BIONICLE Stars were bad sets on PURPOSE!?!

[Digiminer312]

You've likely heard about how Bionicle Stars was a bad way to say goodbye to Bionicle. However, I pose that LEGO WANTED these sets to be horrible, and hopefully by the time you finish reading this, you'll agree. Please note that this post will contain nerdy stuff involving how the human brain works.

 

To start off, the human brain actually has a function that decides whether a conclusion(, any kind of conclusion, from the end of a book, to even the end of the day,) is satisfiable or not. Whether or not the conclusion is satisfiable can trigger emotions, but the type of emotion you have depends on certain factors. If and ending is satisfactory, you'll feel good right? Well what if this ending was a sendoff to a beloved childhood franchise of yours? You'd be sad, right? And what if the ending/sendoff was horrible? You'd probably feel either puzzled or relieved. Part of you would be like, "Why is the finale so terrible?" and another part would be like, "Good riddance!"

 

Now, with that out of the way, it's time for a scenario. Imagine one world where the Stars sets were good, and another where the Stars were bad. Which one would have made you more upset about Bionicle's departure?...

Exactly! The scenario in which the Stars were good! And it's not just the Stars. All of years 2009-10 were slowly getting less and less cool, with less Titans, a HUGE cliffhanger ending, and, of course, the repeated use of the infamous Inika torso(,cause Mata Nui forbid we use the Piraka Torso).

[Bfahome]

The only reason the Stars existed is because some people within LEGO were pulling for one final wave of sets before the end.  I think BZP's own Binkmeister was one of them.  Otherwise the final wave of sets would've been the second half of the Glatorian.

 

So if the Stars were "bad" it's because they weren't originally planned, not because LEGO was trying to undermine its products.

 

(Also I don't know what this is about "getting less and less cool" with "less Titans", the vehicles were awesome.)

[Digiminer312]

(Also I don't know what this is about "getting less and less cool" with "less Titans", the vehicles were awesome.)

Yeah, they were much better than the Exo-Toa.

[Lyichir]

Yeah. As Bfahome says, the reason the Stars were "bad" was because Bionicle was already a theme on its way out. They were the best Lego could do to pay tribute to the theme on an extremely limited budget. That meant that the most that could be done were six "impulse-priced" sets (since those would cost less to produce and traditionally sold better than larger sets).

 

In other words, there was never a choice between the Bionicle Stars and some hypothetical better final wave of sets. The choice was between what we got (the Stars) and the theme being cancelled without any 2010 sets at all.

 

Personally, I don't think what we got was that bad. A wave of six cheap sets paying tribute to fan-favorite classic designs, with unique new parts designed to evoke those older characters, was a real treat considering the circumstances. Yes, they necessarily relied on the limited posability and simplistic builds of the Agori/Av-Matoran, but conversely that made them some of the best, most refined sets to ever make use of those designs.

[Tuuli]

I loved them despite their looks. You know why they are good to me the way they are? The giant robot battle. It is mind blowing to think about the scales of these small soldiers fighting at the feet of these giant creators. So they realese smaller sets to go with the battle of the big robots, making these characters seem smaller. We are all the giant robot, and these were our soldiers fighting at our feet.

[Lyichir]

I loved them despite their looks. You know why they are good to me the way they are? The giant robot battle. It is mind blowing to think about the scales of these small soldiers fighting at the feet of these giant creators. So they realese smaller sets to go with the battle of the big robots, making these characters seem smaller. We are all the giant robot, and these were our soldiers fighting at our feet.

I never really thought about it that way! I like your interpretation.

[Banana Gunz]

It's worth noting how we got like five new pieces and several recolors, so it seems that they had enough of a budget to make better sets had they focused their resources there, but that's not known for certain at all.

 

I mean, it's possible I guess, and if so LEGO had a fair enough reason to do so but I doubt the designers were sitting down thinking about how to make Bionicle go out poorly. Besides, Bionicle to many was on a bit of a decline to many, so it could be argued that people would've been more excited and positive about Bionicle had the final wave been great. I don't think LEGO has much business purposely making their sets bad, because even though that psychological phenomenon can be true, people are different and too many having an underwhelming final wave would simply be less of an incentive for some for it to come back, and rather make them want to see something new.

