>>10439249>But either way, the point was they were made by Hasbropoint was
>39 years of uninterrupted production. Maintained worldwide popularity unlike Hasbro's other big creation, GI Joemy own point was
>So it basically only had like 4 great years in the 80s and about 4 great years in the 90s. Only in the 00s did Transformers really have uninteruptable successIt died in the US, and despite sugar coated wording from
>>10439133, it also can't deny it was also dying in other markets.
>I didn't know anyone that was huge into GI Joe until the late 80s after the Gulf War kicked offThat was also GI Joe's second wind in the US too. 91, 92, or 93 was Hasbro's second biggest year in sales. The years before were no slouch in sales either. Why Hasbro decided to go in another direction that crashed the franchise is just insane. It's the same dumbshit thing they did with Sigma 6, but Hasbro managed to recover from that pretty fast.
I get they want to strike while the iron is still hot, but they really fucked it up in the 90s. Even Marvel didn't want to cancel it (unlike Transformers).
As for GI Joe bombing in UK, they had some weird shit going on. It wasn't really called GI Joe until later (mid 80s), despite sharing the same characters or at least just the same molds. GI Joe kept going from the 80s to 90s, so it seemed pretty successful.
