Papo

[Sim]

Since I'm not interested in having the Papo Allosaurus and Carnotaurus, does that mean I'm not a dinofan?   I do think they are among Papo's better theropods, but the Allosaurus looks too monstrous to me.

As for the Papo Carnotaurus, it's snout is too wide which gives it a head I find boring.  Compare it to the 2011 Carnegie Carnotaurus's snout or a Carnotaurus's skull to see the difference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnotaurus#/media/File:Carnotaurus_Skull.jpg  Or, since the Papo figure appears to be heavily based on Sideshow's, a really great comparison is to Sideshow's which doesn't have a too wide snout:



It's especially noticeable when you compare the teeth.

Totally like this brand theropods. Their accuracy is acceptable for toys and the price is reasonable for their high quality,

I don't think the level of accuracy of some of Papo's prehistoric figures is acceptable for toys at the time they are made.  I think children deserve better than newly made toys that are an obviously false representation of animals that once lived.  I think toys like that are a waste when instead a toy could be made that stimulates a child's curiosity, imagination and interest with something that actually looks at least quite a bit like what it's supposed to represent.  Toys that are now outdated representations are different because they were made to look like the real animals.  But things like the featherless Papo "Velociraptor" which is an obvious rip-off of the ones from Jurassic Park, the Papo Oviraptor and the Papo Pteranodon have always been so obviously wrong that in my opinion they're rubbish.

[Carnotaurus]

Since I'm not interested in having the Papo Allosaurus and Carnotaurus, does that mean I'm not a dinofan?   I do think they are among Papo's better theropods, but the Allosaurus looks too monstrous to me.

Of course you are! I didnt say all, i ve said any (English isn't my first laguange so maybe I am expressing my idea in a wrong way, sorry for that). Reading your post i can say your another kind of fan, more demanding or picky (dont want to sound rude, sorry if it is, my bad)

As for the Papo Carnotaurus, it's snout is too wide which gives it a head I find boring.  Compare it to the 2011 Carnegie Carnotaurus's snout or a Carnotaurus's skull to see the difference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnotaurus#/media/File:Carnotaurus_Skull.jpg  Or, since the Papo figure appears to be heavily based on Sideshow's, a really great comparison is to Sideshow's which doesn't have a too wide snout...

When i was deciding which carno order, that photo made me doubt about the Papo one, I didnt like the snout either. But then i searched other photos and is not that bad. The angle of the photo makes it lookworse than it is. Yes it is wider than in the fossil, I saw the skull many times, there is one in a bus station even, but is not exagerated. I think the Carnege is more accurate, but the overall quality is worse.

I don't think the level of accuracy of some of Papo's prehistoric figures is acceptable for toys at the time they are made.  I think children deserve better than newly made toys that are an obviously false representation of animals that once lived.  I think toys like that are a waste when instead a toy could be made that stimulates a child's curiosity, imagination and interest with something that actually looks at least quite a bit like what it's supposed to represent.  Toys that are now outdated representations are different because they were made to look like the real animals.  But things like the featherless Papo "Velociraptor" which is an obvious rip-off of the ones from Jurassic Park, the Papo Oviraptor and the Papo Pteranodon have always been so obviously wrong that in my opinion they're rubbish.

Well, there are worse toys that this, it is not that bad, when i was a kid i played with a stick that in my imagination was a rifle, didnt care if it wasnt  resembling well a FAL battle riffle, also played with little cars that werent so accurate. I wanted a figurine, not a statue or a museum replica. I cant afford one with my actual expenses. I find Papo Allo and Carno of great quality for the price they are. Sculpture is great, paint is great, price is ok, material is ok (this 2 seem and feel very strong), accuracy is so so (?). For me they  worth the price. Very happy with them.
I am not trying to convince you to think like me, but someones rubbish is a treasure for another.  They can improve, no doubt of that, every one can. Also agree with Pteranodon with teeth is a joke, but anyway ... we all have made something wrong. Could make a good toy anyway if someone dont care that mistake. Just will avoid buying that one and some other i dont like.

Greets!

[Victoria's Cantina]

For Carnotaurus, I'm actually extremely happy with the Terra version. It may not be the flashiest Carno out there, but they did such a nice job on it.

