Harvinger Studios, Savage Crucible

[fac]

So is everything else up for reissue? They've said they won't do that. "Word matter in the crucible" — but I don't know what they're saying ...

My speculation is not that they are leaving the door open for reissues, but the "sold out" items may have very limited stock that is being held back for potential replacement of fulfilled orders with QC issues or lost packages and so on.

Once they feel they no longer need to hold on to them for customer service reasons, they could make that limited stock available via in-person sales at conventions. And they are laying the groundwork for the possible kerfuffle posts of "How come you had 3 Savage Lemurians at the con when you said they were sold out?"

But that's just a guess. They may not want to admit they have any extras so as not to encourage folks begging for a figure...

 

[adrienveidt]

Unless part of the license, my guess is no chance.

'The license' is generally about the text on the box, and the blind bag items literally have no text on them whatsoever.

So, I'm wondering, does this contract disallow parts re-use as well as packaging-text reuse? Every contract is its own beast, but there's lots of precedence for contracted parts showing up in general release unlicensed products afterwards.

 

[JakeEkiss]

'The license' is generally about the text on the box, and the blind bag items literally have no text on them whatsoever.

It absolutely is not. A license is about IP belonging to the author and designs based off his works.

So, I'm wondering, does this contract disallow parts re-use as well as packaging-text reuse? Every contract is its own beast, but there's lots of precedence for contracted parts showing up in general release unlicensed products afterwards.

Yes, what I'm saying is unless they made a specific carveout for it, they won't be able to.

 

[Damien]

Yes, what I'm saying is unless they made a specific carveout for it, they won't be able to.

Like how Mattel used some MOTUC tooling in DCUC because they owned it, but NO DCUC tooling appeared outside DCUC because they weren't allowed to do that. Unless the person whose licensed material you are making says you can use it elsewhere or in a way different from originally contracted, you can't. Cut and dry.

 

[TheSameIdiot]

The only item I can find that is listed as "entombed" is the silver decoder.

All I know is that "entombed" is such a galaxy-brained way to say "discontinued" or "limited run" that it'll immediately make for an exceptional in-joke.

Alt already used it to great effect during this afternoon's AT D&D session.

 

[TheCaptain]

Those are for their version of Frazetta's Silver Warrior painting pretty sure.

I believe that painting is the cover of the Erekose/John Daker eternal champion book that Rakyn mentioned, and Dek mentioned from conversations with Frankie that Rob likely wants to release that under both the Moorcock license and the Frazetta one.

 

[adrienveidt]

Like how Mattel used some MOTUC tooling in DCUC because they owned it, but NO DCUC tooling appeared outside DCUC because they weren't allowed to do that. Unless the person whose licensed material you are making says you can use it elsewhere or in a way different from originally contracted, you can't. Cut and dry.

Exactly my point, nobody here knows how that contract was written. But we have seen the executed evidence on toy shelves where there's been lots of reuse between licensed and in-house brands; and yes in the 60-odd years of the action figure toy industry it's gone both directions. The stuff that stays licensed-side only is generally stuff like actor-likeness heads or other very unique trademarked designs.

HC could very easily have negotiated parts reuse out of simple economic realism as a toy company that needs to maximize mold usage. "You want an Elric figure? Let us reuse X% of parts listed below and split the profit 60/40 and we're in."

Until we get to read the contract, nobody here knows what's in the contract until we see the fullness of how that contract gets executed. The only way to know that no *iota* of that boxed Elric product ever exists again is to wait and not see.

 

[Damien]

The only way to know that no *iota* of that boxed Elric product ever exists again is to wait and not see.

The only way to ever know anything for sure is to see it with your own eyes. So, you're set up for failure here because the answer is basically 'until the day I literally die, it's always possible this tooling will be used again by someone.' It's an impossible standard to argue against beyond just saying 'okay, sure.'

But, we have the owner of Harvinger saying 'we can't and won't use that tooling for any other figures, it is exclusive to Elric.' So, I'm going to believe him until he proves to be a liar about how the company approaches licensing and tooling. The ONLY other option is to say 'he lied.' So either you think Rob is a liar, or you don't.

But we have seen the executed evidence on toy shelves where there's been lots of reuse between licensed and in-house brands

We haven't.
My specific point was that Mattel could use tooling -they owned, because they owned the IP it was created for- for a different line, but that they were never able to cross-pollinate tooling from brands they -work on- either for their own in-house IP OR for other brands they were also working on.
Hasbro, too. There is zero re-use between G.I. Joe, Marvel Legends, and Star Wars Black Series even when it would make all the sense in the world to borrow this or that part into the other.

Even HACKS, if I remember correctly, had the same issue. They could use existing HACKS tooling to make Hero HACKS licensed characters, but tooling made FOR the Hero HACKS figures could not be transposed back over to regular HACKS and had to remain with the characters the tooling was created for (i.e. the HACKS nude body could be used for Tarzan, but Tarzan's head couldn't appear later on with a HACKS fantasy figure).

-My- point was simply that, to my knowledge, we have never seen what you're suggesting in the last 20-25 years, where tooling from branded IP not owned by the company that made the tooling is used anywhere else (short of it being stolen). The only time I can even think of when that ever happened was when the Ewok Village was re-branded as Sherwood Forest for the Robin Hood line. That's a DEEP cut from a long time ago.

 

[JakeEkiss]

Exactly my point, nobody here knows how that contract was written. But we have seen the executed evidence on toy shelves where there's been lots of reuse between licensed and in-house brands; and yes in the 60-odd years of the action figure toy industry it's gone both directions. The stuff that stays licensed-side only is generally stuff like actor-likeness heads or other very unique trademarked designs.

HC could very easily have negotiated parts reuse out of simple economic realism as a toy company that needs to maximize mold usage. "You want an Elric figure? Let us reuse X% of parts listed below and split the profit 60/40 and we're in."

Until we get to read the contract, nobody here knows what's in the contract until we see the fullness of how that contract gets executed. The only way to know that no *iota* of that boxed Elric product ever exists again is to wait and not see.

Sure... and what was said initially was "if it ain't in the contract, then there's no chance of that happening". You replied "well the contract is about text on the box" which it isn't. Now you're repeating back the thing you were told as though it's a counterargument. Nobody claimed to know what was in the contract. It's strange and I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Is it technically possible? Sure. What's the odds? I'd say low, and here's why:

I can't see the draw for Moorcock. What does he get out of allowing that in the license? As you say, the weapons have no text, so unless someone already knows what it's from it's not driving any more traffic to Elric or related works. It's just... an accessory detached from context.

Also, every piece of official communication I've seen from the company strongly implies they wouldn't want to do this (arguably, directly states it). Why would a very specific weapon, second only to the character's signature weapon, randomly show up in blind bags when the company is being adamant about how exclusive the figure is? Moreover, why would they do that when they seem perfectly capable of and happy to include their own cool signature weapons in blind bags?

It's also hard for me to see Mournblade being in blind bags doing anything but making all sections of the fanbase annoyed. If you already have Elric, you don't need it, and so you might be getting a highly specific dupe weapon instead of the other bonus collectible weapons. If you don't have Elric, I don't think it'll feel awesome to JUST have Mounrblade (especially if your odds of getting it are random, some people are already salty about the komodos). I just can't figure out the draw for that. Best case it'll make some section of the fanbase petition harder for a rerelease, and since they've already said they won't do that...

It could happen, sure, it is technically possible, but it seems very unlikely. Seems like a long shot to hope that something that specific from the Elric release will come back around later on its own. I would assume a full variant or reissue happening sooner than that. I'd assume you'd sooner get a figure of Dyvim Slorm or Ulric Von Bek with Mournblade, than the blade alone.

 

[Damien]

I'd assume you'd sooner get a figure of Dyvim Slorm or Ulric Von Bek with Mournblade, than the blade alone.

I am so down.

 

[JakeEkiss]

Hasbro, too. There is zero re-use between G.I. Joe, Marvel Legends, and Star Wars Black Series even when it would make all the sense in the world to borrow this or that part into the other.

Didn't Hasbro use some Nerf guns as the base for laser gun sculpts on Cable and Domino? That's sort of the closest I can think in Hasbro's stable, and they haven't even done that in a while.

Either way, it's hella rare in the modern landscape and as you say, largely unidirectional.

 

[Damien]

Didn't Hasbro used some Nerf guns as the base for laser gun sculpts on Cable and Domino? That's sort of the closest I can think in Hasbro's stable, and they haven't even done that in a while.

Either way, it's hella rare in the modern landscape and as you say, largely unidirectional.

It's possible. I know they based some early G.I. Joe weapons on Nerf. Not sure about Cable and Domino, to be honest. And even then, definitely an homage that they would be able to get away with for multiple reasons (again, it goes in the correct direction of IP owned by the tooler into a line owned by a licensor, rather than the other way around, and secondly because it would be an homage unique sculpt owned by the licensor, not actually shared physical tooling).

 

[mrboshek]

-My- point was simply that, to my knowledge, we have never seen what you're suggesting in the last 20-25 years, where tooling from branded IP not owned by the company that made the tooling is used anywhere else (short oThe only time I can even think of when that ever happened was when the Ewok Village was re-branded as Sherwood Forest for the Robin Hood line. That's a DEEP cut from a long time ago.

You know what's under Friar Tuck's robes?
No. A Gammorean Guard. Kenner was putting as little time/money as possible into that line. They reused an Ewok Battle Wagon and I think Robin Hood reused Superpowers Green Arrow. I remember some speculation around pants from a Black series Imperial reused for the Indiana Jones line, but I don't know if that was confirmed or maybe it fell under a Disney/Lucas Films agreement.

 

[AceofKnaves]

They reused an Ewok Battle Wagon and I think Robin Hood reused Superpowers Green Arrow.

Sheriff of Nottingham used parts from Lex Luthor.
Dark Warrior and Little John used Hawkman parts.
Will Scarlett was largely Robin.
Azeem used Super Powers parts as well.

Every single Robin Hood figure was mostly parts from mid-80s Kenner.