Monsters on Dinotoyblog, yes or no?

[Silvanusaurus]

In my view, while I wouldn't be upset or annoyed if reviews of 'monsters' were permitted, I don't see the point and I would find it kind of distracting. As a collector of general monster figures myself (mainly Godzilla and others from movies), I know of many sites that are dedicated to such figures with reviews and forums etc, so it seems a bit uneccessary to dilute the focus of this site. I don't imagine people will visit the Dino Toy Blog to look for reviews of Godzilla, dragons etc. One of the main reasons I wanted to join this community was because of it's limited focus on Dinosaurs and real prehistoric animals, and a great appeal is the aspect of learning about ancient prehistory and about the depictions of those creatures in relation to scientific knowledge.

[Halichoeres]

In my view, while I wouldn't be upset or annoyed if reviews of 'monsters' were permitted, I don't see the point and I would find it kind of distracting. As a collector of general monster figures myself (mainly Godzilla and others from movies), I know of many sites that are dedicated to such figures with reviews and forums etc, so it seems a bit uneccessary to dilute the focus of this site. I don't imagine people will visit the Dino Toy Blog to look for reviews of Godzilla, dragons etc. One of the main reasons I wanted to join this community was because of it's limited focus on Dinosaurs and real prehistoric animals, and a great appeal is the aspect of learning about ancient prehistory and about the depictions of those creatures in relation to scientific knowledge.

That's a good point. DTB has a niche, and it does quite well at it, but the kaiju are decidedly a different one, being filled quite ably by others.

As for recently extinct things, they're so rarely treated as figures that even though I don't collect them, when they pop up on the blog, I say, "Oh, that's interesting," and move on. I've never said to myself, "What the hell is this interloper doing here?" Which is a thought I briefly entertained when I saw the Indominus, but that's a bit of a special case because it's firmly embedded in a line of what are at least nominally dinosaur toys. Godzilla would be the complete inverse, a quasi-dinosaur firmly embedded in a universe of not-at-all-dinosaurs.

[Takama]

Ok   Apparently King Louie in the new Jungle Book film is a Gigantopithicus, and there are toys based on the characters in that film, including him.    Since he is Extinct ape that lived in REAL life (unlike the hybrids that got a pass on the blog) would a figure of him be ok for the blog?

[Kayakasaurus]

Ok   Apparently King Louie in the new Jungle Book film is a Gigantopithicus, and there are toys based on the characters in that film, including him.    Since he is Extinct ape that lived in REAL life (unlike the hybrids that got a pass on the blog) would a figure of him be ok for the blog?

That's pretty cool they used an extinct species so they could make him massive.

[AcroSauroTaurus]

I think a new forum should be started, one for mythical animals (including monsters, dragons, kaiju, etc.) since we have one for modern animals and one for extinct animals, why not a forum for that final animal figure niche?

[sauroid]

I think a new forum should be started, one for mythical animals (including monsters, dragons, kaiju, etc.) since we have one for modern animals and one for extinct animals, why not a forum for that final animal figure niche?

i agree. they are popular enough to have their own forum. i see a lot of forums about kaiju but not dragons and other mythical/fantasy/fictional creatures and monsters.

[stargatedalek]

I would stretch it to include "fictional animals" in general, I don't think just mythological figures would generate enough interest without the help of Godzilla or Star Wars.

[DinoG]

Would that include movie monsters like in The Thing, The Fly et al?

[SBell]

Ok   Apparently King Louie in the new Jungle Book film is a Gigantopithicus, and there are toys based on the characters in that film, including him.    Since he is Extinct ape that lived in REAL life (unlike the hybrids that got a pass on the blog) would a figure of him be ok for the blog?

That's pretty cool they used an extinct species so they could make him massive.

I think it will depend on what the figures look like. We currently include the occasional Japanese 'Mystery animal' figure that is clearly based on fossil animals (Medicom has made several, including prehistoric whales, kangaroos, megalodon, etc).

So far, there is at least one set where the character doesn't look so bad...

[sauroid]

I would stretch it to include "fictional animals" in general, I don't think just mythological figures would generate enough interest without the help of Godzilla or Star Wars.

Ditto. cryptids, alien life forms, speculative future species, etc.

[ProSauropod]

As a longtime model collector (of anything I happen to like) I see this a few ways: Dinosaur Forum, as in "Dinosaurs" (and other extinct critters).  Toy, as in a lot of stuff that would never pass muster for a "Dinosaur" collector (all the JP stuff and others that are clearly TOYS).   So right there you have 2 worlds co-existing.  The "museum-quality" model of today is the toy of tomorrow.  I personally look less for accuracy than for the sculpt and pose - I like models that convey the sense of "aliveness" of a long-gone creature.  So if a Papo doesn't have the right number of toes or teeth I don't care - the figure lets me sense what the living animal could have been like.  To that end, I think this forum and the reviews could benefit from looking at some of the incredibly dynamic sculpts of a Yuji Sakai - is it really that great a leap from his Godzilla to a "real" dinosaur?  Too many theropods look like Groucho Marx; bent over and slinking about (sans cigar).  I submit the iconic Papo Allosaurus (and some of the Rebor figures) have an "aliveness" to them that conveys a living creature, regardless of accuracy.  Now if only someone would produce a Smilodon based on looking at the possibilities of a standard cat - much as I like the Knight pose there are so many other things a feline is capable of that would really set that figure apart.  Ah, but I dream ...........

[Takama]

Ok   Apparently King Louie in the new Jungle Book film is a Gigantopithicus, and there are toys based on the characters in that film, including him.    Since he is Extinct ape that lived in REAL life (unlike the hybrids that got a pass on the blog) would a figure of him be ok for the blog?

That's pretty cool they used an extinct species so they could make him massive.

I think it will depend on what the figures look like. We currently include the occasional Japanese 'Mystery animal' figure that is clearly based on fossil animals (Medicom has made several, including prehistoric whales, kangaroos, megalodon, etc).

So far, there is at least one set where the character doesn't look so bad...

This is the set i was planning on getting.   If i review King Louie, should i ignore the other figures or briefly touch apon them?  (maybe i will open a thread on the ATF for the other animals, and link it in the review)

[Kovu]

Maybe briefly mention in the introduction that the set also includes Bagheera (a black Indian Leopard), Baloo (a Sloth Bear - even though he resembles a Himalayan Brown Bear more), Mowgli, and Shere Khan (a Bengal Tiger), however, they will not be reviewed as extant animals are outside the scope of this blog?

Btw, I'm so excited to see this movie! It looks like an artistic masterpiece!

As far as monsters on the blog, personally, I think things like the Indominus are fine. Despite being fictional, its clearly a "dinosaur" and part of a series who's main selling point is dinosaurs. Aladar, Eema, Neera and the rest of the Disney Dinosaur brigade, Patch, Scowler and Juniper from WWD, really anything that is obviously a dinosaur and/or part of a dinosaur-based film or TV series, I think belongs on the blog. Maybe, maybe the "dinosaurs" in King Kong. I don't really have an opinion or vested interest in them either way as the only King Kong film I've seen is the 2005 remake.

Godzilla and King Kong himself, monsters, kaiju (can someone please tell me what that is btw? I've seen it thrown around a few times and I'm just not sure), dragons and bigfoot and friends, not so much. Figures that are part of non-film affiliated "hybrid"-lines are also inappropriate in my opinion. The Indominus and Stegoceratops were part of a dinosaur franchise, as well as being obviously based on known species, therefore, I feel their inclusion was appropriate.

As far as recently extinct animals, I think they absolutely belong on the blog. I think they'd be an invaluable teaching lesson to show that extinction is not a strictly "prehistoric" concept, but an unfortunately ongoing phenomena. Reviews of Thylacines, Passenger Pigeons, Steller's Sea Cows and Dodos, I think, can be beneficial from a conservation standpoint by informing readers, particularly younger readers, of the consequences of humanity's environmental actions.

[AcroSauroTaurus]

As far as monsters on the blog, personally, I think things like the Indominus are fine. Despite being fictional, its clearly a "dinosaur" and part of a series who's main selling point is dinosaurs. Aladar, Eema, Neera and the rest of the Disney Dinosaur brigade, Patch, Scowler and Juniper from WWD, really anything that is obviously a dinosaur and/or part of a dinosaur-based film or TV series, I think belongs on the blog. Maybe, maybe the "dinosaurs" in King Kong. I don't really have an opinion or vested interest in them either way as the only King Kong film I've seen is the 2005 remake.

Godzilla and King Kong himself, monsters, kaiju (can someone please tell me what that is btw? I've seen it thrown around a few times and I'm just not sure), dragons and bigfoot and friends, not so much. Figures that are part of non-film affiliated "hybrid"-lines are also inappropriate in my opinion. The Indominus and Stegoceratops were part of a dinosaur franchise, as well as being obviously based on known species, therefore, I feel their inclusion was appropriate.

Kaiju is the name for giant monsters, such as Godzilla, King Kong, Mothra, Gamera, Ghidorah, the monsters in Pacific Rim, etc.

[AcroSauroTaurus]

I would stretch it to include "fictional animals" in general, I don't think just mythological figures would generate enough interest without the help of Godzilla or Star Wars.

Well, basically the new forum would be for mythical creatures, cryptids, monsters, kaiju, aliens, fictional movie/media creatures, and any other creature figures that would fit in. All we would need is a good name for it...

[tyrantqueen]

I say no. There are plenty of sites that cater for that audience already.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

the only real simple way I see adding monsters as feasible would be under a sub heading for only postings of that nature...and not sitting right alongside models of creatures known to be extinct which are often evaluated based on their own accuracy. I also would advocate a similar placement for many of the clearly child intended toys that are starting to be added into the boards....with their own grouping as well. It is....somewhat "jarring" to be examing a review for a recent Kaiyodo capsule Q set and find the next posting is a Masher set or something....I understand why they are posted, as dinosaurs, I just think they should have their own sub board or division, and monsters could as well.

[Viking Spawn]

Since I have a bias toward Godzilla and Kaiju in general, my vote would be yes!  They are fictional radioactive dinosaurs after all... Or at least, some of them are.  But I also feel they would need to be in their own sub-section to keep the threads away from the real dinosaurs under discussion.  My 2 cents.