Holy &%*#*$%!!! This blows me away. I mean this *really* blows me away. I guess there is some precendent with the 12" Star Wars line but I never thought you'd see G.I. Joe made by anyone but Hasbro. I hope they are talking 12" figures. With Sideshow's detail this could open up a whole new world for Joe.
-- Leonard
In article <61d51117-9f0b-40a5-8583-3fe0c81a4...@f10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>MERK
Are we talking "melons" (i.e. boobage) or "melon" (i.e. head).
If "melons", then hey . . . I would not mind seeing a 1:6 Cover Girl, Lady Jaye, and Scarlett with big "melons".
OK
OK
I know.
I'll be going to HELL for what I just wrote (among many other things) or if I meet any of you guys @ JOELANTA 2008, then I'm sure one of you is bound to beat the crap out of me.
On Feb 3, 9:50 pm, "DeltaForceChung" <inva...@noknownemail.com> wrote:
> I'll be going to HELL for what I just wrote (among many other things) or if > I meet any of you guys @ JOELANTA 2008, then I'm sure one of you is bound to > beat the crap out of me.
It's not a shock. Hasbro has ceded some control of the toy line over to Paramount for the movie. I would guess that this is part of that deal. Paramount is happy with the way Sideshow is handling the collectible market. That doesn't mean that we won't see 12" RAH figures from Hasbro--it just might mean we see a lot of rehashes (and I wouldn't count on any female figures) in the mass-market.
But....fifteen years ago this sort of deal is what got us that weird cold-cast porcelien GI Joe from the Danbury Mint--the one copied from the 30th Anniversary figure.
> Are we talking "melons" (i.e. boobage) or "melon" (i.e. head).
> If "melons", then hey . . . I would not mind seeing a 1:6 Cover Girl, Lady > Jaye, and Scarlett with big "melons".
> OK
> OK
> I know.
> I'll be going to HELL for what I just wrote (among many other things) or if > I meet any of you guys @ JOELANTA 2008, then I'm sure one of you is bound to > beat the crap out of me.
the real question is not the booblage, but the nipplage.
That would be MIKE Cherry and I just got done talking to the forces that be my bosses at SS and they are going to be made under the same licensing that the Star Wars figures were made from. Hasbro is sub- licensing the RAH line to Sideshow. And according to what I was told Paramount is not involved with the toy end.
Your not paying attention are you....they already did it with Star Wars...sub-licensing made them money....Hasbro didn't loose a dime...the same will happen with the RAH line considering they already have the 3-3/4in line....
> I just don't see when Hasbro would be stupid enough to NOT want all that > cash for themselves, giving up one of thier prime licenses like that.
> It'd be like seeing a big feature HotWheels movie, but then seeing the cars > licensed to Corgi or Maisto to produce.
In this case, Hasbro doesn't want to take the risk of catering to a collector's market when they can just let Sideshow handle it and sit back and collect the royalty money.
Sideshow has proven that they can deliver to the collector's market better than almost anyone else. Hasbro doesn't currently chase that market for action figures, so it makes sense. They don't see the Sideshow stuff as competition with their core product. It's like they'd pick the top company to produce a collectible plate or statue rather than try to start their own division from scratch.
You're forgetting, if these figures bomb, Hasbro doesn't lose one penny.
If they made their own collector's line, the start-up costs would be enormous, and the return questionable. That's not to say they won't do that in the future, but for now the Sideshow name may actually sell more figures than the Hasbro brand--to that particular market.
Imagine Hasblo trying to make a collectible figure!!!!!!! They can't figure how to put a vintage style head on their good SA body. How would ever produce a figure that would sell for $50 or so?
On Feb 4, 6:19 pm, Rudy Panucci <rudy...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
> > I just don't see when Hasbro would be stupid enough to NOT want all that > > cash for themselves, giving up one of thier prime licenses like that.
> > It'd be like seeing a big feature HotWheels movie, but then seeing the cars > > licensed to Corgi or Maisto to produce.
> In this case, Hasbro doesn't want to take the risk of catering to a > collector's market when they can just let Sideshow handle it and sit > back and collect the royalty money.
> Sideshow has proven that they can deliver to the collector's market > better than almost anyone else. Hasbro doesn't currently chase that > market for action figures, so it makes sense. They don't see the > Sideshow stuff as competition with their core product. It's like they'd > pick the top company to produce a collectible plate or statue rather > than try to start their own division from scratch.
> You're forgetting, if these figures bomb, Hasbro doesn't lose one penny.
