Mojo Fun: New for 2022

[TheCambrianCrusader]

It's a hybrid dinosaur. Dragons are not dinosaurs.

It's still entirely fictional.

How about these Pokémon based on extinct animals (real-life inspirations on the right)? Why not include toys for these? I'd say they might be considered less fantastical than Indominus.



I don't care about dragons either way, I just don't agree that a purely fictional movie monster is any more of a dinosaur than a dragon. Other franchises like Pokémon or, as @stargatedalek mentioned, Monster Hunter, have creatures that were inspired by specific dinosaurs, so it's a bit inconsistent that those aren't allowed while a purely fictional design like Indominus is.

I think its mostly because JP/JW has always been about actual dinosaurs (inaccurate they may be) while Pokemon, monster hunter, Godzilla, etc... are purely fictional. So even tho the Indominus is about as fantastical as Godzilla is, its meant to be in a franchise that undeniably has the most influence over paleo culture so you kinda have to include it (even if I and many others would rather it wasn't).

[TheCambrianCrusader]

Tho, I think we're getting a bit off topic...

[stargatedalek]

I think its mostly because JP/JW has always been about actual dinosaurs (inaccurate they may be) while Pokemon, monster hunter, Godzilla, etc... are purely fictional. So even tho the Indominus is about as fantastical as Godzilla is, its meant to be in a franchise that undeniably has the most influence over paleo culture so you kinda have to include it (even if I and many others would rather it wasn't).

So, is it included because it's from a franchise that has real dinosaurs in it, or is Indominus included because it's a "fictional dinosaur" rather than a "dinosaur adjacent fictional creature"?

Because if it's by franchise, the Cyberzoic dragons should be in, and if it's by it "being a dinosaur, even if fictional", the fossil pokemon should be in.

[BlueKrono]

It's a hybrid dinosaur. Dragons are not dinosaurs.

It's still entirely fictional.

How about these Pokémon based on extinct animals (real-life inspirations on the right)? Why not include toys for these? I'd say they might be considered less fantastical than Indominus.



I don't care about dragons either way, I just don't agree that a purely fictional movie monster is any more of a dinosaur than a dragon. Other franchises like Pokémon or, as @stargatedalek mentioned, Monster Hunter, have creatures that were inspired by specific dinosaurs, so it's a bit inconsistent that those aren't allowed while a purely fictional design like Indominus is.

I did in fact create a thread about this 6 years ago. Feel free to continue this discussion there:
http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=5223.msg155623#msg155623

[TheCambrianCrusader]

I think its mostly because JP/JW has always been about actual dinosaurs (inaccurate they may be) while Pokemon, monster hunter, Godzilla, etc... are purely fictional. So even tho the Indominus is about as fantastical as Godzilla is, its meant to be in a franchise that undeniably has the most influence over paleo culture so you kinda have to include it (even if I and many others would rather it wasn't).

So, is it included because it's from a franchise that has real dinosaurs in it, or is Indominus included because it's a "fictional dinosaur" rather than a "dinosaur adjacent fictional creature"?

Because if it's by franchise, the Cyberzoic dragons should be in, and if it's by it "being a dinosaur, even if fictional", the fossil pokemon should be in.

I think its a bit of both, the Indominus is a fictional dinosaur in a franchise dominated by actual extinct animals. Tho to be completely honest I would really rather Indominus and other fictional dinos wouldn't be included just to avoid this confusion.

[Gwangi]

Well, @Psittacoraptor, I would have to say that any Pokémon toys that are obviously based off of prehistoric animals would indeed be technically fit for the blog. So would the Sinclair family from the Dinosaur series, or Barney, or The Flintstones. If it's a toy dinosaur (or prehistoric animal), then yeah, sure, submit your entry. Dragons are not dinosaurs. With that said, take a look at the blog and what's been reviewed so far, take a look at the forum and make note of exactly what demographic is represented here, and ask yourself that even if those things could be included in the blog, should they be?

This whole argument strikes me arguing for the sake of arguing, like something my 6 y/o would do. We all know what dinosaur collectors collect and that's what the blog should be restricted to. And although there are people here that also collect Pokémon, dragons, kaiju, Transformers, and a myriad of other things it doesn't mean that those things have any relevance in this hobby even if they occasionally overlap it. The Indominus should be a clear exception for obvious reasons that I shouldn't have to explain and I think anyone challenging it knows that.

[suspsy]

Indominus is as much a fantasy monster as any dragon.

I don't recall the Indominus possessing enormous wings, or breathing fire or ice or lightning or repulsion gas, or having teeth that grow into armed soldiers overnight, or being able to live for well over 1000 years. Or speaking in perfect English for that matter.

Dragons will always be in a special category unto themselves.

By that logic this site should also include Pokémon based on extinct animals. Just my two cents, perhaps clouded by my dislike for the JW franchise

I wouldn't necessarily turn away a guest submission of Tyrantrum, especially if it was well written.

[Psittacoraptor]

@Gwangi I didn't mean to argue, I was genuinely curious about the rules here because I'm a rather new member. But apparently everything is an argument... I'll note that there are no rules in this case. But without rules, uncertainty and questions, or "arguments", should be expected, because collectors are not a hive mind. I'm a collector and couldn't care less about JP/JW if I tried, and I don't engage with the franchise or its fandom in any capacity. So, it wasn't obvious to me, even if you think so.

[Gwangi]

@Gwangi I didn't mean to argue, I was genuinely curious about the rules here because I'm a rather new member. But apparently everything is an argument... I'll note that there are no rules in this case. But without rules, uncertainty and questions, or "arguments", should be expected, because collectors are not a hive mind. I'm a collector and couldn't care less about JP/JW if I tried, and I don't engage with the franchise or its fandom in any capacity. So, it wasn't obvious to me, even if you think so.

My second paragraph wasn't directed solely at you, I was just speaking generally about the whole topic. No, collectors are not a hive mind. But this forum and the blog have been around for nearly 15 years, and dinosaur collecting as a hobby even longer. Long enough to be able to sleuth out the general gist of what this hobby is about, what is a part of it and what is not. And you might not be engaged with the Jurassic fandom but you've surely noticed its presence here and in relation to dinosaurs in general. It's unavoidable. There are Jurassic toys on the homepage banner and the site's icons. There are Jurassic toys reviewed on the blog going back to 2008. Pokémon and dragons do not have that presence here, I suspect because they aren't toy dinosaurs. The Indominus, while fiction, 100% qualifies as a dinosaur. It would seem silly to reject it from the blog when so many collectors go there specifically to read about Jurassic Park/World toys.

[Stegotyranno420]

Tho, I think we're getting a bit off topic...

Agreed. It is an interesting topic that deserves its own thread tho.

[suspsy]

I've enjoyed this dragon discussion. People have made some good, well-reasoned arguments. It makes me look forward even more to seeing what Cyberzoic will have to offer.

[Halichoeres]

I added an important message to the First post.

Basicaly the Coelacanth is not a part of the Prehistoric line up

However, should i leave it included in that post? remove it?

Oh, good to know. I withdraw my objection!    A gombessa is a great addition to their sea life line. I don't see any harm leaving it in the OP though as there's obviously interest in it.

[CARN0TAURUS]

Have we learned anything about the release date on this  beautiful mammoth yet?  I can't wait to get my hands on it...

[Faelrin]

So anyone have any ideas on when this Mammoth is releasing or is everyone in the dark just as much as me? It's already May now. I haven't even seen it listed anywhere yet either.

[suspsy]

I'm guessing mid to late summer.

[suspsy]

Bad news: Jason from MiniZoo informed me that Mojo Fun has had major delays with COVID lockdowns in China, so it may be quite awhile before the 2022 toys become available. 

[Faelrin]

That's understandable, and hard to avoid. At least we have some idea of what's been going on behind the scenes though.

[triceratops83]

Minizoo's got the new mojo range - coelacanth and mammoth included;

https://www.minizoo.com.au/mojo/mojo-2022/

[suspsy]

Now if only Minizoo would get the remaining CollectA products in!

[SidB]

Minizoo's got the new mojo range - coelacanth and mammoth included;

https://www.minizoo.com.au/mojo/mojo-2022/

My Mojo Wooly Mammoth just arrived and I'm delighted with its quality. I'll post three pictures comparing it with Carnegie Safari's stellar figure, which has been the best mass-produced one on the market for a long time. The Mojo one stands up really well. it's better than the CollectA, Schleich and Papo ones, IMO.