Carnegie Collection by Safari Ltd

[suspsy]

Now THAT is a damn good T. rex!

[Simon]

Now THAT is a damn good T. rex!

Thank you.  THAT is what it would look like if I sculpted it.  Or kitbashed it.

[suspsy]

I'm especially pleased by the thicker tail.

[Sim]

[deleted defunct image]

Now THAT is a damn good T. rex!

Thank you.  THAT is what it would look like if I sculpted it.  Or kitbashed it.

You might have had more to do than you thought then, as the tail base looks too laterally compressed, and the forelimbs look like they need to be more muscular. 

[Takama]

I see a lot of complaining towards Carnegie about the tripod posture. That's a valid criticism, as is the complaint about stagnant poses. But I see the same problem with the Battat line, and yet they get a free pass. If you look at the sculpts, nearly all the Battat theropods are using a tail or limb to balance themselves. Some of the old Battats had serious problems standing.

I'm not bashing Battat btw. I like their sculpts well enough. Tripod dinosaurs are a concession that have to be made, either that or clown feet. I prefer tripods. I can deal with badly balanced models by using an outside method of support, like a plastic rod. But if you're going to complain about Carnegies being tripods, realise that they are not the only ones doing it.

I told Dan LoRusso that i think the poses on his Models look a lot more Believable then Anything that Carnegie Has ever done.

Im glad i quit on the Carnegie Collection Despite it being the one thing that got me in this Hobby in the first place. Battats are so much better in my Eyes, and i thank the good lord that they are coming back for a new generation. while Carnegie is Put to rest in its Grave.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Now THAT is a damn good T. rex!

Thank you.  THAT is what it would look like if I sculpted it.  Or kitbashed it.

You might have had more to do than you thought then, as the tail base looks too laterally compressed, and the forelimbs look like they need to be more muscular. 

I see this as  a positive step if it was sent to Forest to help her better understand or visualize and construct her figure..but....did you then attempt to render this figure in material to find with these proportions if it would stand or fall on its face or tail everytime or become unstable to one side or another? In short, it is so simple to second guess the sculpter until you attempt to work with the parameters they are forced to contend. I am guessing they are allowed a certain scale, a certain weight and height etc, and have to find a way to make the figure work within those parameters ....and it is not as easy as it looks.
    Nevermind that we know that with any dinosaur sculpt there is normally a paleontologist in some fashion advising and making needed suggestions..and yet noone is demanding the person responsible for the Tyrannosaurus to never work in the field again. I know for a fact that Forest works extensively with paleontologists for the sculpts as I have met Michael Everheart who was the person she worked with for the Tylosaurus for example.
   Noone is considering these facts in a fair and eve manner...so there it is.

[John]

The so called "tripod pose" never bothered me because I have plenty of bipeds that aren't in that pose as well.It doesn't matter what line they are from,the variety is there in the case of what I have.

[suspsy]

Even when a sculptor consults with a paleontologist, it doesn't necessarily follow that they're getting the best, most accurate, up to date information. Indeed, Darren Naish once stated that he's met some who don't even care how dinosaurs might have looked in real life. Remember this article? Dan LoRusso and the Nanshiungosaurus controversy also feature:

http://dinogoss.blogspot.ca/2014/10/youre-doing-it-wrong-protobird-toys.html?m=1

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Even when a sculptor consults with a paleontologist, it doesn't necessarily follow that they're getting the best, most accurate, up to date information. Indeed, Darren Naish once stated that he's met some who don't even care how dinosaurs might have looked in real life. Remember this article? Dan LoRusso and the Nanshiungosaurus controversy also feature:

http://dinogoss.blogspot.ca/2014/10/youre-doing-it-wrong-protobird-toys.html?m=1

Precisely my point, and so...knowing this..why are we bashing the artist and not the consultant?

