Playmates Toys wins STAR TREK XI license.

[cardinal biggles]

Holytomato said:
Playmates is ONLY doing Star Trek XI ie Abrams TOS.

If AA does only TOS, its bad, but if Playmates does it, its ok.



Oh...sorry....Back to your regularly scheduled program.

AA SUCKS! AA SUCKS! AA SUCKS! AA SUCKS!

If you'd shut off the mental diarrhea for a minute and actually read what's being discussed...

Because of a.) the kind of figures they make, and b.) their marketing & distribution practices, AA is the wrong company to go with, especially if Paramount wants kids to buy these figures. They need to have the durability and (perhaps more importantly) the price point of Star Wars, Power Rangers, Batman, etc. Playmates is better suited for that.

Sorry... back to your regularly scheduled babbling.

 

[MisterPL]

For what it's worth, AA has some really talented folks in the creative area. I've always admired the work they put into that part of their product. So as a design house, it's a great little crew. Where they've typically fallen apart is on the business end.

DST took the marketing and sales chores off of their hands but they don't seem to be interested in becoming a mass market toy company. They're content catering to the specialty market and the adult collectors who make up such a large portion of it. Any sales they make to retailers like Target and TRU is just icing on their cake.

There's also a good chance that this movie will help DST's sales and not just Playmates'.

What I find interesting is how CBS is dividing the property. Lends far more credence to the "It's a reboot" argument.

 

[cardinal biggles]

And again, what AA does is fine, I actually think their work is very good. But the kind of marketing push Paramount seems to be gearing up for with Trek XI requires mass-market toys, not specialty market toys. So unless AA/DST want to radically change their business model in a short period of time, the toys are better off with Playmates.

 

[Amaris]

cardinal biggles said:

JacksonArcher said:
This sucks. Playmates' figures and toys ... generally, were awful. Art Asylum finally were producing figures and toys of genuine quality and I was very hopeful (and to an extent even expecting) that they would get awarded the license for this film -- apparently not.

Oh well. Who knows, maybe they can produce some decent sculpts, but I'm extremely skeptical...

Not to stereotype anyone, but, well... I'm going to stereotype people.

I miss the old Galoob and Playmates lines. Yes, the likenesses were awful. Yes, the Playmates figures all looked like bowlegged cowboys when you tried to sit them down. But they were TOYS! You could PLAY WITH THEM! You know, PLAY, that thing people used to do with toys before they became 30-year-old fanboys?

Art Asylum makes wonderful figures. I'm not disputing that. But they don't make toys, they make poseable statues. Their stuff is not meant to be played with, it's meant to be put on your shelf and lovingly admired.

For all their faults, Playmates made toys that were meant to be played with, and there was a significant kids' audience during the line's TNG heyday.

I want to see kids interested in Trek again. I want to see kids chase each other around the backyard with their toy phasers. I want them to have Kirk and Spock chase the bad guy up a huge mountain of throw pillows and sofa cushions stacked on the living room floor. I don't see kids doing that with anything made by AA.

That's not to say there couldn't be separate lines here -- one for the fanboys and one for the kids -- but ultimately I vote for toys for the kiddies, because THEY'RE the next generation (pun sort of intended) of Trekkies this film is hoping to create.

*wistfully remembers Trek childhood*


J.

 

[igrokbok]

Paramount is the other party to blame for AA''s Trek line failure in the big bix retail outlets. AA wanted to come out of the gate with TOS stuff but the studio insisted on Nemesis and Enterprise. Which made sense actually, because Enterprise was on the air. What no one could predict was how bad the Enterprise and Nemesis figures would be received while TOS sold and continues to sell like gangbusters. They can't crank out enough phasers and ships and the figure line is wildly successful. Had AA been given the opportunity to start the line with TOS, things might have played out a bit differently.

 

[MisterPL]

cardinal biggles said:
And again, what AA does is fine, I actually think their work is very good. But the kind of marketing push Paramount seems to be gearing up for with Trek XI requires mass-market toys, not specialty market toys. So unless AA/DST want to radically change their business model in a short period of time, the toys are better off with Playmates.

No argument there, especially given each company's history rolling out product for films. And given that this movie is – at least in the minds of the execs at CBS – a fresh start, the toys can go in almost any direction without having to conform with a pre-existing line.

Personally I'm hoping for a 3 3/4" line.

 

[MisterPL]

igrokbok said:
Had AA been given the opportunity to start the line with TOS, things might have played out a bit differently.

Two things:

AA did start the Star Trek Minimates line with TOS characters and managed to get them placed at Target as well as specialty retailers. The line didn't make it past the first wave.

Had AA started their line with TOS figures, there's a very good chance that mass market retailers wouldn't have been interested since tie-ins are what help sales and TOS characters had nothing to do with either NEM or ENT. The line would have more likely started in the specialty market... which is not the direction Paramount had in mind at the time.

So yes, the licensor wanted AA to promote their new TV series and feature film but that did not preclude them from offering TOS figures as well.

 

[Holytomato]

"What I find interesting is how CBS is dividing the property. Lends far more credence to the "It's a reboot" argument."

AA has Shatner as Kirk, etc.

Playmastes has Pine as Kirk, etc.

Star Trek XI is NOT a reboot.

"If you'd shut off the mental diarrhea for a minute and actually read what's being discussed..."

Excuse me?

 

[startrekwatcher]

Here is an interesting link to someone who has actually seen the lines of figures.

This report has only increased my enthusiasm for PM getting the line.

 

[The Wormhole]

Interesting, three different sizes of figures? I can understand two, the 9-12 inch figures and then smaller ones, but what's the point to two different smaller ones? A line of four-inch figures (slightly larger than Hasbro's basic Star Wars figures) or a line of six-inch figures (basically the same size as the Playmates Trek toys of the 90s) I can see. But both? Seems a bit excessive. One of them is going to end up in bargain bins.

 

[startrekwatcher]

The Wormhole said:
Interesting, three different sizes of figures? I can understand two, the 9-12 inch figures and then smaller ones, but what's the point to two different smaller ones?

Well maybe PM is picking up with their various sized lines from the old days where they had the 4.5", 6", 9" and 12".

I suspect they are doing the 4.5" line to fit in with their other 4.5 Trek figures(same for the 9") from the 90s and they are doing the 6" to fit in better with the AA line as well as the PM 6" figures. Personally since I collected all the line sizes I'm happy with this decision.

I found it interesting that the uniforms are very similiar to the original series and I suspect the figure featured in all sizes might not be Sarek but Nimoy's Spock.

 

[Holytomato]

"I found it interesting that the uniforms are very similiar to the original series."

Why? We have seen the Starfleet uniforms.

 

[C.E. Evans]

startrekwatcher said:

The Wormhole said:
Interesting, three different sizes of figures? I can understand two, the 9-12 inch figures and then smaller ones, but what's the point to two different smaller ones?

Well maybe PM is picking up with their various sized lines from the old days where they had the 4.5", 6", 9" and 12".

I suspect they are doing the 4.5" line to fit in with their other 4.5 Trek figures(same for the 9") from the 90s and they are doing the 6" to fit in better with the AA line as well as the PM 6" figures. Personally since I collected all the line sizes I'm happy with this decision.

It's also possible that--if they're little more than unpainted sculptures at this point--the 6-inch are prototypes for the 4-inch too. From what I understand, all action figures are originally made at a bigger scale and then--like pre-printed comic book art--reduced in size later.

Another possibility is the 6-inchers may also be geared for the limited collector's market (including online stores and comic book shops). These figures may have better detail to appease those who prefer that over "playability" and durability.

On a side note, though, it's interesting that Playmates actually hired out Art Asylum to do a number of figures for them in the late '90s--most notably the 5-inch Borg Queen and Seven of Nine among a few others.

 

[MisterPL]

Holytomato said:

Star Trek XI is NOT a reboot.

Of course not. CBS offering the upcoming movie seperately from the rest of the franchise is... just a coincidence.

The Wormhole said:
Interesting, three different sizes of figures? I can understand two, the 9-12 inch figures and then smaller ones, but what's the point to two different smaller ones?

Keep in mind these are prototypes. Playmates will be showing these to buyers at Toy Fair in a couple weeks and their reactions will determine the direction of the line. If buyers think playsets will sell, they'll probably go with the 4-inch figures. If they believe the 6-inch figures will sell better with other lines in that scale (DC, Marvel, etc.), that line will get produced.

My point is that not everything that is shown will be produced. Personally I don't think the large scale figures will sell in the mass market. And I'm not sure there's enough interest in the specialty market for such a product. It really comes down to pricepoint. Do buyers think their shoppers are more likely to spend $20 on a 12-inch figure with cloth goods or a 4-inch figure that comes with a section of the bridge that features lights and/or sound?

Toy Fair should be interesting.

 

[Holytomato]

[/QUOTE]

Of course not. CBS offering the upcoming movie seperately from the rest of the franchise is... just a coincidence.



[/QUOTE]

It is just a coincidence. Thanks for agreeing with me.

 

[God Magnus]

cardinal biggles said:
I'm sure you can play with them, but who'd want to? They're $15 a pop, maybe more depending on who you buy it from. Don't tell me you wouldn't shit a brick if the kiddies took your Art Asylum figures out to the backyard to have them explore the deadly jungles of planet Epsilon 3.

Considering kids nowadays buy $40-90 Transformers and do the same thing with them, no I wouldn't. $15 is nothing for an action figure nowadays.

 

[cardinal biggles]

^I guess I haven't bought action figures in a long time.

MisterPL had some very excellent points as to why AA probably lost out on the line, and why their ENT and NEM lines were less than successful at the mass-market stores. Again, Paramount looks to be gearing up for a full-court press on this film, so it wouldn't make sense to go with a direct-marketer instead of a mass-marketer, despite how good the direct-marketer's past products are.

 

[Rat Boy]

On the bright side, AA's run out of excuses to not do the Enterprise-D.

 

[Amaris]

The final line looked to me to be a 4" line. Now the figures I saw weren't articulated and I have no idea whether the final pieces will or not, but what was on show with them was a couple of playsets.

One was the bridge of the Enterprise, with the second one being the transporter room.

*begins hyperventilating*


J.

 

[ManOnTheWave]

I agree. Bring on the playsets, and tiny crewmen who will fit right in with all of my Star Wars, GIJoe, and soon to be Indiana Jones junk.