When it comes to later years, I agree with that.
2 Likes
Just out of curiosity, why?
Is that really unpopular?
1 Like
1 word (or acronym) ccbs
I know this isn’t an unpopular opinion but alot of nostalgia blind genwunners are rate bombing the journey to one on Netflix
Edited for double-post. Please take a look at the site rules and feel free to ask any mod_squad members if you’re unclear on anything. Thanks! --John Smith
3 Likes
Jouney to one SUCKED. I don’t care if it’s a kid’s show, it sucked even for that.
7 Likes
y u maek bonkle sad
7 Likes
I just didn’t see it in the toys. They always looked (and to be honest, still do) like robots to me, so when the idea that they were biomechanical was introduced to me, I just thought it was stupid, and it also didn’t make much sense scientifically. Now I don’t mind so much though. It’s unique, and Bionicle is Science Fantasy, so it’s not too concerning. So long as they don’t suddenly get fleshy-looking pieces with hair or visible muscle tissue or something weird like that, I’m cool with it.
Ah, the G1 “building system”. A collection of prefab, often overtly greebled parts, designed to at first suit a particular design uniform for a wave of sets, therefore being destined to never really properly mesh with anything outside of said uniform.
I’m so, so glad we’ve moved onto the CCBS. It’s much easier to customise and dress up cohesively.
7 Likes
Well, I buy the sets for parts if that’s anything. I’m in it for the mocs really.
Stars>HF 1.0
5 Likes
I liked HF.
4 Likes
I honestly prefer innovative functions over appearance. It’s easy to make a set look cool, but it takes guts and the mind of a true engineer to implement an action feature, even if some sacrifices have to be made.
1 Like
I loved HF.
6 Likes
That too.
I have most of the sets. I have the entire Breakout and IFB waves. I have all but one of OoF and BA.
1 Like
Care to elaborate? I thought it was pretty good, especially from a lesser known animation company.
4 Likes
Wow that hits me right in the feels.
1 Like
Just because a set has a unique function does not mean it has to sacrifice its appearance. Skull Basher had a unique function but still maintained a overall decent appearance. You could say the thickness of his limbs is inconsistent but it appears to me as if the set designers wanted to create the appearance of Basher as a skeleton with bulky, chunky armour, and I think it worked.
People excuse the beasts’ legs because of their functions and I think that is just wrong. See, the fatal flaw all the beasts have as a whole is they pretentiously try to implement needlessly complex designs when much simpler solutions would have sufficed. Honestly, I don’t even think the Beasts’ functions are all that unique or original, the mechanisms that are at work in the function are just different and overly elaborate, the functions themselves are just more of the same. Swinging arms? is that really that creative? Like we haven’t seen that before.
The beasts functions are no excuse for poorly designed limbs and a well designed portion of a whole is no excuse for a poorly designed portion. The Beasts lower legs could have been constructed in a multitude of alternative, most likely simpler ways that would have looked better than their finalized designs. Simply because something is more elaborate and complex does not necessarily make it better.
Waits for inevitable backlash of all the beast fans
7 Likes
Anyway, I think they have those legs because some of their design is meant to echo Umarak the hunter’s (their masks, leg shapes, and ribcage pieces).
I feel they could have been better, but as a whole, they’re alright.
3 Likes
I’ve never seen anybody make that excuse.
With the legs? Yes, I agree. I don’t think this is an unpopular opinion at all. Elsewhere though? I don’t see anything more complicated than on this year’s Toa, or even the Creatures.
LB’s isn’t, being lifted straight from the Toa, but SB’s is pretty unique - it’s more akin to puppetry than clockwork, and allows for some different manouvers than a gearbox would allow. And QB’s, while still a gearbox, works in an angle we haven’t seen in a figure of his size yet (other than maybe Skull Basher, but that was less of a gearbox and more of a jack/pump). It’s something, I guess.
Well, what else do you suggest? When you’ve got figures that attack using weapons or claws, that’s really the thing you’re going to want to animate with functions. Other than waist or shoulder gearing, I’m not really sure what else you could do, other than maybe change the angle of the shoulder motion or something. Butting heads could be one thing, but without making massive prefab parts like on (blegh) that would prove to be a complex endeavour, which would be fine on a big set like UtD, but not a “canister” sized set like the Beasts.
Good old Al, sticking up for the Beasts.
7 Likes
/s
Meh everyone’s entitled to there opinion
I can look past the objective flaws, and like them for their uniqueness.
5 Likes
I have. Many times. Just look in the comments section for Play Stippling’s review of Storm Beast
a turntable with a gear on it is just as needlessly complex as Storm Beast’s mess of technic? The Uniter Toa’s functions were even simpler than the Masters gearboxes.
The creatures functions were compact and flowed much better with each of their builds, Uxar’s thorax and Ikir’s tail feathers along with what I guess are supposed to be “tails” on Terak and Melum acted as a lever to activate their functions, a clever design choice that integrated part of their functions into the set’s aesthetic or appearance. Sure, it can be argued Storm Beast did the same thing with his tail, but it is not executed nearly as well and looks far worse, with large beams connecting his tail to the mechanism that activates his arms.
1 Like
IfB was the best wave.