Controversial opinions on dinosaur toys

[Bread]

While I do find the PNSO's to be lackluster compared to their Deinocheirus, I find the Papo's to be too outlandish of a pose.

Really though, PNSO's and Papo's are the best option in the market. While I do have issues with both, I don't think either are bad.

I am still all for PNSO's Deinocheirus. If I had to choose any large fluffy 3-clawed model, it would be PNSO's Deinocheirus.

[Stegotyranno420]

Well, Therizinosaurus is not exactly a dinosaur whose proportions are well known, considering we lack almost the whole axial skeleton.

Fair point, but i mean the proportions on PNSO's look very unnatural to my view

[Stegotyranno420]

I also forgot about Battat Nothorhynchus.
That one is also superior in my eyes

[postsaurischian]

I also forgot about Battat Nothorhynchus.
That one is also superior in my eyes

 Did you mean Notorynchus (which I think was a shark)? There's no Battat figure of this species. I guess you meant Nanshiungosaurus.

[Stegotyranno420]

I also forgot about Battat Nothorhynchus.
That one is also superior in my eyes

 Did you mean Notorynchus (which I think was a shark)? There's no Battat figure of this species. I guess you meant Nanshiungosaurus.

Thank you for the correction. I meant Nothronychus, a therizinosaur, but the figure was Nashiungosaurus. PNSOs therizinosaurus is much more intricately detailed but the battat Nashiungosaurus is very appealing

[Leyster]

@Stegotyranno420 you probably meant Nanshiungosaurus. The main problem is that, as with other dinosaur groups, we don't have a reasonabily complete derived therizinosaur skeleton. The restoration we see are more or less inferred from various animals: the skull of Erlikosaurus, the body of Nothronychus, the forelimbs of Therizinosaurus, ecc. But inside a clade dinosaurs are not isometrical copies of each other, and among the parts we can compare there are notable differencies, ie. Suzhousaurus (which, depending on the analysis, might or might not be closer to Therizinosaurus than Nothronychus, has a more horizontal back than the latter. Lots of "Therizinosaurus" restorations are just Scott Hartman's Nothronychus. Given that Therizinosaurus is twice as big as the second biggest therizinosaur (Segnosaurus) and more than ten times heavier than Erlikosaurus, the chances of it being an exact copy or its smaller relatives are low.

[Concavenator]

we don't have a reasonabily complete derived therizinosaur skeleton.

There's Neimongosaurus, which has fairly decent remains:

https://www.deviantart.com/qilong/art/Segnosaurs-For-Your-Amusement-263085077

It's known from 2 (partial) skeletons. Interestingly, according to the cladogram presented by Hartman et al. (2019), Therizinosaurus isn't among the most derived therizinosaurids, whereas the genus Notronychus is the most derived one, so basing a reconstruction of Therizinosaurus off Nothronychus wouldn't be the best idea. Filling in from Erliansaurus (which according to said paper is the sister taxon of Therizinosaurus) or Neimongosaurus would be much better in principle. I would say those two species (E.bellamanus and N.yangi) have relatively good remains. But as you mention, the difference in size between Therizinosaurus and the other known members of its family is pretty noticeable, so the inference may not be so safe. That's why I'm keeping away of fragmentary taxa these days...

[Lynx]

Disregarding scientific accuracy, I far prefer Papos models over PNSO detail and sculpt wise. Figures (MOSTLY..) tend to be high quality in both paint and detail, making it so it is rarely sloppy, (again, mostly.) I find there figures to usually be a better bang for my buck and have not had a bad experience with Papo yet. While they're reputation, and arguably quality of the figures has dropped (through the kronosaurus has certainly changed my mind regarding the downfall), they have a large amount of old releases to make up for it, at least for me.

[Faelrin]

I don't think the Papo is too bad honestly. Sure the claws are too short, the belly a bit too big, the feet, and it probably wouldn't have had pennaceous feathers on the arms, and tail, but I do still like the coloration it sports, and the dynamic posture (edit: and the mix of skin on the belly, and feathers on the back, which PNSO's is similar in that regard). While the PNSO is more in line with what I've wanted to see in a Therizinosaurus figure for years, I really did Papo's on my wishlist for quite some time. Same goes with their Acrocanthosaurus come to think of it. PNSO dethroned both for me. Though who knows, I might still get around to adding them to my collection someday.

I still also prefer Papo's Allosaurus (original, and while I don't have it, I also like the repaint too) and Dimetrodon despite their inaccuracies. Just nothing that has come since has really done it for me, mostly color wise I suppose. I mean I did like the PNSO Allosaurus when it was first revealed, but now that I've had time to sit on it, I'm not digging it as much as I did then. I also prefer Safari Ltd's sculpt, but still not the biggest fan of the white and black markings on it. I guess I'm looking forward to the Cyberzoic and BotM figures will turn out. Another thing is I also prefer A. jimmadseni over A. fragilis (because of the original Big Al fossil, which WWD's Ballad of Big Al was inspired by, and won my heart over as a child), but barely anyone bothers (at least Creative Beast Studio is however).

