REBOR general discussion

[Shadowknight1]

I believe the Ankylosaurus was a Sideshow piece.  That picture was a share from one of their fans.

[Takama]

So we might have had a sneak peak at the newest Rebor hatchling, it was on their Facebook page this morning. A baby Ankylosaurus with this as the description.
"Hey whats up?"
"Oh nothing much, kinda got stuck"
"Join the club!"

As far as I can tell this little one's egg looks more detailed than Jolly's did as well as a more slimy looking baby dino. I like to think Rebor are like budding artists they can only get better. (I know if I didn't practice my drawing I'd still be at square one). So anyhow I'll post a link! https://www.facebook.com/reborstudio?fref=ts

That is not a Rebor model, its Sideshows Ultra Rare Euoplocephalus
http://dinotoyblog.com/2013/03/11/euoplocephalus-in-egg-maquette-sideshow-dinosauria/

I remember when i first learned of this model. It was like it was available for 5 minutes on Sideshows website, and it sold out before anyone on here had a chance to learn of the models exsistance

BTW its leaps and bounds ahead of Rebor when it comes to accuracy (if your one of those type of collectors)

[stargatedalek]

I have to agree that Papo has made some accurate dinosaurs, in fact just this year Papo released an amazing Gyps fulvus, and their Fratercula arctica is not only my favorite Papo but my favorite figure of that entire genus!

Joking aside (but hey, that really is my favorite of the genus!), Papo is certainly capable of producing accurate animals, and in fact some of the very best at that! But sadly it doesn't seem like they have the motive to do so with their extinct line. The comparative improvement in recent years seems more to changes in inspiration than changes in accuracy attempts. I have nothing against inaccuracy in and of itself, its only when a company refuses to acknowledge their inaccuracies and in doing so spreads public misconceptions that I take issue with it, thus I take no issue with Papo being inaccurate, and why should I? its not like they've ever claimed otherwise.

"Characterized" might suit Papo's extinct dinosaurs more so than strictly "move monsters".

[tanystropheus]

Joking aside (but hey, that really is my favorite of the genus!), Papo is certainly capable of producing accurate animals, and in fact some of the very best at that! But sadly it doesn't seem like they have the motive to do so with their extinct line. The comparative improvement in recent years seems more to changes in inspiration than changes in accuracy attempts. I have nothing against inaccuracy in and of itself, its only when a company refuses to acknowledge their inaccuracies and in doing so spreads public misconceptions that I take issue with it, thus I take no issue with Papo being inaccurate, and why should I? its not like they've ever claimed otherwise.

Yeah, it is difficult to fault Papo, especially since the company never publicly speaks of their underlying motives or intents. Papo also never claim to be 'museum class'.

It is difficult to ascertain whether they integrate the feedback of their fans, despite the ongoing popularity of Papo fan request threads.

[TJ_Terrorsaur]

I believe the Ankylosaurus was a Sideshow piece.  That picture was a share from one of their fans.

So we might have had a sneak peak at the newest Rebor hatchling, it was on their Facebook page this morning. A baby Ankylosaurus with this as the description.
"Hey whats up?"
"Oh nothing much, kinda got stuck"
"Join the club!"

As far as I can tell this little one's egg looks more detailed than Jolly's did as well as a more slimy looking baby dino. I like to think Rebor are like budding artists they can only get better. (I know if I didn't practice my drawing I'd still be at square one). So anyhow I'll post a link! https://www.facebook.com/reborstudio?fref=ts

That is not a Rebor model, its Sideshows Ultra Rare Euoplocephalus
http://dinotoyblog.com/2013/03/11/euoplocephalus-in-egg-maquette-sideshow-dinosauria/

I remember when i first learned of this model. It was like it was available for 5 minutes on Sideshows website, and it sold out before anyone on here had a chance to learn of the models exsistance

BTW its leaps and bounds ahead of Rebor when it comes to accuracy (if your one of those type of collectors)

Oh....well don't I feel like a dummy. Sorry. ^^;
So despite me making a fool out of myself, I do wonder what Rebor will do next for their Club Collection.

[jurassic jace]

I would curse and mutter and clench my fingers tightly and keep my word and refuse to purchase because that is how I work. I do admit that would be the way to tempt me severely and painfully and without end however.......for me a principle is important. It would be a true test of wills, and I am amused at the idea to be sure.
   You are probably also correct regarding the comments regarding Doug, in which case they should not find it too difficult to offer an apology and move forward. I think my main point was that I was not that invested in their products, mistakes, accuracy or so forth until they took to "snark-casm" about Doug.
   You do make some good points and are likely correct...lets see how it plays out.

im a newbie and proud of it!,and im going to bat for Rebor and Papo,correct or incorrect dinos these newer companies are at least trying to bring more dynamic dinos to the market, it seems to me that some of the senior members on this forum including yourself just don't like anything these companies do! I think their great!all this boycotting talk is crap!i think Rebor were baited!and now that their caught hook ,line,and sinker,you gloat in youre proudness of defending this fellow member Doug,but really you just don't like the new kid on the block!,everyone has their prefences I like dinos that look 'well' just look cool, not all this ohh its feet are to big!it' hasen't got enough feathers etc...neck to long ?neck to short?,and yes everyone im a newbie that's come out of the woodwork to defend Rebor! is this o.k?if not TO BAD!

[DinoToyForum]

I would curse and mutter and clench my fingers tightly and keep my word and refuse to purchase because that is how I work. I do admit that would be the way to tempt me severely and painfully and without end however.......for me a principle is important. It would be a true test of wills, and I am amused at the idea to be sure.
   You are probably also correct regarding the comments regarding Doug, in which case they should not find it too difficult to offer an apology and move forward. I think my main point was that I was not that invested in their products, mistakes, accuracy or so forth until they took to "snark-casm" about Doug.
   You do make some good points and are likely correct...lets see how it plays out.

im a newbie and proud of it!,and im going to bat for Rebor and Papo,correct or incorrect dinos these newer companies are at least trying to bring more dynamic dinos to the market, it seems to me that some of the senior members on this forum including yourself just don't like anything these companies do! I think their great!all this boycotting talk is crap!i think Rebor were baited!and now that their caught hook ,line,and sinker,you gloat in youre proudness of defending this fellow member Doug,but really you just don't like the new kid on the block!,everyone has their prefences I like dinos that look 'well' just look cool, not all this ohh its feet are to big!it' hasen't got enough feathers etc...neck to long ?neck to short?,and yes everyone im a newbie that's come out of the woodwork to defend Rebor! is this o.k?if not TO BAD!

Permanently banned for rudeness and personal attack. A shame, because I really felt like the nastiness in this thread had blown over and members were starting to find common ground, or at least agree to disagree.I've left the post unchanged so members, both newbies and veterans, can see what isn't acceptable on this forum, but please nobody reply to the goading post. Hopefully we can all keep this discussion of Rebor alive in a civil and respectful manner. 

[Dinoguy2]

I was shocked by how rude some posts in the Rebor Yutyrannus thread were, and how badly Rebor was treated.  That seemed to stop some time last year, after moderators took action.  Not long after that though, the opposite has happened - some members started being rude to others while expressing their support for Rebor, and then to my surprise Rebor also started being rude in some of their posts.  It seems like retaliation for something that had been dealt with.

Personally, I'm interested in prehistoric animal reconstructions that look like a real animal that once lived, with good accuracy, based on what is know of it.  I greatly value research and knowledge that's put into a reconstruction.  It's for these reasons I really like the figures Doug Watson and Dan LoRusso are bringing us.  I have no interest in reconstructions where people alter an animal's physical appearance from what is known of it because they don't really care about it being accurate and/or to try to make it more appealing (I don't think a deliberately altered reconstruction is ever more appealing than the real animal).  That's why I have no interest in the prehistoric figures that have been made by Papo, Schleich, and Rebor too I've realised.  It seems there are people who like them for what they are, which is fair enough.  Calling/implying they are highly accurate representations of prehistoric animals when they're not though is likely to justly result in people pointing out this isn't correct.

I hope that now things can move on and Rebor discussions can be without rudeness.  After all, something has to end before something new can begin!

Can we please finally admit to ourselves that Collecta/Safari/Sideshow and Papo/Rebor are not even attempting to make the same kind of figures? And can these companies please finally realize that you can't market dinosaur toys to paleoart toy fans without getting us riled up about accuracy?

The problem with that perspective is that it reeks of intellectual elitism. Papo falls under the same category of toys as CollectA, Safari, Battat, Schleich, Bullyland, and Carnegie. There is clearly a shift in vision with respect to the type of toys that Papo are delivering in 2015 when compared to the JP-inspired figures that they released a couple years earlier. Papo is either "relatively" inaccurate or "relatively" accurate. Newer Papos generally have on average 1-2 anatomical issues (this is on par with the number of anatomical issues found on recent CollectAs). Yes, the Papo Carnotaurus has a wide snout, especially when compared to the SS, but you are also paying a couple hundred dollars more for the SS version. Okay, you don't want a wide snout Carnotaurus. Well, how okay are you with a tripod version (Carnegie)? The SS and Papo Tupuxuara are 99% accurate; both models seem to be be lacking pycnofibers. So, the Papo Styracosaurus has a relatively long neck...What other models of Styraco have a long neck? The Favorite Soft Model Series 2 version, X-plus and Kaiyodo Styracosaurus also sport long necks. Give Papo a break 

No, it's not elitism unless you say one is better. Papo figures might not have anatomical issues specifically, but compare the Papo ankylosaur to say, the  newest Safari ankylosaur. One is in the most extreme position possible with mouth agape like its roaring at its attacker and has a lot of "character" and style. In terms of art, while it is very inaccurate, that's not the point- it has a comic book, action vibe.The other is depicted in a more muted posture and seems more like an effort to depict a real living animal. I don't want to say "boring", but good paleoart should be more boring than good dinosaur art, since the first tries to show a typical day in the life of a typical animal, and the later is about showing out how weird they are compared to modern animals. It's not about accuracy, it's about which side of dinosaurs the artist chooses to emphasize through their interpretation.

This is beside the point, but there's also nothing inaccurate about the tripod poses used by many lines. Theropods did not habitually walk like that but there's nothing in their anatomy preventing them from rearing up. If Diplodocus could do it, which studies say it could, then Carnotaurus could have tripoded easily. I think the complaints about tripods are more to do with the fact that it limits the number of different poses, not that it's anatomically wrong.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I was shocked by how rude some posts in the Rebor Yutyrannus thread were, and how badly Rebor was treated.  That seemed to stop some time last year, after moderators took action.  Not long after that though, the opposite has happened - some members started being rude to others while expressing their support for Rebor, and then to my surprise Rebor also started being rude in some of their posts.  It seems like retaliation for something that had been dealt with.

Personally, I'm interested in prehistoric animal reconstructions that look like a real animal that once lived, with good accuracy, based on what is know of it.  I greatly value research and knowledge that's put into a reconstruction.  It's for these reasons I really like the figures Doug Watson and Dan LoRusso are bringing us.  I have no interest in reconstructions where people alter an animal's physical appearance from what is known of it because they don't really care about it being accurate and/or to try to make it more appealing (I don't think a deliberately altered reconstruction is ever more appealing than the real animal).  That's why I have no interest in the prehistoric figures that have been made by Papo, Schleich, and Rebor too I've realised.  It seems there are people who like them for what they are, which is fair enough.  Calling/implying they are highly accurate representations of prehistoric animals when they're not though is likely to justly result in people pointing out this isn't correct.

I hope that now things can move on and Rebor discussions can be without rudeness.  After all, something has to end before something new can begin!

Can we please finally admit to ourselves that Collecta/Safari/Sideshow and Papo/Rebor are not even attempting to make the same kind of figures? And can these companies please finally realize that you can't market dinosaur toys to paleoart toy fans without getting us riled up about accuracy?

The problem with that perspective is that it reeks of intellectual elitism. Papo falls under the same category of toys as CollectA, Safari, Battat, Schleich, Bullyland, and Carnegie. There is clearly a shift in vision with respect to the type of toys that Papo are delivering in 2015 when compared to the JP-inspired figures that they released a couple years earlier. Papo is either "relatively" inaccurate or "relatively" accurate. Newer Papos generally have on average 1-2 anatomical issues (this is on par with the number of anatomical issues found on recent CollectAs). Yes, the Papo Carnotaurus has a wide snout, especially when compared to the SS, but you are also paying a couple hundred dollars more for the SS version. Okay, you don't want a wide snout Carnotaurus. Well, how okay are you with a tripod version (Carnegie)? The SS and Papo Tupuxuara are 99% accurate; both models seem to be be lacking pycnofibers. So, the Papo Styracosaurus has a relatively long neck...What other models of Styraco have a long neck? The Favorite Soft Model Series 2 version, X-plus and Kaiyodo Styracosaurus also sport long necks. Give Papo a break 

