What's up w/ the rampant canonization?

[bonesiii]

I think this is the key about all, LEGO intended two Legendary Level Masks, BZP canonized another one

Greg canonizes things. Fans can make suggestions, but this seems like an unfair way to phrase it. Unless we lay out the exact quotes here, I'm not sure I trust my memory enough to agree that you're accurately representing what happened. The Mask of Creation isn't normally brought up as an example of canonization, and even LEGO's reboot is now re-using the concept of the power, probably not as Legendary, but then the entire idea of Legendary masks was established later; the Vahi was originally called a Great Mask.

 

And really, I think it misses the point. Whether LEGO mainly came up with the idea on their own, or the level of fan input, is really irrelevant; LEGO did intend it. (Or Greg did; we don't know how much details higher-ups bother with. )

 

Besides, if you want it not to be canon, and LEGO listens to you, that's fan input too.

 

and made up all your argument because without it, just fails.

Maybe fans did, but even if they did, identifying WHO suggested it doesn't prove it to be a bad idea. But I don't recall if this is accurate. Are you basing this on careful study of the quotes? (And do they make this that clear? Greg can have a discussion with fans and have his own ideas as part of that process.) If so, that's cool, but you don't have to combative about it. You just seem very certain of this, and as it's not often discussed and I'm not, I'd like to know how you know.

 

Break the Vahi => Tear apart the flow of time.

Break the Ignika=> Kill'em all apocalypse

Break the MoC=> Bara Magna-like MU (Is a bad thing but the other two options are much, much worse)

They are, but how could that relate to an argument that the Great Beings wouldn't likely want a mask that powerful? If anything I'd think it means they'd prefer it over the other two. But:

 

And, yes, is a pointless topic now and a lost battle but that was my example for (in my point of view) a bad canonization.

I do get that the above quote about the three is meant to clarify what you meant earlier about Bara Magna. That does make more sense than what I thought it meant, so thanks for clearing it up. Still don't see how it amounts to an objective problem, though. It seems to me that it's more of an out-of-story preference that the Legendary Masks' downsides all be highly dangerous to living beings specifically.

 

Actually, even if we took that preference as a given, you could solve that without removing the Mask of Creation; its downside could be a lot of stuff gets created, much of it deadly, or the like. Just change the downside (I had my doubts about that one too, actually, although it does make sense as breaking the creativity parts of their minds... and it's still bad as creativity is essential to solving problems), not the power or its level. But my main point is, that preference isn't really objective, yeah?

 

Please don't think that I hate all the aports of BZP, I really like things like named the Lhikan's Team and made a red shirt Piraka Star into Nektann.

Okay, that's cool. I just hope you see clearly the difference between subjective preferences and something necessarily being bad. But it's kinda a pet peeve, so don't take it too seriously.

 

I think that is necessary to make a line between what try to make canon and what don't, we need a limit.

I agree, but to do that, and agree on it, we need to clearly understand why the line should be X and not Y or Z. It's especially important then to see clearly the role of subjective preferences versus objective standards.

 

I agree, with Toa R. Lih Nit here. Why the Mask of Creation was made a Legendary-tier mask is honestly beyond me. It's power is nothing too out of the ordinary

Well, it depends on the universe you want to create, and even more importantly on what the motives and desires and thoughts of the characters that originated the power are (the Great Beings in this case). Are you factoring that or giving it the weight it should have in a character-based story?

 

To repeat, it's basically that they're very creative, and that matter is just as important to life as life and time are (at least the kind of life that Matoran/Toa are ). The only other major candidates I recall offhand were space (Olmak is sometimes suggested, but was turned down), and energy (I don't recall much discussion on this, probably from the perception that plenty of elements handled that already). But space can be reasonably lumped in with Time, and energy possibly with Creation.

 

if the Olmak and Mohtrek are not Legendary (and those things rip holes in time and space) then neither should this be.

That doesn't follow. Minor versions of ANY legendary power could exist. There are subpowers of Time that exist as powers in Bionicle. The Mohtrek actually IS one! (Possibly Olmak too, re: above). Legendary refers to the highest power level. The existence of powers at that level does not at all imply the non-existence of weaker powers, anymore than a Great Mask disproves a Noble Mask.

 

Yes, Legendary masks also have extra rules that Greats don't, like that there can only be one, but this too is possible and doesn't change the previous fact. (And makes sense as a reasonable caution that the Great Beings would include. )

 

Also, remember: The Ignika is not essential for life to work in the MU.

?? Nobody said it was; why do you bring it up? This looks a lot like a strawman, changing the statement that LEGO intended the Legendary powers for canon Bionicle to be about things necessary for life into that the masks would be essential for life. It's similar to that statement, but changes the meaning entirely.

[Katuko]

?? Nobody said it was; why do you bring it up?

 

And Life wasn't essential for a universe too

It's essential for life, which is what I said.

 

The Mask of Life was being discussed, and you wrote this sentence, so that is why I felt the need to nip the issue in the bud. I probably misunderstood your intention with it.

[fishers64]

I think this is the key about all, LEGO intended two Legendary Level Masks, BZP canonized another one and made up all your argument because without it, just fails.

 

Alright, I'm going to clear this, since it's part of Gen 2 as well and it may be relevant. 

 

2) A question about Artakha's rumored "Mask of Creation": would it be considered a Legendary Kanohi? Or is its power not really the actual "force of creation", but rather of "invention and insight"?

 

2) If it existed, I would say it would be legendary, but no one knows if it exists or not  

 

* * *

In OGD you told somebody that the Mo Creation is Legendary, does this mean that Karzahni's Mo Alternate Futures also Legendary?

 

I didn't mean the Mask of Creation was legendaryas in "Great Mask, Legendary Mask" - I meant it's legendary because there are legends about it but no one knows if it actually exists.

