Netflix's Masters of the Universe Film - Official Discussion

[jibernish]

Well David is also behind The Eternity War, etc. but I was just curious.



Well I think studios weighing Motu as a worthy investment or not has more to do with why we don't have movies plural. Sure Motu was a hot property in the early 1980's, but since then, the 1987 Feature Film and subsequent shows certainly didn't light the world on fire, and neither did its toys.

I didn't ready Eternity War yet.

That's a fair point. I think not weighing MOTU as a worthy investment is a good reason for no movies up until comic movies started hitting big around 2000, until mass audiences started loving movies based on characters dressed up in weird outfits. And I agree, Mattel not actually believing in MOTU is a huge reason why we didn't get more MOTU. Another reason is that I think besides making toys, Mattel is rather incompetent at directing the course of MOTU over the years. They make bad decisions all the time and then blame it on the property or the audience.

They've been trying to make a film since when, at least 2008 (I'm not a historian on all the failed attempts) - so Mattel DOES believe MOTU is a worthy investment. But they can't make it happen - because it's not really a priority to them. I know that when a person or organization really believes in something, they make it happen. Mattel hasn't. If it's important, you make it happen. They haven't hired the story experts in house they need to make sure they know how to properly evaluate a script. They commission screenwriters who aren't that great. Directors who aren't that great. They don't invest enough resources into finding someone with a strong vision to lead the project. They don't know what they are doing, they keep swinging and missing, it's just a complete poop show.

[Smitty.81]

Re: story telling in toy lines.

It is possible to tell a story with a toy line, Transformers did it twice. The problem is MOTU toy lines are a bit all over the place. Masterverse is throwing everything they can into that line, and they should be, but it would be nice if each wave was a bit more focused.

Origins is the same way, but it has the advantage of mini comics, but they don't seem to be willing or allowed to tell a consistent story.

MOTU 21 is the only toy line, currently that tells a story, but it's also the only one with a dedicated cartoon.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

[Adam_Prince of Eternia]

They've been trying to make a film since when, at least 2008 (I'm not a historian on all the failed attempts) - so Mattel DOES believe MOTU is a worthy investment. But they can't make it happen - because it's not really a priority to them. I know that when a person or organization really believes in something, they make it happen. Mattel hasn't. If it's important, you make it happen. They haven't hired the story experts in house they need to make sure they know how to properly evaluate a script. They commission screenwriters who aren't that great. Directors who aren't that great. They don't invest enough resources into finding someone with a strong vision to lead the project. They don't know what they are doing, they keep swinging and missing, it's just a complete poop show.

Who is "they"? Mattel is a toy company. Historically, they have produced toys—not movies—and have been at the mercy of film studios to produce movies of their intellectual properties. Their frustration with getting a Masters of the Universe movie made contributed to them establishing their own film production company, Playground Productions, in 2018.

Since then, we have gotten She-Ra and the Princesses of Power, Masters of the Universe: Revelation, and He-Man and the Masters of the Universe, all on Netflix with a live action film in development also at Netflix. Rob David is the Vice President of Creative Content for Mattel Television, and the executive producer, creative lead, showrunner, and head writer on both Masters of the Universe series on Netflix. So they do have an in-house story expert.

Fox 2000 held the license from 2004–2006, but the rights reverted to Mattel when the director took another project. Warner Bros. held the license from 2007–2009, but Mattel did not approve of their direction (and anyone who read the screenplay knows we avoided a disaster). Columbia Pictures picked-up the license in 2009, but eventually transferred it to Netlfix in 2021. During that time, there was a series of mergers and acquistions that cause the project to restart each time. Because every time a production company is acquired by a new parent company, or a parent company merges with another company, the resulting new business entity wants a say in the creative. The inability to get a film greenlit has nothing to do with companies not believing in the property.

[jibernish]

If you follow the discussion back a few posts, they refers to Mattel.

I think Rob David is a good start down a new path. I'm hopeful that Mattel's current CEO, Ynon Kriesz, will pursue better story telling than we have received by investing more resources into that arena. He comes from a media background rather than a toy background, and so I would expect things to change under his watch. But to date I would argue that there is no story that has come out of MOTU that was good enough to transcend MOTU's existing fanbase. So that's either a long line of incompetence, or they just didn't care enough to make it happen. I feel, and have argued here, that they haven't cared enough to make it happen.

The rights juggling you mention, the fact that Mattel put so much of the responsibility for MOTU's storytelling into the hands of others - going all the way back to Filmation, is evidence enough to satisfy me that Mattel doesn't prioritize story. They have always focused on toys. And I love the toys. They are a toy company after all. I'm not saying they should prioritize storytelling (though I think they should). I'm saying the fact that they never have is why we don't have even one movie since the 1980's ended.

Of course lack of belief in the property plays a role. Execs at Mattel have not fully believed that a half-naked man running around in furry underwear would be embraced by a larger audience. And because of that, Mattel has not had a solid vision for what MOTU should be, and that has directly led to us having no movie. If you know what your brand is and you believe in it, you are more careful who is handling it. You don't go so far down the road with a terrible script. You craft the contracts for the rights to your property more carefully. You don't even let anyone touch the property, or pick up a pencil to start an outline for a script who isn't on the same page as you are.