> If they made their own collector's line, the start-up costs would be > enormous, and the return questionable. That's not to say they won't do > that in the future, but for now the Sideshow name may actually sell more > figures than the Hasbro brand--to that particular market.
I envision a 1:6 diorama for next year's show with a built and menacing 1:6 corrections officer figure using a 1:6 baton beating the 1:6 crap out of a 1:6 figure of me clutching onto boxes of 1:6 figures with assorted 1:6 figures representing others members of "The Sandbox" and elsewhere.
I'd wager it'll win first place in the diorama contest.
I can take it just as I can dish it out . . . last time I checked.
>; )
--
"BigdaddyK" <officerm...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> I'll be going to HELL for what I just wrote (among many other things) or if > I meet any of you guys @ JOELANTA 2008, then I'm sure one of you is bound to > beat the crap out of me.
> I envision a 1:6 diorama for next year's show with a built and menacing > 1:6 > corrections officer figure using a 1:6 baton beating the 1:6 crap out of a > 1:6 figure of me clutching onto boxes of 1:6 figures with assorted 1:6 > figures representing others members of "The Sandbox" and elsewhere.
Actually, if it's BDK, he'll be holding a 1:6 two-by-four! And he won't be beating you with it... maxmike
---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ---- http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups
> > I envision a 1:6 diorama for next year's show with a built and menacing > > 1:6 > > corrections officer figure using a 1:6 baton beating the 1:6 crap out of a > > 1:6 figure of me clutching onto boxes of 1:6 figures with assorted 1:6 > > figures representing others members of "The Sandbox" and elsewhere.
> Actually, if it's BDK, he'll be holding a 1:6 two-by-four! And he won't be > beating you with it... > maxmike
> ---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ---- > http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to
>> > I envision a 1:6 diorama for next year's show with a built and menacing >> > 1:6 >> > corrections officer figure using a 1:6 baton beating the 1:6 crap out >> > of > a >> > 1:6 figure of me clutching onto boxes of 1:6 figures with assorted 1:6 >> > figures representing others members of "The Sandbox" and elsewhere.
>> Actually, if it's BDK, he'll be holding a 1:6 two-by-four! And he won't >> be >> beating you with it... >> maxmike
>> ---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News > Provider ---- >> http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to > 100,000+ newsgroups
On Feb 4, 5:49 pm, "DeltaForceChung" <inva...@noknownemail.com> wrote:
> WELL . . .
> You for starters.
> I envision a 1:6 diorama for next year's show with a built and menacing 1:6 > corrections officer figure using a 1:6 baton beating the 1:6 crap out of a > 1:6 figure of me clutching onto boxes of 1:6 figures with assorted 1:6 > figures representing others members of "The Sandbox" and elsewhere.
> I'd wager it'll win first place in the diorama contest.
> I can take it just as I can dish it out . . . last time I checked.
I'm not sure what you're alluding to, but FYI - I don't carry a baton.
I've found that it's more satisfying (not to mention personal) to use the ol' biscuit snatchers when you want to emulate AT&T and "reach out and touch someone". 8-)
You might wanna check into "splinter revmoval clinics" in the greater Atlanta area though.
On Feb 3, 9:14 pm, Leonard Armstrong <lta100...@comcast.net> wrote: "I never thought you'd see G.I. Joe made by anyone but Hasbro."
This isn't the first time that's happened... Dreams & Visions made 12" GI Joes, and they did a very good job with it. So why not give Sideshow a chance to produce 12" GI Joes as well?
In my opinion it's a smart move for Hasbro to license the name and let other companies produce the toys, there's far less risk for them of producing a product and having it flop at retail and then they lose money. If they let Sideshow do it they lose nothing and chances are good (based on the past history of Sideshow) consumers will very likely get a high quality product that totally lives up to the name of GI Joe. Thus Hasbro wins, the GI Joe name wins, and consumers win.... although it is likely we will pay more to acquire these toys, but if the quality is high then perhaps it's worth it to pay more.
What I find hilarious is the banter going around the Yahoo groups...People going on about how Sideshow either stole the license or its stupid for them to sell out. Hasbro made money on the deal. Just like the Star Wars licensing...oh wait, did you even know about that? Yeah! They sold their SW license to Sideshow too...ask anyone here who got one of the 13 12" figures they put out how the quality was. I saw the rebel soldiers and wished I had gotten the chance to review them. I do get the chance with GIjOE!!
Well, with the prices sideshow charges, I can guarentee I won't be picking anything up at all.
I would just think that this would be a prime oppertunity to get 12" joes into kid's hands, and build the brand back up, with affordable accessible figures, and a tie in video game.. it's working for Halo.