 

2) Couldn't Karzahni and Artahka's masks qualify for legendary status? They allow for some pretty dangerous things. Karzahni can see the future, and Artahka can build anything, given the materials. Knowledge of the future might not be as fundamental as time, or life, but the power to create, isn't that another basic part of reality? Reality must create, or else it is not real, or rather, only that which has been created is real.

 

 

2) I definitely don't see Karzahni's mask as being up there with Life and Time ... you could argue Artakha's is, but it's not a decision I have made at this point since he is only a peripheral part of the story.

 

Okay, so we start with this. Fan asks question, even makes a case, then Greg gives a non-committal answer. 

 

Then someone comes in and disputes: 

 

About the legendary masks: I really don't want to see the Mask of Creation being a legendary mask. Sure, creation is a basic part of reality, but so are light and dark, and the Avohkii and Kraahkan aren't legendary. Besides, I like the idea of legendary masks not having one being constantly wearing it, but Artahka is constantly wearing his mask.

 

Then we have straight questions: 

 

4.Is the Mask of Creation a Legendary mask?

4)You could certainly make that argument for it being one, but we have not officially said it is one.

* * *

4) Is it possible to create another Great Mask of Creation?

4a) A Noble Mask of Creation?

4b) A powerless Mask of Creation?

 

4) The Great Beings could, yes

4a) Probably

4c) Not sure

 

* * *

2. Could Artakha (being) if he is still alive, use his mask of Creation to envision the instructions for creating another mask of Creation?

2) No

* * *

4. Would it be possible for the Kanohi Olisi and/or the Mask of Creation to transform into Noble Kanohi?[/size]

4) If they were being worn by Toa when they turned into Turaga, yes[/size]

 

This would seem that Greg is considering it a Great Mask. Then we get this. 

 

Hey GregF, just one question pertaining to the Mask of Creation.

I would like to discuss the status/type of power the Mask of Creation is considered. First, I have a quote to show:

 

QUOTE(Tolkien @Apr 11 2007, 08:40 AM) Source

2) A question about Artakha's rumored "Mask of Creation": would it be considered a Legendary Kanohi? Or is its power not really the actual "force of creation", but rather of "invention and insight"?

 

2) If it existed, I would say it would be legendary, but no one knows if it exists or not

In the quote, you mentioned that if the Mask of Creation did exist, you would consider it to be a Legendary Kanohi.

With this in mind, is Artakha's Mask of Creation a Legendary Kanohi?

 

Yes

 

This isn't a fan canonization. This is just fans asking questions, and asking Greg to act consistently with his earlier answer, which was canon.

 

It's slightly convenient how Erebus forgot to mention the other answer he gave in Apr 2007, , but that doesn't make it a canonization.

Edited December 27, 2014 by fishers64

[abstractAgamid]

Really, what seems to be up is that some people seem to be uncomfortable with the unknown or undefined.

 

Like, if you make a MOC of one of the Toa Mangai and give it whatever mask you want, no-one is going to be able to disprove you now, barring something like the Ignika. Canonizing precise stuff like this kills off a lot of possibilities.

Edited December 29, 2014 by abstractAgamid

[bonesiii]

abstract, you're just repeating the same basic argument there that has been discussed (I kinda thought to death ) earlier in this and other topics. But, I'll try to summarize the basic answers to that once more.

 

Yes, people want some unknowns defined. You can phrase both sides of this in a negative or positive tone; doing so doesn't prove one side (on any particular example) to be the one most consistent with what LEGO set up as its standards for what gets defined and what doesn't, and the fact always remains that some things will be, and some things won't be. You could phrase those who want it to be unknown as "uncomfortable with the known" for example. Doing so proves nothing at all.

 

And no, it doesn't invalidate fan versions in any way except that they just happen not to be the canon version (and they never were, so that seems almost irrelevant). Since you can imagine your own version either way, and what you said could apply to any canon, we can't just assume that this is a case where it shouldn't be defined versus should be. And since providing one canon answer provides benefits the alternative doesn't (the sense of community around a common knowledge for example), generally I think the weight of that dilemma comes out on the side of canonizing it.

 

Unless it's more irrelevant to the main story, generally, than other things that were revealed in canon. Powers of the Mangai is somewhere in the gray area, but if the weight goes to canon revelation, I'd say it's in. Other details like name or tool are more optional methinks. (And this is other than things that have objective problems like inconsistency, and with other cautions like the bigger a canon gets the harder it is to avoid contradictions.)

Edited December 29, 2014 by bonesiii

[abstractAgamid]

Yeah, sorry for restating, I was afraid that might be the case, but I really couldn't bring myself to read this thread in its entirety, especially with the long responses in it. Thanks for condensing.

 

Having your version not contradict established canon has the benefit of, well, not contradicting established canon. That might be seen as important. Else you enter the realm of personal AUs or something (could be argued that that's the case anyway, I know, I know).

 

(Also, I don't really care about the sense of community around knowledge.)

[bonesiii]

(Also, I don't really care about the sense of community around knowledge.)

Well that there is probably the key to what differentiates most of the preferences against canonization from the preferences for it. Of course, there are others, and this one may be somewhat limited as not every Bionicle fan talked with other fans. (Keep in mind the community aspect could go way beyond just online communities though; just kids who have fellow fans as friends at school or whatever could get this value. And it can go beyond even community interaction itself; the sense of knowing something that lots of other people know too can add value even for a fan who doesn't interact with other fans.)

 

But glad to help you at least get where the other POV is coming from.

[abstractAgamid]

Well, a sense of community can also form around plausibles and theories rather than hard facts though, can't it?

Edited December 29, 2014 by abstractAgamid

[Regitnui]

Hence the Headcanons thread showing just how much fanon the BIONICLE universe has built up in addition to canonized material.

[bonesiii]

Well, a sense of community can also form around plausibles and theories rather than hard facts though, can't it?

