Safari Ltd: New for 2023

[Flaffy]

If anyone cares about what I think of it, here's the review on our own DTB! Big thanks to Safari for the review sample and letting the DTB in on the big announcement.

https://dinotoyblog.com/majungasaurus-wild-safari-by-safari-ltd/

Are the claws on the forelimbs sculpted in or simply just painted?

[Dusty Wren]

So, I'm not very familiar with Majungasaurus at all, and I gotta say, I love these ridiculous proportions. It is, indeed, a sausage with legs.

Kudos to the sculptor for both an excellent sculpt and for figuring out how to get the figure to stand without a base.

[Gwangi]

@Flaffy , the hands have a rough texture while the claws are smooth, so I would say they're sculpted.

[Jose S.M.]

I'm sure it's a Doug Watson sculpt, it has "the feel". And it's a great sculpt and the coloration is out of the usual from Safari in the past few years. It's on my list definitely.

[Lynx]

Wow, well that was a surprise. I'm not sure how to feel about this one, somehow. On one note, it has everything I want in a dinosaur figure. An open mouth, a decent pose, and unique coloration, but at the same time it looks so darn odd. Dare I say Safari LTD has captured Majungasaurus PERFECTLY, maybe there's a small accuracy nitpick with a toe or finger, but if that is the only thing people can come up with complaint-wise, I consider this an awesome start.

At first glance, I didn't like this figure, I felt the proportions were off. But then I remembered Majungasaurus is such a weird dinosaur, that these odd features make sense. The colors are perfect. The pose is perfect. Everything is perfect.

As much as I love the Wild Past version, this is gonna be a tough choice. Might get both.

You have outdone yourself Safari. If the rest of the releases are this good, it will be the first time in a while that I get a non-carnegie theropod model from this company.

[Faelrin]

@CityRaptor That was the first thing that came to my mind too. I didn't even think to check this thread first. Saw it while browsing instagram, and saw @Gwangi 's post of it.

It looks like the integument is also based on the older interpretation of Carnotaurus (pre-2021 paper), with osteoderms, and not the feature scales, but to be fair it could have been sculpted/in progress before that paper came out. Edit: I think the arrangement is similar on the 2021 paper, but I do think the feature scales, or osteoderms as they seem to be depicted here, stick out too much, like on the older Carnotaurus reconstructions.

Also unfortunate claws were added, as Majungasaurus is not known to have them on any of the recovered specimens (such as described in the paper here ). This is in line with other abelisaurids, so have to agree with @Flaffy that this is unfortunate. I think in that case the Wild Past might be the more accurate of the two, but this issue aside, this is still a beautiful figure, and I'd like to get it eventually. At least now we'll have three decent figures of this animal (yes I'm including the Mattel one, which only has a few issues), once both this and the Wild Past version releases.

[ceratopsian]

It's a handsome beast. My perception is that the feet look nicely in proportion.  Perhaps a little out of my usual collecting area, but I could certainly be tempted.

[Flaffy]

Also unfortunate claws were added, as Majungasaurus is not known to have them on any of the recovered specimens (such as described in the paper here ). This is in line with other abelisaurids, so have to agree with @Flaffy that this is unfortunate. I think in that case the Wild Past might be the more accurate of the two, but this issue aside, this is still a beautiful figure, and I'd like to get it eventually. At least now we'll have three decent figures of this animal (yes I'm including the Mattel one, which only has a few issues), once both this and the Wild Past version releases.

A shame indeed. Really don't understand why they got it right with Carnotaurus but not Majungasaurus.
Seems like the Wild Past Majungasaurus will be the definitive version of the genus for the time being then.

[Shane]

I think throwing around terms like "right" and "wrong" as if they are objective truths in regards to issues that are not fully settled in paleontology is a little hyperbolic.

As in all figurines of extinct prehistoric animals, there is some level of speculation involved and paleo-artists must make choices on how to interpret the animal.

The claws are easily painted over, if desired. While they're a sculpted element, the limbs are tiny enough that the change in texture is barely perceptible.

[Jose S.M.]

Maybe if the sculptor is indeed Doug Watson and he wants and has the time to do it, he can weigh in on the claws issue to offer some clarification as he has done in the past. Still i see that claw issue as minimal to disregard an otherwise great figure.

[Lynx]

The nails are barely visible. I don't really understand why we are discarding a figure or calling it "wrong", there is bound to be a reason. I also don't understand definitive when it comes to figures.

[Pachyrhinosaurus]

It looks great! More detailed and naturalistic than the carnotaurus.

The coloration is refreshing to see on a safari figure. It reminds me of what might have been if the Battat majungasaurus would have made it to production. A dark wash would have brought out the details a little better, though. I'll definitely be getting this one when it's ready.

[Flaffy]

I think throwing around terms like "right" and "wrong" as if they are objective truths in regards to issues that are not fully settled in paleontology is a little hyperbolic.

That's fair. However, while the debate on abelisaur unguals is still technically open, there's more evidence pointing towards Majungasaurus lacking well developed unguals as seen in Safari ltd figure than there are supporting them. Even if Majungasaurus did indeed posess ungual phalanges, they would not have been as prominent as they are currently on the figure, as the underlying phalanges and articulate surfaces shows no evidence of supporting such large structures.

"We cannot determine a consistent phalangeal formula for abelisaurs, partly due to uncertainty regarding how complete the available materials are. However, the minimum formula of 1/2/1/1 is probably achieved in all three taxa for which the manus is known. This is the minimum observed formula for Majungasaurus, which may not have possessed any unguals, because there are no distal articular surfaces preserved on any of the phalanges in this specimen. Nonetheless, the possibility that portions of this manus exhibit pathologies renders even this conclusion uncertain. In Aucasaurus, the distal-most preserved phalanges do bear articular surfaces, raising the possibility that unguals were present in this taxon."
- Burch, Carrano 2012

As in all figurines of extinct prehistoric animals, there is some level of speculation involved and paleo-artists must make choices on how to interpret the animal.

Since we have an exceptionally preserved and articulate forelimb of Majungasaurus, I beleive it's safer to go with conservative interpretations as opposed to speculative ones.

The claws are easily painted over, if desired. While they're a sculpted element, the limbs are tiny enough that the change in texture is barely perceptible.

The same argument could be proposed in the opposite direction. Derived abelisaur ungual phalanges would've been miniscule at best. So omitting them from the sculpt would be ideal as anyone who chooses to go for the clawed interpretation can just as easily paint discreet dots on the tips of the digits to represent highly reduced claws. As opposed to requring minor surgery since the claws are currently sculpted into the figure; or be painted over and being left with oversized/over-developed digits in a family infamous for vestigial forelimbs.

[Lynx]

Agreed, the coloration is a long-awaited change that was executed very well.

[Shane]

The same argument could be proposed in the opposite direction. Derived abelisaur ungual phalanges would've been miniscule at best. So omitting them from the sculpt would be ideal as anyone who chooses to go for the clawed interpretation can just as easily paint discreet dots on the tips of the digits to represent highly reduced claws. As opposed to requring minor surgery since the claws are currently sculpted into the figure; or be painted over and being left with oversized/over-developed digits in a family infamous for vestigial forelimbs.

We are talking about literal millimeters of real estate on a 10 inch long figure.

I can't speak to the sculptor's intentions, I just find it a bit tiresome to see so much fixation on such a tiny area of a figure that is, by all accounts, a success. Especially when the issue is not "settled", and thus there is room for speculation.

I promise you, the forelimbs are plenty vestigial.

I understand that some would have preferred a figure with no claws, and I am always appreciative of valid criticism. I just think, in this particular case, it's more a matter of preference than one of "right" and "wrong".

