User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170222073756/@comment-1789834-20170304211313: Difference between revisions
(Bot: Automated import of articles) |
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\7\2/\4-\3/\6-\5)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Right, I literally just came back from just rewatching the movie and have two main points to leave with you. Do with them as you wish but I feel I have to make them regardless. | Right, I literally just came back from just rewatching the movie and have two main points to leave with you. Do with them as you wish but I feel I have to make them regardless. | ||
| Line 9: | Line 8: | ||
Conclusion: I'm not against making them valid. But from a rewatch... there's not enough in the movie and there's not enough in this thread to make me want to include them and the movie itself into the DWU. A lot more is needed. You can sit there and say "an author's not gonna say this, that or the other" and "an author's not gonna write all that detail into his/her movie"... well, that's not my problem. We need hard facts, which state A, B and C. I really don't want this sliding through as valid by the clutching of straws. | Conclusion: I'm not against making them valid. But from a rewatch... there's not enough in the movie and there's not enough in this thread to make me want to include them and the movie itself into the DWU. A lot more is needed. You can sit there and say "an author's not gonna say this, that or the other" and "an author's not gonna write all that detail into his/her movie"... well, that's not my problem. We need hard facts, which state A, B and C. I really don't want this sliding through as valid by the clutching of straws. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20170222073756-4028641/20170304211313-1789834]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 14:44, 27 April 2023
Right, I literally just came back from just rewatching the movie and have two main points to leave with you. Do with them as you wish but I feel I have to make them regardless.
1. You guys may have missed it but there is actually a 'Bad Wolf' reference made. Not useful to this discussion but I just wanted to place it here to win internet points haha. In the scene where the Joker has stolen (and deployed) all of Batman's other vehicles, one of the jets has 'Bad Wolf' graffitied over it.
2. Putting all of your quotes regarding authorial intent to one side... I have to say that I've reached my own conclusion on the validity of this movie. Firstly, Voldemort is present... even though he died in the Potterverse. Simple explanation is that this is Voldemort from the LEGO Potterverse, in the LEGO Multiverse. Don't shun this point. I'm making a parallel to the Daleks. Now, if you watch the movie over again and again and again, I'm sure you'll find other characters from other universe that have met similar fates, yet somehow appear in this movie- I know nothing of the LotR books/movies but I'm sure Sauron can't appear...? The simple explanation is that death is different in the LEGO Multiverse. Nothing stops this Phantom Zone being the LEGO Phantom Zone. The portal through which the Daleks may have come is most likely to be the LEGO Whoniverse, rather than the actual Whoniverse.
You're gonna jump in and say "authorial intent"... the quote above stated "I wanted Daleks". But, the quote is so vague. Does he want the Daleks or does he just want an appearance of any Daleks he can get his hands on because he is in love with the Daleks (as are most of us)? To me, anyone and everyone who was bad appeared in this movie. The Daleks are there just to fill another hole and to tick another box. They're not there to be taken seriously. We discussed earlier in the discussion that a "tongue-in-cheek cultural reference" doesn't equate invalidity, and that's true. But here, I feel a line must be drawn. Inclusion on the fact that they "may be the Daleks" isn't good enough. To me, they're just a cameo among many. Moreover, it's easier for them to be LEGO Daleks from the LEGO DWU. Otherwise, we open up a bigger dialogue- why are the Daleks in the PZ? Who put them there? If you can't answer those questions, or if you're simply unprepared to try... then we can't make this movie valid yet.
Conclusion: I'm not against making them valid. But from a rewatch... there's not enough in the movie and there's not enough in this thread to make me want to include them and the movie itself into the DWU. A lot more is needed. You can sit there and say "an author's not gonna say this, that or the other" and "an author's not gonna write all that detail into his/her movie"... well, that's not my problem. We need hard facts, which state A, B and C. I really don't want this sliding through as valid by the clutching of straws.