Yes, but this goes back to the thing (which I admittedly forgot that you wouldn't necessarily have read ) about how having more canon (within reason) seems to fuel fan imagination more, not less. If you take the contrary assumption to its logical conclusion, no canon at all should inspire more fan content, but that describes most past LEGO lines and they never had the kind of active fan creativity community Bionicle did (even factoring that a lot of that was pre-internet). It's not a universal, but in general that seems to be the trend (it might fall off if there was too much canon, though, so take it with some salt).

[Toa R. Lih Nit]

fishers64, thanks for you work.

Now I belive that Mask of Creation isn't a canonization but still a very grey area, still don't like it but Greg was just consistent with some hypothetical questions.

It was a bad example, sorry about that.

 

 

Hence the Headcanons thread showing just how much fanon the BIONICLE universe has built up in addition to canonized material.

 

In addition and against canon, it's weird but seems more easy to create and imaginate things with something previous that works as basis and take the best parts of that.

 

 

Well, a sense of community can also form around plausibles and theories rather than hard facts though, can't it?

 

I think that this work better with a living series, like Game of Thrones, when you discuss theories and you have feedback with the new book.

[Lewa0111 Nuva]

Probably because, especially now that the 2015 story has been confirmed to be a complete reboot, people latch on to ANY tiny detail of "new" information from the old story. And since Greg is available to ask about these things, people figure, "why not?"

 

Lewa0111 Nuva

[Rahkshi Lalonde]

This seems kind of like asking why we keep shopping for the food stores happen to sell instead of starving ourselves and demanding scientists construct Matoran energy absorbing systems for us instead. (Not that we actually need this 'food' to live or anything; that would be unhealthy, but we do WANT a little more, or some of us do, and Greg seems willing to keep providing some. )

 

this...

 

this whole...

 

I... I can't...

 

what is this saying? I'm not quite sure what you were trying to say here, but i'll assume i'll just get an even less coherent analogy if i ask. :0

[fishers64]

 

This seems kind of like asking why we keep shopping for the food stores happen to sell instead of starving ourselves and demanding scientists construct Matoran energy absorbing systems for us instead. (Not that we actually need this 'food' to live or anything; that would be unhealthy, but we do WANT a little more, or some of us do, and Greg seems willing to keep providing some. )

 

this...

 

this whole...

 

I... I can't...

 

what is this saying? I'm not quite sure what you were trying to say here, but i'll assume i'll just get an even less coherent analogy if i ask. :0

 

*goes back up for context*

 

I think he was saying that the person was demanding better story than Greg could provide, so the person was rejecting the answers Greg could actually provide. He wanted additions to the story, but of a certain quality - but any other additions below that quality mark is rejected. The higher quality thing isn't possible, and it doesn't argue against having the lower quality thing. 

 

It's kind of difficult to get my head around too. I'll try for an analogy.

 

Let's say I know of two sandwich shops - one 400 miles away, the other 2 miles away. The sandwich shop 400 miles away makes very tasty sandwiches, but it is impossible for me to get there, since I don't have a car and if I take the 14 days using other methods I'll lose my job and won't have enough money to pay for that REALLY REALLY delicious sandwich. So it's not happening.

 

This sandwich shop represents Greg finishing the serials, a fundamental impossibility that would be beyond excellent if it happened. 

 

The sandwich shop 2 miles away doesn't produce quite as good as a sandwich as the one 400 miles away, but I can get to it in about an hour, and I will have enough money to buy a sandwich when I get there.  

 

This sandwhich shop represents Greg answering questions and canonizing things like the Mangai and Fikou Nui - it's possible, and it's not as good as finishing the serials. 

 

Now if I want a sandwich right now, should I just not go to the second sandwhich shop, because I CAN'T get to the first one? That doesn't make any sense at all. Why should I deprive myself of sandwiches from sandwich shops (which are incredibly tasty, despite not being that good for me) because I can't drive 400 miles? That's pretty dumb.

 

At the same time, why should we deprive ourselves of storytidbits, canonizations, and Greg answers because we can't have the serials finished? That doesn't make any sense.

 

And that's the point.  (Not that I fully agree with it, but that was the point he was trying to make, I think. )

 

Going back to the original analogue:

 

This seems kind of like asking why we keep shopping for the food stores happen to sell instead of starving ourselves and demanding scientists construct Matoran energy absorbing systems for us instead. (Not that we actually need this 'food' to live or anything; that would be unhealthy, but we do WANT a little more, or some of us do, and Greg seems willing to keep providing some. )

So the "food stores happen to sell" is the Greg answers, tidbits, and canonizations. The "Matoran energy systems" are the serials being finished, the fundamental penultimate impossibility.

 

I don't really like this analogue because it implies that Matoran energy absorbing systems are superior to normal eating, but that's something to argue with bonesiii about in some other topic later.

[bonesiii]

I was saying it was a false dichotomy. I don't really remember what the argument was I was critiquing now, though, but I'm sure if you want to understand it you can read it, RL.

[Bedrock1]

People make fan canon (or fanon) to fill in gaps and plot holes in a story. Because of it's nature, fanon is often canonised, as it sometimes makes more sense than whatever the author had thought of themself.

Fan fiction, however, is when people write their own stories set in a universe they don't own. Fan fiction is, by nature, contradictory to the source materiel and is next to never canonised. 

The problem arises when there is fan-written pieces that blur the lines between fanon and fanfiction. Nova Orbis is fan fiction, the serials are canon but what of Greg's more trivial pursuits? Is Velika being a GB canon? If the shadowed one's true name were to be revealed now, would it be considered canon, even when G1 is long over?

