Jump to content

Magic 8 Ball

Members
  • Posts

    1,712
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Magic 8 Ball

  1. That was actually addressed in a thread not to long ago... I looked through the various guide books and no one else seems to conclusively know either. The most likely explanation for it was that it's meant to one of the Cobra-La 'weapons'-- you're meant to stick it on another figure's back and pretend they're getting restrained by the tentacles. Similar stuff was used in the movie, so it kinda works. I question why the tentacles weren't bendy to make that really work... but if Golobulus is any indication, that wouldn't have turned out too well anyway. The stiffer tentacles on the new one (and lack of peg holes on some figures) make it even less workable, but it's a neat throwback to the original figure. Well, it doesn't help that it was the last 'chapter' of the Sunbow stuff, that it contradicts to a great degree the things that came before it, that Lt. Falcon (supposedly the main protagonist) is quite possibly the worst-developed character in the movie, and that the toyline took a decidedly sci-fi bent afterward, much more than it had previously. I mean, I actually like most of the stuff that came after the movie, and even the movie itself... but I fully understand why there's a lot of people out there who hold everything bad that happened to ARAH against the movie. I can't say they don't have a point, either- some of the controversial/questionable ideas that came later probably were influenced by the movie. Cobra-La was NOT what killed Joe. The movie and toys came out in 1986/87. G.I. Joe lasted until 1994. 8 years of toys after is not a killing stroke. Not to mention a lot of good figures came after. Hit & Run, Deep Six, The Iron Grenadiers, Night-Viper, Alley Viper, Shockwave. Among others. And vehicles included the Dessert Fox, Bugg, Warthog, F.A.N.G. II, H.I.S.S. II, and Sharc 9000. Again, among others. The line continued after the movie, yes. No one is debating the existence, and that there are good things in those following years. The point of debate is HOW MUCH. Many people see the movie as the point when the line began to shift away from what they hold to be the 'core' of GI Joe, when the property began to become less about the military and more about science fiction... not to mention the undeniable insertion of controversial colors and action features into many of the figures and vehicles. Even most die-hard fans find a few 'tolerable' figures and vehicles after '87, but to a lot of people, the movie marked the end of 'the glory days' of GI Joe. It's no coincidence that the 25th Anni line is almost entirely 1982-1987. By sticking to that, Hasbro targets the largest number of fans. Personally, I think this 'death' rests more in the end of Sunbow in general than anything else- a quality cartoon promoting the new gimmicks, figures, and vehicles probably would have gone a long way to making the things that came after 'acceptable'. People just didn't have the same attachment to a lot of the later characters that they had with the guys in Sunbow.
  2. Well, it doesn't help that it was the last 'chapter' of the Sunbow stuff, that it contradicts to a great degree the things that came before it, that Lt. Falcon (supposedly the main protagonist) is quite possibly the worst-developed character in the movie, and that the toyline took a decidedly sci-fi bent afterward, much more than it had previously. I mean, I actually like most of the stuff that came after the movie, and even the movie itself... but I fully understand why there's a lot of people out there who hold everything bad that happened to ARAH against the movie. I can't say they don't have a point, either- some of the controversial/questionable ideas that came later probably were influenced by the movie.
  3. I don't know the answer to your question, but I do know those are awesome and cheap. I'd certainly get a few if these guys are still in business.
  4. Once again, because a set full of the most controversial characters in the entire property is not likely to go over well. From the sounds of things, you'd buy it, I'd buy it, maybe a certain percentage of fans... but the majority of them would be too busy screaming in anger to buy it. It's just a plain old given that Hasbro would have to at least equal the amount of Cobra-La figures with figures that were strongly-desired.
  5. Hmm, I dunno. BBTS is shipping them, according to several people who put in their preorders. Then again, maybe BBTS isn't paying attention and the people getting toys early aren't gonna complain! @loll@
  6. I just got back from my local Wal-Mart. While browsing the toy clearance, I found 2 Pyramid of Darkness and 1 Revenge of Cobra sets... FOR SEVEN-FIFTY! I also picked up the Hulk Jeep for $6. No new Joes... but I really don't mind right now. Incidentally, I'm still looking for a "Best of" DVD set. If anyone wants to hook me up, drop a line.
