Journey's End = The End?

[Iblis]

I don't follow. This is basically the same as "it's the right thing to do because it's the right thing to do". It doesn't remove the feeling of futility that comes from fighting an evil with all you've got, only for it to win forever in the end. It still feels pointless to fight at all, because that short period of happiness means nothing when you're spending the rest of your life crushed under the heel of Makuta.

 

Correction; it means nothing to you; just because you don't value a day of not being 'tortured' by Makuta...

I'm not sure if there is any point trying to ascertain why you don't think it's worth delaying torture. 

 

Just in case though; I'm referring to a situation that will happen, but you can delay it by a finite amount of time; say three years. I kinda brought it up because of people saying how it made the actions of the Toa up to that '08 pointless, where as if they gave up in 2001 all the bad stuff that happened (/could happen) from Makuta being in control would have happened sooner, and thus be worse than if they fought; as such it wasn't pointless because whilst they didn't win 'in the end', there was that much more time of Matoran being less 'harmed' by Makuta.

 

So as the audience one could just say it was fatalistic * horrible, or one could note that the Toas actions still achieved something, not as much as they hoped but it wasn't meaningless.

 

 

Because he uses those good traits to a villainous end, he cannot be admired for it, because that is to say "the morality of the situation doesn't matter, because dang that guy could plan. Be like him! Forget the heroes. What good is "good" and "heroism" when you can be like the bad guy?" Context for actions is extremely important. Whatever person wins a conflict in a story, symbolically, those values have won. In Makuta's case, that's selfishness, greed, and blind ambition, not good planning skills; those were merely the tool by which he exerted his values.

 

You can't admire his "cunning" because he's bad? I'm not saying to admire him, I'm saying to the skill is admirable.

One can hope to take that his "cunning" ^{(or planning, whichever you'd rather call it)}, is a a good trait, & to try and be just as good as planning as him, etc.

 

"Whatever person wins a conflict in a story, symbolically, those values have won." according to you; sure others might take it this way but frankly it doesn't follow, people win for a whole variety of reasons, it is because of things being overloaded with morals that people make connections like this, it can be valid if they actually played a important or critical or often-influential part, but because h'd lost so times before then it's still abundantly obvious that he succeeds despite his greed & blind ambition gets in the way, his selfishness? not so much, but just because something wins doesn't mean people approve of it;

Not everything has it's values win the day, stories don't have to work that way. It isn't terrible if they do, but they don't need it.

 

Not everything has to have a moral, & I find it interesting how easily you find it to overlook things like The Mask of Life solving issues as needed - the moral there is top & pray to [__] but don't actually rely on physical stuff, worst comes to worst & Deus ex Machina! yeah...

You don't see that as an issue, & yet the chance that a villain won because they were selfish is just terrible and shouldn't be allowed?

So very realistic. I don't think realism is demanded either, but that doesn't mean it's bad. Etc. etc.

 

 

You cannot slice and dice his character so only his few "admirable" traits remain to be ogled. Every one of his actions were motivated by jealousy, selfishness, and a desire for unlimited power. If he wins, those values win, and they are upheld as admirable. It sends the message that good intentions don't mean squat in the face of pure evil, because evil will always win in the end. Be evil! Evil WINS!

 

If good always wins - & I say always because the end trumps the rest by your own admission; it's find because sending good postive messages, but if the villain wins in one story society will fall apart? It is a story, it doesn't really matter if evil wins, because it is a story, it won't actually hurt you that much. 

i'm not trying to turn Makuta into a good guy, but he was a good planner, that's not a moral statement it is pretty much an informed ability that he has if you will.

 

 

2010's ending contrasts to 2008's in that it actually works for the story they were telling. They were not telling a story where evil wins because evil rules and heroes drool. They were telling a story that, from the beginning, made it quite clear that heroism and teamwork will always win out over greed and selfishness. I fail to see how an ending that would say the polar opposite could ever fit thematically.

 

(emphasis mine) But why? There is little in-universe logical reason that heroism & teamwork should trump greed & selfishness, it's certainly abounded as one of the themes, & I think it is quite healthy to turn something so unrealistic on it's head; in RL "evil" might not always win but "good" doesn't succeed by virtue of being nice & cooperative alone, it has worked from time to time, but reality doesn't work that way; & Bionicle isn't Discworld, last I checked there wasn't actually a teamwork Force which abounds the universe dictating how long an evil character can succeed before being stamped out by luck.

 

It turns the primary theme on its head, but it shows that it was still worth something; if the Toa had stopped earlier Makuta would have had however-long + that time; they would have the world to a horror that they could have prevented (albeit only for a time); had the heroes had cunning as well as heroics and cooperation surely they would have won, alas they were great, not not great enough; never the less they saved everyone from Makuta for a while, better than what most can say.

 

It doesn't just turn it on its head though, it contrasts the different skills, Makutas plans were so great they could account for & outweigh the issues caused by his greed & utterly blind ambition. Indicates that the Heroes could still have been good but maybe won if they were a bit better informed or something else. It shows that information & good planning skills are worth a lot, for better or for worse, shows that such a skill can be used for good, but beware as not so nice people can also be smart, maybe smarter than you.

