Controversial opinions on dinosaur toys

[Aerosteon]

CollectA's theropods have always been pretty weak for me, when compared to other brands. The lack of leg musculature is just one of those issues. Where I think they shine their most is with their ornithopods, invertebrates, and stuff like their Edaphosaurus, Estemmenosuchus, and Xiphactinus that nobody else bothers with (edit: Lisowicia as well). Maybe their mammals and pterosaurs too.

I am attracted to the Collecta figures, their variety and dinosaurs, but some figures are damaged by failures that I am not able to forgive.

Look at the width of the hips of this Ichthyovenator, figure is nice and his pose is great, but those hips are not normal.





and Saurophaganax




when the hips of the theropdos are characterized by being narrow

[SidB]

@Aerosteon, it seems that CollectA has used a number of strategies over the years to enable their theropods to stand without toppling over. Two are evident here: the base and the abnormally wide hips. The wide hips have been used on several of their older models, but what is odd here is the inclusion of a base too. Likely they designed the former, found it inadequate, then added the base. Obviously it would have been preferable to go straight to the base, omitting the bulk in the hip region.

[Aerosteon]

@Aerosteon, it seems that CollectA has used a number of strategies over the years to enable their theropods to stand without toppling over. Two are evident here: the base and the abnormally wide hips. The wide hips have been used on several of their older models, but what is odd here is the inclusion of a base too. Likely they designed the former, found it inadequate, then added the base. Obviously it would have been preferable to go straight to the base, omitting the bulk in the hip region.

I think that giving a base to the figure gives you a lot of freedom for more dynamic postures and taking better care of the anatomy. I prefer a base that gives more contour to the figure, rather than wearing big feet or huge hips.

I can tolerate small defects or bad coloration but these faults do not

[SidB]

@Aerosteon, it seems that CollectA has used a number of strategies over the years to enable their theropods to stand without toppling over. Two are evident here: the base and the abnormally wide hips. The wide hips have been used on several of their older models, but what is odd here is the inclusion of a base too. Likely they designed the former, found it inadequate, then added the base. Obviously it would have been preferable to go straight to the base, omitting the bulk in the hip region.

I think that giving a base to the figure gives you a lot of freedom for more dynamic postures and taking better care of the anatomy. I prefer a base that gives more contour to the figure, rather than wearing big feet or huge hips.

I can tolerate small defects or bad coloration but these faults do not

As annoying as the oversized hips are, I still prefer them to the curse of clown feet, IMO the worst of all stability solutions.

[Lynx]

I personally find the bases really annoying when displaying stuff, thus why I haven't bought anything from CollectA. A way to remove the figure from the base would be great. I've heard of people removing them from the bases, but I don't want to damage the figure.

[Gwangi]

What gets me is that they used the wide hips AND the bases and many of them still ended up sagging over anyway.

[Faelrin]

I think Creative Beast Studio, PNSO, and Rebor, have done it the best way as far as bases go. Making them optional/removable (for temporary display), like a part of a natural environmental (CBS, and Rebor), or like PNSO's clear stands (and Rebor's recent Tyrannosaurus figures) that also are placed underneath the chest area to hopefully prevent or delay sagging (mainly in regards to theropods).

Edit: Likewise I was never fond of CollectA's bases because they were not optional, and were bland as far as detail went. Like @Gwangi said, they unfortunately didn't always help with stability of the figures either. I've seen several reports of sagging or toppling over my years here.

[SidB]

Favorite too, has used optional bases on a substantial number of their bipedal figures. Some stand okay without them, others are in dire straits without the base. Regardless, I appreciate the concept too.

[Halichoeres]

The best way to avoid stability issues is to never buy theropods 

[Aerosteon]

I can't stand Triceratops with badly placed horns. The horns must be just above the orbital sockets, there are marks that put the horns far back.

[Sim]

The best way to avoid stability issues is to never buy theropods 

Or pachycephalosaurs

[EmperorDinobot]

Ok, I know this is a controversial opinion thread, but I am going to make an affirmation for once.

Terra's Electronic Battat figures are worthless garbage. I mean, absolutely nobody is interested in them, and selling them in the box will result in a $5 or more loss due to the sheer size of the box. They are ugly, and insulting to their original sculptor. I do not know what was crossing Battat's mind, but these are literally some of the worst dinosaur figures ever made. They could have AT LEAST given us an Euoplocephalus in that size range, or a Parasaurolophus. The articulation is garbage, the lights are terrible and creepy, and the paint apps are THE worst I have seen in any dinosaur figure. They are the lowest of the low. Mighty Megasaur Walmart figures are at least honest about what they are doing, they do not take up so much space, and their articulation works. Heck, their collectible Schleichish line is superior. Luckily Battat only made 4 dinosaurs and 2 big ones, which I need for parts, sadly... >.<

Good grief. The only one I have in my store is holding the entire 800 item strong store back. Taking it to the Goodwill store is the best way to deal with it. At least I get a tax write off.

