequels to the main versions.)

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

00:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't help that accessing every possible piece of the content the game has to offer requires quite the financial investment. What's that? You didn't purchase this one minifig because it's from a franchise that doesn't interest you? Boy that's too bad, now you can't access the one piece of Doctor Who-related content that's hidden away in the DLC pack it came with. Whoop-de-doo. WaltK ☎ 20:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Going back to Najawin's second-last post and the LEGO-ness of Gandalf and Batman, it's worth noting that they're specifically the versions of the characters from the previous LEGO video games, seen at the beginning of Dimensions to be pulled directly from cutscenes in their previous games. When these main characters reference their universes, we are to understand that we have seen these universes previously in those games, but the other crossover characters only have the context of the media they originate from; when the Doctor says something about Victorian London and facing Weng-Chiang there, that's a reference to the TV show and not some layer in between because there isn't any LEGO retelling of that. Continuity is paid attention to in areas such as Davros meeting the Twelfth Doctor for the first or the Twelfth Doctor saying he shouldn't be able to go to Trenzalore. They're LEGO characters, but they have continuity of consciousness with the live action characters, as others have noted with regards to the Jack Harkness line. The game is set in a "Dimension Crisis" which in-universe has altered, shrunken, and spliced the universes affected (i.e. turned them into easily traversable open worlds which highlight the famous locations of a franchise), so we could take Jack's line to mean that LEGO-fication was part of that process for the Whoniverse.

There's more meat on the bones of that Comic Con interview in regards to this. The interviewer asks the actors, "Do you consider them to be the same characters you play in the show or are they different?" Peter Capaldi responds, "Absolutely. To me it's the Doctor, that's who I'm playing. It's a different technique, because obviously you don't have my expressive face there... so obviously the voice is a bit more over-the-top, but they did ask for more."

Perhaps a thing to focus on is the instances of classic Lego video game humour in the Doctor Who content. Normally in Lego games, scenes are recreated from famous movies and visual comedy is inserted into the otherwise serious narrative. Such as, for example, Lego Gandalf playing with the TARDIS controls and briefly transforming into Gandalf the White; that's a visual gag consistent with his home universe of the Lego Lord of the Rings video game. This is present in The Dalek Extermination of Earth with the scenes on the Dalek ship, where we see Daleks skateboarding and playing ball and other non-Dalek things. This is notable because I don't think any other Doctor Who element gets this jokey treatment, and there is an in-universe reason for this: the Daleks are a new batch created from the population of Earth in the year 2025 (uh oh, that's coming up) and this seems to be part of their personality.

Additionally, regarding Portal, a popular franchise composed of only two video games is clearly different to the sprawling mess of Doctor Who. Canon has a defined meaning relational to a central authority with that franchise, whereas Doctor Who's central authoritative author said that this was as canon as everything else (a statement which has some weight given that Moffat described some Who as being in a separate continuity to his show). TheChampionOfTime ☎ 15:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Once more, you're advancing a hypothesis that's very difficult to hold, given the evidence. Maintaining that LEGO Batman + LEGO Gandalf + Wyldstyle are all from native LEGO dimensions, and the other characters come from their original IPs doesn't really line up with the statement about Portal. And, again, I understand you dislike the comparison, I really do. But the comparison is relevant because people are trying to make general arguments that, if successful, would entail, or would seem to entail, things about the Portal levels that we know to be false. Thus your arguments must fail. One person's modus ponens and all that.

Secondly, this is not what others have noted with the Jack Harkness line, this is simply false.

And finally, I don't know that it's quite relevant what Capaldi says here. My contention has never been that every person involved didn't intend for the work to count. Certainly I don't believe that. My contention is that the R4 intent has been far more messy than people are portraying it as, and I think there's a substantial bit of evidence that the people primarily working on the game itself think of the game writ large as being fully LEGO based. Surely in the past we've had R4 discussions where some of the people involved thought their work counted and some didn't, and still taken the latter R4 intent to be sufficient to disqualify it. (Shalka springs to mind, see User:CzechOut's comments at Thread:207499 in User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates 1.) Najawin ☎ 18:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

What I should have said about Portal is: the quote that you're talking about comes from a Valve spokesperson and is thus ultimately irrelevant to this conversation. Like, realistically, canon has a very different meaning for that franchise and it makes sense that the people behind Portal would say that about a game that isn't even playable on PC, and they're licensees so their statement doesn't make sense to apply to other properties in the game, no more than Steven Moffat could declare the Simpsons levels un-canon to the Simpsons. As this is a statement from the people behind the Portal property, all it tells us is that Lego Dimensions is officially not canon to the Portal games, not that the Portal games are non-canon to Lego Dimensions. "Dimensions" are fictional concepts in their own right, and I think it's a leap to say that because the Lego Portal Dimension is not considered by its licensees to be part of their official continuity that the Lego Dimension is therefore itself a discrete continuity, because that border is uni-directional and the statement 'that game is not canon to our series' does not equate to 'that game is in a separate universe in the multiverse". I think that all the multiverse content of this game confuses the conversation, when in truth we could compare this situation to the fact that Dimensions in Time being non-canon to EastEnders shouldn't have a bearing on its relation to Doctor Who.

Since we're talking about the intent of the people making this thing, the Burton interview is far more relevant, but as I said in my previous post his talk about the comedy of Lego Gandalf is just as much in reference to the Lego Lord of the Rings as it is to Lego Dimensions. Burton is talking about the Lego games franchise in general as a parody franchise, and that the parody is about more than the fact that its all Lego. They've always had gags and goofs. The fact that we can see many examples of what their version of parody is means that some of the franchises in Lego Dimensions stand out due to their relative lack of this classic Lego video game humour. The main characters of Lego Dimensions stand out from the worlds they interact with because they originate from previously established Lego universes while the other worlds were established in non-Lego media. TheChampionOfTime ☎ 01:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I would agree that the Portal statement is in no way definitive proof that we should view LEGO Dimensions as a whole as being "non canonical" for every franchise. (Or taking it as a statement of R4 intent for this discussion, etc etc.) That's not why it's useful. It's a statement that serves as a refutation of specific arguments that people are bringing up. If the arguments that people make are successful, they would entail that the Portal level should to be taken in a way that we know the creators very explicitly did not intend to take it. So those arguments must fail. (This doesn't mean their conclusion is incorrect, nor does it even suggest to us that their conclusion is incorrect, just that the reasoning can't be valid, so we can't listen to the arguments at all.) It doesn't move the needle on its own here, it just prevents other things from moving the needle.

The main characters of Lego Dimensions stand out from the worlds they interact with because they originate from previously established Lego universes while the other worlds were established in non-Lego media.

There's an issue here, well, two. You've set up a dilemma, in how you've portrayed "[originating in] previously established Lego universes" and "[being] established in non-Lego media", as being exclusive and/or all-encompassing. Gandalf only originates from a previously established Lego universe insofar as LEGO Gandalf does. But then, if we frame the issue in this way, focusing on the LEGO iteration of the character, it's not clear that any of the other characters do originate in non-LEGO media. To say so is question begging. And if we instead interpret LEGO Gandalf and LEGO Batman as also belonging to the second camp, of being established in non-LEGO media, the distinction you're trying to draw evaporates, the claim is simply false. So either your argument fails or it's circular. Viciously so.

I note as well that I think your reading of the dimension crisis is completely incompatible with both the mystery dimension, trailer, and the second Burton quote, where he specifies that they've tried to be true to the brick. (Now, I am taking Wired's interpretation of that to be correct, and if you disagree, ultimately I find that to be reasonable. But given that interpretation, I think it's incompatible.) Najawin ☎ 02:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)