Jump to content
Hapori Tohu

Bionicle Concludes Again

Recommended Posts

 

What did they expect when they handled the franchise with such a lack of effort and passion.True tragedy. Most shallow LEGO themes last longer than this, honestly its really sad that BIONICLE (BIONICLE of all things!!) would have such a short duration. What a waste. Plus LEGO is just going to blame the brand again. BIONICLE has so much potential to honestly be up there with the best of franchises, but the reboot was yet another disappointment. It has well earned it place up on the shelf with the fantastic four and robocop reboot. Sad that BIONICLE has be put to rest again, when with the right touch it could be the huge beloved franchise it once was and more.

 

 

On the plus side G2 is over so thats good  ^_^

 

Agreed. Bionicle G1 fills me with nostalgia - in a good way. This new Bionicle... was just pathetic. I mean really, cancelled after less than 2 years? It's an embarrassment, and a disgrace to the bionicle name

 

it is no secret that compared to G1, they really didn't try

 

People have been saying as much since the start of G2, and I can't tell if it's out of genuine ignorance of the effort that's been put into making the reboot into a worthy BIONICLE story or if they are so resistant to the idea that their interests might have shifted over the years that they have to project blame on the designers for why they don't like it as much.

Please; try to understand. 

 

With G1, they tried because they were about to go bankrupt

 

with G2, there was no need to try - Lego is now very successful

 

G1 lasted 11 years

 

G2 barely lasted 2

 

Please do the math

You have to realize that sales numbers are a thing that exist. You don't seem to understand that the amount of effort they put into g2 doesn't equal how well the sets sold. The depends on the toy market at the time (action figure sales declining) the competition it had (in which Lego may have created its own worst enemy with the Star Wars constraction) and the marketing of that product directly (to which I will admit, the marketing of the g2 sets was not the greatest, with their greatest marketing tool hidden behind a Netflix paywall). With that in mind, you can't say how much effort Lego put into the line. There's evidence to support both sides of that argument, but no one can say for certain, and it boils down to your opinion whether or not it "disgraced the bionicle name." And it's fine to have your own opinion, but don't make a statement with absolute certainty when you have no evidence to back it. You don't have to like g2. But that tells you nothing about lego's effort into the brand.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's sad to see a line cut short of its time, but truth be told, it was very clear this was coming when the books and comics started being cancelled. I do not think the line's ultimate failure can be attributed to any one particular thing. I'd imagine the paper-thin lore, high set prices (in relative comparison to G1) and market oversaturation with "collect golden elemental doodads" were a large factor.

 

The sets were objectively the best, and as such lost a certain simplicity and charm that the originals had. It was created to meet all of the downfalls of the original system, perfectly machined to fit exactly what kids should want. And in doing so it lost all its soul and personality. If anything G2 has been a victim of G1's failure as well.

I think G2 was a victim of it own failures to be honest.

 

 

While I can people thinking sets were cool (im not as big of a fan as many were), they were large, complex (often clunky in this regard) and expensive as compared to the clean, simple sets of G1, which I think might have been less appealing or attainable for kids. This is speculation however

Edited by Ids5621
  • Upvote 2

sam_7163_-_copy.jpg

The Misadventures of

Onipex and Pals! Go watch it now! :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really a conclusion, more of a colossal slap in the face from LEGO.

A much needed slap really. At least for me.


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 think you miss the point here.
 
It's not that the designers didn't try as hard or as much as the previous ones for the past Bionicle. It's that the approach was wrong. We're living in a slightly more modern age than before - everything is about ridiculous one-liners, flashy colours, and a running pace to keep people interested, with the already short attention spans people have. And it has proven to work with the other themes - Ninjago, Chima, City, Star Wars - and raked in lots of cash at that. So LEGO started their Bionicle reboot from a proven-to-function standpoint that Bionicle simply isn't made to run on.
 
They poured lots of time and energy into the theme, working as hard as they possibly could to make Bionicle work around this new program, and they somehow made it work for 2 years. That's very impressive. But Bionicle is about dramatic writing, slightly bad movies for kids, and aesthetically pleasing sets with a powerful storyline that really makes you applaud their reasoning behind it. It's not made to be a flashy, light-speed pile of colour and pointless jokes to draw in buyers for a short amount of time. True, Bionicle was designed to only run for three years to begin with, but what they started with allowed them to carry it for a long time.

I knew G2 would come crashing down in a twisted mess at some point. I wasn't expecting LEGO to kill it before it happened, though, which makes me wonder why they did it. Perhaps, theoretically, they saw how absolutely absurd it was going to become and decided to kill it before it destroyed the fan base? Think about it. The names of the older characters, the story, everything would have been forever polluted by
 
 

Face it, facts are facts: It ended because it was handled poorly. There's no way around it.