I know I defended them in the past because I love all dinosaur toys, and feel bad criticizing a single one, called them children's toys that were aimed solely at kids, but even as a child's toy they still manage to be terrible. They can't even be recycled.

[CityRaptor]

That's controversal? I thought that was universally agreed upon. Taking Dan't molds and turning them into something that has Hasbro JW quality.

The best way to avoid stability issues is to never buy theropods 

That's what I do for large Sega figures at least after my T.rex fell to its doom.

[Shane]

I can't stand Triceratops with badly placed horns. The horns must be just above the orbital sockets, there are marks that put the horns far back.

To be fair, while it's still inaccurate, just about all (if not all) of the examples you cite are trying to emulate the Jurassic Park Triceratops.

The JP model placed the horns solidly behind the orbits. It's inaccurate to the dinosaur, but these figures are accurate to the (inaccurate) design they're trying to copy.

[Bread]

Controversial take, cheeks or no cheeks on herbivores don't bother me as much as lips or no lips on therapods.

Started to really accept and love the idea of lips on therapods, but cheeks on the other hand are just "meh" to me. I don't see much of a difference.

[Stegotyranno420]

It's the opposite of me. I like lipped or liplles theropods but if you remove cheeks from herbivores, me and you are gonna have a talk(exaggeration)
Jokes aside, as long and they make it look like a realistic animal, I'm happy

[Lynx]

I would rather buy a good figure of a popular species than a bad figure of an unpopular/obscure species
I don't get people who buy figures of species purely because they're obscure. Following that, I also dislike buying extremely obscure species in general due to them probably not staying up to date in a couple years.

[Aerosteon]

I can't stand Triceratops with badly placed horns. The horns must be just above the orbital sockets, there are marks that put the horns far back.

To be fair, while it's still inaccurate, just about all (if not all) of the examples you cite are trying to emulate the Jurassic Park Triceratops.

The JP model placed the horns solidly behind the orbits. It's inaccurate to the dinosaur, but these figures are accurate to the (inaccurate) design they're trying to copy.

I agree with what you say, but I think that the problem is both in JP and in other figures in not having taken a look at what a Triceratops skull is and that is the problem, not taking interest in the animal that it is going to represent in one figure and drag the faults of others.

JP's conceptarts were more or less correct and Mattel has corrected this detail in its figures. The Triceratops that was seen in the first JP film has been a curse for many figures who have taken this as a model instead of looking at the remains of the animal and for this detail you don't have to be a paleontologist.



Look at the quality of these figures and see the error they drag:






I don't know about you, but I'm tired of absurd inventions, just for not dedicating a little time to documenting.

[Aerosteon]

Controversial take, cheeks or no cheeks on herbivores don't bother me as much as lips or no lips on therapods.

Started to really accept and love the idea of lips on therapods, but cheeks on the other hand are just "meh" to me. I don't see much of a difference.

Well, it seems that the lips is neither one thing nor the other.

In a podcast by the paleontologist Andrea Cau, he said that taking a part of the anatomy of a group of reptiles, such as lizards, to reconstruct something from another group as far away as the dinosaurs was a mistake, he said that it is most likely that they had something typical of theropods around their mouths.


Reptiles have a great variety in the anatomy of the mouth, crocodiles without lips and teeth, turtles with beaks and without teeth, lizards with lips and teeth. It is clear that theropods had something of their own and original, I opted for a ranfoteca because of the characteristics it presents and the roughness.


I think the lips are also wrong.

[Faelrin]

@Aerosteon Very interesting to see how the concept art lines up with one of the figures (which the one you used is the 2019 Dino Rivals Dual Attack figure). I also checked promo pics for the Hammond Collection Triceratops, which also seems to position the horns above the eyes, which you mentioned the concept art got right.



The actual animatronic however does seem to have the horns slightly off and away, which I think @Blade-of-the-Moon was getting at, especially in regards to the Nanmu figures. Color me surprised.



Now as far as all of those other examples you've used, they have a lot more anatomical mistakes then just this one (including perhaps the Jurassic Park Triceratops with it's outdated elephant like feet, and integument, but at least as far as that goes, that wasn't discovered until long after the film released however). Though generally I do agree it would be nice to see more research and care taken. That said aside from this slip up, most of the dinosaurs for the first film were researched well, and the skeletals of the time do fit inside many of the animals (which is also why it drives me nuts now, when people use excuses to defend their inaccuracies in the later films).