I wondered that also; that's part of why I'm thinking the Kestora don't quite have all their proverbial marbles.
So if the re-teleporter is broken, how come they didn't put everyone back during booster-rocket mode?
An excellent point. That would strongly argue against Matoro (2007 him anyways) being there, and as you say Teridax, coupled with Greg's specific confirmation that Terry is gone for good.
I think this is very significant, because if Greg was killing characters with this knowledge in recent years, and going with the idea that disintegrated beings can't be revived, then Greg may have consciously had characters like Teridax killed in a certain way to ensure their permanent death.
That may also be evidence that it's not just a spirit that gets teleported, but at least a few "cells" (or protodermic molecules), or their brains may be needed. But not necessarily; Matoro's spirit was apparently consumed, and Terry is antidermis and might not have the kind of spirit that Matoranoids do, or possibly spreading out the antidermis that fast disintegrates the spirit. (Too fast for the teleporter to grab.)
Who else was disintegrated?
Might be worth searching the old OGD for if anyone's up to it. :)
Besides, didn't Greg once say he wouldn't bring Matoro back? Don't know if I'm remembering wrong.
I still dunno what I think about that. I can see the case against Matoro being revived, but then the thing I'm theorizing would still have a downside; he wouldn't have any memories after the 777 stairs device. I suppose that's not the biggest downside imaginable. :P
A major question that would help is, what was the GBs' attitude as to killing units, considering Greg confirmed they knew they were at least somewhat sapient? We have an interesting variety of evidence on that.
On the one hand, they made Baterra to murder even SM natives who had weapons (but arguably as a war action and in defense of those who sought peace). Made Marendar to kill Toa who might go outside the robot (but arguably they knew MU beings might glitch and become dangerous). And set up the sacrifice requirement for the Ignika (though that is arguably an unavoidable side effect of the mask, which was clearly portrayed as not quite being under their control ever).
And of course Velika (yet he acted against their knowledge and/or will at least once).
On the other, there's Angonce who seems to want to protect life. They built the giant robot to save lives on Bara Magna (and presumably Bota Magna), though we still don't really understand why they were in danger other than a vague idea that eventually the planet might become completely unstable or something. The Baterra thing was to end a war, not start it, and they made various other things seemingly to protect.
So in conclusion, I have no clear conclusion lol. But a case can be made either way, or in between. (Which is probably good for mystery. ^_^)
Definitely sounds reasonable. I wonder how many times a being could be killed, revived, and sent back originally? Unlimited? Perhaps Gaardus was tormenting the Nynrah by killing him over and over?
Maybe Gaardus guessed this, which is why he said that maybe what he was waiting for (the Nynrah) was up there (the Red Star).
That would explain why he thinks of it as hunting, and (if I recall right) seems to think of that as an ongoing process.
So... maybe what he's doing now isn't, as I thought, teleporting away to leave K&P there, but exploring the RS, looking for the Nynrah to kill perhaps one last time.
He may even be intending to destroy the Red Star, or at least the Reviver, to end the Nynrah once and for all.
It's not proof because we don't know the process of revival in the RS. It's easily possible they just remake whatever body you had when you died.
Now, a problem with this theory is that there's proof Gaardus never died; his body. His body was mutated by the Nynrah; if he had been restored, wouldn't he have a new body?
When Jaller was revived, he took the weakened-then-rebuilt form rather than standard Metruan.
Of course, IF TK was killed in order to be revived, remaking that body would be a bit problematic, lol. But I now highly doubt he was revived.
However, your theory that he teleported to the Red Star is somewhat plausible. Except he did say he didn't choose to go there. If it was an accident other than death, it would seem strangely coincidental. But maybe if it was the first time he ever used his teleporation ability, it could do something like "operate on the same frequency" as the RS's collecting teleporter and pull him in, damaging it in the process.
Running with that, and presuming the Nynrah was still alive and in the MU, and given that going there like that would probably scare him and make him want to go back, he might have left then and not gone back. Earlier I was thinking he would have gone there because he was trying to figure out why the Nynrah wouldn't stay dead, but this way he wouldn't have any idea of that until the TK psionic flash and K&P's questions, when he first forms the theory. And perhaps he's thinking to bring the Toa so they'll distract the Kestora?
