Controversial opinions on dinosaur toys

[Bread]

@Concavenator definitely not alone on this.

Also, that little dip in the neck of the PNSO parasaurolophus bothers me.

Do you mean the dip in the back, which is an injury?  That bothers me about the PNSO Parasaurolophus, as well as its mouth looking weird to me.  I also don't see what's apparently so good about the PNSO Parasaurolophus.  Like the two of you I too am waiting for a Parasaurolophus that satisfies me.  Maybe a Beasts of the Mesozoic version?

Yes that "injury" exactly. Correct me if I am wrong, but I actually think PNSO had this right until it was later found to be an injury the Parasaurolophus had acquired. I think the Parasaurolophus was one of its 2020 models to then be released in 2021 instead. So to be fair to PNSO, the dip in the animal's neck/back area was made before the paper was released. But then again, correct me if I am wrong.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joa.13363

Rebor is still a terrible company despite the recent good products

To be fair, I don't think Rebor is a terrible company. They have faults and errors made along the way, but I think to really classify a company as terrible would for them to rip customers off and release downright horrible products.

I would argue that they have grown quite a bit, moved on from the horrible argumentative responses to customers, improved their products and are really jumping into the more scientific market of this hobby. Hopefully they can continue to release these "teased" renders/future products, because I'll for sure support them.

[Sim]

Anyone who thinks Mattel's toys are "bad" clearly doesn't remember the days when Hasbro was making Jurassic Park/World toys, or has forgotten what an actual bad dinosaur action figure looks like.

I haven't forgotten about those, they are worse.

Edit: I should also add that I'm not trying to pass judgement on those that don't collect Mattel. They're not for everyone and if you don't like them, I totally get it. I just think that the claim that they're bad is objectively wrong, especially when you consider what we got in the past.

Thanks for explaining why you like Mattel's Jurassic World line, it was helpful.  I do think whether they are considered good or bad is subjective though.  To bring in what I consider some of the worst from Mattel's Jurassic World line, how is a Pteranodon or Tapejara with teeth not bad?

@Concavenator definitely not alone on this.

Also, that little dip in the neck of the PNSO parasaurolophus bothers me.

Do you mean the dip in the back, which is an injury?  That bothers me about the PNSO Parasaurolophus, as well as its mouth looking weird to me.  I also don't see what's apparently so good about the PNSO Parasaurolophus.  Like the two of you I too am waiting for a Parasaurolophus that satisfies me.  Maybe a Beasts of the Mesozoic version?

Yes that "injury" exactly. Correct me if I am wrong, but I actually think PNSO had this right until it was later found to be an injury the Parasaurolophus had acquired. I think the Parasaurolophus was one of its 2020 models to then be released in 2021 instead. So to be fair to PNSO, the dip in the animal's neck/back area was made before the paper was released. But then again, correct me if I am wrong.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joa.13363

It was known to be an injury before that paper actually, many years before it.

[Shane]

Thanks for explaining why you like Mattel's Jurassic World line, it was helpful.  I do think whether they are considered good or bad is subjective though.  To bring in what I consider some of the worst from Mattel's Jurassic World line, how is a Pteranodon or Tapejara with teeth not bad?

To address this specific point, a Pteranodon with teeth is "not bad" when you're making a figure where the source material has teeth.

It's inaccurate to the actual animal, absolutely, but it's very accurate to the on-screen version of Pteranodon seen in Jurassic Park 3.

Jurassic World gave us Pteranodons without teeth, but they have their own issues with size and crest shape.

You can certainly fault the movie makers for designing their Pteranodons that way, but Mattel is just making them true to what's seen on the screen.

Remembering that they're not actually dinosaurs or prehistoric creatures, but movie monsters, does a lot to assuage a lot of my problems with JP/JW figures.

[suspsy]

If I didn't have two little boys, I wouldn't be bothering with any of the Mattel JW stuff. But even I can see the appeal of these toys. They're well-sculpted in spite of their anatomical flaws, they're made of good quality plastic and fairly durable (our Epic Roarin' T. rex no longer vibrates when roaring, but is otherwise still fine), and they're fun to play with. Ultimately, an adult PNSO/CollectA/Safari/Schleich collector sneering at a Mattel collector is like a SW fan wearing Jedi robes sneering at a Battlestar Galactica fan wearing a Cylon helmet.

[Bread]

@Sim thank you for the correction. This just proves that we need a definitive Parasaurolophus!

[Lynx]

Rebor is still a terrible company despite the recent good products

So basically saying REBOR is a bad company even though they've been a good one lately 
On that note, I think we should just move on from the past of what they have done. Their doing great and are keeping promises a lot better! Their new figures are nearly flawless and they've become just more like one of the main companies!

I'd love to hear further reasoning though as to why you don't like them!

[Gwangi]

Thanks for explaining why you like Mattel's Jurassic World line, it was helpful.  I do think whether they are considered good or bad is subjective though.  To bring in what I consider some of the worst from Mattel's Jurassic World line, how is a Pteranodon or Tapejara with teeth not bad?

I mean, if the only metric you use to judge a figure by is its accuracy then yeah, the Mattel toys are bad. But I'm judging Mattel toys over a number of things and with Mattel in particular, accuracy is near the bottom of the list. That said, I don't own any Mattel Pteranodon or the Tapejara. I'm not a Mattel completist and there are many toys in the line and I don't like, but overall the Mattel toys succeed in what they aim to achieve. Mattel toys are action figures made for kids. They should be fun, durable, with easy to use action features, and they should be aesthetically pleasing with unique features that make them standout. Mattel generally succeed in all of that. Now with the Hammond Collection, which is aimed more at adult collectors, my standards will be different and I will judge them more critically. Teeth on the HC Gallimimus is less acceptable in the HC line than in the main line.

I try not to judge toys solely on the things I personally like about them. I can look at a toy of something that doesn't appeal to me and still be able to tell if its a good or bad toy. The Mattel Jurassic toys are not bad toys.

[suspsy]

Rebor will truly be a good company when they offer a frank public apology for all the bad behaviour in the past.

[PumperKrickel]

Rebor will truly be a good company when they offer a frank public apology for all the bad behaviour in the past.

Something like this?

we are truly sorry for all bad things we said years ago, we admit that we were arrogant and stupid back then and we beg your forgiveness

http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=3099.msg226716#msg226716

we are truly sorry for all bad things we said years ago, we admit that we were arrogant and stupid back then     

Thank you for the apology and the frank admission. That's big of you. Cheers.

http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=3099.msg226753#msg226753

[suspsy]

Aha, clearly a little lapse of memory on my part. Mea culpa.

[JimoAi]

I prefer pterosaurs with wings spread out as it's easier to get into full scale as opposed to quadrupedal

[Halichoeres]

I prefer pterosaurs with wings spread out as it's easier to get into full scale as opposed to quadrupedal

I like a mix of both, but if they're in a flying pose I strongly prefer they have a stand or base.

[Concavenator]

Not sure if this is controversial or not, but I honestly couldn't care less about anything related to Jurassic Park / World or any media depicting prehistoric creatures as monsters / kaiju. I watched the first 3 Jurassic Park films and the 2015 one and I was totally indifferent. I'm not even interested in the stories per se. From my perspective, this kind of media is unrealistic, pointless and plain silly.

I will always have fonder memories of having watched Walking with Dinosaurs than I ever will of Jurassic Park / World.

[Bread]

@Concavenator you are definitely not alone with that opinion.

I have a love/nostalgic feel for the original and the lost world, but other than that, the rest of the films are unwatchable now. I am even skipping on the  hopefully final sequel set to release this summer.

Yes my first dinosaur/prehistoric form of media was Jurassic Park, but I wanted to dive deeper into the understanding of prehistoric life, so I discovered Walking with Dinosaurs and When Dinosaurs Roamed America. Two documentaries that I grew up with watching consistently.

[Carnoking]

To be perfectly frank, I don't think it should be at all controversial for someone to say they like one, the other, or both, just as it shouldn't be controversial for someone in this already niche interest to say they prefer ceratopsian dinosaurs to dromaeosaurs, or hardosaurs to tyrannosaurs.*

Personally, I'll never tire of Jurassic Park. Beyond the likable characters and trailblazing special effects, Crichtons sobering themes about the rapid proliferation of uncontrollable technology, humanity's insistence that chaos and order are somehow exclusive and our vain attempts to control the chaos that is nature will always be compelling to me, especially as they continue to ring true. I think what people tend to forget is that the dinosaurs were merely Cricthon's tool through which to convey these ideas.

