Safari Ltd - new for 2014

[Hermes888]

I could see that argument being made with something like the Papo Tyrannosaurus, but with Carnegie theropods it's just the tip of the tail touching the ground.

[Patrx]

Carnegies tripods really dont look like traditional tail-draggers to me though. The invicta trex is a good example of a tail dragger.

I'd almost prefer it if they were  The Invicta rex is outdated, but it looks much more natural than the Carnegie theropods to me. The tail looks like it's meant to be on the ground. I think Rogers is a fantastic sculptor, but having a dinosaur's tail arc down so that just the very tip of it touches the surface absolutely ruins any sculpt for me. I won't spend money on a single one. However, I've seen some customizations of Carnegie's tripods, with bases, and they look great.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

If you look at the pic a bit more closely it doesn't appear to arch downward ( like the red rex ) so much as curve to the side so the smallest spot touches.  That's not too bad to me and with enough heat easily re-positionable if one wanted. 

Forest doesn't have much choice if it's what Safari/Carnegie want..and Safari is in the same boat if they want to keep it affordable and please retailers who want standing toys.

They could have just had it sitting down I suppose..might not be as impressive then though.

[Simon]

I still differ in the necessity to mock anyone for their efforts particularly when they are not present to defend themselves. I made note of the use of the name alteration to Forrest....an obvious intent to suggest Forrest Gump and mock the artist. That is not humor nor is it particularly .............respectful. Sorry, I disagree.
  My own feeling is I prefer the tripod stance over the big clownly feet or dinosaurs that fall over constantly and suffer from paint chips and damage. While not a perfect soloution it is for me the best answer.

I am sorry to disappoint you amarga, but you are imagining things ... I spelled her name "Forrest" because I thought that was how it was spelled, not for any other reason ...

[Simon]

Regarding the skinny legs thing: aren't the legs of birds quite thin?

It's mostly just tendons, skin and bone. Perhaps Forest Rogers is basing her theropods on living birds.

Maybe, but that is exactly the problem you see - a 7-tonne TRex with spindly legs as depicted above would break them the first time it tried to get up - in any event look at the bones - the ankles and feet of the Trex, as one example, are very wide. 

Giant theropods cannot be compared with small, light modern birds ...

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I still differ in the necessity to mock anyone for their efforts particularly when they are not present to defend themselves. I made note of the use of the name alteration to Forrest....an obvious intent to suggest Forrest Gump and mock the artist. That is not humor nor is it particularly .............respectful. Sorry, I disagree.
  My own feeling is I prefer the tripod stance over the big clownly feet or dinosaurs that fall over constantly and suffer from paint chips and damage. While not a perfect soloution it is for me the best answer.

I am sorry to disappoint you amarga, but you are imagining things ... I spelled her name "Forrest" because I thought that was how it was spelled, not for any other reason ...

I am not sure that really makes it right ....your comment was still made. Wether intentional or not you did say it....but yeah, if that is how you see it, all good.

[Simon]

A little photoshop for your consideration:

[Simon]

 *orthocone* *orthocone* *orthocone*

[Ikessauro]

A little photoshop for your consideration:

So much better!

[pylraster]

On a positive note, I like how the new Rex is rather robust. The Giganotosaurus  from the same line looks anorexic compared to it.

[juju1305]

A little photoshop for your consideration:

So much better!

Agree! This posture and some feathers would have made it so much better.

[Pachyrhinosaurus]

I think tripods are okay, just so long as the tail is only touching the ground, as opposed to dragging. On that note, I do not appreciate the way the tails of the newer Carnegie models are curved the way they are. I hope the tyrannosaurus does not end up like the giganotosaurus or spinosaurus where the thin feet become warped and the animal rolls backwards on the tail which is meant to support it. Great Photoshop job, by the way, that position makes it look more like the holotype which is my background at the moment.

[Simon]

Thank you.

I feel passionate about the subject, so I spent some time last night doing it.

[tyrantqueen]

Regarding the skinny legs thing: aren't the legs of birds quite thin?

It's mostly just tendons, skin and bone. Perhaps Forest Rogers is basing her theropods on living birds.

Maybe, but that is exactly the problem you see - a 7-tonne TRex with spindly legs as depicted above would break them the first time it tried to get up - in any event look at the bones - the ankles and feet of the Trex, as one example, are very wide. 

Giant theropods cannot be compared with small, light modern birds ...

