A Plausible Rumor...

Toa Smoke Monster · March 29, 2012

I don't see Bionicle coming back anytime soon. Would I like it to come back? Sure. But honestly, even if it did come back, it probably would be quite a few years down the road before it returned.

**dviddy** · March 29, 2012

You should stop using this example. Star Wars as a franchise never went away.
Good point. Of course, LEGO hasn't gone away either. There are also things like Hawaii Five-0, etc. I'm sure we can all think of countless examples. Of course, there are also countless examples that haven't (yet, anyways) come back.

The difference is that all of those things that came back were huge media moments with solid and great cultural saturation. LEGO has that, as a company, BIONICLE, as a brand, doesn't. It was popular, but as Hero Factory's sales have been at least on par with the last half of BIONICLE's, without the massive media pushes BIONICLE had, I don't think we can say BIONICLE has the same appeal.

**bonesiii** · March 29, 2012

Well, it may help to clarify that the kind of return I'm talking about would be intentionally short. Three years at most, probably, so that it would work just like Bionicle's early years, HF, etc. and run well on "new factor", then quit while ahead. I was sensing a loss of "drive" for Bionicle many years before it ended; for example, Greg's mention of Scholastic's explanation for why book sales were down. They went on to try to keep the books going for a while, but really it was already known that was doomed. LEGO stories apparently work better when kept short and sweet, heh.And now that LEGO knows that better, they can plan for it more intentionally. The way Bionicle's "story bible" was planned, it was designed for a long haul, which is probably why they kept trying to keep it going for so long. But a return's plans could be more concise from the start. A new enemy on SM, or go to one of the new planets, could follow whatever timeline LEGO felt sales would uphold.Also we should mention that HF's story model might mean that it can last longer with good sales than Bionicle's good sales did. We'll see. (Since it's 'episodic' and such.)Edit: Also, no specific LEGO line has the kind of saturation you're talking about, other than maybe City, so that's not really relevant. The point is that within the field they were aimed at, various franchises have come back. And Bionicle did extremely well in the field of LEGO fans, more than almost any other line (again, other than City and some others perhaps). And a return would be in that same field.Plus, it basically created a new field for LEGO, the storylined buildable figure field, which HF and others have all run off of. So its saturation of that field is near universal.

Edited March 29, 2012 by bonesiii

Lyichir · March 29, 2012

I see no reason for Bionicle not to return. Like it? Good. Dislike/hate it? Well, it's dead to you. It can't really affect your life if you're not a fan.Plus, I'm in for new Bionicle stuff. The story had a thrown-in cop-out ending. They didn't even make a Teridax vs Mata Nui video. (Or bother to make a CGI Prototype Robot face view...) The Stars were plain laziness.However, as for likelihood, I have no opinion. It's just a dream, for me, not something to expect. Ever. More likely, HF will die in a few years and yet ANOTHER theme, not Bionicle, will replace it.

The Mata Nui vs. Makuta fight, as well as the Stars, were done once the decision to cancel the line had been made, and as such both the sets and story had little to no budget. It's an insult to the people who worked their hardest to bring BIONICLE to a satisfying conclusion despite the failure of the line to write their final efforts off as "laziness".

**bonesiii** · March 29, 2012

Ortographobia, I think the point you're raising is right... but I would try to be more gentle about it if I were you. More to the point is that it's simply a mistake to write it off that way, a mistake which will lessen the person's enjoyment of it. We can all be a lot more positive if we try to be. ^_^ Throwing accusations at each other, in my experience, is more counterproductive than helpful. Yeah?

Edited March 29, 2012 by bonesiii

**dviddy** · March 29, 2012

Well, it may help to clarify that the kind of return I'm talking about would be intentionally short. Three years at most, probably, so that it would work just like Bionicle's early years, HF, etc. and run well on "new factor", then quit while ahead. I was sensing a loss of "drive" for Bionicle many years before it ended; for example, Greg's mention of Scholastic's explanation for why book sales were down. They went on to try to keep the books going for a while, but really it was already known that was doomed. LEGO stories apparently work better when kept short and sweet, heh.And now that LEGO knows that better, they can plan for it more intentionally. The way Bionicle's "story bible" was planned, it was designed for a long haul, which is probably why they kept trying to keep it going for so long. But a return's plans could be more concise from the start. A new enemy on SM, or go to one of the new planets, could follow whatever timeline LEGO felt sales would uphold.Also we should mention that HF's story model might mean that it can last longer with good sales than Bionicle's good sales did. We'll see. (Since it's 'episodic' and such.)

It really seems like you're pegging way too much to this idea that the sole, or at least, largest, reason that BIONICLE failed was this perceived "lack of newness". I know you've said Greg said this somewhere, but everything and everyone from TLG who knows the decision making process there has said absolutely nothing of the sort. The main reasons for BIONICLE's cancellation have been given as a decrease in sales, a loss of profit margins, a convoluted story that turned newcomers off, and the company's own desire to do something new (a lot of the set designers were tired of the BIONICLE stuff and wanted to do new things, and had been arguing for BIONICLE's replacement for several years). Maybe the perceived "lack of newness" contributed to the lack of interest in the story, but I do not think this is the end-all-be-all you seem to be treating it as. The facts are that the line had stopped growing and stopped being a significant portion of TLG's profits from as far back as 2005/6. The line's lack of growth was seen as okay back then, as the idea was partially that BIONICLE pulled in a different audience that would slide into the other LEGO themes as well and bolster sales there too. This didn't happen, for whatever reasons. Around the same time TLG's accounting department discovered the oversight with the mold costs in BIONICLE sets having not been accounted for, and the line's profitability dropped further. The "lack of newness" doesn't play into any of these business decisions whatsoever.Like I said, maybe this perceived lack of newness was a factor. It was not the biggest nor the most important one. The line simply wasn't profitable the way TLG desired it do be (if at all).Hence, Hero Factory, which is clearly doing well enough to be getting a deeper story this year and is on several waves. TLG has said also that they hope to be doing multiple lines of constraction figures at some point in time, like they are doing now with the Superhero Ultrabuilds and HF, and so while I don't see constraction figure lines going away, I don't see something like BIONICLE coming back, ever. A sense of "newness" isn't going to mean anything, considering BIONICLE was never the pop-culture phenom we would like to believe it was. It won't have the fond zealotry of parents who grew up with it foisting it on their children, because there were not enough obsessive fans to make it into that kind of a movement. That doesn't mean it wasn't important to a lot of us, or that we aren't all heavily invested in it, or that those of us who keep saying "it's dead" (because it is) didn't enjoy it, or that it didn't change our lives too. It did. It'll hopefully continue to be an important part of the story of "how I met the girl" (along with BZP and Brickfair).But the point is that TLG has said "it's dead like 9V trains and monorail" are. Two themes that are beloved by crazy, rabid fanbases, but TLG has not brought back because to do so would be unrealistic and fiscally irresponsible. The theme is dead, it is gone. Everyone should accept that. That doesn't mean you can't still enjoy it, can't still write fanfiction, make MOCs, art, whatever. But those things don't "keep it alive". They don't create more official story or official sets. BIONICLE belongs to TLG and it is dead. Nobody ever said that means that we can't still keep talking about it, enjoying it, or interacting with what TLG gave us. But a lot of people would feel a lot better and be a lot happier in their lives if they realized that and stopped working so hard to prove it "could come back". It could. Sure. And the moon could crash into the Earth tomorrow. Both are unlikely, though. It's possible, but not plausible. "Bring Back BIONICLE" clubs and groups would be better spent as "Enjoy BIONICLE" clubs.

**bonesiii** · March 29, 2012

The main reasons for BIONICLE's cancellation have been given as a decrease in sales, a loss of profit margins, a convoluted story that turned newcomers off, and the company's own desire to do something new

Its lack of "newness" was the root cause of all these things.

Again, let's be clear that there were mistakes made beyond this, but most of those could be solved without ending the line (and most of them they did try to fix, but none of those fixes proved to be enough to draw in new fans). Ultimately the line had to end because it wasn't new. Hero Factory does essentially what Bionicle does in almost every way; its primary difference is simply that it is new.Also, it wasn't just the story's length that turned newcomers off, it was to some extent simply the brand name. Walking through the aisles and seeing "Bionicle" on the labels year after year. In set design essence HF could work as a continuation of Bionicle; certainly Bionicle has gone through more radical set design changes itself in its run. The change of the label on the sets probably has one of the biggest effects on sales.The key here is that it is new fans who drive LEGO's sales.If you think about it, this makes sense for a toyline; younger being more important. As much we on here like to imagine it can age with its fans, that really isn't a financially healthy model for a toy company. It's always about the kids. And LEGO was finding consistently that it was unable to attract enough newer fans to Bionicle in its later years. That is not the only factor, you are correct, but the point is that it was the biggest root cause. :)And back when Bionicle was new, as you have said, it was successful.If in fact anyone thinks that something else was the root cause, I'm all ears. I'm not seeing an alternative presented so far, other than story complexity (but they tried simplifying it and that didn't work). I'm seeing doubt that it being old was the cause, but what else could it be? The line went on for ten years. That's a long time. Is it really so hard to believe that ten years is old? Most lines I remember when I was a kid only lasted one year, maybe two.In other words, what would you argue was inherent to Bionicle that brought about its end, and would be essential in a return, thus making a return unlikely? What's the alternative explanation of the core problem, besides its age?Lines like City, by contrast, don't run into the problem of age, because they mimic the world we live in, so that never really gets old. (Though they do adapt with the world.)

HF, and so while I don't see constraction figure lines going away, I don't see something like BIONICLE coming back, ever.

We must be having some kind of a "language barrier" here, because to me, HF is definately "something like Bionicle" -- it's basically Bionicle renamed. It's balljoint robotic heroes with elemental powers who go out and fight villains with powers. Just like Bionicle.If that's not what you mean, what do you mean, and why would a return necessarily include those other things? (I don't see why it would.)Imagine for a moment that the brand name being old was not a problem. We've seen radical changes of settings and even types of beings before. So the Hero Factory could have simply been a new branch of Bionicle story, perhaps one of those new planets, or the distant future on Spherus Magna with everybody going through a Bohrok-like transformation to become totally robots, with minimal changes. Almost everything about it, including the entirety of the set design, could be identical and it could still be called Bionicle.But that would make it seem far less new to the younger fans. As far as I can see, that is the only plausible reason for why they went for the new franchise name instead of sticking with Bionicle; Bionicle was old, "Hero Factory" was new.

It won't have the fond zealotry of parents who grew up with it foisting it on their children, because there were not enough obsessive fans to make it into that kind of a movement

Zealotry and obsession? Why would those extremes be required for this? Bionicle sold widely, at least in its early years, so there are lots of will-be-or-are-becoming-parents who could simply walk along the aisle in the toystore, looking for a toy for their kid's birthday, see Bionicle on the labels, think "hey, I remember buying some of those when I was a kid, they're cool", and buy.And however many it would be, it would be in addition to the "new factor" parents/kids who would buy them anyways, the same way Bionicle was bought when it was new and HF has been bought.

No?Edit: As for clubs, I don't think forming clubs is remotely on the radar screen of what's important, either way. I want Bionicle to return, and to me that desire has nothing to do with whether or not I should join a club -- I don't really like the idea of clubs anyways, lol. But I agree "Enjoy" is the most important thing. ^_^

That is, put simply, why I want a(n eventual, and limited) Bionicle return; I expect that I and many others could enjoy it. :biggrin:

Edited March 29, 2012 by bonesiii

**dviddy** · March 29, 2012

Its lack of "newness" was the root cause of all these things.

I'm sorry, but outside of one (possible) quote from Greg stating this, TLG's reps have said things entirely different. The lack of "newness" has little to do with it. The line lost it's growth and declined rapidly in 2005, a spot from where it saw no growth. The profits were consistent from halfway through the line, lack of newness doesn't do that. The point of the mini-reboot in 2009 wasn't to "make things new", it was to distance itself from the convoluted backstory that intimidated and threw off potential new fans. In fact, again, one of the biggest problems seemed to be that BIONICLE's profitability itself was accounted for improperly and so was never as profitable as we all once thought.

Walking through the aisles and seeing "Bionicle" on the labels year after year.

