Clarification on character appearances?

Hi, I would like to just confirm with you that the sets are most canon form of visual representation the characters? as some confuse exists between me and some people I know

3 Likes

I’m pretty sure that the Movies are supposed to be canon, though I’m against it.

1 Like

I’m highly against that too, such a shame if it is

I have found ze answer! For, rahkshi and bohrok. Bohrok are the same as their sets, as shown in the comics, though that is debatable. The rahkshi’s true forms are most likely their forms in bionicle heroes (with the rahkshi stars feet), along with other characters brought back into heroes such as Sidorak and Krekka, as the inika build was carried out for the rest of bionicle and not many new parts were introduced. Phew! The other characters like rahi are most likely their own original sets. The comics do show how certain parts would be colored, such as the bahrag having most of their gray/grey/groayo replaced with red or blue for either Gahdok and Cahdok respectively.

From an old BZPower post (http://www.bzpower.com/story.php?ID=2429)

The movie appearance of Bionicle characters is less official than the set form - Actually, it’s the other way around. The movie appearance of characters is in almost all cases considered the most official of the various versions of the Bionicle characters. Now, this does not mean the set form is unofficial; both forms are totally official. They’re two different versions of the same characters, used for different media. While the set form was designed according to real world limitations as to what can be produced in plastic, with LEGO pieces, the movie form is designed more freely, closer to what the Bionicle characters would look like if they were actually alive. Perhaps the most significant example of this is the fact that Bionicle characters have always been said to be biomechanical, having both biological and mechanical components. Well, the set form does not show any biological components. When the MOL movie form of the Toa Nuva was developed, the “bio” was put in; movie characters are shown with some biological components. So in the story, when it comes to exact appearances, that form is the most official of the two.”

That said, there’s a lot inaccurate in the movies, most notably the masks acting like faces.

And rahkshi being more organic while actually being robotic armor. Not to mention how the Kraata are wildly different.

I don’t think that post would still be relevant, as the movies have garnered much more hate since than and I think LEGO has been trying to retcon them ever since.

Still waiting for Greg’s proper clarification though