Exactly. This topic is basically just MT saying he prefers world-building to allowing fan creativity.
5 Likes
Then again, as I said before, that’s your prerogative and more power to you. If you don’t buy the argument that Lego has pretty clearly never shown any capability for character writing, then chances are none of what I’ve written so far will make any bit of difference. With that said, however, I’d also recommend that you avoid any sort of story with impressive character arcs because you may very explode from sheer amazement if what Lego did with Bionicle impressed you.
Actually I can pretty easily say this (as demonstrated before when I wrote twenty or so paragraphs on this subject alone) because the location that the story is taking place in is directly part of the story. Perhaps not the narrative, but certainly the story. It’s important to remember that something like a location can make or break an actual underlying series of events that take place within that narrative; the story that Metroid Prime put together was by no means complex or really anything besides a fairly simple tale of some pirates being corrupt and wanting to steal some dangerous material for themselves, but it was extremely engaging because the way it was told and the way you discovered the environment directly contributed to getting the player involved. It’s the same sort of thing here, the way a narrative is told and the outside factors involved with the story oftentimes directly influence the quality of the story.
It’s worth keeping in mind that what we’re discussing here is the quality of the story, not the quality of the stories that other people can come up with. If you want to make the argument of “well, the story may be non-existant, but that’s a worthwhile sacrifice in order to let other people make their own stories more easily,” then that’s fine, but two things.
-
I don’t see how in the world detracting from world building allows for more creativity; if anything, I’d argue it makes it harder, because now there’s even less for you to base any sort of imaginative fanfiction-esque world off of
-
Promoting creativity is fine, but can be done perfectly well while still giving us a well defined world; see basically every Bionicle MoC ever from last gen.
I’ll halfway agree with you here; the topic is basically me saying that I think Bionicle’s story will suck because it’s doing something that I think is worse. I’m not entirely sure why that’s a surprise to anyone, this topic is pretty clearly nothing more than an expression of opinion and if you enjoy G2 Bionicle then you really shouldn’t let that opinion get to you.
With that said, I would like to make one small correction, because I’ve never once said that I prefer story to creativity. Ideally I think we could very well have both, and quite honestly the notion that somehow having a well defined world stifles creativity is one that I find to be absurd, something that I think G1 Bionicle proved already.
-MT
4 Likes
I like plenty of good character arcs, I also liked bionicles.
that remark was unnecessary.
I’ve already admitted you’re better at arguing than me, as such I shall make peace and exit this discussion.
4 Likes
MT_Zhevor for lawyer.
1 Like
“Restrictions breed creativity”
If a world has no rules then there’s no reason to make a story in that world.
4 Likes
Slizers and Roboriders both came out before Bionicle. Both with simpler but still competent stories (Similar to G2) Meaning Lego had unintentionally already started the process of getting kids used to a more complicated story. So when Bionicle came around they didn’t have to worry.
Also now Lego is constantly seeing Herofactory fans complaining about how old Bionicle is to complicated.(On their message boards)
4 Likes
Which is fair, because by the end of Bionicle’s lifetime, the story had become incredibly complicated. None of that was due to world building, though, it was due to the complexity of the plot and the number of conspiracies, cover ups, and overall general longevity of Bionicle narrative.
-MT
4 Likes
Still Lego’s being put on thin ice and they don’t want to brake it…
This brings up a good point. Why do you say world building is so vital to Bionicle’s story when one of the most popular years, 2006, eliminated virtually all world-building?
4 Likes
How did 2006 not have world-building?
It was Voya Nui; there was world building there.
Firstly, I’d argue 2006 did a fair bit of world building within the books and comics, but more to the point…
2006 was extremely successful, above all else, because it created a pervading atmosphere of doom and hopelessness. It managed to do this by setting up its villains as incredibly cutthroat, incredibly powerful (enslaving an entire island and easily besting the heroes from before), and by turning everything we knew on its head by starting a countdown until the end of the universe.
Consider, then, everything that had to be done in order to set up a year like 2006. First off, to create the sense that the villains are incredibly powerful. We need someone to compare them to. Beating up the Toa Nuva works because we know the Toa Nuva quite well. So you have to spend time establishing a group of heroes. You also have to spend time establishing the universe in the first place (i.e. worldbuilding) in order to have us care about it potentially ending. Lastly, you have to establish who Mata Nui is and why he needs to be saved, so the quest for the Mask of Life makes sense at all.
2006 worked extremely well because of what had been done before it. It wouldn’t have worked well at all had it been the first year of Bionicle. 2006 is, in a way, sort of like the Majora’s Mask of Bionicle. On it’s own, it would have been incredibly strange year without any sort of context, but it works so well because it contrasts with the preconceived notions we have about Bionicle. Honestly, this is a lot of why 2007 and 2008 were viewed as such disappointments; it’s because they tried to simply replicate 2006, when 2006 was good in large part because of how unique it was. You can’t routinely rely on an atmosphere of dread because dread, by it’s very nature, tends to dissipate over time. Things stop being scary if you’re continually encountering them.
TL;DR: New Bionicle needs to rely on worldbuilding because 2006 only works with some past to flaunt conventions of, and that sense of atmosphere can’t be relied upon as a long term solution
-MT
8 Likes
I see no lies in this topic. World building has to happen for multiple reasons, not just for story context but also for the very important reason that it gives a context to put MoCs in. Right now we know nothing, and because we know nothing we have nothing to base anything off.
6 Likes
So, I know my thoughts on the new story has been stated numerous times, and after actually putting thought to it, I will say, I am… Refining, my position. First of all, everyone here makes both good and bad points. Comparing a toy line with TV shows, and showing how LEGO is in a different position than 15 years ago.
Personally, I have always thought that comparing things like the last airbender and BIONICLE is a bit like comparing bagels and pancakes. Yeah, they’re breakfasty things that usually have some manner of thing spread across their bready surface, and that’s what makes them good, but pancakes have butter and syrup, while bagels have cream cheese. Honestly, have you ever had cream cheese on a pancake? It’s disgusting. My point is, even though they’re similar-ish you can’t use the same things to make them taste good. The same goes for a storybased toy line and a tv-show. They’re related, and there can be overlap (Jellies to serve the purpose of the metaphor) but they are definitely different things and need different things to thrive.
That metaphor probably didn’t make any sense, but whatever.
Comparing BIONICLE to The Last Airbender is ineffective in this situation because they’re trying to market two entirely different things, watching time and toys. Sorry to crush your dreams, but everything, EVERYTHING is made to market something. That’s the reason LEGO bothers giving anything a story at all. To SELL you things. The reason people make stories to go with toys is to get you to buy them, and it works.
Also, you have to accept the fact that LEGO is in a totally different situation now than it was in 2000-2001. They were actually really desperate then, and were more willing to try out new concepts because they needed the money. Look at all the new themes that popped up from 1998-2006, and look how long they lasted. Most of them lasted maybe two-three years. BIONICLE was a gamble just like that, and it worked. It was a totally new thing and it stuck. Now, LEGO is a different company, they have higher standards they’ve set themselves to and put much more effort into set design than they do actually selling things because they know that they don’t have to try nearly as hard to sell things, kids will buy them regardless of story, so why would you need to present world building and complex characters when you’re already selling things? The thing is, they’re comfortable where they are, and trying a new and gutsy thing like they did fifteen years ago may or may not work. Not everything new sticks, in fact, it’s a miracle BIONICLE was around for ten years.
Then came Hero Factory, which was simple and rather lacking in story and world building, yet sets still sold reasonably well. They laxed for five years, and now the kids who buy the constraction sets don’t care much for story. Introducing complex locations and characters would (And I admit, this is stupid, but true) ultimately turn off their target audience to it because they would become confused, and would end up not caring, which would be a waste of thousands of dollars in the extra time it spent to create that story. A simple story is the best way to sell toys, it always has been and always will be.
But who knows, maybe LEGO will do something with the new BIONICLE more than simplicity, only time will tell.
Now, my thoughts on this: I want to be optimistic about the future of the story. They’re starting out with a fresh audience and they need to reel them in, so a simple beginning is always best. However, I am not totally sure if it will happen.
The thing to take away from this is that even if LEGO decides to send the story down the crapper, the fans can always build off of that story and make it however they so please. We can make the story better, collectively.
Anyway, that’s my thoughts on that.
I didn’t think they were disappointments, 2007 was my favorite year story-wise. That seems to be the consensus for a lot of fans =P It was set-wise that they started to fall behind unfortunately. The last year of the great titans… -salutes Gadunka-
12 Likes
at least the Toa look cool tho
I would be curious as to who these “lots of fans” are, basically everyone I’ve met considers 2007-2008 to be the beginning of Bionicle’s downfall.
-MT
I’m curious to how you don’t know these fans. 2007 was one of the best years, and while it may not be the best in my opinion, a lot of fans would call if the best. And it’s not hard to see why. Truly terrifying villains, great characterization, unique and interesting Titans, and of course, a truly heroic sacrifice.
5 Likes
Toa Mata Nui, Takanuva, all of the Karda Nui vehicles…
2 Likes
I personally don’t see the vehicles as titans, after all, they’re vehicles, and the giant ones were just too much for me, never liked those.