This is something retailers want though. I've worked for some of the largest retailers in the world, they like that consistency. They want to see "Transformers", "Power Rangers", "Ben 10", "Spider-Man", "Star Wars", etc in the toy aisles. They want to see the same label year after year because those products sell. You're not making the point you think you are. In a toy line, having that type of reliability is a good thing. And as you said, since toys like those all require new kids to constantly be cycling in (a la Power Rangers especially, but this is the way of all action figures), the "lack of newness" has a very small effect on kids entering into this franchise for the first time. As sales remained constant the last several years, this means that for every kid who abandoned the franchise, new ones came in. Which is pretty spectacular, and is exactly the cycle you want to see as a toy company and in retail. Because of this cycle, the line is always new to someone.Simply put, the "lack of newness" is a scapegoat and not an effective excuse, and using it leads to a flawed presumption about the viability of a return.

The change of the label on the sets probably has one of the biggest effects on sales.

Agreed, but not for the reason you're arguing. It's because kids say "oh, these are a lot like BIONICLE, but the story is simple and easy to follow, and there's not a ton of ridiculous and over-bloated baggage to follow with it". (Also they say "wow, these look a lot cooler than those old wrinkly, overly-detailed, spiky-for-the-sake-of-spikiness BIONICLE sets did!")

And back when Bionicle was new, as you have said, it was successful.

It was successful because it was the first LEGO theme to have a complete story, and to truly utilize online and multimedia content. It was hyped and buzzed, and was launched with a simple and interactive story. The buzz from any new franchise wears off, and the real viability of a line becomes what happens after that buzz. People bought in just to see what this thing LEGO was doing was. But the theme changed, and it didn't stick to those same methods of storytelling or interactivity as when it first arrived. It became less accessible and harder to follow effectively with all the tie-in material. The design sensibilities changed (unfortunately), the media components changed, and while they helped the line stay consistent, they did not help it retain it's initial buzz-boost. So yeah, lack of "newness" contributed to the decline in sales only so much as the lack of newness impacts the sales of any hyped and buzzed product. As with any new and popular product, it's what happens after the initial buzz-storm wears off that matters. This isn't the same concept as what you are arguing was the cause of BIONICLE's decline.

I'm seeing doubt that it being old was the cause, but what else could it be?

Set designers desiring to move on, intimidating story for newcomers (and the simplification was not advertised properly), lack of true interactive multimedia content (like the MNOG which brought a sizable chunk of the 2001's fanbase into the fold), poor set design (and poor quality control, the parts breaking left and right in 2007 and 2008 surely didn't help any profit margins), improper theme accounting in costs and analysis, overexpansion into outside media, and a product that stopped innovating.

As far as I can see, that is the only plausible reason for why they went for the new franchise name instead of sticking with Bionicle; Bionicle was old, "Hero Factory" was new.

Then you're not looking very hard. BIONICLE and Hero Factory are very different. They are aimed at different audiences, handle their multimedia presences differently (HF does not explore its main story mostly in Scholastic books and has more main-story-based free web content than BIONICLE did in the latter half of its lifespan), they are almost entirely different building systems, they approach storytelling in two very different, very drastic ways (BIONICLE is like a serialized telvision show, Hero Factory is like a show where each episode is a different, only marginally-connected plot), and they are marketed differently. Surely you can see that? There is a reason a lot of the BIONICLE fans on here haven't just jumped over to Hero Factory, and that's because the two are not analogous. The majority of those fans aren't just jilted lovers swearing against the replacement for that sake alone, they are people who liked aspects of BIONICLE and find them absent in Hero Factory, because they actually are absent.

In other words, what would you argue was inherent to Bionicle that brought about its end, and would be essential in a return, thus making a return unlikely? What's the alternative explanation of the core problem, besides its age?

The biggest problem is always going to be the story. You'll notice that even in Ninjago, LEGO has not jumped back into a complex story full of a multitude of characters with silly names and intricate plotlines. TLG has said they have moved on and are putting what they learned from BIONICLE into play now. Ninjago's story, while plot-driven and more akin to BIONICLE's is not as in-depth and doesn't contain the characters, the world-building, the scale that BIONICLE's had, and Hero Factory as a building style has taken what people apparently liked the most from BIONICLE, the snap-and-click ball/socket combination and taken it to an extreme (while also re-introducing a more apparent system integration, which is clearly aimed at a greater HF/system overlap in their fans).BIONICLE won't come back because while TLG learned that a solid story-based franchise was financially worthwhile, and they also learned that there is a market for constraction figures, they also learned that too much story creates fans who care only about the story, not the sets, and alienates potential fans who see the pool as too deep to jump into. If it were to come back, it would be a return in name alone, as it would lack the story-telling drive that made BIONICLE unique, because that was it's biggest pratfall. This is what the biggest problem was when TLG re-released the Nuva in 2008, fans weren't happy because they had invested more in the story than in the sets, and since these characters didn't look like those characters, many fans didn't buy, while still following the story. Fans who eat up your free story output or only buy the books aren't a good return on the investment TLG took to create the story.

Zealotry and obsession? Why would those extremes be required for this? Bionicle sold widely, at least in its early years, so there are lots of will-be-or-are-becoming-parents who could simply walk along the aisle in the toystore, looking for a toy for their kid's birthday, see Bionicle on the labels, think "hey, I remember buying some of those when I was a kid, they're cool", and buy.

Because without that core of super-rabid fans, there is little reason to bring back a franchise. Yes, people have good memories from their childhood toys and shows and things like that. But without a rabid fanbase who is guaranteed to go see it (I mean how many Transformers fans complained and complained and complained about the new movies but said "I'll see it anyway because it's Transformers"?). You need that group to get things off the ground, and BIONICLE simply never had that kind of pop-culture awareness. Edited March 29, 2012 by DeeVee

**bonesiii** · March 29, 2012

I'm sorry, but outside of one (possible) quote from Greg stating this, TLG's reps have said things entirely different. The lack of "newness" has little to do with it. The line lost it's growth and declined rapidly in 2005, a spot from where it saw no growth.

How is this inconsistent with the line outliving its welcome among enough of the buyers? This exactly what we would expect if it was seen as old news.Also, the profits weren't totally consistent. There was the Kal problem, for example. They went up and down to some extent. The Hordika, etc. etc.

The point of the mini-reboot in 2009 wasn't to "make things new", it was to distance itself from the convoluted backstory that intimidated and threw off potential new fans.

Correct (this is why we know story complexity was not the reason for the end, or at least not a big enough reason). This is strong evidence that it was simply that the majority of new fans saw Bionicle as old; they wanted something new for their generation.

In fact, again, one of the biggest problems seemed to be that BIONICLE's profitability itself was accounted for improperly and so was never as profitable as we all once thought.

I've seen you say this in a couple of places, and it's useful info which I thank you for bringing forward (I haven't seen anyone else doing so), but over at least three posts in the past few days your story on this has seemed to change three times (you first gave one period of time, then altered it a little, and now you're saying 'never' -- which is it, and how do you know?). What exactly was stated, and where? We should be careful not to overstate it. (Or understate it.)Also, how would it affect the question of Bionicle return, since that is what is being discussed here? At least right now sets like Bionicle's are still selling; it's even been expanded into three lines since 2009; Ben 10, HF, and Superheroes. So it would seem that this type of set is profitable, even with the increased mold prices, etc. This appears to be useful in understanding the events of Bionicle's old years, but how is it relevant to the end of Bionicle itself and whether that end should be permanent?

This is something retailers want though. I've worked for some of the largest retailers in the world, they like that consistency. They want to see "Transformers", "Power Rangers", "Ben 10", "Spider-Man", "Star Wars", etc in the toy aisles. They want to see the same label year after year because those products sell.

But as we all know, they had been selling less lately. I'm sure everybody would have wanted Bionicle to continue to sell really well, but it wasn't. Why? That's the crucial question here. The only answer we've heard from LEGO as to a root cause (and yes, Greg said it came from the higher-ups) was that it was simply too old now. And everything else that LEGO said, as far as I've seen, seems to fit with that root cause. They might not always explicitly get that fundamental as to the reasons, but that doesn't change the root cause. Why would it?What I don't understand is basically why you seem to be opposed to the idea that Bionicle had gotten too old to be continued, even though this was from an official source. You seem to be picking up on other details of their explanations of the end and trying to pit some of the details against others. What exactly is the point of that?Isn't the proper way to understand the end to synthesize together everything they have said to the best of our knowledge? :)Outta time for now... [Edit: Lol, actually I have another hour. Whoops...]Again, I think you're confusing the type of line Bionicle is for things like City, which don't outlive their welcome, for most other LEGO lines. LEGO has a long, long tradition of presenting a new line, then ending it fairly quickly. Bionicle is apparently closer to that type of line than LEGO realized at first, so its oldness is not at all a scapegoat. Do you deny that LEGO lines do typically come and go?

Agreed, but not for the reason you're arguing. It's because kids say "oh, these are a lot like BIONICLE, but the story is simple and easy to follow, and there's not a ton of ridiculous and over-bloated baggage to follow with it". (Also they say "wow, these look a lot cooler than those old wrinkly, overly-detailed, spiky-for-the-sake-of-spikiness BIONICLE sets did!")

First is just a longer way to say "it's newer".

Bionicle got that baggage by virtue of being so old. And HF is slowly getting it too. Second would fit with a change in set design within Bionicle. :PAnd spikiness is a whole 'nother subject.

There's spikes in HF lol. (Basically kids like that on villains, not so much heroes.)

It was successful because it was the first LEGO theme to have a complete story, and to truly utilize online and multimedia content. It was hyped and buzzed, and was launched with a simple and interactive story. The buzz from any new franchise wears off, and the real viability of a line becomes what happens after that buzz. People bought in just to see what this thing LEGO was doing was. But the theme changed, and it didn't stick to those same methods of storytelling or interactivity as when it first arrived. It became less accessible and harder to follow effectively with all the tie-in material. The design sensibilities changed (unfortunately), the media components changed, and while they helped the line stay consistent, they did not help it retain it's initial buzz-boost.

Hm... Let me see if I can translate what you're driving at here, because although I don't see you saying this clearly (much of what you said seems to be just another way to say it got old...), there is a possible interpretation of what happened that I have been expecting to come up (and largely haven't, interestingly). Which is basically that Bionicle failed because of its changes, rather than in spite of them.Is that what you are saying? Because there's been a lot of research by LEGO along the years to better aim their sets towards their target audience and that drove most of the changes. It seems clear that those changes largely helped it continue for so long (again, keep in mind most lines only last a year). And most of the changes have continued into HF -- a move towards simpler story, moves away from gears and technicism, etc.If that's not at all what you're saying, could you try to clarify?

So yeah, lack of "newness" contributed to the decline in sales only so much as the lack of newness impacts the sales of any hyped and buzzed product.

What are you trying to say? Nobody is arguing that this is somehow unique to Bionicle. In fact that's a key part of why I'm saying that eventually HF and other possible lines that might replace it will get old too, opening up the possibility of a Bionicle return.And returns can have buzz too. Hence the point of examples like Five-0 -- and really, the buzz factor brings up Star Wars again too, because the return of the movies definitely got a lot more of that, hype and attention, beyond the EU stuff and whatnot.Basically, it appears with Bionicle there were two levels of "wearing off." What you call initial buzz, in 2001, and then a devotion among that first generation or two. This fits exactly with the timeline you initially gave of a loss of profitability after 2005. Also about when Scholastic said what they said about the books. I sum that up as about two to three years, maybe four or five if you're lucky.It'll be very interesting on this note to see what becomes of Ninjago too; although setwise it's largely very different, storywise it's kinda in Bionicle and HF's genre for LEGO. It seems to be going strong for the moment.

Set designers desiring to move on, intimidating story for newcomers (and the simplification was not advertised properly), lack of true interactive multimedia content (like the MNOG which brought a sizable chunk of the 2001's fanbase into the fold), poor set design (and poor quality control, the parts breaking left and right in 2007 and 2008 surely didn't help any profit margins), improper theme accounting in costs and analysis, overexpansion into outside media, and a product that stopped innovating.

Let's go through those one at a time, then. But you didn't answer the question. I asked for your interpretation as to the root cause and you simply listed various factors. But looking at these closely is instructive in terms of judging whether your disagreement about the "new factor" is logical or not:1) Fits with being old, but again, does not require an end to the franchise name. Set design moved on at least two major times in Bionicle's history already; everything HF has done could have been done under the Bionicle label (but it wouldn't have felt as new -- that's the key).2) Then a better simplification, much like HF's, could have been done under the Bionicle label.3) This could be fixed while under Bionicle's label.4) Same. Also, HF's first year was essentially the same set design. The major innovation of balljoint armor connection (begun in Ben 10) could have also been done under the Bionicle label.5) Same; not a matter of the "Bionicle" name specifically.6) Same again.7) Same yet again. All of this could be done and slap the label "Bionicle" on it.I wanna emphasize again I do NOT think they SHOULD have kept the Bionicle label; I do think it was time to move on. But none of this argues against the conclusion that they changed the name on the label because that name was old.What I am saying essentially is that the obvious "short answer" for why Bionicle ended is it got too old. That is not at all the whole "long answer". But I think some people have simply gotten tired of hearing that short answer, and are having an emotional reaction against it. And that's understandable. It's certainly not simple. But I think it's best to identify accurately what the root cause was. And the only root cause I've seen anyone propose is the same one Greg said came from his higher-ups.

