THEORY: Plausible connection between Bionicle G1 and G2!

[IcarusBen]

I would love to see an Abramsverse-styled connection. It could connect the two stories and yet still tell it's own.

[justin_verceles]

Illuminati confirmed.

[bonesiii]

inb4 you get a Key To Nongu award for this theory

Darnit you stole my thunder...

 

And since I don't feel like actually digging it up... consider yourself rewarded.

[The Hip Historian Iaredios]

 

inb4 you get a Key To Nongu award for this theory

Darnit you stole my thunder...

 

And since I don't feel like actually digging it up... consider yourself rewarded.

 

 

Ohz Noez, it will take so long to find it! I wish there was some sort of a search engine device that existed...

 

No wait...

 

 

Seriously? Google Images can be thine friend Bonesiii! Just got to give it a chance, man!

Edited February 18, 2015 by Iaredios

[TommyG]

 

 

inb4 you get a Key To Nongu award for this theory

Darnit you stole my thunder...

 

And since I don't feel like actually digging it up... consider yourself rewarded.

 

 

Ohz Noez, it will take so long to find it! I wish there was some sort of a search engine device that existed...

 

No wait...

 

 

Seriously? Google Images can be thine friend Bonesiii! Just got to give it a chance, man!

 

This key talk is reminding me of Crash Team Racing/Nitro Kart.

 

Anyways, I imagine if hypothetically, there was some sort of connection, if they simply established them as separate universes nd be done with it, that would neither give fans the 10 year history mandate nor give S&T people a headache. Everybody wins!

[The Hip Historian Iaredios]

Doesn't work like that: Lego quite enjoys being vague as it gives them a sense of authority.

 

 

...

 

 

...

 

 

 

Edited February 18, 2015 by Iaredios

[fishers64]

Ye idiots forgot to include the disclaimer :
 

 

 
Disclaimer: The Gold Key to Nongu Award does not certify theory accuracy. The sponsor of the Gold Key to Nongu Award does not neccessarily endorse and/or oppose said theory. The sponsor of the Gold Key to Nongu Award remains ignorant of the exact meaning of the word "Nongu." The originator of the term "Nongu" may or may not be insane. Not available in some domes, void where prohibited.

 

There. Yeesh.

 

I think that somewhere, a Lego Group employee is reading this thread and laughing.

 

As for headaches, both are causes of headaches, actually. There's the "these things are both Bionicle but completely disconnected and unrelated, whyyyy?" headache, and then there is the "I don't understand how this complicated connection works, ow" headache. Both require a long and convoluted explanation to disentangle.

 

The first involves explaining that there are two Bionicle stories now, despite the fact that everything in Gen 1 Bionicle was connected - this part isn't. It's a reboot, and such is completely different. It involves explaining business principles of not confusing new fans with old story, that despite all of the shared elements, it's not connected and never will be.

 

One of those illogical universal negatives, BTW.

 

The second, would involve some complicated connection, which is a lot like explaining G1 Bionicle. "First we started with Mata Nui, then this, then this..." Not only does it invite all of the complexity of the old story back into the new story, but the connection could be something even more convoluted and hard to explain.

 

Really, an easy solution to all of this: choose a connection, and make it simple. A lot of people here assume as a matter of principle that any connection with Gen 1 must be complicated, and that it must invite the old story in. No, it need not be.

 

And really, if you look at Gen 1 from the right angle, it's not really that complicated either. Where it was complicated was the unsolved mystery, the unsolved plot all pointing to one event and one thing. If you've ever written a story with a mystery in it, you'll know that the mystery controls what happens, and the solution to the mystery is really simple. Everything branching off of it can get complicated, because the potential for unknowns to affect a lot of things is huge.

 

Okoto has its share of unknowns and unanswered questions, but at the bottom of it is something very simple. And that simplicity is what will anchor to G1. A simple solution. On that even five-year-olds will get.

 

And that's how you end the headaches.  

[believe victims]

As for headaches, both are causes of headaches, actually. There's the "these things are both Bionicle but completely disconnected and unrelated, whyyyy?" headache, and then there is the "I don't understand how this complicated connection works, ow" headache. Both require a long and convoluted explanation to disentangle.

 

"It's a reboot" vs. "It's because spherus magna civilization rose up but then velika and gaardus and helryx all got together and created a new Makuta and the Toa all had to be reverted by the Mask of Life and sent into the future where Matoragori called Protectors must deal with the consequences of the past after Makuta and Artahka (Ekimu) are plunged into an endless slumber"

 

yes I am totally seeing equally long and convoluted explanations here

 

edit: ok you know what I have something non-sarcastic to say: this is a fallacy known as false equivalence. You present two things as being equal to each other (here, the explanation required for the two different theories) when they aren't. (Kinda self explanatory, actually.) The fact of the matter is that the theories proposing a connection between the two lines I've seen are always longer than "It's a reboot", even if you append the definition of "reboot" to the end. Before priding yourself on calling out others' "illogic", make sure you aren't falling for those pitfalls yourself.

Edited February 25, 2015 by Dina Saruyama

[fishers64]

 

As for headaches, both are causes of headaches, actually. There's the "these things are both Bionicle but completely disconnected and unrelated, whyyyy?" headache, and then there is the "I don't understand how this complicated connection works, ow" headache. Both require a long and convoluted explanation to disentangle.

 

"It's a reboot" vs. "It's because spherus magna civilization rose up but then velika and gaardus and helryx all got together and created a new Makuta and the Toa all had to be reverted by the Mask of Life and sent into the future where Matoragori called Protectors must deal with the consequences of the past after Makuta and Artahka (Ekimu) are plunged into an endless slumber"

 

yes I am totally seeing equally long and convoluted explanations here

 

"It's a continuation" vs. "This story is completely unrelated to the other story because Lego is a toy company selling toys and didn't want new fans to have to learn ten years of backstory in order to buy their toys and because they've given up on story for their action figures and while there might be nods to the old story every once in awhile for the old fans there will never be a true connection never ever because that would be an awful business decision and require a huge convoluted explanation."

