Recently, a heated debate started in another topic, where some people were claiming that the fan rejection of G2 was one of the biggest, if not the biggest, factor in its downfall. Personally, I see no evidence for this whatsoever, but some people kept insisting that this was the case. We were really starting to go off-topic in that thread, so I decided to create another separate thread for this particular discussion here.
For those who believe that the fan rejection was the biggest factor in G2’s downfall, feel free to present your best case and arguments here. I am genuinely curious to understand why some people would think this was the case.
@Ghid, @Zhyndea, @Dave97, @DuneToa
8 Likes
I wasn’t a fan of Bionicle until right as it was ending, and I wasn’t old enough at the time to have exposure to the fan community, so my only perspective on this is arguments made after the fact, and those arguments I’ve seen from both sides have been pretty persuasive. Old threads I’ve read on the Boards seemed pretty positive towards the 2016 wave, but I also fully believe that the “Old Guard” did not hold a positive opinion towards the G2 sets. However, I do lean slightly towards non-fan factors as the main failure of G2. Instead, I would point to the poor marketing and lackluster story as the biggest factors in its failure. (Constraction in general seems to have been floundering at the time, so that is probably another main factor in the end of G2.)
I personally would doubt that older fans would present a significant roadblock in sales, for the same reason I doubt that older fan negativity presents a significant factor in Ninjago and other kid-aimed themes–the sets are primarily made for kids (before Ninjago Legends, at least), so sales will only be significantly affected by those factors that would affect children’s opinions of the sets and the theme. And, while launching a solid gold mask contest advertising campaign on social media might attract those on social media, I doubt it would attract the main audience of children, who were not majorly on those platforms, whereas a cohesive and well-crafted narrative might have attracted them better. Instead, LEGO chose the priorities they did, and the rest is history.
6 Likes
Thank you for making this topic!
Personally, I question Ghid’s statements regarding the responsibility of the haters’ role in G2’s early cancellation for one reason, which has already been said many times before:
The Bonkle fandom at large, even back then, was a very small minority within the whole Lego community.
Those rabid G1 purists were an even smaller fraction within the already small fandom.
I highly doubt their loud noises could’ve made such an impact on Lego’s decision-making process to cut G2’s lifespan one year shorter than the planned three.
Unless someone posts irrefutable proof for that, I stand for this.
6 Likes
I don’t think this debate can ever be objectively decided unless Lego themselves attempted to do a very in-depth study on it. We don’t have the data to make so many assumptions on what motivated people to buy G2 or not.
I will say that I don’t think G2 could ever reach G1’s level. Not because G1 was perfect, or its level of success unobtainable, but because G2 couldn’t commit to be different than G1 or the same as G1. And that for G1 fans, G2 could never recapture the experiences that had already happened with G1. G2 was caught between multiple external forces and unfortunately it couldn’t commit to its own path.
But that’s ok. We got cool new parts and designs that we wouldn’t have gotten otherwise. We got art that, though incomplete, had a lot of effort and artistry put into it. The story was fairly unimpactful, but for me it helped me see what made G1 special in the first place.
G1 ended as all things must come to an end. I’m happy I got to experience it from the very start.
9 Likes
I think people don’t point this out nearly as much as they should. Not only did G2 fail, but the Star Ward Ultrabuilds were also warming the shelves around the same time. Granted, the SW Ultrabuilds outlived G2 by another two years, which still to this day makes no sense in my mind at all… In my experience, the SW Ultrabuilds tended to sell even worse than the G2 sets, I remember going at a toy store in 2021 and still seeing the Rogue One wave of SW Ultrabuilds available after 5+ years, whereas the G2 sets disappeared from shelves completely as soon as the theme ended. (I also don’t recall seeing any particularly big discountes on G2 sets, whereas the Ultrabuilds were discounted all the time.) I assume maybe LEGO somehow still had more faith in Construction Star Wars than in G2 because of the brand recognition, so that’s why they kept it around for two years more? I have no idea.
But regardless, I think a clear factor in the failure was that, by 2015-2016, the main Toa sets were becoming so expensive that they were going outside the regular price range of most Constraction sets prior. In Hero Factory, for example, you were paying 8$ for the 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 Heroes, which was basically almost the same price range as the original Toa Mata all the way back in 2001, whereas in both G1 and Hero Factory, 20$ was the price of the larger Titan sets. It seems crazy now to think that a set as huge as the Witch Doctor only retailed for 35$ back in 2011. When we compare this with G2, where for 10$ you got the pretty generic and rather uninspired Protectors which all shared the same mask and while all the Toa retailed for either 15$ or 20$, I think the difference in price is clearly visible.
