What's up w/ the rampant canonization?

Boidoh · December 7, 2014

Makes sense. In BIONICLE there are flying turtles.

No need to insult me...

**Dorek** · December 7, 2014

As mentioned, Boidoh, please stop trying to be both the victim and the voice of the "oppressed majority". This is a community debate process, and it serves everyone's time best to focus on the development of the issue. Ignore anything you perceive as a personal attack if it so benefits you, or report it, since we have forum functions for dealing with those sorts of things. Turn your attention to the things that will benefit the issue at hand, such as why this is such a hot button issue.

For instance, this might have been a smaller debate if you hadn't introduced a new canonization poll in the middle of it, which was guaranteed to cheese off the people who were already simmering. Why did you think it was a good time for that? The community, in large part, is advocating restraint, which this does not show.

ALVIS · December 7, 2014

As mentioned, Boidoh, please stop trying to be both the victim and the voice of the "oppressed majority". This is a community debate process, and it serves everyone's time best to focus on the development of the issue. Ignore anything you perceive as a personal attack if it so benefits you, or report it, since we have forum functions for dealing with those sorts of things. Turn your attention to the things that will benefit the issue at hand, such as why this is such a hot button issue.

For instance, this might have been a smaller debate if you hadn't introduced a new canonization poll in the middle of it, which was guaranteed to cheese off the people who were already simmering. Why did you think it was a good time for that? The community, in large part, is advocating restraint, which this does not show.

In this case, though, Zidonaro's remarks were actually offensive. Saying "no offense" doesn't turn an insult into honest criticism.

However, your second paragraph raises a good point. Boidoh, when there are lines being drawn in the sand over an issue, it would be wiser to pause and think things through before just barging ahead and ignoring the voices of dissent.

Sergei Rahkmaninoff · December 7, 2014

Does anyone else think we should have a Canonization Poll Guidelines topic, in which we would establish ground rules for further polls? It seems like a list of reasonable rules agreed upon (more or less) by everyone could work wonders in preventing controversy.

I'd start one, but I don't feel like I have the proper authority. :???:

Archon~ · December 7, 2014

Does anyone else think we should have a Canonization Poll Guidelines topic, in which we would establish ground rules for further polls? It seems like a list of reasonable rules agreed upon (more or less) by everyone could work wonders in preventing controversy.
I'd start one, but I don't feel like I have the proper authority.

I agree and have already suggested some, however I would leave that to someone like Bonesiii to start and manage since supermod powers and all that.

**bonesiii** · December 8, 2014

For Gravity, I'm not sure why you seem to be suggesting it's a problem to have it as an element. It is a major force of nature.

That's the problem.

No, that's the main definition of elements in Bionicle.

(Gen 1, anyways.) You may wish for another definition by preference, but what would it be?

Also, sci-fi vibe.

They're artificial intelligence beings that look like robots inside a giant robot that has artificial gravity -- the sci-fi vibe makes sense for this one.

(But Gravity is a major force of nature on a tropical island too...)

Always keep in mind Bionicle is science fantasy -- a mix of both vibes (and content).

Pointing to the presence of one doesn't prove it's bad, since both are supposed to be in there.

So ummm, no offense, but you look like one of those blind fans that even if Greg said "Flying real world pigs live in the skies of Metru Nui" were canon, you would be okay with it.

Zid, this was uneccessarily combative. Please tone it down next time.

As for your point, while I think Boidoh has made mistakes (he knows what I mean), your characterization is unfair. Besides, this sort of accusation is almost always a strawman, probably from confusing accepting that something is canon (which is indisputable if it is) with whether it should be canon.

However, your second paragraph raises a good point. Boidoh, when there are lines being drawn in the sand over an issue, it would be wiser to pause and think things through before just barging ahead and ignoring the voices of dissent.

Agreed -- however, the poll Boidoh posted does at least have one way to vote "no canonization", by selecting "nothing from this" for all three questions. :shrugs:

Still, I think "no mask" should have been an option. Maybe you missed that suggestion, Boidoh? Or do you disagree with it and why?

Plus, I would make that the FIRST option. There's no need to fear it anyways, since we just had a poll showing widespread support for canonization. But the option should be there, just in case. We always made allowances for this with the Story Squad. And heck, Greg could even disagree with "no mask" and pick the top winners anyways, but at least he should be given that information ("no mask" might be inconsistent with his vision as author and thus not work, but he should still know to factor it in his decision).

Does anyone else think we should have a Canonization Poll Guidelines topic, in which we would establish ground rules for further polls? It seems like a list of reasonable rules agreed upon (more or less) by everyone could work wonders in preventing controversy.

I'd start one, but I don't feel like I have the proper authority.

I wasn't sure if I should bring it up first, but since you do, I have been contemplating actually adding RULES about this to the S&T rules topic (not a huge list of rules, don't worry).

I only hesitate because I do NOT want to create the impression that BZP is suddenly anti-canonization and risk people wanting to go to some other site instead. But... it MAY be possible that if a poll on canonization is deemed no to have fair options, it could be closed in favor of a notice to restart it with fair options.

If enough people support this in the community, I would do it (although this would need to be run by admins first). But I am hoping it will be unnecessary. (I do think it's probably too late for the two polls we have, and as I suggested, there IS an alternative in those.)

This may be extreme, however. I don't know, let me know what yall think.

Please note that a guidelines proposal has already been made and some version of it WILL already be added to the rules topic. I'm talking about the possibility of having at least one actual rule in addition. :shrugs:

**Dorek** · December 8, 2014

However, your second paragraph raises a good point. Boidoh, when there are lines being drawn in the sand over an issue, it would be wiser to pause and think things through before just barging ahead and ignoring the voices of dissent.

Agreed -- however, the poll Boidoh posted does at least have one way to vote "no canonization", by selecting "nothing from this" for all three questions. Still, I think "no mask" should have been an option. Maybe you missed that suggestion, Boidoh? Or do you disagree with it and why?

I'm thinking that's more of a technicality because of the way the poll is structured, rather than intending to be an actual option.

Does anyone else think we should have a Canonization Poll Guidelines topic, in which we would establish ground rules for further polls? It seems like a list of reasonable rules agreed upon (more or less) by everyone could work wonders in preventing controversy.

I'd start one, but I don't feel like I have the proper authority.

If enough people support this in the community, I would do it (although this would need to be run by admins first). But I am hoping it will be unnecessary. (I do think it's probably too late for the two polls we have, and as I suggested, there IS an alternative in those.)

I would be all for this. Having it in the rules is good, but a lot of stuff tends to get overlooked in huge rule topics by readers as it is, so I think a topic would be more informative.

Edited December 8, 2014 by Dorek

Mjolnitor · December 8, 2014

No, that's the main definition of elements in Bionicle. (Gen 1, anyways.) You may wish for another definition by preference, but what would it be?

If you classify both fire and gravity as equally major forces of nature (which they aren't), something is wrong.

Always keep in mind Bionicle is science fantasy -- a mix of both vibes (and content). Pointing to the presence of one doesn't prove it's bad, since both are supposed to be in there.

Sci-fi-ness is overpresent here.

Edited December 8, 2014 by Mjolnitor

Boidoh · December 8, 2014

However, your second paragraph raises a good point. Boidoh, when there are lines being drawn in the sand over an issue, it would be wiser to pause and think things through before just barging ahead and ignoring the voices of dissent.

Agreed -- however, the poll Boidoh posted does at least have one way to vote "no canonization", by selecting "nothing from this" for all three questions. Still, I think "no mask" should have been an option. Maybe you missed that suggestion, Boidoh? Or do you disagree with it and why?

Plus, I would make that the FIRST option. There's no need to fear it anyways, since we just had a poll showing widespread support for canonization. But the option should be there, just in case. We always made allowances for this with the Story Squad. And heck, Greg could even disagree with "no mask" and pick the top winners anyways, but at least he should be given that information ("no mask" might be inconsistent with his vision as author and thus not work, but he should still know to factor it in his decision).

Well... I wanted to add it, but Archon wanted to rather make a separate poll rather than it there being an option. Also, 12 people could want a Huna, 23 wanted a Mask of Conjuring, but 30 people wanted it to remain unknown. More people wanted the Toa to have masks, but their votes were spread among multiple options. The unknown option has a clear advantage.

And with the poll Archon did, many people who voted No on his poll, went to the Toa Mangai of Ice Kanohi Poll and STILL voted for the masks they want the Toa of Ice to wear. I'd say many of those "no"s shouldn't be counted, because they went ahead to vote for the Kanohi, but yet say they don't want to know the Kanohi. (Those people know who they are)

**Ektris** · December 8, 2014

However, your second paragraph raises a good point. Boidoh, when there are lines being drawn in the sand over an issue, it would be wiser to pause and think things through before just barging ahead and ignoring the voices of dissent.

Agreed -- however, the poll Boidoh posted does at least have one way to vote "no canonization", by selecting "nothing from this" for all three questions. Still, I think "no mask" should have been an option. Maybe you missed that suggestion, Boidoh? Or do you disagree with it and why?

Plus, I would make that the FIRST option. There's no need to fear it anyways, since we just had a poll showing widespread support for canonization. But the option should be there, just in case. We always made allowances for this with the Story Squad. And heck, Greg could even disagree with "no mask" and pick the top winners anyways, but at least he should be given that information ("no mask" might be inconsistent with his vision as author and thus not work, but he should still know to factor it in his decision).

Well... I wanted to add it, but Archon wanted to rather make a separate poll rather than it there being an option. Also, 12 people could want a Huna, 23 wanted a Mask of Conjuring, but 30 people wanted it to remain unknown. More people wanted the Toa to have masks, but their votes were spread among multiple options. The unknown option has a clear advantage.

And with the poll Archon did, many people who voted No on his poll, went to the Toa Mangai of Ice Kanohi Poll and STILL voted for the masks they want the Toa of Ice to wear. I'd say many of those "no"s shouldn't be counted, because they went ahead to vote for the Kanohi, but yet say they don't want to know the Kanohi. (Those people know who they are)

And this is why people are taking issue with how you're doing this... You're literally ignoring people or advocating for that just to push your own agenda. That is not even remotely fair.

