Could Good Guy be a doll?

[Jellyflop]

Sorry wolk I forgot about that thanks:)

[Toby_Echozap]

no, thats not real, however the other good guy would make scene as well, seeming the rahi are also a problem, having rahi in the story telling of matoran and such. also i cant rember if there where writers within bioincle. at least marotan who wrote the history walls and logs, it is a small step to there own stroys and a smaller step to them reacting it for marotan.

[KAI_BORG]

Ah too bad, would’ve been cool am I right?

Also at least two of these guys are most likely canon beings while a third could be a matoran and two others some form of rahi.
Gold is most likely turaga Lhikan, the final, insectoid one is supposed to be a messenger rahi I’m pretty sure, that one of the Makuta (the one who made rahi) from the phantoms/mistika line made, I remember reading about it in the books and I’m pretty sure the description matches up, either that or it’s the 20005 poky bag one,

good guy 07 (I have just realized how close to making a James Bond reference this guy is) could be a mahri matoran (already talked about), while both bad guy 07 and the squid launcher function (have realized that’s not actually a good guy or bad guy set, darn) could be some kind of pit mutated rahi.

[Wolk]

Gold Good Guy IS Turaga Lhikan, that’s already canon.

The reason why I put Good Guy 07 in this topic for the doll idea is because his build is very similar to Good Guy.

None of these other than Gold Good Guy have at the moment any story revelance.

If you’re talking about the half-Rahi, half-Matoran thing Vican used, no, Bad Guy 2008 is not that thing, and 20005 Klakk is not either, it’s, well, a Klakk.

[Toby_Echozap]

gold good guy is turaga lhikan i do believe, and i think the question was stating all the remaining ones not assigned to anything to be puppets, but this comment change has ended up tangled in string. with the anwser being a question.

[KAI_BORG]

Ok then.

[Wolk]

So, there’s been a lot of messages by now, so let’s look back at this again…

@Mesonak

@RealGregF

Don’t you have a scale problem, though? Look at the size of Good Guy compared to the size of a Matoran. It’s way too big to be a doll or action figure, if you look at the size comparison between the two.

In reference to the particular element of scale, I wouldn’t necessarily say that’s too big of an issue. The size of Matoran characters greatly varied from 2001 to 2008, as did the Toa, for set-related reasons such as added articulation, but they remained relatively the same in-story. Taking that into account, the particular scale of the characters themselves wouldn’t necessarily be represented in-story, as much as the character models and general designs would be.

-Mesonak

This very well adresses the scale issue I think.

@Mesonak

@Eljay

We know that stories using made up characters exist within the Matoran Universe, with Irnakk being used by the Skakdi. However, for what purpose would a Matoran storyteller have with these fantastical characters when they would be better served using standard Matoran or Toa? For what reason would one have for making up an entirely new character/archetype when one exists for them that would hit far closer to home?

And even then, if Piraka is so vulgar a word to Matoran, there are plenty of other villainous archetypes to choose from. Barraki, Makuta, Rahkshi, simply bad Matoran.

It seems that if these theories need to be crafted, with all these possibilities in mind, maybe these Good Guy and Bad Guy sets are best to remain as they are: Simple promotional items that have never appeared in or have been referenced to in the story.

To address the first point, the answer to that is to simply take a look at real-world literature, mythology, or creative storytelling in general. The world is wide-ranging and filled with limitless beings, creatures, and entities that are used within stories. Some are entirely made up constructs to serve a purpose in conveying a life lesson, others are closer allegorical constructs to draw comparisons between real-world individuals and the people within your story.

There are multiple different plausible reasons why Good Guy/Bad Guy would appeal to Matoran rather than Toa or known villains, none of which are particularly relevant to the idea of them being included in the story in this capacity; merely the execution of that idea. One could say that… using the Toa, their foretold saviors and beings of legend, in petty, smaller-scale stories could be viewed as disrespectful, much in the same way that using real-world religious icons for smaller-scale stories could be. Another possibility is that they could be featured in more personal Matoran stories, taught with morality in mind. For all we know, Good Guy and Bad Guy could just represent Good/Bad Matoran, and using them in those roles rather than Toa or Supervillains makes perfect sense, because the stories would be designed with conveying a morality-centric message in mind.

Additionally, the archetype point doesn’t really invalidate Good Guy or Bad Guy. Implying that murderers, warlords, evil serpentine constructs, and morally deficit Matoran all have the same storytelling purpose/value is a dead-end point that really goes nowhere. Much as real-world stories don’t have only one possible “villain” role, the same could be said for BIONICLE stories. They serve different purposes.

Good Guy and Bad Guy’s storyline ambiguity and potential for theory-crafting is not a weakness, it’s their biggest strength. The fact that they have the potential to exist in such a role that could possibly be used to increase BIONICLE’s world-building potential while not affecting the main storyline in any negative way is an asset, not a negative attribute. They have the potential to be one of the most non-obtrusive canonizations in BIONICLE’s community history, giving a relevant and interesting purpose to several toys that have otherwise not been valued over the years; the fact that we’re having such an in-depth conversation over their potential applicability as in-universe storytelling devices proves their worth. That is, if LEGOGreg opts to canonize them.

-Mesonak

And I think this very well expands on the original idea, but with the addition of them being used for story telling for pretty much any story. It does not contradicting canon or add some twist, it simply adds to the universe without adding some new character with a new backstory that all have to be explained.

And to just make it clear, the 4 specific sets I’m aiming this at is “Good Guy”, “Bad Guy”, “Duracell Bad Guy” and “Good Guy 07”, the 4 you can see images of above.

Now, can we please stay on the topic of these 4?

Also, quick afterthought, why did I call it doll, they should probably be called puppets.

[Lost_Head]

Dang it, I always miss when the cast members fight.

That said, I personally would love the idea of Good/Bad guy being dolls. It just fleshes out the universe more.

[KAI_BORG]

Ditto here.

[Ghid]

@Eljay

At the very least, Gold Good Guy looks exactly like Turaga Lhikan, and is even within that size bracket. It made sense. Dunno if these do, however that may be disagreed with.

@Toby_Echozap

gold good guy is turaga lhikan i do believe, and i think the question was stating all the remaining ones not assigned to anything to be puppets, but this comment change has ended up tangled in string. with the anwser being a question.

Yes, that’s correct.

Greg agreed upon Gold Good Guy being the official design for Turaga Likhan on the LEGO Message Boards in the past. However, with the concept of any of the promo figures being dolls/etc., I think the question is going to remain unanswered as Greg has already deferred to the size of the set.

So in other words, a soft no, and I don’t think it needs to be stressed much farther. That being said, if Greg has any more comments he’d like to make in clearing this up, it would be most appreciated.

[thundermaster612]

What if Good Guy is the spirit of a Matoran? Their bodies are lost somewhere in a coma while their spirits roam around, maskless and midgetful. Being forgotten and neglected as was the set form.

[Political_Slime]

So I’m in a chat with some friends, and one of them (mah boi @Middlefingerstudios) posted an image noting that Good Guy had a Walmart page:

Attempting to click on said page will lead to a Page Not Found screen, but clearly it existed at one point. I decided to go a bit further, and try to find out what the entire description said. In my research, I stumbled upon the site ToyWiz:

https://toywiz.com/lego-bionicle-good-guy-mini-set-6934/

To quote their description,

Constructed by the Matoran to represent a heroic Toa, Good Guy is employed in stage dramas depicting their epic struggle to free themselves from enslavement by the Piraka (yes, these Matoran are quite sophisticated little fellows, with thriving arts and a vibrant culture). These reenactments help the Matoran to remember past hardships they have faced (and overcome, with some help from the Toa), and in so doing prepare themselves for future trials in the ongoing war with Makuta (prime evil of the Bionicle world)!

Going even further, I found the Amazon page for Good Guy, which also shares the same entry:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005AJX9SG?redirect=true&tag=camerastor0c8-20

Considering that these three sites are fairly reputable, it stands that they most likely received this blurb from LEGO’s Marketing Team. @RealGregF, would this be enough evidence to make this doll/stage prop suggestion canon?

[Wolk]

Good work Slime, but we have no idea where that originates from, from what I can tell, Amazon is the source.

[Eljay]

Amazon is unreliable, see this description here.

Walmart uses descriptions from other websites, just look up BIONICLE. One of the first few was a description taken from Toywiz.

And Toywiz’s descriptions are unreliable as well. Why is the Gahlok description a question? Why does the Fikou description read out like a history lesson? Why aren’t the Fikou and Good Guy descriptions written like actual LEGO set descriptions?

@Political_Slime

Considering that these three sites are fairly reputable

It would appear as though these sites are as reputable as this part of your sentence. I don’t believe that unless this was from LEGO, these sources don’t hold water to support this.

[Willess12]

@Eljay

see this description here.

There’s nothing factually wrong with that though.

@Eljay

Why is the Gahlok description a question?

So it has a typo. That happens in official lego descriptions too.
And none of the ones you linked have any non-canon info. Typos and extraneous info do not inherently make them unreliable.

~W12~

[Eljay]

@Willess12

And none of the ones you linked have any non-canon info. Typos and extraneous info do not inherently make them unreliable.

My point is we can’t rely on these to be official LEGO descriptions. They aren’t. And if it isn’t from LEGO, it isn’t canon.

[KAI_BORG]

To put it simply they could still make dolls of these, an easier way for the turaga to show the story when they aren’t near the statues/on a different island/statues were destroyed.

[Eljay]

And things currently stand, we do not believe we’ll be getting any further with this topic, and since there was an answer by Mr. Farshtey earlier and he has answered questions along these lines in the past, we’ll go ahead and shut this down.

Closing 'er down.