A fair point. Although I think we’ve both said our piece, I’ll try to move any further argument to private where it probably belongs.
Otherwise, I’m interested to hear other’s voices on this topic.
1 Like
And that’s opinions for you! 
####Unfortunately, as I said, trying to find purely objective answers to why someone likes something is next to impossible.
So it’s a futile effort, I’m afraid.
As a reverse, I would like to ask a similar question of you. What’s something you like, and what objective reasons do you like it for? It could help those wishing to say their opinions something to shoot for.
3 Likes
As am I. The reason I helped to edit some parts of the original post was in a hope that this would be worded well enough to survive. While that might not have been totally successful, I do think this is an important topic from the perspective of just “Let’s sit down and reflect,” as there are many differing opinions in the Bionicle community and it’s certainly interesting to hear why people may take a certain opinion.
If this is the goal, I’d recommend a topic straight up on why people like Bionicle, away from the discussion of nostalgia blindness. It’s a thing that happens that can’t be circumvented, and to properly discuss why people like something, they need to be free to express their subjective views.
I’m looking for objective things about Bionicle that are generally accepted as good.
People should be able to filter this without seeing a topic name
(Copied from a discord chat)
Even though 03 makuta has flaws I’d buy it over most other toys simply because 1: I could build it 2: It’s compatible with lego and 3: The story behind him is good.
Now I know folk like to use exagerated words to describe bionicle but really only an idiot actually believes anything doesn’t have a flaw.
7 Likes
Okay, I can think of things that are generally accepted.
Notice generally accepted doesn’t mean objective.
- Story telling
- Unique aesthetic of tribal/elemental and mechanical
- Large, expansive worlds vastly different from other fictional worlds
- The aspect of creativity that goes along with being buildable and changeable
- The use of various different forms of media to convey a single story
- Large online community of people with similar interests
These are things that a majority of fans in theory would agree on. There are outliers on either side, and there always will be.
Now, if you want more reasons why people like it, then let people express their opinions that are probably subjective. While some other works may have a lot of objective appeals, Bionicle probably has a lot of subjective appeals.
And that’s okay.
2 Likes
I think by this point it might just be more productive to go based on what most people would generally accept, as I feel like arguing subjectivity and objectivity has been sort of beaten to death, by this point.
4 Likes
Never said it does.
Let’s stop arguing about what’s subjective or objective and just talk about something like what Joe said.
I agree, and again I say that discussion should just be its own topic. It has nothing to do with the topic of nostalgia blindness that this topic seems to focus on, which granted is an interesting topic in its own right, but the discussion of why people like Bionicle doesn’t belong here.
In fact, I’d even broaden it to what makes Bionicle, Bionicle to people, I suggested that on the “Should Bionicle Be a System Theme” topic a little while ago.
Unfortunately though, sleep calls for me…I shall join that discussion tomorrow. It’s been interesting, lads!
1 Like
I like how everyone says they want to hear other opinions, but have completely ignored the few of us that have given them.
1 Like
Oh crap. I got caught up with all the other stuff.
(This got to be a lot longer than I intended, but I’m gonna post it anyway. I haven’t read many of the other comments, so I apologize if I repeat someone else’s points.)
As someone who’s been a fan since 2001, I wanna throw in my two bits. From what I’ve observed of the online Bionicle fanbase over the last 12 years or so, there’s as much, if not more, of a tendency to denigrate Bionicle as there is to praise it. I’ve seen plenty of discussion bemoaning its shallow characters, odd quirks of worldbuilding (no romance/every Matoran tribe has only one gender), confusing plot in later years, simplistic and sometimes overly-convenient plot in earlier years, and its loss of mystique as time went on. Beyond such direct critiques of the plot, I’ve seen people act like Greg Farshtey is terrible author, claim that various aspects of the story are sexist, and complain about absolutely every set ever released. Maybe someone out there praises Bionicle blindly, but I’ve sure never met him.
As for my own personal feelings, I’ve never had any illusion that Bionicle is some sort of masterful epic. It’s a story made primarily to sell toys, not impart profound insight or create timeless drama. But I still love it, because despite that, it created an imaginative universe not quite like any other. It also had some fun characters, intriguing mysteries, the occasional laugh-out-loud moment, and a healthy view of good and evil to tie it all together. While it certainly had its missteps, there’s still plenty there to enjoy.
(As an aside, I want to say that, despite some of the criticism GregF has received over the years, I think he did a wonderful job. Was it perfect? Even the man himself would tell you it wasn’t. But it was about the best you could hope for from a children’s toy line, and perhaps a bit more.)
