Detail or accuracy?

[Faelrin]

Yeah I think Papo figures have something lifelike about them too, despite the inaccuracies (and monstrous looks some of them sport). I feel the same way about the JP dinosaurs. I mean if there are times when dragons in cinema (or statues, etc) can look and be considered "lifelike", or other fantasy creatures like werewolves, why can't the same apply to dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures (or rather figures and reconstructions of them)?

I agree it is certainly a subjective thing. Perhaps it's in part because while I might know how some creatures should look (based on the current evidence and reconstructions available as reference), I don't know a whole lot about physics, and how things should move (or be posed in the case of a figure), etc, outside from studying the animals we have today, which are not always the best for comparisons, or even their specific anatomies down to the muscle and skeleton without a lot of studying and referencing things. Honestly if it weren't for this forum and back when I was on JP Legacy in the paleo section I wouldn't have known that theropods shouldn't have pronated wrists, and that's just one of very many I've learned over the years. And I'm still learning (and I always will as things change or more things are found).

[Syndicate Bias]

Papo does have the more lifelike dinosaurs, that's not subjective. Eofauna has made an amazing Giganotosaurus but in terms of the overall figure it's clearly more of a toy than lifelike. Look at papo's newest models like their spino with resin kits. Pretty lifelike to me if you want honesty.  Now Rebor is another story because of their stamped scales and such

I strongly disagree with the bolded statement. I can't see many Papo dinosaurs as lifelike because to do that I'd have to see them as an animal (or plant etc), and between the unnatural impractical poses, glaring inaccuracies and monstrous features, I can't see many Papo figures as lifelike creatures, just monsters, (some very beautifully sculpted monsters to be sure, but not lifelike animals).

Read what Hali said.

Also can you explain to me what you mean by monster? I see this being thrown around easily and would like to know what you mean.

I think lifelike and accurate can be different things. Fantasy art by people by Julie Bell or James Gurney is anything but realistic, but the luminosity and attention to detail make their work very lifelike. I think it is fair to call Papo's figures, however inaccurate, pretty lifelike in general. But I also think that's a subjective appraisal.

Read what Hali said.

Didn't know we were keeping score but Hali made a good point so my views carry on with his minus the subjective part. Never stated 100% agreement just said read what he said. Please don't interact with me again    @stargatedalek

[Syndicate Bias]

Yeah I think Papo figures have something lifelike about them too, despite the inaccuracies (and monstrous looks some of them sport). I feel the same way about the JP dinosaurs. I mean if there are times when dragons in cinema (or statues, etc) can look and be considered "lifelike", or other fantasy creatures like werewolves, why can't the same apply to dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures (or rather figures and reconstructions of them)?

I agree it is certainly a subjective thing. Perhaps it's in part because while I might know how some creatures should look (based on the current evidence and reconstructions available as reference), I don't know a whole lot about physics, and how things should move (or be posed in the case of a figure), etc, outside from studying the animals we have today, which are not always the best for comparisons, or even their specific anatomies down to the muscle and skeleton without a lot of studying and referencing things. Honestly if it weren't for this forum and back when I was on JP Legacy in the paleo section I wouldn't have known that theropods shouldn't have pronated wrists, and that's just one of very many I've learned over the years. And I'm still learning (and I always will as things change or more things are found).

Might change my mind on this matter. I can't disagree with the fact that it's up to the viewer despite how stubborn I am about the lifelike dinosaurs opinion I have. I guess I tend to look at them from a more general perspective of simply asking whether it looks like it would be close to what it would irl while dismissing the innacuracies. But some people also want accuracy to go with it which is fine but how accurate are most of our dinosaurs anyways? There's always new information every year and what used to be accurate changes and thus we are left with an innacurate figure whether you wanna call it an old reconstruction or a monster.

I went off-topic there 

[Shonisaurus]

For example the dinosaurs and prehistoric animals that are in the process of manufacturing Nanmu Studio (sinoceratops, carnotaurus and mosasaurus respectively) are dinosaurs based on the JW saga that is genetically modified but unreal dinosaurs but the details give me the impression that they will be exceptional . We have an example with the monster film Indoraptor rex of Nanmu Studio whose details are excellent. Although we still know very little about many of the dinosaurs and prehistoric animals mentioned, we must recognize that they are not scientists.

On the contrary Collecta or Safari are very exact figures paleontologically speaking and very detailed but not hyperrealistic as the creatures of Nanmu Studio to cite an example, but nevertheless the scientific precision is outstanding and that is what counts.

Regardless of that, I prefer accuracy in detail, although in scientific dinosaur companies both factors are present.

[Ceratosaurus]

I myself lean towards a dinosaur figure being lifelike. How accurate can a figure be if it doesn't look like it could be alive? I can see it from both sides though depending on the collector. I find myself caring more and more about accuracy all the time where I may not have as much in the past. I agree that new information comes out all the time. What's accurate one day could change the next. I don't think there's a right answer, just preference.

[Gothmog the Baryonyx]

I think my words have been misinterpreted, the reason I don't think Papo figures look life-like is not because of inaccuracies (The Carnegie Spinosaurus is inaccurate but still looks like an animal, the Invicta figures look like animals). It's not the case for all Papo figures, but some of them, like the Allosaurus I just literally cannot see as an animal at all (unless it's a microscopic organism).

[Killekor]

I sincerely don't prefear either accuracy nor detail in a dinosaur model. My criteria on buying dinosaurs are other.
In fact what I search in a dinosaur toy is one (or more) of these 3 characteristics:

- Beauty and/or elegance (like the Carnegie Amargasaurus).
- monster-like and/or cool appareance (like the upcoming Papo Spinosaurus).
- cuteness (like the Schleich Animantarx, which eyes give a really cute appareance to the entire model).

If the examined model doesn't enter in any of this criteria for me it's definitely uninteresting, either if it's accurate or inaccurate, detailed or not. Naturally there are some exceptions (like the Safari Sauropelta or the CollectA Edaphosaurus), but they're really rare.

Killekor