Edit: This may be a hot take, but I also like the duller coloration of the new Therizinosaurus. I think the brighter colors worked better on the weirdly wonderful Deinocheirus, but I do like the more subtle tones of the latter. I think having it duller too would help prevent a display from being overwhelming, but that may also be due in part to being an autitistic person with sensory issues.  I also imagine most of the mating display was involved with those long claws anyways? But well who truly knows.

[Stegotyranno420]

Disregarding scientific accuracy, I far prefer Papos models over PNSO detail and sculpt wise. Figures (MOSTLY..) tend to be high quality in both paint and detail, making it so it is rarely sloppy, (again, mostly.) I find there figures to usually be a better bang for my buck and have not had a bad experience with Papo yet. While they're reputation, and arguably quality of the figures has dropped (through the kronosaurus has certainly changed my mind regarding the downfall), they have a large amount of old releases to make up for it, at least for me.

I know I sound like a broken record but Papo can really benefit from putting more science into their dinosaurs

[Leyster]

we don't have a reasonabily complete derived therizinosaur skeleton.

There's Neimongosaurus, which has fairly decent remains:

It still lacks the skull, and as you said is too small to safely infer Therizinosaurus from it. It'd be like inferring Tyrannosaurus from Alioramus.

[Newt]

I'm not crazy about the practice of companies giving human nicknames to their dinosaur toys. It's annoyingly cutesy to me, and I find it confusing when people on the forum have a discussion about Wilson and Tusk or whatever. 

[Lynx]

I'm not crazy about the practice of companies giving human nicknames to their dinosaur toys. It's annoyingly cutesy to me, and I find it confusing when people on the forum have a discussion about Wilson and Tusk or whatever.

I personally find them useful when a company has multiple versions of a figure, (for example, it is much easier to say Winter Wilson than PNSO Tyrannosaurus Rex 2021 3.0 or 4.0). However, when a company has only made one version of a figure, like the PNSO Ankylosaurus, I find it pointless to refer to it by its name.

[suspsy]

I have zero interest in a Nothosaurus toy. I just don't find it an interesting sea reptile compared to ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, mosasaurs, and marine crocodiles.

[Halichoeres]

I'm not crazy about the practice of companies giving human nicknames to their dinosaur toys. It's annoyingly cutesy to me, and I find it confusing when people on the forum have a discussion about Wilson and Tusk or whatever.

I personally find them useful when a company has multiple versions of a figure, (for example, it is much easier to say Winter Wilson than PNSO Tyrannosaurus Rex 2021 3.0 or 4.0). However, when a company has only made one version of a figure, like the PNSO Ankylosaurus, I find it pointless to refer to it by its name.

PNSO has called several different figures "Wilson," so it's not even really doing that job. Collectors informally named one of them Winter Wilson precisely because "Wilson" alone wasn't specific enough. They've also had multiple "Doyles." Rebor's names are corny and overwrought, but I guess I have to hand it to them that they don't repeat them.

Anyway, I'm with Newt. Down with given names for dinosaur figures. I'm fine with collectors naming their figures, of course, but they should do it in private and wash their hands afterward.

[Lynx]

I'm not crazy about the practice of companies giving human nicknames to their dinosaur toys. It's annoyingly cutesy to me, and I find it confusing when people on the forum have a discussion about Wilson and Tusk or whatever.

I personally find them useful when a company has multiple versions of a figure, (for example, it is much easier to say Winter Wilson than PNSO Tyrannosaurus Rex 2021 3.0 or 4.0). However, when a company has only made one version of a figure, like the PNSO Ankylosaurus, I find it pointless to refer to it by its name.

PNSO has called several different figures "Wilson," so it's not even really doing that job. Collectors informally named one of them Winter Wilson precisely because "Wilson" alone wasn't specific enough. They've also had multiple "Doyles." Rebor's names are corny and overwrought, but I guess I have to hand it to them that they don't repeat them.

Anyway, I'm with Newt. Down with given names for dinosaur figures. I'm fine with collectors naming their figures, of course, but they should do it in private and wash their hands afterward.

That is very true. I find it annoying personally that a company repeats names, and see no point in naming the figure just to repeat it.

[suspsy]

I rather like how PNSO names all their dinosaurs. I fail to see any harm in it. I also don't think collectors should be shamed for naming their figures if that's what they enjoy. Fun is fun.

[Pachyrhinosaurus]

My controversial opinion: I never really liked PNSO.

[Faelrin]

@Pachyrhinosaurus Now that's a hot take. I'm curious though, how come?

[Lynx]

I rather like how PNSO names all their dinosaurs. I fail to see any harm in it. I also don't think collectors should be shamed for naming their figures if that's what they enjoy. Fun is fun.

Honestly, this is why I'm afraid to share names I make up for figures. People keep telling me it's a bad thing or annoying, and I don't want to be lumped into that just for naming a Spinosaurus 'Reed' or something like that.

I use names to identify the figures I have more than the species or company, and even if I don't share them, I'm afraid of being shamed in person just for mentioning a figure by its name I made up. It's dumb that I have to fret about this, but fun has become something under very strict guidelines, even stepping outside of that and it's considered 'weird'.

Sometimes I use names for identification purposes among a company (ex. using wilson instead of PNSO Tyrannosaurus rex 2021) but even then with multiple releases, it's going to be confusing.