Papo New for 2017

[Faelrin]

I don't know how accurate any of those Cryolophosaurus figures are, but I think aside from this more monstrous Papo one, I like the Battat one.

I also noticed the hands were not pronated on these figures, but the shrink wrapping and pose choices kind of were off-putting for me. Honestly I'm not digging the color choices on the Ceratosaurus and Acrocanthosaurus either, but I'm a bit on the conservative side for preferring more drab colors choices on (non-feathered) predators. Just my personal taste, really. I just hope the new Cryolophosaurus can work well alongside the Papo Allosaurus, since its the one I like the most of this bunch. 

[The Atroxious]

In no way is it heavily built, let alone to much so. That Acrocanthosaurus is shrink-wrapped to its core, the neural ridge, skull, neck, and chest all stick out painfully. It's better than REBOR's (scientifically), but that's not saying much.

As with the Baryonyx, I'm talking about the overall build, not the soft tissue. Carnosaurs were never big, heavy tanks in the theropod world. They were never as slight as coelophysids for sure, but they weren't bulky either. I'm not even talking about shrink wrapping (which practically all theropod depictions suffer from to some degree) though I would argue that the chest and neck don't look particularly shrink-wrapped to me, though the head, pelvis, and hind legs do, as per usual. The whole body just looks too thick to me, sort of like if somebody I knew told me they were going to show me their Groenendael stud, only said "Groenendael" is built like a Labrador. I got excited about one type of animal, but was disappointed when the animal in question wasn't what I'd hoped for.

Certainly the Allosaurus of 2008 wasn't bulky or heavily built. Rather, it was a graceful, elegant animal, and that's what I like to see. It was shrink-wrapped, yes, in basically the same way the Acro is, but it's much thinner and more lightly built, shrinkwrapping or no.

Toony! Exaggerated yes, but surely not toony
And its not cute. It's fugly the way Dimorphodons have always been depicted.

Still looks cute and toony to me. The face looks like it's stuck in an expression of childish delight, and the jumping pose doesn't help with the impression that it's bouncing about joyfully. The whole sculpt reminds me of the types of kid-appeal characters that Disney is famous (or infamous) for, and while it's funny, it's not really the Dimorphodon I'm fond of.

For what it's worth though, I've never found Dimorphodons fugly at all. I always thought they were rather appealing.

[AcroSauroTaurus]

The only ones I'll be getting are the four dinosaurs and possibly the Cave Bear... the others, I would only get if I found them for free.
I was really hoping the Acro was in a more high-angled pose, so it could reach my sauropods necks for dioramas, but I guess when the Acro for my figure line is done, I will have one. Or I could get two, and have someone repose one of them for me.

[Sim]

Actually, it has a terrible pose. Its tail is in the process of being painfully broken in multiple places. Its wings are far too small, to the point of being atrophied. Its shrinkwrapped head is also too small and its feet are too large. It's easily the worst out of the three pterosaurs Papo has done so far.

After the feathered raptor was revealed last year, I really thought that Papo was improving in terms of doing their research. Guess I was wrong.

I think Papo's Pteranodon is worse than their Dimorphodon.  The Papo Pteranodon is really bad, as can be seen in comments on its Dinosaur Toy Blog review and in Reply #729 here: http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=419.msg113336#msg113336

I think the best part is how the Papo Pteranodon's feet look like human hands.

[stargatedalek]

I seriously don't understand how anyone can possibly look at that atrocious Dimorphodon and claim that it's good, let alone one of the best. The naked body alone disqualifies it.

It has a variant of mange and distemper 

It looks like a cool JP Dimorphodon, a bit cooler actually. REBOR's version is actually more accurate than Papo's this time around 

It also looks "alive" and has a great pose!

Actually, it has a terrible pose. Its tail is in the process of being painfully broken in multiple places. Its wings are far too small, to the point of being atrophied. Its shrinkwrapped head is also too small and its feet are too large. It's easily the worst out of the three pterosaurs Papo has done so far.

After the feathered raptor was revealed last year, I really thought that Papo was improving in terms of doing their research. Guess I was wrong.

I disagree. I think the Papo Pteranodon is the worst by far, firstly because it was unnecessary when the JP/// pterosaurs were already among Hasbro's very best, but also because it isn't as accurate to its film counterpart.

And I get this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but I prefer this Dimorphodon to the Tupuxuara. As I see it, with accuracy you should either go for fully updated, or downright movie monster! Figures that straddle the line of almost accurate but not quite never sit right with me, even less so if it feels like they tried but failed, but that's just me. The Dimorphodon also has more detail to it than the Tupuxuara does (presumably because of size).

I for one absolutely adore the pose, it's simultaneously impressive without necessitating a base, and it even manages to be relatively neutral (as-in, facing forwards and not permanently looking or contorting to one side or the other).

The Cryo is really the only one I'm interested in, and it's not terribly high priority. I expected a lot more from the Acro to be honest. After all the rumors that Papo would be releasing an Acrocanthosaurus, I had high hopes, considering how much I like their Allosaurus. I couldn't wait to see another carnosaur from them. Unfortunately, that Acro isn't nearly as visually interesting as their Allosaurus, but what's worse is that it barely looks like a carnosaur to begin with. Its face doesn't have that trademark carnosaur taper, and it's altogether too heavily built. They changed some of the things that make carnosaurs so attractive to me, and I'm not especially impressed. I was also secretly hoping that the Acro would be inspired by the Indominus, but depicted as a real animal, but no such luck on that count either.

In no way is it heavily built, let alone to much so. That Acrocanthosaurus is shrink-wrapped to its core, the neural ridge, skull, neck, and chest all stick out painfully. It's better than REBOR's (scientifically), but that's not saying much.

I went back and looked harder at the picture after reading your post. The eye socket looks too deep right now, but the rest just looks heavily muscled to me. The ridges are visible but they could just be flush with meat on the spines and not the spaces between?   Muscles work for me, most of these guys showed some heft.

It's not that simple unfortunately (I love the detail work on this one, but can't get over the general proportions). Acrocanthosaurus has extremely thick neural crests, this is indicative of a thick structure, ala a rhinoceros or American buffalo, but also they are actually thicker than the structure the Papo one depicts! Acrocanthosaurus also has a very deep pubic boot (and therefore also tail), this thing was built like a fish, compressed but still thick and relatively uniform in musculature. The shoulder-blade is also larger than it should be and is to prominent.

[AcroSauroTaurus]

The Cryo is really the only one I'm interested in, and it's not terribly high priority. I expected a lot more from the Acro to be honest. After all the rumors that Papo would be releasing an Acrocanthosaurus, I had high hopes, considering how much I like their Allosaurus. I couldn't wait to see another carnosaur from them. Unfortunately, that Acro isn't nearly as visually interesting as their Allosaurus, but what's worse is that it barely looks like a carnosaur to begin with. Its face doesn't have that trademark carnosaur taper, and it's altogether too heavily built. They changed some of the things that make carnosaurs so attractive to me, and I'm not especially impressed. I was also secretly hoping that the Acro would be inspired by the Indominus, but depicted as a real animal, but no such luck on that count either.

In no way is it heavily built, let alone to much so. That Acrocanthosaurus is shrink-wrapped to its core, the neural ridge, skull, neck, and chest all stick out painfully. It's better than REBOR's (scientifically), but that's not saying much.

I went back and looked harder at the picture after reading your post. The eye socket looks too deep right now, but the rest just looks heavily muscled to me. The ridges are visible but they could just be flush with meat on the spines and not the spaces between?   Muscles work for me, most of these guys showed some heft.