Then you're not looking very hard. BIONICLE and Hero Factory are very different. They are aimed at different audiences, handle their multimedia presences differently (HF does not explore its main story mostly in Scholastic books and has more main-story-based free web content than BIONICLE did in the latter half of its lifespan), they are almost entirely different building systems, they approach storytelling in two very different, very drastic ways (BIONICLE is like a serialized telvision show, Hero Factory is like a show where each episode is a different, only marginally-connected plot), and they are marketed differently.

Every year of BIonicle was different too. Debates often centered on that here; LEGO was clearly willing to change whatever they wanted to with Bionicle, something some members on here resisted, but they did this for good reasons. Likewise, the end was seen as the simplest way to break free of these problems. But I must do a one-by-one here too, because some of what you say here does not sound accurate:1) How are they aimed at different audiences? They are both aimed at the same age range, roleplayers, etc. Or are you simply saying different generations? That tastes have changed with new kids? I don't wanna be putting words in your mouth, though, so please clarify.

Also, LEGO specifically said things like if you liked Bionicle you will probably like this, etc.2) Bionicle changed its multimedia presentation throughout its ten years. None of them were inherent to Bionicle. This is especially true with your books point; the books ended before the story did, and were not present at the start. Again, for the most part the media changes HF brought could have been done within Bionicle (but shouldn't have been, because that would be dragging out the old after its time was honestly come).I do think there's a bit of a good point on this one, though; it would have been harder to go for TV specials for HF if it had been under the Bionicle brand name. But again, that fits as a branch coming off the root cause that Bionicle was old. If Bionicle started when HF started it could have done TV. HF being new is why the TV thing worked better with it than Bionicle at the time. :)3) The building systems are essentially the same. Balljoints. That was the huge innovation that went along with Bionicle's launch (although it was begun before it, but not paired with a storyline beyond basic bios and such). Just as Bionicle expanded the use of balljoints throughout its life, HF has expanded them in its life.

The move to System-style connections also began to a limited extent during Bionicle (some System spikes on Barraki, for example). Both those moves could have been done under the Bionicle label.Even if we accept the premise that the new HF system is HF-only and the old Bionicle systems were old-Bionicle only, there's no reason this prevents a Bionicle return from using the new HF system (or even something else even newer).4-5) Same as #2; Bionicle could have simply shifted its strategies. But this would have been a waste of those strategies precisely because they would not be as successful for an old line as they would for a new line.

As Greg put it (paraphrasing) it's hard to get featured in a toy magazine / website if you're just rebranding an old line, but slap a new label on it and they eat it up.

There is a reason a lot of the BIONICLE fans on here haven't just jumped over to Hero Factory, and that's because the two are not analogous.

But that isn't what we're talking about, is it? Are you trying to argue that most old fans wouldn't be as into a Bionicle return as new fans would, thus old fans would not buy sets for themselves in enough numbers? Because I agree with that, if you thought otherwise. But what I made clear in my old-forum topic on this, and stand by, is that a return could appeal well to brand-new fans (who haven't even been born yet) because by then it will once again feel new enough.

And parents are more likely to buy sets they know their kids will like if it's a brand name they recognize from their own childhood, even if the sets have changed so much that they're not quite what those parents would have wanted for themselves.(And that said, I think most youngsters who liked Bionicle at the time would have connected to the new HF styles too, they just didn't get the opportunity because it hadn't been invented yet.)

The biggest problem is always going to be the story. You'll notice that even in Ninjago, LEGO has not jumped back into a complex story full of a multitude of characters with silly names and intricate plotlines.

Uh... I've spent a lot of time on Ninjago's LEGO site, and I see lots of names, lots of detail, etc. Give it ten years and it'll build up too if it stays at that rate. There isn't as much because it's not as old.Silly names -- well, HF's names have stayed largely in the same style as Bionicle's later years. Intricate plot -- a return could likewise have a simpler story, could it not?

TLG has said they have moved on and are putting what they learned from BIONICLE into play now.

And what they learn, both from Bionicle's ten-year incarnation and from these other lines, could also get factored into a return, it they ever do decide to do one.Also, Ninjago actually does a lot of worldbuilding.

BIONICLE won't come back because while TLG learned that a solid story-based franchise was financially worthwhile, and they also learned that there is a market for constraction figures, they also learned that too much story creates fans who care only about the story, not the sets, and alienates potential fans who see the pool as too deep to jump into.

This sounds like an argument for simpler story, which I agree with and have been saying, if it should return. Also, for not dragging it out so long (two to three years are the ideal I'd like to see).

If it were to come back, it would be a return in name alone, as it would lack the story-telling drive that made BIONICLE unique, because that was it's biggest pratfall.

I'm confused as to what you think about the in-depth story. On the one hand, you argue quite well against going so in-depth, at least for so long (more on this in a sec), but on the other hand you seem to be saying that a return without making that mistake wouldn't be good, or something. What am I missing here?About the depth, though, I think the beginning of the books was good, and doing the movies probably good when they did them (though they could have been done better), but -- if LEGO could have hindsight (and with a return they could) -- the books should have been intentionally planned to start, do a few, bring to a conclusion, end as the "new interest" fans drop out. Instead of create the impression that they might go on indefinately.Something like what LOST did when it was announced well beforehand that it would end. The expanded story made sense, as LEGO rode the wave of the "buzz" or "new factor" or whatever you wanna call it, but they mistook it for the building of a constant, and didn't adapt as well as they could have to the going back down the back of the wave. Ninjago has done books and some other lines have as well, incidently (though I haven't bothered to check those out lol).Actually, it might have been possible for them to know that sooner. The explanation Scholastic gave as to why the books predictably started selling worse could have been given earlier (maybe it was and not acted on, I dunno), and they could have been better prepared for it. Anywho, I'm getting a little tangential, sorry...

Because without that core of super-rabid fans, there is little reason to bring back a franchise.

Not so. Another reason to bring it back is if you have good reason to believe it will appeal well with its new factor and being interesting to a new generation.This is why I bring up other well-known returns like Five-0. The idea is often "people liked this when we first did it because it's a cool idea. It got old for that generation, so we ended it. But now there are new generations. We think the new generations have sufficiently forgotten/never knew much about the originals, so we will again introduce it to them and let it ride to another wave of success simply because it's a cool idea that is (to them) new."So that the same reasons it worked originally -- though adapted (like Five-0 again) -- drive it yet again. For a time.Also, I've been intentionally avoiding Transformers as an example, because that clearly "grew with the fans" and tried to make a more adult-or-teen-oriented approach with those movies. That's not the kind of return I'm talking about here (although it does demonstrate yet another return); I'm talking about one that will primarily target kids just as LEGO usually does.

But it would also probably get an extra boost from the parent factor that a brand-new line wouldn't. How much so is unpredictable but any boost plus a good core-audience drive is a smart business model. :)Also, we should avoid the mistake of mistaking vocal minority "nostalgic complainers" for speaking for the majority of old fans in anything, Transformers included. Edited March 30, 2012 by bonesiii

**dviddy** · March 30, 2012

How is this inconsistent with the line outliving its welcome among enough of the buyers? This exactly what we would expect if it was seen as old news.Also, the profits weren't totally consistent. There was the Kal problem, for example. They went up and down to some extent. The Hordika, etc. etc.

That's not at all what we would see if the line was outliving its welcome, because we wouldn't see a consistent line of sales like we saw after BIONICLE hit it's rapid decline in 2005. It basically flatlined from there, with sales differences being too minimal for LEGO to include in their financial reports every year detailing the differences in sales amongst their lines. The differences post-2005 were minimal enough to be considered "none". If a line was outliving its welcome, we would see more decline (which I do believe was reportedly seen in 2009, and I think that was because the Glatorian thing confused a lot of people and the soft reboot was insufficiently advertised as opening a new hole for new fans and turned off a good number of old fans, but that's not really her nor there). The problem is that the line had stopped growing and wasn't crossing over the way TLG had hoped and the way the initial "buzz" spike had led them to hope it would. Five years may seem like a long market test for viability, but that's pretty constant for a lot of markets hoping to regain a buzz.The point is that if this "lack of newness" was the factor, we wouldn't see consistent sales (even though they were only "good to mediocre" sales), because as older kids "graduate out" of the toy cycle, new kids wouldn't be sufficiently replacing them to maintain that bottom line, and since the line stayed constant, they were.

Correct (this is why we know story complexity was not the reason for the end, or at least not a big enough reason).

False. The reboot lasted all of half a year, before TLG (or Greg?) decided to info-dump a ton of stuff into the line to placate older fans who were worried that things no longer mattered. Sure, Mata Nui was always meant to be there and to help unravel the mysteries from the "first chapter of the saga". But it was never supposed to be as heavy-handedly linked as it ended up being. TLG did not sufficiently commit to the reboot to accurately gauge the market's reception. They saw the first half of 2009's poor sales (again, most likely due to the confusion inherent in the "wait, is this still what I know?" thing), and finally pulled the plug, cancelling the line and pushing HF's debut forward a year.

I've seen you say this in a couple of places, and it's useful info which I thank you for bringing forward (I haven't seen anyone else doing so), but over at least three posts in the past few days your story on this has seemed to change three times (you first gave one period of time, then altered it a little, and now you're saying 'never' -- which is it, and how do you know?). What exactly was stated, and where? We should be careful not to overstate it. (Or understate it.)

The inaccuracy was discovered in late '07/early '08, and retroactively applied to the entire line thus far. Future waves had this consideration fixed, but because of this, we do not know how profitable BIONICLE ever truly was before that time. So, in effect, we never truly knew what the profit margins were, because TLG has not retroactively updated their sales reports from those years (because why would they?)Also, this was stated at Brickfair several years in a row by TLG employees speaking on behalf of the company.

Also, how would it affect the question of Bionicle return, since that is what is being discussed here? At least right now sets like Bionicle's are still selling; it's even been expanded into three lines since 2009; Ben 10, HF, and Superheroes. So it would seem that this type of set is profitable, even with the increased mold prices, etc. This appears to be useful in understanding the events of Bionicle's old years, but how is it relevant to the end of Bionicle itself and whether that end should be permanent?

Because it plays into BIONICLE's profitability, and that in turn, directly influences whether or not BIONICLE returns. Sure, constraction sets are definitely selling, and that is (to many of us) a good thing. But because of that problem from before, we do not know if BIONICLE truly sold well even in it's first, heralded years. So can TLG confidently claim that BIONICLE sold well, or can they say "constraction figures sell well"?If it's the latter, they would have no reason to bring back BIONICLE, even in name, as it is a damaged brand and proven to have outlived it's profitability. I don't think you'll see HF last as long as BIONICLE did, maybe not even two more years. I think that will mostly be because the lack of a huge backstory that people have invested in will make it easier to close than BIONICLE was, and I think that was one of the reasons BIONICLE lumbered on so long. Nothing to do with "is it still new"? And everything to do with "this is how we've always done things outside of City (which has been their core line since they switched from wooden ducks), and the lack of story means we can still do it". And since they've shown that constraction figures without a burdenous backstory are easier for others to jump in on, it makes sense for TLG to continue the way they've always done things. Which has mostly been because they want to keep to a limited output for obvious financial reasons, and they like to continually invent new themes (and this is to keep LEGO itself from feeling stagnant), so when a new one pops up, most of the time an old one has to go away. It's not about newness and the lack of this feeling, it's about innovating and making sure you don't become complacent. Maybe you don't see the distinction so well, but it's a very important one in economic purposes.

First is just a longer way to say "it's newer"

No it's not. It's a distinction in the type of stories the two themes are telling. BIONICLE was serialized, HF is episodic. Both can contain an overarching narrative, but they are not the same story telling type, and you of all people should understand that and not be arguing against it (you write great stories).

Hm... Let me see if I can translate what you're driving at here, because although I don't see you saying this clearly (much of what you said seems to be just another way to say it got old...), there is a possible interpretation of what happened that I have been expecting to come up (and largely haven't, interestingly). Which is basically that Bionicle failed because of its changes, rather than in spite of them.Is that what you are saying? Because there's been a lot of research by LEGO along the years to better aim their sets towards their target audience and that drove most of the changes. It seems clear that those changes largely helped it continue for so long (again, keep in mind most lines only last a year). And most of the changes have continued into HF -- a move towards simpler story, moves away from gears and technicism, etc.If that's not at all what you're saying, could you try to clarify?