This gives rise to a backdoor. Everyone here likes bionicle and most people here, if given the chance, would like to see their mark on it. People write their own stories because they think this is good and they want others to read, praise and accept it as fact. But few of us have actually been hired by lego and so our only path to us forcing other people to read our OCs is to get Greg to canonise them. People aren't really that desperate to know what the third toa of ice in Lhikan's  team's second toa tool's auxiliary effect was, or what the exact diameter of the shadowed one's left bicep is, people just look for vulnerable areas in the lore that they can claim for their own, so they can yell out in their sig: "LOOK AT ME I GAVE TOA HERPFAXXON A KANOHI HAU LOOK AT ME I AM YOUR GOD" 

Problems arise from this mentality. People stop referring to their fan fiction as fan fiction, but start calling it their "Headcanon". People begin pestering Greg about trivial details and he gets frustrated.

So people, please. You are NOT "headcanoning" Kopaka or Tamaru to be a woman, you are fan fictioning it. You were NOT "headcanoning" Lesovikk's team to be the "Toa Cordiak", you were fan fictioning it. And STOP pestering Greg to canonise your Axxon X Gali relationship, or your Mask of Fart noises, or your theory that Mata Nui is actually Makuta. Your fan fiction is NOT constructive, it does NOT fit the universe and, most importantly, bionicle is NOT your universe. It's not even Greg's, it's Lego's. Stop acting like the whole of creation is your private sandbox, you have to share.

[Sergei Rahkmaninoff]

From Wiktionary:

fan fiction (countable and uncountable,  plural fan fictions)

    (uncountable) Fiction incorporating the characters and concepts of a commercial media property, created by its admirers, typically without permission from the author or owner.

 

 

headcanon (plural headcanons)

    (fandom slang) Elements and interpretations of a fictional universe accepted by an individual fan, but not found within or supported by the official canon.

 

So fan fiction is an actual work of fiction, headcanon is just an interpretation. If I write a story where Kopaka is female and post it in the Epics forum, that would be fanfiction. If I just decide that, from now on, when I read Bionicle books I'll envision Kopaka as female, mentally switch out 'he' for 'she' every time it's used in reference to Kopaka, then that's headcanon. So I don't see the big problem with referring to this sort of thing as headcanon, because until one writes an actual work of fiction about their interpretations, that's what it is.

 

 

People aren't really that desperate to know what the third toa of ice in Lhikan's  team's second toa tool's auxiliary effect was, or what the exact diameter of the shadowed one's left bicep is, people just look for vulnerable areas in the lore that they can claim for their own, so they can yell out in their sig: "LOOK AT ME I GAVE TOA HERPFAXXON A KANOHI HAU LOOK AT ME I AM YOUR GOD" 

 

I disagree. SOME people do it for glory, but a lot of us are genuinely interested in knowing the things we have been canonizing (which, by the way, are not nearly as absurd as your post declares.)

 

 

Stop acting like the whole of creation is your private sandbox, you have to share.

 

That's kinda what we've been trying to do by having polls for everything. Granted, they've not been perfect, but we're working on it. We've got a guideline topic and everything.

[Rahkshi Lalonde]

I was saying it was a false dichotomy. I don't really remember what the argument was I was critiquing now, though, but I'm sure if you want to understand it you can read it, RL.

 

If i want to understand it? i can... read it?

 

 

but i'll assume i'll just get an even less coherent answer if i ask. :0

 

[Bedrock1]

From Wiktionary:

fan fiction (countable and uncountable,  plural fan fictions)

 

    (uncountable) Fiction incorporating the characters and concepts of a commercial media property, created by its admirers, typically without permission from the author or owner.

 

 

headcanon (plural headcanons)

 

    (fandom slang) Elements and interpretations of a fictional universe accepted by an individual fan, but not found within or supported by the official canon.

 

So fan fiction is an actual work of fiction, headcanon is just an interpretation. If I write a story where Kopaka is female and post it in the Epics forum, that would be fanfiction. If I just decide that, from now on, when I read Bionicle books I'll envision Kopaka as female, mentally switch out 'he' for 'she' every time it's used in reference to Kopaka, then that's headcanon. So I don't see the big problem with referring to this sort of thing as headcanon, because until one writes an actual work of fiction about their interpretations, that's what it is.

 

 

People aren't really that desperate to know what the third toa of ice in Lhikan's  team's second toa tool's auxiliary effect was, or what the exact diameter of the shadowed one's left bicep is, people just look for vulnerable areas in the lore that they can claim for their own, so they can yell out in their sig: "LOOK AT ME I GAVE TOA HERPFAXXON A KANOHI HAU LOOK AT ME I AM YOUR GOD" 

 

I disagree. SOME people do it for glory, but a lot of us are genuinely interested in knowing the things we have been canonizing (which, by the way, are not nearly as absurd as your post declares.)

 

 

Stop acting like the whole of creation is your private sandbox, you have to share.

 

That's kinda what we've been trying to do by having polls for everything. Granted, they've not been perfect, but we're working on it. We've got a guideline topic and everything.

 

 

 

Fanon, also known as the generally accepted term 'Headcanon' among fanfic writers and Roleplay crowds, is the set of theories based on that material which, while they generally seem to be the "obvious" or "only" interpretation of canonical fact, are not actually part of the canon. Occasionally, the explanation seems good enough to just be "common sense." The salient point to remember is that when someone shouts, "That episode was terrible because it violates canon!", they are very often totally incorrect.

From TV tropes.

I never discussed what "Headcanon" actually means in my last post, but it's pretty much synonymous with fanon, as TV tropes states above (urban dictionary also agrees but who in their right mind is going to use Urban dictionary as a source?) and I believe TV tropes to be more relevant, as Wiktionary expresses the absolute definition of a word while TV tropes' interpretation is based on usage. The only places I have heard "Headcanon" being used are in the Dark Souls community and on BZP (not even on other bionicle sites). In Dark Souls, the player is given practically no information on the story and so must figure it out themselves. Therefore, the line between canon and personal ideas is very blurred, and the term "fanon" perfectly fits what lies in the middle, although most players use the word "headcanon" instead, as the words are practically synonymous.

