Page 1 of 1

Toys that looked cool but actually sucked

Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2023 9:48 am
by Grendel
Image

Image

Re: Toys that looked cool but actually sucked

Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2023 11:34 am
by Turner Coates

Re: Toys that looked cool but actually sucked

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2023 1:32 pm
by Olivia Sophia
Spyrograph

Re: Toys that looked cool but actually sucked

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2023 1:38 pm
by Bono Nettencourt
Image

Re: Toys that looked cool but actually sucked

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2023 7:17 am
by MotleyKaos
Image

Re: Toys that looked cool but actually sucked

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2023 7:42 am
by TooOldToCare
Image
Image

Re: Toys that looked cool but actually sucked

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2023 7:53 am
by Engine13
The Evel Knievel Stunt cycle has gotten a lot of llove lately because of the vids of middle aged men playing with them.
Those fucking things would fall on their side as soon as it left the ramp. You ended up wearing the knees out of your jeans crawling on the floor pushing it with your hand.

Re: Toys that looked cool but actually sucked

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2023 8:24 am
by Wild Obsession
TooOldToCare wrote: Tue Jul 18, 2023 7:42 am Image
I have never seen the Hugo doll before, but I assume a windowless van with the promise of puppies and/or candy inside was an optional accessory?

Re: Toys that looked cool but actually sucked

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2023 4:12 am
by GoodJudge
Bono Nettencourt wrote: Mon Jul 17, 2023 1:38 pm Image
Those aren't "toys", they're "collectable action figures" goddammit. :lol:

Re: Toys that looked cool but actually sucked

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2023 4:59 am
by TooOldToCare
Wild Obsession wrote: Tue Jul 18, 2023 8:24 am
TooOldToCare wrote: Tue Jul 18, 2023 7:42 am Image
I have never seen the Hugo doll before, but I assume a windowless van with the promise of puppies and/or candy inside was an optional accessory?
Right? I remember getting the Sears or Penney's "wishbook" close to Christmas as a kid and circling everything I want. This abomination was on my list though I never got it. And had I, I'm sure it would have been at the bottom of my toybox quickly. It's stupid and boring. Same with Stretch Armstrong. A silicone bodybuilder-like figure that you can stretch. Woowee...how amazing. Yet, I wanted that too.

Re: Toys that looked cool but actually sucked

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2023 8:21 am
by LeeRatbag
Engine13 wrote: Tue Jul 18, 2023 7:53 am The Evel Knievel Stunt cycle has gotten a lot of llove lately because of the vids of middle aged men playing with them.
Those fucking things would fall on their side as soon as it left the ramp. You ended up wearing the knees out of your jeans crawling on the floor pushing it with your hand.
Came in here to say exactly that.

Re: Toys that looked cool but actually sucked

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2023 1:56 pm
by Bono Nettencourt
TooOldToCare wrote: Wed Jul 19, 2023 4:59 am
Wild Obsession wrote: Tue Jul 18, 2023 8:24 am
TooOldToCare wrote: Tue Jul 18, 2023 7:42 am Image
I have never seen the Hugo doll before, but I assume a windowless van with the promise of puppies and/or candy inside was an optional accessory?
Right? I remember getting the Sears or Penney's "wishbook" close to Christmas as a kid and circling everything I want. This abomination was on my list though I never got it. And had I, I'm sure it would have been at the bottom of my toybox quickly. It's stupid and boring. Same with Stretch Armstrong. A silicone bodybuilder-like figure that you can stretch. Woowee...how amazing. Yet, I wanted that too.
I had Hugo. It was pretty sucky.

I did not have Stretch. One of my neighbors did. There was a limit to how far you could stretch him, btw.

Re: Toys that looked cool but actually sucked

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2023 3:06 pm
by TooOldToCare
Bono Nettencourt wrote: Wed Jul 19, 2023 1:56 pm
TooOldToCare wrote: Wed Jul 19, 2023 4:59 am
Wild Obsession wrote: Tue Jul 18, 2023 8:24 am

I have never seen the Hugo doll before, but I assume a windowless van with the promise of puppies and/or candy inside was an optional accessory?
Right? I remember getting the Sears or Penney's "wishbook" close to Christmas as a kid and circling everything I want. This abomination was on my list though I never got it. And had I, I'm sure it would have been at the bottom of my toybox quickly. It's stupid and boring. Same with Stretch Armstrong. A silicone bodybuilder-like figure that you can stretch. Woowee...how amazing. Yet, I wanted that too.
I had Hugo. It was pretty sucky.

I did not have Stretch. One of my neighbors did. There was a limit to how far you could stretch him, btw.
🤣 And I'm sure whatever was inside Stretch was completely safe toxic ooze.

The best story I have about toys of that era was the Matel handheld sports games with the little red LED lines that represented players. My childhood best friend was convinced a box under the Christmas tree was the football game. He begged his authoritarian dad to open it early since he knew what it was at least 100x. His dad said if he asked one more time, he'd never get it. Being 10 yrs old, he asked one more time. So his dad threw it in the lit fireplace to burn up. My friend had a total meltdown, sobbing, laying on the floor kicking and screaming. Turned out to be a wrapped piece of 2x4 to teach him a lesson. I was dying. I wish we had video cameras or smartphones back then.

Re: Toys that looked cool but actually sucked

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2023 4:54 pm
by Chip Z'Hoy
TooOldToCare wrote: Tue Jul 18, 2023 7:42 am Image
I like this NoHo Hank doll.

Re: Toys that looked cool but actually sucked

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2023 5:38 pm
by Beyotch_Knowles
The Snoopy Snowcone machine never worked as easily as the commercials made it look. And my mom get tired of having to do the work so she threw it away.

I always wanted the Sit N Spin toy I saw on TV commercials, but my parents never bought me one. Did anyone else have one? Was it as easy as the commercials made it look?

Re: Toys that looked cool but actually sucked

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2023 6:03 pm
by HueyRamone
Bono Nettencourt wrote: Mon Jul 17, 2023 1:38 pm Image
THEY MIGHT BE INSANE!

Re: Toys that looked cool but actually sucked

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2023 6:04 pm
by HueyRamone
TooOldToCare wrote: Tue Jul 18, 2023 7:42 am
Image
Sucked!? CC Banana refused to live if he couldnt keep his!

Re: Toys that looked cool but actually sucked

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2023 6:05 pm
by TooOldToCare
Chip Z'Hoy wrote: Wed Jul 19, 2023 4:54 pm
TooOldToCare wrote: Tue Jul 18, 2023 7:42 am Image
I like this NoHo Hank doll.
The Barry doll and Old Fonzie will be available this Christmas.

Re: Toys that looked cool but actually sucked

Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2023 10:29 pm
by Mikky_Five
Olivia Sophia wrote: Mon Jul 17, 2023 1:32 pm Spyrograph
Wrong!

My sibs and I made some cool trippy shit with that shit.
I bet there's and AI out there that could create the same thing for half the effort and none of the fun, though. So maybe you're right.

Re: Toys that looked cool but actually sucked

Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2023 6:04 pm
by Grendel
Beyotch_Knowles wrote: Wed Jul 19, 2023 5:38 pm The Snoopy Snowcone machine never worked as easily as the commercials made it look. And my mom get tired of having to do the work so she threw it away.

I always wanted the Sit N Spin toy I saw on TV commercials, but my parents never bought me one. Did anyone else have one? Was it as easy as the commercials made it look?
Sit and Spin was awesome, I guess, because we(and I assume most other kids) would do it to see who could get the dizziest. Sort of like a beer bong for kids.