2014 Hopes & Dreams

[Gwangi]

There are literally only a few Geoworld models that interest me. The Troodon, Guanlong and Falcarius. Other than those three I have no desire to collect the line until improvements are made.

[tyrantqueen]

I hope they improve. It seems odd that they have a paleontologist involved with their models and yet they still make rookie mistakes (like the forearms thing)

Shouldn't a paleontologist be concerned that the models are promoting an inaccurate depiction of dinosaurs to children?

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I guess everyone has their own right and idea how these dinosaurs should all be....my own two cents is the majority are intended to be TOYS. They were not designed nor intended to please adults wielding the latest scientific papers and findings. Do many of these dinosaurs fall short of being accurate or useful as reference pieces due to the mistakes and poor research? I think that depends on the final purposing for the item. If they are to be played with, used to stir the imaginantion and make a young child happy, they are likely to attain their goal.This is what they were designed and intended for mostly. Way too many negatives and downing going on for things that were intended as toys to start with.
  I feel if you want accuracy, scale and correctness in your figures you should be focusing on resins and sculptures, and Shapeways type artists that render the figures much more carefully , correctly and with an eye to being more adult oriented and displayable as accurate representations. There are sojme great lines aimed at the discriminating collector out there...Kaiyodo, Battat, Carnegie to name but a few.   
  Just my two cents but if you buy toys then you get what you purchase and perchance one is exceptionally well done and fulfills your greatest hopes then consider it a plus rather than raining so many negatives and bads for the ones that fall short.
  My choices for dinosaurs as a child were hollow sandbox type dinosaurs, marx pieces or Mpc dinosaurs. I think today we are immensely blessed with the selection and number of species, competing brands and styles offered and am at an utter loss to read so much negative and bad about toys that were intended for children to begin with.

[tyrantqueen]

I guess everyone has their own right and idea how these dinosaurs should all be....my own two cents is the majority are intended to be TOYS. They were not designed nor intended to please adults wielding the latest scientific papers and findings. Do many of these dinosaurs fall short of being accurate or useful as reference pieces due to the mistakes and poor research? I think that depends on the final purposing for the item. If they are to be played with, used to stir the imaginantion and make a young child happy, they are likely to attain their goal.This is what they were designed and intended for mostly. Way too many negatives and downing going on for things that were intended as toys to start with.
  I feel if you want accuracy, scale and correctness in your figures you should be focusing on resins and sculptures, and Shapeways type artists that render the figures much more carefully , correctly and with an eye to being more adult oriented and displayable as accurate representations. There are sojme great lines aimed at the discriminating collector out there...Kaiyodo, Battat, Carnegie to name but a few.   
  Just my two cents but if you buy toys then you get what you purchase and perchance one is exceptionally well done and fulfills your greatest hopes then consider it a plus rather than raining so many negatives and bads for the ones that fall short.
  My choices for dinosaurs as a child were hollow sandbox type dinosaurs, marx pieces or Mpc dinosaurs. I think today we are immensely blessed with the selection and number of species, competing brands and styles offered and am at an utter loss to read so much negative and bad about toys that were intended for children to begin with.

I see where you are going, and it makes sense to a point..but I do not agree that because something is a toy, we should just accept what we are given and not have quality standards.

Some people do care what their kids play with. The are some mothers who refuse to let their daughters play with Barbies because it promotes an unhealthy body image and an unrealistic life view. Just like cartoons and shows made for kids- there is a lot of garbage out there, and it's sad. Just because something is aimed at kids, doesn't mean it has to be shallow, badly made or anything else.

So what's wrong with wanting nicely made toys for young children? It can only be a good thing- so I am going to continue to praise the ones who do well.

What about the lines that people love so much- Invicta, Battat, Carnegie etc? If they had just the same attitude of not bothering to research their models or make them well sculpted, would people remember them so fondly? I think Zopteryx had the right idea when he quoted Housman: "Accuracy is not a virtue; its a duty"

My toys as a child were broken, second hand Jurassic Park models from a local jumble sale. I grew up thinking the raptors in JP were perfectly accurate, until I became an adult and started researching online and reading books.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I think you might be confusing the difference between a toy company wishing to make a set of affordable dinosaurs at a few dollars per piece versus the companies like you mentioned that do research and make much nicer models AT MUCH HIGHER prices. The very reason kids toys are made affordable is they do not require the immense research and attention to detail higher priced pieces command.So no I do disagree with the idea you are trying to push across there. I do not want to pay eighteen dollars for a toy dinosaur for a five year old so people can say...look the horns are placed properly.
That being said, your post also directly contradicts my point. I said that I see no point in all the negatives, the constant use of the word hate and dislike......the constant barrage of NEGATIVES. Your return comment was...." So what's wrong with wanting nicely made toys for young children? It can only be a good thing- so I am going to continue to praise the ones who do well. "
I am all for that myself too...praise and positive and constructive criticism. My post also never took issue with such. I was speaking about the flip side of that, the constant use of terms like hate....ugly, awful and a dozen other words that have become far too over used against childrens toys of all things.
By all means praise and adore...thats why they make toys .

