CollectA-New for 2015

[triceratops83]

I wonder what their thinking was with the hinged jaws? In my opinion it detracts from quality of the figure, I've never been a fan of that feature

I agree.  I feel this way about other articulated points on a figure too.

It reminds me of Hollywood's insistence that movies need to be released in 3D, or high frame rate. All needless when you're just there to see a good movie. Same with Dinosaur figures. Collecta's good enough already, don't need a feature that can potentially break or fail, and really just takes away from a great sculpt. Animal figurines aren't action figures.

[suspsy]

I wonder what their thinking was with the hinged jaws? In my opinion it detracts from quality of the figure, I've never been a fan of that feature

I agree.  I feel this way about other articulated points on a figure too.

It reminds me of Hollywood's insistence that movies need to be released in 3D, or high frame rate. All needless when you're just there to see a good movie. Same with Dinosaur figures. Collecta's good enough already, don't need a feature that can potentially break or fail, and really just takes away from a great sculpt. Animal figurines aren't action figures.

They are still toys. We adult collectors like to think of our possessions as models or figurines, but the fact remains that CollectA, Papo, Safari, and Schleich are toy companies first and foremost. Without children as the primary consumer, these companies would not be as successful as they have been. That beautiful 1:40 Feathered T. Rex that I plan on displaying on my CollectA shelf with pride next year is the same model that a little boy will be bashing against a Ninja Turtle or feeding Lego minifigures to.

Shoot, I'm going to be playing with mine occasionally too. I like the articulated jaw feature.

[triceratops83]

They are still toys. We adult collectors like to think of our possessions as models or figurines, but the fact remains that CollectA, Papo, Safari, and Schleich are toy companies first and foremost. Without children as the primary consumer, these companies would not be as successful as they have been.

Fair enough, but children use their imaginations to play, having something's mouth open and close just to get sand stuck in the joints can't improve a toy that much. My favourites as a child were the basic Dor Mei Chinasaurs. Just a matter of opinion I suppose but I also take into account practicality. A basic figure cannot be broken by a child unless you add moving parts. I collect Schleich animals for my niece and will not be getting this year's crocs for that reason. I've got nothing against action figures, just feel they're a different medium to figurines. Don't want to seem like I'm arguing, just not my cup of tea, and I hope Collecta doesn't feel they NEED to do this.

[Sim]

I think toys with moveable parts definitely have an important role, but toys without do too.  I agree with triceratops83 that there's a difference between a figurine and an action figure and I'm not keen on figures that try to be both.  As a kid I enjoyed figures without moveable parts and ones with moveable parts and I wouldn't have wanted to have just one or the other.  I also have memories of some moveable parts eventually failing and sand entering the articulated parts and being impossible to get out.  There were times I didn't want to play with articulated toys so I didn't have to move certain parts.  There were also times I enjoyed playing with articulated figures.  My favourite toys as a kid were the Battat dinosaurs.  Moveable parts don't make a figure better when they aren't needed and make the toy look worse, like the CollectA Guidraco, and I can think of a few from Bullyland.  A child's imagination can be enough for a toy to not need moveable parts.  This is how I feel about it, I also don't want to seem like I'm arguing.

[Zhuchengotyrant]

I think toys with moveable parts definitely have an important role, but toys without do too.  I agree with triceratops83 that there's a difference between a figurine and an action figure and I'm not keen on figures that try to be both.  As a kid I enjoyed figures without moveable parts and ones with moveable parts and I wouldn't have wanted to have just one or the other.  I also have memories of some moveable parts eventually failing and sand entering the articulated parts and being impossible to get out.  There were times I didn't want to play with articulated toys so I didn't have to move certain parts.  There were also times I enjoyed playing with articulated figures.  My favourite toys as a kid were the Battat dinosaurs.  Moveable parts don't make a figure better when they aren't needed and make the toy look worse, like the CollectA Guidraco, and I can think of a few from Bullyland.  A child's imagination can be enough for a toy to not need moveable parts.  This is how I feel about it, I also don't want to seem like I'm arguing.

You are right. I have most of the chap meis and when I was smaller and I took them to the beach, they got sand. Also I remember that right after I bought the Therizinosaurus by chap Mei I went to a book store. I was 6-7 so I was playing with it. The arms and legs broke off that same day, and my grandma needed to hot glue it together. I don't mind, as I am more careful now, and it does help me change the position of the mouth, but still. I would prefer not to have them, but I don't mind in the T. Rex Zhuchengtyrannus or in most Papos.

[stargatedalek]

what zuchengtyrannus?

[Zhuchengotyrant]

what zuchengtyrannus?