It's not that simple unfortunately (I love the detail work on this one, but can't get over the general proportions). Acrocanthosaurus has extremely thick neural crests, this is indicative of a thick structure, ala a rhinoceros or American buffalo, but also they are actually thicker than the structure the Papo one depicts! Acrocanthosaurus also has a very deep pubic boot (and therefore also tail), this thing was built like a fish, compressed but still thick and relatively uniform in musculature. The shoulder-blade is also larger than it should be and is to prominent.

We don't know how thick the ridge is yet, we don't have a head-on view of the figure, so I'd say wait till we get multi view photos to say how thick/thin the ridge is.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

I completely agree.  I definitely share that pet peeve with you!  It's the first thing I noticed about the Papo Ceratosaurus.

It stings, too, because otherwise I really like the Cerato! Alas.

Star mentioned that as well, I just don't see a ton of shrinkwrapping though? Not as much as say this :
http://s1066.photobucket.com/user/deanosaurs/media/DeJankins%20website%20photos/PNSO/Lufengosaurus_zpsnhxlzz3t.png.html

I see a bit but mostly they look to have a lot of muscle and skin folds?

Well, most of the bodies look fine, more or less. The skulls, not so much. Anytime the fenestrae are visible, it just looks retro to me.

you could paint them to match the body coloring? 

heh understood.

I don't know how accurate any of those Cryolophosaurus figures are, but I think aside from this more monstrous Papo one, I like the Battat one.

I also noticed the hands were not pronated on these figures, but the shrink wrapping and pose choices kind of were off-putting for me. Honestly I'm not digging the color choices on the Ceratosaurus and Acrocanthosaurus either, but I'm a bit on the conservative side for preferring more drab colors choices on (non-feathered) predators. Just my personal taste, really. I just hope the new Cryolophosaurus can work well alongside the Papo Allosaurus, since its the one I like the most of this bunch. 

Color never really bothers me a 100 percent , it's easily fixable.

[Shadowknight1]

Acrocanthosaurus: Despite being the one I was the most hyped for, I really don't like the pose. Its the Battat Terra Acro problem all over again... Hopefully it comes with a plastic tray to keep it from bending on its hand. I will get it though, because its an Acrocanthosaurus. And at least its not the colors I have planned for the Acro for my figure line.

From what pictures I've seen as I've never owned one, the Battat Acro has relatively smaller arms than the Papo, so I'd wager the plastic on the Papo will be less prone to bending.  It's not the pose I would've hoped for, but I like what we've got here.  And I agree, I'm glad it's not the same colors as the ones you've got planned for your's.  That means I'll have four distinctly different Acros in my collection!

[AcroSauroTaurus]

Acrocanthosaurus: Despite being the one I was the most hyped for, I really don't like the pose. Its the Battat Terra Acro problem all over again... Hopefully it comes with a plastic tray to keep it from bending on its hand. I will get it though, because its an Acrocanthosaurus. And at least its not the colors I have planned for the Acro for my figure line.

From what pictures I've seen as I've never owned one, the Battat Acro has relatively smaller arms than the Papo, so I'd wager the plastic on the Papo will be less prone to bending.  It's not the pose I would've hoped for, but I like what we've got here.  And I agree, I'm glad it's not the same colors as the ones you've got planned for your's.  That means I'll have four distinctly different Acros in my collection!

Well, my Papo Spinosaurus' ankles have started to bend over, and it leans on its hand now, which is why I'm worried. Its a beautiful figure, I just don't want it to have the risk of constantly falling over. And speaking of my figure line, There will be a big update around Christmas.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

I seriously don't understand how anyone can possibly look at that atrocious Dimorphodon and claim that it's good, let alone one of the best. The naked body alone disqualifies it.

It has a variant of mange and distemper 

It looks like a cool JP Dimorphodon, a bit cooler actually. REBOR's version is actually more accurate than Papo's this time around 

It also looks "alive" and has a great pose!

