Originally Posted By jonvn Who I "ran with" during the vietnam war is really inconsequential to what I'm saying. The popularity of the GI Joe doll utterly sank along with the popularity of the war. The military along with it. It was not a good time. The only difference between then and now, and why we are not now having constant riots in the streets with Iraq is the draft.
Originally Posted By MPierce I have to respectfully disagree. G.I. Joe sales might have been way down because of the anger against the war, and who you ran with at that time has everything to do with how you perceived the popularity of the military. The war was lost in the media with statements by such noble men as Walter Cronkite. Even Gen. Giap admitted after the war the NVA was soundly defeated in the Tet offensive of 1968. The only thing that kept them going was statements by patriots like him, and Jane Fonda. Declaring we could not win. Sounds kind of like what you hear today about Iraq doesn't it. You can be opposed against the war that's fine with me. I just refuse to have our military hung out to dry by the press. The United States Military has always, and will always be a noble calling despite the loud volcal crys of a few.
Originally Posted By jonvn Don't get me started on people like Jane Fonda, who should have gone to jail. "I just refuse to have our military hung out to dry by the press." That is not happening now. But then we don't have them saying we need a draft, either. I think that's the difference. If we had some generals starting to sound off about a draft, the attitude would be quite different.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss I'll let you two fight whatever battle you're waging. But the fact reamins that G.I. Joe sales took a nose dive during the Vietnam era, and in response, Hasbro changed Joe from being a military man to an adventurer, fighting sharks and catching tigers, searching for buried treasures, fighting fires, etc.
Originally Posted By MPierce I'm surprised the animal rights people didn't protest. I never said sales of the G.I. Joe doll didn't go down I just question the reason why. My contention is because of the hatred of what the Viet Nam war had become, not because of our military. I don't think we are fighting at all I think we are having a very civilized discussion.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss More a figure of speech. I know you're not really fighting, but just having some debate.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> That is not happening now. But then we don't have them saying we need a draft, either. << Wait, and see how this turns out. This is the exact same approach that the press took in Viet Nam. Slowly turn the people against the war reguardless of what is actually taking place, the politicians will follow. That's exactly what happened in Africa, and that is what the media is pudhing for now.Anyway sorry to bend so far away from the topic of G.I. Joe's. I'll shut up my radical ravings for the time being. I never owned a G.I. Joe when did they become popular.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I owned a couple of G.I. Joe's as a kid back in the late 60's, early 70's. One of them was an astronaut, complete with a big space capsule. The other was a shark-battling scuba diver. So, G.I. Joe getting involved in off-the-battlefield adventures (trysts with Barbie not included) is nothing especially new. And neither were seen as him being A.W.O.L. or offending America. In fact, the modern G.I. Joe was shrunk much smaller than earlier versions when he became an "action figure" long ago. That wasn't perceived as a slap at the military, or America. So, they might make a movie where he works for an international spy agency. He's still likely to be seen as an American, and it's actually a promotion into speciaql ops from being just an enlisted guy. G.I. Joeâ„¢. Chill pills sold serarately.
Originally Posted By DlandDug The history of Hasbro's GI Joe is a lot more than "war toy stalls out due to Viet Nam and becomes adventure toy." There are many forces at play in the marketing of a successful toy. GI Joe was introduced in 1964 as Hasbro's answer to... Barbie. Joe was the first successful doll for boys. It worked because they called it an "action figure." But it was the same size as Barbie, and featured the same play pattern: a fantasy adult that could be manipulated by the child, with a voracious appetite for stuff. Accessories. Clothes. Doodads. (Hey, I had an original GI Joe with a footlocker stuffed full of stuff.) Toys cycle in about four year increments. (He Man makes way for Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles makes way for Mighty Morphin Power Rangers and so on). To hold an audience, a successful toy line keeps reinventing itself. Military toys took a hit in the late 60s, due to the unpopular war in Viet Nam. But it was about time to "refresh" GI Joe anyway. So he became an adventurer. In the 70s the line was again refreshed with an ecological theme. (P.S. GI Joe was a bigger financial success in the 70s then he was in the first flush of success in the early 60s.) In 1978, the oil crisis interupted the fantasy world of GI Joe. Petroleum was a major ingredient in the manufacture of the large scale boy's dolls (oops, I mean Action Figures), and the line was discontinued. What brought back Joe in the 80s? Star Wars. Really. The small scale Star Wars action figures were a big hit, and Hasbro reintroduced GI Joe in the same scale in 1982. This was even more successful than the earlier incarnations. Marvel also tied in with comics, and the animated TV show was produced. (This was the model for the 80s, in which every big marketing franchise was cross promoted to death. Disney Afternoon, anyone?) The 90s were just berserk, with GI Joe lines bringing back nearly everything from the past: Eco Warriors, Hall of Fame dolls at the original size, the Masterpiece series that literally recreated the original line, as well as a super hero line and a "Just Say No to Drugs" line. So it is no surprise that it is time, once again, to reposition and refresh the "Real American Hero." Only time will tell if this is the right move. But even if the new Joes rot on the shelves, he'll probably come back in some form or another.