Edit: Oh, and regarding the numbers game - that seems fine to me. While overall more wanted a mask, it does mean a consensus couldn't be reached. If a consensus couldn't be reached, then it should just stay unknown.

~~~|ET|~~~

Edited December 8, 2014 by Electric Turahk

ALVIS · December 8, 2014

ET, Boidoh does have a point in his latest post. Whether we want the masks or not should be a separate poll, which it is. Trying to settle both of these contentious issues in the same poll would raise all sorts of problems.

**Ektris** · December 8, 2014

ET, Boidoh does have a point in his latest post. Whether we want the masks or not should be a separate poll, which it is. Trying to settle both of these contentious issues in the same poll would raise all sorts of problems.

In general I'd say my point still stands too, all things considered... Barreling through with all of this without regard for dissenting opinions and in general just moving too quickly.

If there isn't going to be a choice in a poll to have nothing (and the person running them wants to ignore people saying that anyways), then of course people are going to vote for something just so they can try and pick what they consider reasonable since something must be picked (which is how the polls are being structured).

~|ET|~

**bonesiii** · December 8, 2014

I would be all for this. Having it in the rules is good, but a lot of stuff tends to get overlooked in huge rule topics by readers as it is, so I think a topic would be more informative.

Yes, it would be announced in a topic, but that's not the point -- the point is I could then actually enforce it.

If you classify both fire and gravity as equally major forces of nature (which they aren't), something is wrong.

I didn't say Fire was literally a "force" of nature -- that's for Gravity. But major aspects of nature is the idea Bionicle had at the start, and that applies to forces like Gravity too. (And you can see things like Ice and Fire as "forces" in the non-literal sense.)

Sci-fi-ness is overpresent here.

That's just personal taste again. Keep in mind Gravity was used as a power in 2003!

Edit: Oh, and regarding the numbers game - that seems fine to me. While overall more wanted a mask, it does mean a consensus couldn't be reached. If a consensus couldn't be reached, then it should just stay unknown.

Sigh.. we need to keep perspective here. From the outset it was understood that whatever the numbers would be, those who don't want to know canon details can just ignore them and headcanon them differently. You're treating it as if both options of the answer carry equal weight. But that could only be so if pleasing the one had to mean taking away what the other side wants, and it doesn't here. Those who want to see their Toa Mangai as different than whatever will be decided can do that, just as much as those who want to reimagine the Toa Mata can, etc.

But those who want to know what the canon "fill in the map" answer is don't get pleased, and it's especially strange to be punishing them, when Bionicle has done so much to encourage that sentiment with all its "collect the reference sources" and the like. This is (within reason) consistent with LEGO's vision, and arbitrarily banning any further refinement of canon at XYZ point in time is not.

ET, Boidoh does have a point in his latest post. Whether we want the masks or not should be a separate poll, which it is. Trying to settle both of these contentious issues in the same poll would raise all sorts of problems.

I'm not seeing it. What problems? It's just one option.

Edited December 8, 2014 by bonesiii

**Ektris** · December 8, 2014

Edit: Oh, and regarding the numbers game - that seems fine to me. While overall more wanted a mask, it does mean a consensus couldn't be reached. If a consensus couldn't be reached, then it should just stay unknown.
Sigh.. we need to keep perspective here. From the outset it was understood that whatever the numbers would be, those who don't want to know canon details can just ignore them and headcanon them differently. You're treating it as if both options of the answer carry equal weight. But that could only be so if pleasing the one had to mean taking away what the other side wants, and it doesn't here. Those who want to see their Toa Mangai as different than whatever will be decided can do that, just as much as those who want to reimagine the Toa Mata can, etc.

But those who want to know what the canon "fill in the map" answer is don't get pleased, and it's especially strange to be punishing them, when Bionicle has done so much to encourage that sentiment with all its "collect the reference sources" and the like. This is (within reason) consistent with LEGO's vision, and arbitrarily banning any further refinement of canon at XYZ point in time is not.

And I keep telling you that you're wrong about that, but whatever I guess. I don't really think you are seeing it from an open perspective, only that of one in defense of those in support of canonization (not that I claim any sort of unbiased approach either). You are "punishing" those who want the ambiguity and mystery by pushing things into dubiously accepted canon. There is simply no actual pleasing everyone. I simply view shoving the additions down others' throats as the worse path.

Everyone just accepting into their own "headcanon" of what they want things like the Mangai to look like (and this is by no means limited to them) would more align with the creative freedom LEGO is really about.

~|ET|~

**dviddy** · December 8, 2014

First and foremost, this canonization of things isn't world-building, and I'd appreciate if people stopped referring to it as such. Worldbuilding takes a lot more than just "give this random background character from that one mention that one time an element and a mask!" It's culture, it's history, it's the interplay between the two. Tolkien got world-building in a way you are implying is happening here, but it's not. This is artificial depth masquerading as storytelling. Tolkien used every aside, every side story, every random character whom he had written a backstory for to propel the story forward, to provide motivation, to showcase the history of the world that led to the conflicts in his stories. When he goes on about the history of the Kingdoms of Men, he's doing so to point towards the conflict between the races, to showcase how long the world was on the cusp of the Third Age, to explain the cultural significance behind conflicts and the resolutions therein. They weren't random names and weapons just to give some artificial depth- they had purpose and meaning, and each one was done to add actual depth to the world. The stories in the appendices of LotR exist because they're part of the story, whereas "what mask did this Toa of Green wear that one time they existed and had no real impact on the story or the story we're telling now" isn't.

World-building creates a setting, an entire world with motivations, cultures, creatures, significant history. Those of you arguing that BIONICLE is a "world-building story" that "relies on these types of information" are doing the term "world-building" an intense disservice- because that's not what it is. What you're making here is trivia. And while trivia can relate to world-building, untethered from a narrative and the purpose of the narrative, it becomes entirely unimportant to the story. And that's the problem. You're taking the narrative and instead of asking questions to help define the direction of the story, the interactions with species, races, cultures, you're canonizing literally unimportant random factoids in order to feel like you have a place in the storytelling process, but these sort of canonizations don't impact the storytelling at all.

I don't really think you are seeing it from an open perspective, only that of one in defense of those in support of canonization (not that I claim any sort of unbiased approach either). You are "punishing" those who want the ambiguity and mystery by pushing things into dubiously accepted canon. There is simply no actual pleasing everyone. I simply view shoving the additions down others' throats as the worse path.

Agreed. Though I think this is the usual manner of things. It would be nice if Bonesiii would stop hiding behind a thin veneer of pseudo-logic and actually just outright state "I like all the extra trvia and I don't want it to stop (but here's an example of one I also didn't like to make it sound like I understand your problems with it.)" That would make future conversations like this much easier.

fishers64 · December 8, 2014

You're taking the narrative and instead of asking questions to help define the direction of the story, the interactions with species, races, cultures, you're canonizing literally unimportant random factoids in order to feel like you have a place in the storytelling process, but these sort of canonizations don't impact the storytelling at all.

So we are. So what? If it has no impact on the storytelling at all, then does it have a negative impact? If it does have a negative impact, then why would Greg approve it (since I'm going with the idea that he's not out to ruin Bionicle)? If it doesn't have a negative impact, then why are we still arguing about this?

**dviddy** · December 8, 2014

You're taking the narrative and instead of asking questions to help define the direction of the story, the interactions with species, races, cultures, you're canonizing literally unimportant random factoids in order to feel like you have a place in the storytelling process, but these sort of canonizations don't impact the storytelling at all.
So we are. So what? If it has no impact on the storytelling at all, then does it have a negative impact? If it does have a negative impact, then why would Greg approve it (since I'm going with the idea that he's not out to ruin Bionicle)? If it doesn't have a negative impact, then why are we still arguing about this?

As much as Greg loves the original BIONICLE, and he does, I'm not sure he's the expert fount you all want him to be. The man has so much of this information in his head, sure, but he also has other jobs, ideas, and things to work on, as well as taking care of his child. I'm not sure he's at the best point to be saying "this contradicts with this because this thing I said in a PM seven years ago." Would you? I wouldn't. I think his love of the original line, and honestly his love of being that important to it, mix together to create a state where he goes "I can't remember a reason this wouldn't work, so sure." You're right in that it seems harmless to him, and to you, so he goes "why not?"

But for the fanbase, I can see several reasons why this is, frankly, unwelcome and unwanted for many of us (perhaps the actual majority of fans, since the S&T canon group is already a subset of the BZP userbase, which is already a subset of the overall fanbase, and I've seen complaints about this on all other BIONICLE fandom groups, from Tumblr, Eurobricks, even the BIONICLELEGO subreddit). The first problem is that many members are doing this for glory, as has been said, to see THEIR idea become canon and so they can have their personal mark "forever left in the print of canon" or whatever. In that case, much like what it seem like member Boidoh has been doing, the rush is to be the one who has some control over the story in a way others don't, so as to seem important or special. In a way, I'd put many members who have commented here in that group, as that seems to be the major component to it. It's mostly "I want it to be that way, and I don't want it to be another way, so I got to Greg first".

The second reason is the same one ET brought up, in that the moment a fan artist, or a fan-fiction writer, or even a speculative comment posts something that is now "established canon", the "canon hounds" come out and have to point out how this or that aren't canon now, and this is actually what it's supposed to be. Heck, even MOCs have that happen in their topics. That is firstly annoying, and secondly rude. Third it helps create that sense of entitlement so many people complain about. Honestly, it's one of the reasons I'm so relieved we're getting a reboot, so everyone's lore knowledge will, for awhile, be set back to zero and all the "major authorities" will stop having that entitlement complex because they'll know as much as everyone else does. I think BZP contributed to that in multitudes of ways, from the Ask Greg topic to official "Reference Masters". Nobody should have the ability to say "this random mask I got canonized is actually this power, I don't like that you made it a different one in your story". Both are fan-fiction, one just has the distinction of being fan-fiction tier A instead of tier B. Greg likes your fan-fiction, neat! That doesn't mean the rest of us who care about this story should have to.

Honestly, the biggest issue to me is that it seems dismissive of the actual fanbase. I care, way too deeply about this fictional world, which is why I've always been so quick to speak my mind, vocally. I care about storytelling, I care about the storytelling in this story. And I'm not keen on having my interest in this story somehow mean less than someone else's simply because they asked Greg about a character. Sure, flesh out the cultures of these peoples, explore the scenery left untouched (like that entire continent). Do actual world-building. Yes, it comes down to personal preference, but that's the entire point. Personal preferences shouldn't be canonized because it alienates other fans. The fans who like the canonization of random facts are the fans who are going to follow and invest in the story either way, but this random complexity-for-complexity's sake is what drove the original line to cancelation.

Mjolnitor · December 8, 2014

Keep in mind Gravity was used as a power in 2003!

And that's even worse.

But it was at least a single and only of its kind being's power.

I didn't say Fire was literally a "force" of nature -- that's for Gravity. But major aspects of nature is the idea Bionicle had at the start, and that applies to forces like Gravity too. (And you can see things like Ice and Fire as "forces" in the non-literal sense.)

I'm seeing this as an example of some general cause of Oberoni fallacy. That general cause can be defined like "if something's broken, but this flaw can be ignored (headcanon-ed in our cause), then that thing isn't broken".

Edited December 8, 2014 by Mjolnitor

ALVIS · December 8, 2014

You're taking the narrative and instead of asking questions to help define the direction of the story, the interactions with species, races, cultures, you're canonizing literally unimportant random factoids in order to feel like you have a place in the storytelling process, but these sort of canonizations don't impact the storytelling at all.
So we are. So what? If it has no impact on the storytelling at all, then does it have a negative impact? If it does have a negative impact, then why would Greg approve it (since I'm going with the idea that he's not out to ruin Bionicle)? If it doesn't have a negative impact, then why are we still arguing about this?

As much as Greg loves the original BIONICLE, and he does, I'm not sure he's the expert fount you all want him to be. The man has so much of this information in his head, sure, but he also has other jobs, ideas, and things to work on, as well as taking care of his child. I'm not sure he's at the best point to be saying "this contradicts with this because this thing I said in a PM seven years ago." Would you? I wouldn't. I think his love of the original line, and honestly his love of being that important to it, mix together to create a state where he goes "I can't remember a reason this wouldn't work, so sure." You're right in that it seems harmless to him, and to you, so he goes "why not?"

Your post is really good and touches on a lot of important issues. I just want to add, for the benefit of the word-of-Greg worshippers, that Greg himself has weighed in on this matter and stated that his earlier answers should be taken as more valid than anything he says currently. That's the policy that BS01 runs on, and you should keep it in mind when asking him questions.

fishers64 · December 8, 2014

FTR, I actually agree with most of what you're saying DV - I actually didn't intend to provoke you into a debate but rather frame a question for everyone. Well, okay, maybe about half-and-half. Point is, no antagonism intended. I did ask a question, and you have answered it.

I do, however, feel the need to repeat myself about stuff that I've already said that still isn't sinking in so much.

As much as Greg loves the original BIONICLE, and he does, I'm not sure he's the expert fount you all want him to be. The man has so much of this information in his head, sure, but he also has other jobs, ideas, and things to work on, as well as taking care of his child. I'm not sure he's at the best point to be saying "this contradicts with this because this thing I said in a PM seven years ago." Would you? I wouldn't. I think his love of the original line, and honestly his love of being that important to it, mix together to create a state where he goes "I can't remember a reason this wouldn't work, so sure." You're right in that it seems harmless to him, and to you, so he goes "why not?"

To be clear, I actually agree with this 100%. I've actually mentioned previously that I keep getting a feel that "LMB Greg" is not as reliable as previous Greg incarnations.

But the thing is, the kids don't know that.

But for the fanbase, I can see several reasons why this is, frankly, unwelcome and unwanted for many of us (perhaps the actual majority of fans, since the S&T canon group is already a subset of the BZP userbase, which is already a subset of the overall fanbase, and I've seen complaints about this on all other BIONICLE fandom groups, from Tumblr, Eurobricks, even the BIONICLELEGO subreddit). The first problem is that many members are doing this for glory, as has been said, to see THEIR idea become canon and so they can have their personal mark "forever left in the print of canon" or whatever. In that case, much like what it seem like member Boidoh has been doing, the rush is to be the one who has some control over the story in a way others don't, so as to seem important or special. In a way, I'd put many members who have commented here in that group, as that seems to be the major component to it. It's mostly "I want it to be that way, and I don't want it to be another way, so I got to Greg first".

The second reason is the same one ET brought up, in that the moment a fan artist, or a fan-fiction writer, or even a speculative comment posts something that is now "established canon", the "canon hounds" come out and have to point out how this or that aren't canon now, and this is actually what it's supposed to be. Heck, even MOCs have that happen in their topics. That is firstly annoying, and secondly rude. Third it helps create that sense of entitlement so many people complain about. Honestly, it's one of the reasons I'm so relieved we're getting a reboot, so everyone's lore knowledge will, for awhile, be set back to zero and all the "major authorities" will stop having that entitlement complex because they'll know as much as everyone else does. I think BZP contributed to that in multitudes of ways, from the Ask Greg topic to official "Reference Masters". Nobody should have the ability to say "this random mask I got canonized is actually this power, I don't like that you made it a different one in your story". Both are fan-fiction, one just has the distinction of being fan-fiction tier A instead of tier B. Greg likes your fan-fiction, neat! That doesn't mean the rest of us who care about this story should have to.

First of all - I'm inclined to agree - if you are out for personal glory, you're a jerk. Likewise, if you stop around MoC topics telling people that their MoC isn't canon because you got Greg to agree on such-and-so, you're also a jerk. Shame on you for shoving your opinion down our throat at our expense.

I'm thinking that it is possible, however unlikely, that someone could have a good or even a neutral motive for canonization. Most of you all argue that all of the good motivations have run out. That I'm not so quick to agree to. Some people just want to know how things are - and misconstruing them all as out for personal glory is not really fair. It's not fair to characterize a whole group because of the actions of a few glory hounds.

Lastly, I agree with your point on elitism. But a lot of people in these debates are advocating for a ban on canonization. Which is, unfortunately, even more elitistic. It's saying that our version of canon is superior to what the author on the LMB has decided as canon - we are above all the fan suggestions that Greg has decided to accept, so we're going to stick our nose in the air. And who decides what is canon, then, if not Greg?

Not only that, but members like Boidoh actually could do something worse than bring the Mangai and the Kanohi to us and running polls. They could just propose a set of Kanohi to Greg and have him accept it, yes? If we cut ourselves off from that, we get less say in what is canonized and what isn't. Now I do support reforms like having "I don't want this to be canonized/decided" in the polls, but having a poll is better than the alternative, which is a bunch of LMB people going behind our back and sticking our tongues out at us. The latter actually encourages "jerk" behavior like you've described.

People on the LMB are going to talk to Greg and canonize stuff, whether we like it or not.

Now we can reform it, we can allow for more people to have a voice in it, but we're not going to be able to eliminate it. At least, not here. I could go into the LMB topic and complain, but I doubt it would get very far. Greg has already put in his opinion, and I'm not sure such objections would even pass moderation. I would advocate shutting the thing down, but what if someone needs to ask him a question? It seems there is no solution that would please everyone.

but this random complexity-for-complexity's sake is what drove the original line to cancelation.

Oh, please, not this argument again. Actually, unless you're a member of BZPower, you wouldn't know about half of Bionicle's complexity. I certainly didn't know about the complexity caused by fan canonizations until I found BS01 and BZPower. I do agree that it is complex, and such complexity is rather annoying, but the average run-of-the-mill fan likely wouldn't know a thing about it. I was a Bionicle fan for five years before I even knew this place existed. I know I'm not alone.