Yes, because as has been said, while these attempts were to keep sales going and keep the line profitable, they failed to do so. The line experienced no statistical growth post 2005. Also, you mention a simpler story and the moves away from gears and whatnot, but you're not mentioning the entire design aesthetic shift that came about in 2004 and continued onwards. The original sets, sure, they had pistons here and there, but they were clean, full of curves and simple lines. They had more in common with system and Technic aesthetics than they did with the later BIONICLE aesthetic. And HF has not continued that aesthetic, it has, in fact, full-stop reversed course. The HF system is far more akin to the simple and smooth stylings of system parts than it is to the busy and over-detalied parts found in so many later years of BIONICLE. Maybe you don't consider that important, but it seems an extremely telling change to me. As we've established, constraction figures sell better with no story. Yes, the ball-and-socket builds work better than the gear builds. No debate here (even if it makes me a sad panda). But the BIONICLE feel and aesthetic sells worse than the mainline LEGO aesthetic, which is evident in Hero Factory.A lot of the complaints around the forums revolving around HF has been based in it's "simplistic part design". Of course, I, as a person who prefers this minimalistic design harkening back to the original Toa Kanohi, to be "cooler" is super pleased by this (as has been the overall AFOL perception, as many of the AFOLs in the MOCing community have been far quicker to grab HF parts to MOC with in their system sets than they ever were with BIONICLE, simply because of HF's better integration with system sets on an aesthetic level).So what I'm saying is that to a degree, newness caused BIONICLE to launch quickly and reach some good heights. But that happens to a lot of new products from good companies, and does not contribute to the line's long-term viability, and is seen as a "bonus" because it helps get the product out there to set the stage for the line's real profitibaility, and BIONICLE just didn't have what TLG hoped (and for awhile because of poor cost-management accounting thought) it had. Which is no shame, they didn't lose money on it, and it helped them open up an entirely new market they wouldn't have been able to tap otherwise.

And returns can have buzz too. Hence the point of examples like Five-0 -- and really, the buzz factor brings up Star Wars again too, because the return of the movies definitely got a lot more of that, hype and attention, beyond the EU stuff and whatnot.

Yes, but those were in areas where the prior franchise had huge pop culture appeal and a rabid fanbase. And while Hawaii Five-O had the "older generation remembers this fondly" thing going for sure (I bought my dad the entire original series on DVD when they were released), BIONICLE simply did not have the kind of market saturation generally required for this kind of return.(Not to mention most properties that return are reboots, and I don't know how older fans would feel about that)

Let's go through those one at a time, then. But you didn't answer the question. I asked for your interpretation as to the root cause and you simply listed various factors.

Because the root cause is people not buying enough sets. Plain and simple. And when you couple that with internal divisions, a bored creative team, and a story that is costing you sales, you hit "eject".

How are they aimed at different audiences?

Quite plainly Hero Factory is aimed at a slightly younger audience than BIONICLE was. This is pretty well established.

Also, HF's first year was essentially the same set design

This was a deliberate attempt to keep old fans interested. The "true" launch of Hero Factory came with the 2.0 building system. The original wave was meant as a "holdover gap" in the hopes that BIONICLE fans would recognize the set styles enough to buy in, and become invested enough to keep buying when the style changed drastically in the 2.0 wave.

But that isn't what we're talking about, is it? Are you trying to argue that most old fans wouldn't be as into a Bionicle return as new fans would, thus old fans would not buy sets for themselves in enough numbers? Because I agree with that, if you thought otherwise. But what I made clear in my old-forum topic on this, and stand by, is that a return could appeal well to brand-new fans (who haven't even been born yet) because by then it will once again feel new enough.

What I'm saying is that BIONICLE is defined by very specific things, the story, the aesthetics, the feel, and that without those, it is not BIONICLE. TLG realizes this, and is aware that the things that made BIONICLE as a franchise profitible in the first place are the things being replicated in Hero Factory and to an extent, Ninjago. The things that made BIONICLE unique are, in many ways, the things that got left behind when TLG cancelled the line.At that point, creating a new constraction figure line that: lacks the huge, overarching, mythical story that defined BIONICLE, lacks the feel of BIONICLE, and is built using a completely different technique than BIONICLE, what is the point in branding it as such, when the prior line was proven to be lackluster in the long run? At that point, TLG is better served putting out another independent property.

**bonesiii** · March 30, 2012

That's not at all what we would see if the line was outliving its welcome, because we wouldn't see a consistent line of sales like we saw after BIONICLE hit it's rapid decline in 2005. It basically flatlined from there, with sales differences being too minimal for LEGO to include in their financial reports every year detailing the differences in sales amongst their lines. The differences post-2005 were minimal enough to be considered "none". If a line was outliving its welcome, we would see more decline

Your answer about the miscalculation of mold prices will affect this, and I haven't gotten that far yet, but just off the top of my head, this does make sense if the first generation of roleplayers had moved on by that time, and new fans were not coming in, in enough numbers. That's about four years after the beginning in 2001, so that would make sense.Prior to your revelation about the mold prices, though, the stock answer would have been that Bionicle saw record sales in 2007. Of course, that was the same time prices went up, and the reasoning for it was higher mold costs, so yeah. (Your statements on this do confuse me on that issue, though, because the prices going up would seem to indicate that at that time they were well aware of the mold cost problem. But yeah withholding judgement on that for now.BTW -- I was gonna edit this into my previous post if you hadn't replied yet, so just lemme get this out of the way. I do think you have made the strongest case I have seen yet that Bionicle is not currently planned by LEGO to return. So let nobody mistake me on that.

It's not gonna come back anytime soon. And a return would require LEGO to change their minds, apparently (at least if the case you have made is accurate

). Still, that could certainly happen. Very few returns of entertainment have been fully planned from the start (though some have).A good example, apparently (from the special features on the DVD) is Indiana Jones.

The point is that if this "lack of newness" was the factor, we wouldn't see consistent sales (even though they were only "good to mediocre" sales), because as older kids "graduate out" of the toy cycle, new kids wouldn't be sufficiently replacing them to maintain that bottom line, and since the line stayed constant, they were.

Maybe I"m just too tired right now to think straight, but I don't see what you're driving at. Isn't this exactly what I'm saying? The original driving generation, that got into it while it was new, would leave at about 2005ish. Then it would draw in some new fans at a relatively constant rate, but not as much as at the beginning. This held constant even through a reboot.I agree with your points about advertising, but you seem to be missing the point Greg made which is that the best way to get advertising for something new is to make it a new franchise name. Advertising isn't just something LEGO can easily get either way; there is a definite phenomenon that outside media organizations devoted to toy news are more interested in "frontpaging" something that is seen as brand new rather than any reboot of something old.Solution was simply to make something new, so have the strongest all-around advertising power for it. And again, this answer is from LEGO. Why question it?This is getting exponential now so as I usually do at this point I'll switch to point-by-point instead of a plethora of quotes for most of the rest of this post.Reboot's failure -- is it that it didn't draw in enough new fans (as I and LEGO are saying) or that it alienated too many old fans, as you seem to be saying there? Actually, on BZP at least the reaction seemed to be amazingly positive compared to past (minor by comparison) changes. It was a return to exploring a new world. I didn't see much old-fan rejection until TLR and 2010 (and much of the 2010 stuff appears to me to be more of a negative reaction against the fact that it was ending than about the details of how it was done, but that's a whole 'nother tangent heh).But let's say for sake of discussion it alienated too many old. Even if so, the core problem is that it didn't draw in enough new to drive the sales the way LEGO hoped. And after the first half, they probably had enough results to know that. After all, Bionicle in 2001 alienated a lot of old fans, infamously so, yet it attracted a ton of new fans. The key difference is that in 2001 it was new; not so in 2009.Info-dumping old stuff -- I didn't see much of this until 2010 when the decision to end it was already known, so that move makes sense. They were freed up in a sense to do whatever they felt they could to tie up loose ends, but also limited in the amount of spotlight space to do it in. In 2009 Mata Nui could have been seen as a new character -- and in fact in most ways he was that even to old fans; we hadn't actually seen him in action yet. But if the reboot had in fact brought in enough new fans, it wouldn't matter that he was known by old fans; he would be new to them. :)Profit miscalc -- It's interesting that you say this was 2007. That's about the same time prices went up and we were told the reason was increased mold prices. I'd be interested to know exactly what was said. It seems impossible that old mold prices were not factored properly; LEGO has been doing this long enough to know to factor that. It seems more likely that the increased mold prices after Bionicle had started had not been accounted for. So profits at the start would probably still be about accurate.Also, why would it not be known? The amount of money coming in and going out is something a company keeps careful track of generally. It sounds like this would be a budgeting mistake, but the actual results would probably be known, wouldn't they?Next: Again, we're talking about a return, which would be brand-new sets, most likely very different from old Bionicle (probably more like HF, but possibly having a brand-new system). Like any new line, it would be focus-group tested, and altered accordingly. Set designers would come up with the best they could, and its sales would depend on these factors and others. So how well old Bionicle did or did not do isn't really the point -- but that a return (when the time is right) could also sell well.

That said, it's pretty clear that it did sell very well at first. (If it hadn't, for example, the miscalculation you have referenced would have been caught much earlier on as the margin would have been narrow enough for it to be a major factor.

)Your next points about lack of story complexity are good, but I think you're taking it too far by saying things like "nothing to do with" -- and again, the lessons learned by BIonicle, and applied to HF, can also be applied to a Bionicle return. :)Look, all we're saying is that most of the time LEGO's themes come and go and that's the end, but occasionally they bring back classic favorites for a short run, and Bionicle is a good candidate for such a move. A simple, reasonable idea that fits with LEGO's history and doesn't mean it'll get another ten-year run with massive story or anything, but that it could come back in a better adapted form. ^_^

And nor is it really likely. But the possibility is something we should be aware of. :)Bionicle vs. constraction -- A Bionicle return would use this kind of set. It's not a "is it this or that". It's "It's that. And this is one way we can do that -- one that, timed right, could build on its former success via the parent phenomenon." And BTW, it was always "constraction" -- not the story itself per se; this is why the more TECHNICey sets didn't sell as well as the Toa. Yet it was also partially the story; Toa-like sets had been made before (slizers, throwbots) but did not succeed in gaining roleplayers due to the lack of a story. (That said, I think they probably overdid the story, reading a bit too much into that.) So it's a bit of both, which is summed up by roleplayers -- the love of balljoints goes right along with the desire for a story they can roleplay with.I agree with your expectation of HF's future. Actually that would line up well with what I'm saying about Bionicle; 2001-2005 is four years, and about two years of HF's past plus about two years after that is also four years. I just tend to be more cautious and go with two to three years as an ideal length. :)Of course, it's possible we're both wrong and the episodic nature will be enough to let it last more like City (more, not completely, of course), so who knows.

It's not about newness and the lack of this feeling, it's about innovating and making sure you don't become complacent. Maybe you don't see the distinction so well, but it's a very important one in economic purposes.

I think I know what you mean, and I agree. But innovation can also be applied to a return -- and I most definately wouldn't want one without it! I'm treating that as a given -- maybe I should have been explicit about it, heh. Just plain returning it for the sake of it (without good, original ideas in place for it) would definately be a bad idea. That to me is a requirement either way -- whether doing a new line or an old, etc.

BIONICLE was serialized, HF is episodic. Both can contain an overarching narrative, but they are not the same story telling type, and you of all people should understand that and not be arguing against it (you write great stories).

Thanks, lol. But what I'm saying is that the episodic nature of HF could also be used in a Bionicle return. I would like serialized better, to some extent (although I try to fuse both styles in my own writing, so people can jump right into every story without prior reading), but HF seems to be proving that the episodic style works.That said, I'm not sure we should conclude that episodic is better than serialized. Ninjago is more serialized, and it seems to have been doing really well. Of course, that's System, so yeah. It's complicated, but HF has shown that episodic works. And Bionicle apparently showed that (to some extent) serialized can work -- both in the balljoint type of set line. The nature of HF's story may be to some extent simply LEGO's choice as to how to do the new line, not necessarily the only way to do such a line.I am pretty sure Bionicle would have worked better if the same overarching secret of the giant robot had been explored more quickly, ending in 2005, though, and then do something new (like HF). Serialized but not drawn out so much. :shrugs:

Yes, because as has been said, while these attempts were to keep sales going and keep the line profitable, they failed to do so. The line experienced no statistical growth post 2005.

