Post by: Recon on August 07, 2009, 12:49:29 PM
Cheers,
Ian
:P
Post by: BHMike on August 07, 2009, 01:09:59 PM
I think this is is looked at as a 3 3/4" type of site : meaning this site is suited to 3 3/4" figures only. Not true, we just haven't had enough 12" figure collectors come to the board and discuss the 12" line yet. Heck, we have people that love Sigma 6 on here.... and some that like Sgt. Savage. How messed is that? ;-) (kidding).
So if you want to talk 12" joes, go ahead! We don't hate you guys... we just find you odd for playing with dolls. ;-) (kidding again!)
- Mike
Post by: Recon on August 07, 2009, 01:28:02 PM
Oh, and that Snowbank figure is one of the best Joes in any size I've ever seen.
Cheers,
Ian
:P
Post by: Redmao on August 07, 2009, 02:16:12 PM
What I hate is what's Hasbro is doing with the 12" figures today.
I know its more cost effective, but molded shirts wont bring back the 12" format to its former glory.
It looks like Hasbro doesn't care to compete with all the 1/6 collectible figures that are out there so they do basic products that tend to warm the pegs.
I understand that they want to focus on the RAH universe since its rich in characters instead of a lonely WWII soldier or a small team of nameless adventurers which is sad.
I still believe that the Adventure team has a lot of potential.
Post by: Canuklehead on August 07, 2009, 02:40:49 PM
Wouldn't say I hate them, though - that would imply a feeling one way or the other. I'm impartial, to the 12" line.
Reason I don't collect them? I guess I just don't have the room to display them, and they seem bulkier than the smaller figures. Plus, it's easier to pass the small figures off as action figures... the 'footers kind of blur the line between action figure and Barbie, to me
Post by: Storm.Shadow on August 07, 2009, 02:56:42 PM
.... just kidding. The scale isn't the problem for me, it's the lame figures that Hasbro has been putting out in that line. I picked up the first wave of movie based figures and they really do nothing for me.
Post by: Realboss on August 07, 2009, 03:08:14 PM
Not everyone is into 12" each to their own but I would love to see a 12" post from time to time. I also know of a fellow out London way who sets up mock battles with his 12"
Post by: B on August 07, 2009, 03:30:40 PM
Post by: Recon on August 07, 2009, 04:12:04 PM
B has a point. I grew up with the 12" Joe so it has meaning to me where I had nothing to do with 3-3/4" Joe. Even so, I don't take shots at people who collect them or dismiss people for collecting them. It's what they love and who am I to judge.
All that sounds pretty cool RealBoss. Sad part is I'm just thinking of getting involved in collecting. I may be focusing on the 12" but there are certainly some of the smaller guys I'd like to pick up. That Snowbank figure is really cool. Hey, does the guy out in London take photos of those mock battles? I'd like to see them.
Cheers,
Ian
:P
Post by: Canuklehead on August 07, 2009, 04:27:44 PM
Quote from: "Recon"
I'm not sure why we need to pass anything off as action figures or dolls or whatever you want to call them Canuklehead. Can't we just enjoy what we like to collect?
My post was a little tongue-in-cheek... I don't actually try to validate my hobbies to people that question them. I likes what I likes. I expect other people to be the same... which is why I prefaced that with my saying I'm impartial to the 12" line.
Post by: ARROW on August 07, 2009, 11:55:34 PM
I have over 400 12" figures, from various brands, and a rowing number from the smaller scale ( 25th Ann. and movie) I had hundreds of RAH figures at one time, and several dozen different vehicles.
The 12" scale has a LOT going for it, and the length and breadth of the offerings in that scale trump the 4" scale stuff by a huge margin.
IMO, if you are serious about collectibles, and serious about military themed figures, then the 12" scale stuff is the way to go.
But to be candid, I do not see the split in ranks that people talk about. The 12" on-line circles that I have frequented for over a decade and a bit have seldom, if ever discussed anything negative about the 4" scale. Aside from stating preferences, there's no slamming of the smaller scale stuff on the forums I know of.
There has been the reverse over the years however, collectors from the smaller scale lambasting the 12" stuff. I chalk it up to either immaturity or felling threatened in some way by the other stuff.
Post by: yuena007 on August 08, 2009, 02:30:39 AM
Post by: morgardee on August 08, 2009, 11:00:10 AM
Quote from: "B"
I've only ever had 3 3/4. This is my gi joe. I know of no-one when I was a kid who had 12" joes. So I really have no connection with them.
Zoinks. Sounds like I should dig into my personal history on growing up with the 12' line in a future issue of Joe Canuck.
I love the 12' AT figures, but I don't care for the ARAH 12' figures. Adventure team toys were awesome. The play value for me was just as good as the ARAH line but in a very different way. The ARAH line was driven by the cartoon and comic, thus left you with the feeling you "had to have" the next wave of cool figures, so everything became rushed. A figure was not your favorite for more then a year as there was so many new characters. The 12 inch line you could fall in love with the same figure and just change around his gear, outfits and vehicles. That 12' figure you got when you were 5 years old would still be in thick of many adventures 3 years later as your main "go to guy". Grunt and Stalker (my first 2 ARAH Joes) were soon replaced by Gung Ho and Road Block.
Post by: Realboss on August 08, 2009, 12:22:00 PM
I love the 12' AT figures, but I don't care for the ARAH 12' figures. Adventure team toys were awesome. The play value for me was just as good as the ARAH line but in a very different way. T The 12 inch line you could fall in love with the same figure and just change around his gear, outfits and vehicles. That 12' figure you got when you were 5 years old would still be in thick of many adventures 3 years later as your main "go to guy".
[/quote]
My first Joe was a 12" talking Adventure Team Joe with life like hair in 1977. He rode in a Tonka Jeep and battled 8" Planet of the Apes figures and 12" Star Trek figures. Sadly a few years later my brother destroyed them all along with many PlayMobile and HotWheels toys. I think of the value they would be worth now. I also think that is why I became very protective of my 3 3/4 Joes(I still have to this day) back then plus we were a little older by the time they came out.
Post by: Recon on August 08, 2009, 12:53:59 PM
Me, G.I. Joe and a pair of Major Matt Masons. I think this was taken in '69.
(http://http://i468.photobucket.com/albums/rr45/io2008/img423-1.jpg)
Me and a naked G.I. Joe. My dad was helping me build a camp for Joe. '68 or '69.
I grew up with the 12" figure and I guess that's why I wanted to revisit it - purely sentimental and trying to recapture some of my youth. I have absolutely nothing against any G.I. Joe figure. I just don't get why people can't accept that not everyone likes what they like and put them down for it. Baffling. My mother always said that if you can't say something nice, shut your gaub (or mouth, as it were).
Cheers,
Ian
Post by: Realboss on August 08, 2009, 02:05:57 PM
Post by: Canuklehead on August 08, 2009, 11:15:16 PM
Quote from: "Recon"
I just don't get why people can't accept that not everyone likes what they like and put them down for it. Baffling.
People are like that with everything, though. Toys, music, clothes, movies... hell, religious nutters even blow themselves up over other people liking a different god than they do.
So the real question isn't why people can't accept different opinions... Maybe it's why are people bothered by the opinions of others?
So what if people don't like what you like. So what if they put you down for it. I like a lot of "geeky" things and my co-workers have a hell of a fun time ragging on me for, but I could care less - I likes what I likes and I'm impartial to the likes of others. I've found that apathy truly is the best policy.
Post by: haggis on August 09, 2009, 10:24:23 PM
Post by: Redmao on August 10, 2009, 08:13:34 AM
(http://http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w42/Redmao/GI%20Joe/IMG_0498.jpg)
;D
They look good on vacation
(http://http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w42/Redmao/GI%20Joe/sm_0802.jpg)
Or deep in the "fake" jungle
(http://http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w42/Redmao/GI%20Joe/Joemontage.jpg)
Post by: Recon on August 10, 2009, 10:17:36 AM
Cheers,
Ian
:P
Post by: canprime on August 10, 2009, 10:40:47 AM
Most of the 12" figures released by Hasbro this year are good examples of poorly done figures.
Post by: morgardee on August 10, 2009, 11:07:22 AM
Quote from: "canprime"
I only like a very few 12" figures. The SDCC Baroness and upcoming Crimson Guard (JoeCon) are good examples of well done 12" figures.
Most of the 12" figures released by Hasbro this year are good examples of poorly done figures.
