Talk:Kopeke

Why exactly are we using an image of a random, unnamed background Matoran from a Toa Metru CD as though it were officially Kopeke? --Toatapio Nuva (talk) 04:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Because it looks exactly like Kopeke, and 90% of the time the Metru Promo CDs used matoran from MNOG/MNOG2. Also, since both Encyclopedias say on Metru Nui Kopeke worked at various jobs including a Messenger and a Chute Station Attendant, both of which would explain why he could be that exact Ko-Matoran with a white body, sand blue feet, and sand blue Komau, just like how he looked like in MNOG when we first met him, is a strong enough implication that he was meant to be Kopeke.--SurelNuva (Talk) 07:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

So in other words , it's purely speculation without any confirmation from an official source? As much as I agree that it COULD be Kopeke, there's no reason to assume it was meant to be. Plenty of Matoran look similar, given the limited options in Kanohi and color scheme. --Toatapio Nuva (talk) 07:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The very same logic was applied to say Macku appeared in LoMN, since her model was reused as one of Nokama's students, even though she is not mentioned by name, and could be considered pure speculation.--SurelNuva (Talk) 09:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know that. I would contest that decision as much as this one, as neither has sufficient confirmation (though in Macku's case there is at least the model comparison thing that can be sourced to MoL). In my opinion, for something to be presented as fact, it should have at least some sort of backing in an official source. --Toatapio Nuva (talk) 10:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Interestingly though, since the Encyclopedia was released after the CDs, the entry might be referencing this, we just neved paid attention to the background Matoran enough to notice that. Also Taipu and Kopeke are the only "official" matoran, whose Metru Nui job was only referenced in the encyclopedias, while others were referenced in the CDs, LoMN, books, or the Metru Nui guide and double down by the Encyclopedias later.--SurelNuva (Talk) 10:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think Macku in LoMN is the same case at all. She has a distinct model in the movies, it's no different than identifying Takua on the beach because that's his model. At that point, she is blatantly present, how much more can you ask for? Kopeke on the CD, however, could just as well be coincidence imo. The other wandering Ko-Matoran appear random. ~ Wolk (talk) 11:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, I don't mean to start a debate on the Macku thing, as that can be justified. With Kopeke though, I think removing the image would make sense. There simply isn't much to go off of to make the connection. --Toatapio Nuva (talk) 11:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Jaller, Takua, and Hahli at the end of LoMN are a different thing. They are mentioned by name even in the novellization, while Macku is not mentioned as a Ga-Matoran standing next to Nokama while she got her Toa Stone, so yeah, even if she had a unique model, it could just be a reuse.--SurelNuva (Talk) 21:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I believe there's strong enough reason (as outlined in the discussion) to remove the image. Just wanna make sure I'm not starting any edit wars by doing so. --Toatapio Nuva (talk) 13:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I can't say I agree with removing the image. The Toa Metru CDs take extra care to draw from a pool of pre-existing Matoran and to keep their coloration and color blocking consistent, so that they can be recognized in their Metru Nui forms. They even go as far as to correct mistakes done in MNOG II such as giving certain Matoran incorrect masks due to typos. This makes it clear these are very intentional choices on part of the animators. So when a Matoran who looks exactly like Kopeke would at that time, and does things he would at that time, shows up, it sort of can't reasonably be anyone else. As far as I know there is nothing in conflict with this.--ToaKebaka (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I can't say I agree about the CDs taking extra care. Firstly, the Ko-Metru CD already contains several Ko-Matoran who have no MNOG II counterparts and are not identified by name, serving only as background Matoran (it is the only CD to do this). "Kopeke" is one of these, which leads me to believe it's a coincidence. Secondly, when it comes to why they chose the appearances they did - IMO it seems clear they were just pulling names off the list Templar sent to LEGO for approval. This list had Kapura wearing a Pakari, like on the CD, while in MNOG II he has the Ruru. Basically, I don't believe he is wearing a Pakari here out of attention to detail but because they were working based on an outdated listed. We also see errors with Hafu (likely just forgot to change the Ahkmou model) and Brander (looks like that one guard from the Kal animations; perhaps changed in MNOG II due to the amount Kakama in Ta-Koro?). Of course the typo for Kivi wouldn't be there, because they wouldn't be looking at how MNOG II renders things, they would be looking at that list, which would say either Komau or Kamau, which is hard to misinterpret with human eyes. There is nothing indicating this "Kopeke" isn't a coincidence, IMO. ~ Wolk (talk) 06:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, by taking extra care, I did not mean "every Matoran on CDs is a one we have seen before", just that when a character is reused, they strive to get it right visually. New Matoran being there is expected and welcome. The fact that the Kopeke character is in vicinity of characters unrelated to pre-exisiting Matoran doesn't indicate that it is not him. I don't think we really need to talk about the coding specifics in relation to the masks - all I meant to say there again was these are meant to be known characters and not randomly generated lookalikes. Brander is interesting, I think that may be an error and they took the visual of that guard as you said. In case of Hafu, perhaps what you mentioned may have happened (do we have any evidence that Matoran in CDs had these kinds of placeholders?), but I've always seen it as a joke or reference to the fact that Hafu specifically tends to look like other people (Taipu), which they even joked about in MNOGII (which these games draw inspiration from). Even if these were both simply errors, I think that doesn't really change the fact that the clear aim for Matoran, who look exactly like known Matoran, is to BE said Matoran (Brander would still be inspired by known albeit unnamed Matoran). So when we see this Ko-Matoran with the exact appearance Kopeke would have on Metru Nui, it really should be default assumption to say it is him. The question we should be asking, I think is what evidence is there that this is just a coincidence. I think it is much harder to prove that it is an unknown Matoran that looks exactly like Kopeke in an environment where that does not happen, and instead characters looking like other known characters is fully intentional.--ToaKebaka (talk) 12:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

