A fair point, but I’d like to say that in the first two years of BIONICLE, every single important character got more individual development than I dare say possibly every character got in G2 combined. The G2 Toa were cardboard cutout stereotypes, and while I am very aware the G1 Toa were almost identical at their base values, they got individual attention from the story that gave us the characters we know and love.
TL:DR G1 Toa Mata, 2002 > G2 Toa, 2016.
The development in a short period of time is simply noncomparable in my personal opinion.
I completely fail to see what you mean here. Because there was an original version means all other versions are also original? That’s like copying a moc and saying it’s original because you made it. Plus, Star Wars is still going, there hasn’t been any reboots. The Story is still the ‘original’ story. (I think Marvel and DC have rebooted a couple times, right?)
Also, I would like to say that your ‘century’ reasoning, while not inherently wrong in terms of total years, is flawed in the fact that Marvel, Star Wars, DC (?) were released about 50 years ago.
Ok, since you so readily compared it too DC in the previous argument, allow me to compare it to that now. DC has recently been making less than mediocre movies. BvS was meh, but people still had some hope for Suicide Squad. Then Suicide Squad was meh, and now people have less hope in the next movie, whatever it is. People will instantly relate something that has the same name to it’s other version, and whatever feelings they had for the other version will translate to this one.
So following this reasoning, the Eiffel Tower could collapse right now?
Yes, and this is very well proven by their stance as one of the most successful toy companies on the planet.
May I ask how long it took for you to care about the character? Was he this “brilliantly designed” character in 2002?
Like Payinku said, there’s no comparison. G1 did not have much antagonist development in the first two years, and nor did G2. Both are guilty of this.
G2 had two years of development, not even that, and it’s absolutely ridiculous to compare the entire 10 years of G1 to the 2 of G2. 2:10 years is not a fair comparison, and you know it isn’t.
I’ve seen statements I would consider elitism, but this takes the cake as far as I’m concerned. It’s still Bionicle, and we can’t just ignore that it is still Bionicle. G1 is no gift from god, and I don’t think “Bionicle” is exactly the title that dictates whether something is “worthy” of being good. G2 exists, and it’s Bionicle. Ignoring it won’t help anything.
I’m not going to sit and argue that. It’s an fact. there’s no argument to be had.
What I will argue is that the only line I have ever seen out of LEGO that comes close to G1’s storytelling prowess is Ninjago. Conveniently, also one of the most successful lines they have ever released.
What I’m saying is, when everything isn’t all sunshine and rainbows and all the heroes live and there are no realistic consequences to be found, I lose all respect for a storyline. If LEGO was going for that kind of story, then I have a right to not want a G3 because it is no longer targeted at my audience.
Which I will immediately follow up by saying “THAT’S FINE!” There’s no reason for LEGO to target their products at a 16 year old college student. If I’m uninterested in the story, it’s likely because there’s no reason for me to be. However, I still enjoy reading things about G1. I still enjoy the story. Therefore, the comparison is still direct.
I’m very aware it’s an unfair comparison. But what I am getting out of the messages in response to my statement is “it only lasted two years so you should lower your standards to its level.” There’s a certain degree of storytelling I hold things to, and the first impressions are the most important. In the first impressions department, G2 miserably failed the moment the first wave hype faded, and it kept failing right until it was cancelled.
(yes, that is overly dramatic and harsh, but it is the most direct way of putting my opinion)
I won’t bother to take offense to this since it would honestly be quite laughable. However, in response: To me it is only BIONICLE in name. It lacks the soul the original had to it.
I’m not here to proclaim G1 as a gift from God, nor am I here to bring down anybody who enjoyed G2. I’m simply stating a comparison - unfair as it may be - and leaving it as that.
We had the same characters: Completely stripped of the development that they had gotten, wiped of the personalities we had known, and reduced to cardboard stereotype.
Seriously, I realize it would be difficult for new fans to get in on the old story, but at least keeping the same personalities and traits would have been a good start towards creating a solid, stable character roster.
I guess where I’m going with this is that G2 failed the most important part of its journey. Once the 2014 “IT’S BACK” hype wore off, we had lackluster set design, frustratingly empty characters (or characters that simply did not exist at all), and a poorly written story that leaves me wondering where Greg and Faber were during the development process.
And much of what I’m saying here? Is my fault. I had certain expectations of the line based on the name and characters. I created those expectations off of 10 years of development, for which there is no culprit other than myself.
However, from my perspective, the edict remains unchanged: I do not want a G3. I want to see LEGO do something fresh, rather than tarnishing the name further.
Man, this is a lot of overly dramatic text over a toyline
Actually, they’re not the same characters. They share a name and general position as main hero. This doesn’t mean they are the same person. I’d like to point you to the massive amount of Transformer iterations there are. In G1, Optimus is selfless and completely righteous, only wanting peace. In Aligned, Optimus wants peace but has no issue with violence to achieve it. In the Movie universe, Optimus is extremely homicidal with bent ideas of how peace can prosper. In all of these, he’s the leader of the main protagonist group, but does that mean he’s the same character?
A fair point, however it was worded poorly on my part. They were not indeed, the same characters. Rather, by sharing their name and face, as well as their role, there was a certain degree of expectation on my end (and I am sure there are others who feel similarly). There is nothing wrong with expecting the character to receive a similar degree of development, or at least share similar traits to their previous incarnation.
The example I would point to here is Pohatu. I cannot think of any shared traits between his G1 and G2 versions aside from their design aesthetics. There is simply no comparison. Even if G2 had gotten the same love and care that G1 did, they would continue to be very separate and different characters.
I’m not specifically saying this is a bad thing…I suppose change is good in many areas. However, given that Pohatu was a loved character from G1, I fail to see a reason for their changes to him. Indeed, there are many changes I do not understand. That, I suppose, is my stance on this particular subtopic.
See, it’s not that I don’t want there to ever be a G3, I just don’t want a G3 in the near future. If Bionicle G2 was cancelled this soon, the sales numbers must have been bad. Meaning, retailers won’t be all that interested in stocking shelves with whatever G3 brings us, which in turn would shorten the lifespan of G3. So I say, give it at least five years, let retailers forget about it a bit, and that’s when LEGO should consider a Generation 3.
I’d say it’s more 60/40 above/below average unfortunately we got some absolutely awful sets where as the best we got was pretty good, that said I’d still say both generations had some serious ups and downs in quality.
I know this is old, but I have to say that lego kinda did that for HF. only difference was that it was done with ben 10, and everyone was confused as to BEN 10 BEING A LEGO LINE. if you look at the pieces, you can see that they use the CCBS style of balljoint. it was, obviously, to gage reaction to the change. so, yea, lego should do more of that, just not with licensed themes, which is what brought down ben 10
I’d say it’s more 10/90, but that’s just my opinion. I tend to have…more exaggerated standards. Blame the MOCist community on Flickr
(Keep in mind, my opinion of G1 set quality from the backwards lens isn’t much better - a lot of “oldies but goodies” that realistically don’t hold up very well)
My thing is that Bionicle has had two runs. It will become like the castle themes that have been around for years. If we were to have a G3 then might end in just one year and that’s something that nobody wants.
This is a really long thread that I’m not reading but I want them to do something cool and inspired that’s not Bionicle. I think you’ll get a G3, it clearly sold okay up until the last two waves (I firmly believe the cancellation of G2 was due to Lego’s initiative to scale back production to not oversaturate the market and Bionicle not being a powerhouse, but it was definitely not detrimental to them) but I just want to see them do something new and cool without all this baggage of expectations attached that really, really only weighed down on G2. G2 did suck because Lego didn’t deliver (they didn’t feel like they had to, I personally believe), but the audience was clearly not us (at least after the first six months), so why even call it Bionicle anymore? Just do something new.
