Jump to content

Impossible figures?


Dabboi

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, MonsterChris said:

That didn't answer Atlantis' question though, which I share.  What is the source on that? 

at this point some one can correct me if I'm wrong in saying... I believe this is simply one of those myths.. that have little fact and more so spread through the grapevine broken telephone style once upon a time and has become something every one believes, I don't think any one can actually show case a word being written or spoken by any one from Hasbro saying No we won't make satanic oriented figures or any thing of a controversial nature, it just seems that they have not.. so some body said.. it all must be true, the fact we have not ever seen Mephisto or Hellstorm , probably isn't directly involved with Hasbro saying down right No we won't make those figures, but I do imagine the people at the company have said at points to themselves nahh.. it just might make people a little apprehensive, but in the past we have seen some of the weirdest scariest figures marketed to kids.. the entire 80's and first half of the 90's was nothing but offensive stuff.. it just seems like Hasbro is following currently a very PC structure... there was an article that doesn't actually pertain to the following but sort of clarifies what Hasbro is currently about... this was the heading

Hasbro Says It ‘Eliminated Old Delineation of Gender’ to Think of Toys More ‘Inclusively

the article was actually about gender issues in toys.. and being inclusive..as you can see

Meaning they want to make toys for every one, don't want to rock boats... don't want to even attempt to offend.. and are keeping themselves as clean and squeeky as they possibly can in the toy aisles to obviously maximize profits, they don't want to be stamped with anything that may cause any uproar at all... just happy parents and consumers in the most universal of ways

I also want to say that from what I believe Hasbro was intially a Christian run toy company.. probably not now, but I think some of those ideologies still stand

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Atlantis said:

Can anyone point to where Hasbro ever flatly said they were afraid/prohibited to do supernatural type characters?

dracso1s32.jpg

DID they ever say that? Gods, demigods, mortals with god-appointed powers, vampires, vengeance demons, an angel, and Demogoblin; if so, I think they let a couple slip through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Gigantor said:

Leland could be in any future X-Men related wave along with Wyndgarde & Mastermind. And I agree bout using the Doc Ock buck for Leland. Those 3 have to be made to complete the core members of the HFC inner circle.  Though Mastermind can be utilized for the BOEM classic team.

 

7 hours ago, RyanDaly said:

I assumed he was distinguishing between the handsome Jason Wyngarde that seduced Jean, and the real not-so-handsome Mastermind as he truly appeared sans illusions. It would be appropriate to have one of each to complete both Hellfire Club and Brotherhood teams. 

Master.jpg

Now I'll be disappointed if this doesn't happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Lord_Scareglow said:

it just seems like Hasbro is following currently a very PC structure... there was an article that doesn't actually pertain to the following but sort of clarifies what Hasbro is currently about... this was the heading

Hasbro Says It ‘Eliminated Old Delineation of Gender’ to Think of Toys More ‘Inclusively

the article was actually about gender issues in toys.. and being inclusive..as you can see

Meaning they want to make toys for every one, don't want to rock boats... don't want to even attempt to offend.. and are keeping themselves as clean and squeeky as they possibly can in the toy aisles to obviously maximize profits, they don't want to be stamped with anything that may cause any uproar at all... just happy parents and consumers in the most universal of ways

This is a weird take-away, given the source material. Most of the articles written about the press release you mentioned contain at least some degree of "leftists are tying to take away our god-given gender differences" knee-jerking (including the one whose title you quoted, which actually came from a christian site), and many were full-on rejections of the concept. Being inclusive isn't about not rocking any boats. In fact, it's just the opposite. The so-called "PC agenda" clearly rocks all kinds of boats, at just its casual mention on this site alone. It's also weird to compare the family values movement of the religious right with the inclusivity movement of the secular left. They couldn't be coming from more different ideologies or have more different goals. The former was about trying to deny people access to certain stuff based on one very narrow view of morality, the latter is about trying to widen the audience for everything in defiance of those narrow views. "My space-wizard wouldn't approve of this" versus "more women and people of colour would definitely buy this if you just represented them better".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest EUPHORICVIKING
23 minutes ago, Benn said:

This is a weird take-away, given the source material. Most of the articles written about the press release you mentioned contain at least some degree of "leftists are tying to take away our god-given gender differences" knee-jerking (including the one whose title you quoted, which actually came from a christian site), and many were full-on rejections of the concept. Being inclusive isn't about not rocking any boats. In fact, it's just the opposite. The so-called "PC agenda" clearly rocks all kinds of boats, at just its casual mention on this site alone. It's also weird to compare the family values movement of the religious right with the inclusivity movement of the secular left. They couldn't be coming from more different ideologies or have more different goals. The former was about trying to deny people access to certain stuff based on one very narrow view of morality, the latter is about trying to widen the audience for everything in defiance of those narrow views. "My space-wizard wouldn't approve of this" versus "more women and people of colour would definitely buy this if you just represented them better".

