posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 12:22 PM
Disney have been busted so many times using subliminal sex messages it is more than fair to assume that this is not accidental.
Marketing which targets a specific demographic rarely happens accidentally. And by the way, there is really nothing subliminal about the...how should
I say it?...less than masculine Tarzan doll.
Do you have any idea which demographic Disney/Mattel was targeting here? Here is a hint: other than the legendary GI Joe, most heterosexual guys do
not collect and play with dolls. They are more interested in futuristic hi-tech action figures than they are in some bare chested hairless jungleman
who wears a tiny cloth and enjoys pounding on the snake. See where Disney was going with this? In fact, I am quite surprised the company did not
release a third version with Tarzan swinging along with some buddies.
From a collectible standpoint, $50.00 is not a bad price. The problem with this doll as a collectible is the awful disproportionate design of the
figure and its large bulky size. Why have Tarzan's huge thing hanging around collecting dust when you can have a premium baseball card with much
better resale value at only a fraction of the size?
I don't know about you, but if a friend came over, I would rather show him my rookie Reggie Jackson card than Tarzan's...ehrrrr...hard working
sweaty snake. And if I did show him Tarzan's big...ehrrrr...package, I don't think this guy would be my buddy much longer. At least I don't think
In addition, the doll is gimmicky and does not make a very profound social statement, thus further diminishing its nostalgic value. Disney is smart
enough to realize that human being like to spend a large amount of money and time playing with garbage such as this. From a marketing standpoint, the
blatant sexual imagery in the Tarzan doll was targeting individuals of certain sexual orientation. Can't really blame them since Tarzan really does
not do too well with the macho crowd.