BZPower =/= a representative of the fanbase. Most of the Bionicle fanbase doesn't even know we and our canonizations exist. Sales of toys are affected by things people know about usually.

Now it can be argued that Bionicle is complex even without the fan canonizations, but that's an argument for another topic, isn't it?

Boidoh · December 8, 2014

Not only that, but members like Boidoh actually could do something worse than bring the Mangai and the Kanohi to us and running polls. They could just propose a set of Kanohi to Greg and have him accept it, yes? If we cut ourselves off from that, we get less say in what is canonized and what isn't. Now I do support reforms like having "I don't want this to be canonized/decided" in the polls, but having a poll is better than the alternative, which is a bunch of LMB people going behind our back and sticking our tongues out at us. The latter actually encourages "jerk" behavior like you've described.

People on the LMB are going to talk to Greg and canonize stuff, whether we like it or not.

I completely agree with this.

I remember at one point I was constantly harrased, similiar to now, about how I go straight to Greg with my questions trying to extort an answer out of him. I've been accused of allegedly trying to trick a forgetful author. Suggestions they made to me were to bring these stuff to BZP so we could discuss it and what-not. Lookey here. There are polls for the community to decide. Yay everyone wins. No. There always are going to be problems no matter what, and that wont change.

**bonesiii** · December 9, 2014

And I keep telling you that you're wrong about that, but whatever I guess. I don't really think you are seeing it from an open perspective, only that of one in defense of those in support of canonization (not that I claim any sort of unbiased approach either).

I'm well aware the anti-canonization proponents will want to see me that way, but I can't agree. There are things I didn't want canonized either, but I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. What I'm saying is that LEGO set forward some goals in what they would establish, but as fallible humans, it's unreasonable to expect them to have refined their establishing of canon within the ten years of active Bionicle (or the period when Greg wasn't in touch with fans as openly as he now is). It should be expected some things would slip through the cracks, and with time and thought, fans can help spot them.

Not that fan input should become outsourcing, but any author (or fans expected it of the author) who thinks fan input cannot ever improve their story is frankly in denial.

I say this from experience, from education in fiction writing, from a decade of it being debated on here that I have watched closely, and just plain old logic.

So to the question "should all new canon, with or without fan input, be cut off blindly?" I answer firmly no.

That is what I'm asking reasonable people to agree with. ^_^ Greg already does, but even if he didn't, it's unlikely any LEGO employee would be entirely opposed to improving the canon. The problems, as we can all ALSO agree, come when a choice isn't thought through enough and the canon isn't actually improved. It's a risk to new canon, and I understand people who think it's too great a risk to allow any of it. But we have already taken measures to minimize that risk compared to the old days, and the solution is also the fans -- open discussion to spot problems on a case by case basis.

Now, to be clear, I do think that at some point new canon should close, for Gen1.

I don't personally put this in 2015 or necessarily at any point during Gen2. I do put it probably after the death of Greg Farshtey. Where exactly I'm not sure, but for now I think it's soon enough, and fan activity is enough, there are enough who have been reviewing the canon carefully etc. that for at least a few years, I think it's worth refining some of those blank areas on the map -- understanding that the map I'm talking about isn't "all possible existence in the canon universe" but "the parts of the canon universe that logically should be established according to the same goals LEGO used to establish previously revealed canon."

Make sense?

[DV and posts after that, I don't have time to answer in detail right now, and I'll have to see if fishers' long post there answers some of what I'd say. But I felt the above needs said to clarify where I'm coming from so the debate doesn't go down a rabbit hole of talking past each other. ]

Edit: Alright, had a bit of time to get through part of your posts, DV:

"First and foremost, this canonization of things isn't world-building"

DV, I'm sure you mean well by this, but it looks like just trying to object to the terms of the debate. The point that you follow this with seems to be that you think the quality of (many? all? some?) canonizations has not been up to par for what previous canon had (or should have), but you could make that point without making a semantics argument too.

The reason I brought up that this is a worldbuilding story is that some have been operating on a myth that this is the kind of story where "necessary in the plot" is what determines what is added to canon. Quality was not in view there which is why I have been clarifying over and over just so nobody misses it that it should be agreed quality needs to be a concern.

(Plus, people need to keep in mind this was a toyline, not a Tolkien work. The Tolkien analogy can only be pushed so far and it seems like you did misunderstand it in the rest of your first paragraph. It would be foolish to expect Bionicle to have SUCH a level of quality that it could be compared to Tolkien in that sense. And it's also important to understand that making it that would arguably be lower quality for the goals of a toyline accessible to young kids.)

"What you're making here is trivia."

In many cases, yes, but worldbuilding stories often HAVE trivia, on purpose! Trivia is often celebrated, and much fun is had with it. This is entertainment, so that's good. Right?

"it becomes entirely unimportant to the story"

Can we please avoid hyperbole like this? Trivia affects the story in small ways, but that is an effect. It's difficult to carry on a conversation with people who throw out so many little inaccuracies like this and it's unclear if they intended that to be hyperbole not to be taken literally or as literally true. It distracts from the main issues we're debating.

"As much as Greg loves the original BIONICLE, and he does, I'm not sure he's the expert fount you all want him to be."

I realize that (as you said in a past topic) your not following S&T a lot is why you don't know this and that's okay, but this is pretty much universally agreed.

But if you think about it, this is exactly why (now that we know he won't be swamped with Gen2 work as he isn't involved with it), now is the time to settle these longstanding blank areas of that map, while Greg (and active story geek fans ) still haven't forgotten all that much.

"The first problem is that many members are doing this for glory, as has been said, to see THEIR idea become canon"

This is an old concern I've been surprised not to see come up right away in all this. I agree that that's a problem, but this isn't a reason to ban all refining of canon! Story consistency and such things need to sort out bad proposals from good, whatever the motives of the person who suggested it. And if somebody does come up with an idea and it makes sense and is adopted, but then starts holding it pridefully over other fans, we can point out why this sort of behavior is wrong to them.

IMO this concern is why fan input should be minimal, rather than fans have a tyrannical control over an author's vision. It's worth noting that this is often missed the other way in other criticisms. But it isn't a reason to make fan input nonexistent.

Also worth remembering that getting SOME recognition is actually a good goal. You probably agree with this to an extent, but just FTR. Things like the Rahi contest or the like would generally reward people for coming up with good canon additions with their name being included.

And honestly, I really haven't seen a lot of instances of this. But see below:

"much like what it seem like member Boidoh has been doing, the rush is to be the one who has some control over the story in a way others don't, so as to seem important or special."

I agree with this to an extent. This is basically my problem with the Fikou stuff he's been doing. However, it's worth pointing out that nobody else has taken the initiative as much as he has to actually do the work to fill in some of the legitimate gaps, like the Mangai which has been a recognized issue for a long time.

Everything in life is pros and cons. While the eagerness that can drive doing constructive work in celebration of imagination can lead to over-eagerness, the opposite can also let gaps inconsistent with LEGO's goals lay around unfilled for a long time.

I would also suggest that there's a similar risk with some anti-canonization proponents. I've been getting a bit of an echo-chamber vibe from some of you, and no offense DV, but I'm getting it again for your post with its eleven likes. I have been being slow and methodical and analyzing points clearly -- that might not get a lot of quick likes, especially because it's not very emotional so it doesn't sound like a ringing battle cry to get behind... but I feel quality of what LEGO is aiming for with Bionicle is far better fostered this way than that. Can you see that?

My style may seem dry compared to that, and few people may seem to be vocally supporting me, but I feel that in the long run, this style is far better for making sure Bionicle stays consistently focused on the vision of its founders.

By contrast, I'm seeing most of the critics making a "it's self-evident" emotional, highly negative speech that ignores most of our points, and also most of what we're implying behind it that is basic groundwork understanding of Bionicle's goals, and making sure to let each other know they support each other (not bad in and of itself... but shouldn't be relied on as that risks an ad populum fallacy), but not stopping to think whether this emotion is actually being constructive or destructive.

If we all accept that everybody's different tastes are equal and to be respected, and that seeking to please others means we must pick a taste to appeal to, and that it can't please everybody -- and that having people pleased is GOOD -- then we should be able to accept a variety of things being produced in the realm of fiction.

If you dislike something, you shouldn't try to take it down.

That risks inviting others to do the same for everything you like, and then nobody's happy. You should let others have what they want, and they let others have what you want, and even try to enjoy their stuff a LITTLE just to foster that peace and respect toward them and even enjoying that they exist and are different.

Everybody should agree with this. Moving forward, then, we can work to puzzle through what makes quality for the particular vision Bionicle has. But we cannot do that coherently and peacefully if we do not lay this groundwork first of respecting that others having different tastes get appealed to is good, and fighting that just because you don't like something is divisive and destructive.

And nothing wrong with still wishing Bionicle happened to appeal to your tastes instead (on any given issue where it doesn't, and by "you" here I'm speaking now to everybody )! But this basic mutual respect is essential to working toward an objective agreement on "what LEGO actually should do", in terms of what fulfills their vision best and what pleases more people.

Given all that, it shouldn't be hard to see why I'm right that (within reason), allowing people to have things like the Toa Mangai established in canon, and those who happen not to like that version should "ignore" it and headcanon it differently, is the best solution. Note that this applies to some extent with all canon in any story!

Make sense?

Really should get back to things I've been putting off for more now [why does this keep happening every time you debate me lol? We've got some bad timing here! Although:], and actually I'd kinda like to pause now anyways to make sure this is not missed as that's very important.

[Edit2: The rest of my reply is now written, but as it's long, I'd rather somebody else post before I add it to here. If nobody does by tomorrow I may edit it in. I'll post just the reply to Mjol now though:]

And that's even worse.

On what grounds? It still seems like you're just trying to impose your personal taste on everybody (taste discrimination fallacy). Do you acknowledge that people having different preferences than you on this is good?

It's worse within your personal preferences, yet, but that's only enough for an "I don't like this" opinion, not a "LEGO shouldn't have done it" opinion, since it was made for more people besides just you, and they have different preferences.

But it was at least a single and only of its kind being's power.

That's a good point, but as explained in the misconception answer for Plasma, there's a logical reason why this was brought on as a Toa element -- the Kal are related to Bohrok, who had Toa elements, except the green one.

Gen2 should be able to avoid this mess, but although it's messy, it did make sense for Gen1 to be consistent, once the Bohrok and Kal were established.

Keep in mind too that the "too sci-fi" thing WAS listened to for Bara Magna. Both sides get something this way; those who like the more sci-fi emphasis get Gravity element inside the giant spaceship (makes sense), and those that don't get a more fantasy-themed set of elements for SM beings.

I'm seeing this as an example of some general cause of Oberoni fallacy. That general cause can be defined like "if something's broken, but this flaw can be ignored (headcanon-ed in our cause), then that thing isn't broken".

Well, that raises a whole can of worms of what qualifies as broken. The short answer is, actually there are a number of relatively equally, but mutually exclusive (in some ways) options for how to define that. Something can be broken from one system of standards, but not from another.

The most obvious "break" with the Kal elements is Plasma (not Gravity at all; that one makes sense in a world with artificial gravity!). But this is only subjectively broken by the system of standards that no two elements should be too similar to each other, and Fire already did the same basic thing as Plasma. By a different system in which having a few "super elements" for extreme situations like heat versus superheat, Plasma actually DOES work.

Now apply this to Gravity. If we impose the personal taste you are presenting here on Bionicle that its balance of sci-fi to fantasy is too sci-fi (remember there's no objective reason a story must have half-half, or any other ratio really), then Gravity is only "broken" by that subjective preference!

Now what if that was the majority preference? Then it would be more broken, but only according to the system of standards that says ONLY the most popular things are allowed in a story. But to put that into practice, the minority would never get treats, and things like story spoilers would be impossible as authors would have to poll everything first. Bionicle does not follow that system, though it does try to weight things more toward what's popular within reason.

Also, not sure why you brought it up in response to that quote -- I didn't mention anything being broken there. Did you put the wrong quote in?

I could guess, but as it would be very wrong I don't want to insult you by putting illogical words in your mouth, and I avoid putting words in people's mouths anyways.

[Final edit for tonight... I swear. Actually, I do feel my response to DV's last point should be posted as it raises a point at the end I think a lot of people should consider:]

"but this random complexity-for-complexity's sake is what drove the original line to cancelation."

DV, I have corrected you on this before. Why do you act like it's a given? Even if you think it's still debatable or even that you're definitely right, you should at least acknowledge that you're aware not everybody (esp. me) agrees with this.

I'm one of the most vocal critics of the complexity of later years, but I also know that bad arguments should not be used to prop up good conclusions. We do not need to bolster the argument for story on the side of simpler rather than more complex by trying to convince LEGO that this was the primary driver of the set sales diminishing. I have no doubt that it played a role, but logic dictates that it should be fairly minimal, because most set sales come from casual "this looks cool!" buying on the store shelves. LEGO put forward, and it makes sense, the view instead that the primary driver was that it was perceived as old. Eyes were glazing over from that being on the shelves all the time, and there was an inability to get magazine front-page promos (my recognition of this was recently validated, BTW, as reported by BZP; the reboot got one!).

I am aware that you have been personally pushing opposition to recognition of this as the primary driver, and you base this in part on suspicions you say you have heard from LEGO employees. But this forgets that complexity alone could have been solved without a break -- the main purpose of a break is to give a return more of a sense of being something new.

And let's not forget that you have in the past used this argument to bolster your own opposition to my prediction of a Bionicle return itself. But I was right about that. I'm guessing in retrospect you realized that that was not necessarily the only application of the complexity-prime argument. (And you would be on the right track; a break does also distance new fans from feeling the need to catch up on old stuff first, especially for a reboot; my sense is this is also why you became a strong proponent of the reboot prediction, and you were right there. ) But this alone does not prove that that is the biggest factor, and an immediate reboot would probably have done that just about as well.

Anyways, this also doesn't really work for anti-canonization for Gen1. The fact that it's a reboot means that however much extra complexity is approved now, it is unlikely to affect set sales for Gen2. I strongly suspect that's a major reason why fans and Greg have been increasing the amount of canonization somewhat lately. Gen1 isn't bogged down by the focus on sales now, although I do think there's a loose connection to Gen2 (if everything that was approved was like the Toa Cordak mess, that sends a bad signal to Gen2 fans).

Also, it should be recognized that even with a lot of complexity since 2003 and on, Bionicle still lasted until 2010. This is more consistent with the primary problem being that it was old -- a whole decade old in fact (!) -- not that it was overcomplex (it was, but this was more of a problem for following the story, versus fans wanting to buy sets).

Plus, this issue was about the storytelling itself, not so much the worldbuilding! The problem was that to understand the plot, you needed to keep track of exponentially expanding "running update" threads on everybody who had been in past story.

This does not at all equate to extra side details being a problem, as those things are (by your own admission) trivia, and thus are "extras intended to please/reward those who work harder than most", rather than essentials to understand what's going on. Normally in worldbuilding, things like the full Toa Team of three prominent characters would definitely be established. Actually probably the main reason they were not is the set-based focus of Bionicle -- that there was a chance that they might become sets in the future. That possibility has now disappeared since 2015 is a reboot.

That's probably the main reasoning for the timing here, incidentally. I don't think an argument that it's because they were "background" (to use the term from another topic) would fly, as it would for Lesovikk's team, for example (although his team may be borderline... he was a set too, but not a prominent character and the other members were alive for far shorter a time and far more ancient). So, if it was mainly just out of concern that they might become sets, it makes sense to wait to establish them until it's confirmed for sure no new Gen1 sets are happening. I suspect many of the opponents to their being established now are missing this and making too much out of how long they went un-established as a result.

Edited December 9, 2014 by bonesiii

Mjolnitor · December 9, 2014

Keep in mind too that the "too sci-fi" thing WAS listened to for Bara Magna. Both sides get something this way; those who like the more sci-fi emphasis get Gravity element inside the giant spaceship (makes sense), and those that don't get a more fantasy-themed set of elements for SM beings.

Eight years versus two. Not even remotely fair.

By a different system in which having a few "super elements" for extreme situations like heat versus superheat, Plasma actually DOES work.

...which doesn't exist.

That's a good point, but as explained in the misconception answer for Plasma, there's a logical reason why this was brought on as a Toa element -- the Kal are related to Bohrok, who had Toa elements, except the green one.

And... what? How does it mean that toa should have access to these powers?

Also, not sure why you brought it up in response to that quote -- I didn't mention anything being broken there. Did you put the wrong quote in?

You tried to protect the broken system in such a way.

**dviddy** · December 9, 2014

DV, I'm sure you mean well by this, but it looks like just trying to object to the terms of the debate. The point that you follow this with seems to be that you think the quality of (many? all? some?) canonizations has not been up to par for what previous canon had (or should have), but you could make that point without making a semantics argument too.

The reason I brought up that this is a worldbuilding story is that some have been operating on a myth that this is the kind of story where "necessary in the plot" is what determines what is added to canon. Quality was not in view there which is why I have been clarifying over and over just so nobody misses it that it should be agreed quality needs to be a concern.

