PNSO: New for 2022

[Medzo]

Why is it such a big deal for members to change their opinions on a figure? Especially when new photos or promo images show the figure at a different angle.

It's not a big deal, only that an angle which shortens the head won't mean the head won't be too long

Not that would bother me too much, I'm quite decided on this model since the very first moment. This is a Want with a capital W.

[Concavenator]

It's true, the head doesn't look as oversized in those pictures @Faras shared as in the box art, so I'm starting to think this big of a difference means there is indeed a distortion. Hopefully that's the case.

I will wait until seeing in hand pics of the PNSO Acrocanthosaurus, as well as the finished GR Toys version, and then I'll decide which one to go for.

I might just get this one. See? I'm not immutable.

Neither am I. I don't have a problem admitting I was wrong.

[Bread]

Why is it such a big deal for members to change their opinions on a figure? Especially when new photos or promo images show the figure at a different angle.

Chiming in here to offer my thoughts.

I would say it's fine to change an opinion, but I think the sort of "kneejerk" response to this figure shows that sometimes it's better to reserve judgment until you have a more complete picture of what's going on.

Changing opinions is great, it's good to be open to new ideas and information, but I think some of the initial reactions were so strong that it may have been better to hold off responding at all until more photos from better angles were available before rushing to judgment just to have the first say.

Regardless, it felt as if those who gave a simple response about the figure's proportions even though liking the figure at the same time (to add to that I and others have stated multiple times we like the figure regardless of the proportional issues) were targeted as a whole in this argument.

I guess I'll hold my breath whenever a figure is released in this thread.

[Shane]

Regardless, it felt as if those who gave a simple response about the figure's proportions even though liking the figure at the same time (to add to that I and others have stated multiple times we like the figure regardless of the proportional issues) were targeted as a whole in this argument.

I guess I'll hold my breath whenever a figure is released in this thread.

I'm not trying to pick on any one person's response (other than those who were particularly mean spirited about it).

I just think, overall, there's a lesson here about having more measured responses to reveals in general.

[Lynx]

Regardless, it felt as if those who gave a simple response about the figure's proportions even though liking the figure at the same time (to add to that I and others have stated multiple times we like the figure regardless of the proportional issues) were targeted as a whole in this argument.

I guess I'll hold my breath whenever a figure is released in this thread.

I'm not trying to pick on any one person's response (other than those who were particularly mean spirited about it).

I just think, overall, there's a lesson here about having more measured responses to reveals in general.

Nobody went extreme with a response besides less than a handful. Nobody really went past the limit besides the people criticizing the critics. I saw these messages about how 'Don't share your opinion till it has more pictures/is fully released,' which is kind of unfair. It is the company's job to provide good photos when revealing a figure, not the customers. People should still be able to provide opinions regardless. But yeah, I'm not sharing my opinion on figures anymore here, it's becoming pretty clear those thoughts aren't welcome here.

[KrazyKaprosuchus]

I saw these messages about how 'Don't share your opinion till it has more pictures/is fully released,'

What? I don't recall anybody saying that. Then again I sort of zoned out all of the last few pages... 

[stargatedalek]

Gonna be real, I still think the skull looks off, it still has exposed teeth, and while the spots along the back look nice, it is otherwise the same colourscheme PNSO gives to all of their large theropods. It's a pretty "whatever" figure.

[Shadowknight1]

Gonna be real, I still think the skull looks off, it still has exposed teeth, and while the spots along the back look nice, it is otherwise the same colourscheme PNSO gives to all of their large theropods. It's a pretty "whatever" figure.

Is there evidence that Allosauroids like Acrocanthosaurus would have lips?

[Faelrin]

@stargatedalek Honestly I would have preferred lips as well (at least aesthetically), but I'm still pretty satisfied with this. Plus it looks like the GR Toys one will have lips (though still seemed to be in an early wip stage), and while it'll be in a totally different scale, I'm sure the upcoming Cyberzoic one will have them as well. So at least there will be some options with lips out there eventually. Also in what way does the skull look off to you? Edit: Just in case you didn't see my earlier response here, I'll add this here, because I think it's pretty close? http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=10020.msg320056#msg320056

@Lynx Who was saying that? I know I was just trying to caution people that it could be better once there's in hand pics/videos, especially as there was past evidence that things sometimes looked worse proportionally in their images (such as the Corythosaurus), but not once did I say people couldn't have opinions on it in the meantime. It's also fine to have reservations based on the available info and images (as @Gwangi and @Concavenator did), and change your mind (or not) on later info.

[SRF]

Gonna be real, I still think the skull looks off, it still has exposed teeth, and while the spots along the back look nice, it is otherwise the same colourscheme PNSO gives to all of their large theropods. It's a pretty "whatever" figure.

Is there evidence that Allosauroids like Acrocanthosaurus would have lips?

I would imagine that it's as likely for Allosauroids to have lips as it is for Tyrannosauroids? But then again, PNSO has already stated that they support the hypothesis that theropod dinosaurs didn't have lips. As long as lips are speculative, I don't feel we can disregard PNSO for not including them in their theropod figures. It's like complaining at a KFC that they don't sell the Big Mac.

[CARN0TAURUS]

I'm genuinely fond of this community, compared to so many other online communities I've been a part of.  Even when folks disagree, it never gets bad here.  This is still head and shoulders above any other online community I've ever been a part of.  Who cares if you were critical to begin and came around or if you still don't like the figure?  You are all here because of the one thing that brings us all together from all parts of the globe.  Everyone here is a huge dinosaur loving fanatic to the point we spend hard earned money to collect small toys and sculptures of the animals we all became fascinated with since childhood.  At first I might've been turned off by folks being so critical about dinosaur toys at times.  Now I realize it's just the passion that folks have for these extinct animals that drives those emotions.  Whether a figure lives up to expectations or whether we agree here about the merits of certain figures or whatever.  To me it's important to appreciate the work that everyday people at a company put into creating these awesome toys, but also the time you guys take to voice your opinions and the detailed 'informed' explanations you guys provide.  So I've come around on criticizing anything that goes on here, whether it's the figures themselves or the folks talking about them. 

I think everyone here is really lucky to belong to such a diverse and intelligent community of dinosaur fanatics.  IDK about you guys but I can't talk about these things with most everyone in my daily life, so it's a real treat and privilege to be a part of this community.  I've never read ANYTHING on here no matter how critical it was that made me want to leave this community.  Even if I don't always agree with you guys, I appreciate you and I've come to respect the opinions too.  We don't have to agree on everything to appreciate that we all love dinosaurs here

[Darko2300]

I'm genuinely fond of this community, compared to so many other online communities I've been a part of.  Even when folks disagree, it never gets bad here.  This is still head and shoulders above any other online community I've ever been a part of.  Who cares if you were critical to begin and came around or if you still don't like the figure?  You are all here because of the one thing that brings us all together from all parts of the globe.  Everyone here is a huge dinosaur loving fanatic to the point we spend hard earned money to collect small toys and sculptures of the animals we all became fascinated with since childhood.  At first I might've been turned off by folks being so critical about dinosaur toys at times.  Now I realize it's just the passion that folks have for these extinct animals that drives those emotions.  Whether a figure lives up to expectations or whether we agree here about the merits of certain figures or whatever.  To me it's important to appreciate the work that everyday people at a company put into creating these awesome toys, but also the time you guys take to voice your opinions and the detailed 'informed' explanations you guys provide.  So I've come around on criticizing anything that goes on here, whether it's the figures themselves or the folks talking about them. 

I think everyone here is really lucky to belong to such a diverse and intelligent community of dinosaur fanatics.  IDK about you guys but I can't talk about these things with most everyone in my daily life, so it's a real treat and privilege to be a part of this community.  I've never read ANYTHING on here no matter how critical it was that made me want to leave this community.  Even if I don't always agree with you guys, I appreciate you and I've come to respect the opinions too.  We don't have to agree on everything to appreciate that we all love dinosaurs here

I love you too, CARN0TAURUS. 🥰 (But really, that was very well said. 😁)

[Stegotyranno420]

@CARN0TAURUS well said, the forum is so much more welcoming and intelligent than the other places, even when we are at our worst.

[Faelrin]

@CARN0TAURUS Very well said. Aside from my private instagram groups this is the best community I've played a part in. Even if things feel negative from time to time it still pales in comparison to other forums and whatnot I'd been on over the years. Folks here are typically pretty respectful of each other even when we don't always agree (and like you said often because of what we are passionate about, which of course varies from person to person), at least for the most part since I've joined back in 2016. And honestly as an autistic adult that's nearly 31 now, I'd say this place did wonders in helping me mature and how to be more tolerant and open minded of others then I was back when I first joined.

[stargatedalek]

Gonna be real, I still think the skull looks off, it still has exposed teeth, and while the spots along the back look nice, it is otherwise the same colourscheme PNSO gives to all of their large theropods. It's a pretty "whatever" figure.

Is there evidence that Allosauroids like Acrocanthosaurus would have lips?

I would imagine that it's as likely for Allosauroids to have lips as it is for Tyrannosauroids? But then again, PNSO has already stated that they support the hypothesis that theropod dinosaurs didn't have lips. As long as lips are speculative, I don't feel we can disregard PNSO for not including them in their theropod figures. It's like complaining at a KFC that they don't sell the Big Mac.

No, it's like complaining on a food blog that KFC doesn't have a burger option. A completely reasonable thing to comment on.