So we have two phrases here:

• Fanon/headcanon
• Fan fiction

The important part of your above definition of "headcanon" has been underlined and bolded above. Fanon/headcanon is essentially "filling in the blanks" of a universe, while fan fiction is writing your own story, using the existing universe as a groundwork. And as I said above, Fanon is grounded in the reality of the universe, it plays by the universe's rules, while fan fiction does whatever it wants. Returning to Dark Souls (an amazing game which I highly reccomend) it would be fanon to say the boss "pinwheel" is three people fused together, because while the game itself does not explicitly say so, the game implies it so heavily it might as well just confirm it. But the game doesn't confirm it, so it's not canon, it's fanon.

Now, say if you were to say the name of the land you're adventuring in is not "Lordran", but, i don't know, "Mata nui", you are NOT basing this decision on ANYTHING aleady canon, you're just making a decision because you feel like it. Calling Lordran Mata nui is neither an integral element of the game nor is it any sort of interpretation, you're just changing things because you want to. It's fan fiction, because while you're not doing anything original, the land is still based off Lordran, but as you're making a point of, it's not the same.

Now, back to bionicle  . It's actually difficult for me to think of, well, anything fanon in G1 because EVERYTHING was canonised, but in G2 you have LOADS of fan theories about the plot and the like, but it's fanon at this stage that the vahi is going to be involved, as Lego has done everything but told us that the vahi is in G2. However, if you go through a novel replacing every "him" for Kopaka with a "her", that's fan fiction, because if you actually rewrote the novel, replacing every "him" with a "her" you've changed the gender of a main character for no reasons related to the official canon. That's fanfiction. That editied novel, even if it only exists in your mind, is a fanfiction where Kopaka's a chick.

Have you ever read those "ask Greg" threads? Half the questions are

• "What's a fioku?"
• "What were Gali's weapons called?"
• "What was the big robot called?"

All stuff that just wastes Greg's time, while the other half is:

• "I made an exploding lance, can you canonise it for me?"
• "Lesovikk's team were the toa Cordiak, weren't they Greg? Say yes Greg, they were the toa Cordiak!"

I do understand that some people are still genuinely curious about the four undefined items left in G1, and I saw and commented on your poll a while back, but here's my main thing, why?

 

As I said earlier, I was going to phrase that last paragraph differently, but I realised that there is NO fanon remaining of G1 bionicle because EVERYTHING was either confirmed or denied. This killed bionicle, and you had people complaining since 2005 that they wanted the good ol' mystery of 2001 back and we were learning too much. Guess how they felt in 2009! The #1 reason I like Dark Souls is that the lore feels deep and mysterious because of how little you know, while bionicle is just boring and is getting even more boring by the day because absolutely everything is being canonised. First we had Lesovikk, a dark, mysterious tortured character with a past shrouded by time, then we found out he had a team, then we found out the exact number of people in his team, their missions, their elements, genders, team name, kanohi, weapons, soon it's going to be their favorite colours. Today, at least, I can build a toa of Ice and say he was from Lhikan's team. Two years from now Greg's going to have to write a serial for every single character explaining their backstories in great detail because people just aren't stopping. I could partially agree with you if it was only reasonable, well-thought out important details about G1 that were being discussed, but it's not. People will just take until there;s nothing left, until G1 bionicle is just a sad, sad void of unoriginality and on-the-spot fixes: "Uhh...four toa of ice?"

People demanded too much out of G1 Bionicle and that killed the sets. Please don't kill the story. I'm fine with fan theories, but please don't try to get them canonised.

[Sergei Rahkmaninoff]

I never discussed what "Headcanon" actually means in my last post, but it's pretty much synonymous with fanon

 

Not really. Based on the definitions we have put forth, fanon is the interpretation of canon which is basically obvious, but not confirmed to be true or false. Headcanon, however, is one fan's interpretation of canon, which may be pretty much anything, and may contradict canon.

 

So for example, there's an alternate universe known as 'The Melding Alternate Universe.' That name isn't canon, but since the Melding was the major event of that universe, it's a pretty obvious name. That is fanon.

 

There's also the idea that Tamaru is female. That blatantly disregards canon, but some hold to it anyway - it is headcanon.

 

Anyway, this is all semantics. But basically I'd like to get the point across that there's nothing wrong with people calling their personal beliefs and/or interpretations of Bionicle headcanon. Because that's what it is.

 

 

 

The only places I have heard "Headcanon" being used are in the Dark Souls community and on BZP (not even on other bionicle sites).

If you've only heard in two areas, then how do you know that one usage is more widespread than the other? If you listed a dozen communities that use headcanon your way, and only BZP which uses it this way, then you would have substantial evidence that BZPers use it incorrectly. But one other community doesn't really substantiate such claims.

 

 

All stuff that just wastes Greg's time, while the other half is:

• "I made an exploding lance, can you canonise it for me?"
• "Lesovikk's team were the toa Cordiak, weren't they Greg? Say yes Greg, they were the toa Cordiak!"

 

You're being rather definite about this, aren't you? Every question asked is either answered on BS01 or a foolish, pushy canonization request? No, it isn't. There are quite a lot. But many of the actually viable questions (e.g, what element was the final Toa Mangai) have been asked in a fair and respectful manner by BZP members. And Greg answers them by telling us to have a poll, which we do. And on the current LMB Greg thread, there are quite a few questions not even related to Bionicle canon necessarily. I've seen questions like, 'Do you enjoy working on Bionicle or Hero Factory more?" or "I'm trying to write a story, but my characters seem bland. As an author, do you have any advice for me?"

 

It seems what you dislike is not BZP's canonization efforts, but those of younger, individual fans (although it's hard to tell because your whole post is drenched in mockery of what actually goes on.) But Greg is pretty good about filtering out those. And here on BZP we can't do anything about them. But we have done our best to promote intelligent questions from BZP members, encouraging showing both sides of the argument, giving Greg the runner-up answers after polls, and the like.

