Masters of the Universe: Masterverse

[NORM]

For the record, I didn't call Masterverse innovative. For once, I think Damien actually quoted me in agreement.

 

[Swoop716]

Is it possible that this line is good -and- innovative?
I’d say so.


“innovative” as in practical application of creative thinking. Good ideas. not necessarily re inventing the wheel.

 

[vicious]

It's certainly innovative as far as MOTU goes. Modern articulation while incorporating "play" gimmicks is also unique it it's own way. Not many 20+ POA toys have play gimmicks.

 

[Damien]

For the record, I didn't call Masterverse innovative. For once, I think Damien actually quoted me in agreement.

You make me sound like the disagreement monster under the bed ready to pop out and be like 'Wrong!' Haha.

It's certainly innovative as far as MOTU goes. Modern articulation while incorporating "play" gimmicks is also unique it it's own way. Not many 20+ POA toys have play gimmicks.

“innovative” as in practical application of creative thinking. Good ideas. not necessarily re inventing the wheel.

I don't think 'applying standard practices everyone else has been using for a decade' can be considered innovative just because the company in question -wasn't- doing that prior. We just call them innovative because they.. caught up? Sort've? (Not really, they're actually still lagging behind other companies in terms of what action figures are capable of right now.)

But I like this question of whether or not we can call it innovative -for this brand-. Can we? I'm not sure. I'm willing to say I understand why someone would say that while also feeling like I actually don't agree. Like saying a car company is innovating by being the last company to put in power steering. Is that innovation just because -they- haven't done it before?

I tend toward the idea that innovation is new methodology, new technology, new ways of thinking. I don't see that in Masterverse. I just see guys, again, making action figures the same way everyone else was making them well before Masterverse was even in development.
I'm curious what you mean (you, Vicious) by incorporating 'play gimmicks?' In this context, what are play gimmicks?

Is it possible that this line is good -and- innovative?

It's possible for ANY line to be good and innovative. I don't think this one is both. To that point, is it possible for a line to be good and NOT be innovative? I would say it absolutely is not only possible - but typical of most lines that are good. In fact, I'd argue that a lot of innovative lines aren't good (or aren't good at first) because a lot of what they're doing is experimental, untested, or actually bad ideas. There's something to think about.

 

[NORM]

You make me sound like the disagreement monster under the bed ready to pop out and be like 'Wrong!' Haha.

In agreement again??

 

[Swoop716]

I'm fine with saying they're doing cool things and making good figures. I've said as much myself. I do think words have to mean things, though. So my hackles maybe raise a little when I see the praise going too far. Masterverse figures are 99% bog-standard action figures circa 2016-2020. They're not even doing all the things current figures are doing, so I just don't understand the argument that they're innovative.

It's good that they're doing these things. They should be encouraged to continue. But they're not -innovating-. We can praise them without being dishonest in our praise. But I am more than happy to give them their laurels when it comes to doing a lot better than maybe they've done in the past.



I'm not sure what photos have to do with anything? Although I totally agree that Mattel desperately needs to represent their products better if they want people excited to buy them. Also I have lots of Masterverse figures, including all the movie figures, I've had a good chunk of the Revelation/Revolution figures (including the newer BA He-Man) and a bunch others. I couldn't tell you which one is the newest because I don't keep track. And it's not particularly relevant.
Again, I'm concerned here that we're equating me saying they're not innovative with me saying they're not GOOD. These are different statements.

you wonder about photos but then state exactly why they need to take better photos.

We definitely agree that they need to rep the product better. In this case with the photos they use to advertise the figures.

It’s highly relevant which figure you’ve handled last.

Why?

They’ve made significant strides all across the board since the revolution/revelation waves.

The “new eternia” figures is where the change kinda starts. Most of those earlier animation based figures aren’t my favorites honestly.

I am genuinely curious which is the latest masterverse figure you’ve enjoyed.

 

[Damien]

you wonder about photos but then state exactly why they need to take better photos.

No, I was wondering why you're supposing that my opinion of the line is in any way predicated ON the photos. I agree that their photos suck. I don't agree with any suggestion that that has anything to do with my opinion of any of the figures.

It’s highly relevant which figure you’ve handled last.

Why?

They’ve made significant strides all across the board since the revolution/revelation waves.

The “new eternia” figures is where the change kinda starts. Most of those earlier animation based figures aren’t my favorites honestly.

My answer to all of this is, respectfully, who cares? What does any of that have to do with anything? How much I do or do not enjoy any given figure has practically nothing to do with whether those figures are innovative. Haven't I repeatedly said that I like the figures?

