Why the new Star Wars toys won't sell

Wednesday, May 1, 2002 by Frogboy | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk

Another Star Wars movie arrives and for the second time in a row the toy
makers are putting out utter garbage. There's nothing worse than seeing toy
makers completely patronize kids with gimmicky stuff that few kids would
want to play with and things that just look lame.

As I peered at the various toys, vehicles, guns, and action figures, I was
just astonished with how out of touch these guys must be. And you know that
they'll blame the movie or Lucasfilm for their eventual failure to sell.

Here's why:

1) There's no goal.
What do I mean? As a kid (started collecting at age 5 when Star Wars came
out) the back of each action figure listed EVERY figure available at the
time. This gave me a goal to try to obtain every single one I could. I
remember after one birthday going hunting with my mom to store after store
trying to find Jawas. But instead, the back of the boxes just show all the
various moveable parts and give no idea how many figures are out there. This
leads to #2.

2) Removable parts = bad thing. Yea, I somehow managed not to lose all those
storm trooper guns when I was a kid but I never used them. Just too much of
a pain and I was always too worried that I'd lose them. To an 8 year old
boy, losing a part is the end of the world and these new action figures
practically beg you to lose half their parts. What the hell were they
thinking?

3) The figures aren't fun to play with together. The action figures are
basically dolls now. The original ones were stiff but easy to stand up
enmasse so that kids could re-enact battles or use their imaginations to
come up with new adventures. But the new ones are so cumbersome that they
are designed that you will play with them one at a time or possibly two at a
time since it's so hard to stand them up or do anything with them. So
surprise surprise, kids aren't going to want to buy a bunch of them. I had
20+ storm troopers for instance. You think any kid is going to want 20
"super battle droids"? That leads to #4

4) The generic figures are either missing or pathetic. Remember the battle
droid figures from Ep 1? Holy cow was that pathetic. Various parts to lose
and they felt so cheap. Compare that battle droid do the speeder bike
trooper from Return of the Jedi. Light years difference. I couldn't even
find a new "Storm trooper" which is really ironic because those are the ones
that might possibly be purchased in quantity by kids. Good action figures
have substance (physically to them). They should be designed for kids to
play with outside and be tough. These seemed to be designed for 30+
nerdlings living in a basement who won't even take them out of their
packaging.

5) The vehicles are pathetic. Why do toy makers think that kids want things
that look cutesy? Kids want things that LOOK as realistic as possible. So
why come out with a slave 1 or jedi fighter or whatever wher ethe colors
have been brightened? I have the original slave 1 still from when I was a
kid, it would kick the new slave 1's ass.

6) The guns. Holy cow, some of them are practically all orange. They look
cheap and have strange colors that aren't realistic at all. Compare them to
say Han Solo's blaster toy which was not a particularly good toy even at the
time but at least didn't patronize the kids.

7) Toys are too specific. I can't just get character A. I have to get
Character A in a particular scenario. "Anakan Skywalker in shower cap!" I
mean come on, how many Anakin's or whatever do they think some kid is going
to want? It was bad enough in the old days having Luke Skywalker in Hoth
outfit and Luke Skywalker in Bespin garb but this is taken to the Nth
degree. It's all back to the first issue - kids want obtainable goals. No
kid is going to whine their way to collect 5 versions of Obi-wan. Just
aren't enough holidays during the year.

I remember when they did this sort of thing with Transformers toys years
ago. I'm sure they just thought that demand for Transformers toys dropped
off. No, it's that kids couldn' t keep up with a constantly increasing
deluge of characters. In their own greed quest, they end up undermining
their sales.

Of course, by Christmas season look for the inevitable "Has Star Wars lost
its merchanidizing ability?" It won't even occur to them that maybe if the
toys that they made weren't utter garbage that kids might want them. My son
is 5 and the first thing he said when he saw the Jango fett figure was "Too
many parts, I'll lose them!"

Pity. And right when Steve is leaving blue's clues too.
First Previous Page 3 of 4 Next Last
Jafo
Reply #41 Sunday, May 5, 2002 2:25 AM
Mig...
'Farscape' was Henson's Muppets taking themselves seriously....give me Pigs In Space anytime...

What I'd like to see is a serious rendition of the Foundation 'Trilogy'... [teach them Star Wars kiddies a thing or two]...
AJCrowley
Reply #42 Monday, May 6, 2002 3:18 AM
As Dennis Miller might say, "I don't want to get off on a rant here, but...."

The thing that bugs me most about current big movies such as Star Wars is the crass over-commercialization. The way they use movies to sell products for the Pepsi/Burger King/Doritos conglomerate when the movie doesn't have anything vaguely relevant to the products makes me want to tear my own eyeballs out and throw them at my tv. Am I the only person that finds this shameless irrelevant capitalization insulting?

AJC
craeonics
Reply #43 Monday, May 6, 2002 4:11 AM
The motto of capitalisation is "as long as it sells there are no boundaries". Good taste has nothing to do with it.

Amber is very seventies. I wonder how the tv version will be.
migellito
Reply #44 Monday, May 6, 2002 5:30 PM
hmm, jafo.. no, i must say i really like farscape. also, being possesed of some formal film criticism training, i must say george lucas in general and the star wars saga specifically have quite a lot going on. of course, if it's just a matter of preference, that's completely understandable

marketing tie-ins are all aimed at kids. even when the movie isn't for kids only, and sometimes when it's not even appropriate for kids, if there is a chance kids will like it they'll do the merchandising.

for example.. although 'titanic' was a massive media extravaganza, pimped by the hollywood machine to the best of its ability, you didn't see 'titanic doritos.' and yes, i agree totally. seeing obi-wan's face on a bag of lays is quite disheartening, and i have to struggle to keep it from cheapening the whole experience.
Jafo
Reply #45 Monday, May 6, 2002 7:42 PM
mig...
I just thank God that Lord of The Rings was made far away enough from the Hollywood 'machine' that there were no Hobbits running around wearing Nike runners, and the engraving on the ring was not the Coca Cola script...

And Farscape.....in Australia where it's made, we have a vermin/introduced species called a 'Cane Toad'....people are known to play 'Golf' with them...[waste of bullets to shoot them].....so when one of the Show's principal characters looks like an amateurish puppet of a cane toad.....
migellito
Reply #46 Monday, May 6, 2002 8:14 PM
hahaha.. i've seen cane toads on steve irwin's show.

actually, i'm sorry to say that here in the states the merchandising for lord of the rings was fairly merciless. they had light up plastic 'goblets' at burger king, as well as little toys of the characters. sam gamgee should feel insulted.. his toy's special 'action' was moving a pan around over a plastic fire.

i'll have to say though that the actual toys for lotr are pretty cool. my son just got some of them as part of the gifts for his first communion, and they are quite nicely done.
paxx
Reply #47 Monday, May 6, 2002 9:46 PM
mig, I think that AJ and Jafo are not refering to merchandising the movie in products, but the other way around: merchandising products IN the movie. Example: see the Apple logo on the main character's laptop (although the screen is most definately Windows, hahaha!), or the hero opens his fridge and you see in the foreground a six-pack of Coke cans, etc.
Jafo
Reply #48 Tuesday, May 7, 2002 1:28 AM
Yes...paxx got it right....imagine the two giant stone statues in the river canyon [LOTR]...they might have been Ronald McDonald...
migellito
Reply #49 Tuesday, May 7, 2002 10:50 AM
ahhh... alles klar, herr komisar..

many apologies most gracious one..
feline
Reply #50 Tuesday, May 7, 2002 11:24 AM
crae, i would recorment reading the book 2001. it is infinetly better than the film.

for one thing it actually makes sence
craeonics
Reply #51 Tuesday, May 7, 2002 11:40 AM
The ending too? The movie (though boring) made sense, but the ending was too weird. I'm too young for all those acid trips.
paxx
Reply #52 Tuesday, May 7, 2002 11:51 AM
Yes, crae, the ending only makes sense if you've read the book.
But then again, I've heard many interpretations of the very last sentence of the book.
feline
Reply #53 Tuesday, May 7, 2002 11:54 AM
yes, that was one of the main problems with the film.

the end of the book makes perfect sence, and once you have read the book you can sort of see what the film is getting at.

also i found the film quite boring, while i found the book very interesting, and have read it (and 2010) several times over.

i wont explain the ending, since the book does it better, and i dont want to spoil it for you.
feline
Reply #54 Tuesday, May 7, 2002 11:57 AM
paxx, can you remember the last sentance?

there are at least two versions of the book (one they go to saturn, and the other they go to jupiter), so the last sentance could be different two.

i dont recall the last sentance as beeing ambigous.
migellito
Reply #55 Tuesday, May 7, 2002 12:27 PM
having not read the book, here's my take on the meaning of 2001's final sequence:

dave enters a physical manifestation of a convergence of realities. he travels through the underpinning structure of existence and becomes a 5 dimensional being. we, as 4 dimensional beings, have no concept of what the 5th dimension could be, but he is now able to travel through the first 4 in the same way we travel through the first 3.

fyi:
1- length
2- width
3- breadth
4- time

we experience all 4, but can only travel at will through the first 3.
craeonics
Reply #56 Wednesday, May 8, 2002 3:26 AM
Is that so? When I knock you out, you travel in time faster than I do.

And what about rotations about the x, y and z-axises (what's the plural of axis?)? Aren't those another three dimensions too? Or is that a location versus orientation thing?
Jafo
Reply #57 Wednesday, May 8, 2002 7:57 AM
Crae...'axes'...Spell checker
craeonics
Reply #58 Wednesday, May 8, 2002 9:05 AM
You sure? Axes - more than one axis; or more than one "blade on a stick to chop wood, limbs or heads with".
feline
Reply #59 Wednesday, May 8, 2002 9:27 AM
feline declines to comment on the spelling

as for rotation, you can describe crae's position in 4 space by 4 coordinates.

if we rotate you around a vertical axis, we still only need 4 coordinates to describe your position at any point in the rotation.

however if you were rotated though a 5th dimension we would need a 5th coordinate to fully decribe your changing positions.
feline
Reply #60 Wednesday, May 8, 2002 9:31 AM
migellito - having not read the book, here's my take on the meaning of 2001's final sequence:

feline quite impressed

most people just seem to think it is wierd, and never get beyond that

feline doesnt want to spoil the book though

if you are interested, i can email you the idea as descibed in the book.

Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

  • Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
  • Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
  • Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
  • It's simple, and FREE!



web-wc01