REBOR general discussion

[Simon]

Well, based on Tyrannosuaron's sleuthing I can say that I was wrong - The King TRex was indeed made to look like the (inaccurate) JP TRex from the front.

As far as its rating - 2.5 stars seems about right.  Its a very well done sculpt, but oh-so-disappointing because of what-could-have-been.  Its a monster rather than a TRex.  A freak (like the dinosaurs in JP).  And not appealing to me at all.  To me, "ACCURACYBRO=AWESOMEBRO"  and vice-versa.  "INACCURACYBRO=LAMEBRO" 

I dont get it 

Its real simple:  I do not like inaccurate dinosaur reconstructions. (Just ask Forrest Rodgers). The closer it comes to being done RIGHT, the more critical I get of any obvious shortcomings. That's my personal taste.

If the King TRex was a crappy Chinasaur, I wouldn't care.  But it COULD have been - so AWESOME.  Yet its not.  It came oh-so-close to blowing the lid off for me - til I saw the "head on view" ....

[John]

For those interested in origin of the "awsomebro" term, it comes none other from excellent paleo-artist John Conway himself. Personally I find him a bit too critical of "Jurassic Park" but I agree with his overall plight. Either way, the term is meant to be an insult so I'm not sure that if I were an awsomebro myself that I would be too quick to embrace it.

Most of us have come across or participated in what I'm going to call "awesomebro" culture: "dinosaurs in space with fricken' lasers? AWESOMEBRO!". Awesomebro culture is huge, and makes up a huge proportion of the people that buy dinosaur-themed stuff. At the really stupid end of awesomebro you have the people that complain that feathered dinosaurs look "gay". You have less retarded grumbling as well. My problem is in how I, and many other people I agree with, have reflexively deflected these grumblings. We say something like "well, eagles look pretty awesome - watchya got to say to that, smart guy?"

The problem with this sort of defence is that it buys into the whole stupid assumption of dinosaurs belonging to awesomebro culture. What if dromaeosaurs really did look all fancy or goofy? What then? I say so what, animals often look fancy or goofy. The "awesomeness" isn't the most sophisticated way of viewing the natural world, and one that I personally have very little interest in.

- See more at: http://log.johnconway.co/post/46259087381/jurassic-park-4-awesomebro#sthash.KClQUszH.dpuf

I have always found the term "awesomebro" to be more weak than offensive...   

[Simon]

For those interested in origin of the "awsomebro" term, it comes none other from excellent paleo-artist John Conway himself. Personally I find him a bit too critical of "Jurassic Park" but I agree with his overall plight. Either way, the term is meant to be an insult so I'm not sure that if I were an awsomebro myself that I would be too quick to embrace it.

Most of us have come across or participated in what I'm going to call "awesomebro" culture: "dinosaurs in space with fricken' lasers? AWESOMEBRO!". Awesomebro culture is huge, and makes up a huge proportion of the people that buy dinosaur-themed stuff. At the really stupid end of awesomebro you have the people that complain that feathered dinosaurs look "gay". You have less retarded grumbling as well. My problem is in how I, and many other people I agree with, have reflexively deflected these grumblings. We say something like "well, eagles look pretty awesome - watchya got to say to that, smart guy?"

The problem with this sort of defence is that it buys into the whole stupid assumption of dinosaurs belonging to awesomebro culture. What if dromaeosaurs really did look all fancy or goofy? What then? I say so what, animals often look fancy or goofy. The "awesomeness" isn't the most sophisticated way of viewing the natural world, and one that I personally have very little interest in.

- See more at: http://log.johnconway.co/post/46259087381/jurassic-park-4-awesomebro#sthash.KClQUszH.dpuf

I have always found the term "awesomebro" to be more weak than offensive...   

Don't forget "irritating".  Highly irritating, lame, weak and insulting to the reader. Reading it in a debate is like being forced to use a meaningless dumb term against ones will.  Conway may have intended it as an insult, but it has boomeranged big time.  Now its like an additional barrier one has to overcome BEFORE we can even start a discussion about dino-accuracy.  It has, in a way, legitimized, or created a descriptor term for a way of looking at things that is unscientific and ought to be discouraged. 

[Takama]

Sorry Mr rebor I just couldnt resist....lol.

My mistake, no worries, and it's Miss REBOR Now, yeah!!  actually I can't really represent the company, but since that "hated representative" is not coming back (he is a very nice person in real life), I guess I'll answer questions whenever I have time

Glad to have some one Different on the forum using Rebors Account.    Now my question is, does Rebor have any plans for some truly Exotic Species Like Concavenator, Kosmoceratops, and Kulindadromeus? Will they even consider suggestions for future species?   

