TO answer the topic question - no, the quality of a line (if there even is one) has nothing to do with whether I will see a movie.

To address the other things you mentioned:

For Star Trek the first movie figures went on clearance (and I still see 12" Pikes at TRU). I think that has soured anyone on a full action figure line. The Kreo stuff moves more into the contruction side, though it isn't that extensive and overall it would be cheaper to produce since you can re-use elements from other licenses and sets.

IM3 and MOS both have a big focus on 'cheap and dirty'. The same can be said fo the new Wolverine figures (minimal articulation). IM3 is suffering from saturation from the previous IM's, Thor and Avengers, so they went lighter on it. MOS has a lot of merchandise, just not all action figures.

I think some of this is indicating that action figures are not the best merchandising dollars for a movie any more.

I think the adult collectors are ending up more to higher end purchases (statues, Hot Toys' figures) and this has led to the mass market skewing to the kid's market, and lower quality (and cost) figures.

-Rob

Good or bad toylines have no influence on my decision. Designs I think would make good figures do however. For example I went to see the new Total Recall because I liked the robot design and thought those would make cool figures. Even though there have been no figures released as far a I know. But I like looking at stuff on screen that I would also like to have on my desk. Not sure if that is the kind of answer you are looking for but those are my preferences.

I finally found a non put together Iron Patriot and "extremis Iron Man 3 " figure for the Marvel Universe line that was a Toys R Us exclusive with a vehicle.

Totally disappointed with HASBRO.

Avian

.

No. One has nothing to do with the other.

I'll see a movie or not based on its own merits, not because of any licensed products. I can't even imagine deciding not to see a movie because the toys are bad.

And I buy action figures because of the toys themselves. I don't pass on good toys because the movie stunk and I won't buy a lousy toy for a movie that I love.

And no, the lack of a line does not show less faith in the movie product on the part of the producers, it's not even the film producers' decision.

Perhaps another way to word it would be does a bad or nonexistent action figure line give you an indication of the movie quality?

You haven't heard anything good about Man of Steel? Jesus, man, do you live in Misanthropeville?

It's the best non-Batman superhero movie ever shot. Now you've heard something good about it.

That only gives you an idea of the movie's marketability, not the quality of the movie.

-Rob

And toy-specific marketability, at that.

Also, sometimes it's simply reflective of prior lack of success in the toy aisle. The last Trek movie was successful enough, which is why there's another in the theaters this year. But the toy line pretty much tanked, which is why there isn't one for the new movie. This despite it being arguable that the problem was with the last toy line itself being weak rather than a lack of interest in the property.

No. I think that, at this point, the lack of a line shows less faith in toy sales. I'm pretty surprised there weren't Iron Man 3 and Man of Steel video games. Not on consoles, at any rate.

Man, the retro craze 20 years from now is going to be weird. "Oh, man, remember those really crappy toys that came out?" I mean, He-Man wasn't exactly a high watermark of quality, but they weren't nearly as chintzy as the kids' toys these days. Hell, Transformers had actual metal bits in them!

'Monsters University' beats zombies, Superman at box office

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/06/23/monsters-university-beat...