 I agree. Too modern, poor standpoint, not enough solid ground - not lack of effort.

 

The results of any kind of creation shows the level of effort. Be it an article, video editing, you name it. When you see something that is inferior to its comtemporaries you can compare and see where one thing succeeded because their heart was in it while another failed. For example, let's compare first years of video media. G1 had great CGI work from Advance on its animations and posters. G2 had middling animations with cheap drawing designs and went with a narrator format without writing the episodes in such a way that the narrator format would make sense.

Actually, that's not true. You can put tons of hours and effort into something, only to have someone spend a fraction of the time and make something better. I used to spend weeks making a Bionicle creation only to spend a couple hours the next day and make something drastically better in quality and design. Why? I didn't get the right standpoint.

 

It's not a matter of "oh, we're just too lazy to finish it, let's bomb out while we can". It's "We've tried so hard on this to appeal to our younger audience, spent hours and hours, and everything's going wrong. If we keep this going, it'll ruin Bionicle forever. We need to kill it before something terrible happens to our sales, our fans, our reputation."

So perhaps you can stop being so venomous to the labouring designers who tried so desperately and talk about what the high points in G2 were, and possibly how to make it better.

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think it's sad to see a line cut short of its time, but truth be told, it was very clear this was coming when the books and comics started being cancelled. I do not think the line's ultimate failure can be attributed to any one particular thing. I'd imagine the paper-thin lore, high set prices (in relative comparison to G1) and market oversaturation with "collect golden elemental doodads" were a large factor.

 

The sets were objectively the best, and as such lost a certain simplicity and charm that the originals had. It was created to meet all of the downfalls of the original system, perfectly machined to fit exactly what kids should want. And in doing so it lost all its soul and personality. If anything G2 has been a victim of G1's failure as well.

I think G2 was a victim of it own failures to be honest.

 

 

While I can people thinking sets were cool (im not as big of a fan as many were), they were large, complex (often clunky in this regard) and expensive as compared to the clean, simple sets of G1, which I think might have been less appealing or attainable for kids. This is speculation however

 

Never thought I'd see the day G1 was called "clean" over G2.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just as disappointing as it was in 2010... I feel even though I didn't really follow the line as much as G1 that same sense of loss.  Maybe it's just because I felt they at least did an excellent jobs with the sets they released if nothing else.  They were generally entertaining to put together and a fair challenge.


"She lost in me her credence..."
"But what's normal anyway?"
"Don't walk away... don't walk away..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sets were objectively the best, and as such lost a certain simplicity and charm that the originals had. It was created to meet all of the downfalls of the original system, perfectly machined to fit exactly what kids should want. And in doing so it lost all its soul and personality. If anything G2 has been a victim of G1's failure as well.

"The sets were objectively the best" In what way? Is it the fact that the gear functions barely worked? Or was it the added pin textures to pretend it was like Bionicle and not Hero Factory smooth? Or was it the extended torsos that were longer than the chest plates? Or was it the fact that most the sets had to be modified by fans just to make them posable without hitting another part of the pieces? Or was it the contradicting color schemes on each character? Please enlighten me without the "Inika builds are terrible" argument.

 

On that note, since you're bound to bring it up or someone will, no. I'm not a fan of the Inika builds after 2006. They worked in 2006 because they were brand new and innovative, but that's when Lego got lazy and chose to reuse them instead of developing new molds for 2007 onward. I definitely think the oversaturation of Inika builds led to Bionicle's initial cancellation.

 

But back to G2, which also uses a reused body build type with one slight adjustment (the barely functioning gear system), also failed for lack of innovation and design. Slapping on a new chest piece with a thousand pin textures isn't innovative; it's just lazy. G2 failed on it's own account, and the thought that where G1 failed is responsible for G2's failure is an ignorant conclusion and really reaching.


i'm sure i'll make a proper signature eventually.

 

not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I think it's sad to see a line cut short of its time, but truth be told, it was very clear this was coming when the books and comics started being cancelled. I do not think the line's ultimate failure can be attributed to any one particular thing. I'd imagine the paper-thin lore, high set prices (in relative comparison to G1) and market oversaturation with "collect golden elemental doodads" were a large factor.

 

The sets were objectively the best, and as such lost a certain simplicity and charm that the originals had. It was created to meet all of the downfalls of the original system, perfectly machined to fit exactly what kids should want. And in doing so it lost all its soul and personality. If anything G2 has been a victim of G1's failure as well.

I think G2 was a victim of it own failures to be honest.

