Frogboy Frogboy

Why the new Star Wars toys won't sell

Why the new Star Wars toys won't sell

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.
19,123 views 67 replies
Reply #51 Top
The ending too? The movie (though boring) made sense, but the ending was too weird. I'm too young for all those acid trips.
Reply #52 Top
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.
Reply #53 Top
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.
Reply #54 Top
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.
Reply #55 Top
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.
Reply #56 Top
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?
Reply #57 Top
Crae...'axes'...Spell checker
Reply #58 Top
You sure? Axes - more than one axis; or more than one "blade on a stick to chop wood, limbs or heads with".
Reply #59 Top
/me 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.
Reply #60 Top
migellito - having not read the book, here's my take on the meaning of 2001's final sequence:

/me quite impressed

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

/me doesnt want to spoil the book though

if you are interested, i can email you the idea as descibed in the book.
Reply #61 Top
feline.. that would be excellent, if you're willing clarke is just one of those that i never got to. of course, after reading heinlein's valentine i wish i'd just read clarke instead ;]
Reply #62 Top
feline, I don't remember exactly, but the last sentence of the version I read was something like "And, looking at planet earth, he thought "Now, what will I do with this?""

I'm sure it's not exactly the way it was written, but it's what I remember of it.

And the way I had personnaly interpreted it, is that Dave became one with the almighty comic forces (that some could call God).
Reply #63 Top
The almighty comic forces indeed.

I figured it ends with some divine twist too. "Acquiring omniscience" so to speak. But I just hate open endings...
Reply #64 Top
if you read 2010 then things are made a lot clearer.

personally i would say read those two, and then move onto other books, since i felt that the 3rd in the series (2036?) was nowhere near so good.
Reply #65 Top
migellito - after reading heinlein's valentine i wish i'd just read clarke instead ;]

i have never heard of that one. i thought i had heard off most of his work, and read quite a bit of it.

email off soon
Reply #66 Top
paxx, in the book you read was the destination of the ship saturn or jupiter?

i have just remembered a nice touch in the origional book.

it was pointed out that modern humans started to evolve about 3 million years ago, which was also the same age as the rings of saturn.

the connection hade was that a moon had been destroyed in the process of the creation of the monitoring monalith placed at saturn. this was removed in the later version of the book i think, since it was moved to jupiter.

the other nice point about saturn was the moon where it was placed. io i think. the one that was all while on one side with a single black point in the centre, while all dark on the other side. of course the black spot was the monalith. a lovely touch i always thought
Reply #67 Top
migellito - that would be excellent, if you're willing

the email just bounced back as undeliverable to the email in your profile.

it came back with a "permanent error"