Any Basic Fun retro G1 news for 2023?

[Carrehz]

I also don't think we were "meant" to see those photos, though it does concern me that they were given to multiple sellers (the C&D letter included an ad given to a UK seller too). And the Amazon listings were very much public, you might have to click a few extra buttons to find them but it's not like we've stumbled across a hidden listing or anything, either.
I've been wondering if they were just "borrowing" the photos to use as a sort of proof-of-concept to try and sell the idea to retailers? We know they've had some trouble getting sellers to pick these ponies up - that's why the Flutters, Lemon Drop playset, FFs didn't make it into full production. Considering they've said this set is more expensive to produce, I could see them doing that just as a stopgap to avoid having to put time and money into prototypes that might not have been picked up. 'course, if that's what happened, they really should've discarded the pics as soon as the product did get the greenlight, but that's kind of another argument. But my point is that I'd like to assume good faith here. I mean... that other set that turned up on Amazon recently, the one we're assuming is the RaMC set. That's obviously a placeholder/mock-up image we weren't really meant to see, too. No one's thinking twice about that because the photos aren't stolen customs, of course, but still, these things happen, I guess.

(actually come to think of it, that placeholder pic that went up for Running Press Firefly.... wasn't there talk about that being "borrowed" from one of the big fansites, too? not entirely the same thing because that was a stock 80s Firefly, not a custom, but...)

My understanding the the C&D letter written by Panda to BF is the unauthorised use of her photographs on Amazon. This is summed up at the end of the letter written by Panda under "Artists Expectations". The likeness of two of Panda's customs to the two made by BF is a "furthermore", rather than the main focus of her letter, which is the unauthorised use of her photographs.

Love pkw xxx

Yeah, but it was unwise to include it in the letter.

And she has directly accused them of stealing in her IG post and in this thread - which gives broader context to the letter, and is accessible to literally anyone who might look for it.

I just checked and it looks like you can't actually view anything on the Arena without being logged in now - doesn't stop anyone from making an account, of course. Don't know about the Instagram post though.
Anyway, regardless of whether or not that was the main intent of the C&D, the accusation of design theft was still made in that letter.

Meanwhile the limited molds argument sounds like a stretch to me when they had no trouble reproducing the Bubbles pose, Moondancer pose, or Fizzy pose which are unlikely to be used again in the future.

Sorry, but this argument doesn't work. It makes sense for them to reproduce those moulds because - those three characters were REPRODUCTIONS. They were remaking a specific toy and trying to get it to look as close to the original product as possible. They have specific reason there to redo the original poses.

These characters have never been produced, in an official capacity, before. We have NO idea what poses they might have been made in if they had gone into production in the 80s.

(Aside: The wiki does claim they would have used the Precious Pocket poses - do we know where that claim originates from? just read it and it sounds to me like something said at a Fair, in which case there might not be a verifiable source for it as such.. admit I'm a bit sceptical of that because those moulds would need to be modified to remove the holes on the hips before they could be used for any non-Pocket pony... and even if that had been the plan originally, there's every chance they could have changed it further down the line if they HAD gone into production, given how many other ponies changed poses, species, etc before release... I mean, the only proto Hasbro Celestial we've seen was a pegasus... but I digress.)

Point is: these aren't repros. These are entirely new toys that are based off the art and nothing else. It's possible that Hasbro gave BF some "inside info" that we haven't been privy to (re: poses and such)... but it's also entirely possible/probable Hasbro just gave them the art and told them to go nuts with it. I mean, Basic Fun have already made up their own names AND set name, they're not using the names Hasbro came up with back in the day. But what I'm saying is, Basic Fun have absolutely zero reason to make a new mould just for these four. And again, these ponies are more costly to produce than a regular set. Why on earth would they go out of their way to make a whole new pose when they could just save costs by using the ones they already have?

Sorry, but again, to me this is like if customizer A made a Hasbro-matching alt-posed Applejack (or Firefly, or whatever) and customizer B said A had copied them because they'd done the same custom. When you're using Hasbro designs, on Hasbro moulds, and trying to match the original style as closely as possible, OF COURSE there's going to be similarities! (And to be perfectly honest, I don't even see any "suspicious" similarities between the two sets.)

