Safari Ltd - new for 2015

[SBell]

They have been lapped by ... Battat....

Really? I really do not get the big fuss about Battat figures. Imho they are poorly painted glossy monstrosities. Some of the figures are very nicely sculpted, but that paintjob just kills them for me.
Having said that. Safari has it's problems. On one hand you have gems such as Kaprosuchus, Rhamphorhynchus, Suchomimus, Acrocanthosaurus, Dunkleosteus and Apatosaurus... On the other there are Spinosaurus, Tyrannosaurus and maybe their Allosaurus. Then again; with almost each new incarnation of a model they produce it's miles ahead of it's predecessor. With the exception of Tyrannosaurus ofcourse. So both Spino and Allo should be redone shortly.

In short: I disagree.

The Spinosaurus (especially) and Allosaurus were part of the line long before Safari DInos really saw the vast improvement--the Spinosaurus is still the original figure from the late 90s/early 2000s. When people say that Safari has lapped many brands, they are talking from about 2006 or so on (which includes all of the models that you mentioned).

[Gwangi]

The Safari Allosaurus? I dunno, I thought their recent offering was quite good and generally well received. A different paint job may be in order but I have little complaints about it otherwise.

[Simon]

*POOF*

[Patrx]

I generally don't bother to distinguish between Wild Safari and Carnegie. Doug Watson and Forest Rogers do have distinct sculpting styles, however.

[CityRaptor]

We had gone through this in the past. Tripod Stance is due to Carnegie not wanting to use bases...Presumbly they found a solution.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

They have been lapped by ... Battat....

Really? I really do not get the big fuss about Battat figures. Imho they are poorly painted glossy monstrosities. Some of the figures are very nicely sculpted, but that paintjob just kills them for me.
Having said that. Safari has it's problems. On one hand you have gems such as Kaprosuchus, Rhamphorhynchus, Suchomimus, Acrocanthosaurus, Dunkleosteus and Apatosaurus... On the other there are Spinosaurus, Tyrannosaurus and maybe their Allosaurus. Then again; with almost each new incarnation of a model they produce it's miles ahead of it's predecessor. With the exception of Tyrannosaurus ofcourse. So both Spino and Allo should be redone shortly.

In short: I disagree.

I really had understood we were getting away from such hateful and rude comments about dinosaur figures and dinosaur lines....I really hope we can find ways to state things in a more enlightened and positive way rather than bashing like we had before which led to bans and what not...cmon for real.

[laticauda]

The Safari Allosaurus? I dunno, I thought their recent offering was quite good and generally well received. A different paint job may be in order but I have little complaints about it otherwise.

I love Allosaurus, but I just can't like this guy.  I have tried, but it looks like a 1980's tail dragger monster to me.  Not a true hunter that animal most likely was.  Many people like this figure, but I still think it looks bad!

[tyrantqueen]

I like the skin details, and I liked all the other toys that this sculptor made for the Wild Safari line (Dilophosaurus, Velociraptor etc.) but the paintjob is a little plain. I wish it had thicker ankles too.

[Daspletodave]

I partly agree with Simon. The Carnegie line has been lapped by Battat (in terms of the quality of the sculpts) but not by Collecta.
Carnegie does bill itself as a Museum Line (as Simon pointed out) so you would expect a high degree of accuracy in all the models. If you visit the Safari website you will find 43 models in the "Carnegie Dinosaur collectibles" line. Of these, 14 are "stinkers" IMO. They are: Allosaurus, Apatosaurus, Apatosaurus baby, Baryonyx, Elasmosaurus, Iguanodon, Kronosaurus, Parasaurolophus, Quetzalcoatlus, old Spinosaurus, Stegosaurus, old Triceratops, old Green T-Rex, and old Velociraptor. That's 32% of the line!
Obviously there have been new sculpts - two new T-Rexes, new Spino, new Trike (meh), and soon a new Velociraptor - but that still leaves a lot of old stinkers.
Compare this to Battat - counting the original 18 Museum of Science replicas and the 6 new Terra figures - just one stinker in the bunch - the Stego with the 8 tail spikes.
And the only other current Museum Line - Bullyland - has 14 figures per their website. Just one stinks - the Pteranodon.
Personally I would love to see Forrest Rogers do brand new sculpts of ten of the above mentioned figures.

[amanda]

The Safari Allosaurus? I dunno, I thought their recent offering was quite good and generally well received. A different paint job may be in order but I have little complaints about it otherwise.

I love Allosaurus, but I just can't like this guy.  I have tried, but it looks like a 1980's tail dragger monster to me.  Not a true hunter that animal most likely was.  Many people like this figure, but I still think it looks bad!