[CityRaptor]

I don't think the level of accuracy of some of Papo's prehistoric figures is acceptable for toys at the time they are made.  I think children deserve better than newly made toys that are an obviously false representation of animals that once lived.  I think toys like that are a waste when instead a toy could be made that stimulates a child's curiosity, imagination and interest with something that actually looks at least quite a bit like what it's supposed to represent.  Toys that are now outdated representations are different because they were made to look like the real animals.  But things like the featherless Papo "Velociraptor" which is an obvious rip-off of the ones from Jurassic Park, the Papo Oviraptor and the Papo Pteranodon have always been so obviously wrong that in my opinion they're rubbish.

Well, they make good Jurassic Park collectibles ( pity they based their Pteranodon on JPIII and not TLW ) and unlike some others who do the same *cough*Schleich*cough*Rebor*cough they don't claim their Dinosaurs to be accurate. Unfortunately a lot so-called "Dinosaur Fans" do not ask for accuracy, they ask for more teeth.

[The Atroxious]

Since I'm not interested in having the Papo Allosaurus and Carnotaurus, does that mean I'm not a dinofan?   I do think they are among Papo's better theropods, but the Allosaurus looks too monstrous to me.

As for the Papo Carnotaurus, it's snout is too wide which gives it a head I find boring.  Compare it to the 2011 Carnegie Carnotaurus's snout or a Carnotaurus's skull to see the difference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnotaurus#/media/File:Carnotaurus_Skull.jpg

To be fair, I'm not interested in owning the Carnotaurus either, since I don't like it enough as an animal to want to purchase it. Allosaurus on the other hand, I like as an animal, as I do all carnosaurs, and I like "monstrous" looking animals. There are animals today that look fairly monstrous (wild pigs for the win) so it doesn't bother me if a dinosaur toy has that look as well.

I don't think the level of accuracy of some of Papo's prehistoric figures is acceptable for toys at the time they are made.  I think children deserve better than newly made toys that are an obviously false representation of animals that once lived.  I think toys like that are a waste when instead a toy could be made that stimulates a child's curiosity, imagination and interest with something that actually looks at least quite a bit like what it's supposed to represent.  Toys that are now outdated representations are different because they were made to look like the real animals.  But things like the featherless Papo "Velociraptor" which is an obvious rip-off of the ones from Jurassic Park, the Papo Oviraptor and the Papo Pteranodon have always been so obviously wrong that in my opinion they're rubbish.

To be fair, it depends on the child and the aesthetic preferences. Personally, I thoroughly agree with you about Papo's maniraptors. I remember when I saw the Oviraptor, and my first reaction was utter confusion about why so many people said that the figures looked realistic, when that Oviraptor was so absurdly outdated. That said, what toys a child values and appreciates will be different per child. Me, when I was a kid, I loved (and still do to some extent) the old Wild Safari dinosaurs. I thought they were sculpted much, much better than any other dinosaur toys on the market in the '90s because of the detail of the skin and musculature, and the fact that facing front, their facial symmetry was better than most other options. I'm only seeing now that many people revile those old Wild Safaris, saying they're cartoony abominations, but that was my favorite line as a kid. To this day I think they're better than the old Carnegies, Jasmans, UKRDs, JPs, and various chinasaurs I grew up with. You and I might not find the Papos believable, but there may be a child out there for whom they're the cream of the crop. (Crop milk? Euwww!)

[Dilopho]

To me, realism is completely different from accuracy. They may not be accurate but when you put the figure in front of you it looks like a tiny, living dinosaur. Or whatever the model is of, they do a lot of animals, prehistoric and modern.

[pylraster]

Not this debate again...

[Dilopho]

Not this debate again...

I'm trying to discuss not debate 

[The Atroxious]

To me, realism is completely different from accuracy. They may not be accurate but when you put the figure in front of you it looks like a tiny, living dinosaur. Or whatever the model is of, they do a lot of animals, prehistoric and modern.

Fair enough. To me, realism and accuracy are almost, but not quite synonymous. Realism to me is that I can believe the figure is a reasonable depiction of the animal in question. The fact that the Oviraptor doesn't look like an Oviraptor, much less a coelurosaur makes the realism factor go down. Accuracy on the other hand is more about attention to detail for me. For instance, I consider the Carnegie Velociraptor to be very realistic, even if the accuracy isn't as high as it might have been.

Somehow words always get in the way of communication.

[Halichoeres]

To me, realism is completely different from accuracy. They may not be accurate but when you put the figure in front of you it looks like a tiny, living dinosaur. Or whatever the model is of, they do a lot of animals, prehistoric and modern.

