Haolonggood - New for 2025

[Ajax88]

What exactly is wrong about eofauna's musculature? I'm just really curious.

Honestly nothing as far as I can tell. I think people who claim this are mainly upset about the way the jaw articulation looks. But I like my Tyrannosaurus with big jowls.  Honestly animals with insanley powerful bite forces have big bulging muscles and lots of flesh arount their throats anyway.

[Ajax88]

What exactly is wrong about eofauna's musculature? I'm just really curious.

Honestly nothing as far as I can tell. I think people who claim this are mainly upset about the way the jaw articulation looks. But I like my Tyrannosaurus with big jowls.  Honestly animals with insanley powerful bite forces have big bulging muscles and lots of flesh arount their throats anyway.

I also find the articulation seams especially easy to hide on the Eofauna figure. The near black paint scheme is very easy to blend on the neck, and I filled the seam with epoxy air dry clay and a painted it black and it looks wonderful!

[thebermuda303]

What exactly is wrong about eofauna's musculature? I'm just really curious.

Honestly nothing as far as I can tell. I think people who claim this are mainly upset about the way the jaw articulation looks. But I like my Tyrannosaurus with big jowls.  Honestly animals with insanley powerful bite forces have big bulging muscles and lots of flesh arount their throats anyway.

Eofauna released a picture of their musculature and head looks good, all the additional tissue is purely external from what I can tell.
I think I finally got a hand of posting pictures here!

Edit* Now as I look at it I wish they'd include the pathologies that sue has.

[Dino_W]

I'm not a huge expert in theropod musculature or anything, so I'll just quote the researcher I talked to.

"First of all, the pterygoid muscles are incorrectly connected, and the pterygoid muscles of the dinosaur are externally wrapped around the lower jaw and connected to the medial lateral pterygoid bone"

" The muscles of the hand are incorrect and lack the pectoral muscles, which makes it difficult to turn the arm"

"The cloaca muscle wraps around the lateral aspect of the caudal femoris muscle, causing difficulty in excretion"

"The muscles are not connected to the muscles, the intercostal muscles are completely mishandled, and the inner and outer intercostal muscles do not connect to each other and wrap around"

"The body is immovable"

[Turkeysaurus]

I have never cared about Rebor's T.rex & Diplodocus muscles. I don't care about Eofauna too. Eofauna, PNSO even Rebor is scientifically accurate enough imo.

Soon we'll complain about why it's made of plastic and not real flesh. 

[SidB]

I'm not a huge expert in theropod musculature or anything, so I'll just quote the researcher I talked to.

"First of all, the pterygoid muscles are incorrectly connected, and the pterygoid muscles of the dinosaur are externally wrapped around the lower jaw and connected to the medial lateral pterygoid bone"

" The muscles of the hand are incorrect and lack the pectoral muscles, which makes it difficult to turn the arm"

"The cloaca muscle wraps around the lateral aspect of the caudal femoris muscle, causing difficulty in excretion"

"The muscles are not connected to the muscles, the intercostal muscles are completely mishandled, and the inner and outer intercostal muscles do not connect to each other and wrap around"

"The body is immovable"

Maybe so, but what would Eofauna's researcher(s) say to this. They deserve an opportunity for a point-by-point rebuttal or at least explanation for their design decisions. I'd like to hear their reasoning and have more of a basis for making an informed conclusion, or at least the start of a process towards such.

[thebermuda303]

I'm not a huge expert in theropod musculature or anything, so I'll just quote the researcher I talked to.

"First of all, the pterygoid muscles are incorrectly connected, and the pterygoid muscles of the dinosaur are externally wrapped around the lower jaw and connected to the medial lateral pterygoid bone"

" The muscles of the hand are incorrect and lack the pectoral muscles, which makes it difficult to turn the arm"

"The cloaca muscle wraps around the lateral aspect of the caudal femoris muscle, causing difficulty in excretion"

"The muscles are not connected to the muscles, the intercostal muscles are completely mishandled, and the inner and outer intercostal muscles do not connect to each other and wrap around"

"The body is immovable"

Makes sense I guess, soft tissue covers any muscle definition so it isn't a big deal at all in my opinion. Comes out better than rebor at least.

[suspsy]

There does come a point where highlighting a toy's scientific accuracy or lack thereof becomes flat out pedantic and in fact pointless.

I wish Haolonggood would reveal their Tyrannosaurus rex already. I'm tired of looking at blurry leaked images.

[thomasw100]

There does come a point where highlighting a toy's scientific accuracy or lack thereof becomes flat out pedantic and in fact pointless.

I wish Haolonggood would reveal their Tyrannosaurus rex already. I'm tired of looking at blurry leaked images.

Honestly I do understand both people who strife for as perfect as possible scientific accuracy and people who are satisfied with a decent level of accuracy. We need to acknowledge how far the quality of these mass produced figures has come in recent years and also how much uncertainty is still there when it comes to anatomical details of extinct animals of which mostly only incomplete bone material is preserved (and only in rare cases skin impressions and other fossilized soft tissue material). I therefore try to take a middle ground in my views on figures and models of extinct animals.

[Concavenator]

There does come a point where highlighting a toy's scientific accuracy or lack thereof becomes flat out pedantic and in fact pointless.

I disagree. What can be an irrelevant inaccuracy to some person could be a relevant inaccuracy to another, and it's fine. Inaccuracies are intrinsically factual, meaning if something is an inaccuracy, then that's a fact. It's up to an individual in question to judge for themselves whether a certain inaccuracy is a dealbreaker or not (or if they care about scientific accuracy at all!). And if it's figures advertised or presumed to be "scientifically accurate" we're talking about, it's perfectly appropriate to highlight or discuss any potential inaccuracies that might be present, as those figures theoretically should be realistic (as in, scientifically accurate) depictions of the creatures they represent. Of course, for extinct animals there will always be unknown inaccuracies, but figures without known inaccuracies can indeed be created, and it's what these companies should strive for. Of course, we are all human and can (and do) make mistakes, but it's also OK for us to discuss inaccuracies, which is interesting for the sort of collector who care about this sort of stuff (which we're completely free to).

Similarly, if some company, say Nanmu, sold a purportedly JP Tyrannosaurus, and rather than resembling the JP T. rex, it was a figure based on Prehistoric Planet's version, wouldn't there be discussions about how inaccurate that figure was? Not as in scientifically inaccurate, but rather how inaccurate when compared to the JP version. Well, there surely would, and it'd also be understandable.

That's basically the same as discussing scientific inaccuracies in a so-called "scientific" figure.

That being said...

I'm not even a myology expert yet I can see noticeable differences between Rebor's Tyrannosaurus and Eofauna's/PNSO's/BotM versions' anatomy, not that that speaks well of Rebor's. And IMO, Eofauna's is still the best Tyrannosaurus figure around.

[Rayeknor]

I think Haolonggood's Argentinosaurus is the best example on how to simulate a very large animal in figure form with scientific accuracy. Granted they obviously took a lot of inspiration from Prehistoric planet/patagotitan remains, and nothing wrong with that, there is a lot of soft tissue that covers up most musculature and bones, ie the argentinosaurus barely has to tiny bumps showing the top of its shoulder blades. But if you know what the skeleton looks like underneath it is quite obvious there is a lot of musculature without the animal looking "buff".

This is consistent with modern huge animals like elephants, large crocodiles and even more so whales. You only get to see their massive amounts of muscle flex when they exert a lot of force, like running, fighting etc.

I get it looks cool with buff figures but like current living creatures large dinosaurs were not buff in the sense of a bodybuilder, think more like a even larger professional strongman/weight lifter. This goes especially for massive, stocky built powerful animals like T-rex and definitively large titanosaurs.

I'm not even a myology expert yet I can see noticeable differences between Rebor's Tyrannosaurus and Eofauna's/PNSO's/BotM versions' anatomy, not that that speaks well of Rebor's. And IMO, Eofauna's is still the best Tyrannosaurus figure around.

I agree, Eofauna has the most accurate figure, but my personal preference rex for now is Rebor's kiss - less accurate, but close enough and a head above others in production quality. They seem to get a lot of hate around here but I've yet to see any other mass produced figures be as sharp in production sculpt/teeth as say their kiss and deinosuchus figures. Haolonggood got them beat and PNSO matched in paintjobs tho.

[Dino_W]

Maybe so, but what would Eofauna's researcher(s) say to this. They deserve an opportunity for a point-by-point rebuttal or at least explanation for their design decisions. I'd like to hear their reasoning and have more of a basis for making an informed conclusion, or at least the start of a process towards such.

Yeah I would 100% agree. It would be interesting to see the explanations for both sides. I'm only hesitant because the researcher does not want to be drawn into a back and forth discussion.

[SidB]

I have never cared about Rebor's T.rex & Diplodocus muscles. I don't care about Eofauna too. Eofauna, PNSO even Rebor is scientifically accurate enough imo.

Soon we'll complain about why it's made of plastic and not real flesh. 

