REBOR 1:35 Tyrannosaurus rex museum class replica official photos updated!

[Monkeysaurus]

There a number of ways that its inaccurate, the head is just the most obvious of many. Unless "fairly accurate" means "generally the same shape" I disagree.

The problem isn't that they made a Jurassic park influenced figure, the problem is that they marketed it as scientifically accurate. Their choice to market it deceitfully made many people very angry, especially coupled with their Yutyrannus which suffers from the same deceitful marketing. No matter how you slice it the REBOR Tyrannosaurus is a toy trying to be a statue, and it doesn't have all the best traits of either.

I get what you're saying, however I still don't understand why that would cause someone to be very angry? I could understand why people would have those feelings if someone called you names or vandalized your property because those things cause emotional and financial hardship, however the semantics of a toy vs statue, or the degree of accuracy a company claims to have in a PVC dinosaur? Is it that people feel they're doing a disservice to the community by professing to show scientifically accurate animals with some flaws? If so, why is a flawed perception of extinct animals necessarily a bad thing?

[stargatedalek]

It is a bad thing because people work their entire lives to teach what extinct animals really were, and a company spreading around lies doesn't help anyone. Now if they said it was done as an homage to Jurassic Park, that would be another story. Its not simply about an inaccurate depiction, its about claiming its accurate while knowing full well otherwise.

It's not simply a matter of semantics, but that many people here are interested in toys, not statues. And those who are interested in statues want a statue that is done with heavier material and has a lot riding on presentation. The rock base does its job, but its honestly pretty plain as statues go. The REBOR Tyrannosaurus has no playability, meaning it can't function as a toy/action figure/whatever, but its still made of the same materials as a toy and doesn't really stand up well against larger statues. Its a middle point between toy and statue, and that includes its price tag. People who want a toy can get one that functions better as a toy for significantly less, and people who want a statue can get a "full on" statue for only a bit more.

[Patrx]

There a number of ways that its inaccurate, the head is just the most obvious of many. Unless "fairly accurate" means "generally the same shape" I disagree.

The problem isn't that they made a Jurassic park influenced figure, the problem is that they marketed it as scientifically accurate. Their choice to market it deceitfully made many people very angry, especially coupled with their Yutyrannus which suffers from the same deceitful marketing. No matter how you slice it the REBOR Tyrannosaurus is a toy trying to be a statue, and it doesn't have all the best traits of either.

I get what you're saying, however I still don't understand why that would cause someone to be very angry? I could understand why people would have those feelings if someone called you names or vandalized your property because those things cause emotional and financial hardship, however the semantics of a toy vs statue, or the degree of accuracy a company claims to have in a PVC dinosaur? Is it that people feel they're doing a disservice to the community by professing to show scientifically accurate animals with some flaws? If so, why is a flawed perception of extinct animals necessarily a bad thing?

To properly get into this discussion would require a new thread,  but I do feel compelled to provide a succinct overview of my opinion on the matter. Romanticizing or sensationalizing nonhuman animals, prehistoric or otherwise, can cause real problems. When perceiving animals in only the context in which they relate to us, for example, their uses, "coolness" or "cuteness", we often overlook the reality of their lives and the roles they play (or played) in the ecosystem. It is an unrealistic, and unscientific picture. Of course, the lives of prehistoric dinosaurs are not in danger from their relationship with humans, but it's still a bad habit to be in - as is the ignoring of evidence to suit human whims and aesthetics.

[Monkeysaurus]

Of course, the lives of prehistoric dinosaurs are not in danger from their relationship with humans, but it's still a bad habit to be in - as is the ignoring of evidence to suit human whims and aesthetics.

This makes a lot of sense to me, and I agree that projecting our wants and needs to mold scientific reality is a bad thing, like the people who threatened Galileo with torture unless he "undiscovered" that the Earth revolved around the sun, lol. Ok maybe it's not that extreme, but I get yah. I think we just disagree as to the extent to take that principle, but that's quite alright This happens to be my all time favorite figurine because it's accurate enough, for me, while also "Jurassic Parky" enough to tickle my nostalgia button. Wow, that was probably the strangest choice of words I've ever used.