This combined with Greg's apparent confirmation that the Reviver itself is still operating (reviving beings, though not necessarily perfectly) while it's the Sendback that is broken are more parts of why I suspect the Kestora are forgetful. The last time was probably very recently, perhaps just the day before or even hours before that day. It reminds me of several other sci-fi stories where people have memory problems; maybe they have the same basic conversation every time.
What 'last time' is he referring to? When was the last time they tried to force people to go back? His wording almost sounds like 'last time' was the first time they had trouble sending people back. Yet, if the Red Star hasn't been working or nearly 80,000 years, they should've had thousands of people come in and not leave.
IMO it's likely the Reviver has lately been only been partially working, but still working, so everybody new lately is highly malformed. So the shock on their faces would be more that K&P look completely intact rather than that they're there at all.
Note the "like that".
Thinking about the "brain glitch" theory, another thing is that they seem to think that the Revived can go back on their own (under the original system which they temporarily, repeatedly seem to forget isn't working that way anymore). Maybe it's a simple mental activation of the Sendback teleporter?
It may be that the Sendback teleporter isn't damaged in the slightest, but is only mentally activated, and that part of MU beings' brains was the first or one of the first things to go with the Reviver started degrading (under that theory). So somewhere there could be an obvious place where the Revived are supposed to go and mentally activate the way back.
Presumably near whereever they first awake when they're revived so it's easy to see.
Maybe there's a big glowing sign, even, in Matoran letters. :P
The idea of it being connected was already put forward in the Velika announcement topic. I proposed that Velika may have stolen the actual device inside it and be using it as his teleportation to move himself (and apparently Tren Krom / other victims) wherever needed. Since we know the murderer crossed a vast distance in a very short time.
@Main Topic: Could the "Spirit's Wish" Gateway have something to do with the Red Star? Tarduk went up that way to find it, and that's where it was on the map. Was it ever canonized that the spot was supposed to be the place of its construction and not foreshadowing for something bigger?
If it's tied into the Red Star though we don't know. It may simply be the same design of teleporter as the one in the Red Star.
OR, if we throw out several previous theories (as often must be done, heh), perhaps the Wish Gate IS the RS's Sendback teleporter, and at some point it was taken away from it and dropped on Bara Magna. That would fit my mental activation theory. But I dunno, not sure that works.
Guess I've been coming off as sort of harsher here than I meant to. Sorry about that.
Alright, fair enough. :)
I actually do like Greg's style of writing. It's not perfect, of course, and there might be some ways it could be improved, but overall I've enjoyed it. I've never really had a sound dislike for Greg's writing, no, but recently I have had some problem with his plot planning and general adherence to common media tropes.
Well, my point is that I think this is probably the biggest reason why you're not enjoying this revelation. :) I don't know if this is a taste thing or what, but to me stories are all about getting in the characters' heads and trying to experience it as it would actually happen. Characters' motivations, desires, wants, dislikes, aversions, needs, and emotions in general are what drive character-based story (which Greg has defined Bionicle as intended to be, versus plot-based). So to say you can't enjoy it as if you were living it as the characters... to me that sounds kinda like saying you can't be in a car as it moves you forward.
I'm sorry, I'm still having a problem connecting that to how I read a story? I guess I can't see how the characters react to something in-story can influence or even have any impact on how I would react to it when reading it. Unless this is a biography, I'm not one of the characters. I can relate to them, but the writer can also make decisions that make me not relate to them.
Basically, I'm not in the story. I can't enjoy this idea in-story, not because the characters wouldn't, but because I don't live BIONICLE. I'm not a character in BIONICLE. I instead read it once in a while from my laptop in my room. That's where my point of view comes from, and that's basically all it can come from.
In other words, it seems as if your approach to it is more plot-based, at least when it comes to this feature. :shrugs: Since it is the characters who drive the plot and determine what will and will not happen, ignoring who the characters are and what they want when judging the elements of the plot simply does not make sense. Can you understand where I'm coming from here?
Under the original system, this is obviously true. I agree with this in terms of, for example, a fanfic that's set very early in history. However, arguably there's more danger now. Not only do you get killed, you go to this messed up place and probably get killed again after who knows what unspeakable things happen to you.