Actually, it has a terrible pose. Its tail is in the process of being painfully broken in multiple places. Its wings are far too small, to the point of being atrophied. Its shrinkwrapped head is also too small and its feet are too large. It's easily the worst out of the three pterosaurs Papo has done so far.

After the feathered raptor was revealed last year, I really thought that Papo was improving in terms of doing their research. Guess I was wrong.

I disagree. I think the Papo Pteranodon is the worst by far, firstly because it was unnecessary when the JP/// pterosaurs were already among Hasbro's very best, but also because it isn't as accurate to its film counterpart.

And I get this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but I prefer this Dimorphodon to the Tupuxuara. As I see it, with accuracy you should either go for fully updated, or downright movie monster! Figures that straddle the line of almost accurate but not quite never sit right with me, even less so if it feels like they tried but failed, but that's just me. The Dimorphodon also has more detail to it than the Tupuxuara does (presumably because of size).

I for one absolutely adore the pose, it's simultaneously impressive without necessitating a base, and it even manages to be relatively neutral (as-in, facing forwards and not permanently looking or contorting to one side or the other).

The Cryo is really the only one I'm interested in, and it's not terribly high priority. I expected a lot more from the Acro to be honest. After all the rumors that Papo would be releasing an Acrocanthosaurus, I had high hopes, considering how much I like their Allosaurus. I couldn't wait to see another carnosaur from them. Unfortunately, that Acro isn't nearly as visually interesting as their Allosaurus, but what's worse is that it barely looks like a carnosaur to begin with. Its face doesn't have that trademark carnosaur taper, and it's altogether too heavily built. They changed some of the things that make carnosaurs so attractive to me, and I'm not especially impressed. I was also secretly hoping that the Acro would be inspired by the Indominus, but depicted as a real animal, but no such luck on that count either.

In no way is it heavily built, let alone to much so. That Acrocanthosaurus is shrink-wrapped to its core, the neural ridge, skull, neck, and chest all stick out painfully. It's better than REBOR's (scientifically), but that's not saying much.

I went back and looked harder at the picture after reading your post. The eye socket looks too deep right now, but the rest just looks heavily muscled to me. The ridges are visible but they could just be flush with meat on the spines and not the spaces between?   Muscles work for me, most of these guys showed some heft.

It's not that simple unfortunately (I love the detail work on this one, but can't get over the general proportions). Acrocanthosaurus has extremely thick neural crests, this is indicative of a thick structure, ala a rhinoceros or American buffalo, but also they are actually thicker than the structure the Papo one depicts! Acrocanthosaurus also has a very deep pubic boot (and therefore also tail), this thing was built like a fish, compressed but still thick and relatively uniform in musculature. The shoulder-blade is also larger than it should be and is to prominent.

Hmm, honestly I'm a bit more impressed with it than before, there are aspects of the skeleton there that most would overlook in making a toy but were included by the artist.  The spaces in the skull, only the eye socket looks deep enough to unacceptable. The neck and ridge look alright by me.  The shoulder blade does look a bit skinny. The dip from the crotch to the tail is there in the skeletal you posted as well? Not sure what you are pointing out by the feet. I can make concessions for them a bit because this is a toy and has to stand on a shelf.   We are also only seeing this from one angle I'd like to reserve final opinions til I see more.   

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Acrocanthosaurus: Despite being the one I was the most hyped for, I really don't like the pose. Its the Battat Terra Acro problem all over again... Hopefully it comes with a plastic tray to keep it from bending on its hand. I will get it though, because its an Acrocanthosaurus. And at least its not the colors I have planned for the Acro for my figure line.

From what pictures I've seen as I've never owned one, the Battat Acro has relatively smaller arms than the Papo, so I'd wager the plastic on the Papo will be less prone to bending.  It's not the pose I would've hoped for, but I like what we've got here.  And I agree, I'm glad it's not the same colors as the ones you've got planned for your's.  That means I'll have four distinctly different Acros in my collection!