All terrestrial animals (and most aquatic ones) that don't have incredibly specialized teeth have lips. The idea that an animal wouldn't is a claim with no direct backing to it, even if it isn't inherently impossible.

Lips are not "speculative" any more than Acrocanthosaurus having eyes is technically speculative. No terrestrial animals without specific adaptations that have lost their eyes? Well no terrestrial animals without specific adaptations have lost their lips. It's a deliberately dramatic statement but not even hyperbolic.

@stargatedalek Honestly I would have preferred lips as well (at least aesthetically), but I'm still pretty satisfied with this. Plus it looks like the GR Toys one will have lips (though still seemed to be in an early wip stage), and while it'll be in a totally different scale, I'm sure the upcoming Cyberzoic one will have them as well. So at least there will be some options with lips out there eventually. Also in what way does the skull look off to you? Edit: Just in case you didn't see my earlier response here, I'll add this here, because I think it's pretty close? http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=10020.msg320056#msg320056

Interesting, I thought the upper jaw was still a bit long, but perhaps not? That might be the exposed teeth making a bit of an illusion with the overbite.

[SRF]

@stargatedalek I don't think that there is conclusive evidence on theropods having lips. I do agree that the evidence on theropods having lips is much more convincing compared to the hypothesis that they didn't. Still, PNSO chooses to go with the hypothesis that theropods didn't have lips and they are free to do so. They're even transparant in explaining why, for which I applaud them in doing so.

To me that really makes it unnecessary to emphasize the fact that a figure doesn't have lips with each new. We know that as long as there is no conclusive evidence that theropods have lips, PNSO chooses to make their theropods without them.

[GojiraGuy1954]

Gonna be real, I still think the skull looks off, it still has exposed teeth, and while the spots along the back look nice, it is otherwise the same colourscheme PNSO gives to all of their large theropods. It's a pretty "whatever" figure.

Is there evidence that Allosauroids like Acrocanthosaurus would have lips?

I would imagine that it's as likely for Allosauroids to have lips as it is for Tyrannosauroids? But then again, PNSO has already stated that they support the hypothesis that theropod dinosaurs didn't have lips. As long as lips are speculative, I don't feel we can disregard PNSO for not including them in their theropod figures. It's like complaining at a KFC that they don't sell the Big Mac.

I wouldnt call them speculative considering without lips theropods wouldnt have been able to fully close their mouths and the fact that bird beaks are derived forms of a lip

[stargatedalek]

@stargatedalek I don't think that there is conclusive evidence on theropods having lips. I do agree that the evidence on theropods having lips is much more convincing compared to the hypothesis that they didn't. Still, PNSO chooses to go with the hypothesis that theropods didn't have lips and they are free to do so. They're even transparant in explaining why, for which I applaud them in doing so.

To me that really makes it unnecessary to emphasize the fact that a figure doesn't have lips with each new. We know that as long as there is no conclusive evidence that theropods have lips, PNSO chooses to make their theropods without them.

If they did it because they thought it looked cool, even if they were trying to be accurate but "take all liberties deemed plausible" to get their desired look, than heck yeah! But that isn't the claim they've made. The claim they've made is that lips are inaccurate "because the teeth are so big" which is an obnoxious and incorrect assertion that drives me mad.

They aren't taking liberties to get their desired look, they're actively misrepresenting the science, and I'm going to continue actively holding that against them in-turn.

[SRF]

@stargatedalek I don't think that there is conclusive evidence on theropods having lips. I do agree that the evidence on theropods having lips is much more convincing compared to the hypothesis that they didn't. Still, PNSO chooses to go with the hypothesis that theropods didn't have lips and they are free to do so. They're even transparant in explaining why, for which I applaud them in doing so.

To me that really makes it unnecessary to emphasize the fact that a figure doesn't have lips with each new. We know that as long as there is no conclusive evidence that theropods have lips, PNSO chooses to make their theropods without them.

If they did it because they thought it looked cool, even if they were trying to be accurate but "take all liberties deemed plausible" to get their desired look, than heck yeah! But that isn't the claim they've made. The claim they've made is that lips are inaccurate "because the teeth are so big" which is an obnoxious and incorrect assertion that drives me mad.

They aren't taking liberties to get their desired look, they're actively misrepresenting the science, and I'm going to continue actively holding that against them in-turn.

PNSO's reasoning for not including lips was much more in depth than just "teeth are too big". If the claim they've made "drives you mad", then maybe you should first listen to their arguments properly before calling them obnoxious, which another unnecessary negative use of words if you ask me.

[Concavenator]

What's surprising is that some of the older PNSO theropods, like the Giganotosaurus and Yangchuanosaurus had lips, whereas their newest theropods don't. If anything, I would expect the natural transition to be: no lips  -> lips (as Safari have done) instead of the other way around.