One side effect is a draining of enthusiasm and sense of delight. I'm not referring to the quest for accuracy, either scientific or true to movie accuracy, actually. No, what I find debilitating is sheer negativity, an enjoyment of deconstruction for the sake of dismantling systems of organization for the activities' sake, without any concrete counter proposals, generally accompanied by a distain for or cancellation of the viewpoint of the perspective being demolished.
It's hard, frequently, to distinguish between constructive criticism and the ultimately toxic perspective described above, between the legitimate analysis that ultimately seeks to get at the truth of the matter, versus the nihilism of the "nattering nabob of negativism". Time tells.

[SidB]

Maybe so, but what would Eofauna's researcher(s) say to this. They deserve an opportunity for a point-by-point rebuttal or at least explanation for their design decisions. I'd like to hear their reasoning and have more of a basis for making an informed conclusion, or at least the start of a process towards such.

Yeah I would 100% agree. It would be interesting to see the explanations for both sides. I'm only hesitant because the researcher does not want to be drawn into a back and forth discussion.

Then the assertions have to "hang" without denial or verifiability. That 's more than a bit frustrating that the person is unwilling to submit to the cut and thrust of open discussion.

[Dino_W]

Maybe so, but what would Eofauna's researcher(s) say to this. They deserve an opportunity for a point-by-point rebuttal or at least explanation for their design decisions. I'd like to hear their reasoning and have more of a basis for making an informed conclusion, or at least the start of a process towards such.

Yeah I would 100% agree. It would be interesting to see the explanations for both sides. I'm only hesitant because the researcher does not want to be drawn into a back and forth discussion.

Then the assertions have to "hang" without denial or verifiability. That 's more than a bit frustrating that the person is unwilling to submit to the cut and thrust of open discussion.

I'm just relaying things I heard privately, he's not actively picking an argument with the Eofauna team. I just asked him what he thought about a reconstruction, and he took significant issues with various aspects of it. Really more of my fault for bringing it up tbh.

[Faelrin]

I only just wanted to ask @Halichoeres his informed opinion, I didn't expect this discussion to continue spiraling this way. My bad I guess.

[Dino_W]

I only just wanted to ask @Halichoeres his informed opinion, I didn't expect this discussion to continue spiraling this way. My bad I guess.

Nah you didn't do anything wrong. In retrospect I at least shouldn't have stated things so concretely.

[Turkeysaurus]

[thomasw100]

One side effect is a draining of enthusiasm and sense of delight. I'm not referring to the quest for accuracy, either scientific or true to movie accuracy, actually. No, what I find debilitating is sheer negativity, an enjoyment of deconstruction for the sake of dismantling systems of organization for the activities' sake, without any concrete counter proposals, generally accompanied by a distain for or cancellation of the viewpoint of the perspective being demolished.
It's hard, frequently, to distinguish between constructive criticism and the ultimately toxic perspective described above, between the legitimate analysis that ultimately seeks to get at the truth of the matter, versus the nihilism of the "nattering nabob of negativism". Time tells.

Possibly the structural negativity that you describe may be rather a projection of some negative view on life and world by the people who are involved, which in turn may be the consequence of past traumatizing experiences.

[SidB]

One side effect is a draining of enthusiasm and sense of delight. I'm not referring to the quest for accuracy, either scientific or true to movie accuracy, actually. No, what I find debilitating is sheer negativity, an enjoyment of deconstruction for the sake of dismantling systems of organization for the activities' sake, without any concrete counter proposals, generally accompanied by a distain for or cancellation of the viewpoint of the perspective being demolished.
It's hard, frequently, to distinguish between constructive criticism and the ultimately toxic perspective described above, between the legitimate analysis that ultimately seeks to get at the truth of the matter, versus the nihilism of the "nattering nabob of negativism". Time tells.

Possibly the structural negativity that you describe may be rather a projection of some negative view on life and world by the people who are involved, which in turn may be the consequence of past traumatizing experiences.

Very possible, T @thomasw100 , I think, on the positive side, that the natural, default position for the human mind is is crave order, harmony and balance, at least in appropriate measure. So when the very processes of discursive reasoning are obsessively turned against the products of rationality, it does indicate (if not prove) that there are  disfunctional elements at work within. The normal presuppositions of rationality have been subverted, even though the processes themselves might be fairly sound and even seemingly coherent. I think that this takes some time for the observer to ascertain, and care must be take to avoid confusing such a pathology with the normal analysis and proper "unpacking" of the data of world around us by the valid and well-intentioned critic/ analyst. Maybe it's the difference between the hardened sceptic/cynic on on negative side over against the individual who practices a healthy doubt, open to the truth, wherever it leads, on the positive side.