The Lego Movie Sequel Set for May 26, 2017

[Darren716]

I really don't want this to happen.

Love the movie, but it works perfectly as a one-and-done film. There is no way they can make any kind of continuation that isn't totally undermined by *that* moment in the first film's third act.

I think they could make it work, reason in spoiler below

Spoiler

Ok so the entire reason the kid in the Lego Movie made Lord Business the antagonist was because he was using him as an outlet for his frustrations towards his father who lost his creativity and cared more for strict organization. So what I thought would be a good idea for the sequel would be to see the kid (forgot his name) using Emmett and Lord Business to outlet other frustrations he may have towards his father or the rest of his family, like maybe the film could take place about 5 years later and Emmett is seeing Lord Business on a much less frequent basis possibly meaning that his father may have gotten separated with the kid's mother and this is how he's dealing with it. Of course the real world reason would only be shown towards the end of the film while the majority of the film concentrates on Emmett and company finding Business.

 

[Kmadden2004]

I really don't want this to happen.

Love the movie, but it works perfectly as a one-and-done film. There is no way they can make any kind of continuation that isn't totally undermined by *that* moment in the first film's third act.

I think they could make it work, reason in spoiler below

Spoiler

Ok so the entire reason the kid in the Lego Movie made Lord Business the antagonist was because he was using him as an outlet for his frustrations towards his father who lost his creativity and cared more for strict organization. So what I thought would be a good idea for the sequel would be to see the kid (forgot his name) using Emmett and Lord Business to outlet other frustrations he may have towards his father or the rest of his family, like maybe the film could take place about 5 years later and Emmett is seeing Lord Business on a much less frequent basis possibly meaning that his father may have gotten separated with the kid's mother and this is how he's dealing with it. Of course the real world reason would only be shown towards the end of the film while the majority of the film concentrates on Emmett and company finding Business.

Yeah, I've expanded on my point in an earlier post. Apologies, but I don't really want to spend ages typing out basically the exact same message again, so I'm just going to copy/paste that previous one in here (it's primarily a comparison between The LEGO Movie and the Toy Story franchise, but the point I'm making still covers your suggestion);

Spoiler

I think the main difference between Toy Story and The LEGO Movie is that there's an actual, tangible threat in each Toy Story movie, and the characters do grow from film to film because there's is a continuing story going on from film to film.

Okay, I'm going to have to break out the spoiler tags now;

Spoiler

For Toy Story, the characters have an actual life outside of playtime. Now, in The LEGO Movie, I know Emmett was "aware" during the live action scenes, but in a completely different context. Toy Story's central premise was built entirely around the life your toys follow when you leave them alone, The LEGO Movie essentially provides the complete opposite to that in showing us a massive, creative world that springs to life specifically because they're being played with.

It's a move that works exceptionally well as an eleventh hour twist, especially with how it resolves the main story itself (the "playtime" bits). But you can't really build a second film around it because, at the end of the day, there'd be nothing at stake. It's a twist that works so well because, up until that moment, the movie was really nothing more than a fun slice of irrelevance, jumping from sketch-and-set-piece to sketch-and-set-piece with a pretty minimal story arc running through it, but then that moment makes all the irrelevance suddenly relevant. It's a point that turns what was a pretty good movie into a truly great movie, but it's also a point of no return.

Making a sequel to all that would essentially be like telling two versions of the same joke in quick succession; It doesn't matter how well you construct that second take on the joke, people are still going to know what the punchline will be ahead of time, and it just won't be as funny.

 

[FPLOON]

Uh... I got nothing...

Granted, this sequel could be as good as Toy Story 2... Then again, when Pixar announces a sequel, it's usually when we either don't expect it to happen (in context) or, given the time between said sequel and original movie, it makes sense overall...

However, given how the third act went, I would not be surprised if this sequel has little to no tangent to the original besides the whole "LEGO... LEGO everywhere" concept...

Oh... and a LEGO Ninjago movie? ...Would it be better and/or worse than the series of the same name... Otherwise, I still got nothing... Enjoy your money spending spree on the sequel... (There better be a LEGO Blu-Ray box set to come out of this in the end!)

 

[EeveeElectro]

The film was fantastic. If they can make it as good or almost as good, that would be great.
A lot of sequels are sucky though, and they have massive shoes to fill. It might be a case of Cloudy with a chance of meatballs 2, apparently that isn't as good as the first and it's the same writers.

We'll see! I'll still go see it. I loved it!

 

[scorptatious]

I was pleasantly surprised by the first movie. In the end:

Spoiler

It was simply a story about a father and son bonding through LEGO.

And I thought that was a pretty brilliant twist.

Not sure about sequel, but hey, at least they're not doing what Disney is doing with Planes and making a sequel set to release less than a year after the first one. (Seriously, who thought that was a good idea?)