[joossa]

There a number of ways that its inaccurate, the head is just the most obvious of many. Unless "fairly accurate" means "generally the same shape" I disagree.

The problem isn't that they made a Jurassic park influenced figure, the problem is that they marketed it as scientifically accurate. Their choice to market it deceitfully made many people very angry, especially coupled with their Yutyrannus which suffers from the same deceitful marketing. No matter how you slice it the REBOR Tyrannosaurus is a toy trying to be a statue, and it doesn't have all the best traits of either.

I get what you're saying, however I still don't understand why that would cause someone to be very angry? I could understand why people would have those feelings if someone called you names or vandalized your property because those things cause emotional and financial hardship, however the semantics of a toy vs statue, or the degree of accuracy a company claims to have in a PVC dinosaur? Is it that people feel they're doing a disservice to the community by professing to show scientifically accurate animals with some flaws? If so, why is a flawed perception of extinct animals necessarily a bad thing?

You also have to understand that the rep that was here around the times these models were released left a very sour taste in people's mouths and might have compounded their negative view on the models. The pompous attitude of the rep and approach to advertising these models really fueled emotions around here making people upset, frustrated, and maybe even angry. Granted some forum members were also rude, etc. (This conversation has been had several times in the past, so it is not my intention to return and open that can of worms again.)

IIRC, you said Rebor was "crucified" for the standing issue of the Ceratosaurus, but I think you overlooked the fact that at the time of the release, when the problem was first identified, the rep came in an clearly did not take on the responsibility he should have and instead suggested that "30 second fix" that never worked. Not until more reports of the standing issue were reported and people expressed more disappointment, did the rep take on some responsibility and even then, started a pity party and mentioned they were going to dissolve the company and destroy their prototype sculptures, which I personally believe had little validity to it. People may have "crucified" Rebor over it, but I don't think it was solely due to the standing issue, but a combination of that and how Rebor treated the issue.

My main point here is that some of the emotion seen in the reaction of Rebor's products may not be directly coming from the products themselves, but possibly in part due to how Rebor has handled feedback and criticism. I can dig up so many quotes from that rep to demonstrate, but again, no point in discussing what has been discussed many times over. Hopefully, now that the old Rebor rep is gone and that the company is entering their second year and has a great line up, inherit views on their products may start to change. I hope the replacement rep, Ms. Rebor is able to post again and interact with us.

[tanystropheus]

The REBOR Tyrannosaurus has no playability, meaning it can't function as a toy/action figure/whatever, but its still made of the same materials as a toy and doesn't really stand up well against larger statues. Its a middle point between toy and statue, and that includes its price tag. People who want a toy can get one that functions better as a toy for significantly less, and people who want a statue can get a "full on" statue for only a bit more.

I think the midpoint between statue and toy is a very good niche for REBOR to leverage and take advantage of. I agree that the T-rex lacks playability, and the rock stand is rather flimsy, in and of itself. However, as far as the materials are concerned, they feel similar to Sideshow. I don't expect people to know how they feel unless they've had some hands-on experience with the toys models. I can't afford statues (other than that one SS Mosasaurus), and most toy brands leave me feeling a bit empty inside...especially, because I'm a bit of an artist aspirant (and REBOR has its origins as an art company, If I'm not mistaken)  I like shapeways and model kits, but they are too flimsy and require far more craftsmanship than I am willing to devote..

[Dobber]

There a number of ways that its inaccurate, the head is just the most obvious of many. Unless "fairly accurate" means "generally the same shape" I disagree.

The problem isn't that they made a Jurassic park influenced figure, the problem is that they marketed it as scientifically accurate. Their choice to market it deceitfully made many people very angry, especially coupled with their Yutyrannus which suffers from the same deceitful marketing. No matter how you slice it the REBOR Tyrannosaurus is a toy trying to be a statue, and it doesn't have all the best traits of either.