That kind of logic demands proving a negative though, which is not how a wiki should operate. The question shouldn't be "how do you know it's NOT Kopeke?" but rather "how do you know it IS Kopeke?" --Toatapio Nuva (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Kebaka that it was almost certainly meant to be Kopeke. While we don't know that the devs were familiar with Templar's published body of work, we do know that they had the list Templar had submitted with the names and appearances of the Matoran they wanted to feature--in addition to Kivi and Brander (whose design and name appeared individually before, as Wolk points out) they also featured Vira whose final appearance was cut from MNOG 2. We also know they knew what the secondary 2001 Matoran looked like, if not from Hafu (who as a character they certainly tried to feature, if not accurately) then certainly from Kapura who is visually accurate (to one of his designs, anyway). Nuparu too, who appeared outside Templar's new MNOG 2 list.

Given that the devs had this complete list in front of them, and given that the overwhelming majority of characters they wanted to feature were ones they knew had appeared before, it's a big stretch to assume they turned around and designed a character who, by sheer coincidence, resembles a major Matoran in that very list. More likely instead that they wanted to include a familiar character among the familiar.

(and let's be honest, Kopeke wasn't going to have any dialogue anyway.) --Gonel (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

How is it a big stretch when that very same CD features Matoran never shown anywhere else? --Toatapio Nuva (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Because they knew what all the Matoran looked like. The CD is the most fully rendered of all six, featuring a (groundbreaking) dialogue close-up with Tulvi and (state of the art) background Matoran who not only stand in a cluster but walk in and out of rooms. But like MNOG II whose levels progressively got trimmed down with development (ironically also featuring walking Matoran in its early levels before dropping that) these features were dropped in the successive CDs--one imagines that the others were originally supposed to feature inhabited Metru before those extra Matoran were slashed for time. (I wouldn't be surprised if 1. they were also going to have different games until they had to recycle the ones they'd already developed, and 2. Onewa's was developed last considering the Hafu snafu and it would be the CD that finally featured the traitor.) Had they also featured background Matoran then one wouldnt be surprised to see more established Matoran mingling with new ones.

