Mojo Fun: New for 2022

[suspsy]

The more I look at that mammoth, the more turned off I am by the lack of curvature in the tusks. Not even sexual dimorphism can excuse it.

[SidB]

Ooh, that mammoth is quite nice! I might actually get it as a mate for my Safari one.

1/30- 1/35 would be nice, being close to or at the 1/35 Eofaunas (except the 1/40 Steppe Mammoth), rather than the 1/20th range of many other brand's mammoths.

[Thialfi]

The more I look at that mammoth, the more turned off I am by the lack of curvature in the tusks. Not even sexual dimorphism can excuse it.

Eh, nothing a bit of hot water can't fix.

I love the expression in the face. The whole head looks really well detailed. Great sculpting.

[bmathison1972]

The more I look at that mammoth, the more turned off I am by the lack of curvature in the tusks. Not even sexual dimorphism can excuse it.

Given the level of pedantic complaining and nitpicking on this forum in general (the recent 'cheeks' discussion for example), I am surprised so many people are liking this mammoth, given that, as you mention, the curvature of the tusks is completely and obviously wrong for this species.

[Gwangi]

The more I look at that mammoth, the more turned off I am by the lack of curvature in the tusks. Not even sexual dimorphism can excuse it.

Given the level of pedantic complaining and nitpicking on this forum in general (the recent 'cheeks' discussion for example), I am surprised so many people are liking this mammoth, given that, as you mention, the curvature of the tusks is completely and obviously wrong for this species.

If it's not a dinosaur, people don't care as much. 

[suspsy]

The more I look at that mammoth, the more turned off I am by the lack of curvature in the tusks. Not even sexual dimorphism can excuse it.

Given the level of pedantic complaining and nitpicking on this forum in general (the recent 'cheeks' discussion for example), I am surprised so many people are liking this mammoth, given that, as you mention, the curvature of the tusks is completely and obviously wrong for this species.

It is somewhat perplexing. Incorrect tusks on a woolly mammoth are every bit as glaring an inaccuracy as a featherless Velociraptor.

[Gwangi]

The more I look at that mammoth, the more turned off I am by the lack of curvature in the tusks. Not even sexual dimorphism can excuse it.

Given the level of pedantic complaining and nitpicking on this forum in general (the recent 'cheeks' discussion for example), I am surprised so many people are liking this mammoth, given that, as you mention, the curvature of the tusks is completely and obviously wrong for this species.

It is somewhat perplexing. Incorrect tusks on a woolly mammoth are every bit as glaring an inaccuracy as a featherless Velociraptor.

I don't think it's perplexing. I would immediately recognize a naked Velociraptor as inaccurate, but I didn't realize the mammoth's tusks were misshapen. That's because I know more about dinosaurs than I do mammoths. What shape a mammoth's tusks should be is not in my knowledge bank and I make no apologies for it.

Dinosaurs are considerably more popular in these parts, and in general, than prehistoric mammals. And when it comes to our individual education regarding animals, we all have our strengths and weaknesses. For example, B @bmathison1972 would notice an insect inaccuracy that most others might overlook. Halichoeres, fishes. Dinotoyforum, plesiosaurs.

[Faelrin]

Despite the issue with the shape of the tusks I do think the rest of it is still well sculpted. The fur detailing in particular is really good.

[RobinGoodfellow]

Given the level of pedantic complaining and nitpicking on this forum in general (...)

.. That's exactly what I've been thinking for some time now .. thanks ..

( and even the main reason why the desire to participate is passing me away )

[CARN0TAURUS]

The more I look at that mammoth, the more turned off I am by the lack of curvature in the tusks. Not even sexual dimorphism can excuse it.

To me it appears to be a juvenile, the tusks are not full grown yet but they do appear to be curving out and then back in over the top the way they're supposed to, it's just not full grown yet.

[suspsy]

Nah, even allowing for it to be a subadult, the tusks are much too straight. A subadult's tusks would still have much more curvature than on this figure; they'd just be shorter in length.

I don't think it's perplexing. I would immediately recognize a naked Velociraptor as inaccurate, but I didn't realize the mammoth's tusks were misshapen. That's because I know more about dinosaurs than I do mammoths. What shape a mammoth's tusks should be is not in my knowledge bank and I make no apologies for it.

Dinosaurs are considerably more popular in these parts, and in general, than prehistoric mammals.

I would still argue that the woolly mammoth is the exception to the rule given its pop culture icon status. Not everyone knows how to tell the difference between a mastodon tooth and a mammoth tooth, or between a mastodon and a mammoth in general, but AFAIK, every single depiction of the woolly mammoth, be it a museum display or a figure or a plush toy or a TV documentary or the Ice Age movies or some other cartoon, has emphasized the curved tusks.

The old Mojo mammoth has better tusks than this one, albeit much less intricate sculpting.

http://dinotoyblog.com/2018/05/08/woolly-mammoth-mojo-fun/

[Gwangi]

I would still argue that the woolly mammoth is the exception to the rule given its pop culture icon status. Not everyone knows how to tell the difference between a mastodon tooth and a mammoth tooth, or between a mastodon and a mammoth in general, but AFAIK, every single depiction of the woolly mammoth, be it a museum display or a figure or a plush toy or a TV documentary or the Ice Age movies or some other cartoon, has emphasized the curved tusks.

