WorkbenchManiac

I got that piece out of this set.

I used two of these pieces. This is the back without the boomerangs: The right connector can be flipped down to smooth out the back when the boomerangs are in use.

I really love the design of Pohatu, the slight asymmetry, the slightly shorter, stocky build, it just all combinies into an awesome toy. But his shoulders seem to be placed a little low on his torso, compared to his chestplate. So I started tinkering a bit, with the goal to keep as much of the original aesthetic as possible. Pohatu lost his gear function, but gained more range of motion in his shoulders and weapon storage on his back. He can even reach back and grasp his boomerang while it is still on his back, but of course I forgot to actually snap a picture of that. Here is a comparison between Pohatu's new proportions and his original self. Or at least a colorful represantation made out of spare parts. Meet Gaudius, Master of Comparisons (His mask power seems to be color coordination). The shoulders have moved up by 1M. Their breadth also increased by 1M. The neck has been slightly extended as well. Nonfunctional gears try to give the impression of trapezius muscles. What do you think?

Thanks for the explanations. I think I'll have a go at the MNOG myself. Might be fun.

Very nice, I like the inclusion of play functionality. The wide hips and skeletal lower legs also works very well, invoking a somewhat avian appearance. I also think the light translucent blue might be preferrable to regular translucent blue, it lightens the color scheme and gives a warm /cold contrast to the translucent orange, as well as a light/ dark contrast to the black pieces used. Overall a really nice model.

I appreciate the kind words. You have a point regarding the greens. Maybe I'll try and cut back on the lime green. Is the difference in between Jaga and Rama in the colors? Please excuse my ignorance, I am a recent "convert", the great new toys enthralling me. I knew it was a name with "F"! Thanks. And it is exactly the same as the original, but like I said, it's a great little build, and I liked it enough to simply copy it. I have to agree, although I was going for a more "prehistoric anapsid" inspired look. They are posable, too. A very simple build: Thank you. That's very good to hear, since me tinkering with critters is largely your fault to begin with. Cheers! The color issues (the greens, the orange-ish red) are most likely a result of me still trying to find the best settings for the camera and this specific setup. My usual lightbox is too small for these models, so I had to improvise. The cardboard background being nearly the same color as the dark tan brcks did not help either.

Initially inspired by the excellent Wildlife of Okoto topic and then going on to take a look at the original Rahi, I just had to build some critters myself. Featuring a large, herbivorous quadruped, with a heavily armor plated back for defense, and the ability to retract its head when it feels threatened. This beast is impervious to all but the fiercest predators of Okoto. It still needs a name, though. Any ideas? An old spider Rahi (I can't remember the name at this moment) impressend me with its simple but very effective build, so I replicated it. Not much of a MOC, but I like the look of the model. I envision this Rahi not as a spider, but rather as antlike. Living in hives of up to 30 or more individuals, these Rahi are not fully eusocial, but form a loose hive-like community. Then there is the Ussal crab. This little feller feeds on plant material and relies on its tough exoskeleton for protection. When startled it can run laterally with surprising speed. From what I understand, the Ussal crab has been a perennial staple of Bionicle, and I can see why. And a close-up of the flying Nui Rama (or is it a Nui Jaga? I don't know...) This predatory Rahi relies on its grasping claws to seize its prey. This creature is often falsely believed to be venomous, based on the appearance of the large ovipositor. The truth is even more ghastly: The Nui Rama lies its eggs within still living Rahi, where the larva then develop, comsuimg the host creature from the inside. I hope you enjoyed these images, because I had a blast putting the models together.

It is what DecepticonWarrior insists on calling it, yes.

Judging from the sets I snatched up lately to pilfer for parts, I have to agree completely. The only figure I actually really liked was the core hunter (or is that his proper name?). Although there was a lot of improvement evident over the course of the line. Storywise I can't judge, don't know, don't care. I really am more about the plastic.

Great stuff. How about putting out parts lists, so we might build them IRL?

Regarding coolest villain, I always liked the lanky look of the Rahkshi (sic?). The huge feet with those long legs just tickled me the right way. The heads still look decent today.

I really appreciate all the friendly advice, thank you. I am not particularly keen on delving into Bionicle's storyline (honestly rather reluctant), but your enthusiastic way of sharing your passion is quite infectious. I'll poke around the web a bit, try various related pieces of media, heeding your advice, who knows, there might be a hidden gem. Again, thanks!

I'd like to clarify that me not wanting to read Animorphs anymore is not due to the content at all, but because the prose is aimed at a younger audience. It made it a good choice for me to read when I was still learning english at age 11 (I'm not a native speaker, cheers from Germany!), because it was accessible to my younger self, not overwhelming me with complex sentences or uncommon vocabulary. But nowadays such fare is a bit tedious to read. No age snobbery intended. Also, very good points in the rest of your post.

No, I have not read much of the old story. I imagine reading a Bionicle book to be quite harrowing, since it's probably not aimed at my reading level, the same way I would not pick up a book of, say, "Animorphs" anymore. It would be interesting if anyone here would actually recommend them as literature in their own right, to someone not particularly invested in the Bionicle story. In other words: Are they good reads? I have seen the movies, although only recently. Suffice to say, I was not impressed by the storytelling. But then I am far out of hte target demographic. Furthermore, my comparison regarding the intended age ranges was only between the 2001 and 2015 sets. To be honest, I don't even know what a Piraka is, nor do I have any particular desire to find out. I looked up an image, and the toys did not appeal to me at all. But I did take a gander at their packaging, and their recommended age range is 7-16. I would conclude from this, that teenagers were absolutely part of the intended audience, but absolutely not the sole target. And the point I'm trying to get at remains: Even if I were to agree that these Priaka were intended solely for teens, would that have made them any better or worse? Take a movie like Wall-E, by Pixar. That movie can be watched by children of all ages, and is still a very mature and smart movie, with rich cinematography and elegant storytelling. Pacific Rim on the other hand is not suitable for small children, but is in no way a smart or mature movie (to be fair, it did not set out to be one). The point is, the true measure of maturity is sophistication, not violence, sex or "darkness". Another point would be this: Things for little kids can be enormously fun. My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is targeted at little girls, but I haven't had that much fun with a cartoon in ages.

Gipsy Danger, it would be good form to at least acknowledge when your points have been adressed, instead of ignoring the numerous and well thought out responses you get. It appears honestly rather disrespectful. Regarding the pistons being part of Bionicle, I have to agree, to an extent. The ball jointed arm that debuted (to my knowledge) in the Slizer line of toys featured two prominent piston designs, and many of the later Bionicle pieces would feature similar sculpted, nonfuntioning facsimiles of gears and/or pistons. Note, that while I agree, that this has been a design feture on many Bionicle pieces, it has decidedly not been a feature of Lego Technic as a whole. However, as Dina Saruyama pointed out, this prevalence of sculpted machinery does not equate to the sole defining feature of Bionicle. It also bears noting that there is no obligation for the new Bionicle to adhere to all visual design cues of toys released well over a decade ago. In short, you not liking the absence (although it is not a total absence, there are sculpted pistons to be found) does in no way equate to an objective shortcoming.

You seem to have misunderstood me. Wikipedia's Bionicle article is among the first search results for the quoted search term, but that does not imply that I visited or cited from it. I merely tried to illustrate that your recommended google search did not yield the results you claimed it would. As to the essence of your point: Do you actually dispute that the age recommendation given on the packaging of the original Bionicle toys was 7+ ? It's a matter of trivial effort to verify this claim. Another point I'd like your opinion on: Does the recommended age actually matter for your enjoyment? Would you like the current toys any better, if the recommended age on their packaging was 12-16? On another and before I forget it: Aanchir, in another topic ( I forgot which one, sorry) you quoted from a book named "Brick by Brick" concerning audience profiles for the Bionicle line, drawing my attention to its existence. Thanks a lot, it has been a very enjoyable read I might have missed otherwise.

I am honestly a bit surprised that so many posters prefer certain years because of the story. I should not be, since I know that the ongoing narrative was a wildly successful marketing tool, but it is always difficult to escape one's own cognitive bubble. May I ask whether you guys and gals put more emphasis on story or the toys themselves? Imagine a year that had a great story, but sets you did not like at all, or the other way around. To me, it's all about the toys, I don't care for the story one bit. If it's a nice story, okay. If it's a bad story, well that's expected. If there would be no story at all, still okay.

2015, because the sets are the first time I really liked the look of the figures. They look cohesive, have clearly defined lines and they don't look too busy. Great design all around.

I vote cardboard. I'm disposing of the packaging anyway, so why make it unnecessary difficult?

There is no way around the weeds if you want to be a proper biologist, my friend. You need the basics in all fields of study. But I admit that the botany part is not exactly the most interesting... spending entire afternoons in a lab, identifying different species of gras, not exactly "thrilling". Sure, the contrast between the gold and te dark green works, you could even replace the armor add-ons with the gold versions. jmflem already covered this quite thoroughly, so no, not without at least some modification to the build. I did something similar with Gali's large pieces, because I am not keen on the huge axe, but wanted to store the flippers on her back.

The original 2001 Toa had a recommended age of 7+. The first sets of Hero Factory using the CCB system sported a recommendation of 6-16. The current Bionicle sets are recommended from 6-12 to 8-14, depending on the set. Sorry, you are factually wrong in your statement. Bionicle never had a unified building system, which is precisely why CCBS was introduced. CCBS still stands in the TECHNIC lineage. It is a distinction without a difference. But for what it is worth, from my (admittedly adult and thus far removed from the target audience) perspective, CCBS as an expandable building system is leaps and bounds ahead of anything the old Bionicle did. The uniform pieces are quintessential Lego.

Gipsy, your last comment reads like a broken record. But I humored you and did in fact google "audience for old bionicle". I took the liberty to correct the spelling to get better search results. The first result are a few people complaining on the Lego forums about meaningless quibbles like masks giving "elemental powers" instead of "special mask abilities" being somehow worse, for some incomprehensible reason. The next results are Wikipedia's Bionicle article, some bloke on reddit and a rotten tomatoes review of a Bionicle movie, If this is your idea of substantiating your argument, it's very much lacklustre. Instead, I turned to the old packaging of the 2001 Bionicle toys. Their age recommendation was 7+. Compare that to the current recommendations on Bionicle sets, which range from 6-12 on Protectors to 8-14 on the larger sets. I fail to see an appreciable difference. Now, I realize that I am most likely having this conversation with someone about half my age, so please don't think I'm trying to be hostile. As I have said to DecepticonWarrior before, it is OK to not like the new stuff and to express that view. Just try to do so more cogently. You are doing yourself and the points you are trying to make a disservice.

Same here, that's why I studied it at the university. But you can't study biology without some serious chemistry, physics and math, too. We biologists aren't just watching weeds grow all day, after all. Well, let's take a peek: I think it looks a bit drab and lifeless. But to each their own. However, I think this illustrates a nice advantage of the unified interchangeability of the CCBS system. Edit: The dark green looks cool for a Lewa possessed by a Skull Spider, though.

Yepp, "intrument" or "tool"- that's were the pipe organ gets its name, too. The organs in living bodies are named so, because of their specific funtions. They are the machinery, the "instruments" of living beings. That's why nowadays the term "organic" is sometimes more colloquially used to describe things that look like they are biological in nature. Organic chemistry was originally the study of chemicals found in living being's organs, then scientists realized that these chemicals could be found in non-living nature as well, and that the vast majority of these chemicals were carbon-hydrogen compounds, so the field was eventually unified to include all such compounds, regardless of origin. I had not looked at the parts in that light, but now I can absolutely see where you are coming from.

I meant the literal plastic bone pieces of the toys. Plastic is an organical compund, which in terms of chemistry means its constituent molecules are mostly made up of carbon and hydrogen atoms. The term "organic" has a rather convoluted history, its greek root "οργάνων" used to mean "tool" once upon a time.