Controversial opinions on dinosaur toys

[Lynx]

Another thing that bugs me, PNSO also does paleoart, which normally features more accurate designs than the ones they release in model form. PNSOS poses remind me of papos, but worse because, with PNSO, they normally can't even stand and/or topple over with the slightest brush. Something I had never had issues with. They damage very easily because of this.

The museum line models are some of the worst accuracy-wise (not all), the iguanodon is a keen example of this.

A lot of their older models are extremely ugly and remind me of some of REBORs previous models.


Also, off the topic of PNSO, but I find the people that react negatively to REBORs newer models JUST because of a past reputation that they have moved on and apologized for. I am not saying you CAN'T be negative, but doing so with the only intent of targeting REBOR for past behavior is not fair. Credit should be given where credit is due. Rating models badly purely because of a company's past releases and reputation, in general, is not fair. I dunno if that makes sense or not.

[Bread]

PNSOS poses remind me of papos, but worse because, with PNSO, they normally can't even stand and/or topple over with the slightest brush. Something I had never had issues with. They damage very easily because of this.

How are PNSO's figures reminiscent of Papos? They do not share similar poses whatsoever. Plus PNSO often are capable of standing, maybe a few are part of the minority of not being able to stand, but again I say few.

Maybe you are unlucky with some of their models. If you can, list the ones that topple over. I hope you use the plastic support rods, because they are essential if your figure shows signs of warping.

[Lynx]

PNSOS poses remind me of papos, but worse because, with PNSO, they normally can't even stand and/or topple over with the slightest brush. Something I had never had issues with. They damage very easily because of this.

How are PNSO's figures reminiscent of Papos? They do not share similar poses whatsoever. Plus PNSO often are capable of standing, maybe a few are part of the minority of not being able to stand, but again I say few.

Maybe you are unlucky with some of their models. If you can, list the ones that topple over. I hope you use the plastic support rods, because they are essential if your figure shows signs of warping.

What I mean is the poses both tend to have this certain wildness to them, (I don't think it makes sense, but oh well), which isn't bad, but PNSOS topple over more. I do use the support rods. Winter Wilson, the yutyrannus, and another model I can't recall have this issue.

[jc_4130]

As to why I had someone add lips to my lovely PNSO Yutyrannus model.

Also, if articulated jaws were removed, would you be more inclined to purchase figures with open or closed mouth's?
Me personally I would always choose closed mouths especially for therapods.

It depends on the figure, but generally I think I would prefer open IF they do a decent job on the teeth and inner surfaces.  But a poorly done mouth is worse than none for sure. Ironically I think my PNSO Tylosaurus is a great open mouth - good inner tissue, no articulation, lips, tooth length not overstated (at least to my non scientific eye). If it wasn't for missing the stupid knob...  Plus for therapods, you can sort of sidestep the lip issue and just assume the teeth are bared     Closed mouths would be fine, but I would definitely prefer lips for any animal that likely had them.

[Bread]

PNSOS poses remind me of papos, but worse because, with PNSO, they normally can't even stand and/or topple over with the slightest brush. Something I had never had issues with. They damage very easily because of this.

How are PNSO's figures reminiscent of Papos? They do not share similar poses whatsoever. Plus PNSO often are capable of standing, maybe a few are part of the minority of not being able to stand, but again I say few.

Maybe you are unlucky with some of their models. If you can, list the ones that topple over. I hope you use the plastic support rods, because they are essential if your figure shows signs of warping.

What I mean is the poses both tend to have this certain wildness to them, (I don't think it makes sense, but oh well), which isn't bad, but PNSOS topple over more. I do use the support rods. Winter Wilson, the yutyrannus, and another model I can't recall have this issue.

Yeah maybe you are explaining it wrong or I am interpreting it wrong. I see PNSO's poses as calm and neutral. They rarely have exaggerated postures, which is the complete opposite for Papo. Again, I don't see how PNSO's topple over more if you just list a few that don't have this issue...

Edit: To add, PNSO are one of the few companies I can see their figure's poses being realistic. Sure they may have their other anatomical accuracy issues, but their model postures are on point.

[Faelrin]

J @jc_4130 I think you just summed up how a lot of us feel about Papo, etc, with the dynamic posing. Heck I compiled many of their figures and it's definitely something seeing how many of them are forced into squatting postures with broken tails, etc just for the sake of being dynamic. The negative reception for the Giganotosaurus back when it came out really drives it home. The only time I felt its absurd pose had a use was when D @Dino Scream3232 gave it guns lol.

While I disagree on the articulated jaw thing (I like the options it provides, gives me something to fiddle with, and sometimes cool stuff like the PNSO Dunkleosteus happens where it was engineered to open like it did in life), I would rather not have them at all however if poorly implemented such as on the Mattel HC Parasaurolophus (made the head too wide to support it. Edit: Papo's Iguanodon too), or poorly functional (like that recent Safari Mythical T. rex). That said I do have a ton of static figures in my collection (mostly Safari Ltd, with no articulation, no seams or minimal), and I definitely have an appreciation for them and can see why there are folks that prefer them. I probably should also mention I got my start as an action figure collector (and still do), so that's probably another reason I enjoy articulated jaws (again if implemented well).

[jc_4130]

To add further on the dynamic poses - sometimes it's not the just the obviously ridiculous ones.  Less dramatic dynamic positions sometimes look off to me.  A perfect example is the Eofauna Deinotherium.  It's not a crazy pose, but something about that animal statically frozen in a lackadaisical trot looks off to me - even if it's anatomically correct (no idea if it is).  Don't get me wrong, it's a great figure overall, but if I had a choice I would choose a static pose

Quick edit @Faelrin I respect your opinion, I can understand why a moving jaw is appealing.  And I won't deny that I fiddle with them sometimes.  It's all just a tradeoff of different benefits.

[jc_4130]

Oh and one more opinion - the bot filter to register on this forum is a little bit psychotic 😁

[Halichoeres]

I also dislike jaw articulation, and articulation in general. I get why some people like it, but I do not.

[Concavenator]

Another thing that bugs me, PNSO also does paleoart, which normally features more accurate designs than the ones they release in model form. PNSOS poses remind me of papos, but worse because, with PNSO, they normally can't even stand and/or topple over with the slightest brush. Something I had never had issues with. They damage very easily because of this.

The museum line models are some of the worst accuracy-wise (not all), the iguanodon is a keen example of this.

A lot of their older models are extremely ugly and remind me of some of REBORs previous models.


Also, off the topic of PNSO, but I find the people that react negatively to REBORs newer models JUST because of a past reputation that they have moved on and apologized for. I am not saying you CAN'T be negative, but doing so with the only intent of targeting REBOR for past behavior is not fair. Credit should be given where credit is due. Rating models badly purely because of a company's past releases and reputation, in general, is not fair. I dunno if that makes sense or not.

When it comes to the discrepancy between the paleoart included and the actual figures, it's definitely weird that they were doing that, but they seem to have corrected this in the latest wave of figures. For example, take a look at the art included with these two figures (Sinraptor and Lingwulong):




With the Siamosaurus it's the same, there's no longer this discrepancy. I wasn't super bothered by that, but it was admittedly odd, especially because PNSO releases those videos in which they reason their choices, so why would you include a different reconstruction than what the figure looks like? (because a prehistoric animal figure is also paleoart) They seem to have corrected this, so there's no longer a discrepancy, but instead they're simply including a photo of the figure, which is a bit lame. Since they're including additional art with their figures, it would be nice if they included paleoart based on the figures, like BotM and Eofauna do. Maybe they didn't have the time to do that?

On another note, I completely disagree with PNSO poses being worse than Papo's. Papo has released the figures with the most ridiculous poses in a very long time (Chilesaurus and Giganotosaurus) and I really don't intend to be offensive, but I don't know how else to describe them. When I say the poses are ridiculous I mean as representations of poses the animal would achieve in real life, if we're talking about stability, well, they succeed (and not every Papo figure is terribly posed though, the Allosaurus and Pachyrhinosaurus, for example, have good poses, though it's also true they're older figures and the general trend is that their poses are generally bad/forced/unrealistic). If, for you, stability is more important than scientific accuracy, I can see why you prefer those poses to PNSO's (and of course, stability is important). However, PNSO includes rods with the bipeds so they can stand (and I believe Rebor also do this sometimes) and they're optional, so you can use them or not. If you're bothered by them, you can opt for not to use them and try the hot-cold water treatment or lean the figure against others, as you would otherwise do with figures that don't include the rod. And I've seen cases where the rod doesn't work either, but sometimes they do (and in my experience, it does, FWIW), so it's nice that at least they're including something.

