Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Or, at least, not a very good one. It has no meaning, and very little life.
 

theme
[theem] 
noun
1.
a subject of discourse, discussion, meditation, or composition; topic:
The need for world peace was the theme of the meeting.

2.
a unifying or dominant idea, motif, etc., as in a work of art.

Source

 

The reason I'm including this is that I know that it will come up in the ensuing discussion. :P When I say "has no theme" what I mean is that Bionicle G2 has no unified message that it intends for kids to grasp. Other than "buy this toy". But if the toy doesn't symbolize a theme or message, it's not really something one would be proud to display on their shelf and call themselves a Bionicle fan over, would it? Instead, we would be more likely to complain about it. 

 

I'm not going to argue that Bionicle doesn't have design motifs anymore, because there is a strong case that they do. But there is not a unifying subject of discourse - the only thing left to discuss is factual surface details of the sets or story. 

 

1) "I am here to battle evil, claim my Golden Mask of Power, and save the Island." is NOT a theme. 

 

This is not a theme, this is a commitment to a certain action. If I say: "Today I am going to write ten lines of code, find my old book on dinosaurs, and sharpen ten colored pencils" nobody would call that a theme of a story. 

 

What is evil? Why is claiming your Golden Mask important? Why does the Island need saving? You can argue that the Legends video answers these questions: Evil is Makuta, because he was jealous of his brother and made this dangerous overpowered mask, the Golden Masks are needed to give the Toa elemental powers and a fighting chance, and the villagers are at risk of being mind-controlled by "evil" undead bugs. 

 

But that doesn't answer this question: Why should I care about what goes on this island in the middle of nowhere? Why should I care about whether the villagers get controlled, whether the Golden Masks get found, whether evil gets defeated here? Who says the Toa are correct about what is evil and what is good? So far I haven't seen any proof that they have things figured out. In fact I see the exact opposite. That's where all the "evil Ekimu" theories come from. 

 

2) "Unity, Duty, Destiny" is NOT a theme. 

 

It's merely a trite list of values, thrown together. Also, the concept of unity is distinct from duty which is distinct from destiny. I can have unity with a group of friends with no duty (we could just be hanging out at the mall), and I can be sitting all alone in my room with a destiny. So it's de-unified in and of itself. 

 

Further, it isn't a theme because it raises questions about itself. Unified with whom? Duty about what? Destiny where? A theme needs to say something about the concepts it raises. Is it good? Bad? You can argue that "these concepts are good" is implied, but why are they good? Because they are more effective in battling evil? So can my commitment to sharpening colored pencils. 

 

Even further, it was mostly introduced this year - it wasn't really a point of 2015's story anyway. 

 

3) "Teamwork" is NOT a theme of Bionicle G2, and neither is overcoming adversity in spite of setbacks (which was Bionicle G1's main theme IMO)

 

The teamwork theme in Bionicle G2 exists in isolated incidences, and is frequently contradicted by the actual story itself. Yes, the Toa have to band together as a team to beat LoSS. Yes, they must unify with their creatures. Yes, Lewa wanders off on his own and gets de-masked by Skull Slicer. 

 

But this is contradicted by other parts of the story. All of the Toa get their Golden Masks on their own. Granted, they have the Protectors to help...but then all of them have to rescue their respective Protectors. (Unlike in G1 where they DID have to ask other members of their team for help.) Lewa swoops in knock off the shooting Skull Warriors single-handedly. Kopaka puts up a shield that isn't needed. Pohatu breaks down a door by himself. Lewa beats the Skull Scorpios alone. Onua rescues everyone from being crushed...by his own actions. And Lewa fights Umarak on his own without any sort of loss in the end. 

 

The Skull Basher battle is a perfect example of this gone wrong, as the number one advocate of teamwork runs into battle alone, gets defeated, and then the Toa go on to beat Skull Basher...without Onua. The Skull Grinder battle: all the teamwork in the world didn't work. Screw teamwork - I have a hammer that can shoot lasers. 

 

The myopic focus on Tahu at the beginning doesn't help, and neither does Narmoto's prideful boast against the horde of spiders when he is off claiming his Golden Mask. As Unikitty would tell us, there is absolutely no consistency.

 

* * *

 

Finally, as I mentioned before, the Toa of G2 treat adversity as if it were a light snack. Enemies? Not really that hard. The amount of success they have is completely unexpected. It took the Toa of G1 eight years of story to accomplish what the G2 Toa do in 8 months, approximately. So that's definitely not a theme of the story. 

 

In large part, I think we want G1's theme back, or if not that, some other theme. It is the message, the statement that evil could be overcome, even if it fought back and plotted against me, that once left me proud to say that I was a Bionicle fan. Now, that theme is gone, and I'm still waiting for it to come back. Or for something to come back.

 

The Bionicle I know has not returned. 

 

  • Upvote 15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You realize a story can have more than one theme, right? And that not everything in a story has to be dedicated to reinforcing one specific theme?

 

3) "Teamwork" is NOT a theme of Bionicle G2, and neither is overcoming adversity in spite of setbacks(which was Bionicle G1's main theme IMO)

It seems to me like the Toa do an awful lot of overcoming adversity in spite of setbacks, not to mention a lot of working together. The fact that they don't ALWAYS work together or ALWAYS succeed does not somehow undermine that. Both of these are perfectly valid themes for G2.

 

The teamwork theme in Bionicle G2 exists in isolated incidences, and is frequently contradicted by the actual story itself. Yes, the Toa have to band together as a team to beat LoSS. Yes, they must unify with their creatures. Yes, Lewa wanders off on his own and gets de-masked by Skull Slicer.

 

But this is contradicted by other parts of the story. All of the Toa get their Golden Masks on their own. Granted, they have the Protectors to help...but then all of them have to rescue their respective Protectors. (Unlike in G1 where they DID have to ask other members of their team for help.) Lewa swoops in knock off the shooting Skull Warriors single-handedly. Kopaka puts up a shield that isn't needed. Pohatu breaks down a door by himself. Lewa beats the Skull Scorpios alone. Onua rescues everyone from being crushed...by his own actions. And Lewa fights Umarak on his own without any sort of loss in the end.

So any story where people are remotely useful or competent on their own "contradicts" a theme of teamwork? That kind of twisted reasoning is beneath what I know you're capable of. Teamwork being important in a story doesn't mean that individual characters can't ever have individual victories. Even in G1 there were plenty of instances where a Toa succeeded at getting a mask, solving a puzzle, or defeating an enemy without their teammates' help.

 

The Skull Grinder battle: all the teamwork in the world didn't work. Screw teamwork - I have a hammer that can shoot lasers.

If you were paying any attention, Ekimu's victory over Skull Grinder was made possible by the Toa mobbing Skull Grinder to buy him time to reassemble the Hammer of Power. Sounds to me like both teamwork AND overcoming adversity in spite of setbacks... since, you know, all six Toa were maskless and largely powerless at that point, while Skull Grinder was still tapping into an incredible power source. Without the Toa's help, Skull Grinder could have destroyed the Mask of Creation before Ekimu had a chance to arm himself.

 

Finally, as I mentioned before, the Toa of G2 treat adversity as if it were a light snack. Enemies? Not really that hard. The amount of success they have is completely unexpected. It took the Toa of G1 eight years of story to accomplish what the G2 Toa do in 8 months, approximately. So that's definitely not a theme of the story.

What the G2 Toa accomplished in 8 months was not even close to the same task as what the G1 Toa did in eight years. Sure, they both woke someone up who was sleeping. One of those people was a highly important craftsman and the other the spiritual embodiment of a universe. You might as well be saying "big deal, the Toa Nuva awakened one sleeping person? The Toa Metru awakened a THOUSAND people, all at the same time!" That's the kind of false equivalence we're dealing with here.

 

And the Toa's enemies being "not really that hard" is your entirely subjective opinion, and not one reinforced by the actual story. Consider: over the course of 2015, there were as many instances of a Toa being stripped of their mask and powers by an enemy (nine total) as in the first five years of G1 (counting the two times Lewa lost his mask, the one time Tahu lost his mask, and the six Toa Metru becoming Toa Hordika). Am I supposed to believe that being stripped of your powers and your teammates having to care for you AND help you get your mask and powers back is some kind of cakewalk? Sure, with teamwork, strategy, and determination the Toa do eventually manage to trounce each of the Skull Creatures they face, but the G1 Toa likewise defeated individual enemies like Rahi and Bohrok all the time. G1 Gali even defeated a whole squad of Tahnok with one attack. Does that mean her previous and later struggles aren't valid?

 

Note also — the Toa getting their masks back so quickly after losing them is simply a matter of actually having their teammates there to help them shortly thereafter. The two times Lewa lost his mask and the one time Tahu lost his mask, they were alone and quickly mind-controlled.

 

Overall, your idea of a "theme" — a message that every single event in a story exists to reinforce — is needlessly simplistic. That's not how real storytelling works. If you don't enjoy Bionicle G2, that's your call, but don't lower yourself to try using warped logic to try and argue that there's nothing there for anybody to enjoy in the first place. All you're doing here is covering your eyes and trying to tell the rest of us that there's nothing to be seen. And after all the well-thought-out arguments I've seen from you in the past (some of which I've agreed with, others of which I haven't), I would have expected better from one of your final contributions to this site.

Edited by Aanchir
  • Upvote 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that most folks have forgotten that Bionicle is for kids. Sadly, you can't expect a lot from the story of a kids' toyline. There are exceptions to that, but they are sadly few and far between. 

 

However, I'm personally rewriting G2 as it progresses in order to have a story that I'm satisfied with. After all, LEGO is all about imagination. Case in point, look on the bright side, and think of the mediocre canon as an opportunity to write your own story. :)

  • Upvote 5

 

96DIFYm.png


 


A big thank you to Toucan Sam for the Okotian name.


