Is It Canon For The Stars To Be Smaller Than Their Previous Versions?

[The Swimming Beard]

I was just wondering, Is it canon for the Stars to be smaller than their previous versions. Especially Gresh and Skrall. Did they just shrink down or something?

Edited April 14, 2012 by Toa of Smooth Jazz

[TheSkeletonMan939]

I think Nektann has shrinking ability. Other than that, no, the sizes of those sets are non-canon.

[Mare Tranquillitatis]

Tahu and Takanuva are canon, the others aren't.----- Lord of the Rings -----Titles: Dark Lord, Lord of Mordor, Lord of Gifts, Lord of Barad-Dûr, Lord of the Earth

[a goose]

Tahu's size is canon, the others are smaller because LEGO wanted to spend as little money as possible on them in canon they are around the same size as Tahu.

[Taipu1]

I was under the impression the stars were similar to the special edition Mata Nui titan set, in terms of they were out of scale and tributes to major characters, the difference being they are smaller rather than larger. Certainly Gresh, Skrall, and Rahkshi have no reason to be any different size to their past appearances.

[Ektris]

As always, you can't take the set scale as absolute fact. That's just a general rule.Their sizes did not change at all. Tahu became the same size as he was from his original Toa form, Takanuva being the same. Gresh, the Skrall, and Rahkshi aren't any smaller than previously mentioned. And Nektann's just as big as the other Piraka.~|ET|~

[bonesiii]

As always, you can't take the set scale as absolute fact. That's just a general rule.Their sizes did not change at all. Tahu became the same size as he was from his original Toa form, Takanuva being the same. Gresh, the Skrall, and Rahkshi aren't any smaller than previously mentioned. And Nektann's just as big as the other Piraka.~|ET|~

Thanks, ET. And canonically Tahu Nuva's other forms were the same size as his 2001 Mata form, BTW. As usual, plastic practicality limitations and finances drive the set scale, not the story per se. :)Question answered, topic closed.