When it comes to the Iguanodon, it's actually not inaccurate as people say.

The Iguanodon's head is fine. I mean, sure, it's not the usual Iguanodon head, but it's directly based on a real specimen.

The specimen in the reference picture is pretty popular, here's another angle from an old postcard.

until last week I woul've agreed too that it was a chimera, but in one of the recent videos PNSO shares on Facebook they showed the skull they used for the model and, while not having the classic shape (different sex? crushing?) it's undoubtely Iguanodon bernissartensis.

Not to mention it, along with their new Tsintaosaurus, are the first (and currently only) ornithopod figures to include the new proposed neck reconstruction for ornithopods presented in this 2021 paper by Filippo Bertozzo et al. And when it comes to their Museum Line figures, the figures are literally the same as the Prehistoric Animal Models range, really the only differences are the packaging and the pricing. The quality of the figures is the same, and that includes accuracy, for better or worse. It's just that they seem to choose different species for each line, they release the most popular species (which are the best sellers) under the Museum Line (or species that have historical relevance in China's paleontology, like Mamenchisaurus or Tsintaosaurus).

J @jc_4130 when it comes to the PNSO Tylosaurus, check this post out:

about the rostrum: not all Tylosaurus show a rostrum as pronunced as it appears in some restorations. ie Tylosaurus kansasensis (=T.nepaeolicus).
(for some reasons the image won't show up, so here the link: http://oceansofkansas.com/Tylo-new/Update08/figure1.jpg)
If this detail bothers you that much, anyway, you only have to do a little touch up with paint, covering the first two teeth.

I agree with pretty much all your other points though.

And I'm not trying to simply defend PNSO at all means, actually, I have criticised PNSO as well (sometimes I was wrong) and they certainly have aspects that can be criticised (like almost everyone), it's just that I think those points in particular aren't right.

[Halichoeres]

Also, off the topic of PNSO, but I find the people that react negatively to REBORs newer models JUST because of a past reputation that they have moved on and apologized for. I am not saying you CAN'T be negative, but doing so with the only intent of targeting REBOR for past behavior is not fair. Credit should be given where credit is due. Rating models badly purely because of a company's past releases and reputation, in general, is not fair. I dunno if that makes sense or not.

Yeah, Rebor came out of the gate pretty churlish, but they seem to have learned some restraint and as you say they publicly apologized. I don't think it really makes sense to keep holding that grudge, it's been like six or seven years. I don't especially care for their designs, but that's a separate issue, and I have to concede that "Kiss" is a pretty big improvement over their past work.

[Mattyonyx]

There's something I don't understand about this whole Rebor discussion.
L @Leyster thinks Kiss is overrated despite some objective anatomy flaws (which is more about how people judge models rather than how Rebor works).

He shared his opinion, supported by the diagrams of one of the few paleomiology experts in the whole world, and it quickly escalated into posts of defense towards Rebor and against PNSO, the latter taking attention away from the main topic.

Then, I tried to expand on what Leyster was saying by showing WIP images of Kiss/Tusk and addressed a couple of things about PNSO (which referred to my review of Wilson). What was the quoted part? The PNSO part, with the rest being totally ignored.

So, I'd like to know what part of our posts can be interpreted as an attack against Rebor for their past behavior, especially when this

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".

and this

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...

Pretty sum up our idea about the situation.

[Lynx]

There's something I don't understand about this whole Rebor discussion.
L @Leyster thinks Kiss is overrated despite some objective anatomy flaws (which is more about how people judge models rather than how Rebor works).

He shared his opinion, supported by the diagrams of one of the few paleomiology experts in the whole world, and it quickly escalated into posts of defense towards Rebor and against PNSO, the latter taking attention away from the main topic.