[Gwangi]

The Geoworld models cost about the same as the WS and CollectA models, in some cases they cost more. They also advertise themselves as "eduproducts" and "paleontologist approved" so because of that I'm going to have negative things to say about them until their line improves. I agree with you that they're just toys but on the flip end of that...they're just toys. They don't care if we call them ugly or awful, nor do the children who play with them because they're not on this message board so I'm not sure I understand why this upsets you so much.

Many toys lines are made specifically for children but many others want to appeal to more serious collectors. If it was not for the often harsh criticisms of us collectors than would companies like WS and CollectA have worke. d on improving their lines like they have? The older CollectA models were awful, and ugly. They're getting better. Why is that if children are the target demographic? The kids will play with them all the same. While criticism is often harsh I believe it can strengthen any company that wants to improve on their designs. No one should be offended by the criticism of a toy.

As for what we collect. Toys vs. resin models and sculptures. The later are just not in my budget, too fragile or require a level of painting skill I don't care to work on. For those reasons I collect toys, they're good for me at this stage in my life. If a toy is good, I'll praise it but if it's bad, I'm going to express my opinion on that too. Why wouldn't I?

[amargasaurus cazaui]

The Geoworld models cost about the same as the WS and CollectA models, in some cases they cost more. They also advertise themselves as "eduproducts" and "paleontologist approved" so because of that I'm going to have negative things to say about them until their line improves. I agree with you that they're just toys but on the flip end of that...they're just toys. They don't care if we call them ugly or awful, nor do the children who play with them because they're not on this message board so I'm not sure I understand why this upsets you so much.

Many toys lines are made specifically for children but many others want to appeal to more serious collectors. If it was not for the often harsh criticisms of us collectors than would companies like WS and CollectA have worke. d on improving their lines like they have? The older CollectA models were awful, and ugly. They're getting better. Why is that if children are the target demographic? The kids will play with them all the same. While criticism is often harsh I believe it can strengthen any company that wants to improve on their designs. No one should be offended by the criticism of a toy.

As for what we collect. Toys vs. resin models and sculptures. The later are just not in my budget, too fragile or require a level of painting skill I don't care to work on. For those reasons I collect toys, they're good for me at this stage in my life. If a toy is good, I'll praise it but if it's bad, I'm going to express my opinion on that too. Why wouldn't I?

I actually agree with most of what you put forward there Gwangi and I tend to agree with it. I think if you read my post then you had to understand my comments were and remain centered around the methods for and ways to offer criticism and commentary. I was always told do not criticize unless you can offer a solution for instance. Yes, you can choose to sit and say I hate this figure and it is not well done and I think its garbage...but what does that help? Its a ton of negative and nothing for the positives, nothing to build with or use to improve and is counter productive.. .......one thing to say I did not like the new dimentrodon because the number of toes did not match and the sail did not seem accurately shaped,nor did I care for the method the scales were rendered. What bothers me is reading the constant flux of negatives and use of the word hate, blah, ugly, terrible, poor to describe childrens toys....supposedly in the name of helping them improve?

[Seijun]

The very reason kids toys are made affordable is they do not require the immense research and attention to detail higher priced pieces command.

I would disagree here only because, in most cases, it literally only takes a few seconds of google image searching to pull up a reasonably accurate skeletal restoration. Or they could spend $30 on GP's dinosaur encyclopedia and be covered.

I would agree that in the world of toys, we must all be mindful that they are just toys... I grew up playing with VERY inaccurate dinosaur toys and can honestly say I suffered no ill effects. Most people still think dinosaurs looked like they did in JP. Lets be honest. In the grand scheme of things, it really makes no difference if "the average Joe" thinks trex had pronated hands or not. Its annoying to people who know better, but that's about it. Most people really don't think about dinosaurs or care about them all that much to begin with. The average person knows precious little even about the extant animal kingdom. If someone IS seriously interested in learning about dinosaurs, they will inevitably learn about feathers, pronated hands, digit counts, etc.

On the other hand, this is a dinosaur toy forum, so I think we are obligated to pick apart the accuracy of dinosaur toys, even if most kids dont care, most parents dont care, and most companies don't care. A large part of this community is centered around critiquing. Hence the existence of the review blog. If a company gets their panties in a bunch because someone here thinks their dinosaur toys look like crud, they have two options. They can get over it because they are making toys for kids, not adults.. Or they can decide that they would like to appeal to a small community of adult collectors as well, and spend a few extra moments pulling up some accurate skeletals to use as reference, instead of whatever it is they usually use, lol

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Well said...but just goggling a skeletal drawing does not help with an artist to then sculpt that image into a three dimensional, castable, reproducible, and child safe dinosaur.....nor does it help get the figure past the tons of toy laws within the US for instance. All of this takes time, expense and adds to the final cost of the figure. There is alot more to bringing an accurate dinosaur figure to the market, fully sculpted and that meets all the criteria for a nationally released toy.

[Gwangi]

The Geoworld models cost about the same as the WS and CollectA models, in some cases they cost more. They also advertise themselves as "eduproducts" and "paleontologist approved" so because of that I'm going to have negative things to say about them until their line improves. I agree with you that they're just toys but on the flip end of that...they're just toys. They don't care if we call them ugly or awful, nor do the children who play with them because they're not on this message board so I'm not sure I understand why this upsets you so much.

Many toys lines are made specifically for children but many others want to appeal to more serious collectors. If it was not for the often harsh criticisms of us collectors than would companies like WS and CollectA have worke. d on improving their lines like they have? The older CollectA models were awful, and ugly. They're getting better. Why is that if children are the target demographic? The kids will play with them all the same. While criticism is often harsh I believe it can strengthen any company that wants to improve on their designs. No one should be offended by the criticism of a toy.

As for what we collect. Toys vs. resin models and sculptures. The later are just not in my budget, too fragile or require a level of painting skill I don't care to work on. For those reasons I collect toys, they're good for me at this stage in my life. If a toy is good, I'll praise it but if it's bad, I'm going to express my opinion on that too. Why wouldn't I?

I actually agree with most of what you put forward there Gwangi and I tend to agree with it. I think if you read my post then you had to understand my comments were and remain centered around the methods for and ways to offer criticism and commentary. I was always told do not criticize unless you can offer a solution for instance. Yes, you can choose to sit and say I hate this figure and it is not well done and I think its garbage...but what does that help? Its a ton of negative and nothing for the positives, nothing to build with or use to improve and is counter productive.. .......one thing to say I did not like the new dimentrodon because the number of toes did not match and the sail did not seem accurately shaped,nor did I care for the method the scales were rendered. What bothers me is reading the constant flux of negatives and use of the word hate, blah, ugly, terrible, poor to describe childrens toys....supposedly in the name of helping them improve?

So basically you're saying you're okay with criticism that provides a solution? I'm certainly on board with that, which is why I write reviews. Many figures are nether great nor awful but fall in-between. It helps collectors make decisions if we help them weigh those pros and cons. That said, if someone posts a picture of say... the Schleich Carnotaurus, I have no problem with someone just flat out saying it is ugly or awful because all its inaccuracies have been pointed out before anyway and it is what it is.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

The Geoworld models cost about the same as the WS and CollectA models, in some cases they cost more. They also advertise themselves as "eduproducts" and "paleontologist approved" so because of that I'm going to have negative things to say about them until their line improves. I agree with you that they're just toys but on the flip end of that...they're just toys. They don't care if we call them ugly or awful, nor do the children who play with them because they're not on this message board so I'm not sure I understand why this upsets you so much.

Many toys lines are made specifically for children but many others want to appeal to more serious collectors. If it was not for the often harsh criticisms of us collectors than would companies like WS and CollectA have worke. d on improving their lines like they have? The older CollectA models were awful, and ugly. They're getting better. Why is that if children are the target demographic? The kids will play with them all the same. While criticism is often harsh I believe it can strengthen any company that wants to improve on their designs. No one should be offended by the criticism of a toy.

As for what we collect. Toys vs. resin models and sculptures. The later are just not in my budget, too fragile or require a level of painting skill I don't care to work on. For those reasons I collect toys, they're good for me at this stage in my life. If a toy is good, I'll praise it but if it's bad, I'm going to express my opinion on that too. Why wouldn't I?

