Haolonggood - New for 2025

[Sim]

I still think that it's a matter of opinion how significant and worthwhile the new Haolonggood Tyrannosaurus is.  You can repeat the same thing over and over again and it won't change that.  In the end, everyone has to make their own opinion about it.

But that's only an announcement that the toy was going to be retired in 2018, not that it actually had ceased production. Production was still going on when the announcement was made, and did go on right into 2018.

I'm not aware of that.  From what I remember, the 2018 version was a replacement for the previous version.  Do you know about something that wasn't publically shared, perhaps?

Not really. It's apples and oranges here yet again.

Nope, you gave the figure being inaccurate as one of the reasons why it might have been retired, and I showed that there was a figure that contradicts that.

[suspsy]

And the argument about being understanding and forgiving works both ways. It's perfectly okay to not like how many T. rex toys have been made, but that's really not a justification for declaring them pointless or boring or generic. Whether intentional or not, it's insulting to the collectors who do enjoy these toys and to the sculptors who poured a heap of time and energy and effort into crafting them. The individual who crafted the Haolonggood T. rex would surely not appreciate such words.

Again, people complain about figures all the time.  You and at least one other member basically called the Battat Pachyrhinosaurus's colouration rubbish.

Could you kindly show me precisely what I said rather than claiming that I basically said something? And did I ever declare that the toy was "pointless"?

And I like its colouration, but I didn't start a tirade towards the two of you.  I respect that you feel that way about it and I'm not about to accept censure from you in this similar but reversed situation.

No one is censuring anyone here. Why exaggerate like that?

I don't believe collectors are or should feel insulted by a criticism of a figure.

You're not simply criticizing it, though. You've been insisting that it's not significantly different from the old version and that its very existence is pointless, which are both factually incorrect. Did you check those comparison images?

Mercuriceratops, Sierraceratops and Wendiceratops are not known to have that horn arrangement.  I'm not sure if Navajoceratops and Terminocavus are as well.

Unless you can present evidence that they didn't have similar arrangements to other chasmosaurines, there's really no good reason not to assume that they were that way. It's beside the point anyway.

Again, matter of opinion.  You can think what you like, and I'll think what I like.  And for the record, I think people buying something doesn't necessarily make that thing worthwhile. 

See what I wrote previously. Logic is logic.

Also, it's interesting that you think it's stepping over a line, considering all the times you've done that in the past and never apologised for it.

I stand by everything I've said in this thread over the past two days.

You have to expect pushback if you try to dominate someone else on this forum, too.

No one is trying to dominate anyone here.

[Sim]

Could you kindly show me precisely what I said rather than claiming that I basically said something? And did I ever declare that the toy was "pointless"?

I can't remember where on this forum it was and with a malfunctioning search function on this forum I can't locate it.  You didn't say the figure was pointless, but that's not the point.  The point is you said something very negative about the figure.

No one is censuring anyone here. Why exaggerate like that?

I don't believe I'm exaggerating.  Censure is severe disapproval and that's what you and another member have been doing in response to something I've said.

You're not simply criticizing it, though. You've been insisting that it's not significantly different from the old version and that its very existence is pointless, which are both factually incorrect. Did you check those comparison images?

Again, it's a matter of opinion. What I've said are criticisms, and I see no reason why anyone should feel insulted by it.  Yes, I did look at the comparison images.

Also, it's interesting that you think it's stepping over a line, considering all the times you've done that in the past and never apologised for it.

I stand by everything I've said in this thread over the past two days.

Okay, but why are you criticising me for a perceived "crossing a line" when you have done that a number of times in the past and never apologised for it?

No one is trying to dominate anyone here.

Whether you mean it or not, you are attempting to dominate here.

[suspsy]

Could you kindly show me precisely what I said rather than claiming that I basically said something? And did I ever declare that the toy was "pointless"?

I can't remember where on this forum it was and with a malfunctioning search function on this forum I can't locate it.  You didn't say the figure was pointless, but that's not the point.  The point is you said something very negative about the figure.

It absolutely is the point. I stated very clearly that there's a difference between not liking a toy and declaring that it's pointless. Did I even use the exact term "rubbish" for that matter?

No one is censuring anyone here. Why exaggerate like that?

I don't believe I'm exaggerating.  Censure is severe disapproval and that's what you and another member have been doing in response to something I've said.

Censure means formally reprimanding or condemning someone for an action. Since no one here has in any way called for you to be reprimanded or punished, it is really not an applicable term. People are disagreeing with you. That's it.

Again, it's a matter of opinion. What I've said are criticisms, and I see no reason why anyone should feel insulted by it.  Yes, I did look at the comparison images.

And those comparison images clearly shown two significantly different toys. Facts are facts, regardless of how strong one's personal opinion may be.

Okay, but why are you criticising me for a perceived "crossing a line" when you have done that a number of times in the past and never apologised for it?