I get what you're saying, however I still don't understand why that would cause someone to be very angry? I could understand why people would have those feelings if someone called you names or vandalized your property because those things cause emotional and financial hardship, however the semantics of a toy vs statue, or the degree of accuracy a company claims to have in a PVC dinosaur? Is it that people feel they're doing a disservice to the community by professing to show scientifically accurate animals with some flaws? If so, why is a flawed perception of extinct animals necessarily a bad thing?

You also have to understand that the rep that was here around the times these models were released left a very sour taste in people's mouths and might have compounded their negative view on the models. The pompous attitude of the rep and approach to advertising these models really fueled emotions around here making people upset, frustrated, and maybe even angry. Granted some forum members were also rude, etc. (This conversation has been had several times in the past, so it is not my intention to return and open that can of worms again.)

IIRC, you said Rebor was "crucified" for the standing issue of the Ceratosaurus, but I think you overlooked the fact that at the time of the release, when the problem was first identified, the rep came in an clearly did not take on the responsibility he should have and instead suggested that "30 second fix" that never worked. Not until more reports of the standing issue were reported and people expressed more disappointment, did the rep take on some responsibility and even then, started a pity party and mentioned they were going to dissolve the company and destroy their prototype sculptures, which I personally believe had little validity to it. People may have "crucified" Rebor over it, but I don't think it was solely due to the standing issue, but a combination of that and how Rebor treated the issue.

My main point here is that some of the emotion seen in the reaction of Rebor's products may not be directly coming from the products themselves, but possibly in part due to how Rebor has handled feedback and criticism. I can dig up so many quotes from that rep to demonstrate, but again, no point in discussing what has been discussed many times over. Hopefully, now that the old Rebor rep is gone and that the company is entering their second year and has a great line up, inherit views on their products may start to change. I hope the replacement rep, Ms. Rebor is able to post again and interact with us.

This

That really pissed me off. Me and another member both clearly stated we tried this fix and that the legs reverted back to the warped position, and then the old rep just popped in and said it's a simple fix no big deal, blah blah. They completely ignored, discounted our report. It came off as very dismissive and insulting. Like we where too stupid to do do these things. They didn't want to read what we said, or didn't care.

Chris

[utd7]

Man I have created a monstrous discussion just by asking what the bummer was in the first place. I did not want this to turn ugly but it seems some of you are quite angry at this figure.

I personally have always said I do not like the pose but it seems that it might make sense with the new additions that they are going to make it a sort of diorama with a dead Trike and a live one, possibly angry and about to charge the Rex. It does have a bit of the Jurassic Park Rex to it but I don't mind that, I mean it is the most iconic depiction of possibly any dinosaur in film history and REBOR themselves have admitted it so let's cut them a bit of slack guys come on.

I am no REBOR advocate on this forum (eventhough I might sound like one) but I give them the benefit at the moment as they are a new, exciting company with great ideas (something other toy companies seem to be really lacking) so I will support them and I am sure us dino toy fans will reap the benefits.

[Dobber]

IF you are putting me in that group, I just want to clarify I have no problem with the King T-Rex figure. My issue was with their dismissive attitude regarding the Ceratosaurus. I accept the T-Rex figure for what it is....a JP/Stan Winston inspired Dino-monster. Would I have preferred something more unique/accurate absolutely, but I knew what it was when I bought it.

I really would like REBOR to revisit the Rex and use their obvious talent to give use something truly impressive and unheard of yet....a "subjectively" accurate Tyrannosaurus Rex figure that has the wonderful detail and Paint application that that would do the Rex Justice.  I think they are the company that could do it, but I think it would be.....Odd...if they did it with a "Queen" figure because it wouldn't fit with with the current sculpt.

Chris

[Rain]

I wasn't going to post this comment but I have to now as it's awfully upsetting to see people yell "INANCCAURUTE MOVIEMAONSETR" at Rebor's Rex(it's head atleast). Although the head is basically just  a slightly improved Stan Winston sculpt, it isn't as inaccurate as you're making it seem. The only major inaccuracy I can see is the snout being a bit too wide. Emphasis on major. So preaching that Rebor's rex's head is extremely inaccurate is quite far fetched. Inaccurate though it is, it isn't the abomination that DTF members are claiming it to be.

