Safari Ltd - New for 2016

[Everything_Dinosaur]

Also, the PT ad was a two-page spread? What was on the second page?

Yeah, I was just wondering the same thing. New figures of modern day wildlife perhaps?

The other part of the double page spread only featured one model, the Wild Safari Dinos Brachiosaurus (model number 278229), this green Brachiosaurus was introduced around 2013.  We did not feature this item as we wanted to focus on enlarging the first part of the advert to get a really good look at the new models.

[Dinoguy2]

Really? So now how much longer do we have to wait?

@TE Matt - I believe Safari released a megalodon last year, plus it's not exclusively British, so I'm thinking Neovenator, Eotyrannus... God bless me be a Nuthetes?

Join the nuthetes gang I'm hoping on collecta to make a nuthetes and a troodon

Ehh, I think they'd be wise to avoid making species that are based entirely on a handful of teeth. It's why we never see any more Trachodon figures

[tyrantqueen]

Really? So now how much longer do we have to wait?

@TE Matt - I believe Safari released a megalodon last year, plus it's not exclusively British, so I'm thinking Neovenator, Eotyrannus... God bless me be a Nuthetes?

Join the nuthetes gang I'm hoping on collecta to make a nuthetes and a troodon

Ehh, I think they'd be wise to avoid making species that are based entirely on a handful of teeth. It's why we never see any more Trachodon figures

I agree. Jaw fragments and teeth are waaay too little to go on.

[stargatedalek]

I'm not opposed to it honestly, it gives the sculptors more creative liberty and introduces people to more obscure species and genera.

[DinoG]

So if they included some random old model in th ad, there is as chance that the new models are not limited to the ones in the photo....maybe there is more to come from Safari 2016

[suspsy]

So if they included some random old model in th ad, there is as chance that the new models are not limited to the ones in the photo....maybe there is more to come from Safari 2016

Safari stated on their Facebook page awhile back that there would be six prehistoric models in 2016.

[Sim]

Unless it's necessary (e.g. if something from a particular place/time/size is needed), I think it tends to be a bad thing to make restorations of fragmentary animals, both in 2D and 3D.  Most people won't look up information on the animal and find out much of the restoration is a guess, and so it makes people think there's much less diversity among prehistoric animals than there actually is.  Most of the time these restorations end up looking generic because since much of the animal isn't known they get based on related animals.  Making a restoration of an animal with very incomplete remains also makes it more likely it will become outdated if more remains are found.  For example, CollectA's Deinocheirus.  I imagine more people would want it and buy it if it didn't look so different from a real Deinocheirus.

A lot of the time, there's no need to make a restoration of a fragmentary animal.  There are plenty of prehistoric animals that aren't well-known (especially to the general public) and are known from good fossil remains.  Some unique-looking animals known from good remains don't even have ANY toy version!  E.g.: Torvosaurus, Centrosaurus.  Even skin impressions are known for Centrosaurus!  There are also many prehistoric animals known from decent remains that lack a good toy version.  I'm interested in prehistoric animals because they're real animals that once lived, not a product of human imagination.  I find restorations of fragmentary animals tend to come closer to human imagination than observing a real animal.  This is why I prefer to have figures that show a lot of what is REALLY known of a prehistoric animal, rather than figures that are mostly a guess as to what an animal looked like.

[Viking Spawn]

Unless it's necessary (e.g. if something from a particular place/time/size is needed), I think it tends to be a bad thing to make restorations of fragmentary animals, both in 2D and 3D.  Most people won't look up information on the animal and find out much of the restoration is a guess, and so it makes people think there's much less diversity among prehistoric animals than there actually is.  Most of the time these restorations end up looking generic because since much of the animal isn't known they get based on related animals.  Making a restoration of an animal with very incomplete remains also makes it more likely it will become outdated if more remains are found.  For example, CollectA's Deinocheirus.  I imagine more people would want it and buy it if it didn't look so different from a real Deinocheirus.

