Mattel and CBS Consumer Products reached a settlement with actress Donna Douglas, who portrayed Ellie May on the popular TV show Beverly Hillbillies. Douglas sued the companies for producing a Barbie doll in her likeness. The companies involved claimed they had the rights to the character, and thus her likeness as well.
The amount of the settlement was not mentioned. The Beverly Hillbillies ran from 1962 to 1971.
© C Harris Lynn, 2011
A rambling melange of pop-culture.
Showing posts with label barbie. Show all posts
Showing posts with label barbie. Show all posts
Thursday, January 05, 2012
Monday, February 28, 2011
Christie, the "First" Black Barbie
 |
| Christie |
In 1967, Colored Francie was merely a Barbie with darker skin; Barbie's head was used unchanged, so Colored Francie lacked African-American features. The connotation -- though politically-correct for the time -- also offended the black community, so Colored Francie was quickly discontinued.
In 1968, Mattel released Christie, which self-proclaimed media "experts" consider the first black Barbie. Christie had coarser synthetic hair than Barbie, as well as facial features specific to African-Americans. Some historians credit this move as bold and empowering, as it was the height of the Civil Rights Movement. Christie was well-accepted, and continued to be popular up to the 1980 release of Black Barbie.
Mattel also released the first Latino Barbie, Teresa, in 1980.
© C Harris Lynn, 2011
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Female Force: Ruth Handler - The Darker Side of Barbie
 |
| Female Force: Ruth Handler - The Darker Side of Barbie |
Scheduled for a March 2011 release, Female Force: Ruth Handler, the Creator of Barbie follows the creation and impact of one of the most iconic and influential toys ever made. It examines the life and legacy of its creator, the late Ruth Handler
"Barbie and her creators, specifically Handler, are so iconic that it is hard to come up with something to say that hasn't been said, but I'm confident that this book will leave her (Barbie and Handler) maybe a bit exposed," issue author Tara Broeckel revealed. "Their collective story is so complex that often times, the darker narrative is left untold."
For over 50 years, Barbie has helped young girls come of age in the midst of an ever-changing social climate. But what do we really know about her? Female Force: Ruth Handler, the Creator of Barbie tells the story of how America’s favorite fashion doll emerged from the seedy underworld of German sex symbols and cigarette shop gag gifts to become one of history’s most iconic women.
‘I never knew the sordid roots of such a sweet and innocent toy. It’s peachy to draw as there’s a humour that runs through the great writing and history which allows me to inject some comedy and fun into the art.’ said artist Neil Alexander.
"This is the first time we have featured a subject who is no longer with us (Handler passed away in 2002). But her importance, and the impact of her idea, has shaped the lives of many young girls, influenced fashion and still sparks debate," said Bluewater’s president Darren Davis.
The title, written by Broeckel, was penciled by Neil Alexander, with cover art provided by Michael Szyksznian. The issue will retail for $3.99 and be available through most online venues as well as local comic book stores.
© C Harris Lynn, 2011
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Busty Barbie
 |
| Really? |
Some say the Busty Barbie sends young girls the wrong message, while others say many children see their own mothers wearing similarly revealing outfits when they dress-up for dates with their boyfriends or husbands, and there is nothing wrong with the girls mimicking such things. Others note that this is actually part of the problem:
Reality shows such as Basketball Wives and the Real Housewives series feature several women whose only accomplishment is having married well. Busty Barbie, with her too-perfect breasts some say are meant to emulate fake boobs, and her revealing outfit is simply another step in this direction. According to these critics, though Busty Barbie is only symptomatic of a larger societal issue, she reinforces the wrong message being sent to American girls.
Mattel has not yet responded to the matter, but said the Back to Basics Collection is not going to be pulled from shelves. Busty Barbie, along with the rest of the line, is $20.00 and available at many mainstream outlets, including Target.
© C Harris Lynn, 2010
UPDATE: I have no idea if the image included is actually "Busty Barbie," as there is apparently a porn starlet which goes by the same name, so I didn't dig too deep. I suppose I should remind you that this blog is not always appropriate for children... and, if that Barbie doll is real, it probably isn't either. - 2018
Saturday, June 06, 2009
Record Fine for Mattel
Mattel agreed to pay a record $2.3 million in fines for the sale of toys and toy products which contained unsafe levels of lead. The toys -- which included licensed properties from the Sesame Street line, Barbie, Dora the Explorer products, and toys from the Fisher-Price subsidiary -- were Made in China. An investigation proved that Mattel had knowingly allowed the tainted products to go to market in 2006-2007. The products were part of a series of massive recalls which dominated the news. The Consumer Product Safety Commission said it was the largest fine of its kind to-date.