I have this and love it. I tend to base my two legged figures, but even without that my allo stands fine on two legs without the tail touching the ground. I may have just got lucky. I picked him from a group, so was able to be a little picky. The head may be a tad shrink wrapped by today's standards, but it is still my second fave allo. (Papo comes first.......)

[Meso-Cenozoic]

Carnegie's big releases the past 5-6 years have mostly been theropods, and, in my opinion, they have been uniformly AWFUL.  That is a problem for a toy line that bills itself as being something more than your run-of-the-mill dinosaur toy manufacturer.

They have been lapped by Collecta, Battat, and their own WS line.

aw·ful
adjective:   
1. very bad or unpleasant.   
    synonyms: disgusting, horrible, terrible, dreadful, ghastly, nasty, vile, foul, revolting, repulsive, repugnant, odious, sickening, nauseating.

Really??? "Uniformly AWFUL." -- in all caps! And BTW, there have been only 6 theropods made in the past 6 years compared to 5 non-theropods. So I believe "mostly" is a bit of an exaggeration, too.
Within the past 6 years, the theropods would include: 2008 Giga, 2009 Spino, 2010 Cryo, 2011 Carno, 2013 Concavenator, 2014 T. rex, and the upcoming 2015 Velociraptor. -- All uniformly AWFUL? Even the Carno?? LOL!
First off, they are all probably the most anatomically accurate "toy" representations of these animals around today. Something CollectA to this day still can't proclaim. WS has been coming really close. But they don't need the museum's approval. So I think they're able to take a bit more artistic liberties. Battat-Terra have been pretty accurate so far, thanks to Dan LoRusso. But their mass-produced figures are a bit more rough around the edges.

I think where Carnegie has started to fall short is in their most recent paint apps, with the exception of the 2015 Velociraptor, that seems to also have some feather issues. But the anatomy of the sculpt itself I believe is quite accurate. I really don't see these paint problems starting till 2013's Concavenator. Before that, I think they're quite beautifully done. The only other "problem" I think there is is in the aesthetics. The poses seem to be getting a little predictable for their theropods. But that's the art of the figure. It doesn't necessarily make them awful, though. The "art" part is subjective. Not wrong.

So I guess I just don't see the reason for the extreme hatred of their theropod line. Besides the paint and poses of their most recent bipedal meat-eaters, which I think are minor concerns -- figures can be repainted and re-posed, my only gripe is I wish they would release more than one figure per year again. Other than that, I'll keep sticking with them, with hopes of them replacing some of their mass-producing painters and coming up with some fresh alternate poses.

(Just for the record, the other 5 non-theropod figures produced within those years I think are very well done and quite beautiful.)

Heh, heh.  Yes, I said AWFUL and I meant AWFUL because that is my opinion of the Carnegie theropods.  You are free to disagree as it is your right to do.

I agree that their other non-theropods of the past 6-7 years or so have been very, very good.  But its the theropods that are the "line leaders".  And Ms. Rodgers can't sculpt them very well, in my opinion. 

P.S.  Yes, especially the Carnotaurus! A deformed monstrosity bent into an impossible shape.  Why people still wax poetic about that one still baffles me. 

I don't think that the "tripod" pose qualifies as "art".  Its more of a "prop" (pun intended).  And both Collecta and Battat have shown us that you can deliver an anatomically accurate theropod without resorting to Carneginian extremes of "tripodery".

Something just occurred to me - maybe Ms. Rodgers has modeled her theropod's legs after birds?  But there's a big difference between a 100-lb modern ratite and a 6-ton TRex.  All you have to do is look at the bones to see how massive its legs, especially ankles, were.

Well yes, I still think "AWFUL" is a very harsh unrealistic description of Carnegie's theropods. And CollectA STILL does NOT have anatomically correct theropods throughout their line. Even with the new bases they can't get it right. All my 2014 CollectA theropods have fallen over on their bases. The Saurophaganax won't even stand up at all it's so bent over. It and the base just topple over! I don't know why they used such a soft material. My order was even on hold from my dealer because CollectA recalled some to fix this problem. But when I finally got them, like I had just said, they're still falling over. I understand this in particular isn't necessarily an anatomical problem, but more of a quality issue. But some of their non-base theropods are still not totally anatomically correct. They're getting much better, but they always screw something up. I'm also not a "base" person. So I don't mind the tripod poses so much. Safari has gotten better I think with their tripod poses not looking so tripodish. But when I mention the aesthetics, I wasn't necessarily talking about the tripod pose. I was thinking more that their stance and general pose were getting very predictable.

I agree, the new Battat-Terra figures are good. But the mass-production pieces we get aren't nearly as nicely finished as the WS figs. And the quality of the mass-produced sculpts aren't anywhere near the quality of Carnegie's.

So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. To me, "AWFUL" is bottom-of-the-barrel quality, which certainly does not describe Forest Rogers' sculpts. "AWFUL" would best be used to describe CollectA's first few years!

BTW, I also like Safari's Allosaurus. But it's a WS, not Carnegie's. And I think Simon was only talking about his complete disgust of the Carnegie theropods. 

[Gwangi]

The Allosaurus only came up because Alexxitator and Sbell had been talking about the newer WS models earlier in the conversation, refer to the first post on this thread.

[Meso-Cenozoic]

Ah, I see that now, Gwangi. Good! Glad to move on from the icky Carnegie topic. LOL!
(BTW, the frustrated tongue-outta-mouth emoticon was not meant for you. )

Speaking of topic... I should probably get back on topic anyway. This is suppose to be about the 2015 Safari figures. Sorry I went on so long about their past figures. I just couldn't help myself! I felt like a protective father. Hehe!

[Alexxitator]

I shall also rest my case (though it was mostly in defense of Safari) and return to topic.

[Seijun]

P.S.  Yes, especially the Carnotaurus! A deformed monstrosity bent into an impossible shape.  Why people still wax poetic about that one still baffles me. 

What exactly do you dislike about the carno aside from the pose? I prefer tripods over safari and papo clown feet, but I do think that there could be a lot more variety in the tripod stance. Battat uses tripod poses and the animals still have a much wider range of poses than the carnegie sculpts. Other than that, there doesnt seem to be anything wrong with the carno as far as I can tell??

[Simon]

*POOF*

[Concavenator]

P.S.  Yes, especially the Carnotaurus! A deformed monstrosity bent into an impossible shape.  Why people still wax poetic about that one still baffles me. 

What exactly do you dislike about the carno aside from the pose? I prefer tripods over safari and papo clown feet, but I do think that there could be a lot more variety in the tripod stance. Battat uses tripod poses and the animals still have a much wider range of poses than the carnegie sculpts. Other than that, there doesnt seem to be anything wrong with the carno as far as I can tell??

Its the pose. I can't get past the pose.  I also can't look at the darn thing without thinking "Well, hey, Ms. Rodgers, you gave this gracile critter a nice pair of muscular legs - now how about trying the same thing with one of the BIG BOYS???"

Honestly, this is beyond being a rational thing with me.  Forrest Rodgers' theropods turn my stomach.  Its like she gets one part right, then gives up on the rest of the sculpt - the TRex is the best example of this.  Or maybe the Cryolophosaurus - which got a great head - and nothing else.  Take a look at my web gallery and see how for several years I created kitbashes to "save" the good parts of her sculpts. 

The absolute worst is the Giganotosaurus and I guess the twisted head of the Carnotaurus reminds me of it a little bit too.

Look - I'm not gonna convince you to dislike it, and you're not gonna convince me to like it.  Lets leave it at that.  (After all, there are some people who don't like Battats either.  Its a matter of personal taste).

AWFUL is definetely not the accurate adjective for Carnegie's models.If you criticised any Carnegie theropod,criticise the Concavenator.Got delayed and turn out really bland.Their Carnotaurus is an awesome model.The paintjob is great,the pose,not so much.But it's the best Carnotaurus in the market actually,as well as Carnegie's best model,imho.

[amanda]

I will attempt to politely point out that using the words like "horrible, awful, monstrosities, turns my stomach, save what I can" are the aggressive and wholly unhelpful type of language used towards Rebor and Battat Terra. It is the type of language that has convinced some of the artists and long time members here to pull away, and it the type of wording that helps contribute to the feeling of aggressive hostility in the forum. Surely you can come up with better critique than 'it nauseates me"?

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I will attempt to politely point out that using the words like "horrible, awful, monstrosities, turns my stomach, save what I can" are the aggressive and wholly unhelpful type of language used towards Rebor and Battat Terra. It is the type of language that has convinced some of the artists and long time members here to pull away, and it the type of wording that helps contribute to the feeling of aggressive hostility in the forum. Surely you can come up with better critique than 'it nauseates me"?

I tried to make this point a few posts back and it was ignored, so I agree with you Amanda...we are back to bashing basically rather than offering constructive critcism or positive input I fear.

[John]

Don't let the differing opinions get to you.Think of it like this:
"Opinions are like a**holes.Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks."