Monsters on Dinotoyblog, yes or no?

[Takama]

If a model has a Real Scientific name to it(E.g Velociraptor, TYrannosaurus) then it can be reviewed on the blog no matter how stylized, or inaccurate the model may be.   Because of this i think that the Indominus Rex should never have been allowed on there in the first place.   Thats like if we were to Review a King Kong Figure because it was a monster in a movie about Dinosaurs

[Dinomike]

I also think there's a fine line between monsters and some dinosaur figures. For me it's kinda simple. I have two questions: Is it a dinosaur? Is it a toy? If I can answer yes to both, well, then I think it can be reviewed. In the case of I-Rex it still is a dinosaur, sort of. At least in the JW universe. But I think there should always be a diclaimer if the figure is fictional. Just in case somebody is referencing us.

[CityRaptor]

If we go by what is considered a Dinosaur in Universe, Godzilla and most Saurian Kaiju qualify.

[DinoLord]

I think it's fair to include Indominus, as it's part of a franchise the general public heavily associates with dinosaurs. Sure people know that Godzilla was based off of a dinosaur, but I don't think most would actually go as to consider it one unlike the Indominus.

[suspsy]

To be fair, Gwangi, the LEGO dinosaurs are actually pretty accurate aside from the lack of feathers on the raptors. And the Hero Mashers may be cartoonish, but they are still recognizable as real dinosaurs.

[Gwangi]

To be fair, Gwangi, the LEGO dinosaurs are actually pretty accurate aside from the lack of feathers on the raptors. And the Hero Mashers may be cartoonish, but they are still recognizable as real dinosaurs.

True enough, especially in regards to the Lego. But like I said, Megalosaurus anyone?



Just wondering where that line is...

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Why couldnt the blog just have a secondary or side board for this purpose so that noone has to lose....is that even workable?

[CityRaptor]

Well, that can of worms has been opened, hasn't it?



Also apparently this exists:

[suspsy]

I think the line should be drawn at anthropomorphic dinosaurs such as Jim Henson's Dinosaurs, Extreme Dinosaurs, Dinosaucers, etc.

A second board sounds like too much work for an already overworked owner.

[Gwangi]

That's what I've been saying. That's the entire reason I brought up Godzilla to begin with, it was originally a joke. But people have taken my joke seriously and shared compelling thoughts about it. If no line is drawn on what shouldn't be on the blog then any dinosaur could theoretically be reviewed. Again, I'm not really THAT worried, because people are only going to review what they collect. No one here collects Barney or My Little Pony, at least not that I'm aware of. Although I'm sure it's only a matter of time until "The Good Dinosaur" shows up. The blog has been running with a certain format for nearly a decade, I'm just curious how far we should be deviating from that format. An interesting discussion for sure.

[suspsy]

I personally wouldn't have any objection to The Good Dinosaur toys. Expanding the variety of toys reviewed (within reason) could mean more fans for the DTB.

[Gwangi]

I personally wouldn't have any objection to The Good Dinosaur toys. Expanding the variety of toys reviewed (within reason) could mean more fans for the DTB.

I wouldn't have a problem with them either. Like I said previously, if I get my hands on Butch I'll review him. He's not a priority but I like his design enough that I might pick him up.

[suspsy]

That's what I've been saying. That's the entire reason I brought up Godzilla to begin with, it was originally a joke. But people have taken my joke seriously and shared compelling thoughts about it. If no line is drawn on what shouldn't be on the blog then any dinosaur could theoretically be reviewed. Again, I'm not really THAT worried, because people are only going to review what they collect. No one here collects Barney or My Little Pony, at least not that I'm aware of. Although I'm sure it's only a matter of time until "The Good Dinosaur" shows up. The blog has been running with a certain format for nearly a decade, I'm just curious how far we should be deviating from that format. An interesting discussion for sure.

I don't think the DTB has ever been that cut-and-dry, it's just that there are more people writing more reviews now. Adam himself wrote this one:

http://dinotoyblog.com/2010/10/22/tyrannosaurus-rex-monster-in-my-pocket-by-matchbox/

And this one:

http://dinotoyblog.com/2007/09/28/pleo-dinosaur-a-ugobe-life-form-senario/

The DTB is evolving, which fits well with its central theme.

[Gwangi]

I don't think the DTB has ever been that cut-and-dry, it's just that there are more people writing more reviews now. Adam himself wrote this one:

http://dinotoyblog.com/2010/10/22/tyrannosaurus-rex-monster-in-my-pocket-by-matchbox/

And this one:

http://dinotoyblog.com/2007/09/28/pleo-dinosaur-a-ugobe-life-form-senario/

The DTB is evolving, which fits well with its central theme.

Yeah, I know about those reviews. I've probably read every review on the blog. I realize it's not that cut and dry but by and large your standard dinosaur collectibles have been the primary focus and I think it should remain that way. It appeals to a certain niche, our niche more-or-less. The occasional cute review of children's toys and oddballs isn't an issue, I just wouldn't want to see it become the primary focus of the blog. Just like I wouldn't want Godzilla toys to become the primary focus. Just my thoughts. I'm not trying to insult you personally because I thought your Lego reviews were well written and fun to read. I'm just wondering what direction the blog is headed in and if it should be, but I already said as much. It all boils down to what Adam thinks really. I can't speak for his vision for the blog. So far he seems cool with an anything goes attitude and that's fine too. I'm just glad the blog exists, introduced me to this hobby, and that I have the opportunity to write for it.

EDIT: Come to think of it, I have this sitting in my daughter's room. Maybe I'll review it some day.

[Takama]

I have an Incredibly Childish toyline that i would love to review for the blog.

And yes, there ALL named after real Dinosaurs, so there not Movie Monsters like Godzilla or the I.Rex

[Gwangi]

I have an Incredibly Childish toyline that i would love to review for the blog.

And yes, there ALL named after real Dinosaurs, so there not Movie Monsters like Godzilla or the I.Rex

Is it "Dinosaur Train"? Because I think those would be fair game. Some of them are pretty neat actually.

[Takama]

No these are much older then that.   One of the toys from this line was alredy reviewd on the blog.

I Traded some items with you to get a couple of these colorful figures

[suspsy]

Well, again, Gwangi, it's not as though the reviews of child-oriented toys are ever going to eclipse, let alone replace our primary diet of CollectA, Safari, Papo, etc. I have some CollectA reviews currently in the pipeline, and I'm really psyched about the 2016 assortment. I understand your concerns. Change is something we all adapt to slowly. And thank you for the component regarding my LEGO reviews!

And yes, I would welcome Dinosaur Train reviews with open arms. That show rocks. And I would enjoy reading a review of that plush T. Rex.

[SBell]

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.

See, part of it will also be based on how picky people are--I have definitely gone on record as describing some Papo models as more 'movie monster' than 'accurate replica' because I'm picky  . Sometimes.

But then, I'm a fan of things like Iwako eraser figures, some Go Diego, and Dinosaur Train figures, etc. The colours please me!

Definitely Dinosaurs, the original JP Junior figures and other 'stylized' fgiures have always been fair game on the blog as well.

But, in each case--including the I.rex, the Vastatosaurus, the strange arthropods from Primeval, the weird Good Dino models (to be pre-emptive)--they were all defined as 'dinosaurs' or 'prehistoric animals'. Or as directly associated with those. Kaiji, mythological creatures, dragons, movie monsters, made up creatures, cryptids (repeating myself there...) etc--they are their own things.

And yes--if we start including Kaiju and super-size monsters, why not the Cloverfield monster, or unicorns, or dragons, or Chupacabra? The line between 'kaiju' and 'dinosaur' has been called a fine line--but if Kaiju are equally considered movie monsters, than the line will become quite squiggly. And if movie monsters...then why not mythological and fantasy monsters?

I suppose, in the end, it's up to Adam. It's also up to the bloggers--if they want to do them, I suppose they can or will. It might be that the 'public response' has more effect than anything else--if people like them, all good. If people don't--or, worse in the world of the Internet--completely ignore them, it may speak to how the blog should go.

That said...I haven't given an opinion, just a one-person debate. I don't know what I actually think. Most likely, I would just ignore those posts.

_{*sidebar--years ago, we had someone on the original forum trying to convince us that there was serious reason to believe dragons were modern(-ish) dinosaurs. I really don't want to see that pop up again.}

[sauroid]

i love and collect monster figures but the DTB shouldnt review them. ever. there are other forums/sites that do just that and are more qualified/expert on the matter.
re: the Indominus rex and other JP/JW monsters/non-real-species, the blog shouldnt review them either.