A lot of the time, there's no need to make a restoration of a fragmentary animal.  There are plenty of prehistoric animals that aren't well-known (especially to the general public) and are known from good fossil remains.  Some unique-looking animals known from good remains don't even have ANY toy version!  E.g.: Torvosaurus, Centrosaurus.  Even skin impressions are known for Centrosaurus!  There are also many prehistoric animals known from decent remains that lack a good toy version.  I'm interested in prehistoric animals because they're real animals that once lived, not a product of human imagination.  I find restorations of fragmentary animals tend to come closer to human imagination than observing a real animal.  This is why I prefer to have figures that show a lot of what is REALLY known of a prehistoric animal, rather than figures that are mostly a guess as to what an animal looked like.

I agree with Sim.  I couldn't have said this better myself.  I'd rather see products based on known facts/evidence.  There are still plenty of other creatures that can still be made before companies invent imaginary/hypothesized ones. 

[PaleoMatt]

I do still want CollectA to make a Nuthetes since it appeared in Dinosaur Britain

[Takama]

LOOKY What i found on Amazon

http://www.amazon.com/Safari-Wild-Dinos-Prehistoric-Doedicurus/dp/B004MB27CM/ref=sr_1_63?m=A2P5I4NW0QQAX1&s=baby-products&ie=UTF8&qid=1445498676&sr=1-63&refinements=p_4%3ASafari

[CityRaptor]

The first three words in that description make me cringe: LARGE GLYPTODONT DINOSAUR

[Takama]

Its not the only 2016 model i found.

They made some cartoonish Dragons for this new year

[Sim]

http://www.amazon.com/Safari/b/ref=bl_dp_s_web_2599964011?ie=UTF8&node=2599964011&field-lbr_brands_browse-bin=Safari

I'm going to guess the angle makes it look like the large theropod has only 2 fingers, and it actually has 3...

[Patrx]

http://www.amazon.com/Safari/b/ref=bl_dp_s_web_2599964011?ie=UTF8&node=2599964011&field-lbr_brands_browse-bin=Safari

I'm going to guess the angle makes it look like the large theropod has only 2 fingers, and it actually has 3...

Nice! I'm pretty sure I see three digits on the left hand.

[DinoToyForum]

http://www.amazon.com/Safari/b/ref=bl_dp_s_web_2599964011?ie=UTF8&node=2599964011&field-lbr_brands_browse-bin=Safari

I'm going to guess the angle makes it look like the large theropod has only 2 fingers, and it actually has 3...

Nice! I'm pretty sure I see three digits on the left hand.

No doubt!

[stargatedalek]

That spoonbill is a real jaw dropper, here's hoping it's not fused to a base.

[Fluffysaurus]

Bring ooon the dinosauuuurs

[Halichoeres]

That spoonbill is a real jaw dropper, here's hoping it's not fused to a base.

If any biped can get away with not having a base, it would be one with webbed feet

I've never bought any Safari birds; do they usually have bases?

[stargatedalek]

That spoonbill is a real jaw dropper, here's hoping it's not fused to a base.

If any biped can get away with not having a base, it would be one with webbed feet

I've never bought any Safari birds; do they usually have bases?

Some do some don't, it seems to be decided more from aesthetics than by what stands well on its own.

[Sim]

I do still want CollectA to make a Nuthetes since it appeared in Dinosaur Britain

I don't think any of the main toy lines will make a Nuthetes as no-one knows what it is beyond being a theropod.  It's been suggested it's a dromaeosaur, but it's also been pointed out it could be a tyrannosauroid similar to Proceratosaurus.  If you're interested in Nuthetes, I'd recommend reading the Nuthetes Wikipedia page if you haven't already, as it covers all that's known about it.

I really liked Dinosaur Britain.  I enjoyed the Nuthetes part, but that was because they did an above-average job of showing dromaeosaurs had feathers and were birdlike, and the interactions the Nuthetes had with the humans and other parts of modern Britain was very entertaining!  Unlike all the other dinosaur parts in Dinosaur Britain which focused on actual dinosaur species, that part was more about a Velociraptor-like dromaeosaur than Nuthetes because of how fragmentary the remains of Nuthetes are.  They even said that because all that's known of Nuthetes is a jaw fragment and isolated teeth they have to look at dromaeosaurs with more complete remains like Velociraptor.

I'd really like to see more good British dinosaur toys, and good dromaeosaur toys, but Nuthetes is so fragmentary and poorly understood that it isn't wise for a toy company to make a toy of it.  I don't think even CollectA, which has made toys of many fragmentary species, would do Nuthetes (unless more fossils of it turn up).  This is my opinion about this, anyway!