Names in BIONICLE

[Leewan]

So, since there seems to be an ongoing debate about should characters have individual names or not in the 2016 wishlist topic and in the BIONICLE 2015 topic, I thought it could be good to create a separate topic to discuss this matter.

[MakutaOfWar]

Well I'll add this; I hope the Protector's are the Turaga of Mata Nui. :3

[Kalta the Noble Mind]

maybe just in the supplimentory material. i remember reading that they canceled bionicle because the lore and terms that went with it were too dense to bring newcomers and those who liked the lore didnt buy the toys so the series was bleeding money form both consumer types.

leaving the primary marketing material like the ads and online animations ect with simple and direct terms could keep the line appealing to new customers and wont bog down fledgling fans who may just be interested in cool fighting robots.

the supplimentory material will be suplimentory. dont need to know that the Skull grinder was a necromancer by the name of Kulta if just the big devil man being the leader of the other creeps is enough for fighting. older children who re becoming fledgling geeks with a tatse for narrative will appreciate the backstory and how they fit into the plot and can probably impress their friends by laying down the real deal with their favorite hero or villain.

but bottom line a bad guy who squeezes the juice form magic masks to power his undead army or a bad guy who has a friggin' mace-axe meant to grind skulls will still be a mighty foe for the goog guys to fight:) anything that makes the consumer want you to just shut up and take their money.

also thinking about it these generic titles may have a modular nature similar to the building toys themselves making for even more creative potential for the little ones.

as someone said in the original topic giving definite names limits creative potential because that character an only ever be that character, a toa can only be a destined matoran a vortixx can only be a lizard lady from an industrial complex piraka can only be a skakdi ect. i think why dark hunters are so popular is because of how generic and descriptive the title is it can encompass any weird being you can concoct because all that matters in the story is that they are a member of that mafia like syndicate.

generic titles are both specific (to their function) while being ambigious (doesnt define any set character). give say the bohrok for example. each name had to end in an "ok" like nuvok or galok or tavok etc. so to make a new bohrok you have to follow that convention, a belok for a bohrok of jungle or fezok for a bohrok of iron , hard to come up with a unique prefix just to get a new element. much easier to just call it a minion of jungle or a minion of iron so your playmate knows what charatcer class and element tye they are so you both can get to see if iron beats stone.

can also work for adding new original character types to your play without having to concoct your own unique gobbldygook for your friends to get confused with. say you wanna keep protectors a matoran type character but still want the wise elder that used to be a toa? why not have tahu and his protector meet an older master of fire, a guru of fire to be exact?

or know how ekimu and makuta were mask makers? why cant there be others who make magical weapons or magical armor? they can be weapon makers or armor makers! or in your story the mask makers merely craft and shape the metal but dont infuse it with power. who makes the masks of power powerful? mask enchanters of course! they are the ones who have those special chest armor that hold their magic hear (or as the chima ultrabuilds called those orbs,their Chi). a kid can build his own world using those simple terms and can probably help little ones understand narrative by letting them build characters based on literal archetypes.

it can also help the less imaginitive kids intergrate their older CCBS and other constraction sets into the new bionicle story with direct names. wanna bring hero factory's drilldozer into Okoto? swap his mask for one of the generic silver skull masks and boom you got the evil skull driller! want to bring Chima's Warriz into the fight between the masters and skull creatures? he's a beast of earth! or fire or icecream for all you care.

as they grow older and more into the lore they can ajust and modify their original creations as needed . or something

that's my two cents on this.

[VBBN]

I mean, I am okay with names being "Inferno" instead of "Tarrahk" or something.

Although I will say I strongly dislike the protectors having no indicating name at all. Obviously the Toa have names and the villains you can shorten to Grinder, Scorpio etc, but when it comes to media, is Tahu going to say, 'Hey, Protector of Fire, get over here!" That's quite a mouthful, and in some cases acronyms aren't always the best idea (PoS, for example...) Sure they could refer to him as just a Protector, but that seems a bit silly to me.

