Controversial opinions on dinosaur toys

[EmperorDinobot]

I should write more carefully!

[Leyster]

Very unpopular opinion: Unpopular opinion: the Rebor Tyrannosaurus is way overrated. It's nice looking, but only aesthetically: from a scientific point of view it's a no. Just have a look at the hindlimb muscolature, it's completely off: you can compare it with Dempsey's schematic.

It's exagerately ripped (much like their Smilodon), making it look like a fantasy version of the animal in question, with too big calves and, on top of that, its muscles do not even match Dempsey's diagram. Look at the back of the leg: it has muscles where it shouldn't. It's basically a mammalian muscolature on a dinosaur. Or heavily inspired by the JP maquette/anatomy.

You can compare it with the Blue Rhino model many say it's inspired of.

As well as with the Saurian model.

And its scales, while smaller than the PNSO's, are still too big. At least the PNSO has the excuse that they're showing the shape of the scales of a real Tyrannosaurus: the Rebor is inexcusable (scientifically speaking). Just have a look at the scale bar!

It looks like having lips (whose presence is not set in stone, mind you) is enough to make forget everything wrong there is in this model. Seriously, if you want an accurate lipped Tyrannosaurus, check the BOTM (which was praised by none other than Mark Witton) and stop naming this "the ultimate Tyrannosaurus"... seriously, it is not.

[Aerosteon]

Very unpopular opinion: Unpopular opinion: the Rebor Tyrannosaurus is way overrated. It's nice looking, but only aesthetically: from a scientific point of view it's a no. Just have a look at the hindlimb muscolature, it's completely off: you can compare it with Dempsey's diagram.

It's exagerately ripped (much like their Smilodon), making it look like a fantasy version of the animal in question, with too big calves and, on top of that, its muscles do not even match Dempsey's diagram. Look at the back of the leg: it has muscles where it shouldn't. It's basically a mammalian muscolature on a dinosaur. Or heavily inspired by the JP maquette/anatomy.

You can compare it with the Blue Rhino model many say it's inspired of.

As well as with the Saurian model.

And its scales, while smaller than the PNSO's, are still too big. At least the PNSO has the excuse that they're showing the shape of the scales of a real Tyrannosaurus: the Rebor is inexcusable (scientifically speaking). Just have a look at the scale bar!

It looks like having lips (whose presence is not set in stone, mind you) is enough to make forget everything wrong there is in this model. Seriously, if you want an accurate lipped Tyrannosaurus, check the BOTM (which was praised by none other than Mark Witton) and stop naming this "the ultimate Tyrannosaurus"... seriously, it is not.

The muscular anatomy reference that you have put has flaws, the hind legs of theropods were not arranged straight in their joints, the ankles were joined and then towards the feet they were separated. Here I put with the permission of the artist a small correction on the model you show. It is a failure that I have observed in some theropod models and that it seems that Rebor has taken into account.

[Leyster]

@Aerosteon maybe because it's a schematic? Also, that has nothing to do with what I said. It's the muscolature which is wrong, not the position of the leg.

[Aerosteon]

@Aerosteon maybe because it's a schematic? Also, that has nothing to do with what I said. It's the muscolature which is wrong, not the position of the leg.

I understand what you are saying about the muscles and their meaning, my comment is more because these diagrams are often used as a reference due to the detailed anatomy and many times they also have small errors that are difficult to take into account.

[Leyster]

@Aerosteon first of all, let me put a small disclaimer: English is not my native languages and sometimes the intricacies of the language elude me, so I hope this post does not come out harsher than I intended it.

What you're saying is right, but I think (I might ask Dempsey, tho) that the model represents a "neutral", "T posed" Tyrannosaurus. If I recall correctly Dempsey used it as reference for a further 3D model, and 3D models are often sculpted in similar poses as it's easier (like JFD ones). Bending the legs to pose it is a subsequent step. I admit that a neutral pose schematic might not have been the better reference, since Rebor's model is posed (and thus I posted the Saurian one - which is posed, too), but it was the closest I could find to allow users an easier understanding of what I was meaning, as opposed to posting something like this:

[Bread]

It looks like having lips (whose presence is not set in stone, mind you) is enough to make forget everything wrong there is in this model. Seriously, if you want an accurate lipped Tyrannosaurus, check the BOTM (which was praised by none other than Mark Witton) and stop naming this "the ultimate Tyrannosaurus"... seriously, it is not.

Not once have we said this figure is perfect. I may love it, so do others, but it is far from perfect as you have explained. No one has named it as the ultimate Tyrannosaurus, too.

If anything it is the best we have currently released plus being static and all. BOTM's painted versions are not released as of yet.