1. The escalation of danger resulting from the character death(s) isn't as meaningful as it used to be.
Of course, for sake of argument, under the original functioning system, this begs the point that yes, it would mean less danger, and that obviously is the point. :) To continue the principle of applying this thinking to other things, when we find out that there is a power in the MU that can do X, then we learn that in past story, if there was a need that only X could fulfill, then what we might have erroneously assumed was a danger may not have been. You could make this case about every power, to varying degrees.
But see, this is all in your head. :P
When, after a long period of time, they don't come back, that thought turns into admiration. "That was a pretty gutsy move, doing that. That character is never coming back. He can never be used again.
When I see a character die, I don't start off where you did to begin with, with anything like a "they can't do that" or "they can do that." I simply understand why in the circumstances they logically would die, and connect with the emotions of the characters about it. I don't look at it as a "they" "doing" it. Even though it's certainly possible to "kill off", I give writers the respect to ignore that thinking entirely when I'm following a story, or at least keep it off to one side as something to acknowledge but that doesn't factor into my enjoyment of it at all.
Like, okay, this character had to die because in the real world, that actor wants off the show. But when I'm watching it, I can put that entirely to the side. I think people tend to bring those things forward (as I've pointed out often on BZP) at the times of death as psychological shields to avoid dealing with the realistic emotions of death. I think that generally even if an author does want a character to die for whatever reason, they want it to make sense that they'd die then, and they want the reader to experience the emotion. Writers are all about that, IMO.
Anywho, hopefully you get where I'm coming from, don't wanna go on and on about it lol.
The problem I have with this is, this is purely based on your choice of perspective as a fan, with little to no connection to whether it makes sense in-story (which is what we writers work so hard to concern ourselves with! :P), and to prove it, just look at how many others can look at the very same action and have a totally opposite reaction -- "that writer doesn't deserve credit for this, they just killed them off to avoid having to keep writing about them.
The writer deserves credit for having the bravery to pull that off with lasting effects. Death actually means something when he writes the story."
Both are plot-based reactions that ignore the real meat of the stories -- and, in this case, the backbone of the basic logic of the secrets and stuff.
Anywho, why not apply the gutsy label, if you're going to go that route, to the revival thing? After all, death is fairly common in stories. It takes a really gutsy writer to go against the grain of many who have a sort of entrenched aversion to it and feature revival. :P
But personally, I don't think of any of these things as related to guts. What I look for is brilliance in the idea of it, originality, and this has that up the wazoo. I don't need guts to feature any of these things, if it makes sense for them in the world I'm telling about, and I generally presume that's true of all other authors. It's their stories, they can do whatever the heck they want. What I want is something that shows they did something with the really basic 'tropes', if the story goes that way, that is done in an imaginative way.
Make any sense at all? :shrugs:
And I'm often one of the nearly lone voices pointing that out when people are complaining that characters died. :P
It also gives any other battle an even higher sense of danger.
Ah irony abounds whenever this subject comes up. Reminding me of the topic where Greg originally brought up the character-based vs. plot-based thing. In that topic at the time he and I were defending death in-story for this reason, and in another topic at the same time defending the other elements of non-death (in that case, heroes killing if they have no other choice, which he affirmed Toa might, versus the standard Toa Don't Kill rule).
The truth was that in both cases the two extremes were making the mistake of insisting on putting on "plot-based" glasses to try to judge the story, even though Greg was writing it as the much more meaningful character-based kind of story. And IMO the same thing is true here.
If you try to play the plot-based game as a writer to appease someone who makes a plot-based criticism, IMO that's when you lose, because there are just as many making opposite plot-based arguments. In plot trope reasoning, everything is purely subjective, and there's nothing 'scientific' or meaningful that we can really all grab onto.
But in character-based, it's all about empathizing with people who are different than us, as symbolized by fictional characters, in fictional "what if" worlds like Bionicle or in real-world-style or whatever. It's about learning what it would be like to be in very different shoes. And because that can be built on actual reasonable thinking through what such characters would actually do, and "letting the characters write the story" (as many authors, plus me, can attest it can feel like), then there is something objective, and with potentially universal appeal we can all appreciate even if our tastes as far as tropes are diverse. :)
Now again, that taste thing still means who likes what most and who dislikes what will vary, etc. But playing the game of always trying to perfectly match your exact tastes is kinda pointless because we all have different sets of tastes to some extent. And not saying constructive criticism isn't possible, etc. Just trying to get across what it seems you're saying that you don't understand about what I'm advising. :)
*ahem* I did. ;)
When I saw Serenity, this thought really burned into my head for the last battle scene. If it had been a usual movie, I wouldn't have been as concerned. But Joss Whedon had not only killed Bishop an hour ago, he had also just killed Wash. No one expected that.
