Talk:BIONICLE: Mask of Light

image and text size

i'm not sure if this is a result of the new redesign, but everything on the site seems to be way smaller. text - especially in the page editor - and most of the images on most pages are very small. should they be resized, is this something to do with the redesign, or is there something else going on here? i picked this page to start the discussion on because there's a fair amount of screenshots from the movie that are good examples of the issue. Intelligence4 (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

In theory, image thumbnails are about the same size (looks like they're maybe 4px x 4px smaller), and text should actually be larger than before. If you don't mind me asking, what kind of device do you use--phone, tablet, laptop, or desktop? The current layout hasn't been set up for small screens yet. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

i'm using macos on a macbook, with chrome as my browser. the place i'm most seeing the issue is on the page editor (where i'm typing this) and the text is quite small. still readable, but i'd definitely bump up the font size if it was up to me. Intelligence4 (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmm it looks fine on macOS in Chrome to me. Just checking, have you edited your zoom settings? And do you have any extensions installed that may be affecting things? If not, could you provide a screenshot? (Of course the whole screen isn't necessary, just the actual content part of the browser.) -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

nope, haven't messed with that at all. where would i post said screenshot? Intelligence4 (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe imgur? (By the way we just updated MediaWiki, which changed the edit box font.) -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

original aspect ratio

i came across some versions of mask of light (and the other movies) posted online (on someone's dropbox) and noticed that they're all in 16:9 widescreen. considering the original copies were released in the first half of the aughts, when widescreen wasn't really a common thing yet, and most of, well, everything, was in 4:3, why would MoL have been? also, the screenshots we have here are in the standard aspect ratio. was there ever a widescreen release of the bionicle movies? or are what i've found remastered versions that have cropped some of the original frame away to fit 16:9? Intelligence4 (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Starring

From the infobox: Starring Christopher Gaze, Michael Dobson, Paul Dobson. Michael Dobson plays Kopaka/Hewkii, who can be aruged are not the stars of the movie, and Paul Dobson is not even in this movie... Why are they listed as the stars? I'd also argue the list of stars in the Web of Shadows infobox is also inaccurate. ~ Wolk (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Krana Trivia

I need to point this out, because it truly annoys me. After the "Krana" concept art for MoL surfaced, the news about alleged plans for Rahkshi being controlled by Krana circle around the Bionicle community. I just think that jumping on a gun and saying that "They were planned to be Krana" is really misinforming, since the artwork itself is clearly showing a snake-like creature, with some elements characteristic for set version of Kraata (the dotty eyes, the "gills" creating fake eyes etc.). Even the first image on the second page, which is showing only the head part of the creature, like on the first page schematic of the head, has a faintly sketched out lengthy tail behind it. Besides, other shots of the same creature show their stretchy, snake-like body, the spine plates and spikes, which would make absolutely no sense in case of Krana. And the last point I want to make, is that I doubt that the concept art was made by a person that was immersed in the lore and lingo of the series as much as we are, hence we can see, on this one document, word Krana written in two different ways (Krana/Kraana), with the second one pointing even more towards the mistake on the artist's part. For that reasons, I personally consider sharing the "news" about Rahkshi controled by Krana a misinformation.

All of the above reffers to this link: concept, the Rahkshi were originally controlled by Krana

EDIT: Even better, here's the author's statement on the names, from his DA account: on Bionicle Rahkshi Head Concept 01 by HeavyMetalDesigner

--Kluuucha (talk) 14:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Why is this a thing then? I'm more than sure that he didn't know/didn't remember that the Kraata controlled the Rahkshi, and called them Krana on the paper. People makes mistakes, he made one, when he was writing that's it.— Surel—Nuva _(Talk) 15:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

That's exactly my point, one guy made a mistake, which happens, especially in such lingo-heavy enviorment, and now whole fandom treats it like a word of god. And I felt like making a discussion topic was the best move in this case, cause straight up deleting the trivia point would make someone else angry "Because they wrote Krana, so it was Krana" --Kluuucha (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've just rephrased it to keep it clean.— Surel—Nuva _(Talk) 20:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Should We Change This to Semi-Canon?

So as most of you know, the film features scenes of flirting, specifically with Jala and Hahli which falls until the romance category. Greg has clarified that love isn’t canon, so like the page for MNOG, shouldn’t this be listed as semi-canon as well? I mean, the majority of the movie is canon, including some new things canonized in the story, such as the heartlights, however there are things that aren’t, like the scenes that reference love, so I’m not sure on whether or not we should, considering how the vast majority of the movie is canon. I don’t know, but maybe at the same token, we shouldn’t, because enough of it and the majority of it is canon, which means that not exactly half of it is enough to consider giving the page a semi-canon clarification. I mean, some of the the same things that were non-canonized in MNOG were also made non-canon in the film, and that pages is listed as semi-canon, so I’m still sorta puzzled as to whether or not this page should receive the same notice... - FirespitterVakama 10:21, 29 March 2021 (EST)

MNOG is semi canon, because certain aspects of the game weren't approved by the story team, and/or goes against the established canon, shown in other media. The MoL movie was approved by the story team, even if it has some inaccuracies.--Surel (Talk) 14:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Alright, yeah I was curious if it would‘ve been considered semi-canon for its’ inaccuracies, like with the characters I mentioned, and I should’ve just known that the essential story itself was canon, and not just the character traits/relations. When I asked, I kind of meant altogether, including the characters in-story besides just the story itself, but yeah, it makes sense that the characters aren’t the focus, and rather, the story is what determines the majority of canonicity. - FirespitterVakama 11:52 29 March 2021 (EST)

Citation for early concept with live action

So I did some digging and it appears that the early concept that stars a human child was mentioned in an old BZP thread? I'm wondering if anyone has a link to the archived page? If not, is this link sufficient to be considered a citation? ~Mattym

Onu Koro Highway letters

In Trivia section there is mention that only word "Highway" may be read. But i looked closely, and was able to read words "lighting" "sponsored" and "incorporated". Maybe it's some easter egg? --Raph (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Full-length trailer being shown in movie theaters.

Hi, guys. Please read this carefully: I read the July 2003 section of BZPower's news feed, where the full-length trailer for the movie was shown in movie theaters in July 2003, as you would have watched the trailer before you would watch one of the 2003 movies, like Hulk. It's just a fun fact that I would like to put there. :) Lenny7092 (talk)