Mojo Fun: New for 2022

[suspsy]

Personally, I don't think Latimeria has any place on the DTB. Yeah, I know the whole history behind its discovery and the misleading concept of "living fossils," but the simple fact of the matter is that it is neither prehistoric nor extinct (yet). It doesn't belong here any more than the alligator or the tuatara or the goblin shark does.

[Stuckasaurus (Dino Dad Reviews)]

Personally, I don't think Latimeria has any place on the DTB. Yeah, I know the whole history behind its discovery and the misleading concept of "living fossils," but the simple fact of the matter is that it is neither prehistoric nor extinct (yet). It doesn't belong here any more than the alligator or the tuatara or the goblin shark does.

I kinda agree in principle, though it's sensible in practice. The only reason to include it here is because the general public would think to look for it under the category of "dinosaur toys" before they would think to look for it under the category of modern animals. That's enough of a source of clicks though to begrudgingly justify its presence here.

[suspsy]

Personally, I don't think Latimeria has any place on the DTB. Yeah, I know the whole history behind its discovery and the misleading concept of "living fossils," but the simple fact of the matter is that it is neither prehistoric nor extinct (yet). It doesn't belong here any more than the alligator or the tuatara or the goblin shark does.

I kinda agree in principle, though it's sensible in practice. The only reason to include it here is because the general public would think to look for it under the category of "dinosaur toys" before they would think to look for it under the category of modern animals. That's enough of a source of clicks though to begrudgingly justify its presence here.

I don't agree with that, namely for the reason that if someone were searching online for a review of the Safari or the Mojo coelacanth, they'd type "safari or mojo coelacanth review" into Google as opposed to immediately going to the DTB.

Honestly, if it were all up to me, I'd remove the Safari coelacanth from the DTB now that it has a proper home on the ATB.

[stargatedalek]

I'd go by what line it's in. In an otherwise prehistoric line? Keep it on the blog. In a marine line? Not the place.

[Halichoeres]

I added an important message to the First post.

Basicaly the Coelacanth is not a part of the Prehistoric line up

However, should i leave it included in that post? remove it?

Glad to hear that!

[BlueKrono]

Now we've got a line of dragons here on the DTF, so if we're okay with that why not a coelacanth?

[suspsy]

Now we've got a line of dragons here on the DTF, so if we're okay with that why not a coelacanth?

Dragons are only being discussed as part of Cyberzoic, and as I noted in that particular thread, they do not warrant reviews on the blog.

[Gwangi]

All this coelacanth talk has me contemplating removing my WS coelacanth from my prehistoric display. Now that I collect extant animals too I suppose I have no reason to keep it there. Chiming in on the actual topic, since the WS coelacanth is part of their prehistoric line that does make a case for it being on the blog. Ultimately though, if it's extant in should be on the ATB.

[stargatedalek]

As I see it, extant creatures in extinct sets or lines are valid for the DTB or ATB (IE Wild Safari coelacanth, Invicta Blue Whale) and vice versa for extinct animals from otherwise extant sets or series (IE Raphus/dodo from Safari Wings of the World).

But while Safari's modern coelacanth from a prehistoric line is applicable, the mandarin duck from Wings of the World would not be, despite having a dodo in that line.

I also have no issue with the cyberzoic dragons being theoretically included. We include Indominus rex and the other fictional Jurassic Park monsters after all.

[GojiraGuy1954]

As I see it, extant creatures in extinct sets or lines are valid for the DTB or ATB (IE Wild Safari coelacanth, Invicta Blue Whale) and vice versa for extinct animals from otherwise extant sets or series (IE Raphus/dodo from Safari Wings of the World).

But while Safari's modern coelacanth from a prehistoric line is applicable, the mandarin duck from Wings of the World would not be, despite having a dodo in that line.

I also have no issue with the cyberzoic dragons being theoretically included. We include Indominus rex and the other fictional Jurassic Park monsters after all.

Same

[Flaffy]

My friend told me about the Southlands Replicas thing when I talked to them last night. I am seriously hoping they would reconsider bringing back the Thylacoleo sculpt back. If not I would be glad to see a new one. As good as the SR one is, it is a shame it was for a time, the only option on the market.

I'd like to see a more marsupial-esque take on Thylacoleo, IF a new sculpt were to be made. The reconstructions below are a lot more convincing to me personally than the usual "lion with-a-pouch" approach to the genus, really emphasizes the diprotodont affinity of Thylacoleo.

By Gabriel, @SerpenIllus on twitter.



By @mossacannibalis on twitter

[Faelrin]

@stargatedalek does make a good point about the Indominus and Indoraptor figures. I think there were also a few other hybrid toys that were reviewed in the past too (including non JP/JW ones)? That also begs the question if I ever got around to reviewing the ones I have, would the fictional Primal Rage creatures be barred from being reviewed here, such as Armadon or Vertigo? Though I guess I can get the reasoning behind leaving out things like the dragons, and although the Indominus and Indoraptor are very much fictional, they're still somewhat vaguely dinosaur like, and come from a very dinosaur heavy franchise as is.

All the more reason I wish that dragon or fantasy toy blog that was discussed a while back became a reality. Would love writing up a review for the Arctic Dragon in that line, or the NECA American Werewolf figure I've had pre-ordered through BBTS since November, never mind all the Safari Ltd stuff I got.

Anyways back on track, I also agree that although it is an extant animal, I think for consistency sake if it is included in a prehistoric lineup, to have it on here. Like for example, the Takara Tomy Coelacanth figure that was released in a set alongside two Paleozoic animals. Since this one isn't actually in their prehistoric lineup after all it probably would do better to mention it on the ATF, but ultimately I think that might be up to @Takama.

@Flaffy Was just about to post the above, but I'll chime in to say I actually agree with you on that. As nice as the Southlands one is, it is still a bit too feline like. Not seeing the images I'm guessing you tried to link? But I think I am familiar with the works you are talking about anyways.

[Flaffy]

@Flaffy Was just about to post the above, but I'll chime in to say I actually agree with you on that. As nice as the Southlands one is, it is still a bit too feline like. Not seeing the images I'm guessing you tried to link? But I think I am familiar with the works you are talking about anyways.

@Faelrin Links should work now (fingers crossed). Yeah, felt that the SR one is too feline like as well. Maybe that's the reason why I got their Diprotodon, but not the Thylacoleo.

[suspsy]

Regarding what @stargatedalek wrote, I would counter that while the Indominus and the Indoraptor and Chaos Effect and Primal Rage and certain other toys on the DTB are 100% fictional, they're still considered dinosaurs in the end. Whereas the Cyberzoic dragons are precisely that, dragons. Don't get me wrong, I've been a dragon fan since childhood, and I think any and all future Cyberzoic developments absolutely warrant being shared here on the forum, but I think permitting dragon reviews on the DTB would be leaping waaaaaay over the line as opposed to balancing on it or even stretching it.

I'll also note that I'd be all for a Fantasy/Monster Toy Blog and I'd be very willing to contribute as many reviews to it as I could, but I'm also one of the last persons on the planet to actually run a website proper.

[Faelrin]

@Flaffy Yes the images all work for me now.

@suspsy Okay so it is kind of what I thought then, that because they are still dinosaur like. Good to see reviews of the other Primal Rage creatures would be welcomed then, once I can get through my backlog of stuff.

[Fembrogon]

I also agree with keeping dragons off the blog. I don't have anything against dragons, but they're entirely fantastic creatures, whereas creatures like Indominus are exaggerated fictional takes on real-life animal groups. It's the same logic why a 1933 Tyrannosaurus model fits on the Blog, but a King Kong figure would not, IMO.

[stargatedalek]

One or two dragons in an otherwise dinosaur line, or dragons that are specifically meant to be prehistoric or otherwise dinosaur inspired dragons (IE Anjanath, Kulu Ya Ku, Velocidrome from Monster Hunter), I would absolutely fight for being included. But where Cyberzoic is meant to be half fantasy dragons, versus the other half dinosaurs, I can see the argument they're not really meant to considered alongside dinosaurs specifically and are more their own thing in that line.

[Psittacoraptor]

Indominus is as much a fantasy monster as any dragon. By that logic this site should also include Pokémon based on extinct animals. Just my two cents, perhaps clouded by my dislike for the JW franchise

[Gwangi]

Indominus is as much a fantasy monster as any dragon. By that logic this site should also include Pokémon based on extinct animals. Just my two cents, perhaps clouded by my dislike for the JW franchise

It's a hybrid dinosaur. Dragons are not dinosaurs.

[Psittacoraptor]

It's a hybrid dinosaur. Dragons are not dinosaurs.

It's still entirely fictional.

How about these Pokémon based on extinct animals (real-life inspirations on the right)? Why not include toys for these? I'd say they might be considered less fantastical than Indominus.



I don't care about dragons either way, I just don't agree that a purely fictional movie monster is any more of a dinosaur than a dragon. Other franchises like Pokémon or, as @stargatedalek mentioned, Monster Hunter, have creatures that were inspired by specific dinosaurs, so it's a bit inconsistent that those aren't allowed while a purely fictional design like Indominus is.