The man upstairs wasn't a stand in for AFOLs. There is no indication or sweeping statement that was trying to be made about adult fans.

You are joking right? "The Man Upstairs" can only be seen as a representative of AFOLs, and more particularly a sub-set of obsessive, minfig-scale builders.

He builds in standard AFOL themes on tables clearly modelled on the standard train tables. His disdain for Bionicle and other themes that are generally looked down on amongst the AFOL community has been communicated to his son who has Vitruvious dismiss them as unworthy early in the film. His basement looks like the standard lair of AFOLS who have that kind of space and to which most of us aspire.

Suggesting that The Man Upstairs is somehow NOT an AFOL is delusional.

Again, I really don't understand how people think that the character is an insult to AFOLs everywhere.

Maybe not every single AFOL everywhere - although the distinction to non-AFOLs is probably invisible. Many people I know who know I am an AFOL have asked if I have a space like him and most have asked if I use glue. I emphatically deny what I consider to be an offense and make it clear that gluing is generally disapproved of in the community. As a stereotype I would bet that nearly 100% of parents watching this film would consider him a representative of "AFOLs everywhere".

Even if you make the distinctions between AFOLs he is still an insult to a large number of AFOLs who like to build in a certain style and do not wish to demolish their creations on a regular basis. There are many of us, myself included, who build models to a theme and grand design and wish them to remain intact for months or years. The message of this movie is that I am not allowed to do this as sharing with anyone who wants to build with my LEGO (including destroying existing MOCs) trumps my selfish desire to keep MOCs together.

In the end I don't agree with the premise but I'm not mad about it nor will I call for silly ideas like boycotts or petitions. The character is clearly over-the top, as is the response which is usual in movies. It is something to laugh about with LEGO employees at conventions not something to make a big fuss over.

Edited September 27, 201410 yr by opn2

I was not suggesting that he wasn't an AFOL - I submit that he is not intended to represent AFOLs as a whole

LOL, well you and I disagree on the definition of words like "stereotyping" and "representation". As for "intention" well, to be fair that may not have been the intention (or it may have been) but clearly all fans are tarnished by the same brush. Even if some people tell you that they don't think he represents you I would bet any amount of money that somewhere, deep down, they are wondering if you do some of those things anyway.

In any case the movie oversimplifies the concept of "Do Not Touch" and any AFOL who has ever used those words. Oh wait, I would bet that is 99% of us or to put it a different way, it is an AFOL steroetype.

The movie clearly points out that every single item in his display was built "according to the instructions." It's made clear that he has never made an MOC or even thought of making one, likely because he did not realize it was possible.

Wow, you were not paying attention were you. The adherance to instructions is the representation of the boys intepretation of his father's mania for not changing things. "Emmet" and the other "in game" characters talk about following instructions but one quick glance at the worlds he has created both "in game" and out show many MOCs. LEGO has never made sets from those skyscrapers in Bricksburg. I don't recall the saloon from "The Old West" being sold as a set. Now you are over-simplifying and equating a desire to maintain integrity of completed MOCs with rigid adherence to provided instructions. I think the movie people can get away with it but as an AFOL you don't get the same latitude.

edit: for awful spelling.

Edited August 1, 201410 yr by tedbeard

In any case the movie oversimplifies the concept of "Do Not Touch" and any parent who has ever used those words. Oh wait, I would bet that is 99% of us or to put it a different way, it is a parent steroetype.

edit: replaced "AFOL" with "parent" above.

Let's face it, it's not just our Lego we want our kids out of. Whether I have a bunch of books around while doing research, my wife with her sewing or painting, or either of us with dinner before the whole family has gathered to eat, we tell our kids "hands off" a ton. In one way or another, every parent tells their kid "you've got your own bucket of Lego over there in the corner to play with," just that it doesn't always involve Lego.

Question: how many people who had a problem with the movie's message do NOT have kids? OK, now how many of you do? I'm just curious, and not pointing any fingers.

The movie was a bit of a wake-up call for me, and I've seen other commenters say similar things: that as grownups, we obsess way too much over our stuff when something is supposed to be a kids' toy. Yes, I have acted as obsessively as The Man Upstairs. We have a nice little Lego setup in our basement and I yelled at my daughter way too often for moving things around and building stuff that's weird. After the movie, we came to an understanding: a lot of the stuff is hers and I was being way too precise about it, so she can move around our setup however she wants. I have a few off-limits items, like my Millennium Falcon and my Haunted House, plus one project that I'm saving for the Winter Village contest. The rest, she can play with.