I don't care what gender someone is or what gender they think they are.

If the character in a comic book is a sexy women, sculpt HER as such. 

if the character in a comic book is an athletic stick, sculpt HER as such. 

If the character in a comic book is a sexy tranny, sculpt HIM OR HER as such.

if the character is  Fat, Sculpt him or her as such. 

Wanting comic accurate and anatomically correct sculpt is not something anyone should be ashamed of. 

Obviously Hasbro generally gears their toys to be child friendly, you don't have to over-sexualize the toy. Just give it proper proportions and anatomy. They don't need Nicki Minaj Proportions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, EUPHORICVIKING said:

I don't care what gender someone is or what gender they think they are.

If the character in a comic book is a sexy women, sculpt HER as such. 

if the character in a comic book is an athletic stick, sculpt HER as such. 

If the character in a comic book is a sexy tranny, sculpt HIM OR HER as such.

if the character is  Fat, Sculpt him or her as such. 

Wanting comic accurate and anatomically correct sculpt is not something anyone should be ashamed of. 

Obviously Hasbro generally gears their toys to be child friendly, you don't have to over-sexualize the toy. Just give it proper proportions and anatomy. They don't need Nicki Minaj Proportions. 

This makes too much sense bro. You need to stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Benn said:

This is a weird take-away, given the source material. Most of the articles written about the press release you mentioned contain at least some degree of "leftists are tying to take away our god-given gender differences" knee-jerking (including the one whose title you quoted, which actually came from a christian site), and many were full-on rejections of the concept. Being inclusive isn't about not rocking any boats. In fact, it's just the opposite. The so-called "PC agenda" clearly rocks all kinds of boats, at just its casual mention on this site alone. It's also weird to compare the family values movement of the religious right with the inclusivity movement of the secular left. They couldn't be coming from more different ideologies or have more different goals. The former was about trying to deny people access to certain stuff based on one very narrow view of morality, the latter is about trying to widen the audience for everything in defiance of those narrow views. "My space-wizard wouldn't approve of this" versus "more women and people of colour would definitely buy this if you just represented them better".

I don't think it's the ideology that people have a problem with. It's just the operating system in which comics and a lot of the entertainment industry as a whole goes about to try to forcefully inject it. If you wanna make characters to be more inclusive, then do it. Don't appropriate successful characters and change them to get the message across. It's a bait and switch where people are hijacking characters that somebody else built up and made people love. Prime example is the Netflix She-Ra. Other than the names, it literally had nothing to do with the characters everyone knew and loved. They just counted on people who knew the characters to tune in and be force fed this new message. In general, I don't think people have a problem with a show that highlighted LGBT characters, but damn, do your work and make the characters yourself. Don't Shanghai some fleshed out characters and change them just for your own social/political means. It's just lazy and insulting to fans of the original characters and fans of true creativity. As I mentioned in another post, I do appreciate the back story of a character like Big Bertha. As a woman who embodied society's picture of "beauty" to choose to spend most of her time in her "larger" form rather than be oggled and objectified is a valid message, yet rather than use her character and build her up more, they decide to change other characters who already have very solid back stories. Daken was an asexual character who was popular and well received. Where is he now? Why put an extra 50 lbs on Wonder Woman? If these writers and artists are these creative geniuses they make themselves out to be, why not make a character as powerful as Wonder Woman and make people like her as much or more than they do Wonder Woman. Why kill off the Wolverine we all know and love and give us a female clone, who already had a previous identity, and say we have no choice but to accept this as the new Wolverine. If the message is as important as these creators seem to think it is, it should resonate in the fan base and that character should be able to stand on it's own merit.