 

Further, a continuation is the default storyline behavior and doesn't have to be explained, whereas a reboot always requires an explanation. 

 

[believe victims]

"It's a continuation" vs. "This story is completely unrelated to the other story because Lego is a toy company selling toys and didn't want new fans to have to learn ten years of backstory in order to buy their toys and because they've given up on story for their action figures and while there might be nods to the old story every once in awhile for the old fans there will never be a true connection never ever because that would be an awful business decision and require a huge convoluted explanation."

 

With the story that we know now, could you get away with just saying "it's a continuation" without further explanation? It's so radically different compared to what we left off from that saying "it's a continuation" does not satisfy all questions. Meanwhile, "it's a reboot", maybe just with a simple definition of reboot, is pretty much all that should be required to convey the idea of a reboot. Again, false equivalence. You keep trying to draw parallels that aren't there.

 

Also your "plausible reboot explanation" is unnecessarily long and repetitive, and not anything I've seen anyone say all at once to explain (much of what you said is completely unnecessary to understanding what a reboot is, and people don't need to know the reasons why a reboot occurred to understand that it did); my continuation explanation could be any connection theory on this forum.

 

Further, a continuation is the default storyline behavior and doesn't have to be explained, whereas a reboot always requires an explanation. 

 

That operates on the assumption that a toy-based storyline that's been dead for five years would ever continue. And, again, you leave out the context of the story itself, which is already so radically different from where the story left off that it requires explanation.

Edited February 25, 2015 by Dina Saruyama

[Votuko]

"It's a reboot" vs. "It's because spherus magna civilization rose up but then velika and gaardus and helryx all got together and created a new Makuta and the Toa all had to be reverted by the Mask of Life and sent into the future where Matoragori called Protectors must deal with the consequences of the past after Makuta and Artahka (Ekimu) are plunged into an endless slumber"

"It's a continuation" vs. "This story is completely unrelated to the other story because Lego is a toy company selling toys and didn't want new fans to have to learn ten years of backstory in order to buy their toys and because they've given up on story for their action figures and while there might be nods to the old story every once in awhile for the old fans there will never be a true connection never ever because that would be an awful business decision and require a huge convoluted explanation."

This is why the length of time it takes to explain an idea is not a good indicator of its validity. Words are so easy to manipulate that they make terrible evidence.

 

I think it's only fair that if one side (continuation vs. not continuation) requires extra explanation, the other should too. After all, neither side can be considered the default position in a discussion over what the default position is; therefore neither side can be singled out as the one "making the claim" and then required to produce all the evidence themselves.

Edited February 25, 2015 by Xelphene

[Millennium]

The Toa are actually heroes from Hero Factory.

[fishers64]

With the story that we know now, could you get away with just saying "it's a continuation" without further explanation?

Yes, I could, actually. It's a continuation.

 

As for how it's connected, it's a mystery. Like the rest of Bionicle is a mystery. Why is this suddenly different? Dropping us into islands with no explanation is typical Bionicle lol. That would be so obvious to the casual observer from four years ago.

 

Why does everyone expect Bionicle to be like Hero Factory all of a sudden? Geez.

 

It's so radically different compared to what we left off from that saying "it's a continuation" does not satisfy all questions.

Yarr, but those questions need not be satisfied right away. That's the fun of theorizing.

 

Why do you assume that the new Bionicle story has no depth to it and is just like HF, which opened questions and gave no answers, let alone satisfying ones? That is a foolish assumption to make at this point.

 

Meanwhile, "it's a reboot", maybe just with a simple definition of reboot, is pretty much all that should be required to convey the idea of a reboot. Again, false equivalence. You keep trying to draw parallels that aren't there.

Anyone can write up a convoluted explanation, walk into somewhere, post it, and claim that no simpler explanation will do. Then they can systematically reject all of the simpler explanations given because it doesn't line up with their tastes in explanations.

 

"it's a continuation" and "it's a mystery" are intuitive assumptions based on previous Bionicle. Why do you think there are so many connection theories in yonder forum? Lots of people understand that without me even having to say it. Whereas this theory requires an explanation having to do with business logic.

 

It's the "stack of two different things with the same name" headache, having to keep track of two Tahus, two Kopakas, two mysterious islands, and two Bionicles.

 

my continuation explanation could be any connection theory on this forum.

No, most of them are more plausible than that.

[believe victims]

Why do you think there are so many connection theories in yonder forum?

 

Because people are desperate for a finished story to continue for some bizarre reason? I coulda told you that before we knew for a fact it was a reboot (because the story team said it was a reboot, remember!)

 

 

Why do you assume that the new Bionicle story has no depth to it and is just like HF, which opened questions and gave no answers, let alone satisfying ones? That is a foolish assumption to make at this point.

 

As is usual for this forum, you confuse needless complexity for depth. How is it any "deeper" to have the mystery be "IT WAS THE SAME UNIVERSE THE WHOLE TIME" than this new story having its own mysteries? How is it better to drop ten years load of stories on it instead of having a standalone story?

 

 

Whereas this theory requires an explanation having to do with business logic.

 

No it doesn't. All you need to do is say "It's a reboot with several ideas borrowed from the previous incarnation" and there, the entire thing is explained! One sentence. Nothing needs to be explained away as "TO BE REVEALED LATER ON' or even with business because as I JUST SAID you don't need to know WHY a reboot happened to know it's a reboot. You're conflating a reboot's "why" with a continuation's "how" when the former is unnecessary for understanding, while the latter is critical for it.

 

I'd type more but I've gotta go but baseline is it's a false equivalence. A reboot is by nature less complex and requiring less explanation than a continuation. THAT'S THE POINT OF A REBOOT.

[Rahkshi Lalonde]

It's the "stack of two different things with the same name" headache, having to keep track of two Tahus, two Kopakas, two mysterious islands, and two Bionicles.

