Raine
Main Eventer
Joined on: Aug 8, 2006 12:11:52 GMT -5
Posts: 1,505
|
Post by Raine on Aug 15, 2008 8:00:00 GMT -5
Hey
Just wondering if there is any truth that Mattel will be doing their own version of the CS line or is it just rumors and hope on some peoples part that Mattel do this figure series?
Surely I can't see why Mattel would do this even though it has been a huge selling series, Jakks has just about got 90% of wrestling biggest superstars made, plus Mattel would have to get everyone signed up just as Jakks has had to do. I can understand Jakks coming out with a Legends of Wrestling series if only to get the guys that WWE wouldn't allow to be made.
Macho Man
Kurt Angle
Booker T
Harlem Heat
Scott Steiner
Sting
Jeff Jarrett
Christian
Raven
Nailz
Shane Douglas
Brock Lesnar
Paul Heyman
Sandman
Goldust/Dustin Rhodes
|
|
|
|
Post by The Assassin on Aug 15, 2008 8:21:43 GMT -5
If Mattel is smart they will attempt a CS-style line. The CS line has been really sucessful and with current wrestling's declining popularity it really reaches out to ALL wrestling fans, past and present. Infact Mattel would be incredibly stupid and incompetant if they didn't do one.
Also, I feel certain that Jakks will attempt to continue a CS-style line in 2010. They noticed the demand and created the line, they will certainly want to continue the profits and success that come from the line. The only limitation is they won't be able to use any WWE trademarks or superstars under WWE contract. But that still leaves them a LOT of great talent that could be made, including guys like Macho Man, Sting, JJ Dillon, etc who WWE won't approve, TNA classics from the early days (Malice/The Wall is still in my top 5 most wanted CS!) and of course anyone from WWE/WCW/ECW who they simply didn't get around to in CS, as long as they can avoid WWE copyright issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago on Aug 15, 2008 8:31:59 GMT -5
I can't see Mattel making that kind of commitment early on, as they will more than likely focus strictly on the current WWE rosters for at least the first year or so.
Somewhere down the road, is it possible they could introduce a similar CS line? Sure, but there hasn't been any mention yet of plans to even release one.
Also, I would be willing to bet that an early CS line for Mattel would consist of classic versions of current wrestlers or the easiest legends to sign through WWE. It would be interesting to see a classic line in a different style, but I wouldn't hold your breath for it to show up as soon as 2010 rolls around.
|
|
|
|
Post by naparo01 on Aug 15, 2008 8:42:54 GMT -5
All i have to say is that there are many many more cs guys that can be made. Jakks has just scratched the surface.
|
|
|
|
Post by ● kaneisdaman ● on Aug 15, 2008 8:49:26 GMT -5
This is probably best on the Mattel board.
Anyway, it would be very much profitable for them to have a classics line as lots of revenue is brought from it.
|
|
AKI Man
Main Eventer
The Hunt Is On
Joined on: Jun 6, 2008 12:11:08 GMT -5
Posts: 4,533
|
Post by AKI Man on Aug 15, 2008 8:58:59 GMT -5
i think they will as theres lots of money to be made of them
|
|
|
|
Post by Next Manufactured’s Sweater on Aug 15, 2008 11:36:13 GMT -5
This is probably best on the Mattel board. Anyway, it would be very much profitable for them to have a classics line as lots of revenue is brought from it. Not necessarily. I'm sure it's something Mattel are looking at, but it'd be very risky of them to basically rehash the Jakks Classic Superstar range. Older wrestling fans aren't necessarily going to shell out on buying all those same figures again, and current classics collectors might not be too enthusiastic to buy up figures that are in a different scale to the ones they have. Jakks continuing the classic line also seems a bit pointless. Anyone under WWE contract is likely going to be a no-no, as is releasing a figure of anyone from a point in their career that WWE owns copyright of - and considering WWE owns almost every tape library in wrestling history, there aren't many guys left. I mean, look at the list on the first page: From when, his couple of weeks in TNA? His WWF and WCW days are all owned by Vince. He's only been in TNA two years and he looks practically exactly the same. How would releasing a "classic" Angle from 2006 be different from a "current" Angle? Of course, he might change his look by 2010, or be retired. So it's a possibility. Again, WWE own his career pre-2007. Except for maybe some VERY early stuff in the 80s, and who would really associate that with Booker? Like most of the other suggestions in this list, the only possibilities not tied up by WWE are either their TNA debuts or their time on the independent circuit, where they wrestled using gimmicks and attires that nobody remembers them in. WWE. WWE. WWE. From when? Early TNA? WWE. WWE. WWE. WWE even owns the name Nailz. WWE. WWE. Unless it's the red trunks Japan version, and how classic is that? From when? WWE. Although you can pull a Sandman from his days in the indies, where he looks exactly the same as he did in his glory years anyway. WWE. |
|
|
|
Post by The Assassin on Aug 15, 2008 12:42:55 GMT -5
^^ WWE only owns some characters and some ring names, they don't own the people and their likenesses. It;s the exact same reason why Sting, Booker T, Scott Steiner, Raven, Christian etc can appear in TNA and other non-WWE feds, and even guys who have to change their name like the Dudleys still look basically the same and fans know who they are. There are plenty of people they could make without access to WWE copyrights.