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Well, based on Tyrannosuaron's sleuthing I can say that I was wrong - The King TRex was indeed made to look like the (inaccurate) JP TRex from the front.

As far as its rating - 2.5 stars seems about right.  Its a very well done sculpt, but oh-so-disappointing because of what-could-have-been.  Its a monster rather than a TRex.  A freak (like the dinosaurs in JP).  And not appealing to me at all.  To me, "ACCURACYBRO=AWESOMEBRO"  and vice-versa.  "INACCURACYBRO=LAMEBRO" 

I dont get it 

Its real simple:  I do not like inaccurate dinosaur reconstructions. (Just ask Forrest Rodgers). The closer it comes to being done RIGHT, the more critical I get of any obvious shortcomings. That's my personal taste.

If the King TRex was a crappy Chinasaur, I wouldn't care.  But it COULD have been - so AWESOME.  Yet its not.  It came oh-so-close to blowing the lid off for me - til I saw the "head on view" ....

So in keeping with and being consistent with the "accuracy" before all theory, perhaps a minor nitpick...Forest Rogers, rather than Forrest Rodgers...for instance.

[Simon]

So in keeping with and being consistent with the "accuracy" before all theory, perhaps a minor nitpick...Forest Rogers, rather than Forrest Rodgers...for instance.

Oh you're such a KIDDER!!! 

[tanystropheus]

For those interested in origin of the "awsomebro" term, it comes none other from excellent paleo-artist John Conway himself. Personally I find him a bit too critical of "Jurassic Park" but I agree with his overall plight. Either way, the term is meant to be an insult so I'm not sure that if I were an awsomebro myself that I would be too quick to embrace it.

Most of us have come across or participated in what I'm going to call "awesomebro" culture: "dinosaurs in space with fricken' lasers? AWESOMEBRO!". Awesomebro culture is huge, and makes up a huge proportion of the people that buy dinosaur-themed stuff. At the really stupid end of awesomebro you have the people that complain that feathered dinosaurs look "gay". You have less retarded grumbling as well. My problem is in how I, and many other people I agree with, have reflexively deflected these grumblings. We say something like "well, eagles look pretty awesome - watchya got to say to that, smart guy?"

The problem with this sort of defence is that it buys into the whole stupid assumption of dinosaurs belonging to awesomebro culture. What if dromaeosaurs really did look all fancy or goofy? What then? I say so what, animals often look fancy or goofy. The "awesomeness" isn't the most sophisticated way of viewing the natural world, and one that I personally have very little interest in.

- See more at: http://log.johnconway.co/post/46259087381/jurassic-park-4-awesomebro#sthash.KClQUszH.dpuf

Regarding Conway's reference to "dinosaurs in space with fricken lasers":

http://polyesterdreams.com/images/dino.jpg

It really doesn't get any more awesombro than that. What a winning formula!
Warning for strong language on the other side of that link. - Mod

[tanystropheus]

Oops sorry, I should have put a nsfw...

Edit- I found a safe version:

http://www.tfw2005.com/boards/attachments/radicons-customs/27307780d1342002526-old-dino-rider-customs-dino-riders_this-awesome.jpg

[tanystropheus]

In those other pictures of the Rebor T. rex I can't see both of its eyes at the same time when looking at it from the front.

Hi, there is still distortion in the photo, if you have one in hand and see with your own eyes, then you can see both eyes from the front, anyone who owns a REBOR King T-rex please let others know if this is true

Yes i know this problem me and my friends in indonesia have discuss this on fb, when someone finally posting his rebor king trex model for the first time and review it on fb group, its about last year or this early year i forgot. And yes its true. Trust me both eyes will visible if you take the photo from lower angle not like that photo its taken too high, but it little bit difficult to take the photo to make both eyes visible because the crest above the eye is block the lighting. But for sure, you have to get the model in your hands to prove it by yourself...

Yes, I double checked the REBOR T-rex and it does indeed have binocular vision. It's not easy to see in some pics due to the angle, accentuated crests, and/or shadow/lighting as you've stated earlier.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Miss Rebor, I collect psittacosaurus models, images papers and art. As your company plans and executes the psittacosaurus you are considering I would be quite agreeable to offering any pictures , papers, or artwork I can help with in this regard to help bring a nice well researched and nicely done psittacosaurus model to bear.
  While I assume your sculpter is quite well educated and talented, often having an excess of material to work with is helpful in answering even the smallest nuances. Some ideal things to be examined as this model is prepared might be ...the paper that researches the quilled specimen, the paper that then also establishes known coloration for said specimen and finally the paper that explains how young psittacosaurus tend to be more quadr-ped style walkers and as they mature become more b-pedal. I can also offer you in depth photographs of the actual skeleton I own, as well .
   While I think many people like to hold their hands up in the air and complain when it does not rain accurate models of their favorite species, I am willing to help , share and give as many things as I can to help with this model. I can tell you that when it comes to psittacosaurus models, the most common mistakes made are the number of digits on the hands, the placement of the ear, the orientation of the hands, and positioning of the jugals in regards to the rest of the cranial features.  I have this same offer in place to Doug Watson in case he is ever given reign to make such an animal for Safari, and when Aaron Doyle updated and redid his psittacosaurus I was there to help as well.
  Please let me know if there is anything I can send you or help with in this regard...and best wishes on your psitta-efforts !!!