I think both G1 and Hero Factory thrived on affordability. If you were one of those kids whose parents didn’t like spending money on LEGO, you could get plenty of sets for a very small budget, while for G2, that was no longer the case. I distinctly recall how for me growing up, my parents would rarely buy me any sets above the 10$ price range, because I was in a family of four boys, so buying huge sets for all of us was out of the question. With that in mind, it is hard for me to not see how that could have easily impacted G2’s sales negatively.
Though to be honest, comparing 2015-2016 prices with the prices of LEGO sets today, it feels like a night and day difference, geez. It’s hard for me to understand how any parents can still afford buying Lego for their kids today given how expensive most sets are these days.
Well… apparently, the “Magna Files” that were leaked by Duck Bricks a year or so ago also contained something we never get from LEGO… Actual sales data. While everything in that file is confidential, maybe we can hope that one day, a few more years down the line after the information would be irrelevant, maybe we can actually get actual sales data on G2. That would honestly be mind blowing and could help solve so many of the questions we’ve been having about G2’s failure for years.
Does anyone here happen to know anything about what was said in those files concerning sales data on G2? Or is it not safe to discuss such information?
7 Likes
This. This and the marketing are the biggest reasons why I believe the cancellation wasn’t the fault of fans (or not entirely their fault). Prior constraction lines made sure to sell the main characters at the $10 price point, one that kids could easily and reasonably be expected to buy themselves. G2 moved the price point for the Toa to that of comparably complex action figures like Star Wars Black Series and Transformers Deluxe Class figures: $15-20. Fewer people are willing to buy something when the base price point literally doubles with no major changes to the product aside from height.
Second, the advertising for the sets was bad. I first heard about them from the LEGO Club magazine via a back cover ad on the last 2014 issue. That, and a few wave showcase ads over the next 12 months were the only times the theme was shown in the magazine. No mention of the elemental monsters in 2016 (or Umarak the Destroyer). One single two-page ad for the spring 2016 wave of Toa and elemental creatures (and base Umarak). Not one single other appearance of Bionicle in LEGO club, EVER.
The in-set ads were worse, consisting of bland, textless comics somehow drawn really abstractly (as if they were using character templates the whole time; at least HF Invasion From Below had actual art for the pack-in comics) and ads for the short animations for the protectors on the Netflix app and LEGO.com. Neither had engaging backgrounds or wave showcases like other themes did, and the show for the theme flopped harder than Nexo Knights’ show did, barely getting a pilot season and a special.
There was better advertising from LEGO toy fair type events than from their own marketing materials for G2, so honestly most consumers probably had no idea that there was a story to go with the sets.
7 Likes
I believe most has already been said, but maybe it’s worth pointing out Bionicle’s in-house competition? Ninjago was at one of its peaks during G2’s run. Sure, minifigure playsets and action figures are completely different subjects, but I still think that Ninjago with its greater popularity could’ve taken a lot of children’s attention away from Bionicle. This is just pure speculation though.
7 Likes
I still can’t for the life of me understand why they waited until 2016 to actually give G2 a proper Netflix series. Sure, Journey to One wasn’t great but it least it had decent animation that honestly looked quite good by the standards of Netflix shows. Debuting the theme instead in 2015 with the low-budget, 2D animated shorts that were published at random, arbitrary dates that had a single voice actor for all characters, basically killed the theme right from the get-go, and by the time Journey to One came out, it was already too late.
6 Likes
I definitely think that this is another factor. If a kid wanted to buy LEGO sets from a theme about elemental warriors fighting evil, would they buy Bionicle, which had one character and a tiny foe in a set at max, or Ninjago, which often had a main character and an enemy of the same scale and a build to go along with it in even the smallest sets? As much as I hate to say it, mechs are more efficient at getting kids to purchase them than constraction characters, since the kid can have an adventure with both the mech and the character on their own, whereas, for constraction characters, there’s much less to do without more than one.
Plus, Ninjago, again, had better advertisting. As @DuneToa referred to, the advertising was abysmal–I was in the target audience at the time, and I don’t think I realized Journey to One existed until 2017 or 2018 (and even then from a fan wiki, not an official source), and I don’t think I was even aware that the webisodes existed outside Journey to One’s recap until less than five years ago. By contrast, with Ninjago, it has always been abundantly clear where the primary place to watch Ninjago is, outside a few years when Cartoon Network bungled distribution in America (but that was after G2 ended, so it’s moot). It’s probably why Ninjago’s lasted longer than Bionicle ever did: while there was no cohesive place to find the 2001 or 2015 stories for Bionicle, Ninjago has always had a single, popular place to experience the stories, from start to finish. It’s not always good, but it certainly strikes true better than the G1 movies or the G2 TV show, which were aimed at the same audience. G1 sold a lot of its stories through comics and books, while for Ninjago comics and books are a side note, deemphasized and not the theme-seller. Is that good or bad? Debatable, but it has certainly led to much longevity. And, if a kid wants to get into Ninjago, it’s much easier to start the story from the beginning (no matter how misogynistic it was then) or from any of its soft reboots than it was to start Bionicle, whose 2001 story was anchored on a cancelled video game and whose 2015 story was anchored on obscure webisodes. I mean, the first Bionicle book didn’t even explain what a Matoran was (I was so lost when I read it for the first time)!
