News:

Poll time! Cast your votes for the best stegosaur toys, the best ceratopsoid toys (excluding Triceratops), and the best allosauroid toys (excluding Allosaurus) of all time! Some of the polls have been reset to include some recent releases, so please vote again, even if you voted previously.

Main Menu

Disclaimer: links to Ebay.com and Amazon.com on the Dinosaur Toy Forum are often affiliate links, when you make purchases through these links we may make a commission.

avatar_Gwangi

Top 10 Tyrannosaurus Toys [Completed]

Started by Gwangi, December 29, 2014, 11:20:29 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

What are your choices for the top 10 Tyrannosaurus toys?

Battat Tyrannosaurus
71 (50%)
Favorite original soft model Tyrannosaurus
22 (15.5%)
Favorite new soft model Tyrannosaurus
23 (16.2%)
Favorite feathered soft model Tyrannosaurus
16 (11.3%)
Papo standing T. rex
52 (36.6%)
Papo running T. rex
56 (39.4%)
Papo baby T. rex
11 (7.7%)
CollectA baby T. rex
17 (12%)
CollectA Deluxe Tyrannosaurus
21 (14.8%)
CollectA Tyrannosaurus rex with prey
7 (4.9%)
Invicta Tyrannosaurus
33 (23.2%)
Sega vinyl Tyrannosaurus
27 (19%)
Safari Ltd. "Sue at the Field Museum" Tyrannosaurus pair
20 (14.1%)
Wild Safari Tyrannosaurus (by Doug Watson)
41 (28.9%)
Kaiyodo Capsule Q Feathered Tyrannosaurus
28 (19.7%)
Kaiyodo Capsule Q Scaly Tyrannosaurus
20 (14.1%)
Carnegie Tyrannosaurus
9 (6.3%)
Carnegie 10th Anniversary T. rex
26 (18.3%)
Carnegie 25th Anniversary T. rex
35 (24.6%)
Kenner "Jurassic Park" "Big Red" original T. rex
37 (26.1%)
Kenner "The Lost World" Thrasher T. rex
29 (20.4%)
Kenner Bull T. rex
17 (12%)
Hasbro CamoXtreme JP3 Tyrannosaurus
2 (1.4%)
Hasbro CamoXtreme Canyon JP3 Tyrannosaurus
3 (2.1%)
Tyco Dino-Riders/Smithsonian Tyrannosaurus
15 (10.6%)
Dor Mei Tyrannosaurus
1 (0.7%)
Imperial Tyrannosaurus
4 (2.8%)
Carnage Resaurus T. rex
11 (7.7%)
Schleich World of History Tyrannosaurus
9 (6.3%)
Toyway WWD Tyrannosaurus
13 (9.2%)
Colorata Dino Cretaceous T. rex
4 (2.8%)
Takara Tomy A.R.T.S. Dino Kingdom 2012 Tyrannosaurus
6 (4.2%)
Linde Tyrannosaurus
1 (0.7%)
Kabaya Tyrannosaurus
6 (4.2%)
Marx skinny Tyrannosaurus
5 (3.5%)
Marx "Potbelly" Tyrannosaurus
6 (4.2%)
Bullyland Museum Line T. rex
7 (4.9%)
Revoltech T. rex
14 (9.9%)
Sinclair Tyrannosaurus
2 (1.4%)
Mold-A-Rama Tyrannosaurus
1 (0.7%)
MPC Tyrannosaurus
3 (2.1%)
Kenner Young "Jurassic Park" Tyrannosaurus
9 (6.3%)
Mojo deluxe T. rex
4 (2.8%)

Total Members Voted: 142

Tyrant Lizard Queen

#20
Quote from: Concavenator on December 30, 2014, 10:15:11 AM
Quote from: Tyrant Lizard Queen on December 30, 2014, 09:42:56 AM
Quote from: tyrantqueen on December 30, 2014, 09:09:20 AM
QuoteHow about the Kaiyodo Capsule Q Feathered Tyrannosaurus? I own it, and it is extremely accurate and also has tons of details packed into such a tiny sculpt.
Papo's Tyrannosaurus are nice as far as they are fantasy monsters
LMAO. You know that Stan Winston designed it's T-Rex with accuracy in mind? I already made more than enough comparison's with the actual skeleton and Winston's replica.. There are some minor innacuracies like longer hands, but saying that it's just a Fantasy ( ?! ) monster is nothing but plain silly. Or you simply don't know anything about T-Rex anatomy. It's just impossible to take such comments seriously. I would understand if you talked about JP raptors or Spino, but certainly not Rex, as it's one if not the most accurate dino in the whole franchise.


P.S. I would never buy a feathered T-Rex model as there are absolutely none direct evidence from any of the found fossils that grown-up Tyrannosaurus Rex had feathers.
If I can assure you something is that every single dinosaur interpretation that appears in Jurassic Park,and probably Jurassic World too is not accurate by one thing or another.JP is the all time most well-known dinosaur movie,and in such a succesful movie you don't do your dinos as accurate as possible,people will get a weong view of dinosaurs.Which is in fact what has happened.Science has told us,(or is it me) that every single: deinonychosaur,troodontid,therizinosaur,and ornithomimosaur.Tyrannosaurs may sound optional for you,but take Dilong and Yutyrannus into account.Plus,some people say that young Tyrannosaurus was feathered when there is 0 evidence for that.Please don't talk about the feather thing again,it gets repetitive  :-[

P.S. My 1300th post!
Read my post again. You do realise that I was talking about T-Rex specifically? You don't need to tell me about some innacurate species in JP. My point was that Stan Winston did a hella good job on recreating Tyrannosaurus Rex, based on it's anatomy (again - with some minor innacuracies). But overall it's still one of the best replicas of a T-rex, and certainly the most accurate replica in a movie trilogy. So when I see someone saying that Winston's recreation is pure fantasy - I call it bs, because that's exactly what it is. If you need pics where I did comparisons - let me know.

P.S. As for feathered trex - I wasnt the one who started talking about it. Other than that, there are 0 evidence to feathers on trex anyways.. So I stand behind my point.


Concavenator

Even the Tyrannosaurus is inaccurate,look at this.If you want a scaly Tyrannosaurus,this is pretty much the most accurate tou can get.This is how it should look:

http://scotthartman.deviantart.com/art/Stan-n-Sue-comparison-360918612

Tyrant Lizard Queen

#22
Quote from: Concavenator on December 30, 2014, 10:41:04 AM
Even the Tyrannosaurus is inaccurate,look at this.If you want a scaly Tyrannosaurus,this is pretty much the most accurate tou can get.This is how it should look:

http://scotthartman.deviantart.com/art/Stan-n-Sue-comparison-360918612
There are some inaccuracies but overall it still looks pretty accurate, far more from "fantasy monster" statement. Which is pure bs and overstatement.

Also here's comparison of a real skull & Winston's head sculpt (it's actually Rebor's replica which is based on Winston's design - but a lot more accurate and less bulky)

If there's to be some innacuracies with the head, like wider or higher snout - it could also easily be explained via differencies in proportions, found on many different T-Rex skulls.

All in All Winston's recreation (or should I say REBOR's?..) is more or less accurate.

Concavenator

Yes,that's Rebor's-not JP's-could you post a comparision between the JP T.rex and a real T.rex skull?Because there are some differences.

Tyrant Lizard Queen

#24
Quote from: Concavenator on December 30, 2014, 11:22:29 AM
Yes,that's Rebor's-not JP's-could you post a comparision between the JP T.rex and a real T.rex skull?Because there are some differences.
Sure.

Here you can see that there are a lot of details put in Winston's sculpt with some minor innacuracies - mostly a little too short and high snout, little too bulky lower jaw. But again, there are many examples found with different skull proportions. T-Rex is no exception.

However REBOR did an outstanding job on the head sculpt by improving Winston's version (making the snout little longer and overall head a lot less bulky, as you can see) while fitting the real skull as showed in the comparison photos.

Concavenator

Have you seen the new Carnegie Tyrannosaurus?It has the best head sculpt ever on a Tyrannosaurus imo.

Tyrant Lizard Queen

#26
Quote from: Concavenator on December 30, 2014, 11:41:34 AM
Have you seen the new Carnegie Tyrannosaurus?It has the best head sculpt ever on a Tyrannosaurus imo.
Can you share a link?

EDIT: Nevermind, I have seen it. I like it but not as much as newest Rebor replica.

But SS/Rebor aside (since those are not toys in anyway), I agree that Carniegie did a decent job. Too bad that the figure itself looks very low-end in terms of detail and painting.



DinoToyForum

@ Tyrant Lizard Queen. Warning 2. Three and you're out. This isn't the sort of forum where it is permitted to LMAO at someone elses honest opinion, call it "pure bs", or LOL at mods when they call you out on it. You can disagree and debate with tyrantqueen but you have to do so politely. Thanks for your understanding.  C:-)


Tyrant Lizard Queen

Quote from: dinotoyforum on December 30, 2014, 01:10:36 PM
@ Tyrant Lizard Queen. Warning 2. Three and you're out. This isn't the sort of forum where it is permitted to LMAO at someone elses honest opinion, call it "pure bs", or LOL at mods when they call you out on it. You can disagree and debate with tyrantqueen but you have to do so politely. Thanks for your understanding.  C:-)
Atleast im making valid points with examples to stand behind my statements, instead of posting stuff that makes little to no sense.
If 'lol' hurts your eyes so much - I will go with 'laughing out loudly' next time. You fine with that?

triceratops83

Quote from: Concavenator on December 30, 2014, 11:41:34 AM
Have you seen the new Carnegie Tyrannosaurus?It has the best head sculpt ever on a Tyrannosaurus imo.

I agree. Kinda makes me wanna see some companion pieces in different poses. Beautiful sculpt.
In the end it was not guns or bombs that defeated the aliens, but that humblest of all God's creatures... the Tyrannosaurus rex.

Concavenator

Quote from: Tyrant Lizard Queen on December 30, 2014, 01:24:21 PM
Quote from: dinotoyforum on December 30, 2014, 01:10:36 PM
@ Tyrant Lizard Queen. Warning 2. Three and you're out. This isn't the sort of forum where it is permitted to LMAO at someone elses honest opinion, call it "pure bs", or LOL at mods when they call you out on it. You can disagree and debate with tyrantqueen but you have to do so politely. Thanks for your understanding.  C:-)
Atleast im making valid points with examples to stand behind my statements, instead of posting stuff that makes little to no sense.
If 'lol' hurts your eyes so much - I will go with 'laughing out loudly' next time. You fine with that?
Please be more polite.I have been rude sometimes and have tried to correct it  O:-)

Tyrant Lizard Queen

@Concavenator - In case you wonder - I wasn't talking about you (we had a nice diacussion btw), but about that other guy who told that Winston's recreation is a Fantasy monster. Which was a complete nonsense and overstatement, which I proved to be plain wrong.

Now lets get back on topic. Shall we?

Concavenator

Quote from: Tyrant Lizard Queen on December 30, 2014, 01:42:32 PM
@Concavenator - In case you wonder - I wasn't talking about you (we had a nice diacussion btw), but about that other guy who told that Winston's recreation is a Fantasy monster. Which was a complete nonsense and overstatement, which I proved to be plain wrong.

Now lets get back on topic. Shall we?
I agree with him,I think it's a monster.I just doesn't look either natural or possible to me.But that's my opinion,and I guess everyone has theirs.

suspsy

Quote
P.S. As for feathered trex - I wasnt the one who started talking about it. Other than that, there are 0 evidence to feathers on trex anyways.. So I stand behind my point.

There is actually more evidence that Tyrannosaurus rex possessed some degree of feathers than there is that it possessed none. We know for an absolute fact that Yutyrannus and Dilong possessed them. We also know that dinosaurs as large as Deinocheirus possessed them. Phylogenetic bracketing means that it's perfectly reasonable, even likely, that T. rex had feathers. No one can force you to like that interpretation any more than Spinosaurus fans can be forced to like the semiaquatic quadruped theory, but to claim that there is no evidence is simply fallacious.
IMG_0123 by Suspsy Three, on Flickr

Tyrant Lizard Queen

Quote from: Concavenator on December 30, 2014, 01:48:44 PM
Quote from: Tyrant Lizard Queen on December 30, 2014, 01:42:32 PM
@Concavenator - In case you wonder - I wasn't talking about you (we had a nice diacussion btw), but about that other guy who told that Winston's recreation is a Fantasy monster. Which was a complete nonsense and overstatement, which I proved to be plain wrong.

Now lets get back on topic. Shall we?
I agree with him,I think it's a monster.I just doesn't look either natural or possible to me.But that's my opinion,and I guess everyone has theirs.
Well I disagree, not because I disrespect your opinion but because of the fact that Winston's head design is infact pretty damn close to the actual skull... Especially REBOR's uptated model (which you also agreed on).

There might be some minor innacuracies but saying its a "fantasy monster" is not only a nonsensical overstatement but also a disrespect to Stan Winston himself (RIP).

But whatever..


suspsy

Quote from: Tyrant Lizard Queen on December 30, 2014, 01:42:32 PM
@Concavenator - In case you wonder - I wasn't talking about you (we had a nice diacussion btw), but about that other guy who told that Winston's recreation is a Fantasy monster. Which was a complete nonsense and overstatement, which I proved to be plain wrong.

Stan Winston had nothing to do with any of the Papo T. Rex sculpts. At best, they were inspired by JP, but they go on to take liberties of their own. The female's tail is far too short and she's standing upright like Godzilla. The male's head is malformed and the teeth are all wrong, more like the V. Rex from Peter Jackson's King Kong. And both figures  have pronated wrists and  ridiculously oversized limbs and feet. And then there are the babies, whose heads are completely wrong and against fossil evidence.

They are still recognizable as T. Rexes, but the term "fantasy monster" is not altogether unreasonable.
IMG_0123 by Suspsy Three, on Flickr

Concavenator

Quote from: Tyrant Lizard Queen on December 30, 2014, 01:59:38 PM
Quote from: Concavenator on December 30, 2014, 01:48:44 PM
Quote from: Tyrant Lizard Queen on December 30, 2014, 01:42:32 PM
@Concavenator - In case you wonder - I wasn't talking about you (we had a nice diacussion btw), but about that other guy who told that Winston's recreation is a Fantasy monster. Which was a complete nonsense and overstatement, which I proved to be plain wrong.

Now lets get back on topic. Shall we?
I agree with him,I think it's a monster.I just doesn't look either natural or possible to me.But that's my opinion,and I guess everyone has theirs.
Well I disagree, not because I disrespect your opinion but because of the fact that Winston's head design is infact pretty damn close to the actual skull... Especially REBOR's uptated model (which you also agreed on).

There might be some minor innacuracies but saying its a "fantasy monster" is not only a nonsensical overstatement but also a disrespect to Stan Winston himself (RIP).

But whatever..
Meh,I didn't totally agree.Just passable.Besides,not sure what are with the huge head crests on the JP T.rex...
Well...  ::)

Tyrant Lizard Queen

#38
Quote from: suspsy on December 30, 2014, 01:54:15 PM
Quote
P.S. As for feathered trex - I wasnt the one who started talking about it. Other than that, there are 0 evidence to feathers on trex anyways.. So I stand behind my point.

There is actually more evidence that Tyrannosaurus rex possessed some degree of feathers than there is that it possessed none. We know for an absolute fact that Yutyrannus and Dilong possessed them. We also know that dinosaurs as large as Deinocheirus possessed them. Phylogenetic bracketing means that it's perfectly reasonable, even likely, that T. rex had feathers. No one can force you to like that interpretation any more than Spinosaurus fans can be forced to like the semiaquatic quadruped theory, but to claim that there is no evidence is simply fallacious.

Im sorry but this proves nothing, at all. Relatives having feathers doesn't make every specie of the same family to have feathers. Just because Yutyrannus was feathered it doesnt make Trex feathered too.

Feathered tyrannosaurus rex is only a theory / speculation at best. I would rather backup my arguments by actual facts like non existant marks of any feathers on any of the found t-rex fossils, then speculations.

So far, every non-feathered, recreation / representation of tyrannosaurus rex are technically correct.

EDIT: Glad you woke up! We were talking about Papo taking a freaking Inspiration from Stan, obviously. That doesnt change the fact it took most of its design choices from Winston, who recreated t-rex with accuracy in mind ( with some flaws ofc). If you even cared to read the whole discussion you would realise why calling it a fantasy monster is a complete nonsense.

triceratops83

Dor mei aside, I'm gonna have to pick the Invicta (I have a soft spot for retro upright tripods ::) ), but the recent Carnegie is the best modern interpretation.
In the end it was not guns or bombs that defeated the aliens, but that humblest of all God's creatures... the Tyrannosaurus rex.

Support the Dinosaur Toy Forum by making dino-purchases through these links to Ebay and Amazon. Disclaimer: these links are affiliate links, so when you make purchases through them we may make a commission.