[Tyrannosauron]

First: welcome to the new Rebor rep. Anyone willing to join constructive discussion is always a valuable addition.

Second: the issue with the rex isn't the presence or absence of binocular vision. Looking at the curvature of the premaxilla or where the dentary bones join it should be clear that the muzzle is wider on Rebor's model than on the JP rex, and that necessitates that the eyes be set at a slightly different angle, too. And I'll reiterate my earlier point: it's a minor difference, but it is a difference. (In any event, I would have bought the model under different circumstances.)

Finally, I have to ask: does this sort of criticism really hurt the model's sculptor? Heck, I originally presented it couched in compliment. Surely there's a difference between evidence-based criticism and outright disrespect. I'd think that it's only the latter that warrants hurt feelings.

[tanystropheus]

I don't believe it should be 100% JP for obvious reasons.
It is a very close fit and the details and coloration is beyond Papo's efforts (although, the colors are probably non-JP on purpose)
Regarding evidence-based criticism; you might be right about dimensions, but for a lot of comments I see on the forum, it (evidence-based criticism) doesn't necessary apply because the commentator does not own the sculpture. In some cases, owning the sculpt (or evidence) allows for evidence-based criticism, but for other cases, pictures may suffice. I own most of the models and it's a really strange feeling when someone confidently points out something that doesn't exist in reality (and it's happened on a number of occasions). Obviously, I can't suggest that they actually buy the model, because that necessitates an investment on their part.

[Shonisaurus]

Figure Personally I value most about this company is the ceratosaurus of, the only drawback that does not hold up without the base.

On the other hand I recognize as Tanystropheus said that to purchase a Rebor figure is not recommended as space and money required. You have to have the best lot of money saved. His figures are very expensive.

 In my case I can buy (for now) because I make money in my work, but of course both the cost of Rebor as other collections of dinosaurs, what I can do by giving up the most basic things of life and absolutely abandoning all kinds of Deluxe (as holidays, basic household expenses). Ultimately no kidding me off even eating. My love of dinosaurs and all issues related to the world of prehistory, are stronger than all the comforts of this life.

I consider myself a lover of animals in general and specifically an enthusiastic amateur to the world of prehistory. As a forum member said at the time: "A day without dinosaurs is a day not lived."

[Dobber]

I'm glad REBOR returned, new poster and all, welcome!

As for the Rex....it barely has binocular vision. I still love it, but as I said in my review of the figure in the King T-Rex thread, I would have loved for REBOR to use their obvious talent on a different take for T-Rex instead of the JP style. Just a personal preference. As someone else stated still waiting for that definitive Rex figure. I really Believe that REBOR can deliver that for us if they decide to some day revisit the Tyrannosaurus. I really hope they will. 

In the mean time, I am really excited to see the color pictures for Acrocanthosaurus, and eventual pictures of the feathered Deinonychus.....please don't forget the primary feathers this time, mosasaurus, Saurophaganax (Allosaurus Maximus), and the Yutyrannus redo. I'm a theropod guy so I 've been happy! 

Chris

[tanystropheus]

I'm actually looking most forward to Dimorphodon. Regarding theropods, I think REBOR could make a brilliant Concavenator if they ever decide to make one.

It is true that T-rex barely has binocular vision for the aforementioned reasons. The pupils are also 'pinpoint'  (opiate intoxication? j/k  ) and the eyes are small but forward facing as can be seen in the picture below:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=121098614890960&set=o.555146104612402&type=1&theater

[Arul]

So bulky, tower of muscle maybe that is why his name is hercules i really cant wait for this figure !!

[Arul]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=121098614890960&set=o.555146104612402&type=1&theater

Yes, rebor wins Russian fans heart. and DTF neighbor, in STS forum they in the first place in the poll the best figure in 2014. congratulations rebor 

[Mauro "Raptor86"]

[Shadowknight1]

Well, can't speak for the accuracy, but it has a better looking head than the Jurassic World critter.

[Mauro "Raptor86"]

but it has a better looking head than the Jurassic World critter.

Well, that was not so difficult to achieve.
I think its main competitor is the Wild Safari's one.