Fujis Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 There is something quintessential about a 2" Minimate body. Even thought the 3" was the first minimate once they became the more recognizable 2" size they seemed to flourish where the 3" floundered. Whether it was the eclectic choice of licenses or the fact that the 3" body simply didn't captivate people one thing is clear: not one licensed 3" line made it to a second wave. I wonder if these lines would have been more successful if AA had started off with the 2" body? And I wonder, if given the chance, if these licenses could be resurrected if they got the 2" treatment? What do you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdyCarter Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 I think it was a combination of perculiar licenses coupled with some less than stellar marketing that did it. DST are the saviours of Minimates in my book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fujis Posted June 19, 2006 Author Share Posted June 19, 2006 I agree. But would the Marvel line have been as successful in the 3" inch scale? What prompted the change I wonder? As I'm writing this I'm thinking it was simply the restrictions of the Marvel license which required them to make figures under 3" tall since another company had the rights to 3" figures already... Can you imagine a 3" Spider-Man? Has anyone customized superheroes in the 3" scale? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdyCarter Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 I dunno if Marvel would have succeeded in 3", 3" mates jsut dont seem very.... mini... Im with you on the "Marvel license forced scale change idea", but perhaps it was also down to cost and the notion of 2-packs vs individual figures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBT! Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 yep Ady right, 3" arent very mini, the two inch seems to be a much better design for its size that the 3". He's also right that DST Helped get these to people that would actually buy them. and Finally... Rock mates... I can see why they failed, how many people out there actually wany Alice Cooper toys? T. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fujis Posted June 19, 2006 Author Share Posted June 19, 2006 3" arent very mini, the two inch seems to be a much better design for its size that the 3". He's also right that DST Helped get these to people that would actually buy them. and Finally... Rock mates... I can see why they failed, how many people out there actually wany Alice Cooper toys? I completely agree that the 2" body is a better design then the 3". Despite the size and weight of the 3" they seem fragile somehow. They all seem to suffer from varying degrees of "Loose Joint Syndrome". And I think it was more the choice of characters that tanked the Rock line. I am not a fan of any of the artists that were included in this line despite the fact that Techno Zombie is one of my favorite 3" minimates and that White Zombie would have been the coolest 3" minimate ever! Perhaps they would have done better if groups like Tenacious D, Andre 3000 (both of which have been created by Matt "Iron-Cow' Cauley) or even The Beatles were made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 Whenever I review 3" Miniamtes I always start off my poking fun at the licenses. Quite, quite bizarre. No wonder they were a niche product until Marvel hit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amazing.JL Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 We all know the Marvel product license made minimates what they are. I think they would have succeeded in the 2.5" scale, not sure they would in the 3" scale. Still would love to get a 3" spidey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickyroma Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 The 2'' Minimates look much better to me than the 3'' ones; I still love those trek 3 inchers though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logan Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 In my opinion, the 3" body sucks. Like Ady and TBT said, compared to the 2" body, 3" doesn't seem mini. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fujis Posted June 19, 2006 Author Share Posted June 19, 2006 There's just something endearing about the 3" Minimates to me. Maybe I'm a sucker for an underdog and the fact that they didn't make it makes me want to support them. Or maybe it's the nostalgia factor like owning a Beta VCR (or I suppose a VCR period these days). But I agree that the 2" body is a better design. I think we should start referring to the 3" body as the Gen 1 Minimates. It seems that a toy line has reached a certain level when people start throwing that term around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyc Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 Maybe, but where would that put the 2.5" body type? Also in the 2" scale we've seen variation in construction styles that may be better usage for gen 1/2/whatever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fujis Posted June 20, 2006 Author Share Posted June 20, 2006 I was just kidding about the Gen 1 stuff Cyc but if I had to I'd break it down like this: 3" = Gen 1 2" = Gen 2 (and points could be used to denote the design differences here .1 for the first, .2, etc.) 2.5" = Gen 2 1/2 (Gen Two and a half - get it?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdyCarter Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 I think bringing gens into it would be a little confusing... Normally the highest gen is the curren model, but with the 2.5" mates and stuff it would get crazily confusing (or perhaps Im just old) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cappy Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 Well, you are old, Ady. It maintain the 2-1/2" mates are the best size -- still fairly mini, big enough to get a bit more detail and more compatible with other lines (Kubrick, Palz), and engineered based on the 2" design. Whether 3" Marvel mates would have sold? Hmm. I believe not. The size would have stuck them in the collector/designer toy category. They never would have been compared to Lego and the closest DST would have gotten to mass market was Tower Records. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fujis Posted June 20, 2006 Author Share Posted June 20, 2006 I maintain the 2-1/2" mates are the best size -- still fairly mini, big enough to get a bit more detail and more compatible with other lines (Kubrick, Palz), and engineered based on the 2" design. I like the 2-1/2" scale the least. Maybe it's because Marvel figures are 2" or maybe somehow I feel they're the "middle-child" of the Minimates line. Not quite the stature of the older brother and certainly not as successful as the younger brother. More minimates in that scale might help to persuade me and if the rumors about the Speed Racer line being in the 2-1/2" scale are true (which I doubt) then I just might have my chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cappy Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 Yeah, my viewpoint is an "alternate universe" one -- it only works if you imagine minimates have always been that size. That is, in my perfect world, all the Marvel mates, Star Trek, whatever, would be 2-1/2". Does that make sense? In the real world? Gotta stick with the 2" mates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jatta Pake Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 I think there is something magical about the 2" size. The 2.5" and 3" size just seem too chunky and blocky. I think AA went with the 2.5" size for the LOTR because 1.5" hobbits would have been just too small. In retrospect, I believe it would have made it to wave three and beyond with a 2" Aaragorn and 1.5" Frodo. I truly hope 2" stays the standard. And I'd swear the Speed Racer protos look 2". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 Whenever I review 3" Miniamtes I always start off my poking fun at the licenses. Quite, quite bizarre. No wonder they were a niche product until Marvel hit. The thing is that if you consider what was going on in the toy industry as a whole, they make perfect sense. McFarlane toys was at it's peak, and was doing very well producing (drumroll) KISS, Ozzy, Alice Cooper, Iron Maiden, and Rob Zombie figures! Although not 'in' at the moment, they are all popular music icons with very strong fan bases. AA received good opinions for Crouching Tiger, but the timing on the figures was less-than-optimal. Trek also was in a weird place in terms of exposure, but going with TOS was the best way to go at that time. As all these minimates were hitting, the entire figure market was in the process of a recession, and many things changed, not just for AA but for every other company in the industry as well - things started drying up. You have to admit that it is humorous how the Minimates came out at 3" - just slightly larger than the Kubricks. That's America, baby! I don't think the 3" body was 'too large' and led to the downfall of the early minimates. DST handled the Marvel license brilliantly, and to be honest, Marvel is pretty easy to make money off of. The 2" body also is cheaper to produce, so earnings will be more per unit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 But kirbs, to me, McFarlane were a niche toy manufacturer too. And who really wants an 18" Eddie figure apart from mad Iron Maiden fans? NECA will run into the same problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickyroma Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 To me, 2 inchers are still #1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.