Generation 2 Storyline

[BIONICLE 4EVER]

Hello, I'm new in the forums, I've been a long time fan of Bionicle. I'd like to discuss about the storyline in the rebooted continuity of Bionicle. Despite a large number of references, I feel this story is very unconnected to the original continuity. I'm not saying it's bad, but I'd like the LEGO Group to include some elements from the previous run to enrich the story, like in Star Wars Episode VII where it's like a reboot, or recreation that has some "original" elements. Who would help me? Also, I feel there are less sets than in the previous line. But remember, Bionicle is a good theme, not bad, I'm just suggesting

[Rakrondewl]

Welcome to BZPower.  You can find theories and speculation about the storyline in the "Storyline & Theories" Forum.

[Aanchir]

Star Wars Episode VII is a very different type of reboot than Bionicle Generation 2. Star Wars Episode 7 is really just continuing the Star Wars series from where it left off. In fact, by the definition used on Wikipedia, it doesn't even qualify as a reboot any more than the prequels did. It's just a sequel to Return of the Jedi. Some film critics and filmmakers obfuscate the issue by using the term "reboot" to refer to any revival of a series that has been on hiatus for more than a couple years.

 

Bionicle Generation 2 is a true continuity reboot which discards all but the series' core elements and starts it up again with a clean slate. A reboot can still include nods and references to elements of the original story (such as with the Nuva Symbols being used to identify the Toa this year), but does not share a continuity with the original story.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Aanchir

[Bonkle]

Less sets? Year one from both gave us six Toa, six village leaders and several enemies.

 

Year two for both may split in terms of what kind of sets, but it's about the same numerically.

[BIONICLE 4EVER]

Ok pals, thanks for welcoming and comments, and sorry if I made some mistakes, but anyways, as a brief appearance, I'd still love to see original elements. With less sets I referred for example like in the previous years, where there were about at least 30 sets each year; the reboot has only a little less than 20 each year. But I'm asking if the rebooted continuity, even if it would be connected or not to the previous iteration, happens way after the original one. Just trying to compare if this line would be at least slightly similar to the 2001-2010 line...

[Chip Wiseman]

[...] With less sets I referred for example like in the previous years, where there were about at least 30 sets each year; the reboot has only a little less than 20 each year. [...]

 

That number... doesn't seem right to me.

 

2001: 6 Toa + 6 Turaga + 5 Rahi = 17 sets (23 if you count the 6 McDonalds Matoran)

2002: 6 Bohrok +6 Bohrok Va + 6 Toa Nuva + 3 Titans + 1 Fikou = 22 sets

2003: 6 Bohrok Kal + 6 Rahkshi + 6 Kohlii Matoran + 4 Titans = 22 sets

2004: 6 Toa Metru + 6 Vahki + 6 Matoran + 4 Titans = 22 sets

2005: 6 Rahaga + 6 Visorak + 6 Toa Hordika + 2 Toa Hagah + 3 Titans = 23 sets (27 if you count the 4 system playsets)

2006: 6 Piraka + 6 Matoran + 6 Toa Inika + 4 Titans = 22 sets (26 if you count the 4 system playsets) (TOO MANY if you count all the good guy/bad guy variations)

2007: 6 Barraki + 6 Toa Mahri + 4 Matoran/Hydruka + 6 Titans = 22 sets (25 if you count the 3 system playsets)

2008: 6 Phantoka + 6 Mistika + 6 Matoran + 3 Titans + 5 Vehicles + 1 Klakk = 27 sets

2009: 6 Agori + 6 Gatorian + 6 Glatorian Legends + 3 Titans + 5 Vehicles + 1 Click = 27 sets

2010: 6 Stars

 

2015: 6 Protectors + 6 Toa + 4 Skull Villains + 2 Titans = 18 sets

2016: 6 Toa + 6 Creatures + 4 Beasts + 3 Titans = 19 sets [EDIT: Kopaka and Melum are one set, meaning 2016 only has 18 sets. Whoops!]

 

So yes, while the reboot currently has less average sets per year than G1, at 18.5 vs. 22.6 (excluding Stars), G1 did not generally have anywhere close to 30 sets per year.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Chip Biscuit

[Aanchir]

 

[...] With less sets I referred for example like in the previous years, where there were about at least 30 sets each year; the reboot has only a little less than 20 each year. [...]

 

That number... doesn't seem right to me.

 

2001: 6 Toa + 6 Turaga + 5 Rahi = 17 sets (23 if you count the 6 McDonalds Matoran)

2002: 6 Bohrok +6 Bohrok Va + 6 Toa Nuva + 3 Titans + 1 Fikou = 22 sets

2003: 6 Bohrok Kal + 6 Rahkshi + 6 Kohlii Matoran + 4 Titans = 22 sets

2004: 6 Toa Metru + 6 Vahki + 6 Matoran + 4 Titans = 22 sets

2005: 6 Rahaga + 6 Visorak + 6 Toa Hordika + 2 Toa Hagah + 3 Titans = 23 sets (27 if you count the 4 system playsets)

2006: 6 Piraka + 6 Matoran + 6 Toa Inika + 4 Titans = 22 sets (26 if you count the 4 system playsets) (TOO MANY if you count all the good guy/bad guy variations)

2007: 6 Barraki + 6 Toa Mahri + 4 Matoran/Hydruka + 6 Titans = 22 sets (25 if you count the 3 system playsets)

2008: 6 Phantoka + 6 Mistika + 6 Matoran + 3 Titans + 5 Vehicles + 1 Klakk = 27 sets

2009: 6 Agori + 6 Gatorian + 6 Glatorian Legends + 3 Titans + 5 Vehicles + 1 Click = 27 sets

2010: 6 Stars

 

2015: 6 Protectors + 6 Toa + 4 Skull Villains + 2 Titans = 18 sets

2016: 6 Toa + 6 Creatures + 4 Beasts + 3 Titans = 19 sets [EDIT: Kopaka and Melum are one set, meaning 2016 only has 18 sets. Whoops!]

 

So yes, while the reboot currently has less average sets per year than G1, at 18.5 vs. 22.6 (excluding Stars), G1 did not generally have anywhere close to 30 sets per year.

 

Actually 2016 has only 3 beasts, so 17 sets. Also, you didn't count things like mask packs for the G1 years.

 

I do appreciate some good number crunching, though, especially when I don't have to do it all myself. It's kinda interesting how the number of non-promo, non-playset sets hovered pretty consistently around 23 sets for so many years despite so many other things changing. I guess it makes sense though since it was generally three sets of six plus however-many large box sets.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Aanchir

[masterchirox580]

Well the current is actually pretty good when compared to lego's other trends. If you look at lego's other lines they give even less explanation. The current line has got some backstory. Although I don't think it's as good as G1 I'd still like to point out that lego are currently handling it quite well what with how they currently run their themes. 

[Xboxtravis]

Well the current is actually pretty good when compared to lego's other trends. If you look at lego's other lines they give even less explanation. The current line has got some backstory. Although I don't think it's as good as G1 I'd still like to point out that lego are currently handling it quite well what with how they currently run their themes.

Yeah Gen 2 has more story to it than "Ultra Agents" for example. It's as if Lego has storywise A-Grade themes like Nexo Nights and Ninjago, B-Grade such as current Bionicle, and C-Grade for themes such as Ultra Agents.

 

I think the complaints about G2 story is that G1 was sort of an A-Grade thing and not a B.

[fishers64]

 

Well the current is actually pretty good when compared to lego's other trends. If you look at lego's other lines they give even less explanation. The current line has got some backstory. Although I don't think it's as good as G1 I'd still like to point out that lego are currently handling it quite well what with how they currently run their themes.

Yeah Gen 2 has more story to it than "Ultra Agents" for example. It's as if Lego has storywise A-Grade themes like Nexo Nights and Ninjago, B-Grade such as current Bionicle, and C-Grade for themes such as Ultra Agents.

 

I think the complaints about G2 story is that G1 was sort of an A-Grade thing and not a B.

 

Yarr, but the A-Grade, B-Grade is subjective. If I were to do the ranks, I'd probably throw Nexo Knights in B-Grade - that theme is dancing with Hero Factory-ish storytelling, give G2 Bionicle a B+, and give Ninjago a A- ...I still think the story quality of that series is slipping. 

 

Then I would wrongly elevate G1 on the A+ pedestal of nostaglia, and get Chir-brothered for my insanity. 

[Lyichir]

 

 

Well the current is actually pretty good when compared to lego's other trends. If you look at lego's other lines they give even less explanation. The current line has got some backstory. Although I don't think it's as good as G1 I'd still like to point out that lego are currently handling it quite well what with how they currently run their themes.

Yeah Gen 2 has more story to it than "Ultra Agents" for example. It's as if Lego has storywise A-Grade themes like Nexo Nights and Ninjago, B-Grade such as current Bionicle, and C-Grade for themes such as Ultra Agents.

 

I think the complaints about G2 story is that G1 was sort of an A-Grade thing and not a B.

 

Yarr, but the A-Grade, B-Grade is subjective. If I were to do the ranks, I'd probably throw Nexo Knights in B-Grade - that theme is dancing with Hero Factory-ish storytelling, give G2 Bionicle a B+, and give Ninjago a A- ...I still think the story quality of that series is slipping. 

 

Then I would wrongly elevate G1 on the A+ pedestal of nostaglia, and get Chir-brothered for my insanity.

 

It seems like you're interpreting those ratings to be qualitative measures rather than quantitative measures, as I interpreted them. Quality is indeed intensely subjective, but the QUANTITY of storytelling is pretty unambiguous. Based on quantity, Nexo Knights would definitely be A-grade like Ninjago and Chima, just by virtue of having a full TV series (as opposed to a miniseries or single episode per year like Hero Factory) along with plenty of side-stories told in other media. More runtime means more opportunity for worldbuilding and character development that exists for its own sake and not just to outline the plot and setting of that year's story. G1 Bionicle was definitely A-grade, since despite not having a TV series, it had multiple ongoing story media in almost every year. Exo-Force would also probably be considered A-grade, with a plethora of online web comics at least in the first two years along with a few books and mini-movies, as would Galidor. Hero Factory, Bionicle G2, Elves, Friends, and arguably even Mixels would be B-grade, since their stories are non-continuous (with one-off TV specials or miniseries and a few books and short stories). But a theme like Ultra Agents is much lighter on story, since it really only had one story medium (the app game/interactive graphic novel). So I'd probably rank it as C-grade, along with similar themes like the original Agents, Atlantis, Dino, Galaxy Squad, and Power Miners that have distinct characters but do not really flesh them or their overarching stories out beyond the core concepts. Arguably you could create a fourth "D-grade" for themes like City or most recent Castle and Pirates themes, which may have some storytelling media but only really feature a few (if any) named characters and do not have any sort of single overarching plot.

 

Of course, these rankings are not official and are somewhat arbitrary, but nevertheless when focusing solely on the quantity of storytelling it is indeed possible to separate various Lego themes into fairly distinct "tiers".

[BIONICLE 4EVER]

Ok, despite the previous mentioned topic, my question is that how would this be better: to keep it as a reboot, or to turn it to a continuity of the original line. I'm not sure which is better, but I still need help...

[Xboxtravis]

Yeah the rating grades were more "quantative" than "quality" ratings. I'd also rank G1 as an A for quality story too; but that's subjective opinion.

 

Quantative wise though, Lego I'd argue has a few more Tiers of storytelling. I'd say themes such as the Modulars, Trains, Mindstorms, and Technic have an F-Grade storywise (the focus is on the sets, not the story. Quality build wise I'd call them A+ sets).

 

Another tier would be "Licensed" story were another media group (Disney, Time-Warner) is in charge of story, which Lego bases their sets on.

[Aanchir]

I think keeping it as a reboot is ideal. It could be possible to tie it to the original line in some way, but ideally not in a way that makes them share the same continuity. IMO that would just needlessly complicate things for both newer fans, who won't likely be familiar with the old continuity, and older fans, who will still be left with bunches of unanswered questions, since there's no way to tie G1 and G2 together and simultaneously tie up all of G1's loose ends.

[fishers64]

since there's no way to tie G1 and G2 together and simultaneously tie up all of G1's loose ends.

I think assuming this at this point is a bad idea. 

 

I don't think they will actually tie G2/G1 together and simultaneously tie the lose ends up, but I think a solution is indeed possible, if the people involved wanted to pursue it, which they probably don't. 

[~Takumo~]

I'd love to see a tie-in with the G1 storyline. It's entirely possible, as we saw Takanuva shuffle through many other dimensions in ine of his journeys. The absense of the Chronicler Takua makes this new generation a bit off-putting to me.

[Toatapio Nuva]

The absense of the Chronicler Takua makes this new generation a bit off-putting to me.

 

Or any interesting villager character for that matter.

Edited February 24, 2016 by Toatapio Nuva

[Tuuli]

I agree the new Bionicle is cheap it feels more dead than ever. And the sets were good on the first year but now it's getting very repetitive. It's basically the same deal as last year. I know what people are gonna say "well the least bionicle was repetitive too" but at least the story was full and not like another Ninjago. New bionicle is Ninjago. I have no love for Bionicle 2016.

[Aanchir]

I agree the new Bionicle is cheap it feels more dead than ever. And the sets were good on the first year but now it's getting very repetitive. It's basically the same deal as last year. I know what people are gonna say "well the least bionicle was repetitive too" but at least the story was full and not like another Ninjago. New bionicle is Ninjago. I have no love for Bionicle 2016.

If new Bionicle were Ninjago then that would be one of the best possible things that could happen to it. Ninjago is unbelievably successful, and anything but cheap. It's got an ongoing multi-season TV series that's had over 50 episodes, and next year it's getting a theatrical film, things G1 Bionicle never got. Plus the LEGO Ninjago Facebook page has like 16 times as many likes as the LEGO Bionicle one.

 

Besides, how can you say the story is repetitive when the 2016 story literally hasn't started yet? The only things we know it will have in common are mask quests, and that's because those are a key part of what make it Bionicle. Ninjago sure never had any mask quests.

[believe victims]

It is important to note that G1 also had a mask hunt in its second year, with the exact same reasoning: new forms, new masks.

 

In fact, if you're willing to loosen the definition just a smidge, there were three mask hunts in the first two years of Bionicle; the Toa also had to collect the Krana to reach the Bahrag.

 

Hunting artifacts is a key aspect of the fantasy genre Bionicle gets most of its storytelling tropes from. It certainly never really stopped being a part of G1.

[Tuuli]

Yes and at least the first three years of bionicle had more character development, more characters, better sets and creatures and it really felt like a bionicle world

[Lyichir]

Yes and at least the first three years of bionicle had more character development, more characters, better sets and creatures and it really felt like a bionicle world

More character development? We'll see. The original G1 Toa were TERRIBLE at character development, considering they had to learn to work together as a team multiple times before it finally stuck some time around mid-2003. And beyond that struggle to get along, they had relatively few character traits, being fairly generic archetypes for the most part. Later Toa like the Toa Metru and Inika were slightly better in that respect.

 

G1 definitely did have more characters, but that can be chalked up almost entirely to two things that G2 lacks—a story-driven adventure game and Happy Meal toys. G2 is focusing more on the Toa themselves, which is probably a good decision even if it means that we don't get to see the story from a villager's-eye view.

 

Better sets? Please. The original Toa had terrible articulation and blocky, simplistic builds. And that's not getting into things like the Bohrok or Rahkshi that were sets of six identical builds (twelve, in the Bohrok's case). Set design has come a long way since 2003, and it shows.

 

Finally, I don't even know what you mean by "clearly a Bionicle world". As far as I'm concerned, the G2 setting has a lot in common with the ones from the early years of G1, with ruins, monuments, and an abundance of nature, not to mention plenty of biomechanical people and creatures to populate it. If there's some way that G2 falls short in that respect, I'm not seeing it.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Lyichir

[believe victims]

Yes and at least the first three years of bionicle had more character development, more characters, better sets and creatures and it really felt like a bionicle world

 

>more character development

 

...where? where in the first three years of Bionicle did any of the Toa get more character development than one-dimensional personality traits? even in the books released in 2003, you could usually boil the Toa down to one or two key traits each, with little nuance or complexity to them.

 

>more characters

 

...so? the mark of a good story isn't how many characters it can shove down your throat, it's how it uses them. 2001: A Space Odyssey has fewer named characters than Foodfight! yet I have never seen people hold up the latter as superior based on character count.

 

>better sets

 

this is subjective, and in some ways I do prefer the original Mata aesthetically (mostly for their iconic, basic masks, as contrasted by the overwrought messes we got in later years), but honestly, I loved last year's sets, and all of the ways I've been let down by this year's sets were ways in which they stepped back to the sins of G1's designs.

 

>really felt like a bionicle world

 

you know why it did? because it was what set the standards for what a bionicle world would feel like. of course G1 would feel like a bionicle world. The first Ace Attorney game feels like an Ace Attorney game. A New Hope feels like a Star Wars movie. there's no standards they have to reach to do that; they get it automatically by coming first.

 

meanwhile, something new, it really has to fight fan nostalgia to prove itself worthy to exist in the same franchise. but you know what? the original bionicle cycled through so many different tones and aesthetics, i've found, looking back, that i can't pin down what makes a bionicle world. taken as a whole, the world of bionicle g1 is a lot of things. it's mysterious islands, it's metropolises, it's gangsters, it's crime syndicates, it's just all kinds of things mishmashed together as time went on.

 

so when asking "does bionicle g2 feel like a bionicle world?" i go back to the basics. i go back to what defined the bionicle world for me: 2001, the origins of the bionicle world. Robotic people and creatures on a mysterious island landscape, hunting for masks of power, ancient artifacts that will augment their strength, fighting against the evil force of darkness, Makuta.

 

If you ask me, this feels more like a Bionicle world than Voya Nui did.

[Xboxtravis]

The density of G1's early story boils down to one factor in my opinion, MNOG. The books didn't come out until 2003, the comics were short and simplistic; and until Mask of Light the story was very simple.

 

MNOG though was obviously lovingly developed by Templar Studios. The characters we met; while not very deep in their personalities, were memorable. Takua remains one of my favorite characters, in large part to MNOG.

 

However overstuffing a story doesn't always make it better, in my opinion MNOG 2 was a victim of that. Bland characters that did no more than sell stuff or blabber about esoteric traits; level grinding, confusing map layout, and even more level grinding. I've never been able to stomach a full play though of that game...

 

So what I'm saying is that while more character and world building is ideal, it must be handled tactfully or else an audience will get confused and lose interest quickly.

 

And I'm not ready to decry G2 as a failure quite yet. This is a story meant for children (just as G1) and I am a 22 year old man... I was a child when G1 arrived, perhaps the reason it resonates with me more. But I'm not a child now, and I can't judge the new G2 with the same childlike perspective I had back in late 2001. Besides the only reason I care do much about G2 is nostalgia, and an interest in seeing something from my childhood return.

[BIONICLE 4EVER]

Ok, despite the previous mentioned topic, my question is that how would this be better?: to keep it as a reboot, or to turn it to a continuity of the original line. I'm not sure which is better, but I still need help...

[fishers64]

 

Yes and at least the first three years of bionicle had more character development, more characters, better sets and creatures and it really felt like a bionicle world

More character development? We'll see. The original G1 Toa were TERRIBLE at character development, considering they had to learn to work together as a team multiple times before it finally stuck some time around mid-2003. And beyond that struggle to get along, they had relatively few character traits, being fairly generic archetypes for the most part. Later Toa like the Toa Metru and Inika were slightly better in that respect.

 

[...]

 

Finally, I don't even know what you mean by "clearly a Bionicle world". As far as I'm concerned, the G2 setting has a lot in common with the ones from the early years of G1, with ruins, monuments, and an abundance of nature, not to mention plenty of biomechanical people and creatures to populate it. If there's some way that G2 falls short in that respect, I'm not seeing it.

 

Exactly. We're still in "2002" in terms of storytelling. We haven't got to "2003" or "2004" yet. In fair weather, I would expect the story to pick up next year. 

 

May I point out that G2 and G1 have the same pattern going on? In 2001, we had Rahi - mindless beasts controlled by Makuta. In 2015, we had Skull Villains - mindless beasts controlled by Makuta. In 2002, we had the Bohrok - a villain that was kinda unrelated to Makuta, and in 2016 we have Umarak and the Creatures - not really related the Ekimu/Makuta conflict, but will probably tie into the world building in some obscure way that will be important later. 

 

Then Lego will be stupid enough to release more Beasts in the winter, and in the summer Makuta himself will make his grand appearance for a big storytelling blowout.

 

I suggest you all stop comparing it to 2004-08 story, because we haven't got there yet. 

[Dogbert]

Ok, despite the previous mentioned topic, my question is that how would this be better?: to keep it as a reboot, or to turn it to a continuity of the original line. I'm not sure which is better, but I still need help...

 Honestly, I think it works better like a reboot. Trying to tie-in with G1 would somewhat allienate new fans, as much of the media and sets are somewhat unavaible.

 

If only G2 could step up their villans game...

 

The only connection between the two that works in G1 canon is this: It is possible to travel to the G2 dimension via a Kanohi Olmak; wherever on not it has been or will be done is uncertain.

[fishers64]

If only G2 could step up their villans game...

Frankly I've noticed that the #1 problem with Lego stories since the demise of Teridax is that they took stupid pills in villain design. Ninjago averted this to a degree with Lord Garmadon and is the large exception to the rule, and that is probably responsible for its success. Even the Overlord and Morro were very good villains despite being one-offs. 

 

Contrast that with Hero Factory, which never had a good villain at all, or Elves/Friends (Elves might be getting the picture here), Nexo Knights and Bionicle G2. I know that most writers are attracted to protagonist design (in the case of Lego, that might be literal) but without a well designed villain or at least an antagonist, you don't have a story. Somehow Lego needs to get the message there. 

[Lyichir]

 

If only G2 could step up their villans game...

Frankly I've noticed that the #1 problem with Lego stories since the demise of Teridax is that they took stupid pills in villain design. Ninjago averted this to a degree with Lord Garmadon and is the large exception to the rule, and that is probably responsible for its success. Even the Overlord and Morro were very good villains despite being one-offs. 

 

Contrast that with Hero Factory, which never had a good villain at all, or Elves/Friends (Elves might be getting the picture here), Nexo Knights and Bionicle G2. I know that most writers are attracted to protagonist design (in the case of Lego, that might be literal) but without a well designed villain or at least an antagonist, you don't have a story. Somehow Lego needs to get the message there. 

 

I don't know why you mention Nexo Knights, because Jestro and the Book of Monsters are hilarious. Their dynamic (an ineffectual villain wannabe and a much more evil villain who is utterly reliant on the former) is a great source of humor, and reminds me of Jack Spicer and Wuya from Xiaolin Showdown (anyone else remember that show?).

 

Frankly, I think the Overlord from Ninjago is actually a much WORSE villain, largely because he's played totally straight and as a result is incredibly generic, with no real motivations other than world domination. Even Von Nebula had more complex and interesting motivations and characterization than that, particularly in the chapter books.

 

Also, even ignoring the fact that Elves is introducing a fairly compelling villain this year, it also had an impressive non-villain antagonist in the first year (Skyra). Good versus evil is not necessarily the only type of conflict that can form a good story or even the best—sometimes, an antagonist who ISN'T truly evil can be much more interesting to work with, because overcoming them often requires the heroes to actively reconcile their differences with them rather than just defeat them in combat. See also one of the most glaring omissions from your list of recent villains: President Business/The Man Upstairs.

[Xboxtravis]

Yes... All will bow to President Business; a slot on representation of overly cautious AFOL's. I laughed hard at Will Ferrell's live action part in the Lego Movie; because it was like looking into a mirror. I saw myself.

 

(No I don't use super glue, but everything else was spot on)