#blindbox design

[steelajeeg]

Astro Boy Student

- from Astro Boy Diverse Life

- by Pop Mart

What a stunning little figure. This Astro Boy toy from Pop Mart wasn't commercially released in my country (due to licensing agreements) so I was very lucky to find a few blind boxes locally.

I love the variations in textures and paint finish, it really evokes the fabric on metal look - and the big glossy boots. And great gesture sculpting.

It's a beautifully unique toy of a classic pop culture icon.

[Instagram link for this post]

[shokoevildoer]

bogo sale, redeem with code “sticker” at checkout for a free sticker ^__^

claudiaqi.bigcartel.com

[kikagoods]

💥 Spoiler Toy Share Fish in the Pond

🐟 6 Regular Style & 1 Hidden Style

🦈 Made and design by Bowuzhi

[bloomberrypint]

what's the deal with chiikawa miniso merch bruh why do these things cost more than my cyst removal surgery

[lichenlabsgames]

my witch frog >.<

almost ready to cast the 3d print spell!

it ain't easy being green 🥺

[squeakitties]

Funko had a series of blindboxes called Pakapaka Fruit Bats and they are just the cutest things ever. Some of the most appealing blindbox designs I've ever seen and they're by the frickin Funko Pop company

[sprinkleonthatcriticism]

Is it just me? Or did Vivziepop went from selling ugly looking plushies to selling actually good looking plushies and now to selling low quality/ugly looking plushies again--

I am NOT hating on the person who drew out the design since it's not their fault and they were probably thought that their designs were gonna be use for high quality plushies not cheap stuff that you'll find in claw machines or even carnival games from my experience.

And the fact that the HB Nuggets plushies are motherfucking blindbox toys pisses me off because, they aren't even high quality and they look like a cheaper version of Tsum tsums. Vivziepop LITERALLY has a lot of money and she could just hire someone to make high quality dolls like she did for Loona and I think Stolas and Blitz, but she doesn't so yeah :/

[duplexide]

you don’t suppose pepsico decided to start distancing itself from gamer culture because of well, to put it lightly the last few years of major gamer streamer misconduct? By which I mean the pedophilia and nazi shit that made it to mainstream news.

Gamers have never had an upstanding reputation. IDK what's going on in the world of streaming, but back in the 2000s "gamer" called to mind 12 year olds virtually shooting eachother while shouting out every expletive known to man. So I don't think streamers are the reason.

That's the short answer, but people seem to like hearing my thoughts on consumer aesthetics on here, so I'll rant a bit more on the subject.

Regardless of how ethical gamers were viewed as in the 2000s-2010s, products like axe, 5 gum, and mountain dew exploded when targeting them as a demographic. It served as kind of a dark, edgy inversion of the sterile white apple aesthetic that dominated the mainstream, and we got some genuinely cool branding out of it.

Up until recently this had naturally evolved into a sort of loud, maximalism, trading its subdued, serious edge for something more colorful and ironic. It's practically a parody of edge, but it's so fun and zany it's hard to dislike this direction.

I really thought that THIS style would embody the 2020s, that this paired with things like Fortnite and blindbox toys would kind of characterize the era for its distracting, vapid, disposable, post-postmodern irony. This has all felt like a logical reaction to the sterility of 2010s design.

However, now it seems we're taking an abrupt U turn into a sort of conservative, retro 70s throwback era of design. It seems like corporations are trying to appeal more to boomers and hipsters in an attempt to broaden their appeal. These rebrands strike me as decisions made out of fear, corporations retreating into their shells.

I don't know if this is WORSE than the sterile minimalism of the 2010s but I DEFINITELY hate it.

So, this devolution is likely not due to controversies with gamers specifically, but more like an attempt to reject modernity and revert back to what's "safe" during uncertain times. I think corporations now are generally trying to seem more "evergreen" and "timeless" within an increasingly unstable corporate landscape and hypercritical social culture. This comes at the sacrifice of their edge and ambition to evolve.