That Crimson Guard figure looks good except for the head. Something about the face just looks to flat to me, and I just can't get past that.
The Baoness figure is great. I have one next to my monitor. Gives all the classic 12' figures someone to leer at. :wink:
Post by: Kronz on August 10, 2009, 10:59:52 PM
When Hasbro relaunched the 12ers as the dinky figures began to fail, I thought it was great. Of course I didn't buy ANY of them, but it was really awesome to see a bigger section for them than for the 3.75s at Toys R Us. I always loved seeing which political figures and military icons would be made next. But they were priced for the over-30 crowd and I completely passed on the whole run. It doesn't mean I hate them, it just means that they have never successfully been marketed to the target demographic that was raised on A Real American Hero.
If I was rich I'd surely begin collecting them, since they have a far more legitimate claim to the GI Joe throne than my beloved little ARAH men.
Post by: olyeller01 on August 10, 2009, 11:21:02 PM
I did have a lot of fun with 12" Snake Eyes and Cobra Commander.
Post by: ARROW on August 11, 2009, 04:41:32 PM
Quote
I am pretty sure I had been into Joes for some years before anyone even told me the franchise began in the 60s with larger scale dolls. It became clearer to me that most, if not all references to GI Joe in films and tv refer to the tall dudes, at least up through the early 90s. That is confusing, and it is still confusing because people like Conan O'brien continue to perpetuate the knowledge of GI Joe as 12" dolls. That's cool, but the two lines are pretty far afield from one another in their appeal.
Actually, they are all technically "dolls"--because at the time of the debut of RAH, there was no legal definition for action figure. It was only after about 1996, iirc, that Toybiz got a court ruling that defined their X-men toys as "action figures" to sidestep import duties. They succeeded because it was shown to the courts that the figures depicted a slate of characters of "mutants" with inhuman features.
Up until that time, the term was only marketing jargon, and had no legal bearing on the classification of toys.
The definition of a doll was a realistic depiction of a human being in toy form. IIRC, as long as the toy-line featured ONE character with an inhuman aspect, the whole line ( and each individual character) could fall under the "action figure" description, and thus avoid the import duties. That pretty much describes EVERY action figure line made since the mid-90's.
I do not know if the import duties on dolls were rescinded entirely after that.
And as an aside,there used to be debates about the 12" Joe being "dolls" because they featured fabric clothing and could be undressed. It still bears pointing out that 3 3/4" GIJOE ALSO occasionally featured cloth items, such as capes, and could also be "undressed" ( removable helmets, harnesses, and such), making them dolls as well.
Post by: Canuklehead on August 11, 2009, 05:00:56 PM
Post by: Kronz on August 11, 2009, 07:06:33 PM
Quote from: "ARROW"
QuoteI am pretty sure I had been into Joes for some years before anyone even told me the franchise began in the 60s with larger scale dolls. It became clearer to me that most, if not all references to GI Joe in films and tv refer to the tall dudes, at least up through the early 90s. That is confusing, and it is still confusing because people like Conan O'brien continue to perpetuate the knowledge of GI Joe as 12" dolls. That's cool, but the two lines are pretty far afield from one another in their appeal.
Actually, they are all technically "dolls"--because at the time of the debut of RAH, there was no legal definition for action figure. It was only after about 1996, iirc, that Toybiz got a court ruling that defined their X-men toys as "action figures" to sidestep import duties. They succeeded because it was shown to the courts that the figures depicted a slate of characters of "mutants" with inhuman features.
Up until that time, the term was only marketing jargon, and had no legal bearing on the classification of toys.
The definition of a doll was a realistic depiction of a human being in toy form. IIRC, as long as the toy-line featured ONE character with an inhuman aspect, the whole line ( and each individual character) could fall under the "action figure" description, and thus avoid the import duties. That pretty much describes EVERY action figure line made since the mid-90's.
I do not know if the import duties on dolls were rescinded entirely after that.
And as an aside,there used to be debates about the 12" Joe being "dolls" because they featured fabric clothing and could be undressed. It still bears pointing out that 3 3/4" GIJOE ALSO occasionally featured cloth items, such as capes, and could also be "undressed" ( removable helmets, harnesses, and such), making them dolls as well.
I don't see where I denied the little guys are dolls?