No, it's not elitism unless you say one is better. Papo figures might not have anatomical issues specifically, but compare the Papo ankylosaur to say, the  newest Safari ankylosaur. One is in the most extreme position possible with mouth agape like its roaring at its attacker and has a lot of "character" and style. In terms of art, while it is very inaccurate, that's not the point- it has a comic book, action vibe.The other is depicted in a more muted posture and seems more like an effort to depict a real living animal. I don't want to say "boring", but good paleoart should be more boring than good dinosaur art, since the first tries to show a typical day in the life of a typical animal, and the later is about showing out how weird they are compared to modern animals. It's not about accuracy, it's about which side of dinosaurs the artist chooses to emphasize through their interpretation.

This is beside the point, but there's also nothing inaccurate about the tripod poses used by many lines. Theropods did not habitually walk like that but there's nothing in their anatomy preventing them from rearing up. If Diplodocus could do it, which studies say it could, then Carnotaurus could have tripoded easily. I think the complaints about tripods are more to do with the fact that it limits the number of different poses, not that it's anatomically wrong.

  I promise not to make this a habbit...but I really agree with about everything you said there, Dinoguy.Your comparison makes great sense and thanks for illustrating that so well. I had never thought much about rearing theropods....but it seems sensible. Good post !!!

[suspsy]

I've never doubted the possibility of the Carnegie tripod stance; I just find it redundant and boring. Given that Carnegie and not Forrest Rogers insisted upon it, I fear any future line the former comes up with will be similar.

Paleoart is funny that way. We're all so accustomed to seeing dinosaurs depicted in active, extreme poses and yet the truth is undoubtedly a lot more mundane. Same as how extant animals generally spend most of their time being tranquil. People on safari always expect to see lions doing this:



When the reality is this:



A truly realistic Tyrannosaurus rex pose would probably be along the lines of it sleeping peacefully. Or taking a drink. For the record, I'd gladly buy a toy in either of those poses, but I know not everyone else would.

[DinoToyForum]

We are going off topic here now, so let's bring things back to Rebor general discussion. Thanks!

[Dinoguy2]

We are going off topic here now, so let's bring things back to Rebor general discussion. Thanks!

Respectfully, I think talking about the differences between action/coolness emphasis and realism/naturalism emphasis is at least partly on topic, since Rebor has flat out said they are going for the former and are not interested in the latter, yet some people still judge them on the latter.

For example, I collect natural looking dinosaur figures, so I'm not very interested in buying Rebor or Papo style models. But I still admire their level of detail (though I wish somebody would make a closer copy of the Sideshow Apatosaurus, probably the most accurate and natural looking sauropod ever made... Even Papo had to go ruin it with a roaring posture, giant scales and lumpy mammal skin!) Detail is nice at makes them look like cool figures, but in some cases detail is not natural looking or accurate. Rebor figures have these excellently sculpted and interesting looking scale and skin details all over, when most dinosaur scales were so small they'd be barely visible in a small scale model (even the scales on the Safari Gryposaurus, IMO the best hadrosaur out there, are a bit too big, though I kinda prefer that to smooth skin because it gives the general idea of how the skin really looked and felt). The same thing that makes for an excellent, detailed, interesting sculpt can make the model less accurate and less naturalistic looking (differing dramatically from similar form of modern relatives).

[stargatedalek]

Respectfully, I think talking about the differences between action/coolness emphasis and realism/naturalism emphasis is at least partly on topic, since Rebor has flat out said they are going for the former and are not interested in the latter, yet some people still judge them on the latter.

If only it were that simple! If REBOR just said they made stylized dinosaurs that would have been the end of it, but they said they didn't care about accuracy and yet would not stop marketing their products as accurate. They completely admitted that were using their marketing to take advantage of people with no remorse, and I simply can not have anything but contempt for such an attitude. I would feel horrible if I were to give someone who didn't know any better something inaccurate claiming to be accurate (this mainly applies to buying books for people). So for a company to use "scientific accuracy" as a way to take advantage of people simply makes me sick.

[tanystropheus]

I was shocked by how rude some posts in the Rebor Yutyrannus thread were, and how badly Rebor was treated.  That seemed to stop some time last year, after moderators took action.  Not long after that though, the opposite has happened - some members started being rude to others while expressing their support for Rebor, and then to my surprise Rebor also started being rude in some of their posts.  It seems like retaliation for something that had been dealt with.

Personally, I'm interested in prehistoric animal reconstructions that look like a real animal that once lived, with good accuracy, based on what is know of it.  I greatly value research and knowledge that's put into a reconstruction.  It's for these reasons I really like the figures Doug Watson and Dan LoRusso are bringing us.  I have no interest in reconstructions where people alter an animal's physical appearance from what is known of it because they don't really care about it being accurate and/or to try to make it more appealing (I don't think a deliberately altered reconstruction is ever more appealing than the real animal).  That's why I have no interest in the prehistoric figures that have been made by Papo, Schleich, and Rebor too I've realised.  It seems there are people who like them for what they are, which is fair enough.  Calling/implying they are highly accurate representations of prehistoric animals when they're not though is likely to justly result in people pointing out this isn't correct.

I hope that now things can move on and Rebor discussions can be without rudeness.  After all, something has to end before something new can begin!

Can we please finally admit to ourselves that Collecta/Safari/Sideshow and Papo/Rebor are not even attempting to make the same kind of figures? And can these companies please finally realize that you can't market dinosaur toys to paleoart toy fans without getting us riled up about accuracy?

The problem with that perspective is that it reeks of intellectual elitism. Papo falls under the same category of toys as CollectA, Safari, Battat, Schleich, Bullyland, and Carnegie. There is clearly a shift in vision with respect to the type of toys that Papo are delivering in 2015 when compared to the JP-inspired figures that they released a couple years earlier. Papo is either "relatively" inaccurate or "relatively" accurate. Newer Papos generally have on average 1-2 anatomical issues (this is on par with the number of anatomical issues found on recent CollectAs). Yes, the Papo Carnotaurus has a wide snout, especially when compared to the SS, but you are also paying a couple hundred dollars more for the SS version. Okay, you don't want a wide snout Carnotaurus. Well, how okay are you with a tripod version (Carnegie)? The SS and Papo Tupuxuara are 99% accurate; both models seem to be be lacking pycnofibers. So, the Papo Styracosaurus has a relatively long neck...What other models of Styraco have a long neck? The Favorite Soft Model Series 2 version, X-plus and Kaiyodo Styracosaurus also sport long necks. Give Papo a break 

No, it's not elitism unless you say one is better. Papo figures might not have anatomical issues specifically, but compare the Papo ankylosaur to say, the  newest Safari ankylosaur. One is in the most extreme position possible with mouth agape like its roaring at its attacker and has a lot of "character" and style. In terms of art, while it is very inaccurate, that's not the point- it has a comic book, action vibe.The other is depicted in a more muted posture and seems more like an effort to depict a real living animal. I don't want to say "boring", but good paleoart should be more boring than good dinosaur art, since the first tries to show a typical day in the life of a typical animal, and the later is about showing out how weird they are compared to modern animals. It's not about accuracy, it's about which side of dinosaurs the artist chooses to emphasize through their interpretation.

This is beside the point, but there's also nothing inaccurate about the tripod poses used by many lines. Theropods did not habitually walk like that but there's nothing in their anatomy preventing them from rearing up. If Diplodocus could do it, which studies say it could, then Carnotaurus could have tripoded easily. I think the complaints about tripods are more to do with the fact that it limits the number of different poses, not that it's anatomically wrong.

The thing that confuses me is the fact that you lumped Safari/CollectA/SideShow in one category. Carnegie dinosaur poses tend to be static and comparable to that of Favorite (Favorite dinosaurs are always presented in a 'neutral' stance). One might argue that Sideshow dinosaurs are stylized and somewhat 'comic-book' like in terms of pose and overall depiction. If anything, Sideshow, Papo and Rebor seem to fall under the same spectrum.

http://s496.photobucket.com/user/LookSaMArT2/media/Toynews/N081026-30/3102_press01-001.jpg.html

[stargatedalek]

Personally I'd say Sideshow is like a middle ground. They show that even with dramatic poses accuracy can still be taken into account.

