Monsters on Dinotoyblog, yes or no?

[Gwangi]

As Gwangi said, it's a dinosaur toy, which means it has as much right to be featured on the DTB as anything from Safari, REBOR, Kaiyodo, or

...

X-plus


Bandai


NECA


Between Hero Mashers, Indominus rex, and Stegoceratops why not right? That seems to be where we're headed. I'm sure someone will be reviewing those abysmal JW hybrids and the Chaos line eventually. They are technically dinosaurs toys! 

[Patrx]

Hah, come to think of it, I wouldn't mind reviews of kaiju figures on the blog, as long as they were dinosaur/pterosaur-themed  Godzilla and Anguirus are based on dinosaurs (the latter only loosely so), but some, like Gigan, Ghidora, Baragon, or Mothra would, I think be excluded.

[suspsy]

Paleona actually did review the Chaos Effect Velociraptoryx awhile back. Sure wish she or someone else would review more of them.

[Gwangi]

Hah, come to think of it, I wouldn't mind reviews of kaiju figures on the blog, as long as they were dinosaur/pterosaur-themed  Godzilla and Anguirus are based on dinosaurs (the latter only loosely so), but some, like Gigan, Ghidora, Baragon, or Mothra would, I think be excluded.

I looked into getting the Gorosaurus but the one I wanted (X-plus, picture above) was way out of my price range, otherwise I would have reviewed it. It's certainly the most dinosaurian of the kaiju. But generally speaking I'm not sure Godzilla toys would have a place on the DTB. While there is some overlap between dinosaur and Godzilla collectors I imagine the two hobbies represent separate niches. You could dedicate an entire blog to reviewing Godzilla toys, and I'm sure a few people have. But like I said, when you have a review of Stegoceratops then why shouldn't Rodan be fair game? Where do you draw the line? Should there be a line at all?

And a separate but related note, I'm surprised no one has tackled any of the toys from "The Good Dinosaur". If I ever drop the dough on a Butch action figure I would happily review it.

[suspsy]

Godzilla does give me a bit of pause, but honestly, I don't think there really needs to be a distinctive line drawn. I'm proud to have introduced more diversity to the DTB, through Playmobil, Lego, and now Hero Mashers. And it's not like the more unusual toys are going to replace the most popular ones like CollectA and Papo and Battat.

I see it as adding to the menu while keeping all the favourite dishes.

[laticauda]

I agree their is a very fine line between movie monsters and dinosaurs.  Personally I feel Godzilla is out, lets be real, it goes under the heading of monsters, it was only very loosely based on dinosaurs. Its skin is meant to be like the skin from atomic bomb survivors.  Ants from "Them", or Kaiju from Pacific Rim are monsters. They should be excluded, were as dinosaurs from, lets say "Valley of Gwangi" are meant to be dinosaurs, not monsters.  Of course movies like King Kong (1933) really split the line as King Kong is a monster, the animals of skull island may be monstrous but are supposed to be dinosaurs.  Jurassic Park (1993), cloned dinosaurs to be real dinosaurs.  Which is why the line has been reviewed.  The chaos line, and I-Rex are only included due to their association with the line.  As much as possible, I think we should stay within the "real", than expanding out into the monster market.  Just my thoughts.

[Gwangi]

Didn't think I would write a review today but I had some spare time.
http://dinotoyblog.com/2016/02/15/tyrannosaurus-dinotales-series-1-by-kaiyodo/

[laticauda]

Nice review.     I am not sure why, but something about its head bothers me.    Despite my own weirdness on trying to figure out what is bugging me about the head, I love the pattern and colors on it.

[Gwangi]

Nice review.     I am not sure why, but something about its head bothers me.    Despite my own weirdness on trying to figure out what is bugging me about the head, I love the pattern and colors on it.

The seam running down the center of it is certainly off putting. Best viewed in profile I think.

[tyrantqueen]

If the writer of the review actually critiques the Godzilla/monster toy for what it is- a fantasy creature- then I don't have a problem with those reviews being made. By this I mean how screen accurate is the toy, how much articulation does it have, etc. If they start criticising it for not being "accurate" then no way. I have no interest in seeing those toys getting bashed.

[Libraraptor]

At first all those new colourful toys jarred me a little, but then I thought: The more variety, the better.  Adding those - just from my point of view-  goofy  toys - makes the blog more colourfull and versatile. And it does not take the classic categories away but complements them. I don´t have a problem with Godzilla, too.

[CityRaptor]

If the writer of the review actually critiques the Godzilla/monster toy for what it is- a fantasy creature- then I don't have a problem with those reviews being made. By this I mean how screen accurate is the toy, how much articulation does it have, etc. If they start criticising it for not being "accurate" then no way. I have no interest in seeing those toys getting bashed.

I agree on that. Although one can point out that while meant to be members of fictional species, many are based on older reconstructions, which given the time of their creation, of course makes sense.

[Libraraptor]

We shouldn´t see all this too overly-intellectual. If something is fun, it´s okay, especially on the DTB.

