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

[stargatedalek]

Personally I see such things as over romanticizing. I get that you like the art style that REBOR and Papo use, but calling it a "mission" seems quite a bit of an overstatement. I don't see how the multitude of tiny details is any more "life-like" on a Tyrannosaurus than a softer look. In the case of large theropods it's actually decidedly less life like as I see it, since seeing the actual animal at such a scale it would not have highly prominent details. Aside from Icthyosaurus all the figures you mentioned are figures that are very "predatory" in looks, that isn't necessarily inaccurate, but it really isn't "life like" to my eyes. Animal's don't deliberately try and look scary, it just happens that some of them, coincidentally or evolutionarily, affect our human psyche.

Look at a real animal and try to imagine it in this so called "life like" form, and in a similar size to REBOR's figures, doesn't really suit very many animals now does it? That's not to say it's impossible for a dinosaur to have been "scary" down to its finite details, but it's not very likely. It isn't the tiny details and hundreds of out-of-scale-scales (couldn't help that one ), that make a sculpt feel alive, its the way its muscles are tensed, the way its breathing can be seen, and in its paint app.

I can understand the draw to figures that look "alive" whether movie monsters or not, but I'd be perfectly fine with an up to date incredibly accurate depiction even if it looked like it could be mounted on the wall at Cabella's. Come to think of it, a figure intended to look like a real life mount sounds exactly up REBOR's novelty ally. Think about it, who doesn't love glass eyes?

[Shadowknight1]

I'll be frank.  I'm a REBOR defender and love the looks of most of their models even if I won't own them(Ceratosaurus for instance), but the King T-rex is my least favorite.  To me, it's boring.  The design is similar, the paint scheme is simple, the rock is simple, etc.  Except for the pose that really works best as a runner rather than putting its foot on a random rock, it plays it safe.  Yutyrannus sported feathers at a time when most high end detailed figures that are similar in size just didn't have feathers.  This led the way for the Utahraptor, though its display issues are also too well known.  Ceratosaurus and Acrocanthosaurus look fantastic and I haven't seen too many complaints abou Cerato.

[Arul]

Back to the root, including this lovely king trex standing issue is a common problem to all theropod figure no matter from rebor sideshow collecta battat etc, and you guys know it  There is a lot of tutorial in youtube how to fix a bending figure or you can ask some of member who solved the same problem here in the forum, it might help.

Shadowknight1, i know what you feel you can call me im a rebor defender too Lol because honestly sometimes i feel offended when some member give a supa hot comment to rebor. i really want to answer all of argument as long as i can but shame on me i dont have a very good english skill. I understand what the member said, but how to reply it in english for me its very difficult   

[Viking Spawn]

I too, am a Rebor defender!  Sure, the company and its fan base have suffered some growing pains but there aren't many companies that haven't.  IMO, their products are top notch which is why I'm faithfully buying them all so far! 

I personally love the King T-Rex for nostalgic reasons and not necessarily for scientific accuracy.  Accurate or hybrid movie monster, the figure looks wonderful on a shelf!

I'm looking forward to seeing everything else Rebor hasn't mentioned in the past come to PVC life!  Especially Ravage!  I'm dying to see what Rebor does with that one!

And as for this thread.... "Long live the KING!!!"   

[Tyrannosauron]

This all just makes my point. It doesn't seem to be enough to qualify oneself as a Rebor fan; one has to be a Rebor defender. The language speaks to an internalization of the company line. If that's true, then it would explain why any criticism of the company--even mild or warranted criticism--becomes so rapidly contentious.

What I still don't understand is why. Saying "I like what they make" or "they have potential" doesn't explain why "defenders" have internalized the company line because people say the same about companies they like, but don't defend. For example: Battat makes figures that people here like and the company has the potential to develop a satisfyingly diverse collection. Posters here can be critical about issues such as the quality of the figures' plastic or the paint choices. The result isn't normally a series of impassioned defenses of Battat's virtues.

So what is the difference between Rebor and Battat that Rebor's fans have internalized the company's defense and Battat's (and other companies') fans haven't? Is it Rebor's social media presence? Is it the naming conventions of Rebor's individual figures?

[Arul]

For me defender means hardcore fans in hiperbola, and thats right Viking Spawn only one who deserve to be called the king of the tyrant...

[tyrantqueen]

This all just makes my point. It doesn't seem to be enough to qualify oneself as a Rebor fan; one has to be a Rebor defender. The language speaks to an internalization of the company line. If that's true, then it would explain why any criticism of the company--even mild or warranted criticism--becomes so rapidly contentious.

