The LEGO Movie 2 to Contain More Female Characters

[Constructelf]

... Isn't "physical gender" just referred to as biological sex?

 

And to staff: sorry for the derailment.

 

Re: Lego Movie (to try and stay on topic), I might be a little late to this topic, but the whole "cramming female characters in", isn't that just a case of "cramming characters in"? Somebody mentioned the Twelve Dwarves from the Hobbit, which I felt was a good example. Too many characters, not enough spotlight to go around.

Edited November 14, 2014 by namcurtsnoC

[KopakaFan116]

Well, I don't have a problem with so many dwarves in The Hobbit, after reading the book I didn't feel that way. And yes, what I said as "physical gender" is the same thing as "biological sex". Plus, as long as in The Lego Movie 2 they don't make all the male characters stupid beyond belief like in so many other movies, I will not mind more female characters.

[Rahkshi Lalonde]

Well, I don't have a problem with so many dwarves in The Hobbit, after reading the book I didn't feel that way. And yes, what I said as "physical gender" is the same thing as "biological sex". Plus, as long as in The Lego Movie 2 they don't make all the male characters stupid beyond belief like in so many other movies, I will not mind more female characters.

 

What's wrong with male characters being stupid beyond belief? :b

[KopakaFan116]

 

 

(good luck getting through doors, Tahu)

I think that actually would increase the odds of Tahu appearing in the movie.

What?

What's wrong with it? It's a misrepresentation of reality that promotes false ideas among people.

 

 

Well, I don't have a problem with so many dwarves in The Hobbit, after reading the book I didn't feel that way. And yes, what I said as "physical gender" is the same thing as "biological sex". Plus, as long as in The Lego Movie 2 they don't make all the male characters stupid beyond belief like in so many other movies, I will not mind more female characters.

What's wrong with male characters being stupid beyond belief? :b

What's wrong with it? It's a misrepresentation of reality that promotes false ideas among people.

[fishers64]

It will be Lego Movie Superstar Gali, or whatever. One that gets booed out of comedy clubs for bad jokes.

The shippers may finally get their wish...

 

...urg. Please no. Even Toa Gali was better. 

 

What's wrong with male characters being stupid beyond belief? :b

Because if there are more girls in the film, and they are written logically/realistically, they will expect the guys to have brains and use them. 

 

Also, putting more girls in the film does not mean its okay to hate on the male characters in the film/dumb them down. That would be inconsistent with some previous portrayals of the characters. Even Emmet has probably grown up a little after the first movie. 

 

 

 

(good luck getting through doors, Tahu)

I think that actually would increase the odds of Tahu appearing in the movie.

What?

 

The Lego Movie is a comedy series, remember. The "I can't fit through a door" gag is kind of one of the oldest in the book. 

[KopakaFan116]

Oh! That's really funny! Better make a Tahu minifigure!

[Rahkshi Lalonde]

 

What's wrong with male characters being stupid beyond belief? :b

Because if there are more girls in the film, and they are written logically/realistically, they will expect the guys to have brains and use them. 

 

Also, putting more girls in the film does not mean its okay to hate on the male characters in the film/dumb them down. That would be inconsistent with some previous portrayals of the characters. Even Emmet has probably grown up a little after the first movie. 

 

I was joking, Obviously that trope is pretty problematic. (as great as it is at averting the white male hero ideal, possibly my favorite thing to avert.)

Edited November 14, 2014 by Rahkshi Lalonde

[Makaru]

 

 

It will be Lego Movie Superstar Gali, or whatever. One that gets booed out of comedy clubs for bad jokes.

 

The shippers may finally get their wish...

I don't think shipping means what you think it means.

[EmperorWhenua]

Well, you can't change who you were born as. Everybody is born as one gender or the other. And gender was not "invented" by people, rather created for a purpose by an all-powerful being.

 

No, gender was invented by people—I'm a sociology student, this is what I plan to study as a living. I'm not getting into a discussion of religious dogma publicly, so don't bother goading me to, but let me just say that I'm definitely a theist and I have no problem reconciling my beliefs of faith with my scientific beliefs of gender and sex. And you mayn't be able to change what you're born as, but after you're born anything to harmonize your body with your identity can happen. Ever heard of transexual people? Or how about intersex? (In fact, not even one's physical sex is on a binary; the concept of there only being male and female is sadly mistaken.) The truth is people are altered, either surgically or not, because their sense of identity is not what they were born as. This deserves recognition, as does the existence of people of all identities.