 

 

Let me make this perfectly clear: it is impossible to plan for every contingency. He could not have a backup for every hiccup, every curveball, every twist, and yet we are told that's exactly what he did. Even if we say it's because he has an alien mind, that damages his relatability as a character. Relatability is not something to sacrifice when it's that character's values we're eventually going to worship.

 

Obviously, but some things are more likely than others; & if creators word said he did, well, Bionicle doesn't exactly run on RW physics ^{(or logic necessarily, but hey hopefully creator exaggeration!)} says he did, it's actually irrelevant. He was a brilliant Planner, how, that's not entirely our concern, merely that he was good, & better than we can hope to be. I really don't see why that is such a huge barrier for relateability, ever heard of Xenofiction?

Just because we don't know the specifics doesn't mean we can't see that we can attempt something similar although much, much smaller in scale.

 

 

His messages may be abysmally delivered, but there is still a drive to pursue them. Optimus Prime still preaches about pacifism and empathy, even as he tears off Decepticon heads. There is a message that ties the film's spattered scenes together. Yes, people go for the explosions and the fight scenes, but people have decried films for poor delivery of message before. You can't pretend it doesn't matter.

 

Pretend it doesn't matter? On the contrary, its there so people have an idea of why characters do things, it is important, but it doesn't have to be a work of art if people just want to watch robots tear other robots apart; regardless this is irrelevant: I believe and have written about two themes and how they reflect each other, that you don't seem to understand why preventing people getting hurt quite as much is considered a good thing seems to be a deliberate misunderstanding or more likely that you aren't reading what I've written in my past few posts and are instead operating on what you 'first' thought I meant; regardless new information seems to be being rejected without being processed, I don't know how to overcome this sort of misunderstanding. 

 

 

I still stand that 2008's end could not work at all for the story Bionicle was trying to tell. Coming off 8 years of story emphasizing the power of teamwork, bravery, and heroism, to have the selfish, cowardly, and greedy antagonist win forever in the end would pretty much be exactly what I called it: a shaggy dog story. You have yet to convince me at all that it doesn't nullify the impact of everything before it besides some weak idea that trying to persist in a hopeless environment is more moral than realizing when you're finished, which still rings hollow for me. It gives a ridiculous tonal whiplash that would feel completely disgusting in a story that was always about hope and the power of heroes.

 

A shaggy dog story to me is an extremely long-winded anecdote characterized by extensive narration of typically irrelevant incidents and terminated by an anticlimax or a pointless punchline. Tv Topes also mentions "ironic reversal"; but I don't see what makes it bad; it compared & contrasted and I don't think many have called Makutas Grand Theft Robotverse anticlimactic, I've articulated how it doesn't negate or make the Toas actions pointless, their delay carried things to many people, the Matoran of Voya Nui, Mahru Nui, & Karda Nui if nothing else, ^{_{(all who might one day find a way to rebel with some degree of success)}}; regardless it is implied that the Toa can not do anything now, but they did delay a great catastrophe.

 

If one is going to call it a shaggy dog story because of the reversal of who is winning or Makuta replacing Mata Nui... I still don't see that as objective criteria to say it's a bad story; tonal whiplash? certainly, & one I think is much needed, keep on dreaming & watch Greg drag out the series over even more contrived situations to start substories he won't ever finish.

 

Sure it's hardly a great ending, but Bionicle isn't the best written toyline, I like it, it has appeal, & I really can't justify the complete mess that Bionicle continued to sprawl into; I'd rather a sharp whiplash over a long slow death which makes hints about different things that will never be explained properly all over the place.

 

"trying to persist in a hopeless environment is more moral than realizing when you're finished" the point about fighting the inevitable is only relevant when you are helping someone else along the way; people that might escape; fighting the inevitable i pointless if you aren't helping anyone. More my poor articulation, but I've tried to point out that you are doing something that others appreciate; even if they don't get out of it, if they valued that hope that much, your helping them isn't necessarily the worst thing.

 

& in fairness to myself, there are plenty of fights that stretch out over many, many years, how long before a culture or religion is wiped out by another? Maybe it isn't moral, but delaying these ends to at least try & drag the opponent down .. some find it satisfying.

Slightly more relevant to it in Bionicle '08 ending; I can cast it aside & it makes no difference, I don't really care for whatever morals people come out with, I care for it being entertaining.

 

I doubt this will convince you, but maybe you might see where I'm coming from.

[believe victims]

Correction; it means nothing to you; just because you don't value a day of not being 'tortured' by Makuta...

I'm not sure if there is any point trying to ascertain why you don't think it's worth delaying torture. 

Delaying torture is good.

 

Stopping it from ever happening is better.

 

I'm not sure why you would ever want the latter to be impossible.

 

So as the audience one could just say it was fatalistic * horrible, or one could note that the Toas actions still achieved something, not as much as they hoped but it wasn't meaningless.

 

Except the torture still happens. Even if they had a faint glimmer of hope, it was completely crushed. It's like holding someone in a coma because you can't stand to watch them die. In the end, it's more painful to keep fighting than to continue your Sisyphean task. How does a few days of freedom compare to an eternity of torture? How can you ever look at that and think "Well, the heroes did their best, and we all learned a valuable lesson here today"? How is that in any way a positive outlook?

