Star Wars is definitely singular and unique, in just about every way. And it's probably not fair to hold any other toy line against its past performance, even its modern incarnation. SW is an evergreen brand that maintains an aisle presence now going 20 years media support or no. These last few years have been unsuccessful perhaps in contrast to even 5 years ago, but compared to other toy lines? GI Joe for example? Hasbro owns GI Joe and they can't even make that work.

A good measure of what is working is TMNT. This is no doubt the hottest toy line out there right now. It has a weekly TV show, expansive product tie-ins, a legacy brand, and it moves. When Rebels shows up, and the new movies, SW will be fine. It won't be what it was, because it won't be for anyone. But whatever the future of toys is, SW will be a big part of it.

I think that's a reasonable analogy. 

I think we can probably expect some sort of toy offering that's going to interface with a video game platform.  That kind of interactivity is the hot thing right now.  And that's probably why Hasbro has been touting the success of Angry Birds.

I saw some workmen putting up Christmas lights in midtown Manhattan last month, at least a week before Halloween.  I had to restrain myself from yelling at them to just knock it the f*ck off, and let it be fall for the time being.

Thank you and evenflow.  Two against one Nick, I'll take the risk.  Picked one up tonight off EBay. 

No worries.  It was tough to discern some of the details on the one that was in the package.

Quote from: Nicklab on November 16, 2013, 05:09 PM

If you look at how previous Marvel movie figure lines have performed, it seems very likely that Hasbro over-produced product for Iron Man 2, Thor and Captain America - The First Avenger.  Even though those movies did very well at the box office, their action figure lines didn't really follow suit.  Witness Hasbro scaling back on the figure line for The Avengers, which had some of the biggest box office numbers of all time.

I would argue the point that Hasbro went too far afield in the IM2 and Cap film lines...there was far too much non-movie product too early. They need to get a grip on the established play patterns. You need the bad guy available on the shelf to help sell the hero. You need a line that lends itself to collecting them all. 50 versions of one character available on day one or 50 characters available for a movie that only highlighted six of them show Hasbro has forgotten the formula. 10-20 figures as the movie necessitates. When the line is a success you come back to the table to add depth. Repeat until you can't sell anymore.

We've been down this road in regards to how many hero characters should be released in relation to villains, etc.  There's the argument that movie studios may be intervening in an effort to avoid spoilers, too.  And I agree that from A COLLECTORS STANDPOINT there seem to be too many versions of the hero character and not enough of the villains.  But look at us:  we're Star Wars collectors.  Over time, we've really come to almost fetishize the Imperials!  And that's because they're such classically designed villains.

But back on topic?  What we don't know is how are all of those varying hero figures are actually selling.  Hasbro and the retailers have that sales data, and that data is probably shaping the nature of these lines.

And let's look at one line that DOES have diversity in terms of both hero and villain characters:  The Avengers.  The film was released in April of 2012, and the figures began to be available for at least a month or two before the film's release.  AND it had relative character diversity.  There were only a few versions of each main character.  And in the case of one Iron Man that was just a stretch?  Buyers/collectors essentially passed.  But was this particular line the exception?  It's an interesting thing to look at.  And again, this particular movie could be an anomaly, since it was one of the highest grossing movies in box office history.  But perhaps it is a clear indicator of one one thing:  perhaps a movie needs to be as big as something like Avengers in order to support a toy line.

And that's something that perhaps the toy industry needs to get back to:  making a licensed toy line a special thing.  Because now we're in an age where a large number of summer movies are trying to field a toy line.  Why?  Because there's big money in that sort of licensing agreement.  But I think we're in a spot where things need to be dealt with in some sense of scale.  How do you figure out which movies should offer a proportionally scaled toy line?  That's the tough part.  But I think we're getting there.

Did you manage to assemble a respectable Alpha Flight, Brent?

Very surprised that Bridge Direct waited a full year to release an Azog figure.  He's the main villain, after all.  It's cool that he's finally on store shelves, but really only at TRU.

The offering of Bolg in the 3-3/4" line last year was equally puzzling.  Although I finally spotted him in a flashback scene as the Dwarves were battling the Orcs at the gates of Moria.

The multipack with Legolas, Thranduil and the others looks interesting.  But admittedly kind of cheap, too.

From a big picture standpoint, I think that Bridge Direct has been engaged in an uphill battle since they took on the license.  Especially in light of this article that Darby posted elsewhere in the forum.  Action figure lines in general are in a rough spot.  The manufacturers are trying to stay profitable, and what we're seeing are figures that are cheaper to produce.  And this line doesn't appear to have the level of interest of ToyBiz's Lord of the Rings lines.

The Quinjet is showing up at TJ Maxx stores as well.  I didn't bother checking the price on it, as I was looking for the Helicarrier myself.

I caught the movie last night.

The extended Cap trailer was indeed VERY cool to check out.  I was actually very surprised to see just how much of that elevator fight scene was included.  And it really illustrated that Cap is more than just some guy who's in amazing physical condition.  It was nice to see some of Falcon and the Winter Soldier, too.  But I'm left wondering about Crossbones, who is also supposed to be in the movie.

As for Thor - The Dark World?  Very cool, but clearly significantly different in tone from the first film.  I attribute that a lot to the change in directors.  With Kenneth Branagh directing the first film, there was an element of Shakespearean tragedy to that film.  Evidently, Branagh had been briefly signed on to direct the sequel but left several months into the development of the second film.  I'm glad for the change because I think director Alan Taylor really managed to capture the dark tone incredibly well.  And from a character standpoint he was able to build on the characters of the first film by giving them all more of a brooding depth that had been lacking from the first movie.

Visually, I thought the movie was stunning.  The Dark World of Svartalfheim really lived up to the billing.  I think that Iceland was the perfect location to capture that stark reality, and it showed how a real location can help so much in setting a scene.  Taylor also managed to expand on Asgard from a visual standpoint without getting too showy.

From a story standpoint?  I think that Taylor managed to establish a very real sense of danger and jeopardy with this story.  And doing that draws the viewer in and makes them care about the characters.  I got that with this film.

The mid-credits scene was great!  The Infinity Stones are going to be a cool story arc that I think Marvel Studios is going to take their time to develop.  And Benecio del Toro as The Collector?  I never saw that coming!!!