If I were an AFOL with no kids, I suspect that I might have taken the "playing with my stuff" message a little too seriously. But having kids, I realize that no, this stuff should be played with.

If I were an AFOL with no kids, I suspect that I might have taken the "playing with my stuff" message a little too seriously. But having kids, I realize that no, this stuff should be played with.

I have three kids. They have their LEGO, I have mine and they are welcome to "borrow" bits and pieces and even completed MOCs on a regular basis but not all of it should be played with. I see no reason to let my kid dismantle my MOCs any time they feel like it. They have to learn to respect other people's property even if they really want it.

I have three kids. They have their LEGO, I have mine and they are welcome to "borrow" bits and pieces and even completed MOCs on a regular basis but not all of it should be played with. I see no reason to let my kid dismantle my MOCs any time they feel like it. They have to learn to respect other people's property even if they really want it.

...yes, but that's why I also said

I have a few off-limits items, like my Millennium Falcon and my Haunted House, plus one project that I'm saving for the Winter Village contest. The rest, she can play with.

The movie was a bit of a wake-up call for me, and I've seen other commenters say similar things: that as grownups, we obsess way too much over our stuff when something is supposed to be a kids' toy.

I strongly disagree with this. It doesn't matter if it's designed as a kids' toy, it's as valid a hobby as anything else one can choose. And one have a right to protect one's hobby and should in no way feel ashamed or guilty about it.

What bugged me was that President Business kills Vitruvius but at the end of the movie, everyone forgets this and life goes on.

Question: how many people who had a problem with the movie's message do NOT have kids? OK, now how many of you do? I'm just curious, and not pointing any fingers.

The movie was a bit of a wake-up call for me, and I've seen other commenters say similar things: that as grownups, we obsess way too much over our stuff when something is supposed to be a kids' toy. Yes, I have acted as obsessively as The Man Upstairs. We have a nice little Lego setup in our basement and I yelled at my daughter way too often for moving things around and building stuff that's weird. After the movie, we came to an understanding: a lot of the stuff is hers and I was being way too precise about it, so she can move around our setup however she wants. I have a few off-limits items, like my Millennium Falcon and my Haunted House, plus one project that I'm saving for the Winter Village contest. The rest, she can play with.

If I were an AFOL with no kids, I suspect that I might have taken the "playing with my stuff" message a little too seriously. But having kids, I realize that no, this stuff should be played with.

I have kids, and I was wondering this, too.

And the movie was a wake up call for me as well. I realized I was Lord Business. I wanted things built my way, and displayed my way. After seeing the movie, I realized I LIKE sharing my things with my kids and other people in general. I enjoy my LEGO more now that the Emperor is eating pizza in his throne room on the Death Star. My LEGO is a hobby. I enjoy it. I play with it. And I enjoy when others get to enjoy it with me. Too many people on this thread are way too rigid and tightly wound. Lighten up, and play well.

True..I hadn't thought of Vitruvius dying and then people forgetting all about it. I mean, there was even a ghost Vitruvius. Finn really has a twisted mind to just forget about a major murder...

I have realized over the years that my daughter can play with more. Again, I have my own stuff that is for display or my hands only. But a lot of it anymore she can play with. No reason for me to yell at her for wanting to play with a toy.

I agree they should be careful with it and learn to respect other people's possessions. But there is another reason why I keep stuff out of reach -- her friends. They tend to destroy everything they look at. So they aren't allowed anywhere near the LEGO room.

I agree with most of what you're saying but I don't care. Still liked it :P.

The kid was the bad guy and the AFOL dad was misrepresented. Except he DID want to KRAGLE everything...

Yeah, listen. Let me reaffirm a few things:

- There is nothing wrong with collecting Lego.

- There is nothing wrong with building and enjoying your own masterpieces or highly detailed cities.

- There is nothing wrong with teaching your kids to respect your stuff. (That's a good and valuable lesson and should be done.)

The movie was about none of those things. The Man Upstairs had two problems. One, he wasn't just a collector, but an obsessive one. It's very obvious that his desire to build the ultimate Lego display was disrupting his relationship with his son. Lord Business is very obviously the personification of how Finn perceives his dad: as an OCD megalomaniac. That was incredibly, 100% obvious when Finn's dad came downstairs wearing his big, red tie (which is what Business' helmet and cape looks like from behind). The dad did not have an obviously good relationship with his son. His anger at Finn's creations was based less on "touching my stuff" and more because his perfect little world had been rearranged.