[John]

*posted in wrong thread*
any mod please delete

[Stuckasaurus (Dino Dad Reviews)]

I certainly would prefer properly balancing theropods as much as anyone else, but to hear most people talk about it, you'd think we were still dealing with this:



At least with the Carnegie theropods, there was always the suggestion of bipedalism, what with the rearing, roaring stance. I'm also inclined to side with the people who feel Ms. Rogers was probably constrained by Carnegie, and that she did a pretty decent job considering those constraints. Carnegies are in fact what first got me into this hobby after all. There's always things to nitpick, but she did a dang fine job in my book. It's a pity the Collection had to fizzle out on such a wimpy note.

(Funny side note, I just now realized the tail of Knight's T. rex is not technically dragging on the ground. Who's the tripod now?!?  )

[Dinoguy2]

Something that ended up bothering me about the Carnegie Collection dinosaurs was their too small caudofemoralis muscles.  They never did overcome that mistake.  If Forest Rogers sculpts more prehistoric animals, I hope the caudofemoralis get done correctly.

You forgot to add the too-small ankles and feet to your list.  (Plus of course the horrendous tripod stance).

Forest Rogers is a lost cause in that regard.  I for one hope she never sculpts another theropod for the rest of her life.

As I've said before, the tripod stance is the only accurate stance possible if you want a theropod to stand up. It's 100% better than Collecta's totally laughable Sumo stances where theropods are walking around like wide gauge Titanosaurs. Or the scourge of the clown foot. I'd rather have 20 theropods in the same stance with accurate feet and hips than a figure that is inaccurate on purpose just to get it to stand up. Or just have a base.

Carnegie and Battat theropods are the only ones on the mass market with accurate feet and hips. Most of the Battats can't stand, the Carnegies can. Every single Battat theropod is also a tripod, they just get more creative about what and how the third support touches the ground, with mixed results. It's not physically possible to make a solid plastic theropod in walking posture that's both accurate and balance able. You'd have to perfectly balance it with strategically placed hollow cavities and internal weights like a real animal.

Or, again, use a base, which I like if they're nicely modeled and painted like the old Carnegies. I'd love to see some new figures of small animals from Forest in 1:40 where most of the figure is base scenery and the actual animal is a minor part like the Protoceratops. You could do some nice pieces of say, a mid sized dromaeosaurid climbing in a tree stump, or a medium pterosaur launching off a craggy rock.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Something that ended up bothering me about the Carnegie Collection dinosaurs was their too small caudofemoralis muscles.  They never did overcome that mistake.  If Forest Rogers sculpts more prehistoric animals, I hope the caudofemoralis get done correctly.

You forgot to add the too-small ankles and feet to your list.  (Plus of course the horrendous tripod stance).

Forest Rogers is a lost cause in that regard.  I for one hope she never sculpts another theropod for the rest of her life.

As I've said before, the tripod stance is the only accurate stance possible if you want a theropod to stand up. It's 100% better than Collecta's totally laughable Sumo stances where theropods are walking around like wide gauge Titanosaurs. Or the scourge of the clown foot. I'd rather have 20 theropods in the same stance with accurate feet and hips than a figure that is inaccurate on purpose just to get it to stand up. Or just have a base.

Carnegie and Battat theropods are the only ones on the mass market with accurate feet and hips. Most of the Battats can't stand, the Carnegies can. Every single Battat theropod is also a tripod, they just get more creative about what and how the third support touches the ground, with mixed results. It's not physically possible to make a solid plastic theropod in walking posture that's both accurate and balance able. You'd have to perfectly balance it with strategically placed hollow cavities and internal weights like a real animal.

Or, again, use a base, which I like if they're nicely modeled and painted like the old Carnegies. I'd love to see some new figures of small animals from Forest in 1:40 where most of the figure is base scenery and the actual animal is a minor part like the Protoceratops. You could do some nice pieces of say, a mid sized dromaeosaurid climbing in a tree stump, or a medium pterosaur launching off a craggy rock.

This right here, someone else who gets it !! So perfectly stated and precisely how it is.