What I still don't understand is why. Saying "I like what they make" or "they have potential" doesn't explain why "defenders" have internalized the company line because people say the same about companies they like, but don't defend. For example: Battat makes figures that people here like and the company has the potential to develop a satisfyingly diverse collection. Posters here can be critical about issues such as the quality of the figures' plastic or the paint choices. The result isn't normally a series of impassioned defenses of Battat's virtues.

So what is the difference between Rebor and Battat that Rebor's fans have internalized the company's defense and Battat's (and other companies') fans haven't? Is it Rebor's social media presence? Is it the naming conventions of Rebor's individual figures?

Maybe it's because they watched the company grow and have invested in their products. I wasn't into collecting when Battat's dinosaurs were first popular, but I know many people on the forum here were, and feel a great loyalty to them. They may feel a certain attachment to a company from whom they've bought every release from, as well as watching the company grow. It's kind of like watching your child grow up I guess.

In my opinion, Battat has earned that right due to their highly accurate and well detailed figures. I like some of Rebor's models but I just find them overrated.  I know I'm going to regret typing this...but I really can't stand the cult-like following they seem to have amassed.

[Patrx]

People do seem to have an unfortunate habit of taking sides in situations such as these, particularly as time goes on. I believe this tendency has been called "tribalism"? Perhaps it didn't happen with Battatt because nobody doesn't like them, so nobody feels the need to take up arms.

[Rain]

I personally do enjoy Rebor's products but I wouldn't say I'm partial towards them. I'm neutral. I do believe they make stunning models and all but I also believe they make a lot of mistakes and could be doing a lot better. What I don't understand though , is why members on this forum seem to get "butthurt" (for lack of a better term, excuse me) over REBOR releasing models. They release a model and you don't like it? Cool. No need to pull out your trusty plastic keyboard and start typing away about how much them releasing a model you don't like ruins your life. Just don't buy it if you hate it so much, no need to start a flame war. There's a fine line between constructive criticism and slander. DTF needs to recognize that.

[Nebuloid]

I personally do enjoy Rebor's products but I wouldn't say I'm partial towards them. I'm neutral. I do believe they make stunning models and all but I also believe they make a lot of mistakes and could be doing a lot better. What I don't understand though , is why members on this forum seem to get "butthurt" (for lack of a better term, excuse me) over REBOR releasing models. They release a model and you don't like it? Cool. No need to pull out your trusty plastic keyboard and start typing away about how much them releasing a model you don't like ruins your life. Just don't buy it if you hate it so much, no need to start a flame war. There's a fine line between constructive criticism and slander. DTF needs to recognize that.

All of the above, buy it or don't...

[Patrx]

There's a fine line between constructive criticism and slander. DTF needs to recognize that.

Fortunately, we do enforce our rule against rudeness, so slander remains rare around here - and when it does come up, it is dealt with accordingly  But, people must be allowed to share their opinions, negative or positive, provided they do so politely.

[Halichoeres]

This all just makes my point. It doesn't seem to be enough to qualify oneself as a Rebor fan; one has to be a Rebor defender. The language speaks to an internalization of the company line. If that's true, then it would explain why any criticism of the company--even mild or warranted criticism--becomes so rapidly contentious.

What I still don't understand is why. Saying "I like what they make" or "they have potential" doesn't explain why "defenders" have internalized the company line because people say the same about companies they like, but don't defend. For example: Battat makes figures that people here like and the company has the potential to develop a satisfyingly diverse collection. Posters here can be critical about issues such as the quality of the figures' plastic or the paint choices. The result isn't normally a series of impassioned defenses of Battat's virtues.

So what is the difference between Rebor and Battat that Rebor's fans have internalized the company's defense and Battat's (and other companies') fans haven't? Is it Rebor's social media presence? Is it the naming conventions of Rebor's individual figures?

I wonder if it might also be a function of price. Having dropped $80 on a new (that is, not long-discontinued) toy-like object, maybe one is especially invested in defending that decision if somebody comes along and suggests it wasn't worth it. Sort of like the succumbing to the sunk-cost fallacy to resolve cognitive dissonance.

But I don't really know anything about psychology. It just happens that I recently read Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me), so I'm seeing cognitive dissonance everywhere.

Incidentally, this is in no way an indictment of Rebor fans. I'm susceptible to the same phenomenon.

[Rain]

There's a fine line between constructive criticism and slander. DTF needs to recognize that.

