PDA

View Full Version : The TONNIKA SISTERS are going to be in a Super Bowl ad! Why no figures then?



Droid
01-31-2012, 03:31 PM
The Tonnika Sisters are going to be in a new Super Bowl ad.

http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/31/10273608-volkswagen-has-its-head-in-the-star-wars-again-with-super-bowl-ad#.Tyfh83T_6JE

Volkwagen is recreating the cantina set for a commercial. As you can see in the picture in the article, Snaggletooth is standing in front of the Tonnikas. And not the actors from the movies, new people in the costumes and hair styles.

So my questions are:

1. Why haven't we been able to get a figure of a person in those outfits and hair if Lucas IS willing to license the
CHARACTERS if not the actors' likenesses?
2. Does their appearance in the ad show Lucasfilm has changed its position in some way as to the Sisters?
3. Can we get a figure of the actors from the commercial? Close enough for me!

I know that there is a ban on asking questions about them and we hate to burn a question in the Q&A, but I think we should ask if their appearance in the ad signals a shift in Tonnika policy and more importantly, can we get a figure based on the women in the Volkswagen ad?

JediTricks
02-01-2012, 12:41 AM
It's the end of January and still no word of new Q&A, so I don't think that's going to happen.

Anyway, it's not up to Hasbro, it's up to Lucasfilm to decide whether or not to pull that trigger. Perhaps they are testing the waters to see what becomes of the legal pushback.

Dark Marble
02-01-2012, 02:23 PM
Honestly, I would love to have these figures! But I really have to look at the fact that so many of the actors that played these iconic characters have been screwed over by likeness licensing and never paid a dime. And being the licensing juggernaut that Star Wars is, would it really be so bad if maybe Lucasfilm paid a couple of people their due?


So, I hope that either the original actresses and/or their families are paid to have their likenesses used or that the figures are never made. It is ridiculous to think that we would have to pay a premium or that the coffers of Lucasfilm would be broken if they actually paid someone royalties. This situation has been silly for years and it is still silly.

JediTricks
02-01-2012, 05:48 PM
Honestly, I would love to have these figures! But I really have to look at the fact that so many of the actors that played these iconic characters have been screwed over by likeness licensing and never paid a dime. And being the licensing juggernaut that Star Wars is, would it really be so bad if maybe Lucasfilm paid a couple of people their due?


So, I hope that either the original actresses and/or their families are paid to have their likenesses used or that the figures are never made. It is ridiculous to think that we would have to pay a premium or that the coffers of Lucasfilm would be broken if they actually paid someone royalties. This situation has been silly for years and it is still silly.Question: how do you know the actors who portrayed these background characters haven't been paid and have been screwed over by likeness licensing? The legal matter with Angela Staines (one of the Tonnikas) is that she is one of the few actors who they didn't get licensing agreements signed with while she was an extra on the film, that seems to suggest that the other actors did sign likeness contracts in exchange for some sort of payment (probably a modeling release as part of the pay they got to be in the movie). From what I've heard, Staines' lawsuit claims that you cannot tell the difference visually from her Tonnika to the other Tonnika portrayed by Christine Hewitt, so Lucasfilm cannot license product based only on Brea Tonnika despite them looking quite different despite Hewitt having given her consent, the characters being in different colors, having different heights, and Lucasfilm creating the very character designs, costumes, wigs, and makeup that went into the characters. All that argument for a character that glances in a direction and appears on-screen in the background for a few minutes and is obvious in camera for mere seconds. What value should go into that "portrayal" that the performer deserves beyond the original payment they received for acting in the film?

mtriv73
02-02-2012, 11:54 AM
I'd love to see them Vintage carded with "Volkswagen SuperBowl Ad" across the top instead of a new hope or Star Wars. They could also give them away with a test drive of any volkwagen car.

Dark Marble
02-03-2012, 07:01 PM
Question: how do you know the actors who portrayed these background characters haven't been paid and have been screwed over by likeness licensing? The legal matter with Angela Staines (one of the Tonnikas) is that she is one of the few actors who they didn't get licensing agreements signed with while she was an extra on the film, that seems to suggest that the other actors did sign likeness contracts in exchange for some sort of payment (probably a modeling release as part of the pay they got to be in the movie). From what I've heard, Staines' lawsuit claims that you cannot tell the difference visually from her Tonnika to the other Tonnika portrayed by Christine Hewitt, so Lucasfilm cannot license product based only on Brea Tonnika despite them looking quite different despite Hewitt having given her consent, the characters being in different colors, having different heights, and Lucasfilm creating the very character designs, costumes, wigs, and makeup that went into the characters. All that argument for a character that glances in a direction and appears on-screen in the background for a few minutes and is obvious in camera for mere seconds. What value should go into that "portrayal" that the performer deserves beyond the original payment they received for acting in the film?

That is a good question. If we are talking just about the performance, it would seem that the performer couldn't ask for much past their original payment. But when it comes to making money after the fact on a character where the actors likeness is the essence of that character it should be a lot more. It goes on for years making money.

Lucas might have created a wig and costume for her to wear but he didn't cover her face. I believe that an actor should have a say on his or her likeness and how it is used, and be able to share in the profit of that. Getting paid for the performance is one thing, the licensing is another matter. And I agree that the characters are different in looks and stature but unfortunately they are linked. Until a price is agreed on and terms on how the likeness will be used the characters shouldn't be made. Carrie Fischer has spoken at length on the woes of being a pez and a blowup doll.

Bel-Cam Jos
02-06-2012, 08:07 PM
As far as the commercial itself went, I rewound it twice and still barely saw them. But the person playing Bo Shek was a dead-on copy.

El Chuxter
02-06-2012, 09:25 PM
Wrong.