 

(emphasis mine) But why? There is little in-universe logical reason that heroism & teamwork should trump greed & selfishness, it's certainly abounded as one of the themes, & I think it is quite healthy to turn something so unrealistic on it's head;

Obviously, but some things are more likely than others; & if creators word said he did, well, Bionicle doesn't exactly run on RW physics ^{(or logic necessarily, but hey hopefully creator exaggeration!)} says he did, it's actually irrelevant. He was a brilliant Planner, how, that's not entirely our concern, merely that he was good, & better than we can hope to be. I really don't see why that is such a huge barrier for relateability, ever heard of Xenofiction?

Just because we don't know the specifics doesn't mean we can't see that we can attempt something similar although much, much smaller in scale.

 

So if it's "unrealistic" in the Toa's favor, you think it should be quashed, but if it's unrealistic in Makuta's favor, wave it away as storytelling magic? Wow, that's incredible. A real live confirmation bias!

 

Why is it so unpalatable to you that doing what's right could actually matter in a story universe? What's wrong with telling kids to persevere and work together to fight injustice, because maybe someday, they can overthrow evil? I fail to see your qualms with this theme vs. "fight while you can, because in the end you'll fail anyway".

 

You can't admire his "cunning" because he's bad? I'm not saying to admire him, I'm saying to the skill is admirable.

One can hope to take that his "cunning" ^{(or planning, whichever you'd rather call it)}, is a a good trait, & to try and be just as good as planning as him, etc.

 

His cunning is sociopathic and self-serving. Why should it be admired that he can manipulate others to his dark will?

 

"Whatever person wins a conflict in a story, symbolically, those values have won." according to you; sure others might take it this way but frankly it doesn't follow, people win for a whole variety of reasons, it is because of things being overloaded with morals that people make connections like this, it can be valid if they actually played a important or critical or often-influential part, but because h'd lost so times before then it's still abundantly obvious that he succeeds despite his greed & blind ambition gets in the way, his selfishness? not so much, but just because something wins doesn't mean people approve of it;

Not everything has it's values win the day, stories don't have to work that way. It isn't terrible if they do, but they don't need it.

 

Look, like it or not, intentional or unintentional, every story sends a message. If a character driven by greed and selfishness wins, then greed and selfishness have won. They aren't just minor personality flaws; they are core components of his very character. They are the values he embodies and they are the values the creators of the story seek to villify. If the story ends with him winning, the final message is "greed and selfishness will always overpower bravery and goodwill". Characters are not real people; they are illustrations of values that are either positive or negative, and their job is to make sure you realize which traits are good and which traits are bad. It is imperative you start understanding how theme impacts how a story is told; until you do, you're going to keep insisting every story should have a terrible ending because it's not cliché.

 

A shaggy dog story to me is an extremely long-winded anecdote characterized by extensive narration of typically irrelevant incidents and terminated by an anticlimax or a pointless punchline.

Like a team of Toa destined to save Mata Nui, who go to the ends of the universe to save him, finally reviving him... to be defeated forever by an impossibly clever villain. Sounds like it fits the template perfectly.

 

Sure it's hardly a great ending, but Bionicle isn't the best written toyline, I like it, it has appeal, & I really can't justify the complete mess that Bionicle continued to sprawl into; I'd rather a sharp whiplash over a long slow death which makes hints about different things that will never be explained properly all over the place.

 

I, on the other hand, would rather have an ending that actually fits the story than a cheap shock made to be dark and edgy and shocking.

 

I doubt this will convince you, but maybe you might see where I'm coming from.

 

 

So far, "where you're coming from" is blindly defending an ending on the insistence it holds some strange entertainment value while not actually being an adequate ending to the story at all.

[Iblis]

So far, "where you're coming from" is blindly defending an ending on the insistence it holds some strange entertainment value while not actually being an adequate ending to the story at all.

 

Adequate as defined by you, yeah no issues at all.

 

 

Delaying torture is good.

 

Stopping it from ever happening is better.

 

I'm not sure why you would ever want the latter to be impossible.

 

Because I'm a sadistic soci- wait, no, it's a story...

 

 

Except the torture still happens. Even if they had a faint glimmer of hope, it was completely crushed. It's like holding someone in a coma because you can't stand to watch them die. In the end, it's more painful to keep fighting than to continue your Sisyphean task. How does a few days of freedom compare to an eternity of torture? How can you ever look at that and think "Well, the heroes did their best, and we all learned a valuable lesson here today"? How is that in any way a positive outlook?

 

Fair enough, consider the scenario dropped.

 

 

So if it's "unrealistic" in the Toa's favor, you think it should be quashed, but if it's unrealistic in Makuta's favor, wave it away as storytelling magic? Wow, that's incredible. A real live confirmation bias!

 

Or rather, I'm content to let characters be unrealistic so long as they are understandable, i'd just rather my heroes win in an interesting story, ie not the post '08 story; '08 wasn't that great either, but it seems a nice easy point to go there I was excited for what was coming next, and mostly disappointment afterwards. Seems like a wonderful point to cut the series & let fans come up with something else; their tears might motivate them to write something interesting, or rather something more enjoyable than the Bara Magna Arc...

 

Seriously though, characters can use Elemental powers, Makuta can do that & is apparently really smart ...sort of. It's a different type of break from reality; where as the teamwork = win isn't so much a power as a fore within the world. An entirely unexplained one.

 

 

Why is it so unpalatable to you that doing what's right could actually matter in a story universe? What's wrong with telling kids to persevere and work together to fight injustice, because maybe someday, they can overthrow evil? I fail to see your qualms with this theme vs. "fight while you can, because in the end you'll fail anyway".

 

Nothing really, but '08 is a convenient cutoff for me, latest point in the series which doesn't make me desire to bin a book/comic/etc.

 

 

His cunning is sociopathic and self-serving. Why should it be admired that he can manipulate others to his dark will?

 

Because it is a skill, it gets things done, & it take some degree of effort; it's an ability of sorts, a useful one, that I don't like its implementation is irrelevant.

 

 

Look, like it or not, intentional or unintentional, every story sends a message. If a character driven by greed and selfishness wins, thengreed and selfishness have won. They aren't just minor personality flaws; they are core components of his very character. They are the values he embodies and they are the values the creators of the story seek to villify. If the story ends with him winning, the final message is "greed and selfishness will always overpower bravery and goodwill". Characters are not real people; they are illustrations of values that are either positive or negative, and their job is to make sure you realize which traits are good and which traits are bad. It is imperativeyou start understanding how theme impacts how a story is told; until you do, you're going to keep insisting every story should have a terrible ending because it's not cliché.

 

Wait what. "until you do, you're going to keep insisting every story should have a terrible ending because it's not cliché.", you have very little of an idea of how I actually view other stories. " they are illustrations of values that are either positive or negative" that is painfully black & white.

 

Yes every story sends a message. whether intentional or not. But insisting that character X winning means the author supports that characters values is utterly obnoxious; you can read to much stuff into a work. Some stories go where they go, and even with planing, the characters win that have values and skill diametrically opposed to what the creator feels, bu if it made sense to have such a character in a place & situationaly they end up winning despite the creator not intending to send any message of the sort you might take out of it.

 

You have inferred something that wasn't intended.

You need to learn that the message someone take out of something isn't the only one nor does a story necessarily intend to illustrate any given set of values. If you read Aesops all day you might expect this, but literature has expanded beyond your narrow view.

I can understand why you where taking those messages out of it, that doesn't mean I approve of it, I would expect there would be members of the audience that would also do that, I see that as a non issue; one story will not typically destroy whatever society the reader is in.

Having a story end badly doesn't mean one needs to become a depressed anarchical Nihilist ^{(I take no issues to the 2nd, as for the 3rd read Nietzsche before moping too much; he actually counters some of the '(non-)issues' well)}.

 

 

Like a team of Toa destined to save Mata Nui, who go to the ends of the universe to save him, finally reviving him... to be defeated forever by an impossibly clever villain. Sounds like it fits the template perfectly.

 

Meh if you want to reduce a story down to one and a bit sentences feel free to not write it; it adds nothing of merit.

 

 

I, on the other hand, would rather have an ending that actually fits the story than a cheap shock made to be dark and edgy and shocking.

 

Enjoy all your pieces of loose string, I thought '08 ending had to many; but somehow Greg managed to provide one answer and lots of questions later.

 

 

So far, "where you're coming from" is blindly defending an ending on the insistence it holds some strange entertainment value while not actually being an adequate ending to the story at all.

 

& each of your posts is just simply put: "I want a good moral for my story, stop being so dark!"

I'd rather leave a story in a miserable place that makes sense than rush them around with substories started & about three finished.

Me cutting it off at '08 leave audience hope for a sequel, letting it run it's couse ends up with a pile of characters dead because Greg didn't know what else to do with them, a few stranded on a random star, others wondering around searching for answers & two ton of flat characters...

 

I see the later years as the weakest links & would rather them not happen, you're upset that someone thinks that a story can end with a mood whiplash and not be entirely terrible, & can't come up with anything beyond saying that any X, Y, Z won't work .. even though they are exactly what happened in the actual story, all because they won't have an official add on.

 

I'd rather creators abandon a work rather than giving it a poorly thought through rushed ending. & you just attack me for not knowing what an "dequate ending to the story" is, because I have a different opinion to you & you haven't been able to decisively take down my key points; that there are sufficient themes, & that it would still be an entertaining year.

 

All I "added" was that I'd think they could imply that the Toa had lost, & cut the series then.

I wonder how much you complained before '09 arrived to fill the gaping hole of terrible story you were left with...

[believe victims]

Or rather, I'm content to let characters be unrealistic so long as they are understandable, i'd just rather my heroes win in an interesting story, ie not the post '08 story; '08 wasn't that great either, but it seems a nice easy point to go there I was excited for what was coming next, and mostly disappointment afterwards. Seems like a wonderful point to cut the series & let fans come up with something else; their tears might motivate them to write something interesting, or rather something more enjoyable than the Bara Magna Arc...

 

Seriously though, characters can use Elemental powers, Makuta can do that & is apparently really smart ...sort of. It's a different type of break from reality; where as the teamwork = win isn't so much a power as a fore within the world. An entirely unexplained one.

 

The Toa defeated Makuta all those other times through team work, because working with other people leads to more strength than working alone. How is that unexplained? Moreover, why does that need explanation? Does everything need to be spelled out for you, or can you maybe just notice the trend of people who can work together and combine their strengths consistently overpowering those who cannot?

 

Why is the "break in reality" so terrible just because it results in the good guys defeating the ultimate evil?

 

Also good storytelling 101: you don't leave giving your story an actual satisfying conclusion to the fans.

 

Because it is a skill, it gets things done, & it take some degree of effort; it's an ability of sorts, a useful one, that I don't like its implementation is irrelevant.

 

Not insofar as theme of a story goes. A character is defined far more by the values they hold than by the actions they take to enforce them. To scrap the former to uphold the latter would result in a terrible story.

 

Wait what. "until you do, you're going to keep insisting every story should have a terrible ending because it's not cliché.", you have very little of an idea of how I actually view other stories. " they are illustrations of values that are either positive or negative" that is painfully black & white.

 

Yes every story sends a message. whether intentional or not. But insisting that character X winning means the author supports that characters values is utterly obnoxious; you can read to much stuff into a work. Some stories go where they go, and even with planing, the characters win that have values and skill diametrically opposed to what the creator feels, bu if it made sense to have such a character in a place & situationaly they end up winning despite the creator not intending to send any message of the sort you might take out of it.

 

You have inferred something that wasn't intended.

You need to learn that the message someone take out of something isn't the only one nor does a story necessarily intend to illustrate any given set of values. If you read Aesops all day you might expect this, but literature has expanded beyond your narrow view.

I can understand why you where taking those messages out of it, that doesn't mean I approve of it, I would expect there would be members of the audience that would also do that, I see that as a non issue; one story will not typically destroy whatever society the reader is in.

Having a story end badly doesn't mean one needs to become a depressed anarchical Nihilist ^{(I take no issues to the 2nd, as for the 3rd read Nietzsche before moping too much; he actually counters some of the '(non-)issues' well)}.

 

 

Character X winning a couple victories doesn't mean that, but Character X winning in the end means either Character X had the stronger values we should uphold, or there was some moral failing in the protagonists that lead to their downfall, not "Evil wins forever because THIS character was just so goshdarn unrealistically good at planning!" Every story tells a message, and therefore, you need to make sure yours is consistent with the message it tells.

 

I'm not just making these messages up; there's a reason the good guys win so often, and it's because that's what's supposed to happen. Not to live up to any clichés, but because the good guys have the better values, and the authors want to show that. Heck, the good guys don't even need to live for their victory to make a point; at the end of Snowpiercer, the entire train derails, killing all but two people. However, even this grim ending represents a victory on the part of the set of values those telling the story uphold. It's not a "narrow view", it's called good storytelling. Giving your story an ending that sends a clear, consistent message is good.

 

 

Like a team of Toa destined to save Mata Nui, who go to the ends of the universe to save him, finally reviving him... to be defeated forever by an impossibly clever villain. Sounds like it fits the template perfectly.

 

Meh if you want to reduce a story down to one and a bit sentences feel free to not write it; it adds nothing of merit.

 

 

I don't see how elaboration on that sentence to make it an 8-year story makes it any less of a shaggy dog story. If anything, stretching it out eight years makes the anticlimax even more of a disappointment.

 

& each of your posts is just simply put: "I want a good moral for my story, stop being so dark!"

 

No, it's "I want an ending to this story that actually makes sense and thematic coherence with the rest of it instead of something thats sole appeal is making edgy tryhards go 'OH YEAH VILLAIN WINS SCREW BEING A GOOD GUY GO BAD GUYS FOREVER'".

 

Me cutting it off at '08 leave audience hope for a sequel

 

A hope that would be just as false then as it was in 2010. The story was still too complicated and twisted for a later Bionicle toyline to try picking up where it left off. It would still end up rebooted, if it even got another line at all with that garbage ending.

 

I see the later years as the weakest links & would rather them not happen, you're upset that someone thinks that a story can end with a mood whiplash and not be entirely terrible, & can't come up with anything beyond saying that any X, Y, Z won't work .. even though they are exactly what happened in the actual story, all because they won't have an official add on.

 

Because that "official add-on" matters; it changes it from the ending to the climax of the story, where it looks like the darkest hour... only for Makuta's power-hungry antics leading him to a battle with his "brother" that would destroy them both. With the context of the true ending, it is no longer "evil wins forever sucks to be you" and instead just builds onto a theme of the forces of good winning through teamwork and perseverance. It's all about message.

 

I'd rather creators abandon a work rather than giving it a poorly thought through rushed ending. & you just attack me for not knowing what an "dequate ending to the story" is, because I have a different opinion to you & you haven't been able to decisively take down my key points; that there are sufficient themes, & that it would still be an entertaining year.

 

Your themes are defeatist and nihilistic and at odd with everything that added prior, and I still fail to see the entertainment value in the protagonists losing forever.

 

I wonder how much you complained before '09 arrived to fill the gaping hole of terrible story you were left with...

 

 

I didn't, because the story was still going and that end was not the actual end of the entire story, which is the crux of my entire argument. It works as a late-game twist, not an actual ending.

[Rahkshi Lalonde]

Holy molly i came here to see why this relativley simple concept took four pages to discuss (and counting) and apparently it derailed into this discussion about how lousy 2008 would have been as a proper end. (it was never written for that, it wouldn't work.)

 

anyway, journey's end, as far as bionicle endings go, was probably the best it could have had, (thoguh the planned extra Bara Magna year would probably have helped pace things better.)

 

it was pretty great how Mata Nui got all these defeatists together to help get him back in the seat again so he could be responsible for his past mistakes and take down makuta using makuta's own overconfidence to destry him.

 

and then mata-nui brings life back to the planet, as well as promising to leave until he's next absolutely needed? sounds like a resolution to me! (additional greg baggage aside i mean.)

[LegoSWfan]

All I said was that the good guys shouldn't win all the time.

[Toa Smoke Monster]

1. What happened, happened. I look at the unfinished serials and Greg answers as starting points for Bionicle fan fiction writers to come up with their own stories on how those set up events went down. I know that wasn't the original intent with them, but that is how I look at them.

 

2. I acknowledge some parts and not other parts. Though there is only one thing in the post Journey's End story that I prefer to ignore, and that would be the Red Star reviving characters that died in the story. I know there were sets rules for it (like their heads had to still be intact, for example) and that Greg was setting up what could've been an interesting story for it. But since we never got to see it play out, it just feels like dead characters were brought back for no reason. And I really don't like stories that bring back characters from the dead unless its for a really good reason.

[Jobber]

Walls, and walls, and walls, and walls, of text.

[Regitnui]

All I said was that the good guys shouldn't win all the time.

And all I said was that 2008 ending in such a way without a chance of continuation would be a poor way for a children's series about the value of cooperation and unity to end.

 

Neither of us is unreasonable, but neither of us is wrong, either. It is good for the heroes to suffer meaningful defeats, but ending their major, world-saving quest and the storyline entirely with a Nice Job Breaking It Hero moment is not appropriate.

[LegoSWfan]

It teaches kids that sometimes, no matter how hard you try, it might not be enough.

[Regitnui]

It teaches kids that sometimes, no matter how hard you try, it might not be enough.

Here we go again.

 

As is, it's a great ending for 08. Without 09-10, it loses something. 06, with the Nuva losing and the rookie Inika barely succeeding, is an excellent place for that moral to be shown. Just change the Inika retrieving the MoL to the Piraka bringing it to the surface and Axonn having to knock it from their hands to stop them using it. Boom, heroes failed, but there's a second chance. That second chance is only held onto by the skin of their teeth and the near-sacrifice of their leader. The Mahri only barely won against the Barraki, and even then a second later and they would have lost everything. That's the place for a 'heroes can't always win' moral.

[Jobber]

The heroes should get a third chance as well.

[Kongolise]

Well uh... I'm just going to slide right by that big ol' debate there.

 

Anyhow, hi. Xyz the Day here, if anyone remembers me. I used to come around here, but lots of things happened and now I don't have the means to recover my old account, so, starting afresh, it seems.

 

As for the topic, I am of the opinion that the story ends with Journey's End - and Sahmad's Tale. While I don't acknowledge the unfinished serials, Sahmad's Tale was completed, albeit after the end. But as long as it's finished, I'm fine, and I would hate to leave *it* unfinished in turn just so that I could cut the story off cleanly at Journey's End.

 

As for the Greg reveals, well, I'm not even sure that I fully understand them all in the first place. So I'm still kind of digesting that stuff. I do like some of the ideas, though; for example, Velika as a Great Being is pretty cool. Not sure what I think about the Red Star, but there it is.

[LegoSWfan]

The heroes should get a third chance as well.

But you don't always get a third chance, sometimes the bad guy wins and you and your team are killed.

[believe victims]

 

The heroes should get a third chance as well.

But you don't always get a third chance, sometimes the bad guy wins and you and your team are killed.

 

 

Yes, that's exactly why children follow stories about heroes. To watch those heroes get mercilessly slaughtered.

[Regitnui]

 

 

 

The heroes should get a third chance as well.

But you don't always get a third chance, sometimes the bad guy wins and you and your team are killed.

Yes, that's exactly why children follow stories about heroes. To watch those heroes get mercilessly slaughtered.

Masterfully placed sarcasm.

 

But seriously, you want to watch your protagonists be ground into the dirt, their victories reduced to nothing but widdle in the wind? Go play Warhammer 40K or the Binding of Isaac. This is Bionicle, and it does not have the narrative tone of suffering and destruction.

[Ford]

It teaches kids that sometimes, no matter how hard you try, it might not be enough.

As someone who is studying to be a nurse, and at the moment taking a course on the psychology of human development, this is the number one thing that adults do not, I repeat, DO NOT EVER TEACH CHILDREN. The most common way to teach a child to follow their dreams is to tell them that as long as they work at something, they can achieve it, but this statement tells me that adults would rather want children to work toward something and then just give up because it means absolutely nothing to anything.

I have half a mind to bring this up to my professor the next time I see her because this, to me, is unacceptable. 

[LegoSWfan]

Way to fill their little heads with lies, Fordian.

 

Dina, at last you get it

[Ford]

Way to fill their little heads with lies, Fordian.

So, by extension, my parents lied to me with that same exact concept?

To put this in perspective, I have set my mind to a lot of things, and have accomplished a lot of things. Some of these include being in a university level concert band two years before I even graduated high school, getting through a rigorous admissions process and getting into nursing school, and even being accepted for a summer internship at a medical school, all as a college freshman or younger. The statement you made showed some negativity which is something, besides pain (and taxes), people try their hardest to avoid in life. To rear children on this negative concept baffles me. My parents were not negative from what I remember, and I wish to follow the same teachings for when I have children of my own. Sure, this world is a pretty dark place, but why make it all so negative? I would make it seem negative, but always provide a positive outcome to combat that negativity.

To close, if the statement made before was taken out of the context of this discussion and presented to someone else, the response would most likely be:

"It's not that you don't do enough, but the fact that you have done the best you can do."

[LegoSWfan]

Why raise them to think anything different? When there out on their own, they will see that real life is not sunshine and rainbows.

[believe victims]

Dina, at last you get it

 

I have such a hard time believing that sarcasm managed to fly that far over your head that I must entertain the notion you're trolling.

 

Look, I don't know if you're trying to be cool or edgy or if you honestly think telling people to give up forever is an excellent message to send to impressionable youth, but you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of why people engage with stories and what they enjoy about them. It's not about teaching people that the world is sunshine and rainbows; Bionicle in no way taught them that. What kind of sunshine and rainbow world has ANY kind of ultimate evil? It's about teaching kids (heck, teaching ANYONE) not to give up hope, even in difficult times, because if you keep fighting you can change the world for the better. That kind of positive, inspiring message that actually accomplishes something will always be worth more than "THE WORLD IS A TERRIBLE PLACE SO HATE YOUR LIFE AND GIVE UP".

[LegoSWfan]

I'm not trying to be anything but myself. In my eyes, YOUR the one who's trolling for assuming that I'm trying to aspire to be something I'm not.

[Lyichir]

I'm not trying to be anything but myself. In my eyes, YOUR the one who's trolling for assuming that I'm trying to aspire to be something I'm not.

It's hard to assume anything about you because it's hard for well-adjusted human beings to even COMPREHEND what sort of person would advocate untempered nihilism as a good philosophy to convey to children.

 

There's a reason that the kind of ending you're advocating is less "cliche" than children's stories with a positive message, and that's because you have to have a heart as black as pitch to even consider sending a message like that to children. Even A Series of Unfortunate Events, one of my favorite series, never stooped to such a level—even when the bad guys won, the heroes of the story (the Baudelaire siblings) at least SURVIVED, and continued to persevere in the face of adversity. That was a story that REVELED in darkness and misery. And while the ending of their story wasn't necessarily happy, it was, at the very least, bittersweet—the characters lives continued on, arguably with even more purpose and genuine hope than before. Your proposed ending does the opposite—it extinguishes all hope for the characters while rendering all their past achievements null and void.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Lyichir

[fishers64]

Salvus, 2008 taught exactly what you said - that heroes don't win all the time. 

 

Just because they didn't win in 2008 doesn't mean they couldn't win later. And logically, following the laws of causality from that point, they would.

 

No, the heroes don't always win. No, life is not composed of sunshine and rainbows in Bionicle. But it is possible, at any point in life, to come out ahead. And the heroes, in this instance, wanted to come out ahead. Possibility + desire = action. 

 

Do the heroes win? Not always. But in 2010, they did. And cutting off the story after 2008 doesn't eliminate that reality that they would, it just wouldn't show it to us, leaving the story unresolved. 

[Regitnui]

 

 

Dina, at last you get it

I have such a hard time believing that sarcasm managed to fly that far over your head that I must entertain the notion you're trolling.

I think we've hit upon the entire purpose of ToaSalvus' existence on this site. They spent weeks in the 2015 discussion thread calling the reboot skeleball and useless piles of plastic, only to get unceremoniously ignored when people began getting the sets and confirming that they are good.

 

Now I think they've found another opinion that 'provokes discussion' to champion despite the overwhelmingly negative feedback ToaSalvus is getting. I think we should just let the nihilist here have his hollow victory and ignore him.

 

Finally, Salvus, I hope you mature a little more before trying to get involved with raising a child, or participating in any debate again. You're not as anonymous as you think on the Internet, because any hacker can trace your IP and hijack your computer. That's how Google offers you personalized ads, which in your case must be "suicide hotline" and "snuff films".

[LegoSWfan]

What?! I'm just saying... Ya know what? Nevermind. I give up trying to debate with you all on the logic of constantly winning.

 

And I'm not all dark and Emo like you all keep assuming.

Edited April 4, 2015 by ToaSalvus

[believe victims]

the logic of constantly winning.

 

That's just the thing, though -- the Toa weren't constantly winning. They may have won the war, but they certainly lost several battles (most notably, the one in 2008). It's not about giving the unrealistic expectation to win at everything you ever do; nobody in this thread is advocating that. It's important to accept and learn from your failures. However, there's a difference between "you can't win it all" and "when it matters most you will fail completely and eternally so give up now". The former is a message that is both realistic and important to learn; the latter is nihilistic and accomplishes pretty much nothing.

 

I don't agree with how confrontational and personal some of the things other people are saying about you is, but at the same time, I also recognize that a large amount of people will find your arguments unpalatable, as teaching children to give up on life is bound to be. 

[Regitnui]

What?! I'm just saying... Ya know what? Nevermind. I give up trying to debate with you all on the logic of constantly winning.

 

And I'm not all dark and Emo like you all keep assuming.

Forgive me for insulting you, but you seem to be missing what everyone else is saying. The Toa never won consistently. They lost, often, but came back swinging each time. Why should '08 be different? Why can't the Toa come back and fight for an ocean of calm in a world bent on subjugating them? Why do we have to have the world end in hopelessness? Nihilism is not a healthy outlook, leading us to wonder why you advocate it: are you overwhelmingly pessimistic? Are you trolling? Are you simply a fan of grim stories? Why?

[Rider Of Spiders]

Is this the same dude that dubs Movieverse Autobots as "Slaughterbots?" For, you know, actually participating the war by killing Decepticons? I don't see how that's too OOC.

 

The point is, it's hard to think what is or is not grim enough for you to enjoy. Bionicle G1 was already pretty rough considering that it had no previous fanbase that the previously mentioned roughness would've attracted, unlike Transformers, at least the Movieverse.

 

I have gone through different threads all over BZP, EB and TFW2005: Every thread I've seen you post in you seem to always disagree with the context, whether it be "the best CCBS set", "Bionicle G2 is fun" or "good things about the Movies".

 

I think it's pretty sad that if I see a thread like those above, with a post of yours in, I can pretty much already read it with select buzzwords without even seeing it.

 

I, along with others, would like to be friends with everyone, but you could pay attention to the proverb "if you can't say anything good, say nothing." Especially if it's a topic dedicated to a subject you've expressed your opinion on rather many times.

[LegoSWfan]

Is this the same dude that dubs Movieverse Autobots as "Slaughterbots?" For, you know, actually participating the war by killing Decepticons? I don't see how that's too OOC.

The point is, it's hard to think what is or is not grim enough for you to enjoy. Bionicle G1 was already pretty rough considering that it had no previous fanbase that the previously mentioned roughness would've attracted, unlike Transformers, at least the Movieverse.

I have gone through different threads all over BZP, EB and TFW2005: Every thread I've seen you post in you seem to always disagree with the context, whether it be "the best CCBS set", "Bionicle G2 is fun" or "good things about the Movies".

I think it's pretty sad that if I see a thread like those above, with a post of yours in, I can pretty much already read it with select buzzwords without even seeing it.

I, along with others, would like to be friends with everyone, but you could pay attention to the proverb "if you can't say anything good, say nothing." Especially if it's a topic dedicated to a subject you've expressed your opinion on rather many times.

If you had really read my TFW posts, you'd see that I get along with a majority of posters.

[Jobber]

Maybe we should take a break before a mod has to step in, 'eh?

[Regitnui]

Alright, AnonUser, but there's still my question:

 

If you had really read my TFW posts, you'd see that I get along with a majority of posters.

But why do you advocate nihilism? Reality is more cynical than optimistic, but on the whole, global standard of living is hopeful and improving.

[Rider Of Spiders]

If you had really read my TFW posts, you'd see that I get along with a majority of posters.

This will be my last post here as well:

Way to ignore everything else on my post. I read the TFW thread above after seeing AOE, and I only visit the Movieverse section. I suggest you at least read the last paragraph in my post.

 

Yes, real life is not happiness and triumph all the time, and it should be told to children by their parents, not bluntly by toyline overkill.

 

Happiness and triumph is, after all, what everyone deserves, and that should be taught by everyday life of children.(which happens to include toys.)

[Black Six]

Finally, Salvus, I hope you mature a little more before trying to get involved with raising a child, or participating in any debate again. You're not as anonymous as you think on the Internet, because any hacker can trace your IP and hijack your computer. That's how Google offers you personalized ads, which in your case must be "suicide hotline" and "snuff films".

You need to tone down your attitude. Assuming things about people and insulting them as a result is not okay, and it is not your job to judge whether or not someone should be allowed to raise a child.

[Storm2356]

Sounds like the topic got significantly derailed...

I picked that Journey's End was the end, but this sums up my feelings on the first part of the poll more accurately:

 

As for the topic, I am of the opinion that the story ends with Journey's End - and Sahmad's Tale. While I don't acknowledge the unfinished serials, Sahmad's Tale was completed, albeit after the end. But as long as it's finished, I'm fine, and I would hate to leave *it* unfinished in turn just so that I could cut the story off cleanly at Journey's End.

 

I will acknowledge things like the Red Star and Velika being a Great Being, because it's pretty clear to me from pre-2010 stuff that they planned to do stuff with that.

[Regitnui]

 

Finally, Salvus, I hope you mature a little more before trying to get involved with raising a child, or participating in any debate again. You're not as anonymous as you think on the Internet, because any hacker can trace your IP and hijack your computer. That's how Google offers you personalized ads, which in your case must be "suicide hotline" and "snuff films".

You need to tone down your attitude. Assuming things about people and insulting them as a result is not okay, and it is not your job to judge whether or not someone should be allowed to raise a child.

Apologies. It will not happen again.