Divatox and the better Beast era cartoon, what's not to like?
Hasbr-uh-oh - Business and Tariffs Discussion
- Thread starter Thylacine 2000
- Start date
Which have both cycled through the “normal” FAST Channels for both properties. I was just mildly amused that for something having launched in the past few days (I don’t recall it being on Prime last weekend, for example), that they opted to rep Power Rangers and Transformers by two of their…”lesser perceived”…series
To be honest, I think, aside from general brand association at this point, I would have preferred Hasbro not even bother with entries from Power Rangers and Transformers and give focus on their other older brands/series. Conan the Adventurer, COPS, I think MASK is owned (At least the core 65 episodes run)? Ditch My Little Pony and show Maxie’s World and the Jewel Riders (?) show Kenner did circa 1995. Be ballsy and see if they got any rights to the Kenner pilot for Shadow Riders and maybe dust off INHUMANOIDS. I mean, they got TWO Action Man series to pick from!
I just find it disappointing that with the library of content they DO have…they aren’t digging very far into it to fill content. Looking at the schedule, those shows i posted are the EXTENT of the content cycling through at the moment. And Hasbro has a LOT more than that to exploit.
Not saying for sure.. but while they may own the "Properties" they may not have airing rights, or music rights, or other things related with the TV shows.
As the thousands of fans who tuned -- 'scuse me, didn't tune in.
I mean, I'm fine with both, but Turbo nearly got Power Rangers cancelled, and Beast Machines basically forced Hasbro to abandon everything and hard reboot the franchise after 16 years. I'm surprised they'd be the first/only drafts for any sort of lineup like this.
From what I understand, Second half of Turbo is what saved Rangers.
In short, the showrunner MMPR to Turbo, was getting burned out so they transistioned to a new team which also lead production to decide the same for the cast (originally only Tommy and Kat were gonna leave, but they pushed out Adam and Tanya as well for a complete refresh) New Show runner was able to turn the series around and became known more or less as the best showrunner.
Not really. It rebounded enough to save the show for another season, but even with that In Space was planned to be the final go.
It was In Space being so good that saved the show.
Lost Galaxy is probably my favourite PR series. The show's theme and the source sentai's theme being so at odds should have lead to a disaster, but they pulled it off.
Likewise, Megaranger wasn't space-themed either. Sentai wouldn't have its first space-themed series until Kyuranger.
It's interesting to see how far they'd come by then in terms of adapting and repurposing the original material. I mean, they'd been doing that forever as the core premise of the show, and had to keep bending things to tie multiple non-Zyuranger series to a Zyuranger-based core team, but not to this level of effectiveness. Even someone like me who'd lapsed around the time of Zeo/Turbo is aware of the reputation In Space and Lost Galaxy have, and I've always thought from afar that they were pretty cool and well done.
I recently did a stint of reading old recap/review blogs discussing MMPR on, and the production choices and foibles were at times more interesting than the actual content of the shows.
I recently did a stint of reading old recap/review blogs discussing MMPR on, and the production choices and foibles were at times more interesting than the actual content of the shows.
Yeah, Space saved it, and thanks to that, I believe Lost Galaxy got a larger budget?
Two of my favorites right there, and you can find their influences in some of my writing.
Two of my favorites right there, and you can find their influences in some of my writing.
From what I understand, Power Rangers went through cycles were it was on their last legs, was about to be canceled, so they would put a lot of effort into the "final" season, which lead to the series getting renewed. It's happened at least twice (Once with In Space, and then later with RPM)
FWIW, they ARE cycling series. This night, Hasbro Legends had Beast WARS and Power Rangers IN SPACE. So there ya go.
Originally, with In Space set to be the final season, the plan was for Power Rangers to end while Mystic Knights of Tir Na Nog would get a second season call Mystic Knights: Battle Thunder. But when In Space was successful enough to keep Power Rangers going, Battle Thunder was canceled and its budget instead went to Lost Galaxy (and one toy mold from the canceled Battle Thunder toyline later saw the light of day in DinoZaurs).
RPM actually didn't save Power Rangers like In Space did. While it was an exceptionally written series like In Space was, Disney barely marketed it, kept it only on ABC Kids instead of Jetix (meaning it didn't have as wide a viewership), and the toy sales weren't remarkable (by this point, Bandai of America were making their own Zord toy molds instead of using the same Sentai mecha toy molds Bandai of Japan made).
This is why we got the MMPR reversion in 2010, because RPM wasn't a success and Disney really wanted to end PR completely (in fact, Disney had originally wanted to end PR with Jungle Fury; RPM only came about due to a contractual obligation with Jetix Europe that forced them to make one more season). The MMPR reversion didn't even make it all the way through Season 1, not even to the "Doomsday" two-parter that could have served as a sufficient finale (as it was originally intended to be back in 1993 before Saban saw how explosive MMPR's popularity was) if they weren't gonna make it all the way to the actual end of the first season.
Power Rangers only continued with Samurai onward because of Saban buying it back from Disney, who had come to treat Power Rangers like a redheaded stepchild after SPD was over.
Last edited:
Hasbro is currently embroiled in a pair of lawsuits concerning Magic The Gathering, and Hasbro's (particularly, Chris Cocks' involvement) in overproducing product and potentially misleading investors on brand strategy.
November 2025
This one alleges that, under Chris Cocks and several WotC executives, Hasbro misled investors about the strategy of a number of Magic sets. Describing the practice as using "parachute sets" (for us toy people, it seems comparable to a repaint or repackage wave: something that can be done on the quick to get additional product to market) to generate extra revenue to "shore up" Hasbro's deficiencies in other segments. This was filed by a pair of retirement funds.
January 2026
This one, citing the above as evidence, involves a pair of Hasbro investors alleging financial harm in...rebuying shares at inflated prices because Hasbro's statements caused the stock to be overvalued?
From amateur take on them is that...I'm not sure there is much there. Especially given the time frames, which well cover the the back end of the COVID-influenced boom and the resulting bust in late 2022/2023 when things started to "get back to normal". While there is an argument to be made on if the MTG sets were sound strategy, it becomes MUCH harder to argue intentional malfeasance in that strategy. Especially when you consider the same investors would be throwing a fit if Hasbro WASN'T trying to keep sales up. It becomes a catch 22 where if Hasbro didn't produce extra sets to capitalize on the COVID-era boom, Hasbro would likely STILL find itself in court for not making enough money!
The second one clearly sounds like sour grapes. From the timeframes, it seems obvious these bought into Hasbro during COVID when Hasbro was unable to keep stuff in stock, and probably made some poor investing decisions when the COVID boom went bust in late 2022.
November 2025
This one alleges that, under Chris Cocks and several WotC executives, Hasbro misled investors about the strategy of a number of Magic sets. Describing the practice as using "parachute sets" (for us toy people, it seems comparable to a repaint or repackage wave: something that can be done on the quick to get additional product to market) to generate extra revenue to "shore up" Hasbro's deficiencies in other segments. This was filed by a pair of retirement funds.
January 2026
This one, citing the above as evidence, involves a pair of Hasbro investors alleging financial harm in...rebuying shares at inflated prices because Hasbro's statements caused the stock to be overvalued?
From amateur take on them is that...I'm not sure there is much there. Especially given the time frames, which well cover the the back end of the COVID-influenced boom and the resulting bust in late 2022/2023 when things started to "get back to normal". While there is an argument to be made on if the MTG sets were sound strategy, it becomes MUCH harder to argue intentional malfeasance in that strategy. Especially when you consider the same investors would be throwing a fit if Hasbro WASN'T trying to keep sales up. It becomes a catch 22 where if Hasbro didn't produce extra sets to capitalize on the COVID-era boom, Hasbro would likely STILL find itself in court for not making enough money!
The second one clearly sounds like sour grapes. From the timeframes, it seems obvious these bought into Hasbro during COVID when Hasbro was unable to keep stuff in stock, and probably made some poor investing decisions when the COVID boom went bust in late 2022.
That's my take on it too, similar to that previous nothingburger (over Marvel and/or Star Wars overproduction in 2020-2ish).
But then I guess when your entire game is "sit back and watch line go up" you're extra motivated to keep insisting that line go up.
But then I guess when your entire game is "sit back and watch line go up" you're extra motivated to keep insisting that line go up.
"Liar! You were only trying to look profitable by... ... selling products that made money for little cost. We talked to ex employees who say it was even your strategy to do this."
These retirement funds should be barred from filing lawsuits against anyone on any grounds ever again.
These retirement funds should be barred from filing lawsuits against anyone on any grounds ever again.
The argument, as best I can tell, is that they are accusing Hasbro of undermining the “brand value” of Magic The Gathering (therefore, undermining the long term success of the Hasbro Corporate Entity) by producing an excessive number of sub-par additional sets. Sets whose releases, according to former employees testified in the lawsuit, were solely to “goose sales” to offset underperformance in other parts of the business. And that Hasbro mislead investors on the nature of the products, whose releases didn’t seem to have a positive impact on expected brand growth.
Which is kind of what business, especially publically traded ones, tend to do ALL the time. An equivalent I can think of would be suing Microsoft or Activision arguing that they were rushing out lackluster entries in the Call of Duty franchise just to make up for poor sales in other segments of the company.
It quickly falls into the realm of intentions and subjectivity. Was Cocks’ strategy sound? That’s debatable, and I’m sure much can be attributed to disruptions caused by the COVID pandemic and subsequent efforts to maximize on that boom. Was he and other execs INTENTIONALLY misleading investors on sales? That’s the rub, and “brand value” will always be subjective and variable.
I think the fundamental problem is that it seems a LOT of this comes from the highly irregular scenario COVID presented, and investors not familiar with this company jumping into a “boom cycle” without understanding a boom-bust cycle. The dates in question line up pretty close to the cycle produced by COVID
Sue Hasbro for trying to convert an opportunity into money, because it devalues the brand (while I'm not wild about Hasbro basically turning MTG into Fortnite, it makes sense from the POV of leveraging what works/sells at a time when gambles are hard to make room for).
Sue Hasbro for NOT trying to convert an opportunity into money, because they have to make their investors rich.
Oh, to have enough money and free time to engage in this nonsense and still have way more than I need if it doesn't pan out.
Sue Hasbro for NOT trying to convert an opportunity into money, because they have to make their investors rich.
Oh, to have enough money and free time to engage in this nonsense and still have way more than I need if it doesn't pan out.
