BaltaSucks

Insulting the intelligence of kids and reducing their interests to them being "too different" is ridiculous and flatly untrue. Many kids still enjoy buying toys, hence why Lego, Hasbro, Mattel, and the like are able to stay in business. Especially with building toys, Lego's more successful now than ever. The problem isn't with the kids, it's that Lego, albeit barely, marketed generally uninteresting sets. If anything, kids are MORE likely to want these kind of toys now seeing how mainstream they've become thanks to things like The Lego Movie. When you don't put in the creativity people know and love from a franchise, it causes disinterest. That's why G1's final years led to sales decline, the sets grew uninteresting and were the same sets every year, which led to less and less people being interested and willing to buy. Also, to say that the new sets are better than most of the Toa in G1 is not only too opinionated, but when you consider sales numbers and how long they lasted with those Toa, is also untrue. G1 gave us fresh, new Toa designs every new arc (or even year, when you count 2004, 2005, and 2006) until after 2006. People want new designs, not recolored, rehashed ones. G2 gave us, essentially, glorified Hero Factory with added gear functions, which weren't fast paced and a lot of the time limited posability or prevented it's own use by interfering with armor plating (such as 2015 Tahu's shoulder armor). G2's failure was a lack of interest and faith from Lego, they didn't put a team of people who truly had a vision for the franchise and they didn't even believe in it enough to market it anywhere aside from the internet. Journey to One not only was a mini-series, but essentially it was a CG web show followup to the 2D web show from the year prior, that was barely advertised. Compare that to Nexo Knights, which came out after and immediately was promoted and given it's own full fledged television series on Cartoon Network. They had faith in Nexo Knights and it showed. If they truly cared about Bionicle G2, it would've been given to people who knew what to do with it and would've been promoted like Nexo Knights and Ninjago had. But it didn't, and this cancellation only solidifies it.

At this point, unless they get a true visionary like the way Disney did with Star Wars or IDW did with Transformers, it's best for Bionicle to remain dead.

I suppose by this argument anybody in the world who's homeless or impoverished doesn't care or try hard? It's impossible for mistakes or outside circumstances to affect somebody or something's chances of success? No, of course not. Pretending that how hard somebody cares or tries are the only things in the world that can affect their financial performance is downright irrational. A person can pour their heart and soul into a project and try their hardest to make it the best that it can be, and it can still fail if people don't like it or respond to the ways they try to promote it. You're comparing poverty, an actual issue ongoing literally all over the world due to the poor economy, to a lackluster toyline? That's a really far fetched analogy. How are you going to continue jumping through hoops to defend another heartless reboot even after it was cancelled after two years? It's clear Lego must've felt the same way otherwise they wouldn't have given it the axe.

A few things. First of all, when LEGO was developing G1 Bionicle in 1999 and 2000, they did not have any clue that in three or four years they would be on the brink of bankruptcy. Obviously, they knew that the company's record of double-digit sales growth year to year had stopped in 1993, and that in 1998 the company had reported its first ever financial loss, which they wrongly blamed on kids having short attention spans and wanting instant gratification. But as early as 1999 they were back to being profitable. They had just launched the highly successful LEGO Star Wars theme and hired new management that successfully increased sales and promised to double them by 2005. The LEGO Group fully believed they were in the midst of a turnaround. Even as late as 2002, LEGO thought they were on the up-and-up. It's therefore difficult to argue that Bionicle G1's success from the outset was driven by financial desperation. It wasn't until 2003 that LEGO had any idea what a predicament their new innovation-driven corporate mindset had gotten them into. Second, with the kind of assumption you're making, you'd think no successful company could ever hope to create a successful toyline or IP. But even just looking at LEGO, there's plenty of evidence that isn't true. In 2008, when LEGO began developing Ninjago, they had already greatly recovered from their crisis years of 2003 and 2004 and managed to make a yearly profit of over two billion DKK (over 300 million USD in today's money). Not only did they have the continued success of LEGO Star Wars propping them up, but LEGO City was also carrying them higher and higher each year. And yet, when Ninjago launched in 2011 it sold better than any previous launch of a new LEGO product line — including Bionicle. By your argument, this should not have been possible, because a LEGO theme's success or failure hinges on how much they care about it, and how much they care on it hinges on how desperate they are financially. But clearly, it happened. For what it's worth, I've met several of the people involved with the Bionicle reboot. There's no denying that they cared profoundly about making it the best it could be. You might prefer to imagine that because you didn't like it, the people making it didn't care or try hard enough. You'd be wrong. Well all this might be true, but G2 was still cancelled after two years. That's the facts, so clearly they didn't try or care hard enough. Yeah, they only made one 2001: A Space Odyssey It only was there for a year originally. No effort, right? You're comparing a single movie to an ongoing (or previously ongoing) toyline. Lego themes typically are meant to last unless they perform unsuccessfully, which is what G2 did. That's like comparing a good standalone book to an ongoing television series. It just doesn't work as a comparison.

A few things. First of all, when LEGO was developing G1 Bionicle in 1999 and 2000, they did not have any clue that in three or four years they would be on the brink of bankruptcy. Obviously, they knew that the company's record of double-digit sales growth year to year had stopped in 1993, and that in 1998 the company had reported its first ever financial loss, which they wrongly blamed on kids having short attention spans and wanting instant gratification. But as early as 1999 they were back to being profitable. They had just launched the highly successful LEGO Star Wars theme and hired new management that successfully increased sales and promised to double them by 2005. The LEGO Group fully believed they were in the midst of a turnaround. Even as late as 2002, LEGO thought they were on the up-and-up. It's therefore difficult to argue that Bionicle G1's success from the outset was driven by financial desperation. It wasn't until 2003 that LEGO had any idea what a predicament their new innovation-driven corporate mindset had gotten them into. Second, with the kind of assumption you're making, you'd think no successful company could ever hope to create a successful toyline or IP. But even just looking at LEGO, there's plenty of evidence that isn't true. In 2008, when LEGO began developing Ninjago, they had already greatly recovered from their crisis years of 2003 and 2004 and managed to make a yearly profit of over two billion DKK (over 300 million USD in today's money). Not only did they have the continued success of LEGO Star Wars propping them up, but LEGO City was also carrying them higher and higher each year. And yet, when Ninjago launched in 2011 it sold better than any previous launch of a new LEGO product line — including Bionicle. By your argument, this should not have been possible, because a LEGO theme's success or failure hinges on how much they care about it, and how much they care on it hinges on how desperate they are financially. But clearly, it happened. For what it's worth, I've met several of the people involved with the Bionicle reboot. There's no denying that they cared profoundly about making it the best it could be. You might prefer to imagine that because you didn't like it, the people making it didn't care or try hard enough. You'd be wrong. Well all this might be true, but G2 was still cancelled after two years. That's the facts, so clearly they didn't try or care hard enough.

"The sets were objectively the best" In what way? Is it the fact that the gear functions barely worked? Or was it the added pin textures to pretend it was like Bionicle and not Hero Factory smooth? Or was it the extended torsos that were longer than the chest plates? Or was it the fact that most the sets had to be modified by fans just to make them posable without hitting another part of the pieces? Or was it the contradicting color schemes on each character? Please enlighten me without the "Inika builds are terrible" argument. On that note, since you're bound to bring it up or someone will, no. I'm not a fan of the Inika builds after 2006. They worked in 2006 because they were brand new and innovative, but that's when Lego got lazy and chose to reuse them instead of developing new molds for 2007 onward. I definitely think the oversaturation of Inika builds led to Bionicle's initial cancellation. But back to G2, which also uses a reused body build type with one slight adjustment (the barely functioning gear system), also failed for lack of innovation and design. Slapping on a new chest piece with a thousand pin textures isn't innovative; it's just lazy. G2 failed on it's own account, and the thought that where G1 failed is responsible for G2's failure is an ignorant conclusion and really reaching.

But they did anyway. (Also, I did the math, not sure how 2010-2001 gets you 11 years.) Try? In what way? The author literally had to fight the runners of the series just to get character names, and in an interview he essentially said he had to make up most of the things on the fly because the people running it had no clear idea as to where the series was heading. And also, clearly if they DID try, they didn't try nearly hard enough for a franchise beloved by so many if it was cancelled after two years. It's just another bland reboot that everyone will forget about within the next year. Don't get why Bionicle G2 gets a pass for being lazy while the people defending it will rant and rant about the reboots Hollywood gives us on a regular basis. Face it, facts are facts: It ended because it was handled poorly. There's no way around it.

Pretty swell yes. Edit: Please leave some more constructive feedback next time! -Wind-