What is a monster?

[AnimalToyForum]

Having just set up the Monster Toy Blog https://monstertoyblog.com/about/, I need to decide what counts as monster. Here's what I came up with:

Broadly speaking, we classify a monster as any non-human entity that's not an animal or a dinosaur, plus any human that deviates from 'normal' behaviour or character. This includes but is not limited to:

Mythological creatures
Cryptids
Fantasy creatures
Kaiju
Science fiction creatures (including aliens)
'Universal' horror monsters
Supernatural entities
'Slasher' film characters
Mutants
Robots and androids

If you think there's a case for calling something a monster, we'll probably include it!

But then I realised according to this definition Micky Mouse is a monster? Discuss!

[AnimalToyForum]

Quotes from the 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!

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.

[AnimalToyForum]

I was unsure about robots and androids, but my wife asked me "do Transformers count?", and I realised that according to my broad definition, they do.

I thought about adding a caveat about monsters being biological, but that would rule out supernatural monsters.

[bmathison1972]

I just want to say, in response to your first post, Micky Mouse is not a monster. He is an anthropomorphized animal, and wouldn't have a place in either forum or Blog. Not everything needs to fit neatly in A or B.

If you are going to start a Monster board here and the MTB, what you laid out in the first post seems reasonable, although I would remove 'mutants' otherwise next thing you know this is going to turn into an X-men forum. Uggh.

I would like our April Fool's cryptids to remain on the ATB, in honor of they day they were posted on. I think Gwangi is right, new posts for those same figures could be added to the MTB from a different perspective.

[AnimalToyForum]

I just want to say, in response to your first post, Micky Mouse is not a monster. He is an anthropomorphized animal, and wouldn't have a place in either forum or Blog. Not everything needs to fit neatly in A or B.

If you are going to start a Monster board here and the MTB, what you laid out in the first post seems reasonable, although I would remove 'mutants' otherwise next thing you know this is going to turn into an X-men forum. Uggh.

I think the caveat "except anthropomorphised animals" is a good one.

You don't think X-men count? They aren't human, nor anthropomorphised animals. I even had them in mind when I added "mutants" to the list.

[bmathison1972]

What I do know, is that if I log in one morning and half of the recent threads on the home page are about X-men and not animals, my interest in this forum will wane very quickly...

[sbell]

I just want to say, in response to your first post, Micky Mouse is not a monster. He is an anthropomorphized animal, and wouldn't have a place in either forum or Blog. Not everything needs to fit neatly in A or B.

If you are going to start a Monster board here and the MTB, what you laid out in the first post seems reasonable, although I would remove 'mutants' otherwise next thing you know this is going to turn into an X-men forum. Uggh.

I think the caveat "except anthropomorphised animals" is a good one.

You don't think X-men count? They aren't human, nor anthropomorphised animals. I even had them in mind when I added "mutants" to the list.

I wouldn't count X-Men because, in universe, they're just people with genetic variation (and therefore marginalized by society). And that's a slope we really shouldn't even start on.

I also would be reluctant about Transformers, Terminators, etc. Those are more of a technological thing despite the T-800 learning to love or whatever. And they just have a weird feel compared to the others on the list.

As for things like Mickey Mouse, it feels like the occasional anthropomorphic mascot has shown up on one or the other blog before, I don't think they're monsters. Except Joe Camel.

[BlueKrono]

I was unsure about robots and androids, but my wife asked me "do Transformers count?", and I realised that according to my broad definition, they do.

I thought about adding a caveat about monsters being biological, but that would rule out supernatural monsters.

I collect Transformers too, but only reptilian ones. I don't have any that turn from a robot into a tank, for example, but the ones that transform from a robot into a Pteranodon or a robot into a snapping turtle could go in the DTB and ATB, respectively. Now the one that transforms from a Velociraptor into a green wolverine... I'm stumped.

[stargatedalek]

I just want to say, in response to your first post, Micky Mouse is not a monster. He is an anthropomorphized animal, and wouldn't have a place in either forum or Blog. Not everything needs to fit neatly in A or B.

If you are going to start a Monster board here and the MTB, what you laid out in the first post seems reasonable, although I would remove 'mutants' otherwise next thing you know this is going to turn into an X-men forum. Uggh.

I think the caveat "except anthropomorphised animals" is a good one.

You don't think X-men count? They aren't human, nor anthropomorphised animals. I even had them in mind when I added "mutants" to the list.

This begs the question of where is the line between anthropomorphised animal and werewolf, sahagin, etc. As generally speaking the only difference is going to be the context of the lore surrounding them. I think the occasional mascot character would be fine, but if they became more than an occasional novelty presence the topic can always be revisited.

As for robots, I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask reviewers to minimize Transformers related submissions due to the wealth of pre-existing resources out there for Transformers reviews without trying to find a way to remove them by technicality. They are after all alien organisms and biological to an unclear degree. Terminator I think fits just as well as any other slasher villains though.

Absolutely agree with no X-Men, for the same reasons sbell mentioned.

I also agree with keeping the cryptid reviews already on the ATB where they are. And now that I'm thinking of it... I wonder what we might do for April fools on the MTB, real animals largely associated with cryptids perhaps? IE an owl for mothman, jack rabbit for jackalope, etc.

*edit*
Perhaps a warning that reviews of mascot type characters (IE Mickey Mouse and such) could be deprioritized or delayed if too many similar reviews are submitted around the same time? Something like; "Disclaimer; reviews of mascot, chibi, or novelty figures will likely be deprioritized in the review que to avoid an overabundance of these style figures.".

[sbell]

I think it's going to come down to, we know what we mean. I think overall most people are kind of thinking 'monstrous or fantastic versions of animals or animal-like creatures' or 'typical/standard/modern horror monsters' I wouldn't expect to see something like a Bugs Bunny even offered...nothing monstrous about him (unless you're Elmer Fudd).

But we'll see where this goes I guess. I know where I'd lean...

[AnimalToyForum]

The reason for this discussion now is because as soon as I start accepting guest reviews for the Monster Toy Blog, people will start asking me "Do you accept [insert name]?". So, for my own benefit, I want to clarify what a monster is, in the context of the MTB, to underline this from the get go. Otherwise, we'll be discussing this every time something slightly outside the box is submitted.

[AnimalToyForum]

I've split the discussion about the appropriateness of the ATF for monster talk into a separate thread: https://animaltoyforum.com/index.php?topic=3524.0 

[EpicRaptorMan]

Could have just called it the "Fantasy Toy Blog" or "Fictitious Toy Blog"

[AnimalToyForum]

Could have just called it the "Fantasy Toy Blog" or "Fictitious Toy Blog"

Not all monsters are fantasy creatures.

[Torvosaurus]

Quotes from the 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!

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.

Which brings me to the point I'm making. What "doesn't standup to scrutiny" and what does is a matter of opinion, for all practical purposes. Dr. Jeff Meldrum, for example, has made a point of analyzing the footprints of bigfoot specimens, and has come to the conclusion that those tracks represent a unique species that humans are not aware of. On the other hand, creatures such as the hodag are purely based on folklore, legend and/or hoaxes. I'm thinking that those cryptids that may be animals should stay on the ATB, and others like the hodag (I don't know if there is a review of a hodag toy, btw, I just threw that out there) would go to the MTB. I'm not familiar with the ATB, so it may be a non-issue. Overall, though, there is different levels of belief in cryptids, and while some are obviously based on legends or hoaxes others are potentially living creatures.

As far as Mickey Mouse goes, a monster should be something that inspires fear, awe, loathing, and/or wonder. If you're over ten years old, Mickey Mouse and such don't provide much more than a smile.

Torvo

[Gwangi]

Quotes from the 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!

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.

Which brings me to the point I'm making. What "doesn't standup to scrutiny" and what does is a matter of opinion, for all practical purposes. Dr. Jeff Meldrum, for example, has made a point of analyzing the footprints of bigfoot specimens, and has come to the conclusion that those tracks represent a unique species that humans are not aware of. On the other hand, creatures such as the hodag are purely based on folklore, legend and/or hoaxes. I'm thinking that those cryptids that may be animals should stay on the ATB, and others like the hodag (I don't know if there is a review of a hodag toy, btw, I just threw that out there) would go to the MTB. I'm not familiar with the ATB, so it may be a non-issue. Overall, though, there is different levels of belief in cryptids, and while some are obviously based on legends or hoaxes others are potentially living creatures.

As far as Mickey Mouse goes, a monster should be something that inspires fear, awe, loathing, and/or wonder. If you're over ten years old, Mickey Mouse and such don't provide much more than a smile.

Torvo

I don't think you're going to find much support for including any cryptid on the ATB, aside from the April Fools joke reviews that are already there. Or cryptids based on extinct animals, like the thylacine. There's a reason Safari's bigfoot is part of their Mythical Realms line. 

[Torvosaurus]

Quotes from the 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!

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.

Which brings me to the point I'm making. What "doesn't standup to scrutiny" and what does is a matter of opinion, for all practical purposes. Dr. Jeff Meldrum, for example, has made a point of analyzing the footprints of bigfoot specimens, and has come to the conclusion that those tracks represent a unique species that humans are not aware of. On the other hand, creatures such as the hodag are purely based on folklore, legend and/or hoaxes. I'm thinking that those cryptids that may be animals should stay on the ATB, and others like the hodag (I don't know if there is a review of a hodag toy, btw, I just threw that out there) would go to the MTB. I'm not familiar with the ATB, so it may be a non-issue. Overall, though, there is different levels of belief in cryptids, and while some are obviously based on legends or hoaxes others are potentially living creatures.

As far as Mickey Mouse goes, a monster should be something that inspires fear, awe, loathing, and/or wonder. If you're over ten years old, Mickey Mouse and such don't provide much more than a smile.

Torvo

I don't think you're going to find much support for including any cryptid on the ATB, aside from the April Fools joke reviews that are already there. Or cryptids based on extinct animals, like the thylacine. There's a reason Safari's bigfoot is part of their Mythical Realms line. 

Hey, I made my point, which is all I can do.

Torvo   

[AnimalToyForum]

I think it's reasonable for only valid biologically defined animal species to count for the Animal Toy Blog, i.e. species with type specimens. Cryptids, by definition, are not established species in that regard, and if one does get defined based on a type specimen then it wouldn't be a cryptid anymore. So, cryptids belong firmly on the MTB.

I'll be discussing the Loch Ness Monster/Plesiosaur question in my first Monster Toy Blog review when we launch.

[EpicRaptorMan]

Could have just called it the "Fantasy Toy Blog" or "Fictitious Toy Blog"

Not all monsters are fantasy creatures.

And even less monsters are fantasy creatures.

[AnimalToyForum]

Could have just called it the "Fantasy Toy Blog" or "Fictitious Toy Blog"

Not all monsters are fantasy creatures.

And even less monsters are fantasy creatures.