I actually agree with most of what you put forward there Gwangi and I tend to agree with it. I think if you read my post then you had to understand my comments were and remain centered around the methods for and ways to offer criticism and commentary. I was always told do not criticize unless you can offer a solution for instance. Yes, you can choose to sit and say I hate this figure and it is not well done and I think its garbage...but what does that help? Its a ton of negative and nothing for the positives, nothing to build with or use to improve and is counter productive.. .......one thing to say I did not like the new dimentrodon because the number of toes did not match and the sail did not seem accurately shaped,nor did I care for the method the scales were rendered. What bothers me is reading the constant flux of negatives and use of the word hate, blah, ugly, terrible, poor to describe childrens toys....supposedly in the name of helping them improve?

So basically you're saying you're okay with criticism that provides a solution? I'm certainly on board with that, which is why I write reviews. Many figures are nether great nor awful but fall in-between. It helps collectors make decisions if we help them weigh those pros and cons. That said, if someone posts a picture of say... the Schleich Carnotaurus, I have no problem with someone just flat out saying it is ugly or awful because all its inaccuracies have been pointed out before anyway and it is what it is.

Precisely Gwangi, exactly what I am trying to put across......if there is bad explain why and how it could be fixed or improved. That to me is how you improve things, rather than loading the truck with negatives and sending it out. That is what i was trying to say.....and no, I dont agree with the Carnotaurus being called ugly and so forth. I still feel there are children here in the forum that could benefit from a larger explanation and reasoning for the dislike. I do not feel that negativism alone is the best method for shaping change or teaching anyone anything...but yes you are correct that one is so obviously out of proportion and not shaped correctly that it makes you wonder what they were trying to do. oh well.......

[tyrantqueen]

The very reason kids toys are made affordable is they do not require the immense research and attention to detail higher priced pieces command.

I would disagree here only because, in most cases, it literally only takes a few seconds of google image searching to pull up a reasonably accurate skeletal restoration. Or they could spend $30 on GP's dinosaur encyclopedia and be covered.

I would agree that in the world of toys, we must all be mindful that they are just toys... I grew up playing with VERY inaccurate dinosaur toys and can honestly say I suffered no ill effects. Most people still think dinosaurs looked like they did in JP. Lets be honest. In the grand scheme of things, it really makes no difference if "the average Joe" thinks trex had pronated hands or not. Its annoying to people who know better, but that's about it. Most people really don't think about dinosaurs or care about them all that much to begin with. The average person knows precious little even about the extant animal kingdom. If someone IS seriously interested in learning about dinosaurs, they will inevitably learn about feathers, pronated hands, digit counts, etc.

On the other hand, this is a dinosaur toy forum, so I think we are obligated to pick apart the accuracy of dinosaur toys, even if most kids dont care, most parents dont care, and most companies don't care. A large part of this community is centered around critiquing. Hence the existence of the review blog. If a company gets their panties in a bunch because someone here thinks their dinosaur toys look like crud, they have two options. They can get over it because they are making toys for kids, not adults.. Or they can decide that they would like to appeal to a small community of adult collectors as well, and spend a few extra moments pulling up some accurate skeletals to use as reference, instead of whatever it is they usually use, lol

This

[crankydinosaur]

Can we at least be excited for the Geoworld mammals?!!? 

[Concavenator]

Again,one person has put the Kosmoceratops name in the Carnegie collection Wikipedia page.
Misteriously,that person has been putting that name on that page since April.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Cleaned up the thread of cryptid discussion and other off-topic ones. 

[brandem]

Would anyone besides me like to see carnegie start doing hominids again? Kenyanthropus, paranthropus, Neanderthal, sure even gigantopithicus would be nice

[tyrantqueen]

Would anyone besides me like to see carnegie start doing hominids again? Kenyanthropus, paranthropus, Neanderthal, sure even gigantopithicus would be nice

What hominids did Carnegie make in the past? I don't remember them making any...but then again I never really paid attention to non dinos

[CityRaptor]

They had Australophitecus. One male, one female.

[brandem]

Would anyone besides me like to see carnegie start doing hominids again? Kenyanthropus, paranthropus, Neanderthal, sure even gigantopithicus would be nice

What hominids did Carnegie make in the past? I don't remember them making any...but then again I never really paid attention to non dinos

They made both a male and female australopithicus, why they made two of the same species that ha  to be bought sesperately I will never know

[Takama]

I doubt that they would make hominids again.