Think about it. Have you ever seen two kids fighting over a toy, and your reaction is to teach the toy's owner to share? We'd probably be completely in the right to tell the second kid that the property belongs to the first kid, so buzz off. However, we realize that there's also value in charity and generosity, and destructiveness in being selfish. Yes, kid #2 needs to respect kid #1's stuff, but what a cruel world we'd live in if nobody shared.

I think the Dad gets this when Finn explains his storyline and he picks up the Lord Business figure. The Dad very clearly looks at the Business figure and realizes that it's how his son perceives him: as a cruel, collecting-obsessed jerk who's putting perfection over relationships. Dad is looking in a very awful mirror at that moment and realizes that he needs to lighten the heck up and spend time with his son.

Hence, the second issue: Finn is a very creative kid and Dad doesn't really notice it. Dad is horrified that Finn would put Batman and a Dragon into a City scene and thinks that the Spaceship, Spaceship, SPACESHIP! is a mess. He can't conceive of a world without borders. Finn has perfect childlike imagination where Batman, Ninja Turtles, Gandalf and Star Wars can all team up. BE HONEST: everyone here thinks that a Batman/Star Wars crossover would be the stupidest thing ever and there's no way to pull it off believably. If I told you two years ago that there would be a movie were Batman meets Star Wars, 90 percent of you out there would think it's impossible and there's no way it could be done. Except...the Lego Movie did it.

That's the point. Finn was supposed to be incredibly creative and able to see his own world beyond the instructions. There was nothing wrong with Dad's world--Emmet made that point when he told Business that he was ALSO the Special. But Emmet/Finn were special too, and Dad was completely missing that in his son. Fortunately, he got that in the end when he finally came to appreciate Finn's creations. (And let's face it, you appreciate them too. You were totally cheering when the citizens rose up against the Micro Managers.)

I see that with my own kid who's a budding Lego builder. She doesn't want things to be precisely according to the instructions. She's constantly pulling apart the Lego Friends and trying to rearrange their outfits into new ways. She's made a horrible house out of a mishmosh of green and pink bricks, but it's her house and she loves it. Even better, I'm her dad, so if she's serious about building then I have a responsibility to teach her some Lego tricks so that she can be a Master Builder herself. Sure, I can build my perfect City and tell her to keep her hands off, but in the end I'll be left with a frozen brick city that doesn't love me back, and a kid who won't love me back either.

There is nothing wrong with collecting and MOCing. There just isn't. However, it's still just toys. It can't substitute for a relationship with your kids if you have one. Your bricks don't love you back. Your kids can. If you want to designate what's yours and what's theirs, go ahead and do that, but don't forget to spend time building what's yours, plural, you and your kids, together. That's what the dad missed until the climax.

Yeah, listen. Let me reaffirm a few things:

...

My experience was the same, except I never was quite as severe in the first place. But it was kind of a wake up call to how I appreciate my family generally.

Probably why I really enjoyed that part the first time around, whereas on subsequent viewings now all I can see is melodrama.

Yeah, listen. Let me reaffirm a few things:

- There is nothing wrong with collecting Lego.

- There is nothing wrong with building and enjoying your own masterpieces or highly detailed cities.

- There is nothing wrong with teaching your kids to respect your stuff. (That's a good and valuable lesson and should be done.)

The movie was about none of those things. The Man Upstairs had two problems. One, he wasn't just a collector, but an obsessive one. It's very obvious that his desire to build the ultimate Lego display was disrupting his relationship with his son. Lord Business is very obviously the personification of how Finn perceives his dad: as an OCD megalomaniac. That was incredibly, 100% obvious when Finn's dad came downstairs wearing his big, red tie (which is what Business' helmet and cape looks like from behind). The dad did not have an obviously good relationship with his son. His anger at Finn's creations was based less on "touching my stuff" and more because his perfect little world had been rearranged.

Think about it. Have you ever seen two kids fighting over a toy, and your reaction is to teach the toy's owner to share? We'd probably be completely in the right to tell the second kid that the property belongs to the first kid, so buzz off. However, we realize that there's also value in charity and generosity, and destructiveness in being selfish. Yes, kid #2 needs to respect kid #1's stuff, but what a cruel world we'd live in if nobody shared.

I think the Dad gets this when Finn explains his storyline and he picks up the Lord Business figure. The Dad very clearly looks at the Business figure and realizes that it's how his son perceives him: as a cruel, collecting-obsessed jerk who's putting perfection over relationships. Dad is looking in a very awful mirror at that moment and realizes that he needs to lighten the heck up and spend time with his son.

