REVIEW: 71307 Gali Uniter of Water

[Aethersprite]

Thanks for the review! Gali has some nice recolours (4M shells in azure and trans dark blue, orange Vorox armour) but as a set she's not very good, in my opinion. Easy pass. She just doesn't look appealing at all. Which is a shame, because her 2015 set was one of my favourites of the wave, and I really like Akida.

[One Very Agile Cat]

The mask and colourscheme are the best parts of this set. The proportiong are SO off though. The length of the limbs isn't really a problem, but Gali's arms sit too high, and the bones for her legs are the completely wrong lengths. The thighs are too long compared to the shins, and There should be a law against combining the friction extenders with HF feet. Her limbs are all the exact same length as her 2015 set, and on a longer torso should look more proportioned to a normal human, but they're ever so off that they just destory the look, and aren't "superhero-y" enough to make up for it.

She does look cool combined, though. shame her weapon is so bland.

There are far too many pistons and greebles that are just unnecessary, that really serve no purpose in the overall design.

Says who? Or I guess what I should say is how are they more purposeless than the pistons in any given G1 part? At least here in the torso they give the idea of added abdominal articulation that would exist were this a "real" robot. Edited December 15, 2015 by One Very Agile Cat

[VBBN]

Says who? Or I guess what I should say is how are they more purposeless than the pistons in any given G1 part? At least here in the torso they give the idea of added abdominal articulation that would exist were this a "real" robot.

Says proper set design and general cohesion. The thing about bionicle G1 was that every part was covered in pistons- when you introduced a new mold with a plethora of piston details on it, the purpose was to compliment the look of the other parts, and create a proper flow among the entire set. When a part was introduced that broke away from this (re: the kalmah armor) it served a purpose to be an organic texture.

With this shell, it in no way compliments the look that CCBS has well-established, unlike the new piston add-on we saw in 2015. I can't find a rhyme or reason to why the torso would have this much detailing, while every other aspect of the set lacks this overabundance of detail. I'm not saying that I hate having a piece that is extremely detailed, i'm saying that it doesn't make sense when paired with literally every other aspect of this figure.

[One Very Agile Cat]

Says proper set design and general cohesion.

Oh, you mean that totally subjective thing?

What's proper to you is not proper to everyone.

The thing about bionicle G1 was that every part was covered in pistons- when you introduced a new mold with a plethora of piston details on it, the purpose was to compliment the look of the other parts, and create a proper flow among the entire set. When a part was introduced that broke away from this (re: the kalmah armor) it served a purpose to be an organic texture.

And the new Uniter armour, Vorox armour, and crystal add-ons just... don't count? (even the mask is more detailed)

I mean yeah if this chest piece was with, say, a HF set it'd be super out of place, but it's not really when it's got a bunch fo other piston-covered parts to go with.

With this shell, it in no way compliments the look that CCBS has well-established,

Funny, because it reminds me of this piece which was, y'know, one of the first CCBS pieces.

i'm saying that it doesn't make sense when paired with literally every other aspect of this figure.

I mean, you can say it all you want. But it totally does. Their are other parts with piston detailing on them in this set. This is a fact that is not subjective. It does go with it.

Whether you like the piece or not is, y'know, totally up to you, but trying to make up some cornball excuse that it doesn't fit and trying to pass that off has having some kind of factual reason that de-legitimizes the opposite opinion is stupid. Just say you don't like it, dude. Clearly it's "purpose" is to give the set more detail, along with the other, detailed parts included that match it's aesthetic. (especially the uniter piece)

Besides, just about everyone's going to love the piece by year's end, just in time to hate next year's newest part.

[VBBN]

And the new Uniter armour, Vorox armour, and crystal add-ons just... don't count? (even the mask is more detailed)

I mean yeah if this chest piece was with, say, a HF set it'd be super out of place, but it's not really when it's got a bunch fo other piston-covered parts to go with.

The Uniter armor is hardly a visible piece on any set other than Kopaka and Tahu. Vorox armor is quite smooth and generally blends better with CCBS than with this new shell, and the crystal add-ons look more like, well, crystals than mechanical parts. So no.

Funny, because it reminds me of this piece which was, y'know, one of the first CCBS pieces.

The difference being it was quite clearly not mean to be an armor shell so much as an engine, weapon, etc.

I mean, you can say it all you want. But it totally does. Their are other parts with piston detailing on them in this set. This is a fact that is not subjective. It does go with it.

And I disagree entirely. You can say it matches all you want, and i can say it doesn't all I want. Targeting isn't going to get us anywhere.

Whether you like the piece or not is, y'know, totally up to you, but trying to make up some cornball excuse that it doesn't fit and trying to pass that off has having some kind of factual reason that de-legitimizes the opposite opinion is stupid. Just say you don't like it, dude. Clearly it's "purpose" is to give the set more detail, along with the other, detailed parts included that match it's aesthetic. (especially the uniter piece)

I'm going to backtrack completely here and this conversation will go around in circles which i don't have the time for- So while I find this a complete and utter blow to my very legitimate opinion, I will agree to disagree.

Besides, I suggest you wait until I am done reviewing before attacking my logic- I don't hate the piece, I actually like it on Kopaka and Onua. I think it's application on Gali here is complete garbage, however.

[santaends]

I love the colour scheme! Orange on blue and silver.. fantastic. Gali is supposed to be female, no? Nevertheless, it has very nice silver and orange parts, and the combo model is awesome.

[Voxovan]

I love the colour scheme! Orange on blue and silver.. fantastic. Gali is supposed to be female, no? Nevertheless, it has very nice silver and orange parts, and the combo model is awesome.

Yeah, Gali is female. 2016 version doesn't pull off that feminine looks as good as the 2015 one, but at least Lego gave her more narrow shoulders :P

[dviddy]

Oh, you mean that totally subjective thing?

People keep saying things like this. Personal preferences are one thing, and those don't always mesh with design. But just like with writing or photography or any sort of creative endeavor, there are objective standards and principles. You don't have to like them, but let's not pretend an entire school of academia doesn't exist.

[Logan McOwen]

People keep saying things like this. Personal preferences are one thing, and those don't always mesh with design. But just like with writing or photography or any sort of creative endeavor, there are objective standards and principles. You don't have to like them, but let's not pretend an entire school of academia doesn't exist.

THANK YOU

Edited December 16, 2015 by Logan McOwen

[Tarvaxx]

Guys... these are toys. Meant for children. Pieces of plastic. These aren't S.H. Figuarts collectible action figures. Their quality, despite detail inconsistency, is already higher than a lot of action figures you could buy at the store. At least these action figures aren't stuck in stupid asymmetrical poses and have several points of articulation. Seriously though, sometimes I wonder if fans and reviewers are looking at these the right way. I'd almost prefer to have two different reviewer types on every site, reviewing how something performs as a toy and giving it a score based on that principle, and then someone else reviewing it with a collector based mindset. XD

...That said I agree with both of you and heavily dislike the new torso piece. The four pistons connecting to the chest, and the two near the neck are fine. The rest need to go though, because... there's a difference between good detailing, and just putting pistons everywhere for the sake of putting pistons somewhere. I'd also have preferred that the chest piece itself be composed of a shell and an add-on, but I can do without it. I'm not the type to MOC anyway.

Edited December 16, 2015 by Tarvaxx

[TwistLaw]

People keep saying things like this. Personal preferences are one thing, and those don't always mesh with design. But just like with writing or photography or any sort of creative endeavor, there are objective standards and principles. You don't have to like them, but let's not pretend an entire school of academia doesn't exist.

I think that the expression "school of academia" sounds just a little bit pretentious in the context of toys aesthetics, but I'll give that when something is messy (like this year's Tahu) is messy no matter the point of view.

But about the pistons... I'm completely fine with them The Toa Metru had pistons beyond imagination yet they managed to have an outstanding look, I'd go as far as saying they were the quintessential BIONICLE set. So no, definitely no, the problem here is not the overabundance of pistons, rather than the fact the designers didn't really know what they had to expect from the toys they were designing.

[Aanchir]

But about the pistons... I'm completely fine with them The Toa Metru had pistons beyond imagination yet they managed to have an outstanding look, I'd go as far as saying they were the quintessential BIONICLE set. So no, definitely no, the problem here is not the overabundance of pistons, rather than the fact the designers didn't really know what they had to expect from the toys they were designing.

The Toa Metru had 23 pistons in their entire bodies. The new Toa have 21 pistons in their torso shell alone (Tahu's arms, legs, and back add 14 more). I don't think the situations are anywhere near as comparable as you make them out to be.

[TwistLaw]

The Toa Metru had 23 pistons in their entire bodies. The new Toa have 21 pistons in their torso shell alone (Tahu's arms, legs, and back add 14 more). I don't think the situations are anywhere near as comparable as you make them out to be.

Hold on, I didn't compare the Uniters to the Toa Metru, I said that pistons worked really good on them.

The Uniters are messy, confused in many aspects the first being textures. If they had 50 pistons on their body, but those pistons were as homogeneous as they were on the Metru, most of us could be far more okay with it.

Edited December 17, 2015 by TwistLaw

[Logan McOwen]

Guys... these are toys.

This is a ridiculously silly argument. Everything adheres to design standards, even mere toys. Don't be so pretentious.

[Tarvaxx]

This is a ridiculously silly argument. Everything adheres to design standards, even mere toys. Don't be so pretentious.

Last time I checked you also have a habit of being pretentious. It's unwise to be such a hypocrite. The argument itself isn't silly, since some people look into a review for different things. People looking for a toy and people with a collector's mindset have two very different needs that need to be met. I'd consider evaluating who you call pretentious next time you decide that someone's argument is "silly" just because you yourself don't care for it.

[MakutaOfWar]

Last time I checked you also have a habit of being pretentious. It's unwise to be such a hypocrite. The argument itself isn't silly, since some people look into a review for different things. People looking for a toy and people with a collector's mindset have two very different needs that need to be met. I'd consider evaluating who you call pretentious next time you decide that someone's argument is "silly" just because you yourself don't care for it.

It's a never-ending debate, everybody uses weak justifications to make people believe their opinions are superior, so I'd have to agree with you;

At the end of the day, it all narrows down to PERSONAL OPINION.

I'm tired of seeing people who don't meet others opinions being attacked for having their own on this website. Time after time, it's always the same. If somebody enjoys or doesn't enjoy something in a figure or a wave of figures then don't pressure them with your mindset, people. It just makes the experience less pleasing for that/those person/people. I came here last year to talk about a hobby from my childhood, toys. The story, the memories. Past, present, and future, only to get shot down, and witness others get shot down, for our opinions. Just accept it and MOVE ON.

Edited December 18, 2015 by MakutaOfWar

[_shaddow_]

Last time I checked you also have a habit of being pretentious. It's unwise to be such a hypocrite. The argument itself isn't silly, since some people look into a review for different things. People looking for a toy and people with a collector's mindset have two very different needs that need to be met. I'd consider evaluating who you call pretentious next time you decide that someone's argument is "silly" just because you yourself don't care for it.

The thing is, from a toy point of view, the design problem is still true, your argument being that just because it's a toy for kids, and not for collector, it shouldn't have the same standard, which is wrong. On the contrary, since it is for kids, it should be designed with extra care.

[Tarvaxx]

The thing is, from a toy point of view, the design problem is still true, your argument being that just because it's a toy for kids, and not for collector, it shouldn't have the same standard, which is wrong. On the contrary, since it is for kids, it should be designed with extra care.

From a toy perspective, certain parts of design still remain true. Specifically functionality, durability and posability. When we start getting into things like colorschemes and proportions, that's a whole different whale that more analytical people care about.

I look into reviews as a collector and thus look at it from an analytical perspective, but I also have a younger brother who has autism, and for him I need to know if a toy is good from a playability perspective. All I'm asking is that at some point in the future there be a split where a product is reviewed two times for different criteria especially in an age where the internet is getting more easily accessible for children who won't be able to understand our qualms with the sets.

Edited December 18, 2015 by Tarvaxx

[Logan McOwen]

The thing is, from a toy point of view, the design problem is still true, your argument being that just because it's a toy for kids, and not for collector, it shouldn't have the same standard, which is wrong. On the contrary, since it is for kids, it should be designed with extra care.

Thank you.

[Fulcrumfan91]

You know what? I've seen different images of Gali and have reviewed her images taken on this review...and I find that she actually is my favourite of the Toa. I can't explain it, but the colours are excellent, her combination is actually quite spectacular....and she's so simple! I don't get it..it must be a subjective thing, but I've completely changed my mind about her. She looks like she'll be a lot of fun. I do still think that she is a work in progress, but LEGO is so close to getting her perfectly right, at least for me. The mask, the colours, the build. YES.

[CabooseBM]

So, having bought and put together Gali Uniter of Water, I can't help but feel like this set is flawed on a fundamental level. No amount of fiddling with the parts provided enables me to make a figure that's even passable, let alone good. She's gangly in the legs and scrunched up in the shoulders, just overall an slightly unpleasant experience. While I am glad for the recolors provided, I feel like 5M Medium Azure shells would have been a great service here. as well as a revised shoulder design that not only avoids using Hordika necks but also widens her shoulders and gives that whole area room to breathe. Her weapon is boring and indistinct, and a huge step down from the fantastic weapon of her 2015 incarnation. Ultimately, these faults leave her design incoherent and bizarre, with no sense of character or art to the figure.

Fortunately, while the design of the set is flawed on several levels, she contains several nice pieces, discordant textures aside. The crystal add-ons, weapons, and mask all tie together fairly well, and their textures do not feel overly complex for what they're meant to represent. The weapon and add-on parts feel fairly versatile and useful.

Unfortunately, the orange Vorox shells and torso armor clash with the seemingly established aesthetic of this year, forgiveable in an old piece, but the torso is both bizarrely complex and incongruous and also exceedingly useless. It's a mess of pistons and greebling that forgo the crystal textures on the other new parts. With only one connection point and extremely specific texturing and printing, it's not going to make for a useful building part either. The printing is excellent, but the absence of the Superhero Chestplate cuts this compliment down at the knees.

Ultimately, I feel this figure is a crushing failure compared to the smart build and thoughtful character design of Gali Master of Water, from the weak proportions, poor coherency, to the messy blend of textures. I really hope we can remember the lessons learned in 2015 before we continue with the mistakes of 2007.

[TwistLaw]

heard you talking sheet about 2007 like I wouldn't find out

that was a great year with brilliant sets, and 2015 is much closer to that year's philosophy more than anything else.

[MakutaDreadscythe]

Finally figured out why her proportions are a bit bonkers. See I was looking at all the toa in succession to see if it was the torso and it does play a part somewhat (one module shorter might be a benefit) however the other toa don't look too bad.

Onua and Tahu don't have bad proportions with the expeption of the latter's lankiness, same with Kopaka, but then we get to the three smaller toa. The legs don't bother me much on them and they look balanced, but the shoulder placement is too high on them, higher by one module than the taller toa who have longer legs/thicker builds. This sticks out horribly on Gali and Lewa as their hands don't go much further than the hips, Pohatus's are very slightly better. But hey, nothing a few mods can't fix eh?

TLDR Smaller toa have shoulders higher than larger toa giving them proportions that make the torso look like a greebled banana.

[One Very Agile Cat]

People keep saying things like this. Personal preferences are one thing, and those don't always mesh with design. But just like with writing or photography or any sort of creative endeavor, there are objective standards and principles. You don't have to like them, but let's not pretend an entire school of academia doesn't exist.

"School of academia." For real, man?

So does Harvard offer a class on Bionicle CCBS shell design? Pretty sure this falls more under art, and you know what they say: art is subjective.

You know what the funny thing is? I haven't been back in this thread since I last posted, and haven't really given a good look to the new torso piece since. It's actually less complicated than I remembered. Like it's detailed for sure, but I really think people are making it out to be way more complex than it is. This isn't even as intricate as, like, a Piraka torso. And again, I think it works because the pistons and details only show up where implied articulation would be, with the chest and stomach still have smooth armour plates. The detail tells a story of the piece's function.

I think that the expression "school of academia" sounds just a little bit pretentious in the context of toys aesthetics...

Try a lot pretentious.

This is a ridiculously silly argument. Everything adheres to design standards, even mere toys. Don't be so pretentious.

That's not what "pretenious" means. I feel like you just saw that word written above and then tried to use it as an insult even though it doesn't work.

Last time I checked you also have a habit of being pretentious. It's unwise to be such a hypocrite. The argument itself isn't silly, since some people look into a review for different things. People looking for a toy and people with a collector's mindset have two very different needs that need to be met. I'd consider evaluating who you call pretentious next time you decide that someone's argument is "silly" just because you yourself don't care for it.

Agreed.

It's a never-ending debate, everybody uses weak justifications to make people believe their opinions are superior, so I'd have to agree with you;

At the end of the day, it all narrows down to PERSONAL OPINION.

I'm tired of seeing people who don't meet others opinions being attacked for having their own on this website. Time after time, it's always the same. If somebody enjoys or doesn't enjoy something in a figure or a wave of figures then don't pressure them with your mindset, people. It just makes the experience less pleasing for that/those person/people. I came here last year to talk about a hobby from my childhood, toys. The story, the memories. Past, present, and future, only to get shot down, and witness others get shot down, for our opinions. Just accept it and MOVE ON.

Excellent point. And to add a addendum: this statement shouldn't be taken as somehow meaning we shouldn't still discuss things. Differing opinions is fine, but relentlessly shutting down every viewpoint to the contrary is not discussion. Nor is trying to pass off your viewpoint of aesthetics as somehow infallible because of some subjective basis.

The thing is, from a toy point of view, the design problem is still true...

Except it's not "true" because it's totally subjective if it's even a problem at all.

heard you talking sheet about 2007 like I wouldn't find out

that was a great year with brilliant sets, and 2015 is much closer to that year's philosophy more than anything else.

Agreed. Maybe the Toa Mahri were lacking as far as parts went, but the design ideas were all great ones. The Barraki, Titans, oof, that was a great year.

2008 was when things fell apart.

The Toa Metru had 23 pistons in their entire bodies. The new Toa have 21 pistons in their torso shell alone (Tahu's arms, legs, and back add 14 more). I don't think the situations are anywhere near as comparable as you make them out to be.

The new Toa are also twice the size of the Metru. Also, the Metru had a lot of pistons, but they also had a lot of ridges and lines on them. Though I agree they're not really comparable, since the Metru are very... I don't know how to describe them, artficial? Mechanical yes, but they had this really industrial metropolitan aesthetic to them. The new Toa are much more diverse in their aesthetics and have more typical warrior design cues. I think his point was the number of pistons is irrelevant. Edited December 28, 2015 by One Very Agile Cat

[dviddy]

"School of academia." For real, man?

So does Harvard offer a class on Bionicle CCBS shell design? Pretty sure this falls more under art, and you know what they say: art is subjective.

No, but they do have a Masters program in art, design, and the interplay between what used to be solely art theory but now is used in other public discourse. Weird of them to have a whole graduate program dedicated to something so subjective though.... it's like maybe art and design have standards, rules, and philosophies that in order to be broken properly need to be understood properly??