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Looks good to me, I had most of the same thoughts here, the coloration definitely made me think "Demon". This should help out for sure when I'm working on the body for mine. I was mostly concerned about the width of the skull as those images are currently ingrained in my brain after days of carving the head for mine lol but as it said it looks good, teeth may have been set wider out so I kind of figure it would look more like the JW sculpt with a closed mouth.  Anyway I hope it is out soon already signed up to be notified. Great review Gwangi! Dare I hope the next reveal is an Ouranosaurus !? 

[Flaffy]

I understand that some would have preferred a figure with no claws, and I am always appreciative of valid criticism. I just think, in this particular case, it's more a matter of preference than one of "right" and "wrong".

Except when it's not a matter of preference. No abelisaur is known to posess a clawed fourth digit, and the same goes for most dinosaurs. This feature is not up to interpretation to my knowledge.

I can't speak to the sculptor's intentions, I just find it a bit tiresome to see so much fixation on such a tiny area of a figure that is, by all accounts, a success. Especially when the issue is not "settled", and thus there is room for speculation.

Yes it's a tiny area, but it's hard to not ignore a crucial feature of Abelisaurs. For example, if non-key areas of the figure like tail length were slightly off then I wouldn't personally mind. But I believe it's important to place heavier emphasis onto areas/features that makes a dinosaur stand out, and thus it's imperative to get those places right.

Other examples:
- Mattel's Majungasaurus's horn is noticeably innaccurate in shape. Despite it being such a small area on the figure, people noticed as it's one of the defining features of the genus.
- Hasbro's Velociraptors missing the infamous sickle claw; small area in the grand scheme of things, but a crucial trait to omit.
- any Tyrannosaurus figure with 3 fingers instead of 2.

I don't see why people can't appreciate that the Safari Majungasaurus is a home-run of a figure; whilst also acknowledging and discussing the minor inaccuracies present. These two thinkings are not mutually exclusive afterall.

[Jose S.M.]

I mean, no one is wrong for pointing out the apparent mistake but some comments make it seem like it's a low tier or irrelevant figure for that and I think that's not entirely fair.

[Shane]

I don't see why people can't appreciate that the Safari Majungasaurus is a home-run of a figure; whilst also acknowledging and discussing the minor inaccuracies present. These two thinkings are not mutually exclusive afterall.

There's certainly nothing wrong with doing this.

However, it's just human nature that negative comments tend to get more weight and attention than positive ones, so repeating the same points can sometimes feel less like appreciating the figure while acknowledging minor issues, and more like belaboring those issues until they dominate the conversation.

Even if it's not your intention! (I don't think anyone is purposefully trashing the figure or anything - at least not here anyway.)

In any event, I'm glad to see the largely positive response to this figure and hope folks will enjoy it in hand as well.

[Faelrin]

I don't see why people can't appreciate that the Safari Majungasaurus is a home-run of a figure; whilst also acknowledging and discussing the minor inaccuracies present. These two thinkings are not mutually exclusive afterall.

It's this. It doesn't have to be so black and white. One can still greatly appreciate and like a figure, even if some details about the anatomy may be or is erroneous, and wants to address them. For example I really do like the Mattel Majungasaurus even though it incorrectly doubled the head horn, and claws on the hands, etc. The Mattel Postosuchus is another I love despite it's anatomical issues. Another example would be like the PNSO Parasaurolophus which may have been sculpted before the paper on revised hadrosaur neck anatomy, and so is missing neck muscalature it would have had. Edit: Was distracted so forgot to mention it is one of my favorite figures of Parasaurolophus, or any hadrosaur in general.

I also think it is totally valid for one to have a major gripe with this, even if it might be a minor/non-issue overall for others.

I still very much think this is a beautiful figure and was very glad to see it in full earlier today, and I do plan to get it. I don't think any harm is done by offering valid criticism about the anatomy either though.