 

 

First we had Lesovikk, a dark, mysterious tortured character with a past shrouded by time, then we found out he had a team, then we found out the exact number of people in his team, their missions, their elements, genders, team name, kanohi, weapons, soon it's going to be their favorite colours.

 

Uh, we only know the underlined points. I think you're using some form of hyperbole, but seriously, your whole second-last paragraph is so filled with it that it looks somewhat ridiculous. Greg isn't writing any more serials, we don't know any more about the Toa Cordak than what I underlined, and (at least on BZP) people are doing everything they can to make sure canonization requests are well thought out, make sense, don't contradict canon, and are reasonable. Again, it's those who operate individually who ask the foolish questions, and Greg is pretty good at rejecting them.

 

It's a matter of taste. You feel that it's absolutely bland to know that there was a Toa Mangai of the Green, but a lot of others think that it's really cool that we finally have one in the canon. You really enjoy Dark Souls, maybe some others hate the story for being so secretive. These things are all based on opinion. This is why I, and others, have supported 'I don't want this canonized' options on polls henceforth. If a majority of people vote that, then no canonization will happen. Otherwise it's clearly shown that fewer people find these things boring than interesting.

[bonesiii]

 

I was saying it was a false dichotomy. I don't really remember what the argument was I was critiquing now, though, but I'm sure if you want to understand it you can read it, RL.

 

If i want to understand it? i can... read it?

 

 

but i'll assume i'll just get an even less coherent answer if i ask. :0

 

 

Mind giving some clue as to why you were confused? Either you or the 2-3 people who are for some reason apparently agreeing with you? Just "I don't get it" doesn't help me see how to explain it.

 

But again, it made sense in context, and was directed at a quote I don't feel like digging up. If you want to understand something from earlier conversation, yes, the best way to do that is to scroll back, click to the previous page, whatever, and read the context, and think. I don't see why that little bit needs gone over. And re-reading the part in the quote, it seems self-explanatory, so I don't get what you're asking.

 

 

Bedrock, I don't really have much to add, just that you would do well to not sound so certain of your particular way to define those words, or act like everybody else must too. You used several of those terms in unusual ways, apparently missing the point of why people normally use them (for example, headcanon has nothing to do with getting things canonized; it looks like you got confused because the word "canon" is in both terms). It's generally best if you have an issue of semantics to check online dictionaries first to make sure you understand how people are likely defining it, and if you're still not sure, ask before you leap to conclusions!

[fishers64]

Context of original: 

 

Is there any reason why people don't like these canonizations besides this "people want to make canon fanfics" reason?

Yes, because sometime the people messed things up.
For example: The Mask Of Creation being a "Legendary Level" Mask when it just was a mask used by a being of legends. Is silly try to justificate now that Creation is a fundamental force of the Universe just like Time, even in-universe because the people in Bara Magna were "fine" without the ability to create things.

 

The Toa Mangai case is similar, Lhikan is suposed to be a mentor figure. He is heroic and incorruptible (2 parters were fallen Toa after all, even with the Cain/Abel-thing that Bionicle loves), and very wise (he summoned 4 Toa of Ice to fight a fire-spliter dragon, that was a very good strategy), the backstory needed for this was: Nidhiki (The Cain part), Tuyet, 4 Toa of Ice (without masks, Toa Tool or names) and nothing more... Even Tuyet part wasn't primordial until Dark Mirror...

 

Why do we try to push little nothings and not the end of the serials? I know that Greg is busy but we can win more with that...

(Sorry if my English is bad, I'm terrible with languages.)

 

 

 

[...]

 

Why do we try to push little nothings and not the end of the serials?

It isn't quite nothing. And Greg has already explained why the serials aren't continuing. This seems kind of like asking why we keep shopping for the food stores happen to sell instead of starving ourselves and demanding scientists construct Matoran energy absorbing systems for us instead. (Not that we actually need this 'food' to live or anything; that would be unhealthy, but we do WANT a little more, or some of us do, and Greg seems willing to keep providing some. )

 

 

Edit: You know, another point about this "nothing" thing that keeps being trumpeted. It seems many of you are missing that tons and tons of details revealed already in the worldbuilding are just as small or smaller. Yet they were big enough for LEGO to want to reveal. Thing is, when you reveal so many details, almost every detail is small -- just how percentages work. Which might be an argument for a simpler story entirely, but it can't be an argument that once LEGO decided to make a huge world with lots of "little" details that other details can't be added. You can make arguments against that, but this isn't really one of them if you think about it.

What I should have done in the first place. 

 

I think my analysis several posts up stands, unless there's an indication that I'm missing. 

Edited January 3, 2015 by fishers64

[Tuuli]

I hate when people try to keep canonizing trivial little details when GEN 1 IS OVER, QUIT REVERING GREG AS YOUR GOD HE IS NOT GOD ANYMORE. There I said it.

[bonesiii]

And there's another false dichotomy...

 

Why do you have to see things in such melodramatic terms, or get nothing?

 

Why not see Greg for what he is? An author, a mere human, part of a team making up Bionicle Generation 1, who sees some good ideas to keep adding to it?

 

'Cuz if that's the only two choices in your world... frankly... what a boring world. (Well, apparently not to you, but that's your tastes. That's okay, but why isn't it okay for others to have different tastes from you? It keeps coming back around to this -- if you don't like a detail in canon, whether by LEGO or fans, you can ignore it, but if we like having canon details, for the community aspects etc., then no details fails. So generally, with the details, everybody wins. So... why... not...? (Aside from consistency issues etc. blahblablblblahhhh. )

 

And again, Gen1 being over in some ways makes it a good time to establish some details they couldn't earlier -- like the Mangai example. They probably didn't want to pin down those details in case a later Gen1 year would do a flashback about them and release them as sets and not want to be pinned down to what Greg would establish (a case where that actually would matter ). Now that it's basically guaranteed that won't happen, Greg's free to establish them.