Again, labelling a toy inherently pointless when it can be shown to be both popular and profitable is simply illogical and incorrect. As much so as claiming that two toys are nearly identical when they are clearly not. Bringing up what you perceive to be past transgressions will not help your case one single bit. That is whataboutism.

Whether you mean it or not, you are attempting to dominate here.

Again, no one has been attempting to dominate anyone here. Nor censure anyone.

[Dino_W]

This discussion is really funny lol

[Turkeysaurus]

This discussion is really funny lol

Meanwhile rest of the forum:

[suspsy]

This discussion is really funny lol

I concur. But it's also become tiresome at this point and I reckon I've had quite enough of it. I'd much rather go back to talking about the size of Torosaurus, or ponder the identity of those two mystery sauropods in the teaser image. Or whether the Deinosuchus will be sculpted with its belly on the ground or held high off the ground in a walking pose.

Hopefully it's the latter.

[Turkeysaurus]

This discussion is really funny lol

I concur. But it's also become tiresome at this point and I reckon I've had quite enough of it. I'd much rather go back to talking about the size of Torosaurus, or ponder the identity of those two mystery sauropods in the teaser image. Or whether the Deinosuchus will be sculpted with its belly on the ground or held high off the ground in a walking pose.

Hopefully it's the latter.

Let's start then.



I used to say don't take silhouettes literally because they were bunch of pics from internet but isn't this T.rex is the one we got?

Torosaurus looks smaller size or maybe sizes on silhouettes won't match up to models.

[suspsy]

This discussion is really funny lol

I concur. But it's also become tiresome at this point and I reckon I've had quite enough of it. I'd much rather go back to talking about the size of Torosaurus, or ponder the identity of those two mystery sauropods in the teaser image. Or whether the Deinosuchus will be sculpted with its belly on the ground or held high off the ground in a walking pose.

Hopefully it's the latter.

Let's start then.



I used to say don't take silhouettes literally because they were bunch of pics from internet but isn't this T.rex is the one we got?

I would say so. But the Giganotosaurus, the Deinosuchus, and the Torosaurus appear to be taken from paleoart.



Surely the actual toys will be posed differently.

And while this is technically off topic for the DTF, I am curious to see the planned extant animals. Hopefully they will eventually lead to prehistoric ones.

[Trenchcoated Rebbachisaur]

That Ceratopsian seems to be Anchiceratops, judging by the size, square frill and silhouette Triceratops. It has three horns and a long frill, after all. 

[Sim]

It absolutely is the point. I stated very clearly that there's a difference between not liking a toy and declaring that it's pointless. Did I even use the exact term "rubbish" for that matter?

The point I'm making is that you expressed this:

Whether intentional or not, it's insulting to the collectors who do enjoy these toys and to the sculptors who poured a heap of time and energy and effort into crafting them. The individual who crafted the Haolonggood T. rex would surely not appreciate such words.

And I'm saying that with regards to the creator's feelings and the people who like the figure, indicating that the figure has a poor colouration is like thinking a figure is pointless.  You might not agree with that, and that's fine, but I do believe what I've said with regards to the consequences being alike.

I don't believe I'm exaggerating.  Censure is severe disapproval and that's what you and another member have been doing in response to something I've said.

Censure means formally reprimanding or condemning someone for an action. Since no one here has in any way called for you to be reprimanded or punished, it is really not an applicable term. People are disagreeing with you. That's it.

I've just looked it up on Google and censure is said to mean what I said.

Again, labelling a toy inherently pointless when it can be shown to be both popular and profitable is simply illogical and incorrect. As much so as claiming that two toys are nearly identical when they are clearly not.

Again, you can think what you think, I can think what I think.

Bringing up what you perceive to be past transgressions will not help your case one single bit. That is whataboutism.

No, it isn't.  The reality is you have said abusive things to me consistently over the years, never apologising for it or taking responsibility for it.  I'll disclose I've found it very upsetting and it has spoilt days for me, and impacted how I felt while I was with other people.  In this "discussion" you have, I believe, continued to be abusive.  So I would like to know why you have this double standard?  It's not fair to censure someone for a perceived wrong, when you have done wrong and never taken responsibility for it.  And I'm going to say it, I don't think anything I've said about this new Haolonggood Tyrannosaurus is inappropriate.

Whether you mean it or not, you are attempting to dominate here.

Again, no one has been attempting to dominate anyone here. Nor censure anyone.

Instead of just dismissing the feedback, perhaps consider carefully that someone is telling you you have been doing those things.

[suspsy]

That Ceratopsian seems to be Anchiceratops, judging by the size, square frill and silhouette Triceratops. It has three horns and a long frill, after all. 

That would explain the relatively small size of the silhouette compared to the T. rex. Anchiceratops wasn't a very large animal. But wasn't there confirmation early on that it's Torosaurus?

[Trenchcoated Rebbachisaur]

That Ceratopsian seems to be Anchiceratops, judging by the size, square frill and silhouette Triceratops. It has three horns and a long frill, after all. 

