Vintage Toy Art Debate

[HardyGirl]

And BTW...I was trying to be diplomatic in the way I phrased my post. Everyone thinks they era when they grew up is the best, and that's as it should be. For most of us, our fondest memories were of childhood. What bothered me was assuming kids wouldn't know or care about older toys than their era. There are plenty of people who want to pass down the classics to their own kids.

[Marvelmania]

Good grief. I give up.

Don't give it a second thought. Many of us got what your post was about and enjoyed it. It really made me think about the packaging from the 60's through the 80's. Especially at Christmas time opening up presents and seeing that incredible artwork first before opening the toy. I always wanted to try and recreate the artwork adventure in my playtime. I enjoyed my trip down memory lane. Thanks!

[SpaceCrawler]

Evidently some kinds of cross-promotion and cultural influences are more "pure" than others, who knew?

At any rate, de gustibus non est disputandum.

If you watch the video the guy is proclaiming how great the toy art for little Joes are by talking about each individual aspect on the card, one of which was the promotion of other toys in the line. I don't think that's necessarily a great aspect of toy art, the advertising other toys in the line. Useful, sure, but as "art" it doesn't really qualify and uses up space that could be doing something else. I said that pre-80s Joe art didn't always do this, most art was simply about that product, front and back (and often covered every inch of the box- unique to that specific toy rather than acting as a commercial for other toys). Which, to me, made the art more special and unique. Each box was special, not half devoted to selling you something else (though of course some did this). I'm not sure why that is so controversial.

And I love art from product packages from when I wasn't even alive, so this isn't about preferring art from my generation.

And werewolf, I never said your post was not worth it. I'm just commenting on toy art and directly responding to the video. :D

Sean

[El Hombre Nuclear]

I was also commenting on how, as the 70s turned into the 80s, toys were increasingly becoming nothing more than product based on cartoons or kids TV shows (shows that were made to sell toys, incidentally, unlike Man From Uncle toys, which you mention. That was just a show and happened to spin off some toys). Prior to the 80s when these TV toys dominated stores we had a majority of toys based on nothing, really, though some may have had a theme like space, or sports or adventure, etc (Big Jim, GI Joe, Major Matt Mason, Zeroids, model kits, Johnny West, Marx type play sets, etc, etc). These were totally original, for the most part. Most had no TV shows to base them on or tell you how to play, etc. That's what I meant. Unlike all the He Man and little GI Joe nonsense that came later, some of the biggest toys or earlier eras were original ideas or generic things (cowboys, spacemen, etc) that allowed you to use your imagination.

Ah, okay, I think i get it now. The Starsky & Hutch and Kojak toys I had as a 4 year old were born of "pure imagination" (with an extra sprinkling of pixie dust), because they were based on violent, gritty cop shows that aired in prime time, rather than as Saturday morning cartoons. It's only when they started making things based on "Strawberry Shortcake" that the decline of western civilization really set in....

You know, it's a good thing that none of that imagination deprived cartoon-based "nonsense" was ever allowed to wreck the budding young minds of previous generations. Oh, wait...



Okay, well at least they didn't used to crassly advertise all the other stuff in their toy lines on the packages or in children's literature back then! Wait, what...?





Oh, gosh darn it! Why won't the facts fit my imagined reality better?! I thought these rose-tinted glasses I bought were guaranteed good through my 90th birthday!!!

By the way, you were aware that the purely "imagination-based" Johnny West line was actually full of TV likeness rip-offs, weren't you? After churning out kid-centric TV western licensed sets for years (The Rifleman, Rin Tin Tin, etc.), and releasing an official Fess Parker "Daniel Boone" figure, they just decided it would be easier to cheap out and do unofficial versions instead. Read up:

http://www.stewartsattic.com/marx/specials/whoisjohnny.cfm

That Wayne Maunder-based General Custer was absolutely lawsuit-worthy.