Another factor was the characters. Watching even one episode of Ninjago is enough to sell the personalities of most of its cast. By contrast, can you name G2 Gali’s personality? How about G2 Kopaka, or G2 Onua? And can you describe G2 Lewa, G2 Pohatu, and G2 Tahu in more than a sentence or two? Or even a word or two? “Playful”, “loner”, “aggressive”–was there anything else? Did any of the protectors have personalities besides “wise elder”? Did Ekimu? Was G2 Makuta anything but a one-note malevolent Garmadon rip-off? Did any of the Elemental Creatures have personalities that weren’t muted versions of their corresponding Toa? And did Umarak have a personality beyond vague malevolence? G2’s biggest problem with the story wasn’t the execution, but investement. Why should kids care about characters they hardly know, or a world so paper-thin it’s flimsier than cardboard?
So, I think that G2 was doomed from the start. Caught between dwindling popularity for constraction, angry G1 fans, an appallingly-bad story, and little-to-no audience awareness, was there any reason for kids to like it? I mean, sometimes, when I mention Bionicle, my peers of a similar age will recognize the name, but there’s nothing else there, no greater recognition, only a vague recollection of something possibly LEGO-related or possibly not.
5 Likes
Did he? All I remember was him trying to use sentient bear traps to kill creatures.
5 Likes
I’ve been watching Chima lately, and even it’s atrocious story was still better than G2’s (probably why it lasted longer). Dreamzzz isn’t particularly good, but it’s also got better characters than G2, hence why it’s only now dying.
6 Likes
You don’t need to beat around the bush if you’re also pinging me.
I’m afraid my arguments were paraphrased or not properly expressed in that topic, which I’ve since muted due to off-topic discussion. I’ll reiterate them as succinctly as I can here to avoid further confusion.
Bionicle G2 failed for three main reasons:
- LEGO provided far too little budget for marketing when it became evident very early on the theme needed extensive marketing to survive, only beginning to fund the line when it was far too late
- Fans at the time tainted the review system of retailers online to favor their personal top characters while diminishing the rest, leading to a drop in ratings across the board and causing retailers to reject stock
- The LEGO Movie 2 was given far too much backing from LEGO, forcing them into a financial crisis after the film bombed in theaters and giving them ample opportunity to cull underperforming themes
There’s a large number of other factors and possible factors involved as well, such as the existence of Ninjago and the dreaded not-Boards-allowed topic of Politics. 
But all three of those factors contributed heavily to the early cancellation of the theme, and each contributed in different areas to a greater extent than the others. Personally, I feel that if any one of these issues did not exist, the theme would have lasted three years easily.
As for which one contributed the most? The lack of a marketing budget probably did the most damage throughout its runtime, but the LEGO Movie 2’s failure was a very large final nail in the coffin. We did get to experience quite a bit of G2 either way, and I’m glad for what we got.
LEGO’s used to dealing with Bionicle fans. Target isn’t. The rabid fans (not even purists if I’m being honest, just ne’er-do-wells) targeted retailers directly, causing Bionicle to look very unpopular when it really wasn’t.
I should also clarify that this wasn’t the majority opinion of the community at the time, but there was a good amount of negativity towards G2 during its two-year tenure across online communities and irl clubs which LEGO certainly was aware of.
We don’t, and we ultimately never will. No matter how much info we receive from retailers and LEGO as a company, the individual rationale of customers will forever remain a mystery.
I will say, what Bionicle G2 did manage to do with a budget of next to nothing is honestly impressive. The flash animations were only a couple of steps from being genuinely good media, and although people criticized the solitary voice actor quite heavily at the time, I don’t envy the job he had.
Bionicle was always destined to be lightning in a bottle - striking a practically unknown market with the perfect product and dominating the next decade. We’ll never get the same experience that so many people remember fondly, but then again, we’ll never get another experience quite like G2 either.
It’s better and more accurate to remember G2 for what it was, not for what it wasn’t. It made its mark on the LEGO landscape and gave a final fairwell to the long-beloved system of constraction figures, which (along with Star Wars) would be the last time LEGO attempted the ball-and-socket action figure formula ever again.
Until, that is…
…okay maybe not quite yet 
8 Likes
I grew up with g2. i liked it, but i liked ninjago more. the show motivated me to stick with ninjago rather than bionicle
5 Likes
Not a single sentence I have ever read has made me feel old as much as this one does.
