Monster Toy Blog - Coming Soon!

[DinoToyForum]

Does this count as a monster? (I just have the base coat on it, BTW.) 🙂

Torvo

Yes. Dragons are definitely going to be on the MTB.

I know, I just wanted to show off my (incomplete) dragon, lol. I literally have hundreds of 28mm monsters collected over 40 years. Original Ral Partha, Grenadier, RAFM, Reaper, etc., including dragons, giants, ogres, manticores, Cthulhu monsters, undead, etc. I originally planned on being a paleontologist until I got into the oil industry, but I've always been into monsters!

If you don't have enough reviewers yet, I would like to. I'd still do the dinosaur figures for DTB, but this is where my heart is. I do need to finish the HG Alamosaurus, though, and then I would only do gaming figures for DTB.

Torvo

T @Torvosaurus, so far there are seven contributors, excluding guest reviews. I'd be glad to set up a Monster Toy Blog account for you, it sounds like you could have a lot to contribute! And you'll already have one review there when we launch (Bicapitosaurus ivani) so I can put that under your account. Drop me a PM or email if you're interested.  

[DinoToyForum]

I've been thinking, according to the definition of monster I came up with, Micky Mouse is a monster!? Or is he an animal? I may have to rethink this!

[Saarlooswolfhound]

I think a monster discussion section would be appropriate on both forums- those who don't enjoy the topic can just NOT click on it and NOT read it. I don't see why it should offend anyone as essentially its still animal figure collecting- just a different theme of them.

[Gwangi]

What will become of the cryptid reviews on the Animal Toy Blog? There were all April Fools posts and written as though the animals they cover were real. I imagine that reviews written for the MTB won't be written like that, which means the April Fools reviews won't mesh well with the others. I would almost rather re-write/edit my own April Fools contribution than transfer over the joke review.

[SBell]

I think a monster discussion section would be appropriate on both forums- those who don't enjoy the topic can just NOT click on it and NOT read it. I don't see why it should offend anyone as essentially its still animal figure collecting- just a different theme of them.

We just want to make sure nobody misses it!

Also, this is fitting for today! Just weren't on top of it enough for Godzilla's 70th birthday!

[DinoToyForum]

What will become of the cryptid reviews on the Animal Toy Blog? There were all April Fools posts and written as though the animals they cover were real. I imagine that reviews written for the MTB won't be written like that, which means the April Fools reviews won't mesh well with the others. I would almost rather re-write/edit my own April Fools contribution than transfer over the joke review.

To begin with I will duplicate all 'monster' posts on the DTB/ATB on the MTB. Then we can decide which reviews we delete outright from the original site (=full migration), and which ones get edited. So long as the content isn't duplicated word for word, I don't mind the same figure being being reviewed more than once, for historical/contextual reasons. However, I would avoid duplicating figures going forward, so we'll have to get creative when it comes to April Fools!

[DinoToyForum]

I think a monster discussion section would be appropriate on both forums- those who don't enjoy the topic can just NOT click on it and NOT read it. I don't see why it should offend anyone as essentially its still animal figure collecting- just a different theme of them.

We just want to make sure nobody misses it!

Yeah, I think we need a dedicated place to go. My feeling is some monsters boards on the ATF might be best, and might generate more activity and visitors to help make the ATF a bit more active on the animal front too. Rebranding it 'The Animal and Monster Toy Forum' may be a step too far, but then again, if there are no objections...

[Gwangi]

What will become of the cryptid reviews on the Animal Toy Blog? There were all April Fools posts and written as though the animals they cover were real. I imagine that reviews written for the MTB won't be written like that, which means the April Fools reviews won't mesh well with the others. I would almost rather re-write/edit my own April Fools contribution than transfer over the joke review.

To begin with I will duplicate all 'monster' posts on the DTB/ATB on the MTB. Then we can decide which reviews we delete outright from the original site (=full migration), and which ones get edited. So long as the content isn't duplicated word for word, I don't mind the same figure being being reviewed more than once, for historical/contextual reasons. However, I would avoid duplicating figures going forward, so we'll have to get creative when it comes to April Fools!

Sounds good. That was my line of thinking too, maybe different people can write reviews for the figures that already have reviews on the ATB. That would at least avoid duplicate opinions about the figure.

[Brontozaurus]

Oh hell yes, I've got a bunch of monster toys lying around that would be perfect for this.

Though on that note...do Pokemon count for the purposes of the blog? They are pocket monsters after all, though there's already so much coverage of them I can get why they wouldn't be included.

[suspsy]

I've begun my first review.

[SBell]

I've begun my first review.

I've already written mine! Just need photos!

[BlueKrono]

Oh hell yes, I've got a bunch of monster toys lying around that would be perfect for this.

Though on that note...do Pokemon count for the purposes of the blog? They are pocket monsters after all, though there's already so much coverage of them I can get why they wouldn't be included.

I'm sure they would, and if you want to write 'em we'd love to read 'em! There's a very nice Pokemon wiki out there but that's about the critters themselves. Reviews of Poke-toys would be most welcome here.

[Torvosaurus]

What will become of the cryptid reviews on the Animal Toy Blog? There were all April Fools posts and written as though the animals they cover were real. I imagine that reviews written for the MTB won't be written like that, which means the April Fools reviews won't mesh well with the others. I would almost rather re-write/edit my own April Fools contribution than transfer over the joke review.

To begin with I will duplicate all 'monster' posts on the DTB/ATB on the MTB. Then we can decide which reviews we delete outright from the original site (=full migration), and which ones get edited. So long as the content isn't duplicated word for word, I don't mind the same figure being being reviewed more than once, for historical/contextual reasons. However, I would avoid duplicating figures going forward, so we'll have to get creative when it comes to April Fools!

A cryptid, by definition, is an animal believed to exist but that is unknown to science. I've interviewed a couple dozen bigfoot witnesses, and there were two of those sightings that I couldn't explain, no matter how hard I tried. Now, I don't necessarily believe in bigfoot, but I'm open to the possibility that it might exist. Just some food for thought on the cryptid posts.

Torvo

[Libraraptor]

My excited face is the same as the plastic animal in the picture!

That´s exactly how I thought, too!  

I am so happy that now there is the DTB and its two siblings who will be growing and prospering for sure  

It will always be challenging to tell between a monster and a non-monster. Maybe it is helpful to consider the word "monster" derives from the Latin "monstrare", which means  both "to show" or "to point at".  It meant persons and creatures  which were extraordinary in a few ways, often due to physical infirmities, often due to people´s  superstition. These "unkonwns" sometimes were feared, sometimes were being laughed at, sometimes were being mystified, sometimes were being marvelled at. They were projections of people´s fears onto real creatures and persons.  They did not really belong to this world, and then again, they did.
By this definition, even the "Hunchback of Notre Dame" can be called a "monster". And Nessie, too.

[DinoToyForum]

I've begun my first review.

I've already written mine! Just need photos!

Make that three. We're planning to launch with a bang.

[SBell]

What will become of the cryptid reviews on the Animal Toy Blog? There were all April Fools posts and written as though the animals they cover were real. I imagine that reviews written for the MTB won't be written like that, which means the April Fools reviews won't mesh well with the others. I would almost rather re-write/edit my own April Fools contribution than transfer over the joke review.

To begin with I will duplicate all 'monster' posts on the DTB/ATB on the MTB. Then we can decide which reviews we delete outright from the original site (=full migration), and which ones get edited. So long as the content isn't duplicated word for word, I don't mind the same figure being being reviewed more than once, for historical/contextual reasons. However, I would avoid duplicating figures going forward, so we'll have to get creative when it comes to April Fools!

A cryptid, by definition, is an animal believed to exist but that is unknown to science. I've interviewed a couple dozen bigfoot witnesses, and there were two of those sightings that I couldn't explain, no matter how hard I tried. Now, I don't necessarily believe in bigfoot, but I'm open to the possibility that it might exist. Just some food for thought on the cryptid posts.

Torvo

There's a difference between 'unknown to science' and 'all evidence does not stand up to scrutiny'. A cryptid would still fall more within the MTB because they're still essentially 'mysterious'. If they were real we wouldn't have to argue about where they fit.

And if one does prove real, I guess it moves.

[DinoToyForum]

I'm locking this topic, and redirecting you to the new monsters board of the Animal Toy Forum, where I've started a thread to answer the questions raised above: https://animaltoyforum.com/index.php?topic=3522.0