  7. No, I'd contend that anyone going off the edge was an accident, a consequence of his action. Said action was intended to save a life without the cost of another. And what, exactly, were his options? Take more bullets? Throw one of his batarang-things at Harvey (you know, the guy who's able to withstand the pain of festering burns on 50% of his body- I seriously doubt he'd feel it)? He took the fastest action guaranteed to separate victim from victimizer, and that was to bodily tackle Harvey. That part was the intention. Going over the edge of the building was not. Your argument is that Batman pushed them all over the edge on purpose, which means he sent them all plummeting over the edge knowing without a doubt they could all survive, or that he chanced that all three of them would die. The first would be impossible for him to guarantee, the second is inconceivable given his desire to preserve life resulted in saving the Joker from a similar fate minutes before. Neither of those are believable, even considering our topic. The least far-fetched option is the third one; to think his intentions had nothing to do with any of them going over the edge, and that it was an accidental consequence of his attempt to save a life. That's called acting during a distraction. It's something Batman does all the time... it meant no one would get shot while he was acting. The fact that he just lies there motionless for a few minutes while Gordon gets to him (and for a little bit afterward), then slowly and barely moves for a little bit afterward... none of this says to you that maybe that fall REALLY hurt, and might have hurt more without advanced body armor to protect him? I mean, the guy was able to get up and RUN minutes after that... that's almost completely unexplainable without saying that the armor protected him from severe injury and/or death. Keep in mind that Harvey actually went through a lot of the same physical punishment (if not more) before his fall, and he wasn't wearing body armor. You don't think that maybe the fall hurt him a lot more, and most likely killed him? Then you don't understand body armor. If it's designed to cope with all the kicks, punches, and bullets (which it IS, in fact, designed to cope with), then it must by default be impact-resistant to some degree. I mean, we're talking about a suit of highly-advanced armor that cost millions of dollars to develop to the prototype stage (the actual DK suit being the next step in that)... if it can't protect him at least somewhat from a full-body impact just by extension of it's design, then it's not doing it's job.
  8. Um... from the article: It looks like Fox did in fact bring it up early on, but were ignored. Because Fox's rights were in regards to the film's distribution, they then had to wait until WB had finished making the film and were talking distribution to bring their suit.
  9. Ah... but there's the rub. Who defines this 'happy medium'? How does it please 'everyone'? I totally agree that if we could find some middle ground between the interests of the adult collector and the marketing to kids, we'd see an incredible toyline. But it's easy to say it's possible; making it a reality is much more difficult. I don't think its as difficult as everyone wants to make it out to be. Collectors: Collectors want articulation, detail, and quality in paint (for lack of a better way to phrase it). Kids: Kids want lights, sounds and spring loaded weapons. Is that an incorrect view of "who wants what"? I don't think it's incorrect... but I think we DO get that particular combo, and there's STILL complaining. Go look at the thread about the movie Scrap-Iron & Ferret and tell me that combining these things pleases 'everyone'. This entire debate here is in many ways the same stuff that was being bandied about there. Again, the heart of the issue, IMO, is that a good number in the fandom (of this and many other properties) want to collect a children's toyline, but take offense at any attempt to appeal to children. There's a lot of adult fans out there who don't want a nice little middle ground, they want everything to be for them. Those fans (again, often some of the most vocal, and one of the reasons, IMO, why adult fans/collectors of children's stuff are often looked down on) don't give two bits about what kids want, or about the toy company trying to sell the children's toyline to the kids it's made for. There's a lot of entitlement and greed about 'my' collection, which in turn leads to a lot of ignorance about what others (both fellow adult fans and children) actually want. I'm not pointing fingers, or trying to paint an overly-negative picture of any fandom here. I think a lot of adult fans suffer a little of this from time to time (I know I do), and it's only the really extreme sorts who exemplify what I'm talking about all the time. Unfortunately, I do think those are the guys who tend to yell the loudest.