[BlackCurtains]

I made the Celestial ponies too, and I did them way before Panda did. I never finished them, which is why they aren't on the internet. Here they are.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


I used the exact same pose for the dark pink one. I also used the Tootsie pose but for a different one.

So I think the "they "copied" the poses" argument is a bunch of ponyfeathers.

[LadyMoondancer]

My Little Wiki didn't even list the Precious Pocket pony pose (now that's a phrase) info at the time when BF was making their prototypes.

Texas toy show, September 2022 - Basic Fun unveils its prototypes, already in the Tootsie and Posey pose

Pony Fair West, September 2022 - a former Hasbro employee says the Celestial ponies (actual set name was the Fancy Swirl ponies iirc) were meant to be in the Pocket Pony poses.  This is also where the names (Mistyglow etc) were revealed.

February 2023 - My Little Wiki is updated with the names and poses.

So even if BF had wanted to be 100% accurate, the info wasn't out there at the time when they were doing research.

This is the entirety of the info that was on the Wiki when BF started developing their set:

Only the concept art seems to have been produced but never the actual ponies.  They are often referred to as the Celestial ponies, but Hasbro's trademarked name for the set was the Fancy Swirl ponies. 

That said, I don't think it matters if BF purposely skipped the Precious Pocket poses versus being unaware of them.  How many people have made a Baby Parasol in the Baby Cotton Candy pose or a Baby Medley in Baby Firefly's pose?  Does it make sense for a customizer to get angry if someone saw their Baby Parasol, thought "wow good idea!", and made a similar custom?  There are only so many poses and the idea is derived from Hasbro's "make baby ponies that look like their moms" era.

Edit:  Your customs look great, BlackCurtains!  (Panda's do as well.)  Do you think you'll ever finish them?  I have a set of G3 Twinkle Eyes that have been loitering in my custom bin for ten years, ha ha.

[Taffeta]

BC, I'm glad you posted those (aside the fact they look amazing, even unfinished) because it reinforces the idea that these ponies have been reimagined by many pony fans and those reimaginings may easily have overlapped without any intention or knowledge of the others.

On the photos. I don't know if we were meant to see them or not, but it strikes me that it happened because up till now all the G1 ponies produced have used existing G1 ponies as placeholders before they had their own images. I don't know the sources of those pictures, but it still remains true. I imagine some person found BPC's custom photo and got the wrong end of the stick, assumed these were the released ponies and thus used them without realising what they had found. There are no 'real' Celestial ponies, so this really seems probable.

On the MLW, that's interesting. THe lack of citation makes it impossible to corroborate anyway, but I think this is also relevant (and demonstrates how Hasbro switch concepts very quickly through production).
visitors can't see pics , please register or login


These are the actual prototypes at point of catalogue release (ie what was sent to stores by Hasbro, so fairly late in production) for the Pocket ponies. Pic borrowed from Wiki but it's Hasbro's image. It's notable that the poses we assume for the Pocket ponies aren't anywhere in this picture. The walking pose is, however. This is also how these ponies were drawn in the comics.

There are so many examples of ponies whose poses change multiple times through production, not just these. I think that's really important to mention. We also don't know how many poses BF went through when trying to settle on their versions of this set. Did they try with Bubbles or Bow Tie poses? We don't know, because they didn't tell us. All we know is that they settled on these poses, both of which are already in their arsenal, and well within their rights to use.

I also agree that the customs are different enough from the final version, but seeing BC's versions puts that into context very neatly - that these are logical conclusions for anyone to come to, because they are the most common poses in the MLP range.

I legit have a baby parasol in a baby cc pose that I made 20+ years ago. LOL I wonder how many do exist. Must be tons xD.

@Carrehz, if that's true about the Arena then that's great. I think there's still problems logging in at the moment. BUT we also know that BF were here following our discussions way back in the early days. I don't know if they ever signed up, but it's perfectly possible they have an account that we don't know about.