 

 

While I can people thinking sets were cool (im not as big of a fan as many were), they were large, complex (often clunky in this regard) and expensive as compared to the clean, simple sets of G1, which I think might have been less appealing or attainable for kids. This is speculation however

 

Never thought I'd see the day G1 was called "clean" over G2.

 

bionicle g1 had an established aesthetic designed to look mechanical. G2 was hf smooth armor, with clunky shells tacked on attempting to emulate the original style without any real thought into true integration. 2016 got closer, but the point still stands.


sam_7163_-_copy.jpg

The Misadventures of

Onipex and Pals! Go watch it now! :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone, can we please not fight over trival things like what generations sets were better, please?

  • Upvote 1

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

Everyone, can we please not fight over trival things like what generations sets were better, please?

torchbearer brought it up  :shrugs: I was more talking about the theme being handled as a brand rather than the sets


sam_7163_-_copy.jpg

The Misadventures of

Onipex and Pals! Go watch it now! :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to take the role of the pessimist in this regard, and say that this event was for the best.

 

This generation of Bionicle was very uninspired and had little heart put into it.

It was dead on arrival.

An empty husk of what Bionicle once was.

 

I said it once before, and now once again.

Bionicle should have stayed dead.

  • Upvote 6

        67685335.jpg             

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The sets were objectively the best, and as such lost a certain simplicity and charm that the originals had. It was created to meet all of the downfalls of the original system, perfectly machined to fit exactly what kids should want. And in doing so it lost all its soul and personality. If anything G2 has been a victim of G1's failure as well.

"The sets were objectively the best" In what way? Is it the fact that the gear functions barely worked? Or was it the added pin textures to pretend it was like Bionicle and not Hero Factory smooth? Or was it the extended torsos that were longer than the chest plates? Or was it the fact that most the sets had to be modified by fans just to make them posable without hitting another part of the pieces? Or was it the contradicting color schemes on each character? Please enlighten me without the "Inika builds are terrible" argument.

 

On that note, since you're bound to bring it up or someone will, no. I'm not a fan of the Inika builds after 2006. They worked in 2006 because they were brand new and innovative, but that's when Lego got lazy and chose to reuse them instead of developing new molds for 2007 onward. I definitely think the oversaturation of Inika builds led to Bionicle's initial cancellation.

 

But back to G2, which also uses a reused body build type with one slight adjustment (the barely functioning gear system), also failed for lack of innovation and design. Slapping on a new chest piece with a thousand pin textures isn't innovative; it's just lazy. G2 failed on it's own account, and the thought that where G1 failed is responsible for G2's failure is an ignorant conclusion and really reaching.

 

Idk, the gears worked fine for me. What didn't work was characters that had gear functions that crippled their posability and characters without elbows or knees or necks. And I enjoyed color schemes beyond just priamry and secondary colors, but maybe that's just my lame invalid g2 apologetic opinion

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going make a comment about the incoming genwunners, but I know it's not gonna spiral.


   te0FrhT.jpg                                                                                                                            

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The sets were objectively the best, and as such lost a certain simplicity and charm that the originals had. It was created to meet all of the downfalls of the original system, perfectly machined to fit exactly what kids should want. And in doing so it lost all its soul and personality. If anything G2 has been a victim of G1's failure as well.

"The sets were objectively the best" In what way? Is it the fact that the gear functions barely worked? Or was it the added pin textures to pretend it was like Bionicle and not Hero Factory smooth? Or was it the extended torsos that were longer than the chest plates? Or was it the fact that most the sets had to be modified by fans just to make them posable without hitting another part of the pieces? Or was it the contradicting color schemes on each character? Please enlighten me without the "Inika builds are terrible" argument.

 

On that note, since you're bound to bring it up or someone will, no. I'm not a fan of the Inika builds after 2006. They worked in 2006 because they were brand new and innovative, but that's when Lego got lazy and chose to reuse them instead of developing new molds for 2007 onward. I definitely think the oversaturation of Inika builds led to Bionicle's initial cancellation.

 

But back to G2, which also uses a reused body build type with one slight adjustment (the barely functioning gear system), also failed for lack of innovation and design. Slapping on a new chest piece with a thousand pin textures isn't innovative; it's just lazy. G2 failed on it's own account, and the thought that where G1 failed is responsible for G2's failure is an ignorant conclusion and really reaching.

 

Well, to me the gen 2 sets had builds that weren't as similar to each other, as opposed to gen 1, where every wave of six seemed to share the same build, with this trend only really stopping around 2007-ish with the barraki, thought this coincided with the Inika build becoming standard.

  • Upvote 4

Did you go to the 2002 'The Power Lies Beneath' tour?