Next, I’d like to look at some of the arguments presented in this topic.
Your point is true, but rather trivial. I’ve never heard anyone claim that Bionicle is aimed at adults. Furthermore, being aimed at children doesn’t make something bad or useless to adults; look how many adult fans of Narina, Harry Potter, or The Hobbit there are. That’s not to say that Bionicle is as good as those things–my point is that its audience does not limit its value.
Also, while I’m sure the media you’ve cited are fine works in general, I don’t think any of them are exactly indisputable masterpieces. They might have broader appeal than Bionicle, but that has nothing to do with whether or not they’re “better” than Bionicle. Something with both broad appeal and critical praise, like the works of Dickens or even Joss Whedon, might’ve been a more effective example.
Moving on…
Alright.
If I’m just some kid seeing a Bionicle for the first time, I wouldn’t care very much about how well it matches previous waves of Toa, would I? But to address your point more directly, I don’t see how the gradual evolution of building styles is a flaw. While the set may have flaws in and of itself, it generally matched the building style of its contemporaries. I think that’s all you can reasonably ask of it. (As for whether the proportions themselves are a flaw…I dunno. Maybe, maybe not. They don’t look human, but is that really a bad thing?)
I didn’t find any of Jaller Mahri’s parts to be particularly hard to use, myself. I can only think of a few instances of being frustrated by Bionicle parts, mostly due to the infamous weak joints.
Again, if I’m just some kid seeing this for the first time, why would I care about that? Furthermore, as someone who prefers to display sets rather than make them into MOCs, I have no issue with the mask’s color scheme; it works just fine in the context of the set.
It was fairly typical for the period, from what I recall (and Bionicle/Technic sets often have worse ratios than System due to the larger pieces). And I don’t think a slightly excessive price is really a huge flaw (it certainly doesn’t affect the quality of the set itself), especially since this is Lego we’re talking about.
Fair enough; it was a serious issue with Bionicle sets from 2006-2008.
A working gun isn’t a distinct play feature?
This implies that there are no good qualities to any sets. I assume that’s not what you meant, but nonetheless, I think it’s worth pointing out that most sets have aesthetic value if nothing else.
I’ve never seen anyone deny that the Inika are clone sets. I’ve seen a few people say that about the Mata, but not many. (In complete fairness, at least Onua and Pohatu did have notable variances in their builds, though ultimately I would agree that they were clone sets.)
Many of us thought G2 was kinda lame right from the get-go. It had extremely basic worldbuilding compared to the original, fewer and even more basic characters, ill-defined powers and villains who weren’t threatening because of that lack of defined powers. Critique G1 if you must, but don’t conflate it with G2. Even if G1 is absolute trash, G2 is worse (story-wise) in almost every way.
17 Likes
I used to have blind praise for BIONICLE, but G2’s ending struck me harshly, and now I can’t help but look at the flaws in G1 and G2. I still like both, sure, but I’ve grown out of blindly praising BIONICLE as it is.
3 Likes
Oh dear. I’m going to regret getting involved in this… Nonetheless, my insatiable need to impose my opinion upon the misguided world has struck again, and I shall immediately begin your re-education!
So, the blind praise of Bionicle. I’ll take a look at your post, and attempt to analyse it in the context it was intended:
Indeed, it is certainly something which does occur, however I would challenge your claim that is is a large portion of the community. I would like to counter by pointing out the huge amounts of people who seem to spend more time disparaging the theme and emphasising it’s flaws. I know that there is a small issue with this, however to claim it is a large part of the community is stretching the truth a little.
Indeed it does, and as a kid, this storytelling was awesome - we had a world, we had characters, and those characters had to deal with consequences - I too really only got involved with the story in 07, and while Matoro’s death is, in hindsight, not as original or groundbreaking as it felt at the time - it did feel amazing at the time. It meant there was a gravity to the situation. The world came at a price - and that price was steep.
And of course it doesn’t have as much to offer as the Thrawn Trilogy, to adults, however that doesn’t mean it can’t have worth.
I can spend an afternoon reading through a large number of Bionicle novels (seriously, they take all of half an hour to go through these days), and enjoy the story. The simple values of Unity, Duty and Destiny, the exploration of brotherhood, and the building of a world which was (reasonably) consistent within itself is still entertaining, and sure, it’s not as well-written as the Thrawn Trilogy, but that’s not the point.
So to begin with, the kid in me didn’t think any of those things. You know what I thought when I saw this set on shelves? “COOL! He’s a fire guy, but UNDERWATER! Woah, is that an actual blaster? That sword looks great! Those knees look awesome!” - A 100% accurate rendition of my 7 yr old thought process.
All the other issues are only apparent to us once we are a bit older. And yes, the proportions aren’t consistent (although I personally don’t have an issue with them), the mask is difficult to work into a MOC, the PPPR isn’t too bad for technic sets, but it is high compared to System, the non-lime joints aren’t too bad, and the cordak blaster is a play feature.
So yes, the Mahri have issues, and so do many other sets. However, I have yet to see an instance where the community is unable to talk about these flaws (stopping talking about them, heatedly, however, can be a problem )
And I have never seen anyone deny the Inika were clone sets. They were, however, dark and edgy, and to a 7 yr old, that’s pretty cool.
I’m sorry, but have TTV not spent many hours of podcast time discussing the flaws of G1 sets TO DEATH? They praise the world building a lot, but even then admit it’s flaws and contradictions.
And yeah, I’ve noticed this, however a part of that is the inherent denial within a fan - when something you like it terrible, a part of you tells you not to worry about it, and it doesn’t actually show until some time afterwards. A fantastic example of this was TFA. I came out of the midnight screening with “IT WAS AMAZING!” However, even then, there was a niggling thought that perhaps it was just a carbon copy of Star Wars. But I pushed that thought down, until some months later, when I was able to realise that yes, it was unoriginal, and yes, Rey was a mary sue, and yes, the pacing was awful.
In the same way, we wanted G2 to be good, and so we said it was. (the beasts broke this for me, but some people kept it up). Now that it is over, we can start to realise the problems, and properly acknowledge it as a failure.
I think the elitism was both around before G2 ended, and also not very tolerated on the message boards. As for refusing to call G2 bionicle, not only is that reference out of context, but even then was a knee-jerk, as opposed to a thought out and constructed opinion.
Hmm… why is Bionicle great?
Could it be the world-building? The relative quality of the toys? The originality in aesthetic? The varied and wide range of media? The love, time and effort poured into producing it by the developers, authors, and designers?
As kids, it taught us about friendship, and brotherhood, about loss, about consequences, and about heroism. It gave us another world to dive into, and interesting, lived-in, and supported world.
There is no denying that Bionicle had flaws. G1 had problems, and G2 had even more.
But flaws don’t mean that there is no value.
The lack of gravity in 04 and 05 (because we know everyone makes it out) made the ignition trilogy even more impactful.
Flaws in the sets made good builds and interesting pieces stand out. And contradictions in canon gave fans something to ‘Ask Greg’ about in years to come. 
So yes, Bionicle has flaws, but those flaws don’t stop it being enjoyed, and they most definitely do not rob it of it’s worth.
4 Likes
I don’t think TTV ever just blindly praised BIONICLE. They looked at both the ups and downs of Generations 1 and 2, not just going “oh man G1 was the best thing to ever happen” and “G2 is bad G1 was way better.”
1 Like
Haven’t really read all of the arguments against that first post but I guess all those off things about the figures are what makes us like it. It’s different. What if we just got some crappy figure that was proportionate and looked like a normal guy? we have barbie and ken dolls for that. There are a lot of things people didn’t like about G1, such as the Hordika (either though I kinda liked them), the Av Matoran, no proper knees on the earlier sets, Hewkii Mahri, etc. Things have their flaws but sometimes flaws make things better. TTV really likes Bionicle and it’s their #1 favorite thing, but they don’t praise it like it saved them from death or something. They make things not related to Bionicle (Brickfeed podcast) but they are mainly a Bionicle channel. I guess it’s so big to them because they are a group of fans on that theme. I definitely have seen more crazy godly praise fans before in other things. I won’t say franchise names… JUST KIDDING I WILL. Five nights at freddys, undertale, minecraft (either though I sometimes play it although I’m not involved with their community), pretty much any franchise held up by little kids wanting to be cool. No offense to anybody who likes that stuff, please don’t shoot me with your Phantoka themed foam ball shooters. Although the thing about people disliking G2 so much as to not call it Bionicle is really stupid. Things are really stupid when a lot of people dislike it. A lot of people like the same thing and come together, more of it happens (TTV). A lot of people dislike the same thing and come together, more of it happens (that G2 thing I just said). So I know I wrote another essay type thing but hopefully it got my point through. Plus this took me like 2-5 minutes, I do this too much.