Just like the WWE Classic Superstars line including non-WWE talent (Buff Bagwell, Tank Abbott, Bruiser Brody) the 2010 Jakks CS-style line will most likely include plenty of non-TNA superstars. Even if it's marketed under the WWE (or TNA) banner, the line is classic superstars of wrestling - all wrestling - Jakks have proved that already on plenty of occassions.
|
|
|
|
Post by 3Lephant (Naptown Icon) on Aug 15, 2008 13:51:39 GMT -5
Points well made, Assassin. I find myself agreeing with you more and more every day.
|
|
|
|
Post by Next Manufactured’s Sweater on Aug 15, 2008 13:56:30 GMT -5
^^ WWE only owns some characters and some ring names, they don't own the people and their likenesses. It;s the exact same reason why Sting, Booker T, Scott Steiner, Raven, Christian etc can appear in TNA and other non-WWE feds, and even guys who have to change their name like the Dudleys still look basically the same and fans know who they are. There are plenty of people they could make without access to WWE copyrights. Just like the WWE Classic Superstars line including non-WWE talent (Buff Bagwell, Tank Abbott, Bruiser Brody) the 2010 Jakks CS-style line will most likely include plenty of non-TNA superstars. Even if it's marketed under the WWE (or TNA) banner, the line is classic superstars of wrestling - all wrestling - Jakks have proved that already on plenty of occassions.[/quote] Buff Bagwell and Tank Abbott were not WWE superstars, but everything of note that they ever did in wrestling (ie their WCW careers) is under the WWE banner. WWE and Jakks were not interfering with anyone else's intellectual properties there. But if Jakks and TNA start releasing "classic superstars" of guys based on their WWE careers - a Macho Man based on his win at WrestleMania 4 or his career-ending match against Warrior - then they're in a tricky situation, legally. Essentially, if Jakks are using WWE photos and videos as the reference for the figures, they are thieving. And you're wrong on the likenesses. WWE do own the likenesses of those people as they looked when performing for WWE. That's why shoot interviews don't have clips of matches to illustrate points that ex-WWE employees are talking about. That's why WWE can put out a DVD on ladder matches but Christian can't make his own TLC compilation from his WWF days and release it. Aren't Team 3D prevented from wearing camoflauge gear in TNA? There might be a way around this anyway, or maybe WWE just doesn't bother pursuing these matters. The thing that makes me think this is the Legends of Wrestling game franchise. That thing ripped off tons of WWE-owned material, everything but the entrance music. So legally there could be some loophole. |
|
|
|
Post by The Assassin on Aug 15, 2008 14:22:32 GMT -5
Yeah but LoW wasn't exactly competition for WWE, only their mainly-current-based video games (until the "Legends Of Wrestlemania" was announced) so that might explain that. i doubt TNA would get the same consideration.
WWE do not own people's likenesses though in terms of their face and natural body i mean, it's possible they own some aspects of their attires, trademark phrases, character names, etc, i don't know the full details and it varies between individuals, but the wrestlers real names and natural physical appearance cannot be owned by WWE. the reason shoot interviews and such do not include match clips is because WWE owns the FOOTAGE copyrights (ie the actual video tapes) i think that's where you are getting confused.
I still maintain my original point though, there are many, many classic wrestlers that could be made in a 2010+ CS-style line. even if some have to be released under a slightly different name or look. Obviously some would be out of the question entirely, Goldust for example, I can't imagine any way around that since WWE owns the character, name and look/attire. But Jakks could most definetely make Dustin Rhodes or Blackreign as long as Dustin isn't under WWE contract.
|
|
dollarbill07
Mid-Carder
If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.
Joined on: May 16, 2007 19:54:05 GMT -5
Posts: 227
|
Post by dollarbill07 on Aug 15, 2008 14:34:25 GMT -5
Edit: I see someone already made a similar point to mine above.
Just look at the Legends of Wrestling video game series made by Acclaim several years back. The game wasn't associated with WWE, but it had a huge roster of classic wrestlers some even wearing attire that they wore while in WWE minus trademarked logos and names. Jakks won't be able to make figures with names or logos trademarked by WWE, but they shouldn't have a problem aside from that. Should they? For example, I'm pretty sure that game featured Macho Man in his orange trunks with white stars and an outfit very similar to his nWo attire. If Jakks ended up signing Macho Man, wouldn't they be able to make figures like this?
Just because WWE owns the video library to a certain company does not mean that they own the rights to the wrestlers' names or likenesses. They own WCW's video library, which allows them to use the footage however they want, but they can't claim ownership to the wrestlers featured on the video like Sting, for example.
|
|
Raine
Main Eventer
Joined on: Aug 8, 2006 12:11:52 GMT -5
Posts: 1,505
|
Post by Raine on Aug 15, 2008 16:23:50 GMT -5
Edit: I see someone already made a similar point to mine above. Just look at the Legends of Wrestling video game series made by Acclaim several years back. The game wasn't associated with WWE, but it had a huge roster of classic wrestlers some even wearing attire that they wore while in WWE minus trademarked logos and names. Jakks won't be able to make figures with names or logos trademarked by WWE, but they shouldn't have a problem aside from that. Should they? For example, I'm pretty sure that game featured Macho Man in his orange trunks with white stars and an outfit very similar to his nWo attire. If Jakks ended up signing Macho Man, wouldn't they be able to make figures like this? Just because WWE owns the video library to a certain company does not mean that they own the rights to the wrestlers' names or likenesses. They own WCW's video library, which allows them to use the footage however they want, but they can't claim ownership to the wrestlers featured on the video like Sting, for example. Correct, for example just because Sting is featured in WCW's video library doesn't means Vince owns the character, likeness, etc. Otherwise how would TNA have put a figure out of him? Obviously characters he created like Goldust & Nailz, are his property but Randy Savage was the Macho Man before he joined the WWF, and obviously owns the name and likeness as he used it in WCW. |
|
|
|
Post by Next Manufactured’s Sweater on Aug 15, 2008 17:10:22 GMT -5
WWE do not own people's likenesses though in terms of their face and natural body i mean, it's possible they own some aspects of their attires, trademark phrases, character names, etc, i don't know the full details and it varies between individuals, but the wrestlers real names and natural physical appearance cannot be owned by WWE. the reason shoot interviews and such do not include match clips is because WWE owns the FOOTAGE copyrights (ie the actual video tapes) i think that's where you are getting confused. I'm not getting confused. Wrestlers sign their likeness rights to WWE. Whether that's for video broadcast/sales, t-shirts, action figures or whatever is down to WWE. If WWE didn't own these likenesses, their merchandising wouldn't be worth much and any figure company (or t-shirt company, or anyone making any kind of tat) could make individual deals and put out figures (or whatever) of any wrestler regardless of who they worked for. Long as they didn't use the WWE-owned name on it. Well, yes, but why on earth would they make a Black Reign classic superstar? That's my point. The options for "classic" superstars that are clearly legally viable are mostly stupid and would indicate a huge downturn in credibility for the line. A Dustin Rhodes figure is a possibility, but a "Dustin Rhodes from WCW in 1991" figure is legally dodgy. Just like a "Macho Man from WrestleMania 8" figure is dodgy. Or a "Sting from Fall Brawl 93" is dodgy. |
|
|
|
Post by twinn on Aug 15, 2008 17:10:43 GMT -5
All i have to say is that there are many many more cs guys that can be made. Jakks has just scratched the surface. That's so true.....I really hope Mattel does a classic series....If they don't then my collecting days have come to an end (which my not be a bad thing)...... |
|
|
|
Post by Smash Ventura on Aug 15, 2008 19:15:41 GMT -5
well heres the issue with this wwe owns everybodys likeness opinion...
