Papo

[Simon]

Oh come now, they've been shying away from imitating JP for a while now. Even their Dilophosaurus hardly bore a JP resemblance. Plus, they're starting to take risks with obscure species, like Tupuxuara. They're finally getting the hang of it.

Yeah, only just. I saw their Pteranodon figure a few weeks ago in person for the first time and my jaw hit the floor. Teeth? Really?

Ludodactylus says hi.

What does that have to do with anything?

Well, while its not a Pteranodon, Ludodactylus was a Pterosaur with teeth - and a crest on the back of the head very similar to Pteranodon.  So ... if you just call it a Ludodactylus, you will be amazed at Papo's foresight and accuracy in producing such an obscure figure.   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludodactylus

[Patrx]

Regardless of the name one gives it, it's pretty difficult to like the Papo "Pteranodon". It doesn't even have pycnofibres, for heaven's sake. 

[Sim]

The Papo Pteranodon isn't a Ludodactylus or a Pteranodon.  It's so anatomically incorrect it doesn't even come close to looking like any real animal.  Attempting to make a Pteranodon and then giving it teeth isn't enough to make it a Ludodactylus.  Compare the jaws and teeth of the Papo Pteranodon to those of Ludodactylus and you'll see they're completely different.  In the comments on the Papo Pteranodon Dino Toy Blog review the reasons why it fails to be a Pteranodon, Ludodactylus or any pterosaur are explained: http://dinotoyblog.com/2008/07/05/pteranodon-papo-2/

Papo clearly copied the JP3 Pteranodon for their toy, but somehow they managed to make it look like even more of a monster than the JP3 one.  The Papo Pteranodon might make a good monster toy (a demon maybe?  It looks very sinister), but a toy of a real animal that once lived?  No way!

[Simon]

The Papo Pteranodon isn't a Ludodactylus or a Pteranodon.  It's so anatomically incorrect it doesn't even come close to looking like any real animal.  Attempting to make a Pteranodon and then giving it teeth isn't enough to make it a Ludodactylus.  Compare the jaws and teeth of the Papo Pteranodon to those of Ludodactylus and you'll see they're completely different.  In the comments on the Papo Pteranodon Dino Toy Blog review the reasons why it fails to be a Pteranodon, Ludodactylus or any pterosaur are explained: http://dinotoyblog.com/2008/07/05/pteranodon-papo-2/

Papo clearly copied the JP3 Pteranodon for their toy, but somehow they managed to make it look like even more of a monster than the JP3 one.  The Papo Pteranodon might make a good monster toy (a demon maybe?  It looks very sinister), but a toy of a real animal that once lived?  No way!

All kidding aside, I agree completely.  I've seen it in stores and its a terrible looking creature.  The body is vaguely human-like and really, really spooky as a result.  It certainly does not resemble a real animal - more like a winged demon from a medieval nightmare!

[DinoG]

Yep the pseudo-ptero is to be forgotten; version 2 required!!!

[XCLASSGAMING]

I only collect Papo figures i like the look of collect a but i really hate Schleich they look like rubber in my opinion and they feel really cheap. But i can respect peoples opinions on papo and Schleich and all the others. I hope i didn't offend anyone i am just stating my opinion

[tanystropheus]

The Papo Pteranodon isn't a Ludodactylus or a Pteranodon.  It's so anatomically incorrect it doesn't even come close to looking like any real animal.  Attempting to make a Pteranodon and then giving it teeth isn't enough to make it a Ludodactylus.  Compare the jaws and teeth of the Papo Pteranodon to those of Ludodactylus and you'll see they're completely different.  In the comments on the Papo Pteranodon Dino Toy Blog review the reasons why it fails to be a Pteranodon, Ludodactylus or any pterosaur are explained: http://dinotoyblog.com/2008/07/05/pteranodon-papo-2/

Papo clearly copied the JP3 Pteranodon for their toy, but somehow they managed to make it look like even more of a monster than the JP3 one.  The Papo Pteranodon might make a good monster toy (a demon maybe?  It looks very sinister), but a toy of a real animal that once lived?  No way!

All kidding aside, I agree completely.  I've seen it in stores and its a terrible looking creature.  The body is vaguely human-like and really, really spooky as a result.  It certainly does not resemble a real animal - more like a winged demon from a medieval nightmare!

LOL.

Actually, the real-life Dimorphodon appears even more sinister. It looks like a possessed demonic mess on wings.

