PDA

View Full Version : Tonnika sisters figure excuse seems flimsy



JediTricks
04-26-2003, 10:45 PM
You know how the generally-accepted reason for why we don't have action figures of either of the Tonnika sisters is because the actresses never gave LFL license to use their likeness this way? I never really thought much about this before although it didn't seem very realistic to me (like Lucas would forget JUST those 2), but then I realized the other day that it makes even LESS sense when you consider that Galoob indeed did make a Brea Tonnika action-fleet figure in the relatively common Battle Pack #3 "Aliens & Creatures" (the one with the Bantha). I'm not saying I have the answers, but the current reasoning doesn't seem to hold up IMO.

RussUAE
04-27-2003, 12:05 AM
Maybe when the galoob figure was made some sort of deal was struck. Or maybe the figure was unlicenced by the actress which led to some payoff having to be made, making sure that they would never be made again.

Beast
04-27-2003, 10:42 AM
The likeness of the galoob figure isn't very accurate of the charecter. Othen then the outfit, all she had was a flesh colored face. The Hasbro figure would actually somewhat look like the charecter, that's where they are gonna run into the problems.

And it's quite possible that likeness rights for the other characters in ANH were negotiated later, but the actresses that pllayed the Tonnika Sisters wanted to much money.

Just look at McFarlane, when they went after the rights to Linda Blair's face for to do a Exorcist Movie Maniac figure of her and she wanted some ungodly some. I know it was a few million. So a deal was never struck.

The same thing could have occured in this case. The best thing for Lucas and Hasbro to do, is when they do the DVD Boxset of all 6 movies is to yank those two chicks out of there and replace them with a couple Lucasfilm/Hasbro interns in similar outfits. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

JON9000
04-27-2003, 11:52 AM
so how close does the likeness have to be in order to make it a likeness?

Just take some old monkey face leia head, give 'em a new doo and a new outfit, and there you go, monkey face tonnika sisters. Or just say they are the monnika sisters and of no relation to the money grubbing tonnika sisters, and not based on their likeness.

I agree, I think some explaining is in order.

Deoxyribonucleic
04-27-2003, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by JarJarBinks

Just look at McFarlane, when they went after the rights to Linda Blair's face for to do a Exorcist Movie Maniac figure of her and she wanted some ungodly some. I know it was a few million. So a deal was never struck.

Wow, that's just crazy to me. If I were an actress and somebody wanted to immortalize me in a plastic action figure, I'd be honored and wouldn't ask a cent. It's all these burned out actresses who are no longer wanted or needed for anything that are causing problems. :rolleyes:


Originally posted by JarJarBinks

The best thing for Lucas and Hasbro to do, is when they do the DVD Boxset of all 6 movies is to yank those two chicks out of there and replace them with a couple Lucasfilm/Hasbro interns in similar outfits. :)


That's a great idea! It's not like there's no one else out there with a similar look! Oh, that would be the bestest of best insults to those two as well....sweet, sweet justice ;)

Beast
04-27-2003, 01:12 PM
Heck, use the lovely lady that played Aayla Secura and film her infront of a blue/green screen and digitally double and insert her into the shot. She looks a lot better then the two ladies that played the Tonnika Sisters anyway. Everytime I see them I think Jaye Davidson (Ra) from Stargate. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

DarthBrandon
04-27-2003, 01:47 PM
Geeze, these gals are not even actresses, they are just filler for the scene. Seems to me that they should be replaced by something / someone else like JarJarBinks suggested. These two really don't excite me figure or character wise anyways, but for those that do I can appreciate thier interest in them. :D

