What's a poppet...? Puppet? Haven't seen the poppet spelling since my family smacked the liverwurst out of my mouth and dragged me back the the USA as a child.

Try definition #3

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/dictionaryresults.aspx?search=poppet

pop·pet [ póppət ] (plural pop·pets)

noun

Definition:

1. engineering

Same as poppet valve

2. support for ship: a steel beam or timber that is used to support the front and back ends of a ship when it is being launched

3. U.K. used as term of endearment: used to address a sweet and dear person, especially a child ( informal )

. . . from a sound mind. Thanks!

Kind of like voodoo dolls. Whereas a puppet is a representation of itself (puppets usually have their own personality distinctive from their masters and are not just a simulacrum of a human being) , a poppet is a representation of a human that could be used for nefarious purposes such as voudon and/or black magic. But this distinction could have just been made up in my own mind; for example, I thought "naval" oranges were called that because the British Navy used them to fight off scurvy during the 1700s. I had a whole story about it. I mean, I came up with that when I was a kid and it was only recently that I took a look at an orange and realized WHY they were called navel. It was an AHA moment.

So Gams, I could be crazy, but maybe those Bratz dolls are evil poppets.

Isn't Mattel coming to the game a little late? Bratz have been around since 2001, but Mattel waited until 2006 to sue their creator and MGA Entertainment. It seems to me that if intellectual property was truly at stake here, Mattel would have sued shortly after Bratz hit the market. Perhaps it's only when Bratz began to eat into Barbie's market share that Mattel went on the offensive.

Also, MGA sued Mattel in 2005, claiming that it copied the look of the Bratz dolls for its My Scene dolls. So there's likely to be a tit-for-tat element at work, too.

"...condemned forever to a dollie Gitmo of their owner's creation." SO FUNNY

Mattel once successfully drove a magazine out of business by claiming no one can use the Barbie name without permission, even to sell Barbies. They richly deserve the market pounding they've taken, and it's had wonderful results for little girls everywhere: today's Barbies actually look like today's celebrities, with furniture that actually looks like furniture. That's all in response to the Bratz; it wasn't true in the 90's. In the 90's when a Barbie was proposed with a nose piercing, it was quickly altered to be more palatable to parents of small children. Hey, let's make sure that fashion dolls don't accidentally expose children to, let's see, actual fashion! Pre-Bratz Barbie was stuck in a candy-coated dreamworld.

(Aside: it's neither Mattel nor MGA's fault that today's real celebrities look like trash. Art imitates life, not the other way around - if you have a problem, take it up with Paris Hilton.)

The sad thing is that the Bratz are clearly in decline. They've stopped packaging fun accessories and extra outfits with their dolls, and their current outfits are clearly cost-cutters. As a brand they've started to flail, introducing fairy dolls and hair play dolls - these days, they're more Barbie than Barbie.

Ho hum. It's been done (and brilliantly so, I might add, by the good Doc Pyro)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/barbiedeathcamp/interesting/

I would've thought for certain that a woman would have invented such insipid crap-- not that women invent anything insipid necessarily, but that Bratz are insipid.

But I believe the final battle of armageddon will be located in .. wait for it... armageddon, since it's a place name.

Golgotha, place of the skull, is where Christ was executed.

Which is also a place.

This comes up every few years, when some "alternative doll" seems to be threatening the Barbie empire. In this case, I think this is directly because MGA sued Mattel first, over the My Scene dolls (which really were a pretty direct rip-off of Bratz). Bratz are one of the few dolls which have threatened Barbie at all seriously and over more than a single season...yet as Allie states, I think they seem sort of out of steam, lately, with a crowded and confused collection of dolls which are not up to the standards of previous years.

I myself never liked them -- those huge heads and tiny bodies! Creepy! And the giant removeable feet. But then I am way old, and these are meant to appeal to children. Many of the kids around my neighbor adore Bratz, and one of the strong appeals is how much their mom's object to the doll's "sexiness", the whole bee-stung lips and Angelina Jolie-ambiance of them. Though I can't imagine anyone actually considers Barbie to be LESS sexualized.

This is somewhat like when Apple sued Microsoft -- a lot of chest pounding, signifying nothing much. Dolls have been around forever, at least as long as human civilization. They are fascinating, because they both represent and reflect human culture, and our standards of beauty....because they are playthings and "collectibles", and religious objects and disposable consumer junk. All at the same time.

I don't think you have to worry to much about Barbie OR Bratz in the future -- the market is plenty big enough to support both of them, for a long LONG time.

Not that most young girls follow the business news, it's a fine example of sharing the sandbox that these company's execs are setting for their young markets. Of course, there is the potential lesson to be learned should one company sue the other out of business. We may soon here this exchange in the toy store:

"Mommy, where did all the Bratz dolls go?"

"Into bankrupcy, dear."

...and his UN Peacekeeping Force action pack...

I just wanted to point out that the Bratz dolls don't have unrealistic boobie-waist-hip ratios and are actually flat-chested. :)