Interesting. I expected you to say that that wasn't what you were saying. The problem I have with this is that the moves they made in later years they continued to apply to HF, Ben 10, and Superheroes. Especially the move away from more TECHNICey designs, at least in heroes, and towards snap-together easy builds. Also, these moves were made as a result of careful, out-of-house expert research into what the target audience wanted.When I say "these moves", though, I'm mainly talking setwise. Storywise may be another story (pun intended I guess lol).But yeah, it seems to me that those moves did help the line continue (but probably would have been better applied to a brand new line after 2005; and the story should have been shortened; most of the story after 2003 until 2010 was just putting off the end anyways, not really essential). They just couldn't bring it back to its former glory because, for example, it couldn't get as much advertising as a new line would have.As another example, let's pretend for sake of discussion that the miscalculation was in place in 2001. Even if this is so, they could still see clearly that Rahi sales were poor while sales of the Toa were good. And sales of the cloney Kal were poor compared to the Rahkshi in the same year, etc. So at least two lessons, both of which have been applied also to HF and the like, could still be accurately drawn from the sales results -- and applied also to a return.Your points in the whole paragraph that starts out to be about aesthetics are confusing. Some of the claims in there I find hard to track with what I recall from various sets in Bionicle's early years, later years, and HF-so-far. But first I just wanna remind you that whatever lessons you think are to be drawn from that, if you're right, could, again, be applied to a Bionicle return. Especially if you are correct that some of what HF is doing right over the later years is a return to what Bionicle did originally. Anyways, perhaps you could clarify what you mean by that and give specific examples, because I really don't get it.I especially don't get the apparent connection you make between old-style TECHNICish style and System. Aren't those almost polar opposites? I see it as a continuous line of change from the failed initial assumption that TECHNIC fans would mainly drive Bionicle, the slow learning that instead it was roleplayers, moving thus gradually towards a more System-ish style, with less pins and cross-axles, etc. culminating eventually in HF's later years which even removed those in the armor and addons, changing it to almost all balljoints, and System-compatible connections. I don't see a reversal here -- if anything it seems like an even farther move away from the TECHNIC style of early Bionicle. (With some exceptions, especially in the villains, vehicles, etc. just like later Bionicle years.)Constraction with no story -- but Slizers/throwbots showed that false, did they not? HF does have story. Just not as much as Bionicle. Slizers/etc. had not enough, Bionicle had too much. HF found a balance -- and (this is the key) that balance could be applied to a return. No?Again, Bionicle had near universal market saturation within the specific LEGO context. You may have missed an edit to one of my posts above about that; you posted soon after it, so see there for more detail.

Because the root cause is people not buying enough sets. Plain and simple.

No, that's an effect. Sets don't sell poorly for no reason. I'm talking about the reason why that occured. The cause.What do you think is the root reason for it, and why do you apparently think this would be inherent to a return? Put another way -- why can't the lessons learned by both Bionicle and HF (and others) be applied to a return, when the time is right?And again, to your next sentence, you seem to be arguing as if to disagree with someone saying Bionicle shouldn't have ended. We are both agreeing it was time to, as you put it, "hit eject." That is not what is being discussed here, but rather an eventual and well-timed (and very temporary) return.

Let me say it again -- "let me be clear" -- I think Bionicle needed to end. And I agree with all the reasons LEGO has given for why it ended, including one of those reasons officially given, which was that it had simply become too old. :)Clear?

This was a deliberate attempt to keep old fans interested. The "true" launch of Hero Factory came with the 2.0 building system. The original wave was meant as a "holdover gap" in the hopes that BIONICLE fans would recognize the set styles enough to buy in, and become invested enough to keep buying when the style changed drastically in the 2.0 wave.

More on this in a sec, but to "cut to the chase", this really is beside the point. The key is that since it was new, it got all the advertising and hype Bionicle was too old to get, and this let the first year be successful enough to even do a 2.0 to begin with.But yes, that's a valid possibility. Is this just your theory, though? Because it's also possible they simply hadn't thought of the new systems yet.

What I'm saying is that BIONICLE is defined by very specific things, the story, the aesthetics, the feel, and that without those, it is not BIONICLE.

LEOG changed Bionicle during its run in all those ways and more (but not the brand name), some of you which have mentioned, in fact. "Bionicle" is whatever they choose to use the label on, and to some extent whatever new fans at the time see it as. Most of it other than the length can be done again (but in a new way) in a return, and new fans would not remember the old to compare it with.Really, the core brilliance of Bionicle, storywise, was in the robotic beings on a tropical island, islands in domes, and the giant robots. All of that could have been done in a 2-3 year plot. It wasn't, but a return could have a whole new mystery that could be actually done in that timescale, having learned that lesson now. Some basics that are loved by old fans but don't require backstory to understand, like mask powers, could be brought back, and the basic setting of SM could be, or they could just go to a new planet but have EP or the presence once of a giant robot be a factor, etc. The GBs could be behind something very different on a new planet (that would especially fit the hints in story thus far). Something like what I suggested in my recent S&T theory could happen, under the Bionicle label.All of that could be "BIonicle" and could be accepted by most old fans who had any chance of being in it, yet be simple enough for totally new fans, if it were to happen after a long enough wait (parent factor etc.) to identify with their generation, get the buzz, the advertising, etc. There's a massive treasure trove of potential for LEGO to tap into. The hardest question to answer is which choice among many they would be better off picking, lol, not whether there are good choices to make.I do agree a "retelling" (the word reboot is thrown around to mean too many different things

) would seem to be a less satifsying option, and granted that most other returns use that formula. But then, that may simply mean that a retelling is the best option, lol. If they didn't work they wouldn't be used as often as they are. The main reason I don't think it would work is that it couldn't be presented as a mystery about the giant robot -- at least not universally. Especially as more people move towards social media; the "cat is out of the bag" on that mystery. So it would be better to do something new, under the label Bionicle. Edited March 30, 2012 by bonesiii

CyclonatorZ · March 30, 2012

This is probably the first time I've ever said this, but I think Deevee has hit the mark a lot closer than bonesiii. It's become clear to me that TLC will never attempt something quite like Bionicle again, and even if the actual brand name does return, the theme launched with it will resemble Hero Factory much more than the original Bionicle theme. Actually, the only reason TLC might ever revisit the theme is if they want to move away from the futuristic stylings of HF and back to the "ancient mythology with robots" theme - but in that case it there's still a high likelihood that it will have a differen't title. And yes, all of this is coming from someone who wished that Bionicle had continued past 2010, albeit for reasons that I now see are not consistent with TLC's ultimate goal of profit.

Edited March 30, 2012 by ~~Zarkan~~

**bonesiii** · March 30, 2012

Fair enough, Zarkan. Actually, though, I pretty much agree with everything you said there. Most likely, Bionicle will never come back, and if it ever does, it will be radically different from what it was.Also, I have been expecting to see the name change point come up, and I agree with it. Also, I was thinking they could avoid some confusion by calling the heroes Heroes instead of Toa... in other words, in a sense this has already happened. It's Hero Factory. ^_^ The biggest obstacle I think that most people are probably thinking of as "inherent to Bionicle" that might drive new fans away are the made-up names used even for basics. Or how distant many of them were from English (unlike Furno, for example).

CyclonatorZ · March 30, 2012

As an addendum to my original post, I want to point out that I don’t consider many of the reasons TLC gave for canceling Bionicle as indictments of the line’s actual quality. The fact is, the quality of a product doesn’t directly correlate to its sales as much as people think it does. For all its success, Transformers began with a cartoon that was in practically every way a shoddy mess, with constant and often overwhelming continuity errors and extremely poor “animation.” But the kids still liked it and bought up its merchandise in droves, and that is why it has lasted for over two decades and spawned the 4^th highest grossing movie of all time (which ironically is even worse of a production IMO). In contrast, many better animated series saw their toy lines flop and their shows canceled far too quickly or relegated to obscurity. Most people associate the words “TMNT” with the original 80’s cartoon, and the 2003 4Kids reboot (which in many ways is a superior production) is all but forgotten.Bionicle did indeed make some objectively bad goofs over the course of its 10 years – the redesigning of the socket joints in 2008 was an absolute disaster, and the online content becoming increasingly simplistic and non-canon certainly didn’t help matters. But many of the things that ultimately doomed the line also defined it in many of our minds. The increasingly complex storyline generated countless S&T debates and spawned creative works of all sorts, and while the detailed styling of the later sets didn’t appear to kids, it certainly had its share of fans among BZP members. Yes, Bionicle is dead as a commercial product, but that fact alone does not denote awfulness. I still think it was and is awesome – and even if it never comes back, I don’t think my sentiments are going to change.

Edited March 30, 2012 by ~~Zarkan~~

Rarity · March 31, 2012

I just wanna say that Bionicle flat-lining after 2005 isn't true. In a (Yahoo, I think?)business report in early 2007, Bionicle ranked #2 among most requested brands among American boys in 2006, and was reported as having double-digit sales growth.

Edited March 31, 2012 by Rarity

**bonesiii** · March 31, 2012

I just wanna say that Bionicle flat-lining after 2005 isn't true. In a (Yahoo, I think?)business report in early 2007, Bionicle ranked #2 among most requested brands among American boys in 2006, and was reported as having double-digit sales growth.

I forgot about that. Although are you certain that was exactly what was said?I think DV is theorizing that the miscalculation he has referenced (and as far as I know he's the first to do so on this forum) nullifies that growth, as well as the record sales that were later reported for 2007. I'm withholding judgement until (if we can) we know more detail about this miscalculation, but it does seem highly unlikely to have had that significant of an effect. :shrugs:

Other than his claim that sales flatlined and remained constantly lowish, the picture of sales at the end seems to be that they came out of a slump in 2004 to record sales in 2007, but were hindered by rising mold prices (as was announced at the time) -- prices had to be upped, and after that sales slowly declined, despite attempts to bring them back up, and it was realized that it had simply become too old to bring in new fans (as it did once, at least, in 2006-7).So, we have two very different pictures for the final years. It'll be interesting to see if we'll be able to objectively figure out which is actually the case, if any. ^_^

(But it being old still fits as the root cause in either scenario, and was officially confirmed, so IMO isn't debatable. But -- this needs to be pointed out -- it being old does NOT inherently mean it will come back either!)Anyways, I agree with what you said above, Zarkan.

Also we should keep in mind that to some extent, "quality is in the eye of the beholder." And BTW, I am glad Bionicle got its many years, even though much of it was "delaying"; using side-plots instead of driving forward the main plot about awakening the Great Spirit (and leading to the Makuta takeover and giant robot battle). If nothing else it gave us an even more expansive collection of ideas to draw from for fanfics, and modify as we see fit. ^_^

Plus, of course, they didn't have the hindsight we now have so making those mistakes was useful at least to learn from. Edited March 31, 2012 by bonesiii

Collector1 · March 31, 2012

All I can say is just wait and see.

Lyichir · March 31, 2012

I love all the discussion this topic has spawned, but would it have a better place in a topic specifically about the likelihood of BIONICLE's eventual return? I feel a lot of members might be just reading the first post and leaving with the false satisfaction that BIONICLE will be returning next year. The "rumor" mentioned in the topic title and first post is far from plausible, with the total lack of evidence for it and the large amount of evidence against it. In fact, it's unclear where such a rumor came from or even if it ever existed outside of the topic starter's head, so this topic really needs to be closed.

Aanchir · April 1, 2012

I just wanna say that Bionicle flat-lining after 2005 isn't true. In a (Yahoo, I think?)business report in early 2007, Bionicle ranked #2 among most requested brands among American boys in 2006, and was reported as having double-digit sales growth.