What about the moa? Or the terror birds? Would you consider them to be constructed with weak ankles, also? (I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I am genuinely asking)





Here's a comparison between a Tyrannosaurus foot and a moa bird





Also, I think it's hard to judge the width of the T.rex's ankles when the picture that Carnegie has shown depicts the animal from the side. From the same viewpoint, the are several other depictions of T.rex with "skinny ankles" It seems to me that most of the width in T.rex's ankles are from the front.


I know the fossilised T.rex foot isn't 100% in scale with the Carnegie model, but it's a similar enough size to prove my point.



Most animals don't store much fat/muscle on their lower legs anyway (unless they're obese) Most of the muscle is in the calves, which, from what I can see, seem quite bulked up in FR's sculpt.

Anyway, I think it's just one of those things that varies from artist to artist. Forest Rogers has always depicted theropods with slender, birdlike ankles. The Carnegie museum don't seem to mind, since they're the ones that approve her sculpts.

Since you like to do the photoshop thing, maybe you can tweak the Carnegie T.rex image to show how you would prefer the T.rex's ankles to be depicted? That would be interesting, thanks

[Simon]

Since you like to do the photoshop thing, maybe you can tweak the Carnegie T.rex image to show how you would prefer the T.rex's ankles to be depicted? That would be interesting, thanks

*chuckle*  I DID "tweak them".  Compare them to the original photo above.... 

Regarding the Moa vs. TRex feet:  You want to know the main difference?  About 6 tonnes of difference.  An animal carrying that much weight on just 2 legs, would have to have thick ankles because the tendons and ligaments would have to be suitably enormous.  Especially since we can pretty well surmise that it was not a "plodder" like the elephants of today ...

Also consider:  Rhino vs. Triceratops. 

This is one detail that Jurassic Park got absolutely correct:

[Simon]

Paleoferrequine?  Where are you?  We have a little job for you!   

[tyrantqueen]

Since you like to do the photoshop thing, maybe you can tweak the Carnegie T.rex image to show how you would prefer the T.rex's ankles to be depicted? That would be interesting, thanks

*chuckle*  I DID "tweak them".  Compare them to the original photo above.... 

Regarding the Moa vs. TRex feet:  You want to know the main difference?  About 6 tonnes of difference.  An animal carrying that much weight on just 2 legs, would have to have thick ankles because the tendons and ligaments would have to be suitably enormous.  Especially since we can pretty well surmise that it was not a "plodder" like the elephants of today ...

Also consider:  Rhino vs. Triceratops.

Sorry, I didn't notice that. I concede your point about the moa. Let's agree to disagree then

[Concavenator]

The photoshopped Tyrannosaurus looks much better.

A little photoshop for your consideration:

In that picture the tail does look a little unnatural to me.I think it's because it's too warped.If it could be straight and thinner ( the tail looks fat because it's from the ground angle,I think).And the feet  slightly smaller.
Carnegie needs to resculpt their bad old models (Apatosaurus,Allosaurus,Stegosaurus,Acrocanthosaurus...).I thought  that T-rex was going to be the last one from the resculpting proccess.Oor maybe the anniversary rex needed to get the 'tripod treatment' so they resculpted it...
As for 2015 I think there will be an updated (feathered,of course!) Velociraptor and I just can have the dream of another figure-there are rumours for Archaeopteryx.If we mean to another resculpt a new Allosaurus would be a great idea,I think.
I'm really disappointed that it won't be 2 figures for 2014.We knew that Carnegie was coming with 2 figures in 2014 since September 2012!! 
And then in the last  weeks before the announcement ( or the last days,you can see) it gets delayed for 2015.Isn't that a reason to get disappointed? 

Oh,by the way.Thinking,I noticed a very curious coincidence.
In 2008 (Olimpic year),Carnegie released a resculpt of a sauropod (Diplodocus).Four years later (In 2012,another Olimpic year)Carnegie released a rescukpt of another sauropod (Brachiosaurus).As for the next Olimpic year (2016) I bet they'll release a resculpt of their Apatosaurus.Look out for that becoming true 

[Hermes888]

Everyone seems to be sure that the second Carnegie has been delayed, but I don't think Safari LTD has officially commented on this. Can someone with contacts ask around?

[Concavenator]

Sorry, not sure what happened to Monolophosaurus. Let's see if he'll behave this time.



All other items (yes, including dragons) can be seen right on Safari's website:

http://downloads.safariltd.com/files/Catalog_Images/New_Products/2014_New_Items/

Looks like just the one Carnegie this year.

Dan said that.