Well, my Papo Spinosaurus' ankles have started to bend over, and it leans on its hand now, which is why I'm worried. Its a beautiful figure, I just don't want it to have the risk of constantly falling over. And speaking of my figure line, There will be a big update around Christmas.

How old is your Spino?  I bought mine when it first released and just double checked, still no warping in it.

[Appalachiosaurus]

Now I feel bad for being so negative to the Polacanthus, these toys are wonderful! Nothing really caught my eye until I saw the theropods, how amazingly beautiful! It almost makes me wish I hadn't bought the battat Cryolophosaurus and Ceratosaurus. Of course size is everything and if they end up being as big as the Baryonyx I'll have to pass, but I have to say that Papo may have won 2017!

[The Atroxious]

Hmm, honestly I'm a bit more impressed with it than before, there are aspects of the skeleton there that most would overlook in making a toy but were included by the artist.  The spaces in the skull, only the eye socket looks deep enough to unacceptable. The neck and ridge look alright by me.  The shoulder blade does look a bit skinny. The dip from the crotch to the tail is there in the skeletal you posted as well? Not sure what you are pointing out by the feet. I can make concessions for them a bit because this is a toy and has to stand on a shelf.   We are also only seeing this from one angle I'd like to reserve final opinions til I see more.   

Certainly the details are there, but compare the toy to the proportions shown in the skeletal. The head is squarer, the neck is shorter, with larger neural spines, the body is much shorter (take a look at the arms; for instance in the Hartman skeletal the tips of the fingers would touch the knee of the forward thrusting leg, but in the Papo figure, the fingers could easily grab the back of the knee on the forward thrusting leg,) and the tail seems slightly on the short side as well.

This isn't even the first theropod that Papo seems to have shortened and compressed the body on. Besides the aforementioned Baryonyx, this was one of the reasons I never cared for the Papo Velociraptor. It too looks abnormally stocky for the genus due to the compression of the torso. It seems to be a common effect of the Papo style, but I don't care for it too much. I like my dinosaurs light, graceful, and elegant, and this Acro doesn't look like any of those things to me.

I should also mention that the concavities in front of, and between the pelvic bones don't make any sense in either the skeletal or toy. There is no extant animal whose abdominal muscles tuck in further than the tip of the pubis (muscles simply don't work that way) and there's no reason why the individual pelvic bones should be visible since there would be organs in there, as well as tissue stretched between the bones. As for the scapula, I think what makes it look "too skinny" is that we expect to see the latissimus dorsi connected to the posterior side, but it's seemingly absent. Again, it's one of the most common missing muscles in depictions of dinosaurs, and for such an obvious muscle on living animals, I have no idea why.

[Sim]

I completely agree.  I definitely share that pet peeve with you!  It's the first thing I noticed about the Papo Ceratosaurus.

It stings, too, because otherwise I really like the Cerato! Alas.

Yeah, same here!  And the other reptiles (Acrocanthosaurus, Dimorphodon and Cryolophosaurus) all have the skin over their eye socket coloured differently to the surrounding skin.  That's another pet peeve I have - filling the skin over fenestrae with a different colour!

[stargatedalek]

I should also mention that the concavities in front of, and between the pelvic bones doesn't make any sense in either the skeletal or toy. There is no extant animal whose abdominal muscles tuck in further than the tip of the pubis (muscles simply don't work that way) and there's no reason why the individual pelvic pones should be visible since there would be organs in there, as well as tissue stretched between the bones. As for the scapula, I think what makes it look "too skinny" is that we expect to see the latissimus dorsi connected to the posterior side, but it's seemingly absent. Again, it's one of the most common missing muscles in depictions of dinosaurs, and for such an obvious muscle on living animals, I have no idea why.

Yah, I couldn't find a better skeletal (odds are one hasn't been made [yet]). Hartman tends to shrink-wrap his dinosaurs, and the gastralia are always indented (which is not objective fact, and I personally can't stand it).

