Hasbro US Conference talks about a Cinematic Universe

[Trent]

So you're in the middle category I mentioned, that doesn't prove anything. People like you will latch onto something if it looks cool and unless you progress to becoming a dedicated fan, you'll likely ditch it when it loses its lustre.

Who exactly are "people like me"? Please elaborate on that a bit more.

You're not a dedicated fan and therefore not a part of that cult-following demographic that will keep a brand alive and well.

It's the dedicated fan base that gives properties cult followings and supports them, even demands their reinstatement when they get axed. In investment terms, they are a brand's blue chip investments.

Just look at Firefly fans and their passion giving fans Serenity the Movie, the success of UK G1 being the reason Transformers is alive and well today instead of a dead property that had a 6 year run and Captain Power fans where the upcoming Phoenix Rising reboot is concerned.

That core group is what keeps brands alive and if you lose it, you pay for it.

Yeah, because those "blue chip investments" have done GI Joe fans so much good over the years. And that fan base would dwarf anything MASK ever had. Even MOTU isn't doing great.

Except that it wasn't simply a niche comic. IDW's days of being some obscure player are long gone and their comics these days are as mainstream as DC or Marvel.

Likewise comics for many of these properties are the main storytelling medium. M.A.S.K.'s dedicated fanbase, the bread and butter of the fanbase, clearly didn't take to kindly to massive wholesale changes to the mythos and diversity-bending characters. That lost them their "blue chips" and when the story wasn't that great, the fad-followers quickly jumped ship. Rather than the dedicated fanbase being there to keep things alive, instead, the bottom fell out of it completely. Financially, it looked like a flop. Now if a "niche comic" can't even make it, why would Hasbro risk hundreds of millions of dollars on a live action movie, for a property that can't even make a buck when it's "some niche comic".

I never said IDW wasn't a significant player in the comic market. But MASK is, by its very definition, a niche property.

A few things here - as someone who has refrained from watching every Bayformers movie to date and refuses to watch them because they treat the mythos like crap.

Firstly Transformers broke the mould by catering not to adult fans, but teenage boys by using Megan Fox and her cleavage to hook them in on movie one and from there Bay had a new established fanbase.

Secondly, the claim that Bay's approach hasn't hurt the franchise is debatable. To begin with you have the situation where AOE managed to be the most panned by critics, a Golden Raspberry winner and still managed to be highest grossing. However with TLK, last I checked, the film had taken a major hit in terms of revenue.

So clearly while you can hide a lack of substance with style for a time, eventually people see through it.

So wait. You are resting the success of a billion dollar movie franchise solely on Megan Fox's boobs? Seriously? That's your argument?

And yeah, the franchise is finally loosing some steam... after 10 years and 5 movies! Now, I'm no fan of the Bay movies either. I haven't seen one since DOTM, but like them or hate them, that there is the definition of success.

Try harder. None of this has convinced me that Hasbro dropped MASK from its CU due to IDW making Matt Trakker a black dude.

[griffin]

I remember absolutely zero of any of this back story! I guess it's been 30 years since I've seen the cartoon though.

However I can see that you can remove the word white from that paragraph and have a rich man (regardless of race in a modern reboot) without changing anything else.

But anyway, the main thing I wanted to comment on was how I remember now of this. I misrembered and thought Matt just owned a service station in the American outback!

That seems to be the thing that is lost here, that MASK was a short lived series 32ish years ago and unless you are one of the few dedicated fans out there, most people wouldn't know much about it other than the nostalgia of it being an 80s cartoon/toyline.
It wasn't a huge toyline or popular enough to last more than a few years, so it is easier to change details that only a handful of passionate fans would notice or care about... or have issue with people who don't know because they weren't fans or huge fans (I watched the show when it was on and liked playing with other people's toys because I didn't have any but I don't know enough details or names to notice if IDW changed anything... or care, to still be able to enjoy it).
It would be like me knowing and owning most of the kiddie Transformers Go-bots toyline, only I would probably care if they redid it and changed details... and I certainly wouldn't have a go at anyone who didn't know about that cartoon/toyline (which I think lasted longer than MASK).

[ChlorHex]

MASK has so much potential as a standalone movie to kickstart a new toyline.

Don't get me wrong, I loved and lived on MASK as well as Transformers (plus other 80's toyline cartoons) as a kid.

It could probably do with a fresh start for the new generation unfamiliar with its history.

It's still popular in Asia as I see vintage MASK toys still being sold there at toy fairs in my travels.

So much potential... probably dump a cameo appearance of VENOM or MASK in the new GI Joe movie and if people want it then go for a full on movie.

So much potential to just drop it without any further consideration... c'mon Hasbro.

[bowspearer]

Who exactly are "people like me"? Please elaborate on that a bit more.

As I previously stated:

Certainly the nostaligia demographic are going to fall into three demographics: people who don't remember it at all, people with the vaguest of recollections and the more dedicated fan.

People like you fall into the second of these - people with the vaguest of recollections. You remember it, might pick it up because it looks interesting or cool, but you're not invested in the characters or mythos at even remotely the same level as a dedicated fan is.

Yeah, because those "blue chip investments" have done GI Joe fans so much good over the years. And that fan base would dwarf anything MASK ever had. Even MOTU isn't doing great.

And yet they're doing infinitely better than Jayce and the Wheeled Warriors, Starcom, Air Raiders, Spiral Zone, Silverhawks, Sky Commanders and Centurions, to rattle off 7 now dead 80s properties off the top of my head.

I never said IDW wasn't a significant player in the comic market. But MASK is, by its very definition, a niche property.

If it's so "niche" then why did IDW try and piggyback it off one of their main titles? Just like if Visionaries is so "niche", then why are IDW trying to piggyback it off Transformers and make it mainstream? Why would the bean-counters at IDW have given that the go ahead if there didn't look like a sizeable return in making it mainstream?

So wait. You are resting the success of a billion dollar movie franchise solely on Megan Fox's boobs? Seriously? That's your argument?

Well that, car set piece chases and a litany of explosions - last I checked, that was the Michael Bay formula for churning out blockbusters which have little if any substance but are almost guaranteed to generate alot of box-office revenue.

And yeah, the franchise is finally loosing some steam... after 10 years and 5 movies! Now, I'm no fan of the Bay movies either. I haven't seen one since DOTM, but like them or hate them, that there is the definition of success.

Define success though? Financial success, sure, like I said, the Michael Bay formula works and it's arguably the only reason he keeps getting the director's chair. Critical success is another story. In fact a while back I watched an episode of Spicks and Specs where it was noted that Age of Extinction simultaneously managed to be the highest grossing box office film of 2015, whilst earning 7 Golden Raspberry Nominations and winning the categories for Worst Director and Worst Supporting Actor.

In fact the Michael Bay formula proves that it's possible to make a movie that is both a steaming turn and a runaway financial success.

Try harder. None of this has convinced me that Hasbro dropped MASK from its CU due to IDW making Matt Trakker a black dude.

Because you don't want to see it. You don't want to see that it's the dedicated fanbase that is the reason that someone in a media or toy company floats the idea of resurrecting a property, by serving as a core clientele to build on. You don't want to see that tokenistic change for the sake of change, is going to be rightly seen by that fanbase as treating that property with disrespect - at which point it alientates that fanbase.

You don't want to see that losing that core clientele is tantamount to ripping the foundations out of a house - sure it might look ok at the outset, but the moment the supporting walls come under strain, the whole thing is going to topple - which is essentially what happened with it.

So you're right, I haven't convinced you that tokenistic change for the sake of change was the start of the end for the book.

However here's the thing, you haven't convinced me that you're even remotely open to being convinced.

[bowspearer]

and I certainly wouldn't have a go at anyone who didn't know about that cartoon/toyline (which I think lasted longer than MASK).

But it's ok for certain people to make veiled accusations here that because someone takes issue with change for the sake of change, that they must be a white supremacist - if not a Nazi? After all that is precively what the following amounts to:

If idw’s mask failed because of a black Matt trakker (cynical or not), it says more about the sorts of fans mask has, and if so I wouldn’t want to make a film series catering to that sort of person.

In other words, if someone hates tokenistic change for the sake of change, they just hate black people - in other words, they're a white supremacist, if not a Nazi (which are the typical shaming tactics which get used in these sorts of situations).

Do I even need to point out the 50 shades of ****ed up, levelling that sort of a vile, baseless and inexcusible slur at a person with disabilities is?

After all, under the Nazis, it was people with disabilities, like me, who were forcibly sterilisied long before the Jews and who were rounded up and butchered in research hospitals like Hadamar - the precursors to the Concentration Camps?

Do I even need to point out how many of us with disabilities have suffered years of child abuse, institutionalised child abuse, rampant discrimination, and as adults, were left vulnerable to domestic, sexual and general violence, due to that child abuse -precisely because the same attitudes which drove the Holocaust where people with disabilities are concerned, are still alive and well in society today.

Can you honestly say that this sort of behaviour which took the form of sexism or racism would be acceptable on the forums?

So tell me Griffin, how the hell is this sort of behaviour in the form of ableism even remotely acceptable behaviour from another forum member?

[bowspearer]

Don't lie! You're downloading the movie as we type!

No, I'm afraid the wikipedia page description was all I needed to require a thorough brain bleaching.

[MEEEGGGAAATTTRRROOONNN!!!]

No, I'm afraid the wikipedia page description was all I needed to require a thorough brain bleaching.

[bowspearer]

Yeah, last I checked, that method only succeeded in blinding you whilst leaving the mental image thoroughly burned in your brain.