c) If anything, this movie is a positive sign about companies that make movies based on their products. Its going to show them that by actually making a good movie, you can be more successful than just putting out any old film with the brand name on it.

d) Advertising or no, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie and even if the company did concoct the whole thing as an advertising scheme, than I am ok with that because the movie was good enough that they deserve it.

Really said it all.

It is a good article, but "make a movie – sell a toy" isn't really a new concept, while Lego is a pretty good way to illustrate it.

We can look at "Lego Movie" as a precursor to worse things to come – and they will come – but why not see it as a sign for something better? Movies will sell merch, they diff go ever and will continue to.

But with Lego we actually have a good movie. And Lego blocks would have sold regardless. Nothing changed really.

1) This is an ad almost in the same way any blockbuster movie is an ad. The only difference between LEGO and other easily-recognized brands is that LEGO doesn't come packaged with a story. It's not like Transformers, which has a mythology. In a way, LEGO is better than any blockbuster adaptation because its filmmakers had to be inventive rather than go through rote plot points because their might be backlash otherwise. Every blockbuster is designed to sell toys and merchandise. That's how they make their money, not through box office. Box office is only an indicator of how merchandise and other ancillary revenues will do. If you're writing an article where you're critiquing how LEGO is going to sell toys, that same argument can be applied to every superhero and family movie, but they didn't get editorials because they didn't start out as toys. However, they still end up at the same place.

2) Studios were going to make toy movies no matter how well LEGO Movie did. They might move faster towards a greenlight, but again, the critique leveled at LEGO Movie could be leveled at any successful picture. As you pointed out, The Avengers has bred a bunch of densely-packed superhero movies, but they probably won't reach the quality of Joss Whedon's film. The blame for the inevitably of weak imitators shouldn't be laid at the feet of the successful picture. Does business "win"? Sure, if you call blowing money on films people probably won't see. There's a reason they call it "the industry". But we should be celebrating the good movie rather than bemoan Hollywood's simpleminded response.

Hollywood has been scraping the bottom of the barrel for years to try and find the next big thing. They're going to put out bad movies one way or another–that prospect shouldn't stop us from enjoying the good movies of the genre that do come out. If you want to stop making these kinds of movies, you end up throwing the baby out with the bath water.