Controversial opinions on dinosaur toys

[GiganotosaurusFan]

@Sim Where have they shown appalling behaviour? Just curious.

[Faelrin]

@Sim While I don't buy Nanmu (out of my budget), I do buy a lot of Mattel JW/JP stuff. Many folks here should be aware by now that I grew up with JP. So there's that aspect of it. I also think it is no different from having an interest in other dated or vintage reconstructions, like the Crystal Palace reconstructions, etc. They are still forms of art. And like you said they are also film characters in a way, and there's plenty of people that buy figures based off similar movie related things. I think many of Nanmu's figures are great tributes to the work done at Stan Winston Studios (for the original JP trilogy species), despite being unofficial.

Of course I also love the real animals, especially as more evidence is found to better our understanding. I also think it is just as interesting to look back on older reconstructions and remember them, and fascinating to see how our understanding of things changed over time.

Edit: As an example I still love modern day reconstructions of dromaeosaurids, but the original JP one has my heart as well, for it was what introduced me to them. While it may best to consider it a movie monster now, it was a pretty good take on Deinonychus for the time, minus being oversized for dramatic effect, and the wrong name of course.

Edit 2: Another way to think of it is to compare it to those that collect vintage figures of Marx, Invicta, Carnegie Collection, etc to this day.

[BlueKrono]

I don't entirely understand why Nanmu gets any attention at all.  An appealing thing about dinosaurs is they were real, so I don't understand the desire for poorly-reconstructed movie characters in figure form (Jurassic Park/World extinct animals).  Consequently, it boggles my mind to imagine what people are paying for unofficial models of those characters.  I find Nanmu's behaviour of very low standard, same for the other companies that plagiarise Jurassic Park/World: REBOR, Schleich, Papo, Itoy...

The JP dinos are movie characters similar to Godzilla, and there's an enormous market for kaiju figures. Not everyone is looking for the most up to date, accurate dinos any more than they want Godzilla to look more like a real lizard. I'm 100% with you on the plagiarism though. Don't know how they get away with it...

[Fembrogon]

I recall hearing somewhere that Universal - or Stan Winston Studios themselves - actually DID try to copyright their dinosaurs back in the 90s; but the claim fell through because dinosaurs, as animals, can't be copyrighted.
I might be misremembering, and I certainly don't have the whole story anyway; but my guess is that the unique JP/Stan Winston designs were simply never properly copyrighted; so if Nanmu, Papo, etc. don't market their figures directly as "Jurassic Park" toys, maybe Universal doesn't have the legal power to go after them. I'm sure Universal WOULD, if they could.

[Bread]

If we want to be technical here, Wdragon was producing unofficial JP inspired models before they acquired the license.

[Sim]

@Sim Where have they shown appalling behaviour? Just curious.

The plagiarism of Jurassic Park/World movie characters.

[Faelrin]

@Bread That was really interesting that had occured. Not something I expected to see but it did.

Hmm kind of reminds me of when Sideshow was flattered with Papo's knockoffs of their statues.

[Lynx]

I have zero interest in collecting theropods. It is the reason I don't have an Allosaurus or any other theropod I don't have nostalgia for.

Ankylosaurids are just more interesting.

[Sim]

Was Sideshow flattered by Papo's knockoffs?  I though that was only said jokingly by a forum member here?

[Faelrin]

@Sim A joke huh? Wouldn't surprise me if I'm misremembering that. Was several years back when I came across that. I'll probably do digging on it once I'm feeling up for it. Unless someone else remembers what I was thinking about. 

[Takama]

I Recall Someone Said that the Sideshow Carnotarus Sculptor was Flatterd by Papos "COPY" of his version,

But that was many years ago and the member who said that is long gone it seems

[Concavenator]

I have zero interest in collecting theropods.

You literally got the Carnegie Carnotaurus the other day haha.
I saw your collection thread and you also have several theropods. 

[Lynx]

I have zero interest in collecting theropods.

You literally got the Carnegie Carnotaurus the other day haha.
I saw your collection thread and you also have several theropods. 

I feel more nostalgic about those creatures (like the carnotaurus and velociraptor I have, for example) because I remember them being significant parts of my childhood. Carnotaurus made me appreciate aspects of theropods that weren't just for fighting, and velociraptor because it was apart of a vast majority of my childhood. 

This is said in the second part of the message you quoted.

[Lynx]

In other words, by 'zero interest' I mean that model has to fall under one of the following for me to even consider it:

- Nostalgic or previously a favorite dinosaur

- Figure has to look pleasing to the eye (sorry Papo dilophosaurus.)

- The figure MUST be a decent representation of the genus. This rule I slack on a little when it comes to Carnegie's and/or models that were good for the time, but are now outdated.

- Under 60 dollars, I won't spend more on something that'll become outdated easily in a year or so, as most theropods go.

- No EXTREMELY fragmentary species. This is a newer rule to keep me from throwing my money at a slightly eye pleasing model now.

By the way, if a model was gifted that's a theropod, I won't get rid of it just for being a theropod. I just have little interest in actually PURCHASING models of theropods anymore.

This entire set of rules and my disinterest is rather new, maybe in the last two months or so. Theropods have just become uninteresting, and I only really find Carnegie models (which often fit right in with the requirements) that I like, thus they are the only figures of theropods I have purchased within the last 6 months.

In other words, it's a tough time to be a theropod in my collection.   

[Concavenator]

- No EXTREMELY fragmentary species. This is a newer rule to keep me from throwing my money at a slightly eye pleasing model now.   

I can relate to that, as I recently adopted that rule too. For example, I find certain models of fragmentary species to be quite tempting (Mesozoic Life Spinosaurus, PNSO Zhuchengtyrannus and Therizinosaurus, the new Safari Cryolophosaurus, BotM Dryptosaurus and Proceratosaurus...) but then I realize it's just not worth it to get figures of such fragmentary animals just because of how nice they look, when there are other nice figures of actually relevant creatures with good fossil remains.

[Faelrin]

@Lynx Sounds like you are fatigued to some extent. It can happen. It's also good to put rules down for what you are collecting as well. I generally stick to the no over $60 rule as well. Really the only exceptions I've made for that are BotM figures. Same applies for fragmentary genera for the most part.

[postsaurischian]

 Rules spoil the fun. I collect what I like. That's all.

[Remko]

- No EXTREMELY fragmentary species. This is a newer rule to keep me from throwing my money at a slightly eye pleasing model now.   

I can relate to that, as I recently adopted that rule too. For example, I find certain models of fragmentary species to be quite tempting (Mesozoic Life Spinosaurus, PNSO Zhuchengtyrannus and Therizinosaurus, the new Safari Cryolophosaurus, BotM Dryptosaurus and Proceratosaurus...) but then I realize it's just not worth it to get figures of such fragmentary animals just because of how nice they look, when there are other nice figures of actually relevant creatures with good fossil remains.

Spinosaurus is hardly fragmentary.
We have a good amount of fossil remains.
Not complete, but far from fragmentary either.

Although it depends on your idea of fragmentary. Just a tooth or part of a mandible, or a single vertebrae, yes. That's fragmentary.

But for Spinosaurus we have various pieces from snout to tail. Albeit from different (aged) individuals. So we have a reasonable idea of it's appearance.

[suspsy]

I would not call Spinosaurus fragmentary anymore either. There's more fossil material for it than there is for Brachiosaurus.

[Lynx]

Rules spoil the fun. I collect what I like. That's all.

Rules are just kinda more budget-friendly for me.