[Sim]

On the left hand side of the Dinosaur Toy Blog it says:

Welcome to The Dinosaur Toy Blog!

Regular reviews of prehistoric animal toys, figures, and museum quality replicas.


That's what I've always seen it as and liked it for - a blog about prehistoric animal toys/figures.  This is what the DTB is described as having reviews of in the About section.  I've always understood "prehistoric animal" to mean real prehistoric animals, as opposed to totally made-up monsters.

Figures that don't represent a real prehistoric animal I personally don't think belong on the DTB.  The monsters from Godzilla are an example of this.  With regards to the Jurassic Park/World hybrids, I think they've been getting reviewed since they are hybrids of real prehistoric animals and they are included in lines with figures that represent real prehistoric animals.  However, I think they too don't belong on the blog as they (the hybrids) are just monsters that don't represent real animals at all.  If made-up 'dinosaur' monsters were included in a set with real prehistoric animals, like in the case of the mini JW figures that came in the big blind bag which included the I. rex, I think the fake 'dinosaur' should be included in the review as it's part of the set.

Those are just my thoughts and personal preference.

[Kayakasaurus]

On the left hand side of the Dinosaur Toy Blog it says:

Welcome to The Dinosaur Toy Blog!

Regular reviews of prehistoric animal toys, figures, and museum quality replicas.


That's what I've always seen it as and liked it for - a blog about prehistoric animal toys/figures.  This is what the DTB is described as having reviews of in the About section.  I've always understood "prehistoric animal" to mean real prehistoric animals, as opposed to totally made-up monsters.

Figures that don't represent a real prehistoric animal I personally don't think belong on the DTB.  The monsters from Godzilla are an example of this.  With regards to the Jurassic Park/World hybrids, I think they've been getting reviewed since they are hybrids of real prehistoric animals and they are included in lines with figures that represent real prehistoric animals.  However, I think they too don't belong on the blog as they (the hybrids) are just monsters that don't represent real animals at all.  If made-up 'dinosaur' monsters were included in a set with real prehistoric animals, like in the case of the mini JW figures that came in the big blind bag which included the I. rex, I think the fake 'dinosaur' should be included in the review as it's part of the set.

Those are just my thoughts and personal preference.

I agree  . Godzilla is not a prehistoric creature and I wouldn't expect to find it on anything about dinosaurs, just like I wouldn't expect to find dragons.

[suspsy]

I don't mind the Indominus, the upcoming Hybrids, or the Chaos Effect toys, but I do think Godzilla and his friends are pushing it.

[Patrx]

It's up to Adam ultimately, of course! But, I guess I would struggle to define a group that includes the Jurassic Park creatures but excludes Godzilla. Especially the "Indominus"!

[stargatedalek]

Honestly I can't help but think it unfair should we include poorly done attempts at real dinosaurs (IE Mojo) that look like wannabe movie monsters but pretend to be real dinosaurs, but exclude deliberately stylized designs that actually admit they aren't realistic.

[CityRaptor]

I agree with stargatedalek and Patrx.

[Gwangi]

Oh wow, I started a thread apparently. Just to clarify, I never intended to seriously promote reviewing Godzilla toys on the DTB. It was a tongue in cheek remark made in response to some of the "less traditional" reviews that have popped up lately. I personally don't think Godzilla & friends have a place on the blog. It's a niche thing. People that collect Godzilla represent a separate niche from those that collect dinosaurs. I collect dinosaurs, I don't collect Godzilla (subject to change) so basically what it comes down to is this. Would you put a Godzilla toy on your dinosaur shelf? If the answer is no, then it shouldn't be on the blog. And I'm willing to bet there are more people that wouldn't than would. That said, I wouldn't put a Stegoceratops or Indominus on my shelf either.

It brings up an interesting dialogue though that I never intended on taking seriously. Why shouldn't Rodan or Gorosaurus have a place on the blog? They represent prehistoric animals as depicted by pop culture. Stylized of course but no less bizarre than the chaos line. Again I ask where we draw the line. Why do the "Jurassic Park/World" toys that don't represent actual dinosaurs get a free pass? And now you have things like Hero Mashers and Lego so the blog is certainly diversifying beyond the collectible/model/figurine type reviews and reviewing actual toys with no link to any actual dinosaur aside from a vague similarity or body plan. Which is basically what got me asking where does the line need to be drawn? What's next? The Land Before Time? Pokemon? Power Rangers? Barney and Friends? Is someone going to review Earl Sinclair from the television show "Dinosaurs"? He's a Megalosaurus, at least he represents a known genus!

In the end I wouldn't stress too much though. People are going to review what they collect. Most of the reviewers collect traditional dinosaur models by the likes of Safari, Battat, Papo, Sideshow, REBOR etc.. Models that depict actual dinosaurs, with varying degrees of scientific accuracy, for better or worse. You know, the stuff we talk about on the forum? Personally, that's the way I like it. Even if someone did on the off chance decide to review Rodan or Barney or Earl Sinclair it would be a one off thing. I don't think we'll ever see a Godzilla sub-category, just like you won't see one on the forum.