Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: Future of G.I. Joe?

  1. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    850
    I agree 100% with what LKelty has said. Nerf is just, if not more so, violent in image than the JoeVerse. Nerf lets you shoot your buddies with the guns while wearing stylized armor. The Joes and Cobras are just fantasy military figures that really don't have any ability to harm. I mean unless you count a possible choking hazard. There are also multiple other companies that I'm sure would jump at the chance to acquire the property.
    What's funny about is that Hasbro goes to LONG lengths and through several levels of mental gymnastics to try to say that Nerf is not violent or related to guns in any way. Part of it is referring to all Nerf projectile-shooting products as "blasters" in all marketing materials without ever using the term that millions use to describe them: Nerf guns. NERF, itself, is an acronym for non-expanding recreational foam that the original NERF company used before Hasbro acquired it. It's a staple of their future profits and Hasbro will go to any lengths to protect it from litigation or even comparison to anything violent.

    Hasbro also has at least a grudging respect and relationship with the NERF modification (modder) community and many of its current product ideas (the modulus line for instance) came from modders doing things Hasbro publicly says you shouldn't do - such as modify or paint the blasters - and even looks the other way at gatherings and sales from this community. Heck, as a Joe fan, I would LOVE such grudging respect from the corporate parent these days.

  2. #12
    Private First Class troysheets2001@yahoo.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    dayton Oh
    Posts
    103
    The sad fact is that with the Star Wars, Marvel, and now Power Rangers license and the truck loads of cash that NERF and Transformers bring in they do not need our money so why bother.

  3. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    850
    One would really hope that if that TRULY is the case then they'd just sell the still-valuable brand to someone who can pay them what it's worth and actually use it. Lord knows Mattel, once again, needs help in the traditional "boys toys" department. Alan Hassenfeld still holds a 7.88% equity stake in publicly traded Hasbro, Inc., and I do think he would try to keep what was both his father's and his brother's greatest accomplishments in-house if he could but, overall, the ownership is now 79% institutions such as Vanguard, Blackrock, etc. and I think arock1922 is 100% right that that type of investor just, as a matter of course, shies away from anything that anyone might perceive as controversial in this day and age.

    The "reimagined" GI Joe, one would think, would have to make a debut sometime in 2019 as a toy at the very least at the trade shows if a movie is really going to come out in 2020... a movie that still has no cast, no script we know of and no shooting date.
    https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/has/ownership-summary
    Last edited by j_yoders@hotmail.com; 08-14-2018 at 07:13 PM.

  4. #14
    After reading the ownership survey I will hate giving any more of my hard earned money to Hasbro. Disney needs to buy them asap. I mean, just look at Hasbro is continuing to bungle all the SW releases for Disney. It's like they can no longer keep up.