It's actually awesome. It easily balances on the tightrope of over-the-top-and-silly-but-awesome.

Also, everything is awesome.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StTqXEQ2l-Y

I intend to see this!

My best friend and I saw this at the dollar theater yesterday. This is a terrific movie, the animation and attention to detail was just outstanding, the story was well-written, the humor was excellent, pretty much every single thing about this movie was dead-on.

I really liked how it offered a unique take on individuality vs. collectivism that was true to the source material and its philosophical implications (yes, I typed that with a straight face): Do you follow the instructions, or build your own thing? I loved how metafictional the whole thing was.

[quote="ThinlineTele"]I really liked how it offered a unique take on individuality vs. collectivism that was true to the source material and its philosophical implications (yes, I typed that with a straight face): Do you follow the instructions, or build your own thing? I loved how metafictional the whole thing was.[/quote]

YES

It's awesome when a movie ostensibly for kids can layer on social commentary.

Also (spoilerish)















I love how it messed with the chosen one trope.

[quote="terra"]Spoiler: [really?] [size=50]I love how it messed with the chosen one trope.[/size][/quote]


Oh, you mean by having Generic Whitebread Dude #533,700 play the chosen one?

When the entire *point* of the movie is that it could [i]literally be anybody[/i]...and it happens to be the most untalented Generic Whitebread Dude #533,700? Instead of someone who is talented, intelligent, and driven...like Wyldstyle? A woman?

I think the people who created this movie are probably pretty smart. But I don't read "casting a generic bro as the hero" as a knowing wink/nod to the audience, who "knows they know" how tropey it is. Like, I'm not dishing out any "hipster privilege-awareness points" for that one. You still made a huge movie with the same tired-ass expectations of Who Is A Plausible Hero.

good movie. I really liked it. but that was kind of groan worthy.

[quote="GoldenRhino"][quote="terra"]Spoiler: [really?] [size=50]I love how it messed with the chosen one trope.[/size][/quote]


Oh, you mean by having Generic Whitebread Dude #533,700 play the chosen one?

When the entire *point* of the movie is that it could [i]literally be anybody[/i]...and it happens to be the most untalented Generic Whitebread Dude #533,700? Instead of someone who is talented, intelligent, and driven...like Wyldstyle? A woman?

I think the people who created this movie are probably pretty smart. But I don't read "casting a generic bro as the hero" as a knowing wink/nod to the audience, who "knows they know" how tropey it is. Like, I'm not dishing out any "hipster privilege-awareness points" for that one. You still made a huge movie with the same tired-ass expectations of Who Is A Plausible Hero.

good movie. I really liked it. but that was kind of groan worthy.[/quote]

Ok, real spoilers incoming.

That's exactly it. Despite everyone going on blatantly about THE SPECIAL... he wasn't. He wasn't an orphan, a fifteen year old born in a certain year, with a special scar, special skills, or magical powers. He isn't the only one who could have saved the world, it could have been someone else. He's special because he isn't, like everyone else. He just happened to be in the right place at the right time. If it had been a woman, she would also have had to be an untalented, unspecial character to make the point.

Also Vitruvius made the whole prophecy thing up. The overemphasis on the fact that there should be a special chosen one at all, from an arbitrary prophecy, in a land of conformity underscores the silliness of it. But at the same time, his reasons for making up the prophecy were dead on - sometimes all we need to push ourselves into doing amazing things is a little boost of encouragement, not some inherent special-ness.

[quote="terra"]He's special because he isn't, like everyone else. He just happened to be in the right place at the right time. If it had been a woman, she would also have had to be an untalented, unspecial character to make the point.[/quote]

If had had been a woman, she would also have had to be an untalented, unspecial character. But it wasn't a woman. It's never a woman.

I'm not disagreeing with the *premise* of the Lego Movie (though I'd encourage everyone to read [url=http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/08/you-can-do-em-anything-em-must-every-kids-movie-reinforce-the-cult-of-self-esteem/278596/]this article[/url], on the omnipresent trend of "kids movies" involving untalented main characters succeeding just by believing in themselves).

My issue is that everything about the Lego Movie reinforces the status quo.

Wyldstyle is competent as fuck and she kicks butt through the entire movie. But then she's reduced to the love interest in the middle of a love triangle between Emmett and Batman. Her talents aren't recognized - she's just a prize for our dumbass hero to chase.

Most movies say "The only person awesome enough to save the world is [b]a straight white dude.[/b]
The Lego movie *appears* different, by saying "ANYBODY can be awesome enough to save the world!"...and today, it's [b]a straight white dude.[/b]

The point is that it can be anybody. When your "anybody" happens to be the most status quo, boilerplate, cliche thing you could do...that's groan-worthy. And it makes people like me really want more diverse representation in movies, and women/people of color/non-straight-white-bros get roles that are interesting, essential, and primary.

