The MLP Arena
Pony Talk => Off Topic => The Dollhouse => Topic started by: Zapper on August 14, 2020, 07:29:52 AM
-
Hasbro has gotten themselves into some hot water when a mother posted the Trolls World Tour "Giggle n Sing" Poppy doll on her instagram, remarking how the doll had a special button between her legs that wasn't advertised on the box.
When pressing her belly this Poppy doll would either giggle or sing a snippet from her movie songs but when pressing the "hidden" button she would gasp, shriek or say "oops".
The post went viral and soon Hasbro got accused of sexualizing the doll, trying to smuggle the weird feature into little girls rooms without the parents knowing since it wasn't an advertised feature.
Hasbro silently discontinued the doll.
According to senior vice president of Hasbro, this is the reason why the doll had sensitive "private parts":
This feature was designed to react when the doll was seated, but we recognize the placement of the sensor may be perceived as inappropriate. This was not intentional and we are happy to provide consumers with a replacement Poppy doll of similar value through our Consumer Care team.
Let's hope this team is not in charge of any G5 toys. How daft do you have to be to put a button for "seating" right between a female doll's legs :lol:
They could have come up with a better engineering solution, after all they've made niftier gimmicks in the past. Imagine if they had put a lever between a boy doll's legs, haha...
-
Wow, that it wasn't advertised was really strange. I had thought there was an accessory that came with the doll for that purpose (like a throne or something since she is a queen) but looks like that's not the case. Seems to me like a planned accessory was cut or that everyone just designed the toy by closing their eyes.
-
I’ve been wondering if the button was supposed to be on her tummy originally as shown on the box and then someone altered the final design to put the button between her legs without changing the photos on the box. I do think whoever designed the button to be there wasn’t thinking and it’s a bad design choice.
Ponyfan
-
If it's meant to be triggered by sitting why does it shriek or say oops? Like it's not usual to shriek when you sit down
-
Yeah I saw that. I could understand if they had been meant to interact with playsets like a Playground, or County Fair. But they weren't and whoever did this should feel bad.
That's okay. It'll go down in history with other What Were They Thinking? Toy designs and we'll all have a good time making fun of it.
-
Kind of makes me wonder if someone is going to hide some away and then try to sell them for a profit later. You never know how "collectible" some of the new toy lines are going to end up. :wonder:
-
My local Walmart still has this doll on the shelves.
Ponyfan
-
My local Walmart still has this doll on the shelves.
Get one to review her for us. Just kidding, that is one ugly doll.
Post Merge: August 14, 2020, 02:47:15 PM
If it's meant to be triggered by sitting why does it shriek or say oops? Like it's not usual to shriek when you sit down
Poppy works in mysterious ways!
-
they re-used the design from previous years of Troll toys... several Trolls have 2 button mechanisms but these were from the Ol' Days of the 90's
-
haha, ohhhh dear. Very unfortunate :P How the heck did the design go through so many people without ANYone blowing the whistle on it? I mean, a lot of the time when controversies like this pop up, it's like "oh c'mon, it's only bad if you have a dirty mind" but this one... how did they miss it. XP
-
Is she supposed to be tumbling or falling when she sits? Like a toddler trying to learn to walk? It is a BABY version of Poppy, so is that possible? I’m just trying to come up with an explanation for “Oops!”... >_<;
Anyhoo... yeah, it’s a terrible design choice. I honestly, sincerely don’t think it was MEANT to be inappropriate (as some conspiracy theorists around the web are raving about), but the overall effect is... cringe-inducing. That said, I think the loons around the internet talking about boycotts and such are taking it to a major extreme... But that’s the internet for you. Everyone loves a scandal. :P
As LaW points out: in a few years, it’ll be on one of those “Top 10” lists of bad toy ideas, alongside “Growing Up Skipper”, and those 50s science kits that came with live uranium samples and a geiger counter. <_<;
they re-used the design from previous years of Troll toys... several Trolls have 2 button mechanisms but these were from the Ol' Days of the 90's
That’s a really interesting point that I haven’t seen anyone bring up—good detective work!
-
Yikes. Glad it got discontinued.
-
Is she supposed to be tumbling or falling when she sits? Like a toddler trying to learn to walk? It is a BABY version of Poppy, so is that possible? I’m just trying to come up with an explanation for “Oops!”... >_<;
Anyhoo... yeah, it’s a terrible design choice. I honestly, sincerely don’t think it was MEANT to be inappropriate (as some conspiracy theorists around the web are raving about), but the overall effect is... cringe-inducing.
Yeah I am pretty sure this is how it was meant to be. But like others have said this should have gotten reworked some time during the design process :lol:
It simply shows how cost cutting and rushing out products is more important than thinking twice about how certain designs could be perceived.