[Kalta the Noble Mind]

i'd think characters that get toys would be qualified to get names,since they are so integral to the plot that the story is actually built around them going by how these productions work.

despite what i wrote i could see them recycling names form G1 for convenience sake since those are already copyrighted ut if done willy nilly it will be disruptive to the older fans which i doubt TLG would mind much. like while makuta isnt a shapeshifting servant of the giant robot he is still the bad guy in the reboot so the name still fits. but i dunno we have a sapient schemer akin to the charatcer of roodaka would it be wise to give such an archetype a name like krekka, or Nuvok? i wouldnt know. but thinking about it i wont mind if they switch up names with new character types. like the protector of fire's name is Iruni despite the name belonging to a character asossiated with air/jungle.

that would seem like a cost saving measure. save the new names for character only sets and recycle the old G1 lexicon in the supplimentory material.

[Iben]

My apologies if this is considered bumping, but had something to add. You see, there are two ways to look at this. You can look at it each wave at the time, or at the grand story. And this is where the troubles begin.

When we look at it from the grand big scheme behind the story, it's easy to realize that certain names don't matter. To understand the G1 storyline you don't need to know the individual names of the Bohrok, Krana, Kraata, etc. You don't need to know all the powers of the Makuta. Heck, you don't even need to know much of the overall story in order to get it. Big chunks of names and descriptions and powers and whatnot could be removed from the storyline with it having little to no effect on the grand design behind the story.

Looking at it wave per wave however, these smaller seemingly insignificant details turn out to be more important. They help to flesh out the storyline of that wave, because without them these storylines start to feel really bare. If we only use the grand details that we'll use to cover the complete storyline as a whole, it feels as if the wave-storylines leave to many things open.

So in general, do we need names for every little thing like in the original G1 ? No. Although it pleased a large group of people, it indeed was one of the reasons why younger people had trouble learning about their new toys. Do we need names for characters in each wave ? The answer is both yes and no. No, because in the grand overall story it doesn't matter if the name of Skull Slicer was Walter, Josh or Melissa; or the name of the Protector of Fire being Tabduk, Tavon or Vakama ( whatever you want really). But in a way yes, because without characters getting names in their individual wave-stories, there's less of a connection in that storyline. If everything is let to the grand story-details, then the individual wave-stories will always end up feeling bare.

TL;DR: Names and details of side-characters are insignificant to the grand overall storyline, but do have a significance to the smaller wave-storylines.

-Iben

[Lyichir]

I am fine with names as they become necessary, but people who continuously advocate for named characters have done a poor job convincing me of such.

Look at the Protectors. They have gotten scarcely any individual characterization, and unless they can prove themselves to be integral characters, I think their respective titles are perfectly functional. If the Protectors receive backstories, or we learn more about past Protectors and need to differentiate them, I'd be fine with retroactively giving them names.

But right now it's not necessary, and could even be harmful. The superiority complex many older fans seem to have for being smart enough to keep track of names belies the fact that many lapsed fans were not. The classic story's tendency to invent names for every single character may have been popular with a select few, but more often it was a source of confusion or even ridicule. I saw one review of an early Bionicle comic (by an adult reviewer, mind you) that simply could not take the story seriously due to the excessive vocabulary. This was a comic about Lego robots—what gave it the right to require so much decoding from its audience? And that reviewer is not alone. What diehard fans considered "mature" and "complex" might be considered by others (kids and adults alike) to be "pretentious" or "ridiculous".

I've been accused by idiots on other sites of being a "shill" for Lego, by defending the newer, simpler story. But my opinions on this weren't born when the new story started. They came from my actual experience as a fan for the entirety of Bionicle's run. It was lonely. Trying to introduce friends to the story was a fool's errand. And the fans I did manage to interact with (mostly online) often WERE pretentious and whiny, considering the theme's target audience of kids to be too "immature" to really appreciate the theme. I don't have time for those kinds of attitudes. I'd rather have a simple story I can share with others than a complex one that breeds that kind of elitism and contempt.

[Mandate]

I am fine with names as they become necessary, but people who continuously advocate for named characters have done a poor job convincing me of such.

Look at the Protectors. They have gotten scarcely any individual characterization, and unless they can prove themselves to be integral characters, I think their respective titles are perfectly functional. If the Protectors receive backstories, or we learn more about past Protectors and need to differentiate them, I'd be fine with retroactively giving them names.

But right now it's not necessary, and could even be harmful. The superiority complex many older fans seem to have for being smart enough to keep track of names belies the fact that many lapsed fans were not. The classic story's tendency to invent names for every single character may have been popular with a select few, but more often it was a source of confusion or even ridicule. I saw one review of an early Bionicle comic (by an adult reviewer, mind you) that simply could not take the story seriously due to the excessive vocabulary. This was a comic about Lego robots—what gave it the right to require so much decoding from its audience? And that reviewer is not alone. What diehard fans considered "mature" and "complex" might be considered by others (kids and adults alike) to be "pretentious" or "ridiculous".

I've been accused by idiots on other sites of being a "shill" for Lego, by defending the newer, simpler story. But my opinions on this weren't born when the new story started. They came from my actual experience as a fan for the entirety of Bionicle's run. It was lonely. Trying to introduce friends to the story was a fool's errand. And the fans I did manage to interact with (mostly online) often WERE pretentious and whiny, considering the theme's target audience of kids to be too "immature" to really appreciate the theme. I don't have time for those kinds of attitudes. I'd rather have a simple story I can share with others than a complex one that breeds that kind of elitism and contempt.

Being teased or ridiculed over a story that is far from mainstream is more universal than you think. It happens to virtually every series with a deep lore and at varying levels depending on how mature it is. For instance, the HALO lore is very deep and complex and the people that take the time to learn it are called nerds for it. People that have invested time into learning Tolkien's Elven language are ridiculed for doing so. And people from all across the world that put in the effort to learn everything about comic book characters are still seen as weird, even with the increasing presence of said characters in mainstream media.

The problem you're facing is that older people (15+) generally won't take a toy line and its story seriously or accept that there are people out there that enjoy it, and simplifying the story to the point that it's a bare-bones plot isn't going to help this mantra, it's only going to enforce the idea that it's nothing more than "advertising and a quick buck from a gullible and tasteless consumers".

The problem with names didn't come from the first few years of BIONICLE. It came from ten years of character swapping, non-set characters and names for ridiculous amounts of collectibles (looking at you, Kraata and Krana). Many things had very particular naming schemes that could be applied across all of the island of Mata Nui and were very easy to remember, eg Ga-Koro and Ta-Koro, Le-Wahi and Po-Wahi, Onu-Matoran and Ko-Matoran and so on.

[Aanchir]

Honestly, I don't see why names or titles made from real words are such a big deal. There are plenty of adult fans of My Little Pony, Marvel Comics, DC Comics, and Transformers, yet all of those franchises have characters who go by simple, understandable monikers. This isn't a new debate, of course. I've gotten quite used to people complaining about names with obvious meanings from my time as a Hero Factory fan. But it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

This isn't limited to actual character names either — I hear a lot of complaints about things like the new story using the term "Masks of Power" instead of "Kanohi", or "Region of Fire" instead of "Ta-Wahi" (never mind that those terms mean the same thing...). I suppose some people forget that in G1 Bionicle, islands had names in in-universe languages but landmarks usually didn't, aside from the landmarks of Mata Nui and the villages of Bara Magna. Is "the Ancient City" or "the Temple of Fire" really that much more simplistic than "the Valley of the Maze" or "the Sculpture Fields" or "the Coliseum"? Likewise, for every tool or artifact that had a Matoran name, there were many more that didn't. Even some G1 Kanohi masks never had proper names, and did just fine without them.

The Lord of the Rings does have a lot of terminology. Tolkien loved his languages. But it was not written in such a way that you had to know those languages backwards and forwards to follow the story. Most created terms in the series, other than individual character and place names, were basically just trivia — you could just as easily refer to the Nazgul as the Black Riders, or the Sindarin language as Elvish, or the Rohirrim as the Riders of Rohan, or even to Sauron as the Dark Lord or the Necromancer. These terms added complexity to the story, but usually without obfuscating it. The same couldn't always be said for the Matoran language in Bionicle G1. What do you call a Bohrok other than a Bohrok, besides a vague, broad term like "creature"?

Some people have argued that the Protectors, at least, should have names, but I'm not sure I agree with that. Even if we ignore their limited story roles, I don't see why a title can't suffice for characters of their standing. Avatar: The Last Airbender had plenty of characters who were never referred to by their proper names in the show itself, up to and including the Earth King, Kuei (who is only named in supplementary media and the comics). I'm not even sure that we need proper names for the Protectors if they start to appear more prominently in the story. Really, their titles should suffice unless we have to compare numerous Protectors of the same element, or reflect on their lives before they took on the title of Protector.

