Talk:The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part

Writer credit

In the official website (and the trailer), the billing solely credits Phil Lord and Christopher Miller. Although, in the STORY section, it says "the screenplay is by Phil Lord & Christopher Miller, story by Phil Lord & Christopher Miller." We'll go off the billing, until it changes (usually in the movie credits) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamnoahflores (talk • contribs) 20:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't we be only listing information from secondary sources? The credits list on a movie can't be used to refer to itself for Wikipedia purposes, can it? NewkirkPlaza (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

A film can be used as a source for itself, as is explained regarding the plot section in WP:FILMPLOT. Primary sources can be used for basic factual information, as long as no interpretation is involved. Per MOS:FILMCAST, we can also use either the credits from the film or common names as used by secondary sources. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Emmet Defeat

Does Emmet and friends are defeating the Duplos and the queen and restore Bricksburg? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.77.147.229 (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The Lego Movie threequel

Is there going to be The Lego Movie 3? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.77.154.117 (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

It depends how much money this one makes of course. That's show business. -- 109.79.95.247 (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Musical elements mention?

It might not be a full-fledged musical, but at least three of the songs in the movie (Not Evil, Gotham City Guys, Everything's Not Awesome) advance the plot - should we make a mention of this somewhere? Connieboy (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

No. BBFC lists three genres, (Comedy, Animation, Adventure) none of them are musical. WP:FILMLEAD and WP:WEIGHT.

The Category Musical films probably should not be included either. -- 109.79.166.32 (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think BBFC is such a reliable source anymore. Brian K. Tyler (talk) 01:14 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Still not a musical and anyone who disagrees should discuss here, since it has been repeatedly rejected already. -- 109.76.146.226 (talk) 07:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

From the script: [music begins playing] Lucy: Oh, no. Are we in a musical? Batman: Yep, get ready.

So yes, we disagree with you. 83.70.54.143 (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:FILMLEAD, only the primary genre goes in the lead, and musical is not its primary genre or subgenre. Further, unless sources call it a musical, the term should be included in the article at all, including categories. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The script itself, as well as the director (and the director of The Lego Batman Movie) have referred to the film as being a musical in both dialogue and running commentary (as well as various interviews). 83.70.54.143 (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Genres should be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and even taking into consideration director statements, that would not override the WP:WEIGHT of the other more reliable sources. You would need to provide sourcing to support your claims, not quotes from the film's characters. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

What about "5:15", "Welcome to the Systar System" and "Catchy Song"? Brian K. Tyler (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

What about them? Films can have songs without necessarily being in the genre of musicals. You can add information about that to the Music section. -- 109.79.65.11 (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Someone has again attempted to add the musical genre,[1] which I still dispute. The purported sources call it more of a musical than the first film[2] and point out that it is "not being sold as a musical"[3] so again it is a film that happens to contain some elements of a musical. Musical is not the primary genre, see WP:FILMGENRE and WP:WEIGHT. -- 109.79.65.11 (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Also WP:FILMLEAD is supposed to summarize what is in the article body. If you can't get good enough sources to get it into the Production section, preferably from the filmmakers themselves (which might give your claims some weight) then you shouldn't be trying to shoehorn it into the intro. -- 109.79.65.11 (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Why don’t we just bring the musical genre back up? Because honestly, this movie is just about as much of a musical as Rio (2011) and it’s sequel Rio 2 are. Not to mention, the Rio (2011 film) article has the same number of genres listed on it as this article did before the musical part was removed. Brian K. Tyler (talk) 04:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT Please show your sources.

The tendency of editors to shove the musical genre into every film that happens to have any musical bits in it does not make this film a musical either.

"It might not be a full-fledged musical" is how this discussion started, and also how it should have ended already. -- 109.76.203.32 (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying that the musical bits are not even that important to the movie? Because from what the lyrics of the main ones tell us, they clearly are. Ergo, this is a musical film. Brian K. Tyler (talk) 08:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

And what about these sources? Brian K. Tyler (talk) 08:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying you still don't understand what primary genre means and are you still making the same old argument that having musical parts makes the whole thing a musical, it sure seems like it. Musical is not the primary genre, and it is undue to claim otherwise.

What specifically about those sources? Already asked and answered above, "more of a full-blown musical" but still not a full blown musical, still not the primary genre. A few cherry picked sources still does "not override the WP:WEIGHT of the other more reliable sources" as was already said above. Nothing new here.

Despite past discussions User:Brian K. Tyler tried to push the musical genre into the article again.[4] Expand the article body if there is relevant information from the filmmakers or the songwriters but please stop repeating the same weak tired arguments, and don't add genre bloat to the intro. -- 109.76.133.249 (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I suppose you think the Rio (2011 film) and Rio 2 articles have genre bloats in their intros as well.

Above unsigned comment was by User:Brian_K._Tyler. Please sign your posts using ~~~~

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The opening sentences of those articles are certainly both cluttered, and I would again encourage editors to look at what reliable sources say are the genre of the film and try to follow the guidelines and list only the primary genre. Reliable sources are clear that the primary genre of this film is not a musical. -- 109.79.70.46 (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

He's still pushing this genre bloat.[5] -- 109.77.199.28 (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Cast

It seems Margot Robbie did not voice Harley Quinn and it was instead voiced by a person called Margot Rubin [6][7]. I tried to fix this but someone said CBR wasn't a good enough source (strange then he didn't complain about Comicbook.com and Twitter being used as sources). -- 109.79.166.32 (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Another editor has restored it.

If CBR is not a good enough source then please tag with {{better source needed}} instead of deleting. (Rubin appears to be an executive at Warner Bros.) -- 109.79.166.32 (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I've restored Margot Rubin again. An imperfect source is better than reverting back to information we now know is wrong. -- 109.79.166.32 (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Almost forgot since the film is out, so sources aren't strictly needed anymore and the film credits should be enough now. -- 109.79.74.194 (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Several good faith edits are misunderstanding the situation. A person who writes comedy and works for Warner Bros. called Margot Rubin is listed in the credits of the film. Australian Margot Robbie did not voice the character. -- 109.79.74.194 (talk) 12:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

How do we know that Maya Rudolph voiced Dorothy? Since I only recall Dorothy "speaking" when Emmet made everyone cry, I didn't check the end credits for her VA. 98.144.137.239 (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Budget

Currently, the movie's budget is listed here as $99 million. However, I've also seen figures of as low as $90 million and as high as $100 million for the movie's budget. And BoxOfficeMojo lists the budget as "unknown". Can someone potentially clear this up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lunchopotamus (talk • contribs) 17:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Template: Infobox film says do not cherry pick sources so if you have reliable sources that say both $90 and $99 million then we should include both. Box Office Mojo fails frequently, we use other sources instead. Post sources here first if in any doubt. If you can find details about tax breaks that might explain the different budget figures then it would be good to explain in the article body. -- 109.76.149.106 (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Plot bloat again

I've tagged the plot section as too long yet again. Part of me thinks the rule about plot section length is too severe and almost unmanagable for most editors, but I have to admit that when a disciplined editor with excellent copywriting skills finally summarizes an article we all enjoy a better clearer plot section, instead of the mediocre blow-by-blow description most articles end up with.

The plot section has bloated up to 800 words. You could quickly revert some of the recent plot bloat [8] [9] [10] but as I said in my edit summary a more substantial overhaul might be needed for it to stay succinct, and resist the need people seem to feel to add just a bit more detail. I'm done trying to fix it though, because people keep bloating it back up again. -- 109.76.211.117 (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

More general question: Why are plot summaries encouraged on Wikipedia? Seems like a violation of notability unless someone is literally quoting a plot summary from a secondary source (perhaps about movie history). Have there been discussions about this on the site or elsewhere? NewkirkPlaza (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Very late answer but I'll answer anyway for any lurkers or newbies who might not know: MOS:FILMPLOT explains the plot section is there to "complement wider coverage about production, reception" etc. meaning basically that if this encyclopedia did not include at least some short plot summary it would end up being necessary for the other sections to explain certain plot points (twist endings for example) for context and clarity and that would be quickly become redundant and repetitive and annoying. A concise 400-700 word plot summary is intended to highlight the key points and provide necessary context to readers who might not be familiar with the film. -- 109.77.199.70 (talk) 13:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Armamageddon

I thought it should have been Armomageddon - A portmanteau of Mom and Armageddon - Not 'Our Mamma Get's In' that has been mentioned in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.22.8.20 (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

It has changed over time as some editors have argued over it but it wasn't clear that it was based on any sources, and I don't recall there being any consensus or discussion. -- 109.76.149.106 (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

We are likely going to have to wait for the home media release to see what the subtitles give. And even then, that won't explain which the intended pun is. (I would guess though it's based on Mom/Armageddon rather than the other version). --Masem (t) 15:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

"Armomageddon" sounds reasonable to me, want to declare a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and revert back to the version we had last week and go with that until we have sources that say otherwise? -- 109.76.149.106 (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

An anonymous +1 to this 2605:E000:855C:BE00:BC9D:F6B5:4335:4D9B (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

If it's any help, a booklet I got from a Maccie's Happy Meal toy of Mayhem (of her real face, that is) spells it as Armamageddon. Visokor (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, the "Our momma gets in" bit IS relevant to the plot not only because Lucy says it herself but also it reflects the intervention of Finn and Bainca's Mom Visokor (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Wyldstyle or Lucy?

Parts of this summary say "Wyldstyle" and some say "Lucy." What should she be called? (I prefer Lucy.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.84.43.10 (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

At the moment the Plot section consistently uses Lucy. I do find it a little confusing because she was called Wyldstyle throughout the first film. So long as it is consistent I guess that's fine. -- 109.77.205.61 (talk) 13:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Sets of The Lego Movie 2

Can I add the list of the sets in this page? Oon835 (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

As I said on Talk:The_Lego_Movie#Sets_of_Lego_Movie: This is an article about a film, long exhaustive lists of toys are not appropriate or relevant to this encyclopedia article. Not Notable. -- 109.79.67.131 (talk) 19:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Animation Type

The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part is also stop motion/computer animation hybrid. --2603:6000:8D00:92AA:148A:9552:6899:4D20 (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The Lego Movie § Animation is very clear that the film was computer animated to look like stop-motion. The Lego Movie 2 § Production discusses the rendering engine. Are you disputing either of those? --Fru1tbat (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)