That's confusing, because it contradicts TLG's own annual reports. I can't find any record of this news article you mention, so a link would be helpful if you can find one.This blog entry sums up mention of BIONICLE's sales performance from TLG's annual reports. According to the annual reports, sales "fell by up to 20 percent" in 2003, "did not live up to expectations" in 2005, and "did not show any growth" in 2007. It's possible that there was a spike in its success in 2006, although it's curious that BIONICLE is not mentioned anywhere at all in the 2006 annual report, despite being TLG's top-selling product line in the previous two years. Overall company growth in 2008, 2009, and 2010 is attributed to themes other than BIONICLE, and BIONICLE is not even mentioned in any of those three.So while 2005 may have been a bit early to mark as the "tipping point" between BIONICLE's rise and decline, 2007 definitely showed that BIONICLE's relevance had started slipping, and that trend only continued as the years went on. Edited April 1, 2012 by Aanchir: Rachira of Time

Rarity · April 1, 2012

I just wanna say that Bionicle flat-lining after 2005 isn't true. In a (Yahoo, I think?)business report in early 2007, Bionicle ranked #2 among most requested brands among American boys in 2006, and was reported as having double-digit sales growth.
That's confusing, because it contradicts TLG's own annual reports. I can't find any record of this news article you mention, so a link would be helpful if you can find one.This blog entry sums up mention of BIONICLE's sales performance from TLG's annual reports. According to the annual reports, sales "fell by up to 20 percent" in 2003, "did not live up to expectations" in 2005, and "did not show any growth" in 2007. It's possible that there was a spike in its success in 2006, although it's curious that BIONICLE is not mentioned anywhere at all in the 2006 annual report, despite being TLG's top-selling product line in the previous two years. Overall company growth in 2008, 2009, and 2010 is attributed to themes other than BIONICLE, and BIONICLE is not even mentioned in any of those three.So while 2005 may have been a bit early to mark as the "tipping point" between BIONICLE's rise and decline, 2007 definitely showed that BIONICLE's relevance had started slipping, and that trend only continued as the years went on.

I went back to where I found the news story, and I clicked the link, and Yahoo says it's no longer available. :/

**bonesiii** · April 1, 2012

I love all the discussion this topic has spawned, but would it have a better place in a topic specifically about the likelihood of BIONICLE's eventual return?

The discussion first restarted in a poll where it was off-topic, and I pointed out that whoever wanted could start a topic here where it would on-topic. If that was anyone's concern they had several days to do it, but nobody did. Which tells me most of us feel like I do that the discussion is probably not going to be very fruitful, so might just be a waste of time at this point. And so, this was the first topic on the subject that did come up so this is where the discussion belongs for now. :)So really it probably doesn't matter -- Bionicle's return won't be decided by a debate anyways, but by LEGO's feelings and research on whether it would be worth it to a majority, probably in the fairly distant future.Rarity, could you at least link to the BZP news story? Did our article sum it up? I'd like to see at least some kind of exact quote.

Aanchir's points (which he's raised before on here) IMO throw that into question. For example, what age range did they ask, were they asking "currently available sets" or might many boys have intended their answers like this -- "Oh yeah I remember Bionicle from a few years ago, I liked that"?

Dralcax · April 1, 2012

Well, Sløøf Lirpa of Lego has confirmed that Bionicle will be making a return in 2013.[Leaked content removed]Just kidding! Anyways, It's unlikely that Bionicle will be making a return anytime soon. Bionicle had a flaw, it lacked the ability to inspire later generations. A more episodic Hero Factory was the solution. If Bionicle makes a return, it will likely be very similar to Hero Factory, defeating the purpose.

Edited April 1, 2012 by Chaos Dralcax

**bonesiii** · April 1, 2012

Bionicle had a flaw, it lacked the ability to inspire later generations. A more episodic Hero Factory was the solution. If Bionicle makes a return, it will likely be very similar to Hero Factory, defeating the purpose.

There this is again -- this reads like a contradiction to me. If it's a flaw, it's bad, yes? Then why would fixing the flaw "defeat the purpose"? That implies it was good. Which is it? A return that fixes a problem would serve a good purpose, wouldn't it?Also, can we find a better word than "episodic"?

For example, on my LOST DVDs the menu to watch each show calls them "Episodes" but LOST is clearly cumulative; you need to watch the whole thing in order to properly understand it. "Episode" basically just means one story in a group of stories, in a series, etc. And "serial" is vague too for the same reason.Not sure what word would be best, but "cumulative" probably best describes the opposite.

Edited April 1, 2012 by bonesiii

fishers64 · April 1, 2012

Rarity, could you at least link to the BZP news story? Did our article sum it up? I'd like to see at least some kind of exact quote. Aanchir's points (which he's raised before on here) IMO throw that into question. For example, what age range did they ask, were they asking "currently available sets" or might many boys have intended their answers like this -- "Oh yeah I remember Bionicle from a few years ago, I liked that"?

After some investigative Googling, I uncovered this BZP news story (archive link warning), and this news article. But that's 2006, not 2007. Another source linked that with the defunct Yahoo! article I think Rarity found. The press release link is broken, however.

Corvus · April 1, 2012

When was the last time Bionicle actually brought back one of their own themes (not liscensed like Star Wars) from a long hiatus? I think the current Pirates is a reimagining of a past Pirates theme (although I think the current one got put down by the liscensed POTC stuff) and Power Miners seems like a redesign of the old Rock Raiders.If Bionicle ever returns, I expect it'll be like Power Miners: complete overhaul, rebooted storyline, new name, and dead again pretty soon. I just hope the storyline continues. That's what kept me coming back to Bionicle. I actually like the design of the Hero Factory sets better, but I've stopped buying them because I have no interest in the storyline whatsoever. It's just not as complex as Bionicle's.

Dralcax · April 1, 2012

Bionicle had a flaw, it lacked the ability to inspire later generations. A more episodic Hero Factory was the solution. If Bionicle makes a return, it will likely be very similar to Hero Factory, defeating the purpose.
There this is again -- this reads like a contradiction to me. If it's a flaw, it's bad, yes? Then why would fixing the flaw "defeat the purpose"? That implies it was good. Which is it? A return that fixes a problem would serve a good purpose, wouldn't it?Also, can we find a better word than "episodic"? For example, on my LOST DVDs the menu to watch each show calls them "Episodes" but LOST is clearly cumulative; you need to watch the whole thing in order to properly understand it. "Episode" basically just means one story in a group of stories, in a series, etc. And "serial" is vague too for the same reason.Not sure what word would be best, but "cumulative" probably best describes the opposite.

I mean it defeats the purpose of the revival, because it would be too similar to Hero Factory, unless the flaws were not fixed.

fishers64 · April 1, 2012

Bionicle had a flaw, it lacked the ability to inspire later generations. A more episodic Hero Factory was the solution. If Bionicle makes a return, it will likely be very similar to Hero Factory, defeating the purpose.
There this is again -- this reads like a contradiction to me. If it's a flaw, it's bad, yes? Then why would fixing the flaw "defeat the purpose"? That implies it was good. Which is it? A return that fixes a problem would serve a good purpose, wouldn't it?Also, can we find a better word than "episodic"? For example, on my LOST DVDs the menu to watch each show calls them "Episodes" but LOST is clearly cumulative; you need to watch the whole thing in order to properly understand it. "Episode" basically just means one story in a group of stories, in a series, etc. And "serial" is vague too for the same reason.Not sure what word would be best, but "cumulative" probably best describes the opposite.
I mean it defeats the purpose of the revival, because it would be too similar to Hero Factory, unless the flaws were not fixed.

You mean that bringing Bionicle back now would basically be HF under the Bionicle name?

Lyichir · April 2, 2012

When was the last time Bionicle actually brought back one of their own themes (not liscensed like Star Wars) from a long hiatus? I think the current Pirates is a reimagining of a past Pirates theme (although I think the current one got put down by the liscensed POTC stuff) and Power Miners seems like a redesign of the old Rock Raiders.If Bionicle ever returns, I expect it'll be like Power Miners: complete overhaul, rebooted storyline, new name, and dead again pretty soon. I just hope the storyline continues. That's what kept me coming back to Bionicle. I actually like the design of the Hero Factory sets better, but I've stopped buying them because I have no interest in the storyline whatsoever. It's just not as complex as Bionicle's.

I highlighted that part of your post because it got me thinking about a possibility for BIONICLE's return I had never considered before. What if BIONICLE was rebooted and finished in the course of 1-3 years? What if, rather than trying to reinstate it as the long-runner it was before, LEGO brought it back for a short run? We know LEGO had plans to be able to have Mata Nui awaken and BIONICLE end after the first year, so what's to say that if they brought it back they couldn't stick to something like this plan?Of course, many of the issues with its return would still apply, such as the fact that a new theme could be just as successful, if not moreso. And this type of revival would never satisfy the fans who want it back solely so that the loose ends from the previous series could be wrapped up, or the fans who just wished it would never end in the first place. But it's interesting to ponder how many of the issues that caused BIONICLE's cancellation might never have arisen if the theme's lifespan had better reflected that of typical LEGO themes. A one-year or three-year BIONICLE could have all the mystery and adventure we loved in the theme, without "overstaying its welcome."

**bonesiii** · April 2, 2012

Thanks, fishers, that's what we needed. So, keeping in mind this was before the profit miscalculation was discovered, apparently, it tentatively does look like sales went back up in 2006, stayed relatively constant after that (constantly good), but suffered from the price increase and wasn't growing higher than that. So yes, the old understanding does still look accurate, but what we'd need to know was how much of a bite that miscalculation took out of that accounting. So far I haven't heard details, so I guess the jury's still out, but it looks good for the old understanding. :)And that would also explain why it wasn't mentioned in that year's annual sales report, as it was already announced separately.Edit: And for now, the explanation that seems right is that it still had record sales in 2007 as was originally announced, but the price increase balanced that out to about even with 2006, so there was no profit growth, but it was still selling reasonably well. The miscalculation was known at that time, so if it really wasn't making enough profit they would have ended it in 2008. So yeah, it appears profits remained reasonable through 2007-2009 but just weren't going up to "phenomenal" again, so they decided to shake things up with a change.And if all of this is indeed accurate then it still shows that LEGO can change its mind; the original plan as to when to end Bionicle was when the sets stopped selling, but they realized that criteria wasn't the wisest one, and made a change. Likewise, LEGO now saying Bionicle won't come back (although they really probably mean "anytime soon") doesn't prove it won't; they can change their minds about that too.It -is- still unlikely though. "Wait and see." ^_^

When was the last time Bionicle actually brought back one of their own themes (not liscensed like Star Wars) from a long hiatus?

You mean LEGO? :PAnd yeah, I agree, the one thing I want out of it is for the storyline to continue. I'm leaning most towards learning what the GBs are up to, presumably on one of the other planets Mata Nui discovered. Maybe a worse enemy is there, and maybe we could learn the origin of the EP. That could be done in just two to three years, and then it could plausibly end again. ^_^

I mean it defeats the purpose of the revival, because it would be too similar to Hero Factory, unless the flaws were not fixed.

Why would being more similar to HF be bad? Is this just a personal taste of yours? Or are you saying this from an objective point of view? FTR, when I say "I want a return" that is of course just my perspective. How many agree, plus how many kids who aren't even born who could enjoy it anew, would decide that objectively and that's not measurable. We can't really know if it would work until it was done.

But it definately has good potential still. :)And again, HF basically IS Bionicle renamed anyways. I don't see a problem with doing vice versa eventually. Edited April 2, 2012 by bonesiii

Lyichir · April 2, 2012

I mean it defeats the purpose of the revival, because it would be too similar to Hero Factory, unless the flaws were not fixed.
Why would being more similar to HF be bad? Is this just a personal taste of yours? Or are you saying this from an objective point of view? FTR, when I say "I want a return" that is of course just my perspective. How many agree, plus how many kids who aren't even born who could enjoy it anew, would decide that objectively and that's not measurable. We can't really know if it would work until it was done. But it definately has good potential still. :)And again, HF basically IS Bionicle renamed anyways. I don't see a problem with doing vice versa eventually.

Why do you keep saying Hero Factory is BIONICLE renamed? Hero Factory has a completely different aesthetic, story, universe, and arguably genre. Saying that HF is BIONICLE renamed is like saying that Mars Mission is just Exploriens renamed, because both are minifig-scale Space themes. True, if BIONICLE came back it could be more like Hero Factory. But it hasn't come back, so you have to accept that what BIONICLE was is completely different from what Hero Factory is.

fishers64 · April 2, 2012

I mean it defeats the purpose of the revival, because it would be too similar to Hero Factory, unless the flaws were not fixed.
Why would being more similar to HF be bad? Is this just a personal taste of yours? Or are you saying this from an objective point of view? FTR, when I say "I want a return" that is of course just my perspective. How many agree, plus how many kids who aren't even born who could enjoy it anew, would decide that objectively and that's not measurable. We can't really know if it would work until it was done. But it definately has good potential still. :)And again, HF basically IS Bionicle renamed anyways. I don't see a problem with doing vice versa eventually.
Why do you keep saying Hero Factory is BIONICLE renamed? Hero Factory has a completely different aesthetic, story, universe, and arguably genre. Saying that HF is BIONICLE renamed is like saying that Mars Mission is just Exploriens renamed, because both are minifig-scale Space themes. True, if BIONICLE came back it could be more like Hero Factory. But it hasn't come back, so you have to accept that what BIONICLE was is completely different from what Hero Factory is.

