[FTL GSR]

The GSR never actually traveled oustide of the Solis Magna system, according to Greg

Do you have a quote for this? I've wondered this based on his statement that there were many other alien worlds in the same system, but I don't recall him confirming it, or hearing anybody else say this. I would want to see a quote because if this one is incorrect it could lead to massive rumors.

 

 

RL, I don't expect you to share others' perspectives on the long lifespans, but the fact remains that neither do we share yours. I like that fiction challenges us to consider what things would be like if they were different, and on some things dramatically different (as long as common ground is still provided, and it is). Ultimately that's the point of fiction, really, and that's very beneficial.

 

Like I said, I don't think Bionicle did a top-notch job of that on this, but I still really appreciated the consistent use of it for how it inspires me as a fan to think about it. And it did do it well in a lot of ways, really more than you'd expect for a kid's toy.

 

 

Actually, though, I think what was going on with the SM lifespans specifically was kind of the opposite of trying to be different, but rather to keep a few things consistent with the MU feel of things, since they were changing so much so fast that year. Still, it ends up creating an even more poignant difference with humans because we can no longer so easily rely on them just being artificial, so it actually ended up being even more inspiring for it. (That said, I was a fan of one of the big fan productions early on that took the interesting approach of bringing short lifespans to Bionicle... sadly I forget the name of the fanfic now though. Basically, variety. )

 

Aaanywho. FTL... >_>

 

Edit: Missed this:

 

portraying her as an overly youthful persona might have been scraping the edge of the suspension of disbelief.

Nah, we all know about grandparents starting to act like little kids again.

[FTL GSR]

breaks literally ALL of the story weight

That seems like a completely arbitrary rule, frankly. Why should every story be forced into the same way things happen to work biologically (or technologically) for us? A story about a world with massive lifespans is just as valid as one about warp drive, etc. -- all things we don't have here.

 

Or elemental powers.

 

Actually, biology lasting longer is far MORE believable than either of those things!

 

And I have found the concept neverendingly fascinating to explore. Although Bionicle didn't really do a great job of exploring what that would be like. (Then again, the characters would be used to it and don't know about us, so it's not like there's a lot of opportunity to draw the comparison in-story.)

[FTL GSR]

It really doesn't matter; either way works since his journey took almost 100,000 years, and it was established that at least the Solis Magna system had several other inhabited planets that we didn't see. He may only have studied a relative handful of actual systems, which would work if the planets were similar enough to Spherus Magna to achieve his mission of understanding them enough to do the reforming. We were only given one image depicting the other planets he studied, and it was indeed only a handful. That could be interpreted as early in his journeys so nowhere near the final total, but it needn't be. All that matters is he traveled to several planets and studied them.

 

FTL would be a reasonable route to go, though, given the massively powerful variety of powers available in Bionicle, so those who say it couldn't be used are missing the mark IMO. More likely the thinking was "that's been done", and since Bionicle had these vast timespans to work with, it was probably wiser to go in that case with something more realistic.

 

 

 

Nothing can excuse the absurd lifespans on Bara Magna...

Nothing in-universe anyway. Sloppy world building works quite well for most logical inconsistencies otherwise.

Actually this is a common misconception. Although the likelihood of accidents ending lives over that span of time is admittedly difficult to explain (but made a bit easier with being somewhat biomechanical due to technological alteration and wearing armor), the biological side of it is possible so long as every method of decay is matched exactly (minus sliiightly, since they do have spans) with a repairing system. Real biology has such systems, they just aren't universal enough and powerful enough to keep us going that long. But we CAN keep going for up to around a hundred years, which compared to most complex systems is a staggeringly long amount of time.

 

Always be wary of universal negative assumptions like that.

[How Did the Matoran of Metru Nui View Teridax?]

So were the Matoran just very used to Teridax not doing his job? I can't find any reference to his participation in the Toa/Dark Hunter war, which really seems like the kind of thing he ought to have been involved in. Did Lhikan never wonder, "I wonder where Teridax is? He's sworn to protect the Matoran!"

Given how he "solved" things in the Civil War, I don't think they minded that he stayed out of this one.

 

But in general, I don't think it's that they saw him as not doing his job, but as not doing the Turaga's job, or the Toa's jobs, and they wouldn't expect him to. They would probably only see rare and confusing disputes that the Turaga didn't know how to decide ever go to him, and it probably happened but wasn't noteworthy enough to mention in Greg's timeline or the like.

[How did the Voyage of Fear river work?]

Hm... this has come up often, but I don't recall anybody pointing out those liq.proto. quotes. But when in the timeline of the journey do they take place? Fishers' quote shows how previous theories have mainly interpreted it, so only after leaving the lake would it be expected to flow against them and be pure or mostly H2O. (Assuming there's no system or power altering the normal way water flows, both of which in Bionicle are possible, but seem unlikely here.)

 

Also, just being in the water doesn't mean you're intentionally tasting it; Nokama tastes the water later in the context of trying to see if that was a good place to live. Nobody diving into the river on the way was thinking "hey can we live here?"