[jwyblejr]

No, there is nothing revisionist about what I wrote. I'm surprised that anyone would consider what I said controversial (unless you're completely biased to your own era- which actually I am not having grown up in the 80s while I collect toys from the 50s through 90s). I never said 100% of toy packaging from the 60s and early 70s was perfect. I was talking about how much the art differed between the eras for some of the most popular toys - since the video holds up 80s GI Joe packages as the perfect example of toy art, which to me is controversial since I think it sticks and is amateurish compared to earlier Joe art, I offered my opinion. I wasn't aware it would make anyone upset. So if it did I'm sorry. If you can tolerate discussion on a discussion board then kudos to you! :D

I was also commenting on how, as the 70s turned into the 80s, toys were increasingly becoming nothing more than product based on cartoons or kids TV shows (shows that were made to sell toys, incidentally, unlike Man From Uncle toys, which you mention. That was just a show and happened to spin off some toys). Prior to the 80s when these TV toys dominated stores we had a majority of toys based on nothing, really, though some may have had a theme like space, or sports or adventure, etc (Big Jim, GI Joe, Major Matt Mason, Zeroids, model kits, Johnny West, Marx type play sets, etc, etc). These were totally original, for the most part. Most had no TV shows to base them on or tell you how to play, etc. That's what I meant. Unlike all the He Man and little GI Joe nonsense that came later, some of the biggest toys or earlier eras were original ideas or generic things (cowboys, spacemen, etc) that allowed you to use your imagination.



Again, I never said 00% of the packaging was great. I said most was better than the packaging that came after, where packaging got simplified.



I only responded to the assertion that an 80s GI Joe card was a prime example of the best of toy packaging one could comment on.

Sean

The biggest flaw with saying that about the cartoons,not every kid in the 80s saw it. Stuff like G.I. Joe,He-Man and so on ran on cable. Not every house back then got cable.

[SpaceCrawler]

Ah, okay, I think i get it now. The Starsky & Hutch and Kojak toys I had as a 4 year old were born of "pure imagination" (with an extra sprinkling of pixie dust), because they were based on violent, gritty cop shows that aired in prime time, rather than as Saturday morning cartoons. It's only when they started making things based on "Strawberry Shortcake" that the decline of western civilization really set in....

I already mentioned the TV tie in toys. These shows weren't created with the intent to sell toys. It just so happened that manufacturers thought they could cash in on popular shows occasionally, like Kojak or Flintstones or MASH or All In The Family (most of the TV show toy tie ins were absurd- Kojak, All In The Family and MASH being prime examples of mainly adult shows). I was obviously commenting on the massive amounts of other toys, that were the dominant toys of the time and not based on cartoons or TV shows or movies (dominant in popularity and numbers compared to TV based toys). The list of those toys in endless.

Today, and beginning in the 80s, you have mainly toys based on TV shows, cartoons and movies. And I wasn't saying that EVERY toy prior to 1980 was perfect. I've said many weren't and said some were indeed based on movies. So I'm not sure why you're arguing. Lots of stuff sucked and lots of stuff was based on TV. But more was not, which began to change in the 80s (or late 70s) and has gotten MUCH worse as time went on, no one can deny. Walk down any toy aisle today and it's maybe 4 toys lines all based on movies/cartoons/TV- along with some Barbies. That's about it. You have to travel to specialty stores to find more generic toys or models. THAT is the fact you're willfully ignoring. Not sure why. You seem to continually misunderstand (and misrepresent) what I'd said.

By the way, you were aware that the purely "imagination-based" Johnny West line was actually full of TV likeness rip-offs, weren't you? After churning out kid-centric TV western licensed sets for years (The Rifleman, Rin Tin Tin, etc.), and releasing an official Fess Parker "Daniel Boone" figure, they just decided it would be easier to cheap out and do unofficial versions instead. Read up:

Read what I said as I addressed this. In many of these toy lines there wasn't a predetermined story line. Sure you had cowboys and bad guys, etc, but the kid was free to imagine a world all his own. Not one based on a cartoon he just saw or a movie being advertised every 2 seconds on TV. Generic cowboys just cashed in on a fad. That's different than sticking to a story line and characters in a cartoon. Little GI Joes were based on a cartoon. Star Wars is based on a movie. You don't really have a generic space men, aliens and robots anymore like you did in the late 60s. You have Star Wars toys now. This is what you had beginning in the 80s too with most toys being based on a TV show.