  10. Why not just release a box set with Golobulus, Pythona, a few Cobra-La Guards, a changed Cobra Commander, Big Lob, a fixed-arm Falcon, and Jinx? People would buy it just for Pythona and Big Lob. Because 7 figures would be an expensive set. DVD packs are $20 with 3-4 figures. Doubling that and including all of the most controversial characters in it is not a recipe for success. Glue has the right idea: Hasbro can make them, but they need to stagger them with things people want, like they did with Falcon/Nemesis. People who didn't want Nemmy got it for Falcon, and people who did want Nemmy generally got it for both, but very few people got it for Nemmy alone. Really? I hadn't heard of that issue. I actually had to force the wings onto mine, and I never tried the tentacles on him.
  11. Ah... but there's the rub. Who defines this 'happy medium'? How does it please 'everyone'? I totally agree that if we could find some middle ground between the interests of the adult collector and the marketing to kids, we'd see an incredible toyline. But it's easy to say it's possible; making it a reality is much more difficult.
  12. Well... all of the figures we DID get were obviously based on the movie.... on the intro that was included on the DVD. As you said, this could mean that they planned the figures based on that intro, and that the sites, seeing the obvious movie-theme, reported it as a movie set... or it could mean that the movie was intended, but scrapped, and the intro kept to justify the already in-progress figure design. Honestly, I'm more prone to go with the 'always meant as a "Best Of" set' idea, just because it seems silly that with the massive range of characters and designs in the movie that they went almost entirely with a set themed on the intro (no Cobra-La? No Renegades? Not even any of the Rawhides?)... but it's perfectly rational to think they would have done so if they'd intended to do the set based on the intro all along. As we can see by the Resolute set coming up, Hasbro is not adverse to doing more DVD sets. I think that there's a good chance of seeing an actual movie set later down the line, with more of an overall movie basis.
  13. Ah, but Nolan's Batman does let people die, like in the case of the burning monastery. And the burning mansion. And the exploding train. And the other times I'm forgetting. And that's just the first movie. The difference is one of intent. Nolan's Batman never intends for anyone to die, but he's a human and he can't save everyone. In the case of Two-Face, Batman tackled him to get the kid away. He didn't intend for them to go over the edge; he intended to save Gordon's son. The rest was an accident. And not only does it appear to be more than a two-story drop, but the movie makes it pretty clear that Batman would have died (or at least have been grievously injured) if it weren't for his body armor.
  14. It would be really neat if "Katchoo" actually resembled the character in some vague way. It's a really terrible likeness. Not only does it not resemble her, but she looks like she's going to cry. Don't be sad, Katchoo! Someday a company that knows what it means to manufacture product will actually get a decent figure of you out there!
  15. That BAT is beautiful. There's just a very inhuman Terminator/Cylon feel about it that I don't think the normal BATs really capture. Those are scary, but this guy, he's a killing machine. Pun intended! As for tinting the BAT's window, try mixing just a little black paint (or some form of shading ink) with the sealant/finish of your choice. Find a spare translucent part and put a little bit on so you can see how it dries. If it's not dark enough, add a drop or two of black paint until you get the desired shade. For added fun, try colors other than black. You can really get some neat colors for canopies, optics, and so on with this method... and the best part is that since it's part sealer, it's pretty darn durable. Here is a slightly alternative method. And because it mentions Future Finish, and I tend to agree that it's teh awesome, here's that article too.
  16. Something else to keep in mind with Power Rangers is that as a concept, it is FAR more fantasy based than GI Joe. GI Joe is very "grounded" compared to many toylines, and as such is subject to political cultural concerns Power Rangers (or Transformers, or STar Wars) doesn't face. That is a BIG reason I see the more scifi bent in new GI Joe concepts from VvV to the movie, as a way to insulate the brand from some of the political issues the brand has dealt with for years. Not to mention that Power Rangers is 'evergreen' precisely because it reinvents (to a limited degree) itself every few years. This keeps everything 'new' to the kids. Also, the show has never been off the air for any real length of time, which keeps it in the foreground of the kid's attention span. This makes it very difficult (if not impossible) to compare PR to any other 'multimedia' toyline, especially GI Joe, which hasn't had any series at all in over a decade. If Joe had a 20-year cartoon, then we could compare. Of course, PR also changes characters, costumes, vehicles, villains, etc constantly in order to maintain all this... can you even imagine if Joe tried to do that? Just look at how Extreme, Sigma 6, and Spy Troops/Valor vs. Venom turned out. Most of the time those properties even used the same characters (even in the case of Extreme, it was 'new' characters that were thinly-veiled classic ones), and they did horribly, both in terms of sales and reaction from the fandom. Finally, one of the things to be recognized is that PR is roughly on a cyclical trend of 'growing up' with the audience for a few years, then backing down to a younger age group when they risk becoming teenage/adult entertainment. The adult PR fans generally recognize this as a necessity to ensure the longevity of the line. However, any time Joe 'backslides' to try and attract children, adult fans riot about how Joe is becoming 'kiddie stuff' that 'not even the kids like'. Again, this is one of the major flaws I see in the adult fandom, not just of GI Joe, but many properties: the adult fans refuse to recognize that it's a children's property and cut a little slack, or even *gasp* show some support for marketing the brand to children. The failure of many adult fans to rationalize that not everything is meant for them, and that there's nothing wrong with that, is probably one of the biggest hurdles that companies trying to market their properties to both markets, and why they often end up ignoring one at the cost (literally) of the other.
  17. Yup. I have the opinion that movies can and should break stereotypes (like "ugly smart people") whenever possible. @smilepunch@ I'm mostly messing with ya... but I hope you weren't serious in the first place. That's a pretty silly opinion for anyone to hold.
  18. Speaking from my own experience as a kid when this all was happening, I loved Ninja Force. I thought DEF was neat, although it didn't really get me going. The villains of Eco-Warriors were awesome, although I thought the actual Joes looked kinda wimpy. I about FLIPPED when I first saw Mega-Marines! Some of the sublines interested me less than others, but none of them made me scoff and go "that's just stupid". As an adult looking back, some of it is very silly (the neon and Play-Doh on the Mega-Marines, for example), but not when I was a kid... and like it or not, kids were the fans Hasbro was selling to. Adult fans can claim that bright colors, lights and sounds, and missile launchers killed the line and drove kids away all they want... but I for one thought most of it was pretty cool. And I'm not sure how you equate repaints into the 'fads/gimmicks', given that the bulk of 1982 has parts being liberally reused throughout the figures (in much the same colors!). While yes, it did see increased application in the 90s, the idea of repaints and mold reuse wasn't new to the line. While I don't necessarily disagree with your sentiments, I do question the reliability of the book in question. Eric Clark has a very negative few of many of the staple toylines that were established in the 80s and the multimedia approach to selling them. Additionally, he gets quite a few facts wrong, claiming things like Tom Griffin and Joe Bacal named the Transformers (166-167), when it's well-established that most of the '84 names and much of the backstory came directly from Marvel (Denny O'Neill and Bob Budiansky, specifically). Once again, none of this was an issue when I was a kid. As an adult, the movie is absurd and Operation Dragonfire is more like Operation Drag-this-out-for five-episodes, but as a kid, I ate it all up and couldn't get enough. The local station put the Sunbow and DiC episodes on interchangeably, and I was well into my teens before I even realized that those had been two different series by two different companies. As for sales... a lot of fans who don't like the '90s stuff like to point to this gimmick or that trend as the thing that 'killed' ARAH, but the fact of the matter is that there are conflicting accounts and it's very hard to say how much sales and things realting to them contributed, how much was internal politics, and so on. But once the line is established, then you have to keep selling to the things kids want. After GI Joe became a hit, they couldn't just rest on their laurels and rely on "kids like army toys" forever. Hasbro tried to expand the concepts of GI Joe to fit all kinds of tastes so that it had the broadest appeal possible. Kids love dinosaurs. Kids love ninjas. Kids love monsters. And so on. None of them are new concepts, but all of them were untested in a military-themed line, so I'd argue there was in fact some risk involved, however small. Most of these concepts were actually explored in various episodes of the Sunbow series that made the more military-themed Joes so popular in the first place, years before the concepts actually made it into the toyline. Yet many adult fans point to the 'Sunbow years' as the pinnacle of their 'realistic' Joe, and decry the figures that capitalized on no-brainer concepts which were, because of that cartoon, already inherent in the property. No, there was no great, fantastic innovation in using them, but the idea was to keep the line fresh and new and exploring things outside the 'normal' military to keep as many kids interested as possible. Thus the problem with devoted fanbases of any nostalgia-driven property. Every individual fan has "their" way that they see the property (their "Joe-Verse" as it were). When the "reboots" don't match it (and they almost never will) it's declared crap sight-unseen. Particularly if it still tries in any way to cater to the kids' market.I think that's rather pigeonholing fan reaction into only 2 extremes which is clearly not the case. Star Trek is being reinvented, and, while there are indeed very vocal fans, it's not as if all of that fandom is recoiling in horror. As Nimoy said, the reason he thought it was Trek was because he felt the script captured the essence of what the story and those characters were about. And they're still making it much more accessible to general audiences. Raving fans may be wrong and they're frustrating to deal with, but that doesn't imply they're either entirely wrong or that the most prudent course of action is to blow them off completely, do the opposite, or totally ignore them. I don't think anyone's trying to pigeonhole all fans, but rather to point out that the most vocal fans are often the ones who fall into an extreme, using knee-jerk reactions and specious reasoning to justify complaining that they don't get what they want, ignoring any logical response that could explain that, and buying the product anyway. What any of us see on the internet, no matter how much we think it's representative of the fandom-at-large, is only a small portion. What we personally feel, and what we feel the tone is of the board/site/etc is not necessarily the majority view. Yes, there are many differing viewpoints out there. What is being said is in fact that the variety of views on the brand makes the negative reactions seem much greater in number than they are... particularly when there are a good number of extremists who assume they speak for the entire fandom--and speak VERY loudly.
  19. It's not. Just with a quick comparison of the two, I can't find a single part that is obviously in common. Maybe the feet and lower legs... maybe the upper arms... maybe. The sculpting is completely different on the thighs, torso, and gloves, which are the most easily recognizable parts. The original 25th Baroness has even less in common with this figure. You sure about that? Looks like a completely different sculpt to me. I hate that headsculpt though. Why does Baroness look like a tired, middle-aged soccer mom who's forgotten what makeup looks like? I'm not saying all women could/should look like models, but Baroness is Cobra's sex appeal... and she doesn't look sexy at all. Sweet Christmas, she doesn't need a briefcase, she can just stow things in those bags under her eyes! I'm really, REALLY hoping it's just a lighting/angle issue, and that she looks better in person.
  20. That's me TODAY, and I was around to collect a lot of the "older" stuff too. Today's toys have it in spades over the stuff from the past........by huge margins. The newer stuff is, by far, "cooler" in my eyes. Sure there's a few older toys I still have a deep affection for, and some that remain unsurpassed......but 9 time out of 10, the " newer version" ends up better than the past one. I hear ya. It's not that I don't love the classic stuff to death, but there's a lot of new Joes and Transformers out there that have me going "Pfft, eighties. The new stuff is where it's at!" I understand fully that we wouldn't have the things we do today if we hadn't gotten the originals, and I admit most of the new stuff is even the same characters, but... I just feel that most of them are done so much better.
  21. But will we still get his FIGURE?! Important questions like this MUST be answered! Actually... I wonder if he owns his ring name. He could easily license it to Hasbro if he does...
  22. This man speaks the truth. There's nothing wrong with having and wanting your own view/interpretation of the property, but I feel that too often adult collectors try to criminalize anything that might appeal to children, or proclaim pretty much anything they personally don't like to be a stain on the brand that nobody likes. This often leads to or partners with complaining that things aren't the way they were when the collector was a child, fully ignoring that the passage of time pretty much necessitates that, and that if they want the things they had as a child so badly, then anything that is new is practically guaranteed to disappoint. There's a severe sense of entitlement running through adult fandoms of children's properties (not just Joe, but many others as well). It's as though being there when you were a kid means the brand should continue to indulge you for your entire life, completely ignoring any sense of a larger market, demographics, or rational business.
  23. So... are his prices set by a different corporate than the other stores?
  24. Certainly that's a doable concept in your personal canon. However, in issue #3 of the Marvel comic (I got the number wrong when I mentioned it earlier), Flash uses his laser on low power to burn through the lock on an armored door. He states clearly that he could knock the door wide open with a full-power blast. Of course, the reason he doesn't use full power has something to do with oxygen conservation, which makes no sense to me, as lasers are light-based, and to my knowledge, wouldn't "eat up" oxygen as he claims. Not only that, but he uses it in close-quarters in that very issue (not to mention others) without worrying about using up the air. That's just at the beginning of the comic. I won't even BEGIN to go into all the madness inherent in the way lasers were used in the Sunbow toon! @loll@ It's probably best to just chalk it up to sketchy science and say that lasers in the Joeverse work however you say they do, than to look for actual evidence of how it works in the fiction.
  25. There's another great scene in the comics (issue 43) that features Barbecue. The Joes are being attacked on the Transportable Tactical Battle Platform, and Shipwreck says "Those blasted Cobras are tearing my base apart!" Barbecue, axe in hand doing damage control, retorts "No, they're shooting holes in it and setting it on fire-- I'm the one who's tearing it apart!" Sadly, those are probably his two best scenes... but they're definitely memorable! Honestly, a lot of the little details and just a decent (not great, sometimes not even good, but always decent) selection of characters has kept me pleasantly surprised. All the way back in the Cobra Legions set, when I found out that Hasbro had included a regular helmet and gun just on the off chance someone would rather have another Trooper than an Air Trooper... that was the moment that cemented my love of this new line. It sopped being something I picked up out of nostalgia, and started being something I actively became obsessed with. Hasbro keeps giving us neat little nods. The Arctic Snake Eyes for the comic fans, the DVD set redecos for the cartoon fans (finally, the Lady Jaye we all remember!), Ninja-Ku and Glenda for the really obsessive fans... and Matt Trakker, just because they could! If I had to pick one that really got my attention, I think it would be the HISS Driver. Yes, you heard that right! Like most of us, I got him because that HISS isn't going to drive itself, you know? The old one was this skinny little shrimp, but not this one. I started looking at the fun details, the working holster, the way all the parts came together... this guy had attitude. He doesn't drive a tank because someone had to, he drives a tank because he loves to blow things up! He gets his kicks hearing the guns go boom, watching the explosion, then rolling over whatever's left! Just a great, deceptively simple figure all around.
×
×
  • Create New...
Sign Up For The TNI Newsletter And Have The News Delivered To You!


Entertainment News International (ENI) is the #1 popular culture network for adult fans all around the world.
Get the scoop on all the popular comics, games, movies, toys, and more every day!

Contact and Support

Advertising | Submit News | Contact ENI | Privacy Policy

©Entertainment News International - All images, trademarks, logos, video, brands and images used on this website are registered trademarks of their respective companies and owners. All Rights Reserved. Data has been shared for news reporting purposes only. All content sourced by fans, online websites, and or other fan community sources. Entertainment News International is not responsible for reporting errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and or other liablities related to news shared here. We do our best to keep tabs on infringements. If some of your content was shared by accident. Contact us about any infringements right away - CLICK HERE