Well, I know the difference between a mammoth and mastodon, and the difference between the teeth, but I was not aware that curved tusks were the rule, without exception. I could see that Mojo's new mammoth has tusks different from other mammoth depictions, but I wasn't aware that they were wrong. It seems obviously off now that it has been mentioned, but it also seems like an easy thing to overlook for those less interested in mammoths. Like how the Safari reef squid is upside down, or how the Papo Dimetrodon is missing a toe on each hindlimb.

[Stuckasaurus (Dino Dad Reviews)]

Like how the Safari reef squid is upside down,

Wait, WHAT
lol

[Stuckasaurus (Dino Dad Reviews)]

The more I look at that mammoth, the more turned off I am by the lack of curvature in the tusks. Not even sexual dimorphism can excuse it.

Eh, nothing a bit of hot water can't fix.

I love the expression in the face. The whole head looks really well detailed. Great sculpting.

So I agree with both sentiments here. The tusks are definitely a serious mistake, but this should be one of the easier errors to fix with hot water, and I do like the sculpt overall. It's just a bummer that it will probably further confuse the uninformed about the difference between mammoths and mastodons, as these tusks would really be more appropriate for the latter.

[Gwangi]

Like how the Safari reef squid is upside down,

Wait, WHAT
lol

Here you go, @Stuckasaurus (Dino Dad Reviews).
http://animaltoyforum.com/blog/2021/03/09/reef-squid-incredible-creatures-by-safari-ltd/

I'm looking at mammoth skeletons now and I honestly still don't see what's so obviously wrong about Mojo's. Looks similar to this specimen I found in my book.

[suspsy]

I'm looking at mammoth skeletons now and I honestly still don't see what's so obviously wrong about Mojo's. Looks similar to this specimen I found in my book.

I came across that image as well the other day, but those tusks are still more curved than on the Mojo figure. But in the end, I'll just do myself the favour of not buying the toy. I'd rather spend the money on a more exotic-looking proboscidean like Konobelodon anyway. The Safari mammoth will continue to suffice for me.

[Gwangi]

Yes, they are more curved. But I didn't share the image in an attempt to claim that the Mojo mammoth is accurate, just that it's not as obviously inaccurate as a naked Velociraptor.

Not being a mammoth expert, that's all I have to say about it. 

[bmathison1972]

very interesting; perhaps there is more variability that what we are accustomed to seeing. It's also possible the angle of the head and trunk are creating an optical illusion.

I have the CollectA mammoth and I see no reason to replace that one, either, nor would I if I had a Safari one

[Halichoeres]

Given the level of pedantic complaining and nitpicking on this forum in general (...)

.. That's exactly what I've been thinking for some time now .. thanks ..

( and even the main reason why the desire to participate is passing me away )

I think we get the community we deserve. There is plenty of negativity here (sometimes I add to it), but I've also noticed several longtime members only piping up to say how negative it is, which is in the end just another negative comment. I get it, I really do, but I think the best way to combat negativity is with positivity, not compounded negativity. I've said this before, but I think that "like/favorite/upvote/downvote" buttons on social media have trained us to only write a reply when we disagree with something. I think it can make a more old-fashioned forum like this feel negative when most people's reactions to things are positive or neutral, just none of them bothered to say so.

Anyway, back on topic. That's a very respectable coelacanth toy, although I can't help but wish it were in their sea life line, and that they'd gone with an extinct coelacanth for the prehistoric line. Latimeria is the only known genus of coelacanth with no fossil record. It would have been cool to see Allenypterus, Rebellatrix, Holopterygius, Foreyia, or Macropoma. Maybe someday! There were a lot of interesting fish figures this year from various companies, which is an encouraging sign.

[RobinGoodfellow]

Given the level of pedantic complaining and nitpicking on this forum in general (...)

.. That's exactly what I've been thinking for some time now .. thanks ..

( and even the main reason why the desire to participate is passing me away )

I think we get the community we deserve. There is plenty of negativity here (sometimes I add to it), but I've also noticed several longtime members only piping up to say how negative it is, which is in the end just another negative comment. I get it, I really do, but I think the best way to combat negativity is with positivity, not compounded negativity. I've said this before, but I think that "like/favorite/upvote/downvote" buttons on social media have trained us to only write a reply when we disagree with something. I think it can make a more old-fashioned forum like this feel negative when most people's reactions to things are positive or neutral, just none of them bothered to say so.

I don't know if I can call myself a "longtime member" (maybe not) but I wrote several times that such high level of negativity and criticisms doesn't help the forum (on my personal opinion, of course..).
But it seems that it doesn't care.
And the worst thing is that even new members quickly get used to this behavior.
"Accuracy" is one thing but repeated lists of criticisms to every new figure are different..
You're completely right: " I think we get the community we deserve ".
And probably that's why some old members no longer participate as actively as in the past.
Points of view: maybe the "accuracy holy grail" is more important for majority than a positive place to share an hobby.
Who am I to say otherwise?
Kind Regards
 


(and I'm even more sad when criticisms start even before an in-hands-figure, but after (bad) promotional pictures )