[Carrehz]

Oh, that's a good point about that info not being out there when BF were making their protos! Hadn't thought about that.

Honestly I think the Pocket pose thing is sort of moot as well, I mostly brought it up to forestall any possible "but the wiki says-" posts in response to my "we don't know what poses they would've used" lol. My point is, prototypes and vague plans aside, there are no "original 80s Celestial/Fancy Swirl ponies", so it doesn't matter WHAT poses they use, thus, no reason for them not to just use the moulds they already have to hand.

Love your customs BC! I particularly like how you did the light pink one's stars.

Haha Taffeta, we posted at the same time. Yeah, I was going to ask if Basic Fun had ever used stock 80s pony images for their repros before? Again, the RaMC set placeholder that was posted the other day... where did they get those G1 images from. I dunno who found Panda's custom photos first or what their intention was in using them, but I really do feel that it was either a mistake (as you said) and/or just borrowed quickly to get the idea across (like using a random photo of, I don't know, an original flutter pony to try and sell the idea of reproducing those - again, they could've just grabbed the photo without even fully realizing it wasn't an actual prototype or something). While I don't think it was RIGHT for them to use the photos, and I'm 100% in favour of them being taken down and apologies being made, etc etc, I don't think any malicious intent was meant by the use of them. I hope that makes sense.

re: the Pocket poses, I mean, thing is that this is something said at a Fair, what.. 30, 40 years after the fact? You've gotta keep in mind that the designer could've just misremembered, even. I'm not saying they DID, I'm just saying that plans can change, memories can be faulty, we can't take that 100% at face value and say "This is definitely what would've happened if Hasbro had released the set". I didn't even realize the Pockets went through multiple poses too!! Great point!

We also don't know how many poses BF went through when trying to settle on their versions of this set. Did they try with Bubbles or Bow Tie poses?

Oh man, Celestials in these poses would be amazing, though.

I also wouldn't be surprised if Basic Fun had an account on here. I do think it's likely they looked at MULTIPLE customs (and fanart!) of the Celestials, because this set exists because we asked for it! There was a letter-writing campaign! I think it's likely they'd be really looking at what fans are doing with this set, in particular, because it's a fan-requested set. They'd want to do it "right".

edit: Also I just wanted to clarify, since I'm not sure I worded this correctly before. When I pointed out there's no source for the "Celestials in Pocket poses" claim on the wiki - I do believe that was said at the Fair, I'm not trying to cast doubt on that. I'm assuming it's the sort of thing where it was said in-person and off-camera and we've just gotta take it on faith, and that's fine; my point was more that while that's interesting trivia, it's pretty moot when it comes to the Basic Fun versions of these characters, because a) it's 50/50 if they were told that too and b) Hasbro could've changed plans if production had furthered ANYway. Sorry, I just wanted to clear that up, I think I worded it unclearly before.

[Taffeta]

I may be wrong but I have a feeling the RaMC ones are ones BF used as stock photos for their previous retros.

[Flitter]

I made the Celestial ponies too

I love that you made them shimmery!

From the artwork and theme I kinda expected them to be glittery or shimmery or translucent in some way. The BF prototypes are still really cool though and I know conveying the swirls was a challenge. If I collected G1, I know I’d be absolutely ecstatic to be getting an unreleased prototype/concept after all these years.
I can only dream that some characters we never got for g4 get released someday

[Leave a Whisper]

When the toy fair pictures were first revealed it was Panda's interpretation that came to my mind, the fact her actual customs and photos were then used as stock images over multiple online stores made it all the more obvious. Technicalities aside, I don't think it's ok to use her photographs in any capacity without her permission and I'm glad she's done something about it 👏

Meanwhile the limited molds argument sounds like a stretch to me when they had no trouble reproducing the Bubbles pose, Moondancer pose, or Fizzy pose which are unlikely to be used again in the future.

So you are going to stretch things further by pointing out that an unmade set comprised entirely of EARTH ponies is hard evidence to steal someone's custom photos just because they made a few unicorn poses? Do you seriously not know how nonsensical that sounds? You didn't just stretch the rubber band with that one, it straight up broke.

1) Basic Fun already has photos and live video of their product. So Amazon is the likely culprit for the misappropriated photo. Amazon should have asked BF to provide, instead of trawling the internet. Now to be fair I understand they don't know the difference and photos of BF's Celestial's are floating around the internet, but professionally they should have asked the company only.

2) This isn't a reproduction set. It's one that has never been made before.

3) Basic Fun makes the toy, but Hasbro owns the brand,and the concept design and likely vetoes or denies sets, poses, and characters. They can tell Basic Fun to make them however they like.

4) Can you tell me what some of the most common Earth Pony poses are? Gingerbread, Posey, and to a lesser extent Tootsie. You can count the Bubbles posed ponies on one hand. If I had to guess by artwork alone, I'd say Gingerbread, Posey, and Sugarberry would have been the most likely poses used IF the set had been made in the 80s/90s.

5) None of us own this concept. None of us worked in Hasbro toy design way back when. None of us get to complain that they stole anything except for Panda's photo of customs, and that issue has already been resolved.

[Carrehz]

It does look like Basic Fun are the ones that sent out the stolen photos - the C&D letter included a photo of an advert that BF sent out to a UK stockist and that had PB's customs on it too. Although I'm not clear on if that advert was actually sent out to buyers or what... I'm a bit confused as to where that comes into it to be honest. But it does seem that it's not just Amazon that had those photos, anyway.

Other than that I agree 100% with everything you said LAW!

[Leave a Whisper]

I'm confused by that part too Carrehz.

BTW BlackCurtains, gorgeous customs! Hope you get a chance to finish them some day, I love how shimmery they are.

[Taffeta]

It does look like Basic Fun are the ones that sent out the stolen photos - the C&D letter included a photo of an advert that BF sent out to a UK stockist and that had PB's customs on it too. Although I'm not clear on if that advert was actually sent out to buyers or what... I'm a bit confused as to where that comes into it to be honest. But it does seem that it's not just Amazon that had those photos, anyway.

Other than that I agree 100% with everything you said LAW!

The C&D has been taken down. I think that's a wise move, though I was going to have another look at that to see exactly what it was. I feel like given BF had their own image mocked up for the toy fair, it wouldn't make sense to use something that looked drastically different to promote specifically the white/blue pony with pink hair. It would be a design step backwards which seems odd.

On that note, I don't use IG, but it looks like PBC's commissions IG has been closed as well?  I assume that's her choice based on this fallout but if anyone knows her personally, maybe check in and make sure she's ok?

Even if many of us disagree with her position on the designs, nobody wants to see her in trouble.

In the meantime, so long as the pictures are down, the rest of us should probably move on.

And support the Celestials when they come out.

[brightberry]

I certainly don't want someone to leave the community because of a disagreement. It really wasn't about her personal character or value as a person.  Being angry about the picture use was fair and I can see how that could make anyone boil over.

[tailrustedtealeaf]

Update:
visitors can't see pics , please register or login


All of PBC's images are no longer on Amazon (at least not that I can find) and we now know the names of each pony, likely officially. Nova is blue, Aurora is magenta.

[Carrehz]

I do hope nothing goes wrong for Pandabear, or that she leaves the community over this I disagree with the C&D and all of that but it's not a personal disagreement. I mean that's the thing, I don't want ANYONE to get in trouble over this.

I feel like given BF had their own image mocked up for the toy fair, it wouldn't make sense to use something that looked drastically different to promote specifically the white/blue pony with pink hair. It would be a design step backwards which seems odd.

That's what I found so confusing! But I suppose it's hardly the first time companies have used promo photos that differ significantly to the final product... just, you know, usually they're prototypes and not customs I don't know, I still feel the use of those photos was an error/oversight. But I suppose it's water under the bridge really now that all of the pics are off Amazon.

Which btw - YAY!! So happy Amazon is now using the actual images, and that we've got confirmation (hopefully!!) on who's who. I'm so excited for this set!

[Leave a Whisper]

No one wants her to leave. She's such a sweetheart