Although, I do agree that REBOR shouldn't be marketing this as a "museum class replica". I also agree that it would've been a lot neater for them to reconstruct the head as opposed to stick a longer version of the Stan Winston sculpt on.

In regards to the rep, I've been following the forums for quite a while(only recently made an account ) so I was around when the rep was still posting. I'm on the same boat with you all, he handled every situation unprofessionally and it was very frustrating to see.

[Arul]

Easy guys, rebor has apologised long time ago hope there is no more rude/harsh argument about you guys to rebor, and rebor to you guys 

[Patrx]

Arul has a good point, let's keep things peaceful
I like nostalgic stuff as much as the next guy, but the REBOR rex, at least for me, hits this awkward midpoint between "accurate" and "Jurassic Park" that is very unappealing, despite being my favorite REBOR model so far.

[Rain]

Arul has a good point, let's keep things peaceful
I like nostalgic stuff as much as the next guy, but the REBOR rex, at least for me, hits this awkward midpoint between "accurate" and "Jurassic Park" that is very unappealing, despite being my favorite REBOR model so far.

Yeah it is kinda weird now that I think of it. In between accurate and JP as well as in between toy and statue. I still think it's a lovely figure however

[stargatedalek]

Man I have created a monstrous discussion just by asking what the bummer was in the first place. I did not want this to turn ugly but it seems some of you are quite angry at this figure.

I don't believe anyone in this discussion was angry, I know I wasn't. Friendly arguments are generally a part of any discussion.

[Dobber]

Man I have created a monstrous discussion just by asking what the bummer was in the first place. I did not want this to turn ugly but it seems some of you are quite angry at this figure.

I don't believe anyone in this discussion was angry, I know I wasn't. Friendly arguments are generally a part of any discussion.

Yeah, I was/am certainly not angry. It's also why I complimented REBOR by saying  I think they have the talent to make the best version of my favorite dinosaur. 

Chris

[Monkeysaurus]

  The only major inaccuracy I can see is the snout being a bit too wide.

Same here, although I must qualify that with the fact that I probably don't have a fraction of the paleontologic  knowledge a lot of members here have, hence the reason I asked. It also may have had feathers/dino fuzz and I'm not sure the leg could bend in such a way, but those are the only (possible) inaccuracies I see when I compare it to Sue. Could anyone show me what else is innacurate about this model without going into Rebor's attitude or their other models please?

[Tyrannosauron]

Same here, although I must qualify that with the fact that I probably don't have a fraction of the paleontologic  knowledge a lot of members here have, hence the reason I asked. It also may have had feathers/dino fuzz and I'm not sure the leg could bend in such a way, but those are the only (possible) inaccuracies I see when I compare it to Sue. Could anyone show me what else is innacurate about this model without going into Rebor's attitude or their other models please?

Apart from what you've already identified, the clearest departure from reality is the shape of the "crests" along the animal's brow. Winston made them quite a bit more pointed than any skull would imply, perhaps to give the movie's T. rex more "personality" (that last part is speculation on my part). As far as we can tell, T. rex has a much more "neutral" look relative to the "angry eyes" look of the JP T. rex. That's always the way I can identify T. rex restorations that have used JP as a starting point: does it have those angry-looking eye crests?

Then there are minor nits to pick, like in the deep curvature of the maxilla or the shape of the quadratojugal or whatnot. Those are inaccuracies that might not even be inaccuracies since the artist can chalk them up to individual variation.

Here's what I don't understand in all this: why does Rebor inspire such fervent dedication in its fans? I ask this from a place of genuine confusion; I'm not trying to start anything. But I've noticed in these discussions that there isn't any line drawn between constructive and non-constructive criticism. It's gotten to the point that someone can ask what makes a Rebor model inaccurate and anyone who actually answers the question is accused of being a raving partisan. Notwithstanding lingering emotions from the spat with the previous representative, why do the company's fan respond so defensively to any criticism at all?