[carelessflower]

shadowhunter blind box

recently ive been OBSESSED with blindbox. call it late stage capitalism, call it tiktok addiction, I've been falling into this deep hole. for those who don't know

"BLIND BOX" is a type of sealed packaging that keeps what's inside a mystery until you open it. If you order a "Set of 12 Boxes", you will receive a set of 12 figures in 12 different designs. Besides "basic" figures, some figures are rarer to find, which we call "SECRET". Some figures are even harder to find, labeled "SUPER SECRET".

so naturally, i thought hmmmmmmmm let TSC this. and here are my biased opinions on how should tsc blind box editions should go

Blind Box The Mortal Instruments Assemble (10 items)

Standard (1/10)

Warrior Jace, Rune Creator Clary, Izzy Whipping, Vampire Simon (with detachable fangs & mark of Cain), Archer Alec (alec in a hooded cape btw), Warlock Magnus (using magic), Jocelyn Fray, Luke Garroway, Vampire Lily, Werewolf Maia

Secret (1/30)

Rat Simon 

Super Secret (1/60)

Alec Consul (Red Consul Robe + Staff) 

Blind Box The Mortal Instruments Assemble Limited Edition Core Gang (10 items)

Standard (1/6)

Jace Afraid of Duck, Clary Painting, Simon & the Band, Izzy Riding Tiger, Alec Driving Maserati, Magnus Studying Spellbooks with Cauldron 

Secret (1/18)

Magnus Chairman Meow Birthday Party, 

Super Secret (1/36)

Alec Blink If You Want Me

Blind Box The Mortal Instruments Plush Doll Limited Edition Season 1 (8 items)

Standard (1/8) 

Falcon Jace, Red Panda Clary, Hamster Simon, Snake Izzy, Rabbit Alec, Cat Magnus, Lion Jace, Hedgehog Clary

Secret (1/24)

Unicorn Magnus

Super Secret (1/48)

Deer Alec

Blind Box The Mortal Instruments Plush Doll Limited Edition Season 2 (8 items)

Standard (1/8) 

Monkey Jace, Baby Chick Clary, Goat Simon, Tiger Izzy, Jellyfish Alec, Lobster Magnus, Fox Izzy, Squirrel Simon 

Secret (1/24)

Cow Alec

Super Secret (1/48)

Dragon Magnus

Blind Box The Mortal Instruments Zodiac Limited Edition (12 items)

Standard (1/12)

Aries: Sebastian Morgenstern; Taurus: Isabelle Lightwood; Gemini: Gabriel Lightwood; Cancer: Maia Roberts; Leo: Jessamine Lovelace; Virgo: Clary Fairchild; Libra: Simon Lovelace; Scorpio: Jem Carstairs; Sagittarius: Magnus Bane; Capricorn: Jace Herondale; Aquarius: Tessa Gray; Pisces: Henry Branwell

Secret (1/36)

Virgo: Alec Lightwood; Capricorn: Will Herondale

[steelajeeg]

Day Off

- from Pino Jelly Star Project

- artist YUMI

- by Pop Mart

This one was a birthday gift blindbox pull.

I love the Pino Jelly look - a fictional pop singer from a candy world - but this was my first pull from the series.

The hook here is candy colored translucent plastic, gradient painting, and a hyper glossy finish to give that hard candy look. It's such a visually stunning piece in person. My (very dark) photo area doesn't do it justice.

It's a chunk toy, and very visually alluring. It draws attention to a shelf. I'm definitely getting more of these down the line.

[Instagram link for this post]

[shokoevildoer]

for all my player 2s out there

[skysplasher]

hasbro’s misplaced faith in the strength of their ‘core’ cast of gen 1 ponies is insane though man. i would bet money that them just actually reproing the rockin’ beats would not have substantially affected sales vs slapping the theming into the rainbows and firefly thus creating a new line in the process. the average consumer does not meaningfully distinguish between moonstone firefly or skydancer or any other gen 1 pony. this not at all to downplay the importance of G1 but they are vastly overestimating the level of direct connection and sustained memory your average joe has towards G1. they do not have the strength of recency or the kind of strong individual branding that FiM characters do. these are not ‘iconic characters’ that people buy because they know and recognize. people just see ‘cute nostalgic ponies in various design configurations,' occupying the same mental space of being Designs that blindbox dolls do. you’re lucky if you get an adult who maybe had one as a kid and remembers them (statistically likelier with the common ones sure) at most, but even that only goes so far. even your average FiM Diehard who doesn't dislike the other gens tends to still barely actually know anything about G1 and they've got way more proximity to it than most. even if we assume your average consumer does remember firefly from the movie, then assuming that they care enough to repeatedly buy merch of specifically her is another leap entirely. people buy the collectors + rainbows because they’re the ones hasbro keeps putting in front of them but hasbro is absolutely white knuckling that they’re The Core Iconic G1 Cast and nobody else is safe to merchandise. the demographic of people who not only half-remembers but is actively engaged in G1 and the nuances of its characters is a relatively niche non-casual consumer base, and hasbro clearly knows that given they haven't gone in harder on G1, but at the same time their entire marketing strategy for the retro line paradoxically relies upon assumed character branding loyalty. they’re genuinely out of their minds. they could swap all their moonstone merch renders out for fucking, i don’t know, tabby or boysenberry pie tomorrow and i guarantee it wouldn’t meaningfully change anything about those items’ sales figures purely beyond how much people do or do not immediately respond to their designs at a glance.

[oobitterberryoo]

Which LADS Guy Would Own a Labubu

Sylus: He does not understand the craze for them, but while in a popmart store with you, one in particular did catch his eye. The design definitely fit him and his humble abode. Luke and Kieran also played a part in convincing him to buy one for the place, so in the end, he caves and buys a labubu. When you ask about the labubu residing in his place, he reminds you that you influence even the smallest parts of his life.

Zayne: After buying you one, he gets a little curious (will avoid saying that directly, though) and eventually buys one for himself that sits on his desk at work. It serves as another reminder of you in his workspace. He also buys some for the children at his hospital. He's very neutral on the blindboxes, not really picking favorites and being fine with getting whatever. When he's at the store with you, he may pick up one or two.

Rafayel: At first, he would critique the design, claiming he could make something much better for you to collect, but eventually, he became your trading partner. He isn't obsessed with them, but he enjoys unboxing them together; he's more interested in the mystery of your response rather than the blind box! There's a 50% chance you will be filled with joy and a 50% chance you will be disappointed, regardless, he enjoys being the one you can turn to when you get a repeat or one you don't want.

Xavier: His apartment is filled with quite a few of them, but somewhat against his will. He didn't fall for the craze at all, but when you get a repeat or something you don't want, you end up giving them to him, and despite not understanding, he doesn't complain. His apartment will be a haven for the unwanted labubus if that's what you want. He will also never turn down a PopMart trip just to be with you.

Caleb: Caleb keeps track of the ones you don't have and pays close attention to when you're pointing at the pictures on the box and explaining which ones you do and don't want. He definitely buys them and opens the box before giving them to you to ensure you only get the ones you want. This results in him having a pile of discarded labubus. So he does buy and keep them, buuut not really for himself. As exciting as it is to only get the ones you want when opening a blind box, you cannot help but feel suspicious. He, of course, denies any foul play.

[lichenlabsgames]

BREAKING NEWS: there are reports of sightings of a mysterious creature

alleged physical descriptions indicate she's round, green, froggy, is wearing a witch's hat, and has the cutest little :3 face

lichen labs will continue reporting as more details unfold 🔍

sneak peek at the 3d model :3

and a wip of the next mystic marsh pet... sorcerer salamander!

