The Toy Maker Behind Barbie And Hot Wheels Wants To Make Its Own Video Games

Mattel vs. Hasbro: Can the Toy Giant Succeed Where Its Rival Stumbled?

For decades, a silent war has been fought not on battlefields, but in the colorful aisles of toy stores. Mattel and Hasbro, the two undisputed titans of the toy industry, have constantly tried to outmaneuver each other. They have competed for the rights to popular doll franchises, battled for action figure supremacy, and raced to capture the attention of succeeding generations of children.

But today, the battleground has shifted. The toy store aisle is no longer the ultimate prize. Instead, the real war is being fought on the silver screen, across streaming networks, and inside the boardrooms of major Hollywood studios. Toys are no longer just physical objects to be played with on a living room rug; they are highly valuable intellectual properties (IP) designed to anchor massive media franchises.

With the historic, billion-dollar success of the 2023 Barbie movie, Mattel has officially fired the loudest shot in this new cinematic war. However, this is a path that Hasbro tried to walk long before Barbie ever put on her cinematic high heels. For years, Hasbro attempted to transform itself into a fully integrated entertainment powerhouse—an effort that ultimately resulted in massive financial write-downs, failed corporate acquisitions, and a retreat back to its core business. Now, Mattel is attempting to build its own cinematic universe. Can the makers of Barbie succeed where the creators of the Transformers stumbled?

The History of Toys on the Screen: From 30-Minute Commercials to Hollywood Blockbusters

To understand the current Hollywood land grab, we must first look at how the relationship between toys and television began. In the 1980s, deregulation of children's television programming in the United States allowed toy companies to create animated shows specifically designed to sell physical products. This gave rise to iconic cartoons like He-Man and the Masters of the Universe, G.I. Joe, and Transformers. These shows were incredibly successful, essentially serving as highly entertaining, 30-minute daily commercials that drove millions of children to retail stores.

However, as the media landscape evolved, simply running Saturday morning cartoons was no longer enough. The rise of the internet, video games, and mobile devices began to split children's attention. To keep their brands alive and relevant, toy companies realized they needed to move up the value chain. They needed to stop making toys based on movies, and start making movies based on toys.

Hasbro was the first to truly capitalize on this shift in a massive way. In 2007, they partnered with director Michael Bay and Paramount Pictures to launch the live-action Transformers franchise. The film was a global box office sensation, earning over $700 million worldwide. It proved that toy brands could be transformed into blockbuster cinematic experiences that appealed not just to kids, but to nostalgic adults and general moviegoers worldwide.

Hasbro’s Hollywood Playbook: High Risks and Harsh Lessons

Following the massive success of the early Transformers films, Hasbro decided to double down on its entertainment strategy. However, instead of simply licensing its brands to Hollywood studios, Hasbro sought to become a studio itself. The leadership team believed that by owning the production process, they could retain more of the profits and have absolute control over how their beloved characters were portrayed.

The Battleship Disaster

This aggressive push led to some major missteps. One of the most famous examples was the 2012 film Battleship. Based on the classic, simple plastic-and-peg board game, the movie was turned into a massive, $220 million sci-fi action epic involving alien invasions at sea. The film was heavily criticized for its thin plot and bloated budget, and it became a notorious box office flop, losing the studio and Hasbro tens of millions of dollars. It showed the limits of trying to force a simple board game brand into a generic Hollywood action mold.

The eOne Acquisition and the Dream of Vertical Integration

Despite the setback of Battleship, Hasbro did not abandon its Hollywood dreams. In 2019, the company made a massive, highly publicized gamble: they acquired Entertainment One (eOne), a major independent television and film production studio, for a staggering $3.8 billion. The goal was to achieve "vertical integration"—meaning Hasbro would own everything from the initial toy design to the distribution of the movie or TV show based on that toy.

But managing a Hollywood studio is vastly different from running a global toy manufacturing supply chain. The acquisition quickly became a financial burden. Corporate cultures clashed, the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted theatrical releases, and the sheer cost of funding big-budget film slates began to drain Hasbro's resources.