in some cases thats right such as undertaker,kane, the british bull dogs with the kind of look they had during there wwf run...but it also in other cases is not correct...
the dudleys for example are only prevented from using there old names...wearing camo was something they did before wwe signed them and they still do now...
as far as legends like macho man...during his midsouth days and a legendary fued with jerry the king lawler he had...
1 those classic macho man sunglasses
2 the familliar short tights of random colors depending on what combo he was going for that night with the 3 white stars on the front and "macho man" on the back with a star on either side...
3 multi colored knee pads depending on what color combo he was going with that night....
4 even his yellow boots with 2 stars on them
and 5 his glittery headbands and robes(which in all fairness got more bling blingish when those big wwf dollars began to roll in...
and his later years with the whole cowboy hat phase...when he went to wcw he used the same exact look....
so the point im making here is jakks in 2010 can put out a macho man in any of the color combos he has worn threw out his time in wrestling... because the look that savage created for himself is his not wwes...
even though i dont agree with the ultimate warriors mess with wwe, one of the main reasons wwe lost that case was they were trying to claim that they created his look..and jim hellwig was able to present photos of himself from is wccw days and so on clearly showing the face paint style the color combo out fits,the armbands and even when he he began going clean shaving face wise and began to grow his hair out just prior to any sort of dealings with wwf.
this logic also applys to people like sting,the road warriors ricky the dragon steamboat,ric flair and so on....
so while this is true for people that have a look thought up by wwf creative, it is not true for those people who made there own look and went on to use it in wwf...
just my 2 cents...lol
|
|
luxzombie
Mid-Carder
Hell Is Full!
Joined on: Feb 19, 2008 22:38:43 GMT -5
Posts: 244
|
Post by luxzombie on Aug 15, 2008 19:35:33 GMT -5
THANK YOU Benjames!!! I think a lot of people think Vince owns everything. He owns a lot of libraries but not the wrestlers in them. Examples:
LOD w/ Rocco-yes AWA/NWA Road Warriors-no
Diesel-yes Kevin Nash-no
Razor Ramon-yes Scott Hall-no
Sting, blond or crow-no
Missy Hyatt-no
Footage of performances-yes Likeness-no
|
|
|
|
Post by Smash Ventura on Aug 15, 2008 20:20:52 GMT -5
luxzombie, you hit the nail on the head dude:)
|
|
JJ420
Superstar
6 (4 UK, 2 US) refs so far!
Joined on: Jan 21, 2008 19:07:30 GMT -5
Posts: 828 
|
Post by JJ420 on Aug 15, 2008 22:37:56 GMT -5
I'm hoping for a CS style line - and I hope that Hogan gets signed to it  Does anyone know the about the legalities surrounding the Hulk Hogan name? The last I heard, Hogan was said to own the rights to names Hulk Hogan, Hollywood Hulk Hogan, and Hulkster... God bless. |
|
|
|
Post by Smash Ventura on Aug 15, 2008 22:48:16 GMT -5
JJ420, well im not sure on the peticulars the name "hulk" is owned by marvel comics but all threw out hogans career he has had some mutial agreement with them so that he can use "hulk"... when ever he has a product t shirt poster or what have you you will often see mavel comics in the fine print... he dose own hogan and hollywood hogan outright..
hulks likeness is also his....not sure on the hulk a mania part as when he was first in wcw he went to wearing shirts that said hulkster rather then hulkamania... but hogan to yellow and red look and his total likeness is his....
|
|
