Feathered dinosaur toys - you're doing it all wrong!

[Libraraptor]

That raptorduck ist so cool!

[tyrantqueen]

Whenever this sort of topic comes up, I always think it can be summed up with this particular image:

[Gwangi]

I suspect that part of the blame for such feather problems rests on an impulse to make the claws visible so as to make the creature more dangerous-looking.

I think it is more likely an inability on the artists part to properly compare the anatomy of a bird and a non-avian dinosaur. In the minds of most people birds don't have hands, they don't know that feathers are growing off their finger so when you have to attach a hand to the animal they don't know what to do with it.

[FUTABA]

Whenever this sort of topic comes up, I always think it can be summed up with this particular image:

I might have to nick that picture for Facebook.

[FUTABA]

I think I've just fallen in love with the Ornithomimus picture.

I think CollectA are perhaps the (easily acquirable / affordable) company most likely to produce a highly realistic interpretation of a feathered dinosaur in the next few years. They've seriously upped their game recently.

Don't forget that CollectA already released two raptors with nicely done feather I think
Utahraptor

And this large deluxe Velociraptor

the other feathered ones, like the Proceratosaurus and Theri are all nicely done as far as feathers on a dino go

It's definitely a step in the right direction but the there's still much room for improved realism. (Basically the arm feather placement that's been mentioned). I think the tails are nicely done though. Avoiding the cat tail look a bit better than many figures. 

[Patrx]

I suspect that part of the blame for such feather problems rests on an impulse to make the claws visible so as to make the creature more dangerous-looking.

I think it is more likely an inability on the artists part to properly compare the anatomy of a bird and a non-avian dinosaur. In the minds of most people birds don't have hands, they don't know that feathers are growing off their finger so when you have to attach a hand to the animal they don't know what to do with it.

That makes sense, too - considering how frequently Archaeopteryx is portrayed with hands haphazardly tacked onto its wings.

[tyrantqueen]

All dinosaurs may have had feathers...so I have a question...was Tyrannosaurus a feathered dinlosaur or simply a dinosaur with feathers?

We don't really know enough yet to say. Realistically, I could see Tyrannosaurus and other large theropods with shaggy, emu-like coats (much like Yutyrannus had) or very fine fuzz, but  I enjoy seeing reconstructions of Tyrannosaurus with showy, avian style plumage as well.

I really like John Conway's reconstructions of theropods. Especially his recent Tyrannosaurus.



It looks menacing, but at the same time, that soft fuzzy coat makes it look adorable

[Patrx]

I really like John Conway's reconstructions of theropods. Especially his recent Tyrannosaurus.
It looks menacing, but at the same time, that soft fuzzy coat makes it look adorable

Indeed, I'm quite fond of that reconstruction! It seems very lifelike to me. Like being stared down by a bear or some similar animal that can go between being cute and being terrifying. It seems that's how modern predators are, so a dinosaur reconstruction that evokes the same thing is all the more believable for it.

[FUTABA]

I really like John Conway's reconstructions of theropods. Especially his recent Tyrannosaurus.
It looks menacing, but at the same time, that soft fuzzy coat makes it look adorable

Indeed, I'm quite fond of that reconstruction! It seems very lifelike to me. Like being stared down by a bear or some similar animal that can go between being cute and being terrifying. It seems that's how modern predators are, so a dinosaur reconstruction that evokes the same thing is all the more believable for it.

Couldn't have put it better myself. 

I was going to compare it to Peter Schouten's Tyrannosaurus from the book Feathered Dinosaurs - The Origin of Birds but after digging out the book and looking at the picture once more, it's not really that good in comparison. Certainly not on par with most of the other reconstructions in the book in my opinion. (Many of which are astoundingly realistic). For all it's teeth and claws and rawr it's still not as sinister and just doesn't have the same realism factor as the Conway picture.

[FUTABA]

Also I think I may have just found what looks to be the inspiration for the Bullyland Velociraptor (?) Another of one Peter Schouten's. (Can't remember if I've already uploaded this before, so apologies if I seem repetitive).




If Bullyland did take inspiration from this (odd coincidence otherwise...) then how did they still manage to get the wings wrong?

I think they just did it to annoy us all personally.

[tyrantqueen]

Actually the Bullyland velociraptor is based on Luis Rey's artwork.





It has his "trademark" blue and yellow face combo

Speaking of Luis Rey, I really wish he would go back to his old, more painterly style of artwork. I don't like his recent work with its overuse of Photoshopped textures.

[FUTABA]

Ah yes I've seen that second picture before.

I like his stuff as it's always very lively and vibrant, but whenever I look at his art for too long it all starts to get a bit garish. A bit hit or miss for me. Not overly keen on his Velo though, not bad but I thought Schouten's was a little OTT until I was reminded of this.

