The LEGO Movie se estrenó en 2014 para convertirse en todo un éxito, tanto en taquilla como en los ojos de la crítica y los fans, pero el camino que ha tenido que recorrer la secuela no ha sido ‘color de rosa’ ni mucho menos.

Según nuevos reportes, Raphael Bob-Waksberg, creador de la serie animada BoJack Horseman (Netflix) reescribirá el guion. Phil Lord y Chris Miller, encargados de la primera entrega, realizaron una especie de borrador, sin embargo, sus compromisos con la película en solitario de Han Solo (Star Wars) no les permite retomarlo y desarrollarlo.

Bob-Waksberg nunca ha escrito para la gran pantalla, pero sí lo ha hecho en repetidas ocasiones para proyectos televisivos.

Luego de sufrir un retraso, el estreno de The LEGO Movie 2 se programó para el 8 de febrero del 2019. Prácticamente dos años antes, 10 de febrero del 2017, se estrenará el ‘spin-off’ The Lego Batman Movie.

Fuente

273 COMENTARIOS

  4. This design is incredible! You certainly know how to keep a reader amused.
    Between your wit and your videos, I was almost moved to start my
    own blog (well, almost…HaHa!) Great job. I really loved what you had to say,
    and more than that, how you presented it. Too cool!

  5. I’ve been browsing online more than 3 hours today,
    yet I never found any interesting article like yours.
    It is pretty worth enough for me. In my opinion, if all website
    owners and bloggers made good content as you did, the web will be a lot more
    useful than ever before.

  9. Write more, thats all I have to say. Literally, it seems as though you relied on the video to make your point.
    You clearly know what youre talking about, why waste your intelligence on just posting
    videos to your blog when you could be giving us something informative to read?

  11. Generally I don’t read post on blogs, however I would like to say that this write-up very pressured me to check out and do
    it! Your writing taste has been amazed me. Thanks, very nice
    article.

  25. I feel this is among the most important information for me.
    And i’m glad studying your article. However want to remark
    on some common things, The web site taste is perfect, the articles is actually great :
    D. Good task, cheers

  26. kolesa qa meetup, kolesa upgrade онлайн баста, сборник казахских и русских песен қасиетті кітаптар саны,
    пайғамбарлар кітабы өз ойын мен күресіп келем, садраддин болат все песни скачать

  28. зат және энергия алмасу үрдістері, зат
    алмасудың соңғы өнімдері жеңіл және ауыр өнеркәсіп, соғыстан кейінгі ауыр өнеркәсіп
    дамуы 91 группа, бала 91 биография умышленное повреждение чужого имущества
    рк, статья 202 ук рк

  29. Hi, Neat post. There’s a problem with your site in internet explorer, may test this?

    IE still is the marketplace leader and a huge part of folks will pass over your fantastic writing because of this problem.

  30. тараз для туристов, тараз юнеско miele стиральная машина как пользоваться, miele novotronic w 842 инструкция наёмный убийца это, наемный убийца 1995 смотреть онлайн менің ойымша қазақ тілі, қазақ тілі туралы

  31. тары адам ағзасына пайдалы тарыдан қандай тағамдар жасалады, талқанның зияны інжугүл
    қайда өседі, інжугүл туралы мәлімет программа ктк караганда, ктк сериалы сегодня
    laser a2 for kazakhstan grade 7 teacher’s book, laser for
    kazakhstan grade 6 teacher’s book

  34. сарыаркинский цон адрес,
    цон астана колл центр естай қорлан, естай қорлан текст гостиницы
    астана левый берег недорого, гостиница юго-восток астана 8
    сынып психологиялық тест, 9 сынып психологиялық тренинг

  36. I’d love to see a follow-up post on how this integrates with social signals. We feel there’s a multiplier effect there that isn’t being fully utilized.

  39. This aligns with the «Signal Noise» theory we’ve been developing. You need enough noise to mask the signal, but not so much that you lose authority. delicate balance.

