Proportions of Toa and other species visualisations

Hello Greg,

Its been a while since I last asked you a question, well a question that didn’t get removed for obvious reasons that is. Anyhow on to my actual question:

In the past you have been pretty adament about all character portrayals between different media being mere artistic interpertations of the same character in canon.

Here is some quotes:

quotes
  1. Since UD is way diff than in the movie, and the original Makuta set, I assume that the UD set is non-canon?
  2. No, sets are always canon. The movie is simply a different artistic interpretation of it.
    Official Greg Discussion | Page 174

  1. And therefore what is the canonical version?

By the way, in a former post on this chat, you had answered me this :

Q: “On BIONICLE movies, Kanohi restranscribe feelings of characters. Meanwhile, in your books, you suggest the face is under the Kanohi, and that he isn’t animated. Which version is canon?”

A: “Mine is, basically.”

And you reply here “all masks” in your answer, but the normal masks have never been expressed emotions in your books and you affirme this in the past. I’m confused ^^’

  1. Both have to be considered official, they are simply different artistic approaches to the same story.
    3)Of course, there were several different artistic interpretations, but there well is an official storyline, a canon version of facts, overhanging all the others in a canonical way, decided by yourself and the storyteam when BIONICLE was still active, right?
  2. I see this as similar to Batman – there are countless different “official” versions of Batman’s look, and none is considered more or less canon than any other. It would be foolish of us to take the position that the comics were less canon than the movies, or vice versa, because it would devalue whichever one was less canon. It is simply different arttistic ways of conveying something based on the demands of the medium.
    Chat with Greg Farshtey | Page 302

An exception I found specifically related to the stars:

1 The Shattering was caused by the Element Lords attempts to use the EP Spring, which lead to the core of the planet exploding, Mata Nui’s mission was to go around the universe, observe societies so a massive war such as the Core War would not break out again, and then pull Spherus Magna back together, The Stars will be a part of the storyline, although their smaller size is like Titan Mata Nui’s: not canon. Teridax will be coming to Bara Magna (here’s how we get the Stars), Teridax’s destiny may or may not have been to take over Mata Nui’s body; Greg stated that the real question was whether one robot alone be able to pull three planets together. He could not discuss whether or not 2010 will be the last year of BIONICLE.

Well I was wondering how much of this is true.Also, if the stars are canon, but their size isn’t, does that also mean their form is non-canon as well? (Such as Tahu Mata, Silver Takanuva)Thank you for your time.

  1. Yes, it is true, and form is canon, just not size.
    Official Greg Dialogue | Page 218

This post is quoting a Greg post
Official Greg Discussion | Page 161


  1. Which BIONICLE character looks is canon, the set from or movie form, like the Toa Metru in Legends of Metru Nui, how they looked?
  2. There is no “closer to canon” really, you are talking about two different artistic interpretations of the same character. If I show you Frank Miller art of Batman and Gene Colan art of Batman, which is closer to canon?
    Official Greg Dialogue | Page 230

  1. Would you say that that generally, the first 3 movies, with the integration or organic tissuie within the Proto components and armour, were most accurate representation of the characters as they actually appear within canon? I don’y necessarily mean in actual design (I appreciate Onua and Pohatu had body changes).
  1. I don’t regard them as more accurate or less accurate, simply as different artistic interpretations of the characters. The movie version is the movie version, the toy version is the toy version, but same characters.
    Official Greg Dialogue | Page 262

  1. Just for clarification, are sets the most canon representation of characters? (As opposed to movies, comics, etc.)
  1. I consider sets to take precedence over movies, yes. But in general, it is simply different artistic interpretations of the same characters.
    Official Greg Discussion | Page 315

With this given information I’m going to define this difference in media as differing artstyles.(For example the Miramax animations is its own artsyle, while MNOG would be a subset of the set artstyle.) With this established I want to focus on the set artstyle but I’m also interested to know if you would consider these thing to carry over between artsyles…

So here we go, here comes the question: Would you say that the proportions and certain features of the desings for characters with established visual depictions is consistent with other members of their species? (For example how the B1 Battle Droid and the B2 Super Battle Droid from Star Wars is sharing traits despite being different iterations of the Battle Droid line or how all Geonosians look similar too each other.) Or would the Matoran universe not have any form of standardisation between characters of the same species?

3 Likes