If yes, PM me. I'm looking for something that was only distributed during that tour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The sets were objectively the best, and as such lost a certain simplicity and charm that the originals had. It was created to meet all of the downfalls of the original system, perfectly machined to fit exactly what kids should want. And in doing so it lost all its soul and personality. If anything G2 has been a victim of G1's failure as well.

"The sets were objectively the best" In what way? Is it the fact that the gear functions barely worked? Or was it the added pin textures to pretend it was like Bionicle and not Hero Factory smooth? Or was it the extended torsos that were longer than the chest plates? Or was it the fact that most the sets had to be modified by fans just to make them posable without hitting another part of the pieces? Or was it the contradicting color schemes on each character? Please enlighten me without the "Inika builds are terrible" argument.

 

On that note, since you're bound to bring it up or someone will, no. I'm not a fan of the Inika builds after 2006. They worked in 2006 because they were brand new and innovative, but that's when Lego got lazy and chose to reuse them instead of developing new molds for 2007 onward. I definitely think the oversaturation of Inika builds led to Bionicle's initial cancellation.

 

But back to G2, which also uses a reused body build type with one slight adjustment (the barely functioning gear system), also failed for lack of innovation and design. Slapping on a new chest piece with a thousand pin textures isn't innovative; it's just lazy. G2 failed on it's own account, and the thought that where G1 failed is responsible for G2's failure is an ignorant conclusion and really reaching.

 

 

There's no need to be hostile. The 2015 Toa were, objectively, the best. Full articulation, functional gearboxes that did work, and I personally have not encountered the issue of armor preventing movement, but I assure you it was there in G1 as well. Subjectively the 2015 Toa can be whatever you want them to be. I don't have any particular liking for them myself.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bionicle website and MNOG launched 2000. Also, they didn't try

end of 2000 to early 2010 is 11 full years

 

late 2014 to end of 2016 is "barely two years"

 

got it  :fonz:

  • Upvote 11

OpAXNpl.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going make a comment about the incoming genwunners, but I know it's not gonna spiral.

(Thank you! *sweet release*)

 

 

Everyone, can we please not fight over trival things like what generations sets were better, please?

 

torchbearer brought it up  :shrugs: I was more talking about the theme being handled as a brand rather than the sets

At any rate, I we must create now, the time is righteous. I certainly won't let BIONICLE die. I'm going to make more stuff for ARA, and post some MOCs if possible l when I get back home. I'm currently on the road right now with my family from our trip to Vermont.


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 was going make a comment about the incoming genwunners, but I know it's not gonna spiral.

i love using terms that label any sort of dissenting opinion to your own. why demean people for having a different opinion. No one is saying G1 is perfection.....but G2 ending when it did kind of shows that G2 was further away from it than g1

 

 

The sets were objectively the best, and as such lost a certain simplicity and charm that the originals had. It was created to meet all of the downfalls of the original system, perfectly machined to fit exactly what kids should want. And in doing so it lost all its soul and personality. If anything G2 has been a victim of G1's failure as well.

"The sets were objectively the best" In what way? Is it the fact that the gear functions barely worked? Or was it the added pin textures to pretend it was like Bionicle and not Hero Factory smooth? Or was it the extended torsos that were longer than the chest plates? Or was it the fact that most the sets had to be modified by fans just to make them posable without hitting another part of the pieces? Or was it the contradicting color schemes on each character? Please enlighten me without the "Inika builds are terrible" argument.

 

On that note, since you're bound to bring it up or someone will, no. I'm not a fan of the Inika builds after 2006. They worked in 2006 because they were brand new and innovative, but that's when Lego got lazy and chose to reuse them instead of developing new molds for 2007 onward. I definitely think the oversaturation of Inika builds led to Bionicle's initial cancellation.

 

But back to G2, which also uses a reused body build type with one slight adjustment (the barely functioning gear system), also failed for lack of innovation and design. Slapping on a new chest piece with a thousand pin textures isn't innovative; it's just lazy. G2 failed on it's own account, and the thought that where G1 failed is responsible for G2's failure is an ignorant conclusion and really reaching.

 

 

There's no need to be hostile. The 2015 Toa were, objectively, the best. Full articulation, functional gearboxes that did work, and I personally have not encountered the issue of armor preventing movement, but I assure you it was there in G1 as well. Subjectively the 2015 Toa can be whatever you want them to be. I don't have any particular liking for them myself.