Sadly, I agree with this. Even setwise, the themes are different, with Bionicle sets using technic parts versus the all-ball-joint new building system. Not to mention the obvious storyline differences like biomechanical versus fully robotic characters, heroes going places to protect an already safe and orderly universe versus trying to save a wrecked one, etc. Now granted, Bionicle story could move in a HF-style direction, but it will still have aspects unique to it- like the biomechanical characters, mystery, and so on. I don't think a Bionicle return would ever be like HF completely, and if it is, forget it. You might as well keep HF. There's no point in trying to shove that into Bionicle when it does good on its own, and would only mess up Bionicle if you did.

Aanchir · April 2, 2012

I mean it defeats the purpose of the revival, because it would be too similar to Hero Factory, unless the flaws were not fixed.
Why would being more similar to HF be bad? Is this just a personal taste of yours? Or are you saying this from an objective point of view? FTR, when I say "I want a return" that is of course just my perspective. How many agree, plus how many kids who aren't even born who could enjoy it anew, would decide that objectively and that's not measurable. We can't really know if it would work until it was done. But it definately has good potential still. :)And again, HF basically IS Bionicle renamed anyways. I don't see a problem with doing vice versa eventually.

Saying that Hero Factory is just BIONICLE with a different name is an insult to both themes, in my opinion, because it basically dismisses anything that makes either theme unique as irrelevant. I say this as a lover of both themes. BIONICLE was more than just a story-driven action figure theme, just as Hero Factory is today, but there are essential details that make them very different indeed. BIONICLE was heavily driven by ongoing, multi-year mysteries, which are for the most part absent from Hero Factory. BIONICLE also had loads of characters versus Hero Factory's close-knit team of main characters with a few supporting characters and occasional side characters, as opposed to BIONICLE which had a huge number of characters who were extremely relevant to the story. BIONICLE's story was heavily quest-based, moving towards distant and impressive goals, whereas Hero Factory's is mission-based, focusing on individual, routine assignments. BIONICLE had intense world-building with lots of maps and details established throughout each wave. In Hero Factory new locations and other details are only introduced when they become relevant, and there are no maps or timelines. The sets are even vastly different-- while it can be argued that the new building system was just a continuation of the trend BIONICLE was already progressing through, even the 2010 sets that lacked the new building system were stylistically different than BIONICLE sets, with a greater emphasis on smooth, solid surfaces as opposed to BIONICLE's more framework-like and texture-intensive part designs.I've encountered at least a few BIONICLE fans right here on BZPower who feel they've been pressured to accept Hero Factory even though they don't like it. It's this sort of dismissive attitude that is probably the cause of at least some of their grief. Ignoring the differences between the two themes devalues them both, so it's no surprise it's an attitude I see as much or more among haters of action figure themes in general (the same sorts of people who feel that every year of BIONICLE sets was the same) as among those who love the two themes equally.If BIONICLE and Hero Factory really were the same thing with different names, then I'd probably be among those people who have difficulty understanding why BIONICLE went away and why there are no plans to bring it back. I'd also find it hard to understand any reasons but age that made it necessary for the BIONICLE brand to be retired. But TLG's writers and designers who worked on both themes aren't under that delusion. They recognized that a new theme would offer opportunities for new ideas that would be hard to incorporate into an existing theme without breaking from that theme's established rules and traditions. And I imagine that they'd be a bit frustrated if nobody saw any differences between the set designs and storytelling styles of the two themes besides the names and terminology used.

**bonesiii** · April 2, 2012

Why do you keep saying Hero Factory is BIONICLE renamed? Hero Factory has a completely different aesthetic, story, universe, and arguably genre. Saying that HF is BIONICLE renamed is like saying that Mars Mission is just Exploriens renamed, because both are minifig-scale Space themes. True, if BIONICLE came back it could be more like Hero Factory. But it hasn't come back, so you have to accept that what BIONICLE was is completely different from what Hero Factory is.

Sadly, I agree with this. Even setwise, the themes are different, with Bionicle sets using technic parts versus the all-ball-joint new building system.Not to mention the obvious storyline differences like biomechanical versus fully robotic characters, heroes going places to protect an already safe and orderly universe versus trying to save a wrecked one, etc.Now granted, Bionicle story could move in a HF-style direction, but it will still have aspects unique to it- like the biomechanical characters, mystery, and so on. I don't think a Bionicle return would ever be like HF completely, and if it is, forget it. You might as well keep HF. There's no point in trying to shove that into Bionicle when it does good on its own, and would only mess up Bionicle if you did.

In what sense are you two analyzing this? It comes across as just your personal tastes. I'm talking about objectively. We know that LEGO tends to use a theme, then move on to a new one when it gets old, and occasionally on to a "new to the new kids" classic returning in a new way. There is a point, thus, at least to ending HF eventually as it may suffer from getting too old just as Bionicle does. Maybe not, but we can't assume HF will stick around forever.I agree, that in our (old fans') personal tastes a Bionicle return would likely be a significant change from the old Bionicle. But since when has that ever been a criterion in Bionicle not to do something? Most debates from year to year centered around people who liked the changes and those who didn't. Change is, I would argue, in fact an essential ingredient of Bionicle. :)Also, again, set differences are irrelevant here because the sets were changed in various ways throughout Bionicle's span too. The main reason the new changes didn't happen under Bionicle is simply that Bionicle had ended. And the sets aren't universally different; fishers, you mentioned Technic parts, but the villains and larger sets of HF still have those.Bionicle even had System sets, lol.Also, again, both HF and Bionicle are robot-like heroes with elemental powers that fight bad guys with powers. It's the same genre. And LEGO has directly compared the two when it launched HF.Aanchir, why should it be insulting to honestly observe that Bionicle and HF are essentially the same thing? Of course, since they are both intended as separate themes, some details (like the basic idea that they're two separate universes) will be intentionally different. But when you look at the basic formulas, they are the same.And I really don't like the idea that making accurate observations should evoke a negative emotional response (seeing it as insulting for example) and then using that to try to disprove it. If the idea is accurate then it should not be seen negatively. Even if it was inaccurate, the proper response would be to point out why, not to have a negative emotion. Emotions have their place, but this whole thing we're talking about, of LEGO, is about entertainment anyways, so focusing on negatives like that doesn't make sense to me.As for depth and number of cast, etc. Bionicle has varied in all those regards from year to year and story to story, etc. If there was any universal rule to "what Bionicle is", it has always been that it experimented and adapted and changed, never limiting itself to just what you're used to.Also, I quite simply cannot relate to anyone feeling "pressure" or "grief" because of what any other fan does or says, related to a LEGO line. Your like and dislike of what LEGO does is between you and LEGO. We're supposed to be discussing objectively the end and possibility of a return of Bionicle here. I get the use of saying you would like or dislike something, but not making it sound like there could be serious negative psychological repercussions. They're just toys and fiction -- all entertainment. Such attitudes miss the point IMO. Edited April 3, 2012 by bonesiii

fishers64 · April 3, 2012

@bones:All I'm saying is that Bionicle and Hero Factory are different in more than name. The story is different, the characters are different, and so on. But I think you mean Lego's view, correct? If Bionicle continued there would have been the same changes as the ones HF made, only under the Bionicle name?It seems like you are. You're right; such changes could have been implemented, but it would have been more difficult; that's probably why they scrapped it and built HF; if they put Bionicle through those changes, the old fans would have hated those changes and ran off, and no new kids would have came in because it was Bionicle. That's called a no-win situation. Time may change that. We'll see.

Edited April 3, 2012 by fishers64

**bonesiii** · April 3, 2012

Yes, they're different. What I mean by "essentially" Bionicle renamed is that the basic formula of it is the same, not that it's totally the same of course. And it's the superficial things that are the same. On a deep level Bionicle was quite different.And yes, LEGO / majority fans that LEGO is trying to appeal to.

Aanchir · April 3, 2012

Even if BIONICLE changed a lot over its lifetime, I think that Hero Factory still has profound differences in storytelling from any year of BIONICLE. Again, the BIONICLE story was heavily driven by mysteries and quests, while Hero Factory's story occurs on a mission-by-mission basis with no overarching mythology pushing the story forward.Now, Ninjago demonstrates that this sort of interconnectedness to the storyline can still work, so it's possible that BIONICLE wouldn't have to imitate Hero Factory 100% if it were to return. And in that case, this concern could be largely irrelevant. However, I still feel rather frustrated hearing Hero Factory and BIONICLE treated as one and the same. Some people can enjoy both for the things they have in common, and some people can enjoy both for the things that make them unique, but there are many fans who are quite justified in not being able to accept Hero Factory as a substitute for BIONICLE, because the things they look for in sets or a story might not be present in Hero Factory the way they were in BIONICLE.Everything boils down to details, but which details are important will vary from fan to fan. And I'm sure "six characters with elemental powers who fight bad guys with powers" has hardly a thing to do with why a lot of fans liked BIONICLE. In fact, aside from the number six, that's an extremely generic story model that could apply to everything from the Golden Sun series of video games to the TV show Xiaolin Showdown. Even LEGO Ninjago fits this extremely loose story model. And yet nobody would claim that any of these franchises was essentially the same as BIONICLE, even if one of them happened to have a buildable action figure toy.So the "basic formula" being the same doesn't really amount to anything. This superficial similarity also starts to fall apart when you realize that the new heroes Evo, Nex, and Rocka have no elemental powers and the 2012 sets break the "six to a team" formula. Suddenly, the "basic formula" of the Hero Factory theme is "good guys with powers fight bad guys with powers", which could describe pretty much any super hero franchise ever. Are Hero Factory and Megaman then essentially the same?I didn't mean to imply that BIONICLE fans who feel pressured to like Hero Factory have serious psychological/emotional issues as a result; I was using the term "grief" to mean "frustration" rather than "depression/mourning". And that sort of frustration can come from what other fans say. Even if Hero Factory has a lot of things in common with BIONICLE, that doesn't make it any less frustrating to hear them treated as one and the same if one of the things that separated the two in terms of storytelling happened to be what drew you to either theme.

**bonesiii** · April 3, 2012

Even if BIONICLE changed a lot over its lifetime, I think that Hero Factory still has profound differences in storytelling from any year of BIONICLE. Again, the BIONICLE story was heavily driven by mysteries and quests, while Hero Factory's story occurs on a mission-by-mission basis with no overarching mythology pushing the story forward.

Again, this is intentional. As I said, these radical changes could have been "spent" on Bionicle, but since it still would suffer from the oldness problem, it would have been wasteful to do that. It was better to combine these more radical changes with a brand new theme and get maximum effect.But now that the changes have happened, the LEGO fanbase is more used to it, and this shift in expectations would, neccessarily affect a Bionicle return. Also, don't forget that I'm mainly talking about a "parent buying for kid" effect, in which the parents will not expect the sets to personally please them the same way they used to, but will think of it as being for their kids. In that sense it's probably essential that a Bionicle return be quite different, at least setwise. We all know kids usually want to see things as different for their generation than what their parents were used to. Simpler story can also factor into that.But I do agree a return should have a backdrop of mystery, etc.

That's why I think probably going to wherever the GBs are could be the best option, as it would continue a thread from old story without bringing forward old characters or locations (per se), so could be almost totally an "explore new place" approach like 2001. Really, if they only spend two to three years on it as I propose they should, it needn't be that much different from Hero Factory's story. HF has explored mysteries over one year. Bionicle over ten -- this would be more in the middle.

However, I still feel rather frustrated hearing Hero Factory and BIONICLE treated as one and the same.

But I didn't say that. Why are you putting words in my mouth?

Probably you're just responding to things you've seen others say. I don't know that I have seen anyone saying that, though. Maybe you're just missing the words like "essentially".

