They’re Not Action Figures; They’re Dolls
I almost never remember to maintain it, but a few years ago I tried to develop the habit of referring to my G.I. Joes and Transformers and such as “dolls”, if only because I grow weary of the playful admonishment that these plastic playthings are “action figures, not dolls“.
Perhaps it was all just mental preparation, ’cause for months now, the toy I’ve wanted more than any other is the Wizard of Oz Judy Garland-as-Dorothy doll, from Tonner.
Unfortunately, it costs something like a hundred ‘n fifty dollars, hence the months of fruitless yearning.
Meanwhile, I almost never buy a toy unless I think I can fit it into Damage, Incorporated, my epic diorama series that I’ll never have time or means to produce unless we settle down in the States again someday. (And here I’ll explain for my lay readers that in this context, a diorama [or “dio”] is a comic book wherein the artwork consists of photographs of action figures; you just became three percent less cool by reading those words).
That’s the sick thing: I do have a story in mind for this twelve-inch Dorothy doll. She’ll of course tower over my G.I. Joe figures dolls, but the story I’ve formulated will nonetheless incorporate various G.I. Joe characters and a giant goddamn Dorothy Gale, and furthermore, I like to think the story is pretty badass.
Stranger still: while my fervor for the Dorothy doll stems in no small part from my undying affection for the classic MGM film from 1939, I am also rather eager to procure this variant doll with an alternate outfit:
What? I like her hair.
So stay tuned for more two-fisted action!
I guess.
Two-Fisted Toy Talk! 