But at the end of the day, they had the exhaustive chart of names and appearances in front of them as demonstrated above; otherwise we would have to assume their random Matoran generator randomly came up with a Matoran resembling this notable character. Not impossible, but that's why I say it looks like a stretch. --Gonel (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

None of that changes the fact that we have no confirmation of that one Matoran being Kopeke. My issue isn't that it couldn't be, but that we're presenting speculation - even if possibly correct - as fact. The character doesn't play any role in the CD. Other background filler Matoran in that CD are previously unfamiliar Matoran in terms of their appearance. Plus, if they were indeed looking at the MNOG II list (which they likely were, I agree with that), Kopeke would have been white and gray with a Matatu (which does actually appear on the CD). If they really did take so much care as to take into account Kopeke's prior appearance, what was the point of relegating him to nothing but a passer-by? If this is our line of reasoning, what about other similar cases? In that same scene there's a Matoran with an Akaku walking by - why aren't we just assuming he's Matoro then? --Toatapio Nuva (talk) 04:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

We wouldn't, because none of the other background matoran's colors scheme correspond to any of the known Ko-Matoran from MNOG1/MNOG2. The mask of the Akaku wearing matoran, you've mentioned, is white, his body is sand blue, and his feet are white. The polar opposite of Matoro's colors. The other Akaku wearing matoran can't be either Matoro, as he's grey and white. And coincidentally, that Matatu wearing matoran is actually sand blue, not grey, his feet are exactly the same shade as the body with the white Akaku wearing matoran. I literally watched it slow motion for several minutes to get the colors right while zooming on the matoran over and over again. There's a Huna wearing matoran in that frame too, but if he's on a loop that would be too hard to crop while the other are in the frame too, but no, he's not Pakastaa either, as his body is sand blue, feets are black, and his mask is grey. Pakastaa would have had white body, black feet and mask.--SurelNuva (Talk) 06:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Meanwhile, practically every confirmed MNOG2 Matoran has a different color scheme between MNOG2 and the CD's. Many of them even have a different mask. We didn't make the connection between them because of their looks, but because their names are explicitly mentioned in both media. --Toatapio Nuva (talk) 09:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Specifically who? Aside from Brander and Hafu, and technically the Great Disk Matoran? Talvi has black mask, black feet, white body, just like MNOG1/MNOG2. Tuuli has green mask, green feet, and teal body, which also the same. Same with Kalama, Kapura, Amaya, Marka, Nireta, Vira, Kivi, Damek, Nuparu, and Jaa. Nireta looks more white, but that's just a shader on the light blue.--SurelNuva (Talk) 10:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

With all other Matoran on the CD, we know it's them because of the names. All other named characters have dialogue. This "Kopeke" shares much more traits with all the other animated Ko-Matoran, who do not resemble any known characters, and are not identified to with any names. That's why I believe it is just a coincidence. If they were aware of Kopeke as a major character, they would have used him instead of Talvi or Jaa. If they wanted to use named characters for the background cast, then the others would resemble the ones from MNOG II as well - but they don't. It really doesn't make sense to slot in 1 named character (who is never identified) among a set of 10ish unnamed background extras. This is 100% a case where it might as well be a coincidence until confirmed otherwise, and no, it is not a stretch. How is it a stretch by any means? That's like saying any coincidence is a stretch. if he'd had white feet it wouldn't be a coincidence anymore, but no as soon as it is a coincidence it's a stretch? I agree with Toatapio that we do not make assumptions like this.