[topic=gallery_115994_378_11223.jpg][/topic]


 


:vahi: [ON HIATUS]  :vahi: 


 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saying that G1 was any more coherent in having a theme of 'unity' than G2 doesn't feel accurate to me. What about 2008? We had been told since the beginning that it was the duty of the 6 Toa united to awaken Mata Nui - we always knew that was the big endgame that we were inevitably moving toward. It was a narrative climax and probably the most natural place of all to reinforce the unity theme - I mean, unity is right there in the definition of what the event is. But then out of nowhere the whole thing we've been promised would happen for 7 years was dropped and Ignika awakens Mata Nui all by itself - no unity necessary. 

 

And that's far from the only example. In fact, a lot of arc conclusions opt for the lone hero narrative with a 'unity' element somewhat nonsensically added on. Vakama defeats Makuta, then the other Metru show up to finish off trapping him. Matoro goes off to save Mata Nui, while the others hold off the Barraki for him. Mata-Nui unites the tribes of Bara Magna, but it's mostly to the benefit of himself and his quest, from a narrative point of view. Takanuva defeats Makuta alone even though the resolution is reached through the two uniting (an idea that was too thematically ambitious for the movie to know what it was doing with it, honestly).

 

So I mean, Ekimu getting things done himself at 2015's climax really isn't anything new. It's one story in a long tradition of similar ones.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Teamwork being important in a story doesn't mean that individual characters can't ever have individual victories. Even in G1 there were plenty of instances where a Toa succeeded at getting a mask, solving a puzzle, or defeating an enemy without their teammates' help.

I don't know what to say about the rest of your post yet - I wish that you had not used a tone that was so bitter, so I could see things more clearly - but I have to say that this statement is absolutely correct. 

 

Whoops. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see LEGO forcing themselve to hold back on the story so it doesn't become so complicated like G1 did.

 

(note I loved the complicated story line.)

 

Since Bionicle is now targeted to younger people. So a simple story won't confuse them. (Even though almost all of there other lines get better story lines than Bionicle :burnmad: )

 

 

We old Matoran have to live in a simpler protector world.

Edited by ToaTimeLord

Hey I got a Flickr because I like making LEGO stuff.

https://www.flickr.com/people/toatimelord/

https://discord.gg/7P96Gf
Join the Gang.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I admit I only had time to skim your post, but I don't see how you can say "it doesn't have a theme" -- at least by the normal, plain-English sense of the word, or at least in the sense of it being any different from G1 (not sure if that's your point or not, but it's retelling the same basic "theme" in the normal sense as the original).

 

I'm not sure if it's as successful, but that's a different question from whether it has a theme.

 

Your cited definitions are not clearly against it having a theme, and at least from your opening explanation I don't see how you get from those definitions to your conclusion -- and more to the point, even if that quote doesn't apply, another definition of the word can exist, so you might be able to say "it's not a theme by this definition", but not "it's not a theme by any definition." In normal plain English as I've seen that word applied over the years, I think we would say that the "theme" is "good elemental-powered robotic/biomechanical beings fighting an evil being who is somehow like a brother to an ancient powerful good guy". And maybe throw in "usually on an island". :P

 

By the second definition you cited, this is an idea, and it is unifying (all of Gen1 did this, and Gen2 so far has), so it's a theme. The first definition isn't even so much a definition as a list of some basic synonyms, so it's unclear whether this would apply or not. It looks like it may just be saying that "theme of discussion" is a more common application of the word, but since telling a story is not a discussion, we are supposed to move on to find the most common definition that is relevant. (Or, in a sense, we can say that the "theme" I stated is the subject of the story that is being told.)

 

 

If you would say that why you're right is contained in the parts I had to skim... Okay. I'll try to read the whole thing later. :P

Edited by bonesiii
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is, in fact, an actual theme to Bionicle.

It's Bionicle itself. That's the theme.

 

If you go to someone who makes a diorama and ask, "What's the theme?", the man would simply say, "It's about rabbits". (We're assuming the diorama included many rabbit figures)

So, using this logic, Bionicle is its own theme.

 

Now, on to the topic at hand!

You're argument seems to revolve around the idea that G2 has no message behind it.

This, IMO, is true.

Then you continue, stating that G1 had some sort of message behind it.

Well, I'm here to say G1 is just as meesageless (not a word) as G2!

You mention teamwork as a central theme in Bionicle, but then Bonesiii reminded us that pretty much all the conflicts ended in 1v1's.

 

If you really think about, Bionicle isn't about some deep philosophical issue.

It's just a story that was made to entertain and subtly coerce us into buying sets.

Simple as that.

 

Of course, this all just my opinion.

In this case, I believe it's the right one.

Edited by You just lost the game
  • Upvote 4

        67685335.jpg             

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think my brother already addressed most of what this post had to say, but I'm just curious—if G2 supposedly lacks a theme, what sort of overarching theme is G1 supposed to have had? Because apart from the trite "Unity, Duty, Destiny" (that was not even introduced at the start and often applied to the story only in tenuous and vague ways), I can't think of a single overarching theme for G1—and especially not one that doesn't apply equally to G2.


Formerly Lyichir: Rachira of Influence

Aanchir's and Meiko's brother

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Teamwork being important in a story doesn't mean that individual characters can't ever have individual victories. Even in G1 there were plenty of instances where a Toa succeeded at getting a mask, solving a puzzle, or defeating an enemy without their teammates' help.

I don't know what to say about the rest of your post yet - I wish that you had not used a tone that was so bitter, so I could see things more clearly - but I have to say that this statement is absolutely correct.

 

Whoops.

 

I apologize about my tone. I really get frustrated with topics that criticize things by oversimplifying them, especially when it's coming from a person I ordinarily have a lot of respect for. I need to get better about not taking those kinds of things so personally, but especially when the thing being criticized is something I love, it's hard not to feel like I'm being told I have terrible taste. I suppose I was also upset because I had just read the blog entry about how you were leaving BZPower soon, and I felt like it was a terrible waste if this kind of thinking were the reason you felt like you no longer belonged here. I shouldn't have gotten so angry at you. :(

 

Still, I stand by the feeling that you're really holding G2 Bionicle to an impossible standard if you expect every event in its story to reinforce one singular theme. I can't think of any story, whether well-written or mediocre, that could pass that kind of test. A story that DID focus solely on reinforcing one theme would probably feel really preachy and redundant, and the lessons it teaches would not be very versatile.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely agree with all of this. Bionicle G2 just doesn't mean anything. Yes, it lightly scratches the surface of being able to have a theme with Makuta and such, but it never actually goes anywhere or does anything. There's never any questioning of things and why they're happening, it's simply action after action and that creates no depth and results in a flat, un-layered story. Bionicle G2 commits the ultimate crime of never asking WHY, which is one of if not the most important question in life.

 

And Unity Duty Destiny can definitely be a theme, when it's actually applied to something. I love that slogan so much because of its philosophical value and what it means when applied to life and the world as a whole, but that's because I tend to give it its meaning more than it seems willing to showcase by itself when input into a story. As a central theme for a story, it wasn't perfectly used in Bionicle and is essentially meaningless in G2. It needs to be connected to things and have it challenged and questioned as an ideal in order for it to be interesting. As it is in Bionicle, it doesn't take the full potential it has philosophically by never being thought through or elaborated on.

 

Team work can be an interesting theme, but like you said, it's never really shown or painted correctly in the story and never put into an interesting light or made so that it actually plays in and leads the story. It's just something that's important because it's important and never a reason more.

 

And sure, one can make the argument that G2 does have a theme, but that doesn't make it good or interesting or successful just because that's what they're trying to do. And yes, it can have multiple themes, unfortunately it only makes it worse if that's the case because then not a single one shone through and made G2 any good.

 

G2 just sounds mute in comparison to G1. The toa's actions in G1 can be argued at many points. G1 is like an interesting gunfight, G2 is like a point-blank shot to the head. It's over before it even begins.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On one side of the coin it's simplified so kids can enjoy it. However the opposite is for us adults, we mostly see G2 as lacking compared G1 because simplified stories can seem like it fools us into feeling like there isnt as much for us to enjoy.

 

However perhaps we are expecting too much and with too many expectations at once compared to G1. They had slowly released compared comics in their most of their runs but they had a good bit of detail often explained much later with GregF questions instead of direct explanations in the comics.

 

Personally G2 does make make me feel like it has went too fast without slowing down at least once in a while to make deeper explanations about the mythology.

Edited by necross hordika

 

qs3135.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that most folks have forgotten that Bionicle is for kids. Sadly, you can't expect a lot from the story of a kids' toyline. There are exceptions to that, but they are sadly few and far between.

Those exceptions, however, mean that it is perfectly reasonable to expect a lot from kids media. In fact, it is better to expect more because if we don't expect anything, nothing will be given. Children can take in and understand complex material. Bionicle Gen 1 was fairly complex even after the first few years. More importantly, it was not as "kiddy". The common idea of "kiddy material" holds back story. I'm most familiar with books so I'm going to take my coming analogy from those. Susan Cooper wrote a series known as The Dark is Rising Sequence, and it is children's lit...but the story is complex, the questions are meaningful, and the language is mature (I do believe on review called the vocabulary "athletic"). She felt that she did not have to talk down to her chosen demographic, that underestimation of them was worse than potential overestimation.

 

I don't think Fishers is right in saying G2 has no theme. I don't, however, consider that theme very successful. Why? Because it has been simplified in an attempt to somehow adjust Bionicle back to the "for kids" idea, and it simply did not have to be. And I think that's the complaint a lot of us older fans have: we feel alienated because we feel LEGO has downgraded the maturity of Bionicle.

  • Upvote 1

~~-BS01 Histories-~~
by Zox Tomana, B.A. - Blog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or, at least, not a very good one. It has no meaning, and very little life.

Noted that you are at least qualifying this as not necessarily saying there's no theme. Anywho, I think maybe a better topic choice would have been "What's the most central theme in G2 and do you like that theme?" rather than assuming there isn't one or that it isn't good...

 

Also, "no meaning" seems virtually impossible, honestly, and I don't see how you can watch that scene for example with the Toa fighting even without their masks and not see meaning.