(Plus, people need to keep in mind this was a toyline, not a Tolkien work. The Tolkien analogy can only be pushed so far and it seems like you did misunderstand it in the rest of your first paragraph. It would be foolish to expect Bionicle to have SUCH a level of quality that it could be compared to Tolkien in that sense. And it's also important to understand that making it that would arguably be lower quality for the goals of a toyline accessible to young kids.)

Don't misrepresent me or attempt to reframe my comment. You say I am "objecting to the terms of the debate" but the point you have misconstrued is that you have set your definitions in such a way as to automatically claim the high-ground, but the definitions you are using are wrong. Yes, I object to the term, because you are misusing it. Adding a random mask definition or element to a Toa who was mentioned strictly as one of a number in an offhand remark that plays no part in the narrative isn't world-building, and BIONICLE isn't a "world-building story" the way you are envisioning it.

World-building serves the narrative. The entire purpose of literary world-building in a story is to propel the story forward. The point you are (purposefully?) missing in the Tolkien reference isn't that I wish the story was on par with Tolkien. You used Tolkien as an example to describe a world-building story in a similar vein as BIONICLE, and I brought Tolkien up because the way he built the world was entirely antithetical to BIONICLE's. EVERY STORY, every back reference, every historical note, every appendice in Tolkien's work exists to propel the main narrative forward. It exists to enrich and expound upon the main narrative. There's no "baker number four, who owned a Turbochef oven" for Tolkien. Each and every bit of information in Tolkien's work exists to inform the main narrative. The battle in LotR is the main narrative all of the rest of his work (and the Hobbit was revised to fit into this schema after LotR was conceptualized), and all of the other "minor stories" and asides serve to further that narrative.

I'm saying here, and as clearly as I can so you may not attempt to misconstrue my point again, BIONICLE is not by any traditional definition of literary world-building a "world-building story". Saying it is requires distorting the term in an effort to frame the debate in a manner you will automatically win.

"it becomes entirely unimportant to the story"

Can we please avoid hyperbole like this? Trivia affects the story in small ways, but that is an effect. It's difficult to carry on a conversation with people who throw out so many little inaccuracies like this and it's unclear if they intended that to be hyperbole not to be taken literally or as literally true. It distracts from the main issues we're debating.

For ease of discussion, I'm using "story" to refer to the narrative structure in which the line progressed. "The story" is the main, overarching narrative, in which there were meta-narratives (often in three year chunks) consisting themselves of smaller meta-narratives.

Trivia may be neat and fun, but no, it does not affect the story, and is indeed entirely unimportant. As I mentioned before, the type of oven that Baker Number Four uses is entirely superfluous to the narrative, and a smart editor would remove that aside entirely. Unfortunately, TLG lacks that editor, as the editor for the line is also the one writing it. As things like the Star Wars prequels often demonstrate, a writer without a proper editor flounders in their own brilliance. Trivia is indeed unimportant to the story, hence why it's trivial.

now is the time to settle these longstanding blank areas of that map

So actually fill in the blank sections of the map! Canonizing what element and mask a random happenstance background to the background character is and was wearing are not doing so. Things like "who lived on the Southern Continent, what were their lives like, what kind of culture did they possess, what were their motivations, what were their roles in furthering the GSR's mission, what did they do during the great battles, what sort of history did they possess, what did their lands look like, what kind of structure did they keep, what sort of stories did they tell, who were they?" THAT is filling in the map. THAT is world-building.

Canonizing actual trivial information is not filling in the map. I'm sort of insulted you'd even consider that the same thing?

And again, the story is over, why does there need to be a time to fill in those blanks? Isn't that what head-canons, fanfiction, fanart, and the like should be for? If you want the line to keep living, even with a new iteration on the horizon, then keep it breathing through fan dedication and involvement. Taking every little trivial detail from the story and filling it in furthers the death of the old universe, as more and more things become settled, less and less exists for speculation and exploration. This is harmful to the line you're attempting to further.

I would also suggest that there's a similar risk with some anti-canonization proponents. I've been getting a bit of an echo-chamber vibe from some of you, and no offense DV, but I'm getting it again for your post with its eleven likes. I have been being slow and methodical and analyzing points clearly -- that might not get a lot of quick likes, especially because it's not very emotional so it doesn't sound like a ringing battle cry to get behind... but I feel quality of what LEGO is aiming for with Bionicle is far better fostered this way than that. Can you see that?

My style may seem dry compared to that, and few people may seem to be vocally supporting me, but I feel that in the long run, this style is far better for making sure Bionicle stays consistently focused on the vision of its founders.

I'm sorry my post or position is more popular than yours? Are you honestly arguing from a "persecuted by the majority" complex now? I really don't understand how else to process what you're saying. If there's an "echo chamber" because my post has more likes than yours, maybe it's time you took a step back and looked at why people agree more with what I said than with what you said? You seem to think I'm not being methodical or purposeful in my speech- which while obviously insulting, is also near one-hundred percent false. You've always made the mistake of equating emotional support as less-important than your "objective discussions", and I've tried to point out to you for years that logic holds little sway over emotional beings. Before you take that as me assenting that you have the objective and logical viewpoint, know that I do not believe for one second that you do. As I said before, I think you're couching your own personal preferences behind logician's terms in order to appeal to an authoritative position.

I do not agree that your point of view is best for the franchise (and neither, for that matter, does it seem TLG does, as G2 seems to purposefully be in many ways the antithesis to this discussion, with its focus on characters and narrative over terminology and backstory). I feel what's best for the franchise is to let it go. I don't mean "move on and pretend it never happened, and stop engaging with it". I mean "the story is over, the book should be closed. That doesn't mean you stop thinking about it, engaging with it, but the cover is shut and the author has stopped adding to it". We, as fans, should be treating the line like it is- a completed story. You act as if the story is incomplete, but the main narrative, the purpose for the story is finished. The serials ended on cliffhangers, that's pretty normal for a lot of story franchises as jumping off points for fan engagement and to maintain interest in those fans even though the narrative itself has ended. But that's the thing- BIONICLE G1 is over. It told a complete story, from beginning to end (whether it told it well is certainly up for a debate), and there was resolution.

What's best for the line is to realize that.

Also, I don't agree that canonizing trivia is in line with TLG's vision for the line, and I can't begin to imagine how it would be? Greg's presence here was allowed for many years because it kept fans engaged in the franchise. Full stop. If you think the executives at TLG saw it as any more than that, well... TLG has always been about creating a concept that engages fans to continue to create. Chima and Ninjago tell completed story arcs with gaps to propel roleplayers to create their own stories. Many other themes set up vague conflicts but never offer resolution in order to create and stoke imagination in children. I would argue no LEGO line is or was intended to flesh out a world so much that Baker Number Four's oven brand is mentioned as some sort of important information. That's the opposite of TLG's vision- it stifles creativity and boxes the world in.

And, again, considering the direction all story and media-driven lines since BIONICLE's cancellation have gone... I'd say TLG themselves have definitively shown their vision for storytelling, and I don't begin to believe it aligns with your goals as stated above.

That risks inviting others to do the same for everything you like, and then nobody's happy. You should let others have what they want, and they let others have what you want, and even try to enjoy their stuff a LITTLE just to foster that peace and respect toward them and even enjoying that they exist and are different.

In that case, you had nearly ten years of rampant fan canonization, and now it's my turn. I want it to stop.

Given all that, it shouldn't be hard to see why I'm right that (within reason), allowing people to have things like the Toa Mangai established in canon, and those who happen not to like that version should "ignore" it and headcanon it differently, is the best solution. Note that this applies to some extent with all canon in any story!

Make sense?

No, because that still involves one hundred percent invalidating the feelings of an entire group of the fandom. As I said- you've had nearly a decade of canonization. The story has ended, the canon should be closed. You had your fun, it was irritating and unfortunate, but since we let you have what you want, now it's time to let us have what we want, and stop. The idea that those who dislike it should just "ignore it" invalidates the opinions of others. It isn't a compromise, it's you getting what you want, full stop, and the other side left with nothing. There are those of us, you know, who care about the story and tend to follow all of the details of it, yet don't enjoy these things, you know. What you're saying is that our appreciation of the canon is less important than yours (after all, yours involves elements you added to it officially!), and as such, we should just "ignore it". No, I don't want to ignore official canon, I want headcanons to stop becoming actual canon. If you feel strongly enough about an idea, add it to your own headcanon instead of asking us all to headcanon it too via official channels.

Oh, please, not this argument again.

Fishers, this isn't an "argument", it's official canon as relayed through TLG channels and representatives. The line's sales stagnated and slowed to the point of barely-profitable because consumers thought the entry barrier was too high because of the overly-complex narrative. And you're probably right- the average consumer was not a BZPower member and probably didn't know all this extra canon. If the official channel itself was too complex, then are we not compounding the problem? If the original mythos, on its own, was too big of a barrier to new fans, how much bigger are fans like us who know every detail of every random side character? It's simply a bunch of gatekeepers who get to be the "realest fan" because they know more about it than everyone else. I mean, full disclosure, I enjoy having more knowledge than others too, it's a neat feeling, let's be honest. But I'm also pro-sharing everything I'm allowed to share because an informed fanbase is a happier fanbase (most of the time, lol). All of this extra canonization stuff just feels like adding more hurdles for new or less-engaged fans to jump over in an effort to be "as informed" as we are. I don't like it, and it's one of the biggest complaints off-site about this part of the board.

Edited December 9, 2014 by DeeVee

Parugi · December 9, 2014

Given all that, it shouldn't be hard to see why I'm right that (within reason), allowing people to have things like the Toa Mangai established in canon, and those who happen not to like that version should "ignore" it and headcanon it differently, is the best solution. Note that this applies to some extent with all canon in any story!
Make sense?

ET has pointed out the problem with this reasoning several times and it doesn't seem to have stuck, so maybe an actual example will help to demonstrate why this is far more easily said than done. You can tell people to "ignore [the aspects they don't like]" all you want, but that does not work when you have the same people pushing for all of these canonizations simultaneously correcting other fans' interpretations as if they are wrong. And speaking as a role-player, writer, and MOCer, I can tell you that it happens a lot, and there is no logical way to conclude that adding in more details like the Mangai's masks and tools is going to make it happen any less or that it'll be any easier to just "ignore" those details--it can only exacerbate the problem since there'll be more and more details for fact-purists to "correct."

Edited December 9, 2014 by Parugi

Archon~ · December 9, 2014

Given all that, it shouldn't be hard to see why I'm right that (within reason), allowing people to have things like the Toa Mangai established in canon, and those who happen not to like that version should "ignore" it and headcanon it differently, is the best solution. Note that this applies to some extent with all canon in any story!
Make sense?
ET has pointed out the problem with this reasoning several times and it doesn't seem to have stuck, so maybe an actual example will help to demonstrate why this is far more easily said than done. You can tell people to "ignore [the aspects they don't like]" all you want, but that does not work when you have the same people pushing for all of these canonizations simultaneously correcting other fans' interpretations as if they are wrong. And speaking as a role-player, writer, and MOCer, I can tell you that it happens a lot, and there is no logical way to conclude that adding in more details like the Mangai's masks and tools is going to make it happen any less or that it'll be any easier to just "ignore" those details--it can only exacerbate the problem since there'll be more and more details for fact-purists to "correct."

I think that this one example of a certain, generally overzealous member (which still blows my mind but whatever), doing something that is unacceptable should not be taken harshly and applied to the rest of the community of fans who would like to know such little details. Boidoh is... an outlier. For lack of a better term.

Most of us, such as myself, do not want to bother anyone in the art department with these little details or stunt anyones creativity, I will assure you of that. I personally believe that if you want to present Tahu as wearing a Kanohi Jultin in one of your shorts stories, well go ahead! what is or isn't canon, if it's your art you have ultimate control, and that's just the way I see it.

I really don't think that these canonizations should affect anyone's art at all, and if any members scrutinize said art due to what is canon, then I believe certain action should be taken to assure that said member does not repeat something like that again.

**Noxryn** · December 9, 2014

I completely agree with this.
I remember at one point I was constantly harrased, similiar to now, about how I go straight to Greg with my questions trying to extort an answer out of him. I've been accused of allegedly trying to trick a forgetful author. Suggestions they made to me were to bring these stuff to BZP so we could discuss it and what-not. Lookey here. There are polls for the community to decide. Yay everyone wins. No. There always are going to be problems no matter what, and that wont change.

Okay, but here's a huge problem with how you went about these polls:

- A thread was created with the intention to discuss the possibility of these canonizations, with hot topic level debate going on for both sides. Some want, some don't. A poll shouldn't have been made with this going on.

- In the midst of this discussion suddenly polls are made to canonize the masks, without heeding anything an entire subset of members had to say. Ignoring, also, all of the people offsite. All of the fans elsewhere who do not like the rampant canonization BZPower has become infamous for. This is not only rude and dismissive, but it clearly shows you do not care what other fans think or feel on the subject. I don't care what history you have on the LMB, but when people are talking about canonization and a significant portion want less of it and you essentially state "I don't care what you want, this is what I want" then yes, that will tick off a lot of people.

- Anything you come up with is your own content. Greg can't answer questions about the Fikou-Nui, the Fikou-Nui can never be used in the story to further any narrative, no members will be able to use it in their fan work unless you don't care if they go an entirely different direction with the vision (or if they outright remove it from ever existing). So, what was the point of forcing it to exist? And giving masks, essentially faces, to characters others imagined differently and saying your interpretation and the interpretation of the incredibly small population of this forum is more important than anyone else's interpretation is not only putting your story perspective on an undeserved pedestal, but it's taking the story away from so many people who have just as much claim to it as you do.

As a side note: none of this is "world building" either. I'm so tired of seeing that word misused in such a manner. World building is when you design the world to, as DV said, further the narrative and fill in the reasons and tensions and motivations of why things are happening, why groups are doing and behaving as they are, why individuals are acting as they are, why certain events are happening, why certain events cannot happen, to explain the symbolism and the impact certain events have on the world and why it matters.

Making up a face for a character in the background is hardly world building. It's a joke to call that "world building." Canonizing random rahi and random creations and random powers for random masks that serve no purpose in the overall narrative is not "world building." That is creating trivia. Tons of useless trivia. It's making a story, a world, more complicated than it ever needed to be. It's barring fans from understanding the world as a whole, it creates a divide where some fans believe they are "truer" than the person who never read one article on this forum.

BZPower does not deserve to canonize whatever it wants. BZPower has never deserved that. All we are is a subset of fans. A very. Very. Very. Small subset of fans. We deserve to effect the canon as much as anyone else does, which is to say not really at all, unless every single headcanon is canonized into official canon... which can't happen for obvious reasons.

Even then, plenty of people on this site are done with this canonization that has gone on rampantly for years now.

I would absolutely love it if Greg came out and said "No more questions about Bionicle G1" if only to avoid the canonization plague that's affected Bionicle for the last ten years.

Parugi · December 9, 2014

Given all that, it shouldn't be hard to see why I'm right that (within reason), allowing people to have things like the Toa Mangai established in canon, and those who happen not to like that version should "ignore" it and headcanon it differently, is the best solution. Note that this applies to some extent with all canon in any story!
Make sense?
ET has pointed out the problem with this reasoning several times and it doesn't seem to have stuck, so maybe an actual example will help to demonstrate why this is far more easily said than done. You can tell people to "ignore [the aspects they don't like]" all you want, but that does not work when you have the same people pushing for all of these canonizations simultaneously correcting other fans' interpretations as if they are wrong. And speaking as a role-player, writer, and MOCer, I can tell you that it happens a lot, and there is no logical way to conclude that adding in more details like the Mangai's masks and tools is going to make it happen any less or that it'll be any easier to just "ignore" those details--it can only exacerbate the problem since there'll be more and more details for fact-purists to "correct."

I think that this one example of a certain, generally overzealous member (which still blows my mind but whatever), doing something that is unacceptable should not be taken harshly and applied to the rest of the community of fans who would like to know such little details. Boidoh is... an outlier. For lack of a better term.

Most of us, such as myself, do not want to bother anyone in the art department with these little details or stunt anyones creativity, I will assure you of that. I personally believe that if you want to present Tahu as wearing a Kanohi Jultin in one of your shorts stories, well go ahead! ###### what is or isn't canon, if it's your art you have ultimate control, and that's just the way I see it.
I really don't think that these canonizations should affect anyone's art at all, and if any members scrutinize said art due to what is canon, then I believe certain action should be taken to assure that said member does not repeat something like that again.

I agree it wasn't necessarily the best example, but it was fairy convenient to use since I happened upon it earlier. And I don't mean to imply that everyone who is for canonizations is like that--not by a long shot--so I apologize if my wording came off that way.

But the fact does remain that these canonizations have more of a negative impact on the imagination-inclined side of the fandom than a lack of canonizations has on the fact-based side. Leave a blank space blank and a given fan's interpretation is just as valid as anyone else's--there is no room for someone to come in and tell that person that their interpretation is "wrong and this is what the canon actually shows." When something like the Mangai's masks and tools suddenly become set in stone, you now have that issue. Not everyone will do it, and not everyone will feel that their stories are invalidated now that there's a canon description, but the fact that it happens at all is a problem that cannot be fixed or helped by more of these out-of-the-blue additions, only worsened.

bonesiii keeps on saying that people can stick to their headcanons, and that's all well and good, but the same exact thing can be told to many of the people wanting to canonize little details like the Mangai's masks and tools. All things considered, it's fairer to the fanbase as a whole to keep those details unspecified--at least then no one can lord their interpretation over anyone else if it happens to match with what is officially decided, or obnoxiously correct other people who personally decide on something different.

Archon~ · December 9, 2014

Given all that, it shouldn't be hard to see why I'm right that (within reason), allowing people to have things like the Toa Mangai established in canon, and those who happen not to like that version should "ignore" it and headcanon it differently, is the best solution. Note that this applies to some extent with all canon in any story!

Make sense?
ET has pointed out the problem with this reasoning several times and it doesn't seem to have stuck, so maybe an actual example will help to demonstrate why this is far more easily said than done. You can tell people to "ignore [the aspects they don't like]" all you want, but that does not work when you have the same people pushing for all of these canonizations simultaneously correcting other fans' interpretations as if they are wrong. And speaking as a role-player, writer, and MOCer, I can tell you that it happens a lot, and there is no logical way to conclude that adding in more details like the Mangai's masks and tools is going to make it happen any less or that it'll be any easier to just "ignore" those details--it can only exacerbate the problem since there'll be more and more details for fact-purists to "correct."
I think that this one example of a certain, generally overzealous member (which still blows my mind but whatever), doing something that is unacceptable should not be taken harshly and applied to the rest of the community of fans who would like to know such little details. Boidoh is... an outlier. For lack of a better term.

Most of us, such as myself, do not want to bother anyone in the art department with these little details or stunt anyones creativity, I will assure you of that. I personally believe that if you want to present Tahu as wearing a Kanohi Jultin in one of your shorts stories, well go ahead! ###### what is or isn't canon, if it's your art you have ultimate control, and that's just the way I see it.
I really don't think that these canonizations should affect anyone's art at all, and if any members scrutinize said art due to what is canon, then I believe certain action should be taken to assure that said member does not repeat something like that again.
I agree it wasn't necessarily the best example, but it was fairy convenient to use since I happened upon it earlier. And I don't mean to imply that everyone who is for canonizations is like that--not by a long shot--so I apologize if my wording came off that way.

Ahh, I see glad we're on the same page ther.

But the fact does remain that these canonizations have more of a negative impact on the imagination-inclined side of the fandom than a lack of canonizations has on the fact-based side. Leave a blank space blank and a given fan's interpretation is just as valid as anyone else's--there is no room for someone to come in and tell that person that their interpretation is "wrong and this is what the canon actually shows." When something like the Mangai's masks and tools suddenly become set in stone, you now have that issue. Not everyone will do it, and not everyone will feel that their stories are invalidated now that there's a canon description, but the fact that it happens at all is a problem that cannot be fixed or helped by more of these out-of-the-blue additions, only worsened.

I think it can also have a really positive impact, perhaps if some artists wanted to represent the character as he/she is in the actual story. Know what I mean? And again, if there even is room for snobby members to come in and say "hurr durr it's not canon" then that's a problem within the individual members themselves, and should be treated as such. I don't think anyone should feel that their stories are "invalited", because it's their own universe after all! Also, correct me if I'm wrong I don't spend too much time in the Library section, is the population of people who would be hurt even considerably large or no? Actual question haha

bonesiii keeps on saying that people can stick to their headcanons, and that's all well and good, but the same exact thing can be told to many of the people wanting to canonize little details like the Mangai's masks and tools. All things considered, it's fairer to the fanbase as a whole to keep those details unspecified--at least then no one can lord their interpretation over anyone else if it happens to match with what is officially decided, or obnoxiously correct other people who personally decide on something different.

See that's the thing with you imaginative types: you have a gnarly enough of an imagination for headcanons. I honestly envy you, because as a person who can't come up with good headcanons unless discussed throughoutly with other members, I don't really have anything to headcanon, thus leading me to seek for a canon explaination to facts. And again, if people seriously bully other members over what's canon or canonize things for fame or lordship, then they really meed to reconsider their motives and if they're on the right forum. I can't personally guarantee to punish those people in anyway since I don't have thoe privelagea, but I can guarantee that I will keep my fellow members in check and hold them accountable for their words. Again, I'm sorry to any artists if these minor canonizations are messing with your art, and I invite you to join us when the new polling practices are established. Expect that topic to be up Wednesday.

Parugi · December 9, 2014

I agree it wasn't necessarily the best example, but it was fairy convenient to use since I happened upon it earlier. And I don't mean to imply that everyone who is for canonizations is like that--not by a long shot--so I apologize if my wording came off that way.
Ahh, I see glad we're on the same page ther.

Same. Always nice to have a calm discussion. ^_^

But the fact does remain that these canonizations have more of a negative impact on the imagination-inclined side of the fandom than a lack of canonizations has on the fact-based side. Leave a blank space blank and a given fan's interpretation is just as valid as anyone else's--there is no room for someone to come in and tell that person that their interpretation is "wrong and this is what the canon actually shows." When something like the Mangai's masks and tools suddenly become set in stone, you now have that issue. Not everyone will do it, and not everyone will feel that their stories are invalidated now that there's a canon description, but the fact that it happens at all is a problem that cannot be fixed or helped by more of these out-of-the-blue additions, only worsened.
I think it can also have a really positive impact, perhaps if some artists wanted to represent the character as he/she is in the actual story. Know what I mean? And again, if there even is room for snobby members to come in and say "hurr durr it's not canon" then that's a problem within the individual members themselves, and should be treated as such. I don't think anyone should feel that their stories are "invalited", because it's their own universe after all! Also, correct me if I'm wrong I don't spend too much time in the Library section, is the population of people who would be hurt even considerably large or no? Actual question haha

I can see that, for sure, but I feel like it would really depend on which character they are trying to depict--particularly since, if this hypothetical artist is taking the time and energy to create fanart of, say, the Toa Mangai of Earth, they've likely already come up with their own ideas of what the character looks like, how they act, and what mask and weapons they have. Applying their headcanon, as it were. =P But yeah, I can see some people preferring more specifics--it's a bit of a gray area, admittedly. Which brings me to a point I wanted to make in my last post--if these kinds of things are going to be added, they at least need to be added and approached responsibly, and not railroaded into the blank spaces. Hopefully the guidelines for future polls helps out with that.

Yeah, there's not a really effective way to deal with those kinds of people, unfortunately. But my goal in bringing them up is just to correct this belief that ignoring canon aspects is so simple, because in a lot of cases, it really isn't.

And as far as the library goes--at this point, in BZPower's library/RPG forums, I can't imagine there would be a lot of people who would be totally offended or hurt. But there are also non-BZPower fans to think about, and in any case, it's still infringing somewhat on the fanbase's ability to develop their own beliefs if it happens to contradict canon--if I were a new or younger BIONICLE fan, personally, I know I wouldn't feel as comfortable as I do ignoring certain aspects of what is now considered canon, like the Toa Cordak's name, for instance. Heck, I would feel weird now if I were to decide to write a story about the Mangai and change up their elements--and chances are that if I did, the story wouldn't even take place in the main BIONICLE universe, which makes things even more upsetting, to an extent.

bonesiii keeps on saying that people can stick to their headcanons, and that's all well and good, but the same exact thing can be told to many of the people wanting to canonize little details like the Mangai's masks and tools. All things considered, it's fairer to the fanbase as a whole to keep those details unspecified--at least then no one can lord their interpretation over anyone else if it happens to match with what is officially decided, or obnoxiously correct other people who personally decide on something different.
See that's the thing with you imaginative types: you have a gnarly enough of an imagination for headcanons. I honestly envy you, because as a person who can't come up with good headcanons unless discussed throughoutly with other members, I don't really have anything to headcanon, thus leading me to seek for a canon explaination to facts. And again, if people seriously bully other members over what's canon or canonize things for fame or lordship, then they really meed to reconsider their motives and if they're on the right forum. I can't personally guarantee to punish those people in anyway since I don't have thoe privelagea, but I can guarantee that I will keep my fellow members in check and hold them accountable for their words. Again, I'm sorry to any artists if these minor canonizations are messing with your art, and I invite you to join us when the new polling practices are established. Expect that topic to be up Wednesday.

I can definitely understand the struggle with coming up with headcanon stuff--I have that problem with other stories that I'm invested in, though BIONICLE... not so much. X3 That does raise a question from me to you, however, as well as to anyone else with a similar take to that--isn't the fact that a lot of this stuff is ambiguous, and thus encourages discussion about it, preferable to having an absolute answer that cannot be disputed? Personally speaking, I'd much rather be able to give and adopt interpretations of what masks the Toa Mangai wore than bring it up and have someone point to a list of what's been officially decided, but I'm curious as to what you all feel regarding that.

Again, I agree about those kinds of people, although I wouldn't say "bully" is necessarily the appropriate word to use for their behavior. At any rate, they are, thankfully, fairly unheard of at least on BZP, so far as I've seen. And I appreciate the willingness to hold them accountable when they do pop up. ^_^

**bonesiii** · December 9, 2014

Okay, the rest of my reply to DV's earlier post:

"The second reason is the same one ET brought up, in that the moment a fan artist, or a fan-fiction writer, or even a speculative comment posts something that is now "established canon", the "canon hounds" come out and have to point out how this or that aren't canon now"

This would happen whether it was fan-originated or not. And it can be corrected (throwing out the bathwater) without banning all cooperative canonizing (throwing out the baby).

Taken consistently, this argument would destroy all canon. But this forgets that there are upsides to having something established in canon too. Just in the creativity department, it helps provide fuel to make alternate versions.

Take the Mangai.

With some established characters but the others' appearances not established, you might see a few people who think of making artwork of the whole team or of the unestablished individuals, but now that details like mask and tools are being established, a lot more fans could be inspired by those descriptions to motivate making such artwork.

Take the principle to MOCs, and extend it all the way. If there was no canon at all, you'd think there would be more MOCs, but lots of LEGO lines have had little to no story, and few of them have had anywhere near the interest in MOCing that Bionicle does. Admittedly the Mangai example breaks down a little here if masks not in plastic are picked (barring 3D printers, custom molds, etc.), but there could be an influx of MOCs about these newly defined characters, people showing their version.

I've seen this especially at work with fanfics, and the Mangai example works here too. Because we don't know their masks or tools, a lot of people would rather tell stories about some other team than deal with the "danger of gaps" if they want to seem canonically plausible or close to it (and this desire is common, and not wrong). But once something is established, although it is mildly unfortunate that it has the downside of making "work in the gaps" stories less canonically consistent, it's also true that it can make it feel like telling fan stories about them loosely attached to canonicity is now more enjoyable.

Lemme do the next two out of order because some groundwork apparently needs laid:

"Greg likes your fan-fiction, neat! That doesn't mean the rest of us who care about this story should have to."

Whoooooa there. DV!

You should know better by now than to suggest such a thing!

Nobody HAS to like something by virtue of it being canon. *resists urge to sigh again...*

It seems this is behind this:

"Honestly, it's one of the reasons I'm so relieved we're getting a reboot, so everyone's lore knowledge will, for awhile, be set back to zero and all the "major authorities" will stop having that entitlement complex because they'll know as much as everyone else does. I think BZP contributed to that in multitudes of ways, from the Ask Greg topic to official "Reference Masters". Nobody should have the ability to say "this random mask I got canonized is actually this power, I don't like that you made it a different one in your story"."

There are so many problems here I hardly know where to start, but let's start with one that is not necessarily a problem (though worded unfortunately as it looks passive-agressive toward me...):

1) It's a fair concern that there's a risk that as an expert in canon, I could let that get to my head and develop a bias. However, please know that I have many strategies to hunt down and obliterate the slightest hint of this in myself. People who have followed my posts for a long time know this about me and have told me of their appreciation for it many times. It's actually one of the major reasons I haven't retired in favor of moving on to other things, as I know that objectivity in this sort of position is important, and I don't have a huge amount of faith that many others can be as objective as I am. Of course, even I can slip at times, and that's where constructive (not antagonistic!) criticism is good. (Especially just phrasing it as a question, rather than an accusation.)

2) It sounds like you're saying that those of us who pay a lot of attention to the canon shouldn't have any more qualification than the casual toystore shelf shopper in suggesting additions to canon. I haven't participated much in that for a long time, actually, to make it clear my intent is nothing like the bias suggestion (point 1), but I do try to moderate canonization discussions because that knowledge IS important to keeping suggestions consistent with the vision for Bionicle!

3) That point is also self-refuting. If nobody should have any special sway on the canon, that applies to you and the other anti-canonization proponents too. So by that logic they should have no right to close canon any more than somebody should suggest a mask for a Toa Mangai. Plus, since LEGO has made it clear their vision includes fan input, with things like the Rahi contest, that is especially inapplicable to Bionicle. (And that makes sense; even if few people actually "win", it gives yet another reason to actively support Bionicle!)

4) Polling, however, is intended to mitigate problems related to this risk, and that applies even for anti-canonization!

5) This is just an accuracy nitpick, but Ask Greg was a Bionicle.com thing, not BZP. You're probably thinking of the various Greg official topics, but those happened due to a logical reason that is standard for BZP or most any forum -- the alternative was to have tons of Greg topics filling up the forum. It would also be even more of a mess that way to find out what answers Greg gave.

The bottom line is that having multiple perspectives is a key rule for how to spot problems, and that applies to a canon as much as to anything else.

Honestly, the biggest issue to me is that it seems dismissive of the actual fanbase.

That could go both ways. Accepting canon is "dismissive" of those who don't want canonization, and rejecting new canonizations is "dismissive" of fans who want it. Actually Greg does neither -- he provides a balance. Some things are deemed off-limits, like Helryx's appearance (it always amazes me that anti-canonization proponents don't seem to post that they appreciate this... I hope they do, though...), and others are added. This way nobody is being dismissed!

But having a balance does mean that no one person who demands everything conform to their personal vision is happy. Such a person could arguably be seen as being "dismissed", but I would say that they are being advised that this is unfair.

"I care, way too deeply about this fictional world"

That's good, but DV, if your care becomes wishing to impose your preference on others, demanding (or mostly so) that what personally pleases you is defined as what's good or quality, then we have a serious problem. Just caring about the world is not enough -- it's important to care about others too, and care about their desires, even when they're different from yours. Plus, this care needs to be kept in context of the intent of LEGO, that it's a toyline (not high fantasy, for example), that it was aimed at silly little kids playing roleplaying games, etc.

Pushing for just one model of a system of standards based on your preferences and your understanding (limited as it may be) of objective quality might seem like caring more, but in practice it can just be having more bias. It must always be guarded against being based on your personal preferences, and it should be tempered by experience from what has come out in past discussions and the like, etc. (Another reason I have not retired as I have closely followed debates like this for a long time -- so frankly, nothing prideful intended here, etc. -- but what I say on such things should be taken with more weight because of this. Not in terms of personal taste, again, but in terms of understanding what it is LEGO was aiming for. Within reason, of course. You, too, have a lot of weight on some of the issues, especially set-related, to be clear.

Though of course, this cannot be turned into an appeal to authority, but it does mean the points I am raising/reciting should not be blindly ignored.)

"which is why I've always been so quick to speak my mind, vocally."

With respect, perhaps it would be better to be quick to read what others have to say and be more understanding, and rethink assumptions you might be making, before speaking? Leaping before one looks is generally a bad idea.

"And I'm not keen on having my interest in this story somehow mean less than someone else's"

How does it? If you think you have a better suggestion for, for example, what mask should be on a Toa Mangai's face, then speak! Explain your reasoning! Persuade others! (But be willing to be persuaded otherwise if constructive criticism that's sound is given.)

If instead you just want to be free to headcanon your own idea... you always are anyways. That's been my point all along. There is no need to take down canon in order to do that. Yes, you might run into a handful of noobs who think fan fiction has to be canon-fit, but we all must learn, in life, to handle people who make mistakes.

"Sure, flesh out the cultures of these peoples, explore the scenery left untouched (like that entire continent). Do actual world-building."

This is inconsistent. Why should these things be fair game, but establishing character appearances and other such things may not be? The mask that an important hero (by virtue of being tied to three important ones and one mildly important one) wears is, in Bionicle, part of building the world.

Yes, it comes down to personal preference, but that's the entire point.

Now hang on there! I'm glad you admit that... but at the same time, doesn't this admission undermine strict anti-canonization?

Because it is merely a matter of preference, those who want the community value of a Toa Mangai's mask to be established (however it is, by Greg or not, but by involving many fans we can avoid risk of contradictions better) need this done in order to be pleased. Those who don't can ignore it. This is worth repeating until it is recognized. A canon exists to give the fanbase as a whole things that some can enjoy. Since NONE of it can please everybody, it is always the case that those who happen not to like something should ignore it (again, issues of consistency are not being considered here; I'm talking only about examples that do pass that test).

Therefore, this should apply to canonization too!

And it has been -- both ways -- with a balance.

"Personal preferences shouldn't be canonized because it alienates other fans."

Again, this is self-refuting because:

1) ALL canon is based on personal preference (of at least one author), and:

2) The desire for something not to be established is ALSO a personal preference! You would have to "canonize" (or since this is an out-story rule, let's say "enforce") that preference in order to enact this rule.

3) The fans who have wanted to see the Toa Mangai (etc.) estabished are by the same logic also "alienated" when we say no.

(The balance thing comes in here -- Toa Helryx never being defined "alienates" some who want a version canonized and/or want something canon for her. But we accept this because we're happy for the anti-canonization preferenced folks getting some of what they want.

)

"The fans who like the canonization of random facts are the fans who are going to follow and invest in the story either way"

That's a rather bold assumption... I've basically covered it above. To summarize:

1) First, let's put aside "random" here. Nothing is truly random, but even with things that seem like they might be, fan canonizations are usually less random lately as they're polled, generally. Plus, we have a story expert in charge of the canon, so even with his flaws, Greg can ensure suggestions that are accepted are consistent (in general). However, I do agree that certain things should be off-limits due to this. I don't think it applies to the Toa Mangai example. (And I presume you don't mean this literally... if so, all that would be needed would be to show that things suggested for canon aren't random. However, even in real life, random things DO occur, and true realism actually needs some of that!)

2) But putting that part aside, you're assuming that those not sharing your tastes must somehow be impossible to displease, at least enough for them to leave. Sorry, but that doesn't make a lot of sense in light of human psychology, especially given the whole lesson of Bionicle that having a rich canon encourages community and participation and imagination, rather than gaps doing that. It may seem counterintuitive, but Bionicle attests to it, and it does make sense if you think about it.

Their leaving may be more quiet -- due to boredom -- but life for entertainment is primarily about avoiding boredom, so that is not a good thing.

I'd also suggest that it sends the wrong signal to new fans coming onboard with Gen 2, that LEGO might not be committed to long-term care for the new canon, if they are seen as neglecting the old. New fans seeing that LEGO is rewarding loyalty and participation are more likely to want to be those things themselves.

Reply to new points, first Mjol:

"Eight years versus two. Not even remotely fair."

True, but then the Gravity element wasn't really featured for Toa in most of that time.

"And... what? How does it mean that toa should have access to these powers?"

Whether they should or not is subjective. It's obvious that in your tastes they shouldn't. But I'm not seeing you recognize that your tastes need not be universal. Maybe a little in the above quote... but then in this part it looks like you've switched back to wanting your preference to be universal. That would be okay for you, if done, but what about those who wanted it a different way? Preference isn't enough to base these arguments on; we'd need some internal story consistency concept or the like to make it objective.

Suffice to say that it's actually because of story consistency that it made sense to make those five powers elements, for the Bohrok reason I mentioned, and that the powers do fit the Bionicle definition of element as a major aspect of nature. Even Plasma does fit this; its problem is in being repetitive with Fire. But this problem could have been fixed had they had the benefit of hindsight by having Pahrak-Kal have some other power.

"You tried to protect the broken system in such a way."

Still not following you. What are you referring to?

DV:

"You say I am "objecting to the terms of the debate" but the point you have misconstrued is that you have set your definitions in such a way as to automatically claim the high-ground, but the definitions you are using are wrong."

It is not wrong to describe a storytelling technique that includes revealing extra details on the side about the world as worldbuilding. This is how the term has been used for Bionicle. But even if you want to insist on defining the words I was using in your own way (which isn't necessarily wrong, it's just semantics), it doesn't change the truth of the meaning behind what I said -- that Bionicle intentionally establishes such extra details and demonstrably has since 2001.

"Yes, I object to the term, because you are misusing it. Adding a random mask definition or element to a Toa who was mentioned strictly as one of a number in an offhand remark that plays no part in the narrative isn't world-building"

But this seems to be an arbitrary distinction, seemingly made up on the spot. Establishing those details gives a basis to inspire fanfics about battles that team may have had, for example. It also helps understand the event that caused the team to move to Metru Nui, and what life was like during the time when they were alive there for the Matoran, especially Vakama and company.

"isn't that I wish the story was on par with Tolkien. You used Tolkien as an example to describe a world-building story in a similar vein as BIONICLE, and I brought Tolkien up because the way he built the world was entirely antithetical to BIONICLE's. EVERY STORY, every back reference, every historical note, every appendice in Tolkien's work exists to propel the main narrative forward."

But when the details of a fictional language are even included in your definition here, it seems strange to see something nowhere near that trivial, related to an important period of history for six of our currently alive main characters (and who had two years of story focus), to have that somehow not be included. It seems contradictory. You're accepting things that are even more trivial than this for Tolkien!

"There's no "baker number four, who owned a Turbochef oven" for Tolkien."

Well, there could be a number of examples we might bring up, but this doesn't seem like the best analogy. Bionicle has always put a strong emphasis on the heroes, the Toa. A better comparison would be Radagast the Brown, whose details being somewhat established (at least name and color-rank) has actually led to his being featured in the new movie version.

(Besides, given the tech of the time in LoTR, not to overthink the analogy but yeah, every chef would be using essentially the same method to cook! This is more like a superhero with a special power.)

"BIONICLE is not by any traditional definition of literary world-building a "world-building story""

Definition cited on WP's article for this (dictionary.com doesn't have one, unfortunately):

Worldbuilding or conworlding is the process of constructing an imaginary world, sometimes associated with a whole fictional universe.[1] The resulting world may be called a constructed world. The term "worldbuilding" was popularized at science fiction writers' workshops in the 1970s.[citation needed] Developing an imaginary setting with coherent qualities such as a history, geography, and ecology is a key task for many science fiction or fantasy writers.[2] Worldbuilding often involves the creation of maps, a backstory, and people for the world. Constructed worlds can enrich the backstory and history of fictional works, and it is not uncommon for authors to revise their constructed worlds while completing its associated work. Constructed worlds can be created for personal amusement and mental exercise, or for specific creative endeavors such as novels, video games, or role-playing games.

The Mangai example is people for the world (though worldbuilding need not necessarily establish particular example characters, but these are established because they were a major Toa Team in the plot). We can think of maps, of the timeline of historical events as some backstory, etc. It was all far simpler than the level Tolkien used, of course, but that's actually appropriate for a toyline.

"Saying it is requires distorting the term in an effort to frame the debate in a manner you will automatically win."

Well, that's why I was suggesting that redefining worldbuilding in a way not normally understood may be a way to frame the debate in a way that obscures my point. This isn't my idea -- Greg's the one who has called it this. But I think if you could establish that a particular rule for what should be in, in this worldbuilding specifically, versus what should be out, and show sound support for that, you could "win" the debate too.

And I would then become a proponent of your position on that, as I have for the people who have made the argument I am paraphrasing here in the past convincingly.

"For ease of discussion, I'm using "story" to refer to the narrative structure in which the line progressed. "The story" is the main, overarching narrative, in which there were meta-narratives (often in three year chunks) consisting themselves of smaller meta-narratives."

That's all fair, but doesn't knowing the powers available to the Toa Mangai team help understand the 2004 story year? And in a sense all of it, as events they were involved with would lead up to Makuta's disguising himself as Dume and seeing the need to off them all.

More later...

believe victims · December 9, 2014

That's all fair, but doesn't knowing the powers available to the Toa Mangai team help understand the 2004 story year?

...how? Knowing there was a Toa of Plantlife with the Mask of Healing changes absolutely nothing of our understanding of the 2004 story. The character didn't even exist. His existence had absolutely no impact whatsoever on any story year, but especially not 2004.

**Noxryn** · December 9, 2014

With some established characters but the others' appearances not established, you might see a few people who think of making artwork of the whole team or of the unestablished individuals, but now that details like mask and tools are being established, a lot more fans could be inspired by those descriptions to motivate making such artwork.

but it's completely fair to those earlier artists to tell them that a bunch of fans on BZPower said no to their interpretation and ran to Greg with their own to get their own, personal, version canonized so now people can lord over their art and point out the story inaccuracies, or say "well I like your art but the person who begged Greg did a much better, accurate representation of these characters."

like there's absolutely no forcing of anyone's personal preferences on anyone else here, is there?

Mjolnitor · December 9, 2014

"You tried to protect the broken system in such a way."

Still not following you. What are you referring to?

To all of your "if you don't like this, ignore it". Especially regarding elements.

Also, if this or that part of canon should be ignored in these or another circumstances, what is a purpose of canon at all? Besides of ignoring it.

Edited December 9, 2014 by Mjolnitor

Rahkshi Lalonde · December 9, 2014

Bones, that is the absolute longest way to say "i don't agree with you" that i have ever seen put into writing. i am impressed but also slightly boggled. :0

(also feel like saying this here, people here seem to be under the impression the mangai's battle with the kanohi dragon in any way influenced the actual Bionicle story arc?)

Edited December 9, 2014 by Rahkshi Lalonde

Iblis · December 9, 2014

(also feel like saying this here, people here seem to be under the impression the mangai's battle with the kanohi dragon in any way influenced the actual Bionicle story arc?)

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one trying to find logical reasoning behind this single thing ^*few*

So for anyone that wishes to emulate on why..? ^-^

fishers64 · December 9, 2014

*cracks open bottle of Sprite* Hmm, let's see how far I'll get.

"What you're making here is trivia."

In many cases, yes, but worldbuilding stories often HAVE trivia, on purpose! Trivia is often celebrated, and much fun is had with it. This is entertainment, so that's good. Right?

Also, Bionicle has had trivia irrelevant to the main story that didn't come from fan canonizations. I raise you the guidebooks, particularly the Metru Nui city guide, as examples. After all, the details of Kanoka orgins wasn't that relevant to the story, but we got it anyway.

So having trivia isn't anti-Bionicle necessarily.

*accidentally hits post button* *goes to edit, here we go*

I would also suggest that there's a similar risk with some anti-canonization proponents. I've been getting a bit of an echo-chamber vibe from some of you, and no offense DV, but I'm getting it again for your post with its eleven likes. I have been being slow and methodical and analyzing points clearly -- that might not get a lot of quick likes, especially because it's not very emotional so it doesn't sound like a ringing battle cry to get behind... but I feel quality of what LEGO is aiming for with Bionicle is far better fostered this way than that. Can you see that?

My style may seem dry compared to that, and few people may seem to be vocally supporting me, but I feel that in the long run, this style is far better for making sure Bionicle stays consistently focused on the vision of its founders.

First off, I consider this entire debate to be an echo chamber. Nobody is really listening to what anyone else is saying - they're just throwing ad hominum/insults about when everyone doesn't immediately bow to their personal taste. The fact that beings are throwing insults about actually discredits their viewpoints in my viewpoint - no logic, so just resort to that.

Second off, I would take those likes on those posts with salt. In my experience:

1) Anything that is antagonistic to bonesiii automatically gets upvotes. (I'm not going to go into great detail on how I know. Suffice it to say, I do.)

2) Anything posted by DV anywhere automatically gets at least 10 upvotes generally. The guy has a personal entourage of likers that follow him around.

Neither of these things are you both's fault, but I'd be lying if I didn't say they were true, and hiding from the facts in this case is a disservice. I will say as person who tries to weigh every post on basis of whether it is true/logical, it makes me sick to my stomach. Not every like makes sense.

3)Also keep in mind that the anti-canonization movement has 20 votes in its favor in a poll, and all of them can like a post. So any number less than 20 wouldn't really matter statistically.

Now I have to run. Darn.

By contrast, I'm seeing most of the critics making a "it's self-evident" emotional, highly negative speech that ignores most of our points, and also most of what we're implying behind it that is basic groundwork understanding of Bionicle's goals, and making sure to let each other know they support each other (not bad in and of itself... but shouldn't be relied on as that risks an ad populum fallacy), but not stopping to think whether this emotion is actually being constructive or destructive.

Anyways, this also doesn't really work for anti-canonization for Gen1. The fact that it's a reboot means that however much extra complexity is approved now, it is unlikely to affect set sales for Gen2. I strongly suspect that's a major reason why fans and Greg have been increasing the amount of canonization somewhat lately. Gen1 isn't bogged down by the focus on sales now, although I do think there's a loose connection to Gen2 (if everything that was approved was like the Toa Cordak mess, that sends a bad signal to Gen2 fans).

Plus, this issue was about the storytelling itself, not so much the worldbuilding! The problem was that to understand the plot, you needed to keep track of exponentially expanding "running update" threads on everybody who had been in past story.

Edited December 9, 2014 by fishers64

Quisoves Potoo · December 9, 2014

Before I plunge into the fray, I have a question. Given that BZPower has no power over canonization, as far as I know, why we are debating this so vehemently? Place a moratorium on Gen1 canonization, and folks will simply migrate to some other forum where they can debate over what to ask Greg on the LMBs and make polls about non-characters' Kanohi. Said folks will probably still hang around BZPower, and those among them inclined to "canon-snobbery" will still put in their oars. The only way to truly stop that from happening is to ban anyone who dismisses someone's work on its lack of canonicitiy, which seems a bit extreme. That said, I don't see why canon-snobbery shouldn't be a minor offense, the sort that could lead to banishment if continued against the mods' warnings.

But assuming that BZPower did somehow succeed in stopping all Gen-1 Canonization, I fail to see how it would be such a loss. With the next iteration of BIONICLE taking place in a decidedly separate cosmos, the continuation of the original storyline seems less likely than ever. As things are right now, the last word on Gen1 canon will be from the "Memoirs of the Dead' winners. Whether or not Greg says that Odina was infested with stone-rats makes not a jot of difference to the official story.

Take the principle to MOCs, and extend it all the way. If there was no canon at all, you'd think there would be more MOCs, but lots of LEGO lines have had little to no story, and few of them have had anywhere near the interest in MOCing that Bionicle does. Admittedly the Mangai example breaks down a little here if masks not in plastic are picked (barring 3D printers, custom molds, etc.), but there could be an influx of MOCs about these newly defined characters, people showing their version.

This seems to me to be a cum-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc fallacy. When a person decides to build a BIONICLE MOC, his primary motivation is his love of BIONICLE. Anything else is secondary. For my part, my love BIONICLE is not because of its extensive canon. I like the sets, the world, the story, etc. But if I didn't care for those things, then I certainly wouldn't care for its canon. The reason that less Adventurers MOCs exist is down to the fact that less imaginations were as thoroughly gripped by it than by BIONICLE. Adventurers is still one of the more popular LEGO themes, and its stories may well have helped that, but the names of Dr. Kilroy's parents were never relevant to those stories, and so their absence was never felt. In fact, the Adventurers had multiple contradictory continuities. I doubt that anyone was deterred by the fact that Slyboots (or Sam Sinister, or Snakeboots, depending on the story) was portrayed as unintelligent hired muscle in one canon and as a manipulative mastermind in another.

I've seen this especially at work with fanfics, and the Mangai example works here too. Because we don't know their masks or tools, a lot of people would rather tell stories about some other team than deal with the "danger of gaps" if they want to seem canonically plausible or close to it (and this desire is common, and not wrong). But once something is established, although it is mildly unfortunate that it has the downside of making "work in the gaps" stories less canonically consistent, it's also true that it can make it feel like telling fan stories about them loosely attached to canonicity is now more enjoyable.

I'm not at all sure of the veracity of your statement, given the number of continuations of the original story I've seen in the Epics forum. But if what you are saying is true, then canon is too overbearing a force, stifling imagination where it ought to be stoked by ambiguity. If a majority of fan-fiction writers are "canon-fanatics" (as I was in my younger days,) then I find that a terrible tragedy.

More to come...

**bonesiii** · December 9, 2014

"So actually fill in the blank sections of the map! Canonizing what element and mask a random happenstance background to the background character is and was wearing are not doing so. Things like "who lived on the Southern Continent, what were their lives like, what kind of culture did they possess, what were their motivations, what were their roles in furthering the GSR's mission, what did they do during the great battles, what sort of history did they possess, what did their lands look like, what kind of structure did they keep, what sort of stories did they tell, who were they?" THAT is filling in the map. THAT is world-building."

Those details would be great too (in my tastes at least), but if things like what happened during great battles matter, surely the powers of the Toa Mangai are important. Elemental powers and mask powers have been important to Bionicle from the start (not always in every story, but yeah). And if those things are good for the more obscure Southern Continent, surely they're even better for Metru Nui.

Maybe you have a system that explains why you would rule those out but not other similar things, but I'm not getting it. You seem to be assuming it's on purpose, but I'm not telepathic. To be clear, remember that I'm focusing especially on Bionicle canon's role in inspiring lighthearted roleplaying by kids, fanfics, etc. With emphasis on the observation that establishing tends to inspire more than gaps. I'm guessing this may be the difference between our system of standards. (At least it would seem to be the major difference between Tolkien's goals and LEGO's. And these differences make sense; it's a toy company that is focused on inspiring fan creativity.)

You have also in the past talked about "detailed versus busy", and I'm guessing that is playing a role here (although it was brought up for MOCs/art or something like that), but we also talked about why that seems to be a matter of preference. :shrugs:

"And again, the story is over, why does there need to be a time to fill in those blanks?"

Well, remember what I say often about need versus want. I think it's about wanting to please fans who have been asking to see this team established (and some similar examples, but as said, I think Greg goes overboard sometimes and that's a problem). With that in mind, I think it's about rewarding fans for the continued interest in the Gen1 canon, continued curiosity. And as I mentioned this sets a good example to help motivate Gen2 fans to invest in that story too.

"Isn't that what head-canons, fanfiction, fanart, and the like should be for? If you want the line to keep living, even with a new iteration on the horizon, then keep it breathing through fan dedication and involvement."

I agree with this, and this needs to come into play as the sole "life" of Gen1 at some point. But where is that point and why? See earlier comments. Basically I think it should be several years down the road when Greg's memory is no longer stable enough for Gen1 and same for active story fans. (Assuming that'll happen. Probably.)

"as more and more things become settled, less and less exists for speculation and exploration."

This is the same gappists assumption I've been talking about having been seemingly shown (mostly and within reason) to not be true, at least not that simple. As more things become settled, it inspires more interest in the new questions it raises. Now that we know what one of the other Toa Mangai's mask power and element are, what other battles did he have? What was he like? It can inspire fanfics about all of this. It's an age old lesson that I think it was Binkmeister mentioned at one point back in the day -- whenever you answer a question, you raise more questions.

And if we take the principle to its fullest extent to test it, it should mean no canon at all should inspire even more exploration, but in practice it generally seems to really just inspire less interest. While it technically leaves more room, it seems like less people end up caring about filling up that room, especially (in my understanding anyways) due to the lack of the community feeling when everybody's filling in is all their own idea and there's little common ground.

"I'm sorry my post or position is more popular than yours? Are you honestly arguing from a "persecuted by the majority" complex now? I really don't understand how else to process what you're saying. If there's an "echo chamber" because my post has more likes than yours, maybe it's time you took a step back and looked at why people agree more with what I said than with what you said?"

And that is the expected response.

No, DV, I'm saying that a few vocal complainers on here, while their tastes are understandable and need to be respected, nevertheless do not necessarily constitute the majority of the fanbase as a whole, nor does a preference for something not to be known necessarily have to outweigh those who do want it, for reasons explained several times like the community and more-inspiration points. But keep in mind I'm the one proposing rules to make sure those voices are heard, and if Greg sees a lot of that, he may decide to lessen or eventually end canonization if he sees it as time, if the fanbase as a whole continues to move in that direction.

I was also pointing out that points were being ignored. But now people are at least engaging with many of them, so that's good. Overall, I was cautioning people not to assume that from strength of emotion they have proven themselves right, if there are important truths they need patiently reminded of (or patiently is how it should be done, not saying I've done it ideally ).

They should keep in mind especially that many of the arguments being used could have been presented for years in past discussions if they were really so mainstream, but most of them haven't shown up much. Though of course, things have changed now, so some different arguments are warranted.

"You've always made the mistake of equating emotional support as less-important"

Be careful here. I'm not sure how you mean this, but this looks like support for emotionalism and possibly trying to get your personal taste listened to by force of emotion rather than objective support, which could easily morph into antagonism toward those with different tastes (I don't think this is your intent, but it can open the door to others doing that). In practice as was seen in debates typical before I came onto the scene, this would just make things devolve into flamewars and discussions would have to get closed. But we can hash out the same basic disagreements calmly and reasonably, preserving peace while having every taste still be heard. In fact, that tends to be more effective, as antagonism tends to polarize opposition against you rather than encourage them to see your point of view.

"I've tried to point out to you for years that logic holds little sway over emotional beings."

The point is that being understanding of others' tastes is better for fostering peace, and being calm and thoughtful and fair does a much better job of that then allowing emotions to control you or seem to control you. It's not so much that logic holds sway over people but that people should exert self-control, and in so doing, use logic when truth claims are in consideration.

"I do not agree that your point of view is best for the franchise (and neither, for that matter, does it seem TLG does, as G2 seems to purposefully be in many ways the antithesis to this discussion"

I actually agree with this as I've pointed out before... however IMO it's more about populating a field of variety in fiction than one being better than the other. Gen1's worked for ten years, and it did appeal to tastes that do exist. But it's possible that the alternative tastes were -- or even more likely, now are as times have changed to be faster paced and more time consuming -- more numerous for simpler. (Note again that I agree overcomplexity was an issue in Gen1, although it seems you do not have the same view of how so, but I think Gen2 should probably be even simpler than the level that would have been better for Gen1. Gen1 was about taking work to understand it, but Gen2 can easily be about being easier to follow casually.)

However, Greg is authorizing these additions to Gen1 canon now too, so that argument works both ways. I think this is most consistent with supporting variety to appeal to multiple tastes, versus deeming one as superior to the other.

"I feel what's best for the franchise is to let it go. I don't mean "move on and pretend it never happened, and stop engaging with it". I mean "the story is over, the book should be closed.""

I do agree with this largely, and I personally was ready for that. And I may as well mention, since you obviously think the opposite, that selfishly I didn't really want more established, although admittedly my mind has been changed on that recently. New established details means that since I decided (at a time when it seemed nothing new would come) to actually do a huge canon-fit project myself (more or less), now I run into issues if they canonize something that contradicts, and I do have to decide whether to ignore it or incorporate it. One of them that I have decided to incorporate will take some major editing I still haven't gotten around to. Another not so major but still extra work I don't have a lot of time for.

So I actually relate to that perspective. But then true objectivity means (does it not?) that we should be able to put our personal desires to the side and understand LEGO's reasons (Greg's reasons esp. in this case) for their decision, and why it can make sense for other fans, and be happy they're getting what they want.

I think I can also understand why people not as into every little detail as I tend to be must feel overwhelmed by the canon continuing to move just beyond grasp of what is currently already known by them. It's harder for me personally to relate to that for Bionicle, but I do get it, in part because I can't follow every story franchise this closely and I have felt that myself for others (plus I know how to understand somebody else's POV logically and think of what effects it would have on me and then "try on" the emotions of it and feel them to an extent ).

However, as I said earlier, it still makes sense that the intent for what sort of details would be filled in wouldn't be fully realized (or close to it; I think it's impossible to get there perfectly within the time frame of the cutoff I'm envisioning) while the story was active or when Greg was mostly unavailable.

Now, in the interests of full disclosure, I don't personally have any practical problems with the Toa Mangai being established. I purposefully avoided details about them because I suspected they probably would be eventually. This may taint my judgment (it's at least possible), but then again, there have been other changes that have been practical issues for me personally and I have not inconsistently railed against them, so an assumption of bias on my part is not reasonable.

"We, as fans, should be treating the line like it is- a completed story. You act as if the story is incomplete, but the main narrative, the purpose for the story is finished."

Nobody has said different. In fact the point has been raised sometimes for evidence that things that were planned but now won't be used in a story should be revealed as "behind the scenes" explanations. Which you have to admit happens.

These kinds of canonizations aren't quite like that... but it does show that increased knowledge beyond what was revealed while a story was active is possible. But should generally be kept closer to the active story than farther. We are admittedly farther out now than I would like, for things like the Mangai. But too far? I think that's debatable. I do think it's getting closer, and that undoubtedly is a major reason for the increase in anti-canonization. Eventually I think this view will overpower the other, and Greg will (probably to be realistic after some major mistakes ) eventually probably move in line with it. That's part of why I want to make sure (although this has been part of procedure since the Story Squad) that "don't add it" options are included, and why I've been criticizing that they aren't.

(And there's a danger here that the fear that it may tip the balance sooner rather than later may be part of why they haven't been in Boidoh's polls. If so, that should be corrected moving forward, and by making this a rule rather than just a guideline, for S&T, we can at least do our part in ensuring that, methinks, though not sure yet if admins support this; we'll see.)

"Also, I don't agree that canonizing trivia is in line with TLG's vision for the line"

They approved things like the Rahi contest that did this, and featured them in published books, and with things like Toa Krakua in, I think it was, a magazine. (Or comic?)

"Greg's presence here was allowed for many years because it kept fans engaged in the franchise. Full stop. If you think the executives at TLG saw it as any more than that"

I hope you are not missing this -- it's a point I've mentioned a few times here -- that allowing fan input to be part of expanding details of the canon can help keep fans engaged. (It can also help improve the canon, when done right.)

"In that case, you had nearly ten years of rampant fan canonization, and now it's my turn. I want it to stop."

That's completely fair. I can't blame you for that. But the thing is, other wants are still out there and seem still active enough to matter. Or at least Greg obviously deems them so (very debatable whether he's right though). When does the stop point come, and why?

I understand you wanting that to be now (or before now ). But if that too is a want... how to we objectively decide where the balance should be, when others don't want it to be now, just yet?

Voting is one way... hence my focus on that. But at the same time, the fact that those who don't like new details still can ignore them (the way I ignore entire stories I don't like, etc.) may mean that a "handicap" should be given toward the pro. IMO the anti will have to become a clear majority, more akin to a landslide, before Greg decides it is time. (And undoubtedly there will be those accusing him of being dragged to it kicking and screaming lol... which may actually be somewhat true XD. But it's something I think should happen eventually anyways.)

(Although "rampant" is probably way exaggerating. It was a few side details for the most part, compared to how much LEGO produced on its own. )

"No, because that still involves one hundred percent invalidating the feelings of an entire group of the fandom."

Well... sort of. But if this is so, then doesn't any establishing of any canon do this? You can find (I'm not just being hypothetical, I'm recalling specific cases in the past) examples of people not wanting any canon at all and wanting Bionicle to be like most past LEGO lines. I don't think canon needs to be seen as stepping on the toes of those who want to imagine things differently. All that is needed for that is for people to take to heart the fact that they can imagine their own version freely, regardless of what is decided as canon.

I think this seems to stem from an overestimation of just what canon is.

I see canon as one possible version, the one intended to be as self-contistent as possible and around which all other inspiration grows off of like a crystal or a plant with branches. Having the story producers pick one version as canon does NOT have to be a repudiation of alternatives; it can be simply in the interests of having one coherent option that a community can, if they so choose, enjoy talking about together. Even from LEGO itself, this isn't the only possible version; they themselves produced alternate versions, like Bionicle Heroes or VNOG (both in 2006 for some reason lol), although in some cases it was probably more due to miscommunication (like which moon crashed into Makuta).

So while alternatives are "invalidated" for that particular version, this isn't all that important, as it's completely optional whether you even stick to that version at all. And it should be understood that operating in gaps is still making our own versions from the get-go, even if it can feel more like being canonical, as if the canon universe was real, there would be details for all those things in existence, and that chances of them matching our versions are slim.

Whether we learn them or not should have more to do with the balance of where the storytelling line is drawn (so Mangai important from connection to three major characters and six even more important ones by time and location and such, plus one important enough to be named), rather than invalidating gappist alternatives or not. (Although I do think that should be a concern too, hence my support of some things remaining unestablished.)

"You had your fun, it was irritating and unfortunate"

What you have to understand is, closing off the canon can, to those with different tastes from yours, also be irritating (if noticeable gaps are found like the Toa Mangai), and the original canonizations, to people with tastes to like them, are not irritating or unfortunate. And if they are, then the same should apply to things made by LEGO employees too (although hopefully to a lesser extent).

But again, I do agree with where you're going with this... just not so sure on the timing.

"What you're saying is that our appreciation of the canon is less important than yours"

Please do not put words in my mouth. I said no such thing. I did say (and for good reason) that those who dislike something chosen for canon can ignore it, and that it's inevitable somebody will have the tastes to dislike anything added to a canon, so we cannot universally avoid displeasing somebody in a canon. Right? However, that doesn't justify ignoring ANY dislike willy-nilly either.

"we should just "ignore it"."

When talking about things that do pass the test of story consistency, etc. and are just about personal taste. But "just" is probably not a fair way to put it (if I did use that wording, I must apologize... I hope I didn't, as that seems dismissive). I think dislikers should also let their voice be heard (in a manner respectful of those who have different tastes from them), and if they happen to be a majority, probably make arguments about how their view should be incorporated (and to an extent minority views too). Among other things.

My main point was that universal anti-canonization based on that taste would be problematic for ignoring others' tastes, but it sounds like you do agree with this and you're just saying that the others had their/our time and it's time for yours, which is reasonable, but may be jumping the gun a bit IMO.

"I mean, full disclosure, I enjoy having more knowledge than others too, it's a neat feeling, let's be honest. But I'm also pro-sharing everything I'm allowed to share because an informed fanbase is a happier fanbase (most of the time, lol). All of this extra canonization stuff just feels like adding more hurdles for new or less-engaged fans to jump over in an effort to be "as informed" as we are."

I agree with all of that, but again, I feel it would be bad timing and send the wrong signal to be closing Gen1 canon right now, when new Gen2 fans are going to be coming in and wondering if it's worth investing in this new canon. They can look to Gen1 and see that LEGO still cares about refining where it lapsed. It does make the total of Gen1 harder to get (that's simple math!) but then Gen1 also doesn't have to worry about selling its own sets. To Gen2 fans it's entirely optional! (Something I believe should have been done for the return whether it was a reboot of this type of a distant-future 'reboot' or soft reboot. It especially works this way though!)

Parugi:

"You can tell people to "ignore [the aspects they don't like]" all you want, but that does not work when you have the same people pushing for all of these canonizations simultaneously correcting other fans' interpretations as if they are wrong."

I have answered this already above. Suffice to say, that is a bad side effect, yes. We all agree on that. However, it looks like throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and it's been a problem from having any canon at all since at least 2003 (when I joined and started seeing it, and from earlier than that according to others who were here before me). And if the alternative means a quieter but larger problem of just plain boredom driving people to leave, then the pro of keeping things engaging may outweigh this con.

Remember that everything has both pros and cons. Simply pointing to the presence of a con doesn't prove that avoiding that is the right away, as that could produce bigger cons. Responsible choices are about weighing all these things and trying to pick the one with the most/biggest pros overall.

(This is frankly something you will tend to see ignored in discussions offsite, since that keeps being brought up as if what you see offsite somehow automatically equates to better. This is directed a bit at DV's last point in the previous post too. That is a huge assumption to be making, and part of the goals for this forum is to hold constructive criticism to a higher standard. It may seem more attractive to prefer places where that isn't done, but that is risky as it can allow bad ideas to become popular and when major downsides to them are being ignored or not taken seriously it can have detrimental effects if implemented... plus when LEGO does see through it and doesn't buy into it, it can make more fans needlessly displeased beyond just what their natural tastes would cause, causing unecessary strife.)

"And speaking as a role-player, writer, and MOCer, I can tell you that it happens a lot"

I have seen people ask about what's canon a lot, but I haven't seen a lot of "Ewe cant make Tahoo liek that!!1!" (Admittedly, when I run into it it's easier for me to discount it as I'm very familiar with the fanfic principle of intentional (or even unintentional) deviations being not just okay but explicitly encouraged by Greg. But then the people learning about these extra factoids from Greg are likely to hear about that too, especially if it's from S&T where we point this out often!)

But here's something else you seem to be forgetting -- not a lot of other LEGO lines have so much fan production to begin with. At least there are a ton of MOCs for those confused fans to complain aren't canon! There are many past LEGO lines without extra canon details and no fan input (by virtue of having basically nothing to have input about), with way more room for imagination on paper, but far, far less fan activity.

Also, since this is being brought up seemingly less for an anti-canon purpose but an anti fan-input canonization, how often really is this done specifically for the "trivia" that happened to come from fans working with Greg verrsus Greg alone or the story team, etc.? (And does any amount of it prove that canonization should stop, now? If so, why?)

(I do think a lot of fan activity for such past LEGO lines happened "invisibly" for the most part, just roleplaying at home, and prior to the internet age really taking off etc. But the main point is that having a canon to unite around in the positive ways does help foster a community of fans actively following each others' works for this line and delving deeply into it. And allowing, where reasonable, some fan input to actually improve that canon can encourage this all the more.)

"there is no logical way to conclude that adding in more details like the Mangai's masks and tools is going to make it happen any less"

I didn't say or suggest that it would. It might happen slightly more (although we could get into time estimations that might say the few who do this are just allocating less to old canon and more to new canon when they do it so it might add up to the same amount per unit time, roughly). My point was, there will be some people creating problems no matter what is done, so that doesn't necessarily prove that this particular problem means that this thing shouldn't be done. You'd have to fully consider the possible downsides of the alternative, like having a more dead fan imagination community from boredom.

Kit:

"Okay, but here's a huge problem with how you went about these polls:

- A thread was created with the intention to discuss the possibility of these canonizations, with hot topic level debate going on for both sides. Some want, some don't. A poll shouldn't have been made with this going on."