[Halichoeres]

Something that ended up bothering me about the Carnegie Collection dinosaurs was their too small caudofemoralis muscles.  They never did overcome that mistake.  If Forest Rogers sculpts more prehistoric animals, I hope the caudofemoralis get done correctly.

You forgot to add the too-small ankles and feet to your list.  (Plus of course the horrendous tripod stance).

Forest Rogers is a lost cause in that regard.  I for one hope she never sculpts another theropod for the rest of her life.

As I've said before, the tripod stance is the only accurate stance possible if you want a theropod to stand up. It's 100% better than Collecta's totally laughable Sumo stances where theropods are walking around like wide gauge Titanosaurs. Or the scourge of the clown foot. I'd rather have 20 theropods in the same stance with accurate feet and hips than a figure that is inaccurate on purpose just to get it to stand up. Or just have a base.

Carnegie and Battat theropods are the only ones on the mass market with accurate feet and hips. Most of the Battats can't stand, the Carnegies can. Every single Battat theropod is also a tripod, they just get more creative about what and how the third support touches the ground, with mixed results. It's not physically possible to make a solid plastic theropod in walking posture that's both accurate and balance able. You'd have to perfectly balance it with strategically placed hollow cavities and internal weights like a real animal.

Eyyyyup.

[terrorchicken]

Now THAT is a damn good T. rex!

is that supposed to be blood on the snout?

[tyrantqueen]

Now THAT is a damn good T. rex!

is that supposed to be blood on the snout?

I thought it was colouration rather than blood, but I guess there's nothing stopping you from using your imagination to pretend that it is.

[Gwangi]

As I've said before, the tripod stance is the only accurate stance possible if you want a theropod to stand up. It's 100% better than Collecta's totally laughable Sumo stances where theropods are walking around like wide gauge Titanosaurs. Or the scourge of the clown foot. I'd rather have 20 theropods in the same stance with accurate feet and hips than a figure that is inaccurate on

But the Carnegie feet aren't accurate; they're small and spindly looking. They don't look like they could support the mass of the animals they represent. Even an emu has some pretty beefy padding on its feet. For a great example of what I'm talking about compare the feet on the Battat Cryo to those on the Carnegie. Personally, I'm not that picky. I'll take Carnegie, CollectA, Battat etc. I like diversity in my models.

[John]

As I've said before, the tripod stance is the only accurate stance possible if you want a theropod to stand up. It's 100% better than Collecta's totally laughable Sumo stances where theropods are walking around like wide gauge Titanosaurs. Or the scourge of the clown foot. I'd rather have 20 theropods in the same stance with accurate feet and hips than a figure that is inaccurate on

But the Carnegie feet aren't accurate; they're small and spindly looking. They don't look like they could support the mass of the animals they represent. Even an emu has some pretty beefy padding on its feet. For a great example of what I'm talking about compare the feet on the Battat Cryo to those on the Carnegie. Personally, I'm not that picky. I'll take Carnegie, CollectA, Battat etc. I like diversity in my models.

The Cryolophosaurus isn't the best comparison.The one in the Carnegie line was based on the body and proportions of Dilophosaurus wetherilli which was thought at the time to be it's closest relative,but the Battat one is a little more up to date,with that one being more like Sinosaurus triassicus,which was a little more heavily built.Incidently,the feet of Cryolophosaurus are unknown as are those of Carnotaurus.If you take a look at the feet of Concavenator corcovatus in it's skeleton you will see just how ridiculously small they really were in the case of that one.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

And conversely on her Giganotosarus, and her red Anniversary Rex, the updated Spinosaurus and even the Carnotaurus,  and her Psittacosaurus, the feet are quite correctly sized, and appear quite beefy and appropriate. ........so it isnt really fair to say all of this, or all of that. She has her sculpts that were excellent and ones less so, just like any other artist..........generalizing where it does not fit is not especially useful.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Pulled up multiple images of the Concavenator skeletal , apparently known from only the one foot, and to my eyes the model looks to be quite in line with the evidence from the drawings. What skeletal are you comparing to her model that you find such a discreppancy ...I am just not seeing it.