My Pockets DON'T have Monsters in them!

[Drtooth]

In case you can't tell, I'm talking about that old line of miniature collectible figures, Monster in My Pocket. I have to get on this rant because it's really been bugging me.

A couple years ago (4 at most) a certain toy company was drawing up plans for a new series of Monsters in my Pocket figures to be released sometime in the past 3 years. Now, I've seen Kitties in my Pocket, Puppies in my Pocket, Babies in my Pocket... now I see Zoo in my Pocket and Ocean in my Pocket...

NO MONSTERS!

Now, I have a thing about this girl's toy bias (for the longest time, the girl's toy aisle was at least one and a quarter as big as the boy's section in various stores), but this is REDICULOUS! There are like 5 or 6 or more girl's versions of a boys toy that hasn't even made its comeback yet. That's like only making pink Power Wheels... or just releasing the girl Power Rangers.

Now, the toy industry has hurt like crazy for the past 4 years now (maybe even longer) but I don't see how small collectible packages of monster figures WOULDN'T grab a kid's attention. Sure, it's not that Bakugan garbage (and I'm REALLy up the wall about the Beyblade comeback... figures.. only Tatsunoko series they want to license here), but kids LOVE monsters. How come tiny toy crabs (Oceans in my Pocket) are a bigger draw than vampires and mummies and demons from Hades? What's the dang hold up? I want my monsters, by cracky!

 

[JJandJanice]

I'm not sure, myself, this is just another thoery of mine. But maybe, just maybe, it's a legal thing.

Of course I'm talking about Pokemon, cause Pokemon is actually short for "pocket monsters." Maybe their fearful that Nintendo would be all over them if they market something called "monsters in my pocket."

or...

They don't want people, especially kids, thinking of Pokemon right off the bat when marketing Monsters in my pocket.

I understand "Monsters in my Pocket" came out before Pokemon, but let's be honest, Pokemon had become a MUCH more well know and popular Toy line, that's still going fairly strong today.

Of course I'm not saying that's the reason outright, I'm just thinking perhaps, they could have something to do with one another.

 

[Luke]

I saw a pilot few minutes of a new Monsters In My Pocket cartoon a few years ago, it was quite good. I have no idea what happened with it.

 

[Drtooth]

I'm not sure, myself, this is just another thoery of mine. But maybe, just maybe, it's a legal thing.

Of course I'm talking about Pokemon, cause Pokemon is actually short for "pocket monsters." Maybe their fearful that Nintendo would be all over them if they market something called "monsters in my pocket."

That's not the case at all. They could easily change the name to "Graveyard" in my pocket or something like that. I doubt a toyline that came out at least 5-10 years before would be permanently barred because of an unrelated Japanese video game series, especially since Pocket Monsters IS the Japanese name for it, and it has never been referred to as that in the US. If anything else, it could be another Ghostbusters deal where two things just so happen to coincidentally have the same name (a 1970's obscure TV show and a movie that didn't have it as its original title) but there's no legal matter between the two.

No, I'm sure they thought that getting little girls to buy little animals was far more profitable. Very disappointing. It's like if they brought C.U.T.I.E.S. back and forgot all about M.U.S.C.L.E. A side line that was made only so girls wouldn't feel left out should NOT take predominance over the main line that was created first. After all, I don't remember a Konami video game edition of "Woodland Creatures in my Pocket."

 

[Redsonga]

I love girls toys and all things cute, but being a girl who also always wanted a IMNT I think they are missing a market to both genders by not doing the monsters. BTW, even though I love puppy and kitty IMP I wish they would go back to the hard plastic and stop making them all fuzzy

 

[Drtooth]

What REALLY bugs me is, exactly as I said, Kitties, Babies and Puppies in my Pocket were all spin off toys to appeal to another gender AFTER MIMP. It'd be annoying if they didn't actually have plans to make MIMP, but it's downright frustrating that they actually DID have plans and I saw prototypes years ago. They kept saying "Oh, we'll release them this year" then "Oh no, we're going to wait until the holiday season" and "Ehh... Spring! Spring of next year!" and "Hmmmmm... we're gonna test market the girls stuff first." That's product confidence right there.

Now, I pretty much couldn't get these things as a kid. mom wouldn't have let me have something that small and losable and more importantly lose all over the house and step on them somewhere in the kitchen-able. And I'm glad we got the Ultimate Muscle figure sets (especially since I found out exactly what they are, and have loved MUSCLES ever since). I also really enjoyed the Fistfull of Power series and I really want to grab a hold of the Marvel comics minifigures (very MUSCLE like)... but I just want some monsters that aren't Japanese and don't battle each other. To quote Reboot "You keep monsters in cages just so they can fight? That's sick!"

But if I absolutely must have Japanese monsters... Gegege no Kitaro ghosts... and Godzilla... and those things that are umbrellas with one eye. I love those things.

 

[CountFan1998]

Hey, Drtooth, How 'bout if they made MUPPET MONSTERS in my Pocket. 'Ya know, like Splurge, Sweetums, one of the Mutations, and that weird rabbit-eared creature. There could also be the Gorgs, though, they're not the 'intentionally scary' type, and Hugga Wugga, who I am STILL afraid of. How about the 'Jr.' line, like all the Sesame Monsters.

Would you settle for that, huh, huh, huh, Huh? I'm not gonna quit asking you until you answer. So will 'ya huh, huh, huh? .....MAN, I am WEIRD!

 

[JJandJanice]

^^
They would have to clear Disney for the rights to those Muppet Monsters. Why go though the effort to clear for Muppet monsters, when they could make the monsters they've already made.

 

[Gelfling Girl]

Hey, Drtooth, How 'bout if they made MUPPET MONSTERS in my Pocket. 'Ya know, like Splurge, Sweetums, one of the Mutations, and that weird rabbit-eared creature. There could also be the Gorgs, though, they're not the 'intentionally scary' type, and Hugga Wugga, who I am STILL afraid of. How about the 'Jr.' line, like all the Sesame Monsters.

As long as they have Beakie (the monster who sang "You and Me" with Alice Cooper), I'm all for this idea. Obscure characters rock! ...But the more reasonable side of me would settle for Sweetums. Although, as mentioned, it would probably be hard to get the rights to all these monsters.

 

[JJandJanice]

I don't mean to sound mean here and I'm not trying to step on anyone's Muppet related ideas, but honestly...Do you even really believe it would be WORTH it to make "Muppet monsters in my pocket."

I mean of course I'm a HUGE Muppet fan, but come one, most causal fans don't even know how Sweetums is, let anyone the likes of Beautiful Day Monster, Beakie, Hugga Wugga or Splurge. So why on earth would they even consider making those? That would be a pretty big dream for Muppet fans, but it ain't happening. Honsetly, from a bussiness standpoint, if they WERE to want to do some sort of "Muppet Monster in my pocket" thing, they probably would want to go the way of Sesame Street, meaning there will be Elmo or Cookie Monster in my pocket LONG before there will ever be a "Sweetums in my pocket," cause Elmo and Cookie would make WAY MORE money than Sweetums and the "core Muppet" Muppet monsters ever could. And I can't even see that much happening.

Just saying,