Again, this implies that only finality "means something." I would just like to point out, to this Great No One who is apparently out there in your estimation that we all die eventually of something or another. ;)
Who's to say that it wouldn't happen again to any of the characters? Those characters never came back. The weren't there at the end of the film. Death meant something in this world.
What really means something is the way they die, what it means to people, the loss, etc. Think about it, how could finality have value if there was not first a sense of loss? And if there is loss, that implies that possession or regaining has value too. Meaning, there must even more basically be value to life.
If there is value to life, then there is value to revival.
Serenity simply is not a world in which that feature was desired by its authors. They may share your tastes on it or not, I dunno, but authors are under no obligation to always allow revival. :P
In my The Islander story for example, there is no hint of any possibility of revival, and there's a lot of death. I had no reason in that story to feature it. Doesn't mean I as a writer am opposed to it. In another story (I won't say which if yall haven't read my fanfics :P) someone comes back to life. In that story, there were reasons (many of which are still secret) why that had to happen that way, and it had meaning in that story to the characters. Etc.
Basically I like having options, yanno? And since I have in-story reasons for it all, I know that none of it is intended as a plot device.
It opens up the slight possibility... But that seems highly unlikely. Besides, it's confirmed the Kestora permanently killed some, so that's simply false. Also, there are many reasons to think, as we are discussing, that it doesn't work with all deaths. :)
This decision isn't just for one character to come back. That's not why I'm so against this. This opens up the realization that, no matter who they were, they never really died.
Also, who says death is the worst thing that can happen to you? It's generally considered that torture is worse, and I got the distinct impression from Kopaka's highly emotional reaction to what he saw of them (nearly any such emotion is unusual for him) that the existence many of them have now is quite torturous.
Your logic is self-defeating, Kahi. You argue that the choice to allow a character to die (versus authorial guiding to save them) is gutsy -- why?
Greg wasn't as gutsy
Is it not because you feel that some, including originally you ("They can't do that!"), would complain about it? Would try to say he can't do it, but he did it anyways.
Likewise, now Greg has done something that yet again you and others are complaining about, and would try to say he can't do it.
By your own logic, that's gutsy. ;)
And I actually would say that it really IS very gutsy. I had the theory, and strongly suspected it was true, but quite frankly I feared Greg wouldn't have the guts to go up against people who have knee-jerky reactions against revival. I was extremely impressed that he did this. Let's face it, everybody dies. It doesn't take guts to feature death in an action story that needs death to add to suspense! What takes guts in a story like this is revival, IMO.
(Though like I say, I won't claim to have or need guts myself. :P Still not really sure what that even means lol.)
Lol, I could add to that if certain subjects weren't disallowed here. :P But I kinda agree about that for X-Men, suffice to say. But it seems to me that here, you are assuming anyone is fair game by ignoring what nearly everybody else is saying, which is that they almost certainly aren't... It kinda sounds like you're hoping it's the worst case scenario so that your argument against it is stronger...
2. Anyone and everyone is fair game. Stan Lee has famously gone on record for saying he wanted the X-Men to be mutants because he was tired of creating new origin stories for superheroes. By saying they were a mutant, he just had to say they were born with powers and make them superheroes. I guess this is sort of the same thing. Its easy and honestly kind of lazy. Not only did no one ever die, but they can be brought back without any extra trouble.
I just don't buy this at all. See previous posts on the subject. Velika was foreshadowed excellently even though it wasn't planned (consciously :P). And the RS was almost certainly planned and foreshadowed, but we may have missed some of the clues.
3. Lack of serious foreshadowing. This is a big reason for me, and its why I've had problems with the two recently release points of information. Greg not only didn't think of this beforehand, he also didn't foreshadow it nearly as enough as it needed to be. There aren't any hints, any clues, any after-the-credits scenes that led up to this. It just sort of comes out of nowhere.
