Bionicle 2015 Discussion

[Jetrax99]

You shouldn't hope for a new building system. Especially one that's closer to the old one.

Last I checked, LEGO doesn't step backwards. When used in the right way, CCBS is more versatile than the old system and making it closer to the older system would defeat the purpose of CCBS being used for all action figures as well as it's long-term implementation. We may see minor changes, but nothing that takes away from why the CCBS was designed to begin with.

Mind you, I'm strictly referring to the base skeleton. We may see more specialized shells somewhere down the line. We already have a new shell add-on that most likely won't be used anywhere else, we have a brand new head, with eye stalks, made specifically for the new sets, specialized weapons that fit the BIONICLE aesthetic, and of course, gearboxes.

Edited October 3, 2014 by Jetrax99

[arc]

I don't mind ccbs that much, I just wish we had better shells.

Although I hope they bring back some old parts, that's highly unlikely. But then again they did bring back the rahkshi staff, so I guess it's not 100% out of the question.

[Jetrax99]

I don't mind ccbs that much, I just wish we had better shells.

Although I hope they bring back some old parts, that's highly unlikely. But then again they did bring back the rahkshi staff, so I guess it's not 100% out of the question.

Which brings me to this question:

This notion, which I don't believe at all, that LEGO destroys or buries old molds, who started that?

[Mandate]

The only and clear problem here is that visually speaking CCBS offers a much narrower spectrum of sights. Heroes didn't change much in the 2011-3 era, and this year the only relevant difference was the cockpit.

We had a similar problem with BIONICLE in the 2006-09 days with the infamous Inika build, but at least there were many, MANY more pieces to choose from when desining the Inika clones they sold us.

I really hope CCBS evolves into a much wider system, aesthetically speaking, and BIONICLE 2015 seems really promising.

But honestly I really hope for a new building system, similar to the one BIONICLE had until the end.

This. CCBS is a great system, but it's incredibly limited when it comes to set design. At the very least, I want to see a redesigned torso and Shells. The shells are far too streamline IMO (not to mention how gappy they look), and the torso has needed a better design since day 1. While yes, it's very versatile, but when it comes to humanoid characters it doesn't offer a lot in the way of complexity eg the Technic Backpacks. Back armor has always looked out of place on CCBS because it's either too gappy, a gigantic extension of the back (*cough*2015*cough*), mostly non-existent or even completely non-existent!

Oh look at that. I just wasted my final post before my special surprise ranting about CCBS's downsides

Anyway, some of the sets are growing on me but I can't see myself seriously buying Lewa or Gali if not for parts. I know that Kopaka's original mask was spaced out with the monocle... things... but am I the only one who thinks it's far too spaced out? If it were closer together I'd consider buying Kopaka but that one section throws it all off for me with how flat it is.

[Kalhiki]

I like CCBS and think these new figures look great with it.

But I'm still waiting for mid-torso articulation...

[Dorek]

Honestly, CCBS has provided waaay more variation in a shorter span of time than BIONICLE did. Not with larger sets, I grant you; this is where BIONICLE truly excelled, even if they never sold as much. But with smaller sets, the kinds of things they can do among things in a single wave is just fantastic, and I'm glad to be seeing that with BIONICLE 2.0.

(but yes, torso articulation please)

[Grima]

When used in the right way, CCBS is more versatile than the old system

LEGO better start using it right somewhere in here :P

in all seriousness, CCBS has somewhat grown on me, but as I've said before, the monopiece torsos are an artifact of an unfortunate past. Sure, they're fine when it comes to the Character part of the building system, but what about the Creature part? One of Dragon Bolt's many terrible proportion problems (well, two if you include the head-to-body ratio) comes from the big torso block used in its construction. Namely, this issue is that its shoulders are wider than its hips. This is fine in humanoid creations, because it's realistic proportions, and even though it's a bit of exaggeration on the human shoulder to hip ratio, it still makes sense since it keeps the arms from hitting the legs when in a resting position. However, on a quadrupedal animal like Dragon Bolt, it gives the body an unrealistic shape; in quadrupeds, the shoulders are usually within the same width as the hips. Fangz has a similar issue, also caused by the torso piece used.

If they won't stop using blocky torso pieces in these creatures, they should at least make one that better matches realistic hip and shoulder proportions for quadrupedal creatures.

(Fangz and Dragon Bolt share another animalistic proportion problem; namely, their front legs are longer than their back legs, giving them an almost Brachiosaurus-like pose at rest. This is a fault from the set designers, though, and actually has no bearing on CCBS itself, and otherwise, Fangz isn't anywhere near the proportional monstrosity Dragon Bolt is.)

[Aanchir]

Which brings me to this question:

This notion, which I don't believe at all, that LEGO destroys or buries old molds, who started that?