Fair enough. To me, realism and accuracy are almost, but not quite synonymous. Realism to me is that I can believe the figure is a reasonable depiction of the animal in question. The fact that the Oviraptor doesn't look like an Oviraptor, much less a coelurosaur makes the realism factor go down. Accuracy on the other hand is more about attention to detail for me. For instance, I consider the Carnegie Velociraptor to be very realistic, even if the accuracy isn't as high as it might have been.

Somehow words always get in the way of communication.

The word I use for Papo is "lifelike." They're not often much like the real animal, but as Dilopho says they look alive. I don't know what word is best to describe that--words definitely can get in the way.

[stargatedalek]

To me Papo figures look like living tiny animals, like little bipedal lizards, but I can't picture them scaled up as actual dinosaurs.

[Sim]

Since I'm not interested in having the Papo Allosaurus and Carnotaurus, does that mean I'm not a dinofan?   I do think they are among Papo's better theropods, but the Allosaurus looks too monstrous to me.

Of course you are! I didnt say all, i ve said any (English isn't my first laguange so maybe I am expressing my idea in a wrong way, sorry for that). Reading your post i can say your another kind of fan, more demanding or picky (dont want to sound rude, sorry if it is, my bad)

In the context you used it, "any" would mean the same as "all".  But no worries, thanks for clarifying!   Hehe, I do have quite specific preferences when it comes to dinosaurs and accuracy is something I care about a lot!

When i was deciding which carno order, that photo made me doubt about the Papo one, I didnt like the snout either. But then i searched other photos and is not that bad. The angle of the photo makes it lookworse than it is. Yes it is wider than in the fossil, I saw the skull many times, there is one in a bus station even, but is not exagerated. I think the Carnege is more accurate, but the overall quality is worse.

Oh wow, you have a Carnotaurus skull (or is it a complete skeleton?) in a bus station where you live?  I actually agree that overall I find the Papo Carnotaurus better than Carnegie's.  I find the rearing tripod pose on Carnegie's is terrible and what makes it worse is how often that pose was used for Carnegie theropods.  I find most of the body colouration on the Carnegie's looks nicer than the Papo's, but then Carnegie's has that red on the front of its face that looks unconvincing to me.  I also think the caudofemoralis on Carnegie's is too small, it should be more like the one seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnotaurus#Locomotion
The Carnotaurus toy I like most is the Battat one, it's snout isn't too wide and it has an accurately huge caudofemoralis.  I like how it looks overall too.  Like the Papo and 2011 Carnegie it's not perfect, but I think these three Carnotaurus toys have good qualities that make them stand out from the rest.

I don't think the level of accuracy of some of Papo's prehistoric figures is acceptable for toys at the time they are made.  I think children deserve better than newly made toys that are an obviously false representation of animals that once lived.  I think toys like that are a waste when instead a toy could be made that stimulates a child's curiosity, imagination and interest with something that actually looks at least quite a bit like what it's supposed to represent.  Toys that are now outdated representations are different because they were made to look like the real animals.  But things like the featherless Papo "Velociraptor" which is an obvious rip-off of the ones from Jurassic Park, the Papo Oviraptor and the Papo Pteranodon have always been so obviously wrong that in my opinion they're rubbish.

Well, there are worse toys that this, it is not that bad, when i was a kid i played with a stick that in my imagination was a rifle, didnt care if it wasnt  resembling well a FAL battle riffle, also played with little cars that werent so accurate. I wanted a figurine, not a statue or a museum replica. I cant afford one with my actual expenses. I find Papo Allo and Carno of great quality for the price they are. Sculpture is great, paint is great, price is ok, material is ok (this 2 seem and feel very strong), accuracy is so so (?). For me they  worth the price. Very happy with them.
I am not trying to convince you to think like me, but someones rubbish is a treasure for another.  They can improve, no doubt of that, every one can. Also agree with Pteranodon with teeth is a joke, but anyway ... we all have made something wrong. Could make a good toy anyway if someone dont care that mistake. Just will avoid buying that one and some other i dont like.