[Shadowknight1]

Yah, I couldn't find a better skeletal (odds are one hasn't been made [yet]). Hartman tends to shrink-wrap his dinosaurs, and the gastralia are always indented (which is not objective fact, and I personally can't stand it).

Something else missing in his skeletal(and in pretty much every toy of Acrocanthosaurus I've seen, including the Papo) is the fact that the first digit on each hand has a larger claw than the others, a common trait among Allosaurids if I'm not mistaken.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Hmm, honestly I'm a bit more impressed with it than before, there are aspects of the skeleton there that most would overlook in making a toy but were included by the artist.  The spaces in the skull, only the eye socket looks deep enough to unacceptable. The neck and ridge look alright by me.  The shoulder blade does look a bit skinny. The dip from the crotch to the tail is there in the skeletal you posted as well? Not sure what you are pointing out by the feet. I can make concessions for them a bit because this is a toy and has to stand on a shelf.   We are also only seeing this from one angle I'd like to reserve final opinions til I see more.   

Certainly the details are there, but compare the toy to the proportions shown in the skeletal. The head is squarer, the neck is shorter, with larger neural spines, the body is much shorter (take a look at the arms; for instance in the Hartman skeletal the tips of the fingers would touch the knee of the forward thrusting leg, but in the Papo figure, the fingers could easily grab the back of the knee on the forward thrusting leg,) and the tail seems slightly on the short side as well.

This isn't even the first theropod that Papo seems to have shortened and compressed the body on. Besides the aforementioned Baryonyx, this was one of the reasons I never cared for the Papo Velociraptor. It too looks abnormally stocky for the genus due to the compression of the torso. It seems to be a common effect of the Papo style, but I don't care for it too much. I like my dinosaurs light, graceful, and elegant, and this Acro doesn't look like any of those things to me.

I should also mention that the concavities in front of, and between the pelvic bones don't make any sense in either the skeletal or toy. There is no extant animal whose abdominal muscles tuck in further than the tip of the pubis (muscles simply don't work that way) and there's no reason why the individual pelvic bones should be visible since there would be organs in there, as well as tissue stretched between the bones. As for the scapula, I think what makes it look "too skinny" is that we expect to see the latissimus dorsi connected to the posterior side, but it's seemingly absent. Again, it's one of the most common missing muscles in depictions of dinosaurs, and for such an obvious muscle on living animals, I have no idea why.

It's so hard to judge length on one pic, last year everyone called the Baryonyx " Godzilla" and Kaiju, it did look a bit robust from the front.  Holding it my hand you can see its a lot thinner than that pic made it seem.   You mean the feather velociraptor? I didn't buy that one but it looked like a feathered JP Raptor.

I should also mention that the concavities in front of, and between the pelvic bones doesn't make any sense in either the skeletal or toy. There is no extant animal whose abdominal muscles tuck in further than the tip of the pubis (muscles simply don't work that way) and there's no reason why the individual pelvic pones should be visible since there would be organs in there, as well as tissue stretched between the bones. As for the scapula, I think what makes it look "too skinny" is that we expect to see the latissimus dorsi connected to the posterior side, but it's seemingly absent. Again, it's one of the most common missing muscles in depictions of dinosaurs, and for such an obvious muscle on living animals, I have no idea why.

Yah, I couldn't find a better skeletal (odds are one hasn't been made [yet]). Hartman tends to shrink-wrap his dinosaurs, and the gastralia are always indented (which is not objective fact, and I personally can't stand it).

I'm very fond of Hartman's skeletals but I've always glossed over that indent and just made it straight, it made more sense as it was fleshed out, though i always felt i was going against what proven.   I would say Scott's are much better than GSP's though.

