When you take a long look, at everything Hasbro got right with the transformers brand in the beginning.. (season 1 & 2, toys and cartoon) Its just unreal, how a few years later they would suddenly get everything wrong, (movie into season 3 toys & cartoons) which led to the collapse of the G1 empire.. Now before I continue, let me state that I do enjoy the movie and season 3 and on, toys and toons.. and they have there fans including me.. But the problem Im discussing here, is that not enough people agreed with that sentiment at the time and with the changes, which caused the collapse of the G1 empire.. And the point of this thread, is how seemingly unreal, and astonishing, it is that simple common sense did not warn Hasbro that this would happen.. I mean If the goal is to reach and connect with as many people as possible for toy sales, tv ratings, the whole cube of energon.. Why in cybertrons name do you suddenly take everything out of Transformers that the "casual fan" cares about, and could relate to.. That built the empire.. Going from a "mostly feeling" present day earth environment people recognize and can relate to, going from present day earth vehicles, that people can relate to.. To what seemed like overnight, a change to a future environment, and future vehicles that although where cool, the casual fanbase couldn't relate to and thus they lost interest faster then blurr could say WTF Hasbro? lol.. For the toys I understand they ran out of diaclone molds to use, but I was always annoyed that the later figs (in house Hasbro figs) where alot of times way oversized compared to the diaclone stuff, almost even at times fisher price like.. Having a hasbro made TF next to a diaclone mold was very off putting.. I didn't even really mind the newer figs being mostly plastic, no die cast, but why not keep the same size scale with the Hasbro made g1 figs so they could fit in with a kids collection of the season 1 & 2 Hasbro diaclone made toys.. And a last mention, we know why they killed off almost everyone from season 1 & 2, for new toys for new TFs.. But who thought changing beloved characters, to new characters with traits that annoyed the crap out of the casual viewer/fan, such as wheelie, Wreck Gar, and Blurrs voice gimmiks that most fans couldn't take listening to for very long.. Was just crazy.. When we look at how Hasbro imploded this G1 empire, Its honestly like the new plan was, hey lets destroy everything that our casual fanbase can relate to with our product, and even sweeter, lets replace our beloved characters with characters that have extremely annoying traits that will drive our fans away.. How in Galvatrons name did they not see this coming, this collapse.. Where was the common sense? Who was the one who decided this was the way to go? And if they still had a job at the end of G1 or after, how was that even possible? It seems so unreal, but sadly, it was very real.. Yes the hardcore fans stayed with them, but the loss of the casual fans is what brought the G1 empire down.. Thanks for reading, just a thought/rant from a hardcore fan who stuck it out lol..

Thunder97

 

Yeah because it can't have anything to do with kids being fickle and the novelty of other brands eating into their market share. It has to be because Hasbro completely dropped the ball and forgot basic business and marketing practice.

No but seriously you are massively offbase. Hell, take the whole "die cast" thing. Firstly, the original g1 figures didn't really have a whole lot of metal in them to begin with, mainly at the joints, and secondly, if more metal = better than plastic, why the hell didn't go-bots beat the hell out of Transformers?

Christ, this post is like reading back into the late 90s.

 

I don't think he's as off base as you're saying. I mean, I don't agree with everything, but I think the movement away from Optimus Prime, Bumblebee, Soundwave, Starscream, and Megatron--characters that were known at the time to even the general public and, when speaking of Optimus Prime, beloved by a generation of kids--to unrecognizable characters that were much more forgettable...that was a major blow.

It would be like Disney saying, hey, let's kill off Mickey Mouse and move on. Its only the most iconic part of our brand...who needs him? There's a reason that today Hasbro releases Optimus Prime and Bumblebee over and over again ad nauseum. It's their bread and butter. They haven't moved on to other characters because it is their franchise.

Back in '86, when they moved on from their most recognizable, iconic characters they pretty much spelled their own doom.

 

Im not sure how Im off base if I said I didn't really mind the the newer figs being mostly plastic, no die cast? Although my buds at the time didn't like that and felt the new figs where cheaper quality.. And Go Bots lost because they where much smaller and seen as inferior to TF's.. Its not rocket science friend.. Did you work for Hasbro back then? lol

Thunder97

 

It's easy to say that in hindsight, especially with an extra 25 years of history to look back on, but at that point, Optimus Prime wasn't the iconic tentpole for the brand, at least, not in the eyes of the people doing marketing and business strategy. The brand was only 2 and a half years old at that point, Optimus Prime wasn't a Mickey at that point, however popular he was. Hasbro had already proven to themselves they could carry a diverse cast through the first two seasons of the show (as well as GI Joe), and the 2nd season of GI Joe showed that they could shift focus to different characters and maintain their audience. The new characters in the '86 movie were still based in the same storytelling archetypes as their predecessors, and moving to a leader who was less sure of himself was a prudent move (which is why they followed a similar path in GI Joe). They had no reason to believe they wouldn't have been able to recreate the same magic with a new cast as they had with Transformers when they aped the GI Joe model (as visionaries and the other lesser Hasbro brands of the era hadn't really floundered yet). Even death had already been approached in the comics at that point without too much damage to the success of the comic, where characters were killed off on a regular basis (often in large, catastrophic events) to make room for new guys, just as the movie did. The driving force was then, as it is now, to sell toys, and as repaints had sort of been tried already, and as it was difficult to sell a child the same toy twice, new characters were a logical answer. The new aesthetics of the toys, at the same time allowing Hasbro to be more involved in the engineering and manufacturing process rather than just using molds made by others, and the simplifications allowed them not only to appeal to a wider age group, but to sell a "bigger" toy at the same price and outcompete other toys on the shelves that way (its easy to forget just how tiny a lot of the original transformers were).

What I'm trying to say was, Hasbro was in uncharted territory at that point, and they had no reason to believe that Transformers wouldn't just have its day in the sun and die out like so many other toy brands before and since. Had they known it would be a major franchise for them for decades to come, maybe they'd have played things differently, but the decisions they made were, for the most part, grounded in sound business sense. Where they went wrong, I would say, is in graphically KILLING the older cast instead of just moving them to more background roles (as with many of the lesser G1 S1-S2 cast members), and moving away from real-world alternate modes to futuristic space modes with relatively little recognizability.

 

Yeah, I don't think it was "dropping the ball" really either. And what Aernaroth is saying is true, it's much easier to judge now that we have so much history to look back on.

They had the G1 line and it took off. There wasn't much reason to think that a whole new cast could do the same. In hindsight it might look dumb, but at the time I'm sure it made sense. Maybe they weren't quite in-touch with their fan base as they could have been, but I am not so sure they totally did an outrageous thing and it could have worked just as easily as it turned out it didn't work.

 

Whoa, wall of text

 

Was my thought as well, hurts my eyes.

 

It's why it's so funny when bronies make the exact same (debunked) arguments - because Transformers fandom has gone through that same crap for 20~ years. It's especially bad when those people are in both groups!

 

Huh?

I can't/won't read the wall of texts. What's going on?

 

It's like the Enter key is extinct or something.

 

I liked those characters and their traits, and I still do, I just missed the old characters,

 

There, now it should be somewhat easier to read, can't say I really agree with him though

 

No. No series really is successful indefinitely. They have to reinvent themselves. A small % of franchises strike that perfect note, and then when they reinvent themselves, it's a crap shoot all over again. Judging in hindsight is not fair.

 

If there were any major reason for the downfall of G1, it's that there were no cartoon seasons 4, 5, and 6.

 

definitely this.

I myself if to this day would like to see a G1 season 4,5,6.

It is still a mystery to me that G.I. Joe got a chance to continue but Transformers didn't, even G.I. Joe was good as well. I actually switched from Transformers to G.I. Joe  

 

Season 4 = Headmasters
Season 5 = SuperGod Masterforce
Season 6 = Victory

 

Yes, and those series certainly were properly promoted to children in the american audience.

Another potential point of strategic discussion would be Hasbro's choice to diversify the concept of the line post-86 movie. Up until that point, there had been sublines/gimmicks, such as minibots, combiners, dinobots, etc., but after the movie, Hasbro did even more (____masters, sparkabots, etc. and then later pretenders and micromasters), to the point where there were multiple sublines with only a single member or two. It's tough to say if this was a good choice or not, but again, I can see the motivation behind it, to provide an incentive to own multiple similar toys, as well as to diversify the potential for franchise success once the novelty of the core concept started to wear off. However, especially without the same support of an animated series, I wonder if it was spreading the line too thin as opposed to solidifying core characters or concepts. Then again, as Season 3 of the show had already had more modest success than previous seasons in solidifying the post-movie cast with audiences, maybe there was solid reasoning in not investing more in reinforcing that trend.

 

definitely not this.

the sad truth is that the beginning of the "downfall" started with how season 3 was received by the public.

and thats not exactly a commentary of the quality of season 3.