Either way, Jurassic was my gateway to prehistory along with The Land Before Time and Disney's Dinosaur (neither of which are particularly accurate I might add), and soon after finding these films, I got seriously into documentaries like WWD and When Dinosaurs Roamed America.

Even so, I recognize that the recent World films are vastly inferior in terms of storytelling and effects to the originals but I do owe them for rekindling my long-dormant interest in prehistoric life. Since World's release in 2015, I've learned so much and will continue to do so, all thanks to that movie, regardless of its quality and shoddy sequel.

*what is controversial is the means through which people go about touting their preferences, whether that be through negatively attacking works like Prehistoric Planet and the many talented artists/paleontologists who worked on the project because the dinosaurs don't align with what you think they should look like, or the "holier than thou" gatekeeping. Personally, I feel that if you're only in it for the movies you're missing out on something truly fantastic but it's not my place to belittle you for it. Dinosaurs should be for everyone, and we all share this awesome interest for different reasons.

[Faelrin]

I agree with you. It's why I'm so excited for both the HC classic JP T. rex I grew up watching since I was a toddler (edit: I was born in '91), and the incredible modern day take on it based on decades worth of discoveries on this animal, that I also grew up alongside. I find it so fascinating how this animal and many others have evolved before our eyes over the years.

Like you those had an important part on my childhood. I watched the Land Before Time films and Jurassic Park so many times over and over, until watching WWD when it aired for the first time on TV, and then Ballad of Big Al after that came out. In between that time I did watch TLW after it came out but the gruesome deaths of Eddie, Dieter (who as a kid, I thought deserved it after shocking the one), and Carter I think, but it was too scary for me to rewatch except perhaps the San Diego sequence. Yes, I was jealous of the boy who got to see the T. rex from his window even though it ate their dog. Anyways back to Ballad of Big Al, my parents rented it from blockbuster and I must have re-watched it umpteen times, and re-renting it any chance I got. Allosaurus was to be a favorite from then on. And of course my father also introduced me to the classic Valley of Gwangi, which helped too. And then Disney's Dinosaur followed and I have fond memories of seeing that in theaters for my 9th birthday with my father. It introduced me to Carnotaurus and rekindled my love for Iguanodon. And the year after Jurassic Park III came out and introduced me to Spinosaurus.

From then on until 2014 my interest in prehistoric life had dwindled. I had moved on to fantasy animals and what not. The shortage of prehistoric media in that time probably contributed to it sadly. But in 2014 I stumbled upon a titanosaur discovery and it sparked something. A few years prior I also learned of Yutyrannus when it was described, and it quickly became a favorite. Then after Jurassic World came out in 2015 it helped bring me to where I am now, and it got me back into collecting dinosaur figures, which the last time I did was with Jurassic Park III. And just in time I might add as it allowed me to back the first of the Beasts of the Mesozoic figures the following year, never mind what had followed with Safari Ltd and whatnot. I've learned so much more as a result, aside from being able to watch exciting new discoveries unfold like with Deinocheirus and Spinosaurus, Regaliceratops, Dakotaraptor and Zhenyuanlong, Yi qi and then Ambopteryx, Borealopelta and Zuul, and many others.

[JimoAi]

Jurassic park/world creatures should be seen as something like SpongeBob SquarePants is to a real Aplysina fistularis as compared to their IRL counterparts.

Wished PNSO stuck with lips like with their Giga and yangchuanosaurus.

Colorata did a fat Rex before it was cool.

[Ludodactylus]

Figures of quadrupedal animals should be stable on their four feet. The hadrosaurs in my collection all seem to go over like dominoes at the slightest bump against the desk they're on.

[suspsy]

Figures of quadrupedal animals should be stable on their four feet. The hadrosaurs in my collection all seem to go over like dominoes at the slightest bump against the desk they're on.

There's nothing controversial about that. Everyone wants the same.

[Ludodactylus]

I should have waited for my coffee to kick in before posting. Just happened to be reading the thread and knocked my knee into the desk hard enough to tip over a couple ornithopods. Apologies for the knee-jerk (no pun intended) comment that left the maybe-controversial part off.

I'm okay with sacrificing some accuracy in posing if it results in a more stable figure that doesn't require a clear acrylic stand or a chunky base. My Terra by Battat Ceratosaurus' tail tip touching the ground bothers me far less than the way my CollectA Olorotitan or Battat Mini-Ouranosaurus do a barrel roll of you look at them funny.