I somewhat agree with this. A little more time would be nice. On the other hand, don't lose sight of the fact that Greg authorized a poll. It makes sense to expect the person who was told this to go ahead and make it quickly. I think saying the poll shouldn't exist yet is a bit extreme -- I think the option for them to vote in it should have been included.

But, I can be persuaded differently and if good arguments are made, they can be added to the guidelines (maybe even rules) that S&T will be adopting. Just keep in mind that IF these canonizations are good (overall, and not just according to some preferences; I mean for the goals of LEGO for their canon), then too much forcing people to wait and wait could just make them not be motivated anymore to take the initiative, and the problematic gaps could just continue to sit there until all agree that the time to keep refining the canon has passed. That would be unfortunate.

This is mainly why I'm emphasizing that people shouldn't just post dislikes and make it emotionally strong -- if they really see a legitimate issue with it being adopted they should post the logic of that, and quickly, and not ignore counterpoints for days on end like I was seeing done this time. And preferably refrain from distracting tangents so we can focus on the issue itself and resolving it quickly.

I agree with a lot of the rest of your post -- just felt that should be clarified.

"As a side note: none of this is "world building" either. I'm so tired of seeing that word misused in such a manner. World building is when you design the world to, as DV said, further the narrative"

Please do not lose sight of the fact that LEGO's goals are also in large part to further inspiring fan participation. Furthering the narrative is important but it is not the only consideration.

This is a company that makes toys that can be taken apart and used to build something else. It makes sense for them also to build a world in such a way that this can be done in a story sense by fans too.

World building is building a world, plain and simple. It need not have this specific extra rule. That would be a type of worldbuilding. The type you evidently see as inherently superior, but it does not in this case seem to jive with the basic theme of LEGO. In fact past lines rarely even had a narrative -- it was ALL for inspiring fan participationg! (Well, that and the collectors of sets as designed; people who just enjoy the building by instructions process, but the point is that My Own Creations are an inherent part of the LEGO vision. We must not lose sight of the fact that they sought to apply this to story too, with Bionicle.)

It seems to me that on some level, DV does recognize this, as he is incorporating it when he talks about leaving more gaps allegedly inspiring more, and he and others talking about the problem of some fans going around criticizing MOCs for not fitting the canon. The disagreement really seems to be about how to apply it, not whether it's part of the goals behind the worldbuilding.

Another problem with this is that it seems to be a timing-based argument. If the exact same details had been featured in 2004, would it then be worldbuilding by your definition? Especially if (like Toa Krakua) they might eventually be featured in future story? Pardon if I'm misunderstanding -- call it asking for clarification. This actually could be somewhat reasonable, but then I'm seeing a good reason why they waited until now, due to its set-based nature. That doesn't apply to some other stories that would put these details earlier rather than later or not at all. I think it gives enough reason to apply this specific example (but not necessarily others) retroactively, among others possible too.

"Making up a face for a character in the background is hardly world building. It's a joke to call that "world building." Canonizing random rahi and random creations and random powers for random masks that serve no purpose in the overall narrative is not "world building.""

It adds to the canon in a way that encourages fan usage of these powers in their imagination, and can also, if they don't like it, fuel their desire to come up with something different. Whether you want to call that part of the "world" or use some other label is semantics, but normally it would be. Whatever you call it, the fact remains that LEGO wanted to inspire fan usage of established details like this, so to some extent, and in some time period, it's good to continue that. (Until it stops being good, and except in cases where it isn't... each case needs considered carefully.)

"useless trivia"

Not to beat a potentially dead horse, but it's not useless, as it could inspire fanfics about these characters, fan art, etc.

"It's making a story, a world, more complicated than it ever needed to be. It's barring fans from understanding the world as a whole"

I understand that you mean the latter in context of the former... but it may need said that filling in a gap in knowledge actually does make possible understanding the world more. It makes the total work harder to know all of it, yes. But it isn't actually barring understanding. It's just giving more to understand!

"it creates a divide where some fans believe they are "truer""

Haven't seen this one brought up in a while. This is like the "you cant make Pohatu skinnee!" issue. It's wrong, but it's also arguably bathwater... And it's quite possible for people who want less canon to make the same mistake.

"BZPower does not deserve to canonize whatever it wants."

A few things.

1) It's true that it's unfortunate that every fan does not participate in such things, but that would be unrealistic. Anybody who wants to can simply join and participate (including in anti-canonization poll options, if I have my way). While some who misbehave here may get banned and that could be unfortunate, a strong argument can be made that LEGO wouldn't want people who behave that way influencing the canon. :shrugs: That said, I understand that some just don't want to minimize loyalty to competing sites by giving us activity. But if fan input is to help improve oversights in the canon, it has to happen somewhere. Here probably makes the most sense right now because among other reasons, we have a large amount of active 'story geeks' who can help spot problems with proposals.

2) We can't canonize "whatever we want". Ultimately the authors (Greg, etc.) of any story decide what is canon.

3) These canonizations are no longer going solely through BZP anyways. They are happening on the LEGO website, and anybody who wants to bring up issues to Greg can do so there, even without setting proverbial foot here.

4) This also goes both ways -- while some with tastes against a selection aren't present, some with tastes for it aren't either. Without a scientific poll of the entire fanbase, which LEGO doesn't really have funds to do, we can't really know either way which way they would go. Since most canon gets added without any fan input at all, I think this is a reasonable compromise (though since I'm in charge of S&T I'm no doubt vulnerable to the risk of bias on this.. though that goes both ways too. Putting it somewhere else would greatly lessen my workload!).

5) To expand on the above, don't assume that seeing a lot of negatives offsite necessarily means that's more representative of the majority of the fanbase as a whole. The perception is that wider fanbases are usually more accepting than rejecting, but also usually quieter, especially on sites where they perceive their voices will be drowned out by a vocal and intensely negative minority. Avoiding the risk of that for BZP is a big part of why our rules are what they are, and probably a huge part of why LEGO trust us more than most to host polls and discussions on this. But if they stop using us, they could still use the LMB itself, and probably would, in some way, for a while. Either way those who want a voice need to join whereever it's going on, and make their voice heard.

Parugi again:

"bonesiii keeps on saying that people can stick to their headcanons, and that's all well and good, but the same exact thing can be told to many of the people wanting to canonize little details like the Mangai's masks and tools."

But since the same thing could be said to people wanting LEGO-only produced content, I don't think this works. There's still the matter of having the established canon be consistent in what is decided and what isn't, and fan input can spot oversights that LEGO missed. And it's still not exactly the same because having relevant canon details like filling out a major team gives a sense of a shared experience among those who like to learn canon factoids (which while more common online than elsewhere, is in my experience pretty normal to the kids, and Greg has mentioned this perception too from his random talks with fans in other settings). The same can't be said in reverse on this.

"All things considered, it's fairer to the fanbase as a whole to keep those details unspecified"

Some of them, yes, but how do we draw the line? The most obvious way to draw it is the vision of the author; he knows his intent for what gets established the best of anybody.

"at least then no one can lord their interpretation over anyone else"

Oh let's not go that far. People can, and do, use one headcanon to attack other fans' versions. It's rare too, though, probably rarer, but then when you're comparing it to LEGO lines that have few people bothering to even have interpretations anyways, I think it becomes oversimplistic to focus solely on this, as if reducing this (either way) proves you'd done the best thing.

Archon:

"See that's the thing with you imaginative types: you have a gnarly enough of an imagination for headcanons. I honestly envy you, because as a person who can't come up with good headcanons unless discussed throughoutly with other members, I don't really have anything to headcanon, thus leading me to seek for a canon explaination to facts."

Interesting point. I don't think we can make something clearly mathematical out of this, though. It's worth remembering that however rare "imaginative types" may be, LEGO does intend to encourage them. So if it could be shown that (at a certain point or whatever) canonization was actually legitimately causing more harm than good, I think it would still work. My issue with that line of reasoning is it just seems like a serious stretch that the con of that outweighs the pros, at this point, of some continued canonization for now. It seems more like grasping at straws to find a negative to make the argument more than just taste-based. At least it's something though. :shrugs:

"I can't personally guarantee to punish those people in anyway since I don't have thoe privelagea"

Don't forget that everyone can remind people who do that, that the guy in charge of the canon they're abusing to beat people over the heads with disagrees with their behavior, and encourages alternate visions.

Parugi:

"if this hypothetical artist is taking the time and energy to create fanart of, say, the Toa Mangai of Earth, they've likely already come up with their own ideas of what the character looks like, how they act, and what mask and weapons they have."

I dunno... I'm going back and forth on this (the likely part). I've heard of some, but I would expect more of it now that these details are being established. I think there's going to be some, but my main point is that this in turn is largely fostered by there already being so much canon having been established. Throwing one giant gap at us instead of a story and a constructed world is not likely to be so inspiring. Whether this one fulfills that is more debatable, and I do expect actually the biggest fear among artists on this one may actually be in reverse -- that anti-canonization people may start attacking them for seeming to support the canon version. But who knows, maybe some artists will react against the winning poll choices and make alternate versions more now than they would have?

We'll see.

"But yeah, I can see some people preferring more specifics--it's a bit of a gray area, admittedly. Which brings me to a point I wanted to make in my last post--if these kinds of things are going to be added, they at least need to be added and approached responsibly, and not railroaded into the blank spaces. Hopefully the guidelines for future polls helps out with that."

Right on.

"it's still infringing somewhat on the fanbase's ability to develop their own beliefs if it happens to contradict canon--if I were a new or younger BIONICLE fan, personally, I know I wouldn't feel as comfortable as I do ignoring certain aspects of what is now considered canon, like the Toa Cordak's name, for instance."

That's fair. Then again, I have known kids who wouldn't have ever imagined there would be any disagreement with changing anything at will and enjoying doing it. It depends on the kid, really.

"I can definitely understand the struggle with coming up with headcanon stuff--I have that problem with other stories that I'm invested in, though BIONICLE... not so much. X3 That does raise a question from me to you, however, as well as to anyone else with a similar take to that--isn't the fact that a lot of this stuff is ambiguous, and thus encourages discussion about it, preferable to having an absolute answer that cannot be disputed?"

I have long thought it's the other way around. In my Paracosmos for example in which I intentionally change a lot, I always find it's best to understand the Core Dimension version (the "canon") in order to help decide what to change.

But you can go either way with it. I think it depends on the person, on their tastes, on their experiences, whether they've heard of headcanoning or flip that the other way and whether they've heard of canon-fit, etc. Also depends on what kind of fanfic or roleplaying, etc. that you are aiming for.

Wally:

"'That's all fair, but doesn't knowing the powers available to the Toa Mangai team help understand the 2004 story year?'

...how?"

First, note that being able to ask how is not the same as disproving the possibility. Anyways, because Lhikan and Nidhiki were prominent characters in it, and the Toa Mangai backstory was built off of 2004. It feeds into the why and so forth that things became that way in 2004. Understanding what life would have been like on the island just prior to that for the Matoran seeing those Toa in action helps understand them as people. Even if admittedly in a very minimal way (but a lot of other things already established are also minimal, esp. more distant past events like the Matoran Civil War, and were established). It can help us envision the team dynamics in battle, too, for the Toa Mangai, with the Kanohi Dragon and other possible incidents later. I'm guessing you don't personally care about these things, and that's okay, but others do, and it's still true that they do add to our understanding, even if in small ways.

It's similar to Radagast the Brown. We could also ask "how?" to him helping to understand Tolkien's universe. But he felt that it did help and that's why he included it.

"The character didn't even exist. His existence had absolutely no impact whatsoever on any story year, but especially not 2004."

Then everything DV admitted to about the relevance of backstory and history goes out the window. That would be contradictory... I say 2004 because it's the one it's most relevant to, since Lhikan and Nidhiki were in it, and it was the move from the Toa Metru being forced (in large part due to the deaths of this team) to go from Matoran enjoying these particular characters' protection to having to step up to replace them.

It's certainly true this is more trivial than other things, but it does impact it and using hyperbole to claim it doesn't at all is not fair. A good argument, if that's what you're aiming for, should not have to resort to inaccuracies to defend it...

Kit:

"but it's completely fair to those earlier artists to tell them that a bunch of fans on BZPower said no to their interpretation"

This should also apply to LEGO saying no to other interpretations of the Morbuzahk or for that matter the mask on Tahu's face.

As Greg has long pointed out, if you do fan versions of a work that is somebody else's vision, handling the fact that you may want a version that differs from theirs comes with the territory. This applies whether the idea was suggested by fans or not -- and polled fan suggestions have more input than author-only additions, so more artists get a say in that too, for example!

"and ran to Greg with their own to get their own, personal, version canonized so now people can lord over their art and point out the story inaccuracies, or say "well I like your art but the person who begged Greg did a much better, accurate representation of these characters.""

Again, while the risk of that is possible, it seems like a massive stretch to actually treat this as if this is really what is behind canonizations. It seems to me you're choosing to focus on the negative, regardless of how much positive there might be. Probably for good reason -- maybe you've run into this and not known at the time how to handle it, and that was a bad experience you wish hadn't been possible. I feel for ya there. But we can't always rearrange the entire world to avoid bad things happening to us, and in many cases shouldn't as there are other concerns in life for others, and maybe the world does need to be that way for other reasons.

To the last bit, actually I think people need to keep in mind that if we're to have a canon, it should be understood that a better version of just about everything is probably possible. I think the answer there is just to keep the canon in perspective and not make it out to be the holy grail or anything, but simply one option, that happens to be the one LEGO produces. In fact IMO it's good for the canon (within reason) to not use the highest quality art, for example, so some feel encouraged to make even better versions. (Coolifying as I put it, heh.)

Although that could be abused too, to justify intentionally low quality, so it's not that simple either.

Incidentally, the same sort of thing can apply to fan works, although I think this is rare too. I've seen some comparative 'hating' on younger kids' creative works because they aren't up to par with popular, well known versions by more advanced fans. (Or harsher criticisms to be more fair.) I look at the canon as basically LEGO's own fan work, fans in a sense of the basic concept they did imagine. Nobody should be beating others over the head for having a different version, whether it's canon or not. But this problem comes from human nature, and if we really tried to remove it at all, we wouldn't be allowing any production from imagination.

Mjol:

"To all of your "if you don't like this, ignore it"."

But that's in the context of subjective personal taste. Again, while it might count as "broken" for you personally, it doesn't for those with a different preference (to want Toa of Gravity, here). What counts as broken for Bionicle should be based on something like a clear majority preference, internal consistency, etc. To be fair, I'm not sure what the majority would come down on. We could have a poll about that if you're curious. I've seen a lot of people continuing to suggest it be added somehow to Gen2 (not sure I agree though). Even with a majority in hindsight, I think there's a serious problem with your apparent implication that it might be okay to just retcon the whole thing. Not sure you meant that though, but your wording did seem to imply it.

"Also, if this or that part of canon should be ignored in these or another circumstances, what is a purpose of canon at all?"

Well, a lot of reasons, some of them mentioned above. In this case, since you're talking about those not liking what is chosen, the short answer is to please those who have the tastes to enjoy what is decided, and in a way that provides a shared experience that is well distributed.

RL:

"people here seem to be under the impression the mangai's battle with the kanohi dragon in any way influenced the actual Bionicle story arc?"

I figured people would say this. But I've seen a fair amount of interest in it, and it is the event that brought Lhikan, Nidhiki, and Tuyet to Metru Nui. Lhikan and Nidhiki being major roles in 2004. The Kanohi Dragon is also a popular monster in Bionicle, and it was a major attempt (and the first) by the DH to attack Metru Nui, which continued into the 2004 story, Time Trap, etc. Defeating it put the Toa Mangai squarely in the center of that conflict, and it was also the reason that team was there to need offing by Makuta for his goals to work, but Lhikan stayed around long enough to make it into a major role, and in fact one of the most prominent onscreen deaths.

These other members' role in all that is clearly background, but it is an influence. Small influence is more than zero...

fishers:

"3)Also keep in mind that the anti-canonization movement has 20 votes in its favor in a poll, and all of them can like a post. So any number less than 20 wouldn't really matter statistically."

I wouldn't go that far. It can speak to weight of importance in their minds versus just number of proponents. Which does matter. How much so... well, that's what we're discussing so yeah.

Rahkshi Lalonde · December 9, 2014

RL:

"people here seem to be under the impression the mangai's battle with the kanohi dragon in any way influenced the actual Bionicle story arc?"

I figured people would say this. But I've seen a fair amount of interest in it, and it is the event that brought Lhikan, Nidhiki, and Tuyet to Metru Nui. Lhikan and Nidhiki being major roles in 2004. The Kanohi Dragon is also a popular monster in Bionicle, and it was a major attempt (and the first) by the DH to attack Metru Nui, which continued into the 2004 story, Time Trap, etc. Defeating it put the Toa Mangai squarely in the center of that conflict, and it was also the reason that team was there to need offing by Makuta for his goals to work, but Lhikan stayed around long enough to make it into a major role, and in fact one of the most prominent onscreen deaths.

These other members' role in all that is clearly background, but it is an influence. Small influence is more than zero...

First things first. this post was so long, i had to skip to the part where you responded to me without reading anything else.

anyway, funny thing, because i figured you would say this too! by "this", i of course mean arbitrarily associating being in the vicinity of toa lhikan with actually being worth describing in detail. :t

What's up w/ the rampant canonization?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment