Romance In Brickonicle? [POLL]

  • Romance can be in Brickonicle, at any capacity, like ToaXToa or MatoranXMatoran.
  • Romance can be in Brickonicle, but only in certain places. Either ToaXToa, or MatoranXMatoran. Not both.
  • Romance has no place in Brickonicle
  • It doesn't matter to me anyway.

0voters

Votes are public.

Because of what was such a big part of the most recent Podcast, I created this poll to see the public opinion, even if the crew has a pretty strong stance , because of how popular the polls have been. Personally, I actually would like a ToaXToa dynamic in the team, unlike the TTV crew, but that's just me.

10 Likes

The removal of romance caused so much problems and controversy in G1, I do not want to see that happen all over again. Just let it happen, it's not like it's gonna be a main plot-driver

12 Likes

I don't really think this topic/poll needs to exist, honestly. TTV said in Podcast #239 that romance will exist in G3 (and both Toa and Matoran will be, erhm, capable of it). Period. There was very little debate about it, IIRC.

1 Like

I'm just doing this to see the community's opinion on it, because from what I can see it really hasn't been brought up that much.

1 Like

I don't want needless romance among the main cast, but love should absolutely be canon. It's an emotion that, when absent, removes a lot of relatability from the characters.

1 Like

Here's my stance on this, and what I feel this poll doesn't accurately represent.

I do not want to force a romance between the Toa. I don't want that to be a thing that we say has to happen between them, or have a silly arc that wastes time in the middle. I don't think we should shoehorn the characters into that.

But some people (including people in the TTV cast) seem to think that there shouldn't be any romance on principle. I think that's absolutely ridiculous.

Some people (again, including people in the cast) think that romance is superfluous, that it is always a detriment to a story, that it doesn't do anything for the characters and should not be in a show for kids. I can't understand that, and have never heard any good argument supporting that claim.

So my argument is less "We should have romance between the Toa" and more "Romance isn't cancer, let's not say the Toa should never be in a romance and say instead that we will commit to never writing a bad romance between any characters."

20 Likes

That's a pretty good opinion, actually.

Romance being canon is fine.

Just no romance among the toa kinship. It would make things weird frankly, the team dynamic needs to stay purely platonic.
I'd be open to intra-team(am I using that right?) romance though, I would find it interesting if one of the members was already in a relationship before becoming a toa.

6 Likes

I'm in full agreement.

1 Like

love should never be canon!

1 Like

Seeing romance in Brickonicle as ToaXToa and MatoranXMatoran could cause issues, but I think it would be better this way.

Basically I think that love should be canon to develop the world, its culture and the relationships between the chracters. That being said I don't think it should be iin the spotlight and although I'm not against the idea per say, I could see see the problems with main characters being involved in romance plot points.

coughEljaycough

I would like to see little things like Maku x Hewki return. I do not want it to be a huge part of the series but rather there.

1 Like

I hear this all the time. Why is that? Never heard a good answer. All I've heard has been "Well, it could be written badly."

6 Likes

I think that It could work out. Example is Jay and Nia, while I think she left Jay for Cole that also provided some story and charater development. Written well it could be great, but for me I would like it to be secondary not one of the main parts of the show.

Actually, I would say that Jay and Nya were not written well.

Part of that has to do with actual character development. Jay and Nya's relationship never was written deeper than a mutual crush. Additionally, Nya's reasons for leaving Jay was portrayed as being more arbitrary (a Pachinko machine made her question her relationship? c'mon)

When the love triangle was introduced, that turned out to be wasted time. Cole, Nya and Jay are now kind of friends (?), meaning that the triangle didn't really impact any of their characters in a very meaningful way. And it took too much time away from the action that was the primary focus of the show.

Romance written badly can be really bad - I stopped watching Arrow once it turned into Why Felicity and Oliver Should Be Together and Also He Fights Crime With A Bow and Arrow Sometimes.

But that being said, taking it out of the equation entirely removes a layer of motivation that can lead to character development. It's so restrictive to a key part of human emotion. You just have to write it well.

6 Likes

It would mess with the team dynamic, you'd end up with melodrama and general conflicts of interest which would impare the team's unity and duty,
These are warriors fighting to save their people and their lands, romance between them can only get in the way of that. Also the familial bond the toa mata have shared in previous generations, imo should carry over, which would make romance, unwelcome, let's say.

I have not seen the show, but I do rember a part where Jay and Cole fight a bit, it was not written as well as it could have,
@Payinku I have to disagree with you, In G1 there were cannon romantic closeness sort of relationships best example is Hali and Jaller. It could actually improve the team. Yes they are warriors, but they also have feelings. With a small amount of Romance it makes the characters seem more real and helps you to grow attached to them. I think it could work out really well, and be a small motivational factor. As for the warrior reason i kind of want to throw that out since in our military there are married couples, so there are times where it works in battle. On top of that it could be a closeness and trust like this that drives one of the Toa to do something unthinkable, that works out really well in the end.

1 Like

Romance isn't really a necessary plot point. Social drama of that nature has never been a part of what Bionicle is; the only drama has been relegated to trust and teamwork, not this kind of interaction. It's pointless and just wouldn't really add anything to the team dynamic or make the team's plight more engaging.

That's not to say the Toa could never have had romance outside of the team. Maybe there's an arc where Kopaka finds the guy who killed his wife or something, and he goes out for revenge, but Pohatu stops him at the last second and the whole thing is just feels. (Yes, that was an episode of TLA, but you get the point.) Or maybe when Voriki is introduced, one of the Toa starts to fall for him/her, but the Toa code forbids Toa from having a family of any kind, so they have to deal with the fact that they can't go that route. I'm just spitballing here, but there are alternatives to having romance be a thing without forcing it into the main story.

It wouldn't mess, not by default. It would change the team dynamic - but so does characters developing. A Tahu that is angry changes the dynamic when he grows and learns how to control his anger and impulsiveness.

They are warriors, but that's not incompatible with romance. Nor does romance always necessarily "get in the way" - it can, but only when it's done badly.

It doesn't need to be.

"Just because it's never been done before" isn't a reason not to do something.

Not true.

All romance is is an evolution of two character's relationship. It does add a new layer to the interaction, it's a deeper relationship, it's a new relationship, but not anything different. Pohatu and Kopaka becoming best friends changes the group dynamic.

What you're trying to say is badly written romance. Badly written romance is pointless, and just wouldn't add anything to the team dynamic or make the team's plight more engaging.

That's the issue I keep seeing: most people assume that all romance is going to be written badly, and all arguments are only from that implication. I don't agree with that.

4 Likes