Then, I tried to expand on what Leyster was saying by showing WIP images of Kiss/Tusk and addressed a couple of things about PNSO (which referred to my review of Wilson). What was the quoted part? The PNSO part, with the rest being totally ignored.

So, I'd like to know what part of our posts can be interpreted as an attack against Rebor for their past behavior, especially when this

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".

and this

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...

Pretty sum up our idea about the situation.

I'm unsure who your responding to or referring to. My post was not about your discussion, if that's what you mean.

[Mattyonyx]

It's ok, I understand. However, I'm curious to know what would be an example of reacting negatively to Rebor's newer models just because of their past reputation.

I'm asking because, right after my comment, we've been accused of nitpicking "because they are Rebor", so I'm worried any criticism is seen as people are review-bombing them on a personal grudge.

This has led to a discussion about anatomy itself (which is, IMHO, a cornerstone of accuracy) being strongly contested and ultimately overlooked, and I must admit it feels frustrating.

[Bread]

@Mattyonyx page 61, Leyster mentions PNSO's recent Wilson is superior in terms of accuracy over Kiss. Argument/disagreement went on from there. My whole point of it was: "When it comes down to it, it is really based on pure preference(s) due to each model having numerous issues."

That's really what the drag on is, but I don't know why it is now being mentioned of Rebor's past, cause that itself is just an old unnecessary topic that has been disputed multiple multiple times...

[Lynx]

It's ok, I understand. However, I'm curious to know what would be an example of reacting negatively to Rebor's newer models just because of their past reputation.

I'm asking because, right after my comment, we've been accused of nitpicking "because they are Rebor", so I'm worried any criticism is seen as people are review-bombing them on a personal grudge.

This has led to a discussion about anatomy itself (which is, IMHO, a cornerstone of accuracy) being strongly contested and ultimately overlooked, and I must admit it feels frustrating.

I am sorry if it seemed I was accusing you. I was not referring to anyone in the post, and didn't mean to make it sound like I was. I had not read the previous posts and just had it on my mind and thus said it. I had not even noticed much of a debate right that moment. Again, I apologize if it seemed I was accusing anyone of that.

On another note, I recall seeing some posts in REBOR threads previously, it has been a bit so I can do some searching if you would like. I don't completely agree with past opinions, but I can still find examples of what I previously thought were remarks on it. (if that makes sense)

[jc_4130]

@Concavenator - the Tylosaurus link is interesting!  I would certainly be happy to find a solid rationale for PNSO's interpretation, because other than that it's one of my favorites.  Tylosaurus is what started me down the prehistoric model rabbit hole - I wanted a good Mosasaur model to put with the real mosasaur tooth fossil I had (Prognathadon).  FYI real Mosasaur teeth are surprisingly cheap!

Now if someone could rationalize the teeth on Kronosaurus (AKA Eiectetus), which don't really seem to match the real specimen...

[Halichoeres]

Yeah, similarly I was not trying to debate the merits or demerits of "Kiss," nor accuse anyone in this thread of a grudge against Rebor. There are definitely people still holding a grudge, which you can occasionally see elsewhere on the forum, but they haven't piped up here. Anyway, two parallel conversations, I think, they just both happened to touch on Rebor.

[GojiraGuy1954]

Another thing that bugs me, PNSO also does paleoart, which normally features more accurate designs than the ones they release in model form. PNSOS poses remind me of papos, but worse because, with PNSO, they normally can't even stand and/or topple over with the slightest brush. Something I had never had issues with. They damage very easily because of this.

The museum line models are some of the worst accuracy-wise (not all), the iguanodon is a keen example of this.

A lot of their older models are extremely ugly and remind me of some of REBORs previous models.


Also, off the topic of PNSO, but I find the people that react negatively to REBORs newer models JUST because of a past reputation that they have moved on and apologized for. I am not saying you CAN'T be negative, but doing so with the only intent of targeting REBOR for past behavior is not fair. Credit should be given where credit is due. Rating models badly purely because of a company's past releases and reputation, in general, is not fair. I dunno if that makes sense or not.

