Have LEGO Movies become extended advertisements?

[Lego David]

In 2014, when the LEGO Movie was announced, everybody though it was going to be just some weird advertisement. And surprisingly enough, it was anything but an advertisement. It surprised both the audiences and the critics, in becoming one of the best animated movies of all time. But since than... things no longer feel like that. After that we got the Batman Movie, which while I didn't personally enjoy it that much, it was still liked by the majority of the audience. But here the things started to get weird. We got two Batman CMF series, which was just straight up unusual and unnecessary. We got 44 sets according to Brickset, which was semnificantly higher than the 33 we got in total for the first LEGO Movie. Because of the success of the movie, the sets sold very well, a lot well than Batman sets usually sell. It wasn't as successful as the first LEGO Movie, but it was successful enough to have a sequel which is still rumored at this point, but very likely to happen. 

Than we got the the Ninjago Movie, which came as a failure with weak box office results and unusually low ratings compared to it's predecessors. The movie was supposed to improve upon the already successful Ninjago, but instead we got that silly plot with that Giant Cat and a completely unnecessary redesign of the main characters. It had a lot of potential to make Ninjago even more popular, but honestly, this is the one which probably felt the most like an adverisement. Instead of improving Ninjago, it felt like extended adverisement of the Ninjago Movie sets. Not that it was bad, but it felt like a wasted potential.

And finally we get to the most recent one: The LEGO Movie 2. While I did enjoy it, and it is probably my 2nd favorite LEGO movie, still many parts of it felt like advertisements. Like, I just can't get over the fact that there wasn't a single vehicle in the entire movie which wasn't released as a set before the movie's release, unlike the First LEGO Movie where there were still plenty of sets that never made it to set form.

The LEGO Movies have gained a great reputation, but in time, I feel like LEGO has just used this to gain more sales instead of making better movies. Like every time they have a theatrical relased movie, the sets are almost guaranteed to sell well. In my opinion, movies should be movies, and LEGO sets should be LEGO sets. We don't need movies whose main purpise is to sell toys rather then be good. This is also the reason the Cars Movies are regarded as Pixar's lowest point.

What do you think about this?

Edited May 6, 2019 by Lego David

[Mylenium]

Yes, the only reason the orignal LEGO movie made such an impact is because indeed it came at the height of animation movies and subverted expectations and then LEGO tried to recycle the same recipe over and over with limited success. Whether or not you consider them advertisements is subject to view, but perhaps one shouldn't be under any illusion: 90% of those films are made to sell toys, comics and other merchandise, so LEGO are in good company. The only difference is that LEGO have a very specific product and they don't have to sell plushies... *g*

Mylenium

[TeriXeri]

Ever since 1999 LEGO has been doing a lot of movie based sets, Star Wars is going on 20 years non-stop, so seeing their own-made movies at some point wasn't a weird thing.

It's the endless licensed vs in-house debate.

Do I think licensed characters had a place in The LEGO Movie (2) ? No, but something like Batman is well-known and possibly draws more people to the Movie and Sets then they otherwise would have.

 

Edited May 6, 2019 by TeriXeri

[Lego David]

3 minutes ago, Mylenium said:

The only difference is that LEGO have a very specific product and they don't have to sell plushies... *g*

Mylenium

Well ironically, we did get plushes based on those movies...

[Retro]

It's not the question you asked, but it will be interesting to see if they keep making these films, and if so what direction they take as the law of diminishing returns sets in.

Lego Movie 1 was watchable, but not utterly amazing if you'd already seen quirky Lego animation, like the Padawan Menace. I personally found the Lego Batman Movie irritating, although I know some people liked it. Ninjago Movie was dreadful (although Ninjago City is glorious). Lego Movie 2 I didn't even bother with...I let the family go without me.

Edited May 6, 2019 by Retro

[Peppermint_M]

Yet my family enjoyed the movies and we happily all went along to watch all of them. I'm not looking for high art, I am looking for an enjoyable 90 minutes or so diversion. Then again, I love popcorn flicks. Sky Captain, The Phantom, Indiana Jones, A Knight's Tale are favourites and if I want to watch animation that is not created to sell toys then I'll watch Anime movies.

Let's get real, all cartoons since the 80's have only existed as a tool to sell toys. LEGO surprised everyone with the original LEGO Movie and knew that they could sell a lot of toys if their breakout-popular take on Batman had his own movie. If there wasn't more sets than you could ever believe for The Batman movie, someone would complain that X character or Y vehicle did not make it to a set.

So yeah, it might be one massive advert for their toy (It has never been presented as anything else, honestly) but I still enjoyed it all. If I have one complaint, it is simply that I prefer Cole's face prints from before the Ninjago movie.

[koalayummies]

This should be really obvious but Lego is a toy company not a production company. They're in the business of making and selling toys not besting Citizen Kane or Amadeus.

[Johnny1360]

I'll start by saying, I have never watched any of those movies. None the less no they didn't become advertising for LEGO sets. They always were and of course always intended as such, anything more should just be considered a bonus. Just my view on the whole can of worms. Of course the same could be said for most modern movies and even many older ones, think product placement is something new, it's been going on for a very long time. 

[JJ Tong (zfogshooterz)]

I pretty much enjoyed the two main Lego Movies and I totally don't mind them being advert-like either as I would find certain movies that focuses on "heart & humanity" to be quite boring actually. And I would have to agree with others, I watch the Lego Movies because I like the sets and Lego. If I want to watch stuff that aren't meant to sell stuffs, I have other stuffs to go to.

I personally feel, the other two spin-off films are unbalanced on an aspect. The Lego Batman Movie was too focused on "Heart and Humanity" that it feels more of a Batman movie rather than a Lego Movie to the point where I consider TLNM to be superior and having no strong feelings about TLBM. As the Lego Ninjago Movie, it also leans on heart and humanity combined with cheap gags, chinese aspect, and squandering on using the materials from the past series of Ninjago which is indeed a wasted potential to be greater which. And also, I am still not a big fan of the whole cat thing either. 

Nevertheless, I did enjoy both films which is also kinda thanks to it's advert-like aspect, like first epic battles Batman with all of Joker's Gang or the Secret Ninja Force vehicles with Garmadon's forces. 

4 hours ago, Lego David said:

Like, I just can't get over the fact that there wasn't a single vehicle in the entire movie which wasn't released as a set before the movie's release, unlike the First LEGO Movie where there were still plenty of sets that never made it to set form.

I would argue that there are stuffs that aren't sets yet like The Rex-Wing Fighters, various apocalypse-burg vehicles or certain spaceships from Syspocalypsestar.  

Edited May 6, 2019 by JJ Tong (zfogshooterz)

[Lyichir]

I don't think anything has really changed from the first Lego Movie, to be honest. If anything, any change has not been in the quality/storytelling of the movies themselves, but rather in Lego becoming more aware of the demand it will generate for the sets connected to it. I'm sure if Lego had been aware that so many of the various models that didn't get released as sets would be in high demand, they might have planned accordingly. But the success of the first movie's sets, and for that matter, the movie itself, seemed to significantly exceed Lego's initial expectations.

That said, I also recall plenty of vehicles from the second movie that didn't make it into sets, mainly Apocalypseburg/Systar System vehicles for any characters other than the main cast. Considering that, the first movie maybe had even more minor vehicles released as sets than the sequel did.

[ShaydDeGrai]

I think we're talking about two slightly different things here: movies, and movie-tie-ins.  Of course any kid-friendly movie from the past 40 years is going to have a strong merchandising aspect to it.  For better or worse, that's been the norm since the days of Dinky toys selling Gerry Anderson production vehicles and the original Star Wars flooded the shelves with Kenner action figures.  Naturally, a Lego film is going to be loaded with opportunities for Lego tie-ins.  The question is, without those elements, would a given movie still hold up?

Bond films are loaded with product placements (some subtle, some iconic) but they don't define the film or even drive the plot.  The story needs [luxury watch reference] and the producers solicit bids from Rolex and Omega to see who'll pay more to get the mention.  James Bond's [spy car] is cool because of its gadgets and the person driving it, not because its based on a Lotus, or Austin-Martin or BMW.  The characters and story are the heart of the film, the branding is just filler.

Similarly, the thing that makes (most) Pixar offerings so good is that they are good stories/characters first and animated features second.  The animation is there to realize the story-telling (and in many cases is beautiful in its own right, but...) it doesn't replace good writing, character development, pacing, and all the other things that help define film as an art form.  The animation is ultimately just a visual aid to convey a narrative idea that might be hard to get across in a live action medium, it might be what you're staring at, but it's not what you're seeing and feeling.

I think that why the first Lego Movie actually worked.  At its core there were characters and a story that _could_ be told with Lego, but didn't _need_ to be told with Lego.  A clever writer could have adapted that basic script to be about some kid's fantasizing about his dad's model railroad collection or tabletop wargaming or any one of a dozen other hobbies that may or may not have lent themselves ready marketing and the core themes would still have come through.

The other Lego films, in my opinion, have come up short in this regard.  They are relying too much on being "a Lego story" rather than a good story rendered in Lego.  Once you take away (or at best, dilute) plot and character in favor of brand recognition and product placement, you run the risk of not being a film anymore and just becoming a very long commercial.  I'm not saying the Lego films have reached that point yet, but they've flirted with it and I just haven't been all that impressed with their follow-on efforts to date.  TLNM was okay.  TLBM squandered a lot of potential.  TLM2 struck me as a bit forced and contrived, trying to get lightning to strike twice.  All of them would have benefited from the writers spending a lot more time thinking about the character angles than the Lego aspect and respecting the idea that just because something looks cool/clever/marketable, doesn't mean it advances the plot.

 

[Aanchir]

7 hours ago, Lego David said:

And finally we get to the most recent one: The LEGO Movie 2. While I did enjoy it, and it is probably my 2nd favorite LEGO movie, still many parts of it felt like advertisements. Like, I just can't get over the fact that there wasn't a single vehicle in the entire movie which wasn't released as a set before the movie's release, unlike the First LEGO Movie where there were still plenty of sets that never made it to set form.

…There were LOADS of vehicles in The LEGO Movie 2 that haven't appeared as sets, not to mention loads of OTHER non-set contents. Were you not paying any attention at all during those scenes?

It's feeling more and more like you just WANT to believe that anything and everything about LEGO is getting worse whether the truth of the matter supports it or not… at least, that's the impression I get from you making topic after topic about ways that you imagine LEGO is declining.

[Lego David]

7 hours ago, Aanchir said:

…There were LOADS of vehicles in The LEGO Movie 2 that haven't appeared as sets, not to mention loads of OTHER non-set contents. Were you not paying any attention at all during those scenes?

Well, I guess I wasn't paying enough attention to the movie detalils, than.

 

7 hours ago, Aanchir said:

It's feeling more and more like you just WANT to believe that anything and everything about LEGO is getting worse whether the truth of the matter supports it or not… at least, that's the impression I get from you making topic after topic about ways that you imagine LEGO is declining.

So what? This is the type of discussion I personally enjoy, unlike most people which talk about the newest sets which I have little to no interest in. If you like LEGO's current market and you think they are actually improving, that is great. It's great that you can enjoy something that I can't. If you're tired of responding to my (and other people's) criticism against LEGO with your very long posts, than don't do it. Nobody forces you to. You can just ignore my topics if they really distrub you so much.

Edited May 7, 2019 by Lego David

[MAB]

I think all the LEGO movies have been made primarily to sell toys, so in my view there is no change.

[Aanchir]

7 hours ago, Lego David said:

So what? This is the type of discussion I personally enjoy, unlike most people which talk about the newest sets which I have little to no interest in. If you like LEGO's current market and you think they are actually improving, that is great. It's great that you can enjoy something that I can't. If you're tired of responding to my (and other people's) criticism against LEGO with your very long posts, than don't do it. Nobody forces you to. You can just ignore my topics if they really distrub you so much.

There are plenty of types of discussion you can start about the older sets/media that don't rely on contrasting them with flaws of the current sets and media which only exist in your imagination. In fact, many of these topics of yours focus are heavily focused discussing "the newest sets", even if it's in terms of what you think is wrong with them rather than what you're excited about.

If you would really rather discuss the things you like about older sets, rather than complain about newer ones (something you can just as easily do in the topics that already exist for those sets/themes), then instead of topics like "What happened with functions/play features?" that are primarily focused on some attribute you mistakenly assume the newest sets lack, you could create a more positive-minded topic like "What functions/play features from past sets should LEGO bring back?"

The way you talk about my responses to your topics, it sounds like you're just as frustrated by them as I am by the topics themselves (particularly since my earlier response in this thread is not very long at all). But you can't expect to make a topic asking a question asking "is something-or-other about LEGO getting worse?" and expect only to get responses from people who agree with you, let alone for people who agree with you to have more to say that you haven't already said than people who disagree.

[dr_spock]

5 hours ago, MAB said:

I think all the LEGO movies have been made primarily to sell toys, so in my view there is no change.

And movie tie-in books too.  Right now, I have a decent sized list of Marvel End Game juvenile titles in the monthly sales catalogue. 

 

[Tariq j]

As said above, Kids movies have always had heaps of tie in merchandise to coincide with the release. However, I feel LEGO movies and the sets that tie into them aren’t mutually exclusive though. I can watch the LEGO Movie and enjoy without having to own the sets and/or CMF series. And likewise, I can enjoy and own the LEGO Movie sets and/or CMF series without having to have seen the film. For me what really worked about the first film was that a lot of the sets like Fire Truck, the Ice Cream van, the Recycling Truck, the Castle set, Benny’s Spaceship. They could all be implemented into existing collections if you’re a fan of City/Castle/Space. 

 

[Lego David]

2 hours ago, Aanchir said:

There are plenty of types of discussion you can start about the older sets/media that don't rely on contrasting them with flaws of the current sets and media which only exist in your imagination

My imagination? Huh. Than it's odd that some people do agree with those "imaginary" flaws.

[Aanchir]

1 hour ago, Lego David said:

My imagination? Huh. Than it's odd that some people do agree with those "imaginary" flaws.

Not really. Lots of people agree about all kinds of ridiculous things. Just look how many people still believe the moon landing was faked or that the earth is flat. For that matter, I frequently see Facebook comments from old-school LEGO fans who believe today's sets have fewer pieces than sets in the 80s or can't be used to build anything besides what's on the box, despite both those things being obviously untrue.

You've already admitted in your own topics that you were wrong about play features disappearing or The LEGO Movie 2 not having any non-set vehicles, so I don't know why you're suddenly getting defensive about the suggestion that your recent topics criticizing LEGO have been based on false assumptions.

[Peppermint_M]

5 hours ago, dr_spock said:

And movie tie-in books too

It gets kids reading at least 

 

Also, can we not devolve things into personal arguments? That would be great, thanks. 

Or you know, Admin and Moderators will have to start getting involved in a different sort of discssion.