1986 - can apply to both TFs and the Joes

Discussion in 'Transformers General Discussion' started by Funky Munky, Nov 13, 2008.

  1. Funky Munky

    Funky Munky G.I. Formers & Trans-Joe TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2002
    Posts:
    1,080
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    206
    Likes:
    +1
    Has anyone thought of 1986 as a new marketing plan for Hasbro? Cobra Commander was replaced with Serpentor and we jump 20 years into the future in space, not Earth for the TFs.

    I'm not badmouthing those who like those shows for that year, but for me, it was just blah... kind of like the thread/post about how Wheelie, Blurr and other 1986 TFs becoming Hasbro a little silly.

    I know, you're probably going to say, "That's toy sales for you, so Hasbro remains in business," but unless what was posted somewhere else was wrong, I wonder why the movie (along with My Little Pony's) forced Hasbro to make G.I. Joe's direct to video cassette. The movie wasn't that bad was it?

    Just a little mid-80's rant of thoughts for discussion.
     
  2. Feralstorm

    Feralstorm I ship Nick & Judy TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Posts:
    17,116
    News Credits:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    327
    Likes:
    +69
    It's obvious Hasbro was trying new things. It was also the early days of using cartoons as advertising for toys. Pretty much every toy line needs to change/evolve or stagnate and die. In TFs and GI-Joe, they (try to) move forward by changing styles and moving focus to a new bunch of toys. In the cartoons and other media, they attempted to shift focus to the new toys by shifting the old characters (and leaders) to the background, or outright killing them off. (the TF and GI-Joe movies were the big offenders here). The problem there was it turned out offing old characters viewers had become attached to had a bigger negative impact than expected, worse than having to keep up with characters not connected with a toy currently for sale, anyway. It's obvious that it changed the way Hasbro handled their media, and helps explain why the names Optimus, Megatron, Duke and Snake Eyes keep coming back for each new iteration and reinvention of their respective lines.

    So yeah, I agree Hasbro was wanting to take things in one or more new directions somewhere around 1986, and largely the response was "Not THAT way!" :) 
     
  3. godsenddeath

    godsenddeath . TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Posts:
    4,896
    News Credits:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    216
    Likes:
    +2
    IIRC, Flint Dille (One of the G.I.Joe cartoon writers) said that Hasbro at the time had the view that if something was good for Transformers, then it was good for G.I.Joe too. On that basis, if it was bad for Transformers, then maybe it was bad for G.I.Joe too.

    That time period also marked less involvement from Ron Rudat, who was one of the major creative forces behind ARAH: The 1987 line was the last one with which he was involved.



    IIRC, it didn't do that well at the box office, and may even have lost money.
    The reaction to Prime's death (obviously) was less than positive too.

    Faced with the possibility of another movie flopping at the box off, plus a potentially negative reaction to Duke's death, it's understandable why they went straight to video..... and stuck in the "Duke's going to be okay" blurb at the end (even though he got a spear in the chest.)
     
  4. Funky Munky

    Funky Munky G.I. Formers & Trans-Joe TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2002
    Posts:
    1,080
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    206
    Likes:
    +1
    Didn't work for She-Ra, right (I understand that the Princess of Power had the first animated movie of the 80's based on a toy line. Just now realized as I'm typing this we were talking about toons in general, not just the movies.)
     

Share This Page