Marian Schedenig

Seeing it in 45 hours.

Dangerous.

So if you "step on Legos", you step on multiple sets at once? I would say: "Buy a LEGO set" or "Buy some LEGO".

That said, I can accept (and actually use) "my LEGO", as a shorthand for "my LEGO stuff", "my LEGO sets", "my LEGO collection", etc. But "LEGOs" really rubs me the wrong way, especially because it implies the existence of a singular, leading to the question: What is "one LEGO"?

"I stepped on some LEGO bricks."

Well, yes and no. For one thing, there are more sets "for adults" than there were in the 80s (when there were none), so naturally those focus more on display value (I'd even say sometimes play features get in the way on a set that doesn't need them). And then the LEGO system itself has become more complex, as I said. Not only are there many more different types of bricks, but there are also dozens of colours now. As a result, it's harder to build a collection of the bricks you need to build something specific based on regular sets, but the alternative would be limiting the details in those sets to make their collections of bricks more similar to each other. I like to compare the LEGO system to a grammar (in the mathematical sense). I strongly believe that playing with LEGO as a kid, and internalising its grammar by building my own stuff, has much to do with my talent as a computer programmer as an adult. Modern LEGO has a much more complicated grammar, which probably means that kids growing up with it can naturally visualise even more complex logical structures. But it also means that you have more symbols/bricks to choose from, and that you need more of them to build a sentence/set. LEGO even addresses this, to an extent at least, with their 3-in-1 sets, were you get three different (sometimes wildly different) official models to build from one set of bricks. And you do notice how that impacts some of the detail in those models - very often, they're close to the Modular Buildings in their details, but they never quite get there, because the designers had to make sure that the same bricks can be used for two more models with sufficient detail. Still, it means those sets usually have a larger share of "basic" bricks, so collecting some of those should also make it easier to build your own stuff.

in the front of that picture. You don't often see them in the same photo.

If you're worried about the kids breaking stuff: Most bricks by themselves are almost indestructible. It's some thin, long pieces, plus accessories and perhaps stickers and prints that don't generally survive kids. Of course, it they're in pristine condition, selling them now might make you enough money to buy many more new sets for your kids. But as you said, there's the nostalgia factor (I still regret not keeping some of the boxes of my childhood sets). On the other hand, sets in the 80s and earlier 90s were much simpler than today's sets, so the older ones might actually be a plus for your kids. I still marvel at what you can do with today's LEGO, but getting creative with it is much, much more difficult than when it was just a handful of colours and a rather limited collection of brick types.

He's absolutely obsessed. Just obsessed with something that also brings him joy and (presumably) peace. Maybe that's why Williams was so inspired by it.

Absolutely deliberate. The rhythmic sequence he repeats that motif in is way too close to be accidental.

The Francie Bradie Show rocks. It's one of my favourite Goldenthal tracks.

It's not really a fully successful conspiracy in the end, is it? I first saw it early enough that I didn't question (or think about) motiviations. So to a degree, I'm not worried about him leaving because I'm so used to it. But if I try to think about it from outside the film, it still makes sense to me. From the point where he has his first encounter, Roy is clearly distraught. Partly because something unnatural is going on in his brain (the signal drawing him to the landing site; there's obviously a strong parallel with mental illness to it, and in how Roy is portrayed in many scenes), but I think partly also because he's found something he deeply cares about, and want to share with others, but everybody else shows absolutely no interest, not even a slight interest for the fact that it matters to him (i.e. Roy as a social outcast). On both levels, Roy is a deeply sympathetic character, and instead of supporting him, his family tries first to ignore and then to shun it, and ultimately abandons him: It's them who leave him, not the other way round. If anything, in the end he is free to pursue what matters to him, unlike in the beginning of the film, where already his family doesn't much seem to care for what he likes, before he becomes weird. As I said before, watching this at the Royal Albert Hall a couple of years ago made me realise just how ultra focused on the subject of communication the film is: It starts out very noisily, with people talking over each other all the time and barely managing to communicate (cf. both the model train/Goofy Golf scene and the flight control scene), and with very little music. Then as the film goes on, communication becomes more ordered, and the music (still often atonal) creeps in, until in the end nobody is communicating verbally at all anymore, and the now fully tonal, continuous music carries the film.

Is the Cringe react not close enough? I wanted it for this post: Cringe doesn't fit. And it wasn't meant as a negative reaction to the post itself. More for when someone post about something stupid and you want to reaffirm that stupidity.