 

 

 

 

 

Objectively the best? Apparently the public and LEGO disagrees since those "perfect" 2015 toa kept the brand alive   :glasses:

 

 

 

The Bionicle website and MNOG launched 2000. Also, they didn't try

end of 2000 to early 2010 is 11 full years

 

late 2014 to end of 2016 is "barely two years"

 

got it  :fonz:

 

 

ok settle it at 10 years then if you want to be petty. G2 is still only a measly 2 years :P

Edited by Ids5621
  • Upvote 3

sam_7163_-_copy.jpg

The Misadventures of

Onipex and Pals! Go watch it now! :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the risk of trying to yell above a tornado: while this is obviously a heck of a thing and emotions are running high, keep the discussion civil.  Drive-by potshots help nobody.

Edited by GSR
  • Upvote 8

Hey: I'm not very active around BZP right now.  However, you can always contact me through PM (I have email notifications set up) and I will reply as soon as I can.


Useful Topics: The Q&A Compendium | The Official RPG Planning Topic
Stories: Fractures | An Aftermath | Three Stories | LSO 2012 Epics: Team Three | The Shadow and the Sea | The Days They Were Needed | Glitches | Transformations | Echoes | The Kaita and the Storyteller | Nui

BZPRPG: Komae · Soraya · Bohrei

Blog: Defendant Lobby no. 42

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There's no need to be hostile. The 2015 Toa were, objectively, the best. Full articulation, functional gearboxes that did work, and I personally have not encountered the issue of armor preventing movement, but I assure you it was there in G1 as well. Subjectively the 2015 Toa can be whatever you want them to be. I don't have any particular liking for them myself.

 

Objectively the best? Apparently the public and LEGO disagrees since those "perfect" 2015 toa kept the brand alive   :glasses:

 

Anyone have a scarecrow? I see a strawman argument

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

There's no need to be hostile. The 2015 Toa were, objectively, the best. Full articulation, functional gearboxes that did work, and I personally have not encountered the issue of armor preventing movement, but I assure you it was there in G1 as well. Subjectively the 2015 Toa can be whatever you want them to be. I don't have any particular liking for them myself.

 

Objectively the best? Apparently the public and LEGO disagrees since those "perfect" 2015 toa kept the brand alive   :glasses:

 

Anyone have a scarecrow? I see a strawman argument

 

It was a side comment, part of a larger post. I wasnt really focusing on it. I don't see how something can objectively be the best, personally. I think people calling people geewunners is strawmanning tbh and dismissing other people's views 

Edited by Ids5621

sam_7163_-_copy.jpg

The Misadventures of

Onipex and Pals! Go watch it now! :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

There's no need to be hostile. The 2015 Toa were, objectively, the best. Full articulation, functional gearboxes that did work, and I personally have not encountered the issue of armor preventing movement, but I assure you it was there in G1 as well. Subjectively the 2015 Toa can be whatever you want them to be. I don't have any particular liking for them myself.

 

Objectively the best? Apparently the public and LEGO disagrees since those "perfect" 2015 toa kept the brand alive   :glasses:

 

Anyone have a scarecrow? I see a strawman argument

 

It was a side comment, part of a larger post. I wasnt really focusing on it. I don't see how something can objectively be the best, personally. I think people calling people's geewunners is strawmanning tbh and dismissing other people views

 

Well, color schemes are one thing but more articulation and better size are objective wins they have over the Mata/Nuva

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the risk of trying to yell above a tornado, while this is obviously a heck of a thing and emotions are running high, keep the discussion civil. Drive-by potshots help nobody.

This what I'm trying to avoid. There is no need for such action taken against another fellow fan. Rather I am tying to encourage unity, but Inguess no one cares to listen? (insert shrug)

 

Ugh, at any rate as you've said lets stay civil.

Edited by Toa Imrukii

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

Please; try to understand. 

 

With G1, they tried because they were about to go bankrupt

 

with G2, there was no need to try - Lego is now very successful

A few things. First of all, when LEGO was developing G1 Bionicle in 1999 and 2000, they did not have any clue that in three or four years they would be on the brink of bankruptcy. Obviously, they knew that the company's record of double-digit sales growth year to year had stopped in 1993, and that in 1998 the company had reported its first ever financial loss, which they wrongly blamed on kids having short attention spans and wanting instant gratification. But as early as 1999 they were back to being profitable. They had just launched the highly successful LEGO Star Wars theme and hired new management that successfully increased sales and promised to double them by 2005. The LEGO Group fully believed they were in the midst of a turnaround. Even as late as 2002, LEGO thought they were on the up-and-up. It's therefore difficult to argue that Bionicle G1's success from the outset was driven by financial desperation. It wasn't until 2003 that LEGO had any idea what a predicament their new innovation-driven corporate mindset had gotten them into.