[Monkeysaurus]

Apart from what you've already identified, the clearest departure from reality is the shape of the "crests" along the animal's brow. Winston made them quite a bit more pointed than any skull would imply, perhaps to give the movie's T. rex more "personality" (that last part is speculation on my part). As far as we can tell, T. rex has a much more "neutral" look relative to the "angry eyes" look of the JP T. rex.

Ok, so it's mostly just the head. I know what you mean about the angry look. I could see why someone would be turned off to that. It's like me when I watch dinosaur documentaries and I want to pull my hair out because the animals won't stop roaring. Even prehistoric amphibians have to roar every two seconds, lol

[Fluffysaurus]

Same here, although I must qualify that with the fact that I probably don't have a fraction of the paleontologic  knowledge a lot of members here have, hence the reason I asked. It also may have had feathers/dino fuzz and I'm not sure the leg could bend in such a way, but those are the only (possible) inaccuracies I see when I compare it to Sue. Could anyone show me what else is innacurate about this model without going into Rebor's attitude or their other models please?

Apart from what you've already identified, the clearest departure from reality is the shape of the "crests" along the animal's brow. Winston made them quite a bit more pointed than any skull would imply, perhaps to give the movie's T. rex more "personality" (that last part is speculation on my part). As far as we can tell, T. rex has a much more "neutral" look relative to the "angry eyes" look of the JP T. rex. That's always the way I can identify T. rex restorations that have used JP as a starting point: does it have those angry-looking eye crests?

Then there are minor nits to pick, like in the deep curvature of the maxilla or the shape of the quadratojugal or whatnot. Those are inaccuracies that might not even be inaccuracies since the artist can chalk them up to individual variation.

Here's what I don't understand in all this: why does Rebor inspire such fervent dedication in its fans? I ask this from a place of genuine confusion; I'm not trying to start anything. But I've noticed in these discussions that there isn't any line drawn between constructive and non-constructive criticism. It's gotten to the point that someone can ask what makes a Rebor model inaccurate and anyone who actually answers the question is accused of being a raving partisan. Notwithstanding lingering emotions from the spat with the previous representative, why do the company's fan respond so defensively to any criticism at all?

There was a discussion in a facebookgroup this afternoon, About another Rebor model.
I also defended the model. I cant stand it when persons get angry and even fired up about a issue that is in the past. There is a big difference in my point of view in holding a grudge against a company. Or Constructive critisism. I asked the person in question well if they corrected that issue would you be ok with it then. No, they should have done it right right away. Which i think isnt fair. Because when you look at other companies like safari ltd also have multiple versions of velociraptors, rexes and so forth. So that is what i see as holding a grudge. Its like whining over and over and over again About the same thing. When it is a issue that will be corrected then whats the issue. I would do the same when another company besides Rebor would be attacked. Sure Rebor has made some mistakes. But who doesnt we are all human. Rebor didnt do anything wrong lately. So i dont have a clue why Some stay so angry. Anger isnt good.

[tanystropheus]

Same here, although I must qualify that with the fact that I probably don't have a fraction of the paleontologic  knowledge a lot of members here have, hence the reason I asked. It also may have had feathers/dino fuzz and I'm not sure the leg could bend in such a way, but those are the only (possible) inaccuracies I see when I compare it to Sue. Could anyone show me what else is innacurate about this model without going into Rebor's attitude or their other models please?

Here's what I don't understand in all this: why does Rebor inspire such fervent dedication in its fans?

Well, I see REBOR as the torchbearers of the 'lifelike' line of dinosaurs. It was originally started by Tyco in the 80's, passed on to Papo and culminated in REBOR. Safari Ltd. has the potential to deliver 'lifelike' products (e.g. Postosuchus, Dunkleosteus, Tylosaurus, Icthyosaurus) but they are so far and few between. Thus, I see REBOR as a 'revival' to the high-end dinosaur toy market. I don't like to see them discouraged/undermined as they have a very promising, important mission.