[Patrx]

Actually, the real-life Dimorphodon appears even more sinister. It looks like a possessed demonic mess on wings.

Aw, I think it's sort of cute. A little goofy, maybe 

[tanystropheus]

Actually, the real-life Dimorphodon appears even more sinister. It looks like a possessed demonic mess on wings.

Aw, I think it's sort of cute. A little goofy, maybe 

  That's like the cutest Dimorphodon picture ever. Definitely less fuglier than I remember it. Regardless of Dimorphodon's appearance, it is still one of my favorite pterosaurs  .

[Dinoguy2]

The Papo Pteranodon isn't a Ludodactylus or a Pteranodon.  It's so anatomically incorrect it doesn't even come close to looking like any real animal.  Attempting to make a Pteranodon and then giving it teeth isn't enough to make it a Ludodactylus.  Compare the jaws and teeth of the Papo Pteranodon to those of Ludodactylus and you'll see they're completely different.  In the comments on the Papo Pteranodon Dino Toy Blog review the reasons why it fails to be a Pteranodon, Ludodactylus or any pterosaur are explained: http://dinotoyblog.com/2008/07/05/pteranodon-papo-2/

Wow... wow. I'm a big fan of Dino Toy Blog but like, can we get an editor to insert disclaimers for reviewers who have no idea what they're talking about? "I suppose it makes sense for a large flying animal to be as skinny as possible." Yeah that's why bird wings are skin and bone with no muscles. It's not like you need muscular strength to flap or anything.

"With the Exception of the teeth the Papo Pteranodon is pretty accurate and detailed". Somebody has obviously never seen an accurate pterosaur before. Are those human hands on its legs? They look like chimp feet!

Oh come now, they've been shying away from imitating JP for a while now. Even their Dilophosaurus hardly bore a JP resemblance. Plus, they're starting to take risks with obscure species, like Tupuxuara. They're finally getting the hang of it.

I guess copying designs from Sideshow is definitely a step up from copying JP and old paleoart. Sorry if this sounds harsh but come on, the Sideshow Tupuxuara and the Papo one are practically identical.

[CityRaptor]

No, it isn't too harsh. I mean everyone here knows it. One would have to be very ignorant to not see it. Meanwhile they themselves get copied by Schleich and others....

[Shadowknight1]

I only collect Papo figures i like the look of collect a but i really hate Schleich they look like rubber in my opinion and they feel really cheap. But i can respect peoples opinions on papo and Schleich and all the others. I hope i didn't offend anyone i am just stating my opinion

Funny enough, I own two recent Schleich dragons and they feel like what I would expect Papo could do with dragons while Papo's ACTUAL dragons look...blarg.

[tanystropheus]

The Papo Pteranodon isn't a Ludodactylus or a Pteranodon.  It's so anatomically incorrect it doesn't even come close to looking like any real animal.  Attempting to make a Pteranodon and then giving it teeth isn't enough to make it a Ludodactylus.  Compare the jaws and teeth of the Papo Pteranodon to those of Ludodactylus and you'll see they're completely different.  In the comments on the Papo Pteranodon Dino Toy Blog review the reasons why it fails to be a Pteranodon, Ludodactylus or any pterosaur are explained: http://dinotoyblog.com/2008/07/05/pteranodon-papo-2/

Wow... wow. I'm a big fan of Dino Toy Blog but like, can we get an editor to insert disclaimers for reviewers who have no idea what they're talking about? "I suppose it makes sense for a large flying animal to be as skinny as possible." Yeah that's why bird wings are skin and bone with no muscles. It's not like you need muscular strength to flap or anything.

"With the Exception of the teeth the Papo Pteranodon is pretty accurate and detailed". Somebody has obviously never seen an accurate pterosaur before. Are those human hands on its legs? They look like chimp feet!

I'm sure the reviewer knows being that he is a paleontologist and all. However, he is probably comparing the pteranodon to all existing toy interpretations of pteranodon. Thus, it is a relative assessment on his part.

[tanystropheus]

I guess copying designs from Sideshow is definitely a step up from copying JP and old paleoart. Sorry if this sounds harsh but come on, the Sideshow Tupuxuara and the Papo one are practically identical.

It is several steps up in my opinion. And, I'm happy that they are identical as I completely missed out on the gorgeous but inexpensive SS Tupuxuara. Why isn't Sideshow reissuing Tupuxuara? They've pretty much reissued everything else.