I also never said that no toys prior to 1980 used packaging to advertise other toys in the line. I clearly implied that was a corporate idea that became more standard in the later 70s. As that feature was being touted as a reason why the GI Joe card art was "great" I had to point out that a standardized corporate sales pitch on a box wasn't the redeeming quality it was being sold as. When stacked against other examples of toy art (like 12 inch GI Joe box art where often all the real estate on the box was devoted to that single toy and the art was pretty stunning and elaborate by comparison). Sure they advertised too, but rarely, but they really went all out on box art. But you're misunderstand my critique of the video. You're ignoring the context of what I said. I suggest you re-read what I wrote. You'll find you're looking for reasons to argue where there are none.

To recap- I simply said that GI Joe 1980s cards did not represent the ideal era for toy art like the video claimed (nor did the toys themselves, which were based on TV shows, movies or cartoons). Hardly a controversial or inaccurate statement.

Sean

[El Hombre Nuclear]

I already mentioned the TV tie in toys. These shows weren't created with the intent to sell toys. It just so happened that manufacturers thought they could cash in on popular shows occasionally, like Kojak or Flintstones or MASH or All In The Family (most of the TV show toy tie ins were absurd- Kojak, All In The Family and MASH being prime examples of mainly adult shows). I was obviously commenting on the massive amounts of other toys, that were the dominant toys of the time and not based on cartoons or TV shows or movies (dominant in popularity and numbers compared to TV based toys). The list of those toys in endless.

Today, and beginning in the 80s, you have mainly toys based on TV shows, cartoons and movies. And I wasn't saying that EVERY toy prior to 1980 was perfect. I've said many weren't and said some were indeed based on movies. So I'm not sure why you're arguing. Lots of stuff sucked and lots of stuff was based on TV. But more was not, which began to change in the 80s (or late 70s) and has gotten MUCH worse as time went on, no one can deny. Walk down any toy aisle today and it's maybe 4 toys lines all based on movies/cartoons/TV- along with some Barbies. That's about it. You have to travel to specialty stores to find more generic toys or models. THAT is the fact you're willfully ignoring. Not sure why. You seem to continually misunderstand (and misrepresent) what I'd said.

Read what I said as I addressed this. In many of these toy lines there wasn't a predetermined story line. Sure you had cowboys and bad guys, etc, but the kid was free to imagine a world all his own. Not one based on a cartoon he just saw or a movie being advertised every 2 seconds on TV. Generic cowboys just cashed in on a fad. That's different than sticking to a story line and characters in a cartoon. Little GI Joes were based on a cartoon. Star Wars is based on a movie. You don't really have a generic space men, aliens and robots anymore like you did in the late 60s. You have Star Wars toys now. This is what you had beginning in the 80s too with most toys being based on a TV show.

I also never said that no toys prior to 1980 used packaging to advertise other toys in the line. I clearly implied that was a corporate idea that became more standard in the later 70s. As that feature was being touted as a reason why the GI Joe card art was "great" I had to point out that a standardized corporate sales pitch on a box wasn't the redeeming quality it was being sold as. When stacked against other examples of toy art (like 12 inch GI Joe box art where often all the real estate on the box was devoted to that single toy and the art was pretty stunning and elaborate by comparison). Sure they advertised too, but rarely, but they really went all out on box art. But you're misunderstand my critique of the video. You're ignoring the context of what I said. I suggest you re-read what I wrote. You'll find you're looking for reasons to argue where there are none.

To recap- I simply said that GI Joe 1980s cards did not represent the ideal era for toy art like the video claimed (nor did the toys themselves, which were based on TV shows, movies or cartoons). Hardly a controversial or inaccurate statement.

Fact check time:

RAH toys debuted in '82. The first cartoon mini-series did not air until '83, with the daily series not starting until '85. The comic, on the other hand, was there pretty much from the beginning. So the line was certainly not "based on a cartoon". It had a more integrated marketing approach as it went forward into the decade. MOTU (another example you cited), is a similar case. The toys debuted nearly 2 full years BEFORE the cartoon aired, and were carried more by the comics included with the toys, which had a very different atmosphere to the later cartoon series. In these particular cases (which YOU chose as your sacrificial victims, not me) the lines started out not very differently to licensed comic-based toys like WGSH. Your statements here are simply factually incorrect, and will not become any less incorrect by posting three more paragraphs of "but... however... I didn't say...", etc.

Confucius say: "Base opinion on bad information, have bad opinion."

Fact check time II: Electric Boogaloo

Evel Knieval by Ideal - 1973
Planet of the Apes by Mego - 1974
Star Trek by Mego - 1975
Six Million Dollar Man by Kenner - 1975

All explosively popular, all licensed products based on properties/characters very big with children (Apes and Trek actually having cartoons during the toys' runs), all from the early/mid '70s. The rising success of these had much more to do with the ultimate slide in popularity of lines like Johnny West, the Adventure Team and Big Jim (at least in North America) than your wholly imagined late '70s invasion of imagination-free product. Ironically, another big factor was the design template set forth by FP's Adventure People, which also debuted in the mid '70s, thrived in the late '70s/early '80s, and largely inspired the form and function of dreaded interlopers like Star Wars and RAH. And it was a line as "pure imagination" based and packaged as any ever released...

Confucius say: "Have strong opinion and weak fact, have weak everything."

Here's the bottom line: You're attempting to "craft a narrative" here (as they say in political journalism), based on personal opinion and prejudice, rather than objective fact. That is why you are currently in the act of a multi-paragraphed, caveat-laden self-pretzeling that would make a Brazilian jiujitsu expert proud. Personal opinions are fine, but trying to rewrite the historical arc of an entire industry to suit your own nostalgia is not. I care much more about at least attempting to get the chronological and cultural history of the subject in question right than the defense of any given line or period (it was you, not I, that chose to use words like "nonsense" and "stinks"), which is why I felt compelled to present my argument. Based on past observation of such things, it will only become circular now, and begin to irritate the other board members, so I will desist. Please feel free to have the last word.

[SpaceCrawler]

Fact check time:

RAH toys debuted in '82. The first cartoon mini-series did not air until '83, with the daily series not starting until '85. The comic, on the other hand, was there pretty much from the beginning.

And that's the point. A predetermined list of characters and a predetermined story line.

So the line was certainly not "based on a cartoon".

Comics/cartoon, that's what I meant. And if you knew your GI Joe history you'd know that Hasbro lamented not having a TV show or comic to support the brand as the 12 inch line drew to a money-bleeding close. They actually said that was the future of the toy and toys in general. They came up with Bulletman and Mike Powers characters (specific characters never appeared before) in an effort to cash in on TV and comic books. Read your history! GI Joe became so controlled with the 80s Joes that they even had an entire biography for each character that came with each toy. Little room for imagination there. MOTU had the comic book and very specific characters that practically told a story for you. Very little imagination required. All these things, that you've admitted, were my point.

THAT was the point of that aspect of my argument, which you're not denying - all while implying that I'm wrong about something. It's bizarre.

It had a more integrated marketing approach as it went forward into the decade. MOTU (another example you cited), is a similar case. The toys debuted nearly 2 full years BEFORE the cartoon aired, and were carried more by the comics included with the toys, which had a very different atmosphere to the later cartoon series. In these particular cases (which YOU chose as your sacrificial victims, not me) the lines started out not very differently to licensed comic-based toys like WGSH.

Again, cartoon/comic-based with a set of characters that had a predetermined story line. THAT was my point. I'm mystified why you're still going on and on endlessly arguing something while not addressing what I've actually said.

Your statements here are simply factually incorrect, and will not become any less incorrect by posting three more paragraphs of "but... however... I didn't say...", etc.

Wrong. Again, you're writing lengthy condescending and mildly insulting diatribes, pretending that you have a point to argue, when in fact you're not actually addressing the points I'm making or saying much of anything that counters my argument. In fact you have backed up my argument repeatedly by acknowledging later 70s and 80s toys began to be based more on cartoons (comics), TV shows, movies, etc.