To clarify, I don't think the Papo Allosaurus and Carnotaurus are rubbish.  They are an example of what I mentioned: "something that actually looks at least quite a bit like what it's supposed to represent".  Although I think the wide snout on the Carnotaurus is silly, I'm guessing it was given one to look like the Disney Carnotaurus.  Ones I think are rubbish are things like the featherless Papo "Velociraptor", the Papo Oviraptor and the Papo Pteranodon.  When I was a kid, I played with things like leaves where I pretended they were living creatures.  I also played with dinosaur toys that were far from accurate.  My favourites back then though were my Battat and mini Safari dinosaurs sculpted by Greg Wenzel and Dan LoRusso.  I could tell to some extent they were more anatomically correct than most of my other dinosaurs and I found they looked more like real animals as a result.  I'm sure there are different preferences among children, but I ultimately think it's better to make a new dinosaur toy that is quite anatomically correct (e.g. Papo Dilophosaurus) rather than one that is obviously a very incorrect representation (e.g. Papo Oviraptor and Pteranodon).  I think the former has more to offer a child, while the latter encourages misinforming and misrepresenting.

[Carnotaurus]

Well almost, in a near city (Trelew) there is this skull in the bus station, in the same city there is a big Museum where a Carnotaurus is attacking an Amargasaurus. Both are skeletons replicas. It's palenotological team was the responsable that digged the giant Titanosaur.



And I agree these are the best carno, will have to wait Rebor's one to see if it is better

(cant remember who is the owner of this photo)

Greets!

[terrorchicken]

does anyone get the sense that carnotaurus was a relatively weak carnivore?  Like compared to other theropods its size, it had no claws and very small jaws with tiny teeth. It must have scavenged a lot or just picked off sick/injured small dinos, babies or small critters. Kinda like the theropod equivalent of a jackal. Still my favorite dino though. I need to pick up the Papo figure some day. I have the Carnegie and both versions of the Battats.

[Flaffy]

does anyone get the sense that carnotaurus was a relatively weak carnivore?  Like compared to other theropods its size, it had no claws and very small jaws with tiny teeth. It must have scavenged a lot or just picked off sick/injured small dinos, babies or small critters. Kinda like the theropod equivalent of a jackal. Still my favorite dino though. I need to pick up the Papo figure some day. I have the Carnegie and both versions of the Battats.

I see carnotaurus as todays equivalent of a cheetah. Fast and slender, chasing down it's prey.

[Carnotaurus]

does anyone get the sense that carnotaurus was a relatively weak carnivore?  Like compared to other theropods its size, it had no claws and very small jaws with tiny teeth. It must have scavenged a lot or just picked off sick/injured small dinos, babies or small critters. Kinda like the theropod equivalent of a jackal. Still my favorite dino though. I need to pick up the Papo figure some day. I have the Carnegie and both versions of the Battats.

As Flaffyraptors, I see Carnotaurus a runner, fast and slender hunter; but it features lots of characteristics that makes it a powerfull predator with long strong legs and tail (max speed estimated in 50 km/h) binocular vision and fast bites, that used its upper jaw like an axe and with an flexible lower jaw that allow it to swallow entire  small preys. A Finite Element Analysis say that the mechanichal resistance of its skull and neck adaptation was bigger than Allosaurus, with a max bite force estimated in 3341 N, (Allosaurus max was estimated in 2,148 N). So some paleontologist says that it was only an small prey hunter, other said that those adaptations allow them to take down big preys. I am sure that wasn't weak, just very different and more agile than most of the bigger predators. And the horns, i dont know, may be to ram each other.

(This is off topic any way)

Greets!

[stargatedalek]

Carnotaurus was an animal built for speed, I don't recall if the consensus leans more towards ambush or pursuit, but it was a fast runner that killed by swinging down the neck muscles and using the upper jaw as if the lower did not exist. Honestly bite force is kind of moot when your lower jaw is half the length of your upper, so you're probably thinking of applicable force before the skull takes damage rather than based on jaw musculature.

[Kovu]

I remember reading somewhere that it attacked using its head akin to a hatchet. Would that an apt comparison?

[stargatedalek]

I remember reading somewhere that it attacked using its head akin to a hatchet. Would that an apt comparison?

The movement very much so, like the (now outdated) terror bird attack method theory. But the actual mechanics in play are probably more akin to something like a pit viper strike.

[terrorchicken]

huh, the hatchet attack theory is interesting, I could see how that could work. And I like the cheetah comparison. Maybe it specialized in only one specific kind of prey like cheetahs do. And cheetahs are very different looking from other big cats.