 

And... also again... "story is over so stop adding to the world" implies that "all good details about the world are always added just in time before the story ends." That's hopelessly unrealistic...

 

It would also work... if this wasn't a worldbuilding story, but it always was. =)

 

 

In fact, the fact that Greg is a fallible human, capable of making mistakes... like failing to put in all the good details in the ten year time limit you wish to have imposed... is precisely why continued canonization should exist! (Within reasonable limits... you get the picture.)

 

Think about it...

Edited January 4, 2015 by bonesiii

[Dorek]

It keeps coming back around to this -- if you don't like a detail in canon, whether by LEGO or fans, you can ignore it, but if we like having canon details, for the community aspects etc., then no details fails.

It keeps coming back to that, although it probably shouldn't. That's a completely one-sided slant on the issue, and makes it look like there is only one inevitable outcome, which is to canonize all of the things. Ignoring what makes a story a story completely devalues it. Not liking something and how you respond to that (even if it is by ignoring it!) is a completely personal choice. But saying details CAN or SHOULD be ignored (granted, you're not saying the latter, but plenty of people are =P) is saying that the details have no merit whatsoever. But they do; people are for them (positive value) or against them (negative value) so clearly these details DO have worth, and it's something people are willing to argue for.

 

*runs away*

[Mjolnitor]

In fact, the fact that Greg is a fallible human, capable of making mistakes... like failing to put in all the good details in the ten year time limit you wish to have imposed... is precisely why continued canonization should exist! (Within reasonable limits... you get the picture.)

Then why not to make some revision of all that was done?

To finally decide what should be in canon, what shouldn't, what is a mistake and should be fixed...

Edited January 4, 2015 by Mjolnitor

[bonesiii]

 

bonesiii, on 03 Jan 2015 - 11:56 PM, said:

It keeps coming back around to this -- if you don't like a detail in canon, whether by LEGO or fans, you can ignore it, but if we like having canon details, for the community aspects etc., then no details fails.

It keeps coming back to that, although it probably shouldn't. That's a completely one-sided slant on the issue, and makes it look like there is only one inevitable outcome

The reason it keeps coming back to this is that people who think it isn't, in any instance, a good solution, really need to explain why. My point is, melodrama exaggerating Greg's role does not do this, because we need not look at him in such ways. We can see him for what he is, and still support some reasonable additions to canon.

 

And no, saying that there are some instances where this is a good solution, in opposition to the idea that there never are and all canonization should definitely stop, is not one-sided. The one-sided thing here would be the position it's contrasted with...

 

But saying details CAN or SHOULD be ignored (granted, you're not saying the latter, but plenty of people are =P) is saying that the details have no merit whatsoever.

Wrong, because this forgets that what is making people dislike these particular details (once consistency issues and so forth are filtered out, so objectively good additions are made that would make sense if story were to be told about them, for example), is simply their varying personal tastes. The detail may seem to have no or less merit to that individual, but this cannot mean that it can't be in a canon, because that would be true for somebody of just about every detail, since personal tastes vary and it's impossible to please everybody.

 

Therefore, just about every detail will be disliked by somebody. If that is a reason not to have them, then you have nothing at all, and that's boring for everybody. (Going back again to the realization that more canon, within reason, actually inspires fan imagination more, not less, as covered in recent posts.) So yes, in many cases, a canon should be treated as something where if a detail isn't liked, and it's just for subjective reasons, at least somebody out there should decide in fairness to ignore it rather than try to take it away from everybody else.

 

Right?

 

If not, then people need to explain a more viable solution rather than insult.

Edited January 4, 2015 by bonesiii

[Dorek]

 

bonesiii, on 03 Jan 2015 - 11:56 PM, said:

It keeps coming back around to this -- if you don't like a detail in canon, whether by LEGO or fans, you can ignore it, but if we like having canon details, for the community aspects etc., then no details fails.

It keeps coming back to that, although it probably shouldn't. That's a completely one-sided slant on the issue, and makes it look like there is only one inevitable outcome

 

The reason it keeps coming back to this is that people who think it isn't, in any instance, a good solution, really need to explain why. My point is, melodrama exaggerating Greg's role does not do this, because we need not look at him in such ways. We can see him for what he is, and still support some reasonable additions to canon.

 

Obviously calling Greg a god (in either a positive or a negative context) isn't a good idea. But in terms of the story details, it can actually be both a quantity and a quality debate; stories do have to end at some point, and eventually the BIONICLE G1 story will be over without having every single "unknown" instance fleshed out. That's a given. There are some things that will be deliberately unknown even though people want them to be known; in that case, the people who want that addition to the canon are in the "wrong", so to speak, because it's a detail they are not meant to have.

 

 

But saying details CAN or SHOULD be ignored (granted, you're not saying the latter, but plenty of people are =P) is saying that the details have no merit whatsoever.

Wrong, because this forgets that what is making people dislike these particular details (once consistency issues and so forth are filtered out, so objectively good additions are made that would make sense if story were to be told about them, for example), is simply their varying personal tastes. The detail may seem to have no or less merit to that individual, but this cannot mean that it can't be in a canon, because that would be true for somebody of just about every detail, since personal tastes vary and it's impossible to please everybody.

 

Therefore, just about every detail will be disliked by somebody. If that is a reason not to have them, then you have nothing at all, and that's boring for everybody. (Going back again to the realization that more canon, within reason, actually inspires fan imagination more, not less, as covered in recent posts.) So yes, in many cases, a canon should be treated as something where if a detail isn't liked, and it's just for subjective reasons, at least somebody out there should decide in fairness to ignore it rather than try to take it away from everybody else.

 

You can't please everyone, this is true, but that's exactly what makes details worth fighting for since the fanbase has the most say in the G1 story at this point. More canon can inspire creativity, but it can also diminish it, as many others have; just presenting the positive aspects is, again, making the debate super one-sided.