 

Finally, assuming they hadn't tasted it, how would they know at that point to call it anything else by sight? I could see an ambiguous reference to water and probably those are in there (but that can mean both), but if "water" always meant "liquid protodermis" in all your life, and you hadn't yet tested pure water on the surface to know the difference, wouldn't you by sight assume normal water was liquid protodermis?

[Toa of Earth and earthquakes?]

As well you should be. given my memory. But I posted a bunch of Greg quotes in a recent topic, if you missed it (I don't have time to dig it up, but pretty sure the topic's the other one on this subject that's still alive), and it was something Greg settled from discussion in the official elements topic which I was a part of as I was in charge of factlists about it and such; I'm certain on that one. It's also pretty clear from his "hit you with both, see the diff?" quotes. Including stone in that would just not make sense.

 

Also, it's not "taboo," it's just not within his power, RL, and we wouldn't expect it to be -- that's Pohatu's power.

 

 

As for different media, it's well-known that not every media source used the canon rules, and also well-known that you aren't a fan of them. And that's okay -- but the topic starter is presumably asking about the canon setup. We can also look at it as multiple canon per source; different interpretations on it by different authors. What would not work would be to say "it's in a source put out by LEGO ergo it's canon", since there are cases where multiple sources put out clearly contradictory things. (But in one of those cases at least, Greg did say it's just two equally valid canons; the moons that killed Teridax, and he's used "comic universe" versus book/movie etc. as well.)

[How Did the Matoran of Metru Nui View Teridax?]

I doubt he went all that time without at least making some outward appearance of carrying out his role of Makuta of Metru Nui. It would be pretty difficult for them not to be familiar enough with him to recognize him.

[Earth Does Not Equal Stone? How?]

Nokama can bend both water and protodermis. Assuming she's not a special amongst Water Toa, that would mean all "water toa" are not restricted to bending just water.

Actually you're a bit confused on this, albeit because Bionicle used confusing terminology; Toa of Water control "protowater" or liquid, waterlike protodermis, not all protodermis and probably not even all liquid protodermis. Lava as you mentioned next, is a liquid but Ga-Toa can't control it. And presumably they can't control energized protodermis.

 

Would this include lava? Can Onua and Pohatu bend lava, since its just melted stone?

Assuming by "bend" you mean control as in Avatar, I think there's been some question on that one. I think that properly lava should be controlled as a combo element like Lewa and Gali were established to be able to summon a storm, working together, but the Toa would be Tahu and Pohatu. And maybe Tahu and Onua (they were shown making and apparently controlling lava in MOL, though Greg has said it really should have been Tahu and Pohatu). But not Onua and Pohatu -- neither have control of heat. But offhand I'm unsure if that factor has been confirmed to deny them that ability. Pretty sure I asked Greg about that while I asked about lava being its own element... I'm certain he turned down lava as a distinct element but not sure he did weigh in on who does control it.

 

But create lava? Tahu plus either Pohatu or Onua can definitely do that.

 

Can Gali and Lewa both bend steam?

Again the use of "bend" is confusing here -- if there is steam already in the air, Lewa can obviously blow it around by controlling just the air. I wouldn't think of that as "bending steam" though, in the Avatar sense. In the literal plain-English sense, though, yes, because literally he could warp the shape of a column of steam for example.

 

For making new steam, only Gali can do that (although Kopaka might be able to indirectly in some weather conditions, especially melting a lot of ice in lava!).

 

For controlling steam, I believe it was settled eventually that Ga control it. I know Tuyet was depicted as using her power involving steam somehow or another in Many Deaths... I forget if it was clearly control, though. Obviously a Ga-Toa could create a mist and that would probably be all she needs for most uses of steam; concealment.

 

Do Lewa and Kopaka share control over the weather?

Yes in that Lewa can make wind and Kopaka can make snow or hail, but Kopaka's normal use is more like shooting ice out as a beam or manipulating ice on the ground (in G1 anyways).

 

And Gali can make rain... and Kopaka could too if he pulled out the cold energy of snow/hail and the air was above freezing (enough).

 

I think we draw too much attention on the stone vs earth debate because those two elements are clearly redundant.

That's a matter of taste, really. Earth flows like a liquid, forms mud, etc. See Greg's "hit you with both" quote -- that's not quite redundant. But an element controlling both would be valid for fiction, obviously.

 

But when you really think about it, the elemental restrictions were never clear cut. All of the toa's "jurisdictions" over their respective elements overlapped.

Again I must question this wording -- the very nature of elements demands there be some overlap, because that's the nature of materials. I wouldn't say that's the same as not being "clear cut" -- it's clear Tahu controls combustible materials and heat, for example, and Kopaka can add cold (sap heat) and make water along with it, or just cold. Those rules are clear, and the fact that both of them control temperature doesn't change that (or that both Kopaka and Gali can make H2O).

 

If that makes any sense.

 

I don't see a difference in Pohatu's and Onua's powers. 