(EDIT: Two last things, Chilly, you asked why Bionicle is so great. Why do you think it’s great? or do you not like Bionicle anymore? Second thing, I like Bionicle because it’s a different aspect of Lego, it has a big storyline and much to see about it. The sets are complicated to build [which I like] and have cool functions. The thing about clone sets is one of the reasons why I don’t buy everything in a wave. It’s got a lot of interesting things going for it and there’s still more to say and do with it because the fans can communicate with the staff of Bionicle. I was gonna say something about other franchises being repetitive and stuff but it probably wouldn’t fare well and this edit is too long. Bye bye.)
2 Likes
There is a level of blind praise for G1 based on nostalgia, arguably TTV’s cast would’nt be where they are today without Bionicle and its earning them money with a certain level of fame. The board members primarily also would’nt be here without G1.
There is a sense that when someone critiques one thing when comparing it to another, such as how people compare G1 and G2 that you’ll find they will come off saying how much one is better. Though that doesnt necessarily imply the viewpoint that they think its flawless.
Several cast members have expressed flaws in the theme’s handling, the random canonisations, the copy/paste structure of sets, the clone sets, etc…
Its just that people are saying the elements that G1 did better. Though admittedly there are a bunch of people who will say G1 was perfect, its not a majority.
Alternatively, i’m going to explain why it wasnt;
Objectively Bionicle was a terrible theme of toys after 2006. The builds were repetitive and if it hadnt got a strong storyline and an asthetic it would have flopped the same way that G2 did. People just dont want to accept that because they want to believe that G1 could be used as an example of how to do a theme right.
The primary benefit was the cheapness of certain sets coupled with how there wasnt an economic downturn until later years. It’s main sets didnt improve too much in terms of complexity over the years, but the fans had money to buy it. Its no suprise that the theme ended quickly after the 2007-2008 financial crisis.
The Phantoka and Mistika for example are worse sets than the Toa Jaller that you showed;
I mean, look at this thing - other than a few new pieces it looks utterly terrible. Blue pins everywhere, a bland and copy past build and an oddly shaped mask.
The titans got better, the Toa got blander. The most impressive things they made were with the larger more expensive sets, which for a toyline aimed at kids was an utterly terrible idea given kids would never be able to afford sets such as these;
I liked Bionicle, but it was not a great. Nothing is perfect and everything has flaws.
4 Likes
Exactly.
I have to stick with my conscience here; Bionicle is pretty great. Pretty freaking amazing. Is it as good as the Star Wars or LoTR tales? Or the works of Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, or Ursula K. LeGuin? No, it’s not.
But that has absolutely no bearing on it being bad. First of all, it’s not just a blip. TLG is the largest and most powerful toy company in the world, the longest-surviving of the top three (the others being Mattel and Hasbro), and a cultural icon in dozens of countries, like Disney or Tolkien or Lucas, whom we hopefully can agree have created some great stories over the years. Bionicle was the theme that saved them from bankruptcy; TLG didn’t even turn a profit in 1998 fiscal year. In the G1 days, it was their most successful IP from 2001 through 2006. Allegedly, it was still wildly profitable through 2008. It was a sensation.
The story was created by legitimate speculative fiction writers such as Christian Faber, Bob Thompson and Christopher Randhaul, and at least one of those three cared enough about the story to continue to blog about it over a decade later. Cathy Hapka was a children’s book hack, but Greg Farshtey was a real, recognized, science-fiction writer. And Ryder Windham was acclaimed for it.
But you don’t need to sing the songs of the creators to recognize what makes Bionicle fantastic. The basis is a mind-twistingly brilliant contradiction that kept (and keeps) fans coming back; why the heck are all these androids stuck on this tropical island? Where do these heroes come from? And why does the bad guy want so badly to keep them from leaving?
As the story progressed, the writers didn’t always dodge clichés, but they often did; and when they screwed up on that front, they made up for it with liberal amounts of human emotion. It didn’t matter that they were robots when they fell in love, sacrificed their livelihoods and their lives, and celebrated wilder than the most drunken party ever when the Toa won. If you don’t believe me, check out the Le-Koro Band scenes in the MNOG.
It was popular enough, even, to make a comeback five years later, a feat that no other story-intensive LEGO theme has ever accomplished, and probably never will.
Did it fail sometimes? Heck yeah. Did it fail worse than other “respectable” tales? Every once in a while. Even when all is stacked up against it, Bionicle isn’t just good. It’s extraordinary.
-Azani
10 Likes
Indeed it was, but it can’t take all the credit, 1999 was the first year of LEGO Star Wars, which also had a huge hand in keeping LEGO around.
1 Like