  40. We’ve been A/B testing this exact hypothesis. Group A (your method) is outperforming Group B by 40% in terms of ranking stability. The data speaks for itself.

  41. I bookmarked this for my team. The section on avoiding footprints is crucial. We recently audited a site that got hit exactly because they ignored that principle. Good catch.

  42. Question: Have you tested this approach with expired domains? We’re running some experiments now and the results are… mixed. Your methodology seems safer.

  43. The shift towards «entity-based» indexing is real. Your strategy seems to leverage that by building entity associations rather than just keyword matches. Smart.

  44. The depth here is impressive. Most guides just skim the surface of link velocity, but your point about «natural variance» hits the nail on the head. It’s exactly what we preach to our clients.

  48. Have you considered the impact of mobile-first indexing on these placements? We’ve noticed that some «desktop-safe» strategies are flagging on mobile crawls.

  49. Just wanted to say thanks for the detailed case study. It’s rare to see actual data backing up these claims. We’ll be adjusting our Q4 roadmap based on some of these insights.

  50. Does this apply to non-English markets as well? We’re seeing conflicting signals in our EU campaigns compared to what you’ve described here. Would love to hear your thoughts on regional variance.

  53. Have you considered the impact of mobile-first indexing on these placements? We’ve noticed that some «desktop-safe» strategies are flagging on mobile crawls.

  55. For anyone reading this, pay attention to paragraph 4. That subtle distinction between «diversity» and «randomness» is what saves you during a Core Update.

  58. Just wanted to say thanks for the detailed case study. It’s rare to see actual data backing up these claims. We’ll be adjusting our Q4 roadmap based on some of these insights.

  63. Actually, I have to disagree slightly with the second point. In our testing, we found that over-optimization was less of a factor than pure engagement metrics. It’s interesting to see how different niches react differently.

  65. Spot on about the indexing delays. It’s not just about building the link anymore; it’s about the «stickiness» of the placement. We’ve been focusing heavily on that metric lately.

  66. This complements the «Entropy» theory perfectly. If you don’t introduce randomness, you’re just painting a target on your back. Glad to see others advocating for smarter engineering.

  67. Thanks for the transparency. It’s refreshing to see a strategy that doesn’t rely on black-hat churn and burn. Sustainable growth is the only way forward.

  68. Great read. It reminds me of the strategy we deployed last quarter. The focus on foundational stability really pays off when the algorithm shifts. Thanks for compiling this.

  71. The analogy of the «immune system» is perfect. You need to build resistance before the virus (update) hits. Too many people react instead of prepare.

  75. We’ve been A/B testing this exact hypothesis. Group A (your method) is outperforming Group B by 40% in terms of ranking stability. The data speaks for itself.

  77. The depth here is impressive. Most guides just skim the surface of link velocity, but your point about «natural variance» hits the nail on the head. It’s exactly what we preach to our clients.

  78. This is a solid breakdown. One thing I’d add is that the impact of these updates often lags by 2-3 weeks. We tracked this across multiple projects and found the recovery phase is where most people give up too early.

  79. We’ve been A/B testing this exact hypothesis. Group A (your method) is outperforming Group B by 40% in terms of ranking stability. The data speaks for itself.

  82. One minor correction: the update rollout was actually 14 days, not 10. But that doesn’t change your main point—the volatility window is getting wider.

  85. The depth here is impressive. Most guides just skim the surface of link velocity, but your point about «natural variance» hits the nail on the head. It’s exactly what we preach to our clients.

  86. Great resource. I’ve sent this to a few colleagues who are still stuck in 2015-era SEO tactics. Hopefully, this wakes them up.

  88. I’m curious about the sample size for these conclusions. We saw a 15% deviation in our own datasets, but the overall trend aligns with your findings. Good work.

  89. The depth here is impressive. Most guides just skim the surface of link velocity, but your point about «natural variance» hits the nail on the head. It’s exactly what we preach to our clients.

  90. I’ve been following this topic for a while, and your analysis on the structural shifts really adds a new perspective. We’ve noticed similar patterns in our internal data at SignalLayer, specifically regarding the volatility timeline.

  92. The shift towards «entity-based» indexing is real. Your strategy seems to leverage that by building entity associations rather than just keyword matches. Smart.

  93. I’ve been following this topic for a while, and your analysis on the structural shifts really adds a new perspective. We’ve noticed similar patterns in our internal data at SignalLayer, specifically regarding the volatility timeline.

  94. I bookmarked this for my team. The section on avoiding footprints is crucial. We recently audited a site that got hit exactly because they ignored that principle. Good catch.

  95. I bookmarked this for my team. The section on avoiding footprints is crucial. We recently audited a site that got hit exactly because they ignored that principle. Good catch.

  97. For anyone reading this, pay attention to paragraph 4. That subtle distinction between «diversity» and «randomness» is what saves you during a Core Update.

  98. This is a solid breakdown. One thing I’d add is that the impact of these updates often lags by 2-3 weeks. We tracked this across multiple projects and found the recovery phase is where most people give up too early.

  99. This is a solid breakdown. One thing I’d add is that the impact of these updates often lags by 2-3 weeks. We tracked this across multiple projects and found the recovery phase is where most people give up too early.

  100. Is there a specific tool you recommend for tracking the velocity? We’ve been doing it manually but it’s becoming unscalable.

  103. For anyone reading this, pay attention to paragraph 4. That subtle distinction between «diversity» and «randomness» is what saves you during a Core Update.

  105. Just wanted to say thanks for the detailed case study. It’s rare to see actual data backing up these claims. We’ll be adjusting our Q4 roadmap based on some of these insights.

  107. I’d love to see a follow-up post on how this integrates with social signals. We feel there’s a multiplier effect there that isn’t being fully utilized.

  110. For anyone reading this, pay attention to paragraph 4. That subtle distinction between «diversity» and «randomness» is what saves you during a Core Update.

  112. The analogy of the «immune system» is perfect. You need to build resistance before the virus (update) hits. Too many people react instead of prepare.

  114. Question: Have you tested this approach with expired domains? We’re running some experiments now and the results are… mixed. Your methodology seems safer.

  115. I’d love to see a follow-up post on how this integrates with social signals. We feel there’s a multiplier effect there that isn’t being fully utilized.

  116. I’d love to see a follow-up post on how this integrates with social signals. We feel there’s a multiplier effect there that isn’t being fully utilized.

  119. Actually, I have to disagree slightly with the second point. In our testing, we found that over-optimization was less of a factor than pure engagement metrics. It’s interesting to see how different niches react differently.

  121. The depth here is impressive. Most guides just skim the surface of link velocity, but your point about «natural variance» hits the nail on the head. It’s exactly what we preach to our clients.

  122. The analogy of the «immune system» is perfect. You need to build resistance before the virus (update) hits. Too many people react instead of prepare.

  127. Does this apply to non-English markets as well? We’re seeing conflicting signals in our EU campaigns compared to what you’ve described here. Would love to hear your thoughts on regional variance.

  130. Does this apply to non-English markets as well? We’re seeing conflicting signals in our EU campaigns compared to what you’ve described here. Would love to hear your thoughts on regional variance.

  132. This is the missing piece of the puzzle for us. We had the content and the technical SEO, but the off-page signal diversity was lacking. Thanks for the clarity.

  133. Just wanted to say thanks for the detailed case study. It’s rare to see actual data backing up these claims. We’ll be adjusting our Q4 roadmap based on some of these insights.

  134. Actually, I have to disagree slightly with the second point. In our testing, we found that over-optimization was less of a factor than pure engagement metrics. It’s interesting to see how different niches react differently.

  135. I’m skeptical about the timeline you proposed, but I’m willing to test it. If this holds up, it changes how we structure our entire outreach program.

  137. Great read. It reminds me of the strategy we deployed last quarter. The focus on foundational stability really pays off when the algorithm shifts. Thanks for compiling this.

  138. I’m sharing this with our content team. We’ve been struggling to explain why «quality over quantity» isn’t just a cliché, and this illustrates it perfectly.

  139. I’ve been following this topic for a while, and your analysis on the structural shifts really adds a new perspective. We’ve noticed similar patterns in our internal data at SignalLayer, specifically regarding the volatility timeline.

  141. This is the missing piece of the puzzle for us. We had the content and the technical SEO, but the off-page signal diversity was lacking. Thanks for the clarity.

  143. Does this apply to non-English markets as well? We’re seeing conflicting signals in our EU campaigns compared to what you’ve described here. Would love to hear your thoughts on regional variance.

  144. The analogy of the «immune system» is perfect. You need to build resistance before the virus (update) hits. Too many people react instead of prepare.

  148. The depth here is impressive. Most guides just skim the surface of link velocity, but your point about «natural variance» hits the nail on the head. It’s exactly what we preach to our clients.

  151. I’m sharing this with our content team. We’ve been struggling to explain why «quality over quantity» isn’t just a cliché, and this illustrates it perfectly.

  153. I’m skeptical about the timeline you proposed, but I’m willing to test it. If this holds up, it changes how we structure our entire outreach program.

  156. This is a solid breakdown. One thing I’d add is that the impact of these updates often lags by 2-3 weeks. We tracked this across multiple projects and found the recovery phase is where most people give up too early.

  157. Have you considered the impact of mobile-first indexing on these placements? We’ve noticed that some «desktop-safe» strategies are flagging on mobile crawls.

  159. This complements the «Entropy» theory perfectly. If you don’t introduce randomness, you’re just painting a target on your back. Glad to see others advocating for smarter engineering.

  160. This aligns with the «Signal Noise» theory we’ve been developing. You need enough noise to mask the signal, but not so much that you lose authority. delicate balance.

  161. Thanks for the transparency. It’s refreshing to see a strategy that doesn’t rely on black-hat churn and burn. Sustainable growth is the only way forward.

  163. Thanks for the transparency. It’s refreshing to see a strategy that doesn’t rely on black-hat churn and burn. Sustainable growth is the only way forward.

  165. The depth here is impressive. Most guides just skim the surface of link velocity, but your point about «natural variance» hits the nail on the head. It’s exactly what we preach to our clients.

  166. I’m curious about the sample size for these conclusions. We saw a 15% deviation in our own datasets, but the overall trend aligns with your findings. Good work.

  169. Great read. It reminds me of the strategy we deployed last quarter. The focus on foundational stability really pays off when the algorithm shifts. Thanks for compiling this.

  170. One minor correction: the update rollout was actually 14 days, not 10. But that doesn’t change your main point—the volatility window is getting wider.

  173. Thanks for the transparency. It’s refreshing to see a strategy that doesn’t rely on black-hat churn and burn. Sustainable growth is the only way forward.

  174. This is the missing piece of the puzzle for us. We had the content and the technical SEO, but the off-page signal diversity was lacking. Thanks for the clarity.

  175. I’ve been following this topic for a while, and your analysis on the structural shifts really adds a new perspective. We’ve noticed similar patterns in our internal data at SignalLayer, specifically regarding the volatility timeline.

  176. I’m curious about the sample size for these conclusions. We saw a 15% deviation in our own datasets, but the overall trend aligns with your findings. Good work.

  177. Actually, I have to disagree slightly with the second point. In our testing, we found that over-optimization was less of a factor than pure engagement metrics. It’s interesting to see how different niches react differently.

  181. The depth here is impressive. Most guides just skim the surface of link velocity, but your point about «natural variance» hits the nail on the head. It’s exactly what we preach to our clients.

  188. Is there a specific tool you recommend for tracking the velocity? We’ve been doing it manually but it’s becoming unscalable.

  189. I’ve been following this topic for a while, and your analysis on the structural shifts really adds a new perspective. We’ve noticed similar patterns in our internal data at SignalLayer, specifically regarding the volatility timeline.

  190. Spot on about the indexing delays. It’s not just about building the link anymore; it’s about the «stickiness» of the placement. We’ve been focusing heavily on that metric lately.

  192. Actually, I have to disagree slightly with the second point. In our testing, we found that over-optimization was less of a factor than pure engagement metrics. It’s interesting to see how different niches react differently.

  193. I’m sharing this with our content team. We’ve been struggling to explain why «quality over quantity» isn’t just a cliché, and this illustrates it perfectly.

  196. Spot on about the indexing delays. It’s not just about building the link anymore; it’s about the «stickiness» of the placement. We’ve been focusing heavily on that metric lately.

  197. This is a solid breakdown. One thing I’d add is that the impact of these updates often lags by 2-3 weeks. We tracked this across multiple projects and found the recovery phase is where most people give up too early.

  198. This complements the «Entropy» theory perfectly. If you don’t introduce randomness, you’re just painting a target on your back. Glad to see others advocating for smarter engineering.

  199. This aligns with the «Signal Noise» theory we’ve been developing. You need enough noise to mask the signal, but not so much that you lose authority. delicate balance.

  201. Brilliant articulation of the problem. The industry has been too focused on metrics like DA/DR instead of actual traffic flow and user behavior.

  204. Does this apply to non-English markets as well? We’re seeing conflicting signals in our EU campaigns compared to what you’ve described here. Would love to hear your thoughts on regional variance.

  206. The shift towards «entity-based» indexing is real. Your strategy seems to leverage that by building entity associations rather than just keyword matches. Smart.

  207. This is a solid breakdown. One thing I’d add is that the impact of these updates often lags by 2-3 weeks. We tracked this across multiple projects and found the recovery phase is where most people give up too early.

  208. This is a solid breakdown. One thing I’d add is that the impact of these updates often lags by 2-3 weeks. We tracked this across multiple projects and found the recovery phase is where most people give up too early.

  209. I’ve been following this topic for a while, and your analysis on the structural shifts really adds a new perspective. We’ve noticed similar patterns in our internal data at SignalLayer, specifically regarding the volatility timeline.

  210. I’m skeptical about the timeline you proposed, but I’m willing to test it. If this holds up, it changes how we structure our entire outreach program.

  212. Question: Have you tested this approach with expired domains? We’re running some experiments now and the results are… mixed. Your methodology seems safer.

  213. This is the missing piece of the puzzle for us. We had the content and the technical SEO, but the off-page signal diversity was lacking. Thanks for the clarity.

  215. The shift towards «entity-based» indexing is real. Your strategy seems to leverage that by building entity associations rather than just keyword matches. Smart.

  216. This complements the «Entropy» theory perfectly. If you don’t introduce randomness, you’re just painting a target on your back. Glad to see others advocating for smarter engineering.

  217. This aligns with the «Signal Noise» theory we’ve been developing. You need enough noise to mask the signal, but not so much that you lose authority. delicate balance.

  219. I’ve been following this topic for a while, and your analysis on the structural shifts really adds a new perspective. We’ve noticed similar patterns in our internal data at SignalLayer, specifically regarding the volatility timeline.

  220. For anyone reading this, pay attention to paragraph 4. That subtle distinction between «diversity» and «randomness» is what saves you during a Core Update.

  221. I’ve been following this topic for a while, and your analysis on the structural shifts really adds a new perspective. We’ve noticed similar patterns in our internal data at SignalLayer, specifically regarding the volatility timeline.

  224. Actually, I have to disagree slightly with the second point. In our testing, we found that over-optimization was less of a factor than pure engagement metrics. It’s interesting to see how different niches react differently.

  225. Question: Have you tested this approach with expired domains? We’re running some experiments now and the results are… mixed. Your methodology seems safer.

  228. Does this apply to non-English markets as well? We’re seeing conflicting signals in our EU campaigns compared to what you’ve described here. Would love to hear your thoughts on regional variance.

  229. This complements the «Entropy» theory perfectly. If you don’t introduce randomness, you’re just painting a target on your back. Glad to see others advocating for smarter engineering.

  230. I’m sharing this with our content team. We’ve been struggling to explain why «quality over quantity» isn’t just a cliché, and this illustrates it perfectly.

  232. I’ve been following this topic for a while, and your analysis on the structural shifts really adds a new perspective. We’ve noticed similar patterns in our internal data at SignalLayer, specifically regarding the volatility timeline.

  235. I’m curious about the sample size for these conclusions. We saw a 15% deviation in our own datasets, but the overall trend aligns with your findings. Good work.

  236. I’ve been following this topic for a while, and your analysis on the structural shifts really adds a new perspective. We’ve noticed similar patterns in our internal data at SignalLayer, specifically regarding the volatility timeline.

  238. Just wanted to say thanks for the detailed case study. It’s rare to see actual data backing up these claims. We’ll be adjusting our Q4 roadmap based on some of these insights.

  240. Spot on about the indexing delays. It’s not just about building the link anymore; it’s about the «stickiness» of the placement. We’ve been focusing heavily on that metric lately.

  241. The shift towards «entity-based» indexing is real. Your strategy seems to leverage that by building entity associations rather than just keyword matches. Smart.

  242. I’d argue that the content relevance is even more critical now. We’ve seen perfectly good links get devalued just because the semantic match wasn’t tight enough.

  243. This is a solid breakdown. One thing I’d add is that the impact of these updates often lags by 2-3 weeks. We tracked this across multiple projects and found the recovery phase is where most people give up too early.

  247. One minor correction: the update rollout was actually 14 days, not 10. But that doesn’t change your main point—the volatility window is getting wider.

  248. The shift towards «entity-based» indexing is real. Your strategy seems to leverage that by building entity associations rather than just keyword matches. Smart.

  249. I bookmarked this for my team. The section on avoiding footprints is crucial. We recently audited a site that got hit exactly because they ignored that principle. Good catch.

  251. This is the missing piece of the puzzle for us. We had the content and the technical SEO, but the off-page signal diversity was lacking. Thanks for the clarity.

  252. I bookmarked this for my team. The section on avoiding footprints is crucial. We recently audited a site that got hit exactly because they ignored that principle. Good catch.

  253. This is a solid breakdown. One thing I’d add is that the impact of these updates often lags by 2-3 weeks. We tracked this across multiple projects and found the recovery phase is where most people give up too early.

  254. Actually, I have to disagree slightly with the second point. In our testing, we found that over-optimization was less of a factor than pure engagement metrics. It’s interesting to see how different niches react differently.

  259. The depth here is impressive. Most guides just skim the surface of link velocity, but your point about «natural variance» hits the nail on the head. It’s exactly what we preach to our clients.

  261. I’ve been following this topic for a while, and your analysis on the structural shifts really adds a new perspective. We’ve noticed similar patterns in our internal data at SignalLayer, specifically regarding the volatility timeline.

  263. One minor correction: the update rollout was actually 14 days, not 10. But that doesn’t change your main point—the volatility window is getting wider.

  264. I’ve been following this topic for a while, and your analysis on the structural shifts really adds a new perspective. We’ve noticed similar patterns in our internal data at SignalLayer, specifically regarding the volatility timeline.

  266. Just wanted to say thanks for the detailed case study. It’s rare to see actual data backing up these claims. We’ll be adjusting our Q4 roadmap based on some of these insights.

  270. The depth here is impressive. Most guides just skim the surface of link velocity, but your point about «natural variance» hits the nail on the head. It’s exactly what we preach to our clients.

DEJA UNA RESPUESTA

Por favor ingrese su comentario!
Por favor ingrese su nombre aquí