Confucius say: "Base opinion on bad information, have bad opinion."

Confucius said: Learning without thought is labor lost; thought without learning is perilous.

Fact check time II: Electric Boogaloo

Evel Knieval by Ideal - 1973
Planet of the Apes by Mego - 1974
Star Trek by Mego - 1975
Six Million Dollar Man by Kenner - 1975

See my previous post. You are ignoring the things I write. I'm not sure why you want to list TV property based toys again and again when I've repeatedly addressed that point - but it's pretty bizarre. Again these toys you list were people or films that weren't born to produce toys (unlike the MOTU comics or GI Joe comics, shows, etc). They just happened to be properties companies cashed in on. Again I NEVER said toy companies didn't make toys based on comics or films or TV shows. So why are you acting like I said that? I said a majority of the more popular toys in the 60s and 70s were NOT based on TV shows, etc. I'm not sure why you keep ignoring what I actually say.

All explosively popular, all licensed products based on properties/characters very big with children (Apes and Trek actually having cartoons during the toys' runs), all from the early/mid '70s. The rising success of these had much more to do with the ultimate slide in popularity of lines like Johnny West, the Adventure Team and Big Jim (at least in North America) than your wholly imagined late '70s invasion of imagination-free product.

The decline of those toy lines happened for a reason. As I said, IMO it was primarily comics, TV, and movie properties becoming more prevalent with toy manufacturers. And why? I think it's because kids' attention was increasingly being taken up by TV, comics, etc (and most toy manufacturers agree with this). As even you pointed out the film and TV and comic licensing began picking up steam and dominating the toy market as the 70s progressed, soon completely overshadowing all the earlier toys that were based on nothing but a concept of play (like Big Jim, Johnny West, MMM, GI Joe, model kits, play sets, etc). We agree on that so I'm not sure why you are endlessly trying to argue, while being unable to clarify your point.

Anyway, all that happened for a reason. It was because it was easy to market toys to kids about subjects they were already familiar with. It was easy to sell a kid a toy based on something they saw in a TV show rather than having them use their imagination to play with Major Matt Mason or something similar that had no predetermined story line. Again, toys companies have over the years acknowledged this - repeatedly.

In addition to my critique of the 80s toy art all I said was there were a great many more toys that were NOT based on TV shows and films in the 60s and early 70s compared to the later 70s and 80s and beyond. We BOTH AGREE ON THIS. I never said that some of the toys that were based on films weren't popular. So why are you trying to act like I said this? I said a majority of toys that were most popular were not based on films in the 60s and early 70s. For some reason you're looking to argue with me while actually agreeing with me.

Here's the bottom line: You're attempting to "craft a narrative" here (as they say in political journalism), based on personal opinion and prejudice, rather than objective fact. That is why you are currently in the act of a multi-paragraphed, caveat-laden self-pretzeling that would make a Brazilian jiujitsu expert proud. Personal opinions are fine, but trying to rewrite the historical arc of an entire industry to suit your own nostalgia is not. I care much more about at least attempting to get the chronological and cultural history of the subject in question right than the defense of any given line or period (it was you, not I, that chose to use words like "nonsense" and "stinks"), which is why I felt compelled to present my argument. Based on past observation of such things, it will only become circular now, and begin to irritate the other board members, so I will desist. Please feel free to have the last word.

False. First, I expressed an opinion that the 80s Joe package art paled in comparison to earlier art work, especially in the GI Joe line. Second, I said promoting other toys in the line didn't constitute an aspect of great toy package art work, as the video implies. Third, I said toys began to be based more on TV, comics/cartoons and films as the 70s progressed, abandoning original toy ideas that dominated previous decades toys lines. You even agree with me on that third point- so I'm not sure why you are even posting these lengthy condescending diatribes. The only thing you can argue with me about is my opinion on the GI Joe art work - if my opinion upset you then I'm sorry but you need to accept that other people have opinions that might differ from yours. Everything else we agree on. So this discussion seems to be over.


Sean