>>6696549>I don't believe anyone thought Jem was a rip off of BarbieWell, maybe not to the kids. But consider that even today, we attribute anything doll related to Barbie, the public/parents of the time probably did think Jem was a rip off. Nowadays, with our understanding of manufacturing lead times etc, we know that if 2 similar toys were released say, just a couple weeks apart, it would be literally impossible for either to have ripped off the other if the ripping off were to occur after launch.
But anyway, given that even the former CEO or President or whoever of Mattel admitted to ripping off Jem's rocker gimmick, there's really no need for a "discussion" on this. The mic's been dropped.
Anyway, those year stamps aren't always accurate. They may be denoting year of manufacturing/copyrighting/etc, not date of release.
>>6696365>I'm not really getting why they'd do Star TrekThere hasn't been a super significant toyline or manufacturer of Star Trek, but Star Trek merch is out there and one of the criteria for selecting the toys (not necessarily toylines) is whether there's a big existing fandom of it.
This episode would bring in the Trekkies. Which helps with the ratings.
There are some toys that are huge, but nobody really thinks about 'em as toylines per se. Like Army Men or Silly Putty/Play Doh/Modelling Clay. Everybody's had these at some point of their lives but we wouldn't really think of them as proper toylines.
