Do you mind bases for dinosaur figures?

[Concavenator]

Hello,
I created this topic because there are some people who says that  some dinosaur figures need bases,there also people that don't want bases.So I created this poll-topic to see your thoughts guys 

[Concavenator]

I personally chose the second option.I don't mind if some figures wear a base,but,I want that if it has a base,is because the prototype or the final figure itself are prone to fall.I don't want bases as far as possible.

[Jetoar]

I chose the second option, because some figures as Tyrannosaurus with Gallimimus of Collecta needs a base to increased stability for example. The best brand of this ascpect is Favorite because their figures have removable base.

[tyrantqueen]

If the base is plain and simple. I don't like overly complicated bases that draw attention away from the model itself. I like Aaron Doyle's bases for his Shapeways models.

I'm not keen on bases really, I'd prefer the three point stance over a base. Or, some kind of stand to prop the figure up, but can removed if the owner chooses.

As seen here:

[sauroid]

i dont mind bases for figures as long as that would make the figure look more accurate and stable. also preferably, the bases should be detachable. btw, options 1 & 2 are essentially the same.

[therizinosaurus]

For small figures (Carnegie Protoceratops and Deinonychus, many Kaiyodo figures) I don't mind, for anything larger I prefer a 3 point stance or a well-balanced bipedal figure.

[Minnesota Jones]

I do like it if they have bases that the bases can connect together.  That reminds me of the old Aurora Prehistoric Scenes model kits from the early 1970s.  You pop 'em all together and get one big scene.

[Patrx]

The "three-point" stance invariably involves some uncomfortable-looking pose leaning pose, or even worse, a tripod stance. I could never bring myself to spend money on the Carnegie Giganotosaurus or Spinosaurus for that very reason. Safari's been using slightly over-sized feet lately, which is an improvement, but not by much. It's still very distracting.

In short, if the alternatives are either a compromise of pose or one of anatomy, I wholeheartedly support the use of bases on all bipedal dinosaur figures.

[John]

To me,I would rather see either a base or have it posed using the tip of the tail as a third point of contact with the ground than seeing the feet made over-sized for stability.

[Takama]

Personaly i like my figures to stand on there own two feet.   But some figures should relly be made with bases.  I am sometimes  a neat freak. And i get mad when a figure falls on its side and gets paint rubbed because the feet are unstable.   Happend with my CollectA Deinechirus (which i requested to be rubb free when i orderd it). Yes i fixed it using the hair dryer, but the darn thing eventully goes back off balance.    CollectA. If your seeing this, Make a base for ALL biped models.

[Patrx]

To me,I would rather see either a base or have it posed using the tip of the tail as a third point of contact with the ground than seeing the feet made over-sized for stability.

Honestly, the tip-of-the tail thing is a real pet peeve of mine. The trouble with it, from my point of view, is that anybody looking at a figure like that can tell exactly why it was posed that way - for balance. A sculptor would almost certainly never give an animal in such a weird, unnatural posture otherwise. As such, the figure becomes that much less a serious life-reconstruction of a prehistoric organism and more a child's plaything. Granted, these are, in fact, children's playthings; but that is not the purpose for which I spend money on them.

[John]

To me,I would rather see either a base or have it posed using the tip of the tail as a third point of contact with the ground than seeing the feet made over-sized for stability.

Honestly, the tip-of-the tail thing is a real pet peeve of mine. The trouble with it, from my point of view, is that anybody looking at a figure like that can tell exactly why it was posed that way - for balance. A sculptor would almost certainly never give an animal in such a weird, unnatural posture otherwise. As such, the figure becomes that much less a serious life-reconstruction of a prehistoric organism and more a child's plaything. Granted, these are, in fact, children's playthings; but that is not the purpose for which I spend money on them.

In large theropods the tip of the tail thing is just not an issue for me,but I will say that this option would not be viable for a dromaeosaur like Velociraptor or Deinonychus due to their stiff tails.In the case of Velociraptor,the feathers on at least one of it's forelimbs could be sneakily used as a third point of contact while maintaining a horizontal stance with it's tail sticking out high off the ground if one must absolutely not have a base.The good thing about the base option is that it can open up a much wider variety of poses for any bipedal dinosaur.

[joossa]

I prefer no bases. I think a good bipedal figure should be modeled like the real thing, and as such should be able to stand on it's own to feet (or at least molded to stand on it's own two feet)... Papo's Allosaurus comes to mind. However, I am uneducated in the production process and needs of making figures, so my opinion may not be realistic.

[Jetoar]

Personaly i like my figures to stand on there own two feet.   But some figures should relly be made with bases.  I am sometimes  a neat freak. And i get mad when a figure falls on its side and gets paint rubbed because the feet are unstable.   Happend with my CollectA Deinechirus (which i requested to be rubb free when i orderd it). Yes i fixed it using the hair dryer, but the darn thing eventully goes back off balance.    CollectA. If your seeing this, Make a base for ALL biped models.

