Why did they change the Warrior's vest emblem?

Uriah · Post by **Uriah** » Tue Aug 16, 2005 1:35 am

I like the new one but seems weird with all the effort to be movie accurate.

(Sorry if already posted and answered - blame the Orphan learning curve)

I have Swan, Cochise, Cleon, and the yellow, red, and orange Furies and have to say these figures are cooler in-hand than the pictures indicate.

TCM Hitchhiker · Post by **TCM Hitchhiker** » Sat Aug 20, 2005 11:51 pm

The vest are changed to this new logo in the game as well. I would like to know the answer to this too, I am not very happy about it!

"There must be SOME word!"

Post by **Kartoon** » Sat Aug 20, 2005 11:57 pm

wow i guess i didnt notice that at all, the flams instead of wings....they do this to the figures to? L( i dont like that...hah im not a big on change kinda person. i wonder what the reasons are for this? couldent be a copywrite thing..... War Chief any word on why this has been changed in the game and on the figures?

TCM Hitchhiker · Post by **TCM Hitchhiker** » Sun Aug 21, 2005 12:11 am

Not only have the wings changed, but it has a snake head in place of the skull.

bushnut · Post by **bushnut** » Mon Aug 22, 2005 7:12 pm

This is an outrage. Someones head should be on the block for this. Leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.

Uriah · Post by **Uriah** » Mon Aug 22, 2005 10:18 pm

All things onsidered, I can live with this slight bit of innacuracy - the new logo is actually pretty cool. I wouldn't get it on the back of a real vest (that would need to be the real logo or nuthin') but on a toy and video game characters - no big deal. If I had never seen the Warriors and had to pick between the two, I might even go with the new one on looks alone. The flamming cobra emblem looks a little more fierce that the flying skull. All that said though, it still doesn't explain why they changed a logo that was perfectly fine.

At the end of the day, it doesn't make me like the toy's any less and I'm still buying the game.

Ranchgal · Post by **Ranchgal** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:12 am

SHM has an answer to this somewhere here on another thread-
they had to change the logo for copyright reasons---IF they don't have merchandizing copyrights to everything--it can never be released, so they have to make some minor changes to be able to market them. IT is the law, and it costs way too much money to try and buy the rights to something as established as this--much easier to change it and go with the flow.

Uriah · Post by **Uriah** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 7:02 pm

OK, I'm 90% sold on that explanation - but here is the 10% hold out...

1) They were able to secure the Furies and Rogue's emblem, why not the warriors.

2) It seems like it would be more expensive to szecure rights/permissionto use the likeness of the actors (which they were apparently able to do) than a simple logo.

3) Wasn't it SHM who got American Flags to revise their vests to be even more film accuarate (this included making the emblem closer to the film's)? I'm pretty sure those vest's aren't officially licensed (right?) but they are using the logo with no apparent issues.

Ranchgal · Post by **Ranchgal** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 4:34 am

Quite possibly because neither of the other two were considered by the "suits" to be as marketable, or as popularly recognised as the Warriors stuff is, hence those may have been much cheaper to buy the rights to.

Plus, no one here really knows WHO owns the rights to WHAT--so some parts may be personally owned by scriptwriter, some stuff by production companies.

Oh you have to understand the difference, which is why most of them sold have blood/dirt/scars on them.
they are NOT liknesses of the ACTORS in questions, they are likenesses of the CHARACTERS they played, and the characters would be owned by someone OTHER than the actor that played it.

For an actor to represent himself as a character, he has to BUY the name/rights of that character---example--a lot of old west tv stars did that---Roy Rogers, Dale Evans, and Hopalong Cassidy all bought their rights from the studio they worked for. Roy also had to buy TRigger too--that is the only way they could make public appearances in character, as HOPALONG CASSIDY or ROY ROGERS and TRIGGER.

Post by **SoldierHeavyMuscle** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 4:58 am

i don't remember where i heard it, but supposedly, when the warriors came out, they had a problem with the hells angels over the firebird with wing emblem. they said it was a copyright infringement on they're logo. and i'm guessing, guessing, they don't wanna open that whole thing up again. but you're right, that still wouldn't explain why some thing's and item's can use them, and some can't. but i do buy you're theory ranchgal, the figure's, and the game, are on a much grander scale than say dale's vest's.
a lot harder to slip under the rader, when you're as big as rockstar, or mezco.

Ranchgal · Post by **Ranchgal** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 4:26 pm

I think it is just part of today's mentality about the world---when it comes right down to it--bottom line:
IT is all about the MONEY!!
You pay, it's okay, you don't pay, you take a chance.

the hard part is contacting WHO to pay for WHAT part. LOL
makes my head hurt.

Joranthalus · Post by **Joranthalus** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 8:58 pm

Mezco was simply told not to use the real logo and to use the flames instead. No real explanation was given. It's like an X-file conspiracy or something... but then i think everything is an X-file conspiracy

Ranchgal · Post by **Ranchgal** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 2:21 am

That philosophy works for me!!

Post by **SoldierHeavyMuscle** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 5:42 am

Joranthalus wrote:Mezco was simply told not to use the real logo and to use the flames instead. No real explanation was given. It's like an X-file conspiracy or something... but then i think everything is an X-file conspiracy

told by who? mulder, and scully?! (is that they're name's??) and are they even spelled right? LOL well, you know what i mean!