Has there been discussion on a storyform for Lego Movie 2? I thought I had seen a discussion somewhere, but cannot find it.
There have certainly been some discussions with the first Lego Movie, but I think there arenât any discussions about the second film yet. I have thought about the storyform for it though.
I would put the OS in Psychology, with the Goal being something like âFiguring Out How to Play Together,â probably under Conceptualizing. If Emmett is the MC, and is a Doer this time around, then the Past would be his Concern. This makes me think of how Emmett is living in the past, especially evident when we see him doing his daily routine in Apocalypseburg.
2 Likes
In thinking about this movie more, I would guess that thereâs an IC handoff between Lucy and Rex. Both of them try to influence Emmet into becoming tougher:
Lucy: âŚEmmet isnât changing with the times, and lacks a killer instinct, and in general, just isnât tough enough.
Rex: (to Emmet) You go soft, youâre playing their game. Youâre gonna have to grow up and grow up fast.
They also both seem to illustrate an IC Concern of Memory, with Rex being driven by his memory of being left behind in the Dryar System, and Lucy suppressing her previous life of singing, dancing, having colorful hair, and loving âEverything is Awesome.â
On the other hand, Iâm not certain about the RS. What do you think?
1 Like
Iâm in a toss-up. Either the RS presents the MC problem that Rex solves as the IC. Or thereâs a handoff. I tend to see Lucy not as an IC, since sheâs only there at the beginning and then at the end she commends him. But because she and Rex BOTH change, it seems that they are handoff.
Of course the RS is the larger storyâif itâs OS in psychology, the RS is the two sides. Microcosm of the war is the RS of Emmet and Lucy, Emmet wants to settle down but Lucy is concerned for the battle. Would that be inertia?
When we put this all together, and if IC has the problem of Falsehood vs Emmetâs problem of self-aware (being his optimistic self vs being pessimistic like everyone else knowingly is) we get the RS issue of Change vs Inertia, which fits.
Falsehood works for both Lucy (about her hair) and Rex (about his identity). The RS solution is getting along (inertia-not breaking each otherâs toys).
I donât see how to interpret MC focus projection-speculation,
Projection: an extension of probability into the future
Speculation: an extension of possibilities into the future
Would this be the Potential Emmet from the future vs the possibility of NOT changing? Something about that event under the dryer. (??)
âŚbut otherwise I do see a complete storyform.
1 Like
Rex and Lucy seem to share that same IC perspective, which is why I think there was a hand-off. I absolutely agree that they both have a Changed Resolve, which would therefore make Emmet Steadfast. While he temporarily adopts his Solution/Demotivation of Aware (âThe real Lucy would never say thatâ), he ultimately goes back to his optimistic standpoint by the end.
Emmet: Itâs easy to harden your heart, but to open it⌠Thatâs the toughest thing you can do. Iâm gonna grow up. But I wonât stop caring about the people in my life. They may see the world differently, but thatâs not bad. I think itâs inspiring.
It could probably be. I think another one could be when Emmet lets the Star Duplo out from between the doors, as he is guessing (speculating) that no one else would get in.
Completely on board with these.
Since breaking (or not breaking) each otherâs toys concerns all of the characters, that would probably be more part of the OS throughline. I feel âgetting alongâ could work well for the Solution/Balance, but Iâm struggling to see that as Inertia. Maybe that (getting along) falls under a different storypoint?
Maybe to help us better understand the RS for this story, we could start by defining the relationships. What would you call Emmet and Lucyâs relationship, or Emmet and Rexâs? Also, where does each relationship start, and where does it end? (For example, the Kinship relationship between Marty and George McFly in âBack to the Futureâ grows from technically related to family.)
1 Like
Assuming this is the RS Throughline
The OS premise will be something like, everyone wins when you stay self aware. (Psychology, the OS is the "SENSE OF SELF"ultimately> Desire vs Ability.
A subpremise (RS) would be more holistic about balancing change and inertia. The RS is the physics realm, esp in light of Understanding>Conditioning. Physically getting your body on board with understanding something about change and inertia.
When the OS is in manipulation, I find it hard to differentiate how psych is less personal and more everyone. But hereâs my try.
Emmet and Rex: Who I am Present and Who I am Future (relationship of me to potential me) Do I stay the same (inertia) or change?
Emmet and Lucy: Who I am Present and Who you want me to be (friends to potential lovers) Do I stay the same (inertia) or change?
But we also have these relationshipsâŚ
Boy and Sister: Canât we all get along? The relationship is very different feel than the above two. But stillâŚDo I stay the same (inertia) or change?
Queen Whatevra Wannabe and Batman: Canât we all get along? Do I stay the same (inertia) or change? Look at the Queenâs name. Her name holds the debate.
Sister/Queen: Yes
Boy/Batman: NEVER (change)
So, I wonder if the interplay between the last two pairs is more like the fight WITHIN Emmet between his Desires (for love, for peace) and Abilities (master-punch, breaking vs building).
If thatâs the case, the relationships are not RS but parts of the story encapsulating the Ability and Desire OS elements.
Sister/Queen: Desire
Boy/Batman: Ability (master-punch vs master-build)
Once Ability is informed by Sense of Self, Desire proves her ability to âbrainwashâ Ability to become Conceptualized Ability.
What do you think?
1 Like
Understood. It definitely can be hard to differentiate, especially considering that Overall Story Throughlines in Physics are so prevalent in our culture. One example that has helped me out a lot with this is @jhullâs analysis of Ratatouille in this article, quoted here:
âTogether, [Remy and Linguini] do their best to work together. The Fun and Games of a rat driving a human? Problematic Activities. Their Relationship is physical comedy, and not found in the Overall Story Throughline. Instead, the film centers the Overall part of the story on the problems created by those who think âAnyone can cookâ and those who think the same. Here, itâs not space battles and kung-fu fighting that becomes the center of conflict. Instead, like [The Devil Wears] Prada, Ratatouille focuses on characters manipulating one another in an effort to move ahead. The way characters think creates the conflict.â
Makes sense. I also thought the relationship between Finn and Bianca (the brother and sister) would fall under the OS, and I definitely believe Batman and Queen Wannabeâs would as well, with all the psychology conflict going on in their relationship (âWhy exactly would you not want to marry me?â).
This is fantastic! As Batman explores his Sense of Self in the âGotham City Guysâ song, the Queen proves her ability to âbrainwashâ Batman into the engagement, ergo (almost) uniting the people from Apocalypseburg and the Systar System, and (almost) accomplishing the Goal of âFiguring Out How to Play Together.â Also, as Finn sees that he has been pushing Bianca away, and he realizes he hasnât seen himself as the bad brother heâs being, Bianca is able to (indirectly) convince him to make amends with her, so they can truly âFigure Out How to Play Together.â
Oh, I forgot to address the other two relationships.
Very interesting! And for the Domain, we could see the Physics in the RS for this story being illustrated by the characters bonding over what they do together. Master building and master breaking, perhaps?