Jargo
04-27-2003, 03:21 PM
Frankly, Christine Hewitt isn't really what i'd call a major working actor but she is a real actor not just an extra. so anything would be bread and butter money to her. can't remember the other one's name right now but if i don't remember it she's nobody special.
I think the problem is less with likeness rights and more with hasbroken not wanting to spend out to make a background character when they can get away with re-issuing older molds of what they already sculpted.
Female characters don't really sell that well unless they're half naked. Or Twi'Lek. An Aay Vida figure would sell because technically she's current to the last movie and semi naked.
It's like the Yarna D'al Gargan thing, hasbroken won't make her because it's just some background actor and they can't really get away with shoving a blaster accessory in there with her.
The Tonnika sisters are on screen for a gnats fart of a second or two whereas Yarna is on screen for some considerable time. If they won't make Yarna then they won't make the Tonnika sisters. Especially not now with all the Outlander nightclub patrons to do. When it comes to choosing whether or not to sculpt a semi naked blonde bombshell in a negilgee from the nightclub or some fruity old has-been actor in a blue/green jump suit with a crappy beehive and bad make up from the cantina I know which one hasbroken will choose.
And if hasbroken wanted to make the characters they would regardless of likeness rights. The Aayla secura figure looked like Aayla but wasn't Amy Allen's likeness until she sat for the sculptor. If she hadn't we probably would have taken the figure as Aayla anyway though. We've accepted how many Anakin figures despite it never having Hayden's face.
hasbroken can do a character and have it closely resemble an actor without it being a precise likeness. They can do it if they want to, they just don't want to. Lame excuses and brush offs. That's all we get.

Rogue II
04-27-2003, 05:42 PM
A Yarna figure is much higher on my list than the Tonnika sisters. While Jar Jar had a good idea, I can't see GL actually replacing their half a second of screen time just so Hasbro can make the figures. Face it, there are some characters we will never get, and the Tonnika sisters are probably on that list.

LTBasker
04-27-2003, 05:48 PM
They could always make them tiny "Unleashed" figures, those things never look like the characters so it wouldn't have a likeness to'em. Though they'd probably do them as tabletop dancers because it's what the "artist" sees. :p

Banthaholic
04-27-2003, 09:55 PM
While I am a huge fan of oscure characters I really never understood the hype over the Tonnika sisters, IMO there are still a few cool aliens and other more interesting humans that I'd rather have made. Although I wouldn't complain if the Tonnika sisters were eventually made.

JangoFart
04-27-2003, 10:06 PM
Where did this theory that there are likeness rights problems originate? I have not seen one thing from any official source, or, hell, unofficial for that matter, which would lead someone to believe that there are problems with the use of those 2 ladies' images.

If there's something I missed, please tell me. I'd love to read it.

J

BoShek
04-27-2003, 10:20 PM
So the real BoShek got money for his figure? Who is the real BoShek?

Deoxyribonucleic
04-27-2003, 11:09 PM
Will the real BoShek please stand up, please stand up!

Hmmm, I'm with you Banthaholic, although I wouldn't turn down seeing a tonnika on the pegs, there are plenty of other aliens from the cantina and jabba's palace that I'd rather see or from the Hoth Command base!

:)

2-1B
04-27-2003, 11:19 PM
Originally posted by JarJarBinks
Heck, use the lovely lady that played Aayla Secura and film her infront of a blue/green screen and digitally double and insert her into the shot. She looks a lot better then the two ladies that played the Tonnika Sisters anyway.

Sure, she's a lovely hottie but she's still an intern who charges $20 for an autograph. :mad: No need for her to be charging more because of an appearance in the OT. :crazed:


Originally posted by JarJarBinks
Everytime I see them I think Jaye Davidson (Ra) from Stargate. :)

You mean the same dude from The Crying Game? :eek:

droidekas2
04-28-2003, 08:15 AM
McFarlane Toys couldnt get Arnold "the terminator" to approve his action figure so they went ahead and released an action figure anyway. The head sculpt resembles him but it isnt exact, but it was good enough for me and most everyone else.

Hasbro could do something similar here. There is always a way around things.

JangoFart
04-28-2003, 02:34 PM
Something tells me that Arnold's bargaining power in an employment contract KINDA outweighs any, and I mean ANY, bargaining power those two no-bodys would have had back in '76.

Just a guess there :)

J

Tycho
04-28-2003, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by JangoFart
Where did this theory that there are likeness rights problems originate? I have not seen one thing from any official source, or, hell, unofficial for that matter, which would lead someone to believe that there are problems with the use of those 2 ladies' images.

If there's something I missed, please tell me. I'd love to read it.

J

I could be mistaken, but I believe I've heard it from Hasbro reps at Comic Con, the Celebration conventions, and from Steve Sansweet - possibly even when I talked to him personally last, at Comic Con 2002. I also think Hasbro reps participating in online chats have said the same thing, and it's been on an official Hasbro site Q&A.

Now, perhaps the actresses, upon seeing SW success blossum by 1978 (with merchandising) or anytime thereafter, went out and secured "likeness patents" or something, so they could be set up to get a settlement, and Lucas, not counting on SW success in '75-76 (during production) didn't think bit characters would need licensing. I mean the cantina disappointed him so much because they were short on money so George had people go to a Halloween store and come back with werewolf masks that would become the wraith and Lak Sivrak - an alien nobody figured would be paid any attention to, let alone have a book written about him and a fan club start after him.

Meanwhile, I too really want the Tonnika Sisters.

Why?

1) They are ladies, and their form is semi-attractive, and this is the only way I can get cool ladies to hang out with me - by buying them at Wal*Mart for $4.79. (additionally, in a boys' toy world that older collectors crave a more balanced "Star Wars reality" in the selection of characters, especially civilians from, girls add to a line where diversity is at its highest appreciation.)

2) They help complete a very attractive scene for Star Wars diorama builders - as the Cantina offers such awesome diversity and originality, that the figures, which I appreciate like sculpted art, just look great all set up with each other. In many ways it blows away lining up Clones or all the same figure of the same officer in neat little rows. With the cantina set up, every direction you look into your display offers you something new to see and appreciate. While the Tonnika Sisters are nearly humans, they still add authenticity to a scene that gives you an awesome array of different species and sculpture attributes to choose from. It just wouldn't be the same without them.

3) "They look nothing like Luke Tatooine, Han Solo, Qui-Gon Jinn, Darth Maul, Mace Windu, Chewbacca, or Jango Fett." - Hasbro should start using that line to advertise with on all their packaging of the non-resculpted characters.

"New Imperial Dignitary with authentic likeness to character seen in Episode 6: Return of the Jedi, and bears no resemblance to Qui-Gon Jinn whatsoever!"

"New Captain Antilles figure comes with blaster and does not look like Chewbacca!"

"New Padme Tatooine figure comes with removeable cloak and no facial Tatoos!"

"New Weequay comes with force pike and was never carbon-frozen or released in the same outfit!"

"New J'Quille figure: never had a line, so you never heard him whine!"



[diclaimer: I know WHY Hasbro makes the resculpts. I just don't have to like it.]

Chiesa
04-28-2003, 06:38 PM
Sorry I think I got other figures that figure higher on my wish list at the moment! :)

I mean it would be a bonus if we do get the 2 SISTAs but if there isn't anything being worked out by both parties, I wouldn't be crying or going sleepless over this :P

Turbowars
04-28-2003, 08:43 PM
Another figure I would love to see from the Cantina, is that tall dork with a pipe. But NOOOO, Hasbro will never sculpt this guy, because he has a pipe. If they did they probably put a icecream cone in place of the Pipe. Getting back on the topic, I've always wanted to see these two in a 2 pack, heck they would have made a great Cantina bar curve section, but NOOOOO Hasbro blew that one to, Oh wait WM pulled out, BS thats another thread. Anyways, the bottom line is, if Hasbro really wanted to make these chicks, then they would. It's not like they don't have the cash. They rather pump some more rehashes out.

mark2d2
05-02-2003, 02:11 AM
I don't get all this hype about two moderately attractive chicks.

Just leaves me cold.

Turbowars
05-02-2003, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by mark2d2
I don't get all this hype about two moderately attractive chicks.