But take any other secret in Bionicle. None of them had significant foreshadowing in the sense that you could be sure of them or couldn't be surprised. Now that's a sweeping generalization that probably has exceptions, intentionally because I don't know how much foreshadowing you would accept. But it's a mystery-adventure story. Secrets are supposed to be secretive, and unexpected.
If you'd like to give me examples of other bold secrets that did have significantly more clear foreshadowing, go ahead. :) Just keep in mind we don't know what was and wasn't foreshadowing about this specifically -- however, I think it's clear that Jaller's revival was about as blatant a clue as you can get, and was even a major feature of the first movie. I don't see a strong case for saying this wasn't hinted at.
Also, how can anything Great Being related possibly earn the description "comes out of nowhere"? They have been nearly complete mysteries to us since the very beginning, and known about since then, until in 2006 when we learned they could be very stealthy and still very mysterious. For all we knew, just about anything was possible for Great Beings. And surely it isn't that hard to imagine one might be in disguise in the universe they created? There was a time when nearly all online fans assumed the GBs were all watching and taking active roles, lol.
Kahi, your wording is mixing up reader with author. We as readers cannot make definitive statements that there were no hints. You as one fan may not see any potential hints; that would be accurate. I as one fan see many potential hints, some highly likely. And I actually really like the term "foreshadowing" here, as that can include even things that the author might not have consciously intended as a hint when they wrote it (but may have subconsciously, or it fits as). I'm a big believer that the "when the author thought of it" should be rigorously treated as totally irrelevant. :P Since obviously within the world the author doesn't exist, and things happen for reasons that exist purely within the world. It is another approach that breaks suspension of disbelief through no fault of the author's.
There has been no foreshadowing for the Red Star having all of the dead characters inside it. There were no hints leading up to this revelation.
Unless you're operating under the obviously false illusion that only ideas the author originally thought of prior to writing any of it are okay...
Kahi, I'm getting the distinct impression you haven't really been following the story, this forum, or even this topic closely?
Basically, I'll put it this way. If I had made a topic, right here, in Storyline and Theories, and theorized that the Red Star was where all the dead characters of BIONICLE went to when they died (let's ignore the fact that there's an Official Red Star topic for now =P), would you keep that open? Or would you close it because it fell under "speculation" and I didn't have enough proof? I honestly think that it would be closed
As I said, I myself theorized it. Erebus said right at the beginning of this topic that others did. And there was a topic recently about it which I did leave open, and I believe it is still open. It's actually been floated, in basic essence, several times before on the old forums too. Really isn't rocket surgery lol.
Kahi... you're sinking back into confrontational mode again apparently... catch it. :) This is simply an innacurate statement, and I think you know that. Because as I already pointed out, death means a lot more than merely finality. (And finality is not ended, as tk4372 said.)
Death doesn't mean anything in the BIONICLE universe anymore. Not just because of the Red Star, but because this proves that Greg doesn't think it means anything and makes story decisions accordingly.
All your statement indicates is that you don't think death means anything other than finality. ;) Maybe Greg is the one who thinks it means a lot more than you do?
Although I suspect you don't really believe that yourself... We all know there's more to death than merely an end. Finality is, anyways, an extra idea added onto death anyways. Whether it is used in a story that features death is up to the author. Death simply means the character is taken out of current ability to interact at all -- plus all the emotion and suchnot that goes with that. It should not be assumed -- especially in a world where revival has been featured before -- that finality is necessarily attached to death in fantasy/sci-fi fiction.
Do I really have to say it? .... :P
But its never been even hinted at as basically the BIONICLE afterlife.
It's a mystical thing in the sky MNOG attached to awe-inspiring music and telling the future. Kinda like many people's idea of...
You know. ;)
Which is probably why so many fans actually thought of it or something similar since before I joined lol. Remember the old legends that Mata Nui and Makuta came down from above, were spirits, then the Toa too? Maybe you weren't around back then, but this basic idea was actually very common, and candidate Numero Uno was... you guessed it...
Of course, other revelations later seemed to argue against it. Of course, in a mystery story that's quite common. I think this is a brilliant move, because even though there's been this massive emotive shift to a techy feel, this does callback to the original fanbase mythology that was so popular near the start, lending some credence to some of it in a way many had become accustomed to think was too much to expect. And in a way that flows totally logically from the tech rationale at that. ^_^