This isn't meant as an attack. I just don't understand your angle on this. I said I don't think they're doing anything innovative or new, and you responded by talking about pictures of the figures and which ones I've handled. I'm struggling to see the connection, unless you thought me saying they're not innovative was the same thing as me saying they're not GOOD?

I do think they're good. I enjoy the figures I have. I don't keep track of which ones came out when (I don't do that for any line I collect, mind you). But I have gone on record that I'm fully up to date on having all the movie-related figures and I love them (well, I got a custom head for He-Man because my god it was bad). In fact, there's very few times I've ever come on and said any Masterverse figure was bad, or even -not good-. I've praised this line repeatedly.

I just don't think they're doing anything innovative.

 

[PantherCult]

So the dictionary definition of "Innovative" is; featuring new methods, advanced designs or original ideas...

If we are talking toys in general then I'm with Damien that Masterverse isn't innovating in the action figure space.

But if we narrow the scope to Masters of the Universe then Mattel is doing some advanced designs and original ideas with things within that property...

So hooray, everyone is right

 

[Damien]

So the dictionary definition of "Innovative" is; featuring new methods, advanced designs or original ideas...

If we are talking toys in general then I'm with Damien that Masterverse isn't innovating in the action figure space.

But if we narrow the scope to Masters of the Universe then Mattel is doing some advanced designs and original ideas with things within that property...

So hooray, everyone is right

Just so it doesn't seem like I'm picking on Mattel; I actually think Origins is/was innovative. So was Classics, to an extent (conceptually innovative, not necessarily innovative in engineering or anything like that). Also to be fair to Mattel, I think innovation in the action figure space is reasonably uncommon. It's not something that lends itself to constant new ideas and development anymore, and even when companies do innovate it's usually 1 or 2 things here and there across many years of product.

 

[vicious]

What I consider a play gimmick is kind of the "hook" to make figures unique. Some hooks are more unique than others, and a lot are just redoes of their regular MOTU counterparts. Some innovative gimmicks might be Panthor's recessing fangs, or Fisto's metal hand (has he ever had a real metal fist before on a figure?). Some less innovative but still creative play gimmicks might be swappable face plates/armor plates, Roboto's visible gears that can be controlled via outside the figure, Snout Spout's light piping, new Skeletors all having jaw articulation, some Glow in the Dark parts (like Vintage Zodac's accessories or Evil-Lyn's staff, I don't think anyone expected those to be GITD), or Ram Man's rubber pants overlay. I even consider swappable armor to be a play gimmick, including how you can remove certain capes/fur from removable armor. No surprise Mattel makes these, because they're basically dolls with swappable armor.

Now, if I were to make a venn diagram of what I consider a play gimmick and what I consider innovative across action figures as a whole, they might not have a ton of overlap. Maybe it's more about creativity and being brave enough to try these things than anything else. Regardless, these "hooks"/play gimmicks keep me excited for what's next, wondering how they'll approach not only upgrading old designs, but new designs like New Eternia.

 

[Justice]

Some innovative gimmicks might be Panthor's recessing fangs, or Fisto's metal hand (has he ever had a real metal fist before on a figure?).

But clearly that can't be called innovative because Mattel didn't actually -invent- metal.

 

[Swoop716]

No, I was wondering why you're supposing that my opinion of the line is in any way predicated ON the photos. I agree that their photos suck. I don't agree with any suggestion that that has anything to do with my opinion of any of the figures.



My answer to all of this is, respectfully, who cares? What does any of that have to do with anything? How much I do or do not enjoy any given figure has practically nothing to do with whether those figures are innovative. Haven't I repeatedly said that I like the figures?

This isn't meant as an attack. I just don't understand your angle on this. I said I don't think they're doing anything innovative or new, and you responded by talking about pictures of the figures and which ones I've handled. I'm struggling to see the connection, unless you thought me saying they're not innovative was the same thing as me saying they're not GOOD?

I do think they're good. I enjoy the figures I have. I don't keep track of which ones came out when (I don't do that for any line I collect, mind you). But I have gone on record that I'm fully up to date on having all the movie-related figures and I love them (well, I got a custom head for He-Man because my god it was bad). In fact, there's very few times I've ever come on and said any Masterverse figure was bad, or even -not good-. I've praised this line repeatedly.

I just don't think they're doing anything innovative.

"respectfully, who cares?" lol c'mon man. We could end every nerd debate ever with that one right? you sound like you're too mature to collect toys! j/k

Me. I do. I care. I'm genuinely curious about the example upon which you are forming your opinion? Is it possible your opinion could change?

No attack taken, nor is there any hostility intended on my end. We are just talking about he-man after all.
As far as you not understanding my original point, allow me to to assist with making the connection. We've agreed that photos of figures, like any other item that's for sale are a crucial aspect of marketing. Photos and other media reach the consumer well before the product does in this particular case. (collector's figures) this fact can certainly inform a consumers desire (or lack thereof) to buy product.

So my point was that their figure photography is lacking. I think that they're improving, but the past has been rough . Maybe they could spring for better photos or spend more time on them etc.
have some of those talented animators make stop motion...(like origins) more people might be aware of the product. Then they might buy it, then we can have masterverse castle grayskull and snake mountain.

I'm sure we can all agree to disagree about what innovation the line is or isn't making.

 

[Damien]

What I consider a play gimmick is kind of the "hook" to make figures unique. Some hooks are more unique than others, and a lot are just redoes of their regular MOTU counterparts. Some innovative gimmicks might be Panthor's recessing fangs, or Fisto's metal hand (has he ever had a real metal fist before on a figure?). Some less innovative but still creative play gimmicks might be swappable face plates/armor plates, Roboto's visible gears that can be controlled via outside the figure, Snout Spout's light piping, new Skeletors all having jaw articulation, some Glow in the Dark parts (like Vintage Zodac's accessories or Evil-Lyn's staff, I don't think anyone expected those to be GITD), or Ram Man's rubber pants overlay. I even consider swappable armor to be a play gimmick, including how you can remove certain capes/fur from removable armor. No surprise Mattel makes these, because they're basically dolls with swappable armor.

Now, if I were to make a venn diagram of what I consider a play gimmick and what I consider innovative across action figures as a whole, they might not have a ton of overlap. Maybe it's more about creativity and being brave enough to try these things than anything else. Regardless, these "hooks"/play gimmicks keep me excited for what's next, wondering how they'll approach not only upgrading old designs, but new designs like New Eternia.

Excellent points. I get what you mean by play gimmicks now. Absolutely makes sense - I just didn't make that connection (just a wording issue) before. Again, I don't think it's innovative to have most of these features (we don't seem to disagree there), but it's still very cool to see them incorporated by a company not necessarily known for a lot of that stuff. Saying it's creative is, in my estimation, pretty bang on. Creativity is definitely necessary for knowing how and when to incorporate a lot of those elements. I'd argue that level of creativity and quality commitment is WAY more important than being 'innovative' - which often doesn't make for good toys at first (see: early-mid TB ML).

Also, I didn't realize Panthor had recessing fangs. I'd actually call that a cool innovation. Not one I'm sure is likely to catch on just because its utility is so niche, but it's absolutely a new idea (as far as I know). Maybe Fisto's metal hand, too. I could have sworn that's been done before but I'm drawing a blank on it so I'm more than willing to stipulate that's innovative (in fact, I'd argue maybe it's the dark side of innovation because I think his metal fist is stupid, haha).

"respectfully, who cares?" lol c'mon man. We could end every nerd debate ever with that one right? you sound like you're too mature to collect toys! j/k

Me. I do. I care. I'm genuinely curious about the example upon which you are forming your opinion? Is it possible your opinion could change?

I'm forming my opinion based on the entire line. Again, when I say 'who cares' - it's because I do not understand what your point is about which specific figures I've handled. It doesn't matter. Figures getting -better with time- (which they have) is not innovation. I can concede your point that the newer figures are better than the older figures. What does that have to do with what I said that you originally responded to? Again, I really think you are just conflating 'not innovative' with 'bad.' Which is 100% not what I've said or even implied.

What could change my opinion? Seeing significant examples of actual innovation. Which I've asked for and was told in no uncertain terms that the person making the original comment has no interest in sharing. Vicious popped up with a couple interesting ones, though.

So you keep hammering on this idea of which pictures of toys I've looked it which has zero relevance to anything I've said. And your explanation does not really get me any closer to understanding what pictures have to do with anything that I was talking about. Again, not in a rude way or a mean way. I just genuinely don't know how to respond because nothing I said that you were originally responding to has anything to do with their photography. We've agreed their photography is bad and better photography could potentially sell more units. I'm very happy to agree about that. But it has nothing to do with innovation so I'm kind of lost on what that piece of the conversation is about.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding and your comments about better photography is a totally separate point you're making unrelated to my comments that you were originally responding to? In which case we can just happily agree that their photography is bad and should be better.

I'm sure we can all agree to disagree about what innovation the line is or isn't making.

Anyone is free to be wrong or use words wrong any time they want. 'MURICA!
But like.. I'm actually not really interested in 'agree to disagree.' I want to know why people think certain things and have conversations about those things and challenge those things, and be challenged and be forced to defend and explain what I think and why. That's interesting to me. Some people are into it, some people aren't. Those that are can feel free to keep chatting about it. Those that don't want to have that conversation definitely don't have to (although I think it's in poor taste to refuse to have those conversations but make passive-aggressive comments about it anyway - that seems cheap so let's not do that).

 

[Swoop716]

Excellent points. I get what you mean by play gimmicks now. Absolutely makes sense - I just didn't make that connection (just a wording issue) before. Again, I don't think it's innovative to have most of these features (we don't seem to disagree there), but it's still very cool to see them incorporated by a company not necessarily known for a lot of that stuff. Saying it's creative is, in my estimation, pretty bang on. Creativity is definitely necessary for knowing how and when to incorporate a lot of those elements. I'd argue that level of creativity and quality commitment is WAY more important than being 'innovative' - which often doesn't make for good toys at first (see: early-mid TB ML).

Also, I didn't realize Panthor had recessing fangs. I'd actually call that a cool innovation. Not one I'm sure is likely to catch on just because its utility is so niche, but it's absolutely a new idea (as far as I know). Maybe Fisto's metal hand, too. I could have sworn that's been done before but I'm drawing a blank on it so I'm more than willing to stipulate that's innovative (in fact, I'd argue maybe it's the dark side of innovation because I think his metal fist is stupid, haha).



I'm forming my opinion based on the entire line. Again, when I say 'who cares' - it's because I do not understand what your point is about which specific figures I've handled. It doesn't matter. Figures getting -better with time- (which they have) is not innovation. I can concede your point that the newer figures are better than the older figures. What does that have to do with what I said that you originally responded to? Again, I really think you are just conflating 'not innovative' with 'bad.' Which is 100% not what I've said or even implied.

What could change my opinion? Seeing significant examples of actual innovation. Which I've asked for and was told in no uncertain terms that the person making the original comment has no interest in sharing. Vicious popped up with a couple interesting ones, though.

So you keep hammering on this idea of which pictures of toys I've looked it which has zero relevance to anything I've said. And your explanation does not really get me any closer to understanding what pictures have to do with anything that I was talking about. Again, not in a rude way or a mean way. I just genuinely don't know how to respond because nothing I said that you were originally responding to has anything to do with their photography. We've agreed their photography is bad and better photography could potentially sell more units. I'm very happy to agree about that. But it has nothing to do with innovation so I'm kind of lost on what that piece of the conversation is about.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding and your comments about better photography is a totally separate point you're making unrelated to my comments that you were originally responding to? In which case we can just happily agree that their photography is bad and should be better.



Anyone is free to be wrong or use words wrong any time they want. 'MURICA!
But like.. I'm actually not really interested in 'agree to disagree.' I want to know why people think certain things and have conversations about those things and challenge those things, and be challenged and be forced to defend and explain what I think and why. That's interesting to me. Some people are into it, some people aren't. Those that are can feel free to keep chatting about it. Those that don't want to have that conversation definitely don't have to (although I think it's in poor taste to refuse to have those conversations but make passive-aggressive comments about it anyway - that seems cheap so let's not do that).

Yeah you’re definitely misunderstanding.
No worries.

I wasn’t talking about what photos -you- have seen. You’re correct in the idea that this notion is relevant to nothing and almost nobody.


I was speaking about the importance of photos in general. The importance of those photos to -potential - customers who -might- buy the products but who aren’t already.
(We’ve already agreed on that point)

They (photos) probably don’t mean as much to you and I because we already like toys.
(We agree the figures are good)


I doubt anyone here is actively attempting to convince you of one thing or another.

We can have whatever silly toy opinions we like and we really don’t -need- to defend them.

To some people that’s work. I can’t speak for anyone but myself ,but I don’t come here to do work…got plenty of that elsewhere…

I Just talk about toys and express my dumb hot takes.

Regardless of what anyone’s feelings might be.

Sir I believe you when you say you’re not interested in “agree to disagree”

lol I've read your posts.


“I want to know why people think certain things and have conversations about those things and challenge those things, and be challenged and be forced to defend and explain what I think and why.”


“Respectfully,who cares?”





“Anyone is free to be wrong or use words wrong any time they want. 'MURICA!”


You really shouldn’t be so provincial. I’m sure a Smart guy like you knows that language/words is/are fluid.


Furthermore, we -still- don’t know the last figure you’ve picked up? Even if it holds no relevance to you personally.

Is it like a secret or something?

 

[Ashtalon]

Is this what happens on slow news days? Good lord. Arguing semantics when discussing toys is so...well...it's something.

Has the Masterverse Ninjor wave been found in stores yet? Not that these have been easy to find in stores. I think I'm buying MOTU product almost exclusives online. Was never a fan of Ninjor, but his Masterverse figure looks interesting (demon mask is cool). Kobra Khan is a Masterverse figure I'm looking forward to, as I hope he ushers in more Snakemen. Not too much else has been revealed which intrigues me...yet.