That would explain the relatively small size of the silhouette compared to the T. rex. Anchiceratops wasn't a very large animal. But wasn't there confirmation early on that it's Torosaurus?

Huh, if there was, I didn't see it. Maybe if it's Torosaurus (though the frill doesn't look to be the right shape) they'll make it a juvenile, after that one juvenile specimen that was floating around?

[Turkeysaurus]

That Ceratopsian seems to be Anchiceratops, judging by the size, square frill and silhouette Triceratops. It has three horns and a long frill, after all. 

That would explain the relatively small size of the silhouette compared to the T. rex. Anchiceratops wasn't a very large animal. But wasn't there confirmation early on that it's Torosaurus?

[suspsy]

That Ceratopsian seems to be Anchiceratops, judging by the size, square frill and silhouette Triceratops. It has three horns and a long frill, after all. 

That would explain the relatively small size of the silhouette compared to the T. rex. Anchiceratops wasn't a very large animal. But wasn't there confirmation early on that it's Torosaurus?

Huh, if there was, I didn't see it. Maybe if it's Torosaurus (though the frill doesn't look to be the right shape) they'll make it a juvenile, after that one juvenile specimen that was floating around?

Another possibility is that the silhouette is that small simply because Haolonggood wanted it to be more discernible. If it were larger, it might be harder to make out from the Deinosuchus and the small sauropod.

Personally, I'd be very happy if it did turn out to be Anchiceratops, although I do still want a Torosaurus. I'd just as quickly snap up one by Safari.

[suspsy]

That Ceratopsian seems to be Anchiceratops, judging by the size, square frill and silhouette Triceratops. It has three horns and a long frill, after all. 

That would explain the relatively small size of the silhouette compared to the T. rex. Anchiceratops wasn't a very large animal. But wasn't there confirmation early on that it's Torosaurus?

Yeah, that would definitely confirm Torosaurus, thanks for the reminder. It would make zero sense to use that silhouette if it were a different chasmosaurine.

So what about those two sauropods then?

[BlueKrono]

If the bickering is getting bad enough that's it's ruining your day, I'd love to point you to the Ignore list. Click on your profile on the top left and look for the peace symbol. It's had a positive impact on my mental and emotional wellbeing.

[Trenchcoated Rebbachisaur]

That Ceratopsian seems to be Anchiceratops, judging by the size, square frill and silhouette Triceratops. It has three horns and a long frill, after all. 

That would explain the relatively small size of the silhouette compared to the T. rex. Anchiceratops wasn't a very large animal. But wasn't there confirmation early on that it's Torosaurus?

Yeah, that would definitely confirm Torosaurus, thanks for the reminder. It would make zero sense to use that silhouette if it were a different chasmosaurine.

So what about those two sauropods then?

Huh. Guess there's some hope for the Saurolophus to not be teensy tiny.

The small Sauropod seems to lack Europasaurus crest, so... Magyarosaurus, Paludititan, etc, take your pick? If the "size is not reliable" factoid holds true I guess it could be basically anything. Maybe Euhelopus, since that's local.
The bigger one is. Definitely a Sauropod of some variety. Some sort of Sauropod, I'd say.

[suspsy]

That Ceratopsian seems to be Anchiceratops, judging by the size, square frill and silhouette Triceratops. It has three horns and a long frill, after all. 

That would explain the relatively small size of the silhouette compared to the T. rex. Anchiceratops wasn't a very large animal. But wasn't there confirmation early on that it's Torosaurus?

Yeah, that would definitely confirm Torosaurus, thanks for the reminder. It would make zero sense to use that silhouette if it were a different chasmosaurine.

So what about those two sauropods then?

Huh. Guess there's some hope for the Saurolophus to not be teensy tiny.

The small Sauropod seems to lack Europasaurus crest, so... Magyarosaurus, Paludititan, etc, take your pick? If the "size is not reliable" factoid holds true I guess it could be basically anything. Maybe Euhelopus, since that's local.
The bigger one is. Definitely a Sauropod of some variety. Some sort of Sauropod, I'd say.

I would say it is far too large to be Magyarosaurus. Euhelopus seems a more likely candidate.

As for the big sauropod, it's obviously bigger than any theropod, but it's a far cry from Brachiosaurus.

[Trenchcoated Rebbachisaur]

It does seem to be a pretty generic smallish Titanosaur. I really do not have the patience to check sizes/art to see which one specifically, and I feel like unless they paint it really nice, make it really cheap, or it's something from a formation I already have many other things from, I'm probably gonna skip it. Whatever it is.
I know we literally just had a huge argument because someone called a figure pointless, but I do not understand what the point in releasing this one is meant to be - I guess it's gonna be a Sauropod in the Triceratops/T.rex price range, but with that smaller one right there, if you want a budget HLG Sauropod you'd probably just get that one instead? Or Amargasaurus/Camarasaurus for that matter? Unless there's some famous Sauropod at that scale I forgot about it's also gonna be an obscure genus, so uh, oof.