Originally Posted By jonvn "But the fact reamins that G.I. Joe sales took a nose dive during the Vietnam era, and in response, Hasbro changed Joe from being a military man to an adventurer, fighting sharks and catching tigers, searching for buried treasures, fighting fires, etc." Yep. that's exactly right. The military became extremely unpopular and sales took a major nosedive....
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <(P.S. GI Joe was a bigger financial success in the 70s then he was in the first flush of success in the early 60s.)> It was the kung fu grip. That was genius.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> But the fact reamins that G.I. Joe sales took a nose dive during the Vietnam era, and in response, Hasbro changed Joe from being a military man to an adventurer, fighting sharks and catching tigers, searching for buried treasures, fighting fires, etc." Yep. that's exactly right. The military became extremely unpopular and sales took a major nosedive.... << You seem to base your whole theory on the military being unpopular on the decline in sales of G.I. Joe dolls. We know the draft was unpopular from polls, and demonstrations. We know the Viet Nam War was unpopular from polls, and demonstrations. Can you point me to one poll or one demonstration that promoted the unpopularity of our military. I don't remember a massive outcry to disband our military. I believe all branches are intact, and still receive a sizeable amout of our tax money. I have looked, and haven't even found any article by one creditable journalist denouncing our military during this time. The closes you can come to an anti-military theme is focusing on war crimes committed by a few men. I need more proof of the unpopularity of our military other than the declining sales of a toy. Cabbage patch kids have drasticly declined in popularity. Am I to infer by this that adopting children or even the concept of having children has declined. That may be an over the top comparison, but I consider it no more over the top than your statement. I have a feeling you have some personal feelings about this issue. Exactly why do you think the military was unpopular during this time. Other than lagging sales of G.I. Joe.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< This is the exact same approach that the press took in Viet Nam. Slowly turn the people against the war reguardless of what is actually taking place, the politicians will follow. >>> So is this what's happening now with our military involvement in Iraq? Is everything going just great, and it's just the press turning the people against it?
Originally Posted By MPierce Everything never goes great in a war It's the fact that positive gains are overlooked while focusing on the negative. We no longer have a Dictator in Iraq who's goal was to dominate the entire region, and control the flow of oil. We have a country that now has a chance to have a free, and open democracy. We have an oppurtunity to have a stable government in a very volatile area of the world. We no longer have a government that feels it is ok to murder thousands of it's citizens. If it works or not, only time will tell, but I feel it is important enough that we at least try now that we have committed ourselves. Struggles like this do not come to a positive conclusion over night. A weakness shown in Iraq will manifest itself in ways I'm even afraid to imagine. Even though I am opposed to war in principal I think some wars must be fought. Just keep watching how the media handels the situation. Even though positive reports are coming in You will continue to hear the negative.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <We have an oppurtunity to have a stable government in a very volatile area of the world. > But the more likely outcome is either a Shia-dominated government much closer to Iran than we'd like, or something split into three parts, de facto or de jure. Meanwhile, Iraqis have been killed at a greater clip than even under Saddam, and 4 million (one in 6!) have been displaced. There are 2 million who have fled to other countries (and are becoming a destabilizing presence in those host countries), and 2 million more displaced within Iraq. And all this was predicted before we went in by those who bothered to look at the history of the region and realized this was always an artificial country to begin with. And this does not even take into account the probable flaring up of the low-simmering civil war into an all-out civil war when we leave - and we have to leave some time. Also meanwhile, we've attracted Al Qaeda to a country they could not gain a foothold in previously, and in the words of at least one US general in Iraq, created more terrorists than we're able to kill.