[Tyrannosauron]

It is several steps up in my opinion. And, I'm happy that they are identical as I completely missed out on the gorgeous but inexpensive SS Tupuxuara. Why isn't Sideshow reissuing Tupuxuara? They've pretty much reissued everything else.

It's unfortunate that every other case of a statue that Sideshow hasn't reissued is one that Papo hasn't "paid tribute" to the sculpt. I'd love to see Papo's take on something like Sideshow's first Rex, the Velociraptor/Protoceratops fight, or the Euoplocephalus hatchling.

[stargatedalek]

The Papo Pteranodon isn't a Ludodactylus or a Pteranodon.  It's so anatomically incorrect it doesn't even come close to looking like any real animal.  Attempting to make a Pteranodon and then giving it teeth isn't enough to make it a Ludodactylus.  Compare the jaws and teeth of the Papo Pteranodon to those of Ludodactylus and you'll see they're completely different.  In the comments on the Papo Pteranodon Dino Toy Blog review the reasons why it fails to be a Pteranodon, Ludodactylus or any pterosaur are explained: http://dinotoyblog.com/2008/07/05/pteranodon-papo-2/

Wow... wow. I'm a big fan of Dino Toy Blog but like, can we get an editor to insert disclaimers for reviewers who have no idea what they're talking about? "I suppose it makes sense for a large flying animal to be as skinny as possible." Yeah that's why bird wings are skin and bone with no muscles. It's not like you need muscular strength to flap or anything.

"With the Exception of the teeth the Papo Pteranodon is pretty accurate and detailed". Somebody has obviously never seen an accurate pterosaur before. Are those human hands on its legs? They look like chimp feet!

I'm sure the reviewer knows being that he is a paleontologist and all. However, he is probably comparing the pteranodon to all existing toy interpretations of pteranodon. Thus, it is a relative assessment on his part.

I know I'm a stick in the mud, but this review really, REALLY is in need of replacement or at least a disclaimer. I own the Papo Pteranodon because it was interesting from a science fiction perspective,  but it looks nothing like any real animal let alone Pteranodon. And no, reading the review it's in no way (obviously) being compared to the trope. The review is a few years old so I don't know what the community was like at the time but perhaps it was shoehorned in quickly to populate the blog, or perhaps Papo was at one point offering an incentive to appear in the limelight.

[Rain]

It is several steps up in my opinion. And, I'm happy that they are identical as I completely missed out on the gorgeous but inexpensive SS Tupuxuara. Why isn't Sideshow reissuing Tupuxuara? They've pretty much reissued everything else.

It's unfortunate that every other case of a statue that Sideshow hasn't reissued is one that Papo hasn't "paid tribute" to the sculpt. I'd love to see Papo's take on something like Sideshow's first Rex, the Velociraptor/Protoceratops fight, or the Euoplocephalus hatchling.

Well, the sculptor did say a feathered velociraptor was in the works and since JP doesn't have a feathered variant, I think we all know where they'll be getting their inspiration from 

[tanystropheus]

I'm curious to know what elements will influence the 2015 release of the Papo Baronyx...

[Dobber]

Have there been any pictures of these upcoming releases yet? 2015 is almost over.

Chris

[Gwangi]

Wow... wow. I'm a big fan of Dino Toy Blog but like, can we get an editor to insert disclaimers for reviewers who have no idea what they're talking about? "I suppose it makes sense for a large flying animal to be as skinny as possible." Yeah that's why bird wings are skin and bone with no muscles. It's not like you need muscular strength to flap or anything.

Volunteering?

I myself always welcome corrections on my reviews, and will edit them to reflect those corrections. Unfortunately there are not too many toy collecting paleontologists who also write reviews. Adam is the only one on the blog as far as I can tell, and the Papo Pteranodon review is indeed his. I'm sure if you messaged him with your concern he would fix the review or allow a re-review. Now me personally, I try hard to make sure I correctly address accuracy issues. But I've reviewed everything from T. rex to Tanystropheus to Glyptodon to Pteranodon. I do research before I write, but I'm no paleontologist and I've said as much in my reviews. Anyway, your criticism here is pretty harsh. There are ways to approach these things without being a complete arse. So maybe Adam doesn't know pterosaurs all that well, he certainly knows a thing or two about marine reptiles though! And he seems pretty good at running the blog and forum as well.