 

Onua is just green, and Pohatu is just dusty.

This was from the MNOG final battle, and that was a flash animation -- animating a torrent of loose dirt is not so easy.

 

 

That is clearly not a clod of soil.

This is actually the scene Greg was talking about where in his view the moviemakers got it wrong. However, I disagree that that's clear. Tightly packed earth can be hard to distinguish by sight from stone, until you hit it hard enough to shatter. If they did get it wrong, it wouldn't be surprising; the moviemakers weren't Bionicle experts and got many known things wrong (like thinking Mata Nui awoke at the end of their movie!); that would just be non-canon, and "pretend it was Pohatu" is easy to do there.

 

Maybe one toa controls sediment and the other controls pure minerals?

I take it you didn't read earlier posts? Earth is loose particulate of the same basic substance as stone (although soil is closer to dead plant matter etc.) of a smaller particle size than sand, and Stone higher particle size. Small enough dustlike particles of pure minerals would still be Earth.

 

If however, Bionicle separated Earth and Stone like how pokemon separated Ground and Rock, it would make more sense and be actually justified.

That seems very debatable. Your paragraph before this trying to explain the Pokemon system is frankly very confusing. Having it be about a simple and clear difference between the materials makes much more sense for a story about elements controlling types of materials. Just like ice versus water is clear because that, too, has a clear and simple difference between the materials, even though it's the same actual molecule.

 

You said Pokemon "stone" is "the stuff you can pick up and throw", but that would rule out Onua throwing a clump of dirt; confusing, since every other Toa can make a projectile of their element. And a massive solid dried lava plain with no loose rocks yet, so nothing you can pick up but throw, would be "earth"??

 

I'm also confused as to how you can say there's no "point of separation" but then go on to mention the point of separation?

 

Also, just before this statement, it looks like you're implying it's a problem that Earth and Stone are made of the same substance, but your definition looks like it would be no different; the same thing not "picked up and thrown" would be Earth, right? So if your way has the same thing, you can't really use it in an argument. Maybe you didn't mean to imply that, though.

 

I'm sure that works for Pokemon, but it's a big mistake IMO to try to force Bionicle into the rules of other stories like that. Makes it copycattish, yanno?

 

Pohatu... couldn't start earthquakes

Well Bionicle didn't usually (ever?) feature Pohatu doing that, but saying he can't would be very confusing since real-world earthquakes are far more likely to be the result of giant stone structures breaking from a pressure build-up, not due to loose soil or the like! If there was such a fault zone, and it was on the verge of going, I think Pohatu would be able to speed it along by using his power to break the parts that were holding back the pressure, though normally ironically Onua can make quakes more easily by simply vibrating the soil with his power.

 

 

In the system where Earth is dirt and Stone is rocks, Onu-koro and Po-koro are the wrong way around.

No, they're just a little indirect about the reasoning; Po-Koro is in a place with tons of easily visible large rock structures. The sand is just a side effect of weathering on those basically (well, it would be on a natural island; maybe the camouflage system made most of the sand from the start). And Onu-Koro is "the place with digging". See earlier comments (I think that was in this topic ) about that.

 

most rock is underground

Yes, but that's why Po-Koro was in a place where a lot of rock wasn't, plus it's normal for people to live on top of soil; having the Earth tribe be just another would be rather lame IMO. Makes more sense for them to be literally in the earth.

 

caves and deep mines usually have no sediment

There certainly does seem to be a lot of rock there (see previous discussion about this), but I doubt it was pure rock. I don't think it was like here's a layer of soil, and here's a solid dividing line with bedrock below; it seems more like a mixture at that level, with enough rock to make the roof more or less stable, but enough soil that digging is more practical. At the very least, the tunnels to the surface presumably go through earthen layers, and I think the idea was just "a village befitting Onua, who digs a lot."

[Refrence to Mata Nui Robot in MNOG?]

 

If you read closely in the dialogue, they will at times refer to Mata-nui being a giant robot.

"Mata-nui is very big." Why else would they say that? Unless Mata-nui was "VERY BIG."

 

Couldn't they just be referring to the island of Mata Nui being very big?

Yeah, if it's the quote I'm thinking of, I thought it actually mentioned the island right in the quote -- something like "it's a big island" or the like. Could be wrong... I thought it was comic 1, but just checked and not there. Mata Nui the being was portrayed in Matoran culture as possibly titan-sized but no larger prior to the 2008 reveal (due to being said to have walked through Mata or maybe it was Metru Nui, can't recall), and I recall nothing about him being called big. Besides, we know it was kept a secret from them, so how could they mean that?

[Refrence to Mata Nui Robot in MNOG?]

To the topic starter: That's correct; it was Mata Nui's outer hull.

 

 

The cool thing about that "layer of strata" is that we found out before long what that referred to: Protodermis. The very name of which was a hint at the hidden robot, with dermis obviously coming from the Latin word for "skin". Of course, when every character and object from the Matoran universe was revealed to be created out of Protodermis, the meaning was blurred, but at the time, Protodermis can be assumed to have referred specifically to the hard outer "skin" of the robotic Mata Nui.

Actually, we didn't know that layer was protodermis until that later reveal you mention that "everything" is protodermis. At the time we knew only that they were mining for "protodermis", and that layer got in the way. They didn't know what it was in MNOG, only that it seemed to them similar to the shells of Ussal or something like that. Later from the comic use of protodermis and MNOG2 we thought protodermis was always a liquid, until 2004 cleared it up as multiple types.

 

This misconception has showed up here before -- not sure where it comes from, but maybe a theory based on the name of protodermis. The theory ironically works, but we did not at the time know it.

[Cataloging the Multiverse]

Irrie, he was saying basically, if a G3 ever happens, what would we call it? And the answer can easily be "G3".

[Cataloging the Multiverse]

I think that's all very clever and admirable and nobody's going to want to adopt it because it's probably way overthinking it, if that makes any sense. We already have a two-character way to categorize the main generations; G1, G2, G3 -- why have to type out fancy Latin words?? No offense, but I think that's rather counterproductive. And to say comics, we can say... well... comics. Etc. Realistically, this is probably the best approach, not expecting people to learn new advanced labels.

 

That said, not a bad idea for your own fun's sake regardless!

[G1 to G2 connection theories topic]

 

Yeah I just checked and there is. 

 

* No "post-it-here" topics, which means a topic trying to act like an official "only post about this subject here" topic, or a topic providing no content and asking repliers to make the content. (A topic that asks a specific question does not count as this, although there's some gray areas.)

 

Guess there can't be an official thread. 

 

Yeah, and as I said in another, we aren't going to have an actual official one either, as that would seem to endorse them. If we did, the firstpost would basically be "they said it's a reboot" which isn't really worth having a whole official topic for.

 

Post-it-here closed.

[What's the point of having powerful beings in the MU?]

Some of them had purposes that fit into the original design of the MU 'ecosystem'. Others were made or empowered later in response to problems since the original non-full-sapience design was changed by (we know, but they didn't) Velika. Of course, some weren't intended by anybody in charge and were made by bad guys or accidents.

 

Your using Makuta as an example actually illustrates an example of the first reason -- Makuta are far, far more powerful than most of the others listed, yet their purpose highlights the need for that power; making any new kinds of Rahi, which could require any number of powers to counter failed experiments that prove dangerous to the inventors. Could be any number of similar purposes to other beings.

[Were the G1 characters always biomechanical in canon?]

Yeah, that sounds like the one I was thinking of, and clearly does not support the idea that the main characters were originally robots. I think it's a mistake to take it the other way, though, and assume they were originally meant to be fully organic with armor or something. "Bionic" in the name is not a coincidence, and they didn't design all those pistons and anything without the story team noticing. Clearly when Greg wrote that he meant mechanical, and didn't realize at the time that the term meant a mix, or simply got mixed up and didn't mean to use that word there. Later on he used it in the correct sense and always seemed to be describing what was always planned, though again, the details were surely refined over time.

 

As to being surprised the Krana were alive, it's probably the oddity of having an organic brain in what otherwise appears to be completely inorganic, and may also have been an attempted hint to the readers that Bohrok had a biomechanical (literally) origin, along with the "brothers" hint.

[Were the G1 characters always biomechanical in canon?]

This is a very interesting question to me, because for the first few years of G1, at least to my knowledge, I don't believe there was any mention of their supposed biomechanical nature, apart from one or two erroneous references in the C. A. Hapaka novels. The characters were seemingly assumed to be robots in media like the MNOG and the canceled Legend of Mata Nui video game.  The idea that they had organic internal components seemed to come around after the first movie, in which the characters were redesigned with much more organic designs - including mouths, which up to that point had never been depicted on the Toa, Turaga, or Matoran in visual media. Later, Greg added more references in his books, but these references also seemingly contradicted early media.

No, MOL was clearly portrayed at the time as bringing the "bio" of the characters into an actual portrayal. MNOG was probably simply the usual -- they didn't run everything by the story team, so mixed signals resulted. They also didn't have speech as audio, but had audio in the game, so I think they actually made a good call there to have the motions have sound effects -- otherwise the characters would seem oddly silent in contrast to the music and other sound effects.

 

A purist might demand they picked more accurate sound effects to mechanical-only functions, but given the limited time and resources they had (if they had even been told about this, which I highly doubt), I don't think that would be reasonable. And the sound wasn't literal anyways -- if it was, they would have had to have speech like in the movies. (Even then it isn't completely literal as they wouldn't be speaking English.)

 

Now, you may ask, what then does the name of the franchise refer to? The term, as we all know, is a portmanteau of Biological and Chronicle. I would argue, however, that this is not a reference to the characters themselves, but a reference to the overarching metaphor for the human body fighting off a virus - which we didn't know about until late in G1's run,but was actually much more central to the story and themes than the physical nature of most of the characters. Thus, it seems to me that the whole notion of Bionicle characters being biomechanical is a retcon, and one that does not fit with the original intentions of the franchise - which was that they were 100% robotic beings.

It was also a play on words with "bionic" -- which is also probably why the MNOG creators assumed the nonbiological side was more robotic than strictly mechanical.

 

Now, they certainly refined it as time went on, but it wasn't a retcon. They were always meant to be somewhat biological, and things like gears and pistons were always meant to be there. Due to "bionic" they were probably originally vaguely half organic, half some kind of technology, and what was later added was apparently the idea that the tech side did not (for the most part) rise to the level of electronics. (So at that point the robotic sound effects of the MNOG and updates would stop working.) This may have happened at the point of MOL, but it wasn't that they were previously completely robots.

 

Re: Bohrok being "biomechanical" -- that sounds vaguely familiar, but foggy. Where specifically is this? I recall something about that word originally seeming to mean "more mechanical than we're used to" but later being used in its now well-known sense. This would have made sense at the time because the speakers were more biological than Bohrok (who were entirely lacking biology except the Krana -- and "biomechanical" could have included the Krana in the bio part of it, since they don't really function properly, as 'bad guys' in the story, without them).

[Earth Does Not Equal Stone? How?]

 

Actually I seem to recal Greg saying in that while the element lord of stone could not control sand Toa of stone could. But I could be remembering wrong.

Other way around; see quotes earlier in the topic.

Wait the element lord of stone could control sand?! That makes no sense.

Waitwait... somehow I read the part I bolded here as "sand" (I must have assumed if you are talking about element lords controlling sand you would mean the sand one -- why bring up the stone one, since that would make the sand one pointless? ). What I said is still correct about Toa of Stone not controlling sand in G1 though.

 

(While I'm on it, what the heck was Greg's reasoning for introducing an Earth Tribe with their own Element Lord when all previous media showed only six, since the Iron Tribe disbanded before that experiment took place?)

An Earth Tribe was originally planned for future content, but Bionicle was cancelled before they could include it. It appears that at first they were going to just not include it, hence some wordings in published stories and guides that made it sound like they were all that were ever made, but this was apparently never confirmed with the story team. It's pretty easy to just ignore any wording that makes it sound like "only" and say the other ELs (if there were more than Earth and the main six; it was left open last I heard) were just not present.

 

Also, they were made in shifts, so the six we saw were made at the same time and seem to have been the most important, similar to how the MU had six main elements but also some lesser elements.

 

on that note, why was there even another guy made for the sole purpose of controlling what amounts to a bunch of tiny rocks, when they had a guy who could control similar quantities of bigger rocks?

Presumably because sand has another distinctive environmental feel as opposed to larger rocks, just like how ice and water are the same substance but make very different environments (though previously they had used sand primarily in the Stone environments).

 

why is it every time i ask a question that relates to the story team i get an answer that relates to the great beings?

Nitpick, but your question was about SM tribes -- GBs didn't pick those as far as we know, in-story. It doesn't relate to the GBs (except they existed on the same world and ruled over the tribes...?), but I know what you meant, lol.

[Earth Does Not Equal Stone? How?]

Actually I seem to recal Greg saying in that while the element lord of stone could not control sand Toa of stone could. But I could be remembering wrong.

Other way around; see quotes earlier in the topic.

[karzahni and artakha]

And I think 'what if' topics are not allowed, but I might be wrong.

They're allowed now; see this from "Allowed Topics" in the rules:

 

* "What if" (alternate events and theorizing on their results) topics -- used to be banned due to too many, but now allowed again to encourage more discussion. Although we should still try to stick relatively close to what we can reasonably extrapolate; in-depth storytelling about alternate scenarios are usually better made into a fanfic story in the Library.

[Earth Does Not Equal Stone? How?]

The way I understand it is this:

Toa of Stone literally only control stone. Straight stone.

Toa of Earth can control things like dirt and things like it. Sand is another example.

Again, in G1, sand was controlled by neither. Otherwise you're correct. (G2 has it with Stone.)

 

stargatestatic, that's because Onua would be underground, due to his association with digging that comes naturally to the Earth element, and would need greater strength for the digging and for possibly lifting stones that might get in his way. (Precisely because he can't control them. It wouldn't really make sense to have the guy who can control stone need to lift them. ) Pohatu would be aboveground and they focused him on running fast, as in through canyons, rock formations, etc. And playing soccer with boulders of course. But storywise, both were said to be quite strong.

[Earth Does Not Equal Stone? How?]

Well i mean, i wasn't the one saying "earth" and "Earth" were "distinctly different" and that Bionicle "chose another definition"

 

there is one Earth (earth) when it comes to elements and it is specifically referring to the planet "Earth" (or vice-versa, i have no idea.)

I'm still not following you, sorry. I was replying to Ballom there who was clearly defining "earth" in his post as organic only.

 

This greg quote here that that guy linked, here he gets it, Onua can and has manipulated rocks before, but only alongside soil or in the ground, never as his sole specialization and as far as i can tell, he's never removed just a rock from the earth itself with his powers.

That would work by moving the earth around the rock, which in turn would push the rock. That scene at the end of the MNOG final battle gives that kind of impression, for example. Your wording here makes it sound like Onua's power is also directly moving the rock telekinetically as long as there's also some dirt around it, but then his power would be overlapping Pohatu's in a very confusing way, since the same rock taken out into the air would be Pohatu's power. Nothing about the rock changed in that example at all, just where it is, unlike water turning very cold and solid, for example.

 

Or, to use the organic/inorganic argument, if there was a whole log buried in soil, that argument alone would make the log "Earth", even though the same log on the surface would not (and would either go under Plants or nobody, unsure if dead wood counts for their control offhand). Clearly particle size would have to be involved even in that definition, so making it just about that made for a much simpler and less arbitrary answer.

 

Elements could work that way, but it makes more sense the way they have it (so if you get hit by a boulder with some dirt around it, versus just a boulder, that's not the same as being hit by a clump of dirt versus a boulder ).

 

Alright, from the 2003+ collection... starting with one usually wondered in these topics:

 

 2)What would a Nova blast of earth be like? Explosion of dirt?  

 2) Yup

This one covers that stone underground is still Po, not Onu, so it's not "ground versus out of ground" but "earth versus stone":

 

How come Hewikii can make hands come out of the ground isint that a toa of earths area?

Not if there is stone under the ground, no. The hands Hewkii makes are made of stone, not earth.

Here's one that clearly shows sand is neither:

 

  1. Do Toa of earth have power over sand?

 A. No

 1. T.o. stone?

 A. No. We have too many fans who wouldn't realize sand is just ground down stone, and would get confused if the Toa of Stone was controlling sand. So we just don't do that.  

 

 1) Can Onua turn stone into earth and vice versa since stone is just condensed earth? 

 2) Can Pohatu turn earth into stone and vice versa since earth is just sediments of stone?  

 1-2) No. We don't get that complex with the powers because we don't want our younger readers to have to take a science class to understand what we're doing.

Here's the one about non-metal and it being essentially soil (hence the name as explained earlier).

 

14) Can a Toa of Earth control metal? Metal is just earth reshaped and processed.

 14) No. Earth, for the purposes of BIONICLE, is soil, not minerals and elements in the soil.

Here's another that makes it somewhat clear ground does not equal only Earth:

 

10)Vakama can shoot fire, Nuju can shoot ice and freeze things, Nokama can blast things with water, Matau can blast wind...what can Onewa and Whenua do?   

 Make earth and stone work for them. For example, Whenua can create a tidal wave of earth by calling it from the ground. Onewa can make stone spikes appear from the ground or can cause someone to be encased in stone.  

Another rejecting the "earth as ground includes stone" concept:

 

1) I'm having trouble with the differences between the Toa of stone and the Toa of Earth because isn't there stone in earth? What can stone do that Earth can't? Do you think you could give me a short list and desciption of their differences?      

 Onewa deals with rock; Whenua deals with soil. Onewa can make big rock pillars rise up out of the ground, Whenua can't. Whenua can send a tidal wave of dirt at an enemy, Onewa can't. Onewa can look at a big slab of rock and figure out just where to hit it to shatter it -- Whenua can't. Whenua can sense vibrations in the earth and know when something is coming -- Onewa can't.

I didn't see the one that settled the question in the Official Element Topic. It was probably a post, or used words I'm not finding in searches.

 

Trying the 2008+ one now...

 

I suppose this is relevant:

 

5) Would the Element Lord of Rock have control over Rock exclusively, or does he have powers over Earth, too?

5) No, just rock. Rock is not the same as earth.

And zero results at all in 2010+. While I'm at it, might as well try LMB... though its search feature is very bad, so don't hold your breath... (But the questions do often get "back to basics" so who knows...) Well, here's one:

 

5. Why aare stone and earth separate elements?

5) I used to get this question a lot. My answer was usually that if you have been hit in the head by a ball of mud -- and then hit in the head by a rock -- it's pretty obvious they are two very different things. Now, you can say we find rocks in the soil, but we also find lots of minerals underground too ... but if I did a Toa of Silver, no one would say he should be a Toa of Earth instead.

That should be enough to get the picture. I'd add, there's also plant roots in soil, but that doesn't mean Onua controls roots directly. (But he could move a plant around by moving the dirt it's stuck in.)

[Earth Does Not Equal Stone? How?]

RL, I don't see where you're headed with this. In your previous post you acknowledged that there are multiple definitions (including the planet for example), and in this post you say there is only one. And yes, the meaning of Earth as soil is connected to and probably rooted in (not sure, but would make sense) the meaning of ground, which I think is more ancient. But this might help -- I was curious with all this talk of definitions and looked it up in dictionary.com. We can dismiss the first few which talk about the planet and its inhabitants. This one is pretty much what Bionicle was apparently aiming at:

 

soil and dirt, as distinguished from rock and sand; the softer part of the land.

 

This would include inorganic but "softer" (smaller-grained) particulate. Not really sure how they mean "dirt" as distinct from soil here as it isn't defined within this definition, but may imply inorganic may be in the dirt category in the mind of whoever wrote that. (Or it could just be listing two common synonyms.)

 

Interestingly, they don't cite anything about organic or not there (not in the dictionary.com-exclusive list, that is -- there's some in the other dictionary cites below. Some others that explicitly go beyond organic, though, like this one in the British Dictionary:

 

the loose soft material that makes up a large part of the surface of the ground and consists of disintegrated rock particles, mould, clay, etc; soil

 

Note the disintegrated rock particles bit!

 

Apparently they don't have the Merriam-Webster one. Let's look at that since it was mentioned:

 

1:  the fragmental material composing part of the surface of the globe; especially :  cultivable soil

 

Doesn't specifically say organic, but I'd take that as the soil meaning (as far as I know that's what soil means... but probably wrong lol). But note the especially, so not only. And this defines it primarily as being "fragmental" (huh, the spellcheck doesn't believe that's a word, and I thought it was fragmentary. English is freaky like that sometimes. ).

 

 

 

Fishers, thanks, but those quotes don't really make it clear. The first one sounds like he's contradicting himself, even. I'm not actually sure if this was in the archive, come to think of it, but it might be in years in between those two. It came about from a discussion he was involved in in the old Official Elements topic. He had said smaller particles (I doubt he used that exact word, incidentally) were Earth, and the question came up of which sand would fall into, since the particles there are in-between. He came down on the side of neither; in-between at the end of it. The 2007 quote sounds almost like he forgot about that discussion; that's probably what the questioner is referring to. Maybe not so easy to find after all, though.

 

I think I will indeed have a go at it myself... but tomorrow...

[Earth Does Not Equal Stone? How?]

No i was mostly referring to in 2003, when he brought down the ceiling of Onu-Koro, which, as we could all see, was solid rock.

I don't know how we could see that, but rock would have earth above it, presumably, and enough downward pressure would do that if the rock was thin enough and brittle enough. I've always thought Onu-Koro was probably in an area where there was enough of a mixture to make the cavern stable enough yet also justify there being Earth Matoran living there. I do recall some discussion about that scene, and some dismissed it as the moviemakers not knowing the difference. Wouldn't be the first mistake they made, but I don't know what the actual intent was.

 

The pages linked to from Wikipedia, on particle sizes and silt, show that extremely small particles can be either earth or sediment.

Again, Ballom, we're talking about Bionicle's element, not the definition you're using in this sentence.

 

Making the distinction on particle sizes is arbitrary

Yes it is, as would be defining the element by something else, like inorganic/organic. However, once the definition was chosen, it does provide a simple and non-arbitrary way to tell between them. See a large boulder? Not so easy to tell at a glance if it's inorganic matter, but if it's a boulder and it isn't just a large clump of dirt that will break apart on a reasonably weak impact, it's Stone. See some loose particulate? You need not worry about just how it's composed to know it's Earth. Of course, the Toa wouldn't need this simplicity; they could just sense it either way. But it does seem like a better choice for the kids, if not completely non-confusing as the myriad of topics over the years have shown.

 

Point is, picking organic/not, or ground/not-ground would also be arbitrary, since magical elements in general are arbitrary; see my previous post on that.

 

someone with disintegration powers can rob Pohatu of stones to control by breaking them down small enough?

That would follow, yeah. Or if they had a power of... cementation?? Stickiness? Something like that, they might make Onua unable to control dirt, by turning it into stone. Or somebody with actual "turn to stone" power could make Kopaka not able to control ice.

 

Organic versus inorganic avoids this

Not really -- just changes the debacle, so now if it's loose and flowing and otherwise behaves just like Earth, but it's inorganic, suddenly it's Pohatu's domain. Oh wait, that's this year LOL. (But sand does at least behave noticeably different when you walk on it from smaller particulate, so that works. Really, any way would probably work. They just had to pick one.) But yes, that way would be valid too. Better than "Earth is ground", at least.

 

Also, yes, I am considering "Bionicle Earth" to be the same as real-world earth. To make them different things would be utterly baffling.

Clearly it HAS been at least mildly baffling. But I think pretty much no matter how you have Earth and Stone be separate, it's going to be confusing, because it's not a common idea. We're used to them being the same because that's how it was in the Greek version, and most fiction borrows that. So, pretty much goes with the territory.

 

But it's not that hard to grasp, really. Earth, by the common meaning of soil, is the most prominent and commonly-encountered type of nonmetallic natural particulate, so it makes sense to name the element after it. And of course, because it sounds cooler than "dirt" (although off the top of my head, dirt usually also refers to soil, I think ). Similar to Iron, which was named using the same principle later. And loosely, Water, since Ice is water too.

 

As for citations, if you make a claim that requires proof and I ask about it, it shouldn't be my duty to unearth it (pun not intended); that should rest on the person who invoked it.

Not really when it's something discussed so often as to have been common knowledge oft-quoted at the time, and you're directed to how to find it yourself. The person most curious to see the quote should have some burden to spend some time if they have it to satisfy their curiosity, and have the means easily. But if you don't have time, I get that; I didn't have time when you asked. if you don't have time to do a Find search in fishers' archives, I might have time tomorrow. Let me know if you do find the time to look it up before then. (Or somebody else can get it if they want. ) I was answering the topic starter, who asked simply for the answer, not just for a quote. If it was a topic asking just for a quote, then yes, that would make sense (though directing them where to find it themselves would still be relevant... but then somebody else would likely have done it already heh).

 

RL, I've already answered what the Bionicle definition refers to, why are you asking again? Did you not catch that Ballom was defining it a different way as organic versus inorganic? My point was that's one valid definition (as would be land, the planet Earth, etc.) but not the one Bionicle picked. Otherwise, I'm not sure where you're confused? Could you clarify?

[Earth Does Not Equal Stone? How?]

well that sounds like a really complicated way to separate the two compared to the "rock vs ground type" concept, but okay.

How do you figure? Since rock is in the ground most of the time, that occasional fan concept is very confusing. I've never heard a definition that seemed consistent with Bionicle. Particle size is about as simple as you can get.

 

And it's also the same as some of the common definitions of the words. (Though "earth" can indeed mean ground, but also can mean dirt.)

 

 

EDIT: Wait a flip, that can't be it, particle size is contradicted at several points in the Bionicle story, when Onua is seen manipulating the huge stony faces of caves in or around Onu-Koro! (and i can't say for sure but i'm p sure Nuparu and Whenua do similar while in underground areas...)

When was an Onu-Toa ever manipulating stone?

 

Perhaps in some non-canon media, but you probably are referring to the large clumps of dirt Onua sometimes threw around (like in one of the 2001 comics -- this is one of the common questions that traditionally comes up in these topics when people hear the canon definition for the first time ), or perhaps to when he used his Mask of Strength to pick up stone, etc.?

 

 

The problem with particle size is that both soil and sediment (going with these as more precise alternatives to earth and stone; I think this is pretty unambiguous because sediment is derived from rock, and soil being considered earth follows directly) can exist as extremely small particles: silt, which is very low on the scale of particle sizes can be either soil or sediment. Particle size therefore cannot distinguish earth and stone.

 

It's probably because I'm in a hurry, but I didn't see how you got to that conclusion from what's in this quote. Particle size absolutely can distinguish it. All I'm seeing in what comes before your "therefore" here is a description of small particle sizes (which, assuming we're not talking about metallic particles, would go under Earth). Could you clarify?

 

As for asking for a quote, try fishers' archives. It was one of the most commonly discussed subjects while Bionicle was going; it would be pretty hard for even me to be remembering that one wrong.

 

The rest of your second paragraph makes it sound like you're confusing the most common real-world definition of earth (lowercase e; English term) with the Bionicle element of Earth, but we're talking about the latter. Earth does indeed usually refer to soil (organic), although it can also refer to land in general, but the Bionicle element doesn't always mean organic.

 

 

I believe I have asked this question a month or more ago, but it is possible that like the situation of ice and water, the separation between earth and stone is rooted in old Maori mythologies and stuff?

I don't know that there's anything specifically like this in the Maori culture or others Bionicle was inspired by.

 

What I have heard is that they were aware that definitions of "elements" differ from culture to culture, which they took as grounds to define their own (after all, we're not talking about something like atomic elements; it's essentially arbitrary), and that they wanted more than four Toa. I think it was based on the Greek four, and the fact that Earth and Ice make for obviously different environments for people to live in. But it may not have been only Greek.

 

 

 

 

The elements are separated as they are not because of chemical/material composition, but by behavior.

 

How comes that this idea wasn't brought up and widely accepted in the fandom, like, some considerable time ago?..

That's basically a summary of what's already canon. As the example that brought it up shows -- Ice/Water. The way it was phrased back in the day was more about environments as experienced by Matoran/people-in-general. A snowscape versus a bay, a cave versus mesas, etc. (Volcano, you get the picture.) But that's basically behavior. (And same for why having the same elements work for both normal matter and protodermis was considered valid; they behaved the same, so the GBs had the elemental divisions treat them as the same.)

[Earth Does Not Equal Stone? How?]

As far as G1 goes, it's particle size canonically. Really very simple.

 

Below sand particle size is Earth, above is Stone, and sand is a separate (SM) element. In G2 it's sand and above is stone, but otherwise seems about the same so far.

 

No, it's not environments per se, though Matoran and presumably Toa of each element will prefer environments that focus more on that. But caves for example can be more stone than Earth technically (and that kind of cave is even safer to live in by far!); they prefer caves more because they don't like direct sunlight, a trait which is associated with Earth because it's easier to dig in dirt. Indirect, but it did make some sense. And no, it isn't about organic or not, as inorganic rock ground up small enough is Earth, and organic dirt can be cemented into Stone.