[yamayuandadu]

Hello! I saw your discussion about Inanna on Twitter and got a bit confused. You said that the tutelary goddesses of Uruk, Zanbalam, and Akkad were all "Ishtar" and "Inanna," with the only difference being on a cultic level. But then you proceed to say, "never such a situation as 'there's one goddess named Inanna and one named Ishtar.'" Did you mean that Ishtar and Inanna are practically the same? As a bonus question, who is the deity in the image you posted on Twitter?

I’ll start with the bonus question, since it’s something new, while the rest will pretty constitute reiterating what I already said many times.

Admittedly, I was a bit confused at first, because the last image I remembered posting on twitter was this:

That’s not a deity, it’s a plushie (officially "Ouioui series Y Pathetic Suctipoda") made by the company Itemlabel; they come in blindboxes with between 5 and 12 designs in a series. This specific one is sold out already, though.

Then I remembered I used a crop of the quite unique plaque from the temple of Sin in Tutub as a reaction image at some point:

I’m going to assume that’s what was meant. 

In the 1970s it was in vogue to try to link this remarkable work of art with the usual repertoire of entry level monster combat myths, without any real regard for spatial and temporal distribution of these motifs, but that never really caught on and it’s thankfully no longer a thing. As far as I am aware, today there are two proposals regarding this scene which are worth considering. The first is that it shows the defeat of Enmesharra (Wilfred G. Lambert, Babylonian Creation Myths, p. 288). The logic is fairly straightforward: the one-eyed entity has an eerie sun-like head, which according to Lambert offers an interesting parallel to Enmesharra’s epithet zimu, “splendour”, and the fact in a late account of his defeat it is reassigned to Shamash. He speculated scenes where gods with rays coming out of their body are defeated might be related, and offers an interesting insight that perhaps Enmesharra came to be regarded as luminous in some way due to accidental similarity between his name and Inanna’s arguably most famous epithet, Ninmesharra (which is basically the feminine version of the same name; note that there’s also an unrelated god list exclusive Ninmesharra who is an artificial exercise in inventing a wife for Enmesharra to match Enlil’s en-nin pair ancestors). I think Lambert’s arguments are quite compelling and they basically formed the core premise of the non-gay parts of my Inanna story. However, the one-eyed entity has yet another proposed identity which might fit even better. Andrew R. George in Nergal and the Babylonian cyclops points out that textual sources might indicate that a cyclops might really just be a cyclops. While infrequent, references to a mythical creature named igidalu (probably a loanword from Summerian igi dili - in other words, “one eye”, “monoculus”) are known from various sites, including an omen indicating Nergal was known as a vanquisher of such a specimen. It’s worth noting the birth of one-eyed animals was associated with Nergal too, which strengthens the possibility that we’re dealing with a well known myth which simply didn’t survive in written form. The only thing George doesn’t address are the rays, but it’s not like the “monoculus” necessarily had to look fully human-like.  With the interesting stuff out of the way, let’s go back to your initial question. A solid chunk of it is already covered by the previous ask response, so I will only cover some misunderstandings you seem to have under the cut. Plase read previous ask responses and check the recommended reading doc in the future though because I'm kind of tired of repeating the same basic points every few weeks.

To begin with, cultic information is the most significant and should not be dismissed the way you seem to do. Most myths were just scribal exercises, offering lists and various displays of personal devotion are what reflects actual religious activity.

Inanna and Ishtar are names. “Umbrella terms” as Tonia Sharlach put it (and that’s without going into the existence of ordinary nouns ištar and ištartu). There was no singular Ishtar and no singular Inanna, there were numerous deities who could be referred to with both of these names. There is basically no sound way to have one “character” named Inanna and one named Ishtar; either stick to having just one - a type specimen of sorts representing a whole category - or go into more detail and include like 5-6. Megaten took the dumbest route and I’m frankly not interested in talking about it anymore. An early example, what I brought up on twitter, is that the tutelary goddesses of Uruk, Zabalam and Akkad (the city) were pretty clearly separate from each other. Separate hymns are dedicated to each of the three in the Temple Hymn collection, for instance. Each of the three had a separate repertoire of names. These repertoires partially overlap, most notably the names Inanna and Ishtar were applied to all three of them (and to a plethora of other deities) but we’re fundamentally dealing with related, but still separate, deities.

It is safe to say I. of Akkad was an Ishtar before I. of Uruk and I. of Zabalam were, but she was hardly the only goddess named Ishtar (indeed, you’ll find specimens as far west as Ebla). There’s a recurring argument that she was, for political reasons, conflated with Inanna of Uruk during the Sargonic period and this lead to the interchangeable use of the names Inanna and Ishtar later to refer to various deities; this is not impossible though it’s worth noting that a lexical list from Ebla, which is pre-Sargonic, already recognizes the equivalence between the names Ishtar (“Ašdar” if you want to go by Eblaite orthography) and Inanna. Also, it’s worth noting that it’s sort of questionable to speak of fully separate “Sumerian” and “Akkadian” pantheons - putting aside the fact each city-state would have its own pantheon, the lines don’t neatly correspond to languages, ex. the names Sin and Nanna probably started to be used interchangeably before writing was even invented - and despite being nominally Akkadian, the former was the one preferred in Lagash, arguably one of the parts of Mesopotamia with the highest % of Sumerian speakers.

Regardless of how the names came to be interchangeable, there’s no clear evidence for the goddess of Akkad NOT being considered separate despite sharing some of her names wirh others. If anything, with time she only became more distinct, with the epithet Annunitum becoming her primary name (and she also got a “twin” who splintered off from her, Ulmashitum, named after her temple). The case of Zabalam is even more complicated. Technically, it is possible the tutelary goddess of Zabalam was not originally named Inanna, but rather Nin-UM (reading of the second sign is uncertain). That’s how she is referred to in the Zame Hymns from the Early Dynastic period; there’s some disagreement whether we’re dealing with a case of an attempt to “Inannize” an originally completely unrelated goddess or if some sort of splintering happened (in which case the name Nin-UM would be secondary). In any case, she is also pretty clearly a distinct deity. The Weidner god list keeps her apart from the “regular” Inanna. Furthermore, while the circles of deities associated with both overlap (ex. Ninshubur and Nanaya occur in sources from both Uruk and Zabalam), the connection with Shara is effectively exclusive to Inanna of Zabalam (save for the awkward inclusion in Inanna’s Descent)

While myths might skip this sort of distinction, it’s worth noting that’s not 100% guaranteed. For example, there’s a proposal that the hostility between Inanna and Gilgamesh, which is a motif originating in Gilgamesh and the Bull of Heaven (which predates the singular epic by a couple of centuries), might indicate that implicitly Inanna of Akkad or Zabalam was meant instead of Inanna of Uruk (Douglas Frayne, The Struggle for Hegemony in “Early Dynastic II” Sumer, pages 63-64).

[futurest4rter]

GUYS HELP. I FOUND OUT THERE WAS A BLINDBOX FIGURE OF RICK WITH *THE HAT* BUT IT RELEASED IN 2019 AND SO IM NOT SURE IF THE BLINDBOX OR THE FANDOM GAVE HIM THE HAT FIRST.

CUZ I DONT KNOW. I WASNT IN THE FANDOM UNTIL LIKE 2022 BUT I DESPERATELY WANT THE ANSWER.

DID THE FANDOM GIVE HIM THE HAT WHICH THEN BECAME KINDA CANON OR DID THE BLINDBOX GIVE HIM THE HAT WHICH THE FANDOM ADOPTED INTO THEIR DESIGNS

OR WAS IT SOMETHING ELSE THAT IM ENTIRELY UNAWARE OF. WHO GAVE HIM THE HAT