[Leyster]

@Bread it is not, unless you mean among lipped versions? I don't know many lipped Tyrannosaur. If not, for the reasons I mentioned above, the various PNSO Tyrannosaurus are more accurate.

No one has named it as the ultimate Tyrannosaurus, too.

From the very one review on DTF . You can use the search button to find multiple istances of similar comments in this forum and elsewhere. I'm not pointing fingers, but a quick search will reveal that some pretty big names in the dinosaur toy review sphere said it, over and over.

One has every right to like this model. But pretending this is the best scientifically accurate Tyrannosaurus... or even scientifically accurate... no.

BOTM's painted versions are not released as of yet.

But the unpainted ones are, and its anatomy will not change.

[Aerosteon]

@Aerosteon first of all, let me put a small disclaimer: English is not my native languages and sometimes the intricacies of the language elude me, so I hope this post does not come out harsher than I intended it.

What you're saying is right, but I think (I might ask Dempsey, tho) that the model represents a "neutral", "T posed" Tyrannosaurus. If I recall correctly Dempsey used it as reference for a further 3D model, and 3D models are often sculpted in similar poses as it's easier (like JFD ones). Bending the legs to pose it is a subsequent step. I admit that a neutral pose schematic might not have been the better reference, since Rebor's model is posed (and thus I posted the Saurian one - which is posed, too), but it was the closest I could find to allow users an easier understanding of what I was meaning, as opposed to posting something like this:

English is not my mother tongue either, since I am from Spain, for me it is also difficult.
Dempsey's pose is not a neutral or natural pose for reference in 3D, her pose is not correct. With models like this, if these details are not taken into account, a lot of 3D work can be done wrongly. I have already seen many models with this defect.

I would be more strict with details such as the legs, than what Rebor's Tyranosaurus looks like. I can assure you that the artist who made Rebor's Tyrannosaurus has taken more into account the animal's anatomy than Dempsey's model with its muscles. You have to take into account that the muscles are not something static, they are flexible, they change shape depending on the position, they can appear and hide depending on their tension, they are not static plates, a representation of the musculature of an animal in movement is not what Same as making a drawing in a static position.

[Bread]

@Bread it is not, unless you mean among lipped versions? I don't know many lipped Tyrannosaur. If not, for the reasons I mentioned above, the various PNSO Tyrannosaurus are more accurate.

No one has named it as the ultimate Tyrannosaurus, too.

From the very one review on DTF . You can use the search button to find multiple istances of similar comments in this forum and elsewhere. I'm not pointing fingers, but a quick search will reveal that some pretty big names in the dinosaur toy review sphere said it, over and over.

One has every right to like this model. But pretending this is the best scientifically accurate Tyrannosaurus... or even scientifically accurate... no.

BOTM's painted versions are not released as of yet.

But the unpainted ones are, and its anatomy will not change.

1) Yes, amongst lips static figures. BOTM for sure takes the cake for the most accurate Tyrannosaurus figure in terms of just dinosaur toys in general. But, some of us avoid fully articulated figures, so there's that.

I also disagree about the PNSO's offerings being more accurate. We can't argue that either or offerings are more accurate than the other. PNSO's has the tooth slippage issue, no lips, way oversized scales and no, I find it hard to believe PNSO gave Wilson 1:1 scales on a 1:35 model to represent the size of their scales in 1:1. All PNSO therapod models at the time had oversized scales similar to Wilson's. Rebor same issue, really they will always over texture their models, some like it some don't.

2) Good catch to the "ultimate" Tyrannosaurus. My mistake, and I understand your opinion regarding this term on this Rebor Tyrannosaurus. Now, I really like this model and so do others. Really I think it's the fact that it's been a while since we could say we have a Tyrannosaurus that meets a majority of our satisfying needs. Lips, bulk, the look of a Tyrannosaurus. I fully 100% agree that this is not an ultimate/definitive Tyrannosaurus model. However, I believe this term is being flown around due to some people finally being able to have a satisfying Tyrannosaurus figure. Of course there is going to be another more up to date model in the future (static).

[Leyster]

@Bread

I find it hard to believe PNSO gave Wilson 1:1 scales on a 1:35 model to represent the size of their scales in 1:1. All PNSO therapod models at the time had oversized scales similar to Wilson's. Rebor same issue, really they will always over texture their models, some like it some don't.

Well, you can see it on this video (around 16.00). There was a more detailed one, but atm I can't find it. Anyway, what's matters is that the scales change shapes around the figure reflecting the scale impressions, a feat no other Tyrannosaurs model did (we covered this in detail in our review on Paleo-Nerd). I agree on the other theropods with oversized scales (Qianzhousaurus and Carnotaurus), those are big for the sake of making the model look more intricately sculpted, but that's not the case with Tyrannosaurus. Anyway, if the scales bother you, PNSO did another Tyrannosaurus with a more accurate scalation: Andrea (too often forgotten).