As for the relation with MNOG II or other source material: We have absolutely no reason to assume the team working on the CDs were aware of any of the characterizations of any of the characters, INCLUDING Nuparu or Kopeke. The only thing we know for sure is that they were working off the list that Peter Mack sent to LEGO -- a list that had not yet been revised. We do not know if this list has Kopeke with the Komau or the Matatu, but we do know this list had Kapura with the Pakari, that is why Kapura has the Pakari on the CDs, not because of some awareness of the character's history. It's because of this list that Vira is on the CDs. That is why they didn't give Kivi a Kaukau, but a Komau, because it plainly says he has a Komau. There is nothing that even remotely suggests they ever looked at MNOG II's code or the final game, or had any idea who these characters are. It's not like Kapura talks like the Kapura we know either. ~ Wolk (talk) 11:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Another factor is that Sand Blue is not represented in MNOG II, so if it was based on a Kopeke from those notes, then he'd likely use light blue like Nireta. ~ Wolk (talk) 11:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@Toatapio Nuva ' That kind of logic demands proving a negative though, which is not how a wiki should operate. The question shouldn't be "how do you know it's NOT Kopeke?" but rather "how do you know it IS Kopeke?" '

I get that, but I believe I've already stated how we know it is him - because he looks exactly like Kopeke, in a form of media where this happening by coincidence otherwise does not occur. This would be the first and that is why I am asking for evidence suggesting this is the sole special case. Vira was until recently similar, in that it was "just an assumption" that he can be connected to the random Gukko Bird Force member from MNOG, yet he was shown on the wiki as the same character.

Honsetly, in more general terms, asking if "am I really looking at XYZ character?" seems kind of silly. Why would the physical appearance not be enough? For example, if you look at page 8 of this comic, how do we know that is actually Gelu there? It looks exactly like him, but he is never mentioned by name, nor has any dialogue, so it is the same situation as with Kopeke on the CD, yet no one is asking for extraordinary proof or suggesting Gelu has a never before seen double, because everyone recognizes it's him based on pure visual. And you could find countless other examples like this, so why should Kopeke's case be any different?

@Wolk I think you may be focusing too much on the characterization of the Matoran, while this is about just visual appearance. We can theorize about why certain Matoran were given prominence over the others, but I would say that is much more speculative area. Between saying "This is Kopeke because it looks like him" and "I don't believe it's him because, I would expect him to recieve a bigger role", the latter seems more speculative. Also, a portion of your argument depeneds on the possibility that the devs only had the MNOGII list and thus could't have had access to Kopeke's original appearance or colors, but we don't know that. I would point out that the "devs" of these CDs is LEGO group themselves and we know Bionicle CD-ROMs were generally handled by Advance, meaning they absolutely know what Kopeke would look like having made full CG renders of him before etc. They are not some external company, who only recieved limited information.--ToaKebaka (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not "Why didn't he receive a bigger role", it's that you are comparing him to all the Matoran from which he stands distinct, and distinguishing from all the Matoran which he shares space with - the other background Matoran. I don't see any reason to think there was any intent for this to be a specific character, and not just a background extra who coincidentally ended up looking like Kopeke. ~ Wolk (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

This very much reminds me of how people were saying Nobua is clearly in MNOG and the comics because there's coincidentally a Matoran that looks the same. ~ Wolk (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

1) Matoran specifically cannot be identified just by appearance. There are at least hundreds of them around, they typically use one of 14 Kanohi, and each Matoran type has only 3-4 colors to choose from. Many of them are also known to change appearance, including in their color schemes and masks. We see bunch of identical background Matoran all the time, across multiple media. If we start to assume similar-looking Matoran are automatically the same character, it'll necessitate a lot of rewrites on this wiki. 2) Comparison with other MNOG2/CD Matoran: Brander (colors inverted), Nuhrii, Tehutti, Hafu (different mask), Marka, Nireta and Ahkmou (different color scheme) are all different in the CDs from their MNOG2 counterparts. We identify them in the CDs based on name. Exceptions or not, they're already enough to cast doubts on the intention behind the "Kopeke" model. 3) CD "Kopeke" doesn't actually use MNOG Kopeke's color scheme. They only have similar hues. Thus, even the "they look similar" argument doesn't hold. 4) All the other background Matoran in the CD are unfamiliar, suggesting they were specifically made to be background characters. Kopeke is among them. Since Kopeke is otherwise a named character with a somewhat significant story role in the past, he would likely have been given more of a role than as a background character. It's not certain, but likely. 5) Bottom line: Could the random character be Kopeke? Yes, of course. Do we KNOW that it is? No. Thus, we should not present it as a confirmed fact. At most, the picture should be out of the infobox and in the biography section, with a caption explaining that it COULD possibly be Kopeke. --Toatapio Nuva (talk) 09:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Structuring my response according to Toataipo's numbering:

1)That may be true in some media, but certainly not in the Metru CDs, except for Hafu who is either a mistake or a cheeky joke, each Matoran is unique and there are no clones. And we have never seen any Kopeke clones in any other media, not one.

2) That is actually not true - every single CD matoran shares their color scheme with their Flash animation selves. If you actually compare the CD matoran they use the 2001-2003 color schemes, even when they don't exist in plastic. The only Matoran to use 2004 colors are, fittingly enough, the six disk bearers. Kapura is clearly mata red - Nuhrii is metru red. Le-Matoran are teal, lime and mata green, only Orkham is metru green etc. There are only two exceptions: Hafu again (for reasons) and all Ga-Matoran use metru blue, but that is just because mata blue is apparently not in the color palette of the game, so it was the only close enough option. You mention Brander but that seems to be another mistake of referencing a wrong (but still specific) character.

3) The "hues" are not important - subtle differences like that are simply a consequence of comparing different media, just like same picture printed on foil or paper. Those are two different interpretations of the same color. The Ko-Matoran doesn't "look similar" to Kopeke, he looks identical to Kopeke.

4) I have already stated in my last post why this reasoning is problematic, so I don't have anything new to comment here.

Also, you didn't respond to questions I raised in my previous post - what is to stop anyone from questioning any appearance in any medium, just because a character is not referenced, outside of the visual? There is Kopeke in the final Bohrok-Kal animation, no name, no dialogue, just appearance, yet no one questions it. And that is a medium which does re-use designs. Same holds true for Matoro in the same scene. And let's say it were Kopaka who walked by at that chute station. Would we question if it were him too? (disregarding the obvious timeline issues). If the answer is "no because there is only one character who looks like Kopaka", I would say that there is just one Kopeke looking character. So I see this as either a bad argument, or a very unfairly applied standard. And we are talking in a "vacuum" of mixed media, so this is even more true in the context of a single medium (Metru CD) which tries to match existing designs whenever possible. I see changes were already made but I have to voice my disagreements.--ToaKebaka (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

1) Yes, the model is unique in comparison to the other models. So? Doesn't have any bearing on this issue. 2-3) I don't know what I'm supposed to say to this. I based my point on looking at the models and their colors. Perhaps we look at them differently. 4) I do not recall this.

I did repond to your questions. Context is everything here. The Bohrok animations were done by Templar, and their intent in portraying certain characters is clear as day, same as with the comics. It is, in no way, comparable to the question of the CD's. We do not know what their intent with the disputed model was, which is exactly the point. We should know it for certain before claiming it as fact. I'm not advocating an exceptionally high burden of proof here - just any proof at all. --Toatapio Nuva (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can, the argument for it being Kopeke is "It looks like Kopeke, and there's other characters on the CD that match Templar characters are given the same names." But this is simply just not a sound argument, because the alleged Kopeke is not in the same category as those identified Matoran. There are very clearly three distinct categories of Matoran on the CDs: a) the six set characters, b) the ones with dialogues -- All of these are identified by name, and most (outside of what is probably errors) match the Templar ones. c) The one to which "Kopeke" belongs -- Background characters with no dialogue, of which no others match known characters. Surely, "Kopeke" in this case would share its conception with the others in category c, not those in category b, the resemblance only being coincidental.
The comic characters are different, as they are blatantly based on the sets there is no question of intent there, and obviously Gelu is not just a recolored Gresh but a very distinct model, where as the Matoran are all the same, only changing colors and masks within a limited palette, easily leading to coincidences. ~ Wolk (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)