Toy Masters Documentary

Really balanced write-up. I've had a feeling for a while now that the movie might rely on the tensions between creators to its detriment. It's easy to get people interested in a feud, but as you said, there was a lot more about MOTU worth discussing.

And as a She-Ra fan, I am disheartened - but in no way surprised - that her brand was glossed over. Perhaps they simply cut out all mention of her so as to not "complicate" the narrative for the mainstream audience. Knowing Lou however, he surely mentioned her, as I always got the sense he spoke of both shows when discussing the property. Maybe those bits will form a brief "There was also She-Ra" bonus featurette. Not the way I'd handle it, but....

Originally Posted by JonWes

Just got back home from the documentary. I've had a few hours to sort of digest the documentary and give it quite a thought on my drive back home. I'm going to be really honest with my thoughts, here, so some of this might be considered "spoilers" (if you can have such a thing for a documentary.) So, be forewarned. I'm also using subheads so this doesn't feel as gigantic as it is. I just know I have quite a bit to say.

What I've decided, after quite a lot of thinking, is that I'm not sure this documentary is for me. I wouldn't actually consider myself a "hardcore" He-man fan. I don't even have a collection of vintage He-man figures (they were mostly given away as a kid) and I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of it. However, I'm not a casual fan, either. And, I feel like maybe this documentary is being pitched to a more casual/mainstream audience. I don't think it's a bad thing, necessarily. I just think it's going to be interesting to see how people react to it once more people see it. Let me be clear, as I was watching it, I was generally entertained. There was probably about 35 people in the audience, and many times the film elicited some laughs. But even in the midst of the movie, there were things I just found... uncomfortable? Troubling? I'll explain in further detail...

Sweet V. Taylor
As some have thought/feared, a large chunk of the movie is taken up over the argument about who created He-man. In fact, I'd go so far to say that it forms the narrative thrust of the movie. I think this presents a couple problems. Because the documentary is supposed to be about how "He-man and Mattel Conquered the Universe" the movie does go into the history of the toy line and cartoon and subsequent iterations SOME. But, it ends up coming back to the conflict again and again, in a way that made it feel a bit scattered to me. It almost feels like there are two documentaries fighting for the right to live here. One that's all about the conflict of who created Masters of the Universe, and one (that I'm much more interested in) that's about the creation of the line, it's eventual demise and attempts at resuscitation. But so much of the latter is so fleeting that it's a bit frustrating, to be honest.

But let's put that aside for a second and focus on the depiction of this conflict. Both sides of the argument (actually, there's more than just two people making a case for themselves, here, so let's say the MANY sides of the argument) are laid out, as is what I think is a fairly realistic TRUTH, which is that this was a collaborative effort made at a large international toy company so the real answer is that a lot of people really contributed to the creation of what we think of as He-man and the Masters of the Universe. In fact, this point is made so early by one interview subject and makes so much sense that it makes all the he said/he said that follows feel a bit... pointless.

Also, while there is an attempt to put a sort of "bow" on the subject by the film's end that gives neither "side" the upper hand, I'm not sure I felt like that rang true. Because, over the course of the documentary, I feel like Roger Sweet was really not given the same level of respect as the other participants. They cut to a shot of him doing pull-ups several times, and it just felt sort of derisory, whether it was intended that way or not. It's actually really strange how differently Sweet and Taylor/Mayer are presented. I don't know if it's merely a production thing (was a certain style only established later?) or on purpose, but the latter are presented as nearly everyone else is, in talking head format that you're used to seeing in a documentary. But Sweet is often in his home, watching footage of Taylor (we never see the reverse) and being filmed reacting to it. The filmmakers are in the shot, asking Sweet somewhat pointed questions. It's... all very strange. They seem to really want Sweet to meet Taylor, but Sweet isn't interested. I can't say I blame him, frankly. There's a very fine line between digging deeper into a subject to find some sort of "truth" and being exploitive. And, to be honest, this just started to feel exploitive to me. It was a real turn off. My partner, who is not a He-man fan, said this made him uncomfortable and turned him off, too. I mean, let me just say for the record I consider Taylor and Mayer personal heroes. I treasure the Power & Honor catalog they signed for me. I absolutely love the art they did and what they gave to us as part of MOTU. But my heart kind of broke for Roger Sweet. Sitting there, watching footage of Mark Taylor saying how one time he saw Sweet working at Home Depot (because he couldn't get another job in the toy industry, he worked as a sales person and forklift driver at one point) and saying how he felt sorry for sweet... it just felt like such a personal jab amongst a lot of personal jabs. It just felt plain ugly. Not that Taylor would SAY that, so much, but that Sweet would then be shown it and filmed. The truth is, I don't think this is really interesting enough to take up this much of the film. I think it should have been a fourth of it, max. Maybe a third at a stretch.

MOTU Cliff Notes
Let's put that aside for the minute, because I think the thing I ended up being most bummed about is, because the Sweet/Taylor stuff takes up so much of the movie, it felt like a LOT of stuff was left out. Stuff I hope makes it on as bonus material in some fashion. The decline of MOTU the first time, for instance, is given pretty sort shrift. They talk about them pushing out old product to try to boost sales and how that clogged store shelves, but it seemed like there were some other interesting factors that got left out. Filmation is given a decent chunk of the movie, and seeing Lou was so marvelous. He's great in the movie, and he got the biggest laugh. I would have had to have liked a little more time on Filmation, but I think the time we do get is fairly respectable. The movie gets some decent coverage, though I did long for more. Now, after that... New Adventures is glossed over. As is the 2002 He-man. The latter was most egregious to me only because I think A.) It seems strange the Four Horsemen weren't in it at all and B.) There are some interesting parallels between the demise of the vintage line and the 2002 one that would have been interesting. Oh, and Classics barely gets a footnote. HOWEVER, all those things I just mentioned... I can kind of understand why maybe they are given short shrift, if the focus was really on vintage. But, one thing that is missing that just seems downright WEIRD...

She-Ra? What She-Ra?
Neither She-Ra nor Princess of Power is mentioned... not even once. Not even in passing. Now, I'm not some uber-hardcore POP person by any means. But it just seemed really weird not to mention it at all. I understand the need to focus a narrative, but not mentioning it made it sort of odd (to me) when they talked about Filmation and talked about the end of the line, because if nothing else mentioning She-Ra might have been interesting as far as how ending the MOTU show in favor of POP might have had some effect on the popularity of the MOTU toys.

Now, the things I've mentioned.... that's why I said that maybe this movie will play with more casual fans or mainstream audiences. The things that seem to be missing to me, you might not even notice if you didn't know better. I went in expecting a show more about MOTU in totality, and this documentary really isn't that. But does that mean the documentary is bad, or just not what I expected? I think it's more the latter. I definitely wouldn't say the documentary is bad. Like I said before, I was entertained. But, the next point, I think, is where I think the documentary has some issues that I think make it not quite as successful as it could have been.

Where The Heart Is?
I recently watched the documentary Plastic Galaxy. I found it hugely entertaining. It's all about Star Wars toys and Star Wars collecting. Now, until the recent Star Wars Black 6'' figures, I had never really been a Star Wars collector. But I still thought the documentary was a really interesting look at the phenomenon of the toys. Maybe my lack of familiarity helped with that. But, it's hard for me to not compare the two documentaries, and when I do, the thing that strikes me is that Toy Masters feels a LITTLE heartless. Predictably, Filmation provides a LOT of the heart that is there. Lou, talking passionately about why he was making the TV show is a great example. As is the female Filmation employee (her name escapes me right this second) who spoke eloquently and passionately about why it bothered her that organization like ACT judged the show without really looking at what the show tried to do for children. There are some nice shots of the filmmakers as children (and other fans) as kids enjoying or opening He-man toys. That brings some heart to it. But, my overall impression is that in addition to the general uncomfortableness of the Taylor/Sweet stuff, there's also a lot of people poking fun of MOTU. Now, let me say, I have no problem with this. I found Don Glut to be kind of hilariously cynical when I met him and heard him talk at PowerCon. I found him the same here. I know it was just a job for him (and one he didn't spend a lot of time on) and I understand his viewpoint. And find it entertaining. It's also hilarious when they talk about the stock animation of He-man laughing. The problem is, there's not a TON to counter balance all of this. Other than the people from Filmation and some of the comments from Taylor about the creative passion he and Mayer were putting into it, there is a distinct lack of anyone talking about what made MOTU great. Which leads me to...

Send in the Fans... There Ought To Be Fans....
I think the biggest misstep the doc makes, frankly, is that they don't have ANY fans in it talking about why they love He-man. There are the still photos. There are YouTube clips of people playing the theme song on various instruments. But that's it. This is something Plastic Galaxy did so well, and it really humanized that movie. It also gives you an opportunity to show why ANYONE actually gives a damn about MOTU. It allows you to show why the characters still matter to people. How it influenced them as people and artists. It just would have added a lot of warmth to counter balance all the squabbling about who created what, and the people for whom (at the end of the day) this was about making a buck. I don't begrudge them for that, but talking to the organizers of PowerCon, the Power & Honor Foundation, people in the industry now who loved He-man as a kid and collectors in general would have helped counterbalance it some. This is also where glossing over the whole existence of Classics kind of stings, because it'd be a great opportunity to talk about how fans have supported the line, and after all the failures to bring back the line, there was a very real and substantial success.

Graphic Content
My final point is a minor one, but as someone who has a background as a graphic artist, I have to mention it. The graphics, I feel, could use a bit of polish. The screening was not of the finished movie. At a minimum, I believe, it still had to color corrected and mixed. But I just was not a fan of the typeface they used for most of it. I get the reason for using it, but in larger blocks of text (like, beyond a couple words) it actually was a bit hard to read. Also, the title of the movie was rendered in a slightly blah typeface. I think Emiliano an Eamon did the poster, which looked really good. I wish they'd used the treatment there somewhere in the movie. Also, when the titles of who was speaking popped up, they used green bricks. Now, this feels kind of weird because it's SO closely tied to Classics (which they barely mention at the end!) and is not terribly well-loved by fans. It's too bad they couldn't have used somethink like the red chunks of rock from the classic packaging or something. Again, this isn't going to make or break the movie (and maybe this is still going to be worked out) but stylistically the movie felt a bit rough in this instance.

Final Thoughts
Now, this might seem like I'm putting the doc through the ringer or that I hate it or something. I didn't hate it at all. There is probably a certain sense, here, of three years anticipation building up expectations, for a start. And, as I said, I really think if I were a more casual fan I might have been able to enjoy it even more, though I think the lack of showing fans and the more uncomfortable bits with Sweet still would have felt a bit off. At the end of the day, I do think fans of MOTU should go see it. I think it's worth checking out when it comes out officially for sure. But, I can't help but feel like there are maybe some missed opportunities here. I don't think it's going to be the definitive MOTU documentary some of us might have hoped. And maybe that ambition is simply too lofty for anyone one movie to actually meet? I'll see it again. I'll buy it on Blu Ray (especially hoping for the interviews/bits of interviews we don't get to see) too, I'm sure. I am also really intrigued to see how others feel about it. After all, this is just one guy's opinion.

Regarding the documentary, my husband and I were there too, and, to a point, everything Jon said is something we said as well--including the bit about the non-fan partner feeling uncomfortable as a result of the disparate ways Sweet the rest were treated. While the story about Sweet v. Taylor is indeed what was pitched for this film, that's not entirely what was delivered it seemed. Yes, that's what we got until a certain point, but then the film seemed to switch focus, without really knowing what to switch to. There was some very loose history of the broader property (they never even used the title New Adventures of He-Man, calling it repeatedly 1990s He-Man instead), some stuff about the original line's downfall (with no mention of the similarities between the way the vintage and 200x lines ended), and there was a bit about the movie being intended as a salve for the dying line (without so much as a hint that POP was mixed in there too).

Aside from that, though, I think what made it hard for me to find it more compelling than I did--and keep in mind that, like Jon, I DID enjoy it--is the clear bias toward Taylor that was on display. Typically speaking, I'm not interested in behind the scenes drama, so I've never bothered to read Sweet's book for instance. From what I've always gathered though, Sweet may be a bit of a nutter, so I went into this not expecting to feel much sympathy for him. And yet, I did find sympathy for him--but for all the wrong reasons. It seemed like they went out of their way to present him as this pathetic man crying for attention, right down to the ways and setting in which they filmed him, which, coupled with the other overlooks I mentioned in the first paragraph, and the fact that I do consider myself a well-versed fan, made me mistrust what the filmmakers were trying to tell us. Now, certainly, I don't know the filmmakers so I can't personally speak to what they intended. Perhaps it was all just coincidence, or perhaps they were simply more drawn to Taylor because he seems so much more relatable and personable. I can't say. But, while they may have intended to leave the film open ended--and they did succeed in not discrediting anybody wholly, including Sweet--the production value related to the way in which they told Taylor's story vs Sweet's belies the rest. For instance, Taylor was seemingly consistently filmed in HD (even in the one of two shots of him outside of a professional studio setting), surrounded by the trappings of his work (ie, MOTU artwork). Same with the other interviewees. Sweet was alone in that he was filmed in his home, except for one oft-reused shot of him at the gym--with bad lighting, and the shots were out of focus and grainy more often than not. Behind him, he had two loose MOTU figures that were pretty beaten up, and that was all. His one "professional prop" was a thick binder of seemingly well catalogued proof of his work, and yet it was never a focus of his shots, whereas Taylor's drawings were showcased multiple times, and others were accompanied by similar trappings of their career to add to their authenticity and authority. Again, perhaps that's all unintentional on the filmmakers' part. However, as someone whose studies and work hinge on interrogating and understanding the various ways audiences can and do interpret below the surface messages in media, I feel safe in saying that many watchers of this film might walk away with a negative view of Sweet in the underlying question of who helped create He-Man.

I have nothing to do with this other than attending to watch. If you are or know a Chicago-based Orger, check it out.

Wednesday, August 20 | 6:30pm Screening
Columbia College Chicago Hokin Hall - 623 S. Wabash Ave. (Room 109)
$8 admission

Directed by Roger Lay & Corey Landis, 98 min., Digital Projection

Chances are, if you were a young fantasy nut growing up in the early '80s, you had a collection of Mattel's He-Man and the Masters of the Universe toys piled high in your bedroom, you grooved to the animated Filmation cartoon series, and even waited in line for Cannon's ill-fated movie version, starring a well-oiled Dolph Lundgren. TOY MASTERSgoes behind the scenes and divulges in fascinating, hilarious, and revealing detail a decades-old rivalry and bitter clash over credit between several former Mattel employees, each of whom claim to be responsible for creating these beloved characters and product line. Childhood He-Man fans-turned-filmmakers Roger Lay, Jr. and Corey Landis set out to track down every single player in the development and production of the mega-selling toy line in order to get to the bottom of this story. Along the way, they interview the key creative personnel behind every version of those action figures and all other incarnations of Masters of the Universe including such genre luminaries as J. Michael Straczyski (Babylon 5), FX Oscar-winner Richard Edlund (Star Wars), movie concept artist William Stout (Conan the Barbarian), Filmation co-founder Lou Scheimer, Masters of the Universe movie director Gary Goddard, the animated show's key voice cast, and many others. TOY MASTERS reveals that the fight for the universe pales in comparison to the one waged for creative acknowledgment.

Jon, just wanted to thank you for a very insightful writeup!
I am sad to hear that essentially everything I feared about this seems to have come to pass. I, too, will likely get it if/when a blu-ray is released, but that will be more to have it in the collection than because I expect to actually enjoy it. I hate slanted, sensationalist "documentaries." *sigh*

Michael Ryan did this review back in 2012 after seeing a rough cut. It sounds like the content is still similar. I agree: great write-up, Jon!

I do remember Roger and Corey saying a DVD release would have a super long version, fan-oriented version chock full of all the geeky history bits many of us crave. And that's what I'm looking forward to.

I understand the thinking behind making the theater/online version a more can't-look-away-from-the-car-crash presentation. It's all about grabbing attention from a general audience that might not give a He-Man documentary a second thought otherwise. Yet it still bums me out to hear about the creators being presented like that. But I go into it knowing it's sensationalized on purpose and that allows me to remain more objective.

Glad you guys are finding it useful.

Originally Posted by JVS3

But I go into it knowing it's sensationalized on purpose and that allows me to remain more objective.

Yeah, essentially... this is why I did the long write-up and tried to state it the way I did. I think if you go in knowing what you're getting, then you can really enjoy it for what it is than what it isn't. I said this on the Facebook page for Toy Masters, and I'll say it again here, too. I'd still tell people to watch it if they are a Masters fan. Especially if you haven't gotten to PowerCon and seen some of the people interviewed talk there. There's a lot of fun to be had just in seeing the personalities behind the line.

I'm excited to hear about the possibility of a super-cut. Even if that stuff was just on the Blu-Ray and organized in some fashion, that'd be great.

Originally Posted by Telkan2

Again, perhaps that's all unintentional on the filmmakers' part. However, as someone whose studies and work hinge on interrogating and understanding the various ways audiences can and do interpret below the surface messages in media, I feel safe in saying that many watchers of this film might walk away with a negative view of Sweet in the underlying question of who helped create He-Man.

That's one of the things I find kind of fascinating. I actually had a worse impression of Sweet from reading his book than I did here. I totally agree with the way he was presented but in a way I actually ended up feeling kind of defensive of him because of it, and felt like I understood him a bit more as a human being beyond the way he was presented in the book. I'm intrigued to see how others take it.

Thanks to everyone for sharing the reviews and thoughts.

The way it is written up reminds me of a poor man's King of Kong.

Maybe they were hoping it would push their career just like it did Seth Gordon's by focusing on and at times maybe even trying to embellish the controversy.

I really appreciate the time you took to write that as well.

I too share a lot of the frustration. I was worried about vocalizing this feeling after watching the preview at Power-Con last year (about a half hour of video IIRC) But I was fearful that i might be labeled a drama maker or something. When somebody else vocalizes an opinions that may be construed as controversial, it empowers others to follow. So THANK YOU for daring to bring up the matter honestly and carefully!

The Documentary crew didn't do that kind of sensationalizing of the 1987 Movie production. Why? Perhaps, given the drama that was REAL, they didn't feel the need to artificially inflate the situation for dramatic effect like they did with Sweet &Taylor? IIRC, Sweet made his book largely in response to the Toymart's article, which really was a biased against him, (or at least, didn't consider him...) as his book was towards him...We now know that article wasn't fact checked very well. Sweets book, though funny as a few small errors may be (Tri-Klops being a good guy) It did seam largely more accurate with it's timeline, and the numbers, at least to me. I could be wrong.

Honestly, (and I know this is going to come off as "arm chair internet fan boy keyboard warrior" blah blah blah, whatever) but I feel like if ANYBODY just sat the two guys down, via Skype or whatever TOGETHER at the same time with a handful of fans, and where asked CAREFULLY thought out questions and all the evidence was considered, if perhaps maybe, just maybe all the animosity could have just been avoided? Something like an amalgamation of Q&A, a Panel, a Court hearing and couples counseling? The problem with any dispute is that immediately people want to take sides about "who is right vs who is wrong" when that is the LAST THING anyone should do. That's how things escalate! The Power and Honor foundation TRIED to take an unbiased approach, but largely failed to do so by having a forward by Talor...I know it's largly his art being showcased, and a lot of Sweets documents presented his side, but still...That Forward. ugh. Was a Forward by Sweet even talked about? Perhaps if that book had both there commentary? IDK. What's done is done...

and hear we are. Emotions where not considered. Ego's unchecked and too many insults have been said, relationships irreparably damaged like Humpty Dumpty. And for what? A documentary that STILL hasn't come out how many years later? I was just listening to Criss Vint's Interview with Sweet from around then about a month ago, and Sweet was complementary of Taylor saying without Taylor (among others) he doubts MOTU would have went anywhere. Sweet admits, despite his ego and self image problems (hey, who doesn't have those?) that it was a TEAM effort. Taylor OFTEN says he was just a barbie packaging guy, with lots of doodles at his cubicle. They both where fans of frazetta. That was the zeitgeist of the era. Mattel even had the license for Conan Movie toys in 1981! Sweet came up with the Twist waist, wanted a toy "that makes schwarzenegger look like a wimp" and conceived a world where this "strong man" could be of any era, any weapons through all of Time and space...Mark Talyer imagined a fantasy world "of prehistory" which included Skull faced men and castles, and in one way or another had been thinking of that world since childhood reading Prince valiant comics. Seams like they worked TOGETHER, it's just that through the fog of Ego and memory They forgot that they worked TOGETHER.

All the King's horse and all the King's men can search for a thousand years, but the key's tones, it's memory is erased. There's no way to go home. No way. Now Skeletor knew what he was doing. Did they? Could they have foreseen what would resulted of this "unadulterated barbaric fantasy?"



Mattel never made that Cosmic Key prototype, perhaps if anyone finds it, can whistle, has a keyboard and some common Eternian technology, we might have hope of fixing things Like Gwildor did courteney cox's dead parents...Short of that, someone is going to have to ask Taylor and Sweet to actually talk to each other first! Don't ask me to do it, I'm just an "idea guy." What we need is someone with a masters in communication, who's only agenda is mending fences and who wants to see Taylor and Sweet resolve their problems with each other. I think that if they would talk to each other, we would have a better idea of what actually happened in 1980-1982.

I for one want to find out who was working on Conan The Movie toys then. (or if I'm right and the license was acquired to prevent anyone else from making an official Conan figure that could compete with He-Man...)

Also, I think that if enough people are in the same place, at the same time and they are all shown Wonder Bread He-Man We might finally get some answers on that too!

Originally Posted by LORD FALLEN ELDOR

The Documentary crew didn't do that kind of sensationalizing of the 1987 Movie production. Why? Perhaps, given the drama that was REAL, they didn't feel the need to artificially inflate the situation for dramatic effect like they did with Sweet & Taylor?

Because one of the filmmakers, Roger Lay, Jr., developed a relationship with Gary Goddard after interviewing him for the documentary, and now works for his company, The Goddard Group, as Executive in Charge of Production, Film, and TV.

They got too close to the subjects and lost all objectivity, and the project has suffered for it.

Originally Posted by Adam_Prince of Eternia

B

Similarly, he and filmmaker, Corey Landis, developed a relationship with Mark Taylor after interviewing him for the documentary, which is why the film is so heavily-skewed in his favor.

Not true. At all.
They've been showed evidence of what Mark Taylor said thanks to our organization but that didn't skew them in his favor. They don't have any special relationship with Mark Taylor.

Originally Posted by LORD FALLEN ELDOR

I was just listening to Criss Vint's Interview with Sweet from around then about a month ago

Do you still have the interview, I'm looking for it!

Originally Posted by LORD FALLEN ELDOR

The Power and Honor foundation TRIED to take an unbiased approach, but largely failed to do so by having a forward by Talor...I know it's largly his art being showcased, and a lot of Sweets documents presented his side, but still...That Forward. ugh. Was a Forward by Sweet even talked about? Perhaps if that book had both there commentary? IDK. What's done is done...

We looked at evidence at hand. And evidence and witness at hand showed that Mark Taylor ideas predates Sweet's.
Unbiased approach doesn't mean keeping a neutral stance no matter what. It means being able to analyze and consider the informations available without a preconceived opinion.
We did form our opinion on the subject and we are not embarrassed in expressing it. If new evidence should appear in the future questioning this opinion, we will be happy to reconsider it

We feel that the foreword tells an amazing story and it's a compelling read. We have been extremely honored by Mark's decision to accept our president's invitation to write the foreword for our Catalog. Mark and Ted also helped us immensely with the catalog content and with locating a lot more art after the first volume was published.
At the same time, we approached Mr. Sweet as well but we couldn't get him on board collaborating like Mark and Ted. His book has been vital to the information presented in the Catalog.

We are sorry if it appears like a failure that we had a foreword by one of the originator of the brand. To us it feels like a great win and of course we'd love to have some commentary by Mr. Sweet too, but so far he didn't seem interested in doing so.

Originally Posted by PowerAndHonor

Not true. At all. . . .They don't have any special relationship with Mark Taylor.

Objective filmmakers would present each subject equally, allow each subject to make his case, and allow the audience to draw its own conclusions, knowing that truth will win out.

That is not what was done here.

Considering that one of the filmmakers developed a personal relationship with one of the subjects of the film, then leveraged that relationship into an executive position at the company of said subject before the film had even been completed, and then did not include any information about the controversy surrounding the contributions of said subject in the film, it is not unreasonable to believe that the filmmakers developed personal relationships with other subjects in the film.

Originally Posted by Adam_Prince of Eternia

Each of the subjects in the film are limited to one interview in one interview location with the exception of Mark Taylor who is interviewed separately in his office, at his home, with Ted Mayer, at Power-Con, etc.

If the filmmakers did not develop a personal relationship with him over the course of filming the documentary, then why does he receive unequal treatment in the film?

Objective filmmakers would present each subject equally, allow each subject to make his case, and allow the audience to draw its own conclusions, knowing that truth will win out.

That is not what was done here.

Considering that one of the filmmakers developed a personal relationship with one of the subjects of the film, then leveraged that relationship into an executive position at the company of said subject before the film had even been completed, and then did not include any information about the controversy surrounding the contributions of said subject in the film, it is not unreasonable to believe that the filmmakers developed personal relationships with other subjects who receive unequal treatment in the film.

