There are quite a few parallels between Teridax and Makuta.
Honestly I would like it it he went to far and still was able to come back. I don’t know if you have seen the force awakens. But sort of what I think they’re going to do with Kylo Ren. It would make you think, cus this guy has done some bad stuff. But he rally wants to be a good guy now. Do we trust him? that would be awesome!
Remember, these guys have a story bible, and for they want to keep each character they’ve brought back as close to their original depiction as possible. Makuta is most likely going to be exactly like he was in G1, but that doesn’t mean we WON’T have other interesting villains who can become good.
Skull Slicer is one I think this would work out well for.
That would be a rather boring, already seen, method of story telling. If we Already know that Makuta will always stay evil and will ultimately be defeated by the “good guys”, then there is no fun with it. We seen that already, change it up, surprise me with something we havent seen before and actually teach the kids that not everything is pure evil and not everything is pure good, rather its a much more grey world.
Not at all. Having a character retain their original traits doesn’t mean the story will be the same in any way. Tahu is still headstrong and angry, yet that doesn’t mean that the story we have now will be a repeat. It just means that they honor who he is as a character.
Makuta is obviously modeled after Teridax, and so I’d expect him to be too far gone at this point. If you want a villain that’s different, then why should it be Makuta who gets a different personality? We’ve already been introduced to characters like Skull Slicer and Umarak. If we’re going to give someone a new personality, then let’s just make a new villain.
I normally would not continue this off-topic and late discussion (that’s what I get for taking a break from this topic) but it’s LoTR. I feel obligated to respond.
While I agree Gollum’s dependency on the ring would have made it impossible for him to exist with it destroyed, it does not make him irredeemable. One of my favorite takes on this “what if?” question of this is actually written by Tolkien in an answer via letter:
“If (Sam had been more understanding of Gollum earlier), what could then have happened? The course of the entry into Mordor and the struggle to reach Mount Doom would have been different, and so would the ending. The interest would have shifted to Gollum, I think, and the battle that would have gone on between his repentance and his new love on one side and the Ring. Though the love would have been strengthened daily it could not have wrested the mastery from the Ring. I think that in some queer twisted and pitiable way Gollum would have tried (not maybe with conscious design) to satisfy both. Certainly at some point not long before the end he would have stolen the Ring or taken it by violence (as he does in the actual Tale). But ‘possession’ satisfied, I think he would then have sacrificed himself for Frodo’s sake and have voluntarily cast himself into the fiery abyss.”
“I think that an effect of his partial regeneration by love would have been a clearer vision when he claimed the Ring. He would have perceived the evil of Sauron, and suddenly realized that he could not use the Ring and had not the strength or stature to keep it in Sauron’s despite: the only way to keep it and hurt Sauron was to destroy it and himself together – and in a flash he may have seen that this would also be the greatest service to Frodo.”
I’d be fine if Makuta was an irredeemable character, after all he has done horrible things. However if they did go the redemption route I would be all for this.
Everyone is redeemable, it just depends if the enact remorse and we currently dont know if Makuta would or wont do it. As much as you like to compare him with G1 Teridax, this is G2. We already seen characters change in terms of personalities so this would also be no issue.
hashtag, tfa
If you don’t get it ignore it. You’ll find out soon enough.
Because you can totally redeem a sociopath who kills for fun. 
Some people are just born… off. You can’t fix it, because it was broken from the beginning.
Now, if we pulled a Paarthurnax here… Paarthurnax has spent TIME overcoming his evil nature. He’s spent TIME redeeming himself, unlike most plot points where the bad guy instantly becomes good, Paarthurnax has had to work for centuries on overcoming his need to overpower and be dominant. If we’re going to have someone become good, then they better disappear for a while and make it realistic.
Please dont cut the quote, just dont.
What was that? I couldn’t hear you.
No, I genuinely believe that there is a point of no return. A point where someone can become so power hungry, that they won’t be able to come back from it… no matter how much they WANT to. I myself walk the edge of it, and I know that if I even had a trickle of absolute power, it would consume me for good. I can feel it in myself, the need to dominate and control. Eventually the power makes you so cold, that you don’t love again.
I’m not sure I could stomach a “good” Makuta.Besides, Bionicle is currently lacking in permanent evil villains.
This should probably be in the bionicle category…
MODS!!!
Moved Catagory.
~Chronicler
That’s the twist! Ekimu thinks the MOUP is what made him evil, but in reality, he’s just as evil without it.
Now that is a nice theory!
Makuta turns good after ridding himself of the MoUP, but the Toa aren’t aware of this.
Thus, shenanigans begin.
And once the Toa actually realize he’s good again… he genocides all the villagers because they still don’t like his masks.
I want Makuta to try and turn good, but eventually decide to ultimately stay evil.
~W12~
Well, that explains a lot. 
Since it seem unlikely that I would get the “ultimate power”, I should be safe, for now. 
But I could think of several “creative” way to use it if I were to have one.
I think it’s lacking permanent villains in general. 