LEGO employees did. It's not something somebody in the AFOL community came up with on their own.

I don't know where it was ORIGINALLY revealed, but I can pull a quote from the book LEGO: A Love Story, from the author's firsthand account of visiting LEGO Headquarters in Billund.

"The last stop on the tour is the mold warehouse. Molds are stacked on orange and steel shelves; Aksel [Krabbe Nielsen, the visitor manager] estimates that LEGO has between six thousand and seven thousand molds, of which four thousand are currently active. Molds can potentially be filled five million times, and some have been in use for more than thirty years/ Since it takes twelve weeks and up to $50,000 to make one mold, LEGO wants to get the most use out of each.

'What happens when a mold is done?' I ask Jan [Christiansen].

'We put them under the concrete in front to make sure that nobody will steal the molds," says Jan. He's smiling, but he's not kidding." (p164).

I have, however, found some sources that seem to suggest this practice has been discontinued, and nowadays molds are recycled. In any case, this applies to molds that are WORN-OUT, i.e, useless. They will no longer produce parts that meet the LEGO Group's standards of quality due to manufacturing wear, so the LEGO Group has no reason for keeping them.

Frankly, there's no way to know for sure which molds have been put into storage because LEGO hasn't needed those designs in recent sets, and which have been destroyed because the molds have reached their actual end-of-life. The quote from LEGO: A Love Story notwithstanding, different molds are created with different lifespans in mind. Those that will are not EXPECTED to be used year after year are not DESIGNED to be used year after year.

On the subject of the CCBS, I have no doubt that there are ways the CCBS can continue to improve, but people who think the limits to its potential are insurmountable and that the LEGO Group should just can it and bring back the parts and building styles of the old BIONICLE sets are kidding themselves.

The torso beams are just one example. Yes, a lot of sets use the basic torso beams, because it's often the most efficient solution and there are probably a lot of buyers (especially kids) who don't know or care what the ratio of a quadruped's hips to its shoulders are supposed to be — they just want to see awesome-looking monsters. But treating this as an inherent fault of the CCBS is ridiculous considering that sets such as Thornraxx, Evo XL Machine, and Witch Doctor show how even a CCBS set can have a completely custom torso skeleton. I've even built a MOC that subverts some of the usual issues with quadruped proportions.

So the issue isn't that the building system needs to be retired or replaced, or even that the current parts palette is too limited for these kinds of applications. It's more that the designers don't always use it to its fullest potential (sometimes, of course, consciously choosing NOT to in the name of price or efficiency).

Edited October 3, 2014 by Aanchir

[arc]

Which brings me to this question:

This notion, which I don't believe at all, that LEGO destroys or buries old molds, who started that?

Not sure who exactly, but I've heard it from several members here, so I thought it's what they did. Now that I think about, in 2009 they brought back a few mata/nuva era parts, plus a few that hadn't been used since 2005, so maybe it isn't so far fetched after all. *crosses fingers*

EDIT: just read Aanchir's post. They're needs to be a ninja emote for how many times this happens.

Edited October 3, 2014 by arc

[dviddy]

LEGO employees did. It's not something somebody in the AFOL community came up with on their own.

I don't know where it was ORIGINALLY revealed, but I can pull a quote from the book LEGO: A Love Story, from the author's firsthand account of visiting LEGO Headquarters in Billund.

"The last stop on the tour is the mold warehouse. Molds are stacked on orange and steel shelves; Aksel [Krabbe Nielsen, the visitor manager] estimates that LEGO has between six thousand and seven thousand molds, of which four thousand are currently active. Molds can potentially be filled five million times, and some have been in use for more than thirty years/ Since it takes twelve weeks and up to $50,000 to make one mold, LEGO wants to get the most use out of each.

'What happens when a mold is done?' I ask Jan [Christiansen].

'We put them under the concrete in front to make sure that nobody will steal the molds," says Jan. He's smiling, but he's not kidding." (p164).

I have, however, found some sources that seem to suggest this practice has been discontinued, and nowadays molds are recycled. In any case, this applies to molds that are WORN-OUT, i.e, useless. They will no longer produce parts that meet the LEGO Group's standards of quality due to manufacturing wear, so the LEGO Group has no reason NOT to recycle them. Frankly, there's no way to know for sure which molds have been put into storage because LEGO hasn't needed those designs in recent sets, and which have been destroyed because the molds have reached their actual end-of-life. The quote from LEGO: A Love Story notwithstanding, different molds are created with different lifespans in mind. Those that will not NEED to be used year after year are not DESIGNED to be used year after year.

TLG reps at Brickfair have said the original Kanohi molds are indeed some of those buried in the concrete. I'm going to guess the outdated connection method when the line switched to axle-connectors probably made that decision.