Fortunately, we do enforce our rule against rudeness, so slander remains rare around here - and when it does come up, it is dealt with accordingly  But, people must be allowed to share their opinions, negative or positive, provided they do so politely.

Yeah , there's nothing wrong with constructive criticism, without REBOR wouldn't know what they're doing wrong.

[joossa]

So what is the difference between Rebor and Battat that Rebor's fans have internalized the company's defense and Battat's (and other companies') fans haven't? Is it Rebor's social media presence? Is it the naming conventions of Rebor's individual figures?

In my opinion and based of my observation, I believe there are Battat "defenders" as there are Rebor "defenders" as there are "defenders" of other companies. And it's doesn't show up only in defensive actions, but clear biases. Not pointing fingers... but for a hypothetical example: someone may be more forgiving of the Battat's Rex standing issue and brush it off by saying "it's just a toy" or "you can fix it easily with a rod". However, they will have the complete opposite reaction for the Rebor Ceratosaurus' standing issue. Or how some won't think to criticize the CollectA Feathered Rex's base, but then easily call the Rebor Rex's base boring and bland. Granted, the two comparisons take on items that are on different levels (quality, price, etc.), but the core concept of bias is there.

Preferences are preferences and different people will have different tastes. And that's okay. The problem becomes when people don't see eye to eye on things and how that's handled. People likely develop loyalties since some saying they don't like what you like becomes, on some level, personal (as if your tastes and preferences are being criticized), but it shouldn't taken personally consciously or subconsciously. So loyalties or pseudo-loyalties are formed. People then become defensive toward the elements of their liking, or worse, become offensive and rude when criticizing things they don't like and develop closed-minded biases. At the end of the day, like what you like, be who you are, but also acknowledge that no one is the same as you. Differences are good. Talk about differences with an open mind and above all, have respect for those differences. Deliver criticism in a constructive way.

I remember a newer member on this forum posted their collection, which consisted primarily of Schleich models. Some other member replied and said something along the lines of "too many Schlieichs". Then the new member asked is there something bad about collecting Schleich. I responded saying there was nothing wrong with that, especially if s/he liked them.

You have to have an open mind, have tolerance, and be objective. If you look at my shelf of dinos, I have models from WS to Schleich to Rebor to CollectA to Sideshow and on and on. I have my own preferences and when I express like or dislike, especially the latter, I try to be as objective as I can. When I reviewed the Rebor Ceratosuaurs on the blog or compared the paint job versus price difference of the Battat and Carnegie Cryolophosaurus, I tried to be as objective and as open to comments as I could since that's my policy all-around and often, sets the tone and encourages objective responses.

[Rain]

So what is the difference between Rebor and Battat that Rebor's fans have internalized the company's defense and Battat's (and other companies') fans haven't? Is it Rebor's social media presence? Is it the naming conventions of Rebor's individual figures?

In my opinion and based of my observation, I believe there are Battat "defenders" as there are Rebor "defenders" as there are "defenders" of other companies. And it's doesn't show up only in defensive actions, but clear biases. Not pointing fingers... but for a hypothetical example: someone may be more forgiving of the Battat's Rex standing issue and brush it off by saying "it's just a toy" or "you can fix it easily with a rod". However, they will have the complete opposite reaction for the Rebor Ceratosaurus' standing issue. Or how some won't think to criticize the CollectA Feathered Rex's base, but then easily call the Rebor Rex's base boring and bland. Granted, the two comparisons take on items that are on different levels (quality, price, etc.), but the core concept of bias is there.

Preferences are preferences and different people will have different tastes. And that's okay. The problem becomes when people don't see eye to eye on things and how that's handled. People likely develop loyalties since some saying they don't like what you like becomes, on some level, personal (as if your tastes and preferences are being criticized), but it shouldn't taken personally consciously or subconsciously. So loyalties or pseudo-loyalties are formed. People then become defensive toward the elements of their liking, or worse, become offensive and rude when criticizing things they don't like and develop closed-minded biases. At the end of the day, like what you like, be who you are, but also acknowledge that no one is the same as you. Differences are good. Talk about differences with an open mind and above all, have respect for those differences. Deliver criticism in a constructive way.

I remember a newer member on this forum posted their collection, which consisted primarily of Schleich models. Some other member replied and said something along the lines of "too many Schlieichs". Then the new member asked is there something bad about collecting Schleich. I responded saying there was nothing wrong with that, especially if s/he liked them.

You have to have an open mind, have tolerance, and be objective. If you look at my shelf of dinos, I have models from WS to Schleich to Rebor to CollectA to Sideshow and on and on. I have my own preferences and when I express like or dislike, especially the latter, I try to be as objective as I can. When I reviewed the Rebor Ceratosuaurs on the blog or compared the paint job versus price difference of the Battat and Carnegie Cryolophosaurus, I tried to be as objective and as open to comments as I could since that's my policy all-around and often, sets the tone and encourages objective responses.

Well said.

[tanystropheus]

So what is the difference between Rebor and Battat that Rebor's fans have internalized the company's defense and Battat's (and other companies') fans haven't? Is it Rebor's social media presence? Is it the naming conventions of Rebor's individual figures?

I can't speak for everyone, but I like it when models/toys look 'organic'. Battat models don't generally meet that criteria. I don't want to get into the whole soft scales vs. hard scales scaling issue as it is beyond the scope of this post. Here is an example of a model that looks exceptionally 'organic':

http://s995.photobucket.com/user/saurischia/media/Amphibians/Eryops%2003.jpg.html

The REBOR Raptor triplets look alive, as if they just stepped out of the big screen.

For me, I view REBOR as Blu Ray, Papo as DVD and most companies as CDs.  I'm looking for crispness of color, level of contrast...amongst other things.

I do believe that REBORs naming conventions (and diorama backstory) allows for a certain degree of internalization and familiarity.

[tanystropheus]

This all just makes my point. It doesn't seem to be enough to qualify oneself as a Rebor fan; one has to be a Rebor defender. The language speaks to an internalization of the company line. If that's true, then it would explain why any criticism of the company--even mild or warranted criticism--becomes so rapidly contentious.

What I still don't understand is why. Saying "I like what they make" or "they have potential" doesn't explain why "defenders" have internalized the company line because people say the same about companies they like, but don't defend. For example: Battat makes figures that people here like and the company has the potential to develop a satisfyingly diverse collection. Posters here can be critical about issues such as the quality of the figures' plastic or the paint choices. The result isn't normally a series of impassioned defenses of Battat's virtues.

So what is the difference between Rebor and Battat that Rebor's fans have internalized the company's defense and Battat's (and other companies') fans haven't? Is it Rebor's social media presence? Is it the naming conventions of Rebor's individual figures?

I wonder if it might also be a function of price. Having dropped $80 on a new (that is, not long-discontinued) toy-like object, maybe one is especially invested in defending that decision if somebody comes along and suggests it wasn't worth it. Sort of like the succumbing to the sunk-cost fallacy to resolve cognitive dissonance.

That might be the case for someone that owns like one model. However, I am generally drawn to a number of their models even before the price tag is revealed. I firmly believe that their Dimorphodon models will appeal to many hardcore Sideshow fans.

[Sim]

The prehistoric animals in the Jurassic Park movies which are main characters, I find are just that, main characters.  They have qualities that are not present in the real animals they are based on which like Tyrannosauron, I think were done to give the animals more 'personality'.  I find this has the effect of making them more into characters than realistic representations of animals.  This is especially evident in the animals that have more of a role in the films.  The Tyrannosaurus, and "Velociraptor" which aren't quite Velociraptor or Deinonychus are perfect examples of this.  There is even a line in Jurassic World where one of the characters says that if DNA from extant animals hadn't been used to fill in gaps, some of the prehistoric animals in the park would look quite different.

I appreciate the Jurassic Park films for what they do well.  However, I find it's inappropriate for other companies to copy the inaccurate animals in JP films and present them as a toy of Velociraptor, Tyrannosaurus, etc. unless they are producing official JP franchise products (e.g. Hasbro, Kenner).  The animals in the JP films are movie characters, they're not restorations of the animals as they might have appeared in life (with regards to the carnivores anyway, some of the herbivores might be more realistic).  This situation doesn't seem to be much different from making a mouse toy with Mickey Mouse ears and presenting it in a set of toys that are meant to be of real living animals (without Disney's permission too), for example.  Or making a set of dragon toys based on the ones from "How to Train Your Dragon" without permission.  I find it off-putting seeing companies present 'their' versions of prehistoric animals and seeing made-up qualities of the JP characters in them.

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.

Personally I see such things as over romanticizing. I get that you like the art style that REBOR and Papo use, but calling it a "mission" seems quite a bit of an overstatement. I don't see how the multitude of tiny details is any more "life-like" on a Tyrannosaurus than a softer look. In the case of large theropods it's actually decidedly less life like as I see it, since seeing the actual animal at such a scale it would not have highly prominent details. Aside from Icthyosaurus all the figures you mentioned are figures that are very "predatory" in looks, that isn't necessarily inaccurate, but it really isn't "life like" to my eyes. Animal's don't deliberately try and look scary, it just happens that some of them, coincidentally or evolutionarily, affect our human psyche.