Dempsey's pose is not a neutral or natural pose for reference in 3D, her pose is not correct. With models like this, if these details are not taken into account, a lot of 3D work can be done wrongly. I have already seen many models with this defect.

Well, everybody I saw sculpting a dinosaur digital model I've seen starts with that pose, so I stand on my idea of it being a standarized pose for easing the sculpting process. Mind you that Dempsey's model was sent to me by actual paleoartists, people which do restorations for papers, I mean, not someone with a tablet and a twitter account (no offense to the many talented artists on twitter, but as you said without the approval of a paleontologist it's easy to let small details slip) as the best representation available of Tyrannosaurus muscolature, so I'd trust them with this.

I would be more strict with details such as the legs, than what Rebor's Tyranosaurus looks like. I can assure you that the artist who made Rebor's Tyrannosaurus has taken more into account the animal's anatomy than Dempsey's model with its muscles.

Allow me to doubt this. You don't like Dempsey's model? Fine, you can see various 3D restorations of Tyrannosaurus, like Saurian's and Max Bellomio's ones. None of them have the kind of muscolature Rebor's has, so either most of Tyrannosaurus models (some of them consulted by paleontologists) are wrong and a toy company got it right somehow, or viceversa. It's Rebor we're talking about: my two cents that the "viceversa" is right.

[SRF]

L @Leyster I think this is the PNSO video you were looking for: https://youtu.be/-XWphQMBw9Y

Zhao Chuang states in this video that the exaggerated scales are there on purpose to emphasize the differences between the scales on different parts on its body. Like I said in the PNSO topic earlier, I do like to view Wilson as a showcase of these features.

All in all I think that while they are quite different interpretations of the same animal, Wilson and Kiss are about equals when it comes to scientific accuracy. Wilson is the easiest one to fix in that regard, because a Wilson with lips added is probably a better interpretation of T. Rex than Kiss is.

The arms and especially the feet on Wilson are better done than on Kiss/Tusk as well. Especially because of the foot pads and the blunted toe nails.

Besides the lips, Wilsons mouth articulation is much better done than on Kiss. The fact that Wilson can open and close its jaw any way you want is a plus. It's also a cool feature that Wilson can open its mouth about as far as T. Rex could do in real life. That and the tail seam on Kiss make Wilson a better engineered figure than Kiss to me.

So all in all, I also feel that Wilson still takes the edge over Kiss, albeit very slightly.

[Bread]

L @Leyster although Andrea fixes the tooth slippage and scale size, she still has issues that I can't see past either.

The "broken" or "sausage legs" as some prople call it. Although I really do want a laying down Tyrannosaurus in my collection.

Again, all in all, I don't think either company has produced the "definitive Tyrannosaurus." But I can say that Rebor's definitely satisfies others like myself for the time being. The smaller scale detail followed by the addition of lips. Also, a little more on the bulkier side but I think PNSO's Wilson was fine in terms of bulk too.

Really this just comes down to preference. I understand the issue of Rebor's being overly musculature, but others like myself are probably fine with it rather than no lips or massive tooth slippage.

[Mattyonyx]

I couldn't help but notice that L @Leyster clearly tried to clarify his opinion, and then the discussion went elsewhere.

The "mammalian" muscles he mentioned were sculpted since the first neutral pose render, so the movement has nothing to do with them.


There's even a detailed diagram (shared by Rebor itself) showing their idea of the muscle placement. Based on the current knowledge of paleomiology, it only makes sense if we think of the Tyrannosaurus rex from Jurassic Park, which is understandable given the studio's great experience with pop culture models.


Something similar happens with Papo, mainly due to Mr. Seo's ability to replicate the JP style, and it's pretty noticeable on the original sculpts too.

Then, the muscles were partially hidden by scales and skin folds, but they're still there, and not even pose or color could change that.




A similar remark may be applied to the head: the very shape of the skull, based on the WIP images, it's reconstructed in an unconventional way, it almost feels like they put the right keratin cover on a JP head.

Also, @SRF made a good point about the feet.

Is Kiss a vast improvement over the Grab 'n' Go T. rex? Absolutely!
Does it have an impressive shelf presence? Undeniable.
Is it one of the most accurate T. rex figures currently available, as many on socials and Youtube say? Not so sure...
Are the "lips" (whose presence, as Leyster said, is not set in stone), and the bulkiness enough to justify all the fuss? I guess it depends...