Edited July 12, 2015 by Aanchir

[bidiminished]

For me, the issue is having a title without a character name. It can be okay, such as Witch Doctor or Core Hunter, but the title "Protector of [Element]" is so generic and it makes the character's more forgettable. I won't remember or care about the Protector of Earth as much as Tehutti. "Ekimu vs Kulta" would make me want to find out who the characters are, but "Mask Maker vs Skull Grinder" doesn't spark any interest.

I found the names of clone sets from G1 hard to remember as they all sounded very similar, particularly with the Vahki and Visorak. In fact, I can only name one or two of each wave, Non-clone groups with unique-sounding names, such as the Barraki and 2008 Makuta were better. The Skull villains fall between as they aren't clones, but all start with the same prefix and some of the names are generic - any of them could be Skull Warrior or Slicer or Basher.

I don't like the specific titles chosen for this year's sets either; Natalie Breez might sound a bit silly, but Tahu, Master of Fire sounds worse. (okay, William Furno is a very cringeworthy name for a terrible character, but all of the other HF names I can remember aren't that bad) Defender of [Element] was better than the final title as well.

[Mandate]

Honestly, I don't see why names or titles made from real words are such a big deal. There are plenty of adult fans of My Little Pony, Marvel Comics, DC Comics, and Transformers, yet all of those franchises have characters who go by simple, understandable monikers. This isn't a new debate, of course. I've gotten quite used to people complaining about names with obvious meanings from my time as a Hero Factory fan. But it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

MLP, the MU, the DCU and the Transformers universe all have one thing in common: they aren't trying to tell a tale about robotic villagers on a tropical island, and most of them are based off of the modern world. It's not so much names or titles being made from real words is a problem (because we're insulting a lot of people if we pretend that they weren't), it's that you strip away a lot of the "feel" of the world when you create a location with a culture very far from most modern ones and then give them common names.

This isn't limited to actual character names either — I hear a lot of complaints about things like the new story using the term "Masks of Power" instead of "Kanohi", or "Region of Fire" instead of "Ta-Wahi" (never mind that those terms mean the same thing...). I suppose some people forget that in G1 Bionicle, islands had names in in-universe languages but landmarks usually didn't, aside from the landmarks of Mata Nui and the villages of Bara Magna. Is "the Ancient City" or "the Temple of Fire" really that much more simplistic than "the Valley of the Maze" or "the Sculpture Fields" or "the Coliseum"? Likewise, for every tool or artifact that had a Matoran name, there were many more that didn't. Even some G1 Kanohi masks never had proper names, and did just fine without them.

As I said earlier, the line benefits from a deeper lore that fits in more with the overall theme. Kids almost literally absorb stuff like that as if they were sponges. If a kid finds an abstract word like "Turaga" in BIONICLE, they're going to want to find out what it means. In many cases, that also encourages kids to look up real-world words they've never heard of or don't understand if they were to come across them in a book (!) or other media. Fictional languages such as the Matoran Language help in similar ways, it's ironically educational for kids to fill their heads with fictional worlds like that of Gen 1.

The Lord of the Rings does have a lot of terminology. Tolkien loved his languages. But it was not written in such a way that you had to know those languages backwards and forwards to follow the story. Most created terms in the series, other than individual character and place names, were basically just trivia — you could just as easily refer to the Nazgul as the Black Riders, or the Sindarin language as Elvish, or the Rohirrim as the Riders of Rohan, or even to Sauron as the Dark Lord or the Necromancer. These terms added complexity to the story, but usually without obfuscating it. The same couldn't always be said for the Matoran language in Bionicle G1. What do you call a Bohrok other than a Bohrok, besides a vague, broad term like "creature"?

And likewise, no one had to learn the Matoran language to follow the story. No one has to refer to the Riders of Rohan as the Rohirrim, but I think we can both agree that Lord of The Rings would be lose a lot if these terms were to be removed. The Nazgul were almost always called the "Black Riders" by those that knew less about them than a main character.

On a side note, the Rohirrim and the Riders of the Rohan are actually two separate things. All Riders of Rohan are Rohirrim, but not all Rohirrim are Riders of Rohan

Really, their titles should suffice unless we have to compare numerous Protectors of the same element, or reflect on their lives before they took on the title of Protector.

So exactly how are you suggesting the books and media refer to him then? Continually calling him "Protector of Fire" doesn't make him mysterious as an excuse for calling him that.