TF Views

I had heard about Lockdown being produced in the movie style, but not Bulkhead. I'd be very interested in seeing how those figures turn out.

Yeah, methinks maybe Hasbro might have accidentally let something slip there on that third question. Of course, it could all be a red herring and we 'don't' get a new Bulkhead, but hey.

It's weird that they say Animated came out better than they expected, especially since apparently *nobody* was buying the things? I mean, they hung around shelves for *months* here. Some of them are 'still around.' And yet everyone is clamouring for more? It doesn't make sense to me, at all.

EDIT: I added ActionFigs.com and our own questions to the TFWiki page, to get it started more:
http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Hasbro_Q%26A/July_2009

It also looks like AllSpark sorta-kinda asked our question about adult themes in this last round, but I'm not angry, and maybe the questions are different enough to justify it. And they didn't get an answer yet, anyway, so. (And apparently people are pissed about that? It's happened before.)

Over-all, I am pretty happy with the answers. I was hopong for a bit more information on the licensing, but I knew it was a long-shot.

It is interesting that Hasbro had worries about TFA would do as well as it did. For the record, the only TFA toys I am seeing are items that shipped after June, when the movie toys started showing up.

Dom
-wants to see more "interviw" style questions if possible.

More answers for other sites are up. Some of them are *really* dumb questions ("Plans to do Devastator with wrecking balls?") or things we already know (but didn't when the questions went out, so I can't fault them--HA Mudflap) but it's interesting to see that we weren't the only ones who were all, "Dude, this movie is sexual and violent and...well, what do 'you' guys think?" Seemingly, though, Hasbro isn't even giving any kind of non-answer for these, and is perhaps leaving them unanswered indefinitely.

Wow. I have to agree with O6 about Hasbro's answer re: The Fallen at the TF wiki. (Though I was under the impression that Megatron and co turn on the Fallen in the video game.)

For the second question, as much as I like the idea of Hasbro intentionally leaving kinda "Easter Eggs" in the toys to be found later, I think the first part of it's closer to the truth. Either way, it's kinda neat when you find a bonus feature like that.

My response to them saying they do not want to mandate how people play with the toys is two-fold. First, how would they justify using terminology like "play pattern" while developing and marketing toys. And, the instructions could be a list of "play optiions" for a toy. (Here, press this button if you like.")

I do like the idea of Animated characters coming out in other aesthetics. Hasbro mentioning Bulkhead is something to ponder. And, their line about "perfection being forward looking" is very nice. (In other words, no resting on their laurels.)

That first answer IMO is a total flop.

Their line about listening to feedback is kind of contradicting by the "no plans at this time" bit at the end.

So, do we wanna try for a "how about a referendum?" question?

I think they got lost in the wording of question 3. But, yes, it is annoying to not have an answer.

I think we might have to wait for TF3 to get an answer about Hasbro's view of the content in TF2.

Dom
-gonna leave this pinned for a few more days.

Dominic wrote:

That first answer IMO is a total flop.

Their line about listening to feedback is kind of contradicting by the "no plans at this time" bit at the end.

I think they're just frustrated. At least one (maybe two? I wasn't quite paying attention) other site was all, "hay, bigger blackout n fallen n stuff plz," whereas that question was more along the lines of, "Well, why These Guys instead of Blackout and co? We're just curious, is all." They probably skimmed it and went, "Blackout question, shell out the No Machine."

Another site asked a question mostly about if the movie toy designs got playtesting--likely to decide if they were Cool Enough As Toys to make it, and Hasbro gave a canned line about safety playtesting instead. Oh well.

Hmm, there's been some concern voiced to me about highlighting the fan product currently on the market, as it's more likely to bring it to the attention of Hasbro legal and have them crack down on it. The intention was, of course, to ask if there's room in the current business model for more licensees, but it didn't quite play out that way.

The second answer's cute and hard to argue with, but I'd rather know the decisions to highlight certain features, and why some TFs have tiny, incomplete instructions.

Third answer..Hmm, Bulkhead.

Dominic wrote:So, do we wanna try for a "how about a referendum?" question?

Not really, but only based on how painful this round's answers have been. I feel clobbered by them, like Hasbro isn't listening so much as hearing and then telling us what we want according to them.

Onslaught Six wrote:I think they're just frustrated. At least one (maybe two? I wasn't quite paying attention) other site was all, "hay, bigger blackout n fallen n stuff plz," whereas that question was more along the lines of, "Well, why These Guys instead of Blackout and co? We're just curious, is all." They probably skimmed it and went, "Blackout question, shell out the No Machine."

IMO, they're paid to work on a line that's endured because of the longterm collectors, if they can't stand to hear "we want X please, and if not, why not?" then they're in the wrong line of work. Look at the Hasbro Star Wars answers, they may hear a lot of those silly "please make X" questions but they take the time to think about it and address it in a reasonable, informative answer. That shouldn't be asking too much from teams TF and GI Joe.

Another site asked a question mostly about if the movie toy designs got playtesting--likely to decide if they were Cool Enough As Toys to make it, and Hasbro gave a canned line about safety playtesting instead. Oh well.

I wonder if this was about wording. Hasbro has their own terms for some stuff, and when we use it with them and we're not sure what it means or we imply something they're not inferring, it can gum up the works. I once used the term "carry forward" about something with a Hasbro sculptor at Comic-Con and he started to go off on a tangent before he had to stop and ask me to clarify what I meant, which was not what Hasbro means when they use the term (I actually meant something about 75% similar too, so it became one of those things you can alllmost follow but not quite). Another time, I asked LEGO about making "playsets", what I meant was what most toy fans mean, play environments as opposed to vehicles. However, LEGO uses the term "play set" to mean ANY set they make that has instructions and is meant to be played with. It took a long time clarifying on that one.

onslaught86 wrote:Hmm, there's been some concern voiced to me about highlighting the fan product currently on the market, as it's more likely to bring it to the attention of Hasbro legal and have them crack down on it. The intention was, of course, to ask if there's room in the current business model for more licensees, but it didn't quite play out that way.

If the concern is from someone like FansProject, they do have something to worry about, but they should have known better, they are in the business of unlicensed toys using someone else's intellectual properties and not even submitting to any safety regs or testing, it's a dangerous game and they've definitely crossed the line. If they don't like the spotlight, they shouldn't make their product with packaging that has their name on it, they shouldn't make it so public what they're doing in the first place, it was only a matter of time before Hasbro got wind anyway. But regular fans making their own not-for-profit one-off customs though, they are in no danger at all so they're just adding to the noise if they were freaking out.