-
Have you seen the video of someone claiming the new giggle g5 pinkie is the same thing? The on switch is between the legs but the sensor is the face. Or the lol dolls being color changed in water when that was heavily advertised that they did that online...... I think some parents are just looking for someone to blame for their lack of research since the troll went viral. (which was an actual poor design)
-
The lol dolls being color changed in water when that was heavily advertised
I think the issue with L.O.L. was/is more about their skimpy and sexy clothes. Sometimes kids are given these as presents and parents can't control and research everything. Toy companies could just not produce baby dolls in adult human lingerie in case of L.O.L.
Should parents not voice their concerns about these designs?
I mean, it's perfectly possible these things are bad for girls without there being a conspiracy. Little girls are way too early exposed to crazy body image and sexualized clothes via their toys just because toy makers these days want to tap into the secondary market of adult collectors. But I gotta ask myself: what adult enjoys babies in bralets and lacy panties? I can only think of people who enjoy crap like Toddlers and Tiaras. Sorry to anyone who enjoys the L.O.L. dolls that are not dressed like Lolitas :P
And "it's just plastic, it's not a real girl" is no excuse for me either. After all, these are deliberately made to look like cutesy female babies and not art toys like Kidrobot's Munny.
They have a grown up version of L.O.L. which bothers me less. Except for their hard nipples. Of course MGAE had to put something like that on the dolls. They seem to love scandal. Does a girl really need to play with her doll's erect nips? Doubt it. And dolls don't need genitalia either. It's all just uselessly sexing up a toy for a kid just so adults can get a kick out of it (doll collectors loved the nips, obviously). We're weird and sometimes I think we have almost as much entitlement as Bronies when it comes to fashion dolls. Some companies are pandering more to us than to parents.
-
If it's meant to be triggered by sitting why does it shriek or say oops? Like it's not usual to shriek when you sit down
Kinda what I was thinking too. I wasn't aware it was unadvertised! I thought it was just one button. Somebody needs to loose their job over this because its really just gross.
-
They said that that feature was "not meant to be there." yet proceeds to say it was supposed to be triggered when she sits. Which is it Hasbro??
-
The lol dolls being color changed in water when that was heavily advertised
I think the issue with L.O.L. was/is more about their skimpy and sexy clothes. Sometimes kids are given these as presents and parents can't control and research everything. Toy companies could just not produce baby dolls in adult human lingerie in case of L.O.L.
Should parents not voice their concerns about these designs?
I mean, it's perfectly possible these things are bad for girls without there being a conspiracy. Little girls are way too early exposed to crazy body image and sexualized clothes via their toys just because toy makers these days want to tap into the secondary market of adult collectors. But I gotta ask myself: what adult enjoys babies in bralets and lacy panties? I can only think of people who enjoy crap like Toddlers and Tiaras. Sorry to anyone who enjoys the L.O.L. dolls that are not dressed like Lolitas :P
And "it's just plastic, it's not a real girl" is no excuse for me either. After all, these are deliberately made to look like cutesy female babies and not art toys like Kidrobot's Munny.
They have a grown up version of L.O.L. which bothers me less. Except for their hard nipples. Of course MGAE had to put something like that on the dolls. They seem to love scandal. Does a girl really need to play with her doll's erect nips? Doubt it. And dolls don't need genitalia either. It's all just uselessly sexing up a toy for a kid just so adults can get a kick out of it (doll collectors loved the nips, obviously). We're weird and sometimes I think we have almost as much entitlement as Bronies when it comes to fashion dolls. Some companies are pandering more to us than to parents.
I personally don't see them as babies. I am not usually a fan of baby dolls, I find them creepy. But I see LOLs as just being short adults like the Munchkins from Wizard of Oz. That might be why I still don't have any OMG dolls. The idea of them having big sisters ruins the effect of them being fully grown tiny people.
But oh I hear you about the entitlement of doll collectors. Ever since Monster High if a doll doesn't have full articulation it's trash. Despite growing up with limited articulation dolls like Bratz and pre Fashionistas Barbie and articulated dolls were usually a rare gimmick.
If it's meant to be triggered by sitting why does it shriek or say oops? Like it's not usual to shriek when you sit down
Kinda what I was thinking too. I wasn't aware it was unadvertised! I thought it was just one button. Somebody needs to loose their job over this because its really just gross.
Funny thing is I'm pretty sure they showed this at Toy Fair and nobody there noticed then either.
-
If it's meant to be triggered by sitting why does it shriek or say oops? Like it's not usual to shriek when you sit down
Maybe if you stick a toy bee under her butt. :lol:
-
On the subject of L.O.L.: I feel like nipples and such are just natural parts of the human body... why must they be associated only with sexualization? I would rather we move into an era of more body positivity, where we stop seeing every aspect of the human form as something scandalous that needs to be censored.