 

you don't have to keep track of two bionicles though, one of them is just started, and therefore easy to keep track of. and the other is currently six feet under, and probably turning in its grave.

[fishers64]

 

Why do you think there are so many connection theories in yonder forum?

 

Because people are desperate for a finished story to continue for some bizarre reason? I coulda told you that before we knew for a fact it was a reboot (because the story team said it was a reboot, remember!)

 

Bizarre reason? How is "I have personal taste to want it as a continuation because it makes intuitive sense and theorize on it as a mystery because Bionicle has been about mystery." bizarre? (There could be other reasons, I guess, but that's the one that makes the most sense to me.)

 

Anyway, I'm being driven off my original point again. I'd say it's pretty likely that the Story Team is going to go the headache-inducing reboot route, we are going to have to explain to everyone who builds continuation theories over and over:

 

It's a reboot!

And there's no connection!

It's a reboot!

Cause the story team said!

It's a reeeeboot!

It's a reeeeboot!

 

Whereas if they just, you know, connected it, we would get to stop repeating ourselves until we are blue in the face.  

 

As is usual for this forum, you confuse needless complexity for depth.

Needless complexity = loads of characters that never appear in the story and are a waste of space + stories made to feature obscure characters for no reason.

 

Depth = having a halfway decent mystery and solving it.

 

How is it any "deeper" to have the mystery be "IT WAS THE SAME UNIVERSE THE WHOLE TIME" than this new story having its own mysteries? How is it better to drop ten years load of stories on it instead of having a standalone story?

I never said it had to be that way. Also, the story already has its own mysteries, regardless of what it is. And a connection can be made without dropping ten years of story on it. It is possible. You just won't own up to it because "IT'S A REEEEBOOOOT! The story team said, so it's always true!" How many times has Greg retconned stuff?

 

A reboot is by nature less complex and requiring less explanation than a continuation. THAT'S THE POINT OF A REBOOT.

The point of a reboot is to be able to explore possibilities that contradict existing canon. I see plenty of that in here, like Lewa's jungle powers and Pohatu's sandnados, for instance.

[Lyichir]

Wow... this has kind of spiraled out of control without me and it's going to be hard to jump into the middle of this. But I'll give it my best shot.

 

 

How is it any "deeper" to have the mystery be "IT WAS THE SAME UNIVERSE THE WHOLE TIME" than this new story having its own mysteries? How is it better to drop ten years load of stories on it instead of having a standalone story?

I never said it had to be that way. Also, the story already has its own mysteries, regardless of what it is. And a connection can be made without dropping ten years of story on it. It is possible. You just won't own up to it because "IT'S A REEEEBOOOOT! The story team said, so it's always true!" How many times has Greg retconned stuff?

 

Ah, the "argumentum ad Greg". I see this trotted out every time someone wants to insist that we can't trust ANYTHING said by a representative of Greg, just because Greg withheld information or contradicted himself that one time.

 

It's generally a ridiculous argument because if you can discredit any story information on the premise of deception, then you can wish away any facts you like in order to assert any ridiculous theory you please.

 

 

A reboot is by nature less complex and requiring less explanation than a continuation. THAT'S THE POINT OF A REBOOT.

The point of a reboot is to be able to explore possibilities that contradict existing canon. I see plenty of that in here, like Lewa's jungle powers and Pohatu's sandnados, for instance.

 

No, you've got it all wrong. A reboot doesn't exist to "explore possibilities". That's the point of an Alternate Universe or "Elseworlds"-type story. A reboot exists for the sole purpose of discarding the entire original canon and starting fresh. A reboot reduces a story to its core elements and uses those as a starting point for a new story. It doesn't matter how much it contradicts the original story versus following it to the letter, because the point of a reboot is that the original canon no longer matters.

[Votuko]

The point of a reboot is to be able to explore possibilities that contradict existing canon. I see plenty of that in here, like Lewa's jungle powers and Pohatu's sandnados, for instance.

I agree with what you say about reboots not being constrained by previous canon, but in this case I don't see any contradictions yet.

 

Pohatu's sandstorms are a functions of his Stormarangs rather than a forbidden elemental ability. As yet I haven't seen Lewa actually control "jungle" (unless he conjures some vines in the "leaked" animations, which I didn't watch); he has only been shown with green energy around his axes. Maybe "Jungle" really is just a new name for "Air", which would make sense seeing as the change was only implemented after their focus tests suggested kids would understand Jungle better...

 

Anyway, enough of my rambling. Personally, I think that the new team are being (and will be) purposefully vague about the story, while making "timeless" references/hints, so that you can decide for yourself whether you want to think of it as a continuation or not.

Edited February 25, 2015 by Xelphene

[Millennium]

Hey, I'm missing the sarcasm here. You've all become so serious :c

 

To be really honest, and hoping I don't become too OT, I at first hoped that Bionicle would not come back. I'm planning a novel where I reimagine the whole G1 universe, while still staying true to the basics. I was worried because this return could prove problematic (?) for the appreciation of the ideas I have in mind (yeah I know it doesn't make too much sense, just trying to type what I felt). Not to mention that the original story with all its sub-plots and unclear or hard-to-believe elements (gravity-defying planet-sized-giant robots, an island rocketing out of one such giant robot and then plummeting back in (??!), overpowered inviduals among masses of hopeless powerless ones, (even if that's something some may like, then again Mata Nui created the makuta with all those incredible powers and was expecting them to just stand to their rahi-making duties?)) that it would be nearly impossibile to continue, as Farshtey himself abandoned it as well. But since this G2 is not a continuation but a reboot I'm fine with that. Actually it gave me inspiration to take on the novel project again, since I was losing interest in it.

So, whatever. I like the reboot, not too fond of the vague story so far (also, no 'rahi'? no names for the villagers, just 'protectors'?), but there's still time for it to be become better.

Edited February 26, 2015 by Millennium

[fishers64]

Ah, the "argumentum ad Greg". I see this trotted out every time someone wants to insist that we can't trust ANYTHING said by a representative of Greg, just because Greg withheld information or contradicted himself that one time.