[Dorek]

However, on a quadrupedal animal like Dragon Bolt, it gives the body an unrealistic shape

You've seen a real DRAGON? Dude, where??

I get not wanting to use the torso piece (although the IfB wave has shown how varied you can even make that), but it's convenient and encourages an entry level MoCing initiative, which I've always admired.

[Grima]

You've seen a real DRAGON? Dude, where??

I get not wanting to use the torso piece (although the IfB wave has shown how varied you can even make that), but it's convenient and encourages an entry level MoCing initiative, which I've always admired.

Even not seeing a real dragon, I can speak for the proportions of similar quadrupedal animals (dinosaurs, crocodiles, elephants, etc.) which have the proportions I described. Some proportions aren't creature-specific, and you can't get out of every proportions argument by saying "but it's a fictional creature".

IfB still has its flaws with using the torso piece, such as gaping balljoints of the sticking out variety and large uncovered gaps. Of course, I'm mostly speaking of the awful Surge and Rocka Combat machine when I think of this.

I can understand using the torso when those proportions are ideal, because it's not as much of a problem. But I think at some point, if the system is to move forwards in terms of versatility and visual appeal, we need torsos that aren't exclusively geared towards making something with humanoid proportions.

[toatyger]

One new armor shell I would like to see for Bionicle is a new torso shell with pistons molded into the sides.

[arc]

One new armor shell I would like to see for Bionicle is a new torso shell with pistons molded into the sides.

pretty much what I was getting at before, if they could do this along with some for the limbs, I would be much more happy with the new bionicle. Not to say the ones were getting are bad, I like them a lot. Just something I think they can improve.

[Grima]

Honestly, with the return of the mechanical aesthetics, I'm surprised none of the Toa used the Breakout torso plate, considering it's the most mechanical of the HF chest plates. The BA plate is also kind of mechanical, but it's mostly just in its look of overlapping armor plates than any actual mechanical detailing.

[Jetrax99]

LEGO employees did. It's not something somebody in the AFOL community came up with on their own.

I don't know where it was ORIGINALLY revealed, but I can pull a quote from the book LEGO: A Love Story, from the author's firsthand account of visiting LEGO Headquarters in Billund.

"The last stop on the tour is the mold warehouse. Molds are stacked on orange and steel shelves; Aksel [Krabbe Nielsen, the visitor manager] estimates that LEGO has between six thousand and seven thousand molds, of which four thousand are currently active. Molds can potentially be filled five million times, and some have been in use for more than thirty years/ Since it takes twelve weeks and up to $50,000 to make one mold, LEGO wants to get the most use out of each.

'What happens when a mold is done?' I ask Jan [Christiansen].

'We put them under the concrete in front to make sure that nobody will steal the molds," says Jan. He's smiling, but he's not kidding." (p164).

I have, however, found some sources that seem to suggest this practice has been discontinued, and nowadays molds are recycled. In any case, this applies to molds that are WORN-OUT, i.e, useless. They will no longer produce parts that meet the LEGO Group's standards of quality due to manufacturing wear, so the LEGO Group has no reason for keeping them.

Frankly, there's no way to know for sure which molds have been put into storage because LEGO hasn't needed those designs in recent sets, and which have been destroyed because the molds have reached their actual end-of-life. The quote from LEGO: A Love Story notwithstanding, different molds are created with different lifespans in mind. Those that will are not EXPECTED to be used year after year are not DESIGNED to be used year after year.

On the subject of the CCBS, I have no doubt that there are ways the CCBS can continue to improve, but people who think the limits to its potential are insurmountable and that the LEGO Group should just can it and bring back the parts and building styles of the old BIONICLE sets are kidding themselves.

The torso beams are just one example. Yes, a lot of sets use the basic torso beams, because it's often the most efficient solution and there are probably a lot of buyers (especially kids) who don't know or care what the ratio of a quadruped's hips to its shoulders are supposed to be — they just want to see awesome-looking monsters. But treating this as an inherent fault of the CCBS is ridiculous considering that sets such as Thornraxx, Evo XL Machine, and Witch Doctor show how even a CCBS set can have a completely custom torso skeleton. I've even built a MOC that subverts some of the usual issues with quadruped proportions.

So the issue isn't that the building system needs to be retired or replaced, or even that the current parts palette is too limited for these kinds of applications. It's more that the designers don't always use it to its fullest potential (sometimes, of course, consciously choosing NOT to in the name of price or efficiency).

Homestly, how is somebody going to steal a mold. I work in a plastics plant, and you can't move plastic molds by hand, unless LEGO molds are that small, which I doubt. You need a crane to lift them. So, I fail to see what burying them accomplishes. It better be discontinued. It serves no purpose. Combine this and the fact that LEGO doesn't keep parts in production after they have no need for them (even though they should for replacement purposes) and it seems LEGO makes some questionable business decisions that aren't very beneficial.