[Adam_Prince of Eternia]

I think Rob David is a good start down a new path. I'm hopeful that Mattel's current CEO, Ynon Kriesz, will pursue better story telling than we have received by investing more resources into that arena. He comes from a media background rather than a toy background, and so I would expect things to change under his watch. But to date I would argue that there is no story that has come out of MOTU that was good enough to transcend MOTU's existing fanbase. So that's either a long line of incompetence, or they just didn't care enough to make it happen. I feel, and have argued here, that they haven't cared enough to make it happen.

There was a planned sequel to the Masters of the Universe film in 1988. New Adventures of He-Man debuted in 1990. He-Man and the Masters of the Universe ran from 2002–2004. Fox 2000 planned to make a film from 2004–2006. Warner Bros. planned to make a film from 2007–2009. Columbia Pictures planned to make a film from 2009–2021. She-Ra and the Princesses of Power debuted in 2018. Masters of the Universe: Revelation and He-Man and the Masters of the Universe debuted in 2021. And Netflix acquired the rights to produce a film in 2021 also. There have been continuous attempts to produce new media based on the property to varying degrees of success since the 1980s. It has never stopped.

The rights juggling you mention, the fact that Mattel put so much of the responsibility for MOTU's storytelling into the hands of others - going all the way back to Filmation, is evidence enough to satisfy me that Mattel doesn't prioritize story. They have always focused on toys. And I love the toys. They are a toy company after all. I'm not saying they should prioritize storytelling (though I think they should). I'm saying the fact that they never have is why we don't have even one movie since the 1980's ended.

What on Earth are talking about? Until 2018, they did not have a production company of any kind. They only made toys. They had no choice but to put the production of television and film into the hands of other companies who actually produce television and film. You might as well be blaming Mattel for not starting their own frozen foods company to manufacture Masters of the Universe popsicles.

Of course lack of belief in the property plays a role. Execs at Mattel have not fully believed that a half-naked man running around in furry underwear would be embraced by a larger audience. And because of that, Mattel has not had a solid vision for what MOTU should be, and that has directly led to us having no movie. If you know what your brand is and you believe in it, you are more careful who is handling it. You don't go so far down the road with a terrible script. You craft the contracts for the rights to your property more carefully. You don't even let anyone touch the property, or pick up a pencil to start an outline for a script who isn't on the same page as you are.

No, it really does not. Four different studios did not pay to license the right to produce a Masters of the Universe film, because they did not believe in the property. Nor did Mattel create their own production company to make it happen.

Moreover, if Mattel did not have a vision for Masters of the Universe, then they would not have parted ways with Warner Bros. because they did not approve of what they wanted to do with the property. And they would not have had the right of termination if they did not have carefully-crafted contracts.

Furthermore, there was nothing reckeless about licensing the film rights to Warner Bros. It represents the third-highest percentage of market share of the industry, and is number one in family, fantasy, and franchise films—all categories into which a Masters of the Universe film would fall. The pitch Warner Bros. made to acquire the license was good, but the treatment by the writer they hired was not, and it was rejected by Mattel. They could not agree on the changes, so the license was terminated.

[jibernish]

There was a planned sequel to the Masters of the Universe film in 1988. New Adventures of He-Man debuted in 1990. He-Man and the Masters of the Universe ran from 2002–2004. Fox 2000 planned to make a film from 2004–2006. Warner Bros. planned to make a film from 2007–2009. Columbia Pictures planned to make a film from 2009–2021. She-Ra and the Princesses of Power debuted in 2018. Masters of the Universe: Revelation and He-Man and the Masters of the Universe debuted in 2021. And Netflix acquired the rights to produce a film in 2021 also. There have been continuous attempts to produce new media based on the property to varying degrees of success since the 1980s. It has never stopped.

However I should have said Mattel didn't believe in MOTU enough, didn't care about story enough, didn't have enough vision.



What on Earth are talking about? Until 2018, they did not have a production company of any kind. They only made toys. They had no choice but to put the production of television and film into the hands of other companies who actually produce television and film. You might as well be blaming Mattel for not starting their own frozen foods company to manufacture Masters of the Universe popsicles.





No, it really does not. Four different studios did not pay to license the right to produce a Masters of the Universe film, because they did not believe in the property. Nor did Mattel create their own production company to make it happen.

Moreover, if Mattel did not have a vision for Masters of the Universe, then they would not have parted ways with Warner Bros. because they did not approve of what they wanted to do with the property. And they would not have had the right of termination if they did not have carefully-crafted contracts.

Furthermore, there was nothing reckeless about licensing the film rights to Warner Bros. It represents the third-highest percentage of market share of the industry, and is number one in family, fantasy, and franchise films—all categories into which a Masters of the Universe film would fall. The pitch Warner Bros. made to acquire the license was good, but the treatment by the writer they hired was not, and it was rejected by Mattel. They could not agree on the changes, so the license was terminated.

They haven't cared enough to to do it right. Again, unlike so many other properties, MOTU hasn't had a single story good enough to transcend its built in audience.

They could have created at least one. They haven't. They have the resources. They've had the time. And MOTU is a viable property.

Everything you've mentioned is just excuses. If they cared enough, they would have done it.

The frozen food analogy doesnt hold. Creating whatever you need to make great stories is directly related to selling toys, see Star Wars et al. Fish sticks have little to do with toys.

[Adam_Prince of Eternia]

They haven't cared enough to to do it right. Again, unlike so many other properties, MOTU hasn't had a single story good enough to transcend its built in audience.

