(![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
fenderlove Apr. 21st, 2009 04:20 pm)
fenderlove Apr. 21st, 2009 04:20 pm)They're updating Rainbow Brite. *shakes fist in air* Damn you, Hallmark! It burns! Stop it! ARGH!
Why?! Why is she Barbie?! Let Rainbow Brite be pudgy and marshmallow-headed!
Remember when they updated Strawberry Shortcake a few years back? They kept her essentially the same character (same enormous head, slightly roly-poly build, but with more modern clothes).
Well, that version didn't sell as well as they had hoped, so now they've updated her again! Even taller, even thinner.
And a big fat WTF to what they've done to Holly Hobbie!
I really wonder at the trend of making these characters taller and thinner but supposedly not aging them. Some of you may remember when I ranted about I thought it was ridiculous that mothers were getting upset at the tween version of Dora the Explorer. And I stand by that. And here's why I rant about the "updating" of classic characters and not the aging of Dora- Dora is not being "updated;" she's just shown at a different age. The design of tween Dora is also a natural progression, just as when Baby Dora was put into production she appeared to be a natural regression. She's still a bit thick, not overly thin. They're also keeping little kid Dora; they are just two separate lines of the same franchise.
It's not just the people-types getting make-overs. Oh no. It's the animal-types too. Poor Care Bears, they were so cute in their classic watercolour and were still cute when they became a cartoon later on...
But we just can't let cute be cute, can we? No, we have to make them formless blobs o' goo.
I won't even do My Little Ponies the disservice of posting the anorexic things Mattel turned them into.
I really don't find anything wrong with the originals. Aren't they cute enough? There's a reason they are classic toys. I think the originals worked for a reason, so why update them? When my cousins' children were younger, I gave them a lot of my old toys. The girls loved Strawberry Shortcake, but imagine their disappointment when they went to the store and saw that Strawberry Shortcake didn't look they way that the ones I gave them did. They liked the originals better. I really have to wonder who the toy companies are selling these things to. Are they trying to get older closer-to-teenage children 'cause I just don't see them buying these things no matter how much they are made "prettier." I think that if they just re-introduced the toys in their original forms they'd still sell. Parents might even be more willing to buy them for the nostalgic value, that connection to their children that they get from saying "This is just like what I used to play with when I was a kid."
Dear Toy Companies,
Keep your greedy mitts off Jem, Lady Lovely Locks, Cupcakes, Cherry Merry Muffin, Perriwinkles, Drak Pack, Popples, Rude Dog, and Beverly Hills Teens! They are perfect good toys and characters as they are! *shakes fist again*
No love,
Fender
Why?! Why is she Barbie?! Let Rainbow Brite be pudgy and marshmallow-headed!
Remember when they updated Strawberry Shortcake a few years back? They kept her essentially the same character (same enormous head, slightly roly-poly build, but with more modern clothes).
Well, that version didn't sell as well as they had hoped, so now they've updated her again! Even taller, even thinner.
And a big fat WTF to what they've done to Holly Hobbie!
I really wonder at the trend of making these characters taller and thinner but supposedly not aging them. Some of you may remember when I ranted about I thought it was ridiculous that mothers were getting upset at the tween version of Dora the Explorer. And I stand by that. And here's why I rant about the "updating" of classic characters and not the aging of Dora- Dora is not being "updated;" she's just shown at a different age. The design of tween Dora is also a natural progression, just as when Baby Dora was put into production she appeared to be a natural regression. She's still a bit thick, not overly thin. They're also keeping little kid Dora; they are just two separate lines of the same franchise.
It's not just the people-types getting make-overs. Oh no. It's the animal-types too. Poor Care Bears, they were so cute in their classic watercolour and were still cute when they became a cartoon later on...
But we just can't let cute be cute, can we? No, we have to make them formless blobs o' goo.
I won't even do My Little Ponies the disservice of posting the anorexic things Mattel turned them into.
I really don't find anything wrong with the originals. Aren't they cute enough? There's a reason they are classic toys. I think the originals worked for a reason, so why update them? When my cousins' children were younger, I gave them a lot of my old toys. The girls loved Strawberry Shortcake, but imagine their disappointment when they went to the store and saw that Strawberry Shortcake didn't look they way that the ones I gave them did. They liked the originals better. I really have to wonder who the toy companies are selling these things to. Are they trying to get older closer-to-teenage children 'cause I just don't see them buying these things no matter how much they are made "prettier." I think that if they just re-introduced the toys in their original forms they'd still sell. Parents might even be more willing to buy them for the nostalgic value, that connection to their children that they get from saying "This is just like what I used to play with when I was a kid."
Dear Toy Companies,
Keep your greedy mitts off Jem, Lady Lovely Locks, Cupcakes, Cherry Merry Muffin, Perriwinkles, Drak Pack, Popples, Rude Dog, and Beverly Hills Teens! They are perfect good toys and characters as they are! *shakes fist again*
No love,
Fender