 

It's not just about quality or quantity, it's about the process in its entirety. "Just because it's new canon" should not be an automatic plus, given how differently people feel about it, but canon should be introduced based on its own merits. As I said, ignoring something is a personal choice, and should be an apparent option whenever story details are introduced. But saying that a detail is okay just because it has the potential to be ignored is not a merit-based argument (quite the opposite, in fact), and doesn't do justice to the fans who still care about the story, regardless of what side of the pro-or-con debate they fall on.

[bonesiii]

More canon can inspire creativity, but it can also diminish it, as many others have; just presenting the positive aspects is, again, making the debate super one-sided.

Why do you say things like this, when I have repeatedly clarified things like "within reason" and that there should be a balance? But it sounds like you agree with me that the post those criticisms were directed at made the error I was disagreeing with. Again, a balance goes both ways -- it can't be "absolutely none of what others want." That goes for those who are against any and all canonization too.

 

But saying that a detail is okay just because it has the potential to be ignored

Here, too, why would you bring it up, since I said nothing of the sort?

 

A detail is okay (really, good) if:

 

1) It pleases people, esp. the author (and since tastes vary, the existence of people disliking a detail doesn't disprove that people who like it exist).

2) It's consistent.

3) It's logical.

4) It's important enough to be worth mentioning, according to the standards the storyteller/worldbuilder sets forth (esp. from other examples).

 

There's no "just because it can be ignored" in this. The ignoring comes in when the points from 2+ (and others) are satisfied, and it's objectively good, but some still don't like it due to personal taste.

 

This should be easy for everybody to agree with and move on. Doesn't even mean everybody has to accept that the reasonable time for additions is still open; they can argue it's past but should provide good reasons for that position if they do. (I think given the delays and such, right now is probably one of the most ideal times for additions... a few years into Gen 2, maybe not; we'll see). It's just a part of healthy interaction with entertainment in the context of multiple personal preferences that are equal. And they should understand that opposing all canonization is itself a demand to those who want the detail pinned down that they themselves should ignore something (a glaring, inconsistent gap, for example).

 

(Which is not all bad; a balance means we should ignore some of those gaps too. But a balance goes both ways. Yeah?)

Edited January 4, 2015 by bonesiii

[Erebus]

It's slightly convenient how Erebus forgot to mention the other answer he gave in Apr 2007, , but that doesn't make it a canonization.

I am not sure what to say about this. I am very good at finding old quotes (when the archive was around), but it looks like I missed the 2007 answer. If it was from the same quote... well, then that was very stupid of me.

 

I won't apologize though!

[Rahkshi Lalonde]

And... also again... "story is over so stop adding to the world" implies that "all good details about the world are always added just in time before the story ends." That's hopelessly unrealistic...

 

but... the details are added before the story ends...

 

that's how you write a well composed story, you set up the world alongside the plot.

 

(not to say the details on the toa mangai, toa cordak, or whatnot count as worldbuilding in their current state, though.)

[bonesiii]

 

And... also again... "story is over so stop adding to the world" implies that "all good details about the world are always added just in time before the story ends." That's hopelessly unrealistic...

 

but... the details are added before the story ends...

 

that's how you write a well composed story, you set up the world alongside the plot.

 

(not to say the details on the toa mangai, toa cordak, or whatnot count as worldbuilding in their current state, though.)

A perfectly composed worldbuilding story will* have all its relevant details revealed alongside the plot, yes. But the whole point is that humans aren't perfect, and that includes LEGO -- and listening to multiple perspectives (like fans) is a great way to help spot oversights.

 

*At least some can. Of course, others may intend to reveal more later too. Which one is Bionicle would be an interesting analysis; I'm not sure, but either way, the above point still applies.

[fishers64]

 

It's slightly convenient how Erebus forgot to mention the other answer he gave in Apr 2007, , but that doesn't make it a canonization.

I am not sure what to say about this. I am very good at finding old quotes (when the archive was around), but it looks like I missed the 2007 answer. If it was from the same quote... well, then that was very stupid of me.

 

I won't apologize though!

 

No, actually it was at least a few posts down from the one you quoted. I forgive the oversight - I probably have slightly better search technologies these days, plus it's an easy mistake to make anyway. 

 

The emote was for the benefit of those who disapprove of such things, and also because the way you worded that post irked me a bit. (Really, did you have to ride into that topic right after all of those people who said "I don't want this to be a Legendary mask", pull a Greg quote from the past to make them look like dooficuses, and act like you were the Great Beings' gift to the universe for getting the thing as a Legendary? XP But that was five years ago, so the statue of limitations has definitely expired. I don't hold any resentment. )

[Mjolnitor]

 

I think given the delays and such, right now is probably one of the most ideal times for additions...

Not revisions?

[bonesiii]

Well, Greg has made a handful of revisions that were discussed out and the new way was shown to be more logical, and didn't contradict actual story events or the like. I'd see that as only rarely a good idea, though.

 

Forgetcons, no, but Greg has said we can go with the old answers in such cases.

[Mjolnitor]

Well, Greg has made a handful of revisions

Links?

[Erebus]

(Really, did you have to ride into that topic right after all of those people who said "I don't want this to be a Legendary mask", pull a Greg quote from the past to make them look like dooficuses, and act like you were the Great Beings' gift to the universe for getting the thing as a Legendary? XP But that was five years ago, so the statue of limitations has definitely expired. I don't hold any resentment. )

Do you have a link to this? This amuses me. Edited January 6, 2015 by Erebus

[bonesiii]

Mjol, I don't have time to dig them up. At least one was mentioned in a fairly recent topic; I guess this means you didn't see it? If you're curious, I'm sure you know where to look.

[Mjolnitor]

Anyway I'm saying about more complex revisions, not one-two small things.