 

It's generally a ridiculous argument because if you can discredit any story information on the premise of deception, then you can wish away any facts you like in order to assert any ridiculous theory you please.

I agree with this premise in general. The problem is that there is room for reasonable doubt here. First off, Greg made it clear that he was telling us what the people in NYCC said: "It's a reboot."

 

Aside from that strange snafu with TTV, mind.

 

But in any case, I'm not disagreeing with the fact that it is a reboot. The possibility is 98% certain. Well, okay, maybe 70% if you want to buy TTV stock, but I'm not going for it. 98% odds of no connection at all.

 

My premise is this - a continuation is actually easier to understand, and a reboot is a more complex concept for the mind to grasp. It's well know that it's easier for the mind to grasp something if it is in chronological order. A story is a chronological entity - even when revealed in schizo chronology like Bionicle, because our minds automatically arrange things in chronological order when they aren't. That's how life works. 

 

A reboot is an achronological element - you've just given two stories - two chronologies - and called them by the same name. It's easier to understand a chronological pattern with its characters and perceptions and forks, no matter how complicated, then to put two sets of things under the same name. We use the terms "Gen1" and "Gen2" to service them because we cannot abide this categorical dualism for very long - we must assign them both names. Imagine an 8-year-old's confusion at stumbling across the Gen1 Tahu page when he was looking for Gen 2 Tahu. Won't he have more than his share of questions about what just happened?

 

Real life never reboots. And we never use Gen1 and Gen2 to distinguish between different types of spoons. A spoon is a spoon is a spoon. A story is a story is a story. And Bionicle is Bionicle is Bionicle - except when it isn't. It's non-intuitive. 

[believe victims]

Tell that to Transformers which reboots probably every three years and yet I guarantee very few people went into that first awful Bay schlock (or any of its terrible sequels) and expected it all to be tied to every previous Transformers continuity prior through mental gymnastics and complex theories. Reboots happen all the time in our current media. Heck, they just rebooted Richie Rich. You know, the smug bourgeoisie kid in old cartoons where the only joke is that he's richer than any of his viewers are likely to ever be? At this point, we are so surrounded by reboots of old dead franchises you simply cannot avoid the concept. And, even if we weren't, despite what you seem to believe, it is such a shockingly simple idea to grasp that maybe, just maybe, two stories in a franchise can be standalone entities without having to be tied together by desperate fans who will throw a fit if you ever dare not pander to them exactly how they want or, by God, they will throw their ice cream on the ground and pound their puny little fists into the ground until their crying stops being about their anger and starts being about their ragged lungs and raw fists and now they turn their tear-filled eyes to you and sob why oh why does it have to be a reboot? why would you think of the children? how could you do this to the most unpleasant, unpleasable fandom on Earth?

 

Your argument seems far more rooted in personal bias and pre-conceived notions than actual experiences with how people react to reboots. It's a far simpler idea than you seem to give it credit for.

Edited February 26, 2015 by Dina Saruyama

[Lyichir]

 

Ah, the "argumentum ad Greg". I see this trotted out every time someone wants to insist that we can't trust ANYTHING said by a representative of Greg, just because Greg withheld information or contradicted himself that one time.

 

It's generally a ridiculous argument because if you can discredit any story information on the premise of deception, then you can wish away any facts you like in order to assert any ridiculous theory you please.

I agree with this premise in general. The problem is that there is room for reasonable doubt here. First off, Greg made it clear that he was telling us what the people in NYCC said: "It's a reboot."

 

Aside from that strange snafu with TTV, mind.

 

But in any case, I'm not disagreeing with the fact that it is a reboot. The possibility is 98% certain. Well, okay, maybe 70% if you want to buy TTV stock, but I'm not going for it. 98% odds of no connection at all.

 

My premise is this - a continuation is actually easier to understand, and a reboot is a more complex concept for the mind to grasp. It's well know that it's easier for the mind to grasp something if it is in chronological order. A story is a chronological entity - even when revealed in schizo chronology like Bionicle, because our minds automatically arrange things in chronological order when they aren't. That's how life works. 

 

A reboot is an achronological element - you've just given two stories - two chronologies - and called them by the same name. It's easier to understand a chronological pattern with its characters and perceptions and forks, no matter how complicated, then to put two sets of things under the same name. We use the terms "Gen1" and "Gen2" to service them because we cannot abide this categorical dualism for very long - we must assign them both names. Imagine an 8-year-old's confusion at stumbling across the Gen1 Tahu page when he was looking for Gen 2 Tahu. Won't he have more than his share of questions about what just happened?

 

Real life never reboots. And we never use Gen1 and Gen2 to distinguish between different types of spoons. A spoon is a spoon is a spoon. A story is a story is a story. And Bionicle is Bionicle is Bionicle - except when it isn't. It's non-intuitive.

 

The thing is, a reboot is only more complex to understand for people on sites like BZPower—people who have been dealing with the convoluted nature of the Bionicle story for AGES, for whom one new tangle is hardly a deal-breaker.

 

For newcomers, there's a clear dividing line between what is important (new story information from the Bionicle website) and what isn't (years and years worth of convoluted story). And that was the whole point of the reboot—to be able to start fresh for their sakes, so that they don't have to worry about what came before. Your scenario with an eight-year-old seems pretty contrived—I certainly haven't seen any evidence of such confusion in any of the many circles I frequent (which includes Facebook groups frequented by children and parents). And if that does happen? That's the fault of sites that don't make the distinction clear. But I think kids are smarter than you give them credit for—they might not have the patience to read up on past story, but they do have the critical thinking skills required to be able to recognize false or irrelevant information and discard it.

[toa kopaka4372]

 

 

Because people are desperate for a finished story to continue for some bizarre reason? 