Now, since my Wilson review on Paleo-Nerd had been mentioned, I will gladly address a couple of things:
1) Even though the scales are definitely oversized, no one said they're 1:1. They're smaller than that, as you can see from this picture of the neck scales impression with a finger;
2) As we all know, Wilson is AMNH 5027, which is not the biggest known T. rex specimen, so making it as bulky as Sue would have been a mistake;
3) Although the observation about the tooth slippage is right, PNSO worked very closely with AMNH to make Wilson immediately identifiable with AMNH 5027, and those teeth are an essential part of its look.

[Bread]

Now, since my Wilson review on Paleo-Nerd had been mentioned, I will gladly address a couple of things:
1) Even though the scales are definitely oversized, no one said they're 1:1. They're smaller than that, as you can see from this picture of the neck scales impression with a finger;
2) As we all know, Wilson is AMNH 5027, which is not the biggest known T. rex specimen, so making it as bulky as Sue would have been a mistake;
3) Although the observation about the tooth slippage is right, PNSO worked very closely with AMNH to make Wilson immediately identifiable with AMNH 5027, and those teeth are an essential part of its look.

1) So the excuse for the scales is invalid completely then? They're oversized regardless of the excuse. Then again, Rebor's Kiss/Tusk have this issue, so no denying that.
2) True, I think even Rebor mentioned they based their off of Sue.
3) Why would tooth slippage be taken into account for a live-animal reconstruction? Tooth slippage happens after death, during fossilization. Unless AMNH has a disease or injury which caused tooth slippage pre-death that I don't know about, I still don't understand why PNSO would do that.

Anyways, again, I think both models are fine, but to say either is superior is based on pure preference as they both have accuracy issues.

[GojiraGuy1954]

Even if Rebor made the perfect dinosaur model the community would have something to nitpick because they are Rebor

[Duna]

Yeah, Rebor's Kiss is way much much much better in all terms than Wilson.

[JohannesB]

I start having my doubts about their scientific methods when on the photo of TMP 2001.036.0001 they use a nondescript piece of plastic (possibly a lens cap) instead of a tape-measure. Anyway, that's really beside the point, I know. But about the PNSO versus Rebor, it is a nice little discussion, and I get all the valid points. Ultimately, for me it will to a high degree be about the "look and feel" of a figure. I think in the long run, Rebor might(?) win the prize as "most scientifically correct T. rex" with a slight margin over PNSO's version, but I still prefer the PNSO, for certain reasons (which may not really be 100% scientific).

[Leyster]

@JohannesB having messed up the leg muscolature is a far bigger issue in scientific correctness than the ones the PNSO has. Accuracy issues do not have all the same weight and Rebor managed to make an error you would expect from a pop culture inspired or anyway not-so-scientific model like the Papos. And having a muscolature based on the Jurassic Park maquette rather than an accurate one while claiming their model is scientifically accurate is a big stretch. At least PNSO tries to motivate most of their choices in their videos providing actual reasonement, even if I might disagree with them on some things. I can concede to Rebor that they tried and that it's still a better model than their previous attempts, tho.

PS: may I ask when did they share TMP 2001.036.0001? I think I missed it. If you mean the diagram I posted, it's not by PNSO, @Mattyonyx did it, and I think he used what picture he had available atm?

Anyway, I think you all are missing the point. The whole thing is not "what is the better Tyrannosaurus between PNSO and Rebor", is "the Rebor model is not as good in the scientific area as is claimed".

[Faelrin]

This discussion has been enlightening. Aside from the BotM 1/35 T. rex I'll have on the way next month or so, and probably takes the cake for most accurate atm, I do rather like the aesthetics of the Rebor Kiss. The scales are smaller then on the PNSO Wilson (despite also being somewhat larger then it), and I rather prefer the aesthetics of the lipped appearance, which both the Rebor and BotM have done. That said if PNSO were to do a new standing T. rex that fixes the tooth slippage, and smaller scales like on Andrea, I'd be down for that. Their recent Acrocanthosaurus shows how much they have improved with theropods, and it would be nice to see a new one that's to that caliber. There's also the upcoming Eofauna that may prove to be the supreme static model (as BotM's are action figures, which I know not everyone enjoys here), despite its rather controversial naming.


I think going forward (well once I can be reunited with my book case, whenever that may be), I think I may keep a small section dedicated to my Rebor figures, much like how I try to keep my Mattel figures in their own collection. In fact I also have pre-ordered their (broken horn) Triceratops, which certainly has some issues with integument and the digits, etc, but I think it'll make for a nice display alongside the new T. rex they've done. Likewise I'm tempted to pick up the Stegosaurus and perhaps the Saurophaganax to use as Allosaurus (although I do have the Papo one, which may also work just fine), though probably won't get to those until next year what with everything else on my wishlist I need to catch up with.