Also, if LEGO has production plants in other locations contracted(not owned by LEGO), I doubt those plants follow that practice.

Hey, LEGO, do your customers a favor. Dig them out, or get new molds for those parts, and run them for replacements, same goes for any other discontinued components.

Edited October 3, 2014 by Jetrax99

[Dorek]

Even not seeing a real dragon, I can speak for the proportions of similar quadrupedal animals (dinosaurs, crocodiles, elephants, etc.) which have the proportions I described. Some proportions aren't creature-specific, and you can't get out of every proportions argument by saying "but it's a fictional creature".

IfB still has its flaws with using the torso piece, such as gaping balljoints of the sticking out variety and large uncovered gaps. Of course, I'm mostly speaking of the awful Surge and Rocka Combat machine when I think of this.

I can understand using the torso when those proportions are ideal, because it's not as much of a problem. But I think at some point, if the system is to move forwards in terms of versatility and visual appeal, we need torsos that aren't exclusively geared towards making something with humanoid proportions.

A lot of that comes down to price point and sacrificing pieces to make particular count. I actually liked the Combat Machine because it did a great job of drawing attention away from the more exposed areas (although it's uncombined that you see where it's messy), and it's more flexible with the torso than I was expecting.

I think it comes down to style in the end. People always give a bad rep to the "but it is a fictional creature" argument, but ultimately that's what it is. You are not seeing humans, you are not seeing real animals, you are seeing magical (or advanced technological, if you prefer) entities who are shaped in such a way to trigger the general association of said categories. If you see Tahu and say "yes that is humanoid" or Dragon Bolt and say "yes that is a dragon" then it has done what it set out to do.

I'm not saying we won't see totally innovative ways of expressing certain ideas, creatures or humanoid, with the CCBS in the future, just that what it has accomplished has kept the style continually interesting. For everything else, there's MoCing.

[Grima]

idk, to me, at least, there's more to a set than vaguely resembling what it's supposed to be. aesthetic appeal should be figured in somewhere in there, and with its ridiculously wonky proportions, Dragon Bolt just can't check that box for me.

[Still Raindrop]

Homestly, how is somebody going to steal a mold. I work in a plastics plant, and you can't move plastic molds by hand, unless LEGO molds are that small, which I doubt. You need a crane to lift them.

They have a retired Lego mold at Legoland California, and it really is pretty small--definitely small enough to steal.

As far as the Bionicle look, count me in as one of those who thinks that they've done a good job, but that they'll also probably do an even better job developing a look if we get future years.

Edited October 3, 2014 by Mariko

[dviddy]

Also, if LEGO has production plants in other locations contracted(not owned by LEGO), I doubt those plants follow that practice.

As far as I'm aware, LEGO owns all of their actual part molding plants (there are only three or four of them in the world). And while they all share the basic brick molds, things like BIONICLE's complex and intricate parts were and are almost entirely molded in the Denmark factory.

[Refy L.S.]

If you got to agree with Grima here, the torso frames are largely unwieldy, but unfortunately are the only parts with sufficient ball joints.

Perhaps if the torso frames could be split into two sections (like the inika build), it might be more versatile?

[Grima]

If you got to agree with Grima here, the torso frames are largely unwieldy, but unfortunately are the only parts with sufficient ball joints.

Perhaps if the torso frames could be split into two sections (like the inika build), it might be more versatile?

That's one way, yeah. Have a shoulder section that comes in, say, 9M, 7M, 5M and a hip section that comes in 5M and 3M (and maybe larger? though the only things i can think of that would need hips that wide would be quadrupeds that could use the neck joint on the shoulder section to connect a tail anyway so probably not) and join them in some simple way that doesn't inflate pieces too much but also doesn't over-specialize parts. It would be like an inika build without everything that made the inika build terrible.

Not only would those pieces lead to a wider variety of body proportions, they'd be far easier to use as something besides bodies since they aren't as big a block and have fewer angles and such. That's a terrible way of wording it but hopefully you get what I mean?

(I suppose in sets that don't need those pieces and are at a lower price point, the monopiece torsos could stay, but I'm tired of them being the only solution.)

Edited October 3, 2014 by Grima

[Aedai Rivin]

I think I've figured out a use for the LOSS's face plant print armor thingie.

One word:

Gunmen

JUST WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK I AM!?!?!

[Jetrax99]

I think I've figured out a use for the LOSS's face plant print armor thingie.

One word:

Gunmen

JUST WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK I AM!?!?!

No.

[DuckBricks]

Inspecting Element on the Bionicle.com teaser site reveals "Akamai" Thoughts?

Hrm... now this is peculiar...