Look at a real animal and try to imagine it in this so called "life like" form, and in a similar size to REBOR's figures, doesn't really suit very many animals now does it? That's not to say it's impossible for a dinosaur to have been "scary" down to its finite details, but it's not very likely. It isn't the tiny details and hundreds of out-of-scale-scales (couldn't help that one ), that make a sculpt feel alive, its the way its muscles are tensed, the way its breathing can be seen, and in its paint app.

I agree with stargatedalek.  Except I don't have a problem with the "predatory" look of those other figures by Carnegie and Safari that tanystropheus mentioned.  On the Dunkleosteus and Tylosaurus I imagine they're attacking.

I'm not seeing how Tyco, Papo and Rebor's figures are more "lifelike" than toys by Battat, Wild Safari and Carnegie.  In some cases I find they are less so.  Being lifelike, realistic, etc. isn't just about how much detail a figure and its paintjob has.  It is possible to have too much detail too!  The expression and other body language of an animal toy can really make a difference to how lifelike it appears and it's no different when the toy is of a prehistoric animal.

I've seen a number of Papo's prehistoric animals in shops.  I've picked them up, felt them, opened their mouths and had a really good look at them.  I think they're highly detailed toys, which most of the time don't look very lifelike.  Why?  They do tend to have major anatomical inaccuracies, which contributes to me not finding them very lifelike (as that makes them quite different to the animals they're meant to represent).  That is not the main reason though.  It's the expressions and poses of many of Papo's prehistoric figures that don't make them look lifelike at all to me.  These expressions or poses often look anthropomorphic and/or exaggerated.  For example, Papo's Velociraptor has an evil-looking expression that I can't imagine seeing on a real animal.  Most of Papo's prehistoric figures look like fictional characters to me, rather than animals that once lived.  Sometimes, this is contributed to by copying the same things that make the JP animals look more like fictional characters!

I find Rebor's first two figures (the tyrannosaurs) have exaggerations much like many of the Papo figures which makes them look less like real animals and more like fictional characters.  I think the Rebor Utahraptor moves away from this somewhat, while the Ceratosaurus is a huge improvement over the previous figures in terms of accuracy and having a realistic expression.  I hope Rebor continues their progress in making prehistoric animals as opposed to fictional animals.  I would welcome the same from Papo, but I'm not expecting it given the company's approach to making prehistoric animal toys.

[stargatedalek]

I didn't mean to imply I had a distaste for those figures or that style. I think it suits the Safari Postosuchus and Dunkleosteus very well (can't speak for the others as I don't own them). Postosuchus can be reasonably inferred as having many large scales, spines, and osteoderms due to its relation to crocodilians, in addition its in a much larger scale than any REBOR or Papo model to date. These factors combined make me feel like the Wild Safari Postosuchus is a figure well suited, from an accuracy perspective, so a highly detailed style. And aside from its massive shields Dunkleosteus integument or possible lack thereof is somewhat of a mystery last I knew (but I know who to ask about that one if anyone's curious ).

Scale is probably the real big factor here for me. I think this style will look great on the Dimorphodon, since they will be on a considerably larger scale (regardless if the figures themselves are smaller). I'd also love to see REBOR try making an invertebrate, that is something I could imagine fitting in very well both with REBOR's style and increasing accuracy.

[Arul]

I can't speak for everyone, but I like it when models/toys look 'organic'. Battat models don't generally meet that criteria. I don't want to get into the whole soft scales vs. hard scales scaling issue as it is beyond the scope of this post. Here is an example of a model that looks exceptionally 'organic':

http://s995.photobucket.com/user/saurischia/media/Amphibians/Eryops%2003.jpg.html

The REBOR Raptor triplets look alive, as if they just stepped out of the big screen.

For me, I view REBOR as Blu Ray, Papo as DVD and most companies as CDs.  I'm looking for crispness of color, level of contrast...amongst other things.

I do believe that REBORs naming conventions (and diorama backstory) allows for a certain degree of internalization and familiarity.

True, i love dinosaur toys by this "way." Sometimes reading insulting comment about this "way" is very annoying for me but thats okay some people love vinyl, cd, even cassette right ? Different way means different reason to love dinosaur toys