 

Second, with the kind of assumption you're making, you'd think no successful company could ever hope to create a successful toyline or IP. But even just looking at LEGO, there's plenty of evidence that isn't true. In 2008, when LEGO began developing Ninjago, they had already greatly recovered from their crisis years of 2003 and 2004 and managed to make a yearly profit of over two billion DKK (over 300 million USD in today's money). Not only did they have the continued success of LEGO Star Wars propping them up, but LEGO City was also carrying them higher and higher each year. And yet, when Ninjago launched in 2011 it sold better than any previous launch of a new LEGO product line — including Bionicle. By your argument, this should not have been possible, because a LEGO theme's success or failure hinges on how much they care about it, and how much they care on it hinges on how desperate they are financially. But clearly, it happened. And that's just ONE of the amazingly successful new IPs LEGO has launched in the past five years — you could throw LEGO Friends and The LEGO Movie in that same pot.

 

For what it's worth, I've met several of the people involved with the Bionicle reboot. There's no denying that they cared profoundly about making it the best it could be. You might prefer to imagine that because you didn't like it, and it didn't sell as well as the earliest Bionicle sets, the people making it must not have cared or tried hard enough. You'd be wrong.

Edited by Aanchir
  • Upvote 16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, G2 was a pretty awesome tribute that we never thought we'd see. I'll never forget buying my first BIONICLE set in 5 years, and G2 brought me back to the theme in general. I do think it's pretty curious that we won't get a mask of ultimate power now. 

 

Now...

 

Could this mean Greg might give us G1 updates now?

  • Upvote 3

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnaHFstqCK97bHNwpwztn_Q


 


Check out my YouTube channel for LEGO, YuGiOh and Pokemon videos!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

There's no need to be hostile. The 2015 Toa were, objectively, the best. Full articulation, functional gearboxes that did work, and I personally have not encountered the issue of armor preventing movement, but I assure you it was there in G1 as well. Subjectively the 2015 Toa can be whatever you want them to be. I don't have any particular liking for them myself.

 

Objectively the best? Apparently the public and LEGO disagrees since those "perfect" 2015 toa kept the brand alive   :glasses:

 

Anyone have a scarecrow? I see a strawman argument

 

It was a side comment, part of a larger post. I wasnt really focusing on it. I don't see how something can objectively be the best, personally. I think people calling people's geewunners is strawmanning tbh and dismissing other people views

 

Well, color schemes are one thing but more articulation and better size are objective wins they have over the Mata/Nuva

 

size preference is subjective. And if you wanna go there the inika have the best articulation of any bionicle sets to date. For some people aesthetic is very important

Edited by Ids5621

sam_7163_-_copy.jpg

The Misadventures of

Onipex and Pals! Go watch it now! :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, G2 was a pretty awesome tribute that we never thought we'd see. I'll never forget buying my first BIONICLE set in 5 years, and G2 brought me back to the theme in general. I do think it's pretty curious that we won't get a mask of ultimate power now. 

 

Now...

 

Could this mean Greg might give us G1 updates now?

I certainly hope so, though it's unlikely unforunately. At least from what it seems as of right now. Anything is possible, so keep your hopes up, as am I.


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

 

Please; try to understand. 

 

With G1, they tried because they were about to go bankrupt

 

with G2, there was no need to try - Lego is now very successful

A few things. First of all, when LEGO was developing G1 Bionicle in 1999 and 2000, they did not have any clue that in three or four years they would be on the brink of bankruptcy. Obviously, they knew that the company's record of double-digit sales growth year to year had stopped in 1993, and that in 1998 the company had reported its first ever financial loss, which they wrongly blamed on kids having short attention spans and wanting instant gratification. But as early as 1999 they were back to being profitable. They had just launched the highly successful LEGO Star Wars theme and hired new management that successfully increased sales and promised to double them by 2005. The LEGO Group fully believed they were in the midst of a turnaround. Even as late as 2002, LEGO thought they were on the up-and-up. It's therefore difficult to argue that Bionicle G1's success from the outset was driven by financial desperation. It wasn't until 2003 that LEGO had any idea what a predicament their new innovation-driven corporate mindset had gotten them into.

 

Second, with the kind of assumption you're making, you'd think no successful company could ever hope to create a successful toyline or IP. But even just looking at LEGO, there's plenty of evidence that isn't true. In 2008, when LEGO began developing Ninjago, they had already greatly recovered from their crisis years of 2003 and 2004 and managed to make a yearly profit of over two billion DKK (over 300 million USD in today's money). Not only did they have the continued success of LEGO Star Wars propping them up, but LEGO City was also carrying them higher and higher each year. And yet, when Ninjago launched in 2011 it sold better than any previous launch of a new LEGO product line — including Bionicle. By your argument, this should not have been possible, because a LEGO theme's success or failure hinges on how much they care about it, and how much they care on it hinges on how desperate they are financially. But clearly, it happened.

