Action Masters were hot garbage. Especially since some of them managed to somehow have even less articulation than their original transforming counterpart, which is saying something.

Bruh… Transformers have been in almost continuous production in one for or another since 1993. They were briefly discontinued in the late 80s and early 90s, and were brought back with the Generation 2 line and then Beast Wars. The longest period that Transformers haven’t been on the market since their introduction to the US market was between Generation 1 and Generation 2 from 1990-1993. Generation 2 fizzled in 1995, and was replace a little over a year later in 1996 with Beast Wars. Since then, the brand has had some continuous shelf presence.

And it’s a huge brand today that is largely sold to adult collectors with an attachment to whichever show or comic they indulged in as a kid. Yes, discontinuation can definitely drive nostalgia and a desire to collect something, but it isn’t a necessity. In the case of Transformers, it’s just created an ever-widening pool of things for new adult collectors to be interested in. Right now, there’s a growing interest in modern updates of the Unicron Trilogy characters (Armada/Energon/Cybertron), which were shows being aired from 2002-2005, followed by Transformers Animated and the Michael Bay films.

That really is the whole point, too. The entire conflict is based on the fact that Barbieland is a construct of the imaginary world created by girls playing with their dolls, in which Ken has only ever been marketed or existed as an accessory to Barbie. His entire existence, in both the real world of marketing and consumerism, and in the imaginary world of Barbie, is predicated solely on giving Barbie arm candy. I’m not entirely convinced that this point was entirely deliberate, but it really does highlight that, in creating a product to give girls a role model that says they can do and be whatever they want, that those girls internalized their understanding of the male-dominated world around them, and flipped that on its head. Their imaginary world is a very literal mirror to our own, and as a result, it is still dominated by the same inherently sexist attitudes, only kinder and gentler because they are created through the lens of childhood innocence. Kids are only able to create with tools and media they understand, and the polarized nature of the world around them, and our intense need to make everything a binary, means that a “fair world” never looks like one where everyone is treated the same. It’s a world where they’re in charge.

I’m not even going to get into the overtly sexist assumption that only girls play with dolls, and with Barbie in particular. Toys are toys, and I never understood the need to tell a kid that something is off limits because it’s pink or is “a doll”. The people who most strongly hold these beliefs tend to be the ones that grew up when GI Joe was a full size doll just like Barbie, with his own clothes and uniforms and such. Well before the idea of an “action figure” came around. These folks played with dolls that were, for all intents and purposes, functionally identical to any girls’ doll of the day, and yet are so quick to slap a Barbie or a Bratz doll out of the hands of their grandsons.

Anyhow, long story short, it’s a great movie that explores some very heavy subject matter, and almost but not quite gets its own premise. Most of the people who are irrationally angry with the film have never seen it, and probably won’t for fear of being turned gay, or worse: liberal.