The Tonnika Sisters WERE in a commercial. Funny how the passage of just a little time renders the thread title obsolete, eh?

Bel-Cam Jos
02-07-2012, 08:15 PM
Wrong.

The Tonnika Sisters WERE in a commercial. Funny how the passage of just a little time renders the thread title obsolete, eh?I can't wait for linear time to be obsolete, too. Then the Tonnika Sisters WILL BE in the commercial.

JediTricks
02-07-2012, 08:29 PM
That is a good question. If we are talking just about the performance, it would seem that the performer couldn't ask for much past their original payment. But when it comes to making money after the fact on a character where the actors likeness is the essence of that character it should be a lot more. It goes on for years making money.

Lucas might have created a wig and costume for her to wear but he didn't cover her face. I believe that an actor should have a say on his or her likeness and how it is used, and be able to share in the profit of that. Getting paid for the performance is one thing, the licensing is another matter. And I agree that the characters are different in looks and stature but unfortunately they are linked. Until a price is agreed on and terms on how the likeness will be used the characters shouldn't be made. Carrie Fischer has spoken at length on the woes of being a pez and a blowup doll.He covered her face with makeup and a wig though, and then the faces were barely shown in the film. Could you tell 1 Tonnika from the other at first glance? Could you tell 1 Rebel Fleet Trooper or Hoth Trooper from another at first glance? They were paid to be on-set in a costume and follow simple direction, it wasn't like Carrie Fisher and Mark Hamill where they are main characters and their likenesses are vital to the character as well as the performance. Carrie Fisher complains a lot about Lucas owning her likeness largely for comedic effect, but she signed the contract for him to use those rights, she agreed to take in return what he was offering at the time. It's not like Face/Off where he stole her face.



As far as the commercial itself went, I rewound it twice and still barely saw them. But the person playing Bo Shek was a dead-on copy.I was surprised, I got the feeling the Youtube version was a little longer and featured them more obviously.

Bo Shek was a really good piece of casting.



I can't wait for linear time to be obsolete, too. Then the Tonnika Sisters WILL BE in the commercial.OH SNAP! :p

Dark Marble
02-09-2012, 12:24 PM
He covered her face with makeup and a wig though, and then the faces were barely shown in the film. Could you tell 1 Tonnika from the other at first glance? Could you tell 1 Rebel Fleet Trooper or Hoth Trooper from another at first glance? They were paid to be on-set in a costume and follow simple direction, it wasn't like Carrie Fisher and Mark Hamill where they are main characters and their likenesses are vital to the character as well as the performance. Carrie Fisher complains a lot about Lucas owning her likeness largely for comedic effect, but she signed the contract for him to use those rights, she agreed to take in return what he was offering at the time. It's not like Face/Off where he stole her face.

I can agree to disagree on this. If it was for five seconds or for 3 movies she had screen time and it was iconic enough to have a good demand for a figure to be produced. But the issue really would be a little compensation for the likness being out there and some say on how it is used. Carrie Fisher does talk about this for comedy but her bitterness comes from how much her likness, and what it is used on, is out of her control.

Overall, I am sure the actress who played this character wouldn't mind being an action figure or a t-shirt. But I bet she wouldn't want her face on a roll of toilet paper.

bigbarada
02-12-2012, 10:05 PM
I don't really see how the Tonnika Sisters appearing in a Super Bowl commercial somehow necessitates them being made into action figures. Hasbro has no control over what Lucasfilm chooses to do with characters that Lucasfilm owns.

All of this nerd-rage that I'm reading on other sites about how this is an intentional "slap in the face" to Star Wars collectors is just nonsense and really makes Star Wars fans look ignorant. I think a lot of those people have grossly overestimated their own importance.

El Chuxter
02-12-2012, 10:40 PM
We don't need any help making ourselves look ignorant, BigB. We're Star Wars fans. It's our lot in life. :)

Battle Droid
02-13-2012, 11:42 PM
http://www.jeditemplearchives.com/content/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=9350

Q: Absolutely absolutely please ask about the Tonnika Sisters situation. How can they appear in a VW superbowl ad but not be made into figures? Is this some sort of legal way around getting them made? If so, AWESOME, but if not, why even let the commercial be made and tease and slap the fact that we can't have them made as action figures in our faces? Something to that affect. Please just ask about their status as figures. Couldn't Hasbro just make the likeness more generic and release them as "Cantina Patrons" in the way they called Captain Fordo "ARC Trooper Commander"?

AND

Well yeah, don't forget the upcoming Brea & Senni Tonnika. I mean they must be making them right... RIGHT! They have to. They're all over the small screen (Clone Wars and VW commercial). Just think of the millions of [Super Bowl] viewers that these two hotties were just dangled in front of (and the millions of dollers spent to surreptitiously get these two out of the shadows and into the limelight). So there must be a greater cause then just selling more Beetles, right... RIGHT?!!

Hasbro: They're not coming and we will not be able to make these figures.

bigbarada
02-15-2012, 08:52 AM
http://www.jeditemplearchives.com/content/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=9350

Q: Absolutely absolutely please ask about the Tonnika Sisters situation. How can they appear in a VW superbowl ad but not be made into figures? Is this some sort of legal way around getting them made? If so, AWESOME, but if not, why even let the commercial be made and tease and slap the fact that we can't have them made as action figures in our faces? Something to that affect. Please just ask about their status as figures. Couldn't Hasbro just make the likeness more generic and release them as "Cantina Patrons" in the way they called Captain Fordo "ARC Trooper Commander"?



I bolded the part that I thought was absolutely ridiculous. Again, how does Hasbro have any control whatsoever over what Lucasfilm chooses to do with their own intellectual property? The question is idiotic.

DarthQuack
02-16-2012, 12:55 AM
I don't think we'll ever see them. :(