[AcroSauroTaurus]

Acrocanthosaurus: Despite being the one I was the most hyped for, I really don't like the pose. Its the Battat Terra Acro problem all over again... Hopefully it comes with a plastic tray to keep it from bending on its hand. I will get it though, because its an Acrocanthosaurus. And at least its not the colors I have planned for the Acro for my figure line.

From what pictures I've seen as I've never owned one, the Battat Acro has relatively smaller arms than the Papo, so I'd wager the plastic on the Papo will be less prone to bending.  It's not the pose I would've hoped for, but I like what we've got here.  And I agree, I'm glad it's not the same colors as the ones you've got planned for your's.  That means I'll have four distinctly different Acros in my collection!

Well, my Papo Spinosaurus' ankles have started to bend over, and it leans on its hand now, which is why I'm worried. Its a beautiful figure, I just don't want it to have the risk of constantly falling over. And speaking of my figure line, There will be a big update around Christmas.

How old is your Spino?  I bought mine when it first released and just double checked, still no warping in it.

Mine is one of the original releases as well. It might have to do with temperature, it was pretty hot in Iowa last summer. And now that its winter and below 0, my parents have the heat on, and since all the heaters have one control, I have no control over the temp in my room to keep my collection in a more stable environment. What worries me even more about that is the fact that I have some pretty rare/hard to find figures that I want to keep in good condition.

Yah, I couldn't find a better skeletal (odds are one hasn't been made [yet]). Hartman tends to shrink-wrap his dinosaurs, and the gastralia are always indented (which is not objective fact, and I personally can't stand it).

Something else missing in his skeletal(and in pretty much every toy of Acrocanthosaurus I've seen, including the Papo) is the fact that the first digit on each hand has a larger claw than the others, a common trait among Allosaurids if I'm not mistaken.
[/quote]

Actually, if you look closely at the hand with the palm facing the viewer, the thumb claw is slightly bigger than the other claws.

[stargatedalek]

I should also mention that the concavities in front of, and between the pelvic bones doesn't make any sense in either the skeletal or toy. There is no extant animal whose abdominal muscles tuck in further than the tip of the pubis (muscles simply don't work that way) and there's no reason why the individual pelvic pones should be visible since there would be organs in there, as well as tissue stretched between the bones. As for the scapula, I think what makes it look "too skinny" is that we expect to see the latissimus dorsi connected to the posterior side, but it's seemingly absent. Again, it's one of the most common missing muscles in depictions of dinosaurs, and for such an obvious muscle on living animals, I have no idea why.

Yah, I couldn't find a better skeletal (odds are one hasn't been made [yet]). Hartman tends to shrink-wrap his dinosaurs, and the gastralia are always indented (which is not objective fact, and I personally can't stand it).

I'm very fond of Hartman's skeletals but I've always glossed over that indent and just made it straight, it made more sense as it was fleshed out, though i always felt i was going against what proven.   I would say Scott's are much better than GSP's though.

Hartman does great things with bones, but frankly he should stick with them. GSP started the trend with the idea that gastralia may have been flexible and extended after eating, but I've never been a fan of that idea in general let alone using the "starved" gastralia as the default.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Yah, I couldn't find a better skeletal (odds are one hasn't been made [yet]). Hartman tends to shrink-wrap his dinosaurs, and the gastralia are always indented (which is not objective fact, and I personally can't stand it).

Something else missing in his skeletal(and in pretty much every toy of Acrocanthosaurus I've seen, including the Papo) is the fact that the first digit on each hand has a larger claw than the others, a common trait among Allosaurids if I'm not mistaken.
[/quote]

I just did a bit of searching, the majority of artists seem to restore Acro with claws all the same length.  Looking at skeletons most seem to bear this out.  Is it possible Acro was originally restored without and that's held up since?

bit of info on how scott has updated his acro.
http://skeletaldrawing.blogspot.com/2012/01/evolution-of-my-acrocanthosaurus.html

He also mentions on his DA page it needs another update.