 

I can kinda agree with the last part of this, though, unfortunately. I can't say it's been so far anywhere near as interesting as G1, but then my perspective on it is necessarily vastly different than my perspective on 2001 at the time, since I know all of what happened after that. But... I am still finding myself liking it... and seeing moments like that "aforementioned" ( :P) scene that are actually inspiring.

 

Also, though, would like to point out this part in your second definition, which I didn't mention in the previous post:

 

 

2.

a unifying or dominant idea, motif, etc., as in a work of art.

 

In other words, a central theme doesn't have to be always present to still be the theme.

 

And I know I'm getting ahead of myself here, but Aanchir is absolutely right that a story can have multiple themes and in fact it kind of HAS to. G2 has LOTS of themes.

 

 

When I say "has no theme" what I mean is that Bionicle G2 has no unified message that it intends for kids to grasp. Other than "buy this toy".

 

Sorry, but I cannot agree with this. While the primary motive behind making any of these things is indeed making money, the central "message" is best summed up by ET (the alien :P): Be good. :D

 

 

 

1) "I am here to battle evil, claim my Golden Mask of Power, and save the Island." is NOT a theme.

 

The middle part, no, but the others are -- at least, they are a message. They serve as an example, a metaphor, that kids can apply in a sense in their own life. Don't give in to evil. Don't be evil. Don't be apathetic. Do what's right, even when it seems difficult.

 

Might not be communicated in the best way, but it's there...

 

 

This is not a theme, this is a commitment to a certain action.

 

How do you get from any of your previously stated definitions of "theme" to this conclusion that commitment to a certain action can't be a theme or be one example of the theme?

 

To use the rabbits example from  You just lost the game's post, if you point to one rabbit in the painting and say "that's not a theme, it's a certain rabbit", how does that change that it's an example of the theme of "rabbits" in action? Likewise, the theme of standing up against evil in general is exemplified in the story in the specific ("certain") action. That action doesn't come out of the blue! He didn't roll dice and go, "Oh, today I'm FIGHTING evil!" It comes from the theme.

 

 

If I say: "Today I am going to write ten lines of code, find my old book on dinosaurs, and sharpen ten colored pencils" nobody would call that a theme of a story.

It exemplifies the theme you chose -- "everyday stuff". ;) Been watching Mission Impossible (the old TV series) on Amazon Prime (formerly on Netflix...) recently, so pardon the analogy -- by this reasoning, couldn't we say that if you pick the mission in any particular episode, it wouldn't be the theme of Mission Impossible in general? While true, this does no good at all for showing that MI has no theme! The theme is actually clear and any one mission will serve as an excellent example illustrating what the theme is!

 

 

But that doesn't answer this question: Why should I care about what goes on this island in the middle of nowhere? Why should I care about whether the villagers get controlled, whether the Golden Masks get found, whether evil gets defeated here?

 

None of that is really the point of stories, generally -- and certainly isn't in G1 either. It's generally presumed that the audience will empathize with the good guys, and that seems to usually work. Taking time out to intellectually explain to people why right is right doesn't really fit the purpose of such stories.

 

 

3) "Teamwork" is NOT a theme of Bionicle G2, and neither is overcoming adversity in spite of setbacks (which was Bionicle G1's main theme IMO)

Teamwork was the main theme of 2001, but not really the whole of G1. I would say the same basic theme I said for G2 is also the same theme for G1. And teamwork was actually overused as a main theme in 2002 and 2003. In 2004 they finally moved on to something else. But all of those years also had other smaller themes, and shared the big theme of fighting evil.

 

 

 

In large part, I think we want G1's theme back, or if not that, some other theme. It is the message, the statement that evil could be overcome, even if it fought back and plotted against me

I don't see how that isn't there in G2...

 

 

 

The Bionicle I know has not returned.

 

Well, of course not. Didn't we all agree all along that a return would be different?

 

Like I said, I'm not convinced yet that it's as good as G1... in some ways it is arguably better, but worse in others, and I do think many of the criticisms of it are somewhat unfair. Only time will tell if enough of the audience likes it enough to keep going though. It's hard to guess; times have changed so much, so it needs to be different. The question is if they picked the right differences to do well in today's world. And I don't know if they have or haven't. :shrugs:

 

 

 

 

Saying that G1 was any more coherent in having a theme of 'unity' than G2 doesn't feel accurate to me. What about 2008? We had been told since the beginning that it was the duty of the 6 Toa united to awaken Mata Nui - we always knew that was the big endgame that we were inevitably moving toward. It was a narrative climax and probably the most natural place of all to reinforce the unity theme - I mean, unity is right there in the definition of what the event is. But then out of nowhere the whole thing we've been promised would happen for 7 years was dropped and Ignika awakens Mata Nui all by itself - no unity necessary.

Slight nitpick, Pereki -- what was dropped was the idea that the Toa Mata specifically had to personally do the last step to awaken Mata Nui. Unity wasn't dropped. They worked with Ignika to get him to the point where he could do that. And they did do other steps along the way themselves.

 

 

 

BG:

 

 

Bionicle G2 commits the ultimate crime of never asking WHY

 

Actually Tahu asks why right off the bat. And they illustrate some things like that, like when Matau goes off to goof off instead of sticking together, and promptly gets his mask easily stolen. That's not the narrator telling you why a message is right, but the story showing why. Or what about what got all this started, Makuta's jealousy leading him to ask "why not do this wrong thing?" which was then shown to be bad by its consequences?

 

It's not as artfully done as other stories, not even G1 or other LEGO stories (like the LEGO Movie), and that may be a serious problem, perhaps a fatal one, but it's a huge exaggeration to say it isn't there.

Edited by bonesiii
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is not a theme, this is a commitment to a certain action.

How do you get from any of your previously stated definitions of "theme" to this conclusion that commitment to a certain action can't be a theme or be one example of the theme?

To use the rabbits example from  You just lost the game's post, if you point to one rabbit in the painting and say "that's not a theme, it's a certain rabbit", how does that change that it's an example of the theme of "rabbits" in action? Likewise, the theme of standing up against evil in general is exemplified in the story in the specific ("certain") action. That action doesn't come out of the blue! He didn't roll dice and go, "Oh, today I'm FIGHTING evil!" It comes from the theme.

I forgot to address this in my post... The rabbits thing is a bad analogy. When you look at that diorama of rabbits, the rabbits are not the theme in the sense Fishers is going for. They are the subject of the diorama, or you might say they are the aesthetic theme. Fishers is looking for a/the central idea Bionicle is trying to convey. Your rabbit diorama may deal with rabbits as a subject matter, but the theme is what your diorama is saying through the use of that subject.

 

Bionicle was a mistake.

Troll much?

~~-BS01 Histories-~~
by Zox Tomana, B.A. - Blog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meaningless isn't the same as simpler. You can make a children's story simple but ripe with meaning(s). Just look at, I dunno, every children's story your parents might've ever read to you. They're built around a central or multiple idea and have a purpose. Sure, to entertain is a purpose, but when it's thoughtless and trying to look meaningful without actually having anything to say, it looks and is cheap. So the fact that Bionicle being directed towards a younger audience is an excuse against quality is garbage. Someone shouldn't ever have to stoop to connect to a story, simple as it may be.

 

And how was G1 so much better than G2 in terms of theme? Oh I dunno, it showed you things like heroes sacrificing their lives for a larger cause; it had characters like Krika that asked what does it really mean to be good or evil and if your associations decide who you are; that you can win and still have failed in the long run no matter how hard you fought if you never truly understood what you were fighting for; how everyone has both darkness and light inside of their hearts and is capable of both; how you don't have to be strong to be brave and make a difference; etc.

 

And yes, G1 was much longer than G2 is right now and probably ever will be, but that's not really a factor as three years is plenty of time to make something meaningful.

 

And yes, I probably am being too harsh on G2. There are far more meaningful ideas in it I'm sure, but none of them seem executed really well or feel significant. There's no larger idea(s) that takes hold and makes it more than just a bunch of action and masks. If there's gonna be conflict, make it more meaningful, and G2 has had every possibility to make that happen.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bionicle was a mistake.

- Greg Farshtey

 

I mean, the sets are still good, and I guess you can argue that the sets define it's tone and theme in their style and design. How? Have an artists eye like me, and you will get it (some examples, Piraka - Despair and Doom, Inika - Edgy and Hopeful, Barraki - Dark and Soulless and a Loss of Hope, Mahri - Hope Regained and an Ultimate Sacrifice of sorts. At least thats what I saw in these years waves in terms of possible story, because in 2006 and 2007 I didn't really follow the story, but when I looked on it back again years later it turned out that my suspicions of them were correct. So take that what you will.)


Quote: "Love has no fear, and no vengeance." |

:t: :m_o: :a: :i: :m: :r: :u: :k: :i: :i: | mEaHKlH.pngAndekas

 

pure_muscle.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I forgot to address this in my post... The rabbits thing is a bad analogy. When you look at that diorama of rabbits, the rabbits are not the theme in the sense Fishers is going for. They are the subject of the diorama, or you might say they are the aesthetic theme. Fishers is looking for a/the central idea Bionicle is trying to convey. Your rabbit diorama may deal with rabbits as a subject matter, but the theme is what your diorama is saying through the use of that subject.

I wasn't taking him that literally. :P The "theme is rabbits" part I took as shorthand for the theme is the qualities of rabbits, probably usually the endearing ones (possibly the deadly ones in some cases lol), that the painting will bring to mind.

 

(And that's also just a matter of definition.)

 

it showed you things like heroes sacrificing their lives for a larger cause

It's a little early to be expecting Matoro's death in G2... but that very scene I mentioned actually could have easily become that. They were willing to fight despite having the clear disadvantage of being so weak, risking him getting angry enough to actually kill at least one. That he didn't is on him (and... yeah, the storytellers, but again, are you really expecting that in the first year?). For their part, they were sacrificing in terms of risking that.

 

And not sure what your point is by being able to also list good examples in G1. Why can't two different stories each have their own good points? (Not saying that makes G2 up to G1's par, again. But G2 having some moral themes doesn't mean G1 didn't!)

 

And yes, I probably am being too harsh on G2. There are far more meaningful ideas in it I'm sure, but none of them seem executed really well or feel significant.

That's fair. I was hoping you'd clarify something like that. :) Just... wanted to give you the opportunity. ^_^

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's face it, we're never going to get a complex story for G2 because Lego is a toy company & excellent storytelling is not a priority for them, we may as well stop complaining about the lack of story & just accept the fact that G2's story is going to suck & continue to be mediocre. 

  • Upvote 1

If you like Pingu & want to support a good project, click here. Also, I've rejoined the BZPRPG & I have a new profile for a new game. Click here to see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ah, I love the smell of faux-depth-in-G1-bionicles-nostalgia in the morning..

 

that is, i really really don't.

 

was original flavor bionicle compelling? yeah, i suppose, but more in the sense of the world and the scale of the cast/locations, than it was in "theme"

 

 

the original theme of bionicle was an analogy for modern medicine, which got sorta blurry with some of the things inserted halfway through, and was only revealed near the end,

 

bionicle G2 seems to have taken alot of design cues, but i'm pretty sure it ditched the medical theme, which might be what's leaving some people wanting, though  again, it may take a while for a unifying flavor to show it's true face. o:

  • Upvote 3

bnnrimg1.pngbnnrimg2.pngbnnrimg3.pngbnnrimg4.pngbnnrimg5.pngbnnrimg6.pngbnnrimg7.pngbnnrimg8.png


Corpus Rahkshi characters: Snap, Teeth ,Rose,Kaita

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a second-rate remake, just like so many other things today. What more can one expect, sadly?

I think that most folks have forgotten that Bionicle is for kids. Sadly, you can't expect a lot from the story of a kids' toyline. There are exceptions to that, but they are sadly few and far between. <snip>

<snip>

Since Bionicle is now targeted to younger people. So a simple story won't confuse them.

<snip>

On one side of the coin it's simplified so kids can enjoy it. However the opposite is for us adults, we mostly see G2 as lacking compared G1 because simplified stories can seem like it fools us into feeling like there isnt as much for us to enjoy.

 

However perhaps we are expecting too much and with too many expectations at once compared to G1.<snip>

Let's face it, we're never going to get a complex story for G2 because Lego is a toy company & excellent storytelling is not a priority for them, we may as well stop complaining about the lack of story & just accept the fact that G2's story is going to suck & continue to be mediocre.

I've collected all these quotes together because I want to address a trend I see in several responses to this thread.

 

1. The idea that Bionicle is now directed at kids. It was always directed at kids. The entire run of G1 Bionicle was directed towards children. It lasting so long without changing its target demographic was the reason its interwoven complexities became a problem: you can give kids complex stuff, but starting the complex story in the middle or at the very end is just plain bad storytelling and a quick way to turn off newcomers.

 

2. You can't expect great things from a children's storyline. First, I'd like to point you to TMD's recent blog post for a discussion of good kids material. Second, I'd like to point right back at BIONICLE G1 as a high-middling example (yeah, I said it, I don't consider it one of the greats) of good children's material (because it was always aimed at kids). There is a ton of bad children's programming. Why does that mean you can't ever expect good things from children's programming? The "exceptions" are proof that you can expect greatness, complexity, and maturity from children's media. Speaking of...

 

3. We just need to get over it and accept that this is going to be bad. Why? I mean that. Why? I mean, I guess you could say that because you think that...

 

3b. LEGO doesn't care about story, it is a toy company after all. But what about the surprising greatness of the LEGO Movie? The movie everyone thought was going to just be a stupid, poorly done film to sell toys? Well, it was made to sell toys, but the story was light-years beyond expectations. What about BIONICLE G1 where they so very carefully crafted the story and mythos since before it was being sold? I haven't watched or read any Ninjago stuff, but apparently its story isn't half-bad.

 

LEGO does care about story. They've simply fallen into the same trap many of you have: thinking that a children's story has to be simple-minded and kiddy to be kid friendly when that is, and it has been proven many times over that it is, very much not the case. Why do we have to accept this? More to the point: isn't the thing we've claimed as being great about G1 that little aspect of how it had a lesson to teach us? The very point behind this thread was to show G2 as lacking in a theme while G1 had something to say to us. What was it we were discussing G1 as saying?

 

That there is value and worth in, even a responsibility to be, fighting back. Even in the darkest of nights, you must fight back. You must fight back together. You will make it to dawn...but you must fight. Teamwork. Overcoming odds. Unity, duty, and destiny.

 

LEGO does listen to its consumers. There is no reason we can't express to them that they have failed in this, and convince them that they can do better. Heck, because we know that a less "kiddy" story and presentation works and works WELL, why aren't we doing so? An analogy was made where the G1 fans were said to have become Turaga, watching over the new Matoran coming into the fandom... but what if we're the Toa now? If we now have the power, isn't it our duty to use it well?

 

Bionicle was a mistake.

 

Bionicle was a mistake.

Rebooting Bionicle was a mistake.

 

And you two: how does this help? How does approaching this discussion with this abject cynicism help at all? Give me a reason for your statements. Give me the thoughts behind these opinions.

  • Upvote 5

~~-BS01 Histories-~~
by Zox Tomana, B.A. - Blog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You realize a story can have more than one theme, right? And that not everything in a story has to be dedicated to reinforcing one specific theme?

This is correct.

 

My thought, right or wrong, was this: none of the topics I mentioned were developed enough to be a theme of the story. For example, G1 did have multiple themes, but all of them were developed out and reinforced. 2004-2005 had multiple themes, 2001-2003 had multiple themes, but all of them had enough story space so I knew it was the theme of what I was reading. I might not get all of themes right away, but I might think back on it later and realize "Oh, the MNOG was telling me that misfit people are okay" in addition to other messages it had.

 

Still, I stand by the feeling that you're really holding G2 Bionicle to an impossible standard if you expect every event in its story to reinforce one singular theme. I can't think of any story, whether well-written or mediocre, that could pass that kind of test. A story that DID focus solely on reinforcing one theme would probably feel really preachy and redundant, and the lessons it teaches would not be very versatile.

Overall, your idea of a "theme" — a message that every single event in a story exists to reinforce — is needlessly simplistic.

I'm not trying to argue this. It certainly helps if it has a central theme that all of the subthemes branch off of, since it's easier on my poor brain in terms of making connections, but it's not always strictly necessary. Sometimes you get characters into a situation and "stumble into" another theme, and it's fine. I'm not arguing that multiple themes aren't allowed. 

 

I suppose I was also upset because I had just read the blog entry about how you were leaving BZPower soon, and I felt like it was a terrible waste if this kind of thinking were the reason you felt like you no longer belonged here. I shouldn't have gotten so angry at you. :(

I'm not leaving for this reasoning. I just wanted this reasoning checked before I left, and I'm glad I wrote up the topic.

Edited by fishers64

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone said a little earlier that G1 didn't have a lot of depth in its first few years either. I think that really makes the point here. So many of us got into bionicle before we were half as media-overdosed as we are today. A lot of the older people on the forums remember playing the MNOLG on a dial-up connection, and then it blew our minds. Now, we're all in our twenties and expected the same effect that 01-03 had on us when we were children. Newsflash; G1 wasn't as good as you remember. Nostalgia caused people to expect G2 to be the Lord of the Rings in Lego. G1 didn't have much of a better story back then. In fact, how many twenty year olds back then would have dumped all over Bionicle in '02? The depth came with time. Time which we are not giving G2.

  • Upvote 3

:r: :e: :g: :i: :t: :n: :u: :i:

Elemental Rahi in Gen2, anyone? A write-up for an initial video for a G2 plot

 

I really wish everyone would stop trying to play join the dots with Gen 1 and Gen 2 though,it seems there's a couple new threads everyday and often they're duplicates of already existing conversations! Or simply parallel them with a slightly new 'twist'! Gen 2 is NEW, it is NOT Gen 1 and it is NOT a continuation. Outside of the characters we already have I personally don't want to see ANY old characters return. I think it will cheapen the whole experience to those of us familiar with the original line...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone said a little earlier that G1 didn't have a lot of depth in its first few years either.

 

In a way it did have a lot of depth.

Not the same type of depth as 2008 and '09, when we had books, movies, comics, story serials and Ask Greg to overdose ourselves with.

But 2001-3 had depth in terms of what one could gleam from the lore and fragmented stories of what had happened in the past. Kind of like the story for The Legend of Zelda series. Until recently very little concrete information was given, but people then and now took pieces and tied them together to create (sometimes mind-blowing) theories.

 

I don't care at all for G2 and never will. But you can't deny that it's riding on G1's coattails for its success.

In 2001 when the toyline started Lego had to be very good about making sure the toys had a background that was engrossing in its mysteriousness. They don't have to try as hard now.

Edited by TheSkeletonMan939
  • Upvote 3

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bionicle was a mistake.

I laughed. 

 

It was a mistake for my wallet, tbqh fam.

 

Edit: might make this my new sig.

Edited by Jobber

   te0FrhT.jpg                                                                                                                            

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is where we go from legitimate humble-pie eating and legit points to absolute deep-end insanity. This is not to insult the fine people who made these posts - even I can be insane on occasion - but let's call a cat a cat. 
 
Fortunately, I have an answer for this particular breed, finally. 
 

There is, in fact, an actual theme to Bionicle.
It's Bionicle itself. That's the theme.
 
If you go to someone who makes a diorama and ask, "What's the theme?", the man would simply say, "It's about rabbits". (We're assuming the diorama included many rabbit figures)
So, using this logic, Bionicle is its own theme.

If you're arguing Bionicle is a theme as distinct from Ninjago and Chima, I agree with you on that. I thought about putting that I was using the literary definition of the word theme, but I figured the line "When I say "has no theme" what I mean is that Bionicle G2 has no unified message that it intends for kids to grasp." covered that nicely. Apparently not. 
 
It's sad that neither of you actually know what meaning really is. 
 
Also, using a rabbit diorama and what "people would say" is horrible reasoning. People say all sorts of things that don't make sense and are evasive. My dad told me this morning that I all I do is useless; this is not true. Further, we're talking about a story here, not a piece of art, so it's a different ball game (although similar). It has its own considerations that the example overlooks. 
 

How do you get from any of your previously stated definitions of "theme" to this conclusion that commitment to a certain action can't be a theme or be one example of the theme?

I didn't. 
 
That's not where that reasoning comes from. It comes from a very simple distinction between purposes and methods, and methods and context. I thought most people would understand the difference without me having to state it, but alas:

  • WHY (aka purpose, meaning, belief, theme) - function of an intelligence (usually a person or organization of people): the reason behind a person/organization's actions, the person's purpose in the situation or just in life. Usually purposes in situations branch off of a person's life purpose in logical ways. Defined in terms of right or wrong, good and bad: a good purpose hurts the people around them and themselves, bad hurts, etc. Good purposes bring positive emotions, bad ones bring negative emotions, leading the area to be emotionally defined. 
  • HOW (aka method, process, function) - function of an intelligence (usually a person or organization): the method a person/organization uses to achieve their goals. Defined as either good or bad: a good method achieves the goal the person set out to do, a bad one does not. 
  • WHAT: What is. The result. The arrangement of atoms. Whatever. 

What I have found is that a good and bad purpose (WHY) and that a good and bad method (HOW) are cross-cutting. A good purpose with a good method happens, and you have positive change. A good purpose with a bad method of achieving that purpose will not succeed; perhaps the person can go back to choose another method (if they are still alive, have the resources, etc) but until they choose the right method, they are stuck. A bad purpose with a good method can happen as well - some criminals don't get caught, hire the best lawyers and get off, etc. And there are bad purposes with bad methods - witness all of the America's Dumbest criminals videos. 
 
But when dealing with people, it is important to distinguish between these three things and maintain the distinctions. And bones, your post appears from my viewpoint to throw these distinctions into a blender, which, for someone who has known this for a very long time, makes it very hard to read. I dislike confusing meaning and messages with wrenches and hat racks. 
 
Now, on the notion of methods revealing purposes, you are only partway correct. You must have the method...but you also must have the context of the method. Saying "I wrote a novel" does not tell you the reason why I wrote it. There are at least 100 reasons to write a novel. I can write a novel, and you could write a novel, and the two would be for entirely different purposes. Saying "I fixed my bike wheel" does not tell you the reason why I fixed it. I could fix it to go to school, or shopping, or to a party.
 
"But I know the context, fishers..." Yes, you do, but you have to keep the methods separate from the context! The context is the WHAT level. It's what decides whether the method was the right one, but it isn't the method itself. Methods can be done in different contexts, different WHATs, with different results. I even find in terms of tracking someone's purpose to write down methods and contextual observations in separate columns (I don't do this very often, just when I feel I need to). 
 
Most of us understand this in terms of ourselves pretty good, I think. It's when we turn it around to tackle other people - or a story - that we somehow lose track of it. For me I had so many negative experiences growing up it carved them into razor-sharp distinctions, and I forget that the #1 lie in college is finding meaning in meaninglessness, saying that WHYs are HOWs, WHYs are WHATs, instead of letting WHYs be what they are. There's a lot of confusion here with universal WHY that I'm going to refrain from saying here yet; but suffice to say "alarm clock" is not a meaning, "painting" is not a meaning, and even painting an alarm clock is not a meaning, because we don't yet know why the artist painted the alarm clock (although we could look at the resulting painting and make a good guess). In fact ten artists can paint 10 alarm clocks for ten different reasons. Regardless of whether there is a universal intelligence, because I have intelligence and therefore am distinct from it. Mata Nui controlled the Matoran universe; all of the Matoran inside of him had their own brains and purposes in living. 
 
* * *
 
But what's the fun in a philosophy lecture if I don't do Q&A? :P (More importantly, I need to get back on topic.) So one blender breakdown, coming to a forum post near you. I can already feel a headache coming on. Eh. 
 

In normal plain English as I've seen that word applied over the years, I think we would say that the "theme" is "good elemental-powered robotic/biomechanical beings fighting an evil being who is somehow like a brother to an ancient powerful good guy". And maybe throw in "usually on an island". :P

There's a difference between aesthetic theme and "theme the author is trying to convey". In any case, your example is a situation. It's not a theme. Bionicle itself has used that situation to convey multiple different themes over the years, as Aanchir pointed out - everything from "teamwork" to "overcoming adversity" to "misfits aren't bad and are valuable for important things", among so many others.
 
Now if "normal plain English" = "aesthetic motif", go to town. But most people I know of think of theme as the "message the story is trying to convey". I even went out of my way to make that crystal clear and put it in bold text. Yikes. 
 

Sorry, but I cannot agree with this. While the primary motive behind making any of these things is indeed making money, the central "message" is best summed up by ET (the alien :P): Be good. :D

Actually, that's a command. Commands are methods. Issuing a command to a person (or a computer) is a method of accomplishing something. (Whether ET could understand this is another matter entirely. :P)
 

To use the rabbits example from  You just lost the game's post, if you point to one rabbit in the painting and say "that's not a theme, it's a certain rabbit", how does that change that it's an example of the theme of "rabbits" in action?

Rabbits aren't themes. They are rabbits.
 
I'm not sure what else to say here. XD I mean, if you can't tell the difference between a rabbit and a theme I guess we'll have to drag you off to the asylum... 

 

If I say: "Today I am going to write ten lines of code, find my old book on dinosaurs, and sharpen ten colored pencils" nobody would call that a theme of a story.


It exemplifies the theme you chose -- "everyday stuff". ;)

 

I can totally do all of those things on an orbiting space satellite. If I could have left my old dino book on three planets, it could be a major production. 
 

Also, "no meaning" seems virtually impossible, honestly, and I don't see how you can watch that scene for example with the Toa fighting even without their masks and not see meaning.

I can kinda agree with the last part of this, though, unfortunately. I can't say it's been so far anywhere near as interesting as G1, but then my perspective on it is necessarily vastly different than my perspective on 2001 at the time, since I know all of what happened after that. But... I am still finding myself liking it... and seeing moments like that "aforementioned" ( :P) scene that are actually inspiring.

Well at least we can agree on something. :P

No meaning is possible, though. Just look at Minesweeper. The only point to that game is wasting time and allowing your mind to think about something else (when in reality you could just stare at the wall and think without playing it, but there you go).
 

Don't give in to evil. Don't be evil. Don't be apathetic. Do what's right, even when it seems difficult.
But all of those years also had other smaller themes, and shared the big theme of fighting evil.

Likewise, the theme of standing up against evil in general is exemplified in the story in the specific ("certain") action. That action doesn't come out of the blue! He didn't roll dice and go, "Oh, today I'm FIGHTING evil!" It comes from the theme.

Ah, there you go - I didn't think of that. I'm wrong. That's all you had to say, man. 
 
Yay. One less item of meaningless entertainment for me.

Topic closed? :D

Edited by fishers64

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:shrugs:

 

Bionicle, generations 1 and 2, are metaseries. They're full of different media made by different people with different ideas. I think it's kind of weird to say that there needs to be a consistent theme across all media. For instance, look at Gundam. The cartoons for Gundam '79 and G Gundam have pretty vastly different themes, not to mention different shows existing at different degrees of "just toy commercial"ness.

 

Bionicle's G1 Ignition comics are gonna have different themes from the 2015 novels. Bionicle: The Legend Reborn is gonna have different themes from Time Trap, or just the Adventures books in general.

 

G2 probably has a lot less depth overall than G1 in plenty of ways (namely complexity/worldbuilding) but there were a LOT of really dubious choices made in the storytelling in G1, not to mention inconsistencies between media. I think stripping this down to the "theme" of the whole metaseries is pretty disingenuous, when there were plenty of stories in G1 that were really aimless in terms of themes, too.

 

There's a lot of Bionicle out there. Where one thing failed at a thing, another thing probably succeeded at that thing! Maybe the 2015 website animations weren't as cool as the MNOGbut I'd take Journey to One over The Yesterday Quest any day!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we're talking about a story here, not a piece of art, so it's a different ball game (although similar). It has its own considerations that the example overlooks.

Keep in mind "work of art" was brought up in the example definition you included in the first post. :) It is indeed different, but the important parts under consideration are shared between the two. An image provides meaning as well, conveyed through the qualities of the subject matter. And that is where it looks like you get off track in what follows, primarily:

 

But when dealing with people, it is important to distinguish between these three things and maintain the distinctions. And bones, your post appears from my viewpoint to throw these distinctions into a blender, which, for someone who has known this for a very long time, makes it very hard to read. I dislike confusing meaning and messages with wrenches and hat racks.

I figured this was what was going on here, which was why I mentioned above what I did about the qualities of rabbit being contained in "rabbit". The "rabbit" is the "vehicle", but the meaning is the cargo.

 

There's two basic types of cargo in this sense.

 

First is commonly known cargo, as well as individualized cargo that isn't controlled by the artist/storyteller. This is what you have to go for either in openings of stories or in paintings or things of that sort -- where you cannot depend on your audience having a history of knowledge of what you've developed. A hat rack is not just a hat rack. It is a method of painting meaning into a story that tells you setting, everything that people feel about that setting, memories they can relate to about that setting, and especially characterization. There's a hat rack -- so somebody wears hats. That tells you a lot about their life. Or, they're home, but the hat rack is empty, so maybe they inherited the house.

 

Second is meanings that are built from how your stories, or perhaps a series of paintings for example, go. These are new meanings you control. The hat rack might have special meaning in a story because a little girl's grandfather wore a hat, and he died tragically, so every time she sees a hat rack now, she goes back to that life and loss.

 

You can have both in initial work, of course (developed meanings can become things people notice when they re-read later, or look back at the first painting they saw in a series and notice themes built on in other paintings), but generalized meanings are usually put at beginnings.

 

Meaning and theme are not really optional, when you factor all this. No matter what, there is a theme and there is meaning.

 

Message is different, because fans can take away their own meaning but message is what LEGO intentionally wants to convey, and may fail, or may lack much. But I don't really see grounds for a lack of a message here -- I see a short, poorly developed story, so the message hasn't been made very deep. But it's there -- don't be jealous, stand up for what's right no matter the odds, be willing to sacrifice if necessary when the stakes are high.

 

A lot of what I was taught about good fiction, which generally (though not always) relies on showing, not telling, focused on this. This is vital for storytellers to realize. And if you study classics, you'll find that they do a good job of using this very fact; every object that is there without comment is there intentionally and it conveys meaning.

 

Meaning/cargo and object/vehicle are not the same, but the cargo can be and usually is conveyed through the vehicle alone. Understanding that they are separate does not require that we miss that the object alone can be a powerful way to convey meaning. And to avoid overuse of telling, being consciously aware of this merging of meaning with object is vital.

 

 

Now again, I'm not saying in any of this that the "theme" or meaning or even message is done all that well in G2. It has serious flaws, as we all know, I think. But let's judge it with clear vision. :) If nothing else, that may help make more productive criticisms that LEGO could listen to moving forward.

 

I think what's basically driving this is dissatisfaction, which I definitely get. Then again, it's hard to be sure, since we can't help but judge it in light of nostalgia. I've also learned over the years to learn to more easily adapt to give very different things a fair shot, and when I let myself do that, I have enjoyed what little there has been for G2 so far. We'll see how things go from here... or perhaps flop from here lol. :shrugs: Only time will really tell.

 

 

Now, you can validly use "theme" or meaning and so forth as jargon -- with a different definition, intentionally, and that's fine. I don't think it was really as clear as you hoped in your prior posts what you meant by it, especially by prominently leading with the dictionary cite which did not fit with it -- remember something may always seem clear in your mind, but we don't have the benefit of being telepathic. :) In any event, thanks for clarifying, and hope this helps. ^_^ (And by the way, the subject is definitely good to have a topic on!)

Edited by bonesiii
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see LEGO forcing themselve to hold back on the story so it doesn't become so complicated like G1 did.

 

(note I loved the complicated story line.)

 

Since Bionicle is now targeted to younger people. So a simple story won't confuse them. (Even though almost all of there other lines get better story lines than Bionicle :burnmad: )

 

 

We old Matoran have to live in a simpler protector world.

 

I hate this sentiment, that a story for kids has to be simple.  It's a bald-faced lie that people accept so willingly.

 

Pardon me, moderators, if I stray waaaaaay off topic but this has been on my mind, and this topic has created the proper place for me to vent.  I won't offend anyone deliberately, but if I do, well, suck it up 'cuz I'm not taking this back.

 

I'm on my second run-through of the One Year Adventure Novel program, it's a great course by Daniel Schwabauer (but lots of people call him Mr. S).  He's got lots to say on writing, I've been watching the videos on complex characters and irony.  People get attached to complex, human characters.  (Human as in with human qualities and flaws, not as a race.)  When tragedy happens to those characters, the readers feel emotion.  Use irony to set up said tragedy, and the effect is multiplied.

 

So, where's the disasters and dilemmas happening to the Gen2 Toa?  I don't see anything.  Sure, Lewa gets de-masked, but it's nothing that isn't fixed in another 90-second short.  The skeleton archers have them pinned, but no one gets hurt.  It's just them winning, all the time.  That doesn't create sympathy, that creates contempt.

 

This is the precise reason I hate the Jedi in Star Wars.  They don't lose.  You've got Darth Maul, Jango Fett, the whole freakin' droid army against them and they still don't die.  This may be more a complaint against the prequel movies than the Jedi as a whole, but nobody gets hurt.  You're not even afraid for the characters, and the whole creating-emotion plan backfires spectacularly.  You create contempt.

 

Similar problem in Gen2, you've got archers, Scorpios, spiders and bashers, and nobody gets hurt.  And as a result, the Toa don't feel human, they feel like overpowered superheroes.  And Lewa's de-masking just turns into a quick gag for the Gen1 people, because you know it's not serious.  It's never a good sign when people laugh when your heroes get hurt, and that's exactly what happened when the short came out.

 

Lego is simplifying the story 'for the kids', but the problem is that never works.

 

My point.  The Chronicles of Narnia, are, at their core, fairy tales for kids.  But they are amazingly complex, people keep reading them over and over again and keep picking up new bits of symbolism.  The stone table.  The ruined world of Charn, the Deplorable Word.  I digress.  The books are timeless.  A Wrinkle in Time.  Complex as heck, playing with space-time, but so, so beautiful.  The Hobbit, need I say more?  Heck, even Pokemon Mystery Dungeon has a cult fanbase, and every fan will tell you: the story's so much more complex than the core series.

 

The idea that kid's stories have to be simple is a lie.

 

So here I am, writing, and actually I'm writing a story for Malkhar, not OYAN.  I have a character, a necromancer, who starts off as a villain but becomes... well, I won't say heroic, but he turns to good.  And as I'm writing in my notebook, coming up with different races (because I hate sticking to the humans-elves-dwarves trope), a thought crosses my mind, about a curriculum I did a while back called Omnibus.  Basically, it's having you read a bunch of classic lit, write a bunch of essays... it wasn't my cup of tea.  I'm not sure if I'm glad I did it or not, because of this thought that ticked me off so badly.  I like the emotional high now, ironically it was while it had me read the Narnia books.

 

They were saying that modern stories were worse than classics like Narnia.  Because, in Narnia, there was a clear compass of right and wrong.  Witches and dragons were bad, you could always tell who the heroes were.  This is pretty messed up in and of itself, but.  They denounced modern fantasies because now the witches and dragons were the heroes, and the authorities were wrong.  No names were named, but it wasn't that much of a stretch to read the unspoken titles as 'Eragon' and 'Harry Potter'.

 

This, apparently, was bad because they were confusing the readers.  The poor children couldn't handle a complex story.

 

The whole point of a story is to confuse the reader.  To make him think, to reason things out.  Let her find out who's the villain for herself, let him question the motivations of the hero.  Because: if you cannot rasp their intellect, how are you going to move their soul?  And if you cannot move their soul, what exactly is the point?

 

I'm not even going to throw in my Gen1 nostalgia, because other than MNOG, there just wasn't too much there.  It's funny how some of the deepest parts of the story aren't actually canon, like the Shadow Toa and Makuta's monologue.  Lego hired Greg Farshtey so they could sell more toys, I get it.

 

But that ugly excuse ticks me off so badly, from Lego, from college professors, from anyone.  Not to excuse bad writing, but to excuse even trying to write.  Complexity gives a story a heart, a message, and a lifetime.  When you don't let yourself imagine in intricate patterns, you turn your back on all of that.  The story goes from the eyes straight to the mental trash bin, forgotten like it deserves to be.

 

Sorry about the rant.  I'm logging off now, good night, everyone.

 

-Jaga

  • Upvote 3

Avatar by Nicholas Anderson (NickonAquaMagna)

My blog: The Jaga's Nest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​ 

 

Bionicle was a mistake.

 

Bionicle was a mistake.

Rebooting Bionicle was a mistake.

 

And you two: how does this help? How does approaching this discussion with this abject cynicism help at all? Give me a reason for your statements. Give me the thoughts behind these opinions.

 

​Take it easy dude it's based on this joke:

From Know Your Meme

“Anime Was a Mistake” is a troll quote misattributed to Hayao Miyazaki, one of the most popular and influential Japanese artists and film directors in anime history, that conveys a strong sense of disdain towards the art of anime and its fanbase at large, including those who identify themselves with weeaboo and otaku subcultures.

  • Upvote 2

overwatch-pharah-mission-statement_Thumb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I see LEGO forcing themselve to hold back on the story so it doesn't become so complicated like G1 did.

 

(note I loved the complicated story line.)

 

Since Bionicle is now targeted to younger people. So a simple story won't confuse them. (Even though almost all of there other lines get better story lines than Bionicle :burnmad: )

 

 

We old Matoran have to live in a simpler protector world.

I hate this sentiment, that a story for kids has to be simple. It's a bald-faced lie that people accept so willingly.

 

Pardon me, moderators, if I stray waaaaaay off topic but this has been on my mind, and this topic has created the proper place for me to vent. I won't offend anyone deliberately, but if I do, well, suck it up 'cuz I'm not taking this back.

 

I'm on my second run-through of the One Year Adventure Novel program, it's a great course by Daniel Schwabauer (but lots of people call him Mr. S). He's got lots to say on writing, I've been watching the videos on complex characters and irony. People get attached to complex, human characters. (Human as in with human qualities and flaws, not as a race.) When tragedy happens to those characters, the readers feel emotion. Use irony to set up said tragedy, and the effect is multiplied.

 

So, where's the disasters and dilemmas happening to the Gen2 Toa? I don't see anything. Sure, Lewa gets de-masked, but it's nothing that isn't fixed in another 90-second short. The skeleton archers have them pinned, but no one gets hurt. It's just them winning, all the time. That doesn't create sympathy, that creates contempt.

 

This is the precise reason I hate the Jedi in Star Wars. They don't lose. You've got Darth Maul, Jango Fett, the whole freakin' droid army against them and they still don't die. This may be more a complaint against the prequel movies than the Jedi as a whole, but nobody gets hurt. You're not even afraid for the characters, and the whole creating-emotion plan backfires spectacularly. You create contempt.

 

Similar problem in Gen2, you've got archers, Scorpios, spiders and bashers, and nobody gets hurt. And as a result, the Toa don't feel human, they feel like overpowered superheroes. And Lewa's de-masking just turns into a quick gag for the Gen1 people, because you know it's not serious. It's never a good sign when people laugh when your heroes get hurt, and that's exactly what happened when the short came out.

 

Lego is simplifying the story 'for the kids', but the problem is that never works.