 

I really don't know lol, I wish there could be more direct communication between people working on Bionicle and the fans. Not as extreme as it was with Greg, but G1 is long gone and passed, I think it would be cool to hear more about what was happening at the time from places other than Faber Files.

[emily]

It's worth noting how we got like five new pieces and several recolors, so it seems that they had enough of a budget to make better sets had they focused their resources there, but that's not known for certain at all.

Budget doesn't equate to set size. If LEGO tells you "OK, you can make a lineup of six sets at a $8 price point, here's a budget, go crazy," you still can't make 6 $13 sets, even if you can somehow stretch the money that way, because LEGO only wants $8 sets on the market and $13 BIONICLE sets are going to cannibalize the Ben 10 set sales.

[Banana Gunz]

 

It's worth noting how we got like five new pieces and several recolors, so it seems that they had enough of a budget to make better sets had they focused their resources there, but that's not known for certain at all.

Budget doesn't equate to set size. If LEGO tells you "OK, you can make a lineup of six sets at a $8 price point, here's a budget, go crazy," you still can't make 6 $13 sets, even if you can somehow stretch the money that way, because LEGO only wants $8 sets on the market and $13 BIONICLE sets are going to cannibalize the Ben 10 set sales.

 

 

But creating new parts does take up a lot of money and I would think reduces the amount of money you have left to develop the rest of the set with.

 

You do have a point, but I think that it's possible more money could have been put towards building up the set and giving it more pieces that are more readily available but make it a better built set overall.

[Bfahome]

 

 

It's worth noting how we got like five new pieces and several recolors, so it seems that they had enough of a budget to make better sets had they focused their resources there, but that's not known for certain at all.

Budget doesn't equate to set size. If LEGO tells you "OK, you can make a lineup of six sets at a $8 price point, here's a budget, go crazy," you still can't make 6 $13 sets, even if you can somehow stretch the money that way, because LEGO only wants $8 sets on the market and $13 BIONICLE sets are going to cannibalize the Ben 10 set sales.

 

But creating new parts does take up a lot of money and I would think reduces the amount of money you have left to develop the rest of the set with.

 

You do have a point, but I think that it's possible more money could have been put towards building up the set and giving it more pieces that are more readily available but make it a better built set overall.

I think the big cost comes from creating new molds more than it does recolors.  Five new molds isn't much compared to the, what, 45 new molds of 2009?

Edited June 29, 2016 by Bfahome

[Banana Gunz]

 

 

 

It's worth noting how we got like five new pieces and several recolors, so it seems that they had enough of a budget to make better sets had they focused their resources there, but that's not known for certain at all.

Budget doesn't equate to set size. If LEGO tells you "OK, you can make a lineup of six sets at a $8 price point, here's a budget, go crazy," you still can't make 6 $13 sets, even if you can somehow stretch the money that way, because LEGO only wants $8 sets on the market and $13 BIONICLE sets are going to cannibalize the Ben 10 set sales.

 

But creating new parts does take up a lot of money and I would think reduces the amount of money you have left to develop the rest of the set with.

 

You do have a point, but I think that it's possible more money could have been put towards building up the set and giving it more pieces that are more readily available but make it a better built set overall.

I think the big cost comes from creating new molds more than it does recolors.  Five new molds isn't much compared to the, what, 45 new molds of 2009?

 

 

Though by 2010 Bionicle was on its last leg. 2009 probably still had a decent budget as it was still being planned and supported by LEGO, but 2010 was never even planned to have any sets. We really don't know what the budget for the last year really was though, so it's hard to say anything without making wide assumptions.

 

It doesn't really matter though I guess, since 2010 couldn't have had THAT tiny of a budget and as you mentioned five new parts isn't a dramatically large number.

[Lenny7092]

I had no idea why the 2010 sets are tiny, but I could think of reasons why that happened:

1. Lego's limited budget when it comes to Bionicle ending in 2010

2. Makes buyers look like giants to the sets, like how the giant robots in 2010 are super-huge compared the the characters to relate the the 2010 story.

 

Now as for the 2010 sets being terrible on purpose? Why would Lego do that. Wouldn't that hurt their business. Lego was trying to deal with its economic problem in 2009 by making smaller sets to end the Bionicle toy line, so the problem wouldn't continue. Lego had no choice. Very sad sacrifice as I can see. Sure, the 2010 sets are a weird way to end the line (non-bendable limbs and small size? Seriously?), but Lego was trying to do its best to conclude the toy line to reduce its economic issue (correct me if I am inaccurate).

[Aanchir]

 

 

 

It's worth noting how we got like five new pieces and several recolors, so it seems that they had enough of a budget to make better sets had they focused their resources there, but that's not known for certain at all.

Budget doesn't equate to set size. If LEGO tells you "OK, you can make a lineup of six sets at a $8 price point, here's a budget, go crazy," you still can't make 6 $13 sets, even if you can somehow stretch the money that way, because LEGO only wants $8 sets on the market and $13 BIONICLE sets are going to cannibalize the Ben 10 set sales.

 

 

But creating new parts does take up a lot of money and I would think reduces the amount of money you have left to develop the rest of the set with.

 

You do have a point, but I think that it's possible more money could have been put towards building up the set and giving it more pieces that are more readily available but make it a better built set overall.

 

I think the big cost comes from creating new molds more than it does recolors.  Five new molds isn't much compared to the, what, 45 new molds of 2009?

 

New molds definitely cost a lot more than recolors. The main factor that makes recolors cost money is that they are considered a new element on the production line, and LEGO keeps their number of elements closely in check. Introducing a new element generally means taking an existing element out of production, so recolors are introduced at least SOMEWHAT sparingly (any time you think there should have been a new Bionicle recolor in a given wave, ask yourself: "what Bionicle recolor DID we get that wave that I'd rather have gone without?").

 

But a new steel mold at the level of precision the LEGO Group demands (tolerances of ±.01mm) and their expected operational lifetime generally costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, in addition to the general cost of adding a new element to production. And the more complex the mold (which depends on things like how many separate sliding parts it takes to mold the details on every side of the piece), the higher the cost.

 

Now, how many new molds are within the budget for a set or series of sets depends on a number of factors, such as the price point of the sets, how many sets the mold will be used on and how big a batch of those sets will be produced. This is why, for instance, LEGO Ideas sets are not allowed to include new molds. They are typically produced in batches of 20,000 units, whereas a typical Ninjago set might be produced in batches of a million or more units. If you split $200,000 between 20,000 units, that adds an immediate $10 to the cost of each unit! But if you split $200,000 between a million units, that adds just 20 cents to the cost of each unit — arguably less, if the cost of the mold is distributed across a full wave of sets that use that mold.

 

All things considered, six new molds across six sets (or to simplify things, one new mold per set) is not a lot. Sure, the Bionicle Stars might've been able to be somewhat bigger with fewer new molds, but not by a whole lot. The only way one new mold per set would amount to even a dollar of each set's budget is if 200,000 or fewer of each Stars set were made. And how much more size or complexity would one extra dollar in each Stars set's budget really buy? Not a huge amount, I don't think.

[Lyichir]

 

 

 

 

It's worth noting how we got like five new pieces and several recolors, so it seems that they had enough of a budget to make better sets had they focused their resources there, but that's not known for certain at all.

Budget doesn't equate to set size. If LEGO tells you "OK, you can make a lineup of six sets at a $8 price point, here's a budget, go crazy," you still can't make 6 $13 sets, even if you can somehow stretch the money that way, because LEGO only wants $8 sets on the market and $13 BIONICLE sets are going to cannibalize the Ben 10 set sales.

 

 

But creating new parts does take up a lot of money and I would think reduces the amount of money you have left to develop the rest of the set with.

 

You do have a point, but I think that it's possible more money could have been put towards building up the set and giving it more pieces that are more readily available but make it a better built set overall.

 

I think the big cost comes from creating new molds more than it does recolors.  Five new molds isn't much compared to the, what, 45 new molds of 2009?

 

New molds definitely cost a lot more than recolors. The main factor that makes recolors cost money is that they are considered a new element on the production line, and LEGO keeps their number of elements closely in check. Introducing a new element generally means taking an existing element out of production, so recolors are introduced at least SOMEWHAT sparingly (any time you think there should have been a new Bionicle recolor in a given wave, ask yourself: "what Bionicle recolor DID we get that wave that I'd rather have gone without?").

 

But a new steel mold at the level of precision the LEGO Group demands (tolerances of ±.01mm) and their expected operational lifetime generally costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, in addition to the general cost of adding a new element to production. And the more complex the mold (which depends on things like how many separate sliding parts it takes to mold the details on every side of the piece), the higher the cost.

 

Now, how many new molds are within the budget for a set or series of sets depends on a number of factors, such as the price point of the sets, how many sets the mold will be used on and how big a batch of those sets will be produced. This is why, for instance, LEGO Ideas sets are not allowed to include new molds. They are typically produced in batches of 20,000 units, whereas a typical Ninjago set might be produced in batches of a million or more units. If you split $200,000 between 20,000 units, that adds an immediate $10 to the cost of each unit! But if you split $200,000 between a million units, that adds just 20 cents to the cost of each unit — arguably less, if the cost of the mold is distributed across a full wave of sets that use that mold.

 

All things considered, six new molds across six sets (or to simplify things, one new mold per set) is not a lot. Sure, the Bionicle Stars might've been able to be somewhat bigger with fewer new molds, but not by a whole lot. The only way one new mold per set would amount to even a dollar of each set's budget is if 200,000 or fewer of each Stars set were made. And how much more size or complexity would one extra dollar in each Stars set's budget really buy? Not a huge amount, I don't think.

 

 

That said, Pereki is also right—set size is at least partly a separate issue. It's not as simple as being able to offer a single $48 Mata Nui Robot set (or even three $16 sets) instead of the six $8 Stars sets. At that point in the theme's lifespan, you have to understand that Bionicle was selling badly, and sales had been on the decline for several years. Consumers were losing interest, which meant that retailers were less confident in the theme, which meant that if there were going to be ANY Bionicle sets that year, Lego would have to be strategic about it.

 

Keep in mind that smaller sets sell greater volumes than larger sets as a rule, due to being more affordable for buyers. With retailers becoming more wary of the Bionicle brand after years of selling through fewer and fewer sets each year, it was easier to sell them on a single wave of six "impulse-priced" sets than it would have been to sell them on a series of larger sets, especially with unsold Glatorian Legends and vehicles from 2009 still occupying shelf space in many cases.

Edited June 29, 2016 by Lyichir

[Tahu3.0]

The reason there pretty "BAD" is because they were rushed and maybe to save some cost in making them but i still think that the joints are the worst problem from the later sets thank Mata Nui that thats not a problem now.

Edited June 29, 2016 by Tahu3.0

[Franz Joseph Haydn]

I have to say that they probably would have done better if they weren't ending, that being said, the Stars were fairly good sets. We got new pieces, a good send off story and six new sets to accompany that. No matter what they would have done it would have been sad, in my opinion.

[Tuuli]

I do not think they were completely bad, after all, you can collect the GOLDEN BIONICLE! that's a good sendoff if I ever saw one. Plus, stars Tahu is the precursor to the Omega Tahu from 2015.

[Toa of Ice - 1987]

Heres what i think. The stars were a last minute input that came in at the very end of 2009 which means lego didn't have enough time to to plan out 6 sets in a bigger format than impulse sets. So they went with agori build since it was the easiest to make these rushed models.

If they had been planned secretly after second half of 2009 till January we might have seen canister size versions of a new tahu and a first canister size(not titan) set for Takanuva in a updated build after 2003.

 

Point is...They were ok, but should've been better than we got, emphasis on should.

Edited June 30, 2016 by necross hordika

[MrSciFiGuy]

They were only "bad" because Lego was able to still do some sort of send off for the Bionicle story, but did it in the most cost-effective way. I don't hate the Stars sets. I'm happy we got them compared to the option of having story fall flat.

[Nidhiki of the Shadows]

They would have just ended it without sets if they wanted people to be really disappointed.

 

-NotS

[Digiminer312]

They would have just ended it without sets if they wanted people to be really disappointed.

 

-NotS

I'm not saying LEGO WANTED to disappoint us. I just said that if the stars were actually GOOD, then Bionicle fans would have gotten REALLY mad at LEGO. Plus, I really don't like the 2009-10 sets because of how easily the parts break. My Stars Piraka has cracks on his shoulder, and my Mata Nui (Small scale one, not the big one whose mask was just a recolor of it's 2008 mold) has it's right thigh socket broken. However my Tahu mata and Matoran Balta are both perfectly fine.

[Lyichir]

 

They would have just ended it without sets if they wanted people to be really disappointed.

 

-NotS

I'm not saying LEGO WANTED to disappoint us. I just said that if the stars were actually GOOD, then Bionicle fans would have gotten REALLY mad at LEGO. Plus, I really don't like the 2009-10 sets because of how easily the parts break. My Stars Piraka has cracks on his shoulder, and my Mata Nui (Small scale one, not the big one whose mask was just a recolor of it's 2008 mold) has it's right thigh socket broken. However my Tahu mata and Matoran Balta are both perfectly fine.

Counterpoint: the first year of Hero Factory had even more simple figures than the Stars (at least for the main heroes themselves) and the same fragile joints as the other post-2008 sets (excluding the Ben 10 sets, for which all of the parts were brand-new). If Bionicle's imminent end were to blame for any of these lackluster aspects of the Stars, then surely Lego would specifically try to avert those issues for the launch of Bionicle's long-term replacement. But clearly that wasn't the case. So the only reasonable conclusion is that those disappointing aspects of the Stars weren't based on any deliberate choice to "let fans down easy" so much as a natural consequence of the timing of their release, the limited budget available to a theme on the verge of cancellation, and the low price point chosen to maximize sales of a theme that was losing its appeal among retailers and customers.

[Toa Doublebee]

Meh, idk.

Review time.

Gresh- I never cared too much for the Glatorians. Another Gresh with recolored mask and weapons? lame and disapointing.

 

Skrall- From my limited understanding of the Bara-Magna lore, having more of this army building characters is cool, no? and a black Kopaka sword? Super cool.

 

Rahkshi- Keetongorage is my all time favorite color. And Rahkshis are awesome. I love this set. Only Stars I own.

 

"Piraka"- While not an actual Piraka, I felt that BIONICLE allways had alot of these characters from various races, and those fiew sets were to represent an entire race of beings. Made them feel very throwaway. I think its cool to have another Skakdi. I appreciate him.

 

Takanuva- Nostalgic guy. Its cool to see him again, but I feel like there is not much to him otherwise. We saw him done much better two years prior.

 

Tahu- Tahu Mata. Tahu. Mata. Back in 2010 I remember a bunch of people singing praise to the overwhelming nostalgia this set brought them (actually how I learned the word "nostalgia"). Tahu being the first and the last set they owned. While Tahu was also my first set, I did not share these feelings for some reason. And I didn't get him. Maybe I will. But at any rate, such positive response from the community cannot be ignored in my book.

Golden stuff collecting gimmick- yea, classic.

 

My final verdict: They were not amazing, but they were not horrible either (aside from Gresh), and had some genuinly enjoyable sets. And for the circumstances they were produced in back then, I am rather content.

Except Gresh. To the trash.

[Bionicleforever 12]

I do actually like them for what they are I was just sad that they didn't make larger sets... I don't really think they made the stars sets terrible though on purpose... They actually were just going to end it in 2009 originally but then they decided last minute to make the sets with a very limited budget

[Tahu3.0]

Meh, idk.