 

 

desperate fans who will throw a fit if you ever dare not pander to them exactly how they want or, by God, they will throw their ice cream on the ground and pound their puny little fists into the ground until their crying stops being about their anger and starts being about their ragged lungs and raw fists and now they turn their tear-filled eyes to you and sob why oh why does it have to be a reboot? why would you think of the children? how could you do this to the most unpleasant, unpleasable fandom on Earth?

You know, the discussion going on for the last couple of posts has been interesting to read. You know what would make it better? Avoiding exaggerated and possibly offensive characterizations of people who happen to have a different opinion regarding a certain something.

 

In fact, I think that would improve all future discussions on this forum as well.

[fishers64]

Personally I've been enjoying myself and think Dina Sararumya's characterizations are hilarious. Mostly because they are unrepresentative of the typical fan with this opinion to such an extreme extent that I'm pretty sure that was her intent.

 

But this wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong about something like that.  

[toa kopaka4372]

Personally I've been enjoying myself and think Dina Sararumya's characterizations are hilarious. Mostly because they are unrepresentative of the typical fan with this opinion to such an extreme extent that I'm pretty sure that was her intent.

 

But this wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong about something like that.

Maybe. You're probably right. I have, however, in genera frequently and consistently seen these type of descriptions, though much less exaggerated, of those type of fans. At this point, it just rubs me the wrong way.

Edited February 27, 2015 by toa kopaka4372

[fishers64]

 

Personally I've been enjoying myself and think Dina Sararumya's characterizations are hilarious. Mostly because they are unrepresentative of the typical fan with this opinion to such an extreme extent that I'm pretty sure that was her intent.

 

But this wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong about something like that.

Maybe. You're probably right. I have, however, in genera frequently and consistently seen these type of descriptions, though much less exaggerated, of those type of fans. At this point, it just rubs me the wrong way.

 

Yeah, there's no excuse for insults. At the same time, let me point out that blind enthusiasm without understanding the reality of the situation you're getting into is very bad. People who try to calm some of that down so sound logic can get in (which is probably more satisfying in the long run) aren't doing anyone a disservice. But doing extreme characterizations isn't the way to do it, nor is making fun of people. 

 

With that being said, I don't think anyone in this debate is being affected by blind enthusiasm or are "that type of fan". If anyone follows my posts for more than 20 seconds, they will know that lol. *proudly dons skeptic hat* Neither are the people who have made connection theories. It's a misconstrued idea...but it's so far from the facts that I laugh. 

 

Tell that to Transformers which reboots probably every three years and yet I guarantee very few people went into that first awful Bay schlock (or any of its terrible sequels) and expected it all to be tied to every previous Transformers continuity prior through mental gymnastics and complex theories. Reboots happen all the time in our current media.

Transformers Fans =/= everybody.

 

This isn't transformers or some similar episodic thing, this is Bionicle, a story that has always been continuous and differentiable on a line. Yeez. No one is going to reboot Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, LOST, etc. This isn't a superhero franchise. For pete's sake. You don't reboot continuities.

 

And before you argue that LoTR and Harry Potter are classics that no reboot will ever do justice to, even more obscure continuities have a beginning, middle and end, and then they stop.  Especially with epic stories with grand scale like the original Bionicle - there is an expectation that the original series will continue. How would you feel if Tolkien started a new story right after Frodo destroyed the ring, it was never finished, and the entire story started over from the beginning with slight changes?

 

That's basically what we're looking at here. Lego's trying to turn Bionicle into an episodic story. They are trying to turn Bionicle into a mildly improved version of Hero Factory. Eventually they are going to figure out that doesn't work out so good. 

 

I hope they do so before I turn 80. 

[believe victims]

No one is going to reboot Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, LOST, etc. This isn't a superhero franchise. For pete's sake. You don't reboot continuities.

Bionicle G1 was far more episodic than Lord of the Rings, and possibly even Harry Potter. At least they kept the same characters all the way through. As for LOST, how do you know it will never get a reboot? It was a popular TV show. You never know if they'll want to revisit that concept. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a LOST reboot, or at least if I was surprised it would be because I've heard several people say it stretched on too long and became really awful, but then again the same thing happened to Bionicle and it did reboot.

 

Another key context thing you seem to be missing here is that Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter were works of fiction created by a single person to tell a story only they could tell. Bionicle is a story made to sell toys created by a story team that couldn't even stay constant during the original line's run, with a concept that can be easily applied to a different scenario to tell a different story. That sounds more like a Transformers-type concept than a LOTR-type concept.

 

How would you feel if Tolkien started a new story right after Frodo destroyed the ring, it was never finished, and the entire story started over from the beginning with slight changes?

 

Well. for starters, it would probably be unfinished because the man died, so I'd honestly have a hard time holding it against him. But I'd also think that if Tolkien was writing stories to sell toys and then the toys stopped selling, it would make perfect sense for him to write story that would sell toys. I mean, just my two cents on the situation. Of course, I don't get the comparison, because the serial plots will never be resolved even if we assume the story team lied for no reason and this is a continuation after all. Without the serials, Bionicle G1 did tell a story with a beginning, middle, and end. According to you, that's a fine time to consider a continuity over, so I don't understand the issue.

 

Lego's trying to turn Bionicle into an episodic story.

 

Why would they need to turn a mildly episodic story into a mildly episodic story? If it already was one, why would they need to change anything? I have yet to see any evidence this new continuity is any more episodic than the previous one; we have an arc for each year, with an even larger arc covering the first three years, similar to how the original series was a bunch of one year story arcs loosely threaded together by the giant robot plot.

 

That's basically what we're looking at here. Lego's trying to turn Bionicle into an episodic story. They are trying to turn Bionicle into a mildly improved version of Hero Factory. Eventually they are going to figure out that doesn't work out so good. 

 

Question: do you compare anything you dislike to Hero Factory? Like, "Ugh, this story is stupid, just like Hero Factory." "Ugh, this animation is dreck. Must be trying to be like Hero Factory." "Ugh, this milk is spoiled. It's all Hero Factory's fault." I'm beginning to suspect you're quick to assume any perceived flaw in the current constraction line is the direct result of LEGO trying to make it like the previous one just because you didn't like it.

 

As for not working out so well, my little siblings are hyped as heck for these Bionicle sets. My little brother can't wait to get a Protector, and my little sister will ask to watch the animations over and over again because she loves them so much. They're pretty much the target audience, and they love it to death. Is it solid evidence every kid on earth will love it? No, but I'll take it from an adult on the internet telling me the line's going to flop because it doesn't align with their specific tastes in children's toys.

 

I hope they do so before I turn 80. 

 

It would be odd for people trying to sell children's toys to care about your opinions any more at 80 than they do at 18. (or something around there. I don't know your age but 80 and 18 sound similar so I'm not gonna pass up something that poetic.)

Edited February 27, 2015 by Dina Saruyama

[fishers64]

At least they kept the same characters all the way through. As for LOST, how do you know it will never get a reboot? It was a popular TV show. You never know if they'll want to revisit that concept. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a LOST reboot, or at least if I was surprised it would be because I've heard several people say it stretched on too long and became really awful, but then again the same thing happened to Bionicle and it did reboot.

I don't predict the future. However, I don't think you could make it like the original without it becoming a story in its own right because the concept of The Island is older than that show (Giligan's island) the mystery structure has been done in other works, and the chronology schizo is much older than all of that (Catch-22, I think). They just put that all together and put it on TV. It would be easier to just write a different story of that type and give it another name.

 

If you see a reboot, it's because the name recognition > actual story appeal. That's why you keep seeing Batman and Spiderman reboots. Lego thinks Bionicle is like that, and I think they're wrong.

 

Bionicle G1 was far more episodic than Lord of the Rings, and possibly even Harry Potter.

 

Lego's trying to turn Bionicle into an episodic story.

 

Why would they need to turn a mildly episodic story into a mildly episodic story? If it already was one, why would they need to change anything? I have yet to see any evidence this new continuity is any more episodic than the previous one; we have an arc for each year, with an even larger arc covering the first three years, similar to how the original series was a bunch of one year story arcs loosely threaded together by the giant robot plot.

 

I'm not sure how you get this. The number one complaint about Bionicle that I've heard from all the reboot proponents is that Bionicle was a continuity, not episodic, and this created a buildup of information so new fans could not get into the story.

 

Now, when I tell you it's a continuity, which people have complained about it being this big determent, and use that to support an argument, you tell me it's episodic? It was episodic?

 

I do remember that they used to have blocks on Bionicle.com for each story year like they were episodes, but come on. If you didn't know 2001, 2002 was harder to get - by 2003, Bohrok --> Bohrok-Kal, Takua as ToL which was a tie in to his MNOLG role in '01...yeah. By 2004-05 the whole thing fit together in continuity if you bothered to read...essentially 2004-05 was a story, and 2001-04 was an entire story, and 2001-2008 was an entire story. I could argue that each set of two years was a continuity in its own right, but by 2008 if you hadn't read 2001-2007, you would be pretty lost. It's even hard to justify 2006-2007 as its own story when it was filled with nods to 2001-03. Basically, entry was easy for the first five years and got bungled up. But now I'm rambling.

 

Suffice it to say, you can't complain about continuity ills being an issue if Bionicle wasn't even a continuity. It's either an episodic or continuity, and I really don't think it's episodic. 

 

People have written stories that could be iffy: the Mentalist for example has episodic stories and a continuity in it. But each of those either goes into the continuity or it's just randomly there. Bionicle had no such thing. It's not a TV show. Yet.

 

 

Question: do you compare anything you dislike to Hero Factory? Like, "Ugh, this story is stupid, just like Hero Factory." "Ugh, this animation is dreck. Must be trying to be like Hero Factory." "Ugh, this mild is spoiled. It's all Hero Factory's fault." I'm beginning to suspect you're quick to assume any perceived flaw in the current constraction line is the direct result of LEGO trying to make it like the previous one just because you didn't like it.

No.

 

As for not working out so well, my little siblings are hyped as heck for these Bionicle sets. My little brother can't wait to get a Protector, and my little sister will ask to watch the animations over and over again because she loves them so much. They're pretty much the target audience, and they love it to death. Is it solid evidence every kid on earth will love it? No, but I'll take it from an adult on the internet telling me the line's going to flop because it doesn't align with their specific tastes in children's toys. 

I'll wait and see on that.

[believe victims]

Suffice it to say, you can't complain about continuity ills being an issue if Bionicle wasn't even a continuity. It's either an episodic or continuity, and I really don't think it's episodic.

 

It's not the black and white issue you think it is. Harry Potter was a continuity, but was also seven books with a self-contained story that had its own plot that could usually be appreciated on its own, even if you wouldn't entirely understand everything. You didn't need to know about the Chamber of Secrets to understand the Triwizard Tournament, for instance. Similarly, the 2007 story could be understood mostly independently from, say, 2002. Sure, you'd need to know all the years for the overarching story to make a lick of sense, but that doesn't mean each year didn't have its own self-contained story.

 

 

At least they kept the same characters all the way through. As for LOST, how do you know it will never get a reboot? It was a popular TV show. You never know if they'll want to revisit that concept. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a LOST reboot, or at least if I was surprised it would be because I've heard several people say it stretched on too long and became really awful, but then again the same thing happened to Bionicle and it did reboot.

I don't predict the future. However, I don't think you could make it like the original without it becoming a story in its own right because the concept of The Island is older than that show (Giligan's island) the mystery structure has been done in other works, and the chronology schizo is much older than all of that (Catch-22, I think). They just put that all together and put it on TV. It would be easier to just write a different story of that type and give it another name.

 

 

Do you honestly think you couldn't write a story called LOST that had all those elements but take it in some new directions? Do you honestly think the original LOST explored every single possibility of the basic premise? And if you don't, what's the harm of making a new series called LOST that visits the same premise in different ways, maybe with similar characters, seeing as everyone already knows the original series ended, and it would probably be pretty clear upon watching the first episode that this is a different series from the original LOST? I'm not seeing this untouchability you claim.