I really did enjoy the movie. But it's not perfect. It was clearly written by some really clever, smart individuals. But there are certain tropes in it that I wish we could be moving away from.

I think the best solution is for people who are concerned with women not having these roles making films where women fill those roles.

I haven't seen the video, but it kind of sounds like they had a strong woman lead character in there who are actually highlighted as being strong and talented, and a main character. I don't know why that's something to complain about, because if anything you could (probably, as I've not seen the movie) argue that since the other characters have the talent and skill as opposed to Everybro McWhitey, wouldn't those other characters be the real heroes?

Just my uninformed 2 cents, lol.

You know what GR? Your impassioned appeals have converted me. I have seen the light.

The LEGO Movie is actually advocating the evil heteronormative cisgendered white male privileged paradigm. What's worst is how *deceptive* the movie is! It pretends to have a Wyldstyle, a female character who is one of the most capable and intelligent in the entire movie. But she is paired off with Emmet, who is not equal - he is inferior. Inequality is badthink. Equality will be enforced. The LEGO movie artificially imposes social constructed notions of gender upon hermaphronormative characters - note that real-life LEGO figures do not have breasts, or penises, and in many cases can be easily and quickly gender reassigned through changing the head or hair piece. The same goes for race. LEGO figures are generally yellow, yet yellow characters are made white in the movie. Having white actors portray yellow characters is yellowface, which is an evil act of racism punishable by intense electroshock therapy. Likewise, Mr. Business is bait-and-switch - rather than correctly using him to highlight the very very evil inequalities of capitalism, it appears the character is created simply as the author's reaction to a father who prioritizes his work ("business") over spending time with his son.

The next LEGO movie should star a female bisexual transgendered purple-skinned African-American/alien hybrid who is a strong independent woman with every superpower. The cast will also feature an undocumented ("illegal") immigrant worker, a hermaphroditic climate change scientist, a very very wise Women's Studies college professor, a young and very very attractive Karl Marx clone with six-pack abs, John Scalzi, and a homosexual Muslim organic farmer. The villains will be George W. Bush, Pat Robertson, Roosh V., and Orson Scott Card.

Correct thought will now be enforced. All who deviate from correct neuropatterns will be sent to reeducation camps.

Popcorn.exe

This got ridiculous pretty fast.

Really though. This is a classic IM moment. We don't get many of these these days. Enjoy it while it last!

I rented a movie to watch tonight, and instead of watching it, I'm waiting to see how this thread unfolds.

True story. I don't know what that says about me, as a person. But there you have it.

And now, for breaking news: [b]Local White Man Unconcerned with Discussions of Racism and Sexism[/b]

Thinline. We know (and the forum knows) that our politics frequently don't align. But I'll ask you to try to engage with me here - in good faith. I know it's really fun and easy to do the whole cuh-razy radical feminist strawman satire - but really, bros like yourself can type "die cis-scum" all day long, but doing so is not only becoming stale [i]quickly[/i] (like, actually just boring and uninspired), but it's degrading the conversation for everyone. I know it's fun to flip the poker table, especially at me, but I know you're smarter than that - I know you can engage critically in other topics that don't provoke you as much, so I'll ask you to do that here. Take it or leave it though.

Here's a short list of what I'm not trying to do:
1) Chop your balls off
2) Shove my worldview down your throat.
3) Argue that all main characters in film need to be disabled, queer transwomen of color.
4) Argue that the Lego Movie "is sexist", or "is racist", or "is bad."


I really did enjoy the Lego Movie, it was one of the best films I've seen this year. But it's still possible to be critical with it where it counts, to point out there areas that were sloppy, tropey, or just holding up the status quo in a tired way.

Here's a big ask: skim [url=http://thedissolve.com/features/exposition/618-were-losing-all-our-strong-female-characters-to-tr/]this article[/url]. The gist is that "The Trinity Syndrome" describes a trend in films which feature "strong* female characters", who are then given very little to do with the story - they are turned into victims, nurturers, or romantic roles. They're never really given their own independent story threads, or chances to prove their own significance, and in the end, their agency and independence are often thrown under the bus somehow.

[i]It introduces its female lead, Elizabeth Banks’ Wyldstyle, as a beautiful, super-powered, super-smart, ultra-confident heroine who’s appalled by how dumb and hapless protagonist Emmet is. Then the rest of the movie laughs at her and marginalizes her as she turns into a sullen, disapproving nag and a wet blanket. One joke has Emmet tuning her out entirely when she tries to catch him up on her group’s fate-of-the-world struggle; he replaces her words with “Blah blah blah, I’m so pretty.” Her only post-introduction story purpose is to be rescued, repeatedly, and to eventually confer the cool-girl approval that seals Emmet’s transformation from loser to winner. After a terrific story and a powerful ending, the movie undermines its triumph with a tag where WyldStyle actually turns to her current boyfriend for permission to dump him so she can give herself to Emmet as a reward for his success. For the ordinary dude to be triumphant, the Strong Female Character has to entirely disappear into Subservient Trophy Character mode. This is Trinity Syndrome à la The Matrix: the hugely capable woman who never once becomes as independent, significant, and exciting as she is in her introductory scene. [/i]

So yeah, specifically to Mare, Wyldstyle is given some strong *traits*, but all of that is somewhat squandered by how she is treated in the movie. It's not the biggest issue that Wyldstyle isn't the star of the movie (despite it being nonsensical that she somehow isn't). The issue is that saying "Hey, Wyldstyle is there, she has a large role, she kicks ass" isn't enough. We haven't cleared the bar yet.

Thinline, if you want, could you respond to what I posted in my previous comment? Maybe we need to take a step back from Lego and see if we agree that increasing "representation" of various types of people in film (and my "various" is a low bar, I'm talking about those who aren't straight white dudes) is even important. Do we agree there? If not, why is it not an issue for you? As a straight white dude yourself, "~you~" are already far and away the most frequently represented type of person in TV and film - but could you empathize with others who are not you, and consider that maybe a *little* more diversity in our media might be a good thing?

If you're still thinking "Fuck this bullshit Marxist feminist propaganda from this queer-lovin' hippie", I'll just remind you that I have spent time and energy writing these words in earnest to you, hoping to carry on a conversation - this is time I could have spent doing many other things. I just wanna ask you to remember that I am a dude with several of the same interests as you, and everyone this entire thread would have a great time over a round of beers.[size=150][b] It's a fucking shame that the anonymity of the internet (where you can conveniently forget we have a real names, faces, needs/desires/goals, and expendable energy) makes it easier for us to treat each other like easy punchlines whenever we want.[/b][/size] So, please, if you want to post in this thread, notice that I have spent time and energy communicating in good faith, and then either bow out, or write a response without being a dick. I've seen the "angry tumblr feminist" schtick more times than I can count, and now it only touches the part of me that's dead inside. You'd be wasting your time.

edit: and in case it's somehow not clear, I don't have some vendetta against straight white men. There are many straight white men I appreciate and look up to. Like my dad! And Mare! . Hell, I'm like 90% Straight White Man, depending on how you slice it. But it'd be mad hilarious to see someone call me a "gender traitor".

*the term "strong female character" is problematized sometimes because of how much of a low bar it is, and how easily it can be turned into "confident lady who kicks ass" and nothing more.

I used to be in Thinline's camp, believing that feminists were pushing some kind of man-hating agenda and that discussions of race were somehow threatening my "white pride" or something like that. It's a position of fear, stemming from a lack of understanding.

But seriously? There's nothing really controversial about what GR's advocating here. Unless I've misunderstood, it basically boils down to: "Gee, wouldn't it be cool, for once, if a main character could be something other than a generic white dude?" and "Man, that female character had a lot of potential. It's a shame they kind of squandered it by making her into a trophy character."

This doesn't mean that there's something wrong with being white, or straight, or anything like that. It has more to do with representing different types of people, so that when a black kid or gay kid or differently-abled kid goes to see a movie, he/she can maybe relate to some of the characters on screen. That's it. It's easy for us, being white dudes, to overlook the fact that most heroes are straight white dudes. This is called privilege. Being aware of said privilege and advocating diversity in media is an important thing, seeing as how we live in a very diverse world. When this conversation first started, I was preparing to post something like: "Guys. This is the LEGO movie. Seriously? You're overthinking this." But, actually, this is sort of an important discussion. Our media represents our culture, and the pervasiveness of the female trophy character trope, and the white/straight hero trope are proof that there's still some progress to be made.

Knee-jerk, hyperbolic reactions like Thinline's remind me of the sort of thing I might've thrown together in the past, and it smacks of an underlying fear borne of ignorance, methinks. It was an entertaining read, but in all seriousness, advocating equal representation in media isn't a threatening or scary proposition. In fact, it's pretty reasonable.

It's times like this that I notice that no, this isn't the same IM I've been visiting for the past 6 or 7 years. We've all grown up a little bit. It's refreshing to see a discussion come back like that.

As far as my position in all of this, I agree with the notion of diversity. And I think the criticisms levied against the film in this thread stand up to scrutiny.