They are in the same genre. That's intentional by LEGO. But that does NOT, of course, make them one and the same.That said, again, everything HF did is fully within the range of things Bionicle had, and if they HAD wanted to "waste the new ideas in an old line", robots, factories, elemental powers, robotic bad guys with powers, etc. all could fit, at least as one of the other planets Mata Nui might have visited. Nothing in HF is beyond the scope of Bionicle's style (there were some pure robots in Bionicle, for example). Even the year-limit mission-style storytelling could have been "wasted" as "the new Bionicle." But of course the central problem with that is it would hamper the "new factor", so it was wisely not done. :)Also, you worded the formula more generically than I did. Lemme rephrase it again to be more clear.It's large-scale pieces, balljoints, representing robotic (or biomechanical which most fans mistook for robots anyways, but again some Bionicle sets did rep robots) heroes with elemental powers, fighting villain robots with powers. It's not just characters but specifically robots made with balljoints. It's even fighting villain robots who are being at least a little mysterious, at least at the start of their introductions. And these heroes do this to protect the similarly robotic civilians.Both Bionicle's plot and HF's plot are built on this same skeleton. They build in different ways, and Bionicle goes much deeper, also centering it around the giant robot as a mystery, while HF centers it around a giant factory that is no secret (but might contain some I guess). Still, in their essentials they are the same. :)And so far only Bionicle and HF have fit this pattern exactly, though Slizers comes close, and Superheroes kinda. In fact, IMO a big reason Hero Factory was invented was so they could remove the obscurity of the word "Toa" which you had to learn about the story to know meant "Hero", so they could just call them "Heroes" and cut to the chase. It's that aspect of the story that probably excites target-age boys the most, so HF's naming strategy may very well have a stronger positive effect on sales than "Bionicle." :)Edit: Two more things.One, amend the above that there -is- one thing HF did that Bionicle had a rule against which was human-world crossovers. But that isn't central to the plot and might not be canon. Still, that is one thing that doesn't quite fit Bionicle, although the Piraka rap videos came close.Second, let say this a different way -- it's the wrong approach, IMO, when you see other fans enjoying and remarking on how similar HF and Bionicle are, to turn that positive for them into a negative for you. Do you see what I'm driving at?That attitude comes across as trying to impose your tastes on others. It comes across as saying "you're not allowed to enjoy this, because I don't enjoy it". Getting frustrated that others have a different taste reaction to something than you is truly pointless, is it not? And as I have shown before, it is good that we are different from each other, for society's benefit. But let's not go too far down that tangent right now. How I really wanna say it is what I said at the very beginning of HF:If, for you, seeing HF as Bionicle continued gives you pleasure, then keep the good and ignore the bad, because this is entertainment, and feel free to see them as essentially the same thing. :)If, on the other hand, for you, focusing on their differences is what gives you pleasure due to your tastes, keep the good, ignore the bad, because it's still entertainment (getting "frustrated" is not the point!), and feel free to see them as different.I stand by that statement, because entertainment is in fact very subjective. Notice, though, that both ways of looking at it are really just two sides of the same coin. In both, it has similarities and differences, and in both, the two have a wider range of similarities to just each other compared to any other LEGO line, but in both, there is of course more besides those similarities in them.And again, it is very important, both in life in general and on a discussion forum where you will encounter different perspectives, to respect and appreciate different tastes. Getting frustrated at others liking different aspects of it than you is not only pointless, it's basically the opposite of how I think we should respond. I think we should be thrilled to encounter different perspectives! ^_^

I don't want to come on here and find a bunch of bones clones. What would be the point? I already know what I think. I come here hoping to learn more about others. :)Yeah?Of course, this very fact means that we can disagree, discuss our disagreements, and explore them, possibly even coming to agreements. We can help each other enjoy LEGO better sometimes, and sometimes we can come to objective conclusions too which can also help our enjoyment. But the attitude we have towards the process should be positive. We should never use our reading of others' perspectives to harm our own enjoyment of entertainment, at least IMO. (And yes, it is you choosing to use your observing of their posts that way. It is NOT them harming your entertainment. They are expressing their opinion as they have every right to on a discussion forum, as long as they follow the rules.

)In fact, if someone did tell me that they saw the two as in fact one and the same, it would not at all ruin my enjoyment of them or make me frustrated or whatever. I would know what my own perspective is, and I would understand that that is their perspective.Hope this helps, heh. ^_^

Edited April 3, 2012 by bonesiii

Aanchir · April 3, 2012

Thanks for your in-depth reply. I suppose you're right in saying that Hero Factory's sets and storyline foundation aren't outside of what BIONICLE could have done, although I think they'd have been ill-suited to the universe BIONICLE established. Part of the reason Hero Factory moved in the direction it did is because the writers and designers recognized and exercised the new freedoms that came with a new name. And that includes the freedom to let go of older ideas, unlike the changes that occurred in BIONICLE which simply painted a new layer of ideas over previous ones.The reason it upsets me to hear Hero Factory treated as BIONICLE under a different name is that it ignores the differences between them. And I'm not just reading that in the opinions of people who like both themes. I'm also reading that in the opinions of people who hate both themes and, ironically, also consider the differences in the themes inconsequential. Saying the themes were different is simply to acknowledge a reality, whether or not you consider the differences important. Saying they were the same, even "essentially" the same, involves disregarding those differences. If I said two people were "essentially" the same, even if they were similar in many ways, I'd be doing a disservice to both of them-- even if I meant it as a compliment and liked the things they had in common. I say this from experience, being an identical twin. :PNow if you said Hero Factory and BIONICLE were essentially similar, then that would be perfectly acceptable, just like if you said my brother and I are similar. But "sameness" is an absolute, and speaking in absolutes doesn't promote healthy discussion, even if you throw in qualifiers like "essentially" to soften the blow. Much less when you say one is essentially the other renamed as you did in your original comment. In that statement, the "essentially" is largely irrelevant, because something can't be half-renamed or one-quarter-renamed. The statement remains an absolute.I don't mind when people happen to consider the parts of the themes that were similar important to both, but the similarities aren't just a matter of a new name being put on an existing idea. Hero Factory, after all, was developed from the ground up. Some of the design characteristics were the same, but a new building that borrows design characteristics from older buildings is still a new and unique building unto itself. It wasn't a matter of taking an old building, renaming it, and "dressing it up a bit" to suit modern sensibilities.

**bonesiii** · April 3, 2012

Now if you said Hero Factory and BIONICLE were essentially similar, then that would be perfectly acceptable, just like if you said my brother and I are similar. But "sameness" is an absolute, and speaking in absolutes doesn't promote healthy discussion, even if you throw in qualifiers like "essentially" to soften the blow. Much less when you say one is essentially the other renamed as you did in your original comment. In that statement, the "essentially" is largely irrelevant, because something can't be half-renamed or one-quarter-renamed. The statement remains an absolute.

To the first sentence in this quote, fair enough. :PBut to the last two sentences, I can't agree. Notice what you did is to say that it's an absolute because you're ignoring the part that makes it not an absolute. You could turn any statement into an absolute that way. And when I use "maybes and mosts", the word choice is usually (lol) intentional, so no, you shouldn't ignore them, at least in my posts.

It's actually a philosophy of mine I've been planning to do a blog entry about (and plan to soon in fact).Anywho, what I meant was simply that they're very similar, HF is largely within the same style as Bionicle, and the basic formula that was used in Bionicle was used again under a new name.And really, if I may tangent into semantics-land for a tick-tock, you could in a sense say they ARE the same rename, since both accept wide variety anyways, plus the core formula's the same. I could see that being said. And again, if it pleases someone to see it that way, IMO more power to them. I don't see them as exactly the same personally, but that's probably just because I personally put limits on what is one and what is the other because that's how I enjoy them better myself. How is it right to get upset, were someone to do that? It's their tastes and if they don't see any of the differences as definitive to separate the two -- but rather as valid within both, since both have differences between different parts of them anyways -- then what is wrong with it?In fact, some members have said that in their "head-canon" (if I may borrow a term someone recently used in another subject) they see HF and Bionicle as in the same universe. And that to me makes sense, although canonically they are not. For the most part they could be. If people want to see them that way -- especially since it's just entertainment anyways -- why not?Or put it this way -- you say you get upset because you think some people are ignoring differences. I say, you shouldn't get upset because they ignore differences. Or embrace them, or whatever. Why should that upset you? It's their tastes, not yours.Finally, no, saying two entertainment franchises are the same would not be equivalent to saying two people are the same. People are not entertainment. Unlike entertainment, people don't exist simply to entertain people. For the most part, entertainment is purely subjective, all about pleasing tastes, but people are a completely different... erm, yeah, they're just totally not comparable. People and entertainment are so different from each other I can't even think of a category word to put them both in lol. :PAnd if I might get a little psychobabblist on you (kudos if you get the allusion

), have you considered that you might be a little oversensitive to the idea of similarity or even sameness by virtue of being a twin? :)Edit: And BTW, you were kinda begging the question just in how you worded that "soften the blow" part, as if stating that they are similar is somehow an attack. Why should it be a blow at all? It's simply an accurate observation. I see that philosophy a lot, that "maybes" are to be ignored because they are just softening something, but I disagree strongly with it. For one thing, it blinds you to the fact that in real life there actually are "mosts" and "somes" and stuff -- reality is rarely absolute.(Sometimes it is.

)Edit2: This is so ironic, lol. I just re-re-re-rewatched Across the Sea, the third to last episode of LOST, the Jacob flashback one. If you aren't familiar with LOST, there's a mysterious island and there are human protectors of the island with magical powers and such (I'm making it sound sillier than it is though lol). One time on the show when Jacob (protector throughout most of the show although the main characters don't even hear his name until midway through) makes someone else the protector, he says, "now you're like me." (That's in the next episode after Across the Sea.)But in Across the Sea, the former protector (known only as Mother) tells Jacob, "now we're the same." Did she mean they were the same person? No, obviously not. But she means it as a synonym of "like me". "The same in this way."Lesson? Semantics is a lot more complicated than it might seem at first glance.

And in general, thus, I would advise not getting upset at anyone's semantic choice of words but rather trying to understand better (if it confuses you) what they meant by it. ^_^

(That said, there's certainly a place also for advising better wordings, as I do sometimes. But my point is, don't let wordings get to you so easily, yanno?)BTW, let's not forget that Bionicle already did the same sort of thing as the HF changes in the 2009 move. We went from a rule of protodermic artificial biomechanical with inherent powers (the tool is just the focus) to usually powerless, naturally biological with implants, normal matter, and tools with powers, as well as countless other fundamental changes between the Matoran Universe and Bara Magna. True, the storytelling style remained very similar, etc. But IMO this obliterated the idea that Bionicle only tells stories about certain types of beings and settings and the like. The HF change is more extreme simply because of its scope -- countless worlds, more like Star Wars in that sense, but it's still a change that is foreseeable within the Bionicle that was established.Furthermore, who are we to say what potential Bionicle could have had if it could have continued? It even went into alternate universes, often radically different. It may be a fallacy to look merely at where a story has been and mistake that for the limit of where it can go.Food for thought anyhow.

Edited April 4, 2012 by bonesiii

Aanchir · April 4, 2012

I still feel saying Hero Factory is essentially BIONICLE "renamed" when they were developed independent of one another really feels like it's undervaluing the work that went into making Hero Factory. Making a new theme is different than just making a new year for an existing theme. With an existing theme there already exists a foundation for the sets and story, whereas with a new theme the foundation has to be built from scratch-- even if some of the "ingredients" are borrowed from existing themes.How does the word essentially make "X is essentially Y renamed" not an absolute? Sure, that's what the word is intended for, but it doesn't work in that context, because as I explained something can't be half-renamed from something else. Unless the essentially was supposed to mean "BIONICLE renamed, but there's more to it than that", but that still assumes that it was BIONICLE renamed at some point in development, which it wasn't.To make a more fitting comparison than my last one, if I were to say I'm essentially my grandfather renamed, then I'd still be wrong. While I have lots of things in common with my grandfather and am following in his footsteps in lots of ways, no "renaming", not even a "half-renaming", ever happened in any way, shape, or form. If I were to say I'm similar to my grandfather, then that's far more open to discussion. Perhaps even "essentially the same" is not so bad a comparison and I overstated my argument in my original reply. But your original comment didn't say "essentially the same", it said "essentially BIONICLE renamed", and that's the sort of sentiment that I really take issue with.I don't feel like you're attacking me at all by saying the themes are essentially the same. But I would feel a blow if you said I was essentially the same as someone else, whoever that was, and so "soften the blow" is used figuratively to explain the situation from the theme's hypothetical (because it is not, in fact, a conscious entity) perspective. If I were to use your term "maybes and mosts" instead, then perhaps that would have been better word choice. The point, though, is that the word "essentially" doesn't make any meaningful difference in the context of "X is Y renamed."As for the psychobabble, the whole twin thing didn't even occur to me until I was making that post, I just used it to reinforce the comparison. If there is some kind of connection there, it is 100% subconscious. I would appreciate if you didn't try to read psychology into this discussion at all in the future, because I find that kind of suggestion somewhat insulting, even if it wasn't meant as an insult. If there's any psychological angle to this at all it's that I have great sympathy for designers and dislike to hear the actual process/effort of designing something trivialized no matter what opinions people have of the end result. And implying that the whole process of creating a brand-new theme is essentially just renaming an old one does exactly that.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Aanchir: Rachira of Time

A Plausible Rumor...

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment