|
Community Links |
Social Groups |
Pictures & Albums |
Members List |
Search Forums |
Advanced Search |
Go to Page... |
|
Thread Tools |
07-17-2014, 10:21 AM | #21 |
Bill Cosplay
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Staying clear of knee-jerk nerds.
Posts: 5,910
|
Quote:
That's why Hasbro is smart to license the properties to those willing to foot the bill and carry the risk. Whereas Marvel stands to make a greater profit keeping their characters in-house and funding the flicks themselves (thanks to Disney's wallet), Hasbro doesn't. Maybe with Transformers, but not so much with G.I. Joe or Jem or whatever. Regardless, Hasbro lacks the expertise to make a big-budget film anyway. Best to just let those with the necessary knowledge and infrastructure handle it. |
SmokeBellew |
View Public Profile |
Find More Posts by SmokeBellew |
07-17-2014, 12:10 PM | #22 |
Ex-Pharisee
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: 742 Evergreen Terrace
Posts: 12,216
|
We sooooo need "Like" buttons here on the tank!
__________________
Feedback thread: http://www.hisstank.com/forum/buy-se...lyguy-1-a.html Jesus is my Lord and Savior!!! Www.startswithamousetravel.com |
07-17-2014, 01:16 PM | #23 |
Iron Grenadier
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 950
|
Quote:
No company licenses out its brands under the condition that you only pay us for the use if you make money. Otherwise Paramount or Universal, in the case of Battleship, would essentially get free use of the brand if it didn't make money. They are the movie studio, they are the ones that are supposed to know what they are doing and make a movie that will make money, not Hasbro. Hasbro gets paid for their use of the brand. Battleship may have sunk, but Hasbro got their money. They didn't get a long-term benefit from added brand growth and expansion from the alien concept, but they got the short term profit. So what it went back to being just a basic board game, Hasbro made out great that year on the deal with no risk. |
07-17-2014, 01:29 PM | #24 |
Crimson Nerd
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 12,578
|
Quote:
Exactly.
No company licenses out its brands under the condition that you only pay us for the use if you make money. Otherwise Paramount or Universal, in the case of Battleship, would essentially get free use of the brand if it didn't make money. They are the movie studio, they are the ones that are supposed to know what they are doing and make a movie that will make money, not Hasbro. Hasbro gets paid for their use of the brand. Battleship may have sunk, but Hasbro got their money. They didn't get a long-term benefit from added brand growth and expansion from the alien concept, but they got the short term profit. So what it went back to being just a basic board game, Hasbro made out great that year on the deal with no risk. |
07-17-2014, 03:04 PM | #25 |
Hisstank.Com General
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Brooklyn NY!
Posts: 5,239
|
Wow those two movies grossed 600 million at the box office?! I wonder how much they could have made if those movies were any good?
__________________
Visit my vintage Joe restoration page! https://www.flickr.com/photos/131988164@N07/albums Cross Country's super smooth feedback thread. http://www.hisstank.com/forum/buy-se...ml#post4456308 Currently available Hasbro items. PM me for your prices (DO NOT be discouraged by the listing prices) https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_dkr...nirtoys&_oac=1 |
07-17-2014, 04:11 PM | #26 |
Lookin' For A Path
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Dagobah, with Yoda
Posts: 233
|
Here's a question... Why does there have to be a movie or a cartoon or whatever to generate interest in a toy like GI Joe?
The GI Joe of 1964 was very successful and it had no movie or cartoon, although it did have commercials on tv and advertisements in comic books. The Joe of 64 and on into the 70's (12 inch) was very popular without all of this stuff. Basically a very customize-able action figure. You could make your troops any way you wanted. We all know this, so why can't it happen again? I like the 80's as well, the ARAH was really my era of collecting and fascination. Even though it had characters based on appearances in the comics and the cartoon, there was still a lot of customizing one could do with all the accessory sets and vehicles available. However it seems now that there HAS to be a movie and whatever happens with that will dictate what toy products are produced. I just think that the anonymous soldier-sailor-pilot-marine could still be popular and collectible, allow interest for a variety of ages, and provide a product that would allow connectivity with other releases (figures-accessories-vehicles). There could even be historical and modern characters/equipment, and how about civilian adventuring characters as well? I just don't see why a potentially very popular toy would have to have a movie to make it happen at all. Or if a movie is done, why can't it be created from the existing toyline instead? Also, I have to admit I like the 3.75 inch scale better because there are a lot of possibilities for vehicles at that scale. The 12 inch figures are cool, but the scale does create a limitation in that respect.
__________________
PathFinder |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Surprise turn around from Hasbro at the Con, feel free to discuss! | brock Samson | G.I. Joe General Discussion | 67 | 07-04-2012 11:18 PM |
Joe toys in movies and TV | Viper217 | G.I. Joe General Discussion | 19 | 05-17-2011 07:07 PM |
The Obscure Toys, Movies, and TV Shows Thread | Un-dead Soldier | Testing Grounds Spam-O-Rama | 0 | 10-07-2010 05:53 PM |
What movies need toys? | Prince of Fire & Thunder | Toys | 53 | 02-04-2009 02:26 PM |
Anybody collect toys from movies they hated? | Headman | General Discussion | 16 | 12-26-2008 02:07 AM |
|
|
Recent Off Topic Threads |
Marvel Universe 3.75" figures |
Hisstank Late Night thread... |
What song are you listening to? |
G.I. Joe March Madness 2024 Championship Battle Armor... |
Last Movie You Watched? |