5 Likes
I think the biggest reason why G2 failed and G1 seceded is because of story. Even if the sets are basically the exact same build just in different colors, if the characters are interesting enough you’ll want to buy the all of them anyway. It wasn’t until I knew the whole backstory of the Barraki that I decided to buy them (even though I was already into bionicle for a few years I didn’t know anything about the barraki until then).
As far as my understanding goes G2 had a very simple story compared to G1, a story that could quickly be explained in one ad not excluding much detail. There wasn’t as much to get invested in, and it didn’t have the mystery that made G1 so alluring.
For the sets themselves, I think they’re fine. They weren’t anything new unlike G1, using the same system Hero Factory already introduced.
The bad guys were pretty lame too.
5 Likes
People give G2 a lot of flak for having a barebones story, but in truth it didn’t have too much worse of a story than most other LEGO themes have had. Where it really sucked was the expansion of the lore in side media, such as the novels and the netflix series. The base story of both generations of Bionicle are both fairly simple and easy to understand wave-to-wave, but the story team for G2 simply didn’t have the chops to make the world interesting beyond the initial premise.
Bionicle was blessed with the incredibly talented Bob Thompson and the endlessly versatile Greg Farshtey to expand upon what was provided in unique and constructive ways, and that was simply never gonna happen again - for Bionicle or anything else.
Meanwhile, LEGO’s usual approach in storytelling - DREAMZzz, Nexo Knights, Hero Factory, Hidden Side, and the like - fared about as well in that department.
4 Likes
I disagree, at least where it comes to Journey to One. I’ve never watched Nexo Knights, so I can’t speak to that, but Hidden Side had a more in-depth story in its webisodes than G2 did (and its story was certainly better than Journey to One), and Dreamzzz, Hero Factory, etc. had much more clear and well-told stories in their shows, even if they were hardly to the level of G1 Bionicle or Ninjago. The main TV show used to sell the story should be so badly-executed as to be considered, as you put it in your post, “side media”, as it’s what keeps the kids buying.
I do agree that the worldbuilding was poor, but even themes with poor worldbuilding can last longer if their stories are sold well.
4 Likes
Hidden Side’s base story is actually slightly worse than Bionicle in that you need side media to understand what the heck is even going on half the time. Both Bionicle generations were very good at laying out the sides and the stakes almost entirely relying on the packaging.
Anything not meant as the primary form of media or product is side media/product. Journey to One wasn’t necessary to understanding the story or engaging with the line, and was never the primary method of engaging with the story, as the toys were made for that.
Ninjago is a bit of a weird case in that side media - the television series - has overtaken the theme in the societal zeitgeist to such a degree that it has essentially become the primary media and the original toyline simply toys for the show rather than the other way around. The theme has been usurped by its own commercials.
yeah just look at ninjago
UPDATE: I am currently on the run from every single child on the planet aged 10 to 17 who has watched the Ninjago television series. My current whereabouts are somewhere in the sahara desert. If you can find me on google earth I will do the yoinky sploinky into the big government surveillance satellite capturing the footage.
6 Likes
Being a moderator at the time, I definitely saw the worst parts of the fandom I had ever seen, so I will say this: I don’t think it was necessarily on the fans; I think some subsections were worse than others. (I was in some communities that were entirely positive on G2.) But LEGO is ultimately a company and I think they were relying on hype to market this thing. Especially since there was little advertising.
G1 had a very solid first wave, but the villain wave of 2015 was underwhelming. The Toa Uniters were cool! But then the second 2016 wave felt very half-baked, and the sets were not very good. I dunno how the planning was considered, but putting less effort into the villain sets felt like a plan for failure. (This is someone who likes Umarak the Hunter.)
Just from retrospect, I feel the themes was half-baked and it felt rushed. Which is a shame, because I loved the visual aesthetic, and I was getting drawn into the storytelling of it. I still think G2 had the best Toa sets ever.
However, there was so much toxic vitriol being spat from everyone at the time (yes even myself; I was a dumb high schooler). The theme kinda brought the worst outta everyone, and I think killed my own passion for BIONICLE when being in the community for those days. I grew out of it. That, and fan reaction to what was given, which, as Ghid pointed out, was likely underfunded and did what they could, was not positive. Once again, I am also guilty of this. We kinda just were not there for the theme and didn’t realize it was a test.
Part of me wonders if another 5 or so years for a revival, for a completely new generation of kiddos, and a better budget, would have been better. Who knows.
Much of us at the time were too young to realize this point too: BIONICLE was extremely special, which is why a lot of us were drawn to it. The deep lore, the cool sets, the multi-media franchise, it was a different time for LEGO in financial desperation. It purposefully chased trends. (2006 in particular with the grunge-rock aesthetic.) Sometimes when companies are cornered like that, they make stuff way better than they normally can.
So I agree, BIONICLE probably won’t be replicated again. Though I do lament that the franchise is basically dead. However, most franchises happen to have that fate eventually.
7 Likes