Hence, the second issue: Finn is a very creative kid and Dad doesn't really notice it. Dad is horrified that Finn would put Batman and a Dragon into a City scene and thinks that the Spaceship, Spaceship, SPACESHIP! is a mess. He can't conceive of a world without borders. Finn has perfect childlike imagination where Batman, Ninja Turtles, Gandalf and Star Wars can all team up. BE HONEST: everyone here thinks that a Batman/Star Wars crossover would be the stupidest thing ever and there's no way to pull it off believably. If I told you two years ago that there would be a movie were Batman meets Star Wars, 90 percent of you out there would think it's impossible and there's no way it could be done. Except...the Lego Movie did it.

That's the point. Finn was supposed to be incredibly creative and able to see his own world beyond the instructions. There was nothing wrong with Dad's world--Emmet made that point when he told Business that he was ALSO the Special. But Emmet/Finn were special too, and Dad was completely missing that in his son. Fortunately, he got that in the end when he finally came to appreciate Finn's creations. (And let's face it, you appreciate them too. You were totally cheering when the citizens rose up against the Micro Managers.)

I see that with my own kid who's a budding Lego builder. She doesn't want things to be precisely according to the instructions. She's constantly pulling apart the Lego Friends and trying to rearrange their outfits into new ways. She's made a horrible house out of a mishmosh of green and pink bricks, but it's her house and she loves it. Even better, I'm her dad, so if she's serious about building then I have a responsibility to teach her some Lego tricks so that she can be a Master Builder herself. Sure, I can build my perfect City and tell her to keep her hands off, but in the end I'll be left with a frozen brick city that doesn't love me back, and a kid who won't love me back either.

There is nothing wrong with collecting and MOCing. There just isn't. However, it's still just toys. It can't substitute for a relationship with your kids if you have one. Your bricks don't love you back. Your kids can. If you want to designate what's yours and what's theirs, go ahead and do that, but don't forget to spend time building what's yours, plural, you and your kids, together. That's what the dad missed until the climax.

Well said. That is exactly what I took away from the movie. I have to admit that the live action part does replay in my head whenever I see my kids looking at my LEGO - instead of aggressively shooing them away now, I tend to let them look at and touch the toys for a bit before steering them back to their own toys.

Well said. That is exactly what I took away from the movie. I have to admit that the live action part does replay in my head whenever I see my kids looking at my LEGO - instead of aggressively shooing them away now, I tend to let them look at and touch the toys for a bit before steering them back to their own toys.

Which is what I have always done and what is reasonable. That however is NOT the message being explicitly promulgated by the movie. The movie very clearly makes the case that there can be no restrictions on anyone playing with any of the LEGO because that would be evil.

You can make all the arguments above for subtle interpretations based on pop psychology you like but the over-simplistic, Hollywood-required, easily-communicated message is: I must let anyone play with any of my LEGO or I am an evil person. The dad is only redeemed when he agrees to let Finn build whatever he likes AND allows the younger sister to do the same. The humour and counter-message is contained in the very short reaction shot where Finn is clearly horrified that his sister will be given the same access. This, to me, shows the film makers have a sense of humour and in some ways offsets the black & white dichotomy presented as the message of the film.

Anyway, loads of fun and lots of discussion fodder. Thanks for sharing Bennemans, you are not alone in your thoughts.

i got to be quite honest, im on the oppisite side of the topic than most of you, the more i see the movie, the more i appreciate and love the ending twist. I always though that the core message wasnt AFOLs are bad or collecting is bad, more of how we must appreciate any kind of creativity from anyone. At the end of the film both the kid and the parent learn to appreciate the things eachother create. Sure one could say the kid shouldnt be playing with his dads sets but then the whole movie wouldnt exist.

Honestly the kid going against the rules i see more as something needed to be done to get the dad out his over-obsession to not see his kids builds as total messes. Like with Cloud Cuckoo Land being destroyed, i always interpreted that scene as the kid wanting to display his builds right next to his dad's amazing builds and the dad not appreciating it and tearing it apart to put it in the box we see it in.

Also while i do understand that the twist ending does open up plot holes, i also cannot see how the film would work without it. While it is truly fun, its riddled with tons of cliches from its plot to its charecters. Showing that the majority of the story is made up by a kid gives sence to why everything is cliche and why sometimes some actions make no sence.