I use hot and cold water to fix the legs of my figures. It is better than  hair dryer from my point of view

[tyrantqueen]

The "three-point" stance invariably involves some uncomfortable-looking pose leaning pose, or even worse, a tripod stance. I could never bring myself to spend money on the Carnegie Giganotosaurus or Spinosaurus for that very reason. Safari's been using slightly over-sized feet lately, which is an improvement, but not by much. It's still very distracting.

In short, if the alternatives are either a compromise of pose or one of anatomy, I wholeheartedly support the use of bases on all bipedal dinosaur figures.

In my opinion, (and especially the way that Safari does it) clown feet are much worse than three point stance. I think the clown feet on the recent Safaris are absolutely horrible. It looks like it has gigantic starfish attached to its legs:



It does not look like a natural animal- it looks like a deformed mutant. Maybe three point stances are uncomfortable looking, but the animal still has naturally sized legs and feet. With oversized feet, the sculptor is forced to compromise on anatomy to get the figure to balance.

[Patrx]

In the case of Velociraptor,the feathers on at least one of it's forelimbs could be sneakily used as a third point of contact while maintaining a horizontal stance with it's tail sticking out high off the ground if one must absolutely not have a base.The good thing about the base option is that it can open up a much wider variety of poses for any bipedal dinosaur.

I didn't mind that trick with the Carnegie Beipaiosaurus, at it's mostly leaning on a giant, heavy claw - but a Velociraptor putting weight on a delicate, vaned feather strains credulity.

In my opinion, (and especially the way that Safari does it) clown feet are much worse than three point stance. I think the clown feet on the recent Safaris are absolutely horrible. It looks like it has gigantic starfish attached to its legs:

It does not look like a natural animal- it looks like a deformed mutant. Maybe three point stances are uncomfortable looking, but the animal still has naturally sized legs and feet. With oversized feet, the sculptor is forced to compromise on anatomy to get the figure to balance.

Indeed, rather unpleasant - particularly for the Ceratosaurus and the Acrocanthosaurus. Fortunately, I think the Dracorex manages with a slightly more subtle anatomical exaggeration; as such, it's the only one of the three I bought. In any case, while I vastly prefer bases to either compromise, I still prefer the clown-feet to the tripod stance. The former only deforms the feet, while the latter compromises the entire vertebral column.

I prefer no bases. I think a good bipedal figure should be modeled like the real thing, and as such should be able to stand on it's own to feet (or at least molded to stand on it's own two feet)... Papo's Allosaurus comes to mind. However, I am uneducated in the production process and needs of making figures, so my opinion may not be realistic.

Ah, that would certainly be ideal. The only trouble is, real animals have complex systems for maintaining equilibrium; subtly shifting weight about to stay steady. They're made of tissues of varying density. Toy figures, regrettably, are mere masses of dense, uniform plastic. Papo's bipeds are pretty successful at staying upright, but they do have to pose the feet rather far apart to spread the weight of the model.

I'm curious, to those who disapprove of bases; what are the downsides to a figure with a base? It always seemed like a win-win solution to me, I guess I'm surprised to hear that so many people dislike them.

[deanm]

As someone who does not play with his figures (i.e., child) or use them as parts of a diorama, I don't mind figures with bases as they help stabilize the figures better in the display case (no need to rest the wobbly figure in question on another figure or object to make sure they sstay upright).  My 0.02$...   

[tyrantqueen]

As someone who does not play with his figures (i.e., child) or use them as parts of a diorama, I don't mind figures with bases as they help stabilize the figures better in the display case (no need to rest the wobbly figure in question on another figure or object to make sure they sstay upright).  My 0.02$...   

Therein lies the problem, I believe. Most plastic dinosaur toys are aimed at young children who want to play with their toys, and need something sturdy. We as a community are mostly collectors. We buy dino replicas because we like to look at them, but we don't play with them. I'm not saying just because a toy is aimed at children, it won't be very good. There are many great toys that are excellent to collect as well.
I think companies like Safari and CollectA have started to realise the potential of the collectors market, but it doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of their marketing is aimed at kids. I think that toys with bases will never be popular, because they take away from some of the playability.

However, with companies like Sideshow, they don't need to worry about that stuff. They can put bases on their models because they know kids won't be playing with them.

[deanm]

I agree with your points - companies such as Collecta and Safari run a fine balancing act between trying to satisfy both market needs (as their awareness of the collectors market has increased - but the bread and butter sales still come from toy versus collector buying).

Reading the forum here it is clear that a lot of members don't understand that the main focus of a lot of companies is children's toy market and not the collector. That is not to say that the toy companies should not try to get better accuracy etc to satisfy collectors also - just that be aware the two markets are very different.

Other companies such as Sideshow or Mattel who cater to a specific market are not under the same sort pressures (essentially their focus on one market means that the other markets needs are not considered/important/...).  Sideshow has more leniency in this compared to Mattel because parents typically are not going to buy a Sideshow figure for a kid whereas collectors will buy Mattel... 

[Patrx]

To clarify, I'm quite aware of the reasons for which most companies prefer to avoid using bases. What makes me wonder is the number of collectors who appear to dislike them, hence my earlier inquiry.