The clothes are a different matter, and I can see why people might feel put off by the... more grown-up looking outfits. That said, the gimmick of the series is that it’s a town (or civilization? XD) run entirely by babies, so dressing them like mini adults is sort of the theme? I collect the small dolls very casually, but I’ve never encountered anything that a Bratz doll wouldn’t wear.
Doll articulation entitlement: YES. So much yes. I get that having poseability is great and all, but there are SO many collectors who hate on and leave negative reviews for every doll that doesn’t have 100+ points of articulation. It’s really absurd, given how rare even knee articulation was just ten years ago.
-
I've never been a big fan of L.O.L's. They just aren't for me but I've seen a lot of children playing with them and enjoying them.
Ponyfan
-
Oh don't even get me started on the articulation thing. That drives me up the wall. Yes, articulation's great, but it doesn't/shouldn't make-or-break a doll!!! If someone wants to only collect articulated dolls, that's fine and I fully support them - but quit trashing other dolls just cause they don't meet your absurdly high standards! >_< The amount of times I've seen people throw Enchantimals under the bus simply because "not enough articulation"...
-
On the subject of L.O.L.: I feel like nipples and such are just natural parts of the human body... why must they be associated only with sexualization? I would rather we move into an era of more body positivity, where we stop seeing every aspect of the human form as something scandalous that needs to be censored.
Because it's weird, imo, to mold erect nipples onto a female doll when there is no reason. The dolls have these crazy cartoon faces and then they have these nips. Just doesn't look like "natural" was the inspiration here.
A happy medium is doll boobs without molded on bras but without sculpted or painted on nipples, either. Barbie didn't even have a belly button for ages. She didn't even have toes even tho she had heeled sandals, of course.
And for that matter, I don't appreciate doll junk, either. It's kids toys, not mannequins for biology class. After all, what are kids supposed to reenact with doll private bits? It's much more important to sculpt holding hands for interaction with accessories because that's part of the play.
As for "body positivity", again it's a plaything. A plaything with Kim Kardashian's proportions, saucer eyes, barely a nose, face full of Drag-up and wearing crippling heels (the human body wasn't meant to walk like this, that's a fact). I don't think anything about these dolls is "body positive" except for the wide range of skin tones, which is somezhing MGAE spearheaded and that's nice.
O.M.G. is very obviously not here to ease girls into being okay with their looks, it's a pop culture-esque, pun-filled glam fashion line based on L.O.L. characters. It's supposed to be loud and glitzi and over the top. If I wanted to give a child a doll that helps them with their self-image I'd go for these American girl types or even a Barbie Fashionista.
Now a pregnant doll should definitely have nips to feed her baby with, but that's the irony: these kind of dolls only come with bottles and people are mad when the doll doesn't have a wedding ring :lol: Kids don't even notice that because these days, mom and dad are not even wearing their rings 24/7.
And before fans get mad, no I do not think it is an outraaaage or conspiracy or whatever to give O.M.G.s this feature. But they are based on L.O.L.s which are already sexualized at times, so I am all "mhhhh, is this meant to draw in adult collectors"? And given how popular these are with adults who wax poetically about the boobs and lingerie, I'd say, yes, this is MGAE trying to get a secondary market ;)
-
When Barbie was first released in 1959, there were parents who were outraged that the doll had breasts at all. Barbie’s creator argued that “women have breasts” and therefore Barbie ought to have them too, rather than being shapeless like the porcelain-type dolls (even the ones representing adults) that came before. For that matter... women have nipples—and they’re never totally smooth or colorless. For that matter, EVERYONE has nipples (which are not smooth/colorless either). As a kid, I was frankly confused as to why Barbie didn’t. XD
As for genitalia, I’d argue the same... Especially since the dolls in question are mini baby dolls that often have a peeing gimmick (none of the adult dolls are anatomically correct in that department). So as for what they’re supposed to reenact... I’d say changing a diaper? That’s something any kid with younger siblings is probably familiar with.
There are people out there who even complain about Breyer horses being “anatomically correct”, but again... that’s just how real horses look. Why turn it into a problem?
In the body positivity department, I was more talking about body acceptance in general, rather than weight or beauty standards. If body parts like nipples are censored out of dolls (or Breyer horses, for that matter), that just feels kind of... shaming, to me. Like we’re saying those parts are so unspeakable that they can’t even be represented on a piece of plastic. How a person feels about that issue probably varies widely based on personal experience, cultural influence, etc., but over the course of my growing up, I personally felt quite bothered by that kind of censorship/shaming. I felt uncomfortable in my skin. I think having a doll/s that at least had all body parts accounted for would have been a positive thing.
-
On the subject of L.O.L.: I feel like nipples and such are just natural parts of the human body... why must they be associated only with sexualization? I would rather we move into an era of more body positivity, where we stop seeing every aspect of the human form as something scandalous that needs to be censored.
Because it's weird, imo, to mold erect nipples onto a female doll when there is no reason. The dolls have these crazy cartoon faces and then they have these nips. Just doesn't look like "natural" was the inspiration here.
A happy medium is doll boobs without molded on bras but without sculpted or painted on nipples, either. Barbie didn't even have a belly button for ages. She didn't even have toes even tho she had heeled sandals, of course.
And for that matter, I don't appreciate doll junk, either. It's kids toys, not mannequins for biology class. After all, what are kids supposed to reenact with doll private bits? It's much more important to sculpt holding hands for interaction with accessories because that's part of the play.
As for "body positivity", again it's a plaything. A plaything with Kim Kardashian's proportions, saucer eyes, barely a nose, face full of Drag-up and wearing crippling heels (the human body wasn't meant to walk like this, that's a fact). I don't think anything about these dolls is "body positive" except for the wide range of skin tones, which is somezhing MGAE spearheaded and that's nice.
O.M.G. is very obviously not here to ease girls into being okay with their looks, it's a pop culture-esque, pun-filled glam fashion line based on L.O.L. characters. It's supposed to be loud and glitzi and over the top. If I wanted to give a child a doll that helps them with their self-image I'd go for these American girl types or even a Barbie Fashionista.
Now a pregnant doll should definitely have nips to feed her baby with, but that's the irony: these kind of dolls only come with bottles and people are mad when the doll doesn't have a wedding ring :lol: Kids don't even notice that because these days, mom and dad are not even wearing their rings 24/7.
And before fans get mad, no I do not think it is an outraaaage or conspiracy or whatever to give O.M.G.s this feature. But they are based on L.O.L.s which are already sexualized at times, so I am all "mhhhh, is this meant to draw in adult collectors"? And given how popular these are with adults who wax poetically about the boobs and lingerie, I'd say, yes, this is MGAE trying to get a secondary market ;)
I'm not a prude, but that bothers me. Like can't kids have one innocent thing for themselves?
-
I’m all for body positivity and the de-stigmatization of “taboo” parts of the body, but I know some people are going to like more anatomically correct dolls for all the wrong reasons. Non-sexual nudity is kind of ruined by a flood of comments talking about how hot and sexy it is, imo, and that’s what I see whenever anything features artistic nudity online, especially if it’s nude females. It’s not just a matter of prudism, sadly - the people prudes use as strawmen do very much exist, and are very vocal. I get not wanting to act like the human body is ~zOmG oBsCeNe ThInK oF tHe ChIlDrEn~ but I think it’s naive to think that everyone is respectful or mature enough to handle such things. (This post isn’t inappropriate, right? I’m trying to be as vague as possible while still getting the point across.)
-
That’s fair. Sadly, I think we’re all familiar with the kind of people you’re talking about. :( At the same time, I have seen... “those people”... sexualize many, many things that offer absolutely no hint of sexuality and/or anatomical correctness whatsoever.
I’m just not sure what the answer is. Letting people like that dictate how we feel about representation of the human body seems... not right, to me. On the other hand, I can understand why some might be concerned about “that crowd” being drawn to the brand. I still feel that when the human body ceases to be “taboo”, the situation will improve. Artistic nudity draws a lot of negative attention in part because the human body is largely treated as though it were obscene, IMHO.
-
That’s fair. Sadly, I think we’re all familiar with the kind of people you’re talking about. :( At the same time, I have seen... “those people”... sexualize many, many things that offer absolutely no hint of sexuality and/or anatomical correctness whatsoever.
Like ponies?
-
Tbh I think the Troll doll is much ado about nothing. It's like complaining that the Secret Surprise ponies are encouraging kids to turn to murder because you stab something in the pony's chest and then keep your treasures in their hollowed out body. Toys aren't real people / animals and kids understand that.
-
That’s fair. Sadly, I think we’re all familiar with the kind of people you’re talking about. :( At the same time, I have seen... “those people”... sexualize many, many things that offer absolutely no hint of sexuality and/or anatomical correctness whatsoever.
Like ponies?
Exactly. :/
Tbh I think the Troll doll is much ado about nothing. It's like complaining that the Secret Surprise ponies are encouraging kids to turn to murder because you stab something in the pony's chest and then keep your treasures in their hollowed out body. Toys aren't real people / animals and kids understand that.
I’m inclined to agree. XD People love a scandal, though. They’ll create one wherever any opportunity arises.
It’s a really dumb toy design, no denying. I still can’t believe no one raised an eyebrow before it hit production. However, there are people out there saying they’re going to boycott Hasbro over this, and raging all over the internet. Umm... seriously? <_<;