I wouldn't subject my boyfriend to the Netflix series anywayPersonal canon is all well and good, but I can't watch it with my girlfriend.
I wouldn't subject my boyfriend to the Netflix series anywayPersonal canon is all well and good, but I can't watch it with my girlfriend.
Cool. That said, the comic design is clearly based on the then-upcoming toy. It really doesn't make any logical sense to assume Minerva is the pre-tool (vs. Elita-One) on this basis.
And I think thatâs completely possible. Going back to Disney, theyâve spent the time and money to do motion comic deal on their kid centric Marvel HQ site and even published a mini series in support of that initiative. I view it WELL within Hasbroâs ability to do something similar with their own online presence. A few mini comics, some bios, nothing EXTREME, but something that would provide narrative hooks to consumers (of all stripes) visiting the official brand site. (Side bar: Though, given Hasbroâs lackadaisical attitude on its official sites, that might be asking too much since few of their official sites appear to have had meaningful updates in years. Looking at you two-year-behind official GI Joe site!).It's times like this that part of me misses the "plug new product" approach that so much of Marvel's G1 was built around. Like, just something like that again, alongside something a little deeper and less beholden would be a fantastic one-two punch to me of characterization of current toys and, well, I don't want to say better storytelling, necessarily (much love for Marvel G1, even still), but storytelling that is not beholden to who's currently on shelves.
At least the BotBots cartoon is wonderful.Mattel is hitting their stride with He-Man. Quality fiction (and toy releases) for both older fans and newer ones.
This is in contrast to Hasbro paying YouTubers $5 for âvocal workâ (I use the term exceedingly loosely) and cutting corners elsewhere to the point Netflix doesnât even want a show.
The films *were* successful despite being almost bereft of quality before they reassessed things and got on the right track with Bumblebee. A simple story with essentially two factions and four characters only to follow that up with a Movie featuring 4+ factions and 10? 12? characters.
Transformers is really being criminally mismanaged.
Wasn't that more of the older Hasbro team who helmed the Aligned lore and media?For a company who want to be known as an IP holder more than a toy company, they're doing a piss poor job of managing their IP.
Do we know that's why Netflix said no? Or is it just speculation?Mattel is hitting their stride with He-Man. Quality fiction (and toy releases) for both older fans and newer ones.
This is in contrast to Hasbro paying YouTubers $5 for âvocal workâ (I use the term exceedingly loosely) and cutting corners elsewhere to the point Netflix doesnât even want a show.
I don't think the actual reasons that Netflix turned down the Legacy cartoon pitch were given. Just that they did turn it down.Do we know that's why Netflix said no? Or is it just speculation?
Yeah, "we're an IP company" was more an Alvarez/Archer line when they were pushing the Aligned/Binder stuff then anything the new team has said.
At the same time, Mattel is thoroughly running Thomas & Friends down the tubes, having killed off the CGI series and replaced it with the abysmal 2D reboot.Mattel is hitting their stride with He-Man. Quality fiction (and toy releases) for both older fans and newer ones.
Everyone saw what Marvel did with the MCU and went "Let's do that," like its the easiest thing in the world, and not a huge gamble that could have destroyed Marvel and required an enormous amount of hard work, luck and having people who give a damn about the property in charge.
EDIT: Also, Hasbro only wants to be known as an "IP Holder" because the price of oil and changing demographics makes being a toy manufacturer a dicey proposition these days.
I find it hard to disagree with that. The last decade has really felt like Hasbro wants the big pay off of being an âIP companyâ but has been unwilling or unable to commit the time and resources of doing it, or willing to pay to do it WELL. With the broader direction of the action figure segment and the handling of prior house brandsâŚit makes me think of the mess over at Warner and DC. (Worth noting that under the new Discovery management, they are actively looking for a âKevin Fiegeâ to unify and manage the myriad of DC projects)For a company who want to be known as an IP holder more than a toy company, they're doing a piss poor job of managing their IP.
That kind of feels like what Hasbro was doing with Transformers, relying on the brandâs existing legacy and momentum and trying to cut corners by producing a cheaper media. RiD was enjoyable, and Cyberverse somehow pulled out an amazingly fun third season out of its ass, but you canât deny the relative âcostâ invested in the series showed a downward trend since Animated and Prime.At the same time, Mattel is thoroughly running Thomas & Friends down the tubes, having killed off the CGI series and replaced it with the abysmal 2D reboot.
It's almost like they're not an IP company. Whoever believes they are, or can be, needs to seriously re-evaluate themselves because there's no way they can be. They have viable IPs (and a lot that aren't viable) but they're always going to have to partner with a Nickelodeon, or a Cartoon Network, or a Paramount, etc... to get media out there.I find it hard to disagree with that. The last decade has really felt like Hasbro wants the big pay off of being an âIP companyâ but has been unwilling or unable to commit the time and resources of doing it, or willing to pay to do it WELL.
Well that's dumb too. They're a toy company. That doesn't mean they don't have a role to play in creating lore, but they're never going to be a Marvel, DC, or anything like that.Not really, Hasbro corporate also made a number of similar statements when they acquired Entertainment One. The line is significantly wider than just the TF team.
So the assertion that Netflix turned them down because Hasbro cut costs/doesn't care/is poopy/isn't Mattel is unfounded then.I don't think the actual reasons that Netflix turned down the Legacy cartoon pitch were given. Just that they did turn it down.
Yeah, IIRC, all that we were told about it is that a Legacy cartoon was pitched to Netflix, and that it was rejected.So the assertion that Netflix turned them down because Hasbro cut costs/doesn't care/is poopy/isn't Mattel is unfounded then.
Not that I disagree, but it might help that in Disney's case, they literally own a comic book company -- and the very same one that established the Transformers and GI Joe narratives back in the day, at that.And I think thatâs completely possible. Going back to Disney, theyâve spent the time and money to do motion comic deal on their kid centric Marvel HQ site and even published a mini series in support of that initiative. I view it WELL within Hasbroâs ability to do something similar with their own online presence.
Nintendo started as a playing card company. Companies change industries often enough:Well that's dumb too. They're a toy company. That doesn't mean they don't have a role to play in creating lore, but they're never going to be a Marvel, DC, or anything like that.