 

I'm sorry, I just can't see what you're trying to say. I don't see the original story as some timeless piece of untouchable literature, nor do I see anything bizarre about rebooting an old toy franchise when they've been doing that for years. Transformers reboots, My Little Pony reboots, I'm pretty sure even G.I Joe has rebooted. It's not something strange and unfathomable, especially since it's been long enough that a sizable chunk of the target audience has never experienced the original story, and probably doesn't even care whether they do or not. I cannot see for the life of me how a reboot takes more to comprehend than a continuation when a reboot is as simple as "Nothing that happened before matters for this". It is the simplest and best way to bring back a new franchise for a new audience.

[Sumiki]

Things that are continuity-based can be and have been rebooted. Younger fans can grasp the new story while older fans have two stories to discuss.
 
Also, there's no reason for LEGO to think that a continuation of a story that's been over for half a decade—especially one that died due to a severe case of bloated backstory—makes any more sense than waiting, learning from mistakes, and rebooting the line. An outright continuation dooms the story to fail from the very start.

[Votuko]

...even if we assume the story team lied for no reason and this is a continuation after all.

Ah, has the "story team already disproved this" fallacy returned ()?

From what I remember, they said "reboot". Which is exactly what 2009 was described as several times by the then story team.

It would be perfectly acceptable, and within established practice for LEGO, for them to refer to a new self-contained story set in the future of the G1 universe as a "reboot".

 

To address the counter-argument of "you're just twisting words" before someone makes it - you must also "twist" words in order to believe that the generations are not connected.

This is because other week, the official BIONICLE Facebook page posted with the Legend video:

"[The Vahi Easter eggs] remind us of an ancient era in BIONICLE history..."

Which, if taken literally, suggests that they are casually referring to G1 as part of in-story history from the perspective of G2, making them canonically linked.

If you want to think they are referring to history out-of-story, then you must twist the meaning of "ancient era" to somehow mean 14 years ago.

[Lyichir]

 

...even if we assume the story team lied for no reason and this is a continuation after all.

Ah, has the "story team already disproved this" fallacy returned ( )?

From what I remember, they said "reboot". Which is exactly what 2009 was described as several times by the then story team.

It would be perfectly acceptable, and within established practice for LEGO, for them to refer to a new self-contained story set in the future of the G1 universe as a "reboot".

 

To address the counter-argument of "you're just twisting words" before someone makes it - you must also "twist" words in order to believe that the generations are not connected.

This is because other week, the official BIONICLE Facebook page posted with the Legend video:

"[The Vahi Easter eggs] remind us of an ancient era in BIONICLE history..."

Which, if taken literally, suggests that they are casually referring to G1 as part of in-story history from the perspective of G2, making them canonically linked.

If you want to think they are referring to history out-of-story, then you must twist the meaning of "ancient era" to somehow mean 14 years ago.

 

...which is not an implausible turn of phrase, considering that to new fans the classic storyline is very much like "prehistory".

 

Really, to assume "reboot" means "reboot" is not a fallacy and does not involve any twisting of words. 2009 was referred to specifically as a "soft reboot"—a term for when a story starts fresh with a new setting and characters but remains causally linked to the original canon. The story team at the time (which is not the same as the current one, by the way) had no intention of hiding the fact that the 2009 story was connected directly to the previous story. The new story team, on the other hand, has not split hairs about the nature of the reboot, or applied any qualifiers that would suggest that they mean something other than the common meaning of the term. Keep in mind the context in which the reboot was being discussed—this same debate we're having now of whether the story was a reboot or a continuation had already started back then, and the assertion that the story was a reboot was pretty clearly made with the intention of putting that debate to rest. Of course, those representatives must not have foreseen the lengths to which fans would go to try to cast doubt on even their clearest, most unambiguous statements, and thus the debate rages on and will likely do so for the foreseeable future.

[Votuko]

I agree - the turn of phrase is very plausible if it is supposed to mean that G1 is the prehistory of G2 - that is precisely my argument.

However, do you really want to pull the "unreliable (Facebook) narrator" technique as your counter-argument to it, after you argue so strongly against the word "reboot" being used in an "unreliable" way?

 

I'd also disagree on the purpose of them saying "it's a reboot". As you say, there was less debate about far-future continuations back then so it makes less sense that they would say something to put those to rest.

What there was, however, was discussion over whether the story would continue from where it was in 2010 with Greg's serials being continued etc. It seems more likely that it was that theory that they intended to shoot down by saying "reboot". (Especially when the context of the press release was to reintroduce the theme, not to "split hairs about the nature of the reboot".)

Edited February 27, 2015 by Xelphene

[believe victims]

I agree - the turn of phrase is very plausible if it is supposed to mean that G1 is the prehistory of G2 - that is precisely my argument.

However, do you really want to pull the "unreliable Facebook narrator" technique as your counter-argument to it, after you argue so strongly against the word "reboot" being used in a non-standard way?

 

...the argument definitely wasn't that the people on facebook were being intentionally unreliable. However, it is perfectly plausible to call the Mask of Time something from an ancient era of the Bionicle franchise considering, from what I've heard, it was the first mask ever designed, and even if that's not true, it was at least designed in 2001 at earliest. I think the assumption that they obviously literally meant that the Vahi was from the past of the in-story Bionicle universe and any other interpretation is twisting words comes from a place of being desperate for solid proof that those nasty people at comic con lied. they wouldn't dare reboot precious Bionicle and ruin it.

 

I'd also disagree on the purpose of them saying "it's a reboot". As you say, there was less debate about far-future continuations back then so it makes less sense that they would say something to put those to rest.

 

It was actually a very general debate about continuation vs. reboot. Several people proposed far-future continuations at the time. That was very much a debate that was happening. In fact, even then, they probably outnumbered those who even more foolishly thought the 2010 story's wriggling serial plot threads would somehow be picked up. Therefore, they were responding to the general idea of "continuation vs. reboot" and they said "reboot". The only people who have wanted to split it up into "soft reboot" "hard reboot" "crunchy reboot with a caramel filling" are those who want to misconstrue that in whichever direction best suits them, which usually results in those "theories" that try to pull together as many of the aspects of G1 Bionicle as confusingly as possible to make something that just barely fits into the G2 Bionicle's story.

Edited February 27, 2015 by Dina Saruyama

[Ballom Nom Nom]

While it's conceivable that the announcement of Gen 2 did not technically strike down every last possible chance of a continuation (not that I agree with this, but for the sake of discussion), a far-future continuation is still absurd because of all of the hoops that you need to jump through to make it work, with explaining where Okoto is supposed to be, why Makuta exists, etc. Occam's Razor needs to be introduced to more folks in S&T.

 

~B~

[Saint-14]

In all honesty, though, what's the harm in letting people imagine a timeline where it IS a far future continuation? The debate about headcanons and canons came up in another (locked) thread, albeit about a different topic, but what's the big deal? It isn't harming anybody if they want to believe that there may be a connection, and if you don't want to believe that there is a connection then that's alright, too.

 

About the 'reboot' wording, too; has this ever been confirmed as hard or soft reboot? I've only seen the term reboot being tossed around on the forums, but I haven't seen any actual confirmation as to the the actual meaning, or to what Lego has actually said on the matter

 

Does anybody have some links? It would be nice to see some hard evidence rather than just all of us flapping our gums without any essence behind our words

[believe victims]

About the 'reboot' wording, too; has this ever been confirmed as hard or soft reboot? I've only seen the term reboot being tossed around on the forums, but I haven't seen any actual confirmation as to the the actual meaning, or to what Lego has actually said on the matter

 

Does anybody have some links? It would be nice to see some hard evidence rather than just all of us flapping our gums without any essence behind our words

 

The only people who have wanted to split it up into "soft reboot" "hard reboot" "crunchy reboot with a caramel filling" are those who want to misconstrue that in whichever direction best suits them, which usually results in those "theories" that try to pull together as many of the aspects of G1 Bionicle as confusingly as possible to make something that just barely fits into the G2 Bionicle's story.

 

 

The only time I have ever seen a non-hard reboot, it was specifically called a soft reboot at the time. Believe it or not, the whole "soft reboot" thing doesn't actually happen all that often. I may even be remembering that the term was coined specifically to describe the 2009 story. Therefore, when someone says "reboot" without putting a Mohs scale number next to it, it's pretty safe to say they probably mean the actual reboot kind of reboot.

[Votuko]

..the argument definitely wasn't that the people on facebook were being intentionally unreliable. However, it is perfectly plausible to call the Mask of Time something from an ancient era of the Bionicle franchise considering, from what I've heard, it was the first mask ever designed, and even if that's not true, it was at least designed in 2001 at earliest. I think the assumption that they obviously literally meant that the Vahi was from the past of the in-story Bionicle universe and any other interpretation is twisting words comes from a place of being desperate for solid proof that those nasty people at comic con lied.

Correct, that wasn't the intention of the argument but that was what it amounted to.

Lyichir's explanation was that the Facebook post implied that G1 was "prehistory" of G2 because that's what the fans may think of it as. Which begs the questions: Why would they support fans' ideas that it is a continaution if that is incorrect? (Surely you agree that would be unreliable?) And, using Occam's Razor like Ballom suggests, surely it's simpler if you suppose that they worded it that way because the fans who think of G1 as G2 prehistory are correct?

 

As I said before, even 2001 isn't really far enough ago to count as an "ancient era". If you want to claim that that is their meaning, then you are twisting words at least as badly as me interpreting "reboot" by its 2009 meaning.

 

they wouldn't dare reboot precious Bionicle and ruin it.

*single tear slides down face, partially obscured by battered cardboard Hau*

[believe victims]

As I said before, even 2001 isn't really far enough ago to count as an "ancient era". If you want to claim that that is their meaning, then you are twisting words at least as badly as me interpreting "reboot" by its 2009 meaning.

 

...or they were using words that played into the mythical feeling of Bionicle? Saying "fourteen years ago" gives a completely different feeling from "ancient era". Honestly, you're just looking for ways to either legitimize thinking they somehow meant that they did the world's stupidest story move and tied ten years of baggage to this line or delegitimize interpreting "it's a reboot" as "it's a reboot". It doesn't even make sense; either we insist "ancient era" literally means G1 was in the past of G2 and we insist "it's a reboot" literally means "it's a reboot", or we say "ancient era" just means 2001 (suggesting the two lines aren't connected) and we say "it's a reboot" could mean "it's a continuation" (suggesting the two lines are connected)? Your line of thought here only leads to contradictions, and if there's one thing Phoenix Wright taught me, it's that all contradictions mean someone's twisting the facts.

 

(As for "using reboot by its 2009 definition", in 2009, they didn't just use the word reboot, they used the term "soft reboot". They recognized what they were doing wasn't a true reboot, and besides, it failed anyway; the line crashed a year later. I'd like to think LEGO can learn from their mistakes.)

[Ballom Nom Nom]

Lyichir's explanation was that the Facebook post implied that G1 was "prehistory" of G2 because that's what the fans may think of it as. Which begs the questions: Why would they support fans' ideas that it is a continaution if that is incorrect? (Surely you agree that would be unreliable?) And, using Occam's Razor like Ballom suggests, surely it's simpler if you suppose that they worded it that way because the fans who think of G1 as G2 prehistory are correct?

 

As I said before, even 2001 isn't really far enough ago to count as an "ancient era". If you want to claim that that is their meaning, then you are twisting words at least as badly as me interpreting "reboot" by its 2009 meaning.

Let me be clear about my previous comment. The use of Occam's Razor is not for some minor wording on Facebook. I mean using it for accepting the idea that it's a reboot, completely with no attempts to connect to Gen 1.

 

~B~