6

During The Lego Movie we learn that the whole LEGO world is actually a universe existing within ours, or to be precise, in the basement of a real human family and that the whole story is actually played out by a little boy named Finn and a way for him to cope with the conflict of his strict and fantasy-inhibiting father. And indeed this is again strengthened when we see that the actions as performed by his father when supposedly "repairing the mess" that Finn created are directly represented by Lord Business' micromanagers performing them inside the in-universe viewpoint of the other LEGO figures.

Upto this point that is a reasonable and obvious representation to me and even Emmet's direct witness of the universe behind his, our real world, is nothing but him seeing the strips behind the course of his own universe, however he managed to overcome this boundary between dimensions. But the single-most action that completely shatters this whole viewpoint is the incident, when Emmet manages to move completely on his own, thus directly interfering with our universe on his own and it seems to me that there is no way to bring this in congruence to our own physical reality, not even when accepting the LEGO world and its course as an emanation of Finn's fantasy, since Finn didn't do anything at all.

So what are we to make of this incident? Does it have any deeper implications for the depicted realities? Does this establish the LEGO figures as existent and sentient within our physical reality outside of our mere fantasy? Does it have any further signficance for the meaning of the whole story and actually extend the rather simple and obvious kid's fantasy interpretation of the story in a much more elaborate way I have missed? Or is this just to be brushed off as nothing of relevance?

Improve this question
1
  • See also: Calvin & Hobbes.
    – hexparrot
    Dec 8, 2014 at 18:33

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
6

The way I took it as that both universes exist side by side (and not subservient to each other) and incidents in one universe affect the other. The causality traffic might seem a bit heavy sided towards Finn's universe being the dominant one, but on closer look you see that this isn't completely true. The Man Upstairs' LEGO policies have certainly shaped Emmet's universe greatly. But Emmet, being Finn's chosen one, has reversed the flow of effects. Not only was he able to cross between his world to Finn's (and back again), but his reformation of President Business has also somehow triggered The Man Upstairs to look differently at his hobby.

In short, Emmet's world is not a fantasy or part of Finn's world, but a distinct one that has a border with Finn's world where cause and effect can cross.

Improve this answer
2
  • 1
    "his reformation of President Business has also somehow triggered The Man Upstairs to look differently at his hobby" - It could be argued though, that it was Finn's reconciliation with his father that preceded Emmet's with Lord Business. But interesting views, it seems the universes are tied together deeper than just Finn and his father acting the stuff out and the LEGO universe filling in the details.
    – Napoleon Wilson ♦
    Dec 8, 2014 at 18:51
  • 2
    @NapoleonWilson - Well if you remember that the scene the basically triggers the redemption scene for The Man Upstairs is him opening up the President Business' "ship" and finding him and Emmet already going through their own redemption sequence.
    – System Down
    Dec 8, 2014 at 23:43
3

I believe Emmet's movements can be explained in a similar way as in Toy Story. The toys each have an individual personality and autonomy, but those personalities and autonomous actions are affected by the person playing with the toys.

This would mean that a large portion of the movie consisted of the characters acting in and of themselves. This makes sense if we consider the people making fun of Emmet, as I don't think that was Finn nor his Father. Furthermore, if we consider the lore of the world (The vortex, the Kragle), these things would make sense if the characters would autonomous, (If a lego person falls off the table, he'll just pick him up).

While it is definitely possible that a child would imagine this on his own, I think it makes more sense that the legos are autonomous all the time, but given personality from the one playing with them.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .