Re: da

(Anonymous) 2018-11-13 07:47 pm (UTC)(link)
lmao take off your nostalgia glasses

filmation animation was usually terrible and done on the extreme cheap

or are you forgetting them reusing the same five bits of rotoscoped footage in every he-man episode

da, +1

(Anonymous) 2018-11-13 08:04 pm (UTC)(link)
i'm not super fond of the new show, but the old show sucked way worse.

filmation was just a cheap studio doing cheap cartoons to sell toys. there was no soul in these shows. the animation was bad, cheap, and the character designs were based around recycling toy molds, which made all of them weird and lazy.

i may not like everything this show is doing, but at least it's doing something and has some spirit to it beyond empty capitalism.

Re: da, +1

(Anonymous) 2018-11-13 08:09 pm (UTC)(link)
lolkei

Re: da, +1

(Anonymous) 2018-11-13 08:27 pm (UTC)(link)
actually ayrt is right. he-man basically started as a series of toys and when the marketing guy was trying to convince retailers to stock them, he made up on the spot that they were going to run a hour special on tv so kids would know who the characters were. since they needed a cartoon fast and cheap, they went to filmation who convinced them that it’d be better to go with a half hour cartoon and that’s how the he-man cartoon was born.

fun fact: the toys were originally going to come with comics only (another special feature made up on the spot to convince retailers) but when they presented it to toys r us, they asked how toddlers were supposed to read it if they’re marketing to 5 year olds. the original comics were also very different from the show, as he man was just this wandering barbarian like conan. prince adam was entirely created by the show.

Re: da, +1

(Anonymous) 2018-11-13 08:56 pm (UTC)(link)
i mean, you do realize that every cartoon in the 80s existed for the sole purpose of selling toys, right

Re: da, +1

(Anonymous) 2018-11-13 09:01 pm (UTC)(link)
at least it's doing something and has some spirit to it beyond empty capitalism.

and you think this ISN'T an attempt to gain fame, cred and attention? and cash? you sound a bit high from your own farts.

Re: da, +1

(Anonymous) 2018-11-13 09:31 pm (UTC)(link)
they mean it's not a toy commercial, you mental midget

Re: da, +1

(Anonymous) 2018-11-13 09:37 pm (UTC)(link)
keep telling yourselves that, lol

Re: da, +1

(Anonymous) 2018-11-13 09:45 pm (UTC)(link)
the only news on toys associated with the new series seem to be fandom-focused collectibles (the gimmick is they have the same articulation points as the old she-ra toys) with a two figure set being retailed on pre-order at roughly 90 bucks. also, they aren't being released until january 2019.

now, if you're as smart as you think you are, you can probably infer from that information that this show isn't selling toys to kids.

Re: da, +1

(Anonymous) 2018-11-13 09:47 pm (UTC)(link)
it still sells merchandise, stop trying to weasel your way out. it’s not some ~soulful and pure passion project~, ffs

Re: da, +1

(Anonymous) 2018-11-13 09:49 pm (UTC)(link)
oh no, they'll sell a few t-shirts at hot topic, truly it's a capitalist hellscape.

hey anon, you know there's a grey space between glorified commercial and having zero merchandise associated with a project whatsoever?

Re: da, +1

(Anonymous) 2018-11-13 10:03 pm (UTC)(link)
keep moving these goalposts to pretend your tumblrina series is immune to criticism, tittybaby

Re: da, +1

(Anonymous) 2018-11-13 10:08 pm (UTC)(link)
https://wankgate.dreamwidth.org/55418.html?thread=213784442#cmt213784442 hey i'm gonna relink my original comment since you didn't seem to read it. especially the parts where i said "i'm not super fond of the new show" and "i may not like everything this show is doing". the goalposts weren't moved. i said it had something to it besides empty capitalism, not that it had zero capitalist motivation. the original show *only* had empty capitalism in it and that's why it looked like utter shit

but hey, apparently pointing out that the original show was a garbage toy commercial is the same as stanning for the new she-ra, who knew?

Re: da, +1

(Anonymous) 2018-11-13 10:07 pm (UTC)(link)
you really...think they're making this just for fun and not to make money

Re: da, +1

(Anonymous) 2018-11-13 10:08 pm (UTC)(link)
hey anon, you know there's a grey space between glorified commercial and having zero merchandise associated with a project whatsoever?

Re: da, +1

(Anonymous) 2018-11-13 10:13 pm (UTC)(link)
i mean, what's the difference if they're trying to sell toys or if they're trying to sell shirts or if they're trying to sell some other form of merchandise

trying to peddle a product is still trying to peddle a product

dda

(Anonymous) 2018-11-13 10:15 pm (UTC)(link)
because one exists for the sole purpose of selling a product. it's a commercial.

one just happens to have merchandise associated with it. the point of the show isn't, exclusively, to sell that merchandise.

Re: dda

(Anonymous) 2018-11-13 10:23 pm (UTC)(link)
the point of virtually every cartoon is to sell merchandise. they're all commercials.

Re: dda

(Anonymous) 2018-11-13 10:30 pm (UTC)(link)
holy shit how are you this obtuse?

Re: dda

(Anonymous) 2018-11-13 10:59 pm (UTC)(link)
i don't know a single person who ever had a rugrats toy. or even a t-shirt. but that was one of the most successful cartoon of the 90s.

or to use a more comparable example as a show on a streaming service that everyone here hates for one reason or another, for all of vld's infamous success, i don't really ever hear merchandise as part of the conversation. i know toys for it exist, but they're not the hot toys all the kids are buying. and yet it lasted for eight seasons worth of episodes.


like idk, anon, maybe you're the wrong one here. merchandise is not the sole source of revenue for a cartoon, and hasn't even been the most important source in the case of a lot of commercially successful shows.

Re: dda

(Anonymous) - 2018-11-13 23:32 (UTC) - Expand

Re: dda

(Anonymous) - 2018-11-14 00:34 (UTC) - Expand

Re: dda

(Anonymous) - 2018-11-14 03:47 (UTC) - Expand

Re: dda

(Anonymous) - 2018-11-14 03:52 (UTC) - Expand

(frozen comment) Re: dda

(Anonymous) - 2018-11-14 02:12 (UTC) - Expand

da

(Anonymous) - 2018-11-14 03:35 (UTC) - Expand

Re: da, +1

(Anonymous) 2018-11-14 02:34 am (UTC)(link)
the difference is that many 80s shows, from jem to thundercats, had the TOYS made first and the series as a tie in to promote them. this is what anons mean by glorified commercials

they didn't care much about story telling and that's why most of them were monster of the week kind of episodes, toy designers just created the toy line and then writers were told to write something based on the back of the boxes. if you things/power ups/characters were introduced it's because new toy designs were being planned and writers had to add them in when told.

the series were written as they went, instead of being an actual planned project

Re: da, +1

(Anonymous) 2018-11-14 02:42 am (UTC)(link)
you can find modern examples of this, like lego ninjago, but even those are still better than the toy commercial cartoons we were fed in our childhood, so i'll take it.

but yeah, there is a world of difference, whether you like the show's design aesthetic or not, between this new she-ra and the old one.

Re: da, +1

(Anonymous) 2018-11-13 11:05 pm (UTC)(link)
bawwwwwwwww!!!!!!1111

Re: da, +1

(Anonymous) 2018-11-13 10:05 pm (UTC)(link)
>remake
>apparently not empty capitalism

Re: da, +1

(Anonymous) 2018-11-13 10:09 pm (UTC)(link)
y'all legit can't read