By late 2023, Hasbro admitted defeat. They sold the majority of eOne’s film and television operations to Lionsgate for approximately $500 million—a fraction of what they had paid just four years prior. While Hasbro kept the rights to highly profitable children's brands like Peppa Pig and PJ Masks, the dream of Hasbro operating as a major, self-sufficient Hollywood studio was officially dead. The company chose to return its primary focus to making toys and games, outsourcing its entertainment production to external partners.

Mattel’s Pivot: The Intellectual Property Revolution

While Hasbro was struggling with the complex realities of running a traditional media studio, Mattel was watching closely. For a long time, Mattel had lagged behind Hasbro in the entertainment space. Outside of direct-to-DVD animated Barbie movies and occasional TV specials, Mattel had struggled to establish a major presence in live-action cinema.

That changed dramatically in 2018 when Ynon Kreiz took over as Mattel’s Chief Executive Officer. Kreiz, an experienced media executive with a background in television and digital content, looked at Mattel’s balance sheet and realized the company was misinterpreting its own value. Mattel was treating itself purely as a manufacturing business that designed and distributed physical goods. Kreiz saw a different reality: Mattel was sitting on a goldmine of intellectual property.

Under Kreiz’s leadership, Mattel shifted to an "asset-light" strategy. Rather than spending billions of dollars to buy production studios, hire crews, and manage distribution networks, Mattel decided to act as a creative partner. They would team up with the best writers, directors, and studios in Hollywood, letting those experienced creators take the financial risks of production while Mattel focused on brand management, creative input, and massive toy-licensing tie-ins.

The Barbie Phenomenon: A Blueprint for Success

The ultimate test of Mattel’s new strategy arrived in the summer of 2023 with the release of Barbie. Directed by Oscar-nominee Greta Gerwig and starring Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling, the film was a massive gamble. Instead of making a safe, family-friendly, generic movie about a perfect doll, Mattel allowed Gerwig to make a smart, self-aware, feminist comedy that directly addressed the complex cultural legacy of Barbie—both positive and negative.

The risk paid off spectacularly. Barbie became a global cultural phenomenon, earning over $1.4 billion at the box office and becoming the highest-grossing film of 2023. It did more than just generate movie ticket sales; it revitalized the entire Barbie brand, sparked worldwide fashion trends, and drove a massive surge in toy sales. More importantly, it served as a proof of concept for Mattel's entire entertainment strategy.

The Mattel Cinematic Universe: What Lies Ahead?

With the success of Barbie, Mattel has greenlit an incredibly ambitious slate of projects based on their extensive toy catalog. However, rather than repeating the mistakes of the past, they are applying the lessons of the Barbie movie to each of these upcoming films: finding unique, highly regarded creative voices to tackle unexpected projects.

Here are some of the most notable projects currently in active development at Mattel Films:

• Hot Wheels: Mattel is partnering with Warner Bros. Pictures and J.J. Abrams’ production company, Bad Robot, to bring the iconic die-cast racing cars to the screen. Rather than a simple cartoon race, the film is being pitched as a high-stakes, emotional, and grounded action-thriller.
• Barney: In one of the most surprising announcements, Mattel is developing a live-action film based on the friendly purple dinosaur. Produced by Oscar-winner Daniel Kaluuya (star of Get Out), this film is described not as a children's movie, but as an existential, surrealist drama about millennial angst and the struggle to feel loved.
• Polly Pocket: The micro-doll franchise is set to receive the live-action treatment, written and directed by Lena Dunham (creator of HBO's Girls) and starring Lily Collins (star of Emily in Paris).
• Masters of the Universe: After years in development hell, Mattel is working hard to bring He-Man and the world of Eternia back to live-action cinema, aiming for a massive fantasy epic in the vein of modern adventure films.
• Major Matt Mason: A movie based on Mattel’s obscure 1960s astronaut toy, which has attracted the interest of Tom Hanks as the star and Akiva Goldsman as the screenwriter.

Analyzing the Strategic Differences: Why Mattel Might Win

It is easy to look at Mattel’s upcoming slate and think it sounds incredibly risky. A movie about Barney for adults? A dramatic take on Hot Wheels? It sounds reminiscent of the creative stretches that led to Hasbro’s Battleship disaster. However, a closer look at the corporate structures reveals why Mattel’s model is far more resilient and less risky than the path Hasbro took.

1. The Asset-Light Model vs. Capital-Intensive Ownership

The most important difference is financial risk. Hasbro tried to own the pipeline. When you own the studio, you have to pay the production crews, buy the expensive camera equipment, rent the soundstages, and cover the marketing costs. If the film bombs, your company takes a direct, devastating financial hit.

Mattel, on the other hand, licenses its brands to established studios like Warner Bros., Universal Pictures, and MGM. These studios fund the production and handle distribution. While Mattel contributes creatively and co-produces, they do not carry the massive overhead of running a physical studio. If a Mattel film underperforms, the financial damage to Mattel is relatively contained. If it succeeds, they reap the rewards through licensing fees, box office shares, and massive retail sales.

2. Creative-First vs. Toy-First Development

Historically, toy movies felt like cynical, corporate exercises designed purely to sell plastic. Hasbro's early films often felt heavily managed by toy design departments, ensuring that every vehicle or character on screen could be easily manufactured into a plastic toy.

Mattel’s current strategy turns this on its head by prioritizing the creative vision. By hiring respected filmmakers like Greta Gerwig, J.J. Abrams, and Daniel Kaluuya, Mattel is signaling that they care about making good movies first. They understand that if the movie is great and captures the public's imagination, the toy sales will naturally follow. You cannot sell toys if people do not care about the characters on screen.

3. Cultural Conversation vs. Pure Action Spectacle

Hasbro’s cinematic strategy relied heavily on the "CGI action spectacle" formula popularized by Michael Bay. While this was incredibly lucrative for a time, audiences eventually grew tired of mindless explosions and giant robots fighting. The formula lacked emotional depth, leading to diminishing box office returns for later installments of the Transformers and G.I. Joe franchises.

Mattel is aiming to create cultural touchstones. The Barbie movie succeeded because it sparked deep cultural conversations about gender roles, societal expectations, and nostalgia. By encouraging their filmmakers to take bold, artistic risks with brands like Barney and Polly Pocket, Mattel is hoping to replicate this formula, creating films that people talk about long after they leave the theater.

The Major Challenges Ahead for Mattel

Despite their current momentum, Mattel’s road to long-term Hollywood success is not guaranteed. There are several significant hurdles the company must overcome if they want to avoid Hasbro's fate.

Can Lightning Strike Twice?

The success of Barbie was a perfect storm. It featured an exceptionally talented director, an A-list cast, a brilliant marketing campaign, and a brand that had been globally recognized for more than six decades. It is highly unlikely that a movie about Uno or Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots will be able to generate the same level of cultural curiosity and critical acclaim. Mattel must manage expectations and realize that not every toy in their closet is capable of carrying a billion-dollar movie.

The Threat of Franchise Fatigue

We are currently living in an era where audiences are showing signs of "franchise fatigue." Major superhero universes that once dominated the box office are now struggling to draw crowds. If Mattel floods the market with dozens of movies based on toys, board games, and playground accessories, they risk alienating audiences who may view the effort as corporate greed rather than genuine artistic expression.

Balancing Nostalgia with Modern Relevance

Many of Mattel’s brands, like He-Man or Barney, carry deep nostalgic value for older generations, but they may hold little to no appeal for today's children. Mattel must walk a very thin line: they need to make movies that appeal to the adults who grew up with these toys, while also making them accessible and exciting enough to capture the attention of modern kids who have entirely different entertainment habits.

The Verdict: A New Era for Toy Brands

Ultimately, Mattel’s strategy is a modern, refined version of the dream Hasbro pioneered over fifteen years ago. Hasbro proved that toys could be turned into Hollywood blockbusters, but their aggressive attempt to buy their way into the studio system ultimately cost them billions and forced a retreat to their core operations.

Mattel has learned from Hasbro’s pain. By keeping their financial risks low, choosing artistic collaboration over rigid corporate control, and treating their toys as rich canvases for storytelling rather than just plastic products, Mattel is uniquely positioned to redefine what a modern toy-and-entertainment company can look like.

The battle for the toy shelf is far from over, but in the glamorous theaters of Hollywood, Mattel currently holds the winning hand. Whether they can maintain this lead and successfully build a sustainable, long-term cinematic universe remains to be seen—but for now, the toy world is Mattel's playground.

from Kotaku
-via DynaSage