Earlier in this thread I commented that the T. Rex would work great as a 1/40 scale Zhuchengtyrannus until a real one comes, as they are about the same size.

[stargatedalek]

same with tarbosaurus or even lythronax (if you adjust the scale a bit)

[Sim]

Since it was first revealed, I've not liked the head of the 2015 CollectA Tyrannosaurus and I've finally confirmed why.  The head just doesn't seem to match up with a Tyrannosaurus skull (or a Lythronax or Tarbosaurus skull).  The figure's snout looks far too tall and its nostrils are probably too low, like some of Safari's first Tyrannosaurus figures.  By the way, Tyrannosaurus and Tarbosaurus had quite different skulls:

A=Tarbosaurus B=Tyrannosaurus  Interestingly, Tyrannosaurus has forward facing eyes while Tarbosaurus' eyes faced primarily sideways.

[Gwangi]

I really wish that the people who started these threads would update the original post as the models were announced. Or just not take it upon themselves to start the thread in the first place. I wanted to look at the head of the CollectA model but it is not on page 01, rather than search through all the pages for it I guess I'll go do a Google image search.

[stargatedalek]

I really wish that the people who started these threads would update the original post as the models were announced. Or just not take it upon themselves to start the thread in the first place. I wanted to look at the head of the CollectA model but it is not on page 01, rather than search through all the pages for it I guess I'll go do a Google image search.

I can't agree with you more
its not really an issue if the new pictures are added somewhere on the first page, but when that's not an option its definitely best to update the OP

[Zhuchengotyrant]

I really wish that the people who started these threads would update the original post as the models were announced. Or just not take it upon themselves to start the thread in the first place. I wanted to look at the head of the CollectA model but it is not on page 01, rather than search through all the pages for it I guess I'll go do a Google image search.

I can't agree with you more
its not really an issue if the new pictures are added somewhere on the first page, but when that's not an option its definitely best to update the OP

I tried looking for it again and could not find it. I agree with you guys, but I think it is on page 16. Look there.

[suspsy]

Since it was first revealed, I've not liked the head of the 2015 CollectA Tyrannosaurus and I've finally confirmed why.  The head just doesn't seem to match up with a Tyrannosaurus skull (or a Lythronax or Tarbosaurus skull).  The figure's snout looks far too tall and its nostrils are probably too low, like some of Safari's first Tyrannosaurus figures.  By the way, Tyrannosaurus and Tarbosaurus had quite different skulls:

A=Tarbosaurus B=Tyrannosaurus  Interestingly, Tyrannosaurus has forward facing eyes while Tarbosaurus' eyes faced primarily sideways.

It looks pretty accurate to me. And it's been proposed for more than a decade now that T. Rex's nostrils weren't on top of its snout:

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Edited the first post with pics and info, if I missed any let me know.

[Gwangi]

Thanks Blade for the update and thanks Supsey for that graphic. I knew I had read something about Tyrannosaurus nostril placement someplace before.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

No problem. I recall seeing the image of the nostril placement there before, but I'm guessing it's not a widely accept theory?

[suspsy]

Probably depends on which paleoartist or paleontologist you speak to. I've seen some T. rex art with the nostrils in the lowered position and I've seen other art that depicts T. rex with perforated nostrils like a turkey vulture's.

Anyway, here's the original article:

http://www.nature.com/news/2001/010803/full/news010809-2.html

[leidy]

No problem. I recall seeing the image of the nostril placement there before, but I'm guessing it's not a widely accept theory?

I think it's been a very influential study, it certainly changed how sauropod nostrils are represented. 

[leidy]

Since it was first revealed, I've not liked the head of the 2015 CollectA Tyrannosaurus and I've finally confirmed why.  The head just doesn't seem to match up with a Tyrannosaurus skull (or a Lythronax or Tarbosaurus skull).  The figure's snout looks far too tall and its nostrils are probably too low, like some of Safari's first Tyrannosaurus figures. 

The figure seems to have been following the theory that T.rex had lips, which changes the shape of the snout quite substantially, especially if you go the full length of the teeth. 



The new Collecta T.rex seems to give lip coverage consistent with the missing enamel on the teeth of some specimens like the T.rex Stan, so the amount of visible tooth in the model appears to correspond approximately to the amount of enamel on the tooth.




I don't think there's been any real consensus on lips vs lipless.  It seems to come in and out of fashion.  Incidently, Witmer, who revised the nostril placement issue, had an earlier study which sided with the lipless side of the debate.  Looks like the model is Witmer-compliant on nostrils, but not on lips!

[stargatedalek]

personally I'd say lips are about as statistically likely as something can be
the only known vertebrates without lips are all either aquatic or have bills