Mattel was not the only company involved in the recalls of products made in China containing excessive amounts of lead, and this is only the first fine levied against any of those companies. Parties agreed Mattel acted quickly and has not had any lead-based issues since.
Lead poisoning can cause a number of problems in children, including neurological problems, learning deficiencies, and mental and physical retardation.
© C Harris Lynn, 2009
Mattel was not the only company involved in the recalls of products made in China containing excessive amounts of lead, and this is only the first fine levied against any of those companies. Parties agreed Mattel acted quickly and has not had any lead-based issues since.
Lead poisoning can cause a number of problems in children, including neurological problems, learning deficiencies, and mental and physical retardation.
© C Harris Lynn, 2009
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Mattel Awarded Bratz Settlement
Mattel reached a settlement with Bratz creator, Carter Bryant, on the eve before their lawsuit against Bratz maker, MGA, was set to be heard.
Bryant worked for Mattel, makers of Barbie, between the years of 1995 and 1998, and again between 1999 and 2000. The Bratz dolls were developed based on sketches he made somewhere during this time. Bryant and MGA claim he developed the dolls design in the interim, though Mattel was unconcerned; according to Mattel's suit, they should have had first-shot at any designs Carter Bryant created while in their employment.
More specifically, the amount to be awarded to Mattel was to be settled according to the first four Bratz dolls' sales (based directly on Bryant's designs) and all further Bratz line's sales. MGA had a point in contending that Mattel, had they won the case, should only be awarded the amount of money they were actually out, according to the contract Bryant was under at the time. Of course, had Mattel decided to produce the line, the entire amount would be theirs.
None of this mattered in the end, as Bryant settled for what is believed to be nearly $50 million.
ASIDE: I know I wrote about this and I am pretty sure I covered it here, but I cannot find it (this is why working the tags is so important!). I may have covered it in a post about something largely unrelated.
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
Bryant worked for Mattel, makers of Barbie, between the years of 1995 and 1998, and again between 1999 and 2000. The Bratz dolls were developed based on sketches he made somewhere during this time. Bryant and MGA claim he developed the dolls design in the interim, though Mattel was unconcerned; according to Mattel's suit, they should have had first-shot at any designs Carter Bryant created while in their employment.
More specifically, the amount to be awarded to Mattel was to be settled according to the first four Bratz dolls' sales (based directly on Bryant's designs) and all further Bratz line's sales. MGA had a point in contending that Mattel, had they won the case, should only be awarded the amount of money they were actually out, according to the contract Bryant was under at the time. Of course, had Mattel decided to produce the line, the entire amount would be theirs.
None of this mattered in the end, as Bryant settled for what is believed to be nearly $50 million.
ASIDE: I know I wrote about this and I am pretty sure I covered it here, but I cannot find it (this is why working the tags is so important!). I may have covered it in a post about something largely unrelated.
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Brits Lead Prude Patrol
In a somewhat weird turn of events, the British have taken the reins from American Conservative morons, becoming ever more vocal in their calls for the censorship of all things comics-related.
Some years back, the Brits pushed for -- and got -- a censoring of classic Tom and Jerry cartoons (the story was covered here in a drafted post, never published), claiming animated, anthropomorphic images smoking cigarettes lead children to do the same. My rebuttal was: Even retarded children who have no adult supervision are capable of distinguishing between fact and fiction.
Just this week, the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) had to defend its rating of the Dark Knight, due to more than 80 complaints from slack-jawed "parents" and Conservative "Christians." While the board has yet to cave-in to these prigs, the backlash may have some effect on later ratings -- we will have to wait and see.
Now, the British are upset over a Barbie doll in Black Canary's outfit. The Barbie, from Mattel's Black Label line, is suggested for "the adult collector, age 14 and older," but that is not good enough for the Christian Voice, which also calls for the death of alleged murderers based on "overwhelming evidence" alone - "overwhelming evidence" for Christian Voice means two eye-witnesses. There is a similar organization in America with the same name, but the two claim not to be affiliated. The American Christian Voice openly advocates the discrimination of homosexuals.
If this sounds familiar, it should: other organizations have made the same denouncements based on similar religious grounds. Again, it is important (to them) that we point-out Christian Voice, as well as its American counterpart, claim no affiliations - regardless of the similarities.
The Black Canary doll, which ships in September, is only one of several DC-based superheroines to get the Barbie treatment. Other versions include Supergirl, Batgirl, and Wonder Woman.
To Mattel - and Barbie's - credit, they have fought against the doll's image being improperly associated with adult contexts in the past. We can only hope they do not cave-in to these fascists.
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
UPDATE: This post was hijacked by the Far-Right (US, ISraeli, and UK military). Hopefully the links have been corrected (for now). - 2018
Some years back, the Brits pushed for -- and got -- a censoring of classic Tom and Jerry cartoons (the story was covered here in a drafted post, never published), claiming animated, anthropomorphic images smoking cigarettes lead children to do the same. My rebuttal was: Even retarded children who have no adult supervision are capable of distinguishing between fact and fiction.
Just this week, the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) had to defend its rating of the Dark Knight, due to more than 80 complaints from slack-jawed "parents" and Conservative "Christians." While the board has yet to cave-in to these prigs, the backlash may have some effect on later ratings -- we will have to wait and see.
Now, the British are upset over a Barbie doll in Black Canary's outfit. The Barbie, from Mattel's Black Label line, is suggested for "the adult collector, age 14 and older," but that is not good enough for the Christian Voice, which also calls for the death of alleged murderers based on "overwhelming evidence" alone - "overwhelming evidence" for Christian Voice means two eye-witnesses. There is a similar organization in America with the same name, but the two claim not to be affiliated. The American Christian Voice openly advocates the discrimination of homosexuals.
If this sounds familiar, it should: other organizations have made the same denouncements based on similar religious grounds. Again, it is important (to them) that we point-out Christian Voice, as well as its American counterpart, claim no affiliations - regardless of the similarities.
The Black Canary doll, which ships in September, is only one of several DC-based superheroines to get the Barbie treatment. Other versions include Supergirl, Batgirl, and Wonder Woman.
To Mattel - and Barbie's - credit, they have fought against the doll's image being improperly associated with adult contexts in the past. We can only hope they do not cave-in to these fascists.
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
UPDATE: This post was hijacked by the Far-Right (US, ISraeli, and UK military). Hopefully the links have been corrected (for now). - 2018
Monday, April 28, 2008
Islam Denounces Barbie, Pokemon
Spokesmen for Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice in Saudi Arabia recently reiterated the 10-year old ban on Barbie dolls.
According to the Committee, Barbie was based on an actual woman who was of Jewish descent. In actuality, the Barbie doll was based on a short-lived German doll named Lilli which was based on a sequential art comic strip that ran as filler for the German tabloid, Bild-Zeitung. Lilli's exploits were often political or sexual in nature and aimed primarily at adults. When the doll was fashioned, it held three patents and was largely considered inappropriate for children. Mattel bought the rights and patents to the doll in 1964 and production ceased; the name of the new doll was Barbie, and was aimed at children.
While the actual model (if there even was one) for either doll is unknown, Lilli was popular enough to spawn a motion picture, in which she was portrayed by a Danish actress. As the story goes, the woman who "invented" Barbie actually used Lilli as the model from which she worked, so no actual living model (excepting Ann Smyrner, who appeared as Lilli in the 1958 film) ever existed.
The Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice in Saudi Arabia also denounced the popular Pokemon trading card game (CCG: Collectible Card Games) as a Jewish conspiracy to introduce children to gambling and other vices.
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
According to the Committee, Barbie was based on an actual woman who was of Jewish descent. In actuality, the Barbie doll was based on a short-lived German doll named Lilli which was based on a sequential art comic strip that ran as filler for the German tabloid, Bild-Zeitung. Lilli's exploits were often political or sexual in nature and aimed primarily at adults. When the doll was fashioned, it held three patents and was largely considered inappropriate for children. Mattel bought the rights and patents to the doll in 1964 and production ceased; the name of the new doll was Barbie, and was aimed at children.
While the actual model (if there even was one) for either doll is unknown, Lilli was popular enough to spawn a motion picture, in which she was portrayed by a Danish actress. As the story goes, the woman who "invented" Barbie actually used Lilli as the model from which she worked, so no actual living model (excepting Ann Smyrner, who appeared as Lilli in the 1958 film) ever existed.
The Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice in Saudi Arabia also denounced the popular Pokemon trading card game (CCG: Collectible Card Games) as a Jewish conspiracy to introduce children to gambling and other vices.
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
Friday, August 24, 2007
Mattel Fights Glorified Whore for Rights to Barbie Name
Yeah, yeah, yeah - a bit harsh. Whatever.
Look, we've been through this before: no matter what you think about pornography or prostitution, it is inarguable that they are one and the same. The only - the very only, single - thing that separates the two is that one is filmed; they are the same act: receiving money in exchange for sex. And we have been through this before: I am not necessarily against either one, I just loathe the insult to my intelligence when the fat cats, performers, politicians, and fans try to convince me that one is different from the other. I also despise the industry and the people in it because they are exploitative (and the performers are exploited), and the government refuses to do anything about it because anyone who isn't making money off of porn "got what they deserve."
This is my entire point here:
Barbie is a frigging American institution! She has been a favorite toy of young girls for generations now and I, for one (perhaps the only one), would like to see that respected somewhat. I mean, it's fine to criticize Barbie as setting unrealistic standards for girls - it's good to do that and it's good that the toy generates such important discussion - and it's fine to satirize the whole thing and poke fun of it from time to time, but like I've said time and again, how in the world can you blame today's youth for being so angry, cynical, and disillusioned when we are selling-out everything good and decent right out from under them?
Porn, hard drug use (meth), sex is no big deal, you have every right to carry a gun, everyone's a winner -- I mean, we are telling these kids that they have every right to do just whatever the hell they want, then we have the nerve to punish them when they do! We are literally creating a prison-based society where doing time or getting busted is simply a rite of passage -- part of "growing up." They "got what they deserve," we "taught them a lesson," they should have "thought about that before they did it" and better "think about it next time."
UPDATE: This is known as "The Perfect Circle." - 2018
Whatever happened to acting like parents, role-models, and general effing adults?! Why not tell them, "Hey don't do that, or you may end-up facing some pretty serious consequences!?" Is this thing on? I mean, is it me? It's me, right?
No, when you are of a certain age, sex really isn't that big of a deal -- two consenting adults who are engaging in activities they find enjoyable -- but before you are emotionally mature enough to understand and handle that, sex really is a big deal! Meth, crack cocaine, heroin, heavy drinking, multiple sex partners -- these are big deals, no matter how old you are, and no, not everyone's doing it. Just because you have a right to carry a gun doesn't mean you should and if you feel you need to carry one for your own protection, no matter where you go, then that is a societal problem we need to deal with!
That this overpriced hooker vaguely resembles an American icon does not give her the right to assume that icon's name and promote herself under it -- AND THIS ONE LOOKS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LIKE BARBIE! (in fact, she calls herself ChinaBarbie) -- and those of us who are creators should be up in arms over this! I like porn just fine and I have met many, many women in that business and only bear grudges against a few dozen or so, but if any one of them were to call herself "Linda Carter, the Wonder Woman of porn," I would be all for DC suing her plastic tits off! And I would be damned mad if they didn't win!
Now, this becomes a completely different matter if a sketch comedy show did a skit in which this was the premise. That would be a satire and you can all but bet that the point behind that satirical skit would be exactly what I am saying here: the selling-out, not of American "values," but of American standards, of community standards, of things, ideas, people, and concepts which -- while maybe not "sacred" -- used to be sacrosanct (to some degree, at least). How can we tell young people that these things should be respected... you know unless you're a rapper, or a prostitute/porn "star," or a drug addict, or this or that or some other thing?
Didn't it used to be that poets and writers, artists and musicians were the ones who pushed the envelope and that was what they did? Nowadays, anyone who doodles a fricking flame on the bottom of their skateboard is an "artist." NO, THEY REALLY ARE NOT! Just because you draw your name in bubble letters on the waistband of your underwear doesn't make you a graphic designer and just because you can play Crazy Train on the acoustic (you know, just the verse, not anything else) doesn't make you a musician! And amongst those of us who really are these things, we know there are certain rules even we must follow -- such as not infringing upon trademarks!
It's all one big mixed message from modern American society. Punk rock openly mocked traditional values and popular notions and ideas - and that was great because there was a point. This porn "star" has no "point" to make -- she's just making money! And by bartering on a trademarked name, image, and concept, she's doing so illegally. And those of us who are creators should be mad as hell about it and call for her to take some other approach to her "career." And if she didn't know any better, well now she does. After all, that's how those porn people work when they get young "Actors" to sign those freaking contracts [which are illegal and unenforceable, except in Nevada]. So let me throw a little adage to the porn industry: "What's good for the goose..."
Get a more common porn name, chick!
Like "Bambi."
Look, we've been through this before: no matter what you think about pornography or prostitution, it is inarguable that they are one and the same. The only - the very only, single - thing that separates the two is that one is filmed; they are the same act: receiving money in exchange for sex. And we have been through this before: I am not necessarily against either one, I just loathe the insult to my intelligence when the fat cats, performers, politicians, and fans try to convince me that one is different from the other. I also despise the industry and the people in it because they are exploitative (and the performers are exploited), and the government refuses to do anything about it because anyone who isn't making money off of porn "got what they deserve."
This is my entire point here:
Barbie is a frigging American institution! She has been a favorite toy of young girls for generations now and I, for one (perhaps the only one), would like to see that respected somewhat. I mean, it's fine to criticize Barbie as setting unrealistic standards for girls - it's good to do that and it's good that the toy generates such important discussion - and it's fine to satirize the whole thing and poke fun of it from time to time, but like I've said time and again, how in the world can you blame today's youth for being so angry, cynical, and disillusioned when we are selling-out everything good and decent right out from under them?
Porn, hard drug use (meth), sex is no big deal, you have every right to carry a gun, everyone's a winner -- I mean, we are telling these kids that they have every right to do just whatever the hell they want, then we have the nerve to punish them when they do! We are literally creating a prison-based society where doing time or getting busted is simply a rite of passage -- part of "growing up." They "got what they deserve," we "taught them a lesson," they should have "thought about that before they did it" and better "think about it next time."
UPDATE: This is known as "The Perfect Circle." - 2018
Whatever happened to acting like parents, role-models, and general effing adults?! Why not tell them, "Hey don't do that, or you may end-up facing some pretty serious consequences!?" Is this thing on? I mean, is it me? It's me, right?
No, when you are of a certain age, sex really isn't that big of a deal -- two consenting adults who are engaging in activities they find enjoyable -- but before you are emotionally mature enough to understand and handle that, sex really is a big deal! Meth, crack cocaine, heroin, heavy drinking, multiple sex partners -- these are big deals, no matter how old you are, and no, not everyone's doing it. Just because you have a right to carry a gun doesn't mean you should and if you feel you need to carry one for your own protection, no matter where you go, then that is a societal problem we need to deal with!
That this overpriced hooker vaguely resembles an American icon does not give her the right to assume that icon's name and promote herself under it -- AND THIS ONE LOOKS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LIKE BARBIE! (in fact, she calls herself ChinaBarbie) -- and those of us who are creators should be up in arms over this! I like porn just fine and I have met many, many women in that business and only bear grudges against a few dozen or so, but if any one of them were to call herself "Linda Carter, the Wonder Woman of porn," I would be all for DC suing her plastic tits off! And I would be damned mad if they didn't win!
Now, this becomes a completely different matter if a sketch comedy show did a skit in which this was the premise. That would be a satire and you can all but bet that the point behind that satirical skit would be exactly what I am saying here: the selling-out, not of American "values," but of American standards, of community standards, of things, ideas, people, and concepts which -- while maybe not "sacred" -- used to be sacrosanct (to some degree, at least). How can we tell young people that these things should be respected... you know unless you're a rapper, or a prostitute/porn "star," or a drug addict, or this or that or some other thing?
Didn't it used to be that poets and writers, artists and musicians were the ones who pushed the envelope and that was what they did? Nowadays, anyone who doodles a fricking flame on the bottom of their skateboard is an "artist." NO, THEY REALLY ARE NOT! Just because you draw your name in bubble letters on the waistband of your underwear doesn't make you a graphic designer and just because you can play Crazy Train on the acoustic (you know, just the verse, not anything else) doesn't make you a musician! And amongst those of us who really are these things, we know there are certain rules even we must follow -- such as not infringing upon trademarks!
It's all one big mixed message from modern American society. Punk rock openly mocked traditional values and popular notions and ideas - and that was great because there was a point. This porn "star" has no "point" to make -- she's just making money! And by bartering on a trademarked name, image, and concept, she's doing so illegally. And those of us who are creators should be mad as hell about it and call for her to take some other approach to her "career." And if she didn't know any better, well now she does. After all, that's how those porn people work when they get young "Actors" to sign those freaking contracts [which are illegal and unenforceable, except in Nevada]. So let me throw a little adage to the porn industry: "What's good for the goose..."
Get a more common porn name, chick!
Like "Bambi."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)