blogs_blog_517

Heh, probably the reason people are assuming this is because, well, it has kind of happened before. Before the Mask of Light movie, Takua was definitely NOT going to turn into Takanuva... until the movie came out and proved he did. Makuta was NOT the main bad guy in 2004... until the movie twist where he had been impersonating Dume the entire time. So I can see the logic behind members thinking that Lego is saying that the two canons are NOT connected... until the eventually big reveal which shows that they are. Thus Lego, in an attempt to keep things from getting spoiled, may have lied to us!

 

Granted, the first two examples were sourced to Greg answering our questions, and he probably worded his answers vaguely enough that we misinterpreted them, so as such he wasn’t “lying” as much as “misleading.” But he has used that before to explain other canon contradictions before. (The example that pops to mind is Avak saying the Brotherhood gave him his powers in one book, then another book shows that he had no relation to them at all. The canon reason: he was lying in the first book.)

 

Not saying your argument here is wrong (yeah, irrefutable proof should be good enough for folks) but I just wanted to explain why some might see it as a valid point. Anyway, this is why head-canon is better.

 

For the 1001th time, Lego has not ruled out a explicit connection between G1 and G2 more than "it's inspired" stuff. So if they have an explicit connection, they aren't lying. 

 

A reboot simply means that they aren't directly continuing the old story - they are starting a new one. That doesn't mean that the new one cannot intersect with the old one at some point. 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

However, I have already stated my position on this already, and see no need to continue fighting it every single time you bring it up in a connection topic. It's pretty clear that you're not going to change your opinion no matter what anyone else says, so I see little point in continuing to post it.

 

I suggest leaving the "pro-connection" people alone. They are not going to suffer any injury by keeping an open mind - except maybe a little disappointment when it doesn't happen. However, closing your mind to the fact that it could happen, that it is a possibility, could leave you mad later.

 

A G1-G2 connection is possible. I've heard evidence from you and from others that renders the idea rather unlikely, but not impossibility as you keep on espousing. And what I've found in general is having an attachment to one outcome (no explicit G1-G2 connection, in this case) is a bad practice because if an explicit G1-G2 connection DOES happen, you are setting yourself up for a humiliating disappointment.

 

I've done that before, and it's no good.    

But he has used that before to explain other canon contradictions before. (The example that pops to mind is Avak saying the Brotherhood gave him his powers in one book, then another book shows that he had no relation to them at all. The canon reason: he was lying in the first book.)

 

Actually, Greg was lying in that answer. The Avaks in the two books are two different Avaks and they were both telling the truth. There are in fact hundreds of different Avaks who swap places during every scene change. The other characters don't acknowledge this because it's just a normal thing that happens in their world that they take for granted. Some Avaks got their powers from the Brotherhood. Some Avaks got their powers from Princess Unikitty. Some Avaks got their powers from a radioactive spider. Some Avaks don't even have powers and just have to hope they don't show up in a scene where they need to use them.

 

If we assume Greg lies (and not just gets things wrong that he later has to contradict/retcon), then this theory can never be disproved. That's exactly the problem with theories that assume the storyteller is lying about the story — which are completely different than theories that assume a CHARACTER is lying.

For the 1001th time, Lego has not ruled out a explicit connection between G1 and G2 more than "it's inspired" stuff. So if they have an explicit connection, they aren't lying. 

 

A reboot simply means that they aren't directly continuing the old story - they are starting a new one. That doesn't mean that the new one cannot intersect with the old one at some point. 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

However, I have already stated my position on this already, and see no need to continue fighting it every single time you bring it up in a connection topic. It's pretty clear that you're not going to change your opinion no matter what anyone else says, so I see little point in continuing to post it.

 

I suggest leaving the "pro-connection" people alone. They are not going to suffer any injury by keeping an open mind - except maybe a little disappointment when it doesn't happen. However, closing your mind to the fact that it could happen, that it is a possibility, could leave you mad later.

 

A G1-G2 connection is possible. I've heard evidence from you and from others that renders the idea rather unlikely, but not impossibility as you keep on espousing. And what I've found in general is having an attachment to one outcome (no explicit G1-G2 connection, in this case) is a bad practice because if an explicit G1-G2 connection DOES happen, you are setting yourself up for a humiliating disappointment.

 

I've done that before, and it's no good.    

 

I haven't "closed my mind" to anything, and in fact I stated no more than two blog entries ago what I would like a connection to be like, if it were to happen. But I was there at New York Comic Con when we were told that it was a reboot and to put those connection theories aside, and I trusted them enough to do so. Now, it is possible that they'll connect the two stories and I will end up disappointed, but only if they do it in a truly disappointing way (such as some of the theories that G2 is all a dream/illusion/whathaveyou to test the Toa, or other ones that backload all of the classic story's faults into the new story by making the new story reliant on the overwhelming and confusing original canon).

 

The post that inspired this post was inanely trying to argue that Lego was trying to deny a connection between the two stories, and that the G1 Easter eggs proved otherwise. That's stupid, because the whole POINT of easter eggs is to feature subtle shout-outs and cameos for dedicated fans—an Easter egg from G1 literally proves nothing one way or the other. Things like hidden picture-style images of the classic Kanohi Vahi should be considered metatextual winks and nods, not as evidence of some grand conspiracy, especially when we were told to expect such nods to the classic theme beforehand.

 

This blog entry was based solely on the more general "XYZ is lying to us" concept I see (and also saw back in the day, when people would argue, like you have, that Greg would lie to fans when in fact one of the things he was very good at was obscuring the truth through vague or misleading answers that were still technically true). It's true that things like that do happen in other fan communities, such as J.J. Abrams' insistence that a certain character in his second Star Trek movie was NOT Khan when in fact they were. And if such a thing were to happen in Bionicle, then, like in that scenario, fans should view it as nothing less than a cheap and careless attempt to mislead them, and a betrayal of their trust. But that hasn't happened yet, and until those representatives of the franchise DO betray the fans' trust, any theory that explicitly contradicts their statements should be treated with extreme skepticism.

The post that inspired this post was inanely trying to argue that Lego was trying to deny a connection between the two stories, and that the G1 Easter eggs proved otherwise. That's stupid, because the whole POINT of easter eggs is to feature subtle shout-outs and cameos for dedicated fans—an Easter egg from G1 literally proves nothing one way or the other. Things like hidden picture-style images of the classic Kanohi Vahi should be considered metatextual winks and nods, not as evidence of some grand conspiracy, especially when we were told to expect such nods to the classic theme beforehand.

And my point to that is that we don't know whether these things are merely metatextual winks or evidence of a connection.

 

Bionicle has given us "hints to something greater" before. Some of the statements at NYCC suggest that they are merely easter eggs, and some suggest that they aren't. Nothing definitive has truly been stated on that as of yet.

 

This blog entry was based solely on the more general "XYZ is lying to us" concept I see (and also saw back in the day, when people would argue, like you have, that Greg would lie to fans when in fact one of the things he was very good at was obscuring the truth through vague or misleading answers that were still technically true).

I never argued this.

 

The post that inspired this post was inanely trying to argue that Lego was trying to deny a connection between the two stories, and that the G1 Easter eggs proved otherwise. That's stupid, because the whole POINT of easter eggs is to feature subtle shout-outs and cameos for dedicated fans—an Easter egg from G1 literally proves nothing one way or the other. Things like hidden picture-style images of the classic Kanohi Vahi should be considered metatextual winks and nods, not as evidence of some grand conspiracy, especially when we were told to expect such nods to the classic theme beforehand.

And my point to that is that we don't know whether these things are merely metatextual winks or evidence of a connection.

 

Bionicle has given us "hints to something greater" before. Some of the statements at NYCC suggest that they are merely easter eggs, and some suggest that they aren't. Nothing definitive has truly been stated on that as of yet.

 

This blog entry was based solely on the more general "XYZ is lying to us" concept I see (and also saw back in the day, when people would argue, like you have, that Greg would lie to fans when in fact one of the things he was very good at was obscuring the truth through vague or misleading answers that were still technically true).

I never argued this.

 

The reason I took issue with their post wasn't because they thought the Easter eggs might hint at a connection. It was because they were insisting that the Easter eggs proved there was a connection, which is ridiculous. This blog entry is not addressing that issue, but is just the result of post-hoc ruminations.

 

My bad about the accusation about Greg. Your post and XCCJ's got mixed up in my head.

Just gonna chime in on one thing...

 

It's not like they haven't totally changed their mind on things in the past. Even other than that Avak example, there's the whole Macku/Hewkii relationship that effectively got retconned for little reason when it was said that romance didn't exist.