They could have created at least one. They haven't. They have the resources. They've had the time. And MOTU is a viable property.

Everything you've mentioned is just excuses. If they cared enough, they would have done it.

The frozen food analogy doesnt hold. Creating whatever you need to make great stories is directly related to selling toys, see Star Wars et al. Fish sticks have little to do with toys.

Restating your position is not a retort.

[jibernish]

Restating your position is not a retort.

I don't need to retort you, as nothing you said negated my position. Add to that the fact that many of your arguments were based off of you misconstruing my arguments (save for the 'enough' qualifier I added in my last post), and I'm not interested in straying from my initial position in order to go down some semantic rabbit hole with you.

If you care enough about something happening, you make it happen. Unless you are incompetent at it. And if that's the case you spend some of the billions of dollars that have flowed through your coffers to hire people who know how to make it happen. Unless of course you'd rather spend the money on something else, which is my position. They haven't cared enough to do what it takes to make it happen.

If you want to argue they are incompetent, ok. I would agree with you there. But they have had the money and time to fix that. If you want to argue that circumstances have been beyond their control, I would argue that their lack of prioritizing, ie caring about, storytelling over the years is what put the circumstances beyond their control.

I don't know what else you could say caused the lack of movies and property expanding stories. Bad luck? MOTU isn't good enough? I don't buy those.

[Rikki Roxx]

He literally just explained multiple times how "they" made multiple attempts at getting a movie made, working with multiple different studios over a period of many years now, only for outside forces to scuttle everything each and every time.

You may not like that explanation for what happened, but that is indeed what happened. "Mattel's Incompetent" isn't what happened. A toy company has limited power to "just get it done" when literally all the power is in the hands of other companies with regard to writing and producing a film or TV show. All Mattel could have done, until recently, was make a deal with some studio like WB and in turn tell THEM to "get it done". When they didn't get it done, that wasn't because of Mattel.

Perhaps you're just not fully up to speed on how the movie business works, particularly with regard to licensed properties. The company who owns the licensed property has almost zero say in the When, What, How and Why of what ends up on the screen. All of that is in the hands of other people.

DC Comics, for example, had very little say in the 1989 Batman movie. That was entirely a WB and Tim Burton production; all DC Comics did was cut the deal allowing them to make a movie about Batman. When it got made, who starred in it, what the script was... NONE of that was up to DC at all, and in fact many people in DC Editorial hated the movie upon its release because it conflicted heavily with the comic book canon. If DC had any say in things at the time, that movie would have likely been very different.

The fact that Mattel now has some kind of "in-house" production team bodes somewhat well, but it has nothing to do with the previous 20 years of false starts and misfires. That was 100% Columbia, WB, etc. That pertains to the story, as well. When the film rights were at those other studios, the story was the responsibility of the people working for those studios, not anyone at Mattel. People who make movies don't read comics or watch cartoons, they typically think that stuff is silly, and so they generally try and rewrite the story and characters from the ground up anyway. So once again, anything story-wise that Mattel has ever done with MOTU would have only the bare-minimum impact on whatever the movie would be.

It's fine to be frustrated at the lack of progress on any MOTU movie, but point the finger of shame where it belongs: At Columbia, WB, etc. etc. All Mattel had the power to do at that time was sign a deal for one of those studios to make the movie; after that, it was entirely out of their hands. When it got made, who would star, what the script was... NONE of those would have been Mattel Decisions, back then. Zero.

[jibernish]

He literally just explained multiple times how "they" made multiple attempts at getting a movie made, working with multiple different studios over a period of many years now, only for outside forces to scuttle everything each and every time.

You may not like that explanation for what happened, but that is indeed what happened. "Mattel's Incompetent" isn't what happened. A toy company has limited power to "just get it done" when literally all the power is in the hands of other companies with regard to writing and producing a film or TV show. All Mattel could have done, until recently, was make a deal with some studio like WB and in turn tell THEM to "get it done". When they didn't get it done, that wasn't because of Mattel.

Perhaps you're just not fully up to speed on how the movie business works, particularly with regard to licensed properties. The company who owns the licensed property has almost zero say in the When, What, How and Why of what ends up on the screen. All of that is in the hands of other people.

DC Comics, for example, had very little say in the 1989 Batman movie. That was entirely a WB and Tim Burton production; all DC Comics did was cut the deal allowing them to make a movie about Batman. When it got made, who starred in it, what the script was... NONE of that was up to DC at all, and in fact many people in DC Editorial hated the movie upon its release because it conflicted heavily with the comic book canon. If DC had any say in things at the time, that movie would have likely been very different.

The fact that Mattel now has some kind of "in-house" production team bodes somewhat well, but it has nothing to do with the previous 20 years of false starts and misfires. That was 100% Columbia, WB, etc. That pertains to the story, as well. When the film rights were at those other studios, the story was the responsibility of the people working for those studios, not anyone at Mattel. People who make movies don't read comics or watch cartoons, they typically think that stuff is silly, and so they generally try and rewrite the story and characters from the ground up anyway. So once again, anything story-wise that Mattel has ever done with MOTU would have only the bare-minimum impact on whatever the movie would be.

It's fine to be frustrated at the lack of progress on any MOTU movie, but point the finger of shame where it belongs: At Columbia, WB, etc. etc. All Mattel had the power to do at that time was sign a deal for one of those studios to make the movie; after that, it was entirely out of their hands. When it got made, who would star, what the script was... NONE of those would have been Mattel Decisions, back then. Zero.

Ok, whatever. It's not that hard to understand. You both refuse to even acknowledge the heart of my argument.

I don't care how many attempts they made. In fact the more unsuccessful attempts, the more it proves my point.

It's not impossible to make a movie. I've made some myself. Yet somehow it is impossible, for Mattel.

If I need a new window installed in my house, and I spend 30 years hiring people to put one in and no one actually does, at some point, if I really want a new window, I figure out how to make that happen. Maybe i need to do it myself. Maybe im hiring idiots or liars. Maybe I have poor judgment. If my entire street has new windows except me, I'm doing something wrong. And if it's 30 years later I have to admit I didn't really care enough to figure out what i read doing wrong.

If it was a big enough priority for them, they would have gotten it done. If all the power is in the hands of one outside company after another, maybe do it yourself if it's 35 years later and nothing is done. Maybe wise up. Maybe stop giving your power away. That strategy isn't working. And more likely, if you get married and divorced 10 times in 35 years, it's not always the other person's fault. Maybe take a look in the mirror and see what your priorities really are, because you are probably confused about a great many things.

And the decisions aren't magically in the hands of the production company/studio. You give them that power. Yes, its often done that way, but not always. You can negotiate terms. Other IP owners have. If you've been trying that for decades and it's not working, do it yourself. Pay top dollar for an expert. Stop making excuses. Stop selling your power to people who don't like or understand comic books, although I don't think that's the real problem here.

If you care enough you figure it out. I guess some people are content banging their head into walls over and over, happy to move to the next wall, and the next wall, as long as they can keep blaming the walls and never have to look into the mirror.

Perhaps you are not fully up to speed on the process of trial and error, learning from one's mistakes, not being bound by other parties arbitrary rules, and taking self responsibility for making the things you want happen.

It's fine to be frustrated at me pointing the finger at Mattel, but that's where the blame ultimately lies. Yes, with any one attempt, a lot of blame lies with the studio. But fool me twice, shame on me.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know why you all are so adamant that it's not Mattel's doing. Forget all these stupid words. Just look at the evidence. If top notch storytelling that would expand the audience was one of Mattel's main goals, and we haven't gotten that in 35 years...

I don't know why you all are so invested in blaming others.

[Dice]

It's not impossible to make a movie. I've made some myself. Yet somehow it is impossible, for Mattel.

I'm going to approach this from a different angle. It's not hard to movie, you're right. But it's hard to make a GOOD movie. And Mattel already had experience making a movie that wasn't very good. Afterwards, whether it was the fault of the movie or not, profits dropped and the line died. So When they decide they're going to make another movie, they're not going to want to repeat the process.

I don't know why you all are so adamant that it's not Mattel's doing. Forget all these stupid words. Just look at the evidence. If top notch storytelling that would expand the audience was one of Mattel's main goals, and we haven't gotten that in 35 years...

Second issue is right here. Which story do you tell? It's easy to see that even the biggest fans of the franchise are divided on what they'd love to see.

[jibernish]

I'm going to approach this from a different angle. It's not hard to movie, you're right. But it's hard to make a GOOD movie. And Mattel already had experience making a movie that wasn't very good. Afterwards, whether it was the fault of the movie or not, profits dropped and the line died. So When they decide they're going to make another movie, they're not going to want to repeat the process.



Second issue is right here. Which story do you tell? It's easy to see that even the biggest fans of the franchise are divided on what they'd love to see.

Of course it's hard to make a movie. And it's much harder to make a good movie. And maybe even harder still to please the fanbase. Of course they don't want to lose money. All of that is true.

I'm only arguing that making a film hasn't been that big of a priority for Mattel, or else they would have by now.

[Dice]

Of course it's hard to make a movie. And it's much harder to make a good movie. And maybe even harder still to please the fanbase. Of course they don't want to lose money. All of that is true.

I'm only arguing that making a film hasn't been that big of a priority for Mattel, or else they would have by now.

But I think that's understandable, considering the roadblocks we've discussed and the fact that they aren't in the business of movie making. Add to that even things like Hasbro's G. I. Joe movies, which you would think would be easier to translate to film, not doing well. That's the kind of thing that makes investors hesitant.

[Durendal]

But I think that's understandable, considering the roadblocks we've discussed and the fact that they aren't in the business of movie making. Add to that even things like Hasbro's G. I. Joe movies, which you would think would be easier to translate to film, not doing well. That's the kind of thing that makes investors hesitant.

The G.I. Joe movies provide a relevant parallel to MOTU. Sure, Hasbro got 3 of them made, but the results were horrid and very poorly received by fans of the property - is that what we want for MOTU? I'd rather never see another live action MOTU film made at all than drivel on that level that would just annoy everyone.

[Adam_Prince of Eternia]

Ok, whatever. It's not that hard to understand. You both refuse to even acknowledge the heart of my argument.

I don't care how many attempts they made. In fact the more unsuccessful attempts, the more it proves my point.

It's not impossible to make a movie. I've made some myself. Yet somehow it is impossible, for Mattel.

If I need a new window installed in my house, and I spend 30 years hiring people to put one in and no one actually does, at some point, if I really want a new window, I figure out how to make that happen. Maybe i need to do it myself. Maybe im hiring idiots or liars. Maybe I have poor judgment. If my entire street has new windows except me, I'm doing something wrong. And if it's 30 years later I have to admit I didn't really care enough to figure out what i read doing wrong.

If it was a big enough priority for them, they would have gotten it done. If all the power is in the hands of one outside company after another, maybe do it yourself if it's 35 years later and nothing is done. Maybe wise up. Maybe stop giving your power away. That strategy isn't working. And more likely, if you get married and divorced 10 times in 35 years, it's not always the other person's fault. Maybe take a look in the mirror and see what your priorities really are, because you are probably confused about a great many things.

And the decisions aren't magically in the hands of the production company/studio. You give them that power. Yes, its often done that way, but not always. You can negotiate terms. Other IP owners have. If you've been trying that for decades and it's not working, do it yourself. Pay top dollar for an expert. Stop making excuses. Stop selling your power to people who don't like or understand comic books, although I don't think that's the real problem here.

If you care enough you figure it out. I guess some people are content banging their head into walls over and over, happy to move to the next wall, and the next wall, as long as they can keep blaming the walls and never have to look into the mirror.

Perhaps you are not fully up to speed on the process of trial and error, learning from one's mistakes, not being bound by other parties arbitrary rules, and taking self responsibility for making the things you want happen.

It's fine to be frustrated at me pointing the finger at Mattel, but that's where the blame ultimately lies. Yes, with any one attempt, a lot of blame lies with the studio. But fool me twice, shame on me.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know why you all are so adamant that it's not Mattel's doing. Forget all these stupid words. Just look at the evidence. If top notch storytelling that would expand the audience was one of Mattel's main goals, and we haven't gotten that in 35 years...

I don't know why you all are so invested in blaming others.

Except film making is not like installing a window, not by a longshot.

Foremost, the window comes prefabricated from a factory, films do not. An intellectual property owner cannot visit a website, browse a catalog, or walk a showroom, and purchase a premade film that meets all of their criteria. They are not purchasing a product, they are commissioning a piece of commercial art.

Next, when a homeowner purchases a window through an installer, the installer obtains all the necessary permits. All the homeowner needs to do is pay the fee, and schedule the installation. If the intellectual property owner did not care about the quality of what was being produced, I suppose they could take that approach, but that is how you get the Michael Bay Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles films and the Hasbro Spark G.I. Joe films.

Most importantly is the scale. Installing a window is a small project that costs hundreds, maybe thousands of dollars. Now imagine scaling that project globally, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. It is almost like the bigger and more expensive a project is, the more difficult it is to coordinate, the slower it advances, and the more opportunities there are for things to go wrong.

Businesses do not become or stay profitable by gambling with shareholder money. The people leading these projects are keenly aware that they are responsible for hundreds of millions of dollars, and they cannot afford to play it fast and loose with that money.

[Rikki Roxx]

I don't know why you all are so adamant that it's not Mattel's doing.

Because it's simply not.

They did their part, they cut deals with several of the biggest movie studios in Hollywood under the assumption that those studios would hold up their end of the bargain and get the movie made. In turn, those studios consistently and repeatedly dropped the ball on their end. Once again, that is in no way a Mattel Problem.

It'd be like blaming Mattel if a cargo ship full of MOTU toys sank into the Pacific ocean. You can't blame the First-Party company for Third-Party Mistakes and Negligence.

I mean, if the WB MOTU movie ended up getting made, and turned out terrible, would you blame Mattel for that? If so, why/how? As I've explained, they would have had nothing to do with the final product, it would have been all WB from top to bottom.

Also, I think you're a bit naive about how much "the story" matters when a studio is making a movie based on a licensed property such as a cartoon, toy, comic book or video game. When writing a script for such a movie, the writers typically just skim Wikipedia for notes and then make up whatever they want. The merchandising department has a lot more say into what the movie's plot is than the scriptwriter does, in such cases, and would definitely be true in this case since a movie based on a toy would be expected to sell even more toys, first and foremost. Chris Terrio has no shortage of horror stories about working for WB, and having to field "story ideas" from stockholders and people working in the marketing department. Because that's how it works at that level.

So even if there had ever existed some grand Mattel-scripted MOTU storyline which a studio could potentially crib for ideas... that doesn't mean such a story would ever even end up being the basis for a movie. In fact, there's a good chance it would still be ignored by the studio in favor of their own "reimagined" version. Because again, that's how it works at that level.

It's just weird to be mad at Mattel for things they have nothing to do with. They don't run Hollywood, the system is what it is. I'm assuming part of why they have people working on development in-house now is because they're as annoyed as anyone at all the false starts and misfires over the years.

I guess a person could stretch and say, "Mattel picked the wrong people to do business with over the years," but what were they supposed to do? NOT try and work with the biggest studios to try and get things moving? They entered into those agreements in good faith, they had no way of knowing Columbia, WB etc. would repeatedly screw up on their end.

Personally, I have a big thing about only laying blame where it belongs, that's my issue.

[jibernish]

Except film making is not like installing a window, not by a longshot.

Foremost, the window comes prefabricated from a factory, films do not. An intellectual property owner cannot visit a website, browse a catalog, or walk a showroom, and purchase a premade film that meets all of their criteria. They are not purchasing a product, they are commissioning a piece of commercial art.

Next, when a homeowner purchases a window through an installer, the installer obtains all the necessary permits. All the homeowner needs to do is pay the fee, and schedule the installation. If the intellectual property owner did not care about the quality of what was being produced, I suppose they could take that approach, but that is how you get the Michael Bay Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles films and the Hasbro Spark G.I. Joe films.

Most importantly is the scale. Installing a window is a small project that costs hundreds, maybe thousands of dollars. Now imagine scaling that project globally, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. It is almost like the bigger and more expensive a project is, the more difficult it is to coordinate, the slower it advances, and the more opportunities there are for things to go wrong.

Businesses do not become or stay profitable by gambling with shareholder money. The people leading these projects are keenly aware that they are responsible for hundreds of millions of dollars, and they cannot afford to play it fast and loose with that money.

I would agree that making a movie is much more difficult than installing a window.

But just to go down your road a little bit... Let's say with my 2020 median household income of $44k, I pay $1000 to have a window installed. I'm spending 2.27% of my yearly revenue on the window. Mattel's 2020 revenue was $4.5 billion. So let's say they spend $100 million on a film. That turns out to be 2.22% of their yearly revenue. Roughly equivalent. Their revenue is 100,000 times higher than mine. So, if you scale up the resources they have at hand by a factor of 100,000, you can scale up the complexity of the project you are tackling by a similar factor. Now you can't scale time as easily, but I would say 35 years is sufficient to get a movie made, if it were truly a priority of yours. So I would say the window analogy actually scales pretty well, though I didn't intend for that. It was simply to say that if getting something done was really important to you, you find a way to get it done. Especially when everyone else in a similar situation to you has achieved the same goal. The whole complexity of the task is negated by the fact that everyone else on the street has their new window, ie, dozens of other IP's have had amazing films come out in the last 35 years. These other IP holders faced a similarly complex set of obstacles, and yet they somehow overcame them. Mattel did not.

I've never argued that getting a movie made is easy, though you keep implying that I have by making arguments that don't get at my point.

I also agree that no company wants to risk hundreds of millions of dollars. I never suggested they should. I'm sure that is part of the reason why making a film hasn't been high on their priority list.

- - - Updated - - -

Because it's simply not.

They did their part, they cut deals with several of the biggest movie studios in Hollywood under the assumption that those studios would hold up their end of the bargain and get the movie made. In turn, those studios consistently and repeatedly dropped the ball on their end. Once again, that is in no way a Mattel Problem.

It'd be like blaming Mattel if a cargo ship full of MOTU toys sank into the Pacific ocean. You can't blame the First-Party company for Third-Party Mistakes and Negligence.

I mean, if the WB MOTU movie ended up getting made, and turned out terrible, would you blame Mattel for that? If so, why/how? As I've explained, they would have had nothing to do with the final product, it would have been all WB from top to bottom.

Also, I think you're a bit naive about how much "the story" matters when a studio is making a movie based on a licensed property such as a cartoon, toy, comic book or video game. When writing a script for such a movie, the writers typically just skim Wikipedia for notes and then make up whatever they want. The merchandising department has a lot more say into what the movie's plot is than the scriptwriter does, in such cases, and would definitely be true in this case since a movie based on a toy would be expected to sell even more toys, first and foremost. Chris Terrio has no shortage of horror stories about working for WB, and having to field "story ideas" from stockholders and people working in the marketing department. Because that's how it works at that level.

So even if there had ever existed some grand Mattel-scripted MOTU storyline which a studio could potentially crib for ideas... that doesn't mean such a story would ever even end up being the basis for a movie. In fact, there's a good chance it would still be ignored by the studio in favor of their own "reimagined" version. Because again, that's how it works at that level.

It's just weird to be mad at Mattel for things they have nothing to do with. They don't run Hollywood, the system is what it is. I'm assuming part of why they have people working on development in-house now is because they're as annoyed as anyone at all the false starts and misfires over the years.

I guess a person could stretch and say, "Mattel picked the wrong people to do business with over the years," but what were they supposed to do? NOT try and work with the biggest studios to try and get things moving? They entered into those agreements in good faith, they had no way of knowing Columbia, WB etc. would repeatedly screw up on their end.

Personally, I have a big thing about only laying blame where it belongs, that's my issue.

Like I said in my last reply, it's not that 1 try went badly. It's that try after try after try went badly and they haven't really tried to do things differently until now, maybe. I wouldn't blame them for the ship sinking. But I would blame them if they kept shipping on carriers who keep sinking their ships.

Yes, finally, 35 years later they are finally waking up to the fact that the system is difficult and has not been working for them. I am not blaming them for the system not working. I am saying it wasn't important enough for them to get the movie made to go outside the system. You act like Hollywood is the only way to get a movie made. They could have started their own development company years ago. We've known how profitable these films can be for over 20 years now. They are just doing this now?

I'm not naive about how much story matters to Hollywood when making a film about a licensed property. Most of them suck. That has nothing to do with my argument. But if I'm a license holder, I have the power to make sure that doesn't happen. Plenty of IP holders have done so over the years. You just have to care enough to get it done, make it a priority.

"They did their part, they cut deals with several of the biggest movie studios in Hollywood under the assumption that those studios would hold up their end of the bargain and get the movie made. In turn, those studios consistently and repeatedly dropped the ball on their end. Once again, that is in no way a Mattel Problem. "

And it just keeps happening to Mattel, over and over again, while many other IP holders succeed. Just bad luck on Mattel's part. They've had no part in it, made no bad decisions. They've learned from each failed attempt and improved. They have a successful line of films behind them, plenty of stories that have set the world on fire. When you think of engaging storytelling, you think Mattel. They've had a wildly successful run for the last 35 years.

I'm not going to keep going around and around while the two of you still have not addressed my core argument even once. You both basically keep saying, making movies is hard and it's everyone else's fault. Of course making movies is hard and their film partners have all failed. The buck stops there, I guess, for you guys. I've heard plenty of reasons why a film hasn't been made, but I've yet to read a single excuse from anyone here. In 35 years you get it done IF IT MATTERS THAT MUCH TO YOU. It clearly doesn't matter that much to them and that's why it hasn't happened.

Your points about how little story matter when making a film like this - I agree with that. That's pretty close to what my initial argument was. Mattel doesn't care all that much about story. They care about toys. The fact that I said Mattel doesn't care enough has upset some people and all this debating ensued from that. But I agree with you on your points about moviemaking with IP's.

I've taken a hard look at my life recently, at why I haven't achieved the things I wanted to achieve. And at the end of the day, I had the power to do things differently. To make it happen it in my 24 years of adulthood. And I haven't, yet. Many, many people and institutions have done me wrong, have set me back. But it's not their fault. The power to fix it is only in my hands, not anyone else's. And the same applies to Mattel and MOTU (except they don't have all the rights). If you want to believe it's not in Mattel's power to do it, then that's your choice. I don't buy it.


- - - Updated - - -

But I think that's understandable, considering the roadblocks we've discussed and the fact that they aren't in the business of movie making. Add to that even things like Hasbro's G. I. Joe movies, which you would think would be easier to translate to film, not doing well. That's the kind of thing that makes investors hesitant.

I 100% agree that it's understandable.

- - - Updated - - -

The G.I. Joe movies provide a relevant parallel to MOTU. Sure, Hasbro got 3 of them made, but the results were horrid and very poorly received by fans of the property - is that what we want for MOTU? I'd rather never see another live action MOTU film made at all than drivel on that level that would just annoy everyone.

Agreed. I'd rather we didn't get any films if they are going to be like the GI Joe ones.

[BooperScoop]

I'm too lazy/exhausted to make a new thread about this/idk which forum it would go in, but He-Man and Skeletor are both in the Chip n Dale movie.

[Reviews2D]

I'm too lazy/exhausted to make a new thread about this/idk which forum it would go in, but He-Man and Skeletor are both in the Chip n Dale movie.

I think there is a thread for references and appearances for MOTU in pop culture somewhere

[Rikki Roxx]

So by your logic, jibernish, all Mattel should have done back in 2004 or so is break off a few hundred million dollars of their own money to start up an independent film studio and then make a MOTU movie themselves. "It's just THAT easy", is that what you're saying?

Gee, I wonder why DC comics never thought of that, instead of relying on WB for all these years? I wonder why Marvel comics spent the entire 1990s selling all their characters to every random studio under the sun, when ALL they had to do was just create their own movie studio? I wonder why THEN, "Marvel Studios" got sold off to Disney almost immediately? Surely they just as well could have remained their own entity. Why doesn't Robert E. Howard's estate start up "Conan Productions" or something, so they can finally get a decent Conan movie made without jumping through the hoops of dealing with the major studios? Why doesn't ANYONE just "start up their own movie studio" and do all the financing, development, production, advertising and distribution themselves? You make it sound like it's just a matter of Wish It, Want It, Do It.

I'm sorry man, but that simply is not how ANY of this works. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but you seem to have no actual understanding of how movies are made at the Hollywood level. There are a million reasons why nobody just has a spare billion dollars laying around to make their own film studio, and instead have to go through the bigger and already-established companies.

Lest we forget, once upon a time Mattel decided to venture outside of their comfort zone and created the Intellivision, to try and cash in on the video gaming "fad" of the '70s and early-'80s. They mostly took a bath, and ever since they've stayed in their lane as a toy company. Because that's what you do when you gamble with a few hundred million dollars and lose. You stick to what you know. They're not a movie production company, they make toys. There's wisdom in knowing your limitations.

We'll see if their new in-house team can crack the code and actually get anything done. But they would have been stupid to try that approach 20 years ago. You can't rightly say they made a mistake by soliciting all the major studios to license their IP because that is what EVERYONE has to do. Doing such a thing in-house is always a last resort, partly because of the financial risks involved. They're not gambling with Sony, Columbia, Fox or WB money now, they're gambling with their own, and if the movie fails financially it'll hurt Mattel that much more. That's just math. Look how badly the financial failure of the Jem and My Little Pony movies hurt Hasbro Studios, for example.

But by all means, if creating a start-up film studio is all just a matter of willpower and belief, I definitely look forward to being able to support yours once it gets off the ground. Lord knows I have literally nothing at all to look forward to from Hollywood anytime soon, so I would sincerely welcome some decent competition in the marketplace. I'm rooting for you, brother.

Agreed. I'd rather we didn't get any films if they are going to be like the GI Joe ones.

On this, we pretty strongly agree! But I personally have no confidence that we'll actually get anything that much better. I'd love to be wrong, but I've been burned too many times. We'll see. Step one is Get The Movie Made, and I'll believe that when I see it.

