Detail or accuracy?

[comandantedavid]

An accurate representation of a living animal will have supple skin, convincing musculature, and texture. 
Such details are part of accuracy, just like anatomical features and proportions (number of toes, length of skull, presence or absence of certain features).  Somehow, though, the latter have become the main preoccupation of those concerned with "scientific accuracy," probably because they are more readily established while anatomical detail is necessarily speculative, derived by comparison to living animals.

I didn't vote, because I refuse to prioritize one of these aspects of accuracy over the other.  If I find a serious lack in either area distracting, I won't buy.

[Himmapaan]

For my part, I wonder if 'Detail' is a little insufficient in its scope as an option. I think 'Aesthetics' might be a more appropriate choice against accuracy. It covers much more in the appeal of a figure's appearance than detail alone. A figure needn't be detailed to look good. Conversely, a highly detailed one might still look unattractive.

[Aram-Rex]

When I look for new models for my collection, first important thing that comes to my mind for a figure is detail. Accuracy is important too, but for me not as much as the looks. And colour is an important factor too.

[Concavenator]

Well,I chose accuracy.Really is the detail what distinguishes the brands,(i.e,the level of detail).I love Papo dinosaurs(almost all,but there are exceptions).I think the detail is what says the quality of the brand(or at least is what I think people believe).If accuracy would be more important in the world of the toys,then,CollectA and Safari Ltd.would be better companies than Papo.But actually is the detail what mainly counts,so CollectA & Safari Ltd,are considered a bit "inferior"to Papo(I don't think it,as there are some CollectA and Safari models which are betther than Papo's:Triceratops,Velociraptor and Parasaurolophus).
But,let's suppose there's an incredibly detailed,but totally inaccurate, and old-looking, dinosaur model.
And there's another model which is nice (it doesn't have the detail as the other one),but is perfectly accurate and reflect the very latest scientific discoveries.So I chose accuracy.

[cordylus]

Accuracy all the way. Even if a figure is super detailed and it's still wrong proportionally, I can't take it seriously. Something about knowing for a fact that something is wrong about it kills it for me.

I can also appreciate the effort put into malking accurate models more than the effort of making a bunch of little scales on the skin of an inaccurate dinosaur.

[suspsy]

I've purposely avoided the Papo Velociraptor, Oviraptor, Spinosaurs, Tylosaurus, and Plesiosaurus because they're just too inaccurate for me to get around. The baby Tyrannosaurus rexes are flawed as well, but at least they have cuteness going for them. And I actually like the appearance of the running T. rex; the jagged teeth and scars really give it character.

[tyrantqueen]

I've purposely avoided the Papo Velociraptor, Oviraptor, Spinosaurs, Tylosaurus, and Plesiosaurus because they're just too inaccurate for me to get around. The baby Tyrannosaurus rexes are flawed as well, but at least they have cuteness going for them. And I actually like the appearance of the running T. rex; the jagged teeth and scars really give it character.

I think the Papo Oviraptor is a great model. People like to hate on it because it's inaccurate, but don't appreciate that it's a good model in a different way.
It's a great representation of how the animal used to be viewed- a scaly egg thief. Once upon a time, this was a perfectly reasonable thing to illustrate:



I dedicate part of my collection to old, retro styled models- the Papo Oviraptor fits in perfectly with them. I appreciate that egg guzzling naked oviraptors are not part of reality, but they are still a part of paleontological history, just like tail dragging brontosaurs.

Also, what's with the thread necromancy?

[Gwangi]

I agree with you TQ on the Papo Oviraptor. That said, I'm still on the fence about whether or not I want it. Most of the inaccurate Papo models are inspired by Jurassic Park and I like them for that reason, the only ones I will avoid are the marine reptiles.

[Concavenator]

I've purposely avoided the Papo Velociraptor, Oviraptor, Spinosaurs, Tylosaurus, and Plesiosaurus because they're just too inaccurate for me to get around. The baby Tyrannosaurus rexes are flawed as well, but at least they have cuteness going for them. And I actually like the appearance of the running T. rex; the jagged teeth and scars really give it character.

I think the Papo Oviraptor is a great model. People like to hate on it because it's inaccurate, but don't appreciate that it's a good model in a different way.
It's a great representation of how the animal used to be viewed- a scaly egg thief. Once upon a time, this was a perfectly reasonable thing to illustrate:



I dedicate part of my collection to old, retro styled models- the Papo Oviraptor fits in perfectly with them. I appreciate that egg guzzling naked oviraptors are not part of reality, but they are still a part of paleontological history, just like tail dragging brontosaurs.

Also, what's with the thread necromancy?

I agree with you,the Papo Oviraptor is a nice model,I have it and it is really nice.I understand that people critisises the Papo Velociraptor,or even the Triceratops,because they could get a better treatment knowing Papo.But Papo Oviraptor?In my opinion is a good model

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I ask this somewhat as an aside from the thread purpose, but in keeping with the comments about the Oviraptor. I had understood the Oviraptorids posessed a single large tooth within their beaks that was assumed to be specifically for crushing eggs. While I am fully aware of the brooding oviraptors and the given proof the eggs found in association with them were their own, is the tooth still not suggestive of  egg predation?
  If that is the case, the model , aside from being naked would not be so inaccurate as stated? It would seem quite possible they family were still egg predators in that case. One could go a step further and ask if it might be possible some of the fossils found could have been cases of predation within the oviraptor family....ie citipattis preying on oviraptors, gigantaraptors preying on cittipatti etc. There is a rather blurry and often missed line between Citipatti and oviraptor for instance,with most depicitions of oviraptor actually representing Citipatti.

[tyrantqueen]

I ask this somewhat as an aside from the thread purpose, but in keeping with the comments about the Oviraptor. I had understood the Oviraptorids posessed a single large tooth within their beaks that was assumed to be specifically for crushing eggs. While I am fully aware of the brooding oviraptors and the given proof the eggs found in association with them were their own, is the tooth still not suggestive of  egg predation?
  If that is the case, the model , aside from being naked would not be so inaccurate as stated? It would seem quite possible they family were still egg predators in that case. One could go a step further and ask if it might be possible some of the fossils found could have been cases of predation within the oviraptor family....ie citipattis preying on oviraptors, gigantaraptors preying on cittipatti etc. There is a rather blurry and often missed line between Citipatti and oviraptor for instance,with most depicitions of oviraptor actually representing Citipatti.

I think it's possible it could have eaten eggs. Maybe it did. But there could also be other things it might have used it for (cracking shellfish or nuts) If only there was a mummified oviraptor with a intact stomach so we could know for sure.

It would be pretty neat if that old theory did turn out to be true in the end

I also recall Himmapaan made a beautiful conversion of the Papo Oviraptor a while back...

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I  think it would prove rather ironic given the history. If you allow yourself speculation, imagine a large oviraptorid placing itself over the nest of some rival species, and then feasting on the eggs at its leisure. There are birds today that place their eggs in another species nest to be hatched for instance. Why not predate the entire nest of eggs?

[suspsy]

Wow, that Oviraptor retool is sweet.

I'd be more than happy if Papo churned out retooled versions of Velociraptor and the T. rex family with feathers.

[Gwangi]

I ask this somewhat as an aside from the thread purpose, but in keeping with the comments about the Oviraptor. I had understood the Oviraptorids posessed a single large tooth within their beaks that was assumed to be specifically for crushing eggs. While I am fully aware of the brooding oviraptors and the given proof the eggs found in association with them were their own, is the tooth still not suggestive of  egg predation?
  If that is the case, the model , aside from being naked would not be so inaccurate as stated? It would seem quite possible they family were still egg predators in that case. One could go a step further and ask if it might be possible some of the fossils found could have been cases of predation within the oviraptor family....ie citipattis preying on oviraptors, gigantaraptors preying on cittipatti etc. There is a rather blurry and often missed line between Citipatti and oviraptor for instance,with most depicitions of oviraptor actually representing Citipatti.

I would be surprised if Oviraptor and its kin didn't eat eggs as eggs are a high protein and occasionally easy to get source of food. A lot of animals will eat eggs given the chance. I think Oviraptorids were probably omnivores and that tooth seems like a great seed/nut cracker to me. Caudipteryx was an early Oviraptorosaur and in it we find evidence of gastroliths in the gizzard.

I don't however think any of the known nesting Oviraptor fossils represent predation though as they're all in that same brooding posture.

[therizinosaurus]

I haven't read through the first 3 pages of this thread, but I for one don't care too much about detail or accuracy. I think there's special character figures can have that is completely separate from either--for example, the early Carnegie/Bullyland/Schleich figures are neither detailed nor accurate, yet some of them are my favorite figures of all time. An even more extreme example would be the Marx figures from the 50's. I don't think people should get hung up on what the most accurate and/or detailed figures are, and instead just get whatever speaks to them.

[tyrantqueen]

Wow, that Oviraptor retool is sweet.

I'd be more than happy if Papo churned out retooled versions of Velociraptor and the T. rex family with feathers.

A "retooled" version of the running rex (with feathers) would look horrible imo. It's a movie monster, and was designed with the scaly look in mind. If, however, Papo sculpted a brand new anatomically accurate tyrannosaurus with fuzz, I could live with that.

[Patrx]

A "retooled" version of the running rex (with feathers) would look horrible imo. It's a movie monster, and was designed with the scaly look in mind. If, however, Papo sculpted a brand new anatomically accurate tyrannosaurus with fuzz, I could live with that.

Agreed - Papo's crouching T. rexes are based on Jurassic Park's designs, and the running rex is, I can only assume, based on a horrible nightmare the sculptor had. In any case, simply adding feathers to them would look very odd.
Same goes for the Velociraptor. It's got the look of one of the most iconic movie villains ever; no need to mess with that. That said, if Papo wanted to sculpt a brand-new, fully-feathered Deinonychus, they'd hear no complaints from me.

[Concavenator]

Wow, that Oviraptor retool is sweet.

I'd be more than happy if Papo churned out retooled versions of Velociraptor and the T. rex family with feathers.

A "retooled" version of the running rex (with feathers) would look horrible imo. It's a movie monster, and was designed with the scaly look in mind. If, however, Papo sculpted a brand new anatomically accurate tyrannosaurus with fuzz, I could live with that.

I agree 100 % with you,a feathered running tyrannosaurus from Papo would make it looking very strange.It's perfect as it is,though the arms could be smaller imo.
But,a feathered Therizinosaurus would be most welcome for me.

[fleshanthos]

I voted accuracy but that's BS - I will sure buy the Papo running Rex cos of its "come alive" action detail.

If there actually WERE an accurate AND detailed set?
Who knows?
So long as they weren't painted in outlandish schemes OR in dull browns...

And btw, I prefer the prepainted "toys" only because I suck at painting models.
After making them for over 30 years.

[Megalosaurus]

Hi there.

I vote for DETAIL.

I love figures that look alive and Papo does great in this aspect. A few Safari figures are very detailed as well. CollectA doesn't do very well in this aspect, but sometimes they surprise me (I love that Megacerops).

So, even if Papo makes an unfeathered Therizinosaurus i'll buy it.

Thanks for reading.