Just leaves me cold. Gee I wonder why mark? LOL

JediTricks
05-03-2003, 06:51 AM
In a recent article on sw.com (http://www.starwars.com/episode-iv/feature/20030502/index.html), they mention the Tonnika sisters and how their likenesses were used in other licensed product. Strangely, like the Galoob Battle Pack, the Galaxy Guide 1 from '89 showed only 1 of the characters (actually, they claimed the girls were twins and used the likeness of one twice) - so even if there is a problem with the licensing of one of the likenesses, there doesn't seem to be a problem with the other and I'm fairly sure we'd be happy to simply buy 2 of the same figure to make the Tonnika sisters if we wanted 'em both.

Jargo
05-03-2003, 09:00 AM
An equitable solution Mr. Tricks. hasbroken can't argue with that HAHAHA! :evil:

JangoFart
05-05-2003, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by Tycho
I could be mistaken, but I believe I've heard it from Hasbro reps at Comic Con, the Celebration conventions, and from Steve Sansweet - possibly even when I talked to him personally last, at Comic Con 2002. I also think Hasbro reps participating in online chats have said the same thing, and it's been on an official Hasbro site Q&A.

Now, perhaps the actresses, upon seeing SW success blossum by 1978 (with merchandising) or anytime thereafter, went out and secured "likeness patents" or something, so they could be set up to get a settlement, and Lucas, not counting on SW success in '75-76 (during production) didn't think bit characters would need licensing. I mean the cantina disappointed him so much because they were short on money so George had people go to a Halloween store and come back with werewolf masks that would become the wraith and Lak Sivrak - an alien nobody figured would be paid any attention to, let alone have a book written about him and a fan club start after him.


I don't know if any of you have actually seen the kinds of contracts we're talking about here, but I have. Unless the actor is some huge star like Cruise or Hanks, they typically get hog-tied in the contract. It all has to do with the bargaining power of the parties to the contract. For instance, when is the last time you saw a landlord-tenant contract which allowed the tenant to call the shots of when payment was due and what amount he/she would pay for rent? I'd wager never; as the landowner has all the power in that transaction and the tenant has none - if that tenant doesn't sign the contract AS IS, that's cool with the landlord, as there are no shortage of people who will.

Same with the type of employment contract that these actors would have had to sign. I can assure you that there's no way these 2 nobodies would have had any leverage over Fox. None.

While Lucas may not have planned on Star Wars becoming the monstrosity that it became, I'm sure the lawyers did their jobs. The movie may be dated to the 70's, but contract law is dated to the '70's too - 1570's.

Until I see something official, I just don't buy it. If George tells me otherwise at tea tomorrow, maybe I'll give up on this issue. But, not until something from someone who KNOWS gives the word.

J

droidekas2
05-05-2003, 12:37 PM
I agree. After reading that report in the cantina roll call I would think that they could use one as both or the imposters as the acutual sisters, etc. etc. There has to be a way that they can make the two of them.

El Chuxter
07-31-2010, 11:38 PM
Out of curiosity, what is the latest, aside from blunt "No comment"s?

JediTricks
08-01-2010, 02:15 AM
No comment. Looks like the ol' "well, Galoob did it!" argument wasn't strong enough.

Maerj2000
08-01-2010, 10:31 AM
Its funny reading the comments in older threds like this.

I read that the one Tonnika Sister had no problem with being made into an action figure, I forget her name but it is the one who passed away.

They should make a figure of her and put it up as a mail away "mystery figure from A New Hope!" Show a siloutte of the figure so all the fans know who it is, we could order two of them and this issue could be put to rest.

JediTricks
08-01-2010, 02:37 PM
Christine Hewett is the one who had no problem with it.

That has been discussed in years past, and the legal issue is the easily-confused nature of the characters' liknesses.

AmanaMatt
08-01-2010, 06:42 PM
If they never do these two, I can live - sure, it would be great to have em, but Yarna (to me) was the grail piece...........and they did a great job on her