[TJ_Terrorsaur]

I've never doubted the possibility of the Carnegie tripod stance; I just find it redundant and boring. Given that Carnegie and not Forrest Rogers insisted upon it, I fear any future line the former comes up with will be similar.

Paleoart is funny that way. We're all so accustomed to seeing dinosaurs depicted in active, extreme poses and yet the truth is undoubtedly a lot more mundane. Same as how extant animals generally spend most of their time being tranquil. People on safari always expect to see lions doing this:



When the reality is this:



A truly realistic Tyrannosaurus rex pose would probably be along the lines of it sleeping peacefully. Or taking a drink. For the record, I'd gladly buy a toy in either of those poses, but I know not everyone else would.

If Rebor does have more plans for their King T-Rex then I'd love to see a family unit with maybe the female Queen Rex dozing whilst their infants play and what not. That's be neat. I've seen a lot of nature documentaries where the adult lions doze (or attempt to) while the cubs play.

[Sim]

So, the Papo Styracosaurus has a relatively long neck...What other models of Styraco have a long neck? The Favorite Soft Model Series 2 version, X-plus and Kaiyodo Styracosaurus also sport long necks. Give Papo a break 

The Papo Styracosaurus doesn't just have a neck that's too long, it also has a tail that's too short.  I find this makes it look awkward, which is no surprise since the proportions are off. The Favorite Soft Model Series 2 and X-plus Styracosaurus don't have these inaccuracies.  Searching for "kaiyodo styracosaurus" on Google images brought up some very strange pictures...  It also didn't leave me knowing which figure you're referring to.  This one: http://dinotoyblog.com/2010/12/18/styracosaurus-dinotales-series-3-by-kaiyodo/ seems to be have correct proportions, it's just very shrink wrapped.  The other Kaiyodo Styracosaurus which can be seen in the first post here: http://dinotoyforum.proboards.com/thread/3249 was apparently released in the 1990's and it is quite inaccurate (or would outdated be more appropriate?).  It seems to resemble the Papo Styracosaurus in a number of details, like the neck position, the raised scales on the back, the short tail...  Maybe it's just a coincidence.

[tanystropheus]

So, the Papo Styracosaurus has a relatively long neck...What other models of Styraco have a long neck? The Favorite Soft Model Series 2 version, X-plus and Kaiyodo Styracosaurus also sport long necks. Give Papo a break 

The Papo Styracosaurus doesn't just have a neck that's too long, it also has a tail that's too short.  I find this makes it look awkward, which is no surprise since the proportions are off. The Favorite Soft Model Series 2 and X-plus Styracosaurus don't have these inaccuracies.  Searching for "kaiyodo styracosaurus" on Google images brought up some very strange pictures...  It also didn't leave me knowing which figure you're referring to.  This one: http://dinotoyblog.com/2010/12/18/styracosaurus-dinotales-series-3-by-kaiyodo/ seems to be have correct proportions, it's just very shrink wrapped.  The other Kaiyodo Styracosaurus which can be seen in the first post here: http://dinotoyforum.proboards.com/thread/3249 was apparently released in the 1990's and it is quite inaccurate (or would outdated be more appropriate?).  It seems to resemble the Papo Styracosaurus in a number of details, like the neck position, the raised scales on the back, the short tail...  Maybe it's just a coincidence.

I agree that coupled with a short tail, it makes the model look awkward (or gives the illusion of an even longer neck)

long neck styracosaurus:

Kaiyodo

http://s239.photobucket.com/user/doc_ronnie/media/All%20Toys/Dinosaur/KaiyodoDinotalesSeries3StyracosaurusNo055ndash2002_zps3a769404.jpg.html

Favorite

http://dinotoyblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Styraco-4.jpg

[stargatedalek]

The neck on neither of those is as long as the Papo version.

[tanystropheus]

The neck on neither of those is as long as the Papo version.

They look long to me The Kaiyodo version's neck almost has a slinky type vibe too it. CollectA's Medusaceratops has a relatively long neck, especially when compared to their very own Nasutoceratops.

P.S The Papo Styraco's feet anatomy are more defined than the Kaiyodo version.