I don't want to get into another ideological sparing match with you. I know you have conviction in what you believe, I just want to give you some insight to the thinking of some of us who don't agree with changing everything in the name of "fairness". We're not trying to be exclusive. Most of us are accepting of new ideas and new identities, but they are just that, new ideas and identities in an industry where it wasn't widely accepted before. New ideas call for new characters and new stories. Even set them in the past to run parallel with other story lines from the past that are just now coming to light, it really isn't that hard, but just outright changing everything we thought we knew before is never gonna sit well with the fan base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest EUPHORICVIKING
15 minutes ago, monron999 said:

I don't think it's the ideology that people have a problem with. It's just the operating system in which comics and a lot of the entertainment industry as a whole goes about to try to forcefully inject it. If you wanna make characters to be more inclusive, then do it. Don't appropriate successful characters and change them to get the message across. It's a bait and switch where people are hijacking characters that somebody else built up and made people love. Prime example is the Netflix She-Ra. Other than the names, it literally had nothing to do with the characters everyone knew and loved. They just counted on people who knew the characters to tune in and be force fed this new message. In general, I don't think people have a problem with a show that highlighted LGBT characters, but damn, do your work and make the characters yourself. Don't Shanghai some fleshed out characters and change them just for your own social/political means. It's just lazy and insulting to fans of the original characters and fans of true creativity. As I mentioned in another post, I do appreciate the back story of a character like Big Bertha. As a woman who embodied society's picture of "beauty" to choose to spend most of her time in her "larger" form rather than be oggled and objectified is a valid message, yet rather than use her character and build her up more, they decide to change other characters who already have very solid back stories. Daken was an asexual character who was popular and well received. Where is he now? Why put an extra 50 lbs on Wonder Woman? If these writers and artists are these creative geniuses they make themselves out to be, why not make a character as powerful as Wonder Woman and make people like her as much or more than they do Wonder Woman. Why kill off the Wolverine we all know and love and give us a female clone, who already had a previous identity, and say we have no choice but to accept this as the new Wolverine. If the message is as important as these creators seem to think it is, it should resonate in the fan base and that character should be able to stand on it's own merit.

I don't want to get into another ideological sparing match with you. I know you have conviction in what you believe, I just want to give you some insight to the thinking of some of us who don't agree with changing everything in the name of "fairness". We're not trying to be exclusive. Most of us are accepting of new ideas and new identities, but they are just that, new ideas and identities in an industry where it wasn't widely accepted before. New ideas call for new characters and new stories. Even set them in the past to run parallel with other story lines from the past that are just now coming to light, it really isn't that hard, but just outright changing everything we thought we knew before is never gonna sit well with the fan base.

They should make a new Daken, Hulkling, Bling, Wiccan, Karma, Iceman and Loki figure. Heck put them in a wave together all with sexy sculpts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, EUPHORICVIKING said:

I don't care what gender someone is or what gender they think they are.

If the character in a comic book is a sexy women, sculpt HER as such. 

I think this can be problematic, though, if the original source material is problematic, and the example I would point to is Dagger (of Cloak and Dagger). The character, as originally conceived and designed by Bill Mantlo and Ed Hannigan is a sexualized character with a costume design that reveals some... oddly shaped cleavage and exposes her midriff well below her belly button. But also: she's a teenager. So I think Hasbro was right to alter the dimensions of her costume design to limit how much skin is shown on the recent Marvel Legends Dagger figure. Now, I think the toy still looked bad because I think it's a bad costume, but either way, I think there are times when being completely faithful to the comics is... like I said, problematic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest EUPHORICVIKING
8 minutes ago, RyanDaly said:

I think this can be problematic, though, if the original source material is problematic, and the example I would point to is Dagger (of Cloak and Dagger). The character, as originally conceived and designed by Bill Mantlo and Ed Hannigan is a sexualized character with a costume design that reveals some... oddly shaped cleavage and exposes her midriff well below her belly button. But also: she's a teenager. So I think Hasbro was right to alter the dimensions of her costume design to limit how much skin is shown on the recent Marvel Legends Dagger figure. Now, I think the toy still looked bad because I think it's a bad costume, but either way, I think there are times when being completely faithful to the comics is... like I said, problematic.

How is it problematic? Making all figures as they look in comics regardless of their sexuality or gender? That's Equality, which is what everyone preaches. Not only that but as i said, we don't need "hyper-sexualized" toys. No one should be getting their rocks off to toys. But we've seen in characters like Angela, Rogue and the upcoming black and white queen. They can make sexy figures. Just make them Fan channel exclusives and then you won't get any moms calling and complaining. If you find any of the figures we have with curvy mold to be overly-sexualized, that is a personal issue. 