 

Yeah, I've heard of it. It still doesn't change what your PHYSICAL gender is, but rather your MINDSET.

There's sex and there's gender—"physical gender" looks to me like a mishmash of the two and a total inaccurate term. Gender as a psychological identity can indeed be physically expressed by fashion or manner or such, but I doubt that's what you're meaning. 

 

... Isn't "physical gender" just referred to as biological sex?

I think that's what KopakaFan means. 

 

As i said before, I'd be happy to discuss these obviously potentially contentious things in private and would prefer not cluttering this topic with it any more than we already have. Please respect that so that the posts here remain relevant to the news. 

[KopakaFan116]

No, gender wasn't invented by people. Anyways, we're going off-topic so I'm not posting here anymore. That and people question and say "their theory is more important or is more true than yours." What does it matter if there is no truth to base your belief on? What does anything matter at all?

 

*KopakaFan116 out*

Edited November 14, 2014 by KopakaFan116

[EmperorWhenua]

That's an awfully ignorant way to end a conversation, but it does tell me much about just how interested you really are in the subject. So thank you.

[shadow pridak money gang]

Yeah, I've heard of it. It still doesn't change what your PHYSICAL gender is, but rather your MINDSET.

 

You are a certified stunad if you really believe this. I would back it up with actual facts and essays for you to read but I know you won't read them and for once I got beaten to the punch, so I'm just going to settle for the momentary pleasure of calling you a stunad.

 

-Tyler

Edited November 14, 2014 by Tyler Durden

[Black Six]

No, gender wasn't invented by people. Anyways, we're going off-topic so I'm not posting here anymore. That and people question and say "their theory is more important or is more true than yours." What does it matter if there is no truth to base your belief on? What does anything matter at all?

 

*KopakaFan116 out*

There is scientific theory, there is scientific fact, and there is non-scientific belief (and obviously many other things). Just because you have a belief does not mean you can say things science has proven aren't actually true. If you continue this line of discussion and putting forth disrespectful beliefs you will likely find yourself facing administrative action.

[Constructelf]

Comedy, huh?

 

Tying back into the "stupid beyond belief" thing, it might depend on how it's being portrayed. Quite a few genres of comedy depend on the characters making some sort of error in order to set up the joke. Maybe if there was an even amount of stupid to go around between the guys and the girls? Or if not all of the guys were stupid beyond belief but there were a few comic relief characters?

 

... I'm just talking out of my head though, as I haven't seen the Lego Movie.

[Rahkshi Lalonde]

Comedy, huh?

 

Tying back into the "stupid beyond belief" thing, it might depend on how it's being portrayed. Quite a few genres of comedy depend on the characters making some sort of error in order to set up the joke. Maybe if there was an even amount of stupid to go around between the guys and the girls? Or if not all of the guys were stupid beyond belief but there were a few comic relief characters?

 

... I'm just talking out of my head though, as I haven't seen the Lego Movie.

 

Where else would you talk out of? :V

 

anyway, yeah, in the lego movie, i don't think they even used the "stupid boys" thing?

 

unless you count a lot of how batman acted, but that was more being a jerk.

[Nidhiki of the Shadows]

As long as they're actual characters and not female for the sake of being female. 

 

-NotS

[Aanchir]

As long as they're actual characters and not female for the sake of being female. 

 

-NotS

I keep hearing comments like this and all I can wonder is, are female characters ever "female for the sake of being female"? Is that a thing? Has that EVER been a thing?

 

I've heard of shows having a "token girl", but if writers genuinely express an interest in putting more female characters in a story, WHY would that make them suddenly stop caring about whether they're actual well-developed characters? Like "Oh, now that this character is female, we no longer have to put any effort into writing her!" I can't think of any reason even the WORST writer would jump to such a batty conclusion. If they did, then we'd be having a different discussion entirely.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Aanchir

[Gatanui]

 

As long as they're actual characters and not female for the sake of being female. 

 

-NotS

I keep hearing comments like this and all I can wonder is, are female characters ever "female for the sake of being female"? Is that a thing? Has that EVER been a thing?

 

I've heard of shows having a "token girl", but if writers genuinely express an interest in putting more female characters in a story, WHY would that make them suddenly stop caring about whether they're actual well-developed characters? Like "Oh, now that this character is female, we no longer have to put any effort into writing her!" I can't think of any reason even the WORST writer would jump to such a batty conclusion. If they did, then we'd be having a different discussion entirely.

 

I think he's just expressing the same concern I voiced in the news story - that they just cram in a lot of female characters to have a larger number of them and to be able to say "hey look, we are paying attention to gender equality!" and then fail at the execution by making them merely representations of clichés and stereotypes and by defining them through exactly those stereotypes instead of developing interesting characters. Edited November 14, 2014 by Gatanui

[Lyichir]

As long as they're actual characters and not female for the sake of being female. 

 

-NotS

What could possibly make you think it would be the latter? You would think the massive success of the first movie (both critically and financially) would make people stop assuming that the people responsible for it aren't going to phone in every possible step of the process.

[davidr777]

So what's the deal? Not like it will make the movie any better just by itself...

[believe victims]

So what's the deal? Not like it will make the movie any better just by itself...

 

Well, in a Hollywood where an overwhelming amount of movies have mostly-male casts, it's nice to see people actually addressing the problem.

 

In a way, it's not even about making the movie better, but about trying to make society better (which is what most good stories strive to do anyway).

[user-402520536]

I only want one other character in TLM2: junkbot. It would make the movie PERFECT.

 

But more female characters is always excellent.

 JUNKBOT. JUUUUUNKBOT. Time to start sending those emails.

[Nidhiki of the Shadows]

 

I keep hearing comments like this and all I can wonder is, are female characters ever "female for the sake of being female"? Is that a thing? Has that EVER been a thing?

I've heard of shows having a "token girl", but if writers genuinely express an interest in putting more female characters in a story, WHY would that make them suddenly stop caring about whether they're actual well-developed characters? Like "Oh, now that this character is female, we no longer have to put any effort into writing her!" I can't think of any reason even the WORST writer would jump to such a batty conclusion. If they did, then we'd be having a different discussion entirely.

I think he's just expressing the same concern I voiced in the news story - that they just cram in a lot of female characters to have a larger number of them and to be able to say "hey look, we are paying attention to gender equality!" and then fail at the execution by making them merely representations of clichés and stereotypes and by defining them through exactly those stereotypes instead of developing interesting characters.

 

Yup, that pretty much sums it up.

 

-NotS

[Ayliffe]

Meh. I'm fine with this, as long as they spend as much time on the plot as on this. I don't really want minidolls in the film TBH, mainly because trying to create decent movement with them through the stop-motion style they used in the first film is stupidly hard due to their horrible single-mould legs. Then again, Unikitty also had this problem and they managed to work around it, so I could see it happening.

 

But I still want Johnny Thunder in the next film. Not as a cameo like in TLM1, but a PROPER developed character. And maybe Miss Pippin Reed too.

 

On a slightly offtopic note, does anyone else think that the next three Lego films (Ninjago, Batman and TLM2) could possibly be linked in some way story-wise? Maybe even post-credits scenes at the end of each of them, directly setting up the events of the next film? (You know, like wot those clever blokes at marvel do all the time?)

[Catra]

I don't really want minidolls in the film TBH

 

you uh

 

like i dont wanna be the one to rain on your parade but like. you realize girl minifigs exist right. like. there are actual minifigs that are characters that are women. i just want to be absolutely sure that you understand that minidolls are not a necessity here just because there will be ladies. i really really want to be clear on this

 

also why is everyone so worried that building up female characters will somehow "detract from the plot" yet nobody makes that complaint about an overabundance of male characters like. why does the ladies characterization have to be separate from the plot while the dudes are somehow integral to it

 

im pretty sure the same amount of time will be spent on gals as guys for characterization and it wont take away from the plot at all. it wouldnt take away from the plot if all the characters were women tbh

Edited November 18, 2014 by Starlord

[Lyichir]

 

I don't really want minidolls in the film TBH

 

you uh

 

like i dont wanna be the one to rain on your parade but like. you realize girl minifigs exist right. like. there are actual minifigs that are characters that are women. i just want to be absolutely sure that you understand that minidolls are not a necessity here just because there will be ladies. i really really want to be clear on this

 

also why is everyone so worried that building up female characters will somehow "detract from the plot" yet nobody makes that complaint about an overabundance of male characters like. why does the ladies characterization have to be separate from the plot while the dudes are somehow integral to it

 

im pretty sure the same amount of time will be spent on gals as guys for characterization and it wont take away from the plot at all. it wouldnt take away from the plot if all the characters were women tbh

 

While there are obviously a lot of female minifigs other than minidolls, I'm just gonna throw my hat in the ring and say I really DO want minidolls in TLM2. The first movie really stuck mostly to traditional figs, but it would be amazing for the Friends theme (which may occasionally get a bad rap but is legitimately one of the best things Lego's come up with in the past few years) to get some proper representation. As I've said before, it's not impossible that Finn's little sister would be in the Friends age range by the time of the next movie...

 

Also if the new Elves theme turns out to be nearly as great as it seems then I'd DEFINITELY want to see it represented as well.

[Makaru]

I don't think that's what Clover or even Ayliffe were reffering to when they were talking about "minidolls".

[Aanchir]

I don't think that's what Clover or even Ayliffe were reffering to when they were talking about "minidolls".

Well, that's what the term "minidolls" (or as LEGO spells it, "mini-dolls") actually means, and it's pretty clearly what Ayliffe was referring to when she described them as having "horrible single-mould legs", so could you explain what YOU think they meant? Edited November 18, 2014 by Aanchir

[Makaru]

Terrible reading comprehension on my part. I just thought it was weird that the sentiment was "I don't want lego in my lego movie".

Edited November 18, 2014 by Makaru

[Aanchir]

Terrible reading comprehension on my part. I just thought it was weird that the sentiment was "I don't want lego in my lego movie".

It's a sentiment that has basically stopped surprising me. The only reason why I think there weren't many complaints about the split-second BIONICLE and Friends cameos in the LEGO Movie is because many people who hate those themes grossly misinterpreted the context as the film's creators echoing that hate. If actual BIONICLE and Friends characters were to show up in the sequel, you can bet that there will be some FOLs complaining that they're not "real LEGO" or that their presence is somehow an insult to the classic themes that share a screen with them.

 

On the subject of LEGO Friends and its relationship with the universe of The LEGO Movie, it does bear mentioning that "Heartlake City" is on some of the highway signs in Bricksburg, along with other destinations like "City Center" and "Century Skyway". So a Heartlake City exists in the film's universe, and I'm sure that once Finn's sister grows up a bit, it might begin to see a population boom.

Edited November 18, 2014 by Aanchir

[Alyska]

Y'know, Olivia from Friends as a Master Builder would be an interesting idea. I've seen a few fan creations that show her piloting giant robots and other crazy-awesome stuff, and yet she also wears pink and does traditionally feminine things as well. It'd be a great way to mess around with gender expectations AND address some of the stigma associated with the minidoll.

 

(Plus, imagine official sets of Olivia in a giant pink mecha. Imagine thousand of little girls dragging their mothers down the toy shop aisles demanding pink mecha for Christmas. What it is, is beautiful.)

[Ayliffe]

It looks like some of you may be slightly confused by what I said, so I'll try to be a bit clearer:

 

I don't really want minidolls in the film because of being against anything that isn't classic themes, or anything like that, it's simply because their moulds really excessively limit character movement in the stopmotion style of the first film. Put it this way, why do you think there aren't many brickfilms on youtube with minidolls in them? It's not because they're against them for being females or something, it's because animating with them is a pain. Their legs being one solid piece is the main reason why, but their non-rotating hands and with some hairpieces limited head movement (mainly Olivia's hair) also contribute to this. And that's pretty much why. If TLG manage to sort out the leg problem with a new mould in the next couple of years before TLM2 I'll be happy, but even if they don't and they still put minidolls in, I won't really mind that much, and I'll still watch it.

 

Also, if they do put any minidolls in as main characters, I'd prefer to get a completely new and unique character over any of the current ones in Friends and Elves. In fact, if they introduce ANY non-IP main characters in TLM2, I'd prefer them to be new unique characters (Exception: Johnny Thunder ).