And still, if Bullyland was inspired by the first interpretation, then, again, there's no excuse for them to get the wings wrong. As for the second picture... 

[tyrantqueen]

Ah yes I've seen that second picture before.

I like his stuff as it's always very lively and vibrant, but whenever I look at his art for too long it all starts to get a bit garish. A bit hit or miss for me. Not overly keen on his Velo though, not bad but I thought Schouten's was a little OTT until I was reminded of this.

And still, if Bullyland was inspired by the first interpretation, then, again, there's no excuse for them to get the wings wrong. As for the second picture... 

Yep, you either love his stuff or hate it. I enjoy his work, but he's not one of my absolute favourites.

[Gwangi]

I have Peter Schouten's book and his dinosaurs are hit and miss for me. I for one am not a fan of the above mentioned Velociraptor. I've said it over and over again but I love his take on Archeopteryx.



As for Luis Rey; again, hit and miss. More misses I think, especially with the recent Photoshop trend, likewise his attempts at 3D where the head comes popping out at you. I suppose they're fun for the kids though.

[FUTABA]

Yes the Archaeopteryx is brilliant. I find his smaller animals to be the better, more realistic ones in the book. His bigger theropods are a bit more generic with the same tried and tested method of having them roaring at nothing and looking overly aggressive all the time and constantly goring things up. I know he has said so himself that he preferred to have some action in his artwork for the sake of drama. "My imagination has come to the fore in these compositions, where it is more dramatic (and fun) to reconstruct a dinosaur tearing flesh than say, sleeping", but it often sacrifices the realism I find. (And the John Conway Tyrannosaurus, for example, can convey a sense of drama and menace with more subtlety). He seems to avoid this more in the smaller, less "monstrous" dinosaurs. I think my personal favourites in the book are the Ornithomimids and Oviraptorosaurs.


Especially the herd of Sinornithosaurus. (A bit on the small side here but ya'll get the gist).

[Ridureyu]

I don't know, claiming that EVERY dinosaur had feathers is a recipe for failure... there are some, like Carnotaurus, which we know did not.

[Patrx]

What a nice Archaeopteryx! Someone ought to make a figure like that. I think it's gotten a little old, posing every Archie with its wings spread.

I don't know, claiming that EVERY dinosaur had feathers is a recipe for failure... there are some, like Carnotaurus, which we know did not.

Hey, Carnotaurus may have had feathers - but there are lots of threads about stuff like that already, so I won't digress further.

[FUTABA]

What a nice Archaeopteryx! Someone ought to make a figure like that. I think it's gotten a little old, posing every Archie with its wings spread.

That thought had never occurred to me before but come to think of it, I can't actually remember any Archaeopteryx figure posed in anything but the spread eagle position. This kinda makes the Schouter Archie even more beautiful now so thanks for pointing that out.

[HD-man]

I like his stuff as it's always very lively and vibrant, but whenever I look at his art for too long it all starts to get a bit garish. A bit hit or miss for me. Not overly keen on his Velo though, not bad but I thought Schouten's was a little OTT until I was reminded of this.

And still, if Bullyland was inspired by the first interpretation, then, again, there's no excuse for them to get the wings wrong. As for the second picture... 

While I do have mixed feelings about Rey's dinos (On the 1 hand, I like how lively & anatomically accurate MOST of them are; On the other hand, I'm not a fan of how garish & in-your-face SOME of them are), I've always been a fan of Rey's Secretary Bird-like Velociraptor (especially in model form: http://luisvrey.wordpress.com/2012/09/02/charlie-gets-his-wings/ ). It's my favorite Velociraptor next to Kokoro's (lack of primaries not withstanding: http://piclib.nhm.ac.uk/results.asp?image=049422&itemw=4&itemf=0001&itemstep=1&itemx=9 ).

Anyway, I don't see how Rey's "Fighting Dinosaurs" illustration is at all OTT (especially compared to Schouten's). I mean, the only colorful part of said illustration is the Velociraptor's face. The fight itself is also more realistic-looking. AFAIK, it's the overall best "Fighting Dinosaurs" illustration today. At the very least, it's better than Schouten's (which, among other things, makes Velociraptor look more like a hand puppet or a movie monster or a movie monster hand puppet).

I have Peter Schouten's book and his dinosaurs are hit and miss for me.

Miller put it best when he said, "I bought the book expecting a more technical discussion of the animals discussed therein...but was surprised to find beautiful paintings of questionably-restored dinosaurs" ( http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2008/11/10/long-schoutens-feathered-dinos/ ).

[Skulexander]

Whenever this sort of topic comes up, I always think it can be summed up with this particular image:

I think you'd appreciate a book named All Yesterdays.