But honestly any kid with an Instagram has access to women/men that are essentially completely naked but allowed to remain posted because they cover the nipples.,... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The example to which I specifically referred was Dagger, who is depicted as a teenager in her earliest appearances (and maybe still today). Angela, Emma Frost, those are adult characters, and if Hasbro wants to depict them with a ton of skin showing, I don't have a problem with that. But I think Marvel was wrong in the '80s to sexualize a kid like Dagger, and it would be wrong still for Hasbro to preserve that mistake for the sake of authenticity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest EUPHORICVIKING
11 minutes ago, tarot said:

Can you people please stop turning every thread into a debate about political and social issues.?!

This is a thread about what figure you think will be impossible to make? Stick to the topic.

I find the conversation stimulating and only post in reply. Specially since it's social issue that is somehow being applied to our toys, which makes it not only stimulating but relevant to us. 

But i say Surtur, Ego, and a Tiny Antman in ant mode made to scale. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tarot said:

Can you people please stop turning every thread into a debate about political and social issues.?!

This is a thread about what figure you think will be impossible to make? Stick to the topic.

To be fair, one of the two original examples posited was Dust, for socio-political reasons, after which point followed three pages of socio-political speculation related to that choice, which you yourself participated in. This is where that conversation led. I would love not to have to keep talking about any of this, and I tried for a long while, but the policy here seems to be only to involve moderation when an argument breaks out. I'd be happy to keep my mouth shut if the moderators would enforce a ban on sociopolitical talk when it's still a one-sided echo chamber.

7 hours ago, EUPHORICVIKING said:

I don't care what gender someone is or what gender they think they are.

Despite some insensitive wording, I mostly agree with this (the whole thing, not just the truncated quote), and am not sure how else to convey that I feel the same way. One issue is that the source material varies so wildly that people aren't always going to agree on what's "accurate". The other issue is that accuracy is emphatically not what some people on here want, and when I argue with them, I guess it easy to draw the false conclusion that if I'm arguing against all female sculpts needing to be buxom and curvy then it must mean I want all female sculpts to be completely devoid of curves. That is a ridiculous position that nobody holds.

3 hours ago, monron999 said:

I don't think it's the ideology that people have a problem with. It's just the operating system in which comics and a lot of the entertainment industry as a whole goes about to try to forcefully inject it. If you wanna make characters to be more inclusive, then do it. Don't appropriate successful characters and change them to get the message across.

I guess it would surprise you, then, to learn I agree with almost all of this. I think it's super patronizing when Marvel takes its popular characters and temporarily replaces them with women or people of colour. Diversity isn't letting a person of colour take a spin in the Captain America suit, it's having a representative cast of characters that reflects reality. Marvel is in a tough spot on this issue, though, as best summed up, I think, by this article.

Where I diverge from you is with regard to your She-Ra example, and possibly as all this relates to the MCU. On the former issue, dusting off old properties and giving them huge facelifts is very common, and I don't see the harm in it, personally. You're right that Netflix She-Ra bears virtually nothing in common with its source material, but modern takes on My Little Pony are more or less the same story, as are all the cartoon kids versions of super heroes (DC Super Hero Girls, Teen Titans Go, etc.). She-Ra was likely a more radical departure, sure, but the principle is the same, and the facelift seems to have worked. They took an old property with a small fanbase and made it something new and wildly popular. Did it need to be She-Ra? Probably not, but someone had that IP and wanted to revitalize it, so there you go.

And as for the MCU, and maybe you agree with me here, but I don't really think the role of the MCU is to introduce new characters. I think comics are the better venue for that, and I think comic fans would riot if the MCU went down that path. But if the MCU wants to showcase a diverse roster of popular characters, it either has to re-gender/re-race certain characters, or else introduce new ones. So much of comics history was mostly white, most hetero, and male-focused that all of the most popular foundations are white male properties. So, if the forces behind the MCU feels they can best serve diversity, while simultaneously keeping comic fans mostly happy, by re-interpreting characters here or there, I think it's a good idea. It's a different medium, and race or gender isn't especially integral to most of these characters, so I'm happy to see good actors and stories take a front-seat to character details as-written in the books. Hell, nobody threw a fit about a 6'+ Wolverine, so I'm not sure why a black Valkyrie ruffles their feathers so badly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Benn said:

This is a weird take-away, given the source material. Most of the articles written about the press release you mentioned contain at least some degree of "leftists are tying to take away our god-given gender differences" knee-jerking (including the one whose title you quoted, which actually came from a christian site), and many were full-on rejections of the concept. Being inclusive isn't about not rocking any boats. In fact, it's just the opposite. The so-called "PC agenda" clearly rocks all kinds of boats, at just its casual mention on this site alone. It's also weird to compare the family values movement of the religious right with the inclusivity movement of the secular left. They couldn't be coming from more different ideologies or have more different goals. The former was about trying to deny people access to certain stuff based on one very narrow view of morality, the latter is about trying to widen the audience for everything in defiance of those narrow views. "My space-wizard wouldn't approve of this" versus "more women and people of colour would definitely buy this if you just represented them better".

sure yes his is all true, and honestly I should have worded everything differently I wasn't trying to actually quote that article, just the idea of inclusiveness being important to hasbro and not what the sites were going on about hence not actually posting the article in itself, I was just showing that Hasbro seems to be thinking with the mindset that they want to make things to unoffend so it seems, because of the new reality of PC, not offending someone is something like "this toy is not for boys and girls its for every one" my point was maybe.. they perceive a toy based on a devilish character not for every one , being it may be scary to parents, some children, and offend certain people , I honestly just wanted to try and find some sort of understanding of why maybe people believe hasbro won't make certain figures , it was a very loose research project. I just always get worn out by people saying.. why won't hasbro make this and that and it's because they said they wouldn't because...but we have no facts to back that up, no body knows that hasbro said anything about what they would or wouldn't do as far as any one actually knows it's a internet urban legend, so I was just trying to find something that might equal them sorta saying it... *shrug* , I honestly don't care if it's a moonstone buck or a Kate Bishop buck as long as its a character I like and it looks good.. I don't care if it's a Bucky cap buck.. or a stump of wood, just gimme good figures the best you can. I don't try and squint at it all super hard, but other people do so I was attempting to be helpful in some way

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/10/2020 at 2:50 PM, RyanDaly said:

Yeah, I have this concern with a lot of the supernatural characters, particularly the devil-themed types like Satanna and Daimon Hellstrom.

Definitely a problem. And a shame, I'd love to get all of those classic supernatural characters in my collection. Although at least we have the Satanna from the T-bolts box set.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On ‎8‎/‎12‎/‎2020 at 8:15 AM, greenlucario said:

Definitely a problem. And a shame, I'd love to get all of those classic supernatural characters in my collection. Although at least we have the Satanna from the T-bolts box set.

On ‎8‎/‎10‎/‎2020 at 10:50 AM, RyanDaly said:

Yeah, I have this concern with a lot of the supernatural characters, particularly the devil-themed types like Satanna and Daimon Hellstrom.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Its a bizarre notion that we live in the 21st century now and there could be such a thing as "concern" about these types of characters as figures. With October coming up however, and Halloween looming, it would be a fantastic surprise for Hasbro to bust out a box set of supernatural figures. I have no illusions that it could happen, because we would've heard by now, but it would be PHANtastic. An updated Dracula (Tomb of Dracula Gene Colan version,  NOT this red armored, pony tail-wearing clown), updated Werewolf By Night and Frankenstein's Monster. Toss in a Living Mummy, the Helstrom siblings, maybe Nox or Mephisto.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/7/2020 at 3:32 PM, Atlantis said:

On ‎8‎/‎10‎/‎2020 at 10:50 AM, RyanDaly said:

Yeah, I have this concern with a lot of the supernatural characters, particularly the devil-themed types like Satanna and Daimon Hellstrom.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Its a bizarre notion that we live in the 21st century now and there could be such a thing as "concern" about these types of characters as figures. With October coming up however, and Halloween looming, it would be a fantastic surprise for Hasbro to bust out a box set of supernatural figures. I have no illusions that it could happen, because we would've heard by now, but it would be PHANtastic. An updated Dracula (Tomb of Dracula Gene Colan version,  NOT this red armored, pony tail-wearing clown), updated Werewolf By Night and Frankenstein's Monster. Toss in a Living Mummy, the Helstrom siblings, maybe Nox or Mephisto.

For sure, not sure why it's such a problem, and if it is, that's what Fan Channel exclusives should be there to solve.  I'm all-in on those classic horror updates, and of course Mephisto and the rest.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • 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