Review time.

Gresh- I never cared too much for the Glatorians. Another Gresh with recolored mask and weapons? lame and disapointing.

 

Skrall- From my limited understanding of the Bara-Magna lore, having more of this army building characters is cool, no? and a black Kopaka sword? Super cool.

 

Rahkshi- Keetongorage is my all time favorite color. And Rahkshis are awesome. I love this set. Only Stars I own.

 

"Piraka"- While not an actual Piraka, I felt that BIONICLE allways had alot of these characters from various races, and those fiew sets were to represent an entire race of beings. Made them feel very throwaway. I think its cool to have another Skakdi. I appreciate him.

 

Takanuva- Nostalgic guy. Its cool to see him again, but I feel like there is not much to him otherwise. We saw him done much better two years prior.

 

Tahu- Tahu Mata. Tahu. Mata. Back in 2010 I remember a bunch of people singing praise to the overwhelming nostalgia this set brought them (actually how I learned the word "nostalgia"). Tahu being the first and the last set they owned. While Tahu was also my first set, I did not share these feelings for some reason. And I didn't get him. Maybe I will. But at any rate, such positive response from the community cannot be ignored in my book.

Golden stuff collecting gimmick- yea, classic.

 

My final verdict: They were not amazing, but they were not horrible either (aside from Gresh), and had some genuinly enjoyable sets. And for the circumstances they were produced in back then, I am rather content.

Except Gresh. To the trash.

Yea when I think about it the Tahu set was very nice as it brought his golden mask that you could pretend that it was from his MataNui days.

[squidmaster]

you have got a point

[(-Kopaka Toa of Ice-)]

Personally i understand if the sets were limited. But i think canister sized sets would leave a bigger impression.
I thought lego would already know a lot of fans hated the Av-Matoran builds. Two of the sets have exposed areas. Skrall and Rahkshi had a open joint on the chest and a balljointed neck like a tumor. The Rahkshi was also very limited in articulations even if the 70% had of the parts molds not been in production since 2004-5 era.

Edited January 29, 2021 by (-Kopaka Toa of Ice-)

[Master Inika]

On 6/29/2016 at 11:49 AM, Lyichir said:

 

I never really thought about it that way! I like your interpretation.

Agreed, I can't believe someone actually made the Stars make sense.

LEGO has no incentive to ever intentionally release bad sets. In fact, your analysis is correct: people will recall the final portion of something disproportionately well over the rest of it. For that reason, LEGO intentionally canceled BIONICLE as its sales and popularity were declining, but before its reputation was totally unsalvageable. This was so that, should they decide to revive it (as they did in 2015/16), retailers would recall it as having been a profitable product and agree to carry it again.

Furthermore, I don't think the Stars are uniquely bad. As far as Avtoran-build sets go, they are better than the Avtoran but not as good as the Agori, IMO. The toys' quality had been going in a particular, somewhat more simplistic direction since 2008, and the Stars were just another level further along that trajectory.

[Alexander123]

Well this discussion has had some necromancy inflicted on it. However it seems that the stars were what I always considered a "whimper wave", a wave for a theme that is about to end that gets hardly any advertising like the last wave of Nexo Knights and Chima. As a result the theme usually goes out with a "whimper" and that wave is soon forgotten.

[Eyru]

On 1/29/2021 at 10:52 PM, (-Kopaka Toa of Ice-) said:

Personally i understand if the sets were limited. But i think canister sized sets would leave a bigger impression.
I thought lego would already know a lot of fans hated the Av-Matoran builds. Two of the sets have exposed areas. Skrall and Rahkshi had a open joint on the chest and a balljointed neck like a tumor. The Rahkshi was also very limited in articulations even if the 70% had of the parts molds not been in production since 2004-5 era.

Please remember to check the timestamp of the last post in a topic before you reply. The last post before this made in July 2016—almost 5 years ago! This counts as topic revival, which is against BZPower rules.

If you want to continue the discussion, please feel free to start a new topic.  

Topic closed.