 

For what it's worth, I've met several of the people involved with the Bionicle reboot. There's no denying that they cared profoundly about making it the best it could be. You might prefer to imagine that because you didn't like it, the people making it didn't care or try hard enough. You'd be wrong.

 

Well all this might be true, but G2 was still cancelled after two years. That's the facts, so clearly they didn't try or care hard enough.

  • Upvote 1

i'm sure i'll make a proper signature eventually.

 

not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

There's no need to be hostile. The 2015 Toa were, objectively, the best. Full articulation, functional gearboxes that did work, and I personally have not encountered the issue of armor preventing movement, but I assure you it was there in G1 as well. Subjectively the 2015 Toa can be whatever you want them to be. I don't have any particular liking for them myself.

 

Objectively the best? Apparently the public and LEGO disagrees since those "perfect" 2015 toa kept the brand alive   :glasses:

 

Anyone have a scarecrow? I see a strawman argument

 

It was a side comment, part of a larger post. I wasnt really focusing on it. I don't see how something can objectively be the best, personally. I think people calling people's geewunners is strawmanning tbh and dismissing other people views

 

Well, color schemes are one thing but more articulation and better size are objective wins they have over the Mata/Nuva

 

size preference is subjective. And if you wanna go there the inika have the best articulation of any bionicle sets to date. For some people aesthetic is very important

 

Actually no, Inika build Toa and 2015 Toa have the exact same amount of articulation points, 13.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly all I really cared for in gen 2 were the sets, which I'll flat out say I quite enjoyed.


They pose pretty great along side the classic Toa Mata


I never did follow the story at all for gen 2 nor did I care about it, and I hardly remember anything from that mass nonsense that was the gen 1 story so really can't bring my two cents over which gen is better.


 


Either way I'm not really against it ending but I'm also not really interested about wanting to keep it alive.


I got the sets I wanted and now they will sit on my shelves for years to come.


  • Upvote 8

bboSsg4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Please; try to understand.

 

With G1, they tried because they were about to go bankrupt

 

with G2, there was no need to try - Lego is now very successful

A few things. First of all, when LEGO was developing G1 Bionicle in 1999 and 2000, they did not have any clue that in three or four years they would be on the brink of bankruptcy. Obviously, they knew that the company's record of double-digit sales growth year to year had stopped in 1993, and that in 1998 the company had reported its first ever financial loss, which they wrongly blamed on kids having short attention spans and wanting instant gratification. But as early as 1999 they were back to being profitable. They had just launched the highly successful LEGO Star Wars theme and hired new management that successfully increased sales and promised to double them by 2005. The LEGO Group fully believed they were in the midst of a turnaround. Even as late as 2002, LEGO thought they were on the up-and-up. It's therefore difficult to argue that Bionicle G1's success from the outset was driven by financial desperation. It wasn't until 2003 that LEGO had any idea what a predicament their new innovation-driven corporate mindset had gotten them into.

 

Second, with the kind of assumption you're making, you'd think no successful company could ever hope to create a successful toyline or IP. But even just looking at LEGO, there's plenty of evidence that isn't true. In 2008, when LEGO began developing Ninjago, they had already greatly recovered from their crisis years of 2003 and 2004 and managed to make a yearly profit of over two billion DKK (over 300 million USD in today's money). Not only did they have the continued success of LEGO Star Wars propping them up, but LEGO City was also carrying them higher and higher each year. And yet, when Ninjago launched in 2011 it sold better than any previous launch of a new LEGO product line — including Bionicle. By your argument, this should not have been possible, because a LEGO theme's success or failure hinges on how much they care about it, and how much they care on it hinges on how desperate they are financially. But clearly, it happened.

 

For what it's worth, I've met several of the people involved with the Bionicle reboot. There's no denying that they cared profoundly about making it the best it could be. You might prefer to imagine that because you didn't like it, the people making it didn't care or try hard enough. You'd be wrong.

 

Well all this might be true, but G2 was still cancelled after two years. That's the facts, so clearly they didn't try or care hard enough.

 

Yeah, they only made one 2001: A Space Odyssey It only was there for a year originally. No effort, right?

Edited by Terrorsaur
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's no need to be hostile. The 2015 Toa were, objectively, the best. Full articulation, functional gearboxes that did work, and I personally have not encountered the issue of armor preventing movement, but I assure you it was there in G1 as well. Subjectively the 2015 Toa can be whatever you want them to be. I don't have any particular liking for them myself.

