Tahu is a Toa of fire, who is hot-headed and stubborn. Kopaka is a Toa of Ice who cold and distant. And
They are the Toa Mata. As long as they have those names and those character traits they will remain the Toa Mata. And as such any adaptation of them needs to remain true to that established character.
See above.
I disagree.
Correlation does not equal causation, you’re putting the cart before the horse, the marketing doesn’t decide whether someone is inherently interested in a product.
so we need more female characters?
How does that work exactly?
That’s how marketing works, you market to people who are interested in your product.
Actually, there have been studies on this, generally boys prefer ‘boys toys’ and girls prefer ‘girls toys’, the exceptions to that are already interested so it would actually only hurt sales to market to an audience that doesn’t exist.
Most average consumers look at the colorful build-y robots as ‘boys toys’ making more of the cast female won’t change that, most parents wouldn’t even notice.
Marketing could do the same thing without changing the gender ratio, and it would be exactly as effective.
Yes, for example, look at optimus prime over his generations.
But why? The character has already been established as male, it’s a part of their character.
I find this highly arguable, but it’s kind of irrelevant to the actual reason for the topic and I don’t foresee myself changing your mind any time soon. I think it boils down to this line here:
Personally, I don’t see changing the gender as significant a change beyond the visual aspect and external effects, thus does not dilute the point of the character whatsoever.
You place it in higher regards as an influence on the character them self than I do.
The real question here is [quote=“Payinku, post:23, topic:34741”]
But why?
[/quote]
My argument is because it could help broaden the audience a bit.
I’m pretty sure marketing campaigns go a long way towards determining that, in fact, I dare say that’s why marketing is so important to start with. The entire point is to reach new consumers.
But that’s nitpicking. I see what you were trying to say.
Think of it more in context of another media outlet, like a show perhaps. If the gender ratio goes beyond having the archetypal power-rangers roster of explicitly all guys and then just a token girl, the consumer may give it a second look for that reason alone. Unfortunate as it is, a lot of people give gender more weight than you or I. Something as simple as having better gender representation might be enough for folks to consider it as perhaps not being just for boys.
You may be right on this account, I don’t have the degree in toy marketing to tell you otherwise. In which case my point would be invalid.
Yet I see so many IPs that are wildly successful among larger audiences than just the usual gender confines, Ninjago’s unusually large female fanbase comes to mind. I don’t know if Bionicle is viable to be that kind of line, but if it’s possible to market it in a way that takes the edge off that gender connotation, I dare say it’s worth trying. And I think that perhaps evening the gender ratio among characters could help promote that.
Or, it could be extraneous as you’ve stated extensively.
For the record it’s awfully late here and I’m tired. If something doesn’t make sense or whatever I’m sorry. I’ll come back to this tomorrow with a clearer head and see how painfully bad my arguments are.
Please do then.
Not really, it has to do with one of the main proposals of the topic.
Probably not.
That’s all anything ever boils down to.
A minifigure doesn’t have many visual changes, particularly not a Bionicle one as Toa don’t have hair, most of gender portrayal is in the character traits, especially since we’re getting rid of “the girl is always blue” (a change I fully support, don’t mistake my mentioning it as opposition).
Ninjago started out with an equal gender ratio to that of Bionicle. And actually, during the time when Garmadon was around it was a 7:2 ratio. I’m not saying you can’t add more female characters as the story progresses, like Ninjago did, I’m saying:
The thing is, male and female characters do act differently, a female lewa will act differently to a male lewa, even with the same personality.
I don’t see how, it wouldn’t change anything about the product, it won’t suddenly not be a boys toy because the characters are female.
Marketing is to inform consumers of, and convince consumers to buy a product, if someone is not inherently interested in a product, marketing to them is a waste of resources.
Aside from a show and a toyline being entirely different beasts, I’ve yet to see a single example of this, I assure you, most any answer you may find can be explained by good writing rather than gender ratios.
You don’t need a degree in marketing to look at experiment data.
Which means we need more female characters because?
Ninjago has a near identical ratio to bionicle, which is very much an example to refute your argument.
I don’t want to tone police, but you probably should have worded that differently.
I don’t see an issue with the tone, but I’ve already incured the wrath of Eljay once with poorly phrased responses, so best not to take any chances…
Lighting characters are female in G1, so it would make sense for her to be a her. If I had to choose a second female, and it is not like Lewa will be a dude
In the story and then change into a girl, is probably Lewa. He has a good few traits that
Line up with female traits.
Why not make a new character instead of warping one?
Such as? Why is lewa a better choice to be replaced than say, tahu?
I think that some people in here are getting a bit too heated about this. Just remember that at the end of the day, this is a hypothetical line, and will not change anything about G1 or G2. The argument that “we can’t change anything because this is how it was in G1” is extremely weak, given that Brickonicle is meant to be a hard reboot. Sure, Tahu is an established character for us, but for little Ricky, born in 2015, he’s just another Lego character. At the end of the day, Ricky matters more than us. Having said that, what can be done is analyze why changing any of the main Toas’ genders is a bad idea, or at the least unnecessary.
Let’s begin by addressing the fact that, from a consumers standpoint, gender is going to play a very small role in purchasing a set. Why? Because it’s going to be difficult to pick out who’s not a boy. With other lines like Ninjago, the female characters are fairly obvious, with hair, faces, and clothes to help identify themselves. With Brickonicle, that’s going to be more difficult because of the nature of the masks. You might get the eyes and torso printing to look female, but at a quick glance, it’s not obvious. The same thing has happened to nearly all female characters throughout Bionicle’s run, so this is nothing new. I just thought it would be important to note given that several of you were arguing from a marketing perspective.
My other point is that changing the gender of a Toa is not as easy as flipping a switch. Doing so would heavily change the dynamic of the team, and not just from a story perspective. I see several of you are suggesting that Lewa become female. Initially, I was on board with that change. However, the more I thought about it, the more I realized how disastrous that could be for the line. Lloyd and Aaron both show that a male green character is extremely popular among boys. If you were to change Lewa to a female, I fear a large, important demographic will be lost.
So who’s left? You can’t change Tahu or Kopaka without drastically changing their personalities. Onua’s build is inherently masculine, and Pohatu’s element isn’t usually associated with females. Thus, it seems that none of the Toa can change without making severe changes.
Having said all that, it seems like most people aren’t adverse to a 7th female Lightning Toa. I believe that is the best route to go here, not because “G1 had gurl lightning toa” but because introducing a new character is the easiest way to balance out the gender ratio.
I do want to point out that your first point iterates your belief that gender plays little role in the purchasing habits of the buyer, however your second point illustrates the perspective that Lewa as a character can’t change because the color, and in turn character, would no longer be as popular with the target demographic. I find that your two points greatly contradict one another.
From the points you provided we are left to assume that boys like characters with the color green because the character is, well, green. That’s the common thread that differentiates this character from all the other male characters in both of these themes (I don’t necessarily subscribe to this theory, personally, as I believe the only reason Lloyd is so popular is because he was written to be special and stand out amongst the others)
So if our demographic likes the character because he’s green, then changing the gender of the character will not effect that. Especially if you respect the core elements of the character’s personality that made him unique originally.
You are not wrong in the belief that the change in gender will effect the dynamic of the characters and their interactions with each other, but will it be a drastic change? I think not.
No they were weak because they were not written well.The problem came from Lego stripping down all sense of character from them and reducing them to basic traits rather then giving them real thoughts, emotions, or desires.
You can re-imagine and shape the personalities of these characters however you want but if you don’t actually give the time to fully develop these new personalities they will always fall flat.
But once again, this is under the assumption that changing the gender would dramatically alter the behavior of the character in question, which I still don’t believe is the case for most of the characters presented here (I do agree that Tahu and Kopaka’s personalities as they are currently are fairly deeply rooted in the testosterone-driven masculine persona they like to give off when near each other, however I find that the majority of the other Toa personalities are not so distinctly tied to their gender).
Because we are working within the confines of re-imagining Bionicle using assets we already have. In an ideal setting, we would be developing new characters entirely however that is not a very realistic approach to a hypothetical relaunch of Bionicle.
And unlike some opinions of the matter, I believe there are aspects of both G1 and G2 that aren’t perfect and can be adapted and changed to make a more varied and interesting new take on the line. Genders are one of those things.
If we wanted to simply retell Bionicle the way it was before then that would defeat the purpose of rebooting Bionicle entirely. We already have a G1, we don’t need another one.
My point is that the change just isn’t impactful. It doesn’t add or improve upon anything, nor does it make for a new and interesting dynamic. In that respect, it’s similar to the changes seen in G2. It won’t make the toys sell better, it would just be a needless change to something that can otherwise be remedied by adding female characters.
If you believe that diving deeper into the development and growth of our core heroes is a needless change, then you are adhering to the design principles that warped the Toa into the caricatures they were in G2.
The shaping of the Toa’s gender will not make a dramatic alteration to their personality, nor will it suddenly skyrocket sales for the line. However, it is a first step in forming a more distinct and fleshed out personality for this character that we have yet to see before.
No one change is going to make a huge impact.
It’s the changes compounded together, however, that will begin to shape and craft our vision for what Bionicle could be.
We believe that the gender ratio as it stands currently is limiting. Confining our adaption to the rules of a past universe, one that we are not writing for, makes little sense. G1 has passed, G2 has passed, there is no reason to burden ourselves by limiting our creative freedom by adhering to the rules of either of those past generations when we are the ones writing the rules now.
Gender, right now, is problematic. We’re here to develop new stories, new ideas, and new concepts, not simply retell old ones. For the purpose of this initiative, change is necessary.
I agree, for the most part. But it just seems that one of the original five’s gender could be changed just for the sake of diversity. Though, I am totally for more female characters. The best option, IMO is creating a whole other Toa group to fight alongside the Mata who have a much more diverse group.
The first thing we must consider here: is love cannon in G3? Because, if it’s not, this would literally change nothing but two lines of curvature on a minifigure. Also, if Voriki is becoming female, you are changing the gender of a G1 character anyway. He was intended to be male, as evidenced by the ball on his chest rather than a socket.
I think the idea is yes, love is now canon, so that would influence several different character traits if things were changed.
Oh, okay. In that case, @Jon should put that in the G3 topic.
Yeah. I’m not sure if it has been definitely decided on, but it has been brought up several times and everyone seems to want it back in canon. Even I’ve hinted at it in my Lightning Tribe story.
wait i just had a though, if the toa were originaly matorans, and if we are going with the idea that the matorans can reproduce in this generation, then would it be possible to give the toa sibling?
Now that is an idea I like! It’s the best of both worlds, so there can be, theoretically a girl Lewa, Tahu, Kopaka, Onua and Pohatu, but still keeping the original characters! Okay, this is my favorite idea put forward.
You aren’t wrong. However, I think you might be a bit misguided in the belief that change for the sake of diversity is a bad thing.
Our entire discussion for the past two months, from moving towards a system line, to changing the elements, to forming the culture and shaping the regions of the land, has in it’s entirety been about diversifying Bionicle to make it more compelling.
Diversity in essence is the whole point of this discussion.
Love will definitely be canon, however we haven’t fully fleshed out or discussed our ideas regarding it’s implementation in G3. This is something we’ll likely be touching upon on the next TTV Podcast.
Things aren’t added to the canon until we’ve hashed them out on the podcast.