 

My point. The Chronicles of Narnia, are, at their core, fairy tales for kids. But they are amazingly complex, people keep reading them over and over again and keep picking up new bits of symbolism. The stone table. The ruined world of Charn, the Deplorable Word. I digress. The books are timeless. A Wrinkle in Time. Complex as heck, playing with space-time, but so, so beautiful. The Hobbit, need I say more? Heck, even Pokemon Mystery Dungeon has a cult fanbase, and every fan will tell you: the story's so much more complex than the core series.

 

The idea that kid's stories have to be simple is a lie.

 

So here I am, writing, and actually I'm writing a story for Malkhar, not OYAN. I have a character, a necromancer, who starts off as a villain but becomes... well, I won't say heroic, but he turns to good. And as I'm writing in my notebook, coming up with different races (because I hate sticking to the humans-elves-dwarves trope), a thought crosses my mind, about a curriculum I did a while back called Omnibus. Basically, it's having you read a bunch of classic lit, write a bunch of essays... it wasn't my cup of tea. I'm not sure if I'm glad I did it or not, because of this thought that ticked me off so badly. I like the emotional high now, ironically it was while it had me read the Narnia books.

 

They were saying that modern stories were worse than classics like Narnia. Because, in Narnia, there was a clear compass of right and wrong. Witches and dragons were bad, you could always tell who the heroes were. This is pretty messed up in and of itself, but. They denounced modern fantasies because now the witches and dragons were the heroes, and the authorities were wrong. No names were named, but it wasn't that much of a stretch to read the unspoken titles as 'Eragon' and 'Harry Potter'.

 

This, apparently, was bad because they were confusing the readers. The poor children couldn't handle a complex story.

 

The whole point of a story is to confuse the reader. To make him think, to reason things out. Let her find out who's the villain for herself, let him question the motivations of the hero. Because: if you cannot rasp their intellect, how are you going to move their soul? And if you cannot move their soul, what exactly is the point?

 

I'm not even going to throw in my Gen1 nostalgia, because other than MNOG, there just wasn't too much there. It's funny how some of the deepest parts of the story aren't actually canon, like the Shadow Toa and Makuta's monologue. Lego hired Greg Farshtey so they could sell more toys, I get it.

 

But that ugly excuse ticks me off so badly, from Lego, from college professors, from anyone. Not to excuse bad writing, but to excuse even trying to write. Complexity gives a story a heart, a message, and a lifetime. When you don't let yourself imagine in intricate patterns, you turn your back on all of that. The story goes from the eyes straight to the mental trash bin, forgotten like it deserves to be.

 

Sorry about the rant. I'm logging off now, good night, everyone.

 

-Jaga

I 100% agree with you. Hopefully we well get a better story in the near future.

Breaking news just found image of the Mask of time!!

 

https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/13094167_713038272172187_2689488583367805620_n.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&oh=6765983d67e5d91fc451ae81f48f85a5&oe=57B16D7C

  • Upvote 1

Hey I got a Flickr because I like making LEGO stuff.

https://www.flickr.com/people/toatimelord/

https://discord.gg/7P96Gf
Join the Gang.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is important to say that 

But when dealing with people, it is important to distinguish between these three things and maintain the distinctions. And bones, your post appears from my viewpoint to throw these distinctions into a blender, which, for someone who has known this for a very long time, makes it very hard to read. I dislike confusing meaning and messages with wrenches and hat racks.

is not meant to be a personal attack on you, bonesiii. I said exactly what I meant, and I meant exactly what I said. And nothing more. I'm also standing by my point that I made, since it is true. I'm trying to help. 

Further, the idea that there's nothing that can be done for me in terms of changing my opinions is a lie. I don't change my opinion in response to lies or to suit your programming, but I do in response to truth. You know this, I hope.

On the other hand, if you are trying to get me to believe a lie and are thinking "fishers will never buy this", you're absolutely right. You should give up now. :P
 

An image provides meaning as well, conveyed through the qualities of the subject matter. And that is where it looks like you get off track in what follows, primarily:

I figured this was what was going on here, which was why I mentioned above what I did about the qualities of rabbit being contained in "rabbit".

I agree with you that an image can convey meaning through the qualities of its subject matter. That was never at issue.

I also am aware of the denotations and connotations of words. The word "rabbit" refers to a four-footed furry herbivore with a certain recognizable ear configuration. That's what the word means. It also connotes certain things depending on the context. A pet rabbit is very different than one that is eating my garden.

Further, I don't know what meaning the author was trying to convey by just by knowing that it contains rabbits. If the diorama contains a rabbit sitting next to the definition of the word rabbit pasted on the back of the shoebox, that is very different than a diorama that contains ten rabbit figures sitting in a circle. There are literally infinite rabbit dioramas with infinite possible meanings, and knowing that it contained rabbits tells me nothing about the meaning of the diorama, intended by the author or not.
 
A method of conveying meaning tells me nothing without the context of the method.
 
And unless I completely fell off the face of world, theme is the meaning of a story. I thought that was common knowledge.  And 90% of this topic understood exactly what I was saying, but you and You just lost the game did not. This is because you wanted to lower the requirements for theme to an impossibly low standard so you could claim the G2 story has a theme. That wasn't required to prove me wrong - Aanchir proved that at least part of the story had a theme, and you named the theme that I was missing, thus proving me wrong. The only reason to do that is to confuse me and ensure that I won't attack your position. That's stupid, because I don't do that. When I'm wrong, I admit to it and change my thinking. You know this. I just did it.
 
You just lost the game was arguing that Bionicle was its own theme. It's not, because the theme of the Bionicle stories is something different. Bionicle is a story that conveys meaning, it is not the meaning itself. A method is not a meaning. 

* * *
 
And yes, I know that in making that statement that I made in what you quoted, I missed your other point, which follows below this lecture in a quote. You can tell me that I missed the point that you were trying to make. I'm not going to bite your head off if you say it. I wanted to make my own point, and I made it. 
 
Statements are true or false, regardless of who says them. They are not programming opportunities to insert your lies. I do not program. But you do, so I can never tell what you're really thinking. This is coming from someone who recently had to go back introspectedly and pull out a few lies that you embedded. I don't appreciate it. 
 
I shouldn't talk. I have been responsible for the same thing, I know. Half the time, I wasn't trying - I was stupid, and it couldn't be helped. 
 
But it doesn't help me. I rejected three responses that you would have played before I settled on this one. You might play this one too. 
 
I once thought that this was funny. I could talk with you and get high. I can take drugs and get high too, and it would be just as destructive. It took me ten hours to get rid of the fake high so I could write this post. It took those same ten hours to ditch the nonsense your programming generated...rather appealing for those ten hours. I had to say "nope" to myself over and over. 
 
You may argue that this teaches people not to get taken in by this. But the cost is that nobody knows whether this is what bonesiii really thinks or whether it is his cheap manipulation to fool the fisherwoman. It hurts me because I don't know what to say to help you, and it hurts you because you cover your lies by programming them with what pleases them, which they repeat back to you to tickle your ears, or they flame you for the blatant nonsense you say to cover them. You never learn. You may pay lip service to the idea that you change your opinion when you're proven wrong, but you rarely get there because all of your debate opponents are programmed into bafflement, think they don't understand something you do, and give up. 
 
I'm not baffled. What you said in my previous post was complete nonsense. Prove me wrong. 
 

The "rabbit" is the "vehicle", but the meaning is the cargo.
 
There's two basic types of cargo in this sense.
 
First is commonly known cargo, as well as individualized cargo that isn't controlled by the artist/storyteller. This is what you have to go for either in openings of stories or in paintings or things of that sort -- where you cannot depend on your audience having a history of knowledge of what you've developed. A hat rack is not just a hat rack. It is a method of painting meaning into a story that tells you setting, everything that people feel about that setting, memories they can relate to about that setting, and especially characterization. There's a hat rack -- so somebody wears hats. That tells you a lot about their life. Or, they're home, but the hat rack is empty, so maybe they inherited the house.
 
Second is meanings that are built from how your stories, or perhaps a series of paintings for example, go. These are new meanings you control. The hat rack might have special meaning in a story because a little girl's grandfather wore a hat, and he died tragically, so every time she sees a hat rack now, she goes back to that life and loss.

You can have both in initial work, of course (developed meanings can become things people notice when they re-read later, or look back at the first painting they saw in a series and notice themes built on in other paintings), but generalized meanings are usually put at beginnings.
 
Meaning and theme are not really optional, when you factor all this. No matter what, there is a theme and there is meaning.
 
Message is different, because fans can take away their own meaning but message is what LEGO intentionally wants to convey, and may fail, or may lack much. But I don't really see grounds for a lack of a message here -- I see a short, poorly developed story, so the message hasn't been made very deep. But it's there -- don't be jealous, stand up for what's right no matter the odds, be willing to sacrifice if necessary when the stakes are high.
 
A lot of what I was taught about good fiction, which generally (though not always) relies on showing, not telling, focused on this. This is vital for storytellers to realize. And if you study classics, you'll find that they do a good job of using this very fact; every object that is there without comment is there intentionally and it conveys meaning.
 
Meaning/cargo and object/vehicle are not the same, but the cargo can be and usually is conveyed through the vehicle alone. Understanding that they are separate does not require that we miss that the object alone can be a powerful way to convey meaning. And to avoid overuse of telling, being consciously aware of this merging of meaning with object is vital.
 
 
Now again, I'm not saying in any of this that the "theme" or meaning or even message is done all that well in G2. It has serious flaws, as we all know, I think. But let's judge it with clear vision. :) If nothing else, that may help make more productive criticisms that LEGO could listen to moving forward.

I think what's basically driving this is dissatisfaction, which I definitely get. Then again, it's hard to be sure, since we can't help but judge it in light of nostalgia. I've also learned over the years to learn to more easily adapt to give very different things a fair shot, and when I let myself do that, I have enjoyed what little there has been for G2 so far. We'll see how things go from here... or perhaps flop from here lol. :shrugs: Only time will really tell.

 
Now, you can validly use "theme" or meaning and so forth as jargon -- with a different definition, intentionally, and that's fine. I don't think it was really as clear as you hoped in your prior posts what you meant by it, especially by prominently leading with the dictionary cite which did not fit with it -- remember something may always seem clear in your mind, but we don't have the benefit of being telepathic. :) In any event, thanks for clarifying, and hope this helps. ^_^ (And by the way, the subject is definitely good to have a topic on!)

I agree with most of this. I even used the exact same types of examples in my last post to make my own point, which is that the meaning of a story is not conveyed in a single word without the context for it. Using the same types of examples I used doesn't disprove what I said. 

 

And since the theme is different from the method of conveyance, it cannot be said in a single word. It can be referred to by the object that conveys it, but that only works if both parties involved have read the story in question and understand what the meaning is. The meaning is still different from the object of conveyance. 

Edited by fishers64

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I see LEGO forcing themselve to hold back on the story so it doesn't become so complicated like G1 did.

 

(note I loved the complicated story line.)

 

Since Bionicle is now targeted to younger people. So a simple story won't confuse them. (Even though almost all of there other lines get better story lines than Bionicle :burnmad: )

 

 

We old Matoran have to live in a simpler protector world.

 

I hate this sentiment, that a story for kids has to be simple.  It's a bald-faced lie that people accept so willingly.

*snip*

-Jaga

 

 

I totally agree with everything you said! I think that one can have a clear distinction between good and evil, especially for a children's story, but you have to remind us why that is and why things are like that. In G2 you have things like the "sacred forbidden law" against combining the elements, but there's no reason or explanation for anything other than "it is".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not baffled. What you said in my previous post was complete nonsense. Prove me wrong.

I don't think what Bonesiii said was complete nonsense... but I would like to say that I think he went a long ways aroundabouts the lake to go nowhere at all, as well as a very strange thing to say. Bones... you said fishers wasn't sufficiently clear about what she meant when it came to theme, but...

 

<snip> 

theme

[theem] 

noun

1.

a subject of discourse, discussion, meditation, or composition; topic:

The need for world peace was the theme of the meeting.

 

2.

a unifying or dominant idea, motif, etc., as in a work of art.

Source

 

The reason I'm including this is that I know that it will come up in the ensuing discussion. :P When I say "has no theme" what I mean is that Bionicle G2 has no unified message that it intends for kids to grasp. <snip>

 

...she quite clearly pointed out what part of the definition she intended to address, using her own words rather than those of the primary source. That statement "rabbits are the theme of a diorama about rabbits" and "BIONICLE is the theme of the BIONICLE Storyline" are both technically correct by definition 1 and the "motif" portion of definition #2, but neither address fisher's explicit statement about what she intended to address. The emphasis in this quote is not mine. Sic erat scriptum. Thus it was written. The only ways I can explain you missing it is flat oversight at best, or deliberate misunderstanding at worst. This was not a matter of jargon. This was not a matter of some other, unstated definition. Fishers directly stated what she intended to discuss here.

 

​Take it easy dude it's based on this joke:

 

 

From Know Your Meme

“Anime Was a Mistake” is a troll quote misattributed to Hayao Miyazaki, one of the most popular and influential Japanese artists and film directors in anime history, that conveys a strong sense of disdain towards the art of anime and its fanbase at large, including those who identify themselves with weeaboo and otaku subcultures.

 

I apologize. You may want to keep in mind, however, that not everyone online is familiar with all the memes you are. With zero context for your joke, I very much misunderstood you.


~~-BS01 Histories-~~
by Zox Tomana, B.A. - Blog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

​Take it easy dude it's based on this joke:

 

From Know Your Meme

“Anime Was a Mistake” is a troll quote misattributed to Hayao Miyazaki, one of the most popular and influential Japanese artists and film directors in anime history, that conveys a strong sense of disdain towards the art of anime and its fanbase at large, including those who identify themselves with weeaboo and otaku subcultures.

 

I apologize. You may want to keep in mind, however, that not everyone online is familiar with all the memes you are. With zero context for your joke, I very much misunderstood you.

 

 

The meme is a responsibility, not a toy. You must know the meme to understand the meme, and understand the meme to become it. Become the meme young sprout, do it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wooh some harsh thoughts here. In my opinion (and as much as I like G2) it is not trying to forge a unique theme for itself or embracing the old G1 themes in a meaningful way. I can see the repetition of Unity, Duty and Destiny, but its not done in a way that feels cohesive. It feels more like a setpiece after setpiece type story where the themes are thrown in to make it seem somewhat more than just mindless action, but instead comes off as cheap and preachy. Not to say G1 didn't have moments like this, but there has been yet to be a moment in G2 where I actually feel like the central theme is natural and the story is built around it. Maybe that's why it feels like there is no theme" as the topic starter states. That being said, Pohatu's side-plot in Journey to One was a pretty good step in the right direction, and G2 is still in its early stages, so who knows what the future will bring? 

 

-NotS

Edited by Nidhiki of the Shadows
  • Upvote 1

tahubanner.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what meaning the [artist] was trying to convey by just by knowing that it contains rabbits.

Well, since he didn't say "rabbits attacking soldiers" I'd guess probably the qualities of normal rabbits, how they make people feel, etc.

 

Also, keep in mind, as I mentioned, meaning that a viewer/reader takes away is not necessarily limited to what the artist/author had in mind. Message is a more natural word for that. It could be if an artist or author said "nobody's allowed to have their own interpretations of what I make", but very few do that; most are aware of the way others will perceive their work in varying ways and want that. And even if we jargonistically limit "meaning" to "what the author meant", we still have to admit that the other definition of meaning as "what it meant to me" exists. The latter is usually how it's used in stories in my experience.

 

lower the requirements for theme to an impossibly low standard

Nothing in the definitions you provided says anything about only a certain level of quality (objective or perceived) counting as a theme. It's a unifying idea. There's no high or low standard there -- if there is a unifying idea, and there certainly is in both generations of Bionicle, it is a theme.

 

Again, you can use a jargon term "theme" with way, and that's fine. But you should recognize it is not the primary meaning of the word. :)

 

That wasn't required to prove me wrong - Aanchir proved that at least part of the story had a theme, and you named the theme that I was missing, thus proving me wrong. The only reason to do that is to confuse me and ensure that I won't attack your position. That's stupid, because I don't do that. When I'm wrong, I admit to it and change my thinking. You know this. I just did it.

No problem. :) [Addition after reading on... well, maybe there is, but see my PM.] I know you do; I was just confused as to how you could quote that (second) definition and then go on to say G2 didn't have a theme, evidently by that definition. Regardless, thanks for acknowledging that.

 

You just lost the game was arguing that Bionicle was its own theme. It's not

Again I... well,l pardon the pun ( :P), but -- seem to be seeing a theme here; apparently people are taking him way more literally than it seemed to me he intended to be taken. I took him as meaning that the obvious major traits of Bionicle are the theme, the lessons taught in the story we all have (so we don't really need him to spell that out for us, presumably). We'd need him to clarify to be sure, but I thought his... ahem... meaning was self-evident. :shrugs: I don't see what else he could have meant, really. How did you take it?

 

 

And yes, I know that in making that statement that I made in what you quoted, I missed your other point, which follows below this lecture in a quote. You can tell me that I missed the point that you were trying to make. I'm not going to bite your head off if you say it. I wanted to make my own point, and I made it.

'Tis fine. :)

 

*reads ahead a bit* However... see my PM... >_>

 

What I'll say here is... perhaps you might want to try starting by asking for clarifications before leaping to assumptions. Posts are best kept short-ish -- yeah, even mine -- and I may allude to concepts I hope are common knowledge due to having been discussed to death in the past or being commonly taught like what I said about "vehicle"/"cargo" to save time. If people who don't know them are confused, then we can clear it up in later posts. It seems like (but I'm still not sure) that may have been going on here. :shrugs: But apparently a lot more needs said and it seems like a PM would be best for this.

 

You may pay lip service to the idea that you change your opinion when you're proven wrong, but you rarely get there

There's more to it than that. Being willing to admit when we're wrong is great, but it's better to think through ideas that come to us and avoid being wrong in the first place, as well as add cautions when you don't actually have sound support for something.

 

That's a double-edged sword, though, because it means you won't often be wrong, so people don't get to see you admitting it, because you're actually getting rid of the being wrong before you even speak, rejecting ideas. Also means others may not have thought of what you do so might assume it's wrong because they missed steps that, again, will need cleared up in further discussion (that part's fine as long as people remain civil and want to find the truth too, since this is a discussion forum, though -- but occasionally I run into people who struggle with that, and I get it).

 

I did have to admit I was wrong a lot in my early days here, though. Life tends to grant experience. :)

 

 

What you said in my previous post was complete nonsense. Prove me wrong.

Could... you be more specific?

 

the meaning of a story is not conveyed in a single word without the context for it.

Agreed. Is this directed at You's "the meaning is Bionicle"? If so, again, I presumed he felt none of us needed him to tell us what's been in Bionicle, so we have that context. Same with rabbits...

 

 

she quite clearly pointed out what part of the definition she intended to address, using her own words rather than those of the primary source.

The problem was the argument wasn't just using the same definitions in different words; it was seemingly ignoring the definition that was right there, of a unifying idea, or adding something to it without making it clear that it was being added intentionally. Anyway, it's still probably 200 times deeper into story theory than the topics S&T usually gets, so appreciated regardless. :D

 

That statement "rabbits are the theme of a diorama about rabbits" and "BIONICLE is the theme of the BIONICLE Storyline" are both technically correct by definition 1 and the "motif" portion of definition #2, but neither address fisher's explicit statement about what she intended to address.

I think he was just trying to be witty and a bit subtle, and I (thought I) got it, and maybe others didn't. Then again, if how I took it isn't as obvious as I thought, maybe I misread and he was just being silly for fun. I don't know. (To be fair, if I had thought of those figures of speech I would have tried to give a hint that that's what they were a few lines down or something.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...