Monsters on Dinotoyblog, yes or no?

[stargatedalek]

I used to have that same animatronic Tyrannosaurus, I know I still have it in storage somewhere. It was fun even if corny.

For me I see a lot of figures others don't think of as monsters as such (most Papo/REBOR and every Jurassic Park dinosaur for example), so as I see it the line of "real dinosaur" has already been blurred on the blog time and again. I think it's fair to say that anything based on a dinosaur or dinosaur archetype should be allowed, being in a franchise that includes dinosaur based things but not being should in my opinion be up to the individual reviewers discretion. To my eyes the Papo Tyrannosaurus is no more worthy of appearing on the blog than Rodan, both are based on untrue archetypes of extinct animals. Where it gets fuzzy is does Rodan's validity mean Mothra should appear? That, I think, should be up to the person who owns the Mothra figure to decide.

[Gwangi]

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

Must be Definitely Dinosaurs then, I can't imagine what else it would be. If so then by all means, go for it. Those were terrific when I was growing up.

I really miss this one.

[Gwangi]

As Patrx pointed out earlier, I think we can all make the distinction between which monsters are based on dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals and which aren't. Gigan is not based on a prehistoric animal. Mothra is a giant moth. Gorosaurus is clearly a theropod dinosaur. Rodan is clearly a pterosaur. The Rhedosaurus from "The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms" is just as much a dinosaur as Indominus rex. Things like the Cloverfield monster have no similarity to or association with any known prehistoric animal.  Where it gets fuzzy for me is, if we're reviewing Rodan can we review the Venomsaurus rex, or Earl Sinclair, or Barney.

I adamantly disagree that the Tyrannosaurus from "Jurassic Park" is just as much a movie monster as Rodan. For one, it's attributable to an actual genus of dinosaur. It looks like a Tyrannosaurus, it is a Tyrannosaurus. It has some inaccuracies but so does any honest attempt at a Tyrannosaurus from any toy line. And it is a design from 1993. The Velociraptors look like accurate dromaeosaurs for 1993. Just as much as Bob Bakker's classic Deinonychus sketch.They were made to look like dinosaurs, they're not movie monsters (with the possible exception of the Dilophosaurus). The fact that those designs have been retained to the present day is, well, unfortunate.

[Takama]

I think Figures based on Chrectors that are Confirmed to be Dinosaurs are acceptable.

I would love to see the forums reaction if i bought a Barney Figurine and reviewed it

[Libraraptor]

Reviewing new and different kinds of toys and toylines does not take the classics away. I vote for a more versatile, colourful approach without becoming too silly. I don´t really think this can or needs to be steered or regulated. The process will steer and regulate itself.

[Megalosaurus]

As long as they are toys that stated to represent a dinosaur, go ahead.

But, regarding monsters and Kaijus...

[CityRaptor]

We don't mean Kaiju in general, just specific ones.  Godzilla for example is stated to be a Dinosaur and actually has been taken on by paleontologists, having been classified as a Neoceratosaurian by Carpenter ( 1998 )
Carpenter, K. 1998. A dinosaur paleontologist's view of Godzilla. In Lees, J. D. & Cerasini, M. (eds) The Official Godzilla Compendium. Random House (New York), pp. 102-106.

[SBell]

We don't mean Kaiju in general, just specific ones.  Godzilla for example is stated to be a Dinosaur and actually has been taken on by paleontologists, having been classified as a Neoceratosaurian by Carpenter ( 1998 )
Carpenter, K. 1998. A dinosaur paleontologist's view of Godzilla. In Lees, J. D. & Cerasini, M. (eds) The Official Godzilla Compendium. Random House (New York), pp. 102-106.

But that's the problem--a tongue-in-cheek article on an obviously made-up animal doesn't make it anymore valid as a dinosaurs than Ghidora (mainly because the holotype specimen was likely lost). Why are some Kaiji 'dinosaurs' when others are not?

Or--since they are in movies, set in present day, they are not actually prehistoric anyway (it's not like there are fossils). Unlike JP dinos, which are resurrected from the fossil DNA, or DinoRiders with planets trapped in time, or what have you.

So technically, Godzilla and company belong on the ATF as modern organisms, alongside crocodiles and birds.

[laticauda]

We don't mean Kaiju in general, just specific ones.  Godzilla for example is stated to be a Dinosaur and actually has been taken on by paleontologists, having been classified as a Neoceratosaurian by Carpenter ( 1998 )
Carpenter, K. 1998. A dinosaur paleontologist's view of Godzilla. In Lees, J. D. & Cerasini, M. (eds) The Official Godzilla Compendium. Random House (New York), pp. 102-106.

I preface my rant by saying this only opionion, just adding to the discussion, and not directing any anger or malice.   

Only one problem with that.  In 1954 when Godzilla with made and graced the movie screens for the first time, it was a MONSTER.   Now over the years the origin has varied but it is still an enormous, violent, prehistoric sea monster that was awakened by radiation from nuclear tests.  Key Word,  MONSTER.  It was meant to be a monster, it still is a monster, no matter how much some people may want it to be a real dinosaur,  or just having fun trying to figure how it would be if it were real, its not.  It is complete make believe.  It just the facts. 

What is a dinosaur and what is a monster?   We all have different ideas on what makes a monster.  Basic Definition.  A monster is: A strange or horrible imaginary creature,  something that is extremely or unusually large, or a powerful person or thing that cannot be controlled and that causes many problems.

When I was a kid there was a book that I repeatedly took out of the library.  It was a book about movie monsters.  Highlighting the book was King Kong, Godzilla, Mothra, and Rodan.  I loved the book, even though they are all fictional monsters.  Even though Rodan is supposed a Pterodactyl that was awoken from nuclear tests, it really is styled after Azhdarchids.  That doesn't make it real, they just used as a stylized reference for their monster.  I love the movie Pacific Rim, in fact on my book shelf I have the Hong Kong Brawl Gypsy Danger toy.  Even though, in the  movie, it is mentioned that the Kaiju were actually dinosaurs but the environment wasn't correct for them, that doesn't make the Kaiju Otachi a dinosaur.  It is still a monster. 

My point is this.  I have nothing wrong with reviews about fun, or over stylized dinosaurs as long as the main intent is that the toy is a real species. I love the lego reviews, bright fun color dinosaur, etc, because they are based on real dinosaurs.  That brings us to Jurassic Park/World.  The first three movies treated them as real animals, even though Grant had some harsh words about them.  Jurassic World took it over the edge with a new genetic dinosaur.  It was questioned then if we should review the I-Rex, since it is part of the JP series,  it was decided that since it was part of the line, it was ok to review.  Many people brought up the point then that we were opening Pandora's Pithos by allowing it.  So that imaginary line might have been crossed, but lets not keep going down the road.  There are other sites that deal exclusively with movie monsters.  I could be wrong, but I didn't think that was what the DTB was about. 

Again I am not just ranting or angry, (ok, I just looked at what I wrote, maybe I ranted a little) just saying my thoughts on the discussion.   

[stargatedalek]

In-universe there are fossils of Godzilla though, and with only one surviving member making it a functionally extinct species. If we pretend we're in that universe it's the equivalent of putting a Pinta Island tortoise on the blog (which for the record I would not be opposed to a Baiji, Pinta Island tortoise, etc. appearing on the blog).

Canonical debates aside I have to say I think the stem of this discussion is more along the lines of people taking every chance they get to bash Indominus rex. Like yah some people didn't like it, that's fine, yah they felt like saying it, that's fine, but every single time it's brought up certain people will inevitably jump in start whaling on it and that's not fine. We have rules specifically in place about doing that but they are only ever enforced for the popular lines and I'm damn sick of it. When people say things like that about REBOR or Papo nowadays they get a lot of criticism for such remarks.

[CityRaptor]

Or--since they are in movies, set in present day, they are not actually prehistoric anyway (it's not like there are fossils). Unlike JP dinos, which are resurrected from the fossil DNA, or DinoRiders with planets trapped in time, or what have you.

So technically, Godzilla and company belong on the ATF as modern organisms, alongside crocodiles and birds.

By that logic we also should not have a Thylacine on the blog, as it is a modern animal, that just happens to be extinct thanks to humans. 

[SBell]

Or--since they are in movies, set in present day, they are not actually prehistoric anyway (it's not like there are fossils). Unlike JP dinos, which are resurrected from the fossil DNA, or DinoRiders with planets trapped in time, or what have you.

So technically, Godzilla and company belong on the ATF as modern organisms, alongside crocodiles and birds.