My overall problem with this controversial discussion is that to the average audience its not offensive, really could only be offensive to the most serious AFOLs. Cause ive shown this movie to many non AFOLs and seen many reviews from non AFOLs and none of them got out of the film saying, "wow arnt AFOLs and collectors just horrible people". You know what they normally do say? "wow i want to buy some lego now". This film has widened the appreciation for lego creations in the general audience and in that sence i feel AFOLs would get more respect out of it. Sure there are some tounge and cheek jokes about AFOLs in the film but they dont seem like serious attacks at all to me. Once in a while we do need a good laugh at ourselves, so chill out and aprecciate the movie for what it is

Edited September 27, 201410 yr by opn2

I agree with some of the comments above. The way I interpreted the message was that whoever you are, and whether you treat Lego as a Collectible or a toy. There is no correct way of owning Lego.

As MannyLego quite rightly pointed out, the movie couldn't work with out it. The whole man upstairs plot was necessary in order to convey the message.

Wait a minute… the dad wasn't in the basement for the entire story??… soooo… who was actually using the Kragle during the movie??? THE KID??!?!?!?!?! THE KID was the one kragle-ing Bad Cop's parents?? And the Super Secret Police Dropships at the CCL invasion?? And even the citizens at the start of the climax?? (and yes, it's heavily implied they are actually kragled; Bad Cop's parents are being de-kragled at the end) WOW! This KID is the bad guy here!!!

I think you're confusing the narrative a bit. Finn's build and play here included only the 'rebellion'.

Cloud Cuckoo Land was destroyed when Finns bricks were 'moved over by the Christmas decorations', and stuffed in a box. IE: his parents had cleaned up his 'mess'. It was a brick construct he'd been proud of that wasn't deemed as relevant as Lord Business' ordered empire and had been destroyed.

The movie up until the 'rebellion' was a narrative in his head that explained the situation, and set up his game that day.

Edited August 11, 201410 yr by klinton

I was watching this in the theatre and when I saw the real scene I was shocked and LOL. This was very odd when switching CGI to real scene all of a sudden.

First for the record I did not see it on the theater in glorious 3D but at home.

When I watched the movie the first time I was a bit surprised it quickly turned so violent, My 4 y/o thought it was scary and she didnt want to look at it.(So it was just me and my 11 y/o that endured the entire movie.

I had heard a lot of positive comments about it on the net, how "awesome" it was.. but I must say I was not that stunned,after the first scene from Emmets morning it was kind of downhill for me, I was waiting for the awesomeness to appear, but at the end, *enter real world and Will Farell I was like WTF??!! and i realized the story had more holes than my colander in the kitchen

Im must agree that the kid was really the bad guy (building all those red pipelines over Dads town to glue the town down) and the AFOL dad? (oh lord why did they choose Will Farell for that role? He is as far from a father figure as you can come (well he could play another dad in a basement quiet perfectly i guess (Fritzel) .

/end rant!

Edited August 12, 201410 yr by mechamike

I didn't mention this in my earlier post, but I'd be very interested to see whether the sequel will follow the same idea.

I have kids, and I was wondering this, too.

And the movie was a wake up call for me as well. I realized I was Lord Business. I wanted things built my way, and displayed my way. After seeing the movie, I realized I LIKE sharing my things with my kids and other people in general. I enjoy my LEGO more now that the Emperor is eating pizza in his throne room on the Death Star. My LEGO is a hobby. I enjoy it. I play with it. And I enjoy when others get to enjoy it with me. Too many people on this thread are way too rigid and tightly wound. Lighten up, and play well.

This.

First for the record I did not see it on the theater in glorious 3D but at home.

When I watched the movie the first time I was a bit surprised it quickly turned so violent, My 4 y/o thought it was scary and she didnt want to look at it.(So it was just me and my 11 y/o that endured the entire movie.

I had heard a lot of positive comments about it on the net, how "awesome" it was.. but I must say I was not that stunned,after the first scene from Emmets morning it was kind of downhill for me, I was waiting for the awesomeness to appear, but at the end, *enter real world and Will Farell I was like WTF??!! and i realized the story had more holes than my colander in the kitchen

Im must agree that the kid was really the bad guy (building all those red pipelines over Dads town to glue the town down) and the AFOL dad? (oh lord why did they choose Will Farell for that role? He is as far from a father figure as you can come (well he could play another dad in a basement quiet perfectly i guess (Fritzel) .

/end rant!

Dude, awesome Fritzel reference. I lol'd.