bantufo wrote:When people buy the "indiana jones jacket" at the park they are more likely to identify it as identical or extremely just like the one in the latest film without noticing things like different straps, body lengths, etc., than the film one has.
Yep, exactly: just because something is officially licensed it doesn't mean it has to be an exact replica. So there's not really any point in making the film one different solely for the sake of making merchandised replicas, because they don't have to make it legally different - they own the brand. The licensed replica could be a close-enough with a metal IJ badge on the sleeve and it would still sell well enough and it would still be official because they say it is.
The only reason would be to sue anyone making copies of the jacket with, what, the D-rings? That's not enough to make it a copy you can file cease and desists over, and I also doubt it's such an eye-catching change that many Indy fans would be that desperate to own a copy of anyway.
Illinois_Jones wrote:bantufo wrote:When people buy the "indiana jones jacket" at the park they are more likely to identify it as identical or extremely just like the one in the latest film without noticing things like different straps, body lengths, etc., than the film one has. Also, the hat is darker brown to better look like the color of the "Indiana Jones hat" they'll have in the stores as well. It is very standard dark brown now like the official merchandise hat has been for ages.
Film jacket: Prominently shiny D-rings, yes. They make the rest of the jacket look artificially aged next to them. No wear, scrapes, rust on them... They're magic D-rings!
Well yeah, and it's also what they can manufacture at scale. And it may be that flipping the straps is for that reason as well; I don't know, I'm not a jacket maker, but it may be easier/cheaper/faster to attach the straps the other way around. My larger point is that it's deliberate; people made that choice for reasons. And those reasons are corporate: either legal or practical.
Or they're not and it's one of the many other possible reasons.
That's what my post was about: it seems that every time something is noted about the film someone says it's because Disney are making this one and are making him wear his bag the other way around to make maximum profit or something. It's a bit silly.