Especially ones who live in the same area as the filmmakers, are affable and gregarious, and always willing to meet.

He even let them use his own bathroom! Clearly a conspiracy going on.

Hi!

Allow me to address some things.

We did not develop any personal relationships with people in this movie other than the typical friendly subject/documentarian type. Roger went on to work for Goddard, but much after the fact. That relationship didn't influence our presentation of the ('87) movie--it was edited by the time Roger (Lay) started work, and there was nothing sensationalistic or controversial to present that we discovered.

We presented everyone's stories in this film as they appeared to us. You may not like the movie, but I assure you that we presented everyone as objectively as we could. It was very important to me, personally, that no one--audience or subject--could accuse us of manipulating/editing footage, etc., to make a person look a particular way that doesn't reflect reality. Everything in the movie happened as is. Nothing was edited to favor one person over the other. You experience the story as we experienced it. Now, that said, if you're filming a bunch of people and someone is a D-bag (I'm not talking about our movie, I'm speaking in hypothetical), there's no way that person is NOT going to look like a D-bag in the movie, and it's NOT a reflection of editorializing. If certain people don't come across as good in this movie, it's their fault, not ours. I assure you. Let me reiterate--we are as even handed as we possibly could be, and when I watch the movie, it reflects the tone of reality as I experienced it doing the interviews and gathering the stories. Yes, we have edited for drama, because it's an f-ing movie. This isn't an A&E Biography, or something that comes with your DVD as an extra feature. This is a story of men, their memories, and their emotions. And the particular context happens to be Mattel in the 1980s working on a historically significant toy, which makes everything that much more charged and (we hope) interesting. But we are far more interested in everyone as characters with their own stories than we are with getting every single historical detail to the forefront. Tons of information was sacrificed for the sake of telling THIS particular story. The one that we experienced as we went about interviewing people about He-Man. This was the only movie that we could've made, and I really like the hybrid of straightforward historical information coupled with the drama of the real-life subjects. Some people may not. But I think it's interesting.

It is not intentionally sensationalistic. The drama that happens in the movie actually happened. And we found it to be interesting and worthy of including. We have emphasized things--as all movies do--to enhance the experience of the story we're telling, but it's all emotionally accurate and not deliberately exploitative. We are not "presenting" anyone in any way. We are showing them presenting themselves in the most truthful way we can.

I would also caution people of a few more things. One, to quote Lou Scheimer in our movie, people are talking about it negatively before they even have seen it. Reading one person's account and then forming judgment about the movie based on that quickly begets talking about it like you've actually seen it. Just wait for the movie, eh?

Also, I've warned everyone from the beginning that this is probably not the info-packed doc that you've been waiting for or have been making in your own minds for years. Just because it's not YOUR He-Man doc, doesn't mean it's an inferior movie. Try to keep that in mind. I'm a big music fan. Stevie Wonder is a genius. But I rarely play his stuff because it's not my thing. But I would never say he isn't brilliant--I just don't care for it enough to pop it on. Try to see it as someone who doesn't know anything about He-Man--that's who we made it for, not the super-fan. This movie is for everyone. And in order to make that movie, we made choices that are going to disappoint a lot of you. So, please try to evaluate the movie on its own merits, not your expectations.

We interviewed both Roger Sweet and Mark Taylor/Ted Mayer several different times in different locations. I repeat: we did not become particularly close to ANYONE in the film, and we didn't personally favor one "side" as far as socializing, etc., is concerned.

I'm rarely on here, but I welcome your questions. Please hop over to our FB page if you'd like to chat further about this stuff.

Despite what you may think, I really do hope you find enjoyment out of our movie. I fear you'll be disappointed, but I sincerely want you guys to be entertained by it, and not upset with us for not making the movie that you've envisioned.

Thanks for caring enough to talk about the movie!

Corey

Corey - thanks for posting!

Originally Posted by Corey Landis

It was very important to me, personally, that no one--audience or subject--could accuse us of manipulating/editing footage, etc., to make a person look a particular way that doesn't reflect reality. Everything in the movie happened as is. Nothing was edited to favor one person over the other. You experience the story as we experienced it.

I attended the screening of this film along with several others who have posted in this thread. There is a scene in the film in which one of the filmmakers reads a statement from one of the subjects during a discussion panel at a convention. Those of us who had also attended the convention noted that immediately following that statement, some very unflattering things were said by some of the panelists. The scene ends abruptly before this, so the audience does not have an opportunity to see behavior that would paint some of the other subjects in an unfavorable light. The full panel is available to view online, and this is only one example.

Jon Wes and Telkan2 (and both of their guests, neither of whom has any knowledge of the property) found the film to be somewhat biased and sensationalistic, and thoroughly discussed their reasons HERE.

And if that is the angle of the film and approach the filmmakers chose, that is entirely fine. However, it is obvious to most anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that is the case, so there is no sense feigning otherwise.

A very interesting couple of pages of discussion.

Although I was looking forward to seeing this film I can safely say it won't be making an appearance on my Christmas list based on what I've read here (but I will try and track down that Star Wars one Jon mentioned).

Adam Prince of Eternia: I'm not "feigning" anything. I'm telling the truth. Look, if we've failed, we've failed. But I'm not being disingenuous when I say we tried to be as even-handed as possible.

The rest of the panel and what was said wasn't included because it didn't add anything new to the story. Period.

And to the dude above who lets other people make up his mind for him (?!)...I'm baffled, and I guess the whole point of my post was lost on him. Please...don't see the movie. I beg of you. If you get to see it for free, "Clockwork Orange" style, try your hardest not to look; I'd hate for you to have to make up your own mind. SMH

So when can we expect the DVD to come out ? I'm dying to finally see it.

My two cents, which I posted over on the Facebook page but will post here, as well... I thought what Corey wrote made sense. And, I think it's going to be key for He-man fans in particular enjoying the movie. I don't think all of them will still enjoy the movie, but I think a lot more will. I wish I could see it again, just to watch it again with my expectations reset and see how it feels.

One of the things I loved about Roger Ebert's approach to film critique is that he judged movies by what they presented themselves to be, not what he wanted them to be or thought they should be. And I'm pretty certain I did more of the latter, though I was trying not too. My big 'ol post was basically me working through that. LOL.

Crusader: soon. We just have to get it out into the world a bit more via fests, etc., and then sell it to a distributor. Then, we have to actually package the DVD. But since we're pretty much picture-locked, we can start that process now. Thanks for your interest!

- - - Updated - - -

And JonWes: for what it's worth, I totally dug the tone of what you had to say. I may not agree with everything, but I liked that you put some positive thoughts out there, and it was clear you weren't being snarky or had an axe to grind. That was the most delightful non-glowing review, and I do appreciate you saying those things the way you did.

Originally Posted by Corey Landis

Adam Prince of Eternia: I'm not "feigning" anything. I'm telling the truth. Look, if we've failed, we've failed. But I'm not being disingenuous when I say we tried to be as even-handed as possible.

The rest of the panel and what was said wasn't included because it didn't add anything new to the story. Period.

And to the dude above who lets other people make up his mind for him (?!)...I'm baffled, and I guess the whole point of my post was lost on him. Please...don't see the movie. I beg of you. If you get to see it for free, "Clockwork Orange" style, try your hardest not to look; I'd hate for you to have to make up your own mind. SMH

I am of the opinion that you're wasting your time replying to this guy alot of the stuff he posts seems to just be for the sake of contradicting people, I honestly can't tell if he's purposely trolling or it just comes off that way.

Corey, I would encourage you to continue taking the feedback objectively and make key decisions about how it could improve the final cut. It appears that people's reactions may not be what you intended, and so there is an opportunity here for you to revise the film.

Originally Posted by ehenyo

Corey, I would encourage you to continue taking the feedback objectively and make key decisions about how it could improve the final cut. It appears that people's reactions may not be what you intended, and so there is an opportunity here for you to revise the film.

We try to listen to all the feedback we get. We discussed all of the Chicago feedback amongst ourselves and talked about what we felt was valid and what wasn't.

I just showed the film to two toy industry people--young artist/geek types--and they loved the movie. So, we're getting a lot of positive feedback, as well. And we've shown it a bunch of filmmakers and folks who didn't know anything about motu. And the experience they had watching the movie was exactly what we were going for, based on what they had to say.

We consider it all, but we can't put everything into place--especially if we disagree.

I appreciate your point, and we'll continue to listen. That's why I'm here.