When it comes to the discrepancy between the paleoart included and the actual figures, it's definitely weird that they were doing that, but they seem to have corrected this in the latest wave of figures. For example, take a look at the art included with these two figures (Sinraptor and Lingwulong):




With the Siamosaurus it's the same, there's no longer this discrepancy. I wasn't super bothered by that, but it was admittedly odd, especially because PNSO releases those videos in which they reason their choices, so why would you include a different reconstruction than what the figure looks like? (because a prehistoric animal figure is also paleoart) They seem to have corrected this, so there's no longer a discrepancy, but instead they're simply including a photo of the figure, which is a bit lame. Since they're including additional art with their figures, it would be nice if they included paleoart based on the figures, like BotM and Eofauna do. Maybe they didn't have the time to do that?

On another note, I completely disagree with PNSO poses being worse than Papo's. Papo has released the figures with the most ridiculous poses in a very long time (Chilesaurus and Giganotosaurus) and I really don't intend to be offensive, but I don't know how else to describe them. When I say the poses are ridiculous I mean as representations of poses the animal would achieve in real life, if we're talking about stability, well, they succeed (and not every Papo figure is terribly posed though, the Allosaurus and Pachyrhinosaurus, for example, have good poses, though it's also true they're older figures and the general trend is that their poses are generally bad/forced/unrealistic). If, for you, stability is more important than scientific accuracy, I can see why you prefer those poses to PNSO's (and of course, stability is important). However, PNSO includes rods with the bipeds so they can stand (and I believe Rebor also do this sometimes) and they're optional, so you can use them or not. If you're bothered by them, you can opt for not to use them and try the hot-cold water treatment or lean the figure against others, as you would otherwise do with figures that don't include the rod. And I've seen cases where the rod doesn't work either, but sometimes they do (and in my experience, it does, FWIW), so it's nice that at least they're including something.

When it comes to the Iguanodon, it's actually not inaccurate as people say.

The Iguanodon's head is fine. I mean, sure, it's not the usual Iguanodon head, but it's directly based on a real specimen.

The specimen in the reference picture is pretty popular, here's another angle from an old postcard.

until last week I woul've agreed too that it was a chimera, but in one of the recent videos PNSO shares on Facebook they showed the skull they used for the model and, while not having the classic shape (different sex? crushing?) it's undoubtely Iguanodon bernissartensis.

Not to mention it, along with their new Tsintaosaurus, are the first (and currently only) ornithopod figures to include the new proposed neck reconstruction for ornithopods presented in this 2021 paper by Filippo Bertozzo et al. And when it comes to their Museum Line figures, the figures are literally the same as the Prehistoric Animal Models range, really the only differences are the packaging and the pricing. The quality of the figures is the same, and that includes accuracy, for better or worse. It's just that they seem to choose different species for each line, they release the most popular species (which are the best sellers) under the Museum Line (or species that have historical relevance in China's paleontology, like Mamenchisaurus or Tsintaosaurus).

J @jc_4130 when it comes to the PNSO Tylosaurus, check this post out:

about the rostrum: not all Tylosaurus show a rostrum as pronunced as it appears in some restorations. ie Tylosaurus kansasensis (=T.nepaeolicus).
(for some reasons the image won't show up, so here the link: http://oceansofkansas.com/Tylo-new/Update08/figure1.jpg)
If this detail bothers you that much, anyway, you only have to do a little touch up with paint, covering the first two teeth.

I agree with pretty much all your other points though.

And I'm not trying to simply defend PNSO at all means, actually, I have criticised PNSO as well (sometimes I was wrong) and they certainly have aspects that can be criticised (like almost everyone), it's just that I think those points in particular aren't right.

The SInraptor art still looks miles better than the figure because they gave it lips

[Concavenator]

@GojiraGuy1954 it sure looks better. But that's the point, I saw some people complaint because the art they were receiving with the figures looked better than the actual figures and made them wish the figures looked like that. So they fixed this and just included a photo of the figure (which is boring, why would you want a photo of the figure if you're literally getting the figure?). It would make a lot more sense to include art based on the figure (if anything has to be included at all I'd say).