 Objectively the best? Apparently the public and LEGO disagrees since those "perfect" 2015 toa kept the brand alive   :glasses:
Anyone have a scarecrow? I see a strawman argument
It was a side comment, part of a larger post. I wasnt really focusing on it. I don't see how something can objectively be the best, personally. I think people calling people's geewunners is strawmanning tbh and dismissing other people views
Well, color schemes are one thing but more articulation and better size are objective wins they have over the Mata/Nuva
size preference is subjective. And if you wanna go there the inika have the best articulation of any bionicle sets to date. For some people aesthetic is very important
Actually no, Inika build Toa and 2015 Toa have the exact same amount of articulation points, 13.

If you count the gears though it would make it about 15, it differs of course but not by much.


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

 

 

 

Please; try to understand.

 

With G1, they tried because they were about to go bankrupt

 

with G2, there was no need to try - Lego is now very successful

A few things. First of all, when LEGO was developing G1 Bionicle in 1999 and 2000, they did not have any clue that in three or four years they would be on the brink of bankruptcy. Obviously, they knew that the company's record of double-digit sales growth year to year had stopped in 1993, and that in 1998 the company had reported its first ever financial loss, which they wrongly blamed on kids having short attention spans and wanting instant gratification. But as early as 1999 they were back to being profitable. They had just launched the highly successful LEGO Star Wars theme and hired new management that successfully increased sales and promised to double them by 2005. The LEGO Group fully believed they were in the midst of a turnaround. Even as late as 2002, LEGO thought they were on the up-and-up. It's therefore difficult to argue that Bionicle G1's success from the outset was driven by financial desperation. It wasn't until 2003 that LEGO had any idea what a predicament their new innovation-driven corporate mindset had gotten them into.

 

Second, with the kind of assumption you're making, you'd think no successful company could ever hope to create a successful toyline or IP. But even just looking at LEGO, there's plenty of evidence that isn't true. In 2008, when LEGO began developing Ninjago, they had already greatly recovered from their crisis years of 2003 and 2004 and managed to make a yearly profit of over two billion DKK (over 300 million USD in today's money). Not only did they have the continued success of LEGO Star Wars propping them up, but LEGO City was also carrying them higher and higher each year. And yet, when Ninjago launched in 2011 it sold better than any previous launch of a new LEGO product line — including Bionicle. By your argument, this should not have been possible, because a LEGO theme's success or failure hinges on how much they care about it, and how much they care on it hinges on how desperate they are financially. But clearly, it happened.

 

For what it's worth, I've met several of the people involved with the Bionicle reboot. There's no denying that they cared profoundly about making it the best it could be. You might prefer to imagine that because you didn't like it, the people making it didn't care or try hard enough. You'd be wrong.

 

Well all this might be true, but G2 was still cancelled after two years. That's the facts, so clearly they didn't try or care hard enough.

 

Yeah, they only made one 2001: A Space Odyssey It only was there for a year originally. No effort, right?

 

You're comparing a single movie to an ongoing (or previously ongoing) toyline. Lego themes typically are meant to last unless they perform unsuccessfully, which is what G2 did. That's like comparing a good standalone book to an ongoing television series. It just doesn't work as a comparison.


i'm sure i'll make a proper signature eventually.

 

not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well all this might be true, but G2 was still cancelled after two years. That's the facts, so clearly they didn't try or care hard enough.

I suppose by this argument anybody in the world who's homeless or impoverished doesn't care or try hard? It's impossible for mistakes or outside circumstances to affect somebody or something's chances of success?

 

No, of course not. Pretending that how hard somebody cares or tries are the only things in the world that can affect their financial performance is downright irrational. A person can pour their heart and soul into a project and try their hardest to make it the best that it can be, and it can still fail if people don't like it or respond to the ways they try to promote it.

  • Upvote 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well all this might be true, but G2 was still cancelled after two years. That's the facts, so clearly they didn't try or care hard enough.

I suppose by this argument anybody in the world who's homeless or impoverished doesn't care or try hard? It's impossible for mistakes or outside circumstances to affect somebody or something's chances of success?

 

No, of course not. Pretending that how hard somebody cares or tries are the only things in the world that can affect their financial performance is downright irrational. A person can pour their heart and soul into a project and try their hardest to make it the best that it can be, and it can still fail if people don't like it or respond to the ways they try to promote it.

 

You're comparing poverty, an actual issue ongoing literally all over the world due to the poor economy, to a lackluster toyline? That's a really far fetched analogy.

 

How are you going to continue jumping through hoops to defend another heartless reboot even after it was cancelled after two years? It's clear Lego must've felt the same way otherwise they wouldn't have given it the axe.


i'm sure i'll make a proper signature eventually.

 

not.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...