By that logic we also should not have a Thylacine on the blog, as it is a modern animal, that just happens to be extinct thanks to humans.

Again, grey area--extinct things kind of fall into both. Depends who is looking at them (some people collect them only because they are extinct; others because they aren't fossil species...)

Then again, right in the opening page, it does say:

"We are a friendly and open community dedicated to the discussion of prehistoric animal collectibles, palaeoart, pop culture, and palaeontology."

So they technically fall into the 'pop culture' part of the equation.

As always, it really comes down to, will the people that read the blog care? Will they ignore it? Will they complain? Let the market decide.

[CityRaptor]

Same for Dinosaur Kaiju. Pretty sure I'm not the only one here who has some Godzilla figures together on display with the other Dinosaurs. ( Mine is displayed near a TLW Bull T.rex and a Vasatosaurus since I shrunk the Kaiju Collection down. Before that it was on the Kaiju shelf )

[Gwangi]

I preface my rant by saying this only opionion, just adding to the discussion, and not directing any anger or malice.   

Only one problem with that.  In 1954 when Godzilla with made and graced the movie screens for the first time, it was a MONSTER.   Now over the years the origin has varied but it is still an enormous, violent, prehistoric sea monster that was awakened by radiation from nuclear tests.  Key Word,  MONSTER.  It was meant to be a monster, it still is a monster, no matter how much some people may want it to be a real dinosaur,  or just having fun trying to figure how it would be if it were real, its not.  It is complete make believe.  It just the facts. 

What is a dinosaur and what is a monster?   We all have different ideas on what makes a monster.  Basic Definition.  A monster is: A strange or horrible imaginary creature,  something that is extremely or unusually large, or a powerful person or thing that cannot be controlled and that causes many problems.

When I was a kid there was a book that I repeatedly took out of the library.  It was a book about movie monsters.  Highlighting the book was King Kong, Godzilla, Mothra, and Rodan.  I loved the book, even though they are all fictional monsters.  Even though Rodan is supposed a Pterodactyl that was awoken from nuclear tests, it really is styled after Azhdarchids.  That doesn't make it real, they just used as a stylized reference for their monster.  I love the movie Pacific Rim, in fact on my book shelf I have the Hong Kong Brawl Gypsy Danger toy.  Even though, in the  movie, it is mentioned that the Kaiju were actually dinosaurs but the environment wasn't correct for them, that doesn't make the Kaiju Otachi a dinosaur.  It is still a monster. 

My point is this.  I have nothing wrong with reviews about fun, or over stylized dinosaurs as long as the main intent is that the toy is a real species. I love the lego reviews, bright fun color dinosaur, etc, because they are based on real dinosaurs.  That brings us to Jurassic Park/World.  The first three movies treated them as real animals, even though Grant had some harsh words about them.  Jurassic World took it over the edge with a new genetic dinosaur.  It was questioned then if we should review the I-Rex, since it is part of the JP series,  it was decided that since it was part of the line, it was ok to review.  Many people brought up the point then that we were opening Pandora's Pithos by allowing it.  So that imaginary line might have been crossed, but lets not keep going down the road.  There are other sites that deal exclusively with movie monsters.  I could be wrong, but I didn't think that was what the DTB was about. 

Again I am not just ranting or angry, (ok, I just looked at what I wrote, maybe I ranted a little) just saying my thoughts on the discussion.   

I more or less agree with you but the kaiju in Pacific Rim are not dinosaurs, even in-universe. I believe they were what was responsible for the dinosaur extinction. I could be wrong though, it's been awhile since I watched it.

[Gwangi]

Or--since they are in movies, set in present day, they are not actually prehistoric anyway (it's not like there are fossils). Unlike JP dinos, which are resurrected from the fossil DNA, or DinoRiders with planets trapped in time, or what have you.

So technically, Godzilla and company belong on the ATF as modern organisms, alongside crocodiles and birds.

By that logic we also should not have a Thylacine on the blog, as it is a modern animal, that just happens to be extinct thanks to humans.

I think if it is extinct it is acceptable. I did debate whether the thylacine was appropriate but there are already reviews for the dodo. I don't think it really matters when the critter went extinct, just that it is.

I would not consider Godzilla a modern organism either though. Most giant movie monsters trace their origins back to being frozen or preserved in some fashion until human actions thaw them out or awaken them.

As for Godzilla's classification as a dinosaur. Godzillasaurus anyone?

[laticauda]

I preface my rant by saying this only opionion, just adding to the discussion, and not directing any anger or malice.   

Only one problem with that.  In 1954 when Godzilla with made and graced the movie screens for the first time, it was a MONSTER.   Now over the years the origin has varied but it is still an enormous, violent, prehistoric sea monster that was awakened by radiation from nuclear tests.  Key Word,  MONSTER.  It was meant to be a monster, it still is a monster, no matter how much some people may want it to be a real dinosaur,  or just having fun trying to figure how it would be if it were real, its not.  It is complete make believe.  It just the facts. 

What is a dinosaur and what is a monster?   We all have different ideas on what makes a monster.  Basic Definition.  A monster is: A strange or horrible imaginary creature,  something that is extremely or unusually large, or a powerful person or thing that cannot be controlled and that causes many problems.

When I was a kid there was a book that I repeatedly took out of the library.  It was a book about movie monsters.  Highlighting the book was King Kong, Godzilla, Mothra, and Rodan.  I loved the book, even though they are all fictional monsters.  Even though Rodan is supposed a Pterodactyl that was awoken from nuclear tests, it really is styled after Azhdarchids.  That doesn't make it real, they just used as a stylized reference for their monster.  I love the movie Pacific Rim, in fact on my book shelf I have the Hong Kong Brawl Gypsy Danger toy.  Even though, in the  movie, it is mentioned that the Kaiju were actually dinosaurs but the environment wasn't correct for them, that doesn't make the Kaiju Otachi a dinosaur.  It is still a monster. 

My point is this.  I have nothing wrong with reviews about fun, or over stylized dinosaurs as long as the main intent is that the toy is a real species. I love the lego reviews, bright fun color dinosaur, etc, because they are based on real dinosaurs.  That brings us to Jurassic Park/World.  The first three movies treated them as real animals, even though Grant had some harsh words about them.  Jurassic World took it over the edge with a new genetic dinosaur.  It was questioned then if we should review the I-Rex, since it is part of the JP series,  it was decided that since it was part of the line, it was ok to review.  Many people brought up the point then that we were opening Pandora's Pithos by allowing it.  So that imaginary line might have been crossed, but lets not keep going down the road.  There are other sites that deal exclusively with movie monsters.  I could be wrong, but I didn't think that was what the DTB was about. 

Again I am not just ranting or angry, (ok, I just looked at what I wrote, maybe I ranted a little) just saying my thoughts on the discussion.   

I more or less agree with you but the kaiju in Pacific Rim are not dinosaurs, even in-universe. I believe they were what was responsible for the dinosaur extinction. I could be wrong though, it's been awhile since I watched it.

Hmmm, you might be right.  Maybe I miss-understood?  I guess I'll just have to re watch it.  Butter the popcorn, its time for a movie night.

[suspsy]

I think recently extinct animals such as the dodo and the thylacine are a great addition to the DTB, especially since they remind us that extinction is still going on today thanks to our carelessness, greed, and stupidity. I'd like to see CollectA or some other company make more animals along those lines, such as the moa, the quagga, and the Stellar's sea cow.

[Gwangi]

I think recently extinct animals such as the dodo and the thylacine are a great addition to the DTB, especially since they remind us that extinction is still going on today thanks to our carelessness, greed, and stupidity. I'd like to see CollectA or some other company make more animals along those lines, such as the moa, the quagga, and the Stellar's sea cow.

Mojo makes a quagga. I almost bought it to review. The quagga is a sub-species of the plains zebra however, so technically the species is not extinct. I don't think anyone would riot over a review of it though. We need more moa and a Stellar's sea cow would be awesome.

[SBell]

I think recently extinct animals such as the dodo and the thylacine are a great addition to the DTB, especially since they remind us that extinction is still going on today thanks to our carelessness, greed, and stupidity. I'd like to see CollectA or some other company make more animals along those lines, such as the moa, the quagga, and the Stellar's sea cow.

Mojo made a decent quagga! I still have some!

And it's another good stand-in for more primitive horses (if only because of the pattern). I jsut can't remember what thread that's in!

[sauroid]

the essence of the DTB is prehistoric animal figures, and should focus on REAL PREHISTORIC animal figures, not fantasy creatures nor recently extinct modern animal figures.