[depp76]

I'm too lazy/exhausted to make a new thread about this/idk which forum it would go in, but He-Man and Skeletor are both in the Chip n Dale movie.

I think there is a thread for references and appearances for MOTU in pop culture somewhere

That topic is here:

https://www.he-man.org/forums/boards...nd-Appearances

[jibernish]

So by your logic, jibernish, all Mattel should have done back in 2004 or so is break off a few hundred million dollars of their own money to start up an independent film studio and then make a MOTU movie themselves. "It's just THAT easy", is that what you're saying?

Gee, I wonder why DC comics never thought of that, instead of relying on WB for all these years? I wonder why Marvel comics spent the entire 1990s selling all their characters to every random studio under the sun, when ALL they had to do was just create their own movie studio? I wonder why THEN, "Marvel Studios" got sold off to Disney almost immediately? Surely they just as well could have remained their own entity. Why doesn't Robert E. Howard's estate start up "Conan Productions" or something, so they can finally get a decent Conan movie made without jumping through the hoops of dealing with the major studios? Why doesn't ANYONE just "start up their own movie studio" and do all the financing, development, production, advertising and distribution themselves? You make it sound like it's just a matter of Wish It, Want It, Do It.

I'm sorry man, but that simply is not how ANY of this works. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but you seem to have no actual understanding of how movies are made at the Hollywood level. There are a million reasons why nobody just has a spare billion dollars laying around to make their own film studio, and instead have to go through the bigger and already-established companies.

Lest we forget, once upon a time Mattel decided to venture outside of their comfort zone and created the Intellivision, to try and cash in on the video gaming "fad" of the '70s and early-'80s. They mostly took a bath, and ever since they've stayed in their lane as a toy company. Because that's what you do when you gamble with a few hundred million dollars and lose. You stick to what you know. They're not a movie production company, they make toys. There's wisdom in knowing your limitations.

We'll see if their new in-house team can crack the code and actually get anything done. But they would have been stupid to try that approach 20 years ago. You can't rightly say they made a mistake by soliciting all the major studios to license their IP because that is what EVERYONE has to do. Doing such a thing in-house is always a last resort, partly because of the financial risks involved. They're not gambling with Sony, Columbia, Fox or WB money now, they're gambling with their own, and if the movie fails financially it'll hurt Mattel that much more. That's just math. Look how badly the financial failure of the Jem and My Little Pony movies hurt Hasbro Studios, for example.

But by all means, if creating a start-up film studio is all just a matter of willpower and belief, I definitely look forward to being able to support yours once it gets off the ground. Lord knows I have literally nothing at all to look forward to from Hollywood anytime soon, so I would sincerely welcome some decent competition in the marketplace. I'm rooting for you, brother.



On this, we pretty strongly agree! But I personally have no confidence that we'll actually get anything that much better. I'd love to be wrong, but I've been burned too many times. We'll see. Step one is Get The Movie Made, and I'll believe that when I see it.

I have explicitly said I'm not arguing they should or shouldn't have done anything. I have also said over and over that this is all hard. It is.

But it's not impossible. Dozens of others have.

I simply said that making a movie hasnt been that high of a priority for them, and if many other IP owners have had great movies come out, then Mattel is doing something wrong, and they haven't (up until maybe now) done enough to correct it.

I guess I got into a meandering conversation trying to get my point across, trying to have a conversation about my point. But the conversation has been about all kinds of other things.

- - - Updated - - -

Willpower and belief, if held strongly enough and stuck to, will make things happen over time. I do believe that, and that's why I get frustrated here with this conversation. People are basically saying nothing could be done. I don't believe that. Because if Mattel wanted it badly enough, they could have gotten it done. But they didn't want it that badly. I'm not saying they should have, just that they didn't.

I do actually have my own IP. Someday it'll be out in the world, probably on a small scale, but limiting beliefs and accepting other people's "no's" is why it isn't already out. And you can live in that or you can take full responsibility, which i'm trying to do now. Maybe you'll see it someday. It being the ip. And thanks for the encouragement.
It's ok though, we can disagree. No worries.

[binkibonsai]

I do actually have my own IP. Someday it'll be out in the world, probably on a small scale, but limiting beliefs and accepting other people's "no's" is why it isn't already out. And you can live in that or you can take full responsibility, which i'm trying to do now. Maybe you'll see it someday. It being the ip. And thanks for the encouragement.

Wossat then? Got links, pics n wotnot?
Is it a book? A comic? An animation? A hat?

I make comics. Write them, rather. Wife does the art.

[jibernish]

It's not in a sharing state yet. I wrote a novel that needs polishing, drew some rudimentary short comics, a short film, and have done about 20 paintings with the characters and world. Lots of work still to be done. Definitely not ready for prime time.

- - - Updated - - -

Wossat then? Got links, pics n wotnot?
Is it a book? A comic? An animation? A hat?

I make comics. Write them, rather. Wife does the art.

That's awesome that you do comics with your wife. That's like a dream right there

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't realize that was a link... that comic was great. You and your wife make a great team. Funny story. I liked the drawings too, especially the colors and the teacher was really well done too. I'll read more later. Very cool.

[Rikki Roxx]

I was sincere in wishing you the best of luck, by the way. Sometimes intent gets lost in the mire of me generally being a rather cheeky fellow.